The two former places, so memorable in the history of God's chosen people, are usually considered to be situate within the peninsula formed at the head of the Arabian Gulf, or Red Sea of modern geographers, by the two gulfs of Suez and Akaba, to which (as I conceive erroneously,) has been appropriated the distinctive appellation of " the Peninsula of Mount Sinai." According to my hypothesis, however, in which the Gulf of Akaba is regarded to be the Yam Suph, or Red Sea of Scripture, Horeb and Mount Sinai must necessarily have been situate to the eastward of that sea; and they are, consequently, to be sought for not within the limits of that peninsula, but in the direction of the Arabian Desert.

Further, according to the received opinion, Midian, the country of Jethro, into which Moses fled out of Mitzraim, is likewise placed within the Peninsula (so called) of Mount Sinai, and is considered to be totally distinct from that country which derived its name from Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah, who was sent, together with his brethren," eastward, unto the east country."* If my views, however, be correct, the Midian of Jethro will be a portion only of the parent country of Midian; and there will no longer remain any necessity for that most improbable supposition, that the saine historian, Moses, should have recorded the existence, at the same time, of two countries of precisely the same name,† without adverting to the fact of their being different countries, or making the slightest distinction between them.

Upon my hypothesis, then, the country of Jethro will have been situate (and probably at a considerable distance,) to the eastward, or rather to the north-eastward of the head of the Gulf of Akaba. It results, therefore, from this position of that country, that when Moses led the flock of his father-in-law "to the back side”—or rather the west, 8-of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, in Horeb," he would have gone in the direction (westward) towards Mitzraim. Hence, when the inspired legislator of the Israelites subsequently left Midian, and "returned to the land of Mitzraim,"§ whilst, at the same time, Aaron received the Divine command to " go into the wilderness to meet Moses," it is perfectly natural and intelligible that the brothers should have met "in the mount of God,"at that very same spot, in the direct road between the two countries, to which Moses had previously wandered. We have thus the means of removing a difficulty which has startled some commentators, namely, the improbability (not to say the impossibility) that Aaron should have been able to meet with his brother without supernatural aid; to account for which, they have considered it requisite to suppose that he was guided by an angel.

In the subjoined sketch of the coasts of the upper portion of the Arabian Gulf, or Red Sea of modern geographers, are shewn the two head-gulfs of that sea; namely, the Gulf of Suez, and the Gulf of Akaba; the former, agreeably to the opinion usually entertained, and

Gen. xxv. 6.
Exod. iii. 1.

VOL. VII.-June, 1835.

Exod. ii. 15, and Numb. xxxi. 1-12.
Exod. iv. 20.
Exod. iv. 27.

4 R

the latter, according to my hypothesis, being the Yam Suph, or Red Sea, of Scripture, which was crossed by the Israelites.*

On this sketch is marked the commencement of the route of the Israelites, in accordance with each of the hypotheses above-mentioned, and it will thereby be perceived, that if the Gulf of Suez be regarded as the subject of the miraculous passage, a circuitous direction must be given to the line of march, in order to explain how, a short time after having crossed the sea, "they removed from Elim, and encamped [again] by the Red Sea." On the assumption, however, that it was the Gulf of Akaba which was crossed by the Israelites, it will be evident that it was not on account of any deflection in the line of march, but from a bend in the coast-line itself, that they were again brought to the sea-shore, whilst fleeing (as they may well be conceived to have done) in a direct line away from Mitzraim.

Upon this latter assumption also, there will be no difficulty in establishing the position of the wilderness of Shur,+ "which is before Mitzraim, as thou goest toward Assyria,"§ to have been to the northeastward of the extremity of the Gulf of Akaba; whilst the localities of Marah and Elim|| may also be approximately determined, as lying between that point and the subsequent encampment by the sea.

When the Israelites had thus again reached the Red Sea, the immediate intentions of the Almighty with respect to their route, would

The outline of the above sketch is taken from the map of Egypt in Mr. John Arrowsmith's London Atlas, recently published, in which the Gulph of Akaba is laid down upon the authority of Rüppell."

† Numb. xxxiii. 10.

Exod. xv. 22. Or of Etham, (Numb. xxxiii. 8.) If any value could be attached to the mere coincidence of names, the fact of the existence of a Wady Ithem at the north of Akaba (see Burckhardt's Travels in Syria, p. 511) might be important.

§ Gen. xxv. 18.

Exod. xv. 23, 27; Numb. xxxiii. 9.

appear to have been accomplished, since we learn, that "God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near;* for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Mitzraim; but God led the people about through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea :"+ and the journey from thence by the way of Horeb and Mount Sinai as far as Kadesh, on the confines of the promised land, would have been in almost a direct line; for it is evident, from many portions of Scripture, (see especially Exod. xxiii. 20-23; xxxiii. 1, 2; Numb. x. 29; xiii. 1, 2, 30,) that the people, but for their own unwillingness to enter Canaan, might have "gone up at once to possess it." Nor was it, indeed, until after their refusal to do so, that the Almighty uttered the denunciation, "Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Mitzraim and in the wilderness, have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice, surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers;"‡ and they were commanded again to "turn and get them into the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea,"§ when, and not before, their wanderings properly commenced.

