liberty, and as two or more lay on the same couch, the head of one man was near the breast of the man who lay behind him, and he was, therefore, said to lie in the bosom of the other. This phrase was in use among the Jews (Luke xvi. 22, 23; John i. 18; xiii. 23), and occurs in such a manner as to show that to lie next below, or in the bosom' of the master of the feast, was considered the most favoured place, and was usually assigned to near and dear connections. Thus it was the disciple whom Jesus loved' who reclined upon his breast' at the last supper. The frame of the dinner-bed was laid with mattresses variously stuffed, and, latterly, was furnished with rich coverings and hangings. Each person was usually provided with a cushion or bolster on which to support the upper part of his person in a somewhat raised position; as the left arm alone could not long without weariness sustain the weight. The lower part of the body being extended diagonally on the bed, with the feet outward, it is at once perceived how easy it was for the woman that was a sinner' to come behind between the dinner-bed and the wall, and anoint the feet of Jesus (Luke vii. 37, 38; John xii. 3).

The dinner-beds were so various at different "times, in different places, and under different circumstances, that no one description can apply to them all. Even among the Romans they were at first (after the Punic war) of rude form and materials, and covered with mattresses stuffed with rushes or straw; mattresses of hair and wool were introduced at a later period. At first the wooden frames were small, low, and round ; and it was not until the time of Augustus that square and ornamented couches came into fashion. In the time of Tiberius the most splendid sort were veneered with costly woods or tortoiseshell, and were covered with valuable embroideries, the richest of which came from Babylon, and cost large sums. The Jews perhaps had all these varieties, though it is not likely that the usage was ever carried to such a pitch of luxury as among the Romans; and it is probable that the mass of the people fed in the ancient manner-seated on stools or on the ground. It appears that couches were often so low, that the feet rested on the ground; and that cushions or bolsters were in general use. It would also seem, from the mention of two and of three couches, that the arrangement was more usually square than semi-circular or round.

It is utterly improbable that the Jews derived this custom from the Romans, as is constantly alleged. They certainly knew it as existing among the Persians long before it had been adopted by the Romans themselves (Esth. i. 6; vii. 8); and the presumption is that they adopted it while subject to that people. The Greeks also had the usage (from the Persians) before the Romans; and with the Greeks of Syria the Jews had very much intercourse. Besides, the Romans adopted the custom from the Carthaginians, and, that they had it, implies that it previously existed in Phoenicia, in the neighbourhood of the Jews. Thus, that in the time of Christ the custom had been lately adopted from the Romans, is very improbable. It is also unlikely that in so short a time it should have become usual and even (as the Talmud asserts) obli

ACELDAMA

gatory to eat the Passover in that posture of indulgent repose, and in no other.

ACCURSED. [ANATHEMA.]

ACCUSER. The original word, which bears this leading signification, means-1. One who has a cause or matter of contention; the accuser, opponent, or plaintiff in any suit (Judg. xii. 2; Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58). We have little information respecting the manner in which causes were conducted in the Hebrew courts of justice, except from the Rabbinical authorities, who, in matters of this description, may be supposed well informed as to the later customs of the nation. Even from these we learn little more than that great care was taken that, the accused being deemed innocent until convicted, he and the accuser should appear under equal circumstances before the court, that no prejudicial impression might be created to the disadvantage of the defendant, whose interests, we are told, were so anxiously guarded, that any one was allowed to speak whatever he knew or had to say in his favour, which privilege was withheld from the accuser. The word is also applied in Scripture, in the general sense, to any adversary or enemy (Luke xviii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 8). In the latter passage there is an allusion to the old Jewish opinion that Satan was the accuser or calumniator of men before God (Job i. 6, sq.; Rev. xii. 10, sq.; comp. Zech. iii. 1). In this application the forensic sense was still retained, Satan being represented as laying to man's charge a breach of the law, as in a court of justice, and demanding his punishment [SATAN].

ACEL'DAMA (field of blood), the field purchased with the money for which Judas betrayed Christ, and which was appropriated as a place of burial for strangers (Matt. xxvii. 8; Acts i. 19). It was previously a potter's field.' The field now shown as Aceldama lies on the slope of the hills beyond the valley of Hinnom, south of Mount Zion. Sandys thus writes of it: On the south side of this valley, neere where it meeteth with the valley of Jehoshaphat, mounted a good height on the side of the mountain, is Aceldama, or the field of blood, purchased with the restored reward of treason, for a buriall place for strangers. In the midst whereof a large square roome was made by the mother of Constantine; the south side, walled with the naturall rocke; flat at the top, and equall with the vpper level; out of which ariseth certaine little cupoloes, open in the midst to let doune the dead bodies. Thorow these we might see the bottome, all couered with bones, and certaine corses but newly let doune, it being now the sepulchre of the Armenians. A greedy graue, and great enough to deuoure the dead of a whole nation. For they say (and I believe it) that the earth thereof within the space of eight and forty houres will consume the flesh that is laid thereon.' He then relates the common story, that the empress referred to, caused 270 ship-loads of this flesh-consuming mould to be taken to Rome, to form the soil of the Campo Santo, to which the same virte is ascribed. Castela affirms that great quan tities of the wondrous mould were removed by divers Christian princes in the time of the Crusades, and to this source assigns the similar sarcophagic properties claimed not only by the Campo Santo at Rome, but by the ceme

ACHAN

tery of St. Innocents at Paris, by the cemetery at Naples, and, we may add, that of the Campo Santo at Pisa.

