B I B 



B I B 



fcribes, appointed for tliat purpoff. See Pevtateuch, 

 and each of the books of the Bible, under its proper title. 

 See alfo New Testament. 



The original language of the Old Teftament was, without 

 doubt, the old Hefcrcw, at leafl the greateft part of it ; for 

 all the books do not appear to have been written in the fame 

 language. Some chapters of Ezra and Daniel, (fee Ezra 

 and Daniel,) arejudged to have been conipofed in Chaldee ; 

 and it has been fuppofed, that other chapters of this latter 

 writer,and alio the apocryphal books of Maccabees, Wifdom, 

 Sic. were written in Greek ; Tobit and Ecclefiafticus, either 

 in Greek or Syriac. As for the New Teftament, it was writ- 

 ten in Greek, except the Gofpel of St. Mattliew, which is 

 thought by fome to have been compofed in Hebrew. Some 

 few have thought that the Gofpel of St. Mark was written 

 in Latin, and alfo the epiftle to the Hebrews. See the Title 

 of each Book, and Testament. 



With regard to the ilyle of the feveral writers of the Old 

 and New Tellament, there is a very confiderable diverlity. 

 The ftyle of Paul may be eafily dillinguilhed by its pecu- 

 liarity from that of any other writer. A difceriiing reader 

 will not eafily confound the Ilyle of Luke with tiiat of either 

 of the evangelifts, who preceded him, Matthew or Mark ; nor 

 would he be in any danger of millaklng the apoflle John's 

 <liflion for that of any other penman of the New Teftament. 

 The fame difference of ftyle will be difcovered by one who 

 is but moderately converfant with the Hebrew, in the writers 

 of the Old Teftament. In this we have a greater variety 

 "than in the New. Some of the books are written in profe, 

 and fome in verfe ; and in each the differences between one 

 book and another are confiderable. In the book of Job, for 

 inftance, the charafher of the ftyle is remarkably peculiar. 

 What can be more diftimilar in this refpeft, though both are 

 excellent in their kind, than the towering flights of tiie fubhme 

 Ifaiah, and the plaintive ftrains of the pathetic Jeremiah ? 

 In the feveral books of Scripture we can fpecify the concife 

 ftyle and the copious, the elevated and the fimplc, the apho- 

 riftic and the difFufe. This diverfity in the diiilion of the 

 facred penmen is perfedily reconcileable with the idea of their 

 infpiration ; and in fpeaking on this fubjetl, we (hould duly 

 advert to the difference between the exprefuon and the fenti- 

 ment, and avoid confounding thefe two, as if they were the 

 fame, whereas they are widely different. The truths implied 

 in the fentiments are eflential, immutable, and have an intrinlic 

 vaUie; the words which compofe the cxprciTion are in their 

 nature circumftatitial, changeable, and have no other value 

 than what they derive from the arbitrary conventions of men. 

 That the Holy Spirit would guide the minds of the facred 

 penmen in fuch a manner as to prevent tlieir adopting terms 

 unfuitable to his defign, or which might obtlnift hi:; purpofe ; 

 Rnd that in other refpedis he would accommodate himlelf to 

 their manner and didiion, is both reafonable in itfclf, and 

 rendered unqueflionable by the works themfelvej, which 

 have the like charafteriftic differences of ftyle which we find 

 in other compofitions. Can it be accounted more ftrange 

 that the Holy Spirit Ihould, by the prophet Amos, addrefs 

 us in the ftyle of a (hepherd, and by Daniel, in that of a 

 courtier, than that by the one he fhould fpeak to us in He- 

 brew, and by the other in Chaldee ? It is as reafonable to 

 think that the Spirit of God would accommodate himfelf to 

 the phrafeolcgy and dicfion, as to the tone of voice and pro- 

 nunciation of thofe whom lie was pleafed to enlijhten ; for 

 it cannot be denied, that the pronunciation of one pcrfoii in 

 uttering a prophecy, might be more articulate, more audible, 

 and more aifeding than that of another ; and in like manner, 

 as one ftyle has more harmony, elegance, and perfpicuity 

 than a-iiothtr. Caftalio fays juftly, {Def. cont. Bezam.) 



