Acts ii. 1-13. The gift of tongues. " ii. 43. Wonders and signs generally. " iii. 1-11. Cure of lame man by Peter and John. " v. 1-11. The yielding up the ghost by Ananias and Sapphira at the word of Peter. " v. 15, 16. Cures at the least shadow of Peter. " v. 17-20. Opening of the prison for Peter and John by the angel of the Lord. " vi. 8. Stephen's wonders and miracles. " viii. 5-8. Cures by Philip of unclean spirits, and of the palsied and lame. " ix. 13-22. Ananias cures Saul of blindness. " ix. 32-35. Cure by Peter of one sick of the palsy. " ix. 36-43. Peter restores Dorcas to life. Acts x. 1-48. Angel-appearance to Cornelius; trance of Peter. " xii. 7-10. Opening of the prison for Peter by an angel of the Lord. " xiii. 8-11. Blinding of Elymas by Paul. " xiv. 3. Signs and wonders generally by Paul and Barnabas. " xiv. 8-10. Cure of a cripple by Paul. " xvi. 16-18. Curing a damsel possessed by a spirit of divination. " xvi. 25-27. Earthquake while Paul and Silas were singing praises to God in the stocks at Philippi. " xix. 6. Disciples at Ephesus speaking with tongues when Paul laid his hands on them. " xix. 11, 12. Diseases and evil spirits expelled by aprons and handkerchiefs taken from Paul's body. " xix. 15. Testimony of the evil spirit to Jesus and Paul. " xx. 9-12. Restoration of Eutychus by Paul. " xxviii. 4. Viper shaken off Paul's hand without hurting him. " xxviii. 8. Bloody flux and other diseases cured. These wondrous occurrences rest on the record of Luke alone. The earlier portion, if not the whole of them, had taken place before the Gospels were written. The gift of tongues would have been vividly present to the minds of Matthew and John, who were among the recipients of this marvellous endowment. Mark (Acts xii. 12) would certainly have been aware of the grave events connected with the death-dooming, life-restoring, prison-opening Peter. A single chapter at the end of the gospel of either Matthew, John, or Mark would have been sufficient to contain the confirmation of the more important of these wonders, and surely so much might have been expected from the "divinely-chosen" witnesses, those whose mission it was to declare the whole counsel of God, to testify to each divine confirmation within their knowledge of the truth of the Gospel. What, then, can be said of their silence? Who was Luke that they should have left so important a duty to him?