It is not now my intention to proceed further in tracing the "journeys in the wilderness," but I hope to have, ere long, an opportunity of doing so. In the mean time, I will venture to express my sincere belief that what I have advanced will in no respect be found to disagree with the particulars of the sacred narrative, but that, on the contrary, it will aid in its elucidation, and tend to the removal of many difficulties which have attended the commonly received interpretation of it. I am, Sir, your very obedient Servant, CHARLES T. BEKE.

London, 14th April, 1835.

ON BAPTISM.

MR. EDITOR,-Your correspondent "D. I. E.," in (I think) your February number, will be pleased to hear that the plan proposed by a former correspondent, relating to the administration of baptism, and generally adopted by himself, has been successfully pursued in other parishes where the population far exceeds that of his own.

In my own parish, which contains between 1500 and 1600 souls, my plan is to hold a public baptism every sixth Sunday, after the second morning lesson; and as the ceremony occupies about twenty minutes, the lecture which is appropriate to the occasion is confined to about

At the period of the Exodus, the Philistines (or Caphtorims) appear to have obtained forcible possession of the southern portion of Canaan, " from Sihor, which is before Mitzraim, even unto the borders of Ekron northward;" (Josh. xiii. 3; Deut. ii. 23;) whence it would have been impossible for the Israelites to go up straight out of Mitzraim into the promised land without at once passing into the territories of that warlike people.

+ Exod. xiii. 17, 18.

Numb. xiv. 22, 23.

§ Numb. xiv. 25.

the same space of time, by which arrangement, the congregation is not detained beyond the usual hour. I am happy to say that I have reason to believe the plan is becoming popular in the parish, and it certainly does afford the best possible opportunity for bringing forward and explaining the Divine rite, as well as, I hope, for increasing the solemnity of the service, and leading people of all classes to reflect on its importance.

I have lately proposed, through the District Committee with which I am connected, the printing of the " Form of Baptism" in a large type, which may be put into the hands of the sponsors at the font, and secure a greater attention being paid to the service than we now generally witness.

I beg to remain, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant, R. V. March 24th, 1835.

COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME.

MR. EDITOR, I not only "forgive" ALPHA for calling in question one of my positions, but thank him for giving me the opportunity of explaining it.

All I meant by breaking off from the communion of Rome was, that the church of England did, at the Reformation, reject, as ALPHA expresses it, the usurped supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. As this supremacy is a point of the Romish faith, to reject it was to break off from that communion; and the object of my former letter was to shew that, on such separation, one of the churches only could lay claim to the name catholic, and that the modern notion of a number of churches who do not communicate with each other being all catholic, merely because they have true orders, was wholly unknown to the primitive church.

I am sorry to be obliged completely to dissent from ALPHA where he says that the Romanist's "defective celebration of the eucharist will not warrant us in refusing to communicate with them when we are in those countries where the authorized pastors adhere to the Roman communion." It appears to me, that since our Lord instituted a sacrament, which consists in his disciples receiving bread and the cup consecrated into his body and blood, any church which declares the reception of one species sufficient, and gives but one, decatholicizes herself, and therefore renders communion with her a schismatical act. I say this even on the supposition that there is a valid consecration in the Roman communion, though this I consider another modern error. The primitive doctrine was, that the invocation and descent of the Holy Ghost was necessary to consecration, and that his influence is not vouchsafed for this purpose save in the one communion of the "catholic and apostolic church."

A SCOTTISH CATHOLIC PRIEST.

WANT OF CHURCH ROOM.

SIR,-The attention of your readers has been forcibly called to the scarcity of churches. Notwithstanding the number which have been built within the few last years, it is manifest that certain parts in the vicinity of London are still miserably destitute; and, in a former number, your correspondent " Clericus" states, that Liverpool is comparatively well off in respect of church room, and yet there is not accommodation for one-sixth of the inhabitants.

Cannot some method be devised by which this lamentable deficiency may be forced upon the notice of the public? "The Incorporated Society for Promoting the Enlargement, Building, and Repairing of Churches and Chapels" has great claims upon the members of the establishment, but how meagre is the support it obtains. The list of subscribers mentions many liberal donations, but, I believe, there are not three hundred annual subscribers to the Parent Society, and the district committees are few in number. There must, I hope, be many who, though their means may not allow them to contribute largely, would willingly give their yearly subscription, if the claims of the society were only made more prominent. Attempts should be made to form district committees in every diocese, and surely such attempts would not be altogether in vain. Well-known friends to the church, and those who are already members of the society, might be applied to and requested to advance its interests in their respective neighbourhoods, and, if necessary, circulars might be prepared for their use.

And is not a Church-building Society of another kind wanted-one that could give assistance in cases in which the Incorporated Society cannot aid? There are places so poor that the inhabitants, however willing they may be, cannot of themselves raise a sum sufficient to entitle them to assistance from the Incorporated Society.

If the members of the church will not give their money to promote the cause of religion, they have good reason to fear that a curse will cleave to their riches. "Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days."James, v. 3. Let them make to themselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness by retrenching their superfluities to relieve the spiritual wants of those who are growing up in ignorance of their Maker, and who are perishing for lack of knowledge. If they who will not give liberally according to their means, in such a cause as this, should hereafter be stripped of their worldly possessions by those who have been without religious instruction, they will read their sin in their punishment. It behoves Christians to follow the example of Him, "who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich," (2 Cor. viii. 9.) May these considerations influence the mind of S. C.

CHURCH BUILDING.

SIR, Dr. Chalmers, who, I think, knows more, and has written better on the ecclesiastical state of great towns than most people,