tive, to offer offerings. Numb. vi. 17. y he shall offer.--2 Kings v. 17. 2 Chron. iv. 6.

But the last word in this verse cannot mean a cunning workman. This word, like other words in the Hebrew language has a variety of meanings and applications, all partaking of the nature of the root, but varying in their orthography, by which those applica tions are known. As Eman, establish- Eemun, faith, Aameen, so be it— Omeen, brought up—

Omen, truth―

or their der ידע or -חשב חכם-בין Aamaan, faithful.

Had אָמָן

vatives occurred, we might have allowed such a rendering, and ever then but improperly, for we have no precedent for making com pounds out of single words as is the case in the translation. But in no part of scripture is N Aamaan, translated a cunning workman, The whole verse in connexion will then read in conformity to that spirit of sanctity which dictated it, and which can only render it worthy of being called a sacred book:

How beautiful were thy goings forth dryshod, daughter of the prince, thy quarters went about, with ornaments, offerings of the hands of the faithful.

We also here have the meaning and application of the passage mentioned above, ch. i. 9. I have compared thee, O my love, to s company of horses in Pharaoh's chariot. Which refers to the pas sage of the Hebrews through the red sea, when they were pursued by the horses and chariots of Pharaoh.

The word

dimitike, is rendered, I have compared thee. The radix of this word means to be silent, to rest, to cut off-and so, to be cut off from an enemy. See Hos. iv. 6.-ch. x. 7. 15. Isa. vi. 5. I am undone. Heb. I am cut off. Jer. xlvii. 5.

'♫yragnaati, which is translated O my love, has no such meaning in any book in scripture: it is not the proper word for love, but uniformly means a friend or a neighbour.-DD lesusaati, is translated to a company. But there is no authority for the words a com· pany. The clause reads: I have cut off thee, my friend, from the horses and chariots of Pharaoh.

T:

Bashoshanim, has in all ages since the dispersion of the Jews, been taken, with a variation in its orthography, to mean lilies, but in no part of scripture, or in any of the Hebrew authors, is it or can it be translated flowers, as some translators render it. It would not have suited the intention of the sacred penman. The lily was used by the churches before the Israelitish church, by way of comparison to signify humility; it being a flower found in vallies, of a beautiful white; it grows low, on which account it was used representatively to mean humility, and its color truth; for white throughout the scriptures has this signification. See Isaiah i. 18. though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as WHITE as snow. Psalm li. 7. wash me,

and I shall be WHITER than snow. Dan. xii. 10. Many shall be purified and made WHITE. Matth. xxviii. 3. his raiment WHITE as now. Rev. vii. 14. and make them WHITE in the blood of the Lamb. Thus it appears that the most ancient people, when they applied this color to the mind as a figure, understood it to mean purity of heart, truth. The effect of washing is to render garments white, and therefore it is used figuratively in scripture by the inspired writers, and applied to those who possessed similar qualities of the mind. Thus we find the allegory unfolded in the xlv. lxix. and lxxx. Psalms, where this word constitutes the title of each psalm. In the xlv. the -eternal reign of Christ, and the happiness of the humble Christian are spoken of, and the glory of the church under the similitude of a virgin. In the Ixix. the sufferings and humiliation of Christ are foretold, who was meek and lowly of heart: and the lxxx. shows the low and dependant state of the true church. From which it must be allowed that no flower would answer so well as the lily, by way of comparison, to describe the state of the true church or the humble Christian.

That the lily was applied figuratively by the churches before the Israelitish church, to mean humility, will appear by consulting scripture. At the building of the temple, which, as to the external ornaments, was representative in every part, lilies were resorted to as significative of humility. The molten sea, which was for the priests to wash in before they officiated at the altar, which washing was applied by them to signify uprightness of intention, was adorned on the brim or the highest part, with flowers of lilies, 2 Chron. iv. 5. Also, 1 Kings vii. 22. and upon the tops of the pillars was lily-work. Evidently meaning, that as pillars were the chief support of the temple, and lily-work, the emblem of humility, crowned the pillars; in like manner they understood that the great support and the highest perfection of true religion was humility. On this ground, the Holy Spirit communicating with the ancient church in the time of the patriarchs, concerning the coming of Christ the true Messiah, and describing him, says, Cant. ii. 1. I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the vallies. The church answers to this communication by saying, ch. vi. 3. I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine; he feedeth among the LILIES. The allegory is consistent with other parts of scripture, where the humble state of the Christian is exalted above all others. Such as, to that man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.—I dwell on the high and holy place; with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble. The intention of the sacred writer in this part of the allegory, was to show how absolutely uecessary it is for man to entertain humble thoughts concerning his qualifications for eternal happiness. And where the prophet Hosea is speaking of Christ and the man of the church, he uses the same phrase, ch. xiv. 5. he shall grow as the lily, viz. in humility. Hence it must appear, that the same word which is applied to Christ in

These psalins, was used by the original writer of the book of Canticle to signify him under the figure of a lily..

Thus we find that this expressive figure communicated to poste the humility, purity, meekness, and lowliness of heart of the t MESSIAH, the BLESSED REDEEMER.

