that John had both these classes of heretics in view, and f that he wrote to confute their respective tenets. Yet, though he composed his Gospel principally with this design, he did not wholly confine himself to it; but took occasion to impart correct views of the nature and offices of Jesus Christ both to the Jews and Gentiles. Should this opinion be acceded to, it will reconcile the various cpinions of learned men concerning the real scope of John's Gospel. contents of this book -VII. Observations on its style.- and last of the historical books of the New Testament, and 1. THE book of the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES forms the fifth ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ, the Acts or Transactions of the VI. It is obvious to every attentive reader of this Gospel, that John studiously omits to notice those passages in our Lord's history and teaching, which had been related at length by the other evangelists, or if he mentions them at he gives his testimony that their narratives are faithful and all, it is in a very cursory manner. By pursuing this method true, and at the same time leaves himself room to enlarge the Gospel history. This confirms the unanimous declarations of ancient writers, that the first three Gospels were written and published before John composed his evangelical Apostles. In the Codex Alexandrinus, and many other manuhistory. In the account of our Saviour's passion, death, and scripts, it is entitled ПPAZE TON ATION AHOITOON, the resurrection, all the four Gospels coincide in many particu- Acts of the Holy Apostles, which title is also adopted by most lars; though here John has several things peculiar to him- of the Greek and Latin fathers. The first of these various self. In his Gospel, many things recorded by the other titles is that which is adopted in the printed editions, and in evangelists are omitted. He has given no account of our all modern versions; but by whom it was prefixed, it is now Saviour's nativity, nor of his baptism by John. He takes impossible to ascertain. In the Syriac version, according to no notice of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderness; nor the edition in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, the title is: "The of the call or names of the twelve apostles; nor of their Book of the Acts, that is, of the History of the Blessed mission during the ministry of Christ; nor of his para-in the Arabic version it is, "The beginning of the Book Apostles, composed by my holy lord Luke the Evangelist:" bles, or other discourses recorded by the first three evan- of the Acts of the [holy] Apostles;"-and in the Ethiopic gelists; nor of his journeys; nor of any of his predictions version, "The Acts of the Apostles, the transactions of the concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which are related by them; nor has John repeated any of Christ's miracles ministers, that is, the History of the holy Apostles." This recorded by them, except that of feeding five thousand book contains great part of the lives and transactions of Saint ple, which was probably repeated for the sake of the dis- Peter and Saint Paul, and of the history of the Christian course to which it gave birth. But, on the other hand, John church; commencing at the ascension of our Saviour, and mentions several incidents, which the other evangelists have being continued down to Saint Paul's arrival at Rome, after not noticed. Thus, he gives an account of our Lord's cleans- his appeal to Cæsar, comprising a period of about thirty ing the temple at the first passover, when he went to Jeru- years., salem; but all the other evangelists give a similar account of his cleansing the temple at his last passover. These two acts, however, are widely different. He relates the acts of Christ before the imprisonment of John the Baptist; the wedding at Cana; the cure of the man who had been blind from his birth; the resurrection of Lazarus; the indignation of Judas against the woman who anointed our Lord with ointment; the visit of the Greeks to Jesus; his washing the feet of his disciples; and his consolatory discourse to them previously to his passion. John's Gospel also contains more plain and frequent assurances than those occurring in the other Gospels, that Jesus is not only a prophet and messenger of God, but also that he is the Messiah, the Son of God: and asserts his pre-existence and Deity in the clearest and most distinct terms.' peo II. That Saint Luke was the author of the Acts of the is Both are inscribed to Apostles, as well as of the Gospel which bears his name, critics have conjectured that Saint Luke wrote the Gospels the frequent use of the first person plural, it is clear that he and Acts in one book, and divided it into two parts. From was present at most of the transactions he relates. He appears to have accompanied Saint Paul from Troas to Philippi; he also attended him to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Rome, where he remained two years, during that apostle's first confinement. Accordingly we find Saint Luke particularly VII. Salmasius, Grotius, Bolten, and other critics have mentioned in two of the epistles written by Saint Paul, from imagined that John did not write his Gospel originally in Rome, during that confinement. As the book of Acts is Greek, but in the Syriac language. This hypothesis, how-continued to the end of the second year of Saint Paul's imever, is contradicted by the unanimous consent of Christian Prisonment, it could not have been written before the year 63; antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek. In addi- and, as the death of that