Skip to main content

Full text of "The doctrine of the Greek article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament;"

See other formats


t%-. ^ 






^^^^<cn ^cucti^^^u^jj^^ 

[Visaed , 











Articuli certe naturae cognitio sat est necessaria, quanivis cum publico malo Ecclesiae haec 
faoleant, non sine suspicione pudendae ignorantlae, rideri. 







Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 



The last edition of Bishop Middleton's work on the Greek 
Article (published in 1828) being exhausted, application has 
been made to me to superintend a new edition, with such 
additions as I should judge advisable. Having long felt the 
highest veneration for Bishop Middleton's character and abili- 
ties, I heartily rejoice at finding any opportunity of testifying 
my feelings towards him, and regret only that my powers 
second my inclinations so ill, that any thing which I can add 
to a work of his must be so unworthy of it and of him. 

I wish to say a few words on the work itself, and then to 
state what I have endeavoured to do in the present edition. 

The Inquiry into the Greek Article is a work to which suffi- 
cient justice has not been done in this country. I have been 
surprised to find how many men to whom I am accustomed to 
look with the highest respect, have not even read the volume ', 

* The rapid sale of the last edition is rather owing, I think, to the value justly 
set upon Bishop Middleton's notes on the New Testament, than to any interest 
in the theory of which he intended them only as the illustration. I may perhaps 
add here, that, as I have found no formal objections made to Bishop Middle- 
ton's theory, I have thought that Mr. Le Bas's call for a full discussion of the 
question, would, on the whole, be best complied with by noticing such observa- 
tions of modern critics as appear to be inconsistent with the Bishop's rules, 
leaving his powerful reasoning in defence of them to speak for itself. See Mr. 
Le Bas's admirable Life of Bishop Middleton, vol. i. p. H. 



and how little its real doctrines and real value are known. One 
reason probably is, that as it does not consist of detached and 
unconnected rules, but is, in point of fact, a very refined and 
ingenious theory, professing, at least, to account for all the 
usages of the Article on one principle, it cannot be examined 
in parts, but must be considered as a whole. As a whole, it 
appears to me to be a very remarkable specimen of meta- 
physical acuteness and sub til ty ; such, indeed, as to require 
very close and very patient attention, that a due estimate of 
the theory on which they are employed may be formed. 
Such attention, I must think, would not be ill bestowed. 
Even they who have collected only such partial and detached 
rules for the use of the Article as the observations of various 
Critics supply, have learnt from them the extreme importance 
of the Article, and would readily confess, that a principle 
which would account for its use universally, (i. e. with such 
few exceptions as must obtain in every language, in the 
case of a part of speech used at every instant,) would be 
a matter of very great consequence indeed. Nor would they 
who are most skilled in the habits and history of languages, 
be the slowest to believe in the existence of such a rule, 
notwithstanding the exceptions to which I have alluded. 
Now Bishop Middleton's inquiry, at all events, professes to 
point out such a principle. They who knew the man, or who 
know any thing of his critical powers from his remarks on the 
N. T., might believe, without difficulty, that he was no framer 
or encourager of wild theories ; and that though, like all men, 
he may have been deceived, his powerful, severe, and thought- 
ful mind would never have laid before the public any thoughts 
which had not been long weighed, and rigorously brought to 
every test which his powers and learning would supply. A 
prima facie case for the fair examination of the Inquiry is 
thus, I think, made out ; and the importance of the matter is 
such, that it is very much to be wished that they who have the 
means and time, would confute Bishop Middleton, if he be 


Avrong, or would add their testimony to his theory, if they find 
it correct. Nothing of this sort, however, has appeared, 
>vith the exception of Professor Scholefield's testimony, in 
the Preface to the last edition. I have heard it, indeed, said 
of one or two great scholars, now dead, that they did not 
beheve in Bishop Middleton's theory ; but I have never heard 
any thing more definite as to their objections, than that one of 
them stated that Bishop Middleton always chose his MS. 
This applies, of course, only to the illustrations of the theory 
from the N. T. ; but, when Bishop Middleton's notes on the 
N. T. are examined, I do not think that the objection can 
have any weight. If rules are laid down for the use of any 
word, and, where those rules are broken in a received text, 
MSS. either good or many, supply various readings which sup- 
port the rules y surely not only can there be no objection to the 
appeal to such MSS., but the rules themselves are almost as 
much confirmed as by their being observed in the text. I 
may safely appeal to the reader of Bishop Middleton's notes, 
to say whether he is in the habit of calling in the assistance of 
one MS. against the authority of many, or of bad MSS. against 
good ones. 

As far as my own observation has gone, I must say, unhesi- 
tatingly, that I have found the violations of Bishop Middleton's 
rules very rare : but I am sensible that my own reading for 
critical purposes has latterly been so much interrupted by bad 
health and other occupations, that my testimony is of little 

There are now a few observations which appear to me not 
unworthy of the attention of those who are inclined to consider 
Bishop Middleton's theory. 

First, I would observe that one of his rules, not connected 
with his theory, is proved fully by instances, viz. that definite 
Nouns^ used icar l^oxhvi and requiring the Article on that 
account, nevertheless lose it very often when occurring after 


a Preposition ^ Now this fact, as Bishop Middleton men- 
tions, has not been observed by Philologers^, and consequently 
a very large class of instances which they are perpetually 
bringing to prove the existence of anomalies of a different 
kind, must go for nothing. Thus Schafer (on Plutarch, vol. ii. 
p. 286, V. 35, Anim. vol. v. p. 126,) says on dg iroXiv airo 
(TTpaToiri^ov, ' In his similibusque tottikolq nihil interest ad- 
datur articuhis an omittatur ;' and he quotes from the same 
page, ELQ TO oTparoTTfSov, Iv ry iroXei and Ik rrig TroXewg. Un- 
less other instances can be brought, his remark is not valid '. 
Again, Stallbaum (on Plat, de Rep. ii. p. 378, D.) says that 
the Article is often omitted before vlbg and Trarrip ; but the 
only instances which he brings there are after vtto. Heindorf 
(ad Gorg. p. 52S.) gives seven instances of omission of the 
Article with yrj, but they are all after Prepositions. 

^ This is as remarkable in English as in Greek. From beginning to end, from 
top to bottom, from East to West ; by coach, by ship ; by sea, by land ; by day, by 
night ; up town, about house ; in shade, at church. 

The first three instances are cases of Correlatives ; in the next two, there is a 
tacit reference, I think, to a Correlative ; the next four are cases of words where 
the same liberty is taken occasionally without a Preposition ; the two next cases 
are common Provincialisms. 

2 See, however, my quotation in p. 98. I see too that Poppo in his Index to 
Xenophon's Anabasis, voce QaKaTTU, notices the occasional omission of the Article 
with this word after some Prepositions. It is difficult to say on which side the fol- 
lowing remark of Kriiger (on Dion. Hal. Hist. p. 95.) ought to be cited: * Arti- 
culus in tritis his fitrdt. 'IXiov, fierA Ev(3oLag aXuxriv non adscisci solet.' Hein- 
dorf (on Plat. Theaetet p. 20. A. 'Ev Sk Ki9api(TTov) observes the omission of the 
Article in such expressions. This arises, of course, from the writer knowing 
that he might not improperly omit it in the Correlative governed by the Prepo- 

3 In his Meletemata, p. 116. Schafer's instances are still worse. Soph. Trach. 
256, avv Traiai Kai yvvaiKi. Soph. Fr. ap. Schol. ad Aj. 190. fiiiTpbg <p9opsvc, 
where ^9opevc is the Predicate, and thus firirpbc loses the Article rightly. Xen. 
An. vii. 8, 9. and 22. are both cases of enumeration. Eustath. ad Iliad, 
p. 405 31. and 307. 25. a fid iraicri And then, strange to say, Schafer goes on 
to ffive instancps wliore tho Article is used with ywv?), &c. &c. 


It may not be worth while to multiply instances under this 
head, (they are indeed too numerous to admit of citation,) but 
the Student must not neglect, when he finds Critics asserting 
that such and such words are used without the Article, and 
inferences are thence drawn, that there is no regularity as to 
its use, &c. &c., to examine the instances, and see whether 
very many of them are not attributable to this fact respecting 
the Preposition \ I have observed below that a large portion 
of Winer's examples are of the kind alluded to. 

The same remark applies to another anomaly pointed out 
by Bishop Mid die ton, viz. the omission of the Article in 
Enumerations ^ Thus we have in Plat, de Rep. p. 574, 'Avrc- 
\ofiiv(i)v Si) KoX ixaxo^iivijjv yipovrog re koX ypaoQj where, these 
words being used in the sense of father and mother, Stall- 
baum adduces the instances to show that in such cases of 
relationship the Article is omitted. So in Plat. Crito, p. 51. 
A. (jir^TpoQ T£ KOL irarpog koX tCjv aXkwv TTpoyovwv airavTwv 
TijuiuoTipov l(TTi iraTpiQ,) where Stallbaum remarks that the 
Article is omitted before Trarryp^, juiiTrjp, irdig, aSeX(f)6g, yrj, 
TToXiQ, aypog, when used de genere in universum, the two first 
words of the quotation supply no instance. Matthias again 
(268. obs. 2.) quotes Xen. Cyp. vi. 3. 8. 2uvfKaX£<7£ koi Imriwv 
KaX TTtSwv KoX apiuiaT(i)v Tovg -qye/j-ovag, as an exception to the 
rule (noticed by Heindorf ad Plat. Phsed. p. 64, E.) that 
the Article should stand with one Correlative if it does with 
the other ; whereas the pecuharity arises from the source now 
under consideration. 

It will be found that these two anomaUes do away with a 

^ Stallbaum's correction of Plat. Phaed. 64. E. in compliance with Heindorfs 
rule, noticed just below, is, on this ground, unnecessary. 

2 This again is an English peculiarity. * Sim, moon, and stars.' 
^ It is a favourite notion among modern critics that words signifying relation- 
ship lose the Article. See Schaf. on Plutarch, Anim. vol. iv. p. 409. App. ad 
Demosth. p. 329. Melett. p. 45. ad Soph. (Ed. T. 630. Buttraan ad Men. § 7- 
and many others. It is quite certain that such words are very frequently used 
in enumerations. 


large class of the irregularities as to particular tvords alleged by 
critics. It must be added, that the words in which critics allege 
the existence of such irregularities are very few in number, and 
are words perpetually used as designating either objects of 
great importance or the common relations of life. The very 
fact that such irregularity is noticed, and that it exists in so 
few cases is a strong proof of the correctness of the rules from 
which the deviation is said to take place. And the words re- 
ferred to are precisely those where irregularity might be ex- 
pected, and where in other languages it actually takes place. 
Looking to the example from the Crito, where the Article, if 
used with Trarpoc, would be used nearly as a Possessive, we 
might say in English " Country is dearer than father and 
mother, and every other ancestor together ;" or even " Men 
esteem country before father, and mother, and every relation." 
Here, doubtless, we might also say, " Ones country," and 
" Their country," &c. In other languages, liberties are 
beyond all question taken with words designating relations 
of such extreme importance as to be perpetually in the 
thoughts or on the tongue. I shall examine the words in 
question a little farther on. 

It must be observed farther, that in ever}' language, while 
the same thought may be expressed with very great diiFerence 
of forms and words jointly, it may also be expressed in words 
approaching very nearly to one another, while the forms, what- 
ever may be their resemblance to a careless eye, are clearly 
distinct. Thus, in our own language, in speaking of an army 
under severe distress, we might say, "they felt very great 
dejection," or " their dejection was very great" — two forms 
differing widely. But we might also say, " the dejection was 
very great," which approaches much nearer to the last: or, 
again, " there was great dejection." So in Greek (Xen. 
Anab. iv. 8. 21.) we have (in Bomemann's edition) "Ejctf vro ^1 
ovTii) iroWoiy wainp rpoirfig yey Evr^imivng, koL TroXXrj ^v ri 
aSvfila, Now, in' this very place, many MSS. omit ij before 


aOvfiia ; and we have in the same book, 37. ttoXXt) aOvjuia ^v 
Toig "EXXtjo-fv. A careless reader might hence infer that there 
was no rule at all for the Article ; and that in expressing 
(what is undoubtedly) the same thought, it might be either 
used or omitted, whereas the forms of expression are as dif- 
ferent in the Greek as in the two last English cases above. 
With the Article, we must construe " The dejection (viz. that 
felt by the troops) was great" — without it, " There was great 
dejection." It is true, indeed, that in the former case, no 
dejection had been previously spoken of, but in many cases we 
may refer to what has not been actually mentioned, when 
its existence is quite obvious, and, so to speak, necessary. 
Under severe sufferings, it is clear that among a large body of 
men there will be some dejected; so clear, indeed, that 
it would be unnecessary for an historian to notice it. He 
therefore assumes, if he pleases, the existence of such dejec- 
tion, and then uses the Article with it when stating to what 
degree it existed. At the very end of the same book, we have 
Koi KoXi) Sia lyhero, where some MSS. read ri Ola. The 
forms differ ; but either is correct. 

It is not easy to say how far this extends ; yet nothing can 
be more certain, than that it does not at all make the use of 
the Article irregular or undecided. Let us look at another 
case. Bishop Middleton has observed, that in cases of enu- 
meration, the Article is frequently omitted. But it is not 
necessarily omitted. The fact is, that two forms of expression 
may be used. In a note on Xen. An. \'ii. 8. 9. (AajSeTv ay 
icai avTov Km yuvat/ca Ka\ Trai^ag KaX to. \i^r]fxaTa) Bornemann 
cites many similar instances, as vii. 1. 28. Cyrop. vii. 1 . SS. and 
2 26, De Rep. Ath. ii. 17. Hipparch. i. 1. Thucyd. vi. 12. 
Plat. Gorg. § 61. Lucian. Piscat. 33. Among these a very 
good one is Cyrop. vii. i. 33. eTrXcovlk-rouv jxivToi ol AlyvitTioL 
Koi ir\0u KCLi ToXg oirXoig. " In number and in their arms." 
We might also say, " In their number and their arms ;" or 
" In number and arms." That is, (I.) both words might have. 


or (2.) both might omit the Article, or (3.) the first might omit 
and the second take it, with equal correctness, and without the 
slightest laxity in the use of the Article. It is only that we 
may express the same idea in several forms ; not that, when 
we have chosen one of these forms, it is any longer indifferent 
whether we use the Article or not. 

The extreme laxity of translation which we allow our- 
selves in cases where the idea is not altered by it (and we have 
just seen in how many ways the same idea may be expressed), 
leads us very often to think tliat there is laxity in the visage of 
the Article. 

To these remarks must be added another, viz. that it is rea- 
sonable to suppose beforehand, and that critics have actually 
often observed how frequently MSS. vary as to the omission 
and insertion of the Article; and that, consequently, some 
exceptions to any rules laid down for its use, must be fairly 
expected on that score. Again, it is quite certain, that with 
words which are occurring every moment, liberties will be 
taken which will not be offered to those of rare occurrence. 
Of course, if it were supposed that these liberties were con- 
stant or universal, they would do away all notion of applying 
rules to the words to which they relate. But that is not the 
case. Such Hberties are occasional, partial, and often mere 
vulgarisms, used by those who disregard all philosophical ac- 
curacy in their language. 

I must now proceed to state, that Bishop Middleton's other 
canons embrace and explain many of the cases where the use 
of the Article has been considered as extremely anomalous. 
I do not say that this proves the truth of the canons, but it 
certainly entitles them to fair consideration. Thus riyEiaOai 
Otovg is brought forward as a flagrant case of irregularity in the 
Article. Bishop Middleton himself has fully shown that (if his 
canons be allowed) the word could not have the Article here. 

At the same time I must add, that many of the cases 
alleged by critics as irrcgulai'ities, are not so ; and that more 


exact attention will show that they are either strictly regular, 
even according to rules allowed on all hands to be true, or that 
the irregularity itself falls under certain well-defined limits. 
Thus Siebelis (on Pausan. i. 3. 5.) gives several instances of 
Correlatives where the Genitive has not the Article, although 
the other word has. But then every one of these instances 
is the name of a country. See the same Critic on Pausan. v. 

It will now be necessary to consider those words which are 
said by various critics to permit an irregular use of the Ar- 

Words in which the Article is said to he omitted. 

Bishop Middleton observes (Chap. iii. Sect. 1. § 3 — 5.) 
that Nouns, existing singly, take the Article ; and that, con- 
sequently, the great elements of nature usually have it. But 
it is unquestionably true, that in many languages there are 
great liberties taken with the names of these elements. For 
example, in English, we not only say hy sea and hy land^, 
and " we got to land,'' but we find constantly such phrases as 
" Land was out of sight," " We saw land,'' " We had sea on 
the right hand, and land on the left," and so on. 

In English we may observe that similar liberties are often 
taken with words the one of which is used as a representative 
of the other. Thus, although we cannot in English take the 
liberties with sun which are taken in Greek with i^Xiog, yet 
we shall find that in many cases day is with us the representa- 
tive of rJXfoc, and that then it is exposed to the same licence. 

* Language is so delicate a thing, that it is very dangerous to speculate on it 
without long and full observation. I am not very sure that Sea and Land, Day 
and Night, &c. are not a species of Correlatives; and that, if the Article is 
omitted with one, it is so with the other ; and that this will hold even where both 
are not expressed. Thus we say by sea, even when land is not mentiotied, there 
being a reference to it. 


Thus the Greeks said a/ua -nXit^) avia^ovTif or riXiov avaHX- 
XovTog, &c. &c. And we say day broke, day came at last. 
It is rather curious to remark, that we only use sun in compo- 
sition for such purposes, and that then the compound word, 
when used to denote time, hardly admits the Article. Thus, 
sun-rise, sun-set, take the Article only when they denote the 
act, not the time of the day. 

I have just observed that sun is not treated in English as 
riXioQ is in Greek. The same applies to moon and o-cXtjvt/, 
heaven and ovgavog. The words so used in English seem to me 
principally what denote the great periods of the year, Spring, 
Winter, &c. ; or again, harvest, or the times of the day, 
morning, noon, &c. ; or again, sun-rise, &;c. ; or the names of 
meals; and sea and land. Sec, in all of which the word time is 

'Apx*'?' This word is a good specimen of the way in which 
Winer's list is made up. He does not bring a single instance 
of omission of the Article with this word, except after Preposi- 
tions. Nor does an instance of irregular use occur in the 
N. T. Wherever the Article is omitted, it is in enumeration, 
&c. ; in those cases, in short, where it is occasionally omitted, 
according to known principles, with every word. The only 
apparent case is in Mark i. 1. ; but there the usage is strictly 
correct, tovto Iotiv being understood as in xiii. 9. a.Qxa\ 
w^ivwv ravTa. 

^aaiXivg, See Heindorf ad Plat. Euthyd. p. 309. Hein- 
dorf says that the Article is more usual, but cites Aristoph. 
Plut. 173. ; Plat. Charmid. § 12. In both of these cases 
fxiyag is used. Schaf. Mel. p. 4. Engelb. ad Plat. Menex. 
p. 291. Gottleb. ad Menex. p. 47. Aristoph. Eq. 478. 
Zeun. ad Xen. Cyr. i. 512. I find in Isoc. Archid. ad finem, 
i)yovfiivov f5a(TiXiwg Ik Ttjg oiKiag Trig rj/uitTi^yag. But here the 
omission is right; " When a king of our race led them." In 


the Evag. p. 79. ed. Battie, we have jSao-tXtt ruJ f^iya\^), and 
again p. 102. 

yrj, Poppo, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 2. I. and in his Index, 
cites no case of omission except after a Preposition ; nor 
do I find any other in Kj-iiger or Bornemann. Heindorf 
on Plat. Gorg. cites seven cases of omission, all after Prepo- 
sitions. See Dorvill. on Chariton, p. 166. In the N. T. 
there is one good instance, viz. 2 Pet. iii. 10. koI yri KaX to. Iv 
avry tpya icaraKar)o"£rat. Acts xvii. 24. is a case of enumera- 
tion. In Mark xiii. 27. Luke ii. 14. Heb. viii. 4. there is a 
Preposition ; and 2 Pet. iii. 5. is a doubtful case. See Heind. 
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 265. In the phrase yrig avaicra, in Soph. 
CEd. Col. 1630, the Article is omitted with yrjg, because it is 
omitted with avuKra. 

Fuv//. I do not find any instances given by the critics 
except such as are explicable by one or other of Bishop Mid- 
dleton's rules — ( enumeration , coming after a Preposition, Sec). 
In 1 Cor. V. 1. wcrrc yvvaiKa riva tov iraTpog ix^iv, I do not 
see the reason for the omission, if the reading is correct. In 
1 Cor. vii. 10. and 11. yvvrj and avrjp are without the Article, 
bat this is an exclusive proposition. 

yvwfxr\. Kriiger ad Xen. An. i. 6. 9. gives instances of the 
omission of the Article before this word in formulae, like 
aTTo^Tjvat yvwfiriv (as ibid. v. 5. 3. and 6, 7. Thuc. ii. 86; 
iv. 125; vii. 72; viii. 67. Arrian. Exp. iii. 21. 8.); and he 
conceives that it is omitted elsewhere also, as in Thuc. i. 53, 
(where the phrase is el S'vjuTv yvtjfii} loriv, ii. 12. ^v yap Tlepi- 
kXIovq yvojfiri Trporspov veviKtiKvla. This opinion has not been 
mentioned before, (indeed Thucydides goes on to explain it,) 
and therefore, even if the construction were quite certain as to 
tliis point, the Article is not necessary,) vi. 47. 

I need only observe, that in the first instance of the latter 



class, and in all those of the first, the omission of the Article 
is proper and necessary, on a principle which Bishop Middle- 
ton has laid down in speaking of the omission with Verbs Sub- 
stantive, &c., but which even he has not perhaps carried quite 
far enough. It seems to me at least, that wherever, in the 
case of a Noun following a Verb, the action of the Verb in any 
ivay expresses or implies the producing ^ calling into existence 
or action, the thing expressed by the Noun, there the Article 
ought, on Bishop Middleton's principle, to be omitted. Thus 
Plat. Protag. p. 325. E, ttoXu fiaXXov IvTiXXovrai lirifjLiXeicTOat 
EVKOffjuilac tC)v iraidcjv, rj ypafifULCLTWv rt icat KiOapiaEwg, Here 
iVKoafiia is a quality not yet existing in the children, but to 
be infused by the master's care ; and so of the other words. 
So, again, id. ib. p. 327. A. avajKoZovaa agirrig lirifx^XucyQai, 
Crito, p. 45. D '. In Crito, p. 51. A. we have 6 rp aXrj^ftot 
Tr\g apcrfjc eirtiJ.BX6fjievog, (where there is a sneer at Socrates), 
he is spoken of, not as attending to virtue so as to produce it 
where it did not exist before ; but supposing it to exist, to 
attend to it. Perhaps the usage in the Crito, p. 52, A. 
aXX' vpov, WQ lipriffOa irpb rijc ^wy^c* Odvarov, is to be re- 
ferred to the principles here laid down. 

^EKKkriGia. Winer puts this in the Hst; but out of 115 
instances, I find only 1 Cor. xiv. 4. cKicXijo-tav otjcoSo/xa, 
where the word is not used with the strictest regularity. In 
this case, therefore, I conceive that either there is a false 
reading, or that we may take the word indefinitely, a church 
** edifies not himself, but a whole assembly,** 

Evpog. Xen. An. iv. 3. 1. Trorafibv wpog wg SiirXeSpov, 
et al., although in other cases the Article is added. So of 
irXridoQ, ju^Koc, araOfjibg, &c. (as in JEsch, Soc. ii. 24). The 

» Some may, pcrliaps, refer these two cases to the remark in p. 95. VvdJiiri, 
however, does not belong to the class there noticed. 


fact is, that two different forms of expression are used ; j ust as 
in English we might say, " A wall which in its thickness was 
two feet;" or, " A wall which in thickness was two feet." The 
Article, if used, is used here as a Possessive ; and it is obvious 
that all these quahties may be spoken of as belonging to the 
thing to which they refer, in which case the Article is right ; 
or as abstract quahties, in which case it is not required. In 
Enghsh we might say, " The river in its widest part was, &c. ;" 
or, " The river in the widest part was, &c." Besides which, it 
must be observed, that a Preposition is understood in all these 
cases ; which would certainly, if expressed, justify the omis- 
sion of the Article ; and it is not easy to say how far this may 
affect the question. 

rikiog. Bishop Middleton has himself noticed that this 
word may be considered almost as a proper name ; and Poppo 
(ad Xen. An. v. 7. 6.) makes almost the same remark. 
Kriiger (ad Xen. An. i. 10. 16.) observes only that the Article 
is omitted when rJXtoc is joined with dvecrOai. But this is not 
so. In the place whence I cite Poppo's remark, we have 
oOev riXiog avL(T\ei. And I find afia rt^ -nXi^) SvojuLivi^ in ii. 2. 
16. while we have afia iiXtti) aviaxovrif ii. 1. 3. (and so Lucian 
Var. Hist. i. p. 642. ed. Var.) avartXXovrt, ii. 3. 1. irepl 
-qXiov Suo-juac, vi. 3. 32. (See Jacobs ad Luc. Tox. p. 99). It 
is worth observing, that in the N. T. out of thirty-two in- 
stances, the Article is omitted only eight times ; twice in the 
phrase rjXlov avardXavrog, Matt. xiii. 6. Markiv. 6. in which 
it occurs, Mark xvi. 2, twice in an enumeration, Luke xxi. 25. 
Acts xxvii. 20. (and 1 Cor. xii. 40. is nearly the same) ; twice 
after airo avaroXriQ or -a>v. Rev. vii. 2 ; xvi. 12. In Rev. 
xxii. 5. we have X9^'^^^ ^^'^ sxovai (fttorog rjXiov, where it 
could not be otherwise any more than in the five preceding 

r)jjLipa, We have li/iitpa lyiviTo in Xen, An. ii. 2. 13. and 



so in classical writers constantly. Luke iv. 42. and Acts xvi. 
35 ; xxiii. 12. ytvo/itvijc ^^ W^pciQ- vi. 13. ore tyevero i\iiipa. 
xxii. QQ. Acts xxvii. 29. 33. 39. John ix. 4. twc i?iU£pa Etrriv. 
Acts xii. 3. »5<rav 8^ i7jU€V«* ^<^^ a^vfiiov. 2 Pet. i. 19. £wc ou 
rifiipa Siavyaay. 

It will be observed, that if Bishop Middleton be right, even 
in these cases the Article would be improper, the Verb being 
Substantive, (the last case, in fact, comes under the same 
head,) and in all the other numberless places in the N. T. 
where this word is used, it is used with the strictest attention 
to the regular rules for the Article; the Article being omitted 
only after Prepositions, in Enumerations, or after Substantive 
Verbs, (as 1 Thess. v. 4. and 8 ^). As I do not see the word 
ever alleged by the Critics to be irregular in this point, except 
in such cases as the above, it ought not to be in the list. We 
have 6^piag yevofxivng in the same way, Matt. xvi. 2. 

TjiiKTV. In Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 15. we have Suv ^ Ay ricnXat^ 
(riv) — riiJ.i(Tv /jLopag rrig e^ ^Op^oiiivov, But this, I apprehend, 
is to be construed : " There was with Agesilaus half a mora, 
viz. that which came from Orchomenus." This construction 
is very common. With Pausanias it is perpetual. Thus kol 
vnaov 'QtKsavbg £X« rrjv Bpiravvtov, i. 3S. 4. Siebenkees, on 
i. 3. 5. indicates i. 27. 9; iv. 31. 9. (Xoyw T(^ Mco-crjjv/wv), 
ix. 40. 4. and 32. 6 ; and Herod, v. 50 \ In Xen. An. v. 
10. 10. 1 Thuc. viii. 61. the omission is after a Preposition. 
In Mark vi. 23. the Article is omitted after eu)g. In Luke 
xix. 8. we have ra -nfitarj rwv vTrapxovrwv ; and elsewhere, viz. 

* The only case which appears to me doubtful is Acts xxvii. 33. Ttaaepav Kai 
SiKCLTtjv Tifiipav TrpooSoKiovTeg. 

' In Pausanias, however, this usage is pushed to extremities. Thus iv. 
11. 9. on ipyov Tov Trpif 'IXiy Kai tovtoiq fiirtOTi, the Article ought certainly 
to occur. This is a peculiarity of the writer. 



Rev. xi. 9. 11 ; xii. 14. it is used indefinitely. This word, 
therefore, must be taken out of the list. 

OaXaTTa. That the Article is omitted before this word 
there is no doubt. Thus Xen. An. iv. 7. 20. oipovTai daXar- 
rav, V. 1, 2. £7r£i OaXaTTav 'i^ofiev. 

I have already noticed the use of this word in English. 
I am inclined to think, that in the celebrated exclama- 
tion in Xen. An. iv. 7. 24. our English cry would have 
been, Sea, Sea, without the Article. (So Oeov (jxxjvrj, in 
Acts xii. 22).^-*-^* ^'^ ^^ ^^"^ ^^ ^ f-^' ^^■^' 

In the N. T. it is very remarkable how almost constantly 
the word takes the Article. Out of ninety-two cases, I only /.<^/ t>^ 
find, though the greater part of these are cases after a Prepo- 
sition, four where it is omitted on that account, viz. Acts vii. 
36; X.6. and 32; 2 Cor. xi. 26. In Luke xxi. 25. it is 
omitted from Enumeration ; in James i. 6. Jude xiii. the Cor- 
relative word is indefinite. In Rev. iv. 6. the word is used 
indefinitely. In xiv. 7. I presume it is omitted on the ground 
of Enumeration — Qakaaaav koI 7rr}jag v^dnov. But it is re- 
markable, that ovpavbg and yri preceding have the Article. 
Matt. iv. 15. is an obscure place, but I see not why o^bg 
should not be indefinite there. 

Bvpa. Kriiger, in his Grammatical Index to Xenophon's 
Anabasis, cites Lucian. Dial. Mort. ix. 3. for omission of the 
Article with Ovpa, (which does not occur, by the way, in the 
place of Xenophon, ii. 5. 31. to which he refers,) but the ex- 
pression is £7ri Ovpag £(I>oltwv. Winer cites Matt. xxiv. 33. 
Mark xiii. 29 ; but these are both with lirL The word is 
strictly used through the N. T. with the Article indeed usu- 
ally and the Preposition. This word, then, must go out of 
the list. 

KO(Tjuoc. Winer alleges only such phrases as diro Kara- 'i 



/3oX»/c KO(Tjuou, aV apx*ic KocTfxov, Iv Koafit^, This word, then, 
must also go out of the list. 

fiearjfi^pia. The Article is only omitted after Preposi- 
tions. Winer cites irpog votov, irpbg kairipavy &c. This word 
must go out of the list. 

vEKQoi. This word, when used for dead bodies, is occasion- 
ally used by the Greeks without an Article ; as by Lucian. 
Ver. Hist. i. p. QQS, ed. Var. ; and Winer quotes Thuc. iv. 
14; V. 10. I find it without the Article in M\, V. H. xii. 
27. D. N. A. xiv. 27. It has the Article in Xen. An. iv. 2. 
18. and 23. Ml. N. A. iv. 7 ; i. 16 ; xiii. 3. In the N. T. it 
is used quite regularly. 

trpoauyirov. Winer cites only cases after a Preposition as 
usual ; and the fact is, that the word is strictly regular. In the 
phrase Xafxjiaveiv irpotrdjirov, the Article could not be used. 

In 1 Pet. iii. 12. there is an Enumeration; wra before is 
without the Article ^ 

0WC (a man). Soph. Aj. 807. tyvtJKa yap Srj (^Cjtoq riiraTr}- 
jxivr]. Is there any instance in prose ? 

■^vxh' In Plato the Article is often omitted. Thus, Phaed. 
p. 83. C. V'^X'^ T^a.vTog dvOpunrov, x. 16. D. KaTa^drai 
^pvxn vTTo awiiaroQ ^ ; (though such omission, in both Correla- 
tives, seems common in other words and languages). De Rep. 
p. 398. C. "^v^i] k(JTiv apfiovia. 

» I may observe here, that in some cases of Enumeration we find the first 
word with the Article, and the others not ; as in this case, and iEsch. Socr. 
Dial. ii. 2, to. dvdpcnroda, Kal ittttoi, kuI xpvabg, Kal dpyvpogj^ 

2 Schiifer on Plutarclj, t. iv. p. 409. notes that the Article is omitted in words 
expressinf? parts of the body. But I want proof of this. 


With respect to the Abstract Nouns mentioned by Winer, ^ *^'^*" ^ 
nothing can be more curious than his list. 

'AyaTrr? occurs 116 times in the N.T., and is always regular, j 
unless 2 Cor. ii. 8. icupwo-at ug avrov aycnrr]v be thought an ex- j 
ception, which I do not take it to be, on the grounds stated 
under yvw/xn. Kaicta is always regular ; TrXfovf^m the same. (It 
is so in 2 Cor. ix. 5). HicrTig, in all the numerous instances in -^ 
which it occurs, is quite regular, except in Heb.xi. 1. 'A/zap- '^ \ 
Tia is always regular, for such phrases as «ju. tiktsiv (James i. 15.) j 
or IpyaZscrOaL (Id. ii. 9.) belong to the same class as those no- 
ticed under 7 vw/zrj. And in the expression (K^aivai ajuiapTiag, ' 
the Article would be improper ; for the expression is evidently \ 
not intended to express * the forgiveness of all sins,' but * the j 
forgiveness of any sin.' Thus, in the phrase * Who can forgive * 
sins but God alone V the question is not, * who can forgive i 
evef-y sin V but * who can compass such a work as the forgive- j 
ness ofTsin?' ; 

In the case of apETi), I am not yet convinced that there is not : 

a law for the use of the Article, although I have failed to \ 

ascertain it. Stallbaum. ad Protag. p. 320. B. and 361. A. j 

says that it is used without the Article for virtue in general; i 

but the MSS. vary in both these places, and 77 aperrj occurs in ^ 

p. 320. C. I see no variation, however, noted in p. 324. A. \ 

and C. and p. 328. C. ; 

There are a few other words on which it may be right to add 

an observation or two. I have already spoken of the names 1 

of arts as being apparently irregular, and explained why. (See ' j 

note in p. 50). I may add here a few more instances, to show ] 
that the words are used in both ways. 

Plat. Sympos. 186. E. has t] re ovv larptK?), wairep Xiytj, \ 

waaa Slcl tov Qeov tovtov Kvf^epvaTaC Mcravrajg Sc KaX yvfjLvaa- : 
TiKT], KaX yewpyia. Movctikti dt koX Travrl Kara^riXog, 

Aristotle, through his Rhetoric, uses, I think, quite con- 
stantly rj 'Pr^TopiKTj and 17 AiaXeKTiKi] ; and we may, perhaps, in 
every instance construe it, The Art of Rhetoric. In i. 1. 2. 


we have it contrasted with other arts which have no Article, 
larpiKih ystJimeTpia, apiB/jLnTiKi] ; and so elsewhere. This seems 
to me easily explicable. He would naturally mention with 
more form and emphasis the art which was the particular 
object of his treatise, as well as Logic, with which he is per- 
petually considering its connexion and difference as an art, 
(see p. 50.) while others which are only casually mentioned 
would be treated less ceremoniously, and called medicine, 
arithmetic, &c. ; not The art of medicine, &c. 

In ^sch. Socr. ii. 27. we have t<jTiv apa r) larpiKri twv tTrtorr/- 
juaJv rj irpbg tovto xp»]o"«V*'- Here, being mentioned distinctly 
as an art, it has the Article \ In § 36. however, we have 
ctTTfp »} lar. ola ts earl rbv vocrovvra iravuv, (paivoiTO av ij/xtv 
kviore KoX larpiKri twv \pr}(TifHov ov(ja irpog rriv apsrrjv Hwep dia 
TTjg laTpiK-qg to ukoveiv iropiGueir), 

We now come to the words avOpwirog and avrip. Of the 
first I would remark, that the following passage from the Pro- 
tagoras of Plato (p. 321 » C. D.) seems to settle definitively that 
in the Singular there is great laxity of usage : 

TlpofiriOivg — 6p^ TO. /JLBv aXXa ^wa IjU/xtXtJc ttclvtijjv e^ovTUy 

TOV §£ avSpWTTOV yVflVOV T£ KoX avvTToSriTOv Koi appMTOV KoX 

aoirXov' r/Si] Se kol »J ujiapfiivr) i^fxipa Trapfiv, Iv y tdei koX av- 
OpwTTov t^ievat bk yr/c f^C ^wc* Anopii^ ovv l\6fXEvog 6 Ilpo/irj- 
Oevg, 7]VTiva (TWTripiav rw avOpwTTtjj evpoi, icXiTrrft 'H<^atoTou 
KOL ^AOr^vag Trjv iVTEXvov <TO(}>Lav (tvv irvpi — ajiy]\avov yap r^v 
aviv TTVpog avTrfv KTr\Tr]v ti^ rj \pr]<jiiuLr}v yeviaOai, — Kal ovtw Si) 
SupaiTai dvOpwirif)' tjjv fxev ovv wspX tov f5iov aocjiiav avOpwirog 
TavTy 'i<T\£. 

Now in one or two of these instances explanations might, I 

» Care must be taken in examining passages. Thus in Plato Protag. p. 322. 
B. we have (in speaking of the primitive condition of man) TroXiriKijv ydp rkxvrjv 
oviru) dxov — OT ovv dOpoicOtXev i^Sikovv aXKrjXovg art. ovk txovreg tijv ttoXi- 
TiKt)v Ttxvriv. In the first case, the Article is omitted because the Proposition is 
Negative ; and in the second, it would be inserted (even if not necessary on other 
grounds) on the score of Renewed Mention. 


think, be devised, which would account for the use of the 
Article ; but then they would be fatal to the explanations of 
other cases. Thus, it might be said that in the first case the 
Article is used because the genus was intended, and omitted in 
the second because an individual was meant. But then, what 
is to be said of the omission in the last case? In the Singular 
then, avOpioTTog and 6 avSpwirog appear to denote the genus; 
but even here it appears that where the genus is to be emphati- 
cally brought under notice, the Article is used. 

With respect to the opinion of Critics, I can hardly attach 
much weight to it. Stallbaum (on Plat. Pol. p. 619. B.) says, 
that when used de genere universo, avOphyirog sometimes has, 
and sometimes has not, the Article. He refers to his notes on 
the Crito, p. 51. A. and Pro tag. p. 355, A. See, on avOpio- 
TTog, Bornemann. de gem. Cyrop. recens. p. 65. N. Thuc. 
i. 41 ; vi. seq. ; vii. 47. Xen. CEc. vi. 8. Aristot. Pol. vii. 12. 4. 
Athenag. Leg. 10. Rechenb. 

With respect to avOpMiroi, I would wish accurate inquiry to 
be made whether it is not used without the Article, as we use 
men, i. e. not so decidedly for a generic description as man, or 
mankind, or 6 avdpujTrog, or ol avOpwrroL; as, for example, 
* The man passed among men for an old man.' This does not, 
of course, mean all mankind on the one hand, nor any par- 
ticular persons on the other, but generally such men as knew 
him. It seems to me, at least, that when the most generic 
description is meant to be given, the Article is added ; but it 
wants very long and careful observation to decide this ^ -• '-^'- 

As to avrip, I must be contented with giving what I find in 
the Critics. Heindorf (on Plat. Theaetet. p. 162. A. ^iXog 
avrjp) refers to a note on Phaedr. p. 267, A. where he inserts 
the Article in the sentence, o-oc^oc yap avrjp. So De Rep. i. 
p. 331. E. He refers too to Brunck, (on Soph. CEd. c. I486,) 

1 In Thuc. i. 41. one must translate, * In a time when men, attacking their 
enemies, think little of any thing in comparison with victory.' 


and wishes to insert the Article. Also in Euthyd. p. 283. B. 
and Theaetet. p. 162. H. All these are Nominatives ; and Mat- 
thiae (264. 262. 5.) says, that in the oblique cases the omission 
is not found, except in the Tragedians. But in the note on 
this latter place (of the Theaetetus) Heindorf says, that on 
longer observation he would not now insert the Article against 
MSS. He refers, in confirmation of this, to Plat. Phaed. p. 98. 
B. where Stallbaum, after Wyttenbach and others, thinks that 
irrision is denoted by the omission of the Article. And again, 
on Pol. ix. p. 595. C. aXX ov jclq Trpo ye rrig a\r]ddag Tifir]- 
rioQ avrjpf Stallbaum attributes the omission to contempt. 
This, however, is still a Nominative, where the reading must 
be very uncertain. 

Stallbaum also (on Plat. Phaed. p. 98. B.) says, that the 
omission of the Article denotes irrision. He quotes Soph. Aj. 
1162. 1170. Aristoph. Ach. 1128. Herm. ad Soph. CEd. C. 
32. But in the places of the Ajax, the expression is simply, 
* I have seen a man bold, &c.' It is not the omission of the 
Article in what is meant to be a definite description, but that 
the speaker in Greek, and in every language, speaking 
in indignation or scorn, describes his adversary indefinitely, 
and leaves the application to be made by that adversary, or 

Herman (on Soph. Phil. 40.) observes, that in the Trage- 
dians some words take or omit the Article, even though defi- 
nitely used ; but some have it always in a given definite sense. 
Thus avy\p always has it when it means a particular man, (not 
a husband), as is clear (1.) from our finding the Article with it 
always in the obhque cases, where a certain man is spoken of ; 
and (2.) from this, that in the Attic parts the first syllable 
never can be long, except where the Article is joined with it ; 
and that it never requires the Article where the first syllable 
is short. 

But in tlie Attic Dramatic writers we cannot doubt about 
the usage. Thus, in Soph. Aj. 59. 


^Eyw Sc (jtotTtjjvT avdpa jiaviainv v6(T0ig 

See too Aristoph. Lysist. 152. 

1 kave just noted a few references to various Critics who 
deliver some of Bisliop Middleton's more familiar rules. 

Chap. iii. Sect. i. § I. Reneived mention. See Kriiger on 
Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2. and 7; iv. 5. IG; v. 9. 13 ; vii. 6. 5. and 
8. 6\ 

§ 2 and 3. Kar £5ox»)»^ and Monadic Nouns. Bornemann (ad 
Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 13.) mentions the use of the Article of any 
celebrated thing. So Kriiger, on the same book, iii. 5. 11. on 
Tov ir^oBoTTiv, the well-known traitor. See his note on v. 1. 4. 
7. On V. 9. 5. he says that it is necessary * ad rem de more 
factam significandam^ and in his Index says that it signified 
* rem in vulgus notam, giving as instances Xen. An. i. 1. 6. 
TTjv 'YX\r]vLKriv ^uvajjiiv, the f well-known J Greek army ; v. 9. 

5. al (TTTOvSat, the (usual) libations ( after supper ) ; vii. 1. 19. 
TaXq aKivaigf those which the soldiers were in the habit of 
carrying. See Poppo's observation on Schneider's note on 
iv. 7. 27. Tovg ^aKTvXiovg. (The daKTvXioi are so noticed also 
in Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead, in that between Alexander, 
Hannibal, and Scipio ^). 

§ 4. Possessive. See Kriiger on Anab. i. 10. 5. and v. 7. 5. 
Poppo on vi. 5. 7. 

§ 7. Correlatives. In Soph. CEd. C. 1348. where we have 
Tri(TS£ ^jjjuou^oc x^o^oCj we find Brunck wishing to read TrjcrB' 

6. It is curious to find that Schafer, who opposes him, brings 
as similar instances, (1.) v. 1476. avaKra x^P^Q Triage, and {2.) 

' Kriiger refers to his Index as a supplement to his notes, and it contains some 
valuable observations. 

2 The quotation from Pericles's \6yoQ iTTironpioe, in Aristot. Rhet. i. 7. con- 
tains some good examples : rrjv veoTtjTa kx rrji TroXew? dvrjprjffOai ii<nrep to tap 
Ik tov kviavTov ti t^aipeOdrj. 


V. 1630. yrig avaKta, Nor does Elmsley make any remark in 
citing this from Schafer. Without impropriety, I hope I may 
observe, that there is very frequently to be found in Critics a 
want of this nice discrimination of the uses of the Article, 
which we find in Bishop Middleton. 

Siebelis, on Pausan i. 3. 5. gives instances of Relation where 
the Genitive has not the Article ; but they are all names of 
countries, which follow nearly the laws of Proper Names. See 
him again on v. 14. 5. 

Herman, on Soph. Philoc. 888. r) ^vaxipeia tov vo(Ti]fiaTOQf 
says that this is Definite, id quod in hoc morho molestum est ; 
and that if ri be omitted, it is Infinite, si quid in eo molestum 
est, as in German, Es hat dich doch nicht lastigkeit der kran- 
kheit vermocht. 

On V. 81. he says, that as Trig viKrjg means victory in general, 
KTYifia ought to have the Article, to signify ' non aliquam sed 
omnem victories adeptionem,' 

I add an instance where the apparent irregularity can be 
explained. Plat. Protag. p. S25. C. rwv oikwv avargoTraL 
Here avaTgoiral is anarthrous, because it is the Predicate 
where 17 ^r^juta was Subject. But then, why rwv o'/kwv? Be- 
cause without the Article, the sense would be wholly difierent. 
The sentence is, " But in the case where death to their chil- 
dren, and exile, and confiscation of property, and, to say all 
in a word, destruction of their families." Without the Article 
we must construe " destruction of families." If this had been 
predicated as the consequence, another evil might have seemed 
to be in the writer's mind. Just before, in speaking of confis- 
cation of property, the Article is not wanted, and is not used. 

On the matter of Predicate and Subject, it may be well to 
observe, that Matthiae says that the Subject has not the Ar- 
ticle, if it is a general idea. Two of his three instances are, 
Isoc. ad Demonic, p. 8. B. Kokog dnaavgog wap' avdpX cnrov' 
Eai(^ Xaptg ocftuXo/xivti, Nicocl. p. 28. A. \6yog aXr)9rig kol 
vofiiKog KoX ^iKaiog \pvxng ayaOrig koX irKXTrig eidwXov tori. The 


third is, avOpoyiroQ (in the Protagoras) navTtJv xp^f^^'''^^ f^^' 
Tpov avOpwTTog. 

Again, he says that the Predicate has the Article, if it is a 
definite object, in which it is affirmed that it belongs to the 
general idea in the subject, as Eur. El. 381. 

TiQ de irpog \6yxnv jSXettwv 
Maprvg yivoir av ogtlq ecttiv dyaOog ; 
Plat. Phaed. p. 78. C. ravra naXiaTa elvai ra d^vvOsra. (This 
case is especially explained by Bishop Middleton.) Philemon 
ap. Stobaeum. Floril. Grot. p. 211. slprivr] tern TayaOov. 
(This is a singular instance indeed.) Lucian Dial. Mort. 
17. 1. TovT^ avTo 7] KoXaaig Igtlv, where a particular punish- 
ment is spoken of. 

I will now proceed to give the additional instances which I 
have lately collected, which bear upon Mr. Granville Sharp's 

Plat, de Rep. p. 398. C. -n^v apfioviav KoXpvOjuiov* 

Id. Pol. iv. p. 586. E. ry tTrtorrijU^ icai Xoycji. 

Id. ibid. viii. p. 557. C. ol TraXdig re kol yv- 

Id. Legg. vi. p. 784. C. 6 (rwcftpoviov koL aio- 

Id. ibid. V. p. 771. E. ry Trapoucrrj ^i^fiij koi Xoyw. 

Id. Pro tag. p. 327. B. 17 aXXnXiov diKaiocrvvn 
Koi aperri. y 

Id. Pol. vi. p. 516. B. Tb)v a(TTp(i)v re koi (reXnvr^g. 
\ Aristot. Rhet. i. 1. 1. 6 ^' tKKXricnaaTrjg kol Stjcao-rjjc V^n 
TTtpi irapovrwv kol (Kpuypiaixiviov Kplvovcri, 

Id. ibid. 2. 7. to yap TiKfiap kclI iripag tuvtov lort, Kara ti)v 
dp\aXav yXvjTTav. 

Id. ibid. 3. rrig ^LaXiKTLKr\g koX pr]TopiKY\g. But in i. 1. 3. 

11 SmXtKTiKl^ KOL 7) pr]TOpLKl]. 

Id. ibid. 3. 1. tov fxaXXov kcu r\TTov. 

Id. ibid. 4. to o-uju^epov koi j3Xaj3fpov ; and again, ToXg Iwai- 
vovGi KOI xpiyovai. 

/ ^ 

^ .2 ^ 


Id. ibid. 9. 1. t(o IwaivovvTi kol xpiyovri. 

Id. ibid. 10. 1. TTfpi ^6 rijg KaTrjyopiag kol aTroXoyiag* 

Id. ibid. TO ^iKaiov koX aSiKOV. 

Id. ibid. 11. 2. Toig eWicrfjiivoig rt kol dvvafiivoig. 

Id. ibid, ev Tt^ fiefivYiadai re icai op^v. 

Id. ibid. Tag fia\r]TiKag Kai Tag av\r\TLKag kclI IpiaTiKag. 

Id. ibid. ToXg TrevOeai Ka\ dprivoig, 

Pausanias vi. G. 2. rrjv AoKpida koi 'Pr/yivijv. 

Thucydides i. 54. viro tov fjov kclI avifiov. 

Ibid. 140. Trjv f5ej5aitO(nv Ka\ irupav Trig yvijjfxrig. 

Ibid. 141. riTE fj.eyi(TTri Ka\ IXaxtorij ^iKaitjjtTig, 

Ibid. 143. Trjv fJLtv yriv Ka\ olKiag a^uvai, Trig ^£ da\aa(n]g 
Kttt TToXewc (^vXaK-qv £%"''• 

Ibid. ii. 50. to. yap opvsa Ka\ TETpaTroda, 

Ibid. iv. 34. viro twv roStv/iarwv kol Xidwv, 

Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19. to. re Xcyojueva Kal irpaTTOneva Kat ra 
<Tfy^ jSouXcuojUtva. 

Id. Cyrop. i. 6. 17. SojcsT ^ tc vyiua juaXXov irapafiivuv 
Ka\ \(TXvg irpoaysviaOaL. But this is no instance ; health ea;- 
isted before ; strength is a new acquirement. 

Id. Anab. ii. 1. 7. Tag Ta^eig te Kal oirXoiiaxiav, » 

Id. ibid. ii. 2. 5. ot (rrparrjyot icat Xoxayot*. 

Isocrates Archid. p. 58. ri tov ^layeaOai kol 7r£pnroiri<TaL 
(T<j>ag avTOvg* 

Id. Evag. p. 83. to di hipiov ZriTilv Trjv KaOodov Kal 
BepaTTEveiv Tovg avTov \Eipovg VTTspaSc. 

Id. ibid. p. 89. Iv r({i» ^rjrav kqi ^povri^ttv (cat (iovXEVEaOai, 

Id. ibid. p. 102. Twv 'H^t^twv tou^ ttXeiotouc Kat ovofiatTTO- 
TciTOvg, This is of the same person. 

Id. Busir. p. 163. Trjv AajccSatjuoviwv apyiav Kal ttXeo- 

* I may mention that Xenophon's practice about these words differs. We 
have (TTpaTTiyoi Kal Xoxayoi without any Article very often, as Anab. iii. 5. 7 ; 
iv. 3. 26. 6. 12. 7- 25 ; vi. ,3. 12. 4. 30. Cyrop. iii. 3. 11. Both have the Article 
in ii. 5. 25 ; v. 2. 13 ; vii. 1. 13. and elsewhere. See iv. 4. 21 ; v. 4. 23; vi. 5. 4. 


Id. ibid. p. 177. rtov TrXatcrra tldoriov icat jSouXojulvwv u)(j>£- 
Xeiv, of the same people. 

Herodian i. 17. 25. rov (l)apiuLaKOv koX /uLtOriQ, 

Id. i. 17. 3. Toifg TrpEa(5vTepovg koi Xonrovg iraTpojovg ^iXovg, 

Id. i. 16. 7. T^v tvdo^ov Kol eviaiKTiov irop^vpav, (See too 
i. 16. 10). 

Id. ii. 4. 12. t{]v r£ 'Irakiav kclI Iv roig Xonrotg Wveai 
ayetvpyriTov re koi iravTcnracTiv ovcrav apyov, 

Kriiger s observations on tliis point are worth quoting. On 
Xen. An. vii. 2. 16. he says, that properly the Article is not 
added to the second word, when ' utrumque vocahulum in 
unam notionem conjunctum cogitandum est,* but that as it is 
usually of very little consequence whether this is signified or 
not, the Article is often inserted where it would not be ex- 
pected. On vii. 7. 36. to ttoXv koi to oXiyov he inserts the 
Article on the authority of one MS., because * sine eo voces ir, 
et 6. conjungi posse diceretur, cum ut oppositce cogitandce sint,* 
In the same sentence he edits 17 ^vvafxig tov awo^i^ovTog kol 
Tov Xafif^avovTogf but seven MSS. omit the second Article. 

On this subject it may be sufiicient to observe, that of all 
these instances, none goes against Mr. Sharp's rule as ex- 
plained by Bishop Middleton, with the exception of the two 
first from Aristotle's Rhetoric. That they should have been 
so long overlooked, standing where they do, is a proof how 
little interest is excited by the subject. On these instances I 
hardly know what to say, except that the fact, that the sen- 
tence is explaining how the Ecclesiast and Dicast differ, pre- 
vents any possibility of the two words being referred to the 
same person ; and that in the same way, in the second case, the 
obvious fact, that the writer is treating of and explaining two 
different terms, and showing that they come to the same thing, 
would prevent any misunderstanding. If these explanations 
are not thought sufficient, it must be allowed that Mr. 
Sharp's rule is not universal, but its general truth cannot be 

In connexion with this subject, it deserves attention, that 


the Greek writers not only, as Bishop Middleton remarks, 
omit the Article altogether in an enumeration of particulars^ 
but that they occasionally insert the necessary Article or 
Articles with the first clause or clauses of a sentence, and omit 
it before the others, where other particulars are enumerated 
in clauses of a form exactly like the first. Thus, Thuc. iii. 2, 
tC)v \ifiivii)V Trjv x(oaiv koX TUXiOvolKodofirjaiv KaXvEtJV'Troiri- 
(Tiv. Here both Articles are omitted in the second and third 

Plat. Pol. viii p. 533, seq. apeaKei ttjv julv Trpwrriv fuioTpav 
iTn(TTr]fX7]v JcaXfTv, ^ivrigav Sf otavomv, TfjiTtiv Se TricTTtv, kol 
HKacriav rara^rrjv. 

Xen. CEc. ix. 7. aXXij {(jivXrl) rwv ajUKpii Xourpov, aWi] a{i(fi 
fxcLKTpaq, aWr\ afx(fi rpairitiag. 

Plat. Protag. p. 329. C. fxopia S' avrriq Icttiv rj diKaiotrvvri koX 
(Tii)^poa\)vr] KCLi bai6Tr]g. 

There are some few instances which I have observed, for 
which I cannot satisfactorily account, and I think it right to add 
them. A very few exceptions, however, do not at all go to shake 
rules, which of course can only be general, and very possibly 
observers of greater sagacity than myself will see the reasons 
for these exceptions, or show that they fall within Bishop 
Middleton's rules. 

Plat. Gorg. p. 497. E. 'AyaOovg avdpag KoXelg atppovag kuX 
^EiXovg. Why not Toi/g a(l>povag ? 

Id. Theaetet. p. 151. E. A'lcrOrjmg, (l)rjg, £7rt(rr/^juij. 

Id. Charmidas, p. 161. A. ovk apa (7(0(f)po(Tvvr} av urj alBu)g. 
As the two last are not reciprocating Propositions, I do not 
see why the Article is omitted. 

Id. Protag. p. 329. D. wtnnp irpocrwirov ra fuiopia, jmopid tort 
(TTOfxa T£ KaX p\g kol o^waXjuoc koI wra rj loairep to. tov ^pucoiJ 
fiopia ovSlv Sitt^cpct ra 'irepa twv crEpwv. Why is the Article 
omitted before irpoau}irov ? Just below we have wrrirep ra tov 
wpoawwov fiopia '. 

' It may be well finally to subjoin instances which I have observed, where 


It only remains that I should state what has been done in 
this edition. In the first place, Mr. Winstanley's book against 
Mr. Sharp, which was the most considerable of all pubhshed 
on the subject, has, I believe, been fully examined in all its 
material parts. Mr. Winstanley shows much reading and 
great attention to the question, but does not, as I trust I have 
showm, at all shake Mr. Sharp's positions, as explained and 
confirmed by Bishop Middleton. As the rule has been much 
canvassed in speaking of certain titles and names given to our 
Lord, I have, with considerable labour, given in my Appendix 
a full view of every instance of each of the most remarkable 
titles applied to Him. I have likewise examined Winer's 
book, which is one of the most celebrated of modern books on 
the New Testament, and have given from him, and also from 
Gersdorf 's work on the Characteristics of the Style of the 
Writers of the New Testament, whatever seemed most im- 
portant on the Article. Besides this, I have used all the 
diligence I could in collecting the dicta of modern foreign 
Critics on this subject. I cannot in truth say that I think 
they amount to very much, except to this, that they show that 
most Critics have paid very little attention to the subject. Still 
it was only right, that in a new Edition of the only great 
work on the Greek Article, whatever had been said by eminent 
Scholars should be added ; and this, to the best of my ability, 
I have done, besides adding such other instances of the use of 
the Article, as my own reading chanced to supply. 

Critics have given explanations of particular passages where the Article occurs 
in a way which, to a Student, might be embarrassing. 

Soph. El. 6 0VV yvvai^l rag fidxag Troiovfievog. 
His battles, whatever battles he fight. 
Id. ibid. 654. rd iroXXd irvivfiar', those many winds which are accustomed to 
blow, (the Euripus being very stormy), or the many winds which detained the 
Greek fleet. 





My DEAR Sir, 

The satisfaction which usually attends the 
termination of a literary labour, is, in the present 
instance, greatly increased by the opportunity afforded 
me of publicly stating the obligations which I owe 
to a Patron and Friend. The day which first recom- 
mended me to your notice, is distinguished in the 
annals of my life. Your nice and inflexible regard 
to integrity, your accurate estimate of mental powers, 
and your almost intuitive knowledge of character, 
confer honour on those who, in any, even the lowest 
degree, possess your favourable opinion : but when 
I reflect that, endowed with these qualities, you 
selected me to discharge a trust, the most momen- 
tous which man can delegate, allowing largely, as 
I ought to do in such a case, for the fallibility of 
human judgment, I cannot but feel the value of 



your preference ; I cannot repress emotions of self- 
complacency and pride. 

But not merely for the gratification of my vanity 
am I indebted to your kindness ; I have to acknow- 
ledge substantial benefits. You have smoothed the 
path of my future life ; you have supplied incite- 
ments to diligence ; you have facilitated my exertions, 
whatever be the end to which they may hereafter 
be directed ; you have placed me in a situation in 
which indolence might sink into repose, and in 
which, if activity fail of its reward, defeat may find 

And yet, Sir, the retrospect cannot be contem- 
plated without deep regret. Of the two excellent 
young men whose minds it became my duty to cul- 
tivate, one is now no more ' : the wound inflicted 

^ Henry George Pretyman died of a decline on the 16th 
October, 1807, having just completed his 17th year: his remains 
are deposited in Bristol Cathedral, on the North side of the Altar : 
in the ensuing autumn he would have proceeded to the University. 
I cannot but be solicitous to record some memorial of his mind : 
to those, therefore, who have the candour to excuse the defects of 
a juvenile trifle, I offer the following Inscription, supposed to be 
intended for a statue of our immortal statesman, Mr. Pitt. I might 
have selected a more favourable specimen of my lamented Pupil's 
talents: but the present is recommended by its brevity, by the 
interest of its subject, and by its being his last attempt in Greek 
composition. It was written in December, 1806; and it is printed 
exactly as it was found among his papers. 


by his departure, is yet unhealed ; and the chasm 
which he has left in our affections, will not soon 
be closed. I mean not to wrong Parental anguish 
by pretending to share it ; Nature has given it a 
character of its own ; it is a Sacred Sorrow, which 
is profaned by the intrusion of affected sympathy. 
You will concede, however, that mine is a case of 
no common disappointment, and you will allow me 
to indulge in expressions of grief, which well may 
be sincere. Your second Son, from the completion 
of his sixth year, had been committed to my sole 
tuition : and with daily opportunities of observing 
his character, and of witnessing his conduct, not to 
have loved him, would have evinced an insensi- 
bility which I hope does not exist. While the 


MiJv, (o 'ydd'f av^elc 'AyyXiKOQ 7re(ftVKivai ; 
iSaiov y ETriaxfJ^v ^AyyXiag aojrfjp' 6pa» 
(ipovTYi yap cjq riarpaTTTev i]q yXwcrcrrye aQivoQy 
opyaQ T eQeX^ev aljivXog fxvdcjy -^apig' 
TrvKvaiQ Be j^ovXaiQ rovBe, yrjg EupwTr/ac 
eTrrr)^ aXaorwp, 7/^' (iypag yfidpravev' 
oh yap BoXoiai IIITTOS ecr(f)dXr] irore, 
oW fiKpoy wg TTvpyufia ryg fxovap-^^lag 
effrr), dpovovg t &pdu)cr£ rovg epeixf^ifjiovg' 
4'^X^^ ^e fxdXXov riyd7rr)<Te TrarpiZa, 
TrdvTMv T avai, (w davfjia) TiBvr]Ktv irivTig. 
dprfviop d7rXr]ffrii)y XrjyETf th IIITTOY (f)iXoi, 
yooj^EvoL fiaTaia' KaXXiarov yipag 
oi TrpoffSey lyBpoi 7rpo(T<f>epovrT dtcovcriutg^ 
dayoyrog 'ipya Kai Xoyovc iiifiovjxeroi. 



qualities of his heart engaged my esteem, the en- 
dowments of his mind commanded my admiration. 
To simplicity ever unsuspicious, to warmth and 
generosity of feeling, to a temper the most docile 
and aflfectionate, to the habitual yet unconscious 
exercise of native benevolence, and to firm faith 
in the truths of our Religion, he added a quick 
and clear apprehension, a lively and creative fancy, 
much acuteness of discrimination, and a power which 
is rarely possessed in youth, that of directing all the 
energies to a given subject. Of his attainments I 
should not speak without great hesitation, if less 
partial judges had not inferred from them the cer- 
tainty of his future distinction : I was encouraged 
to hope that Cambridge would number him among 
her illustrious sons ; and I anticipated the grateful 
and repeated tidings, 

OTi oi vkav 

£(Tr£<^avtt)(T£ Kv^i/JKov atOXwv 
TTTepoiai ^airav. 

Thus prematurely is dissolved a connexion of more 
than thirteen years' continuance. At a crisis so in- 
teresting, I have solicited permission to prefix your 
name to the following Volume. The merits of the 
performance may not entitle it to your zealous patron- 
age ; but its design, and the circumstances in which 
it has been produced, lead me to h^e that you will 
not regard it with total indifference. It is, I trust, 
strictly within the line of our Profession ; it was 


written in intervals of relaxation from duties originat- 
ing in your partiality ; and I cannot suppose that here 
Association will suspend its wonted influence on the 
feelings, though it may not bias your judgment. 

I have now, Sir, to take my leave of you, with fer- 
vent prayers for your own happiness, and for that of 
your Family. I am shortly to withdraw from polished 
and literary society, from friendships endeared to me 
by similarity of pursuits, and by uninterrupted habits 
of kindness and confidence, to exercise the obscure, 
but important function of a Village Pastor : I am to 
seek other companions, to form new connexions, to 
engage in fresh projects : but whatever be my destiny, 
1 cherish the belief that your good wishes will attend 
me, and that if ever your good opinion can avail to 
my welfare, you will not withhold it. 

I am, 

My dear Sir, 
With sentiments of unfeigned 

Gratitude and respect. 
Your obedient and faithful Servant, 


Norwich, 1st Jan. 1808. 


The Student in Theology cannot fail to have remarked, that 
the exposition of various passages of the 'New Testament is by 
Commentators made to depend on the presence or the absence ^L^ d 4*. 
of the Article in the Greek original. He has observed, that av^u^ 
on this ground frequently they have attempted to correct mis- 
translation, to strengthen w^hat they thought too weak, or to 
quaHfy what was deemed too strong. Criticisms of this kind 
he probably regarded as being at least plausible, till he per- 
ceived that they sometimes degenerated into refinements not 
having any visible foundation in truth ; that distinctions were 
made, which were not warranted by the general tenor of Scrip- 
ture ; that the examples by which it was sought to establish 
the proposed exposition, were not always strictly parallel ; and 
that Critics, instead of accurately investigating the laws of the 
Greek idiom, were not unfrequently content to argue from the 
practice in their own. 

These charges, however, even if we admit them in their full 
extent, detract nothing from the general value of Grammatical 
Interpretation, as applied to the Sacred Volume : they tend only 
to show that a particular philological question has not hitherto 
been sufficiently examined. To the Grammatical interpretation 
of the N. T. every sensible and unbiassed Christian will give 
his strenuous support. When, indeed, we consider how many 
there are who seek to warp the Scriptures to their own views 
and prepossessions, it seems to be the only barrier which can 
be opposed successfully against heresy and corruption. Partial 
Versions may be framed, and false Expositions sent forth into 
the world : but these cannot, if the friends of religion accu- 


rately study the original of the Scriptures, long mislead man- 
kind. It was the judicious admonition of one of the Fathers, 
and the lapse of centuries has not abated its force or propriety, 
T7jU£Tc ol TTto-roi Trap' iavrotg e^ETCKTMimev kol f5a<Tavi(T(jjfXEv tmv 

That the uses of the Greek Article should not have been 
more correctly ascertained, may excite surprise, when we per- 
ceive that hints tending to prove the importance of the subject 
may be traced even in the writings of the Fathers. In Justin, 
in Irenaeus, in Clement of Alexandria, in Origen, in Athana- 
sius, in Epiphanius, in Chrysostom, and in Theophylact, we 
find that stress is sometimes laid on the Article as prefixed to 
particular words, though no principles are generally inculcated : 
and a Latin Father, Jerome, remarking on Galat. v. 18. that 
TTvevfjiaTi is there anarthrous, adds, quce quidem minutiae magis 
in GrcBcd quam in nostra lingua ohservatce, qui apBpa jpenitus 
non hahemus, videntur aliquid habere momenti. Indeed, if we 
regard the subject as a question merely of Profane Philology, 
it possesses a degree of interest which might have more 
strongly recommended it to notice. In the course of the last 
century almost every topic connected with Greek Criticism 
has been minutely and profoundly discussed: we have seen 
disquisitions on the Homeric Digamma, on the Greek Accents, 
on Dialects, on the quantity of the Comparatives in ION ^ on 
the licence allowed in Tragic Iambics and on their Caesura, on 
the Greek Particles, and on Metres, especially those of Pindar. 
I will not deny that these inquiries are all of them of the 
highest importance to the cause of Classical Literature : yet 
the present, considered in the same point of view, may claim 
at least a secondary rank, whilst in its connexion with The- 
ology, and, perhaps, I may add, with the Philosophy of 
Grammar, it admits them not to any competition ^. 

^ See the masterly critique in the Monthly Review, New Series, vol. xxix. 
p. 427, et seqq. 

' It is true that a work entitled " Findicia Articuli 6, r), to, in N. T." was 
published by Adrimi Kluit, and if I mistake not, in the Dutch language, about 
forty years ago. When I commenced my undertaking, I was not aware that such 


This subject, however, has of late acquired additional interest 
from the Controversy occasioned by a work of Mr. Granville 
Sharp's. This gentleman contends that such phrases in the 
N. T. as Tov XoLGTov KoX Qi:Ov ought to be interpreted of one 
individual, so as to afford evidence of our Saviour's Divinity, and 
that such had been the rendering of many of our older English 
Versions: Bezahad also strenuously supported the same opinion; 
as did many other Critics. The interpretation maintained 
by Mr. Sharp became the more probable from being sanctioned 
by the excellent Editor of Dawes's Miscellanea Critical the 
present Bishop of St. David's, The same interpretation was 
also powerfully confirmed by the elaborate researches of Mr. 
Wordsworth, who has proved that most of the disputed texts 
were so understood by the Fathers. If any thing under this 
head remained to be done, it was to show that the same form 
of expression in the Classical Writers required a similar ex- 
planation, and also to investigate the principle of the Canon, 
and to ascertain its limitations : this I have attempted in some 
pf the following pages. 

But the Criticism, as well as the Illustration, of the N. T. is 
involved in the present inquiry. Michaelis (Introd. vol. i. 
p. 267.) has well observed, that " the difference even of an 
Article must not be neglected in collating a MS. :" and yet in 
this respect the MSS. are frequently at variance. It is, then, 
much to be desired, that even in this particular, the text should 
be restored as nearly as possible to the reading of the Auto- 
graphs : and I perceive not how this can be effected with any 
tolerable ground of security, unless we first ascertain what 
reading the idiom requires, or at least prefers : for the mere 
majority of MSS. will hardly satisfy the Critic: in many in- 
stances it will be seen that " major pars meliorem vicit" 

a book existed ; and that it exists, is all which I know of it now, when my work 
is nearly printed off. Our agreement, therefore, if we ever agree, must be 
regarded as independent evidence of the same truth. I suspect, however, that 
we have proceed»?d on different principles, because Schleusner, in his Lexicon, 
though he appeals to Kluit, has in many important passages explained the Article 
in a manner from which, as will be seen, 1 entirely dissent. 

xlii PREFACE. 

In this investigation, however, and indeed in tracing the 
most obvious uses of the Greek Article, I found it impossible 
to proceed with any thing like certainty, unless the Article 
itself were first clearly defined, and its nature well understood. 
It has therefore been my endeavour, in the former Part of my 
volume, to resolve the question. What is the Greek Article ? 
and to show that the solution offered will explain its principal 
uses in the Greek Writers : examples of these several uses are, 
of course, subjoined. In the Second Part I have applied to 
the Greek Text of the New Testament the doctrine laid down 
in the Part preceding. In each of them, if I have, in any 
considerable degree, attained the ends proposed, I shall not 
have occasion to regret the time and the labour which it has 
cost me : the former Part will not then be uninteresting as a 
Grammatical speculation ; it may assist the young men who, 
in our Schools and Universities, exercise themselves in Greek 
composition ; and, judging from the errors in respect of the 
Article, which still deform many editions of the Classics, it 
may not be wholly useless to Editors, who have not particu- 
larly attended to the subject. On the same supposition, the 
Second Part will be found, in some instances, to have corrected 
faulty translation; in others, where different interpretations 
have their advocates, to give to one side the preponderance ; in 
some, to vindicate the integrity of the Text from wanton con- 
jecture; in others, to restore its purity by the adoption of 
rejected readings: in a word, to be subservient both to the 
Illustration and to the Criticism of the N. T. I am aware, 
however, that to plan and to execute are very different things ; 
that the imagination readily conceives what the hand cannot 
pourtray; and that the best performances of the strongest 
minds bear but a faint resemblance to the archetype. I am, 
therefore, to expect that I shall need the Reader's indulgence ; 
on which, however, I cannot produce any very unusual claims. 
To him who urges tlie difficulty of his subject, it is fair to 
retort, that he ought to have measured his own strength. I 
might, indeed, allege, that a more ready access to libraries (for 

PREFACE. xliii 

my own is not large, oXiyov te ^iXov re) would certainly have 
enriched my work, and might possibly have prevented some 
mistakes : even this, however, would be of little avail ; and 
every thing, perhaps, which is usually adduced on such occa- 
sions, may be comprised in the brief declaration, 6 yiygai^a, 

But though I cannot assert extraordinary pretensions to the 
lenity of the Reader, I shall be justified in the attempt to 
counteract the effect of prejudice. An opinion prevails, that 
practical inferences deduced from inquiries of this kind are 
unsafe and futile : there are persons who appear to believe that 
the usages of language are rarely reducible to fixed rules ; that 
their agreement is merely coincidence, and that Idiom is to be 
attributed solely to custom. I do not hold such reasoning 
to be at all philosophical ; custom in language bears a close 
analogy to chance in physics ; each of them is a name for the 
operation of unerring causes, which we want either the ability 
or the inclination to apprehend. Qualified by such a confession, 
each of these terms may be tolerated ; but neither of them is to 
be employed as the appellation of a power which disdains to 
act harmoniously and consistently with itself, and is impelled 
only by caprice. In the formation of language every thing 
indicates design tending to discoverable ends : and in its actual 
appHcation, though there are some anomalies, they bear no 
proportion to the instances in which the strictest regularity, the 
most undeviating uniformity, prevails. Of the Greek lan- 
guage these remarks are true in an especial degree : and there 
is some colour for the singular notion of Lord Monboddo, that 
this tongue was formed by grammarians and philosophers 
according to the rules of art. That some licence, indeed, in 
the use of the Article takes place in certain cases, it will be 
seen that I have readily admitted : but even for this we shall 
frequently be able to account, nor is it ever such as to invali- 
date the general truth of my theory. With respect to those 
canons which I have considered as most certain, I ought to 
state that they are confirmed not merely by the examples 

xliv PREFACE. 

adduced, but by multitudes which, for several years past, have 
occurred to my observation : yet if a few^ untoward instances 
from unquestionable authorities can be cited against me, (and 
they have not been studiously suppressed), I must seek refuge 
in the remark of a distinguished Critic, that " when a rule has 
been established by ninety-nine examples out of a hundred, an 
exception in the hundredth will not overturn it \" " '^ ^t****'^-^'; 

There are also Readers who turn with disgust from every 
thing which has the appearance of subtilty. I cannot deny 
that the reasoning of my First Part may occasionally require 
a somewhat close attention : but the subject, if we would really 
understand it, seems not to admit the superficial treatment 
which the taste of our day would unhappily introduce into 
science of almost every kind. To throw a veil of mystery over 
that which in itself is plain and obvious, is indeed culpable : 
but more injury, I believe, arises to the human mind from the 
attempt to make all knowledge popular : it is better that the 
frivolous should remain in ignorance, than that the thinking 
and inquisitive should not have their faculties duly exerted. 
If the subject which I have undertaken to discuss has derived 
from my method of considering it an obscurity which does not 
really belong to it, I regret the waste of my own labour, as 
well as that of the Reader's ; but I am much more apprehen- 
sive of having failed in that acuteness of distinction, .that logical 
precision, and that depth of research, without which inquiries 
of this nature cannot be prosecuted to their full extent. 

The Second Part, accompanied throughout by the Greek 
Text, would have assmned the form of a new edition of the 
Greek Testament : I thought it better, however, to trust to 
the hope, that they who were interested in the subject, would 
have the Greek Testament lying open before them, than to 
increase the bulk of the work by an appendage which might 
justly be condemned as of no real use. 

' Mr. Marsh's Letters to Mr. Travis, p. 257. 



^ T r Opinions of Grammarians respecting the Greek Ar- 
C«^^-I- 1 tide 1-5 

Sect. I. 

Chap. II. 

r&ect. 1. 

V — II 




Sect. I. 


On the Article in Homer 6 

Object of its relation 14 

Obscure reference 18 

Anticipative reference vindicated 21 

Participle of Existence understood 25 

1 . Renewed mention 32 

2. KUT l^oxw 33 

3. Monadic Nouns 34 

4. Article in sense of Possessive 
Pronoun ib. 

5. Objects of Nature ib. 

5. Neuter Adjectives 35 

7. Correlatives 36 

B. Partitives 38 

g. fikv and dk ib. 

Sect. II. 

Chap. IILV Hypothesis. 
Appellatives. \ 

Sect. III. 

Sect. IV. 

Omissions , 

Hypothetic Use 39 

Classes 40 

Propositions of Existence 42 

After Verbs Substantive, &c. ... 43 

After Verbs of appointing, &c. . . 45 

Apposition , ib. 

Exclusive Propositions 46 

Governing Nouns before Indefi- 
nite governed 48 

Governed after Indefinite govern- 
ing 49 

Subject and Predicate 50 

Attributes connected by Copula- 
tives 56 

Chap. IV. 



what occasions the Article is placed before Proper 




Chap. V. 



I. J §2. 

•ns. 1 § 3. 


Sect. II. f § 1. 
Omissions. \§ 2. 


Chap. VI. ^ §2. 

Anomalies, j § 3. 




Chap. VII. ^ §3. 

With certain v § 4. 

words. J § 5. 



Chap. VIII. 

Position in 





Most Abstract sense 91 

Personification 92 

Possessive Pronoun 93 

Reference ib. 

Sundry causes of omission 94 

Adverbially 95 

After Prepositions 98 

Enumeration 99 

Ordinals 100 

Superlatives , . . . . 101 

TTUQ in the Singxdar 102 

— in the Plural 103 

— with Abstract Nouns 105 

oXog ib. 

o'Stoq 106 

oSe 107 

EKtivoQ ib. 

With one Article 110 

With two Articles Ill 

p, . -r V r How far Classical Rules respecting the Article apply z 
Chap.IX. I totheN.T 115-1^0 

PART 11. 

Notes on the NEW TESTAMENT , .123—470 

Appendix I. — On the Codex Bezce 471 — 485 

II. (By the present Editor.) — The Usage of the various 

Appellations of our Blessed Lord 486 — 496 

INDEX 497 







We learn from Glass, in his Philologia Sacra, that Julius 
CaBsar Scahger called the Greek Article loquacissimcB gentis 
flahellum ; and that Budaeus represents the Attic writers as at 
one time inserting the Article by a Pleonasm, and at others 
omitting it by an Elhpsis. This doctrine, while it seems to 
command assent from the authority of those who have pro- 
pounded it, is nevertheless so abhorrent from the genius of a 
philosophical language, like that of the ancient Greeks, that no 
falHble authority is of sufficient force to rescue it from the 
consequences of its inherent improbability. If in any lan- 
guage there could be a Part of Speech, which without offence 
to Syntax might thus be employed or discarded at the pleasure 
of the speaker, that language might vsdth more reason be sup- v4vn^ 
posed to be the French ; which has not, like the Greek, the 
appearance of having been contrived bj^ a synod of philoso- 
phers, but might rather be thought to owe its peculiarities to 
the fashion of the court and the habits of the gay and frivolous. 
In French, however, the laws respecting their Articles are 
rigorously observed ; and an Englishman, who has not attended 
to the rules, will probably find, that of the faults which he 


commits in translating into that language a page of English, 
those which regard the Articles, are not the least considerable 
part. The nation, therefore, to which in modern times all 
others are accustomed to impute loquacity, does not employ its 
Articles as mere fiabella ; and there is at least a presumption, 
that among the Greeks the Article was subservient to some 
graver purpose. 

He however, who pretends to determine the uses of the 
Greek Article, should first endeavour to investigate its nature 
and origin. Without such an inquiry he may, indeed, collect 
from Greek writers something like rules for its insertion or 
omission; but he vdll not be able to give them probabihty 
and consistency : they will not be of general application ; he 
will be driven to the unsatisfactory solution of Pleonasm and 
Ellipsis ; and he will be compelled to admit, as is done con- 
tinually, that though the Article is by its nature a Definitive, 
it is sometimes used to mark indefiniteness , or is wholly with- 
out meaning : a doctrine which is countenanced in the excellent 
Lexicon to the New Testament by Schleusner. Quodcunque 
ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. There must be some com- 
mon principle, by attending to which these opposite uses of 
the Article may be reconciled to each other and to common 
sense ; there must be, to use the words of Plato \ to vooviulsvov 
tv zivai, act ov to avTo ctti ttcktiv' and it is worth our while to 
inquire for it. But first it may be right briefly to examine the 
principal opinions on the subject. 

I have often thought, that if Aristotle had left us a treatise 
on Grammar, it would have ranked with the most valuable 
remains of antiquity; and yet the Httle which he has said 
respecting the Article in his Poetics, is so obscure, that Mr. 
Twining, his very learned translator, confesses his inability to 
understand it. Aristotle says that an Article is '' a sound 
without signification, which marks the beginning or the end 
of a sentence, or distinguishes, as when we say, the word ^i|/ii, 

THE word TTEpt ^" 

» Vol. X. Ed. Bipont. p. 83, ■'• - 

2 •Apepov ck i<TTi <pu>v>) dffrjfiog, rj \6yov apx>)v n reXog r} Siopiafibv Sr]\ol, 
olov Tb (l>i]fii Kai Tb Trtpt, Kai rd dXXa. Mr. Twining observes, " the commen- 
tators all tell us, that this means the prepositive and the subjunctive Article ; but 
none of them have clearly and fairly shown us how the one, because it is placed 


Whatever be the true interpretation of this passage, I despair 
of discovering in it any thing to my present purpose. 

A great deal of curious matter on the subject of the Article, 
and indeed on almost every part of the science of Grammar, 
may be found in ApoUonius Dyscolus, a very acute writer, who '" '^ \ 
flourished about the middle of the second century. Of many 
of his remarks I shall make use hereafter. I do not perceive 
that he has any where defined the Article, and consequently he 
has no theory ; though he has niany facts, for the most part 
corroborating the theory, which I suspect to be the true one. 
He makes Articles and Pronouns to be difierent things, yet he 
allows a relation between them, and says that if the Article , 

lose its Substantive, it then becomes a Pronoun. This writer 1 

makes frequent mention of Trypho, who had composed a ^^y/^-^ , 
Treatise expressly on the subject of the Article : the work is ' 

unfortunately lost. 

Theodore Gaza, who lived in the fifteenth century, gives us j*^-^ ■■ 

in his Grammar^ the following account: "The Article is a /''^^ : 

declinable Part of Speech prefixed to Nouns. It is, indeed, ) 

divided into the Prepositive and the Subjunctive: but, pro- : 

perly speaking, the Prepositive only is the Article; and it i 

serves to recall that which had previously been known in the ' 

discourse." This Grammarian, therefore, seems to understand \ 

the Article to be a distinct Part of Speech, as was observed of \ 

Apollonius : nor is it true, that it is always employed to recall 
that which had previously been known in the discourse. 

Mr. Harris has devoted to the Article a large portion of his ' ' 


before a word, marks the beginning of a sentence or discourse, or how the other \ 
marks the end of it, because it follows the word to which it belongs. In the sen- 
tence before us, for example, in what sense does the subjunctive Article t} mark ^ 
the end of the sentence, t'sXoq \6yov ?" I am not sure that Aristotle and his ^ 
commentators may not mean, that the Nominative of 6, as in 6 avB^ioTrog for i 
example, must, in the natural order of speaking, precede every thing which can 
be affirmed of 6 clvOqiottoq, and that in the same natural order the affirmation will I 
be completed, before 6 avQ^biiroq can be referred to by og in a clause subjoined : j 
in this sense o might be said to mark the beginning of a sentence, as oq will mark j 
the end of it I know not whether this conjecture deserve any notice : I offer it 
for the want of something more satisfactory. 

* Ed. Basil. 1523. p. 155. To ^>i dpOpov tore n^p \uyov irTiOTiKov fiEpog^irpo- , 

rafjcofievov Tolg ovofiaat' SiaiptlTai ^e tig TTporaKTiKov ti kuI v-rroraKTiKov < 

Kvpiiog yf fiyjv dp9pov to TrpoTaKTiKov' iroiei B'(^ dva7r6\r]<Tiv TrpoiyvuxTfikvov tov * 
tv TV avvTdlu. ' L™ ^ ^Js't-*-'*^^^- ./ r ^ ' 


Hermes : he has, however, so closely followed Apollonius, that 
he is liable to the same objection. He makes the Article to be 
nearly allied to the Pronoun, and infers from Apollonius, that 
they may be best distinguished by the circumstance, that " the 
genuine Pronoun always stands by itself, while the genuine 
Article requires a Noun for its support." This is so vague, 
that it may be applied with nearly equal propriety to mark 
the difference between Substantives and Adjectives ; and yet 
between the Article and the Adjective there is not any 

But the author from whom most was to be expected on this 
subject, is Lord Monhoddo ; who has written very largely 
on the Origin and Progress of Language, and was deeply 
versed in the remains of the Greek philosophers and metaphy- 
sicians. He observes, vol. ii. p. 53. " This Part of Speech 
(the Article) very well deserves a chapter by itself; for, if I 
mistake not, it is of as subtle speculation, as perhaps any thing 
belonging to language, particularly as it is used in Greek." 
He attempts to show, that " its office is different from that of 
a Pronoun of any kind, and that it deserves to be ranked by 
itself among the Parts of Speech." After many remarks dis- 
tinguished by ingenuity and acuteness, he gives the following 
definition : " It is the prefix of a Noun; denoting simply, that 
the Noun to which it is prefixed, is the same with that which 
was before mentioned, or is otherwise well known." In such 
instances as 6 o-o^oc liraiveiTai, Lord Monboddo would say, that 
6 o-o^oc, though not previously mentioned, is yet well known, 
because it represents a species, which must be better known 
than any individual of it. My principal objection to this defi- 
nition is, that it makes the Article a distinct Part of Speech, 
the contrary of which wdll be shown, and also that it is not 
consistent vnth what Apollonius had remarked, that the Article 
in losing its Noun becomes a Pronoun. It is not conceivable 
that Parts of Speech originally distinct should be liable to such 
a transformation. 

Mr, Home Tooke, in the two parts of the Diversions of 
Purley already published, has not given us any explicit account 
of the Greek Article: all which I can collect is, that he is 
dissatisfied Vidth that of Mr. Harris. Our English the, wliich, 
we are so frequently told, is very similar to the Article of the 


Greeks, Mr. Tooke makes to be the Imperative of a Saxon 
Verb, signif) ing tg take or to see. In this case, I apprehend, 
the Greek and English Articles in their nature and origin have 
very little resemblance : and, perhaps, in no respect do lan- 
guages differ more widely, than in the several contrivances 
which they have adopted on this occasion. 

The opinions of other Grammarians might have been detailed, 
so as to extend this chapter to a considerable length. I am 
not, however, aware that they would furnish us with any view 
of the subject different from all those which have been already 
given. My o^vn idea of the Greek article shall be reserved for 
another chapter. 





'] ?' . f, . To 

/.^^.♦<^The Greek Prepositive Article is the Pronoun Relative 'O, so 
'employed that its relation is supposed to be more or less ob- 
scure ; which relation, therefore, is explained in some Adji^ct ; 
^. annexed to the Article by the Participle of Existence ^ex- 
pressed or understood ^ 

Hence the Article may be considered as the Subject, and its 
Adjunct as the Predicate, of a Proposition, differing from ordi- 
nary Propositions, only as Assumption differs from Assertion : 
for this is the only difference between the Verb and the Parti- 
ciple, between IgtIv and wv. — The Adjunct annexed to the 
Article will hereafter be called its Predicate. 

But before the reader can be expected to acquiesce in tliis 
account, it will be necessary to offer its vindication at some 



The inquirer into the natui'e of the Greek Article will first 
turn his attention to Homer, as being the earliest Greek 

* It might by some be expected, that I should rather have called the Article a 
Pronoun Demonstrative; since Pronouns Relative are, according to grammarians, 
those which have relation to persons or things already mentioned ; whilst those 
which are Demonstrative, now for the first time point out the person or thing in 
question. It will be shown, however, that the Article was originally used as a 
Pronoun Relative, in the usual acceptation of that term, and that subsequently, 
when it ceased to be so used, there was still an implied reference to some object 
which had occupied the mind of the speaker, though perhaps not previously 
declared. Apollonius de Syntaxi, p. 104. Ed. 1590, has on a similar occasion a 
similar distinction. He says that ovtoq and iKtivoQ, though strictly speaking 
they are Demonstrative Pronouns, sometime > become Pronouns Relative; in 
which case ^tl voiiv, on i] U tovtojv StiKiQ sttj TON NOYN (peperai, wQ rag fxiv 
rOc ov//twi; ilvai hi'ittg, rag dt TOY NOY. 


writer, whose works have descended to the present time : but 
Homer's use of the Article is, if we adopt the belief of some 
critics, a subject of much perplexity. We are indeed told, 
that what we call the Article, was the invention of later times. 
Heyne ' has words to this effect : " That Homer knew nothing 
of the Article, and that 6 is with him equivalent to avrog or 
iKdlvog, has been repeatedly remarked, and the remark has 
been confirmed by the inquiries of many learned men, espe- 
cially of Wolf ^ and Koeppen." — Now, that what the Gram- 
marians denominate the Article is thus employed by Homer, 
I readily admit : the difficulty is to understand, on what solid 
ground Homers use of the Article is wholly distinguished 
from that of subsequent writers ; and if any thing excites my 
wonder, it is, that what has been acknowledged to hold true 
partially, should not be perceived to be true universally : for 
though the later usage of the Article may afibrd instances, 
the exact parallels of which are not to be found in Homer, yet 
these variations are so few, and so evidently deducible from a 
common origin, that we shall hardly be justified in considering 
tlie Article of Homer as being different in its nature from 
that of Pindar, Xenophon, or Lucian : as well might we assert, 
that the language of Homer is radically distinct fiom that of 
succeeding Greek writers, because some of his words gra- 
dually fell into disuse, or were afterwards employed in a 
somewhat different acceptation. But let us attend to Homer's 
use of the Article, and observe whether the supposed differ- 
ence really exist : in other words, whether if, as is admitted, 
the Article of Homer be a Pronoun, the Article of other 
Greek vmters must not be allowed to be the same Pronoun. 

The first occurrence of the Article in the IHad is A. v. 6. 
TO. TTpwra, in which there is nothing peculiar : Kara to. ovra 
irpioTa TTpajfMaTa will complete the ElKpsis. In v. 9. we have 
'O yap jSaaiXri'i xoXtjOeig' in which sense, indeed, subsequent 
\\Titers generally used avrog or eKelvog. In v. 11. we meet 
with TON Xpuo-r)v, i. e. with the Article prefixed to a proper 
name, than which nothing is more common in the Greek prose 

» Excurs. II. ad Iliad. P. 

2 fVolJ] however, revokes his decision on this subject. See note on Reitz. de 
Prosod. p. 74. He there says, '* pinguius qiuedam scHpsi dc Homerico usu Arti- 
culi," &c. 


writers : but of this more will be said in the sequel. V. 12. 
'O yap ^XOe resembles v. 9.— In v. 19. TA S' airoiva (unless 
it be TaS' airoiva, as Heyne suspects, I think without cause) 
is the proffered ransom of Chryseis. — V. 33, I'SScio-ev ^' 'O 
yeptjjv' Chryses had been called yipov above, v. 26. — In v. 35. 
'O yepaiog differs from 6 yiptov only in having the Article 
prefixed to an Adjective.— In v. 47. 'O S'riVe, &c. is similar to 
V. 9. — In V. 54. we have THt ^eKarri scil. rumipq. — In v. 55. 
TQi used with reference to Achilles just mentioned. — In addi- 
tion to these examples, whijch are not selected, but taken 
without any omission, I will notice Z. 467. 6 Trdig, the child 
spoken of before. — A. 847. to aXicog the wound of Eurypylus. 
— II. 358. Amc o /miyag by way of distinction. — A. 576. to. 
\spdova viKa. — K. 11. eg ire^iov to TpwiKov. — B. 278. 17 
7rXT]dvg. — I. 342. Triv avTov ^fXlst koX K/jScrat. scil. yvvalKa. — 
A. 399. Tov viov his son. — E. 146. tov S' tTepov. — E. 414. tov 
apKJTOv ^A\atii)v. — Z. 41. ot aXXoi. — A. 198. tljv aXXwv. — S. 
31. Tag TTpwTag. Many other examples might easily be col- 
lected. Now the question is, with respect at least to the 
latter class, in what do they differ from the examples, which 
occur in the writers of succeeding ages ? Would the reader, 
supposing them to have been taken fi'om Thucydides or De- 
mosthenes, have doubted for a moment in what light they 
should be considered? And if he were told, that in aU such 
instances, what he took for an Article was in truth a Pronoun, 
would he not immediately ask, wherein then lay the difference ? 
for assuredly, if he were not acquainted with the dispute 
respecting the usage in Homer, he would never suspect the 
slightest peculiarity in the nature or use of the Article (o 
Pronoun) in any one at least of the examples last adduced ; 
and if he were convinced with the critics, that Homer's Arti- 
cle was every where a Pronoun, equivalent to avrbg or iKHvog, 
he would be compelled to acquiesce in the conclusion, that the 
same might be affirmed of the Article universally. But would 
this conviction immediately ensue? Certainly, an apparent 
difference between the latter class of examples and some of 
the former ones, such as o yap ^XSe, Sec. might induce him to 
adliere to the commonly received opinion, that Articles and 
Pronouns are distinct things ; especially if that opinion had 
been derived from any of the high authorities, which may be 


found in its favour. " That there is," says Harris ^, " a near 
relation between Pronouns and Articles, the old Grammarians 
have all acknowledged ; and some words it has been doubtful 
to which class to refer. The best rule to distinguish them is 
this : the genuine Pronoun always stands by itself, assuming 
the power of a Noun, and supplying its place. The genuine 
Article never stands by itself, but appears at all times asso- 
ciated to something else, requiring a noun for its support, as 
much as Attributes or Adjectives." The Grammarians, how- 
ever, of whom Harris speaks, are not all those of antiquity, 
since the Stoic School, of whom Grammar and Dialectics were 
the favourite studies, did, according to Prisciaiii consider the 
Pronoun and the Article as the same thing, making only this 
distinction, that they called the Pronoun the defined, and the 
Article itself the undefined Article ^. There is, therefore, no 
great presumption in proceeding to inquire, whether the for- 
mer opinion, not indeed as it is limited to Homer, but asserted 
generally, be not founded in truth. 

It is obvious, that in such phrases as 6 yap ^X0£, 6 8' ^Vc, 
TTiv filv I'yuji &c. A. 183. 6 and ttJv must be considered as 
Pronouns. The pronominal nature of 6 is, therefore, in some 
instances, established beyond contradiction ; and we have only 
to ascertain whether this pronominal nature be ever lost. 
Thus we read Ihad I. 341. 

ooTtc ayaOoQ koI l)(e^piov, 
THN avTOv ^tXctt KaX Kiiderat, djg kol lyu) THN 
'Ek OvfjLov (piXeov, 

where the latter Trjv is a Pronoun relating to Briseis, and the 
former, if we attend to the common distinction, is no other 
than the Article to yvvaXica understood: but is not the one as 
much the representative of ywaTKa, as the other is of Briseis ? 
Here, indeed, yvvaiKa is so evidently implied, that no obscu- 
rity arises from its being omitted. But suppose the case 
otherwise ; and that, though the context would afford a tole- 
rable clue to the sense, some little obscurity were still to 

1 Herm. p. 73. 

^ This passage is quoted by Harris. " Articulis autem pronomina connunie- 
rantes, finitos ea.articulos appellabant: ipsos autem articulos, quibus nos caremus, 
infinilos articulos dicebant." Hcrm. p. 74. 


remain. For instance, if A. 33. we had read wg e^ar'* 6 8' 
t^^EKTtv \ the sense could hardly have been mistaken, but yet 
would not have been absolutely certain: 6 FEPON makes 
every thing clear; for though independently of the context 
« might refer to any male already mentioned, yet 6 yipwv 
must refer to the only old man hitherto spoken of: but does 
o on this account lose its nature ? In the former instance it 
is admitted on all hands to be strictly a Pronoun : and how 
does the addition of y^pojv v. 33. or yspaiog v. 35, destroy its 
essence? As well might we say that the ille of the Latin 
ceases to be a Pronoun, as often as it is associated with a 
Substantive, Adjective, or Participle, with all of which it is 
so frequently found. 

But there are instances by which it may be clearly proved, 
that Homer himself entertained no idea of the difference be- 
tween the Pronoun and the Article ; for that it was an even 
chance, supposing a difference, which of the two he had used : 
which could not consistently happen, were the difference essen- 
tial. Thus in narrating the conflict between Hector and Pa- 
troclus, n. 793. he says, 

TOY S' airh fxlv KparSg KYNEHN jSaXe ^oi(5og 'AttoXXwv, 
'H §£ KvXiv^OfJLevr) Kava\riv e^s TTOtrcriv vtpi* iTTTrwv. 

Supposing the sentence to conclude thus, which unquestion- 
ably it might do, 'H would according to the vulgar distinction 
be a Pronoun referring to Kvvir\v, exactly as rov refers to 
Patroclus : but so it happens, that the writer has added in the 
next verse AvXwTrig rpv(^aX£m. The common doctrine will 
teach us, that this makes a prodigious difference, and that 
though we had determined, as might the vn'iter also, to regard 
'H as a Pronoun, it is at once degraded on the appearance of 
Tpv<f)a\eiaf and sinks into a mere Article; and yet the only 
alteration which takes place, is, that instead of relating to 
Kvviriv, as was supposed, it is made to relate to the synonymous 
word Tpv<j)dXHa. It is plain, therefore, in this example, that 
the difference between the Article and the Pronoun is not 
essential, but accidental; and consequently, when we are 
speaking of the nature of the Ad'ticle, that there is no differ- 

^ As in 6 yap T/XOt, &c. 


ence at all. Now if we recollect that there is no conceivable 
instance, in which the very same thing may not happen with- 
out the least violation of the author's meaning, that is, in 
which to the Article, used confessedly as a Pronoun, we may 
not subjoin the noun, &c. of which it is intended to be signi- 
ficant, as A. v. 9. 6 yap, 8cc. is 6 yap 9E0S or 6 yap AFIOA- 
AQN, it becomes evident that there is no ground whatever for 
making a distinction between the nature of the Article 6 and 
the Pronoun 6, and that the " near relation" is in truth no 
other than perfect identity. They differ no more than he, 
who should announce his name to me, would differ from the 
same man, if he concluded that his name were known to me 
abeady. And what is here said with respect to examples 
taken from Homer, is true universally. Hence the remark of 
Heyne and others, that Homer knew nothing of the Article, 
might have been made with equal reason of any subsequent 
Greek writer. Homer's Article, it is admitted, is a Pronoun : 
but so is the Article universally; and Homer's usage of the 
Article, as the reader must be convinced, from the instances 
adduced, has nothing in it peculiar, but accords strictly, so far 
as it goes, with the practice of succeeding ages. The German 
Critic appears, indeed, to have been alarmed by some untract- 
able examples ; and therefore he proceeds to call in question 
the authenticity of the Article, wherever it is found in Homer ^ ; 
or, where it cannot be omitted without injury to the verse, 
he insinuates that the verse itself is spurious. Thus may any 
theory, however extravagant, be supported : but this is trivial 
in comparison with the hardihood which could deny that the 
Iliad was the production of one mind ^. 

^ Thus on Iliad P. 635. 'Hfxkv oTrtog TON vtKpbv ipvaffofiev, he adopts the 
correction of Bentley, 'Ufxtv ottcjq veicpov re epvatrofisv. But what is to be 
done with v. 509. of the same book, 'Hrot {xev TON vsKpbv kTriTpd-Kir ? 

2 See Heyne's Homer, Vol. VIII. Excurs. iii. ad Lib. xxiv. For an ingenious, 
and, I think, a satisfactory account of the origin of the Hymns attributed to 
Homer, the reader may consult the Epistola Editoris prefixed to Hermann's 
valuable edition of those Poems. If the incongruities, which occur in the Hymns, 
were found also in the Iliad, I should readily accede to Heyne's opinion : the 
Hymns, however, are, comparatively speaking, short Poems, in each of which 
the plan, such as it is, is perpetually interrupted by the introduction of extra- 
neous matter : the plan of the Iliad, the most perfect, perhaps, which any Epic 
Poem can boast, is continued without interruption or deviation through the 
Twenty-four Books. 


As connected with the subject of the Article in Homer, I 
will briefly notice two passages from eminent Greek writers, 
Plutarch and Eustathius. The passage from Plutarch is gene- 
rally referred to by Philologists, and it has not been overlooked 
by Heyne, nor indeed by his forerunner, Clarke. It is in the 
Platonicce Qucestiones ^, though I cannot but wonder that 
Heyne should advert to it at the very time when he asserts, 
that Homer knew nothing of the Article. Plutarch says, 
that " even Homer, who excels in beauty of diction, pre- 
fixes Articles to few of his Nouns, as to cups wanting handles, 
or helmets needing crests : hence some verses, in which he has 
done so, have been marked as spurious ; for example : 

K'iavTL §£ /JLoXirrra ^di^povi Ovfxov oqivl 

TQt TeXa/iwymSp* and 

o^ga TO ktitoq viTEKTrpo^vytJv aXlotro* 

and a few others: and yet the multitude of verses, in which 
the Article does not appear, suffer nothing in point of beauty 
or perspicuity." If this be Plutarch's meaning, so far from 
proving that Homer never used the Article, it proves incon- 
testably that he sometimes did use it, though rarely ; and it 
ought to be remembered, that Plutarch in this place was not 
likely to admit the use to be more frequent than it really is, 
since the main object of his argument was to prove, that only 
Nouns and Verbs are essential to language. 

The passage from Eustathius is of a diiferent cast : I have it 
on the authority of Reizius de Prosodia Gr<Bca, It asserts 
only, that " when the Articles throw away their Nouns, and 
thus become Pronouns, they are pronounced with a greater 
vehemence of tone : thus, if in 6 ya^ ('AttoXXwv) jSatrtXiJi ^o- 
X(o0£tc, we omit 'AttoXXwv, 6 is there uttered more audibly ^.'' 
At first this may appear to indicate a real distinction between 
the Article and the Pronoun, marked by a difference of pro- 
nunciation: but when considered, it affirms only what we 
should expect to happen; that when the object, of which the 

' P. 412. Edit. Bas. 1574. ottou koi "0/n»;pot; k-K'nav Koafirp Trtpiyevo/ievoQ 
oXiyoig rutv ovofidraiv dpQpa, Mffnep XajSdg eKTrwfiam deofxivoig, ^ Xofovg 
Kpdvtaiv, tTriTiOijai. 

