26. The style, also, of the sacred Scripture, or gpdorws yapanrap, as it is termed by Eusebius in this argument, is of deserved consideration. By the style of any writing, we understand both the propriety of the words, with their grammatical construction, and that composition of the whole which renders it fit, decorous, elegant, and every way meet to be used in the matter about which it is used, and for the . effecting of the end which is proposed in it. I know, some bold, atheistical spirits have despised the style of the holy writers, as simple and barbarous. Among these, Angelus Politianus is generally and deservedly censured by all learned men; who was imitated in his profane contempt of it by Domitius Calderinus. And of the like
VOL. XVII. ~~ 4
50 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE [ EXERC. I.
temper was Petrus Bembus, who would scarce touch the Scripture; while his own epistles are not one of them free from solecisms in grammar. Austin also confesseth that while he was yet a Manichee he had the same thoughts of it: “ Visa est mihi indigna quam Tul- lianee dignitati compararem ;”’—“ The Scripture seemed to me un- worthy to be compared with the excellency of Cicero.” But it must be acknowledged that these spake of the common translations of it; though they used that pretence to reject the study of the books themselves.
I do confess that though some translations may and do render the words of the original more properly, and better represent and insin- uate the native genius, beauty, life, and power, of the sacred style, than some others do, yet none of them can or do express the whole ex- cellency, elegancy, and marvellous efficacy of it, for the conveyance of its sense to the understandings and minds of men. Neither is this any reflection upon the translators, their abilities, diligence, or faithfulness, but that which the nature of the thing itself produceth. There is in the sacred Scripture, in the words wherein by the Holy Ghost it was given out, a proper, peculiar virtwe and secret efficacy, inflaming the minds of the readers and hearers, which no diligence or wisdom of man can fully and absolutely transfer into and im- press upon any other language. And those who have designed to do it by substituting the wordy elegancies of another tongue, to ex- press the quickening, affecting idiotisms of them (which was the de- sign of Castalio), have, of all others, most failed in their intention.
Neither doth this defect in translations arise from hence, that the original tongues may be more copious and emphatical than those of the translations,—which possibly may be the condition of the Greek and Latin, as Jerome often complains,—but it is from the causes before named; and therefore it is most evident in the translations of the Old Testament, when yet no man can imagine the Hebrew to be more copious (though it be more comprehensive) than the lan- guages whereinto it hath been translated. But it is of the originals themselves, and the style of the sacred penmen therein, concerning which we discourse. And herein the boldness of Jerome cannot be excused (though he be followed by some others of great name in later ages), who more than once chargeth St Paul with solecisms and barbarisms in expression, and often urgeth (upon a mistake, aswe shall see) that he was “ imperitus sermone,’—-“ unskilful in speech.” But as neither he nor any else are able to give any cogent instance to make good their charge, so it is certain that there is nothing expressed in the whole Scripture, but in the manner and way, and by the words wherewith, it ought to be expressed, unto the ends for which it is used and designed, as might easily be manifested both from the
2 Confess. lib. iii. cap. v,
SECT. 27.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 51
intent of the Holy Ghost himself in suggesting those words unto his penmen, and in the care of God over the very iotas and tittles of the words themselves. And wherever there appears unto us an irregularity from the arbitrary directions or usages of other men in those languages, it doth much more become us to suspect our own apprehensions and judgment,—yea, or to reject those directions and usages from the sovereignty of an absolute rule,—than to reflect the least failure or mistake on them who wrote nothing but by divine inspiration. 'The censure of Heinsius in this matter is severe but true, Prolegom. Aristarch. Sac.: “ Vellicare aliquid in illis, aut de- siderare, non est eruditi sed blasphemi hominis, ac male feriati, qui nunquam intelligit que humana sit conditio, aut quanta debeatur reverentia ac cultus cuncta dispensanti Deo, qui non judicem, sed supplicem deposcit.”
27. Neither hath their success been much better who have exer- cised their critical ability in Judging of the style of the particular writers of the Scripture, preferring one before and above another; whereas the style of every one of them is best suited to the subject- matter whereof he treats, and the end aimed at, and the persons with whom he had to do. And herein Jerome hath led the way to others, and drawn many into a common mistake. The style of Isaiah, he says, is proper, urbane, high, and excellent; but that of Hosea, and especially of Amos, low, plain, improper, savouring of the country, and his profession, who was a shepherd." But those that understand their style and language will not easily give consent unto him, though the report be commonly admitted by the most. It is true, there appeareth in Isaiah an excellent wdédos in his ex- hortations, expostulations, and comminations; attended with effica- cious apagtrophes, prosopopeeias, metaphors, and allusions; a com- pacted fulness in his prophecies and predictions, a sweet evangelical spiritualness in his expression of promises, with frequent parono- masias and ellipses, which have a special elegancy in that language ; whence he is usually instanced in by learned men as an example of the eloquence of the divine writings, and his dewérng preferred unto that of Aischines, Demosthenes, or Cicero:” but the reader must take heed that he look not for the peculiar excellencies of that prophet absolutely in the words used by him, but rather in the things that it pleased the Holy Ghost to use him as his instrument in the revelation of. But the other part of Jerome’s censure is utterly devoid of any good foundation. The style of Amos, considering the subject-matter that he treateth of and the persons with whom he