But a far more valuable testimony of the character of Luke is
found in those noble works which bear his name in the inspired
canon. His _gospel_ is characterized by remarkable distinctness
of expression and clearness of conception, which, with that
correctness of language by which it is distinguished above
all the other books of the New Testament, conspire to make
it the most easy to be understood of all the writings of the
New Testament; and it has been the subject of less comment and
criticism than any other of the sacred books. From the language
which he uses in his preface, about those who had undertaken
similar works before him, it would seem that though several
unauthorized accounts of the life and discourses of Jesus were
published before him, yet neither of the other gospels were
known by him to have been written. He promises, by means of a
thorough investigation of all facts to the sources, to give a
more complete statement than had ever before been given to those
for whom he wrote. Of the _time_ when he wrote it, therefore, it
seems fair to conclude, that it was before the other two; but a
vast number of writers have thought differently, and many other
explanations of his words have been offered. Of his immediate
sources of information,――the place where he wrote, and the
particular person to whom he addresses it, nothing is known with
sufficient certainty to be worth recording.
Of the _Acts of the Apostles_, nothing need be said in respect
to the contents and object, so clear and distinct is this
beautiful piece of biography, in all particulars. Its date may
be fixed with exactness at the end of the second year of Paul’s
first imprisonment, which, according to common calculations, is
A. D. 63. It may well become the modern apostolic historian, in
closing with the mention of this writing his own prolonged yet
hurried work, to acknowledge the excellence, the purity, and
the richness of the source from which he has thus drawn so large
a portion of the materials of the greatest of these Lives. Yet
what can he add to the bright testimonies accumulated through
long ages, to the honor and praise of this most noble of
historic records? The learned of eighteen centuries have spent
the best energies of noble minds, and long studious lives, in
comment and in illustration of its clear, honest truth, and
its graphic beauty; the humble, inquiring Christian reader, in
every age too, has found, and in every age will find, in this,
the only safe and faithful outline of the great events of the
apostolic history. The most perfect and permanent impression,
which a long course of laborious investigation and composition
has left on the author’s mind, of the task which he now lays
down, exhausted yet not disgusted, is, that beyond the apostolic
history of Luke, nothing can be known with certainty of the
great persons of whose acts he treats, except the disconnected
and floating circumstances which may be gleaned by implication
from the epistles; and so marked is the transition from the
pure honesty of the sacred record, to the grossness of patristic
fiction, that the truth is, even to a common eye, abundantly
well characterized by its own excellence. On the passages of
such a narrative, the lights of ♦criticism, of Biblical learning,
and of contemporary history, may often be needed, to make
the sometimes unconnected parts appear in their true historic
relations. The writer who draws therefrom, too, the facts for
a connected biography, may, in the amplifications of a modern
style, perhaps more to the surprise than the admiration of his
readers, quite protract the bare simplicity of the original
record, “in many a winding bout of linked” wordiness, “long
drawn out,”――but the modernizing extension and illustration,
though it may bring small matters more prominently to the notice
and perception of the reader, can never supply the place of the
original,――to improve which, comment and illustration are alike
vain. When will human learning and labor perfect the exposition
and the illustration of the apostolic history? Its comments
are written in the eternal hope of uncounted millions;――its
illustrations can be fully read only in the destiny of ages.
This record was the noble task of “the beloved physician;” in
his own melodious language――“To give knowledge to the people, of
salvation by remission of sins through the tender mercy of our
God, whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us,――to
give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of
death,――to guide OUR feet in the way of peace!”
♦ “critiicism” replaced with “criticism”
♦ERRATA.
♦ All errata noted in this list has been corrected in the
foregoing text.
Page 7, line 32, for ‘Griechisch_e_’ read ‘Griechisch.’
Page 9, line 7, for ‘verse 7,’ read ‘verse 2.’
Page 10, line 22, for ‘15’, read ‘25.’
Page ♦14, line 38, for ‘Indus,’ read ‘Euphrates.’
♦ “11” replaced with “14”
Page 18, line 36, for ‘P_e_rtuensis,’ read ‘P_o_rtuensis.’
Page 25, line 36, for ‘dreams,’ read ‘dream.’
Page 38, line 33, for ‘not,’ read ‘only once.’
Page 45, line 17, delete ‘the number of’.
Page 65, line 23, for ‘after,’ read ‘over;’
line 37 for ‘was,’ read ‘were. ’
Page 67, line 39, for ‘avert,’ read ’snatch.’
Page 78, line 2, for ‘ha_v_e,’ read ‘ha_s_;’
line 26, for ‘account_s_,’ read ‘account.’
Page 107, line 26, before ‘not,’ read ‘he.’
Page 110, line 22, for ‘an hour,’ read ‘three hours.’
Page 140, line 28, for ‘pr_o_position,’ read ‘pr_e_position.’
Page 220, line 44, for ‘Or that,’ read ‘And by.’
Page 224, line 20, after ‘sake,’ insert ‘of.’
Page 225, line 25, for ‘of any,’ read ‘by any.’
Page 242, line 28, for ‘Aeg_i_an,’ read ‘Aeg_e_an.’
Page 249, line 34, for ‘as early as A. D. 200,’ read
‘before A. D. 100;’
line 35, after ‘books,’ read
‘supposed to have been written before that translation.’
Page 262, line 15, for ‘inherit_s_,’ read ‘inherit.’
Page 288, line 25, for ‘second,’ read ‘third.’
Page 312, line 27, for ‘or,’ read ‘and.’
Page 508, transpose ‘Lois,’ in line 31, with ‘Eunice,’ in line 35.
Page 522, line 24, for ‘Nereid,’ read ‘Naiad.’
Page 45, line 9, before ‘baptizer,’ insert ‘his.’
Page 10, line 61, in the second Hebrew word, the final letter
should be not ה but ח.
The statement on page 339, respecting the exposition of the
Apocalypse by Clarke, appears, on a more careful investigation,
to represent his views rather too decidedly as favoring the
ancient interpretation. His own notes are such as unquestionably
support that interpretation; but he has so far conformed to
popular prejudice, as to admit on his pages some very elaborate
anti-papal explanations from an anonymous writer, (J. E. C.)
which, however, he is very far from adopting as his own. The
uniform expression made by his own clear and learned notes, must
be decidedly favorable to the ancient interpretation, and the
value of his noble work is vastly enhanced by this circumstance.
The view on pages 355 and 361, of the locality of Philip’s and
Nathanael’s conversion, is undoubtedly erroneous. I overlooked
the form of the expression――“The next day, Jesus would go forth
into Galilee, and findeth Philip,” &c. This shows that he was
still at Bethabara when he called both Philip and Nathanael.