to Homer, Proteus was not in Egypt, but frequented the shores of an adjacent island: and we find him opposed to Jehovah among the Philistines, under the name of Dagon, which means a fish or corn, as the word is derived from one of two Hebrew terms very similar in sound, though thus different in sense. If then the devotees of Dagon or Proteus, under the fable of the strangled calf and the bees, ridiculed the Israelites and the true God; and if it was usual with Proteus to metamorphose himself into a lion, we shall see the purport of the following piece of history: "Then went Sampson down and his father and his mother to Temnath -and behold a young lion roared against him, and the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him; and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand.... And after a time he returned, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion, and behold there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion." Judges xiv. 5-9. This act was miraculous, inflicted in just and signal vengeance by a servant of the true God, to illustrate the folly and falsehood of those who trusted in the popular gods opposed to him. The punishment inflicted on Dagon, as meaning corn, was also very signal, but different. "And Sampson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took fire-brands, and turned tail to tail, and put a fire-brand in the midst between two tails. And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines; and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives." chap. xv. 4, 5. The Philistines ascribed this corn to the bounty of Dagon, and its destruction proved the nullity of the god which they worshipped.

Page 264. "Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you?" 2 Cor. iii. 1. In Acts xix. 1. it is said that Apollos carried from Aquila at Ephesus, a letter of re

commendation to the church at Corinth ; and Paley supposes that this is precisely the letter which Paul meant. This conclusion is very natural in a writer, whose object was to find out undesigned coincidences between the book of the Acts and the Epistles of Paul. But I am bold to say that he is mistaken: and I ground my assertion on the two following reasons. First, the Apostle had in view more than one, "for need we as TIVES, as some others." Secondly, the Apostle alludes to enemies who wished to undermine his authority in the church at Corinth. In the preceding verse, he holds them forth as men who adulterated the word of God. And we are assured that Apollos was not of that number; his doctrine being in perfect unison with that of the Apostle. The short account given of Apollos in the Acts fully warrants this assertion, not to mention Paul's own words," I planted, Apollos watered; but God giveth the increase." 1 Cor. iii. 6. This last had been a disciple of John; and seems to have baptized many of the Christians at Corinth. This shows the propriety of the verb watered, which was suggested by the latent influence of association. This exquisite little propriety seems to have escaped the notice of Paley. The Apostle, then, does not refer to Apollos, but to the impostors, who, as I have already observed, obtained introduction to the Christians at Corinth, by means of letters forged in the name of Paul or some of his friends.

I here take an opportunity to rectify another misconception of this distinguished author. "Paul called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God, which is at Corinth." 1 Cor. i. 1. On this Paley remarks, "The only account we have of any person who bore the name of Sosthenes, is found in the eighteenth chapter of the Acts. When the Jews at Corinth brought Paul before Gallio, and Gallio had dismissed their complaint as unworthy of his interference, and had driven them

from the judgement-seat," then all the Greeks," says the historian," took Sosthenes the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgement-seat." The Sosthenes here spoken of, was a Corinthian: and if he was a Christian, and with St. Paul when he wrote this Epistle, he was likely enough to be joined with him in the salutation of the Corinthian church. But here occurs a difficulty. If Sosthenes was a Christian at the time of this uproar, why should the Greeks beat him? The assault upon the Christians was made by the Jews. It was the Jews who had brought Paul before the magistrate." Horæ Paul., p. 91. He then, as a solution of this difficulty, proposes to adopt the reading of Tavtes, instead of παντες οι Έλληνες, which is that contained in the Alexandrian manuscript, taking TaνTES to mean all the Jews that were present. But this would corrupt the text, and defeat the object which Luke had in view. The refractory Jews abstained from abusing such of the Greeks as were converts, for fear of awakening the jealousy of the people of the place. They therefore, while they beat their own countrymen, instigated the unbelieving Greeks to do the same with theirs. And it appears to me surprising, that a man of Paley's sagacity did not see that this was precisely the case. Now observe the reason why Luke has stated the fact in such strong terms: "Then all the Greeks all the Greeks that were present or fraternized with the Jews in the work of persecution,-took Sosthenes and beat him before the judgement-seat." The object of the historian is to paint by a strong fact the iniquity and shameless connivance of Gallio. "And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If this were a matter of wrong, or a fraudulent act, O ye Jews, reason required that I should hear you : but as it is a question of doctrine, and of terms in your law, decide it yourselves: I will not be a judge in such mat ters." This decision would have been right, and worthy of a wise magistrate, if a violence had not been com

