language, that it is not possible either for one word, or for one letter to be put for another, without being detected by a critic in the language. On this ground I feel no hesitation in declaring, in answer to the fifth question, that I am "prepared to state and to prove that the present true printed text is taken from MSS. that were the exact copies of the autographs of Moses and the prophets;" consequently where the MSS. and versions differ from it, they must be erroneous. "If he is not," continues this writer, "Dr. K. and De Rossi have done the Christian world essential service for such noble and disinterested views as these, are they to be called innovators?" but this gentleman perhaps is not aware that the word disinterested does not well apply to Dr. K., for his whimsies cost the government upwards of £20,000. and not a single article did he bring forward to refute the idle and unfounded objections of the Deist. But they certainly have been useful in building, instead of destroying the temples of Deism, by his attempt to create suspicions respecting the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text.

This writer is at a loss to know what I mean by the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text: he says, "I should feel myself indebted to Mr. B. if he would explain what he means by the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text. Does he understand that the printed text is free from all mistakes? if he does, let a few instances suffice to answer him-1st. The printed text is at variance with Mr. Bellamy. Mr. B. has rightly informed us that the meaning of the word is, he said. No. IV. p. 851. If he will turn to Gen. 4. 8. he will find, an 8 ip" and Cain said to Abel his brother; but what did he say? The Hebrew is silent. The Samaritan and Septuagint add, w, let us go into the field. With this addition, the words following possess consistency, and it came to pass when they were in the field.”—So shall find, when we have the true translation, that the whole passage possesses consistency, without any mendings from the Samaritan, or the Septuagint. Here is a bold addition with a witness, and it is a proof that neither the Samaritan translator, nor the Septuagint, understood the various applications of the verb amar, agreeably to its construction which always fixes its ideal meaning. Its true meaning in this verse is to speak, to converse, and the same construction with this rendering is niet with in 66 places of scripture in the present authorised translation. The passage I say possesses consistency," without copying the comment of the Sama ritan, translator, or the Septuagint: thus, And Cain spake, (or talked) with Abel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field." I ask this writer where is" the printed text at variance with what I have stated?"

we

We are next told, that "the printed text is at variance with quotations in the New Testament from ancient prophecy. An instance

,אזנים כרית לי

of this" (says this writer)" occurs in Ps. 40. 7. MID DUJIN, translated, my ears hast thou opened, compared with Hebrews 10. 5. σwμa de xaτηρriowμol, and surely if common sense, the connexion, the structure of the sentence, and the evidence of the LXX, and the New Testament are to be regarded, this one instance is a strong proof of the faultiness, if not of the corruption, of the present text, unless Mr. B. will assert that all these should be sacrificed when they oppose his beloved hypothesis of the purity of the Hebrew text."-I am of opinion that all evidences should be sacrificed, when applied to oppose the purity of the Hebrew text. For grant but to the Deist that the Hebrew text is corrupt, and it is all he asks. And on the other hand, with respect to those who may nevertheless be excellent scholars as to general learning, (but who on account of their inexperience in the elements of the Hebrew, should not attempt Hebrew criticism) allow them but the privilege of additions, and corrections from the LXX, and the Samaritan translations, with such mendings as are proposed by Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, this writer, and the whole family of those, who have a perpetual desire to mend the scriptures by changing one word for another, one letter for another, who alter without any proof from scripture where the same words occur which can have no other meaning; and the whole genuineness and authority of the sacred scriptures would be swept away at once. Had these gentlemen but attended to the idiom and phraseology of the Hebrew, 66 common sense, the connection, the structure of the sentence, and the evidence of the LXX, and the New Testament," would have convinced them that the above objection which is taken from Dr. Kennicott, and which has often appeared in the support of Deism, is no "proof of the faultiness, or of the corruption of the present text."

What but profound ignorance of the true meaning and application of the word could induce the translators to render karitha, opened? It means to prepare, or make, and it is first applied to the preparing of the sacrifice, or making the covenant.

In the same day בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כָּרַת יְהוָה אֶת אָבְרָם .18 .15 .Gen

the Lord made a covenant with Abraham. And as to the word DIN azuaim, rendered mine ears, they certainly had no authority to transpose the pronoun, and to reject the preposition lamed: were this admitted, the scriptures might be made to say any thing. Now whether we say with the Hebrew, ears hast thou prepared for me, which is certainly more strikingly significant than the LXX, who have changed it for oua, body; it amounts to the same, as it must necessarily mean that there must be a body where ears are found, which are a part of the body. The word DN aznaim, plainly means the obedience both of the body and the soul, whereas the word oua can only be applied to the body. This

arises from the peculiarly energetic, and idiomatic phraseology of the Hebrew, which could not be preserved in the Greek, which Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and this writer ought to have known, and would have known, had they been as competent in the Hebrew, as they were in Greek. From which it is certain that this apparent discrepancy does not arise from "a corruption foisted into the text," as is supposed by these writers, but for the reasons above. It would be absurd to render λóyos qμou, the book

of me—the word of me, as it would be to render the above passage agreeably to the syntax and idiom of the English. I say it must evidently mean that as God had prepared ears, he must have pared a body, as was meant by the Hebrews, and as it was also understood by the LXX.

