good providence of God, was made to contribute to the welfare of the church at large; as may appear, if we consider, as one of its effects, the noble and comprehensive defence of religious liberty which it drew from the apostle Paul (Rom. xiv.: see also 1 Cor. viii.). From another quarter, probably from ascetics connected with Heathenism, came a requirement of abstinence even from marriage, which Paul reprobates in 1 Tim. iv. 3-5; where he lays down the general principle, that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.' Asceticism, however, seems to be a disease which is incidental to man in all stages of civilisation, and under all systems of religion; and so abstinence of various kinds has been, from the earliest time till now, practised and enjoined even in the visible church of Christ, as of peculiar efficacy and value in the sight of God; notwithstanding the clear, full, and unmistakeable opposition of the great apostle of the Gentiles.

ACACIA (the Egyptian thorn), the proper name of the wood, termed in Scripture Shittim, — a word which is a mere transference of the sounds of the original Hebrew. The tree, Mimosa Nilotica, was called Shittah in Hebrew. It is frequently mentioned in the Bible as supplying the materials out of which articles required in the Mosaic worship were made (Exod. xxv. 5; xxvi. 15; xxvii. 1; xxx. 1; xxxv. 7, 24; xxxvii. 1. Deut. x. 3). Naturalists distinguish two kinds of acacia, I. the Acacia vera; and, II. the Acacia Arabica. The Septuagint has translated the Hebrew word very appropriately, as 'incorruptible wood;' the fact being that it is very durable, and therefore eminently suited to the purposes to which it is applied in the Bible. It is indigenous in Egypt and Arabia. Thevenot found it growing wild near Mount Sinai. The Acacia vera, which yields the well-known gum Arabic, has spines growing in pairs. It forms a tree thirteen or fourteen feet high, of inelegant appearance. The Acacia Arabica is not unlike the former. The wood of the acacia is exceedingly hard, yet light. When it is old, it is nearly as black as ebony. It was therefore much esteemed in antiquity, and used in ship-building. Botanists are acquainted with nearly three hundred species of the acacia, which inhabit the warmer parts of the world.

ACCHO (H. an enclosure), the modern St. Jean d'Acre, is mentioned in Scripture only in Judg. i. 31, under this the early name of the town; but in and after the time of the Maccabees (i. 5, 15) it was called Ptolemais (Acts xxi. 7). From the passage in Judges, it appears that it originally formed a part of the territory of Asher, which stretched north and eastward from Mount Carmel, at the foot of which Accho lies; and, doubtless, the natural strength of the place, which has

since been more than once proved, was the cause why that tribe did not expel the original inhabitants. It was anciently a large city, with a fine harbour, protected on three sides by lofty hills, of which Mount Carmel lies to the south, running far out into the sea. The place was not far from the mouth of the little river Belus. It still forms the best haven on the Syrian coast; is the key of Galilee, and the termination of the caravan line which extended from Damascus to the Mediterranean. The Emperor Claudius presented its inhabitants with the rights of Roman citizenship, whence the place acquired the name of Colonia Claudii Cæsaris (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 12, 2. 1 Maccab. x. 56; xi. 22). By the natives it is still called by its origina name. In 1832 the town was severely injured during a siege of six months, carried on by Ibrahim Pasha. In 1840 Admiral Stopford bombarded the place for some hours, when it was laid in ruins by the explosion of the powder magazine.

ACELDAMA (C. field of blood) — a piece of ground which had before been, and was called, a potter's field,' from supplying materials for potteryreceived this name from the fact, that the money which Judas had received for betraying Christ, and which he returned into the hands of the priests, was expended by them in the purchase of the ground, as a burial-place for Jews from distant lands, on the allegation that the thirty pieces of silver, being the price of blood, ought not to be put into the temple treasury. Thus do baseness and a certain religious scrupulosity sometimes go together in the same breast. They who polluted their souls with the blood of Jesus, would not soil their hands with the returned bribe with which they had bought their victim's life. The piece of land was of small value, having been exhausted in making pottery ware. lay southward of Jerusalem. There still remains on the spot a charnel-house. Superstition gave the notion, that the soil destroyed corpses in a day or two; for which purpose, ship-loads of it were, in the thirteenth century, transported to Pisa in Italy, in order to be spread over the famous cemetery there.

