their faith in the divine promise, to affect their minds with a proper sense of the value of the favour, and of their dependence upon the Divine Being for bestowing it upon them. In like manner let us act, in regard to the many valuable blessings which we expect for ourselves or for the church of Christ. Let us not deem them less proper objects of prayer, because we think they will be bestowed, independently of our requests; for although we can produce no change in the divine mind, although we cannot increase the number or value of our blessings hereby, yet we shall not fail to benefit ourselves.

Acts i. 15. to the end.

In the former part of this chapter we have the introduction of the author to this work, which was only a continuation of another; an account of some things which passed between Christ and his apostles after his resurrection, and which had not been related before; and a circumstantial relation of the manner in which he was taken up from them, and of their assembling together at Jerusalem after the event, in conformity to his parting instructions. We have now a history of the method which the apostles employed for filling up the vacancy which had taken place in their body by the apostacy and death of Judas, together with the circumstances which led to that event.

15. And in those days, in the interval between the ascension and the day of Pentecost, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names, that is, "of persons," together were about a hundred and twenty.)

We are not to suppose that these were the whole or even the greater part of the disciples; for we learn

that more than five hundred were assembled, on one occasion, after Christ's resurrection*, but these were all that met at Jerusalem, for the purpose of daily supplicating the promised gifts of the Spirit. The rest were dispersed in different parts of the country. Names are in this verse put for persons, by a common figure of speech, of which we have several examples in heathen authors, as well as in the scriptures t.

16. Men and brethren, "brethren," this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

The passages to which Peter here refers will be considered hereafter. But there has been no small difficulty in accounting for the apostle's appearing to say, that the words in question were a prophecy of Judas, and fulfilled in the events of his life, when it is evident to those that read the Psalms that they refer to the enemies of David, and to them only. Some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that although the words were originally intended for the enemies of the king of Israel, which is too plain to be denied, yet the Spirit of God, by whom they were dictated, had a reference to the enemies of Christ, and particularly to Judas the traitor and apostate. But I think it much better to acknowledge at once that the words were never intended for this individual, and were only applied to him by the apostles by way of accommodation, than to have recourse to a sense so contrary to their obvious meaning. The words are attributed to the Holy Spirit, because all the Psalms were supposed by the Jews of our Lord's time, as they are by the generality of Christians of the present day, to be inspired.

1 Cor. xv. 6. Wetstein and Pearce. Doddridge.

17. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

These words are intended to show that he deserved the evils which befel him, which are mentioned in the twentieth verse. For as much as he was as regularly chosen to the office of an apostle as the rest, his guilt in betraying his master and deserting his post was the more aggravated.

18. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, "in their own dialect," Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood.

It is evident that what these verses contain could not be the words of Peter, although they are introduced into his discourse. For Peter could have no inducement to mention the circumstances which attended he death of Judas to the apostles and other disciples, who were as well acquainted with them as himself; the transactions having taken place but a few days before, and in the city of Jerusalem, where they now were. Much less can it be supposed that Peter would inform his countrymen that in their proper dialect the field in which Judas died was called Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood. Such an explanation is evidently the language of a man who is instructing foreigners in the meaning of an unknown term, and not that of a native, addressing the inhabitants of the country in which he lives.

If these two verses, therefore, are a genuine part of the text, they must be regarded as the words of Luke, the writer of the Acts. But there is strong reason to suspect that they come neither from Luke nor Peter, and that they are an interpolation, or an addition to the text, which, by some means, has been, introduced into it; for this account is very different from, if not absolutely inconsistent with, that given by Matthew. I will read the words of the evangelist, and leave you to judge whether they can be reconciled. He says that Judas, having repented of what he had done, cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself; and the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood; and they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in; wherefore that field was called the field of blood unto this day. Matt. xxvii. 3, &c.

Hence you perceive that the two accounts differ from each other in several material circumstances. According to Matthew, Judas died by his own hands, by hanging himself. According to this account, he fell headlong and burst asunder. According to Matthew, they were the chief priests who bought the field; here we are told that Judas purchased it himself. One says that it was called the field of blood, because bought with the price of blood; whereas it is intimated by the other that it was so called because Judas died there. I cannot conceive that two such contradictory accounts could come from the pens of persons so well informed as Matthew and Luke were, respecting every thing which related to so remarkable a personage as the traitor. If the account of Matthew, therefore, be genuine, which there is every reason to suppose, that given us in the Acts cannot have been written by Luke, but by some other person, who contrived to insert it in the early copies, whence it has been transmitted down to us. It seems to confirm this supposition, that if the story be entirely removed no chasm is made in the history. This story is not necessary to account for any thing which precedes os

follows; and the want of it is not perceived: for the seventeenth verse connects very well with the twentieth.

The supposition now made does not, I acknowledge, correspond with the opinion of the majority of commentators upon the passage; but I am glad to find it supported by so sagacious a commentator as Bishop Pearce, who says, "These seem not to be the words of Peter, and perhaps they were not the words of Luke, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles." I know, indeed, that attempts have been made by other ingenious men to reconcile the differences; but they are such as would enable us to reconcile the most contradictory narratives. Where a real difficulty occurs, it is much better to admit it in its full force than, by evading it, to incur the charge of disingenuousness.

20. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick, "his office," let

another take.

In this verse there is a reference to two Psalms of David; the former is Ps. lxix. 25. Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents; where you see that David speaks of his enemies in the plural number; whereas Peter applies his words to an individual; but the change is a matter of little consequence, as the apostle uses the words of the Psalmist only in the way of accommodation, and not as a real prophecy. The latter is Ps. cix. 8. Let his days be few, and let another take his office; where David imprecates the divine vengeance upon an individual, some one of his own enemies, or those of Israel, which the apostle Peter applies to Judas, in the same way of accommodation as he does the preceeding passage.

21. Wherefore, of these men which