ACTS OF TIIE APOSTLES. (11pciEets rw 'Airoar6Xtev). This title has been borne by the fifth historical book of the N. T. from a very early period [(Canon Illuratori, Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12 p. 696, ed. Potter, Tertullian Cont. Mon v. 2, De 7ejnn io, De bap!. so. ) Perhaps the earliest title was simply rpaiEets chroo-racbu, as the subject of the book is not the doings of the apostles as a body, but of only a few of the more eminent, especially Peter and Paul. Commencing with a reference to an account given in a former work of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ before his ascension, its author proceeds to conduct us to an acquaintance with the circumstances attending that event, the conduct of the disciples on their return from witnessing it, the outpouring on them of the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promise to them before his crucifixion, and the amazing success which, as a consequence of this, attended the first announcement by them of the doctrine concerning Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Saviour of the World. After the fates of the mother church at Jerusalem up to the period when the violent persecution of its members by the rulers of the Jews had broken up their society and scattered them, with the exception of the apostles, through out the whole of the surrounding region ; and after introducing to the notice of the reader the case of the remarkable conversion of one of the most zeal ous persecutors of the church, who afterwards became one of its most devoted and successful advocates, the narrative takes a wider scope and opens to our view the gradual expansion of the church by the free admission within its pale of persons directly converted from heathenism and who had not passed through the preliminary stage of Judaism. The first step towards this more liberal and cosmopolitan order of things having been effected by Peter, to whom the honour of laying the foundation of the Christian church, both within and without the confines of Judaism, seems, in accordance with our Lord's declaration concern ing him (Matt. xvi. IS), to have been reserved, Paul, the recent convert and the destined apostle of the Gentiles, is brought forward as the main actor on the scene. On his course of missionary activity, his successes and his sufferings, the chief interest of the narrative is thenceforward concentrated, until, having followed him to Rome, whither he had been sent as a prisoner to abide his trial, on his own appeal, at the bar of the emperor himself, the book abruptly closes, leaving us to gather further infor mation concerning him and the fortunes of the church from other sources.
Respecting the authorship of this book there can be no ground for doubt or hesitation. It is, un questionably, the production of the same writer by whom the third of the four Gospels was composed, as is evident from the introductory sentences of both (comp. Luke i. 1-4, with Acts i. 1). That this writer was Luke may be very satisfactorily proved in both cases. With regard to the book now under notice, tradition is firm and constant in ascribing it to Luke Adv. Her. lib. iii. c. 14, § 1 ; c. 15, § I ; Clem. Alex. Strom.
v. 12, p. 696; Tertullian Adv. illarcion. v. 2; De c. so; Origen, apud Euseb. list. Eccles.
vi. 23, etc. Eusebius himself ranks this book among the Op.o),oyoba.epa, H. E. iii. 25). From the book itself, also, it appears that the author accompanied Paul to Rome when he went to that city as a prisoner (xxviii.) Now, we know from two epistles written by Paul at that time, that Luke was with him at Rome (Col. iv. 14; Phil. 24), which favours the supposition that he was the writer of the narrative of the apqstle's journey to that city. The only parties in primitive times by whom this book was rejected were certain heretics, such as the Ebionites, the Marcionitcs, the Seve rians, and the Manicheans, whose objections were entirely of a dogmatical, not of a historical nature ; indeed, they can hardly be said to have questioned the authenticity of the book ; they rather cast it aside because it did not favour their peculiar views. At the same time, whilst this book was acknow ledged as genuine where it was known, it does not appear to have been at first so extensively circu lated as the other historical books of the New Testament ; for we find Chrysostom asserting that by many in his day it was not so much as known (Ilan. i. in Act. sub init), an assertion in which, however, there is perhaps some rhetorical exagge ration. The resemblance of style in this book to that of the third gospel, also favours the opinion that Luke was its author.