great purity and simplicity. Its principal characteristics, which apply, however, more or less to the kindred Semitic dialects, are stated by Gesenius to be the following. 1. It is fond of gutturals, which appear to have been pronounced with considerable force, but which our organs cannot enunciate. 2. The roots, from which other words are derived, generally consist of two syllables, and are more frequently verbs than nouns. 3. The verb has only two temporal forms, the past and the future. 4. The oblique cases of the pronouns are always affixed to the verb, the substantive, or the particle, with which they stand connected. 5. The genders are only two,-masculine and feminine. 6. The only way of distinguishing the cases is by prepositions, only the genitive is formed by a noun being placed in construction with another noun, by which it is governed. 7. The comparative and superlative have distinct or separate forms. 8. The language exhibits few compounds, except in proper names. 9. The syntax is extremely simple, and the diction is in the highest degree unperiodical.

The Hebrew language is found in its greatest purity in the writings of Moses. It was in a very flourishing state in the time of David and Solomon; but towards the reign of Hezekiah it began to decline, was subjected to an intermixture of foreign words, principally Aramaan, and gradually deteriorated till the captivity, during which it became in a great measure forgotten, the Jews adopting the eastern Aramæan in Babylon; and on their return to their native land they spoke a mixed dialect, composed principally of the dialects just mentioned, and otherwise made up of Syriacisms, or western Aramæan materials. Some knowledge, however, of the ancient language continued to exist among the learned of the nation: but they no longer spoke it in purity, and mixed it up with a number of Persic, Greek, and Latin words, and thus formed the Talmudic dialect, which exhibits the language as preserved in the Talmud. The Rabbinical Hebrew, which is that of a still later age, contains a further mixture from the different languages with which the Rabbins were conversant.

HEBREW PHILOLOGY. In no department of sacred learning have the wild vagaries of a playful imagination, or stubborn hardihood of preconceived opinions, and favourite theological theories, produced greater confusion, and thrown more formidable bugbears in the way of the youthful student, than that of Hebrew philology. The very facts, that some of the documents comprised in the sacred volume are upwards of 3000 years old, and were penned several centuries before the Greeks became acquainted with the use of letters; and that a period of not fewer than twelve centuries intervened between the composition of the earliest and the most recent of

its records, together with the wide difference which is known to exist between the forms and structure of the oriental languages and those of western Europe, present considerations which are of themselves sufficiently intimidating, and calculated to make a beginner despair of ever acquiring a satisfactory knowledge of the language in which it is written: but when in addition to these facts, we reflect on the various conflicting systems of Hebrew grammar and lexicography, the high-pretending, but contradictory hypotheses of divines eminent for their erudition and piety, and the circumstance that few years elapse without some production of novel and original claims being obtruded on the attention of the theological world in reference to this subject, it cannot be matter of surprise, that numbers, even of those whose sacred engagements would naturally lead them to cultivate the study of Hebrew, are induced to abandon it as altogether unprofitable and vain.

Such as have never particularly directed their attention to the subject, can scarcely form any idea of the widely-diversified views that have been entertained respecting the only proper and legitimate methods by which to determine the true meaning of the words constituting the ancient language of the Hebrews. We shall, therefore, here attempt a brief sketch of the different schools of Hebrew philology.

1. The Rabbinical. This school, which is properly indigenous among the Jews, derives its acquaintance with the Hebrew from the tradition of the synagogue; from the Chaldee Targums; from the Talmud; from the Arabic, which was the language of some of the most learned Rabbins; and from conjectural interpretation. In this school, at one of its earlier periods, Jerome acquired his knowledge of the language; and on the revival of learning, our first Christian Hebraists in the west were also educated in it, having had none but Rabbins for their teachers. In consequence of this, the Jewish system of interpretation was introduced into the Christian church by Reuchlin, Sebastian Munster, Sanctes Pagninus, and the elder Buxtorf: and its principles still continue to exert a powerful and extensive influence through the medium of the grammatical and lexicographical works of the last-mentioned author, and the tinge which they gave to many parts of the biblical translations executed immediately after the Reformation.

