and character of the readings transmitted to the Masorets, and by them to us.

But here a question of considerable importance arises, respecting what is meant by the received or Masoretical text. Are we, it may be said, to understand by it the consonants alone of that text, or the vowels and accents in addition? I hesitate not to answer; Both the one and the other; so far at least as the sense of Scripture is affected by them. Not that I contend for the originality of vowels and accents, as constituent parts of the Hebrew text. I contend not for their originality; but solely for their antiquity.

Without entering into a controversy, which was formerly agitated with a severity of reflection on both sides seldom paralleled, which exercised the talents, and exhausted the charityt of the conflicting parties, I shall assume for fact, that the Masoretical system, in the state in which it is delivered down to us, was unknown to the writers of the Old Testament. This I apprehend is sufficiently apparent, independently of all other, considerations, from the perfection of the system itself; from the variety of characteristical marks to distinguish vowel from

* Wasmuth in his Vindiciæ S. Hebrææ thus expresses himself: At vero istius originalem authentiam et integritatem, diris ac blasphemis criminationibus (post Cappellum, Waltonum, et asseclas) longe ferocius adhuc proscindat hic Vossius, nec solum contradicentes ipsi (quamvis mitissime et summa modestia) viros doctissimos, pro indoctis fungis, fatuis et asinis habeat; sed etiam post convictos toties ipsius blasphemos errores (reciprocatis jam pluries utrinque scriptis) jactare etiamnum audeat, siquis adhuc cum ipso contendere velit, sive argumentis, sive testimoniis, se victurum argumentis, se victurum testimoniis; scil. pro argumentis dando bruta decreta, pro testimoniis fabulas, p. 27. Saltem sperare id potuisse non minorem Vossii stupiditatem prodit, quam fastum et arrogantiam plane intolerabilem, p. 28. Miror quod Ecclesia Belgica, blasphemam illam et monstrosam Dissert. Isaaci Vossii de Chron. S. in publica luce toleret, merito æternis tenebris damnandam ; ut qua originalis S. Scripturæ certitudo et authentia funditus subruitur, et sanctissima oracula de generatione Filii Dei, et morte Messiæ, tam nefarie enervantur, ut nisi ad publicam palinodiam adactus fuerit autor, et serio panituerit, vix Deum sibi possit polliceri propitium. p. 28.

vowel, and from the minute modification of pauses by accents. Besides accents seem in some cases solely to bear a reference to the reading of Scripture in the synagogues or in private families; as when there are only two words under the immediate rule of Silluk or Athnach, that is, where there are only two words immediately preceeding a considerable pause; for then they are separated by a distinctive accent instead of being united by a conjunctive one, without any regard to their grammatical connexion, in order that the sense of the passage may not be lost by a too rapid fall of the voice at the conclusion of a sentence. Improvements in language, particularly in the arbitrary power of letters, have always been progressive; and surely the vowel system of the Hebrews bears internal evidence of a refinement, which could have scarcely belonged to the period, assigned to the latest production of the inspired writers. It exhibits a refinement unknown even to modern languages; for, to say nothing of its peculiar punctuation of Gutturals, it not only has two distinct notations for two distinct sounds of the vowels A and E; but it even marks by these the absence of a vowel, whether occasioned by the combination of two consonants without any intervening vowel, or by a consonant's terminating a syllable. And indeed every part of the system is so uniformly and inviolably preserved, that the authors of it appear rather to have completed some more ancient one, than to have invented one entirely new; and to have theorized upon the invariable principles of a dead, than upon the capricious irregularities, of a living language. Complex and comprehensive systems of every description usually succeed those, which are more simple, and limited in their operation.

But if the refinement of the Masoretical systems proves, that it could not have been coæval with the inspired writings themselves, the same refinement also, as I have

