Lord might very properly command an unclean spirit to come out of a person, without asserting it to be a proper name of the great enemy of mankind; and yet the Jews might, without any injustice, call Adßoλos an unclean spirit. In fine, I hope I have shown Dr. Clarke's hypothesis, to be destitute of probability; I have shown, that

by is a mode of progression, differing from that of walking, either on four or many feet; that the oran-outang is not cursed above every beast; that the Greek versions of LXX. and the New Testament writers, are our authority for believing Nachash to signify a serpent: and I may add, that the lurking habits of serpents seem to declare, that they are sensible of the enmity between them and the sons of Eve. The double allusion to the head, and to the heel of the parties, though principally to be taken in the spiritual sense, has certainly a natural and striking reference to the serpent, but none at all to any animal of the simia genus. I have not pretended to say, whether the Nachash walked, or flew, in its primitive state; but there certainly is no absurdity in supposing either the one or the other; since from the nature of the curse pronounced upon it, there is reason to believe it was made to undergo a very great change of nature. However this may be, Linnæus can be no authority in the controversy and I conclude by observing, that if a serpent is not intended by Moses, the knowledge of what it was is not of the least moment to us: we are sure the New Testament writers would not, in compliment to the mistake of their countrymen, have called the devil öps, in reference to the form under which he deceived Eve, if it had been of consequence to us to know, that he perpetrated the mischief under the form of an oran-outang.

But while I confess my surprise that Dr. C. should ever have entertained such an opinion, I am not less surprised at Mr. Bellamy's Critical Remarks upon Dr. A. Clarke's Bible; in which he attempts to prove, that is a noun in the singular. My limits will not permit me to say much on this subject; I shall therefore confine myself to his first instance, and observe, that there is a negligence in his manner, which is remarkable in such a Critic; there is not a passage in the Hebrew Bible, in which signifies," after this manner." Gen. xxxix. 19. is not to his purpose, 7, "according to these words, or things," (dabar meaning indifferently either a word or a thing,) is equivalent to the English phrase," after this manner;" but is undeniably the demonstrative pronoun plural in this and innumerable other passages, and the very passage he takes to prove

,כדברים האלה

האדירים האלה his point, I use to show that is properly האלהים

translated, "THESE mighty Gods." Mr. B. would not have any objection to translate haadirim in the plural, if it was predicated of men; and had he considered, that they were Phenicians (Philistines) who uttered the exclamation, the impropriety of speaking in the plural vanishes; they had not his views of the divine unity. The next clause of the verse is, if possible, more pointedly in opposition to

This is not in the - אלה הם האלהים המכים ו"כ" ,his opinion

manner of Gen. i. 1. Ha-elohim is construed with the participle plural, and (if there was not another proof in the Hebrew Bible) is at least

sufficient to show, that Mr. B. has overlooked one passage, in which Elohim is used as a plural noun. When Elohim is used as one of the names of the self-existent and true God, by his servants, all translators render it, with reference to his unity, in the singular-and whether the divine wisdom intended by the plural form of this his name, to point out his triune existence, must be left to eternity to discover. That the noun is plural when predicated of the false gods of the heathen, might be shown from a multitude of passages.

.לא תלנון אחרי אלהים אחרים אלהי העמים

"Ye shall not go after people," Deut. vi. 14. and xxviii, 14. again in

other (or strange) Gods, the Gods of the see the same construction in Deut. xi. 28. 1 Kings, xi. 10. Jer. vii. 6. & 9. and xiii. 10.

