subject, the author states the varions afflictions of life, and the methods by which we may be freed from them. The subservients to Concentration are summed up as : 1. Forbearance; 2. Religious Observances; 3. Postures; 4. Suppression of the breath; 5. Restraint; 6. Attention; 7. Contemplation; 8. Meditation. Forbearance is said to consist of "not killing, veracity, not stealing, continence, and not coveting," and a curious result of the exercise of this habit is stated. From not killing, all creatures become the friends of the Yogi; from veracity, the fruit of any one's works will accrue to any individual at the Yogi's bidding; by abstinence from theft, "the jewels that exist in every quarter come to him, even though he covet them not;" from continence, he gains all power; from not coveting, he becomes perfectly familiar with all previous states of exist ence. Again, it is stated as a result of "inaudible mutterings, that "one's favorite deity becomes visible, and grants any boon desired." 1

Patanjali has much to say upon the regulation of the breath, giving directions as to those postures which best facilitate such an exercise, explaining how the breath should be expelled to the distance of just twelve inches from the nose, and for the space of thirty-six moments, enjoining it upon the Yogi so to breath that there shall be perfect rest, the vital airs remaining motionless; and much more to like effect.

Of the third and fourth chapters we have nothing in English, save the doubtful translations of Ward and the brief analysis of Colebrooke. Transcendent power is treated of, which the Yogi may at last attain, even while invested with the body. He may thus hear sound, however distant; transform himself into each or all of the five elements; pass and penetrate anywhere; change the course of nature; and, finally, by means of that abstract meditation through which he gains this power, escape the thraldom of nature by destroying all consciousness of personality.

The Buddhist dogma of the superiority of Buddha to the god is no more than an expansion of this. Wilson on Buddhism. J. R. A. S. 1850.

Mr. Thomson holds that the introduction of a supreme will into the system of Kapila was not the work of Patanjali himself, but of some other persons intervening between him and Kapila. Judging from the mere form of the doctrine as it appears in the Yoga Sûtras, we might naturally incline to the same opinion, as this form is not sufficiently apologetic to have been the earliest authoritative statement of the doctrine; but when we remember that one great obstacle to the satisfactory study of Hindu philosophy is the fact that we seldom see processes, but only results; that, further, the real utterances of a great teacher have rarely, if ever, come down to us, save in the scholastic formulas of his disciples; and that when any new statement of a doctrine had gained currency, all former treatises upon the subject have usually fallen into disuse, we may hesitate before refusing Patanjali the honor of having remedied (so far as he did) the prominent defect of the Sânkya philosophy. As it now stands, however, the Yoga philosophy is less a system of metaphysics than a religious scheme, offered as a substitute both for the atheistic speculations of the philosophers, and the irrational superstitions of the common people. (To be concluded).

ARTICLE III.

SOME REMARKS ON AN EXPRESSION IN ACTS, XXV. 26.- A MONOGRAPH.

BY REV. THEODORE DWIGHT WOOLSEY, D. D., PRESIDENT OF YALE COLLEGE, NEW HAVEN.

THE words "of whom I have no certain thing to write TO KUρiw," suggest the inquiry whether a Roman official, like Festus, when speaking of the emperor, could, in conformity with Roman usage about the year 60 of our era, have uttered the words To Kupio, which are here attributed to him. This inquiry has not been overlooked or unan

swered. We name only among the commentators on the scriptures, Wetstein, in his edition of the New Testament, as having furnished a valuable collection of materials for a satisfactory answer; and, among other writers, Lipsius, in an excursus on the Annals of Tacitus, ii. 87, and Zell, in his Röm. Epigraphik, as having elucidated a parallel use of dominus. We propose to go into this inquiry at greater length than others within our knowledge have done, with the result, as we hope, of setting forth the accuracy of the evangelist Luke.

The first question to be answered in considering these words is: Whether Luke wishes to represent Festus as talking in the Roman or in the Oriental style. On the latter supposition, he might, one may say, attribute to the procurator, without any accurate knowledge of the usages of speech prevailing among Roman gentlemen, expressions similar to those which he met with in the Septuagint; or again, Festus, adopting a more Oriental style than was his wont at home in Italy, and accommodating himself to his companion king Agrippa, might call the emperor kúpios, when he would not call him dominus at Rome. This latter part of the alternative, however, seems too refined; if any one chooses to adopt it, he will, of course, rate the accuracy of Luke highly. It is natural enough to suppose that Romans of rank accommodated themselves in a degree to eastern forms of address, while living in the eastern parts of the empire; but if it can be shown that the use of dominus and of kúpɩos, as titles of the emperor, went along together, this of itself will be good proof that Festus in these words was talking as a Roman would. The Greeks employed aνтоkρáтwp as an equivalent of imperator; they also used Barine's of the emperor, while the Romans, for reasons obvious from their history, were avoiding rex. But we shall endeavor soon to show that the two agreed in the use of the title kúpios and dominus, in whatsoever part of the empire this use may have originated.