" Res diclat Spiritus, verba quidem et linguam loqueiiti atit 

 fcribcnti liberam permittit ; i. e. the Spirit dictates the 

 things, leaving the words or language free to the fpeakcr or 

 writer. Jerom alfo obferved a thoufand years before, (Com- 

 ment, in Epift. ad Gal. cap. i.) " Nee putemus in verbis 

 Scripturarum evangelium elTe, fed in fenfu ;" i. e. let us not 

 imagine that the Gofpel conlifts in the words of Scripture, 

 but in the fenfe. To the fame purpofe is the obfervation of 

 the ingenious and learned bjfhop Lowtb, (De Sacra Poeii, 

 Heb. Prael. xvi.) " Hoc ita facris vatibus tribuimus, ut ni'hil 

 derogemus Divini Spirtus afflatui ; etfi fuam iiiterea vim pro- 

 prix cujulque Scriptoris natuias atquc ingenio concedamus: 

 neque enim inftindtu divino ita concitatur vatis animus, ut 

 protinus obruatur hominis indoles : attolluntur et eriguntur, 

 nou extinguuntur aut occultantur naturalis ingenii facultates; 

 et quanquam Mofis, Davidis, et Ifaix, fcripta fcmpcr fpirant 

 quiddam tam excelfum tamque czlefte, ut plane videantur 

 divinitus edita, nihilo tamen minus in iis Mofem, Davidem, 

 Ifaiam, femper agnofcimus ;" i. e. we ihall detract nothing 

 from the dignity of that infpii-ation, which proceeds from 

 higher caufes, while we allow to the genius of each writer 

 his own peculiar excellence and accompliftiments. The Di- 

 vine Spirit by no means takes fuch an entire poffeffion of the 

 mind of the prophet as to fubdue or extinguilh the character 

 and genius of the man ; the natural powers of the mind are 

 in general elevated and refined ; they are neither eradicated, 

 nor totally obfcured ; and though the writings of Mofes, of 

 David, and of Ifaiah, always bear the marks of a divine 

 and celeftial impulfe, wc may neverthelefs plainly difcover 

 in them the particular characters of their refpcdlive authors. 

 See Inspiration. 



It mull be allowed, that many circumftances concur to ren. 

 der the ftyle both of the New Teftament and of the Old ; 

 of the hiftorical books, as well as of the prophetical and ar- 

 gumentative, generally obfcure, and often ambiguous ; al- 

 though we ought not to admit the exaggerated reprefenta- 

 tion of father Simon, (Hift. Crit. des V. T. liv. iii. c. 2.) 

 with regard to the greater part of the Hebrew words, which, 

 he fays, are equivocal, and of courfe their figiiification al- 

 together uncertain. The origin of this kind of ftatement 

 mull be fought in the author's attachment to tradition, ra- 

 ther than to that kind of feepticifm with which he is charged 

 by Bofluet, bifhop of Meaux, and which tended to under- 

 mine Chriftianity itfelf. To any perfon who duly reflefts, 

 this father's reprefentation mull appear to be unfounded, or 

 beyond all bounds hyperbolical. It isnotjuil in its refer- 

 ence to the prophetical writings i and as to the hiftorical 

 books, they are, in general, remarkable for perfpicuity. 

 The firft quality by which the facred hillory is diftingullhcd 

 is fimplicity, which arifes from this property of the Hebrew 

 language, the verbs of .vhicli have not, like Greek and Latin, 

 a variety of moods andtenfes, nor do they abouiid,like the mo- 

 dern languages, in auxiliaries and conjunctions. This quality 

 very much conduces to the perfpicuity of its ftyle. Of this 

 fimplicity we have an example in the lirll paragraph ofGenelis, 

 conlillingof live, not long,vcrfes,and containing not fewer tliaii 

 eleven ftntences, which are Angularly fiiiiple ; the fubftan- 

 tivcs not being attended by adjectives, nor the verbs by ad- 

 verbs, without fynonyniK, or iuperlativcs, or any effort to- 

 wards exprcffiug tilings in a bold, emphatical, or uncom- 

 mon manner. In the Pentateuch, there is alfo a fimplicity 

 of fentimcnt, arifing from the very nature of the early and 

 uncultivated ftate of fuciety, about which its books are con- 

 verfant, and this renders the narrative, in general, extremely 

 clear and engaging. Befidesthe finplicity of ftruclure, and 

 the fimplititv of fentiment, there is another fpecies of fimpli- 

 city, fur which Scripture hillory is more remarkable than any 

 Q_q 2 other 



