A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES BY THE REV. W. DENTON, M.A. WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD; VICAR OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW, CRIPPLEGATE; AUTHOR OF "A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS AND ON THE EPISTLES FOR ETC. ETC. ETC. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. PODL LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET, PREFACE. THIS Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles has been undertaken at the suggestion of others. In its preparation I have made use of like materials to those which are familiar to the readers of the volumes devoted to the illustration of the Gospels and Epistles in the Communion Office. Where, however, the narrative of St. Luke has been impugned I have examined the objections and have endeavoured briefly to vindicate the authentic character of those portions of the sacred history which have been objected to. Whether it arises from any defect or peculiarity of mind in myself or not, it appears to me that these objections are generally captious, fanciful, and childish, and such as, if admitted to be sound, would destroy the credit of every historical writing which we possess, whether secular or sacred. It seems, indeed, wonderful that such objections should ever have seriously been made. Most of them are not of home growth, but are importations from abroad, and they have, perhaps, been treated with the greater tenderness because they have come to us in the garb of strangers. We must, however, remember that though to refuse to the writers of another country their fair share of consideration is an evidence of narrowness of mind, yet an equal narrowness is shown in accepting their conclusions without examination, and in exalting them ! above those of the writers of our own country merely because they are foreign. This latter temper is but another form of the first-an oscillation from one degree of narrowness to another. Whilst, then, I have sought critical and historical illustrations from all quarters accessible to me, as well those stored up in the commentaries and homilies of ancient writers, as in the volumes of recent authors English and German, whether written by defenders or by impugners of the Bible, I cannot but express my surprise at the value frequently attributed to the writings of the German critical school. It appears to me-useful as they confessedly are— that a value has been assigned to these writings wholly disproportionate to their utility. I hope and believe that I am not insensible to the merit of Michaelis, of the Rosenmüllers, of Kuinoel, of Wolf, and of others from whose labours I have derived assistance in the preparation of these volumes, but I must avow my conviction that the student of Holy Scripture will learn far more from the writings of Biscoe, and Paley, from Hammond, and Poole, and Whitby, but above all from Lightfoot, and Gill, and Selden, than he will gather from the pages of all the writers of the critical school of Germany. He who has the volumes of Bishop Wordsworth and of Dr. Hackett on his shelves has little to learn from the volumes of Olshausen, of Meyer, of Zeller, of Baumgarten, or of Stier. It has been suggested that we ought to apply the same rules of criticism alike to the examination of the books of Holy Scripture and of secular writers. Properly understood, there seems no reason against adopting this suggestion, and if we disentangle the proposition from a fallacy which clings to it, the principle is a sound one. It is, indeed, to be regretted that the same rule is not more thoroughly applied, and that in criticizing the writings contained in the Bible the sound principles of secular criticism are so frequently discarded. For what are the tests which we apply in the examination of secular writings? If the book be an historical one we take into account the nearness or remoteness of the events recorded from the lifetime of the writer, whether he were a contemporary or not: we remark the opportunities within his reach for ascertaining the truth of what he narrates: his subjection to, or freedom from, such prejudices as might naturally warp his judgment and lead him, consciously or unconsciously, to distort the truth in order to serve the interest of party we pass in review the extent to which his account is confirmed by independent witnesses, and above all, his perfect knowledge of the subject matter about which he is writing, however that knowledge may have been acquired. In a word, we give not merely his intellectual, but also his moral faculties their due weight and consideration his knowledge and honesty of character. Whenever we are satisfied that it possesses these qualities we accept the chronicle as a true record of facts. In scientific treatises we make, if not the same, yet a similar distinction. In Astronomy we do not think it necessary to subject the writings of a Herschel to the same kind of examination which we use in the case of a man confessedly unversed in the science about which he is writing. We defer to the profound knowledge of veteran anatomists like Hunter or Owen. We do not defer-in other words, we apply a different rule-to the statements of a tyro. We take into consideration the different amount of intellectual enlightenment which each writer brings to the examination of a matter within the reach of the intellect, adding, however, a consideration of moral qualities if the subject matter be of a complex nature. To weigh and determine the relation of mind to the matter discoursed of is an essential feature of all true criticism and cannot be disregarded. Nor is it possiblewithout shocking the moral sense of the world, which we have no right to do-to treat all kinds of facts in the same |