manner, as I had done the three first Gospels, when a new interruption took place in March 1800. From the University of Leipzig, where I then resided, I returned to England, in consequence of an invitation, which I could not refuse and as the completion of my original plan, with regard to Michaelis's Introduction, was thus deferred to an unlimited time, I determined to print the remainder of the translation without further delay. In so doing, I hope I shall not incur the censure of the public as it is certainly more desirable to have the work of Michaelis complete, though the whole is not accompanied with Notes, than to wait several years longer for the completion of the work, merely for the sake of some additional observations by the translator.'

The Professor's remarks on the Gospel of St. John are well worthy of his reader's attention. He contends that the Apostle wrote this work to confute the Gnostics and Sabians; and he shews, at some length, the manner in which they are confuted by him. In order to do this, he states succinctly the tenets of those sects of Christians, and gives a short commentary on different texts in St. John's Gospel which, in his opinion, apply to them. One of his illustrations is so new, whether or not it may be deemed perfectly satisfactory, that we shall transcribe it:

་

In St. John, ch. v. 17. a conversation is related between Christ and the Jews, who accused him of having violated the sabbath, because he had performed miracles on that day. To this charge, Christ might have answered that the performance of a miracle was no more a violation of the sabbath than the performance of religious ceremonies but he answered in a different manner, and said, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' The word hitherto' refers to the time when God ceased to work, namely on the first sabbath, when God rested after he had finished the work of the creation. This rest, which Moses ascribes to the Creator, admits of no other explanation, than that he ceased to operate immediately on the world, and that he left nature to take the course, which he had originally directed. Hence every miracle, which is a deviation from the course of nature, may be considered as a departure from the rule, which God prescribed to himself, and as a kind of violation of the first sabbath, because a miracle implies God's interference. The meaning therefore of Christ's answer is the following. God himself sometimes breaketh the great Sabbath, of which your sabbath is only a type. After he had finished the work of the creation, he rested indeed on the seventh day: yet he still worketh, and I work with him.' Whoever speaks in this manner, and describes himself as breaking, with God, the great sabbath, which commenced when the creation was completed, represents himself as the Creator of heaven and earth, who rested on the seventh day.'

6

The Professor says little on the Acts of the Apostles, but we believe that the reader will be highly pleased with the following

8

following observations on St. Luke's style and mode of nar

ration :

In general, St. Luke's style in the Acts of the Apostles is much purer than that of most other books of the New Testament, especially in the speeches delivered by St. Paul at Athens and before the Roman governors, which contain passages superior to any thing even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, though the language of this Epistle is preferable in other respects to that of any other book in the New Testament. But the Acts of the Apostles are by no means free from Hebraisms: and even in the purest parts, which are the speeches of St. Paul, we still find the language of a native Jew.

It deserves particularly to be remarked that St. Luke 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. The speeches of St. Peter are recorded by St. Luke with the same simplicity as that in which they were delivered, and they are devoid of all those ornaments, which we usually find in the orations of the Greeks and Romans. The speeches of St. Paul, which were delivered before a Jewish assembly, are not very different in their manner from those of St. Peter: and they are wholly dissimilar to those, which the same Apostle delivered before an heathen audience, especially in Acts, xiii. 16-41. where St. Paul introduces the principal subject of his discourse by a long periphrasis, which would have been neither instructive nor entertaining in any other place, than a Jewish synagogue. The speech delivered by the martyr Stephen, in the seventh chapter of the Acts, is again of a different description. It is a learned discourse, pronounced by a speaker, who was totally unacquainted with the art of oratory. Stephen spake without any preparation, and though he had certainly a particular object in view, to which the several parts of his discourse were directed, yet it is difficult to discover this object, because his materials are not regularly disposed. It is true, that he was interrupted, and was prevented from finishing his harangue: but an orator, who is accustomed to speak in public, and has learnt methodical arrangement, will discover even at the commencement of his oration the purport of his discourse. In Stephen's speech we meet with numerous digressions, and literary remarks, of which we cannot perceive the tendency. For instance, he has a remark, which is at variance with the Hebrew text, and favours another reading, or if not, it favours a mystical exposition of the common reading, that Abraham did not depart from Haran, till after his father's death: and he differs from the Seventy in interpreting WP not by lambs,' but by a silver coin. The same character appears throughout the whole of Stephen's discourse: but a more minute examination of it would be foreign to the present purpose.

Since then the various speakers, who are introduced in the Acts of the Apostles, uniformly preserve their proper characters, St. Luke must have received very accurate information. Yet many

of

of these speeches were delivered, not in the Greek language, as they' are recorded by St. Luke, but in Chaldee, the language of Palestine. Nor is it probable, that any of the persons, who were present at the time, when they were delivered, committed them to writing, if we except the speech of Stephen. My reason for thinking it pro bable that St. Luke had a copy of Stephen's speech, is, that it contains some mistakes of memory, and some inaccurate expositions, which St. Luke himself must have known to be such, but which he retained, because he found them in his copy. Perhaps this copy was delivered to him by St. Paul, who was not only present at Stephen's speech, but was at that time a zealous adversary of the Christians; and being at the same time learned in the law, was able as well as willing to detect whatever mistakes might be made by the speaker.

