lation exceeding 600 souls; and the Papists, availing themselves of the apathy or neglect of Churchmen, have been sowing their tares on a soil on which the good seed of Church principle should alone have been spread. On this subject the writer of this article a short time since received a letter from an inhabitant of Lyme, from which the following is an extract:— "Ridicule is not so powerful in this country as in France, or it might well be applied to our countrymen of Lyme, Charmouth, Bridport, &c. They attend meetings; they speak of their deep interest in Missionary labours; and to doubt their desire of Protestant supremacy would be a dreadful offence to them. Still, at our very doors, they allow a population to be quietly visited by any Benedictine, Trappist, or Capucin, and led to Chidcock Roman Catholic Chapel, where, I am told, the supply of proselytes is to be made principally from Marshwood, which appears a derelict, as lawyers term those goods thrown up by the sea, which belong to and exercise the care of nobody. If any thing is done, which, I am told, was nearly being the case a short time since, I should be happy to subscribe by appropriating what I give for distant objects to this.' The case of Marshwood I have brought before your readers, and happy should I be were public attention excited, and public liberality shown, on the subject; for a good work, which it is a scandal to the Church that it should have remained so long unaccomplished, should now be done. Fus est et ab hoste doceri; and Churchmen should not be outdone by Papists in the ardour of their zeal, and in the devotion of their time and talents to every good work and labour of love! Before I conclude this letter I am anxious to add a few words respecting a point upon which I have reason to believe no small alarm has been excited the great number of Romish chapels lately erected. Now, the great increase of Popish chapels I am far from considering as any fair criterion or certain proof of the increase of Popery in England, or of the secession of members of the Anglican Church to that of the Italian communion. We know full well how the servants of Popish families in particular are tampered with by their masters or mistresses; and several cases among this class of proselytes have lately come under my own eye, of persons who, on quitting their places, have returned back to the bosom of the Established Church; and with regard to converts in a higher class of society, who are alleged to have rcnounced our communion lately, I must know their characters first before I express my opinion as to any loss our Church has sustained by their defection, or any accession of strength the Papists may have gained by such conversions. I have reason to believe that in the lately published list of English baronets who are described as Papists, some inaccuracies are to be found; and with respect to one, with whom I am acquainted, I am quite sure that he is no member of the Romish communion, though married to a Popish lady. To show what little reliance can be placed on many of the conversions, of which the Papists are continually vaunting, it is only necessary to state what I lately heard on a visit to Lulworth Castle, upon the accuracy of which full reliance may be placed that most of the villagers are Papists, but that when the present Sir Robert Peel resided there, some years since, they exchanged their faith and became Protestants! They are now, of course, members of the same communion as the wealthy and powerful owner of the mansion. I fear we Protestants are sadly deficient in properly instructing the poorer classes, and in explaining the tenets of our own, and in guarding them against the dogmas of the Romish Church; and it is quite time that the whole system of National Education should be reconstructed; among the many defects of which, not the least is, that this most important work is so generally entrusted to incompetent hands, who require more training than even the poor children committed to their charge. It is not Lulworth only, but divers other places in the land, that will be open to the secret machinations of the Romish priests, or the powerful interest of the Popish landlords, unless we bestir ourselves, and give to our poor a better and more enlightened education than that they have hitherto received an education by which they shall be taught not merely to repeat their catechism, &c., but understand what they read, and be able to distinguish light from darkness, and what is sound in principle from what is erroneous in theory and dangerous in practice. But upon this subject, so full of interest and importance, I will not add any thing farther at present. I may, at a future time, express my thoughts more at large on this absorbing theme, to which, indeed, I am happy to learn that attention is being awakened in more than one of our dioceses. January 11, 1839. R. H. C. BIBLICAL LITERATURE. TO THE EDITOR OP THE CHURCHMAN. EXTRACT from Goodhugh's Lectures on Biblical Literature, page 9:. "The Hebrew language varied little from Moses to Malachi, a period of 4,000 years; the old Hebrew became extinct, as a living language, 500 years before Christ: 1,000 years afterwards, the Masoretic points were added; Chaldee had superseded Hebrew at the time of the captivity, and was gradually converted into Syro-Chaldaic, which is called Hebrew in the New Testament. This has been fully investigated by the late learned Dr. Kennicott, who published a work called "An Enquiry into the State of the Hebrew Text:" he informs us that he examined all the then known MSS. of the Hebrew Scriptures, and discovered numerous variations, but few or none of great importance." SIR. 1st. I beg most respectfully, in reply to the above, to state that the Hebrew language did not vary one jot or tittle from the time of Moses to that of Malachi; and I offer as a proof of this my assertion, a strict comparison of the Book of Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Malachi, as well as those parts of Ezra and Daniel that are written in Hebrew (some parts being in Chaldee), and thereby ascertain if they be or be not written expressly in the same phraseology as the Pentateuch; though some of them were written nine hundred and forty years later than it was. 2ndly. A period from Moses to Malachi of 4,000 years. Answer. The period from the law being given at Mount Sinai to the time of the prophet Malachi comprised only nine hundred and forty years; thus, The Israelites were in the Wilderness The Babylonish captivity 40 years 400 410 70 Beginning, building of the second Temple,disputed 20 940 According to the chronology of the English Bible it comprised a period of 1,174 years. Goodhugh makes it a period of 4,000 years from Moses to Malachi, whereas it was only about 3,600 years from the creation of the world to the time in which the prophet Malachi lived. 3rdly. The old Hebrew became extinct, as a living language, 500 years B. C. Answer. Those that were born in Babylon and returned to Jerusalem spoke Chaldee; but those that were born at Jerusalem and saw the first Temple (see Ezra iii. 7, vii.7; Haggai ii: 3), spake the same language and wrote in the same phraseology as Moses did that part of Ezra, from c. iv. 7, to c. vi. 19, and from c. vii. 11, to the end of the chapter,which contains the letter to the King of Persia, &c., is written in Chaldee; but the beginning and the ending of the book are written in pure Hebrew; and so is the book of Daniel, except from c. iii. 4, to the end of c. vii., which is Chaldee. On a reference to the reigns of the Kings of Judah, in the Bible, it was only about 100 years from the beginning of the reign of Hezekiah to the beginning of the Babylonish captivity, when Ezra and Malachi must have been men, and Daniel a youth. 2 Kings xviii. 26, "Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it; and talk not with us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall" and at v. 28, "Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice, in the Jews' language." See, also, Isaiah xxxvi. 11-13. Thus it is quite clear that Hebrew was the vernacular language, and understood by all; the Chaldee only by a few. 4thly. "A thousand years after, the Masoretic points were added." Answer. The Masorites flourished in Jerusalem; and Hillel, who was a chief amongst them, lived there about 100 years B. C. Father Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, made mention of the vowel points, and was in doubt whether they were coeval with the letter, but said, "nevertheless, be this as it may, we may be very thankful to those that invented them, because they made the language intelligible." If Father Jerome lived in the 4th century, and was unable to discover whether they were original or not, how can Kennicott, Parkhurst, and others, pretend to fix a period to their invention? "Jerome employed four of the best scholars among the Hebrews of his day, to teach him the language with the points; and when he demanded of them if they were given in the time of Moses, they replied, they must have been in the time of Adam." Book of Imri Binah, by Rabbi Azariah. If it be true that the Masorites pointed the Hebrew language, who, it may be asked, pointed the Chaldee, the Arabic, the Syrian, the Persian, and (I believe) every other language written from the right to the left? Genesis iii. 15, in the ancient Latin vulgate edition, is, "ipsa conteret caput tuum:" but the Hebrew Bible with the points says, () he, and not (7) she; the points distinguishing the gender, and showing out the text in beautiful harmony with Romans xvi. 20, "And the God of Peace shall bruize Satan ;" thereby giving the broad lie to the impious assertions of the Papists, that it has reference to the Virgin Mary! Elias Levita, a proselyte from Judaism to Popery, lived in the 16th century, and he said the points were added by the men of Tiberias, two hundred years after Christ. Dr. Lightfoot observes, "There are some who believe the Holy Bible to be pointed by men of Tiberias; I wonder at the credulity of Christians who ap plaud it recollect, I beseech you, the pointing of the Holy Bible savors of the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of lost, blinded, and besotted men; they must pardon me if I say, magical and monstrous." Again," It is above the skill of mere men to point the Bible, nay, scarcely a verse as it is: the Ten Commandments may puzzle all the world for that skill." he says, Parkhurst, Kennicott, and others, laid hold on Latin books which were written by the Papists with respect to Hebrew literature, viz., Morinus, and others. Morinus, a Papist, and a very principal opposer of the points, in a book (de Sinceritate), highly commended by some Protestant writers, speaks out plainly: "The reason why God would have the Scriptures written in the ambiguous manner they are (i. e., without points), is, be causeit was his will that every man should be subject to the judgment of the Church, and not interpret the Scriptures in his own way: for, seeing the reading of the Scriptures is so difficult, and so liable to various ambiguities (i. e., a mere nose of wax, to be turned every way), from the very nature of the thing, he observes, it is plain that it was not the will of God that every one should rashly and irreverently take upon himself to explain it, nor suffer the common people to expound it at their pleasure, but that in those, as in other things respecting religion, his will is, that the people should depend upon the priest." Dr. Gill's Dissert. page 152. Parkhurst wrote a Hebrew lexicon and a grammar, both of which are very incorrect; in the latter, he omitted the third and fourth forms of conjugation. The Hebrew language consists of one conjugation in seven different forms; the fourth form is called (b) pual, a past tense, often found in the Bible but not