about the authenticity of the names of sacred authors, unto whom the respective books of the Holy Scriptures are assigned. To achieve this toilsome, useless, daring, and dangerous work, they do spread(as did the Jews of old, over all Egypt, to seek useless straw for their bricks)- over all the sacred books in search of words which (their dictionary says) do belong to the Chaldee dialect, and if they think to have found some, they presume to prove by their discovery, that such a book does not belong to the alleged authors, but must have been composed after the Babylonish captivity, when the Jews brought these Chaldaisms with them to Jerusalem. This outrage knows no limits, but goes so far as to dispute the authorship of the Book of Jeremiah, which, as it includes a Chaldee verse (chapter x. verse 11), must not, according to these critics, belong to that Prophet, but must have been composed by some other person after the Babylonian captivity.

66

Now, according to the false argument of the abovementioned scholars, it follows that before the Babylonish captivity, no Hebrew understood a word or a phrase of Chaldee, nor a heathen or a Chaldean a word of Hebrew. In 2 Kings xviii. 26, we read that Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah (princes of Israel), said to Rab-shakeh (captain of the Babylonian army), Speak, we pray thee, to thy servants in the SYRIAN LANGUAGE [which is almost the same with the Chaldee] for we understand it: and talk not with us in the HEBREW LANGUAGE, in the hearing of the people that are on the wall." Here we see clearly and distinctly that not only did the learned Jews and their princes understand the Chaldee language in the days of Hezekiah, but that even a heathen chief spoke the Hebrew with great purity and eloquence! Those, then, are greatly in error who maintain that if a Chaldee word or phrase be found in the

writings of a Prophet, they must be flung away into the Babylonish captivity!

The Prophet Jeremiah, in the above-mentioned chapter, draws a most painful contrast between the great Jehovah, the Creator of the universe, the God of the Hebrews, and the dumb idols of the heathen, manufactured of wood and stone. He therefore exclaims in the 11th verse, "Thus shall ye say unto them [viz., the servants of the living God, should thus say to the Babylonish idolaters who threatened them, and blasphemed their God], The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens." This verse possesses peculiar vigour and great beauty in the Chaldee language, which the Prophet has used, in order to serve as a defiance in the mouth of the Hebrew against the Chaldee blaspheming idolater. Do not they, therefore, precipitately conclude -when an author used some Chaldee words for special purposes-who ascribe the authorship to another, and fling the latter beyond centuries! What would we say to a German critic, who, ignorant of the English language beyond his dictionary, would conclude that the English poets and authors are not the creators of their own works, but must have taken them from some ancient Roman manuscripts, because they used many words of pure Latin ! Such are

exactly the foolish conclusions of many of the abovementioned critics, who try to bereave the sacred writers of works of which the Holy Spirit made them authors.

The Book of Ecclesiastes has been most fiercely attacked by the above-mentioned torturers of sacred writ. They have maintained that (according to their Lexicon) they discovered in that book many passportless Chaldaisms, and therefore they have denied its Solomonic authorship, and transported it

beyond the Babylonish captivity. Some of its friends, deprecating such a treatment of the work, have admitted that there are some vagabond Babylonianisms in the book. Some of these advocates said that Solomon might have learned from his foreign wives to adopt these strangers into his Hebrew family. Others said, that owing to Solomon's commercial relations with other nations, some merchants might have smuggled in these contraband words, and in some way or other (possibly by contagion) they cleaved by and by to Solomon's tongue. Strange, very strange it is, that not one of these friends should have suggested the idea that Solomon was wise and rich enough to have employed regular teachers by whom he might have acquired some foreign languages, which were indispensable for him in his vast enterprises with other nations, rather than suppose that he learned languages from heathen women and merchants! But we would also ask these critics, What language did Solomon employ in courting these female teachers, or in obtaining them from their parents? Or what language did he use with the foreign merchants, before they taught him theirs? Will they perhaps maintain that these heathen ladies and commercial men spoke Hebrew ! Why not, then, give credit to Solomon that he knew their languages even before he had anything to do with them? Or might not David have spent a few talents of the hundreds of thousands which he possessed, in paying teachers to instruct the crown prince in some languages spoken by the neighbouring nations ?

With regard to the original disturbers of the Holy Scriptures, who maintain that they find in the Book of Ecclesiastes many words, and even phrases, which are strangers to the Hebrew language, we beg to assure our readers that they are mistaken, and

that in the whole book in question there are only two words which cannot be traced now to Hebrew origin. First, the word (Sidah) used to signify "princess," which is of Arabic origin (see chap. ii. 8); and, second, the word "Pithgum" (see

Ecc. viii. 11), which is a most powerful and comprehensive term, and denotes "irrevocable royal decree, sentence or verdict of a judge, decision of a wise man, clear and distinct information" about anything, &c.* This word having no such rich substitute in the Hebrew language, might have been adopted at a far earlier period than that of Solomon.+ Besides these two, there is not another word in the whole book that could not be traced to a Hebrew root. The style of Ecclesiastes is distinctly and generally the same as that of the Proverbs of the same author. The new idiomatic graces, and elegant and tasteful combination of words which we find in this book, show the extraordinary creative power of that sublime writer. The peculiar character of this philosophical, and, at the same time, theological work, comprised in such a small space, demanded a new creation of compounds and abbreviation of words, above any other book of the Holy Scriptures. Many examples of this kind are to be

* See the different significations of this word in Dan. iii. 16; iv. 14, or 17; Ezra iv. 17; v. 7; vi. 11; and Esther i. 20, &c., though the force is always the same.

As the word, "Pithgum," can no more be traced to the Chaldee than to the Hebrew origin, we are inclined to think that it may be an ancient Egyptian term whence both Jews and Babylonians took it. Gesenius thinks to find some similies to it in the Persic, but these are not conclusive.

‡ The word 2 (miskein) which occurs twice in chap. ix. verses 15, 16, and which signifies "poor, needy, or indigent," though it has the same signification in Arabic, can perfectly be traced to the Hebrew root (Sakan) and was used already by Moses (Deut. viii. 9) though in another form (sub. fem.) and there it signifies" in poverty."

seen in the Proverbs also, though not so numerous, and, perhaps, not so masterly, which is quite natural; but the language and style are the same in both books.

Moreover, there are twelve verses in the Book of Ecclesiastes, containing statements which can refer to none but to the great and wise Solomon, the son of David, the King of Israel, who reigned at Jerusalem, who excelled all kings before and after him in wisdom, in riches, in power, and in glory, who having enjoyed profound peace during a long and prosperous reign, was alone able to make all the observations, experiences, and conclusions enumerated in this book. No other man, no other king, could ever, with honesty, or even common sense, assume the language used in the above-mentioned twelve verses; nor would such an one have escaped the censure and ridicule of the Hebrew nation; nor would ever such a work, under a false name, and under false pretensions, have been admitted into the canon of the Holy Scriptures by Ezra and his friends.

Though, we sincerely trust, after all that has been above advanced, that our readers will be perfectly convinced how unjust the attacks, how untenable the conclusions, and how false the arguments of the above critics are, and though we must confess that the necessity of defending the authority of the mighty word of inspiration against attacks so unreasonable, and arguments so absurd, pains us, still as we are thus far on the subject, we shall make one final and conclusive remark. According to the arguments of the above new school, every book of the Holy Scriptures which includes some Chaldee words must have been composed after the Babylonish captivity, when the Jews brought these words with them, or, in other terms, when the purity of the