rative, he might have been convinced that there is no absurdity in the New Translation. God had declared to Samuel that Saul should cease to reign, and therefore to this part of the text he says, The Strength of Israel will not lie. But if the following clause were to be rendered nor repent, it would be a repetition of the preceding one: that is, if he had repented, as he had declared that Saul should no longer reign, it would have involved him in the first; for to repent would have been to have acted contrary to the first declaration; and therefore it would only have been a repetition. This gentleman forgets that Saul had now repented, but Samuel informs him, that the Strength of Israel would not be satisfied by his repentance. Surely there is no absurdity in this, it being the literal meaning of the word D yinaachem, in every part of Scripture in the common version; except, as observed, where the translators have improperly rendered it repent. Neither is there any absurdity in Job xlii. 6. If he abhorred himself on account of his sin, he necessarily repented; therefore, if · nichamti, were translated I repent, it would amount to a repetition. Here again this hasty writer forgets, that Job at this period, while he was in this abject state, received consolation from God; who had comforted him while he sat in dust and ashes. So much for this sagacious gentleman's grammatical knowledge of the Hebrew in question. Now for a specimen of his logic: "When he (God) is said to have repented, it is not meant in a human sense, that he felt sorrow for what he had done; but only that he changed his outward conduct towards men, in consequence of their altered behaviour towards him." But in such case God is subject to change, and to change as often as men "alter their behaviour toward him." Then it follows, that man can cause God to change his mind, whenever it shall please him to commit sin. It is however said, "I am the Lord: I change not." Mal. iii. 6. If the reader do not say that this is a summary of unintelligible doctrine which nearly borders on blasphemy, I shall be mistaken; for it amounts to nothing more nor less than this-the word repent does not always mean repent. The New Translation. silences the objections which have for ages been advanced against this scripture as it stands in the received version; without having recourse to the absurd conclusion of this critic, that the common received sense of words may cease to convey their customary sense.' It is not common sense to suppose, that such an unscriptural notion was ever in the contemplation of the sacred writer.

I Vide Johnson.

I shall end my remark on this part, by giving the crude statement of this writer. He says, "Now, in a literal sense, to attribute satisfaction to the Deity, is as inconsistent with the perfection of his nature, as to ascribe to him any other passion or feeling." Surely he has never considered the obvious meaning of words, or he would not say that satisfaction is a passion. This word means the final end-where there is no desire-complete fulness—a state of perfect peace-rest-tranquillity: a state incapable of any passion, of any addition, of any diminution: therefore truly applicable to the unchangeable Jehovah. Mal. iii. 6. "I am the Lord; I change not And thus the first article of the church of England, with the utmost propriety, describes God as being without passions; because he necessarily is in that eternal state of tranquil satisfaction. But repentance is a passion; and if the passion of repentance were to be applied to God, as repentance is to think on any thing past with sorrow, it would affect the majesty of God-it is altogether inapplicable to the Divine Being. Thus by attributing the passion of repentance to the unchangeable Jehovah-the imperfection of man to the great fount of infinite perfection; this writer declares himself to be in direct opposition to that luminous article of the church, which so truly declares God to be without passions, in a state of invariable tranquillity and peace, " With whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," Jam. i. 17.

But he says, "He (Bellamy) is so profoundly ignorant of the plainest forms of speech, as not to know that the impersonal expression, it repented the Lord-it grieved him,' is merely another mode of saying the Lord repented-he grieved or was grieved." I would ask the candid and the learned reader, as there is no authority for the "impersonal expression," "it repented the Lord-it grieved him," in the Hebrew; to whom is the abusive term 66 profoundly ignorant," applicable? to this abusive reviewer, who is not capable of informing his readers that neither the neuter pronoun it, nor the third person singular him, occur in these words in the Hebrew-or to ignorant Bellamy, who translates the words as they stand in the Hebrew, literally? This writer may talk about "the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction," and that my knowledge of Hebrew "consists in little more than the more ordinary and obvious rules of grammar;" but before a person presumes to talk in this affected style of deep learning in Hebrew, he surely ought to understand his Hebrew grammar. It does not however appear that he possesses much grammatical knowledge in Hebrew, or he would not have translated the third person singular preter of the verb, it repented, and it grieved him, with the neuter pronoun it,

and the pronoun of the third person singular him. I shall have occasion to show the public some of his "niceties of construction" in Hebrew, when I come to say a few words on Gen. ii. 25.

And lastly, I would ask this captious writer, what absurdity there is in the New Translation of Jer. xviii. 8.? If the reader turns to ch. vi. page 39, on the note Jer. xviii. 8, he will find that this writer has given a false quotation. I have not translated it, I will be comforted, as he has the confidence to declare I have; but according to the idiom of the verb, I have translated the word, Then I will be satisfied. I forbear to make any remarks on misrepresentation; he is now before a tribunal, the public, who love the truth, and who will not fail to reprobate an attack conducted with so much virulence, erroneous quotation, and falsehood. The case will be precisely the same in all the texts where the translators have erred in using the word repent-for the word Dyinaachem, embraces no other meaning than comfort, or satisfy, throughout the Scripture. From which it is evident that the assertion of this unguarded writer that this word bears the sense of repent, is contradicted by the impossibility of the thing as applied to God; by the translation of the very same word, both consonants and vowels, Gen. xxxviii. 12. "And he (Judah) was comforted, or satisfied." See also 2 Sam. xii. 24. "And David comforted." Gen. xxiv. 67. "And Isaac was comforted." Ch. 1. 21. "And he comforted them." Now as it is not said that Judah repented, that David repented, that Joseph repented, when he consoled his brethren, that Isaac repented, or that the friends of Job repented, when they comforted him-so neither cau it be said that God repented that he had made man.

