nent critic, and probably the greatest oriental scholar of his age? "We ought," says he, "to regard it "as unquestionable, that the greater part of the He"brew words are equivocal, and that their significa"tion is entirely uncertain. For this reason, when "a translator employs in his version the interpreta"tion which he thinks the best, he cannot say absolutely that that interpretation expresses truly what "is contained in the original. There is always ground to doubt whether the sense which he gives "to the Hebrew words be the true sense, because "there are other meanings which are equally proba"ble." Again", "They [the Protestants] do not "consider that even the most learned Jews doubt "almost every where concerning the proper signifi"cation of the Hebrew words, and that the Hebrew "lexicons composed by them, commonly contain

48 Hist. Crit. du V. T. liv. iii. ch. ii. On doit supposer comme une chose constante, que la plus part des mots Hebreux sont equivoques, et que leur signification est entierement incertaine. C'est pourquoi lors qu'un traducteur employe dans sa version l'interpretation qu'il juge la meilleure, on ne peut pas dire absolument, que cette interpretation exprime au vrai ce qui est contenu dans l'original. Il y a toujours lieu de douter, si le sens qu'on donne aux mots Hebreux est le veritable, puis qu'il y en a d'autres qui ont autant de probabilité.

49 Hist. Crit. du V. T. liv. iii. ch. iv. Ils n'ont pas pris. garde, que même les plus scavans Juifs doutent presque par tout de la signification propre des mots Hebreux, et que les dictionaires qu'ils ont composés de la langue Hebraique ne con. tiennent le plus souvent que de conjectures incertaines.

"nothing but uncertain conjectures." Now, if matters were really as here represented, there could be no question that the study of Scripture would be mere loss of time, and that, whatever might be affirmed of the ages of the ancient prophets, it could not be said at present, that there is any revelation extant of what preceded the times of the Apostles. For a revelation which contains nothing but matter of doubt and conjecture, and from which I cannot raise even a probable opinion that is not counterbalanced by opinions equally probable, is no revelation at all. How defective, on this hypothesis, the New Testament would be, which every where presupposes the knowledge and belief of the Old; and, in many places, how inexplicable without that knowledge, it is needless to mention.

2. It would not be easy to account for exaggerations so extravagant, in an author so judicious, and commonly so moderate, but by observing that his immediate aim, whereof he never loses sight, throughout his whole elaborate performance, is to establish TRADITION, as the foundation of all the knowledge necessary for the faith and practice of a Christian. Scripture, doubtless, has its difficulties; but we know at least what, and where it is. As for tradition, what it is, how it is to be sought, and where it is to be found, it has never yet been in the power of any man to explain, to the satisfaction of a reasonable inquirer. We are already in possession of the former, if we can but expound it. We cannot say so

much of the latter, which, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, we have first to find, and then to interpret.

I am not ignorant that Simon's principal aim has been represented by some of his own communion, particularly Bossuet bishop of Meaux, as still more hostile to religion, than from the account above given we should conclude it to be. That celebrated and subtle disputant did not hesitate to maintain that, under the specious pretext of supporting the church, this priest of the Oratory undermined Christianity itself, a proceeding which, in the end, must prove fatal to an authority that has no other foundation to rest upon. The Bishop accordingly insists that the general tendency of his argument, as appears in every part of the work, is to insinuate a refined Socinianism, if not an universal scepticism. Certain it is, that the ambiguous manner often adopted by our critical historian, and the address with which he sometimes eludes the expectation of his readers, add not a little probability to the reasoning of this acute antagonist. When to any flagrant misinterpretation of a portion of Scripture mentioned in his work, we expect his answer from a critical examination of the passage, we are silenced with the tradition and au thority of the church, urged in such a way as evidently suggests, that without recurring to her decision, there is no possibility of refuting the objections of adversaries, or discovering the truth; and that our own reasonings, unchecked by her, if they did not subvert our faith altogether, would infallibly plunge us into all the errors of Socinus. Thus

most of his discussions concerning the 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 pur

pose 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 va