we mean, the occasional introduction of coarse and disgusting matter, which is peculiarly reprehensible in a work intended for popular reading, and which will, of course, find its way to so many drawing-room tables. That the precise nature of our objection may be fairly understood, we shall advert to some few of those passages which we think highly improper, when it is considered that the work is likely to fall into the hands of many young persons and female readers. The anatomical discussion in pp. 136, 137, however philosophically just, is open to this objection. Many of the remarks in pp. 241-252 are offensive, and even nauseating to a delicate mind. The matter contained in pp. 260, 261, is exceedingly disgusting; and the homely phrase of Dr. Hulse, in p. 333, might have been omitted without detracting from the entertainment afforded by the work. With a general soberness, and even correctness of feeling upon moral and religious subjects, there is an occasional frivolity, not to say irreverence, of which we must strongly testify our disapprobation. For instance; the choral dances of the Ephemer remind these writers of angels and glorified spirits drinking life and joy in the effulgence of the divine favour.' (p. 6.) Respecting a statement on Bees, they remark, You will call upon me to bring forth my "strong reasons" in support of it,' (p. 131), an instance of levity in Scriptural allusions which is not to be excused merely because it is common. Such faults as these, (which we point out in a friendly spirit,) our Authors will endeavour, we trust, to avoid in the remaining volume; the appearance of which we look for with no small degree of eager

ness.

Art. III. The Holy Bible, newly translated from the Original Hebrew: with Notes Critical and Explanatory. By John Bellamy, Author of "The History of all Religions." 4to. pp. xl. 190. Price 16s. Large Paper, 24s. 1818.

(Continued from Page 20.)

MR. Bellamy professes rigidly to adhere to the Hebrew text, without the aid of manuscripts and the ancient versions; and he reprobates the introduction of conjectural readings. His version, however, may prove not the less licentious in the absence of those auxiliaries of which his predecessors have availed themselves. Hebrew words are as fruitful a source of error in the hands of a rash and fanciful innovator, as the various readings of manuscripts and versions can ever be under the management of any emendator. The learned conjectures of such a writer, for instance, as Houbigant, may be far less detrimental to the integrity of the Divine word, than the Hebrew criticisms of Mr. Bellamy. Criticism, indeed, is a term which in but

few instances can be applied to the contents of the voluminous notes in the present work. What consequence soever it may acquire from the names of the princes, and peers, and bishops, blazoned in the list of its patrons, it can never obtain from competent judges of its merits, the approbation due to sober and enlightened criticism, which is an employment by no means adapted to so fertile and eccentric a genius as Mr. Bellamy's.

Our notice of the introductory pages, will have prepared our readers for the specimens of the author's Hebrew erudition, which we now proceed to submit to their consideration.

'Gen. i. 1. In the beginning God created, the substance of the heaven, and the substance of the earth.

6 2 Now the earth was without form, even a waste; also darkness was upon the face of the deep: but the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, BE LIGHT: and LIGHT was.

4 And God saw, that the light, was good: thus God divided, the light, from the darkness.

5 And God called the light day; and the darkness he called night so the evening and the morning, were the first day.

6Then God said, Be there an expanse in the midst of the waters and be there a division between the waters, over the waters.

7 So God made the expanse; also he divided, between the waters, which were from beneath the expanse; and between the waters which were above the expanse: and it was so.

8 Then God called the expanse, heaven: so the evening and the morning, were the second day."

Our limits will not allow of our examining with minute at, tention every paragraph which we may quote of this New Translation. To make room for the more extended remarks which will be called for by some passages of a very singular complexion, we shall be the more brief in our notice of these opening verses. Mr. Bellamy refines too much, we apprehend, in the reading the substance of the heaven, and the substance ' of the earth.' His criticism on the word ns eth, is a fair specimen of many parts of his notes.

'Some translators have thought it to be a mark of the accusative case simply, after an active verb: but if so, there must be a repetition of the article the; as the following word 'DW Shaamayim, heaven, has the emphatic prefix ha, the; by which it is to be translated, the heaven.'

ויברא אלהים את-התנינם How does Mr. Bellamy translate

ban? The word ran has the same emphatic prefix n' as p; must there then be in the proper English version of the words, a repetition of the article the? and must the noun itself be rendered by the substance' thus: And God created the substance of the the great Thaninim' (or animals')? Mr.

Bellamy has rendered the words Also God created the 'great animals,' in which he himself dispenses with the repetition of the article the, and the term substance.' He indeed subjoins, that the original terms should be so translated where the idiom of the European languages will admit of it; but who does not perceive that this is to subject the words of the original and of the version to the caprice of the translator? The meaning of the Hebrew text is, in all cases, we are assured by our Author, precisely and clearly fixed. If, therefore, the word in question means the substance of, it should be so translated; for as to idiom, we perceive no more a violation of idiom in God created the substance of the great animals,' than in God created the substance of the heaven and the ' earth.' When Mr. Bellamy remarks that n signifies the 'very substance of the thing spoken of, agreeably to the Syriac, 'the esse cæli, et esse terræ,' he should have referred to the Syriac itself, not to the Latin version of it. The Syriac does not in the least differ from the Hebrew and the Chaldee; all three texts preserve precisely the same reading.

In translating the two words 1721 17, Mr. Bellamy has used an adjective and a substantive, without form, (or formless) even a waste,' which was scarcely to be expected from so rigid a critic in Hebrew grammar. 'BE LIGHT: AND LIGHT WAS,' is an improvement, the merit of which is not Mr. Bellamy's; it is as old as Wickliffe's time, who uses the simple imperative, "Be light," "Be a firmament," &c. Mr. Bellamy's remarks on the use of let, in the Common Version, the reader may find also anticipated by preceding writers, particularly by Dr. Geddes in his Critical Remarks.

