and so as to confirm their most certain history." Again, he observes, "That in the beginning of John's gospel all heretics are confuted.”

COSMAS of Alexandria, informs us, "That when John dwelt at Ephesus, there were delivered to him by the faithful the writings of the other three evangelists. Receiving them, he said, that what they had written was well written; but some things were omitted by them which were needful to be related. And being desired by the faithful, he also published his writing, as a kind of supplement to the rest.

ISIDORE of Seville, says, "That John wrote the last in Asia." THEOPHYLACT computed that John wrote about two and thirty years after Christ's ascension. EUTHYMIUS says, "That this gospel was not written until long after the destruction of Jerusalem." NICEPHORUS, "That John wrote last of all, about six and thirty years after our Lord's ascension to heaven." Having exhibited the testimonies of the ancients, it may not be amiss to set down the opinions of some of the moderns, relative to the time when this gospel was written.

MILL, FABRICIUS, LE CLERC, JONES, and many others, agree that John wrote his gospel about the year of our Lord 97. WETSTEIN thinks it might have been written about thirty-two years after the ascension. BASNAGE and LAMPE are inclined to believe that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. WHISTON and LARDNER adopt the same opinion. The gospel of John is cited by CLEMENT of Rome; by BARNABAS; by IGNATIUS; by THEOPHILUS of Antioch; by IRENEUS; and by CLEMENT of Alexandria, in more than forty instances. And by all those wri

ters who lived with, or immediately after the apostles, this gospel is appealed to as inspired Scripture; and the same is the fact in regard to ORIGEN, JEROME, AUGUSTINE, and all the Fathers, who came after this period. Nearly the whole of this gospel could be made up from citations of the writers of the first four centuries. It was never excluded from any church, or any catalogue of the books of the New Testament, and therefore possesses every evidence of being canonical, which any reasonable man could demand.

That the number of genuine gospels was four and no more, is evident from the testimony of all the Fathers who have spoken of them; and especially from the fanciful reason assigned by Irenæus to prove that there could be no more nor fewer. The same is manifest from the fact that Tatian, a learned disciple of Justin, who afterwards became the founder of a sect of ascetics, out of the four gospels formed a volume called Diatessaron.* In this, however, he left out such things as did not suit his views. But the existence of such a book which is attested by Irenæus, Eusebius, Jerome and Theodoret, shows that the num ber of gospels commonly received by heretics, as well as catholics, was four and no more. The same might be proved from the writings of Julian the apostate.

* Harmony of the four gospels.

SECTION IX.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES LUKE THE AUTHOR-CANONICAL AUTHORITY UNDISPUTED BY THE FATHERSREJECTED ONLY BY HERETICS.

THAT the Acts of the Apostles is the writing of Luke the evangelist, is manifest from the dedication to Theophilus, in which reference is made to his gospel, which was first written. And it is also evident from the uniform testimony of all antiquity; the fact never having been once questioned by any member of the catholic church. All that has been argued in vindication of the inspiration and canonical authority of Luke's gospel, is applicable to the Acts of the Apos tles, and need not be here repeated.

But it is pleasant to read the explicit testimonies of the Fathers to the sacred books of the New Testament: I will, therefore, bring forward the most important.

IRENEUS repeatedly cites passages from this book, saying, "Luke, the disciple and follower of Paul, says thus." "Luke, the inseparable companion and fellow labourer of Paul, wrote thus." He takes particular notice of Luke's using the first person plural, "we endeavoured—we came we went- we sat down— we spoke," &c.; and enters into some discussion

to prove "Luke's fitness for writing a just and true history."

In another place he shows, "That Luke's Acts of the Apostles ought to be equally received with his gospel; for that in them he has carefully delivered to us the truth, and given to us a sure rule for salvation." Again he says, "Paul's account of his going to Jerusalem exactly agrees with Luke's in the Acts."

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS citing Paul's 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 Luca, The Commentary of Luke." Origen 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 Version of the New Testament 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. is distinctly cited by IRENEUS more than thirty times, in some of which instances it is expressly called Scripture; and the credit and authority of the book are largely discussed in his work against heretics.

It

The citations of TERTULLIAN from this book are too numerous to be particularized. He also quotes it expressly under the name of Scripture; "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, * De Præscriptione.