Lastly, the speeches delivered by St. Paul before assemblies, which were accustomed to Grecian oratory, are of a totally different description from any of the preceding. It is true, that they are neither adorned with the flowers of rhetoric, nor are even exempt from such expressions as betray a native Jew: but the language is pointed and energetic, and the materials are not only well selected, But judiciously arranged. The speech which St. Paul delivered at Athens, and the two which he held before the Roman governors of Judæa, are proofs of this assertion. Yet St. Luke appears to have given only an abstract, and not the whole of St. Paul's speeches; for the Apostle in the defence, which he made before Felix, must certainly have said more than is recorded by St. Luke, ch. xxiv. 12, 13. unless we suppose that he merely denied the charge, which had been laid to him, without confuting it. However he has certainly shown great judgment in these abstracts: for, if he has not always retained the very words of St. Paul, he has adopted such as well suited the polished audience, before which the Apostle spake.'

We now come to Professor Michaelis's introduction to the Epistles. To each of them he assigns one or more prefatory chapters, in which he discusses the principal questions relative to the time and place at which they were written, the supposed authors of them, and the persons to whom they were addressed; sometimes, also, he gives a kind of analysis of their contents. The reader will be particularly pleased with his analysis of the epistle to the Romans; and his observations on the state of the Christian community at Corinth, on the notions entertained by the Jews concerning justification and obedience to the Roman Emperors, on the style of the epistle to the Hebrews, on the internal marks from which an inference may be drawn either in favor of or against the opinion that St. Paul was the author of that epistle, and on the alledged contradiction between the doctrine of St. Paul and St. James respecting faith and good works, are excellent. His verbal criticisms of the text are also very curious.-To his remarks on the Epistles of St. Paul, he prefixes an introductory chapter, treating

treating of the order in which the epistles were written; and he contends that St. Paul dictated his epistles, and wrote a greater number than those which are now extant. A particular chapter on this Apostle's character and mode of life is also given but here we were greatly disappointed: instead of the full and judicious account of his character as a man, an Apostle, and a writer, which we expected, we find only a very short inquiry whether he was an impostor, an enthusiast, or a messenger from heaven; with some observations on his profession or trade. In opposition to the universal opinion of antient and modern writers, the Professor asserts that Paul's occupation was that of a mechanical instrument maker; on the ground that, according to Julius Pollux, onvooios in the language of the old comedy was equivalent to μηχανοποιος.

Similar prefatory matter is prefixed to each of the other epistles; and at the end of the introduction to the first episte of St. John we find a dissertation on the 1st John, v. 7. or the celebrated verse of the three heavenly witnesses. Here we particularly feel the want of Mr. Marsh's annotations: because, since the publication of Michaelis's work, the authenticity of this verse has undergone so thorough an investigation, so much new and important matter respecting it has been brought forwards, and the old discussion has been placed in such a variety of new lights, that this author's statement of the arguments for and against the authenticity of the verse is very imperfect; and a note containing the requisite supplementary information would therefore have been highly acceptable. The subject is now exhausted but a complete history of the controversy would be both entertaining and instructive. It might be divid ed into three stages; the first commencing with Erasmus's doubt of its authenticity, and ending with Sandius's attack on it: the second, the period at which it was brought before the public in the Journal Britannique; and the third, comprehending Mr. Gibbon's note respecting it, which provoked Mr. Archdeacon Travis to stand forwards in its defence, and Mr. Porson's and Mr. Marsh's admirable replies. We doubt not that a work giving an account of the various publications which made their appearance on this occasion, and exhibiting the complection which the argument assumed from time to time, would be favourably received both here and on the continent; and we earnestly recommend the undertaking to Mr. Marsh :-the execution of it would confer an additional obligation on his German and English friends.

No part of these volumes is more ably executed, than that which relates to the apocalypse. Fearing that his indecisive tone in treating the subject might give offence to a great porREV. JAN. 1802.

tion

tion of his readers, Professor Michaelis shelters himself under the authority and example of Luther; who, in the preface to the edition of his Bible in 1522, denied the authenticity of this book in the strongest terms; and, in that of 1534, in terms less decisive, but perhaps not less expressive of his real sentiments, he again assured the public that he was not convinced of its being a canonical work. Michaelis begins by citing two passages from the writings of Eusebius, from which he concludes that this antient prelate had not been able to obtain any historical certainty on the subject, and therefore took a middle road, neither pronouncing it a forgery nor ascribing it to St. John the Apostle. He then examines the opinions of earlier writers; and he concludes his account of them by shewing that, if we place in one scale the few but important writers who either knew nothing of the apocalypse or rejected it, and in the other scale, the more numerous but less important writers who received it, the balance will remain on the same equipoise in which Eusebius himself seems to have regarded it. He next proceeds to the opinions of ecclesiastical writers who lived since the time of Eusebius. It was received by Jerom and Augustin; and to their admission of it, the Professor ascribes its universal acceptation both in Africa and the West of Europe. In 633, it was pronounced canonical by the fourth council of Toledo; from that time, all doubts of its authenticity vanished in the Latin church; and it remained unimpeached till its authority was called in question by Luther. From Jerom's declaration in an epistle to Dardanus, "de Joannis Apocalypsi apud orien tales admodum dubitatur," the author infers that, at the end of the 4th century, it was almost universally considered as spurious by the eastern church; and from that period, he says, it lost instead of gaining ground: but respecting the opinion of the Greek church concerning it, either at the time of her ultimate separation from the Latin church, or in her present state, he is wholly silent. This we cannot but consider as a defi ciency.

The learned author now proceeds to shew the reception experienced by the apocalypse from the Syrian church; which, he says, comprehended all the Christians who resided in Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Persia, Tartary, and China. There a difference of opinion respecting it seems to have prevailed: but it was received, he tells us, by the Ægyptian Christians. The Lutheran church has never pronounced either for or against its authenticity; and therefore, like Luther's last preface, it leaves the decision of the question to every man's private judgment. The council of Trent has pronounced it to be canonical; and the church of England also

ranks