from the comparison made by Josephus between the ordinary cubit of the Jews and the Attic cubit: for this cubit, being deduced from the proportion natural to it in common with the Greek foot, consisting of 1,360 parts or tenths of a line of the Paris foot, makes 2,040 of the same parts, or 204 lines or 17 inches. Let us recollect moreover what has been quoted above from Ezekiel, in treating of the measure of the temple, when he directs the Jews of Babylon to employ a cubit longer by a hand breadth than the ordinary one, in rebuilding the temple. This hand breadth being no other than the smaller palm or tophach, have we not here a formal distinction between two cubits, the shorter of which appears to have been in common use. But, in allowing that the smaller cubit was introduced during the time of the second temple, we might, from delicacy, and to shun any violation of the divine precept, which enjoins but one weight and one measure, be willing to reject the cubit in question for the time preceding the captivity; which, however, we should be absolutely authorized to do by the silence of Scripture, since, in Deut. iii. 11. the measure of the bedstead of Og, king of Bashan, is given in cubits taken from the natural proportion of the human body, after the cubit of a man, or, according to the Vulgate, ad mensuram cubiti virilis manus. Though an indefinite number of measures, which enlarge upon their natural principles; for example, all that bear the name of a foot, without entering into further details; sufficiently authorize the denomination of cubit, in a measure of such length as the Hebrew and Egyptian cubit appear to have been; still the consideration of those principles is frequently essential in the discussion of measures, and ought not to be lost sight of. It was to this that I owed the discovery of the natural foot, the measure and use of which I have discussed in my Treatise on Itinerary Measures. We have then, in this memoir, an analysis of the Hebrew measures, which, though independent of all particular application, nevertheless agrees with the measure of the circumference of Jerusalem and the extent of the temple, according to the deduction of that measure from the various indications of antiquity compared with local circumstances. There appears to be such a connection between the different objects here brought together, that they seem dependent on each other, and to afford, as far as they are concerned, a mutual confirmation.

DISCUSSION OF THE ARABIAN CUBIT.

I promised, in treating of an article relative to the measure of the temple, to enter into a discussion of the Arabian cubit after I had finished with the Hebrew measures.

This cubit, deraga or derah, is of three kinds; the ancient, the common, and the black. The first, which is thus named from having existed, as it is said, in the time of the Persians, consists of 32 fingers; the sec

ond of 24, according to the more common and natural definition; and the third, forming nearly the mean between the two, is reckoned at 27 fingers. The first is formed by the addition of two palms to the six which compose the second, and which it has in common with the Egyptian and Hebrew cubit. These definitions are furnished by an extract from an Oriental land surveyor, for which we are indebted to Golius, in the notes with which he has illustrated the Elements of Astronomy of Alferganes.

Of these three cubits, that which seems most entitled to our attention, especially in regard to use and a greater conformity with the nature of the cubit in general, is the common one. As a circumstance of essential importance, to enable us to determine its length, I shall observe that the cubit deduced from the analysis of the measure of the earth, taken by command of the calif Al Mamoun in the plains of Sinjar in Mesopotamia, cannot so well refer to any as to that denominated the common or ordinary cubit. According to Abulfeda's account of the measure of Al Mamoun, the terrestrial degree upon the meridian was calculated at 563 Arabian miles; and Alferganes, chap. viii. says that the mile in this measure was composed of 4,000 cubits. Taking the degree in round numbers at 57,000 fathoms, for the reason we have given in treating of the measure of the temple, the Arabian mile consists as nearly as possible of 1,006. The thousand fathoms make the cubit of 18 inches; and if we take into the account the six fathoms over, we shall have a line and aboutths of a line to add to each.

