ironical allusion to the form of the cherubim in Ezek i. 10, x. 8, and Rev. iv. 6 ; but these latter have always πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου nai πтéρuyas. Had Lucian known of these, he would have imitated them more closely he thought rather of the centaurs only. With more reason have some insisted upon the narrative in chap. 30. The voyagers suddenly meet a great multitude of whales. One of the largest comes upon them with open jaws, and swallows the whole ship. Within his belly are entire cities, forests, &c.; and the voyagers remain there more than two years, 2, 4 (Tò μÉYIOTOV τῶν κατῶν ἐπῄει κεχηνὸς ἀναῤῥοφῆσαν ἡμᾶς αὐτῇ νηῒ κατέπιεν). Krebs recognises in this the whale of Jonah (Jon. i. 17): πoséтaže κύριος κήτει μεγάλῳ καταπιεῖν τὸν Ἰωνᾶν ; and as the voyagers in this case also came forth uninjured from the monster, Lucian's reference to the Old Testament account cannot be so easily rejected. Kühn directs attention to the later embellishments of the story of Hercules. According to Lycophron and Hellanicus, this hero delivered Hesione from the jaws of a whale, and himself remained three days in his throat. Lucian has everywhere sneered at the lying stories of voyagers, which were current at his time, and which fabled so much respecting monsters in the ocean.

Manifold allusions to the Holy Scriptures have been found in the other writings of Lucian. In the Peregrinus,' Theagenes (chap. 6) says, respecting the fre-death of his friend, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐς θεοὺς τὸ ἅγαλμα τοῦτο οιχήσεται, οχούμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρὸς ὀρφα νοὺς ἡμᾶς καταλιπών. One might discover in this an allusion to the fiery chariot of Elijah, to the ascension of Jesus, and to the passage John xiv. 18, οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανούς ; but Lucian never speaks of a fiery chariot, always of a death by fire. Kühn remarks on the word oppavoi, that philosophers are frequently called fathers, and their pupils viol. He may have simply referred to Plato's Phædo (116. A. chap. 65), where the friends of Socrates say, arexvas ἡγούμενοι, ὥσπερ πατρὸς στερηθέντες, διάξειν ὀρφανοὶ τὸν ἔπειτα βίον. The remaining passages are entirely doubtful. It was ridiculous to see an allusion to the history of Joseph in the passage, Calumniatori non temere credendum, 24, where one is spoken of who seeks to transfer his guilt to another; yet the Phædra of Euripides and the Bellerophon in the II. 6, 164, offered examples, if such must be sought. The views of the philosophers are represented in the IcaroMenippus; and it is there said, others again banish all other gods from the world in order to give the authority to one' (vì μóv Tv τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν απένεμον). But while the discourse is merely of philosophers, we must not think of the Jewish or Christian monotheism. It would be more correct to think of Pythagoras, Plato, and especially Orpheus, whose verses, probably forged, Justin and the other apologists so often quote: Els Seos n. T. 2. In the Cata

6

plus, 10, Megapenthes wishes to leave the lower world, and to give his loved friend as a pledge for his return. Lehmann found echoes of the New Testament in the words ἄντανδρον ὑμῖν ἀντ ̓ ἐμαυτοῦ παραδώσω τὸν ἀγαπητόν; yet these words are of no importance. Telemachus, Od. 2, 365, is aуznтós; and so also Astyanax, Il. 6, 401. ävтævdgos may bring to mind Admetus, for whom Alceste died (Apollod. Í. 9, 15). In the Dial. Mort. 3, 2, the pas is defined as ἐξ ἀνθρώπου καὶ θεοῦ σύνθετον ; and in 16, 1, Lucian affirms derisively that Hercules, though son of a god, must die : Tenne As viós. In this there lies, it has been thought, a reference to the two natures of Christ, and to his death; but the passage is fully and only explained by the belief in heroes. The expressions upn μένοι τὴν κεφαλήν and τὰς καρδίας προεξηρημένοι occur in the Conviv. 18, and Alex. 15. By wresting these words they have been made an imitation of Stephen's language (Acts vii. 51), TEPITUNTO TH xxpdig! It is said in the Fugitivi, 17, of the philosophers who became so quickly famous, that this seemed to them like the golden age (ὁ ἐπὶ Κρόνου βίος καὶ ἀτεχνῶς τὸ μέλι αὐτὸ ἐς τὰ στόματα ἐσρειν EX TOU оúρжνou). Hence Wieland (3, 129) found here an allusion to the manna; but the addition in Kpóvou requires us to think only of heathen descriptions of the golden age, in which honey never fails (Virg. Ecl. 4, 30; Tibull. I. 3, 45; Ovid, Metam. I. 112). The passage also of the Dea Syria, 12, where occur Deucalion's flood and chest (pv), and the animals assembled by pairs (Tavτa és Eúyɛz) in the ark, need not be referred to Gen. vii. 9 (duo, dúo); for the story of the Deluge was very wide spread (comp. Tuch on Gen.), and Lucian may perhaps have been acquainted with Berosus, who speaks of Noah's dove.

