Let us suppose it was a copy of the Oracles of Matthew, to which had been attached some brief narrative of the ministry of Christ. It would be, in that case, one of the oldest copies in existence.

Suppose this copy was brought back to Alexandria, accompanied with some old manuscripts of genealogies; that some zealous Christian in that city, wishing to aid in the consolidation of the church then going on, undertook, from these and other materials, to write a new gospel; that it was published in Alexandria.

Such a work would fulfill all the conditions, and would exhibit the complex character now found in the Gospel of Matthew. The Oracles and accompanying narrative would furnish, in some cases, the most authentic records, and in the shortest and simplest form of any yet published; and this would of itself justify an addition to the gospels then in circulation.

The author would have before him the gospels of the Infancy and the Gospels of Mark and Luke.

That Pantænus was a Jew, we learn from Clement of Alexandria, who speaks of him as a Hebrew of Palestine, whom he found concealed in Egypt, and who "was the true Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow."-[Stromata, bk. 1, ch. 1.

The book entitled the "Acts of the Apostles" does not much differ, in its general character, from other writings of the kind which were in circulation among the Christians of the second century. There were Acts of the Apostles supposed to have been written by Leucius; there were The Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Acts of Philip, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.

The same bold appeal to the love of the marvelous-the same disregard of historical facts and geographical and chronological accuracy, which are to be seen in those writings, characterize also, the Acts of the Apostles.

Gaza is spoken of as a deserted place, though at that time it was a flourishing city.

In Acts, 5. 34 to 36, Gamaliel is represented as referring, in a speech, to Theudas, and to acts of

his, which were not performed until some forty years after the time referred to, and more than ten years after the time when Gamaliel was delivering his address. Again, the reference in the 21st chapter, to the Egyptian impostor, does not at all agree with the historical account of the same transaction as given by Josephus.

There is the same loose reference to the prophecies, as in John and Matthew.

This work had but an indifferent standing among the fathers. As late as at the commencement of the fifth century, Chrysostom said,

"This book is not so much as known to many. They know neither the book, nor by whom it was written.”—[Prolegomena to Acts. See also Mill, Prof. in Act. p. 254.

The text has always been very uncertain.' The Cambridge MS., (Codex Beza), has six hundred interpolations.2

The author is supposed to have been the same as the compiler of the Gospel of Luke; a theory based upon the preface to each, and which finds some confirmation in linguistic peculiarities, and similarity of style.

That it was written late in the second century, may be safely assumed.

The following passage is from the writings of Aristides, the sophist, who flourished about A. D. 176. The similarity in style and incidents to the 27th

(1.) Westcott, Canon, p, 215.

(2.) McClintock & Streng, Article "Cambridge MS."

chapter of Acts, will be at once apparent.

"We were going to Cephalonia, and again we had a high sea, and a contrary wind, and we were tossed up and down, to the great detriment of my health, and beyond what my constitution could bear. Afterward, the like happened in the straits of Achaia, when truly the good mariners would put out from Patræ, at the very time of the equinox, against my will, and very much to my prejudice, under my indispositions. The like things happened again, in the Egean Sea, through the obstinacy of the master of the ship, and of the mariners; when they would sail, though the winds were contrary; nor would they hearken to me. So we were carried about by the tempest, over that whole sea, for fourteen days and nights, and were oftentimes without food, and at length, with difficulty, got to Miletus."--[Sacrorum Sermon. 2, tom. 1, p. 306.

There is no reason to believe that Aristides had ever seen the Acts, or any other book of the New Testament.

That the Acts of the Apostles, also, was written in the interest of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, must be obvious to any one who will give the matter careful consideration.

In the Acts, a prominence is given to Peter, not to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, if we except the two passages already spoken of. It was Peter who made a speech showing the necessity of selecting another apostle in place of Judas, (the Catholic historians add, that he presided over the election of Matthias)-it was Peter who made the great speech on the day of Pentecost, and who first preached to the Jews-it was he who first announced that the gospel was to go to the Gentiles-it was Peter whom Paul came to Jerusalem to see, and as Bossuet says, to "study"-it was Peter who was a prominent actor at (and, as the Catholic historians have it, presided over) the council of Jerusalem.

Peter is everywhere prominent; everywhere making speeches, and directing the affairs of the church. He is the "pillar apostle," of both Jews and Gentiles.

Several of these accounts, giving such prominence to Peter, are in direct conflict with the writings of Paul. It was the policy of the author of the Acts, writing in the interest of the Catholic Church, and aiming at unity of doctrine, to ignore the wellknown differences that existed all through the early age of the church, between Peter and James, and their Judaistic followers, on the one hand, and Paul and the Gentile Christians on the other. Accordingly, in the Acts, Paul is represented as preaching to the Jews at Samaria and Jerusalem, immediately after his conversion; although he himself distinctly informs us, in the epistle to the Galatians, that he preached to the Gentiles seventeen years before preaching to the Jews at all. Three years after his conversion, he went up to Jerusalem, but saw only Peter and James. Fourteen years afterward, he went up by revelation, and communicated to the Jews, even then privately at first, the gospel which he had been preaching among the Gentiles. [Galatians, ch. 2.]

In the Acts, not only does Paul preach at once to the Jews, but Peter becomes an apostle to the Gentiles. He is made to say,

"Ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."-[Acts, 15. 7.

Thus the distinction so much dwelt upon by Paul,