tory and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two above-named works. 6 d Irenæus as before quoted: And Luke the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.' And the coherence seems to imply, that this was done after the writing of St. Mark's gospel, and after the death of Peter and Paul. In a passage formerly cited at length, Irenæus shows from the Acts, as we did just now, that Luke attended Paul in several of his journies and voyages, and was his fellow-labourer in the gospel. He likewise says that Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellowlabourer of the apostles, especially of Paul.' Again, he calls him a disciple and follower of the apostles.' Thes apostles, he says, envying none, plainly delivered to all 'the things which they had learned from the Lord. So likewise Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what 'he learned from them, as he says: "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye'witnesses and ministers of the word." By all which it seems, that Irenæus reckoned Luke to have been a disciple of the apostles, not a hearer of Jesus Christ himself. Clement of Alexandria has borne a large testimony to this gospel, and the Acts, as well as to the other books of the New Testament. And as we learn from Eusebius, in his 'Institutions he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gospels, which he had received from presbyters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. He says that the gospels containing the genealogies were written 'first' according to that tradition therefore St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels were written before St. Mark's. Which, according to the same Clement and the tradition received by him, was written at Rome, at the request of Peter's hearers, or the christians in that city. Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ, of Mark and Luke as disciples of apostles: therefore I think he did not reckon these to have been of the seventy, or hearers of Christ. However, he ascribes a like authority to these, and says, that the gospel which Mark 'published, may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter • Vol. ii. p. 170. • P. 174. 6 d P. 173, 174. f P. 173. Sic apostoli simpliciter, nemini invidentes quæ didicerant ipsi a Domino, hæc omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas, nemini invidens, ea quæ ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, sicut ipse testatur dicens: Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et ministri fuerunt verbi. Adv. H. 1. 3. cap. 14. n. 2. h Vol. ii. p. 225. VOL. V. 1 P. 278, 279. * P. 276 • Mark was. For Luke's digest also is often ascribed to 'Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master's which the disciples published.' Again: Moreover 'Luke was not an apostle, but apostolical; not a master, but a disciple: certainly less than his master, certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the 'apostles.' This likewise shows Tertullian's notion of St. Luke's character. 6 m Origen mentions the gospels in the order now generally received. The third, says he, is that according to Luke, 'the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of 'the Gentile converts.' In his commentary upon the epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he says, upon ch. xvi. 21, "Some say Lucius is Lucas the evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write ' names sometimes according to the original form, some'times according to the Greek or Roman termination.' Lucius, mentioned in that text of the epistle to the Romans, must have been a Jew. Nevertheless, as Origen assures us, some thought him to be Luke the evangelist. The same observation we saw in Sedulius, who wrote a commentary upon St. Paul's epistles, collected out of Origen and others. 6 Eusebius of Cæsarea, as transcribed formerly, speaking of St. Paul's fellow-labourers, says, And P Luke, who was ' of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most 'part a companion of Paul, who had likewise a more than 'slight acquaintance with the rest of the apostles, has left us in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of these is the gospel which he professeth to have written, as they delivered it to him, "who from the beginning were 'eye-witnesses and ministers of the word:" with all whom, he says likewise, he had been perfectly acquainted from 'the very first. The other is the Acts of the Apostles, which "he composed now, not from what he had received by the report of others, but from what he had seen with his own ' eyes.' And in another place, cited also formerly, he observes, that Luke had delivered in his gospel a certain Vol. ii. p. 278, 279. I P. 494. Sed et Lucium quidam perhibent esse Lucam evangelistam, qui evangelium scripsit, pro eo quod soleant nomina interdum secundum patriam declinationem, interdum Græcam Romanamque, proferri. In Rom. T. 2. p. 632. Basil. 1571. P Vo'. iv. p. 100. 1 P. 96. • Vol. v. p. 58. Τον ασφαλη λογον ων αυτος ἱκανως την αλήθειαν κατειληφει, εκ της άμα Παυλῳ συνουσίας τε και διατριβης, κα της των λοιπων αποστ 6 6 account of such things, as he had been well assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and ' his conversation with the other apostles.' From all which, I think it appears that Eusebius did not take Luke for a disciple of Christ, but of apostles only. In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, that 'the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and 'written and published by the blessed apostle and physician 'Luke.' The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, says, that Mark and Luke were disciples of Christ, and of the • number of the seventy.' Epiphanius" speaks to the like purpose. Gregory Nazianzen says, that Luke wrote for the 'Greeks,' or in Achaia. Gregory Nyssen says, that Luke was as much a phy'sician for the soul as for the body:' taking him to be the same that is mentioned, Col. iv. 14. 