268 LT.-COL. G. MACKINLAY, ON THE EMPHASIS OF ST. LUKE. 



is not included, because an arrival is not 3. proclamation. This tripli- 

 cation is confined to Peter's words on the day of Pentecost as stated 

 in the paper. The next mention of the Holy Spirit (iv, .8) is on a 

 later day (ii, 46 ; iv, 5), and cannot therefore be included. Professor 

 Stanton writes about this triplication, " there are two mentions of 

 the Holy Spirit in Peter's sermon, you take one after it." The 

 simple inference from these words is that the third proclamation was 

 not by Peter. But it was, according to Acts ii, 38, and on the same 

 day. Where is the mistake in the paper ? 



In his fourth paragraph, the Professor raises a general objection ; 

 the evidences of retrogression in the paper are considerable, but all 

 have not been given, as mentioned on p. 252. A book is now being 

 written on The Emphasis of St. Lnh, in which all the arguments will 

 be fully set out. 



Professor Stanton refers to the Homeric anagrams. The author 

 of this paper examined them, and came to the conclusion, which he 

 still holds, that they really exist. But he referred to them simply as 

 illustrations of the well-known fact that ancient writers occasionally 

 veiled some of their arrangements. It was not contended that Luke 

 adopted the same method as did Homer ; but both wrote in a cryptic 

 manner. 



AVhether Professor Margoliouth's discovery is true or not, makes 

 no difference to the existence of the long-hidden triplication Luke 

 (A), Luke (B), Luke (C), because attention was drawn to the latter 

 in an article published in The Interpreter in 1911, and the Homeric 

 anagrams were not heard of until 1915. 



The Gospels contain instruction for all and everyone, but surely it 

 is not incredible that diligent seekers may find that well-known facts 

 and spiritual truths are emphasized in striking ways, hidden from 

 the casual reader 1 



The author thanks the Dean of Canterbury for his kindness in 

 presiding, and for his encouraging remarks. He also thanks all who 

 have contributed to the discussion, including the large number whose 

 letters, it is regretted, are not published, for want of space. 



It is trusted that the interest in this subject will be maintained, 

 and that students and scholars will carefully examine the arguments 

 adduced in favour of the very methodical and orderly arrangement 

 of St. Luke's books. 