It

He

ACHAN (H. troubler) — called in 1 Chron. ii. 7, 'Achar, the troubler of Israel'—was the son of Carmi, of the tribe of Judah. ventured, in spite of the divine prohibition (Josh. vi. 17), to appropriate to himself some of the booty ('the accursed thing') acquired at the fall of Jericho; and hence brought on the Israelites, who expected any thing but a reverse, a severe defeat before the town of Ai (Josh. vii.). On this, a kind of ordeal was appointed, in order to ascertain who the person was that had brought the divine anger on the Israelites. The result was that Achan was taken,' who, thus found guilty of God, confessed his sin, declared what articles he

B

had secreted, and where they lay. The plunder was found; and thus, full proof of his guilt being had, the unhappy man was stoned, and then burned, together with the booty, and his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his asses, his sheep, tent, and all that he had, in the valley of Achor (trouble), in the valley, that is, which was after this event so named; thus denoting the sad event, with its cause, which there took place (see Josh. vii. 25; comp. Hos. ii. 15. Isa. lxv. 10).

ACHAIA (G.) — originally termed Egia. lea, or the coast' denoted, in its narrower application, the strip of land which stretches along the north-west of the Peloponnesus; but, in a wider sense, indicated the entire country of Greece (except Thessaly): in the time to which the narratives of the New Testament refer, it was a province under the government of Rome; having given name to all Greece from the time when the Achæans took the lead, and the Achæan league was formed, in the year 146 before Christ. Greece, under the Romans, was strictly divided into two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia: the first comprised the country to the north; the second, the country to the south of a line drawn from the Sinus Ambracius to the Sinus Maliacus; that is, from the Gulf of Arta to that of Volo.

There were two kinds of provinces under the Roman empire- the senatorial and the imperial. A senatorial province was governed by a proconsul, appointed by the senate; an imperial province was governed by a procurator, appointed by the emperor. At first, Achaia was a senatorial province; Tiberius changed it into an imperial one; but it was given back by Claudius to the senate. To this latter period Gallio belongs (Acts xviii. 12. Rom. xv. 26. 2 Cor. ix. 2. 1 Thess. i. 7, 8), who is denominated in the Acts proconsul, with a strict propriety, which proves that the author wrote from actual knowledge, in a case where changes, at no distant intervals, might have convicted an impostor of fraud.

ACHMETHA (C. summer place), a fortified place in Media, that some identify with Ecbatana, the chief city of Media, which was a summer's residence of the Median kings (Ezra vi. 2).

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THE.A work which is commonly accounted the fifth historical book of the New Testament, and details the foundation of the Christian church after the resurrection of Christ. The titles, which the scriptural compositions bear, rest not on the authority of the authors of those books, but were added at a later period. So the title, the Acts, or doings, of the Apostles,' has in itself no authority; nor is it a correct description of the book to which it is prefixed, since that writing relates only a part of the acts of the apostles; after a certain period, almost exclusively those of Paul. Indeed, Peter and Paul are the two

great personages which appear in the work Peter, from chap. ii. to xii.; Paul, from chap. xiii. to xxviii: other actors are only occasional and subordinate. The book, in reality, contains a brief, and by no means complete, account of the rise, growth, and spread of the primitive church of Christ. Its contents, however, render its worth inestimable. Though it does not furnish all we might desire, we do not mend our position, by gratuitous assumptions and false pretensions. It is the duty of the Christian, as well as the man, to take God's bounties as they are offered to him, and improve them to the utmost. God's wisdom and goodness are frequently displayed even more in withholding than in giving.

The passages are numerous which serve to show that the object of the work is what we have indicated; but the words of the risen Saviour (Acts i. 8), Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,' -set forth, at the same time, the great object of the apostles' lives, and the great purpose which the author of the book had before him. A brief outline of the contents of The Acts' will show both its value, and the truth of the remark we have just made.

Having referred to the former treatise, that is, the Gospel according to St. Luke, and given a very brief summary of its contents, the author proceeds to take up the thread of the narrative at the point where it had been dropped. And here the importance of the work appears incalculable. The scattered disciples are found united. What has brought them together? Here is the hinge on which the history and the fate of Christianity turned. How happy a thing is it that we have the statement and testimony of a trustworthy historian! Whence grew the church of Christ? From visions and dreams? - from fanaticism? from selfishness? - from a love of power? It grew from a fact: this was the grain of mustard-seed, the fact that Christ had risen from the tomb, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. The writer states most explicitly the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. He adds visible proofs of his existence and benign activity; for Jesus, he says, 'showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of the disciples forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God' (i. 3). The ascension of Christ is then distinctly narrated as an object of sight. There follows another proof of the existence of the risen Messiah, and of the concern he took in the foundation of his kingdom; for, agreeably to his promise, the Spirit is poured out on the assembled infant church, so that its members could not doubt that their Master was alive, and that it was his

