length. Until proof is brought, that some of the authentic ancient manuscripts, acknowledged by the Jews to be such, were written in that loose manner, putting the letters of the alphabet in the room of words, the assertion of learned men, that such was the practice of transcribers of the Word in very remote times, can be regarded in no other light than as mere conjecture, made for the purpose of explaining away difficulties, which to them appear insurmountable in any other way. Are we to suppose, that in all those passages, where numbers make so considerable a part of the text, they were designated by simple letters or abbreviated characters, and not by words at length? Or by what rule are we to judge, that such characters were used in some places, and not in all? The probability is, that the divine books were in all their parts originally written in plain words, and that every authentic copy down to the present time has been of a like description. The titles of the books, and their division into chapters and verses, together with the figures and letters of the alphabet as signs of numeration, being all of human contrivance, form no part of the real Word, and therefore do not belong to the question.

II. The next argument in favour of the number three instead of seven, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, as corresponding with the three months and three days mentioned in the same passage, is, that the Septuagint version has that number; and therefore it is concluded, that "the copies used by the seventy must have had it, or they would not have given three in their translation." And you add, gentlemen, that "this testimony is sufficient to determine the question." Knowing as I do, that the only motive which actuates you in your criticisms on the language and spirit of the Holy Word, is to exalt it in the estimation of every reader, and to spread more widely among men a correct knowledge of those divine truths, which enrich it above every human production, it is with concern that, after mature reflection, I find myself led to a conclusion different from that above stated. I cannot think, that the Septuagint version is any authority in the case before

us.

The persons engaged in that work were learned, but not inspired men: they had no knowledge whatever that an internal sense belonged to any of those books, in the translation of which they were engaged. Like other learned men of our own times, when they found two parallel passages in different books, the one

expressed as in 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, and the other as in 1 Chron. xxi. 12, both agreeing in all points except in the number of the years of famine, it is probable, that they would hesitate a-while, and debate the matter among themselves before they came to a final decision, whether to render the two passages as they actually found them, at variance with each other, or to make them both harmonize together by equallizing the numbers. If they gave the numbers as they really were, seven in one passage, and three in the other, though both referred to the same thing, they might naturally think there was a danger that the value of the whole work would be diminished in the opinion of the public. But if they put forth their translation in a way that might render it less objectionable, by making the numbers in both passages corres pond with each other, so as to meet the expectation of those who judge of divine things by the apparent reasonableness of the literal sense, and a kind of uniformity in the external expressions, in that case they would think themselves justifiable in altering the number seven in Samuel, to make it agree with the three years' famine in the book of Chronicles. And this, I apprehend, was actually the case: the translators of the Old Testament into Greek were desirous that their work should be well received by the learned of the Heathen world, as well as by the prince who employed them; and fearing lest so considerable a difference in two of the historical books, as that above stated, might become a ground of serious objection to the authenticity of the whole, they concluded, that the safest way was to make the number of years the same in both passages; especially as three years' famine appeared to be a more reasonable punishment than seven, and more consistent also with the other alternatives of three months' flight before enemies, and three days' pestilence in the land.

It is well known, that in the Septuagint version there are many other deviations from the original Hebrew: and being itself only a translation into Greek by men having no pretensions to supernatural inspiration, just as the Vulgate is a translation into Latin, and as our common version is a translation into English, in each of which last named there are also very considerable deviations from the Hebrew standard, there is not a shadow of reason, as it appears to me, why we should attempt to rectify the original by or according to any one of these translations of mere human authority.

length. Until proof is brought, that some of the authentic ancient manuscripts, acknowledged by the Jews to be such, were written in that loose manner, putting the letters of the alphabet in the room of words, the assertion of learned men, that such was the practice of transcribers of the Word in very remote times, can be regarded in no other light than as mere conjecture, made for the purpose of explaining away difficulties, which to them appear insurmountable in any other way. Are we to suppose, that in all those passages, where numbers make so considerable a part of the text, they were designated by simple letters or abbreviated characters, and not by words at length? Or by what rule are we to judge, that such characters were used in some places, and not in all? The probability is, that the divine books were in all their parts originally written in plain words, and that every authentic copy down to the present time has been of a like description. The titles of the books, and their division into chapters and verses, together with the figures and letters of the alphabet as signs of numeration, being all of human contrivance, form no part of the real Word, and therefore do not belong to the question.

