when he knew of the various imperfect gospels he should not also have known of the authorized gospels, if such were in being, unless indeed these had been published in some very remote part of the world to which their circulation had been hitherto confined. We, therefore, take Luke's gospel to have been written before any other. With this idea it exactly suits. It is a complete and perfect account of the life of Christ, from its very beginning to its close. It omits nothing requisite to give a full knowledge of that life to the church. It is, therefore, such a gospel as one would write who felt that he was the first to enter upon this field, and that, as no one had anticipated him in it, he must give a complete history. And this will further appear by comparing it with two of the other gospels. Neither Mark nor John possess that completeness which belongs to Luke; neither give any details of our Lord's birth, or genealogy, or early life, but introduce him to notice abruptly_and without preamble at the opening period of his ministry. They would seem to have known that sufficient details on these points were already given. Mark again breaks off his gospel at xvi. 11, without mentioning a single instance of Christ's appearing after his resurrection. John's gospel, invaluable as regards its object, could not supply us with so full an idea of our Lord's life, as any of the other three. The character of both are accounted for on the supposition that they were written with the knowledge that another and complete gospel had already been given to the church. Matthew's gospel, indeed, is not open to such remarks. It is a complete gospel, beginning at the beginning, and carrying down the account to the close. But we think that it is likely that Matthew's gospel, though written probably some years after Luke's, was written either in ignorance of its existence, or without having seen it, and was therefore written with the intention of supplying a complete life of Jesus to those who had not one. This might easily happen, according to our view, that Matthew wrote in some land outside the Roman world, and had had from the time of his leaving Judæa little or no communication with the churches of the empire. The completeness then of Luke's gospel gives additional confirmation to our view of its being written before any other gospel, when we find others which were in all likelihood written after it, and with the knowledge of its existence, written in a less complete form because completeness was not essential.

That Luke's was the earliest written of our gospels we have then every reason to conclude. It may not be so evident what was the exact period at which it was composed. If we acquiesce in the view that 1 Tim. v. 18 is a quotation from Luke x. 7, we

have proof here that the latter was written before Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy at Ephesus. We cannot see any good reason for denying that it is a quotation from St. Luke. Bloomfield, indeed, seems to think it is not a quotation at all, but we cannot see what grounds he has for this idea. And if it is a quotation it is taken either from Matt. x. 10 or Luke x. 7. With the latter it agrees word for word; from the former it differs in one important expression. It is only reasonable then to conclude that it was taken from that gospel with which it is in perfect agreement. Again; we have seen strong reasons for supposing that Matthew wrote his gospel at a very late date and in a remote country, and, if so, Paul could not have quoted from a gospel written after his epistle. We have concluded certainly that Luke was ignorant of any gospel written by St. Matthew, and we cannot therefore suppose that Paul was at that time acquainted with it, for, if so, Luke would also have known of it. We can, therefore, see no reasonable ground for doubting that 1 Tim. v. 18 is a quotation from Luke x. 7. If we can, therefore, ascertain the date of 1-Timothy, we have a date before which our gospel was written. This is not the place for discussing the question of the date of 1 Timothy, but we incline to the earlier of the dates which are given for its composition. This would give to our gospel the probable date of from A.D. 50 to a.d. 54.

We do not think it likely that a gospel for the use of the churches of the empire could be deferred beyond probably the earliest of these dates. False oral accounts of the gospel had years before this been set in circulation (Gal. i. 6-9). It is very likely that false and imperfect written gospels would quickly follow the oral statements. There is every reason to suppose that such would not be deferred any great length of time in places where the general absence of any apostle would give rise to the desire for a written gospel. Such was the condition of the churches of the empire generally, at the time we speak of. Judæa, indeed, had an apostle, or apostles, resident at this period, and there, consequently, such gospels would not then be called for. But the vast extent of the empire seems to have had, at this period, little communication with any apostle except Paul. Peter, the two James's and John, in the opening period of the gospel, confined their ministrations to Judæa. The other apostles would seem to have, at this time, left the empire altogether.

One man, even though that man were Paul, could have had only very occasional and brief intercourse with some of the churches of the empire, while there were very many of them which he was unable to see (Rom. xv. 23; Col. ii. 1). Here

was ample room for the springing up at a comparatively early period of numerous imperfect gospels. We do not think that these could go on long unquestioned. We do not suppose that written lives of Christ, whether aiming at perfection, or claiming a perfection which did not belong to them, could be suffered to establish themselves in the confidence of the faithful, or to distract their minds by the variety of their statements, without calling forth either warning against their authority, or, and more likely, an authoritative gospel-their best rebuke and antidote. We, therefore, think it most probable that no great time elapsed between the appearance of the gospels referred to by St. Luke in his preface, and the publication of his own. And, if the former were written at a comparatively early period, the latter would not be long delayed.

