consecutive, times. Thus our Lord fed the five thousand, and on the next day at a different place spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life (John vi, 5-14, 22, 48); the teaching of the first being last and the last first was put forward on the last journey (Matt. xix, 30, xx, 16), and again shortly afterwards in Jerusalem (Matt. xxi, 31, 32). The teaching of the lament and also of the parable of the great Supper in Luke refers in both cases to the coming severe judgment on the Jews-a subject which elsewhere in the Gospels we find confined to the teaching of the Saviour at the very end of His Ministry; hence it is fair to conclude that these Lucan utterances were also spoken towards the end-not at the time of the Sermon on the Mount as Mr. Rouse suggests.

It is interesting to note that the verse "I must go my way today, and to-morrow, and the day following," Luke xiii, 33, is interpreted by Mr. Woods (who denies any repetition of narrative) to refer to days, and he thinks it was spoken within about two days' journey of Jerusalem, while Mr. Rouse thinks the days mean years, and he concludes that the words were spoken at a more distant spot. The nearest part of Herod's trans-Jordanic dominions, where our Lord most probably was when these words were uttered, is only some twenty miles distant in a direct line, though 3,700 feet below that city, hence a couple of days would probably suffice for the journey. Alford favours the interpretation of literal days, but the passage is a difficult one, and as commentators are not agreed as to its exact meaning, it seems hardly wise at present to base any theory of chronology upon it.

Mr. Rouse adduces the fact that in a later chapter, Luke xvii, 11, it is recorded that our Lord passed between Samaria and Galilee, as a proof that the Lucan lament and parable were not spoken near the end of the Ministry, but is not this rather a begging of the question? If it is allowed that the Lucan lament and parable were spoken towards the end of the Ministry, and that a third narrative begins at Luke xiv, 25, the passing between Samaria and Galilee comes correctly in due chronological order in the third narrative.

If Canon Girdlestone's statements can be substantiated, that St. Luke "hardly ever uses notes of time," that he " 'groups, follows the order of thought regardless of time and space," then the arguments for a threefold narrative rest upon such slender

foundations that they are worthless. But can these things correctly be said of the evangelist who gives two very distinct dates, by referring to well known secular events-the "decree from Cæsar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled" (Luke ii, 1), and "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar" (chapter iii, 1), after the manner of the historians of his day? Luke also gives a Jewish dating for the vision of Zacharias (i, 5, 8, 11), because it is known from Jewish records when the course of Abia served

in the Temple. St. Luke also tells us that our Lord came to the Temple at the age of twelve (ii, 42), and that He began His Ministry when He was about thirty years of age (iii, 23). The fulfilment of periods of time (i, 57, ii, 6, 43, xxi, 24), also of years (ii, 37, iv, 25), months (i, 24, 26, 56), days (i, 59, ii, 21, 22, 44, iv, 2, xxii, 7, etc.), and hours (xxii, 14, xxiii, 44, xxiv, 33), are each referred to repeatedly. The near approach of summer is also pointedly alluded to (xxi, 30). In the central chapter of Luke, with which we are now especially concerned, we find attention directed to the near approach of the time (ix, 51) when our Lord should be delivered up. Various periods are stated in years (viii, 42, 43, xiii, 7, 11) and others in days (ix, 28, 37, x, 35, xiii, 32, 33). In one place (vi, 1) the time of year is plainly shown to be that of harvest, and in another, the Sabbath year then present is clearly indicated by the reference to the fulfilment of of one of its obligations (cf. xi, 4, with Deut. xv, 1, 2). Sir Isaac Newton noticed that Christ referred in His parabolic teaching to things actually present, for instance, to the lilies of the field (xii, 27), indicating that it was the summer. Archbishop Trench has suggested that sowing was actually in progress when the parable of the sower was delivered; thus we have winter indicated at a certain part of Luke (A) (viii, 4-15), and also at a place in Luke (B) (xiii, 18, 19). There are also several other indirect allusions to the season of the year in Luke's Gospel, but we have not space to refer to them; they all harmonise chronologically with the threefold narrative theory. Another chronological indication is furnished by the teaching of the Lord,-it was only after the Transfiguration, during the last six months of the Ministry, that the clearest indications were given of the offer of salvation to the Gentiles; consistently with this fact we find references to their acceptance at the end of Luke (A) (x, 33, 36, 37); of Luke (B)

(xiii, 28-30, xiv, 23, 24) and of Luke (C) (xvii, 16, xx, 15, 16). Which of the other evangelists gives so much chronological information? Luke, too, is the only evangelist who definitely states that he writes "in order," not necessarily in an ordinary chronological arrangement, but in an ordered arrangement of some sort. All will agree with Canon Girdlestone in his statement that Luke "had his own methods of writing," but up to the present time the method of arrangement of his central chapters has been a great puzzle to most; some assert that these chapters demonstrate an order of thought or teaching, but what the special teaching may be has not been set forth and generally recognized. If, however, the threefold narrative scheme is accepted, we find a distinctively prominent spiritual teaching in each narrative* as recognized by Mr. Challis in the discussion, and by Canon Dodson in the Record of 4th August, 1911.

Dr. Irving thinks the fact has been lost sight of in the paper that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts are two volumes of one continued history. I quite agree that the two are closely linked together, but the Gospel was written first, and it is a separate treatise (Acts i, 1), culminating not only with the Crucifixion, but also with the Resurrection and Ascension. The paper is confined to Problems in the Gospel, and considerations of space prevented reference to other subjects.

Sir William Herschel thinks that Luke of course aimed at chronological order, but found the difficulties to be insuperable. If this be so, it is very difficult to understand the Evangelist's opening words that he had "traced the course of all things accurately from the first," and that he wrote "in order" (Luke i, 3).

The remarks of Mr. Challis, Revs. Thorburn, Nicol, Coles, and Boughey are all in agreement with the paper and call for no remark except hearty thanks for the encouragement they have given.†

* See St. Luke's Threefold Narrative, etc., pp. 15, 17, 19.

There are still a few reprints of the article," St. Luke's Threefold Narrative of Christ's Last Journey to Jerusalem," from The Interpreter, of April, 1911; should any Member or Associate of the Victoria Institute wish to read one, the Secretary will gladly supply him with a copy, on loan, on application.