prophet Jonah; and particularly of his having been entombed in a large fish, which is supposed to have been a whale.

As a preliminary observation, our author begins with referring to a position exemplified by himself in a former publication; namely, that the miracles recorded in Scripture are generally pointed and significant; not only exhibiting marks of super-natural power, but uniformly referring to the history and religion of the persons concerned with them, being adapted to the circumstances of those who are to suffer, or to be admonished by their punishment, After subjoining to these other pertinent remarks, and showing that the difficulties which attend this history arise from prejudice, and ill-founded opinions too blindly entertained, Mr. Bryant is in hopes, as they are not equally strong in all, to gain a few proselytes to the truth, by placing this, together with the other subjects he professes to treat, in lights under which they have not hitherto been seen.

With this laudable motive, Mr. Bryant begins with pointing out the region and place where Balaam resided, whom he states to have been of Midian, and to have dwelt at Pethor, called by the Grecians Petra:' where, he adds, a city and oracular ten.ple had been founded, in which Balaam appears to have been chief priest. It is, however, to be observed, that many objections oppose themselves to this statement. In the first place, Mr. Bryant takes, Pethor, to have been a city, and the same which the Greeks called spa, Petra: but this, we fear, will be considered a gratis dictum; for the Seventy render it Babeça, or, according to a various reading, more correctly, absp, Phathura, in Numbers, whilst, in Deuteronomy, the name is omitted :τον Βαλααμ ύιον Βεωρ Πο εκ της Μεσοποταμιας. Ch. 23, 7. Hence it follows that the idendity of ethor and Petra rests upon Mr. Bryant's apprehension that both were originally the same, notwithstanding himself hath cited Eusebius, who expressly mentions Phathura as a city of Mesopotamia, where Balaam dwelt: ΦΑΘΟΥΡΑ, ήπερ της Μεσοποταμίας πολις, ενθα ην Βαλααμο. This, though followed by Jeron, our author affirms to be no authority, unaware, as we believe, that the Seventy are against him. That Petra in Greek is the same as Pethor in Hebrew, or was used for it, we can never be brought to admit. In the xxii chap. of Numbers, v. 5, where the name first occurs, it is expressed indeed : but the final 7, having the force of the preposition ad in Latin, and signifying to, by no means can be deemed correspondent to a, and so making Pethor conversible with Petra; as 50, or Pelhor, with the preposition, from, decidedly shows..

Mr. Bryant, in the second place, fixes the abode of Balaam. in Midian; and, to show its vicinity to Moab, distinguishes two regions under that name, making that to which he assigns Balaam a province upon the river Arnon, and in the vicinity

of the ancient Horites, and of the children of Edom; with. whom the Midianites seem to have been incorporated.' But surely the evidence cited for this distinction, so far from warranting it, implies, if we mistake not, the very reverse (see Kings, xi, 17, 18); and we are confirmed in our opinion, by the best geographical authority on these subjects: MAAS's German Translation of BACHIENNE's historical and geographical Description of Palestine,' vol. I, part ii, maps first and second. But if, instead of two cities named Fetra by the Grecians and Midians, there were twenty, not one of them would apply to the dwelling-place of Balaam, which, according to Moses, was Pethor in Mesopotamia. Mr. Bryant, however, in p. 12, makes the city Petra, with which he is concerned, to be in Midian and Edom, though, if we understood him aright, he before had placed it on the river Arnon (see p. 8), as he again does in p. 18. Thus, then, if the text of Deuteronomy be genuine, and the researches of former geographers of authority, Pethor, taken for Petra, is brought across the Euphrates, and placed in Moab, Edom, and Midian.

