loO ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE
wrest words and examples there recorded unto their own ruin, as we see now by experience men are apt to do?" What CathoHcs have or have not, is not our present dispute. Whether what they have of story and dogma in their own language be that which Paul calls " the whole counsel of God," which he declared at Ephesus, I much doubt. But the question is, whether they have what God allows them, and what he commands them to make use of? We suppose God him- self, Christ and his apostles, the ancient fathers of the church, any of these, or at least when they all agree, may be esteemed as wise as our present masters at Rome. Their sense is, " That all Scripture, given by inspiration from God, is profitable for doctrine." It seems these judge not so ; and therefore they afford them so much of it as may tend to their good. For my part, I know whom I am resolved to adhere to ; let others do as seems good unto them. Nor, where God hath commanded and commended the use of all, do I believe the Romanists are able to make a distribution, that so much of it makes for the salvation of men, — the rest only " serves to satisfy curiosity, to raise doubts, and to occasion men to wrest words and examples;" nor, I am sure, are they able to satisfy me why any one part of the Scripture should be apt to do this more than others; nor will they say this at all of any part of their mass. Nor is it just to charge the fruits of the lusts and darkness of men on the good word of God; nor is it the taking away from men of that alone which is able to make them good and wise a meet remedy to cure their evils and follies. But these declamations against the use and study of the Scripture, I hope, come too late. Men have found too much spiritual advantage by it to be easily driven from it. Itself gives light to know its excellency and defend its use by. " But the book is sacred," he says, " and therefore not to be sullied by every hand ; what God hath sanctified let not man make common." It seems, then, those parts of the Scripture which they afford to the people are more use- ful, but less sacred, than those that they keep away. These reasons justle one another unhandsomely. Our author should have made more room for them; for they will never lie quietly together. But what is it he means by "the book?" — the paper, ink, letters, and co- vering? His masters of the schools will tell him these are not sacred ; if they are, the printers dedicate them. And it is a pretty, pleasant sophism that he adds, " That God having sanctified the book, we should not make it common." To what end, I pray, hath God sanc- tified it? Is it that it may be laid up and be hid from that people which Christ hath prayed might be sanctified by it? Is it any other- wise sanctified but as it is appointed for the use of the church, — of all that believe? Is this to make it common, to apply it unto that use whereunto of God it is segregated? Doth the sanctification of the
ENTITLED FIAT LUX. 131
Scripture consist in the laying up of the book of the Bible from our profane utensils? Is this that which is intended by the author? Would it do him any good to have it granted, or further his pur- pose? Doth the mysteriousness of it lie in the book's being locked up? I suppose he understands this sophistry well enough; which makes it the worse.
But we have other things yet pleaded, as " the example of the Hebrew church, who neither in the time of Moses nor after trans- lated the Scripture into the Syriac; yea, the book was privately kept in the ark or tabernacle, not touched or looked on by the people, but brought forth at times to the priest, who might, upon the Sabbath-day, read some part of it to the people, and put them in mind of their laws, religion, and duty."
I confess, in this passage, I am compelled to suspect more of igno- rance than fraud ; notwithstanding the flourishing made in the distri- bution of the Old Testament into the law, prophets, and hagiography. For, first, as to the translation of the Scripture by the Jews into the Syriac tongue, to Avhat purpose doth he suppose should this be done? It could possibly be for no other than that for which his masters keep the Bible in Latin. I suppose he knows that at least until the cap- tivity, when most of the Scripture was written, the Hebrew, and not the Syriac, was the vulgar language of that people. It is true, in- deed, that some of the noble and chief men, that had the transaction of affairs with neighbour nations, had learned the Syriac language toward the end of their monarchy; but the body of the people were all ignorant of it, as is expressly declared, 2 Kings xviii. 26. To what end, then, should they translate the Scripture into that language which they knew not, out of that which alone they were accustomed to from their infancy, wherein it was written? Had they done so, indeed, it would have been a good argument for the Romanists to have kept it in Latin, which their people understand almost as well as the Jews did Syriac. I thought it would never have been ques- tioned but that the Judaical church had enjoyed the Scripture of the Old Testament in their own vulgar language, and that without the help of a translation; but we must not be confident of any thing for the future. For the present this I know, that not only the whole Scripture that was given the church for its use before the captivity, was written in the tongue that they all spake and understood, but that the Lord sufficiently manifests that what he speaks unto any, he would have it delivered unto them in their own lang-uaoe ; and therefore, appointing the Jews what they should say unto the Chal- dean idolaters, he expresseth his mind in the Chaldee tongue, Jer. X. 1 1 ; where alone, in the Scripture, there is any use made of a dia- lect distinct from that in vulgar use, and that because the words were