apostle is not mentioned, it is pro tion to the observations already offered, respecting the original is supposed to have happened A. D. 65. For these reasons, bable that the book was composed before that event, which language of the New Testament, we may remark, that the Hebraisms occurring in this Gospel clearly prove that it was Michaelis, Dr. Lardner, Dr. Benson, Rosenmaller, Bishop originally written by a Jew. His style is pronounced by Tomline, and the generality of critics, assign the date of this book to the year 63. Michaelis to be better and more fluent than that of the other evangelists; and he ascribes this excellence to the facility and taste in the Greek language, which the apostle seems to have acquired from his long residence at Ephesus. His narrative is characterized by singular perspicuity, and by the most unaffected simplicity and benevolence. There are few passages in Holy Writ more deeply affecting than this evangelist's narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus.1 SECTION VI. ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. early Christian fathers bear unanimous testimony. Not to III. To the genuineness and authenticity of this book, the mention the attestations of the apostolic fathers, in the first century, which have been collected by Mr. Jones, Drs. Benson and Lardner, we may remark that Irenæus and Tertullian,8 in the second century, both ascribed the Acts of the Apostles to Saint Luke. And their evidence is corroborated by that of Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Eusebius, and all subsequent ecclesiastical writers. Further, Chrysostom and other fathers inform us, that this book was annually read in the churches, every day between the festivals of Easter and Pentecost or Whitsuntide.10 The Valentinians, indeed, as I. Title.-II. Author and date.-III. Genuineness and authen-well as the Marcionites, Severians, and some Manicheans, ticity.-IV. Scope.-V. Chronology.-VI. Analysis of the Col. iv. 14. Philem. 24. Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. pp. 129-136. Dr. Benson's Hist. of the First Planting of Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 325-330. 2d edit. Dr. Lardner's Works, Index, voce Acts of the Apostles. p. 330. Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 162, 163.; 4to. vol. i. p. 368. Benson, vol. ii Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 261, 262.; 4to. vol. i. p. 452. Benson, vol. ii. p. 331. Benson, vol. ii. pp. 321-324. Lardner, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 145-147.; 4to vol. iii. pp. 206, 207. 10 Benson, vol. ii. p. 332. Lardner, 8vo. vol. v. pp. 133, 134.; 4to. vol. ü. p. 605. the book. council in Jerusalem relative to the Levitical law: and for the rejected the Acts of the Apostles, not from historical reasons, but because they militated against their opinions; for the Gnostics (of which sect the Valentinians and Marcionites were a branch) affirmed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the New Testament: and that another Christ, different from our Saviour, was promised. The Severians and Encratites strenuously insisted upon abstinence from certain articles of food; whereas, in the book of Acts, the promiscuous use of food is allowed. Lastly, Manes wished himself to be taken for "the Comforter," who had been promised by Christ to his apostles; but in the Acts it is related that the Comforter that had been so promised was the Holy Spirit, who had been sent. The reasons, therefore, why the book was rejected by the above-mentioned sects, were not historical, but doctrinal; because the narrative of the sacred historian contradicted their dogmas; and as their errors were detected and refuted by contemporary writers,' the unqualified and unsupported assertions of these heretics are so far from impugning the veracity and genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles, that on the contrary, they afford a decisive and collateral testimony in favour of IV. Saint Luke does not appear to have intended to write a complete ecclesiastical history of the Christian church, during the first thirty years after our Saviour's ascension, nor even of Saint Paul's life during that period; for he has almost wholly omitted what passed among the Jews after the conversion of that apostle, and is totally silent concerning the spread of Christianity in the East and in Egypt, as well as the foundation of the church of Christ at Rome, Saint Paul's journey into Arabia, and many other topics, though the labours and sufferings of the other apostles could not but have afforded the most interesting materials, had it fallen within his design to have composed an entire history of the church. If we carefully examine the Acts of the Apostles, we shall perceive that Saint Luke had two objects in view:-1. To relate in what manner the gifts of the Holy Spirit were communicated on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent miracles performed by the apostles, by which the truth of Christianity was confirmed. An authentic account of this matter was absolutely necessary, because Christ had often assured his disciples that they should receive the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers, therefore, whether Jews or Heathens, might have made objections to our religion if it had not been shown that Christ's declarations were really fulfilled.