V MEMORIAL --
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

f O U R
LETTERS CONCERNING THE
STUDY OF T H E
Hebrew Scriptures.

LONDON,
Printed (by H Woodfall) for the AUTHOR:
And fold by E. Withers, at the Seven Stars in
Pleet-Street, feeing Chancery- Lane. 1755.
(Price One Shilling.}

TO THE
READER.
\H R folloiving letters were
written in a private man-'
ner, fome time Jtnce, to a
young gentleman of Oxford, who
was defigned for holy orders, and
were never intended for the prefs ;
but are now made public by the de->
fire of a per/on, whofe judgment the
author has a much better opinion of
than his own. The defign of them
is to inculcate the Jludy of the He
brew fcriptures, and bring, if pof-
fible, a negle&ed language into ufe ;
and this is not attempted by any thing
the author has to produce of his own,
A 2, but

To the Reader.
.but by a modefi defence and recom-
"'^mendation of Mr. Hutchinfon,
whom he looks upon as a refiorer of
true and valuable learning ; one who
feems to have done as much in behalf
of the Hebrew fcriptures, as Eraf-
mus, and other learned men did,
before him, in favour of the Greek.

LET-

LETTER I.

Dear Sir, iS I have engaged you to the
ftudy of the Hebrew fcriptures,
and you are fo far advanced al
ready, as to believe that the
points are no eflential part of the language,
nor any ways neceflary towards a right ex
plication of it, I now proceed, in compli
ance with your requeft, to inform you,
by what means you will beft acquire that
which you fo earneftly feek after, the true
knowlege and underftanding of God's
word. In order to which, it will be ne
ceflary for me to examine into the re
ceived methods of interpretation, and fee
whether they are fuflicient for this pur-
pofe.

B

CSR-

[«]
Certain it is, that the Hebrew is a
language, of which there is not one fen-
tence preferved to us, except what is con-'
tained in the holy fcriptures ; and it is
alfo as certain, that it is the record which
God has given of himfelf to all ages j
and that he is confequently concerned to
preferve it intelligible to us : The queftion
is, by what means he has done this ?
The general anfwer to which has been,
that we have the Greek Septuagint tran<-
flation, and Chaldee Paraphrafes handed
down to us for this purpofe j the former
of which is of more efpecial note and
authority, becaufe it was unconteftably
made before the coming of Chrift ; at a
time when the Jews were under no temp
tation to oppofe the genuine fenfe of the
fcriptures (as they afterwards were) and
when they may well be fuppofed, to have
underftood the Hebrew tongue perfectly,
and to have interpreted it truly; a tranfla-
tion which the apojlles themfelves ufually
quote, and which the primitive fathers
trufted to for many ages after. And

[3 J
And moreover the Jews themfelves,
who muft be fuppofed to be well ac
quainted with their own fcriptures, have
fince this, taken incredible pains in ex
plaining and interpreting them ; and have,
given us feveral grammars and lexicons to
aflift and direct us in the underftanding
the Hebrew language. And although it
muft be acknowledged, that there is not
any original Hebrew extant, except what
is contained in the Hebrew fcriptures, yet
as all the Oriental languages have an af
finity with each other, they become no
fmall helps to us in difcovering the true
meaning of many words, and in fome
meafure fupply the place of eoternporary
writings in the Hebrew tongue j and that
taking all thefe helps together, the old tejla-
ment is made very intelligible to us, and
accordingly it has, in all ages of the church,
been very well underftood and explained.'
This is what has been generally al-
Jedged, in behalf of the received methods
of interpretation of the Hebrew fcriptures ;
which are hereby declared to be, by re-
courfe had, either to the Septuagint tran-
B 2 flation^

[4]
fation, or to the Rabbinical interpretations,
or to the Oriental languages : of each of
which in their order, and firft of the Sep*
iuagint tranjlation.
I have already mentioned the Chaldee
paraphrafes, and it is well known there
are many other Greek tranflations of great
antiquity, befides that of the Septuagint j
but as this verfion is the moft ancient^
and of the greateft authority, if I can
prove that this is not to be depended on
in its conftrudlions, I conceive that no
other tranflation or paraphrafe can pretend
to be fo.
We are told, that the Septuagint tran
jlation was made at a time, when the
Jews were under no temptation to- oppofe
the true genuine fenfe of fcripture, and
when they may be well fuppofed to have
underftood the Hebrew tongue perfectly,
and to have interpreted it truly.
Those who believe the hiftory of Arif
teas, place the time, in which this tranfla
tion was made, in the 277th year before
Chrift j others place it later ; but all agree, that

[ 51
that it was made about this time, during
the reign of the Ptolemys in Egypt, near
the middle of the 536 years, which pafled
between the Jews return from the capti-.
vity and the coming of Chrift.
Some years before this, as * Prideaux
informs us, viz. in the 291ft year before
Chrift, oral tradition was firft fet up by
Antigonus, fucceflbr to Simon the juft$
and in him began the appellation of "Ta-
naim, or Mijhnical doctors. But if the
Septuagint tranjlation was made after oral
tradition was fet up, what right have we
to fuppofe, that they underftood the He
brew tongue perfedtly, or interpreted it
truly ? This is fuch an infult upon the
authority of the original, as will juftify us
in fufpedting, if hot their abilities, at leaft
their integrity ; and when we confider far
ther, that they were at this time tainted
with divers fuperftitious opinions, and di
vided into fedts, how can we fay, they were
under no temptations to oppofe the true
genuine fenfe of the fcriptures ? The fedt
that was uppermoft was that of the Pha-
rifees, and what the Pharifees were, Chrift
> him-
* Connetf. Vol. II. p. 2.

[6 J
himfelf has fufficiently infqrmed us. They
loved the uppermoft rooms atfeajls, and the
chief Je at s in the Jynagogues, and greetings
in the markets, and to be called of men,
Rabbi, Rabbi. And as thefe honours.
were obtained, rather by the outward ob-
fervance of the law, than by any regard
to the inward and jpiritual meaning of it,
they refted wholly on the ritual perform
ance of the ceremonies, and were by this
means, when Chrift came, fo groflly ig
norant of their own fcriptures, as to ex-
pedt a temporal Meffiah j a notion this fo
very abfurd, as muft have been fome
time in taking root, nay, could never have
prevailed, unlefs thofe in authority had
long taught and countenanced it.
If you think I charge them unjuftly, by
carrying thefe negledts too far back, I defire
you would read what is faid of them by
the prophets, before they were carrieq*
into captivity, and tell me, whether you,
can find they were ever after altered for
the better. The Lord hath poured out upon
you, fays Ifaiah xxix. 10, n, 12. thefpi-
rit of deep Jeep, and hath clojed your eyes;
your prophets and your rulers', the Jeers, hath
1 be,

he covered; which St. Paul alludes to iri
his time, and fays, According as it is writ*
ten, God hath given them thejpirit ofjum*
ber, eyes that they Jhould not fee, and ears
that they Jhould not hear, unto this day *.
And IJaiah vi. 9, 1 o. which is to the fame
purpofe, is applied to them by all the four
Evangelifts : fothat they were under a judi
cial blindnefs, from the time of the captivity
to the coming of Chrift j and fhall we
truft to a tranflation made in this interval,
as perfedt, and fully expreflive of the ori
ginal ? If the -blind lead the blind, Jhall
they not both fall into the ditch ?
But not only the time when this tran
flation firft appeared, but alfo the uncer
tainty by whom it was made, cafts no fmall
biemifh upon it. Some think the Alexan
drian Jews were the authors of it} and if
fo, they were under a pagan government,
and were more corrupted in their fervices
than the Jews zljerufalem; and how do we
know, whether this tranflation was volun
tary, Or commanded by a heathen prince -j- ?
If
* Rom. xi. 8. f Agreeable to this, we are told by
Drujius, Obf. facr. lib. 15. cap. 7. that in Lev. xi. 6.
and Deut. xiv. 7. where the hare, D3J*)N> is reckoned among

