Testament, the history of his being actually sent away, as a non-participator in the blessings promised to Abraham. When, now, the Apostle says äriva, &c. he appears to refer to these circumstances just enumerated. He refers to these, and introduces them for the sake of the allegorical form which they enabled him to give to his argument.

We have endeavoured already to forestall an objection that may be made; that, in the Epistle, the two women are brought forward into a prominency, and an importance is given to them which are not sustained by the explanation which has been given. Reference was made to similar instances in the parables of Christ, and the number might be greatly increased. The same reference will bear out the modification and limitation, which must be made in the sense of several of the terms used. The most important one of these is aaanyopoúμενα. It is granted that the strict, full meaning of the word, as shown above, is not exactly preserved, i. e. that the narrative quoted is not really and strictly an allegory, in the rhetorical signification of that term. But it is maintained, that the circumstances which have been enumerated did give the whole passage an allegorical exterior; and, as it had the outward form, so Paul applies to it the name of allegory, though in that limited sense which facts show to be the true one. Further, it is very easy to show that similar uses of words and modifications of meanings appear very frequently in the New Testament. Some of the New Testament uses of dai μων, βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, λόγος, &c. are instances of this sort. Nay, in the very passage under consideration, we have several examples of this fact; tỹ võv 'Ieρουσαλήμ to denote the Mosaic dispensation ; ἐλευθέρα, and especially ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ. All these words have attached to them, in this passage, meanings of which no examples could be brought from classical or Jewish writers. But in this, and similar cases, the derivation of the particular use of a word, from the known and usual one, is so clear, and so clearly pointed out by all the circumstances and connections, that no doubt can remain as to its proper acceptation. In this way, we clearly understand Ispovoaλu to signify the covenant of grace; and, in the same way, it may be inferred, that in using the term άaaŋyopoźμɛva, the Apostle refers, to the corresponding relation sustained by Sarah, and by the covenant of grace to Isaac; and by Hagar, and the temporal part of the Abrahamic covenant to Ishmael; also to

ανώ

the fact of Isaac's being one of the whole number of Abraham's spiritual seed, and Ishmael one of the multitude of those not of this number; and lastly, to the casting out of Ishmael, as the actual consummation of his exclusion from the spiritual inheritance; an exemplification and earnest of the exclusion of all who are not united to Christ and to Abraham by faith.

It was not originally intended, nor is it now, to enter into the particular illustration of all the phraseology of the passage. This has been often done already by abler hands, and I have nothing new to offer. No objection can, as I conceive, be drawn from any part of the passage not yet noticed, unless it be the first part of v. 25. Τὸ γὰς ̓́Αγας Σινᾶ ἔζος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ 'Agaßia. This passage is variously read, and variously interpreted, and even its genuineness has been called in question. Almost all agree in throwing it at least into a parenthesis; since, if the passage be read without it, every thing is plain and natural. The reading of dé for yág is of little or no importance. The word "Ayag is omitted by many witnesses, viz. of MSS. E. F. G. 17 (probably) and a.; by the Ethiopian, Armenian, and Vulgate versions, and of the Fathers, by Cyril in some places, Epiphanius, John Damascenus, Origen, Ambrosiaster in his text, Jerome, Augustine, Sedulius, and Beda. This reading is preferred by many of the latest commentators. Then the word will mean, "for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia." But did the Galatian Christians need to be told where Mount Sinai was, especially after the teachers of the law had been preaching so zealously and so effectually among them? Or was Paul in the habit of throwing in such geographical notices into the midst of a warm argument on the doctrines of faith in Christ, especially when the notice answers no purpose? Vater says that the variations are so many, and the testimonies so divided, that the true reading cannot be determined. This one from the considerations just offered, may safely be rejected. On less authority depends the omission of the word zwa. The words then will read, "for Hagar (i. e. the word Hagar) signifies 'mountain' in Arabia." Nothing could be more tame. To notice the accidental coincidence of the name of one of the parties he had introduced, with an Arabic word, signifying a mountain, seems beneath the sobriety of an Apostle. Besides the Arabic word is not, the Hebrew name of Hagar, nor yet "Ayag, according to the Greek, but n It is

