neighbourhood of Rome, and on the evident ignorance of Theophilus as to the localities of Palestine, and apparently also in some respects, and in comparison with the author, of Macedonia and Greece (c/. xvi. 12; xvii. 19, 21).
If we turn to external testimony in favour of the book we find it full and satisfactory (cf. Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edit., p. 160, Headlam, “ Acts,” Hastings’ B.D.,i., p. 26, and Gore on the points of contact between the earlier chapters and the Didache ; see Church and the Ministry, p. 416). To Wendt in his latest edition, p. 41 (1899), we again owe much that is of value, both in what he allows, and in what he declines to recognise. One very important point calls for determination at the outset. The likeness between the language of Acts xiii. 22 and Clem. Rom., Cor., xviii., 1, in relation to Ps. Ixxxviii. 20 (LXX) cannot, as both Clemen and Wendt admit, be accidental. Indeed Wendt is of opinion that it is no more probable that Clement depends upon Acts than Acts upon ‘Clement, while at the same time he holds that a third alternative is possible, viz., that both writings may be dependent on some common thirdsource But there is no evidence forthcoming as to the existence of this common source, and Lightfoot rightly presses the signiti- cance of the threefold coincidence between the language of Acts and Clement, which cannot easily be explained away (η. s., p. 120). In Acts we have three features introduced which are not found in the original of the Psalm, vz., the mention of the ‘‘ witness,” and the addition (a) of ‘a man after my heart,”’ cf. 1 Sam. xiii. 14, and (0) of “the son of Jesse,” but all these are also found in the passage in St. Clement. So again Wendt with many other critics would ex- plain the words ἧδιον διδόντες ἢ λαμβάνοντες, Clem. Rom., Cor., ii., 1, cf. Acts xx. 35, not by dependence upon Acts, but by a common tradition of the words of the Lord. But Wendt admits, although very guardedly, the use of Acts in Polycarp, Phil., i., 2, cf. Acts ii. 34, Ignat., dd Smyrn., 3, Acts x. 41, and he does not deny the connection between Ignat., dd Magn., 5, and Acts i. 25, whilst he admits that in Justin Martyr the references become more clear and frequent (see, for a full and good estimate of the references to Ignatius and Polycarp, Headlam, “Acts,” Hastings’ B.D., i., Ρ. 26).
But it is most important to observe that Wendt fully recognises the influence of the Canonical Acts upon the Apocryphal Acts of the second century, although he points out that of this literature we only possess a small portion, and he expects great things from the recently discovered fragments of the Acta Pauli of the middle of