[ $1
If the latter, we cahnoteXp'eft a Very faith
ful one ; if the former, we know not upon
what motives, good or bad. But fuppofing
we grant, that the Jews at Jerujalem were
the authors, they alfo might have their
views, and it is very probable did not
mean a ftridt tranflation, but fuch as might
beft recommend their law and nation tcu
foreigners. But thefe you will fay are only
iurmifes ; true, but I (hall be in fome rnea-
fure warranted in them, if you will be
pleafed to obferve, that when this tranfla
tion was publickly received by the Jewifli
rulers at Jerufalem, they fixed a * curfe
upon any one who fhould attempt to alter
it, although they knew it to be the work
of fallible men, and fuch as confequently
might be improved for the better j and al
though they had full power to eftablifh
the ufe of it, without all this intemperate
zeal. Now when I fee people curfing
others without occafion, and againft the
reafon of the thing, I always fufpedt am
bition, or fadtion, or fomething worfe. And
among the unclean beafts, that they have avoided tran-
flating it by the proper Greek word Aay«;, becaufe it
was the name of King Ptolemy's Queen.
* " Dira imprecati funt in omnes, qui quicquam in
" ea melius tentarent," {aysWalton. Proleg. 9. feci. 2.

t*]
And it is to be confidered farther, that.
We are not only at a lofs for the true au
thors of the Septuagint verfion, but we
do not fo much as know, whether this
tranflation was made from the original He
brew, or from the phalde,e vulgate, then in
ufe, as * Philo Jud<?us, and fome of the
Rabbles finee inform us. And indeed the
loofe manner of this tranflation, the dif-
agi jement of it with the original, in feve-
r-al places, the many omiflions, infections,
tranfpofitions, &c. are enough to fhew,
that if it was taken from the original, it
is a verfion very imperfedt and corrupt.
In the law indeed, and what are called the
hiftorical books, it is for the moft part
tolerable, but in the prophetic, let, thofe
that cry it up defend it if they can j for
there is fcarce a chapter but will convince
them, that this could never be an exadt
tranflation from the original Hebrew.
To what purpofe then is it cried up as
perfedt and authentic, fo clear and fatis-
fadtory, as even to render the ftudy of the
Hebrew almoft needlefs ; why are the la^
hours of thefe men extolled to fuch an
C un-
* See Feifin's Preface to Pugia Fidti, 114.

r'ioj
unreafonable height, as to make it pre-
fumption in any who pretends to improve
upon them ? The tranflators of our Englifh
bible were certainly of another opinion, for
they take upon them to deviate from the
Septuagint, whenever they think it not ex-
preflive of the original j and by fo doing,
give the authority to the Hebrew, where
it is due, and where only indeed it can be
placed. . But we will now fuppofe the Septua
gint tranflation to be a moft excellent one
in its kind, far beyond every thing that
has been exhibited fince ; and yet even in
this cafe it is to be confidered, that a * tran
flation cannot convey the full meaning
of any language, much lefs that of the
Hebrew, which is in its own nature more
untranflatable than any other tongue j and
that if this was God's method of preferving
his word intelligible to us, we fhould furely
have had more tranflations than one, and
thofe in many different tongues, and of
ancienter date : one tranflation, though
ever fo good, is not fuflicient to preferve a
*¦" Nullusunqunmfententiam alicujus intellexerit,
c{ ignarusfermonis quo fencentiam ille fuam explicuit,"
Erajm. Adag.

[ » ]
a dead language, becaufe in this caie, it
fuperfedes the original. It may be faid
indeed, there is the Chaldee paraphraje ;
but this (if all that the Jews fay of it "be
true) is not of equal authority with the
Septuagint, and therefore cannot controul
that which is fuperior to it. How then,
you will fay, is God's word preferved in
telligible to us ? If the Septuagint does
not do it, what is there better, that we
have to depend upon ? I anfwer, the He
brew original; which, when duly exa-r
amined, will be found to have a native lu-
ftre of its own, far furpafling that of the
Septuagint, which may indeed ferve to dis
cover, but never can exprefs its beauties,
I have as great a value for the Septuagint
as any other perfon, and am ready to allow
that the Hebrew is preferved intelligible
by it ; but then it muft be remembred,
that this is not owing to any excellency of
its own, but to the peculiar ftrudture of
the Hebrew language, which, being built
upon roots, is explicative of itfelf, and
wants only a tranflation, to lead us, by
the feveral ufages of a word in different
places, to the original idea of every root ;
'which the Septuagint, though a very de-
Q 2 JecJive

[ I*]
fecJive tranflation, may yet be fujfcient
for. No w if this is really the cafe, and God
intended by this tranflation, not fo much
to fpare our pains, as to excite our in-
duftry, what fliall we fay of thofe, who
make this very tranflation an excufe for
their riegledt of the Hebrew original, iri
that they fay the Septuagint is fufncient
without it to teach us all material truths ?
If they would take the pains to compare
them together, 1 am cdhfident, they would
find themfelves miftakeri ; and till they do
fo, they certainly take a matter upon truft,
into which, of all others, they are moft
concerned to enquire.
Great ftrefs- has been laid upon the
'Apoftles making ufe of this verfion, and
quoting from it; as alfo the great re
verence paid to hby the primitive church.
Had the Apoftles never deviated from the
Septuagint, it might indeed have been a
prefumptive argument of its authority ; but
-as they frequently do fo, their condUdt is
fo far from being an argument in its fa-
vpur, that it tends greatly to its difcredit ;
for

i *3]
for as the. ap®ftks wrote in Greek, und
this verfion was then in ufe,-'it rnay,.bfc
prefumed, they would ehufe to qdote from
it, if they could, not only in regard to the
Greek Gentiles, - but becaufe it was avoid
ing difphtes, and ftopping the naouths of
the rfews, who might have difallowed of
any other tranflation, but could not reject
their ©writ When therefore we find them
fe. t aoften receding from it, it was not
without neceflity, in that the tranflation
"Was not fufficrently expreflive of the ori~
iginal. Some authority was due to it, k
is plain, elfe it had not been quoted at all $
and if an adequate traraflatioh is impoffible,
why not this as well ae another ? For if
this filenced the Jews* and anfw'ered the
main end at the fame time, it was prefer
able to any other, and was accordingly
made ufe of by the Apoftles.
A s to the primitive church, it muft be
acknowledged, that they did not attend to
the HebreW fcriptures fo much as they
ought
•f Bifhop Wetenhall, in his book entitled, Scripture
authentic and faith certain, has collected 40 texts in the
New Tejiament quoted from the Old, 22 of which are
according to the Hebrew, and different from the Septua
gint; which one circumftance is enough to deftroy the
"prttenrJed Authority of this verfion. I

1 14]
ought to have done, but contented them-
felves with a tranflation of great autho
rity, as they thought, in their own tongue ;
which though an inexcufable neglect, yet
it may be urged in their behalf, that as
the light of the gofpel fhone fo bright in
their days, and their convictions were
ftrong, they had not fo great an occafion
for the evidence arifing from the know
ledge of the Hebrew Jcriptures, as we have
now : and what if God thought proper
to referve this his ineftimable treafure, for
the inftrudtion of thefe latter days, when
human reafon ufurps the authority due
©nly to fcripture, and every little weak
argument ftalks about, as if it had the
force of evidence ?