Mr. Bellamy, by rendering the 4th verse, Thus God di'vided, the light, from the darkness,' seems to refer the dividing of the light from the darkness, to the action-" And God saw that the light was good,' as identical with it. If there was an identity in the seeing and the dividing, then Mr. B.'s translation is correct. But if the dividing was subsequent to the seeing, and different from it,-if the verbs express distinct times, he is inaccurate. Being ourselves of this opinion, we prefer Then God divided.' In the 6th verse, 'Between the 'waters, over the waters,' is not very intelligible. In the 7th, if above the expanse' be a proper expression, from beneath the expanse' must be an improper one; the correlatives being in the original precisely similar.

1 Now the heaven and the earth were finished, with all their host. • 2 Thus God finished, before the seventh day; his work, which he had appointed: for before the seventh day; he ceased from all his work, which he had made.

8 Therefore God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: be

eause, before it, he ceased from all his work; for God created, to ge

nerate.'

Mr. Bellamy's translation of the second verse, is an exact copy of the reading proposed by Noldius, "Et complevit Deus ANTE diem septimum, opus suum." We greatly doubt however, notwithstanding this authority, the accuracy of the reading, ante, before,' as included in the particle applied to time. But how came Mr. Bellamy to translate wy in one part of the verse, he appointed, and in the other, he had made? Has he not stoutly maintained that Hebrew words have in every instance of their use a uniformly definite meaning? Has he not told us in his coarse dogmatical manner, that the same word, having the same consonants and the same vowels, must be translated in the same way? Does he not 'affirm that the Hebrew language with its proper vowels, is the most certain language in the world, and that its terms are not capable of various meanings and applications? And does he not denounce every person who hesitates to subscribe to these dicta, as a 'smatterer in Hebrew?' In both parts of the verse, nvy is precisely the same in its consonants and vowels. If it means he appointed,' in one place, and he had made,' in the other, what becomes of Mr. Bellamy's declamation about the precision and indubitably uniform and definite meaning of Hebrew words? He perpetually obtrudes upon us the expressions- its certain meaning,' it can have no other meaning,' its proper signification,' its meaning in every part 'of the Scriptures,' while he himself indulges in the freest manner of varying the interpretation of words. The language, under his direction, is made to violate uniformity, as much as in any translation whatever. mweb, the infinitive of the verb nu to make, is improperly translated to generate;' the con struction which Mr. Bellamy has given to the original words, as well as the conceit in which he indulges in his note, shew how much more his opinions partake of fancy than of judgement.

V. 5. Even every plant of the field, before it was in the earth: and every herb of the field, before it grew for Jehovah God had not caused rain upon the earth; moreover, nor a man, to till the ground. '6 But a vapour ascended from the earth, and watered, all the face of the ground.'

5 Before it was in the earth. This verse refers to that period of the creation mentioned in the first chapter, when God created the plant of the field; and we understand that this action of the Creator in producing the herbs of the field, took place before they were in the earth. The verb, yikheh, rendered it was, is the future form of the verb, on which account most writers, and even grammarians, have concluded, that "the preter time of a verb is often expressed by the future;" this is not true. It may be truly rendered in

the future time; God created every plant of the field before it should be in the earth; and again in the same verse, And every herb of the field before it should grow. It then follows, Moreover, nor a man to till the ground; ver. 6, Until a mist should ascend. But as nothing is to be gained, I have retained the present translation.'

On the 'preter time of a verb expressed by the future,' enough has been already said; our previous remarks on that usage, are confirmed by this very passage to which Mr. Bellamy has given so singular a complexion. In the note Mr. B. is at variance with his own translation in thè text: the latter asserting that before the formation of man to till the ground,' a vapour ascended from the earth to water it; the former, that man was not formed, until a mist should ascend.' Mr. B. himself in the text gives the verbs in the preter time, nor can they be otherwise explained.

Ch. ii. 18. Also Jehovah God had said; It is not good the man being alone: I will provide for him a help, alike before him.

19 So Jehovah God formed from the ground, every beast of the field, and every bird of the heaven; which he brought for Adam, to consider what he should call them: because whatsoever Adam should call the living creature, was his name.

20 Then the man pronounced the names, for all the cattle, and for the bird of the heaven; also for every wild beast of the field: but concerning Adam, he found not such a help, like himself.

21 Now Jehovah God caused an inactive state, to fall upon the man and he slept: then he brought one to his side; whose flesh he had enclosed in her place.

also

22 Thus Jehovah God built the substance of the other, which he took for the man, even a woman: and he brought her to the man. 23 And the man said: Thus this time, bone after my bone; flesh, after my flesh for this he will call woman, because she was received by the man.

* 24 Therefore a man will leave, even his father, and his mother, and they shall be, for one flesh.

25 Now they were both of them prudent; the man and his wife: for they had not shamed themselves.'

In his note on the 21st verse, Mr. Bellamy assures us that Adam, before the creation of Eve, had himself departed, or had fallen from that state of perfection in which God had created him; he had fallen into a state of despondency, and doubted the goodness of God.

For it is said, verse 18, It is not good that the man should be alone; now, as it is positively declared, that man was created in a state of superlative good: for the sacred writer uses the superlative, ch. i. 31-as that which is not good, must necessarily have its origin from a perversion of the divine command, and as Adam had now fallen into a state, which is declared to be not good; it must appear that he had fallen from the purity of that primordial state, in

)