Then the con

and God's will that they should live and die for the furtherance of the gospel. The importance which the apostles attached, from the first, to their position and work, is seen in the fact, that, before ever they address themselves to their duties, they proceed calmly to fill up their body, by electing (by lot) one in place of the traitor Judas; so that the original number fixed by Jesus might not be broken in upon, but there might be twelve men who had 'companied with the Messiah and his followers all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John unto his ascension.' Matthias was ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.' The effusion of the Spirit is made an occasion, by Peter, for commencing his proclamation of the gospel. He delivers his first sermon, which led to the conversion of three thousand persons, and so to the formation of a Christian church, the usages of which are described in an interesting manner (i. ii.). The apostles become more bold and active in preaching the gospel in Jerusalem, and in consolidating the infant community, not without resistance and persecution (iii. vi.). duct of Stephen is narrated his activity, his noble spirit, his cruel deathall which contributed greatly to strengthen and advance the cause of Christ (vi. 5; viii. 2). The murder of Stephen, and the general persecution which ensued, alarmed and scattered the disciples; and thus, departing from Jerusalem, they began to preach the gospel in other parts of Palestine, particularly at Samaria, through the agency of Philip (viii. 3—40). Paul had made his first appearance at the stoning of Stephen. At the beginning of the ninth chapter, he enters once for all on the scene, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples. His miraculons conversion is detailed with much particularity (ix. 1—31), which prepares the way for the greatest change in the gospel affairs they ever underwent; namely, the admission of the Gentiles to Christian privileges. This revolution was not effected without special instrumentalities. Peter, after undergoing suitable influences, concurs, and takes part, in the work of converting the Heathen, beginning with Cornelius, a centurion of Cæsarea, and maintaining the propriety of his conduct before the brethren in Jerusalem (x.-xi. 18). The circle of the gospel extends. The fugitive disciples proclaim it in Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch: a great number believe.

On hear

ing this, the mother church at Jerusalem sends Barnabas as far as Antioch; who, having fulfilled his mission, proceeds to Tarsus to seek Saul, whom he brings to Antioch. The twelfth chapter opens with the imprisonment of Peter by king Herod, and relates the miraculous deliverance of that apostle. Herod is punished; and Paul, together with Barnabas, begins active operations (xii. 25;

xiii. 2) in Heathen countries ;· Salamis in Cyprus being the first recorded place where they preached the word of God. The question of compliance with the Mosaic rite of circumcision, and, generally, of what obedience Christians owed to the law, is forced on for consideration, and determined at Jerusalem, where the first and only properly constituted and authoritative council was held; who, unlike all succeeding councils, were careful not to lay any unnecessary burden (xv. 28) on the church. Paul now proceeds still further into Heathen countries, going as far as Macedonia and Greece, and founding many churches. Intending to pay a visit to Rome, Paul feels bound first to visit Jerusalem (xix. 21; xx. 22), where he is apprehended, put on his trial, and at last sent to the capital of the world. Here he is abruptly left by the history (xxviii. 31), preaching the kingdom of God. Thus the declaration of the Lord was accomplished (i. 8).

The book naturally divides itself into two parts at the twenty-fourth verse of the twelfth chapter; which verse may be considered as a point of transition from the first to the second part. The first part is also more miscellaneous than the second, having many subdivisions and transitional passages; whereas the second possesses more unity, in having for its central figure one leading personage, Paul; and for its subject, the apostle's proceedings. The narrative follows pretty much the order of events, and, in points of chronology, is generally exact; as might be expected, considering that the writer stood near to the events narrated. Notices and marks of time are found in xviii. 11; xix. 10; xx. 6; xxiv. 27; xxvii. 9; xxviii. 11, 30. The entire piece is conceived in the tone of friendship; being clearly designed, not only to narrate, but to explain and defend, the progress of the gospel. This, however, is done in a fair, impartial, and truthful manner. The writer was obviously a believer, and as such has written. Nor is there visible an undue leaning to any one of the primitive heralds of Christianity. If Paul occupies the latter part of the book, Peter is the leading character in the former part. But nothing can show more strikingly that the book is unfinished, than that the life of neither Peter nor Paul is brought to a termination. Of Peter, except in chap. xv. 7, 14, we hear no more after the record, xii. 19; namely, that the apostle, having escaped from Herod, went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there abode ;' while Paul is left a prisoner at Rome. cannot, under these circumstances, resist the feeling, that it is only a fragment with which we have to do in the Acts of the Apostles. It is hardly to be believed, that a writer, who had detailed at length Paul's conduct and its effects in Athens, should have voluntarily left all but untold the yet more important influence which he exerted in Rome -au im

We

probability which is much increased by the fact, that the writer was united with Paul in the bonds of human friendship, as well as of the gospel. Most natural was it that he should have continued his narrative till the decease of Paul, which would have formed a suitable termination of his work.

