biblical critic will acknowledge the truth of this remark. The following illustrations from the pen of Mr. Jowett are of a higher class.

"House of the Dead."-" While walking out, one evening, a few fields' distance from Deir el Kamr, with Hanna Doomani, the son of my host, to see a detached garden belonging to his father, he pointed out to me, near it, a small, solid, stone building, apparently a house; very solemnly adding,Kabbar beity,' -the sepulchre of our family.' It had neither door nor window. He then directed my attention to a considerable number of similar buildings, at a distance: which, to the eye, are exactly like houses; but which are, in fact, family mansions for the dead. They have a most melancholy appearance, which made him shudder while he explained their use. They seem, by their dead walls, which must be opened at each several interment of the members of a family, to say, This is an unkindly house, to which visitors do not willingly throng: but, one by one, they will be forced to enter; and none who enter, ever come out again.' Perhaps this custom, which prevails particularly at Deir el Kamr, and in the lonely neighbouring parts of the mountain, may have been of great antiquity; and may serve to explain some Scripture-phrases. The Prophet Samuel was buried in his house at Ramah' (1 Sam. xxv. 1): it could hardly be in his dwellinghouse. Joab was buried in his own house in the wilderness (1 Kings ii. 34). This is the house appointed for all living (Job xxx. 23). Possibly, likewise, the passages in Proverbs ii. 18, 19, and vii. 27, and ix. 18; may have drawn their imagery from this custom. He knoweth not that the dead are there.... her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. None that go unto her return again."

Gen. xviii. 6, 10, and xxvii. 14, 17." When we had finished our meals, in the family in which I re

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 299.

sided at Deir el Kamr, and were risen, the mother, daughter, and daughter-in-law, who had been waiting at the door, came in, and partook of what remained. Thus it is in Syria; and thus it has been, probably, ever since Abraham, a Syrian ready to perish, traversed these regions, dwelling in tents: when Sarah, having prepared an entertainment for three divine strangers, did not present it, that being Abraham's office; but stood at the tent-door, which was behind him. So Rebekah prepared food for her husband to eat, and sent it in by the hand of Jacob."

Prov. xi. 21.-" The expression, though hand join in hand,' may bear a slight correction; comformable both to the original Hebrew and also to the custom actually prevailing in Syria. The original simply signifies, 'hand to hand.' And this is the custom of persons in the East, when they greet each other, or strike hands, in token of friendship and agreement. They touch their right hands respectively; and then raise them up to their lips and forehead. This is the universal Eastern courtesy. The English Version, and the devices grounded upon it, give the idea of hand clasped in hand, which is European, rather than Oriental. The sense, therefore, is, 'Though hand meet in hand' -intimating, that heart assents to heart in the perpetration of wickedness-yet shall not the wicked go unpunished.

Isaiah xiv. 8.-"As we passed through the extensive forest of firtrees situated between Deir el Kamr and Ainep, we had already heard, at some distance, the stroke of one solitary axe, resounding from hill to hill. On reaching the spot, we found a peasant, whose labour had been so far successful, that he had felled his tree and lopped the branches. He was now hewing it in the middle, so as to balance the two halves upon his camel; which stood patiently by him, waiting for his load. In the days of Hiram, king

4 P

of Tyre, and subsequently under the kings of Babylon, this romantic solitude was not so peaceful: that most poetic image in Isaiah, who makes these very trees vocal, exulting in the downfal of the destroyer of nations, seems now to be almost realized anew—'Yea, the firtrees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.'

