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 y 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 ytseelaang 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 trauslated 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

chom. 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. xxii. 18. for the word " 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 np “ 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 ren der 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

can be translated from the original Hebrew." But I ask the unprejudiced reader, if I be not correct? Is not the old Testament a Holy Bible? or, if he please, a Holy Book? Does he not know that the Jews themselves call the Hebrew Bible, the Holy Bible? Does he not know that the New Testament is a distinct Holy Book from the Hebrew Bible, and that it would be improper to call any two books written in different languages, one book; and to be thus made one book by the labor of the bookbinder? I grant it is a common school-boy term to call the Holy Bible, which is translated from the original Hebrew, the Old Testament: but this term is indefinite; there are many old testaments on various subjects; but there is only ONE HOLY BIBLE, or HOLY BOOK, translated from the original Hebrew; and ONE HOLY BOOK, which, for the sake of distinction, we call "The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." This word Testament, is applied to the will of a person who leaves this world, and therefore very properly called the New Testament; but the reader will see that there is a necessity for its explanation by the words, " of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," or it might have been mistaken for some other testament. I shall therefore continue to call the Hebrew Bible, or a translation of it, The Holy Bible, or The Holy Book; and the subsequent of the Scriptures, as the translators have done, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The Reviewer proceeds: "Mr. Bellamy has made another discovery of the sense." Gen. ii. 25. " it is said, that Adam and Eve when first created were both naked; but in a state of innocence, in which they then were, were not ashamed.' This is the sense in which the words have been understood by all translators and interpreters, ancient and modern, whose opinion on the passage is recorded. But, says Mr. Bellamy, all this has arisen from a mistake; the word gnaroumim, which has been rendered naked,' ought to be rendered prudent;' and accordingly he translates the passage, now they were both of them prudent, the man and his wife."" To this I answer, It is not true, that "this is the sense in which the words have been understood by all translators and interpreters, ancient and modern, whose opinion on the passage is recorded.” And from this assertion, the reader will see that the writer of this article has either not read my first part, or if he should have read it, states what he knows to be false. I have shown on the third chapter, that Celsus, one of the first opposers of the Gospel, treats with levity the history of Adam's formation, and of that of Eve from his rib; of the commands that were given them, and of the serpent's cunning, in being able to evade the effect of those commands. Origen, in answer to him, says, that he does not treat

the subject with candor, but hides what he ought to have made known, viz. that all this was to be understood in a figurative sense, not giving the reader the words, which would have convinced him that they were spoken allegorically." And he concludes by observing, that "it is not reasonable to deny to Moses the possession of truth under the veil of allegory, which was then the practice of all the eastern nations." Cont. Cels. 1. iv. p. 189. This is the recorded opinion of Origen.

Eusebius says, "that there were two sorts of Jews, the learned and the unlearned. The learned were confined to the contemplation of a more refined philosophy, and the interpreters explained to them the figurative sense. This he confirms by the authority of Aristobulus and Philo, and by the constant practice of that strict sect of the Jews, the Essenes, who always followed this allegorical manner of expounding; which was, in the days of Aristobulus, one hundred and fifty years before Christ, called ancient.” Præp. Evang. 1. viii. This is the recorded opinion of Eusebius.

Philo says, "It is a manifest proof of ignorance to suppose that God really was employed six days in the production of things. Vid. Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. 1. v. p. 338. And Origen, Orig. Philocal. c.i. p. 12. says, "What rational man will believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden, and in it a real tree of life, to be tasted? or that the knowledge of good and evil was to be obtained by eating the fruit of another tree? And as to God's walking in the garden, and Adam's hiding himself from him among the trees; no man can doubt that these things are to be understood figuratively, and not literally, to signify certain mysteries, or recondite senses.' Here we have the recorded opinion of Philo.

St. Austin, in the preface to his twelve books on the literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, says, "No Christian will say that they are not to be understood figuratively, when he recollects that the Apostle declares, how all these things happened to them in a figure." See more at large in the first part of my Bible. This is the recorded opinion of St. Austin.

What is to be thought of the writer of this article, who has thus committed himself before the public? what degree of credit can be given to any man who puts forth falsehoods, so easily detected? I leave it to the impartial judgment of the readers of this answer, and of my work. I shall now proceed to show, as I promised, what the Critic understands about "the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction;" by which he wishes to impress the mind of the public with a respect for his great depth in the knowledge, not the common grammatical knowledge, but the high critical knowledge of the Bible Hebrew. But this, I suppose, will be called "nonsense, ignorance, incapability, daring

perversion of truth," &c. by the ADVOCATE and every interested Bible publisher.

errors says,

I have said concerning the word y gnaarom, that the self-same word cannot signify both naked and crafty: the Advocate for received "When however he asserts that the same word cannot signify both naked and crafty, he asserts what is contradicted by evidence. That the word before us, with or without the servile 1, does really signify 'naked,' is placed beyond all possible doubt, in a number of passages, in which, to substitute the sense of prudent or crafty, would wholly destroy the meaning. For instance, at Job i. 21. Naked (D) came I out of my mother's womb,' &c. What

would be thought of the passage if thus translated, Prudent came I out?" &c. Again, Job xxiv. 7. in the description of the wicked, They cause the naked (D) to lodge without clothing.' What would be the sense of these passages, if prudent were substituted for naked?" I will tell this specious Hebraist, who is so grossly ignorant of the Hebrew, in one word-NONSENSE! for nonsense they certainly would be. In this we perfectly agree; but this agreement will give me an opportunity of showing this writer, what attainments he has made concerning "the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction."

If I were to translate in the random manner adopted by this self-sufficient Critic, without any attention to the various application of words according to orthography, or the "nicety of construction," of which he boasts, I could supply himr with sufficient evidence to prove the converse of his proposition, that, as the word gnaaruum, (not y, which he has taken for the same word,) does really signify prudent, to substitute the sense of "naked," would wholly destroy the meaning. For example, Psal. xviii. 3. "They have taken crafty counsel against the people." What would be thought of the passage if thus translated, "They have taken NAKED counsel?" Again, Gen. iii. 1. Now the serpent was NAKED.— Job v. 12. He disappointeth the devices of the NAKED.-Prov. xii. 16. But a NAKED man covereth shame. Ver. 23. A NAKED man concealeth knowledge.-Ch. xiv. 8. The wisdom of the NAKED is to understand his way? &c. I might then, with a boasting finish to these remarks say, in the words of this writer, " It were endless to cite passages of this description, in which the undoubted sense of the word is prudent or crafty." This will be sufficient to convince the reader, that this gentleman does not understand the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction," in the Hebrew.

This writer has copied the word gnaarom from the lexicon, as all do who pretend to understand the Hebrew without attend