my sentiments should be appreciated. I am now quite willing to be called a bigot. If nobody else can understand me, I can understand myself. That is always some comfort, at any rate. I know what are my own principles; which, in these days, is what few people can say of themselves. I know what I mean. I know Whom I have believed. I wish to live and die

A BIGOT.

HORE HEBRAICE.

TEST OF PROFICIENCY IN HEBREW.-When the student of Oriental literature comes, with his twenty cognate languages or dialects, this has a very imposing effect upon the youthful learner of the Hebrew Bible, and is apt to make him dissatisfied with his own less diffusive course. A hint may be given, as to the best way of trying the reality of such extensive acquirements. Bring your learned Orientalist to your own Book. Bring him to the Hebrew Bible. Probably he will struggle manfully; and, if possible, hold back. But bring him to it, if you can. Try him by that Book.-He has taken a large range; and his professed plan, no doubt, is to know the Bible far better than you, who study only the language in which it is written.-Perhaps, when you bring him to the test, he is not able to construe, or even to read, a single verse.

FORCE OF HEBREW PHRASES.-Many expressions, having a high meaning, as they stand in the Hebrew Bible, have subsequently been reduced to a lower. This is an artifice of Satan, who makes use of the lower meaning, to supersede the higher. This is very observable, with regard to things or persons, that are said, in the Old Testament, to be "of God." Such expressions it has been usual to explain away, by pretending, that they merely intimate a very great thing, or a very great person: for instance, that a prince of God, merely means, any very great prince; the mountain of God, any very high mountain; the voice of God, any very loud voice: so that the expression is only a kind of periphrasis, for the superlative degree. But surely God, speaking to us in his word, means what he says: and surely when the prince, the mountain, or the voice, is mentioned, in the Bible, in connexion with God, the meaning is, that we are to connect the ideas; and to have a notion, not merely of greatness and dignity in these objects, but of greatness and dignity, arising from this connexion. is really the case, admits, in some instances, of being very Now that this

clearly shewn and, from these instances, we may judge of others. Let us take, for example, the case of Abraham. The children of Heth call him (Gen. xxiii. 6,) MÓN N; i. e. "a prince of God," as it stands in the margin of our authorised version; or, as it stands in the text, "a mighty prince." Now Abraham was a man so eminently blessed of God, that there is every reason to believe that the people of the land not merely regarded him as a mighty prince, but as a prince whom God had made mighty; and therefore used the expression, in this latter and higher meaning. However, we are not left, in this case, entirely to conjecture: for we find Abimelech not merely using the expression of Abraham, but stating the fact. "GOD IS WITH THEE, in all that thou doest." (xxi. 22.) Again, with regard to mountains. It is said of Moses, that he." came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb" (Ex. iii. 1). So also of Elijah (1 Kings xix. 8). That is, as some would say, to Horeb, a very high mountain. But no. That is far from being all that the words imply. Moses comes to the mountain of God; and God is there manifested to him in a burning bush. Elijah comes to the mount of God, “and behold, the LORD passed by" (1 Kings xix. 11). So that there is an especial reason for calling Horeb the mount of God, God's presence being, there, especially manifested. And accordingly it is said of the Israelites (Ex. iii. 12), "When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall SERVE GOD upon this mountain."

And, thirdly, as to the voice of God. Pharaoh says to Moses and Aaron, (Ex. ix. 28), " Entreat the LORD (for it is enough), that there be no more mighty thunderings;" in the margin, voices of God, Db nbp. Here the idea intended, surely, is not merely that of common thunderings, but of voices coming from God himself; and expressly uttered by him, for the purpose of adding to the terror of the Egyptians. Thus, just before, the hail, which the thunder accompanied, is said to have come from him. "The LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt" (ver. 23). Indeed, the same thing is expressly said, in this verse, of the thunder also. "The LORD sent thunder and hail." bpm"; properly," and the LORD gave" (or gave forth)" voices." We say, It rains, It hails, It blows, speaking impersonally, as if there were no Cause of these things, and they came of themselves. But the Bible says, "the LORD sent hail;"" the LORD brought a wind" (Ex. x. 13); "the LORD our God that giveth rain" (Jer. v. 24). So also, with respect to the point now more particularly before us. We say, It thunders. But the Psalmist says, "The LORD thundered."

Again: "The trees of the LORD" (Ps. civ. 16). That is, as some would say, very great, or very fine trees. But not merely that: "the cedars of Lebanon," as the verse proceeds,

He hath planted.

66 which

Now there may be other passages in the Old Testament, where things or persons are said to be "of God;" but where we may not be able, as we are in the above instances, to confirm the meaning of the passages, by any express statements, asserting the interposition of God in other terms. But what are we to do in such cases? No reasoning will be able, from these, to set aside the peculiar meaning, which we have so plainly shewn to exist, in the passages already given. Therefore it seems to be the safer course, to reason, from analogy, to them: and to say that, in them also, the Bible means what it says; and that the design, in all such expressions, is not merely to indicate magnitude or importance, but to impute that magnitude or importance to God, as its real Source. It seems but reasonable to suppose, that wherever God is spoken of, in his own Book, there no other than God is meant.

