import of the sacred text conclude in an alternative, which, whilst it conceals his own sentiments, bewilders his readers. The purport is, "If ye will be rational, ye must soon cease to be Christians; and if ye will be Christians, ye must (wherever religion is concerned) cease to be rational." This alternative of faith or reason, though not expressed in so many words, is but too plainly implied in those he uses. If for Christian he had substituted Roman Catholic, or even any one denomination of Christians, the sentiment would not have been so generally controverted. As it is, he offers no other choice, but to believe every thing, how absurd soever, on an authority into the foundation of which we are not permitted to inquire, or to believe nothing at all. The Critical History has accordingly been observed to produce two contrary effects on readers of opposite characters. Of the weak and timid it often makes implicit believers; of the intelligent and daring it makes free-thinkers. To which side the author himself leaned most, it would perhaps be presumptuous to say. But as his personal character and known abilities were much more congenial to those of the latter class than to those of the former, it was no wonder that he fell under suspicion with some shrewd but zealous Catholics, who looked on his zeal for tradition as no better than a disguise. But this only by the way. I mean not to consider here what was his real and ultimate scope in the treatise above-mentioned; it is enough for my purpose to examine his professed intention, which is, to support tradition, by representing Scripture as, in consequence of its obscurity, insufficient evidence of any doctrine.

That Simon's assertions above quoted are without bounds hyperbolical, can scarcely be doubted by any person who reflects. Of the prophetical writings I am not now to speak, though, even with regard to them, it were easy to show that such things could not be affirmed in an entire consistency with truth. As to the historical books, I hope to prove, notwithstanding all that has been evinced on one side, and admitted on the other, that they are in general remarkable for perspicuity. It is true that our knowledge of the tongue, for the reasons above-mentioned, is defective; but it is also true, that this defect is seldom so great as materially to darken the history, especially the more early part of it.

3. The first quality for which the sacred history is remarkable is simplicity. The Hebrew is a simple language. Their verbs have not, like Greek and Latin, a variety of moods and tenses, nor do they, like the modern languages, abound in auxiliaries and conjunctions. The consequence is, that in narrative they express by several simple sentences, much in the way of the relations usual in conversation, what in most other languages would be comprehended in one complex sentence of three or four members. Though the latter method has many advantages, in

respect of elegance, harmony, and variety, and is essential to what is strictly called style, the former is incomparably more perspicuous. Accordingly we may often observe, that unlettered people who are very attentive to a familiar story told in their own homely manner, and perfectly understand it, quickly lose attention to almost any written history, even the most interesting, the history contained in the Scriptures alone excepted. Nor is the sole reason of this exception, because they are more accustomed to that history than to any other, though no doubt this circumstance contributes to the effect; but it is chiefly because the simplicity of the diction brings it to the level of ordinary talk, and consequently does not put the minds of people who are no readers so much to the stretch, as what is written, even in the least laboured style of composition, in any modern tongue, does in regard to those acquainted with the tongue.

4. Take for an example of the simplicity here meant the first paragraph of Genesis, consisting of five not long verses, and containing not fewer than eleven sentences. The common punctuation does not indeed make them so many. When sentences are very short, we usually separate them by semicolons, sometimes by commas; but that is a complete sentence, in whatever way pointed, which conveys a meaning fully enunciated, and intelligile independently of what precedes or what follows, when what precedes and what follows is also intelligible independently of it. 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And the earth was without form and void. 3. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. 4. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 5. And God said, Let there be light. 6 And there was light. 7. And God saw the light, that it was good. 8. And God divided the light from the darkness. 9. And God called the light day. 10. And the darkness he called night. 11. And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is a just representation of the strain of the original. A more perfect example of simplicity of structure we can nowhere find. The sentences are simple, the substantives are not attended by adjectives, nor the verbs by adverbs; no synonymas, no superlatives, no effort at expressing things in a bold, emphatical, or uncommon

extitit ex vespere et mane dies primus." Compare with this the version of the same passage in the Vulgate, which is literal like the English. "In principio creavit Deus cœlum et terram. Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi: Et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. Dixitque Deus, Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona. Et divisit lucem a tenebris. Appellavitque lucem diem, et tenebras noctem. Factumque est vespere et mane dies unus." The difference between these, in point of perspicuity, is to an ordinary hearer extremely great. So much depends on the simplicity of structure, necessarily arising in some degree from the form of the language. Nothing is more characteristic of the simple manner, than the introduction of what was spoken directly in the words of the speaker; whereas, in the periodic style, we are informed obliquely of its purport. Thus what is in the Vulgate, "Dixit Deus, Fiat lux," is in Castalio, "Jussit Deus ut existeret lux."