-2. To deliver such accounts as proved the claim of the Gentiles to admission into the Church of Christ,-a claim disputed by the Jews, especially at the time when Saint Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. And it was this very circumstance which excited the hatred of the Jews against Saint Paul, and occasioned his imprisonment in Rome, with which Saint Luke closes his history. Hence we see the reason why he relates (ch. viii.) the conversion of the Samaritans, and (ch. x. xi.) the story of Cornelius, whom Saint Peter (to whose authority the adversaries of Saint Paul had appealed in favour of circumcision2) baptized, though he was not of the circumcision. Hence also Saint Luke relates the determination of the first same reason he is more diffuse in his account of Saint Paul's conversion, and Saint Paul's preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, than on any other subject. It is true that the whole relation, which Saint Luke has given (ch. xii.), has no connection with the conversion of the Gentiles: but during the period to which that chapter relates, Saint Paul himself was present at Jerusalem (see Acts xi. 30. xii. 25.), and it is probable, for that reason, that Saint Luke has introduced it. But there is, 3. A third opinion which Michaelis thinks not devoid of probability, viz. that Saint Luke might design to record only those facts, which he had either seen himself or had heard from eye-witnesses.3 Irenæus adversus Hæreses, lib. iii. c. 12. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 21. Augustine epist. 251. et contra Faustum, lib. xix. c. 31. 2 See Galat. ii. 6-21. Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 327-331. Dr. Benson, however, is of opinion that Saint Luke designed his book to be only a concise specimen of the doctrines preached by the apostles, and that he was chiefly desirous of describing the manner in which the Jews, proselytes of the gate, or devout Gentiles, and the idolatrous Gentiles, were respectively converted. Hence this learned author divides the book into three parts or books, viz. 1. The first part contains an account of the propagation of the Gospel among the Jews only, from A. D. 33. to A. D. 41. including chapter ii. to x. 2. The second comprises an account of the spreading of Christianity among the devout Gentiles, together with its farther progress among the Jews, A. D. 41. to A. D 44. (Acts x-xiii.) 3. And the third part comprehends the diffusion of Christianity among the idolatrous Gentiles, together with its further progress among the two preceding classes of persons, A. D. 44. to A. D. 63. (Acts xiii.-xxviii.) Benson's Hist. of the First Planting of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 22-24. V. The Acts of the Apostles, Michaelis observes, were evidently written with a tolerably strict attention to chronological order; though Saint Luke has not affixed a date to any one of the facts recorded by him. There are, however, several parts of this book, in which ecclesiastical history is combined with political facts, the dates of which are known: and these Michaelis has endeavoured to determine, because the chronology will not only contribute to illustrate the Acts of the Apostles, but also will assist us in fixing the year when many of Saint Paul's Epistles were written. Taking for granted, therefore, that this book commences with the year 33, of the Christian æra (in which calculation he follows Archbishop Usher), he has given us the following series of dates : 1. "The First epoch, after the commencement of the book, is at ch. xi. 29, 30.; for what happened between the first Pentecost after Christ's ascension and this period is without any marks of chronology. But at ch. xi. 29, 30. we have a date; for the famine which took place in the time of Claudius Cæsar, and which induced the disciples at Antioch to send relief to their brethren in Judæa, happened in the fourth year of Claudius's reign, that is, in the year 44 of the Christian æra. to death the apostle St. James; and about that time Saint Paul 2. "Second epoch. Herod Agrippa dies soon after he had put and Saint Barnabas return from Jerusalem to Antioch. (ch. xii. 21-25.) This is still in the year 44. of the Jews from Italy by Claudius Cæsar, Saint Paul arrives at 3. "Third epoch. (ch. xviii. 2.) Shortly after the banishment Corinth. Commentators affix the date of 54 to this event; but it is uncertain, for Suetonius, the only historian who has noticed this banishment of the Jews, mentions it without date. 4. "Fourth epoch. Saint Paul comes to Jerusalem, where he is imprisoned by the Jews, not long after the disturbances which were excited by the Egyptian. (ch. xxi. 37-39.) This imprisonment of Saint Paul happened in the year 60, for it was two years before Felix quitted his government of Judæa. (ch. xxiii. 26. xxiv. 27.) 5. "Fifth epoch. Two years after the commencement of Saint Paul's imprisonment, Festus is appointed governer of Judæa, A. D. 62. (ch. xxiv. 27. xxv. 1.) "From this period the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles is clear. Saint Paul is sent prisoner to Rome in the autumn of the same year in which Festus arrived in Judæa: he suffers shipwreck, passes the winter in Malta, and arrives in Rome in the following year, that is, in 63. (ch. xxvi. xxvii. xxviii.) "The Acts of the Apostles close with the end of the second year of Saint Paul's imprisonment in Rome: consequently in the year 65. (ch. xxviii. 30.)" It is difficult to determine the date of the events that happened between the epochs 33 and 34, and between 44 and 60, council at Jerusalem: Archbishop Usher places the first of especially the time of Saint Paul's conversion and of the these transactions A. D. 35, others in 38. But, though we cannot attain to absolute certainty, a probable conjecture may be formed. Thus, Michaelis remarks, Saint Stephen hardly suffered martyrdom before Pilate was recalled from the government of Judæa; because, under that procurator, the Jews had not the power of inflicting capital punishments. Now, according to Usher, the year in which Pilate was recalled, was the thirty-sixth of the Christian æra: Saint Stephen's martyrdom, therefore, probably happened after 36.