ACT 



ACT 



e. ^. of Irenxu3, Tertullian, Clement, Orifjen, Eufebius, 

 and St. Jerome. Befides, feveral ancient Grtck MSS. of 

 the Nfvv Teftament, cited by F. Simon in his criticnl Hif- 

 tory of the New Teftament, (pt. i. c. I4.)havc the name of 

 St. Lvike prelixed to this hillory ; and in the S) liac verfion 

 it is alfo exprefs'.y afcribed to St. Luke. Moreover, the 

 hiftory of the adls of the apoftles is found in thirteen cata- 

 logues of the books of the New Teftament, which arc the 

 principal catalogues of thofe books in the writings of the 

 fathers, for the tour iirft centuries. See an enumeration of 

 thefe catalojrues in Benlbn's Hiilor)' of the firft Planting 

 of the Chriftian Religion, p. 302. and Jones's Canon, vol. i. 

 p. 73. That tlie hillory of the afts is a true hiftory, niay 

 be unqueftionably inferred from the citations and alhiiions 

 to it that occur in the writings of the prlmllive ClirilUans ; 

 M in the epiille afcribed to St. Barnabas about the year of 

 Chrift 71, the epiftle of St. Clement about the year 96, 

 the Paftor of Hernias about the year 100, the epiftles of 

 St. Ignatius about the year 107, and the epiftle of Polycarp 

 about the year icS. Thefe five were apollolic fatliers, who 

 had convcrfed wilh the apolHes, and probably with St. 

 Luke himfelt ; and therefore their teftimony is of great im- 

 portance in aicertaining the truth of this hiftory. We 

 might alfo refer to the teftimonies of Papias, A. D. 116; 

 jukin Martyr, A. D. 140 ; Iren-jeus, A. D. 178, ,St. Cle- 

 ment the preftjytcr of Alexandria, A. D. 194; Tertullian, 

 A. D. 200.'' Some have fuppofcd, that St. Luke wrote 

 both his GOSPEL and the y/rfj in one book, and divided it 

 into two parts. The tranlition (Afts i. i.) agrees with 

 this account ; for the afts are the fecond part of the book, 

 or hiftory, of which Luke has called his gofpel the firft 

 part ; the latter is infcribed to Theophilus, as well as the 

 former, and the author's name is not prefixed to the Acts as 

 it is to St. Luke's Gofpel, and yet the author is not dif- 

 putcd. When the gofpel and ti\e afts were one continued 

 book, with St. Luke's name prefixed to the former, it was 

 nc(?dlefs to repeat it before the fecond part of his work. 

 See Jones's Canon, vol. iii. p. 1 i 3. and Benfon't; Planting of 

 Chrilliaiiity, p. 299. See alfo Bifcoe's Difcourfes at 

 Boyle's l^eft. c. 14, 15, The ftyle of this hiftory, origi- 

 nalt)' written in Greek, is deemed to be purer than that of 

 {he other canonical writers; and it has been allcdged by 

 iome Biblical critics, that St. Luke, who was better ac- 

 quainted with the Greek than with the Hebrew language, 

 makes ufe of the Septuagint verfion in his citations from the 

 (jld Teitament. 



The truth and divine original of Chriftianity may be de- 

 duced from the hiftor)- of the Atts of the apoilles. The 

 general and particular doctrines contained in this book are 

 fo reafonable, and the evidences which the apoftles gave af 

 their doctrine, in their appeals to prophecies and miracles, 

 and the various gifts of tlie fpirit, were fo numerous and 

 fo ftrong, and lo wifely adapted to all forts of perfons, that 

 the truth of the religion, which they atteft, cannot be rea- 

 loaably difputed. The hiftory itfelf is credible. It was 

 written by a perion who was acquainted with the various 

 circumftances wliich he rtcites, and who was both able and 

 inclined to give a laitlifnl relation of eveiy particular tliat 

 occurred. St. I^uke was a companion of the apoftles ; he 

 vvashimfelfan eye and ear witncfs of the facts, and per- 

 fonally concerned in many of the incidents which he re- 

 eords. In the hiftory itfelf there are no inconfiftencies or 

 contradiftions. The miraculous facts related in it are nei- 

 ther inipoffible, when we confider the divine power, to 

 which tliey are afcribed, nor improbable, if we attend to the 

 grand defign and occallon of them. The writer appears to 

 have been toneft and impartial ; for he has recorded the 



objcftions made to Chriftianity, both by Jews and Heathens, 

 and the refleftlons which enemies caft upon the religion it- 

 felf and the firil preachers of it. He h.is not concealed the 

 weakneftes, faults, and preindices either of the apoftles or of 

 their converts. The occafional hints that are difperftd 

 through the epiftlcB of St. Paul, harmonize with the faif\s 

 recited in the hiftory ; infomuch that the hiftory is the bell 

 guide to tlie ftiiidy of the epiftles. The o'licr parts of the 

 New Teftament agree with tlie hiftory, ajid confirm it. 

