and De Rossi. Many that admire them, know nothing of the personal character of those eminent men; but the work which Dr. K. has left behind him, they esteem the lasting monument of his praise. Yet in Mr. B's opinion, those generally approved critics were" mere innovators," "superficial scholars," "altogether unqualified,” and "but mere pretenders to a critical knowledge of the Hebrew language," p. 631. These are strong expressions, and a writer had need produce something more satisfactory than his own assertion, or a reference to Mr. Bate's book, before such description can be credited. Not to mention how grossly such a charge insults the learned University, who designated Dr. Kennicott to this work, and patronised him in it, as a scholar perfectly competent for the undertaking, is it, Sir, just or honorable in your correspondent to place Dr. Clarke and Dr. Kennicott on a level, and represent them as pursuing the same plan, "substituting one letter for another," "one word for another," &c. p. 631. Dr. C. from his account asserts, that is a gloss in Gen. 49. 13. and that in v. 18. N may be tacitly omitted in any place; and this merely from Dr. C's own conjecture; and supported by no versions or various readings: but will Mr. Bellamy say that Dr. Kennicott's publication consists of corrections similar to these? Has your correspondent never heard of such things as various readings? Does he know that there are other MSS. besides those from which the received text was taken? Is he unacquainted with any independent sources of authority, as the Septuagint, the Samaritan, the Syriac, and the Targums? (and it is from these that Dr. K. has made his collection), or is he prepared to state and to prove, that the present printed text is taken from MSS. that were either the autographs of Moses and the prophets, or else exact copies of them; and that the versions, and all MSS. where they differ from it, are erroneous? If he is not, then Dr. K. and De Rossi have done the Christian world essential service by publishing the various readings of so many Hebrew MSS. and Biblical Criticism is greatly indebted to their exertions. For such noble and disinterested services as these, are they to be called innovators? I have not yet heard that Dr. Griesbach has been called an innovator, or that his suggestions of amendment in the Greek original, grounded on various readings, have been deemed "undigested fancies:" yet he has dared to do what Dr. K. never assumed. Dr. K. printed the text of the Old Testament as it stood in Vander Hooght's edition, and placed the various readings at the bottom of the page, without even giving his opinion which was the true reading. Dr. Griesbach, on the other hand, examined the received text of the New Testament, and where its readings differed from those of the most ancient MSS. and versions, he cashiered them as spurious, and admitted the most ancient and valuable into the body of the text; justly supposing, that the nearer MSS. approach Apostolic times, the more likely are they to possess Apostolic readings. What

would Mr. Bellamy have said had Dr. G. thus treated his favorite text of the Old Testament? but your correspondent steps in and authoritatively declares, "I do maintain, and can prove, the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text." 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—

i. the printed Text is at variance with Mr. Bellamy.

Mr. B. has rightly informed us, that the meaning of the word ON is, he SAID, No.iv. p.851. If he will turn to Gen. iv.8. he will

-and « Cain said to Abel his bro ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו find

נלכה השדה ritan and LXX. add

ther;" but what did he say? The Hebrew is silent. The Sama

"let us go out into the field." With this addition, the words following possess consistency: "And it came to pass, when they were in the field," &c.

ii. The printed text is at variance with quotations in the New Testament from ancient prophecy.

An instance of this occurs in Psalm xl. 7. MD D'UN translated" my ears hast thou opened," compared with Hebrews, Σ. 5. σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι. And surely, if common sense, the connexion, the structure of the sentence, and the evidence of the LXX. and 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.

iii. The printed text is in opposition to MSS. in the hands of both Jews and Christians in the time of Origen.