-If this be true, Saint Paul's conversion must have happened likewise after 36, and therefore 35 is too early a date. But how long after 36, whether in 38, cannot be determined. ranged between 33 and 36, Michaelis cannot determine: for In what manner the chapters iii. iv. v. vi. are to be arwhat chronologers have said is mere conjecture, and not calculation. The same uncertainty prevails in respect to ch. viii. and x.: for we can affirm nothing more, than that the one must be placed before the other after 36. We are likewise in the dark with respect to ch. xiii. xiv. and several other chapters. Of ch. xvi. we may assert, that it belongs to a period at least six years prior to the fourth epoch, or the year 60 for a year and a half at Corinth, three years at Ephesus, and the time spent on several journeys, can hardly be pressed into a smaller compass than that of six years. To ch. xvi., therefore, the latest date which can be assigned is 54: and it is not improbable that it should be dated still earlier.* Michaelis, vol. iii. part. i. pp. 336-338. The chronology of the Acts of the Apostles is discussed at considerable length in Hug's Introduction to New Test. vol. ii. pp. 312-334, and (so far as concerns the travels and writings of Saint Paul) by the reviewer of that work in the British Critio for April 1828, pp. 261-317. VI. The Acts of the Apostles, as they appear in our copies, may be divided into three principal parts; viz. PART I. contains the Rise and Progress of the Mother Church at Jerusalem from the Time of our Saviour's Ascension to the first Jewish Persecution. (ch. i.—viii.) SECT. 1. The transactions before and after Jesus Christ's ascension into heaven. (i.) SECT. 2. The descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles at the SECT. 3. A lame man healed by Peter and John-Peter's PART II. comprises the Dispersion of the Disciples-the Pro- SECT. 1. The planting of the church at Samaria. (viii. 5-25.) SECT. 3. The conversion, baptism, and first preaching of SECT. 4. Account of two miracles performed by Peter, and SECT. 6. The apostle James put to death by Herod Agrippa,- PART III. describes the Conversion of the more remote Gentiles, SECT. 2. Discussion of the question by the apostles at Jeru- SECT. 3. Paul's second departure from Antioch-He preaches SECT. 6. Paul's third departure from Antioch-Consequences In perusing the Acts of the Apostles, it will be desirable constantly to refer to the accompanying map of their respective journeys, particularly those of Saint Paul. In constructing this map, the accurate geographer D'Anville has principally been followed; the courses of the several winds that usually blow in the Levant or Mediterranean sea, together with their ancient names, are inserted from Dr. Shaw. VII. The narrative of the Acts of the Apostles is perspicuous and noble. Though it is not entirely free from Hebraisms, it is in general much purer than that of most Travels in Barbary, vol. ii. p. 131. 3d edit. other books of the New Testament, particularly in the VIII. The Acts of the Apostles afford abundant eviden of the truth and divine original of the Christian religio for we learn from this book, that the Gospel was not indebt for its success to deceit or fraud, but that it was wholly t result of the mighty power of God, and of the excellen and efficacy of the saving truths which it contains. T general and particular doctrines, comprised in the Acts of th Apostles, are perfectly in unison with the glorious truths vealed in the Gospels, and illustrated in the Apostolic Epi tles; and are admirably suited to the state of the persor whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom they were address And the evidence which the apostles gave of their doctring in their appeals to prophecies and miracles, and the vario gifts of the Spirit, were so numerous and so strong, and the same time so admirably adapted to every class of perso that the truth of the religion which they attest cannot reasonably disputed. 1 Further, the history itself is credible. It was written by person who was acquainted with the various circumstanc which he relates, and who was both able and disposed: give a faithful narrative of every thing that occurred. Sai Luke was a companion of the apostles; he was himself cerned in many of the incidents he has recorded. In eye and ear witness of the facts, and was personally co the miraculous facts related in it are neither impossib history itself there are no inconsistencies or contradiction when we consider the almighty power of God to which th are ascribed; nor improbable, when we consider the gr design and occasion on account of which they were perfor ed. The plainness and simplicity of the narrative are a strong circumstances in its favour. The writer appears have been very honest and impartial, and to have set do fairly the objections which were made to Christianity be by Jews and Heathens, and the reflections which were c upon it, as well as upon its first preachers. He has, lil wise, with a just and ingenuous freedom, mentioned t weaknesses, faults, and prejudices, both of the apostles a of their converts. The occasional hints, which are dispers through the epistles of Saint Paul, harmonize with the fa related in the history of the Acts of the Apostles; so t this history is the best guide we can have in studying epistles. The other parts of the New Testament are in |