J.ET-

C »sl

LETTER n.
Dear Sir,
| AVING in my laft letter fhewn
what little dependance is to be
had on the tranjlations, with
out confulting the Hebrew original, I
now proceed to inform you, what is to be
expected from the Jewijh Rabbles j unr-
der which title I include all fuch Jewsj
who have given us any explication of the
Hebrew fcriptures *, fince the time of our
Saviour. The firft of thefe Rabbies, who under
took to give us any infight into the He
brew language, was Rabbi Saadias, who
flourifhed Anno Dom. 927 ; after whom
followed Rabbi Juda, Rabbi Jona, David
Kimcbit
* The greateft part of the Chaldee Paraphrafe, In
deed all, except the Pentateuch, is faid to be written
fince our Saviour's, time ; but the.Rabbies.I fpeak of
are of a much later date.

t 16}
Kimchi, Aben Ezra, etc * j who all com-*
plain of the general decay of the know*
ledge of the Hebrew tongue, and feejn
apprehenfive of an univerfal ignorance of
it enfuing, if not prevented by their la-*
hours ; Which I the rather mention, be
caufe it has been fuppofed, that the Jews
were always accuftomed to the conftant
ufage of the Hebrew tongue, and well
acquainted with their own fcriptures j and
in confequence of this, have been faid to
be more fkiiful than others in their in
terpretations; whereas it was, by their own
confeflion, as much a dead language to
them, as it is now to us, nor can they
boaft of any fuperior advantages.
But whatever their fkill was, and
whatever fervice may have accrued to us
from their great induftry and pains, this is
certain, that they were enemies to the
Chriftian Jaith, and as fuch, are not to
be relied upon. No man will fuffer writ
ings, of any concern to him, to be inter*
preted by his declared enemies. But it
may be urged, that although they were ene-
* See Hottingtr's Smegma Orientate, Cap. 3.
P- 33-

enemies, they might not undertake this
work With any ill defign. To which I
anfwer, were they ever fo fair and candid;
they eould never inftrudt us in the true
genuine fenfe of the fcriptures; becaufe
they did not know it themfelve's ,; \§ Chrift
is the end of the law, and they deny him,
they can never be received as interpreters
of the taw. ¦ J i
But as they never attempted any ex-.
plication of the Hebrew tongue, till long*
after the publication of their * Mijhnah and,
'poth the Taimuds, we are no longer at a
D ; ' lofs?
s * The Mijhnah is a collection of all the ancient
traditions of the Jews, to the time of Rabbi Juda Hak-.
iodojh, the compiler of" it, who flourifhed about the
middle of the fecond century, in the reign of' the em
peror Antpninus Pius.. This book is the text, and the'
Talmud is a comment" on it.. The ferufakm Talmud
\?as compiled by the Jews whodwelt in Judaa, about
30Q- years, after Ghrift ; and the, ]£a by lonijfi Talmud, by
thole who dwelt in Mefopotamia, about 590 years after;
Chf.fft,' according t& the account which' the' Jewifh
wrkets give .of theni; but there are feveral things con
tained iathe latter, which feemto refer to a much later
Hate.' Thefe three,* with the two Chaldee Paraphrafes
o'f t0nkehi and Jonathan, are the ancienteft.books which,
the Jews have, next the bible. For how much noife
foever may be made about their Rabbinical writings!,
they are none of them above 700 years old. There
are fome of them indeed lay claim to a much ancienter
fete, but without any reafon for it.— Account of. au
thors ft the end of Dean Prideautfs life'of Mahomet., <

1 18 J
lofs what to think of them ; we not only
know them to be enemies, but what fort.
of enemies, and with what weapons they
fight. For the Mijhnah being once al
lowed by them, it cannot be denied -j-, but
they muft have thefe three manifeft inten
tions, which the Miflmdh has : Firft, to
leflen the authority of any perfons, or writ
ings, which fhould be founded on mira
cles ; fecondly, to divert the intent of the
original covenant and the law, and fix it
upon the bare outward inftitutions ; thirdly
to infinuate, that the fcriptures are not
written as they are to be read, nor under-
ftood as they are written, but according
to fome fecret inftructions, firft, given to
Mofes, and afterwards conveyed down by
oral tradition.
Add to this, that they have ever pro-
fefled a belief of one fupreme Being, in op-
pofition to the Trinity, and expected a tem
poral Mefliah j from all which it is very
eafy to conclude, what their defigns muft
be. And indeed Chrift himfelf gave Us
warning to beware of them, at a time,
when
•f See this fully proved by Mr. Hutchinfon in his
book intitled Hebrew Writings perfecl, &c. pr 6 J. &
fe<$.

[ 19]
when they were much lefs corrupted than
they have been fince, and had fewer tradi
tions. — Wo unto you, Scribes andPharifees,
hypocrites I for ye compafs Jea and land, to
make one projelyte, and when he is made,
ye make him two-fold more the child of hell
than yourfelves. Matt, xxiii. 1 5, and verfe
16. Wo unto you-blind guides ; and verfe 1 9.
Wo unto you fools and blind ! Beware of
the leaven of the Pharifees. Luke xii. 1. of
thofe which, in another place he fays, love
' to be called Rabbi, Rabbi, Matt, xxiii. 7.
And that they made the word of God of
none ejfeff through their traditions. And
the Apoftle St. Paul continues the fame
cautions ; who both killed the Lord J ejus,
and their own prophets, and have perjecuted
us, and they pleafe not God, and are con-
trary to all men ; forbidding tojpeak to the
Gentiles, that they might be Javed, to fill
up their fins alway, Jor the wrath of God
is come upon them to the uttermofi. 1 ThefT.
ii. 15, 1 6. and again Titus 1. 14. Phil. in. 2.
And that thefe warnings extend to after-
times, appears from the reafonof the thing.
— ct Si tempore Chrifti (fays Voifin in his
" preface to Pugio Fidei) tanta erat invedta
" corruptio in traditiones legitimas, utejus
D 2 "ar-