Hence we may learn a lesson respecting Hebrew Grammars. It is usual to say, that it matters not what, in particular, are the religious opinions of a Hebrew grammarian. He may be an infidel, but that has nothing to do with grammar. His grammar may afford us very great assistance, in learning the language; and so far, at least, he may safely be trusted. This notion, however, is to be received with the greatest caution and suspicion. The opinion, for instance, which has been combated and exposed above, has been made a principle of Hebrew grammar. If we take all for granted, which we meet with in some works of this kind, it may give a bad complexion to our whole religious system: if all that we meet with in one or two, it may subvert our faith. Luther has said, with some truth," that theology is nothing more than grammar employed upon the words of the Holy Ghost." But then it must be grammar sanctified by the Holy Ghost; grammar, purified of its devices, fictions, and technicalities; grammar, adapting itself to the mind of the Spirit contained in God's word, not striving to adapt that mind to itself. A man who enters on the study of Hebrew, without being on his guard as to grammars, may be opening, to unbelief and error, an entrance into his heart, by that very measure of learning the sacred tongue, through which, as he flatters himself, he is advancing one step nearer to the source of truth.

SUPPOSED POVERTY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.-It is a common notion that the Hebrew language was a very poor

one, or contained but very few words.

But it would be diffi

cult, perhaps, to produce any proof of this; and there are many reasons for a contrary opinion. Persons have conceived that the Hebrew language was poor, because we have but few books remaining in it; and because, in these books, we cannot find words for every thing. But what does that prove? Suppose there were no Greek books extant, but the Septuagint and New Testament: would this prove that the Greek language was not a copious one?

In fact, with respect to Hebrew, there are many reasons for thinking that it was copious. The Arabic, which is a dialect of the Hebrew, is one of the most copious languages in the world. It hardly seems likely, then, as a young friend of ours * observes, that the parent stock should have been one of the most scanty. Respecting the Five Books of Moses, it has been well remarked, that we have here both narrative and song; and that a distinct set of words is used in each: so that when a person has learned to read the whole of the Hebrew Pentateuch besides, he will find, on coming to the sacred songs, that he has almost a new language to learn. This certainly does not look like poverty.

But let us come to particular words. Take, for instance, y, a city. The plural of this is y, which, regularly, would come from another singular, . Here, then, we see reason to infer, that there must have originally been two words for a city,

W.

and ; which we should hardly look for in a scanty language. And it is remarkable, that we have the other singular, to all appearance, still extant, in some names of places: for instance,, (Numbers xxi. 28; in which verse, and the preceding, we have two other words for a city, y, and and to these we may add , Job xxix. 7.)

Instances might be given, of several words, with the same, or nearly the same, meaning, springing from the same root; for example: from 7 and from . But here, perhaps, the variety will be imputed to different modes of writing, or pointing, in subsequent ages. Merely observing, therefore, that we must not be understood to assent to this plea, we now proceed to offer some instances of words, more or less agreeing in meaning, but totally different in form or origin.

It is usual to talk of the many Arabic words for a lion. For the same animal, Buxtorf gives several Hebrew words, which

,אריה or ארי .2 ; a young lion כפיר .1 : he thus distinguishes

* C. Bradford Brereton, Esq., of whom more hereafter.

שחץ

a lion of a more advanced growth; 3.5, and 4. m, a lion, or fierce lion of middle age; 5. 5, a lion yet having his cheek teeth (Joel i. 6); and 6. , an old lion: besides, the whelp, which does not stand in the list, because the term will also apply to the young of other animals. Now it is very possible that the learned Buxtorf, or rather the learned Talmudists whom Buxtorf follows, may have found it necessary to coax the lions, and pat them a little, to get them to stand exactly in this order. But still these are all scriptural words: and if we find six or seven names of a lion in one Volume, there is no telling how many more may have existed in the whole language.

Öthers have dwelt upon the number of Hebrew words for rain. But we may take an example from the very beginning of the Bible, of the various terms, used to express the work of creating and fashioning the objects of the material world. Without looking very sharp, we discover four: (i. 1, 21, 27; ii. 3); Muy (i. 7; ii. 3); (ii. 7, 19); (ii. 22). We do not consider our own language a very scanty one; and, to express the different ideas of creating, or forming out of nothing, of producing, of fashioning, of putting together, &c. we have no want of terms. But in the present instance, where the Hebrew text employs four words, it so happens that the English has but three, namely, created, made, and formed. Here then, at any rate, the Hebrew shews no signs of poverty.

Now, if this assertion, that the Hebrew language was so limited, be false, then all the inferences, which have been deduced from it, come to nothing.

That the Hebrew language was not a copious one, has been assumed by some, almost as a fundamental principle of Biblical criticism. What shall we say of this principle? What can we say but this; that we have good reasons for thinking it groundless? Yet what inferences have been drawn from it! To mention only one little lie in particular, to which the devil has thus contrived to give currency;-it is no other than this: that in communicating to us the truth of God, in the Old Testament, the Holy Ghost had small choice of words: and therefore, not having, in many instances, those words which would have been fittest, could take only such as a scanty language supplied. Thus an opening is made, for an attack upon the principles of religion; for it has been assumed, as a kind of natural consequence, that the Bible does not always express truths and doctrines with precision, but only, so to speak, as accurately as circumstances would permit, and sometimes, perhaps,very loosely. -Now the true view of Scriptural inspiration we conceive to