It has appeared to some that the hypothesis of an accommodation of words originally used of one thing to designate another, is inconsistent with due reverence to the divine word. But wherein does the alleged irreverence of such a practice lie ? To employ the words of Scripture to express low and unworthy ideas, or for the sake of giving point to mere worldly reasonings, is to use them irrever ently; but to use them to convey ideas as elevated as those originally attached to them, if not more so (which is the case, ex. gr., in Rom. x. 18), has but little appearance of treating them with irrever ence. The only ground on which such a charge could be maintained is, that words once employed by an inspired writer in a peculiar combination become thenceforward sacred to the expression in that combination of the one idea they were first used to designate, whatever others they may be suscep tible of expressing. But who is there who could seriously attempt to defend such a position as this ? If this were the case, every quotation not made expressly as authority would be liable to censure ; and, as the number of such in the N. T. is indisputably considerable, hardly any of its writers would stand clear of blame. [ACCOM MODATION.] The truth is, the practice of making use, in this way, of previous and popular writers, is one which was common, not only in the days of the apostles, but which can hardly fail to be common wherever an established national literature exists. In proof of this, we have only to examine the writings of the later classics of Greece and Rome, which abound in quotations direct and accommodated from their earlier authors. We see the same course pursued by the Rabbinical writers towards the O. T., and by the Christian Fathers towards both the O. T. and the N. T., as well as towards the
profane classics. Indeed, such quotations form so apt and natural an ornament of style, that writers of all ages and countries, where the means of doing so exist, have availed themselves of it. Why, then, should we wonder that such a practice should have been followed by the sacred writers, who in other respects appear to have obeyed in the pre paration of their works the ordinary rules and usages, both grammatical and rhetorical, of literary composition ? Surenhusius, Wpm Karean*, in quo secumz'unt Vet. Theol. Ifebraorum Formulas allegandi et 11Iodos interpretandi conciliantur Loca ex V. in N. T. allegata, 1713, 4to ; Drusius, Parallela Sacra : h. e. Loco-lens V. T. cum its quo in N. chanter con juncla Commemoratio, Ebraice et Grace, cum Nair, 1616, 4to, published also in the 8th vol. of the Critici Sacri ; Hoffmann, Demonstratio Evangelica per ipsum Scrlpturantm Consenszem ex Oraculis V. T. in N. allegatis declarata, Edidit T. G. lIegel maier, 1773 - 79 -SI, 3 vols. 4to ; Michaelis, Einleitzeng in die Gettlichen Sehriften des N. B. Erster Theil, s. 223-265, E. T, by Marsh, vol. i. p. zoo-246 ; Owen, 11.1odes of Quotation used by the Evangelical Writers Explained and Vindicated, 1789, 4to ; Randolph, Prophecies and other Texts cited in the N. T. compared with the Hebrew on:vtal, and with the Septuagint Version, 1782, 4to ; KoPPei Excursus I. in Ep. ad Romanos, N. T. Koppiantem, vol. iv. p. 346, 18°6 ; Horne, Introduction, vol. ii. p. 281, 8th edit. ; Davidson, Hermeneutics, ch. xi. ; Gough, N. T. Quotations collated with the O. T., Lond. 1853 ; Alexander, Connection and Harmony of the O. and N. T., Lond. 1853, 2d ed.—W. L. A.