To the Rev. Dean D——

CLXXXIX. — TO THE REY. DEAN D.

Rev. Sir, — When Dr. Bentley published his Greek Testament, one remarked, “Pity but he would publish the Old; then we should have two New Testaments!” It is done. Those who receive Mr. Hutchinson’s emendations certainly have two New Testaments! But I stumble at the threshold. Can we believe that God left his whole church so ignorant of the Scripture till yesterday 1 And if he was pleased to reveal the sense of it now, to whom may we suppose he would reveal it? “All Scripture,” says Kempis, “must be understood by the same Spirit whereby it was written.” And a greater than he says, “Them that are meek will he guide in judgment, and them that are gentle will he learn his way.” But was Mr. Hutchinson eminently meek and gentle?

However, in order to learn all I could from his Works, after first consulting them, I carefully read over Mr. Spearman, Mr. Jones’s ingenious book, and the Glasgow Abridgment. I read the last with Mr. Thomas Walsh, the best Hebraean I ever knew. I never asked him the meaning of a Hebrew word, but he would immediately tell me how often it occurred in the Bible, and what it meant in each place! We then both observed that Mr. Hutchinson’s whole scheme is built upon etymologies; the most uncertain foundation in the world, and the least to be depended upon. We observed, secondly, that if the points be allowed) all his building sinks at once; and, thirdly, that, setting them aside, many of his etymologies are forced and unnatural. He frequently, to find the etymology of one word, squeezes two radices together; a liberty never to be taken where a word may fairly be derived from a single radix.

But may I hazard a few words on the points? Mr. H. affirms that they were invented by the Masorites, only thirteen or fourteen hundred years ago, in order to destroy tho sense of Scripture. I doubt this: who can prove it? Who can prove they were not as old as Ezra, if not coeval with the language? Let any one give a fair reading only to what Dr. Cornelius Bayley has offered in his preface to his Hebrew Grammar, and he will be as sick of reading without points as I am; at least till he can answer the doctor’s arguments he will not be so positive upon the question.

As to his theology, I first stumble at his profuse encomiums on the Hebrew language. But it may be said, “Is it not the language which God himself used?” And is not Greek too the language which God himself used? And did he not use it in delivering to man a far more perfect dispensation than that which he deUvered in Hebrew? Who can deny it? And does not even this consideration give us reason at least to suspect that the Greek language is as far superior to the Hebrew as the New Testament is to the Old? And, indeed, if we set prejudice aside, and consider both with attention and candour, can we help seeing that the Greek excels the Hebrew as much in beauty and strength as it does in copiousness? I suppose no one from the beginning of the world wrote better Hebrew than Moses. But does not the language of St. Paul excel the language of Moses as much as the knowledge of St. Paul excelled his? I speak this, even on supposition that you read the Hebrew as I believe Ezra, if not Moses, did, with points; for if we read it in the modern way, without points, I appeal to <’.very competent judge whether it be not the most equivocal.