The connexion of Luke with Paul as the source of his information, joined with the idea that a gospel for the churches of the empire could not be very long deferred, helps us still more in arriving at an approximation to its probable date. Luke did not become acquainted with Paul until a brief period after the council of Acts xv., which met about A.D. 50. No great time seems to have elapsed between this period and the time when (Acts xvi. 10) Luke joined himself to Paul, and before which the Gospel could not have been written. The union of these two men, at this time, was not for a long period, but it seems to have been very close. It comprised the short stay at Troas, the voyage of a few days from Troas to Philippi, and the abiding there together "many days." After this they were separated for several years, before the conclusion of which period we suppose our gospel to have been written. If our previous reflections then have been in the main correct, we ascertain that the time when Luke learned the materials of his gospel from Paul was in the space of time mentioned Acts xvi. 9-18. The confinement of a sea voyage, and the quiet of their stay at Philippi until the uproar of ver. 19 took place, would afford ample time for Luke to trace out, with his friend, the life of Christ as he has brought it before us in his gospel, while during the period of his separation he had ample time to draw it out. To this period then we refer as the period when Luke obtained the materials of his gospel, and also conceived the idea of writing it. That it was suggested to him by Paul is extremely probable. The latter would readily see in him the man suited for such a composition. He had been for some time aware of the efforts made to pervert the gospel (Gal. i. 6, 8), and was of course aware of any written gospels that were at the time in circulation. There was then nothing more natural than that he should have been led by pro

vidential guiding to see the necessity for a written gospel, to suggest to Luke to become its writer, and to furnish him with all requisite materials, so that the latter could say that he had had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first." And if this be so, we have another proof of the fidelity of St. Paul to his high charge, "the care of all the churches." For Luke's gospel is thus also in a true sense the gospel of Paul, his correction of the false and imperfect traditions fast obscuring the life of Christ, as in his epistles we have his correction of the heresies that were obscuring his doctrine. To Paul we owe the most perfect gospel, as well as the fullest exposition of Christian faith. He was not silent while men, with good or evil intentions, were misleading the churches on the events of his master's life. It was not without the highest object that he had received a revelation on this subject equal, at least, to the information of the original apostles. It enabled him to preach of Christ with his lips, and, through the assistance of Luke, to hand down to posterity our most complete and earliest gospel.

Luke's perfect independence of the other gospels is of course evident if he wrote first; but it is besides apparent, even were we to suppose that he wrote after they were written. A very cursory comparison of their contents is sufficient to shew this. In his first two chapters we have a variety of information, some of it of the most private nature, and peculiar to himself. His genealogy is in great part a different one from that followed by Matthew. In ix. 31, he mentions what no other gospel mentions, and what was unknown even to the three apostles present; viz., the subject of our Lord's conversation with Moses and Elias which took place during their sleep. Chapters x. to xviii. containing one of the most interesting portions of Christ's life, namely, his farewell journey through the cities of Samaria and Galilee which he was to revisit no more, is not at all in the other gospels. In xxii. 3, he alone mentions the entering of Satan into Judas which was of necessity unperceived by any apostle present. In xxii. 8, he alone mentions that but two of the apostles were sent to prepare the Passover, and alone mentions their names. In xxii. 20, he places an interval between the delivery of the bread and the cup which is not hinted at in the parallel gospels. In xxii. 43, he alone mentions the presence of an angel at the agony of Jesus, who was in all probability unseen and not known of by either Peter, James, or John, who were asleep. In xxii. 50, he alone mentions which ear of Malchus was cut off. In xxii. 59, he is peculiar in his mention of the space of time which intervened between the second and third denials of Peter. The look of Christ on Peter is found only in Luke (xxii. 61).

The legal assembly of the Presbytery after daybreak, so obscurely alluded to by Mark and Matthew that from their accounts alone we probably would not have drawn that there was such an assembly at all, is here plainly narrated (xxii. 66-71). He alone relates Pilate's sending Christ to Herod and the reconciliation of the two rulers (xxiii. 4-12). The affecting story of the penitent thief is peculiar to Luke, and in all likelihood it was utterly unknown to any one except the three who hung side by side upon the cross.

The entire independence of Luke as far as relates to all our other gospels is thus quite evident, putting the question of their respective dates altogether aside; but we think that many of the above instances prove more than this. Some of them were unknown to any of the original apostles so far as their hearing or eyesight went; some of them were unknown to any one in the natural way. Where did Luke hear of the songs of Mary and Elizabeth? There seems to have been no record kept of them at the time. How did he become acquainted with the subject of conversation on the Mount, with the unseen entering of Satan into Judas, with the appearance of the angel at the agony, with the conversation on the cross? If there had been but one or two cases of this kind we should have wondered, but might not have felt justified in drawing any conclusion from scanty promises; but when there are several such, we are forced to ask do these not point to a source of information higher than that of the original apostles, to such a source as the supernatural revelation to St. Paul, which might as readily inform him of what no original apostle had seen or heard, as of what he had not seen or heard himself? To our mind these instances strongly point this way, and are strong confirmations of the Pauline origin of the gospel of St. Luke. We doubt if in any one of the other gospels there is a single instance of a similar kind, namely, the narrative of any one thing which was not either seen or heard by one of the apostles, or which could not be ascertained by them in the same way by which ordinary writers obtain their information. Luke alone seems to present an exception to this, hereby pointing to a source different from theirs.

The accuracy with which Luke has written his gospel will, we think, be found as well marked as his independent acquaintance with the events in our Lord's life. We will give some few instances of this. Luke, we are to remember, was a gentile and a foreigner. We read of his accompanying Paul to Jerusalem, and it is probable he remained at Cæsarea during that apostle's imprisonment there. Of his acquaintance with other parts of Palestine, especially with Galilee, we are not told a word, nor