But might not Luke put 7 Kupi into the mouth of Festus without any exact knowledge of what he said, and in

imitation of the style of address and of reference which prevails in the ancient scriptures? If such were the case, he would only follow the approved custom of many accurate ancient historians, and could not be found fault with if he did what such truthful writers as Thucydides and Tacitus have sanctioned. This ground is taken by Lekebusch, who otherwise has done much to vindicate the honesty and accuracy of Luke. But this cannot be conceded beyond the point of admitting that the evangelist reduced his materials, derived from his own notes or recollection or from other sources, to a Greek style substantially the same everywhere; for the adaptation of the speeches to the characters shows too great a historic art to have proceeded simply from the author of the rest of the narrative. In the present case, however, the only way of showing the contrary, as far as it can be shown, is to show that Festus would be altogether likely to have used the expression which is ascribed to him, and that the writer, who accompanied Paul a short time afterward on his voyage to Italy, was very naturally his attendant on this occasion.

But before proceeding to our main point, let us briefly consider the use of Kúpios among the Jews in addresses to persons of rank, and also the resemblances and differences in the Greek and Roman terms translated commonly by our word Lord. First, then, kúpios, in the Seventy and in the Apocrypha, is the usual equivalent not only for ădōn (Lord), but also for Jehovah, both when spoken of and when addressed. Examples in proof will not be called for. We cite, as being nearer to the times of the New Testament, Judith 11: 10, 11; 12: 6, 13, 14; 1 Esdras 11:17, 18; 4:46. In the New Testament the usage is the same: in hundreds of instances both God and Jesus are thus spoken of. Indeed, in the Acts, so common is it to call the risen Saviour by the title of kúpios, that the reference in a number of passages is ambiguous. In the first and most noticeable of these ambiguous cases, Acts 1: 24, we feel compelled to believe that Christ is addressed by the title κύριε, καρδιογνῶστα πάντων, as continuing that choice of his apostles which he began on earth. Of other beings

besides God and Christ, kúptos is rarely used in the New Testament; yet the reason for this lies most probably in the infrequency of the other occasions where it could be introduced. The Greeks," in John 12:21, apply the term to the apostle Andrew; and Mary, in John 20: 15, to the supposed gardener, no doubt more patrio; and in the Greek town of Philippi, which had become a Roman colony, the jailer (Acts 16:30) calls Paul and Silas thus, which is due, perhaps, to the awe which they had inspired in him as being in some sort divine persons. Many, however, of the more fanatical Jews, at this time, either from religious motives or from political, because a Roman Kúpos reminded them of subjection, and that to heathen authority, refused to call even the emperor by this title. Such were the teachings of Judas of Galilee to his followers, who regarded God (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1, 6) alone as yeμóv and deσtóτns; so that, as Theophylact (on Luke xiii. cited by Wetstein) says, many were severely punished ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ εἰπεῖν κύριον τὸν Καίσαρα. Others, on the contrary, of the less fanatical Jews, did not scruple to use such words of the highest personage in the Roman world. Philo-Judaeus, writing on the legation to Caligula, in which he had a part (de leg. § 36), gives the words καὶ ἐγὼ τίς εἰμι τῶν εἰδότών ὅτι δεσπότην ἔχω καὶ κύριον, as part of a letter of Herod Agrippa the first, and in the same letter the emperor Caius is more than once called δεσπότης.

A few words are needed here to discriminate between the terms which answer to our word Lord. Of the Latin ones, herus is the strict correlative of servus, and differs from dominus in that the latter is the wider term, embracing the relations of the master to the slave, and of the owner to the property. Derived from domus, it denoted first the house-master, and then the proprietor. The dominus was such in relation to his chattels, including his slaves, but not in relation to his wife and his children, great as was his power over them. This relation was expressed in the word dominium, so important in the civil law. The special applications of dominus, which concern us in this essay, we pass over for the present.