Again, were we to allow, with Mr. Bryant, in opposition to Jerom, Eusebius, and the Seventy, that no such city as Phathura (that is, Pethor) existed in Mesopotamia, would this be an objection to the reading in Deuteronomy? for there is nothing either there, or where the term occurs in Numbers, which affirms that such term relates to a city. Pethor in itself signifies an oracle, from D to interpret; and it is to this signification Mr. Bryant refers, to show the sense of Petra, as an oracular temple. It remains then to examine, whether the other reasons alleged will warrant Mr. Bryant's assertion, that Balaam never came from any trans-Euphratensian region.' In opposition to the passage m Deuteronomy, it is argued, when a single expression in Scripture is contrary to the whole tenour of the history, where all is repeatedly plain and consistent, we cannot but suspect there is a mistake;' and this is supported by adding, that, if there exists any truth in history, and any trust to be reposed in the Sacred Writings, the prophet came in a contrary direction, and from a different country.' This, it must be confessed, is strong language: let us examine its grounds. In Numbers, xxii, 5, which is the only other passage that refers to the abode of Balaam, it is said that Pethor, or the oracle, to which the messengers of Balak were sent, was situated by, BEYOND the river of his people; that is, which formed their western boundary, or severed them from Syria. If, now, we consult Josephus, he will tell us what river this was; for, from this very passage, he expressly relates that Balaam came an' Euppatcu, across the Euphrates; and again mentions, after his dismission, his purpose of re-passing it homeward: i de aπwv nôn, xạ tự πepaiour toy kupata gerous. Hence, then, it is evident that the

pas

sage in Deuteronomy is NOT a single expression,' as Mr. Bryant represents, which places the abode of Balaam beyond the Euphrates; but that it is one of only two in Scripture which mentions it, is to the same effect; for, though Mr. Bryant hath cited Judges xxiv, 25, of our translation, in conjunction with xxxi, 7, 8, to show that place was in Midian, the conclusion is erroneous, as to the fact itself, and arises from his not having consulted the original, which demands a different construction, implying, not that he immediately proceeded to his own home, but, on the contrary, made some stay in Midian, in hope of regaining the favour of Balak (see Numbers xxv, ii.); and, with this view, projected the stratagem for seducing the Israelites, which cost him his life: Numbers xxxi, 16-7, 8. Revelat. ii, 14. Consistently, and confirmative of this statement, is the narration of Josephus (Vol. i. p. 213. 218), as well as the express terms of the original.

There is another observation of Mr. Bryant, which, if correct, we freely confess would afford an unanswerable argument; and, as he mainly relies upon it, we will here give it at length.

αυτού

A

The situation of Moab has been shewn, and may be further proved from Josephus. Εστι δε χωρίον τριών μεταξύ ποταμων κείμενον, ὅμοιον τη νήσῳ την φυσιν ὑπαρχον, του μεν Αρίωνος από μεσημβρίας ορίζοντος ακτάς Κβακκιν δε την Αρκτώαν αυτου πλευραν περιγράφοντος. Antig. lib. iv. cap. v. p. 211. The land of Moab lies between three rivers, and appears in a manner insular; being bounded by the Arnon to the south, and by the Jaboc, which marks its limits, to the north. The river Jordan is its boundary to the west. The place to which Balaam had his summons, was directly south of the Euphrates, and near Pisgah, Nebo, and Peur, close by Jordan, in the most western part of the country.

When, therefore, we are told, Numbers, chap. xxii. ver. 26, that the king of Moab went to meet the prophet at a city, which was upon the Arnon to the south, it must have been impossible, if BaJaam had come from the opposite side of the Euphrates, and Mesopotamia; or from any place to the east, near Babylon, at the further extremity of the desert. Nobody goes south to meet a person coming from the north; nor west, if he be journeying from the east. He must, to gain an interview, proceed in an opposite, or at least a ditterent direction. This, according to the history, was done; and Balaam, by a different route, came to the borders of the river Arnot, and met him. There, upon the high places of Baal, he performed his rites to that Deity.

The method pursued in this embassy to the prophet is to be remarked. The Israelites are said to have been in the plain of Moab: and Balak, the son of Zippor, was king of the Moabites at that time. He sent messengers to Balaam, the son of Beor, to Pethur. These consisted of the elders of Moab, and the elders of Midian; who departed with the rewards of divination in their hands. Numbers, chap. xxii. ver. 2.7. These went to Pethor in Midian, and had an interview with the prophet. The elders of Midian being added to those of Moab,

shows, that there subsisted a connection and relation between them and him; and an influence in consequence of it. Nothing can prove more satisfactorily, than that Pethor was in Midian, and than Balaam was of the country.' P. 84.