Besides the passages now adduced, still others may perhaps be found in Lucian. Kühn says that Burmeister has collected some which had been previously overlooked; but as I could not obtain his work, I will add a few which have met my notice. In the Veræ Historiæ the voyagers see five islands of the godless (voo τῶν ἀσεβῶν, ἀφ ̓ ὧν δὴ ὁρᾶς τὸ πολὺ πῦρ καιόμενον); and from the place of torment (says Lucian, chap. 29), ὀδμὴ δεινὴ ἡμᾶς διεδέχετο, οἷον ἀσφάλτου καὶ θείου καὶ πίσσης ἅμα καιομένων. This reminds one of the expression in Rev. xxi. 8, λίμνη καιομένη πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ. Yet I am not acquainted with the particular views of the heathen respecting the fire in Hades. The water changed to blood by the stroke of a sword, according to the 46th chapter of the same book, might be compared with the plague of Moses (Exod. vii. 17 seq.). Yet the blood in Lucian could be explained from this, that he had before let a woman be changed into water. The description of the Demonax as an ἀόργητος, ὀλίγα μὲν λαλῶν, πολλὰ δ ̓ ἀκούων, reminds us of the admonition of James (i. 19), taxùs ɛis tò ànoũoai,

βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. Moreover, the oft-discussed passage (Pro Imagin. 28) is probably to be traced back to a Biblical source. Lucian had ascribed to a female friend of the emperor the beauty of all the goddesses. This was too much; and she found therein partly unmerited praise and partly neglect of the reverence due to the goddesses. Lucian therefore justifies his encomium, and first calls attention to Homer, who has transferred divine predicates to men, and then proceeds of Jeol o¿dè tòv äpioτον τῶν φιλοσόφων ἠμύναντο, εἰκόνα Θεοῦ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰπόντα εἶναι. Wieland (3, 339) shows in detail that Epicurus-in Lucian's opinion the best of philosophers—has no such thought; and moreover that Plato, in the Timæus (92), names the word only, and not man, eixav EOD. Diogenes the cynic says, to be sure, that good men are the images of the Divinity; but the word of Lucian obviously looks like a quotation, and we must therefore think of Gen. i. 27, unless we are willing to assume that the thoughts or writings of the Christian apologists were known to him. See Tatian, Adv. Græcos. 7, ὁ λόγος εἰκόνα τῆς ἀθανασίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐποίησε ; or chap. 15, μόνος ἄνθρωπος εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωσις Θεοῦ. In like manner Theophilus says (Ad. Autol. 1, 14), vps oμa nai einav SEO. The passage in Jupiter Trag. 32, where Hercules wishes to shake the pillars of the hall in order to cast all the plunder on the head of Damis, the atheist (TV σToàν diaσɛioas ἐμβαλῶ τῷ Δαμιδι), brings to mind the vengeance of Samson (Judges xvi. 25, seq.). A striking similarity of expression occurs in the Fugit. 5, where Zeus pities the human race sinking ever deeper in error, and sends to them philosophy, which alone can furnish aid (uó láoαodaι Súvatar). Finally, one is reminded of Christian doctrines in regard to the creation, and especially of Lactant. Instit. Divin. 7, 5, by a passage in the Prometheus (15), where it is given as the end of man's creation, that the beauty and glory of the universe might not be without a witness (un vivoμένον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀμάρτυρον συνέβεινε τὸ κάλλος εἶναι τῶν ὅλων). The Hermotimus (24) speaks of a róλis Taveudaíuwv, in which poor and rich, alien and native, small and great, have equal part-estimation depending not on property or external things, but wholly and alone in judgment and striving after goodness. Lucian says that an old man gave him, fifteen years before, an account of this city, but from the youthfulness of his understanding he was unable to follow him. Roth (im Schönthaler Program. 1844, de satiræ Romanæ indole, p. 14) believes this passage must refer to Christianity; but the whole connection points clearly to the philosophical schools. Lucian says (chap. 22), čoтw ʼn dgetǹ olov ós; and in chap. 25 Hermotimus will seek such a city among his Stoics. Wetzlar (de vita, ætate, et scriptis Luciani, p. 36) rightly con