[20 3
\' argiii a Chrifto oportuerit ; et fi fequen.-
" tibus poft Chriftum temporibus, eo cre-
fc vit, ut fuas hac de re querelas continere
<c non potuerint Judasi fapientiores (ut jam,
" retulimus) quaritam fuifle exiftimare de-
" bemus, quando editum eft Talmud, tanto
" poft tempore, crefcente indies Judjeorum
" odip in religionem noftram ? '' Yet fo
infatuated have we been, as to learn He
brew from thefe men ; which tho' fome
deny, by faying' they reft chiefly on the Sep
tuagint, yet fo long as they retain pointing,
and Arabic, they will never acquit them-
tfelves of the charge.
But it may be argued, that although,
they had ever fo great a mind to mifkad
us, they were reftrained from fo doing
by the Septuagint tranflation ; and fo in
deed they were in fome meafure, elfe we,
toight have had another * fcene of affairs. But
* .'c Quos (JudaeOs) ob facrom codicem, poftulante
'* Ptolemaso Philadelpho, graecas lingua? donatum,
" tanta indigatione atque dolore incenfos Cunaus re-
" fer't (de Republ. Hebr. Lib. 3. Cap. 4.) ut mojro-
" rem fuum anniverfario ftatoque ad diem o&avarn
" menfis Theuth jejunio pifbhce profeffi funt. Ex quo
'* folo facilis conje<Sura eft, quas hominibus, tanto ad-
*'. verfus quofcunque alios odio laborantibus, in ethtiicis
" ad meliora re"ftitue'ndis cura aut promptitudo tuerit,
" qui-

E a»]
Put becaufe' they could not do fo mucty
mifchief as they would, are we to con
clude they could do none ? Becaufe a man
©f bad charadter is reftrained by the laW
from robbing me on the high- way, am \
therefore to truft him with my eftate ?
I would not have you underftand me,
as if I thought the Rabbinical Grammars
and Lexicons were altogether of no ufe.
Fas eft et ab. hofie doceri; but I believe they
Were never intended by providence to
teach us the true meaning of the fcrip
tures ; but rather to upbraid the Chriftian
church with ^heir moft notorious neglect
of the Hebrew, and provoke them, if
poflible, to the ftudy of it. The Jewifh
Rabbies had no other helps than are
common to all ; and ihall we, who are
equally qualified with them for the talk,
nay better (becaufe we believe in the Chri-
{lian covenant, the fubjedt matter of the
JHebrew. fcriptures and the key to them)
fhall we, I fay, fit ftill, and fee our title
peeds to eternal falvation made void and
null
*' quibus non alia magis folicitudo, quam ne ad iftos
" puri aliquid redlique emanaret." Tob. Pfanner Syft.
Theol. Gentil. purior. p. 4991.

[22]
null by their conftrudtions ? Reftore, O
Lord, unto us, the ears that the locufl hath
eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar,
and the palmer-worm «— — that we may
cat in plenty, and be Jatisfied, and praije
the name of the Lord our God, who hath
dealt wondroufiy with us. See Joel ii.
#5, 26.

LET.

[*3l

LETTER III.

Dear Sir, SHALL now endeavour to lay
before you, what is to be ex
pected from the oriental lan
guages ; and as you inform me that the
knowlege of the Arabic 'is generally at
Oxford' thought absolutely rieceflary to
wards the explication of the Hebrew fcrip
tures, this point fhall be particularly con-
fidered.

I believe it will be eafily granted me,
that the Hebrew is the original language,
the firft, from whence all others fprang.
This is what is almoft univerfally acknow-
leged by all writers, even by thofe, who'
have attempted to derive Hebrew words
from other languages ; tho' if all other
languages are fubfequent to the Hebrew, I

! . , 1
[ 24- ]
I think it undeniably follows, that no He
brew word Can be etymologic ally derived
frpm any of them \ much lefs.ean we be--
1 ieve, that the words Aleim', Araiz, Shemim,
Which are of God's own dictating *, carl
borrow their original fignificatibn from1
the words-of men, not in being,; till long
after he impofM them. ~
But though we may not feek for 'the
etymology of any Hebrew word in any
other tongue* may not the words of other
fubfequent languages, more immediately
derived from the HelpreW, arid corre-
fbonding With it, ferve greatly. to explain
the true ufage and fenfe of divers words
in the original, from whence they are
derived; efpecially if thefe languages con
tinue in ufe, and are more copious and
comprehenfive than the original HebreW
is? -

But
* That CTO^ and y-\# are names of God's ovni,
impofing, appears from Gen. i. 8, io. ThatCTWfis
fo, may be- concluded from, the 3d chapter of Genejisi
where Satan makes ufe of this word as a riame Welt
known, and familiar to Eve. And yet Dr. Pococki
in compliance with the Rabbies, in Not. Jldifie/l. p. 34.
derives Aleim from the Arabic Alaha coluit, Shemim
from Soma, to be above, and Aratz from Arada to' &'£
beneath.

2

I H J
, But it is torbe "obferved, that trie tie -
brew fTcriptures are a record of great im>
portance and concern, and fuch as do not
admit of this kind pf guejs-work j for fo
I call this method of interpretation for the
following reaforis.
For firft, before any word in any other
language can be admitted as explicative of
its correfpondent Hebrew word, We muft
be fiire that the faid word was derived
from fucH Hebrew word ; elfe it may ferve
to miflead, inftead of directing us. WS
may know fo far of a language in general,
that it is derived from the Hebrew, and
yet be very much at a lofs, when we
come to particulars, which words anfwer
which!. ''-- J % -¦¦' ¦ V.l
1 * • - *4 * * *% *
Secondly, we mttft be fiire this word
has not been mifappltedj for if , men will
take God's words, and apply theni to other*
purpofes and things, than what God. has
applied them to, they will' be fo far from.
explaining the original, that they Will ra
ther obfcure and perplex it ; and this will
uhayoidably happen, either if the fpeafters
E &

[ 26 1
of this language were Heathens, and fo
ftrangers to the ideas conveyed by the He
brew fcriptures, and the principal things-
there fpoken of; of if the language con
tinues long in ufe, . becaufe of the daily
alterations living languages undergo ; or
laftly, if improvements are made in it,
and it becomes more copious and,compre-
henfive ; tjecaufe of the mahy additions
made, and new fenfes, impofed : fo that
the reafons, which. have "Been given for
admitting thefe languages, prove rather
againft them, than for 'them.
Thirdly, fuppofing this word is actu
ally derived from the Hebrew word in
queftion, and has not been rhifapplied^
by what rules are we to know this ? Is
there any certainty either of the one, or of
the other ? And i£ not, what are we do
ing more than explaining an ignotum per
ignoiiuA^ But this method of interpreting He
brew, by the help of tlie oriental lan
guages* is not only Very uncertain, but
alfo needlefs j for a language built u'pbfi
roots, as the Hebrew is, ftands in neefl of

E 27 ]
of fuch helps ^.and'although, under proper
reftridlio'ns, they" may be of fome ufe,
where we can get' no better help, as in
the aW; teyof*.svxt yet, God r)e thanked,
all words of importance occur too often
to need any other b,elp, than comparing
the feveral places together, to fix' their
fenfe and .meaning, And thus I 'think,
that whatever the Rabbies' have told us
concerning the great ufe qf the . oriental
languages (for this information conies
originally from them) ought to be looked
upon as unproved, and of no authority.
But as great promifes have been made
us from ,th,e Arabic, and there is' a pub
lic profeflbr of this language in both our
univerfities (an honour not paid to any
other of the oriental; languages,, except
the Hebrew itfelf ) it deferves a more par
ticular confideration. The many excel
lencies and- beauties, attributed to. this Ian-
guage, are not a fubjedt for me to enlarge
upon by letter ; let it fiiffice, that I enquire
into tha^ which more immediately re
spects the. prefent queftion, viz:' its great
antiquity, and itsrnucrTboafted agreement
with the Hebrewv
E a 1 & ¦ Con-
"¦'- •'• '- ¦ '-l-'i , ''mi}'/

