" b Jews against our Saviour's life than any other Evangelist; and that the events, mentioned in this Gospel only, took place chiefly in the early part of Christ's ministry. St. John has expressly mentioned three passovers; and in another place he says, "After this there was a feast of the Jews." Some authors think that this feast was also a passover; but as in the other instances John tells us, that the feasts were passovers, and in this does not, the inference seems to be, that this was some other feast. Upon this ground I am disposed to allow somewhat more than two years to John's history, and consequently to our Saviour's ministry." It is not a little surprising that so learned a man as Grotius, in opposition to the universal testimony of manuscripts and versions, and without the support of a single ancient writer, should have thought that the 21st chapter of this Gospel was not written by St. John, because the 20th seems to conclude the history. Some few other moderns have thought the same: but as this opinion is destitute of all This inference is favoured by no article being prefixed to the word 'Eoprn; since if St. John had been speaking of the passover as the feast of the Jews by way of eminence, he would probably have said ǹ ‘EopTMŋ, as he does twice, iv. 45., and once, ii. 23.; and also in the following places, vi. 4. xii. 12. 20. xiii. 29. Grotius thinks differently, and has quoted two passages, the one from St. Mark's, and the other from St. Luke's Gospel, in support of his opinion; but it is to be observed, that in those pas- a Vide Lardner, vol. ii. p. 423., and vol. vi. p. 218. external evidence, it scarcely deserves any farther notice, and more especially, as the style of this chapter is precisely the same as the rest of the Gospel. St. John is generally considered, with respect to language, as the least correct writer of the New Testament. His style argues a great want of those advantages which result from a learned education; but this defect is amply compensated by the unexampled simplicity with which he expresses the sublimest truths, and by the affection, zeal, and veneration for his divine Master so conspicuous in every page of his Gospel." a Great caution should be used in speaking of the style of the inspired writers, as more or less correct. The observations of Michaelis on this subject are of great value. "Disputes relative to words, which every man may use at pleasure if he properly defines them, I have neither inclination to relate nor to determine. The contest has been conducted, with respect to the fact itself, with all possible seriousness; and many who have contended that the Greek of the New Testament is as purely classical as that of the Attic writers, have condemned, as impious heretics, those who have dared to dissent. It has been asserted that the contrary implied an imperfection inconsistent with divine inspiration, and that men capable of such a doctrine were not only impious, but even guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost. But the advocates for this divine purity have not only betrayed their ignorance of the Greek language, but a high degree of pedantry, in estimating the accuracy of lan guage beyond its proper value. This last mistake has happened not only to the warm and partial friends but likewise to the enemies of Christianity, who, from the time of Celsus to the eighteenth century, have maintained that a book written in such language is neither divinely inspired nor deserving attention and respect. "Both parties have carried their zeal and their sentiments to too great a length; and they would hardly consider an absolute purity of style, and a total absence of foreign words, of such importance as to make the contrary a crime, if they would condescend to quit the language of the schools for the language of common life, or turn their attention from the language of the classics to those which are in common use. Admitting even that not only a few single instances, but that the Hebraisms in general were blemishes in the New Testament, and that what I have advanced above is of no weight, yet no inference can be thence deduced against divine inspiration. A series of repeated miracles would have been necessary, if apostles, born and educated in Judæa had written without Hebraisms, and these miracles would have produced an useless, and even prejudicial effect. Had the New Testament been written with classic purity, it must have excited suspicion of a forgery, and I candidly confess that I should have been put to a very severe trial, if I found in these writings the language of Xenophon or Plutarch, and were still bound to believe them genuine. The singularity of their style has been used in a preceding chapter as a proof of their authenticity, and the argument was strengthened by the circumstance that the Apostles and Evangelists have each retained their own peculiar_mode of writing. In short, a classical or unclassical style has no more influence on the divinity of the New Testament than the elegance or inelegance of the hand in which it is written, and the accuracy or inaccuracy of the pronunciation with which it is uttered. Whoever is accustomed to write a bad hand would certainly not improve it by inspiration; but admitting the fact, it would have this unfortunate consequence, that no one accustomed to the hand would in its improved state believe it to be genuine. There is no reason to believe that inspiration would amend a faulty pronunciation; and the writers of the different parts of the Bible have undoubtedly spoken in the same manner, both before and after the effusions of the Holy Ghost. If these failings, then, are consistent with supernatural endowments, I can see no reason for drawing an argument against the divinity of the New Testament from its Hebraisms, or even from its grammatical errors." Vol. i. sect. iv. p. 121.-EDITOR. PART II. CHAPTER THE SIXTH. OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. I. GENUINENESS OF THIS BOOK. II. ITS CONTENTS. III. ITS DATE.-IV. PLACE OF ITS PUBLICATION. V. IMPORTANCE OF THIS BOOK. I. THIS BOOK, in the very beginning, professes itself to be a continuation of St. Luke's Gospel; and its style bespeaks it to be written by the same person. The external evidence is also very satisfactory; for besides allusions in earlier authors, and particularly in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, the Acts of the Apostles are not only quoted by Irenæus, as written by Luke the Evangelist, but there are few things recorded in this book which are not mentioned by that ancient father. This strong testimony in favour of the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, Eusebius, Theodoret, and most of the later fathers. It may be added, that the name of St. Luke is prefixed to this book in several ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and also in the old Syriac version.a VOL. I. a Simon. Crit. Hist. N. T. P. 1. c. xiv. II. This is the only inspired work which gives us any historical account of the progress of Christianity after our Saviour's ascension. It comprehends a period of about thirty years, but it by no means contains a general history of the Church during that time. The principal facts recorded in it are, the choice of Matthias to be an Apostle in the room of the traitor Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the Apostles at Jerusalem; the death of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution and dispersion of the Christians; the preaching of the Gospel in different parts of Palestine, especially in Samaria; the conversion of St. Paul; the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at Jerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish rites and ceremonies, were not necessary in Gentile converts; and the latter part of the book is confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom, as we have already seen, St. Luke was the constant companion for several years. III. As this account of St. Paul is not continued beyond his two years' imprisonment at Rome, it is probable that this book was written soon after his release, which happened in the year 63; we may |