Here again a formula is employed which is common throughout the New Testament, and which, applied as it is here to those who were persecuted, we have reason to believe was in general use in the early Church. It is almost unnecessary to point out any examples. Everywhere "the name" of God or of Jesus is the symbol used to represent the concrete idea, and in the heavenly Jerusalem of the Apocalypse the servants of God and of the Lamb are to have "his name" on their foreheads. The one expression, however, which is peculiar in the passage: "counted worthy,"--in the Acts [------], and in the Pastor [------],--is a perfectly natural and simple one, the use of which cannot be exclusively conceded to the Acts of the Apostles. It is found frequently in the Pauline Epistles, as for instance in 2 Thes. i. 5, where, after saying that they give thanks to God for them and glory in the churches of God for the patience and faith with which the Thessalonians endure {10} persecutions, the writer continues: "which is a token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may he counted worthy [------] of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer [------];" and again, in the same chapter, v. 11, 12, "Wherefore we also pray always for you that our God may count you worthy [------] of the calling, and fulfil all good pleasure of goodness and work of faith with power; _that the name of our Lord Jesus may he glorified in you_ [------]" &c. The passage we are examining cannot be traced to the "Acts of the Apostles."(1) It must be obvious to all that the Pastor of Hennas does not present any evidence even of the existence of the Acts at the time it was written.(2) Only two passages in the Epistles of pseudo-Ignatius are pointed out as indicating acquaintance with the Acts, and even these are not advanced by many critics. We have already so fully discussed these Epistles that no more need now be said. We must pronounce them spurious in all their recensions and incapable of affording evidence upon any point earlier than towards the end of the second century. Those, however, who would still receive as genuine the testimony of the three Syriac Epistles must declare that they do not present any trace of the existence of the Acts, inasmuch as the two passages adduced to show the use of that work do not occur in those letters. They are found in the shorter recension of the Epistles to the Smyrnaeans and Philadelphians. We might, therefore, altogether refuse to examine the {11} passages, but in order to show the exact nature of the case made out by apologists, we shall briefly refer to them. We at once compare the first with its supposed parallel.(1) [------]