consider, what the New Testament is, and by whom it was written. It is a work suppletory to, and perfective of, the Old; composed under the same guidance that superintended the composition of the Old; written by native Jews, Hebrews of the Hebrews; by men whose minds had, from infancy, been moulded after the form and fashion of their own sacred writings; and whose whole stock of literature (except in the case of St. Paul, and probably of St. Luke and St. James) was comprised in those very writings: now, surely, it is improbable in the extreme, that such men, when they came to write such a work, should, without any assignable motive, and in direct opposition to all other religious teachers of their nation, have estranged themselves from a manner so pervading the noblest parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, as the sententious parallelism. Of such an estrangement, no less can be said than this, that it would imply a constraint and pressure upon the natural movements of minds so disciplined and trained, altogether inconsistent with that ease, and freedom, and simplicity, which characterise the style of the New Testament, from its commencement to its close. While, with respect to HIM, who spake as never man spake, and who had all varieties of language at his command, it was so much his usage, in every allowable method and degree, to accommodate his manner to the tastes and prejudices of his countrymen, that his departure from it in this instance, would have been perhaps a solitary departure: and, leaving out of con

sideration, for the present, the native and imperishable excellencies of the Hebrew parallelism (5), it is not easy to imagine a particular, in which our blessed Lord could have more safely become, like his great follower, to the Jews a Jew, than in the adoption of a manner, at once familiar to their understanding, agreeable to their taste, and consecrated, by a thousand associations with their best and happiest religious feelings.

But this, after all, is no question of probabilities: it must be decided by an experimental appeal to facts; and facts bearing on the subject are neither difficult to be found, nor hard to be stated. It has been, for many years, my first literary object to search the Scriptures of the New Testament, for facts of the nature alluded to; for passages, namely, which bear evident marks of intentional conformity to the Hebrew parallelism; a selection of those passages I have examined with all the attention in my power; and the result of my examination, I propose to give in the following pages of this work. It remains for me, however, before closing this last of my preliminary sections, to address a few words to the indulgent reader. The subject on which I am about to enter is confessedly new; as such, it demands the production of original matter; and a new method of arranging, exhibiting, and examining, matter which is not original. In such an undertaking, it were presumptuous to expect exemptions from oversights and errors; but it is my hope, and it shall be my effort, that no unpardonable oversight, and no

gross error, may disgrace these pages: and, if I succeed thus far, I feel confident in the humanity and equity of those who are to pass judgment on my labours, that offences of a lighter nature will not be severely dealt with.

In an enquiry like the present, it cannot be expected, that, at this, or indeed at any subsequent stage of it, I am, or can be, largely prepared with authorities corroborative of my leading views; facts, for the most part, are my sole authorities. There is, however, no lack, if I may use the expression, of preparative authorities; that is, matured opinions of learned and able men, legitimately deduced from facts well ascertained, which, though they do not go the length of asserting, or even intimating, the frequent occurrence of Hebrew parallelism in the New Testament, yet may, and, in my judgment, ought to produce some expectation, that such frequent occurrence may be proved; and, consequently, may, and ought to prepare intelligent readers, for the patient, candid, and unprejudiced reception of such proofs of that frequency, as I have been able to collect, and am about to submit for public consideration.

A brief sketch of those preparative authorities is all that I can pretend, or afford, to give in my text; a few extracts from, and references to, the authors from whom they are derived, shall be added in the Notes.

It is certain, then, in the first place, that the New Testament is not written in a purely Greek style (6); that there is a marked difference between

its manner, and that of the writers called classical; that this difference is by no means confined to single words, or combinations of words, but pervades the whole structure of the composition; and that, in frequent instances, a poetical manner is observable, which, not only is not known, but would not be tolerated, in any modern production, purporting to be prose. (7) In the next place, it is to be observed, that certain writers have noticed in the New Testament an arrangement of the periods, corresponding with the Hebrew verses; not, indeed, in their opinion, those of Hebrew poetry, but such as are found in the historical books: while other critics and commentators have, in a few instances, detected and described unquestionable specimens of Hebrew parallelism, (which, it will be recollected, is the grand characteristic of Hebrew poetry,) in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke; and have admitted their occurrence in the Revelation of St. John. (8) Further than this, any writers, with whose works I am acquainted, have not gone. It remains to be enquired, with due caution indeed, but, at the same time, with proper freedom and independence of mind, whether facts do not warrant us to go considerably further.

I will only express my hope, that, in several of those examples from the New Testament, which I am about to produce, an identity of manner with the Old Testament poetry will be discoverable at the first glance; and, while I admit, that, in other examples, a closer scrutiny may be demanded, I

G

must mention, once for all, that if, in any particular case, the resemblance may not appear to be satisfactorily made out, that example may be dismissed from the reader's mind, without any prejudice to the general argument.

NOTES TO SECTION v.

(1) The prophetical poetry of the Hebrews.] It has been observed by Bishop Lowth, in his Nineteenth Prelection, that sometimes the nature of the parallelism is very subtile and obscure; and must be developed by art and ability, in distinguishing the different members of the sentences, and in distributing the pauses, rather than by depending upon the obvious construction. The truth of this observation has been practically illustrated by those distinguished scholars who succeeded his Lordship in translating the prophets. They have been by no means agreed, either in their distribution of parallelisms, or even in their decision what books, or parts of books, are to be accounted poetical; or, if poetical, are to be exhibited in the poetic form. "Doubts must always remain," says Archbishop Newcome," not only as to the division of particular "lines which appear to have a poetical cast, but as to pas

sages of some length, whether they resolve themselves "into metre or not.--Bishop Lowth thinks that the "prophet Haggai is wholly prosaic: but, before this au"thority was observed, the following translation had been "formed, on the conjecture that great part of this book "admitted of a metrical división." Minor Prophets, Pref. p. 15. Dr. Blayney distributes the first, fifth, and seventh chapters of Zechariah, as unmingled prose; Archbishop Newcome has exhibited those chapters, with a considerable mixture of verses: again, Archbishop Newcome, with the