The learned Golius conceived that the black cubit was alluded to in Al Mamoun's measure, because Alferganes has made use of the term royal cubit, to denote that which he considered adapted to this measIt must be admitted to be the general opinion that this cubit owed its establishment to Al Mamoun, and that it was thus denominated because it was taken from the breadth of the hand or natural palm of an Ethiopian slave belonging to that prince, because it was found to surpass any other. Be it remarked, however, that not only does the surveyor quoted by Golius apply the use of the black cubit to the measure of various costly stuffs at Bagdad, but that the proportion established between the different Arabian cubits is extremely inconvenient for the application of the black cubit to the measure of the earth under Al Mamoun. Be it further remarked: 1st, that the black cubit, with the advantage of three fingers over the common cubit, would still not have any striking excess beyond the ordinary standard, if it amounted to no more than 18 inches; 2dly, that the common cubit, which would be two inches less, would consequently appear small, since we have seen that the cubit in use among the Jews, notwithstanding its inferiority to the legal cubit, contained at least 17 inches ; 3dly, that the ancient cubit, called the hashemide,

amounted in proportion to no more than 21 inches and a few lines, though reasons might be adduced for supposing it to have been longer: for, according to Marufides, the height of the church of St. Sophia, which from the floor to the dome is 78 hashemide cubits, is computed by Evagrius at 180 Greek feet; and according to the proportion which exists between the Greek foot and ours, the cubit in question will amount to 26 inches and about 2 lines. Even this is not enough if we follow the standard of the hashemide cubit, which, according to Edward Bernard, is marked upon a manuscript in the library at Oxford, and which he represents as measuring 28 inches 9 lines of the English foot, equal, within a trifle, to 27 inches of the Paris foot. The measures of the length and breadth of St. Sophia, given by Marufides, namely, 101 cubits for the one and 931 for the other, will make the cubits still longer, if we compare them with Grelot's dimen. sions of 42 and 38 fathoms. The comparison not being perfectly consistent, the result given by the length will be near 30 inches to the cubit, and by the breadth 29 inches 3 lines, good measure.

I am aware that persons might think themselves justified in supposing that the length, whatever it may be, of the ancient or hashemide cubit, has an influence over the proportions of the other cubits; and that it would make the common one amount to 20 inches 3 lines, if we adhere to the standard itself of the hashemide cubit: since the apparent comparison between them is as 4 to 3. But as such an argument is not sufficient to suppress and render null the analysis of the cubit resulting from the positive measure of the terrestrial degree under Al Mamoun, even though this measure should not be judged to possess the utmost degree of precision; it must be natural to presume that there is no proportion among the different Arabian cubits better calculated to suit this analysis of the cubit than the common cubit. The black cubit will be the less fit for this purpose, as, according to the hashemide measure, it must have amounted to 22 inches 9 lines.

Thevenot, whose accuracy and sagacity, so superior to those of the generality of travellers, are well known, having remarked, in a geographical work writ

ten in Persian, that the finger, the fourth part of the palin, and the twenty-fourth part of the cubit, was defined to be equal to six barley corns placed by the side of each other, a definition which is in fact universal among Oriental authors, says that he found the measure of six barley corns, multiplied eight times, to amount to six inches of our foot; from which he concludes that the cubit, composed of 144 grains, must have been equal to a foot and a half. Now is not this the same thing that results not only from the measure of the terrestrial degree by order of Al Mamoun, but likewise of the special application which we make of the common cubit to that measure? I remark that the black cubit, in proportion to the analyzed measure of the common one, will be 20 inches and 4 or 5 lines, which, be it observed by the way, comes very near to the Egyptian and Hebrew cubit. Now, as this black cubit exceeded the common measure only because the breadth of the Ethiopian's hand, or the palm which was taken for a standard, surpassed the ordinary measure; not because there was any intention of altering the cubit calculated at six palms; would it not be making too great a change in the natural proportion, to extend it to 20 inches and almost a half, while the six Greek palms, though proportioned to the stature of a man of 5 feet 8 inches, amount to no more than 17 inches? If these consonances and probabilities do not extend to the comparison which has been made of the ancient or hashemide cubit with the other cubits, we observe that this comparison is probably but numerary in regard to the palms and fingers, without being proportional as to the effective length. Do we not see the same difference between the measures of a foot, though they are all composed of twelve inches? And, to take an example for the very subject before us, though the black cubit exceeded the common by 3 inches in the 24 of that common cubit, were more than six palms taken to compose it?

In this discussion of the Arabian cubit, which relates only to one particular point in what forms the subject of our dissertation; I have the more willingly entered, as I am not aware that the result deduced from it has hitherto been developed.

