The circumstance mentioned by J. C. K. as demanding celibacy, viz. activity in the service of Christ, I have already shown, in my answer to his former letter, to be untenable. But it is likely that he considers my remarks under this head 'as irrelevant as any portion' of my letter, and, being such, of course they require no reply.' If controversy could be carried on in this quick and decisive manner, what paper, pens, and ink would have still remained in the storehouses of our manufactories!

It is now time that this controversy should end, as the point at issue is by no means so very important as J. C. K. believes; and he must remember that

'Men's judgments are like their watches,

None go aright, yet each believes his own;'

and powerful arguments, and not that logomachy which obliges an opponent to repeat his statements, can make one who differs from us in opinion incline to any of our favourite theories. I admit that in this and the former letter I have expressed my opinion strongly, as was to be expected, having been accused indirectly of interpolating' our Lord's words, by one whose arguments I consider most weak and unsatisfactory; but I have never made use of a single word that could hurt the feelings of any one. And let me inform J. C. K. that it is anything but agreeable to have an opinion stigmatised as an 'interpolation' of the words of that Book which we all venerate, by a writer who never received the least provocation.

In conclusion, let me remark that I defend (besides other reasons) my interpretation of Matt. xix. 12 from the different interpretation maintained by J. C. K. (viz. that our Lord's words are to be considered as favouring celibacy for the kingdom of heaven's sake'), because I consider it more becoming a Roman Catholic than a Protestant to defend (as it strongly favours) one of the favourite and most unscriptural dogmas of the Church of Rome.

I will now conclude this communication with a very brief remark on the Therapeutæ, which I trust will attract the notice of one, at least, of your readers.

Your correspondent who signs himself James Elmes (J. S. L., April, p. 170) has considered the origin, &c. of the Essenes more minutely than I have done, as he has not confined his excellent remarks, as I was obliged to do, to the Essenes alone, but has noticed the offshoots from this remarkable Jewish sect; and he has brought such knowledge to bear on this most interesting subject that it would, I am convinced, be highly desirable that his investigations, which seem most valuable, were published either in this Journal or through some other channel. Do try, at least, Mr. Editor, to persuade him to give us an account of the Caraites. Are they an ancient or a modern Jewish sect? Do they resemble the Essenes in any of their dogmas?

In the meantime let me mention an opinion which your valuable correspondent has not noticed, perhaps not being aware of its existence. The fact is this, that the Therapeutæ are considered by Eusebius to be Christians. After investigating, evidently with a view to establish a

favourite theory, Philo's account of the Therapeuta and Therapeutrides, this historian comes to the following conclusion:-' But whosoever desires to have a more accurate knowledge of these things may learn them from the history already cited; but that Philo, when he wrote these statements, had in view the first heralds of the gospel and the original practices handed down from the Apostles must be obvious to all' (Eccles. Hist. b. ii. ch. xvii.; I quote from Dr. Crusè's translation, not having the original at hand). To imagine that the Christian religion was so well established in Egypt at such an early period (A.D. 70) is to believe what is at variance with great historical facts. The opinion maintained by some writers, that they are to be considered as a branch of the Essenes, who had migrated from their original abode on the banks of the Dead Sea, is, I think, by far the most correct, as the Therapeutæ are mentioned by Epiphanius by the name of Essæi ' (i. e. Essenians). P. S.

August 4th, 1853.

6

*As each of the writers concerned in this controversy has written twice on the disputed topics, and as it can now have no public interest, it is desirable it should close. This opportunity is taken of stating the impossibility of inserting, in future, mere personal matters, as an injury is thereby inflicted on our readers at large. We cannot refrain from saying that we think P. S. has drawn from the statements of J. C. K. inferences which they do not justly admit of. It would be strange indeed if our dislike of Popery should lead us to deny so obvious a doctrine, that there are cases in which Christianity would be better served in the single than in the married life.-Ed. J. S. L.

ON THE RIVERS OF DAMASCUS.

