time, a firm and lafting obedience, because it would proceed from 2 principle of love and esteem. So that the Chriftian religion enjoys this privilege above any other, that by the fame maxims, it tends to promote at once the happiness of men, both in this world, and that which is to

come:

It must indeed be acknowledged to the honour of feveral heathen philofophers, that they have delivered excellent rules of morality. But they were always defective in some respect, and there is no one among them, but what hath authorised fome vice or other. Whereas Chriftianity fpares not one, and even condemns the leaft appearance of evil. Befides, the morality of the beft heathen philofophers went upon false principles, it being no more than bare honefly, wherein their only aim was to advance their own intereft, pleasure, or credit, without having any regard for the glory of the fupreme Director of all things. In a word, their virtues were deftitute of holinefs. Or if they had any defign of rendering themselves acceptable to their gods, the object being falfe, their virtues must confequently have been fo too. They had moreover no fufficient motives to keep men steady in the practice of those duties which they recommended, and gave fo lovely a reprefentation of. Seneca fays abundance of fine things concerning the contempt of the world, but he is far from perfuading, because he doth not difcover the true ground of this contemptr Reafon indeed teaches us to be temperate in the enjoyment of the things of this world, and not blindly to follow our paffions, because every excels is difgraceful, and fome way or other infallibly tends to our ruin. But if there be no more valuable enjoyments than those which this world affords, to defpife them must be either pride or foolifhnefs. The morality of the Apoftles is entirely confiftent. They forbid us to set our affections on the things of this world, no farther than this may prove an obftacle to our heavenly happiness, or the practice of virtue, which leads us thither. In a word, it is grounded upon this principle of reafon and good fenfe, that we ought to prefer what is fure and certain to what is not fő, things eternal to tranfitory and perifhing enjoyments, and part with a fmall, for the fake of an inestimable, advantage. The morality contained in the facred writings hath this further excellency above that of the heathens, that the latter are not agreed in the reprefentations they have given of virtue. Their difagreeing is a good proof, either of their having framed different fyftems of virtue according to their inclinations, or of having had different teachers. But the Apoftles do fo exactly agree together, without having confulted one another, that it is plain they must have had but one and the fame mafter. Every intelligent reader may eafily draw the inference that arifes from the foregoing reflections; which is to this effect, That thofe men who have written books containing doctrines and precepts fo compleat in all refpects, fo perfect, fo well proportioned to all the neceffities of mankind, must have been infpired by that Almighty Being, who having made man, exactly knows how he is to be governed. I omit feveral other reafons, which, together with thofe that have been already mentioned, are alfo of great weight; as the wonderful progrefs of the gofpel; fuch a variety of tor ments as was undergone for the confirmation of it; the miraculous

prefer

prefervation thereof, notwithstanding the attacks of the enemies of the Chriftian religion, and fuch numberless herefies as have arifen in the church, and might probably have caufed fome alteration in thofe facred writings.

From the veracity and faithfulness of the facred writers, fpring up, as from a copious and pure fource, feveral importa truths. For, if the authors of the New Teftament have advanced nothing but what is true, that book must have come from God, fince, as they affure us, they had a divine commiffion for revealing to the world what they have taught. If these facred authors have advanced nothing but truth, the Chriftian religion must be true; and confequently an eternal reward is annexed to faith and piety, as a difmal eternity is to be the confequence of unbelief and impenitence. If whatever the writers of the New Teftament have faid is true, then all other religions are either falfe, or abrogated. This last particular deferves to be seriously attended to, because at the fame time that the writers of the New Teftament confirm the truth of the Old, they withal difcover the reafon why the ceremonial parts of it are now no longer in force.

The Holy Ghoft, by whofe direction and affiftance Concerning the the Evangelifts and Apoftles wrote, did not frame a par- ftyle of the New ticular language for them, He only fuggefted the matter Teftament, to their minds, and kept them from falling into mistakes, but left each of them at liberty to make ufe of their own ftyle and expreffions. And as we obferve different ftyles in the writings of the prophets, according to the temper and education of thofe holy men, fo every one that is verfed in the original language of the New Teftament, may difcover a great diverfity between the ftyles of St. Matthew, St. Luke, St. Paul, and St. John, Which would not have happened, had every expreffion been dictated to the Apofties by the Holy Ghoft. For, in fuch a cafe, the ftyle of every book in fcripture would, in all probability, have been alike. Befide, there were fome particulars wherein there was no need of infpiration; namely, when they wrote of matters of fact, which they themselves had feen, or which had been reported to them by credible witneffes. When St. Luke undertook to write his gofpel, he fays that he hath given an account of things, as he hath learned them from thofe, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses of them; and that having had a perfect understanding of all things, he thought fit to tranfmit them to pofterity. An author that had been informed of fuch matters by divine infpiration, would naturally have faid; I have related things as they were dictated to me by the Holy Ghoft. St. Paul's converfion was an extraordinary and fupernatural event; but yet to give an account of it, nothing more was neceffary for St. Luke, than the teftimony of St. Paul himself, and of those that were with him. And accordingly there is fome variety in the relation of it, but ftill without any manner of contradiction.

