like the English. "lum et terram. "In principio creavit Deus cœTerra autem erat inanis et vacua, "et tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi: Et spiritus "Dei ferebatur super aquas. Dixitque Deus, Fiat "lux. Et facta est lux. Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona. Et divisit lucem a tenebris. Appellavitque lucem diem, et tenebras noctem. Factumque est vespere et mane dies unus." The dif ference between these in point of perspicuity, is to an ordinary hearer extremely great. So much depends on the simplicity of structure, necessarily arising, in some degree, from the form of the language. Nothing is more characteristic of the simple manner than the introduction of what was spoken, directly in the words of the speaker; whereas, in the periodic style, we are informed obliquely of its purport. Thus what is in the Vulgate, "Dixit Deus, Fiat lux," is in Castalio, "Jussit Deus ut existeret "lux." § 5. Bur beside this, there is a simplicity of sentiment, particularly in the Pentateuch, arising from the very nature of the early and uncultivated state of society about which that book is conversant. This renders the narrative in general extremely clear and engaging. Simple manners are more easily described than manners highly polished and refined. Being also adapted to the ordinary ranks of people, and to all capacities, they much more generally excite attention, and interest the heart. It has been remarked, not unjustly, that though no two authors wrote in languages more widely different both in genius and in form, than Moses and Homer, or treated of people who in their religious opinions and ceremonies were more opposite than were the Hebrews and the Greeks, we shall hardly find any who resemble one another more than these writers, in an affecting and perspicuous simplicity, which suits almost every taste, and is level to every understanding. Let it be observed that, in this comparison, I have no allusion to imagery, or to any quality of diction, except that above mentioned. Now nothing contributes more to this resemblance than this circumstance which they have in common, that both present to our view a rude, because little cultivated, state of human beings and politics. The passions and the motives of the men recorded by them, display themselves without disguise. There is something wonderfully simple, and artless, even in the artifices related in their writings. If nature be not always exhibited by them naked, she is dressed in a plain decent garb, which, far from disguising, accommodates her, and shows her to advantage. Natural beauties please always, and universally; artificial ornaments depend, for their effect, on mode and caprice. They please particular persons only, or nations, and at particular times. Now, as the writers above mentioned, though in many respects very dissimilar, resemble each other in this species of simplicity, they also resemble in a certain native perspicuity invariably resulting therefrom. § 6. HOMER is thought by many the most perspicuous writer in Greek; yet, in respect of idiom and dialect, he is so peculiar, that one is less assisted to understand him by the other compositions in the language, than to understand any other Greek writer in prose or verse. the only usage in the tongue which can enable us to read him, is his own. Were we, therefore, to judge from general topics which might plausibly be descanted upon, we should conclude that the Iliad and the Odyssey are among the darkest books in the language; yet they are in fact the clearest. In matters of criticism, it is likewise unsafe to form general conclusions from a few examples, which may be pompously displayed, and, when brought into view together, made appear considerable, but are as nothing in number, compared with those with which it is possible to contrast them. One would almost think that § 7. INDEED most of Simon's instances, in support of his doctrine of the impenetrable darkness of Scripture, appear to me rather as evidences of the strait he was in to find apposite examples, than as tolerable proofs of his opinion. For my part, I frankly own that, from the conviction I had of the profound erudition and great abilities of the man, I was much more inclined to his opinion before, than after the perusal of his proofs. At first, I could not avoid suspecting that a man of his character must have had something extraordinary, to which I had not attend ed, to advance, in support of so extraordinary a position. I was at the same time certain that, as it was a point he had much at heart to enforce, the proofs he would bring from examples in support of it, would be the strongest he could find. Let us then consider some of the principal of these examples. What pains has he not taken to shew that bara, does not necessarily imply, to make out of nothing? But if it do not, can any man consider this as an evidence of either the ambiguity, or the obscurity, of Hebrew? The doctrine that God made the world out of nothing, does not rest upon the import of that verb, but on the whole narration, particularly, on the first verse of Genesis compared with those which follow; whence we learn that God first made the chaotic matter, out of which he afterwards formed the material beings whereof the world is composed. But passing this; for I mean not here to inquire into the grounds of that article, but into the obscurity of Scripture; who sees not that the original term is not more ambiguous, or more obscure, than those by which it is rendered into other languages? Is now, or even xτ in Greek, creo in Latin, or create in English, more definite? Not in the least, as we may learn from the common dictionaries of these languages. In regard even to the scriptural use of the English word, God, in the two first chapters of Genesis, is said, in the common version, to have created those very things, of which we are also told, that he formed them out of the ground and out of the water. Are these lan guages then (and as much may be said of all the languages I know) perfectly ambiguous and obscure? "It is," says Simon 50, "the tradition of the syna(6 gogue and of the church, which limits the vague "meaning of these first words of Genesis." But, if words be accounted vague, because they are general expressions, under which several terms more special are included, the much greater part of the nouns as well as the verbs, not of the oriental tongues only, but of every tongue, ancient and modern, must be denominated vague. Every name must be so that is not a proper name; the name of a species, because applicable to many individuals; more so the name of a genus, because applicable to many species; and still more so, the name of a class or order, because applicable to many genera. Would it not be an abuse of words to say that a man spoke vaguely, equivocally, or darkly, who told me that he had built a house for himself; because the verb to build does not suggest what the materials of the building were, whether stone, or brick, or wood, to any of which it may be equally applied; and because the noun house 'may equally denote a house of one story, or of seven stories, forty feet long, or four hundred? As far as the information went, the expression was clear and unequivocal. But it did not preclude the possibility of farther information on the subject. And what single affirma 50 Reponse aux Sentimens de quelques Theol. de Hollande, ch. 16. |