^ Eustath. p. 22. aipoSportpov iK<p(ovovTat fcard rovg tovovq . . » .i^aKovartpop 


Article is meant to be significant, is not added, the mind of the 
hearer is forcibly to be directed to the Article itself, as the sole 
and unassisted representative of the speaker's meaning. The 
writer admits, that 6 'AttoXXwv and 6 alone in the verse alluded 
to are perfectly equivalent : v^hence it is obvious, that in the 
judgment of Eustathius 6 has in both cases the very same 
nature, ^dz. that of a Pronoun; but that in the one the 
person, whom it designates, is not easily mistaken, while 
in the other the addition of Apollo removes all ambiguity. 
HejTie, indeed, remarks on ol Se 0€oi, A. 1. (a most legitimate 
example of the Article, in a verse too, which from its situation 
is completely proof against the exterminating process) that 
Qeoi " accipiendum est per interpretationem,'' as if it were thus 
pointed, ol ^i, Osoi, trap Zr]vi, &c. But is not this uniformly 
true of the acknowledged Article in all Greek ^vriters ? Does 
not the Noun subjoined in all cases equally answer the pur- 
pose of explanation ? Or is explanation in this instance more 
necessary or more allowable than in thousands of others ? The 
gods, it is true, had not recently been mentioned ; and, there- 
fore, ol by itself, however well imderstood by the vn-iter, would 
have conveyed no clear idea to the reader: but neither in 
cases, in which the acknowledged Article is found, is the object 
of relation in general at all more clear, though known of course 
to the speaker : in both, therefore, something explanatory is 
subjoined. The Argument, then, which He3Tie has employed 
to show that Homer, in this place, A. 1. has not used the 
Article, proves demonstratively that he has used it, by showing 
that he has placed the Pronoun ol (as Heyne would justly call 
it) in the very situation, in which, though it changes not its 
nature, it assumes the name of an Article, and exercises a func- 
tion, by which alone the Article is distinguished. 

The Article 6 and the Pronoun 6 are, then, essentially the 
same thing, differing only in having or not having an Adjunct : 
and the Pronoun in both these ways is repeatedly employed by 
Homer. Hence it appears that the opinion of the Stoics (see 
page 12.) was not incorrect: 6 is always a Pronoun, though it 
usually retains that name, only when it is a defined Article, i. e. 
when the object of its relation is so plainly marked, that no 
mistake can arise, and when, consequently, no Adjunct is re- 
quisite ; they called it an undefined Article, when such addition 


became necessary to the perspicuity of its meaning. But of 
this addition, more in the following heads of inquiry. Under 
the present it may be observed, that of the Pronominal or 
defined use of the Article, that I mean, in which it is used 
without an Adjunct, we find numerous remains, of a date much 
later than the time of Homer. The Ionic writers, as Herodo- 
tus for example, whose language so nearly resembles that of 
Homer, use the Article in this manner in all its cases begin- 
ning with T. The same thing has been observed of the 
Dorians \ By the Attic writers also it is so employed under 
certain restrictions, as after Prepositions ^ ; in joining together 
persons or things, the names of which are suppressed ; in par- 
tition and opposition ; and where it is followed by the subjunc- 
tive Article og '. 



The second question which will occur, supposing it to have 
been shown that the Article, as used originally, and even by 
later writers, was no other than the Pronoun, respects the 
object of its relation. 

In solving this question, which has indeed been already 
touched upon, it may be of use to attend to the Gender of the 
Article ; and this, as every one knows, is invariably the same 
with that of the Predicate annexed or understood : insomuch 
that certain ancient Grammarians were hence of opinion, that 
the Article was invented to mark the Gender *. This opinion 
Apollonius has very clearly refuted ; and he humourously ob- 
serves, that as well might we suppose Nouns invented to show 
the Gender of the Article ^ ; but when he adds, that the Article 

^ Reiz. de Prosod. Gr. p. 7- 

2 Reiz. p. 11. 

3 As Aristot Top. vi. 13. § 14. iav /i/) K:a0' ama y TA, t^ QN evyKHTat, 
dyaOd. Here is another instance, and that not from Homer, in which the Article 
and Pronoun are demonstrated to be essentially the same : rd is rd rrpdyfiaTa, 
but how is its nature affected, whether Trpdyfiara be expressed or understood ? 
Similar examples may be found in Lysias, Plato, &c. 

* Ov fierpiiDQ 5b tiveq la^dXijaav viroXa^ovrtq t))v TrapdOtatv tCjv dpOpiov tig 
yivovQ SiaKpifTiv irapariOeaOai To7g dvofiam. A poll. p. 28. 

5 'Qg TO ovoftciTa iirtvoriBi] tig huKpimv rwv tv rolg dpOpoig ytvu)V. p. 30. 



removes the ambiguity of Gender merely eic TrapcTrojuevov, he 
seems to go too far, and to ascribe to mere coincidence that 
which arises out of the nature of the case ; and this is the point 
now to be examined. 

ApoUonius, who every where distinguishes between the Pro- 
noun and the Article ^ ascribes relation to both ; though in 
tracing this relation through certain uses of the Article, he is 
compelled to admit that the relation is sometimes different 
from what is generally understood by the term. His words 
are, " Sometimes the relation is to some person whom we an- 
ticipate ^, where the Article appears to be indefinite ; as when 
we say. Let him who has slain a tyrant be honoured : for here 
the Article refers to a future person." Here, no doubt, the 
fact can thus only be explained : but this is not the only case, 
in which we are compelled to have recourse to such a solution. 
We sometimes find the Article prefixed to Nouns, with which 
it has no generical agreement, as to 'Apto-ra^x^^t, 17 a/jjuepov, 
&c. where Apollonius acknowledges, what is beyond dispute, 
that the Article refers to the thing understood, i. e. to ovoiia, 
rifiipa, &c. as the case may require. There are also instances, 
in which, by the confession of the speaker, the Article cannot 
refer to any thing preceding, as in what the Scholiast on Aris- 
tophanes calls " swearing elliptically," of which we have an 
example in an Epigram of Strato, from an inedited Anthology 
referred to by Kde?i ad Greg. Cor, p. 65. 

El jur) vvv KXsovLKog IXcuo-frat, ovk Iet IkeTvov 

At^ojui eyio fieXdOpoig, oh fxa TON ovk ofxoad). 

In this and all similar instances it is plain, that the speaker 
considers himself as not having at all developed his meaning, 
inasmuch as the object of the relation is not expressed. 

It is evident, then, that the reference is sometimes prolep- 
tical or anticipative ; and this circumstance added to the gener- 
ical agreement, induces a suspicion, that it will always bear, 

* IltDc ovv TOffavrriQ Sia^opdg ovaijg TrapaSt^eTai Ttg to v^' iv fifpog Xoyov 
virdyeiv to. dpOpa Kai rag dvTU)vvp.iag ; p. 94. 

2 'E(T0' oTi Kal TrpoXrjTTTiKiOTepov irpocTijjirov dvatpsper ore Srj Kai dopiaTiSStQ 
(paiveTaf 6 TvpavvoKTOvr]aag TifidaQu)' to yap Mg ta6p,ivov TrpocwTTov avETro- 
\r\(nv. p. 32. 


if not always require, to be so explained : but let us observe. 
On opening the Aiiabasis of Xenophon at hazard, I find (Book 
III. not far from the beginning) the following passage: 'O 
fiivTOi ISlivocpioVt avayvoifg rrjv kirKTToXrjv, avaKOLvovTai Sw- 
KpaTEL Ti^ ^AOrivaitf) wepi TiJQ iropdag. Kal 6 ^wkparrjCj vwott- 
Tev(Tag, fxri ti TrpoQ rf)c ttoXcwc ol virairLOV hir\, Kvp({> (f>iXov 
yeviordm, otl eSojcci 6 Kvpog TrpoOvjUiog roig AaKE^ai/xovioig, 
K. r. X. Throughout this passage, let us attend to the refer- 
ence of the Article as often as it is used. 'O fiivroi. Who ? 
the reference must not here be considered as retrospective ; 
for since Xenophon was last mentioned, mention had been 
made both of Cyrus and of Proxenus: if, therefore, the 
reference be to Xenophon, it is distinguishable only by the 
addition of his name. To what does THN refer in avayvovg 
rrjv eirKXToXriv ? The last feminine Substantive is irarpiSog, 
and tTTKTToXrj has not yet occurred ; the reference is to ETTforo- 
Xrjv subjoined, which alone the writer could have in view. 
^u)KpdT£L TM 'AOtivattj)' hcrc the reference is not to SwKparct 
generally and absolutely, because such a reference would be 
useless ; but it is to that distinguishing attribute of Socrates, 
which is annexed, viz. his being an Athenian. Trig iropEiag 
is similar to ttjv ETriaToXrjv. — Kat 6 'SiWKpdrrig' here it may 
be said that the Article may refer to 'SiioKparrig just men- 
tioned. Certainly it may ; but the writer did not think this 
reference sufliciently marked, or he needed not have attempted 
to make it plainer by repeating the name. Trig TroXsuyg' simi- 
lar to Triv liricFToXriv. 'O Kvpog is similar to 6 Swicpar^jc- 
Toig AaKE^aiiLLovioig' no plural Substantive has yet occurred ; 
Toig is evidently an anticipation of AaKBdaifiovioig. In the 
same manner we might proceed, and with the same result, to 
the end of the vojiume. 

In these instances, then, no doubt can arise as to the object 
of the relation : at least, it will be admitted to be antieipatwe, 
wherever the Noun, &;c. annexed to the article is allowed to 
be absolutely necessary to the perspicuity of the sense. Cases, 
indeed, will occur, of which two are found in the passage above 
cited, where the reference may be understood retrospectively : 
but then it is obvious in all such instances, that exactly in 
proportion as is the evidence that the reference is retrospec- 
tive, so will it be also evident that the Noun annexed is super- 


fliious. Thus, if in 6 ^wKpdrrjg above it be said, that 6 will 
naturally refer to Swfcparrj^ in the j^receding period, it must 
also be granted, that Swjc^arr^c annexed is needlessly intro- 
duced, and is absolutely without meaning : but this, surely, 
is more than the thinking reader will affirm or believe ; and he 
will probably rather adopt the solution, that though the object 
of the relation might be conjectured without assistance, yet 
the writer judged it to be safer to afford that assistance by 
immediately subjoining the name of the person, to whom the 
Article was intended to refer. It is not consonant with the 
nature of language, nor with the practice of good writers, to 
suppose that words are ever wholly devoid of use. It is better 
to say in all such cases, that the caution of the writer was 
extreme \ 

If the doctrine here maintained be true, we see the reason, 
why the Article in all good writers is placed immediately, or 
almost immediately before its Predicate; for the reference 
being anticipative, the mind of the hearer vdll not bear long 
suspense ; till the object of reference be known, every thing 
intervening will be disregarded. In retrospective reference, 
like that of og or qui, the case is altogether different ; for 
there no suspense can take place : it is not known by the 
hearer, when an object is mentioned, that it will afterwards 
be referred to, nor till the reference is actually made. — The 
principal breach of this rule respecting the juxta-position of 
the Article and its Predicate is observable in the case of pro- 
per names. Thus we read in Homer II. xviii. v. 20^2. 'H fxev 

^ Of this extreme caution there are some remarkable instances in JElian : I 
will adduce one of these, in which the Predicate of the Article assumes an unu- 
sual form, while it strongly supports the doctrine, that such Predicate is the 
object of a relation supposed to be obscure. The passage will be found Far. Hist. 
Lib. i. cap. 30. 'O fiev 'iTr-rrevE avv ry (SamXeT TO MEIPAKION. Now only 
two persons, the King and the Youth, had been mentioned : and the King seems 
by the context to be excluded from answering to o, which of course will therefore 
relate to the Youth. The writer, however, has subjoined rb fieipaKiov ; a con- 
vincing proof that he considered such an addition as explanatory of the relation 
intended in the Pronoun, for else it has no meaning at all. Had the sentence 
begun with 6 viavlaq, or some other masculine Noun synonymous with /Ltftpa/ciov, 
the usual form would have been observed. He has, however, violated the prac- 
tice ; but in so doing he has very remarkably confirmed the principle : for 6 v£a» 
viaQ would have afforded no new ground of argument. The same author has other 
similar examples. 



ap' wc iiTTOva aTrtjSr? iro^ag wKea ""Iptg' but the reader is not 
here kept in much suspense, since if Iris had not been named 
at all, the sense would have been tolerably clear, and the 
reference would have been made to Iris, whose arrival and 
address are the principal subjects of the preceding verses. But 
more of this when we come to speak particularly of Proper 



But the reader may still entertain some doubt respecting the 
existence of a relation admitted to be obscure : it will, there- 
fore, be expedient to show, that the reference here described is 
not without its parallel, and that there is in it no obscurity, 
which does not arise out of the nature of the case. 

In truth, the reference of Pronouns, even of those, I mean, 
which are acknowledged to be such, is at best obscure. Apol- 
lonius has remarked this fact in the following words : " Pro- 
nouns are of no use, when deprived of the person indicating 
and the person indicated: for when written, they are of all 
things the most indefinite, because then they are detached from 
their proper subject-matter. Hence we see the reason, why 
perfect writing requires the addition of the Nouns themselves ^" 
He goe^ on afterwards, indeed, to show that this remark applies 
only to Pronouns of the third person ; a limitation, however, 
which does not affect the point now in question. It is, doubt- 
less, on a principle analogous to that laid down by Apollonius, 
that the Latin writers sometimes explain the reference con- 
tained in their Pronoun Relative qui, in which, however, the 
reference is perhaps as strongly marked as in any Pronoun of 
any language. Thus we find such expressions as the follow- 
ing: " BeUum tantum, quo bello omnes premebantur, Pom- 
peius confecit." Cic. " Ultra eum locum, quo in loco Ger- 

^ "Evticev TovTov Kai TrpoQ ovSlv xp«tw^«tC ft'civ at dvTOJvvfiiai, (TTspovfievai 
rov Tt StiKvivTOQ irpoffwTTOv Kai tov dfiKvvfievov' eiye Kai ai eyypa(p6fi£vai Trdvv 
dopiffTOTaroi tiaiv, on Kai TtJQ idiag vXt]Q dTreioaOtjcrav tv9tv SoKtl irdvv tvXo- 
yejQ Kara rag IvreXiKag ypa^dg x^P'S "^^^ TrpoffTeOeifikvojv ovofidTujv tu tov 
\6yov firj KaBiaraaBai. P. 118. 

it] article defined. 19 

mani consederant." Cces. " Diem instare, quo die frunientum 
militibus metiri oporteret." Cces, ^ And so in a multitude of 
instances. In all these we have a confession of obscure refer- 
ence , though the object of that reference has immediately pre- 
ceded the Pronoun, without the intervention of any other Noun 
to create extraordinary ambiguity. 

In the passage cited in Chapter I. from Theodore Gaza, it 
was affirmed, that there are two Articles, the Prepositive 6 
and the Subjunctive oc? though, according to that Gramma- 
rian, the Prepositive only, strictly speaking, deserves the appel- 
lation. This seems to be the proper place to attempt solutions 
of the two questions, Wliy oq was ever denominated an Article, 
and why that denomination was deemed unsuitable. We have 
just seen in what manner the Latins sometimes used their qui : 
if the Greek og had been constantly so explained, it would, on 
the principles advanced in this Essay, deserve to be considered 
as an Article, no less than does 6 ; for we should then have a 
Pronoun Relative, the confessedly obscure reference of which 
was explained by an Adjunct. In such a sentence as r\ kw^i?, 
ug rjv (icwjurjv) cKJtUovTO, /ueyaXrj ^v, I should regard sig rjv 
Kwfjir}v to be a legitimate example of the case, in which the 
Article, ^vith its Predicate, conjointly referred to something 
preceding, though the insertion of the Predicate marked ex- 
treme caution. This, however, is not the exact passage, as it 
stands in Xenophon ; nor do I know where one precisely of the 
same form is to be found. In Xenophon's Anab. iv. 4. it is 
dg rjv a<l>iKovTO KtSfiriv, /JieyaXr] ^v. This case diifers from the 
former, inasmuch as KwVrjv is not here added from extreme 
caution, but from absolute necessity, because the object of 
reference had not yet been mentioned, and could not be con- 
jectured. The analogy, however, between og and 6 may be 
traced in the following authentic example : in the Iliad A. 306. 
''OS St K 'ANHP ttTTO wv ox^wv erep' ap/utaO' ticrjraf, k. r. X. we 
have a close resemblance of the manner in which the Article is 
subservient to Hypothesis, See below, Chap. III. Sect. 2, 
But as this hypothetic use of og is not very common, and as 
the other is scarcely, if at all, to be found, it was a natural 
consequence, that 6, in which both these uses are so frequent, 

• Vid. Sanctii Minervam, Lib, ii. cap. 9. 

c 2 


should come to be considered as the only legitimate Article ; 
the Pronoun og not having connection with any Noun, except 
that to which it was subjoined. They were called apOpa, as we 
learn from the Grammatical Treatise published with St. Basil, 
but ascribed to Johannes Moschopulus, ^la to (FvvapTq(TOai roig 
ovofiamv' though, perhaps, this etymology may be doubted. 

There is not, then, any thing in the idea of obscure relation, 
which should lead us to question its existence : since we find it 
recognized both in theory and in practice; and that too in 
cases in which the obscurity is least liable to create confusion, 
viz. in those in which the reference may be understood retro- 
spectively; which in the case of the Article does not always 
happen. But what will be the consequence, should a Pro- 
noun, in the arrangement of a sentence, precede the Substan- 
tive, to which it is intended to refer ? What, for example, in 
the following lines of Horace ? 

At ncque dedecorant tua de se judicia, atque 
Munera, qua; multa dantis cum laude tulerunt 
Dilecti tibi Virgilius Variusqiie Poetce. 

Here we have an instance of relation to the full as obscure as 
that for which I contend ; nor could the hero of these verses 
ever conjecture to whom the Pronoun was intended to refer, 
till the names of Virgil and Varius were actually pronounced. 
To the writer or speaker, indeed, they exhibit nothing of ob- 
scurity ; but neither does the anticipative reference of the 
Article, and for the same reason in each case : the object of 
reference is to him previously known. 

There is, moreover, nothing more natural than this kind of 
anticipation. We easily suppose, till we have taken time to 
reflect, that what we ourselves understand, must be understood 
by others : and in the ardour of speaking we are apt to adopt 
symbols recommended by their obviousness, and to us suf- 
ficiently significant of our meaning, even where we are con- 
scious that to others that meaning is not without ambiguity. 
This propensity finds the readier excuse, whenever the subject 
not only is uppermost in our own minds, but is supposed to be 
so also in the mind of the hearer, which will happen whenever 
we refer to something recently mentioned ; and this practice 


must be the more habitual to a people so rapid in thought and 
in expression, as were the ancient Greeks. 

It may, then, be affirmed, that in the reference of the 
Article there is no other obscurity than that which arises out 
of the nature of that reference ; which has been shown gene- 
rally to be anticipative ; for that even where it is not necessary 
so to understand it, that is, where the Article may be made to 
refer to something preceding, still a strict regard to perspicuity 
prefers a repetition of the object to the risk of ambiguity and 



Further, it may be questioned, how far this doctrine of the 
anticipative reference of the Article accords with well known 
facts. The Grammarians have asserted, and every one must 
have observed, that the Article is apparently subservient to the 
purpose of relation in the more usual sense of that term. In- 
deed its relative and its definitive powers seem to some writers 
to comprehend every thing which properly belongs to it, and 
to constitute its very essence. Thus it will be said, in the 
passage adduced (p. 16.) from Xenophon, Ty\v '^TricrToXriv, though 
no letter has been directly mentioned, recalls the idea of one 
implied in fi^T^irifi-^aTo. So ttiq iropdag relates to the expedi- 
tion proposed. So also r^c TroXecog will be understood of 
Athens, kut e^o-)(fiv. All this and much more of the same 
kind may be admitted without any danger to the hypothesis, 
unless the reference of the Article and its Predicate conjointly 
be confounded with that of the Article alo?ie ; than which no 
two things are more distinct. Indeed, it could not be affirmed 
in the instances here adduced, that the respective Articles have 
hy themselves any such reference, because till the several Sub- 
stantives, £7ri(TroX?jv, &c. were pronounced, the hearer could 
not possibly know what the speaker intended to add; nor 
would the reference in these instances be at all more plain, if, 
instead of the obsolete Pronouns rr/v, &c. any of the more 
usual ones had been employed. It is evident, therefore, even 
where a retrospective reference is admitted to exist, that this 


reference is not declared by the Article considered independ- 
ently of its Predicate. The Article in these instances produces 
the effect not directly, but circuitously : it refers us to its Noun 
annexed; which Noun may possibly be the same with one 
already mentioned, and which, therefore, it recalls, or at least, 
as in the instances before us, with one already implied, and 
standing so prominent to the mind of the hearer, that he can 
hardly fail to make the application. And this is all which is 
meant by Apollonius, when he says, that the Article recalls 
the third person i, and that the Article with a Noun is equiva- 
lent to the Pronoun Relative ^. So much for the only cases, 
in which the anticipative reference of the Article is liable to be 
called in question. 

But the same Apollonius admits that there are instances, in 
which the Article is used without any such retrospective refer- 
ence. He tells us that it is sometimes employed indefinitely, 
as in 6 Tv^avvoKTOviiaaQ rifxcKrOd) ^' and further on he adds, that 
the Article is applied not only to defi?ied persons, but also to 
that, wliich in its nature is most undefined, as in 6 7r£pt7rarwv 
KLVHTai, which, as he observes, is the same with a Tig TrEpnrarEX, 
&c. Some other examples of an use equally indefinite will be 
noticed hereafter. — Now these instances and this admission of 
the great Grammarian are alone sufficient to excite a surmise, 
that the reference of the Article is very different from that 
which is commonly supposed ; for surely nothing can be more 
improbable, than that any thing, in its nature one and the same, 
should be subservient to purposes diametrically opposite. 
Either the Article marking definiteness must be essentially 
different from that used to signify indefiniteness, (which, how- 
ever, is not pretended,) or else its reference must be of such a 
natiure, as, properly understood, to combine and unite in one 
form these contradictory appearances. Sound philosophy offers 
us only these alternatives. The kind of reference, then, here 
maintained, seems adapted to reconcile these differences : for 
if the Article, strictly so called, in itself be always anticipative, 
and if the retrospection observable in the Article and its Pre- 
dicate conjointly cannot subsist without the Predicate (for 

» P. 64. 

- 'Avri T&v oi'ofidrujif rm/ far' apBpojv. \^. 103, 
^ P. 70. 



else no Predicate is employed; see above), it is just as intel- 
ligible why 6 irepnraTiov should be spoken of any person what- 
ever, as why 6 pijrwp should mean the particular orator, of 
whom mention has recently been made : for in strictness the 
meaning of the Article will be the same in each case ; and the 
difference in the result mil be merely accidental. 'O Trepnra- 
Twv is equivalent to ille, qui circumamhulat, whether any per- 
son has been affirmed to walk about, or not : and so 6 pifTtjp 
is no more in itself than ille, qui est orator ; though possibly 
the very recent mention of some pijTwp may lead the hearer to 
identify the persons respectively implied. But this is by no 
means always the case. Examples of the contrary are abund- 
ant. Thus in Demosth. de Cor. § Q^. 6 TON pi]Topa j3owXo- 
fiivog ^iKaiwg l^erdZiiv koX firj, &c. ; rov priropa no more refers 
to any definite or particular person, than does 6 (5ovX6fjievog ; 
but is applicable to every individual, of whom Orator can be 

The reference, therefore, of the Article itself is in strictness 
always anticipative, and its power of recalling persons and 
things already mentioned is not of the essence of the Article, 
however, by the aid of its Predicate ^ this power may indirectly 
be exerted. I conclude that I am here understood to speak 
of the Article usually so called : for when it has no Predicate, 
that is, when, as the Grammarians tell us, it passes into a Pro- 
noun, it is plain that the reference is supposed to be marked 
with sufficient clearness, and that such reference caimot be 
other than retrospective. 

But here it becomes important to ascertain the limits of this 
anticipation ; is the speaker always at liberty to anticipate an 
Adjunct? Assuredly not: for then the Article might be used 
without necessity or meaning. The limits, however, are plainly 
deducible from the principles already laid down. We have 
seen that the Article and its Predicate together constitute 
what I have denominated an assumptive proposition : the ques- 
tion, therefore, is only, what are the cases in which an assump- 
tive proposition may be employed ? Evidently it can be em- 
ployed only where the assumption contained in it is admissible 
from its being the assumption of that which will immediately 
be recognized in consequence of something which had pre- 
ceded ; or else, where it is only conditional, the subsequent 


assertion not being intended to apply in any greater extent, 
than is conceded to the assumption. Now the legitimacy of the 
former kind of assumption will be manifest, if we consider, 
that in making it we do nothing more, than assume of a Pro- 
noun those attributes or properties which, either from previous 
mention or from some other implied cause, are immediately 
understood to belong to the person or thing which the Pronoun 
represents. Thus, if I have been speaking of a horse, or of 
any thing in which the presence of a horse is implied, sujpaKa 
Tov tTTTTOv wiU be a legitimate assumption : otherwise it will 
not ; for the assumption vdll not be admitted, not being intel- 
ligible. As often, however, as assumptions are made of that, 
which is implied in something preceding, it will happen, as in 
itSpaKa TOV tTTTTov, that the same person or thing is meant, 
which had already engaged our notice : and hence, as these 
cases occur so frequently, some Grammarians have made the 
Article to be merely a Definitive. In objecting to this doc- 
trine, I do not deny that the Greeks, whenever they wish to 
speak of any thing definitely j do employ the Article : and this 
end could not by any other means be attained more fully. A 
Pronoun more or less obscurely recalling the Antecedent so 
intended, and having its obscure relation explained by the 
addition of the peculiar attributes of that Antecedent, must 
evidently form as complete a repetition of the intended object, 
as the mind can conceive. The Pronoun alone may be insuf- 
ficient, of which we have had examples : and in the repetition 
merely of the Noun, the individual spoken of would not be 
identified with that which had preceded : but the conjunction 
of both the Pronoun and its Adjunct leaves no ambiguity. 
Still, however, the Article is not in its nature a Definitive ; 
for then what is usually called its indefinite sense could not have 
existence : it answers the purpose of a Definitive merely Kara 
<Tu/xj3fcj3TjKoc : in strict truth, its Adjunct has a better claim to 
the title, being, as we have seen, added to the Pronoun to 
ascertain its relation. — Of the other kind of assumption the 
case is somewhat difierent : it has no retrospective reference or 
effect ; and in order to render it legitimate, nothing more is 
necessary than that the assertion connected with it should be 
bounded in its extent by the limits of the assumption. Thus 
m 6 TTEptTrarwv Ktvftrat, Kivurai is asserted of every one who 


tvalks about, and of no other, whether such persons be infinite 
in number, or finite, or none at all. So Aristotle (de Mor. 
Nicom. Hb. iv. cap. 2.) aya-motTi to. avrwv fpya 01 yovdg koX 
01 TroirfTai' here we find two sets of persons assumed, the one 
comprehending a very large proportion of the human race, and 
the other only a few individuals : yet since the extent of the 
assertion is in each case exactly commensurate with that of the 
assumption, the assumption is perfectly allowable : so also 
(ibid.) Aristotle has said, irXovTEiv ov padiov TON sXsvOipiov' 
this assumption also is legitimate, whatever be the degree of 
hberality existing among mankind: the proposition is only, 
that supposing a man to be liberal, it is difficult for such an 
one to grow rich : of him, who is not admitted to be liberal, no 
such difficulty is afl&rmed. 

It seems, therefore, that the remark made above (p. 20.) of 
the Article's being the symbol of that which is uppermost in 
the speaker's mind, is applicable not only to the case of refer- 
ence to something already mentioned, but also to the person or 
thing which is about to become the subject of an assertion : for 
such must at the time be the object most familiar to our own 
minds, though perhaps most foreign from that of our hearer. 

Hence it may briefly be observed, that the obscurity of 
reference in the former use of the Article is often great, but in 
the latter it is always total ; since it is there impossible for the 
hearer to anticipate the Predicate. 

On the whole, it appears that the Article may be used, 
either when conjointly vdth its Predicate it recalls some 
fonner idea, or when it is intended to serve as the subject of 
an hypothesis. All the various uses of the Article will come 
under one of these two divisions. The case of Proper Names, 
and that of the names of Abstract Ideas, will be considered 



The only remaining question, to which the definition at- 
tempted is likely to give rise, respects the subintellection of the 
Participle of Existence, as a Copula between the Article and 


its Predicate. It is worthy of remark, that Lennep, speaking 
of the Article, has these words: ** Articuhts *0 vicinitatem 
habere proprie mdetur cum Participio Verhi ufii vel ew sum \" 
His precise meaning I pretend not to ascertain ; nor are vicini- 
tatem and videtur words capable of very close restriction. It 
is probable, however, that he had some vague notion of the 
truth which I would establish: possibly he meant, that the 
Article in some places appeared to indicate an ellipsis of the 
Participle, and to convey the same meaning as if the Parti- 
ciple had been expressed : and this is not partially, but uni- 
versally, the case. If, indeed, it be admitted, on the proofs 
already given, that the Article is no other than a Pronoun, the 
subintellection of the Participle becomes a necessary conse- 
quence : for else between the Pronoun and its Predicate there 
will be no more connection, than if they occurred in different 
propositions. 'O avri^ must signify. He, or the Male, being 
or assumed to be a man ; or else the Pronoun and the Substan- 
tive have no common medium, no principle of union, by which 
they can be brought to act together in developing the ideas of 
the speaker. The conclusion will be the same, though the 
reasoning will be somewhat different, if we suppose the Predi- 
cate of the Article to be an Adjective, Thus in the proposi- 
tion, 6 dyaOog Sw/cparr?c <^tXo(7O0fct, 6 ayaOog is equivalent to 
6 'ON dyaOoQ, as Gaza, indeed, admits. He says that the 
latter phrase, to IvreXeg ^v ^ i. e. that the former one is an 
elHpsis : the same is evident of rtpaO' 6 yspaiog in Homer, and 
of all similar instances ^ Frequently, indeed, we find the Par- 
ticiple of Existence expressed: thus Aristotle (de Mor. loc, 
laud.) ol /laXtora a^ioL "ONTES riKiara irXovrovar where the 
author's meaning would have been equally certain, had the 
Participle been omitted. 

In order to perceive that the conclusion will not be different, 
where the Predicate of the Article is a Participle, it is neces- 
sary to attend a little to the nature of Propositions, and to the 
distinction between the Participle and the Verb. Logicians 
teach us that every Proposition contains a Subject and a Predi- 

' Etymol. Vol. ii. p. 632. Edit. Scheidii. 
=* Gramm. Lib. iv. p. 131. 

3 Compare the use of the Article in such expressions as the following: iiiravQ' 
iFTtpa Tov ivog, Kal rbiv rHJv fit) fv. Plato. Pannen. 40. J. S. 


cate connected by a Copula ; and that where this Copula is not 
marked by a distinct word, it is implied in the Verb. Thus 
in Homo EST animal, the Copula is manifestly est : in Homo 
ombulat, we find it not, indeed, distinctly expressed, but we are 
sure that it exists in ambulatf for amhulat is equivalent to EST 
amhulans ', amhulahit to ERIT amhulans, &c. Now if this 
happen invariably in the Verb, what will take place in the 
Participle ? This differs from the Verb, says Harris ^, in losing 
the assertion : I think he would have done still better in adding, 
" In place of which it takes an assumption ^ ;" for if in Swjcparrjc 
ypd(l>H there be an assertion that Socrates writeth, in Sw/cparrjc 
ypd(l)tjv, there is an assumption of the same truth ; so much so, 
that if the fact of his wTiting be disallowed, the assertion de- 
pending on it will amount to nothing: thus in SwKparr^c ypd- 
<l>(i)v ri^trai, the assertion of his being delighted has no founda- 
tion, if Socrates never write. — It is plain, then, that the Parti- 
ciple differs from the Verb in being connected with its subject 
by wv, instead of 1(tt\ in the Present Tense, and by the cor- 
responding Participle of Existence in others ; and this will 
hold equally, whether that subject be a Noun or a Pronoun, 
which latter the Article has been shown to be. We are, 
therefore, authorized to conclude, that the Participle of Exist- 
ence is virtually employed as an assumptive Copula between the 
Article and its Predicate, even when that Predicate is a Parti- 
ciple : which, unless it contain within itself the assumptive 
Copula, must require the subintellection of such a Copula just 
as much as does the Adjective, (see p. 26.) since the difference 
between the Participle and the Adjective is, as Harris and 
others have observed, that the former, besides an attribute, 

^ Arist. Met. Lib. iv. C. Obviv yap ciaipepei r5 dv9p(t)7rog vyiaivtjv iffTiv ^ 
TO dvGpoJTTOQ vyiaiver i] to dvOpioTrog fiadi'C(i)V kfTTiv r) TffivoJv tov dvOpojirov 
(ialiZiiv rj Tijivuv. 

2 Herm. p. 184. " Every complete Verb is expressive of an attribute of time, 
and of an assertion. Now if we take away the assertion, and thus destroy the 
Verb, there will remain the attribute and the time, which will make the essence 
of a Participle." 

3 It is true, indeed, that if an assumption (as will be shown) exist in the Parti- 
ciple, it must also have existed in the Verb, of which the Participle is a com- 
ponent part. In the Verb, however, the assumption was quiescent, being absorbed 
in the assertion : in the Participle it exercises a function as important, as did the 
assertion in the Verb. 




expresses time * : but time is not a Copula : consequently the 
Participle will require the assumptive Copula just as much as 
does the Adjective. 

1 Mr. H. Toolce, Vol. ii. p. 470, denies, after Sanctius, that there is in the Par- 
ticiple of the Present Tense any adsignification of Time : and his proofs consist in 
instances so chosen, that this Participle is associated either with a Verb of the 
Past or Future Tense, or else with the words always, at all times, &c. Of the 
former kind is " accessit amans pretium pollicens :" now in this example I really 
should have thought that the adsignification of time was plainly marked, and was 
necessary to the sense. It is true that the present time therein expressed is not 
the moment of my writing these remarks : but at that rate, present time cannot 
be made the subject of discussion : dum loquimur, fugerit : but surely in pollicens 
there is an adsignification of time, and that too present time, in respect of the act 
implied in accessit : that act, indeed, is spoken of as being past ; yet as having 
once been present ; and the meaning is, that the two acts, viz. accedendi and potli- 
cendi, were simultaneous. Mr. Tooke allows that the Participles of the other 
Tenses do express time : and yet his argument will serve just as well to show that 
this too is a mistake : thus when Dido asks, " Quem metui moritura .s"' it may be. 
objected that moritura cannot have a future sense, because of metui : yet the 
answer is plain : Dido was moritura, quum metueret : in all such cases we are to 
refer the time of the Participle to the time of the act, &c. implied in the Verb : 
for past, present, and future, cannot be meant otherwise than in respect of that 
act. Thus I may say, lapsus clamavi, lahens clamavi, lapsurus clamavi ; and all 
of them with an adsignification of relative time. 

Mr. Tooke's own examples are, " The rising sun always gladdens the earth," 
and " Do justice, justice being at all times mercy." Now of the former of these 
I think it may be affirmed, that if we be permitted to attend to the meaning of the 
proposition, (and Mr. Tooke is a zealous advocate for common sense,) it is only 
that the Sun gladdens the Earth, so often as its rising is a present act : to say 
always, is not very correct. The difficulty proposed in the latter example is to 
make out, how time present can be signified, where any thing happens continu- 
ally : and yet even this involves no absurdity, unless it be absurd to say, that all 
time consists of an indefinite number of moments, in each of which, as it is 
present, the proposition is true. And this is a natural, because a compendious 
method (Mr. Tooke would call it an abbreviation) of expressing truths of this 
kind, instead of saying it always was so, and now is so, and ever will be so. Ac- 
cordingly, Mr. Tooke with the Participle being has associated at all times : I 
observe, that he has not given any instance, in which it may be connected with 
Adverbs either o( past or of future time : he has not joined being with anciently or 
hereafter : with which, however, if that word have no adsignification of time pre- 
sent, it is not easy to discover, why it will not endure to be associated. It will 
hardly be said, that at all times comprises time past and time future : this would be, 
to use Mr. Tooke's own phrase on this very subject, but " a shabby evasion :" at 
any rate, if the term be thus comprehensive, let it be resolved into the three 
times, of which it is composed, and the experiment be made separately on each : 
an example is wanted similar to the following: " this building, being anciently a 
Chapel, is now a Barn." If I mistake not, a more specious instance, than any of 
those adduced by Mr. Tooke, is Homer's, 

"Of y^ti TO. T iovra to. t taaofiiva 11 PO r' 'EONTA. 



But I have said, unless the Participle contain within itself 
the assumptive Copula : for some Grammarians have thought 
that they discovered in the formation of Participles the very 
Copula in question. Scaliger says (see Hermes, p. 370.) that 
though the Romans rejected from their language the simple 
word e?2Sf they used it in the composition of their active Parti- 
ciples ; so that audiE^s is aicovwv lov. This is true, no doubt : 
but how happens it that aKOvwv 'ON is foreign from the Greek 
idiom? Evidently, because the Greeks have made the very 
same use of 'QN, which the Latins made of ens : they have 
incorporated it with their Participles of the Present Tense in 
each of their six Conjugations. The assumptive Copula, there- 
fore, in 6 aKOvtJv does not require to be distinctly expressed, 
being already contained within the Participle. 

Under this head it may be observed, that in the Greek 
Idiotisms, ot a/x^t, &c. 6 tote, &c. 6 ^iXiinroVf and many 
others of the same sort, every reader supplies ovTtg or wv, as 
the case may require, without hesitation. 

The Article, then, always indicates the subintellection of 

This example, however, tends to confirm the opinion of those Grammarians, 
who make kcjv to have heen originally a Participle of a Past Tense, though even 
so early as in Homer's time this acceptation seems not to have been sufficiently 
intelligible without the aid of Trpo : that to. t iovra by itself would be understood 
of things present is evident from this very passage, and from many others of 
Homer. So also, in the 25th of the Hymns ascribed to Orpheus, 

iTriara^evoQ TA r' 'EONTA, 
"Oaaa Ti. TrpoaBtv irjv, oaa t iacrerat vartpov uvrig. 

We have also in Plutarch de Isid. et Osir. this ancient inscription, tyw 
itfii Trav TO ytyovoQ Kal 'ON Kai iaofiivov. In like manner in Xenoph. 
Conviv. Xantippe is said to be TQN 0Y2QN Kal tCjv yeyevrjfitvojv Kai rwv 
i(Tofisv(i)v x«^^'''w<^^^- I" ^^^ such passages he who denies that oiv has an 
adsignification of present time, must possess a degree of scepticism, with which 
it would be folly to contend. 

But after all, my hj'pothesis will not be affected, unless that something 
more, which, according to Mr. Tooke, the Participle contains over and above 
the attribute, be both distinct from and incompatible with the assumptive 

The dispute respecting wv is not confined to Grammarians ; it has found its 
way into Theology. Socinus thought that this Participle, having no adsignifica- 
tion of present time, might as well be confined to the Past ; and that thus an im- 
portant passage, John iii. 13. 6 wv iv ovpavtp, might be softened by being ren- 
dered qui ERAT w« coelo. Scc Glass, Philol. Sacr. p. 434. ed. 1711. 



the Participle of Existence, where that Participle is not ex- 
pressed, or otherwise implied. 

I do not find that Apollonins has directly treated of this sub- 
intellection ; but in some of his remarks we perceive plainly, 
that he recognized the principle, though he has not, if I re- 
member rightly, positively adverted to the fact. 

I will add only, in confirmation of this part of my theory, 
that it explains the reason, why the Article is prefixed only 
to Nouns, Adjectives and Participles * : for if the word annexed 
to the Article be in all cases the Predicate of an assumptive 
Proposition, of which the Article is the Subject, and the Par- 
ticiple of Existence expressed or implied the Copula, it is 
plain that the word so associated must be something, which in 
its nature is capable of being predicated, but which has not, 
where the insertion of wv is admissible, a Copula within itself; 
for then there would be two Copulce of the same kind, which 
no proposition admits. Thus if in an assertive proposition I 

say. He is , leaving the place of the Predicate vacant, I 

can fill up this vacancy only by adding, a Philosopher, wise, or 
walking, &c. I cannot add walks any more than in Greek to 
6 IgtXv I could add nEPinATEI, because walks and IlEPI- 
riATEI contain each an assertive Copula, the place of which 
in the proposition in question is already occupied : and the 
same is true, if instead of the assertive Proposition He is, we 
take the assumptive one. He being : we can, therefore, say only 
6 ^i\o(TO<l>og, 6 (TO^og, 6 TrtpnraTtov* 

^ Verbs of the Infinitive Mood. Author's MS. 




In the last Chapter it was my endeavour to produce evidence • 
in favour of each distinct head of the H3rpothesis : I am next 

to show, that if it be admitted, it is capable (if I may use the I 

expression) of solving the principal phcBnomena : in other J 

words, that it will account for the most remarkable pecu- I 

Karities in the usage of the Article, and that what may to ^ 

some appear to be arbitrary custom, is in truth, supposing the j 

principles laid down to be sufficiently established, a natural, if ' 

not a necessary consequence. Should this point be made out i 

to the satisfaction of the reader, it is obvious that some weight ] 

will accompany the decisions, to which this inquiry may lead. ^ 
If the prevaiHng usage in its principal varieties be such, as 
would arise out of the supposed nature of the Article, that 

nature, it will be concluded, has been accurately ascertained. \J^ f^ 

1 shall, therefore, on the evidence already adduced, suppose "^ j-^^ 

the Article to be such as it has been described to be, and shall (O- -5 1 .-; 

now proceed to apply what has been said, to the explanation ^' *^^- 
of the most remarkable insertions of the Article ; to its most 

remarkable omissions; and to some cases of insertion and % 
omission combined. 

A. 5*-^ 

SECTION I. i}^J/^^/,,j^^. ^u.iu^ 


It has been shown, that all the insertions of the Article are \ 

reducible to two kinds, arising out of one property, viz. its \ 

anticipative reference : for the anticipation must be either of 
that which is known, or of that which is unknown : in the 
former case the Article with its Predicate is subservient to the 
purpose of retrospective reference, in the latter to that of hypo- hiin^u 


thesis. Under the former of these heads we may class the 
cases, which are the suhject of the present Section. 

§ 1 . Renewed mention. When a person or thing recently 
mentioned is spoken of again, the Article, as is well known, is 
inserted when the mention is renewed : and this happens, not 
only when the same Noun is repeated, but also when a synony- 
mous one is used expressive of the same person or thing, and 
even when no such Noun has preceded, but the existence of 
such person or thing may be inferred from what has been said : 
for then also the name of the person or thing, of which the 
existence is so inferred, has the Article prefixed. 


Xen. Mem. lib. ill. cap. 13. KoXaaavroc St rivoq t(Txvpwc 
'AK0A0Y90N, ?7p£ro tl \aXETraivoL TOt ^tpaTrovrt. 

^schin. cont. Ctes. § 56. ouroc IIPOAOYS toIq iroXefiioig 
Nvju^afov (pvyag tytvero, THN Kpicrtv ov\vTrofiuvag. 

Ibid. § 34. oTav tl ^EYAQNTAI, aoQiara koI aaa<^^ ttw 
ptovrai \iyeiv, fofdovjuLSvoL TON iXsyxov.. 

These examples present very different degrees of obscurity 
in the relation of the Article, though in each the reference is 
made equally clear by the subjoined explanation or Predicate. 
In the first we almost anticipate aKoXov6(ji) : and on finding 
the synonymous word Ospdwovri we of course have no difficulty 
in perceiving, that the Article and its Predicate form a re- 
newed mention of aKoXovdog above. In the second, rriv, 
though anticipating an idea as much the object of the speakers 
attention, as was that introduced by rif in the former, pre- 
sents a relation, which to the mind of the hearer is involved in 
total obscurity, yet by the addition of Kpiariv the relation of the 
whole is just as evident as it was in the first example. It was 
not at all more certain that t^J OepdirovTi indicated the same 
person, who had just been denominated ciKoXovOog, than that 
rriv Kpiaiv is the trial, to which the traitor would have been 
subjected. — It is superfluous to produce instances, in which 
the very sa7ne Noun is repeated, since they so frequently 

But it will often happen, that even with the aid of the Pre- 
dicate, the reference will not appear to have been made to any 


person or thing, which has been actually mentioned, nor even 
to that, the existence of which (as in Exain. 2. above) may be 
inferred from something already said: there lie dormant in the 
mind of every hearer a multitude of ideas, which are perfectly 
iamihar to it, though not constantly the subjects of its con- 
templation, and to which, therefore, a reference may be made 
with the same certainty that the relation will be perceived, as 
if it were to something recently spoken of, or actually present 
to the mind. Of this reference there are various kinds, so 
closely alhed to each other, that sometimes they are scarcely 

Thus the Article is said to be used 
§ 2. KAT' 'E^OXHN, when it refers to some object, of 
which there are many, but no one of which is so familiar to 
the mind of the hearer, as that which is made the Predicate of 
the Article. 


Thucyd. lib. ii. § 59. 'H vocrog Ittskhto ajma kol 'O ttoXcjuoc, 
i. e. the celebrated plague ^ and the Feloponnesian War, 

Demosth. de Cor. § 30. TO \ikQoq tmv \pi](l)(ji)v ov Xaf^Mv, 
i. e. the well known fifth part: where some MSS. insert 
TTfjUTrrov, a manifest gloss. 

jEsch. cont. Ctes. § 13. 'O pr]Twp ytypa^e, &c. meaning 

In the last example it will immediately be seen, that excel- 
lence does not necessarily enter into the idea, which this use of 
the Article is intended to convey : ^schines did not mean to 
compliment the friend of his great enemy: but in both in- 
stances the reference of the Article and the Predicate is at 
once perceived, as being made to objects which are famihar to 
the mind of him who is addressed. This remark is important, 
because the opinion is very prevalent, at least among the com- 
mentators on the New Testament, (as will be seen hereafter,) 
that this use of the Article alivays mdiicate^ pre-eminent ivorth 
or digiiity ; than which no opinion can be more unfounded. 
Pre-eminent dignity will, it is true, frequently be found ex- 
pressed by Nouns vnth the Article prefixed ; and for the obvi- 
ous reason, that such dignity forms in every mind one of those 
ideas, which it has probably at some time or other entertained, 



34 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

and to which, therefore, a reference may consistently be made. 
Thus, ancient writers sometimes speak of Homer under the 
appellation of 'O 'iroir\Tr]g, Considering his acknowledged pre- 
eminence, such a phrase must have been, in most cases, of 
obvious appHcation : yet even this phrase, as Harris admits, 
was not exclusively so understood, being used by Plato to sig- 
nify Hesiod, and by Aristotle to mean Euripides. On the 
whole it is not safe to infer universally, from this use of the 
Article, any thing more, than that the person or thing spoken 
of is from some cause or other well known : the particular 
cause may be a subject of further consideration. 

§ 3. Very nearly allied to the use last mentioned, is that of 
the Article prefixed to Monadic Nouns; i. e. Nouns indi- 
cating persons or things, which exist singly, or of which, if 
there be several, only one, from the nature of the case, can be 
the subject of discourse. 


Lysias, Orat. Gr. vol. v. p. 139. 'Ejcico^ac TAS Qv^aq 

£t<Tf)X0€V £tC THN yVVaLK(i)VLTlV. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 5S. 01 juev U^vTavug THN BowXi7v 
IkclXovv uq TO BouXcvrrjptov* vfxuq ^' dg THN 'E/CKXijatay 


Plato Theaet. vol. ii. p. 50. ■f]fiiv 'O TTotg avayvaxreTau 
§ 4. Under the same division may be classed the numerous 
tfrtv examples, in which the Article has the sense of a Possessive 


Demosth. de Cor. § 59. ovxi TQt Trarpl koX THi fxrirpl 
jULovov yeyevriGdai, aWa kol THi TrarpiSf where his may be 

Theocr. Idyll, iii. 52. aXylu) TAN icf^aXav* mij, &c. 

Plato Theaet. vol. ii. p. 169. irpocrxeg TON vovv' your, &c. 

Arist. de Mor. Nic. lib. iv. c. 3. irivre TON dpiOfxov their, 

§ 5. The same kind of reference will serve also to explain 

^ Matt. xi. 29. avdiravaiif raTj; xpvxa'iS- H. J. II. 


the Article, as we usually find it prefixed to the names of the , , 
great objects of nature, ^^ 


Arist. de Coelo. ii. 4. Sx^jwa ^' dvayKti a(j)aipoudtg s'xffv 
TON ovpavov, 

Demosth. de Fals. Leg. vol. i. 426. ovre TON riXiov ycfx^' 
vovTo oi Tuvra woiovvTeg, ourc THN 71? v, &c. ^ 

§ 6. Moreover, the Article is frequently prefixed to Adjec- ^--^^ 
tives of the Neuter Gender, when they are used to indicate 
some attribute or quahty in its general and abstract idea ^. 


Eurip. Hippol. 431. TO aw^^ov wc aTrav7a\ov icaXov. 

Plato, vol. i. p. 11. Xfye Si) ri ^ijg elvai TO bmov koX TO 

Than such ideas none are more familiar to the mind. 

In all these cases the reference of the Article is more obscure 
than in the case of renewed mention, strictly so called ; but yet 
is exphcable on the same principle : for in all of them it is to 
something which is easily recognized, though not hitherto par- 
ticularly mentioned. 

The next insertions of the Article, which this part of the 

* There are, however, instances in which rikiog especially rejects the Article, 
having become in some degree a Proper Name *. 

2 Hence Aristot. (Anal. Pr. cap. 40.) has noticed the difference between r/ 
rjSopTj dyaOov and TO dyaOSv. The former proposition is true ; the latter false. 
Yet as Lord Monboddo has remarked, (on Lang. vol. ii. p. 72,) Philoponus 
seems to have mistaken the meaning of r) r)dovr} £<rri to dyaOop, having con- 
founded it with dyaOov. They who would be convinced how much more is con- 
tained in the former than in the latter, may find the difference exemplified with 
respect to to kuXov and fcaXov, in the Hippias Major of Plato, as lively a dialogue, 
and as refined a satire, as exists perhaps in any language. 

* The learned Author, as has been noticed in a periodical publication, has 
here fallen into a slight mistake; yi]v, in this place, is not an example to his 
purpose, but has the Article for an obviously different reason: rr)v yfjv, TruTpiSa 
ovaav, l(f rjg euTaaav. The passage will be found in Vol. i. p. 477. of Bekker's 
admirable edition. — J. S. 



inquiry leads me to notice, are those which respect Correlatives 
and Partitives : the insertion, in these cases also, will be found 
to arise out of the nature of the Article and its Predicate, as 
already explained. 

§ 7. Correlatives are words in regimen ^, having a mutual 
reference ; and consequently so circumstanced, that if the first 
relate to the second, the second must relate to the first. The 
Greek writers, it is observable, mark the relation in the second 
wherever it is necessary to mark it in the first-: in other 
words, where the first has the Article, the second has it like- 


Plat. Theset. vol. ii. p. 126. ?/ TOY yeiopyov doKa, dXX 

OVXL TOY Kl9api(TTOV, Kvpia, 

Ibid. ibid. p. 182. 6 TOY irXiOpov dpiOiubg koX TrXiOpov, 

Ibid. ibid. p. 71. 17 TON (xw/xarwv eKig- 

It is plain that TOY yetopyov and TOY TrXeOpov are not 
spoken of as indicating in themselves any particular husband- 
man, &;c. : they become particular only by their connection 
with their respective Correlatives. A particular opinion (17 
^o^a) is supposed to imply a particular person, to whom that 
opinion belongs. In such cases, therefore, the relation ex- 
pressed by each Article and its Predicate conjointly is abund- 
antly authorized. ApoUonius has adverted to this usage. He 
says that Nouns in regimen must have Articles prefixed to both 
of them, or to neither : and that we must say either Xiovrog 
(TKVfjLviov, or TO TOY Xiovrog (TKVfjLviov. He excepts Proper 
Names in the Genitive, and also Bao-tXtucj from its aflinity with 
them. De Synt. p. 90. There are, however, very many in- 
stances in which the Article of the first Noun is, from causes 
hereafter to be noticed, omitted : in those instances, the second 
Noun also, as will be seen, sometimes loses its Article. 

* By regimen I understand the condition both of the governing and governed 
Noun : by the term first I mean the governing Noun, whatever be its position in 
the sentence; and by the second, the Noun governed. 

* The practice in our own tongue is wholly different : we can say, " (he mast of 
gship," &c.: and this, consequently, is another of the cases in which the Greek 
Article is supposed to be without meaning. I need hardly suggest, that the Greek 
practice has more of philosophical correctness. 


But besides the case of Proper Names and that of BamXevg, 
I have noticed a few examples in which the rule has not been 
observed : they are not, however, such as to justify the expres- 
sion, TO XiovTog (TKUfj-viov' for there no other usage would 
interfere with the ordinary idiom of the language ; a circum- 
stance which, I think, invariably happens, where there is any 
de\'iation from the rule. Thus, 

Plato, vol. ii. p. 64. Eia THN adiKov re koX arexvov crvva- 
ywyriv 'ANAPOS kol TYNAIKOS. 

Ibid. p. 185. fjLTJ 'H 9i(Ttg ere Taparry AEFOMENQN re koX 

Dion. Hal. vol. i. edit. Reiske, p. 5. M TAS Trapa^aSo- 
fiivag nOAEQN re koX 'EGNQN riysfioviag. 

Plutarch de Isid. p. 279. TO S^ KANGAPQN yivog, 

Xenoph. Cyrop. p. 140. koX 'ANePQIIQN TO wav yhog 

Plato, vol. ii. p. 190. olrjOivreg ex^iv TON aXridicTTaTOv 

Now in all these instances we may observe something extra- 
neous interfering with the ordinary practice. In the three first ^ /^^ 
examples, the Nouns governed come under the head Enumera- 
tion, (see Chap. vi. § 2,) which may cause them to be anar- 
throus. In the fourth and fifth instances, the governing Noun 
is yivog : I think it not improbable, if we consider that 01 
KuvOapoi and 01 avOptJTroi will signify the respective yivog of 
each, (see next Section of this Chapter), that this circumstance 
may have rendered TON superfluous: though, at the same 
time, fi:om conformity with the practice in other cases, we 
commonly find, even after ylvog, that the Article is inserted. 
In the last example, we might have expected TH2 cTrforr^^rjc. 
This, however, is what I have called an Abstract Noun, and 
such (as will be seen. Chap, v.) frequently reject the Article, 
however definite in their sense. 

The only Greek prose writer ^ so far as I know, who, vdth- 

» Genitives used in an adjective sense, and placed before the governing Noun, 
omit the Article: thus tcl TroXI/twv (Socr. Eccl. Hist p. 118.) is equivalent to 
TO, TToXs/iwv Trpay/tara, i. e. rd TroXf/iijcd irpayfiuTa. Origen. c. Cels. p. 116. 
Trjv dv6po)Tru)v (jtvaiv. Philo, p. 92. 6 Oeov Xoyog. Author's MS. 

2 This limitation of the learned Author must be borne in mind, as the poets 
furnish us with such examples as, to yap TroXtuig oveidog. ^Esch. Theb. 634. 
J. S. 

_^- ,.<,-iiijl> 

38 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

out these or similar reasons, appears to disregard the usage, is 
Philo JudcBus. His style is, indeed, florid and oratorical, but 
at the same time by no means correct. Josephus, another 
Jew, and the contemporary of Philo, is not liable to the same 

§ 8. The reasoning is similar in the case of Partitives, be- 
tween which and their respective Wholes, the same mutual 
relation subsists \ Indeed many of them fall in immediately 
with the preceding division : thus iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 20. to, 
fxiyKTTa TiiN alcrxgCjv* The only difference is, that many 
Partitives are of such a nature, as not to admit the Article 
before them, as tIq, oorog, or else admit it only in particular 
cases, as ttoXXoI, eig. The following examples will serve as 
illustrations in general. 


Isoc. Paneg. § 14. Sm^tpowo-fv al /udZovg T12N av/njutaxiiov 
Trpbg T7]v aartpaXtiav* 

Ibid. § 16. el ^sl tov aKpt/Bttrrarov TQN Xoytov sIttslv. 

i^sch. cont. Ctes. § 3. awepy ovvrig tkjl TQN priTopijJv, 

Demosth. de Cor. § 5. firj^evog T12N imeTpiiov, 

Ibid. § 58. luLovti) TQN aXXwv. 

Ibid. § 61. icTTiv a TQN ^p7](^LGfxaTMv. 

Aristot. Metaph. lib. x. c. 1. ai iiadnixaTLKoi TON lirirr- 


Plat. Theaet. vol. ii. p. 178. iroXXoi TQN ao<^wv. 

Ibid. p. 118. tva T12N vofiiwv. 

Ibid. p. 92. tKa<JTog TON dvOptoTrcov. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 12. 6aa irpocFeTiOeTO TON TroXto-juarwv. 

Plat. Theaet. vol. ii. 127. TON I^uotujv oarLorovv, 

Arist. Top. lib. i. c. 11. cvm TON TrpojSXrjjuarwv. 

This rule, however, is sometimes violated, especially in the 
case of dv9p(jj7ru)v, 

§ 9. On the same principle we may explain the two Articles 
wliich are employed, when two things are qjpjposed to each other 
by ju£v and ^i : for in them also a species of mutual relation 

^ This usage also is noticed by ApoUonius ; and the cause assigned by him 
agrees with what is here advanced : he says, to ^kpog rdv irpoQ ri KaOsarijKe, Kai 
iXtt TTpbg TO (iXor T))v aTTOTaaiv. P. 41. 


subsists. In the Pronominal sense (as it is called) of the Ar- 
ticle, the usage is extremely common : thus Isoc. ad Demon. 
TO fxlv av6r}Tov' TO Se juavtjcov* but we trace it also in cases, 
in wliich the Ai'ticle has its Predicate, and that too, sometimes, 
where the opposition is not the most natural, as between per- 
S071S and things. Thus Demosth. de Cor. § 2. (^tixru irdcFtv 
dvOpu)7roig vTrdp^u TQN fxlv XotSoptwy ctKOvuv ridiiog, TOIS 
S' tiraivoiKTi, Sec, 



§ 1 . The following use of the Article differs from the pre- 
ceding ones, in which the Article and Predicate together recall 
some familiar idea, being here subservient to the purpose of 
Hypothesis. In both cases the Predicate explains the obscure 
relation of the Article, but in the latter the Article, even with 
the aid of its Predicate, does not carry back the mind to any 
object with which it has been recently, or is frequently, con- 
versant. It is merely the representative of something, of 
wliich, whether known or unknown, an assumption is to be 


Demosth. de Cor. § 71. Trovr]pov 'O (TVKO(l>dvTr}g dd. 

Ibid. § 94. Ti xpfjv TON avvovv TroXirrjv iroieXv; 

Xen. Mem. lib. iii. c. 1. a Set TON ev (rrpaTriyricFOVTa 

Arist. de Mor. Nic. lib. iii. c. 6. 'O aTrovdaiog ydp f/caora 
Kpivet opOwg. 

Idem Prob. § 18. TO fxlv ovv ev wpidraC TA St noXXa 
TOY dirdpov jjieri^ei. 

In these instances the Article is used, according to the ^^ 
Grammarians, indefinitely: and this circumstance, combined , "^ '■ 
with the general notion of the defining power of the Article, is 
one of the causes which have led to the opinion, that its uses 
can never be determined with certainty. If, however, the 
Article be a Pronoun, theSubject of a proposition, of which 
the Adjunct is the assumptive Predicate, it is evident that the 


40 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

pretended ambiguity has no existence ; for the object of the 
Article's relation is equally defined, whether that object (as in 
the case oii-eneived mention) be the person who has been spoken 
of in the preceding sentence, or whether it be some person or 
character now introduced for the first time. In both cases the 
Article is clearly explained by its Predicate : that Predicate 
may indeed require to be imderstood with greater or less lati- 
tude; the degree of which the context and the general tenor of 
the argument will decide with sufficient exactness : thus in the 
example from Demosthenes, if cFVKo<f)avTrjg had recently been 
mentioned, we should immediately infer that 6 crvKo^avrijc was 
the renewed mention of the same person : as the context stands, 
we clearly perceive, that 6 (TUKo<^avrT|c must mean every per- 
son^ of whom o-uKo^avrr^c can be predicated. The error has 
arisen fi'om confounding the relation of the Article and its 
Predicate conjointly, with that of the Article alone : between 
which I have endeavoured to establish the true distinction. 

§ 2, In the same manner the Article is employed plurally, 
to denote whole classes and descriptions of persons or things, 


Xen. Mem. lib. iii. c. 1. ^layLyvioaK^Lv (re TOYS dyaOovg 
Koi TOYS KaKovg kdiSa^ev, i. e. the two classes. 

Plut. de Isid. p. 264. Xeyo/uLEvov TOYS Oeovg ^poupcTv, 
IxXTwep 01 Kvveg TOYS dvOpojirovg. 

^schines cont. Ctes. § 2. KaTadovXovfiEvoi TOYS IhtSrag, 

Ibid. § 90. Beivov, w 'AOtivaioi, el TA fxlv ?uXa KaX TOYS 
XiOovg jcat TON aidrjpov ^, ra acptova virepopiZofjieVf &c. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 58. TA piiyiiaTa icat TA o-Trao-juara, 
orav TL KaKov to aCjixa Xaj3^, tote KLvuTai. 

1 It is only due to Mr. Winstanley to observe, that he clearly saw this pro- 
perty of the Article. After explaining that it includes every thing to which the 
term to which it is affixed can apply, he says that it must be defined ** to be the 
symbol of universality or totality." He then goes on to observe, that if prefixed 
to an Appellative, it denotes the whole genus. Thus 6 dvOpojTrog means all viaH' 
kind. And if the Appellative be limited by any form of distinction, then the 
words include as much as they can. Thus 6 ciyaQbg avOpuirog is evert/ good 
man. H. J. R. 

2 This word not being used in the plural, must be considered as in the singular 
denoting the gerius. 


This usage is so prevalent, that, as far as I have observed, 
the Attic writers prefix the Article to plural Nouns almost 
imiversally, so often as an affirmative is true alike of all the 
persons or things in question. The reason of this will be evi- 
dent, if we admit the principle laid down in the last paragraph : 
for then to. pi]yfxaTa must signify every thing, of which priyfxa 
can be affimied. This remark will serve to explain the true 
meaning of the Article in very many passages, in which it is 
usually supposed to be a mere verhum otiosum ^ I would call 
this the inclusive sense of the Article, the force of which will 
be better understood from what will be said of Exclusive Pro- 

It is worthy of notice that the hypothetical, as well as the 
other use of the Article, w^as known to Homer; thus TOY 
KaKOv and TOY ayaOov. Iliad xiii. vv. 279, 284. 

To some one of these heads we may, I believe, refer every 
insertion of the Article, of which the Greek wi'iters supply ex- 
amples : and every such insertion will be explicable in one of 
the two ways proposed ; either that the Article with its Predi- 
cate denotes a relation immediately recognized by the hearer; ^ 
or else, where no such relation can be recognized, they serve ^ 
conjointly to indicate an hypothesis. The Article itself is in 
each case the same, the object of its relation being known to 
the speaker, though unknown to the hearer, till it is explained 
in the Predicate ^ 



From the most remarkable insertions of the Article, it vdll 
be right to proceed to its most remarkable omissions, and to 
show that they too may be accounted for on the principles laid 

1 Thus Plat. Theset. vol. ii. p. 159. to. Iv T0I2 jcaroTrrpote T^Q uypeiog ttclOti' 
in all mirrors whatever. 

2 There are cases in which the Article is properly expressed in Greek, though 
omitted in English, and which the Author has not particularly specified under 
any of his divisions. They may perhaps hoth be classed under Monadic Nouns, 
(p. 34.) To receive a drachma a tUnj — Spaxfi>)v Tt]Q vnkpag Xa^av. ^ second 
Geryon — Fz/pfwi/ o hirtpog. (iEsch. Agam. 843.) See Chap. vi. § 3. J. S. 

42 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

down. To tliis end nothing more will be requisite at present, 
than to remind the reader of what was said above respecting 
the Copula. This was shown to be, in all cases, the Participle 
of Existence : whence it will follow, that the existence of the 
person or thing, to the name of which the Article is prefixed, 
is always supposed: nor, indeed, is it possible to indicate a 
mode of existence (as is done in the Predicate) without as- 
suming the existence itself. 

§ 1. Hence in propositions which merely affirm or dent/ 
existence f the name of the person or thing, of which existence 
is affirmed or denied, is without the Article. In each case the 
reason of the omission is, mutatis mutandis, the same : for to 
affirm the existence of that, of which the existence is already 
assumed, would be superfluous ; and to de7iy it, would be con- 
tradictory and absurd. 


Arist. Categ. c. vii. § 19. 'EniSTHTOY filv yap firj 

Msch. cont. Ctes. § 58. EISI yap Ka\ deiXiag rPA<I>AL 

Ibid. § 26. 'ESTAI filv EIPHNH. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 48. ovk 'HN tov irpog vfiag iroXijuiov 

Ibid. § 99. Tu)v KoXaKEveiv kripovg j3ovXojU£vwv 'E^ETASIS 

Plat. Theaet. voL ii. p. 173. twv fcTrtarrjjUwv EISIN av 

LXX. Ps. lii. 1. OVK 'E2TI GEOS \ 

In all these instances the several Nouns would have had the 
Article prefixed, had the propositions affirmed or denied of 
them any thing besides existence : for then the assumption of 4^ 
the existence of the things represented by the Nouns would ^^ 
have been necessary ^. 

1 The same words occur, Isaiah xlv. 14. where, however, Breitinger's edition 
has 'O Oeog. The Vatican MS. as referred to by him in the V. R. has properly 
omitted the Article. There is a difference between this and the preceding clause 
in the same verse : in 'EN 201 6 Geog icm the existence of God is assumed. 

2 In Gersdorf's Beitrage zur Sprach-charakteristik der Schriftsteller des 
N. T. p. 325—327, and again, p. 330, 331, is a large collection of similar 


§ 2. Another omissioji, which arises out of the nature of the 
Copula, is that which is observable in all Nouns preceded by 
Verbs or Participles, Substantive or Nuncupative *. In such 
cases the Noun is always anarthrous. 


Demosth. de Cor. § 23. AITIOS EIMI tov TroXifxav, 
iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 20. roue KovdvXovg, ovg t\aj5av Iv tij 

opxncrrpq xoFHros: 'ON. 

Ibid. § 43. 6 ToXfiwv ev toiq iTridToXaig -ypa^^ftv on 
AE2nOTHS 'ESTIN cnravTwv avOpdjirajv. 

Ibid. § 61. 'Api(TTddr]g 6 AIKAI02 'EDIKAAOYMENOS. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 52. ov ovk av OKvi]<jaifXL iytjjye KOI- 

iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 47. nPOAOTAS rwv 'E\\i]v(ov rovg 
Boiwrapxag 'EKAAE2E. 

LXX. Ps. xlvi. 8. Htl BASIAEYS (scil. 'E2TI) iratrvg rrig 
yr]g 6 O^og. 

Esai. ix. 6. koX KAAEITAI to ovofia avrov jueyaXrjc 
XYPOS, &c. &c. 

The reader, who has attended to the sections on the prin- 
cipal insertions of the Article, will perceive that in all these 
examples the Nouns and Adjectives, which are printed in 
capitals, are used in senses which might seem to require the 
Article. In general they express some attribute or dignity 
possessed exclusively, and might therefore be expected to take 
the Article icar e^oxnv' but this is forbiddqi by the Verb or 
Participle preceding; which is used to indicate, as hitherto 
unknown, the very truth which the presence of the Article 
would imply to be known or supposed already : for such, as we 
have seen, is the force of the assumptive Copula understood. 
Hence, if in the passage above quoted from ^schines, the 

passages from the New Testament. Gersdorf, not having the key to these pas- 
sages, of course considers them as anomalous. A collection of this kind is a 
strong confirmation of Bishop Middleton's rule. H. J. R. 

^ EliJikvTOi k7ri<pipoiro to TENESGAI, to KAAEI29AI, to. tovtoiq avCvyuy 
aTroaTr]aiTat to dpOpov. Apoll. p. 70. 

44 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

Persian monarch had >vritten 6tl 'O decFiroTr^g ttrriv, &c. the 
sense would have been, that he was the person recognized (for 
here hypothesis has no place) to be the lord of mankind : in 
which capacity, however, as he well knew, he was not recog- 
nized by the Greeks, and if he had been so recognized, the 
whole declaration would have been gratuitous. And similar 
reasoning will be applicable to the remaining examples, as well 
as to others which may present themselves to observation. It 
is true, indeed, that propositions may be found resembling that 
in question, supposing the reading to have been 'O SeoTrorrjc : 
and they deserve to be considered. Thus we read LXX. 
1 Kings xviii. S6. Kvpiog avrog Icttlv 'O Qh)q* in which 
words the people of Israel, convinced by a miracle, declare 
their faith in Jehovah. But how does this proposition differ 
from that in iEschines ? The difference is exactly such as, 
admitting the principles laid down, we should expect. The 
Greeks did not recognize any person as the universal sove- 
reign: but the people of Israel did admit the existence of a 
Supreme Being; and the only question had been, whether 
Jehovah or Baal were he. Their declaration, therefore, 
amounts to this : that the God of Elijah, and not Baal, was 
the proper object of adoration, or that God and Jehovah were 
the same ; and thus the case reverts to that above, supposing 
'O Sf(T7ror»je had been the reading. Had the Persian prince 
and some other been contending for the sovereignty of the 
world, and had the Greeks been accustomed to obey one of 
these, then might Xerxes have been represented as having 
styled himself 'O ^c<T7rorrjc iraariQ rfJc yrig. Such propositions 
are called reciprocating : they will be further noticed. For a 
similar reason we sometimes find that the Predicate after ct/it 
has the Article, where the subject is a Pronoun Personal or 
Demonstrative, lyw, au, ovtoQ) &c. ^ In such instances the 
existence is assumed, the purport of the proposition being to 
identify the Predicate with the subject : so in Plato, vol. x. 
p. 89. d daiv AYTAI AI l^iai twv ovtijjv, where that there 
are X^iai twv ovtcjv is the basis of the inquiry ; and the only 
doubt is, whether these be they. 

' Thus Matt. xvi. IC. <tv tl 6_vi6s tov Otov' xxvii. II. av d 6_^a(n\tvs tCjv 
'lovSaiiov. U. J. 11. ~ 



§ 3. From the omission caused by Verbs Substantive and 
Nuncupative we pass by an easy transition to that, which is 
observable after Verbs of appointing, choosing , creating, &c. ' ■ ' • '^^'^' 
where the Noun expressive of appointment^ choice, &c. is 
always anarthrous. 


Demosth. de Cor. §59. 'HrEMQN koI KYPI02 'HtPEOH ^ 

iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 41. koI STPATHFON EIAONTO 
¥>.6ttv^ov tov ^apaaXiov, 

Ibid. § 17. MAPTYPAS rng aireXevOepiag Tovg "EXXr]vag 


Plat. Theaet. vol. ii. p. 81. t<} rriv aUdrimv 'EniSTHMHN 

Ibid. p. 97. ovK, a ro ogav ye 'EniSTASGAI GHSEIS. 

LXX. Esai. v. 20. ol TieENTES rh gkotoq ^122 koX rb 
ij)iog 2K0T0S. 

Idem, Exod. ii. 14. rig ae KATE2THSEN 'APXONTA /cat 
AIKA2THN £(^' ri/^wv, 

The reason of the omission in all such examples is very plain. 

The Article could not be prefixed to any of these Nouns, 
because the existence of the appointment, &;c. is not of a nature 
to be recognized, being now first declared : and hypothesis, as 
before, is out of the question. This case, indeed, is immediately 
resolvable into the former by means of avat or yeviaOat every- 
where understood ; of which we find frequent traces : 

Thus LXX. Deut. xx\i. 17, 18. tov Qebv alXov (rrjfjLepov 
EINAI (TOV Oeov, KaX Kvpiog uXero ere TENESeAI Xaov. 

The omission, then, in these several cases, however different 
they may appear, is one and the same, being a necessary conse- 
quence of the subintellection of the Participle of existence. 

§ 4. It seems to be from the same cause that , Nouns in 
apposition, -Hot explanatory or the essence of the preceding 
Noun, but of the end or object, to which the person or thing 
impUed in it is affirmed to be subservient, are always anar- 
throus \ 

^ Where the Noun is explanatory of the essence, it usually has the Article. 
Winer, in Part i. says, always; but in Part ii. he gives us examples of the 

46 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 


Demosth. de Cor. § 69. AYNAMIN ^x^*' ^ woXig rovg 

Ibid. § 15. rw TTpoSoVy SYMBOYAOt X9W^^' 

^sch. Cont. Ctes. §. 56. XajuLJiavsi AiiPEAN rovg wvojuacr- 
fiivovg KriTTOvg, In such examples, some case of wv, or else 
elvaioT w(TT£ dvaL, may always be supplied. 

§ 5. Another remarkable omission, which I purpose to 
notice, depends on a principle somewhat, though not altoge- 
ther, different from that, by which the former ones are ex- 
plained : I allude to the practice observable in exclusive Pro- 
positions. I mean those which arp not. merely negative, but 
in which the negation is meant to extend to. every individual 
or to the whole species in question, so as to exclude universally. 
The following are 


Demosth. de Cor. § 28. ov NAYS, ov TEIXH rng ttoXcwc 
Tore KiKTr\fxivrig. 

Ibid. §31. oux 'IKETHPIAN Wt\k£ Tptijpapxoc ov^ug, ov 
TPIHPHS 'i^M KaToXrjcpOeXaa aTrcJXfro ry TroXct. ^^ ^^ . 

iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 36. jur/re FHN Kapirovg ^tpetv, firiTe 
TYNAIKAS rUva tIktelv, fj,r}Te B02KHMATA yovag ttol- 

Ibid. § 17. aTrayopevEi juiriTe OIKETHN direXevOepovv, jULijTt 
dvayopeveaeai 2TEOANOYMENON. 

Ibid. § 15. ov^ev ?iv av ev^aijULOVEarepov IIPOAOTOY. 

Plat. Theget. vol. ii. p. 62. STEPI^AIS filv ovv dpa ov/c 
tdtJKe fxaieveaOai. 

contrary, Acts x, 32. 'S.ifibiv (Bvpaevg. Luke ii. 36. 'Avva 7rpo(prJTig. Acts 
XX. 4. Td'ioQ A(p(iaiog, vii. 10. But in all these places, the word is not used as a 
description or definition by which every one will recognize the person ; and should 
not be so translated. It is not Simon the Tanner, in opposition to Simon the 
Miller, but, as our version has it, one Simon a tanner ; i. e. who is a tanner. So 
Luke, as writing for persons who would not know Anna, states the fact that she 
was a prophetess, and does not describe her as the prophetess whom all knew. 
IL J. R. 



Joseph, de BelL Jud. lib. i. 18. ETraSj) jUTjre 'inilOIS jurjre 

The reader will observe, that in these examples the force of > - 

the negation will not be duly estimated, unless it be taken to -^ <^^^J 
exclude tiniversaUy the several objects spoken of. Thus, in 
the first example, the orator wishes to be understood to deny <'■ 
that the city had any ships, or any walls whatever ; and some- 
thing similar may be remarked of those which remain. In all 
of them the word aiiy may in EngHsh be supplied before the 
several Nouns, or (which is the same thing) the negative must 
be rendered by no, in order adequately to give the sense. — This 
omission, I have said, depends in some measure on the same 
principle, from which the former ones result : for if the city 
possessed no ships, &c. the orator could not consistently have 
said TAS vavg, TA rtf^^, the Article by means of its Copula 
implying, as has been shown, an existence either recognized or 
conditionally admitted : both which are inconsistent vdth the 
nature of the proposition. But this is not all. There is in 
the Article, as has been remarked above (p. 59.) an inclusive or 
generic sense, which renders it wholly unfit to appear in pro- 
positions like the present : because a negation of a whole con- 
sidered as a whole, is not co-extensive with a negation of all the 
parts. Thus, in the passage from i^schines, an imprecation 
that THN yr\v, TAS yvvaiKaQi TA ^oaKi^iiara might not yield 
their respective produce, would apply only to the earth, to 
women, and to cattle in general: and, therefore, the fulfilment of 
such a curse would be found in the partial failure of each kind 
of produce : inasmuch as the whole earth, all women, &c. could 
not be said to yield their produce, if there existed a single in- 
stance of failure. But the imprecation, as it stands in^schines, 
will not be accomplished, if there be a single instance of pro- 
duce ; i. e. it will be accomplished, if there be no single in- 
stance : it is, therefore, in the anarthrous form far more strong, 
since the force of it then is, that no portion of earth, no indivi- 
dual woman, no single beast, may produce, &c. It is as if the 

^ Q. Whether this does not extend to interrogations, where an exclusion is 
conveyed, though not in a direct form ? Thus t'iq fiepig iri(TT(p fierd a-KiaTOV ; 
This in a different form would be — There is no portion for any believer. And, 
consequently, Tnart^ is anarthrous. If it had been t<^ ttiot^P, it would have been 
— There is no portion for believers generally, S:c. H. J. R. 

is APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

writer had said, fxijre {uvai) yriv, olav k. ^. /wtJtc {uvai) yvvaiKag, 
&c, in which view of the subject the Article would be omitted 
according to what is said above respecting propositions affirm- 
ing or denying existence. In this example, it is obvious that 
the Articles, if they were employed, would require to be con- 
sidered, not as marking, with the aid of their Predicates, a 
relation which must be recognized, but an assumption which 
may be admitted, according to the distinction already laid 
down: but in the proposition from Demosthenes, reading it 
TA2 vavQ and TA rdxr], the Articles, if they were used, 
would evidently serve to indicate known relations. In that 
instance, therefore, the objection to the Articles would assume 
a somewhat different form arising from their different use, 
though it would ultimately terminate in the same result as in 
the former case : for to say that the city did not possess its wonted 
or well-known ships and walls, would have fallen as far short of 
the speaker's meaning, as would the imprecation, that the 
earth and women, generally speaking, might not yield produce. 
His argument requires him to deny that it possessed any ships 
or any walls whatever. And since in all propositions of this 
sort the object is to exclude altogether, the Article, to which- 
ever of its two ends it might be subservient, would frustrate 
the purpose of the speaker. 
^1 § 6. Another omission respects Nouns in regimen. ^.It was 

remarked, that, according to Apollonius, the Article is^refixed 
to both the governing and the governed Nouns, or else it is 
omitted before both. An omission will, therefore, frequently 
be observable, where the governing Noun might seem to 
require the definite form. The laxity of some modern tongues 
may appear to justify such a phrase as TO <tkv fxviov Xiovrog' 
but the accuracy of a pliilosophical language denies, that of 
\iovTOQ, which is indefinite, there can be any definite o-jcu/xvtov. 
Exactly as the insertion of the Aj-ticle before the governed 
Nomi (see above, p. 52.) is made necessary by its insertion 
before the Nomi which governs, so the indefiniteness of the 
governed wiU cause the governing Noun to assume the in- 
i J ^ i^' definite form. And this is true of the governing Nouns, if 
^JL^l>^^ \ there be more than one : in a series of Nouns in regimen, all 
>j u*} '^♦/•^ will be anarthrous, if the last be indefinite. 



Herod, lib. iv. p. 153. AEPMA ^£ dvOpwirov koX iraxv kqX 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 111. to ai(TXpov koXoujuevov ovofiarog cira- 
yioyov AYNAMEI fTreo-Trao-aro, &c. 

iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 80. nivTe vsiov raxwavTovawv TPIHP- 
APXOYS v(l)r]pr)fiivog. 

Demostli. de Cor. § 79. olkItov TASIN, ovk iXevOipov iraidog 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 43. \6yov nvog 'APXHN Xiyeig. 

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 57. fii) tl aXXo (ppaZsig rj 'EniSTHMHN 
vTTogrjuarwv 'EPFASIAS ; 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 739. Trovrjpwv kol axcipt(TTwv 
oIketwv TP0n0Y2. 

Nor is it merely where the governed Noun is indefinite in 
meaning f that this usage takes place : even where it is from its 
nature definite in sense, as in the case of proper names, &c., if 
it be indefinite inform, i. e. if it be anarthrous, the governing 
Noun is not unfrequently anarthrous also. 

Plut. Conviv. p. 99. Ato-wTrou AOPON. 

Ibid. TO. KoXXiara irepaivETai Oeov rNQMHt. 

Plut. de Isid. p. 277. rov tJvov/jLEvov BIBAIA UXarwvog^. 

§ 7. The same principle of correlation will explain why, 
when the Noun governing is indefinite, the governed becomes 
anarthrous ^. 

^ Thus, 1 Cor. ii. 16. rig lyvw vovv Kvpiov; H. J. R. 

2 Many examples will occur, which seem repugnant to this canon : the prin- 
ciple, however, requires that the governing Noun should be not merely anarthrous, 
but also indefinite in sense : for it may, though definite, have become anarthrous 
in conformity with some rule, which yet may not require that the governed Noun 
should become anarthrous also: and yet the governed Noun does not unfre- 
quently lose its Article, and thus fall into the form which Apollonius (see above, 
Sect i. § 7.) bas inadvertently asserted to be necessary: so Thucyd. lib. i. § 2. 
Sia yap dpirt)v FHS, where apfr?)v loses its Article by Chap. vi. § I. of this 
Essay. — [The reader will find in Gersdorfs work above cited, a large number of 
examples from the New Testament, scattered through pages 314 — 334, where 
there is an anarthrous word after a Preposition, followed by a Genitive with the 
Article. There is a collection of examples also in Winer ii. 3. 7- b. p. 39. See 
1 Cor. ii. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 12. 20. Luke i. 5; xiii. 19. 1 Cor. x. 21. H. J. R.] 


50 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 


Plut. Conviv. p. 99. ^YXHS yap opyavov to <Tw/xa. 
Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 164. dtdaaKaXov M0YSIKH2. 
Lys. c. Andoc. vol. v. p. 206. St'icrjv 'A2EBEIAS. 
Xen. CEcon. p. 480. ng lirLcrrhur] OIKONOMIAS \ 



Having now considered the principal insertions and the prin- 
cipal omissions of the Article, occurring separately, I proceed, 
as was proposed, to notice one or two cases of insertion and 
omission combined, 

§ 1. One case is that of the Subject and Predicate of pro- 

1 The only case of omission of the Article on which I cannot entirely satisfy 
myself, is tliat before the names of Arts, as iTTTriKri, fiovdiKri, which has been 
remarked by Pors. ad Hec. 788. Elmsl. ad Aristoph. Ach. 499. Heindorf ad 
Plat. Soph. 442. Ast. ad Plat. Prot. p. 19. Schaefer. Melett. Critt. p. 4. and 
others. I find that the usage is any thing but uniform. Thus the Article is 
always used with fiovoiKrj in Isocrates, (viz. 74. b. 199. a. 486. 286. in the two 
last cases after Trcpt,) except in 189. a, which is a case of enumeration. So he 
uses tTTTTiK^, p. 148. c. and ^avTiKrj, p. 385. c. with the Article even after Pre- 
positions. In iEschines again I find fiovviKiij, p. 86. 19. and p. 89. 1. and in 
Demosthenes, p. 1391. 9. with the Article. Schaefer seems to think that the 
addition of the Article is not Greek; as he says, (Melett. p. 4.) *' omnino baud 
exiguus est numerus nominum articulo fere carentium : velut ixovaiKr), quod 
statim sequitur, ubi si quis scribendum censeret rijg fiovaiKfjg evpeTrjg hel- 
lenismi parum se callidum proderet." This might be true, doubtless, on a 
ground stated already by Bishop Middleton; but Schaefer, I conceive, makes 
the omission of the Article before iiovciKri independent on its omission before 
tvpsTriQ. Just below he .says, in speaking of Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 34. "Ex vera 
linguae Graecse ratione, Kai iTTTriK^f dk aXrjOtaTdrrjv.^' If I am right in my view 
of what he says, the instances already produced from the Greek orators over- 
turn his assertion. But undoubtedly the Article is very often omitted before 
these words. The inconstancy of the usage makes the difficulty of the case. 
These words are, in fact, Adjectives used substantively by an ellipsis. If 
they are considered exclusively in this light, they appear to require the Article, 
and its omission is remarkable. If, on the other hand, they are considered as 
having become, in fact, substantives, they must follow the law of other substan- 
tives. Thus in Xen. Mem. prope init. we have fiavTiKy xpw/i«voe which is what 
one would expect, if fiavTiKri be a mere Substantive ; and there is then nothing 
to notice. But neither use of these words seems wholly established. 

Elmsley (ubi suprjl) considers Tpay<fSiav ttoiuiv as coming under this 
head. But the omission of the Article there belongs to § 3. of this section. 

Ill] APPELLATIVES. 51 , ' 

positions, in which, as has been often remarked, the subject is ' 
generally found with the Article, and the Predicate without it. ^yC 
Before we examine the cause of this usage, it may be right to ^i 

give ' 


Aristot. Anal. Post. ii. 3. oh yap Icttl TO £7r(7r£^ov SXH- / ^/^ ^ 
MA, ov^l TO (Tx^/xa 'EninEAON. ' '. .^^ 

Ibid, de Interp. c. 11. 'O avQ^wirog lariv iawg koX ZQON ] 

Kol AinOYN Kal 'HMEPON. \ 

Plut. de Aud. Poet. p. 11. ZQrPAOlAN jllsv dvai (pO^yyo- l 

fiivriv THN iroirttTiv, nOlHSIN Sc myC)(Tav THN Z(oypa(l)iav. \ 

Eurip. Fragm. ^ ''/-.„ ^; ;\ kxI) ( \ 

Tig oIEev, el TO Z{v fiiv Icttl KAT0ANEIN, j 

TO KarOaveiv di ZHtN kutu) voiJ,tZ£Tai: i 

Plat. Theaet. vol. ii. p. 157. ovk av ttote ^o^aauev, tog 'O I 
efatrr^roc £(rrt 0EOA12PO2. ,/■ ^f^^t: 

LXX. Job xxviii. 28. tSou 'H efotrfjSaa Igtl SG^IA. i 

Plat. vol. xi. p. 39. ovte 'O Trari^p 'YIOS Icrrtv, our£ 'O vlog i 


In these examples, the Noun having the Article is the Sub- I 

Jec^ of the proposition, and that without it the PrecZic«^^. The * 

ground of this usage, the reader who has admitted the truth of i 
the preceding observations, will probably in great measure 
anticipate: since propositions of this kind are in reality no ^un' ' :/- I 
other than combinations of the two cases of insertion for the A^{^) t^^ 
Sake of hypothesis, and omission after Verbs Substantive. The 

point to be examined is, how comes it that this insertion and ' 

this omission should be necessary to the propositions them- ] 

selves. Now it is to be considered that these are conversant, ' 

not about 'particular, but about universal truths. But uni- ; 

versal truths can be declared only by making the subject of the \ 

declaration universal ; and this, as we have seen, is effected by i 
means of the Article in its hypothetical and inclusive use. 
Thus, in the first example from Aristotle, ro Ittitts^ov signifies 

the thing (being) surface, i. e. every thing of which surface can ; 

be predicated, or surface imiversally : so also to o-x^/xa, in the ' 

second clause, is figure in its most comprehensive and extended I 

acceptation. But let us attend to crxni^o, without the Article, ^ 

as it is found in the Jirst clause. Is it there true, that the 1 

writer speaks of figure universally? Certainly not: for, to 1 

E 2 ■' 


say that surface, in its most comprehensive sense, was not 
figure in its most comprehensive sense, would indeed be true, 
but it would fall very far short of the meaning of the proposi- 
tion. Aristotle plainly intends to say, that what is surface 
{to ewiTreSov) is not figure at all,- which is saying much more : 
for that which is not figure generally and abstractedly, may yet 
be figure particularly. Thus a triangle is a figure ; but the 
definition of figure comprehends much more than the definition 
of triangle ^ : consequently the proposition, that surface uni- 
versally is not figure universally, would comprehend much less 
than that which says, surface is not figure at all. The same 
reasoning will apply to the other part of the second clause : 
and something similar vdll explain the remaining examples. 

t Thus o avOpwiroQ is man, the species : i. e. according to the 
account of the Article given above, He (being, or who is) 
Man ; or every male, of whom man can be predicated. But 
suppose we had read TO ^wov ? It would mean either an 
animal standing in a relation which might be recognized, or 
else, that which may be assumed to be an animal, i. e. animal 
universally, in which form the proposition would assert, the 
former use of the Article being here inadmissible, that the 
species man and the genus animal are the same: which is 

y absurd. In the next example, poetry in general is not 
asserted to be painting generally, but only speaking painting, 
a particular kind ; and vice versa in the second clause. In 

^- the fragment of Euripides (first clause) TO Zyv is life in the 

2 general acceptation : but Kar^avav is more limited, being used 
to signify not death in the extended acceptation (which in the 
next clause is called TO KaTOavEiv,) but something, of which 
death is now for the first time predicated : to have said that 
life and death, each understood in the most general sense, were 
one and the same thing, would have been evidently false. — In 

5 the passage from Plato, Socrates means to say, that he could 
never imagine that the person assumed and admitted to be 

(■ Theaetetus, was Theodorus. The proposition from the LXX. 

^ A very competent judge assures me that this is liable to misconstruction ; 
for that the definition of figure contains less. The reader, then, will be pleased 
to understand me, as speakmg not of the terms and restrictions of the definition, 
but of the things which it comprehends and to which it is applicable : and these 
are evidently more in figure, than they are in triangle. 


asserts, that piety, however comprehensively understood and ,j 

in all its forms, is wisdom : not wisdom, indeed, understood in | 

the same latitude, because benevolence also is wisdom, so is ^ 

temperance : but a species of wisdom, so that he is wise, in a ^ 
certain way, but not he aiksxs, who is pious. 

It is evident, then, that the usage, which has here been ex- i 
plained, is not arbitrary in its origin, but has its foundation in I 
reason and in truth. Unless, however, we advert to the prin- 
ciple, we shall sometimes conclude that the rule is violated, j 
where in reality it is strictly observed. Thus Fischer, in his ' 
Remarks on Weller ^, has adduced as an exception Pind. Pyth. i 
vii. 18. TO S' axw/j-ai, (pOovov a/xE^/So/iEvov TA jcaXa tpya. The ; 
Article is here used in its hypothetical or assumptive sense, and 
the meaning of the proposition is, that " actions admitted to be , 
honourable are followed by envy ^." This example, therefore, i 
is a confirmation of the principle, on which the rule depends ; ^ 
but writers who advert not to the reason, but only to the ap- ; 
pearance of things, frequently fall into such mistakes. It may j 
be of use to add, that where propositions are not in their sim- | 
plest form, i. e. where the Subject and Predicate are not joined j 
by the Verb Substantive as a Copula, it will be necessary to \ 
resolve them, before any thing can be determined respecting \ 
the observance or violation of this usage ; because the reason ^ 
of the rule is applicable only to such propositions. With re- j 
spect to (pOovov, in the passage adduced, I doubt not but that 
TON (pOovov, would have been equally good Greek. y^ \' ■ 
But let us next consider what will happen, supposing the j^ ff^fi l^ 
Predicate, as well as the Subject, of such propositions to have ^iJ\i 
the Article. The consequence, indeed, has been shown with ' 
respect to the propositions before us; excepting only that f. j 
from Plato. Let us, therefore, suppose the reading to have 1 
been 'O GtoSwpoc. Shall we say, that it would not have been I 
Greek, and also good sense? This would, I think, be more 
than the case would justify. The meaning would then have 
been, " Socrates could never imagine Thesetetus and Theodorus , 
to be the same person." But how will this meaning be de- , j 
duced ? It will be e\ident, if we consider that the proposition \ 



' Vol. i. p. 320. I 

2 Similar to this is ov p^Siov TA kuXu TrparTsiv a.xo()r].yT]Tov ovra. Arist. de I 

Mor. Nic. i. 0. J 



54 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

OTL 'O QiaiTYiTog l<TTiv 'O GsodwpoQ is the substance condensed 
of the two propositions otl 6 QeaiTriTog 1(ttl GtoSwpoc, v (in an 
affirmative proposition kol) oti 6 Qbodwpog Icttl QtairriTog' for 
to say that one would not take Theaetetus to be Theodorus 
nor Theodorus to be Theaetetus, amounts plainly to this, that 
one would not take either for the other : which is exactly the 
same thing as to say, that one would not take them to be the 
same person. But this is more than the proposition asserts, as 
it stands in Plato, though not more than Socrates might have 
said with truth, had his purpose required him to introduce both 
propositions, to which that having the two Articles would be 
equivalent. It was enough, however, to say, that Theaetetus 
could not be taken for Theodorus. But suppose the case other- 
wise, and that his argument had been incomplete, unless he had 
maintained the converse also : he would then, if he consulted 
i..,t^.ii'. brevity, have employed the single proposition on 6 OeairriTog 
tariv 6 Qe6d(jjpog, because it contains the substance of the two ; 
for, whichever of the two be chosen, it comprehends not only 
that, but its converse. 

Hence we see the origin of convertible or reciprocating pro- 
positions ^, which are such, that of either term taken as the 
Subject the other may be affirmed as a Predicate. Such pro- 
positions, therefore, will have the Article prefixed to both 
terms ahke, neither of them being the Subject more than the 
other. The reader, who reflects on the nature of these pro- 
positions, will not expect to meet v^th many examples ; since 
the things or attributes, which may thus be predicated either 
of the other, are in their nature few, and, even of these the 
identity may be affirmed, as we have seen, in two distinct pro- 
positions, such that the Subject of the first is made the Pre- 
dicate of the second. However, of the convertible form I 
have noticed the following 


Arist. Mor. Nicom. lib. ii. c. 9. ttrriv 'H dp^rri 'H r]BiKrj 
fietjoTtig ^ 

^ On those cases where the proposition is composed of a pronoun personal or 
demonstrative, the Copula and a Predicate with the Article, see above, iii. 3. 2. 
p. 44.— II. J. R. 

2 Ibid. lib. ii. c. 6. we find fit(T6Ttjg hriv t) aperty to have said "H niaorriQ 
would not have been true. 


Ibid. lib. iii. c. 6. to7q TO /3ouXrjrov T ayaObv Xtyovmv. 

Plutarch de Plac. Philos. lib. i. c. 3. iari Se 'O Gfoc 'O 
vovg ^ 

But even where, as in the preceding instances, one proposi- 
tion is used, this is by no means the only form. Thus we find 
convertible propositions, in which the Article is wanting to 
both Subject and Predicate. 


Arist. de Interp. c. 6. KATA4>ASI2 Igtlv 'ADA^ANSIS 
TivoQ Kara rivog. 

The only difference is, that the affirmation thus made in 
one instance is obviously true universally ; and, therefore, the 
method of induction being employed by the hearer, the sense 
will be exactly the same. 

But there is a third form, in which convertible propositions 
may be expressed : it is to join the two convertible Nouns by 
a Copulative, and to make them the Subject of a proposition 
of which the Predicate is ravro : for, to affirm identity of two 
things, is the same as to affirm that either may be predicated 

* Winer, in considering propositions of this kind, contents himself with saying, 
that the Predicate also has the Article when it is thought of as something definite. 
This explanation is neither so comprehensive as Bishop Middletons, nor so clear, 
when the Bishops is rightly understood. And in consequence, Winer, in both 
his first and second parts, has fallen into constant confusion. He seems to have 
no notion of, or no belief in, the hypothetic use of the Article, or its use in uni- 
versal propositions. (See, however, his first part, 14. 3.) Consequently, he puts 
together, as similar, such propositions as ri da irerpa ^v 6 XpiaroQ (1 Cor. x. 4.) 
and t) afiapria lariv r; dvofiia (I John iii. 4.) although in the first case the first 
Article arises from renewed mention, and the second indicates the o?ie Messiah ; 
while, in the second, each shows the universality of the proposition. (See this 
place below). Again, he confounds ovx ovtoq kariv 6 tsktuv ; (Mark vi. 3.) with 
kKtivd i<TTi rd Koivovvra, vii. 15 ; whereas, in the first case, the Article indicates 
a well known person ; and in the second is hypothetical, the basis of the proposi- 
tion being, as Bishop Middleton observes of another instance of the same case 
above, that there are things which defile a man ; and the object of it being to 
identify them with certain things under consideration. In all cases the learner 
must take care to observe the difference which Winer has confounded, and to re- 
member, that in the case both of Pronouns and Nouns generally, the fact that the 
Predicate has the Article, does not necessarily prove a reciprocating proposition, 
as it may serve the purpose of renewed mention, &c. &c. &c. Wherever Winers 
remarks seemed sound I have used them. — U. J. 11. 


56 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

of the other ; and the result will be the same, according to 
what has just now been observed, whether both the Nouns 
have the Article or both be without it. 


Arist. Top. lib. i. c. 5. ravrov ecftiv AI29HSIS kol 

Plat. Theset. vol. ii. p. 69. FANTASIA kol AI2eH2IS 

Ibid. p. 55, TavTov apa 20<I>IA KaX 'EHISTHMH. 

Arist. Eth. ad Eudem. lib. i. c. 1. ttoXXoi yap ravTo (j>a<nv 
ilvai rriv EYAAIMONIAN icm rrjv EYTYXIAN. 

From this digression on the nature of reciprocating pro- 
positions, into which, however, the doctrine of the Subject and 
Predicate has unavoidably led me, it will be right to proceed 
to the consideration of another remarkable insertion and omis- 
sion of the Article ; to the investigation of which the hypo- 
thesis proposed appears to afford a proper clue : I allude to 
the usage, which has given birth to a theological controversy, 
and to which the public attention has recently been called by 
Mr. Sharp and Mr. Wordsworth. 

§ 2. When two or more Attributives* joined by a Copula- 

* By Attributives Mr. Harris means Adjectives, Verbs, and Participles : (see 
Hermes, p. 87.) These, however, are not alike capable of being assumed, and 
are not, therefore, alike objects of the present canon. The Adjective is assumi- 
ble : thus 6 ayaObg is 6 'QN ayaQog. The Participle also, as we have seen, is 
assumible : it even contains within itself the assumptive Copula. But the Verb 
is not assumible ; it can only be asserted : the Verb, therefore, is not such an 
Attributive, as the canon supposes. But though the Verb must be excluded 
from our present consideration, there is, on the other hand, a large class of 
Nouns (so at least they are denominated) which are as truly assumible Attri- 
butives, as is the Adjective : I mean all those significant of character, relation, 
or dignity: these we find interchanged and associated both with Adjectives and 
with Participles : they are interchanged, as when 6 fSovXsviov is put for 6 (3ov~ 
Xevt^q, and they are associated, as in 6 irtpUpyog Kai 2YK04»ANTHS, tov 
rOHTA Kal TTtpiTeTfirjKOTa. To these, therefore, the canon may be expected to 
apply. — The reader will recollect, that assumption is the basis of the whole : 
otherwise, the Article could not be employed. Thus in Plato, vol. xi. p. 4. 
t'tyovfiivt} (scil. tfit) AIKASTHN Kai 'ArrEAON tlvai, k. t. \. though one 
person only is spoken of, the attributes are not assumed of him, but are asserted : 
to have written, therefore, TON hKaarrlv would have involved an impropriety. 


tive or Copulatives are assumed of the same person or thing, 
before the first Attributive the Article is inserted; before the 
remaining ones it is omitted \ 

* It will perhaps surprise some persons to find, that Winer, in his first part, 
coolly enounces his rule on the subject thus. If two or three definite Nouns in 
the same number and gender stand together, only the first of them has usually 
the Article. The instances which he subjoins are as remarkable as his thus set- 
ting aside, without notice, what is here said by Bishop Middleton. The instances 
are, Acts ix. 31. o\i]q tijq 'lovdaiag Kai TaXiXaiag Kal 'Eaixapdag. Matt. xxi. 
12. TTOLVTag Tovg TCioXovvTag Kai ayopa^ovrag. Jude4. rbv [lovov deaTTOTriv Kai 
Kvpiov. The tw^o first of these examples belong obviously to the classes noticed 
by Bishop Middleton at the end of this chapter, in which no mistake can arise, 
because the attributives in them cannot be predicated of the same subject without 
the most evident contradiction. The last is one in which Mr. Sharps rule is 

But what follows is still more remarkable. " Compare, however," saysWiner> 
" in contradiction to this, the following places." John ii. 22. Ty ypa^y Kai t<^ 
Xoyy. Here Winers rule is not contradicted, as the words are not in the same 
gender. Matt. vii. 12. 6 vofiog Kal ol Trpo^jjrat. Here they are not in the same 
number. 1 Cor. xi. 3. 6 Oebg Kai Trarrip. Here the two relate to the same per- 
son. Tit. i. 4. Here there is no example at all. Rom. xii. 2. to ayaBbv Kai 
evdptffTov Kai rsXtiov. Here all the words relate to the same tiling. Luke xxii. 
2. 01 apxi^pttg Kai oi ypaufxaTsig. lb. 4. ToXg dpxtepevfft Kai roTg ffrparijyolg. 
In these two last examples Winer's own rule is violated, and that which he so 
quietly sets aside confirmed. 