II. The next argument in favour of the number three instead of seven, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, as corresponding with the three months and three days mentioned in the same passage, is, that the Septuagint version has that number; and therefore it is concluded, that "the copies used by the seventy must have had it, or they would not have given three in their translation." And you add, gentlemen, that "this testimony is sufficient to determine the question." Knowing as I do, that the only motive which actuates you in your criticisms on the language and spirit of the Holy Word, is to exalt it in the estimation of every reader, and to spread more widely among men a correct knowledge of those divine truths, which enrich it above every human production, it is with concern that, after mature reflection, I find myself led to a conclusion different from that above stated. I cannot think, that the Septuagint version is any authority in the case before

us.

The persons engaged in that work were learned, but not inspired men: they had no knowledge whatever that an internal sense belonged to any of those books, in the translation of which they were engaged. Like other learned men of our own times, when they found two parallel passages in different books, the one

expressed as in 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, and the other as in 1 Chron. xxi. 12, both agreeing in all points except in the number of the years of famine, it is probable, that they would hesitate a-while, and debate the matter among themselves before they came to a final decision, whether to render the two passages as they actually, found them, at variance with each other, or to make them both harmonize together by equallizing the numbers. If they gave the numbers as they really were, seven in one passage, and three in the other, though both referred to the same thing, they might naturally think there was a danger that the value of the whole work would be diminished in the opinion of the public. But if they put forth their translation in a way that might render it less objectionable, by making the numbers in both passages corres‹ pond with each other, so as to meet the expectation of those who judge of divine things by the apparent reasonableness of the literal sense, and a kind of uniformity in the external expressions, in that case they would think themselves justifiable in altering the number seven in Samuel, to make it agree with the three years' famine in the book of Chronicles. And this, I apprehend, was actually the case: the translators of the Old Testament into Greek were desirous that their work should be well received by the learned of the Heathen world, as well as by the prince who employed them; and fearing lest so considerable a difference in two of the historical books, as that above stated, might become a ground of serious objection to the authenticity of the whole, they concluded, that the safest way was to make the number of years the same in both passages; especially as three years' famine appeared to be a more reasonable punishment than seven, and more consistent also with the other alternatives of three months': flight before enemies, and three days' pestilence in the land.

It is well known, that in the Septuagint version there are many other deviations from the original Hebrew: and being itself only a translation into Greek by men having no pretensions to supernatural inspiration, just as the Vulgate is a translation into Latin, and as our common version is a translation into English, in each of which last named there are also very considerable deviations from the Hebrew standard, there is not a shadow of reason, as it appears to me, why we should attempt to rectify the original by or according to any one of these translations of mere human authority.

length. Until proof is brought, that some of the authentic ancient manuscripts, acknowledged by the Jews to be such, were written in that loose manner, putting the letters of the alphabet in the room of words, the assertion of learned men, that such was the practice of transcribers of the Word in very remote times, can be regarded in no other light than as mere conjecture, made for the purpose of explaining away difficulties, which to them appear insurmountable in any other way. Are we to suppose, that in all those passages, where numbers make so considerable a part of the text, they were designated by simple letters or abbreviated characters, and not by words at length? Or by what rule are we to judge, that such characters were used in some places, and not in all? The probability is, that the divine books were in all their parts originally written in plain words, and that every authentic copy down to the present time has been of a like description. The titles of the books, and their division into chapters and verses, together with the figures and letters of the alphabet as signs of numeration, being all of human contrivance, form no part of the real Word, and therefore do not belong to the question.

II. The next argument in favour of the number three instead of seven, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, as corresponding with the three months and three days mentioned in the same passage, is, that the Septuagint version has that number; and therefore it is concluded, that "the copies used by the seventy must have had it, or they would not have given three in their translation." And you add, gentlemen, that "this testimony is sufficient to determine the question." Knowing as I do, that the only motive which actuates you in your criticisms on the language and spirit of the Holy Word, is to exalt it in the estimation of every reader, and to spread more widely among men a correct knowledge of those divine truths, which enrich it above every human production, it is with concern that, after mature reflection, I find myself led to a conclusion different from that above stated. I cannot think, that the Septuagint version is any authority in the case before

us.

The persons engaged in that work were learned, but not inspired men: they had no knowledge whatever that an internal sense belonged to any of those books, in the translation of which they were engaged. Like other learned men of our own times, when they found two parallel passages in different books, the one