I shall not here mention all the reasonings used by divines to adjust this contradiction; but observe that it has been proposed to render the Hebrew particle N, LO, interrogatively, as it is Exod. viii. 26. and Lam. i. 12. and which is equivalent to the strongest and most positive affirmation: the passage would then read, Was not I even known to them by my name Jehovah? This is the idea of the author of the Essay for a new translation of the Bible. But what has this to do with the context? If we take a view of the state of religion at that time, we shall probably see cause for another rendering of the words.

It seems to have been a prevalent custom among the heathen to give proper names to their respective gods. This was particularly the case with the people among whom the Hebrews then resided: they had their Apis, their Mnevis, their Osiris, their Isis, &c. and all the gods of the nations had their peculiar, proper, and significant names. The true God opposed these gods of the nations; but how was he to be distinguished, if he had not his peculiar and significant proper name?

Let us now turn to Exod. iii. 21. which tends to establish the particular idea contained in this criticism. God was engaging Moses to deliver the Hebrews out of Egypt: and Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall say unto me, What is his NAME? what shall I say unto them?..... And God said unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. THIS 18 MY NAME for ever, and THIS IS MY MEMORIAL unto all generations.

It is now time to return to the verse under consideration. God says to Moses, I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them. If we take the word known in its general acceptation, it will contradict the sense in many places; and to set up one passage against a hundred, would be a very hazardous way of interpreting Scripture. What then can be the meaning of this last clause, By my name Jehovah was I not KNOWN unto them? Plainly this: By my name Jehovah was I not DISTINGUISHED by them.

It is evident, from the foregoing history, that the true God was known to his worshippers by this and many other names; but by none was he known as his one peculiar name; a name which he had appropriated to himself in preference to the others, and by which he now declares he would be distinguished for the time to come.

Grammarians observe, that, of all the names of God, this seems to be the most appropriate to him, as it denotes continuance of existence, or self existence. No time could be more seasonable for God to give to himself such a name, than when he was about to take this

little nation for his own peculiar people, to plant and to preserve amongst them the worship of himself alone, in opposition to the polytheism and idolatry of the nations around them.

If any one doubt whether the verb yr IDO, to know, be ever used in Scripture in the sense of a distinguishing knowledge, I need only point out to him Amos iii. 2. where God says to the Jews, You only have I KNOWN of all the families of the earth; that is, you only have I DISTINGUISHED, &c.

We find the same language used in the New Testament; If any man love God, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. viii. 3. the same is KNOWN of him; i.e. so as to be distinguished; and in this sense, probably, he speaks when he says, 1 Cor. ii. 2. I determined not to KNOW any thing among you save Jesus Christ, even him crucified; i.e. so far from going among the Corinthians with those things which would captivate and amuse them, that he was determined that his distinguishing topic should be the exaltation of Christ, even of him that was crucified as a malefactor. And so in the passage before us, By my name Jehovah was I not DISTINGUISHED; i.e. I was not distinguished by it as my proper and peculiar name, as I now intend to be for the future; This shall be my name for ever, and this my memorial unto all generations. By referring to a Concordance the reader will probably find other passages elucidated by this sense of the word.

The foregoing illustration is derived from Mr. Peters's preface to his Critical Dissertation on the Book of Job; it gives so apt and easy a sense to the text, and at the same time establishes the propriety and even the necessity of retaining the name wherever it is to be found in the Hebrew Bible, that it is remarkable it should be overlooked.

Every body knows the childish and superstitious scruple of the Jews, the Greek and Latin fathers, and of several modern divines, as to the name Jehovah, which they thought was unlawful to be pronounced, because they read in their translations, Levit. xxiv. 11-16. that the son of the Israelitish woman had pronounced the name Jehovah, and he that did pronounce the name Jehovah should surely be put to death. The Jews aggravate this threatening, Tr. Sanbedr. c. iv. 91. excluding from eternal life any that shall be guilty of that pretended crime; and it is in consequence of that law that they call this name ineffable, and that they read adonai and elohim in all the places where Jehovah is found.