In his second part, he observes, that when the Nouns are of a different gender, 
the Article is repeated, as Acts xiii. 50. Col. ii. 13; iv. 1. Rom. viii. 2. with 
many other places, except Col. ii. 22. Luke i. 6. 23. 49 ; xiv. 23. Rev. v. 12. 
Compare Plato, Pol. viii. p. 557 ; ix. p. 586. But he adds, that if the Nouns are 
of the same gender, the Article is omitted, where they can be considered as form- 
ing part of one whole, as Mark xv. 1. where the Elders and Scribes are consi- 
dered as forming only one class. Col. ii. 8. 19. 2 Thess. iii. 2. 1 Pet. ii. 25 ; 
iii. 4. Rom. i. 20. Phil. ii. 17- 25. Eph. ii. 20. Tit. i. 15. 1 Tim. iv. 3. 7- 
Heb. iii. 1. Luke xiv. 3. 21. Now among these examples, the 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 
12th, 13th, and 14th, are cases where the same person is referred to! The 1st, 
3d, 4th, 10th, 15th, and 16th, are plurals ! and of the remainder, examples 
2d and 7th, are cases of abstract Nouns, and the only one left, viz. the 8th, is 
nearly the same ! Next Winer says the Article is omitted, when, by Kai, a clearer 
description is added. Col. iii. 17. 1 Pet. i. 3. 2 Pet. i. 11 ; ii. 20. Phil. iv. 20. 
Every one of these is a case of Mr. Sharps rule. Then the Article is omitted, 
says Winer, when between the first Substantive and its Article, a genitive, or 
other defining word, is added, which also applies to the second, as 1 Thess. ii. 12. 
r^v iavTov ^atnXiiav Kai So^av ; iii. 7. Phil. i. 19. 25. Eph. iii. 5. Acts i. 25. 
(Winer is so careless, that he has given here three examples where the defining 
word is not between the Substantive and Article). Of these examples, Eph. iii. 
5. is a plural, and the others are cases of incompatible or abstract Nouns. Thus 
Setiffig and iirixoprjyia could never be mistaken. I know not, however, whe- 
ther these may not be referred to another consideration entirely ; whether, I 

A r^t, /.r-i 

58 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 


<#- ■^■*'' 

Plut. Vit. Cic. Ed. Bast. p. 68. 'FwaKiog '0 vlbg KAI icXi?- 
povo/iog Tov TeOvriKOTog riyavaKTei. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 27. rig 'O ry ttoXbi Xe^wv KAI ypd^dyv 
KAI irpaTTOJV KAI eavTov 8ouc> &c. 

Ibid. §61. 'O (TvfxfiovXog KAI prjTOjp lyw. 

Plato, vol. ii. p. 91. TQt vtwrlptj) re KAI vypoHpt^ 'ONTI 

Ibid. p. 192. TON mfjiov re KAI t^6(l>eaXfiov, 

iEsch. cont. Ctes. § 56, 'O Trfpttpyof KAI cruico^avrijc 

Ibid. § 71. TON yortra KAI fdaXavTioTojULOv KAI Starfr- 
jUlJKOra TTJV TToXtTEtav. 

Ibid. § 90. TON ypa\pavTa /jIv Travvorarijv c'SoSov, Trpo- 
Sovra AE roucj &c. 

Herod, lib. iii. p. 133. 'Arotrcr^ THt Kupou jU£v OvyaTpX, 
Aapdov AE yvvaiKi. 

Aristoph. Equit. 247. 
TToTe, Trate TON iravovpyov KAI rapa^nnroaTpaTOv 
KAI TfXwvrjv KAI (l>apayya KAI ^apv^^iv apirayrig 
KAI iravovpyov KAI TravoupYOv* TToXXaicfc 7ap ai^T"' £pw. 

Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 263. TON ycip (SamXia KAI Ki^ptov 
*'0(TipLv ypat^ovdiv, 

Philo. Jud. p. 309. Ed. 1640. 'O YJ)piog KAI Q^hg EvepyiTrjg 

Ibid. p. 658. fSeTTc/xTTC Trpoc TON Trig ^lovdaiag dpxiBpia 
KAI j3a(TtXla- 'O ydp AYT02 rfv. 

Suidas (voce Xptcrrbg) Xpiarog, 'O Kuptoc KAI Oebg 
rifi(jjv ^. 

mean, this is the case of the simple Article at all. Fourthly, the Article is 
omitted, says Winer, when the words connected are Adjectives and Participles 
which are predicated of the. same subject. See Acts iii. 14; ii. 20. Mark ix. 
25. John xxi. 24. Luke vi. 49. Phil. iii. 3. It will be observed, how nearly 
Winer approaches finally to Mr. Sharps rule. What is yet more singular, he 
goes on to notice the cases where the Article is added, which he describes as 
cases where Nouns are to be considered as independent, i. e. in short, cases fall- 
ing under Mr. Sharps rule, that the Article is added, when the Nouns relate to 
diflFerent things.— H. J. R. 

* Mr. Winstanley has produced some quotations which he conceives to be 
violations of this rule. Let us look at them. The first is a passage from Plato, 


In all these instances it will immediately be seen, that the 
several Attributives connected by Copulatives are meant to be 

(Ep. vi. T. iii. p. 323. D. ed. Serran. 1578,) quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
p. 598. C. ed. Sylb. 1641, or T. ii. p. 710. ed. Potter, 1715. 

Tbv irdvTijJV Oibv alnov Kai tov TjysfiSvog Kal airiov irarkpa Kvpiov Itto/x- 
vvvrag. Here, says Mr. Winstanley, tov i)y. k. at. is an agreement with the rule, 
but TOV 7rdi>Tutv 6tbv — Kai TruTtpa Kvpiov is in direct opposition to it He goes 
on, however, to quote the same passage from Origen (c, Cels. vi. 8. T. i. p. 036. 
B. ed. Paris, 1733, or p. 288. ed. Hcesch. 1605, or p. 280. ed. Spenc. 1677), who 
gives it thus: Kai tov tSjv ttuvtiov 9e6v, riysfjiova tS)V ts bvTUtv Kai twv jxeWov- 
Tiov, TOV Ti tjyefiovoQ Kai aWiov TraTspa Kai Kvpiov iTTOfivuvTag. Where the 
differences of reading are so very considerable, I would put it to the candid 
reader, whether any appeal can be made to the passage. We may observe, that 
both an Article and a Copulative are omitted in one quotation and inserted in the 

The next passage is : Ttp On^ twv oXwv Trpoakx^Tt Kai diSaffKoXt^ tCjv Trepi 
avTov fiaOrjfioLTwv ry 'lr}<Tov. Orig. c. Cels. iii. p. 75. (T. i. p. 497- D. or p. 162. 
ed. Hcesch. or p. 157. ed. Spencer.) 

The third is : r<p Sk 0£<p Trarpi, Kai vty T(p Kvpup rifiiHv 'Iijffov Xpiory avv Tt^ 
dyi(ft TTvtvfiaTi So^a — a passage for which Mr. Winstanley refers to Burgh*s 
Inquiry, p. 359. 

Mr. Winstanley seems aware that the same objection may be taken to both 
of these passages, viz. that the Article is repeated. But he contends that, re- 
peated as it is in these passages, it is a mark of the identity of object of the Noun 
to which it is prefixed with the one immediately preceding it, and not of differ- 
ence from the foregoing one. 

To speak particularly of the last of these passages, I am at a loss to see how 
Mr. Winstanley can see any confirmation of his views in it. The corresponding 
words are Oioq and Kvpiog, and these have, each of them, the Article. UuTpi in 
the first clause, and vi<^ in the second, are not the leading words, but adjuncts to 
the leading word. Mr. Winstanleys criticism, I confess, I cannot understand. 
In speaking of this passage, he says, that if the Article be reckoned any thing 
more than a mark of identity with the Noun immediately preceding, Mr. Sharp 
must give up one of his passages, viz. tov 9eov Kai Kvpiov 'I. X. tov fikXXovTog 
K. r. X. What similarity exists between these passages I cannot see. The first 
has two clauses, in each of which there is a leading word and an adjunct ; the 
other, if it has two clauses, has no adjunct to the leading word in the first ; and in 
the second, the Article is affixed to the adjunct, whereas it is affixed to the lead- 
ing word in the first passage. Two passages less alike it would be difficult to 

Of the other three passages adduced by Mr. Winstanley, two are noticed 
elsewhere. The third is fitO' ov doKa t<^ 9eip Kai Trar/oi Kai ayt'y TrvtvfiaTi. 
(Ep. Eccl. Smyrn. de Martyr. Polyc. § 22.) Here there is no difficulty. The 
expression, 6 9tbg xai TraTrjp, for the Father, is familiar to every reader of the 
Fathers ; and the distinction between the persons of the Trinity was, of course, 
deemed too clear for any confusion to arise. In short, the case is one of those 
which Bishop Middleton notices below, where the two Nouns cannot be pre- 
dicated of the sdivae person without contradiction. — H. J. R. 

60 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

understood of the person or thing signified in the Article pre- 
ceding. The reason of this usage, if the nature of the Article 
has been rightly explained, it will not be difficult to discover. 
In the first example 'O is the subject of an assumptive propo- 
sition, of which vlog kol K\r)pov6iuLog is the Predicate, wv 
being, as usual, understood; and the meaning is, that "He 
(Roscius) being both son and heir of the deceased," &c. But 
what will happen, supposing the Article prefixed to KXripovojuog 
also? We shall then have two assumptive propositions and 
two subjects coupled together by Kai : i. e. vlog and KXrjpovofiog 
will then be assumed respectively of two distinct persons ; they 
cannot be assumed of one and the same, if the Article be a 
Pronoun, because two Articles coupled together, and yet 
having reference to the same person, involve the absurdity of 
joining an individual to himself. So in the sixth instance, 
6 TrepUpyog koX (rvKOtpavTrjg. But where two distinct persons 
are intended, we actually find the Article repeated. Thus in 
Demosth. de Cor. § 56, we read 6 yap o-ujuj3ovXoc koX 'O 
(TVKorjiavTrjg Sm^fpovct \ Here the second Ar- 
ticle could not have been omitted; because o-u/xj3ouXoc and 
(TVKO(f)avTrig would then both have been predicated of 6, and 
of course of one person : nor will the change of ^ia(l>ipov(n into 
^ia(j)ip£L restore the sense : the proposition will then be, that 
" he who is at once an adviser and a sycophant differs" from 
some other character not mentioned. These remarks explain 
the principle of Mr. Granville Sharp's First Rule ^, as the ex- 
amples above adduced are proofs, that the rule accords with 
the usage of the best Greek writers. 

But though the principle of the rule admit a very obvious 
solution, when the nature of the Article is once properly un- 
derstood, its limitations may still require to be considered. 

We find the rule appHcable only to the case of the words, 
which I have denominated assumible Attributives. Hence 
many Nouns are not subject to its operation, all being ex- 
cluded, except those which are significant of character. We 
are, therefore, to inquire what there is inherent in the ex- 

1 So also iEsch. c. Ctes. § 58. Iv toXq avroiq liriTin'ioiQ ipero deXv lvkx^<r9ai 
TON AfTTpdrevrov, Kai TON XtXonroTa Ttjv tol^iv, kuI TON SeiXov. 

2 " Remarks on the Greek Article in the New Testament," &c. 2.1 edit. p. 3. 


eluded Nouns to cause so remarkable a difference. Now these 
Nouns must be either names of substances considered as sub- 
stances, proper names, or names of abstract ideas : and the 
exceptions from the rule will be such as 

1. 'O \idoQ KAI ^pvcTog. 

2. TON 'AXi^avdpov KAI ^IXittttov. .Esch. cont. Ctes. 
§81. ^ 

3. THN aireipiav KAI dTrai^evaiav, Plato, vol. xi. p. 31 \ 
The first sort of Nouns are names of substances considered 

as substances: for nam_es of substances may be considered ^^}Ljkr 
otherwise ; and the distinction is important. They are other- 
wise considered, so often as the name supposes the substance, 
and expresses some attribute : so vlog, /orjrwp, riyeiJ.wv, SovXog, 
^fo-TTorrjCj &c. are, indeed, so far names of substances, that they 
jrre-suppose a substance, but their immediate use is to mark 
some attribute of the substance av^pwTroc, which is in all of 
them understood: for to be viog, pjjrcopj -nysfjitov, 8cc. is no 
more of the essence of avOpdjnog than it is to be wise, happy, 
rich, &c. Such Nouns, therefore, as was before hinted, differ 
little in their nature from Adjectives : they are Adjectives of in^ ^J ■ ]^ 
variable application, heing constantly used of a v^pwTroc; whereas 
common Adjectives, dyaOog, imiXag, wKvg, &c. are applicable to 
substances of various kinds, and are not applied to any one in 
particular. It was, then, to be expected of attributive Substan- 
tives, that any number of them coupled together might be pre- 
dicated of an individual represented by a Pronoun ; for it is to 
be remembered, that in such phrases as 6 avfxfiovXog /cat jorjrwp, 
6 is no otherwise connected with (tujuj3ouXoc, than in rov mfiov 
Koi l^6(l>0aX/xov, Tov is connected with (rifxov : in all cases, to 
which the rule applies, the Article is a Pronoun representing 
some substance, of which the Attributives, whether Nouns, 
Adjectives, or Participles, are predicated, and, consequently, is 
not the Article of the Jirst Attributive, but of all collectively. 
This is sufficiently plain, where the Attributives are Adjec- 
tives or Participles, and will be equally plain in the remaining 
case, if the reader will advert to the nature of attributive Sub- 

^ ri oypiQ Tt Kai ciKorj. Plat. Phaed. p. 65. B. xv. 12. Wyttenb. This is cited 
by Dobree, Adv. p. 117. Of course all this applies still more strongly to the 
Plurals of such Nouns where they admit them; as Plat. Phaed. 94. D. 61. fin. 
Wyttenb. raig tTriOvfiiaiQ kuI opyaig Kal (}>6(3oig. — H. J. R. 

62 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

stantives rather than to their form. But suppose that, instead 
of these attributive Nouns, we introduce others, which express 
mere substances ; this consequence will follow, (if we attempt 
to apply the rule,) that substances in their nature distinct and 
incompatible will be predicated of one individual : e. g. \iOog 
Kot ;)(puo-oc will both be assumed of 6, the representative of 
some Noun understood : but this is evidently absurd ; distinct 
real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing ; 
nor can distinct nominal essences, without manifest contradic- 

A^mM- tion, be affirmed of it. Essence is single, peculiar and incom- 

j ,, ; municable ; whereas the same attribute may belong to many 

^^^^ objects, and the same object may possess divers attributes. 

We are, however, to be cautious in determining that any 
Noun is expressive simply of substance. There are many, 
which, though properly significant of substance, are yet fre- 
quently used to indicate the attribute or attributes, by which 
that substance is principally distinguished. Thus when Homer 
says, II. N. 131. aainqa^ d<nri^^ epeide, Kopvg Kopvv, 'ANEPA 

4 . / . S' ' ANHP, there can be no doubt that dvrjp is as truly the 
name of a substance considered independently of all its attri- 
butes, as is ao-TTic or Kopvg : but when we read, II. Z. 112. 

t'U.. 'ANEPES £OTf, (l)iXoi3 fivrjaaade dl Oovpidog aXjcfjc, 

the same word dvrjp is evidently used, not as a Noun signifi- 
cant merely of substance, but as an Attributive ; and an Ad- 
jective, the purest species of Attributive, would have answered 
the speaker's purpose: 'ANAPEIOI IrrrE, ^/Xod, &c. though 
less figurative and poetical, certainly conveys the idea. In 
this instance, therefore, dv^psg supposes the substance, and 
expresses a distinguishing attribute, viz. valour. Now since 
things animated have almost always some prominent character, 
some attribute, the operation of which unavoidably attracts 
notice, it will follow, that almost every Noun expressive of an 
animated substance, may be employed as an Attributive, and 
consequently that two or more of such, when the attributes 
referred to are not in their nature incompatible and con- 
tradictory, may be made subservient to the principle of the 
rule ^ 

' Nouns expressive of inanimate substances seem to have this difference, that 
though they have attributes (and we have no idea of any thing which has not) 


The reason, why proper names are excepted, is evident at e. L^J^^ 
once : for it is impossible that Jolm and Thomas, the names of 
two distinct persons, should be predicated of an indi\ddual. It 
is obvious, therefore, that in the phrase tov 'AXc^avSpov koX 
^iXt-mrov, TOV is the Article of ^AXi^av^pov only, and not of 
both names ; as would happen, were the principle of the rule 
intended to apply. 

Nouns, which are the names of abstract ideas, are also ex- ^ a^// 
eluded, and from a cause not wholly dissimilar : for, as Locke ^ 
has well observed, " Every distinct abstract idea is a distinct 
essence ; and the names, that stand for such distinct ideas, are 
the names of things essentially different ^" It would, there- 
fore, be as contradictory to assume that any quahty repre- 
sented by 'H were at once direipia and aTraiS^vma, as that the 
same person were both Alexander and Philip : whence it is 
immediately evident, that such an assumption could not be 
intended ^ Under this head we may class Verbs in the Infi- ^ 
nitive Mood, which differ not in their nature from the names 
of the corresponding abstract ideas. Thus we read in Plato, 
vol: xi. p. 43. TQi l^Eiv T£ KAI aKovcrai' in the next page we 
have THt oxpei te KAI uKoy. The two cases evidently require 
the same explanation. Infinitive Moods so coupled together 
are extremely common. 

Thus far it appears, then, that the limitations of the rule 
are not arbitrary, but necessary, and that the several kinds of 
excluded Nouns have one disqualifying property belonging to 
them all; which is, that no two of any class are in their 
nature predicable of the same individual; whilst attributive 

yet those attributes, from their inertness and quiescence, make so little impres- 
sion on the observer, that he does not commonly abstract them from his idea of 
the substance, and still less does he lose sight of the substance, and use its name 
as expressive of the attribute. Add to this, that to characterize persons by the 
names of things would be violent and unnatural, especially when two or more 
things wholly different in their natures are to be associated for the purpose : and 
to characterize any thing by the names of other things would be "confusion 
worse confounded." 

1 Essay, Book iii. chap. iii. § 14. 

^ Several of Mr. Winstanleys exceptions belong to this class; 

17 — dyaTrrjTiKrj yjfiCjv 6ida<TKa\ia re Kai TroXiTiia. Clem. Alex. 

Trig TovTOV OpaffvTijTog Kai roXfiiig, Lys. 

Trjg iKtivov yvbjfirig Kai KoKodaifioviag. Demosth. 

rj MacfdovtKi) apx*) *a' Svvafiig. Demosth. — H. J. R. 

f54 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

Nouns are such, that several of them may be assumed of the 
same person without any contradiction or falsehood. 

But though, when attributives coupled together are assumed 
of the same subject, the first only has the Article prefixed, vdll 
it be true conversely , that when the Article is prefixed to the 
first only of such Attributives, they are always assumed of the 
same subject? This is a very necessary inquiry. That the 
Subject is the same in the examples above adduced, is suffi- 
ciently evident ; and there is not, I am persuaded, any ancient 
writer of Greek prose, from whom a multitude of similar pas- 
sages might not be collected; still, however, if a sufficient 
number of imquestionable authorities could be produced, from 
which, the circiunstances being precisely the same, a different 
conclusion might be drawn, that is, if in forms of expression 
exactly agreeing vdth 'O vloq KAI K\r]Qov6iiog the Attribu- 
tives could be shovm to be intended of different persons, then 
the rule, whatever may be said respecting its principle^ would 
not be of safe application. 

Mr. Sharp, whose attention, however, appears to have been 
confined to the New Testament, has remarked that the rule is 
not ahvays applicable to Plurals ; and yet, if the ground of the 
usage has been properly explained, it will certainly be sup- 
posed that in Plurals also the rule should uniformly hold. If 
vLog KAI icXr^povojuoc must be understood of 6, then viol KAI 
K\r]gov6tioL should, for any thing that appears, be also both 
understood of ot , supposing ol referring to tivo Roscii to pre- 
cede ; nor have I in such instances observed that the rule is 
ever infringed. Of its application to Plurals, the following 
are a few 


Herod, lib. ii. § ^6. TA fi\v a\<xxQa dvayKola AE iv dwo- 

Isocr. Paneg. § 16. 01 Trpoyovoi rwv vvv ^v AajccSat/zovt 
fdaatXevovTcjv ekjovoi A' 'HpaicXcouc KarnXOov, &c. 

Ibid. § 32. ETijULwv TOYS auTox«tpac KAI (jtoviag ru)v TroXt- 

Plutarch de discrim. Amici, &c. p. So. oi Zwypd<poi TA 
tjxoTeiva KAI Xafiirpa TOIS crKiepdig KAI (TKoreivotg, &c. 


Xen. Mem. lib. ii. c. 1. 01 dvSpeloi KAI ^vvarol TOYS 
dvavdpovg KAI d^vvaTovg, &c. 

From these instances it is plain that in Plurals as well as in 
Singulars the rule is frequently observed : but the question is, 
does this always happen ? Are there no cases, in which) 
though the Article be wanting before the second Attributive, 
we are compelled to understand that Attributive of persons or 
things different from the Subjects of the first? In the course 
of a somewhat extensive examination, I have met with a very 
few instances like the following: Herod, lib. i. p. 51. at 
€Ujuop0ot TAS afiopcpovg KAI ^/nn^povg c^tSt^ocrav* where it 
may be said, that the f^Trrjpot must be supposed to be in 
general distinct from the aiJ.op(j)oi, the one indicating an ad- 
ventitious, and the other a natural, defect; and that the 
author, though he has not prefixed the Article to the second 
Attributive, meant so to distinguish them. Granting, then, 
this to be the case, and that other less questionable instances 
may be fomid tending to corroborate the exception, what 
reason can be alleged, why the practice in Plural Attributives 
should differ from that in Singular ones ? The circumstances , . 

are evidently dissimilar. A si?2gle individual may stand in ^tvyu'<»^ 
various relations and act in divers capacities; and, conse- JjL.^ 
quently, if two relations or character^ be connected by a Copu- 'r^/^^T^" 
lative, and the first be preceded by a Pronoun, the reader will »^*V^*^ 
reasonably understand them both of the person represented by 
that Pronoun, because such is the general usage, and the com- 
pliance with it will not involve any contradiction. But this 
does not happen in the same degree with respect to Plurals. 
Though o?ie individual may act, and frequently does act, in 
several capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of individuals 
should all of them act in the same several capacities, and by 
the extreme improbability, that they should be represented as 
so acting, we may be forbidden to understand the second Plural 
Attributive of the persons designed in the Article prefixed to 
the first, however the usage in the Singular might seem to 
countenance the construction. My meaning may be illus- 
trated by a familiar example. An individual is at once a 
Member of Parliament and the Colonel of a Regiment. Speak- 
ing of such an one, and having occasion to advert to these two 
characters, we might say in Greek, 'O ^ovX^rrtg KAI Xoxayog^ 


(5(5 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

and if by such a phrase we meant to indicate two different 
persons, we should speak in a manner not authorized by the 
Greek idiom. But suppose we should say, speaking of several 
persons, '01 jSovXcuTat KAI \oxayoi' the inference would be, 
either that the persons sitting in parliament and those com- 
manding regiments are usually the same, or else, knowing 
them not to be the same, we should understand the words as 
expressive of two distinct classes : and what is the alternative ? 
If they be the same, the rule is strictly observed: if notoriously 
they are distinct, the rule, indeed, is violated, but in such a 
manner that no ambiguity can ensue ; for though 01 Xo^ayot 
would have been more accurate, our previous knowledge on 
the subject prevents the possibility of mistake. So in the 
passage from Herodotus our observation having taught us that 
the afjLop(l)OL are not usually 'ifjnrripoif and vice versa, we are 
not liable to understand these epithets of the same individuals, 
any more than if the second of them had the Article prefixed. 
It is obvious that in the Singular Number confusion might 
arise: that one person should be a/xop^oc and £/z7rr?poc has 
nothing in it remarkable : and, consequently, if the second 
Article be omitted, the principle of the general rule will pre- 
vail. 'O ttjuop^oc KoX enir-npog would inevitably be understood 
of the same individual ^ 

^ I have noticed one passage, which, as it presents a difficulty, it would be 
disingenuous to suppress. Herod, ed. Steph. lib. iv. p. 154. has these words: 
Tutv 7ra\\aKiu)V re fiiijv aTroTrvi^avTsQ Ocltttovgi, Kai tov oivoxoov, Kal fidyeipoVf 
Kai iTTTTOJco/ioJ/, Kttl ditjKovov, Kul ayye\ir](p6pov, Kai 'iTnrovg, Kal, k. t. X. Not 
having Wesseling at hand, I cannot ascertain whether this be the reading of the 
MSS. It is impossible, however, that all these various offices should have been 
united in the same person ; and this obvious impossibility may be the reason, that 
the writer has expressed himself so negligently. I once thought that jxdyeipov, 
iTnTOKofiov, &c. might signify one of every kind : but then we should expect eva 
tS)v fiaytipcjv, as in fiiriv TtiSv TraXXaciwv. I do not recollect any similar ex- 

It has subsequently occurred to me, that the several Nouns, fidysipov, ittito- 
KSfiov, &c. may be anarthrous by Part I. Chap. vi. § 2 *. 

• In the conclusion of his note, the learned Author refers the example in 
question to the case of Enumeration : it may, however, be reduced under the 
class of examples in which the Article has the force of the Possessive Pronoun. 
Taking tov oIvox^^^ ^s equivalent to tov oivoxoov avrov, we should not have 
expected avrov, if expressed with the first Substantive, to be repeated with all or 


Nor is this reasoning entirely hypothetical ; since we find in 
very many instances, not only in the Plural, but even in the 
Singular Number, that where Attributives are in their nature 
absolutely incompatihle , which is not the case in afiopcpoL koX 
ijunrrjpoi, i. e. where the application of the rule would involve a 
contradiction in terms, there the first Attributive only has the 
Article, the perspicuity of the passage not requiring the rule to 
be accurately observed ^ In the following examples, the se- 
cond Attributive cannot be understood of the persons or things 
referred to in the first. 

* Mr. Winstanley has collected a list of five exceptions to the rule, of which 
four are comprised by this remark of Bp. Middleton. 

1. The case of national appellations. 

2. When one of the nouns is a plural. 

3. When one is impersonal, as tov iTriffKOirov Kal 7rpt(T(BvTspiov. 

4. When the signification renders farther personal distinction unnecessary, as 
6 aya9b(; nai kukoq. 

The other is when one is a proper name, and on this Mr. W. brings two in- 
stances from Ignatius: (1.) tov 9sov — Kai'Irfffov Xpiorou, and (2.) rov Trarpoc, 
Kal 'irftTov XpiffTov. He thus tries to defeat the effect of Mr. Sharp's rule, in 
one case, by a side blow. But these instances are not in point. That a Proper 
Name often drops the Article contrary to rule, as tov dvSpd Mapiag, (Matt. i. 
16,) we know ; but the question is, supposing Xpiorof to be a mere proper name 
(as Mr. W. says), to stand first, and have the Article, whether a word following, 
joined to it by the Copulative, and 7iot having the Article, can be understood of a 
different person. This, at least, is one question to which Mr. W.'s cases do not 
apply. It remains afterwards for consideration, whether 6 Xpiorog can be con- 
sidered entirely as a Proper Name. H. J. R. 

any of the subsequent ones : and on a similar principle we may dispense with the 
repetition of the Article. 

Having made this remark, however, I think it right to add, that I do not con- 
sider it necessary to the character of the Author, and the soundness of his hy- 
pothesis, that every single example should be clearly reducible to one or other of 
his rules. Those rules are grounded on the general practice of the best Greek 
authors ; and if in their writings a very few cases be found which seem at first 
to be inconsistent with them, these may be left as matter of further investigation, 
or may be considered as unusual forms of expression, which the best writers are 
not always careful to avoid: at any rate, they must be much more numerous than 
at present they appear to be, and we must be very certain that they admit of no 
consistent solution, before we allow them to have much weight against the mass 
of evidence adduced on the other side. J. S. 

F ii 



Thucyd. lib. i. in init. rov TroXtfxov rwv IIEAOIIONNH- 

Ibid. i. § 10. Tcig (scil. vavg) MEFISTAS ical 'EAAXIS- 

Isocr. Paneg. § 42. tmv fivOoyv rolg TPGIKOIS Koi OEF- 

Demosth. c. Lept. vol. i. p. 476. roTc eA2I0IS koL BY- 
ZANTIOIS iyga<l>ri. 

Xen. CEcon. p. 481. roue TPArOtAOYS re icai KGMQt- 
A0T2 \ 

We frequently find the same thing happening in Singular 
Attributives ; but it is only in those which cannot be predi- 
cated of the same subject, vnthout the most evident and direct 


Aristot. Eth. ad Eudem. lib. i. c. 8. Iv ocroig virapx^t to 

^ So Dion. Hal. iv. p. 2246, 9. tolq avriov yvvaiKac Kai Qvyarspag. Pro- 
fessor Dobree (Advers. p. 116.) has given several examples of plurals from Thu- 
cydides, as i. 26. 45. tovq ts oiKrjropag Kai tppovpovg' ii. 50. med. to. opvea Kai 
TeTpaTToSa- iv. 11. rovg TpitjpapxovQ Kai Kv(3epvr]Tag' from Aristophanes, as Ran. 
784. Eq. 320. Eccl. 198. 699. 8. Pac. 555. Plut. 89. (though the last, and fourth 
and fifth, he marks as doubtful) ; from Plato, as Gorg. 498. C. — 176. 12. Heind. oi 
dyaOoi re Kai KaKoi, where, too, as Professor Scholefield observes, Bekker reads, 
01 KaKoi. Alcib. i. p. 117- A.— 22. Stallb. Trtpi twv diKai(t)V Kai ddiKiov Kai KaXdv 
Kai aiVxptJv Kai KaKuiv Kai dyaOutv, Kai avfi<j)ep6vTii)v Kai /*?). H. J. R. 
2 Thuc. V. 47. Tip fikv OTrXiry Kai ;//iXy Kai ro^ory. 

Soph. El. 265. \a^HV 0' bfioiiog Kai to TTjTaaOai. 

Thuc. ii. 49. to re ttXsov Kai ekaaaov ttotov. 
Mr. VVinstanley has collected many instances from Aristotles Ethics, in p. I7. 
6 kyKpaT'qg Kai uKpaTrjg. — 6 dyaObg Kai KaKog. And to this class belong others 
which he adduces as exceptions to Mr. S.s rule (p. 40.) Tolg aipsTspolg rsKvoig 
Kai (piXoig. Arist. tov ^tXTiovog dei Kai fiopiov Kai dvOpojirov. Professor Do- 
bree (ubi supra) quotes the two places of Thucydides above, and iv. 63. tov fv 
Kai KaKuig Spujvra, and Plat. Phaed. 75. C.=31, Antep. Wytt. tov dyaOov Kai 
SiKaiov Kai ooiov. But it is only due to that great scholar to observe, that Mr. 
Kidd mentions, from remembrance of a conversation, that he had afterwards 
withdrawn the instance from Thucydides, to ti irXtov Kai IXaaaoVj and also one 
from Plato Gorg. p. 259. D.=43. 13. Heindorf Kai to alaxpov Kai to kuXov Kai 
dyaQbv Kai KaKov, which, in truth, hardly seems to afford an instance of excep- 
tion. Professor Dobree notices also the example from the Gorgias wliich Bishop 


Aristot. de Interp. cap. V2, Trtpt rov 'AAYNATOY rt kcu 

Plato, Theaet. vol ii. p. 134. lULeraKv rov nOIOYNTOS re 

Ibid. p. 142. rb TAYTON koL 'ETEPON. 

Idem, Gorg. vol. iv. p. 32. rov 'APTIOY koI DEPITTOY, 

The Attributives here coupled together are in their nature 
plainly incompatible ; and v/e cannot wonder, if, in such in- 
stances, the principle of the rule has been sacrificed to negli- 
gence, or even to studied brevity, where misconception was 
impossible. The second Article should, in strictness, have 
been expressed: but) in such cases the -writers knew that it 
might safely be understood. 

Ha\ing thus investigated the canon, and having explained 
the ground of its limitations and exceptions, I may be per- 
mitted to add, that Mr. Sharp's application of it to the New 
Testament, is in strict conformity with the usage of Greek 
writers, and with the Syntax of the Greek Tongue ; and that 
few of the passages which he has corrected in our common 
version, can be defended without doing violence to the obvious 
and undisputed meaning of the plainest sentences which pro- 
fane writers supply. If, for example, Eph. v. 5, we are with 
our common version to translate Iv ry j5a(n\dq. TOY XpLarov 
KAI Gfou, " in the kingdom of Christ and of God ;" or Tit. ii. 
13. TOY fleyaXov Qeov KAI Swr^poc iijLtwv 'It](to{» XpicrroVf 
" of the Great God and (of) our Saviour Jesus Christ," we 

M. cites last, and again, Gorg. 488. C. 7- — 140. Antep. Heind. wg to Kpilrrov 
Koi iffx^porepov Kai (SsXtiov ravrbv ov, which is an excellent example. It ought 
to be added, that, except for Mr. Kidds observation, there would be no reason to 
suppose that Professor Dobree cited these examples as exceptions to Mr. Sharps 
rule. He makes no remark on the rule, either in its favour or against it. He 
had observed these examples in the course of his reading, and noted them as 
bearing on the matter. H. J. R. 

^ To these may be added two of Mr. Winstanleys favourite instances (p. 20 
and 21). Clement of Alexandria, (p. 76. ed. Sylburg. Paris, 1641), speaking of 
the relation of a pious Christian to God, says, yivirai to. navTa tov dvOpciTrov, ore 
TO. iravTa tov Qiov' Kai Koiva dfi(j>olv toXv (j)i\oiv to, TrdvTa, tov Otov Kai dvOpio- 
■Kov. No confusion could arise from such an omission of the Article, just as in 
the cases above cited. And the same remark applies to the next instance from 
Proverbs xxiv. 21. 

^o^ov tov 9eoV, uU, Kai /3rt<rt\la. H, J. R. 

70 APPELLATIVES. [chap. 

must in consistency translate also from Plutarch *, " Roscius 
the son, and another person heir to the deceased ;" though a 
Singular Verb follows : from Demosthenes, " the adviser and I 
an orator :" and so on in an endless series of absurdities : for 
0£oc, (T(i)Tr)Q, &c., the Nouns in question, are as truly what I 
have denominated Attributive Nouns, as any which can be 
found ; and they are so far from being in their nature incom- 
patible , that some of them are even of kindred import. We 
are, therefore, in the instances from the New Testament, 
to complete the elhpsis according to the principles already 
estabHshed ; viz. tov {ovtoq) XpicrTov kuX Qeov, of him being, 
or who is, &;c. tov {ovrog) fieyaXov Qaov koX Swr»7/ooc rifJ^<*>v' 
and so in most of the disputed texts : why I do not affirm in 
all of them, wiU appear hereafter. That the Fathers under- 
stood such passages in the manner in which Mr. Sharp would 
translate them, and as, without doubt, they will be translated 
at some future period, has been fully ascertained by the re- 
searches of Mr. Wordsworth : and whatever may be thought 
of the Fathers in some other respects, it may surely be pre- 
sumed that they knew the use of one of the commonest forms 
of expression in their native tongue. But more of this in the 
Second Part. 

^ See above, p. 58. 




Though much has been said respecting the insertions and 
omissions of the Article, it will have been perceived, and, 
indeed, it was hinted, that Proper Names, and the Names of 
Abstract Ideas , are not always subject to these general laws. 
The case of Proper Names shall be first considered. 

On what occasions the Greeks prefixed the Article to Pro- 
per Names, is among the most curious inquiries connected 
with Greek literature : the observations which I have been 
able to make on this subject, if they do not present an un- 
deviating uniformity of practice, at least bear evidence to the 
truth of the principles, on which the doctrine of this Essay is 

Apollonins has said that " Proper Names, on account of 
their inherent peculiarity, require not the Article so much as 
do Nouns, which express only common ideas ^ :" and, indeed, if 
they had originally taken the Article to define and limit their 
meaning, it might well be urged, that they needed not such 
assistance. Harris appears to have felt the force of this objec- 
tion ; which could not but occur to him, since he supposes the 
Article to be something distinct from the Pronoun, and that 
its use is only to define, " Upon these principles," (says 
Harris ^) "we see the reason why it is absurd to say 6 eyw, 6 
<rv, because nothing can make these Pronouns more definite 
than they are ^ : the same may be asserted of Proper Names ,• 
and though the Greeks say 6 SwKparrjCj i? iSiavOiinrri, and the 

* Td Kvpia did rrfv ev avToXg idionjra ovx ovTutg TrpoadeXrai rov ap^pov, 
Ka^direp to. koivi^v tvvoiav txovra. P. 75. 

2 Hermes, p. 225. 

3 The reason why such expressions do not occur, is rather because 6 is a Pro- 
noun of the third person, and of course cannot have a Predicate either of t\ie first 
or second, without manifest contradiction. lie cannot be / nor you. 

72 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

like, yet the Article is a mere pleonasm, unless perhaps it 
serve to distinguish sexes, ^^ This conjecture, to which, how- 
ever, the writer was driven by his notion that the Article is 
naturally a definitive, is surely altogether unfounded \ Gene- 
rally speaking, the termination of names in the Greek lan- 
guage clearly marks the Gender : or if this were insufficient, 
and to remedy the defect the Article were required, it would 
be prefixed, if not always to each name, at least to each on its 
first occurrence ; the very contrary of which, as we shall see 
hereafter, is the prevailing usage. But to understand how 
the Article came to be associated so frequently with Proper 
Names, we shall do well to go back as far as we can, to the 
origin of the practice, by attending to what is observable in 
Homer, This inquiry has, indeed, been in part anticipated : 
we are now to enter into it more particularly. 

That there is no essential difierence between the Pronoun 6 
of Plomer and the Article 6 of later writers has, I think, been 
abundantly demonstrated : I shall, therefore, consider them as 
being one and the same thing. Now it is a common practice 
with Homer, when he has occasion to attribute any act to his 
gods or heroes, to defer the mention of their names to the con- 
clusion of the sentence, and first to ascribe such act to persons 
obscurely referred to in the corresponding Article placed at the 
beginning. Thus Iliad, A. 488. 

^ It reminds us of the scene in Aristophanes, Nub. 677. 

iiT en ye irepi TtSv 'ONOMATQN fiaOelv ae Self 
iiTT 'APPEN' kffTiv, arra d' avruiv 9HAEA. 

aW els' lywy', & SrrjXe' eaTiv. 


e'nrk lif. 

AucrtWa, $iXirva, KXcirayopa, Arfntirpia. 

dppiva Sk iroia nSv dvofidruv ; 


*i\6$€i/og, Mi\rj(Tia£, 'AfivviaQ. 


Aurap 'O {iuLr]vts vrjva). iraprnuievog wKviropoKTi) 
AioytviiQ IlY}\i(i)g vlog iro^ag cjkvq 'A^tXXeuc* 

E. 759. 01 g^ (?K»,Xot 

TipTTOvrai) JLvwpig re kol apyvporo^og 'AttoXXwv *. 

A. 20, AI 3' {l-rriiivlav) 'Mnvain re KaX "Hprj. 

If the reader would see more examples he may tm*n to 

B. 402. r. 81. 118. E. 17. 449. 508. 655. &c. In all these it 
is observable that the writer is in no haste to declare the name 
of the person, whom he has in view, but that his mind is intent 
rather on the act to be attributed to him, of whom the Article 
at the beginning of the sentence is the temporary representa- 
tive. It is the sullen anger of Achilles, the secret delight of 
Venus and Apollo, and the stifled murmurs of Minerva and 
Juno, which the speaker, having pronounced the Article by 
which these persons are obscurely designated, is most eager to 
notice. Their names, indeed, in many cases scarcely need to 
be added : the acts attributed and the context of the narration 
leave little doubt respecting the persons meant. Those, how- 
ever, of whom we are about to ajffirm or deny an action, are of 
necessity uppermost in our minds : and, therefore, however the 
speaker may defer the explanation, which a strict regard to 
perspicmty may in the end require, it is highly natural at the 
outset of the proposition to employ some symbol significant of 
the person, about whom the thoughts are occupied: accord- 
ingly, I have remarked that in all such instances the Article is 
placed at the beginning of the sentence, or as nearly so as the 
circumstances will allow. 

Such examples seem to illustrate the origin of the practice 
in question : but let us try, whether Homer's writings will not 
assist us in tracing it downwards nearer to the usage of suc- 
ceeding writers. In the class of instances adduced above, 
some act is attributed to the person signified by the Article, 
before the name is announced : but examples occur, in which 
the Article and the Proper Name are brought nearer to each 

' In this example the Article, which refers to Kt/Trpi^ and 'AttoXXwv, is in the 
worthier Gender ; and tlie meaning is 'H YLvitqiq Kai 'O ' AttoWwv, as is plain from 
the instance suhjoined, where a'l is equivalent to 'H Kai "H. 

74 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

other, being separated only by some word of inferior import : 
thus, Iliad, B. 105, 6, 7. 

Avrap 'O (avTe) IIcXo;// dioK 'Arpii, Troi/jLivi Xaiov' 
. 'Arpcu^ §£ 9vri<TKiov cXtTre iroXvapvL Qviary' 
Avrap 'O {avre) Qviar ^ Ay ajmifivovi Xelin (jiOptivai. 

In these instances we find the writer using the Article with 
less appearance of utility than in the former examples ; be- 
cause here we have merely a Particle *, by which the mind is 
kept in little or no suspense: and, unquestionably, if he had 
written simply Ili\o\pf as in the next line he has written 
'Arp£vc, the sense would have been sufficiently clear, though 
that the Pelops here spoken of was the same with the one just 
mentioned, would not have been marked with equal distinct- 
ness. Or if the Pronoun be employed, the Proper Name 
might be more safely omitted than in most of the preceding 
examples, since 6 would be supposed to refer to DeXoTrt in the 
foregoing verse, and the addition of the name is an exercise 
of that extreme caution, instances of which have bieen 
already noticed. Here, therefore, we are getting nearer to 
the usage of succeeding times. But it may be asked, does 
Homer ever place the Article immediately before a Proper 
Name ; and in this case, what are the circumstances ? On the 
celebrated passage, II. A. 11. ovvsKa TON Xpvarjv r\Tiixr\a 
aprjrrjpa, Heyne ^, after observing that the Article, especially 
as prefixed to Proper Names, was confessedly unknown to 
Homer, and after giving some conjectural emendations of pre- 
ceding critics, concludes, " nihil expediri potest :" whilst JFolf^ 
declares, " nihil dubito quin rbv Xpuo-rjv Poeta dixerit, ut per- 
sonam famci celebrem et auditoribus jam turn, quum primum 
ejus nomen audirent, notissimam.'' It is certainly a difficulty, 

1 Valckender ad Phoenissas, v. 147. has said that the Tragic Poets never prefix 
the Article to Proper Names ; but Professor Parson, with that nice discrimination 
to which Greek literature is so deeply indebted, corrects the assertion of Valcke- 
naer : his words are " rard, nisi propter emphasin quandam, aut initio sententiee, 
ttbi particula inseritur.^' In the two instances, which he adduces in proof of the 
last mentioned usage, Thebes and Jrgos strongly interest the feelings of the re- 
spective speakers. See Eurip. Phoen. 522. and Suppl. 129. 

3 Horn. 11. vol. iv. p. 13. 

3 Ad Reizium dc Prosod. Gr. p. 'Ji. 


that Chryses is now for the first time mentioned ; but whether 
this difficulty be so great, that we must introduce ^rj or rot * 
into the place of rov without any authority from Editt. or 
MSS., deserves, not merely for the sake of this passage, to be 
carefully considered. Between prefixing the Article to the 
name of a person then first mentioned, and making it the tem- 
porary representative of one, who, though already mentioned, 
has not been spoken of for some time past, the difierence appears 
not to be great ; and yet of the latter usage unquestionable 
instances abound. In II. N. 765, 6. we have 

TON Ss To-x evpe }xa-)(i]g £7r' agiaTiga daKpvoE(T(jr}g 
Aiov ^AXi^avdpov' 

where, till 'AXt^avSpov is p]*onounced, the hearer can form no 
tolerable conjecture who is the person meant: for the last 
mention of Paris is in v. 660, and even there no circumstance 
is alluded to, which could in this place assist the hearer's 
apprehension. That tov has reference to Xpvarjv, might as 
easily be inferred in the one case, as that it related to 'AXc ?av- 
dpov in the other : in neither, however, would such an infer- 
ence be drawn. It is plain, therefore, that we are to consider 
what passes in the mind of the speaker ; and the hearer is to 
be satisfied, if, when the sentence is completed, he can then 
account for the introduction of the Article, however obscure 
till then its reference might be. Now we have seen that in the 
eagerness to attribute an act, it is not imusual to employ a 
symbol of the person intended, and to defer the actual mention 
of his name: but if the person, though not hitherto men- 
tioned, be already well known, and therefore of easy recogni- 
tion, it seems scarcely less allowable that the speaker should 
first allude to him, even though the allusion may require to be 
explained immediately afterwards: it is as if the speaker 
should say, " you know whom I mean ;" not, indeed, that we 
do or can know so much with certainty, till the name has been 
declared; but that we shall then perceive the reason of the 
anticipation. In the case before us, the speaker felt that 
Chryses was known by all who had heard of the pestilence just 

* See Heyne ad loc. If conjecture were the only resource, I should prefer 
TOV depending on dpt)Ti)pa, to any of the emendations proposed. 


76 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

described, to have been the author of it; and though it be 
necessary to mention his name, yet the circumstance of his 
notoriety might at the same time be noticed. That Homer 
has a method of marking the notoriety of facts which, how- 
ever, require to be mentioned, is known to all who have at- 
tended to the uses of the Particle pa. In such passages as II. 
B. 76, 77. 

TolffL 8' avi(JTr] 
NeoTWp, OQ 'PA IluXoto ava^ Ifiv rijULaOoevTog, 

and B. 36. 

Ta (ppoviovT ava Ovfxov, a 'P' ov reXkaOaL ifieXXev, 

it is evident that this expletive, as some hastily denominate it, 
has the force of the words, as is well known, or as the reader is 
aivare ; and in the disputed passage, had the reading been 
ovv^Ka 'PA X^v(jr]v, &c., the Particle would have required to 
be so explained, and conjecture would not have been at- 
tempted: with the Article, as the verse now stands, the only 
difference seems to be, that the notoriety of the person princi- 
pally concerned, and not of the fact with which he is con- 
cerned, is the subject of indirect notice. At the same time, 
the act and the actor are so closely connected, that of which- 
ever of the two the recognition is presupposed, the result will 
be much the same. 

I am incKned, then, to regard this as an instance in which 
Homer has placed the Article immediately before a Proper 
Name, and that too of a person who had not hitherto been 
mentioned : and the solution given by Wolf will be the true 
one, if understood with some modifications. That Homer 
meant to intimate that Chryses was well known, is of itself 
too vague an assertion : Chryses was not, independently of the 
circumstances which precede the mention of his name, better 
known than most of the persons spoken of in the poem : but 
as having caused the pestilence just mentioned, he must have 
occupied the thoughts of the speaker, and his notoriety in that 
particular view the hearer would readily recognize. There is 
another passage, 9. 532, which in some measure confirms this 
reasoning. In his address to tlie Trojans, Hector says, Eto-o- 
/Ltat atK£ II 'O Tu8£tS»?c, &t^« Though Diomede had frequently 


been mentioned in the course of the poem, his name now 
occurs for the first time in the speech, which is the thing to be 
considered : and the force of the Article seems to be explicable, 
not so much on the ground that Diomede was a well-known 
personage, as that he was well known in the character of the 
antagonist of Hector: it was, therefore, not unnatural that 
Hector should, when speaking of an approaching battle, have 
the idea of Diomede uppermost in his mind ; and the hearers, 
though they could not previously conjecture to whom the 
Article would refer, would afterwards, connecting it with the 
Proper Name, perceive its force and propriety. 'O Tv^ci^rjc 
occurs again, A. 659, where the presence of the Article may be 
accounted for in a similar manner. 

On the whole, I am disposed to think that the practice of 
introducing Proper Names by means of the Article, merely on 
the ground of notoriety, was of later date than the period 
under review: else we should have found in the Iliad many 
and unquestionable examples of this usage, since the heroes 
of Homer were all of them traditional personages, whose names 
and exploits must have been familiarly known to his readers 
from their earliest childhood. 

From this examination, then, of the usage in Homer, we 
may at least deduce the origin of the practice of placing the 
Article before Proper Names, though it does not furnish us 
with any thing like a general rule on the subject. Nothing can 
be more certain than that the Article, so far from ever being 
intended to define the name, as most writers take for granted, 
is rather defined hy the Name. All the perplexity, in which 
the question has been enveloped, has arisen from not consider- 
ing that the Article is a genuine Pronoun ; and that Pronouns 
of the third person, being applicable to a multitude of indivi- 
duals, frequently require the speaker, if he would avoid ambi- 
guity, to add the Name of the individual meant. In the first 
and second persons no such obscurity can exist ; but in passing 
to the third we sometimes experience, even in our own lan- 
guage, a species of difficulty analogous to that, which, if I mis- 
take not, first occasioned (not the Article to be placed before 
the Proper Name, but) the Proper Name to be added to the 
Article. In writing a letter I speak of myself in the first 
person, and address my correspondent in the second : here no 

78 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

ambiguity can occur : but in the very same letter let every / 
and you be turned into he, by some person, who narrates the 
contents : or, to quit hypothesis, let any one turn to a news- 
paper containing Parliamentary Debates; in the report of 
speeches he will meet vnth He (Mr. A.), Him (Mr. B.) con- 
tinually. Every such instance illustrates the practice in ques- 
tion. In both cases we first obscurely intimate the person 
whom we have in mind, and declare his name afterwards, in 
order to prevent mistake. 

It is, however, admitted, that Homer's writings do not 
enable us to lay down rules, by which we can know uni- 
versally, when the Articles should be inserted or omitted 
before Proper Names. Nor can this create surprise. It is of 
the character and essence of poetry to disregard minute rela- 
tions and dependencies ; and in proportion as it departs from 
the style of narration and indulges in lofty flights, it is negli- 
gent of perspicuity : for which reason, in Pindar and in the 
Chorusses of the Tragedians, the Article more rarely occurs \ 
Homer's style, it is true, is less artificial, and approaches 
nearer to the narrative kind ; but even in Homer it was not to 
be expected that the Article should be regularly employed on 
every occasion, in which writers of prose would deem it neces- 
sary. To omit the Article, where in strictness it should be 
inserted, is an admissible poetic licence ^ : to insert it, where it 
should be omitted, is not so ; the reason of which is plain : in 
the one case perspicuity is not promoted so far as it might be ; 
but in the other the reader is positively misled : the difierence 
is that of withholding information, which would be true, and 
of giving that which is false. It will happen, therefore, that 
though Homer never uses the Article before a Proper Name 
without reason, he commonly omits it without scruple : and, 
consequently, the instances, in which it immediately precedes 
the name, being so very few, nothing like a ride on the subject 
can be deducible from his practice. 

It might seem, then, that we should look to the prose 

^ HeynCf I recollect, has remarked this of Pindar : and Porson ad Medeam, 
V. 984. says, " Articulos vitandos in choricis ceriseo.'" 

2 ApoUonius (p. 79-) observes, that the very first vvord of the Iliad would in a 
Prose writer have taken the Article; which is, probably, true. 


writers, if we would detect the laws by which the Article, as 
it respects Proper Names, is inserted or omitted; since in 
general their style is not of the elevated kind, which disdains 
minutiae, nor were they subject to the restraint, which metre 
in some degree imposes on the poet. If, indeed, we could be 
certain that the copies, which we possess, of Xenophon and 
Demosthenes w^ere absolutely correct, and that in no instances 
had Articles been added or omitted through the carelessness 
of transcribers or the ignorance of editors and critics, to the 
prose writers alone we should at once appeal for the decision 
of the question : but this is by no means the case. On con- 
sulting different MSS. of the same Greek prose writer, we find 
on this very subject of the Article, especially where Proper 
Names and the Names of Attributes occur, more disagreement 
than on any other point whatever. Exactly in proportion as 
the writer of prose is free from restraint, so also is his tran- 
scriber and editor: and where the principle had been little 
examined, or at least where no principle had been generally 
admitted, it was to be expected that critics would sometimes 
venture on readings, the legitimacy of which it was not easy to 
controvert. It is even supposed, that the Article was not un- 
frequently written over Proper names by the teachers of Greek, 
in order to assist the learner, and thus improperly gained ad- 
mittance into the text \ On the whole, therefore, though the 
usage of the prose vnriters be ultimately the object of our in- 
quiry, we cannot with safety consult them on this head, unless 
we carry with us some previous knowledge on the subject. 
The writer, then, from whom such knowledge will be best 
obtained, will be, if such exist, one who having written in 
verse is little exposed to wanton interpolations, and whose 
style and matter are at the same time Httle or not at all re- 

* FalcJcenaer ad Phcen. v. 147. has said, that this sometimes has happened 
even to the poets. " Articulus scilicet a poetis neglectus, ubi videbatur in usu 
communi requiri, versibus poetarum in puerornm commodum a Hteratoribus 
superscribi solebat, atque hinc saepenumero sedem non suam occupat." And 
Rudolph (Comm. Soc. Phil. Lips. vol. iv. Part I. p. 80.) remarks, '* Homerum 
certe sexcentis Articulis auctiorem haberemus, nisi metrum obstitisset, q^uomi- 
nus in textum reciperetur, ubi Grammatici eum addendum in scholiis putarunt: 
ac in ipso Platone tanta est etiam in Articulis addendis inconstantia ac passim in 
omittendis constantia, ut saepius mihi a Grammaticis additus quam a Librariis 
omissus vidcatur." 

80 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

moved from those of ordinary discourse. Just such a writer 
is Aristophanes. Except in his Chorusses, his language is 
most simple and unaffected ; whilst his metres have generally 
protected him from the critics, and his indelicacy has completely 
excluded him from schools. We may, therefore, regard Aris- 
tophanes as the author, from whom, if we learn not all which 
we want, much may be learned well. 

In this writer, then, we may observe, that the Proper 
Names of men never have the Article, except, 

1. When the same person has been recently mentioned: or 

2. When the person is from some cause or other of such 
notoriety, that even vdthout previous mention he may be re- 
cognized by the hearer. 

Of the former kind we may instance 

Lysist. 796. TOY MtXaviwvoc, and 807. TQt MtXaviwyf 
this person had been spoken of, v. 785. riv vmviaKOQ MeXaviwv 
Tig. — Nub. 30. ij.eTa TON Ilao-mv* he is the person, whom 
Strepsiades had mentioned, v. 21. ^ujdeKa fxvag Hao-i^. — Ibid. 
146, 147. we have TOY XaipeclxijvTog . . . TOY Swjcparouc* 
but in V. 144. we find avripsr apri XaLp£(l>ti)VTa 'EwKparrjg. — 
Av. 970. we read yvi^aO' 'O Bajctc tovto irpog tov aipa' but 
the same Bacis had, v. 962. been mentioned by the speaker. 
More examples might easily be found. 

Under the second head, i. e. of Names not hitherto men- 
tioned, we may produce Acharn. 10. and Av. 807. Kara TON 
Al(TxvXov.—Ay. 910. Karci TON "0/x»?^oy.— Nub. 1188. ^O 
SoXwv.— Ibid. 1055. TON Nldro^oa.— These must imme- 
diately be recognized from their pre-eminence. But we find 
also very many examples, in which the notoriety is that pro- 
ceeding from vice or folly. In this case we may observe that 
Aristophanes uses the Article more constantly than he does 
in the former; thus presuming of those, whom he would 
satirize, that they are already objects of general indignation. 
In the Plutus, 174, 175. we have the first mention of Pamphi- 
lus and Belonopoles : 

*0 IlajU^iXoc S' ov-)(i, K. T. X. 

'O BcXovoTTOjXrjc, K. T. X. the one a peculator and the other 
his parasite. — So also Av. 513. TON AvaiKparr}, a corrupt 
General. — Ibid. 168. 'O TaXiag, who, as the Scholiast informs 
us, was a common subject of ridicule. — Ranoe, 422. TON 


KXeiaOivri, well known on account of his effeminacy. — We find 
also, Acharn. 243. 'O SavBiag, recognized by the hearers as 
the servant employed for the purpose in question. — These, so 
far as I recollect, are the only occasions, on which the Names 
of Me7i have the Article prefixed by Aristophanes, unless in- 
deed when the person is called to, in which use the Article is 
not confined to Proper Names ; as 

Ranae, 608. '0 AtruXac, X'Q SKEjSX^at', X'a napSoJcac, 
XoipfTre ^^vqI. 

Ibid. 521. 'O Tratc clkoXovQu Sfupo. 
or when not the person himself is meant, but the Drama, 
which is named from him : as, Ran. 863. 

TON Ur{kia re koI TON MoXov 

KaX TON MsXiaypov, Kan juaXa TON T?)X€^ov. 
All these are plays of Euripides ; and in such instances the 
Article is never omitted. 

The names of Deities and Heroes have also very frequently 
the Article prefixed: thus. Ran. 671. 'H Iltpaei^arra. — Ibid. 
1045. THS 'A0po3ir)jc.— Plut. 727. TGt nXovrwvd.— Nub. 
1067. THN ehtv . . . . 'O nrjXei^c.— Ibid. 257. TON 
^AOajnavO'. — After fia and vri, the name of the deity or person 
invoked takes the Article, as. Ran. 42. ima THN ArjiuLr^Tpa. — • 
Ibid. 51. vri TON 'AttoXXw.— Ibid. 183. vri TON noaagw.— 
Vesp. 1438. vaX TAN Kopav.— Acharn. 867. vat TON ToXaov. 
—Nub. 814. fia THN 'O^t'x^rjv.— And Av. 521. we have "O^- 
vv(nv TON x^^^' — ^^^' 1374. we .find the Article even where 
the name is suppressed, jma TON eyuj, &c. The only excep- 
tion, which I have noticed, is in the name of Jupiter. It 
might have been expected, that in swearing by the chief of 
the Gods more than usual solemnity would have been ob- 
served: the frequent and colloquial use of this oath seems, 
however, to have rendered it less solemn than the others ; and 
we find Tov Aia and Aia indiscriminately. Thus, Ran. 305. 

AIONYS. Karofioaov. 

jSANO. v^ TOV Aia, 
AIONYS. KUvBig Karojuotrov. 

/EJANO. vri AC, 

AIONYS. ofio(Tov, 
^ANO. vi) Ala. 


S2 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

Lastly, the Proper Names of Places^ whether countries, 
cities, mountains, &c. commonly, but not always, take the 
Article, as Acharn. QoS. THN A'/ytvav.— Av. 710. k THN 
Afj3ur]v.— Ibid. 191. TON A£7rp£ov.— Nub. 72. Iq TOY <^A- 
Xe'wc— Ibid. 193. TON T^prapov.— Ibid. 320. tt^oc THN 
llaQvr\B\ Sec, In all these instances, and many more which the 
reader may collect, the Article is found prefixed to a name, of 
which there had been no previous mention \ 

* Winer observes, that in the New Testament the names of countries and 
rivers are seldom without the Article, (except AlyvirTog, and sometimes MaK£- 
dovLt,) those of cities occasionally. But he says afterwards, that these latter want 
it usually when following Prepositions. I find that*E0£(rof has the Article when 
not following a Preposition, (viz. Acts xix. 17; xx. 16.) except in Acts xix. 26. 
and there some MSS. insert 'iiog. So AdixacKog, Acts ix. 3 ; xxii. 6. has the 
Article. In every other case it follows a Preposition ; and although Winer may 
refer the Article to renewed mention in both these cases, yet he has then no in- 
stance to rely on. 'lepoffoXvfjLa occurs only thrice, except after a Preposition. In 
Matt. ii. 3. (on which see Bishop Middleton) and iii. 5. there is doubt as to the 
reading; and in iv. 25. the omission is to be referred to enumeration. In 
St. John it has the Article thrice after the Preposition, v. 2. (which may be called 
renewed mention) ; x. 22 ; xi. 13. With 'lepovaaXrjfi * we find the Article 
omitted from enumeration in Luke v. 17- and vi. 17; from its being in regimen 
in Luke xxiii. 28. The Article is omitted without cause in Luke xxi. 24. and 
thrice after KaroiKsio in Acts i. 19; ii. 14; iv. 16; again, Acts xxi. 31. (See 
Bishop Middleton on Matt. ii. 3.) Twice the word occurs in the Vocative, viz. 
Matt, xxiii. 3. 7. Luke xiii. 34. In Luke xxi. 20. Acts v. 28. Heb. xii. 22. 
Rev. iii. 12; xxi. 2. 10. it has the Article. In every other case it follows a Pre- 
position. KaTrepvaovjx never occurs but after a Preposition, except twice in the 
Vocative. Tdpffog never, except after a Preposition. ' Avtiox^i-ci never, except 
after a Preposition. One of the cases is remarkable, viz. Acts xiv. 21. eig rr/v 
Avarpav, Kai 'Ikoviov, Kal 'Avriox^iav, which reminds us of rov 'AXe^avdpov Kai 
^iXiTrTrov. See p. 83 above. These are the places mentioned by Winer ; and 
this examination will show how far his remark is true. He observes, finally, that 
when a place has once been mentioned, (and without the Article,) on its reriewed 
mention the Article is added. Thus ewg 'AOrjvuJv, in Acts xvii. 15; then 
xvii. 16. and xviii. 1. with Article; tig Bspoiav, Acts xvii. 10; with Article in 
verse 13 ; eig MaKsdoviav, Acts xvi. 9 ; and then six times with the Article, 
(which is, however, omitted in xx. 3.); dgMiXriTov, Acts xx. 15. and with Article 
in verse 17. — H. J. R. 

* I might have noticed this word (in commenting on Schleiermachers theory) 
as another peculiarity in St. Luke. It occurs only once in St. Matthew and St. 
Mark, not at all in St. John ; twenty-seven times in St. Luke, (of which five are in 
chapter ii.) ; forty -one times in the Acts ; seven or eight times in St. Paul ; three 
times in Revelations, and no where else. — H. J. R. 


It is obvious that the Proper Names of deities, &c. and of 
places, have the Article, on the ground of notoriety ; and this 
case is similar to that of the names of pre-eminent men, such 
as Horner^ JEschylus, &c. : consequently, there are but two 
occasions, on which, if we may rely on Aristophanes, who 
wrote in the best asra of the language, Proper Names of any 
kind can have the Article prefixed: indeed, even these two 
are in strictness reducible to one, the only difference lying in 
the origin of the notoriety, which is common to both. In the 
one case it is the result of previous mention, whilst in the 
other such mention is superfluous. 

Ha\'ing thus considered the practice of Aristophanes, it may 
be right to turn to one or two of the writers of prose, and to 
inquire how far their usage and his correspond. Herodotus, 
on various accounts, deserves at least a brief notice. Without 
ha\'ing examined the whole of his work with a view to the 
present subject, I may be allowed to state the result of a 
careful perusal of the fourth Book, confirmed as it is by a 
cursory inspection of several other parts of his History. In 
the case oi previous and recent mention, the instances, in which 
he prefixes the Article to the Proper Names of men, are almost 
innumerable \ Thus, P. 140. Aapc/ou . . . . 'O Aapaoc- — 

P. 142. 'Ayadv^aov TeXwvov .... TON rt 

'Aya^KpcTov Koi TON Ve\it)v6v. — P. 148. SaraorTrrjc . . . . 
TOY ^aTaair^OQ. — P. 155. ^ Avaxapaig . . . . 'O ' KvaxaQ<yiQ, 
— P. 156. 'OKTaixaaa^r]v . . . . 'O 'O/crajuatraSrjC' — P« ^5Q, 
Zaiiok^Lv .... TON Za/xoX$fv, &c. &c. Sometimes he 
adds oivTog .... thus, p. 159. tov Zda/uLoX^iv tovtov. — P. 3. 
ovTog 6 KavSauXi^C* — Ibid, tovtl^ ri^ Tvyy, &c. which form 
abundantly explains the Article in aU cases of renewed men- 
tion, where the Article alone is employed. Without previous 
mention he does not, so far as I have observed, ever prefix the 
Article to the name of any person % however illustrious and 

* 1 use the Edition of H. Stephens, Paris, 1570. 

* I have, indeed, met with instances both in Herodotus and Demosthenes, 
which are exceptions from the letter, though not, I think, from the spirit of this 
remark. Thus Herod, lib. iv. p. 147- (paal St oi avToi Kai THN 'Apyiv re Kai 
THN "Qiriv, &c. — Lib. vii. p. 283. Xsyerai \6yog d>c 'AOijvaioi TON Boprjv, &c. 
— Demosth. vol. ii. p. 1050. Trportpov dyujvtg tykvovro rjiiiv . . . Trcpi row kKt]- 
pov TOY 'Ayviov.—F. 1311. rat yap d irtpl TON KXeiviav cuTiaTai. — Now all 


84 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

well known. Thus we find the names of Horner^ Hesiod, 
Pythagoras, Ajax, Jason, Cadmus, Europa, (Edipus, &c. all 
introduced without that intimation of notoriety, by which in 
after times they were generally accompanied. In this respect, 
therefore, as well as in the dialect and diction, we may observe 
some resemblance between Homer and Herodotus. — In the 
name of deities the case is somewhat different : they are often, 
but by no means so often as was afterwards the practice, first 
mentioned with the Article prefixed: thus, B. iv. p. 178. r^ 
^ABrjvairi . . . . rt^ Tpirwvi .... rcj) Hocrei^itjvi. More 
frequently, however, is it omitted. — The names of places seem 
in this writer to take the Article very much in the same man- 
ner, as in succeeding ages. The same latitude appears already 
to have been authorized ; and if there were any limitations, 
they are such that I am unable to detect them. 

From Herodotus we will pass to Demosthenes. The Oration 
against Leptines furnishes not a single instance of a Proper 
Name of a man having the Article prefixed on the Jirst mention, 
excepting those only of Solon (vol. i. p. 484.) and Draco, p. 505, 
names familiar to an Athenian audience \ Instances in which 
the Article is used, when the name is repeated, are very com- 
mon: thus, p. 466. 'O Afi^icwv.— P. 470. 'O 'ETriKipdvg.— 
P. 476. TQt ^fXiVTTtt).— P. 478. TQi K6vwvl.—T. 497. 'O 
AvKi^ag' all of whom had first been introduced without the 
Article : and the same thing is obvious in the other Orations. 
The names of deities in Demosthenes commonly have the 
Article.— Vol. i. p. 437. 'O Z^i^c-— Ibid. ^H Aid)vr).—Vol. ii. 
p. 949. THS 'A^Wc— P. 1068. THt "H^a.— P. 1313. TQi 
'HpaKXa. — P. 1369. TQii Aloviktc^. — The Proper Names of 
places, those at least of great celebrity, take or reject the Ar- 

these instances have one common character ; which is, that though the persons 
be in themselves obscure and had not previously been mentioned, yet it is evident 
from the context that they might be recognized; those spoken of by Herodotus 
being represented to have been the subjects of rumour or tradition, and those men- 
tioned by Demosthenes, either of lawsuits or of acctisation. They were, therefore, 
liable to recognition, which is all that the spirit of the rule requires. — With respect 
to 'O Motpta^j^g (vol. ii. p. 822.) I have no doubt that his name had occurred in 
the Testimony, which had just been read. 

* At p. 457. we find tov Xa(3piov, first mentioned ; but I take tov to be an 
ellipsis of Toi) ■jraiSog- though, if it be otherwise, there will be no difficulty, con- 
sidering how eminent was the person in question. 


tide, without any other apparent reason than the pleasure of 
the writer. National appellations, as 'AOrjvaXoif OrjjSaTot, &c. 
partake of the same uncertainty. — I need not trouble the 
reader with the particulars of my researches into other prose 
authors, the general result being the same. From all of them 
it is plain, that the Article, as applied to Proper Names, as 
well as to Appellatives, is a Pronoun of obscure reference, and 
that conjointly with its Predicate it recalls an idea, which has 
already had a place in the hearer's mind \ Its hypothetical use 
(see above, p. 39.) is evidently, by the nature of the case, ex- 

But though the Article cannot be inserted before Proper 
Names, unless they have been pre\dously mentioned, or at 
least are previously known, how happens it, that before such 
names the Ai'ticle is so frequently omitted ? In the answer to 
this question the reader will be reminded of what was said 
above respecting the almost constant omission of the Article 
in poetry, even before Appellatives in strictness requiring its 
insertion. To say 'O KaXXtac, 'O AvKwy, when Callias and 
Lycon are now for the first time heard of, would involve both 
falsehood and absurdity ; for it would amount to a declaration, 
that the hearer knows, or ought to know, whom I mean. But 
in the other case, i. e. if Lycon or Callias being already known 
be spoken of without the Article, the same inconvenience will 
not ensue : the hearer, indeed, will not be assisted so far as he 
might be, in perceiving that the same Lycon, or the well-known 
Lycon, is meant ; but he will conclude, %vith the strongest pro- 
babiUty, that no other is intended, since few individuals are 
called by that name, and still fewer to whom the particular 
circumstances will apply. The difference, therefore, between 
the two cases, is that of asserting what is false, and of neglect- 

^ Instances, indeed, will now and then occur, which appear to contradict the 
ponclusion here laid down : but where various readings have been collected, some 
one, by which the rule is supported, will generally be found ; and even where no 
such reading is preserved, unless the number of collated MSS. be very great, and 
some of them, at least, of very high authority, it is surely more reasonable to 
trust to a rule, of which the principle can be shown, and which is almost inva- 
riably observed, than implicitly to believe in the infallibility of copyists : and we 
may adopt the opinion, if not the very words, of Professor Porson, expressed on 
some other occasion, (I cannot find the passage), " hujusmodi exempia aut 
emendata aut emendanda sunt" 

86 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

ing to assert what is true ; and the omission is a venial licence, 
because it can hardly lead to error. This, notwithstanding the 
poetic practice, is more than can be affirmed of the omission 
before Appellatives, Poetry, indeed, for the reason before 
alleged, may be expected to be anarthrous ; and the reader 
becomes habituated to its peculiar style : but if in prose we 
should meet wdth 'iirirog, meaning the same horse ^ who had 
just before been mentioned, mistake would be almost in- 
evitable ; and the reason is plain : an Appellative is a name 
common to every individual of a whole species; and conse- 
quently, if there be nothing which identifies this horse with 
that before spoken of, it may reasonably be concluded that a 
different one is meant ; but Proper Names are in their nature 
very much, though not entirely, restricted to given individuals ; 
and therefore, on the renewed mention of Callias, or Lycon, 
we shall infer the identity, even though it be not expressed. — 
On the same ground, the names of deities and places may, or 
may not, have the Article. Their notoriety, even when not 
asserted, will occur to the hearer's mind. 

And now we perceive why such phrases exist as rov 'AXlS- 
avdpov KaX ^iXtTTTTOv, above noticed (p. 63.) The WTiter pre- 
fixes the Article to the first name, for one of the two reasons 
already alleged, and omits it before the second, either because 
it is not admissible, or because though admissible, it may, not 
only by the general licence, but equally, I think, from the 
particular circumstances, fairly be neglected. In the instance 
TON 'AXi^avdpov koX ^PiXnnrov, the latter name certainly ad- 
mits, and even requires, the Article as much as does the 
former : but the mention of the well-known Alexander de- 
termines Philip to be no other than Alexander's father. — 
Again we have in Herodotus, B. iv. p. 147. THS "Qmog ts koX 
*'ApyioQ. The females had recently been mentioned together : 
*'Apyiog, therefore, though admitting the Article as much as 
"liTTtoc, will be understood as having it. — In Demosth. vol. ii. 
p. 1048. we meet with TOY Alavrl^ov koX QeoTtXovg' the latter 
had not been mentioned, and therefore here no licence is used. 
— Vol. i. p. 476. THN Uvdvav kol UoTidaiav* cities which are 

' It must at the same time be observed, that a case so strong as that licrc 
supposed, is rarely found, even in poetry. 


generally spoken of together, from their having shared, about 
the same period, the same fate. 

Further, as the Article cannot in ordinary cases be placed 
before Proper Names ad libitum, so, a fortiori, it is not in- 
serted where particular rules, arising out of its nature, require 
its omission. Of these rules, as will be evident on turning to 
them, two only are applicable to the present question : I mean, 
that respecting Verbs Substantive and Nuncupative, and that 
which relates to propositions asserting or denying existence. 
So in Herod. B. iv. p. 142. o-^t ovvo/iaTa OaaOai, no filv 'AFA- 
GYPSON avriiov, Tw 8' lirofiivcj rEAGNON.— P. 165. ouvo- 
fiara Kkrai raEl AYKOS, '0AP02, TANAIS, SYPFIS.— P. 
144. TO KoXkrai KPHMNOI.— Demosth. vol. i. p. 666. GEP- 
SAFOPAS ovofia avTCjvQaTigi^, rw S' 'E^HKESTOS.— That 
the Article cannot be inserted before Proper Names in Pro- 
positions affirming or denying existence, may, I think, be col- 
lected from some passages in the Clouds of Aristophanes, In 
V. SQ5. (edit. Hermann, 1799), Strepsiades says, 

'O ZEY2 S' r]fxXv, ^tpe, irgog Tr\q ^riQ, 'ovXvinnog ov 6wq 
i(TTLv ; 

To which Socrates replies, 

UoXogZedg; ov firj Xrtpiiaeig' OYA' 'E2TI ZEYS. 

And afterwards, when Strepsiades has become a thorough con- 
vert to the same doctrine, he also adopts the same form of 
expression: v. 824. OYK 'ESTIN, (^ ^eihinridri, ZEYS. I 
say, however, when he is entirely converted; for in v. 379. 
while he is yet wavering in his faith, he says, tovtl jul l\eXi]9r] 
'O ZEYS ovK lov^' which may appear to be an objection to 
the rule, but is not so, when considered as coming from a half 
convert: there is, indeed, a contradiction in the terms, but 
then a contradiction is intended ; as if we should say in En- 
ghsh, " that Jupiter is not Jupiter, is more than I sus- 
pected." He who should so express himself, would evidently 
betray that liis mind fluctuated between the two opinions ^, 

* Hermann reads this sentence interrogatively : I follow Brunck. 

2 There is another passage which may require vindication : v. 815. we have Tijg 
fidopiagl TON AIA vofii^tiv, spoken by Strepsiades. Ernesti felt some doubt 
respecting TON in this place, and Hermann has substituted to, contending that 

88 PROPER NAMES. [chap. 

On the whole, the irregularity observable with respect to 
Proper Names does not in the least affect the general doctrine 
of the Article ; and it was partly with a view to this conclusion, 
that I have entered so fully into the subject. 

the Greeks said vofxi^eiv, riyuaOai 9E0Y2, never TOYS Otovg' the former is, 
unquestionably, the prevailing usage, but the latter form sometimes occurs, as 
Hermann (ad Eurip. Hec. 781.) has since admitted. The reason of this vari- 
ation, however, seems to be somewhat different from that which he adduces. The 
original expression is evidently vofiiKei-v Qtovg EINAI, where the Article would 
be superfluous. So Herod. B. iv. p. 159, dWov 9e6v vofii^ovreg EINAI- but 
in after times the origin of the phrase was gradually disregarded, and ilvai no 
longer being expressed, vofii^eiv Geovg, came to be used in a looser signification, 
meaning, not so much to believe in the existence of gods, as to reverence the gods, 
supposing them to exist ; and in this sense of the phrase the Article was not 
improperly admitted. The passage which Hermann quotes in illustration, Soph. 
Antig. 190. 

TovQ ^iXovg TTOiovfieOa, 

is not entirely apposite, though it has an apparent difficulty, which deserves to be 
noticed : for if Tovg ^iXovg mean friends, whose existence is assumed, how can 
we be said, TroitiaOai, to make them ? The meaning is, " the friends whom we 
make, we make in the manner specified." So Homer, II. A. 399. (which Heyne^ 
after objecting to the Article, thinks similar to II. A. 11.) 

dXKa TON vVov 

TdvuTO tlo xkpeia fiaxV' 

the son whom Tydeus begat, he begat inferior to himself, &c. — Aristoph. Av. 820. 
KaXbv av y' drsxvujg Kai jiky' tvpeg T'OYNOMA* the name which you have 
invented, you have invented (or is) fine and sounding. See also Acharn. 1095. 
THN Fopyova. In like manner. Plat. Gorg. vol. iv. p. 87. £i XP^'^^'^ Ix^r ervy- 
XavovTH.if ■'\jvx'h'^, &c. Similar instances abound. 






I COME now to the consideration of the use of the Article he- 
fore Abstract Nouns, or the Na7nes of Attributes and Qualities; 
a subject of greater difficulty than any other which belongs to 
this PreHminary Inquiry. On its first appearance, indeed, it 
presents a degree of perplexity, which seems to defy arrange- 
ment: but on a nearer view we shall discover, that certain 
laws are for the most part observed, though some Hcence be 
allowed ; and that those laws are explicable from the nature 
of the Article, as it has already been illustrated. 

It is to be premised, that Nouns of this class are capable of 
being employed in two different ways: though they always 
express abstract ideas, they may be used either in a more or in 
a less abstract sense. 'ASticta, for example, will signify in- 
justice generally, whatever be its kind or degree : but it will 
also express every particular act of injustice, by the contem- 
plation of which we form the more abstract idea : and in this 
latter use these Nouns in Greek admit the Plural Number, or, 
which is equivalent, they are in the Singular capable of being 
joined with words indicating their possible plurality. Thus in 
Aristot. de Mor. Nic. lib. v. c. 10. we have 'EKASTHN aSt- 
Kiav* and plurally in the same work, lib. vi. c. 7. ttoXXoi iaov- 
rat SOa>IAI. Demosth. vol. ii. p. 1099. KOAAKEIAIS. 
Ibid. p. 1452. 'ANAPIAI koX 0PASYTHTE2, &c. Ibid. p. 
875. 'AAH9EIAI2. It is true that instances of this kind do 

90 ABSTRACT NOUNS. [chap. 

not very frequently occur : but their occurrence, however rare, 
sufficiently proves, that the Names of Attributes and Qualities 
may be of particular, as well as of general application ; and 
consequently that an expedient, by which they may be known 
to be employed in their most general meaning, is not without 
its use. This, if I mistake not, is the force of the Article in 
very many passages, in which a superficial observer might re- 
gard it as being merely an expletive : and we shall further 
perceive, that where the sense of these Nouns is meant to be 
limited^ the Article is invariably omitted. This remark may 
be of use to the reader, before we proceed to deduce rules from 
the practice of the best writers. 

It will be expected that we begin, as in former instances, 
with Homer : but the assistance to be derived from this quarter 
is here of little or no value. It is a remarkable fact, that Homer 
rarely makes use of abstract terms, and still more rarely, if 
ever, does he employ them in their most abstract and general 
sense. Some persons, perhaps, who have read the Iliad, will be 
surprised to learn, that opyri, ai<T)(vvr], <l>v(Tig, iXevOepiaf Trai^eia, 
evdai/jLovia, diKaio(Tvvr), vyisiaf ETrtorrJjui], and many others of the 
same kind, are words, which do not once occur in the whole 
Poem\ Styy, mwiry, rux^> ^iKy, rixvy, &c. are found only 
in the Dative, indicating merely the manner in which some act 
is performed : this may be denominated the adverbial use of 
Abstract Nouns, and in this use of them, they are always, as 
we shaU afterwards have occasion to remark, anarthrous. In 
the passage, Z. 339. (which, indeed, is elsewhere repeated, and 
was probably a proverbial saying at the time) vUri S' lirap.d- 
^eTai av^pag, I think we may consider viKti as a personifica- 
tion : but whether we so understand it, or choose to regard it 
as used in the most abstract sense, it is without the Article, 
and so are these Nouns elsewhere in Homer, whatever be the 
manner in which they are employed ^. 

1 I have observed that Nouns of this description are more common in the 
Odyssey than in the Iliad. 

2 We find, indeed, in the Odyssey, B. 206. E'iveKa TrJ£ dptTtJQ IpiSaivofiev, 
which Damm, the excellent Lexicographer, renders by "propter tale7n preestan- 
tiam," explaining Trjg by TavTtjQ or Toii]Q. Yet Apollonius, p. 112. classes this 
example with tig »/ p'^Kpa Qkovaa- his interpretation, therefore, supposes ti)c to 


Since, then, the Article is often found in later writers pre- 
fixed to the Names of Attributes, it is in these writers only 
that we can investigate the rules of its insertion ; and these 
rules are reducible to four : the Article is inserted, 

1. When the Noun is used in its most abstract sense. 

2. When the Attribute, &c. is personified. 

3. When the Article is employed in the sense of a Pos- 
sessive Pronoun. 

4. When there is reference either retrospective or antici- 

§ 1 . Of the first rule the following may serve as 


Plat. vol. iv. p. 68, 'H a^iKia kol *H aKoXaaia jiiyLdTov tCjv 
6vT(i)V icaKOv loTt. 

Ibid. p. 70. larpiKrj yiyverai Trovrjpiac 'H StKJj. 

Aristot. de Mor. Nic. lib. i. c. 13. i[(ttiv 'H evSaifxovia 
ipvxTig evipyeia Ttg. 

Ibid. lib. V. c. 10. dXXoTpiov uvai (^tamv dyaOov THN 

Ibid. lib. vi. c. 6. Itth S"* 'H eTrtor/jjUi] vrepi tujv KaOoXov t<jTXv 
vTToXrj^pig, K. T. X. 

Ibid. lib. vi. c. 10. tWt Si evcrroxia rig 'H dyyivoLa, 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 796. *H v£ori7c TQt ynpf^j k. r. X. 

Ibid, p 777. 'H Evra^ia twv attrxpwv irspiecrTt, k. r. X. 

It will immediately be seen, that there is a close analogy 
between this use of the Article when prefixed to abstract 
Nouns, and the hypothetical use of it already mentioned in 
the case of Appellatives. In the same manner as 01 a^iKoi 
will signify all who are unjust, so 'H d^iKia will mean every 
act, of which injustice can be assumed. We may also remark, 
that in Appellatives both the uses of the Article are of frequent 
occurrence ; whilst in Proper Names it is almost exclusively 
employed to recall some former idea, and in abstract Nouns, it 

be, not in concord with dptriiG, but dependent on it: and this is conformable 
with the context. On r^c anerTic in the Iliad, A. 7C2. Bent ley has conjectured 
tJQ with the Digamma. 

92 ABSTRACT NOUNS. [chap. 

is, on the contrary, chiefly, though not entirely, subservient to 

§ 2. The Article, however, is frequently used before these 
Nouns, where they are personified. 


Aristoph. Av. 1536. 

Kai THN BamXftav (TOL yvvaiK ^X^lv StSt^. 
Ttf t(TTiv 'H ^a(ji\eia ; 

Ranae 95. aira^ 7rpO(TOvpri(TavTa THt Tpayt^ydia, 

Xenoph. Mem. lib. ii. c. 1. H Kajcta viroXaj^oixra elirev. 

Ibid. ibid, jcai 'H 'Aperrj eiTrev. 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 738. oi to. aKptornpia THS N(ki?c irepi- 
KOifjavreg aTrwXovro. 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 77. dXXa THN ^LXo(TO(l)iaVf ra efxa TratStfca, 
navaov ravra Xtyouo-av. 

The reason of this practice seems to be founded in the 
notoriety (see above on Proper Names) of these imaginary 
persons; and it may further be explained from the perfect 
abstractedness, with which Attributes must be regarded, before 
they admit personification. The mind cannot form the idea of 
'H 'Apcr^, a person, till it has learnt to comprise under one 
general notion all the various acts, which can be denominated 
virtuous. At the same time it must be confessed, that the 
usage here is not constant: but in this irregularity there is 
nothing, which the nature of the case might not lead us to ex- 
pect. As in Proper Names neither notoriety nor even recent 
mention absolutely enforces the insertion of the Article, so in 
abstract Nouns personified, which are analogous to Proper 
Names, the Article is sometimes omitted. Thus in Plat. vol. 
iv. p. 76. we read 'AXictjStaSou re tov KXeiviov kuX <^IA0S0- 
^lAS. Here Alcihiades and Philosophy must be regarded as 
two persons: ^ikoGo<l>iag does not need the Article more 
than ^ AXki^lcl^ov : accordingly, before both it is omitted. It 
will, however, be remembered, that there is a wide difierence 
between omitting the Article, where it might have been in- 
serted, and inserting it, where it would have no meaning : this 


distinction is of primary importance, and it is therefore here 

§ 3. A third case, in which the names of Attributes take the 
Article, is when that Article has the meaning of a Possessive 


Aristoph. Ran. 45. dW ovx oiog t bijul aTroo-ojS^trat TON 
yiXiov, my laughter. 

Ibid. Equit. 837. ZriXto (ts THS evyXwrriag, your, &c. 
Demosth. vol. i. p. 74. THN opyriv dipiivrag, their, &c. 

§ 4. Lastly, these Nouns take the Article where they have 
reference of any kind. 


Demosth. vol. i. p. 17. 'H tmv TrpayjULartov al(y)(yvri^. 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 31. tav fjLTj TTpouS^ irepl tovtojv THN aX?)- 

Ibid. p. 34. THN juiaKpoXoyiav, y roTrpwrov ^7r£)(^tiprjaag 

It will hardly be necessary to remind the reader, that in the 
two last cases these Noims follow the common rules for Appel- 

^ The whole passage in Reiske's Oratores Gr^cz. stands thus: kol Trpoffetjy rj 
vfiptg, Kal tTi T] Twv Trpay/xarwv aiffxvvr]' but these are various readings : " jj 
primum abest a Parisinis primo et octavo : item ah Harley : et Aug. primi supple^ 
mento : posterioris t) loco dant JUL et Taylor, ye:" See Reiske's Note. Now 
unless Trpay fxaTiov depend on v(3pig as well as on al<T\vvr], which does not appear 
to be the case, the second Article is absolutely necessary : Reiske, indeed, as is 
evident from the comma placed after v^pig, supposes it to have no connection with 
Trpay fioLTiov, but then he has done wrong in writing 'H wjSpig, which is altogether 
without meaning. The Article, in such cases, cannot be inserted, and the MSS, 
which reject it, are right. Somewhat similar to TrpSffta^' v(3piQ is Plat. vol. i. 
p. 45. x^P'** TTpotTtidsvaf where THN %. tt. would be unexampled. It has 
already been observed, that the MSS. frequently vary with respect to the inser- 
tion or omission of the Article before Proper Names, and still more before abstract 
Nouns. The MSS. of Demosthenes abundantly confirm this remark; and his 
editor, in several instances, has adopted a wrong reading with respect to the 
Article, where MSS. supply the right one. 




Thus much for the Insertion of the Article before Abstract 
Nouns : respecting the Omission little will be said, because for 
the most part, it is observable only in cases which have already 
been considered and explained. 

§ 1. Thus, where Abstract Nouns are the Predicates of 
Propositions not intended to be reciprocating, the Article is 
omitted. Arist. Mor. Nic. lib. vi. c. 5. ovk av ur] 17 (j>p6vr}<ng 
'Eni2THMH ov^e TEXNH. In Propositions which merely 
assert or deny existence : Arist. Mor. Nic. lib. v. c. 10. ev oiq 
TO a^iKeiv, ov iramv 'AAIKIA. Ibid. lib. vii. c. 1. Tpia e<rn.v 
£?8»/, KAKIA, 'AKPA2IA, GHPIOTHS* which will explain 
many cases of Nouns in Apposition. Demosth. vol. i. p. 97. 
t(TT(jt) IIAPPHSIA. Arist. de Mor. ad Nic. lib. vii. c. 3. deivov 
7ap,'EniSTHMHS tvouo-Tjc- — After Verbs Nuncupative, where 
the Noun in question is the Name by which any thing is said 
to be called : Plat. iv. p. 37. koXw SI to K£0aXa/oy KOAA- 
KEIAN. In Exclusive Propositions : Demosth. vol. i. p. 529, 
ov^lv 'YBPEQS a(l)opr}T6TEpov, i. e. than a7ii/ kind of insult. 
Had the Article been used in this place, the meaning would 
have been, that nothing is more intolerable than all insult. 
See above on Appellatives. — And in general, as was before 
intimated, these Nouns are without the Article whenever they 
are used in a limited sense, that is to say, in any manner in 
which they cannot be taken in the most abstract acceptation. 
This will easily account for the anarthrous use after Verbs of 
having y obtaining, fulness, &c. and the Adjectives allied to the 
last : for it would be absurd to aifii-m that any one has, ohtainsy 
is full of, &c. any attribute or quality so exclusively, that the 
attribute cannot be ascribed to any other : and in this respect 
attributes differ from things which may in their nature belong 
solely to certain individuals. Hence we read 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 70. 6 ju^ a'xwv KAKIAN, 

Ibid. 6 e'xwv 'AAIKIAN. 

Ibid. p. 57. ap av Tvyx'^vrf AIKHS rf koi TIMilPIAS ; 

v.] OMISSIONS. 95 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 142. ravr 'AHISTIAN, ravr 'OPrHN 

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 1232. Sv S^ Xrj(^0(J(Tt, SYFrNGMHS tv- 

Plut. Conviv. p. 93. aveTrXr}(T9r} to irpoatjirov 'EPYOHMA- 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 151. KOAAKEIAS kol BAABHS koX 
'AIIATHS \6yog hecttoq. 

The same usage prevails where the Nouns are names of sub- 

Verbs of partaking do also, for the most part, though not 
invariably, follow the same rule : the reason of the uncertamty 
seems to be, that usually they are employed merely in the 
sense of having, though if they were used strictly in the sense 
of ha\dng or di\dding with others, the Abstract Nouns sub- 
joined to them might take the Article ; for though attributes 
and qualities are wholes which no single individual can claim 
to the exclusion of every other, yet of these wholes he may be 
a partaker, and in truth is so of every attribute which can be 
ascribed to him even in the smallest degree : however, it was 
to be expected, for the reason alleged, that the anarthrous use 
would be by far the more cormnon. 

On the same principle it is, that in the common phrases, 
avoiav, ai(T)(yvriv, &c. 6(j)\iaKav£Lv, ^iktiv ^i^ovai, r](jv\iav 
ayeiv, and many more, the Article is invariably omitted \ Since 
in many of these phrases two words are employed to convey 
the meaning of one, and in all of them a single Verb may be 
imagined, which would express the meaning, I shall consider 
this as a Hendiadys, and shall hereafter refer to what is here 
said of all such phrases under that appellation. 

§ 2. In the same manner we may account for the anarthrous 
use of Abstract Noims, when they are employed in the Dative 
Case adverbially. In this sense they are of very common 
occurrence, and are sometimes so joined with real Adverbs, 
that their import cannot be mistaken : thus in the first and 
fourth of the following 

1 Yet we find THN elprjvrjv, THN avu^aaiv, TA2 dvox^Q TOitiaOai. In 
such phrases, however, there is, probably, a reference to the war, the termination 
or suspension of which is in question. 

96 ABSTRACT NOUNS. [chap. 


Eurip. Orest. p. 191. AIKAi /jlev, KaXtjg S' ov. 

Arist. de Mor. Nic. lib. vi. c. 3. TnOAH^EI kol AOSHt 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 41. <1>YSEI S' virapx^t roXg irapovm ra 
Tijjv airovTwv. 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 70. tvrovtog kol 'OPFHi x^f'ouvrec* 

Plato, vol. iv. p. 89. ovTE 20<I>IA2 'ENAEIAt ovr AISXY- 

In these Examples, it is to be observed, that the manner in 
which any thing is said to happen or be done, is not spoken of 
with reference to any particular subject to which such manner 
is more especially attributable. But the case may be other- 
wise : the manner may be adverted to as being the attribute 
more especially of the subject in question : and then the Article 
will be prefixed, and will, as in the instances already men- 
tioned, have the force of a Possessive Pronoun. 


Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 15. Zivm THt ju vij^ur) /jloXXov rj THi 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 72. THt ejuLTnipiq. AaKE^atjuovtot eXaatru)' 
Oivreg roTSf THt otvSpci^ t^ei^av ov^ rj^crov Trepiy^vofxevoL \ 

On the whole, it appears that Abstract Nouns, for the most 
part, refuse the Article, never taking it, excepting in the four 
cases before exemplified. The only caution requisite respects 
the more or less abstract sense in which these Nouns may be 
used. Many instances will occur in which they are anarthrous, 
where, had they been used in the more abstract sense, the pro- 
position would still have been true. Such passages are not to 

* In this passage, it may be supposed that both kfiirnpi^ and dvcptiq, should, 
according to what has been advanced above, be anarthrous. Baver, however, in 
his excellent edition of Thucydides, Lips. 1790, has shown, that ry ifiireipig, must 
be rendered jaer artem hostium : and by ry dv^ptiq, we must plainly understand 
" by the bravery of the Spartans." The Articles, therefore, are necessary, the 
Nouns not being employed in the adverbial sense, but witli reference to particular 

v.] OMISSIONS. 97 

be subjected to the rashness of conjectural emendation. It i 

was sufficient for the writer, if his assertion were likely to gain " i 

assent in its limited form ; and it was better to affirm in part, < 

without the danger of contradiction, even where the proposi- . 

tion might have been couched in the most general and un- 
limited terms, than to risk an extreme latitude of assertion 
where it was not needed. This remark may contribute to 
account for the frequent absence of the Article where, un- ,- 

questionably, it might have been employed by the first of the 
four canons. < 


98 ANOMALIES. [chap. 



It has thus far been my endeavour to investigate the nature of 
the Article, and to show that its principal insertions and omis- 
sions before the several classes of Nouns are explicable on the 
proposed hypothesis. It was not, however, to be expected, in 
a case of this sort, that we should meet with no anomalies ; 
and it will not be deemed injurious to that hypothesis, if cer- 
tain usages occasionally prevail, of which it pretends not to 
assign the cause. It is sufficient, if they furnish no evidence 
of its futility : and it is to be observed, that they are omissions 
of the Article where it might have been inserted, not inser- 
tions irreconcileable with its alleged nature. 

§ 1. It has been shown that the Article is commonly pre- 
fixed to Nouns, which are employed kut l^o\{]v, and in some 
similar cases noticed above : but I am not aware that any 
philologist ^ has remarked how frequently such Noims become 
anarthrous after Prepositions, 


Plat. Theaet. sub init. Kara IIOAIN, the city (Athens). 
Ibid. Kar 'AFOPAN, the Forum. 

» Locella (ad Xen. Eph. p. 223. 242.) observes, that in the case of names of 
countries and towns, the Article is more frequently omitted than inserted after a 
Preposition ; and Winer says that this applies to the New Testament. But 
Winer, when he occasionally alludes to the omission of the Article after the Pre- 
position, has no idea of the extent of this irregularity. We find him not only 
mentioning Matt. v. 10. and Acts x. 35. as similar instances of an abstract Noun 
used without an Article, though the one is after a Preposition, and the other not ; 
but in a long list of such words, and of another class, like rfKioQ, yij, ovpavoQ, &c. 
we find exactly the same want of discrimination of cases. (Pt. ii. pp. 35—38.) 
— H. J. It. 


Ibid, dg AIMENA, the Piraeus. 

Ibid. lULEXpi 'EPINEOY eeairrtTOv wpovire^\Pa, to the well- 
known wild fig-tree. 

Aristot. Hist. An. lib. vi. c. 15. a iKvpaivero viro KYNA, 
the dog-star. 

Aristot. Anal. Post. lib. ii. c. 2. aripriaig (l)(i)Tog dnb SE- 

Xen. Cyrop. hb. vii. p. 106. nXvaiov 0AAAS2HS. 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 75. tovq ie^w 'IS9M0Y ^vfifxdxovg direTpi- 

Herod. Hb. ix. p. 327. wpbg 'HAIOY ^vvovrog, 

Dion. Hal. vol. iv. p. 2003. kvThg TEIXOYS. 

Hence it is evident, that the absence of the Article in such 
instances affords no presumption, that the Nouns are used in- 
definitely. Their definiteness or indefiniteness, when they 
are governed by Prepositions, must be determined on other 

§ 2. Another irregularity may be observed, where several 
Nouns are coupled together by Conjunctions, or where (which 
is equivalent) the Conjunctions are omitted by the figure 
Asyndeton. Though the Nouns would, if they stood singly, 
require the Article, yet when thus brought together, they very 
frequently reject it. This anomaly I shall hereafter speak of 
by the name of Enumeration ; since it is only in the detail of 
particulars, that it seems to take place. 


^sch. c. Ctes. § 38. kol XEIPI KaX HO AI koL ^QNHt Kal 
irdaiv oig ^vvafxai. 

Ibid. § 43. KOL yap NAYTIKH kol DEZH STPATEIA koI 
nOAEIS dpdr}v eialv avrjpTrao-julvaf. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 34. rrig Se dvayopev<Te<jjg lirifXEXridiivai 

Arist. Eth. Eudem. lib. i. c. 2. OiaOai rivd otkottov tov KaXtjg 
li^v, r\TOi TIMHN, y\ AO;e;AN, Ti HAOYTON, 7\ HAIAEIAN. 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 46. ovkovv Xiyeig elvai dyaObv fiiv, 200IAN 

But the most striking instance, which I remember to have 
met with, is in the Cratylus of Plato, vol. iii. p. 281. et seqq. 


100 ANOMALIES. [chap. 

TTEpi Sc rtov TOiwv^s TL <r£ KwXvu ^ieXOuv, olov 'HAIOY re koX 
2EAHNHS Kol 'ASTPCtN ical THS icai AIOEPOS icat 

TOY ; where it is observable, that each of these, when spoken 
of separately in the course of the discussion, is found with the 
Article ; as in the answer given by Socrates, Tt St ovv j^ovXei 
TTpwrov; r}, wcnrep eiireg, TON /jXtov dii\dwfXEv\ and so of the 

Nor is it merely, where three or more Nouns are so con- 
nected, that this usage prevails : where there are only two, it 
is not uncommon. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 34. yvwfjiy BOYAHS koX AHMOY. 

Xen. Hiero. p. 533. o{,rwg koX NYKTA kol 'HMEPAN 

Plato, vol. ii. p. 143. 'ANOPQtnOIS re koX GHPIOIS. 

Thucyd. Hb. i. § 103. &\eov ^e avroi, Kai OAIAES kqX 

§ 3. It might be supposed, that Ordinals would uniformly 
be preceded by the Article, inasmuch as the Nouns, with 
which they are joined, do, from this very circumstance, become 
Monadic. In a series of things of the same class only one can 
he first, one second, &c. Ordinals, however, for the most part, 
whether the Nouns, with which they agree, be expressed or 
understood, are anarthrous ^ 


Thucyd. lib. v. § 19. 'Aprf/xtatou jurjvoc TETAPTHt (^Qivov- 

Ibid. § 39. KaX 'ENAEKATON ^Voc rw ttoXI^i^ hsXevra, 

Demosth. de Cor. § 17. 'E\a(f>ri(5o\iu)vog 'EKTHt lara^i- 

^sch. c. Ctes. § 29. 'EBAOMHN S' r]fxiQav rrig Ovyarpog 
avT(J^ TSTeXivT-qKviag, 

^ It is not meant, that this practice, any more than the preceding, is without 
exception : Ordinals not unfrequently take the Article. The reason of the irre- 
gularity seems to be, that while their natural definiteness gives them a right to 
the Article, it at the same time renders the Article unnecessary. 


Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 262. nPQTOY 8^ /uLvvbg 'ENNATHd. 
Thucyd. lib. vii. § 2. fit^ vm TEAEYTAIOS opfxr^Odg, 

§ 4. Superlatives have so close an afHnity to the Ordinals 
signifying first and last, that they also sometimes reject the 


Dion. Hal. vol. i. p. 5. ng avrtSv apxnv rt MEFISTHN 

Xen. Hell. lib. ii. p. 278. rJv ndvrwv AISXISTON re KaX 
^oXeinjjTaTov koX avoaidyraTOv ttoXejuov. 




It may be right to notice the construction of the Article with 
nAS/'OAOS, OYTOS, &c. At the same time it should be 
remarked, that the usages, to which I here allude, cannot be 
considered as anomalous, because in given circumstances they 
are found to be invariable, and because they admit explana- 


§ 1. When Trac or airag in the Singular Number is used to 
signify that the whole of the thing implied by the Substantive, 
with which it is joined, is intended, the Substantive has the 
Article ; but when it is employed to denote that every indivi- 
dual of that species is spoken of, then the Substantive is 
anarthrous \ 

Of the former use we may instance, 

iEsch. c. Timarch. vol. iii. p. 84. elg iracrav THN noXiv. 

Herod, hb. ix. p. 328, 'H iWoc a-rraaa. 

Xen. Hell. lib. iii. p. 292. airav TO (TTpareviuLa, 

Thucyd. lib. ii. § 57. THN yriv waaav ctejuov. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 59. wavra TON altjva SfErertXfKC, his 
whole life. 

Isocr. Pan. § 48. vwep iravTOQ TOY ttoXejuow- 

Sometimes, indeed, we find the Article prefixed to Trac, and 
not to the Substantive ; thus, 

Herod, lib. ix. p. 336. rt^ airavri trrparoTreStj) viKq.v, 

Ibid. ibid. p. 340. 6 wag ojutXoc. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 763. 17 waaa e^ovaia. For the 
anarthrous usage we may adduce 

* That these are the two meanings of irag, is plain from Hesychius, though he 
says nothing about the Article : ttclq' oKoq, tKaffrog. 


Xen. de Rep. Atli. p. 403. Iecttiv Iv iraairi yij to jSArtCTrov 
IvavTiov Ty Sij/ioicpar/^. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 108. etc Travra kiv^vvov rjXOov. 

Anab. lib. iii. p. 178. ^la navTog ttoXI/xou avroig Uvai. 

Plut. Conviv. p. 94. iraa-qg ri^vrig koi ^wva^awc avOpwirivrjg, 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 721. Soke? irav av hoifiiog 
tpyov TTOiriarai, 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 198. ovk av ircKra vg yvoirj. 

The reason why in the one case the Article is used, whilst 
in the other it is omitted, is obvious : when we speak of the 
whole of any thing, that thing must be assumed to be known ; 
but in the other sense of irag no particular individual can by 
the nature of the case be meant. 

To settle the usage with respect to irag in the Plural is not 
so easy : for though it may seem that where the Substantive is 
without reference, the Article should be omitted, yet since 
Plurals, where they are not limited in number or extent, re- 
present whole classes of things, it will often happen, where 
there is no reference, that the Article wiU be used hypotheti- 
cally. In such cases, indeed, it would always be inserted, were 
it not that TravrtCj Trao-at, &c. do of themselves, when joined 
with a Substantive, indicate that the whole class is meant. 

§ 2. Hence, where there is not reference, the usage is 
variable: where there is reference, the Article is, of course, 
inserted *. 

