ter, prepared at every point to be the reader's most trusted guide. The extended research of the author leads him back even to the Rabbinical and later Jewish writers, to illustrate such a point as the question on Acts xxvi. 10, whether Paul had a vote in the Jewish Sanhedrim; and when Festus consults his council as to Paul's appeal to Cæsar, the writers on Roman law are brought in for explanation. His readiness to take an independent position shows itself in opposing, without even argument, Neander's "surprising" view of the gift of tongues; in his alike unargued decision that the choice of Matthias to the apostleship was a valid and divine appointment; in his brief, but well-sustained conclusion that the serving of tables, mentioned as the deacons' office, is there only the providing for the tables of the needy, not the attending to money-tables, or to financial matters in general; and in his deciding against critics generally, that John's service as minister to Paul and Barnabas was in the work of preaching. Yet this prompt committal is not arbitrary; it is the result of that self-confidence which is necessary to a mind conscious of having thoroughly examined a subject, and judiciously weighed all the testimony on either side. This careful effort to give due attention to each weight thrown into either scale, and then to make the right final decision, is seen in his comments on the expression, "cloven tongues;" (ii. 3;) on the particle rendered "when," instead of in order that; (iii. 19;) on the prepositions "into" and "out of," in the account of the eunuch's baptism; (viii. 38, 39 ;) on the meaning of the word rendered "to hear" in the narrative of Paul's conversion, which has, as its correlate in other tongues, the sense of "to understand;" (ix. 7;) and, not to multiply examples farther, on the use of the imperfect tense "was compelling" in Paul's statement of his attempts to seduce the Christians to blaspheme, though the very wording seems to suggest that the attempt was unsuccessful.-(xxvi. 11.) This minuteness of thorough scholarship, however, is accompanied by the rare and incomparable merit in an author, conciseness. As an example, we quote the comment on xii. 2,—avɛ̃the pazaíga, slew him with the

sword, beheaded him. The article fails, because the idea is general, abstract; compare ix. 12. W. §xix. 1. On the mode of execution among the Jews, see Jahn's Archæol. § 257. Agrippa had the power of life and death, since he administered the government in the name of the Romans. See the note on vii. 59. The victim of his violence was James the Elder, a son of Zebedee, and brother of John.(Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; Mark i. 19, &c.) He is to be distinguished from James the Younger, the kinsman of the Lord, (Gal. i. 19,) who is the individual meant under this name in the remainder of the history.-(xvii. ; xv. 13; xxi. 18.) The end of James verified the prediction that he should drink of his Master's cup; see Matt. xx. 23. Eusebius (ii. 9) records a tradition that the apostle's accuser was converted by his testimony, and beheaded at the same time with him. "The accuracy of the sacred writer," says Paley, "in the expression which he uses here, is remarkable. There was no portion of time for thirty years before, or ever afterwards, in which there was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that authority in Judea, or to whom that title. could be applied, except the last three years of Herod's life, within which period the transaction here recorded took place." The kingdom of Agrippa the Second, who is mentioned in Acts xxv. 13, did not embrace Judea." It is difficult to conceive how such a flood of light from varied sources, biblical criticism, history, Jewish and Christian, ancient and modern, testimony from sacred and profane authors, could be brought together in fewer words, and with so little. parade of scholarship. This excellence, however, of our author is liable to go to the opposite extreme of too great brevity, and consequent obscurity. There are very few, even among Bible students, who would not wish more aid from so able an interpreter on such points as these; on the Messianic titles, the Holy and the Just One;"' (iii. 14;) on the expression, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost;" (vii. 51;) and on the meaning of the author in using the expression, "temporal sense," as applied to the word which he renders earnest" instead of "unceasing."—(xii. 5.) Yet the clue to all that is needed from an interpreter is

given to the real scholar; and the important rule of bestowing charity, "That aid is best that aids least," is true of other than paupers who lack food for the body.

The author's duty as a critic leads him to an occasional discussion as to the authority of the text adopted in our English version. He hesitates between the testimony in favor of receiving and rejecting the text of (viii. 37); but decides against the word rendered ran in among."(xiv. 14.)