It would seem that the author must have been interrupted in the prosecution of his task. What interruption so natural as his own death? Scarcely any thing less would have been allowed to bring the narrative to a sudden termination. And a sudden termination points to an unforeseen and inevitable cause. The life, then, of a man is the limit of the work. But there are evidences in the work of the pen of an eye-witness. It must, then, be within the threescore years and ten of some one who was contemporary with the events narrated. These events range from 31 to 64, A.D.: consequently the book was written within the third quarter of the first century.

Luke, the writer of the third Gospel, is generally admitted to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles. This was the opinion of the ancient church. Eusebius places it among the books which were universally received as authentic and credible. Writers in the second century make obvious references to the work. The fathers of the church, from the time of Irenæus (born at Smyrna, in the first quarter of the second century), expressly quote the Acts, and speak of it as written by Luke. The writer of Luke's Gospel wrote the Acts also. There is between the two works a general agreement of manner and diction which bespeaks the same hand. The Gospel and the Acts are dedicated to the same Theophilus. The Book of Acts refers to the Gospel (i. 1) in such a manner as to enforce the inference that they both came from one pen. Indeed the two are only parts of one work, which originally was not divided, nor distinguished by sepa. rate titles, but formed a general historical narrative, which, following the substance of the introductory verses of the Gospel, might have been termed 'An accurate account of things that have come to pass among the Christians.' In this view, the terminating lines of the Gospel, and the commencing lines of the Acts, are only transitional words employed in passing on from the first to the second part of the general treatise. If, then, Luke wrote the Gospel called after his name, the probability is that he wrote the Acts also. The writer certainly does not give his name; but, in the second part of the second book (the Acts), he speaks, in connection with Paul, in the first person plural-thus (xvi. 10), 'After Paul had seen the vision, we endeavoured to go into Macedonia' (see also xx. 5—15; xxvii. 1-37). Unquestionably some passages were written by an eye-witness. Besides those just referred to, see xxi. 1-18; xxviii. 15. Who was this eye-witness? The person who wrote the former treatise.' This is reputed to be Luke. The colouring under which Christianity appears in the Acts is said to be such as shows that its writer was an associate of and fellow-worker with Paul. Now, in Col. iv. 14, we read, 'Luke, the beloved physician, greets you.' In Philem. ver. 24, Lucas is reckoned among Paul's fellow-labourers; and in 2 Tim. iv. 11, are the words only Luke is with me;' that is, at Rome, during his imprisonment (see 2 Tim. i. 8). Whence we learn that Luke was a cooperator with, and intimate friend of, the apostle. We cannot, however, hence infer, that therefore Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. The utmost that the evidence before us authorises is, that Luke may have been its author. Indeed too much stress and importance have been laid on the point of fixing a name to each individual book. Sometimes, when a name has been gained, it is little more than a mere name. A name,

We may probably approach somewhat nearer. Paul came to Rome in the spring of 62, A. D. and remained two whole years teaching- that is, till the spring of 64. Now, in June, 64, Rome was burnt by Nero; who, to cover his crime and folly, began to persecute the Christians. So important an event would not have been omitted, especially as the thread of the narrative is brought very near it, had the writer then been alive. Consequently the last hand must have been put to the writing before mid-summer, and after spring, 64. Indeed, the concluding verses look very like a hasty summary, drawn up under the pressure of some unexpected event; - a fact which will appear obvious to the reader if he compares the long detail given of the voyage to Rome, with the far more important matter, - the preaching and influence of Paul in the imperial city. There is a fact mentioned in the book which speaks for a similar period to that which we have already fixed. In Acts viii. 26, the Philistine city Gaza is said to be 'desert,' in ruins. From Josephus (Jewish War, ii. 18, 1), we know that the place was destroyed in the reign of Nero, a short time before the siege of Jerusalem. Now, Vespasian came into Judea A.D. 67. Before this date, then, Gaza was destroyed. But if the writer noticed, in passing, the fact that Gaza was in ruins when he wrote, much more would he have made similar statements in relation to the far more important and interesting places of Jerusalem, of which he speaks. The inference is, that the city was standing when the work was composed. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus, Sept. 7th, A.D. 70. Whence we are brought to the conclusion, that, to the period between 60 and 70, the Book of Acts may be safely referred- -a conclusion which is favoured concurrently by the several lines of evidence which have been adduced.

