The Use of Oral and Written Language to Be Attributed to a Supernatural Revelation

“Whoever,” says the celebrated Tholuck “whoever stands on a lofty mountain, should not look merely at the gold which the morning sun pours on the grass and showers at his feet 5 but he should sometimes also look behind him into the deep valley where the shadows still rest, that he may more sensibly feel that sun is indeed a sun. Thus is it also salutary for the disciple of Christ, at times, from the kingdom of light to cast forth a glance over the dark stage where men play their part in lonely gloom, without a Saviour, without a God!” The inquiry has no doubt often occurred to every reflecting mind, What had the condition of the world now been, had no supernatural revelation ever been imparted to men? The design of these Lectures, my young friends, is to call your attention to the Bible, and to exalt and honour, in your estimation and my own, this Great Book. The most fearful blow that can be directed against the best interests of men, is aimed by unbelief; and owes its succes not unfrequently to an imperfect knowledge of the Bible, as well as neglect of its sacred precepts. Can then a higher service be performed for the youth of our metropolis than to vindicate its claims, assert its superiority, and challenge for it the scrutiny of the incredulous, and the admiration of every devout mind?

We look for greatness in all the works of God. We gaze upon the exterior universe, and exclaim with the Psalmist, “Marvellous are thy works. Lord God Almighty; in wisdom hast thou made them all!” We expect a supernatural revelation to exhibit its Divine author in the same illustrious and splendid character in which he appears in the works of creation and providence. Nor are such expectations disappointed or deceived. Infinite intelligence belongs to the Deity. We see it in his works, and we see it in his word. At the first glance, we can scarcely fail to perceive that the God of creation and providence is the God of the Bible, and that the system of truth revealed in the Scriptures must have originated with the same being who created and govems the world.* When, however, we examine the Bible carefully and minutely 5 when we explore the treasures of its pages, and seem for the moment to grasp the full measure of its wonders and its knowledge 5 how is our admiration heightened! The words of the apostle break almost instinctively from our lips 5 the expression of his feelings becomes the best expression of our own, — “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!”

It was the remark of a sensible and thinking layman, many years ago made to the writer, that “it sometimes seemed to him that the Bible is as much greater than all other books, as its author is greater than all other authors.” I am well persuaded that the seeming extravagance of such an observation will diminish with our increasing acquaintance with this wonderful volume. Tindal a deistical writer in the early part of the seventeenth century, in his work entitled, “Christianity as old as the Creation” labours to show that it was impossible for God to teach men what they did not know before, and that the perfection of the human mind is such that it admits of no addition from a supernatural revelation. I cannot but hope that the presumption and preposterous-

* The spirit of this remark is largely illustrated in that incomparable work, The Analogy of religion, natural and reveaU ed, to the constitution and course of nature, by Joseph Butler, L. L. D. ness of this remark will appear in the following pages. It is not surprising that a deist should depreciate a supernatural revelation. But it is matter of surprise that, as Christians, we should not appreciate it more highly. There is no book in any country, in any language, in any age, that can be compared with this. From one page of this wonderful volume, more may be acquired, than reason or philosophy could acquire by the patience and toil of centuries. The Bible expands the mind, exalts the faculties, developes the powers of the will and of feeling, furnishes a more just estimate of the true dignity of man, and opens more sources of intellectual and spiritual en-, joyment than any other book. Science and literature have taken deep root in this consecrated soil. No book furnishes so many important hints to the human mind 5 gives so many clues to intellectual discovery, and has so many charms in so many departments of human inquiry. In whatever paths of science, or walks of human knowledge we tread, there is scarcely a science, or pursuit of permanent advantage to mankind, which may not either trace its origin to the Bible, or to which the Bible will not be found to be a powerful auxiliary.

Whether we consider its influence upon an oral and written language — upon history and literature — upon laws and government — upon civil and religious liberty — upon the social institutions — upon moral science and the moral virtues — upon the holiness which fits men for heaven, and the pecu-Har spirit and exalted character which prepares them to act well their part on the earth-^upon the happiness they enjoy in the present world — or upon the agency and power by which these desir able results are secured j we shall be at no loss to see that the world in which we live is under everlasting obligations to a supernatural revelation. In this enumeration of topics, you have the genC’ ral outline of the following lectures.

