The Acts of the Apostles
That the Acts of the Apostles is the writing; of Luke the Evatig;elist, is manifest from the dedication to Theophilus, in which reference is made to his gospel, which was first written. And it is niso cvi(ient, from the uniform testimony of all antiquity; the fact never havinj; ‘leen once questioned, by any member of the catholic ohur-h.
But it is pleasint to read the explicit testimonies of the Fathers, to the sacred books of the New Testament: I will, therefore, bring forward, the most important.
Irenus, repeatedly cites passages from this book, saying, Luke the disciple and follower of Paul, says thus.” “Luke the inseperable companion and fellow labourer of Paul, wrote thus.” He takes particular notice of Luke’s using the first person plural, xve endeavoured — we came — we went — we sat down — toe spoke, &c. And enters into some discussion to pro’e Luke’s fitness for writing a just and true history.”
In another place, he shous, “That St. Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, ought to be equally received with his gospp]; for that in them he has carefully delivered t. us the truth, and given to us a sure rule for salvation.” Again, he says, -’Paul’s account of ills going to Jerusalem, exactly agrees with Luke’s, m the Acts.”
Clemens Alexan-irinus, citing PauFs speech at Athens, introduces it thus, “So Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, relates.”
Tertullian cites several passages out of the Acts of the Apostles, which he calls, Commentarius Lucse The Commentary of Luke.
Okigen, ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke.
EusEBius says, “Luke has left us two inspired volumes, The Gospel, and the Acts.”
Jerome expressly asserts, “That the Acts, was the composition of Luke.”
The Syriac Verion of the New Testainent, ascribes the Acts to Luke; and in some very ancient Manuscripts of the New Testament, his name is prefixed to this book.
To this uniform body of ancient testimony, there is nothing which can be objected, except that the author of the Synopsis, commonly ascribed to Athanasius, says, “Peter dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but Luke wrote them.” But if this were true, it would not in the least detract from the authority of the book, but rather increase it. One testimony, however, can be of no avail, against so many; and we know, that Luke knew most of the facts recorded in this book, by his own personal observation, and needed no one to dictate them to him. Besides, Peter was nOt an eye-witness of the greater number of the facts, related in this book.
The time when the Acts of the Apostles was written, may be determined pretty accurately, by the time when the history which it contains terminates; that is about A. D. 62; for no doubt, he began to write soon after he left Rome.
That the Acts of the Apostles is of Canonical authority is proved, from its having a place in all the ancient catalogues of the books of the New Testament.
The same is evinced, by the numerous citations from this book, by the early Fathers; who explicitly appeal to it, as of divine authority — as an inspired book.
It is plainly referred to in more instances than one, by Clement of Rome, the fellow labourer of Paul.
PoLYCARP the disciple of John, also cites a passage from the Acts, in his Epistle to the Philippians.
It is cited by Justin Martyr, in his Exhortation to the Greeks.
It is distinctly cited by Irenjeus, more than thirty times, in some of which inslancfs it is expressly called, Scripture; and the credit and authority of the book are largely discussed, in hi« work against Heretics.
The citations of Terttjlltan, from this book, are too numerous to be particularized. He also quotes it expressly, under the name of Scuipture; “Which part of Scripture,” says he, “they who do not receive, must deny the descent of the Holy Ghost, and be ignorant of the infant state of the Christian Church.”*
This book was also constantly read as Scripture, in the weekly assemblies of Christians, all over the world.
From the testimonies adduced above, it will appear with convincing evidence, how unfounded is the opinion of some learned men, that the Acts, in the early period of the church, was verylittle known comparatively, and very little esteemed. This opinion has been favoured by such men as Father Simon, and Dr. Mill; and has no other foundation than a passage in the Prolegomena to the Acts, ascribed to Chrtsostom, the genuineness of which is very doubtful. But if Chrysostom was the author of this passage, how little can it weigh against such a host of witnesses. The passage referred to, is, “This book is not so much as known to many; they know neither the book nor by whom it was written.” Now, the same might be asserted, respecting all the books in the Canon, There are ma-
* De Prescriptione.
iiy persons ignorant of what ihey contain, and unacquainted with their object. But there is no need to dwell longeron this objection.
The Acts of the Aposiles, therefore, has an indisputable claim to a place in the sacred Canon. No better, or stronger evidence, can be desired. It is true, that some of the earliest heretics did not receive this book as (Canonical. Tertullian informs us, that it was rejected by Cerdo, the master of Marcion, and some others whom he does not name, but whom he refutes.
PniLASTRius informs us, that the Cerinthiansdid not receive this book.
And Augustine tells us, that thcManichees did not, because they considered Manes to be the Paraclete, promised by the Saviour; but in the Acts it is declared to have been the Holy Ghost, which descended on the apostles, on the day of Pentecost.
“But,” says Father Simon,” let us leave these enthusiasts, who had no other reason for rejecting the books, received by the whole church, except that they did not suit with the idea which they had formed of the Christian Religion,”