σκοπεῖτε τοίνυν παρ' ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, εἴ τις ἂν ὑμῖν ἢ ῥήτωρ, ἢ σοφιστής, ἢ γόης οὕτω θαυμάσιος δοκεῖ γενέσθαι, καὶ λέγειν δεινὸς, ὥστ ̓ ἐκ ταυτησὶ τῆς μαρτυρίας διδάξαι τιν' ἀνθρώπων, ὡς ἔχει τὴν προῖκ "Αφοβος τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ τί λέγων; ὦ πρὸς Διὸς, ὁμολογεῖς εἶναι Μιλύαν ἐλεύθερον; καὶ τί μᾶλλον ἔχω τὴν προῖκα ;

3

Γι Vulgata lectio est, καὶ τί λέγων ὦ πρὸς τοῦ Διὸς ὡμολόγησεν εἶναι Μιλύαν ἐλεύθερον ; ὁμολογεῖς intulit Reiskius e codice Ms. quem Augustanum primum appellat.-ώμολόγησας habet codex Ms. Bavaricus. Profecto corrigendum “ καὶ τί εἰ, λέγων, ὦ πρὸς τοῦ Διὸς, ὡμολόγησα εἶναι Μιλύαν ἐλεύθερον ; τί μᾶλλον ἔχω τὴν προῖκα;” Istis verbis, καὶ τί εἰ, λέγων - ἔχω τὴν προῖκα, inest prosopopoeia. in eis Aphobi personam suscipit Demosthenes: sunt enim quæ recte dicere potuisset ille.

In Aphobum, III. p. 855. 1. 16. τί σοι ποιήσουσιν οἱ μάρτυρες; οὐ γὰρ οὗτοί γε μεμαρτυρήκασιν ὡς ὁμολογεῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς δανείζειν, καὶ λαβεῖν τἀνδράποδα ὡς σαυτόν· ἀλλ ̓ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ταῦτα γέγραφας σύ.

Γ. ὡς ὡμολόγεις ἐπὶ τ. ε. δ.

In Aphobum, III. p. 858. 1. 8. περὶ δὲ τοῦ καταλειφθῆναι τὰ χρήματ ̓ ἔνδον, βούλομαι σαφῶς ὑμῖν ἐπιδεῖξαι ψευδόμενον. Talenta illa significantur, de quibus In Aphob. I. p. 830. ἐτόλμησε ψεύσασθαι πάντων δεινότατον, ὡς τέτταρά μοι τάλαντα ὁ πατὴρ κατέλιπε κατορωρυγμένα, καὶ τούτων κυρίαν τὴν μητέρα ἐποίησε.

In Aphobum, III. p. 858. 1. 12. περὶ δὲ τοῦ καταλειφθῆναι τὰ χρήματ' ἔνδον, βούλομαι σαφῶς ὑμῖν ἐπιδεῖξαι ψευδόμενον· τοῦτον γὰρ τὸν λόγον καθῆκεν, ἐπειδὴ τὰ χρήματα μὲν πολλὰ πέφηνεν ὄντα, οὐκ εἶχε δ' ἐπιδεῖξαι ταῦθ ̓ ὡς ἀποδέδωκεν, ἵνα ἐξ εἰκότων οὐδὲν προσῆκον ἡμῖν φανῇ κομίζεσθαι τά γ' ὄντα παρ' ἡμῖν.

ἵνα ἐξ εἰκότων— Ut probabile fieret, nihil esse causa cur pecuniam recuperaremus, quæ jam tum penes nos esset.

In Aphobum, ΙΙΙ. p. 859. 1. 27. ήρόμην αὐτὸν πόσα εἴη τὰ χρήματα τὸ πλῆθος, καθ ̓ ἃ τὸν Μιλύαν, ὡς εἰδότα, ἐξῄτησεν· οὗτος δὲ ψευδόμενος, περὶ πάντων ἔφησε. περὶ μὲν τοίνυν, ἔφην ἐγώ, τούτου, παραδώσω σοι τὸν ἔχοντα τἀντίγραφα, ως σύ με προυκαλέσω.

& Constructio hæc est: παραδώσω σοι τὸν ἔχοντα τἀντίγραφα, ὡς σύ με προυκαλέσω περὶ τούτου.” Reisk.

Mihi secus videtur. nam περὶ μὲν τοίνυν τούτου, est, De hoc quidem igitur, (i. e. utrum de omni pecunia, an de triginta solum aninis.) ως est, Quemadmodum.

De hoc quidem igitur, inquam ego, servum illum tibi dedam torquendum, qui provocationis tua exemplum servat, (quo eremplo scriptum est) super quibus rebus provocasti me.

τἀντίγραφα ὡς σύ με προυκαλέσω, The copy of the terms of your challenge to me.

In Aphobum, III. p. 859. l. ult. προομόσαντος δέ μου, τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὡς ὡμολόγησας ἐλεύθερον εἶναι, καὶ κατὰ Δήμωνος ἐμαρτύρη σας, ἂν ἀπομόσης τἀναντία τούτων κατὰ τῆς θυγατρὸς, ἀφίημί σοι πάνθ', ὑπὲς ὧν ἂν ἐξαιτήσας φανῆς τὸ πρῶτον, βασανιζομένου τοῦ παιδός.

