unbelievers and atheists and scoffers of those who in early life had been educated to believe and reverence the Bible.

Such is an imperfect but faithful sketch of what Christians were doing the century and a half which immediately preceded the reign of Constantine. Is it any wonder that such Christians maintained their ground, and made progress in spite of the most terrible opposition, and in an age of the most gigantic corruption and wickedness? The silent power of a holy life is irresistible, and more terrible than an army with banners to all the hosts of Satan; but the devil, and all unbelievers, laugh in perfect security when Christians endeavor to hold their ground, and make their way by hoarse controversy and fierce denunciation, while they live so much like the world around them, that the Christian cannot be recognised except at the communion table. I have purposely omitted allusion to the bitter and terrific persecutions which they endured from the civil power, and their constancy and fidelity under them; because I would confine the attention to those points in which their circumstances resembled ours, and where we can have no excuse for not practising the same virtues, and to the same extent, that they did.

Some may here be disposed to inquire, "Had these Christians no faults? We have heard much of their imperfections, of their errors, of their imperfect morality." It is true that they had faults, many and great faults. Just emerging as they did from all the loathsome pollutions of heathenism, their views on many points of morals were imperfect, and their perceptions of moral truth were far from being clear. But whatever their faults were, they had no hypocrisy in their religious professions. In these they were altogether whole-hearted and sincere, and they performed their duty so far as they knew it. They were ready at any time to sacrifice their all for Christ; and when they said that they gave up themselves and all that they had to be the Lord's, they meant just what they said, and shrunk not from any of the responsibilities involved in such a profession. It was their simple, implicit, whole-hearted faith which gave them their mighty power, and decked them in panoply for their terrific conflict with the powers of darkness, and gave them at last the victory. It is true, they were roughly accoutred and imperfectly disciplined, but with the whole soul they

loved the cause in which they were engaged; and in comparison with the better instructed Christians of modern times, they were like the bare-footed and ill-armed continentals of our revolutionary struggle, who loved their country, and were ready to die for it, in comparison with the wellequipped and disciplined troops that were brought against them, who had no country to love, and whose chief motive of action was a determination to maintain an honorable and soldier-like reputation. We all know which of the two succeeded the best.

Let us conscientiously make the comparison, and judge whether the church now is characterized generally by the essential features of a sincere profession as strongly as it was then. Is there as much of deep and profoundly reverential feeling in regard to God and his word, and the same habits of devotional communion with him? Is there an equal self-respect and regard for consistency in those who profess to be the soldiers of Jesus Christ, and the high priests of God in this polluted world? Is there the same ardent love and community of feeling among Christian brethren, which makes every requisite allowance for human infirmity, and avails itself to the utmost of every existing excellence for the common good? Is there the same pious, tender, conscientious concern for the spiritual interests of an unconverted world, which beholds even in the most provoking scoffer and persecutor, a soul for which Jesus died, and which is capable of being made an heir of eternal glory? Is there the same quiet, devotional, happy, receptive, melting spirit in the meetings of the church, which feeds with delight on the milk of the word, and joins, with a soul filled to overflowing, in the exercises of prayer and praise? Is there the same conscientious regard to Christian duty in the common pursuits and business of life, which makes a man willing to relinquish any traffic, however lucrative, any profession, however gainful, which has one stain of pollution in it, so as actually to reduce himself to poverty, rather than do any thing inconsistent with the highest exercise of supreme love to God and benevolent affection to man? Is there the same avoiding for themselves and their children of the noisy and dissipating amusements of an irreligious world? Is there the same disregard of the fashions of the world? Is there the same quiet, peaceful, holy temper in the family circle?

Are these the general, prevailing characteristics of professors of religion in our times, so that wherever we see a professor of religion, we expect to see such a character as this? If not, then, with all the improvements and advantages of modern times, we have yet something to learn from the piety of the early Christians.

ARTICLE VI.

ON THE HUSKS THAT THE SWINE DID EAT.

By Rev. Samuel H. Cox, D. D., Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, N. Y.

And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat and no man gave unto him.-Luke 15: 16.

My attention has been lately turned to the meaning of the word husks, in this passage, a specimen of which I have just received from the Mediterranean. Indebted to a respected member of my church for the present, I have no doubt of its genuineness. His ships traverse many distant seas; and by a recent arrival from the Levant, he received the same from the Rev. Mr. Dwight, missionary, at Smyrna. The interest thus awakened, has induced me to communicate the results of some attention bestowed on the subject.

Καὶ ἐπεθύμει γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ.

