this narrative in the Epistles will be found in 1 Cor. iv. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 8-10; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; while from Rom. xvi. 4 and 2 Tim. iv. 19 we have evidence that these persons whom St Luke tells us were fellow-workers with the Apostle as tentmakers were really friends whom he valued highly as brethren in Christ.

On another point we have similar confirmation of one document by the others. We know from the Acts how St Paul encouraged the Gentiles to aid with their substance the poor Christians in Judæa, and he mentions (Acts xxiv. 17) that it was to bring some of the alms collected in answer to his appeals that he had come to Jerusalem when he was attacked in the Temple. Writing to the Romans (xv. 25) the Apostle says "Now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints" and in the next verse mentions the 'contributions' of Macedonia and Achaia. We have also a proof (1 Cor. xvi. 1) that such collections were directed to be made in the churches of Galatia as well as at Corinth, and the same subject is mentioned 2 Cor. viii. 1-4.

In Acts xix. 21, the historian tells us of St Paul's intention to visit Rome, and to the Christians there the Apostle writes (Rom. i. 13) "I would not have you ignorant that oftentimes I have purposed to come unto you." We know from the Acts very incidentally (xxvii. 2) that Aristarchus went with St Paul when he was carried prisoner to Rome. This is confirmed by the language which the Apostle uses in a letter written during that imprisonment (Col. iv 10) where he speaks of Aristarchus as his fellow-prisoner, a term which might well be used figuratively by him to express the devotion of the friend who gave up his own liberty that he might minister to the venerable prisoner.

Such coincidences of testimony in works written independently of each other are of the highest value, and could only be found in writings produced by those who wrote from direct personal knowledge. So that we are in this way brought to the conclusion that the narrative of the Acts was composed before the time when the Epistles of St Paul had been brought into circulation. For there is in the history no notice of the letters, and yet the details betoken the same freshness, and

closeness to the events of which they speak, as is seen in the confessedly contemporary allusions made by St Paul in his Epistles. There can, therefore, be no great difference in their date of composition between those Epistles of St Paul from which we have quoted and St Luke's account in the Acts of the Apostles.

A consideration of these various features of the Acts,—that the writer makes mention of contemporary secular history as one who was living among the events of which he speaks; that in his work we find no indication that he knew of the fall of Jerusalem; that he displays no acquaintance with the heretical tenets which were rife before the end of the first century; that he makes no reference to any of St Paul's Epistles, though writing as one fully conversant with the missionary-travels of that Apostle,-forces us to the conclusion that the work was written at some time between A. D. 63 and A. D. 70, and most probably about midway between these dates.

V. THE SOURCES OF THE NARRATIVE.

In the preface to the Gospel of St Luke the writer states definitely that the information which he is about to record for Theophilus was derived from those "which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." And as he himself was certainly not a disciple of Christ from the first, it was necessary that in the earlier treatise he should consult others, and it may have been needful to do so for the greater portion of what he has there written. But in the later book the sources of his information are not necessarily of exactly the same kind as for the Gospel. So that the preface of the Gospel need not be taken as having reference to the Acts likewise; and it is manifest from the passages in which the author in the Acts speaks in the first person plural that he meant to imply that he was himself an eye-witness of the events which he is there describing. What has been said in the notes on iii. 8 about the graphic character of the language there used, and of its simi

larity in style to the Gospel of St Mark, the vivid narratives of which have much in common with the acknowledged language of St Peter, it seems not improbable that the account of the events at and after the Ascension and of the spread of the Gospel in Jerusalem (Acts i.—v.) may have been drawn directly or indirectly from that Apostle's information. We may also ascribe to the same source all those portions of the narrative in which St Peter plays a conspicuous part, and of which the language is markedly of one character. Such portions would include ix. 32-xi. 18 and also xii. 1-19, much of which could have come in the first instance from no other lips than those of Peter himself. From some member of the Hellenistic party, of whom St Luke would meet many during his travels with St Paul, (just as we know (xxi. 8) that he dwelt with Philip the Evangelist many days at Cæsarea,) our author probably drew the whole of that portion of his narrative which relates to the appointment of the deacons and the accusation, defence, and death of Stephen (vi.—vii.), as well as those notices of the after movements of the Hellenistic missionaries (viii. 1—40, xi. 19— 30, xii. 25) which are found at intervals in the history.

