III. Having thus recited the teftimonies of all these writers. concerning the Evangelift Luke, I fhall now make some remarks.

Remarks.

1. We hence perceive, that the notion, that St. Luke was a Painter, is without foundation, no notice having been taken of it in these ancient writers. Indeed this is faid by one of our (a) authors, Nicephorus Callifti, in the fourteenth centurie, from whom a paffage was quoted in the way of a summarie conclufion. But we do not relye upon him for any thing not confirmed by other writers, more ancient, and of better credit. Nor is this account received by (b) Tillemont, or (c) Du Pin, but rejected by them, as altogether fabulous, efpecially the later: though our Dr. Cave (d) was fomewhat inclined to admit one teftimonie to this affair, whilft he rejected the reft. For a farther account of St. Luke's pretended pictures of the Virgin Marie I refer to (e) Mr. Bower.

2. We learn also, what judgement ought to be formed of the account given of St. Luke by (f) Hugo Grotius, and (g) J. J. Wetflein: which is, that he was a Syrian, and a flave, either at Rome, or in Greece: and that having obtained his freedom, he returned to his native place, Antiech: where he became a Jewish Profelyte, and then a Chriftian. Which F 3 thofe

(α).. ἄκρως δὲ τὴν ζωγράφην τέχνην ἐξεπισάμενος. Niceph. l. 2. cap. 43. Τ. i. p. 210.

(b) Saint Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.

(c) Nicephore et les nouveaux Grecs le font Peintre. Et il y a en differens endroits des images de la Vierge, qu'on donne pour l'ouvrage de S. Luc. Ce font des fictions, qui n'ont ni verité ni apparence. Du Pin Diff. 1. 2. ch. 2. §. 5.

(d) Of more authority with me would be an ancient infcription, found in a vault near the church of S. Mary in via lata at Rome, fuppofed to be the place, where S. Paul dwelt: wherein mention is made of a picture of the B. Virgin. Una ex vii. a B. Lûca depictis: One of the feven painted by St. Luke. Cave's Lives of the Apofles, in English, p. 222.

(e) See bis Lives of the Popes. Val. 3. p. 205. 206.

(f) Noftro autem nomen quidem Romanum fuiffe arbitror, fed aliquanto longius. . . . Quare et Lucas, fi quid video, contractum eft ex Romano nomine, quod fufpicor fuiffe Lucillium. Nam ea gens tum Romæ florebat. Erat nofter hic Syrus, ut veteres confentiunt, et medicinam fecit. . . Syria autem multos Romanis fervos exhibebat. Et medicina, ut ex Plinio atque aliis difcimus, munus erat fervile. Manumiffi autem nomen patroni induebant, ut Comœdiarum fcriptor, Afer cum effet, dictus eft a patrono Terentio Terentius. . . . Ita hic a Lucillio Lucillius, et contracte Lucas. Credibile eft, cum Romæ medicinam factitaffet aliquamdiu, acceptâ libertate, rediiffe in patriam. &c. Grot. Pr. in S. Lucam.

(g) Exercuiffe medicinam Paulus ad Coloffenfes teftatur. Eufebius autem et Hieronymus addunt fuiffe natione Syrum Antiochenum. . . . Interpretes porro conjectura probabili, tum ex nomine, tum ex arte quam profitebatur, colligunt, fuiffe fervum manumiffum. Obfervant enim primo, nomen ejus in compendium fuiffe redactum, ut pro Luciilio vel Lucano vocaretur Lucas.... Obfervant fecundo, fervos et præcipue Syros medicinam factitaffe.... Quad vero quidam exiftimant, eum Romæ ferviiffe, et a domino, qui ipfum manamiferit, nomine Lucam appellatum fuiffe, non fatis certum videtur. Nam præter familiam Lucilliam, quæ Romana fuit, etiam Græcis illud nomen fuit impofitum, ut ex Anthologia conftat. Wet. Pr. ad Luc, T. i. p. 643.

thofe learned interpreters endeavor to make out in a fomewhat different manner. But neither has alleged any ancient writer, faying, that the Evangelift Luke was, once a flave, and afterwards became a free man. Some flaves indeed were skilful in the art of medicine, and practifed it in the families of their Roman mafters. But does it follow, that because Luke was a Phyfician, that he was also a flave? This therefore being entirely deftitute of foundation in antiquity must be efteemed the fiction of fome learned critic, who was much delighted with his own ingenious fpeculations.