* In the New Testament, Gersdorf and Winer observe that the Article is al- 
ways used ; that the exceptions, at least, are very few, and almost all doubtful on 
critical grounds. The only ones which appear sufficiently established are, Luke 
xiii. 4. Acts xvii. 21; xix. 17; xxii. 15. Rom. v. 12. 18. 1 Thess. ii. 15. 
1 Tim. ii. 4. Tit. iii. 2. — The reader will observe, that in all these cases, except 
Acts xvii. 21. and xix. 17., the word without the Article is dvdpuiTroi. Bishop 
Middletons watchful eye had already observed the irregularity of a similar kind, 
with this word, in the case of Partitives. See above. Chap. II. Sect. i. 8. 

The additional instances which I have observed relate also, almost all, to the 
same word. See Acts iii. 21. Rom. xii. 18. 1 Cor. vii. 7; x. 1. {iraTipfQ)] 
XV. 19. 2Cor. iii. 2. 1 Thess. v. 26. (dSeXtpoi). 1 Tim. iv. 10. Tit. ii. 11. 
Heb. i. 6. (dyyeXoi). 1 Pet. ii. 1. {KaTaXaXidg). All these instances, except 
where I have cited the words, apply to dvOpojrroi ; and 1 may observe, that 1 Tim. 
iv. 10. and 1 Pet, ii. 10. are doubtful cases, some MSS. omitting dv^pu)Tra)v in 
the first, and Trdffag in the second. In Acts iii. 21. the Article is omitted in 
consequence of its omission before aronuTog. (iii. 3. 7-) In two cases, Rom. xii. 18. 



Of the former kind we have 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 741, wore navTag avOpwirovg 

Ibid. p. 760. Kara iraaag rag iroXeig. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 199. ra iratdia iravra, 

Xen. Anab. lib. vi. p. 224. kol ocnrpia iravTa, 

Ibid. CEcon. p. 482. iracriov twv te^vmv. 

Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. c. 6. ov yap iravra ra icaica ^ojStTrat. 

Of the second may be instanced, 

Arist. Rhet. Hb. ii. c. 9. kol Trtpt cnraaag TAS Karr^yopiag 
(TKBTrrloVf the weU-known te?i. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 706. irapa iravrag TOYS 

Ibid. p. 759. £7rt Tram T0I2 TroXiratg. 

In the Plural also of Trag, as well as in the Singular, we 
sometimes find the Article prefixed to it, and not to the Sub- 
stantive : the Substantive, indeed, is frequently understood. 


Lys. c. Agorat. vol. v. p. 514. roXg iraaiv avdowiroig So^erc 
EiKaia \prj<l>icya(xdai. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 111. ov^^ av ol iravrEg cr(f)Ev^ovrirat 
fiEivEUiv TTavv oXlyovg, 

Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 2. rolg ttcktlv opyiZErai. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. viii. p. 132. <ju)(^poGvvr]v rotg iraaiv IfxiroLEL. 

and 2 Cor. iii. 2. the omission is after a Preposition ; and Heb. i. 6. is a quota- 
tion from the LXX. See the Bishops observation on this point, at the end of 
chap. ix. 

It may, perhaps, be useful to notice the following cases where the position of 
Iraq, in the plural, is after the Article and Substantive, viz. Matt. xxv. 29. John 
xvii. 10. Acts vi. 26 ; viii. 40. 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; xiii. 2 ; xv. 7- 2 Cor. ;. 1 ; xiii. 
2. 12. Phil. i. 13. 2 Tim. iv. 21. Rev. viii. 3. In ninety-nine cases out of 
one hundred, the position of Trae (plural) is before the Article and Substantive. 
I have not observed, in the New Testament, this word between the Article and 
Substantive in the plural, except in Acts xix. 7- In the singular, I have only 
observed this position in Acts xx. 18. and 1 Tim. i. 16. 

In conclusion I must observe, how rai*ely the Article is added to Trag (plural) 
when that word stands by itself. The instances which I have collected are, 1 Cor. 
X. 17; xi. 12; xii. 19; xv. 27, 28. 2 Cor. v. 15. 17, 18. Gal. iii. 22. Eph. i. 10. 
Phil. iii. 8. 21. Col. i. 16, 17- 20; iii. 11. 1 Tim. vi. 13. Heb. ii. 8. (twice) 
10. II. J. R. 


1 do not perceive that this position of the Article implies any 
difference in the sense, or that any could be expected. 

§ 3. Lastly, Abstract Nouns joined with wag want the 
Article where there is not reference, and have it where there 
is reference. Thus, 

iEsch. c. Timarch. vol. iii. p. 89. 6Xiyu)p(jjg e^^ovrag irpog 
oLTracrav al<T-)(yvriv, 

Ibid. c. Ctes. vol. iii. p. 449. £7ri iracFri aepytq. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 182. Xoyujv Kokcjv KaX Tratrrjc trappri- 

Ibid. p. 189. ou TTCKja yc Kaprcpm av^gia <toi <l>aivtTaL, 

Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 2. Tracrr? opyy tTTZcrQaL. 

Plut. Con\iv. p. 96. i]Sovf}c 7ra<7r]g aTri\^(jdaL aXoyiarov 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 151. ev a^o^iq. Tracry KaOetrTavai. 

Xen. Hell. lib. \d. p. 343. ev Trao-y dri aOvfxiq. ricrav \ 
Where there is reference, the Article is inserted. 

aEsch. c. Ctes. vol. iii. p. 551. Tracy ry dwa/j-H Aapeiog »car- 
fj3€j3»]K£t, with all his force. 

Plat. Apol. vol. i. p. 40. v^uatc ^£ l^ov aKOvcreaOt ircKrav t^v 
aXrjBeiav, of the matter before the court. 

Demosth. c. Boeot. vol. ii. p. 995. irdcra dpiiaeraL rj aXiiOeta, 
similar to the preceding instance. 

Sometimes the Article is placed before irag. 

iEsch. de fals. leg. vol. iii. p. 224. rrig nacrr^g KaKoy]Oeiag, 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 763. ?j wdcra t^ovma. 

This word has been examined the more minutely from its 
being of some importance in the New Testament ^ 


§ 4. The construction of oXoc. resembles that of irdg. The 
Substantive being without reference, wants the Article ; and 
the contrary. 

^ This is the true reading, and is given in H. Stephens's edit, of 1581 : sonic 
subsequent editors have admitted ry for Srj. 

2 "EKaarog, says Winer, after Orelli ad Isoc. Antid. p. 255, sq. does not admit 
the Article. See Luke vi. 44. John xix. 23. Heb. iii. 13. It is, indeed, not 
frequently used as an Adjective in the New Testament. H. J. R. 



Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 762. kviavTov oXov. 

Ibid. ibid. p. 709. oXw THN woXiv. 

Aristot. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 4. irepl oXov TON (5iov, their, &c. 

iEsch. de fals. leg. vol. iii. p. 199. Karirpupt THN rifiipav 

Xen. Cyrop. Hb. ii. p. 26. 6Xaig TAI2 r^Kecri. 

When oXoc is used in the sense of wholly or altogether, its 
Substantive is anarthrous. Thus, 

Xen. Hell. lib. v. p. 328. fi?) yvwju^ Trgoa(pip^aQai oXov afiap- 

Demosth. c. Steph. vol. ii. p. 1110. irXaafxa oXov lariv i) 

Aristoph. Av. 430. TpiiLiiJ.a, TratTraXrjju' oXov. 


§ 5. The Noun vv^hich is joined v^dth the Pronoun ovrog, 
always has the Article prefixed \ 


Herod, lib. ix. p. 327. TON irovov tovtov. 

Ibid. p. 339. avTr] 'H liaxr\. 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 20. avTm A I <nrov^ai. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 199. ravra TA 0»?p/a. 

Lysias, c. Andoc. vol. v. p. 199. I'vcKa ravrr^g TH2 topTtjg. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 744. tovtov TON eva. 

This usage, though it be uniform in the best prose writers, 
was unknown to Homer ; in both of whose poems ovTog avrip, 
and similar phrases, are sufficiently common ^. The Article, 

^ Gersdorf observes, that in St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, 
ovTog comes before, and in St. John after, the Substantive. The exceptions are 
few and doubtful. (P. 434.) 'EKeivog, on the other hand, is usually after the 
Substantive, and before it only where a Preposition occurs. H. J. R. 

2 In Pindar also the same form is common. Even Sophocles, an Attic writer, 
has, Qid. Tyr. 831. Ed. Brunck. ravrriv 7)fiepav. So also iEschylus. 


therefore, in this instance, as in some others, was not originally 
deemed necessary. It is, however, not difficult to account for 
its insertion at a period when all Nouns employed definitely 
came to have the Article prefixed to them : for they are never 
more restricted in sense than they unavoidably must be, when- 
ever they are joined with ovTog. 

Proper Names, though for the most part they take the Ar- 
ticle with ovTOQ, are yet subject to uncertainty, on the prin- 
ciple already stated. See on Proper Names. 

It is only, however, where the identity of the Pronoun and 
Noun is assumed, that the foregoing usage takes place : where 
it is asserted, the Noun (unless there be some reason to the 
contrary unconnected with the present consideration) is anar- 
throus. Hence, if the Proposition be " He is a man," ovrog 
avrip (fOTt) will be the true form. In the subjoined passage of 
Xen. CEcon. p. 490, the two cases are clearly distinguished : 
t<TTi fiev yap IIENIA avrt) (ja^riq, to deo/i^vov rivog fxi) e'x"*^ 
XpriaOaC aXviroripa St avrr] 'H evdeia to fxr], &c. In the former 
clause, irevia aa(^r]g is intended, not to be taken with avTr], but 
to follow IotL 


§ 6. What has been said respecting ovTog will, for the most 
part, apply to oSc. Thus, 

Plat. vol. V. p. 166. Triage THS y)fxipaQ, 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 714. TON vofiov Tov^e, 

There are, however, instances, in which the Article is 
omitted, when the Noun precedes, especially if it be a Proper 

Herod, lib. v. p. 192. £X^^"* ^^ tovtiov jri ^Se. 

Plato, vol. V. p. 172. 2wicparrj rovSe, 

Ibid. vol. X. p. 90. ' ApKTTOTtXei toJSe. 


§ 7. Nouns joined with this word have the Article in both 
Numbers, for the reason alleged in ovrog. 

108 THE USE OF THE ARTICLE, &c. [chap. 


Herod, lib. ix. p. 336. Ktivr}v THN ri/JLiprfv- 

Plat. vol. V. p. 182. ka'vr^c THS v/ui^pag. 

Demostli. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 705. tKsivoig TO IS xpovotc. 

Lysias, c. Agorat. vol. v. p. 512. Ikhvoi 01 av^osg kTsX^v- 

When this word is associated mth a Proper Name, we some- 
times find that the Article, at least where the Proper Name 
precedes, is omitted ^ 


Demosth. vol. i. p. 731. eKelvov TOY Opa(Tv(5ov\ov. 
Ibid. p. 301. KaWicTTpaTog iKUvog. 

^ But see Thucyd. iii. 59. Author's MS. The passage referred to is, vixtpaQ re 
dva[xifivri<TKOfitv iKeivr]^. The object of the reference is to intimate, that with 
other Nouns, as well as Proper Names, when they precede iKiXvog, the Article 
is omitted. J. S. 




To this account of the uses of the Article I will subjoin a few 
remarks on its position in the concord of the Substantive and 
the Adjective. 

Th^ Article, as every one knows, is found very commonly 
prefixed to Adjectives ; but Adjectives are not, strictly speak- 
ing, the Predicates of the Assumptive Propositions, of which 
the Articles are the subjects. In 6 BiKatog avrjp the construc- 
tion is 6 (wv) ^iKaiog avrip' and in 6 ^iKaiog alone, there is no 
other difference than that avrjo is understood. This is suf- 
ficiently evident from what has been already shown. The 
Predicate, therefore, in such cases, is always the Substantive 
(expressed or understood) conjointly vnth its Adjective, the two 
together being considered as forming one whole. Of these two, 
however, the Substantive is the more important ; since it may 
alone be the Predicate of the Article, which the Adjective can- 
not. In the Adjective, some Substantive, if not expressed, 
wiU be understood : and what is here said respecting Adjec- 
tives, will apply equally to Participles* On these grounds, we 
may account for the position which the Greek usage has pre- 
scribed to the Article in immediate concord, where one Article 
only is employed, and also for the order of the Substantive and 
the Adjective, where the Article is repeated. 

ApoUonius (p. 86) has remarked, that l^uoc 6 iraTrjp is not 
equivalent to 6 efiog irarnp' the difference is, that in the former 
position of the Article, the Verb tori is to be supplied between 
ifxog and o iraTijp, and the sense is, " mine is the father ;" whilst 
in the latter, something is to be affirmed or denied of one who 
is already assumed to be my father : e. g. 6 efiog Trarrip 'AIIE- 
6ANE. Care, therefore, must be taken to distinguish the two 
kinds of Concord which Substantives and Adjectives admit: 
for they may agree, as in the former case, though an assertive 


Copula intervene ; and they may agree, as in the latter, where 
they are not so separated. The second kind of concord is that 
with which alone we are here concerned. 

§ 1. In Concord, then, where the attribute is assumed of the 
substance, supposing one Article only to be employed, it must 
be placed immediately before the Adjective. 


Herod, lib. ix. p. 324. dovpvaXiLrov koixrriQ THS 'ATTI- 

KHS x^P^^' 

Xen. de Redit. p. 537. d dl irpbg TOIS AYTO^YESIN 
ayadoLQ ttqCjtov juev, &C. 

Ibid. p. ^m, l(5ov\E{fCTavro wept TON 'ENESTHKOTQN 

Isocr. Pan. § 24. irepX THS KOINHS awTtipiag ofiovo- 

Plat. vol. ix. p. 2S6, THN 'ANOPOniNHN 2?tv ^a/xe'v, 

Demosth. de Cor. § 55. oaa TrpoariKE TON 'AFAOON ttoXi- 

TTIV, &C. 

The reason of this position is plain. If, for example, we 
had read tovarjg rrig ^wpr/c. the sense would have been com- 
plete ; the mind of the reader would be satisfied ; the Article 
would have a sufficient Predicate in ^wprig, and we should 
look no further \ When 'ArrtK^c precedes x^prig, this does 
not happen : \(jjpr\g or yrig, or something similar, is expected ^. 

1 If, however, explanation or limitation be necessary, something more will be 
requisite than the addition merely of the Adjective ; as we shall see hereafter. 

2 I ought to have acknowledged, that though such is the invariable usage in 
Prose writers. Homer here, as in some other instances, affords exceptions : thus, 
II. *. 317. fa Ttvx^o- Ka\d. And Od. P. 10. top %tXvov Svarijvov. See 
Valckenaer, Adnot Crit. p. 338 *. 

♦ Nearly resembling the latter of these examples is Soph. Trach. 938. kuv- 
Tuv^' 6 Tract; dv(TTr]vog- in which, however, it is clear that the Predicate of the 
Article is in-aXg, and not Sixtttjvoq at all. It is not the Poet's object to define the 
unhappy Boy in contradistinction from other Boys ; but the Boy being already 
defined, as in v. 934. the Adjective refers only to the circumstances of his pre- 
sent condition — nnhappij as he was. I spoke foolishly in my note on Phceniss. 636. 


The condition, liowever, of the canon just laid down was, 
that the attribute should be assumed: where this does not 
happen, the position will be different. 

Of non-assumption we may instance such passages as 

Isocr. Pan. § 30. KOLvvg THS nATPIAOS ov<jr]g, 

Xen. Symp. p. 509. THN ^QNHN irQ^oriQav noiovvrat. 

Ibid. Cyrop. lib. i. p. 8. TOIS filv A0r0I2 (ipaxvTipoig 
t\priTO Kol THt 4>12NHi i](rv\aLTepq. 

Ibid. Hellen. lib. ii. p. 277. klXeuo-c (pavspav (fiipHv THN 
^H$ON* together with all those which are similar to Homer's 
aXXa Tov vlbv Tdvaro ho xepeia fxa^}^' (see Note, p. 115). 
Such, for instance, is Soph. Aj. 1121. ou yap ^avavtrov rriv 
Texvr}v eKTri(TaiJ.r]v* where the meaning is, " the art, which I 
have acquired, is no mean one." See also Elect. 1500. and 
Eurip. Suppl. 434. Ed. Beck, In aU such instances we may, 
before the Adjective, supply wcrrc dvai. 

§ 2. We are next to consider what will happen, where both 
the Substantive and the Adjective have the Article ; and there 
the rule invariably ^ is, that the Substantive, with its Article, 
shall be placed first. 

^ I do not recollect any deviation from this rule, except one in Sophocles. In 
the Trachinians, v. 445. we read, war' el ri Tip 'flip t dvSpi, k. t. \. which Brunck 
after his predecessors has published without remark. On looking, however, into 
the new Sophocles by Erfurdt, I observe that the false arrangement has at length 
been noticed : Erfurdt conjectures wot' il rt TrjaSk y' dvdpl, k. t. \. and sup- 
poses Tip 'flip to have been a marginal annotation explanatory of Trjade. This 

when I threw out even a distant hint of altering the text. The other passages 
there quoted by Matthise are easily explained, as not coming within the Bishop's 
rule of '* concord, where the attribute is assumed of the substance." The same 
remark applies to many other examples which apparently, and only apparently, 
violate the rule. Ex. gr. ^Esch. Agam. 520. dnrXa d' Iriaav JJpiafiidai Oafidpria 
(i. e. rd dfidpria), the price which they paid was double. Soph. Philoct. 1248-9. 
Tiijv dfiapTiav aiVxpav cifiapTwv — Not, having committed the foul offence, but, 
since the offence -which I have committed is foul. In such cases it is to be observed, 
that in the closer translation the English idiom would require us to express rriv 
by a : having committed afoul offence. — But see the rule accurately guarded by the 
Bishop himself in the limitation which follows. J. S. 



Lys. vol. V. p. 139. iXBiov lttX ttIv olKlav rrjv Ifiiiv. 

Isocr. Pan. § 1. ttiq rapaxvQ t»?C Trapovarjg, 

Ibid. § 6. TTpog rovg irpoyovovg rovg rijULeTipovg. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. v. p. 86. Itti rtj ayaO(f rw a(^ Tmroir\niva. 

Ibid. Hell. lib. ii. p. 280. roXg vojuLoig rotg ap^aioig ^(pijo-^at. 

Plato, vol. iv. 61. olov to, awjuLaTa ra KoXd. 

ApoUonius has adverted to this usage. He says that we 
must write 6 avOpcoTrog 6 ayaOog, and not 6 ayaSog 6 avBpu)- 
nog' 6 doxiXog 6 tfxog, and not 6 efibg 6 ^ov\og' 6 Traig 6 ypd- 
\pag, and not 6 ypd\pag 6 irdig' and the reason assigned by him 
accords in substance with the principles which I have attempted 
to estabhsh ^ In the legitimate arrangement, the addition of 
6 dyaOog in apposition to 6 avOpuywog is admissible, because it 
says something more than was said in 6 dvOptoirog : to assume 
of any one that he is a marif is less than to assume that he is a 
good man : but in the transposed order the reverse happens ; 
for when we have said 6 dyaOog, (i. e. 6 wv dyaOog dvOpwirog), 
the addition of 6 dvOpijjirog will be wholly without meaning. 
And so of all similar instances. 

Hence we perceive that in cases of explanation or Hmitation 
something more is requisite, as was before hinted, than the 

emendation is not improbable; it is certain that Sophocles has elsewhere at- 
tended to both the rules here laid down : thus in a single sentence, 

w Opkfiii avaiSkg, ^ o lyw kuX T* AM' 'EIIH 
Koi T' 'APFA T' 'AMA rroW ayav Xeyttv ttowT. 

Elect 622. Ed. Brunck*. 

^ P. 87- £^£t ra eTTiOeTiKtljTepov aKovofieva ^Iptrai k-jrl rd viroKtifitva' ov fit)v 
TO, tnroKtifisva ttuvtuq £7rt rd eTriOeTiKci' fiyc to avBpuiTTOQ ovk liri^iiTii to 
Xoyiof, TO ye /ijyv Xoyiog to avOpojiroQ. 

* But without having recourse to emendation, ("the worst argument a man 
can use ; So let it be the last,") Seidler has explained the construction with great 
felicity : t avSpl is not Ttp dvSpi, as had been hastily supposed, but r£, to which 
fi answers in the next line but one. There are in fact two constructions com- 
bined: if I blame both my husband and this woman; and, if I blame eitlier mij 
husband or this woman. — J. S. 


addition merely of the Adjective : in explanation of rng x^^P^^ 
we must add THS ^ArriKrig: for in rrig x^P^^^ ^^ ^^^^ shown, 
the Article has already a sufficient Predicate, and no other can 
be admitted : if, therefore, we have more to assume of the sub- 
ject Tiig, that subject must be repeated : othervdse 'ArrfK^c will 
be predicated of nothing. 

Lastly, it is to be observed, that though this order is never 
violated, yet instances will occur, in which the former Article 
is omitted : thus, 

Herod, lib. ix. p. 327. KarnnratraTO XOPHN Trjv Msyapi^a, 
Herod, lib. ix. p. 329. TFOUQi T(f (Tcperip^) irifxwv Maata- 

TLOV *. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. v. p. 86. et tlq TYNAIKA r^v crriv, k. t. X. 

It is plain that this ellipsis does not affect the meaning, 
since the Article prefixed to the Adjective is alone sufficient 
to correct the indefiniteness of the Substantive. The use of 
both Articles is, however, the more common : and in general 
it may be observed, that 6 ayaOog ttoXittjq and 6 TroXtrrjc o 
ayaOog are, in respect of the order of the several words, the 
forms which prevail where the Substantive and Adjective are 
to be taken in immediate concord. The apparent violation 
of the former order is no other than the elKpsis, which is some- 
times observable in the latter. 

Still, however, it may be asked, whether between the two 
complete forms there be any difference in respect of the sense. 
A most acute critic makes 6 ayaOog TroXtVrjc to be the suitable 
expression, where goodness is the idea with which chiefly the 
mind is occupied ; while 6 TroXtrrjc o ayaOog implies, that the 
principal stress is to be laid on citizen ^. That instances may 
be found which seem to favour this distinction, I will not 
deny : but to affirm that such a distinction is usually observ- 
able, would, I think, be an erroneous conclusion. 'O fxiyag 
(iacnXavg and 6 j3acrtX£uc 6 juiyag are, I believe, strictly equiva- 

^ This form is of very frequent occurrence in Herodotus. 

2 Quum 01 oiKTpoi Trnldtg dicimus, primarium est oUrpoi : quum ol iraX^eg ot 
oiKTfwi, potius est iraldeg. — Hermann, Hym. Homer, p. 4. 

The same critic (on Soph. Trach. 736.) says, that 6 sjuog 7rar»)p denotes, " my 
father, and the father of no other person ;" while kiioq 7rar?)p is simply *• the 
person who is my father, and may be father of others ;" and 7rar^)p 6 i/xog is 
nearly the same, though somewhat more accurate. — H. J. R. 



lent: so also are to ayiov Ylvtv/jia and to YlvBiffia to ayiov in 
the New Testament : nor would it be easy from the passage 
of the Electra of Sophocles, cited above in the note on p. 112, 
to establish the proposed rule. I do not, however, mean that 
it is a matter of indifference, in all cases, which of the two 
forms be used: the former, as it is the more simple and 
natural, is in all the Greek writers by far the more common : 
in the latter, in which the Adjective is placed last, we may 
generally, I think, observe one of these two things ; viz. either 
that the Substantive might of itself reasonably be presumed to 
signify the particular person or thing intended, though by the 
addition of the Adjective the Substantive is absolutely re- 
stricted to the object meant ; in which case, the addition is a 
kind of after-thought: or else, that the Adjective has been 
purposely reserved by the speaker to mark an emphasis or 
opposition. Thus, in the former case, to livevjia cannot easily 
be misapplied ; yet the addition of to ayiov absolutely limits 
the sense. Justin Martyr, ed. 1636. p. 479. has the expres- 
sion Tov livEvfiaTog, ^HMI, tov ayiov, which seems to indicate 
very clearly what is the force of the addition in that and in all 
similar instances. — The other case may be illustrated by the 
foUovvdng examples : Aristot. de Cura Rei Fam. lib. i. (Opera, 
vol. ii. p. 387.) says, clv^qoq re Kai yvvaiKog o/JLovoiav liraivBt 
6 TTOiriTYig, ov Tr]V ye jultjv aju^t Tag OspaTreiag TAS M0X9H- 
PAS, aXXa Triv vt^ te Ka\ <ppovrj<TU diKaiwg o'vvrjXXa'yjutvrjv* 
where juox^npac is opposed to what is implied in vif re Ka\ ^po- 
vri<T£i. Demosth. (de Cor. § 27.) exulting in having saved the 
Chersonesus and Byzantium, exclaims emphatically, these suc- 
cesses 17 7rpoaipe(Tig 'H 'EMH StcTrpaSaro* and our Saviour has 
said, John x. 11. eytj eljuLi 6 TroLfiriv 'O KAAOS, as opposed to 
him who is fiKjOuyTog. I am, therefore, of opinion that 6 TroXt- 
Tijc o ayaOog would not, in all cases, be admissible : I should 
expect to find it only where a good citizen had recently been 
mentioned, and where, consequently, 6 TroXtrrjc alone might in 
some measure be understood of the same citizen ; or else, where 
the good citizen was to be opposed to another of a different 
character: though, in the latter case, the other form is not 
unfrequently employed. 

IX.] now FAR CLASSICAL RULES, &c. 115 



The foregoing Inquiry having been instituted in order that the 
result might be applied to the language of the New Testament, 
it may be expected, before I conclude this part of my work, 
that I should vindicate the application of rules founded on 
classical usage to the diction of the Sacred Writers. The 
sequel, indeed, will show, that from the EvangeHsts and Apos- 
tles, no less than from Xenophon and Demosthenes, those 
rules may be exemplified and confirmed: and it was principally 
with a \iew to the proof of this agreement, that in passages pre- 
senting no difficulty I shall be found frequently, though briefly, 
to refer the reader to the canons previously established ; that 
thus in other passages, where the sense or the reading is dis- 
putable, recourse may be had to the same canons, as being of 
acknowledged authority even in the New Testament. Still, 
however, it may be right in this place to offer a few remarks on 
the style of the Sacred Volume, so far only as it may be sup- 
posed to affect my plan. 

It may be asked. Is it likely that writers, who were confess- 
edly untaught, and whose Greek style is far removed from 
classical purity, should pay regard to circumstances so minute, 
as are the uses of the Greek Article ? In the recent contro- 
versy the negative of this question has been assumed, I will 
venture to affirm, without any right founded on fair reasoning, 
or on the nature of the case. It will not, indeed, be imme- 
diately conceded, that all the writers of the New Testament 
were illiterate persons. To aS*^. Paul some have ascribed a '■ •^'*^ 
considerable degree of learning ; much more, probably, than 
he really possessed : and if the acquirements oi St. Luke were v. >, 

not pre-eminent, his style gives us no reason to believe, that 
his education, any more than his condition in hfe, was mean. 



If, therefore, it be recollected, how large a portion of the ■ 

Sacred Volume was written by these two, and that St. Paul j 

is the writer, from whom, principally, the controverted texts \ 

are drawn, it may well be doubted whether the known sim- 
plicity of some of the Apostles could afford any argument to 
Mr. Sharp's antagonists. My own concern, however, is with 
the New Testament generally : I shall, therefore, consider the 
writers under one general character, as being, if the reader so 
please to call them, illiterate men : to admit that they were 
illiterate is not to concede, that they were not competently 
skilled in the use of the Greek Tongue. ',' >^-' ^- -" ^p--^< 

The objectors argue, as if they imagined that the Sacred 
Writers encountered the same difficulties in acquiring Greek, 
which our own peasants and mechanics would meet with in 
their attempt to learn French or Italian : but the cases are 
plainly dissimilar. The greater part of Englishmen pass 
through life without having ever heard a conversation in any 
other language than their own : and even of those, who have 
acquired some knowledge of the continental tongues, there are 
but few, who made the acquisition in their childhood by re- 
siding in the countries where those languages are respectively 
used. But this is not applicable to the writers of the New 
Testament. Neither w^ere they natives of a country where 
Greek was rarely spoken ; nor is it probable that any of them 
..»/ft»w n made the acquisition late in life. The victories of Alexander, 
^^A,,^. and the consequent establishment of the Seleucidae, produced 

a revolution in the language of Syria and Palestine. The 
Aramaean dialects still, indeed, continued to be in use: but 
the language of literature and of commerce, and in a great 
degree, even of the ordinary intercourse of life, was the Greek : 
without a knowledge of this it was impossible to have any ex- 
tensive communication. " Greek," says Michaelis ^, " was the 
current language in all the cities to the west of the Euphrates :" 
and Josephus expressly declares, that he had written in his 
vernacular idiom a work on the Jewish war, of which the Greek 
work, still preserved, is a translation, " in order that Parthians, 
Babylonians, Arabians, and the Jews who dwelt beyond the 

* Introduction by Marsh, vol. ii. p. 3i>, 


Euphrates, might be informed of what had happened ^" It is, 
then, manifest, that westward of the Euphrates, a knowledge 
of Greek was not an accomplishment confined exclusively to 
the learned and polite, but that it was generally understood, 
and commonly used by people of all ranks, and must have been 
acquired in their childhood. 

In tliis state of things, therefore, what were we to expect a 
'priori from the writers of the New Testament ? I speak not 
of St. Luke and St, Paul, of whom Greek was the 7iative lan- 
guage, but of the other Evangelists and Apostles. It was not, 
indeed, to be expected, if we reflect on their circumstances and 
habits of life, and on the remoteness of Palestine, that they 
should write with the elegance of learned Athenians ; but I 
know not of any reasonable presumption against their writing 
vdth perspicuity and with grammatical correctness ; and it is 
against these, and not against elegance, that the improper use 
of the Article would offend ^ : to insert it gratuitously will in 
most instances alter, and in many destroy, the sense : to omit 
it, indeed, is, as we have seen, not unfrequently the licence of 
poetry ; but no one wiU suspect that the style of St. John was 
corrupted by a too familiar acquaintance with Pindar and the 
Tragic Chorusses, especially when such writers as Xenophon 
and Plato escaped the contamination. In most cases also the 
improper insertion or omission of the Article would be a breach 
of grammatical correctness ; since, as has been demonstrated, 
the uses are not arbitrary, but are subject to rules, the reasons 
of which are apparent. It is not true, therefore, however pre- 
valent may be the opinion, that the uses of the Greek Article 
do, for the most part, deserve to be considered as minutice ; 
unless it be deemed minute in writing to adhere to the ordi- 
nary construction of the language, and to employ, in Nouns 
the Case, and in Verbs the Mood and Tense, which the writer's 
meaning may require. That there are, indeed, minutics in all 
idioms, at least in all polished ones, will be readily conceded. 
Of this class in Greek is the Attic use of many of the Parti- 

^ See Michaelis's Introd. vol. i. p. 102. and Josephus, ed. Hudson, vol. ii. 
p. 954. 

2 To put a question from analogy : Would the most unlettered person in our 
own country say Shut a door, when his meaning was, Shut the door ? — J. S. 


cles ; which, without being indispensable to the sense, contri- 
bute to mark the feelings of the speaker and the latent opera- 
tions of his mind ; as doubt, conviction, limitation, concession, 
earnestness. They conduce, therefore, to elegance : they be- 
long to the colouring of discourse : they give it richness and 
effect : and it is to the very frequent use of them in Plato, 
that we may impute, in great measure, the spirit and vivacity, 
which enable his writings, as conversation-pieces, to defy all 
competition. Now in this particular the Sacred Penmen differ 
from the Philosophers and Orators of Athens : the former in- 
troduce the Particles more sparingly; not so frequently in 
combination ; and sometimes in a manner which the classical 
practice will hardly justify. But this cannot excite surprise : 
had the style of St. John's Gospel differed not even in minuti<B 
from that of Plato, the authenticity of such a writing could not 
easily have been credited. 

The objection, however, has been urged in a somewhat dif- 
ferent form, so as not to suppose the writers of the New Testa- 
ment to be altogether ignorant of the Greek idiom, but to 
question the probability that they should studiously attend to 
it : their minds, we have been told, were occupied with matters 
of greater moment. I am not certain, that in this form the 
objection deserves notice: however, it shall not be entirely 
overlooked, fxri So^w/xev cpr^juov afpeiicivaL tov ayC)va \ It is 
true, then, that they were occupied with matters of greater 
importance; so is every man, who either in writing or in 
speaking has any thing interesting to communicate : so were 
the several Writers, from whose works I have selected the ex- 
amples, by which the rules are illustrated : but does such occu- 
pation of the mind commonly lead men to express themselves 
in an unauthorized and unnatural manner ? to renounce modes 
of speech, to which they have long been habituated ? to im- 
learn at once all which they have been taught ? and to adopt a 
phraseology, which is not to be understood according to the 
obvious import ? The fact is directly the reverse : men never 
speak with less ambiguity, nor with less deviation from the 
usual mode, than when they are least studious of their diction. 

' Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verborum. Ed. Reiskc, vol. v. p. 207. on an occasion 
not very dissimilar. 


It is not true, therefore, that any particular attetition is sup- 
posed by the advocates of grammatical interpretation: the 
assumption is only, that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote as 
plain men commonly do write, that is, as habit and the ear 
direct: they are not supposed, as has been alleged, to have 
been Grammarians and Philologists. But this is a disingenu- 
ous attempt to substitute ridicule for reasoning: nor is it a 
very defensible kind of criticism, which would put upon an 
author any construction in preference to that which the genius 
of the language and his usual practice sanction. 

In short, the only tolerable presumption against the correct- 
ness with which the Sacred Writers may have used the Greek 
Article, is founded on their familiar acquaintance with certain 
Oriental idioms : whence it may be supposed that they have '^^^^^i^^!! 
sometimes adopted the Hebrew or Aramaean usage rather than 
the Greek. Now where languages have a very close affinity, 
it is conceivable that some such confusion may arise : but it so 
happens, that between the language of Greece and the dialects 
of Palestine, the difference was so great in regard to the 
Article, that the supposed corruption was scarcely possible. 
The Syriac and Chaldee have, indeed, no Article, but express 
emphasis by a change in the termination of Nouns : and the 
Hebrew tl, though it corresponds in some of its uses with the 
'O of the Greeks, is yet, on the whole, so dissimilar, that he 
who should translate a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures into 
Greek, inserting the Greek Article where he found the He- 
brew one, and no where else, would write a language almost as 
unlike Greek as is the Hebrew itself: not to insist that He- 
brew, properly so called, had, in the time of the Apostles, 
become nearly obsolete. If any danger were to be appre- 
hended as to the particular of which we are treating, it is 
rather that the Syriac or Chaldee should have been corrupted 
from the Greek, than the converse : since it is far more natural 
that men, who had the use of two languages, should enrich 
the poorer, than that they should impoverish the richer : and 
this we find to have been actually the case. There is not any 
example in the whole New Testament, in which the writer has 
endeavoured to give to a Noun the forma emphatica of the v;>.. 
Syriac and Chaldee : yet in the Peshito there is at least one 
instance (John v. 7.) in which the Syriac Pronoun Demon- 

1^0 HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES, &c. [chap. ix. 

strative represents the Article of the Greeks ; and afterwards, 
as is well known, this practice became common. It is less to 
om- purpose, yet it is worthy of remark, that for one Syriac 
word adopted into the Greek, there are at least fifty Greek 
words transferred into the Syriac ; nor is the irregularity no- 
ticed in Philo (see above, p. 38) to be explained as a Hebraism, 
it being directly contrary to the Hebrew usage. 

I have, however, been considering the New Testament as 
consisting of original compositions : and I am persuaded, that 
where the "Writers speak immediately from themselves, their use 
of the Article will be found to be purely Greek. But what 
has been here adduced will not apply with equal force to trans- 
lations ; since he who translates, rarely writes with the same 
ease and correctness, as when he is left entirely to himself. 
Hence it has happened, that in Quotations from the LXX., in 
some parts of the Apocalypse, (see Apoc. x. 7.) and in passages 
rendered from the Hebrew, some hcence may be observed. 
The LXX., notwithstanding the occasional disagreement of 
the Septuagint and the Hebrew copies still extant, appear to 
have been servile translators : in respect of the Article, they 
have every where kept as close to the original as the Greek 
idiom would admit: and if they have not in any instance 
violated the rules, they have at least, in conformity with the 
Hebrew, availed themselves of all the latitude which the rules 
allow : it is for this reason that I have made so little use of 
the Septuagint in the preceding investigation. The same may 
be said of a few passages of the New Testament not derived 
from the LXX., but translated by the Evangehst or Apostle, 
in whose writings they occur : such instances will be noticed 
in the sequel : they will be found to be extremely rare : and 
with these exceptions, the style of the New Testament has 
not, in the view in which we are considering it, any pecu- 
liarity. If the Notes, which consist merely of references to 
Part I., and which serve as illustrations of the rules, be ob- 
served to occur more sparingly as the reader advances in the 
volume, he must impute their absence to my unvdllingness to 
fatigue him with proofs of that which he could not any longer 



The Editions of the Greek Testament which have been consulted 
in the course of the following Annotations are, 

MilVs,\ vol. fol Oxon. 1707. 

BengeVsy 1 vol. 4to Tubingae, 1734. 

Wetste'in'sy 2 vols, fol Amstel. 1751. 

Griesbach's, 2 vols. 8vo Halae, Sax. 1796 & 1806. 

Matthdi'Sy 12 vols. Svo Rigae, 1 782, &c. 

Alter' s, 2 vols. Svo Viennae, 1787. 

Birch's Quatuor Evangelia, 1 vol. fol Havniae, 1788. 

The Text which I have adopted is that of Wetstein. The mark 
+ denotes the insertion of a word or passage, and — the omission. 







Ver. 1 . yevi(T£(t)g 'Itjo-ou XpKrrov, utou, &c. Both Campbell 
and Wakefield translate " a son of David, a son of Abraham ;" 
and the former remarks " the modesty and simplicity" with 
which the historian introduces his subject. However ready 
the reader may be to acquiesce in this commendation, it will 
be prudent to pause, till he shall have taken into the account 
some subsequent applications of the same principle of criticism. 
In this very Chapter the Angel says, 'Iwotj^ viog Aa^iS, not 
'O viog, where " modesty and simplicity" are out of the ques- 
tion : and indeed it has been shown (Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. ui. 
§ 6.) that the Greek usage will readily admit vlov to be anar- 
throus. Or if we are to consider the passage as a translation 
from a Hebrew original, vlov without the Article will be an 
accurate version : for it is well known, that the Hebrew in the 
status coiistructus does not usually admit the emphatic Jl : and 
thus we find vlog used by the LXX. Num. i. 5, 6, 7. et passim, 
— In the German translation by Michaelis (Gbttingen, 1790) 
we find what is equivalent to the son, as in the English Version. 
— The want of the Article before yevirrewg may also be ex- 
plained by Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 6. Bi(5\og yevicrewg 
is, however, exactly rendered from the Hebrew /ll/IJl I^D, 
used Gen. v. 1. for what we should call a pedigree, 



V. 2. et seqq. Throughout the whole of this genealogy \ 

tliere is an use of the Article, which is wholly foreign from the \ 

Greek practice, and which in some degree favours the historical | 

account of the Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel. The 
Greek usage would require 'Aj3paaju i-yivvr]aiv 'Itraaic* 'O Se ■ 

'leraaic l-yivv^triv "Uku)^' 'O §£ 'Iaicwj3, &c. (See Part I. Chap.iv.) i 

thus introducing the Article on the repetition of each Proper ■ 

Name : the very reverse of which here takes place. The Article, j 

therefore, in this genealogy represents the Hebrew J^^^ or the 1 

Chaldee J^^ and it is thus that the LXX. render the Particle 
marking the objective case. Compare LXX. with the He- 
brew of Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. vi. 4. et passim. — In the ^^^ 
genealogy by St. Luke the use of the Article is strictly Greek, : 

Tov being every where an ellipsis of rov vlov. ■ \ 

V. 16. 6 Xcyo/icvoc Xpto-roc. Not 'O Xp. (Part I. Chap. j 

iii. Sect. iii. § 2.) and yet the Coptic Translator read 'O 
XptoToc: (See Alters N. T. vol. i. p. 752.) unless, indeed, 
winch I suspect to be the truth, he attended to the sense 
of the passage, where, no doubt, Xpto-roc is equivalent to | 

'O Xp., rather than to the exigency of the Greek idiom. ^ '''•'' /. 
It is certain, that in many other places, in which in'^,^";^^ 
the Greek MSS. the Article is wanting before the name ""■ 'y , 
Christy the Coptic has prefixed its Article : as John iv. 25. ; 

Romans viii. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 3. and elsewhere. That inatten- 
tion to the difference of idiom has been a fruitful source of * 
alleged various readings in the MSS. used by the Oriental ; 
Translators, has been proved by D. C. B, Michaelis, the x ! 
father of the late Professor at Gottingen, in the valuable \ 
Tract de Variis Lectionibus N. T. Halae, Magd. 1749, and \ 
more fully by Bode in his Pseudocritica MiUo-Bengeliana, 
Halaj, Magd. 1767. 

V. 17. A few MSS. want aU It should be inserted. See 
Part I. Chap. vii. § 2. The mistake probably arose from the 
uncertain use of iraq in the Plural, where there is not refer- 

V. 18. Ik irvivfiaroq aylov. Wakefield, both in his St. 
Matthew, and in his New Testament, 1795, translates "a holy 
Spirit." There is reason to believe tliat he laid some stress on 
the absence of the Article ; for I have observed that he gene- 
ra 11 v ;., such cases adlieres to the letter of the original: whence 


it is plain, that he did not advert to the anomaly noticed in 
the Preliminary Inquiry, Chap. vi. § 1. In whatever manner 
we are to render this passage, it is certain that the absence of 
the Article after a Preposition does not affect the definiteness 
of the sense. Since, however, the phrases Trvcu/za and TrvEvfia 
ayiov, both with and without the Article, are of frequent 
occurrence in the New Testament, it may not be amiss in this 
place to inquire generally into the meanings which they bear, 
and especially on what occasions the Article is taken or re- 
jected. ^, , , , r • 

I. The primitive signification of wvevfua is breath or wind : 
in which senses, however, it is not often found in the NeW 
Testament. In the sense of breath irvevfxa takes or rejects the 
Article, as the circumstances may require. Thus, Matt, xxvii. 
50. a(^f)K£ TO irvevfia, his breath or life : (Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. 1. § 4.) but Apoc. xiii. 15. we have dovvai Trvsvjua, to ' 
give life, where to would be inconsistent with the sense : for 
that, which was possessed already, could not now first be 
given. In the meaning of wind we find, John iii. 8. to irvivfia 
TTvai, oirov OeXu' where the Article is requisite by Part I. 
Chap. III. Sect. 1. § 5. 

II. Hence we pass by an easy transition to Trvev^a, the in- 
'1^' teUectual or spiritual part of man, as opposed to his carnal 

part. Thus, TrvfUjua is frequently contradistinguished from 
crap^. In this sense also it may be used either definitely or 
indefinitely : examples of each vdll be noticed in the sequel, 

III. A third meaning arises by abstracting the spiritual 
principle from body or matter, with which in man it is asso- 
ciated: hence is deduced the idea of the immaterial agents, 
whom we denominate Spirits, Thus, Luke xxiv. 39. Trvevfia 
aapKa kol oaTia ovk fX^t. John iv. 24. Trvtv/uLa 6 Qeog. Acts 
xxiii. 9. TTvevfjLa rj ayyeXog. The irvevfiaTa also of the Demo- 
niacs are to be classed under this head. It is evident that the 
word, in this acceptation, must admit both a definite and an 
indefinite sense. 

IV. But the word Trvtujua is used in a sense not differing 
from the former, except that it is here employed kut l^oxnv 
to denote the Great and Pre-eminent Spirit, the Third Person 
in the Trinity : and in this acceptation, it is worthy of remark, 
that irvtiffxa or irvevfxa ay lov is never anarthrous ; except, in- 


deed, in cases where other terms, confessedly the most definite, 
lose the Article, from some cause alleged in the Preliminary 
Inquiry. It will be shown in the following pages, as the pas- 
sages occur, that such is the practice of the Sacred Writers. — 
The addition of to ayiov serves only to ascertain to what class 
of Spirits, whether good or evil, this pre-eminent Spirit is 
affirmed to belong. — It may here be briefly noticed, that in 
the passages which, from their ascribing personal acts to the 
TTvtvfia ayiov, are usually adduced to prove the Personality of 
the Blessed Spirit, the words Trvevfia and ayiov invariably 
have the Article. See particularly Mark i. 10. Luke iii. 22. 
John i. 32. Acts i. 16. and xx. 28. Ephes. iv. 30. Mark 
xiii. 11. Actsx. 19. andxxviii. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 1. Heb. iii. 
7. &c. — The reason of this is obvious ; for there being but one 
Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt, 
also xxviii. 19. where the Holy Spirit is associated wdth the 
Father and the Son, the reading is tov ayiov Trvcv/xaroc. 

V. The fifth sense of wvEvjULa is easily deducible from the 
fourth ; being here not the Person of the Holy Spirit, but his 
influence or operation: the addition of ayiov is explicable as 
before. And in this meaning a remarkable diiference may be 
observed with respect to the Article. Though the Holy Spirit 
himself be but one, his influences and operations may be 
many: hence Trvevfxa and Trveujua ayiov are, in this sense, 
always anarthrous^ the case of renewed mention or other refer- 
ence being of course excepted. The expressions of being 
" filled vdth the Holy Ghost," " receiving the Holy Ghost," 
" the Holy Ghost being upon one," &c. justify this observa- 

VI. The last meaning, or rather class of meanings, for they 
are several, comprises whatever is deducible from the last 
acceptation, being not the influences of the Spirit, but the 
effects of them : under which head we may range Trycujua in 
the senses of disposition, character, faith, virtue, religion, &c. 
and also whenever it is used to signify evil propensities or 
desires; with this difference only, that these latter must be 
supposed to arise from the influence of the Evil Spirit. In all 
these senses the Article is inserted or omitted according to the 

Now if we put together the consequences of what has been 


shown under the fourth and ffth heads, we shall perceive the 
futility of pretending that the Holy Spirit is, as some aver, 
merely an influence : the Sacred Writers have clearly, and in 
strict conformity with the analogy of language, distinguished 
the influence from the Person of the Spirit. In like manner, 
the Personality of the Holy Spirit is deducible by comparing 
the third and fourth heads : for if 7rv£v/ua, in the passages ad- 
duced under the third, mean a spiritual agent, to Trvcujua, in 
the places referred to under the fourth, where there is no 
renewed mention, nor any other possible interpretation of the 
Article, but the use of it, Kar £^0x17^? can mean only the one 
spiritual agent of acknowledged and pre-eminent dignity. But 
the personality of irvsvfia, under the third head, cannot be 
disputed, unless by those who would controvert the personality 
of 6 Gcoc : the personality, therefore, of to irveviua used jcar' 
l^oxnv must be conceded. 

I have thus, at some length, examined the senses of the word 
7rv£u/ia in the first passage in which it occurs, in order to ex- 
hibit the result of my observation at a single view ; so that in 
the sequel I need only to refer to what has been here ad- 
vanced. — With respect to the place in St. Matthew which has 
given rise to this note, it is impossible to prove incontestibly 
that the Holy Spirit, in the personal acceptation, is here meant, 
inasmuch as the Preposition (see Part I. Chap. vi. § 1.) may 
have occasioned the omission of the Articles; and this hap- 
pens, in some other places also, from the same cause. How- 
ever, Mr. Wakefield's translation, which implies 2i plurality of 
Holy Spirits, the ordinary Ministers of Almighty Providence, 
is irreconcileable with the phraseology of the New Testament, 
in which Trveujuara ayia are not once mentioned. Rosenmiillers 
(see Scholia in N. T. 1789.) ^^ per omnipotentiam divinarn' is 
less liable to objection. 

V. 20. Kvpfoc, in the sense of The Almighty, takes or re- 
jects the Article indifferently ; and nearly the same is true of 
9£oc: but see on Luke i. 15. 

V. 21. 'Irjaouv: not tov 'I»j(to{»v. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. 

iii. §2. 

V. 23. 7/ irapOivog. The Article in this place, as in many 
others, appeared to our Enghsh Translators to be without 
meaning; accordingly they render "a virgin." That the 


Article is never without meaning in the Greek, though it may 
not always be possible in a Version adequately to express its 
force, has already been demonstrated. The passage, however, 
is quoted accurately from the LXX. who have as accurately 
translated the Hebrew. The force of the Article, therefore, 
in this place (See Part I. Chap, ix.) can be sought only from 
the Hebrew of Isaiah vii. 14. That the LXX. did well in ex- 
pressing the Article, may be inferred from its having been 
retained in the subsequent Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, 
and Theodotion, notwithstanding the readiness, of the two 
former at least, on most occasions to differ from the LXX, 
Here, indeed, they all three render 17 NEANIS, Aquila having 
set the example : on which Montfaucon remarks, (Praelim. in 
Hexapla, vol. i. p. 111. ed. Bahrdt) ^' An autem ut locum detor- 
queret Aquila, sic versionem suam concinnaverit, nescio, Veri- 
simile tamen est, eum a voce napOivog consulto declinasse, quia 
hac maxime prophetia utehantur Christiani pro sua tuenda 
fide. Imo, 7iec vocem airoK^vt^oQ, quam ALIBI pro Hehraica 
T\u7'i^ exprimenda adhihet, hie usurpare voluit : quia forte 
hcec interpretatio puellam, qucn virorum adspectui occulta 
manserat, atque ideo virginem, exprimehat.'" The same 
Translator, instead of Xpicrrog, commonly has jiXEL^fiivog. 

An excellent Dissertation on the Prophecy in Isaiah and on 
its application by St. Matthew may be found in the BtjSXoe 
KaraXXayfjc oi Surenhusius, Amstasl. 1713. 

V. 24. otTTo TOY vTTvoV in reference to 6va^ above, ver. 20, 
So also in Acts xx. 9. 


V. 3. iraaa 'Ifpoo-oXvjua.^ The want of the x\rticle in this 
place may appear to contrad'ict what has been advanced. Part 1. 
Chap. vii. § 1. Two MSS. indeed, viz. r of Matthai and Vat. 
360. of Birch, insert 17. These were probably the corrections 
of persons who had attended to the more usual construction of 
Trac. I am of opinion, however, with Rosenmiiller, that 77 
noXig is understood, 'UpoaoXvua being always Neuter in the 
New Testament, unless we are to except this place ; on the 
sole autliority of which, so far as I can discover, Schleusner (in 
Lex.) makes it to be Feminine in the Singular. Kijpke (Obss. 


Sacr. ad loc.) says, that in the Feminine it is very uncommon, 
yet he adduces two passages from Josephus, in which he sup- 
poses it to be so used. One of these is a citation from Clear- 
chus, the scholar of Aristotle, in which Clearchus says, that 
"the city has ovofia o-KoXtov, 'IEP020AYMHN yap avrriv 
KoXovaiv." But a Greek would hardly have called such a name 
(TKoXiov : and on turning to Josephus I find the true reading 
to be 'lEPOYSAAHM : the same passage is so cited by Euse- 
bius. — The force of Kypke's other passage depends on aXovaa, 
which is made to refer to 'UpocroXvfia preceding : but there the 
reference may be npog to (tt} /aaiv 6 imevov, as is usual even in the 
best Greek Writers. If, however, the word be Feminine in 
this place, the Article may still be omitted because of the 
Proper Name, to which the reason of the rule will not neces- 
sarily apply. We find, indeed, in the next Chapter, ver. 5. 
TToo-a 'H 'lovdaia : but 'lovdala is an Adjective : compare Mark 
i. 5. 

V. 5. ^la Tov 7rpo<pr)rov, viz. Micah V. 2. ■ ^' • t\- ' •• ^>^>- - 
V. 11. S(J/oa, bi/ way of presents. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect, 
iii. § 4. 

V. 23. Na^wpmoc. Eng. Version, " a Nazarene :" I would 
rather translate. He shall be called " the Nazarene." The 
Article could not be inserted in the Greek. Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 2. 


V. 3. ^wvr) poMVTOQ. Eng. Version, " The voice," &:c. 
Quoted from LXX. Isaiah xl. 3. It serves, however, to 
illustrate Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 6. Mr. Wakefield, not 
aware of this usage, translates, " A voice of one crying," &c. 
For the same reason in the next verse it could not have been 

V. 5. 'lEpotToXvfia. 1 Bodl. prefixes Tracra 17. The r of 
Matth'ai has only 17. See above. Chap. ii. ver. 3. 

V. 8. Trjt: peravoiag. D alone wants rrig, which is not a bad 
reading after a^iog : but the uncertainty respecting abstract 
Nouns has been remarked in Part I. 

V. 9. waripa. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 11. iv wvevjjiaTi ayit^ koI irvpi. Mr. Wakefeld in his 



New Testament here translates, '* with a lioly wind and with 
a fire." Heylin had already given a similar Version, urging in 
behalf of it, that where the Holy Spirit is meant, the Article 
is generally prefixed ; and also that the verse following, which 
he considers as an illustration of the present, requires such an 
interpretation. See Campbell ad he. whose remark on the 
Article is, indeed, of no great value, but whose opinion, that 
the present verse represents the manner in which Christ will 
admit his Disciples, the next, that in which he will judge them 
at the end of the world, appears to be extremely just. In con- 
firmation of the manner of admission, see Acts ii. 3. The 
words, indeed, koL irvgl, are wanting in so many of the MSS. 
that if they were not found in a few of the older MSS. and 
Versions, they might be deemed spurious. They have, how- 
ever, probably, been rejected, because they are wanting in 
Mark: see Adlers Verss, SyriaccB, p. 159. — Mr. W. in sup- 
port of his Translation refers us to his own Siha Critica, Part 
ii. § 83. where, however, his arguments are nearly the same 
with those of Heylin, This he seems not to have known, as 
appears from his expression oi ^^ quod primus moneo :'" and 
even Heylin's Version, according to Campbell, was not entirely 

The meaning of ay/tj) irvev/iari, as the reader wiU have per- 
ceived, (See above. Matt. i. 18.) cannot here be inferred from 
the doctrine of the Article. There can, however, be little 
doubt, that the fifth sense there deduced is here the true one j 
because irvevfjia joined with ay lov has only two senses ; and the 
Holy Spirit in his personal acceptation cannot well be asso- 
ciated with Jire, In the connection of fire with the influence 
of the Spirit there is nothing unnatural or violent. 

V. 12. eIq rrjv aTTO^rjicrjv. "Mis garner." Many MSS. 
with the Syriac add avrov. The Article alone has in such 
instances the force of the Possessive Pronoun ; (See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 4.) but the Syriac, as the genius of the 
language requires, generally has the addition of the Pronoun. 
Its insertion or omission in passages of this kind is a fruitful 
source of various readings : to have noticed them once may be 
deemed sufiicient. 

V. 16. TO TTViVfia Tov Gtou. RosenmUUer does not understand 
these words in the personal sense of the Holy Spirit, but ex- 



plains tlie whole to signify no more than a strong emotion in 
the mind of our Saviour entering on his Ministry. It is ob- 
servable, however, that Mark and John use precisely the same 
expression, whilst Luke, speaking of the same event. Chap. iii. 
22. says, to Trvtujua to aytov (TiofiaTiKM uSel, which appears to ^'*^*<-^' 
give the personal sense of TrvEvfia in the most unequivocal 
terms. — I have remarked, that the other two Evangelists have 
also TO TTvevfia tov 0fov* because, if I mistake not, that phrase 
is to be distinguished from irvevfia Qeov, which is also of fre- 
quent occurrence in the New Testament, but which signifies 
no more than " a divine influence :" notice of which will be 
taken in its place. It is worthy of mention, that though 
TTvivfia Oeov and Trvevjua Kvpiov are very common in the ^^ 

LXX. TO irvEvfia TOV Gcou does not once occur : for which I »^i2£:^=^ 
have no better reason to assign, than that the Translators 
attended to the idiom of their original, in which mi must be * ^' 
anarthrous. RosenwAillers objection, that change of place 
cannot be ascribed to an Omnipresent Being is evidently falla- 
cious, unless it could be proved, that a Being, who is also 
Omnipotent, could not assume a visible form. Such a Being, 
though present every where, may yet be visible only in a given 


V. 1. uq T7)v ignfiov. On these words I will translate the 7iL 2^i 
Note of Michaelis (See Anmerhingen zu seiner Uehersetzungi 
Sec. 4to. 1790.) " Not into a desert, but into the desert; a 
phrase, which must suggest to the mind of the reader the 
Great Desert of Arabia, in which the Israelites wandered so 
many years, and in which Mount Sinai is situate : and this *f- 'f^ ■ 
notion, if not elsewhere contradicted by the historian, will 
appear the more probable, when in reading of a miraculous 
fast of forty days, we recollect a similar fast of Moses and 
Elias on Mount Sinai, or on the way to that mountain. See 
Exod. xxxiv. 28. 1 Kings xix. 8. The instant" we imagine 
ourselves in this Desert, the whole history, including both the 
artifices of Satan and the answer of our Lord, receives extra- 
ordinary light. 

** The people of Palestine show the wilderness, in which 

K 2 


Jesus is supposed to have been tempted, and from the forty 
days it has acquired the name of Quarantaria : it is an ex- 
tremely rugged and wild ridge of mountains, to the north of 
the road which leads from Jerusalem by the Mount of Olives 
to Jericho. Its aspect is most hideous : but it can hardly be 
the Desert of the Temptation ; and the assertion of those, who 
for 1600 years past have been paid by travellers for showing 
the Holy Places of Palestine, is utterly destitute of weight. 
Not to insist, that no writer of common sense would call this 
merely the Desert without a more particular description, its 
situation is at variance with the whole history : no man could 
there be in danger of perishing with hunger : for in whatever 
part of that desert he might happen to be, he need travel only 
for a few hours to reach a place where provisions might be 
had, viz. Ephraim, Bethel, Jericho, or elsewhere : if any one 
were there so unreasonable as to say to a famished worker of 
miracles, ' Command that these stones be made bread,' the 
proper answer would be, * Shall God, then, work a miracle 
merely in aid of our sloth ? Let us go and buy bread.' The 
Angels, also, on this supposition were superfluously employed 
in bringing food to Jesus. Again, our Saviour could not 
here have been altogether in solitude, nor as Mark (i. 13.) 
says, among wild beasts or serpents, but among men, possibly 
among robbers, who then infested this Desert, and made it 
dangerous to travel from Jerusalem to Jericho. According to 
Luke too, (iv. 1, 2.) Jesus, who was baptized beyond the Jor- 
dan, proceeds from the Jordan, (not over it back again,) a 
journey of forty days to the Wilderness : can this be any other 
than the Wilderness of Sinai? Certainly it cannot be the 
Desert of Quarantaria ; for to get to it he must have crossed 
the Jordan, on this side of which it lies: and the journey 
could not have occupied at the utmost more than a couple of 

The reasoning of this Note is for the most part satisfactory ; 
but the argument last adduced from Luke iv. 1, 2. may admit 
a doubt. The words ruiipag recraapaKOVTa are usually under- 
stood to denote the length of the Temptation, and not the 
time employed in reaching the Wilderness ; and it ought to be 
observed, that the reading of Wetstein's D and L, and Birch's 
1209 (the Vat.) is kv rp tpvfib^, which, if admitted, confirms 


the usual acceptation. However, it is true, on the other hand, 
that the Syr. and Vulg. favour the contrary exposition. 

Same v. viro tov irvevinaTog, By the Holy Spirit. So all 
commentators now understand it : there is no ground, either 
from the expression, or from the context, to interpret it of the 

V. 3. si vlbg H TOV Oeov. In this place both Campbell and 
Wakefield translate " a Son of God," and the former enters at 
some length into the reasons of this innovation : they are founded 
principally on the absence of the Article before vlog, together 
with the implied degradation of our Saviour's character arising 
** either from the ignorance of Satan, as not knowing the dig- 
nity of the person, whom he accosted, or from his malignity, 
as being averse to suppose in Christ more than an equality 
with other good men." 

Now that the Tempter should be ignorant of our Saviour's 
character is highly improbable : ignorance is no where in 4 ' 
Scripture ascribed to the Evil Spirit, but the reverse ; and the 
expression, if thou he, can be understood only as a sneer at our 
Saviour's known pretensions. Besides, we shall find, that 
even the Demoniacs knew, if any stress is here to be laid on 
the Article, (See Mark iii. 11. and Luke iv. 41.) that Christ 
was, in the highest sense, the Son of God. Neither can 
malignity be well assigned as the cause, why Satan should 
designedly suppress any part of the title, which he knew that 
Christ claimed : malignity would surely have prompted Satan 
rather to exaggerate those pretensions at the moment, wheii 
he was endeavouring to show their futility. 

It is plain, therefore, that the degradation, which is sup- 
posed to be implied by the absence of the Article, has no 
foundation in the tenor of the argument : I think it has as 
little in the expression of the Evangelist : but as doubts have 
arisen on the various forms of the phrase in question, I shall 
briefly notice them. 

The phrase vloi Gtou in the Plural, is sometimes used to «^*»-s 
signify Saints or Holy Men : but in the Singular, when it is f^-^-^f^^ 
spoken of Christ, there is no reason to infer that such is ever 
the meaning in the New Testament. 

It is evident, that there can be only four combinations 
arising from the insertion or omission of the Article before 


vibg and 0£ou. 'O vlog Qeov is never found, and it would 
scarcely have been Greek : o vlog tov Oeov is common, but is ^'^^ ^^^ ^-- 
allowed to be meant in the highest acceptation: we need, i 

therefore, consider only vlog tov Qeov and vlog Qeov. Now 
there are instances, besides that which has given birth to this , 

discussion, which prove incontestably, that vlog tov Qeov was ■ 

never meant to be taken in an inferior sense : i. e. on the sup- 
position that Christ was ever declared to be the Son of God in 
the usual acceptation; which Campbell does not dispute. Thus, I 

Mark i. 1. vlog tov Qeov is spoken by the Evangelist himself \ 

of Jesus. John x. 36. the same phrase is employed by Christ 
himself of himself: and Matt, xxvii. 40. it is used by those, 
who well knew Christ's pretensions. Stronger proofs derived 
from the circumstances cannot be expected : for if Christ be 
admitted ever to be called the Son of God, we cannot believe 
that less would be affirmed of him in any of these examples. 

Neither is vlog Qeov, without either of the Articles, to be 
taken in an inferior sense : for not to examine all the places, 
in which it occurs, we have Matt, xxvii. 43. the crime laid to ' 

Christ, that he said, " I am the Son of God :" which the High 
Priests would hardly palliate. In Luke i. 35. the same phrase 
is affirmed of Christ by an Angel ; and Rom. i. 4. of Christ ty ' 
the Apostle Paul. It is plain from these proofs, that the pre- \ 

sence or the absence of the Article does not determine the j 

phrase to be used in a higher or lower sense. j 

Is it, then, to be concluded, that the Article may generally | 

be used at pleasure? This is the very hypothesis which I I 

would combat : but in this particular phrase there is a licence i 

arising out of the nature of the word Qeogj (See on Luke i. 15.) 
and hence it will be allowable (See Part i. p. 36.) to vnrite ■ 

either 6 vlog tov Qeov or vlog Qeov indifferently: the former, 
however, is the more common. The reason why we meet with 
both (TV el 'Q vlog tov Qeov and (tv el vlog tov Qeov, is that 
here two principles interfere: after Verbs Substantive the 
first Article should be omitted ; yet where qv precedes, it is 
not unfrequently inserted : see Part i. p. 44. — The reason for 
adopting a particular form, where any reason can be assigned, j 

will be noticed as the places occur. For example, in Luke 
i. 35. the phrase could not be 6 vlog tov Qeov, because of the 
Verb Nuncupative, after which the rule is strictly observed. '' 


V. 4. avOpiOTTog, Wetstein's C. D. E. &c. prefix tlie 
Article, and in the parallel passage, Luke iv. 4. the Article 
is found in the majority of MSS. As this is an exclusive 
Proposition (See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5.) the Article 
would regularly be omitted. The passage, however, is quoted 
from the LXX. Deut. viii. 3. who have 6 avOpwirog, and on 
turning to the Heb. I found, as I expected, D■^^iH. 

V. 5. £7ri TO TTTspvyiov. There is no word, on the meaning 
of which the Commentators are more at variance, than wrepv- 
yiov in this and the parallel place in St. Luke. One thing, 
however, appears certain, viz. that the Article shows Trrapvyiov 
to be sometliing Monadic : had there been several TrrcpiJyta, 
we should probably have read TI Trrepvyiov : it cannot, there- 
fore, be "a pinnacle," as the English Version renders it. To 
determine what is really meant is, perhaps, impossible ; since 
no instance can be found in any author, in which irTspvyiov is 
applied to a building. It is probable, however, from the 
meaning of the cognate term Trrepov, that a ridged or pointed 
roof is intended : for, from some of the passages collected by 
Wetstein, it is e\ddent that irTspov is synonymous with aeroc 
or airojfia, a term appropriated to the roofs of temples. See 
Aristoph. Aves 1110, and his Scholiast; Dion. Hal. Antiq. 
Rom. Edit. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 789 ; Josephus, vol. i. p. 109. 
edit. Huds. in which last place it is spoken of the Tabernacle, 
and so appHed, as it should seem, on account of the figure, 
which the transverse section of a pointed roof, or the gable, 
presents. Now if this be Trrepov, analogy would lead us to 
infer, that Trrepvyiov was the same thing, only of smaller dimen- 
sions : and therefore, if the pointed roof of the Temple be nre- 
pov, Trrepvyiov may be the same kind of roof of the Great 
Eastern Porch : and this is the spot fixed upon by Lightfoot. 
The height of this roof was 385 feet, and therefore it is not 
ill adapted to the circumstances of the narration. However, 
Wetstein and MichaeHs {Anmerh. ad loc.) understand it of the 
Royal Porch, which overlooked the precipice to the east and 
south of the Temple. This situation is, perhaps, even better 
suited to the history : but the difficulty is to account how the 
roof of this detached building could be called ro Trrepvyiov rov 
lepov. Michaelis, indeed, in his Introduction (vol. i. p. 144. 
edit. Marsh) supposes Trrepvyiov to have been a kind of side- 


wall inclosing the Temple : but then there were several such 
porches or colonnades, each of which might thus be called 
TTTepvytov : but the impvyiov, as was shown, could be only 
one. On the whole, I have nothing more plausible to offer, 
than what has been suggested above. The extreme difficulty 
of the question is admitted by Mr. Herbert Marsh on the first 
part of Michaelis, vol. i. p. 420. 

V. 15. o^ov da\a(jar\Q, " This expression," says Camphell, 
" is rather indefinite and obscure." He appears, notwithstand- 
ing, to have given its true meaning ; " near the sea." By this 
sea is plainly meant the sea of Gennesareth. But how happens 
it, if a particular sea be meant, that OaXdacrrig has not the 
Article ? The words are copied literally from the LXX. who 
have thus translated D^Jl T)"!, Isaiah ix. 1. The LXX. ap- 
pear to have omitted the Article before BaXaaarig, from consi- 
dering 6^6 V in the light of a Preposition. Of Til in the 
sense of versus examples may be found in Noldius. 

V. 16. Iv x^99^ '^"^ <'''^*9 OavdroVf is also a quotation, though 
not an exact one ; but the want of the Articles may be very 
well defended. See Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 20. TO. dlKTva, their nets : a few MSS. with Syr. have 
avTwv. See above, iii. 12. 

V. 21. £v T(^ irXoii^, This may mean, in their boat: but 
as there are instances, in which the Article before ttAgTov 
cannot be so explained, the word will be examined below, 
xiii. 2, 


V. 1. dvlpri Eig TO opoQ, This is the reading of all the 
MSS. Eng. Version and Campbell " a mountain." fVake- 
field says, " a particular mountain, well known in the neigh- 
bourhood of Capernaum." Wetstein and Rosenmiiller make 
it definite : the former says, " to ogoQ significat certum et 
notum montem, Taborem intelligo^ Wolfius remarks, " in 
certum quendam montem, ut Acts xvii. 1. 17 (ruvaywy?) rwv 
'louSa^wv," which, however, is not parallel : but see the place. 
Schkusner has only " montem ascendit^" which of course deter- 
mines nothing. As no mountain has recently been mentioned, 


this passage is one among others, which are adduced to prove 
that the Greek Article is often without meaning. Abp. 
Neivcombe, in his Re^dsion of the English Version, 2 vols. 8vo. ^iw^^^"^ 
Dublin, 1796, observes on this place, " In the N. T. the Greek 
Article is often used without its proper force :" and he refers 
us to Matt. i. 23. v. 15. viii. £3. ix. 28. Mark xiv. 69. John i.' 
21. iii. 10. vii. 40. xviii. 3. and to Dr. Scott on Matt. i. 23, 
V. 15. viii. 4. To Dr. Scott's work I have not access: all 
these texts, however, shall be examined as they present them- 
selves. In the present instance the Article admits a very 
certain explanation. 

" Judaei in Talmude,'' says Reland, Palaest. vol. i. p. 306, 
" terram suam in tria dividunt respectu MONTIUM, val- 
liu7n et camporum,'" To opoc, then, will signify the mountain 
district, as distinguished from the other two. The LXX. 
have so employed the term. To mention only the following 
instance : in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities 
of the plain, the Angels say to Lot, Gen. xix. 17. dg TO ' ' 
opoc (Tw^ov, where no mountain has been mentioned, and 
none in particular can be meant. And that the LXX. in- 
tended to express " the mountain district," may be inferred 
from Joshua ii. 22, 23. where it is said of the spies, whom '■^»^^ ■ «■ 
Rahab protected, 7]\0ov elg rrjv 6peivi]v, and of the same per- 
sons in the next verse, that after staying till the danger was 
over, jcart/Srjorav Ik TOY opovg. The Article, therefore, in 
this place is neither without meaning, nor does it necessarily 
direct us to Mount Tabor: indeed, I am persuaded that ^ 

Mount Tabor was not the scene of our Saviour's first preach- ^^ •" *' 
ing. If it be admitted that to opog may signify the mountain 
district, and if we attend to the topography of Gahlee, it is 
highly probable that the sermon on the mount was delivered jVf ^^^ * 
farther to the north. The whole of Palestine is intersected 
by a ridge of moimtains running nearly in the direction of 
north and south. Now, if our Saviour's object was, as may 
reasonably be supposed, to lead his disciples into the nearest 
place of retirement, he would not conduct them to Mount 
Tabor, because the part of the ridge nearest to Capernaum 
was at a much less distance. Besides, had Tabor been meant, 
its name would surely have been mentioned, " in jrrlmis,'' as 
Reland says on a different occasion, " qmcni Scriptoi'es sacri 


adeo diligenter nomina locorum notent, in quihus aliquid me- 
morahile a Christo patratum est.'* On the whole, I am of 
opinion, that this mountain has been fixed on merely from its 
celebrity, that thus the force of the Article might be most 
easily explained. 

V. 3. TM TTvevfiaTi. D — Tif a pr. manu. The Article should 
be retained, if to irvevfia here mean, as the best Commentators 
suppose, the sentient and thinking principle in man. So 
Acts xviii. 25. Z,iu)v TOt Trvtv/iart. So also in the present 
Chapter, v. 8. KaOapol THt KapEi^, in their heart. 

V. 9. oi eipr^voTToioL The Article is wanting in two MSS. 
It is requisite. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 2. 

V. 15. vTTo Tov juLodiovy T^v Xu^vittv. Campbell vindicates 
the Article in this place by considering the bushel and the 
candlestick to be what I have denominated Monadic Nouns ; 
one only of each would probably be found in a house : but his 
concession, that the Article is in some cases redundant, is 
more liberal than just. 

V. 17. TOV vo/uLov here clearly means the law of Moses, and 
this is the import of the term in the four Evangelists and the 
Acts: but on this word see below, Romans ii. 13. 

V. 20. rwv ypafi/uLaTiwv kuI ^apKrauov. That combinations 
of this kind do not interfere with the principle of the rule con- 
tended for by Mr. Granville Sharp will be evident from Part 
i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. 

V. 21. cvoxoe T^ KpL(Tei. Eng. Version, " to the judgment :" 
which to the unlearned may seem to signify the punishment of 
a future state. Campbell says, " to the judges." There can 
be no doubt that by 17 Kpicng is meant some Court of Judica- 
ture, but not the Sanhedrim. Schleusner makes it to be the 
Court of Seven established in every principal town to decide 
petty causes. Wetstein understands it of the Court of Twenty- 
tliree. Between these two opinions there is probably no real 
difference. See Lewis s Heh. Antiq. vol. i. p. 67. 

V. 22. rriv ykvvav tov irvpog. The second Article is re- 
quisite by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 7. 

V. 25. 6 avTi^iKog, 6 KpiTi)Q, 6 vinipiTrig, persons well-known 
in the courts of law. 

V. 82. iraptKTog \6yov iropveiag. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 


Same v. aTroXeXvjulvTjv. Not " her that is divorced" or dis- 
missed, but any one that is divorced \ This distinction may 
appear frivolous, but the principle of the distinction is im- 
portant. The force of the precept is, indeed, here the same ; 
but that will not always happen. Piscator (See Bowyer's 
Conjectures) supposed ttiv to be wanting. 

V. 34. oTi dpovog eari Qeov. Here Opovog is the Predicate, 
and ovpavog miderstood the Subject ; and so in the verses fol- 
lowing. And yet nothing can be more definite than both Opovog 
and Qeov. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. and Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 37. EK Tov TTOvTjpov. Thc Articlc here determines 
nothing, as has been supposed, respecting the question whe- 
ther the meaning of these words be " of evil," or " from the 
Evil One :" the decision, however, appears to be easy, if the 
opinion of the Syr. Translator be admitted as satisfactory evi- 
dence. The word which he has used in this place is |aan, 
the same which he has employed for 6 Trovr)p6g, Matt. xiii. 19. 
and its undoubted cases, wherever they occur ; and also for 
TOV ^iaj56\ov, Acts X. 38. with which, therefore, tov irovrtpov 
in the verse before us is made to be synonymous. But to 
TTovripov, which is found only Rom. xii. 9. he has translated 
by jAjft-iO, evil things; as in the same verse rw ayaOa) is ren- 
dered " to good things." It is manifest, therefore, that in the 
judgment of the Syr. Translator the passage in question, as 
well as ttTTo tov Trovripov in the Lord's Prayer and elsewhere, 
is to be interpreted of the Evil Spirit. And so, in the Lord's 
Prayer at least, the Fathers almost luianimously understood 
it. See Suicers Thes, Eccles. vol. ii. p. 808. edit. 1728; a 
work, which I venture to recommend to the student in theo- 
logy, as containing an immense fund of information on the 
subject of Christian Antiquities. 


V. 1. TTIV l\trifxo(Tvvriv vfiwv. Rosenm. says *^ Articulus Trjv 
et 'pronomen vfxwv adduntur, quia CERT A QUJEDAM 
GENERA virtutis signijicantur^ in quihus colendis et exer- 

^ Would not thc correct translation rather be, *' when she is divorced ?" J. S. 


cendis Christiani fugere ostentationem debent." The Article 
and Pronoun appear not to me to indicate any thing so recon- 
dite ; but only to imply in our Saviour a presupposition, that 
his hearers did alms in some way or other ; and his precept is, 
therefore, limited to the manner of doing them. " The libe- 
rality which you and all men occasionally exercise, must be 
free from ostentation." This presupposition having once been 
signified, the phrase afterwards, v. 2, S, falls into the more 
general form of the Hendiadys. Part i. Chap, v. Sect. ii. 


Same v. viro rtjv avO^wTrwv. Men generally. Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 2, 

Same v. Iv toiq ohgavoiQ. D. 1. and a few of Matthai 
want Tolg, This also is a copious source of various readings 
arising from the anomaly noticed. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. 

V. 2. rov jmiaObv avrtov. Mr. Wakefield (on St. Matt.) 
concludes his Note on this passage wdth a remark, of which I 
do not perceive the force. He observes, that " the Article 
prefixed to fiiaOov by the Evangelist, the or this reward, proves, 
in his opinion, that human applause, owiog 2o^a(x6u)(nv, was in- 
tended." But the Article in this place is not to be rendered by 
the or this : it is used because of avruiv following ; for where a 
Pronoun depends on a Noun, the Article of that Noun is gene- 
rally inserted. Of these insertions the N. T. will furnish, pro- 
bably, a thousand examples : in the Lord's Prayer alone six 
occur. Such fanciful interpretations do much harm to the 
cause of criticism : from a professed scholar like Mr. W. they 
were not to be expected; and yet I shall have occasion to 
show in several instances, that his notion of the uses of the 
Greek Article was not derived from attention to the Greek 

V. 6. T(^ £v r<j> KpvTTTtf, Wetstein's D. 1 . and Birch's Vind. 
Lamb. 31. and Esc. 11. want the first rtj;. The difference is, 
that the common reading makes the Father to be in secret ; 
whilst the omission of the Article ascribes secrecy to the wor- 
shipper. Either reading affords good sense ; but the received 
one appears to be preferable. 

V. 10. £7ri Ttjg yijg, Origen de Oratione, Birch's 1209. or 
Vat. and one or two others want Tiig : probably, says Wetstein, 
because " ovpavtji Articulo caret," After Prepositions, as lias 


been shown, the usage is anomalous : I think, however, that 
where Nouns are connected, as in this passage, the general 
practice is in favour of uniformity. 

V. 19. (Trig Ktti (5puJ(Tig. This will illustrate I'art i. Chap, 
vi. § 2, In the next verse the Proposition is exclusive : no 
moth, &c. 

V. 22. This verse affords an instance of a convertible Pro- 
position. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. 

V. 24. 77 hog avOi^erai. Mr. Markland (See Bowyer's 
Conjectures, 3d edit.) says, " Perhaps TOY kvog, as Luke vii. 
41. xvii. 84, So, 36. xviii. 10. and yet the Article is wanting, 
Luke xvi. 13." A single MS. of Matthai, but of inferior 
value, has rov. The omission of the Article, therefore, must 
be considered as the true reading: but why should it be 
omitted before kvog, when in the preceding clause it was in- 
serted before tva ? The answer seems to be, that ug opposed 
to 6 erepog usually takes the Article, where ug has not re- 
cently been mentioned: but if this practice were to be re- 
tained, where Eig has recently occurred, the Article might be 
supposed to indicate recent mention ; a purpose to which in 
6 ug it is frequently subservient. Now this objection does 
not apply to the passages, which Mr. Markland has quoted in 
support of his conjecture, but does apply to Luke xvi. 13. which 
he admits to be against him. This word, however, I shall 
have occasion to examine more fully hereafter. See 1 John 
V. 8. 

V. 28. TO. KQLva rov aygov. Supposed by Michaelis (An- 
merk.) to be the Crown Imperial, a plant common in the 
meadows of the East. 

V. 34. Ttt kavTi]g Many MSS. among which is Birch s 
1209. or Vat. omit to.', but jucpt/xv^v elsewhere in the N. T. 
governs an Accusative, as 1 Cor. \ii. 32, SS, 34. Phil. iv. 6. 


V. 6. TO ayiov Toig Kvai. This passage illustrates Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. ii. both §. 

V. 17. TO Sf aairpov SfvSpov. Eng. Version, "a corrupt 
tree." This is the sense : yet the Article here is not without 
meaning in the Greek, but is equivalent to irav in the pre- 


ceding clause. Tlie Version might have been " every corrupt 
tree," as is evident from what vras said of the hypothetical use 
of the Article, Part i. In the next verse neither irav nor to is 
used, because the Proposition is there exclusive. 

V. 24. £7ri TTiv wirpav, Eng. Version and Newcome " on a 
rock." Campbell and Wahejield, " on the rock," but w^ithout 
any remark. Schleusner says, " fundamento ex lapidibus jacto" 
According to the first and last of these interpretations it will 
be difficult to account for the presence of the Article. Schleus- 
ner, however, seems not in this instance to have given the 
meaning v^dth his usual success : for in the parallel passage, 
Luke \d, 48. it is said, t^rjice OejuitXtov eirX rrjv Trirpav' where 
Itti Triv Trerpav must certainly have a different meaning from 
that, which Schleusner assigns it in the present verse ; since 
no writer could speak of laying a foundation on a foundation of 
stones. But it is well known, and Schleusner admits, that in 
the parable of the Sower, Luke viii. 6. lirX ttjv wirpav signifies 
on the rocky or stony ground, and he himself explains it by 
Itti to TTSTpdi^sg, Mark iv. 5. It can, therefore, hardly be 
doubted that in this place also the words have a similar mean- 
ing, especially when we consider that the fooHsh man is said 
to build fcTTi Trjv ajuLjuiov. In St. Luke, though the moral is the 
same, the illustration is somewhat different. There the wise 
man builds his house, first laying a foundation on the rock : 
the foolish man builds Itti tyjv yriv, and that too x^9^^ BBfi^- 
\lov. — In these passages at least it is plain that BefxiXiov has 
not the meaning assigned to it, Apoc. xxi. 19. by Mr. King, 
in his most valuable Munimenta Antiqua, vol. ii. p. 9. 

V. 25. 17 /3poxT?, OL TTora/xot, &c. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. 
§ 5. Bengel (in his Gnomon) observes, ^^ Artie ulus significat 
pluviam non defuturam^ When such a man could indulge in 
this fantastic criticism, it is surely time that the uses of the 
Article should be examined. Of this, indeed, he himself 
seems to have been sensible: he says, on Matt, xviii. 17. 
speaking of this very subject, " D'lgna materies, quae d Philo- 
logis curatiiis digeraturr 

V. 29. Vioxyaiav tx^iv, Hendiadys. Part i. Chap. v. Sect, 
ii. §1. (Page95.) 



V. 1. airo Tov opovg. See above, v. 1. 

V. 4. T(f hpii. To the officiating priest, not to the high 
priest, as supposed by Wolfius. The Sjr. has, " to the priest." 
I cannot conceive why Dr. Scott (See above on v. 1.) should 
think the Article in this place superfluous. 

V. 6. Iv ry oiKia, In my house, or at home. 

V. 12. UQ TO (TKOTOg TO E^WTSpOV. Sce beloW, XXV. 30. 

Same v. Iku t<rraL 6 KkavOfiog koI 6 [dpuyjuog twv odovTOJv. 
This is another of the passages, which might induce an English 
reader, but superficially acquainted with the Greek language, 
to suppose that its Article may be inserted ad libitum. The 
expression occurs in the N. T. seven times, and always in the 
same form: the usage, therefore, cannot be supposed to be 
arbitrary : and the reason why the Articles are inserted is 
plain. The weeping and gnashing of teeth spoken of is that 
of the persons last mentioned ; and the sense is, " there shall 
they weep and gnash their teeth." Without the Articles the 
Proposition would have asserted only that some persons should 
there weep ; which falls short of the real meaning. Our Eng- 
lish Translations, however, in general say nothing more. The 
Complut. omits the first Article, probably, because it had been 
observed that in Propositions, which merely affirm or deny ex- 
istence, the Noun is commonly anarthrous. Part i. Chap, iii, 
Sect.iii. §1. Here, however, the case is difierent: the afiirma- 
tion terminates not in corat, but in ticet. Bengel observes, 
'' Articulus insignis: in hdc vita dolor nondum est dolor T This 
is not much better than a remark of the same Critic quoted 
above, vii. 25. 

V. 16. oi/ztac 2c yevo/ulvrjc. It being evening. The Article 
could not here be used. Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. 

V. 20. al aXwVfKcc. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 2. 

Same v. 6 vlog tov avOpujirov. See John v. 27. 

V. 23. fju/3avri dg to ttXoTov. Wetstein's C. 1. Birch's 
Vat. 1209. and Vind. Lamb. 31. and three of Matthai's MSS. 
— TO : but see below on xiii. 2. In this place, indeed, it may 
be the vessel implied above, ver. 18. in the order given to cross 
the Lake, which I find to have been the opinion of Bengel: and 


it is remarkable that one good MS. of Matthai places this very 
verse immediately after ver. 18. Were this arrangement ad- 
missible, the reference of the Article would here be sufficiently 

V. 26. rol^ avifioig icat ry daXatTay. Natural objects. 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 5. 

V. 28. €K Tu)v /ivrjjuattuv. These fxvrijJLiTa were in the wildest 
and most unfrequented situations, amid rocks and mountains. 
Some idea of their form and arrangement may be gained from 
the vEKpoTToXeig, as described and represented by Denon in his 
Travels in Egypt. 

V. 29. TTQo Kaigov. Part i. § 1. 

V. 33. dq rrjv iroXiv, The obvious use of the Article 
in this place is to direct the mind to the city of the Ger- 
gesenes, Gerasenes, or Gadarenes, (whichever be the true 
reading) in whose territory Christ then was* Michaelis, 
indeed, {Anmerk. ad loc.) maintains, " that the city here 
meant is not that of Gadara or Gerasaj (Gergesa being only 
a conjecture of Origen's) because they both lie some miles 
distant from the sea: but that the town spoken of was the 
first which presented itself to our Saviour at his landing; 
the name of which, however, is not given by his Historians, 
probably, because they knew it not, having all of them been 
indebted for their information to others." This objection ap- 
pears to me to have little or no support. In the 28th verse 
FaSapTivwv is the reading which Michaelis and most critics 
prefer. Now the distance of Gadara from the border of the 
Lake was not so great as to authorize us to depart from the 
common interpretation. According to Josephus, as quoted by 
Lightfoot and Reland, from Gadara to Tiberias, which lay on 
the opposite side of the Lake, was a distance of sixty stadia : 
the width of the Lake was, on the same authority, forty stadia : 
the diiference, therefore, or the distance of Gadara from the 
water side, will be less than two and a half English miles ; or, 
supposing the Lake to be here below its average width, we may 
state the distance at three, or at most at four, English miles : 
and where is the improbability, that the persons who tended 
the swine, should carry the tidings of so extraordinary an event 
to a city, which was at no greater distance ? especially, when 
it is considered, that Gadara was the capital of Persea, and, 


therefore, a place of some importance. Thus far with respect 
to the circumstances of the case : but, further, I am persuaded 
that liad any other city been meant, tlian the metropoHs of the 
Gadarenes, the expression would not have been dg ttjv ttoXlv. 
Of this indefinite use of so definite a phrase the N. T. furnishes 
no example. To pass over instances, in which Jerusalem is 
e\ddently meant, we find in John iv. 8. 17 iroXig in reference to 
Sychar recently mentioned : Acts ix. 6. to Damascus : x. 9. 
to Joppa: xiv. 19. to Lystra : xvi. 13. to Philippi: and xvii. 5. 
to Thessalonica. On the contrary, where some city unknown 
or undeclared is spoken of, we read elg ttoXlv and tv tlvl ttoXh, 
as in Luke i. 39. and xviii. 2. On the supposition, therefore, 
of MichaeHs, it is probable that one of these latter forms would 
have been adopted in the passage under review. 

It may be added in behalf of the reading FaSapr^vwv, which 
Michaehs states to be found only in the Syr. that it appears 
also in Birch's Vat. 1209. and in two MSS. of Matthai : these 
readings, however, might be unknown to Michaelis, having 
been published only in the same year, in which his own work 

V. 34. Traaa 1) ttoXiq. Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. 


V. 1. dg TO TrXolov. Wetstein*s L. 1. and six others, with 
Origen, omit to. So also five MSS. of Birch including Vat» 
1209, and also some of Matthai's. The vessel, however, may 
be the same with that ah*eady mentioned, waitmg to carry 
Christ back again. But see on irXoiov below, xiii. 2, 

V. 5. (Tol ai cifiapTiai. For cfxh many MSS. have aov, which 
Wetstein would admit into the Text. To me aov appears to 
have been originally the correction of some one, who knew not 
that ai ctfiapTiai might signify " your sins :" and this conjec- 
ture is strengthened by the addition of (tov after afiapTim in a 
few MSS., in both Syr. Versions, in the ^thiopic, Coptic, 
Origen, &c. 

V. 15. iXevaovTai rffxi^m, D. and two others at r^fiepau 
Tliis is an instance, in wliich, as in Propositions asserting ex- 
istence, the Predicate is contained in the Verb. It is probable, 
therefore, that the common reading is the true one: at the 



same time it must be admitted, that there may be a reference 
anticipative of orav following. In the parallel places the MSS. 
are without the Article. 

V. 28. elg rriv olKiav. Abp. Newcome (see above on v. 1.) 
did not perceive that the Article in this place had any mean- 
ing. It is rightly explained by RosenmuUer, who says, " earn 
nimirum domum, in qua Capernaumi consueverat habitare.'^ 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 4. 

V. 33. rov ^ai/j-oviov. In reference to ^aifxoviov implied in 
^aifioviZofiivov in the verse preceding. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 

,i. § 1. 


V. 1. TTvfUjuarwv aKaOaprwv. Over them geyierally : but 
the Article is wanting by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. S. irptJTog 2fjU(uv 6 Xiyojjievog Tiirpog. The word irptj- 
TOQf though found in all the MSS. and also in the Syriac, &c. 
has been supposed to be interpolated by some zealot, who 
wished to establish the Pope's primacy. The Papists, how- 
ever, must be allowed the advantages, if there be any, arising 
from the undoubted authenticity of the reading : but, proba- 
bly, more stress would have been laid on it, had it been pre- 
ceded by the Article, to which their writers have ascribed con- 
siderable importance, though they have not always understood 
its use. (See on Matt. xxvi. 26. and on 2 Thessal. ii. 3.) 
ripwroc, however, being an ordinal is not the less definite by 
being anarthrous ; Part i. Chap. vi. § 3. and hence Campbell 
needed not to have apologized for rendering it " the first." 
Still there is nothing in this text to support the pretensions of 
the Prelates of Rome. It is a sufficient explanation of Trpwroc, 
that Peter was the Apostle first called to the ministry. UpoTiOrim 
8^, says Theophylact^ as quoted by Suicer, Uirpov koI 'AvSpiav, 
^lOTL KaX TTpwTOKkriToi. The same interpretation will apply 
also to the assurance, that Peter should be the rock on which 
Christ would found his church ; especially if we recollect that 
the same Apostle was destined to preach to that people, to 
whom the Covenant of Salvation was first to be proposed. 

V. 4. 6 'laKapiu)Ti]g, Many MSS., especially of Matthiii, 
omit 6, and it is observable, that almost wherever the word 


occurs in the N. T. there is either a variation in the MSS. or 
the Article is wholly omitted. The meaning and origin of 
^I(TKapia)Tr]g no Commentator, whom I have seen, pretends 
satisfactorily to determine. The majority, among whom is 
Schleusner, suppose that it has reference to the town of 
Kerioth, mentioned in the O. T. I think, however, that the 
frequent absence of the Article authorizes a suspicion that the 
word is a surname, and not an epithet significant of a place of 
birth or residence ; because in that case the Article should be 
prefixed, as in Mapla 77 May^aXrivr}. Mark, indeed, (xv. 21.) 
has Tiva ^i/unova J^vprjvaiov' but this is only on the first men- 
tion, besides that rtva would make TON Kvpr^vaTov absurd. I 
am not certain whether the same inference is not strengthened 
by the compound eiriKoXoviuisvov, which we find used of the 
name Iscariot, Luke xxii. 3. and which, so far as I have ob- 
served, is confined, as in strictness it ought to be, to surnames: 
thus in the present verse linKk-nBug Qa^Ealog. — Acts i. 23, 
og EireKXr]6ri 'lovaroQ. — x. 5. og iTrLKaXeiTai Tlirpog. — xii. 12. 
Tov eTTiKaXovfjiivov MapKov. If this notion be well founded, 
the Article in this verse and in every other, in which 'lovdag 
precedes 'laKapiojTrig, ought to be omitted. Some curious con- 
jectures on the word may be seen in the works of the most 
learned Ligkffootf vol. ii. p. 176. 

V. 5. Eig o^oif tOvMv. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap, iii. 
Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 8. cKrOsvovvrag, \e7rp0vg, &c. without the Article, for 
not all the sick were healed, nor all lepers cleansed. 

V. 15. tv r]jiiQ^ Kpi<T£wg, Mr. Wakefield (on St. Matt.) 
translates these words " in a day of judgment ;" and he assures 
us in his N. T. that " this phrase has not the least reference 
to the day of general judgment." But it may be asked, what 
other judgment could at that time await Sodom and Gomorrha? 
These cities with their inhabitants had long since been exter- 
minated, and were, therefore, no longer subject to temporal 
visitations. He quotes, indeed, in support of his opinion ev 
Tji Kpiaeti Luke x. 14. where, however, the expression is too 
plainly definite to admit any doubt, and where also the argu- 
ment already adduced will apply with nearly equal propriety. 
Tyre and Sidon being then in ruins. — Since Mr. W., as ap- 
pears from other parts of his Version, acknowledges a day of 

li<8 ST. MATTHEW. 

general retribution, all proofs of tliat doctrine would, so far as 
he is concerned, be superfluous. A late writer, however, who 
is said to have devoted forty years to the study of the Bible, 
could not discover, that the usually received doctrine of a day 
appointed for the judgment of all mankind by Christ in the 
presence of Angels, had any foundation in Scripture. See 
Cappe's Remarks, vol. ii. p. 278. How, then, are we to ex- 
plain John V. 28, 29. Rom. ii. 16. and, not to instance other 
passages to the same purport, the circumstantial description 
beginning at Matt. xxv. 31? 

V. 16. Here we have wg 7rpoj3ara, but mq 01 o^ftc. It is 
not without reason, that even this apparently minute distinc- 
tion is observed. All sheep are not supposed to be in the 
midst of wolves; but all serpents are assumed to be prudent. 

V. 17. airh TU)v avOptSwtJv. Mr. MarJcland (See Bowyers 
Conjectures) is of opinion, " that some particular me7i are in- 
tended ; and accordingly tCjv avOpwirwv can possibly signify 
no other than the m£7i, i.e. the Jews, as the reasoning requires: 
01 avOpwiroij the Jews, as plainly appears from what follows : 
avOptoiroi, the Heathen, frequently in the three first Evangel- 
ists ; not so in some parts of John, the Acts and the Epistles, 
because the distinction had ceased before the writing of those 
pieces. So xvii. 22. irapa^i^ocFOai dg Xf'^poc avOpujirojv, of the 
heathen, not TON avOpwirwv, which would have been of the 
Jews, and false: see Mark ix. 31. Luke ix. 44." I have given 
this Note at length, . because the work from which it is taken 
is now somewhat scarce. It is not true, however, that in elg 
X^tpag av6p(jjir(jjv any thing can be inferred from the absence 
of rwv. (See Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7.) 
Nor can the learned Critic have been aware of the difficulties 
which would arise, if we should adopt his proposed distinction 
between avOpayiroi and ol avOpioTroi, even in the three first 
Evangehsts. To go no further than to St. Matt. vi. 14. "if 
ye forgive men their trespasses:" vii. 12. "whatever ye wish 
that men should do unto you :" xiii. 25. " whilst men slept." 
In these places men must thus be understood to signify the 
Jews, to the exclusion of the Heathen : on the other hand, 
xy. 9. " teaching for doctrines the commanchnents of men ;" 
xix. 26. " with men this is impossible ;" men must here be 
taken exclusively to signify the Heathen : than which nothing 


can be more absurd. — With respect, however, to the passage 
in question, it is true, that rwv avOpwVwv is more especially 
applicable to the Jews : but then this appears merely from the 
context, and not from any emphasis in the original, as Mr, 
Wakefield (St, Matt.) as well as Markland maintains \ In this 
very Chapter, v. 32. we read of the consequences of denying 
Christ e/uLirpocrOEv tmv avOpcSTrwv, where there is the same sup- 
posed energy of expression, but where the meaning of ol av 
OpwiroL is adequately conveyed in our Enghsh phrase the 'world, 
as opposed to God, who is mentioned in the same verse. And 
generally, I think, the word avBpujiroL takes the Article, even 
where " no particular men" are meant, but only men indiscri- 
minately, unless some of the alleged causes interfere^. The 
inclusive use of the Article has been noticed, Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. ii. § 2. 

V. 23. etc T-Tjv aWrjv. The Article here serves to mark the 
opposition between ovtoq and aWog, two cities only being sup- 
posed, and is, therefore, not without meaning in the Greek. 

V. 24. ouK ecTTL fjiaOriTiig, No disciple. Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 5. 

V. 28. KOL '^pvxnv Koi crtj/uia. Many MSS. of Wetstein and 
some of Matthai and Birch have THN xpvxnv kol TO (Tio/xa, a 
reading, which doubtless originated from ignorance of the 
usage noticed. Part I. Chap. vi. § 2. The transcribers, not 
adverting to this, altered the reading from the preceding part 
of the verse. 

V. 29. a(T<TapLov. D. a pr. manu and Origen {Griesb. 
Symb. Crit. vol. i.) have tov. This reading, though so feebly 
supported, is not altogether improbable, as there is a correlation 
between the ^vo aTpovOia and the acrcTapLov, for which they 
are sold. The use of the Article in this sense is perfectly 

^ It may be worth mentioning that ot av0pw7rot is often used for "the ene- 
mies," in classical Greek. See Xen. An. IV. 2. 7- VII. 3. 43. and 47. 
H. J. R. 

2 In Xen. An. I. 7- 6. Kriiger edit, ot dvOpiarroi, Poppo and Bornemann omit 
the art. after several MSS. the sense being men generally ("where men cannot 
live for the heat.") On this omission see Bomem. and Xen. Symp. 11. 24. 
Buttman. Gr. Gramm. Maj. §110. not. 3. Thiersch. § 30«. 9 Stallbaum (on 
Plat. Protag. p. .*i55. A.) cites from p. 322. C. tpior^ ovv 'EpfitiQ Aia, viva 
ovv TQOTTov Souf SiKrfv, Kai aiSiJ dvOpionoig, and within three or four lines, diKiiv 
di} Kai aidiSj ovto} Oip iv toXq dvOpojiroig. H. J. R. 


classical. Thus Demosth. de Cor. § 30. roue TQLr]^ag\ov(: 
aipdaBai €7rt THN rpiripr) (TvvsKKaiSeKa. 

V. 32. Ttov avOpujTTtJv. See above, ver. 17. 
• V. 36. tx'^poX Tov avdpojirov. Eng. Version has " a man's 
foes." If this be the whole meaning of rov avOpujirov, the 
force of the Article is not apparent. Schleusner explains tov 
avBpujTTOv by olKo^ecnroTrig. This, indeed, would be sufficiently 
definite ; for the master of a family, when we are speaking of 
his domestics, is a pre-eminent person : with this, however, I 
am not satisfied, and that for the following reason. The pas- 
sage before us is taken from Micah vii. 6. where the Hebrew 
is l/in W2i^ t:^"♦^< '•n''K. Here by V^i^ Schleusner would, I 
suppose, understand olKodeaTrorrjg : but how did the LXX. 
interpret Micah ? Their words are Ix'^poX Travreg avBpog ol 
av^pEQ ol Iv rw o'/ictj) avrov, " though some MSS." says Breit- 
inger in Proleg. vol. iii. " have Ix^poX av^pog iravT^g ol av^pEgy 
&c. quce genuina videtur lectio et Hehrceo pland consona, nisi 
quod vox TravTsg sit adjecta quce tamen in Veteri Vers, tojv O, 
comparet.'' Now though " vox iravTEg sit adjecta,'' it is not 
difficult to infer what was the reading, which it has supplanted. 
The reader of this work wall not, I hope, discover in it any 
rage for conjectural emendation : yet I cannot doubt, when I 
observe rravTEg and compare the Hebrew, that the LXX. 
wrote, by the alteration of a single letter, Travrog av^pog : the 
Omicron and Epsilon of the Uncial MSS. are not dissimilar; 
and I thought it probable, when tliis Note was first vvritten, 
that the late Dean of Winchester, Dr. Holmes, had Providence 
permitted him to advance so far in his most important under- 
taking, would have found this emendation confirmed. The 
passage of Micah is not contained in the remains of the 

If this, then, be the true reading, it is " Hehrceo plane con- 
sona" vvdthout any " nisi quod " whatever : l£^^K, it is well 
known, commonly means unusquisque ; the rendering, there- 
fore, could not be closer than by -KavTog av^pog. It is true, 
indeed, that the Vet. Vers. ra»v O discovers no very evident 
vestige even of ivavrog : yet it should be remembered that 
hominis is much nearer to iravTog av^pog, than is viri to irav- 
Ttg ol avdpig: in the one case the sense loses little or nothing; 


in the other a great deal. Supposing, then, this conjecture to 
be admitted, what is the use to be made of it in the passage 
under re\de\v ? It was reasonable to expect that the quotation 
in St. Matt, would bear a close resemblance to the Hebrew of 
Micah and to the Grreek of the LXX. ; and that the latter of 
these, if it did not exhibit the Article as we find it in St. Matt, 
would at least have something equivalent. This equivalent, I 
think, is Travrog: and tov avOptjjirov will then mean every man, 
or men generally, according to the hypothetic use of the Article 
so often noticed. In confirmation of this conclusion, the reader 
may turn to John ii. 24, 25, where he vdll find that our Saviour 
is said ytvojaKeiv Travrag, a truth which immediately afterwards 
is expressed by kyivwaK^ ri ^v 'EN TQi 'ANGPaiiat '. 

V. 37. iraripa r) jurjTtpa. Without Articles. Part I. Chap, 
vi. §2. 

V. 41. fiidObv 7rpo<pr]Tovj not TON jjnaOov. Part I. Chap, 
iii. Sect. iii. § 6. 


V. 3. 6 ip\ofxevog. The person confessedly expected. 

V. 5. TvtpXoif x^^^o^j XcTTpot. See last Chap. ver. 8. 

V. 8. ol TO. juaXoKa (popovvTsg. It is remarkable, that so 
accurate a Greek scholar as Mr. Toup (See Bowyer's Conjec- 
tures) should here wish to expunge tcl, not perceiving that the 
passages, which he adduces in support of his conjecture, have 
no bearing on the present question. That XevKo. <l>opHv, 
avOiva (popeiv, &c. are the legitimate phrases in ordinary cases, 
nobody will dispute : but supposing that Xevko. IjuLaria had re- 
cently been spoken of, the phrase in such case would certainly 
be Ol TA Xevko. (^opouvrtc* for the assumption respects not 
merely the act of wearing, but also the coloui of the gar- 

V. 11. £v yevvvToig yvvaiKwv. D. alone d pr, manu has Iv. 
ToXg yevvrjToXg twv yvvaiKwv. This is evidently wrong, the 
Proposition being exclusive; ani/ ofispring of any women. 