Isaiah lii. 2, 10.-" The use of the Oriental dress, which I now wear, brings to the mind various scriptural illustrations, of which I will only mention two. The figure in Isaiah lii. 10, The Lord hath made bare his holy arm,' is most lively for the loose sleeve of the Arab shirt, as well as that of the outer garment, leaves the arm so completely free, that, in an instant, the left hand passing up the right arm makes it bare; and this is done when a person-a soldier, for example, about to strike with the sword intends to give his right arm full play. The image represents Jehovah as suddenly prepared to inflict some tremendous, yet righteous judgment-so effectual, that all the ends of the world shall see the salvation of God.-The other point illustrated occurs in the second verse of the same chapter: where the sense of the last expressions is, to an Oriential, extremely natural- Shake thyself from the dust-arise-sit down, O Jerusalem.' It is no uncommon thing to see an individual, or a groupe of persons, even when very well-dressed, sitting, with their feet drawn under them, upon the bare earth, passing whole hours in idle conversation. Europeans would require a chair; but the natives here prefer the ground. In the heat of summer and autumn, it is pleasant to them to while away their time in this manner, under the shade of a tree. Richly adorned females, as well as men, may often be seen thus amusing themselves. As may naturally be expected, with whatever care they may, at first

sitting down, choose their place, yet the flowing dress by degrees gathers up the dust: as this occurs, they, from time to time, arise, adjust themselves, shake off the dust, and then sit down again. The captive daughter of Zion therefore, brought down to the dust of suffering and oppression, is commanded to arise and shake herself from that dust; and then, with grace and dignity and composure and security, to sit down; to take, as it were, again, her seat and her rank amid the company of the nations of the earth, which had before afflicted her, and trampled her to the earth. It may be proper to notice that Bishop Lowth gives another rendering

Arise, ascend thy lofty seat-and quotes eastern customs, to justify the version: but I see no necessity for the alteration, although to English ears it may sound more appropriate. A person of rank in the East often sits down upon the ground, with his attendants about him."

Matt. vi. 3, and Prov. vi. 13. "The manner in which the Samaritan priest desired me, on parting, to express our mutual goodwill, was by an action, than which there is not one more common in all the Levant. He put the forefinger of his right hand parallel to that of his left, and then rapidly rubbed them together, while I was expected to do the same, repeating the words right, right; or, in common acceptation, together, together.' It is in this manner that persons express their consent on all occasions; on concluding a bargain, on engaging to bear one another company, and on every kind of friendly agreement or good understanding. May not this serve to explain the phrase in Matt. vi. 3: 'Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth?' that is,

Let not thy heart consent to its own good thoughts, with a sinful self-applause.' So much is said, in the Old Testament, of speaking with the eyes, hands, and even feet,

that it is scarcely understood by Englishmen. They should see the expressive and innumerable gesticulations of foreigners when they converse: many a question is answered, and many a significant remark conveyed, by even children, who learn this language much sooner than their mother-tongue. Perhaps the expression of Solomon, that the wicked man speaketh with his feet (Prov. vi 13), may appear more natural, when it is considered that the mode of sitting on the ground in the East brings the feet into view, nearly in the same direct line as the hands; the whole body crouching down together, and the hands, in fact, often resting upon the feet."

Matt. xxvi. 23, and John xiii. 25-27.- "To witness the daily family-habits, in the house in which I lived at Deir el Kamr, forcibly reminded me of Scripture scenes. The absence of the females at our meals has been already noticed. There is another custom, by no means agreeable to a European; to which, however, that I might not seem unfriendly, I would have willingly endeavoured to submit, but it was impossible to learn it in the short compass of a twenty days' visit. There are set on the table, in the evening, two or three messes of stewed meat, vegetables, and sour milk. To me, the privilege of a knife and spoon and plate was granted: but the rest all helped themselves immediately from the dish; in which it was no uncommon

thing to see more than five Arab fingers at one time. Their bread, which is extremely thin, tearing and folding up like a sheet of paper, is used for the purpose of rolling together a large mouthful, or sopping up the fluid and vegetables. But the practice which was most revolting to me was this: when the master of the house found in the dish any dainty morsel, he took it out with his fingers, and applied it to my mouth. This was true Syrian courtesy and hospitality; and, had I been sufficiently well-bred, my mouth would have opened to receive it. On my pointing to my plate, however, he had the goodness to deposit the choice morsel there. I would not have noticed so trivial a circumstance, if it did not exactly illustrate what the Evangelists record of the Last Supper. St. Matthew relates that the traitor was described by our Lord in these terms: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.' (xxvi. 23.) From this it may be inferred that Judas sat near to our Lord; perhaps on one side next to him. St. John, who was leaning on Jesus's bosom, describes the fact with an additional circumstance. Upon his asking, 'Lord, who is it?' Jesus answered, 'He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop, Satan entered into him.' (xiii. 25-27.)"

