tion and ftyle. The truth is, in forming his difcourfes, the apostle, for the most part, neglected the rules of the Grecian eloquence. He feldom begins with propofing his fubject, or with declaring the method in which he is to handle it. And when he treats of more subjects than one in the same epiftle, he does not inform us when he paffes from one subject to another, nor always point out the purpofe for which his arguments are introduced. Befides, he makes little use of those rhetorical transitions, connections, and recapitulations whereby the learned Greeks beautifully displayed the method and coherence of their discourses.

As the apostle did not follow the rules prefcribed by the Greek rhetoricians, in difpofing the matter of his difcourfes, fo he hath not observed their precepts in the choice of his words, the arrangement of his fentences, and the measure of his periods. That kind of speaking and writing which is more remarkable for an artificial structure of words, and a laboured smoothnefs of periods, than for truth of fentiment and juftnefs of reafoning, was called by the apostle the wifdom of Speech, 1 Cor. i. 17. and the perfuafive words of human wisdom, 1 Cor. ii. 4.; and was utterly disclaimed by him, 1 Cor. ii, 1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, nor of wisdom, declaring the teftimony of God.

But while the apostle, in the compofition and style of his difcourfes, hath commonly avoided the fhowy embellishments, and even fome of the folid ornaments of the Grecian eloquence, for reasons I fhall afterwards mention, he hath made fufficient amends for these defects, by the excellence of his fentiments, the propriety of his method, the real connection which fubfifts in his discourses, and the accuracy with which he has expressed himself on every subject.

The transcendent excellence of the apostle Paul's fentiments, it is presumed, no reader of true judgment will difpute. But the method and connection of his writings, fome, perhaps, may call in question; because, as I just now observed, he hath not adopted the method of compofition used by the elegant Greeks. But, to remove this objection, and to illuftrate, in the first place, the apostle's method, I obferve, that, in his doctrinal epiftles efpecially, he always treats of some important article of

faith, which, though not formally propofed, is conftantly in his view, and is handled according to a preconceived plan, in which his arguments, illuftrations, and conclufions are all properly arranged. This the intelligent reader will eafily perceive, if, in studying any particular epiftle, he keeps the subject of it in his eye throughout. For thus he will be fenfible that the things written are all connected with the fubject in hand, either as proofs of what immediately goes before, or as illustrations of fome propofition more remote; or as inferences from premises, fometimes expreffed and sometimes implied; or as answers to objections which, in certain cafes, are not stated, perhaps because the perfons addreffed had often heard them propofed. Nay, he will find that, on fome occafions, the apoftle adapts his rea foning to the thoughts which he knew would, at that inftant, arife in the mind of his readers, and to the answers which he forefaw they would make to his questions, though these anfwers are not expreffed. In fhort, on a juft view of Paul's epifties, it will be found that all his arguments are in point; that whatever incidental matter is introduced, contributes to the illuftration of the principal fubject; that his conclufions are all well founded; and that the whole is properly arranged.

Next, with refpect to the connection of the reasoning in the apoftle's epiftles, I acknowledge that the want of those forms of expreffion, by which the learned Greeks displayed the coherence and dependence of their discourses, has given to his compofitions a disjointed appearance. Nevertheless, there is a close con nection of the several parts of his epiftles, established by the fense of what he hath written. Now, where there is a real connection in the fenfe, the words and phrafes invented by rhetoricians for fhowing it, become, in fome measure, unnecef fary. There is alfo, in the apoftle's epiftles, an apparent con nection suggested by the introduction of a word or thought, (fee Rom. iv. 24, 25. Eph. i. 19, 20. 1 Thef. ii. 14.) which feemingly leads to what follows; yet the real connection lies more deep, in the relation of the things to each other, and to the principal fubject. These relations, however, would be more obvious, if the Greek particles used by the apoftle for coupling his fentences and periods, instead of having always, or, for the most part, the fame meanings uniformly given them, as in our

English

English bibles, were diverfified in the tranflation, according to the true force which each particle derives from the place which it holds in the difcourfe. Farther, through the frequent use of that part of speech called the participle, there is a feeming connection in the apoftle's difcourfes, which is apt to mislead one. who is not acquainted with the idiom of the Greek language. For, as the participle hath often a caufal fignification, by tranflating it literally, the fubfequent claufe appears to contain a reafon for what immediately goes before; contrary, in many inftances, to the apoftle's intention, who uses the participles, after the example of other Greek, writers, for any part of the verb. Besides, by tranflating the apostle's participles literally, his fentences and periods are tacked to one another in fuch a manner that they have neither beginning nor ending. (Col. i. 10, 11, 12.). Wherefore, that the unlearned reader may not apprehend a connection in the apoftle's difcourfes different from what really fubfifts in them, and that the true coherence and dependence of the feveral parts may appear, his participles should be tranflated fo as to represent the parts of the verb for which they are put. If this were done, the apostle's sentences and periods would stand forth in their just dimensions, and their relation to the different parts of his discourse, as reasons for what immediately precedes, or as illuftrations of something more remote, or as new arguments in fupport of the principal propofition, would clearly appear; and, by this means, the general plan of his difcourfe would emerge from that obfcurity in which it lies hid in the present translation.