. Concern ijjq the antiquity of the Aca^-
b,ic language, there are feveral different
opinions. Your prefent profeffor, who iq
his lafe oration on the Arabic tongue un
dertake,? to. give us* '.' certiflimas omnium
'.f quotquot, extitere linguarum ftirpes,"
tells you, that it took its rife frorr^ the con-
iufiqn of languages at Babel, and that it" is -f-
" ipfa confufione, non multis fortaffe an-
*c nis, minor. Nam fi Arabas dodtiores de
? C fua lingua loquentes confulamus, vidcbi-
" mus ep.s prima illius incunabula a:d quen-
" dam Tarabum, itdhtdni filium referre. —
!c Qui fi idem fit, utipfi volunt, cum Tare-
" c^? (f°r f° he pronounces (TV) Toktani
" filiosp^?. x< ^°- rhe'rnorato, erit a ,S/&ifW0
'Vipfo quintus,,et ex eorum numerp, qui-
',' bus, poft linguarum divifionem, habita-
" tiones in Mdfaicai hiftoria affignatas le-
V gimus." But if there be rib. better evidence than
{his, it will he taking up your time to very
little purpofe to difprove it, efpecially as
jt is incumbent upon thofe, who maintain
the^ antiquity of this language, to produce
- - fome
'•'? Oat. de Ling. -%atyc25 Antiquitate, Elegantia,
Utilitate, p. 3. + Eadein Orat. p. 4.

Esq]
fome authentic writings, whereby we may
know, what it was in former times, and
whether it agrees with the prefent Arabic;
for if it cannot be proved to be the fame
now, that it was then, what fignifies its
antiquity ? And that this cannot be proved,
is granted both by * Dr. Pocock and -f- Mr.
Profefjbr himfelf.
No writings have ever been pretended
to be produced in this language fo ancient
as our Saviour j and as to what has been
wrote fince, fuppofing them authentic,
and before the time of 'Mahomet, it comes
too late, and only proves that the Arabic
has the leaft pretenfion of any' of the ori
ental languages to the encomiums be
llowed upon it: And as thefe writings are
faid to be only a few fcraps of poetry, pre
served by memory only for 3000 years,
and now put to writing, they are not only
of no authority, but if they were, could
never be fufficient to fettle the language, and
* " Quod vero de lingua Arabicae antiquitate dixi,
** nolo de earum Uteris eifcriptura intelligi, quas multo
" recentiores i\Me o^endlt Pacockius, in notis ad Spe-
*' cim. Arab. p. 154.
: \ " Verum ndn eadem e&fcriptura qua? fermonis
¦\* antiquitas, nee calamus lingua; cosevus." Orat.de
Ling. Arab. Antiq;Eleg. Util.p. 11.

[ 3° }?
and determine the nature of it. And I
will beg leave to afk the advocates for Ara-
bic themfelves, whether they fo much as
pretend to make thefe detached pieces
the ftandard of it ?¦ No, when they re
commend Arabic, as explicative of* the
H@bi^w;fcripture.s, they muft mean the
modern Arabic, or they can mean no-
thing; and if fo, •* the Alkoran is the
fiahdard ©f it, *an4 accordingly Mr. Pror
feflbr himfelf refers you to this, " Ut
W dpdlofem, ita^ jet euftodem hujus lin*
?* gusE.'? &o then, tliis *j~ book is to he
received as the grand prefervativc of the
true meaning of the Hebrew fcriptures in
all cafes,! in which any one fbfall, pleafe to
apply it; % how many this may be, <\t i§
impoffible to determine. i
But the greateft argument for tfce an
tiquity of this language is drawn from its
agreeT
* At. is a particle which fignifies in Arabic the fame
as the Engjifh the or the Greek S, n, to. Al- koran, the
Koran, the, book- to fee. read, but we commonly *jn fin?
glifh call i t f the Alkovan.
f Orat. f^e Ljng. Arab. &c. p. io-
% What we are to expect, appears from Hotting^
who maintains — " Vrx intricatiorem occurrere vocu-
*' km in facra feriptuta, cui Arabia non aliquid afferat
<s lucis." Smegms OKJentale cap. 7. p. 107,

C 31 3
* agreerriefrt with the Hebrew, and. this
is what has deceived many ; but furely
this is no proof of itl antiquity, becaufe
if it is a new-formeds ttwguage, we can
tcafily account . for, the re|emblance there
is between them ; what are we. to. think
of it, if it is found to be a hodge-podge
of corrupted Chaldee %&A.,.H!pbr$w mixed
together, framed by our enemies, and firft
applied by ttieih to the explication s of the
Hebrew^ fcriptures ? We read, in hiftpry,
that they were many years in perfecting
tbeAlkoran, and that they forced all under
their power to make it the ftand,ard of the
Arabic language ; Whereas if its confor
mity was owing to its antiquity, the anci
ent Arabic fhould. have been the ftandard
of the lariguk^e", and even then, ,wemuft
believe with -J- Erpenius, that this language
continued 5000 years in, ufe, as a living
language, and -that it was all this while-?-
** Serrrio pur&s ab omni barbaric, in.pri-
," mitivo
* The Arabic, fays Erpenius, " Ufque adeo com-
** muni matri (viz. the Hebrew) efifmilis, ilrcum de
" plerifque. aliis, an immediate ex ea prognatse iint,
*' dubitari poffit, de fi'ac tarneh 'prorfus nullus eXtatdu-
" bitandi locus j quippe in ea matris imago tarn eft 'tna-
** nifejia, ut earn qui intuef ur matrem fe intueri dicJrt."
Orat. prima die Ling. Arab. p. 7.
Simla quamjimilis, turpnTima beftia, hob'is \
•}¦ Erpenius Orat. prima de Lingua Arabica,