3. The account given of this Evangelift by Eufebe, and Jerome after him, that he was a Syrian, and native of Antioch, may be justly fufpected.

We do not find it in Irenæus, nor Clement of Alexandria, nor Tertullian, nor Origen, nor in any other writer before Eufebe. Probably, therefore, it is not founded in any general, or well attefted tradition: but was the invention of fome conjectural critic, who having firft imagined, out of his own head, that Luke was originally a Gentil, at length determined, that he was converted by Paul at Antioch. But all this was taken up without any good ground, or fufficient authority. And Luke may have been a believer, before either Paul or Barnabas went to Antioch. The fame Account is in Jerome. But he only follows Eufebe. He does not seem to have had any information about it from any others. Which is an argument, that there was not any early tradition to this purpose.

This ftorie, I fay, is in Eufebe, and Jerome, and fome others, after them, but not in all fucceding writers. Some of the ancients, as Epiphanius, and others, fuppofed Luke to have been one of Chrift's seventy difciples. Which is inconfiftent with his being a native of Antioch. If any did not fee this inconfiftence, and allowed both, it must have been owing to want of due attention and confideration. And the fuppofition, made by fome, that Luke was one of the Seventy, fhews, that there was no prevailing, and well attested tradition, that he was a native of Antioch. For if there had been any fuch tradition, it is not cafie to conceive, how any should have held the opinion, that he was one of the Seventy.

It was formerly observed, that (h) Chryfoftom no where fays in his remaining works, that Luke was of Antioch. Indeed, we (i) have loft one of his homilies upon the title and begining of the Acts of the Apoftles. Neverthelefs it feems, that in fome of his many homilies, ftill remaining upon that book, or elsewhere, we fhould have feen this particular, if it had been known to him. He takes notice, that (k) there might be seen in his time the houfe, in which Paul, dwelled at Antioch. And he often fpeaks of the prerogatives of that city, in his homilies preached there. Methinks, this alfo fhould have been mentioned as one: that Luke, whom, (as is well known,) he often celebrates, was a native of that city. If this had been then known, or generally believed, it is reasonable to expect, that it fhould have been frequently mentioned by Chryfoftom, a native and Prefbyter of Antioch, who fhined there as a Preacher twelve

years

(b) Vol. x. p. 328.

(i) P. 3230

(k) P. 371.

years. This has difpofed me to think, that in his time there was not at Antioch any prevailing tradition to this purpose.

Cave fays, it (1) is likely, that Luke was converted by Paul at Antioch. Mill (m) fays the fame, rather more pofitively. Which may now be the opinion of mány. I have gueffed, that it might be the opinion of the person, who first gave rife to the account, that Luke was a Syrian, of Antioch, mentioned in Eufebe. But I do not remember, that this is exprefsly faid by any of the ancient writers, out of whom I have made fo large collections in the preceding volumes. And the thing is altogether unlikely. If Luke had been a Gentil, converted by Paul, he would have been always uncircumcifed, and unfit to accompany Paul, as he did. For the Apostle would not have allowed the Greeks, or Gentils, of Antioch, or any other place, to receive that rite. Nor are there in the Acts, or Paul's epiftles, any hints, that Luke was his convert. Whereas, if he had been fo, there (c) would have appeared fome tokens of it in the affectionate expreffions of Paul toward him, on the one hand, or in the refpectful and grateful expreffions of Luke toward Paul, on the other hand.

4. It has been reckoned doubtful by divers learned men, whether the Evangelift Luke was a Physician.

This particular is different from the fore-going. Nor has it any connexion with it. Luke may have been of Antioch, and not a Phyfician. He may have been a Physician, and not of Antioch. The question is, whether Luke, the beloved Physician, mentioned by St. Paul Col. iv, 14. be the Evangelift. Divers of the ancients, as we have seen, have fuppofed him there intended, Chryfoftom's expreffions are thefe: "This "(n) is the Evangelift. But he does not diminish him by naming him "fo late. He extols him, as he does Epaphras. It is likely, that there were others called by that name." This laft particular, perhaps, may deferve to be taken notice of. He affirms, that this is the Evangelift. But he fuppofeth, that there were others of the fame name.

