The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-11-25
THE BARBARoUS STYLE OF SOME
RELIGIOUS WRITER'S.


strike portion of your readers as very singu-
lar, entirely at variance with the religious tone
your paper has had for two or three years past.
1 refer especially to the one entitled Sunday
Afternoon in the Nursery The spirit with
which that is written will be regarded, | am
confident, by a large class of the religious read
ers among whom your paper crculates, as
evncng dislike of Bible language, and per-
haps Bible thoughts"
He goes on to show, as if we had doubted,
that "bessed," " holy" "godly," and such
words, are all Bible terms. He adds that the
writer of the notice does not give the correct
title of Fosters Essay, referred to-
| For the last two or three years, an intelligent
friend has written majority of the literary no
tees in the Era; occasionally, they have en-
snated from other quarters. Sometimes We
have been the critic ourself To fix RESPONSE
bility where it belongs, we may well say that
all the notices last week were written by us, and
we stand prepared to Justify them all.
The title of Fosters essay we quoted from
recollection, as discourse " On the Obstacles
10 the Advancement of Truth among Literary
Men" The essay is too well known to be mis-
taken. The title in the volume of his Essays
now lying before US is, " On Some of the Causes
by which Evangelical Religion has been Rem
dered Unacceptable to Persons of Cultivated
Taste" Our correspondent says it would not
bear us out in our criticism. 1t more than
bears us out. Would that we had space to re-
print the whole of it. John Fosters orthodoxy
was beyond question; his deep devotion to what
- laH Hr,1fh hos
doubted. That very essay is one of its noblest
defences. But his condemnation, of the style
of writing religious books, so briefly criticised
by us, is perfectly overwhe dining. He gives no
quarter to cant, whatever its pretences.
No one can fairly infer from notice (ob-
iected to) that we entertain a dislike to Bible
language or Bible thoughts Did we not say
expressly that " had the author completed the
narrative in the simple style of Genesis, we
should have liked the book much b.tter?"
Blessed" Holy" Righteous" Carnal,"
Flesh" Lust +" Cody" are Bible words
we do not object to their use in the proper col
ation and in the Sacred Book where they
stand, let them remain unaltered. We confess
to such an extreme devotion to the text as it is,
the old English of the time of King James,
that we cannot bear to see it tempered with.
We do not believe a better translation can be
made. All attempts of the kind have certainly
hitherto failed. Here and there, possibly, a
word more significant or less Objectionable
might be substituted but, all our feelings
have become so welded to the text as it is, that
another reading would jar on our most cherish
ed associatiOns-not that we have the slightest
superstition about the peculiar language of the
Bible-it is the thought, mot the letter. that is
Sacred. Ambitious scholars and disconnected
sects may make as many transatiOns as they
please for what we care-but the old Family
Bible that has come down to us from our ia
theirs, shall descend from us to our children
But, do not choose, after the pattern of
the old race of Praise God Barebones to mix
up Bible phrases with crude and clownish imita-
tons, whenever we advert to religious topics.
If man desire to bring certain portions of the
Bible before the public in a separate volume,
let him quote the language of the Bible. If he
would make a series of extracts from it, bearing
on certain points, let him abide by the text.
But if he would discourse on religious theme,
let him do it, in strict conformity to the best
style of the English language, as now recog-
missed, and, in referring TO the Bible, insert
whole quotations, or illustrate, by special
phrases, in distinct Bible words, and not at
tempt to mix up, in miserably crude, outland-
ish dialect, his own language with that of the
Scriptures. This is what makes cant. 1t is
not Bible language we object to, buta barbarous,
repulsive imitation of 1.-THE use of its words,
in string Of commonplace or mean SEN
fences.
Shakespeare, sccularly, is our oracle. We shrink
from any new or improved readings, and would
like to send to the pillory the nice people who
would expurgate his text. Nobody, however,
but poor, stage-strckcn hacks talk and write
Shakespeare on all occasions. The classical writer
will adorn paragraph with a quotation, or add
point to his argument by well-selccted phrase
from the great dramatst; but the man who
! should attempt to manufacture Shaksperian
| style would dshonor the language of Shaks-
peare, without ennobing his own.
To recur to the little book we noticed Take
Abel =" Soon after Enoch went to God, an
other blessed child was born -" 1t was to be
Abraham's own child, his son, his only son.
whom he loved that blessed child whom God
had given him" So the writer goes ON.
Is this Bible style? Pshaw The Bible
never fattens out into platitudes. The story of
the Offering up of Isaac as told in Genesis is
simple, touching, beautiful-and its meaning
We always thought we could understand without
any cumbrous paraphrase. See how our author
improves it
| Zone day, God called Abraham, and told
! him to offer up a sacrifice. This sacrifice was
not TO be a lamb from the fold, it was not to be
young kid from the goats, it was not to be a
| turtle dove--nO; 1t was to he Abrahams own
child, his son, his only son, whom he loved /;
that blessed child, whom God had given him.
Abraham was to take him away to a mountain
a long way of, which God would tell him of.
and there he was to offer hun mp, as a burnt
Offering to God
Now, let us have the Bible.
God did tempt Abraham, and said unto
him, Abraham; and he said, Behold, here am /.
And he said, take now thy son, thine only son.
Isaac, whom thou lowest, and get thee into the
land of Moriah, and offer him there for burnt
Offering upon one of the mountains | shall tell
thee Of &c.
Speaking after the manner of men, and re-
garding the Bible simply as secular. we should
say, the text Is the inspiration of geuius. the
paraphrase, the language of impotence.
| To-, A.