character of Lot from a crime hitherto universally imputed to him, in the 32d verse, for the words "let us make our father drink wine," the following are substituted, "we will drink wine with our father." The reader perhaps may be disposed to smile at the idea of palliating the conduct of Lot by introducing his daughters as participating in his intemperance. Not so Mr. Bellamy. For he tells us, that to drink wine means to pour out libations of wine, or to offer a drink offering of wine, at the accustomed time of morning or evening sacrifice. Thus, not satisfied with translating the Hebrew original in a manner, of which no one ever before dreamed, he gives a sense to English phraseology too recondite for a common understanding to discern. But as he is undoubtedly privileged to explain his own language in his own way, I will leave him in the full enjoyment of that privilege, and proceed to his critical defence of this novel translation. In a note he says, "The verb p is rendered let us makedrink. But the obvious translation is, we will drink.” Obvious however as this may appear to him, it is far from being so to any one who thinks that some advantage may be derived from consulting a Lexicon, or who is endowed with the meanest portion of critical acumen. For the verb in question never occurs in the conjugation Kal, and cannot therefore be construed we will drink; once it occurs in Niphal, (but here Keri has yp,) and once also in Puhal; but it is found fifty-eight times in Hiphil. In twenty-seven of these instances it is in a tense, which is sufficiently marked by its præformant ; and in the remaining thirty-one, including that of the text under consideration, it is every where broadly distinguished from Kal by Pathach, the characteristical vowel of the future of Hiphil. Now if Mr. Bellamy will be pleased to admit, that Hiphil is a causative conjugation, he must confess that all other translators are right, and that he on this occasion at least is wrong.

But how is it that he writes the word, not p? Is this mere carelessness, ignorance, or design? The substitution of the vowel Chireh for Pathach makes indeed all the difference; but I cannot suppose, that he would dare to deviate from the vowels of the received text, which he conceives to be equally as inspired as the consonants of it, and to the reading of which he professes inviolably to adhere. Besides, he seems to know that the proper verb for the expression to drink is not рn, because in Gen. xxiv. 14, where both the words occur, he makes the correct distinction between them, rendering I will drink, and

I will give-drink.

I very much suspect however, that there he is more indebted for his correctness to the very translators whom he despises, than to his own ingenuity.

Perhaps also he will condescend to be told, that the same verb is used in Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic; never however in the sense of the conjugation Kal, to drink, but always in that of the conjugation Hiphil, to cause to drink. An irrefragable proof this, that, when the Masorets uniformly pointed this verb with the distinguishing vowel of Hiphil, they did it not only in compli ance with the grammatical peculiarities of their own language, but also in perfect conformity with the established usage of every other oriental language belonging to the same family. The result of this remark completely annihilates the new sense, which he attempts for a particular purpose to fix upon the verb in question.

Having dwelt so long upon his erroneous explanation of the principal word in this passage, I shall spare myself the trouble of pointing out his other more minute inaccuracies, and proceed to the last novelty of interpretation which I propose to notice, and which is contained in the

ולא ידע בשכבה ובקומה 33rd verse.. The sentence

instead of, "And he perceived not, when she lay down,

S S

nor when she arose," he translates, "But he knew not, where she abode, neither when she married." Here, either in perfect ignorance, or in perfect contempt of Hebrew syntax, he renders the preposition prefixed to the infinitive by the adverb where, and that without the slightest pretence of authority. His sole remark upon the point is this; "When she lay down. It certainly does not require both a verb and an adverb to explain the meaning of as in the common version." What must we think of that man's grammatical knowledge, even in our own language, who is not aware of the distinction between an adverb and a conjunction denominating when an adverb; or of that man's consistency, who after censuring the common version for explaining the meaning of a word not only with a verb but also with an adverb, (which proves however to be a conjunction,) does exactly the same thing himself, with this little difference alone, that the adverb, which he uses, is not the English of the original expression! That a preposition with an infinitive mood is used in Hebrew for a conjunction with an indicative or subjunctive mood would have been too trite a remark I should have conceived to escape even his observation. I subjoin to the following rule upon the subject from Schroeder's Grammar; Particulas inseparabiles boa quando præfixas habent infinitivi, modo nostris Gerundiis respondent, modo alias, Hebræis peculiares, loquendi for mulas efficiunt, quarum aliquas Latinus sermo non aliter exprimere potest, quam ita, ut Infinitivus, ope alicujus conjunctionis, in verbum finitum resolvatur 】 quando præmittitur infinitivo, inservit tempori exprimendo, in quo aliquid fit; ut TN 1 in venire domini mei, i.e. quum venerit dominus meus 2 Reg. v. 18. DAVN) in esse eorum, i. e. quando fuerunt.