That diftinguishing character, beloved Phyfician, not given to the Apoftle's companion, and fellow laborer, in any other epiftle, has induced divers learned and inquifitive moderns, to doubt, whether one and the

F 4

(1) ...a D. Paulo, dum Antiochiæ ageret, (uti verifimile eft) converfus, Hift. Lit. T. i. p. 25.

(m) Scriptor operi huic fufcipiendo, fi quis unquam, fumme idoneus: utpote qui ab ipfo tempore converfionis, quæ contigit circa annum æræ vulgaris XLI. Ipfum enim iuras iftis, qui magno numero Antiochiæ converfi funt, [A&t. xi. 20.] omnino adnumerârim. Prol. n. 112.

(c) This thought occurred to Dr. Whitby, who in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel fpeaks to this purpose: "We are told, that Luke was converted by " Paul at Thebes. Anfwer. But this we have only from Nicephorus. And it "is the lefs credible, not only because it comes to us fo late but alfo "because it appears not from any credible author, that St. Paul ever was "there. It is more probable from the filence of St. Luke, and St. Paul, who "never calleth him his fon, that he was a Christian, or a believer, long be"fore."

(η) Ουτός έσιν ὁ εὐαγγελισής . . εἰκός εἶναι καὶ ἄλλες καλυμένως τῷ ὀνόματι τέτῳ. Chry, in Col. iv. bom. 12. T. xi. p. 412,

the fame perfon is intended. Among these are (0) Calvin, (p) Sam, Bafnage, (a) Dr. Heumann, whofe obfervations and arguments I tranfcribe below. On the other hand (r) Eftius, and (s) Mr. Jones, ftrongly argue, that the fame Luke is here intended, who is mentioned by St. Paul in fome other epiftles, even our Evangelift.

Upon the whole, it must be acknowledged, that this distinguishing character, beloved Physician, has occafioned a difficulty. Nevertheless, I would hope, that it is not infuperable. It is allowed, that in all other places of St. Paul's epiftles by Luke is intended the Evangelift. We know from the book of the Acts, that Luke, the writer of it, went with Paul to Rome, and staid with him to the end of his captivity there. Nor is there any reafon to furmife, that at the time of writing this epiftle he might be abfent from the Apostle upon fome special occafion. For he joyns in the falutations in the epiftle to Philemon of Coloffe, fent at the fame time with this epistle to the Coloffians. Where alfo he is ftiled a fellow-laborer. Philem. ver. 24. So that I cannot but think it probable, that Luke, the Evangelift, was by profeffión a Physician.

5. St. Luke was a Jew by birth, at least by religion.

None of the writers, out of whom we have made collections, call him a Gentil. Some, in Jerome's time, whofe names we do not know, faid, Luke had been a Jewish Profelyte, that is, had been converted from Gentilifm to Judaism, and afterwards became a Chriftian. But none, that I remember, exprefsly fay, that he was converted from Gentilism

to

(0) Non affentior iis, qui Lucam Evangeliftam intelligunt. Nam et notiorem fuiffe judico, quam ut opus fuerit tali indicatione, et fplendidiore elogio fuiffet infignitus. Certe coadjutorem fuum, aut fidum faltem comitem, et certaminum participem vocaffet. Potius conjicio, hunc abfuiffe, et alterum medici epitheto ab illo difcerni. Quamquam non contendo, ut de re certa, fed tamen conjecturas affero. Calvin, in Col. iv. 14.

(p) Sunt tamen in Scripturâ Lucam Evangeliftam a Luca Medico diftinguendi cauffæ. &c. Bafnag. Ann. 60. n. xxxiii.

(9) Lucam Evangeliftam fuiffe Medicum, Hieronymus aliique probari poffe credunt ex Col. iv. 14. Sed ex hoc ipfo loco confirmari poffe puto contrarium. Si enim ifto loco Paulus innuiffet comitem fuum omnibus notum, Lucam Evangeliftam, fimpliciter vocaffet Lucam, uti fecit. 2 Tim. iv. 11. At ut fignificaret, fe de alio Luca loqui, difcriminis cauffa additarpós. C. A. Heuman. Ep. Misc. T. 2. p. 518.

