brew Bible can be satisfied with it. In no part of that book is the Sanctuary denominated the heaven. Of what value is such criticism as the following?

In the dedication of the Temple by Solomon (1 Kings ch. viii.) several things are remarkable-"I have surely built thee an house (says Solomon in his address to JEHOVAH) to dwell in, A SETtled "PLACE [Heb. n, literally a PREPARED PLACE] for thee to abide "in (v. 13). And Solomon stood before the Altar of JEHOVAH, in "the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his "hands towards heaven"-[Hebrew Down, "THE HEAVEN"] v. 22. What heaven? Not the region of the clouds, which is sometimes called heaven, as in v. 35-" When heaven (DDw without the pre"fixed) is shut up, and there is no rain," &c. ; nor the heaven above, for in this chapter particular pains are taken to distinguish this heaven from that of which Solomon principally speaks in his dedicatory prayer, by contrasting it with the earth beneath, as in v. 23., "There "is no GOD like thee in THE HEAVEN ABOVE nor on THE EARTH “BENEATH;”—and in v. 27. the heaven of Solomon (for he made it, as we shall see immediately) is actually put in contrast with the hea ven above: "But will GOD indeed DWELL ON THE EARTH? [viz. at "Jerusalem] behold THE HEAVEN, [that which Solomon built for "him to dwell in at Jerusalem,] yea THE HEAVEN OF HEA"VENS [the heaven above,] cannot contain thee, how much less THIS "HOUSE which I have built." In fact, the place of God's dwelling or sitting, (for the Hebrew means either,) wherever supposed to be, is called HEAVEN, which is only another name for his dwelling-place, whether the heaven above (otherwise called the Heaven of heavens) be intended, or a prepared place of dwelling, made by his appointment, wherein to give a sensible manifestation of his presence on the earth.' pp. 345-7.

'But in 2 Chron. vii. 1. a circumstance of great importance is noticed, which is not stated in the book of Kings:-" And when Solomon "had ended his prayer, and the fire descended FROM THE HEAVEN, and "consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; for the brightness of "JEHOVAH had filled the house; then the priests could not enter into "the house of JEHOVAH, because the brightness (or glory) of JEHO"VAH had filled the house of JEHOVAH." The answer thus given to the prayer of Solomon, in the presence of all the worshippers, gave evidence that GOD had accepted the house, the sanctuary,-the heaven, the place prepared for his sitting; for the fire here spoken of descended, not from "heaven above," but, from the heaven, THE PREPARED PLACE,—from the cloud which covered the mercy-seat in the holy of the holies.' p. 351.

The fire is not said to have come out from the Sanctuary, or from the cloud which covered the mercy seat. The fire Down

descended from heaven. In 2 Kings i. 10, the same expression occurs; and certainly the fire which destroyed the fifty captains, did not proceed from the Temple: like the fire which

consumed the sacrifices of Solomon, it came down from the heaven above. We are surprised that any such interpretation should be given of 1 Kings viii. 27, as that which we have copied from the Author in the former part of the preceding extract :-Behold the heavens, (the Sanctuary built by Solomon) yea, the heaven of heavens (the heaven above) cannot contain thee, how much less this house which I have built.The Sanctuary, a part of the Temple, cannot confine the Divine Majesty ; much less can the whole Temple. Or, the Temple, the house erected by Solomon, cannot contain thee; how much less can the Temple, the house built by Solomon, contain thee!

In concluding our notice of this work, we are anxious to do justice to the merits of the Author. He may fairly be repre

. sented as having brought under the notice of biblical students some very interesting topics, and he has furnished many ingenious and curious remarks on the several subjects of his Dissertations, although, in but too many cases, he has exhibited them in a crude and unsubstantial form.

Art. V. History of the European Languages; or Researches into

the Affinities of the Teutonic, Greek, Celtic, Sclavonic, and Indian Nations. By the late Alexander Murray, D.D. Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of Edinburgh. With a Life of the Author. 2 vols. 8vo. pp. cxxviii, 976. Price 11. 8s.

Edinburgh, 1823. THAT the word breeches is derived from bear-riches, and

barbecued from Bladud-kuid,- that the verb was the first invented part of speech, and that all the languages of Europe are composed of the elementary radicals, Ag, bag, dag, gag, lag, mag, nag, rag, and sag ;-such is the purport of the information and train of reasoning which occupy 480 pages of text, and nearly 500 of Facts and Illustrations in these bulky volumes. The meaning which the Author considered as attaching to each of these radicals, will be best explained by the following extract. Well might he preface it with the remark, that ' Taste and philosophy will receive with aversion the rude • syllables which are the base of that medium through which • Homer, and Milton, and Newton have delighted or illumined • mankind.'

* 1. To strike or move with swift equable penetrating or sharp effect was Ag! Ag!

• If the motion was less sudden, but of the saine species, WAG. • If made with force and a great effort, Hwag.

6

6

These are varieties of one word, originally used to mark the motion of fire, water, wind, darts.