The present opportunity will be devoted to the thought, that the use of oral and written language is to be attributed to a supernatural revelation. The art most necessary for man, even from the commencement of his existence, must have been language. If not an indispensable instrument of thought, yet without it, his mind must of necessity be confined within a very narrow and limited range. His most immediate wants, the play of various passions, and perhaps an imperfect and incoherent narrative might be indicated by signs and the expression of his features. Communications less apparent than these — those shades of emotion, those fainter recollections, and above all, those more intricate combinations of thought arising from the experience of others, as compared with, and confirming, modifying, or refuting his own, — these must be debarred him until he is in possession of an oral language.

And how could man ever have invented articulate speech? Universal observation shows that children learn to speak by imitation j and “where the opportunities of imitation are wanting, the use of articulate speech is unknown.” If I mistake not, it is a fact well ascertained that not an instance is found of the use of articulate sounds as the signs of thought, unless taught immediately by God, or gradually by those who had themselves been instructed. We see not how it is possible for language to have been of human invention. Its structure is too complicated and artificial. It must have required the previous use of language to have constructed the most simple language of the most uninstructed tribes. And whence is it, if language were of human invention, that the oldest languages are more complete in their structure than those languages that have been more recently formed 5 and why, as we mark the progress of improvement, are we not carried back to some early and rude state of this invention?

The use of language is so necessary to the convenience and comfort of man, and the difficulty of forming it so obvious, that it is not unreasonable to suppose it would be immediately conferred upon him by the Author of his existence. He had a body “curiously and wonderfully made,” and a mind so capacious, strong, and penetrating, as to have been, before his apostacy, the greatest, as well as the best of men: and yet, must this “noblest work of God” have been, very imperfect without speech. Nor is it easy to see how his attainments could have been so surprisingly great and rapid, or how his intellectual endowments could have been so successfully cultivated as we know they were, if he had been originally ignorant of all language.

But while the nature of the case might convince us that language is of divine origin, when we look into the Mosaic history, that conviction must be confirmed. There we learn that the laics given to our first parents were given through the medium of language. They obviously conversed with God and with one another. Nor have we any intimation that this intercourse was conducted in any other way than by an oral language. The early worship of our first parents could not have been purely mental and meditative 5 but oral, and in the noblest language ever uttered by man. We learn too, that our progenitor very early gave names to all the animal creation. It was by the channel of an oral language also, that the Tempter infused the first taint of sin into the bosom of man, breathing his poison with his words. It seems indeed to be more generally conceded, that the first use of oral language is to be attributed to a supernatural revelation. There are exceptions to this opinion, but it is very difficult to give any other tolerable account of the origin of this art.*

* This topic is discussed at length by Herder on the origin of language; by Suckford in his connexions; by Condiliac on the origin of Human knowledge; by Smith in his Theory of Moral The researches of the most accredited philologists go far to support this opinion. The more critically modern, as well as ancient languages are investigated, the more are they found to resemble each other in their roots and primary forms, and the more clearly are referable to one common stock. The languages which prevailed in all the South ‘of Europe after the destruction of the Roman Empire, were a barbarous mixture of the Latin with the different languages of the Northern invaders. The modern languages of Europe have all evidently been derived from the Roman; the Roman from the Greek, and the Greek from the Phoenician. Goguet in his Origin of laws arts and sciences remarks that “the comparison of the Phcenician and Greek Alphabet would alone be sufficient to convince us of this. It is visible that the Greek characters are only the Phoenician letters turned from right to left.” Authorities might be greatly multiplied to show that the Phoenicians spoke a dialect of the Hebrew, The Chaldee, Syriac, and Samaritan are also dialects of the Hebrew, without any considerable deviation, or many additional words.

