of thoughts and feelings which was utterly unknown among the natives of the old world.

66

Thus," says he, "in our days,—no longer in the shape of conquest, but under the form of intellectual, commercial, and peaceful communications amongst all the continents and the nations of the earth,―science becomes the universal conqueror, to the advantage and honour of all. Providence seems now to have charged the genius of industry and discovery, with the task of preparing for him the most complete unity of the terrestrial globe that has ever condensed time, space, and people into a close, compact, and homogeneous mass. Navigation, printing, the discovery of steamthat cheap and irresistible power which propels man, with his armies and his merchandise, as far and as quickly as his thoughts; the construction of railroads, which pass through mountain and over valley, bringing the earth to one level; the discovery of the electric telegraph, which gives to communications between the two hemispheres the rapidity of lightning; the invention of balloons, to which a helm is still wanting, but which will soon render the air a more simple and more universal element of navigation than the ocean all these nearly contemporary revelations of Providence, through the inspiration of the spirit of industry, are means of concentration, drawing the earth as it were together, and instruments of union and assimilation for the human race. These means are so active and so evident, that it is impossible not to perceive in them a new plan of Providence, a new tendency in an unknown direction,-impossible to avoid the conclusion that God meditates for us, or for our descendants, some design still hidden to our narrow sight; a design for which he is taking measures, by causing the world to advance to the most powerful of unities, the unity of thought, which announces some great unity of actions in the future."*

We cannot close this part of our subject without laying before our readers the following curious extracts from the Dialogues of Plato, not only because they show the writer's acquaintance with the existence of the American continent, but because they announce in plain and unequivocal terms that within the traditionary memory of man a mighty catastrophe had occured in the western hemisphere, being nothing less than the submergence of a vast island of whose geographical character, nay, of whose very existence we should have been ignorant if it had not been for these records. The first of these extracts is from the Timæus and is as follows,—

"For there was before (opposite) this mouth, which in your language is called the Pillars of Hercules, an island. But this island was larger than Lybia and Asia put together, and from it there was for those travelling at that time, a passage to other islands, and from the region of the islands to all the continent opposite,-that continent which is around that true sea. For although in that place within the mouth of which we have spoken, there appears a narrow part having a passage, nevertheless the same is a true sea, and the land which surrounds it truly and entirely is most justly called a continent. That is, though you see but a narrow and insignificant opening at the Pillars of Hercules, yet those waters spread out into a true sea, a sea pre-eminently so called, and that sea is entirely surrounded by land preeminently a continent. But in this Atlantis island there was established a great and wonderful power of kings, ruling indeed the whole of the island, many other islands, and parts of the continent; and furthermore, in

*See Lamartine's Celebrated Characters.

addition to these, of the parts within, in this place, (that is, of the countries on the Mediterranean side of the Pillars of Hercules, as contradistinguished from those of the external Atlantic world beyond them.) "They ruled Lybia, as far as to Egypt, and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.'

It is plain that in this passage we are expressly told, first that in the Atlantic sea just beyond the Pillars of Hercules, that is, beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, there was in ancient times, a vast island larger than Lybia and all Asia; that is the Asia known to the priests of Sais who communicated these facts to Solon, the record of which is preserved to us in these dialogues of Plato.

We are next told that from this great island there was an easy passage to other islands, and from these to all that continent which surrounded this true sea, this sea which, in an especial manner, deserved to be called the sea. It is clear that we have here a regular progression onwards, first to Atlantis, then to islands beyond it, then to a continent beyond them. It would evidently be doing violence to the natural and obvious meaning of the text to suppose, that by this continent was meant Europe, or Africa, or both, and that the islands were between Europe and Africa on the one hand, and Atlantis on the other. Neither Plato nor any of the ancients ever imagined that Europe or Africa surrounded the Atlantic sea. On the contrary, the belief was that the Atlantic sea surrounded them. Here, however, we are expressly told that the continent of which he speaks, really and completely encloses this Atlantic sea and most truly deserves the name of a continent. This statement is, moreover, in exact harmony with the prevalent opinion of the antique world, which was to the effect that the central countries which are now called Europe, Asia, and Africa were surrounded by a great sea, which sea was, itself, enclosed by a vast circle of land terminating in high mountains. This opinion might naturally arise among a people who had traced the outline of a large portion of the American continent, but not the whole. It could hardly have arisen among a people entirely ignorant of such a continent. The passage immediately following also clearly distinguishes this continent from Europe and Africa. It states that there was formed in Atlantis a great confederacy of kings who subdued the whole island, several other islands, and parts of the continent; and “in addition to these, of the parts within this place, (i. e. the direction of Greece and Egypt) they ruled Lybia as far as Egypt and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. Nothing can be more precise and definite than these statements, or more marked than the distinctions they draw between tho continent and the countries on this side of the Atlantic. We see the power of this ocean empire radiating, first to the west, then to the east. Atlantis first acknowledges its sway, then the islands beyond, then many parts of the great continent beyond these. Finally the north of Africa is subdued to the confines of Egypt, and southern and central Europe to the very neighbourhood of Greece. Nevertheless translators and commentators could not believe that Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian priests had such a knowledge of the world as this interpretation evinces. Therefore, instead of giving the precise meaning of the words before them, they gave that which they supposed Plato must have intended, or ought to have intended. Thus they have introduced confusion where none originally existed, or they have attained intelligibility at the expense of truth.

