the fame person is intended. Among these are (6) Calvin, (p) Sam. Bafnage, (9) Dr. Heumann, whofe oblervations 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 others epiftle, even our Evangelift.

Upon the whole, it must be acknowledged, that this diftinguishing 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 fpecial occation. For he joyns in his falutations in the epistle to Philemon of Coloffe, fent at the fame time with this epistle to the Coloffians. Where alfo he is filed a fellow-laborer. Philem. ver. 24. So that I cannot but think it probable, that Luke, the Evangelift, was by profeffion 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 Judaifm, and afterwards became a Chriftian. But none, that I remember, exprefsly fay, that he was converted from Gentilifm

to

(6) Non affentior iis, qui Lucam Evangeliftam intelligunt. Nam et notiorem fuiffe judico, quam ut opus fuerit tali indicatione, et fplendidiore elogio fuisset 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. II. At ut fignificaret, fe de alio Luca loqui, difcriminis cauffa addit à apóse C. A. Heuman. Ep. Mife, 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, ẹp. cap. iv. Quis ergo dixerit, alium atque alium effe Lucam cum eodem Dema nominatum? Com. in Col. iv. 14.

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

to Chriftianity. Unless we fhould 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: efpecially, if he is fingular. All our writers, who speak of Luke, as a companion and difciple of Apoftles, must have supposed him to be a Jew. And fome have faid, that he was one of the Seventy, as we have feen.

That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at leaft by religion, may be argued from his being a conftant companion of Paul in many places, particu larly, 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 (1) following the Jewish computations of times: fuch as the Paflover, Pentecoft, the Faste. Of all which inftances may be feen in Acts xii. 3. xx. 6. and 16. xxvii. 9.

Here it will be objected, that Luke the Phyfician, mentioned Col. iv. 14. must have been a Gentil, becaufe at ver. 10. 11. the Apoftle had mentioned all thofe of the circumcifion, who were his fellow-workers, and had been a comfort to him. To which I anfwer. It is not certain, that Luke, the Evangelift, is the beloved Phyfician, there spoken of. We just now faw the reafons 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 fending 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 firft 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 obferved, 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 until this day. Mark vii. 3. For the Pharifees, and all the Jews, except they wafb their hands, eat not. John i. 9. The Jews fent Priefts and Levites from Jerufalem. ch. v. 1. After this there was a feas of the Jews. See also ch. xix. 40. ... 42. And does not St. Paul fay, I Theff.

() 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 ompia ex Judaico more petuntur. Bafnag. An. 60. n. xxxiii,

(z) Adde, quod ifte fermo, hi foli, non eft ita rigide accipiendus, ut abfolute excludat omnes alios, fed benigno fenfu: Hi fere foli funt adjutores. Ff. ad iv, Col. 11,

1 Theff. ii. 14. 15. Ye became followers of the churches of God in Judea For ye alfo have fuffered like things of your own countrey-men, even as they of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jefus, and their own Prophets. It might be not amifs to obferve alfo Acts xxviii. 17... 19. And I might refer to other places.

That this Evangelift was a Jew, is the opinion of many learned and judicious moderns: particularly, Mr. S. Bafnage, whom I have cited at note (1) and 7. A. Fabricius, who (x) likewife is clearly of the fame opinion. Indeed, I think, it ought not to be queftioned.

6. Luke, the Evangelift, was, probably, an early Jewish believer, foon after Chrift's afcenfion, if not a hearer of Christ, and one of the seventy disciples.

Our most ancient writers, as we have feen, fpeak of Luke as a difciple of the Apostles. Some have reckoned him one of the Seventy, others have thought him to be Lucius, mentioned by St. Paul in the epistle to the Romans, and others have fuppofed, that he was one of the two difciples that met Jefus in the way to Emmaus.

