sertion of some tenets, as peculiar to themselves—such as, that God is one, that there are not three Gods, that Jesus Christ was the servant of God-tenets which all true Christians hold as fully and as firmly as any Socinian or Mussulman on earth. It is but just, however, to repeat, that the Arab's creed breathes too much of a fire-and-faggot spirit to please the fastidious taste of a latitudinarian.

We believe we have now noticed all the fragments of the sacred history, occurring in the Koran. It must be observed, however, that some of the stories are repeated half-a-dozen times over, in as many different places. In that case, we

have selected the most minute and circumstantial of the narratives, adding the facts which it omitted from the parallel passages.

Besides the statements which may thus be traced to scriptural originals, there are a number of stories and allusions in the Koran which derive their origin exclusively from profane history, rabbinical traditions, monastic legends, or the romantic fictions of Arabia itself. It is true, that even those purloined from Scripture have received embellishments from all these quarters, but we now refer to such as rest entirely upon that foundation. Of this kind are the celebrated story of the Seven Sleepers, the account of the Prophets Hud and Saleh, the obscure and scanty notices respecting Dhu'lkarnein, commonly supposed to be Alexander the Great, and other minor passages in historical form. How far some of these might be identified as mutilated fragments of the Bible and Apocrypha, we do not now inquire. At first view they have no such aspect, and our only object here has been to give a connected view of those whose pedigree is obvious. We are aware that we have been employed upon a very humble task, in collecting and arranging the absurdities and falsehoods of an impudent impostor. Perhaps, however, we have done for our readers what they would not have been willing to do for themselves, and what some of them may find it just as well to be acquainted with. Our hasty and imperfect, but methodi cal synopsis will, at least, present a clearer view of the Mohammedan belief upon the points in question, than could possibly be gained by a continuous perusal of the book itself.

In doing this we have confined ourselves, in almost every instance, to the text of the Koran. The commentators explain every thing abundantly, as may be learned from the specimens in Sale. We have chosen rather to exhibit its native imperfection and obscurity.

We have also had occasion, here and there, to point out instances of Sale's strange fondness for interpolations tending to raise his author in the reader's estimation. We have often been at a loss to reconcile his scrupulous precision as a mere translator, with the disingenuousness of his latent glosses and disguised interpolations. Some one has said that "Sale was half a Mussulman;" but this we think incredible. That he was not a very zealous Christian, may be safely granted, but we cannot think it fair to push the accusation further. Our own explanation of the matter is, that he was biassed by the feelings which all scholars feel in relation to their favourite pursuits, and to the subjects of their diligent and long contined study. That Sale did study both the Koran and the commentators deeply and successfully, no one can doubt who has carefully inspected his translation. As to the rest, we suppose that he was led to interpolate a little, by a natural unwillingness to look upon the object of his toils as wholly worthless. When we have spent time and labour on a thing, as valuable, we are loth to see it treated with contempt. This explanation we prefer, because we would have justice done to a distinguished orientalist, even in stripping a deformed imposture of its borrowed garments.

We shall add a few words with respect to the study of Arabic. It is highly desirable, on various accounts, that a knowledge of this noble and important language should become more common. Biblical learning and the missionary enterprise alike demand it. What we most need, is a taste for the pursuit, and a conscientious willingness to undertake the task. The great deficiency is not so much in grammars, as in men to study them. We observe that Mr. Smith, the American missionary, now at Malta, has declined to undertake an English version of Ibn Ferhat's grammar. His views are such as might have been expected from a man of sense and learning. It may, indeed, be stated as a general truth, that translated grammars are as likely to be hinderances as helps. A grammarian cannot possibly explain the phenomena of a foreign language, except by appealing to the structure of his own, or of that in which he writes. Now as every language has its peculiarities, both great and small, no two can stand in the same relation to a third. Latin and French agree where French and English differ. The same form of speech in Latin, therefore, which must be explained to English learners, may be as clear, without elucidation, to the

