Did not Chrift in his difcourfes, and the Evangelifts and Apoftles in their writings, fometimes accommodate their expreffions and arguments to the popular notions then prevalent? If so, in what particular inftances, and how far, did they act thus? Of what ufe is this hypothefis, well defined and rightly apprehended, in explaining the fcriptures of the New Teftament?

Two differtations on this interefting fubject are here published; the one written by the Rev. PAUL VAN HEMERT, Profeffor of Philofophy and Literature in the Society of Remonftrants in Amfterdam, to whom the gold medal was awarded; the other by the Rev. WILLIAM DE Vos, Minifter of the Baptift congregation in the fame city, to whom a filver medal was decreed.

After fome general obfervations on the importance of the queftion, Profeffor VAN HEMERT proposes to divide his inquiry into three parts, correfponding with thofe of the propofition. The first chapter he introduces by defining popular notions, as the term is ftated in the question, to be thofe opinions, either of the people in general, or of particular fects among them, which, though they may be in fome measure connected with their religious fentiments, are in themfelves inconfiftent with the nature of things; the propofition itself implies, that the opinions mentioned are erroneous, and that the person who accommodates his difcourfe to them, knows them to be fuch, but does not think it advifable to oppofe them; he may acquiefce in fuch erroneous notions either indirectly, by forbearing to contradict them when an opportunity offers of fo doing; or elfe directly; and this either by making ufe of fuch expreffions as are founded on them, or by feeming to adopt the notions themselves, and adapting his mode of reasoning to them. After fettling these preliminaries, our author examines those fources whence we may derive a knowlege of the popular notions which prevailed among both Jews and heathens, at the time of our Saviour's appearance on earth. Here we find fome excellent obfervations on the Talmud and the Rabbinical writings, as well as on the works of Jofephus and Philo. The Profeilor then fhews the abfolute neceffity that Chrift and his apofties fhould adapt their difcourfes to the capacities and circumstances of the people, by making ufe of the common popular expreffions and allufions; hence they acquiefced in the vulgar notions relative to the phenomena of nature, however erroneous and unphilofophical they might be. Remarkable inftances of this fact occur in the epiftle to the Galatians, iii. 1. in which the apostle afks them, who had bewitched them; and in Acts, xvi. 16. where a damfel is faid to be poffeffed with a fpirit of Python or Apollo. Thus, far moft Chriftians will

004

agree

agree with our ingenious author: but they will not, perhaps, fo readily acquiefce in his next propofition, in which he maintains, that Chrift and the facred writers fometimes accommodated their expreffions and arguments to the erroneous notions and prejudices relative to religion, that were prevalent among their contemporaries. Here the author quotes 1 Cor. ix. 20-22. which he illuftrates by comparing the apostle's declaration concerning circumcifion, in Gal. v. 2-4. with his own conduct in circumcifing Timothy. Of the truth of this, as well as of the foregoing propofition, the Profeffor adduces a great number of inftances judiciously felected and well explained: these we fhall not particularize, because they are nearly the same with thofe mentioned in his oration on this fubject; of which we gave an account fome time ago*. There are, however, fome remarks on the paffages of fcripture quoted, which deferve attention. With refpect to the story of the pool of Bethesda, in the beginning of the fifth chapter of St. John's gospel, the author oppofes the opinion of Semler, Michaelis, and others, who reject the fourth verfe as an interpolation; and he observes that the evangelift relates the circumstance according to the hypothefis received among his countrymen, without mentioning any thing concerning the truth or falfehood of their opinion. There are other inftances of this kind in the gospels. Thus St. Matthew and St. Mark both fay that the centurion, who attended the crucifixion of our Saviour, exclaimed, truly this man was the fon of a god, without reprehending the idolatrous error on which this expreffion was founded, however repugnant it must be to their own ideas, whether as Jews or Chriftians. Thus alfo the perfons mentioned in their narration, are fometimes introduced as fpeaking conformably to the erroneous notions of the age. This is the cafe with regard to the Devil, as introduced in the account of the temptation of Chrift, Matt. iv. 8. 9. This whole ftory, fays the Profeffor, feems to be a narration of certain internal emotions and incitements to fin, which the holy Jefus felt arifing in his spotless mind: but which he refolutely oppofed, and actually fubdued, by that fpirit with which he was always filled. In relating this conflict to his difciples, he feems to have adopted the figures of Eaftern allegory which were familiar to them :-but why is the Devil reprefented as having a power to beftow the kingdoms of the earth? The author imagines that he is thus introduced, in conformity to the Jewish notion, that the Devil, or Samaël, was lord of the heathen world and of all the wicked. They fay, that when the Ifraelites had promifed, at the holy moun

