and a new spirit will I put within you." These instances are all that occur with this meaning of in connection with 7 and the preposition .

Let us now turn to the Scriptures to see if there are examples of the other usage of the phrase outside of Ecclesiastes. The first passage in order is found in 1 Kings 4ii. 9. It is the prayer of Solomon in view of his needs as a ruler of God's people. "Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart (w ab ax? ann), (lit., Give to thy servants, etc.,) to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad. Here again must signify the mind and not the heart. Mental power and the exercise of that power can alone meet the necessity Solomon felt. This he prayed for. Also with the same signification is used in the answer to Solomon's prayer recorded in the twelfth verse, "Behold, I have done according to thy word: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart, etc. "Mind" would be the better translation. Likewise we find the Hebrew phrase in 1 Chronicles xxii. 19, "Now set (lit., give, n) your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God." In this expression clearly has the same signification that it has in the writings of Solomon. The meaning is, Give your mind to seeking the Lord your God. Give attention to that object. The last instance of its use is found in Daniel x. 12, "Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set (lit., give ) thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard." In this passage again we have a clear instance of meaning the mind as giving attention to the subject spoken of.

Summary.

and to give the

To sum up our examination of the phrase result, we find that the phrase is used in the Old Testament fourteen times in all, including Proverbs xxiii. 26. Four times it is employed in the sense of giving a disposition or character to a people or person, viz., Deuteronomy v. 29; Jeremiah xxxii. 30; Ezekiel xi. 19; also xxxvi. 26. Nine times the expression refers to the mind exclusively, viz., Ecclesiastes i. 13-17; vii. 21; viii. 9-16; 1 Kings iii. 9-12; 1 Chronicles xxii. 19; Daniel x. 12. Seven times it means the mind as giving attention, using its powers in the direction indicated, as acquiring wisdom, knowledge, and the like. Ecclesiastes i. 13–17; vii. 21; viii. 9-16; 1 Chronicles ii. 19; Daniel x. 12.

In the writings of Solomon, leaving out the passage under examination, this last signification is the invariable meaning. Another fact

our examination brings out which is deserving of special attention, and that is in all cases where refers to the disposition and character, the source of giving such a heart lies outside of man himself. It is God that gives such a heart to man, and not man who gives his heart to God. In harmony with the conclusion we have reached respecting the usage of an, are the statements of the best and latest Hebrew lexions. For instance, Robinson's Gesenius, last edition, says (in loco), "to set one's mind upon, to give heed to anything," e. g., by Ecclesiastes vii. 21. Also stronger,

to set one's mind upon doing anything, to apply one's self to doing. Ecclesiastes i. 13, 17; viii. 9, 16; Daniel x. 12. Fuerst's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon gives "to apply the mind to anything.' So Maurer and others. The question then recurs, How are we to interpret Proverbs xxiii. 26? Which of the two meanings that undoubtedly bears in the Scriptures, is to be taken as being more appropriate here? The presumption is that the more common usage of the word in this phrase is to be preferred. This first certainly, and, if found inapplicable, then the other meaning must be adopted which is less frequent. But how shall we decide whether the ordinary sense of in this connection is most fitting here or not? That depends on two considerations. 1. What is the subject of the sentence? 2. To what object is the directed,-about what is it concerned?

1. As to the subject of the sentence there is but one conclusion; grammatically considered, it must be the same as the subject of the sentences preceding. The name of the writer or writers is specified in chapter xxii. 17: "Bow down thy ear and hear the words of the wise, and apply thy heart to every knowledge." But whether specified or not in that place, there is no occasion to doubt that the subject is the same throughout the chapter. There is not the slightest intimation given in any way that verse 26 is not just as much a part of the words of the wise man as verses 25 or 27. It is arbitrary and forced to the last degree to change the subject in verse 26. We can only take it to be the writer of this whole chapter. Solomon, or the wise man, be he who he may. A man, and not God, or Christ or

wisdom personified.