In the 7th verse of the first chapter an enquiry is made by t church, or to use the language of some commentators, where they loved of her soul shall feed the flock. The passage in the original NON the literal translation of which is, If not, thou sho know for thyself. Some commentators render it "if thou shalt n thyself perceive." The Bible translation, though not strictly accur is nearer the sense of the original, viz. if thou know not;, notwiż standing the translators are blameable in leaving the word thys unnoticed; for there no doubt is a material difference between a pɛ son's knowing, and knowing for himself. The Hebrew syntax: perfectly consistent with the English idiom, but some modern trans tors have thought proper to vary the order, by separating the seco person from the verb, and to place it after the conjunction D if-the future before the negative 5-and the reciprocal pronoun thyself, before the verb thou shalt know. It is a violation the rules of the language, and, like the vulgar version, it leaves th shepherd of the church, as giving no certain information, how where his flock shall feed; whereas the original is clear and positiv the answer is as above, if not, thou shalt know for thyself. We ha neither bride nor shepherdess in the original, but it is the answer u the Spirit of God to the church, agreeably to the order of the di pensation given before the time of Moses. This communication, I have observed, was similar to that which was given at the establish ment of the Israelitish church, by the Shechinah, i. e. the Cherubi® and the Urim and Thummim. For the original scriptures, when tru translated, inform us that these divine symbols, with the ARK MERCY-SEAT, were given with the promise of the Redeemer, © man's transgression; and which were continued in the believing line of Seth, came down with the Hebrews into Egypt, and were brough with them at the Exodus, before that which was erected by Moses. Were this plan of transposing words at pleasure admitted, withou atten ling to the construction of the language, it would be possible t make the same words convey a different sense. I have made thes remarks with a design to show, that we ought not to approve any new renderings, unless they be undeniably sanctioned by other parts of scripture, where such words can have no other meaning to`make

sense.

a

Having so far given proof consistently with the scripture, which should ever be its own interpreter, that this book contains nothing of that sensual cast found in the English, and in all the translations; I hope it will be allowed that I have not given my opinion only, but that I am confirmed in this view by those unerring oracles which can

int be controverted; the literal meaning of the words in the original Hebrew, which meaning is shown to be such by the same words in other passages.

A WRITER of great learning and genius has lately revived the notion, that Socrates actually affirmed that he had a spiritual monitor or demon, who gave him advice; and he introduces this supposed fact, in illustration of an argument of his own, respecting the Holy Spirit. The whole passage is this

d

“Had Socrates, when speaking of that invisible Monitor, by whose dictates he professed to be guided, described it under the name of his prudence, his foresight, or his conscience, (though he might still have imputed to it the actions of a preceptor or of a friend) it would have then been clearly understood, that his language was metaphorical, and that by the imaginary personage of prudence, conscience, or foresight, he meant only to express a natural process of his intellectual faculties.

"But when Socrates declared himself to have received advice and intelligence from a friendly demon, his countrymen must have understood (and he, doubtless, intended that they should so understand him) that he was attended by one of those beings superior to man, whom, under the name of demon, they were accustomed from their infancy to fear, to propitiate, to adore." HEBER'S Bampton Lectures, Lect. II. p. 70.

Now, that Socrates never did make such an assertion, has been as fully proved, as such negative can be proved: and, what is remarkable, it is proved, in some measure, by the very passage quoted from Plato in the corresponding note. It contains words NO. XXX. VOL. XV. P

CI. JI.

attributed by Plato to Socrates himself, and they are these: Tours δὲ αἴτιόν ἐστιν, ὃ ὑμεῖς ἐμοῦ πολλάκις ἀκηκόατε πολλαχοῦ λέγοντος, ότι μοι θεῖόν τι καὶ δαιμόνιον γίγνεται, φωνή, κ. τ. λ.—which can only be rendered thus, “Now the cause of this is, what you have often heard me say, in various places, that something divine or supernatural happens to me, which is, a voice." Or thus," that : voice comes to me, which is something divine and preternatural.”

It was not a demon then, but a voice; nor was that voice attributed to any particular agent, but generally, to the power of heaven. That belov and daiμóviov are both adjectives in this passage, is as clear as that pay is in apposition with T. The passage Plutarch is of no weight, since we know that the fiction of demon had been invented and supported long before his time.

of

That Socrates himself never made any such assertion is here shown by Plato, and is yet more fully and clearly affirmed by Xenophon and the whole question received an ample illustration in a tract published as long ago as in 1782, "On the Demon of Divination of Socrates ;" and republished in 1810, among Essays, &c. collected by me into two small volumes.

t

The argument therein maintained, in direct opposition to the assertion of Mr. Heber, received the positive assent of the late Dr. Enfield, of Dr. Hay, and indirectly that of Bishop Horsley, Mr. Mitford the historian, and Schweighauser in his Opuscula Academica, part i. p. 153. Nor do I think that any learned man can attentively read the passage in Xenophou's Memoirs (or Me morabilia) of Socrates, where he vindicates his master from the accusation of introducing new gods, without seeing that he ex pressly denies the assertion of any personal agent or monitor; ascribing the intimation, in a general way, to the power of her

ven.

The great cause of error has been taking daónov, in Plato and Xenophon, for a substantive; whereas it is exactly like which accompanies it, an adjective supported by T, and thus sig nifying "something divine," or "something done by the power of heaven."

3.4

My motive for writing this to you is, that the very able author

'What others made of it is of no consequence.