See Review, New Series, vol. iv. p. 536.

tain, to obey all that Jehovah commanded, God called Samaël, and told him that, though he had been appointed the ruler of mankind, he should have no power over the Jewish nation: they still thought, however, that he was fometimes permitted to affault individuals among them.

Jofephus informs us, that fome of the Pharifees believed the metempfychofis, and held, that the fouls of good men transmigrated into other bodies; that they applied this hypothesis to the prophecy in Malachi, iv. 5. appears from the question propofed by the Priefts and Levites to John the Baptift, when compared with his anfwer; for had they intended no more by their question, than what was foretold by the angel in Luke, i. 17, John would not have answered in the negative. When the difciples mentioned this opinion to our Saviour, in Matth. xvi. 14. it does not appear that he oppofed it, but immediately proceeded to ask what their own ideas of him were; and the Profeffor thinks that in Matth. xi. 14, Chrift not only forbears to contradict this notion of the Jews, but rather indirectly allows it, as what he did not at that time think proper to oppose, and fhews them that, even on this hypothefis, the prophecy of Malachi was fulfilled.

The Jews fuppofed that the refurrection of the dead was to take place on the appearance of the Meffiah; and the first Chriftians imagined that this event, which they connected with the fecond coming of the Saviour, was foon to take place. What Chrift had faid of the deftruction of Jerufalem in Matth. xx. 34. they applied to the refurrection and laft judgment; and this expectation, however ill founded, feems to have been ftrengthened by feveral expreffions of the apoftles, 1 Theff. iv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 51. 1 Cor. vii. 29. James, v. 9. and even by those of Christ himself, who predicted both thefe events under the fame metaphor, and without affigning any distinction in the period of time when they were to happen. All this the author confiders as an acquiefcence in a popular notion, with a view to animate the firft Chriftians to perfeverance and vigilance, amid the peculiar difficulties which they had to encounter.

I

In the second chapter of this Differtation, the Profeffor inquires how far this hypothefis of accommodation to popular notions may be extended, confiftently with the veneration and esteem due to the character of our Saviour and his apostles. The great object of the gospel was to promote univerfal obedience to what Chrift ftyled the great commandments, love to God and love to man; to explain, to extend, and to illustrate, these

* Jofeph. Bel. Jud. lib. II. cap. 8. Juxny di magv per aplagtor, μεταβαίνειν δε εἰς ἕτερον σώμα την των αγαθών μονην,

duties,

duties, and to enforce them by new motives of the most encouraging nature, were the ends for which God fent his Son, and Chrift his apoftles. Confiftently with this beneficent purpofe, they, without difguife, propofed all thofe truths which had any immediate influence on the virtue and happiness of mankind, and conftantly oppofed all thofe prejudices and errors which were contrary to the perfuafion of God's impartial love to all mankind, or were detrimental to the nature and principles of practical piety and virtue. As inftances of this fact, many paffages are adduced, which will naturally occur to our readers; and, in order to fhew that our Saviour, though he generally left phyfical errors uncontradicted, did not fail to refute even thefe when they had an immediate tendency to produce erroneous notions of the divine difpenfations, the Profettor quotes John, vi. 30-38, in which he thinks Chrift oppofed the notion of the Jews, that the manna in the wilderness had defcended immediately and miraculoufly from heaven; because they hence took occafion to exalt the character of Mofes above that of him who had just before miraculously supplied the multitude with food.

