to the soul of the Christian himself; in the pledge of heaven thus made to him, and which he would understand, but which no one else would understand. The _things_, then, which we are to look for in the explanation of the emblem are two――that which would thus be a token of his favour, and that which would explain the fact that it would be intelligible to no one else. The question is, whether there is any known thing pertaining to ancient customs which would convey these ideas. The word rendered _stone_――ψῆφον――means, properly, a small stone, as worn smooth by water――a gravel-stone, a pebble; then any polished stone, the stone of a gem, or ring (Rob. _Lex._). Such a stone was used among the Greeks for various purposes, and the word came to have a signification corresponding to these uses. The following uses are enumerated by Dr. Robinson, _Lex._:――the _stones_ or _counters_ for reckoning; _dice_, _lots_, used in a kind of magic; a _vote_, spoken of the black and white stones or pebbles anciently used in voting――that is, the white for approval, and the black for condemning. In regard to the use of the word here, some have supposed that the reference is to a custom of the Roman emperors, who, in the games {79} and spectacles which they gave to the people in imitation of the Greeks, are said to have thrown among the populace _dice_ or _tokens_ inscribed with the words, “Frumentum, vestes,” &c.; that is, “Corn, clothing,” &c.; and whosoever obtained one of these received from the emperor whatever was marked upon it. Others suppose that allusion is made to the mode of casting lots, in which sometimes dice or tokens were used with names inscribed on them, and the lot fell to him whose name first came out. The “_white_ stone” was a symbol of good fortune and prosperity; and it is a remarkable circumstance that, among the Greeks, persons of distinguished virtue were said to receive a ψῆφον, _stone_, from the gods, _i.e._, as an approving testimonial of their virtue. See Robinson’s _Lex._, and the authorities there referred to; Wetstein, N. T., _in loco_, and Stuart, _in loco_. Professor Stuart supposes that the allusion is to the fact that Christians are said to be kings and priests to God, and that as the Jewish high-priest had a mitre or turban, on the front of which was a plate of gold inscribed “Holiness to the Lord,” so they who were kings and priests under the Christian dispensation would have that by which they would be known, but that, instead of a plate of gold, they would have a pellucid stone, on which the _name_ of the Saviour would be engraved as a token of his favour. It is _possible_, in regard to the explanation of this phrase, that there has been too much effort to find _all_ the circumstances alluded to in some ancient custom. Some well-understood fact or custom may have suggested the general thought, and then the filling up may have been applicable to this case alone. It is quite clear, I think, that none of