In

The plot of ground originally bought to bury strangers in,' seems to have been early set apart by the Latins, as well as by the Crusaders, as a place of burial for pilgrims. In the fourteenth century it belonged to the Knights-Hospitallers. Early in the seventeenth century it was in the possession of the Armenians, who bought it for the burial of their own pilgrims. The erection of the charnel-house is ascribed to them. the time of Maundrell they rented it at a sequin a day from the Turks. Corpses were still deposited there; and the traveller observes that they were in various stages of decay, from which he conjectures that the grave did not make that quick despatch with the bodies committed to it which had been reported. The earth, hereabouts,' he observes, 'is of a chalky substance; the plot of ground was not above thirty yards long by fifteen wide; and a moiety of it was occupied by the charnel-house, which was twelve yards high. Richardson affirms that bodies were thrown in as late as 1818; but Dr. Robinson alleges that it has the appearance of having been for a much longer time abandoned: The field or plat is not now marked by any boundary to distinguish it from the rest of the hill-side; and the former charnel-house, now a ruin, is all that remains to point out the site....An opening at each end enabled us to look in; but the bottom was empty and dry, excepting a few bones much decayed.'

ACHA'IA, a region of Greece, which in the restricted sense occupied the north-western portion of the Peloponnesus, including Corinth and its isthmus. By the poets it was often put for the whole of Greece, whence Achaioi, the Greeks. Under the Romans, Greece was divided into two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia, the former of which included Macedonia proper, with Illyricum, Epirus, and Thessaly; and the latter, all that lay southward of the former. It is in this latter acceptation that the name of Achaia is always employed in the New Testament (Acts xviii. 12, 27; xix. 21; Rom. xv. 26; xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. i. 1; ix. 2; xi. 10; 1 Thess. i. 7, 8). Achaia was at first a senatorial province, and, as such, was governed by proconsuls. Tiberius changed the two into one imperial province under procurators; but Claudius restored them to the senate and to the proconsular form of government. Hence the exact and minute propriety with which St. Luke expresses himself in giving the title of proconsul to Gallio, who was appointed to the province in the time of Claudius (Acts xviii. 12).

ACHA'ICUS, a native of Achaia, and a follower of the apostle Paul. He, with Stephanus and Fortunatus, was the bearer of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and was recommended by the apostle to their special respect (1 Cor. xvi. 17).

A'CHAN (troubler); in 1 Chron. ii. 7 written ACHAR. From the peculiarly appropriate significance of the name, it is supposed to have been imposed after the occurrence of the facts which rendered it notorious. The city of Jericho, before it was taken, was put under that awful ban, whereby all the inhabitants (except

ing Rahab and her family) were devoted to destruction, all the combustible goods to be consumed by fire, and all the metals to be consecrated to God. This vow of devotement was rigidly observed by all the troops when Jericho was taken, save by one man, Achan, a Judahite, who could not resist the temptation of secreting an ingot of gold, a quantity of silver, and a costly Babylonish garment, which he buried in his tent. But God made known this infraction, which (the vow having been made by the nation as one body) had involved the whole nation in his guilt. The Israelites were defeated, with serious loss, in their first attack upon Ai; and

and

as Joshua was well assured that this humiliation was designed as the punishment of a crime which had inculpated the entire people, he took immediate measures to discover the criminal. As in other cases, the matter was referred to the Lord by the lot, and the lot ultimately indicated the actual criminal. The conscience-stricken offender then confessed his crime to Joshua; his confession being verified by the production of his ill-gotten treasure, the people, actuated by the strong impulse with which men tear up, root and branch, a polluted thing, hurried away not only Achan, but his tent, his goods, his spoil, his cattle, his children, to the valley (afterwards called) of Achor, north of Jericho, where they stoned him, and all that belonged to him; after which the whole was consumed with fire, and a cairn of stones raised over the ashes. The severity of this act, as regards the family of Achan, has provoked som remark. Instead of vindicating it, as is generally done, by the allegation that the members of Achan's family were probably accessories to his crime after the fact, we prefer the supposition that they were included in the doom by one of those sudden impuises of indiscriminate popular vengeance to which the Jewish people were exceedingly prone, and which, in this case, it would not have been in the power of Joshua to control by any authority which he could under such circumstances exercise.

A'CHAR. [ACHAN.]

A'CHISH (called Abimelech in the title of Ps. xxxiv.), the Philistine king of Gath, with whom David twice sought refuge when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxi. 10-15; xxvii. 1-3). The first time David was in imminent danger; for he was recognised and spoken of by the officers of the court as one whose glory had been won at the cost of the Philistines. This talk filled David with such alarm that he feigned himself mad when introduced to the notice of Achish, who, seeing him scrabbling upon the doors of the gate, and letting his spittle fall down upon his beard,' rebuked his people sharply for bring ing him to his presence, asking, Have I need of madmen, that ye have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house? After this David lost no time in quitting the territories of Gath. About four years after, when the character and position of David became better known, and when he was at the head of not less than 600 resolute adherents, he again repaired with his troop to King Achish, who received him in a truly royal spirit, and treated him with a generous confidence, of which David took perhaps

tive narrative of such events as had come under his own notice; but such a view savours too much of the lax opinions which these writers unhappily entertained regarding the sacred writers, to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the church universal. Much more deserving of attention is the opinion that the general design of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-operation of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remarkable facts, the dignity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion. Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his Gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to show how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by whom it was to be announced to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke xxiv. 47).

Respecting the time when this book was composed it is impossible to speak with certainty. As the history is continued up to the close of the

ACTS, SPURIOUS

second year of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been written before A.D. 63; it was probably, however, composed very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the interval between the year 63 and the year 65 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it, but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared.

The style of Luke in the Acts is, like his style in his Gospel, much purer than that of most other books in the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively; and, as Michaelis observes, he has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators.'

Whilst, as Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown, the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events. Our space will not permit us to enter at large into this point, we shall therefore content ourselves with merely presenting, in a tabular form, the dates affixed to the leading events by those writers whose authority is most deserving of consideration in such an inquiry.