tory of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in
which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also
the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the
history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the
'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does
not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures
of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in
it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and
use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so
far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which
he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already
observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming
that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates
acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."
[142:1]

Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader
whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced
without the slightest indication of the source from which they were
derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have
been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in
circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone
accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove
the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.

"But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third
Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to
those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we
are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like
Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical
with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been
taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter
case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.
Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"
[143:1]

My reply to this is:

"There is no mention of the Acts of the Ap