ition. Such a procedure would be
contrary to the spirit of the apostolic age. The apostle himself
wrote by an amanuensis. But when one of his associates in the
ministry wrote, in whom he had full confidence, he left him to
the free exercise of his judgment under the illumination of the
Holy Spirit.

28. In respect to the _date_ of this gospel, if we assume that the Acts
of the Apostles were written at Rome about A.D. 63-65 (Chap. 5, No. 5),
it is reasonable to suppose that the gospel, which is dedicated to the
same personage, was composed not very long before, perhaps even during
the two years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, in which case Rome would
also be the _place_ of its composition. Whether Luke wrote before or
after Mark is a question that has been differently answered, and cannot
be determined with certainty. The proof that all three of the first
evangelists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem has been already
given. Chap. 3, No. 14.

29. Though Luke dedicates his gospel to Theophilus (chap, 1:1-4), it is
not to be supposed that it was written for his use alone. He had a more
_general end_ in view, and that is indicated by the form of our Lord's
genealogy as given by him. While Matthew traces the Saviour's lineage
through David to Abraham, in conformity with his design to show that he
is the promised seed of Abraham and king of Israel, Luke traces it back
through David and Abraham to Adam "the son of God." He identifies Jesus
of Nazareth not with the Messiah alone of Abraham's and David's line,
but with man as man. He is the second Adam, and as such the Saviour of
the race. This _universal aspect_ of the gospel, as a gospel not for one
nation but for all mankind, shines forth indeed in all the gospels, but
it appears with wonderful sweetness and power in some of the parables
which are peculiar to Luke, as those of the good Samaritan (chap.
10:30-37), the lost sheep (chap. 15:3-7), the lost pieces of silver
(chap. 15:8-10), the prodigal son (chap. 15:11-32); in all which Jesus
is set forth as the Saviour of suffering humanity.

30. As it respects the _character and plan_ of Luke's gospel, the
following particulars are to be noticed. In the distribution of matter
between the narration of events and the recital of our Lord's discourses
it holds a position between the first and the second gospel; being less
full in the latter respect than Matthew, but far more full than Mark. In
the narr