Hebrew student is unable to understand the meaning of the sacred text; but by taking the words as he finds them in the Hebrew, without the emendation of the Keri, the sense becomes evident at once. If we read, with the English translation, the Keri (to himself) instead of the Kethibh (not), it will be impossible, according to the rules of grammar, to construe the two following words, and at the same time to make sense of them: inasmuch as the copulative conjunction 1 (supposing it to have a conversive sense, which is perhaps doubtful,) obliges us in this sentence to put the word (hath exposed her for sale) in the same tense as the word immediately preceding it in the same sentence or clause, (hath designed her); whereas in the translation in our Bible, the one is put in the preterite and the other in the future. We must, therefore, suppose Moses as giving the law in such words, as if he were actually referred to in person, at any time in question.

After having read this verse, and endeavoured in vain to reconcile it with our English translation, I had recourse to Michaelis on the laws of Moses, under the 88th article, concerning wives and concubines; and was much pleased to find a partial elucidation of the verse. He paraphrases it thus:-"If her master have no desire for her, so that he does not destine her for himself, then shall he, if any man wish to redeem her, agree to it, and thereto offer his hand." He likewise argues very justly on this passage, with respect to the Kethibh and Keri, and says, that not only the most numerous authorities, but those also which, in a critical question, are of most weight, are for the former. I do not, however, feel inclined to agree with him in the probable transmutation of the letters in the word ; for when the sense can be made out from the plain text, without the aid of supposition, it is undoubtedly the safest plan. In his preceding article too, he gives us a full account of the law respecting the concubine of a son; in which, the word in the ninth verse Ty" (he shall design her) may be consistently understood to signify the power of a father over his son during the time of boyhood.

The Arabic word, signifies constituit certum locum, vel tempus, ubi vel quando, aliquid fieri debeat, he hath appointed a fixed time or place, when or where (the fulfilment of) any promise (given or implied) should be performed. And it is very probable that the father who might sell his daughter for DN (ancilla, a hand-maid), understood that the purchaser meant to use her as a concubine, and not deprive her of her natural rights. Dr. Adam Clarke says, in his note upon the seventh verse, that "the Jews allowed no man to sell his daughter but in extreme distress, when he had no goods, either moveable or immoveable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable." During the time, then, till she should be marriageable, her master might either have conceived an affection for her, or an aversion towards her; in which latter case, he would naturally expose her for sale. It appears, then, that the N thus redeemed, still retained her signum virginitatis.

The Arabic signifies redemit, scil. captivum, and its substantive

redemptio atque ejus pretium, λurpov. In the Hebrew Hiphil, to cause another to redeem, or to expose for sale.

betokeneth properly to deceive, beguile, deal fraudulently. Quæry, Is there not an affinity between this root and the Sanscrit (ghada, to act) subjoined to the inseparable preposition f (aversion)? Hence, weghata, or beghata, an impediment, an obstacle, a prohibition or prevention. The Hebrew master, therefore, who should retain his in his service merely as a menial servant, would be doing her a great injury, in keeping her from contracting matrimony with any other person. B. CLERICUS.

IN WHAT SENSE ST. PAUL WAS A PHARISEE.

MR. EDITOR,-I wish to call your attention to the sixth verse of the 23d chapter of the Acts.

"But when Paul perceived that one part were Pharisees and the other Sadducees, he cried out in the midst of the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead am I called in question."

Upon this text a modern writer has grounded an objection, that St. Paul, in order to escape from his enemies, professes himself a Pharisee when he is no Pharisee, and so is guilty of direct falsehood. Now I think, if the context be considered, the solution of the difficulty is extremely simple. When he declares himself a Pharisee, the Apostle would not have it understood that his creed was the Pharisaical creed, for he had long since been converted to Christianity, but that he held one tenet in common with the Pharisees, and that one which more particularly distinguished them from the Sadducees,—the belief of a resurrection.

