Truth in this, as in many other inquiries, has been lost in the collision of opposite errors! The Hebrew, it is true, is not the Parent Tongue, but on the other hand, notwithstanding the weight that must necessarily be attached to the memorable passage quoted above, and also to the views of recent Orientalists, it can be shown, by evidence too clear and simple to be neutralized by any authority however eminent, that the languages termed Indo-European are as closely connected with the Hebrew as they are among themselves. To these languages, the relation which it bears is that of an ancient collateral, exhibiting many of the features of a parent in consequence of the antiquity of its earliest remains, which contain specimens of Language near to its source. This relation, except as regards the Sanscrit, is strikingly analogous to that which specimens of the Scandinavian dialects near to their common source have been shown to bear to the modern languages of Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland. (See Proposition 6, p. 46.) As the proofs contained in Appendix A and in other parts of this work, are sufficient to establish that such is the nature of the connexion between the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages, I shall here confine myself to such illustrations as possess an independent interest by reason of the light, they throw on the institutions and condition of ancient nations. The identity of the Gods of three of the principal Indo-European nations has been shown by Sir William Jones in his luminous and graceful Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India. But in the passage above quoted from the same great writer, the conclusion is conveyed that these Indo-European nations, agreeing among themselves, fundamentally differed with the Jews and other Syro-Phœnician nations in two important points, viz. Religion and Language. This conclusion will be found to involve many fallacies of a very obvious nature. The Assyrians and other Syro-Phœnician nations were idolaters, though the Jews were not; and even the Jews were constantly lapsing into the idolatrous practices of the surrounding nations. We have no reason for inferring with certainty that the superstitions of the land of Canaan and of other Semetic countries were different from those of the Greeks, Italians, and Indians; the evidence rather favours the contrary supposition. Again, the ancient Egyptians, whom Sir William Jones classes with the Indo-European nations, from Language and Geographical position may reasonably be pronounced to have been more nearly related to the Semetic nations of Palestine and Arabia. Such are the errors even of an “all-accomplished” inquirer in exploring a new field!