when they were sent against the rebel, Sheba the son of Bichri. (chap. xx. 7.) That they were a distinct class from the common soldiers, is evident from their having a peculiar commander, and not being under Joab the general of the army. (2 Sam. viii. 16, 18.) They seem, therefore, to have been the king's body-guard, like the prætorian band among the Romans. These guards appear to have been skilful archers. The Chaldee paraphrase every where calls them archers and slingers. Their number may probably be gathered from the targets and shields of gold, which Solomon made for his guards; which were five hundred.* (1 Kings x. 16, 17. compared with 2 Chron. xii. 9-11.) The eastern monarchs, and indeed the whole of their great men,` were never approached but with presents. This is particularly noticed by Solomon: "A man's gift maketh room for him, and bringeth him before great men." (Prov. xviii. 16.) Thus the sons of Jacob were instructed to carry a present to Joseph when they went down to Egypt to buy food (Gen. xliii. 11, 26.); and in like manner the Magi, who came from the east to worship Christ, brought him presents of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Mat. ii. 11.) It was also usual to pay them the most marked respect, by prostrations to the ground. (Gen. xxxvii. 10; 1 Sam. xxiv. 8.; 2 Sam. xiv. 4.) Morier informs us that a similar practice obtains among the Persians at the present day.† "As soon as we approached the throne of the Chinese Emperor," says Brands, "we were obliged to kneel down, and slowly to bow our heads to the ground." Ovington tells us, that "the mark of respect which is paid to the kings in the East approaches very near to adoration. The manner of saluting the Great Mogul is, to touch with the hand first the earth, then the breast, and then to lift it above, which is repeated three times in succession as you approach him.§" The last honours paid the king, were at his death. The royal corpse, it is said, was carried by nobles to the sepulchre, though it were at a considerable distance. However this be, we read of public mourning observed for good kings. (2 Chron. xxxv. 24.; * Jennings' Jew. Ant. p. 93. Chinese Travels, p. 187. VOL. I. + Second Journey, p. 172. § Travels, p. i. ch. 14. p. 180. RR 2 Jer. xxii. 18.; xxxiv. 5.) Yet notwithstanding all this royal state and grandeur, they were only God's viceroys, bound to govern according to the statute law of the land, which they, as well as their subjects, were required to obey.* After the division of the twelve tribes they subsisted as two distinct kingdoms under various sovereigns. That of Israel continued for a period of 250 years, when it was destroyed by Shalmanezer, king of Assyria;† and that of Judah 388, or 404 years, when the king and his subjects were carried captives into Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar, where they remained seventy years according to the divine predictious. The same form of government subsisted in both kingdoms until their extinction. [To be continued.] Scripture Encyclopaedia. [Continued from Page 269 ] נתן להם האלהים מדע והשהל בכל ספר וחכמה DANIEL, PART I. THE Bible is undoubtedly a literary work. Its claims to this character are substantiated by every consideration relative to its contents and its composition. To this distinction it is especially entitled by the languages in which it was originally written, and the general competency of those persons who were employed in its production. But it would require a complete dissertation to amplify this interesting topic, and render the eulogy which is justly due. Let it suffice therefore, in the present cursory survey, to observe, that the Sacred Volume, apart from its unrivalled theology and morals, is transcendantly superior to every other literary publication, "Above all Greek, above all Roman fame: and to conclude these introductory remarks with the just observations of a learned writer of the seventeenth century: "this book is fraught with all human ‡ J. Edwards, B. D. in his highly interesting "Discourse concerning the Au learning, and gives instructions concerning the choicest Arts and Sciences Upon which account it is of such universal use, that no sort of persons can be ignorant of it without great inconvenience and damage. He is no Antiquary, that is not skilled in these writings which are of the greatest antiquity.-He is no Historian, that is not acquainted with the important transactions of this book, -He is no Statesman or Politician, who hath not insight into the excellent maxims and laws which are found here.-He is no right Natural Philosopher, who is not acquainted with the Origin and Maker of this mundane system as they are represented in the Mosaic physiology. He is no Accomplished Grammarian, Critic, or Rhetorician, who is ignorant of that philological learning which these writings afford.-And chiefly, he is no Good Man or Christian, who is a stranger to those admirable rules which are here laid down. Wherefore it is the concern of all persons to converse with the Scriptures; and to apply themselves with great diligence to the reading of them, and that daily and frequently." LITERATURE, as the first Division or Part of the present Synoptical Encylopædia, comprehends whatever considerations belong to the Language, Grammar, Writings, and Learning, of the Holy Scriptures. CHAPTER I. LANGUAGE. The importance of this subject may justify a detail of particulars beyond the ordinary allowance: especially as connected with a book, whose history alone presents a rational record of the origin of all human languages and nations * איש ללשנו למשפחתם בגויהם "Every one, according to his language, after their families, by their nations," And whose writings so interestingly and prominently exhibit a Sacred Personage, relative to whom the prediction of Deity awaits its certain consummation; + כל עממיא אמיא ולשניא לה יפלחון "All peoples, nations, and languages shall serve Him." SECT. I.-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. Language, or Speech, is said to be the instrument‡ of thought. Under this Definition. must be comprehended the production,§ as well as communication, of the thoughts thority, Style, and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament"; * Gen. x. 5. Wollaston and others, in an ably written Number, "On the Divine Origin of Languages"; cited with approbation by Dr. Magee, in his celebrated production on Atonement and Sacrifice, ii. pp. 46—70. § "As it fits mankind for an easy interchange of their intellectual acquisitions, by imposing on them the necessity of employing, in their solitary speculations, the same instrument of thought which forms the established medium of their communications with each other."-Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, by Dugald Stewart, p. 190. Characteristic of Man. and feelings of the human mind. It is philosophically true, what the Apostle said in 1 Cor. xiv. 22 : Γλώσσαι εις σημείον εισι, 66 Languages are for a sign :"-serving as they do, to signify to ourselves as well as to others what are the impressions and operations of the mind. The possession of this faculty forms a peculiar and noble characteristic of man ; and, strictly speaking, it is denied to the brutes. Does this arise from an original difference in the human, and the bestial, organs of utterance; or from a radical diversity in their respective intellectual powers? Some anatomists have maintained, that there is an essential imperfection in the organs of utterance of all the brutes, as far as articulate sounds are concerned, for which they are not at all qualified, though extremely well calculated for giving out long or continued sounds. It is found, however, by experience, that certain birds may be brought by much teaching, to utter various words with tolerable distinctness; it is not, therefore, strictly true, that the animal tribes are completely destitute of the organs of articulation; and the cause why they never attain the proper use of articulate speech is to be sought in an intellectual, rather than in a corporeal deficiency. How sublime and satisfactory is the testimony of Scripture! ? אכן רוח היא באנוש ונשמת שדי תבינם Origin. "Surely there is a Soul (or spirit) in man : And the breath of the Almighty hath given them Understanding." The origin of language is scripturally and rationally considered as of divine institution. This may not be affirmed in so many words, nor was such an affirmation necessary : but it is manifest that the use of speech was coeval with the existence of human society. The proceedings recorded in the first three chapters of Genesis, are most explicit and decisive: and the historian would seem to have considered the fact as self-evident as the existence of Deity, to neither of which has he borne any other testimony than the plain narrative of significant effects. What an interesting proof of the language and intelligence of Adam is furnished ויקרא האדם שמות לכל הבהמה ,19 .by the circumstance of Gen. ii "And the man called the name of every beast" ;-especially when we remember the significancy and appropriateness of those names in the Hebrew Scriptures! See an elaborate disquisition "Of the Origin and Progress of Language and Writing by R. Scott, M. A. Professor of Moral Philosophy, King's College, Aberdeen," in the Class Journal, vols. i. and ii. ↑ Job xxxii. 8: on which it has been observed: "The animal and intellectual lives are here stated to be from God; and this appears to be an allusion to man's creation, Gen. ii. 7-D" MDW "the breath of lives," that is, animal and intellectual and thus he became T "a rational animal." Dr. A. Clarke's Crit. Notes, &c. on the Script. "Hence it is very evident that Adam must, in general, have had ideas of actions and words suited to these ideas, &c." says the celebrated lexicographer, Parkhurst, who has cited very pertinently from Leland and others, in Heb. Lex. p. 653, sixth edit. Respeeting the primitive* and antediluvian language of mankind it is of course Primitive and impossible to write at much length, because with little certainty, at this distant Antediluvian period of time. A multitude of enquiries have been agitated and attempted to be answered: and by the discoveries and decisions of the learned hitherto made, it has been generally concluded, that the Hebrew,† as preserved in the earlier writings of the Old Testament, comprises the most probable remains and characteristics of the primæval tongue :—or at least, of that language which was spoken by the pious few who were saved at the Universal Deluge. This qualifying phrase seems required, when it is considered, that there had then existed several generations of men (Gen. v.) since the creation; whose united lives included the long space of about 2,000 years :—and that consequently from the dispersion and increase of mankind (Gen. iv. 14, xvi. 26.) together with the cultivation of various arts and sciences (Gen. iv. 20—22.); very considerable alterations might have been experienced in the nature and state of the original tongue. Whatever was the dialect of Noah's family it would seem to have been in general use until the attempt for erecting the celebrated Babel in the plains of Shinar : for it is said 78 77 750 787 S7 And all the earth was one speech and the same words." (Gen. xi. 1.) The or Confusion, recorded in subsequent verses, demands an attentive examination; particularly as it has been assumed the foundation of a variety of theories || which perhaps have little countenance, either from the sacred narrative itself, or the general history and connection** of languages. Confusion at Babel. הבה נרדה ונבלה שם שפתם אשר לא ישמעו איש שפת רעהו "Come let us descend and there confound (mix together, derange, throw into The Sabians or Disciples of John the Baptist, shew a book which they ascribe to Adam; the character of it is very singular, but the language seems a dialect of the Chaldee or Syriac. M. Norberg, a Swede, after forty years' labour, published, with translations, five vols 4to. of their books, in 1815-1818;—but see more of DNS in Calmet's Dict. in vols. i. and ii. † On Gen. xi. 1, Dr. A. Clarke has said—“ Most likely the Hebrew language, -incontestibly the original," &c. Whether the dialectal mutations arose exclusively among the descendants of Cain, and the primitive speech was preserved pure by some of Seth's posterity; is more easily asked than it can be incontrovertibly answered. And yet without the affirmation of this question, where is the evidence, either that Noah spoke the original tongue, or that the Hebrew has any claims to this primary distinction?-Consult the Philology of the Encyclop. Brit. xvi. p. 283–285. § "To ask which was the primitive language, is to inquire, which of the seven streams of the Nile or Danube is the original branch, when they are collateral, all equally deduced from one common source. There is this difference to be observed in the comparison: the parent stream remains; but the maternal source of languages is probably no more."-Bryant, in his Analysis. vol. v. pp. 71-73. || See Calmet's Encyclop. on language, vol. ii.Shuckford's Connection, &c. &c. ** That languages in general have an affinity with each other is evident from a critical examination of them; for the notice of which see the Philology in the Encyclop, Britan. vol. xvi. |