SECT. 2. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (viii. 26-40.) SECT. 3. The conversion, baptism, and first preaching of St. Paul. (ix.)

SECT. 4. Account of two miracles performed by Peter, and the conversion of Cornelius and his family. (x. xi. 1-18.)

SECT. 5. The first Gentile church founded at Antioch. (xi. 19— 30.)

SECT. 6. The apostle James put to death by Herod Agrippa,relation of his miserable death. (xii.)

PART III. describes the Conversion of the more remote Gentiles, by Barnabas and Paul, and, after their Separation, by Paul and his Associates, among whom was Luke himself during the latter part of Paul's Labours. (xii.—xxviii.)

SECT. 1. The planting of several churches in the isle of Cyprus, at Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe-The return of St. Paul to Antioch. (xiii. xiv.) SECT. 2. Discussion of the question by the apostles at Jerusalem concerning the necessity of circumcision, and of observing the law-Their letter to the churches on this subject. (xv. 1-35.) SECT. 3. Paul's second departure from Antioch-He preaches the Gospel in various countries, particularly at Philippi in Macedonia The conversion of the Philippian gaoler. (xv. 36-41., xvi.) SECT. 4. The journeys and apostolical labours of Paul and his associates at Thessalonica, Beroa, and Athens- His masterly apology before the court of the Areopagites. (xvii.)

SECT. 5. Paul's journey to Corinth, and thence to Antioch. (xviii. 1-22.)

SECT. 6. Paul's third departure from Antioch-Consequences of his preaching at Ephesus. (xviii. 23—28., xix.)

SECT. 7. The labours of Paul in Greece and Asia Minor, and his journey towards Jerusalem. (xx.)

SECT. 8. The persecution of Paul at Jerusalem-He is sent a prisoner to Cæsarea. (xxi.-xxiii. 1—30.)

SECT. 9. Paul's arrival at Cæsarea-The charges of the Jews against him- His defence before Felix- Appeal to CæsarHis defence before Agrippa, at whose request his cause was reheard. (xxiii. 31-35., xxiv.-xxvi.)

SECT. 10. Narrative of Paul's voyage from Cæsarea-His shipwreck on the isle of Malta-His voyage thence to Rome, where he preaches the Gospel to the Jews, and resides for two years, (xxvii. xxviii.)

In perusing the Acts of the Apostles, it will be desirable constantly to refer to the accompanying map illustrating the travels of St. Paul. [Although it would be impossible to give in this place, without occupying undue space, a minute analysis of the narration of the voyage of St. Paul and his companions, as recorded in Acts xxvii. ; yet it would be unwarrantable neglect to pass by in silence the valuable researches on this subject of JAMES SMITH, Esq., of Jordanhill ;

1

whose work may now be considered as classical with regard to the narration contained in this portion of Scripture. To Mr. Smith's work the accompanying map is indebted for some of its more interesting particulars in connection with modern researches. The points relative to this voyage on which any doubt or difficulty existed are minutely examined, and the necessary conditions and results are stated as drawn from observation, from the facts of ancient navigation, and from processes of reasoning, with scientific accuracy. The most obvious result which would strike even an ordinary reader is the demonstrated identification of that Melita where the shipwreck took place with Malta, and the consequent refutation of the claims advanced for Meleda on the coast of Dalmatia. Mr. Smith has raised this from being an opinion highly probable to the region of ascertained fact. His researches are truly valuable as a contribution to Biblical geography, and as an illustration of a portion of New Testament history.]

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 most other books of the New Testament, particularly in the speeches delivered by St. Paul at Athens, and before the Roman governors. It is further worthy of remark, that St. Luke has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as speaking. Thus the speeches and discourses of St. Peter are recorded with simplicity, and are destitute of all those ornaments which usually occur in the orations of the Greeks and Romans. Nearly similar are the speeches of St. Paul, which were addressed to the Jews, while those delivered by the same apostle before an heathen audience are widely different. Thus, in his discourse delivered at Antioch in Pisidia, he commences with a long periphrasis, the force and point of which depended on the fact that he was speaking in a Jewish synagogue. On the contrary, the speech of the martyr Stephen (Acts vii.) is altogether of a different description. It is a learned but unpremeditated discourse, pronounced by a person making no display of the art of oratory; and though he certainly had a particular object in view, to which the several parts of his discourse were directed, yet it is difficult to some to discover this object, because his materials are not so disposed that it is obvious to those who do not enter into the scope of his remarks. Lastly, St. Paul's discourses before assemblies that were accustomed to Grecian oratory, are totally different from any of the preceding. Though not adorned with the flowers of rhetoric, the language is pointed and energetic, and the materials are judiciously selected and arranged, as is manifest in his speech delivered at Athens (Acts xvii. 22-31.), and in his two defences of himself before the Roman governors of Judæa. (xxiv. xxvi.) Dr. Benson and Michaelis, however, are both of opinion that

