of the Gentile world. Then Peter drops out of view. Next the progress of the church is traced in connection with the labours of Paul till it reaches Rome, and has installed itself there. Fairly planted in this metropolis-the world's centre, the task of describing its farther progress its radiation over the Roman empire - was left to the pen of uninspired historians. Paul is next suddenly withdrawn from view. We have no account even of his death, for a greater than Paul is before us, still carrying forward the great work, and it would have been unbefitting that a book which contains the history of a system which was to live and fill the earth should have been closed with a death. There was a necessity that the gospel should quit Judea, and plant itself at the centre of the world. The Acts' leaves it so planted. These events range from 31 to 64, A.D.: consequently the book was written within the third quarter of the first century.

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.

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 separate 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,

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 an 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 Do 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. IV. 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 leer that of Claudius Lysias to Felix, touching Panl. 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 vigorcus 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 deautiful 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 inumate 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 (Hora 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 Providence; 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

thor, truth for its substance, human nature for its advocate, and eternal life for its boon. If the Christian religion be not true, the change wrought by the twelve apostles is the most inexplicable, mysterious, and wonderful event that has ever been witnessed in the history of the world. Admit the accounts furnished in this writing, and the establishment of the gospel in the world, as well as the changes which society underwent, are all clear and easy to be understood: deny them, and you have the greatest revolution that society ever underwent, and the sublimest religious truths that ever dawned on men's minds, unaccounted for and unexplained.

The period over which the book of Acts extends, from 31 to 64, A. D. embraces the following Roman emperors: -1. Tiberius, who reigned from 19th August, xiv. to 16th March, xxxvii.; 2. Caligula, to the 24th Jan. xli.; 3. Claudius, to the 13th October, liv. 4. Nero, to the 9th June, lxviii.

ADAM (H. red earth, or S. Adim, the first) the name of the first man. If we view the name as indicating the materials of which man was made, and that the first Adam was from earth, we may accept it as an implied promise of a second Adam, who was to be from heaven. Unspeakably interesting and sublime must, to us, be the history of the first man. The events immediately subse. quent to his creation are to this hour affecting the character and destinies of the race. Let us attend first to the time and manner of his creation. He came into being at the close of the sixth day or epoch of creation. The world was arranged and put in order, like some resplendent palace, destined to receive an illustrious occupant. The light had been commanded to shine that man's dwelling might be enlivened and beautified. The dry land, parted from the waters, had been clothed with grass, and adorned with flowers. There were noble trees, beneath the shade of which man might repose, and regale himself with their fruits. The clouds were suspended in the sky, that they might distil their showers upon the earth, and bless its springing. The lights of heaven were kindled, to divide day from night, and measure the passage of time. The air, the waters, and the earth were stocked with animals, whose qualities were such as would make them serviceable to man, while the beauty of their forms would minister to his deligh" Every thing was ready, and man, first design though last in execution, was now ushered upon the scene. But, as must have struck the most cursory reader of the narrative in Genesis, Moses speaks of man's creation in a way altogether different from that in which he speaks of the formation of the other creatures. He introduces him with all solemnity, and we feel that it is a monarch that is approaching. And God said, Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness'

(Gen. ì. 26). Observe the language, 'God said, Let us.' We here see a council of divine persons assembled, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit-the matter in deliberation being the creation of nian. 'Let us make man,' else all we have made were in vain-will lack its end and crown. What form shall we give his body? Shall we make it like that of the beasts, which bow towards the earth, or shall we make him to walk erect, and look to heaven? What rank shall we assign him? Shall he stand on the level of the other animals, or shall we place him at the head of the creation, and constitute him its lord? With what faculties shall we endow him: with the instincts of the beasts that perish, or shall we give him reason for his guide, and put an immortal spirit within him that he may live for ever? The conclusion come to is thus announced-'So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them' (Gen. i. 27).

How simple yet sublime is this account of the origin of man. It wears the stamp of truth and divinity. How unlike the absurd and grotesque cosmogonies of heathen authors! The Bible shows us infinite Power, acting in combination with infinite Wisdom, creating all things, in regular order, with qualities the most admirable, and for ends the most noble, and crowning the edifice with man, wearing the image of his Maker. In this consists man's glory. Man's body is of earth his inner part is spirit: and so he is like God who is a spirit-his intellect is of the type of God's, although in degree infinitely inferior to His. It is the spirit of man which is the seat of the divine image, and that image consists, the Apostle Paul tells us, in three things, Knowledge, Righteousness, and true Holiness. The first intimates the soundness of man's understanding, the second the obedience of his will, and the third the purity of his affections forming a nature in the highest harmony, all whose parts worked together, sweetly yet powerfully towards virtue and truth. God made man upright.' The image of God is the basis of that government which man exercises over all the other creatures. The dominion of God is founded on the fact of his creating and sustaining the world. Man's dominion is not primary, but delegated. The Creator, by imparting to man his image, clothed him with his sovereignty, for in the inspired narrative dominion over the creatures is made a consequent of man's being created in the image of God. It is the badge of his authority. The animals feel its power, and have an instinctive awe and reverence of man. It is this, and no superior strength which enables man to exact from them the tribute of their service.