But, as the whole of this reasoning is founded on the passage from Josephus, it must inevitably fall to the ground, when we add that Mr. Bryant has here mistaken the land of the Amorites for that of the Moabites, for the words of MOAB,' in his translation, have no existence in Josephus, and are utterly incompatible with the context. Now, as Arnon was, according to this passage of Josephus, the southern boundary of the Amorites, and the northern of Moab, when Balak went to meet Balaam, on his way from the Euphrates unto a city of Moab, which is in the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost coast; (Numbers, xxii, 36) instead of going southward, he proceeded towards the north. It therefore follows, that Pethor, whence Balaam came, might have been in Mesopotamia, but, upon Mr. Bryant's own ground of argument, could not have been in Moab, Edom, or Midian; for, as these all lay southward of the Ar non, nobody goes north to meet a person coming from the south.'

Mr. Bryant, however, has a further proof' behind. This is deduced from the place called Aram Naharaim: Deuter. xxiii, 5.

This was thus denominated, to distinguish it from Aram Zobak, and several other regions of the same name, and to denote that particular part, where there were two rivers; for that is the purport of Naharaim. The one was the Aborras, upon which stood Haram, where Terah, Nahor, and Laban dwelt; and from which Abraham departed, when he came to Canaan. The other river was the Euphrates, into which the former ran. But Balaam came from a land of one river. Numbers, chap. xxii. ver. 5, the land of the river of his people. This would never have been thus particularized, and limited, if he had come from a region of more than one.' P. 85.

That Aram of the two rivers-for such is the import of the terms-was, in Hebrew, the country between the Euphrates and Tigris (that is, Mesopotamia), we believe has never hitherto been disputed. Indeed, Mr. Bryant, from all that has gone before, admits it, though he now offers a different explanation. The only difference, however, which it makes, is, that, while one of these two rivers is confessed to be the Euphrates, the other, instead of being the Tigris, is by his position the Aborras. Be it so still this Aram, the region between these rivers, was, in Mr. Bryant's own words, the country where Terah, Nahor, and Laban, dwelt, and from which Abraham departed when he came to Canaan,' and, according to St. Stephen, no other than Mesopotamia. (See Acts vii, 2.) But Balaam, ar

gues Mr. Bryant, could not have been of this country; for he came from a land of one river. Numbers xxii, 5, the land of the river of his people. This,' he adds, would never have been thus particularised, and limited, if he had come from a region of more than one river.' But this inference is not conclusive. When it is said of a person from the south of Scotland, and in the vicinity of the Tweed, that he comes from that river, does it thence follow that there is no such river in his country as the Clyde?-The reason of mentioning one river only in the country of Balaam is obvious. It was by far the most considerable known to all that part of Asia -the river which divided Chaldea from Syria, and that upon which Pethor, or the Oracle, existed. Hence, the Euphrates, upon whose opposite side-in reference to both Balak and the historian-Balaam dwelt, was properly particularised as the rizer of the land of his people.

Mr. Bryant has offered other considerations in support of his hypothesis, which it will be proper also to consider. The first of these arises from his view of the great desert of the north, 'the narrowest part of which could not be passed but with camels and by caravans. This is inferred, from the circumstance that the armies under the direction of Crassus, Antonius, Trajan, Julian, and Gordian, never attempted to pass this way towards Babylon and the east, but went about by Syria north, and crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma, or Cercusium, the place, at this day, that probably is called Bir, which seems to be a contraction of 8, abir, or abor, locus transitus. All the armies of the Assyrians came this indirect way, and returned by the same route.'

In reply to these observasjons, many things might be alleged. We are left much in the dark as to the motives which directed the marches of those armies, concerning which, and their leaders, we know so little. Nor is it by any means clear that Mr. Bryant has fixed the point of transition; for Bir, in the sense of focus transitús, or a place of passage, could never have come from

, which signifies to be strong; whence Bir might signify a fortress; but is here confounded with 727, transire, to pass over. Yet, in whatever direction armies were accustomed to pass, it is certain that Nebuchadnezzar, after his conquests in Judea, Phoenicia, and Egypt, on hearing of his father's death, immediately crossed the desert with a few attendants, and left the army, with its prisoners and booty, to follow. Indeed, Mr. Bryant himself admits that it was often passed, and cites the instance of Abraham's servant, and of Jacob. But, though the former had ten camels to subserve his wants, the circumstances of the history show the latter to have gone quite unattended; whilst Balaam was accompanied, not only by his two servants, but by the princes of Balak, who appear to have been of