mind as to the correctness of some of Dr. Baylee’s derivations. For instance, 
he gives the derivation of the word earth, eretz, from rootz. Now, I, on the 
other hand, am inclined to think that ara is the important root of the w r ord ; 
and if you compare it with the Aramaic, and also with the Greek word tpciK f, 
I think that impression will be confirmed. Again, in obtaining the derivation 
of thehom , or deep, I should commence with the word thohu, which is after- 
wards so much discussed by Dr. Bay lee. But it is hardly necessary to follow 
out this minute criticism. I think Dr. Bay lee wants to point out that the 
language , of Scripture is very peculiar, and that to get at a right understand- 
ing of it we must divest ourselves of all preconceived notions, and consider 
what the words of Scripture in their first literal and grammatical meaning do 
imply. We must go to the original words themselves, and when we have 
ascertained their etymological meaning, as well as their meaning according to 
the context, then, and not till then, can we approximate to what the 
Scriptures wish to reveal. That I take to be the view with which Dr. Baylee 
starts ; and it is in consequence of neglecting that rule that a great many 
scientific men have been led to make attacks on the Scriptures, which have 
proved to be fatal to themselves ; because they have been attacking, not 
what the Scriptures really say, but what they have supposed the Scriptures 
to say. I brought this subject before you on a former occasion, in a paper 
“ On the Logic of Scepticism but I think Dr. Baylee may not have read 
our Journal of Transactions, or studied some of our previous papers and 
discussions. The question on that occasion was discussed, and a valuable 
interpretation of one disputed passage was supplied by Mr. Warington. In 
this paper I think Dr. Baylee assumes that we are unacquainted with the fact 
that there is a science of comparative philology. One of the first papers 
delivered before this society was upon that subject, and I think it is scarcely 
fair of Dr. Baylee to teach us that which we may be fairly presumed to know 
already. He gives us a theory as to the primeval language, which he con- 
siders to have been Biblical Hebrew, but on that point I beg to differ from 
him. I am disposed to think that the language which it pleased God to give 
to us first was a language very similar to Chinese — a monosyllabic language 
capable of inflection and all sorts of richness, but still originally monosyllabic, 
derived from imitation of the sounds of animals, or from the result of man’s 
action on himself, and on all around him. Dr. Baylee, however, apparently 
considers that the Hebrew tongue "was revealed to mankind, and that the 
Biblical Hebrew in which the Pentateuch was written was exactly the 
language in which Adam conversed with Eve. If I went at any length now 
into the subject of comparative philology, I should have to detain you for a 
long time, and I fear I should exhaust your patience. Although I have 
made these criticisms on the paper, I cordially agree with the principle laid 
down by Dr. Baylee that we must be very careful, in interpreting the 
Scriptures, to ascertain simply, and without reference to any preconceived 
notions, what the words of the Scriptures do mean, and to adhere to that 
interpretation, and to that alone, of the W ord of God. 
Mr. Warington. — I must say I do not agree with the view which 