DEAR SIR,-Having observed among the 'Contents' of your July number of the 'Journal of Sacred Literature,' as advertised in the papers, an article entitled 'The Rivers of Damascus,' I procured a copy of the work for the purpose of carefully perusing it. Having also, about five years ago, written a memoir on part of the same subject, I was extremely gratified to find, in reading the Rev. J. L. Porter's article, a confirmation of what I had previously written respecting Abila, and the identifying of the ancient river Abana with the modern Barada, or Barda, although I am sorry to find that the learned traveller, Dr. Lepsius, still considers the Barada to be the celebrated Farfar of the Eastern poets' (p. 401, Letters from Egypt, &c., edited by McKenzie). I take the liberty of calling your attention to my memoir, which was read before the Royal Geographical Society, 25th of June, 1849, and was published in 1850, in the Journal of that Society, vol. xx. pp. 38-48.

The second scriptural river, the Pharpar, or Pharphar—the pappap of the Septuagint is clearly more to the south of Damascus, and is most probably the present Nahr-el-Awaj. A friend (Mr. Lemprière)

having given me a copy of two inscriptions (Nos. 1 and 2), and a sketch of the spot where they were found, I attempted to translate them; not at that time being aware that M. Letronne had previously published an account of them. These inscriptions are the same as the first and second at p. 253 of your Journal, and which are nearly identical with those originally transcribed at the same place by the Count de Vidua, and from which Letronne made his comments. As Mr. Lemprière unfortunately copied these inscriptions incorrectly, in particular Mr. Porter's 1st (which is my No. 2), I had considerable difficulty in determining the latter; and how I succeeded you will learn in reading the first seven pages of my Memoir.

Mr. Porter, at p. 250, is quite correct in regarding the Lysanias of Chalcis, and the Lysanias of St. Luke as two different persons; in fact, I believe the latter to have been a relation of the former.

In my note at p. 8, I conceived it to be not improbable that the figure of the Assyrian, or Babylonian, or Chaldæan king, sculptured on the rock at Nahr-el-Kelb, might be intended for Nebuchadnezzar. I however now find that some consider it to represent Sennacheribthe monarch who lived about a century earlier; whilst others suppose it to be Shalmaneser, his father; a tablet to whom has lately been found in the opposite island of Cyprus (see Josephus, Antiq. Jud., lib. 9, cap. 14, s. 2), and is now placed in the Museum at Berlin. Mr. Porter gives, at p. 260, an interesting description of another Assyrian sculpture, which he thinks is meant for a priest, that has recently been discovered beside the remarkable hill, or mound, Tell e' Salahieh, not far to the east of Damascus. I wish this gentleman would favour us with a further account of both these remains; and especially a drawing, or a cast, of the stone, if he could not transmit the 'slab of white limestone' itself to our British Museum. I wish you would kindly communicate with him on this subject, and endeavour to procure from him a more satisfactory notice of it.

I hope Mr. Porter will also send to England for publication his map of the Antilebanon and the two lakes near Damascus; all the maps give but one lake, Bahret-el-Merj (lake of the meadow), and they place it, I think, too much to the east of that city. Mr. Porter's description of the river Pharpar, and of the true site of Helbon, famed for its wine (see Ezekiel xxvii. 18) will be very important. It is, indeed, much to be desired that a translation of the work 'On Damascus and its Vicinity,' which the monk Bulâd has been so long in preparing, should be made, and published in this country. I presume the original is written in Arabic, although he is of the Greek Church, for Mr. Porter says he is totally unacquainted with European languages.'

6

Pray try what Mr. Porter's influence can obtain from him.

Norton House, Stockton-on-Tees, Aug. 4, 1853.

JOHN HOGG.

TISCHENDORF'S NEWLY-DISCOVERED MSS.

DEAR SIR,-Your readers may be aware that Professor Tischendorf has made a second journey in the East, for the purpose of searching for Biblical Mss., &c. The following brief account of the results may be interesting, as communicated by Professor Tischendorf himself, in a letter dated July 11, 1853:

'I embrace this opportunity to give you some notice of the literary discoveries which have crowned my last expedition to Egypt, whence I returned two months ago.