The narrative of Saul's conversion (ix. 1-30) must have been told by himself, and after xiii. I the remainder of the book deals exclusively with the labours of that Apostle, and as the writer had abundant opportunities while journeying with St Paul of hearing all the history of his life before he became his companion, we cannot suppose that he has recorded anything of St Paul's doings except what was derived from the information of that Apostle or his fellow-labourers..

There remain the two historic notices (1) of the rest experienced by the Churches of Judæa and Galilee and Samaria (ix. 31) and (2) of the death of Herod Agrippa (xii. 20-23); but of these, if, as we have endeavoured to shew, he were living amidst the events of which he writes, the author would be aware from his personal knowledge; and the natural manner in which both these incidents are introduced indicates how well the writer knew that for his Christian readers as well as for himself a slight hint would recall the bypast trials of Christ's Church.

VI.

ON SOME ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN THE CHARACTER
OF THE NARRATIVE IN THE ACTS.

It has been said in recent criticism on the Acts that the book represents the Gospel as intended not for Jews only but for all mankind, in a manner at variance with the teaching of the Gospels. Those who put forward this objection would assign the teaching of the universality of the Gospel message to St Paul alone and would set it down as his development of what was meant at first to be only a modification of Judaism.

That in the Acts the preaching of the Gospel is represented as for all nations is certainly true. St Peter says (ii. 39)“The promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The accusation laid against Stephen (vi. 14) was that he had said "Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered us" and his whole defence shews that he had preached that not the Jews nor Jerusalem were any longer to be God's special care, but all men were now to be embraced in His covenant, while the whole of St Paul's labours are directed to make of Jews and Gentiles one worldwide Church of Christ. But the student of the Gospels need surely find no stumblingblock here. For if we take that which is on all hands accepted as the most Jewish of the Gospels, that of St Matthew, we can see that the universalism of the Acts is therein foreshadowed from the first, and spoken of definitely before the close. To God's ancient people His offers of mercy were made first, and in accordance with this is the conduct of all the preaching of the Acts, but Gentiles are no longer excluded when once Christ has been born. To lay the foundations of the Christian Church firmly in the short space of the ministerial life of its Founder it was needful that the labours both of Himself and His disciples should be confined within a limited range, and directed to a people prepared by the Old Testament revelation and among whom some were likely to be ready to hear the words of the Gospel message.

But while the infant Jesus is in His cradle we see wise men from the East brought to be His earliest worshippers. The voice of His herald proclaims that not the natural seed of Abraham shall of necessity be heirs of the promises, but that God is able of the very stones (and if so, much more from among the rest of mankind) to raise up children unto Abraham. When the ministry of Christ is begun and He takes up His abode in the border land of the Gentiles, we are reminded that it had been made known of old that "the people which sat in darkness were to see great light, and that light is sprung up for them that sat in the region and shadow of death." Then what can be more universal than the benedictions with which the Sermon on the Mount begins? The poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, the pure, the merciful, these are not restricted to the Jewish race, and on these it is that Jesus utters His first blessings. How often too does He shew that the customs of the Jews were to be done away, the ceremonial law, the fastings and the sabbaths to be disregarded, while the moral law was to be widened and deepened so that all men should learn that they were neighbours one of another? How often does He select the Samaritans to illustrate His teaching, and place them before us as those with whom He was well pleased, while He points out (Matt. viii. 10) that in the Roman centurion there was faith manifested beyond what He had found in Israel? It is true that when Jesus first sent out the twelve (Matt. x. 5) He said unto them "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" but this was in the same spirit in which all the teaching of Christianity had its commencement among the Jews. Yet the Lord who gave the injunction that this should be so, knew that those to whom the message was first sent would largely refuse to hear. For He adds to his commission the warning that His ministers are going as 'sheep among wolves,' and foretells that they should be persecuted from one city to another (Matt. x. 16—23), and goes on to say that His message is to be published far and wide, yea even proclaimed, as it were, from the housetops. When He speaks afterwards (Matt. xii. 18—21) of His own work in the