after, by a term denoting both purity and health (kal ka@aploon.) 3rd. On this occasion, Naaman became a worshipper of Jehovah, and the historian relates his conversion to the Jewish faith. It is natural to suppose that the employment here of the word BaπTi(w, as well as that of the corresponding Hebrew term, was occasioned by the use of these words for the more solemn purifications by water, then observed by the Jews.

"If now we look to the words of other languages, most likely to exhibit the sense of Banrico in this passage, we find the following. In the Hebrew text a word is used, denoting in the earlier Hebrew, to dip, to stain, to moisten.* Its meaning, in the later Hebrew, cannot be ascertained, but by the considerations adduced, which are equally applicable to the Hebrew and Greek words in this passage. In the Chaldee Targum, the same word is put both for the precept and the performance.† It denotes both to dip, and to purify; and that it is used here in the latter sense is most probable, because the Hebrew for to wash, is never translated by a word signifying to dip, but often, when used in reference to sacred things, by a word denoting to purify. In the Syriac version, a word denoting to wash or cleanse, is likewise put for both words; showing that, in the judgment of the translator of that ancient version, both mean to cleanse, or purify.§ In the Vulgate in the same manner, one word is employed, the direction given to Naaman is expressed by lavare septies in Jordane,' wash seven times at the Jordan; his obedience by 'lavit in Jordane septies,' he washed seven times at the Jordan. Whether these translators used the Hebrew text or not, is immaterial. It is most likely that they would understand the Hebrew in the same manner as the writer of this part of the Septuagint, and that, as they gave in their several translations, the sense of purifying expressing the end, and not the mode of the action, so he also employed Barri(w in this signification. "From this examination of the context, scope, and ancient versions, it appears very improbable that Naaman was dipped; and very improbable, if he were purified by dipping, that the historian should describe this fact by a word expressive of its manner rather than of its design. On the other hand, it is certain that he purified himself, and the circumstances of the case favour the supposition, that his purification was, like all the public ceremonial purifications of the Jews, by sprinkling or washing a part of the person.

"The whole context of the passage, and the testimony of the ancient versions, support the opinion that here Sanτíċw means to purify, and that it was applied to sacred rites performed by water. For the supposition that Naaman dipped himself, and that here ẞaTTiCw means to dip, we have only the supposed radical signification of the Hebrew and Greek words. For the supposition that Naaman partially washed himself, and that BarriÇw here means to purify, expressing the end and not the mode of washing, we have the accordance of this mode and meaning with the common feelings of men, with Jewish customs, with the prophet's command, with the servant's language, with the historian's comment, and subsequent statements, probably with the Chaldee Targum, and certainly with the Syriac and Latin versions."Godwin, pp. 46–51.

* Gen. xxxvii. 31, 2, "They stained the coat with the blood." Lev. iv. 17, "And the priest shall moisten his finger from the blood." Lev. xiv. 16, "And the priest shall moisten his right finger from the oil that is in his left hand." 2 Kings viii. 15, "He took a coverlet and moistened it with water, and spread it on his face, so that he died."

†, lavit, abluit.

, sanctificavit.

§ ∞∞, lavit, abluit.

Mr. Godwin has written a volume of 400 pages in 12mo., on this topic. His courtesy to his Baptist brethren is great, for the single quotation we have made is of itself sufficient to show not only the weakness of Dr. C.'s favourite dogma, the one sense, and one sense only, of the word ẞanti(w, but the very strong probability, amounting to all but a moral certainty, that the mode was any other rather than that of the immersion of the whole body of Naaman in the river. Dr. C.'s alleged proof is, in this, as in all other similar instances, not a proof, but a mere petitio principii, in the thousand-times-repeated dogma, that the word means to dip, and nothing else but to dip. Before this mode of reasoning— a very easy one, and one therefore of which our Baptist brethren are very fond-all facts are fictions, all argumentation folly, all reasoning nonsense, and an accumulation of proofs from the Septuagint and Greek Testament, the very husks and chaff of literature and criticism. "The word Banτit means to dip, and nothing else but to dip: it always has had this meaning, it never has had, nor ever will have any other, and there is an end of the whole matter." Thus, excited with the vapour of classic lore, speaks the oracle: the sounds are as intelligible as any uttered in the groves of Dodona, or on the tripod of Delphi; but yet, oracles of old have erred, and we attach no strong faith to those of modern times.