The objections, which fome have urged against this hypothefis of acquiefcence with respect to popular errors, as inconfiftent with the character of Chrift and his apoftles, are here answered in a masterly manner. The Profeffor fhews the obvious. abfurdities to which thofe have been reduced, who have endeavoured to vindicate the philofophical accuracy of the fcriptures. Nothing can indeed be more falfe and nonfenfical, than the theories with which commentators of this stamp have filled their dull and tedious pages: their mode of interpretation is in itself fo ftupid, and fo difgraceful to Chriftianity, that the most inveterate enemies to revelation have feldom failed to adopt it, in order to expose the bible to contempt. The Profeffor juftly diftinguishes between religious truth, as confidered in itself, and as viewed with relation to thofe to whom it is propofed. Though, in the former fenfe, it is, and must be, invariable; yet, with regard to the latter, the degree in which it is imparted, the nature of the propofitions in which it is contained, the arguments by which they are fupported and illuftrated, and the manner in which it is taught, muft neceffarily be various in different cafes, and muft not only be fuited to the different faculties and capacities of thofe inftructed, but alío adapted to the peculiar character of their age and nation, as well as to their particular prejudices and habits. In accommodating their inftructions to thefe circumftances, Chrift and his apostles did no more than what might be expected from wife teachers endued with a divine commiffion; and they, who, on this ac

count,

count, object to them, fhew them felves to be ignorant of the human heart, as well as of the office of an inftructor of mankind.

The Profeffor farther obferves that fuch objectors feem greatly to mistake the defign of Chrift's miffion; which was not to make his hearers philofophers, nor even to inftruct them in all those particular truths which may be confidered as influencing religious opinions. It is evident, from the writings of the apostles and evangelifts, that mankind in general, and the Jews in particular, were not qualified to receive fuch inftruction. Nothing more was intended, than to teach fuch doctrines as were effential to true religion, and to communicate them, in the most plain and popular manner, fuited to the grofs and fenfual concep ions of thofe to whom they fpake. The very defign, therefore, of Chrift's miflion implied the neceffity of the accommodation for which our author contends; and it would have been entirely defeated, if the Saviour and his apoftles had encountered every error of the age and nation to which they were fent. Nor is fuch a condefcenfion to popular notions more injurious to the high character of thefe teachers of mankind, than a fimilar conduct is to that of Mofes and the prophets; who, for the fame reasons, represented the Deity as endued with human paffions and affections, and thefe not always of the moft amiable and benevolent kind. We know, indeed, that thefe expreffions can be applicable in no other than a figurative fenfe: but thofe, to whom they were addreffed, were not philofophers fufficient to make this diftinction; and it is cetain, from the Old Testament, that they had very grofs and fenfual ideas of the Supreme Being. On this argument, we cannot help obferving that, for the diftinction itself, though it may be vindicated by fome particular paffages of fcripture which, without it, cannot be reconciled with other texts, we are indebted rather to the principles of reafon and philofophy, than to any exprefs declaration of revealed religion.

The ingenious author next examines thofe objections which are deduced from the profeffions of fincerity, fo frequently made by the apostles. Some of the ftrongeft pallages of this nature are Gal. i. 10-12. 2 Cor. iv. 2: but it is justly obferved that all that can be concluded from thefe expremions, is, that the apoftle preferred the approbation of God to that of men; that he was fully convinced of the divine origin of the gospel; that he concealed no doctrine effential to it; and that the arguments which he adduced in fupport of it, were fuch as were beft adapted to convince thofe to whom he preached and wrote. All this every Chriftian must readily allow: but to infer that, in things

9