we collect of the education, life, and habits. of the author.

VII. But it is in the mode of composition that forgery usually betrays itself. It is elaborately artificial, studious about the arrangement and disposition of the parts, is complete, methodical, and never loses sight of the manifest object at which it aims. As a composition, the book of the Acts is singularly inartificial; it opens without pretension; is loose in the arrangement of its facts, passes over considerable periods of time; and from one subject to another; the writer leaves us to collect from the change of persons, whether he speaks as an eyewitness or from hearsay ". The end is unaccountably abrupt, and it is al

* See Lardner, Supp. chap. VIII. sect. 9. Hist. of Apost. art. St. Luke. Michaelis by Marsh, vol. III. p. 328.

y Le Clerc, above mentioned, thinks that Luke breaks off the history of St. Peter, of whom he had said so much before, very abruptly in those words Acts xii. 17. And he departed, and went to another place. Nevertheless St. Luke afterwards drops St. Barnabas in like manner, chap. xv. 39. And in the end he will take his leave of the apostle Paul himself without much more ceremony. Lardner, Hist. Apost.

most impossible to ascertain the precise object for which the work was written, for it passes from one apostle to another, and has obviously omitted many material facts: some which would have given dignity to the apostolic history, such as the foundation of the church in Edessa, Egypt, Babylon; others which would have tended to raise Paul in the estimation of the whole body, as suffering in an unprecedented manner; Three times, says St. Paula, I suffered shipwreck, Luke mentions once only. He has omitted many persecutions to which Paul distinctly alludes; he preserves a modest silence as to his own person; though as the attendant of the great apostle, it is scarcely probable but that he must have cooperated usefully in his labours, and participated in his perils.

The impartiality of the narrative is no less extraordinary than its artlessness.

z The conflicting opinions on this subject, as stated by Kuinoel, (Proleg. in Acta,) are ample evidence on this point.

a 2 Cor. xi. 25. Compare this whole passage with the Acts.

There is no chosen hero, no ostentatious display of magnanimity or devotion, no boast of self-sacrifice. The reader is left to form his own estimate of the characters from the circumstances related; differences of opinion, disputes, weaknesses, are neither disguised nor dissembled. If an undue degree of attention appear directed to St. Paul, it is because his actions were better known to his personal attendant. But Peter is not sacrificed, for he does not inform us, that at Antioch Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. The partisan of Paul would hardly have refrained from depressing Barnabas, and would not have passed so lightly over their remarkable contention. What could be the design of forging such a book? It is not a complete history of the first propagation of Christianity; it is not a panegyrical biography of any one of the early teachers; it is not a pompous display of their sufferings or their success; it is not a complete developement of their religion. If it had been worth

b Galat. ii. 11.

c Acts xv. 39.

while to invent, the invention would have been more skilful, and more to the purpose; had the early Christians lied, they would have lied more splendidly. The greatness of the apostolic characters, the powers which they possessed, the rapidity with which they triumphed, would have been more prominently advanced; the romance would have been more strongly coloured; the miracles would not have been casually scattered about, but introduced in gradual succession, and rising artfully in their demands on our credulity; the adventures would have been selected either for their marvellous or impressive character. The forger would not have confined his wonderful tale to civilized countries; he would have followed Paul into Arabia, and through the mist of unknown and fabulous regions, magnified the imposing figure of the apostle. He would not have been outdone by the boldness of subsequent tradition; or rather, if the work had been compiled in a later period, he would have embodied the striking though extravagant fictions, which were propagated concerning the authors of the

But two

faith in the second century points in particular make me conceive it impossible that the Acts should have been compiled later. I. The constant tradition of the church from the earliest times asserts that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. Would any compiler, whose object must have been to advance Christianity by deception, have declined following these apostles to the glorious consummation of their labours; refused them, as it were, their crown and palms, and neglected such an opportunity of confirming the faith by the testimony of their blood? II. If the Acts were compiled and published before the destruction of Jerusalem, multitudes who knew the facts must have been living; if subsequently, their silence concerning that event is inexplicable. The enemies of Christ are scattered over the earth; his murder awfully avenged; the guilty city

d Etenim si legas ea, quæ cæteri qui feruntur fuisse vicini temporibus apostolorum, literis prodiderunt, vel ut ab ipsis audita conspectaque, vel ab iis qui viderint accepta, videberis tibi fabulas, ut ita dixerim, legere, si conferas cum gravitate fideque hujus historiæ. Erasm. in Act. Apost.

D