Sentiment; by Magee in a valuable note to his work on Atonement and Sacrifice; by the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, article Language; by Dr. Samuel S. Smith; by Stilingjleet, in his Orignae Sacrae; in the Boylean Lectures; in Beanie’s Theory of Language; in the Scholar Armed; in Woolastxm!s ReUgion of Nature, and in Winder’’s History of Knowledge.

There is a striking similarity also between the Ethiopic and the Hebrew 5 the Hebrew and the Arabic, and the Arabic and the Persic. There are strong analogies between the Sanscrit and the Hebrew, and between the Hebrew and the Coptic 5 while the Coptic is identified with the ancient Egyptian. Dr. Lightfoot whom Adam Clarke pronounces to have been the first scholar in Europe, is of the opinion that the original tongue was Hebrew j that this was the language spoken in Canaan before the time of Joshua j that it was the language of Adam and the language of God. “God” says he, “was the first founder of it, and Adam was the first speaker of it. It began with the world and the Church, and increased in glory till the captivity in Babylon. The whole language is contained in the Bible, and no other book contains in it an entire language.”*

The German scholars of the present century would present much the same account, while they seem to hesitate in expressing the opinion that the Hebrew is the mother tongue. We learn from them that the modern languages of Europe, together with the Gothic, Sclavonic, Greek and Latin are discov.ered to bear a close affinity j and under the name of Indo-European are classed with them in one family. Between these and the Semitic family, which, among others, includes the

* Lightfoot’s Works.

Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac Samaritan, Ethiopic and Arabic, striking analogies are discovered, and by every new research they are becoming more fully identified. Wiseman a learned Romanist, says, that the decision of the academy of St. Petersburgh upon the celebrated paper of count Goulianoff was, that all languages are to be considered as dialects of one now lost. I am at a loss to understand the ground of this uncertainty. The Chaldee and Syriac were formerly one language, only they were written with a different character 5 and they were both dialects of the Hebrew. The hypothesis, for it is an hypothesis merely, that the book of Job is older than the Pentateuch and was written in Arabic, seems indeed to countervail the position that the Hebrew is the first written language. And yet Lightfoot unhesitatingly affirms that the Arabic is a dialect of the Hebrew, and that “all languages are indebted to this, and this to none.” This much however may be confided in, that both believers and unbelievers in the Mosaic history have affirmed the original unity of all language 5 disclaiming the notion that men are of entirely distinct races, and thus far corroborating the position that the same divine source of the physical organs of speech imparted to man the knowledge of their use and power.

The first method of rendering thought visible was by pictures, symbols, and the various kinds of ideagraphic writing. But there is a marked distinction between these imperfect, and elementary forms and Alphabetical writing. This is a system which is expressive primarily of sound rather than of thought. Instead of employing characters as multifarious as the different objects to be pointout, it makes visible by the combination of a few elements of sound, every idea which the mind is capable of conceiving.

From our familiarity with this art, it is not easy for us to appreciate its importance. The extreme simplicity by which results so complicated are attained, bears a strong analogy, not to the works of man’s invention, but to the operations of the God of nature, distinguished as they are, not less by the fewness and simplicity of their agents, than their astonishing, nay unlimited combinations. Were we now in possession only of such a mode of writing as distinguished the ancient Egyptians, or the Mexicans upon the discovery of this continent, and as distinguishes the Chinese at the present day; and should some gigantic mind penetrate the mysteries of sound, embody them and give them form, and present to us our simple Alphabet, the first lesson of our childhood, and explain to us its combinations and its uses j what honours, I had almost said, what veneration should we withhold from him!

The claims of most nations to this singular discovery arise solely from their supposed antiquity. And yet is it a somewhat remarkable fact, that some of the most ancient nations remained destitute of this art long after it had prevailed in adjacent countries.* Dr. Mc Knight remarks that “the literal method of writing, is generally said to have been first practised by the Phoenicians 5” though he himself countenances the idea that the first specimen of the art was that on the tables given to Moses. But, it may be shown with the utmost degree of probability that the Phoenician Alphabet was derived from the Hebrew. A learned writer in the Edinburgh Encyclopsedia expresses the opinion, “that the pretensions of the Phoenicians must give way to the better established claim of the Hebrews.” Goguet thinks it more probable that this invention is to be ascribed either to the Assyrians, or the Egyptians. It is true that the Assyrians were a more ancient people than the Hebrews j but, their antiquity extended beyond the period when letters were invented. On the mere ground of antiquity, they have a higher claim than any other nation. But I have found no evidence in

