And now, Theophilus, I am arrived at that part of this discourse, wherein it will be fit to examine that grand objection against the style of the Scripture, which, though a philosopher would not look upon it as the most considerable, is yet most urged by many of its witty adversaries, especially such as are wont to exercise and gratify their fancy more than their reason. The objection itself is this, “That the Scripture is so unadorned with flowers of rhetoric, and so destitute of eloquence, that it is flat, and proves commonly inefficatious upon intelligent readers, Insomuch, that divers great wits and great persons, especially statesmen, do either despise it, or neglect to study it;” and truly, the story is famous of that cardinal, who flourished in the last age, that said, that once indeed he had read the Bible, but if he were to do so again, it would lose him all his Latinity. And amongst those great orators, as they thought themselves, who lived in the same age and country that he did, the complaint was ordinary, that the reading of the Bible untaught them the purity of the Roman language, and corrupted their Ciceronian style. And I remember no obscure prince, though he shall here be nameless, because for other qualities I honour him, in no obscure company, disputed with me one day, an opinion about the style of the Scripture, to which the cardinal’s scorn was a compliment. I wish these saucy expressions were but outlandish, and could not cross those seas that environ England, which is not so happily severed from the world’s vices, as from its continent; this profane judging so boldly that book men shall be judged by, being, if not a native, yet at least a free denizen of England; for not only it was one, that I am sorry I can call our countryman, who is recorded to have solemnly preferred one of the odes of Pindarus before all the Psalms of David; but I could easily add divers resembling instances, that I have myself been troubled to meet with, were it not that I somewhat doubt whether this kind of profane sayings be not as well fitter as worthier to be forgotten than remembered, and to be suppressed than divulged; for, not to mention that the recording of such enormities puts an ill compliment upon mankind, the satisfaction some men’s curiosities receive by such relations, will scarce account for the temptation it gives others, to imitate what they find some had dared. For there are some sins whose grand determent is a kind of persuasion that they are too horrid to have been committed: and some wise legislators thought it better against certain crimes to use the silence of the laws than their threats. I shall therefore, without any further mention of scandalous particularities, take it for granted, that there have been, and are but too many witty disrespecters of the Scripture. But as for the accusation itself, which they are alleged to countenance, many defences might be here made against it, if divers considerations, pertinent to that purpose among others, did not belong to some of those ensuing parts of my discourse, wherein it is not the style of the Scripture, but other themes that are principallyand directly treated of. Yet that you may be assisted to refer hither such parts of the following discourse as are applicable to the matter under consideration, I shall here take notice to you, that my answers to the objection above proposed may, for the most part, be reduced to these five heads of argument.
First, that as to divers parts of the Scripture, it was not requisite that they should be adorned with rhetorical embellishments.
Next, that the Bible seems to have much less eloquence than indeed it has, to those that read it only in translations, especially the vulgar Latin version.
Thirdly, that by reason of the differing notions several sorts of men, especially of distant nations and climates, have of eloquence, many passages that are thought uneloquent by us, may appear excellently expressed to another part of mankind.
Fourthly, that there are in the Scripture a multitude of those texts, wherein the author thought fit to employ the ornaments of language, conspicuously adorned with such as agree even with our notions of eloquence.
And lastly, that it is very far from being consonant to experience, that the style of the Scripture does make it unoperative upon the generality of its readers, if they be not faultily indisposed to receive impressions from it.
As to the first of these, having already above declared, that there are many parts of Scripture, wherein it would have been improper to affect eloquence; I am willing to suppose that you have not yet forgot what has been formerly said. And therefore I am unwilling to detain you on this first consideration. Yet I cannot but on this occasion take notice to you, that we allow all sorts of people expressions proper and fitted to their several professions and themes. How many of us can dwell on lawyers, physicians, and chymists’ books, though oftentimes written in terms as harsh and as uncourtly as if those rudenesses were their design? and yet we can neglect and scorn the Scripture, because in some passages we there find the mysteries and other matters of religion, delivered in a proper and theological style. I remember Machia-vel, in the dedication of his famous work, after he had (not causelessly) acknowledged to Lorenzo de Medici, (to whom his book is addressed,) that he had not stuffed it with lofty language or big words, nor adorned with any of those enveigling outward ornaments, usual to other authors in their writings, gives this account of the plainness of his style, Perche io ho voluto, o chè veruna cosa la honori (la mia opera) o che solamente la verità della materia, et la gravità del soggetto la faccia grata: “that he thought fit either that nothing at all should recommend his work, or that the only truth of the discourse and the dignity of the subject should make it acceptable, and exact its welcome.” If a mere statesman, writing to a prince upon a mere civil theme, could reasonably talk thus, with how much more reason may God expect a welcoming entertainment for the least adorned parts of a book, of which the truth is a direct emanation from the essential and supreme truth, and of which the contents concern no less than man’s eternal happiness or misery? And if our nice Italian critics themselves cannot, by the plainness of Machiavel’s style, nor the forbidding of his writings by the inquisition, be deterred from as assiduous as prohibited a study of his books, what excuse will they one day have, that now make the unaffected style of Scripture the sole excuse of their despising (or at least neglecting) that divine book?