It is more with sorrow than with anger that we see in the writings of our opponents such a mode of conducting a controversy. Dogmatism and denunciation, from whatever quarter they come, whether from the Vatican or a Baptist chapel, bring all rational controversy to a close. We should as soon think of reasoning with a lion in his lair, as with any pronouncer of mere authoritative prescripts. For such controvertists to enlarge on the philosophy of language, is as if a despot were to declaim on freedom, or a slave-dealer to pronounce an eulogy on liberty. All the learning, scraped together from all the books which have been written on one side of this controversy, and paraded before the weary eye in alleged proof of what is, after all, a questionable point, may serve to impose on the vulgar, but will tell but little on a man of sound mind. We are constrained to say, though the substance of Mr. Godwin's book has appeared in our pages, that there is more of real scholarship, sound reasoning, and valuable Scripture interpretation in a few pages of his work, than in all the apparently learned accumulations to which we have alluded. It ought to be carefully studied by our younger ministers, and divinity students; and we would recommend our Baptist brethren to peruse it, in connexion with Dr. Carson's book. To mention the striking contrasts which the two works present, would appear invidious. We, therefore, abstain.

The Piedmontese Envoy; or, The Men, Manners, and Religion of the Commonwealth. A Tale, by Prothesia S. Goss, Author of "The Philanthropist," &c. pp. 295. London: Ward and Co.

HAVING recently expounded, and at some length, our views on works of fiction, it is not necessary that we should enter again upon the merits and demerits of such compositions in general, or of religious romance or novelry in particular. Suffice it to say the volume before us has but very little of the novel except in its title,—and those who purchase it for the sake of the tale will be woefully disappointed. We doubt, from a careful perusal of the work, whether the author possesses the particular ability which developes itself in the construction of a story. But she has something better. She has the truest, purest, and most noble sentiments in fitting phrase-and makes the princely souls whom she introduces to her readers, discourse in a style that does not misbecome the heroes of the seventeenth century. This is no mean commendation, and barely expresses our honest opinion of the author's merit. The full extent of it will appear, when we name the illustrious persons whom she has ventured to furnish with dialogue -Milton, Howe, Owen, Jeremy Taylor, Algernon Sydney, Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Wharton, Lady Ranelagh, Hampden, Cromwell, his lady and daughters. In fact, the volume of which we speak, is little more than a series of scenes, in which these parties present themselves successively to view, and deliver their sentiments, much as we suppose they might have done, upon a variety of topics most interesting to moral and social man. These topics embrace education, read sermons, forms of prayer, Christian union, primitive episcopacy, tithes, good ministers, regulation of the thoughts, suitable marriages, absurdity of parochial division, advocacy in courts of justice, millennium, religious disputations, George Fox, seekers, hypocritical profession, apostolic churches, the Popish confessional, torture, civil privileges of the Jews, &c. &c.

The judgment pronounced upon these multifarious subjects is most enlightened and scriptural. The volume is throughout distinguished by the rare combination of feminine delicacy and masculine vigour. So little of the novel appears in it, that we suspect its type is rather to be found in Landor's Imaginary Conversations, than in any fiction of a lighter order.

We have noticed several instances of extreme carelessness in the printing of the work. On page 123 "if" has fallen out of the form, and not been replaced. Page 136 has "his own sake," for "its own sake," the antecedent being "work;" 138 has "prophecying" for "prophesying;" 148 has "tenfold" for "sevenfold," see Daniel iii. 19; "Thou hast too little charity" on page 193 is clearly ascribed to the

wrong speaker; while, at page 263 the compositor's French has been sadly at fault, for instead of the common phrase "allons donc," we have the rather ludicrous "allons, done, was the reply." "Stephenson" becomes "Stevenson" on the same page 133, and within the same half-dozen lines; while the patriot "Hampden" is invariably "Hambden," a mode of spelling the name new to us. These are minor blemishes, and detract nothing from the sterling excellence of Miss Goss's production. We know few books of the kind better adapted for reading in the family circle, and for giving correct views of the most important subjects. We heartily recommend it to our young friends.

The Power of the Soul over the Body, considered in relation to Health and Morals. By George Moore, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Physicians, &c. London: Longman, Brown, and Co. 1845.