Thus reads the original. We inquire mainly, what means the word husks? What were they, credibly, which are thus represented as moving the appetite, even of a starving man, to devour them, and that to satiety; being "filled" with them?

In America, where the aboriginal Indian corn, or maize, has in effect monopolized the application of the word corn, we are coming almost universally to understand by it, maize alone. Whereas, in all the English world besides, and in our common English Bible, the word corn is a generic or collective term, for all farinaceous grains or substances, previously to the process of grinding, which reduces them to

the consistency of meal, flour, or bran. Thus wheat, rye, oats, buckwheat, and other staples of agriculture, are denominated corn; not with us in the United States, but with the whole English world besides us; as when they speak of corn crops, corn stuffs, and corn laws, or the like. With us,

by corn is meant, simply, maize; and by an allied usage, the word husks becomes appropriated to the exterior rind, bark, hull, or integument, that immediately covers and protects the seeds or grains.

The consequence is that among the common people-we do not, of course, implicate the clergy, or the learned of other classes, in the statement-the impressions produced, by reading the passage in question, are ludicrous, or absurd and incredible. This is so, we apprehend, in the experience of almost all youthful readers among us. The figure, in the mind's eye, is that of a famished man, desiring to eat cornstalks, or the dry husks of hard Indian corn; and to that end, almost grudging the luxury, to the miserable, and to the Jews especially, the execrable, quadrupeds, which it was then his deep degradation to attend. Nor is the riddle improved, when we imagine that even swine should think it luxury, or use such aliment. They will eat our corn, but are not ordinarily reduced to any monstrous necessity of subsisting-if this were possible-on husks!

Mistakes of this sort too afford materials, comparatively among the best, for the day-dreams of modern infidelity. A plausibly deduced absurdity is the occasion of arraigning or denouncing the inspiration of the holy Scriptures. How could a man eat husks or corn-stalks? How could swine? Thus, by weapons as contemptible or as silly, is the bosom of the hearer pierced, and poisoned against the truth.

The specimen mentioned above, is a perfect illustration of the sense of Scripture, and as good a vindication of its truth from such or similar attacks. The word κερατιον occurs in no other passage of the New Testament. It refers doubtless to the very species now identified in the specimen-as we gather from an induction of many particulars. It is a dark hard pod or capsule, about three inches in length, with seeds (8 or 10) that rattle in the case, gently, when shaken, and with a noise resembling that of a rattlesnake. Each seed is about the size of an ordinary dry pea, not perfectly round, but flattened; hard, and of a dark red

dish color. The taste of the pod is poor, but not entirely disagreeable; being sweetish, somewhat nutritious even in its dry state, and probably much more palatable and proper for food in its earlier or green state. The whole form is slightly curved, resembling a small horn; from which in Greek its name seems to be derived; ά xɛgas, cornu. The whole form or show of them on the tree, especially at some seasons of the year, would better suggest probably the idea of horns, as if the tree was full of them.

Such facts are not too trivial to be useful; and their relation of propriety to a REPOSITORY, mainly BIBLICAL, will be obvious to all. They assist our understanding of the parable of the Prodigal Son, and may aid our wisdom in looking through its drapery to the great idea it there inculcates that worldlings, going away from God for happiness, are compelled often to covet the most miserable substitutes -to subsist on elements, that show their degradation, and make even brutes, in their proper spheres, appear their enviable superiors.

A few authorities, and I have done.

Dr. Campbell translates the word without change, husks. His note on the passage however is valuable.

κερατιον

With the husks, ano tov xegariov. Vul. De Siliquis. That xεgation answers to siliqua, and signifies a husk, or pod, wherein the seeds of some plants, especially those of the leguminous tribe, are contained, is evident, But both the Greek negarior and the Latin siliqua, signify also the fruit of the carob-tree, a tree very common in the Levant, and in the southern parts of Europe, as Spain and Italy. The Syriac and Arabic words are of the same import. This fruit still continues to be used for the same purposes, the feeding of swine. It is also called St. John's Bread, from the opinion that the Baptist used it in the wilderness. It is the pod only that is eaten, which shows the propriety of the names xɛpaziov and siliqua, and of rendering it into English husk. Miller says, it is mealy, and has a sweetish taste, and that it is eaten by the poorer sort; for it grows in the common hedges, and is of little account.

Our specimen perfectly verifies the above description. We must however dissent from the sentiment that husks is the proper or eligible way of rendering it into English. It strikes us as far preferable to substitute the word pods.