vernor of the feast was a sort of president appointed to superintend the festivities, attend to the various guests, &c. According to Lightfoot, he also said grace, and pronounced those benedictions which were usually given on occasion of a marriage. He first tasted the cup, and sent it round, to the company. book of Ecclesiasticus, chap. xxxii.

* SEPTUAGESIMA SUNDAY.

The Epistle, I Cor. ix. 24. The Gospel, St. Matthew, xx. 1.

See the

The Collect brings before us a consideration which must ever predominate in the Christian bosom; that while we have nothing of our own which we can call good, we are indebted for every blessing to free, unmerited-or as it is expressed in a word to "grace." We are, as this admirable prayer sets forth, “justly punished for our offences," though we may look to be " mercifully delivered" through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

1

In the Epistle, the language alludes entirely to those great public games which formed so much an object of interest to the Greeks, and to conquer in which was thought so peculiarly honorable. The Corinthians must have felt the force of his expressions, particularly, they having in their immediate neighbourhood the Isthmian games, which were among the most celebrated, and at which doubtless, those to whom he wrote, had been often spectators. The long and fatiguing course of training which the combatants endured, while yet their reward was, after all, (if successful) only a crown of leaves "corruptible," might put to shame the comparative inertness of many professing Christians, having in view a "crown of righteousness, an "incorruptible" unfading reward. St. Paul's declaration, that he kept under his body and brought it into subjection, "lest" he might become "a castaway," militates strongly against the doctrine of some (particularly among the American divines) who assert that in true Christianity there can be no reference to self, but that all must be done from the pure abstract love of God.

In that striking parable contained in the Gospel for the day, the calling of the Gentiles as well as the Jews into the Christian Church is beautifully described. The first-called labourers murmuring against the good man of the house," describes the indignation of the Jews at hearing of the Gospel covenant being extended to the Gentiles. The answer given to them might satisfy more objections than that which they brought forward. Is it not lawful for me "to do what I will with my own ?" When we consider that it is God who is represented as putting this question, (for he is typified by the "man that is an householder,") should it not serve to resolve many difficulties which men are apt to bring forward, in the presumptuousness of worldly wisdom.

* The Sundays termed Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima, are supposed to be so called, reckoning backwards from Easter. The first Sunday in Lent, being about 40 days before Easter, was termed Quadragesima, the fortieth day; the one preceding it was called in round numbers the fiftieth, and the one before that again the sixtieth, and so on.

SEXAGESIMA SUNDAY.

The Epistle, 2. Cor. xi. 19.—The Gospel, St. Luke, viii. 4.

The declaration which we make to God in the Collect for this day, that "we put not our trust in any thing that we do," may admit of a double application; first, as a renouncing all attempts at establishing a meritorious righteousness of our own, being dependent entirely for our soul's salvation upon what Christ has done and suffered for us: or secondly, as an acknowledgment of the conviction, that however well all our plans may be as to the securing ourselves from temporal evils, or procuring for ourselves temporal good, there can be no success unless God be pleased to prosper the work of our hands upon us." The true believer feels pleasure at finding himself in all things dependent upon his God, who is the only sure defence against "all adversity."

"Ye

In the Epistle we are presented with a very striking enumeration, by the apostle Paul, of those "things which concerned his infirmities." Being compelled by the impositions practised on the Corinthians, by false teachers, to vindicate his claim to the apostleship, he, with the humility which marked his character, preferred to bring forward his sufferings for the gospel, and his labours in the churches, as evidence of his "high calling," rather than to touch upon his eminent gifts and numerous graces. suffer fools gladly, (says he) seeing ye yourselves are wise." Having such confidence in your own fancied wisdom, "ye allow yourselves to be imposed upon by fools"-false apostles. Yet, since I must "bring before you my claims, as contrasted with their's, how different is my victory from their's." Having passed rapidly over the various heads of his personal sacrifices in the cause of Christianity, he mentions in addition, his "care of all the churches:" and how minute must have been his attention, when he could say, "who is weak, and I am not weak-who is offended, and I burn not ?" That is, what individual is there among you, who exhibits weakness in the faith, that I am not affected, as though it were my own case; who is offended (stumbled or set astray) that I suffer not? The entire passage has been justly admired as a specimen of energetie eloquence, fully equal to any thing to be found among the models of classic oratory.