2. The Forsterian school, founded about the middle of the sixteenth century, by John Forster, a scholar of Reuchlin's, and professor in Tubingen and Wittenberg. This author entirely rejected the authority of the Rabbins; and, not being aware of the use to be made of the versions and cognate dialects, laid it down as an incontrovertible principle of Hebrew philology, that a perfect knowledge

of the language is to be derived from the sacred text alone, by consulting the connexion, comparing the parallel passages, and transposing and changing the Hebrew letters, especially such as are similar in figure. His system was either wholly adopted and extended, or, in part, followed by Bohl, Gusset, Driessen, Stock, and others, whose lexicons all proceed on this self-interpreting principle; but its insufficiency has been shown by J. D. Michaelis, in his "Investigation of the Means to be employed in order to attain to a Knowledge of the dead Language of the Hebrews," and by Bauer, in his Hermeneut. V. T.” 3. The Arenarian school, which proceeds on the principle that the Hebrew, being the primitive language from which all others have been derived, may be explained by aid of the Greek, Latin, German, English, &c. Its founder, John Avenarius, professor at Wittenberg, has had but few followers; but among these we may reckon the eccentric Hermann van der Hardt, who attempted to derive the Hebrew from the Greek, which he regarded as the most ancient of all tongues.

4. The Hieroglyphic, or cabalistic system, long in vogue among the Jews, but first introduced into Christendom by Caspar Neumann, professor at Breslau. It consists in attaching certain mystical and hieroglyphical powers to the different letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and determining the signification of the words according to the position occupied by each letter. This ridiculously absurd hypothesis was ably refuted by the learned Christ. Bened. Michaelis, in a Dissertation printed at Halle, 1709, in 4to., and has scarcely had any abettors: but recently it has been revived by a French academician, whose work on the subject exhibits a perfect anomaly in modern literature. Its title is, “La Langue Hébraïque Restituée, et le véritable sens des mots Hébreux rétabli et prouvé par leur analyse radicale. Par Fabre D'Olivet, à Paris, 1815." 4to. According to this author, is the sign of power and stability; of paternity and virility: of organic or material development; of divisible or divided nature; a most mysterious sign, expressive of the connexion between being and nonentity, &c. The following specimens of M. D'Olivet's own English version, taken at random from the second volume, will fill the reader with astonishment at the perversion they display, no less of the powers of the human mind, than of the true principles of language, and of the Scriptures of truth.

Gen. ii. 8. And-he-appointed, IHOHA, HE-the-Gods, an-inclosure (an organical boundary) in the temporal-and-sensible sphere, extracted-from-the-boundless-andforegoing (time), and-he-laid-up there thatsame-Adam, whom he-had-framed-forever.

10. And-a-flowing-effluence (an emanation) was-running from-this-temporal-and

sensible-place, for-be-dewing that-same-organic-enclosure; and-thence it-was-dividing inorder-to-be-henceforth-suitable to-the-fourfold-generative power.

"22. And-he-restored (in its former state) IHOHA, He-the Being-of-beings, the-selfsameness of-the-sheltering-windings whichhe-had- broken from-Adam (the collective man) for (shaping) Aishah (the intellectual woman, man's faculty of volition), and-hebrought-her to-Adam.

"vi. 9. Those-are the symbolical-progenies of-Noah; Noah, intellectual-principle, rightproving-of-universal-accomplishments was he, in-the-periods-his-own: together with-himthe-Gods, he-applied-himself-to walk, Noah.

"x. 30. And-such-was the-restoring-placeof-them, from-harvest-spiritual-fruits, by-dint of-spiritual-contriving, to the-height of-pristine-time."

Having perused these delectable portions of the translation, which no language but the English was found capable of expressing, our readers will be fully prepared to do justice to the assertions of M. D'Olivet, "that the Hebrew language (which he considers to be the ancient Egyptian) has long been lost; that the Bible we possess is far from being an exact translation of the Sepher of Moses; that the greater part of the vulgar translations are false; and that to restore the language of Moses to its proper grammar, we shall be obliged violently to shock those scientific and religious prejudices, which habit, pride, interest, and respect for ancient errors, have combined to consecrate, confirm, and guard." 5. The Hutchinsonian school, founded by John Hutchinson, originally steward to the Duke of Somerset, and afterwards master of the horse to George I., who maintained, that the Hebrew Scriptures contain the true principles of philosophy and natural history; and that, as natural objects are representative of such as are spiritual and invisible, the Hebrew words are to be explained in reference to these sublime objects. His principles pervade the lexicons of Bates and Parkhurst; but though they have been embraced by several learned men in this country, they are now generally scouted, and have never been adopted, as far as we know, by any of the continental philologists. The disciples of this school are violent anti-punctists.

6. The Cocceian, or polydunamic hypothesis, according to which the Hebrew words are to be interpreted in every way consistent with their etymological import, or, as it has been expressed, in every sense of which they are capable. Its author, John Cocceius, a Dutch divine, regarded every thing in the Old Testament as typical of Christ, or of his church and her enemies; and the lengths to which he carried his views on this subject, considerably influenced the interpretations given in his Hebrew Lexicon, which is, ne

Ꮓ

vertheless, a work of no ordinary merit. This system has been recently followed by Mr. Von Meyer, of Frankfort, in his improved version of the Holy Scriptures, with short notes.

