cious philologist hardly needs to be informed, that the more the signification of a word is extended, the more vague and general it becomes and consequently, if a reproachful epithet, the softer. The word εvorns, in like manner, has not that harshness in Greek that liar has in English. The reason is the same as in the former instance; for, though often properly rendered liar, it is not limited to what we mean by that term. Every man who tells or teaches what is false, whether he know the falsehood of what he says or not, is what the sacred authors justly denominate evorno, a false speaker; but he is not what we call a liar, unless he knows it to be false, and deceives intentionally. For this reason I have in some instances, (Matt. xxii. 18.; John viii. 55.) considered it as no more than doing justice to the spirit of the original, to soften the expression in the common version, though otherwise unexceptionable.

On the other hand, the evangelists in their own characters are rarely other than mere narrators, without passions or opinions. In this, as I have said, they differ from Moses and the other historians of the Old Testament, who, though justly celebrated for native simplicity of manner, have not hesitated briefly to characterize the most remarkable persons and actions whereof they have occasion to speak. Without pretending to account entirely for this difference of manner in writers who spoke by the same Spirit, I shall only submit to the judicious reader the following considerations, which appear to indicate a singular propriety in the modest reserve of our Lord's biographers.

Moses and the other writers of the Old Testament Scriptures were all prophets-a character with which, considered in a religious light, no merely human character can be compared. None therefore could be better authorized than they, to pronounce directly on the quality both of the agents and of the actions mentioned in their histories. In this view of the matter they had no superior, even in the most eminent personages whose lives they recorded. An unreserved plainness of censure or approbation was in them therefore becoming, as it entirely suited the authority with which they were vested. But was not the situation of the evangelists, it may be asked, the same in this respect, as they also wrote by inspiration? It is true, they were inspired, and at least equally entitled to the prophetical character with any who preceded them; but they were not entirely in the same situation. In the Old Testament, the sacred penmen were the mouth of God to the people. In the Gospels, the writers appear solely as Christ's humble attendants, selected for introducing to the knowledge of others this infinitely higher character, who is himself, in a supereminent sense, the mouth, the oracle of God. It is this subordinate part of ushers which they professedly act. Like people struck with the ineffable dignity of the Messiah whom they serve, they lose no opportunity of exhibiting him to the

:

world, appearing to consider the introduction of their own opinion, unless where it makes a part of the narration, as an impertinence. As modest pupils in the presence of so venerable a teacher, they lay their hand upon their mouth, and, by a respectful silence, show how profound their reverence is, and how strong their desire to fix all the attention of mankind upon him. They sink themselves in order to place him in the most conspicuous point of view they do more; they, as it were, annihilate themselves, that Jesus may be all in all. Never could it be said of any preachers with more truth than of them, that they preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. Deeply impressed with their Master's instructions, and far from affecting to be called rabbi, or to be honoured of men as fathers and teachers in things divine, they never allowed themselves to forget that they had only one Father, who is in heaven, and only one Teacher, the Messiah. The unimpassioned, yet not unfeeling manner, wherein they relate his cruel sufferings, without letting one harsh or severe epithet escape them reflecting on the conduct of his enemies, is as unexampled as it is inimitable, and forms an essential distinction between them and all who have either gone before or followed them, literate or illiterate, artful or artless, sceptical or fanatical. For if in the latter classes, the illiterate, the artless, and the fanatical, fury and hatred flame forth wherever opposition or contradiction presents them with an occasion; the former, the literate, the artful, and the sceptical, are not less distinguishable for the supercilious and contemptuous manner in which they treat the opinions of religionists of all denominations. The manner of the evangelists was equally removed from both. Add to this, that without making the least pretences to learning, they nowhere affect to depreciate it; but on the contrary, show a readiness to pay all due regard to every useful talent or acquisition.

25. From all that has been said I cannot help concluding, that if these men were impostors, agreeably to the infidel hypothesis, they were the most extraordinary the world ever produced. That they were not philosophers and men of science, we have irrefragable, I had almost said intuitive evidence; and of what has hitherto been found invariably to mark the character of fanatics and enthusiasts of all religions, we do not discover in them a single trace. Their narratives demonstrate them to have been men of sound minds and cool reflection. To suppose them deceived in matters which were the objects of their senses, or, if not deceived, to suppose such men to have planned the deception of the world, and to have taken the method which they took to execute their plan-are alike attended with difficulties insurmountable. The Christian's hypothesis, that they spoke the truth, and were under the influence of the divine Spirit, removes at once all difficulties, and in my judgment, (for I have long and often revolved the subject,) is the only hypothesis

which ever will, or ever can remove them. But this only by the

way.

26. Concerning the other qualities of style to be found in these writings, I acknowledge I have not much to add. Simplicity, gravity, and perspicuity, as necessarily resulting from simplicity, are certainly their predominant characters. But as in writings it is not always easy to distinguish the qualities arising from the thought, from those arising merely from the expression, I shall consider, in a few sentences, how far the other properties of good writing, commonly attributed to the style, are applicable to the evangelists. In what concerns harmony, and qualities which may be called merely superficial, as adding only an external polish to their language-about such, if we may judge from their writings, they do not appear, as was hinted before, to have had any the smallest solicitude. To convey the sense (the only thing of importance enough to be an object to them) in the most familiar, and consequently in the most intelligible terms to their readers, seems to have been their highest aim in point of style. What concerned the sound alone, and not the sense, was unworthy of their attention.

