other oriental languages, which all scholars knew must, at some early period, have subsisted, though they were heretofore unable to assert where or when it was so.

The language of these inscriptions is substantially Arabic, differing only in simplicity, and other evident archaisms, from the Arabic of the Koran. The roots and fundamental structure of both languages are the same; and it is by means of the Arabic that Mr. Forster has been enabled to construct his alphabet and his glossary. But the characters are wholly different that is, generically different from the Arabic; for they belong to the square or lapidary class of letters, all of whose forms are straight lines or angles as the rule, and where curves are the exception: whereas the Arabic belongs to the epistolographic class, all of whose forms are curves, as the rule, and where straight lines scarcely ever occur: and the square letters standing, singly, the words are often distinguished from each other by intervening points, while letters like the Arabic run together to form words, and disconnection or a small space is sufficient to distinguish between word and word. The Ethiopic, on the opposite side of the Arabian gulph, has features in common with the Arabic as a language; but no resemblance in its characters to the Arabic letters, yet great resemblance to these newly discovered letters. The Ethiopic characters are not, strictly speaking, letters: they are syllables; for their letters are like the Hebrew consonants; but instead of supplying the vowels by points, as the Hebrews do, they change the form of the letter itself, by some such addition as we should use in changing F into E, or P into R, or V into W. Now the intermediate step to these anomalies in the Ethiopic, this Hamyaric alphabet supplies, and gives us also the actual primitive forms of several Ethiopic letters; and, if we dare make such an assertion without going into the proof-which on the present occasion is impossible-the primitive form of such of the Greek letters as were not derived immediately from the Phoenician and Hebrew. But not only as a discovery, and on account of the intrinsic and immediately apparent importance of these inscriptions, do we contemplate the Hamyaric alphabet, but also with the expectation that it will prove a key to unlock other treasuries of ancient knowledge, which are known to exist, but which have hitherto baffled all the efforts of ingenuity and learning: such for instance as the Mount Sinai inscriptions, a large collection of which has been published in the transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, from careful copies made by G. F. Grey, Esq.

We have reason to believe that the key has already been applied to these Sinai inscriptions, and that it does unlock them

with very little difficulty, and that about one hundred and fifty of them have been decyphered, and have been found to relate to the wanderings of the children of Israel in the wilderness, and to be according to all appearances of the very age of Moses. It will be observed that in many of these inscriptions, Mr. Grey has noted the figure of an animal, or branch of a tree, or human figures beside the writing; just as in the Egyptian inscriptions we often find not only descriptions in word, but accompanying representations of the thing meant to be described. The agreement of the words with the figures affords a test of the truth of the interpretation; and we understand the explanation of the Sinai inscriptions is confirmed by this test, such as No. 59, the people kicked like an ass; opposite to which, Mr. Grey states there is a quadruped, which, on reference to the same inscription in Professor Beer's collection, has proved to be an ass. In like manner, the branch at the waters of Marah, the serpents, the quails, and allusions to the horse or the camel, in speaking of the children of Israel, are accompanied by figures of the animal or thing, in the margin, as-71, 73, 83, 85, 87, 95, 127, 144, 145.

Nor is this all the fruit we have reason to expect, for the same key has been applied to some of the inscriptions of Egypt with the most definite results; so that we may hope to find the inscriptions of this whole region, whether Hebrew, Arabic, or Coptic, brought into closer connection with each other than we could have imagined, or deemed possible, before this discovery was made and our knowledge of those early times in the same degree confirming the truth of Scripture. In the wanderings of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees through Canaan to Egypt, we do not find that he needed an interpreter, but was equally understood by the children of Heth, and the king of Gerar, and Pharaoh; but we find afterwards a greater divergency, such as in the two names imposed by Jacob and Laban, and still more in Joseph speaking through an interpreter to his brethren; as well as in the name which he himself received from Pharaoh.

All these points we hope to see elicited by Mr. Forster, and we are sure that no other person can do it so well as himself. Nor would it be right that any one should snatch from him any part of the full garland within his reach, and upon which he has actually laid his hand. We earnestly hope that he may be given health and strength to accomplish, and that speedily, a task which he has so successfully begun. The public requires it of him-the Church expects it of him-it seems placed before him by the providence of God, and may the blessing of God be upon him, and upon the work of his hands.

VOL. XVIII-K K

498.

Notices of Books.

The Literary History of the New Testament. London: Seeleys. 1845. THIS is meant to be a popular account of the composition of that book which we call the New Testament; who were the the authors of its several portions; at what time they were written; and all the particulars which are known concerning its parts as literary compositions-apart from the doctrine or inspiration, and the sacred character of the volume. It is one of those useful books which seem to be especially called for at the present time, wheu men desire to have all that is known on a given subject compressed into as small a space as possible; and of which kind of ware we must say that the supply seems to keep pace with the demand. Such kind of books are not. quite to our old fashioned taste; but we do not speak disparagingly of them when they are not superficial, and when, as in the present instance, the subjects are not slurred over, but have been carefully examined, with the help of the best guides. The author has suppressed his name, and the volume itself is unostentatious; yet it contains all that the general reader will need to know, and which he would not otherwise find without turning over the elaborate treatises of many ponderous volumes.