II. To strike with a quick, vigorous, impelling force, BAG or BWAG, of which FAG and PAG are softer varieties.

II. To strike with a harsh, violent, strong blow, DwAG, of which THWAG and TWAG are varieties.

IV. To move or strike with a quick tottering unequal impulse, GWAG or CWAG.

V. To strike with a pliant slap, LAG and HLAG.

VI. To press by strong force or impulse so as to condense, bruise, or compel, MAG.

VII. To strike with a crushing destroying power, NAG and HNAG.

VIII. To strike with a strong, rude, sharp, penetrating power, RAG or HRAG.

IX. To move with a weighty strong impulse, SwAG.

These NINE WORDS are the foundations of language, on which an edifice has been erected of a more useful and wonderful kind, than any which have exercised human ingenuity. They were uttered at first, and probably for several generations, in an insulated manner. The circumstances of the actions were communicated by gestures, and the variable tunes of the voice; but the actions themselves were expressed by their suitable monosyllable. External objects are known only by their qualities: each quality was considered as an agent: the character of its actions suggested the appropriate syllable, which was the verb, noun, and adjective of that quality, at the pleasure of the speaker. When fire burnt or moved in a stream of flame, AG denoted its action, itself, and its bright or penetrating quality. When water yielded to the pressure of the foot or hand, it was wAG: when it rushed in a stream, it was RAG. When a man simply moved along, the term was WAG: when he moved by quick steps, it was GAG; but if he ran, it was RAG. If he struck another a vigorous blow with his fist, the word was BAG; if he did the same with a staff or branch of a tree, it was LAG; if he stabbed him with a sharp object, it was RAG; if he dashed him down to the ground, it was DWAG; and if he put him to death by bruising him when fallen, the expres sion was MAG. For the same reasons the names of objects varied. WAG was moving, GAG was going, RAG was running, BAG was beating, LAG was laying or licking. RAG was wounding or cutting, DAG was striking violently, and MAG was murder.

When any of the actions denoted by these primitive words was rapidly done in a diminished manner, and with less force, the broad sound of the proper syllable was changed into a slender one. Thus LIG was a slight blow: DIG, and TIG, and RIG, were diminutives of DAG, TAG, and RAG, whether used as verbs or nouns.'

'Satin' sanus aut sobrius? is a question which most persons will be disposed to ask respecting the learned visionary who could coolly state, that mankind had only to strike, and to invent these nine monosyllables to express the idea of striking, VOL. XXIII. N.S.

2 H

and that having articulated them with corresponding gestures for several generations, they at length learned to frame this rude gamut into the infinite diversities of speech.Language,' says Dr. Murray, was formed by man in the exercise of perception, memory, abstraction, and judgement, the natural 'faculties of the human mind.' The imperfect system of communication of thought, formed by children and the deaf, in 'civilized nations, is the principal one still in use among savages: it must have been the only one before the introduction of articulate speech.' (pp. 28, 9.) That the inventors of our parent tongue were rational, though rude in speech, is not to be disputed!!' It was formerly believed, that there was once a time when mankind were mutum et turpe pecus; and Vitruvius tells us, that they snored away their time in caves of the rocks and dens of the earth, till accident having given birth to fire, which at first terrified, but afterwards attracted and warmed them, they gesticulated, grunted, groaned, and herding together, at last, spoke. Ita sermones inter se procreaverunt. Strange things lie hidden in this same philosophy. The sages, however, have not vouchsafed to inform us at what period in the history of man this universal dumbness existed. Æschylus makes Prometheus say, Εξευρον 'αυτοῖς γραμμαίων το συνθέσεις

I found out for them (mankind) the composition of letters,' or the art of writing. But no one has ever arrogated to himself, or had ascribed to him, the invention of speech. It is an invention, say the philosophers, which was made by somebody, at some time, and in some place; and Dr. Murray tells us that the inventors were rational.' It is unnecessary to be more particular, for-il n'y a que moi au monde qui a toujours raison.

we will not contend that point with them, believing that there was then neither human speech nor human existence; and that if God had not conferred on man the gift of speech as well as existence, he could no more have invented it, than the dog could his barking, the cat her mewing, or the bird its song; no more in fact, than he could have created himself. Such is the true origin of language. Speech is the gift of the Creator. He willed and man spake. The boon, once conferred, became like the breath in our nostrils,-a universal viaticum to the species.

Seeing, however, that there was originally but one speech or language, the question naturally suggests itself, whence have arisen all the varieties that now prevail over the face of the whole earth? We would meet this query by putting another: Whence have proceeded all the diversities of form and feature which are observed in the species in different parts of the globe? For every reason that the physiologist can assign for these diversities, we will engage to assign ten reasons for a still greater diversity in the accents of the voice, and ultimately in language. Take what is called the Caucasian family, whereever the scattered branches of that family are found,-in India, Egypt, Barbary, Greece, Italy,-and they may be shewn to be not more specifically characterised by a peculiar physiognomical conformation, than by a universal adherence to the basis of a particular language and articulation. Equally marked is the Mongolian family by the Chinese, Japanese, and Calmuc peculiarities. The African, American, and Malay have not been so accurately examined; but, so far as they have been, the results are found to be similar.-different features, different articulation; the conformation varying with the speech. So that, in the grand dixn anlar, it is not lo yua es Το ταν, nor το λαμδα προς το ο; but it is the Shiboleth προς το Siboleth all the world over. Take as a familiar example, the manner in which different nations pronounce the proper name George. A Spaniard writes it Jorge, pronouncing it Xox, remarkably guttural. Were a Cockney required to imitate the pronunciation of the word, he would call it Corky. Many a Scot would call it Coalky, in which not a vestige of the original word, in form, meaning, or pronunciation, would be left. Ask an Arab to pronounce Corky, and he would call it Gorky; or the word would become softened, in some of the Syrian dialects, to Djorke; (the actual name of St. George in Syria is Mar Djordos;) while the Bohemian would call it Yorky. And thus, we might run through the whole alphabet, all nations dropping and changing letters as caprice, ignorance, or physical peculiarities may dictate. The Arabic language wants