his journey into Spofo (if, indeed, he went to Spa.in) 1 a.nd his second triRJ and martyrdom, had not taken place when St. Luke finished his history, because it is utterly inconceivable that, if they he.cl, he shonld not have mentioned them. But it is highly probable that incidents connected with St. Pan.I's first trial, and consequent immediate departure from Rome, put a stop at the moment to all literary work, and that, if St. Luke designed continuing hie history, hie purpose was frustrated by circumstances of which we have no certain knowledge. It may have been hie employment in missionary work; it may have been other hindrances; it may have been his death; for we have really no knowledge whatever of St. Luke's life subse- quent to the oloee of the Acts of the Apostles, except the mention of him as being still with St. Pan.I at the time of the writing of his Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Tim. iv.11). If this Epistle were written from Rome during St. Paul's second imprisonment, this won.Id bring down our knowledge of St. Luke two years later than the close of the Acts. But it ie easy to con- ceive that even in this case many can.see may have hindered his continuing hie history. It should be added that the fa.et of the Gospel of St. Luke having been written before the Acts (eh. i. 1) presents no difficulty in the way of the above date for the composition of the Acts, as St. Pan.I's two years of enforced leisure at Cmsarea while St. Luke was with him afforded as con- venient and appropriate atime for the composition of the Gospel with St. Paul's help, 8iB tbe two years at Rome did for the composition of the Acts. Mayer's reason (' Introd. to Acts') for placing the composition of the Gospel and consequently of the Acts much later, viz. because the destruction of Jerusalem is referred to in our Lord's prophetic discourse in Luke xxi. 20, is not worthy of the consideration of e. Christia11. If the reason is a sound one, the Gospel ceases t.o be of any value, since the writer of it fabricated falsehoods.
§ 4. SOURCES. The inquiry int.o the sources from which St. Luke derived hie knowledge of the facts which he relates is one the fitness of which St. Luke himself assures us of when he is at pains to satisfy us of the sufficiency of his own sources of information in respect to the narrative contained in his Gospel 1 (Luke i.1......-4; comp. too eh. i. 21; x. 89--42). It is, then, most satisfactory to know that in St. Luke we have not only an author in whom the historical instinct was most strong and clear, and in whom a calm judicial spirit and a lucid perception of truth were conspicuous qualities, but one who had also 1 Dr. Farrar ('Life lldld Work of St. Pe.ul,' vol. ii. oh. liii.) argues against the journey
into Spa.in, But the me.in strength of the e.rgnment rests upon the hypothesis the.t tha Epistles to Timothy were written during his le.st imprisonment e.t Rome. • Bee Chrysostom's remarks on St. Luke's care "to intimate how strictly he may be depended upon" in his account of things which he received from others, e.nd of things whioh he HW and heard himself, in his lil;at homily on the Acts of the Apostles. INTRODUCTION 'fO
umivalfod opportunities of l-nowing the cerfa,inty of those things which form the subject of h1s history. The intimate friend e.nd constant com- panion of St. Paul, 11baring hie missi"nary labours, bound to him by ties of mutue.l affection, and, especially, passing two several periods of two years with him in the quiet and leisure of hie confinement ns e. state prisoner,- he must have known all that St. Paul knew on th11t subject of absorbing interest to them both, the progress of the gospel of Christ. Of at least twelve years of St. Paul's life he we.s himself a close observer. Of the time that preceded bis own acquaintance with him he could learn all the particulars from the apostle's own lips. The characters and actions of e.U the great pillars of the Church were familiar to him, partly from personal intercourse and partly from the copious information which he would receive from Paul and other contemporaries. Peter, John, James, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Aquila, Priscilla, e.nd many others were all known by him, either personally or through those who were intimately acquainted with them. And as his history was composed while he wes with St. Paul at Rome, he had the means at hand of verifying every statement and receiving correction on every doubtful point. It is impossible to conceive any one better qualified by position than St. Luke was to be the first Church historian. And his simple, clear, and often graphic and copious, narrative exactly corresponds with such situation. As regards the earlier chapters and the episode from eh. ix. 32 to eh. xii. 20, in which St. Peter occupies so prominent a place, and in which his speeches and actions are so fully described, we cannot say certainly from what source St. Luke derived his knowledge. Many things suggest the thought that he may have learnt them from St. Peter himself ; or possibly that there may have been extant some one or more narratives by an eye-witness, whose materials St. Luke incorporated in his own work. These, however, are matters of uncertain conjecture, though the internal evidence of full and accura.te information is unmistakable. But from the moment that Paul appears upon the stage, we cannot doubt that he was the chief source of St. Luke's information as regards all those transactions which occurred before he joined him or at such times as he was separated from him. His own observation supplied the rest, with the help of the friends above enumerated. It is interesting to remember, further, that St. Luke mnst have seen many -0£ the secnlar personages whom he introduces in his narrative: possibly Herod Agrippa, and presumably his son King Agrippa, Felix, Porcius Festns, Ananias the high priest, Publins, and others. At Rome it is lik:ely that he would see Nero and some of the principal persons of his conrt. There is no evidence, either in the Gospel or in the Acts, that St. Luke ever saw our Lord. The assertion of Epiphanins and of Adamantius (pseudo- ~rigen), that he was one of the seventy, carries no weight with it. It is •inconsurt.ent with St. Luke's own statement (Luke i. 2), and with other traditions, which make him a native of Antioch and one of St. Paul'• convert.a. This, however, by the way. THE ACTS OF 'fllE APOSTL~S. vii
St. Luke's historical and geographical 1 accuracy hae been frequently observed e,s an evidence of hie acquaintance with secular as well as eacrerl writings. He appears to have been well read in the Septuagint, including the apocryphal writings.