* The leading authors to which I have had access on this general subject are Winder’s History of Knowledge — GogueVs Origin of Laws — Dugald Stewart’s Dissertation prefixed to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica — the Edinburgh Review for 1836, — the works of Lightfoot — Astle on the origin and progress of writing — Warburton’s Divine Legation of Moses — Gilbert Wakefield’s Dissertation on Alphabetical writing — Daubuz on the Revelation — and also some valuable thoughts at the close of the last volume of Dr. Mc Knight on the Apostolic Epistles.

in favour of their claims except this. On the contrary, the best authorities dispute their pretensions. With regard to Egypt, more may be said in invaHdating its claims to this invention than has been said against those of Phoenicia and Assyria. Is there not a sort of literary mania which has led so many renowned men to ascribe almost all that is valuable in literature, science, or the arts to Egypt? Though comparatively a very incompetent judge of matters of this sort, I have never been so convinced as some have been of the superiority of this degraded and pagan empire. Egypt “owed her splendour to strangers, rather than to her own vigorous and nourished intellect.” Scythia rivalled her in arms. Tyre in commerce, Syria in letters, Chaldea in astronomy, and Babylon in every department of natural science. Dr. Delaney in his Life of David, expresses the opinion that the great models of Grecian architecture, are not, as has more generally been supposed, to be traced to Egypt, but to that most perfect of all models, the Temple at Jerusalem, the entire plan of which was given to David by God himself. The hieroglyphics of the ancient Egyptians were never brought to such a state of perfection as to constitute a system of phonetic writing. They remain to the present day 5 and they are almost useless and silent, because they represent none of the elements of articulation, and bear no analogy to any other system, whether ancient or modern. Whatever may have been their learning of other kinds, the Egyptians never possessed Alphabetical writing; they were “contented with their hieroglyphical method and never, of themselves, advanced beyond it.” The same may be remarked of the Chinese even at the present day. It is a point well established that the elements of their writing, or keys as they are termed, are merely symbolical, and could never have given rise to any one of the Oriental alphabets. It is “purely an artificial structure which denotes every idea by its appropriate sign without any relation to the utterance. It speaks to the eye like the numerical cyphers of the Europeans, which every one understands and utters in his own way.” Modern authors seem generally to agree in tracing the pervading ignorance of this people to this fact. Neither can the claims of the Hindoos be defended on any better grounds than those of the nations already named. Sir William Jones has clearly made it appear that the Hindoo pretensions to antiquity are excessively extravagant, if not altogether fabulous. Events which they used to fix at a date of some million or two years back, actually took place in the tenth, or eleventh century of the Christian era. Their famous astronomical tables, by which it has been imagined that great antiquity might be assigned to this nation, are shown to be incorrect, and to have been calculated backwards. It has been satisfactorily proved that the Treatise which they consider the most ancient in the world, must have been compiled since the Christian era.

Though no man is warranted in speaking with confidence on this subject, yet is there not some good reason to believe that the earhest specimens of a written language came from the Hebrews 1 Is there not presumptive evidence of this, in the mere fact that the first oral language was the Hebrew? If the Hebrew language was the language originally imparted to men j if it was preserved through all the corruptions of the antediluvian world, through the division of the family of Noah in the time of Peleg, and through the subsequent confusion of tongues 5 if it was the language in which God spoke to Abraham and to Moses, and in which Moses conveyed the revelation of the divine will to mankind j is there not some strong presumption in favour of the idea that it was the first written language?

