under, signifies also instead of, substitution of one thing or person in the place of another, like the Greek 'a, and Latin pro: so Eve said, God hath appointed me another seed instead of, tahat, avil, pro, Abel'.' 'Abraham took the ram, and offered him up instead of his son.' instead of his son.' Am I in God's

for,' or inAnd then the

stead?' said Jacob 3. So the same word, when applied here, will make the sense to be 'stead of,' that is, to be my head. meaning of the expression will turn out to be that great fundamental of the christian faith, the NAME, the Irradiator, (so the word Al is found to signify), is or may he be the head of the church, and the Adoni, the person who is not only on, but is the right hand, does, or may he embrace her! I do not absolutely insist upon this explication, though I am certain that the doctrine drawn from it is perfectly scriptural, and there is nothing in the language here to contradict it.

VER. 7.—I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love till he please.

This solemn charge still comes from the same speaker, though some of the commentators, fortified indeed by Jerome's version, put it into the mouth of the beloved; and the reason they assign

* Gen. iv. 25. 3 Gen. xxx. 2.

2 Gen. xxii. 13.

4 Ephes. v. 23. Col. i. 18.

for

for this is, because the noun for love,' and the verb for please,' are both feminine. But this is no reason at all. The word ahebah, love, is indeed feminine, but it has no my to it, as we read it, my love; and the LXX. and Latin have it without the pronoun, y ayaлy, the love. So this can afτην αγάπην, ford no ground for giving it as an appellation from the Beloved to the woman. She had twice before been speaking of love in the abstract; why then may she not be thought to continue the same form here? And then for the feminine verb please,' (which is a peculiarity, and many times a most useful one, in the Hebrew idiom, and should be more noticed than it often is), it corresponds, by construction, with the immediately preceding feminine noun love,' and might have been rendered by neither he nor she, but by it please.' So there is nothing in the words to take this speech away from the church, where our translation places it, and where, both by connexion and sense, it appears most natural. Let us therefore see what the sense of it is. I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem. Of these daughters I have spoken already. I charge you. This is called an adjuration, a making them to swear. The root is, shebo, and carries the idea of seven, full, oath. Much has been said to account for this, from different parties, and with dif ferent views. As a verb, Jehovah applies it, in the niphal passive form, to himself ɔwɔ ɔ, bi neshboti, by myself have I sworn, literally,'' in myself I

'am

'am sworn','ya, neshbo, Jehovah the Lord sware, Jehovah is sworn: So in application to men swearing, it is always used passively. In the active sense of imposing an oath, or causing others to swear, which we call adjuring, or, as here, charging, we find it always in the hiphil form, with jod in the third order. The following pronoun, MN, athkem, which we read in the accusative, 'you,' may be rendered (as the particle, ath, often is) with you,' as the verb "ny, heshboti, is of the passive hophal form, so may signify that the speaker is also laid under oath. We have sundry instances, where not attending to this grammatical distinction about the hiphil mark weakens the force of the sentence. Thus, we read, Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man that buildeth Jericho,' &c. Them is an addition, put in to make an adjuration of it, and both the LXX. and Jerom want it. The verb is passive, so ought not to be followed by an accusative. The curse was general, and included Joshua with the rest. So again 5, we are told, ‘Jehoiada took an oath of the captains,' &c. Who gave him that power? As high priest, he brought them into the house of the Lord, and made a covenant with them 2 7”

veicarath lem berith, says the Hebrew, 'exci'dit eis foedus,' says Montanus, dero αυτοίς διαθήκην

3 See Gen. xxiv. 3. 1 Sam. xiv. 27, 28. 1 Kings xxii. 16, &c.

Ku8, say the LXX. that is, he cut off berith, or disposed the disposition of the Lord for them, or, as we would say, gave them the sacrament. All this he could do as a priest; and then, as a loyal fellow-subject, on yo, ishbo athem, he entered into an oath, or was sworn, with them. What is to be gathered from all this, will be seen as we go along. By the roes and by the hinds of the field.This is called the form of adjuring, and the rural simplicity of it is much extolled by those who admire Solomon's Song as a pastoral; though, even in that sense, it may be a question whether the women of Jerusalem in those days were so much taken up or acquainted with roes and hinds as this application supposes them: And much more is it to be doubted, if an inspired writer would have debased the sacred solemnity of adjuring by such a mean-looking form as this appears to be. I do not meet with such another instance in all Scripture; and, without some such warrant, all the Pindars and, Anacreons that can be produced have no weight with me. Neither do I see any thing in our Poet's own language that requires it. What it could be that has made our translators call the first word 'roes,' I cannot find out. The LXX. call it Suvaμe, powers, which certainly has no connexion with roes. The original word is N, that word which constitutes the well known, because so frequently given, title, JEHOVAH SABAOTH, Lord of Hosts; and which, by all expositors hitherto, has been interpreted to denote his universal dominion over all the hosts

VOL. II.

Hh

hosts of heaven and earth. It is with the utmost dif fidence and reluctance that I allow myself to dissent from such a respectable generality; especially from two of them, the late Mess. Hutchinson and Bate, for whose memory I have the sincerest veneration; and to whose useful, though by many undervalued, labours, I acknowledge myself deeply indebted. Yet upon the present subject, I cannot help saying that I find nothing in scripture to justify this so general interpretation. The host of heaven' I frequently find. But it is always singular "DY, tzeba hashemim, the host; which, on the principles of philosophy maintained by these learned writers, may be applicable enough there, though I much question, whether on the same principles the word tzeba can be properly and consistently applied to the earth. Indeed, we have the plural word 'hosts' once, I think by the context, applied to the powers of heaven: 'Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts", tzebaiu, masculine; but the word under consideration is feminine, tzebauth. The root is, tzeba, to minister, meet in troops, or attend; as a noun saria in Greek, 'exercitus' in Lat. which we call 'army;' but literally, exercise, or service, either in a civil or religious sense. Hence the writers I have in my eye apply it to deer and goats, because they meet in troops, which I think other creatures do as much as they, wolves, coneys, sheep, &c. And, lest this should not be sufficient, it is said that this root has affinity, as the Hebrew gram

1 Psalm ciii. 21,