The parable of the sower, mentionedin the Gospel for the day, is so well known, as to require no comment in this place; the rather too, that a full explanation is given of it by our Lord himself. We may briefly remark, that there is a regular gradation of cases, from the strongest instance of avowed and desperate infidelity, up to the perfection of genuine Christianity. It is an awful reflection, too, that of all the seed sown, but a fourth part is described as bringing forth fruit to life eternal; nor would even this be productive, did not the Divine Husbandman previously bless the soil with the reviving influence of his grace. The seed prospered in the "honest and good heart ;" that is, a heart made so by him who can subdue the evil of it. The preparations of the heart in man are from the Lord." (Prov. xvi. 1.)

66

32

MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE STUDY OF HEBREW
LITERATURE.-No. I.

We do not consider ourselves called on to enumerate the advantages resulting from an acquaintance with the original languages of the Old Testament, because they are now so perfectly understood. Formerly it was thought utterly impossible for a retired student to make any progress as a Hebrew scholar, and many who felt the importance of the study, were in consequence, deterred from undertaking it; more just views have latterly prevailed, and while it is admitted, that many advantages which this country does not afford, must be enjoyed before a student can make any pretensions to the character of a Biblical scholar, or follow the steps of Louth, Kennicott, or Newcome; it is as certainly true, that with moderate attention, such a knowledge of the Hebrew language may be gained, as will add greatly to the satisfaction and edification of the student. With a view of encouraging our younger readers to enter upon this most interesting study, we shall in this, and the succeeding Numbers, advert briefly to the difficulties which attend it, and the means of surmounting them which lie within our reach.

The structure of the Hebrew Grammar, and the character of the language, are so totally different from those of the western tongues, that they present rather a formidable obstacle to the beginner. The grammar, however, is so extremely simple, and the exceptions to its rules so very few, that it is quickly mastered, and the learner is surprized to find how much more easily its rules are remembered and applied, than those of either the Greek or Latin Syntax.

The distinct characteristic of this language is the formation of all its words from roots; and in this all its cognate dialects partake each regular root consists of three letters, it expresses a simple idea, and all the things, and all the actions connected with that idea are expressed by nouns or verbs formed from the root, by the addition of certain letters. In this point likewise much discouragement arises to the beginner: sometimes he can trace but little connexion between the ideal meaning of a root and its derivatives, and he thinks it impossible to have any precise knowledge of a language whose terms seem to bear, such evident marks of arbitrary signification. This supposed want of precision in the Hebrew language, has deterred many from attempting to study it, and this erroneous view of its character has been strengthened in the minds of several persons by the injudicious criticisms of some celebrated writers.

The interpreration which a popular commentator has given to the word n the animal mentioned in the 3d of Genesis, furnishes an example of all we have said respecting the character

of the language, the arbitrary signification of its terms, and that kind of injudicious criterion which tends to perplex and confound young beginners. It is asserted by the writer alluded to, that its significations are so various, as to preclude the possibility of determining with certainty, that it means a serpent, and does not mean an Ourang Outang. This, to a learner, is a startling assertion, and he thinks it would be but lost time to attempt unravelling the intricacies of a language, where the same word signifies brass, a conjurer, a serpent, a crocodile, and a pair of fetters. A further acquaintance with the genius of the language would teach him, how significations the most opposite in appearance can be traced through different channels to one common root. Thus the root has the ideal meaning of attentive observation, and every thing and every act which is connected with attentive observation is derived from this root; hence, in a verbal form have learned by experience, and because all derivations were drawn from observations on particular objects, all acts, things or persons belonging to this act are denominated from some inflection of the root. The earliest mirrors were made of brass, and hence, that metal and every thing made of it, or even usually made of it, derived its name from the root expressing the simple idea of attentive observation; this second, though a very distinct meaning, is obviously connected with the root—a third derived meaning from this root, is a serpent, and all animals of a serpentine form, because its sight is proverbially acue and we may venture to assert that no derivations from the root occur in the Hebrew Bible, which cannot be classed under one or other of these three heads, all obviously connected with the idea of attentive observation, viz. divination, brass, a serpent.