* Stallbaum (ad Plat. Protag. p. 355. A.) says that dvQpojTrog is one of those 
words which, when used of the genus universally, may be without the article. 
It is so in that place, while in p. 322. A. we have kwiidi^ di 6 dv9pu)7rog Oeiac 


For the same reason we have in this v. juet^wv, any one greater. 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. An Unknown Writer, who, 
in a pamphlet entitled " Six more Letters,'' has attacked 
Messrs. Sharp and Wordsworth on their respective publica- 
tions, and whose petulance is scarcely surpassed by his pro- 
found ignorance of the subject, gravely challenges his readers 
(at p. 24) to assign a reason why the Article was here omitted 
before y^wnrolg. That the reason will be satisfactory, to him 
at least, is more than I dare hope : it is, that the Writer, or 
rather Translator, of St. Matthew's Gospel, understood Greek 
somewhat better than does the Author of the Six more Letters. 
See Part I. p. SQ, 37. I shall take occasion to adduce other 
proofs of the Unknown Writer's extraordinary erudition : the 
tone of confidence and even of triumph, with which his re- 
marks are dehvered, gives them a claim to some considera- 

V. 12. jSmcrat. D. alone (if we except a reading of Clem. 
Alex, in Griesh. Symb. Crit. vol. ii.) has 01 (diaarai. Re- 
specting the sense of this passage the Commentators are pretty 
equally divided. The two interpretations are these : jSmorat, 
says one party, are those who strive with all diligence to enter 
into the kingdom of Heaven, " who," says Whitby, " by their 
continual attendance on the doctrine of the Gospel preached 
to them, their care to understand it, and readiness to receive it, 
show their ardent desires to be made partakers of it." The 
other party contends, that by jSmorai are meant " public ani 
et milites, qui coricussionibus et rapind prius vixerant,'' Wet- 
stein ad loc. The difference between these two opinions is 
sufficiently striking : but it has not been remarked, that the 
difference is precisely that which arises from the insertion or 
the omission of the Article : 01 jSmorai will include a whole 
species or class, as was shewn in Part I. whilst jSmo-rat will 
denote only some individuals of a class: so /uiayoi. Matt. ii. 1. 
ayyeXoty iv. 11. and so Isocr. Panegyr. § 33. kv y KATAHON- 
TISTAI Triv OaXaTTav Kart^ovo-tv. The question, therefore, 
is only, which of the two interpretations is more favoured by 
the omission of the Article. On the first supposition, then, 
i. e. if jSmoTTjc be one, who is earnest in the pursuit of ever- 
L-usting happiness, surely the whole class of such must be 
affirmed apwaZuv rrjv jdamXdav, and that too whether apirdZuv 


refer to the attempt or to the result : the attempt, indeed, is 
implied in j3m(TT?)c, and the result cannot be doubted, when 
we know, that to them, who knock, it shall be opened. Ac- 
cording, therefore, to the first interpretation, we should expect 
01 PiacTTai, or the whole class, and even then the assertion 
would not amount to much. 

But supposing the other interpretation to be right, what 
should we then expect ? Not that all plunderers and extor- 
tioners should find their way into the kingdom of Heaven : 
that any such should be admitted therein might at first be 
matter of surprise: at any rate we should expect the proposi- 
tion to be Hmited, i. e. that the reading would be simply j3fao-- 
Tai» Since, therefore, this is the reading of the MSS. with the 
exceptions above stated, and since the Article, if it were found 
in more MSS. would not admit a very easy explanation, we 
must conclude that jStacrrat, meaning persons hitherto of irre- 
gular lives, came from the Evangelist. — It is remarkable that 
Schleusner, who adopts the other explanation, has twice quoted 
the passage (viz. under j3iao-r?7c and apTra^w) 01 jdiaarai, whe- 
ther from accident, or whether he adopted the various reading, 
I know not. Michaelis (in his Anmerkungen) understands the 
place as I do ; provided, he adds, that no mistake has been 
committed by the Greek Translator of Matthew's Hebrew 
original. His suspicion arises from a trifling discrepancy 
between this and the parallel passage in St. Luke xvi. 16. 
where, however, the word (^Latjrrjg does not occur, being in the 
N. T. aira^ Xtyo/jLEvov. It is once found in Philo. 

V. 19. 77 aocpLa. For the personification of Abstract Nouns, 
see Part I. Chap. v. Sect. i. § 2. 

V. 22. Iv T7jU£pa Kplaeiog, See above, x. 15. 

V. 23. fwc Tov ovpavov eojg ^Sov. A very few 

MSS. omit TOV before ovpavov, probably with a view to uni- 
formity with what follows. There is, however, this difference, 
that ovpavbg in the N. T. is used equally in all its cases, 
whilst flt^rjc occurs chiefly in the Oblique cases after Preposi- 
tions, which may have caused the Article to be omitted. 

V. 25. vriirioiQ. Without the Article. In the inclusive 
form the affirmation would not have been true. 

V. 29. Ttj Kap^iftf in my heart. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. i. 



V. 1. rote (Taf5(5am. D. alone of all the MSS.—roXg. This 
word usually takes the Article, unless where there is an espe- 
cial reason for dispensing with it. 

V. 7. rove avaiTiovg, Without the Article the Proposition 
would have been exclusive, and would thus have denied more 
than the circumstances required. The guiltless persons meant 
are only Christ and his Apostles. 

V. 10. i}v TTiv x^pa. C.Yers. Copt, and Birch's Vat. 1209. 
— ?Jv TTIV : a very probable reading, though the received one 
has nothing objectionable ; his hand, as elsewhere. 

V. \2. avOpwTTog 7rpoj3arou. D, which is so often singular 
with respect to the Article, has rov 7rpoj3arou. This must be 
wrong : for though 7rpo/3arov has been mentioned before, there 
is no reference to it : the assertion is of any man and any 

V. 20. T7]v KpicTiv. It is now generally agreed, that Kpimg, 
which in the Hebrew is ZOS)ti^D (See Isaiah xlii. 3.) is here used, 
like that word, to signify a divine law or rule of hfe : and it has 
been well shown by Raphel, vol. i. ad loc. from Polybius and 
Plato's Epistles, that Ik^oWuv dg vtKog may mean to render 
victorious : whence the whole will signify. Till he make his 
Gospel triumphant. I affix this meaning to the Article, 
observing, that one MSS. of Wetstein, seven of Matthai, one 
of Griesbach (Symb. Crit.) and Philox-Syr. according to Birch, 
add avTov, which, though unnecessary, shows in what sense 
the Article was here imderstood. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect, i^ 

V. 24. TCL ^aifiovia. Not all Demons ; but those whom 
he does cast out, he casts out through the aid of Beelzebub. 

V. 28. Iv irvevjuarL Qeov. This may signify no more than 
by divine co-operation : and if so, Trveujua is here used in the 
fifth of the senses assigned it on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 29. etg ttjv olKiav rov laxvpov. Mr. Wakefield in his St. 
Matt, observes " the strong person, not laxvpov simply with- 
out the Article, because it has a more particular reference to 
Satan mentioned above." And in his N. T. pubhshed subse- 
quently, he says " rov i^xupou, i. e. Satan." According to 


Wolfiusj Fitriiiga (on Isaiah) entertained the same opinion. A 
comparison, however, of the parallel place, Luke xi. 21, 22, 
will show that Satan is not here meant : for there we find men- 
tion of 6 lay^vpoT^Qog, which destroys the notion that 6 Id^vgoQ 
was meant Kar l%o\riv : neither am I aware that *12^ is ever so 
employed in the O. T. The Article need not create any diffi- 
culty : Rosenm. indeed says, that it here has " significationem 
indejinitam ,-" and Schleusner has something similar : but its 
true use in this place is no other than that which I have deno- 
minated the hypothetic^ and which I have shown to be, like 
most other uses of the Article, as old as the age of Homer. 
Part I. p. 41 \ 

V. 32. Kara rov Trvevfiarog tov aylov, D. alone a pr. manu 
— second tov* This is evidently wrong : for not only does it 
contradict what was shown, Part I. Chap. viii. § 1. but is also 
foreign from the practice of the whole N. T. The meaning of 
irvivfxa ayiov in this place is not absolutely determined by the 
Article, though it is evidently used either in the personal or 
fourth meaning, deduced Matt. i. 18. or else according to the 
fifth sense, to signify the Holy Influence. The context, how- 
ever, determines at once in favour of the former of these, as is 
plain from to -rrv^vfia to ayiov being used in opposition to 6 
vlog TOV Oeov in the preceding part of the verse : for an anti- 
thesis between a person and an influence would be unnatural. 
To TTVEUjua, therefore, in the last verse was also used in the per- 
sonal sense. 

V. So, 6 ayaOog avOpioirog. D. alone a pr. manu — 6. The 
Article is here employed hypothetically. 

Same v. to. ayaOa, followed by irovr^pa without the Article. 
This difference has occasioned some critical discussion. Mark- 
land (see Bowyer) says, " perhaps to. 7rovr}pa :" but adds, re- 
ferring to Casauhons Notes on the N. T. " such is the differ- 
ence of the use of the Article in the Greek tongue, good things 
with the Article, evil things without it." The name of Casau- 
bon must ever command respect ; and the reader, who other- 
wise might smile at this whimsical distinction, wdll probably 
forbear, supposing that Casaubon has authorized the remark. 
He has, indeed, said, " notetur diversitas Articuli adjecti et 

* Winer adopts this as usual without acknowledgment. H. J. W. 

156 ST. MArrHEW. 

omissi" but he has not shown wherein lies the diversity of 
meaning. Maphel, however, (ad he.) explains it to be, that 
tlie mind of the one person must be understood to be wholly 
bad, whilst that of the other has only some admixture of evil ; 
wherefore care is to be taken, that those things alone, which 
are good, be brought forth, and that the evil things be kept 
back. That this was Casaubon's meaning is more than I can 
readily believe ; but supposing it to be so, still I cannot per- 
ceive that the distinction is well founded : and RapheVs illus- 
trations, though often of great value, here illustrate nothing. I 
am persuaded, however, that no such difference, as that which 
our received Text now exhibits, originally existed ; that either 
both ayaOa and irovrtpa had the Article, or that both were 
without it : and of these the latter is by far the more probable ; 
for the assumption, that the things brought forth, were good, 
is scarcely allowable, this being the very thing to be asserted. 
The MSS. though some few have ra Trovrjpa, are much more 
strongly in favour of my supposition: no less than twenty- 
seven of Wetstein, ten of Birch, including Vat. 1209, and fif- 
teen of Matthiii, among which are several of his best, omitting 
TCL before ayaBa. In the parallel passage, Luke vi. 45. we 
have TO ayaOov and to irovrjpov : but Adjectives in the Neuter 
Singular, used in the abstract sense, require the Article. See 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 6. Raphel, however, would account 
for TO TTovripov by supposing the persons spoken of in one 
Evangelist to be less worthless and abandoned than those 
mentioned in the other. Both solutions are plainly ejusdem 

. V. 41. avSpsc Ntvf mrat. Men of Nineveh: ol avdpeg ol 
would not have been true \ 

Same v. tv r»J KpiarEi. Not the day of general judgment, 
says Wakefield: but see above, on x. 15. 

V. 42. f5a<TiXi(T<Ta voTov. English Version, " The Queen 
of the South." This translation would lead the reader to look 
for something more definite in the original : yet the original is 
more natural than our Version. " A Queen of Arabia," says 
our Saviour, " a mere barbarian, shall rise up in judgment 
against this generation, whose calls to repentance, though in- 

' Tliis is a mistake. See on Luke xi. 30. 


effectual, have been so miicli more urgent." The allusion, it 
is true, is to the Princess recorded in 1 Kings x. 1. but the 
reference was not necessary, especially when the event alluded 
to had happened so many centuries before. Indeed the inser- 
tion of the Article would rather have directed the mind of the 
hearer to some Queen then living ; whilst the omission would 
leave him at liberty to make the intended application. Thus I 
might speak of it as an historical fact, that a Roman Emperor 
had died at York. I should evidently allude to Severus^ ; but I 
should not tliink of giving my expressien a more definite form. 
— Noroc in N. T. is always anarthrous, being considered as a 
Proper Name. 

Same v. 2oXo/xwvroc. D. has row, which is neither neces- 
sary nor very usual in the regimen of Proper Names. Part I. 
p. 51. 

V. 43. orav §£ TO aKaOaprov TTVi^vfia t^iXQyj diro tov dv- 
BpioTTOv. Mr. Wakefieldf deviating from our Eng. Version, 
has, "when the unclean Spirit is gone out from tlie man," 
which certainly is close to the original, but is perhaps scarcely 
compatible with the idiom of our language. Be this as it may, 
the case before us is analogous to that of regimen, in which to 
aKaOapTov Trv^vfia dvOp^wov would scarcely, for the reasons 
already assigned, be allowable in Greek. But, it may be 
asked, might not both the Articles have been omitted in the 
place in question ? No doubt, they might : and the only dif- 
ference would have been, that what is now affirmed universally, 
would then have been asserted only in a single instance ; which 
instance, however, not being particularly selected, would leave 
the mind to infer, that in other instances also the same will be 
true. This process is well known to Logicians by the name of 
Induction, I have observed, however, that the genius of the 
Greek language, is, in this respect, unlike our own : it usually 
precludes the necessity of induction, by asserting all, which 
could be thus inferred ; whilst our own tongue loves to assert 
the proposed truth only of a single example, and leaves it to 
the hearer to form the general conclusion. Accordingly Camp- 

» No. Constantius also died at York. Author's MS. But the grammatical 
principle contended for in the text is easily intelligible, notwithstanding this 
slight historical error in the hypothesis. J. S. 


hell has, I think, in strict conformity with the idiom of our 
language, rendered this place, " an unclean spirit, when he is 
gone out of a man." Of the Greek form the N. T. has other 
examples : thus, Matt. xv. 11. ov ro dai^^ofizvov £ic to arofia 
KoivoL TON avOpwirov, and so also Mark vii. 15. t^wOsv TOY 

V. 50. ddE\(l)6g fcai aSfcX^?7 kol firjrvp. This does not con- 
tradict what was said ahove on vi. 3 : the Article before aScX- 
0OC is rightly omitted, because of lori: Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 2. Instances similar to the present will be ad- 
duced on John viii. 44. second J^ote. 


V. 1. OTTO Trig olKiag. From his house. The meaning can 
be no other than the house, in which our Saviour dwelt at 
Capernaum. See on ix. 28, 

V. 2. dg TO ttXoTov. In this and in some other places of 
the Evangelists we have ttXoTov with the Article ; the force, 
however, of which is not immediately obvious. In the present 
instance, English Version, Newcome and Campbell understand 
TO ttXoTov indefinitely ; but that ani/ ship, without reference, 
can be meant by this phrase is grammatically impossible. 
Many Philologists, indeed, have adduced this passage among 
others, to show that the Article is sometimes without mean- 
ing: but this proves only that its meaning was sometimes 
unknown to them. Accordingly, Rosenm. says, " Navem 
aliquam ; nam Articulus to hie indefinite sumitur ;" and 
Schleusner is of the same opinion. There is not, however, as 
has been shown in this work, any such thing as an indefinite 
sense of the Article ; that, which has sometimes been so deno- 
minated, being no other than its hypothetic use, explained 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. which is wholly inapplicable to the 
present case. Mr. Wakefield observes in his N. T. "A par- 
ticular vessel is uniformly specified. It seems to have been 
kept on the Lake for the use of Jesus and the Apostles. It 
probably belonged to some of the fishermen (see iv. 22.) who, I 
should think, occasionally, at least, continued to follow their 
former occupation : see John xxi. 3." Thus far Mr. W. whose 
sohition carried with it an air of strong probability : and when 


we look at Mark iii. 9. wliicli appears to have escaped him, his 
conjecture becomes absolute certainty ; for there our Saviour 
is said to have directed, that a small vessel should constantly he 
in waiting for Him, wpoaKaprepyj avrt^. Moreover, I think we 
may discover to whom the vessel belonged. In one Evangelist, 
Luke V. 3. we find a ship used by our Saviour for the very 
purpose here mentioned, declared expressly to be Simon's: 
and afterwards in the same Evangelist, viii. 22. we have to 
irXoTov definitely, as if it were intended, that the reader should 
understand it of the ship already spoken of. It is, therefore, 
not improbable that in the other Evangelists also, the vessel 
so frequently used by our Saviour was that belonging to Peter 
and Andrew. — It is observable, that in most of the passages, 
in which the received Text has to TrXolov, some MSS. want 
the Article. In the present instance Wetstein's important 
MSS. C. 1. with six of Matthai, and two of Griesbach, (Symb. 
Crit.) — TO. This omission can be accounted for only by sup- 
posing it to have been originally the emendation of some one, 
to whom the force of the Article was not apparent. — I observe 
that Bengel (in Gnom.) has remarked, ^' Arti cuius navem innuit 
ibi haberi solitam." 

V. 3. 6 (TTTEtpwv. English Version, " A Sower." Campbell, 
" The Sower." And the latter observes, " The Article here 
is, in my opinion, not without design, as it suggests that the 
application is eminently to one individual." Schleusner and 
Rosenmuller make it synonymous with r/c? " answering," says 
Rosenm. ** to the Hebrew H prefixed to Verbs and Participles; 
for the poverty of their language compelled the Hebrews to 
use participles in the place of Verbal Nouns." Amid this 
diversity of opinion, one thing at least is certain, that the 
Article is placed here, not without design, since three of the 
Evangelists, i. e. all who have the Parable, make use of the 
same expression. That the Hebrews employ the Participle 
Benoni in place of a Substantive, as mentioned by Rosen- 
miiller, is well known ; but it is not true, that the Participles, 
so used as Substantives, necessarily have the H prefixed : in 
proof of which, if the reader have any doubt, he may consult 
Psalm cxxix. 7. and Prov. xxii. 8. where the Participles ^ISJIp 
and V")1T are both without H. It cannot, therefore, be in- 
ferred, that in 6 ainiQMv the Article is inserted in compliance 



with the Hebrew usage : and when we observe, that in both 
the cited passages the LXX. thought the Article necessary in 
their Version, (for they have 'O OepiZi^v and 'O (nrdptov) though 
they found it not in their original, surely we should say that 
the idiom is Greek, rather than that it is Hebrew: and I take 
this to be the truth ; for airdpiov without the Article in the 
sense of airopevc, a word unknown to the LXX. as well as to 
the Writers of the N. T. would certainly not be warranted. 
The Article, therefore, in this place is not, as has been con- 
tended, without its use, since it serves to give (rirdpujv the 
force and nature of a Substantive, as Campbell supposes, if I 
rightly understand him : for without doubt (riropevg tiq, had 
the word been used, would have accurately conveyed the mean- 

V. 6. r)\iov Se avardXavTO^, D. alone has rov ^l riX-iov, 
There are several instances, even in the classical Writers, in 
which ?jXfoc wants the Article ; and the reason seems to be, 
that it is one of those Nouns, which, as Taylor on JEschines 
somewhere observes, inter nomina Propria et Appellativa cequa- 
liter lihrantur. In the N. T. it sometimes wants the Article, 
not only after Prepositions and in anarthrous regimen, but 
also in some Genitives absolute ; in which, as in the present 
instance, the case diifers little from Propositions asserting only 
existence. The same remark will hold of most of the Proposi- 
tions, which express merely the time, when an event is said to 
happen: so Acts xvi. 35. rifxipag St y^voiiivr\g. Matt. xiv. 6. 
7£V£triwy ayofjLivuJv, Luke xxiii. 54. craj3j3arov eiricpwcTKE, 
See on John v. 1 \ 

V. 14. ri Trpo^rjrcm 'Ho-atou 17 Xiyovaa. D alone has tov 
*H(7. Xiyovaa. Nothing, however, is more common than the 

» Kruger (on Xen. Anab. II. 10. 15.) observes that the article is usually 
omitted when the word, as in that place, is joined with dvofiai. But he might 
have spoken more generally. Indeed of the six other instances which he ad- 
duces from the Anabasis, one is r/Xlov Svvovrog (II. 2, 3.), one is ^Xiog yv lirl 
Svfffidig (VII. 3. 34.), and the others are u/tta iJXtV Svvovn (II. 11. 13.), 
dviaxovTi (II. 1. 3.), dvariWovTi (II. 3. 1.), -n-epi y)Xiov dv(7fiag(Vl. 3. 32.). 
I observe »///spa kykvero, Xen. An. II. 2. 13. When the reader sees assertions 
in modern critics that the art. is omitted with 7na7iy nouns (as in Ast. ad Plat. 
Prot. p. 10.), he will find on examination that most or all of them admit of ex- 
planations, as in these cases. See prefatory remarks. II. J. R. 


omission of the Article before Proper Names, even when they 
are governed by Nouns, which have the Article prefixed. 
A(yov<Tais anarthrous also in two MSS. of Matthai; which, 
however, is probably wrong, because the writer would natu- 
rally assume that the Prophecy was known to contain the 
words in question. 

V. 16. oi 6(j)9aXfioi, TO. (Lra. Here D wants ot and rd, and 
that without the support of any other MS. It is but rarely 
that Nqims governing Pronouns in the Genitive are anar- 
throus. See above on vi. 8. 

V. 23. 6 cLKovuyv KOI (tvvkLv, Spoken of the same person. 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2, 

V. 25. £v T(f KaOev^siv rovg avOpcjTrovg, Wakefield (St. 
Matt.) observes, " the servants, whose business it was to take 
care of the field ; or the phraseology may be after the Hebrew 
manner, and mean in general, during the time of sleep.'' The 
expression is certainly in the inclusive form, marked by the 
Article prefixed ; but the phraseology is not more that of 
the Hebrew language, than it is of every other. The Author 
of the Night Thoughts in a celebrated passage has employed 
the same mode of speech, without regard to the correctness, 
which philosophy exacts : 

" Night, sable Goddess ! from her ebon throne, 

In rayless majesty, now stretches forth 

Her leaden sceptre o'er a slumbering world. 

Nor eye, nor list'ning ear, an object finds; 

Creation sleeps." Night I. 

V. 27. 'i\u TO. ZiZdvia. A great many MSS. of Wetstein 
and Matthai, and some of the best of Birch, omit rd. This is 
probably right : the servants would express their surprise rather 
at there being any tares (darnel) at all, than at the particular 
tares in question : Wetstein, therefore, and Griesbach, would 
properly omit the Article \ 

V. 30. Iv T(Z KaiQt^ Tov OtpKTfiov. Hcre also very many 
MSS. including several of the best, omit tlo, and Wetstein ap- 
proves the omission: but in this place I think the omission 
vn-ong, because of TOY OepKr/mov following : for the reader will 
observe, that governing Nouns hajfing become anarthrous on 

* It may be observed, however, that the Article may either be inserted or omitted 
with perfect correctness ; not because there is any laxity in the use of it, but because 
a different form of expression is used accordingly as it is used or omitted. H. J. K. 



account of preceding Prepositions, usually * impart the same 
form to those which they govern : had we read Iv icatpw depia- 
fioVf there could have been no doubt. See below, ver. 35, 

V. 32. navTtjJv Twv (nrepfidrwv, D and Vind. Lamb. 31. 
— TWV. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 2. 

V. 35. airb Karaj^oXriQ Koafiov. Part I. Chap. vi. § 1. and 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 38. 6 §£ aypog l(mv 6 Kocrjuiog, This is a convertible Pro- 
position ; and yet in the next verse (rvvriXeia and a-yyfXoi want 
the Article : we find, indeed, in eight of Matthai's MSS. 'H 
tyvvriXsLa, which is not an improbable reading, though in Ab- 
stract Nouns f as has been shown, the Article is less necessary 
than in others : but in ayyfXoi the same licence is not allowed ; 
and we certainly ought to render, " the reapers are angels," 
notwithstanding that in other places, as in ver. 49. of this Chap, 
and in xxv. 31. the task here spoken of is assigned to the 
angels generally. 

Same v. rov Trovijpou. Satan. See above on ver. 37. 

V. 42. 6 j5pvyiJ.og rtjv odovrtov. See on viii. 12. 

V. 44. iv TM aypi^. Some MSS. principally seventeen of 
Matthai's, — tw. It is wanting also in Chrysostom, prohante 
Bengelio. The Article seems to have been originally inserted 
from the frequent use of 'O aygog in the sense of " the coun- 
try," and not from its being necessary in this place : here it 
must signify an estate or farm, as is evident from rov aypbv 
Ikhvov following. It may not be amiss to remark, that Mat- 
thdis MSS. are very important in restoring the true readings 
of the Article, as might be expected, from their being princi- 
pally of Greek origin, or of the Byzantine edition^. And 
conversely, if we had known nothing of the Writers of these 
MSS. it might have been inferred, that for the most part they 
were natives of countries where Greek was well understood, 
from their frequent correctness in the use of the Article where 
the MSS. of other editions are faulty. It is true that the 
Codex Bezce is among the MSS. which have Iv aygt^: but of 
that MS. more will be said in an Appendix. 

» See note on p. 49. H. J. R. 

2 I have here asserted that Matthai's MSS. are of the Byzantine edition. I 
did this on the authority of Michaelis, Introd. Vol. II. p. 117. This, however, 
Matthai himself, on Matt, xxi, 4. positively denies : the dispute is not hujusce 
loci nee temporis. 



V, 2. Sm TOVTO al ^vva/j-EiQ Ivspyoixriv Iv avrw. English 
Version has, " therefore mighty works do show forth them- 
selves in him." Netvcome adopts the marginal reading, " are 
wrought by him." WakefieM, (N. T.) " these powers are 
active in him." The German of Michaelis signifies, " and 
therefore he works miracles." So also Beausohre : and SchleuS' 
ner is nearly to the same effect. If, however, it be the object 
of the Proposition to declare that miracles are wrought by 
John, it is rather unnatural that their existence should be 
assumed, I think, therefore, that the Article in this place, 
combined with other circumstances, directs us to further 

First, there is something remarkable in the sense, which the 
Commentators, with the exception of Wakefield, (whose Ver- 
sion, however, I had not seen when this note was first written), 
ascribe to Iv^pyovaiv. Our own Version of the passage seems 
to be founded on a lectio singularis a pr. manu of D, viz. Ivag- 
yovcTiv, a word, indeed, which wants authority, but which, if it 
existed, would be deducible from evapyrjg : and when we con- 
sider that the Codex Bezae was presented to the University of 
Cambridge only about twenty-six years before our present 
Version was made, it is not altogether improbable that this 
reading might have been thought of great importance \ The 
other Translators (Wakefield excepted) appear to take hepysiv 
passively; whereas it is every where in the N. T. used in a 
transitive or an absolute sense ; where the passive is required, 
we have Iv^pyuaQai. But further, not only is the sense either 
transitive or at least absolute, but the action is usually referred 
to some being of extraordinary power ; either to God, as 1 Cor. 
xii. 6.; Gal. ii. 8. iii. 5.; Ephes. i. 11. 20.; Philipp. ii. 13.; 
or to the Holy Spirit, as 1 Cor. x. 11.; or to the Devil, as 
Ephes. ii. 2. ; and these are the only instances in which the 
active Verb occurs, except indeed that in Philipp. ii. 13. we 
have TO OiXeiv kol to IvEpyelv applied to men. The parallel 

1 On a better acquaintance with the Codex Bezae, I think it probable that hap- 
yovaiv is not a various reading, but is to be ascribed solely to the copyist's mode 
of spelling : still, however, our translators might consider it as a distinct reading. 


164. ST. MATTHEW, 

passage in Mark is, of course, out of the question. Hence we 
are led to infer, that in the place also under review, lv£pyov(Tiv 
is used in an absolute sense, and that, 

Secondly, at SwafuiHg must be some kind of Agents : and 
that spiritual Agents were so denominated, there can be no 
doubt. In a curious, but somewhat neglected passage of 
Eusehius Prcep. Evang. vii. 15. where he speaks of a Jewish 
Trinity, he tells us that " all the Hebrew Theologians next to 
God, who is over all, and Wisdom his First-born, ascribe 
Divinity to {airoduaZovaLv) rriv TpiTr}v koX ayiav AYNAMIN, 
whom they call The Holy Spirit, and by whom the inspired 
men of old were illumined." And again, Demonst, Evang. iv. 
9. he says, " AYNAMESI xBoviaiq koI irovtipolg irvEvfiaaiv 6 
irag rwv avOpwirojv j3ioc icareSfSovXwro." And several others 
of the Fathers employ the word in the same sense. It is plain, 
therefore, that dvva/xig may be a Spirit either good or bad : 
and in this manner it is used in the N. T. Compare Ephes. 
vi. 12. where, indeed, ^vvafiig does not occur, with Ephes. i. 
21. where ^vvaiiig is associated with some of the words in the 
first-mentioned passage, and with others of similar import, and 
where Schleusner admits, though his own opinion seems not 
to be decided, that BvvaiaeLg is there generally understood of 
Angels. Such also is probably the meaning of the word, Rom. 
viii. 38. 

It can hardly be doubted, then, that the passage under 
review, and consequently the parallel one, Mark vi. 14. should 
be rendered, ^' the Powers or Spirits are active in him." Mr. 
Wakefield, by rendering " these Powers," has sho^vn that he 
understood the passage somewhat diflferently from the manner 
here proposed. — We are to consider that Herod was a Sad- 
ducee, and that he had hitherto believed neither in a resurrec- 
tion nor in the agency of Spirits. His remorse, however, and 
his fears, for the moment at least, shake his infidelity ; and he 
involuntarily renounces the two great principles of his sect. 

In this way of understanding the passage, the Article may 
be accounted for as in ot ayyeXoi, 

V. 6. yeve<ri(ov ayofxivwv tov 'HpwSou. This is another 
instance coming under the head of Propositions of Existence. 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. 

V. 11. €7ri TTivaKi. D and 1. have ctti rtji irivaKt, which in 


D at least is remarkable, because that MS. at ver. 8, to wliich 
Tt^ would have reference, wants the words £7rt irivaKi ; but the 
Cod. Bez(B sets Criticism at defiance. 

V. 15. o^i^iag yivofiiviw. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. 
So also below, ver. 23, 

V. 22. tig TO nXotov. A few MSS. including Vat. 1209— 
TO. See above, xiii. 2. 

V. 23. etc TO opog. See above, v. 1. 

V. 25. TtTCLpTy §€ (j>v\aKy. See on Ordinals, Part I. Chap. 

V. 30. Tov avEjuLov laxvpov. This is not an objection to 
what was advanced, Part I. Chap. viii. § 1 . Similar instances 
were adduced, p. 144. 

V. 33. aXrjdwg Qeov viog el. Several Translators and Critics 
understand this to signify only, " Thou art a son of God." 
That the want of the Articles affords no ground for such an 
interpretation, has been generally proved above, on iv. 3. ; but 
it may not be amiss briefly to notice the particular circum- 
stances of this passage. It is conjectured by some Commen- 
tators, that the mariners who made this declaration were 
Pagans; for which supposition, however, I find not the least 
support: and Wetstein, who favours this conjecture, adds, that 
there is no reason to believe that even the Apostles did as yet 
recognize the Divinity of Christ. By way of parallelism he 
adduces the common Heathen phrase Trpoo-Kuvctv <l>g 9E0N: 
he should have quoted some instances of wg vlbv Qsov, or 
rather of vlog el Gcou, as an expression of vulgar admiration : 
for wg Qeov is no parallelism at all ; and his not having pro- 
duced any such instance, affords a tolerable presumption, con- 
sidering his immense range of reading, and his eagerness to 
correct extravagant conceptions of the dignity of Christ, that 
no such instance exists. The inscription adduced by him (on 
John i. 1.) avTOKpaTwp Kaiaap, 9E0Y 'Adpiavov YI02, 0EOY 
Tpdiavov YIQN02, k.t.X. proves only what every one knows, 
,that the Roman Emperors were after death called Divi ; and 
that frequently they had sons, grandsons, &c. like other men. 
Admitting, then, that the mariners were Pagans, it is not easy 
to understand how, if they spake merely in conformity with 
their own notions, and according to their own phraseology, they 
came to use the expression. But they were the Qompanions 


of the Disciples : might they not, therefore, use a phrase which 
they had borrowed from others ? Against this it is urged, that 
the Disciples themselves were not yet acquainted with our 
Saviour's Divinity; a position which, though true on the whole, 
is yet received with too little restriction. That the expected 
Messiah was to be the Son of God^ was a Jewish doctrine. 
See Allixs Jewish Testimonies, Chap. xvii. If, therefore, they 
had believed our Sa\dour to be the Christ, they must also have 
regarded him as the Son of God. But allowing their faith to 
have been unsettled, or that, generally speaking, they rejected 
the notion that Jesus was the Christ ; still it was extremely 
natural, whenever his extraordinary works induced a momen- 
tary acquiescence in his mission, to apply to him the title by 
which, had their conviction been uniform, they would uni- 
formly have distinguished him ; and it is not too much to add, 
that knowing the pretensions of Christ, they would hardly, 
whatever were their own opinion, if we recollect how extra- 
ordinary and singular these pretensions were, conceal them 
from their companions and friends. To have heard Christ 
declare, as they often must have done in their intercourse with 
Him, that He was the Son of God, and yet not once to men- 
tion such a declaration to their familiar associates, would not 
be explicable on the common principles of human conduct. 
Even on the supposition, therefore, that the Mariners were 
Pagans, their exclamation, that Jesus was the Son of God, I 
mean in the highest sense, admits an easy solution; much 
easier, indeed, than that which would make vlog u O^ov, vnXhr 
out any proof, to be a term commonly significant of Pagan 
admiration. It was not thus that the Heathens of Lystra, 
Acts xiv. 11. expressed their astonishment at the works of 
Barnabas and Paul: their language is 01 GEOI oixouoOivTsg 
avOpvjiroig KaH^Tiffav irpbg vfiag. So also the people of Cae- 
sarea. Acts xii. 22. struck v^dth the eloquence of Herod, ex- 
claim, 0EOY 0a)vri, ovk avOpojTrov. Josephus, recording the 
same transaction, says, Antiq, hb. xix. cap. viii. § 2. avfjSowi/, 
0EON TTpoaayoQivovThg, 

Campbell, indeed, does not insist that the Mariners were 
Heathens ; and he contends that they might mean only to say, 
that Christ was a Prophet, for that such are denominated sons 
of God, He has not, however, adduced any instance in which 

CHAFrER XV. 167 

vioQ Qeov is so used ; nor does my memory supply the defect. 
On the whole, whether the Mariners were Pagans or not, I 
understand the declaration to signify, that Christ was really 
what he had professed to be : aXrjOiog expresses both their 
former doubt and their present conviction. At the same time, 
I ought not to suppress that the great Casauhon, 


distinguished -between 6 vlog rov Qzov and viog 0£ou, in his 
extremely rare and learned work Exercitt, ad Baronium, p. 
S2(j. He rests wholly on the authority of Theophylact: of 
my own opinion I have no other vindication to offer than that 
which is contained in the Note above, on iv. 3. 


V. 1. OL airo 'Ifpoo-oXujUwv TgafxnaTug, A few MSS. in- 
cluding Vat. 1209. — ol. The difference will be, that with the 
Article we must understand the principal part of the Scribes 
and Pharisees of Jerusalem ; without it, that some Scribes and 
Pharisees came from Jerusalem. The latter is the more pro- 
bable; and this is the sense of the Syr. Version, and apparently 
of the Vulg. See also Mark vii. 1. 

V. 5. irariga rj juriTipa, Part i. Chap. vi. § 2, 

V. 9. StSao-jcaXmc. B^ way of, S^c. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 
iii. § 4. 

V. 11. rov avQpwTTov, The Article is here necessary, be- 
cause, as in the case of Regimen^ the definiteness of a part 
supposes the definiteness of the whole: to arofxa avOpojirov 
would not be Greek, nor in this place avOpMirov. In the 
same manner must we explain 1 Cor. vi. 16. 6 KoXXtSfxevog 
THt TTopvy. 

V. 12^ Tov \6yov. This word always in the N. T. except 
where particrdar rules interfere, takes the Article, when used 
in the sense of 6 Xoyog rov Ocou, or tov Kvpiov. 

V. 24. oiKOv ^l<Tpar}\. And so also above, x. 6. The 
Greek form would have been tov oikov : the Hebrew would 
reject the Article. The writers of the N. T. waver between 
the two; for in Heb. viii. 8. 10. we have tov oIkov 'IcrpayX. 
The same diversity is observable in the LXX. and probably 

168 ST. MArrHEW, 

from the same cause: oIkoq 'Icr/oaryX may be regarded as a 
single Noun, and that a Proper Name '. The Syr. Translator, 
at Acts iv. 8. has rendered 'Itrpai^X by House of Israel. 

V. 26, Toig KvvagloLQ, To those of the family. 

V. 29. ug TO opog. See on v. 1. It may be remarked, 
that what was there said of the contiguity of the mountain 
district to Capernaum, derives confirmation from the mention 
in this place of Trapa Trjv OaXacrfrav rrig raXiXaiag, 

V. 30. x<t>^o^C, rv(l>\ovg, Kii)(l>ovg, k. r. X. Some individuals 
of each class ; as elsewhere. 

V. 39. elg TO ttXoTov. Here only two MSS. — ro. See on 
xiii. 2. 


V. 1. OL <Papi(TaXoi. A few MSS. with Origen — ol. This 
omission is not necessary, since the Article may imply only the 
greater part of those who resided in the neighbourhood. 

V. 13. Tov vlov Tov avdpioTTOv. There is a difference of 
opinion (see Bowyers Conjectures) respecting the construction 
of this passage. The one rendering is that of our Eng. Ver- 
sion, " Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ?" the 
other, "Whom do men say that I am? The Son of Man?" 
This is one of the very many new senses which the Writers in 
Bowyer's Collection would derive from a new punctuation ; a 
kind of conjectural criticism, which has experienced unusual 
indulgence, merely because, as is alleged, it alters nothing of 
the original Text ; but which, if generally allowed, would cor- 
rupt the sense of ancient Writers no less effectually than do 
the rashest and most unauthorized substitutions. It is not 
true, however, that the most ancient MSS. are without points : 
that points are found in the A. B. C. D. of Wetstein, i. e. the 
Cod. Alexand. the Vatican, though rarely, the Cod. Ephrem, 
and the Cod. Bezae, has been shown by Mr. Herb. Marsh, 
(Notes on Michaelis, Vol. II. p. 892.) : and the supposition 
made in the Preface to Bowyer's Conjectures, third edit. p. 6. 
** that the Apostles inserted no points themselves," is very 
questionable. We are informed by Montfaucon, as quoted by 
the same learned Critic, p. 889, that the first person who dis- 

2 Winer tacitly adopts this explanation. on Acts ii. 36 H. J. R. 


tiiiguished the several parts of a period in Greek writing by 
the introduction of a point, was Aristophanes of Byzantiiun, 
who flourished about two hundred years before the Christian 
aera, and that points have been found in inscriptions written 
two hundred years earlier. Admitting, however, that the 
Evangelists and Apostles did not adopt a contrivance which 
must in their time have been growing into common use, they 
may be supposed at least to have availed themselves of the 
same means of becoming intelligible, to which Writers, before 
the use of points, ordinarily had recourse : and that was ar~ 
rangement. The ancients generally complain of the obscurity 
of Heraclitus : the Epigi'am says, 

Mtj Ta)(vg 'HpaKXeiTOv Itt' 6iuL(l>aXov elXvs B/j3Xov 

TOV(l)e(TLOV' jULoXa TOL dvarfiaTOQ aTpairirog' 
6p(j>vri KoX (TKOTog t(TTLV aXajUTTcrov. 

Tliis obscurity, however, was caused not entirely by the close- 
ness of his reasoning or the depth of his researches : he was 
confused in his arrangement: his words were so ingeniously 
disposed (for according to Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 14. 
he wished not to be understood) that to have pointed his writ- 
ings would have been a laborious task. Aristotle observes, 
(Rhet. lib. iii. cap. v. § 2. ed. 1728.) ra yap 'HpaicXctrou ^mtr- 
Ti^ai, epyov, Sia to aSrjXov tivai irorigi^ wpodKHrai, rt^ varepov 
rj TO) TTpoTspov. Hence it is evident that the position of the 
words, before the actual use of points, in great measure sup- 
phed the defect : and, indeed, otherwise the same sentence 
would often admit two or three distinct meanings, or might be 
destitute of all meaning whatever. I cannot, therefore, agree 
with those who would rashly disturb the established punctua- 
tion : new senses may, indeed, be thus deduced ad infinitum : 
but unless great caution be employed, and the difference occa- 
sioned in the relative position can be well defended, unnatural 
and even absurd constructions will be the inevitable conse- 
quence. If the reader wish to feel the effect of this kind of 
criticism when applied to our own language, he may turn to 
the Midsummer Night's Dream, Act v. Sc. 1. 

But to return : though the Sacred Writers are by no means 
remarkable for elegance of style, their perspicuity, so far at 
least as their language is concerned, is not to be called in ques- 


tion. Neither do I believe, that had the passage been intended 
to convey the sense supposed, it would have stood in its pre- 
sent form ; for I do not recollect any instance of an interroga- 
tion so abrupt as tov vlov rov avOptowov, some interrogative 
particle, such as firj or firiTi, being always prefixed. 

I am concerned with this dispute only as D omits tov ; an 
omission which, had it been sufficiently supported, would have 
favoured the conjecture, but which, resting on a single au- 
thority, like so many of the readings, which respect the Article, 
in the Cod. Bezce, must be deemed of little or no importance. 
On the other hand. Birch's Vat. 1209, and the Hieros-Syr. 
with some other Versions, omit fie, and thus strengthen the 
common interpretation. Adlerin his Versiones Syriacce, p. 164. 
very well conjectures that the received reading was made up of 
two, viz. Tiva juLE Xiyovdiv ol avOptJiroL uvai (which is the read- 
ing of Mark and Luke) and of riva \iyov(nv ol avOpwiroL eivai 
TOV vlov TOV avOpojiroVf which is the supposed true reading of 
St. Matthew. — At any rate, the new punctuation gives a most 
improbable meaning. Had Christ inquired whether He were 
commonly regarded as the Son of God, the case would have 
been different: this would have been to ask, whether men 
Regarded Him as the Christ, the promised Redeemer : (John 
xi. 27.) but the Son of Man was a name which, though fre- 
quently assumed of Himself by himself, as in the present 
instance, was not applied to Him by others till after His 

Sa77ie V. ol avOpwiroi, Men generally. See on x. 17. 

V. 18. wvXai aSov, On these words, and on the promise of 
which they form a part, much has been written, which I shall 
not attempt even to abridge. It may, however, be observed, 
that in explaining Itti Ty Trkpfg, preceding, the Protestants have 
betrayed unnecessary fears, and have referred Trtrp^y not to 
Peter, to whose name it evidently alludes, but to his recent 
confession that Jesus was the Christ : nor is it easy to see what 
advantage would be gained, unless they could evade the mean- 
ing of ^(jj<TU) <J0L Tag kXeicj which follows. But there is no 
occasion to have recourse to violence. " The Christian Church 
in matters of doctrine," says Michaelis, " rests on the testi- 
mony of the Apostles, of whom Simon Peter was one of the 
most distinguished, in order the first, and who only, in company 


with James and John, was eye-witness of many important facts." 
Anmerk, ad he. It may be added, that Peter was the first 
Apostle who preached to the Jews and also to the Gentiles. 
See Acts ii. and x. By irvXai qdov one class of Critics under- 
stand simply death or destruction ; so that the meaning will be. 
The Christian Church shall never be destroyed : whilst others 
contend that irvXaL refers to the Oriental custom of meeting 
and deliberating at the gates of palaces and cities ; of which 
usage there are several vestiges both in the Old Testament and 
in the wTitings of modern Travellers ; and the name Ottoman 
Porte is deduced from this practice. According to this accep- 
tation, the meaning will be, that the power and the machina- 
tions of Hell itself shall not be able to subvert the Church of 
Christ. This latter opinion is plausible, and it is espoused 
by Casaub, Exercitt. p. S5Q, and also by Michaelis ad he, : 
but the objection is, that irvkai aBov is no other than vi^V ^iy^ 
of the Old Test, which is used only to signify death, or the 
entrance into a new state of being : and the irvXai aSov of the 
Classical Writers has no other meaning. YlvXai in this place 
wants the Article, by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 6. 

V. 28. rtvic Tiov wSe earrrjKOTwv. Several MSS. — rwv, which 
can hardly be right. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 8. : but the 
true reading is probably lorwrccj which Wetstein adopts. 


V. 2, wg TO (pujg. To <pwg aeXijvrjg is the conjecture of 
/. S, Bernardus ap. Wetstein. It has no foundation, and 
would, vdthout the second Article, be false Greek. Bowyer 
treats it with deserved contempt : he calls it a moonshine emen- 
dation : and yet his Collection has many others, which are not 
at all more lumitious. 

V. 15. elg TO TTvp, Bengel (in Gnom.) has here a Note 
which I do not understand : he says, " Articuhcs UNIVERSE 
innuit naturam horum ehmentorum, quod lunaticus apud ignem 
et aquam proclivior sit in paroxysmum ;" and he bids us ob- 
serve, that the Article is omitted in the parallel passage, 
Mark ix. 22, It may very well be omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. 


V. 24. Ta diSpax/Jia. Here Piscator (see Bowyer) for to. 


would read to, alleging that Ei^paxfia is a single piece of 
money. The singular, however, is BiSpaxfJ-ovy and though 
only one was to be paid by one individual in one year, the 
reference is to the practice of paying annually. 


V. 3. wQ TO. TTaidia. Children generally. Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. ii. § 2, Not, however, the general character of children. 
" We must not," says Michaelis (Anmerk.) " bring together, 
in illustration of these words, all the properties of children, 
which may be either good or bad, as is sometimes done in the 
pulpit-effusions of well-disposed men : the meaning of the pre- 
cept, if we attend to the occasion which gave rise to it, can be 
only, that he who would enter into the kingdom of Heaven, 
tnust no more pretend to merit, than a child with any show of 
justice ; I purposely say, can with any appearance of justice ; 
for not seldom are children presumptuous, and entertain high 
opinions of their own deserts." This solution relieves us from 
a considerable difficulty. Our own language contains a multi- 
tude of Sermons, the writers of which seem to have thought 
themselves bounden to shut their eyes to all the early mani- 
festations of the corruption of human nature ; and we have 
delineations of childhood in which the hearer or reader per- 
ceives as little of reality and truth, as in the wildest fictions of 
Romance. The Copt. Version reads ro irai^iov rovro, and six 
of the Moscow MSS. but those the least valuable, have the 
same reading. 

V. 7. rwv (TKavSaXiov. In these words I think there is 
reference, not, indeed, to any thing which has been men- 
tioned, but to what had previously occupied the mind of 
Christ. The o-icavSaXa alluded to are the calamities and perse- 
cutions which threatened the Christian Church. Such is the 
opinion of Noesselt, approved by Schlensner, These, though 
future, might be present to the mind of Christ, and might, 
therefore, being uppermost in his thoughts, be made the sub- 
jects of reference. Lord Bacon, as quoted by Archbishop 
Newcome on our Lord's conduct, 8vo. p. 117. has a most 
masterly remark, viz. that our Saviour, knowing the minds of 
men, often replies to the ilioughts of his hearers, rather than to 

CHAFl^ER XIX. 173 

their actual questions. I am of opinion, that in like manner 
He sometimes refers to what has recently been the subject of 
his own meditation, though it may not have been the subject of 
discourse ; and it is not impossible that the present instance 
may be of this kind : the calamities which threatened the 
rising Church we know, from other places, strongly moved the 
compassion of our Saviour; and though the Article in this pas- 
sage may be otherwise explained, as is done by Wakefield, yet 
his solution will not hold in Luke xvii. 1. which, however, he 
has not noticed. My opinion that the reference is anticipativey 
is in some degree strengthened by the Version of Michaelis, 
After " offences" he inserts, " which the world will take at 
the Gospel;" without which addition he thinks the passage 

V. 14. ovK eoTi OiXrifia, There is no wish. Parti. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 5. 

V. 17. T^ iKKXr}(Ti(^, Colle^io presbyterorum, says Schleus- 

Same v. 6 WviKog koX 6 tcXwvtjc* HypotJietically . Here 
two distinct persons are meant ; the second Article, therefore, 
is inserted ; and so it is in all similar instances throughout the 
N. T. See Part i. p. 60. 


V. 3. OL ^apicralot. Those of the neighbouring district. 
Many good MSS. omit ot. 

V. 10. Tov avOpijjTTOv /uLera rf)c yvvaiKog. Both have the 
Article, being Correlatives. 

V. 12. Ik KoiXiag ^rirpog. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap, 
iii. Sect. iii. §. 7. 

Same v. twv avOpwiruyv. This is another instance, in which 
it is evident that oi avOpdJiroi does not mean exclusively the 
Jews. See on x. 17. 

V. 21. §oc TrrwxoTc. Here D and Vat. 1209. have rote 
TTTw^oTc, and in many other places in which the same phrase 
occurs, there is the same variety ; but the discrepancy is of no 
importance, being no other than that of giving to the poor, or 
to poor persons. 

V. 28. iv ry TraXiyyivitriq. Ligktfoot understands this of a 

174 ST. M ATI HEW, 

regeneration, or a renewing of manners and doctrine: but 
Schleusner has well observed that the Syr. has what is equiva- 
lent to in seculo novo, which in the Oriental idioms expresses 
a future state of being. It is plain, therefore, that with Camp- 
bell we should join tv ry iraXiyyiVBcrifjL with KaBlcreaOe : about 
which there have been doubts. Kypke has a good Note on 
this passage, which he understands as it is here explained. 

V. 30. TTpwToi taxaroL koX k. r. X. Markland (ap. Bowyer) 
infers from what is said in the next Chap. ver. 16. that we 
should read ol TrptjToi icrxaTOL kol ol t<T\aToi 7rp wrot* but the 
cases are not similar ; for though we may say with strict pro- 
priety 01 irpwTOL tcTxaroi, yet after ttoXXoi the Article is not 
wanted : ttoXXoi irpwroi is similar to ttoXXoi 00(^01, &c. 1 Cor. 
i. 26. nor does any MS. here read ttoXXoi 01 Trp wrot, or there 
TToXXoi 01 ao(l)OL, TToXXol 01 ^vvaTOL, A few MSS. indeed, 
with the Complut. read the latter clause ol i<TX'^'^^'^ irpwroL' but 
then this must have been on the supposition that the ttoXXoi of 
the preceding clause was not here to be understood. 


V. 2. TTjv ri/ilpav. Each day, in reference to each Denarius. 
See above, x. 29 \ 

V. 3. irtpL Triv TpiTr}v wpav. Very many MSS. want r//v, 
an omission which Wetstein approves : in other places the same 
variety is observable, on which see Part i. Chap. vi. § 3. 

V. 12. ouroi ol etTxarot, C — ol. This is wrong. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 5. 

V. 16. ol i<TxaTot irptoToi. L. Origen — o(. Article requi- 
site by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. 

V. 22. TO TTOTTipiov. Definite on account of o following. 


V. 12. Tag irBpitrrepag, Particular doves are alluded to, viz. 
the accustomed offering of the poor. 

V. 13. oIkoq irpoarevxng' Our own Version is justifiable in 
translating definitely " the house of prayer," since after the 
Verb Nuncupative the Articles could not have been employed. 

* See Note, p. 41. 


Campbell and Wakefield are, therefore, more literal than the 
case required. 

V. 18. Trpioiag is definite in sense, but the Article is omitted 
on account of ytvofiivrig understood. 

V. 42. elg K£^aXi7v ytjviag. Our Translation has " the 
head-stone of the corner," but it is not very plain what this 
head-stone was. It may be inferred, however, first, to have 
been such, that it might be added when the building was 
otherwise complete ; as appears from the present verse. Se- 
condly, that it was so placed, that the passenger might fall 
against it, and also that it might fall upon him, as is evident 
from ver. 44. Now nothing which otherwise corresponds with 
the term can be conceived to answer these conditions, except 
an upright stone or column added to a building to strengthen 
and protect it at the corner, which was most exposed to ex- 
ternal violence. The Greek expression is equivalent to the 
Hebrew il^S ^21^ or H^H) Wik'l : but every rectangular building 
would have necessarily four D1^9, and we find these four spoken 
of. Job i. 19. ; but such a protection placed at each of the four 
comers could hardly be the subject of allusion in this place ; 
for Christ, who is the sole bulwark of the Christian Fabric, 
could not aptly be compared with any thing which admits 
plurality, and in which, indeed, plurality is necessarily implied. 
Besides, the KscjiaXri yioviag is allowed to be the same with the 
XiBog aKpoydyvidlog, Ephes. ii. 20, where the Apostles and Pro- 
phets are said to be the foundation, but Christ the XlOog aicpo- 
ytoviaiogf which must therefore be something pre-eminent; 
for else it would not be a fit illustration : and indeed we find 
n^S) ^2i^> Job xxxviii. 6. spoken of as being single in a build- 
ing, though nothing can thence be inferred with respect to its 
form or height. The common interpretations appear to be 
objectionable in not answering the conditions mentioned at 
the beginning of this Note. No inference that the icf^aXi) 
ytoviag is more than one in one Fabric, can be drawn from the 
absence of the Articles. See Part I. Chap. vi. § 1 . and Chap, 
iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 


V. 10. avaKUfj-ivwy. T> and three others would prefix rwv. 
This is not usual after words significant of fulness. 


V. 14. kXtitoL a few MSS. have 01 kXtjto/. Either read- 
ing may be right. The called are many, or, there be many 

V. 2S. 01 Xiyovreg, Several MSS. including Vat. 1209. 
would omit the Article. This can hardly be right: for the 
meaning seems not to be, that as they came they made this 
assertion, but only that the dogma subjoined was notoriously 
maintained by them. 

V. 28. Tivog i<TTai yvvri. A very few MSS. have 'H yvvr^ 
and in the parallel place, Mark xii. 23, this is the reading of 
A D a pr. manu. In this instance, as in many others, either 
reading may be tolerated, the difference being only. Whose 
wife shall she be ? or. Whose shall the woman be ? 

V. 30. wg ayyeXoi rov etov. Some MSS. both of Matthai 
and Birch, — rov. This is extremely probable, ayyeXoi not 
ha\ing the Article. 

V. 38. avTT] tari irpwrr) kul fieyaXri evroXi], For Ordinals 
and Superlatives (for fxeyaXri is here equivalent to jucyitxri/) see 
Part i. Chap. vi. § 3 and 4. Wetstein's L, however, would 
read 17 juteyaXr} koX t] Trpwrrj : and Vat. 1209, with Vind. Lamb. 
31. Hieros.-Syr. and a few others, 17 iJ.eya.Xri i^ai Trpwr*/. Where 
fieyaXri precedes, either of these readings may be tolerated. 
MeyaXtf, used as a Superlative, is merely a Hebraism ; and yet 
D alone has jucyaXrj koI Trpwrrj. In the next verse we have 
^evripa without the Article, being an Ordinah 


V. 9. Kat iraripa /mn KaXeo-Tjrc vfiiov in! rrig ytjg. It is 
curious that Markland (ap. Bowyer) has observed on this pas- 
sage, " it would have been much more agreeable to the Greek 
Tongue, had the Article tov been expressed, TON waripa juri 
KoXiariTe vfXhiv TON lir\ rrig yrig,'' Each of these insertions 
would, if admitted, be not only a corruption of the Sacred 
Text, but a violation of the Greek idiom. The first Article is 
contrary to the uniform usage noticed Part I. Chap. iii. Sect, 
iii. § 2. and the second, TON etti rrig yijg, would signify some 
definite person, whereas the Proposition is exclusive, and the 
meaning is, as our Version has it, " Call no man," &c. a mean- 
ing which the absence of the Article authorizes, but which 


its presence would destroy. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 

V. 15. vibv ydvvrjg. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 3. 

V. 23. TO ri^vo(T/xov KOL TO avr]Qov, &c. The species so 

V. 24. o« StuXtJovrfc. D a pr. manu and Vat. 1209. — oil 
but the meaning is, Ye are foolish on the assum/ption, that 
StuXt^crf. The same remark will apply to ver. 16. where D 
would omit ol. 

Same v. tov KwvwTra, ttiv icajur^Xov. In proverbial allusions 
like tliis, it is usual in most languages to make the subject of 
the remark definite : and this is perfectly natural ; for allusions 
suppose the thing alluded to to be known ; and no allusions 
are more readily apprehended, than those which are made to 
Proverbs and Fables. Perhaps, therefore, the spirit of the 
original would have been best preserved by translating " the 
gnat, the camel." Of this form, in our own language, Rays 
Proverbs will supply a multitude of examples. 


V. 9. vTTo iravTwv eOviov. Several MSS. read rcJv Wvivv, 
which Wetstein approves : in this instance it is safe to go with 
the multitude, since either reading is alike admissible. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 2. 

V. 15. Ev TOTTc^ ^yu^. Eng. Version, "in the holy place." 
Campbell, " on holy ground." The latter of these interpreta- 
tions is that of Grotius, and also of Spanheim in his most 
learned work de Pr(Bstant. et Usu Numismatum, vol. i. p. 669 : 
and it is but fair to apprise the Reader, that a great majority 
of the Translators and Commentators are of the same opinion : 
but it will be right to state the nature of that opinion, as well 
as the foundation on which it rests. The point contended for 
is, that TOTTOQ ay tog here means, " the district lying within a 
certain distance of the Temple, and which even the enemies of 
the Jews had, at different periods, agreed to regard as sacred ;" 
and Spanheim has shown that the Temples of the Pagans fre- 
quently possessed similar immunities. This, however, is rather 
an illustration than an argument : but Grotius contends, that 
if by TOTTog ayiog we should understand the Temple itself, the 



event described would not be an indication of approaching 
calamity, but the very calamity itself. To this, I think we 
may answer from the following verse, that the admonition is 
liere given not to the inhabitants of the city, to whom no 
opportunity of escape would then be left, but to the people of 
Judea, ol Iv ry ^lovdaia : and immediately afterwards we find 
o ev Tijj aypw. Grotius, however, aware of this objection, ob- 
serves further, that 'lovdaia frequently signifies no more than 
tractus Hierosolymitanus : yet of this use I find no example, 
nor has Schleusner given any. But, in the next place, what is 
the usual meaning of the phrase iv roircf) ayitf) ? In the N. T. 
it occurs (except in the present passage) only Acts vi. 13. and 
xxi. ^8. : in neither of which can it be otherwise understood 
than of some part of the Temple. In the LXX. it is very 
common, and there it is always meant of the Temple, and 
generally of the Holy Place properly so called. We have, 
therefore, no authority from the Sacred Writers to understand 
TOTTog ayioQ otherwise than of the Temple. — But, lastly, we 
are to consider that the passage before us is to prtOlv vtto Aa- 
viriX Tov irpocjyriTov' now the passage itself in so many words is 
not found in Daniel ; neither does to prjOlv or its equivalent 
1Q^^Jti^ in the Talmud, if we may rely on SurenUusius in his 
B//3Xoc KaTaWayr\qy authorize such an expectation. In such 
cases we are to look only for the se7ise conveyed in the passage 
quoted, and that too, perhaps, dispersed through various places. 
The places, then, in Daniel, to which our Saviour is here sup- 
posed to allude, are ix. 27. xi. 31. xii. 11 : and the first of 
these, in the Version of the LXX. is not very remote from 
the words of St. Matt. The LXX. there have jcai lirX to hpbv 
fd^iXvy/uia rcJv cprj/xwcTiwv taTai, and both the Vulg. and Arab, 
are similar. If, therefore, the matter rested here, the quesr 
tion would at once be decided : but it so happens, that the 
LXX. difier from the Hebrew : in the Hebrew, however, we 
find ^D 7^, and it is observable that pjj^ is the word by which 
the Syr. Translator has rendered irTepvyiovy Matthew iv. 5. 
where some part of the Temple (see above) is unquestionably 
meant. There is, therefore, a strong presumption that the 
MSS. which the Greek Translator used, (whether the transla- 
tion be of the LXX. or, as Jerome asserts in his Preface to 
Daniel, of Theodotion,) gave the whole sentence in such a 


manner as to justify the Greek and other Versions : the great 
objection at present is, that the reading of the Hebrew MSS. 
is D^'iipt^, whereas the proposed construction would require 
the omission of the final Mem, It is, however, to be observed, 
that one of Kennicott's MSS. gives a reading which, even if it 
be not authentic, still tends to show in what sense ^^J is to be 
understood. His Cod. 313. preserves the remarkable variation 
7J\"72 (See Bibl. Hehraica Dissert. Gen, p. 95.) which is ex- 
actly £7rt TO tepov, and which, by the way, is one among 
several testimonies, which one or other of the Hebrew MSS. 
affords in favour of the LXX. or at least of the old Transla- 
tions. The value of the LXX. as preserving readings which 
are no longer visible in our Hebrew Text, is not even at the 
present day sufficiently understood. Without, however, vdsh- 
ing to assume the authenticity of the reading in question, I 
may be permitted to suppose, that the accidental substitution 
of a synonym is more easily to be accounted for, than is the 
introduction of a reading which gives a totally different sense. 
It is, then, on the whole, probable, that the Greek Translator 
has given the true meaning of Daniel, though the vestiges of 
that meaning be in our present Hebrew Copies so much ob- 
scured : and if £7ri to kpov be admitted in Daniel to be a true 
rendering of the Hebrew, we can hardly doubt that the Temple 
is the spot intended by our Saviour in St. Matthew. Nor is 
the admirable history of the completion of the Prophecy ad- 
verse to this exposition. The desolation of abomination was 

seen to stand in the Temple. 'Fwfialoi §£ KojULicrav- 

TEQ Tag arifiaiaQ EIS TO 'IE PON, koi Osfjievoi Trjg avaToXiKrjg 
TTvXrjg avTiKpvg, Wvcrav te avToXg avToOi, koX tov Ttrov fXETa 
luLeyi(TT(i)v ih(^i)iiLC)v a7rl(})r}vav avTOKpcLTopa. Joseph, de Bell. 
Jud. lib. vi. c. vi. — In the parallel place, St. Mark xiii. 14. we 
have, instead of Iv totti^ uyit^, the words oirov ov Sei. This 
expression is, indeed, so indefinite, that it may admit different 
interpretations : it appears, however, to be an Euphemism, to 
which the violation of no place less sacred than the Temple 
could have given rise. 

If the Reader wish to know the other expositions of Daniel 
ix. 27. he may consult the Thes. Theol. Philol. vol. i. p. 929, to 
which, though I have differed from the Writer, I am indebted 
for some information on the subject. It there appears, that 

N 2 


the reading found in Kennicott's MS. 313. had heen long since 
conjectured by Cappellus and other Critics : this is a curious 

I observe that Campbell and, perhaps, other Translators have 
preferred the more indefinite sense of this passage, because the 
words were anarthrous. This objection, however, is of no 
weight. See Part i. Chap. vi. § 1 . 

V. 17. a^aL t\ Ik ttiq olKiag. Here We f stein, on the au- 
thority of a great many MSS. would read apai rd. However, 
several of Birch's best MSS. including Vat. 1209, have n : and 
this is a preferable, because a more exclusive, reading. 

V. 27. Tov viov Tov dvOptjjirov. For this phrase see on John 
V. 27. 

V. 31. 'iwg uKpwv. Birch's Vat. 1209, and Wetstein's i. 69. 
have rwv uKpiov. This reading would suppose to uKpov to be 
here used substantively : which, however, after aKptJv preced- 
ing, is very improbable. 

V. 32. TO, (pvXXa tK(l)vy. The Article shows plainly that ra 
(l)v\\a is the Nominative to Ik^vj^, and not the Accusative 
after it, as the English Version, Campbell, and the French of 
Beausobre make it : but Wakefield, Schleusner,8ind the German 
oiMichaelis, understand it in the former manner. The Reader 
will hardly need to be reminded, that Ik(I)V(jj may be used in a 
neuter sense \ 

V. S6. Trig wpag. A great many MSS. omit rf)c. Gries- 
bach would reject it, but, I think, improperly: for tKuvrig, 
which is understood, would require the Article. 

V. 40. 6 iig irapa\aiuif5dveTai koX 6 £ig, &c. A few MSS. 
including Vat. 1209. omit both Articles. Probably they 
should be retained, 6 elg being generally used to signify one of 
two. See on 1 John v. 7. 


V. 2. TTtvrc fHiipai. Several Editors, says Birch, as Wet- 
stein, Griesbach, &c. omit ai, though found in plerisque Codi- 
cibus. Griesbach, however, in his last edition, admits it into the 

* There seems, however, no objection to retaining the common Version, and 
rendering the words *• Ws leaves." See the parallel passage in Luke xxi. 30. 
—J. S. 


Text, though with great hesitation. I have little doubt of its 
being authentic : the omission may have arisen from the v^rant 
of the Article before the former nivre : the first five, however, 
are not definite, whilst the latter are so, being those which 
remain of the ten. 

V. 30. ug TO CTKOTOQ TO l^toTspov. This phrase occurs in 
two other places, viz. in this Evangelist, viii. 12. and xxii. 13. 
It is not of very easy interpretation. The opinion generally 
entertained by the Commentators may be expressed in the 
words of Wetstein : " Manet in imagine convivii : coenaculum 
crehris luminihus per noctem collucehat : expulsus ccenaculo at- 
que dome in tenebris versatur^ quoque longius removetur, ed 
crassiores tenebrce ipsi offunduntur,'" It seems not, however, 
to have been observed, that the " imago convivii'' does not per- 
vade all the three passages in which the phrase occurs. In the 
first, we have the word avaKkiQiiaovTaL, which in some mea- 
sure favours the common interpretation: in the second, the 
subject is a marriage-feast, which is directly to the purpose : 
but in the present instance, the Parable of the Talents, there 
is not any the most remote allusion to banqueting ; and, con- 
sequently, the received interpretation can scarcely in this in- 
stance be right. Besides, the person who is here said to be 
cast UQ TO (TKOTog, is a slave, who would hardly have been 
admitted to a feast. It is, however, to be presumed, that the 
phrase has in all the three places the same meaning, whatever 
that meaning be, to discover which we should endeavour to 
detect the idea which pervades the three passages ; and this, it 
is evident, is the future punishment of perverseness and dis- 
obedience. It might, therefore, be expected, even before 
inquiry, that to tncoroc to t^wTepov was the Greek rendering 
of a Jewish phrase generally understood of the place of punish- 
ment after death, not an allusion or metaphor requiring to be 
explained by the context : and with this the strong expression 
o (^pvyfiog TU)v oSovrwv, which every where is added, agrees. 
Windetf in his curious and learned De vita functorum statu, 
has some passages which favour the supposition. He says, 
p. 114. that " both the Paradise and the Gehenna of the Hc" 
brews were subdivided into seven mansions : that the six higher 
regions of Hell formed the Pv^ D^H''!!, whence Spirits after 
purgation are supposed to return; whilst the seventh is the 


dungeon, where the wicked shall abide for ever." And in an- 
other place, p. 246. he makes this very phrase ro o-kotoc to 
iZd)Tipov to be equivalent to the Tartarus of the Heathen 
Mythology. I have to wish only that this writer had adhered, 
in the present instance, to his usual practice of noting authori- 
ties. Schleusner has not adverted to the work of Windet, but 
he appears to understand the words in nearly the same sense ; 
and he refers to Z6(l)og rov (tkotovq, 2 Peter ii. 17. as a parallel 

V. 32. 6 irotfiriv, Hypothetically. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect, 
ii. § 1. 


V. 26. Tov apTov. Several of the most important MSS. — 
Tov. The parallel passages are, Mark xiv. 22. and Luke xxii. 
19. in the former of which a very few MSS. only have TON 
apTov ; and in the latter, so far as I have observed, not one. 
The majority, therefore, of the MSS. of St. Matt, is at vari- 
ance with those of the other two Evangelists: and the fair 
inference will be, if we assume the intended agreement of the 
three Historians, that the received Text of St. Matt, must 
yield to the combined force of its own various readings, and of 
the almost uniform reading of the other two Evangelists. 
Campbell, however, ad loc. observes as follows : " Had it been 
apTov without the Article, it might have been rendered either 
bread or a loaf: but as it has the Article, we must, if we 
would fully express the sense, say, the loaf. Probably, on 
such occasions, one loaf larger or smaller, according to the 
company, was part of the accustomed preparation. This prac- 
tice, at least in the Apostolic age, seems to have been adopted 
in the church in commemorating Christ's death. To this it is 
very probable the Apostle alludes, 1 Cor. x. 17. 6tl elg aproc, 
tv awfxa, K. T. X." On this Note we may remark three things : 
first, that it is not certain, as Campbell supposes, that the Ar- 
ticle in this place is really not wanting. Secondly, that it does 
not appear to be the fact, that only 07ie loaf was part of the 
accustomed preparation. And, thirdly, that the practice of 
the Apostohc age might possibly differ from the Paschal cere- 
mony of the Jews. 

I . The first point admits no other decision than that which 


is founded on strong presumption. This, however, is a case in 
which we may suppose that uniformity was intended by the 
three Evangelists : had any one of them meant to have ex- 
pressed his behef, that our Lord celebrated the Paschal supper 
in a manner different from that usually observed, that Evange- 
list would assuredly have noticed the deviation in unequivocal 
tenns. This not having been done, the majority of voices will 
be decisive of the question : and two sets of witnesses, I mean 
the MSS. of St. Mark and St. Luke, must be admitted to be 
more credible than is one, even if that one consist of individuals 
who agree among themselves : which, however, is here by no 
means the case. There is, therefore, a strong presumption 
against the common reading. 

2. The accounts which have reached us of the mode of cele- 
brating the Passover, uniformly speak of two loaves of unlea- 
vened bread. Maimonides and the Talmudists, as quoted by 
Lightfoot, tell us, " Then (the person officiating) washing his 
hands and taking tico loaves, breaks one, and lays the broken 
upon the whole one, and blesseth it, saying. Blessed be he, 
who causeth bread to grow out of the earth." These loaves, 
indeed, were in truth cakes cut nearly through, probably by 
the instrument on which they were baked, into squares or 
other figures, so that they might afterwards be broken into 
pieces with perfect ease. See Rohrs Pictor Errans in the 
valuable collection, the Thesaurus Theol. Philol. vol. ii. : whence 
it may be observed, obiter, that our own mode of dividing the 
sacramental bread approaches to the decency of the original 
ordinance, more nearly, perhaps, than is generally imagined. 
The round loaf, which appears in paintings of the Consecration 
of the Elements, is, like many other things of the same sort, a 
violation of historical truth. 

3. But though two cakes were used in the celebration of 
Christ's last Passover, it is not improbable, that one only was 
from the first introduced in the Eucharist. The passage ad- 
duced by Campbell from 1 Cor. might alone prove the Christian 
practice. Indeed, though there are many passage^s in the Fa- 
thers, which rather tend to confirm this statement, I do not 
recollect any one, which is so pointedly to the pui'pose. Nor 
are we to wonder at this deviation from the actual usage of the 
superseded institution. Of the two cakes usually introduced 


at the Passover, only one is recorded to have been broken by 
Christ, and to have been declared to be the symbol of his 
body: it was, therefore, natural that his followers, in com- 
memorating the Lord's Supper, should discontinue so much 
of the Jewish ordinance, as was foreign from the newly esta- 
blished rite. Thus, at no distant period, the bread employed 
was not necessarily unleavened : for though unleavened bread 
was actually used by Christ, it was not studiously chosen, but 
was such as the Passover unavoidably presented : yet the Greek 
and Latin Churches in a subsequent age disputed this very 

On the whole, I think, we may fairly infer, that a loaf or 
cake indefinitely was here meant by the Evangelist : but how 
the Article found its way into the great majority of the MSS. 
of St. Matthew, it may not be easy to determine. To say 
that it was understood by the Translator to represent the 
status emphaticus of the Syro-Chaldaic original, and that the 
other two Evangelists want it, not being translations, would 
be a bold and perhaps a gratuitous conjecture, since some of 
the oldest MSS. of St. Matthew, such as B. C. D. L. are 
without t6v. I am, therefore, somewhat surprised that Gries- 
bach has not prefixed to it the mark of possible spuriousness. 

Same v. rouro lari to (TWfia fxov. It may amuse the 
Reader to be informed, that the Article in this place was once 
supposed to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation : " quasi 
Articulus vim habeat propositionem contrahendi ad proprium 
sensuMy et tropicum non 'permittat." This is, indeed, most 
ridiculous, but is yet not incredible : I learn the fact, however, 
from the testimony of a Reformer. See Petri Martyris Opera, 
p. 869, edit. 1583. 

V. 27. TO TTOTijpiov. Here a very few MSS. among which 
is the Vat. — to. In the parallel place, Mark xiv. 23. so many 
of the MSS. want the Article, that Grieshach is inclined to 
reject it : of Matthms MSS. however, only three are without 
it, and those three are of the lowest order. In St. Luke xxii. 
20. the MSS. agree in giving the Article. In this instance, 
as well as in a preceding one (see first Note on this Chapter) 
it may be presumed that uniformity was intended by the seve- 
ral Evangelists : the evidence of the MSS. is, however, here 
more nearly balanced, and to determine the true reading it 


becomes indispensable to attend to the circumstances of the 
case. — It does not appear, so far as I can discover, that more 
than one vessel was employed on these occasions ; for though 
four cups full of diluted wine were to be emptied by the party 
celebrating the feast, yet as these were not to be placed on the 
table at once, but were to be used at different periods of the 
ceremony according to stated forms, a single cup four times 
filled was all, which the occasion required. Wliich of these 
four cups was that, which our Saviour declared to be the 
symbol of His blood, is not quite decided. It is usually un- 
derstood to have been the third or the Cu]p of Blessing, so 
called because over this the company implored the blessing of 
God on the food which they had eaten ; and this Cup was re- 
garded as the most important of the four. Michaelis, indeed, 
(in his Anmerhungen) infers that the Cup consecrated by our 
Saviour was the fourth and last, because of the expression in 
St. Luke, juera to ^enrvfitraL: this, however, is by no means 
decisive, since it was the third or the Cup of Blessing, which 
immediately followed the eating of the Lamb ; and this was 
the last thing eaten. — The Cup used at the Passover is stated 
by the Rabbinical Writers to have contained one-fourth of an 
Italian Quart. Of its form nothing can now be known, though 
Ven. Bede relates, that in his time the Cup used by our Saviour 
was still preserved at Jerusalem ; a tale, which the Reader will 
probably with Casauhon (Exercitt. Baron, p. 518.) be disposed 
to question. Much curious information, respecting the man- 
ner oT celebrating the Eucharist in the primitive ages may be 
found in Suicer voce. 'AyaTrrj, Euxap*o"'''ia, and especially 
'^vva^ig. On the Passover the Student may consult Sauherfs 
Dissertation de Ultimo Christi Paschate in Thesaur. Tlieol. 
Philol. vol. ii. and the Pascha Judceorum ahrogatum in Meus- 
clien's N, T. e Talmude illustratum, 4to. Lips. 1736. p. 897. 

V. 34. irpiv aXUropa (jxjjvricrai. This Noun is every where 
anarthrous in the N. T. unless indeed in Luke xxii. 60. where, 
however, on the authority of a multitude of MSS. Griesbach 
has rejected the Article. Wakefield, I observe, in his first 
Translation renders " a cock." To English ears this might 
sound oddly ; and we should naturally inquire, whence arises 
the difference of the usage in the two languages. It appears 
from a passage in the Talmud, referred to by Lightfoot and 


Schoettgen, that cocks were not allowed to be kept within the 
walls of Jerusalem, for the reason that " animaUa immunda 
enierent ,-" and on the same plea the Priests were forbidden to 
keep them throughout the whole Jewish territory. To recon- 
cile the Talmud with the Scripture, Reland published a Trea- 
tise, the substance of which is detailed in Schoettgens HorcE 
Hehr, and which proves by sufficient arguments, that the two 
accounts are not necessarily at variance: for example, the 
crowing of a cock without the walls might easily, in the still- 
ness of the night, be heard at the house of Caiaphas, from 
which the walls were at no great distance. The authority of 
the Talmud may, however, be disputable : but one thing, I 
think, is manifest from the uniform indefiniteness of the ex- 
pression, viz. that cocks, if at all tolerated in Jerusalem, were 
much less common than domestic fowls are with us : for the 
screaming of an eagle could not have been spoken of in a more 
indefinite manner. Wakefield's Version, therefore, though 
apparently unnatural, is perhaps not ill adapted to the actual 
circumstances ; and it is not clear that he ought to have altered 
it in his subsequent work. 

V. 41. TO jllIv TTVEUjua. Sco ou i. 18. under the second head. 
The Article is requisite by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 9, 

V. 75. Tov 'lr](Tov. Griesbach on the authority of very many 
MSS. absolutely rejects tov. Proper Names in the Genitive, 
as has been shown, deviate from the common rule. 

CHAP, xxvii. 

V. 8. aypog al/j-aTog* Part. i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. 

V. 15. Kara Sf topTrjv. Here D alone, as in other instances, 
has Tt}v. Though the Passover 17 Eoprri be meant, the Article 
is omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. 

V. 50. TO irvEVfxa. His spirit. See on i. 18. under the first 

V. 54. Ofou vlog. Here Campbell renders " a son of God," 
and defends his Version at considerable length. Bishop Lowth 
in his English Grammar had proposed the same translation. 
Having very fully considered the phrase above, iv. 3. and xiv. 
33. I have nothing new to add. The Centurion could scarcely 
fail to know the alleged blasphemy, for which Christ sufl[ered ; 


and had he intended in Heathen phraseology to express his 
admiration of our Saviour's conduct, he would not have called 
our Saviour Gfou vlog. But these points have been already 
discussed. See as above. 

V. 60. Rosenmnller remarks, " Articulus Iv rrj irirpq. osten- 
dit, ex una rupe sive petrci excisum et excavatum fuisse monu- 
mentumr I understand the phrase in the same manner as 
above, vii. 24. 


V. 1. Mapfo y\ Ma7SaX77v>]. On v. ^Q. of the preceding 
Chapter, Campbell w^ell observes, that the meaning is Mary of 
Magdala or the Magdalene, and that custom only has made 
the word a Proper Name : and yet in the present verse, D. — 
17 a pr, manu. 

V. 1 8. TTtto-a l^ovGia, This must be understood in the most 
unlimited sense. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. It is not, 
therefore, without reason, that Vitringa Obss. Sac. (as quoted 
by Wolfius) ^^ per l^ovaiav hie regnum Providentice universalis 
innui contendit,'' 

188 ST. MARK, 



V. 1. viov Tov Qeov, Here Markland conjectures that we 
should read TOY utou, and he thinks that the Article has been 
lost by the homceoteleuton of XpiaTov preceding. Titles, how- 
ever, in apposition frequently want the Article. It is to the 
full as probable, that tov before Gtou ought to be omitted, as 
in the Vat. 1209 \ 

V. 1^. TO TTvaujua the Holy Spirit. See Matt. i. 18. D 
alone adds to ayiov* 

V. 13. ol ayyeXoi. The Alex. MS. with a few others — ol. 
Matthai calls it arguta correctio. Supposing it, indeed, to be 
a correction, it may possibly deserve the epithet : but in similar 
instances, as well as in the parallel place of St. Matthew, Nouns 
are generally anarthrous. 

V. 15. 7r£7rXrip(t>rat 6 kul^oq. The dejfiniteness of this ex- 
pression proves incontestably the then prevailing expectation 
of the Messiah. 


V. 26. £7ri 'AfiiaOap tov apx^cpewc- A great deal of learn- 
ing and ingenuity has been employed on these words, in order 
to remove a difficulty, which in reality does not exist. It has 
been observed, that the fact here referred to happened, 7iot in 
the High Priesthood of Abiathar, but in that of Ahimelech his 
father. See 1 Sam. xxi. and hence it was thouglit necessary 
to vindicate the expression in the best manner possible. Dr. 
Owen (see Bowyer's Conject.) thought lirX might mean about. 

* V. 7. o hxvpoTipog fiov. Winer observes, that this distinctly points to the 
Messiah. Thai one who is stronger than J is coming. — H. J. R. 


or a little before the time that : Wetstein imagines it to signify, 
in the <presence of: Michaelis believes that it is a Jewish mode 
of citing Scripture, as if any one should say, In the Chapter of, 
&c, ; an interpretation which Rosenmuller and Mr, Herb, 
Marsh (Introd. vol. i. p. 403.) would have thought not im- 
probable, if Mark had added jiypairTaiy or Xiysi ri ypa<l>r)f as 
Rom. xi. 2. Some have supposed that Ahimelech and Abia- 
thar, the father and the son, were called by either name indis- 
criminately : and Lightfoot understands Abiathar to mean the 
XJrim and Thummim. All this has arisen from imagining that 
the words of St. Mark, explained in the obvious way, would 
mean, in the Priesthood of Abiathar ; and, indeed, even the 
accurate Schleusner (voce IttV) renders the words sub pontijicatu 
Abiatharis ; a sense which they will not bear. The error con- 
sists in having confounded liri 'A^idOap TOY apx^spiwg with 
the same words, omitting the Article : for though several 
recently collated MSS. including the far greater part of Alters 
and Matthais, do, indeed, omit the Article ; yet none of the 
solutions which I have noticed, appear to have originated in 
the belief that such was the true reading. That reading, how- 
ever, would indeed mean, that Abiathar was actually High 
Priest at the period in question : thus in Demosth. vol. i. p. 
250. edit. Reiske, iiri N^koicXe'ouc "APXONTOS : and Thucyd. 
lib. ii. sub init. Itti Xpval^oQ Iv "Apya 'lEPaMENHS, koX 
AtvTjcrtou 'E^OPOY £v STraprp, koI YivQo^wpov m ^vo jxrivag 
''APXONTOS 'kQr]vaioig' where the insertion of the Article 
would imply only, that these persons were subsequently dis- 
tinguished by their respective offices from others of the same 

But we find the very form of expression in the LXX. 
1 Mace. xiii. 42. Itti St'/ncuvoc apx"P^<»^C> and in the N. T. 
Luke iii. 2. we have lii ap\i£pi(jjv "Avva koX Kam^a, examples 
which sufficiently prove that the received reading will not 
admit the received construction. Of the other form, viz. that 
which has the Article, I find only Luke iv. 27. lirl 'EXiffaaiov 
Tov 7rpo<^/jrou, by which phrase, however, is plainly meant, 
" In the days of EHsha the Prophet," without any reference to 
his actual exercise of the prophetic office at the period men- 
tioned. Indeed the different import of the two readings of 
this passage might be theoretically proved, as it has been prac- 

190 ST. MARK, 

tically illustrated. — The only question is, therefore, whether 
Abiathar was a High Priest of distinguished name, so as to 
justify the use of the Article : and the answer must be obvious 
to every person acquainted with the Jewish History. Besides, 
it is not improbable that there might have been other persons 
of the same name and of some celebrity among the Jews, though 
no account of them has descended to the present time. The 
name itself was certainly not uncommon : and this circumstance 
alone might render the addition of tov apx^^P^^C natural, if 
not absolutely necessary. One writer (see Bowyer) has ob- 
served, that the expression. Matt. i. 6. AajSiS rov f^aaiXia is 
similar to the present ; and this is perfectly true : it may be 
added, that any event which had happened during the early 
part of David's life, might have been said to have taken place lirl 
Aaj3iS TOY (^amXiijjg' and had this phrase occurred, solutions 
similar to those before us would probably have been hazarded. 
See also John xi. 2, 17 aXel^pacra, though the act of anointing 
was subsequent. I observe that Griesbach, in his N. T. has 
prefixed the mark of possible spuriousness to the Article, 
though the omission of the Article can alone make the passage 
really difficult. For this, however, he is not to be blamed, if 
he thought that the evidence in favour of that reading prepon^ 
derated. The Oriental Versions appear to have understood 
the passages, as if the Article were omitted. D and some of 
the old Latin Versions omit the clause altogether. See on 
xii. 26, 


V. 8. 01 TTcpt Tupov. A very few MSS. of great note — oL 
This reading, however, would make Tyre and Sidon to be the 
scene of action ; which is contradicted by the very next verse. 

V. 13. etc TO opoQ. See on Matthew v. 1. 

V. 19. Etc oiKov. Two MSS. of little account have elg TON 
oiKov. Mr. Wakefield, in his N. T. lays some stress on the 
absence of the Article, and understands oIkov of the first house 
which presented itself; adding, " None but those who are igno- 
rant of the Greek language, and are acquainted with 7io lan- 
guage, will treat as pedantic a proper attention to the Article." 
To this general principle I most readily assent ; but that 
nothing can be here inferred from the want of rov is certain. 


on account of the Preposition preceding. Part i. Chap. vi. 


V. 20. (jx^oQ. A. D. 'O oxXoc, which, with TraXtv, is pro- 
bably right. 

V. 28. fi\a(T(f)riiJiiai, ocrac, k. r. X. Griesb. admits into the 
text al before jSXaa-^rjjumt. This is not indisputable, ocrog 
sometimes allowing its antecedent to be anarthrous. Com- 
pare Acts ix. 39. I do not, however perceive with Bengel, 
that " Articulus in Edd, omissus magnam sermoni vim additr 


Y. 1. iig TO irXolov. See on Matt. xiii. 2, 

V. 3. 6 aird^Lov. See on Matt. xiii. 3. 

Y. 22. OX) yaQ IcTTi Ti KpvTrrov. Griesb. on the authority of 
some good MSS. prefixes the mark of possible spuriousness to 
rt. The word is not necessary. See on Exclusive Proposi- 
tions, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. 


Y. SS. iraaav rrjv a\i]6£iav. The whole truth respecting 
the affair in question. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. 


Y. 3. 6 rticrwv. This term, as Schoettgen observ^es, is of 
various import, signifying an artificer of any kind whatever. 
If we may rely on a passage in Justin Martyr's Dial, with Try- 
pho, p. 270. edit. Jebb, the Founder of our Faith ra tsktoviku 
tpya elpyaZ^ro Iv avOpioiroig lov, 'APOTPA koI ZYFA. To vin- 
dicate the dignity of such an occupation, w^ould be just as absurd, 
and as foreign from the spirit of the religion of humihty, as was 
the once prevailing fashion of defending the style of the Sacred 
Writers, because, forsooth, it had incurred a sneer from the 
infidel Earl of Shaftesbury. He who can beheve that the 
Almighty Being must select the original promulgers of his 
will from among those only who possess the advantages of rank 
and learning, worships not the Universal Father, but the God 
of liis own vain imagination. Still, how^ever, it may be re- 
marked, that our Saviour's emploj^nent was not degrading, 
though, that it was lowly, is evident from the passage now 

192 ST. MARK, 

before us. From the Rabbinical writers we learn, that among 
the Jews, even they who were destined to contemplative life* 
were yet taught some manual occupation. It was a Jewish 
maxim, that he who brings not up his son to some kind of 
work, is as culpable as he who should teach his son to steal. 
See Schoettgen Hor. Heb. vol. ii. p. 898. — In this place there 
is a variation in a few MSS. and Versions, which make Christ 
to be only the son of a tIktijjv, perhaps, says Wetstein, from 
the notion that such an art little suited the dignity of our 
Saviour: and it is remarkable that Origen cont. Cels. lib. vi. 
p. 299. 4to. denies that Christ is ever so denominated by any 
of the Evangelists: which, however, contradicts the vast ma- 
jority of MSS. and Versions, as well as general tradition, and 
the otherwise uniform testimony of the Fathers. 

Same v. adeXrpog ^i, C. D. L. have fcm 6 aSfX^oc* This 
must be wrong, because it would make the son of Mary and 
the brother of James to be distinct persons. See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. 

V. 14. at SuvajLtcfc. See on Matthew xiv. 2* 

V. 15. oTi TTpo^/^TTjc icTTiv, Tj K. T. X. Accordlug to Eutky- 
mius, some copies had 'O TrQo<py]Tr\Q, which Heinsius, Exercc, 
Sacr. approves ; so that the sense would be, " He is the Pro- 
phet predicted of old ;" but the almost general consent of the 
MSS. in omitting ?5> forbids us to admit the Article and the 
exposition which is founded on it. The sense is. He is a Pro- 
phet resembling one of the Prophets of ancient times. 

V. 29. Iv TM fivtifieitf), Markland (ap. Bowyer) objects to 
the Article before fivtifxait^. It is found, indeed, in scarcely 
any MS. except D, though it was admitted into Stephen's 
edition, and has since been a part of the received text. 

V. 55 M Toig icpaj3j3arof c- A. 1 . 69. — rote : but the Ar- 
ticle may be used for the Possessive Pronoun. 


V. 10. Tov Trarlpa (tov kol rriv fxr^ripa crov is here followed 
by 6 KaKoXo-ywv iraripa rj /jLtiTtpa. These passages are quoted 
from the LXX. Ex. xx. 12. and xxi. 17.: yet there is not in 
them any irregularity in respect of the Article : see on Matt, 
vi. 3. and x. 37. To account, however, for the insertion in the 
one case, and the omission in the other, is among the prob- 


lems proposed by tlie Unknown Writer alluded to on Matt. xi. 
1 1 . He has, besides tlie present, collected various instances 
of irarrio and iiinr]^ (principally from the LXX.) in some of 
whicli these words have the Article, and in others are without 
it. For the insertion, I apprehend no reason will be required : 
the omissions are all of them, either in consequence of preced- 
ing Prepositions, or after an anarthrous governing Noun, or in 
what I have called Enumeration. In the same page (viz. 25.) 
he urges, as another unanswerable argument against Mr. 
Sharp, to whose hypothesis, however, it could not at all apply, 
that we find in one place Trept rriv rpiTr^v mquv, and in another 
(without the Article) tteoX fjcrrjv, which is the common anomaly 
in Ordinals. He next adduces examples of Oeog and 6 Oeog^ 
in none of which is the usage violated, (see on Luke i. 15.) and 
in some the other form could not be adopted. He who is thus 
ignorant of every thing relating to the point in dispute may, 
with little invention, find questions to put to his antagonist : it 
may be doubted, however, whether the interrogative style in 
controversy be always judiciously chosen. 

V. 24. dg Triv oiKiav. The Article should be omitted, as in 
a vast majority of the MSS. Wetstein and Griesbach both 
reject it. 

CHAP. vlil. 

V. 8. ypav TTEpiarasviuLaTa icXatrjuarwv. The Cod. Ephrem or 
C. has TO. TrepKraEv/JLara. D has to irepiacjEvna t(ov Kkacrfxaruyv. 
Neither of these readings appears to conform with the Greek 
idiom. The former offends against regimen^ which would re- 
quire TCtN Kka(TfiaTb)v : and the latter contradicts the usage 
noticed. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 


V. 15. TTuq o ox^og. D and edit. Colin. — 6, which, how- 
ever, is indispensable. Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. 

V. 41 . on XpicFTov tare. It is a question of some interest 
in Biblical Criticism, whether Xpiarrog, as used in the N. T. 
be a Proper Name or an Appellative ; and though Dr. Camp^ 
hell, m his Prelim. Vol. D. v. P. iv. has several pages on this 
very subject, his remarks, however valuable, are not altogether 
so accurate as to preclude further inquiry. 


194 S'f- MARK, 

That XpKTTog was originally merely an Appellative descrip- 
tive of office or dignity, as Campbell makes it, no one can 
doubt : he truly observes, that 6 Xptorroc was as much an Ap- 
pellative as 6 BaTTTiarrig, and that the commonness of the name 
Jesus among the Jews, both rendered an addition necessary, 
and also contributed to the gradual substitution of that addi- 
tion for the real name. The point to be determined is, How 
early did this substitution take place, and was Xptoroc used as 
a Proper Name, while Christ was still on earth ? Campbell 
says, " This use seems to have begun soon after our Lord's 
Ascension : in his lifetime it does not appear that the word 
was ever used in this manner :" and he adds, that in the Titles 
and some other places of the Gospels, the Writers only adopt 
the practice of their time. This conclusion would merit our 
assent, if the learned author had been able satisfactorily to 
explain away the instances which, as he felt, might appear to 
be exceptions : but this, I think, he has not done. Thus he 
adduces John xvii. 3. where our Lord calls himself ^Irjaovv 
XpicTTov, but which, from its singularity^ Campbell suspects 
should be read TON X/otorov, to make it an Appellative, 
though not a single MS. has the Article. Next, respecting 
the passage which has given rise to this Note, he observes, that 
in this, as in all other terms, there is an ellipsis of the Article, 
where the common usage would require it : but what are the 
limits of this licence he pretends not to show, nor does he 
adduce any similar example : that the use of the Article is not 
thus vague, I have every where endeavoured to demonstrate. 
A similar expression occurs in 1 Cor. iii. 23. vjuetc ^e Xptorou, 
XpLtTToq ^\ 0€ou, where Campbell, I am persuaded, would 
readily allow Xqigtoq to be a Proper Name ; for in the Epistles 
he admits it to be common. By way of further exception to 
his rule, viz. that the absence of the Article generally deter- 
mines X/otoToc to be a Proper Name, he adduces Luke ii. 11. 
XpiaTOQ Kiiptoc,' ; where, however, again there is no reason for 
the omission of the Article before Xptoroc, if it be an Appel- 
lative : and the same is true of Luke xxiii. 2. In one or two 
other cases instanced by Campbell, the absence of the Article 
is not decisive either way : but then the ground of tliis may be 
assigned. Thus John ix. 22, X^igtov might be either Christ 
or the Messiah, because of the Verb Nuncupative o^oXoyZ/o-r? ; 


for as to the Pronoun avrov, it has not, though Campbell sup- 
poses the contrary, any thing to do with the business: the 
sense, however, of the passage compels us, ^\dth liim, to under- 
stand Xpiarog of the Messiah. For a similar reason it might 
be doubted in which way Xpicrrog should be taken in Matt, 
xxvii. 17. and 22. 6 Xtyoiievog Xokttoq' for 6 Xeyofievog, 'O 
XpnTTog would not be Greek: see on Matt. i. 16. Campbell, 
conformably with his notion, that Pilate, during the lifetime 
of our Saviour, could not have meant to call him Christ, de- 
cides for rendering it Messiah : the turn of the expression is, 
however, so entirely similar to St/xwv 6 Xeyo/uLEvog Utrpog, that 
I think its tendency is rather to prove that Christ was, even 
before the ascension, our Saviour's familiar appellation. That 
He is not so addressed by his disciples is true ; but this leads 
to no conclusion : for in scarcely any instance do they address 
him by the name Jesus ; Kvpis, StSao-jcaXe, Paj3j3t, being the 
forms usually employed. Besides, as Campbell observes. Vo- 
cative Cases would decide nothing, because there the Article 
could not be used. 

On the whole, it can hardly be doubted that the Vv^ord Xptcr- 
Tog, even during our Saviour's lifetime, had become a Proper 
Name, though its Appellative use was by much the more 
frequent: it is, however, very remarkable, that Michaelis 
in his Introduction (edit. Marsh, Chap. vi. Sect, xiii.) says, 
" In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never 
used as the Proper Name of a Person, but as an epithet 
expressive of the ministry of Jesus ;" and hence he infers 
the spuriousness of a passage, Acts viii. 37. which will be 
noticed in its place. But if Xpiarog be never used as a 
Proper Name in the Apostolic Epistles, how are we to explain, 
among other instances, Rom. v. 6; 1 Cor. i. 12. 23; 2 Cor. 
iii. 3; Gal. ii. 17 ; Coloss. iii. 24; 1 Peter i. 11 ? Are we to 
translate, " an anointed person died," &c. ? for to say " the 
anointed," or " the Messiah," is more than any of the passages 
wiU bear : and no reason can be assigned why, if 'O Xpiarog 
in such places be really meant, the Article is in all the MSS. 
omitted. Considering the stress which Michaelis elsewhere 
lays on the Article, it is surprising that he overlooked this 

ic)() ST. MARK, 


V. 6. OTTO ^£ apxvQ KTtVcwc- Parti. Chap. vi. § Land 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 25. ^la Trig TpVfiaXia<: Trig pa(l>i^oc. A. C. F. &c. with 
a few of Birch and Matthai — rfjc bis ; and Griesbach has pre- 
fixed to each Article the mark of possible spuriousness. There 
can be no doubt that they are spurious ; the latter, because 
any needle indefinitely is meant, and the former by Part i. 
p. 51. 

V. 29. oiKiav ri aSfX^ovc v k. t. X. Enumeration. Part i. 
Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 31. KoX OL i(TxaTOi Trpwrot. Many MSS. — ot, and Gries- 
bach has removed it to the margin. See above on Matt. xix. 

V. 35. OL VIOL ZfjScSaiou. A with some others — ot. In 
this reading there is an appearance of accuracy ; for nothing 
is more prevalent than vloq or viol, without the Article pre- 
fixed: but in such cases, if I mistake not, the parentage of the 
person is, generally speaking, then first announced: here the 
case is different ; for James and John had been declared to be 
the sons of Zebedee already in this Evangelist, i. 19, 20. The 
Article, therefore, in this place may serve to recall to the 
Reader's recollection, that James and John had, in this par- 
ticular relation, been already introduced to his notice. Vat. 
1209. reads ol AYO viol k. t. X. 

V. 46. vlog TLjjLaiov BapTifjiaiog. Here several MSS. in- 
cluding B. C. D. L. and five of Matthai's, but those among the 
worst have 'O vlog ; and Griesbach has, though with the mark 
of the lowest degree of probability, admitted the Article into 
the Text. Wakefield believes that vlog Tifxaiov is the inter- 
polation of some one who wished to show that he knew the 
meaning of Bartimaeus : the Syr. however, has " Timaeus, the 
son of Timaeus," which affords a strong presumption that Bar- 
timaeus was not all which was found in the original of St. 
Mark; and had vlog Tiitiaiov been interpolated as an explana- 
tion of BartinuELis, it would probably have followed, and not 
have preceded, the word which it was intended to explain. It 
appears to me not unlikely that the name of the person was 


really as the Syr. represents it, Tiinaeus, but that from the 
circumstance of his father's name likewise being Timaeus, he 
was called also Bar timaeus : in this case it was very natural in 
the Evangelist to add viog Ti/maiov (the Greek form of expres- 
sion,) the name by which the person in question was some- 
times called : but the Syr. Translator was here compelled to 
make a slight deviation ; for a literal rendering from the Greek 
would have been " Bartimaeus Bartimaeus," a repetition which 
the Syriac Reader would not have understood. The Trans- 
lator, therefore, very properly consulted the sense of the pas- 
sage, rather than the literal phrase, by rendering it ^ '^^-^i 
tfcioA^, which expresses, indeed, something more than the sup- 
posed Greek original, but not more, possibly, than the Trans- 
lator knew to be true. — If this conjecture as to the original of 
St. Mark be right, a step will be gained towards deciding on 
the Article ; for if BapTiiuaiog came from the Evangelist, and 
be not a subsequent interpolation, (which is, of the two, more 
plausible than the opinion of Mr. Wakefield,) the Article 
should most likely be omitted, since there is an apparent con- 
tradiction in announcing the son as already known, and then 
immediately subjoining his name. I admit, however, that this 
is only a presmnptive argument ; for certainty in such cases is 
not looked for, except where the natural and usual practice 
cannot be disregarded without positive absurdity. 


V. 4. Tov ttujXov. Very many MSS. — rop. Probably with- 
out the Article, this being all which the sense requires. 

V. 13. ou yap j/y KULpog (tvkwv. This passage, as explained 
by Wetstein and Campbell, though less liable to objection than 
it had been heretofore, is still not perfectly plain. They have 
observed that the fig-tree has the property of forming its fruit 
before the leaves appear ; the fruit, therefore, of the tree here 
spoken of ought to have been now well advanced : it could not, 
however, have been gathered, because the Kaipog <tvkwv, the 
season of gathering, had not yet arrived : the absence of fruit, 
therefore, could be accounted for only by the barrenness of the 
tree. But Michaelis, who in his Anmerk. on Matt. xxi. 19. 
has examined the subject at great length, objects that the? figs 

198 ST. MARK, 

at this time of the year (April) must have been so unripe, as to 
be wholly unfit to eat. Shaw, however, of whom Michaelis 
has made great use, tells us in his Travels, p. 342. edit. 1757, 
" that some of the more forward and vigorous trees will now 
and then yield a few ripe figs six weeks or more before the 
full season." — But my concern is more immediately with Mr, 
Wakefield. He observes, that the reason why the Article is 
wanting (he should have said Articles, for 6 Katpoc ctvkwv 
would not have been Greek, notwithstanding that Origen and 
one or two MSS. have this reading) is, because there are in 
Judaea two seasons of ripe figs in a year. Michaelis affirms, 
after Shaw, that there are three ; but this is not the reason 
why the Articles are wanting, nor could it have been, if we 
consider, that whatever be the number of gatherings in a year, 
there can be only one gathering of a given crop. Mr. W. 
appears to have been misled by observing. Matt. xxi. 34. 6 
Kaipog Twv KapTTwv applied to grapes : and no other solution 
seems to have occiuTed to him, why the Articles should be 
used in the one case, but in the other omitted. Whoever 
compares the two passages will perceive, that in this place the 
Proposition is confined to Existence : see Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 1. whilst in St. Matthew near approach is predi- 
cated of the \dntage. 


V. 23. iarai yvvq. A. D. a pr. manu 'R yvvri. See above 
on Matt. xxii. 28. In this verse all the MSS. properly omit 
the Article before yvvalKu, by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 26. £7rt Ttjg fdarov. This is an undoubted instance of the 
Rabbinical mode of citing Scripture, and signifies, " in the 
section which treats of the burning Bush." See above, on 
ii. 26. If the Reader should be of opinion that the conjecture 
of Michaelis on that place is strengthened by the present pas- 
sage, (and the word aviyvtors, which is found in both, though 
in the former it is placed rather too far from lirl 'AjdidOap, in 
some degree removes the objection,) the Article before apxi^- 
piwQ will be necessaiy, and its force will be that which I have 
assigned it : the difference will be confined to the Preposition. 