however, is, in such a case, only of value when it represents certain facts and ideas, which enable us to judge of the credibility of au author; but of Luke, and of other alleged authors, we, in our actual state of knowledge, know too little to make any certain inference from his personal position, qualities, and history. Nor need the Christian be uneasy at these remarks, if only he is concerned more for realities than names. The credibility of the book in question is beyond a doubt. If so, we have, independently of any personal name, that for giving us which, such name could only be of value to us. We must distinguish between the credibility of a book, and the credibility of men. Of the second we may have few or no means of judging. A book carries with it its own justification, or its own condemnation. The evidence in the case is written in every page, and often found in words and things which are far beyond the reach of artifice or fraud. If, for instance, the reader, by studying our references, should be satisfied that the passages in question emanated from an eye-witness, he will have little need to be concerned whether he can name the author, or fix the exact age, of the book. It is very certain, that, as no name could make a book credible which was in its contents incredible, so a credible book needs no authentication. And it is equally obvious, that this evidence of credibility, found in the general tone and character of a book, is one which addresses the head and the heart of every intelligent reader, and so secures for the gospel a ready recognition among mankind; whereas arguments derived from questions of authorship and criticism are exclusively for scholars, being in themselves, whatever they may borrow from authority, destitute of logical force with the great bulk of men, since the great bulk of men are quite incapable of making those individual investigations which give to scholastic evidence all its value.

The credibility of the things narrated in the Acts will appear the stronger, if we give some attention to the sources whence the writer composed his narrative. The author appears to have made use of written documents, emanating either from his own pen or from the pen of others. Thus, in chap. xv. 23-29, we have a very valuable and very interesting, perhaps the oldest, written document, inserted, to all appearance, as it was issued, namely, the letter written by the apostles assembled in council at Jerusalem. In chap. xxiii. 26-30, is another original letter that of Claudius Lysias to Felix, touching Paul. Many things the writer may have had before him in the form of notes, or have received by word of mouth from others; but it is obvious that he dealt fairly with his materials, and, by the force of his own vigorous mind, infused into them one general character. Passages are found which bespeak

their own paternity. The speeches of Peter (ii. 14, seq.; iii. 12, seq.; iv. 8, seq.; v. 29, seq.) are quite characteristic. This Peter is obviously the Peter of the Gospels. Not less characteristic of Paul is his noble speech at Athens (xvii. 22, seq.). With equal confidence we refer any reader of his Epistles to the beautiful address with which he took leave of the church at Ephesus (xx. 17—35). What can be more Pauline than the emphatic words, 'I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel'? The entire twelfth chapter may have been taken from some written account of Peter: its particularity shows an intimate acquaintance with the circumstances, and is beyond the reach of imposture.

This book has been subjected to a very close and minute examination, in connection with Paul's Epistles. The duty, begun by Paley (Hore Paulina), has been completed by Tait. The result is eminently favourable to the credibility of both the Acts and the Epistles; for numerous instances of minute, accidental, and unobvious agreement have been discovered by these critics, which put the idea of falsehood and fabrication out of the question. But, if the Acts of the Apostles is worthy of belief, the Christian religion is a fact, as well as a system of divine truth.

Within the space of thirty years after the death of Christ, the gospel had been carried to all parts of the civilised, and to no small portion of the uncivilised world. Its progress and its triumphs were not concealed. Its great transactions were not done in a corner.' It had been preached in the most splendid, powerful, and corrupt cities. Churches were already founded in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, and at Rome. The gospel had spread in Arabia, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedon, Italy, and Africa. It had assailed the most mighty existing institutions; it had made its way over the most formidable barriers; it had encountered the most deadly and malignant opposition; it had travelled to the capital, and secured such a hold, even in the imperial city, as to make it certain that it would finally overturn the established religion, and seat itself on the ruins of Paganism. Within thirty years it had settled the point that it would overturn every bloody altar; close every Pagan temple; bring under its influence men of office, rank, and power; and that the banners of the faith would soon stream from the palaces of the Cæsars. All this would be accomplished by the instrumentality of Jews- of fishermen of Nazarenes. They had neither wealth, armies, nor allies. With the exception of Paul, they were men without learning. They were taught only by Provivence; armed only with the power of God. The success of the gospel never has been, and never can be, accounted for by any other supposition, than that it had God for its au