This example illustrates much of what we have to say on the objection to study the Hebrew language, founded on the arbitrary signification attached to its words, and shews that it is an objection which acquaintance with the language itself will fully obviate. There is another difficulty not so easily removed, which has had its full share in making this language unpopular; that which .. arises from our having such a scanty remnant of it in our hands, We have no more of it than is contained in the Old Testament. and are therefore deprived of the advantages which we enjoy in other dead languages, that of being able to compare the use made of the same term by different writers on different subjects. poets, the philosophers, the historians, and the orators of Greece and Rome, mutually throw light on the terms they employ, but the Hebrew writers are too few, and the subjects of their compositions too limited to allow us to look for similar assistance in understanding their productions. This difficulty is very great where a word occurs but once, or if frequently, always in the same connection, and it is insurmountable to a certain extent where the απαζ λεγόμενο are terms of natural history.

The

In this case, however, we can have recourse to assistance of a more important kind, that which is furnished by the copious remains of the Greek or Latin languages. We have translations made from the Hebrew before it ceased to be altogether a living language. We have the writings of Jews, such as Pbilo and Josephus, who lived while the polity and religion of the nation were maintained.-We have also the traditionary interpretations of the Targums, the Talmud, and the Masorah, preserved by a people peculiarly tenacious of every thing connected with their national language, and we have a copious resource in the cognate dialects. From all these quarters we can borrow such aid in interpreting the Hebrew text, that probably with the exception of the terms of natural history, there are not more words in the Hebrew Bible whose signification we cannot determine with precision than are to be met with in the Greek tragedies.

In a Greek or Latin work, the state of the text is considered a matter of peculiar importance, and it is in vain for us to attempt any elucidation of a passage, when we are in a state of uncertainty as to what the author actually wrote. Much commendable labour has been bestowed on the critical editions of classic writers; and though the aid which the editors received from MSS. was comparatively small, yet by availing themselves of all they could procure, they have succeeded in exhibiting in most of the classics, a text, which if not immaculate, is certainly intelligible. In the Hebrew Bible the case has been the reverse, for though the MSS. which an editor may consult as sources of correction, independent of the ancient versions, are alone one thousand, yet no ancient book has been edited in so uncritical a manner; we have the same text, and, even the same errors of the press in the last London edition of the Hebrew Bible, which appeared in that of 1525. So far then as the printed text goes, the Hebrew student has to contend with disadvantages which are unknown to the classic scholar -but from the labour that within the last fifty years has been be stowed on the collation of MSS., he can without difficulty settle for himself a more correct text than any classic author exhibits. It is to be regretted that he should have to do it for himself, but even with this disadvantage, he will meet with no anomaly in grammar, and hardly any perplexity in diction which he cannot lear up by the help of Kennicott or De Rossi, or the digest of their labours in the Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible.

Where Hebrew has been studied with great critical nicety we do not deny that other difficulties may have been felt, but we will venture to say that we have enumerated the most popular objections to the study of Hebrew, and have described all the difficulties with which an ordinary scholar finds himself perplexed-and surely they bear no proportion to the advantages which are to be enjoyed from anability to read the Hebrew Scriptures; to decide upon conflicting versions or obscure passages; to ascertain the grammatical construction of a difficult verse; to weigh the import of its leading terms by the examination of parallel passages, and above all to