xvii. 24, 25, quoted above, and it only serves to show how common such

language was. Lardner himself says of the passage: "This is much the same thought, and applied to the same purpose, with Paul's, Acts xvii. 25, _as though he needeth anything_. But it is a character of the Deity so obvious, that I think it cannot determine us to suppose he had an eye to those words of the Apostle."(2) The language, indeed, is quite different and shows no acquaintance with the Acts.(3) Eusebius states that the Severians who more fully established Tatian's heresy rejected both the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.(4)

Dionysius of Corinth is rarely adduced by any one as testimony for the Acts. The only ground upon which he is at all referred to is a statement of Eusebius in mentioning his Epistles. Speaking of his Epistle to the Athenians, Eusebius says: "He relates, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite who was converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle, according to the account given in the

{24}

Acts, was appointed the first bishop of the church of the Athenians."(1) Even apologists admit that it is doubtful how far Dionysius referred to the Acts,(2) the mention of the book here being most obviously made by Eusebius himself.

Melito of Sardis is not appealed to by any writer in connection with our work, nor can Claudius Apollinaris be pressed into this service. Athenagoras is supposed by some to refer to the very same passage in Acts xvii. 24, 25, which we have discussed when dealing with the work of Tatian. Athenagoras says: "The Creator and Father of the universe is not in need of blood, nor of the steam of burnt sacrifices, nor of the fragrance of flowers and of incense, he himself being the perfect fragrance, inwardly and outwardly without need."(3) And further on: "And you kings indeed build palaces for yourselves; but the world is not made as being needed by God."(4) These passages occur in the course of a defence of Christians for not offering sacrifices, and both in language and context they are quite independent of the Acts of the Apostles.

In the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, giving an account of the persecution against them, it is said that the victims were praying for those from whom they suffered cruelties: "like Stephen the perfect martyr:

{25}

'Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' But if he was supplicating for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren?"(l) The prayer here quoted agrees with that ascribed to Stephen in Acts vii. 60. There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the Epistle, and the source from which the writers obtained their information about Stephen is of course not stated. If there really was a martyr of the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him, the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics conjecture that the author of Acts derived his materials,2 and in this case the passage obviously does not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never was such a martyr by whom these words were spoken, and the whole story must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts, then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the use of the Acts.(3) Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the Acts of the Apostles were in existence in the year 177-178, when the Epistle of

{26}

Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be in the slightest degree established.

Ptolemaeus and Heracleon ueed not detain us, as it is not alleged that they show acquaintance with the Acts, nor is Celsus claimed as testimony for the book.

The Canon of Muratori contains a very corrupt paragraph regarding the Acts of the Apostles. We have already discussed the date and character of this fragment,(1) and need not further speak of it here. The sentence in which we are now interested reads in the original as follows:

"Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicute et semote pas-sionem petri euidenter declarat sed et profectionem pauli ab urbes ad spania proficescentis."

It is probable that in addition to its corruption some words may have been lost from the concluding phrase of this passage, but the following may perhaps sufficiently represent its general sense: "But the Acts of all the Apostles were written in one book. Luke included (in his work) to the excellent Theophilus only the things which occurred in his own presence, as he evidently shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter and also the setting forth of Paul from the city to Spain."

Whilst this passage may prove the existence of the Acts about the end of the second century, and that the authorship of the work was ascribed to Luke, it has no further value. No weight can be attached to the statement of

{27}

the unknown writer beyond that of merely testifying to the currency of such a tradition, and even the few words quoted show how uncritical he was. Nothing could be less appropriate to the work before us than the assertion that it contains the Acts of _all_ the Apostles, for it must be apparent to all, and we shall hereafter have to refer to the point, that it very singularly omits all record of the acts of most of the apostles, occupies itself chiefly with those of Peter and Paul, and devotes considerable attention to Stephen and to others who were not apostles at all. We shall further have occasion to show that the writer does anything but confine himself to the events of which he was an eye-witness, and we may merely remark, in passing, as a matter. which scarcely concerns us here, that the instances given by the unknown writer of the fragment to support his assertion are not only irrelevant, but singularly devoid themselves of historical attestation.

Irenaeus(1) assigns the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, as do Clement of Alexandria,(2) Tertullian,(3) and Origen,(4) although without any statements giving special weight to their mention of him as the author in any way counterbalancing the late date of their testimony. Beyond showing that tradition, at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, associated the name of Luke with this writing and the third Gospel, the evidence of these Fathers is of no value to us. We have already incidentally mentioned that some heretics either ignored or rejected the book, and to the Marcionites and Severians

{28}

we may now add the Ebionites(1) and Manichaeans.(2) Chrysostom complains that in his day the Acts of the Apostles were so neglected that many were ignorant of the existence of the book and of its authors.(3) Doubts as to its authorship were expressed in the ninth century, for Photius states that some ascribed the work to Clement of Rome, others to Barnabas, and others to Luke the evangelist.(4)

If we turn to the document itself, we find that it professes to be the second portion of a work written for the information of an unknown person named Theophilus, the first part being the Gospel, which, in our canonical New Testament, bears the name of "Gospel according to Luke." The narrative is a continuation of the third Synoptic, but the actual title of "Acts of the Apostles," or "Acts of Apostles" [------],(5) attached to this [------] is a later addition, and formed no part of the original document. The author's name is not given in any of the earlier MSS., and the work is entirely anonymous. That in the prologue to the Acts the writer clearly assumes to be the author of the Gospel does not in any way identify him, inasmuch as the third Synoptic itself is equally anonymous. The tradition assigning both works to Luke the follower of Paul, as we have seen, is first met with

{29}

towards the end of the second century, and very little weight can be attached to it. There are too many instances of early writings, several of which indeed have secured a place in our canon, to which distinguished names have been erroneously ascribed. Such tradition is notoriously liable to error.

We shall presently return to the question of the authorship of the third Synoptic and Acts of the Apostles, but at present we may so far anticipate as to say that there are good reasons for affirming that they could not have been written by Luke.(1)

Confining ourselves here to the actual evidence before us, we arrive at a clear and unavoidable conclusion regarding the Acts of the Apostles. After examining all the early Christian literature, and taking every passage which is referred to as indicating the use of the book, we see that there is no certain trace even of its existence till towards the end of the second century; and, whilst the writing itself is anonymous, we find no authority but late tradition assigning it to Luke or to any other author. We are absolutely without evidence of any value as to its accuracy or trustworthiness, and, as we shall presently see, the epistles of Paul, so far from accrediting it, tend to cast the most serious doubt upon its whole character. This evidence we have yet to examine, when considering the contents of the Acts, and we base our present remarks solely on the external testimony for the date and authorship of the book. The position, therefore, is simply this: We are asked to believe in the reality of a great number of miraculous and supernatural

1 The reader is referred to an article by the author in the Fortnightly Rev., 1877, p. 496 ff., in which some indications of date, and particularly those connected with the use of writings of Josephus, are discussed.

{30}

occurrences which, obviously, are antecedently incredible, upon the assurance of an anonymous work of whose existence there is no distinct evidence till more than a century after the events narrated, and to which an author's name--against which there are strong objections--is first ascribed by tradition towards the end of the second century. Of the writer to whom the work is thus attributed we know nothing beyond the casual mention of his name in some Pauline Epistles. If it were admitted that this Luke did actually write the book, we should not be justified in believing the reality of such stupendous miracles upon his bare statement As the case stands, however, even taking it in its most favourable aspect, the question scarcely demands serious attention, and our discussion might at once be ended by the unhesitating rejection of the Acts of the Apostles as sufficient, or even plausible, evidence for the miracles which it narrates.