Do we seek to arrive at farther information by means of the same interrogatory process? The upright staff which the extreme female. holds is explained by the Platonists and other hieroglyphical expounders, to imply life, which is synonymous with Vesta or Cybele, Psycheand Eve. The same cabbalistical process applied to the column by the side of the male, would produce the radical sar (a column) entering both, into the name Osiris and Serapis, which latter was represented by a column having a human head for its capital. Neither is it unworthy of remark that the name Atlas is derivable from Atel, column; and Atlas, as is well known, was Lord of the Hesperian Garden, and King of the Antediluvian island, which bore his name.

We come now to the second compartment, in which the figures are beautifully balanced against and contrasted with those of the first. This contains the final act of the drama, and the subject is renewed existence.

That this is implied is evident from the serpent in the act of renewing his skin, which is grasped by the central female figure; and opposed to the dying torch before described. Now in the mysteries, as a pledge of that future life to which they offered restoration, a serpent was placed in the bosom of the initiate.

It is so on the Vase!

But the gate of death was to be passed before the promised consummation. And the aspirant passed beneath a gate in the Mythratic, Chaldee, Eleusinian, and even the Druidic rites.

The passage is represented on the Vase!

In this passage the garments of the flesh were to be quitted, however reluctantly. The initiate at Eleusis put off the robes he had till then worn; the elect of Mythra did the same.

It is so depicted on the Vase!

Among the favorite tenets of the Platonists, was one which they derived from the Mysteries, and shared with the Rabbins as well as our Milton, that soul is of no sex: or rather, that before its fall it was male that subsequent to that event sexes were produced, the hateful dyad of the Pythagoreans. This was the real source of ancient, perhaps of modern superstitions celibacy.

The Spirit is represented male upon the Vase!

In the Mysteries, the way of the initiate representing a descending ghost was tottering and uncertain. An unearthly tree bearing golden leaves stood in the way of his descent. He was led along by the. torch bearer, amid the hissing of snakes, reunited to his "first love," implying primitive perfection, and introduced at length to the "beati

fic vision," to the presence of the king of the Mysteries, and the ruler of the happy fields. This character is the Anchises of Virgil, the Rhadamanthus of Homer, the benevolent Dæmon Cneph of the Egyptians, and the Demiurgus of Eleusis.

On the Vase he stands guarding the way between two trees: the first perhaps a box sacred to Cybele, or a myrtle worn by the elect at Eleusis, and both emblems of immortality; the 2nd, perhaps, a fig or a vine: both emblems of man's shame and fall: and the vine being still considered as the fatal tree of knowledge, in the East. His attitude is that of a judge, having power to admit or exclude.

In all probability he represented the "Midnight Sun" of the Mysteries, which was the final object of those ancient rites: whether he be called Jupiter, or Helios, or Osiris Inferus, Bacchus, or Adonis, or Atys Nyctilicus, whether he be Muth, or Pluto, or Serapis. The character was the same, though different nations pronounced his name with a different modulation.

Those, however, who require some application of dramatis personæ more specific, are at liberty to consider the figure as Uranus, the father of Cybele Uranus, to whom indeed the title of Demiurge, King, and Beatific Vision, accurately applies.

And, indeed, the inference is obvious, that as the vase and the mystic shows represented on it are evidently connected with the worship of this Goddess, the mythological story of Cybele most probably formed the groundwork of the drama.

As this story perfectly harmonises with the premises I have laid down, I am enabled, by compressing it, to offer a point of union between myself and the most rigid lover of simplicity, leaving the application to the reader.

Cybele, says the fable, was the daughter of an ancient King and Queen of PHRYGIA; some say of Uranus and Rhea. She fell in love with a beautiful Phrygian named Atys, whom her parents disliked, and finding her resolute, caused to be slain, and his body thrown to wild beasts. Cybele searched the body, collected the parts, wept over them, went mad, and died. But a plague ravaging the country, it was commanded by the oracle that Atys should be buried with great pomp, and Cybele worshipped as a deity. Other versions say that he first deified her and became her priest. However that be, the priests extravagantly lamented, for a stated time, over his effigy, at the end of which light was brought in, and they declared with outcries of joy that "the dead was revived." Co

233

"

A SECOND REPLY

to the Further Remarks in the Quarterly Review, No. XXXVIII. on the New Translation of the Bible.

Ir was not my intention to lose any more time in polemical controversy; but at the request of several of my learned friends, I have been induced to make the following remarks in reply to a second article in the Quarterly Review, on my Translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew.

The remarks made on my Translation of the Book of Genesis, by the Quarterly Reviewer, are allowed by many of the readers of that work to be malicious and unjust; and, by real critics, to be written in the most consummate ignorance of the original.