Your readers, Mr. Editor, will readily suppose that I refer to Isaiah liii. 8. where our present copies ready by YUDD while Origen and the Jews of his time indubitably read

. I cannot place the argument in a clearer light than by transcribing the words of Dr. Kennicott, though Mr. B. so heartily despises him as a rash innovator." Origen, after having quoted at large this prophecy concerning the Messiah, tells us, that having once made use of this passage, in a dispute against some that were accounted wise among the Jews, one of them replied, that the words did not mean one man, but one people, the Jews, who were smitten of God, and dispersed among the Gentiles for their conversion; that he then urged many parts of this prophecy, to show the absurdity of this interpretation, and that he seemed to press them the hardest by this sentence; 'for the transgression of my people was he smitten to death. Now as Origen, the author of the Hexapla, must have understood Hebrew, we cannot suppose that he would have urged this last text as so decisive, if the Greek version had not agreed here with the Hebrew

text; nor that these wise Jews would have been at all distressed by this quotation, unless the Hebrew text had read agreeably to the words to death, on which the argument principally depended; for by quoting it immediately, they would have triumphed over him, and reprobated his Greek version. This, whenever they could do it, was their constant practice in their disputes with the Christians. Origen himself, who laboriously compared the Hebrew text with the Septuagint, has recorded the necessity of arguing with the Jews, from such passages only, as were in the Septuagint agreeable to the Hebrew. Wherefore, as Origen had carefully compared the Greek version of the Septuagint with the Hebrew text; and as he puzzled and confounded the learned Jews, by urging upon them the reading to death,' in this place, it seems almost impossible not to conclude both from Origen's argument, and the silence of his Jewish adversaries, that the Hebrew text at that time actually had the word agreeably to the version of the Seventy." And if such is the conclusion, if such was the reading of that time, alas! for the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text of this day.

Once more, iv. The printed Hebrew text is opposed to itself. Many, very many examples could be adduced; but two shall suffice. The first arises from a comparison of a song of David, preserved in the 22d chapter of the second book of Samuel, and in the 18th Psalm. There can be no doubt of their once being alike, but now, as Dr. Gerard says, in his Elements of Biblical Criticism, there are near 130 variations, many of them plain corruptions, and many removed by the authority of MSS. one of may serve as a specimen of the rest. In 2 Sam. xxii. 11. you read

them

by and he was seen upon the wings of the wind, while in the Psalm it is NT and he did fly.

The other instance is that, which first excited doubts in Dr. Kennicott's mind of the purity and strict integrity of the received

text.

It is the enumeration of the names of David's mighty men, and their actions given in the 2 Sam. xxiii. 8.-to the end. These two accounts of the same persons differ widely in the names of the characters which they celebrate, and indicate, not the dictates of unerring wisdom, but the mistakes of careless or ignorant transcribers. The most inattentive perusal of the passages will set the argument in the clearest light.

Now let Mr. Bellamy say, Are these mistakes or are they not? If he acknowledges that they are, what signifies it, whether they have crept into the text by accident, or been foisted in by wilful corruption? If he denies that they on him devolves the proof that they are the true readings: on him devolves the reconciliation of such VOL. V. No. IX.

are mistakes

E

1

contending passages (" hard task, I ween!") Will Mr. B. intrench himself within the emendations of the Masorites! let me ask him,' have they noticed all the difficulties? have they settled every various reading? or if they have, are we to bow with submission to those unchristian and many unknown doctors? Is the right of private judgment denied us in Hebrew literature, or is the dogma of implicit faith in those " we know not whom," again to be introduced Rather have we not advantages far superior to theirs for ascertaining the genuineness of the text? If amongst Hebrewcritics of the present day, an equal stock of patience cannot be found, to count all the letters of the Bible, and of every book separately; and to invent mysteries in letters square and round, open and shut, yet I doubt not there is a far richer share of learning, divested of absurd prejudices, and directed to the noblest objects. Nor ought it to be forgotten that we are possessed of a great number of MSS. and versions, which it would be madness to suppose that the Masorites had before them; whilst they equally with ourselves were deprived of the autographs of the writers, the possession of which would alone have entitled them to our veneration and obedience. Rejoicing, Sir, in Mr. B's. love to the truth, and in his exertions for the faith once delivered to the Saints," I have only to regret that he evinces so little candor towards those who differ from him. It is much to be lamented, that a dissonance of opinion on any subject, but especially on such subjects as these, which destroy not the obligations of friendship, nor the comforts of society, nor the commands of religion, should excite unamiable feelings in the breast. Most sincerely do I wish, that for their own honor and peace, disputants would learn to possess the feelings, and imbibe the spirit, which Augustine manifested in the words with which I shall conclude this paper.

