referred to formerly, runs in a deep channel twelve minutes to the north-east past Kefr Hauwar; and from this continues its course, winding like a serpent, to Sa'sa', passing only one village on its way. Of this village I did not get the name, though I marked its position. It is strange that Burckhardt does not mention this important river at all, though he passed over it on a bridge between Kefr Hauwar and Beitima. Ib. p. 46. About half an hour north-west of Kefr Hauwar this river enters the plain.

From this place I was able to see, at one glance, the whole section of the plain watered by the 'Awaj. I was also able to look down the narrow Wady through which it passes between the low parallel ranges of Jebl el-Aswad and Jebl Mânia', on its way to Lake Hijâneh. From the foot of Jebel esh-Sheikh to Kesweh is about seventeen Roman miles; and the district watered by the 'Awaj is not on an average more than an hour in width. From Kesweh to Hijâneh is about fifteen miles; but the river is closely confined between two mountain ranges nearly the whole way. The whole arable ground, therefore, watered by this river, may be estimated at about sixty-five to seventy square miles; and yet Mr. Thomson makes the assertion that it waters ten times the arable ground that the Barada does; Bib. Sacra, Vol. VI. p. 369. From the fountain to the plain, the Barada is upwards of twenty-two miles long, and the arable land watered by it along its banks, averages at least half a mile in width. From Salahîych to the lakes is about twenty miles, and there is an average width of fifteen miles of this watered by the Barada. Thus the arable land watered by this river is about 311 square miles, or nearly five times that watered by the 'Awaj.

I have been more particular in giving these details, because I believe it is the first time the sources of the 'Awaj have been clearly pointed out, or its course described. I had formerly the opinion, that the river was comparatively an insignificant one; and was inclined, therefore, to doubt that it could be referred to by the proud Syrian of old. Now, however, I see that it is unquestionably the second river of Damascus. I have visited and examined all the other streams and fountains in this section of the country; and I am now persuaded that if Naaman meant two rivers, as is probable, and not two fountains, that the Barada and 'Awaj must be these two.

I believe that one or two very small tributaries fall into the

'Awaj from the country south-west of Sa'sa'; but I have not seen them and cannot verify it.

September 4th. We left Kefr Hauwar at 4.30, crossed the bridge over the river twelve minutes after, and rode up the north bank to the half-ruined village of Beitîma, which we reached at 4.55. Our road now led over an undulating plain, having the foot of Jebel esh-Sheikh about an hour on our left. At 5.40 we crossed a very small stream running in the hollow of a deep Wady. This stream flows down from Wady Barbar, in which is the village of Kula't Jendel. At seven o'clock we reached Katana. Westward of this village the plain runs up further into the mountain than toward the south; but is more elevated and undulates more. This western part of the plain comes in between the eastern ridge of Jebel esh-Sheikh and the low hills that bound the Sahra on the south-west. Through it is the road by Rŭkhleh to Râsheiya. Katana is a large village with fine gardens and rich fields. It is watered by a stream which springs up a quarter of an hour west of the village. This stream does not flow eastward and cross the Haj road, as represented on Burckhardt's map; but is exhausted in the fields some distance below Katana.

We left Katana at 7.15, and proceeded in a direction more to the east than that we had pursued from Kefr Hauwar. Here is a fine plain which is now a desert, but only requires water to make it a paradise like the gardens of Damascus. At 8.20 we had the village of Judeideh twenty minutes on our right. At 9 we passed the village of Muaddemîyeh, five minutes on our right, and soon after entered among extensive vineyards. Nothing could present a greater contrast than the two parts of the plain at this place, the portion watered and that not watered; the former rich and fertile, covered with luxuriant vines, now bending under the weight of the clustering bunches, and, further on the right, dense groves of olive and mulberry trees, encircling the large village of Daraiya; the latter, close on our left hand, a bare desert, parched and burned up by a scorching sun; while beyond it, white as snow and bare almost as a rock, rose the low range of Kalabât el-Mezzy. Half an hour more and we were within the gardens of Damascus, pursuing our journey amid the most delicious groves; sheltered from the sun's rays by the thick foliage of the fragrant walnut, and having our ears regaled by the murmuring of waters and the voice of birds.

At 10.25 we passed through Kefr Susa, and at 10.45 entered the gates of Damascus.