The difference of style in the facred writers of the New Teftament, is a good argument of their truth and fincerity. Was their ftyle exactly alike, one would be apt to fufpect, that they had all combined together when they wrote, or elfe, that having agreed what they fhould teach, one of them had fet pen to paper, and made a fyftem of their doctrine. When in a work, which goes under the name of one author, there

I

T

there is obferved a difference of ftyle; we have reafon to believe that it was written by feveral hands. For the very fame reason, when Books, which go under the name of different authors, are written in a different ftyle, we may reasonably fuppofe that they were not the compofure of one perfon. The books of the New Teftament then contain divine matters, written in the language of man, but with the particular direction and affiftance of the Spirit of God.

Though each of the writers of the New Teftament hath a particular ftyle, yet they all wrote in the fame language, that is, the Greek (*). This tongue being then moft in vogue, it was very proper that books, which were to ferve to convert the whole world, fhould be written therein. It muft notwithstanding be observed, that the Greek of the Evangelifts and Apoftles is not pure and unmixed; it abounds with Hebraifms (†), and Latin words put in Greek characters and terminations. Befides, as the greatest part of the Jews, which were difperfed through Greece (), had forgot the Hebrew language, and made ufe of the Greek verfion of the Old Teftament, which goes under the name of the Septua gint; the facred writers of the New have frequently adapted their style thereto, and have almoft always followed that translation in their quotations, as we have made appear in our prefaces and notes. And the apoftolical ftyle not only bears a great conformity with the feptuagint verfion, and the Hebrew tongue, but there are likewife found in it abundance of words, expreffions, proverbs, and maxims that were in use among the Rabbins (*). For though the Thalmud was not compiled till after Chrift, yet the main of it was in being a long time before, as hath been obferved by the learned. Thefe remarks on the style of the New Teftament are of great use, either to help us to understand several difficult paffages, or elfe to difcover the true fenfe and occafion of fome expreffions, which, at firft fight, feem a little ftrange. This the heathens did not confider, when they undervalued the style of the facred writers, as we find they did from Origen (a), Lactantius (b), and others of the fathers. There have been alfo fome ancient doctors of the church, as well as modern authors, who, for want of reflecting on this, have taken too much liberty in finding fault with the ftyle of the New Teftament. It is certain, as St. Auguftin hath obferved (c), that the Evangelifts and Apoftles have all the eloquence and elegancy fuitable to their character and defign. Their bufinefs was to convert the ignorant as well as the learned, and therefore it was neceffary they should use a popular ftyle, and intelligible to all. The gospel was at first to be preached

both

(*) We have proved in our preface that they all writ in Greek. (t) That is, a mixture of Chaldee and Syriack, which was then the vulgar tongue in Judea.

(1) Thefe Jews were called Hellenifts or Græcifing Jews (because they used the Greek language in their fynagogues), and their tongue may be called the Hellenistical, without making of it however a particular language.

(*) Inftances of all thefe may be feen, in an excellent collection of differta tions concerning the ftyle of the New Tellament, Van den Honert de ftilo Novi Teftamenti Græco. Leawardie, 1702.

(a) Contra Celfum, 1. vi. init.
(c) De Doctrina Christ. l. iv. č. 6.

(b) Inftitut. 1. v. c. 1.

both to the Jews of Judæa and of Greece, and therefore it must have been in fuch a language as was familiar to them. Add to this, that 'the style of the Apoftles is in itfelf a proof of their being the authors of the books which go under their names. Had they written like Ifocrates, or Demofthenes, it would have been objected againft them, that it was impoffible for Hebrews, who profeffed to be men of no learning, to have written in fo pure and excellent a ftyle, and confequently that the books which were afcribed to them, must have been the invention of fome impoftor. So that all the objections that are framed against the style of the New Teftament, ferve, after all, to confirm the truth of it, and to prove that it came from God.

