-is יונת אלם רחקים

The Title of Psalm lvi. is rendered "To the Giver of Victory. Concerning the afflicted little band at a distance. David engraved this psalm, when the Philistines, &c. &c." but at p. 425, we read: "this really is, To the Conqueror, concerning the oppression of the little handful removed afar off (and they all forsook him and fled) an engraved (memorial) concerning the Beloved, when those who fell, and rolled in the dust, took him in Gethsemane." The allusion of op n is probably lost, whence our translators sensibly retained the original words, and every interpretation of them hitherto given, excepting that of Aben Ezra, who conceives them the beginning of an ode, to the measure of which David adapted this psalm, is positive nonsense. "Those who fell, and rolled in the dust*, are the on, which no other person would fail to translate "the Philistines;" (the City GATH,) (cf. 1 Sam. xxi. 10.) also, where David was detained, is here outrageously metamorphosed into Gethsemane, to which (p. 416.) the instrument Gittith had likewise been previously distorted.

The 57th Psalm, p. 425, is entitled, "To the Conqueror, thou shalt not destroy, to be engraven concerning the Beloved, when he escaped from the state of departed Spirits, in the sepulchre." Here again Aben Ezra rightly argues that

w was the beginning of an ode or psalm, to the measure of which those were set to which it is prefixed. We once more remark the same blunder in the name of Saul, and find my, which is always a cave or deep place, like in Arabic, translated the grave. It is an historic document according to our version: according to Mrs. Schimmelpenninck it is most uncritically forced to give an evidence, which it does not possess, to the resurrection of Christ.

At p. 426, Psalm lix. is declared to be "To the Conqueror, thou shalt not destroy, a memorial to be engraven for the Beloved, when the powers of hell and the grave observed his tabernacle to destroy him." Here, perhaps, is the worst misinterpretation of any; since it is impossible in any respect to find fault with our received translation of the original words. "The powers of hell and the grave" are conjured out of the name of king Saul, and ', which means a house, is unnecessarily translated "tabernacle," which in the Greek Testament is oxán or oxnvos, these words never being rendered a

* Mrs. S. has deduced from volutavit, whereas the Septuagint Translators always rendering the word aλopúλo, prove that its meaning is preserved in the Æthiopic, GA: migravit.

in the Hebrew Bible; wherefore this translation is idiomatically incorrect.

In Psalm lx. is rendered "the Stone of Testimony," has already been explained; Michaelis has conjectured, from in Syriac, My to have been a song on an anniversary festival. But, as the Arabic is the lyre, it is plain that the words relate to a sort of musical instrument, which some have conceived to have been the hexachord in the shape of the lyre. In this case, the former W, which we have noticed, would not have taken its name from the lily, but from the number of its strings:-of the nature and origin of the instrument, however, nothing but hypothesis can be adduced, yet, when we find the cognate tongues ranking the cognate terms as musical instruments, we must admit, whatever may have been their class, that such was the force of this inscription. Some have conceived the latter the idovdos of Pollux. How it could be rendered the stone of testimony, we cannot explain.

In Psalm lxxxviii. the words "Mahalath Leannoth of Maschil the Ezrahite," are translated, "the profane for grievous afflictions. An instruction for times of tumult, for my dispersed ones. Mahalath has already come under our observation, and mys evidently refers to the responsive, or the strophic and and antistrophic parts of the singing. The latter part is a man's name. "The Songs of degrees" are uselessly changed to "the Songs of goings up:" whereas, it appears from Assemann, that, which is of equal import, was a particular species of metrical composition; they were probably sung by the Israelites going to the great festivals at Jerusalem.

Thus, with the exception of some few, have we noticed this extraordinary version of the inscriptions of the Psalms, occasionally joining those prefixed to each, with the remarks at the close of the book. We have more particularly devoted our attention to them, as we conceive them to be of a very dangerous tendency, by forcing the text in defiance of the rules of grammar to a meaning which it will not bear, and thereby affording to the infidel and scoffer a plea for ridicule and cavil. The Sacred Volume contains, within itself, absolute proofs of its own authenticity, and should not be permitted to be obscured, or clipt of its real evidences, by the wild fancies of theorists, or the blunders of those who have no critical knowledge of its language. Mrs. Schimmelpenninck is evidently deficient in critical reading, and is not acquainted with the best writers

who have treated of her subject; she consults the French too much, who were never famed for theological criticism, and pins her faith on Parkhurst, who knew little or nothing of the cognate dialects. The interpretation of the Bible includes such an extensive range of knowledge, that every subsidiary assistance should be made to bear upon it: this has not here been done in one instance; and where the subject is of so vast and vital an importance, this omission is as reprehensible as the introduction of the fanciful conjectures which we have cited.