B.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. IF I am not wrong in my opinion of the Christian Observer, it is intended to be the vehicle of truth. I suppose, therefore, that you will be willing to correct a mistatement

(an undesigned mistatement, I believe,) of the opinion of Bishop Warburton, on one of the leading doctrines of Christianity, as given in Mr. Biddulph's valuable work on the Operation of the Holy Spirit. To a paragraph (p. 216) is sub

joined the following note, for the purpose of exhibiting an opinion of Bishop Warburton: "Socrates preaching moral virtue, and dying to bear witness to the unity of the Godhead, was made to the Grecian people wisdom and righteousness not less than Jesus." I was much struck, upon meeting with this passage in Bishop Warburton's "Doc trine of Grace," a short time since, to see how very unfairly this sentence, taken out of its connexion with the rest of the paragraph, exhibits the bishop's sentiment. The paragraph is intended to shew one of the evil consequences following the attempt to change the nature of the Gospel economy of redemption to a republication of the religion of nature. It is as follows:-" For he who considers Jesus only in the light of a republisher of the law of nature, can hardly entertain a higher opinion of the Saviour of the world than some have done of Socrates, whom Erasmus esteemed an object of devotion, and many a better Protestant hath thought to be divinely inspired. For, was not Socrates, by his preaching up moral virtue, and by his dying to bear witness to the unity of the Godhead, made to the Grecian people, and (by means of their extended commerce of politeness) to the rest of mankind, wisdom and righteousness? and what more was Jesus"-[on the supposition of his being only a republisher of the law of nature]" though the Apostle adds to these two attributes, sanctification and redemption? For, according to the principles of this paganised Christianity, his titles of Messiah and Redeemer are reduced to mere figurative and accommodated terms."

Now to say the most (and I allow that to say the most, may be to say the truth,) this paragraph shews nothing more than a misunderstanding of a single word; and by no means a general contradiction of the doctrine which that word is supposed to include: for he seems to reserve to the term redemption,

the sense which he is suspected to betray in his use of the term righte

ousness.

Doctor Johnson has said of Bishop Warburton, that "his knowledge was too multifarious to be always exact, and his pursuits too eager to be always cautious." He may have been neither exact nor cautious in this instance; but the charge which Mr. Biddulph's use of the passage in question implies, I do not think can be justly made against him. In the Essay in which this passage is found, although there is much of acrimony to be blamed, there is much of acute and correct discrimination, and very much of valuable truth to be praised; and I am persuaded that the fanaticism, against which he has directed his vehement invective, has nothing in common with that statement of the mode of the operation of the Holy Spirit which Mr. Biddulph has made and defended.

T. R.

** Is T. R. aware that Mr. Biddulph's mistake respecting the above passage in Warburton had been animadverted upon in the Quarterly Review, among a series of other charges not of the same tenable character; and that Mr. Biddulph has published in reply a pamphlet, in which, after satisfactorily confuting the objections of his reviewer, he confesses his mistake, in a spirit of Christian simplicity and candour which reflects far higher honour on him than this inadvertency does discredit? As Mr. Biddulph's treatise was reviewed with approbation in our work, and may be in the hands of many of our readers, we have thought it right to insert our correspondent's charge, and to append to it Mr. Biddulph's statement on the subject, which is as follows:

"I am now arrived at the most gratifying part of my unpleasant task; for such has the present vindication of myself proved, from the unavoidable necessity under which it has laid me of introducing myself