does not the manner in which this character discovers itself to us appear as inconsistent with such a supposition as the character itself? Would enthusiasts have been able to draw such a character, not merely by descriptions and words, but by a long narration of facts, and repetition of discourses naturally and regularly connected, perpetually arising from, and illustrative of each other, involving a constant reference to times, places, and persons, and bearing every possible mark of reality; and these related with the most perfect calmness and coolness, as well as with the artless simplicity and assured confidence of truth?

I trust it has thus been shewn that the sacred records of the New Testament contain, in their style and structure, in the spirit they breathe, and the facts they detail, strong marks of their undoubted truth, and their divine original.

CHAPTER V.

SECTION I.

The Epistles of St. Paul were not dictated by Enthusiasm; their Obscurity is considered in this Section.

In the last chapter I have examined the historical works of the New Testament; and it has, I trust, appeared, that they are entirely free from those characters which the details of enthu siasts almost universally exhibit. The perspicuity, and the calmness of style, in which they are composed; the consistency, the importance, and the very nature of the facts they detail; and above all, the meek and merciful spirit which they breathe, totally repel every suspicion that those sacred narrations were dictated by fanaticism. But it cannot be denied, that the epistles of St. Paul do not so evidently repel a similar suspicion. In many passages they display an obscurity and warmth, which have been imputed, with some plausibility, to the mysticism and the violence of an enthusiastic mind.

It shall therefore be the subject of this chapter to inquire, whether the degree of obscurity and warmth, found in these epistles, may not be fully accounted for, without obliging us to impute them to fanaticism; and whether, in the same writings, we may not discover such clear traces of strong reasoning, sober judgment, and even of refined address, as may fully satisfy us, that the great apostle of the Gentiles, however animated and zealous, was very far removed from extravagance and enthusiasm.

One cause of obscurity there is, which though in a certain degree common to all the writings of the New Testament, must affect those parts which, like the epistles of St. Paul, are principally employed in expounding the doctrines of Christianity,

more than those which are for the most part details of facts. This was the necessity, not only of alluding to a variety of laws and customs at that time familiar to all, but obscure to us who live in so remote a region, and at so distant an age, but also the necessity of employing many Greek words, in a sense very different from that which they bore in Heathen authors.

*

It is the observation of Mr. Locke, "that the subjects treated of in these epistles are so wholly new, and the doctrines contained in them so perfectly remote from the notions that mankind had been previously acquainted with, that most of the important terms in them have quite a different signification from what they bear in other discourses."

It is, indeed, † obvious that Greek, in what is termed its classical purity, could not furnish words to convey just ideas of religious subjects, especially where the Christian dispensation contained doctrines entirely new, or such as were derived from the Jewish religion, to be explained only by a reference to the doctrines and the rites of the Mosaic law, or the writings of the Jewish prophets. Hence the writers of the New Testament were compelled to borrow their expressions from the law and the prophets; to employ Greek words, whose meaning would be determined, rather by their analogy to the Hebrew terms, to which they most nearly corresponded, than by their original derivation; and to combine them according to the idioms of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, rather than the natural construction of Grecian phraseology. But surely the obscurity which may arise from this cause, bears no resemblance to that which attends the mysticism of incoherent fanatics.

It is, indeed, peculiarly worthy of remark, that this is one of the many instances in which those very circumstances, which the rashness of infidelity has presumed to arraign, as inconsistent with the supposition of a divine interference in the promulgation of Christianity, are found, on sober inquiry, to contribute materially to strengthen the evidence of those facts, on which the proof of that interference depends.

7

Mr. Locke's preface to his commentary on the Galatians, paragraph the 3d, vol. the 3d of his works, page 100-6th edit, in 3 vols. folio, London, 1759.

+ Vide Dr. Macknight, in his general preface to his new translation of St. Paul's epistles. s. 3-vol. 1. p. 26, of the edition in 4 vols.