1 ["The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, with Dissertations on the Sources of the Writings of St. Luke and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients," London, 1848. Mr. Alford in his notes on Acts xxvii. has given a concise statement of Mr. Smith's results.] 2 Acts xiii. 16-41.

St. Luke has given abstracts only, and not the whole, of St. Paul's speeches; for in his speech before Felix, he must certainly have said more than is recorded by St. Luke (xxiv. 12, 13.); unless we suppose that St. Paul merely denied the charge which had been laid against him, without confuting it. Michaelis adds that, in his opinion, St. Luke has shown great judgment in these abstracts; and that, if he has not retained the very words of St. Paul, he has adopted such as were well suited to the polished audiences before which the apostle spoke.1

VIII. The Acts of the Apostles afford abundant evidence of the truth and divine original of the Christian religion; for we learn from this book, that the Gospel was not indebted for its success to deceit or fraud, but that it was wholly the result of the mighty power of God, and of the excellence and efficacy of the saving truths which it contains. The general and particular doctrines comprised in the Acts of the Apostles are perfectly in unison with the glorious truths revealed in the Gospels, and illustrated in the apostolic Epistles; and are admirably suited to the state of the persons, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom they were addressed. And the evidences which the apostles gave of their doctrine, in their appeals to prophecies and miracles, and the various gifts of the Spirit, were so numerous and so strong, and at the same time so admirably adapted to every class of persons, that the truth of the religion which they attest cannot be reasonably disputed.

Further, the history itself is credible. It was written by a person who was acquainted with the various circumstances which he relates, and who was both able and disposed to give a faithful narrative of everything that occurred. St. Luke was a companion of the apostles; he was himself an eye and ear witness of the facts, and was personally concerned in many of the incidents he has recorded. In the history itself there are no inconsistencies or contradictions; the miraculous facts related in it are neither impossible, when we consider the almighty power of God to which they are ascribed; nor improbable, when we consider the grand design and occasion on account of which they were performed. The plainness and simplicity of the narrative are also strong circumstances in its favour. The writer appears to have been very honest and impartial, and to have set down fairly the objections which were made to Christianity both by Jews and heathens, and the reflections which were cast upon it, as well as upon its first preachers. He has likewise, with a just and ingenuous freedom, mentioned the weaknesses, faults, and prejudices, both of the apostles and of their converts. The occasional hints, which are dispersed through the Epistles of St. Paul, harmonise with the facts related in the history of the Acts of the Apostles; so that this history and the Epistles are mutual aids on many points. The other parts of the New Testament are in perfect unison with the history, and

'Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 331-335. Benson's History of the First Planting of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 258.

tend to confirm it; for the doctrines and principles are everywhere the same. The Gospels close with references to the facts recorded in the Acts, particularly the promise of the Holy Spirit, which we know from the Acts was poured out by Christ upon his disciples after his ascension; and the Epistles, generally, plainly suppose that those facts had actually occurred which the history relates. So that the history of the Acts is one of the most important parts of sacred history; for, without it, neither the Gospels nor the Epistles could have been so clearly understood; but by the aid of this book the whole scheme of the Christian revelation is set before us in a clear and easy view. Lastly, the incidental circumstances, mentioned by St. Luke, correspond so exactly, and without any previous view to such a correspondence (in cases, too, where it could not possibly have been premeditated and precontrived), with the accounts that occur in the Epistles, and with those of the best ancient historians, both Jews and heathens, that no person who had forged such a history, in later ages, could have had the same external confirmation; but he must have betrayed himself, by alluding to some customs or opinions which have since sprung up, or by misrepresenting some circumstances, or using some phrase or expression not then in use. The plea of forgery, therefore, in later ages, cannot be allowed; and if St. Luke had published such a history at so early a period, when some of the apostles, or many other persons concerned in the transactions which he has recorded, were alive, and his account had not been true, he would only have exposed himself to an easy confutation, and to certain infamy.

