and cut them to the quick." All these prophetic forms of speech are to be referred to the style of ancient eastern composition, which deals in apostrophes, exaggerations, and personifications, by which every spot is filled with living actors, and the terror heightened by a description of their passions†, who were delivered by the judgments foretold, as if they were living witnesses and actors in the scene exhibited. As expressive of the revengeful feelings of the person who utters them, these imprecations would be blameable in the mouth of a Jew no less than in that of a Christian: for it is a mistake to suppose the former was not discouraged from bearing malice against his private enemies. But the prophet utters these denunciations of vengeance, as if with the full concurrence of his own mind, with a different view; in order to strike the greater terror into sinners, and increase the confidence of the faithful in the promises of God, by imploring upon the wicked, as sure to fall on them in the end, those evils which the righteous had so long endured from them. These active forms of expression created a present interest by the motions which they excited; and imprinted the prophet's message deep in the hearts of those to whom it was sent; to whom his vehemence was an argument for his authority.

See Note 35. + See Note 36.

See Note 37.

CHAPTER IX.

Alleged Indecencies of the Bible.

VERY coarse invectives have been uttered against the Bible, as a book unfit for general perusal, because of some particular passages in it, which, in the present state of manners and expression, appear indecorous. But in reply to these it may be observed.

First: That none of the Scripture expressions are used with the intention of recommending vice, but of representing it in the strongest terms of detestation. It is not by painting vice in its true colours, that the minds of the simple are corrupted: but by introducing it into the imagination clothed in the seemly garb of delicate expressions. And therefore before we commend a book as harmless or condemn it as evil, we must consider the intent with which it was written but a doubt cannot in reason be entertained whether the general effect, as well as the design of the Sacred Writings is not to recommend every thing virtuous in sentiment and moral in conduct.

Secondly, That in ancient times and in the Eastern nations (as is also the case at this day,) the manners and the method of speaking were so much more simple and plain, that many things (of which we hardly speak at all, and if we do,

we veil our phrases in many indirect terms,) when plainly expressed gave no offence nor raised any improper ideas in the minds of those, to whom they were originally addressed. Which may also be shewn to have been the case in the early times of every nation, by a quotation from the works of their most ancient authors. As the refinement of manners increases, the refinement of language keeps pace with it; but as in the former case, refinement of manners is not always improvement in morals, neither is greater delicacy of expression always the proof of greater purity of sentiment: in licentious times it is the language of men of corrupt minds, studiously affected, in order to confound the real truth of things, and make vice pass current under soft names and flattering appellations. The sententious historian was well aware of the demoralizing effect of such a practice, when he drew that sarcastic contrast of the modesty of the Germans compared with the licentiousness of the Romans : "No one among them mentions vice with a smile, or extenuates debauchery by calling it fashionable life." Tac. de Mor. Germ. c. 19.

Thirdly, Words denoting the same principal idea so change their secondary meaning in a course of time, that one of them shall continue perfectly innocent, and the other associate with it indecent or opprobrious suggestions. We need not search far to find in our own language in

stances of this; and it is very clear that it took place in the Hebrew, because many words, which when written in the text were perfectly unexceptionable, in the progress of time acquired a secondary sense more gross, and therefore were removed from public recital in the synagogue by the substitution of a different expression placed in the margin: and if we did the same in our public reading, it would lessen the offence taken at the literal version of the words of the original. That this was not done when our translation was made, is a proof that the words used did not at that time convey exactly the same offence which they do now.

Fourthly, Parts of Scripture from their nature were never designed for general perusal by the young: some were notices or punishments of crimes to be avoided; which, it is to be feared, from being noticed were not uncommon: others were matters of law, in which they were to take direction from the priests or magistrates, and in which it is found in all nations necessary to speak very plainly. But it would be an unreasonable inference against the authority of a code of criminal law, or even against the truth of a report of proceedings in a criminal court, that they could not be the work of wise or sober-minded legislators or judges, because circumstances were contained in them, which it is not proper to make the subject of common notoriety. The fact too that these laws related to

their religious ceremonies would throw such a veil of reverence over them, that they would give rise to no such ideas in the continual recurrence of them, as the occasional perusal of them does to us, whose associations of ideas are entirely different. The recollection of these laws would rather strike the seriously minded Israelite with so much fear of offending against them, as effectually to prevent any improper idea being raised in his mind.

The endeavour of the prophets to increase this fear by their exaggerations and amplifications, forms a fruitful source of unseemly remark to those, who attend so little to the nature of the human mind, as not to be aware of the effect of the association of ideas not only upon our imaginations, but also upon our judgments and reasonings. From a want of that honest bluntness, which would call things by their right names when Christian morality is concerned, it has come to pass, that adultery is branded with less disgrace in the public opinion among us than it was among the Jews. Idolatry was also a crime held in peculiar detestation by the pious part of the nation to represent the heinousness of it, the prophets were accustomed to compare it with adultery, as the breach of a covenant between God and his people equally sacred as the marriage vow: and in their reprobation of it, their indignation carries them to many images and similies, which to us appear coarse and in