the author, and rejected it on no other ground, than that the Evangelist had delivered in it erroneous doctrines. But in this respect they were inconsistent with themselves for to admit, that St. John had the gift of miracles, and that he had received full powers, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose miracles they likewise admitted, and yet to assert that St. John delivered erroneous doctrines, is a direct contradiction. The Alogi went a step further, and denied that St. John was the author of the Gospel ascribed to him. This assertion they grounded, not on external evidence, nor on historical testimony, but merely on the contents of the Gospel, which, they said, contradicted the three other Gospels, and therefore could not have been written by a divine Apostle. They particularly objected to the term λoyos, which no man, they said, would have used to denote a person, except one who had imbibed the philosophy, which was adopted by Cerinthus. Hence they argued that the Gospel, which bore the name of St. John, ought rather to be ascribed to Cerinthus, than to one of the Apostles. But this argument proves nothing: for, whoever undertook to confute the errors of Cerinthus, was under the necessity of retaining the terminology of his adversary.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

SECTION L

Of the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, and the time when this Book was written.

As this book belongs to the historical writings of the New Testament, I treat of it immediately after the Gospels, agreeably to the order in which it is placed in our common editions of the Greek Testament, though in ancient manuscripts and ancient versions it is very frequently placed after the Epistles of St. Paul, because it is necessary to a right understanding of them. It appears from the very first sentence in the Acts of the Apostles, that it was a continuation of St. Luke's Gospel, and that it was written by the same author. This is likewise asserted by the most ancient ecclesiasti cal writers, whose testimony I think it unnecessary to quote, as the question admits of no doubt, and Lardner has already given a sufficient number of quotations on this subject. Whether the interval which elapsed between the composition of St. Luke's Gospel, and his second work the Acts of the Apostles, was considerable or not, it is at present impossible to determine. Nor are we able to decide, whether both books were written in the same or different places: for though each of them was dedicated to Theophilus, we cannot assert that either of them was written in the same place, in which Theophilus resided. That the Acts of the Apostles were written at Alexandria is still less probable, than that St. Luke's Gospel was written there: and if it be allowable to substitute conjecture, where we are forsaken by historical evidence, I would rather suppose that the

Acts were written in Rome, at which place St. Luke mentions his arrival, in company with St. Paul, shortly before the close of the book. Further, as it is continued to the end of the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment, it could not have been written before the year 63: nor do I think it probable that it was written after that year, for St. Luke would then have related some further particulars relative to St. Paul, or would at least have mentioned the event of his imprisonment, in which the Christian reader was highly interested. St. Luke's long attendance on St. Paul, and his having been himself eye-witness to so many of the facts which he has recorded, render him a most respectable and credible historian. His medical knowledge enabled him, both to form a proper judgment of the miraculous cures, which were performed by St. Paul, and to give an accurate and authentic detail of them. But he himself does not appear to have possessed the power of healing by supernatural means: at least, we have no instances of it on record, and when the father of Publius and other sick persons (Acts xxviii. 8, 9.) were suddenly cured, they were restored to health, not by St. Luke, but by the prayers of St. Paul.

SECTION II.

Of the object which St. Luke had in view, in writing the Acts of the Apostles.

Ir is obvious, that St. Luke did not intend to write a general history of the Christian church, during the first thirty years after Christ's ascension: for he has almost wholly omitted what passed among the Christians

e Acts xxviii. 16.

in Jerusalem after the conversion of St. Paul, though the other Apostles continued for some time in Palestine. Before St. Luke wrote the Acts, the younger James had been stoned to death by the Jews, and the Jewish converts to Christianity had suffered so severe a persecution, that they began to waver in their faith, on which occasión St. Paul judged it necessary to write his Epistle to the Hebrews. These were facts, which an historian, who designed to write a general account of the Christian church, could not have passed over in silence. Further, St. Luke has not described the propagation of Christianity either in Egypt, or in the countries which bordered on the Euphrates and the Tigris, though at Edessa the king himself had become an early convert to the Christian religion. Nor has he mentioned St. Paul's journey into Arabia, or the state of Christianity in Babylon, though it appears from the first Epistle of St. Peter', that a Christian community existed in that city. Here the question occurs: Were the Christians in these countries converts from the Jewish religion, and was St. Luke's principal attention directed to the conversion of the Gentiles? Or was he silent on the propagation of Christianity in the East, and in Egypt, because he had no opportunity of what was transacted there? He is equally silent on the foundation of the Christian community in Rome, though it was in a very flourishing state before St. Paul's arrival in that city, and had already received an Epistle from the Apostle. There are other omissions in the Acts of the Apostles, which we can hardly ascribe to a want of knowledge in the author: for, as St. Luke was many years the constant companion of St. Paul, he was certainly well acquainted with St. Paul's general history. Yet he has omnitted many material transactions in the life of the Apostle, of which Lardner has selected several remark

Ch. v. 13.

This however cannot be said of the king, who resided at Edessa: for he was an Armenian.

able instances". In one respect however Lardner is mistaken: for he supposes that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul to Corinth, whereas, I have shewn in a preceding section, that St. Luke staid behind at Philippi. But St. Luke was probably informed by St. Paul of what was done in his absence: and since he has related many things performed by St. Paul before they again joined company, and has even recorded the speech delivered at Athens, at which he was no more present, than at St. Paul's transactions in Corinth, we must conclude, that his silence did not always proceed from a want of knowledge of the facts, which he has emitted. He has no where alluded to any one of St. Paul's Epistles : he has passed over several persecutions, which the Apostle underwent*: he has taken no notice of several voyages made by St. Paul, in which he thrice suffered shipwreck, long before the shipwreck, which happened on the voyage to Italy: nor has he given an account of the great danger, from which the Apostle had been delivered by Aquila and Priscilla, whose generous conduct entitled them to the thanks of every Christian community. It is true that these facts appear to have taken place during that period which belongs to Acts xvii. 1.xx. 5, 6. when St. Luke was absent from St. Paul": yet as we cannot suppose that they remained totally unknown to him, we may at least deduce this inference, that it was not St. Luke's intention to write a complete narrative of St. Paul's transactions. Of his own history he has said very little and of what he did at Philippi during the absence of St. Paul he has said nothing. This silence we may ascribe to his modesty, which never suffered him to appear as a principal person. Of the controversies, which took place relative to the question, whe