That such is the true meaning of the words is sufficiently evident from what immediately follows, and which seems to have been subjoined by the speaker for the purpose of explaining what would otherwise appear an ambiguous expression: "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead am I called in question."

Thus there is no inconsistency in the behaviour of the Apostle. At the same time that he was a zealous Christian, he might, in respect of the resurrection, pronounce himself a Pharisee. An analogous case, perhaps, will best explain. A man who is himself callous to the evidences of our religion, and endeavours by his writings to deter others from believing, may justly be branded with the appellation of Jew-not that he is such in every particular, but because he resembles the ancient Jew in one point-the obduracy of his heart.

Yours,

B. B. P.

BISHOP TOMLINE ON THE XXVIIth. ARTICLE.

MR. EDITOR,-Having lately looked again into Tomline's Elements of Theology, I perceive that, in his exposition of the 27th Article,

he has employed a phrase of very ambiguous import, and which, in a work of so much authority, is able to lead to serious consequences. As the book was published expressly for the use of students in divinity, it is much to be regretted, that in establishing an important doctrine, his Lordship should thus seem to err; and though no effectual remedy can be applied short of an alteration in the terms themselves, yet a notice in the pages of the Christian Remembrancer may not be without advantage. After remarking that baptism "is with great propriety called a sign of regeneration," the Bishop adds, "the original corruption of our nature is thus washed away, and we are born again to new hopes and new prospects." But in explaining the 9th Article he proves, (as was of course to be expected,) that even our own experience shows that the corruption of nature does always continue; and then comments on the want of authority from Scripture which there is for the Roman-catholic doctrine, that original sin is entirely taken away by baptism. To an uninstructed reader his Lordship must of necessity appear to assert in one place what he absolutely rejects in another, and this because he has used precisely the same term to designate cause and effect. In the 9th Article the phrase is perfectly correct, and expresses clearly what was intended. In the 27th, however, the words Original Corruption evidently mean only the punishment consequent on original sin. That the same impropriety (for, however sanctioned, it does not lose it character) may be found in other writers on theology, and so shield this place from animadversion, I will by no means take upon myself either to deny or to affirm; but it does seem strange that the learned prelate, labouring to instruct the ignorant, should have fallen into it so inadvertently. By inserting these observations in your Magazine, you will much oblige, Sir, your obedient Servant,

PRESBYTER.

MATTHEW ii. 2.

MR. EDITOR,-I shall be obliged by your inserting the following reply to B. Clericus's letter to me in your number for September. I take this opportunity of acquainting a correspondent in your number for June last, that I have read the sermons of Dr. Nares to which he refers. I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

To B. CLERICUS.

U. Y.

Sir,-I readily admit that Ephrem being the oldest evidence that can be produced of the antiquity of the Syriac version, does not prove its non-existence before his time; but it leaves the date of its existence previous to that testimony a matter of uncertainty: a circumstance not unimportant in an argument founded upon it for the antiquity of a particular opinion.

In respect of the Syriac word (segad), I question much whether any thing can be concluded from its use, as to the meaning of poσKUVεw in this or other places. I have made inquiries respecting the use of it in the Old and New Testaments, and it appears to me to be used indifferently, to express the prostrations common in the East,

whether made as acts of homage and respect to men, or as acts of religious service to the Deity.

The following are a few passages from the Old Testament in which it is used unquestionably without intending divine worship.

Gen. xxiii. 7.—" And Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the people of the land."

Gen. xxxvii. 7.—"And, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf."

Gen. xxxvii. 9.- 66 And the eleven stars made obeisance to me."

Gen. xxxvii. 10.—"Shall I, and thy mother, and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?"

Gen. xlii. 6.—“ And Joseph's brethren came and bowed down themselves with their faces to the earth."

In these places the Hebrew word rendered in our translation by the expressions in italics, is rendered in the Septuagint by poσKUVEW, and in the Syriac version by

.