7. The Schultensian school, by which, to a certain extent, a new epoch was formed in Hebrew philology. Albert Schultens, professor of the oriental languages at Leyden, was enabled, by his profound knowledge of Arabic, to throw light on many obscure passages of Scripture, especially on the book of Job; but, carrying his theory so far as to maintain, that the only sure method of fixing the primitive significations of the Hebrew words is to determine what are the radical ideas attaching to the same words, or words made up of the same letters in Arabic, and then to transfer the meaning from the latter to the former, a wide door was opened for speculative and fanciful interpretation; and the greater number of the derivations proposed by this celebrated philologist and his admirers, have been rejected as altogether untenable, by the first Hebrew scholars, both in our own country and the continent. The great faults of the system consisted in the disproportionate use of the Arabic, to the neglect of the other cognate dialects, especially the Syriac, which, being the most closely related, ought to have the primary place allotted to it; want of due attention to the context; an inordinate fondness for emphases; and far-fetched etymological hypotheses and combinations.

8. The last school of Hebrew philology is that of Halle, so called from the German university of this name, where most of the Hebrew scholars have received their education, or resided, by whom its distinguishing principles have been originated, and brought to their present advanced state of maturity. Its foundation was laid by J. H. and Ch. B. Michaelis, and the superstructure has been carried up by J. D. Michaelis, Simon Eichhorn, Dindorf, Schnurrer, Rosenmüller, and Gesenius, who is allowed to be one of the first Hebraists of the present day.

The grand object of this school is to combine all the different methods by which it is possible to arrive at a correct and indubitable knowledge of the Hebrew language, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament:-allotting to each of the subsidiary means its relative value and authority, and proceeding, in the application of the whole, according to sober and well-matured principles of interpretation.

The first of these means is the study of the language itself, as contained in the books of the Old Testament. Though by some carried to an unwarrantable length, it cannot admit of a doubt, that this must ever form the grand basis of Scripture interpretation. Difficulties may be encountered at the commencement;

but when, as we proceed, we find from the subject-matter, from the design of the speaker or writer, and from other adjuncts, that the sense we have been taught to affix to the words must be the true one, we feel ourselves possessed of a key, which, as far as it goes, we may safely and confidently apply to unlock the sacred writings. When, however, the signification of a word cannot be determined by the simple study of the original Hebrew, recourse must then be had to the ancient versions, the authors of most of which, living near the time when the language was spoken in its purity, and being necessarily familiar with oriental scenes and customs, must be regarded as having furnished us with the most important and valuable of all the subsidiary means by which to ascertain the sense in cases of äraž λeyóμeva, words or phrases of rare occurrence, or connexions which throw no light on the meaning. Yet, in the use of these versions, care must be taken not to employ them exclusively, nor merely to consult one or two of them to the neglect of the rest. It must also be ascertained, that their text is critically correct in so far as the passage to be consulted is concerned; and the biblical student must not be satisfied with simply guessing at their meaning, or supposing that they either confirm or desert what he may have been led to regard as the sense of the original; but must be practically acquainted with the established usage obtaining in each version, and the particular character of their different renderings.

The Rabbinical Lexicons and Commentaries furnish the next source of Hebrew interpretation. Not that this source is to be admitted as a principium cognoscendi, or an infallible criterion, by which to judge of the true signification of Hebrew words; but, considering that the Rabbins of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, whose works alone are here taken into account, possessed a knowledge of the Arabic as their vernacular language, or in which, at least; they were well versed; that they were familiar with the traditional interpretation of the synagogue, as contained in the Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings, or transmitted through the medium of oral communication; and, that they were mostly men of great learning, who rose superior to the trammels of tradition, and did not scruple to give their own views respecting the meaning of certain words and phrases in opposition to the voice of antiquity; it must be conceded, that no small degree of philological aid may reasonably be expected from their writings.

