ring to the Report of Mr Moore, Consul-General of Syria, appended to Dr Bowring's Report on the Commercial Statistics of Syria, presented to both Houses of Parliament (Lond. 1840), from which that evidence was adduced, Mr Stanley superadds his personal testimony:

"The countless ruins of Palestine show us not only that Syria might support tenfold its present population, and bring forth tenfold its present produce,' but that it actually did so" (p. 120).-Yet in it shall be a tenth.

Palestine would not now be the Land of Ruins, which it is, if it had not anciently been the land of towns and of cities. The multiplicity of its ruins, which in very numerous instances still bear the scriptural names of its cities of old, attest to this day the faithfulness of the record concerning them, when their separate inheritances were first apportioned among the tribes of Israel. Before as well as after the days of the prophets, Palestine was not a land of ruins but of cities. This fact all history attests; but it is only needful here to repeat the words of Gibbon, that, "from the age of David to that of Heraclius, Syria was overspread with ancient and flourishing cities, the inhabitants were numerous and wealthy," &c. Yet Mr Stanley would seem at least to lead his readers to infer that Palestine had always been a land of ruins.

"The ruins we now see are of the most diverse ages; Saracenic, Crusading, Roman, Grecian, Jewish, extending perhaps even to the old Canaanitish remains, before the arrival of Joshua. This variety, this accumulation of destruction, is the natural traverse the land wherever it was open, in every direction, and to visit every predicted spot in Syria, mentioned in the prophets, and to daguerreotype them; that for this purpose one of my Sons was with me, and that we wished specially to be informed how we could, if possible, visit the deserted cities of the Haouran. They well knew of these cities, and spoke of them as "most remarkable," being in many instances entire, and the houses perfect, though without any inhabitants. After some conversation on the general desolation of the land as well as of the cities, in regard to which we entirely agreed, I finally said, in the same plain and matter-of-fact style, that I was also desirous of ascertaining the precise degree of the depopulation and desolation of the land, as indicating the time of the return, and finally of the conversion of the Jews as a nation. They both seemed surprised, but said nothing. Seemingly astonished at their astonishment, I said to Colonel Rose, “Upon that subject I can appeal to your friend Mr Moore." "To me!" exclaimed Mr Moore, holding up his hands in increased wonder; “I will be happy to give you every information in my power upon any subject; but really of that I know nothing." His disclaimer was complete. "That," I said, "is astonishing. You surely know of the Report on Syria laid before Parliament by order of Her Majesty. You know of the first of the official documents affixed to it. You may remember that you wrote it. But if you do not specially remember its contents, I have the Report with me, and can show it to you. The first word is POPULATION. The first paragraph is three lines and a half; and in that short paragraph you state that the inhabitants were reduced to a tithe of what the soil could abundantly maintain." "I remember it perfectly," he replied; "but what of that?" "That is one of the things which I wished to ascertain: the degree of desolation is the other. And in the body of the Report it is stated of northern Syria,-to which, with the exception of Lebanon, or the remnant of Syria, for which there is a word too (under the burden of Damascus '),-that the country is capable of producing tenfold the present produce." "Exactly so," said Mr Moore; it was the closest we could make it, but what of that?" I then said, of that I knew nothing; but if you wish to know what these things indicate, you may read Isaiah vi., in which the answer is given to the question, How long? Until the cities, &c.; but yet in it shall be a tenth, &c.

1 Gib. vol. ix. p. 403.

result (!) of the position which has made Palestine for so many ages the thoroughfare and prize of the world. And although we now see this aspect brought out in a fuller light than ever before, yet, as far back as the history and language of Palestine reaches, it was familiar to the inhabitants of the country." P. 119.

As far back as the history of Palestine reaches, the very reverse was manifestly the fact. "Great and goodly cities" which existed before the arrival of Joshua, were given to the Israelites. Israel dwelt in the cities of the Amorites. Sixty walled cities besides unwalled towns in Bashan, were but a part of the inheritance of the half tribe of Manasseh. Upwards of an hundred and twenty cities are recorded by name as the inheritance of the tribe of Judah. Of the cities of the Canaanites that stood still in their strength, Joshua burned none, save Hazor only. The cities were of the most diverse ages, but not the ruins. Canaanitish, Jewish, Grecian, Roman, Crusading, Saracenic remains, show who were the builders, not who were the destroyers. Palestine was a land of cities before the days of David; and from his days to those of Heraclius, or for seventeen hundred years, "the ancient and flourishing cities" which overspread it, confute the assertion that the aspect of desolate cities was for ages familiar to the inhabitants of the country; and they prove that the contrast is so striking between that land of cities for so many ages, and the long desolations which have now succeeded, that none but the prophets of Omniscient Jehovah could have foretold it.