2. What is the object to which the ? is to be directed? The answer to this question is given in the phrase itself, to me, the subject of the sentence, the writer of the words, "Give thy to me," as speaking these words of wisdom, and hence to the words themselves. So that the object to which the 2 is to be directed, is the words of wisdom that the writer utters. He asks not that the should be given to him, but to his instructions. We convey the same idea when

we say, "attend to me," when we mean, "attend to what I Such is the object specified as expressed by the term '?.

say."1

What signification, then, is to be taken in this passage, having for a subject the writer of the words, and for the object the instructions given? It is seen at once that the narrower and less common meaning of is out of place. There is no reference to God whatever in the sentence, nor in any of its connections. We are then shut up to that meaning of the phrase which is the more common, and which is used exclusively in the writings of Solomon. We must translate, "Give thy mind to me, i. e., give your attention to what I say, and let thine eyes observe my ways, i. e., the ways I point out to you. And do this (5) for a whore is a deep ditch, and a strange woman is a narrow pit," etc. Such a rendering of the passage involves nothing harsh or unnatural in the grammatical construction. The necessity of changing the subject that must take place, according to any other view of the passage, is done away with, a change always to be avoided when possible. Such a construction, moreover, involves no harshness in the thought, and it makes the passage pertinent to the subject spoken of. It gives a consistent whole to the two sentences connected so closely together by the conjunction ?. Such a meaning, too, makes this passage harmonize in style and thought with every other passage that treats of the same subject, viz., the strange woman. It follows, too, the usage of the Hebrew phrase through the Old Testament when it is employed in the same connection as here. Such an interpretation also relieves the passage of all doctrinal and practical difficulties. As commonly understood and employed, namely, as containing the condition of salvation, the words convey a meaning which is open to grave objections on doctrinal, and hence also on practical grounds, It is a fair question at least, whether the commonly accepted interpretation of the passage is correct in doctrine, whether it is consistent with the clear teachings of Scripture and with the principles of the gospel plan of salvation. In our examination of the Hebrew phrase we found that where any reference was made to the giving of the heart as the seat of the affections, the act originated not in man as the source, but in God. He himself gave such a heart as he desired to see in man. And, moreover, the gospel works no such demand upon the sinner in order to his salvation, that he should "give God his heart." Christ, who knew the way of life perfectly, and who has expressed in the clearest and best manner possible that way, never once directed the sinner to "give God his heart." His aim, in which

1 For a similar use of ", see chapter vii. 24, "Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye chil dren, and attend to the words of my mouth."

he was followed by the apostles, always was to call off the sinner's attention from himself to the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." The gospel teaches that the sinner is utterly helpless as well as lost, the only thing left him is to look and believe on Christ if he would be saved. In principle the gospel of salvation is diametrically opposed to the command supposed to be found in Proverbs xxiii. 26, and so often employed in addressing sinners on the subject of salvation. As thus used, it directs the sinner's thoughts to himself and to his own efforts in a purely legal spirit. The phrase as commonly employed is wrong in principle and misleads by directing the sinner's attention to himself as the source of salvation and not to Christ, the only and all-sufficient source. But the true explanation of the passage involves no difficulties of this kind. There is no reference in it to salvation or to the conditions of salvation, and whoever uses it in this sense "adds to the things that are written in this book."

HYANNIS, MASS.

W. H. EVANS.

As the proper meaning of this word is much disputed in connection. with the baptismal controversy, and the facts bearing on the question are not generally known, it may be well to state them briefly.'

1. That 'amad is the only word which the Syriac Christians used to translate Bartes0at, that is for the ordinance of baptism, is universally admitted. In the Peshito New Testament, ẞantiso0at and its derivatives are always rendered by 'amad and its derivatives (Bantite being given by the Aphel or causative of 'amad, and Barret by tseba, "to dip"). So, also, in Heb. vi. 4 and x. 32, ywT160évtes is translated by 'amad, no doubt from the connection supposed by the early Christians to exist between baptism and enlightenment. The usage of the later Syriac authors, Ephrem Syrus, the Nestorian Ritual, Jacob Sarugensis, Bar-Hebræus, Asseman, is invariable, no word for baptism is found but 'amad.

2. In determining the meaning of the word, it was natural to look to the widely diffused Shemitic stem 'amad, found in Heb. and Aeth. in the signification "stand," and traced in Arabic in the noun 'amadun, "a pillar.' In the Aramaic dialects also it is found, in Chald. (and probably in Samaritan) in sense of "standing," while in Syriac the only trace in the

1 Somewhat full discussions are given by F. W. Gotch in his tract, "A Critical Examination of the Rendering of Barrigw in the Ancient and many modern versions of the New Testament. London: 1841;" by Dr. James Murdock, in Bibl. Sacra, Oct., 1850, and by Benjamin Davies, in Bibl. Sacra, July, 1851.