But, in praising St. Paul for handling his subjects methodically, and for connecting his difcourfes on these subjects by the sense of what he hath written, rather than by the words, left I fhould be thought to afcribe to his compofitions qualities which they do not poffefs, I mention his first epiftle to the Theffalonians as an example and proof of all that I have faid. For, although the subject of that letter is not formally proposed, nor the method declared in which it is handled, nor the fcope of the particular arguments pointed out, nor the objections mentioned to which answers are given, all thefe particulars are fo plainly implied in the meaning of the things written, that an attentive reader can be at no lofs to difcern them. In the fame epiftle, VOL. I.

G

though

though no formal difplay of the coherence of the fentiments be made, by introducing them with the artificial couplings used by the elegant Greek writers, it does not occafion any confufion; because the dependence of the feveral parts implied in the fenfe fufficiently supplies that want.

Yet, after all I have faid in vindication of the apostle, for having neglected, in his epiftles, the fo much admired formality of the Grecian eloquence, I fhould not think I had done him juftice on this head, if I did not call the reader's particular attention to the nature of his writings. None of them are treatifes; they are all letters to particular churches or perfons; some of them written in answer to letters which he had received. Now, how effential foever a declared method and order in the difpofition of the arguments, and a vifible connection of the parts of the difcourfe, may be in a regular treatise, thefe, in the opinion of the best judges, are by no means neceffary in epiftolary compofitions. Rather, in that kind of writing, if there is order and connection, to conceal it is esteemed a perfection. Besides, letters differ from every other fpecies of writing in this refpect, that the perfons to whom they are addreffed, being well acquainted with the particulars alluded to in them, the writer never thinks of entering into a minute detail of the characters, the circumstances, and the opinions, of the perfons concerning whom, or to whom, he writes. Yet the knowledge of thefe things is abfolutely neceffary to render letters intelligible to ftrangers. Hence, as Lord Shaftesbury, fpeaking of letter-writing, justly obferves, Mifcell. i. c. 3. "They who read an epiftle &C ог fatire of Horace, in fomewhat better than a mere fcholaftic relish, will comprehend, that the concealment of order ❝ and method in this manner of writing, makes the chief beauty "of the work. They will own that, unless a reader be, in "some measure, apprifed of the characters of an Augustus, a "Mecænas, a Florus, and a Trebatius, there will be little relifh. "in those fatires addreffed, in particular, to the courtiers, "minifters, and great men of the times." If thefe obfervations are juft, it is no blemish, but rather a beauty, in the apoftle's letters, that his method is concealed. Neither ought they to be found fault with for their obfcurity; feeing, in many instances, it is owing to our ignorance of the characters of the per

fons

fons he mentions, and of the facts and circumstances to which he alludes. At the fame time, his epiftles are not more irregular, or more obfcure, at leaft in their matter, than many of the epiftles and fatires of Horace. So that the affiftance of commentators is not more needed for interpreting the writings of the infpired apostle, than for understanding the compofitions of the elegant Latin poet.

Having made these remarks on the method and connection of the apostle Paul's epiftles, it remains, in the fecond place, that I speak concerning his flyle. And here I obferve, in general, that it is concife and unadorned; yet, if I judge rightly, its conciseness adds to its energy, and even to its beauty. For, inftead of multiplying fynonymous terms, unmeaning epithets, and jarring metaphors, whereby ftyle becomes turgid and empty, the apostle fcarcely ever admits any thing fuperfluous. His words, for the most part, are well chofen; many of them are emphatical, and properly placed in the sentence, as by a master's hand; fome of them are new, and others of them are admirably compounded; fo that they add both to the found and to the fenfe of the sentence. His epithets commonly mark the principal quality or circumftance of the idea to which they are adjected; and his expreffions, in fome inftances, are so delicately turned, as to fuggeft fentiments which are not directly marked by the words, whereby an opportunity is afforded to the reader to exercise his own ingenuity, in discovering that more is meant than meets his ear. In short, there are, in the apostle's concife language, virtues which make amends for the want of the vivid colouring, the flowing copioufnefs, and the varied cadences of the Grecian eloquence. Even those oriental forms of speech used by the apostle, which have been blamed by one or two of the fathers who were not skilled in the Hebrew, though accompanied with some obfcurity at firft view, when understood, add to the pleasure of the reader, by their energy, and by the variety which they occafion in the ftyle. The change too of the perfon, and the fudden tranfition from the one number to the other, often found in Paul's writings, though violations of the rules of grammar loudly condemned by the leffer critics, are real beauties, as they render difcourfe more lively; on which