Saint Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, first generally, as at Iconium (Acts, xiv. 3.), during the whole tour through the Upper Asia (xiv. 27. xv. 12.), at Ephesus (xix. 11, 12.); secondly, in specific instances, as the blindness of Elymas at Paphos*, the cure of the cripple at Lystra, of the pythoness at Philippi, the miraculous liberation from prison in the same city §, the restoration of Eutychus, the predictions of his shipwreck¶, the viper at Melita**, the cure of Publius's father; at all which miracles except the first two, the historian himself was present: notwithstanding, I say, this positive ascription of miracles to Saint Paul, yet in the speeches delivered by him, and given as delivered by him, in the same book in which the miracles are related, and the miraculous powers asserted, the appeals to his own miracles, or indeed to any miracles at all, are rare and incidental. In his speech at Antioch in Pisidia, there is no allusion but to the resurrection. In his dis

course at Miletus §§, none to any miracle ;

* Acts, xiii. 11. † xiv. S.. ‡ xvi. 16. § xvi. 26. xxvii. 1. ** xxviii. 6. †† xxviii. 8.

xx. 10. ¶

‡‡ xiii. 16.

§§ xx. 17.

none in his speech before Felix*; none in his speech before Festust; except to Christ's resurrection, and his own conversion.

Agreeably hereunto, in thirteen letters ascribed to Saint Paul, we have incessant references to Christ's resurrection, frequent references to his own conversion, three indubitable references to the miracles which he wrought; four other references to the same, less direct yet highly probable§; but more copious or circumstantial recitals we have not. The consent, therefore, between Saint Paul's speeches and letters, is in this respect sufficiently exact: and the reason in both is the same; namely, that the miraculous history was all along presupposed, and that the question, which occupied the speaker's and the writer's thoughts, was this: whether, allowing the history of Jesus to be true, he was, upon the strength of it, to be received as the

*Acts, xxiv. 10.

+ Ib. xxv. 8.

Gal. iii. 5.; Rom. xv. 18, 19.; 2 Cor. xii. 12.

§ 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.; Eph. iii. 7.;

Gal. ii. 8.; 1 Thess. i. 5.

promised Messiah; and, if he was, what were the consequences, what was the object and benefit, of his mission?

The general observation which has been made upon the apostolic writings, namely, that the subject of which they treated, did not lead them to any direct recital of the Christian history, belongs also to the writ ings of the apostolic fathers. The epistle of Barnabas is, in its subject and general composition, much like the epistle to the Hebrews; an allegorical application of divers passages of the Jewish history, of their law and ritual, to those parts of the Christian dispensation in which the author perceived a resemblance. The epistle of Clement was written for the sole purpose of quieting certain dissensions that had arisen amongst the members of the church of Corinth, and of reviving in their minds that temper and spirit of which their predecessors in the Gospel had left them an example. The work of Hermas is a vision quotes neither the Old Testament nor the New; and merely falls now and then into the language, and the mode of

speech, which the author had read in our Gospels. The epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius had for their principal object the order and discipline of the churches which they addressed. Yet, under all these circumstances of disadvantage, the great points of the Christian history are fully recognised. This hath been shown in its proper place*.

There is, however, another class of writers, to whom the answer above given, viz.' the unsuitableness of any such appeals or references as the objection demands, to the subjects of which the writings treated, does not apply; and that is, the class of ancient apologists, whose declared design it was to defend Christianity, and to give the reasons of their adherence to it. It is necessary, therefore, to inquire how the matter of the objection stands in these.

The most ancient apologist, of whose works we have the smallest knowledge, is Quadratus. Quadratus lived about seventy

* Vol. i. p. 118–123.

1

years after the ascension, and presented his apology to the emperor Adrian, From a passage of this work, preserved in Eusebius, it appears that the author did directly and formally appeal to the miracles of Christ, and in terms as express and confident as we could desire. The passage (which has been once already stated) is as follows: "The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, for they were real; both they that were healed, and they that were raised from the dead, were seen, not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterwards: not only whilst he dwelled on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a good while after it; insomuch as that some of them have

t

دو

reached to our times Nothing can be

more rational or satisfactory than this.

Justin Martyr, the next of the Christian

apologists whose work is not lost, and who followed Quadratus at the distance of about thirty years, has touched upon passages of Christ's history in so many places, that a

*Euseb. Hist. 1. iv. c. 3,