[ 3* ]
*' niitivo fuo nitore confefvatus." So that
thofe who underftand thefe matters are
pretty well agreed, that the Alkoran for
language, as well as matter, is the United
Contrivance of Jews, Heathens, and ape
llate Chriftians.
And farther, it will be found upon ex
amination; that the agreement of this lan«
guagte With the Hebrew is not fo great as
has been imagined j for the * letters in
Arabic not being of the fame name, fi
gure; order, or power with the Hebrew
alphabet, thofe that mean us well cannot
exadtly tell; which letters in the Arabic
anfwer to their refpedtive letters in the
Hebrew ; and as the HebreW roots confift
but of three letters, a mifh^ke in any one
of them quite alters the fenfe ; and this is
ftill more precarious, if you go by pronun
ciation, and change one guttural, labial,
or lingual letter for another, as our ene
mies
* The number of the letters in the Arabic alphabet
is 28, in the Hebrew 22. Some have endeavoured to
reconcile them by faying the fix fupernumerary letters
are no more than Hebrew letters pointed, and fo do not
increafe the alphabet ; but this will not anfwer the diffi
culty, becaufe Arabic has points, as well as the Hebrew,
and, if we believe the author of Racines Hebraiaue'si
was pointed before the Hebrew.
a

mies have done*, nay fornetimes have
taken the liberty of adding or'expuriging
a letter. Again, the Artbie language, as Bifhop
¦f* Walton informs us, *' tahtd oopiS alias
" linguas fuperat, ut Unius rei appellatio-
" nes,- e'arUrhque explicationes, voluminis
c* integri niateriam prsebe&nt ; leonisno-
" mina habet 500, ferpentis 200, mellis
fC 86,'dequibus integrum libellum fcrip-
" : fit : Firazzibadius : enfis vero appella-
li tidnes idem teftatur efTe 1 0,006." j In
this it by no means agrees with thd He*
brew, nor with any other ancient lan
guage, and fo betrays itfelf.
\ That the Arabic is a language aptly
furte'd to the' ufe that has been made of it,
will* appear from the following confedera
tions.
F First,
* The Rabbies have a rule for this—*1? Literae ejitf-
-*' dem inftrumenjti faepe inter fe cornmutdntur." — A/
fpecimen of the liberties they take* may be' feen in
Mr. Holloivay's late /printed tradt on the Primavrty
and Pre-eminence of the Hebrew, p. 90. & alibi.
f Walton," Proleg.

t ]34J 1
• ^ •
. First, as the words of this language,
are moft vague and indeterminate in, their
meaning, it gives the greateft room for
(jaibMings, and perver^ojn of -the He-.
Ipevttext,- •¦ .--.svW
Secondly, from the boundlefs rnulti*>
plicity of its words, it muft he a language
very difficult to underftand, and this is,
what the moft learned amoog the Ara~
bians confefs ; by which means two ends
are obtained, the one,, to deter us frorn>
the ftudy of the Hebrew fcriptures, be
caufe of the difficulties attending it; the-
other, to give authority to the explica
tions of thofe who underftand the Ara-
hie beft; Now who thefe are, we very
well know; and -as we muft give an
enemy the fame 'liberties which we take
ourfelves, this language, being once ac-
knowleged as explicative of .. the Hebrew
fcripturres, the Mahometans may put their
own conftrudtions upon them, and we
have -no hvay left of idefernding dBrrfelVe^,
The original fcriptures are our title-'
deeds to our inheritance, they are the
birthright of va'CfcrirTfcfri, dud be it at tris
peril,

r 3* i
peril, if he buffers them to be Wf efted out
of his hands : They are the evidence of
what you believe as a Chriftian, and they
tii&y can give authority to what you preacjji
as a clergyman* *
TiT«pj $ptfv to mMr* IKQiteWti gpa^SjM
aiyat,
Kau iron tciv tcpxvav aye Ttjvft, xeu rot
Tsv A&vxov woixwa. <pWWt<rffeo> pn TV xo*
Theocrit. IdylL 3» 3;

IF I t. E 55

t a i

L E T T E R IV.
Dear Sir,
THINK I have already, faid
enough to convince you, that
the feveralj^fore-mentioned me
thods' of "interpretation are not fo fatisfac-
tory as has been generally imagined ; nay
that taking all thefe helps together, the
Old Teftament can never be well under-
ftbod by their means. If then fome far
ther affiftance is neceflary, you will give
me leave to propofe that, which I think
will not fail to be effectual, viz. a more
diligent ftudyof the, original Hebrew, with
a more careful obferyation of the con
nection between the Roots and their deri
vatives ; without which, I conceive, you
muft of neceflity be mifled, whether you
traft to the LXX, or to any other in-
BSIpretagpn whatfoev^. <;.-
'¦' * "4 That

t 37. 1
That this language is built upon roots,
in a manner different from all other lan
guages, is what has been universally ac
knowledged; and the lexicons, Which
are all formed upon this principle, fhew
it : but the great authority given either
to the Septuagint tranjlation^ or to Rab*
bihical interpretations, and. the Oriental
languages , I h^ve fo confounded .us in the
afe, that might otherwhe have been made
of this peculiar ftrudture. of it, that al
though the method of explaining words
by their roots has been conftantly re
tained,: yet? has. it; not been extended fo
far as it ought, much lefs been looked
upon as the. moft authentic method of
interpretation. <
. This then, being manifeftly the ftruc-
ture of the language, we fay, that roots,
with" their derivatives, may be confidered,
either as they have a literal, or an ideal
affinity with each other : by the literal
agreement, we underftand, only the lite
ral connection between the, root and all
words derived from itj by the ideaU a
famenefs of fenfe and meaning, commu-
-"'?" \'-'L nkated,

tticated from the one to the other, afld
of which both partake. ' The literal
agreement is that which conftitutes tha
relation ; the ideal is a» claim confequent
upon it,, whereby we conceive the fenfe
to 'be as connected as the letter j and that
as , every root, literally cpnfideised, is
branched out into its feveral derivatives,
fo the idea, cohseyed hythis root, divided
itfelf in the fame manner ; the original
idea is in the root, and the feveral deri-i
vatives are only fo many applications of
it to different lubjedts. The literal relaJ
tion between the roots and their deri
vatives has indeed been * adwiays attended
to, but the ideal .connection., which is the
moft inftrudtive of the two, has for the
moft part been overlooked^ and if ao
know-
* The RabBies',' who were the nrft compilers of
the Hebrew Grammars and Lexicons, fet ' out upon
this divtuon of words into roots and tiKii derivatives,
but did by no means cla'fs'them as theyrought to have
done. Whether this was dene by ignttranee,'or de<<
fign, I leave others to judge ; #is ij qerfoiri, there it
much rubbifli to be removed, before we can build the
wall-; and thofe that labour at this work, fhould take4
care, as on §be one hand,. not tprnujripjy the number.
of original roots by making too many primitives ; fo
on the other hand, . not to leflen them, by making top
many derivatives: 'Let every branch have its own
root^and every root its own branches.

[ 19 1
kaowleged In "'fome few cafes, where- it
is plain and qbviQus, it lias, been wholly
negledled in -others, or if. attempted,,- but
very imperfectly explained ; though them
is no good reafon to be .given, why this,
metl^od o/ia^preta^onJhsuld hold good
in one cafeva«wi not in-another. -...If -this
P^e<*liiar1ftrHd^uce of the language i$sarbii*
trpfyj, pp.4 for no end, rtb^ere is indeed no
regard to. -be paid to-it* but if ,by defign,.
(whichi, as God is the author of it, pn«
oao^ot ;but believe) therBnd is .as extea-
ffcpe.»s the means, ,and if, we acknowiege
this ideaj, .T^iat^n in ©ne.cafe, we cannot
#j$£©nably deny it in Another ; efpecially.
as by this means the whole language js;
uniform, as built upon one and the fame
principle, $a$. rbscornes -hereby explicative
©£ itfelf. \f our -notron of radical ideas^
is trae,, you ^iU bejpleafedvto obferve, that
t&e Hebrew ^language wall be mone eafy
to team than any other, becaufe there is
leife jvariety ,of words to remember; but
if falfe, it will be found the moft a?qui-
vs0Bal.-0f fall languages,; becaufe the fame
Wi«rd rfo often fignifies feveral different
things, a,rad thefe, in -fosme inftances, .di-.
l£$tyiQppofite and contrary to each, other.

