department of theology. Where had Luke been in the interval betwixt the one attendance on St. Paul and the other?

Not at Philippi: that is next to certain. Not in Crete, or in Ephesus, as the absence of his name from those epistles, 1 TIM. and TITUS, may serve alone to testify. At Troas he might possibly have been, or even at Antioch: but it is a possibility without the vestige of a fact to render it at all probable. As to Corinth, apparently he had never been there; and he was very little likely to visit that city now.

From what is known regarding his antecedent locality at Cesarea or in Palestine generally, it cannot be thought unlikely that he should visit that country again, acquainted as he must have been with many believers and Christian brethren wherever he, "the be-.

loved physician," had gone. Even that consideration would favour the Holy Land in preference to any other region which our conjecture is at liberty to embrace. There too, when writing the Acts, he must have been quite out of the way of St. Paul. The very words at the conclusion of that book,

A. xxviii. 30. Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house,

Not only show, that the historian and the apostle were at that time absent from each other; but rather indicate also, that they were then in a state of distant separation, without any direct correspondence or intercourse.

Now the apostolic occupation of St. Paul, on his fourth progress, within the Ægean sea, or in those parts north-west of Greece at this very period, would harmonise exactly with the position of Luke at Cesarea or Jerusalem, to establish that relative state of things. That is, Luke if so situated, could know nothing more of St. Paul, than his deliverance from the imprison

ment intelligence certain to reach him wherever he then was, as from Rome it would travel far and fast among the brethren every where that believed.

But this is not all. On our calculation of St. Paul's labours and progresses, by whom accompanied, and where employed, &c. it is very clear, that, consistently with other facts, the only time which can be allowed for Luke's writing the Acts and for giving publication to the work, must be fixed after the apostle's first and before his second imprisonment at Rome. Not only so: but wherever in that interval of time we are inclined to find a locality for Luke, we must find for him a situation also favourable to his acquiring more historical and local knowledge as to those transactions in the early part of the Acts, than he could have derived either from conversation with St. Paul or from having witnessed what was said and done only by that apostle.

With a view then to answer all the phenomena of the case, in the peculiarity of the time, in the appropriateness of situation, and let me add, in the neighbourhood also to Theophilus, what other supposition has been offered, bearing any pretension to the character of a just hypothesis?

Having looked all around for such a locality, I cannot discover any one else in the least degree probable: I can hardly indeed imagine any other, except that which the reader has already anticipated. In a word, for the reasons here suggested, Luke must have naturally sought the situation of Cesarea, so as to write the Acts of the Apostles, under the same advantageous circumstances, in which a few years before he had written the Gospel. And there also meeting with Theophilus, it may be having even expected to meet with him, in the same place, to Theophilus he properly addressed also the Acts of the Apostles.

From his dedicating, however, those works to Theophilus, we are by no means to conclude, that Luke originally drew up either the Gospel or the Acts with any partial view to the benefit of an individual, however eminent he might be. No doubt, those works were so far connected with his personal instruction, that before all others he might first enjoy the perusal, perhaps confidentially know of the composition, while in each case it was going on. Beyond this, all appropriation of either history to the enlightening of the mind of one person (whether Jew or Greek) is as improbable, à priori, as it is void of support from any intimation which internal evidence can bestow.

The entire history of Christianity, from the birth of Christ to a remarkable era in the labours of his most illustrious apostle, was a work divinely vouchsafed and secured as a blessing for all countries of the world. And naturally, therefore, at that day Luke, writing as a Greek for Greek readers generally, has given the least information where in general it was least required, in respect of Asia, Greece, Italy, and the most where it would most be wanted, in respect of Galilee, for instance, and Judea.

The prefixing, therefore, of such a name, whether to the Gospel or to the Acts, must be considered in a far more serious aspect than that of a personal compliment. Such an inscription, if we are right in conjecturing that Theophilus in Judea, after once being high priest, had professed himself a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, would give to God's holy gospel especially, to that light for lightening the Gentiles, the highest advantage of immediate authority with his people Israel, which any dedication to man could possibly confer. And we may well believe the name of Theophilus to have been

so prefixed by the direction of the Holy Spirit for the accomplishment of that very end.

Finally, then, after the fullest consideration carefully bestowed on the subject, I feel no hesitation in declaring myself inclined to propose, not indeed as now capable of demonstration, but as possessing the only claim to rational preference on intelligible grounds, the distinct answer here given to the question: Where was Luke when he wrote the Gospel? and to the second question equally interesting, Where was he when he wrote the book of Acts?

Let me, of course, be understood not only willingly, but with much gratitude and delight, to acknowledge my deep sense of obligation to Theodore Hase. To him, in the report of Michaelis, u. s., I am entirely indebted for the first suggestion respecting the Gospel : from that bright and happy conjecture, I have borrowed the light which is here transferred, to discover the locality of composition for the Acts also. At the same time, let me candidly avow, that this second hypothesis, whether it be altogether mine or it has been forestalled, does more than merely harmonise with the first, which gave birth to it: it appears to me to lend to its parent in return no small confirmation besides, from the strength of its own separate rationality.

The plain point at issue, if taken on its early grounds and independently of any later traditions, seems to stand thus:

Paul, in writing from Corinth to the ROMANS, xv. 24. 28., expresses his design or hope to visit Rome, on his way then projected to visit Spain: this declaration he makes, when on the eve of setting off for Jerusalem.

But when he arrives at Jerusalem, Acrs xxi. 17., which city he reaches (xx. 16.) in time for the feast of Pentecost, he is there violently apprehended, and there detained two years a prisoner at Cesarea, under Jewish persecution.

After a long and dangerous voyage, and when three years or more had elapsed from his leaving Corinth, he reaches Rome as a prisoner, and is there detained two years more.

On his deliverance, then, at the close of that time, and after that length of various imprisonments, it is gravely proposed as a matter for us to believe, and as an event altogether necessary to take place, that Paul should immediately set about to realise an intention five years before announced, not, be it remarked, to any