in his grammar, because he was an antipunctist; yet, it can only be distinguished by the points. Deut. iv. 2, Moses said, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it; that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" and at c. xii. 32, "Whatsoever thing I cominand you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." The judicial law of the second Temple was, "Whosever addeth (or diminisheth) anything to the law is cast for death." According to the Talmud, every Hebrew transcribing the book of the law was obliged to count every line, every word, every letter, every jot, and every tittle, in the presence of persons whose duty it was to see it done. What was our Saviour's literal meaning, Matt. v. 18, “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled?" Did he not mean that not one ('), the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, nor one (), the smallest vowel point, should either be added to or be diminished from the law? These words have been variously explained by different antipunctists; but the Greek word Kepala has the same meaning as the Syriac (a dot), the Greek word is, in Hutter's Hebrew New Testament, kirick-a dot. That the vowel points were in the time of Moses can scarcely be doubted by any but a disciple of Morinus, is, I hope, clear; for, in this enlightened age, who but a Papist will venture to assert that Jehovah put a book into the hands of men that was incomprehensible, and then desired them to " Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me." John v. 39-46, and 47, For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." 66 : There are several words in the Hebrew Bible written entirely with points and accents, and the consonants placed in the margin, thus: Jud. xx. 13, ( :) children, (in the margin, "); Ruth iii. 5-17, (..), unto me, to me, (in the margin, (); 2 Sam. viii. 3, (+), Euphrates (in the margin, n), and c. xvi. 23, () a man (in the margin, ww); Kings xix. 37, (TT) his sons, (margin, v); Jer. xxxi. 38,(T) come, (margin, D), and Jer. 1. 29, (→ ̧) thereof, (margin, ). Now all these vowel points are translated into the authorized English version, and all other Bibles in the European languages, as well as by Jonathan, in his Chaldee paraphrase, who wrote about a hundred years before Christ. Who will assert that the Masorites diminished the consonants from the text, and added the points? and how came they into the original text before the time of our Saviour? According to Goodhugh, the Masoretic points were added 1,000 years after ! Marginal notes, called Messorah (i.e. tradition), are to be found in the Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorff, with commentaries; these Masoretic notes have been handed down to posterity, and are what our Saviour called traditions. Without the vowel points, how is the difference between an active and passive verb to be known? Gen. ii. 23, iii. 23, Ezek. xxzvii. 7, she was taken........ ph he was taken.......................... I was commanded.. she took לקחה. he took לקח.. .I commanded צויתי. With the points they are passive ( ), being affixed to the first radical letter. Even the great name of (Jehovah), or that of (Noah), or (Moses), or 7 (David), could not be understood, without points. There were many books written in the time of the second Temple, and after Ezra, called expositions of the Masorites, but the (") karee, which means read, and the (2) kathiv, which means written, were placed in the margin and not in the text. See Maimonides, and the preface to the Comments on the book of Jeremiah, by Abarbenel: thus Jer. xxxi. 21, the text (') is the kathiv, and (b) the karee. On this text, Kennicott remarks, () redundant. I would refer to Exodus xv. 25, "There he made for him a statute:" I would also put the antipunctists to the same text that the Gileadites put the Ephrathites, Judges xii. 6, Say now Shibboleth," (a), and they 66 must need answer (nhaw) "Sibboleth." I beg to offer a plain translation of Nehemiah viii. 8, "He (Ezra) taught them to read the book of the law distinctly, and taught them with the points, which caused them to understand the pronunciation." 5thly. Chaldee had superseded Hebrew at the time of the captivity, and was gradually converted into Syro-Chaldaic, which is called Hebrew in the New Testament." Answer. The former part of this assertion has been refuted already, by reference to 2 Kings xviii. 26-28, and, as to the latter part, I beg to observe that there are four different places in the New Testament where the words pronounced by our Saviour are preserved without translation, though printed in the English characters; the words are "Raca, Ephphatha, Talitha cumi." The only two Chaldee words are here printed in italics, the others, as well as the very impressive words he uttered on the cross, (2) are Hebrew !* "Whosoever is wise, even he shall understand these things; prudent, and he shall know them; for the ways of Jehovah are righteous, and the just shall walk in them, but transgressors they shall stumble therein." See Hosea xiv. 9, and Aaron' Pick's Literal Translation of the Twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea xiv. 10. AARON PICK, Late Philological Professor of the Hebrew, Chaldee, and German Languages, at the University of Prague; and Author of a Literal Translation of the Minor Prophets. 21, Francis-street, Bedford-square, January 21, 1839. Ye village bells! ye village bells! why this untimely mirth? When o'er the horizon's moonlit height, the harbingers of morn, For He to whom a thousand years are but as one short day, A time when earth and all things old, as though they ne'er had been, Then as yon bells now rouse from sleep the young and hoary swain, VOX. *Our Saviour, in the particular word oaßaxlavi, seems rather to have quoted the Targum. It is needless, perhaps, to observe that the Editor's opinions must not be identified with those of the correspondents.-ED. |