mitted; but at the very moment he professed that it became him to interfere in case of wrong, he suffers the law to be violated in the grossest manner before his face, and that not by Jews, but by the Greeks under his administration. Luke, by way of complaint, gives no epithet to this wicked judge; but he placed the transaction in such a light as to enable his readers to perceive that he had the cruelty to withhold his protection from innocent men who were grossly injured, and yet had the cunning to shelter his connivance under the specious plea, that the complaint did not come within his jurisdiction.

Page 200. Much of late years has been written about the article in Greek; and many subtle uses have been ascribed to it, which have no existence, I am bold to say, but in the brain of the writers; while a certain meaning essential to it, and on a level with common sense, has been overlooked. The theory of its application so as to comprehend every instance, may thus be stated: The article, being a definitive, defines one individual in opposition to others, or taking the classes of things as so many individuals, defines one class, one sort, one kind or chạracter, in opposition to other classes, sorts, kinds or characters. This last use of the article, which may be called the generic use, is most frequent; and I will venture to say that there are many scores of passages in the New Testament alone, which are either entirely mistaken or partially understood for want of attention to this sense› of it. Some of these I will explain on a future' occasion. My object at present is to note another use of the Greek article, arising from its defining power.

Sometimes things can be defined by only being connected: hence the article in Greek becomes a connective serving to attach an adjunct to its subject, or a property to its possessor. In such cases its import in English is expressed by the pronominal adjectives my, thy, his, her, our, your, their. Let us illustrate this application of the

Greek article by a few examples. Όταν παραδω την βαTiλelay To De Haι natpi. 1 Cor. xv. 24. "When he shall deliver up the kingdom to the God and father, i. e. to his God and father;" which in the common translation is improperly" to God even the father." Ereßaλov Επεβαλον TAS XEIPAS ET AUTOV. Acts, xxi. 27. "They laid the hands upon him, i. e. their hands upon him." A Greek epigram has χωλον εχεις τον νουν ὡς τον ποδα, “ Thou hast ihe mind lame as the foot, thou hast thy mind lame as thy foot, thou art lame in mind as well as in feet." The Cyclops in Lucian, complaining to his father Neptune of the injury done him by Ulysses, says Κατεσοφίσατο με τῶ ovoμaτ, "he overreached me by the name, i. e. by his name, охорнать, the wily traveller having given OUTIs instead of Oducσeus as his name, which proved the means of saving him from destruction. Let us apply this to one of the many cases the full force of which has been overlooked by the critics, 2 Cor. viii. 8. We have sent with him the brother, whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the churches, —we have sent with him our brother, whose praise by means of his Gospel is throughout all the churches.' The brother here meant is Luke, whom Paul calls a fellow traveller in the next verse. It was natural that, as Luke had written a Gospel or a Memoir of his divine master, and, as he accompanied the Apostle Paul in establishing the Gentile church, he should leave a copy in the possession of each church. And here we are very incidentally furnished with a happy testimony to the early existence of the Gospel of Luke, and to the estimation in which the author of it was held for his fidelity and truth. The late Dr. Middleton, in a well-known volu minous work on the Greek article, has pointed out this as one of its uses; and hence he states, if I remember rightly, that the article carries in itself the sense of our possessive pronouns. This is very absurd; and shows

what crudities even a sensible man and a scholar is ca pable of entertaining, if he happen not to have en