But besides that they make no scruple to pronounce those two other names of God, which they pretend to be synonymous, or at least equivalent, to that of Jehovah, they charge God with making a law directly contrary to that which he gave the Israelites, with respect to murder committed by an unknown hand. For he expressly orders the elders of the next city, Deut. xxi. 8. after some ceremonies prescribed to them, to say, Jehovah be merciful to thy people Israel; and he commanded the Israelites several ages

the common translation will often find that the marginal note is better than the body of the text.

Part of these remarks are taken from An Essay for a New Translation of the Bible, the author of which refers to J. and D. Kimchi, Levi, Ben-Gerson, and Solomon Ben Melech among the Jews, and De Lyra, Junius and Tremellius, Zeigler, Brentius, Chytræus, Osiander, Frantius, Capellus, Marsham, Saubertus, and Schedius among the Christians, as agreeing with this mode of interpretation.

THE difficulties attending this passage of Scripture have been ingenuously confessed by several learned men, particularly by the late Dr. Doddridge, who calls it "the greatest of difficulties in the history of the evangelists." Mr. Fleming also acknowledged the same; but he supposed, in order to obviate that difficulty, that part of the account is interpolated: it is true, the latter part of the third verse, and all the fourth, are wanting in the Greek and Latin manuscript presented by Theodore Beza to the University of Cambridge; and are added in a later hand to a manuscript formerly in the possession of the kings of France.

This may not be sufficient evidence to the gener ality of readers that the passage is spurious, especially when it is considered that_reference is made to the efficacy of the waters in other parts of the chapter.

We mean to notice generally the various ideas that have been given concerning the Pool of Bethesda, and the cures said to be performed there, and then to of fer our own conjectures.

It has been supposed by Dr. Hammond, that the blood washed from the sacrifices in the pool at that season, the passover, communicated a healing quality to the water upon its being stirred up by a messenger, ayychos angelos, sent thither for that purpose, immediately after which the persons afflicted went in, while the particles of blood were warm and agitated. The Dr. likewise supposed the name of the house to be п, BITH CHеSDEh, a house of mercy, from the cures performed there.

We doubt, considering the strict prohibitions contained in the Mosaic laws concerning blood, whether the Jews might lawfully try experiments with it, even for medical purposes; not to mention the improbability of their making such experiments. And if it

be said they were informed of those virtues by the deity, we demand the proof thereof. It likewise remains to be proved that the warm blood washed from the reeking sacrifices, would possess virtues capable of effecting the cure of those diseases enumerated in the third verse: still more difficult would it be to prove, if such power existed in the pool, that it was capable of curing only one person. This latter remark, perhaps, is sufficient to overthrow what the Dr. suggests concerning the name of the house and the return of the period for performing the solitary cure, vis. that it was only once a year; for certainly it must be a pompous display of mercy to name an edifice the house of mercy, because one sick person was cured there annually! Again, is it to be supposed that the five porches were built on purpose for the accommodation of those who resorted there, since only one person could receive benefit therefrom? It seems indeed to us, that such accommodation could not be the result of much wisdom, whatever mercy the founders might possess. Let us further observe that when the account concerning the building of the temple and its appurtenances is given, we have not the least notice of this house of mercy; we have no account of the origin of its name, or the purpose for which it was built. Once more; would not the effect of so much blood corrupting in the water have been dreadful to those who abode or sat near it, in a climate less warm than that of Judea?

Dr. Doddridge imagines that "sometime before this passover, an extraordinary commotion was probably observed in the water; and Providence so ordered it that the next person who bathed there, being under some great disorder, found an immediate and unexpected cure: the like phenomenon, in some other desperate case, was probably observed on a second commotion; and these commotions and cures might happen periodically, perhaps every sabbath, for that it was yearly none can prove, for some weeks and months. This the Jews would naturally ascribe to some angelic power, as they did afterward the voice from heaven, John xii. 29. though no angel appeared.....On their making so ungrateful a return to Christ for this miracle, and those wrought at the former passover,

and in the intermediate space, this celestial visitant, probably, from this time, returned no more."

