« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
THE book of scripture on which we are about to enter, is called, The Acts of the Apostles; a title, however, which was not, probably, given to it by the author; for it does not exactly correspond with the design of the work, which appears to have been, not to write a history of the transactions of every one of the apostles, but to give a general account of the first planting of the Christian religion in the world, and to enter no further into the miracles, discourses and travels of any of the apostles than was necessary for this purpose. They are the transactions of Peter and Paul, principally, which he has selected with this design. Very little is said about any of the other apostles, although, no doubt, they were all alike active in this great work.
This book is professedly written as a continuation of the gospel of Luke, as is manifest from the introduction, and, there is every reason to suppose, by the same author; being composed in the Greek language, in the same elegant style as that gospel, and having been universally attributed to that evangelist. Luke, it is generally allowed, was a physician, and may therefore be supposed to have had the benefit of some education. In this respect he had an advantage over the other evangelists, who were men of ordinary occupations, and wrote in language which corresponded with their situation in life. It has the same internal marks of being an authentic history which are to be found in the gospels. We observe in it the same simple and artless relation of facts, without any comments from the author to recommend
them; the same minute detail of particulars in regard to time and place; the same unreserved disclosure of errors and failings in Christians and Christian teachers. Events of a public nature, recorded or referred to in this work, are found to correspond with the accounts left us of those times by Jewish and heathen historians: a circumstance that must give them credibility in the estimation of those who rnay doubt the character of the author, and which greatly confirms the faith of the believer. But the strongest evidence of the truth and genuineness of this history is derived from the regard that was paid to it by the first Christians, who were themselves witnesses of the transactions which it relates, and therefore proper judges of the degree of credit to which it was entitled. Their opinion upon this subject must decide ours. By them it is referred to as an authentic record, in those few remains of their writings which are come down to our time; nor do they give us the smallest intimation that its authority was ever questioned or disputed. Quotations are made from it on this ground in Clement of Rome, in Ignatius and Polycarp; men who were contemporary with the apostles, and have been therefore called Apostolic Fathers. It is found in all the early catalogues of sacred books, and it was publicly read in the churches of Christians, along with the gospels. Stronger evidence than this of the authenticity of a book of the New Testament it is not possible to give.
Composers of books did not formerly annex dates to their writings, as it has been usual to do in modern times. We cannot, therefore, exactly ascertain at what time this book was written. But it could not be before the close of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, which happened in the year sixty-three; for to that event the history is brought down; it is not, however, probable that it was much later than that period. Mill and Lardner conclude, after the most careful consideration of the subject, that it was written and published, together with Luke's gospel, in the year sixty-four of the Christian æra, which is reck
(3) oned from the birth of Christ, or a little more than thirty years after his ascension; that is, at a time when great numbers were living who had been witnesses of the transactions here related, and while they were fresh in their inemories, and when, therefore, a false account could not fail to be detected and exposed.
“ This history contains an account of the choice of Matthias to be apostle in the room of the traitor, of the wonderful and plentiful pouring out of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other disciples of Jesus at Jerusalem, at the Pentecost next succeeding his crucifixion, and of the testimony borne by the apostles to his resurrection and ascension, in their discourses, and by many miracles, and various sufferings: their preaching first at Jerusalem, and inJudæa, and afterwards, by themselves or their assistants, in Samaria : and then to Gentiles in Judæa, and afterwards out of it, as well as to Jews: and of the conversion of Paul, and his preaching, miracles, labours, sufferings, in many cities and countries, parts of the Roman empire, and the polite world, and at length in Rome itself*.”
In the first nine chapters we have an account of the preaching of the gospel to the Jews, and of the reception which it met with from that people. In the remaining part of the book we have the history of the publication of it to Gentiles, first in Judæa and afterwards beyond the limits of that country. In the sixteenth chapter the writer joins his name with that of Paul, saying, “immediately after he had seen the vision, we endeavoured to go into Macedonia.” So that it appears that of all the subsequent transactions he was himself an eye-witness. The former part of the volume he had partly from his own knowledge, and partly from the information of others, who had the best opportunities of making themselves acquainted with what he relates.
Lardner, Vol. vi. p. 146.
(4) The first thirty years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was a very active period, in which much work was done in propagating the Christian religion, the bare recital of which would probably fill many volumes, and which only a few men of leisure would be able to read. Luke, therefore, writing for the instruction of men in every situation in life, has very wisely confined himself to a brief account of some of the principal transactions, which might be read by all. In consequence of pursuing this design, he has omitted many things about which we are very desirous to be informed.
It is the natural remark of an ancient Christian writer and orator, (Chrysostom) that Luke leaves us thirsting for more; but he very properly adds, had le written more it could only be a repetition of the same difficulties and dangers which he had recounted before, of imprisonments, tortures, tumults and deaths. On account of this studied brevity, and the abrupt manner in which he breaks off the history of individuals in several instances, it has been concluded by some that the author meant to write another volume, in which he might continue and complete the history which he had left defective in this. But however desirable such a continuation may seem to us, it does not appear that he had any such design. The truth is, that his object being not to aggrandize individuals, by entering into a minute account of their actions, whether Peter, Barnabas or Paul*, but to give us an idea of the first planting of the Christian religion, as soon as he had said as much as was necessary for this purpose, he breaks off his history. Thus he drops Paul himself, upon his confinement at Rome, although it appears that he was with him long afterwards, and might have continued his history much further, had he been so pleased, or had he conceived that such a work would be useful. There is no reason, therefore, to conclude, from such circumstances, that the present is an imperfect or incomplete work.
• Lardner, Vol. vi. p. 147.