He begins his Review of my Reply by saying, "When WE lately undertook to examine Mr. Bellamy's New Translation of the Bible, WE found not only that proofs of his utter incompetence to the task crowded upon US at every step, but that his bold pretensions of making new discoveries, as to the meaning of the plainest passages of the Bible, tended to shake the confidence of the public in the certainty of received scriptural interpretations. In consequence, WE felt OURSELVES called upon to explain, without disguise, the grounds of the opinion which WE were led to form respecting this writer and his work." This critic has here explained, more fully certainly than he intended, "the grounds" of his virulent abuse of my undertaking: it "tended to shake the confidence of the public in the certainty of received scriptural interpretations!" But if these received interpretations rest upon false translations, should the version remain without improvement? Should not the Scriptures be truly translated, that both the teachers and the hearers may have an opportunity of ascertaining whether their confidence in the certainty of any of these received interpretations be founded on truth? Can any suffer loss by a vindication of the truth and purity of the Divine record? Yes, some men may, and some men will; and "in consequence they feel THEMSELVES called upon" to defend the "interpretations" which it would be VOL. XIX. 'Cl. Jl. NO. XXXVIII. Q

for their interest, as they imagine, should never be called in question. But is this Reviewer, with all his dignified WE's, US's, OUR's, and OURSELVES', one of these interested persons ?He has not denied it.

"WE felt OURSELVES called upon to explain, without disguise, the grounds of the opinion which WE WERE led to form respecting this writer (Bellamy) and his work. At the same time, WE had no wish unnecessarily to wound his feelings, and WERE therefore desirous of abstaining from the exposure of his blunders" (how tender!) "to a greater extent than appeared to be required by a just regard to truth and to OUR public duty." How amiable and conscientious are the feelings of this critic! how admirable his composition! I stop not to ask whether he mean the same thing by "this writer," and by "his work," coupled together in the same clause. If he separate the two, I ask, what had he to do with "this writer ?" "His work" surely was all that he could bring to the bar of his self-constituted tribunal. I was willing, it is true, to meet him face to face, that I might benefit a little by his deep knowledge in "the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction" of the Hebrew; but with all his wishes "to abstain from the exposure of his (Bellamy's) blunders," and with all his professed "regard to truth," Bellamy, it appears, may blunder on for him, let what will become of "truth;" for he has not complied, and, for certain reasons, will not, I fear, comply with my request.

He proceeds: "Whatever may have been the effect of these strictures on OUR readers, (and WE are much mistaken if this be at all doubtful,) their influence on the author has not been that which WE intended." Indeed! is not this very strange, considering the cool, temperate, disinterested, and friendly manner in which his strictures were offered? If I may judge of the effect of his strictures on his readers by the result to myself, he is much mistaken. It is true that some individuals did, in compliance with his very liberal and generous advice, withdraw their names: it is equally true that some of these, on reading my Reply, sent notice to have their names again put on my list, accompanied with remarks on the conduct of the Quarterly Reviewer, which he would not like to hear. And, however distressing it may be to the feelings of this defender of received erroneous interpretations, it is equally true, and to the honor of the British character be it known, that his attempt to injure, has, on the contrary, produced me many friends. Were I insensible to the distinguished support which has been afforded to shield me from the effects of this Reviewer's malignity, I should be the most unfeeling and most ungrateful of mortals. It would be highly indeco

rous in me to state the particulars in this place; but the act will live among the deeds of the truly great, when the strictures of the Advocate" for received errors shall have ceased to have an existence. The Reviewer, with all his assumed self-complacency, had some knowledge of this fact before his Review of my Reply was written.

But of this enough for the present. I now proceed to show that this "incompetent" Reviewer has again attempted to impose upon

his readers.

In page 450, he charges me with an error in translating the preposition min, in the sense of for: he says" To his rendering the preposition min, in the sense of for (the man,) meaning, 'for the use, the help of man,' we answered, p. 266, that he had no authority whatever for giving such a sense. On this he is totally silent." If I omitted saying any thing on so unimportant a subject, it was not because I had not the opportunity of silencing this unguarded writer. However, as he exposes his want of information a second time, I will show him that the preposition min, has the sense of for, or because of. See Dan. v. 19, and FOR the majesty Zach. viii. 10, because of What now are we to say concerning the Hebrew learning of the Reviewer?

This writer still pretends to believe that Eve was made of one of the ribs of Adam, and thus he involves himself in a labyrinth of uncertainties, which the enemies of Revelation never fail to bring forward to invalidate the sacred testimony. I refer the reader to p. 19. of my first Answer, where I have given the questions of the systematic enemies of the Christian Religion. "Were it possible (French deists and infidels have said) that he 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 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 ?"

I have said, that the word y tseelang, rendered in the common version to mean a rib, is only so translated in this passage in all the Scriptures; to which the critic says, "it may be true; but then it should be remembered that all Hebraists, ancient and modern, agree that here it does signify a rib." To this I have said, it is not true that all the ancient Hebraists and translators agree that the word yy tseelang, signifies a rib... Origen, Philo, Eusebius, Austin, &c. say, that these things are to be understood allegorically. I have said nothing concerning the translations of these fathers; it is sufficient for the end of truth to show, that their belief of this subject, stands opposed to the general belief at