Does this writer, in her "Observations,". wish us to believe that the literal interpretation, which she conceives she has given, presents "the solid and true spiritual interpretation intended by THE HOLY GHOST?" or, in other words, are we to rank the untenable expositions of Sciolists as developements of that prophetic sense of the ancient Scriptures which the Divine Spirit alone was able to reveal? Let us ascribe to man the things which are man's, but let us render to God the things which are God's! The argument drawn from the collation of circumstances and events in the Old Testament with the dispensation of the New by the Apostles, is perfectly inconclusive; for, being inspired, they were able to select the things and characters which were actually typical of our Saviour, and we much doubt whether any one who seeks to add to their labours in this respect will find a better foundation than his own fancy to work upon. But these writers never pursued the plan adopted by Mrs. Schimmelpenninck; they understood the language of the Old Testament, and were not obliged to resort to arbitrary etymologies in support of their system. Mrs. Schimmelpenninck, however, is demonstrably ignorant of the primary sense of many roots, which she ventures to explain.

The spiritual sense of the Scriptures has been developed in the New Testament, and does not consist in those phantasies, to which Mrs. Schimmelpenninck so impassionedly clings. The extravagance of her theory is calculated to obscure the Word of God; and instead of arming it with powers of conviction, we fear that her labours tend to make it of none effect, if not ridiculous in the eyes of the unbeliever. The Cabbala denudata scarcely suggests more mysticism: thus, we are told by her, that as the chamber where the Shekinah dwelt was made of olive-wood, so Л, the Hebrew of olive, means "the tree of light." This she deduces from ", he was bright, or shone, which occurs no where in the language. The ideal language of Scripture, on which she so strongly insists, rests on an equally fragile prop: it is nothing less than Hutchinsonianism.

We have not space to extend our scrutiny through the whole of the concluding essay; we have examined by far the greater part, and have discovered little but assertion without proof. We leave our readers to judge of the writer's capability from her version of 2 Pet. i. 19. βεβαιότερον τον προφητικὸν λόγον,ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, " the more sure word of prophecy, which was like a burning lamp shining, though through an obscure envelope."

This work would have passed unnoticed by us, did it not tend to bring our received Version into discredit, and to detract from the pure dignity and simplicity of religion. We acquit Mrs. Schimmelpenninck of these motives; but we may not the less censure her ill-advised writings. Several passages exist in the Psalms, the translation of which might be improved: not one of these, however, has she attempted. She has adopted the meaning of roots on the authority of others,-and has been deceived. We trust that she will more deeply examine the principles of theological criticism, before she again circulates, through the medium of the press, the result of her studies; for that which she has now written, if it have any influence, can only have one of a pernicious nature.

A Reply to the second Postscript in the Supplement to Palæoromaica. By W. G. BROUGHTON, M. A. Curate of Hartley Wespall, in Hamp-shire. 8vo., pp. 104. 2s. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

As the account which we propose to give of this Pamphlet would not be very intelligible without a knowledge of some previous publications, we shall in the commencement advert to the origin and present state of the Palæoramaic controversy. In the year 1822 appeared an anonymous work under the title of Palaeoromaica, or Historical and Philological Disqui sitions, inquiring whether the Hellenistic Style is not LatinGreek?whether the many new words in the Elzevir Greek Testament are not formed from the Latin?-and whether the hypothesis, that the Greek text of many MSS. of the New Testament is a translation or re-translation from the Latin, seems not to elucidate numerous passages, to account for the different recensions, and to explain many phenomena hitherto inex plicable to Biblical critics. This long title is a sufficient indi

cation, that the volume which it announces to the world contains opinions, and a train of speculation, uncommon at least, if not at the same time wild and dangerous. It has been asserted by some dreaming adherents to the Church of Rome, that our Saviour and his disciples spoke Latin; and that the Latin translation, known by the name of the Vulgate, was in fact the original, and the Greek New Testament only a translation by some unknown hand. Such is the hypothesis of the learned, but visionary Hardouin; yet the anonymous author of Palæoromaica boldly advances a step farther, maintaining that although the received text of the Greek Testament be nothing more than a translation from the Latin original, it is a translation from a text neither preserved in the Vulgate, nor in any existing manuscript. Nay, he goes even farther than this, and maintains, not only that the received Greek text is a servile translation from a Latin original long since lost, but that this translation was made by a writer imperfectly acquainted with one or possibly both languages. This Latin original, however, is not without limitation, for he believes that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic; and consequently that the Greek gospel which is now received, is a translation of a Latin transla tion of the Hebrew original.

The proofs which the author brings forward in support of this fanciful hypothesis may be reduced to three heads; the first of which is, the existence of certain analogous cases of translation from the Latin, and particularly the Aldine edition of the Greek Simplicius. But this bears little analogy to the case of the New Testament. The work of Simplicius was never much regarded, scarcely heard of except by a few scholars; and when the Greek version was made by W. de Moorbeka, from a barbarous Latin version in the 13th century, the existence of the original was unknown, and continued to be so till it was discovered a few years since by M. Peyron. But the book of the New Testament was in constant use in every church, and by vast multitudes of believers; copies were multiplied beyond example; the original language and text must have been known to immense numbers in the primitive times, and the fact thus ascertained by an uninterrupted tradition rendered it impossible for any ingenuity to palm a false original upon the world. If the received Greek text were only a (version from the Latin, that fact must have been too universally known to allow the supposition of a Greek text ever being substituted for, and regarded as, the original.

The second head of proofs is, that in the age of the Apostles, Latin rather than Greek was the prevailing language in