I 4° J
And the advocates for the Septuagint ver
fion would do; well to confider, that the*
authority of this tranflation is'fofar from
being deftroyed hereby, that it is really'
eftablifhed upon, a much better footing-
than it was before1; for although it is de
clared to be utterly incapable oif expref-^
fingfthe original "fenfe of the 'Hebrew
text, yet if it is found fufficierit forr the'dif-
covery of the radical ideas, the neceffty-
cf it is acknowleged, and "its : vetui af-
certained ; nay the manifeft errors, with
which it abounds, and with Which it
has been charged, from an infurmouht-
able difficulty, becomes a very infignifi-'
cant objection.
That this is no new opinion, appears.
from the works of fome learned men of
the laft age, and in particular from GuJ-
fetius*, who, conceiving that the fenfe
of the Hebrew' fcriptures muft be left at
great uncertainties, if there was no bet
ter criterion of the true meaning of
them, than what- was afforded by the
received methods; of interpretation, and,
thinking this highly derogatory to abookV
' -. ; which
* -Gufetius Comment. Ling. Hebr.

Us]
W-hich, has God for its author, main-
tajngdjj that- eaqh Hebrew root had but.
Q®eyjwg.le idea, and that this idea was
communicated to. all the derivatives, and"t
endeavoured to form a lexicon upon this*
plan. ¦ It is true indeed he failed in his
attempt, and. did by no- means give that fa-
tisfadtion which -he . aimed at, fo that it,
was. looked upon as a wild and imaginary,
undertaking. But Mr. Hutchinjon, who" faw the,
reafon why this fcheme did not fucceed,-
and was perfuaded, that true philofophy.
and true divinity muft- go hand in hand,
with each other, fearched the Jcriptures
for what others before him had fought
from their own Experiments, and from
their their own brains, and foon found
that .God has not been wanting in natu
ral, any more than in Jpiritual truths,
nay has made the knowlege of the one,
a .ground- work for inftrudtion in the
other :. fqr as man is limited to fenfe, and
can have no idea of Jpiritual things but
hy the intervention of Jenfible objeSis — as
'f Nihil eft in intelleBu, jquod non fuit
*' prius in Jenju" — God has fuited his
P m-

[ 4* ]/
inftrudtions to bur capacities^ dnd givferi Ud
a language confifting of rfibts afid theif
derivatives, to the erid that every Word
may have a fixed and determinate mean
ing. The primary idea is ifc iM tmt.
Which is" always fignifkant of fbifeethtHg.'
which our ferifds may comprehend ; and-
this being underftobd, if is applied in the1
derivatives, either to other5 material things;
which need explication, or to fpirituals,
Whereby they are brought down to a
level with bur capacities; and the words
niade ufe bf are not bttly more intelli
gible than thbffe of other languages, but
alfo more inftrudtive, in that they give Us
fure and certain ideas (as far as our cori*
ceptiorts reach) of the fpiritual World,
and of all our concerns with it. '
ANri this method bf ifrftrddridff is
the difcbvery, Whereby Mr. Huichinjdn
fe«s b6eh enabled to excell all that Wfeftt
before him; and the light let in by it
, ti^bn the Hebrew fcriptures is a convin^
cing prbbf of the fuffieiency of it : and
whoever Will take the pains to fearch
the Hebrew fcriptures fbr himfelf^which
fre rnufi do before he can be a compe tent

[43 3
tent judge of this matter) will have evi
dence fufficient in every page to affure
him, that God's language is different
fjpoiri all other languages, and that it
teaches us not fo much by word, as by>
Piffure-y he wjll fipd that God has not
only declared his love towards mari irgXv-
t/Ltpm x,a.i i?o7\&trpo<mw$i hyt has made hi&
language, as it werg, a pourtraiture of

. But neverthelefs I find great excep
tions have been made to this method: of
interpretation; and fir ft, it has been re-
prefented as an infult upon all authority
and antiquity, which, in matters of reli*-
gion, are of a very facred nature. New
difcoveries may indeed take place in the
natural world, but not fo in the Jpiri
tual; there can be no concerning truth
in chriftianity, wnieh is not ancient j
whatsoever is truly new, is certainly falfe j
and. if the holy fcriptures/ which are the
foundation we ftand upon, are to be in
terpreted in a different ma'nrier from what
thty have hitherto beeq, it may have bad
f§queace$;
G 2 I

[44 ]
I will beg leave to anfwer this objec
tion in the words of Bifhop 'Jewell^--
" C'erte in religionem Dei nihil gravius
*' dici poteft, quam fi ea accufetur novi-
cc tails ; ut enim in Deo ipfo, ita in ejus
-** cultu, nihil oportet efle novum. Ve-
" rum quid fi ea, quae ifti nova' viderr
" volunt, inveniantur efle antiqutfflma?
" Rurfus, quid fi ea fere omnia, quae ipfi
cc antiquitatis nomine tantopere praedi-
cC cant^ ubi ea probe et diligenter excufla
il fuerint, ad extremum inveniantur recen-
" tia et nova ? " The Hebrew fcriptures
are much ancienter than the primitive chri-
ftians, or the Septuagint tranflatibn, but
not ancienter than the roots and their
derivatives, which are eflential to the lan-
giiagie, artd cbnftitute the difference be
tween it, and all other tongues of- hu
man invention, and therefbreare the much
ancienter rule of interpretation ; and if
the neglect,' of this is thought too great
an omiffion for the primitive church to
be guilty of, let it be confidered, what
the Spirit Jaith unto the churches, Rev.
cap. ii. and iii. Far be it from me by
any means to leffen the weight and autho rity

rity due to their writings and fandiity ;
but they were not without their faults, and
thofe very grofs ones too, as appears by this
account given of them by St. "John.
Another objection to this method of
interpretation are the great difficulties at
tending it ; for all words muft be reduced
to their proper roots, and When this is
done, a fixed and determinate idea given
to each, which is a work of great labour
and pains. We readily acknowl'ege thefe
difficulties, and that they are very great
ones i but the queftion will be, whether
thefe difficulties are to be overcome, of
not? If they are fo, even but in part, it
is our duty to attempt it ; and we have
feen fo many of them furrribunted already,
as "gives "*us great- reafon to hope others
maybe fb'too : but if all this is loft labour,
and 'the recovery of the radical ideas
is nothing more than an imaginary fcheme,
as fome think, I fear the Hebrew muft
remain (as it has been;-' by .fome repre-
fented) an equivocal, ufelefs, and loft lan
guage; we having nothing to truft to but
tranflation s, whofe word is to be taken on
all occafions, for want of better informa tion.