5. But beside this, there is a simplicity of sentiment, particularly in the Pentateuch, arising from the very nature of the early and uncultivated state of society about which that book is conversant. This renders the narrative in general extremely clear and engaging. Simple manners are more easily described than manners highly polished and refined. Being also adapted to the ordinary ranks of people, and to all capacities, they much more generally excite the attention and interest the heart. It has been remarked, not unjustly, that though no two authors wrote in languages more widely different, both in genius and in form, than Moses and Homer, or treated of people who in their religious opinions and ceremonies were more opposite than were the Hebrews and the Greeks, we shall hardly find any who resemble one another more than these writers in an affecting and perspicuous simplicity, which suits almost every taste, and is level to every understanding. Let it be observed, that in this comparison I have no allusion to imagery, or to any quality of diction except that above mentioned. Now nothing ontributes more to this resemblance than this circumstan

simplicity, they also resemble in a certain native perspicuity invariably resulting therefrom.

6. Homer is thought by many the most perspicuous writer in Greek, yet in respect of idiom and dialect he is so peculiar, that one is less assisted to understand him by the other compositions in the language, than to understand any other Greek writer in prose or verse. One would almost think that the only usage in the tongue which can enable us to read him, is his own. Were we therefore to judge from general topics which might plausibly be descanted upon, we should conclude that the Iliad and the Odyssey are among the darkest books in the language, yet they are in fact the clearest. In matters of criticism it is likewise unsafe to form general conclusions from a few examples, which may be pompously displayed, and, when brought into view together, made appear considerable, but are as nothing in number, compared with those with which it is possible to contrast them.

7. Indeed, most of Simon's instances, in support of his doctrine of the impenetrable darkness of Scripture, appear to me rather as evidences of the strait he was in to find apposite examples, than as tolerable proofs of his opinion. For my part I frankly own, that from the conviction I had of the profound erudition and great abilities of the man, I was much more inclined to his opinion before than after the perusal of his proofs. At first I could not avoid suspecting, that a man of his character must have had something extraordinary, to which I had not attended, to advance in support of so extraordinary a position. I was at the same time certain, that, as it was a point he had much at heart to enforce, the proofs he would bring from examples in support of it would be the strongest he could find.

Let us then consider some of the principal of these examples. What pains has he not taken to show that a bara, does not necessarily imply, to make out of nothing? But if it do not, can any man consider this as an evidence of either the ambiguity or the obscurity of Hebrew? The doctrine, that God made the world out of nothing, does not rest upon the import of that verb, but on the whole narration, particularly on the first verse of Genesis compared with those which follow; whence we learn that God first made the chaotic matter, out of which he afterward formed the material beings whereof the world is composed. But passing this for I mean not here to inquire into the grounds of that article, but into the obscurity of Scripture-who sees not that the original term is not more ambiguous, or more obscure, than those by which it is rendered into other languages? Is TOLEW, or even κTI in Greek, creo in Latin, or create in English, more definite? Not in the least, as we may learn from the common dictionaries of these languages. In regard even to the scriptural use of the English word, God, in the two first chapters of Genesis, is said, in the common version, to have created those

very things, of which we are also told, that he formed them out of the ground and out of the waters. Are these languages then (and as much may be said of all the languages I know) perfectly ambiguous and obscure? "It is," says Simon," the tradition of the synagogue and of the church, which limits the vague meaning of these first words of Genesis." But if words be accounted vague, because they are general expressions under which several terms more special are included, the much greater part of the nouns as well as the verbs, not of the oriental tongues only, but of every tongue, ancient and modern, must be denominated vague, Every name must be so that is not a proper name-the name of a species, because applicable to many individuals; more so the name of a genus, because applicable to many species; and still more so the name of a class or order, because applicable to many genera.

Would it not be an abuse of words to say that a man spoke vaguely, equivocally, or darkly, who told me that he had built a house for himself, because the verb to build does not suggest what the materials of the building were, whether stone, or brick, or wood, to any of which it may be equally applied; and because the noun house may equally denote a house of one storey, or of seven storeys, forty feet long, or four hundred? As far as the information went, the expression was clear and unequivocal: But it did not preclude the possibility of further information on the subject. And what single affirmation ever does preclude this? Are we informed of nothing, when we are told that God "made all things?" and if it should be added "out of nothing," would not this be accounted additional information, and not the removal of any obscurity in the foregoing? Would we not judge in the same manner, should a man, after acquainting us that he had built his house, add, that it was of marble, seventy feet long, and three storeys high? yet there would be still scope for further inquiry and further information. Is a man told nothing who is not told every thing? And is every word obscure or ambiguous, that does not convey all the information that can be given upon the subject? This way of proving, adopted by our learned critic, is indeed a novelty of its kind.

8. Another of his examples is the word y tzaba,† rendered by the Seventy Kоoμoç, in the Vulgate ornatus, and by our translators host. Though this word be admitted to be equivocal taken by itself, as most nouns in every language are, its import in this passage is clearly ascertained by the context to be metaphorical. Whether therefore it be rendered host with the English interpreters, κόσμος with the Greek, or ornatus with the Latin, it makes no conceivable variation in the sense. Nobody, in reading our

Reponse aux Sentimens de quelques Theol. de Hollande, ch. xvi.

+ Gen. ii. 1. The whole verse is in the common version: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."