'I have brought back with me seven Greek Biblical MSS. Three of these contain parts of the Old Testament. One, which is a palimpsest, as old as the fifth century, contains parts of the Pentateuch; a second, of the eighth or ninth century, is a veritable supplement [as to text] of the Vatican мs.; the third, the writing of which perfectly resembles that of the Dialogues of Plato, at Oxford, contains the whole of the book of Judges and that of Ruth; its text is very curious and important.

'But the others, which relate to the New Testament, will be of greater interest for you. Twenty-eight leaves of a palimpsest, in uncial letters of the fifth century, take a place amongst our MSS. of the highest class. Such readings as that of the мs. A, siç ròν TÓTOV (John xx. 25), are confirmed by this palimpsest. Two other Mss. are of the eighth and ninth centuries; one of these contains the two Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, the other fragments of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, and the whole of that of St. Luke. Both of these are more curious in a critical point of view than E G H K M SU V. One of them, in the passage St. Luke iii. 23-38, confirms almost all the readings of B L. The other has in John v. 1, ǹ έoprǹ τwv åšúμwv; it is enriched with scholia, which sometimes possess a critical value. My fourth New Testament мs. is dated 1054; it contains the Acts of the Apostles, wanting six or seven chapters. I was much surprised at the perfect agreement of this Ms. with A B C, and the other ancient Mss. But I must tell you that I have not yet found more than a few moments to devote to an exact examination of all these мss., as well as of others which are not Biblical.

'Amongst the Arabic fragments which I have brought with me there is one Ms. of the eighth century (the date of another fixes the century of this one); it contains five epistles of St. Paul; this version is as yet unknown.

I also possess a Syriac palimpsest of fifty leaves, as old, at least, as the fifth century. The fragments of the Gospels which M. Tuch has deciphered prove that this Syriac version adheres more scrupulously to the Greek than any other Syriac text that is known.'

These discoveries of Professor Tischendorf appear to be of great value.

Yours, very truly,

S. P. TREGELLES.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

The New Polyglott Bible with 50,000 references. Glasgow:
W. R. M'Phun.

We notice this work, which we know only by its title, for the purpose of calling attention to the glaring misnomer perpetrated by it. We wish we could have to review a new Polyglott Bible published in England; but this has only the misapplied name to boast of, being not a Bible of many languages, as that name would indicate, but simply an English one, with marginal references. For the nineteenth century, which may justly boast of its efforts in biblical learning this is really too bad.

There is a little history connected with this matter, which we will briefly relate. Some years ago the Messrs. Bagster published a Polyglott Bible on a new plan the only new Polyglott Bible which England has produced since the days of Walton and his illustrious colleagues consisting of the Scriptures in the originals and in various versions, so arranged that while published together in one folio volume, they could also be had separately, with this advantageous peculiarity, that they corresponded page for page, and could thus be used in ways which the folio collection did not allow of. Among these versions there was the English Bible, with many marginal references, on a new plan, and this, when published separately, was called by them, and is still called, the English Version of the Polyglott.' This edition of the English Scriptures became very popular, and being associated with the name Polyglott, others were set on foot on a similar plan, but without a similar reason have been called Polyglott Bibles. There is not only great ignorance in this, but also something that savours strongly of literary piracy. The Bible of Messrs. Bagster was really a part of a Polyglott, and therefore might with some propriety bear the name, but that of Mr. M'Phun can only appropriate it by a gross misapplication of terms, and by taking away what properly belongs to a neighbour.

We have observed, too, in advertisements of Bibles by another publishing house, another instance of petty larceny at the expense of Messrs. Bagster. They first, we believe, adopted as their motto the line of Homer, which reads, in Latin—

'Multæ terricolis linguæ, cœlestibus una ;'

an inscription of great felicity, when applied to Bibles in various languages. Now we see this motto is pirated in connection with what are called Polyglott Bibles, by a London publisher, by no means, we think, to his credit. Surely there are terms enough applicable to Bibles