with hie general interest in the progress of the goRpel among the nationa of the en.rth; while, having already written a history of the life and death of Jesus, in which hie special interest in the Gentiles is very apparent (Luke ii. 82 ; xiii. 29 ; xiv. 23 ; xv. 11 ; xx. 16), he would, as a matter of course, conneot hie new work with the former one. But oeeuming tha.t hie object was to write the hiet.ory of Gentile Chris- tianity, it is obvious that the history of the first preaching of the gospel at Jerusalem was necessary, both to connect hie second work with the first, and also because in point of fact the mission to the Gentiles sprang from the mother Church a.t J eruealem. The existence and establishment of the Jewish Church was the root from which the Gentile Churches grew; and the Gen tile Churches had a common interest with the Jewish in those first great events-the election of an apostle in the place of Judas, the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the preaching of Peter and John, the appoint- ment of deacons, and the martyrdom of Stephen, at which last event the great figure of St. Paul first came upon the stage. So that, in assuming St. Luke's purpose in writing the Acts t.o be to give the history of Gentile Christianity, we are supported both by the actual features of the book before us, and by the probability that his own position as a Gentile Christian, as the companion of St. Paul, and as the friend of Theophilus, would give birth to such a design. It is no less apparent how the hand of Divine providence and inspiration moved him t.o this choice. St. Luke eould not possibly know of himself that the Church of the circumcision would come to an end within a few years of the time at which he was writing, but that the Church of the uncircum- cision would go on growing and spreading and increasing through more than eighteen centuries. But God did know it. And therefore it came to pass that this record of evangelical work in heathen countries has been preserved to us, while the work of the apostle of the circumcision and of his brethren has been suffered to fade from remembrance.
§ 2. Au'l'HOB OF THE BooK. We have, in the preceding section, assumed St. Luke to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles; but we must now justify the assumption, though tho fact that there is no reasonable doubt about the matter, and that there is a general consent of modern critics on the point, will make it unnecessary to enter into any lengthened disquisition. The identity of authorship of the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles is manifest from the dedication of both to Theophilus (Luke i. 3 ; eh. i. 1), and from the reference by the writer of eh. i. 1 to the Gospel written by him. The details in eh. i. 1-9 agree closely with Luke x.xi.v. 28-51; and there is o. striking resemblance of style, phrases, the use of particular words, arrangement of matter, and turn of thought in the two INTRODUCTION TO ----------------------------- books, which is generally recognized by critics of all echoole, and which eup- pom the unanimous testimony of the early Church, that they are both the work of one author. And this reeemblanoe he.e been lately brought out with remarka.ble foroe in one pa.rti.culR.r, viz. the frequent use of medical terms, both in the Gospel and in the Acts-terms which in very many instances a.re found nowhere else in the New Testament (Hobart's' Medioa.l La.ngu.age of St. Luke : ' Longmane). If, then, the Gospel W88 the work of St. Luke, the Acts of the Apostles was eo likewise. Tha.t the Goepel was the work of St. Luke is the unani- mous t.estimony of a.n.tiquity ; a.nd the internal evidence a.grees with a.11 that we know of St. Luke-that he was not of the oircnmcision (Col. iv. 10- 14) ; that he was a physician (Ool. iv. 14), and consequently a man of liberal education. Indeed, even modern hypercriticism generally admits St. Luke's 11utborship.1 It ma.y be added that the interna.l evidence of the Acts of the Apostles is also strongly in favour of it. His companionship of St. Paul, who styles him" the beloved physician" (Col. iv.14); his presence with St. Paul a.t Rome (2 Tim. iv. 17), compar-ed with the fact that the writer of the Acts e&iled with St. Paul from Cmsa.rea to Italy ( eh. xxvii. 1) and arrived at Rome (eh. :n:viii. 16), a.nd the utter failure of the attempts to identify the author with Timothy (see especially eh. xx. 4, 5) or Silas, or any other of St. Paul's companions; a.re of themselves strong if not decisive testimonies in favour of Luke's authorship. Ta.ken in conjunction with the other arguments, they leave the question, as Renan says, "beyond doubt." (See below, i 6.)
I s. DATE OP COMPOSITIOlf. Here, a.gain, the inquiry presents no difficulty. The obvious primd facie inference from the abrupt termination of the narrative with the notice of St. Paul's two years' abode at Rome is undoubtedly the true one. St. Luke composed his history a.t Rome, with the help of St. Paul, and completed it early in the yee.r A.D. 63. He may, no doubt, have prtpared notes and ruemoranda. e.nd abstracts of speeches which he heard delivered, for several years before, while he was St. Paul's companion. But the composition of the book is due to the comparative leisure of hil:nself and his great master during the two yee.rs' imprisonment at Rome. It could not, of course, have been completed earlier, because the narrative comes down without a. break, in one continuous flow, to the time of the imprisonment. It could not possibly have been written later, because the termination of the book marks as pla.inly a.s is possible that the writer was writing at the very standpoint to which he ha.d brought down his narrative. We may affirm, without any fea.r of being wrong, that St. Pa.nl's trial before Nero, and his a.cqnitta.l and 1 Bene.n (' Les .A.p6trea •) says, "It is beyond doubt iha.t the Acts and the third Gospel are by the same author," and &dda a little La.tar, " This author is in very deed Luke, the d.iaoiple of Panl." nrn AO'l'S OF THE APOSTLES. V