V. 27. 6 Otog veKQtvv, aWa fhhfj ?wvrwv. In this passage 



there is a great variety in the reading, arising probably from 
an apparent difficulty in the construction of the Article. 'O 
OeoQ vBKpwv, if the words were in Regimen, could not be tole- 
rated : viKpMv must, therefore, depend on a second Beog under- 
stood. This in many MSS. is inserted, whilst a few would 
ob\date the supposed difficulty by omitting the Article, and 
making the Proposition exclusive, ^* There is no God," &c. 
wliich, though it offends not against the idiom, is but a lame 
expedient. The insertion of Oeog before veicpwv accurately 
explains the Ellipsis, but is wholly unnecessary, and Oeoq before 
ZwvTijjv, in the received Text, is yet more superfluous. Gries- 
bach, on the authority of many MSS. has removed it into the 

V. 36. av Ti^ TTvevjuiaTL t(^) ayiti}. A multitude of MSS. and 
several editt. — rt^ his : and Griesbach rejects the Articles. If, 
as the context seems to require, we are here to understand the 
influence of the Spirit, the omission is right. See on Matt. i. 

V. 41. ^aXKu xoXkov. Wetstein's 1. 69. and Origen have 
rov. In Luke xxi. 1. it is ra Swpa avTwv: in the same man- 
ner Tov X' would mean their money. I am, however, of opi- 
nion, that the Article is spurious ; and indeed it is well known 
that Wetstein's 1 . 69. and Origen (to which in general may be 
added his 13 and 33) amount to little more than one evidence. 


V. 11. TO TTvcvjua TO fiyiov. Evidently the Holy Spirit in 
the personal acceptation. See on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 28. TTjv TTapaj5o\i]v. The Article here is not without its 
use, as a superficial Reader might conclude : a particular simi- 
Htude is founded on a particular tree. 


V. 10. 6 ^lovdag 6 ^laKapiwTr]g elg tCjv ^cSSeKa. The first 
Article in a great many MSS. including A. B. C. D. is want- 
ing ; and Griesbach prefixes to it the mark of probable spuri- 
ousness. Judas had never been mentioned by this Evangelist 
excepting once in Chap. iii. which is so far back, that the use 
of the Article would hardly be justifiable on the ground of 

200 ST. MARK, 

previous mention ; and when it is subjoined, that the Judas 
here spoken of was one of the twelve, the spuriousness of the 
Article is fully established. — The second Article also is absent 
from a few MSS. and probably should have been omitted in 
all. See on Matt. x. 4. The Vat. 1209. alone prefixes 'O to 
itg, which is altogether without meaning. 

V. 23. TO TTOTifpiov. Here again several MSS". — to, and 
Griesbach has the mark of possible spuriousness. See on 
Matt. xxvi. 27. 

V. 36. 'Aj3j3a 6 TraTTip. Heinsius (ap. Bowyer) conjectures 
"^O TTttDJp, i.e. 6 IcTTL fi^Qtpfjirjvevofievov iraTrtp, and even Schleus- 
ner considers 6 iraTrjp to be an interpretation of 'Aj3j3a, though 
he does not adopt the conjectured "O. The word 'Aj3j3a occurs 
three times in the N. T. and always with the same addition : 
the MSS. have no various reading, except that in this place 
Wetstein's 69. and Birch's Vind. Lamb. 31. subjoin /xou. This 
reading accords with the Syr. whence, no doubt, it was taken ; 
and that excellent Version, if we compare it in the three places 
with the Greek, shows plainly in what manner 6 iraTrjp must 
be understood : for it renders 6 vraTrjp, my Father, or our Fa- 
ther, as the circumstances of the case require. The Article, 
therefore, has here, as elsewhere, the force of a Possessive Pro- 
noun ; and 6 Trariyp must be taken for a Vocative Case, like 
6 vloQ in this livangelist, x. 47 ; 6 ^aaiX^vg, Matt, xxvii. 29 ; 
Kiyptc 6 diOQi Apoc. XV. 3. which answers the objection of 
Lightfoot. Mr. Wakefield , indeed, thinks, that " every Reader 
of sensibility would rejoice at the suppression of 6 Trarrjp, as in 
the Arabic and Persian Versions." Other Critics, however, 
(and I must request to be admitted of their number) have re- 
garded the addition as expressive of the most impassioned feel- 
ing. 'A/3j3a was the Oriental term, by which children /<2?72?7/- 
arly addressed their parents : the addition of " my Father" was 
requisite to give it solemnity and force. 

V. 41. TO AotTTov. A great many MSS. including several 
of Wetstein's best, — to, and Griesbach prefixes his mark of 
probable spuriousness. In the seiise, however, in which the 
word is here used, I do not find that the Article is ever omitted 
in the N. T, nor, so far as I recollect, even in the classical 
Writers. Some of Matthiii's MSS. also want the Article, but 
not any of those, which he deems most valuably. 


V. 69. T) Trai^icFKv. The Article in this place, as Biblical 
Scholars well know, has been a source of great embarrassment. 
St. Matthew, relating the same transaction, has instead of 17 
Trai^icTKi], (the maid recently mentioned) aXXr), another maid. 
To get rid of this difficulty Michaelis had proposed (Introd. by 
Marsh, Chap. x. Sect, iv.) to read simply iraidiaKr], Rosen- 
mVdler with less apparent temerity has recourse to the common 
expedient of making 17 iraL^icjKr] equivalent to irai^LGKi] rig, 
" quoniodo interdiim sumi Articuhmi, certum est .•" than which 
nothing is more absurd in theory, or more false in practice. 
The whole difficulty, however, has arisen from the vain ex- 
pectation that the Evangelists must always agree with each 
other in the most minute and trivial particulars; as if the 
credibility of our Religion rested on such agreement, or any 
reasonable scheme of inspiration required this exact cor- 
respondency. The solution which Michaelis afterwards offered 
in his Anmerkiingen, affords all the satisfaction, which a candid 
mind can desire. After stating that Matthew had said ^* ano- 
ther maid," Mark " the maid," and Luke ** another maii!^ (tTe- 
poc), he observes, " the whole contradiction vanishes at once, 
if we only attend to John, the quiet spectator of all which 
past : for he wTites, xviii. 25, They said to him, wast not thou 
also one of his disciples ? Whence it appears, that there were 
several, who spake on this occasion, and that all, which is said 
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, may very easily be true : there 
might probably be more than the three, who are named : but 
the maid, who had in a former instance recognized Peter, ap- 
pears to have made the deepest impression on his mind, and 
hence in dictating this Gospel to Mark, he might have said. 
The maid." 

I have since perceived that the remark from Rosenmullery 
given in this Note, belongs to Grotius : but its value is not by 
this discovery either increased or diminished. It may not be 
amiss to mention once for all, that Rosenmiiller, whose Scholia 
are for the most part a compilation, very rarely points out the 
particular source, from which his information is derived. Hence 
in the explanations which he offers, he has in general no other 
merit or demerit, than that of the selection* 

C202 ST. MARK, 


V. 43. 'Iwffr)^ 6 OTTO 'ApifiaOaiag, Bengel (ill Gnom.) ob- 
serves, " Articulus ostendit hoc Josephi cognomen esse factum : 
Matthdeus Articulum non ponit, quia ante Marcum scripsit," I 
think that there is something in this remark, and that it is 
capable of being extended : not, indeed, that the Article could, 
in the present form of expression, have been omitted ; but the 
whole expression might have been different. 

It is well known, that considerable doubts prevail respecting 
the order, in which the four Gospels were written. All, which 
is certain, is that John's Gospel was written last : it is thought 
probable, that St. Matthew's is the oldest ; though some are 
of opinion that the first place is to be given to St. Luke. St. 
Mark, according to the majority of Critics, for here again they 
axe divided, followed both St. Matthew and St. Luke. The 
probability that this is the true place of St. Mark, is, I think, 
somewhat strengthened by the manner in which the four 
Evangelists first make mention of Joseph of Arimathea. St. 
Matt, xxvii. 57. says, riXOev avOptJirog ttKovgloq cltto 'Api/na- 
OaiaQy Tovvofia 'Iwcr»j0. This is the language of an Historian, 
who wrote before Joseph had acquired celebrity. St. Luke 
xxiii. 50. has, avrjp ovofxari 'loKrr)^, awb ^ ApijuaBaiag TToXewg 
Twv *Iov8aiwv. This is even more explicit than the former : 
but is, perhaps, not so much an argument for the priority of 
St. Luke's Gospel over that of St. Matthew, as for the gene- 
rally received opinion, that St. Luke wrote in Greece. St. 
Mark (in this place) has, rfXOev 'Iwaricji, 6 airb 'ApifiaOaiag, 
iv(jyi]fi(i)v PovXevTTig' here it is supposed that the addition of 
6 airb ^ ApifxaOaiag will enable the Reader to recognize the 
person meant. Lastly, John xix. 38. has ^pwrijo-ev 6 'Iwarjtfi 
6 airb ^ ApifjLaBaiag' if this be the true reading, we have here 
language adapted to still increased notoriety: many MSS. 
however, omit the first 6. — Something similar may be ob- 
served in the manner, in which the four Evangelists introduce 
the name of Pilate. Matthew xxvii. 2. has irapi^WKav avrbv 
Ilovrtq) UiXaTin) r(j7 T^ytjuovf. Luke's first mention of him is 
iii.L r)y£fjLovivovTog IIovtIov UiXarov rrig 'louSatae, and again 
xiii. L tjv rb aifxa UiXarog tfxi^e. Mark in this Chapter, ver. L 


introduces Pilate with merely wapidcoKav rtj IliXaTt^, one MS. 
only (viz. the Vat.) omitting the Article. John xviii. 29, 
t^rjXOev ovv 6 UiXaroQ, no MS. omitting the Article. — If 
similar instances ahomided, they would form, perhaps, some- 
what of a criterion, by which we might be assisted in deter- 
mining, if not the order of the four Evangelists, at least the 
place of St. Mark. 


V. 1. Biaytvoimivov tov araj3/3arou. The Sabbath being 
over : hence this does not contradict Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 
iii. § 1. 

V. 15. irdari ry ktIctei. Eng. Version, "to every creature:" 
Campbell, " to the whole creation :" the latter is the more 
correct. See on irag, Parti. Chap. vii. § 1. 

V. 16. 6 iriGTEvaag KaX f^aiTTKjOeig, In the Com2^lutens, 
edit, the second Participle also has the Article, which would 
materially alter the sense. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. It 
would imply, that he, who beHeveth, as well as he who has 
been baptized, shall be saved; whereas the reading of the 
MSS. insists on the fulfilment of both conditions in every in- 

304 ST. LUKE. 



V. 1. 'Eiret^riWBQ ttoXXoi e7rex^ipr}(Tav avaTa^aaOai ^ifiyrjmv, 
K. T. X. The Reader cannot be unacquainted with Mj\ Herb, 
Marsh's most ingenious and profound Dissertation on the 
Origin of the Three first Canonical Gospels; in which he 
assumes as the basis of all the Three, a Hebrew Document 
marked in his notation by i^. This Document, he thinks, 
(p. 197.) may have been entitled in Greek, Airiyr}cng n^pl 
Twv TTCTrXrjpo^oprjjulvwv Iv rjfxiv Trpayjuarwv, KaOwg irapiSocrav 
rifuv oi cltt' ag^q avTOTrrai Kat vTrrjfxerai yevofi^voL rov Xoyou* 
in which case it is actually referred to in the Preface to 
St. Luke. This had been the conjecture of Lessing, Mr. 
Marsh, after stating several objections to another way of 
understanding this Preface, and after observing that the pror 
posed conjecture will obviate them all, leaves it to others to 
determine, whether the attempt is not rendered abortive by 
the want of the Article before ^itfyrjaiv. His general hypo- 
thesis, it is truly remarked by him, will at any rate remain 
unaffected : the conjecture, however, if it could be confirmed, 
would afford so direct and decisive evidence of the existence 
of the supposed Document, that I cannot without reluctance 
proceed to offer the following observations. 

With respect to the Article the rule is, I believe, that the 
Title of a Book, as prefixed to the Book, should be anarthrous; 
but that when the Book is referred to, the Article should be 
inserted. Dion. Hal. ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 182. has KaXXiag 
^t 6 TAS ^ AyaOoKkiovg Upa^ng avaypa\pag' the Title of this 
Book was probably Upa^Hg 'AyaOoKXlovg similar to lip. tCov 
'ATTOo-roXwv. So also p. 172. ^arvpog 6 TOYS apxctiovg 
fxvOovg avvayayisjv' tlie Title must have been "Ap^uLoi jllvOol : 
as Plutarch has denominated a work 'Epwrtkat dirjyijGug. 

CHAPTER 1. 205 

Longinus also (§ 9.) has ttys 'Htrto^ou koL THN ^Aairi^a diriov' 
the Title, as prefixed to the Poem, is 'Acnriq ^UgaKkiovg. The 
reasons for the assumption, and also for the non-assumption, 
are sufiiciently obvious. The Reader may further consult 
what was said Part i. p. 106. on the names of Dramas ; we 
must, indeed, except instances, where the name of the work 
is governed by a Preposition, or where any other of the causes 
already alleged wall account for the omission : to say that a 
passage is found Iv Mr/Sftg is perfectly admissible : for this is 
the common anomaly. Part i. Chap. vi. ^ 1. 

I must further express my doubts, whether the supposed 
difficulties require us to understand Airjyrjmv, &c. as th& title 
of a document. Mr. Marsh has stated four objections, which 
I will not transcribe, because his work is in every body's 
hands. To the First, it may be answered, that if ^irtyrjtriv in 
the Singular be exceptionable, the Plural would not be less 
so ; since it might imply that each individual of the ttoXXol 
had written several narratives : the Syr. however, has the 
Plural. Secondly, With respect to the word avaTa^a(TOaif 
which Mr. M. would understand as signifying to " re-arrange 
a narrative already written," it is certain, that the Preposition 
ava does not always in composition retain its proper force : 
avaypa(l)(jo very frequently is no more than ypacjju), as has been 
shown by Raphel: it is so used also in the first of the citations 
above from Dion. Hal. and so also very commonly in Josephus. 
The word itself avaTaaaofiai is so rarely found, that it is diffi- 
cult to determine any tiling respecting it with certainty : in 
the N. T. it is aira^ Xeyo/nEvov : in the LXX. we are referred 
by Trommius to Eccl. ii. 10. where, however, it does not ap- 
pear : in ii. 20. we have cnroTaZacrOai. Plutarch, in his Trea- 
tise Uorepa tljv ^wwv, &c. Ed. 1674. p. 479. uses the word, I 
think, equivocally : he says, that some elephants having been 
previously taught certain attitudes and movements, one of 
them, who had often been punished for his dulness, was seen 
by moonlight avaTaTTUjuevog to. jjLaQ{]iiara jcat jueXetwv* this in- 
stance, however, the Reader will, perhaps, deem favourable to 
Mr. Marsh : it is the only one, which my small hbrary enables 
me to adduce. Hesychius has explained the word by ci/rpc- 
wiaacrOat, unless this be one of the Sacred Glosses subsequently 
inserted : see Bentley's Letter to Bielf in Alberti's Hesych., or 

206 ST. LUKE, 

in Bentley's Correspondence, which has been so splendidly 
published by Dr. Ch. Burney. That avara^aadai ^iijyrimv is 
simply to write a narrative, seems probable from what follows, 
fc'So^f KCLfjLoX ypaxpai. Thirdly, It will not be necessary to sub- 
stitute avToig for r}fuv in ver. 2. unless we reject the Syr. and 
(if I may trust the Latin) some other ancient renderings of tte- 
n-Xrjpo^opijjUtvwv : they explain it to signify " things of which 
we are firmly persuaded :" the Syriac word is the same which 
is employed, Luke xx. 6. to express ir^TruafiivoQ : Schleusner 
has shown that this rendering may be vindicated from the 
N.T. ; and if so, we may understand the second verse as assign- 
ing the ground of the firm conviction which had been men- 
tioned in the first : KaOiog not unfrequently signifies siquidem, 
propterea quod : (see Schleusner) j]iuv will be, " to us Christ- 
ians." The Fourth objection will be answered, if we admit the 
answer to the third: they were not eye-witnesses who had 
composed narratives ; these, probably, were credulous persons, 
who had blended falsehood with truth, for which reason St. 
Luke, in ver. 4. uses the word rriv aacpaXsiav : the eye-vnt- 
nesses were those on whose authority rested the conviction 
mentioned in ver. L 

On the whole, then, so far as I can judge, (and I offer my 
opinion with great deference,) no difficulties really exist: if 
they do, I fear that the omission of the Article destroys the 
conjecture by which it is proposed to remove them. 

V. 15. Tou Kvpiov. Griesh. on the authority of many MSS. 
rejects tov : and Matthdi thinks that the Article was originally 
interpolated by some one who wished it to be understood that 
Kuptoc, in this place, signifies God. It has abeady been ob- 
served, on Matt. i. 20. that Ofoc and also Kupfoc, in the sense 
of God, either take or reject the Article indiscriminately ; a 
licence which these words derive from their partaking of the 
nature both of Appellatives and of Proper Names. It may 
be right, however, to fix the usage with somewhat more pre- 
cision than was done in the Note referred to. 

With respect to Geocj there is, I believe, no instance in the 
N. T. though the word occurs more than thirteen hundred 
times, in which it does not conform to that law of Regimen 
which forbids an anarthrous Appellative to be governed by one 
having the Article prefixed : and hence such a phrase as 6 vIoq 


Giov is not to be found. In some other respects also it fol- 
lows the conunon rule of Appellatives, e. g. in rejecting the 
Article where it (9f oc) is the Predicate of a Proposition which 
does not reciprocate, as in John i. 1. for as to Oaoc being 
sometimes used in an inferior or qualified sense, an opinion 
wliich Mr. TVakefield and others have found it convenient to 
adopt, there is not a single example of such an use in the whole 
N. T. 0€oc is God, or a God, either true or false, real or 
imaginary ; but never superior or inferior. But more of this 
on Romans ix. 5. For the present it is sufficient to show that 
the absence of the Article affords not, as some have affirmed, 
any indication of this pretended subordinate sense ; for in 
many of the passages in which, without dispute, Qtog is meant 
of the Supreme Being, the Article is not used : see Matt. xix. 
2Q. ; Luke xvi. 13. ; John i. 18. ix. SS, xvi. 30. ; Romans 
viii. 8.; 1 Cor. i. 3.; GaL i. 1.; Eph. ii. 8.; Heb. ix. 14.— 
But Kv^iog, in Regimen at least, is not so strictly limited ; 
since we find Matt. i. 24. 6 ayyeXoc Kvpiov. Luke i. 38. 17 
SouXi) Kvptou. Acts ii. 20. ti)v r}fxipav Kvpiov. James v. 11. 
TO TtXog Kvpiov. The word Kvpiog, therefore, differs in the 
maimer in which it is used, from Qeog, by approaching more 
nearly to a Proper Name ; for Proper Names, it will be re- 
membered, are very commonly anarthrous, though depending 
on Appellatives which have the Article : thus in the verse just 
cited from St. James, to TtXog Kvpiov is immediately preceded 
by Trjv vwofiovriv 'Iwj3. The LXX. indeed, have frequently 
translated the incommunicable names of the One True God, 
iT^n^ and IT, by Kvpiog^ and that too most commonly without 
the Article : so that the interpolation of the Article, according 
to the probable conjecture of Matthai mentioned above, tended 
rather to defeat the purpose of the interpolator ; for though 
both Kvptog and 'O Kvpiog are used in the N. T. to signify 
God, yet Kvpiog without the Article, without the addition of 
the name of Christ, and so circumstanced that none of the 
rules for Appellatives will show why the Article is wanting, 
signifies God almost invariably : I say almost invariably ; for 
undoubted instances of the contrary occur. The learned and 
excellent Bishop Pearson, in his great work on the Creed, 
(p. 150. edit. 1723,) has, indeed, collected about a hundred 
examples to prove that Kvpiog, without the Article, is used to 

208 ST. LUKE, 

signify the Son : but on examining them I found by far th6 
greater part of them to be wholly inconclusive : thus, at least 
half of them consist of such phrases as Iv Kvpuo, vtto Kvpiov, 
Kara Kvpiov, where the Article may have been omitted because 
of the Preposition ; and in some of them this was plainly the 
reason, for Iv Kuptt^ is immediately preceded or followed by 'O 
KvpLog used in the same sense : see 1 Cor, ix. 1 . xv. 28. ; 
2 Cor. X. 17. In others of his examples we have Kvptov after 
some anarthrous Noun : in some, Kvpiov follows a Verb Nun- 
cupative, or one of appointing : in a few, the reading is doubt- 
ful: in some, we may fairly question whether the Son be 
meant. He has quoted even Ephes. iv. 5. ac ^vpiog, " there 
is one Lord," not considering that ac 'O Kvoloq would have 
conveyed a totally different meaning. His least exceptionable 
instances are. Matt. iii. 3. and the parallel places, r?)v b^ov 
Kvpiov, and 1 Thess. v. 2. with 2 Pet. iii. 10. 17 i7julpa Kupj'ou, 
though the first of them is not entirely free from objection, 
being a quotation from the LXX. where Kvqioq represents the 
Heb. Jehovah : the latter may be admitted to be satisfactory. 
To these examples we may add 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18. to irvevfia 
Kvpiov and ttiv So^av Kuptov, with a few others, which the 
Bishop has not noticed : also Rom. xiv. 6. which is decisive. 
The instances adduced by him of the form ILvpiog 'Itjo-ouc 
XpidTog are certainly to his purpose, but do not affect my 

The same illustrious writer complains, that " the Socinians 
will have 6 to be an accession to Gcoc? but a diminution from 
Kupioc." That 0£oc in the N. T. is equivalent to 6 0£oc has 
already been shown : but what if we admit, that 6 Geoc, where 
there is no reason for omitting the Article, be, though not uni- 
versal, at least the more common ? The Writers of the N. T. 
adhered, in great measure, to the usage established before their 
time. Now if we turn to the LXX. we shall find that they 
call the false gods of Egypt and of Canaan Oeovg, but never 
KvpiovQ ; which is the more remarkable, when we consider 
the etymology and meaning of D v^l : this, however, they have 
never rendered by Kvpioi, but have commonly left untrans- 
lated, by giving the word BaaXdjui. The Jews, indeed, from 
their proneness to idolatry, seem to have regarded the false 
gods, as not wholly without power, though fatal experience 

CHAPTER I. .^09 

so frequently convinced them, for the moment at least, how 
wretched was their delusion : hence the true God was gene- 
rally called 6 Qeog, as distinguished from other Oeoi : but in 
Kvptog, a name exclusively appropriated to the true God, no 
such mark of distinction was necessary : Kvptog assumed the 
rank of a Proper Name ; and yet sometimes it took the Arti- 
cle ; for though used as a Proper Name, it was not a name 
arbitrarily imposed, but was evidently derived from the domi- 
nion of Him, to whom it was given. — There is, then, no just 
ground of alarm, if the Socinian remark be in part admitted : 
the doctrine of the Article, if well understood, can tend only 
to the confirmation of the true Faith. — It is evident, however, 
that the reading in respect of the verse before us cannot with 
any certainty be determined, hiviriov having the nature of a 
Preposition, and that Editors of the N. T. can have no other 
guidance on sim.ilar occasions, than the majority of the best 

Same v. Trvev/uiaTog ayiov. The influence of the Holy Spirit. 
See Matt. i. 18. 

V. 17. Kup/w. A and a few others insert tw. See above on 
ver. 15. 

V. 32, vlog vipicTTov. Here Mr. Wakefield with his usual 
attention to the letter of the original, translates " a son of the 
most High God :" why he did not from regard to consistency 
write also " a most High God," I do not pretend to know ; 
yet assm-edly that rendering would have been equally defensi- 
ble. If the phrase be not here meant in a pre-eminent sense, 
the declaration of the angel amounts to very little, at the same 
time that it ill accords with what immediately follows : the 
prophecy must be either that Christ should be called the Son 
of God in the sense, in which he afterwards so styled himself, 
or else that he should merely be one of the vloi Oeoi), of which 
number is every righteous person in every age. See Rom. 
viii. 14. Y«oc, it is true, wants the Article in the original, 
and so it must have done, allowing the sense to be the most 
definite : for 'O vlog after icXrj^j^crErat would not be Greek. 
With respect to v^igtov, this word in the LXX. also is fre- 
quently without the Article. See Part i. Chap. vi. § 4. Re^ 
gimen may also affect the present instance, 

V. 35. irvivfia ayiov. This is commonly understood in the* 

210 ST LUKE, 

Personal sense, but I think improperly. " A divine influence" 
equally well suits the occasion, and conforms better with the 
general usage : and indeed Suvojutc v^torou in the next clause 
appears to be explanatory of Trvivfia ayiov in the present. 

Same v. viog Qeov. Here also, of course, Mr. Wakejield 
translates " a son of God." See on ver. 32. Besides, if vloq 
9foD be here to be taken in the inferior sense, what becomes 
of the inference implied in ^lo ? To announce to the Virgin 
that she shall have offspring by the extraordinary agency of 
God, and to add " therefore that offspring shall be called (or 
shall be) a holy man!'' really appears to me to be a downright 
anti-climax. It is also observable, that when Zacharias below 
(ver. 75.) prophesies of John, he does not say that John shall 
be called vloq v\pi(TTov or vlog Oeov^ which in Mr. Wakefield's 
way of understanding that phrase, he might very well have 
done, but he says irpocjiriTrjg vipicrTOv KXrj0/jo->?, which is not 
more appropriate when applied to him, of whom it was after- 
wards said, that there was not a greater Prophet, (Luke vii. 
28.) than is vlog v-^lgtov or vlog Qeov in the highest accepta- 
tion, when applied to Christ. 

V. GQ. ^tlp KvpLov. So also in the other work of St. Luke, 
Acts xi. 21. and xiii. 11. (for so we should read in the last in- 
stance -svith the best MSS.) x^tp wants the Article by Part i. 
Chap, iii. Sect. iii. § 6. 

V. 78. ha awXayxva tXiovg Gegu vfiwv. Every attentive 
reader of the two songs of Thanksgiving of Mary and Zacha- 
rias contained in this chapter, must have remarked in them 
certain peculiarities of style : but the only one, with which I 
am concerned, is, that they are extremely anarthrous. I do 
not, indeed, mean to affirm, that they ever violate the rules, 
but only that they display the utmost latitude of omission, 
which the rules allow : and this is nothing more than we might 
antecedently have expected : they might be supposed to retain 
some traces of the character of their originals, which certainly 
were not Greek. Michaelis says (in his Anmerk.) of the latter 
of them, " that it appears to have been spoken in Hebrew, not 
in Chaldee the vernacular idiom, for that the Jews still used 
Hebrew in their prayers. Its not having been composed in 
the mother-tongue may explain," he adds, " why the periods 
are so unrounded, consisting of many short clauses forcibly 


brought together." Both compositions have unquestionably a 
Hebrew air ; and if we add to their Hebrew origin, that they 
are also 2)oetical compositions, their frequent omission of the 
Article in cases, in which it would probably have been found 
in an original Greek narration, can excite no surprise. Who- 
ever will compare the LXX. translation of the Song of Deborah 
with the Hebrew, will perceive that it has in most instances, 
so far as the Article is concerned, conformed with the strict 
letter of the original, and that it is so far anarthrous as scarcely 
to be tolerable Greek. 

I have been led into these observations, not at all more by 
the words which introduce the present note, than by some 
other passages to be found in the two Thanksgivings : in those 
passages, indeed, the Article might have been employed, where 
it is now omitted ; in the present instance, Sia TA cnrXdyxva 
would have made it necessary to write TOY s. TOY 6. tJ/xwv* as 
it stands, the whole precisely agrees with the Hebrew form, 
and is also perfectly defensible on principles, with which the 
Reader is by this time well acquainted. 

V. 80. EKparaiovTO nvevfiaTi. The same phrase and the 
same sense of irvtv^a occurs below, ii. 40. The sense is plainly 
in mind, mentally, as opposed to corporeally. But the ques- 
tion is. Can any general rule be laid down respecting the Arti- 
cle, where 7rvevf.ia is so used ? I think not. In this sense we 
find it without the Article in Rom. viii. 13. Gal. v. 16, 18, 
25. 1 Pet. iii. 18. (for such should be the reading) : but then, 
in other places, as John xi. 33; xiii. 21. Acts xviii. 25; xx. 
22. 1 Cor. xiv. 15. we have T12t irvEVfxaTi, and in one instance, 
Mark viii. 12. ti^ TrvevfuLaTL AYTOY, an addition which, however, 
adds nothing to the sense, but shows only in what manner the 
Article in that and the preceding instances should be under- 
stood. Would it, therefore, have been allowable in the Evan- 
gelist to have wi'itten eKparaiovTo TQc TrvevjuLari ? I doubt not 
that it would. He has, however, used the more indefinite and 
adverbial form, the sense not requiring the limitation of ttvcu- 
juart, though such a limitation might very well be admitted. Yet 
I do not affirm, that in all the anarthrous instances above ad- 
duced the Article might be inserted: thus in Gal. v. 16. ttvev- 
fmri 7repnraTUT£f the insertion of t({> would injure the sense ; 
for the precept is to walk spiritually, i. e. in such a manner as 


21^ ST. LUKE, 

the spiritual or better part, not merely of the persons ad- 
dressed, but of men without limitation, would suggest and 
approve. Although, therefore, it may not be possible so to 
circumscribe the rule, that it shall not be liable to partial ob- 
jection, still the reason of the case will commonly point out a 
preference in the form : and where either form is equally well 
adapted to the particular case, no exception can justly be taken 
against the uncertainty of the practice. See Part i. Chap. v. 
Sect. ii. § 2. 


V. 1. KaiaapoQ Avyovcrrov. Here L and Euseh. have TOY 
Avyov(TToVf a reading which supposes Augustus not to have 
been as yet recognized as a Proper Name. In the Acts we 
have 2£j3a(Troc> the translation of Augustus, ivith the Article, 
as might be expected; for by translating we lose the Name 
and revert to the Epithet, in which the Article is required. 
This may serve to illustrate more fully what was said on 
XptGTog, Mark ix. 40. 

V. 2. avrri i) oTToypa^rj Trpwrrj lyiv^TO. On this passage so 
much has been written, that a mere abstract of the whole 
would far exceed my limits. It will be recollected, that the 
difficulty consists in reconciling the Evangelist mth JosephuSf 
who makes the taxing here spoken of to have taken place ten 
or eleven years later than the period of our Saviour's birth. 
Hence a multitude of solutions have been attempted, and 
various conjectures risked. Many Interpreters have thought, 
that TTQWTog is here put for Trporspog, of which use there are 
examples, as John i. 15. irpwrog fiov riv. Of this opinion are 
Beausohre and Schleusner. But the cases are not similar : to 
say that one person was before another, is unexceptionable : 
but to say that a taxation was before Quirinius, is harsh in 
the extreme ; or if the meaning be, before the presidency of 
Quirinius, the original, as Campbell well obsers^es, would have 
been Tr\g riye/ioviag Kvpriviov or tov i^yejuLOveveiv Kvpijviov. 
Others have thought that irpo rrig before i^yefxovsvovTog has 
been lost by the Copyists ; a conjecture, which is adopted by 
Michaelis both in his Anmerh. and in his Introduction^ but of 
which, besides that it is mere conjecture, our learned Trans- 


lator of tlie latter work has well observed, that " according to 
the proposed emendation, the Greek of this passage is really 
too bad to have been written by St. Luke, and the whole con- 
struction savours neither of Greek nor of Hebrew." Lardner 
supposed, that we ought to supply afterward Governor of 
Syria; but then we must have read TOY ijycjuoveuovroc or 
TOY riye/xovoc ; for which see on Mark ii. 26. And it is re- 
markable, that in the only instance, which he produces, the 
Article is prefixed. Newcomers translation after Lardner is 
faulty in another respect also, as will be shown hereafter. 
Casauhon in his Exercitt. ad Baron, p. 115 — 130. has exa- 
mined the subject at great length : he supposes Quirinius to 
have been, at this time, sent into Judea for the purpose of the 
enrolment, and that this was a distinct mission from that of 
his Presidency mentioned by Josephus. This interpretation 
differs from the last, inasmuch as it makes r^y^nov^vovToq to 
be significant of this particular duty, and not of the subsequent 
Presidency. This explanation, as well as a former one, must 
be pronounced to be mere unsupported hypothesis, and it is 
also incompatible with the words of St. Luke, as wiU be seen. 
Amidst all this perplexity the most probable solution (for pro- 
bability is all which can be pretended) is that preferred by 
Wetstein and Campbell. They understand St. Luke to mean, 
that though the census was actually set on foot about the period 
of our Saviour's birth, it was presently laid aside, or at least 
no consequences followed the imperial decree, till ten or eleven 
years afterwards in the Presidency of Quirinius. Campbell 
rests this interpretation principally on the meaning of eyiviro, 
which he explains to signify not merely to be, but to be com- 
pleted or to take effect : and numerous instances of this and 
kindred meanings of ylvofiai are produced by Schleusner; 
though, as was remarked, he has preferred a different inter- 
pretation. It is true, that Josephus has not related that any 
order for enrolment was issued at this time : yet he adverts to 
circumstances, which make it not improbable, that some mea- 
sure of this kind might be thus early adopted. In the latter 
part of Herod's reign, which terminated only two years after 
the birth of Christ, we learn from Josephus, (lib. xvi. p. 735. 
edit. Huds.) that Augustus became oifended with Herod, and 
in an angry letter threatened henceforth to treat him as a 

^14 ST. LUKE, 

slave : by this threat it might fairly be understood, that he 
meant to reduce Judea to the state of a Roman Province ; and 
it is not unreasonable to suppose, though the threat was not 
executed in the lifetime of Herod, that steps might have been 
taken to make him believe, that the Emperor was in earnest. 
In the reign of Archelaus, Herod's successor, the enrolment 
actually took effect : Archelaus was deposed, and Judea was 
made subject to Augustus. 

But not only is the opinion of Campbell, as stated by him- 
self, the most plausible, which I have met with ; but further, 
I think it may be strengthened by an argument, of which he 
seems not to have been aware. His translation is, " This first 
register took effect," &c. whence it is evident that he under- 
stood TTpwTT} to agree immediately with rj airoypacj)!], not to 
follow eyivBTo. The same construction is adopted also by 
Wakefield. Newcome, following Lardner, has, " this was the 
first enrolment." Different from these and more correct is 
our English Version; which separating irgdjrr] from 17 airo- 
ypa(pr] gives it the adverbial sense : " this taxation was first 
made." Had our Translators understood lyevero as explained 
by Campbell, their Version of this passage would then have 
been perfect, and it would have expressed the sense, which 
that Critic has adopted, more strongly than he has done it, 
merely by being in stricter conformity with the original Greek. 
He did not perceive that Trpwrrj is without the Article : and 
that consequently his mode of rendering, as well as New- 
come's, is inadmissible ; tJ airoypacpri -rrpwrti being a form of 
speech, which, if the words be meant to be taken in immediate 
concord, is without example either in the N. T. or the LXX, 
The ground of the impropriety was explained Part i. Chap, 
viii. I am aware that npioTog is an Ordinal ; but even Ordi- 
nals have not this licence. The more usual form would be rJ 
TTpwTrj a7roypa({)n ; but if 17 aTroypa(prj precede, *H 7rpu)Tr) must 
follow. So Apoc. XX. 5. avrri 17 avaaTamg 'H irpioTT}' see also 
iv. 1. 7 ; xxi. 19. And in the LXX. Dan. viii. 21. avrog lanv 
6 PamXevg 6 Trpojrog' also Joel ii. 20. Exod. xii. 15, 16. 
1 Reg. xiv. 14. Zach. xiv. 10. and in many other instances, 
which Trommius's Concordance will supply ; for though he has 
a few apparent exceptions, they turn out, on examining the 
places, to be either false readings or inaccurate quotations. It 


is plain, therefore, notwithstanding the great authority of 
Casauhon, who affirms the contrary, and who appears to have 
been impHcitly beheved, that the absence of the Article before 
TTpwTTj is not unimportant: it points to a solution different 
from that which has usually been given, by making it probable 
that TTptJTT] must be understood in the adverbial sense, as was 
done by the English Translators. Of this sense of the word in 
the N. T. instances may be found in Schleus7ier, and for the 
classical use see Thiemes Lex, Xenoph. and UOrville in Charit. 
p. 313. The meaning will then be, that " the enrolment here 
alluded to first took effect (or did not take effect till) under the 
Presidency of Quirinius." 

Tlu'ee MSS. including Vat. 1S09. omit the Article : on that 
supposition, aTroyoa*^?) must not be taken with auVij, since 
ovTOQ in its Adjective use requires its Noun to have the Ar- 
ticle. Part i. Chap. vii. § 5. 

I learn from Michaelis (Introd. vol. i. p. 267. edit. Marsh) 
that Kluit has grounded his explanation of this passage chiefly 
on the use of the Greek Article. In what way he has done 
tliis, and what is his explanation, I know not. It is possible 
that in this and in some other instances our conclusions may 
be the same : in which case, it may be presumed that they are 
not wholly unfounded, having been independently deduced. 

V. 7. Iv ry (pcLTvy. A few of Wetstein's best MSS. but not 
any of Matthai's — ry, and Griesbach has prefixed to it the 
mark of possible spuriousness. The presence of the Article in 
the received Text has been drawn into the dispute respecting 
the place of our Saviour's birth. BaroniuSf principally on the 
authority of a passage in Justin Martyrs Dial, with Trypho, 
makes the birth-place of Christ to have been in the vicinity of 
Bethlehem, and not in Bethlehem itself: and the place of his 
nativity is frequently by the Fathers denominated aiTiikmov or 
avTQOv. Casauhon (Exercitt. p. 145.) has considered this sub- 
ject also at great length ; and he argues that the Article shows 
the (^arvrj in question to be that which belonged to the stable 
of the Karakviia mentioned in the same verse : " illud prcBsepe, 
quod erat in stahulo pertinente ad diversorium" His argument 
is not altogether invalidated, supposing the various reading to 
be the true one (which, however, is not probable,) for the Pre- 
position might cause the absence of the Article, even though 

216 ST. LUKE, 

(jtaTvrj were intended'definitely. But the great difficulty is, to 
ascertain the meaning of (parvt} : for though the Article would 
prove that not an?/ (parvt] was meant, still it would leave the 
import of the word undetermined. Casaubon would render it 
" the manger:" Campbell, Beausobre, Michaelis, and the 
English Version, have " a manger ;" which, of course, sup- 
poses Iv (l>aTvy to be the true reading. Wakefield and Rosen- 
miiller say, " in the stable;'' a sense which the word is knovni 
to bear : and Schleusner understands it of the area before the 
house, a space inclosed, but without any covering, in which 
stood the cattle and implements of agriculture ; it was, there- 
fore, according to this notion, not unlike a farm yard. 

"With respect to Casaubon's opinion, that the Article refers 
us to something certain and definite, so as to make iparvy Mo- 
nadic, it can hardly be doubted : but I think he is mistaken in 
supposing that a manger would be spoken of thus definitely in 
relation to the KaToXvfia. The stable and the inn might very 
well be thus contradistinguished, but not so well the inn and 
the manger : of mangers there would probably be several ; but 
if not, the very circumstance that there might be several, would 
render this definite mode of speaking somewhat unnatural. 
But there is another consideration which seems to be of im- 
portance, though I am not aware that any attention has been 
paid to it. The context of the whole passage convinces me 
that the (parvrj was not merely the place in which the Babe 
was laid, but the place also in which he was born and swad- 
dled : I understand the words Iv r^ ^arv?7 to belong as much 
to tTEKEv as to aviKXivev, for else v>^here did Mary's delivery 
happen? Certainly not in the KaraXviua, for there we are 
immediately told that there was not room: not room for 
whom? not merely for the new-born infant, but avTo7g, for 
Mary and Joseph. By (parvt}, therefore, we must understand 
some place in which they might find accommodation, though 
less convenient than that which the KaraXu^ua would have 
afforded them, had it not been occupied ; and such a place 
could not have been a manger. It might be either a stable or 
an inclosed area ; but more probably the former ; for an in- 
closed area without any covering, seems not to afibrd the 
shelter and privacy which the situation of Mary rendered in- 
dispensable, and, moreover, is not to be reconciled with the 


Fathers, who called the birth-place of Christ an avrpov or (ttt?)- 
XaioVf nor indeed with the tradition which, according to all the 
Travellers, still prevails in the East, that the scene of the 
Nativity was a Grotto. That the stable might be really such, 
is made highly probable by the remark of Casaubon, who has 
observed, after Sfrabo, that the country for many miles round 
Jerusalem is rocky ; and he adds, that an Arabian Geographer 
has described such excavations to be not unfrequently used in 
those parts for dwellings. The stable of the KaraXviaaf if it 
were so hewn out, might very well be called a (TwyjXatov, or if 
it were formed chiefly by nature, it would still better merit the 
appellation. But Casaubon's other reason, that the meanness 
of the place might also justify the term, in the same manner as 
in Theocritus we have iXeov, ovk o'lKrjmv, is much less satis- 
factory : from the mouth of Praxinoe such a figure of speech is 
perfectly natural, as is, indeed, every syllable in the Adonia- 
zusce ; but such a ludicrous hyperbole would ill accord with 
the character of ani/ of the Fathers, and w^as still less to be ex- 
pected from several of them : indeed their agreement plainly 
indicates that they meant to be understood literally. 

The remaining difficulty is to explain why Justin Martyr 
has made the birth-place of Christ to be near and not i?i Beth- 
lehem : and on this I have nothing better to oiFer than the 
ob\'ious remark, that even though the inn were without the 
village, still, inasmuch as it belonged to Bethlehem, whatever 
had happened at an inn so situated, might fairly be said to 
have happened at Bethlehem : this laxity of expression, if it 
must be so considered, cannot require to be exemplified or 
defended. It may be added, that, according to Volney, the 
Traveller, as quoted in a very useful compilation, Burders 
Oriental Customs^ the houses of public reception in the East 
" are always built without the precincts of towns." Sup- 
posing this to have been the case in the time of the Evangelist, 
his manner of expressing himself must have been understood 
by others, as it appears to have been by Justin. 

Casaubon, for having, among other things, laid some stress 
in this place on the Greek Article, is warmly attacked by one 
Peter Lansselius, a champion of Baronius, in a Tract annexed 
to Justin's Works, edit. Paris, 1615. This Writer is one of 
the multitude who teach that Articles are very unmeaning 

218 ST. LUKE, 

things; and lie instances in this Chap. ver. 11 and 12, aojTijp 
without the Article, and (rrjfxeiov with it. He should have told 
us on what principle the contrary might have been expected : 
(TWTrjp is there very properly without the Article, because it is 
then first mentioned ; and arifiHov as properly has .the Article, 
because not any sign indefinitely is spoken of, but the sign of 
the thing in question. This Peter Lansselius appears to have 
been a good Catholic, but a sorry Critic. 

V. 12. tv T^ <ltaTvri. Here the best MSS. — r^, and Gries- 
bach very properly rejects it. 

V. 25. nvEv/xa ayiov. A divine influence. Tov Trveujuaroc 
rov ayiov following may be intended of the same divine in- 
fluence, and the Article may signify only the renewed men- 
tion : however, I am disposed to believe that the latter is 
meant in the personal acceptation, because of the act there 
imputed. See on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 32. ({)(jjg elg cnroKoXvipiv IOvmv, k. t. X. This song of 
Simeon has, as might be expected, something of the anarthrous 
character mentioned above on i. 78. 


V. 21. Ktti 'Itj(tov j^aTTTKrOivToi:, MarUand (ap. Bowyer) 
conjectures tov 'Irjaov, and he thinks that wherever the Article 
is wanting before the name Jesus, the want has always pro- 
ceeded from the negligence of the Transcribers, except, indeed, 
where the name begins a sentence, or where some descriptive 
epithet is subjoined, as 'Ir^o-ou? 'S.qigtoq, 'It^ctovc o Na^wpaToc, 
&c. I have not been able to discover that this conjecture, or the 
general emendation of which it is a part, has any support. It 
is not true, as Markland supposes, that the omission of the 
Article gives to the name the contemptuous sense one Jesus, 
or that the respect and reverence which the disciples enter- 
tained for him, rendered the insertion of the Article necessary. 
The uses of the Article before Proper Names, and the limita- 
tions, so far as they can be assigned, have been noticed in the 
former Part : it may be observed, however, that it is not in 
the manner of the Sacred Historians to impute celebrity to 
Christ, or to assume that he is known to the Reader : on the 
contrary, they all, at the beginning of their narratives, tell us 


wlio is the subject of their story. That they usually write 
Jesus \vith the Article, affords no presumption that they did 
so always : they observe the same practice with respect to other 
Proper Names, which have recently been mentioned. 

But Markland has the two exceptions mentioned above. He 
says of the first, that it prevails, though he sees not the reason 
of it ; and he instances the first verse of the next Chapter. I 
do not perceive, however, that the exception is at all constant : 
see Matt. ii. 1 ; xiii. 57 ; x\di. 1 1 ; xxvi. 6. and other places in 
which we find 6 Se 'Irjo-ouc or some one of its cases beginning 
sentences ; and there can be no doubt that the next Chap, 
might in like manner have begun with 6 Se 'lr](Tovg : it is, there- 
fore, needless to look for the ground of this exception, since 
the fact alleged does not exist. If there can be any reason 
assignable why the next Chap, should rather begin as it does, 
I should suppose it to be, that since the last mention of the 
name of Jesus, a whole catalogue of names has intervened, so 
that Jesus could hardly have been uppermost in the mind 
either of the Historian or his Reader. If it be thought that 6 
'Irjo-ouc, at the beginning of the Acts, contradicts this reasoning, 
let it be remembered that a reference to St. Luke's former 
work precedes the mention of Jesus, and might therefore re- 
call him to the mind of Theophilus antecedently to the actual 
mention. On a nicety of this kind, however, I mean not to 
lay undue stress, but only to show that Markland's opinion 
appears to be unsupported. Of his second exception he says, 
that the reason is obvious, meaning, I suppose, that the addi- 
tion makes the Article superfluous. It should be observed, 
however, that 6 ^Irjcrovg Xptoroc is admissible, when Xpiarbg 
is not an Appellative, but a Proper Name : which, as was 
shown on Mark ix. 40. is sometimes the case. See Matt.i. 18. 
and Acts viii. 37. 

Ver. 23. vlog ^liO(Trj(j> tov 'HXi tov, k, r. X. Lightfoot, in 
order in some measure to lessen the difficulty attending this 
genealogy, tells us that utocj and not vlov, should be supplied 
throughout, so that the sense may be, " the son of Joseph, 
consequently the son of Heli, and therefore ultimately the son 
of Adam and of God." Now this is to suppose that the 
Article tov is every where not an ellipsis of tov vlov, but the 
Article of the Proper Name subjoined: in that case, how- 

ii20 ST. LUKE, 

ever, we should certainly have found rov prefixed to 'Iwo-j]^, 
for no reason can be imagined why it was not as necessary 
there as elsewhere ; and further on in the Genealogy we actu- 
ally meet with rov ^lw<Tri(j> twice. But on the usually received 
construction, the first-named Joseph is rightly without the 
Article, since such an omission guards the Reader, so far as 
it is possible, against the very mistake into which Lightfoot, 
and others after him, have fallen. Raphel has given from 
Herodotus a Genealogy which in form exactly accords with 
this of St. Luke ; Aewvt^jjc o 'Ava^avSptSeo) tov Aiovrog tov, 

K. T. X TOV 'HpaicXtoc. The ancient interpreters, 

the best judges in a question of this kind, explained St. Luke 
in the same manner. 

With the various hypotheses invented to reconcile the 
Genealogies by Matt, and Luke I have no concern : they may 
be seen fully detailed in the B<j3Xoc KaraWayrig of Suren- 


V. L Iv T(^ TTvevfiaTt. It is not universally agreed, in what 
sense Trvivfxa is here to be taken. Wakefield renders " by 
that spirit," meaning irvvuiia ayiov just mentioned, which, ac- 
cording to the rule of interpretation laid down Matt. i. 18. 
must mean the infiuence of the Spirit : I think, however, that 
in this case the Evangelist would have written Iv rw Trvev/uLaTL 
€ic£?i/(j) or Iv T(^ avT(^ wvEVjuaTi. As the reading now stands, 
I am inclined to interpret Trvevfxa of the Person called the 
Holy Spirit, and to make iv equivalent to vtto, signifying 
through the agency of, a common Hebraism ; once, indeed, I 
was of opinion, that the hypothesis, which some Critics have 
adopted, of our Saviour's Temptation being a visionary ^ not 
a real transaction, was favoured by this expression of St. 
Luke; for r^f irvevfiarL frequently signifies in his mind or 
spirit. This inquiry, however, has led me to observe, that 
then the Preposition is always omitted; as in Mark viii. \2. 
John xi. SS ; xiii. 21. Acts x. 20 \ Besides, of Iv T<f irvev- 
fiuTi meaning " by the agency of the Holy Spirit," we have 

* There is a mistake in this reference. It has been suggested to me that it 
should be Acts xx. 22. but I tliink rather xviii. 5. or 25.— J. S. 


an instance in this Evangelist, ii. 27. If to these considera- 
tions we add that Matt, and Mark in the parallel passages have 
expressed themselves less equivocally, we need not hesitate to 
understand ev ti{) wvevjiaTL in the personal sense. Many cogent 
arguments against the doctrine of a visionary temptation are 
detailed with great perspicuity in the fourth of the " Lectures 
on St. Matthew" by the Bishop of London, a work, which 
would have done honour to the better ages of Christianity. 

V. 4. 6 av^^bi-KOQ. Griesh. on the authority of several 
MSS. prefixes to 6 the mark of probable spuriousness. But 
see on Matt. iv. 4. 

Y. 38. »j 7r£v0£pa §£ Tox) ^ifKvvog. A great majority of the 
MSS. — rj, and it is rejected both by JVet. and Griesh. I do 
not perceive on what principle the Article can here be omitted : 
it is true, that the received reading can hardly be right, since 
it throws St too far from the beginning of the sentence : but 
Wetstein's C. and 106. Birch's 360. and Matthai's x, which 
are mostly MSS. of repute, have rJ Se invQ^^a., which, I doubt 
not, came from the EvangeKst. 

CHAP. v. 

V. 29. KOI r\v o')(X.og TaXcjvwv, Complut. has 'O oyXoq, 
which before rfAfuvoJiv without the Article, is so gross a devia- 
tion from the usage, that supposing it to have been found in 
any MS. it excites some curiosity respecting the history and 
quality of such a MS. The Cod. Esc. 8. of Birch, according 
to Moldenhawer, by whom the Escurial MSS. were collated 
(See Birch's Proleg. p. 79.) *' ahundat otiosis Articuloi^um 
additamentis,'' but I do not know of any affinity between this 
MS. and the Complut. Between this celebrated Edit, and 
the Cod. 1 Havn. the agreement is said to be very remarkable. 
See same Proleg. p. 90. 


V. 12. ac TO ogog. See Matt. v. 1. 

Saine v. Iv rrj irpofrevxy tov Qeov. There exists a difference 
of opinion, whether this mean " in prayer to God," as our 
Eng. Version renders it, or " in the 2)roseuche or oratory of 
God," which is the interpretation of Camp, and others. The 

222 ^T. LUKE, 

following are the reasons, which induce me to prefer the com- 
mon explanation. 1. It is well known, that the Trpoo-tuxai of 
the Jews were not usually situated among mountains, to which, 
however, Christ is here said to have retired. It appears from 
Acts xvi. 13. and from the well-known decree of the Hali- 
carnassensians, recorded in Josephus Antiq, xiv. 10. 2S. that 
Trpocrevxol^^^^ always situated near water, either that of some 
river or of the sea : the mountain district was not likely to 
afford the requisite convenience. 2. If an oratory had been 
meant, it is not likely that tov Qeov would have been added, 
for all oratories were tov Qeov. 3. It is objected, that if 
prayer to God were here intended, the idiom would require 
TTpog TOV Qeov : but this may be doubted. At least it is cer- 
tain that the genitive of the object after evxn is unexception- 
able Greek: see Eurip. Ion, 638. Troad. 889. Soph. (Ed. 
Tyr. 239. Of TrpocrevxVi indeed, the compound, I do not find 
any similar use : but the word is of rare occurrence in profane 
writers. 4. To pass the night in prayer, without (so far as I 
know) going to an oratory, appears to have been a common 
act of Jewish devotion. This is noticed by ScJioettgen, Horae 
Hebr. 5. Some stress has been laid on the presence of the 
Article in this place : but this is not unusual before Trpoo-fux^ 
in the sense of prayer: see Matt. xxi. 22. Actsi. 14. 1 Cor. 
vii. 5. 

Yer. ^5. vloX tov v-ipiaTov. Griesh. on the authority of 
many MSS. — tov. See on i. 32. 

V. 48. ETTi rjjv TTtTgav, See on Matt. vii. 24. 


V. 5. ' TTiv Gvvay(i)y{]v. Eng. Version " a synagogue." But 
this implies, that there were several synagogues in Capernaum ; 
which is contrary to the spirit of the original. The Article, 
as is observed by Camph. and Markl, (apud Bowyer) shows 
that there was at that time only one synagogue in the place. 

V. 28. 6 fiiKQOTiQog. That the Comparative is here by an 
Enallage put for the Superlative, is generally admitted : the 
only question is, whether 6 fxiKpoTipog here refer to any person 

' V. 3. Trpfff/Jwrlpovff rStv 'lovdaiutv. There is an ellipse of rii'dg here. Toiig 
7rpf(T/3urepovff 'would be nonsense. — H. J, R. 



ill particular. Some liavc tlioiight, and of this number are a 
few of the Fathers, that we are by 6 /utKporcpoc to understand 
Christ, from his being junior in ministry and indeed in age to 
John. I cannot but suspect that in this decision, as in so 
many others, the force of the Article has been mistaken. See 
especially on Matt. xii. 29. The tenor of the argument seems 
not to require any such restriction, but rather, I think, rejects 
it : for that Christ should say of Himself that He w^as greater 
than the person, whom He had just described as ha\dng been 
sent to prepare His way, amounts to nothing: besides, the 
expression is d juiKporepog tv ry jdacriXdq rov Qeov, i. e. under 
the Gospel Dispensation ; so that the comparison must be, 
not, as the interpretation supposes, between the Baptist and 
Christ, but between Christ and the body of Christians, in re- 
spect of whom Christ, assuredly, cannot be called o jutKporepoc. 
Michaelis (Introd. by Marsh, vol. i. p. 79.) understands jjlikqo- 
TEpog, from the context, to signify the least prophet ; and on 
this he grounds a curious argument for the inspiration of the 
N. T. That interpretation certainly may be tolerated ; but if 
■7rgo(^i]Tr]Q be not supplied from the former clause, then the 
assertion will be still more comprehensive ; viz. that every 
person enjoying the light of the Christian Revelation shall 
possess advantages, which were denied to the most favoured 
of mankind under the former Dispensation. In this sense the 
promise of Christ has been abundantly fulfilled : the most un- 
lettered Christian, who has ever attended to religious instruc- 
tion, being endued with a knowledge of divine truths which 
the Almighty did not vouchsafe to the Prophets of the O. T. 
nor even to the Baptist. In this manner the passage is under- 
stood by Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. and, I believe, by the majo- 
rity of Critics. According to either of these latter interpreta- 
tions, the Article is used in the Hypothetic sense. 


V. 5. d airdQMv. See on Matt. xiii. 3. 


V. 20. Tov Xqigtov tov Qwv. According to Mill, the 
Copt, here read av a Xqkjtoq 'O Gtdc* which Wet» has repre- 

221 ST. LUKE, 

sented as being Xptirrog Qeog. For the omission of the 
Article he is sharply reprehended by Matthai : " Puerile 
autem est, quod Wetsteinius ex ista lectione furtim sustulit 
Articulum : cur non potius supra 1.16. sustulit tov 0£ov ? ibi 
enim Christus diserte appellatur Kuptoc o 0£oc 'lo'pa/jX." It 
would not always be an easy task to vindicate the manner in 
which Wet. has treated passages relating to our Saviour's 
Divinity: mere accident, however, may, in the present in- 
stance, have led to the omission of a single letter ; which, after 
all, is of no importance, even if the Copt, reading had been 
confirmed by the best MSS., except that Xqigtoq 6 Gcoy is 
more consonant vdth the Greek usage. I have, however, 
already on Matt. i. 2, hinted at the extreme difficulty of ascer- 
taining with precision what readings were found in the MSS. 
used by the Oriental Translators. The Coptic has here what 
is equivalent to 'O XPIETOS ^GA ^ : Phtha was an Egyptian 
name of the Deity, for which see the authors referred to by 
the Commentators on Cicero de Nat. Deor. Lib. iii. Cap. ^2. 
" in Nilo natus OPAS, &c. ;" and also Jablonski's Pantheon 
^^gyptiacum : but whether Phtha be more fitly represented by 
Geoc or 6 Ofoc, it is not, I should think, possible to deter- 
mine ; since the One undoubted God is signified by both these 
terms in various places of the N. T. 

V. 48. TovTo TO Traidiov. Beza and Grotius (ap. Bowyer) 
would here read TOIOYTO to waidiov. This reading, how- 
ever, would not be Greek ; for though ovTog requires its Sub- 
stantive to take the Article, this is not the case with toiovtoq 
either in the N. T. or in profane writers. It is needless to ad- 
duce examples of the contrary use, since they are so common. 

V. 60. Oa^ai Tovg tavTiov veKpoiig, Mr. Herb. Marsh in 
his Origin of the Three first Gospels, p. 129. mentions a con- 
jecture by Bolten, that the Syriac of this and the parallel pas- 
sage. Matt. viii. 22. is to be rendered by " relinque mortuos 
SEPELIENTIBUS mortuos suos'' Mr. Marsh observes, that " if 

' In this remark 1 followed Wilkins, the Editor of the Coptic Version, who 
makes Phtha to he a single word ; and he adds, that they who understand it to 
he an abbreviation representing the noun Noudi (God) with its Article, "rem 
acu hand tetigerunt." Proleg. p. 10.— I find, however, that La Croze, Lex. 
-'^'Rypt- P- 62. is of a different opinion. Non nostrum tantas componcre lites : I 
know nothing more of Coptic, than any man may acquire in a month. 


the passage occurred either in St. Matt, alone, or in St. Luke 
alone, one might conjecture that the Greek text was originally 
a(pig Tovg vEKpovg OA^ASI rovg iavTwv veKpovg, and that 
through an oversight of the Transcribers the S in Oaxpam was 
omitted, and the Participle thus converted into the infinitive 
Oa\pai. But that the same oversight should have happened in 
both places, is not probable." 

I much doubt, however, whether a single Evangelist would 
have translated Syriac or Chaldee words signifying, " Leave 
the dead to those whose office it is to bury the dead," by the 
Greek given above : for neither does the Participle of the first 
Aorist OdxpacTi, notwithstanding some remarkable uses of that 
Tense, seem well adapted to express ** those whose office it 
is," nor will it be easy to account for the omission of the Ar- 
ticle. In Acts V. 9. ot ttoSec t^^ Oaxpavrijjv tov avSpa aoVf 
the Participle marks a past act : the office appears rather to 
require the Present Tense, as in the LXX. 2 Kings ix. 10. 
ovK Bcrriv 6 OaimoVf and John ii. 16. rotg rag irepiaTEpag ttw- 
XoiKTiv eiwtv. With respect to the Article, had the Proposi- 
tion been negative and exclusive, the case would have been 
different : as it now stands, roTg is, I believe, indispensable : 
so John i. 22. Iva airoKpiaiv ^lOfjisv TO IS wejULXpaaiv i7/xac» 

The conjecture of Bolten has the approbation both of Mr, 
Marsh and of Eichhorn : is it not, how^ever, an objection of 
some weight, that ^oi^La!^ has the affix, mortuos sues ? In 
the usual way of understanding the passage, the affix strength- 
ens the sense. 


V. 6. 6 viog Hpt)vr\g. A great majority of the best MSS. — 
6 and Griesb. properly rejects it. Beza, tvithout the authority 
of MSS. says Wet., inserted the Article, supposing it to be 
necessary : on the contrary, the Regimen will scarcely endure 
it. Raphel, however, so far from thmking the Article neces- 
sQxy in this place, has recourse to the solution common in all 
difficulties, viz. that 6 is here used indefinitely, 

V. 14. Iv ry KpicTsi, See on Matt. x. 15. 

V. 21. T(f TTviviiaTi. Several MSS. and most of the old 
Verss. including the three Syr. and all the Lat. add tm «7<V» 
possibly, says Wolfius, because it was imagined that irvevfia 



with the Article could be intended only of the Holy Spirit. I 
believe this to have been the cause of the interpolation ; which, 
however, must have been made at a very early period. Tt^ 
nvev/uiaTi, as has been elsewhere observ^ed, frequently means 
no more than in his mind or vjithin himself. See above iv. 1. 
It ought to be mentioned, that of Matthai's MSS. only one^ 
and that among the least considerable, has the addition. 

V. ^9. TrXrjo-tov. Markl. would read 'O TrXijo-tov, and two 
or three inconsiderable MSS. have this reading. It must be 
confessed that the conjecture is at the first view plausible, but 
yet I suspect that it is not sound. In ver. 27. we have indeed 
rov TrXnaioVi but there the Article was necessary ; for without 
it the meaning would be, " thou shalt love near thee," which 
obviously is not sense : tov, therefore, was requisite to give the 
signification of the person near thee, or thy neighbour. But 
how stands the case in the present verse ? The question is, 
Who is near me ? i. e. near in the same sense in which the 
word had just been employed. I do not, then, perceive any 
defect in this construction, and I am persuaded that the re- 
ceived reading is the true one, on comparing it with ver. SQ, 
where not a single MS. has ventured to interpolate the Article. 
It is there asked, Who of the three appears to have been near 
him, who fell, &c. * 


V. 4. airo TOV Trovr)gov. See on Matt. v. 37. 

V. 7. dg TTjv KOLTr]v. Eng. Version says, " My children are 
with me in bed." A difficulty has arisen in determining whe- 
ther they were all in the same bed : some Critics, whom Bishop 
Pearce and Campbell have followed, make juer' liiov to mean 
only " as well as myself." Possibly, however, koItk) may sig- 
nify the bed-chamber ; in which case, the same koltti] held the 
whole family. According to Chardin^ as quoted by Harmer, 
it is usual in the East for the whole family to sleep in the same 
chamber, on different beds or mattresses laid on the floor. 
Newcomei I observe, has adopted this interpretation. 

* Winer says that Dbderlein compares iEsch. Prom. 940. 'E/ioi ^ IXaoaov 
Z-qvoQ rj fiijdiv fiiWei, where he says that ixtjdiv seems to be for tov firj^kv. — 
H.J. R.' 


V. 13. ^(Laei irvsvfjia ayiov. The aid of the Holy Spirit: 
see what was remarked above on Matt. i. 18. under the fifth 
head; of which the present instance is a good illustration: 
accordingly the Greek Scholiasts have x^^'^ TTvevfxaTiKiiv. 
See Matthai ad loc. 

V. 15. apxovTL Tbjv, K. T. X. Several good MSS. have rt^ 
ap')(^ovTi, and Grieshach has admitted the Article into the Text. 
In this admission there was something of temerity. "Apx'^v 
is one of those words which, being liable to be considered 
either as a Participle or a Substantive, may in this case either 
take or reject the Article : as a Substantive it would reject the 
Article, as a Participle it would require it. The substantive 
use appears to be that here meant, and it is, indeed, the more 
common in the N. T. In the parallel place, Matt. xii. 24. not 
a single MS. has the Article. In the present instance only 
three of Matthai's MSS. and those not the best, have rw. 

V. 30. TOLQ ^Lveviraig. The Article is here properly in- 
serted, though it was omitted Matt. xii. 41. I ought not, 
however, there to have said, that with the Articles the asser- 
tion would not have been true ; since in Jonah ii. 5. the re- 
pentance of the Ninevites is affirmed to have been general. 
Still, however, the Articles were not necessary : it was suf- 
ficient to declare simply, that " men of Nineveh should," &c. — 
I observ'e that Dr. Gillies in his valuable " History of the 
World from Alexander to Augustus," (Prelim. Survey) has 
assigned several strong reasons to prove that the Nineveh here 
spoken of was situate in the neighbourhood of Babylon, and 
was not the city which stood opposite to the modern Mosul, 
between 36 and 37 deg. of Northern Latitude, near the Tigris. 
Yet D'Anville (Euphrate et Tigre, p. 88.) treating of Mosul, 
says, " On sait que la rive opposee, ou la gauche du fleuve, 
conserve des vestiges de Ninive, et que la tradition sur la pre- 
dication de Jonas n'y est point oubliee." Is this merely one of 
the unfounded Mohammedan traditions which are so prevalent 
in the East? 'AXXa ravra o)Q iv irapo^ij^, 

V. 34. 6 o^^aX/xoc. The proposition is convertible. See 
Part i. p. 74. 

V. 36. iaraL ^mtuvov oXov. Michaelis (Introd. vol. ii. p. 
404.) observes, that " this verse would be more intelligible, if 
we inserted the Article, taraL ((xiyTuvov TO oXov. The mean- 

Q 2 

228 ST. LUKE, 

ing of the passage would then be, If in consequence of one 
perfect eye the whole body is light, take care that the whole, 
i. e. the whole man, body and soul, become light. The eyes 
give light to the body ; but that which Christ calls light, shall 
enlighten, or give true knowledge to the whole man." The 
sense which would thus arise is, indeed, unexceptionable : but, 
perhaps, nearly the same meaning is conveyed in the reading 
of the MSS. In the sense of wholly, 6\ov does not require 
the Article : see Part i. Chap. vii. § 4. : the meaning, however, 
wiU be the same, whether we render, " it vsdll be wholly en- 
lightened," or " the whole will be enlightened." In the former 
case, it is true, the reference will be to awfia : but I much 
doubt whether, if we had read TO oXoy, we could have under- 
stood it of the " body and soul," nothing more than the body 
having been mentioned, though the soul be the object which 
our Saviour has in view : and to this, probably, by a tacit in- 
ference the application is to be made. In ver. 35. the analogy 
between external and internal light had been established : in 
the present, the complete illumination described in the con- 
cluding clause, though intended of the mind, is affirmed only 
of the body, the application, after what had been said, being 
supposed to be obvious. Rosenmuller appears to have under- 
stood the passage somewhat in this manner, when he says, 
" permixta est nempe rei comparatce ipsa comparatio.'' If 
these remarks have any weight, the conjecture of Michaelis 
becomes gratuitous. 

V. 42. TO r}dvo(Tfxov, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 2. 


V. 6. /cat tv £? avTtov» Three editt. of Erasmtis here read 
TO £v. This, in speaking oi Jive things, would not conform 
with the Greek usage. See 1 John v. 7. 

V. 10. ug TO ayiov Trvivfxa, The Holy Spirit, the Person 
so denominated. See on Matt. xii. 32. Compare also Mark 
iii. 28, In these places it may be observed, in confirmation of 
what was said on Matt. i. 18. that the Article is employed. 
The only difference is, that in two of them the phrase is to 
irvivfia to ayiov, which, however, is equivalent. A few MSS, 
indeed, have in this place also the same form. D, as in St. 


Matthew, omits the second Article. The Compiler of that 
MS. was not always sufficiently on his guard. 

V. 14. ^tjcao-rj/v Part. i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 3. 

V. 54. Trjv vf^tXrjv. A few MSS. (among which are A. B.) 
— r?)v. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) approves the omission ; but 
in this, as in other instances, the Article has its meaning. We 
read in 1 Kings xviii. 44. that the appearance of a certain 
cloud rising out of the sea was regarded as a prognostic of 
rain. Now the sea lay westward of Palestine ; and, therefore, 
the cloud which xqse out of the sea, might also be said to rise 
from the West. If, then, we put these circumstances toge- 
ther, there is good reason to suppose that the cloud here spoken 
of was a well known phenomenon, which would naturally and 
properly be adverted to as 'H vatpeXt}, Mr. Bruce in his Tra- 
vels has noticed a similar appearance attending the inundation 
of the Nile. Newcomer in his Revision of the Common Ver- 
sion, has adopted this explanation, and yet he translates " a 
cloud." I cannot help thinking that a Revision would be ex- 
tremely imperfect, or indeed would be nearly useless, if it were 
to overlook minute circumstances, such as that before us. It 
is in niceties of this sort principally, that our English Transla- 
tion admits improvement : its general fidelity has never been 
questioned ; and its style, notwithstanding the captious objec- 
tions of Dr. SymondSf is incomparably superior to any thing 
which might be expected from the finical and perverted taste 
of our own age. It is simple ; it is harmonious ; it is ener- 
getic ; and, which is of no small importance, use has made it 
familiar, and time has rendered it sacred. Without the least 
predisposition to decry the labours of the Writer to whom I 
have alluded, I may express the hope, that whenever our Ver- 
sion shall be revised by authority, the points last attended to 
will be those which respect a pretended inelegance of language. 
A single instance of the suppression of a local custom or popu- 
lar opinion, which can be shown to have existed among the 
Jews in the age of the Apostles, appears to me to be of infi- 
nitely higher importance ; because, by concealing from the 
notice of the Reader circumstances which are beyond the reach 
of fabrication, we withhold from him perhaps the strongest 
evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and consequently 
of the credibihty of our Religion. 

230 ST. LUKE, 


V. 27. TTavTSQ ot IpyuTai. Grieshach following several MSS. 
prefixes the mark of possible spuriousness to ot: but, as I 
think, without reason; especially when THS a^iKiag follows. 


V. 28. rig vfiC)v OeXtJVy k. t, X. Many MSS. have 'O QiXiov. 
This reading implies that there is an assumption of his wishing 
to build, as if we should say, Who of you, supposing that he 
wished. It is, therefore, not an improbable, though by no 
means a necessary, reading. 

V. 34. TO aXag. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 2. 


V. 22. rrjv (TToXrjv rriv TTpwrrjv. A few good MSS. have 
(TToXrjv without the Article, and Grieshach thinks that it may 
possibly be spurious. It was shown. Part i. Chap. viii. § 2. 
that the Article of the Substantive is in such cases frequently 
omitted : it is, however, much more frequently inserted, as in 
the very next verse, TON fxoayov rov (tlt^vtov. 


V. 22. eIiq tov koXttov tov *Aj3paa/x. Grieshach rejects rov : 
it is totally unnecessary, and the best MSS. are without it. 


V. 1. Ta (TKav^aXa. See Matt, xviii. 7. 

V. 4. Trig riiuLipag. The Article here, though lost in the 
English, is not without its use, as has been already shown : 
see on Matt. xx. 2. : so also Hebrews ix. 7. and LXX. Exod. 
xxiii. 14. 

V. 17. ol ScKa. A Reader of our Common Version, "Were 
there not ten cleansed?" might suppose the Article in the 
Greek tp be a mere expletive. The original, however, means 
to say, " Were not the whole ten (recently mentioned) 
cleansed ?" which, though it make no alteration in the tenor of 


the argument, is very different in the turn of the expression. 
Wakefield's Translation accords with the Greek. 

V. 34, 35. 6 iig, rt fiia. The first Article Griesb. has rejected, 
and to the second he has prefixed his mark of probable spuri- 
ousness. I do not perceive any difference in the tw^o cases, 
except that the MSS. which omit 6 are rather more numerous 
than those which want ?j. This, however, is a very insufficient 
criterion ; nor can it be well doubted, that both 6 and 17 are 
genuine or spurious ahke : I am disposed to think them 
genuine. See on Matt. vi. ^4. 


V. 2. avOptoTTov fxrj IvrpeirofiEvog. Not regarding any man. 
It is not said, in like manner, any God, because only one God 
was in the Historian's contemplation \ 

V. 13. c/xoi T(^ a/mapTcoXi^, Wet. here remarks, " toj hahet 
emphasin, rt^ ica0' virEpfioXriv a/xaprojXf^." The influence thus 
ascribed to the presence of the Article is, I believe, unfounded; 
and the mistake seems to have arisen from inattention to an 
usage which, though sufficiently common, I do not remember 
to have seen noticed. It prevails in the Profane Writers, no 
less than in the N. T. and in Verse as well as in Prose : it is, 
that When any of the words which in the First Part of this 
Work I have denominated Attributives, is placed in apposition 
with a Personal Pronoun, that Attributive has the Article 
prefixed. An instance occurs in this EvangeKst, vi. 24. vfuv 
TOIS TrXovmoig, where pre-eminent wealth cannot be intended. 
So also xi. 46. v/uuv TOIS vojuikoiq. We find the same form 
of speech in Xenoph. Cyrop. lib. iv. p. 66. KuyM jjlIv 'O raXaq: 
and ibid. lib. vii. p. 109. lyw 17 /xwpa. In both these instances, 
it is true that Sturz, in his Continuation of Thieme's Lex. 
Xenoph. vol. iii. p. 232. supposes emphasis; and so also in 
another example adduced by him, viz. eyoj ri wapaKeXEvo/jievr}, 
where the very notion of emphasis is ridiculous : indeed his 

1 V. 9. TrpoQ TivaQ Tovg TniroiQoraQ If' kavToig. Here, says Winer, to riveg, 
by which persons not accurately defined are designated, is added a more exact 
description, by means of a definite quality : He said to some persons, and they were 
such as trust in themselves. Bp. Middleton would probably have said, Sojne per- 
sons, viz. those who (were knotvn) to trust in themselves. See note on v. KJ. Winer 
refers to Herm. ad Soph. G^ld. C. 107- Dbdcrlcin ad QM. C. p. 29G.— H. J. R. 


232 ST. LUKE, 

whole account of the Article is liable to much objection. See 
also Herod, lib. ix. p. 342. jme rrjv iKiriv. Plut. Conviv. Sept. 
Sap. p. 95. Ifxe Tov SucrrTjvov. The same usage occurs in Theo- 
critus Idyll, iii. 19 and 24. fil tov alnoXov, and lyw 6 Sudtrooc, 
and Idyll, ii. 132. See also Soph. Electra, 282. Edit. Brunck. 
hyio ri dvdjuLopog. Eurip. Ion, Edit. Beck, 348. (T(^£ tov dv<T- 
Trjvov, Aristoph. Aves 5. Achar. 1154. Eccles. 619. Many 
other examples will present themselves to the Reader, nor 
need so many to have been produced, had the opinion of Wet- 
stein been of less weight : it seems, indeed, to have been im- 
plicitly followed : thus on jml tov TaXaiiriopov, Eurip. Hec. 25. 
Ammon informs us that "the Article in this place strengthens 
" the expression of misery and misfortune," &c. &;c : but if 
Ammon's Edition of the Hecuba had nothing worse in it, it 
might be tolerated. Of the usage in question the ground is 
sufficiently obvious: the Article here, as elsewhere, marks the 
assumption of its Predicate, and the strict meaning of the Pub- 
lican's Prayer is, " Have mercy on me, who am confessedly a 
sinner," or, " seeing that I am a sinner, have mercy on me." 

V. 27. TO. aSvvaTa ^vvaTo,. There cannot be a better 

example than this, of the use of the Article in marking assump- 
tion as distinguished from assertion. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. 

V. 29. yoveXg rj ade\(povg, k. t. X. Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 


V. 2. apx^^^^^^^lC* What was the rank and office of this 
person ? Our Version calls him " the chief among the Pubh- 
cans:" to this Camphell objects, that it seems to imply the 
chief of the whole order in Palestine, in which case the word 
would most probably have been attended with the Article. 
Thus, he adds, it is always said 'O apxnip^vg, when the High 
Priest is spoken of : and he concludes with making this ap-xj.- 
Ti\wvr]Q the chief Publican of that particular city or district ; 
which interpretation, however, will, on Campbell's principle, 
require the Article just as much as would tluit which he rejects. 
But the truth is, that be the meaning of the word what it may, 
the Article must here be omitted ; ijv 'O apxtreXcJyjjc would 
offend against the usage noticed, Part i. Cliap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. 


(unless, indeed, there had been a dispute whether Zaccheus or 
some other person were the apxireXiovrjg ;) and with respect to 
what Campbell says of 6 apx^^P^^^^ ^is error has arisen from 
his not adverting to that usage : for though 6 apx'^epevg be the 
common appellation, yet the Article here, as elsewhere, is 
omitted whenever the word follows a Verb Substantive. Thus, 
by this Evangelist, in Acts xxiii. 5. St. Paul is made to say 
of him, who in the preceding verse is called tov apx^^P^^ tov 
0EOV, " I knew not on fortv apx'epti^c :" which is strictly simi- 
lar to the passage under review. So also St. John xi. 49. 51 ; 
xviii. 13. and in the LXX. 2 Mace. xv. 12. tov yivo/Luvov 
apxtEpla. There is, therefore, no reason to infer that apx^'''^~ 
Xajvrjc is at all less definite in its import, than would 'O ap^i- 
TeXojvrit: be, if the circumstances had permitted the Article to 
be employed. 

The precise nature of the office it is not easy to determine. 
Michaelis, in his German work so often quoted, understands 
Zaccheus to have been a PuhlicanuSy or Farmer of the Tolls, 
as distinguished from a PortitoVy or mere Collector ; and a pas- 
sage of Josephus, adduced by Wetstein, makes it probable that 
Jews were sometimes admitted to this rank, though, as every 
one knows, it properly belonged to Roman knights. Such a 
person might without impropriety be called apxLTe\i3dvr\g, a 
Head-Collector, as being a Publican in the strict sense, under 
whom the rikwyai acted. The Puhlicaniy indeed, formed a 
Society, or College, under the direction of a President residing 
at Rome ; and this President managed the concerns of the 
Society by means of Representatives appointed in the Pro- 
vinces. The President himself was called Magister, and each 
Representative Pro-Magister, as the Reader will learn on con- 
sulting Gr<Bvius*s Note on Cicero ad Fam. lib. xiii. Epist, 9. 
Zaccheus might, perhaps, be this Representative ; for though 
he was a Jew, it might be the policy of the Romans sometimes 
to employ Jews in offices of trust and emolument. Of these 
two conjectures, for I confess they are nothing more, I am 
inclined to prefer the latter. The word aQ\iTiki6vr]g is oTraS 
\iy6fiivov in the N. T, 

V. 23. liri TTJv TpaireZav, A great many MSS. omit Trjv, 
to which Griesbach prefixes the mark of probable spuriousness. 
The omission will not, in tliis instance, afiect the sense : I am 

2S4' ST. LUKE, 

disposed, however, to retain the Article, observing that in 
Demosthenes etti Trjv rpaireZav is common, whilst IttX rpoTrt^av 
is not found. See Reiskes Index Demosth. voce rpaTrcSa. 

V. 29. eXaiMV. We have not in this instance any infringe- 
ment of the rule of Regimen. The Mount of Olives is com- 
monly called TO opog tojv iXaicjv, and the second Article is then 
never omitted. But the insertion of KoXovjuLevov makes a dif- 
ference ; for then we have an ellipsis of opog understood after 
KoXovfisvov, where TO opog would be contrary to the rule. 
See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. Notwithstanding this, one 
or two inferior MSS. have rwv. 

V. 30. ovStig irwTTOTe avOpujirwv. It might be expected 
that avOpojTTtov, after the Partitive ovdugy would have the Ar- 
ticle ; but see Part i. p. 54. 


V. 36. Kol vioi ELCTt Tov Qsov. Hcro the Alex. MS. has 
the remarkable reading, ot vloi elai Oeov, which, however, 
can scarcely be right : it would mean, " the children are of 

> In V. 38. of this chapter, we have our Saviour's argument in proof of a resur- 
rection, expressed with some difference, in respect of the Article, from the corre- 
sponding terms in Matthew and Mark : Oebg de ovk tan veKpoiv, dWoL KwvtojV 
TrdvTeg yap avT<^ ^{Huiv. This passage furnishes us with a specimen of the 
Scriptural criticism of some of the opponents of Bishop Middleton's hypothesis. 
*' The Article ought to be inserted before Gcoc," says the Monthly Reviewer, 
(June, 1810.) Not necessarily ; as the present reading may very well be ren- 
dered, " But he is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'* But the Reviewer 
proceeds : " The additional words in Luke, Trdvreg yap avT<p ^mcti, which are 
rendered in our common Version, * all live unto him,' mean, we think, " all who 
are his are rewarded with life and happiness," — " no good man loses his reward." 
This is sufficiently startling to one accustomed to the sober criticism of Bishop 
Middleton ; but the surprise excited by it is increased by the examples brought 
to confirm the novel interpretation : " See the dative so used in Luke v. 33. 
John xvii. 6 and 9." And he further appeals to some Hebrew usages in the Old 
Testament. Passing by these latter as proving nothing, the Greek references 
deserve to be examined. The first is Luke v. 33. o'l dk ffol IcrBiovai Kal Trivovm' 
where aoi is evidently the nominative plural of the adjective aoq, and if the writer 
had intended it for the dative of av, he would have used the dative also in the 
beginning of the verse, 'lojdvvy instead oClojdvvov. The examples from John 
are of the same kind, aoi r/aav and aoi tlac though if there could be a doubt of 
the construction, the tenth verse would remove it: rd Ifid Travra ad Ian. In 
the same way, the construction of Luke xx. 38. should be compared with Romans 


V. 42. h )3fj3X(t» ^PaXjutov. Some MSS. have Iv r^ i3r/3X(j> 
TMv \pa\fiu)v. Both Articles may be omitted by rules, which 
have often been referred to. 


V. 25. Iv tiXlci) Kol (jeX^vy kol atrrpoig. Part i. Chap. vi. 

V. 37. fXafwv. Here again two or three MSS. read rwv. 
See on xix. 29. 


V. 3. 6 (raravac. Very many MSS. omit 6, and Grieshach 
rejects it. This word is used both with and without the Ar- 
ticle, as partaking of the nature both of a Proper Name and of 
an Appellative, q. d. the Adversary. 

V. 11. 6 ^t^ao-jcaXoc. I remember to have seen it some- 
where remarked, that the Article in this place indicates the 
pre-eminent dignity of the Teacher : but this notion may easily 
be shown to be groundless, if we consider that ^t^acrjcaXoc, 
without the Article, would here scarcely have been sense. The 
disciples of a particular Teacher could not well have spoken of 
their Master in any other manner. See Aristoph, Nub, 868. 
1150. 1329. 1335. 1337. 1447. Edit. Hermann: and these 
instances, it will be remarked, are taken from a Poet. 

V. 17. TrorrjpLov. A few MSS. including the Alex, prefix 
TO. Michaelis (Anmerlc.) says that " this is not the Cup used 
at the institution of the Holy Supper, but an earlier one, per- 
haps the first, which was drunk before the meal." That only 
one vessel was used during the celebration is probable, as I 
have remarked on Matt. xxvi. 27. in which case the reading 
would be TO iroTijpLov: the MSS. however, are, for the most 
part, against this supposition. But this is not the only diffi- 
culty attending the passage. Our Saviour is here said to have 
given thanks, tvxapi(TTr]aag : this Cup seems, therefore, to have 

xiv. 8. Ttp Ki'p«v K^fitv. — The reader will probably be disposed, from this speci- 
men, to consider Bishop Middleton and our own Translators safer guides to 
follow.— J. S. 

^ Winer says that the Article is omitted before i/Xtoc, when it is mentioned 
with the moon and stars ! — H. J. R. 

2S6 ST. LUKE, 

been the Cup of Blessing, or the Third of the Four, and in 
that case it probably ivas the Cup used at the institution of the 
Lord's Supper, contrary to Michaelis's supposition. But then, 
on the other hand, how are we to understand what is said 
below, ver. 20 ? The perplexities attending the present pas- 
sage are such as almost to induce me to believe it spurious. 
" It is wanting," says Adler (in his Ver ss, Syr, p. 183.) " in all 
the MSS. of the Peshito, and in the first or Vienna Edit, and 
also in the Codex Veronensis of Blanchinir The Latin Trans- 
lation contained in that Codex cannot, in the opinion of a con- 
summate judge, (see Marsh's Note on Mich. Introd. vol. ii. 
p. 559.) be shown, with any colour of argument, to have been 
made in the first Century : its very remote antiquity, however, 
neither Mr. Marsh nor any other Critic, so far as I know, 
appears disposed to question. 

V. 19. rovTo E<m TO awjULo. juou. Mr. Wakefield , having 
translated these words in the usual manner, observes, " The 
original is more emphatical and striking, This is this body of 
mine, laying his hand probably at the same time upon liis 
breast." I do not perceive that the original expresses any 
thing of this sort; and if it did, I should not well under- 
stand it. 

, V. 60. 6 oXiKTwp. Griesbach, on the authority of very many 
MSS. rejects 'O. See on Matt. xx\i. 34. 


V. 18, Tov Bapa/3/3av. In this place, and in the correspond- 
ing one in St. John, Bapafdfdag, when first mentioned, has the 
Article. Here, indeed, several MSS. including A. G. H. and 
a large proportion of Matthilis omit tov : but in St. John the 
MSS. are uniform in exhibiting the Article. The celebrity of 
this robber, at the time, at least when St. John wrote his 
Gospel (see above on Mark xv. 43.). may have caused the name 
to be thus introduced. 

According to Origen, the name was Jesus Barabbas, but the 
name Jesus was omitted, lest it might appear to be profaned : 
and a few MSS. do actually insert it in Matt, xxvii. 17. The 
Armenian Version also of that passage has, according to La 
Croze, Jesus Barabbas : it is found too in the Vers. Syr- 


Hieros. : and ^c?/^r says (Verss. Syr. p. 1T3.) that there is a 
tradition among the Syrians, that Barabbas was called also 
Jesus. Schleusner doubts not that the Copyists expunged that 
name wherever Barabbas occurs. The presence, however, of 
the Article in all the MSS. of St. John (for here it ought pro- 
bably to be omitted) is rather unfavourable to this hypothesis. 
If Barabbas's name had been Jesus Barabbas, it must in Greek 
have been written ^\7\aovg Bapajdj^ag, as is the case with ^ijjuov 
liiTQog, not 'Itjo-ouc '0 Bapaj3j3ac *. consequently, the reading 
in St. John, at least, affords a presumption that 'Irjcrouv never 
in that instance preceded TON Bapaj3j3ay. It may be said, 
indeed, that tov was inserted in the place of the name ex- 
punged : but this is highly improbable, since the name Barab- 
bas, without the Article, would have accorded rather better 
with the ordinary usage. On the whole, I am disposed to 
think that the authority of Origen influenced some of the Copy- 
ists to insert the name of Jesus, and that even the tradition 
mentioned by Adler may have arisen from the same source. 

V. 26. TOV Igxafiivov, The Article should probably be 
omitted, as in many MSS. and in Griesbach. 

V. 38. liriypaxj)!]. Many MSS. have 'H eTriypa(j)ri, This is 
not absurd, since the practice of putting up inscriptions on 
similar occasions was not unusual ; and to this practice refer- 
ence might be made. 

V. 43. ev T(^ 7rapaS£t<Tf|». The reference in this place is to 
the Jewish notion of the state of the dead. See Lightfoot. 

V. 47. ^Uaiog ^v. In Bowyer's Collection we have a conjec- 
ture by JVasse, '0 diKaiog : in support of which he quotes Acts 
vii. 52; xxii. 14. James v. 6. That dUaiog in this place, if used 
KttT l^oxtiv, may dispense vdth the Article, is more than I 
dare affirm ; though, considering the tendency of the Verb Sub- 
stantive to render the Noun following anarthrous, and espe- 
cially that Names and Titles (see above, xix. 2.) so situated 
reject the Article, I think the case somewhat disputable. There 
is, however, another view in which the question may be re- 
garded. St. Luke was not present : he had heard the exclama- 
tion of the Centurion from others : and in what manner did 
the relater represent it ? The Roman said, probably, Reverd 
hie vir Justus erat. If St. Luke understood not Latin, the 
reporter was to translate the phrase into Greek : but would he 

238 ST. LUKE, 

have been justified in representing the Centurion to have said 
what was equivalent to 'O diKaiog'i This would have been 
rather to act the part of a Commentator than of a narrator. Be- 
sides, a Roman who had heard merely that the Messiah was to 
be distinguished by the attribute of justice, or that he was to 
be called the Just One, would very naturally, according to the 
practice of his nation, suppose Justus to be a cognomen of 
Christ ; to which he might thus allude : that it was a cognomen 
in some instances we know from Acts i. 2S ; xviii. 7. Col. iv. 
1 1 ; and if the Reporter or Translator viewed the case in this 
light, I do not see that he would think of inserting the Article 
in the Greek. Had Pompey died gloriously, I can conceive a 
Greek by-stander to have exclaimed, 'AXtj^wc o avrjp ovrog rjv 
May ag, in allusion to Magnus ; and I believe he would have 
said no more. Such allusions, it is well known, are very much 
in the manner both of the Greeks and Romans. But see more 
on Acts vii. 52, 

V. 54. rijULipa and o-aj3]3arov are illustrations of Part i. Chap. 
iii. Sect. iii. § L 


V. 10. Mapia 'laicwjSou. Markland conjectures 'H 'laicwjSou. 
This is the reading of the best MSS. including a large propor- 
tion of Matthai's. 

V. 18. 6 ac. Some MSS. — 6: but this is wrong, there 
being only two persons mentioned. 

V. 21. TpiTtjv ravTriv rjimipav. This is contrary to what was 
said on ovTog in Part i. Chap. vii. § 5. A few MSS. indeed, and 
Syr. Philox. want TavTrjv, by which omission the difficulty 
would be removed: it is evident, however, from Wetstein's 
Note, that the phrase accords with the practice of the Greek 
writers. In the whole N. T. I find no other instance of ovtoq 
in immediate concord with an anarthrous Noun, except Acts 
i. 5. juera TroXXag ravTag rt/uLtpag, and xxiv. 21. Trtpi juLiag Tavrr^g 
^(i)vr}g: unless, indeed, we add tovto rpirov, John xxi. 14. and 
2 Cor. xxiii. 1. where, however, the Substantive is understood. 
Now in all these instances it will be observed, that either a 
Numeral Adjective occurs, or something which is analogous to 
it ; whence I infer that the anomaly noticed Part i. Chap. vi. 
§ 3. sometimes extends its influence so far as to cause the 


omission of the Article in cases like the present. I am aware 
that some Critics would at once have recourse to the liomceote- 
leuton : but I am disposed to believe that almost every word 
which existed in the Autographs is found in some one at least 
of the MSS. still extant. If there be many instances in which 
the original reading is wholly lost, they will probably, for the 
most part, respect the Article : yet rarely, if ever, has a case 
occurred, in which the reading of some MS. or other did not 
agree with the principles previously estabhshed in this Work. 
Same v. Markland here conjectures 'H o-tj/xejoov, making it, 
I suppose, the Nominative to a-yu : no emendation, however, 
is requisite: the Nominative to ayu is Christ. Si7jU€j>ov is 
wanting in the Vat. MS. and in the Syr. Arab. Copt. iEth. 
and Arm. Verss. It is not necessary to the sense. 

240 ST. JOHN, 



V. 1. Qeog ?iv 6 \6yog. Certain Critics, as is well known, 
have inferred from the absence of the Article in this place, that 
0f6c is here used in a subordinate sense : it has, however, been 
satisfactorily answered, that in whatever acceptation 9f6c is to 
be taken, it properly rejects the Article, being here the Pre- 
dicate of the Proposition: and Bengel instances the LXX. 
1 Kings xviii. 24. ovtoq Geoc, as similar to the present pas- 
sage. It may be added, that if we had read 'O Oaoc? the Pro- 
position would have assumed the convertible form, and the 
meaning would have been, that whatever may be affirmed or 
denied of God the Father, may also be affirmed or denied of 
the Logos ; a position which would accord as little with the 
Trinitarian as with the Socinian hypothesis. It is, therefore, 
unreasonable to infer that the word Gfoc is here used in a 
lower sense : for the Writer could not have written 'O Gtoc 
vnthout manifest absurdity. The meaning of that clause in 
the Athanasian Creed which affirms that " the Father is God, 
the Son God, and the Holy Ghost is God," is adequately ex- 
pressed by 0foc 6 riarrjp, Geoc 6 Ytoc, Oeog to Tlvevfia to 
ayiov : nor will the most zealous Trinitarian, if he understand 
Greek, be dissatisfied with this interpretation of his belief. It 
is, therefore, not very easy to perceive what Origen could mean 
in his Commentary on this verse, when he commends the cau- 
tion of the Evangelist in omitting the Article before 0£oc, as 
appHed to the Logos : whatever degree of divinity that Father 
might impute to the Logos, the Article could not have been 
used in this place, for the reasons already alleged. Besides, it 
is not true that the Sacred Writers have distinguished between 
9toc and 6 Geocj as was shown above, Luke i. 15. 


V. 21. 6 TTjOO^/jDjc. This is another of the instances re- 
ferred to by Ahp, Newcomet to prove that the Article is some- 
times redundant : see above on Matt. v. 1 . Accordingly he 
translates ** Art thou a Prophet?" and he appeals to this Evan- 
gelist, vii. 40, 41 ; where, hovrever, the Article is no more 
redundant than in the place before us. Here, indeed, the very 
answer of the Baptist is of itself sufficient to show that 6 ttjoo- 
(l)rjTr]g must be rendered as the idiom requires : for else how 
could John have answered in the negative ? Does not Christ 
declare of John (Matt. xi. 9.) that he was a Prophet, and even 
more than a Prophet? See also Luke i. 76. The reference 
is, I believe, properly explained in the Anmerk. of Michaelis, 
who says, " Namely, the Prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 
15 — 19. The Jews understood these words of an individual 
resembling Moses in greatness and in miracles : I am of a dif- 
ferent opinion, and understand them of all and singular the 
true Prophets, whom God fi:om time to time was to send to 
the people of Israel : the question, however, is put to John 
according to the then prevailing interpretation." Lightfoot 
supposes 6 7rpo0//rr?c to mean " one of the ancient Prophets" 
spoken of Luke ix. 8, 9. : but this is as inconsistent with the 
presence of the Article, as is the rendering of Newcome. 

V. 42. o XgiGTOQ. The best MSS. omit 6. It is remarkable 
that any should insert it. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. 

V. 46. Tov NaOavariX, The Article here is of use to show 
that ISaOavarjX is in the Accusative, and not a Cognomen of 
^iXLTTTTog preceding. 

V. 47. TL ayaOov, Dr. Owen (apud Bovver) conjectures TO 
ayaOov, than which nothing is more improbable : the meaning 
is, that nothmg good could come from Nazareth ; much less, 
therefore, could to ayaOov, 


V. 11. rriv apxnV' A. B. 1. and Origen — ttiv. These are 
considerable authorities : but see on ovrog, Part i. Chap, vii, 
§ 5. Matthai's MSS. as usual, comply with the idiom \ 

* V. 25. TOV a7'9p(jS-!rov. I observe, that the Article is here used for the pur- 
pose of Hypotliesis only, because Winer, I. § 14. and 11. § 3. seems to consider it 
as indicating that dvOpojTTog is one of two correlatives, — flie man with whom he had 
to (lo.—U. J. R. 

2i2 ST. JOHN, 


V. 10. o ^idacTKaXoQ Tov ^lapariX. Eng. Version, " a Master 
of Israel." Campbell observes that the Article here is remark- 
able, and that it is omitted in no MS. Many MSS. have been 
for the first time collated since his work appeared, but in none 
of them is the Article omitted. It must, therefore, be con- 
cluded to have a sense which is indispensable to the passage ; 
and Campbell is certainly right, when he contends that it ought 
to be expressed in Translations. It is, indeed, the more re- 
markable that we should find the Article in all the MSS. 
since, even if we should admit the definiteness of StSao-KaXoc, 
it might still have wanted the Article on account of the Verb 
Substantive preceding; though the subject (tv would favour 
the insertion. 

To determine the precise meaning of the appellation is a 
task which, I believe, no Commentator pretends to have accom- 
plished. We know that Nicodemus was a person of high con- 
sideration, and a member of the Sanhedrim : and some suppose 
him, and not without reason, to have been the same Nicode- 
mus who is frequently mentioned in the Talmud: in which 
case, he was not in wealth and consequence inferior to any 
Jew of that time. Still it vnll be asked, why did our Sa\iour 
say to Nicodemus, Art thou the Teacher of Israel ? I have 
only conjecture to offer ; but even this may be tolerated, where 
nothing certain is known, and when even conjecture has scarcely 
been attempted. It has been observed, that the Jews gave 
their Doctors high and sounding titles : " Splendidis valde 
nominihus Doctores suos Judm orndrunt vel potius onerdrunt" 
says Danz apud Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. illiistr. p. 579, in 
the same manner, probably, as among the Schoolmen in the 
middle ages, one was called the Angelic Doctor, another the 
Admirable, and a third the Irrefragable, Might not, then, 
Nicodemus have been styled by his followers, o ^i^acrKokoQ tov 
^lapaifX ^ ? On this supposition, nothing is more probable than 

^ There is a remarkable passage in the TheceteUis of Plato, § GO. Bekk. which 
strikingly illustrates the supposed use of the Article in the case before us. Pro- 
tagoras is represented as repressing the triumph which Socrates would indulge 


that our Saviour should have taken occasion to reprove the 
folly of those vv^ho had conferred the appellation, and the vanity 
of him who had accepted it : and no occasion could have been 
more opportune than the present, when Nicodemus betrayed 
his ignorance on a very important subject. Our Saviour's 
readiness to condemn the practice here referred to, may be 
proved from Matt, xxiii. 7. and it is observed by Schoettgen 
Hor. Hebr. on James iii. 1. firi ttoXXoi ^l^clctkoXol yiveaOe, that 
" cu7n nomine Magistri res ipsa simid a Christo et ApostoUs 
ejus est prohibit a,'' If it be said that Chiist would rather have 
asked, " Art thou called the Master of Israel?" I think it may 
be answered, that this objection is the same with that made by 
the High Priests to the Insciiption on the Cross: see this 
EvangeHst, xix. 21. in which case it cannot be deemed of 
weight. Besides, the reproof is more severe in the present 
form of expression, since it seems to signify not only that the 
followers of Nicodemus distinguished him by this appella- 
tion, but also that he thought himself not altogether unworthy 

V. 29. vvfx<piog» Markland (ap. Bow^^er) conjectures 'O 
vvfKliioQ. No MS. has this reading, nor is it wanted. See 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. 

V. 34. TO TTvivfia, This is generally understood of the gifts 
of the Spirit: I rather prefer the personal sense. That to 
TTvtvfia here follows dl^uxriv is no ground of objection ; since 
we find the same word applied to the Son in the 16tli verse of 
this very Chapter. 


V. 27. fisTa yvvaiKog. Eng. Version, " With the woman." 
But Campbell lays some stress on the absence of the Article, 
and thinks the meaning is, with any woman at all. From the 
absence of the Article nothing can be inferred, because of the 
Preposition : on the whole, I am inclined to believe that the 
surprise felt by the Apostles was rather at our Saviour's con- 
over him, the famous Master, when in fact he had gained it only over one of his 
Disciples. Ovtoq S^ 6 ^(oKpdnjg 6 xprictToQ, iTritSrj avT(p iraiSioVf k. t. e. . . . 
ycXwra 5j) TON 'EME Iv roig Xoyoig oLTrkSeiK^. — J. S. 

* Winer quietly adopts the Bishops conjectural interpretation, without any 
acknowledgment. — H. J. R. 

R 2 

244 ST. JOHN, 

versing with this particular woman, than with any woman 
indiscriminately. It is true, that we learn from tlie Rabbi- 
nical Writers that it was not thought decorous in a man to hold 
conversation with any woman in public : it may be observed, 
however, that not only was this woman a Samaritan, a cir- 
cumstance which made her peculiarly obnoxious, but also, as 
Schoettgen Hor. Hehr, vol. i. p. 34v3. has remarked, the very 
place rendered her character somewhat suspicious. The busi- 
ness of fetching water belonged exclusively to females ; and 
wells had, from that cause, become places of resort for the 
loose and licentious of both sexes. It is possible, therefore, 
that the surprise of the disciples might be excited more espe- 
cially by our Saviour's conversing with this particular woman, 
whom he had found in such a place ; and her appearance, pro- 
bably, bespoke somewhat of her real character, as exhibited in 
the sequel of the story. It may be added, that in other places 
our Sa\dour is represented to have conversed with women, 
mthout having given rise to particular observation. 

V. 37. 6 a\i]6iv6g. JBeza remarks on this place, that every 
person moderately acquainted wdth Greek, must perceive that 
the Article is here inadmissible. A few MSS. indeed, are 
without it : but, as Matthai well observes, " et ahesse et adesse 
potest.'' If we render, " in this instance the saying is true," 
the Article must be omitted : but if " in this is exemplified 
the true saying," the Article is absolutely necessary, as in this 
Evangelist, i. 9 ; vi. S2 ; xv. 1 . Markland refers us in behalf 
of the Article to 2 Peter ii. 22. which has nothing to do mth 
the question, for there the Adi]eciiNe precedes the Substantive 
instead of following it. I cannot but observe of Matthai, that 
he is the most accurate Greek Scholar who ever edited the 
N. T. — Griesbach prefixes to the Article the mark of possible 
spuriousness. In this instance, however, the great majority of 
the MSS. ought, I think, tP preyail: they are at least as fifty 
to one. 