pre

This writer next observes that, "the printed text is in opposition to MSS. in the hands of both Jews and Christians in the time of Origen." He quotes Isaiah 53. 8. "where our present copies ready for the transgression of my people was he stricken." Dr. Kennicott is again cited to prove that in the time of Origen laamo, was written to death, and Bishop Lowth might have been cited also, for he has fallen into the same error. This writer gives a long paragraph concerning a conversation of Origen with a Jew, and that he confounded them with the reading of this word, by urging upon them the reading to death; and therefore he argues that the Hebrew text is not now the same as it was at that time. He concludes by saying, “if such was the reading at that time, alas for the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text.' This author writes here very guardedly, he does well to say, if such was the reading at that time;' it was his business to prove, if it were to be proved, that it was the reading at that time, and not to conclude by buts, ifs, conjectures, and suppositions. What does all this amount to? here is not a single passage produced from the scripture by any of these writers to prove that laamo, was ever written to death, no proof but the monkish tale of Origen and the Jew. Now admitting that Origen had such a conversation with a Jew, he must have been a very ignorant Jew indeed, not to know that such a thing as i laamo to be written instead of laamuth, was impossible. Does not this writer know, for Dr. K. ought to have recollected, that there were ignorant Jews at the time of Origen as well as at this day?

למוֹ

T

It was reasonable to expect that this writer should have given us some proof from scripture that this word was so rendered; I will refer him to a passage or two, which, if what he states were true, ought then to make good sense when so rendered. Deut. 33. 2. The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir

UNTO THEM, but were Dr. K.'s, Dr. Lowth's, and this writer' statement true, that laamo, was originally ? laamuth, it must then be thus translated, and rose up from Seir UNTO DEATH. Again, the last clause of the same verse, from his right hand went a fiery law ? FOR THEM, but which with the above mending, thus, from his right hand went a fiery law FOR DEATH,

From these proofs, this writer may see that the word in laamo. could never have been written unto death. Neither does it follow, because the above is the true translation of the word, that it makes for the cause of Judaism, as has been supposed, by being applied to the Jews as dispersed among the gentiles, viz. for the transgression of my people was he (the Jewish nation) stricken,' because these words are with far greater effect applied to Christians as the people of God: for the third person singular applies to a single person who is stricken for the people, viz. for the transgression of my people was HE (the redeemer) stricken FOR THEM. Thus it will appear to the learned and the impartial Christian, that the word laamo, is precisely the same as it was written by the prophet, and that Dr. Kennicott, Lowth, De Rossi, and all who contend on this ground that there must be errors in the Hebrew, have greatly erred, in speaking against the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text.

Again, this writer declares, that "the printed Hebrew text is opposed to itself, in 2 Sam. 22. 11. you read by x and he WAS SEEN upon the wings of the wind, while in the 18th Psalm it is NT, and he did fly." We cannot doubt that this Psalm was written by Samuel; and it certainly shows that Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and Dr. Gerrard, mentioned by this writer, as well as himself, were altogether ignorant of the circumstance which was the occasion of the alteration, and on this account have supposed that the transcribers have corrupted the original, the sense of which they think is preserved in the ancient translations. The limit of this article will not permit me to enter on the full explanation of this discrepancy, and as I intend to give it in a future number of the Journal, to it I shall refer the reader. I must however ask such writers as these a question or two concerning this matter.

What do such gentlemen think concerning the precepts of the decalogue in Exodus, which differ in many instances from the same precepts in Deuteronomy? will they say that for this reason the original text has been corrupted? are not these precepts delivered by Moses in Deuteronomy, precisely the same in sense as they are in Exodus? These writers, who from time to time have presumed to speak and write against the absolute integrity of the Hebrew

I See Bellamy's History of All Religions, art. Jews,

text, must give better reasons before the learned can sanction their dangerous mendings. Had they been able to have informed us why these changes were made by the sacred writer, why saadeehu, was written by Moses in Deuteronomy, and omitted in Exodus; p Shaaker in Exodus, and instead of that word N Shaaea in Deuteronomy; lo-thuchmod in Exodus, and Velo thithaouh, in Deuteronomy; in Exodus and in Deuteronomy; i zaakor in Exodus, and

others : had they acquainted themselves with the reasons which induced the sacred penman to make these alterations, they would not have found any cause for disputing the "strict integrity of the received text," in the 18th Psalm, and the 22d chapter of the 2nd of Samuel; which we are told," first excited doubts in Dr. K.'s mind of the purity and strict integrity of the received

text."

The last objection this writer makes is concerning David's mighty men. This is also one of Dr. Kennicott's objections. It has also been brought forward by many Deists, to prove the disordered state of the Bible, as they term it, and this gentleman, or any person not knowing a single letter of Hebrew, might have copied a hundred more. It certainly is a very easy mode of obtaining information, if people who find fault with others are permitted to conceal themselves under the mask of initials; they are at perfect liberty to approve or condemn with orthodox authority; no matter if they be wrong, shame burns not their cheek; "nobody knows them." I have known those who, under this cover, have copied the labors of others, and have talked as learned Hebraists, who have not known a letter of the alphabet; and others who have pretended to pronounce on the merit of a translation, yet have not understood the grammar of the language. I hope the proprietors of the Journal will not, in future, suffer any anonymous epistle to appear in answer to those writers who fairly give their names. If this were to be allowed, such writers will not have any thing of mine to complain of.

These writers who stumble at the apparent discrepancy of these passages in Samuel and in Chronicles, and who have for that reason doubted the purity of the present Hebrew text, have not acquainted themselves with the concomitant circumstances, which had taken place at these different periods of the history; or they would have known that these actions which are recorded of this general in Samuel and in Chronicles, where in one book it is said, 800 fell at one time, and in the other book (where these objectors have anderstood the writer to speak of the same circumstance) that 300