cites Pfalm lxxxix. 20. and makes an addition or paraphrase in the citation, inserting those words naτà tùv xapdíar μs, which are not in the Pfalm, Clemens citing the fame Pfalm has inserted Paul's addition. Nor is there any room to object, that perhaps they both cited according to the Septuagint; for there are no fuch words in any of the copies of the Septuagint, nor any various reading like it to be found.

II. By POLYCARP, Epift. ad Philipp.

Ch. I. He cites thofe words of Peter's fpeech, which are recorded, Acts ii. 24.

III. By JUSTIN MARTYR.

Cohort. ad Græc. p. 11. he cites Acts vii. 22. viz. that Mofes was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. And as Justin could not gather this out of the book of Exodus, fo among other reasons it is certain he did not, because he cites thof whom he calls σοφώτατοι τῶν ἱσοριογράφων, thofe excellent hiftorians, who wrote Mofes's life and actions; which cannot refer to the Pentateuch.

In the book under Juftin's name, undoubtedly antient, the Acts are often referred to; e. g. Expofit. Fidei de rect. Confef. p. 375. reference is made to Acts ix. 15. and Quæft. et Refponf. ad Orthodox. which perhaps is partly Juftin's, it is often cited, viz. Acts i. 7. Quæft. 112. iv. 18. Refponf. ad Quæft. 24. et Refponf. ad Quæft. 108. vii. 22. Quæft. 25. x. per tot. Quæft. 89. xxiii. 3. Quæft. 125. and many other places.

IV. BY IRENEUS.

This Father has often appealed to these Acts of St. Luke: I have made the following collection.

He makes very numerous appeals to, and citations from, thefe Acts; it would be tedious to collect them all; I choose rather to obferve, that this Father cites it under the express name of Scripture: which part of Scripture, fays he, they who do not receive, must deny the defcent of the Holy Ghost, and be ignorant of the infant flate of the Chriftian Church. In like

á

Quam Scripturam qui non recipiunt, nec Spiritum Sanctum poffunt agnofcere, difcentibus miffum,

&c. De Præfcript. adv. Hæretic. cap. 22.

manner

manner he calls it Scripture in another place2, disputes against the Marcionites, and condemns them for rejecting the Acts, proving their truth and genuineness by the teftimonies of St. Paul in his Epiftles, and in another place exprefsly calls it the composure of Luke. I will not tire the reader with any more collections of the Fathers' appeals to thefe Acts. The later Fathers cite them continually, as the only authentick history they had, of the primitive ftate of the church. I proceed :

Arg. III. The Acts of the Apoftles are Canonical, because they were read as Scripture in the churches or affemblies of the Chriftians in the first ages, by Prop. VI. For the evidence of this, it will be fufficient to confult Vol. I. Part I. Ch. X. and what is above faid, concerning the reading of St. Matthew's Gofpel, in this Part, Ch. III,

COROLL. I. From this and the preceding arguments, it is evident, that feveral learned men are very grossly mistaken, who conclude, that the Acts of the Apoftles were lefs known, less read, and lefs regarded in the first centuries, than the other books of the New Teftament. The foundation of their opinion is a paffage in the Prolegomena upon the Acts, under the name of Chryfoftom, which begins thus: This book is not so much as known to many; they know neither the book, nor by whom it was written. Hence thofe, who always labour to leffen the credit of the Canon, have drawn fine conclufions.

d

1. Father Simon concludes hence, that the Gospels and the Epiftles of St. Paul were then (viz. in Chryfoftom's time, i. e. in the fifth century) only accounted to belong to the New Teftament: perhaps, fays he, none but these two works, were read in the churches in thofe primitive ages.

2. Dr. Mill, after having faid the Gofpels were foon fpread into every one's hands, adds, "The cafe was not fo "with the other books of the New Teftament; for the books "of the Acts being of fomewhat lefs usefulness, than the Gof"pel of Luke, as containing the hiftory, not of Christ, but "of his Apoftles, or rather indeed only of Paul, was neither "read in the churches, nor wrote out but by very few ;" then he cites the paffage of Chryfoftom above produced.

Thus did these two learned men endeavour, without any arguments, to leffen the credit of this facred book: for if my preceding arguments are good, and the Acts of the Apostles be in all the catalogues of the facred books among the antients; if it was cited by all the firft Chriftians in their writings, and was read in their churches (all which I have undeniably proved); with what face could these gentlemen tell the world, that it was not read nor known among the Chriftians? The book appears, by all the writings of antiquity, to have been almost as much known as the Gospels themselves, and as conftantly used: but their refuge is the paffage of Chrysostom : he fays, It was not known to many. To which I reply,

be the work of Chryfoftom, Chryfoftomus, says he, vel Bellarmine indeed con

1. That this does not appear to and Dr. Mill himself suspected it: alius quifpiam fub ejus nomine, &c. tends for its genuineness . Erasmus feems to have thought that it was not his; and fo it is most probable.

2. It does not follow, that, because feveral perfons, or most, in the country, where this author wrote, were ignorant of the Acts; that therefore it was not known to the greatest part of the Chriftian church. Erafmus fuppofes, that the author means only, that it was unknown to the rabble; but the learned know it. It is much better explained by the learned Fabricius f.

2

Proleg. in N. T. §. 242, 243.
Ibid.

De Script. Ecclef. in Chryfoftom.

4 Annct. in A&t. i. 1. e Ibid.

f Sed apparet hifce verbis potius fupinam quorundam infcitiam et torporem, quam publicam Ecclefiæ fuorum temporum negligentiam, a viro difertiffimo reprehendi et increpari. Ced. Apoc. N. T. t. 2. p. 751.

Thefe