V. 1. iopTrj Tuiv 'iov^aitjv. If we could accurately ascer- 
tain what was the Festival here meant, it would go far to- 
wards determining the much controverted question respect- 
ing the duration of Christ's Ministry ; the various opinions 
concerning which the reader will find very ably detailed in 


Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. Part i. p. 56. of tlie Notes. It 
seems to be admitted, that if tlie reading had been 'H lopri], 
(which, indeed, is found in several MSS.) the Festival here 
spoken of could be no other than the Passover, and that then 
there were faur Passovers, according to St. John, during our 
Saviour's Ministry : otherwise, it is contended that some other 
Feast, probably of Pentecost, is here meant, and that the Pass- 
overs of our Saviour's Ministry were only three. In proof, 
indeed, that ioprrj without the Article may mean the Passover, 
Grotius refers' us to the phrase »cara iogTi]v, Mark xv. 6. and 
Luke xxiii. 17. where, however, the omission of the Article, 
as in other instances, is to be accounted for by means of the 
Preposition. The present case, therefore, is wholly dissimilar ; 
and on the supposition that the Passover is here intended, we 
must explain the absence of the Article on a different prin- 
ciple. That principle, if I mistake not, was developed in 
Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. which treats of Propositions 
affirming or denying existence. In this Evangelist, xix. 14. 
we have an example similar to the present in the word Traga- 
cyK£vi% r]v Se IIAPA2KEYH rov Uacrxa, than which nothing 
can be imagined more definite ; where there is no reason against 
admitting the Article, we find it called 17 Trapao-Ktu?/. So also 
we usually read to (jdjS/Sarov : yet in this Chapter, ver. 9. we 
have riv di. (Taj3j3arov, and elsewhere. So likewise ^schines, 
in the Orat. Gr. vol. iii. p. 456. or ^v IIPOAraN, which was 
the prelude to the games. It may, indeed, be supposed that 
the Proposition under review is not strictly confined to the 
assertion of Existence, on account of juera ravTa : but this ob- 
jection is of little or no force, because fiETo. ravra is not here 
emphatic, i. e. it is not the principal purpose of the Writer to 
affirm, that the Festival was after, ratlier than before, the 
events last recorded : he means simply to say, Then came the 
Festival of the Jews. The case is. different in this Evangelist, 
vii. 2. ^v St lyyvQ 1} lopTrj tCov 'louSatwv, 17 (TKrjvOTrrjyia' for 
there the nearness of the Feast of Tabernacles is an important 
part of the Proposition ; indeed the assertion of this fact was 
the chief or sole object of the Writer. It is also to be ob- 
served, that lest the phrase 17 kooTri tCov ^lovdaUov should be 
ambiguous, he adds ?j (TKiivoTnjyia. It is, therefore, probable, 
that in the passage before us, if the principal Festival had 

246 ST. JOHN, 

not been meant, something explanatory would have been sub- 

On the whole, I think it certain that the Passover may here 
be intended, and that the arguments against this supposition 
are not strengthened, as is commonly supposed, by the absence 
of the Article. On the other hand, the opinion that the Pass- 
over is here meant, is somewhat favoured by the various read- 
ing, since the insertion of the Article in several MSS. may 
have arisen from a desire in the Copyists to make the definite- 
ness of kogTr\ more evident: that most of the MSS. want r/, 
affords no support to the contrary opinion, because it was to 
be expected that the majority would conform with the esta- 
blished usage. 

V. 27. on vlbg avOpiLwov IgtL The term 6 vloq avOpwirov 
has already occurred above seventy times, but now, for the 
first time, without either of the Articles : and on this circum- 
stance some stress has been laid by Beza, Michaelis, Campbell, 
and others. They contend that the Articles are here pur- 
posely omitted, for that our Saviour meant only to assert, that 
the person to whom power was thus given, was himself a man : 
and that here, by a common Syriasm, son of man and 7nan are 
synonymous. " The Syrians," says Michaelis (Anmerk, ad 
he.) " cannot express the word man otherwise than by son of 
man: accordingly, 1 Cor. xv. 47. Adam, in the Syriac Ver- 
sion, is called the first Son of Man, though no mortal was his 
father." I am fully aware that uj;.o and JajJ ^ are used for 
avOpioTTog, and mean no more than the Latin homo, or the 
German mensch : but, if I mistake not, the Syriac expressions 
above mentioned are no where employed by the Authors of the 
Peshito as equivalent to 6 vlog tov avOpiLirov, nor even to the 
vlog avOptoTTOv of the present verse. This term (for I consider 
the absence of the Articles as making no difference) they every 
where translate by JajJ! oi;.o : whence it may be inferred, that 
in the verse under review, no less than in other places, they 
held vlog avOpMirov, applied to Christ, to be significant of 
something different from avSpio-rrog. — It appears, then, that the 
argument founded on the Syriasm is rather against the con- 
clusion which it was meant to establish: the omission, however, 
of the Greek Articles ought to be explained from the Greek 
usage, if any such exist. The question is, How came the 


Articles in the phrase 'O vlbg TOY avOpionov ever to be em- 
ployed? Obviously, because our Saviour assumed to Himself 
this appellation ; and the very assumption forbad Him to use 
the phrase otherwise than as 6 vlog rov avOpwirov. He was to 
be designated as 'O vlog, for otherwise He would not have 
been distinguished from any other individual of the human 
race ; and if o vlog, then TOY avOpojirov, for o vlog avOptSirov 
would offend against Regimen. Hence it is plain, that the 
Article before av^pwirou is not, if I may say so, naturally and 
essentially necessary, but is so only accidentally ; and conse- 
quently it will not be admitted, unless where Regimen requires 
it, i. e. where o vlog precedes. Now in the present instance 
vlog, and not o vlog, properly follows larL See Part i. Chap, 
iii. Sect. iv. § 1. and, therefore, the phrase could not be any 
other than vlog avOpujirov, We find, indeed, such phrases as 
(TV sl vlog Tov Qeov, or even o vlog tov Qeov, as was explained 
above, Matt. iv. 3 : but the Reader will recollect that the word 
Qeov commonly takes the Article even where Regimen does 
not make it necessary, besides that the Pronoun 2Y contri- 
butes to give the Predicate a definite form. See Part i. p. 44. 
— If it be thought remarkable, and therefore unfavourable to 
the foregoing interpretation, that vlog avOpwirov, as applied to 
Christ, now first occurs without the Articles, it is sufficient to 
answer that now, for the first time, has Christ asserted his 
claim to the Title : in all other places he has assumed it. It 
is moreover to be observed, that the Fathers, in similar cases, 
appear always to use the phrase vlog avOpw-rrov, I mean where 
the Canons require vlog to be without the Article. SeeSuicers 
Thesaurus, voce vlog. 

On the whole, I am convinced that the rendering of our 
common English Version " the Son of Man" is correct, con- 
trary to the opinion of those who would conform with the letter 
rather than with the spirit of the original. The import of the 
passage is, indeed, as they contend, " that God hath made 
Christ the Judge of Man, for that He, having taken our na- 
ture, is acquainted with our infirmities." But the same mean- 
ing will be deducible from the Common Version, if we consider 
that the very Title, " Son of Man," has every where a refer- 
ence to the Incarnation of Christ, and is, therefore, significant 
of His acquaintance with human weakness. I have, indeed, 

04S ST. JOHN, 

observed, that in a majority of the places in which our Savioilr 
calls himself the Son of Man, (and he is never in the N. T. so 
called by others before his Ascension,) the allusion is either to 
his present humihation, or to his future glory : and if this re- 
mark be true, we have, though an indirect, yet a strong and 
perpetual declaration, that the human nature did not originally 
belong to Him, and was not properly his own. He who shall 
examine the passages throughout with a view to this observa- 
tion, will be able duly to estimate its value : for myself, I 
scruple not to aver, that I consider this single phrase so 
employed, as an irrefragable proof of the Pre-existence and 
Divinity of Christ ^ 

V. 35. 6 Xvxvog 6 Kaiofisvog. Campbell objects to our Ver- 
sion, " a burning and a shining light," on the ground that the 
Article indicates something more. So far I agree with liim : 
but I do not believe, that in this place there is any reference 
to the LXX. Psalm cxxxi. 17. I suppose, rather, that the 
allusion is to some phrase then in vogue among the Jews, to 
signify a wise and enlightened Teacher: and on turning to 
Lightfoot, one of the best illustrators of the N. T. I find that 
*' a person famous for life or knowledge was called a candle: 
hence the title given to the Rabbins, the Candle of the Law, 
the Lamp of Light." I conclude, therefore, that our Saviour 
meant to say, "John was," to use your own phrase, *^ the burn- 
ing and shining light." Allusions of this kind are much in 
our Saviour's manner. Compare what was said on iii. 10. 

V. 86. TTiv iJLapTvpiav. An inattentive Reader might object 
to the Article : but see similar instances, Part i. Chap, viii, 


CHAP, vr. 

V. 40. o OecjpCjv KaX TTKjTBvwv. See on Mark xvi. 16. 

V. 63. TO Trvevjuia, 17 aap^. I do not here understand to 
TTvBVfia of the Holy Spirit ; for wvevfjia and (rap^ are evidently 
opposed to each other, as co-existent in the same whole. So 
we find them Matt. xxvi. 41. Rom. viii. 5. James iv. 5. In 

* V. 32. aXXoe Iffrlv 6 fiaprvpQv TTfpJ t/iov. In this place, Winer explains the 
Article, by saying that a definite witness, viz. God, was in the writer's mind. He 
thai witnesseth righilij about me is another. This falls in nearly with Bishop Mid- 
dletons observation in iii. 3. 2. (p. 44.) on reciprocating propositions.— II. J. R. 


like manner, 2 Cor. iii, 6. we have Trvtu/xa opposed to ygaixjia ; 
for as in an animated substance there are the flesh and the 
animating principle, so in the Levitical Law there was the 
httery which was intelHgible to the most carnal understand- 
ings, and the spirit or ulterior design of the Institution, which 
for the most part eluded notice : and, by an easy metaphor, in 
speaking of any system or body of instruction, the term spirit and 
Jlesh may be substituted for spirit and letter. Indeed we learn 
from Philoy vol. ii. p. 483. (as quoted by Michaelis, Anmerh. 
ad he) that the Essenes actually used this illustration with 
regard to the Mosaic Law. I suppose our Saviour, therefore, 
to say, " Does this, then, stagger you? How much more 
would ye be surprised, if ye were to witness my ascension! 
But it is the spiritual part of Religion which is of avail in 
opening the understanding: the mere letter is notliing: my 
words, however, are the spirit and the life of all, which ye 
have hitherto known only in the literal and carnal sense." 
Michaehs explains this passage nearly in the same manner. 

Mr. Wakefield apologizes for " having in so many instances 
conformed with unconquerable prejudice " and translates irvevfia 
by breath. This might be endured ; but he adds, that " there 
is 7iot one place in the Scriptures where the original word 
would not more properly and intelligibly be so translated." He 
says, " the scrupulous and unlearned may consult for their 
satisfaction Gen. ii. 7; vi. 17. 1 Kings x^di. 17. 21. and the 
margin of our Common Version at James ii. 26." These places, 
and many others which he might have adduced, prove, what is 
universally admitted, that irvEvfjLa frequently retains its pri- 
mitive meaning of breath, Mr. W. as he rightly insinuates, 
wrote for a class of persons who, though perhaps endowed with 
good intentions, are not generally the most capable of judging 
for themselves on subjects of erudition. He became, therefore, 
their instructor : and in what manner has he discharged his 
trust? His Readers may possibly be " scrupulous and un- 
learned :" that he himself was either not very learned or not 
very scrupulous, is the inevitable conclusion. But the doc- 
trine of the personality of the Spirit is not to be subverted by 
random and unsupported assertion. If tlie Reader wish to try 
the effect of breath as a general translation of 7rv£u/xa, he may 

250 ST. JOHN, 

begin the experiment with the passages referred to, Matt. i. 18. 
imder the fourth head. 


V. 23, vepiTOfiriv. In the preceding verse it is THN Trept- 
Toimriv : but there the institution is spoken of generally ; here, 
only a single act^, 

V. 39. ovTTb) yap ^v TTvev/uia ayiov, YlvEVfia ayiov is here 
plainly to be understood of the extraordinary/ iiijluence of the 
Spirit. There is a trifling difference, indeed, in the reading. 
Some MSS. omit ayiovy and some insert ^(So/^evov ^ : by both 
sets of Copyists it was, I suppose, imagined, that the words of 
the received Text could mean only the Person of the Holy 
Spirit, which they justly regarded as an impiety. But no MS. 
or Version, so far as I know, omits the passage : it cannot, 
therefore, be an interpolation : it is then, not indeed direct 
evidence, but what is much more valuable, an indirect appeal 
to the world for the truth of what St. Luke has recorded in 
Acts ii. The unavoidable inference is, either that this Evan- 
gelist contrived obliquely to countenance a notorious falsehood, 
and that his Readers conspired to give it currency, or else that 
our Religion is true. 

V. 40. d TTpo^Tjrrj?. See above on i. 21 '. 

V. 52. 7rpo<l>rirrig, Dr. Owen (apud Bowyer) would read 'O 
7rpo<^)}r*?Cj for that some Prophets had come from GaHlee. 
Campbell very justly rephes, that men who are angry are apt 
to exaggerate. 

^ V. 24. TtjV diKaiav Kpiffiv Kpivers. This is easily explained on the principles 
noticed in Bp. Middleton's concluding note to Chap. iv. Let the judgment which 
you pass be just. Winer says awkwardly, The just, in opposition to The unjust, 
as only one judgment can be passed on one case. — H. J. R. 

* In our English Version didofiavov is properly expressed, though not found in 
the original : *' The Holy Ghost was not yet given," And with this should be 
compared Acts xix. 2. which exactly answers to it in the Greek, though it is 
strangely translated in our Version : " We have not so much as heard whether 
there be any Holy Ghost" 'AW ov^k d TTvevfia ayiov iariVy rjKovaafitv. — 
J. S. 

' V. 51. TOf dvOpojirov, the man who falls under the cognizance of the law. Winer. 
~H. J. R. 



V. 7. Tov \i9ov. The eleven first verses of this chapter, 
containing the story of the Adulteress, are wanting, as is well 
known, in a great many of the best MSS. and Versions, and 
the majority of Critics appear to regard them as spurious. 
Michaelis, however, is the advocate of their authenticity, and 
thinks that the Copyists omitted them from scruples about 
their tendency, as being liable to be misinterpreted or per- 
verted. I regard it as a circumstance rather in favour of their 
authenticity, that XiOov has the Article prefixed. The allusion 
is to the particular manner of stoning, which required that one 
of the witnesses (for two at the least were necessary, see Deut. 
x\ai. 6.) should throw the stone, which was to serve as a signal 
to the by-standers to complete the punishment. There is, 
therefore, strict propriety in calling this stone TON \lOov, in 
order to distinguish it from other stones. But w^ould an inter- 
polator have been thus exact in his phraseology ? or would he 
have adverted to this apparently trifling circumstance ? Pro- 
bably he would not, especially since the expression of (daXXeiv 
TOV XWov is not elsewhere found in the N. T. Some MSS. 
indeed, though but few, omit the Article ; but this, I think, 
proves only that the Copyists knew not what to make of it, 
and that had they undertaken to interpolate the passage, they 
would have done it less skilfully than did the present inter- 
polator, supposing that we must consider the passage to be 

Erasmus Schmidt, in his N. T. 1658, infers from TON XlOovj 
that each of the by-standers was prepared with a stone, which 
is thus referred to : but I prefer the former solution. 

V. 44. Ik tov iraTpog rov ^lal^oXov. The MSS. differ as to 
the insertion or omission of the first Article : the best of Mat- 
thai have it, and he thinks that the Copyists omitted it, lest it 
should seem to ascribe a Father to the Devil : I do not perceive 
that after the Preposition any difference will arise, whether the 
Article be inserted or omitted. Some MSS. have the addition 
of ujuwv, which, if authorized, would leave no doubt of the 

Same v. 6ti t/zevottjc tori, koX 6 TraTrjp avrov. Our English 
Version says, '* He is a liar, and the father of it." One of my 

252 ST. JOHN, 

earliest recollections is that of my surprise at this uncouth 
and scarcely intelligible phraseology; and that surprise did 
not abate on my becoming acquainted with the original of the 
N. T. 

One thing must be evident to all who accurately observe the 
construction ; viz. that Kai 6 Trarrjp avrov is equivalent to koX 
6 Trarryp avrov 'ESTI ^EYSTHS, '* he is a liar, and so is his 
father.'' It has been said, indeed, that avrov here refers, not 
to the Nominative to Icrri, but to ipev^og above, and in behalf 
of this strange and unnatural construction we are reminded of 
Acts viii. 26, Heb. ix. 4. and Iliad XXIY. 499. passages 
which have not the slightest similitude to the present. But 
further, not to insist that phrases in the form of 6 warrip avrov, 
meaning his father, are extremely common, there is another 
difficulty, which for some centuries seems not to have been 
thought of: indeed I have no evidence that it ever was directly 
drawn into the dispute, though there is reason to believe that 
it was tacitly regarded ; I mean, that if we are to affirm that 
any one is the father of us, him, it, &c. i. e. if o Trarijp avrov is 
to follow tar if the Article is wholly intolerable, and in such 
cases is always omitted. Thus in this single chapter we have, 
ver. 31. aXriOiog MAOHTAI fiov eari-, ver. 42. d 6 Oeog UA- 
THP vjuwv nv; ver. 54. on 0EOS v/inov Ian, not 01 fx., 'O tt., 
'O Q. We may, therefore, safely determine that our Common 
Version, which, however, is the interpretation of Campbell, 
Newcome, Mill, Beausohre, Erasmus Schmidt, Casauhon, Hein- 
sius, Suicer, Whitby, Wolfius, Rosenmilller, Schleusner, and 
indeed of most modern Critics, is erroneous ; and I am per- 
suaded, that had these eminent men attended to the Article, 
they would have had recourse to some different explanation. 
Indeed it is evident from the manner in which some of the 
Fathers quoted the passage, what idea they entertained of the 
construction : for some of them (see Griesbach) for Ka\ read utg, 
or KaOwg KaL I do not suppose that they found either in their 
MSS. or that they pretended to have found it; but only that 
they thus endeavoured to prevent misconception. 

This passage, however, it must be confessed, was attended 
with difficulty, even in the- earlier ages of Criticism. See 
Siiicer, ii. 6S5. Some of the Fathers, for instance Jerome, 
interpreted the place as is usually done at the present day. 


Others inferred (and indeed the construction leads directly to 
this inference) that the Father of the Devil was here spoken of: 
" this being the sentiment," says Whitby, " not only of the 
Cajani and Archontici, who held that the God of the Jews was 
the Father of the Devil, as St, Austin saith, but also of the 
orthodox, as St, Jerome testifies ; and Origen leaves it as a 
thing doubtful." To detail other opinions of the antients 
might be tedious to the Reader ; but I think that, generally 
speaking, they admitted the true construction. Among the 
moderns, Grotius in part adheres to the antient interpretation. 
He supposes that the Devil here spoken of as the Father of the 
Jews and a manslayer, was not the Prince of Devils, o clq^mv 
Tov Koa/jLov TovTOv, but au inferior evil Spirit, ayyeXog ^arava, 
2 Cor. xii. 7. This explanation, it must be admitted, accords 
very well both with the construction and with the general tenor 
of the passage : but it may be doubted how far the doctrine on 
which it rests is warranted by Scripture. This is an objection 
which Grotius has not endeavoured to remove. 

It may, then, be imagined, that nothing is to be made of 
the text in its present state, and that recourse must be had to 
conjecture. Of this opinion was Mr. Wakefield: for in the 
place of TO in to xpav^og, he would substitute TI2. This con- 
jecture, like most others, makes every thing plain ; for who, 
with the unlimited licence of invention, would recommend a 
reading which does not entirely suit the place ? I have pro- 
fessed myself to be altogether unfriendly to conjectural emen- 
dations of the N. T. ; but is it not possible that the sense of 
the passage may, by an allowable ellipsis, be the same as if we 
had actually found TI2 inserted? and may not Mr. W. in this 
instance, as has happened to other Critics, have corrupted his 
author by attempting to supply an imaginary defect ? The 
learned Reader will judge. In Hesiod, Op. et Dies, 291. Ed. 
Le Clerc, we have cTrrjv S' elg uKpov 'IKHAI, though, as we 
are told in the Note, Philo, Clemens, Xenophon, and others 
confirm the common reading 'IKHTAI : Heinsius, the author 
of the alteration, tells us, that Scaliger and Meursius approved 
it; they did not then perceive that tiq before 'Ur^Tai might 
be understood. So also Soph. CKA. Tyr. 315. e'xot re KaX Sv- 
vaiTo. sc. TI2. In Xenoph, the same Ellipsis is not very un- 
common; in the Memorab. I. 2, 55. tciv jSouAi^rat TifxaaOai, 

^54 ST. JOHN, 

without any Nominative ; subaud. TIS. CEcon. I. 12. tjv liri- 
<jTr)Tai, sc. TIS. In the Apol. 7. vyilg Sc {tlq) to aw/uia, k. t. X. 
where, however, says Sturz, in Lex» Xen, TIS was first interpo- 
lated by Leunclavius. So also de Re Eq. VIII. 13. wg av j3ou- 
\r)Tai, avTixapicrvTai, (sc. TIS,) which Leunclavius and ^F<?//« 
altered into (5ovXy, avTLxagiayj. For these passages, excepting 
one, I am indebted to Sturz; and I have little doubt that a 
multitude of such might be found, if every vestige of them had 
not in many instances been obliterated by unauthorized de- 
parture from the MSS. I suppose, then, the same Ellipsis in 
St. John ; and, if I mistake not, a similar form of expression 
is found Heb. x. 38 : so at least lav viroaTeiXr}TaL is under- 
stood by our Translators. In this way of interpreting the pas- 
sage, every thing is plain and consistent : in the beginning of 
the verse it had been said, " Ye are of your Father the Devil :" 
it is here added, " When (any of you) speaks that which is 
false, he speaks after the manner of his kindred ; for he is a 
liar, and so also is his Father ^" 


V. 17. 7rpo^?]r»?C« Wolfius is of opinion that the man cured 
of blindness does not here speak of Christ merely as a Prophet, 
but as the one Prophet foretold by Moses ; and he adds, that 
though the Article be here wanting, yet it is frequently omitted 
where " res singularis indicatur .•" in proof that 'O irpotpriTrjg is 
here meant, he refers us to ver. 22. I do not think this rea- 
soning conclusive ; for it does not follow, because the parents 
were cautious in their answer, that the son should have been 
incautious ; his caution, indeed, is apparent in ver. 25. and the 
conduct of the Pharisees leads us to infer, that though they 
were httle pleased with liis answer, they did not consider him 

^ That the learned Author is right in his general view of this passage, I can 
have no doubt : my only wonder is, that he did not carry his improvement a little 
farther, and translate, taking away the comma after kari, " For his father also is 
a liar." — 1 cannot but wonder also that there are found any competent judges of 
the question, who do not immediately approve of the Bishop's proposed improve- 
ment; but either adhere to the old method, or understand r6 ^tvSog to be the 
nominative to \a\y. 

The ellipsis of rig needs no further support to justify it : but perhaps it is un- 
necessarily supplied in the passage from the Hebrews. — J. S. 



as ha^dng pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah. Their further 
interrogation of him rather confirms this opinion: in ver. 31. 
the man says only, that " if any one be a worshipper of God, 
and doeth his will, him God heareth :" this seems to prove that 
the man considered Christ to be only ^eoo-fjSr/c, a term appli- 
cable to the meanest Prophet ; and in ver. 36. he shows plainly 
that he did not acknowledge our Saviour to be the Son of God, 
a phrase which, among the Jews, was equivalent to Christ. I 
am, moreover, of opinion, that if the man had meant to declare 
that Christ was the promised Prophet, the Evangelist would 
either have inserted the Article, or he would otherwise have 
prevented what, at any rate, must be regarded as an ambiguity. 
An expression perfectly similar occurs Mark xi. 32. applied to 
John the Baptist ; from which, however, it never was inferred 
that John was believed to be the Christ. 

After all, however, the argument of Wolfius proceeds on the 
supposition that the Prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 15. is 
the Messiah. I have already had occasion, on i. 21. to advert 
to this subject: it may be useful in this place to consider it 
somewhat further. The principal reason for confining the pro- 
mise to the coming of Christ is founded on the apparent appli- 
cation of the passage to our Saviour by St. Peter, Acts iii. 23. 
and by St. Stephen, vii. 37. On the former of these places, 
MichaeUs (Anmerk.) has the following observations: " The 
Prophet hke unto Moses, whom God would raise up unto the 
Israelites from among their brethren, and whom they were to 
hear, many Christians have understood to be Christ himself: in 
which case they will have it, that the passage is adduced by 
Peter as a Prophecy respecting the Messiah. But this opinion 
appears to me to be improbable. The phrase, * A Prophet 
like myself,' used of Christ, would, in the mouth of Moses, 
seem very indecorous and offensive ; and to judge from the 
context, the discourse is not of one, but of several true Pro- 
phets, whom God from time to time would oppose to sooth- 
sayers and diviners : to these impostors, set up by Superstition, 
the IsraeKtes were not to give ear, but only to the true Pro- 
phets resembling Moses, whom God would occasionally send 
them. Many of the Jews, it is true, in the time of Peter, 
interpreted the promise of an extraordinary Prophet, in great- 
ness rivalling Moses, but not of Christ : for they distinguish 

256 ST. JOHN, 

this Prophet from Christ, calling the former simply the Pro- 
phet: John i. 21.25; vii. 40, 41. I understand Peter, then, 
to mean, Moses says, God will raise up to the people of Israel 
prophets to whom they must give ear ; and whosoever will not 
hear them, him will God call to an account : all the Prophets 
bear witness of Jesus ; what answer, then, shall he be able to 
give, who is disobedient to all the Prophets ?" — Dathe also, in 
his Latin Version of the Pentateuch, Deut. xviii. 15. agrees for 
the most part with Michaelis, except, indeed, that he admits 
the application of the passage by St. Peter and St. Stephen to 
the Messiah. He inculcates the doctrine, that " multa Vet. 
Test, loca proiter sensum proxime intentum (literalem vacant) 
habere quoque sensum sublimiorem.'' My own reason for adopt- 
ing this opinion will be given on Hebrews ii. 6. 


V. 33. TToiElg (TEavTov Oeov. It is not to be inferred that 
Beog is here used in an inferior sense, because the Article is 
omitted. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 3. 


V. 33. T(^ TTvevjjLaTi, The injudicious zeal of some of the 
antients w^as exercised in attempting to prove that the Holy 
Spirit was here intended; and the same opinion has found 
abettors in later times : but it must be obvious to the dispas- 
sionate Inquirer, that rb irvEvna here, as in a multitude of 
places, means only the mind or spirit of man : this is evident 
on comparing ver. 38. where it is said, Iv lavroj. The eager- 
ness which has been sometimes shown to explain irvEvfia in- 
discriminately of the Holy Spirit, has greatly contributed to 
countenance the temerity which I have abeady noticed and 
condemned. It is thus that extremes generate their opposites. 
I have endeavoured to assist the younger Student in distin- 
guishing the different senses of irvEv^a, though it must be 
confessed, that in a few cases, generally however of inferior 
importance, some doubt may still remain ^ 

^ The meaning, therefore, in tlie present passage will be, ** in his spirit." — 
J. S. 



V. 1. oirov ifiv AdZapog 6 Ta9vr}K(vg. Markland (ap. Bowyer) 
rightly censures the Latin Versions for rendering uhi Lazarus 
fuit mortuuSf and thus overlooking the Article. The sense, as 
he observ^es, is, " where Lazarus was, he who had been dead." 
Had this celebrated Critic elsewhere exercised the same dis- 
crimination, by far the greater part of his Conjectures would 
never have seen the light. His objection does not, and is not, 
meant to apply to the English Version. 

Y. 24. 6 k-ojcKoc. Mr. Wakefield renders " this grain :" he 
says, it is "an elegant designation of Himself (Christ); on 
which circumstance the propriety and beauty of the Article 
depends." This is not the only instance in which Mr. W. has 
confounded 'O with OYTOS 'O : he might as well have said 
that 77 yvvr], x\d. 21. is " an elegant designation" of some par- 
ticular woman ; whereas nothing can be more remote from the 
sense : he did not perceive that the Article may be used hypo- 


V. 5. UQ Tov vLTTTYiga. The Articlc seems to indicate, that 
only one basin or ewer was used on this occasion. 

V. 13. 6 ^L^acfKaXoQ Kttt 6 KvgioQ, The editt. of Erasm. 
Cohn. and Bogard omit the latter Article, I suppose, from a 
belief that it interfered with the usage which has lately been 
defended by Mr. Granville Sharp. No MS. however, warrants 
the omission ; nor is it at all necessary : for though both titles 
are meant to be applied to our Saviour, yet they are not spoken 
of as being applied at the same time, but distinctly and inde- 
pendently, as if our Saviour had said, One of you calls me 6 
^L^acTKaXoq, another 6 Kvqloq. The Article, then, is necessary 
to each of the Nouns, as must be evident on considering the 
reason of the rule. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. §. 2. 

V. 21. Tt^ TTvsvfjiaTi, See above, xi. 33. 


V. 16. £ic rov aibJva, This word, both in the Singular and 
in the Plural, always has the Article in the N. T. unless after 

258 ST. JOHN, 

Prepositions, or from otlier assignable causes. The reason is, 
that in the Singular it is Monadic, life, eternity, the Jewish or 
the Christian Dispensation, &c. being but one : in its Plural 
sense, of the ivorlds, it requires the Article by Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. i. § 5. In the Classical Writers we meet with alt^va 
^Laysiv, which is a Hendiadys. See Part i. p. 94. The 
multifarious meanings of the word alu)v are well deduced by 


V. 18. TrptvTov vfiMV. It is rightly contended by Campbell, 
that Lardner's interpretation of these words, your prince or 
chief, is unwarranted by the construction : it would then rather 
have been tov tt^wtov v/xwv. The use of the Superlative for 
the Comparative is a known Hebraism. 


V. 13. iraaav Tr]v a\r]Ouav. Our English Version has, " into 
all truth." This, however, is somewhat too comprehensive : for 
though I have admitted in the former part of this Work, that 
it is frequently difficult and even impossible to ascertain when 
the Article should be used before abstract Nouns ; yet, as was 
there observed, there is not the same difficulty, when such 
Nouns are preceded by irag. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. and 
I think that the Examples there adduced clearly prove that 
aXrideia, in this place, is not truth universally, but only in 
reference to the particular subject : " He shall lead you into 
all the truth," as Campbell has translated it, though without 
^ny remark. Compare also Mark v. 33, 

V. 21. 17 yvvT}, See above xii. 24. 


V. 3. (T£ TOV fiovov oXtjOlvov Osov, k» t. X. Thcrc are, says 
Rosenmuller, " ires potissimum ferendi constructioiiis modi,'* 
not all of wliich, however, appear to me to merit this indulgent 
appellation. The first is, " ut te et quern misisti Jesum Chris- 
tum solum verum Deum agnoscant." This is said to be the 
manner in which the passage was explained by Chrysostom ; 
but for want of reference, I cannot find the place. With this 


first interpretation the use of the Article does not directly 
interfere. I would remark, however, that such a construction 
appears very violent and unnatural ; whilst, on the other hand, 
ae Tov a\r]0iv6v, supposing the words to be taken in immediate 
connexion, is so common a form of expression, that the Writer 
could hardly intend that they should be taken in any other 
way. See on Luke xviii. 13. A second interpretation is, ^' ut 
te agnoscant (sc. esse) unum verum Deum et quern misisti Jesum 
(esse) Christum vel MessiamJ' Here the doctrine of the Ar- 
ticle does interfere, for thus we must omit tov before fiovov, as 
well as before Xpitrrov : not to insist that 'Irjo-ouc Xptoroc can- 
not be separated without violence. It may be imagined, in- 
deed, that the subject <t£ may justify elvai TON fxovov : but 
this is to suppose a dispute, whether Jehovah or some other 
were the one true God. See on St. Luke xix. 2, The third 
construction, which Rosenmiiller ascribes to John Melch. Faber, 
a learned German Professor, is, Vva ytyvwa/cwo-t trt {uvai) tov 
fiovov a\r}6ivbv Oeov, kol 'Irj(70vy Xolcttov {sivai ^khvov,) ov 
cLiriiTTsiXaQ' but this seems to be objectionable partly on the 
same ground with the former, and is besides so involved, that I 
question whether any thing parallel to it can be found in any 
author, sacred or profane. 

I cannot but remark, that the first interpretation appears to 
have originated in a wish to evade the consequences which this 
Text has been supposed to establish. It has usually, I believe, 
been regarded as one of the strong holds of Socinianism ; and 
much use is made of it by CreUius in his Tract de Uno Deo 
PatrBf in the Collection of the Polish Brethren. But, as 
Schleusner and others have observed, tov fiovov a\r]9ivov Oeov 
is here opposed to the false gods of the Pagan worship : com- 
pare 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 John ii. 8 ; v. 20. Apoc. iii. 7. It ought, 
then, to bo considered, that the Socinian, in quoting this text 
in support of what he calls Unitarianismf commits the common 
mistake of interpreting phrases rather from opinions subse- 
quently adopted, than from those which prevailed at the time 
when the words in question were employed, and to which alone 
the words were intended to refer. The Socinian argues as if, 
in our Saviour's days, there had been the same controversy 
about the nature and essence of the One True God, which 
arose afterwards ; whereas the dispute then was, whether there 

e o 

2G0 ST. JOHN, 

were a plurality of Gods, or only One : the Jews lield the latter 
opinion, and the whole Pagan world the former. Our Saviour, 
therefore, keeping, if I may so call it, this controversy in view, 
tells his hearers that eternal life is to be obtained only by a 
knowledge of the One True God and of Jesus Christ, thus 
at once directing the mind to the truths both of natural and of 
revealed religion : and the hearers of our Lord could not pos- 
sibly have understood him in any other sense. It is, therefore, 
perfectly frivolous to introduce this passage into the Trinita- 
rian dispute : and the stress which has been laid on it, can be 
accounted for only from the extreme difficulty of giving to the 
opposite hypothesis any thing like the sanction of Scripture. — 
The English Version appears to me to give the sense of the 


V. 1. tCjv Ki^pijjv. English Version, " the brook Cedron." 
It is very remarkable that only three MSS. viz. A, Vat. 354. 
and Vind. Lamb. 30. have tov Ksdpwv, which, however, is the 
reading of Jerome, as well as of both Syr. Verss. the Vulg. 
and some others, and is probably the true one, notwithstand- 
ing that T(ov Ki^pwv occurs twice in the LXX. The received 
reading might originate in a mistake of the Copyists, or pos- 
sibly even in design : for we know that the Greeks were accus- 
tomed to give a Greek appearance to barbarous names, wher- 
ever this could be done by a trifling alteration : in many in- 
stances, indeed, they seem not to have been so scrupulous. 
See Richardson on the Languages, &c. of the Eastern Nations, 
p. 40. The Persian names in the Persce of ^schylus, and 
many of the names of places in Strabo, may also serve as ex- 
amples. It is, therefore, highly probable that the name of this 
brook, or rather torrent, was KeSpwv, and it is spoken of imder 
this appellation by Josephus. The name is supposed to be 
derived from ")1p, and hence KeSpwv will mean the hlack or 
gloomy torrent. It is curious, supposing this account of the 
corruption of the reading to be just, that a perfectly similar 
corruption has happened in the name of the river Kison, which 
Suidas (voce 'lajSiv) has called xufxappovc; twv Klgctmv, the 
Torrent of Ivy, just as the common reading makes Kf^pwi^ the 
Torrent of Cedars. See Rel. Palmst. vol. i. p. 289 and 294. 


for an excellent account of Cedron. — Griesbach has admitted 
TOY KtSpwi/ into the text. 

V. 3. Trjv o-TTfTpay. This is spoken of definitely, as being 
the particular Cohort which, by order of the Procurator, at- 
tended on the Sanhedrim at the great festivals, and preserved 
tranquillity. See Rosenm. 

V. 15. 6 aWoq jmaOnTng. Grotius says, " it is certain that 
in these, as well as in other writings, the Article is frequently 
redundant." Schleusner too adduces some other instances, 
besides the present, in proof of the same assertion (see Lex. 
voce by 17, Toi) in the principal, however, of which it has 
already been shown, that the assertion is wholly groundless ; 
and it is to be considered as the refuge of ignorance, though of 
the ignorance of learned men. I am, indeed, ready to confess, 
that the Article in this place is a subject of some difficulty ; of 
greater, perhaps, than in any other in the whole N. T. ; yet, 
though it should be altogether impossible to assign its use with 
absolute certainty, it is surely more reasonable to impute the 
obscurity to our own w^ant of knowledge, than to attempt to 
subvert the whole analogy of language ; for to say that 6 aXXog 
and aXXog may be used indifferently, is an assertion which is 
contradicted alike by experience and by common sense. It is 
better to understand phrases according to their obvious import, 
even though we should be compelled to leave the proof of their 
fitness to more diligent or more fortunate inquiry. Thus rb 
ttXoTov, Matt. xiii. 2, and elsewhere, has always been regarded 
as signifying merely a certain ship : I should not, however, 
have acquiesced in this vague interpretation, even if I had 
found it impossible to account for the Article in a satisfactory 
way. I entertain the same feeling with respect to the present 

It is not at once to be taken for granted, that the received 
is the true reading. The Article is omitted in A. D. and two 
other MSS. and in the Syr. Pers. and Goth. Versions, accord- 
ing to Griesbach. He might have added the Vulg. for alius 
does not express 'O aWog : tliis would be alter, Nojimis also 
in his Paraphrase has viog aXKog kraXpog : but on a poetical 
Paraphrase, little stress can be laid. The Edition also of 
Erasmus, Colin, and Bengel, omit 6. Griesbach has thought 
this evidence sufl[icient to justify the mark of possible spurious- 

262 ST. JOHN, 

ness, which he has prefixed to the Article. It is easier, how- 
ever, to account for the omission of the Article in a few MSS. 
supposing it to be authentic, than for its insertion in almost all 
of them, supposing it to be spurious : for the apparent diffi- 
culty, which might operate as an inducement in the one case, 
would be a powerful discouragement in the other. Besides, I 
observe that all the MSS. collated by Birch, as well as those 
of Matthai, which last are probably, on the whole, the best 
existing, exhibit the Article. I am, therefore, disposed to 
retain it, whatever be the difficulties with which the reading is 

Commentators have generally admitted, that by " the other 
disciple" here mentioned, St. John means himself; and Mi- 
chaelis (in his Anmerk.) well observes, that " John has never 
named himself in the whole Gospel, nor has ever said /.• and 
yet the occurrences which took place in the hall of Annas, as 
well as St. Peter's Denial of Christ, he has described so cir- 
cumstantially, and has thrown so much light on the dark and 
seemingly contradictory narratives of the other Evangelists, 
that we cannot but conclude that he was present." Supposing, 
then, that St. John himself is meant by 6 aXXog fiaOtjTrig, it 
may not be impossible to assign sometliing like a plausible rea- 
son why he should call himself the other disciple. This phrase 
obviously implies the remaining one of two persons ^ who not 
only were, in common with many others, disciples of Christ, 
but between whom some still closer relation might be recog- 
nized to exist : and if it could be shown that Peter and John 
stood towards each other in any such relation, the term the 
other disciple might not unfitly be used, immediately after the 
mention of Peter, to designate John ; especially, if from any 
cause whatever John was not to be spoken of by name. Now 
it does appear, that a particular and even exclusive friendship 
existed between Peter and John : the circumstance has been 
noticed in that admirable manual of Christian piety, the Com- 
panion for the Fasts and Festivals. " Upon the news of our 
Saviour's resurrection, they two hasted together to the Sepul- 
chre. It was to Peter that John gave the notice of Christ's 
appearing at the sea of Tiberias in the habit of a stranger : and 
it was for St. John that St. Peter was soUcitous what should 
become of him. See John xxi. 21. After the ascension of 


our Lord, we find them both together going up to the Temple 
at the hour of prayer ; both preachmg to the people, and both 
apprehended and thrown into prison, and the next day brought 
forth to plead their cause before the Sanhedrim. And both 
were sent down by the Apostles to Samaria, to settle the plan- 
tations Philip had made in those parts, where they baffled 
Simon Magus." — See p. 77. It might have been added, that 
the same two were sent by Christ to prepare the last Passover, 
Luke xxii. 8. It is moreover to be observed, that the same 
expression of 6 aXXog fiaOtirrigf with some addition indeed, 
occurs in this Evangelist, xx. 2. where, however, I do not per- 
ceive that the addition affects the question : it is repeated also 
in verses 3, 4, and 8, of the same Chapter, in a manner which, 
to the modern Reader, will appear extraordinary, but which, 
combined with the circumstances already related, leads me to 
infer that this phrase, when accompanied with the mention of 
Peter, was readily, in the earliest period of Christianity, under- 
stood to signify John : and it is not impossible that the Evan- 
gelist may have employed this expression in order to remind 
his Readers, that of the Twelve Apostles, two were distin- 
guished from the rest by their closer friendship and connexion. 
If this be a reasonable solution of the difficulty, (and I cannot 
help tliinking it preferable to the bungling expedient uniformly 
adopted,) the Article ought to be expressed in all future Trans- 
lations : by the omission of it, we withhold from the Reader's 
notice a circumstance of considerable interest and beauty. See 
also below. Acts i. 13. 


V. 7. viov Toi) Oeov. The Editt. of Erasmus and Colin, 
have Tov viov : but this must be wrong. See Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 3. The Article before Qeov is w^anting in a multi- 
tude of MSS. including the greater part of the best of Mat- 
thai's: Griesbach has dismissed it from the text. The true 
reading, therefore, fs viov Qeov, as is usual in such cases, how- 
ever definite be the sense. Yet Mr. Wakefield, quails ab 
inceptOf goes on translating " a Son of God," thus at once dis- 
regarding the idiom and the obvious sense of the passage : for 
that the Jews should talk of putting Christ to death for pre- 
tending merely to sanctity of character (which is all, that " he 

264 ST. JOHN, 

made himself a son of God" can mean, see Rom. viii. 14.) is 
unnatural and absurd, and is contrary to what we learn from 
the other Evangehsts: the charge was evidently not that of 
hypocrisy, but of blasphemy ; and Christ, in affirming that 
He was the Son of God, did in fact affirm his Messiahship. 
See on Matt. xiv. 33. and compare Luke xxii. QQ. \vith 70. 
But the bigotry of heterodoxy seems to be to the full as blind 
as the orthodoxy, which it professes to enlighten. 

V. 29. ol Se, TrXrjcTavTsg. This is one of the instances in 
which the Article is supposed to have an indefinite sense : and 
Eisner, Obss. Sacr. ad loc. has collected several similar pas- 
sages from the Profane Writers. In such places, however, the 
Article retains its original pronominal use, no Predicate being 
annexed, probably because it is supposed to be superfluous. 
In the present instance, the Pronoun can refer only to the by- 
standers : the same is true in Luke v. SS. Sometimes there 
is a preceding Ellipsis of m p.iv, or what is equivalent : in which 
case ol ^£ will mean others: so in Matt, xxviii. 17. where 
we have l^ovng, which is equivalent to ol fxlv rwv l^ovrwv. 
Valckenaer, in his Adnot. Crit. would there read Idovreg av- 
Tov 01 MEN: which, however, appears to me to be unneces- 

V. 31. 7)V yap fieyaXr} r) riimepa Ikuvyi tov (Taj5j3dTOv. We 
have here a considerable variation. A majority of the MSS. 
for £Kdvr} have iKeivov : this reading is adopted by both Wet- 
stein and Griesbach, and, I think, on the best grounds. 
Several also of the same MSS. omit 17, so as to make the 
whole run i^i^ yap fiEyaXri rj/uLipa ekeivov tov <Taj3j3arou. No 
Editor, that I know of, has adopted this reading, and yet I am 
persuaded that it is the true one. I understand the sense to 
be, " there was a high-day, or, it was high- day, on that sab- 
bath," in which case the Article 'H ought to be omitted, just 
as in rjv wapaaKEvr} and similar expressions. Nor is its inser- 
tion in the MSS. difficult to explain ; for when once ekeivti had 
gained admission, the addition of 17 became necessary. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 7. 

V. 38. 6 'lu)(Tri<f>. Many MSS. omit the Article; but see 
on Mark xv. 4<3. 



V. 22. XajStre irv&vfia ayiov* Here the MSS. as I expected, 
uniformly omit the Article, the meaning being, the itifluence 
of the Spirit. See on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 28. 6 KvpLog fiov KoX 6 Qeog fxov. It might be supposed 
that the former Pronoun and the latter Article should here 
have been omitted, in conformity with Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 
iv. § 2, It must be confessed that this would have been the 
usual Greek form : but in this instance the Greek idiom seems 
to have given way to the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic : in those 
languages the Affix must be subjoined to both Nouns; for if it 
be added only to the latter, it will not comprehend the Nomi 
preceding. Thus we read. Psalm v. 3. ^"^7^^^ 0/D> and Ps. 
XXXV. 23. ^^IKI ^H/i^ ; and it is not unreasonable to suppose, 
that as the expression of St. Thomas was so remarkable, the 
Evangelist might wish to record it vvdth the utmost exactness. 
This he has done ; for supposing the exclamation to have been 
(allowing for the difference of dialect) ''^'?^<1 ^^"7i^» or as the 
Syriae Version has it, wctC^d wJ.1o, the Greek translation is 
the closest possible. The two passages above cited from the 
Psalms, the LXX. have rendered respectively by 6 jSao-^Xeuc 
fiov Kol 6 Qeog fiov and 6 Qeog fiov koI 6 Kvpiog jmov' in both 
which instances, as well as in the present and many others, the 
Nominative with the Article prefixed is used for the Vocative. 
— It will hence be perceived, that I do not understand the 
words of Thomas in the way of assertion, as some have done, 
by supposing an Ellipsis of av h : of such an Ellipsis I have 
not noticed any example. But though the words seem to have 
been spoken by way of exclamation, this exclamation is not to 
be construed into a mere expression of astonishment. Mi- 
chaelis has justly observed, that if Thomas had spoken German, 
(he might have added, Enghsh, French, or Italian,) it might 
have been contended with some degree of plausibihty, that 
" my Lord and my God" was only an irreverent ejaculation. 
But that Jewish astonishment was thus expressed, is wholly 
without proof or support. Add to this, that the words are 
introduced with hwev avTtljf i. e. to Christ ; but a mere ejacu- 
lation, such as that here supposed, is rather an appeal to Hea- 
ven. But our Saviour's reply makes it absolutely certain, that 

266 ST. JOHN. 

the words of Thomas, though in the form of an exclamation, 
amount to a confession of faith, and were equivalent to a direct 
assertion of our Saviour's Divinity. Christ commends Tho- 
mas's acknowledgment, while he condemns the tardiness with 
which it is made : but to what did this acknowledgment 
amount? That Christ was Kvpiog koX Qeog. — It is true that 
attempts have been made to lessen the value of this recog- 
nition. Thus Servetus, in a passage cited by Wetstein, re- 
marks that Thomas did not call Christ Jehovah, to which the 
Affix is never applied. This objection is so frivolous, that I 
should not have thought it worth notice, but for the sanction 
which may seem to have been thus given it : for just as well 
might it be urged that the God invoked by Christ was not the 
true God, since Christ, Matt. xvii. 46. and Mark xv. 34. ex- 
claims, " My God, my God :" yet was it ever doubted whether 
Jesus in these words addressed Jehovah ? The same address 
is common also in the LXX. and is incapable of being other- 
wise understood, than in the obvious and common way. It is 
much to be leimented, that the bias of Wetstein's mind inclined 
him to countenance such absurdity. 


V. 4. UQ TO ttXoTov. Grotius, wishing, I suppose, to account 
for the Article, says, " relictum aut commodatum antehac.'' 
The Pronoun seems here, as frequently elsewhere, to be used 
in the possessive sense : they went on board their vessel. 




V. 5. jLtfra TToWag Tavrag I'lfxepag. See on Luke xxiv. 21 » 

V. 8. Tov ayiov Trvfu/xarocj in the personal sense. Matt, 
i. 18. 

V. 13. Dr. Otve?i (ap. Bo^vyer) observes, that from the latter 
part of this verse it seems that the Apostles were here origi- .-^- .-^,%., 
nally distinguished 6?/ pairs ; for which reason he would omit >h(Uw 
the Kot between 'laKwjSoc and 'Iwavvrjc. If, however, the 
Apostles are here to be taken in pairs, we might expect that 
Peter should be associated either with Andrew, his brother, or 
with John, his friend. See above, John xviii. 15. The re- 
ceived arrangement, it will be seen, disappoints both th^se ex- 
pectations, by placing the brothers James and John between 
the brothers Peter and Andrew. It is remarkable, however, 
that in the MSS. A. C. D. the Versions Vulg. Syr. Copt. 
Armen. ^thiop. and in Augustine, John is placed next to his jj^ 
friend Peter. The very high authority for this arrangement, 
and its coincidence with what was noticed above, render it ex- 
ceedingly probable. I do not, indeed, find that any MS. omits 
Kol so as to distinguish the first two pairs : the Syr. places the 
Conjunction before the names of John and all who follow. 

V. 14. avv yvvai^i. It has been doubted whether the trans- 
lation in this place should be with the women or with their wives, 
Campbell f vol. i. p. 501, 4to. chastises Beza for adopting the 
latter sense, and contends that it would then have been <tvv 
ToiQ yvvai^Xv avriov. The Article, however, alone might sig- 
nify their J as has been seen in a multitude of instances ; and 
this Article, as has been shown, may be omitted on account of 
the Preposition preceding. Campbell's argument, therefore, 
found^id on the meaning of the French, avec les femmes, is 

268 ACTS, 

wholly inconclusive ; and so, indeed, are most of the reason- 
ings which attempt to prove what will happen in one language, 
from what actually happens in another : the Greek Preposi- 
tion has the power of dispensing with the Article ; the French 
Preposition has it not. But not only is it true, that avv yvvai^l 
may signify with tlieir wives : we see below in this Writer, 
xxi. 5. that it is actually so used ; for avv yvvai^X koI tIkvolq 
has no ambiguity. On the whole, I am inclined to think this 
the true interpretation. Grotius, indeed, with the majority of 
Commentators, prefers the other ; and he supposes the women 
alluded to, to be those mentioned Matt. xxvi. 55. with some 
others of Jerusalem: but, surely, if this be the sense, it is 
most obscurely expressed. It might be better to say, that the 
women meant are those spoken of by the Writer of the Acts 
in his own Gospel, xxiii. 49. than to send us to St. Matthew : 
yet even if these had been meant, St. Luke would hardly have 
left us to make it out by mere conjecture. 


V. 36, irag olkoq 'Icrpaj^X. If the whole house of Israel be 
here meant, of which there can be no reasonable doubt, the 
Greek usage would require oiKog to have the Article prefixed. 
See Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. I can account for the omission 
only by referring the Reader to what was said on Matt. xv. 

V. 47. Tovg (TuyZo/uLevovg \ I do not at all understand the 
remark of Beza, (ap. Bowyer,) that if rovg aw^oiiivovg meant 
those who should be saved, rovg is inserted contrary to the use 
of the Greek tongue ; and that, therefore, perhaps it should be 
Tivag, If roue aioZo^ivovg be used in this sense, it is made to 
be equivalent to roue (TwOrjaojuLivovg) where the Article would 
be proper and even necessary. But this expression signifies 
only, as Markland has well observed, those who are in a state 

» I have already noticed Winer's explanation of the Article here. He says 
that it is used in consequence of the persons spoken of being thought of definitely, 
and that the place is to be translated, " The Lord added daily to the Church new 
members, those, namely, wlio embraced the Christian faith, and were thereby 
saved." He compares Plat. Menex. p. 236. B. on fisWouv 'AOtivaloi aiptXaOai 
Tov ipovvra. — H J. II. 


of salvatiqii, as ol aTroWvinevoi, 1 Cor. i. 18. and 2 Cor. ii. 15. 
are the opposite. See also Luke xiii. 23, The tense em- 
ployed shows tliis to be the meaning ; and it is remarkable 
that this is the only tense which excludes the Calvinistic inter- 7<J^ ^^ 
pretation ; both the Future and the Past tenses would have 
favoured it : yet Calvinism has made great use of this text, and 
important consequences have been deduced from it. It has 
been rightly observed, that roue crioZoimivovQ may be illustrated 
by (TwOoTs above, ver. 40. If the salvation of men were either 
already effected, or could be spoken of as a thing which must 
inevitably happen, an exhortation to be saved, or to save our- 
selves, would in the case of the Elect be superfluous, and in 
that of the Reprobate an unfeeling mockery. — This passage, 
however, may seem to countenance the same doctrine from its 
similitude to xiii. 48. which text is a principal fortress of the 
Calvinists. With that text I have no immediate concern : I 
will, however, briefly observe, that the words rarayiuivoL elg 
Zoiiiv al(jjviov are not necessarily to be understood of an abso- 
lute decree. The fullest illustration which I have seen of them 
is in Krehs's Ohss. in N. T. ex Josepho ; which, as well as 
Loesners Ohss. in N, T. e Philone, ought to be in the hands of 
every Reader of the Greek Testament. Krehs's Note is too 
long to be here transcribed : the substance of it is, that it is 
plain who are the TerayimivoL eig ^loriv alujviov ex lege opposi- 
tionis ; for they are expressly opposed to those, ol ovk a^iovg 
Kpivovari kavrovg rfjt; alwviov (^iwrig, nempe tm aTrwOeiaOaL rov 
\6yov rov Qeov : see ver. 46. and that hence ot T^rayfiivoL is 
no more than ol eavrovg ra^avrtg. This remark, is, indeed, 
found in Wetstein, and even in Grotius. It may be difficult 
to discover to whom it properly belongs ; for Theologians, as I 
have had occasion to know, are not very nice in acknowledging 
their obligations. Krebs goes on to show from Josephus, that 
the Praet. Pass, is commonly used in a middle sense : but none 
of his quotations appear to me to be so apposite as that from 
Max. Tyr. Diss. x. p. 102. edit. Heins. cited by Loesner, kirl 
aaQKiov -q^ovag (TvvreTayfxivcg ^ The Text, therefore, seems 
to mean no more than that " they believed, as many as felt a 
longing after immortality!' 

» Exod. XXXV. 21. Author's MS. 

270 ACTS, 


V. 11. Tov nirpov KoX 'Iwavvrjv. A. and two or three other 
MSS. prefix rbv to the second name also ; but this is not 
necessary. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. 

V. 21. iravTUJv ayi(i)v avTov Trpo^i/rwv. JVetstein, on the 
authority of several MSS. admits rwv before ayiojv into the 
text. It is, however, not necessary in this place. Part. i. 
Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 

Vv 25, vjuLEig Icrre vtoi, »c. r. X. Several MSS. read ot viol 
prohante Bengelio. Either reading may be right ; for here, as 
has been elsewhere observed, two rules interfere, one of which 
must give way : the received reading appears to me to be the 
more probable. 


V. 1. 6 (TTQarnyog rov hpov. It may be asked, why this 
person is here and below, v. 24. spoken of in the Singular Num- 
ber, and as if there were only one ; when we find that in Luke 
xxii. 4. and 52. there were several such (TTgaTr\yoL The most 
probable opinion is that of Lightfoot on Luke xxii. 4. who has 
shown from Jewish Writers, that in various parts of the Tem- 
ple bodies of Levites constantly mounted guard. The per- 
sons commanding these several parties were called o-rparijyot : 
but that, besides these, there was an officer, who had the 
supreme authority over all of them: and this is he whom 
Lightfoot supposes to be called, by way of eminence, 6 arparrj- 
yoQ TOV hpov, and to be the same with the Man of the Moun- 
tain of the House, mentioned in the Talmud. Michaelis calls 
him the Commandant of the Temple; and Wolfius supposes 
that Pashur, the son of Immer, mentioned Jer. xx. 1 . held the 
same office ^ 

V. 17. /xrjSfvi avQgijjinov. A very few MSS. some Editt. 
and Theophyl. have av6lpa>7r(^. This seems to me to be pre- 
ferable, on account of the Partitive juijSeic preceding : see Parti. 

1 V. 12. rj (Tb)ri)pia, the expected salvation. This is Winer's remark. This 
case nearly answers to Bp. Middletons reciprocating proposition in pronouns. It 
is assumed, in short, that there is salvation from a Messiah. The question is, Is 
Jesus Christ that Messiah ? — H. J. R. 



Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 8. though I am willing to admit that the 
rule is not always observed even in the Classic Writers. 

V. 31. TTvivfiaTOQ ayiov. A. D. and one of Matthai's have 
Tov ayiov irvtv/jiaTog. This is contrary to the usage so fre- 
quently noticed, when the sense is the Lifluence of the Spirit. 


V. 4. Ti^ 0fw. From a comparison of this verse with the 
preceding one, as well as from other passages. Theologians 
have in all ages inferred that the Holy Ghost is God. The 
opinions of the Fathers may be seen in Suicer, vol. ii. p. 769. 
Wetstem, indeed, has remarked, that 6 Geoc with the Article 
is always confined to God the Father : I have, however, al- 
ready shown that no such distinction is observed : "6 Oebg and 
Qsog are used indiscriminately, except where grammatical 
rules interfere. In this place Qe(^ and no Qst^ would have 
been equivalent: thus w^e have in this Chapter, ver. 29. 
TTEiBapxeiv 0€w fxaWov rj avOptJTToig \ If, however, the Ar- 
ticle had been wanting in the present passage, we should pro- 
bably have been told that the Holy Spirit is God, only in an 
inferior sense. 

It is worthy of notice, that though the Writer has in the 
preceding verse made xf^evdofiai to govern an Accusative, it 
here has a Dative. Of the usage in the N. T. nothing can be 
said : for elsewhere this Verb is used absolutely. The classical 
use of the word, if I mistake not, requires an Accusative : at 
least there is no instance of a Dative in any of the passages 
cited by Wetstein ; and in many others which I could adduce, 
the Case is the Accusative. Erasmus Schmidt, a good Greek 
Scholar, tells us, that this Verb governs different Cases, accord- 
ing to the difference of the signification. I do not perceive, 
however, that he has been able to make any distinction between 
the senses of the word as used in the third and fourth verses ; 
nor does he adduce any instance of a Dative, except the one 
in question. Schleusner says, that in the LXX. the Verb 
sometimes governs a Dative and sometimes an Accusative: 

' Which again is expressed by Plato Apolog. Socr. § 17- Bekk. with the Article: 
irtiaofjiai ?e fiaXXov ry Bcrp t) vfxiv. — J. S. 

272 ACTS, 

but even there, I believe, the Dative is employed only where 
the Translators wished to represent the Dative of their original 
expressed by 2 (>i^ ^ 5 elsewhere they prefer the Accusative. 

V. 32. TO TTvevfia TO ajLOv. It will, perhaps, be supposed, 
that these words are not here to be understood in the personal 
sense, because of t^wKev in the next clause : we read, however, 
John iii. 16. that God t6v YION avTov tSwKEv. 


V. 10. T(^ wvEvfJiaTi. Here, though the Article be pre- 
fixed, irvevfia must be taken for the influence of the Spirit, or 
inspiration. The Article is inserted in reference to <J IXaAft 
immediately subjoined ; and it is for this reason that in the 
next Chapter, ver. 3. some good MSS. would read eig THN 
yriv, Yjv, K. T. X. though there the Article is made unnecessary 
by the Preposition. The same solution would, indeed, be 
applicable in the preceding Note ; but there the association of 
TO Trvev/uLa with rjfjisig favours the personal sense, as ao(j>ia, with 
which it is here connected, leads us to an Attribute. 


V. S6. Iv epvOpa daXaaay, Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. Other- 
wise it has the Article. 

V. 52. Tov diKaiov. This term is evidently used kqt t^oxnv 
to signify Christ : it may be asked, however. How early did 
this name come into use ? In a Note on Luke xxiii. 47. in 
which I remarked on the conjecture of Wasse^ I assumed the 
possibility that it was the intention of the Centurion to call 
Christ emphatically the Just One ; as if the name were used 
by the Jews to signify the expected Messiah ; in which case 
it might easily be knovni to a Roman residing in Jerusalem : 
I ought, however, to have inquired whether there be any rea- 
son to conclude, that the expected Messiah had ever been 
thus denominated, or referred to under this appellation. The 
strongest evidence which I have met with, that Christ was 
foretold as the Just One, may be found in § Q5, of the Diss. 
Gen. at the end of Kennicott's Heh. Bible. As some of my 
Readers may not have immediate access to that work, I will 


translate the passage. " We read in St. John xix. S6, 37, 
These things were done, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
A bone of Him shall not be broken : again, another Scripture 
saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. In these 
words the Evangelist cites two passages, in which, as he says, 
are foretold certain events relating to the Messiah ; and he 
affirms that these predictions were fulfilled in Christ. The 
first of them is not found in any part of the O. T. at this day 
in express terms, so as to be incapable from the context of 
being otherwise applied than to Christ. The Commentators, 
therefore, have, for the most part, had recourse to the type of 
the Paschal Lamb, Exod. xii. 46. and Num. ix. 12. though in 
neither of those places do the words exactly correspond with 
those of the Evangelist. I am of opinion that this circumstance 
of not breaking a bone of the Messiah, not only was from early 
times prefigured by this type, but was also predicted of the 
Messiah somewhere among the Prophetic Oracles, and that too 
in express terms; for by the correction of a single word in 
Psal. xxxiv. the former of the testimonies adduced by John 
may be as easily vindicated as the other." He then proceeds 
to give an accurate analysis of the whole Psalm. He con- 
cludes, that " after the just and humble have been spoken of 
in the Plural Number seven times, mention is made in ver. 20. 
of a certain Just individual, the Just One, a name by which, 
as all know, the Messiah is distinguished. Of Him, then, it 
is said. Many are the afflictions of the Just One ; but Jehovah 
delivers Him from all of them. He preserves all his bones : not 
one of them shall be broken. In the next verse the Just One 
is again introduced, and in such a way, that the words can be 
understood only of the Messiah. They that hate the Just One 
shall be made desolate : where, it is plain, that the punishment 
is characteristic of the crime ; for the punishment of desolation 
was inflicted on the Jews for their hatred of Christ. This 
interpretation of the three verses, 20, 21, 22, is attended with 
no difficulty or violence, and would no doubt have been 
adopted by others, but for the Singular W*), ver. 21 : for it 
was supposed, that as no Impious Person definitely is here 
meant, so no Just One in particular was intended in the verse 
preceding. It is, therefore, to be remarked, that the word 
i^in was corrupted from D^)^") : and this is proved from all 

g74 ACTS, 

the Antlent Versions, which agree in having the Plural ; viz. 
Gr. Syr. Arab, and Vulg." He might have added the ^thiop. 
" And the evidence of these Versions is confirmed by a He- 
brew MS. of repute, comprehending besides the Hebrew Text 
a Chaldee Paraphrase much purer than the printed one, in 
which MS. the Paraphrase also has hi^V^t^"n in the Plural. 
This Codex is preserved in the Barberini Library at Rome. 
The same word is likewise in the Plural in the Chaldee part of 
the Dresden MS. marked in my work 598. Add to this, that 
in the citation of the Evangelist we find o-uvrptjSrjtrerat, which 
is the very word used in the Greek Version of the Psalm, and 
corresponding with the Hebrew : whereas, in the passage relat- 
ing to the Paschal Lamb, we have (rvvrpixpere and (rvvrplxpov^ 
<Tiv." Kennicott afterwards notices the other citation from 
Zach. xii. 10. 

This reasoning appears to me to be satisfactory ; yet, while 
I entirely assent to the conclusion, I will not conceal the fact, 
that the LXX. have al 0\i\Peig TQN AIKAiaN, and so have 
the Vulg. the Arab, and the J^thiop. thus differing from all 
the Heb. MSS. With respect, however, to the LXX. whose 
Version had considerable influence on the Oriental Translators, 
it is not to be considered as absolutely certain that their MSS. 
had D^pHiJ ; for supposing that they found the Singular, unless 
they understood it of the Messiah, they equally well expressed 
the meaning of their original by writing twv BiKatwv plurally ; 
for though Tov diKaiov, in the hypothetic use of the Article, 
would mean of just men universally, yet it would have been 
less free from ambiguity. At any rate, we cannot suspect the 
Jews of substituting the singular pH^ for the Plural : of sub- 
stituting a Plural for a Singular in Psalm xvi. 10. the Jews 
have been suspected : see Kennicott, On the Heb, Text, vol. i. 
pp. 218. 496. but there the alteration was favourable to their 
views; here it would have been directly the reverse. The 
Targum, as printed in Walton's Polyglott, has pHit and )?i:^1 : 
the Syr. favours the proposed interpretation in both in- 

There are one or two other passages in the O. T. which have 
been referred to in proof, that in Prophetic language Christ 
was called the Just One. Whiston, in his " Essay on the Text 
of the O. T." supposed that in Isaiah xli. 2. pDl was originally 


pnif. Wolfius lays great stress on liii. 11. where, however, on 
the authority of three MSS. p'^Di is rejected by Bishop Lowth^ 
and also by Bishop Stock in his Version lately published. The 
opinion that the Just One was a Prophetic name of our 
Saviour, is not ill defended in a Note on Isaiah iii. 9. in the 
'* New Translation by a Layman," (Michael Dodson, Esq.) 
1790: and evidence of the same fact, deducible from the Tal- 
mudy may be seen in Schoett, Hor» Hebr. vol. ii. p. 18. 

Supposing, then, the Just One to have been a Jewish appel- 
lation of the expected Messiah, it will not be difficult to 
strengthen the presumption, that the Centurion (Luke xxiii. 
47.) intended to allude to it. It is said of him, that l^o^aa^ 
Tov 0€ov, which would hardly accord with the simple assertion 
that Christ was a just man. Ao^dZeiv is the word employed, 
as often as believers in the true God acknowledge the great- 
ness of His power, and do homage to His name. Our Saviour 
himself is said do^aZ^iv tov Ilarepa, and in 1 Pet. ii. 12. do^d- 
^eiv TOV Gfov is applied to the conversion of the Pagans : it is 
not impossible that the scene of the Crucifixion might have pro- 
duced this effect on the Centurion, and that St. Luke might 
thus mean to record the event. It has, indeed, been affirmed 
that this officer became a convert to Christianity in consequence ' '^^^ 

of what he had seen ; and Michaelis inclines to the opinion. 
At any rate, the term employed is much too strong, if to ^o^d- 
^£(v TOV 0£ov consisted merely in saying, " Truly tliis man was 
just." Besides, in what manner had the justice of Christ dis- 
played itself, so as to impress the mind of the Centurion ? Or 
was this the language in which a Roman, not having reference 
to a title of the Messiah, would signify his admiration at what 
had passed ? I think not. He is made also to say ovrojc, y^rr^t, . 
which seems to imply that he now recognized Christ in some 
character previously ascribed to Him ; a sense which I have 
already affixed to the dXr]9u)g of the other Evangelists. To this, "'"^ 

indeed, it may be said, that the Centurion had heard that 
Christ was a just man, and that now he believed it: but 
surely this confession amounts to very little, when we consider 
how it was extorted, viz. by the prodigies which attended the 
Crucifixion. The Centurion had probably known numerous 
examples of fortitude under suffering ; but had he ever wit- 
nessed the manifest interposition of the Almighty at a public 

T 2 

276 ACTS, 

execution ? If not, I cannot help thinking that his remark, if 
he meant merely to say, Truly this man was just, is so tame 
and cold, as to be absolutely unnatural, and, considering the 
circumstances, scarcely intelligible. 

It seems to me, therefore, nearly certain, that in Luke 
xxiii. 47. the Centurion alludes to an appellation which he had 
heard applied to the expected Messiah ; and the probability is 
not lessened by the agreement, which will thus be established 
between the narrative of St. Luke and the account given by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, who represent the Centurion as having 
said that Christ was vlog Qeov. In what sense that expression 
is to be taken, I have endeavoured to show in a proper place. 
It is highly improbable, as was there stated, that such a phrase 
as vibg Qeov should have been used by a Roman, without any 
reference to the pretensions of the Messiah : but that another 
of the Messiah's titles should have been stumbled upon by 
mere accident, and without any allusion whatever, is improba- 
ble to a degree, which staggers all reasonable belief. There 
mil still, indeed, remain a discrepancy in the expressions of 
the Evangelists, but not any in the sense. Nor is it impos- 
sible that the Centurion might have said what is imputed 
both by Matthew and Luke : in which case Luke would be 
very likely to lay hold of the Centurion's recognition of the 
Messiah as the Just One, because, as we know from the Acts, 
he much dehghted to speak of our Saviour under that appella- 
tion. See Acts iii. 14. the Verse on which this Note is written, 
and xxii. 14 : in the first of these he has combined the two 
titles of the Holy One and Just One. 

It is scarcely worth mentioning, nor do I lay any stress on 
it, that in the exclamation of the Centurion, the Syr. Trans- 
lator has rendered the word Just in the stat. emphat. exactly 
as in the passages in the Acts and in James v. 6. where Christ 
is confessedly meant. This is not done in giving the charac- 
ters of Simon and Cornelius : however, I am ready to admit, 
that in many instances the stat, emphat. of cO-jl, as well as of 
other words, is used without any apparent cause. In James 
v. 16. the Translator seems to have found a reading in his 
Greek MSS. which would justify the stat. emphat. in his Ver- 



V. 5. eIq TToXiv rrit: 2a/xap£tac. A. 31. 40. have the Article 
before TroXfv. I have frequently observed, that in cases like 
the present, in which the Article may be inserted or omitted 
indifferently, the Alex. MS. usually prefers the insertion, 
and is sometimes unsupported by any other. These various 
readings appear to me to have been the corrections of a 
Copyist, who was not acquainted vnth the licence allowed 
after Prepositions; and such a Copyist could hardly have 
been a native Greek. This remark, unimportant as it may 
seem, may not be wholly useless to those who would trace 
this celebrated MS. to its origin. The prevailing opinion had 
always been, that it was written in Egypt, till Wetstein in his 
Proleg, contended that it came from Mount Athos. See 
WoidesPref. Sect. ii. § 11. In that case, however, the writer 
would, I think, have been better acquainted with the lan- 
guage. The Moscow MSS. (Matthai's) are supposed to have 
come from Athos : yet they, as I have had repeated occasion 
to observe, show, on the whole, that the Writers were by no 
means ignorant either of the rules or the anomalies of the 
Greek Tongue. 

V. 37. Michaelis (as translated by Marsh, vol. i. 337.) infers 
the spuriousness of this verse, not only from its being unknown 
to so many of the MSS. but from the circumstance that Christ 
is here used as a Proper Name ; whereas that word, in the 
age of the Apostles, was merely an epithet expressive of the 
ministry of Jesus. My reasons for dissenting from this opinion 
have been fully detailed on Mark ix. 40. The verse, indeed, 
may nevertheless be spurious : it is wanting in a great number 
of MSS. but is found in IrerKBus, 


V. 2. Tr\g o^ov. Two MSS. + Tavrrjc: but this is unneces- 
sary. Comp. xix. 9. 23 ; xxiv. 22. Schoettgen has remarked, 
that " in the way of the Nazarenes" is still the phrase used by 
the Jews to express " according to the manner of the Christ- 

V. 12. liridlvTa avTM X"p«' The phrase is elsewhere Trjv 

278 ACTS, 

X^tpo. or Tag \tipag. E. Vulg. and Copt, have rag xupagf and 
this is the reading below, ver. 16. 

V. 17. elg rrjv olKiav: that of Judas, mentioned ver. 11. 


V. 38. expi<J^£v TrvEVjuiaTi ayu^. This is a good example of 
what was noticed on Matt. i. 18. under the fifth head. In 
ver. 47. where it is to irvevjuia to ayiov, the words, though 
spoken of the influence, may be understood in reference, viz. to 
the recent dispensation of divine gifts : this may be inferred 
from Ka9wg kol tijULetg* 


V. 5. Ttaaapmv apxatg, English Version. By four cor- 
ners. Mr. Wakefield translates " by four strings," and refers 
us to Diod, Sic. Ed. Rhod. p. S2, The passage respects the 
manner of harpooning the Hippopotamus : a^' tvi rw v tjUTra- 
yivTiov IvaTTTOvTsg 'APXA2 STYIIINAS (K^tiaaL fj-EXpig o.v 
TrapaXvOy. Here the meaning of apxcu is evident, and the same 
sense is well adapted to the place under review. This illustra- 
tion of Mr. W.'s is singularly happy, and is, probably, worth 
all that remains of his New Testament. I think it is confirmed 
by the absence of the Article. A sheet oOovr} (see above, 
X. 11.) could scarcely be other than quadrangular, in which 
case we should expect TAIS Ti<T<TapaLv apx'^'^^i as in Matt, 
xxiv. 31. Twv TE<T(jap(i)v avi/uLWv. 


V. 3. rjo-av rifiipaL twv 'A^vjuwv. This is strictly a Propo- 
sition of Existence ; for nothing is affirmed of the days of un- 
leavened bread, but that they were. Yet several MSS. have 
ai TiidipaL prohante Bengelio, and Grieshach has admitted the 
Article into the text. I am convinced that the received read- 
ing is the true one ; and it is an additional confirmation of 
what was said on John v. 1. 

V. 15. 6 ayy^Xog avTov tortv. EngHsh Version. ** It is 
his angel." This supposes an ElHpsis, so that the meaning 
will be, That which thou hast seen and supposed to be Peter, 


is his angel. In this case, however, if I mistake not, it should 
have been ayytXog without the Article, (see on John viii. 44. 
second Note ;) indeed one of the Medicean MSS. viz. Wet- 
stein's, 56 and 59, and Chrys. omit 6 : this, however, will 
hardly be deemed sufficient to justify its rejection ; and, there- 
fore, we are to seek some other explanation. I am much 
struck with the arrangement of the words in the Alex, MS, 6 
ayyeXoQ ioriv avrov: it seems to indicate that avrov was not t^?- ''-- 
meant to depend on ayy^Xog, but that it is the Adverb ; and 
this is the sense which, as I conceive, St. Luke here intended : 
** His angel is there." According to Schleusner, the Adverb 
avToif is found four times in the N. T. and it is remarkable, 
that three of these instances occur in the Acts of the Apostles : ^'"»^ »^' 
it is, therefore, a word which the writer would not be unlikely 
to employ ; and the present verse, probably, supplies a fourth 
example. This interpretation will accord as well with the con- 
text, as does the received one. The maid had just announced 
that Peter was standing before the Porch : the persons assem- 
bled think her mad ; but finding that she persists in her story, 
they exclaim, " His angel is there :" viz. before the Porch. I 
suppose 6 iiyy^XoQ to signify his angel by virtue of avTov under- 
stood : Part. i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 4. At the same time, I think 
that on comparing the Alex, wdth the other MSS. we may dis- 
cover vestiges of a reading which no MS. has preserved entire: 
St. Luke may have written 6 ayyEkog avrov ecttiv avrov* the 
Cop}dsts agreed in considering one of the two Pronouns to be 
superfluous : the greater part expunged the second, the writer 
of the Alex. MS. the first. I have, indeed, endeavoured to 
discountenance critical conjectures : but a reading compounded 
of the readings of different MSS. is hardly so to be regarded. 
At the same time, the proposed explanation does not require 
the Reader to assent to this hypothesis : it is rather an attempt 
to account for the arrangement in the Alex. MS. than the 
ground-work of a new interpretation. 

V. 23. rriv ^o^av. Several MSS. including six out of seven 
of Matthai's — r7]Vi and Griesbach has removed the Article into 
the margin. In this expression the Article is usually omitted, 
except where the glory of some particular act is meant. 

280 ACTS, 


V. 11. x"P ^ou Kvpiou. I do not perceive why, according 
to this reading, ^fip should want the Article. Griesbach, on 
the authority of many MSS. rejects tov from the text. 

Y.23. <ju)Tripa^lr)<Tovv. Instead of these words, some MSS. 
including the greater part of Matthai's, have (rijjTrjpiav : and 
Mill endeavours to explain the manner in which the various 
reading originated. It is adopted by Matthai. If the re- 
ceived be the true reading, which probably is the case, (TMrripa 
properly wants the Article by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 
: V. 29. KaOeXovTEQ. Rosenm, observes, " Deest Articulus, 
ut scepe ; vult enim dicere 01 KaOeXovrtg" Had this been in- 
tended, the Article would have been inserted : for it is not 
true, that in such instances it is ever omitted. Strictly speak- 
ing, indeed, the persons who interred the body of Jesus were 
not the same who had put him to death ; but the case will not 
be mended, at least the sense will not agree with the accounts 
expressly given by Matthew and Mark, or with the inference 
deducible from the other two Evangelists, if we should read 01 
KaOeXovreg ; for thus Joseph of Arimathea and his companions 
will be represented to have taken down the body, as well as to 
have interred it : but the persons who actually took it down, 
appear to have been the executioners. There is, however, no 
need to deviate from the plain sense of the passage. St. Paul 
is addressing his discourse to the Jews, and is recounting the 
several particulars of their treatment of Jesus : and whether 
his murderers be said to have interred Him, or, as St. Matthew 
represents it, " to have commanded the body to be delivered" 
to others for the purpose of interment, the Apostle's argument 
will be the same. He is hastening to the grand subject of 
the Resurrection, on which he is about to expatiate ; and he 
evidently cared not to avoid a trifling inaccuracy, by which 
none of his hearers could be misled, because they were able to 
correct it. 


V. 13. 6 lepevg tov Aiog ovroc, k. r. X. Valchenaer, in his 
Adnot. Crit. in N. T. would here read 6 hpwg TOY tov Atoc* 


He says that the Interpreters suppose a statue of Jupiter to 
have been placed before the gate of the city ; but that statues 
of the gods standing thus in the open air, and encompassed 
with a EpKoc or 7rfptj3oXoc, certainly had not Priests allotted 
them. He contends, therefore, that the Temple of Jupiter is 
here to be understood, and that consequently we must read as 
above, so that the first tov may mark an Ellipsis of hpov : and 
he commends Casaubon for having similarly corrected a pas- 
sage of Plato. — Notwithstanding the high authority of Valcke- 
naer and Casaubon, I cannot suppress my suspicion, that both 
their emendations are false. With respect to that with which 
I am more immediately concerned, I do not perceive the neces- 
sity, admitting, which seems to be true, that mere statues had 
not Priests assigned them, and that a Temple is here supposed, 
of inserting tov to mark the Ellipsis of hpov. It is not un- 
usual, indeed nothing is more common in Greek, than to say, 
" the Priest of such a God:" thus Soph. (Ed. Tyr. ver. 17. 

ol ^\ avv yrip(} (iapug 
'lepyg, lyu) juev ZHNOS* 

and even elliptically, Demosth. cont. Mid. Edit. Reiske, vol. i. 
p. 531. 6 TOY AI02. And as to what follows of "being 
before the city," though it be said, indeed, of the God, it may 
very well be understood of the Temple, in which the God was 
worshipped, and in which his statue was placed. Thus Pausan. 
lib. iv. p. 337. Edit. Kiihn, MavTiKkog ^\ koI to hpov Meaat}- 
vioig TOV ^HpaKkiovg iTrotrjae, koX iaTiv iKTog Td\ovQ 'O 0EOS 
l^pvfxivog. He evidently means to say, that the Temple in 
which stood a statue of Hercules, was without the wall. — But 
further, supposing that St. Luke could not have said the Priest 
of Jupiter, but only the Priest of his Temple, the emendation 
is still gratuitous ; for rou, as the reading now stands, may as 
well mark the Ellipsis of hpov as be the Article of Atoc, which, 
as a Proper Name, may dispense with the rule which elsewhere 
prevails in Regimen : to Atoc, meaning to Adoc hpovy (for 
hpov, as Valckenaer admits, is often understood,) is just as 
good Greek as to tov Aiog. However, I greatly prefer the 
former explanation. 

The emendation by Casaubon may be found in the Animadv. 
on Athenccus, IX. 12. It respects a passage in the Gorgias, 

282 ACTS, 

p. 183. edit JHoutJi, where it was proposed to read TOY toD 
UvpiXafxirovQ, because not Pyrilampes himself, but the son of 
Pyrilampes, is meant : but this again is needless ; for why may 
not the single tov mean tov vlov, or, to preserve the pun, tov 
Arjfiov'i The Proper Name requires not the Article; and 
accordingly we find immediately afterwards, rrpog tov Ilupt- 
XajULTTovg vEaviav, Dr. Routh very properly mistrusts the pro- 
posed correction, and adheres to the common reading, 


V. 11. Kuptov 'Ii]<rou Xqkttov, A very great number of 
MSS. and Editt. have tov KvgioVi and Wetstein and Grieshach 
admit it into the text. Nearly as many MSS. reject Xqlgtov, 
which may possibly be an interpolation. There is not, how- 
ever, any other reason than the preponderance of MSS. for 
either of these deviations from the received text. 


V. 6. Iv Ty 'Ao-t^. Mr. Wakefield translates " in that part 
of Asia," and thinks that in the N. T. Asia Minor is meant, 
whenever the Article accompanies the Name. How the Ar- 
ticle can affect the meaning, I am not able to conjecture. The 
fact, however, is, as Schleusner remarks, that in the N. T. 
Asia always signifies either Asia Minor, or else only the part 
of it adjacent to Ephesus, and of which Ephesus was the 

V. 7. TO Trvtvfia, If this be the true reading, I understand 
it in the personal sense of the Holy Spirit. But the MSS. 
A. C. D. E. &c. add 'Ijjo-ou, and some, with several Old Ver- 
sions and two or three Fathers, have tov 'Irjaov. Mill, Wet- 
stein, and Grieshach, approve the addition of the name of 
Jesus ; and it appears from Jerome, as quoted by Wetstein, 
that the Nestorians were suspected of having expunged 'Ir^o-ou 
from the modern copies. It is true that the evidence for in- 
serting the name of Jesus is very strong. Wolfius urges against 
this reading, that the addition of 'Itjo-ou to irvevfia is not to be 
found in the N. T. In this, however, he is mistaken : we have 
in Phihpp. i. 19. to wvevfxa 'Irjaou XpitXTov, though in a sense 


different from that which most Readers would annex to the 
passage in question, y^bp. Newcomer indeed, who adopts the 
reading, explains it by " the Spirit imparted by Jesus :" but 
this is, I fear, unsupported by analogy, to which alone we can 
here have recourse. But the context affords the strongest 
argument against the addition : for in the preceding verse we 
are told that the Apostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost 
to preach the word in Asia ; in the present, that on their at- 
tempting to go into Bithynia, the Spirit suffered them not. 
It is, therefore, highly unnatural that rb Trvevjuia of the latter 
verse should be meant of any other than to ayiov irvivjia in 
the former. It is also to be observed, that of Matthai's MSS. 
only one, and that not one of the best, has the proposed addi- 
tion : were the remainder written by Nestorians, or taken from 
Nestorian Copies? 

V. 12. 1]TLQ £(TTl TTQiOTTt) Trtq fl^^LCOQ TTIQ MaKS^Ovlag TToXfCj 

KoXcuvm. English Version, " which is the chief city of that 
part of Macedonia." Mr. Wakefield translates, " by which 
city there is an entrance into that part of Macedonia." This 
differs from the former in making irgwTr] to signify ^r5^ or near- 
est in situation; a sense which, indeed, it sometimes bears, 
though usually with something in the context to show that 
such is the sense intended : in the instances adduced by Ra- 
phel, it is TrptJTri Kurai or irQwrj] Iovtl cltto, k. r. X. : besides, 
the Apostles, before they reached Pliilippi, had passed through 
Neapolis. But my principal objection is to the manner in 
which both the Versions render the Article in rrig jjiepidog, as 
if it were 'EKEINH2 rrig fiepidog: of such an Ellipsis I have 
not seen any example. 

A Writer (apud Bowyer) for Trpwrrj Trjg had conjectured 
irpivTTigf so as to make the meaning to be. Which is a city of 
the First Part of Macedonia, or Macedonia Prima. See Livy, 
lib. xlv. 29. And MAKEAONQN DPOTHS is found also on 
Coins. See Spanheim de Usu, &c. vol. i. p. 651, This con- 
jecture, which Wetstein gives to /. Pearce, and Griesbach says 
is " Artemonii et aliorum" appears to me to be the most in- 
genious and most probable of aU which Bowyer has collected : 
still, however, it is but conjecture. Wetstein thinks, that after 
the battle fought at Philippi, this city became the metropolis 
of its district, though before that time Amphipolis had been 


^84 ACTS, 

the capital. Michaelis also appears to have been of the same 
opinion, though he adds, that irpwrri is not necessarily con- 
fined to the capital, but may mean merely " a principal town." 
He translates, however, " of this quarter of Macedonia," which 
is objectionable on the same ground as our own Version. On 
the whole, I see nothing better than to translate, " which is 
the chief of its district, a city of Macedonia, a colony." It is 
rather in favour of this construction, that some good MSS. and 
Chrysost. omit riig before MaKS^oviag : Griesbach prefixes to 
the Article the mark of probable spuriousness. If the Reader 
prefer the less definite sense of wpwri], the construction will 
still be the same. 

V. 13. wapa TTorafiov. D has tov, which Dr. Owen thinks 
necessary to the sense : but he was not aware of the usage so 
common after Prepositions. 


V. 1. 17 (Tvvaytjyri twv ^lovdauov. English Version, New- 
come and Wakefield, " a synagogue." Wetstein remarks, and 
after him RosenmUller, that the Article in this place is em- 
phatic ; for that in the other cities of Macedonia there was no 
synagogue, but only a proseucha or oratory. This assertion, 
however, is contradicted by what follows: see below, ver. 10, 
Neither do I perceive with Michaelis, that the Article neces- 
sarily marks the greatness or celebrity of this synagogue, or 
that it justifies his inference, that the Jews were then very 
numerous at Thessalonica, as they are at the present day. The 
passage seems to signify merely that the Jews, I suppose of the 
surrounding district, had their synagogue there. Ot ^apKyaioL 
is frequently used in the same limited sense. Or if with the 
MSS. A. 40. we omit 17, then the Jews must be taken in a 
larger acceptation, and the meaning is that the people of that 
persuasion had there a synagogue. 

V. 23. 'AyvwoTfj) GctJ). It would far exceed the limits of 
a Note to give merely a meagre sketch of the different opinions 
which learned men have entertained of the origin and purport 
of this Inscription : and, indeed, the only question vnth which 
I am concerned, respects the proper translation of it. It is 
usually rendered, " To the unknown God." Mr. Wakefield 
has ventured, " To an unknown God." This Version, if I 
mistake not, more correctly expresses the original. 


An Inscription is still preserved, which some suppose to be 
the very same noticed by St. Paul : it is the first in the Syn- 
tagma of ReinesiuSj fol. 1682. 






Michaelis speaks of this Inscription, as if it were the one re- 
ferred to : yet there are strong objections to this opinion. St, 
Jerome, in his Comm. Epist. Tit, tells us that the altar was 
inscribed, ** diis asi^ et Europe et afric^ diis ignotis et 
PEREGRiNis;" but that the Apostle, not wishing to argue 
against a plurahty of unknown Gods, chose to quote only a 
part of the Inscription, and that too altered from the Plural to 
the Singular, the better to suit his purpose. This, however, 
is on many accounts a most improbable supposition : indeed, 
the very manner in which the Inscription is introduced, " I 
found an altar with this Inscription," &c. makes it incredible 
that St. Paul could intend merely a remote and vague allusion. 
That the altar was inscribed simply with the words 'AFNQS- 
TQt OEQf, must either be conceded, or all inquiry on the sub- 
ject will be vain. As to the Greek Inscription above cited, 
ReinesiuSy though he has given it a place in his Collection, 
beUeves it to be a forgery. — But that St. Paul might have met 
with an altar inscribed, as he himself asserts, is probable in the 
highest degree. We know from Pausanias and Philostratus 
that there were at Athens altars to Unknown Gods : and even 
if this be meant to signify that 'APNaSTOIS GEOIS was 
the Inscription of every altar, (for their expressions are am- 
biguous,) still it will be probable, that if there were several 
such Deities, an altar might sometimes be erected to one of 
them : but the words of the Author of PhilopatriSf usually 
printed with the works of Lucian, vi} rov "Ay vworov rbv tv 
"AOrjvaig, are decisive that 'ArNOSTQi 0EQi in the Singular 
was a well-known Inscription. The only question, then, is. 
Was it intended to be applied to one of a possible multitude, 
as if we should impute any kindness or any injury to an un- 
known benefactor or enemy, or was it meant to be significant 

286 ACTS, 

of the One True God, whom the worshipper chose to call 
ayvio(TTog, as possessing unknown attributes ? The latter way 
of understanding it has been preferred by the Translators, 
though I know not on what grounds. If Inscriptions of this 
kind, and so intended, had been common in Athens, Paganism 
and Polytheism could scarcely have been tolerated: if they 
were rare, we might expect to read that the authors of them 
were given up to the bigotry of the populace : the Philosophy 
of Socrates, which excited so much resentment, could not have 
been more offensive. It may be urged, however, that the 
Apostle reasons as if the Inscription had been so intended : 
and yet if we recollect his zeal and eagerness to convert his 
hearers, the mention of any unknown Deity must be admitted 
to have afforded him iKavriv a(f>opiuLriv, Indeed, admitting that 
the Inscription was To an Unknown God, the discourse of the 
Apostle is still extremely pertinent. 

Little notice, however, appears to have been taken of the 
order of the words, and the omission of the Article. In ordi- 
nary language, as disting-uished from that of Inscriptions, we 
should most probably, meaning a particular God, say either rcf 
0£w rt^ ayv(jL)(TT(<^, or ra> ayviocFTto Oew : though in the former of 
these we might omit the first or even both the Articles ; but 
where the Adjective precedes the Substantive, we must retain 
the Article ; for else we shall fall into the indefinite form, and 
thus be misunderstood. Thus Acts xxiv. 14. t(^ iraTQwt^ Oetj, 
Rom. i. 23. tov a^Saprov Oeov, Titus i. 2. 6 axpEv^rig OEog. 
Nor does the language of Inscriptions appear to admit any 
other usage. Of the omission of both Articles, where the Sub- 
stantive precedes, may be instanced from Reinesius, p. 199. 
THP2IN. Spon and Wheeler, vol. ii. p. 390. Ed. 1724. 0E- 
012 SEBA2T0I2. But where the Adjective is placed first, 
the Article is retained. Spon, vol. ii. p. 270. TON AAMIIPG- 
TGKPATOPES: p. 306. Ti2t SfllTHPI GEQi: for here aw- 
rriQ may be considered as an Adjective : I conclude, therefore, 
that had the altar noticed by St. Paul been dedicated to the One 
True, though Unknown God, the Inscription would have been 
either TQi 'ArN12STi2< GEQt, or GEQt 'ArNOSTat : since it 
is neither of these, I accede to Mr. Wakefield's translation. — 


If the Reader would know what has been written on this text, 
he will find it amply detailed in a dissertation by Wonna, The- 
saur. Theol. Philol. vol. ii. 464. 

V. 24. Kvptog, Ed. Bogardi 6 K. This is very faulty : yrjg 
6 Kvpiog offends against Regimen. Ovpavov and yrjg are 
anarthrous by Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 28. Tov yap kol yivog Icjfiiv, D. and another for tov 
have TovTov. The Latin hujus would easily suggest this read- 
ing to a writer, who did not consider the original and poetical 
use of the Article. See the Appendix. 

V. 30. Tovg lulv ovv \p6vovg Trig ayvoiag vTTEpidwv 6 Oaog* 
It would seem almost impossible for a Translator to go amiss 
in rendering this passage, at least so far as respects the con- 
struction; for vw£pi^wv has been differently understood, though 
hardly any reasonable doubt can be entertained that it signi- 
fies, having overlooked, or having regarded with lenity. See 
Krehsii Ohss. Flav.: yet even the construction was not suf- 
ficiently plain for Mr. Wakefield. He renders '* condemning 
such ignorance in these times ;" and this he thinks correspond- 
ent with the scope and phraseology of the context. He adds, 
indeed, that " some of the ancient Translators seem to have 
had the same notion of the passage." Who these were, I can- 
not discover : but if it could be proved that their Greek MSS. 
had the present reading, their Versions would not, from so 
curious a specimen, rise in credit. — 'Yir^pd^is) most commonly 
in profane writers, and always in the LXX. governs an Accusa- 
tive : in the N, T. it is ctTiaS Xtyojucvov. 


V. 13. Tovg avOptvTTOvg. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) supposes 
that here the Jews are meant, on account of the Article : but 
see Matt. x. 17. where, however, Mr. Markland admits that 
his remark is not applicable to the Acts. 

V. 24. 'ATToXXiog ovofiaTL ^AXe^avdpsvg ri^ yivu, D. has 
yivti 'AXe^avSptvc '• but n^ yivu, at least in the N. T. is the 
usual form. It is not, however, a case in which unifonnity 
should be expected: for whether we say hy hirth or hy his 
birth f there will be no difference, except that the latter will be 
marked by unnecessary though allowable precision. 'Ovofian 

28S ACTS, 

so used, I think, never takes the Article, possibly because of 
the frequent occurrence of the word, which may have given it 
the more careless and colloquial form. This is one of the in- 
stances in which we may admit the force of custom without 
endangering the Philosophy of Language : where no principle 
is violated, custom and reason are not brought into competition; 
nor can the authorized latitude of the one be made an argu- 
ment against the rigorous restrictions of the other. 


V. 6. Tag X^^P"^' -^* ^^^ ^^^ others — rag. The Article 
is elsewhere inserted in this phrase, nor do I perceive why it 
should be here omitted. 

V. ^8. 'Eipaaiwv. A single MS. has nov : but this is wholly 
unnecessary : national appellations have in Regimen the same 
licence which is allowed to Proper Names. 

V. 29. (Tvyxvaeiog. A. and very many MSS. and Edd. 
have TTJg, and Griesbach admits it into the text. There may,, 
indeed, be a reference to what is related in the verse preced- 
ing: at the same time, if the Article be here to be inserted, 
it will be almost the only instance after a Verb of filling in the 
whole N. T. 


V. 9. £7rl TviQ dvQi^oQ, Euglish Version, " in a window." 
I think it may be inferred from the Article, that the vit^qwov 
had only one window. 

V. 11. apTov. A. C. D. a pr, manu, have tov. I do not 
know any reason for the insertion of the Article. The break- 
ing of bread seems not here to be meant of the Eucharist, but 
only of taking ordinary refreshment : and even where the Eu- 
charist is intended, as above, ver. 7. and elsewhere, aprov is 
without the Article ; for though the loaf used was only one, 
yet from the double meaning of aprog, a loaf and bread, it was 
not necessary to mark that circumstance. 

V. 13. lirX TO ttXoTov. No ship has been recently men- 
tioned : above, however, ver. 6. mention was made of sailing 
from Philippi : this, therefore, is the ship which was there 
implied, and in which St. Luke and his party performed their 


coasting voyage, touching at Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, 
Samos, TrogylHum, Miletus, Coos, Rhodes, and finishing at 
Patara : there they embark on board another vessel, a trader 
bound to Phoenicia. See next Chap. ver. 1. Michaelis in 
his Anmerk. adduces some plausible reasons to show that the 
ship here spoken of was one which Paul had hired, in 
order to have it entirely at the disposal of himself and his 

V. 22. ^fSfjulvoc r(5 irvevfiaTi. This, as Wolfius remarks, 
resembles <jvvdx^To tl^ irvEv/jLari above, xviii. 5. In both 
places I understand to Trvfujua, not of the Holy Spirit, but of 
the spirit or mind of Paul ; a sense in which rw irvivfiari fre- 
quently occurs, as John xiii. 21. Acts xviii. 25. et passim. 
Archbishop Newcome renders, "I go to be bound according 
to the Spirit," i. e. he says, " the Spirit foretelling that I 
shall be bound." I cannot help thinking this interpretation 
somewhat unnatural, nor am I aware that any parallel con- 
struction can be found in the N. T. 

V. 28. Tox) 0£ou. The Reader is probably aware of the 
variations with which this passage is perplexed. We find, be- 
sides TOX) Qeov, the reading of the received text, tov Kvpiov, 

TOV XpKTTOV, TOV KvplOV 0fOU, TOV GcOU Kttl KvpiOV, aud TOV 

Kvpiov Ka\ Oeov, in all, six readings. It is foreign from my 
purpose to examine minutely the relative degrees of probability 
which each of them may claim : this task, indeed, has already 
been performed by Wetstein and Griesbach, who decide in 
favour of tov Kvpiov. Since, however, two of these readings 
bring the text within the limits of the Canon revived by Mr. 
Granville Sharp, it may be right briefly to state the evidence 
by which they are all severally supported : and this I shall do 
in the words of Michaelis, (in his Anmerk.) with such addi- 
tional remarks as may be requisite. 

1. " The reading tov Qeov has hitherto been found in but 
few MSS. and among those none is of high, or even of con- 
siderable antiquity. It stands in the present Vulg. ; but some 
of the older Latin MSS. have tov Kvpiov, and it is not found 
in any other ancient Version whatever. If I were called upon 
to speak in its defence, I should say that the Copyists wished 
to avoid the strong expression of God's blood; and this they 
have done, some in one way, some in another : at the same 


^0 ACTS, 

time I confess, that on impartial attention to the evidence, I 
dare not adopt it as the true and genuine reading." The MSS. 
in which it is found, amount to fourteen ; and it is quoted or 
referred to by a great many of the Fathers. 

2. " Tov Kvpiov is found in several of the most ancient 
MSS. or other early documents; and, on v^^eighing the evi- 
dence, this will be preferred to the other readings. Plere 6 Kv- 
piog, as is usual in the N. T. is Christ : and thus not a syllable 
is said of his Eternal Godhead ; for as to the notion that thus 
the Divinity of Christ will be more strongly maintained, 6 Kv- 
piog being equivalent to Jehovah, it is a barefaced, and I may 
add, a dishonest attempt to employ an argument which has 
been long exploded. It is true, that the LXX. and others 
who followed them, render Jehovah in the O. T. by Kvpiog : 
but 6 KvptoQ spoken of Jesus in the N. T. has not this signifi- 
cation." If it be meant, that in the N. T. God is never called 
'O Kvpiog, this is a mistake : see James iv. 15. Luke i. 6 ; 
ii. 15. Acts iii. 20. I would not, however, willingly rest a 
doctrine of so much importance on equivocal evidence. In the 
O. T. this usage is not uncommon. — The authorities alluded 
to in support of this reading, are the MSS. A. C. D. E. and 
five others more modem, and the Copt, and Syr.-Philox. Yerss. 
with several of the Fathers. 

3. " Tov XptcTTov has less support than the preceding : and 
this, hke the former, afibrds no proof of the Divinity of Christ." 
It is found in no MS. whatever, but only in the Syr. and Erp.- 
Arab. Verss. and in a few of the Fathers : it appears, however, 
from Adler (Verss. Syr. p. 17.) that one MS. of the Peshito 
has TOV Qeov, What are the " plurimi Codd, Gradcif' which, 
as Adler says, (p. 18.) support the reading tov XpiaTov, I can- 
not conjecture : they were unknown to Wetstein, Matthai, 
and Griesbach. 

4. and 5. The two next readings have so little authority, 
that, as MichaeHs observes, they are scarcely worthy of notice. 

6. " Tov Kvpiov KOL Qeov is found in a very great multi- 
tude of MSS. If numbers," says Michaelis, " were to decide 
the question, this reading would be preferred ; but of the MSS. 
which contain it, none is of high antiquity." Of these MSS. 
one is in Uncial letters, viz. G. or Harl. 5684, preserved in 
the British Museum, It is also the readinof of the Edd, Com- 


plut. and Plant, and of the Slavon. Vers, and Theophylact. 
It is remarkable, and it could not be known to Wetstein, that 
all of Matthai's MSS. have this reading, even his Codex 1, 
wliich in the Acts usually differs from all the rest : this was 
the MS. alluded to above, on xvi. 7. The greater part of 
Alter 's have the same reading. 

These three last readings are supposed by Michaelis to have 
been compounded of the two first : but is it not just as pro- 
bable, that the two first may have arisen by dividing the read- 
ing rou Kuptov icat 0fou? The reading rov Kvpiov Gfou, 
which is in one MS. and in the Arab, of Walton's Polyglott, 
might very well, by the accidental omission of the Copulative, 
be the intermediate step ; for in that case subsequent Copyists, 
rightly observing that rou Kvpiov Qeov is a phrase unknown to 
the Writers of the N. T. and indeed to the LXX. who al- 
ways write KvpioQ 6 Qeog, judged one of the words to be 
superfluous : some, therefore, might retain Kvpiov, and some 

The remark, however, of Michaelis, with which I am most 
concerned, is, that the two last readings would not carry with 
them any proof of the Divinity of Christ ; for that the sub- 
joined expression " of his own blood," would then be referrible 
not to Gaov, but to Kvpiov, Now in the case of the fifth 
reading, tov Qeov koX Kvpiov, the most which can be admitted 
is, that there is an ambiguity arising from the uncertainty of 
the usage with respect to Kvpiog ; for if Christ be ever called 
Kvpiog without the Article, as he sometimes is, (see on Luke 
i. 15.) then it maybe contended that the newly revived Canon 
will not here necessarily apply : though it may be answered 
that KvpioQ without the Article so seldom means Christ, that 
the application of the Canon will not be at all -vdolent. How- 
ever, Michaelis appears not to have thought of this Canon: 
according, then, to his distinction between Kvpiog and o Kv- 
piog, if the former mean Jehovah, the reading in question will 
be tautological, for it wiU mean, " of God and Jehovah." It 
has, however, so little authority, that it is needless to inquire 
into its import. 