observed, may be thought to prove the existence of some more ancient system, which has been superseded by it, and which is now forgotten. This I conceive to be highly probable. Schultens confidently asserts, that such was the case not only in the Hebrew, but likewise in other oriental languages. He says; Ejusdem artis puncta nec a Chaldaica, nec a Syriaca, nec ab Arabica lingua abfuisse tam mihi liquidum, quam liquet eos Consonantes habuisse, et mentem suam non tantum clare eloqui, sed et distincte enotare, ac consignare, inde a scriptura inventa, valuisse. Hoc qui negat, eodem jure scriptionem iis denegat; nisi eos velit tam rudes, ut literas cæcas ne punctulo quidem oculatas reddere sciverint, ubi absolutissima necessitas id flagitaret. Institut. ad fundamenta Ling. Heb. p. 63. Concludo tam certum Arabes et Aramæos, notulas habuisse sonorum; quam certum eos scribendi artem possedisse: quamvis ultro largiar, non satis liquere, quænam fuerint hæ notulæ et figuræ. Ib. p. 64. Desino in prudenti et moderato judicio Cl. Hottingeri ibid. sub nectentis; Arabes, Syros, Chaldæos vocalium expressas semper notas habuisse, nullus dubito. Idem mihi persuasum de lingua Hebræa. Ib. p. 65. What Schultens remarks relative to the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, is still more applicable to the Ethiopic, because this language from the peculiarity of its construction expresses seven distinct vowels by seven distinct forms of every consonant. Nor is the language known to have ever existed without this singular notation of vowels. And it should

Cosmas, a writer of the sixth century, notices a Greck inscription upou a stone chair at Adulis. Topog. Christiana p. 143, Ed. Montfauc. It appears to have been written before, perhaps immediately before, the conversion of the Abyssinians to Christianity, which took place in the year of Christ 333. Mr. Salt in his Travels into Abyssinia gives a full and accurate account of another Greek inscription, which he found at Axum, apparently of the same date; as also of a mutilated Ethiopic inscription, which he discovered on the reverse of the stone containing the Greek inscription. This likewise as far as he was able to trace it out he minutely describes, and gives a fac simile of the letters.

be added, that the most ancient division of the Hebrew vowels upon record is only into seven, precisely as in Ethiopic, viz. into the five usual vowels with the adition of a short A and a short E; every subsequent division into ten, and even fourteen or fifteen having arisen from the little vanity of discovering in the Hebrew a more full and accurate notation to them, than in any other language.

But if we admit the probability, that another, although less perfect, vowel system existed before the adoption of the Masoretical, it may be thought, that by the introduction of the latter the signification of many words might have been materially affected. This however by no means follows. For the addition of new marks, either to denote the mere absence of vowels, a circumstance not before regarded, or to point out the differences in sound, but not in sense, of one and the same vowel, differences perhaps solely introduced by the caprice of pronunciation, (and it is not probable that the Masorets attempted any greater refinements,) cannot I apprehend have effected any essential alteration in the discriminate character of the vowel system. Thus in our own language, as in pronunciation we give three distinct sounds to the vowel A in the words, Father, Fall, and Fable; so were we to invent two new characters for either of the two varying sounds, or to distinguish every combination of consonants by some peculiar mark, the nature and essence of our vowel system wonld notwithstanding surely remain unchanged. May we not therefore in the same manner conclude, that although the ancient notation of vowels in Hebrew was more simple than the Masoretical, yet was it not vague and uncertain; and that when it was modified to a more accurate distinc

Now from these it is evident, that the same distinction of vowels by a change in the form of the consonants, which exists now, existed likewise in the fourth century; for there is no reason to suppose, that the Ethiopic is more modern than the Greek inscription, and indeed the multilated state of its characters seem to prove that it is at least of equal antiquity.

tion of sound, it was not necessarily modified to a new distinction of sense?

Here however another question of the first importance to the enquiry before us arises, which is this: even granting that a sufficient notation of vowels for discriminating the various senses of words was not unknown antecedently to the Masoretical, what proof have we that such a notation was generally used, and always considered as a constituent part of the Hebrew text? This is a question, which has been much controverted. To assert however that the ancient manuscript copies of Scripture were sometimes transcribed without vowels, as may be inferred from the numerous errors of the Septuagint version, or even to assert that they were often transcribed without them, seems not sufficient to disprove their originality; for no synagogue copy of any part of the Bible has been ever transcribed with vowels to the present day, and few manuscript copies have been at any period transcribed with them in the first instance, the points having been subsequently added, and generally by a different person from the transcriber of the consonants. I nevertheless confess, that these circumstances, compared together, appear to me to militate, not indeed against the existence, but against the authority, of the vowel points. Under some form or other they might have existed, and have been applied for the purpose of correct reading; yet they might not have been considered as original parts of the sacred text. And that the latter was really the case, the total omission of them by the Jews in all copies transcribed for the use of the synagogue appears, I apprehend, fully to indicate.

The Jewish opinion then upon the point is clearly expressed by the universal and uniform practice alluded to. But ought Jewish opinion, it may be said, to be deemed conclusive? Might not the inspired writers have possessed a knowledge of some vowel system, and possessing that