προομόσαντος δέ μου) Et quum ego prius juravero-- βασα νιζομένου τοῦ παιδὸς) per quaestionem habitam de servo qui provocationis tuæ exemplum servat, ut appareat, super quanam pecunia Milyam primo ad tormenta poposcisti.

In Onetorem.

In Onetorem, I. p. 866. 1. 10. ἔφλοντος δέ μοι τὴν δίκην ̓Αφόβου τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς, καὶ οὐδὲν δίκαιον ποιεῖν ἐθέλοντος, διαλύειν μὲν ἡμᾶς Ονήτωρ οὐκ ἐπεχείρησεν. οὐκ ἀποδεδωκως δὲ τὴν προῖκα, (sororis sua scilicet, quam duxerat Aphobus, retinente dotem Onetore, ne, si Aphobus judicio tutela damnaretur, amitteretur dos) ἀλλ ̓ αὐτὸς κύριος ὤν, ὡς ἀπολελοιπυίας τῆς ἀδελφῆς, καὶ δοὺς κομίσασθαι οὐ δυνάμενος, ἀποτιμήσασθαι φάσκων τὴν γῆν, ἐξάγειν μὲ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐτόλμησε.

Potestne dus significare dotem? habetne locum in soluto sermone ? Si ita sit, corrigam lubens, καὶ ΔΩΣ κομίσασθαι οὐ δυνάμενος. Sed melius forsan esset legere, καὶ δοὺς, (Αφόβῳ τὴν προῖκα scilicet) κομίσασθαι Δ ̓ οὐ δυνάμενος.

In Onetorem, I. p. 867. 1. 26. ἐγὼ τοίνυν ὁμολογουμένως οὕτω ταῦτ ̓ ἐλέγχων, ὡς οὐδ ̓ ὕστερον ἀπέδοσαν, οἴομαι ραδίως ἐπιδείξειν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πεπραγμένων ; ὥσθ' ὑμῖν γενέσθαι φανερὸν, ὅτι κἂν εἰ μὴ · ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τῷ διὰ ταχέων ἀποδοῦναι, τἀργύριον εἶχον, οὐκ ἄν ποτ' ἀπέδοσαν, οὐδ ̓ ἂν προΐεντο. τοιαύτας ἀνάγκας εἶχεν αὐτοῖς τὸ πράγμα.

Ordo hic est,-οἴομαι ῥᾳδίως ἐπιδείξειν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πεπραγμέ νων ὡς οὐδ ̓ ὕστερον ἀπέδοσαν. Deinde rescribendum opinor, ὥσθ' ὑμῖν γενέσθαι φανερὸν, ὅτι, κἂν εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τῷ διὰ ταχέων ἀποδοῦναι ταργύριον, ΕΙΧΕΝ, οὐκ ἄν ποτ ̓ ἀπέδοσαν, οὐδ ̓ ἂν προΐεντο.

κἂν εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ τούτοις) etiam si non his conditionibus, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τῷ διὰ ταχέων ἀποδοῦναι τἀργύριον, sed hac lege ut Onetor et Timocrates, quem, maritum suum priorem, Onetoris soror reliquerat, confestim Aphobo, novo marito, dotem numerarent, EIXEN, (sororem Onetoris Aphobus, scilicet)—οὐκ ἄν ποτ ̓ ἀπεδόσαν,

κ. τ. λ.

In Onetorem, I. p. 869. 1. 23. μὴ γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς τοῦτον, τοιοῦτον ὄντα, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲ πρὸς ἄλλον οὐδ ̓ ἂν εἷς οὐδένα τοιοῦτον συνάλλαγμα ποιούμενος (sororis suæ conjugium videlicet, cum talento dotis) ἀμαρτύρως ἂν ἔπραξεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν τοιούτων ἕνεκα καὶ γάμους ποιοῦμεν,

καὶ τοὺς ἀναγκαιοτάτους παρακαλοῦμεν, ὅτι οὐ πάρεργον, ἀλλ ̓ ἀδελ Φῶν καὶ θυγατέρων βίους ἐγχειρίζομεν, ὑπὲρ ὧν τὰς ἀσφαλείας μάλιστα σκοποῦμεν.

Hic yάuous significare videtur, Convivia nuptialia,

In Onetorem, II. p. 876. 1. 19. τοὺς ὅρους ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἀφαι ρεῖ, καὶ τάλαντον μόνον εἶναι τὴν προϊκά φησιν, ἐν ᾧ τὸ χωρίον ἀποτε τιμῆσθαι.

Opinor ̓Εφ ̓ ᾧ τὸ χωρίον ἀποτετιμῆσθαι.

On the Error relative to the time of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt.