That this was no idle dream invented by Plato appears more than probable from the following observations of Prochus, one of the most learned of

66

his ancient commentators. "That such and so great an island," viz. Atlantis, once existed, is evident from what is said by certain historians respecting what pertains to the external sea. For, according to them, there were seven islands in that sea, in their times, sacred to Proserpine, and also three others of immense extent, one of which was sacred to Pluto, another to Ammon, and the middle (or second) of these to Neptune, the magnitude of which was a thousand stadia. They also add that the inhabitants of it preserved the remembrance from their ancestors of the Atlantis island which existed there, and was truly prodigiously great; which for many periods had dominion over all the islands in the Atlantic Sea, and was itself sacred to Neptune."

There are strong reasons for supposing that the three great islands here spoken of, are England, Scotland, and Ireland; but the truth or falsehood of this hypothesis would not interfere with the spirit of truthfulness and sober reality which marks Plato's account, throwing it out in strong contrast with the allegories and fabulous histories which we so constantly meet with in other ancient geographical writers.

In a second dialogue, which Plato did not live to complete, we find the same subject renewed and greatly enlarged upon. The dialogue is between the same three friends as in the Timæus, and Critias, speaking at Atlantis, makes the following startling announcement:-"But this island, we said, was once larger than Lybia and Asia, but is now a mass of impervious mud, through concussions of the earth; so that those who are sailing in the vast sea can no longer find a passage from hence thither."

This seems to point to a gradual subsidence rather than a sudden destruction, but analagous instances of events of a similar character we shall find plainly discernible when we advance to the study of Physical Geography in a subsequent paper. We only wished here to draw attention to a subject so long buried in obscurity, or ignored as an impossibility; and then to leave our readers to draw their own conclusions from the arguments that may be adduced on either side.

C.

SIR,

THE GREEK TESTAMENT USE OF THE VERB ΑΠΕΧΩ.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENGLISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION.

In a recent critique of Dr. Wordsworth's Greek Testament, by a writer in the Educational Times, the following statement occurs :

(5.) Matthew vi. 2-5. άπεxovo, does not mean 'they have," but "they lose," i.e. their reward. All the trouble to which they put themselves for the sake of appearing religious in the eyes of the vulgar is lost. The commonest observer is aware of their concealed hypocrisy.

The reviewer goes on to say-"We have studied theology for nearly thirty years, i.e. longer than Dr. Wordsworth, and we hereby give warning that unless writers on the Greek Testament interpretation show more learning, more correct judgment, and more candour in stating the truth, we shall not take their lucubrations as so much gospel."

On reading these remarks, I wrote to the editor to the effect that the ordinary interpretation of άréxovo "they have to the full," "have now," is supported by several other passages of Holy Writ, where it occurs in the same sense, as well by its parallel use in Demosthenes, Eschines, Plutarch, Anacreon, quoted by the Lexicons; and that though not a thirty years student of the Greek Testament, I yet ventured to counsel consideration, before the indorsing of an interpretation, which the judgment of the learned would explode.