The reader may observe, after reading the above quotation, that, if the miracle was performed by the power of Christ, or by an angel, for him, or on behalf of the religion he was propagating, yet, as the Jews were not informed it was so, their "ingratitude" does not appear, for knowledge is the criterion which condemns for transgression. And if it was a hidden or secret miracle by Christ or an angel, the Jews are not consequently guilty, in this instance, in rejecting Christ; for in order that a miracle should be considered as a public interference of the Deity confirming the truth of any doctrine taught, it should certainly be performed publicly, by the person teaching, in order to have its desired effect.

Again, if it was a standing miracle, it proved nothing; for had Jesus referred to his miracles as proofs of the divinity of his doctrines and mission, the Jews could have answered him on his own ground, and proved the divinity of their existing polity by referring, in their turn, to the cures performed at the Pool of Bethesda. We conceive, therefore, that this mode of explanation, for the above reasons, is not consistent with the nature of the circumstances then existing.

Another conjecture is, vide FRAGMENT, No. 66, vol. iii. that there were "two distinct waters; 1st, the constant body of water, the pool, wherein the sheep were washed; 2dly, an occasional and inconstant issue of water, whose source was on one side of the pool, falling from a crevice of the rock, into the pool: what if this was the medicinal water which was "troubled at the season?" This writer then gives a description of the pool from the travels of Sandys, which corresponds with his conjecture as to the existence of an upper spring. The angel is supposed to mean "a providential agent of God."

Notwithstanding this conjecture appears to us far more ingenious than the preceding ones, we object to it on the following grounds. 1st, The idea that the upper spring was that under which the patients wished to be conveyed, is very different from the account given by John; for according to him, it was a lower water by which they expected to be healed; for an angel went Down and troubled the water....whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in, into the water that was troubled, was made whole. The reader will observe that the whole efficacy of the water consists in the circumstance of its first being troubled; which circumstance is of no consequence, and had better not be mentioned, in the conjecture which we are now examining; for if the upper water alone possessed the healing quality, its falling into and troubling water which did not possess any of its qualities, is of too trifling a nature to be so particularly and minutely insisted on by an historian as this evidently is; it must therefore be of greater importance in the story than is above supposed.

2dly, Not to insist on the contradiction which appears between the supposition that the upper spring "was the medicinal water which was troubled at the season," and the historical account which says, “the angel went down into the water, and troubled it," the water in the pool, and the author himself, who supposes the upper spring to be the angel, or "providential agent of God," which troubled the water, we remark that, although the cures are supposed to be ef fected by mere natural means, yet those very means are called "a PROVIDENTIAL agent of God." It appears to us, where any agent is employed by God, it proves a divine interference, and that is what constitutes a miracle.

3dly, In another instance this mode of interpretation favours the idea of miraculous interposition. It is little less than miraculous that no more water should run from the rock than was exactly sufficient to cure one person! And it is equally wonderful that enough should run to cure one! In order to make such a conjecture feasible, we must further suppose that the upper spring ran not only at a certain season, but in a certain quantity; but as the consideration of this would introduce more of the marvellous, we observe,

4thly, With respect to the query whether, "had the pool itself been the water moved, would not the sheep have been prohibited from being washed in it, because its being troubled could not be distinguished from the commotion occasioned by the sheep?" it may be replied, that, to be consistent with the account in the Gospel, we only have to suppose the afflicted persons were themselves satisfied as to the time about which the troubling of the waters generally took place, and that they only had to wait till the sheep were taken out, and then go in; for the tradition was, that whoever went in "FIRST AFTER the troubling of

the water was made whole."

Having gone thus far through troubled waters, we observe, that the commentators above quoted are certainly commendable for their labours and the general light which they have thrown on the Scriptures, yet we think they here have failed. In our examination of their various hypotheses we have acted conscien tiously; desiring the same impartiality to be exercised toward ourselves, we proceed to show our opinion.

We conjecture that the Pool of Bethesda, on the account of some peculiarity in its waters, was chosen by the ancient Canaanites as a convenient and desirable situation for a temple sacred to the sun, the great and universal object of adoration in the Eastern world; that the porches which the evangelist mentions were remains of the building; that the troubling of the waters was probably caused by the introduction of water, the effect of the periodical rains, or of an under spring, by a subterranean channel, which the Jews not knowing, and the cause of the ebulition being unseen, they attributed to the agency of an angel, as they did the voice from heaven, John xii. 29. although