 The Gofpcls clofe with references to the facls recorded in 

 the Afts ; and the epiftles fuppofe that thofe faifts had adlu- 

 ally occurred which the hillory relates. The iricidental 

 circumftances mentioned by St. Luke correfpond fo exattlv^ 

 and williout any previous view to fiiell a correfpondence, 

 and in caies where it could n(;t pL^liiblv have been preme- 

 ditated and prccontrived, with the accounts that occur in 

 the epiftles, and witli thofe of the bell ancient lullorians 

 both Jews and Heathens; that no ptrfon who !iad forged 

 fnch an hiftory, in later ages, could have had the fame ex- 

 ternal confirmation ; but mull have betraved hinifelf, by 

 alluding to fonie culloms or opinions fince fpvung up ; or 

 by mifreprefcnting fome circumftances, or ufing fonie phrafe 

 or expreffion, not then in ufc. The plea of forgery, there- 

 fore, in later ages, cannot be allowed : and if St. Luke had 

 publiftied fnch a hillory at fo early a period, when fome of 

 the apoftles, or many other perfons concerned in the tran- 

 faftions which he has recorded, were alive, and his account 

 had not been true, he would only have expofcd himfelf to 

 an eafy confutation, and to certain infamy. If anv hiftory 

 of former times defervcs credit, the A fh of the ApifiliS ougjit 

 to be received and credited. And if the hiftory of the 

 Ads of the Apoflles be true, Chriftianity cannot be falfe. For 

 a doftrine fo good in itfelf, and attended with fii many mira- 

 culous and divine teftimonies, has all the poffible marks of a- 

 true revelation. Sec Benfon, ubi fupra, p. 310 — 318: and aa 

 excellent work, dlllinguifhcd by acute and original leafuii- 

 ing, and amplifying the argument above fuggclled, by Arch- 

 deacon Paley, entitled Hone Pauliiire, 8vo. 1 790. 



There are alfo feveral fpurious acts of ihc Ap-"ihs: fuch 

 as, I. The niVj- &/" Aiidias, or the Hillory of the Twelve 

 Apoftles, faid to be conipofed by him in Hebrew, Uanllatcd 

 into Greek by his difciple Eutropius, and thence into Latin 

 by Julius Africanus. 2. The nd> of St. Amlj-ew, received 

 by the Encratites, Manichees, Apollolics, and Orl'renians. 

 3. The atls, received by the Ebionites, and mentioned bj" 

 Epiphanius as a grofs forgery. 4. The n^s of St. John, 

 forged by Leucius. 5. The n3s of the Api/lle , under the 

 names of Leucius, Lenticius, Leontius, Leonides, and 

 I^euthon, names of the finne perfon who lived in the 

 fourth centur)', and who was a Manichee, and probably 

 the father of thofe heretics, called by St. Auftin, Seleuciani 

 from the name Seleucus, which Mr. Jones thinks to be the 

 fame with Leucius. This book contained the arls of John, 

 Aiidrev/, Thomas, Peter, Paul, James and others. 5. The 

 nils of St. Matthias were probably written by Leucius 

 Charinus under this apoftle's name, to which clafs we may 

 refer the nets ufcd by the Manichees.. j. Tlie aas of Paul, 

 which Mill in his Prolegomena, feCt. 130. fuppofes to 

 have been compiled by fome faithtul Chrillians, about the 

 year of Chrift 69, to fupply the imperfeft accounts in the 

 ails of the apoftles, written by St. Luke, and which Whif- 

 ton regards as in fome fenfe a facred book ; but wiiich. 

 Eufebius reckons to be fpurious, and Phii'illrius condemn*. 

 as a filly book, abounding with llninge ftories. 8. The^T^'Ji- 

 of Paul and Thecla, wliieli was tile work of fome weak 

 preftiytcr of Aiia, and never had any authority in the Chrif- 

 ii^i church. It is not certain v.'hen thefe aCii were com- 



fefod ; 



