the Arabic, will not suit the scope of the passage in the sacred volume. Recourse must then be had to the derivative senses; in the choice of which, however, there appears to be no adequate guide.

From the whole of the preceding reasoning, it may be inferred, that in no case whatever can an explanation of a Hebrew word, derived solely from the Arabic, amount to a moral certainty: it can be no more than probable, and, for the most part, probable only in a small degree.

If this conclusion be founded in truth, it must be owned, that many profound Oriental scholars, dazzled with their attainments, have attributed a great deal more to Arabic literature than it deserves. Occasionally it may be of service, as "glistering starlight" is useful to the traveller in the absence of brighter luminaries; but it always sheds a doubtful, and sometimes a pale and malignant, light. Except Arabian learning be applied to the illustration of the inspired writings with watchful circumspection, with a mind capable of weighing philological probabilities, and exempt from a love of novelty and a spirit of innovation, it will certainly be useless, and probably dangerous, A too fond attachment to the language

and literature of Arabia, unless accompanied with a cautious and sound judgment, may lead the theological student to desert the received interpretation of the Hebrew language, and ultimately to subvert the pillars of our faith which rest upon the Jewish Scriptures. By a rash or unskilful application of Arabic, an infinite variety of significations may be attributed to almost every word, and so different a meaning may be extracted from the sacred writings to what they are commonly and justly supposed to bear, as nearly to obtrude a new Bible upon our notice. For proof of this assertion appeal may be made to Reiske's Conjecturæ in Jobum et Proverbia Salomonis; a work unexampled for temerity in conjecture, precipitancy in decision, and misapplication of great Arabic learning.* Another example is supplied in the Translation of the book of Job by Mr. Good, who considers the original text as a mixture

"Nullum fructum ex his conjecturis capere potest Jobi interpres. Tali enim licentia in textum hebræum grassatus est Reiskius, quali ne in depravatissimis quidem Scriptorum Græcorum Romanorumve codicibus uti liceat. Pluribus vocabulis dictionibusque ope linguæ Arabicæ novas plane et inauditas significationes affingit linguæ hebrææ usu plane. non consulto. Integros versus luxat, transponit, rejicit, prouti ipsi in mentem venit. Novum Jobum ille nobis obtrudere vult, non codicum aliorumque subsidiorum criticorum ope restitutum, sed ex ingenio refictum."--Rosenmulleri Scholia in Jobum, p. xliii.

of Hebrew and Arabic, and arbitrarily takes it for one or the other, as best suits his purpose, till he has produced a version so different from what has hitherto been deemed the sense of the author, as almost to form an entirely new work. Even the most strenuous advocates of Arabic literature have acknowledged the danger of an unguarded use of it in the explication of the Scriptures, and the necessity of circumspection in drawing from its treasures.*

The philologist may be delighted to discover recondite etymologies, and to trace the resembling features of the sister dialects; but we should remember, that this is a subject of much uncertainty, and though the observations thence arising may be curious, and sometimes useful, they can seldom be delivered for indisputable truth. In short, Arabic is an ally of dubious fidelity, sometimes deluding its friends into intricate mazes and labyrinths; sometimes treacherously deserting them in the hour of danger and difficulty; and not often contributing to a splendid achievement or important victory. A display of Arabic learning may gratify the pride of

• Kromayer, de Usu Ling. Arab. lib. i. cap. 4, § 9. Hunt's Observat. on the Prov. p. 38, note. Bauer, Hermeneut. § 23, p. 119.

erudition; but it is despicable pedantry to have recourse to it, when the meaning of a word is evident from its frequent occurrence or clear application in the sacred text; and its aid should never be solicited, except in cases where other and less erring testimony either vacillates, or entirely deserts us; nor even then can it be considered as affording more than presumptive proof.

The mode of argumentation employed in the preceding pages, in reference to Arabic, may be applied to the other Oriental dialects, the Syriac and Chaldee. It will be sufficient, however, to add one or two observations upon their comparative value and usefulness.

In the first place, the Syriac and Chaldee dialects are of nearer affinity to the Hebrew than Arabic.* The Syrians were the immediate neighbours of the Israelites; a frequent intercourse subsisted between them, particularly after the Jewish government became

* Vitringa, Observationes Sacræ, lib. i. cap. 5, § 5. Hottinger observes, "differre ab Hebraismo Chaldaismum, longius recedere Syriasmum, longissime abesse Arabismum."-(Introduct. ad Gram. Harmon.) It is surprising how Schultens could deny this, Origines Hebrææ, par. 2, cap. 1, § 13, p. 190.

monarchical, a circumstance which must have had some influence upon the language of each;* and, what is more to the purpose, the Syriac dialect is found, upon comparison, to bear a striking similarity to that of the Hebrews, both in grammatical analogy and in the signification of the words. Chaldee is essentially the same language as Syriac, differing in little but the pronunciation. The influence of the Assyrians in Judæa, the frequency of communication between the two countries, and the residence of several of the sacred writers in Babylonia, contributed to give, in some particulars, an Aramæan cast to their compositions: as for instance, those of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and others who flourished during or subsequent to the Babylonish captivity. There are several words of a Chaldaic and Syriac form; but, with the exception, perhaps, of the book of Job, no example is to be found of an inflexion or idiom which undoubtedly betrays an Arabic origin. The contrary, indeed, has been maintained; but, with the exception above stated, I have not discovered a single phrase or verbal infection peculiarly Arabic.

2 Sam. viii. 6, x. 6, et seq. 2 Kings, v. 2, et seq. xiii. 3, 5. + Pococke, Notæ ad Porta Mosis, p. 151, ed. Twells, Lond. 1740.