In regard to elegance, there is an elegance which results from the use of such words as are most in favour with those who are accounted fine writers, and from such an arrangement in the words and clauses as has generally obtained their approbation. This is still of the nature of varnish, and is disclaimed, not studied by the sacred authors. But there is also an elegance of a superior order, more nearly connected with the sentiment; and in this sort of elegance they are not deficient. In all the oriental languages great use is made of tropes, especially metaphor. The Scriptures abound with them. When the metaphors employed bear a strong resemblance, and the other tropes are happily adapted to the subjects they are intended to represent, they confer vivacity on the writing. If they be borrowed from objects which are naturally agreeable, beautiful, or attractive, they add also elegance. Now of this kind, both of vivacity and of elegance, the evangelists furnish us with a variety of examples. Our Lord illustrates every thing (agreeably to the use of the age and country) by figures and similes. His tropes are always apposite, and often borrowed from objects naturally engaging. The former quality renders them lively, the latter elegant. The ideas introduced are frequently those of corn-fields, vineyards, and gardens. The parables are sometimes indeed taken from the customs of princes and grandees, but oftener from the life of shepherds and husbandmen. If those of the first kind confer dignity on the examples, those of the second add an attraction, from the pleasantness of images which recall to the fancy the thoughts of rural happiness and tranquillity. And even in cases where propriety required that things disagreeable should be in

troduced, as in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the whole is conducted with that seriousness and chaste simplicity of manner which totally exclude disgust. We may justly say, therefore, that the essential attributes of good writing are not wanting in these histories, though whatever can be considered as calculated for glitter and ostentation is rather avoided than sought.

27. Upon the whole, therefore, the qualities of the style could not, to those who were not Jews, nor accustomed to their idiom, serve at first to recommend these writings. The phraseology could hardly fail to appear to such, awkward, idiomatical, and even vulgar. In this manner it generally did appear to Gentile Greeks upon the first perusal. But if they were by any means induced to give them a second reading, though still not insensible of the peculiarity, their prejudices and dislike of the idiom rarely failed to subside. A third commonly produced an attachment. The more they became acquainted with these books, the more they discovered of a charm in them, to which they found nothing comparable or similar in all that they had learnt before; insomuch, that they were not ashamed, nay, they were proud to be taught by writers for whose persons and performances they had formerly entertained a sovereign contempt. The persecutors of the church, both Jews and Pagans, perceived at last the consequences of conniving at the study of the Scriptures, and were therefore determined to make it their principal object to effect the suppression of them, particularly of the Gospels. But the more this was attempted, the more were the copies multiplied, the more was the curiosity of man excited, and the more was the inestimable treasure of divine knowledge they contained circulated. Early, and with avidity, were translations demanded in almost every known tongue. Those Christians who had as much learning as to be capable, were ambitious of contributing their share in diffusing amongst all nations the delight as well as the instruction which the study of these books conveyed into the soul. Nor was this admiration of the divine writings to be found only among the vulgar and the ignorant. It is true it originated among them, but it did not terminate with them. Contrary to the common course of fashion, which descends from the higher ranks to the lower, it arose among the lowest classes, and ascended to the highest. Not only nobles and senators, but even philosophers and men of letters, the pupils of sophists and rhetoricians, who by the prejudices of their education would be most shocked with the inelegancies, the vulgarisms, and even the barbarisms (as they would account them) of the sacred writers, found a secret and irresistible attraction, which overcame all their prepossessions, and compelled them to acknowledge that no writers could so effectually convey conviction to the understanding, and reformation to the heart, as these poor, homely, artless, and unlettered Galileans.

DISSERTATION IV.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE RIGHT METHOD OF PROCEEDING IN THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

It was remarked in a foregoing Dissertation,* that notwithstanding the sameness both of the language and of the idiom employed by the penmen of the New Testament, there is a sensible diversity in their styles. The first general rule, therefore, which demands the attention of him who would employ himself in searching the Scriptures, is to endeavour to get acquainted with each writer's style, and, as he proceeds in the examination, to observe his manner of composition, both in sentences and in paragraphs; to remark the words and phrases peculiar to him, and the peculiar application which he may sometimes make of ordinary words, for there are few of those writers who have not their peculiarities in all the respects now mentioned. This acquaintance with each can be attained only by the frequent and attentive reading of his works in his own language.

2. The second general direction is, to inquire carefully, as far as is compatible with the distance of time, and the other disadvantages we labour under, into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer, the time, the place, and the occasion of his writing, and the people for whose immediate use he originally intended his work. Every one of these particulars will sometimes serve to elucidate expressions otherwise obscure or doubtful. This knowledge may, in part, be learnt from a diligent and reiterated perusal of the book itself, and in part be gathered from what authentic or at least probable accounts have been transmitted to us concerning the compilement of the canon.

3. The third, and only other general direction I shall mention, is, to consider the principal scope of the book, and the particulars chiefly observable in the method by which the writer has purposed to execute his design. This direction, I acknowledge, can hardly be considered as applicable to the historical books, whose purpose is obvious, and whose method is determined by the order of time, or, at least, by the order in which the several occurrences recorded have presented themselves to the memory of the compiler. But in the epistolary writings, especially those of the apostle Paul, this consideration would deserve particular

attention.

4. Now, to come to rules of a more special nature: If, in reading a particular book, a word or phrase occur which appears obscure, perhaps unintelligible, how ought we to proceed? The

Diss. I. Part ii. sect. 1.