"and Jefus, which is called Juftus, who 66 of the circumcifion," (iv. 10, 11). Then follow alfo "" Epaphras, Luke the beloved phyfician, and Demas." Now as this defcription, "who are of the circumcifion," is added after the three first names, it is inferred, not without great appearance of probability, that the reft, amongst whom is Luke, were not of the circumcifion. Now can we discover any expreffion in the Acts of the Apoftles, which afcertains whether the author of the book was a Jew or not? If we can discover that he was not a Jew, we fix a circumstance in his character, which coincides with what is here, indirectly indeed, but not very uncertainly, intimated concerning Luke: and we fo far confirm. both the teftimony of the primitive church, that the Acts of the Apostles was written by St. Luke, and the general reality of the perfons and circumftances brought together in this epiftle. The text in the Acts, which has been conftrued to fhew that the writer was not a Jew, is the nineteenth verfe of the first chapter, where, in describing the field which had been purchased with the the reward of Judas's iniquity, it is faid, "that it was known unto all the dwellers "at Jerufalem; infomuch as that field is "called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, "that is to fay, the field of blood." Thefe words are by moft commentators taken to be the words and obfervation of the hiftorian, and not a part of St. Peter's speech, in the midst of which they are found. If this be admitted, then it is argued that the expreffion, "in their proper tongue," would not have been used by a Jew, but is fuitable to the pen of a Gentile writing concerning Jews*. The reader will judge of the probability of this conclufion, and we urge the coincidence no farther than that probability extends. The coincidence, if it be one, is fo remote from all poffibility of defign, that nothing need be added to fatisfy the reader upon that part of the argument. * Vide Benfon's Differtation, vol. i. p. 318 of his works, Ed. 1756, No. IV. Chap. iv. ver. 9. "With Onefimus, a "faithful and beloved brother, who is one of " you." Observe how it may be made out that Onefimus was a Coloffian. Turn to the epistle to Philemon, and you will find that Onefimus was the fervant or flave of Philemon. The question therefore will be to what city Philemon belonged. In the epistle addressed to him this is not declared. It appears only that he was of the fame place, whatever that place was, with an eminent christian named Archippus. "Paul, a prifoner of Jefus Chrift, and Timothy "our brother, unto Philemon our dearly "beloved and fellow-labourer; and to "our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow-foldier, and to the church in thy "houfe." Now turn back to the epiftle to the Coloffians, and you will find Archippus faluted by name amongst the Christians of that church. "Say to Archippus, take "heed "heed to the miniftry which thou haft received in the Lord that thou fulfil it' (iv. 17). The neceffary refult is, that Onefimus alfo was of the fame city, agreeably to what is faid of him," he is one of you." And this refult is the effect, either of truth which produces confiftency without the writer's thought or care, or of a contexture of forgeries confirming and falling in with one another by a species of fortuity of which I know no example. The fuppofition of design, I think, is excluded, not only because the purpose to which the defign must have been directed, viz. the verification of the paffage in our epiftle, in which it is faid concerning Onefimus, "he is one of you," is a purpose which would be loft upon ninety-nine readers out of a hundred; but because the means made ufe of are too circuitous to have been the fubject of affectation and contrivance. Would a forger, who had this purpose in view, have left his readers to hunt it out, by going forward and backward from one epistle to another, in order |