i 4° ]
tion. If by this, method $e difficulties
were increafedj, there might be fome caufe
of comprint; but as it manifefthy tends
to lefTep themi the Jluggard indeed may
compofe himfelf to fleep, and fay, there
ie a lion in $hp it}ay,r but who, tha? i? not
fb? will believe hjm ?
A thjrb pbjedtiqn to this method is
the uncertainty of it ; we may miftake the.
tj"ue root, and if this is eertainly known.
We may mifapprehend the true idea,t
a^d by what criterion are we to know>
whether we are right or wropg ? It is, a
pleafing fqheme, in which there is great
room, for imagination, but litfle fhew of
certainty, at ieaft, fuch as is, requifite in
fo important a point ; that we, have already
difagreed in ourconflirudrippSj an4 muft
continue fo to dp-r^" Verurn \$1 id vitq»
" pqrant fadfcurn? atque. in fR difputant ? "
C4P pur adverfaries fhew US any other
method of copftrudtion, thajt does pot la~
bpur un4er greater uncertainties, apd in
which tb,ere is pqt more nptpriou? 4ik
agreement ? Qur fcheme is as. yet jn jf§
infancy, and pot perfected, and therefore
may deferve fonae, allowances ; but tb,eyf
who

who urge1 authority atid antiquity, have
not this1 to fay in excufe. As We reft
upon the Septuagint, \Yf! have the fame
criterion of right or wrong conftrudtions,
as others Have ; and if wCt Irfipfcve ujibn
if1, by cbrtfid^fiflg the cohiirdtioh between
the roots and' their derivatlvei,' . w^'do not'
tely Upon this method Jolely, if riot ihp-
potfed fey fbripfUfe reafbningsystnd1 ferip-.
tute texts'.' We have a rule" to go by id;
eVeTyidea We'jlx, which 'is fiM its agrjee- -
merit with trie natural world, arid if ap
plied to fp'irjiudls, With t fie analogy of
y#&S ; which cif cumftances being duly
dbfefved, thire is ho great fear or any;
Very material error. . ['¦, :i,
"We have conftriied enough already, to
fhew that the Shemim (the Heavens) are'
the great agents' in nature ; that they are,
the material reprefentatives of the t fpi-
fitudl trinity in Unity. _ We hayei ex
plained fome of the principal dodtrines o£
chriftianity, in the words jRubbim, Cheru
bim, FJlohim, Berith ; Wt have fhewn.jn
what confined all the idolatrous wor,(hip
of the ancient heathens, and by fo doing,
the defign of many parts of fcripture^
^ Before

U8J
before not fo well underftood; and. thefe. -
are leading truths, and fiich as will fenfe-,
to diredi us in our farther fearches. .- .
Ie, there are any farther . objections to
be made, I fhall be obliged to you if you
will acquaint me with them. To con- ,
vipcenieofan error, is thegreateft kin4-,
nefs you can do me ; I would efcape from
it with joy, as a bird^frpm the hand of ike',
fowler; butto difprove, is one thing,, and,
to diflike, is another ; and this I the rather
mention, becaufe you tell me that moft of
your acquaintance reprefent Mr. Hutchin-
Jon, as " hominem fine arte, fine Uteris*. '
Cl ihfultantem in omnes, fine acumine^ ullo,
" fine authoritate, fine lepore ; " nay that
his followers are branded with the op
probrious names of cabbalifis, myfticks,
typijls, enthufiafis, and what not ? fo that
I could not fo much as attempt an anfwer,
did not you happily by your < quotation
from * Cicero\ fupply me with one, which
is tb be found in the fame author, and in
the very-fame page. " Salem iftum (quq
" carere debet yeftra acadenfia) in irriden-
" ^VK^wnolitoteconfumere; atque fime

" au-

* Cicero 4e Natural Deor. p. 166. §. 29, Edit. Davis.

C 49 ]^
*c audiatis, ne experiamini qnidern — non
*' decet'; non datum ejl; non potefiis."
~Ycu will now give me leave to lay be-
-fore you a few considerations, which feem
to fpeak very much in our favour.
And fir ft, if what Mr. Hutchinjon ad
vances be true, it fhews the fitnefs of this
language for the ufe it is put to ; for if
the Hebrew is fo - contrived, as to confift
wholly of roots and their derivatives,"
which derivatives retain the idea of the*
root, it is of all other languages the moft
fit and proper to record matters of great'
moment and concern, becaufe the true
ienfe of a word is better fecured than is
poffible to be in any other language. De
rivatives may indeed have feveral fe-
condary meanings; but as they all par
take of the primary idea, they cannot be
wrefted, as the words of other languages
may, nor are they fb fubjedt to fophiftry*
and cavil — The words oj the Lord are
pure:words, as filver tried in a Jurnace of
earth, purified Jeven times. Pfal. xii. 6.
H Se-

[ 5? ]]
; ' '¦' ,.;:!;;*• ,i • ¦ <¦ ' \M\\ ,-;; >
Secondly, the ftrudWe of the He- »
brew language, in the light Mr. Hutchin-
fm puts' it, is an internal evidence^ J^at
the Hebrew fcriptures are of God's own
inditing, who only knoWl the refemblM cej
between the natural world and the Jpi-
riiitdf an d wfto "f»flly is abje to give the
information thifr language; affords,; C00( ».
V '! -'•¦;-. -1." o -f j q., T
. Thirdly, this; method of conftruc-*;
ticra: explains to us, h&wthe Hebrew fcrip-.
tores are preferved intelligible tons by the
Septnagiht tranflation; which, \ though
feemingly infufficient,. yet? fully anfwers
the end.1 If the* Hebrew, was like other.
languages, it muft have been preferred
intelligible as they are, by fome cot-tem
porary writings, or authorised tranflations >
but as it is explicative- of itfelf,, it needs,
only fuch a tranflation, as isfufficient to
recover the radical ideas; which the Sep-.
tuagirit effedtUally does*.- -,-?,-;
'¦"'<¦' • r '¦ • -
Lastly, to ufe the words-of Mr. Hut-
chinfowhrct&eVf, "It is vaftly.for the au-
cc thority and certainty of the Hebrew
'^riptures, that t|i|y are to be con-
" ftrued

" Arued J?y themselves, and jdiaf there,
" were! no human .writings in mat 'tongue 5
'fprefeVveai nor .writings in /any dfhpr
•^language, of that antiquity T for if there
"^ad been fucn, a^ there muft have hefen
"errdrs in thrdm, efbecikllV a&Out metis*
te notions' ift'pffifo'fbphy, div'mity, &c, ei-
" ther they would'have^wrotfelrelaftons Of*
.? .' fome fadts which were not true, or they
" would have ufed fome letters in words,
" or fome words or names, improperly j
" any of wru$h v^oulcVhave given an occa-
" fion to the adverfary to have difputed
" the fadts, or fignifications of the words
**. or fadts, writ by the infpired authors,
"which by fpecial providence is prer
"vented, If there had been any writ-
" ings which had the leaft appearance of
" being of tljaj language or $ge, thofe who
". know not a diamond from? a pebble,
"much lefs. the difference; of tjheir value,
" would have been continually fetting up
* ' their authority ftgaksft that of the Hebrew
" fcriptures. This admits of no difpute ;
" becaufe, when it is certain there are
" none fuch, they are continually ftriving
" to make a parcel of fcraps, of vaftly later
" date (by their owrj confeffion, tranflated
2 " out

it

f out of the langhages they were writ irr,
ct an4, as is evident, about things they
*' know nothing of ) hiftories of men and
"'times, and labour night and day with, .
*? them to invalidate the authority of the.
tf Hebrew."- New Account of the confufion
of Tongues pag. 39, 40.

"fi INT IS.

! '; I