17.99] 
aa the tents of Shem; and Canaan fhall be 
his (Shem’s) fervant.”’ 
Mr. S. will alfo find that Abraham was 
called away from his kindred, from his 
country, and irom the worfbip of his an- 
ceftors, not by a divinity under the title 
of El-fhaddai, but by Jehovah himfeif, 
who entered into a covenant with him, 
promifing to blefs and conftantly protect 
him, and his pofterity: that, in confe- 
quence, Abraliam builded altars, and re- 
peatedly ‘* called on the name of Jehe- 
vah,”’ as his tutelary God. See Gen. 
chap. xii. and xiii, ‘¢ I will eftablith 
my covenant between me and thee, and 
thy feed after thee, in their generations, 
for an everlafting covenant; fo be a God 
sinto thee, and thy children after thee,” &c. 
ch. xvii. 8. 
In Gen. xxvi. 2. the above covenant is 
renewed ‘with Ifaac ; and in chap. xxviii. 
with Jacob, under the ftrongelt expref- 
fions. Hence Jacob invokes Febovah in 
his diftrefs, chap. xxxii. and relying on 
him alone, orders the ffrange gods to be 
put away from among his people, or fol- 
lowers, chap. xxxvi. &c. 
Many other paflages might be adduced 
to the fame purpofe; but the above will 
fuffice to thew that Fehowah, according to 
the author of Genefis, was known, di- 
ftinguifhed, or (in Mr. S.’s more extended 
fignification of the word jadang) was 
diftinguifoingly manifefied to Noah; and 
after him to Shem, Abraham, Ifaac, Ja- 
cob, &c. as well as to Mofes; that he 
dwelt in the tents of thefe chofen Arabian 
wanderers; and that he entered into a 
covenant with them, promifing to be their 
peculiar guardian divinity, aid to give 
them fuccefs againit all their enemies, or 
opponents, on condition that the Hebrew 
race fhould be circumcifed, and obferve 
the other religious rites ordained 5y him, 
Gen. ch. xvii. and xxvi. &c. 
-  Iconclude; therefore, that Mr. Simp- 
SON’s forced conftruction of Exod. vi. 2. 
~ fs no more confiftent with the book of 
Genefis than the fimple meaning of, the 
text, as exprefied in the Enclith, or other 
verfions of the Bible. The difficulty, or 
contradiction, originally ftated, remains 
then the fame as before. It feems pro- 
bable that the icriptural books cannot be . 
fatisfa&torily reconciled on this fubject, 
though I think the fubje& itfelf very in-. 
telligible; and believe that the truth re- 
fpeéting it might be made to appear with- 
out much difficulty. I wifh, however, 
on thefe points to be taught by others, 
not thinking myfelf wholly qualified to 
be ateacher; and fearing, Mr. Editor, 
MonTuty Mas. No. xu, 
Reply to Mr. Simpfon, Mr. Wife, &e. 
Tos 
Jeft I fhould have already trefpaffed toe 
far on your patience. 
Not much need be faid refpe&ting Mr, 
Wise’s laft obfervations, as they exhibit 
him rather difpoied to petulance than 
to argument. He has advanced feveral 
things without quoting his authorities 
for them; and when defired to correé&t a 
miftake on one poipt, by examiaing an 
auther of the higheft reputation, he de- 
clines looking into him, becaufe he does 
not expect to find in a modern writer any 
thing to the purpofe. Does Mr. Wise, 
then, fuppofe I referred him to Buxtorf 
for that author’s private and unfounded 
opinion on the fubje& in queftion? I 
furely could not ;—-but to the authorities 
quoted from the ancient rabbinical writers, 
to wliom, I preiume, Mr. W. means to 
appeal, but with whom he feems to have 
a very imperfect acquaintance. Can he 
ferioufly think a reference to fuch autho- 
rities lefs proper than his reference to an’ 
unpublifhed poem of his own? Since the 
poem as been mentioned, Mr. Wise 
will allow me to wifh its fuccefs; and to 
encourage him farther by an obfervation, 
not now made for the firft time, that in 
order to be a good verfifier, it is not ne- 
ceflary to bean extraordinary profe-writer, 
nor to be poffefled of ftrong argumentative 
powers. M.R. 
eee TI cereal 
To the Editor of the Monthl, Magazine. 
SiS 
I WAS pleafed to fee announced in the 
‘¢ Literary Intelligence’ of your Ma- 
gazine for December Jaft, an intention of 
publifning a feries of German plays; fuch 
a feries, if formed with judgment and 
with fkill, muft undoubtedly anfwer the 
expectations of the Editor: it muft prove 
‘¢ a valuable addition to the exifting ftock 
of dramatic literature.”? Before fuch a 
work advances, however, I with it to be 
impreffed on the minds of thofe who un- 
dertake the tafk of tranflating, that it is 
incumbent on them fo be faithful; that it 
is a duty which they owe to the German 
author and the Englifh public, neither to 
curtail, to alter, nor toadd. Jam forry 
that this caution is not unneceffary and 
impertinent: and that it is not fo, will be 
acknowledged by every ove who has read, 
as I have done, many of the tranflations, 
as they are called, which have lately ap- 
peared from German dramatifts. Schilker 
is fortunate; he has been introduced to 
us i” propria perfona: poor Kotzebue has 
been fadly disfigured ; and his mutilated 
limbs, the diyecti membra poete, have 
O actually 