Since, therefore, the Acts of the Apostles are in themselves consistent and uniform; the incidental relations agreeable to the best ancient historians that have come down to us; and the main facts supported and confirmed by the other books of the New Testament, as well as by the unanimous testimony of so many of the ancient fathers, we are justly authorised to conclude, that, if any history of former times deserves credit, the Acts of the Apostles ought to be received and credited; and if the history of the Acts of the Apostles is true, Christianity cannot be false; for a doctrine so good in itself, so admirably adapted to the fallen state of man, and attended with so many miraculous and divine testimonies, has all the possible marks of a true revelation.2

CHAP. VIII.

ACCOUNT OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

I. SAUL, also called Paul, (by which name this illustrious apostle was generally known after his preaching among the Gentiles, especially among the Greeks and Romans,) was a Hebrew of the He

'Dr. Paley's Hora Paulinæ amplifies the argument above suggested from these coincidences, and is indispensably necessary to a critical study of the Epistles.

2 Dr. Benson's Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 333-341.

brews, a descendant of the patriarch Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin', and a native of Tarsus, then the chief city of Cicilia. By birth he was a citizen of Rome, a distinguished honour and privilege, which had been conferred on some of his ancestors for services rendered to the commonwealth during the wars.3 His father was a Pharisee, and he himself was educated in the most rigid principles of that sect. Some of his relations were Christians, and had embraced the Gospel before his conversion; his sister's son may have been one of these. That he was early educated in Greek literature at Tarsus, may be inferred from that place being celebrated for polite learning 6 and eloquence, and also from his quotations of several Greek poets." From Tarsus, Saul removed to Jerusalem, where he made considerable proficiency in the study of the law, and the Jewish traditions, under Gamaliel, a celebrated teacher of that day. He appears to have been a person of great natural abilities, of quick apprehension, strong passions, and firm resolution; and was thus qualified for signal service, as a teacher of whatever principles he might embrace. He was also externally blameless in his life, and strictly faithful to the dictates of his conscience, according to the knowledge, or want of knowledge, which he possessed: this is evident from his appeals to the Jews, and from the undissembled satisfaction he expresses on a serious comparison and recollection of his former and later conduct. (Acts xxiii. 1., xxvi. 4, 5.; Phil. iii. 6.; 1 Tim. i. 13.; 2 Tim. i. 3.) His parents completed his education by having him taught the art of tent-making, in conformity with the practice of the Jews, with whom it was customary to teach youth of the highest birth some mechanical employment, by which, in cases of necessity, they might maintain themselves without being burthensome to others: and his occupation appears subsequently to have had some influence upon his style.10 For some time after the appearance of Christianity in

1 Phil. iii. 5.; 2 Cor. xi. 22.; Acts xvi. 37, 38.

2 Acts xxii. 25. 29., xxiii. 27.

' Dr. Lardner has shown that this is the most probable opinion. Works, 8vo. vol. i. pp. 227-229.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 124, 125. Such also is the opinion of John Arntzenius, who has written an elegant dissertation on St. Paul's citizenship. (See his Dissertationes Binæ, p. 195. Utrecht, 1725.)

Acts xxiii. 6., xxvi. 5.; Phil. iii. 5.

Acts xxiii. 16-22.; Rom. xvi. 7. 11. 21.

"Strabo the geographer, who lived in the same age as St. Paul, characterises the inhabitants of Tarsus as cherishing such a passion for philosophy and all the branches of polite literature, that they greatly excelled even Athens and Alexandria, and every other place where there were schools and academies for philosophy and literature. He adds, that the natives of Tarsus were in the practice of going abroad to other cities to perfect themselves. (Lib. xiv. vol. ii. pp. 960, 961. edit. Oxon.) This circumstance accounts for St. Paul's going to Jerusalem, to finish his studies under Gamaliel.

Thus, in Acts xvii. 28. he cites a verse from Aratus; in 1 Cor. xv. 33. he quotes another from Menander; and in Tit. i. 12. a verse from Epimenides.

Acts xxii. 3., xxvi. 5.; Gal. i. 14.

• Michaelis makes St. Paul to have been a maker of mechanical instruments (vol. iv. pp. 183-186.); but all commentators are of opinion that he was a manufacturer of tents, for which, in the East, there was always a considerable demand.

10 To a man employed in making tents, the ideas of camps, arms, armour, warfare, military pay, would be familiar: and St. Paul introduces these and their concomitants so frequently, that his language seems to have been such as might rather have been expected from a soldier, than from one who lived in quiet times, and was a preacher of the gospel of peace. Powell's Discourses, p. 254.