jectures that the old man who spoke of this city was the Platonist Nigrinus. At least Nigrinus (chap. 4) answers fully to the description in the Hermotimus; and the city, as an emblem of organised moral life, reminds one of Plato's Republic.

Finally, we remark that Lucian, in his two principal writings against the superstition and fanatical credulity of his time, the Alexander and Nigrinus, quotes also the Sibylline oracles. While it is known that these were composed in part by Christians, and were employed by their apologists in argument (comp. Just. coh. ad Græcos, 16, 37, 38; Apol. 1, 20, 40; Theoph. ad Autol. 2, 3, 9, 36; and Orig. contra Cels. 7, 53); and while the composition of many Sibylline oracles, according to Thorlacius and Bleek, belongs to the period 100-170, it would not have been impossible for Lucian to make mention of them as a phenomenon of the time known to himself. He says Alex. 11), εὕρητο χρησμὸς ὡς Σιβύλλης προμαντευσαμένης ; and Peregr. 29, Σίβυλλαν ἔφη προειρηκέναι ; and both times he proceeds to make the verses himself. He does not indeed think of any use of such Sibylline words by Christians; but they should not fail in his satirical picture of the times, which everywhere relates to superstition.

CORRESPONDENCE.

ON THE SPIRITS IN PRISON.'

SIR,-In the fourth number, first series, of the Journal of Sacred Literature, Dr. Brown's Expository Discourses on the First Epistle of Peter are noticed with unqualified praise-the doctrinal and the practical, the critical and the popular, being, we are told, admirably combined in them, with many other laudatory remarks of a similar nature. But the reviewer calls our attention particularly to the dissertation on the 18th verse of the 3rd chapter. The discussion, he says, which displays most originality and power is that regarding the spirits in prison.' Our immediate purpose in the strictures which we are about to make is to show that the explanation so highly applauded involves misinterpretations of the sacred text which render it altogether untenable, and partly to give expression to our own views upon the subject.

6

6

Let then the sentence θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι be taken. These words are thus rendered in the new translation: 'Having become dead with respect to his flesh, but quickened with respect to the spirit.' The former of these clauses is further explained in the commentary: 'He became dead in the flesh, he became bodily dead.' The expression bodily dead' is not very elegant, nor is it very easy to ascertain the exact shade of meaning which it was intended to convey, although the reason of its being employed will soon appear. Believing, however, the intended import of it to be that our Lord' died as to his body'—that he died like other men-we are willing to accept of it as communicating the sense in which the Apostle used the original words. Dr. Brown continues to be quickened in the spirit' is 'to be quickened spiritually.' It is impossible to approve of this explanation. The two clauses are exact counterparts or contrasts to each other. Together they describe what happened at the crucifixion to the Saviour's human body and to his reasonable spirit. The one died; the other lived. His body became dead; his spirit continued to exist. Bodily dead' and 'spiritually quickened' do not fully correspond. The former is used in a literal sense; the latter in a figurative acceptation. But that cannot be admitted. Both of them must be taken in the same manner. If the one is understood literally, so must the other. Both must be explained figuratively, or neither. Now the Redeemer died literally; consequently he was alive before that event; and, if Dr. Brown's interpretation be correct, he must literally have been spiritually quickened-implying that before he was thus quickened he was 'spiritually dead.' The conclusion is one which the reverend doctor would shun with horror; but, seeing that it is a natural one, he endeavours to avoid it by maintaining that, among its other meanings, the word