Coney

(Heb. shaphan; i.e., "the hider"), an animal which inhabits the mountain gorges and the rocky districts of Arabia Petraea and the Holy Land. "The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks" (Prov. 30:26; Ps. 104:18). They are gregarious, and "exceeding wise" (Prov. 30:24), and are described as chewing the cud (Lev. 11:5; Deut. 14:7). The animal intended by this name is known among naturalists as the Hyrax Syriacus. It is neither a ruminant nor a rodent, but is regarded as akin to the rhinoceros. When it is said to "chew the cud," the Hebrew word so used does not necessarily imply the possession of a ruminant stomach. "The lawgiver speaks according to appearances; and no one can watch the constant motion of the little creature's jaws, as it sits continually working its teeth, without recognizing the naturalness of the expression" (Tristram, Natural History of the Bible). It is about the size and color of a rabbit, though clumsier in structure, and without a tail. Its feet are not formed for digging, and therefore it has its home not in burrows but in the clefts of the rocks. "Coney" is an obsolete English word for "rabbit."

שפן, Levit. xi, 5; Deut. xiv, 7; Psalm civ, 8; and Prov. xxx, 26. Bochart and others have supposed the _shaphan_ of the Scriptures to be the jerboa; but Mr. Bruce proves that the ashkoko is intended. This curious animal is found in Ethiopia, and in great numbers on Mount Lebanon, &c. Instead of holes, they seem to delight in more airy places, in the mouths of caves, or clefts in the rock. They are gregarious, and frequently several dozens of them sit upon the great stones at the mouths of caves, and warm themselves in the sun, or come out and enjoy the freshness of the summer evening. They do not stand upright upon their feet, but seem to steal along as in fear, their belly being nearly close to the ground; advancing a few steps at a time, and then pausing. They have something very mild, feeble-like, and timid, in their deportment; are gentle and easily tamed, though, when roughly handled at the first, they bite very severely. Many are the reasons to believe this to be the animal called _saphan_ in Hebrew, and erroneously by our translators, “the coney,” or rabbit. The latter are gregarious indeed, and so far resemble the other, as also in size; but they seek not the same place of retreat; for the rabbit burrows most generally in the sand. Nor is there any thing in the character of rabbits that denotes excellent wisdom, or that they supply the want of strength by any remarkable sagacity. The _saphan_, then, is not the rabbit; which last, unless it was brought to him by his ships from Europe, Solomon never saw. Let us now apply the characters of the ashkoko to the _saphan_. “He is above all other animals so much attached to the rocks, that I never once,” says Mr. Bruce, “saw him on the ground, or from among large stones in the mouth of caves, where is his constant residence. He lives in families or flocks. He is in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and consequently must have been familiar to Solomon. David describes him very pertinently, and joins him to other animals perfectly known: ‘The hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the _saphan_:’ and Solomon says that ‘they are exceeding wise,’ that they are ‘but a feeble folk, yet make their houses in the rocks.’ Now this, I think, very obviously fixes the ashkoko to be the _saphan_; for his weakness seems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes in the rock, where yet, however, he lodges. From their tenderness these are very liable to be excoriated or hurt; notwithstanding which, they build houses in the rocks more inaccessible than those of the rabbit, and in which they abide in greater safety, not by exertion of strength, for they have it not, but are truly, as Solomon says, ‘a feeble folk,’ but by their own sagacity and judgment; and are therefore justly described as wise. Lastly, what leaves the thing without doubt is, that some of the Arabs, particularly Damir, say that the _saphan_ has no tail, that it is less than a cat, that it lives in houses or nests, which it builds of straw, in contradistinction to the rabbit and the rat, and those animals that burrow in the ground.” CONFESSION signifies a public acknowledgment of any thing as our own: thus Christ will confess the faithful in the day of judgment, Luke xii, 8. 2. To own and profess the truths of Christ, and to obey his commandments, in spite of opposition and danger from enemies, Matt. x, 32. 3. To utter or speak the praises of God, or to give him thanks. 4. To acknowledge our sins and offences to God, either by private or public confession; or to our neighbour whom we have wronged; or to some pious persons from whom we expect to receive comfort and spiritual instruction; or to the whole congregation when our fault is published, Psalm xxxii, 5; Matt. iii, 6; James v, 16; 1 John i, 9. 