This caviller says, "But to proceed to Mr. Bellamy's proof of error. Let it be remembered, that in support of the received sense, there is the same concurrence of all authorities ancient and modern, which we alleged in the former instance; that the Septuagint version, the Syriac, the Targum, the Samaritan, the Arabic, the Vulgate, besides every known commentator and interpreter, ancient and modern, are all in perfect agreement, all opposed to Mr. Bellamy." And yet every intelligent reader will readily allow that, notwithstanding the concurring testimony of all these "authorities ancient and modern," the translations I have so given are perfectly right, and sanctioned by the Hebrew. Let the public judge how far this writer deserves credit, where he says, p. 253, "The principles of its grammar and construction have been explored." It is obvious that those who "explored" it, like this pretender to Hebrew criticism, did not understand the grammar of the language, admitting they had the Hebrew Bible before them,..

This ADVOCATE for received errors proceeds; "The second word, which Mr. Bellamy affirms to have been wholly misunderstood, is syn yithgnatseeb, usually translatedhe grieved himself,' but which, as he maintains, signifies 'he idolised himself.' He might as well assume any other meaning." I must here again show, that when the caviller is determined to carry his argument, he does not hesitate to coin a word, where it neither is to be found in the Hebrew, nor in the common version. But I have not said that the word syn yithgnatseeb is translated he grieved himself, in this passage, Gen. vi. 6. Yet the reader may suppose by this representation, that I have so stated the common version. I have said that the translators have rendered it," and it grieved him ;" and that, as there is no pronoun of the third person, him, in the word, it cannot be so translated. I have also said, it is in the Hithpael (reflective) conjugation, consequently it cannot be said, either as it respects God or man, that "it grieved him at his heart." He proceeds: "Mr. Bellamy however is a contemner of all ordinary authorities; we will therefore bring against him one which we know to be paramount with him; we mean that of Mr. John Bellamy. The word y gnatseeb, occurs in Hithpael only once in the Bible, besides in the passage before us, viz. Gen. xxxiv. 7. and there he translates it in the very sense which, in the present text, he rejects as improper. The sons of Jacob came from the field-and the men grieved themselves y yithgnatseebou. Either Mr. Bellamy is right in rejecting the received sense of the word, or he is wrong. If right, why does he not reject it uniformly? If wrong, why does he reject it at all? What can be considered certain in language, if such arbitrary assumptions are allowed? and above all, what is to be thought of a man who thus adopts in one page, what he rejects as inadmissible in another?" Here are four questions in about as many lines; I will reply to all of them. It is not true that I" reject all authorities:" I reject all such authorities as are not consistent with the Hebrew text, but I revere all such authorities as agree with it; I have therefore referred to Bochart, Buxtorf, Calmet, Lightfoot, &c. And among the string of authorities referred to by this intemperate writer, I reject the most ancient of them, even the LXX, when it stands opposed to the Hebrew; and he also acknowledges that it is imperfect. And in doing this I have the sanction of Origen, Jerome, Usher, Wall, and other learned men who have critically examined it.

I will now examine the authority which the ADVOCATE brings against me, which he states to be Mr. J. Bellamy against Mr. J. Bellamy. He refers to Gen. xxxiv. 7. where he says, "I translate this word in the very sense which, in the present text, I

reject as improper." In the first place, this is not the same word; -and secondly, though it be in the Hithpael, or reflective conjugation, it does not follow that the same radical form of the word should always have the same mode of expression, because the construction and idiom vary the expression; yet it will always partake of the meaning of the root, either in a nearer or in a remote degree. As in 2 Sam. xvi. 19. Ty egnebod, "should I serve," is properly rendered, Jer. ii. 20. "I will transgress."- kidmou, Psal. Ixviii. 25. "went before," is in Isa. xxi. 14. " they prevented."-up hikshah, "would hardly let us go." Exod. xiii. 15.-is in i Kings xii. 4. " grievous," &c.

So on, which, as a noun, means bread, because the consecrated bread was not cut, but broken with the teeth; so as a verb it is applied to fighting, because a sword is as the teeth. And thus it is applied as a verb, to fight. 2 Sam. xii. 27. I have fought. And so for other words. This is the same in all languages; and, to convince the reader, I will refer him to words in our language. The letters p-r form the root of a word; but, according to its orthography, it has different modes of expression, viz. poor, pare, peer, pure, pier, pore-again, the letters s-t, set, sit, sat, sot; or the letters p-n, pen, pin, pun, and the like. Thus, according to orthographical arrangement, it is the same in Hebrew, with this difference, that the sense, though remote, is always derived from, and consequently connected with the root. In the passage under review in Gen. vi. 6. the word yn yithgnatseeb, is thus written, and it is thus erroneously translated," and it grieved him :" but there is no authority either for the neuter pronoun it, or the pronoun of the third person him, therefore cannot possibly be translated," and it grieved him."

But if the word grieved were to be retained, the word " should be rendered, "he grieved himself." But the word, ch. xxxiv. rendered, "were grieved," differs in its application according to idiom; and consequently varies the mode of expression. It is thus erroneously translated," were grieved;" the verb is in Hithpael, or the reflective conjugation, viz. " they grieved themselves:" for there is neither authority nor necessity for the verb were. This is the reason why I reject the authorities which this ADVOCATE mentions, because they do not agree with the Hebrew; and they attribute those imperfections to God, which are only applicable to man. But what is worse, they represent the Fountain of infinite Wisdom, who, as his great name T JEHOVAH, declares, comprehends the PAST, the PRESENT, and the FUTURE, as doing at one time, what he repents of at another, and thus that it grieved him at his heart: by which he is brought to a level with man, who knows not to-day what shall be to-morrow.