CHAP. XVI.

St. Luke was the Author of the Acts of the Apostles. This proved from many Teftimonies of the antient Fathers. An Objection from the Synopfis, under the Name of Athanafius, refuted. The Alls contain the History of the Chriftian Church for the Space of twenty-eight Years. The Time of St. Luke's writing the Acts difcovered. Whether he went to Alexandria? The Alts were foon tranflated into Hebrew.

I.

T. Luke, the author of the Gofpel under that name, also the author of the book intitled, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. This is apparent from the conftant teftimony of all antiquity, the matter being never once queftioned by any of the Catholick Church. I fhall mention only those which are most antient.

1. Irenæus has in feveral places afcribed this Hiftory to St. Luke, as its author; for inftance, citing the Hiftory, Acts viii. 9. he introduces it thus: Luke, the difciple and follower of the Apostles, fays thus, A certain man, named Simona; in another place, citing Acts xv. 39, &c. he faith, Luke was the infeparable companion and fellow-labourer of Paul, and wrote thus, viz. concerning the contention of Paul and Barnabas; and then proceeds largely to prove, that St. Luke was the conftant companion of St. Paul, becaufe in the Acts, Chap. xvi. 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Chap. xx. xxi. and xxvii. he fpeaks in the first perfon plural, "we endeavoured, we came,

WE went, WE fate down, and wE fpake, &c." all which proves, that Irenæus looked upon Luke as the undoubted author of this book. The fame he proves from several places of St. Paul's Epiftles (viz. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Col. iv. 14.) and concludes from the whole St. Luke's fitness for writing a just

a

Difcipulus et fectator Apoftolorum ait; Vir quidam, nomine Si

mon, &c. adv. Hæref. lib. i. c. 20. Adv. Hæref. lib. 3. c. 14. and

and true history. In another place a he fhews, that St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles ought to be equally received with his Gofpel; for that in them he has carefully delivered to us the truth, and given us a fure rule for falvation, &c. Again, lib. 3. c. 13. he observes, that St. Paul's account, Gal. ii. 1. of the time when he went to Jerufalem, exactly agrees with Luke's account in the Acts. Laftly, this Father, citing part of Stephen's fpeech, Acts vii. introduces it thus, So Luke writes, &cb.

2. Clemens Alexandrinus, citing Paul's speech at Athens, Acts xvii. 22, &c. introduces it, So Luke in the Acts of the Apoftles relates that Paul faid, &c.

3. The Author of the Hypotypofes, under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the Epifle to the Hebrews, fays it was tranflated out of its original Hebrew, in which it was written by Paul, into Greek by Luke; whence, fays he, we may obferve, that there is a great likeness in the Style of that Epistle, and the Acts of the Apostles; from whence it is manifeft, this author efteemed Luke the author of the Acts of the Apostles.

4. Tertullian cites several places out of the Acts of the Apofles, which he calls Commentarius Luca, i. e. the Commentary of Luke.

5. Origen afcribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke f.

6. Eufebius faith, Luke has left us two inspired volumes, viz. the Gospel and the Acts &.

7. Jerome also expressly afferts the Acts to be the compofure of Luke".

8. Several antient manuscript Greek copies have the name of St. Luke prefixed to this History (Simon. Crit. Hift. of the New Teft. Part I. c. 14.); as alfo hath the old Syriack Verfion, which feems in this cafe to have fome weight, as agreeing with all antiquity.

From all this teftimony my propofition is abundantly evident; nor have I met with any thing which can be objected hereto, unless that it be made an objection, which we read in the author of the Synopfis Scripturarum, under the name of Athanafius, viz. that Peter dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but Luke wrote them; but it is easy to reply;

1. That one fingle teftimony is not to be credited against the univerfal concurrence of antiquity.

2. It is very evident, that Luke wrote the greatest part of this book of his own knowledge, and fo had no need of any one to dictate to him. And hence Eufebius says, he wrote the Alts not from tradition, or hearfay, but as what he faw and heard; and Jerome exprefsly, he wrote the Acts from what himfelf faw. Befides, as Luke was the conftant companion of Paul, he was more capable of writing his history, which is the greatest part of the book, than Peter could be.