We rode the whole of this day's journey at a very fast walk, and I should estimate the whole distance passed over in the six hours as twenty-four miles, viz. ten miles from Kefr Hauwar to Katana, and fourteen from thence to Damascus. Burckhardt's estimate of the distance is not at all correct. From Kefr Hauwar to Beitima he makes half an hour, and thence to Katana four hours. While from Katana to Kefr Susa he makes only three hours, and thence to Damascus one. Travels in Syria, p. 47.

While I pen these lines (October 5th, 1852), the district which I describe is the theatre of war. I had looked forward with pleasure to a proposed journey to the south of Palestine; but I can now scarcely venture beyond the gates of the city. The Sheikhs of Yuntah have seized the passes of Antilebanon; and an army of 14,000 men is employed in endeavoring to subdue the warlike Druzes of Haurân. I see little prospect of a speedy termination of these sad troubles. There is a weak, but tyrannical government; and a restless and discontented, but brave people. And these are elements which do not well agree. Damascus, October 5th, 1852.

ARTICLE IV.

THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF ENGLISH AND GERMAN BIBLICAL SCIENCE.

By Charles A. Aiken, Resident Licentiate, Andover.

BIBLICAL SCIENCE is one of the legitimate fruits of Protestantism. The necessity of any high development of sacred learning will be practically conceded only where a free Bible is given to the people. Accordingly the world owes to Protestantism not merely a free Bible for all classes, but the cultivation of those means which shall open to any class a profound insight into the meaning of the Scriptures. Withhold the Bible from all but a small privileged order, and you remove, in great measure, the stimulus which shall impel the few to seek acquaintance with the import of the Bible. Why else have the monasteries in which was treasured all the learning of the dark ages, sacred and secular, preserved for us only such scanty and withered fruit? But Protestantism having given the world a Bible is under twofold obligation to make the gift available. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the great interpreter, it must seek to make the Scriptures intelligible to the masses; and, by teaching the true meaning and the right use of its gift, it must guard against perversions and abuses otherwise inevitable.

Then the church of Rome has ever relied less on the living word than on institutions and ordinances, which, apart from the word, are dead. Sacred science knows no more deadly foe than the spirit of Ritualism, under whatever ecclesiastical form it lurks. The Romish church is right in ascribing great efficacy to its forms and sacraments; but as mere forms, forsaken by the indwelling Spirit working in and with the word, they are efficacious only of evil. If this church has at any time put forth an effort to make the Scriptures more intelligible, it has been under the constraint of external pressure. In self-defence, or to maintain her self-respect and justify herself before an enlightened age, she must needs seem zealous for the promotion of an intelligent faith and a consecrated learning. But enthusiasm and proficiency in Biblical studies have always been an occasion of suspicion and jealousy at the Vatican.

Yet, for the services that Catholicism has reluctantly found herself compelled to render to Biblical learning, we tender grateful acknowledgment. We would not depreciate by a single iota the true merits of Valla and Erasmus, Simon and Calmet, Houbigant and De Rossi, Hug, Jahn and Van Ess. But if men like Mai and Mezzofanti had been Protestants, would not their prodigious learning have brought the cause of Christ more profit? And for our teachers in Biblical science must we not look, not merely of choice but of necessity, mainly to Protestant lands, and to Germany and England as chief seats of Protestant learning? The German and English language and literature were earliest consecrated by the Reformation, and the genius of Protestantism has ever found them most congenial.

It is proposed to inquire into the comparative value of English and German Biblical science. In defining our point of view we would guard against a twofold prejudice. The epithet "German," in any association with religion and theology, is received, by some good men among us, with the same shrug of the shoulders, which, it may be supposed, one might detect in a pious Jew when he heard the name of Nazareth. Others, as well meaning, deeply impressed by the superiority of German learning, and awed by the confidence with which Germans assume that "wisdom shall die with them," or, it may be, enamored of German liberality, quote German authorities as though that were decisive of all vexed questions. We need not profess to shun both these extremes, of superstitious antipathy and servile deference. We have to add, by way of explanation, only this, that we restrict the terms "Biblical science" to that department of theology whose province is to define and interpret God's written revelation.

It is worthy of remark, that the development of Biblical science has been for the last hundred years much more rapid in Germany than in England. Time was when Walton and Lightfoot and Mill and Usher and Selden were recognized authorities in their departments. But since their period few English names are to be found that are cited as authorities on the continent of Europe. The fact that there is no longer, as there then was, a common language for learned men, will in part account for the fact that the attention of continental scholars is so little called to the real merits of English Biblical literature. But must we not allow at least that we are no longer masters in this department of litera