This letter did not appear in the next number, but is thus alluded to in a notice to correspondents :

"G. B.—We shall probably insert your letter in our next number; when the learned reviewer of Dr. Wordsworth's Greek Testament may defend what he says about the meaning of aréxouri as he pleases. Meanwhile we know he is right; and we are indeed surprised that modern scholars should have overlooked the Classical and New Testament meaning of άréxw. You remember the line ἀπέχει. βλέπω γὰρ αυτὴν in Anacreon. The proper reading is ἀπέχου. βλέπω γὰρ αὐτὴν. Hold your hand, For I see her. Not another touch! The likeness of my love is depicted to the life! How beggarly is the reading ἀπέχει. We do not look on Liddell and Scott as infallible lexicographers; and Dr. Burton was a feeble annotator on the New Testament. Demosthenes, Eschines, Josephus, Origen, and honest old Plutarch, all use arέxw in the sense of our reviewer. How strangely men now follow the gratuitous assumptions and assertions of men considered learned and orthodox."

In a review of Alford's Greek Testament in the same number, I find the following, by the same hand doubtless :

"Matthew vi. 2. The last clause of this verse we translate thus'Verily I say unto you, they lose their reward.' It was about two hundred years after the Christian era that arέxw began to have the sense of 'accipio,' 'recipio.""

As I had shrewdly surmised would be the case, my letter did not appear in the next number. Being convinced that these statements were entirely unsound, and that the error might mislead some of the younger readers of the Educational Times, I set myself to look up my authorities for dπέxw

in the sense of "receive to the full," and in a long and wide search found no shadow of support for the reviewer, save the theory of Sir Norton Knatchbull, upset by Elsley in his note on the passage of St. Matthew. Sir N. K. translates, "they fall short of," calling this the classical sense; but if we have the classical sense, we may surely claim the classical construction also, a middle voice and a genitive. If the reviewer did not ignore the Fathers, I would rest on St. Chrysostom, ad. loc. and Tertullian on St. Luke, vi. 24: but as he says "the ancients had not the means of judging which we have," perhaps he will be less disposed to question an array of passages from the Sacred Volume, where he is at liberty, if he can, to substitute the sense lose for "have to the full," in the word anέx, preserving the while the meaning of the passage.

The first of these shall be from the Septuagint, given to the world, he will perhaps allow, less than "200 years after the Christian era," inasmuch as it is very frequently quoted ipsissimis verbis in the Gospels.

In Genesis xliii. 23, Joseph, relieving his brethren's fears as to the money which they had found in their sacks' mouths, says xal rò ágyugiov Sμær εudoxiμour άrexw, which Hammond translates, "I received your money, good and lawful money, and I acquit you of it.' Let the reviewer fit the sense "lose" to this passage.

But I turn to St. Luke vi. 24. πλὴν οὐαὶ ῦμῖν τοῖς πλουσιοῖς ὅτι ἀπέχετε Thy πаρáxλnow, where Tertullian explains "Quoniam recipistis advocationem vestram, utique ex divitiis, de gloriâ earum et secularibus fructibus." Because ye have in full your consolation, to wit, in this world's riches, glory, and worldly advantages. The reviewer may haply persuade himself that "lose" is as good a sense here, especially if he compare St. Luke xvi. 25. "Thou in thy life time receivedst (άreλáßes') thy good things;" words addressed to the representative of that class, to whom in the passage whence this discussion arises woes are declared in store.

But other passages are plainer still. Philippians iv. 18. άTέxw de Tavтa, xal TEQIσσEUW. TETλýрwμaι. "But I have (or have) received all, and abound. I am full." Theophylact here explains arexw ws in operλns, as upon receiving a debt.

Would the reviewer have us here translate arexw I lose? Or did St. Paul write this Epistle 200 years after Christ? Let him choose either

horn of this dilemma.

Again. Philemon 15. ταχὰ γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς ὤαρν, ἵνα aiúviov aúτòv áπεxs. "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive (not "lose") him for ever.'

The editor sneers at Liddell and Scott. Let him or any reader refer to Suidas, Hesychius, Hederick, or better still to Parkhurst, Schleusner, and Bengel, or to a lexicographer who used to be in vogue among younger scholars, Donnegan, and each and all will either give him references to Demosthenes, Eschines, Plutarch, Arian, &c. where arέxw is used in the sense of aroλaußávw (than which word, says one of them, it is more Attic,) or otherwise prove that drew is both Classical and Hellenistic Greek, for "to have in full."

One word more. Dr. Hammond, in a note on the use of aπέxe, "it is enough," in St. Mark xiv. 41. quotes Anacreon (xviii. ad fin.) άπέXEI. BλETW yag aury as confirmatory of the use of the word impersonally in the passage cited. So does Dr. Burton, and with good reason.

No force is