Notwithstanding the efforts of the infidels of Germany, who have endeavoured to show that alphabetical writing was not in use at all even so early as the time of Moses, it will not be denied except by infidels of the boldest class, that the Hebrew characters existed in a perfect state when this inspired author wrote the Pentateuch. Dr. Winder, in his History of knowledge, maintains the position, that the art of alphabetical writing was communicated to Moses when the Great Lawgiver gave him the law upon mount Sinai. The considerations which support this hypothesis, to say the least, amount to strong presumption in its favour. With two exceptions writing is not even apparently mentioned in the Scriptures before the giving of the law, and these as we shall presently show, may not invalidate the hypothesis of which we are speaking. There was no such thing as writing known before the flood, nor is there any mention made of it in the book of Genesis before that period. Nor was it known from the time of the flood to the time of Abraham’s leaving Chaldea. Nor was it known in Canaan at the death of Sarah, and when Abraham bought the cave of Ephron of the sons of Heth. Goguet remarks, that “all deeds among the Hebrews at that time were verbal, and were authenticated and ascertained by being made in presence of all the people.” Nor was it known at the time of Isaac’s marriage. Nor was it known either in Phoenicia, or Canaan, at the time of Isaac’s league with Gerar. Nor was it known either in Canaan or Syria, when Jacob went to Laban. Nor was it known in the family of Jacob, while Joseph was in Egypt, either during his servitude, or preferment. Nor was it known at the new settlement of the lands after the famine*, nor when the Hebrews settled in Goshen j nor when their oppression began, and the sanguinary edicts were published.* Though these were periods and transactions, during which had alphabetical letters existed, they would not only have been of the greatest ‘utility, but as it

* See these positions illustrated and defended in Winder.

seems to us indispensable, and could scarcely fail of being mentioned 5 yet are they not only not mentioned, but all these important transactions, and all the correspondence between the parties, as well as all the communications from Heaven, were effected by verbal intercourse.

And yet there is a. precise period beyond which they are mentioned, and mentioned on almost every fit occasion, and introduced into all the national and ecclesiastical affairs of the Jewish people. That period is the inscription of the law on Mount Sinai by the hand of God, on the two tables of stone.

After this period, Moses is commanded to write the laws in a book 5 to write the narrative of the war with the Amalekites *, to write a copy of the law for future kings j to record the laws that they might be read 5 and to place a copy of them in the ark of the covenant. After this period also, and not before, as a close examination of the whole passage most clearly shows, we read of the engraving of the nmnes of the twelve tribes on the breast plate of judgment, and of the engraving oii the mitre of Aaron of the memorable label, HOLINESS to the lord.

The giving of the tables it will be noticed was a different thing from the writing of the tables. The disregard of this very plain distinction has led to the supposition, that the charge given to, Moses which relates to the ephod and breast plate for the High Priest, on which inscriptions were to be made like the engravings of a signet was given before the law was written. The law was not given to Moses until just as he was about to leave the mount, at the close of the forty days. But it was written more than a month before 5 and not until after it was written, did Moses receive the instruction to prepare the ephod and the breastplate of Aaron. Signets are mentioned before the writing of the law, but there is no evidence that they were not purely hieroglyphic. God now required Moses to engrave on the mitre of Aaron letters as distinctly as had heretofore been the hieroglyphic representations of a signet.

Now, whence is this perfect silence on the subject of alphabetical writing, until after the supernatural writing of the law, and whence the frequent notices of the art afterwards? Is not the only answer to this question found in the fact, that the origin of the art is to be attributed to God himself, and that he was the original instructor of Moses during the forty days in which he was upon the Mount?

It would be natural to suppose, if a written language were thus discovered to men, that there would be some intimations of this fact in the Mosaic history. Are there not intimations of it? Let us advert a few moments to the narrative of this transaction as it is recorded in the book of Exodus. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me in the Mount and be there 5 and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law and commandments, which I have written.” The tables here spoken of, it is obvious were already prepared and finished at some previous time. God affirms that he had written them. Subsequently to this, we are told that “God gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him on Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” Just after this, the fact is repeated, “and the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.” It is a question which deserves to be impartially considered, whether God does not here affirm that he himself is the author of this invention. When a work is declared in the Scriptures to be the work of God to have been wrought by the finger of God, the idea conveyed is that it is the peculiar work of God, and altogether above the power of man. When it is said that Israel is the sheep of God’’s hand, the meaning is that they belong to God and to no other. When the Saviour says that he cast out devils by the finger of God, we understand him as declaring that he performs a work to which no other power is adequate but the power of God. When the magicians of Egypt exclaimed of the miracles of Moses, this is the finger of God, they acknowledged his divine mission. And so the Psalmist, when he says, “when I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers,” expresses the idea that, no other could create the heavens but God. On the same principle idols are the invention of men, and are called the work of men’s hands and which their own fingers have made. Is it not then a fair exegetical inference, that, when the law is declared to have been written by the finger of God, the legitimate import of the phrase is, that it was so peculiarly his work that the original invention is due to him.