6 x In the catalogue of Ebedjesu it is said that Luke taught and wrote at Alexandria, in the Greek language.' The author of the Commentary upon St. Paul's thirteen epistles seems to have doubted whether the evangelist Luke be the person intended, Col. iv. 14. 6 Jerom agrees very much with Eusebius, already transcribed: nevertheless I shall put down here somewhat largely what he says. Luke,' a physician of Antioch, not ' unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel, and another excellent volume, entitled the Acts of the Apostles. It is supposed that Luke did not learn his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from other 6 apostles: which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, 'who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers ' of the word." Therefore he wrote the gospel from the in'formation of others: but the Acts he composed from his 'ow knowledge.' So writes Jerom in his Book of Illustrious Men. In the prologue to his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he τολων ὁμιλιας ωφελημένος, δια το ιδιο παρέδωκεν ευαγγελιο. Η. Ε. 1. 3. c. 24. p. 96. c. • Vol. iv. p. 165. ▾ P. 287. P. 383, 384. * P. 443, 444. says, a The third evangelist is Luke, the physician, a Sy'rian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the countries of Achaia and 'Bæotia.' He observes elsewhere, that some said Luke had been 'a proselyte to judaism, before his conversion to chris'tianity.' He speaks of St. Luke in many other places, which I need not now take notice of. 6 с Augustine says, that two of the evangelists, Matthew and John, were apostles-Mark and Luke disciples of ' apostles.' Chrysostom in the Synopsis, probably his, says, Two d of the gospels were written by John and Matthew, Christ's disciples, the other two by Luke and Mark, of whom one 'was disciple of Peter, the other of Paul. The former conversed with Christ, and were eye-witnesses of what they ' wrote: the other two wrote what they had received from < eye-witnesses.' And to the like purpose in his first homily upon St. Matthew. Again he says, Luke' had the fluency of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters.' And upon Col. iv. 14, he says, this is the evangelist. 6 Upon Col. iv. 14, Theodoret says, This person wrote the divine gospel, and the history of the Acts.' He says the same upon 2 Tim. iv. 11. i Paulinus celebrates Luke, as having been first a physician of the body, then of the soul. Here I would refer to the author of Quæstiones et Responsiones, probably written in the fifth century, who reckons both the evangelists, writers of the genealogies, that is, Matthew and Luke, to have been Hebrews. m According to Euthalius, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and a physician of Antioch. Isidore of Seville says, 'Of the four evangelists, the first and last relate what they had heard Christ say, or had seen him perform. The other two, placed between them, relate those things, which they had learned from 'apostles. Matthew wrote his gospel first in Judea; then 'Mark in Italy; Luke the third, in Achaia; John the last, ' in Asia.' In another place he says,' Of all the evan OUTOS ES18 Evayyeλisns. In Col. hom. 12. T. XI. p. 412. h Vol. v. p. 17, 18. note. In 2 Tim. T. III. p. 505. k Vol. iv. ch. cxiv. - Vol. v. p. 70. • P. 501. f P. 541. 'gelists Luke, the third in order is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek tongue. For he was a phy'sician, and wrote his gospel in Greece.' 6 6 6 In Theophylact are these things. In his preface to St. Matthew's gospel he says, that P there are four evangelists, two of which, Matthew and John, were of the choir of the twelve apostles: the other two, Mark and Luke, ⚫ were of the number of the seventy. Mark was a disciple ' and companion of Peter, Luke of Paul.-Luke wrote fif'teen years after Christ's ascension.' In the preface to his Commentary upon St. Luke he says, that a from that introduction it appears, Luke was not from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. For others were disciples 'from the beginning, as Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the things which they had seen or 'heard.' Upon which some remarks were made by us in the place referred to. In his comment upon the history of the two disciples, whom Jesus met in the way to Emmaus, one of whom is said to be Cleopas, Luke xxiv. 18, Theophylact says: Some have thought the other to be Luke the evangelist, who out of modesty declined to mention ⚫ himself. In his preface to the Acts, Theophylact says: 'The writer is Luke, native of Antioch, by profession a ' physician.' Euthymius says: Luket was a native of Antioch, and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and, as some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as Mark. He was 'afterwards very intimate with Paul. He wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen years after our Lord's as'cension.' So Euthymius. But I should think, that very few, who supposed Luke to have been a native of Antioch, could likewise reckon him a hearer of Jesus Christ. But Euthymius, as it seems, puts together every thing he had heard or read, without judgment or discrimination. u What Nicephorus Callisti says, is, briefly, to this purpose. Two only of the twelve, Matthew and John, left memoirs of our Lord's life on earth and two of the seventy, Mark and Luke-Matthew wrote about fifteen years after our Saviour's ascension. Long after that, Mark and Luke published their gospels by the direction of Peter and Paul. The same Luke composed also the book of the Acts of the Apostles.' 6 6 To these authors I now add Eutychius, patriarch of P Vol. v. p. 158. S P. 161. 4 P. 159. t P. 165. r P. 160. U P. 167, |