In a work of this kind it is not to be expected that every one will find satisfaction; and, on many of the points embraced in it, satisfaction is not to be obtained anywhere. It is known facts that the author professes to give, and if these do not exist, it is better to remain in ignorance than to supply the place of facts by uncertainties or conjectures. The writers of the Gospels and Epistles we know; but a good deal of useful information is given concerning the time and occasion when these were severally written; it is often very important to know these particulars, in order to enter fully into the mind and meaning of the writer. The Epistle to the Galatians, for instance, becomes far more important, and much more forcible, when these circumstances are taken into consideration in studying this, which we believe to be the earliest of the writings of the apostle Paul; and which we mention the rather because it is one of the few points on which we dissent from the author of this volume, and to do him justice from the majority of expositors: and as this affects the chronology of the Acts, we will briefly give our reasons. Galatia is first mentioned by name in Acts xvi., and it is inferred that this was St. Paul's first visit, and that shortly after this time he wrote the Epistle to the Gala

tians; but we think this is a mistake. For "Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren, in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do." And this visit was for the special purpose of delivering the decrees "that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem" (xvi. 4). And so were the churches established, that is, churches already planted, the churches of Phrygia and Galatia, which had been gathered on Paul's former journey, which was expressly to preach the Gospel in these regions—namely, Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and the region that lieth round about (xiv. 6).

Then, again, looking at the argument of the epistle, it is hardly credible that such a line of argument would have been adopted, after the solemn decision of the council in Jerusalem (Acts xv.) A reference to that decision would be infinitely more cogent than any argument; and it is absolutely incredible that no reference should be made to that council, and to the decrees which had been delivered to the Galatians (xvi. 4, 6), if this epistle had been, in fact, written after these occurrences. But no reference whatever is made to the council, or the decrees, in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians; and no where, except in this epistle, do we find the Church in peril of returning to the bondage of the law, from whence we may infer two things: first, that the epistle was written before that council; secondly, that the solemn decision then pronounced finally settled the question; and that no one after that time would fly in the face of the council, or think lightly of the solemn words of Peter, saying, "Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" And it seems to us quite monstrous to suppose that, after having spoken thus, St. Peter himself would fly from his own words, and expose himself to no stronger reprehension than that recorded in Gal. ii. 11, if this transaction had occurred after the council. We cannot believe that Peter's sin was of so aggravated a nature as it would have been after the council; we cannot believe that Paul would have passed over such a sin without a heavier condemnation; and cannot therefore, on this account, believe that the epistle was written after the Council of Jerusalem.

Then, looking at the account which St. Paul gives, in Gal. ii., of that journey to Jerusalem, and comparing it with the journey recorded in Acts xv., it is not possible, without doing violence to both, that we can regard them as referring to the same journey. All the circumstances mentioned in the epistle show that it was on his own personal and private account that journey was

undertaken. He went "by revelation," he communicated “privately" with the apostles, and to such as were " of reputation," and that lest he should run, or had run in vain. There is not a word of a council called, or of authority given from a council; but James, Cephas, and John gave the right hand of fellowship, that Paul should preach the Gospel to the heathen, as they to the circumcision. On the contrary, the journey in Acts xv. was wholly on public grounds—not at all on private or personal grounds. It was not by revelation that they went up, but because the Church at Antioch" determined” that they should go; they were not received in private by those of reputation, but 66 they were received of the Church, and of the apostles and elders;" they declared not merely what they taught, but "the miracles and wonders which God wrought among the Gentiles by them;" and the decision of the council had no reference to preaching the Gospel to the heathen, but to a single point which had been raised in consequence of the preaching of the Gospel; namely, whether Gentiles, who believed the Gospel, were to be brought under bondage to the law. It is truly the point which St. Paul argues in the Epistle to the Galatians; but we maintain that he would not have argued it at all, but at once referred to this council, which finally settled it, if that council had been held before the time when the Epistle to the Galatians was written.

On these several grounds we hold that the epistle refers to some journey not recorded in the Acts, just as, on the contrary, the Acts records, in chap. xi., a journey which is not referred to in the epistle. And as many other of St. Paul's journeys are not alluded to in his epistles, while some of the allusions in those epistles have not been satisfactorily traced to any occurrences found in the Acts. We had marked some other points for animadversion-such as the endeavour to identify Silas, the companion of Paul, with Luke, the author of the third Gospel, and of the book of the Acts-an endeavour which we regard as ingenious rather than satisfactory; but these points we regard as of far inferior importance to the above, nor are they maintained with unbecoming confidence. And concerning the chronology of the second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus, we think it sufficient to say that we still hold with Paley, and Townsend, and Greswell, that these were written late in the life of St. Paul, when the time of his departure was at hand, during a second imprisonment at Rome, and with an interval of at least seven years after his former imprisonment.

There are some very good remarks on harmonies of the Gospels, and also on the special purpose of each Gospel-why, in