5. To acknowledge a crime before a judge, Josh. vii, 19. 2. In the Jewish ceremony of annual expiation, the high priest confessed in general his own sins, the sins of other ministers of the temple, and those of all the people. When an Israelite offered a sacrifice for sin, he put his hand on the head of the victim, and confessed his faults, Lev. iv. On the day of atonement, the Jews still make a private confession of their sins, which is called by them _cippur_, and which is said to be done in the following manner: Two Jews retire into a corner of the synagogue. One of them bows very low before the other, with his face turned toward the north. He who performs the office of confessor gives the penitent nine-and-thirty blows on the back with a leathern strap, repeating these words, “God, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.” As there are only thirteen words in this verse recited in the Hebrew, he repeats it three times, and at every word strikes one blow; which makes nine-and-thirty words, and as many lashes. In the meantime, the penitent declares his sins, and at the confession of every one beats himself on his breast. This being finished, he who has performed the office of confessor prostrates himself on the ground, and receives in turn from his penitent nine-and-thirty lashes. 3. The Romish church not only requires confession as a duty, but has advanced it to the dignity of a sacrament. These confessions are made in private to the priest, who is not to reveal them under pain of the highest punishment. The council of Trent requires “secret confession to the priest alone, of all and every mortal sin, which, upon the most diligent search and examination of our consciences, we can remember ourselves to be guilty of since our baptism; together with all the circumstances of those sins, which may change the nature of them; because, without the perfect knowledge of these, the priest cannot make a judgment of the nature and quality of men’s sins, nor impose fitting penance for them.” This is the confession of sins which the same council confidently affirms “to have been instituted by our Lord, and by the law of God, to be necessary to salvation, and to have been always practised in the catholic church.” It is, however, evident, that such confession is unscriptural. St. James, indeed, says, “Confess your faults one to another,” James v, 16; but priests are not here mentioned, and the word _faults_ seems to confine the precept to a mutual confession among Christians, of those offences by which they may have injured each other. Certain it is, that from this passage the necessity of auricular confession, and the power of priestly absolution, cannot be inferred. Though many of the early ecclesiastical writers earnestly recommend confession to the clergy, yet they never recommend it as essential to the pardon of sin, or as having connection with a sacrament. They only urge it as entitling a person to the prayers of the congregation; and as useful for supporting the authority of wholesome discipline, and for maintaining the purity of the Christian church. Chrysostom condemns all secret confession to men, as being obviously liable to great abuses; and Basil, Hilary, and Augustine, all advise confession of sins to God only. It has been proved by M. Daillé, that private, auricular, sacramental confession of sins was unknown in the primitive church. But, though private auricular confession is not of divine authority, yet, as Archbishop Tillotson properly observes, there are many cases in which men, under the guilt and trouble of their sins, can neither appease their own minds, nor sufficiently direct themselves, without recourse to some pious and prudent guide. In these cases, men certainly do very well, and many times prevent a great deal of trouble and perplexity to themselves, by a timely discovery of their condition to some faithful minister, in order to their direction and satisfaction. To this purpose a general confession is for the most part sufficient; and where there is occasion for a more particular discovery, there is no need of raking into the minute and foul circumstances of men’s sins to give that advice which is necessary for the cure and ease of the penitent. Auricular confession is unquestionably one of the greatest corruptions of the Romish church. It goes upon the ground that the priest has power to forgive sins; it establishes the tyrannical influence of the priesthood; it turns the penitent from God who only can forgive sins, to man who is himself a sinner; and it tends to corrupt both the confessors and the confessed by a foul and particular disclosure of sinful thoughts and actions of every kind without exception.