In the New Testament there is hardly an occasion for the use of πроσKUVε otherwise than as directly expressive of divine worship, if we except the cases of prostrations made before our Lord; but in the parable of the unforgiving servant, Matt. xviii. 26, there occurs the following passage:-"The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me and I will pay thee all."

προσκυνέω

In this passage, the Greek word, here rendered by the word worship, is poσKUVεw; and in the Syriac version it is rendered by the word, and evidently there is no intention of divine worship being paid.

It may be well to add here, that I find, on inquiry, that the Arabic word (sagad), referred to by you in your first paper, is the corresponding word to in all the above passages.

It appears to me that both the words are equivalents of προσκυνέω; and if so, it must be admitted, I think, that they are no more capable of explaining the meaning of pоOKUPεw in any particular passage, than προσκυνέω would be of explaining them.

προσκυνέω

With respect to the Hebrew word TD (sagad), it is, I find, used in those places only to which you refer, and is used in them undoubtedly to express divine worship; but I should refer to Dan. ii. 46, as an example of the like word in Chaldee being used when divine worship was not intended. Every English reader, however, may judge for himself as to the meaning of that passage.

As to Beyer, I doubted whether he referred to Matt. ii. 2, as an example of the homage paid to kings, or referred to it as an example of such homage being transferred to religious worship. The remark you quote to solve any doubt on the subject, viz. "ultra civilem tamen non est extendendum," does not apply to Matt. ii. 2, but as you will see, if you will again consult Beyer, to a passage from Ecclesiasticus, and Drusius's comment on it. U. Y..

ON CHRISTMAS DAY.

Extract from a Sermon preached before Charles II. when in Exile, A. D. 1651. By Dr. COSINS, afterwards Bishop of Durham.

John i. 9, 10.-"That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

For let no man think, that God hath given him so much ease here, as to inlighten him, or to save him, by believing he knowes not what, or why. Indeed, knowledge will not save us; but yet without knowledge wee are never like to be saved. It is the light of faith that shows the right way to be saved; but in that way, faith is not on this side knowledge, but beyond it; and wee must necessarily come to the light of knowledge and reason first, though when wee are come thither wee must not stay at it, but make use of it, to lead us to a better and a higher light than it. For a regenerate man (and it is the mysterie the Collect of this day puts us in mind of) a regenerate man advanceth his reason, and being now made a new creature, hath also a new facultie and a new light of reason given him; whereby he believeth the mysteries of religion out of another reason, than as a meere naturall man he believed naturall and morall things before. For he believes them now for their owne light, the light of faith, though he tooke knowledge of them before, by another light, the light of common reason, and by those humane arguments, which work upon other men, if they wilfully put not out their owne light. As, for instance, divers and sundry men walk by the sea-side, and the same beames of the sunne giving light to them all; one by the benefit of that light, gathers up little light pebles and shells that are finely spekled, for their pleasure, for their vanitie; and another by the same light seeks after the precious pearle and the amber, for a more noble use. So in the common light of reason (which is a beame that flowes from this light of the text too) all men walk amongst us; but one imployes this light upon the searching after impertinent vanities; another, by a better use of the same light, finds out the mysteries of religion, and falls in love with them, both for their owne worth's sake, and for the helps that they give him towards the leading of a righteous, a noble, and a true Christian life. So some men, by the benefit of the light of nature, have found out things profitable and usefull for all men. Others have made use of that light, to search and find out all the secret corners of pleasure and gaine to themselves. They have found wherein the force and weaknes of another consisteth, and made their advantage of him by circumventing him in them both. They have found his naturall (I were better call it his unnaturall) humour, to neglect and contemne, or to forsake religion; and they have fed and fomented that disorder in him for their owne ends. They have found all his inclinations to libertie and pleasure, to wantones and vanitie; and they have kept open that leake to his ruine.

All the wayes both of worldly wisedome, and of naturall craft, lay open to this light: but when they have gone all these ways, and