(r) Sunt qui in dubium revocent, num de Luca Evangelifta loquatur Apoftolus. Hunc enim dicunt notiorem fuiffe, quam ut artis nomine eum defignaret. Ac faltem, inquiunt, eum coadjutorem fuum, aut fidelem comitem vocaffet. Verum, ut vetus et communis, ita probatiffima fententia eft. . . . Lucam Evangeliftam, Medicum fuiffe, et eum ipfum, cujus hic mentio eft : (neque enim alium Lucam Paulo familiarem ulla prodit hiftoria:) Quod vero tacuit hoc loco adjutorem, id diferte expreffit ad Philemonem fcribens, Demas et Lucas adjutores mei. Non enim putavit Apoftolus rem fatis notam ubique inculcandam effe. Ubi illud obfervandum eft, Apoftolum affidue Lucam cum Dema nominare, tam hoc loco, et ad Philemonem, quam etiam in fecunda ad Tim. ep. cap. iv. Quis ergo dixerit, alium atque alium effę Lucam cum eodem Dema nominatum ? Čom. in Col. iv. 14.

(s) See Mr. Jones's New and Full Method. Vol. 3. p. 103. 104.

to Chriftianity. Unless we should make an exception for Nicephorus Callifti, who in one place fays fo. But he is too late, and of too little credit, to be much regarded: especially, if he is fingular. All our writers, who speak of Luke, as a companion and disciple of Apostles, must have fuppofed him to be a Jew. And fome have faid, that he was one of the Seventy, as we have seen.

That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a conftant companion of Paul in many places, particularly, at Jerufalem. If Luke had been an uncircumcifed Gentil, fome exceptions would have been made to him. Nevertheless nothing of that kind appears either in St. Paul's Epiftles, or in the Acts. Another thing leading to this fuppofition is his (t) following the Jewish compu tations of times: fuch as the Paffover, Pentecoft, the Fafte. Of all which inftances may be seen in Acts xii. 3. xx. 6. and 16. xxvii. 9.

Here it will be objected, that Luke the Physician, mentioned Col. iv. 14. muft have been a Gentil, because at ver. 10. 11. the Apostle had mentioned all thofe of the circumcifion, who were his fellow-workers, and had been a comfort to him. To which I answer. It is not certain, that Luke, the Evangelift, is the beloved Phyfician, there fpoken of. We just now faw the reasons of doubting about it. But there is another folution. St. Paul (u) needs not to be understood to speak abfolutely. There might be feveral exceptions to that propofition. Timothie was one, who joyns with the Apostle in sending the epiftle. But he and Luke were fo well known to all, as faithful to the Apostle, that they needed not to be there mentioned. And Luke and Demas follow afterwards, fomewhat lower, nearer the end of the epiftle, very properly. ver. 14. Luke, the beloved Phyfician, and Demas greet you. And I fhould be unwilling from this text, and the coherence, to conclude, that Demas was a Gentil. Says the Apostle: Philem. ver. 24. There falute thee Marcus, Ariftarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-laborers. The two first named were certainly Jews. I fuppofe, the other two were fo likewife. Salutations from believers, of the Jewish People, would be very acceptable and encouraging to Gentil converts.

St. Luke fays Acts i. 19. infomuch as that field was called in their proper tongue Aceldama. Whence fome may argue, that he was not a Jew. But it might be observed, that none of the Evangelifts, when they fpeak of the Jews, fay any thing, to denote they were of that people. Says St. Matthew ch. xxviii. 15. And this faying is commonly reported among the Jews untill this day. Mark vii. 3. For the Pharifees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands, eat not. John i. 9. The Jews fent Priefts and Levites from Jerufalem. ch. v. 1. After this there was a feaft of the Jews. See alfo ch. xix. 40. . . . 42. And does not St. Paul lay I Theff.

(t) Quis vero cum veri fpecie aliqua Lucam Evangeliftam unum ex Judæis fuiffe neget? Lucam qui in defignandis temporibus Judæorum difciplinam adhibet, Pentecoftem fcilicet, Jejunium, tertiam noctis vigiliam. Quæ omnia ex Judaico more petuntur. Bafnag. An. 60. n. xxxiii.

(u) Adde, quod ifte fermo, hi foli, non eft ita rigide accipiendus, ut abfolute excludat omnes alios, fed benigno fenfu: Hi fere foli funt adjutores. Eft. ad iv. Col. 14.

u