The last means consists in a proper use of the cognate dialects. These are the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Samaritan, Phænician, and the Talmudical Hebrew. All these dialects possess, to a great extent, in common with the Hebrew, the same radical words, the

is no reason to believe that the words express two such different ideas, as standing in the same connexion. Besides, it is not true, it is observed, that temporary crimes do not deserve eternal punishments, because the infinite majesty of an offended God adds a kind of infinite evil to sin, and therefore exposes the sinner to infinite punishment; and that hereby God vindicates his injured majesty, and glorifies his justice. See articles DESTRUCTIONISTS and UNIVERSALISTS. Berry-st. Lec. vol. ii. p. 559, 562; Dawes on Hell, ser. x.; Whiston on ditto; Swinden, Drexelius, and Edwards on ditto; Fuller's Letters to Vidler; and Stuart's Essays on the Words relating to Future Punishment. A late popular writer has observed, that in the thirty-fifth sermon of Tillotson, every thing is said upon the eternity of hell torments that can be known with any certainty.

HELL, Christ's descent into. That Christ locally descended into hell, is a doctrine believed not only by the papists, but by many among the reformed. 1. The text chiefly brought forward in support of this doctrine is 1 Pet. iii. 19: "By which he went and preached to the spirits in prison;" but it evidently appears, that the "spirit" there mentioned, was not Christ's human soul, but a divine nature, or rather the Holy Spirit (by which he was quickened and raised from the dead); and by the inspiration of which, granted to Noah, he preached to those notorious sinners who are now in the prison of hell for their disobedience. 2. Christ, when on the cross, promised the penitent thief his presence that day in paradise; and accordingly, when he died, he committed his soul into his heavenly Father's hand in heaven, therefore, and not in hell, we are to seek the separate spirit of our Redeemer in this period, Luke xxiii. 43, 46. 3. Had our Lord descended to preach to the damned, there is no supposable reason why the unbelievers in Noah's time only should be mentioned, rather than those of Sodom, and the unhappy multitudes that died in sin. But it may be said, do not both the Old and New Testaments intimate this? Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 34. But it may be answered, that the words, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," may be explained (as is the manner of the Hebrew poets) in the following words: "Neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption." So the same words are used, Ps. lxxxix. 48, "What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave ?" In the Hebrew (w) the word commonly rendered hell, properly signifies "the invisible state," as our word hell originally did; and the other word (w) signifies not always the immortal soul, but the animal frame in general, either living or dead. Bishop Pearson and Dr. Barrow on the Creed; Edwards's Hist. of Redemption, notes,

Fp. 351, 377; Ridgley's Body of Div. p. 308, 3rd edit.; Doddridge and Guyse on 1 Pet. iii. 19. HELLENISTS, a term occurring in the Greek text of the New Testament, and which, in the English version, is rendered Grecians, Acts vi. 1. The critics are divided as to the signification of the word. Some observe, that it is not to be understood as signifying those of the religion of the Greeks, but those who spoke Greek. The authors of the Vulgate version render it like our Græci, but Messieurs Du Port Royal, more accurately, Juifs Grecs, Greek or Grecian Jews, it being the Jews who spoke Greek that are here treated of, and are hereby distinguished from the Jews called Hebrews-that is, who spoke the Hebrew tongue of that time.

The Hellenists, or Grecian Jews, were those who lived in Egypt, and other parts where the Greek tongue prevailed. These Hellenists first settled in Egypt about six hundred years before Christ. Their number was increased by the numerous colonies of Jews planted there by Alexander the Great, B.C. 336, and still later by Ptolemy Lagus. Under the reign of Augustus, they amounted to nearly a million. The mixture of the Jewish and Egyptian national characters, and the influence of the Greek language and philosophy, which were adopted by these Jews, laid the foundation of a new epoch of Græco-Jewish literature, which, from its prevailing character, received the name of the Hellenistic. The systems of Pythagoras and Plato were strangely combined with those Oriental phantasies, which had been reduced to a system in Egypt, and with which the mystical doctrines of the Gnostics were imbued. The most noted of the Jewish Hellenistic philosophers was Philo of Alexandria; and the principal of the learned labours of the Alexandrian Jews was the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Salmasius and Vossius are of a different sentiment with respect to the Hellenists: the latter will only have them to be those who adhered to the Grecian interests. Scaliger is represented in the Scaligerana as asserting the Hellenists to be the Jews who lived in Greece and other places, and who read the Greek Bible in their synagogues, and used the Greek language in sacris: and thus they were opposed to the Hebrew Jews, who performed their public worship in the Hebrew tongue; and in this sense St. Paul speaks of himself as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil. iii. 5, 6-i. e., a Hebrew both by nation and language. The Hellenists are thus properly distinguished from the Hellenes, or Greeks, mentioned John xii. 20, who were Greeks by birth and nation, and yet proselytes to the Jewish religion. The term Hellenists is also given to those who maintained the classical purity of the New Testament Greek. Their opponents were called Hebraists.