The Gospel of Luke

The Third Gospel is that of Luke, He is mentioned in Scripture, as the companion of Paul, in his travels: and when that apostle was sent a prisoner to Rome, this evangelist accompanied hinr, and continued wiph him daring his two year’s confinement in th;it city, as may be gathered from Paul’s Epistles, written durmg this period. Whether he was the same as The beloved jihysicianj mentioned by Paul, is uncertain, but the general opinion is in favour of it. It is also ciisputed, whether or not he was one of the Seventy disciples. Without undertaking to decide these points, 1 will proceed to lay before the reader, the principal test imotjies of the Fathers, respecting this gospel and its author.

Irenus asserts, “That Luke the companion of Paul, put down in a booky the gospel preached by him.” A;r;nn, he says, “iiUke was not only a companion, but a fellow labourer of the apbstles, especially oi Paul “He calls Ijim,” A disciple and fellow labourer of the apostles.” “The apostles,” Says he, *’ envying none plainly delivered to ail, the things whirh they had heard from the Lord. So lik»;wi.sc Luke envyine; no man, has delivert’d to us what he learned from them, as he says, Even as they delivered t hem unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of his

EusEBius informs us, that Clement of Alexandria bore a large testimony tb this, as w( 11 as to the other gospels; snd he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the yospels, which Clement had received from presbyters of more ancient times, “That the gospels containing the genealogies, were written first.”

Teutulliap speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the apostles; however, he ascribes the same authority to the gospels written by them, as to thp others. “The gospel,” says he, ‘« which Mark published, may l)e said to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was; and Luke’s digest, is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the Master’? which the disciples publishetl.” Again, “Moreover, Luke was not au apostle, but an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple: certainly less than his master; certainly so much later, as he is a tbilower of P;iul, the last o» the apostles.”

Obioen mentions the gospels in the order commonly received, ‘’ The third,’’ says he, “is that acoor’ling to Ltske, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts.”

In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he writes, “Some say Lucius is Lucas the Evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names, sometimes accord inji; to the original form; sometimes, according to the Greek, and Roman termination.”

EusEBiirs has left us the following testimony, concerninji Luke the evangelist, ‘’ And Luke who was ef Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more than a slight acquaintance withtheother apostles, has left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of them, is, the gospel which he professeth to have written, as they delivered it to him, who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses and ministers <if his word.” With all whom, he says, he had been perfectly acquainted, from the first. And in another place, he says, “Luke hath delivered, in his gospel, a certain account of such things as he had been assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversation withtheother apostles.”

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 physit’ian Luke.”

Gkegory Nazianzen says, “That Luke wrote for the Greeks;” and Gregory Nyssen, *’ That

Luke was as imicli a physician for the soul as the body.”

The testimony of Jerome, concerning Luke, is as follows:” Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, not unskilful in the Greek lansjuaoje, a disciple of the aposile 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 apostles, which likewise he owns, at the beginning of his volume, sa)’ing, Eve7i as they delivered them unto t/.y, loho from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. Therefore, he wrote the gospel from the information of others; but the Acts he composed from his own knowledge.*

The same writer, in the preface to his commentary on St. Matthew, says, “‘I’he third evangt list is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who WTisa disciple of the apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the countries of Acliaia and Boeotia.”

In another place, he observes, *<That some said that Luke had bem a proselyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity.”

Chrysostom, in his first homily on the gospel of

* Book of Illustrioas Men

Matthew, has this remark: ‘’Luke had the fluency of Pa’il, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning 6f their masters.” ‘nomijr

Isidore of Seville says, “Of the four evangelists, the first and last relate what they had heard Christ say, or had seen him perform Matthew wrote his gospel first, in Judea; then Mark in Italy; Luke, the third, in Achaia: John, the last, in Asia.” And again, of all the evangelists, Luke, the third in order, is reckoned to have been the must skilful in the Greek tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his gospel in Greek. -itHa mo{

InTHEOPHYLAcx’s preface to St. Matthew’s Gospel, it is said,” There are four Evangelists, two of which, Matthew and John, were of the 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 fifteen years after Christ’s ascension.”

In his commentary on Luke, he observes, “That it appears from Luke’s Introduction, that he 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.”

EuTHYMius says, “Luke 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 iy9

He wrote his Gosppl, with Paul’s permission, iiiteen years after our Lord’s ascension.”

EuTYCHius, patrinrch of Constantinople, has handed down the following account:” In the time of the same empcMor (Nero) Luke wrote his sjospel in Greek, to a notahio and wise man (if the Romans, whose name was Theophilus; to whom also he wrote the Acts, or the history of the d’sciples. The evangelist Luke, was a com|)anion of the apostle Paul, going with him, wherever he went. For which reason, the apostle Paul, in one of his epistles, says, Luke the physician salutes ynu.’’’’

The same arguments by which the Canonical authority of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were established, apply with their full force to the gospel of Luke. It was universally received as Canonical by the whole primitive church; has a place, in every catalogue of the books of the New Testament which was ever published; is constantly referred to and cited by the Fathers, as a part of Sacred Scripture; and was one of the books constantly read in the churches, as a part of the rule of faith and practice for all believers.

Marcion, the heretic, it is true, had a gospel according to Luke, which differed essentially from that in the Canon, but his authority has no weight.