"But the circumstance which affixes, as it were, the seal of authority to the accuracy of the Septuagint version is, its being quoted by our Saviour and the inspired writers of the New Testament." I have shown in the Introd. p. xii. that this is a serious mistake. Christ and the Apostles always quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Where the Septuagint agree with the original, it may be said that Christ and the Apostles agree with the Septuagint. But where the Septuagint are at variance with the Hebrew, and the quotation is consistent with the Hebrew, then it must be admitted that the Hebrew was always quoted by Christ and the Apostles. But this Advocate for received errors gives no proof whatever that Christ and the Apostles did not quote from the Hebrew. And yet a few quotations will show that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Hebrew only.

John ch. ii. 17. ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέ με, is a quotation from Psalm lxix. 10. ' л, "for the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." Luke xxiii. 46. from Psalm xxxi. 5. PEN TT. Chap. xx. 17. from Psalm cxviii. 22.

the stone which the builders "אבן מאסו פנה לראש היתה אבונים

refused, is become the head of the corner." In these passages the Septuagint agree with the Hebrew; we have therefore authority to say that, so far, they are quoted from the Hebrew.

In the following passages we find, that the quotations are made from the Hebrew verbatim, and not from the Septuagint., Matt. xxvii. 46. Ηλί, Ηλὶ, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί. Psalm xxii. 1.

,למה עזבתני

","My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me."

But the latter clause of this first verse in the Septuagint is not only inconsistent with the Hebrew, but with the whole tenor of the Christian religion. It stands thus in the Hebrew, pin IMINW "D07 'Nyw, “Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" But the Septuagint, μaxpav ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου. “ The words of my transgressions are far from my salvation." Abundance of reference might be given, but these are sufficient to prove that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Hebrew only, and never from the Septuagint. Indeed it is truly absurd to suppose that native Hebrews should have been in the habit of quoting Greek, to people who did not understand a word of Greek, in order to convince the Hebrew nation, that Christ was the Messiah foretold by the Patriarchs and, the Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures. The reader will see what credit can be given to this critic in his positive declaration, where he says, "But the circumstance which affixes, as it were, the seal of authority to the accuracy of the Septuagint version is, its being quoted by our Saviour and

the inspired writers of the New Testament." He is evidently altogether unworthy of credit; and I am really ashamed to waste so much precious time on the subject.

"The

The Advocate for received errors (p. 252.) has thought proper thus to introduce the author of the New Translation. person whose work is now before us, Mr. John Bellamy, some time ago issued proposals for publishing a New Translation of the Holy Bible.' We confess that, from the first, we augured no good from them." "We found too," he says, " several specimens of his new translation, printed in parallel columns with the corresponding texts of the received version. These specimens perfectly astonished us."

It may be necessary here to inform the reader, that at the same time that my proposals were published, this very writer had issued proposals for a mere reprint of the Old Translation. It surely would not have lessened the value of any reprint of the Old Translation, to have given the correct meaning of the following verses, amongst others, in those passages which occasioned so much astonishment to him: such as,

OLD TRANSLATION. Amos iii. 6. Is evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?

Jer. iv. 10. Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace :

Ch. xx. 7. O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I.

NEW TRANSLATION.

Is evil in the city, and Jehovah hath not requited it?

Ah, Jehovah God! surely to desolation thou hast desolated this people and Jerusalem, for saying, Ye shall have peace :

O Jehovah, thou hast persuaded me, thus I was persuaded; strengthen thou me.

I am truly sorry that this Advocate cannot discuss subjects, particularly of this serious and sacred nature, without bitterness! What reason can be assigned for the virulent abuse, which he heaps on me in every page? I have not spoken against his reprint of the Old Translation. But this writer sets out with a determined resolution to condemn all I have said; though he must be sensible that I am writing, as I have been for twenty-one years, to silence the objections of infidels, who in a time of great national trouble, by these very objections, were the cause of much danger both to the church and state. Surely he ought not to take a part in favor of that description of men, by endeavouring to stop the circulation of a translation, which is in

tended to stem the torrent of infidelity, by enabling those who have not studied the Hebrew language, to silence the objections which have so long been, and which continue to be, advanced against the revealed truth.

In p. 262. this ADVOCATE says, "The first passage to which we shall direct our attention, is Gen. ii. 21, 22. where it has always been understood, that woman was formed by the Almighty from the side of man. The English translation, agreeing with every known translation, states that, after the Lord God had caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man,"

I have said, and truly, that this version exhibits an improper repetition; when we are told that a deep sleep had fallen on Adam, there was no necessity to say, and he slept. The word tardeemah, rendered a deep sleep, has no such meaning: it signifies "an inactive state of mind." And in this state the common version says, God took from him one of his ribs, and formed it into a woman.