THE opinions of some of our most learned bishops, kindly conveyed to me, have enabled me to assert with a degree of confidence, which I should not otherwise have felt, that I have discovered a very remarkable mistake of all commentators in fixing the time of day at which the Israelites quitted Egypt. This discovery, though at first sight apparently insignificant, leads to two results, by no means unimportant. It brings to light, on the one hand, some beautiful and additional specimens of the wonderful harmony and minute accuracy with which the Paschal types accord with their antitypes. On the other hand, it powerfully tends to set at rest that controversy in which so many of the most profound theologians of various countries and times have engaged, respecting our Lord's anticipation of the Last Passover.

However, as the subject, though important, possesses none of those attractions derivable from a reference to the disputes and passions of the day, it would be presumptuous in me (an individual unknown to the literary world) to suppose that, by printing a small tract, I shall in a great degree succeed in exciting public attention to it.

Permit me therefore to introduce it to the notice of the many critical and scientific readers, into whose hands your Journal usually passes. The subject is curious, and may not be uninteresting to your readers. It adds, I think, a new evidence of the truth of our religion, to the bundle (if I may so express myself) which we already bave collected, and which, united, the whole, force of infidelity never has been, and, I trust, never will be, able to break.

Many expositors, and of no little eminence, appear to have been influenced by a persuasion that, for the accurate and complete accomplishment of the paschal types, it was necessary that the sacrifice of Christ, and of the paschal lamb, should take place on the same day. But this persuasion appears on examination to be totally erroneous. The sacrifice of our Saviour, and that of the paschal lamb, were not designed to have taken place on the same day. Their doing so, instead of producing a close fulfilment of the paschal types, would exhibit a very remarkable discrepancy between some of the types and their antitypes; and could come to pass only by our Lord's setting an example of opposition to the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities, in respect to one of the most solemn observances of the law: an example entirely at variance with his general declarations and conduct. This persuasion, then, seems to have taken its rise from two

sources.

I. From a want of accuracy in distinguishing the objects which the several paschal types were respectively designed to adumbrate.

II. From a mistake, into which, I believe, all commentators, without exception, have fallen; in fixing the time of day at which the Israelites took their departure from Egypt.

I. In considering the principal circumstances of the Passover we shall perceive that there are five perfectly distinct classes of types.

1. The DELIVERANCE of the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage was a type of our deliverance, not only as to its nature, but also to the month, the day of the month, and the HOUR of it.

2. The paschal lamb, with its qualities, typified the Redeemer, in virtue of whose merits and atoning sacrifice BOTH these deliverances were vouchsafed.

3. The sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, &c. were types of the death, sufferings, and bloodshedding, of the Redeemer. By these he reconciled us to God, and purchased that dispensation of grace and mercy, of which His protection, and miraculous superintendence of His chosen people, formed a part, and to which they were subservient.

4. The eating of the paschal sacrifice was a symbol, and means of their participation in the benefits of the sacrifice, and also a type of that feast, which was, in the fulness of time, to be established, and at which our souls and bodies are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine.'

MORNING as the time of their departure; whereas, it was, in fact, as I have already hinted, "between the two evenings," after the "ninth hour," about the hour when the Saviour exclaimed "it is finished;" when the "vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom," that the free approach to the mercy-seat was opened "to all believers;" that the rocks were rent; the graves unclosed; and that heaven and earth proclaimed

THE COMPLETION OF THE PROMISED DELIVERANCE..

The proofs, which may be brought to establish this curious fact, appear to me irrefragable. They may be classed under two heads; viz. proofs deducible,

"I. From a general view of the transaction, as related in the twelfth chapter of Exodus.

II. From the direct testimony, and from the expressions used in various parts of scripture, describing or alluding to this event. 1. From a general view of the transaction, it will appear extremely improbable that they could have commenced their march much before the above time, and still less could have all quitted Egypt. The destruction of the Egyptians took place at midnight. When it had taken place, it is no unreasonable presumption that some considerable interval had elapsed before a messenger was sent to Moses. The time consumed in unavailing lamentations, in the confusion and consternation that must have ensued, and rendered them, at first, incapable of deciding upon the measures to be taken, in announcing the calamity to Pharaoh, in assembling his counsellors; all this must have occasioned some delay, even before a messenger was despatched to Moses. Then the children of Israel, dwelling in a district of their own, and being withal treated as slaves, it can scarcely be supposed that the abode of Moses was near the king's palace.1 Therefore, before he could have come, to receive the orders for the dismissal of his countrymen, it must have probably been morning, or very nearly morning. Consequently, the business of assembling the people for their march could not have commenced till that time.

But we arrive at this conclusion more directly, by the express

'In Exodus, ix. v. 29. is a strong, if not decisive intimation, that the dwelling-place of Moses was "out of the city." And this is conformable both with the history of the first settlement of the Israelites in Egypt, and with what we might reasonably presume would be their situation, when we consider the cruel and jealous policy of the Egyptians, in destroying their male children. It is not at all probable that the Egyptians would suffer a people, at whose increase they were so greatly alarmed, to remain within, or even very near, the walls of their capital.