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 style, we may reafonably 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 fyle, yet they all wrote in the fame language, that is, the Greek (*). This tongue being then most 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 obferved, 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 greatcft 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 Septuagint; the facred writers of the New have frequently adapted their style thereto, and have almost always followed that tranflation 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 likewise found in it abundance of words, expreffions, proverbs, and maxims that were in ufe 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 ftyle of the New Teftament are of great ufe, either to help us to understand several difficult paffages, or elfe to discover the true fenfe and occafion of fome expreffions, which, at first fight, feem a little strange. 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 Apostles 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 firft to be preached both

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

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

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

(a) Contra Celfum, 1. vi. init.

(c) De Doctrina Chrift. I. iv. c. 6.

(b) Inftitut. I. v. c. I.

both to the Jews of Judea 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 Apostles is in itself 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 against 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.

Of the verfion

As we have been frequently obliged to mention in our 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 some short account of it here. It is the ancient Greek verfion of the Old Teftament, which was used by the Jews who were difperfed throughout Egypt and Greece, because the greatest 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 sent embassadors 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 finifhed 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 verfion. It is notwithstanding certain, that the counterfeit Arifteas is pretty ancient, fince we find him quoted by Jofephus (g), who takes almoft word for word out of him what he hath faid of this tranflation. But it is very probable that he lived after Philo, for though this laft gives a full account of the verfion of the Seventy (b), he never mentions Arifteas, 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

(d) Arifteas Hift. lxx. Interp. ab Humf. Hody. See this whole ftory fully onfuted 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 Usher, 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 277. N°. viii,

of Ptolemy Philadelphus, or while he was his father Ptolemy Lagus's affo. 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 style. 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 Apoftles have chiefly adhered to it in their quotations. The Greek fathers always made ufe of it, and the most ancient Latin version 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 shewed in numberless inftances. The vowel points of the Hebrew not being of the fame ftanding with that language, the Seventy have frequently read otherwife than the Mafforites, the first inventors of thefe points (4). 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 Teftament cannot be too often advised carefully and diligently to perufe the Septuagint verfion.

The facred writers having fet down neither the Of the chronology of the New Testament. 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 gofpel 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 reigned 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. I. p. 352. of the 8vo. edit. 1718. But efpecially Capelli Arcanum Punt,

pretty nearly at the time of Herod's death; Jofephus (7) places it in the 34th year after his becoming mafter of Jerufalem, by the defeat of Antigonus, and the 37th from his being declared king by the Roman fenate. If we reckon thefe 37 years from the 714th of the foundation of Rome, when he was declared king; or 34 from his taking Jerufalem, according to the fame hiftorian, we shall find that he died the 750th or 751ft from the building of Rome. There is another particular which helps us to difcover in what year the death of Herod fell out; that is, an eclipfe of the moon, which, according to Jofephus (m), happened during Herod's laft illness, and which is by aftronomers placed in 750. But this point is attended with one difficulty, namely, that it is not known how long this eclipfe was before the death of Herod, whose illness might laft till the next year, as it feems we may infer from Jofephus it did.

The queftion then would be to know how long the birth of JESUS CHRIST happened before the death of Herod, but this would be very hard to determine. St. Luke tells us (2) that John began to baptize the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius, and he adds that when JESUS CHRIST came to be baptized by him, he was then about (*) thirty years old. If the beginning of the reign of Tiberius be reckoned from the death of Auguftus his predeceffor (†), who died in the 767th year from the foundation of Rome, the fifteenth year of Tiberius must have fallen upon the 781ft of the Roman Era (1). Now if JESUS CHRIST was then about thirty years old, it follows that he was born about the 750th year of the fame Epocha, and confequently a little before the death of Herod.