Frenchman, as if founded upon some fixed law of nature. Give the latter the same comments that you give the former, and you not only do not aid him, but you really confound him. For we need not say, that the attempt to explain what is perfectly intelligible must have that ef fect. The same remark may be applied to any other case. For a familiar instance, we refer to Josse's Spanish Grammar, as translated into English by Mr. Sales of Cambridge. The original work was designed for Frenchmen, and as the translator, we believe, is himself a Frenchman, many rules and statements, in themselves just, and in their proper places useful, are wholly unintelligible to the English reader. Analogous cases will occur to every scholar, abundantly proving, that the servile transfer, not of language merely, but of rules, arrangements, proofs, and illustrations, is unfriendly to the only end which grammars should promote. While we believe,, with Dr. Johnson, that the practice of translating (in the proper sense, and on an extensive scale) is injurious to the purity of language, we likewise consider it injurious to the interests of sound and thorough scholarship. To avoid the former evil, we would substitute the transfusion of thoughts for the translation of words. To remedy the latter, we would have bilingual scholars to study, sift, digest, remodel, reproduce. By this we should avoid the needless introduction of an uncouth terminology and the practical paralogism of attempting to explain ignotum per ignotius. By this means, too, a freshness would be given to our learned works, very unlike the tang contracted by a passage over sea. This too would serve to check the strong propensity of young philologists towards a stagnant acquiescence in the dicta of their text-books, which is always attended with the danger of mistaking form for substance, and forgetting the great ends of language in the infinitesimal minutiae of a barren etymology. In Germany, that great philological brewery, the extreme of stagnation has been long exchanged for that of fermentation, and although we do not wish to see the eccentricities of foreign scholarship imported here, we do believe that much of their advancement may be fairly traced to their contempt of mere authority, their leech-like thirst for indefinite improvement, and their practice of working up the material of their learning into new and varied forms without much regard to pre-existent models. Let us imitate their merits and avoid their faults.

Let us mount upon their shoulders, not grovel at their feet. Let us take the stuff which they provide for us, and mould it for ourselves, to suit our own peculiarities of language, habit, genius, wants, and prospects. Let our books be English, not Anglo-French or Anglo-German. Let us not make them as the Chinese tailor made the tar's new jacket, with a patch to suit the old one.

To return to grammars-though what we said above may seem directly applicable only to those written in one language to explain another, it applies, a fortiori, to what are called native grammars, which are merely designed to reduce into systematic form the knowledge previously gathered by empirical induction. To those who have become familiar with a language in the concrete by extensive reading, such works are highly useful and need no translation. To beginners they are useless; for they presuppose the knowledge which beginners want. Besides, they are untranslatable, as Mr. Smith justly affirms-with special reference, indeed, to Bahth El Mutalib, of which we know nothing but through him. We may add, however, that even if that work admitted of translation, it would scarcely throw more light upon the subject than de Sacy's lucid digest (pre-eminently lucid after all deductions, drawbacks, and exceptions) the fruit of most laborious and long continued study of numerous authorities-a work, too, which has had more indirect influence on biblical philology than many are aware of.* When de Sacy has been mastered and exhausted, he may very fairly be condemned and thrown aside. To those who would prefer a shorter grammar and the Latin tongue, Rosenmuller's book may be safely recommended. It is Erpenius re-written, with improvements from de Sacy. Meanwhile, we look with some impatience for the forthcoming work of Ewald, whose acuteness, ingenuity, and habits of research, afford the promise of a masterly performance.

It must be owned, however, that we do need reading-books, or Readers, for beginners. Most of the Chrestomathies prepared in Europe appear to presuppose some acquaintance with the Koran. For us this will not answer. Here, where the study is, at most, but nascent, we need an introduction to

• No one, we think who is familiar with de Sacy's noble work, can fail to recognise its agency in giving form, perspicuity, and richness to the famous Lehrgebäude of Gesenius.

+ See, for example, the preface to de Sacy's Chrestomathie Arabe, Paris, 1826.

the Koran itself. We have often thought, that a selection of historical passages from that book, reduced to order, with grammatical notes and a vocabulary, would answer the ends of a chrestomathy for mere beginners most completely. It is highly important that the learner's first acquaintance with the written language, should be formed upon the Koran. Amidst all the dialectic variations of a tongue which is spoken from the great Sahara to the steppes of Tartary, there is a large proportion, both of words and phrases, every where the same. These are the words and phrases of the Koran, which religious scruples have preserved from change, and religious use made universally familiar. He who is acquainted with the language of the Koran, has the means of oral access to any Arab, and to almost to any Mussulman. He may not underderstand as yet the many variations of the vulgar from the sacred tongue, much less the local diversities of speech; but he has the foundation upon which these rest, the stated formula from which they are mere departures. He will also have acquired a measure of that knowledge, with respect to facts and doctrines, which no man can dispense with, who would either vanquish or convert the Moslem.

ART. VI.-ON CERTAIN ERRORS OF PIOUS STUDENTS IN OUR COLLEGES.

It is pleasing to observe that, in our Church, almost all disputes with regard to the importance of an educated ministry have died away. Great as is the demand for labourers in the Lord's vineyard, it appears to be acknowledged that ample literary and scientific discipline is equally demanded. Hence the eyes of Christians are turned with peculiar interest towards the hundreds of young men, who are at this time engaged in preparatory studies, with a view to the sacred office. Of these, a large number are to be found within the walls of our colleges, engaged in that part of their preliminary discipline, which, when we look to its bearings on future usefulness, must be seen to yield to no other in momentous importance. It may be assumed, as a maxim universally conceded, that the first steps in all mental and moral training are most carefully to be directed and watched, as giving character to