The large accounts, which Luke has given in the book of the Acts of feveral, below the rank of Apoftles, has made me think, that he was one of the fame rank, and poffibly one of them. There are three instances of this kind. The first is Stephen, one of the feven Deacons, who, as we learn, was full of faith and power, and did great wonders and miracles among the people against whom there arose a ftrong oppofition, fo that he was the very firft Martyr for Chrift and his doctrine, and of whom St. Luke has recorded a long difcourfe before the Jewish Council. ch. vii. The fecond is Philip, another of the feven, of whom St. Luke writes, that he first preached Chrift to the Samaritans. ch. viii. 5... 8. fo that the people with one accord gave heed to thofe things, which Philip spake, hearing, and feeing the miracles which he did, and what follows. The fame Philip afterwards, having firft explained the fcriptures to him, and brought him to fincere faith in Jefus as the Chrift, baptized the Chamberlain and Treasurer of the Queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish profelyte, and a man of great diftinction. ver. 26.. 40. The third inftance of this kind is that of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who travelled as far as Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to Jews only. Who foon after their coming to Antioch, fpake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jefus. And the band of the Lord was with them. And a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. ch. xi. 19... 21. These were the men, who first preached to Gentils out of Judea as Peter was the firft, who preached to Gentils at the house of Cornelius in Cefarea. ch. x. and not long before them. We have, as it feems, the names of three of those men. ch. xiii. 1. Simeon, called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen. The fecond perfon, here named, may be our Evangelift.

...

:

A like argument may be formed in favour of St. Luke's having been one of Chrift's seventy difciples, in that he, and he only of all the Evangelifts,

(x) Lucas, five Lucius, . . . incertum, num idem cum Luca Medico Col. iv. 14. quin Judæus fuerit, at antequam Chrifto nomen daret, ne dubito quidem, præcipue fi verum eft quod legas in Origenis five Adamantii cujufdam dialogis, adverfus Marcionitas, et Epiphanii LI. II. cum fuiffe e nu mero LXX. difcipalorum. Bib. Gr. l. 4. c. v. T. 3. p. 132.

gelifts, has inferted in his Gospel an account of the commiffion, which Chrift gave unto them. ch. x. I.... 20.

And indeed fome learned men of later times, as well as formerly, have been of opinion, that Luke was one of the Seventy.

Among these is our Dr. Whitby, who (b) reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been of that number.

7. A. Fabricius (c) was inclined to be of the fame opinion. And in favour of it refers to the paffages of Adamantius and Epiphanius, before taken notice of by us. This likewife was the fentiment of (d) Mr. Bafnage.

Dr. C. A. Heumann has lately published a differtation concerning Chrift's Seventy Difciples, containing many curious obfervations. And he fuppofeth, that (*) these several following were of that number. Matthias, chofen in the room of the traitor, Jofeph, called Barfabas, furnamed Juftus, and probably, the feven Deacons, or however, fome of them, and the four teachers and Prophets of Antioch, Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, whom he thinks to be our Luke the Evangelist, and Manaen. Acts xiii. 1.

His argument is to this purpose. We have not in the Gospels the names of thofe Difciples. Nor did Chrift form a college or companię of them, as he did of the Twelve, because it was a temporarie office, which fubfifted for a fhort time only. They were but once fent forth. And when they were returned, their commiffion was at an end. Nevertheless they hereby became qualified for public fervice. And it may be reckoned very probable, that if an opportunity was afforded, they would be very willing, after Chrift's afcenfion, to exert themselves in, his caufe. And it is very likely, that fome of these Seventy were chofen, and employed by the Apostles, as men, who had been already exercised in the fervice of the gofpel, and were thereby fitted for farther usefulneffe.

So that learned writer. And it must be acknowledged, that this is a fpecious argument. But it is rather founded in au ingenious fpeculation, than in the authority of teftimonie. Which, in this cafe, would be more valuable.

Indeed Epiphanius, befide the places (e) formerly alleged, where he fays, Mark and Luke were of the Seventy, has another: where (ƒ) he mentions a great many, who were faid to be of that number: as the feven deacons, all whom he mentions by name, and alfo Matthias, Mark, Luke, Juftus, Barnabas, Apelles, Rufus, Niger. And therefore, we can

(b) See his Preface to St. Luke's Golpel.

not

(c)... præcipue, fi verum eft, quod legas in Origenis feu Adamantii cujufdam Dialogis adverfus Marcionitas, et Epiphanii H. LI. n. xi. Neque adeo repugnat et Lucam et Marcum ex illis fuifle, licet Veteres miro confenfu, ut Marcum Petri, ita Lucam tradunt Pauli fuiffe interpretem et fectatorem. Haud dubie enim Apoftolorum etiam præ LXX illis magna prærogativa erat. &c. Bib. Gr. l. iv. cap. v. T. 3. p. 133.