Thus, in the present case, if we suppose this cause of obscurity in the sacred writings removed, by the total absence of all Hebrew and Syriac phrases and idioms, and that the divine Spirit, which actuated the apostles and evangelists, had suffered no phrase to drop from them, which did not conform to the strictest purity of the Grecian dialect, (as some * scorners have required they should,) what would be the effect, other circumstances remaining the same? Undoubtedly we should lose the very "first and principal mark of authenticity in the New Testament," even its language. This, as the celebrated Michaelis observes, is "distinguished by Hebraisms and Syriasms, which afford the strongest presumption in its favour, as they shew it to have been written by men of Hebrew origin, a production therefore of the first century; since after the decease of the first Jewish converts to Christianity, we find hardly any instance of Jews who turned preachers of the Gospel, and the Christian fathers were, for the most part, totally ignorant of Hebrew. This distinguishing mark is to be found in all the books of the New Testament, though in different degrees, even in the epistles of St. Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles; though the former sufficiently evince that the author was master of the Greek, and the latter contains various examples, not only of pure, but elegant language; nor have these idioms the appearance of art or design, being exactly such as might be expected from persons who used a language spoken indeed where they lived, but not the dialect of their country."

But to this eminent writer himself I refer my reader, for further illustration of this important argument. It is sufficient for my present purpose, to observe, that the obscurity from this cause must peculiarly affect St. Paul's epistles, because the subjects they treat of were very frequently connected with the Jewish religion; and still more, because several of these epistles were designed principally for the perusal of the Jews. Thus, the whole epistle to the Galatians, the argumentative part of the epistle to the Romans, many passages in the epistles to the

Lord Shaftsbury in his characteristics.

+ Vide Michaelis's introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh chap. ii. s. 10. vol. 1. p. 45.

Corinthians, the Colossians, and the Philippians, to Timothy and Titus, are employed in discussing the controversy concerning the obligation of the Mosaic law on the converts to Christianity, or in reprehending and calming the dissensions it had raised. If we add the epistle to the Hebrews, this is principally occupied in explaining the priesthood and intercession of Christ, by its analogy to the Jewish priesthood and worship. Hence the language which the apostle would naturally use, was also best adapted to this purpose. * "Born at Tarsus, his native language was Greek; but being a Jew, and accustomed from his childhood to read the Septuagint translation from the Old Testament into Greek, it was natural to suppose, his language would be tinctured by Hebraisms. Nor has he ever studied to avoid the air of a Jew or a Cilician. Indeed, the half of his readers would have thought it a token of contempt, if he had rejected a language which he spake in common with themselves. Thus the fear of giving offence to the Jews, to whom he wisely accommodated, whenever it was allowable, both his doctrine and his manner, in order to win them to his party, and the seeming impropriety of deviating from a language, that was already consecrated to the service of religion, might have determined him to neglect a style that would have been more elegant and more fashionable; but on the subject which St. Paul discussed, endued perhaps with less energy and precision, the venerable expressions of the Bible, and the terms of religion, which had acquired a prescriptive right from the practice of the synagogue, were highly proper, and even necessary, in delivering the doctrines of Christianity; and when once admitted into the dogmatical parts of his discourse, an attic elegance would have made a useless contrast in the remainder of his epistles."

• Michaelis, ch. iv. s. 8. p. 152, 155, and 156.

It is the observation of Blackwall, which I think he supports by striking examples, that the Hebraisms which are admitted into the New Testament, and the allusions to oriental customs, frequently expressed the ideas of the writer, with more vigour than any other idiom would admit. He further remarks, that even in these, regard has been had to the genuine analogy, and true propriety of Grammar; so that we may find expressions similar to the Hebraisms of the New Testament in Plato, Herodotus, and the best Greek writers, while other Hebrew forms of expression, though scarce bolder or harsher than these, are never used by the sacred writers because they would have been violations of the analogy and custom of the Greek and Roman languages, as never admitted into them, or used by their approved writers. Of such Hebraisms as these he gives many instances; vide Blackwall's sacred classics, defended and illustrated, part i. passim, and part ii. chap. i. sec. 1.