But Mr Stanley appeals to the language as well as to the history of Palestine in proof of his assumption. He says—

"In the rich local vocabulary of the Hebrew language, the words for sites of ruined cities occupy a remarkable place. Four separate designations are used for the several stages of decay and of destruction, which were to be seen even during the first vigour of the Israelite conquest and monarchy. (!) There was the rude 'cairn,' or pile of stones roughly rolled together (Gal). There was the mound or heap of ruin (Tel), which, like the Monte Testaccio at Rome, was composed of the rubbish and débris of a fallen city. There were the forsaken villages (Azubah), such as those in the Hauràn, when the cities were wasted without inhabitant and the houses without man,' forsaken, and not a man to dwell therein.' (!) There are, lastly, true ruins, such as those to which we give the name-buildings standing, yet shattered, like those of Baalbec or Palmyra (Ai).” P. 119.

Of the first of these designations, Gal, "rolling," it is said, in a reference at the foot of the same page, "Such were the cairns over Achan and the king of Ai." But these cairns were not "the sites of ruined cities;" nor does a "cairn " necessarily denote any such ruin. Gal does signify a heap of stones, such as is used for a memorial (Gen. xxxi. 46, &c.) But it has another signification besides that of a

"cairn," and, as Gesenius states, is "often used for ruins." None of these instances are quoted by Mr Stanley, nor would they have helped. his argument. They occur, not in the historical but in prophetical books of Scripture. "Thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth. For thou hast made of a city an heap" (Isa. xxv.) "I will make Jerusalem heaps" (Jer. ix. 11). "Babylon shall become heaps" (Jer. li. 37). Of the second designation, Tel, "heap," Mr Stanley says

"Such were the cities so called in the neighbourhood of Babylon, (!) Tel-abib, Tel-harsa or haresa, Tel-melah, Tel-assar."

Babylonian cities were called by their own names.1 But of all the ancient cities of Palestine, of which so many are named in Scripture, not one does he nor could he adduce, which has Tel prefixed to it; and he had to go to the neighbourhood of Babylon, to find any cities with such names, in order to show that in "the language of Palestine," the aspect of ruins from the earliest ages was familiar to its inhabitants! But though for ages unknown, as prefixed to the name of any city in Palestine, Tel, or "a ruinous heap," is now familiar to Arabs, Greeks, and Turks of the present day in that land of ruins.2

The third designation, Azubah," forsaken," is a word of general signification, not applicable to ruins alone, nor "peculiar" in its significancy to the Hebrew language or any other, signifying, "there is none shut up or left"—" a woman forsaken,"3_ as one gathereth eggs that are left”—"Woe to the idle shepherd that leaveth the flock!" In the prophecies it is repeatedly applied to cities, "Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it. . . . in that day shall his strong cities be as a forsaken bough, and an uppermost branch which they left because of the children of Israel, and there shall be desolation." Azubah is a participle of the verb azab, which is of frequent occurrence, signifying, as it is translated, to forsake or to leave, whatever it be that is forsaken or left. But familiar as such a word is to the inhabitants of any country, it is not a designation applied to cities "during the first vigour of the Israelite conquest and monarchy;" nor is it true that the words occur as applicable to any facts recorded in scriptural history, as Mr Stanley applies them, when "the cities were wasted, without inhabitant, and the houses without man"-"forsaken, and not a man to dwell therein." His own references to Scripture here are necessarily to

1 Gesenius says that Tel in names like Telassar, means "hill-fort;" and that, though the Hebrews apply it to a heap of ruins, yet the reason why the name occcurs. so commonly in Babylonian cities is because they were built upon mounds, owing to the flatness of the country. The city shall be builded upon her own heap (Jer. xxx. 18). Rabbah of the Ammonites shall be a desolate heap (Jer. xlix. 2).