There occurs in St. John's gospel another mark whereby we may pretty nearly guefs at the year in which the birth of JESUS CHRIST happened. Our bleffed Saviour might be about one and thirty years old, when the Jews told him that the temple had been 46 years in building. We learn from Jofephus (2) that Herod undertook this work the 18th year of his reign (t), which anfwers to the 736th from the building of Rome, that is about 16 or 17 years before his death. Now, if we reckon from 736 to 780 or 781, when, in all probability, this conference paffed between JESUS CHRIST and the Jews, we fhall find

about

(Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xiv. c. 26, 27. xvii. 1o. & de Bello Jud. 1. i. c. 21.
(m) Jof. Antiq. 1. xvii. c. 8.
(1) Luke iii. 1.

(*) About fignifies either more or lefs.

(†) Some reckon the beginning of Tiberius's reign from his being made partner with Auguftus in the empire; but the other way of reckoning is the most common, as well as the molt probable.

(1) Era or Epocha is a fixed point, or a certain and remarkable date, made. ufe of in chronology to begin to compute years from. Thus the Jews were afed to reckon from the flood, from their coming out of Egypt, from the building of the temple, &c. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads; the Romans from the foundation of Rome; and the Chriftians from the birth of Jefus Chrift. (0) Jof. Antiq. I. xv. c. 14.

(1) That is, if we reckon from the defeat of Antigonus, when he became matter of Jerufalein.

about 45 years. If therefore JESUS CHRIST was then 31 years old, it follows that he was born 16 or 17 years after Herod had begun to build the temple, that is, about the death of that prince. As for the day and month on which the birth of Chrift happened, nothing can be faid of them that may be depended upon. From what we find related in St. Luke, that there were then thepherds in the fields watching over their flocks, one would be apt to think that it was not in winter-time. Some authors (p) imagine, that the festival of CHRIST's nativity, who was the restorer of mankind when polluted and defiled with vice and idolatry, was by Chriftians brought in instead of the feast of the dedication which the Jews celebrated on the 25th of December.

The Evangelifts have recorded but one particular action of JESUS CHRIST'S, during the 30 years he spent in Galilee with Jofeph and Mary; which is, that when he was in the twelfth year of his age, he went up with them at the feast of the pasover, and ftaid behind in the temple to hear the doctors, and afk them queftions (g). This, in all probability, came to pafs about a year after the banishment of Archelaus, whole cruelty obliged them to retire to Nazareth. Those many miracles therefore which are afcribed to JESUS CHRIST in the forged and apocry phal gofpel concerning the childhood of JESUS, ought to be looked upon as falfe and fictitious.

During this interval of time, there happened feveral things in the Roman empire, which have fome relation to the New Teftament. Archelaus was banished to Vienne in Dauphine, in the tenth year of his reign. Whereupon Judea being made a province, Auguftus ordered that taxing to be made there, of which we read in St. Luke (r). To this taxing did Judas Gaulonita (s), or the Galilæan, oppofe himself, as to a tyrannical impofition which the Jews ought not to fuffer. He drew into his party great numbers of rebels, which filled Judea with murders and robberies. Though he was overthrown, he left behind him a very confiderable party, which by their outrages and cruelties occafioned the ruin of Jerufalem, and confequently made way for the establishment of the Chriftian religion. It was rather a faction than a fect, though Jofephus gives it that name. It is fuppofed, with a great deal of probability, that thofe Galilæans, whofe blood Pilate mixed with their facrifices (t), were fome of them. To commit this maslacre, Pilate took an advantage of the feast of the paffover, when the Galilæans were come up to Jerufalem, to offer facrifices, because he could not have done it in Galilæa, it being not under his jurifdiction. This might happen about the third year of JESUS CHRIST's entering on his minifterial office.

The emperor Auguftus died four years after the banishment of Archelaus, in the feventy-feventh year of his age, after having reigned fiftyfeven. He was fucceeded by Tiberius, in whofe time JESUS CHRIST

(p) Olderm. de Feft. Encæn. p. 15, 16.

(r) Luke ii. 2.

(9) Luke ii.

(s) Acts v. 37. Jof. Ant. & de Bello Judaic. 1. ii. c. 7.

(*) Luke xiii. 1.

was