As we have been frequently obliged to mention in our Of the verfion notes the version of the Seventy, and the Apoftles having of the Seventy, often followed it in their quotations, and imitated the

ftyle of it, it will be proper to give fome fhort account of it here. It is the ancient Greek verfion of the Old Teftament, which was ufed by the Jews who were difperfed throughout Egypt and Greece, because the greateft part of them did not understand Hebrew. A certain author named Arifteas (d), who, as he relates, was contemporary with Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, by whofe order this tranflation was made, gives us a very pompous account of it. He fays, "that this prince "making a great library, was defirous of procuring the Jewish writ"ings; and that for this purpose he fent emballadors with rich presents "to the then high-prieft Eleazar, defiring that he would fend fix men "out of each of the tribes of Ifrael to make this verfion. Arifteas tells "us that he was one of thofe embaffadors. The feventy-two Jews "were gladly received at Alexandria; and having fet about their tranfla"tion, they finished it in 72 days, to the great fatisfaction of the king.” Thus far Arifteas. But feveral learned authors (e) have plainly fhewed, that this Arifteas, though he pretends to be a heathen (f), was fome Jew of Alexandria, who compofed this romance fince the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to give the greater authority to the feptuagint version. It is notwithstanding certain, that the counterfeit Arifteas is pretty ancient, fince we find him quoted by Jofephus (g), who takes alinoft word for word out of him what he hath faid of this tranfiation. But it is very probable that he lived after Philo, for though this last gives a full account of the verfion of the Seventy (b), he never mentions Aristeas, who, in all likelihood, embellifhed Philo's account.

However this be, it is acknowledged on all hands, that the chief part of this verfion was made by the Jews of Alexandria (i), under the reign of

(4) Arifteas Hift. lxx. Interp. ab Humf. Hody. See this whole ftory fully confuted by Dr. Prideaux, Connect. P. 2. B. 1.

(e) Dr. Hody de lxx. Interp. Oxon. 1705. Vandale de Arift. Amft. 1705. (f) Jof. Antiq. 1. xii. c. 2. (g) Id. ibid.

(b) Philo de Vita Mofis, l.ii. p. 509.

(i) About 300 years before Chrift. Dr. Prideaux, after Archbishop Uber, places it under the year 277. and gives a very accurate account of the occafion on which it was made. See his Connect. P. 2. B. 1. under the year 777. No. viii.

of Ptolemy Philadelphus, or while he was his father Ptolemy Lagus's affe ciate in the kingdom; but whether they did it by order of this prince, or of their own accord, is not well known. It may be inferred from the relations of Philo, Arifteas, and Jofephus, that there were no more than the five books of Mofes tranflated at that time. The reft was done afterwards by feveral hands, as is evident from the difference of ftyle. Though this verfion is not to be compared with the original Hebrew, it was notwithstanding reckoned of great authority in the primitive church. We have already obferved that the Apostles have chiefly adhered to it in their quotations. The Greek fathers always made ufe of it, and the most ancient Latin verfion of the Bible was tranflated from it (*).

It is moreover very useful upon feveral accounts. 1. The confulting of it often ferves to clear the Hebrew text, as the learned have fhewed in numberless inftances. The vowel points of the Hebrew not being of the fame ftanding with that language, the Seventy have frequently read otherwise than the Mafforites, the first inventors of these points (2). There are alfo found in the Septuagint whole verfes which are not in the Hebrew, and which, according to the fenfe, fhould be there. 2. It is very neceffary for the understanding of the New Teftament, there being feveral expreffions therein, which could not be well understood, was that fenfe to be put upon them, which they commonly bear in Greek authors, and not that which they have in the Septuagint, They therefore that are defirous of understanding the true meaning of the books of the New Testament cannot be too often adyifed carefully and diligently to perufe the Septuagint verfion,

The facred writers having fet down neither the Of the chronology of the New Teftament. year, month nor day, of our Saviour's birth; men have been all along divided in their opinions about it. There are notwithstanding in the gospel fome marks which may help us to discover, if not the day and month, at least the year in which this happy and glorious event happened. We are told by St. Matthew, that JESUS CHRIST was born in the reign of Herod the Great, and it is certain that it was but a little before the death of that king, fince JESUS CHRIST was but a child, when he came back from Egypt, upon the information which Jofeph received from an angel, of Herod's being dead. The words of St. Matthew fhew plainly enough that this information was given immediately after the death of Herod, and it cannot well be fuppofed that after that, Jofeph and Mary made any confiderable stay in Egypt, fince, when they came back, they knew not that Archelaus seigned in the room of his father; which they must have known, had this happened any time before. Now it is no difficult matter to guess

pretty

(*) This is what is called the Italick verfion, which was before that of St. Jerome.

(4) The vowel-points, according to fome, were invented about the 500th year after Chrift, and according to others not till the 9th century. See Dupin's hift, of the canon of the Old Teftament, Book I. ch. 4. §. 2. and Dr. Prideaux Conn. Part. 1. p. 352, of the 8vo. edit. 1718. But efpecially. Capelli Arcanum Punct.