The Advocate asserts in the face of the public, that I have brought forward the objections of infidels; but he ought at least in common liberality, to have stated the reasons why those objections were cited. When it is recollected that his credit and profits, as a biblical editor, depend on his writing down my translation; his motives for such conduct may easily be appreciated by the candid public. It surely does appear questionable, that, when an humble individual, however illiterate he may strive to make me appear, and however despicable the anonymous opprobrium, which he attempts to heap on me, may cause some of my countrymen to consider for a time my labors to be, the whole purport of my labors, and the sacred object they had in view, however imperfectly executed, should have been purposely withheld from the attention of the reader. This may be a very appropriate way of conducting calumny; but it cannot be either a liberal or an impartial mode of executing the task of a judicious critic. What possible motive could induce him to pass over in silence the evident and acknowledged reason why I have brought forward the objections of infidels? I leave the reader to determine. It is repeatedly declared in my work. I have done so with a design of silencing for ever the pernicious objections of that dangerous set of men. I have said, p. 11. of the first part: "Admitting it were possible (French deists and infidels have said) that God had taken out the rib without any pain to Adam, what do we gain by this? or what virtue could have been given to the simple bone, by being first made a part in the body of VOL. XVIII. NO. XXXVI.

Cl. Jl.

P

the man? or was man made with an extra rib? did not God know that in such case he should have a part of his work to unmake? could not Infinite Wisdom have made the woman of the same materials as he made the man?" These, and many other questions of a like nature, have been asked by the systematic enemies to Christianity. I shall therefore endeavour to lay before the reader the understanding which I believe the sacred writer had of this first manifestation of the human form, by attending to the plain and rational translation of the original; which I shall confirm by other places of Scripture, where the same word must necessarily have the same meaning and application.

The critic thus proceeds: "Now, says Mr. Bellamy, in this place only in all the Scripture is the word tseelaang, rendered to mean a rib. This assertion may be true." May be true! if it be true, why does he not say it is? I have said without any may be," that it is true; and if it were not, I should have been told of it, no doubt. But though this caviller is constrained, much against his will, to allow that this word never means a rib in any other part of Scripture, he says, "But then it should be remembered that all Hebraists and translators, ancient and modern, agree that it here does signify a rib; and Mr. Bellamy alone thinks it does not." It is not true that all the ancient Hebraists and translators agree that the word tseelaang, here signifies "a rib." Origen, in answer to the assertion of Celsus concerning Eve being made from Adam's rib, says, "that these things are to be understood allegorically." Philo, Eusebius, and St. Austin, say the same; of which afterwards. So that, as to this view of the subject, I am not alone. But if all the Hebraists, ancient and modern, were of one opinion, that God made Eve from one of the ribs of Adam, and had not a single passage in all the Scripture to support such an opinion; with one single proof from Scripture that this word had a different meaning, and never meant a rib, I would rather be alone with such Scriptural proof, than swim down the stream of popular opinion without it. Now as he allows it, and it cannot certainly be denied, because it cannot be denied that by tseelaang never means a rib in any part of Scripture, there is no necessity to waste the time of the reader in giving proof; but, for the satisfaction of the reader, he may turn to the following passages, where the same word is translated as I have translated it. Ezek. xli. 6.-Exod. xxvi. 26.-2 Sam. xvi. 13.-Exod. xxx. 4.xxxvii. 27. But the Advocate says, "There is a complete absence of every word in the Hebrew corresponding to the pronoun relative whose.' But the translators have frequently rendered the by the pronouns relative, who, which; also The genitive of these two pronouns, whose, and the accusative

whom. I do not say that this passage and some others may not be amended; perhaps this consummate Hebraist, in some future article, may give us some information on this subject. But I will say, I have evidently shown that the passage, as it now stands in the received translation, is incorrect, and that the sense I have given is consistent with the obvious meaning of the Hebrew.

In p. 264. this caviller finds fault because I have referred to Numb. xxiii. 18. for the word np" vayikkach, and says, "but in fact he has made some mistake, for in the only passage," Numb. xxiii. 18. "where he affirms that the word occurs in the sense of 'brought,' it so happens that it does not occur at all." It is really a loss of time to follow him in all his trifling remarks; but I mention this as a proof of his strong prejudice. It surely is not unknown to any person possessing even a small knowledge of Hebrew, that the word np yikkach, means brought. If this writer be not acquainted with it, he should go to his lexicon, and if he be, he is the more to be blamed for not admitting it. But had he read as far as the 28th verse, he would have found the word "“ in the sense of brought." So that instead of the verse 18. an error has been made in the correction of the press; the figure 1 should have been a 2, the reference should have been to ver. 28.

But the Advocate goes yet more confidently to work. In p. 264. he says, " But Mr. Bellamy boldly flies in the face of all these authorities, affirms that he understands more of Hebrew than was understood by those concerned in framing former versions, and that he alone can give the true sense, where they are all fallen into the grossest errors.' ." I must for once condescend to answer him in his own language, by plainly saying this assertion is utterly false. I have never, in any part of my writings, affirmed what he accuses me of, viz. that "I understand more of Hebrew than was understood by those concerned in framing former versions," or that "I alone can give the true sense where they are fallen into the grossest errors." The editor of the Quarterly Review ought to be more cautious in the admission of such "unmeaning trash" into the pages of his publication. The business of anonymous criticism is of itself sufficiently objectionable; there is no occasion to render it more despicable, by making it the vehicle of calumny and falsehood.

"The title page," says the ADVOCATE for the errors in the common version, "is inaccurate." The reader, I think, will evidently see, that no remark this interested writer has made is accurate. He says, "It is called the Holy Bible newly translated from the original Hebrew. Now the term Holy Bible includes the Old and New Testaments; and as only the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, it is only that part of the Holy Bible which