Sir,—Having been favoured with the review, in your useful paper, and in the Advocate, of the View of the Hebrews; and the reviewer having spoken of the author's "condescending to take notice of his strictures;" I would thank you to insert the following remarks by way of reply.

The reviewer admits it to be plausibly made out, to a certain degree, that the Indians believe in one God. If this be made out only plausibly, and to a certain degree, a number of great and good authors on whom the writer of the View made his dependence upon this article, (without adducing his own personal knowledge,) and whose correctness has never been called in question, are involved in the imbecility.

. . .

That the Indian language is a corruption of the Hebrew, the reviewer doubts. Relative to the table of words and phrases in the View, he admits that "some half a dozen words have some resemblance, perhaps doubtful." More than twenty words, and more than "half a dozen" parts of sentences, are given in this table, quoted from Dr. Boudinot, and furnished from men, who had lived with the Indians, had good acquaintance with their language, and knew well how to allow for their "guttural pronunciation." Those words and sentences have a manifest, and most of them an almost exact resemblance to their corresponding Hebrew. As to the correctness of those Hebrew words, the author of the View remarks, that when he studied the Hebrew language, he read it without the points, after the custom of the university where he graduated.

And as the pronunciation—reading with or without the points—differs, he ventured no criticism on the Hebrew words in the table; but gave them as they were furnished from good authority.

. . .

The author of the View does admit & contend, that no supposed former connexions of the Indians with the Pagan herds of the northeast of Asia, can account for their having so much, nor even any of the Hebrew language, cus-toms, or religious rites. No! he deems this an astonishingly wild conjecture! No such things things as these which are stated of the Indians, are found, (or ever were) among those wild herds of the northeast; unless that they might catch some words from Israel as they passed through their region.

. . .

If such loose objections deserved a serious answer, it would swell beyond our present limits. This is confidently referred to impartial readers. Should they feel a hostility to the book, or its sentiments, they may judge that all the arguments are without weight; and say indiscriminately, all that is found with the Indians came by tradition from other heathen.—Some things in the close of these strictures may be found alluding to this sup-position.