I remarked that with two exceptions writing is not even apparently mentioned in the Scriptures before the giving of the Law. One of these occurs just before the giving of the Law, and refers to a future rehearsal in the ears of Joshua of what Moses should subsequently commit to writing for the instruction and encouragement of his successor; and by no means proves that the art of writing was known to Moses before the time when the Law was written. Especially is this remark deserving of consideration, when it is recollected that it is no uncommon thing for the Scriptures to notice future events by this sort of anticipation. The other apparent exception will be found no exception at all. It is recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus. “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord: — and he took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people.” It is said, that as God did not call Moses up into the Mount and give him the written tables until after this period, Moses must have had the art of writing before the tables were written. But the question is, when were the tables written?

Moses had been up to the Mount with God before the period here referred to. His first ascent is noticed as far back as the nineteenth chapter. He had ascended a second time, as related in the same chapter. And as is related in the latter part of the same chapter, he had ascended a third time. Not until he came down after the fourth ascent, is he represented as writing the civil and judicial statutes and reading them to the people. Now had not God prepared the two tables of the moral Law before Moses wrote and read to the people their judicial code? He had not committed them to Moses till after this, but when he did commit them, it was a commitment of tables, as we have already seen previously prepared j how long before no man can tell. But it cannot be shown that it was after Moses wrote and read the judicial statutes.

It is also objected to this position, that Job must have lived previous to the time of Moses, and that as he distinctly refers to ancient writing by books and sculpture, there must have been a written language before the giving of the Law. When it shall be made to appear that the book of Job was written at an earlier period than the time of Moses, it will be time enough to give weight to this objection. The age in which Job lived, and in which the book of Job was written is unknown. If the most distinguished critics may be relied upon, this book was posterior to the time of Moses, or Moses himself was its author. Dr. Warburton judges it to have been written about the close of the Babylonish captivity. Dr. John Mason Good, Dr. Winder and Dr. Grey, with great strength of argument, attribute it to Moses. Gregory Nazianzen, Spanheim, and Adam Clarke attribute it to Solomon. Several distinguished writers have supposed that the silence of the author of this book respecting the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus from Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, and the promulgation of the Law, prove that it was written prior to these events, and during the age of the early patriarchs. But is it to be supposed that every book in the sacred canon which does not refer to these events, was written prior to these events themselves? Two things are indispensable to the conclusiveness of this argument, neither of which is known. The first is, that upon the supposition, that the author of the book of Job, or Job himself had lived subsequently to these events, he was acquainted with them 5 the second is, that upon the supposition that he was acquainted with them, they must necessarily, or even probably have been noticed in this Book. Nor does the longevity of Job necessarily place him in an age previous to the giving of the Law. That he did not live in so early an age as that of the longeval patriarchs is evident from two considerations 5 in the first place, the reference of Bildad to the longevity of that age, as a peculiarity that distinguished it from his own, as appears from the 8th and 9th verses of the 8th Chapter 5 and in the second place, there is no evidence that the age of Job himself was such as to justify the remark, that he “was old and full of days,” unless he lived long after the early patriarchs. The writer of the passage, “man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble 5 he cometh forth like a jflower, and is cut down 5 he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not 5” cannot well be supposed to have lived at a period when the life of man was prolonged from six hundred to a thousand years. The reference to the flood as a very ancient event is inconsistent with the supposition that Job lived anywhere near the period of those who walked in the “old way” and were “cut down out of time.” The reference to the law of land-marks and pledges rather indicates also that the hero of this book lived after the time of Moses.