.after other Gods to serve THEM אחרי אלהים אחרים לעבדם

Father Simon, in his Critical History, says, "On doit supposer comme
une chose constante, que la plupart des mots Hebreux sont équivoques,
et que leur signification est entièrement incertaine." We have a
shrewd guess of what Father Simon meant by endeavoring to per-
suade us, that the signification of Hebrew words was uncertain; and
I am sorry to say, Mr. Bellamy's Criticisms, and Father Simon's
assertions, speak the same language. There are, without doubt,
many grammatic anomalies in the Hebrew Bible, and considering its
antiquity, how should it be otherwise? But it is beyond the power of
either Mr. Bellamy, or any one else, to make the Hebrew words mean
any thing, or nothing, just as imagination prompts them. I add one
instance more, in which Elohim is construed with the participle
plural, by, Deos vidi ascendentes, 1 Sam. xxviii. 18.
I am well aware, that Jonathan expounds the passage, "I have seen
an angel of the Lord ascending," &c. and that Kimchi expounds
Elohim by, but I take neither of them as authority, since
they do not give the literal reading, but what they conceived to be
the intended meaning of the text. I have not room, in the limits I
have prescribed to myself, to notice the other passages he has men-
tioned, but would ask him en passant what authority he adduces for
rendering," before him," in Gen. xxxv. 7.? Supposing Elohim
to come from,fortitudo, virtus,' the disputed part of the
passage might be read, "For there the mighty ones were revealed
or made known unto him when he fled from the face of his brother."
(for Elohim the Keri reads p.) He saw the angels of God in
his dream, the mighty ones. I now turn back to Mr. B's Critical
Remarks in former Numbers of your Journal. In No. 1. p. 631.
we have a specimen of Mr. B's modesty, in his charging Dr. Kenni-
cott and De Rossi with ignorance of the Hebrew, and with adding to,
or taking from, the Hebrew text, in the manner proposed by Dr. G. S.
Clarke. But his ability to maintain and prove the ABSOLUTE
INTEGRITY of the Hebrew text, is what, I thought, no sober scholar
would at this day prétend to-one would naturally suppose, that some
respect should be paid to the arguments of Joh. Morinus, Ludov.
Capellus, and other learned men who have written on this subject.
Dr. Marsh, in his, Lectures on Divinity, lately published, states this
subject with great perspicuity, Lect. XI. and though he admits the

integrity of the Hebrew text, from the time it was fixed by the Masora, yet in the conclusion he very properly observes, "our notions of integrity must not be carried to such a height, as to imply that no deviations from the sacred Autographs were retained in the Masoretic text, that there are no passages in our present Hebrew Bibles which betray marks of corruption, and still require critical aid." Now if we admit the Professor to be a competent judge, what must we think of Mr. Bellamy's ABSOLUTE integrity of the Hebrew text? Mr. B. complains of the different interpretations given of various passages, by people pretending to critical skill in Hebrew. Do not their various opinions seem to intimate that there is some truth in Father Simon's assertion, and that the language is but imperfectly known? And when we consider that it has ceased to be a living language for upwards of 2000 years, and that the sacred volume is the only book in pure® Hebrew, that has come down to our times, how should it be otherwise? It is, not, however, so uncertain as some critics would make it, and at the hazard of having the honor of being ranked with such novices as Kennicott and De Rossi, I shall venture to make a few remarks on one of the fortuitous shoots of Mr. Bellamy's imagination. In his Notice of Sir W. Drummond's Essay on a Punic Inscription, he stumbles on the word w, the signification of which Sir W. thinks, must, in the places he mentions, be best determined by the Arabic. This leads Mr. B. to give a new translation of 1 Sam. xxii. 6. for the sake of the Deists! He would have us believe, that is erroneously rendered "under," and refers us to Gen. 1. 19. and Lev. xvi. 32. for the true sense of it in this place- surely nothing but inattention could lead any man in his senses to hazard his reputation as a critic, on such a reference, or to tell us that its signification is "IN THE PLACE OF." I would beg leave to ask this learned Hebraist, if he can possibly suppose either of these passages to his purpose? In the first, Joseph said to his brethren, "I am in the place of God." Does this censurer of Kennicott and De Rossi suppose, that Joseph occupied the Throne of God? His meaning was, that in a certain degree he represented God, or was under him for the good of his brethren; and that as God nourishes and supports all, extending his mercy to them, notwithstanding their ingratitude and rebellion, so he would imitate the Father of Mercies, in doing good to his brethren. Let me inform Mr. B. that when signifies "in the place of" it always implies the absence of that, in the place of which it stands: this is perfectly clear from his second example, Lev. xvi. 32. « instead of, or in the place of his Father." The passage cannot then be read as Mr. B. would have it, nor is it at all evident, that two towns are mentioned in the text; signifies a hill; and we know from 1 Sam. ix. 11. that Ramah was situated on a hill, and that there was in its neighborhood a high place, perhaps a grove; these things considered, without putting any strained or unnatural sense upon one Hebrew word in the text, it will read, "Now Saul abode in the hill, under the grove or tree in (or by) Ramah," &c. Had the writer meant to inform us that Saul abode in a situation between the two towns, he would have expressed himself thus:

ושאול יושב תחת האשל בין גבעה ובין רמה

Now Saul abode under the grove between Gibeah and Ramah. ́

I have been accustomed to read sober critics, Lowth, Leusden, &c. what they have to say, they advance with modesty, and proceed like men searching for truth; but this Gentleman, like the priestess of the Pythian Apollo, delivers ORACLES, and from his decisions there is no appeal.

Newcastle upon Tyne.

I am, Sir, your's, &c.

H.

APPENDIX

to Mr. Patrick's Essay on the "China of the Classics," inserted in No. VI.