THIS is a good book, on a most important topic. The range is wide, and it is well occupied. The existence of a resident, intelligent, and powerful spirit beneath the veil of flesh is, by a variety of facts, incidents, and minute circumstantial details, irrefragably proved. That somewhat rickety science, phrenology, has its true place assigned to it, and the doctrine of other theorists, who verge towards materialism, if they are not actual materialists, is refuted and condemned. All this is done with the calmness of the philosopher, the temper of the Christian, and the skill of the most practised logician. It would be well were this book placed in the libraries of our young people, by the side of Combe, to counteract evil, and by Reed, Stewart, Browne, and especially Abercrombie, to illustrate and confirm the important truths these volumes advocate. There is a holy, chastened, modest spirit, pervading the volume, which places it in most advantageous contrast with much of the pretension of the day. The motto from Bernard is well chosen,

"Thou hast a noble guest, O flesh !"

and the book may be regarded as a very beautiful illustrative commentary on it. It is divided into two parts,-the first, entitled, "The Soul, as manifested in the use of the senses, in attention and in memory," and the second, "The influence of mental determination and emotion over the body." We cannot pursue the analysis further, but the following chapter on the "Evils of Popular Phrenology" will supply a fair specimen of the character of this interesting volume.

"The dangerous tendency of the popular notions of phrenology, is most evident in the excuses it supplies to those who seek apologies for their moral depravity, and in the impediments it builds up in the way of those inquisitive minds that expect to find in nature a substitute for revelation. Many, convinced of the authority of the Bible, yet seem to see so much of demonstration in this pseudo-science at variance with the declarations of that strong book, that they are constantly hanging in suspense between the ruling faith, in the spiritual origin of thought, and the vacillating persuasion of the material beginning and end of mind. With such persons, morality and Christianity are thus at stake. A thorough, uncompromising, common phrenologist must apologise if he exhibit respect for either Divine or human government; since a will that owns no source but in the accidents of a man's organisation, can have no relation to the law which demands obedience for the common good. What good can there be to a mind unassociated, and indeed not existing, but with the body, except the individual's physical good? What community of interest can there be except among spiritual beings, that reason, love, and hate, on principles and under laws altogether distinct from any that regulate material combinations and results?

"If degrees of criminality, as some men teach, be determined by the relative developement of portions of our brains, and not according to the degree of our knowledge and the kind of motives presented to our reason, through our affections in our training, then the language of the Great Teacher is a violence to our nature,-' If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.' These words appear to have no meaning, unless they signify that the extent of man's accountableness is commensurate with the degree of holy truth applied to his understanding.

"Although some of the prominent advocates of phrenology undoubtedly regard that somewhat rickety science as affording irresistible arguments in favour of the material theory of mind, and hence infer that the soul perishes with the body; yet there are many more who, most heartily following their confident leaders, believe themselves persuaded that phrenology is only a little less certain than the Gospel; and who nevertheless would not for the world forego their convictions of a spiritual and immortal existence. Some have taken a kind of middle ground, and while stanch in their attachment to the Christian creed, yet imagining they possess proof in phrenological facts that the soul has no being without the body, they have endeavoured to prove to their own satisfaction that the Bible reveals not a word concerning the distinct existence of the human spirit, but rather that it declares an utter death of both soul and body as derived from Adam. But then they dare not deny that an eternal life and bodily resurrection are promised and secured in Christ; so they are brought to the conclusion, that when a man dies he is annihilated as an individual being, and by the power of God is reproduced on some future occasion. Dr. Elliotson, President of the Phrenological Society, thus states, in the Lancet, the position which he adopts: By nature all die, are utterly extinguished; and in another order of things, when the fashion of this world shall have passed away, and time shall be no more, then in Christ, by the additional gift of God granted through the obedience of Christ, but consequently by a miracle, not by our nature, we shall all again be made alive.' If Christianity be true, then science, that is, the classification of natural facts, will never contradict it; for God must be the author of both. The scientific part of phrenology is therefore perfectly compatible with revelation. But infidelity has deeply stained the speculative and baseless assumptions which hasty reasoners have attached to that as well as other inquiries. It is however delightful to find, that men of the profoundest science most reverentially acknowledge that man and Christianity are productions of the same Mind, and that there is