(d) Ann. 60, num, xxviii.

(*) Differtatio de Septuaginta Chrifti Legatis. ap. Nov. Syllog. Differtat. Part.i. p. 120.

154. (e) Haer. LI, num, vi, xi,

(f) H. 20. num. iv.

not deny, that in the time of Epiphanius there were fome, who entertained an opinion, that all thefe were of Chrift's feventy Difciples. Nevertheless we do not find it in Irenaeus, or Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or any others of the highest antiquity, and beft credit: nor in Eufebe or Jerome, that I remember, who were acquainted with the writings of thofe ancient authors, and many others, which are not come to us. Eufebe has a chapter concerning the Difciples of our Saviour. He fays, the names of Chrift's twelve Apoftles were well known: but (g) there was no where any catalogue of the Seventy. However, he mentions Barnabas, Matthias, and the difciple put up with him, and one or two more, who were faid to be of the Seventy. But he takes not here any notice of Mark, or Luke, or of any of the feven Deacons.

Matthias and Barfabas certainly were fuch men, as are defcribed Acts i. 21. 22. And they may have been of the Seventy. But we cannot be certain, becaufe we have not been assured of it by any accounts, that demand full affent. Some of the feven Deacons may have been of the Seventy, as Stephen and Philip. But we do not know, that they were. It is very probable, that all thofe Deacons were not of the Seventy, particularly, Nicolas a profelyte, of Antioch. If Luke, the Evangelift, be the fame as Lucius, of Cyrene, there arifeth a strong objection against his hav ing been one of the Seventy. Simeon called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1. and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, (of whom those two, just mentioned, were a part) were early believers, after Chrift's afcenfion, and they may have heard and feen the Lord in perfon. But they cannot be well fupposed to have been of the Seventy. Chrift's twelve Apofiles were of Galilee. It is likely, that the Seventy alfo were of the fame countrey, or near it. Chrift fent them forth from him, to go over the Band of Ifrael, and to return to him in a fhort time, where he should be. And his ufual residence was in Galilee. It does not appear to me at all probable, that our Lord put into that commiffion any men, who were born, and ufually refided abroad, in other countreys, out of the land of Ifrael. Hitherto, then, we have not any full proof, that our Evangelift was one of the Seventy. Let us proceed.

St. Luke ch. xxiv, 13. 34. relates how two difciples met Jefus after his refurrection, as they were going to Emmaus. And he fays, that the name of one of them was Cleophas. Theophylact in his comment upon this place, as (b) formerly fhewn, obferves: "Some (i) fay, that one of thefe two was Luke himself: but that the Evangelift concealed his own name." Nicephorus Callifti (k) in one place, makes not doubt, that Luke was the other difciple not named. It is likely, that he had met with it in more ancient writers. Sam. Bafnage (1) readily declares himself of

the

(3) Τῶν δὲ ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν κατάλογος μὲν ἐδεὶς ἐδαμή φέρεται. Η. Ε.

1. i. c. 12.

(b) Vol. xi. p. 423.

(1) Τινὲς τὸν ἕνα τέτων τῶν δύο αυτὸν τὸν λουκᾶν εἶναί φασι· διὸ καὶ ἀπέκρυψε το ἑαυτὸ ὄνομα ὁ ἐυαγγελικής, Theoph, in Luc. cap. xxiv. p. 539.

(2) Τοῖς περὶ λυκᾶν καὶ κλείπαν την όδον παράσι γνωρίζεται, πρὸς ἑσπέραν εἰς δεῖπνον αὐτοῖς συγκατακλιθείς, Niceph. l. 1. c. 34. p. 117,

(/) Nulla fane magis idenea ratio obfervatur animo, cur Cleopa, non alterius, Lucas meminerit: quomodo Joannes, ubi de fe mentionem agitat

4

nomen