at least was not ignorant of the value of the article, though he has not expressed it in his Version. Speaking of the difference between Tveûμa and To Tveûμa, he says (Comment. in Galat. v.), 'quæ quidem minutiæ, magis in Græca quam in nostra lingua observatæ, qui appa penitus non habemus, videntur aliquid

habere momenti.'

Several slight ambiguities may be noticed in the writings of St Luke; see notes on i. 2, 10; xi. 17; xiii. 39; xviii. 18; xxvi. 18. He is thought to shew a preference for long compound words; e. g. διακατε λέγχομαι, διαχλευάζω, προσαπειλησάμενοι, συμπεριXaßwv, and not to be strict in his use of prepositions ; e. g. giving ἐπὶ the sense of duration, ἐπὶ πολλὰς nuépas; axpis, xx. 6. He is distinguished from the other writers of the New Testament by the use of many words and phrases which they never or rarely employ. The following instances are selected from the lists given by Guerike (Einleitung, p. 278), and Kuinoel (Prolegomena in Acta). They are peculiar to St Luke, except where the contrary is stated:

σúv, found in the Gospel 24, in the Acts 51 times; in the other gospels 10 times.

aπas, used 35 times by St Luke; 9 times in the rest of the New Testament.

TорeveσOαι, in the Gospel 49, in the Acts 38 times; rare in the rest of the New Testament.

Xápis, found 3 times in the other Gospels, (John). σώτηρ, σωτηρία, σωτήριον, found twice in the other Gospels, (John).

εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, found once in the other Gospels,

(Matth.)

οἶκος, in the sense of family; found in Matt. x. 6, xv. 24.

καθώς, ωσεί, ἕως (of place), all rare in the rest of the New Testament.

καθότι, τανῦν, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν.

μέγας, applied to affections of the mind.

παῖς Θεοῦ. (Note on iv. 27).

ἀτενίσας, κατασείσας, (ἀναστὰς rare in the rest of the New Testament).

προχειρίζεσθαι, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι, ὀδυνασθαι, συμβάλλειν, διακατελέγχομαι, διάλεκτος, εὐλαβής, δημοσίᾳ, δῆμος, διαπρίω, διαφθορὰ, τῇ ἐπιούσῃ, διαχειρί ζομαι, προχειρίζομαι, μεταπέμπομαι, συγχέω, συγχύνω, άνδρες αδελφοί, (προσκαρτερεῖν and ὁμοθυμαδὸν rare in the rest of the New Testament).

Ιερουσαλήμ, more frequent than ̔Ιεροσόλυμα. βάρβαρος, (Col. iii. 11).

[See also next paragraph].

The style of St Luke is in general very unlike that of the great Apostle with whom he was associated. Some peculiarities of phraseology may however be observed, which both writers have in common; and such resemblances will not be without their interest, if we may venture to attribute them to the interchange of thought and language which took place between the sacred penmen during their long companionship. The following are examples of phrases used by St Luke and St Paul, but not found, or not in the same sense, elsewhere in the New Testament:

Acts i. 14, &c. oμolvμadóv. Rom. xv. 6, (frequent ap.

ii. 23.

iii. 4.

iv. 13.

ix. 21.

ix. 31, &c.

x. 2, &c.

xi. 26.

xiv. 27.

xviii. 25.

xx. 38.

xxi. 8.

Luke i. 1.

LXX.). πроσкаρтepоûvтes. Rom. xii.

12, (Mark iii. 9, in a different sense; once ap. LXX.).

avouos, one without the law, a Gentile, 1 Cor. ix. 21; Rom. ii. 12.

άrevioas. 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13. Kaтaλaßóμevoι, 'perceiving.' Eph. iii.

18.

πορθήσας. Gal. i. 13.

oikodoμeîv (in a spiritual sense, 'to edify'). 1 Cor. viii. 1, &c.

oikos, in the sense of family, 1 Cor. i. 16, &c. (See preceding paragraph). Xpnμatilei, 'to be called.' Rom. vii. 3. ἤνοιξεν ὁ θεὸς) τοῖς ἔθνεσι θύραν πίστεως. Col. iv. 3. ἵνα ὁ θεὸς ἀνοίξη ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου. 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. ii, 12.

KaτηXéw. Rom. ii. 18.

ζέοντες τῷ πνεύματι. Rom. xii. 11. ὀδυνᾶσθαι. Rom. ix. 2, οδύνη. εὐαγγελιστής. 2 Tim. iv. 5. εὐαγγε λίζομαι and χάρις occur frequently in the writings of St Luke and St Paul, seldom in the rest of the New Testament.

Tλnpopopéw. 2 Tim. iv. 17. The idea of fulness, as Credner remarks, is often found both in St Paul and St Luke.

Luke i. 3.

x. 8.

xxi. 34.

Taрaкоλovéw, in the same sense, 1 Tim. iv. 6.

ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν. 1 Cor. x. 27, πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε. μὴ αἰφνίδιος ἐπιστῇ ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη. 1 Thess.v. 4, αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐπίσταται ὄλεθρος.

The last four instances are supplied by Townson, (Works, Vol. 1. p. 205). See notes on xxv. 14, 16; xxviii. 10.

The speech of St Paul to the Ephesian elders, (chap. xx), is so characteristic of the Apostle both in expression and sentiment, that we may believe it was recorded nearly in the same terms in which it was delivered.

VII. This is not the place to shew how and to what extent the Latin Vulgate has influenced the modern translators of Scripture. It is owing to that influence (as has been already observed, p. xxiii.) that our Authorised Version frequently overlooks the presence of the article and the distinctions of tenses; niceties which could not indeed have been represented in the Latin language, but might have been in our own. With these exceptions the English Version is wonderfully correct. Instances will be noticed in the following pages of its having sometimes followed the Latin Version of Beza, which together with his Commentary was the last great contribution to biblical interpreta

tion, before the revision of the English Bible under James I.

Bagster's 'English Hexapla' (London, 1841) has been used in the references to the early English Versions.

VIII. The earliest extant commentary on the Acts is contained in the fifty-five homilies delivered by Chrysostom in the year 400. A native probably of the same city as St Luke, speaking nearly the same language, surrounded by the same customs, combining, as we cannot doubt though we may not distinguish it, the savour of primitive tradition with his own affectionate and close meditations, he has left us an exposition which must always be regarded with veneration, even where it cannot be followed with implicit confidence. It is not indeed so highly thought of as his similar works upon other parts of Scripture, being occasionally deficient in perspicuity and arrangement. The inferiority is attributed by his Benedictine Editor to the occupations and anxieties which pressed upon him in consequence of his recent appointment to the see of Constantinople. (Note on xx. 31.) Perhaps also at a time when the neglect of this book was so general, (§ 1), we ought not to wonder at an uncertain sound proceeding occasionally even from the lips of the Preacher. But with all its defects, his work is on this subject by far the most valuable relic of antiquity, and occupies a large space in the useful expositions which, after an interval of several centuries, were compiled by Ecumenius and Theophylact. The great English