It has also been said that there is ground for a presumption that the art of writing was known before the time of Moses, in the fact that there were officers called Shoterim among the Israelites; and that this word primarily and properly means writers. The passage referred to, is Exodus the fifth chapter and sixth verse. “And Pharaoh commanded the same day the task-masters and the officers, saying, ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick.” Our translators translate the Hebrew word officers, and most certainly the scope and sense of the passage would be violated by translating it writers. Adam Clarke says that the shoterim “were an inferior sort of officers, who attended on superior officers or magistrates to execute their orders.” So say Patrick and Rosenmuller, who give at length the reasons for this opinion. And Mr. Poole gives the same translation, affirming, with RosenmuUer, that the secondary meaning of the word is scribes.

It appears therefore in a high degree probable that the art of writing was imparted to Moses at the giving of the law. The hypothesis is certainly attended with fewer difficulties than any other which I have met with. The two tables we are informed were written by the finger of God and after these were broken, they were rewritten by the same unerring hand. And what additional, what overwhelming evidence would it offer to the Jewish people of the divine origin of the moral law, when these tables were presented to them, inscribed with mysterious and living characters! If Moses himself was unacquainted with the art of writing before he ascended the mount, the possibility of collusion or deceit was precluded, and the most stubborn minds must have yielded impHcit confidence in the divine legation of their lawgiver. We find that notwithstanding the solemnity of that memorable scene, a portion of the people gave themselves up to idolatry, even while Moses was yet communing with God upon the mount. After his descent with the two tables in his hands, as the final witness and seal of his errand, for a long time we hear no more of doubts. no more following after idols j and is it unreasonable to suppose that the obstinancy of an incredulous people was at last vanquished by the two tables of testimony? If you ask, why there were no demonstrations of surprise on the part of the Jewish lawgiver upon the revelation of this art, or on the part of the people at its introduction among them j I reply, there may have been, though they are not recorded. And even if there were not, we need not wonder at this, when we recollect that Moses was with God forty days in the mount, and especially when we reflect upon the prodigies which nature every where displayed around the people, when Sinai sent up its flame and smoke, and the voice of the ever-living God was heard amid the thunders of the mount.

And is it not somewhat remarkable, that, if of human origin, the author of so wonderful a discovery as that of alphabetical writing, should be so utterly lost in the remote ages of antiquity, that no man can specify the nation, or even the era to which it can be attributed? There is something quite as ludicrous to my mind, in the theories of the gradual construction of alphabetical letters, as there is in the systems of Pagan cosmogony. Is it reasonable to suppose for example, that the old Shemitish letter D was suggested by the word door or the old Shemitish letter H by the yvovAfence and the Shemitish V by a hook or nail? And yet this system has very learned advocates. May we not gravely inquire whether the invention of letters does not exceed the powers of man? The learned Shuckford, though an advocate for the early invention of the art, says, “that men should immediately fall on such a project, to express sounds by letters, and expose to sight all that may be said, or thought, in about twenty characters variously placed, exceeds the highest notion we can have of the capacities with which we are endowed.” It is truly a wonderful art. And it was perfect from the beginning 5 nor has there been any improvement from the days of Moses to the present day. With one exception all the Hebrew letters are found in the decalogue. Every guttural, labial, lingual, and dental sound is here disclosed.

Nor is it less worthy of note, that not an instance is known in which any man, or set of men, ever invented the use of letters by their own unaided powers.

I am not disposed therefore to receive the opinion that the origin of letters is lost in time 5 or that the art rose from small beginnings, and was gradually improved as the wants of men demanded it; but that it was revealed to men by God himself. Nor is this at all a novel conclusion. Among the Christian fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyril and St. Augustin; and among the moderns, Mariana, a learned Romanist, Dr. John Owen, Sir Charles Woollesly, Drs. Winder, McKnight, and others, held the opinion that Moses introduced the first Alphabet.*

* Vide Winder.

