poser of the Gospel distinguished by his name. St. Luke was the companion of St. Paul in many parts of his travels, which are recounted in this book without affectation or interested design; and it is reasonable to suppose, that he received much information from this indefatigable and venerable Apostle. The analogy of faith, and correspondence between the history of the Acts of the Apostles, and other parts of Scripture, as well as with the outward circumstances of the world at the time it was written, constitute authentic proofs of his veracity. Some of these proofs I shall briefly arrange in the following order :

1. The authenticity of the history of the Acts may be asserted from its general agreement with the Gospels and Epistles. In all the important and peculiar doctrines of Christianity, they are radically and essentially the same. Miracles and prophecies are equally appealed to in testimony of its truth. The occurrences which took place on our Saviour's death, naturally arise from the circum

the matter never being once questioned by any of the Catholic Church. The first and most early heretics of the Church, it is said, did not receive it as Scripture. But I have carefully examined the several places where these heretics are said to have rejected the Acts, but find not any one reason assigned for their doing so. To end in Father Simon's words, (Crit. Hist. p. 1. c. 14. in fine) "Let us leave these enthusiasts, who had no other reason to refuse the books that were approved by the whole Church than this, that they did not suit with the idea which they had formed of the Christian Religion."-Jones on the Canonical Authenticity of the N. T.

stances related at the conclusion of the Gospels; and the letters, which were sent by the Apostles to different Churches or individuals, agree with the manner in which the several Churches were originally established, according to the history of the Acts of the Apostles. One plan, one spirit, animates the whole. The Acts indeed may in some measure be considered as a supplement to St. Luke's Gospel in particular, so far as relates to the style of the composition, and its design, but it preserves an equal connection with those of the other Evangelists. The doctrines of the Epistles correspond in every particular with those detailed in the Acts. And not the doctrines only, but undesigned coincidences of facts, related in the narrative of St. Luke, and referred to by the Apostle Paul in his written communications with distant Churches, or absent friends, demonstrate that neither the facts alleged, nor the letters which allude to them, were adduced as parts of a premeditated plan, or intended in any respect for the purpose deception. "The simple perusal of the writings (says an author who has cast the clearest light upon this subject) is sufficient to prove, that neither the history was taken from the letters, nor the letters from the history. Coincidences, therefore, which are too close and numerous to be accounted for by accidental occurrences of fiction, must necessarily have truth for their foundation '."

1

of

Paley's View, &c. vol. ii. p. 195. The reader is particularly referred to that author's Hore Paulinæ, as affording a valuable collection of evidences on this subject.

An additional testimony of the connection between St. Paul and St. Luke will be found in the salutations sent by the former from Rome during his first imprisonment at that place, as we find it mentioned at the conclusion of the history of the Acts. In the Epistle to the Colossians, which was written at this period, he says, "Luke, the beloved physician, greeteth you';" and in that to Philemon, nearly of the same date, he calls Luke his fellow-labourer 2"

2. The second proof arises from a comparison of this book with the relation which is given of its contents by the early Fathers of the Church, as well as from their confirmation of its divine authority. Without entering at large into this evidence, and selecting passages from each, it will be sufficient to adduce one, as comprehending the whole. Eusebius, speaking the sense of all the writers who had gone before him during the first three centuries, observes, that "Luke was a native of Antioch, and a physician by profession; that he was a companion of St. Paul, though he had frequent communications with the rest of the Apostles; that he has left, in two divinely inspired books, lessons which are medicinal for our souls, which he learnt from the Apostles; that is, the Gospel, which he declares to have written, as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered it to him, all of whom he professes to have followed from the beginning; and the

Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, not as he received them by information from others, but as an eye-witness himself1." And in another passage he says, "The book of the Acts of the Apostles was, from the beginning, unanimously received by all the Churches as part of the New Testament, or sacred code of divinely inspired books 2 3."

3. A comparison of this book with the writings of the ancient classical historians, so far as it is connected with the period of which it treats, offers to our consideration a third convincing proof of its authenticity. Had the Acts of the Apostles stood singly, as it were, in the page of history, had it related a course of events unconnected with what was known to be the moral, political, or even geographical situation of that quarter of the globe where the scene of its actions was laid, some reasonable hesitation might have been entertained of the veracity of its author. But supported as it is, by select passages from the writings of men, who, least of all, wished to strengthen the belief of this dangerous superstition, as they termed Christianity, the very slanders of these authors become important proofs of the truth of that religion they would profane.

Eus. Hist. lib. iii. c. 4.

2 Ibid.

These extracts may be sufficient at present. The whole series of attestations on the authenticity of the Scriptures will be met with in Paley's Evidences, vol. i. c. 9.: and those more appropriate to the Acts of the Apostles, in Biscoe's Serm. at Boyle's Lectures, and in Benson's History of the first planting of the Christian Religion.

Beyond every other writer, whose evidence thus strongly authenticates the Holy Scriptures, and particularly the Acts of the Apostles, none is of greater, or indeed so great, importance as the Jewish historian Josephus. He appears to have been raised up by Divine Providence for this very purpose. If any man might be expected to oppose every argument in favour of Christianity, Josephus would be that man. Yet almost every part of his history confirms its truth. The political state of Judea, its civil officers, its High-Priests, its Scribes, and Pharisees, are all accurately delineated, and are clearly in description the officers, High-Priests, Scribes and Pharisees of the Acts of the Apostles. The different branches of the family of Herod, some of the domestic transactions of that family, and in particular the dreadful end of Herod Agrippa, which will be noted in its place, are all recorded in both histories. St. Luke's narrative being first written, could not be taken from Josephus; and nothing is so improbable, nay, from the circumstances of the men and of the times, nothing appears to be more impossible, than that the Jewish historian should derive any part of his materials from any Christian writer.

When a history is forged, there is reason to expect that the author, by an accidental slip of memory, should introduce the customs and manners, and perhaps the incidents, of some other period. But compare St. Luke's narrative with that of any historian of those times, either Heathen or Jew, and it will be found consistent in every part. The

D