From this one man have sprung all the families, tribes, and nations that people the earth. Where is the proof of this? It is

here that we find the race, though separated by diversities of colour, and speech, and habits, bearing all the same image, and that the image in which Adam was made-the image of God-sadly defaced in all, in some almost totally obscured, still its rudimental elements remain in the most savage and the most flagitious-the broad heaven-impressed stamp of one origin. The essential form of body is the same in all men: all have faces raised to heaven. The reason of all men is essentially the same. It exists in very different degrees, but it is the same faculty in all. Nowhere is there on earth a tribe whose intellect necessitates them to believe that two and two make five. There may be tribes that cannot count five, but develop the faculty that is in them, and they will as certainly conclude that two and two make four as the greatest mathematician will do, showing that it is the same reason that is in both. And so as regards the moral findings. There are races in which only the feeblest traces of conscience can be found, but so far as conscience is operative its decisions regarding moral duties are the same. Nowhere is there a nation the constitution of whose minds compels them to regard vice to be virtue, and virtue to be vice, or in which the moral sense, however deeply injured and enfeebled, is totally inverted. These inward indelible marks, stamped upon the soul of man, proclaim the one origin of all the inhabitants of the world. The varieties of colour, the differently-shaped crania, and other diversities which climate, and other causes have produced on the body of man, when weighed against the indelible marks of unity worn by his soul are but as dust in the balance. Reason and science most conclusively set their seal to the announcement of Revelation, that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth' (Acts xvii. 2€).

What date does the Bible assign to the creation of man? It places the origin of our race, and the opening of history at about six thousand years before the present hour. Its truth in this is strongly corroborated by observa. tion and reason. We have three great lines all converging on a point in the past. There is the development of the various languages; there are the traditions and records of the various nations, and there is the history of civilisation and discovery-all three converge on a common starting-point, and that point Bes at a distance in the past of about six thousand years the date which the Bible signs to the origin of man.

Soon after his creation the various animals were made to pass before Adam, and in the exercise of that clear and penetrating intelli

ce with which his Maker had gifted him, be discerned the qualities and habits of each, and named it accordingly. 'And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was

the name thereof.' It is not necessary to suppose that all existing animals were presented before Adam, at least at once: only those, it might be, with which he had immediately to do were brought into his presence, and with unerring sagacity he gave to each an appropriate and distinctive name, which his posterity perpetuated, and, in fact, are to this day following out and perfecting in the scientific classification of the names and instincts of the animal tribes. The exhibition was fitted to impress Adam with a sense of God's goodness. What a numerous train of servants had his Maker provided for him. And how varied their qualities! One he admired for its beauty, another for its swiftness, another for its strength, and another for its sagacity, almost approaching the reason of its master; and all these various qualities, dis tributed among the lower animals, were for him. This shows us, moreover, that man from the first had the power of speech. We cannot believe that Adam was created dumb. The supposition that he was so, and that he invented language as necessity and occasion offered, does not consist with the narrative of events immediately consequent on his creation. God held converse with him: addressing him in articulate speech, we cannot doubt, choosing the type of speech with which he had gifted man. The other organs were formed with the full use of their functions. He that gave sight to the eye, and hearing to the ear, could as easily give language to the tongue. The faculty of understanding language, which Adam unquestionably did, implies the power of speech, when the organs of speech are perfect. Language is one of the most marvellous of all human powers, but on that account the more likely to be, not a human invention, but a divine gift.

The transaction must have given Adam a sense of loneliness. Every animal that passed before him was accompanied by his mate, but man was alone. For Adam there was not found an help meet for him.' There was not one of all the creatures that shared his nature, or had been made in the image in which he was created. There was not one of them, therefore, that could take part with him in his duties and delights. There was a great blank to be filled. A new creative act had to take place. A deep sleep falls on the first man, and while it lasts, his side is opened, a rib is extracted, and, by the same power by which Adam himself had been created, and by which our own bodies grow day by day towards maturity, the rib was fashioned into the fair form of woman. The narrative must be true, for the incident could not have been invented, yet how completely does this origin of woman commend itself to our sense of appropriateness and fitness. From the side of man comes forth the partner of his lot. What a lesson touching the relation, the duty, and the end of woman. On awakening Adam