In relation to the period when the art of writing was communicated to other nations, as might be well supposed, different views have been expressed by different men. It is obvious that the Hebrews had no opportunity of communicating with other nations either during their forty years in the Desert, or the time of Joshua’s conquests or government. The period between the death of Joshua and the government of Samuel, as characterized by the reign of the Judges, was marked by great corruption and degeneracy. Milman, in his history of the Jews, well describes it as “the heroic age of Jewish history, abounding in wild adventure and desperate feats of individual valour.” During this rude and unsettled period, a period of above four hundred years, they were scarcely fitted to receive, or extend instruction of any kind. Under the government of Samuel, the literature of the nation may be said to have taken its rise. He founded a school of the Prophets *, he was the author of the earlier part of the life of David 5 and he wrote a treatise on civil government, which was called “the manner of the kingdom,” for the instruction of Saul, the first king. David was a Prince of highly cultivated mind, and greatly elevated the nation in arts and in arms. It was not, however, until the distinguished reign of Soloman, that the Hebrew state attracted the attention of the surrounding nations, and became as remarkable for its wisdom, as for its wealth and splendour. The reign of this Prince was the zenith of Israel’s glory. It was to the Hebrew nation, what the present century has been to Germany 5 what the reign of Anne was to Britain 5 the reign of Louis XIV. to France 5 the Pontificate of Leo X. to Italy 5 the reign of Augustus Caesar to Rome; and the influence of Pericles to Greece. Solomon’s court was the most splendid and enlightened court in the world. The whole country of Palestine was then classic ground. It was a time of profound peace j and the people were no longer the sport of the sword and the pestilence. Agriculture and commerce, lucrative occupation of every kind, and unobstructed international intercourse had rendered their land and their metropolis “the beauty of perfection, and the joy of the whole earth.” Never had the nation so favorable an opportunity of forming and executing the noblest and most useful designs, and of extending its influence for the melioration of our race. It is most probable that it was not until about this period that the knowledge of letters passed from the Hebrews to the Pagan world, and especially to the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, and the Chaldeans j each of which had peculiar facilities for becoming acquainted with the Hebrew language.*

The researches of able Chronologists give weight to this opinion. David and Solomon were contemporaneous with Hiram in Phoenicia; with Ha-

* See Winder. dadezer in Assyria; and according to Sir Isaac Newton, with Sesostris in Egypt, and Cadmus in Greece. Not far from this period, we find that letters were introduced into different Pagan nations; and they gradually became the habitation of genius and learning as they were more or less remote from the Holy land.

May we not then regard Judea as the birth place of letters? Her language was a sort of universal language; her central position had been reserved by the God of nations in his division of the earth, for the express purpose of making her the depository of knowledge; and her prophets, her historians, and her poets were eagerly sought after. She was the most powerful and the most accomplished nation; and the active, imposing character of her inhabitants ensured to her a commanding influence. Her priests were learned men, and their cities were like so many Universities. Nor is it unreasonable to believe, that to her belonged the distinction of serving as a model to her more barbarous neighbours.

The apostle once said, “I am a debtor to the Jew.” And so is the whole literary world. If the press is the palladium of civilized society; if letters are the great hope of its advancement, and the only effectual security against its return to barbarity and wretchedness; what do we not owe to this now scattered, but once concentrated and enlightened people? Whatever may be the benefits of this great art upon the intellectual and social character, and upon individual and public prosperity, may we not say, the honour of it belongs to the Hebrews — to Moses their great Lawgiver — to the Bible? Not until this treasury of knowledge was unlocked, were the riches of thought diffused through the nations. It is not undeserved homage to this sacred Book to say, that philosophers and great men of other times lighted their torch in Zion, and the altars of learning caught their first spark from the flame that glowed within her Temple.

The tongue of man is the glory of his frame; and the use of it was taught him by his Maker. These mysterious letters, too, are from him. When we take up a profitable book, we should recollect whose hand first inscribed the living characters. Every time we take our pen too, to inscribe these characters on the page of business, or of friendship, we should recollect with gratitude that we owe the wonderful art to him from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift.