BAR 



tail yellow. Gmelin. This is the Barhary thrujii of La- 

 tham, and grfoe bajctte de Barharie of Buffon. Inhabits 

 Barbary; and is about the fize of the niinel thrufh. 



BARBARISM, in Grammar, denotes an offence againd 

 the purity of ftyle or language. 



A b?.rbarifm differs, according to Ifidore, from a harha- 

 rous term, as the former, for inftance, is Latin, though cor- 

 rupt or mifufcd ; whereas the latter, \i-hich this writer calls 

 barborolugia, is a word merely foreign intruded into Latin 

 fpeech. 



In general, under barbarifms are comprehended thin"s 

 written, fpoken, declined, or conj\igated wrong ; or ufed 

 in a wrong quantity, or in an unuf\ial fenfe ; as when a word 

 is ufed which is foreign to the language, and not received 

 by the better and purer fort of writers therein. Such are 

 liper for Uber, fyllaha for fyllaba, patr'i for patrts, Icxi for 

 lc)^i, bannus ior profcrlptio, &.C. 



Barbarifm is often charged, with great juflicc, on modern 

 writers in the learned languages. The Latin books of late 

 ages are full of Anglicifms, Gallicilms, Germanicifms, &c. 

 according to the country of the author. But what fhall 

 we fay to Cafp. Scioppius, who accufes Cicero himfelf of 

 barbarifms in his own language ? 



There are great difputes among critics concerning barba- 

 rifms in the New Teflament. 



Divers pious perfons are ftartled at the apprehenfion of 

 any thing like a barbarifm in the infpired books, as fup- 

 pohng it an objedtion to the infpiration of them ; yet this 

 does not hinder but many of the Jews, after Abarbanel and 

 others, flill maintain barbarifms in the Old Tellament ; in 

 which they are feconded by M. Simon, Lc Clerc, and others. 

 The latter of thefe writings abound with Chaldaifms ; and 

 the books of Mofes are not free from Egyptian words. 



If we confider that among native Greeks a barbarous 

 idiom co\ild only mean fuch as was not conformable to the 

 rules of their grammarians and rhetoricians, and to the 

 pradlice of their writers of reputation, it may be conceded 

 that the ftyle of the New Tellament is of this kind, with- 

 out derogating from the charafter of the apollles and evan- 

 gelills, without impeaching their infpiration, and without 

 injuring the authenticity of their writings. This conceffion, 

 the moll learned and oratorical of the Greek fathers, as for 

 inftance Origen and Chryfoftom, did not fcruple to make : 

 and, in fuch cafes, it muft be acknowledged that a native of 

 common fenfe is a much better judge than any learned fo- 

 reigner. Neverthelcfs many have contended that the Greek 

 of the New Teftament is as purely clafiical as that of the 

 Attic writers, and they have even condemned as impious he- 

 retics thofe who have dared to difl"ent. It has been afferted, 

 that the contrary implies an impcrfeftion inconfiftent with 

 divine infpiration, and that men capable of fuch a dodlrine 

 were not only impious, but were guilty of the fm againfl; 

 the Holy Ghoft. And yet this dodtrine was maintained by 

 Erafmus, Luther, Melanfthon, Camerarius, Beza, Drufius, 

 Cafaubon, GlalTuis, Gataker, Solanus, Olearius, and Vor- 

 ftius i though it has been denied by Pfochenuis, Stolberg, 

 vSchmid, Georgi, and Blackwall. See Erncfti Inftitutio 

 Interprttis N. T. p.41. ed. 3tia. Lipfix, 1775. But the 

 advocates for this divine purity have not only betrayed their 

 ignorance of the Greek language, but a high degree of 

 pedantry in eftimating the accuracy of language beyond its 

 proper value. This laft miftake has happened not only to 

 the warm and partial friends, but likewile to the enemies of 

 Chriilianity, who, from the time of Celfus to the 18th cen- 

 tury, have maintained, that a book written in fuch language 

 is neitherdivinely infpired, nordeferving attention and refpeCt. 

 ■Both parties have carried their zeal and their feiitimeiits 



BAR 



to too great a length ; and they would hardly confider an 

 abfulute purity of ftyle, and a total abfence of foreign 

 words, of fuch importance as to make the contrary a 

 crime, if they would condcfcend to quit the language of 

 the fchools for that of common life, or turn their attention 

 from the language of the ciafScs to thofe that are in com- 

 mon ufe. All foreign idioms, fuch as Hebraifms in Greek, 

 Grecifms in Hebrew, or Latinifms in either, may be com- 

 prehended within the definition of barbarifm, and fome- 

 times even of folcc^lni ; but thefe words, it fliould be recol- 

 lefted, have always fomething relative in their fignification ; 

 that turn of expreftion being a barbarifm or folecifm in one 

 language, which is flriitly proper in another, and to one 

 clals of hearers which is not fo to another. The apoftle 

 Paul does not hefitate, by implication, to call every tongue 

 barbarous to thofe who do not underftand it. i Cor. xiv, 

 II. Nor does it make any difference, as appears from the 

 whole of the apoftle's argument, even if what is fpoken be 

 fpoken by the fpirit. With equal reafon we may fay of 

 thofe foreign idioms in any tongue, which render what i» 

 faid unintelligible or even obfcure to the natives, that in re- 

 fpeft of them they are barbaril'ms. Nor will any judicious 

 perfon deny, that there are fome idiomatical exprtfhons ia 

 the New Teftament, which muft have puzzled thofe who 

 were abfolute ftrangers to the language of holy writ. Such 

 idioms the writers of the New Teftament WDuld naturally 

 adopt. They occurred in the Septuagint, which they were 

 in the habit of ufing ; and thefe would co-operate towards 

 infecting their ftyle with the tendency, which, as natives of 

 Palertine, they would derive from converfation, to intermix 

 Hebraifms and Chaldaifms in their writings. If we would 

 enter thoroughly into the idiom of the New Teftament, 

 we muft familiarize ourfelves with that of the LXX ; and 

 if we would enter thoroughly into the idiom of the LXX, 

 we muft accuftom ourfelves to the iludy, not only of the 

 original of the Old Teftament, but of the dialect fpoken 

 in Paleftine between the rettirn of the Jews from the Baby- 

 lonifli captivity and the deftruftion of Jerufalem by the 

 Romans ; for this laft, as well as the Hebrew, has affefted 

 the language both of the old Greek tranflation and of the 

 New Teftament. 



Befidcs, it is proper to confider in relation to this fubje<Et, 

 that vulgarifms and foreign idioms, which may obtain among 

 ftrangers, and thofe of the lower ranks, have no more na- 

 tural unfitnefs to convey the fenfe which they that ufe them 

 intend to convey by them, than the terms and phrafes which, 

 in confequence of the preference given by their fuperiors, 

 may be regarded as elegancies. It may be as realcnably 

 objefted againft our religion, that the perfons by whom it 

 was propagated were ciioftn from a clafs which men in iiigh 

 life account the dregs of the people, as that the Holy Spirit 

 fhould accomodate himfelf to the language of thoie who 

 wereadu^Uy chofe:i. Nay, language as well as drefs being 

 in faft no more than a fpecies of mode, it may with as good 

 reafon be maintained that the ambafladors wiiom Chrift de- 

 puted to promulgate his doftrine, ftiould have been-habited 

 like gentlemen and men of faftiion, as that they ftiould have 

 fpoken the dialed of fuch. Should it be alkcd, why did 

 .the Holy Spirit chufe to deliver fuch important truths in the 

 barbarous idiom of a few obfcure Galileans, and not in,the 

 polite and more harmonious ftrains of Grecian eloquence ? 

 The anfweris obvious: — That it might appear beyond con- 

 tradiction, that the excellency of the power was of God, 

 and not of man. Moreover, the writings of the New Tef- 

 tam.ent cairy, in the very expreflion and idiom, an intriniic 

 and irrefiftible evidence of their authenticity. They are 

 fuch as, in refped of ftyle, could not have been written but 



by 