He called thee as a woman forsaken (Isa. liv. 6). As one gathereth eggs that are left (Isa. x. 14). His strong cities are as a forsaken bough (Isa. xvii. 9).

prophecies alone; though in quoting, or rather misquoting these Scriptures, he changes the future into the past. Seven hundred years after "the Israelite conquest," Isaiah did "well prophecy" of the Jews, that they had shut their eyes lest they should see, since their eyes, according to the testimony of Christ and his apostle Paul, were shut more than seven centuries thereafter, as they still are even to this day, or three thousand years after the "Israelite conquest." But the words which the Lord spake unto Isaiah, in revealing how long their blindness was to continue, are the first which Mr Stanley here refers to (Isa. vi. 11, 12), as applied to that time; and which may thus manifestly confute his interpretation :—

It is here manifest that this prophecy has no allusion to cities without inhabitants at that time, or in any previous age; but exclusively and expressly to what they should become before the time when Israel, as a people, shall be converted and saved. Isaiah was not a false historian of what is "supposed" to have been the fact "as far back as the history and language of Palestine reaches," but a true prophet, as shown by the history and language of Palestine in the present day. Yet such is but a specimen of the latitude of "poetical interpretations of the prophecies."

"There are, lastly, true ruins," says Mr Stanley, "such as those to which we give the name-buildings standing, yet shattered, like those of Baalbec and Palmyra."

But these cities were not to be seen in ruins during the first vigour of the Israelite conquest and monarchy; but, rather, that monarchy had reached its height before they were built.

In a note on Ai, it is stated, "Three towns (!) at least were called from this circumstance-1. Ai-2. Ije-abarim or Iim—and 3. Iim, in the border of Judah." But "towns" were not ruins, by whatever name they were called. Ai bore that name before it was made a heap and a desolation by Joshua; and among the Jews who returned from the Babylonish captivity, and went every man to his own city, were the men of Ai (Ezra ii. 28). Ije-abarim is only mentioned as a station of the Israelites, before they reached the land of their inherit

ance. Tim, as in the verse also referred to (Josh. xv. 29), is named among the twenty-nine cities, with their villages, which were "the uttermost cities of the tribe of the children of Judah toward the coast of Edom;" but it is not said that even its solitary aspect was that of ruins then, though they all have disappeared, or have only that aspect now. It is added,

"The Avites, or Avims, the earliest inhabitants of Philistia (Deut. ii. 23) seem (!) to have derived their name from this word-The dwellers in ruins.' To what an antiquity does this [seem to] carry us back! Ruins before the days of those who preceded the Philistines!" P. 120.

All that is said of the Avims in that verse is, "And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead." Azzah, or Gaza, was a city, not a ruin; and Avim was the name of one of the cities of the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 23), which, says Gesenius, had its name from the Avites.

Besides being the name of an ancient city, Ai signifies “ruins, or ruinous heaps," and is so used by the prophets: "Jerusalem shall become heaps" (Jer. xxvi. 18; Micah iii. 12). "I will make Samaria as an heap of the field" (Micah i. 6).

The interpretation given to these Hebrew words does not show, without other proof, that the aspect of ruins was familiar of old to the inhabitants of Palestine: but the use of these, and of other similar words, in the language of the prophets, as applied to then existing cities, shows that the word of the Lord, which he spake by the prophets, has turned cities into "cairns or piles of stones;" into mounds or ruinous heaps; or into shattered cities, which have yet to be repaired; or into forsaken cities, which have yet to be inhabited. There are cities without inhabitant, and houses without man, such as are to be found in no other land, except in Palestine alone.

Instead of the scriptural designation "cities without inhabitants," Mr Stanley designates them "forsaken villages, such as those in the Hauran." In the immediately preceding page (118), he says,—

"Here the ancient cities remain in like manner deserted, ruined, but standing; not mere masses and heaps of stone, but towns and houses, in amount and in a state of preservation which have no parallel except in the cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii, buried under the eruption of Vesuvius."

In a portion of Eastern Palestine, including the Hauran, of which he here speaks, there are more cities mentioned by name in a single chapter of Jeremiah than in all the other prophecies of the Old Testament together. In regard to them it may therefore be seen at