It is the characteristic of a genuine verbal critic that he analyzes principles as well as facts, and gives the meaning of ideas with the same skill that he shows in explaining words. It is the mere compiler, the copyist from other commentators, that, having no independent views of his own as to the detail of his work, has no comprehensive conception of the scope of the sacred writer or speaker. A true commentator will study to gain the connection of thought, as well as the meaning of individual words and sentences. A commentator is not indeed to be a preacher, giving an analysis of a sermon, on every passage or paragraph; for though such a commentator as Henry is indeed an aid to a certain class of minds, it is better for most preachers not to have such a help to lean upon. But there is a connection. of thought even in the traveler's notes of a journey; much more in the oration of a close thinker. Luke's narrative and Paul's addresses alike need to be analyzed; for the writer of travels and the arguer on Christian doctrines have alike an end in view in their addresses to the reader and hearer. Dr. Hackett has studied the various characters introduced by Luke, until he seems to be living with and looking at them. To convey his own impression, imagination is called legitimately into exercise; and pictures of fiction (used in its original sense) give the truth. Sometimes wit and humor are of best and of legitimate service; for as it is a principle of art, that a statue must be a little over size to seem natural, so human actions must be a little overdrawn, to make our dull minds catch the idea thus made to stand out from others associated with it.

The idea of the sacred writer in many a separate, discon

nected statement, is brought out by the imaginative commentator. After a page or two of learned and able comment on Luke's language about Judas, (i. 18,) the clear idea of his peculiar and difficult form of statement breaks out, and is fastened on the mind by the author's suggestion, borrowed from Fritzshe, that the language is intended to be a sarcasm, an "acerba irrisio, bringing the motive and the result into pointed antithesis to each other: This man thought to enrich himself by his treachery; but all that he gained was that he got for himself a field where blood was paid for blood." As the witticism of Luke gives us a picture of truth the most vivid, so does the occasional wit of the commentator. It requires more than the study of a Gill, and genius added to that study, to picture, for instance, after this style, Gailio's looking on while the Jews beat their own ruler. The imperfect tense of the verb used, “ËTVÄTоv," Dr. Hackett remarks, "shows how thorough a beating Sosthenes received. It may not be wronging Gallio to suspect that he looked through his fingers and enjoyed the scene. The whole scene of an incident, as the author has conceived it, is pictured by a graphic comparison; as on ix. 26, “The sudden appearance of Voltaire in a circle of Christians, claiming to be one of them, would have been something like this return of Saul to Jerusalem as a professed disciple;" and as on xiv. 9, "Here the missionaries repaired to the market, or some other place of public resort, (compare xvii. 17,) and there entered into conversation with such as they could induce to listen. The scene reminds us of the manner in which those who carry the same message of salvation to the heathen, at the present day, collect around them groups of listeners in Burmah and Hindostan." is a rare thing with the profound student, that he finds the poets fitted to give the best comment on Scripture narrative; but certainly no one could speak better on xxi. 1 than Milton, in his Christmas Hymn. "The oracles are dumb,' &c. It requires study to get the true view of Paul's conduct before Ananias; (xxiii. 5 ;) but genius, added to a deep personal Christian experience, alone could picture it thus; Paul admits that he had been thrown off his guard; the

It

insult had touched him to the quick, and he had spoken rashly. But what can surpass the grace with which he recovered his self-possession, the frankness with which he acknowledged his error? If his conduct in yielding to the momentary impulse was not that of Christ himself under a similar provocation, (John xviii. 22, 23,) certainly the manner in which he atoned for his fault was Christ-like.”

This same creative power, which is that of every discoverer, whether it be in physical or spiritual science, gives skill to the commentator in analyzing the extended addresses recorded in Luke's narrative. A complete study of Jewish traditions and philosophizing, as learned from Josephus, Philo and the Rabbis might give the materials for an analysis of the speech of Stephen at Jerusalem; but it is the added skill of a Newton which can seize the clue of the labyrinth, and follow it backward and forward till the whole intricacy is made clear, and the entire work can be mapped down for the guidance of others. On this most difficult part of his work, the author's rarest qualities as an interpreter are taxed. He first modestly states his own view, with the leading reason for it; then presents succintly that of Neander, of Olshausen, of Luger, and of Bauer, partly concurrent and partly conflicting with his own; and then he goes through his comments, balancing opinions as he proceeds. He regards Stephen's object, in the main, to be two fold; to show that his accusers' view, not his own, of the old dispensation, was inconsistent with the scope of the Old Testament teaching; but more to show that it was the depravity of the heart which induced this intellectual error; a depravity belonging to human nature, seen in their fathers, to remove which was the very object of the Gospel. In the analyses of Peter's and Paul's various speeches, though less difficult, Dr. Hackett has done a service which will be appreciated by those desirous to fulfil the injunction, "rightly dividing the word of truth."

The broader and more difficult work of harmonizing differing and distant parts of the extended narrative, of matching upon these the allusions to the same incidents met with in the epistles, and thus making one consistent and com