264 LT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON THE EMPHASIS OF ST. LCKE. 



" AgaiD, there are two mentions of the Holy SjDirit in Peter's 

 sermon, and you take in one after it, but why not also that before 

 it, the event of Pentecost itself, or others that occur soon after in 

 the course of the narrative of the Acts 1 There is surely no 

 triplet here of a kind to lend emjDhasis. 



" I cannot follow your argument as to three parallel sections, A, B 

 and C, in Luke vi, 20-xxi, 38. I can discover no indication of 

 intentional retrogression at the points you indicate, and the fact 

 that the narratives Avithin the sections hang together fairly well 

 does not make the treatments of his subject as a whole chronological, 

 and prove the Evangelist's chronology to he accurate, when they are 

 thus pieced together. 



*' Cryptic arrangements such as that discovered in Homer by Mar- 

 goliouth, or some of the ' Baconians ' in Shakespeare's w^orks, do not 

 appeal to me. It may be difhoult sometimes to disprove them, but 

 also they cannot be proved. But that a writer like St. Luke, w^ho 

 was composing a Gospel for the instruction of all and everyone, should 

 employ cryptic methods for emphasizing his message is to me 

 incredible." 



The Rev. H. E. Gaussex, M.A,, wrote cjuestioning whether the 

 Greek word for " in order " (Luke i, 3) is necessarily chronological ; 

 he also adds : There is a A'ery special interest and originality in 

 what is said on p. 13 as regards the word /joro'/e/'/yv." 



The Rev. E. A. Abbott, D.D. : "I have read your paper with 

 much interest, and feel sure that there is a great deal of truth in 

 your theory of triplications." 



A large number of other communications were received express- 

 ing interest in the paper, but hardly any of them entered into the 

 arguments brought forward. Among them were letters from 

 Professor Margoliouth, Professor Xairne, Canon Robinson, Dr. 

 A. C. Dixon, and Dr. W. St. Clair Tisdall. Also from Sir 

 AViLLiAM Archibald, the Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Clarke, Professor 

 Blinders Petrie, and Professor Turner. 



Lecturer's Reply. 



Mr. Rouse contends that the arrivals at Bethany (Luke x, 38, 

 xix, 29, and John xii, 1) are not the same. But attention is 

 directed to the following : — (1) John xii, 1, of course, tells of a visit 

 at the end of the Ministry, and the journey whose ending is recorded 

 in liuke x, 38, must have been the very last one, because at its 