Upon the verb he observes, that "it truly sig nifies to rest, to lodge, Joshua ii. 1, and lodge there;" and upon such account it is that he translates it to abide.

This I deny. Its true signification, as any Lexicon will inform him, which he may condescend to consult, is to lie down; so that the words "and lodged there" must be considered as synonymous with "and lay there.”

But the most extraordinary link in the chain of cognate ideas ever fabricated, is that which he has fastened upon the unfortunate verb p, usually construed to stand or to rise, but which he construes to be married. «The various modes," he says, "by which a verb is expressed, agreeably to the idea of the writer or speaker, are many in all languages. Thus it is said of a person, who rises in the world, as to property or situation, that he is established, stands, remains, subsists, continues, endures, maintains, withstands, justified, absolved, succeeds." Does he mean that all these verbs are synonymous with the verb rises, and may be used indifferently for it? But let us hear him further. "And with regard to the operation of any purpose, counsel, word, doctrine, prediction, promise, decree, decision, vow, agreement, or bargain, it" (that is, the verb DP) "means to stand good, to be ratified, established, confirmed, made sure, performed; Gen. xvii. 13, arise; Deut. xix. 15, established; Josh. xi 11, remain; 1 Sam. xiii. 14, continue; Jer. xliv. 29, shall stand. And consequently this word in the strictest sense embraces the act of marriage. For when a woman is married, she is then established; the bond, vow, or bargain is made sure; is ratified and confirmed. Therefore the above sense and application of the word I have chosen must necessarily be allowed."

In this singular species of reasoning there seems a strange jumble of language, and no very lucid developement of idea; but if I comprehend the drift of it, it is intended to prove, that because a contract is established during the act of marriage, and because the verb Dp, when connected with a substantive expressive of any contract, means to be established, therefore the verb p

embraces the act of marriage; and further, that because a woman is said to be established, when she is married, and because the verb signifies to be established, when applied to the contract made by a woman in marriage, therefore also must the same verb signify to be married. This singular critic particularly prides himself upon his knowledge of major and minor propositions.* I leave him to explain the species of propositions to which he alludes; but the reader perhaps will not be disposed to think, that he has here exhibited any great skill in logical propositions. With respect however to his first syllogism, granting the truth of the premises, I can only admit the conclusion under a certain limitation, viz. that the verb DP, although it means to be established when connected with a substantive, expressive of any contract, yet never embraces the act of marriage, unless when connected with a substantive or substantives expressive of the mar riage contract. And with respect to the second, a fallacy pervades the whole argument; for he only proves, what no one ever doubted, that the verb D signifies to be established, when applied to a word meaning some contract made or to be made, not when applied to a woman as in the text, who is not said to make, to have made, or to be about to make, any contract whatsoever. Besides, were this verb capable of such an application in such a sense, the conclusion stated would not then follow; for although it be indeed true, that when every woman is married, she is said to be established, the converse by no means holds, that when every woman is established, she is said to be married; otherwise what would become of all establishments for unmarried women? Nor perhaps will even Mr. Bellamy himself contend, that when we say, a woman stands or rises, we mean, that she is married.

* Classical Journal, No. XXXVII, p. 29.