II. The Acts of the Apostles, written by St. Luke, contain the hiftory of the infant ftate of the Chriftian Church, for the Space of about twenty-eight years. He begins this History

where his Gofpel-history ended, viz. with an account of our Saviour's afcenfion, and what followed in the Church afterwards. He ends his History with the relation of Paul's being brought to Rome, and his abode there for the space of two years (xxviii. 30, 31.) Hence the truth of the propofition will be clearly evinced; for, whereas our Saviour afcended in

the year from his birth 33, and St. Paul went to Rome in the fourth or fifth year of Nero's reign, i. e. in the year of Christ 58, or rather 59; if we add to this number the two years of his abode there, with which account the hiftory of the Acts is concluded, it will produce the year 61, which from the year 33, makes juft twenty-eight years.

There is indeed the difference of two years between the above account, and that of Bifhop Pearfon *, Spanheim ", Dr. 'Mill, and fome others; but as the difference is so small, and my account is conformable to the common chronology of Chriftianity, I fhall say no more.

COROLL. Hence we fee near to what time this Hiftory of the Acts was written, viz. either in the year of Christ 62, or not long after. It being altogether probable, that St. Luke would not defer his writing long after his departure from St. Paul; which feems to have been now, when the Apostle was fet at liberty from his confinement at Rome. I have above obferved (Chap. XI.), treating of St. Luke's Gospel, that St. Luke continued at Rome after St. Paul went thence; and there it is probable, he wrote very foon both his Gospel and Acts. That he wrote them both in the fame year feems very probable, as it is certain that one of them is only to be looked upon as the fecond part, or continuation of the other. Dr. Grabe, to ferve a particular defign, and after him Dr. Mille, fuppofe St. Luke to have gone, immediately upon his parting from St. Paul, into Egypt, and there at Alexandria to have published both his Gofpel and Acts of the Apostles, A. D. 64. The foundation of this opinion is partly the affertion of it in the title of the Syriack Verfion, and partly the credit of the Conftitutions of the Apoftles, in which it is faid, that Luke ordained Avilius, fecond Bishop of Alexandria (lib. 7. c. 46.); but. neither of these are of any weight, the titles and epigraphs of

2 Annal. Paulin. p. 18.

• Hiftor. Chrift. Secul. I. §. 6. Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. §. 121.

33.

d

Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 32,

e Prolegom. in Nov. Teft. §. 114,

et 121.

this Version not being of very certain authority, and the Conftitutions of the Apostles of much less, or none at all.

b

III. The Acts of the Apostles feem to have been very early tranflated out of Greek into Hebrew. This, Epiphanius tells us, he had by information from feveral Jews, and afterwards ", that one Jofephus found a copy of the Acts in Hebrew in the Jewish archives at Tiberias.

CHA P. XVII.

The Acts of the Apofiles proved to be Canonical by various Arguments. A Miftake of fome learned Men corrected; viz. that the Acts were not fo much known or regarded, as the other Books of the New Teftament. A Paffage of a Book under the Name of Chryfoftom to this Purpose, largely confidered. Who among the antient Hereticks rejected the Acts. Arg. I. THE Acts of the Apoftles are of Canonical authority by Prop. IV. because it is found in all the catalogues of facred books, which we have in the writings of the primitive Chriftians. See Vol. I. Part I. Ch. VIII.

Arg. II. The Acts of the Apostles are of Canonical authority, because they are cited and appealed to as Scripture, in the writings of the primitive Christians, by Prop. V. as will appear from the following inftances.

The Acts of the Apostles are cited,

I. By CLEMENS ROMANUS, Epift. I. ad Corinth. Ch. II. He cites the words, which are Acts xx. 35. Ch. XVIII. He certainly made ufe of, and appears to have read, Acts xiii. 22. For, whereas Paul in that place manifeftly

a Hæref. 30. Ebionit. §. 3. VOL. III.

K

b Ibid. §. 6. et §. 12. cites