This part includes, beside some Information on the Byssus, and the Serica of the Ancients, Illustrations of Passages in Propertius, Eschylus, Tibullus, and Claudian; Vindications of Passages in Florus, Hesychius, Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, aud Pliny; Strictures on Schutz, Sopingius, Kuster, H. Stephens, Constantine, Hoffman, Pitiscus, Salmasius, and Antoninus Thylesius.

THE

HE very learned, and curious Essay on the China of the Classics has induced me to make a great variety of inquiries, of which some are remotely, and others are immediately, connected with the Essay itself, but which are all designed to illustrate some passage in the classical Writers, which has been involved in obscurity, or has been misunderstood by the commentators, from their not having taken a sufficiently wide and extensive view of the subject. I have diligently collected, and carefully collated both the passages themselves, which are scattered throughout the different writers of antiquity, and the opinions of commentators and critics upon them: I have neglected no sources of information, which were accessible to me; and the reader will find all my quotations exactly verified by the editions, which I have consulted. The new interpretations of different passages, which I have proposed, I am aware, may be deemed the chimerical effusions of a youthful fancy; for there are some Scholars, who are content to surrender their judgment to certain deified giants in literature, who condemn every attempt of innovation, which opposes the standard of, what they are pleased to term, established authority, as if the greatest men were not liable to error; and who often impute some malignant motive to those, who have the courage to vindicate the right of private opinion. I profess myself to be in the number of those, who must be convinced, before they can believe; and who weigh, with candor and impartiality, every opinion on the point of dispute from whatever quarter it may come. Though I have often already found occasion to differ from Scholars of established fame on various topics, yet I have always stated the grounds of my opposition to them, sensible as I am of my own fallibility; and have never sullied the pages of this respectable Journal, nor disgraced the

name of a Scholar, with personal abuse and illiberal reflections. I frankly confess that I may, in some cases, have unconsciously fallen into the discoveries of others; for, as Lambert Bos has well said in the Preface to his " Observationes Critica," Quam difficile sit dicere quod non dictum sit priùs, et observare quod non observatum ab aliis sit in eâ eruditionis luce, in qua hodie versamur, scriptorumque affluentiá, experiuntur omnes, qui rei literariæ sese dedunt.

The first passage, on which I intend to offer some remarks, is in Propertius Book 111. Eleg. 3. v. 1.

"Arma Deus Cæsar dites meditatur ad Indos,

"Et freta gemmiferi findere classe maris:

"Magna viæ merces: parat ultima terra triumphos :
"Tigris et Euphrates sub sua jura fluent:

"Seres et Ausoniis venient provincia virgis ;
"Assuescent Latio Partha tropæa Jovi."

"Cf. Claudian. Honor. V. v. 317.

-Victura feretur

Gloria Trajani; non tam quod Tigride victo
Nostra triumphati fuerint provincia Parthi:

apparet hunc Nostri versum in mente habuisse nobilissimum Poetam--: unicè huc facit insignis Horatii locus L. i. Od. 12.

Ille seu Parthos Latio imminentes

Egerit justo domitos triumpho,

Sive subjectos Orientis ora

Seras1 et Indos:

et Flori L. iv. c. 12. Seres etiam, habitantesque sub ipso sole Indi, cum gemmis et margaritis, elephantes quoque inter munera trahentes, nihil magis quàm longinquitatem via imputabant, quam quadriennio impleverant conjungunt hi cum Seribus Indos, itidem ut noster Poeta," Brækhusius. The Poet says that Cæsar intends to penetrate to the extremity of India, and that the Tigris and the Euphrates will thus soon roll a free and independent flood: the two subsequent lines specify some of the nations comprehended in the 4 precedent lines: "Yes," adds the Poet, "even the Seric nation shall fall beneath the Roman spear, and the fierce Parthian shall supply trophies to the Jupiter Feretrius of the Latins." If Claudian be allowed, as Brækhusius supposes, to allude to these verses of Propertius, the interpretation, for which I contend, is at once proved; for he connects in his idea the Tigris with the Partha tropea, just as I do any other mode of interpretation seems to me to embarrass the sentence: the words-parat ultima terra triumphos seem to point to the Seres, or Chinese, as the

Read here Seres; for the nominative is Ser: thus we have in C. S. Sidon. Apoll. Carm. V. v. 43. Ser vellera, thura Sabæus: thus Auson. Eidyll. 12. in Monosyl. de Histor. (cited in Facciolati's Lexicon),

Vellera depectit nemoralia vestifluus Ser:

thus Seneca in Herc. Et. Act. 2. v. 665.

Nec Mæonia distinguit acu,

Qua Phabeis subditus Euris
Legit Eois Ser arboribus.

Beroaldus in his note on Sueton. Calig. c. 52. quotes the passage of Ausonius, and adds,-"Singulariter in recto casu dicitur Ser."