Quisquis hæc legit, ubi pariter certus est, pergat mecum; ubi pariter hæsitat, quærat mecum ; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, revocet me.

April, 1811.

I am, Sir, Your's,

W. N.

P. S. Could you not, Sir, afford Mr. B. an opportunity of proving (which he so earnestly desires, page 163.) "that it is not possible to pronounce a single word in Hebrew, without those original Oriental vowels, which those who reject them call

points?"

DE LUDIS PRIVATIS AC DOMESTICIS VETERUM,

AUCTORE JUL. CESARE BULENGERO.

NO. I.

PROLUSIO.

De alea ludo.

NEQUE homines, neque bruta, in perpetuâ corporis, et animi conten

tione esse possunt, non magis quàm fides in citharâ, aut nervus in arcu. Ideò lusu egent. Ludunt inter se catuli, equulei, leunculi, ludunt in aquis pisces, ludunt homines labore fracti, et aliquid remittunt, ut animos reficiant. Sed in lusu modus, ut in ceteris rebus, tenendus est. Alea penè ubique vetita. Cicer. 2. Philipp. de Antonio agens hominem omnium nequissimum, qui non dubitaret vel in foro aleâ ludere. Idem ait Antonium lege, quæ est de alea, condemnatum. Alea toleranda fuit in Augusto sene, quam remissionis causâ sumeret. Forum, inquit, aleatorium calfecimus apud Suetonium. Germani aleam inter seria sobrii exercent, tantâ lucrandi, perdendíve, temeritate, ut cùm omnia defecerint, extremo, ac novissimo jactu, de libertate, ac corpore contendant, ait Tacitus lib. de morib. Germanor. Victus voluntariam servitutem adit, quamvis junior, quamvis robustior, alligari se, ac venire patitur. Ea est in re pravâ pervicacia, fidem ipsi vocant. S. Ambrosius de Tobia cap. 11. pertinax alea studium Hunnis attribuit. Ferunt Hunnos, cùm sine legibus vivant, aleæ solius legibus obedire, in procinctu ludere, tesseras simul, et arma portare, et plures suis, quàm hostilibus ictibus interire, frequenter autem tanto ardore rapi, ut cùm ca, quæ sola magna æstimant, arma victus tradiderit, ad unum aleæ jactum vitam suam potestati vel victoris, vel fœneratoris addicant. Laërtius lib. 3. Plato adolescentem, quòd aleâ lusisset, graviter cecidit. Cùm autem quidam diceret: Ita sævis ob rem parvi momenti ? Respondit: Res parvi momenti non est malis assuescere.

Chilo Laco missus Corinthum, ut fœdus cum Corinthiis feriret, incidit in Principes aleâ ludentes, abscedit, aítque: Absit, ut Spartani cum aleatoribus societatem ineant. Elibertino Concilio can. 79. Qui ludit aleâ, cœtu piorum movetur. Romæ tesseris, aut talis lusere. Horatius:

-Postquam te talos, Aule, nucesque,

Ferre sinu laxo vidi.

Martialis:

Unctis falciferi senis diebus,
Regnator quibus imperat fritillus.

Persius

Angusta collo non fallier Orcæ.

Hegesilochus, quòd talis luderet, à Rhodiis in exsilium pulsus est. Fugienda alea, quia, ut S. Basilius lib. 7. Exaëmer. Enì Toïs núßois ögnoi, καὶ φιλονεικίαι χαλεπαὶ, καὶ φιλοχρηματίας ὠδῖνες. In tesserarum ludo juramenta, contentiones molesta, avaritia dolores existunt. Aristoteles lib. 4. Nicomach. ὁ μὲν κυβευτὴς, καὶ ὁ λωποδύτης, καὶ ὁ ληστὴς τῶν