true the letters and are sometimes interchanged in the different dialects, (See Gesenius) but this will not justify the use made of the fact. According to this rendering identity is required. And further, the primitive and common meaning of is, as commentators say, not a mountain, but a stone, a rock; and then a rocky place or country. So that its application to a mountain is secondary, and then has reference to its being a rocky one. On the whole, it may be said of this reading, it gives a sense tame and irrelevant, and is not supported by sufficient authority. The common reading which retains both the words, is best supported. It has been rendered in two ways. By the first the words rò "Ayag are referred to the woman-"for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia." But the neuter article à forbids this rendering, and the idea would be a mere repetition of that immediately preceding. The neuter article permits but one translation, "for in Arabia, Hagar is (i. e. is the name of) Mount Sinai. The most learned of the late commentators say, proof is wanting that Mount Sinai was ever called Hagar. Blomfield, however, remarks that the fact is asserted by all the ancient commentators, and especially Chrysostom, himself, a native of the east. Grotius says there was a city near Mount Sinai, called by Pliny, "Aypa, by Dion Cassius, 'Ayapa; that Strabo and Stephanus call the nation that inhabited it 'Axparot, which was changed by the later Greeks into 'Ayapηvoś. If this testimony is admitted, and I know not why it is objected to, it will indeed be true that Hagar, or rather Agar, is the name of Mount Sinai; but still there are very serious objections to the words, and objections that put their genuineness very much in question. The variety of readings, so great as to make it impossible to arrive even at strong probability as to the genuine words, is a circumstance throwing great suspicion upon it. Such variety is always a circumstance connected with interpolation: for instance, the subscriptions to the epistle. Again, its character is just that of a marginal gloss. Geographical, historical, and other notices were frequently written in the margin of manuscripts, and thence by the next copyist inserted into the text. Two or three instances will illustrate this remark. In Acts, xii. 1. after the words, "Herod the king," one copy reads, "he who was called Agrippa." The last part of v. 10. of the same chapter, reads thus: "and they went out and descended the seven steps, and passed through one street," &c. See also Clark on Acts, x.

24. and xi. 1. That the words under examination are of a character similar to these glosses is manifest. But the greatest objection to the genuineness of the words is the meaning they give. "Now Hagar is the name of Mount Sinai, in Arabia." For what purpose this notice that the name of the bond-woman, and of Mount Sinai were the same? The Apostle is, according to every interpretation given of the passage, comparing Hagar to the law or dispensation promulgated from Mount Sinai, not to Sinai itself. It would seem then to be the merest trifling to notice the identity of these names. For the reasons mentioned, and others, some as Bentley, Kuster, have maintained that the words are a gloss, and ought to be thrown out of the text. Koppe remarks, that the reading then would be elegant, and that this solution of the difficulty would be worthy of adoption, if there were only absolute need of it. His own solution does not prove the absence of this necessity, and let the reader judge for himself how much the considerations offered, prove its existence.

Whatever meaning can be deduced from the words, sup. posing them genuine, appears to me, nearly or quite as relevant to the interpretation of the passage which has been given as to any other. To that of the "double sense," it can have no relevancy whatever. For, as has been just seen, Hagar is the symbol, not of Sinai, but of the Sinaitic covenant, and the coincidence of name, was not only originally untrue, but was not at all necessary to her being actually a type. Perhaps on the German or on Borger's plan, the propriety or relevancy of such a reference to the coincidence of name, might be less questioned than on the present one. But it has been remarked that in parables and allegories, circumstances were introduced to finish out or to enliven a picture, and influenced the choice of terms, which are not in the explanation, to be granted all that importance which they apparently sustain. Of how much weight then against the interpretation given, is the objection, that, admitting it, the words "à yàg "Ayag,” &c. have very little object or relevancy?

ART. V.-DE SACY'S ARABIC GRAMMAR.

Grammaire Arabe, à l'usage des élèves de l'école spéciale des langues Orientales vivantes; avec figures. Par M. le Baron Silvestre de Sacy. Seconde édition, corrigée et augmentée, à laquelle on a joint un Traité de la Prosodie et de la Métrique des Arabes. Paris, imprimé par autorisation du Roi, à l'imprimerie Royale, 1831. 2v. 8vo. pp. 608. 697.

EVERY dabbler in bibliography knows the difference between the republican and loyal copies of the London Polyglott. On grounds somewhat analogous, this may be called the Royal edition of De Sacy's Grammar, in contradistinction from the Imperial one of 1810. There is something amusing in the political mutations of the learned Baron's title-pages. If we recollect aright, the library, whose exhaustless stores afforded the materials of his 'Notices et Extraits,' assumes in three successive volumes of that work, the epithets National, Imperial, and Royal, none of which is indeed too lofty for so noble a collection.

To the eye, this new edition of the Grammaire Arabe differs from the old, in nothing so much as the whiteness of the paper. The Arabic type appears to be the same. The bulk of both the volumes is indeed enlarged, a circumstance which led us to expect more alteration than we found upon inspection. We are, in truth, surprised to find that twenty years of unremitted and perhaps exclusive application to this branch of study, have produced so little change in the contents and character of this repository. Every step of our comparison reminded us, that what we were examining was not the product of the German steam-mill. A German author seems to think a reprint a dishonour. It is not enough that he can represent his work as enlarged, corrected, and improved. Unless the talismanic term umgearbeitet can be added, his soul remains unsatisfied. This vice, if such it be, without all controversy leans to virtue's side. It generates a habit of dissatisfaction with the least defect or error, which cannot fail to stimulate the author and maintain his watchfulness. Like every thing else, however, it may be perverted; and it is. With all its salutary influence, it has had no small VOL. IV. No. IV.—3 Z