With regard, however, to tov Kvpiov koi Qeov, I can by no 
means admit, that if it be authentic, it affords no proof of 
the Divinity of Christ : on the contrary, it will establish this 

u 2 

292 ACTS, 

important point in a manner the most satisfactory. Allowing 
Michaelis to have been unacquainted with a Canon which once 
was well known and very generally adopted, it is still surpris- 
ing that he did not feel the extreme violence of making tov 
i^iov aifiarog refer to Kvpiov, the former of the two Nouns, 
by passing over Geou, the latter: and, I think, it may be 
maintained, that had not the writers of the numerous MSS. 
which exhibit this reading, understood Kvpiov and Qaov of one 
and the same person, most of them would infallibly have trans- 
posed the words, so as to make al/xa refer to the Noun imme- 
diately preceding. Their constant acquiescence in the other 
arrangement is a very strong presumption, supposing them to 
have understood what they wrote, (which I believe to have 
been the case with most of the Copyists of the Moscow MSS. 
as well as with many others,) that they perceived no awkward- 
ness in the structure, because they had no idea that tov Kvpiov 
Kal Qeov could be taken otherwise than of one person. As to 
the proof, that they ought so to be understood, I must refer 
the Reader to the First Part of this Work, where I have en- 
deavoured not only to exemplify the usage, but to develope 
the principle. I will, however, add, that I consider the phrase 
TOV Kvpiov KaX Qeov, if it be authentic, which is more than I 
maintain, to be among the best possible illustrations of the 
rule : why it is less exceptionable than tov Otov kol KvpioVf 
has already been hinted. 'O Oeog, though when it is uncon- 
nected it possesses, for a reason formerly assigned, the privi- 
lege of rejecting the Article, (wliich privilege, however, it 
exercises but rarely,) is in all cases of combination with other 
Nouns, subject to the rules which aifect the commonest Appel- 
lative : thus in Regimen we never find 6 vlog Gtou, 17 Hprivrj 
Geov, &c. but TOY Oeov : so also it is always 'O 0eoc kol 
TraTTip, not Otoe. The rule respecting 6 Qeog plainly is, that 
its privilege of rejecting the Article shall in no wise inter- 
fere with the usage common in other cases. It is, therefore, 
indisputable, that if there be authority for admitting the read- 
ing, Mr. Sharp is right in understanding the phrase of one 
person. His proposed rendering of kol by even is, indeed, 
erroneous ; because it is in direct opposition to the principle 
on which the truth of the rule depends. Kai is in all such 
instances no other than the common Copulative, so that the 

CHAFrER XX. 293 

sense will here be, " of Him being (or who is) both Lord and 
God." It may be replied, however, that Mr. Sharp had 
nothing to do with the principle, and was concerned only with 
the fact. . 

It is obvious, that if the reading tov Qeov of the received 
text be authentic, the passage will still afford a proof of the 
Divinity of Christ ; for the name God will then be applied to 
Him, who in the next verse is said to have purchased the 
Church with his own blood. Yet where is the inference which 
may not be evaded by hmuan ingenuity ? 

rioXAa ra ^eiva, Kovdlv av- 
Opuyirov deivoTtpov iriXei, 

Mr. Wakefield has a Note which may amuse the Reader ; and 
the little amusement which I can procure for him, I feel that I 
ought not to withhold. After having preferred tov Qeov, which, 
considering his bias, must excite surprise till the mystery is 
explained, and having stated that Griesbach's testimony re- 
specting the ^thiopic Version is " infamously false" Mr. W. 
thus proceeds to comment on his own rendering of tov l^iov 
cLifiaTOQ : 

" His own son : literally, his own blood: but, as this expres- 
sion could answer no good purpose, and would unavoidably 
lead those unacquainted mth \he phraseology of these languages 
into erroneous doctrines and impious conceptions of the Deity, 
I could not justify myself in employing it in this place. So 
blood is used for man in xvii. 26. and Matt, xxvii. 4. So 
Homer l\, Z. 211. 

" 1avTr\Q TOL yEveriQ re Kat AIMATOS tv^Ojuat uvau 
AIMA <TO(pov ^oifdoio, Kai eviraXafxaio Kvpijvij^, 

" says Nonnus D. lib. v. p. 152. and the scholiast on Eur. Crest, 
1239, says AIMA ^e ol IIAIAES, yevoq ol aBe\(poL, (rvyyevua 
oi yafi^pot. And Virgil JEn. vi. 836, 

" Projice tela manu, sanguis meus ! 

" See farther Davies on Cicero de finn. i. 10. note 2. This 
is well kno\vn, and supplies the most easy and obvious inter- 
pretation of this most disputed passage. See also Mr. Hen- 
ley s Note in the Appendix to Boivyers Criticisms, who first 

294 ACTS, 

excited in my mind the notion of this acceptation, and to 
whom, therefore, the entire applause justly due to this excel- 
lent solution of so great a difficulty, ought in all reason to be 
given. If no passage of the N. T. quite parallel can ^e found, 
we should recollect that Luke is an elegant writer, and does 
not confine himself to the narrow limits of Hebrew phraseology , 
as might be shown by many instances." 

The Note of Dr. Henley *s referred to by Mr. W. is as 
follows : 

" ^la Tov I'^iov AIMATOS. An expression explanatory of 
alfiarog occurs in TibuUus, lib. i. 1. p. 72. 

" Te semper, natamque tuam te propter, amabo, 
Quicquid agit, sanguis est tamen ilia tuus. 

" But there is one still more analogous in the Alexander of 
Lucian, ed. Reitz. tom. ii. p. 225 : 

" EI/jX r\vK(ji)Vf TpiTov AIM A Aiog, ^aoc avOpdnroimy 

To whom the merit of this notable contrivance properly 
belongs, I shall not inquire : it may, possibly, be Dr. Hen- 
ley's ; or if any other Critic should assert his claim to it. Dr. 
Henley's high reputation may very well spare " the entire 
applause :" perhaps, indeed, he feels the justice of Mr. W.'s 
acknowledgment quite as much as the generosity. Mr. W. 
has undertaken to defend the " excellent solution;" and he 
cannot be suspected, here at least, of prevarication, I mean in 
the Latin sense of that word : yet what has he been able to 
establish? only that aOwov atfia has been used of blood imjustly 
shed, (which, by the way, is the blood spoken of in the pre- 
sent passage,) and that God has of one blood made all the 
nations of the earth. But then Luke was " an elegant writer :" 
at this rate he, or rather St. Paul, must have been to liis hearers 
a perfect barbarian ; for it is almost impossible that they should 
have understood him ; because the very mention of doing any 
thing " by his own blood" must have directed their minds to 
the sacrifice made by Christ, the efficacy of whose blood was 
an idea extremely familiar to the fu'st Christians, whatever 
it may be to those of the present day ; so familiar, that the 
phrase Sat tov l^iov alfiarog otherwise applied could not but 


have misled them. A few of the passages in which mention is 
made of Christ's blood are, Rom. iii. 25 ; v. 9. Ephes. i. 7 ; 
ii. 13. Col. i. 14. and in Heb. ix. 12. and xiii. 12. we find the 
very phrase, dia rov Idiov alfiaTog, plainly intended, though 
not more plainly than in the present verse, of the sacrifice 
made by Christ. Besides, in what part of Scripture do we 
find the Son of God, so often mentioned, called the blood of 
God ? and is it not to the full as revolting to all human notions 
(for they, as it should seem, are alone to be regarded) to im- 
pute hlood to the Father, as Divinity to the Son ? I agree 
with Mr. Wakefield in thinking that such a translation might 
lead men into " erroneous doctrines and impious conceptions 
of the Deity," unless the context made it evident that God in 
this place could mean only God the Son : yet if this be really 
the language of Scripture, if God and Blood be so associated, 
why is it to be concealed by a false rendering, and then ac- 
knowledged in a Note, which the majority of Mr. Wakefield's 
Readers will never examine, deterred by its learned aspect ? 
Has Christianity its exoteric teaching for the vulgar, and its 
esoteric for the advantage of the few, who possess the erudition 
of the late Mr. Wakefield ? *'Apa ttqoq Xapirtov 7rav(TO(^6c rig 
^v 6 UpojTayopag, koI tovto rifxXv jjiev yvi^aro t(^ ttoXXc^ <tvq- 
^erw, Toig ^e. jxadr]Ta1g Iv airoppriTtf) rrjv a\r}6uav eXeye. 

I know not whether it be in consequence of being acquainted 
with the discovery said to have been made by Dr. Henley, that 
Michaelis mentions this very rendering, as one of the ways by 
which the inference from the common reading may be evaded 
by the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. The same Writer 
suggests another mode of avoiding this stumbHng-block ; one 
which is in all respects as " excellent" as the former, and is just 
as defensible by an appeal to the language of Scripture : it is 
that of translating Sia tov l^iov aluarog " by the blood of his 
own (Son):" and it is added that several of the oldest MSS. 
place the Adjective after the Substantive, reading rov aljuaTog 
TOV iSiovy (as in to irvivfia to ayiov, &c.) a circumstance by 
which this construction is supposed to be somewhat favoured. 
Wliether, indeed, TibuUus or Virgil will in this case supply 
any thing parallel, is a question which I forbear to examine. 

206 ACTS, 


V. 4. Tovg fiaOr\Tag. English Version has simply, " find- 
ing disciples." Many MSS. and Editt. omit the Article : 
among the MSS. are six of Matthai's, including the best. 

V. 6. ilg TO ttXolov. Michaelis is of opinion, that when the 
ship in which St. Paul sailed from Patara to Tyre had un- 
laden her cargo, he hired it, in order to make a day's voyage 
to Ptolemais. The Article seems to strengthen this conjec- 

V. 8. Tov ovTOQ. A very great number of MSS. and Editt. 
— TOV. Since it had not been already said that Philip was one 
of the Seven, there can be little doubt that the Article should 
be rejected, as it is by both Wetstein and Griesbach ^ 


V. 14. TOV ^Uaiov. See above, vii. 52. 

V. 25. ToTg Ifxacnv. The Article is not here without mean- 
ing : there is reference to the thongs or cords usually employed 
for this purpose. 


V. 5. oTL £(tt\v apx^^P^^^- Ananias had just before been 
called 6 apx^epevg : still the Article in this place, whichever of 
the proposed interpretations be the true one, is necessarily 
omitted. Our English Version understands St. Paul to say, 
that he knew not that Ananias was the High Priest : Light- 
foot adduces reasons why the Apostle might affirm that he 
knew not that there was then any High Priest. Michaelis 
supports the former opinion, and shows that from particular 
circumstances St. Paul might very easily be ignorant of the 
dignity which Ananias had assumed ^ 

^ But see Chap. vi. 5. Whereas, if the Article be omitted, it will be more natu- 
rally rendered, *^ Since he was one of the seven." — J. S. Winer concurs in 
this remark. — H. J. R. 

^ V. 6. To ev fispos Iffrl 'ZadSovKaiwv. Compare this with Mark xii. 27. In 
both, as the Predicate would be the same word as the Subject, it is omitted. See 
too Gal. iii. 20. and the note on Col. ii. 17- Compare also Horn. iii. 29; ix. 9. 
1 Cor. xiv. 33. and perhaps Eph. ii. 8. — H. J. R. 


V. 8. TO. aix<^6TiQa, Mr. Harris^ in his Hermes, p. 2^6, 
observes, after Apollonius, that we cannot say in Greek 01 
a/KpoTEpoij nor in English, he adds, the both. This is one of 
the instances in which these profound Grammarians appear to 
be mistaken on the subject of the Greek Article : we find it 
prefixed to a/KfiOTepoL no less than three times in Ephes. ii. 14. 
16. 18. So also Plato, vol. ii. p. 180. TA a/uLipoTepa ytvwaKei, 
It is true, that we cannot in EngHsh say the both ; but we can 
say they or them bothy or both of thevi, which is precisely the 
meaning of 01 afi(l)6T£poi, or TA aiuL<l)6T£pa, in the text. The 
reason assigned why a/iKporepoL and both reject the Article is, 
that they are in themselves " sufficiently defined :" but to 
define is not, strictly speaking, the use of the Greek Article. 
Harris, however, sets out on this principle ; and it is the source 
of most of the mistakes which follow. But of this enough has 
been said in Part I. — The two things referred to are the Re- 
surrection and the Existence of Immaterial Beings, for rrvevfjia 
and ayyeXog are considered as falhng under the same head. 
It has, indeed, been supposed that afK^orepa may, by Writers 
who are not very attentive to correctness, be used of things 
which are more than two : but of this I have seen no example. 
Mr. Wakefield understands the passage in the same way with 

V. 9. ot ypanfiaTug, A great number of Wetstein's MSS. 
though not any in Uncial letters, omit the Article : so also do 
the best of Matthai's. Griesbach prefixes the mark of possible 
spuriousness, and not without reason. Several MSS. instead of 
ol ypaiJifiareXg, have rivlg rwv ypafi/jLaritjjv, which was evidently 
the marginal illustration of some one who wished to show that 
ypafiimaruQ, which he found in his copy without the Article, 
signified some scribes. This is one of many instances in which 
the MSS. written in small characters, appear to have preserved 
the true reading, where the Uncial MSS. have lost it: nor is 
this surprising, since it is not at all improbable that some of 
the former may be Lineally descended, that is, be copies of 
copies, from MSS. much older than any which now exist. 
The lectiones singulares, observable in some of the less ancient 
MSS., where they are neither mistakes of the Transcriber, nor 
apparent corrections, can scarcely be accounted for on any 
other hypothesis. The deference, therefore, which is usually 

298 ACTS, 

paid to the Uncial MSS. may in some instances be unmerited : 
at least it may be affirmed, that the evidence of A. B. C. D. 
E. &;c. is not so decisive as to supersede further inquiry. 


V. 14. T(^ 7rarp(j5<j) Q^t^. It is worthy of remark, that the 
Editt. of Erasmus f and after him of Colin, and Bogard, have 
Ti^ iraTpM^y TQi Qem. This reading is so faulty, that I cannot 
believe it to have been found in any MS. : in that case it was, 
probably, one of the corrections of Erasmus, a curious speci- 
men of the philological skill of so learned a man. See Part i. 
Chap. viii. § 2. 

V. 15. ^iKaitJv re kol aStKwv. An English Reader might 
here expect TON ^iKaitov : but see Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 2S, Ti^ tKarovTCLpxiJ' English Version and Newcome, 
" to a centurion." I need hardly observe, that this must be 
wrong. Mr. Wakefield translates the Article, but without any 
remark. It may be shown, I think, that the Article here, as 
elsewhere, has its meaning. It will be recollected, that in the 
preceding Chapter, ver. 23. the Chief Captain, or x^^tapx^^' 
called unto him two Centurions, and ordered them with a body 
of horse and foot to escort Paul to Cesarea. Having arrived 
at Antipatris, (ver. S2.) the infantry return to Jerusalem, and 
leave the prisoner in custody of the cavalry, who conduct him 
to Felix. It is plain, therefore, that the Centurion here 
spoken of as a person known to the Reader, was no other than 
the Commander of the Horse, who had the sole charge of Paul, 
after the Captain of Infantry, who made part of the escort as 
far as to Antipatris, had returned to Jerusalem. That Felix 
should remand Paul to the same Officer who had brought him 
to Cesarea, is the conduct we should expect. The fidelity of 
this Centurion had been tried, and might therefore be trusted. 


V. 26. Tw Kupitj). This is the only passage in the N. T. in 
which we find 6 Kupdoc applied to the Roman Emperor : in- 
stances of this early usage of the title are at least uncommon. 
See SpanJieim de Freest, Numism. vol. ii. p. 483. 



V. 30. aviart) 6 (^aaiXevg kol 6 rijEjuKLv, All the MSS. 
rightly insert the second Article, two different persons being 
here intended. The same care has been observed in the 11 th 
verse of the next Chapter. 


V. 9. Trjv vTjo-re/av. Two or three different, but wholly 
needless and unsupported, conjectures have been proposed in 
place of the reading of all the MSS. The vr](TTeia here men- 
tioned, as is now generally admitted, is the Day of Expiation, 
the great Fast on the 10th of the month Tisri. See Lewis's 
Heh. Antiq, vol. ii. p. 569. The 10th of Tisri is, according to 
Micliaelis, about the 10th of our October; and consequently, 
if the great Fast was now past, the season of the year could 
not well be favourable to navigation. The objection of Mark- 
land (ap. Bowyer,) that a Heathen would take no notice of a 
Jewish Fast, is wholly inexplicable : it is not said or insinuated 
that the Alexandrian Mariners did take any notice of the 
vr}(TT£ia : the remark is made by St. Luke, to whom, as a Jew, 
or at least a person much acquainted with Jewish habits, the 
mention of the Fast was a natural and obvious mode of mark- 
ing the time of the year : and to say that " rrjv vrj^rdav must 
be something which increased the danger of saihng, to which 
the Fast of the Jews has no more relation than Circumcision 
has," would certainly, had it proceeded from any man less 
eminent than Markland, be thought ridiculous. The Poets 
represent the stormy season as beginning soon after the rising 
oi Hcedif or the setting oi Arcturus : yet it never was seriously 
supposed, that the rising or setting of a star produced a storm. 
— In short, few texts of the N. T. appear to be less difficult 
than the present : and yet he who should read Markland's 
Note without attending to the passage, would suppose it to 
be corrupted beyond the possibility of restitution. The same 
Fast, as Loesner has shown, is adverted to by Philo de Vita 
Mosisj whence we may collect, that it was commonly called 
The Fast Kar t^oxvv : his words are tijv Xeyofiivrtv i/ijarctav. 



Besides, as MichaeUs observes, it was the only Fast in the 
whole year of Divine appointment. 

V. 16. TriQ (TKCKftrig. On this passage a Criticism of mine 
appeared, many years ago, in one of the periodical publications 
of the day : it is to the following effect. 

The learned Michaelis has established it as a rule, that criti- 
cal conjectures are not to be admitted into the sacred text ; and 
yet he confesses that some emendations have forced themselves 
upon him, which, in a profane author, he should not hesitate to 
adopt. One of these proposed readings (vid. Marsh's Michaelis, 
vol. ii. p. 406) respects Acts, Chap, xxvii. ver. 16. N?j<t(ov Si 
Ti vTrodpajuovTeg KoXovfievov KXau8»jv, fjLoXig la^vaafiiv wepi- 
Kpariig yiiviaQai rijc tTKo^r/c, where the Critic would reject the 
Article from ri}c (T»ca<^T]c, because it implies that they had be- 
fore let down the boat into the sea, and had afterwards great 
difficulty in recovering it. " This," says he, " is improbable ; 
because, 1st. No reason can be assigned why they should have 
let it down into the sea in a storm. 2dly. If they had let it 
down, they would have been able to draw it up again ; unless 
we suppose, what is contrary to reason, they had let it entirely 
loose. 3dly. Supposing the boat to have been loose, it does not 
appear that the circumstance of the ship's being near an island, 
has any coimexion with the recovery of this boat. I would 
therefore omit the definite Article, and explain the passage 
thus : Being near an island, we sought for help, but could not 
procure a boat to our assistance." Thus far Michaelis. 

Now, in the first place, to say nothing farther of this con- 
struction, it is impossible to adopt it, because p-oXig i(T)(y(Tafiev, 
K. T. X. must signify, we found a difficulty in gaining the boat, 
and not that we could not procure a boat at all : so fioKig is 
twice used in this very Chapter, ver. 7, 8. But, secondly, a very 
easy and obvious supposition will remove all the objections 
urged by the Professor against the acknowledged reading of 
the MSS. St Luke is describing the storm, in which St. Paul 
at last suffered shipwreck ; and it is well known that the boat, 
with every thing on deck, is frequently washed overboard by 
the violence of the waves. This seems to have happened in 
the voyage of St. Paul ; and as the sea was running high, ^oXig 
properly expresses the difficulty of regaining the boat. To the 
objections, therefore, of MichaeKs, I would answer, with respect 


to the first and the second, that the boat was not purposely let 
down into the sea, and that notliing of that kind is implied ; 
but that it had broken loose : and to the third, that the cir- 
cumstance of the ship's being near an island, was not intended 
to have any other connexion with the recovery of the boat, 
than, in the following sentence, the vicinity of a promontory 
has with the loss of a mast : " Being a league S. W. of the 
Lizard, our foremast went by the board :" the mention of place, 
no less than of time, is essential to the accuracy of a journal. 

V. 20. /x?)r€ 7'Atov jUTiTC, jc. r. X. Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 38. rpo^^c. A few MSS. rijc rpo<^?)c. There may be 
reference to former mention : but see on xix. 29. 


V. 4. i] At'fcjj. No MS. wants the Article. See Part i. 
Chap. V. Sect. i. § 2. 

302 ROMANS, 



V. 4. vlov Qeov, Mr. Wakefieldj as usual, avails himself of 
the absence of the Article, not considering that by the usage 
the Article could not be here inserted. Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 2. Neither does the context very well accord with 
his Translation ; for if the meaning be merely that Christ was 
shown to be a Son of God, (a term explained by St. Paul in 
this Epistle, Chap. viii. 14.) surely Christ's " miraculous resur- 
rection from the dead" was a much stronger instance of Divine 
interposition than the occasion required. 

We are told (ap. Bowyer) that opiaOivrog is supposed by 
some to be a gloss from the margin : I see no pretence for this 
suspicion ; which must be unfounded, since tov vlov Qeov would 
oiTend against Regimen. 

V. 17. SiKaio(7vvri yap Qeov, It may be right in this place 
to apprise the Reader, that the style of St. Paul, in respect to 
the Article, as well as otherwise, somewhat differs fi'om that 
of the Evangelists. It was to be expected, from the general 
vehemence and quickness of his manner, that he would, in the 
use of the Article, adopt a mode of expression the most remote 
from precision and formality, which the Greek idiom admits. 
Dion. Hal. in his description of what he calls the austere style, 
among many other remarks distinguished by nice discrimina- 
tion, observes, that it is oXtyoo-vvSccr/xoc, 'ANAP0POS; see 
de Comp. Verb. § 22. and these, perhaps, are not the only 
characters of that style, as represented by Dionysius, which are 
applicable to the language of St. Paul. In the Evangelists, as 
has been noticed, there are a few instances in which Qtog is 
without the Article, but in the Epistles of St. Paul such 


instances occur very frequently ; and hence, in conformity witli 
the rule of Regimen, we meet with so many expressions similar 
to that in question : so opyrj Qiov in the next verse : so also 
'H ^acTiXda TOY Qeov, the phrase which is every where used 
in the Gospels and Acts, sometimes in the Epistles rejects 
both the Articles. Other examples, in which the Apostle has 
preferred the anarthrous form, will be noticed in the sequel. 

V. 21. Tov Qwv ovx wg Qeov. Here the second Qeov 
necessarily refuses the Article, the sense in such cases requir- 
ing us to supply ovx ^^^ {ovra) Qeov. 

CHAP. ir. 

V. 13. TOV vofjiov, bis» It is remarkable, that A. D. G. and 
two others, in each place omit tov : but it is more remarkable 
that Griesbach has prefixed to each his mark of probable spuri- 
ousness : for the form ot oKpoarat vojuou, as I have repeatedly 
observed, is not admissible. It was, however, I imagine, in- 
ferred that the context here did not allow the mention of the 
Mosaic Law, which the presence of the Article might seem to 
imply ; and hence the omission of the Article was originally 
the correction of some one who knew not the Greek usage, 
and moreover, as I think, misconceived the sense of the pas- 
sage. It must, indeed, be admitted, that there is scarcely in 
the whole N. T. any greater difficulty than the ascertaining of 
the various meanings of vofxog in the Epistles of St. Paul. In 
order to show that, " by the Gospel alone men can be justi- 
fied, and that the Mosaic Revelation is in this respect of no 
more avail than is the Light of Nature," a proposition, the 
proof of which is the main object of the whole Epistle, he has 
occasion to refer to the dififerent Rules of Life with which the 
Gentiles and Jews had respectively been furnished: to the 
latter, more than one Revelation had been granted ; for from 
the earliest ages to the time of Malachi, the Almighty favoured 
them, through the Patriarchs and Prophets, with repeated in- 
dications of his will. Hence vo^iog is used by St. Paul of every 
Rule of Life, of every Revelation, especially of the Mosaic 
Law, and even of the moral and ceremonial observances, one 
or both of which it is the object of every vo^iog to inculcate. 
The various senses, then, of this word are calculated to pro- 

304 ROMANS, 

duce perplexity, especially since, as will be seen, there are 
passages in which more than one meaning of the word will 
accord with the tenor of the argument. It had, indeed, very 
early been remarked, that where the Law, as promulgated in 
the Pentateuch, is spoken of, and even where the whole body 
of the Jewish Scriptures is meant, there voiuog for the most 
part, though not without exception, has the Article prefixed. 
See Macknight on Rom. ii. \2, and on vii. 1. Now it is 
obvious, that were this rule without exception^ an important 
step would be gained ; for at least we should know, when the 
Jewish Law is meant by the Apostle, which is now so often, 
even among the best Commentators, a subject of dispute : but 
if there be exceptions, and these have no certain character, 
then plainly they destroy the rule, and it is on account of these 
exceptions that the rule seems now to be pretty generally 
abandoned. My observation, however, has led me to conclude, 
that the rule is liable to no other exceptions than those by 
which, as has been showTi in this work, words the most definite 
are frequently affected. For example, we have in this Epistle, 
vii. 7. Sta vofxov, where, as is rightly contended, the whole 
tenor of the passage requii'es us to interpret vojxov of the Law 
of Moses. Here, then we have an exception, which, no doubt, 
has with some others been thought to invalidate the rule ; as 
unquestionably it would, if it were not an example of an 
anomaly which every where prevails; Part i. Chap. vi. § !• 
As it is, the Law of Moses may there be meant, and the con- 
text shows that vofxov cannot be otherwise interpreted : but 
this is not to be regarded as an instance in which the Mosaic 
Law is called simply vo/ioCi because the omission of the Article 
may be accounted for. And similar reasoning may be employed 
in behalf of the other places, where the Law kut l^oxnv may 
appear to be called simply vofxog : in all such, if I mistake not, 
the Article is omitted by some licence allowed in like circum- 
stances to all words, however definitely meant, and of which the 
limits have already been ascertained. How far this may be 
true, will be seen as we proceed. 

It is scarcely necessary to observe, that our EngHsh Version, 
by having almost constantly said " the Law," whatever be the 
meaning of vofiog in the original, has made this most difficult 
Epistle still more obscure : for the English Reader is used to 


understand the term of the Law of Moses, as in the Evange- 

With respect to the passage under review, I am of opinion, 
that by tov vofxov the Law kut t^oxnv is meant, though it 
must be confessed that the purpose of the Apostle would not 
be altogether defeated, if the word were here used in a less 
restricted sense. I understand, however, with Macknight and 
Whithyf that the Apostle means to reprove the presumption of 
the Jews, who thought themselves sure of eternal life, because 
God had favoured them with a Revelation of his Will : in 
wliich case the reasoning ^vill be, As many as have sinned 
without a Revelation, shall be punished without incurring the 
additional penalties which such a Revelation would have en- 
acted : and as many as have sinned under a Revelation, shall 
suffer the severer punishment which that Revelation, whatever 
it be, has denounced against their crimes. If it be thought 
strange, says St. Paul, that such indulgence should be shown 
the former class of persons, I will add, that not the hearers 
ei'en of the Law itself, but, &c. Besides that the other inter- 
pretation would have required iiK^oaToi vofiov, this turn is 
more forcible, and more in the manner of St. Paul. The verse 
following seems also to prove that tov vo/uov in the present is 
so to be understood: for the Apostle subjoins, For when Gen- 
tiles, who have not any Revelation, practise, by a natural im- 
pulse, morality as pure as that which even the Mosaic Law 
enjoins, though they have not actually a Revelation, they 
become a Revelation to themselves, and may, therefore, hope 
for all the rewards of virtue, which an actual Revelation would 
have taught them to expect. And the same argument, with 
the same attention to the use of the Article, is prosecuted to 
the end of the chapter. 

V. 17. Tcf vofit^). Here Griesbach, on the authority of A. 
B. D. and a few others, prefixes to no the mark of probable 
spuriousness. Thus, it is true, we shall not, as in the former 
instance, have questionable Greek ; and the reasoning will be 
consistent, if the Apostle be made to say to the Jew, " Thou 
restest on a Revelation," instead of 07i the Law : the received 
reading is, however, more pointed and direct, and the authority 
for altering it is so trifling, as to be of no avail, even supposing 
the sense either way to be equally good. Griesbach might 


306 ROMANS, 

possibly be influenced by observing that the Article is wanting 
in tv vofMCi), ver. 23. but from this nothing can be inferred, 
because of the Preposition, 

V. 25. vofiov Trpatrayg. Here it is plain, that by voijlov 
without the Article we are to understand, not the Law itself, 
(nor indeed would Trpao-o-ftv TON vo/liov be very intelligible,) 
but moral obedience or virtue, such as it was the object of the 
Law to inculcate, and of which Circumcision was the outward 
and visible sigTi. Thus in the next verse, instead of voiuov, we 
have, in the same sense, to. ^iKaid)fxaTa tov vojulov. We have 
also, 1 Mace. ii. 2L vo/iov KaX Stfcatwjuara, where vojulov is used 
as it is here by St. Paul. So also Sirac. xxxiii. 2, 3 ; xxxv. I. 
The same explanation will serve for vojuov below, ver. 27. 

V. 27. o-E TOV Sm, k:. t. A. See below, 1 Cor. xiv. 9 \ 


V. IL 6 avvLioVi 6 k^Tjrwv. The former Article is omitted 
in A. B. G. and the latter in B. G. Though we have for the 
omission of the Articles the authority of only a few MSS. I 
am disposed to prefer the reading which those MSS. exhibit. 
See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § L Thus we have immedi- 
ately afterwards ovk fort Trotwv, one MS. only reading 6, pro- 
bably a correction for the sake of uniformity. The quotation 
is from Ps. xiv. 1 — 3. and from Ps. liii. 1 — 3. on turning to 
which I find that the Articles are every where omitted. I 
have, indeed, above, on Luke ix. 60. quoted from the LXX. 
OVK iariv 6 OawTiov' which, however, differs from the present 
instances in expressing an occupation. 

V. 20. £$ epywv vofiov. The absence of the Article proves 
nothing in this place as to the meaning of vofiov. Part i. 

* V. 27. It will appear from the note on 1 Cor. xiv. 9. that the Bisliop allows 
Mr. Wakefield's explanation, i. e. that he would take av 6 Sid ypdfifiaTog for tu 
literatus, i. e. qui literam vel legem Mosaicam profiteris. When we look to the 
original, we can have little doubt of this, for 77 Ik tpixretoQ aKpofSixTTia, in the first 
clause, is opposed to trk tov did •ypdfifiarog Kai TrtpirofiriQ, in the second. But 
the Apostle, as is usual with him, is led into a form contrasting in senscy not in 
words, with the former. Gersdorf (rightly) explains the sentence to be, <t6 tov 
Sid y. K. TT. ovTa^ Trapa(3dTr}v vofiov dvai. 

Winer rightly says, that as TeXovtra has not the Article, it is here truly 
participial, and does not serve for definition. If it fulfils the /«w.— H. J. R. 


Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. Rosenmuller says, that it signifies the 
wliole Law as revealed to the Jews, and contained in the O. T. ; 
and Michaelis is of the same opinion. But this explanation 
appears to me to fall short of the Apostle's argument. It is 
his purpose to show that no man whatever can be justified by 
the works either of the Jewish Ju2iVf or of any other : iraaa cFap^^ 
like 6 KofTfiog in the preceding verse, cannot but be understood 
universally; and what follows, Bia yap vofiov liriyvwaiQ ajuap- 
Tiag, is also plainly an universal Proposition. MacJmight here 
takes vofxoQ in the same sense that I do ; though his reasoning 
is somewhat different. In the next verse, X'^P^C vofiov is well 
explained by Macknight to signify " without perfect moral 
obedience.'' See above on ii. 25. But in this very verse, 
where the Law, meaning the Pentateuch, is mentioned, we 
have vTTo rov vofiov, 

V. 25. iXa(TTi]piov. The Article which is found in G. is 
inadmissible by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 31. vojuLov. Here vofxog without the Article must be 
taken in the sense of moral obedience, as is plain from the con- 
text; for it is opposed to faith. Few texts of Scripture, 
rightly understood, are more important. Our own Version, 
from a cause which has been already noticed, does not place in 
the clearest light the truth herein taught. 


V. 4. TO o(^ii\.r)na. Wetstein and Griesbach reject the Ar- 
ticle. It is wanting in a great majority of the MSS. and how 
it found its way into any, it is not easy to discover. 

V. 11 . Traripa. Article wanting by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 


V. 13. Tov KOGfxov. Several MSS. omit rov : Griesbach re- 
jects it. The omission may certainly be vindicated by Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7 : but it is by no means necessary to 
deviate from the received text. Matthias MSS. all retain the 

CHAP. v. 

V. 13. axpi vof^iov. Here, as in an instance already noticed 
on ii. 13. vofiov is equivalent to tov vofjiov, but the Article is 


308 ROMANS, 

omitted on account of the Preposition. So also Iv Koff/mo is tv 

V. 15. Tov hoQi the one mentioned in the preceding verse, 
viz. Adam. By tov kvog avOpwirov, in the same verse, there 
is reference to Him, who had just before been called tov 

V. 20. vofJLog Sf 7rap£L(Tr}\6ev. Locke, RoseiimuUer , Schleus- 
ner, and Michaelis, and indeed most of the Commentators, 
understand this of the J^?cw of Moses : in which case it must 
be admitted, that the rejection of the Article is not here au- 
thorized by any of the Canons. Macknight, however, has a 
different explanation of the passage. He well contends, that 
TrapH(Tr\\Qtv cannot be said of the Law of Moses, since it signi- 
fies " entered privily," as in Galat. ii. 4. the only instance, 
besides the present, in which the word occurs in the whole 
N. T. So also the similarly compounded words Trapffo-ayw, 
2 Pet. ii. 1 ; waouGaKTovq, Galat. ii. 4 ; Trapcfo-Svw, Jude ver. 4. 
But the Mosaic Law was ushered into the world with all pos- 
sible pomp and notoriety : Macknight, therefore, understands 
vofJLog of the Law of Nature : he asks, " Can any one with 
Locke imagine, that no offence abounded in the world which 
could be punished with death, till the Law of Moses was pro- 
mulgated? And that grace did not superabound, till the 
offence against the Law abounded ? The Apostle himself 
affirms, Rom. i. 30. that the Heathens, by the light of nature, 
knew not only the Law of God, but that persons who sinned 
against that Law, were worthy of death. The offence, there- 
fore, abounded long before the Law of Moses entered. For 
these reasons, I conclude that tlw Law which silently entered, 
the moment Adam and Eve were reprieved, was the Law of 
Nature : and its taking place, the Apostle very properly ex- 
pressed by its entering ; because if Adam and Eve had been 
put to death immediately after they sinned, the law of man's 
nature would have ceased with the species. But they being 
respited from immediate death, and having a new trial ap- 
pointed them, by the sentences recorded Gen. iii. 15, 16, 17. 
the law of their nature took place anew, or entered silently into 
the world." Perhaps, however, in such cases vopog had best 
be rendered, a Rule of Life : this exactly accords with Mack- 
night's notion, for in his Commentary he says, " Law secretly 

CHAFfER VI. 309 

entered into the world as the rule of man's conduct ;" and such 
a rendering would be more generally intelligible than the 
term Laio^ to which the English Reader annexes no very pre- 
cise idea. 

Same v. to TrapaTrrw/ia, and in the next verse, 17 afiaQTia, 
are supposed by Wetsteiii to express kut i^o\riv the wicked- 
ness of the Jews, as being more heinous than that of the Gen- 
tiles. I am afraid that this explanation is without authority 
from the use of the Article in similar instances, and is also 
foreign from the purport of the argument. By to irapaTrTwfxa 
I understand the offence of Adam already spoken of, the con- 
sequences of which were more and more visible in the corrup- 
tion of liis posterity. 'H ajiaoTia is sin universally : Macknight 
thinks that it is here personified : in either case, the Article is 
properly inserted, though in the anarthrous style of St. Paul, 
the latter usage is not always observed. 


V. 13. oTrXa adiKiag, and so also oTrXa ^iKaioavvt^g. Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 14 and 15. vtto vo/ulov. Here again, I believe, we must 
desert the multitude of Commentators, and interpret the pas- 
sage with Macknight, whose " Translation of the Epistles" has 
contributed more largely to our Theological knowledge, than 
perhaps any other exegetical work which appeared in this 
country during the last century.. It is true, that if by viro 
VO/ULOV we understand the law of Moses, the argument will be 
coherent with respect to the Jews; but it ought to be re- 
marked, that the design of the Apostle is far more comprehen- 
sive, and that he means to contrast the nature of all Law, i. e, 
of every Rule of life, which offers neither mediation nor atone- 
ment, and consequently makes no provision for the inevitable 
weakness of man, with Grace, i. e. with a gracious dispensa- 
tion, which requires not an unsinning obedience, but only the 
best exertions of frail creatures, giving assurance of pardon 
through Faith, where our obedience has been imperfect. 

310 ROMANS, 


V. 1 . yiyvtj(TK0V(Ti yap voimov. Macknight appears to doubt 
whetlier by vofiov we are here to understand the Mosaic Law, 
or Law generally : the absence of the Article inclines him to 
the latter interpretation, though he thinks that the Apostle's 
reasoning in this Chapter admits either of them. My own 
notion of the passage is, that St. Paul here addresses his 
Readers with some degree of rhetorical complaisance. He 
might, indeed, have said merely, that they knew tov vojuov, 
the Mosaic Law ; for the greater part of them, probably, had 
not extended their view to the imperfection which must belong 
to every Dispensation not providing an Atonement. He takes 
it, however, for granted, that they had made a general appli- 
cation from their own particular experience ; and the design 
of the Epistle (see on ii. 13.) led him to speak, directly or 
indirectly, of the imperfection of all the possible schemes of 
salvation which afforded not a Redeemer. 

V. 7. §m vofjiov. This has already been considered on ii. 13. 
Macknight, though he admits that this can be understood only 
of the Mosaic Law, translates indefinitely " through Law :" 
he was, probably, unacquainted with the licence allowed after 

V. 13. aXX y] afiapTia/iva (pavy ufxapria. English Version, 
" but sin, that it might appear sin." Macknight, " but sin 
(hath become death) that sin might appear." Here this excel- 
lent Translator deviates from the Common Version, not only 
without reason, but in neglect of a plain distinction arising 
from the omission of the Article before the second ajjapria. 
Had the Apostle meant to make this the Nominative before 
0av^, he would probably, I do not say certainly, have written 
7} cifuiapTia, as in the clause preceding : but supposing the sense 
to be as represented in our Enghsh Version, the omission of 
the Article is absolutely necessary: there can, therefore, be 
little doubt that our Version is right. Three, indeed, of 
the least considerable of Matthai's MSS. have 17 afiaprla, but 
this was possibly the correction of some one who understood 
the passage in the same manner with Macknight. The Syr. 
and the Vulg. render the words as in the English. 

V. 18. uya06v. F. G. and Cyril, with / of Matthai, read 


TO ayaOov. This appears to be a mistake, arising from the 
use of TO ayaOov just before: the Article is here rightly 
omitted. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. 

V. 21. Tov vo/iov. The Article here is anticipative of what 
is subjoined ; the law or principle, which the Apostle is about 
to describe as impelling him to evil, even when he is endea- 
vouring to practice virtue. Hemsterhusius (ap. Wetstein) 
would expunge Vo icaXov, so as to make tov vojulov dependent 
on TToieTv. This reading would understand tov vofxov of the 
Mosaic Law ; a sense which accords not with the argument. 


V. 9. irvevfia O^ov Trvcujua XjOtcrroi}. Michaelis in 

his Anmerk. says, *^ Here, at least in my opinion, and so far 
as can be collected from the context, St. Paul is not speaking 
of the Holy Ghost, the Third Person in the Godhead, who 
had not hitherto been mentioned, but rather of what in the 
Platonic Philosophy is called the Spirit, or the rational Soul, 
which is named likewise the Spirit of God, because it is formed 
after God's image, and is, like God, a Spirit, a thinking 
essence, eternal, &c. &c." He proceeds to observe, irvtvfia 
Gtoi), TTvevjua Xptorou, and Xptaroc £v iijutv, are mere vari- 
ations of phrase, without any difference of sense. Uvevjua 
XpKTTOv he makes to signify, '* those higher faculties of the 
soul which, in Christ, had entire dominion over the body, and 
by which the body was subdued." 

It is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to fix the pre- 
cise import of these terms ; but if any thing be certain, it is, I 
think, that this passage, notwithstanding the opinion of so 
great a Critic, is not to be explained from the phraseology of 
Platonism. I much question, indeed, whether irvwfia Qeov be 
a phrase in use with Plato ; at least I do not recollect to have 
seen it in his Works, though, considering their extent, it may 
have escaped my notice : or if it be meant only that it was 
common with the Platonists of the School of Ammonius, it is 
obvious that St. Paul could not have borrowed their language. 
The misfortune is, that the plan of Michaelis's Work per- 
petually restrains him from adducing quotations and authori- 
ties which only men of some erudition could require or under- 


312 ROMAxXS, 

stand: it is true that he meditated a similar work for the 
Learned ; but this, unhappily, he lived not to execute. Not- 
withstanding this inconvenience, " The Annotations for the 
Urilearned" is a work by which the most learned may profit : 
it contains much which is original and profound ; it was the 
last labour of its author, and may, therefore, be regarded as 
the depository of his settled con\dctions ; and the arguments 
which it affords in behalf of some important doctrines, are the 
more valuable, because they are the arguments of an Advocate 
whose occasional concessions attest his regard to truth. A 
Translation of this Work, or rather a Selection from it, (for to 
German prolixity it sometimes adds German indelicacy,) would 
doubtless be acceptable to EngHsh Readers ; and a knowledge 
pf the German language, which so many have acquired for no 
very commendable purpose, might thus be employed in pro- 
moting the best interests of man. 

But though it may be questioned whether irvtvfxa Qiov can 
be explained from the language of Platonism, I incline to the 
opinion that it is not here to be understood of the Holy Ghost, 
and also that the three phrases are nearly of the same import ; 
for this is evident from the context. The sense of rrvsv/Aa, in 
this and in several other places, will probably be best deduced 
from Luke ix. 55. ovk olEarE otou TTVEv/zaroc Etrrf, where it 
means indisputably spirit, nmid, teinper, or disposition : in like 
manner we meet with irvevfxa dovXdagf Trvfvjua ao^/ac, irvEvjia 
7r/o^or»iroc, &c. all common Hebraisms, in which the Genitive 
is to be construed, as if it were the corresponding Adjective 
agreeing with Trvev/ia. Two of the phrases in question appear 
to me to be of the same character, so that Trvevjua Oaov and 
TTvevfxa Xpiarov wdll signify a godly and a christian frame of 
mind : so also 1 Cor. vii. 40. irvevfxa Qeov cannot be taken of 
the Holy Spirit in the personal sense, but must mean Divine 
aid, or inspiration. The proposed interpretation exactly suits 
the context: ** they who are carnal," says St. Paul, cannot 
please God: ye, however, are not carnal, but spiritual, if, 
indeed, a godly spirit dwell in you ; but if any one have not a 
Christian spirit, then he is not Christ's. If, however, Christ 
be in you, your body, it is true, shall die in consequence of 
(the original) transgression (of Adam), but your soul shall live 
through the righteousness (of the Redeemer.)" I admit, how- 


^ver, that in ver. 11. ro irvevfjia rov lyd^avrog 'Iijcrouv can be 
taken only of the Holy Spirit, for there the Hebraism has no 
place: and even to 7rv£Vjua rov Qeov, 1 Cor. iii. 16. I would 
interpret in the same sense. 

V. 13. TTveviuLaTt is here evidently used in the adverbial sense, 
to mean spiritually/, for it is opposed to Kara aapKa, carnally, 
in the preceding clause : irvevfjiaTi Qeov also, in the next verse, 
seems to mean little more, and is in some degree a confirma- 
tion of what was said in the last Note. Machiight, however, 
understands both these of the Holy Spirit^ as if we had read 
vTTo or ^La Tov ayiov Trvevfiarog' for some Preposition is, I 
thiiik, always used, when an act is said to have been accom- 
plished through the agency of the Holy Spirit. See on Luke 
iv. 1. 

V. 16. avTo TO TTVivfia T(^) TTvevfiaTt rijuu)v. Here 

we have two important senses of irveviua plainly contradistin- 
guished: " the Holy Spirit," and " the spirit or mind of 

V. 22. Trao-a ?j ktIctiq. English Version has " the whole 
creation :" Macknight, " every creature." The former is the 
right translation: see Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. though I am not 
aware that the settling of this point will be of any avail in 
ascertaining the meaning of the whole passage, beginning at 
verse 19. They who would know the several senses in which 
it has been interpreted, may consult Wolfius ; whose Work, 
besides its other merits, is an excellent Index to the various 
interpretations of difficult passages of Scripture. There is 
likewise a Dissertation on the same subject in the Thesaur, 
Theol. Philol. vol. ii. On the word KTicng I shall have occa- 
sion to remark. Col. i. 15. 

V. 23. vioOeaiav. We have here an illustration of Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4; so that the construction will be, 
" even we also, though we have received the first-fruits of the 
Spirit, wait for a deliverance from death, as our adoption." 
Macknight thinks that there is an allusion to our Lord's words, 
Luke XX. SQ ; in that case, the proposed construction is still 
more evidently the true one. The Translators have inverted 
the order, though without much injury to the sense. In D. 
F. G. the word vloOecriav is omitted. 

314 ROMANS, 

V. 24. f^XenofiivT}. Better with the Article, as in F. G. 
the circumstance, that it is seen, should be assumed. 


V. 5. 6 wv ETTi 7ravT(i)v 0£ocj K. T. X. It is well kno^vn that 
this text has been the subject of much controversy ; yet not 
of more than was to be expected, considering how strongly and 
directly it attests the Divinity of Jesus Christ : if, however, I 
mistake not, the doctrine of the Article has much more to do 
with the question, than is commonly imagined. 

1. One method which has been employed to evade the re- 
ceived interpretation, is conjecture, Schlictingius would trans- 
pose 6 wv, and likewise alter the accent and breathing of the 
latter word, so as to make it wv 6. The meaning would thus 
be, " whose (viz. of the Jews) is the Supreme God." It may 
be asked, however, whether St. Paul was likely to affirm that 
the Jews had an exclusive interest in the One True God, when 
he had already in this very Epistle (see iii. 29.) asserted the 
contrary : " Is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of 
the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles." Nor is this all: 
an Article is wanting to authorize the proposed interpretation ; 
for by thus making 6 the Article of Gfoc, we ought also to 
have an Article before cuXoyr^rocj taken in immediate concord 
wdth 0foc : Part i. Chap. viii. § 2. the form wv (iart) 6 Geoc 
euXoyTjroc, (for the words discarded affect not the construc- 
tion,) is without example in the N. T. But see on 1 Tim. 
i» 17. and Heb. ix. 1. places which may seem to contradict 
this remark. This conjecture, therefore, though it ranks among 
the happiest efforts of Socinian Criticism, obtrudes on the pas- 
sage an argument which is improbable, and Greek which is 
impossible : yet Grieshach has, in his new edition, honoured 
this conjecture with a place among his various readings. An 
instance of the form which the proposed emendation would 
require, is Acts iv. 24, 25. ov (a) 6 9foc 'O Troinaag tov ovpa- 
vov, K. r. X. 'O ^la (TTOjuLarog, k. r. X. 

I scarcely know whether I ought to consider under the same 
head a remark of Wef stein, who observes at the end of his long 
Note, " Denique si id voluisset Paulus, quod qiiidam putant, 

CHAFrER IX. 315 

videtur potius scripturus fuisse 6 a»v 'O l-rn iravTiov Qeog evXo- 
yrjToc:, ut Eph. vi. 6." In the opinion oi MichaeUs, Wetstein 
was the most learned of the opponents of the Divinity of 
Christ : it may, therefore, be thought incredible that he should 
have expressed the received interpretation in false Greek : yet 
such, I fear, is the case. 'O wv 'O, so intended that the latter 
Article shall be predicated of the former, is, I am persuaded, a 
form of expression not to be met with in the uncorrupted 
remains of Greek literature, whether sacred or profane : for 6 
wv 'O would in fact amount to 6 wv 'O 'QN : accordingly, 
throughout the N. T. even, in cases where the sense of the 
Nomi following wv is the most definite, we always find the 
Article omitted. Thus John x. 12. ovk. wv iroijuriVf though a 
particular Shepherd is meant, viz. of the sheep in question : 
xi. 49. ap;!^t£pfi;c wv, declared immediately to be the High 
Priest of that year. Heb. v. 8. wv utoc> the Son, who is 
always, where no rule interferes, called 6 vlog. Acts v. 17. ri 
ovaa aipECTig rwv ^addovKaiwv, not 'H aipsaig, though in xv. 5. 
we have rfjc alplcrewg twv ^apicraiiov. 2 Cor. xi. SI, 6 wv 
evXoyriTog, though in Mark xiv. 61. we find the Father called 
KUT i^ox/iVi 'O evXoyr^Tog. And not to accumulate examples, 
we have in Philo, p. 860. and p. 1040. Ed. 1640. tov irpog 
aXrideiav ovtoq 0EOY, and tov ovriog ovra 'AAH0H 0EON. 
It is inconceivable how the terms God and true God, in these 
two passages, could be meant more definitely; yet after ovrog 
and ovra the Articles are necessarily omitted. Wetstein, in- 
deed, refers us to Eph. iv. 6. where, however, the Participle wv 
has no place : to have supported this hypothesis, it should have 
been 'ON 6 etti ttolvtwv, for as the reading stands, and must 
stand, it is no more to his purpose than is every other clause in 
that whole chapter. — I see, then, no reason to admit, that if 
St. Paul had meant what is commonly understood by his 
words, he would have written 6 wv 'O : a specimen of Greek 
which is worse even than the conjecture of Sclilictingius ; for, 
besides the fault just noticed, it involves the same error of 
using evXoyriTog without the Article, when Ofoc is with it. — 
I find, however, in Clarke s Reply to Nelson, p. 68, the re- 
mark, that " if the words 6 wv Itti ttovtwv Qeog be allowed to 
be certainly spoken of Christ, yet it is not the same as if the 
Apostle had said, 6 wv 'O lirX ttclvtwv Qiog." 


2, But conjecture, in defiance of MSS., Versions, and 
Fathers, has by many been thought a desperate resource. This 
uniformity, indeed, seems not always to have been known. 
Schoettgen, Hor, Hehr. holds himself obliged to concede that 
" quamplurimi Codd. et quidam ex Patrihus" want 0£oc, and 
in the more popular work on the Trinity, by Clarke^ we find 
a similar assertion. Some, therefore, may have inferred that 
tliis text cannot fairly be adduced in support of the Trinitarian 
scheme ; and yet the received reading is confirmed by all the 
MSS. which have been hitherto collated, by all the ancient 
Versions, and by all the Fathers, except Cyprian in the printed 
copies, and also Hilary and Leo, who, according to Griesbach, 
have each of them 07ice referred to this text without noticing 
GfOQ. Whence the notion arose that Gsoc is wanting in many 
MSS. I am not able to discover: there is scarcely a verse in 
the N. T. in which ancient authorities more nearly agree. It 
has, therefore, been deemed a safer expedient to attempt a 
construction different from the received one, by making the 
whole, or part of the clause, to be merely a doxology in praise 
of the Father ; so that the rendering will be either *^ God, who 
is over all, be blessed for ever," or, beginning at Gtoc, " God be 
blessed for ever." These interpretations also have their diffi- 
culties, though of a kind unhke the former ; for thus tuAoyr^roc 
will properly want the Article. On the first, however, of these 
constructions it is to be observed, that in all the Doxologies, 
both of the LXX. and of the N. T. in which evXoyr}Tog is 
used, it is placed at the beginning of the sentence : in the 
N. T. there are five instances, all conspiring to prove this 
usage, and in the LXX. about forty. The same arrangement 
is observed in the formula of cursing, in which lirLKaragaTog 
always precedes the mention of the person cursed. The reading, 
then, would on this construction rather have been, EvXoyr}Tog 
6 wv £7ri iravTijjv Oabg Big rovg aliovag. — Against the other 
supposed Doxology, which was approved by Locke, the objec- 
tion is still stronger, since that would require us not only to 
transpose ev\oyr}rog, but to read 'O Qwg. This word, as has 
already been remarked, though it have some latitude in taking 
or rejecting the Article, never uses its licence so as to create 
the least possible ambiguity : thus it can make no difference 
whether we write (viii. 8.) Ocq") or TQi Gctf apirrai, but fi/Xo- 


7»)roc Ofoc will appear to signify, not '^ blessed be God," but 
that the words are to be taken in immediate concord with each 
other : accordingly, in all instances where a Doxology is meant, 
we find evXoyriTog 'O Gtoc* See also below on 1 Cor. i. 9. 
For these reasons I conclude that both the proposed construc- 
tions are inadmissible. But, 

3. Mr. Wakefield would qualify the meaning of Qtog. He 
says, " I adopt, with the -^Ethiopic Translator, a lower sense of 
0£oc common in the O. T. : " so 2 Thess. ii. 4. and elsewhere :" 
and he renders " who is, as God, over all, blessed for ever- 
more." On looking at the Latin of the ^Ethiopic Version, I 
find " qui est Dens henedictus in saacula''' Whether this be 
the true rendering of the -.^thiopic, I am wholly incapable of 
judging; certainly it discovers nothing of a lower sense of 0£oc. 
Mr. W. indeed, every where professes his high opinion of this 
Version; but I do not recollect that he has any where in- 
formed us on what ground his esteem of it is founded ; whether 
on the merits of the Version itself, of which, according to 
Michaelis, we know less than of any other Oriental Version, 
but which, so far as respects the Epistles, he says, was made 
by a person who was very unequal to the task: or merely on 
the Latin, which, according to the same Critic, is of little 
value. Be this as it may, I have, on the alleged lower sense 
of 0£oc, already in part stated my opinion. See on Luke i. 15. 
In order to show that the lower sense is common even in the 
Old Testament, it is to be regretted that Mr. W. did not pro- 
duce a few examples. One, to which possibly he might allude, 
is Judges xiii. 22. where the Hebrew has D^1/'^< translated by 
the LXX. 6E0N tcupa/cajuty, though what Manoah had seen 
was in reahty no more than l^i7D, an angel. Now here, it is 
true, that we have Geoi^ in a lower sense ; but then the circum- 
stances of the case are not at all applicable to the New Testa- 
ment. The LXX. were Translators, and not Commentators ; 
and, therefore, it is not surprising if they sometimes adhered 
to the letter, rather than to the spirit, of their original. In 
the Hebrew they found D''^7^i, which usually signifies Oaoc in 
the strict sense : they still, however, rendered the Hebrew by 
Geo'c, even where the strict sense was not intended, the dis- 
covery of which they left to the discernment of the Reader, 
and possibly to his knowledge, that the original was ambiguous. 

818 ROMANS, 

Nothing of this will apply to the Writers of the New Testa- 
ment, who came to their task unfettered and unbiassed, and 
were at liberty every where to choose the word which best 
suited their purpose : they have not, therefore, in any instance, 
though the opportunities were so frequent, called an angel 
Qeog. But Mr. W. refers us to 2 Thess. ii. 4: there the 
word Qsog occurs repeatedly; but in which of the places he 
supposed it to be meant in a lower sense, I am unable to deter- 
mine. It is the Prophecy respecting the Man of Sin: of 
whom it is not said, that he shall assume inferior Divinity ; 
that he shall arrogate to himself the 'plenitude of Divinity ^ is 
asserted in the strongest terms. We there find, indeed, men- 
tion of " every one that is called God," which, however, is not 
to be understood as indicating that there are several Ggot, 
whose divinity differs not in kind, but in degree, but only as 
including the objects of human adoration, whether men wor- 
ship the true God, or any of the creatures of their own super- 
stition : for the Apostle has cautiously said, not iravra 0£ov, 
which was liable to perversion, but iravTa AEFOMENON 
6€ov T) 2EBASMA: and the same caution with respect to 
\zy6fxivoQ is observable in 1 Cor. viii. 5. But I suppose Mr. 
W. more particularly to allude to the words mq Oeov, since he 
translates Gtoc in the passage under review by " as a God." 
He should, however, rather have produced an instance of a 
similar Ellipsis of mq, for he has inserted as into his Verse 
without any other apparent reason than that he might weaken 
the force of Gcoc- Ellipses of wo I well know, may be found; 
but can an instance be adduced, in which wc ii^ay be supplied 
between 6 wv and its Predicate? Besides, that 'Q2 0foi^ in 
2 Thess. ii. 4. marks any Diminution of Divinity, it w^ould be 
absurd to imagine, if we look at the context ; for to say that 
the Man of Sin " shall sit in the Temple of the True God, {dg 
Tov vaov Tov 0£ou,) as if he were an inferior God,'' is a viola- 
tion of common sense ^ It may be observed too, that the 
words wc Ofov, to which I suppose Mr. W. to allude, are 
wanting in many MSS. and in many of the old Versions, 
among others, in his favourite the ^thiopic : Griesbach has 
removed wc Geov into the margin. Lastly, if Mr. W. inferred 

» See Rom. i. 21. IT. K. B. 


any thing from the absence of the Article before 0£oc in the 
verse from 2 Thess. I will remind the Reader, that it is not 
once omitted where, consistently with the rules, it could have 
been inserted. — I have been obliged to examine Mr. Wake- 
field's solution at some length, because it is impossible to know 
precisely on what it rests. The inquiry, however, might have 
been evaded by the previous question, Whether it be agree- 
able with the usage of Scripture to apply to an inferior Divinity 
the solemn for7n2i la, evXoyrjTOQ elg rovg aliovag'i 

Having thus endeavoured to refute the principal hypotheses 
which have been adopted to weaken or destroy the force of a 
most important text, I shall conclude this Note in the words 
of Michaehs ; " I, for my part, sincerely believe that Paul 
here delivers the same doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, 
which is elsewhere unquestionably maintained in the N. T." 

V. 9. kirayyeXiag yap, k. t. X. The rule of Regimen is not 
here violated, as might be inferred from the English Version, 
by the omission of the Article before eirayyeXiag : the construc- 
tion is, For this word is of promise. The sense, it is true, vdll 
be the same ^ 

V. 27. TO icaraXcfjUjua. This is another of the instances 
wherein the Article may be supposed to be redundant. The 
passage is quoted from Isaiah x. ^2. where the LXX. inserted 
the Article, though they found it not in the Hebrew. This 
appears to have been right : for to KaTaXuiiiia is the remnant 
or portion of the Israelites reserved by the Almighty for the 
purposes of his promises : see Taylors Heh. Concord, voce "INti^. 
It would be better that this circimistance should be noticed in 
any future Translation. 


V. 4. TiXoQ yap vo/jiov. No/xoc is here plainly 6 vo/jloq, the 
Law of Moses: the Article is omitted by Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 10. Kapdiq. (TTOfjiaTt, Both used adverbially, 

* See above, note on Acts xxiii. C. — H. J. R. 



V. 12. TrXovTog KocFfioVf similar to tIXoq vojuov, ver. 4. of 
last chapter, and to KaraXXayrj koct/ulou below, ver. 14. 

V. 19. ot jcXaSof. Many good MSS. including some of 
MatthciiSj omit ol, to which Griesbach prefixes his mark of 
probable spuriousness. Matthai, however, observes, " I doubt 
not that the Article ought to be retained; it marks the 
arrogance of the Gentile. It was, perhaps, rejected because 
in ver. 17. we read riveg tlJv kXciBijjv, for icXaSot is rivlg kXcl^oi, 
whereas oi kXu^ol is iravTeg ol icXaSod." This remark discovers 
a very just notion of the hypothetic use of the Article (see 
Part I. p. 55 :) at the same time, I am rather inclined to 
understand ol kXci^oi in reference to the riveg tCov icXaSwv men- 
tioned just before : the argument of the Gentile is continued. 

V. 33. t5 l^aOoc; ttXovtox) koX aot^iaq kclI yvu)(THog Oeov. 
This is a good instance in illustration of what w^as said in the 
Note, Part I. p. 68. The meaning is, TOY tt. koI THS a. 
Kol THS yv. TOY d. But j3a0oc being in the Vocative can- 
not have the Article prefixed : the whole clause, therefore, is 


V. 8. vofiov here appears to be used in the same sense as 
above, ii. 5. Marhland and Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) make 
v6\ioQ here to signify the second Table of the Law. It is 
true, that the moral observances which respect our neighbour 
are the subjects of that Table ; and so far this interpretation 
accords with my own notion of the meaning of voiiog in similar 
passages : it is, however, better in all cases t > deduce the mean- 
ings of words generally, than to trust to their accidental appli- 
cation \ 

^ In V. 0. of this Chapter, there is an use of the Article somewhat uncommon, 
but strictly classical, which is not happily preserved in our Version : indeed the 
whole verse is far from being a favourable specimen of that admirable work. Td 
yd^' Ov fioixsixrug, k. r. t. It should be rendered: " For the commandment , 
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou 
shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet, and whatever {tiTig) other 
commandment there is, is briefly comprehended in the precept, Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour as thyself." — J. S. 

V. 14. TriQ aaoKOQ irpovoiav firj iroiCiaQi. See Cliap. iii. Sect. iii. § 0. and 
Heb. i. 3.— H J. R. 



V. 8. Tm KvpUo. Mr. Wakefeld translates " to this 
Master," as if it were rtj Kuptti) TOYTGf. Similar instances 
of mistranslation have already been noticed. See above on 
John xii. 24. 

V. 9. icai vfKpwv kclL lyWVTwv. The dead and the living 
generally. Articles wanting by Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 13. Tio a^^X(j)io. Mr. Wakefield rightly renders the Ar- 
ticle by your : in ver. 15. and 21. gov is added. 


V. 6. rov Owv Koi waripa. No MS. violates the usage by 
inserting the Article before the second Noun. See Part i. 
Chap, iii. Sect. iv. § 2, 




V. 1. ^(i)GOivi]g 6 a^tX(l>6g. It lias been inferred, says 
Rosenmullery from the Article prefixed to a^i\(^6gj that Sos- 
thenes was a person of eminence in the church. That he was 
not inconsiderable, is evident from his being joined with St. 
Paul in this prefatory address ; but the Article seems not to 
authorize any conclusion of this sort. Such an one, 6 ad£X(j>6g, 
is nothing more than the accustomed manner of mentioning a 
fellow Christian : so Rom. xvi. 23, Kovaprog 6 aScXi^oc, who 
is no where else spoken of, and of whom nothing is known. 
The practice of calling each other Brethren, as we learn 
from Suicer, (voce a^eX(l)6g,) continued long in the Christian 

V. 9. TTKTTog 6 Qeog. C — 6. In this form 9foc never wants 
the Article. See 2 Cor. i. 18 ; ix. 8. Heb. vi. 10. et passim. 
And these are further confirmations of what was said respect- 
ing EvXoyijTog 6 Qeog, Rom. ix. 5. 

V. 17. £v aoipLci Xoyov. Bp. Pearce conjectures either ovk 
Iv Xoytj) (To^taC) or ovk Iv rt^ ao(piag Xoyw. The latter of these 
is very questionable Greek ; nor do I perceive any thing diffi- 
cult or exceptionable in the reading of the MSS. 

V. 20. TToO cro^oc; TToii ypafi/uLaTavg; irov, k, t. X. Com- 
mentators have usually supposed this exclamation to be quoted 
from Isaiah xxxiii. 18. Michaelis, however, Introd. vol. i. 
p. 209. and also in his Anmerk, thinks that there is no ground 
for this supposition, and that the whole similarity consists in 
the threefold repetition of Where is ? In this opinion I entirely 
agree with him, and so probably will the Reader, if he turn 
either to the Hebrew, to the LXX. or to the late Translation 
by the Bp, ofKillala, whose rendering of that passage, though 


expressed in inodern and familiar terms, conveys the true 
sense of the original : " Where now is the Commissary? Where 
the Collector? Where is the Barrack-master?" As to the 
phraseology, I recollect nothing more closely resemhling it 
than the language which Demosth. de falsa Leg, vol. i. Ed. 
Reiske, p. 400. imputes to ^Eschines : ttou ^' aXec I t^ov tqo.- 
ireZai : ttov (Tirov^ai ; to account for the omission of the Arti- 
cles, it might in each case seem sufficient to say, that it marks 
a vehemence and rapidity of style : but the principles laid down 
in the former part of this Work will afford a more satisfactory 
explanation. It is the object of the Speaker, in each instance, 
to deny that the things or persons spoken of have any longer 
either effect or existence; this case, therefore, falls under 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. 


V. 9. 6^0aX/xoc, K. r. X. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. 


V. 13. 77 yap rjjuiipa. Commentators are much div-ided about 
the meaning of rifiioa in this place. Schleusner supposes it to 
mean vaeiely futurum tempusy so that the sense may be, as we 
say in English, " time will show :" but he has not produced 
any parallel instance. I rather suppose with Macknightf that 
7) riiLiipa is the day, the dreadful day of persecution. His 
reasoning, which appears to be just, accords best with this 

V. 22, Koafxog, This word usually has the Article, except 
w^here some rule interferes : here it is wanting, by Part. i. 
Chap. vi. § 2. See on Gal. vi. 14. 


V. 5. 6 tiraLvoq. The praise due, in refeience to the act by 
which it will be acquired. So Winer. 

V. 9. Koi ayyiXoig koX avOpwiroig. Enumerated as the con- 
stituent parts of 6 Kocrfiog preceding. Part i. Chap. vi. § 2, 

Y 2 



V. 9. Iv Ttj iTTicTToXy. An important question, which has 
been much agitated, and on which, at this day, the learned are 
not agreed, turns partly upon the reference of the Article in 
this place. It has been inferred from this text, that St. Paul 
had already written to the Corinthians an Epistle, which is no 
longer extant, and to which he here alludes: while others 
contend, that by ry EiricTToXy, he means only the Epistle which 
he is writing. Of the former opinion we may reckon Calvin, 
Bezttf Grotius, Le Clerc, Capellus, Witsius, Hemsius, Mill, 
Wetstein, Bishop Pearce, Beausohre, RosenmuUer, Schleusner, 
Michaelis : against these may be opposed the names of Fahri- 
cius, Wolfius, Glass, Whitby, Jer, Jones, Lardner, Macknight, 
Ahp, Newcome, and the Bishop of Lincoln. It is not pro- 
bable that this question can ever be decided, so as to preclude 
all future doubt ; for it is rightly contended that the reference 
of the Article may be either to the Epistle which St. Paul was 
then writing, or to a former one ; and the meaning of typaipa, 
on which also, in part, the dispute depends, is unfortunately 
not less ambiguous. One thing alone is certain, that our own 
Version, " in an Epistle," is not correct : the Article is no more 
redundant in this place than in others, in which its meaning has 
been shown, though none was supposed to exist. Schleusner, 
indeed, explains tv ry to mean tv rtvi, a sense of the Article 
which cannot be established by any instance from the N. T. : 
the examples which he adduces have most of them been already 
otherwise accounted for. If, indeed, Schleusner imagines this 
to be an instance of the j^ttic usage, he is further mistaken, 
since tov for tlvoq is Feminine as well as Masculine : see the 
Scholiast on the Ajax of SopL 290. 'Ev rij liridToXy, then, 
must be rendered ** in the letter," or, **in my letter:" but the 
question is. What letter ? the present, or a former one ? It 
may be right to state the evidence on both sides. 

That rriv lirKJToXrjv may be said of the letter which St. Paul 
is writing, is beyond dispute: thus Tertius, who was Paul's 
Amanuensis, speaks of the Epistle to the Romans xvi. 22 ; so 
also Coloss. iv. 16. 1 Thess. v. 27. 2 Thess. iii. 14. Lardner 
too, vol. vi. near the end, has produced two passages from the 
Epistles of Libanius, which prove the same usage. It is, 

CHAFrER V. 325 

therefore, very obvious, so far as the Article is concerned, to 
understand t^ eTriaroXy of the present Epistle. On the other 
hand, there is a single passage, 2 Cor. vii. 8. in which 17 lirKr- 
To\^ can mean only the former Epistle : there, indeed, the 
Philox-Syr. adds the w^ord former ; but a single authority is 
not to be insisted on. There is, however, this difierence, 
which has not, I believe, been noticed, that there the reference 
to a former letter is at once evident, because the Apostle had 
in the preceding verse been speaking of the effects which that 
letter had produced. In the case under review nothing of this 
kind takes place : hence the argument for a lost Epistle ought 
not to be founded on the ambiguity of the phrase Iv nj Iwkj- 
ToXri, which every where considered per se refers to a present 
Epistle. As to the passage 2 Cor. x. 10. it scarcely merits 
notice ; for as Lardner has observed, tTrto-roXai is often used 
plurally in a singular sense; and even if it were not, the 
Corinthians might very well speak of the character of St. Paul's 
Epistles from a single specimen. 

There seems, therefore, to be no internal evidence for a lost 
Epistle, unless tyoaipa and the general import of the passage 
compel us to suppose one. That 'iypaxpa is not necessarily to 
be understood in a past sense, Lardner infers from John iv. 38. 
where aTrtoTttXa is used by Christ of the Mission of the Apos- 
tles, which, however, had not yet taken place. Of tliis use of 
the first Aorist I entertain no doubt. That it has frequently 
a present signification, is admitted by Hermajin in his Treatise 
de Emend. Ratione Grccc(C Gramm. p. 194; a work which 
every Scholar must wish to see completed : and I have as little 
doubt, that it has the sense also of the Latin Future Perfect 
Scripsei'O or tuoixai ypa\pag, which Hermann will not allow, 
though aTririaav, which he adduces from Iliad IV. 16L appears 
to admit no other explanation. Lardner, therefore, instead of 
supposing typa-ipa to refer to verses 5 and 6, as is usually done 
by the Commentators on his side of the question, considers it 
to be anticipative of what the Apostle will be found to have 
written in the 10th Chapter. I do not, however, perceive 
that any considerable part of that Chapter treats of the crime 
of fornication : I am, therefore, disposed to consider the refer- 
ence as made generally to the exconuuuuication of the inces- 
tuous person, which was an important object with St. Paul in 


writing this Epistle ; so important, that the subsequent peni- 
tence of that person is adverted to in the Epistle following. 
" I have written to you," says St. Paul, " in my letter, not to 
associate with fornicators :" and the Readers of the Epistle 
could not but perceive that the Apostle had done so ; for the 
incestuous person was instantly excommunicated. — Some stress, 
indeed, is laid on the subjoined vvvX St 'iypaipa in verse 11. as 
if this were meant by way of distinction from what the Apostle 
had said on some former occasion : the very contrary, however, 
is the inference which I draw from these words. It is to be 
remarked, that the same Tense typatpa is here used again, 
which could scarcely happen if wvX were not meant to be 
synonymous with Iv ry eTriaToXy. In Philipp. iii. 18. we read 
TToXXaKig tXeyoVf vvv ^l KXaio)v AEFO : in like manner, I 
think, if a different occasion had been intended, we should 
have read vvvX ^1 FFA^li. I question also whether, if the 
supposed opposition had been designed, we should not have 
found in verse 9. eypa^pa MEN to correspond with vvvX AE, 
for though jU£v sometimes suffers Ellipsis, this rarely happens, 
so far as I have observed, where the opposition is so strong as 
that here alleged. 

Putting, then, all the circumstances together, even the in- 
ternal evidence seems to be unfavourable to the hypothesis, 
that a letter to the Corinthians had preceded that which St. 
Paul was now writing. As to the external evidence, it is 
entirely against the same supposition; for besides the extreme 
improbability that a Canonical Book should have been lost, a 
point which is well established by Jones (on the Canon, vol. i. 
p. 158, 1st edit.) and also by Lardner, as above, no instance 
has been produced in which an ancient Writer has cited the 
pretended first Epistle, or even alluded to its existence, though 
both the received Epistles are quoted by the Fathers perpetu- 
ally, and that too from the earliest period. On the whole, 
therefore, I entertain no doubt myself that the two Epistles 
still preserved are the only ones which St. Paul ever addressed 
to the Corinthians : at the same time, I cannot hope that the 
little light which I have been enabled to throw on tliis con- 
troversy, will avail towards its decision. 

V. 13. Tov TTovnpov. The incestuous person who is the sub- 
ject of this Chapter. A few MSS. have to. 



V. 1. Trpoc Tov trspov. This word, used in the sense of 
one's 7ieighbour, usually has the Article. So Rom. xiii. 8. and 
this Epistle, x. 24. 29. The reason is, that in such cases two 
persons are supposed, who stand in a certain relation the one 
to the other. I do not, therefore, see any reason to agree 
with Mr. Wakefield in preferring iTaiQov, which is found in 
no MS. but was, as he says, the reading of most of the old 
translators. I suspect, however, that they intended only to 
give the sense, not to show that they read kratgov : the Syriac 
renders " his brother ;" yet I do not thence conclude that the 
Translator found in his copy tov aScX^oy. Dr. Mangey also 
conjectured iraigov, 

V. 16. 6 KoXXwfjiEvoQ ry iropvy. Here Tropvy has the Ar- 
ticle, being spoken of in relation to 6 KoXXojfxavog : see last 
Note. It is as if he had said 6 KoWtv/uievog koX t) iropvrf elmv 
tv <T(oij.a. See also on Matt. xv. 11. 


' V. 28. ri irapOevog, in the hypothetic use of the Article, she 
who is a virgin, i. e. virgins generally. So below, verse 34. 
See on John xii. 24. 

V. 34. (TWfjiaTL KaX irvevfiaTi, A few MSS. prefix Arti- 
cles, but probably they should be omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. 


V. 39. voiLL^), hy moral obligation, by the S2)irit of every law, 
divine or human. See on Rom. ii. 25. 

V. 40. TTvevfia Qeov, Divine guidance. See on Rom. viii. 9. 

* Vv. 10 and 11. 'Avtjfi and yvvij are without the Article, but the Propositions 
are exclusive. 

V. 20. TrjpiiffiQ may want the Article because Oeov does, on grounds familiar 
to the reader ; or the Proposition may not be universal, Ttjprjffig not being one 
act like Trcptro^^, but a continued line of conduct. The Apostles meaning and 
the correct translation may be, * Circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing 
but an attention to Gods commands, (is what is required,') and not * the full, 
entire, and unsinning observation of Gods commands.' — H. J. R. 



V. 20. virb vo/iov, the Mosaic Law : the Article is wanting 
by Part i. Chap. vi. § 1 . 

V. 22. ra iravra. Many good MSS. and some Fathers 
omit TO. : probably right after ylyova : so Achilles Tatius Travra 
iyevofitiv, quoted in Hosenmiiller. 

V. 26, aepa dipcov. It might be expected that aipa should 
have the Article, but I take this to be an instance of what I 
have called a Hendiadys, Part i. Chap. v. Sect. ii. § 1. 


^ V. 13. Trjv iKJSacFLv, in reference to the temptation from 
which escape is to be made. 


V. 3. iravTog av^pog 17 ke^oXt). We have not here a real, 
though an apparent, breach of the rule of Regimen : for iravTog 
avSpog is equivalent to tov aydpog, using the Article in the 
hypothetic or inclusive sense. Besides, iravTog tov av^phg 
would have a different meaning. The next KetpaXrj wants the 
Article, which could not be admitted. 

V. 7. elKwv. A. and three others have 17 iIkujv, which can- 
not be right, when Qeov wants the Article. Two of them, 
indeed, but not A. have tov Qsov ; but even this, I fear, will 
not do after virapx^^' Thus Acts xvii. 24. ovpavov kol yrjg 
Kvpiog virapxij^v. This is, I think, another presumption against 
the Greek origin of A. See above. Acts viii. 5. 

Vv. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. In these verses the words avrjp and 
yvvri repeatedly occur both with and without the Article ; and 
I know not any passage in the whole N. T. from which an 
inconsiderate opponent would be so likely to infer that the 
Article may be inserted or omitted scribejitis arbitrio. Mack- 
night indeed, in his Version, has in this passage closely ad- 
hered to the original, without producing any awkwardness or 

* V. 10. TOV oXoOpevToii. The destroyer mentioned by Moses. Comp. Heb. 
xi. 28.— H. J. R. 


confusion. I miglit, therefore, perhaps be excused, if I were 
to pass over these verses without notice : I would not, however, 
incur the imputation of having expatiated on instances favour- 
able to my purpose, whilst I suppressed others which may be 
thought of less easy explanation. 

In verse 8. then, avrip and yvvri must be understood of indi- 
viduals, a single man and a single woman, the progenitors of 
the human race ; for in any greater latitude the assertion would 
be mitrue. In verse 9. the Apostle says, that in no instance 
was a man (avr^Of any man) created on account of the woman, 
{i. e. one assumed already to exist, Sia tyjv yvvaiKa,) but a 
woman ivas formed on account of the man (already existing.) 
In verse 10. whatever be the meaning of the remark, it is plain 
that tvomen generally are spoken of, and 77 yvvri accords with 
the usage in such cases. Verse 11. I understand to mean, 
" Notwithstanding, (such is the ordinance of God,) neither is 
any man brought into being without the intervention of a 
woman, nor any woman without that of a man : for as (ver. 12.) 
the woman (i. e. women generally) is originally from the man, 
so the man (i. e. men generally) is brought into being by the 
intervention of the woman (i. e women :) these and all other 
things are ordained by the vrisdom of God." If this be the 
true sense of the passage, the Article is throughout inserted 
and omitted according to the principles laid down in this work. 
I have given the meaning of verses 11 and \2, as they are 
understood by Whithy and others; and I think, leaving the 
Article entirely out of the question, it is that which is most 
consonant with the tenor of the argument. XwjOtc I interpret 
in its most common acceptation, without the aid or operation of, 
as in John i. 3. X(i)Qig avrov eyivEro ov^iv' et passim : xii)^\Q 
yvvaiKog in verse 11. I take to be the contrary of dia riig 
yvvaiKog in verse 12. Some Commentators, indeed, among 
whom is Mr. Wakefield, understand verse 1 1 . to signify, that 
the Christian Dispensation extends alike to both sexes, as is 
affirmed Gal. iii. 28 : but I do not perceive how such a remark 
could be introduced in this place, where the Apostle appears 
to be treating of the relative dignity of the sexes, as deducible 
from their origin, and from the laws by which the species is 

With the (hfficulties of verse 10. I have not properly any 


concern. Michaelis confesses that he does not understand it. 
It seems on all hands to be admitted, that l^ovma signifies a 
veil, or something of that kind worn by females. It was gene- 
rally supposed that this was called k^ovaia, as being an emblem 
of the authority of the husband : but this opinion is exploded 
both by Michaelis and Schleusner, The former supposes l^ov- 
aia to be a provincial term, understood only at Corinth ; but 
pretends not to account for this application of the word. 
Schleusner is of opinion that this term was thus applied from 
the authority and consequence by which, among the Jews, 
married were distinguished from unmarried women. For my- 
self, I have sometimes thought that a veil might have acquired 
the name l^ovaia from the power or licence which it gave the 
wearer to appear in public ; for without it she was not per- 
mitted to leave her chamber. This conjecture, however, is pos- 
sibly of no more value than are the multitude which have been 
already offered in illustration of this most obscure passage ^ 

V. SO. Kv^iaKov ^avrvov. The Article may here be omitted 
by the same licence by which it is so frequently wanting before 
Kvptoc; in the same manner as National Ap'pellations par- 
take of the licence which is allowed to Proper Names. On 
this passage Michaelis, Introd. vol. iv. p. 61. has a valuable 
remark : 

" In the first Epistle to the Corinthians we find the plainest 
indications that they celebrated Sunday. They assembled on 
the first day of the week (fcara iiiav (raj^^aroyv :) and the ex- 
pression KvpiaKov 8ft7rvov, 1 Cor. xi. 20. may be translated, as 
in the Syriac Version, * a meal which is proper for the Lord's 
day,' or a Sunday meal. In the controversy relative to the 
celebration of Sunday, it is extraordinary that this translation 
of KvpiaKov ^BiTTvov, lu SO aucicut a Version as the Syriac, 
should never have been quoted." 

V. 27. aifiarog. A multitude of MSS. and several Fathers 
have Tov aifiarog, which is probably tJie true reading. 

* It may be mentioned here, that Valkenaer lays much stress on the difference 
between Ke^aXrj and jj Kc^aX?) in this place. This is only one of a thousand 
proofs that Bishop Middletons observation as to the omission of tlie Article after 
u Preposition, without any consequent change of meaning, had escaped the most 
eminent scholars. — H. J. 11. 



V. 4. TO Sf avTo TTvev^a. It is plain that irvi^vfxa must here 
be taken in the Personal sense : nor do I see how it is possible 
to elude the observation of Markland, that in this and the two 
following verses we have distinct mention of the Three Persons 
of the Trinity. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) asks, Whether to 
irv^vfia of this verse be not the same, who in the next two 
verses is called Kvqloq and Qeog ? This opinion likewise is, to 
say the least of it, highly probable : for the structure of the 
whole passage leads us to understand 6 iv^gyCov to. iravTa Iv 
ncKTij as intended to be applied alike to the Three Persons; 
else the two preceding verses will be defective, and only the 
last wdll be complete. There we are told that it is the same 
God who works all in all : this is very intelligible : but in the 
two former, that it is the same Spirit — who does what? and 
the same Lord — who does what? unless we are to understand 
the concluding clause as applicable alike to the Three Persons : 
and if so, then the Three Persons must in some sense be the 
same. The Reader, indeed, of our Enghsh Version might 
suppose that the two verses, 4 and 5, assert only the Unity of 
the Spirit, and the Unity of our Lord. Had the words been 
f V Si TTVEVfxa and elq Se Kvptoc, tliis might have been alleged ; 
and the propositions, though ill according with what follows, 
would have been complete in themselves: but this is not 
the case : yet etg is, I believe, the term employed wherever 
the assertion of Unity in the thing spoken of is all which is 
intended. So Ephes. iv. 5. ac Kv^iog, jiia iriaTig, tv fiair- 
Tiajxa, It is, therefore, to be concluded, that in verses 4 and 
5 a clause is understood ; and if it be not that which is sub- 
joined to the whole passage, what are we to supply? But see 
the next Note. 

V. 11. TO tv KOLi TO avTo TTvcujua. Some MS S. — to prius. 
This would be right, if there were not reference to the Spirit 
recently spoken of: but that such reference was intended is 
most certain, both from the whole tenor of the argument, and 
also the addition of to avTo. Of the personal sense of irvivfia 
in this place, it might be thought that the blindest prejudice 
could not entertain a doubt, since He is here said to " dis- 
tribute gifts according to his pleasure," which surely is the 


attribute not merely of a Person, but of a Being who is Omni- 
potent. Then again, the term IvEpyEiv is applied to Him; 
though, as was shown on Matt. xiv. 2. it is never used in the 
New Testament but of an agent, and that commonly a very 
powerful one. Now it is observable, that Travra ravra Evepyel, 
spoken in this verse of the Holy Spirit, is very similar to what 
is said in verse 6. of Qeog, or, as I am inclined to think, (see 
last Note,) of each of the Three Persons of the Trinity : the 
question is, Whether these words identify to irvevfxa, to which 
they are applied, with the other two Persons, or at least with 
Qebg mentioned in verse 6 ? The Spirit is said to work navTa 
Tavra ; but what are these ? They plainly comprehend all the 
miraculous powers enumerated from verse 7. to verse 11. in- 
clusive, among which are xapicrfiara spoken of inverse 4. and 
ivEpyrtfiaTa in verse 6. The diaKoviat of verse 5, it is true, are 
not expressly noticed ; but if this term according to Theodoret, 
and as it is usually explained, relate principally to the office of 
preaching, SiaKoviai will be included in the enumerated opera- 
tions of the Spirit; for \6yog (TO(j)iag and \6yog yvwaetjjg, 
verse 8. are the qualities by which ^laKovlai are rendered effi- 
cacious. It appears, therefore, that all the miraculous powers 
mentioned in verses 4, 5, and 6, are here imputed to the in- 
fluence of the Spirit. The result is, that if we understand the 
clause 6 evspyu)v, k. t. X. verse 6. to belong, in the manner 
which I have supposed, to each of the three verses 4, 5, and 6, 
then the Spirit must in some sense be the same with the other 
two Persons, since he is here, verse 11. made solely to be the 
cause of effects above severally ascribed to the Spirit, to the 
Lord, and to God. Or if be not admitted that the clause in 
question was intended to be so applied, then the present verse 
identifies the Spirit only with God, (ver. 6.) to whom the clause 
is confessedly applied : though still it will be very difficult to 
account for the introduction of the Spirit, verse 4. and the 
Lord, verse 5. if it be not meant that they are respectively the 
authors of x'^piaiiaTa and Smicovtaf, in which case the conse- 
quence will be the same as if the concluding clause be admitted 
to be common to verses 4, 5, and 6. 

The observations of Markland and Dr. Owen, which gave 
rise to the Note on verse 4. are, it should be known, very 
ancient (see Wolfius ;) though this could not be inferred from 


any thing tliat is said in Bowyer. Theologians would do well 
to notice the antiquity of the opinions which they defend, 
because that antiquity is sometimes no inconsiderable evidence 
of truth. 

V. 21. ofpOaXiuLog. With a multitude of MSS. we should 
read 'O ocpBaXfiog. Griesbach has admitted the Article into 
the text. 


V. 2. Tratrav rrjv yvwtriv rriv ttIcttiv, The knowledge 

and the faith here spoken of must be understood in reference, 
\'iz. to the Gospel. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. Mr. Wakefield 
has rendered the Article in his translation. 

Vv. 3, 4. ayairrfv exsiv 17 ayairr]. Abstract Nouns 

after t^*^ are commonly anarthrous; Parti, p. 124. But 17 
ayairr], verse 4. is used in its most general sense, or may even 
be considered as personified. See Part i. Chap. v. Sect. i. 
§1,2. In verse 13, whTig, iXnig, ayanr], want the Article, 
probably by Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 


V. 2. TTvevjuaTi. Used adverbially, 

V. 4. lKKXr](Tiav. I do not perceive why, according to the 
received reading, this word wants the Article. Mr. Wakefield, 
indeed, translates " a whole Church :" F. G. and the Vulg. 
add 9tou, which appears to be the true reading. 

V. 9. viiug ^la Trig yXd)(T(rr}g, k. r. X. Mr. Wakefield trans- 
lates, " Ye, who speak with a different language, unless ye 
speak plainly, &c." He says that this phrase, v/ueXg ^la rrjg 
yXw(T(7r]gf is of the same kind as ctI tov dia ypafijiaTog, k. t. X. 
Rom. ii. 27. which he explains, Silv, Crit. P. I. p. 123. by te 
literatum, i. e. qui literam vel legem Mosaicam profiteris. In 
this explanation Mr. W. may be right ; for if tov were imme- 
diately the Article of 7rapoj3arrjv, voiiov depending on it could 
not be anarthrous. It is, however, impossible to accede to 
his interpretation of the present verse, in which viiug ^la Tvg 
y\(jj(T(Trig differs from ac tov dia ypa/^ifxaTog by wanting the 
Article ol before vfidg. To this difference Mr. W. did not 
attend : yet without the Article, dta Ttig y\wGar]g must depend 


on Swrc. Moreover, it is probable tliat he has mistaken the 
sense of rrjg yXwaarrig, which does not here signify a foreign 
language, (for then it wants the Article, as may be seen through- 
out the chapter,) but the tongue, the organ of speech, which is 
here opposed to the musical instruments recently spoken of. 
Besides, Mr. "W.'s rendering does not accord with the Apostle's 
argument, which is, that he who speaks " in a foreign tongue" 
cannot speak " plainly." St. Paul, wishing to repress the 
vanity of those who valued the gift of tongues more than other 
gifts, which, though less splendid, were more generally useful, 
contends, that he who speaks in a foreign tongue, can rarely, 
if ever, edify the hearer. " If the trumpet give an unintelli- 
gible sound, who will prepare for battle ? so also, if ye by the 
tongue speak not so as to be understood, how shall men be 

V. 17. 6 'irepog. See above, on vi. 1. 

V. 32. Kot TTvev/JiaTa tt^o^tjtwv VQO<p{)TaLg vTroTaaa^Tai. On 
the meaning of these words there are two opinions : according 
to some Expositors, they signify, that " the inspiration with 
which true Prophets are gifted, does not, like the phrensy 
which agitated the Priests of the Heathens, hurry them away 
irresistibly, but that they have power to controul its opera- 
tion, as occasion may require." Others afiirm that the passage 
means, that " they who are divinely inspired, are bound at 
proper seasons to give place to others who have been gifted 
with the same inspiration." Neither of these interpretations 
is at variance with the context : one of them tends to show the 
practicability i the other the duty, of observing good order in 
publicly declaring the suggestions of the Spirit; and both 
senses accord very well with the verse following : " for God is 
not the author of disturbance, but of peace." The partisans of 
the former opinion appear to be the more numerous : I incKije, 
however, to the latter, because I beHeve that in the other way 
of understanding the passage, the expression would have been 
different ; perhaps something of this sort, KvgL^vovGi yag riov 
TTVEv/iarwv oi Trpo^fyrat* at any rate irpo^ijTaLg, would not 
have been anarthrous ; if the same Prophets be meant wdth 
those just mentioned, it will be difiicult to assign a reason why 
we should not read rote 7rpo^//ratc. On the other hand, if 
other Prophets be intended, the phrase is precisely that which 


might be expected: thus Mark xiii. 2. XiOog Itti XiOi^, one 
stone upon another : in this Epist, vi. 6. adeXc^bg /jieTo. ad^X- 
^ov, one brother with another: xv. 41. arrrrip yap aortpoc 
8m^£p£f, one star, another star : in such cases I have observed 
tliat in classical writers also both Nouns are anarthrous. On 
the whole, though either explanation may be reconciled with 
the context, that which I have adopted seems to be preferable : 
since the praeticahility of doing what is enjoined is proved in 
the verse preceding, ^vvacrOe yap, &c. : in the present, the 
Apostle intends to show that it is also a duty, being an ordi- 
nance of that Being who is not the author of confusion. To 
avoid this consequence, MachiigJit renders koI in this verse by 
/or, a Hebraism which is not very common in the N. T. — 
Schleusner is among the few moderns who understand the pas- 
sage as here explained : he renders viroraaa^TaL by sihi invicem 
cedere dehent. Many MSS. for TrvEVfiara have Trvevfxa, which, 
however, affects not the question. Bentleys conjecture, vtto- 
Taaar^raif would, if admitted, produce no other difference than 
that of commanding subjection, instead of affirming that such 
subjection is the v^dll and ordinance of God ; as far as I see, it 
amounts to the same thing, whichever explanation be ap- 
proved. It is to be observed, however, that the commands of 
St. Paul are usually given in the Imperative^ of which this 
chapter affords several examples \ 


V. 8. oxTTrepa raJ tKrpwjuart w(pQr\ KafJLoi. There is no pas- 
sage in the N. T. which has given rise to more dispute on the 
subject of the Article, than has the present. Two MSS. in- 
deed, viz. F. G. — rc(), but these, as it is known, (see Marsh's 
Michaelis, ii. 226.) amount to little more than one evidence: 
it is wanting also in one of Matthai's Euchologies. There 
can, therefore, be little or no doubt that the received reading 
is right : though Griesbach, on this evidence, thinks the various 
reading of equal value with that of the text. 

Some Critics will have the Article here to be a Hebraism : 
others affirm that it is the Enclitic rt^), for tlvi : and a third 

* V. 33. Sec note on Acts xxiii. G. 


class thinks that rw iKTpujfiari is used Kar l^oxiiv. The first 
of these opinions is preferred by LoesneVf Ohss. e Philone. Of 
Hebraisms, however, in the use of the Article in the N. T. I 
have met with no example, unless in translations, or quotations 
from the LXX. : see Part I. p. 156 : neither am I aware that 
the Article could thus be accounted for, even if the Hebraism 
were to be admitted ; since the LXX. who, as translators from 
the Hebrew, abound in Hebraisms, have said. Job iii. 16. 
wo-TTfp Ejcrpwjua, and Num. xii. \2 wo-a t^rpcujua. The second 
mode of explaining the Article in this place is as little satis- 
factoiy : it was, I believe, first proposed by Ritterhusius in his 
Notes on Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras, and it has been 
adopted by many succeeding Critics, among whom is Schleus- 
ner. I have, however, already observed that this Attic usage 
is unknown to the Writers of the N. T. : (see above, on v. 9.) 
besides, would it not be extraordinary that these writers should 
Atticize in only two or three examples, though the occasions 
are so frequent ? In the writers who are generally allowed to 
have used this mode of speaking, we find an instance of it in 
almost every page. — To the third solution, which is approved 
by Wolfius, I object, because I do not perceive that tKTpw/jLa, 
in whatever sense we understand the word, admits the idea of 
pre-eminence : in one tKrpw/uia there cannot be any superiority 
over others. My own opinion is, that the Article might here 
be accounted for nearly in the same manner as in Luke 
xviii. 13. It appears to be the purport of the writer to apply 
the term tKvpwfia to himself, and to say that he is, as it were, 
iKTpwfia : to express which, it was necessary to use the Article, 
for otherwise the meaning would have been, " as by an EKrpw- 
fxa,'' as if i/crpwjLiara sometimes in other cases saw what he had 
seen. There is no doubt, that if he had left out warrspu, and 
had inverted the clauses, he must have written hxpOrj Ka/uoX tm 
cKT/owjuart, as in Luke, Ifiol t(^ afxaprwXt^ : see on Luke, as 
above. I do not perceive any difference in the sentence as it 
actually stands, except that cJo-TTcpet is an apology for an appli- 
cation which might seem to be too strong. That this is an 
allowable use of (Jo-Trcpa is evident from Longinus, (noticed by 
Wetstein,) Sect, xxxii. Ed. Toup. 8vo. p. Ill, who calls this 
word one of the fULeiXiyfxara rtjv Opacrsiiov /ucro^opwv. 
This method, however, of explaining the Article supposes, for 

CHAPTER XV. ' 337 

the most part, that the common interpretation of ticrpw/io, viz. 
fcetus immaturuSf or what the French call avortement, is the true 
one : but of this I have sometimes doubted; and herein, as I sus- 
pect, and not in the Article, lies the principal difficulty of the 
passage. It is true, that whenever the word occurs in the 
LXX. it is used in this sense : but how, it may be asked, could 
any thing be seen by an tjcrptujua in this acceptation ? In Job 
iii. 16. and Eccles. vi. 3. compared with verse 5. the tKTpwfxa is 
expressly said to be that which never sees the light : and the 
same thing is asserted in the Hebrew of Psahn Iviii. 9. though 
this does not appear in the LXX. who, instead of j^ti^^^ 79^, 
must, from their translation, (iTrto-c ttv^,) have read Wi^ /H)^ ; 
and in the only remaining place in which f Krpw^a occurs in the 
LXX. they have made it to represent w^hat in the original sig- 
nifies, " as one w^ho is dead in the womb." It is, therefore, 
hardly to be believed, that St. Paul meant to use t/crpwjua 
in the same sense with the LXX. ; for according to this, to 
say " he was seen by me, tjcnrEpei t(^ iKTQWfxaTi^' would involve 
a contradiction. Judging merely from the context, and from 
the tenor of the argument, tjcrpw/xa might be supposed to sig- 
nify a last-born child, especially if there were a prevalent notion 
that such children in one respect resembled licrpajjuara by being 
smaller and less perfect than others, as is the opinion at this 
day among our country people, wdth respect to the last-born 
offspring of multiparous animals at a given birth : this meaning 
w^ould suit both the £<rxarov iravrtov, which .precedes, and the 
eXaxto'Toc, which follows, and the whole of the reasoning would 
be clear and connected. That the word, indeed, ever has this 
sense, is more than I can prove ; and yet that some such idea 
was entertained by Commentators of considerable antiquity, 
may, I think, be collected from an expression of Theophylact, 
who, after stating the common reasons why St. Paul should 
call himself eKTpMfxa, subjoins nvlg ^e to iKrrepov jivvriiia 
iKTpwfia Ivorjcrav. In that way of understanding the passage, 
iKTpijjfiaTL would have the Article, being opposed to the other 
Apostles just mentioned, and being therefore in its nature 
definite and monadic. 

V. 15. vEicpoi ovK lydpovTai. An exclusive Proposition; 



and so throughout the Chapter. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 5. F. G. improperly have 01 vsKpoi *. 

V. 29. vTTfp Twv vEKpwv, secuudo loco, A great many MSS. 
have vTrhp avriov, Wolfius vindicates the received reading, 
'' propter emphasirif quam in voce vEKpdiv collocasse Apostolum 
vel ex prceposito Articulo riov apparet." I am not sure that I 
perceive the drift of this remark : there is, however, no em- 
phasis in the Article here, and this may be affirmed of nine 
places out of ten where Commentators suspect an emphasis. 
The dead taken generally are ol veKpoi ; though there may be 
reasons for omitting the Article, as in the last Note. It is foreign 
from my purpose to detail the diiferent attempts to explain this 
very obscure text, since the Article is not in question : I may 
be permitted, however, to notice the opinion of Matthdi. He 
understands virlp rtjv vsKpwv to be equivalent to virep iavriov, 
taking the word veKpiov in the figurative sense, as in Matthew 
viii. 22 : this notion is at least ingenious ; how far it may be 
satisfactory, the Reader must judge for himself. 

V. 41. i7X(ou .... creXrivrig. These words want the Article 
by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. and do^a by § 1. 


V. 24. 17 ayairri juou. It is observed by Estius, (ap. Bowyer,) 
that " St. Paid does not use to conclude his Epistles vnth the 
benediction of his own love : and that for jmov we should pro- 
bably read 6fou." Regimen would require TOY Geou, which, 
of course, renders the conjecture less probable. 

^ See prefatory remarks as to this word. — H. J. 11. 




^ V. 20. oo-at yap l-jrayyiXiai Gfou, ev avrcD to vai, koI tv avTuj 
TO afii]v. The Authors of our English Version, from not 
attending to the Articles, have here, I think, obscured the per- 
spicuity of the original : they have rendered " for all the pro- 
mises of God in him are Yea, and in him Amen :" and the 
other EngHsh Translators, Machnight, Wakefield, and New- 
come, have taken the words in the same order. I would render 
" for how many soever be the promises of God, in Him (Christ) 
is the Yea, and in Him the Amen ;" meaning, Whatever God 
hath promised. He will through Christ assuredly fulfil, vat and 
afiriv being strong and well-known asseverations of the truth. 

V. 22. Tov appa^biva tov TrvEVjULaTog. I understand this of 
the Holy Spirit, and so did many of the Ancients, as appears 
from Suicer; the pledge spoken of consists of those various 
gifts of the Spirit wliich were an earnest of immortality to the 
persons on whom they were conferred. 

V. 24. Kvpievofiiv vfiiov Trig 7rt<rr£wc« Macknight distin- 
guishes between v/xaJv rfjc iriGT^wg and Trig vn(Jt>v TriaTECjg, 
though if he mean by the latter the more usual arrangement, 
he should have put the Pronoun last : and he translates " lord 
it over you through the faith," making Trig niaTeojg to depend 
on a Preposition understoood. He remarks, " that this is a 
proper translation of the passage, is evident from the position 
of the Greek Article." In this, however, he is mistaken ; for 
this position of the Article is extremely common : thus in this 
Epistle, X. 6. oTuv TrXrjpw^/J vfiiov t) viraKori, which Macknight 

' V. 17. ry t\a(l>pi(}. *E\a0pia, says Winer, is here spoken of objectively, as 
a quality inherent in human nature: the well-known sin of light-mindedness. — 
H. J. R. 



renders, " when your obedience is completed." The very same 
position is found also in the next Chapter, ver. 11. Philipp. 
i. 7; ii. 2. 1 Tim. iv. 15. 2 Tim. i. 4. Coloss. ii. 5. 1 Thess. 
i. 3, et passim f where this excellent Theologian has adhered 
to the common interpretation. He further, indeed, contends, 
that St. Paul could not consistently disclaim all authority over 
the faith of the Corinthians, since by the inspiration of the 
Spirit given to the Apostles, they were authorized to judge or 
rule the Twelve Tribes of Israel : Matt. xix. £8. This remark 
is just ; yet I do not perceive that it is at all at variance with 
the common construction of the present text. By Kvpisvuv I 
understand the exercise of a domineering and arbitrary power, 
(as in Luke xxii. 25.) as if the Apostle had said. Though I 
speak of punishment, I would not have you think that we 
tyrannize over your faith by wanton acts of severity, but rather 
that we are fellow-workers of your joy ; i. e. that we have your 
welfare at heart ; for by your faith alone, that faith which we 
seek to strengthen in you, can you attain to salvation. — This 
appears to be a natural and reasonable vindication, not only of 
the threat already employed, but of any severities to which the 
Apostle might afterwards be driven in the discharge of his 


V. 3. TrvevjULari Qeov Zfovrog. Mr. Wakefield translates, 
" with a power of a living God." The original, however, is 
very different. The English Reader might hence infer, that 
the term the " living God," instead of being a name of the one 
True God, as distinguished from idols, may be applied with 
equal propriety to several Divinities. The Article is omitted 
before irvtv^arL, as is usual, where not the Spirit in the per- 
sonal sense, but the inspiration of the Spirit is intended ; and 
Oeov Z^vTog wants the Articles by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 7. Abp. Newcome says, " not written with ink, but by the 
Spirit of the living God;" but besides that a person or agent 
is not well opposed to an instrument, it may be objected, that 
if the Apostle had intended what is here expressed, he would 
have prefixed some Preposition to irvEVfia, See above on Rom. 
viii. 13. 

V. 6. ou 7pajUjuaroc aXKa irvevfiarog, I would render " not 


a literal, but a spiritual one." Kaivrig haOfjKtig may want the 
Article, by depending on the anarthrous word ^taKovovgj and 
this last wants the Article by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 3. * 
We ought, however, probably to understand Kaivrig ^laOfjicric 
in this place definitely. In the same verse, to Trvvufia is that 
which is spiritual, viz. the Gospel, as opposed to that which is 
literal, or the Mosaic Law. 

V. 17. 6 §£ Kupmc TO TTVEVfia, i. e, the spiritual Religion 
mentioned in ver. 6. 

V. 18. OTTO Kvpiov TTVEvimaTog. English Version has " by 
the Spirit of the Lord ;" but in the margin, " by the Ijord of 
the Spirit ^ :" this is adopted by Macknight : Abp. Newcome 
says, " by the Lord, who is that Spirit ;" but this, I believe, 
would have been in the Greek rov trvw^arog, in like manner 
as the Article is always inserted in Kuptoc o Qiog. The phrase, 
**Lord of the Spirit," Macknight explains to mean the Author 
of the Gospel, called to irvthjia in the last verse ; but I do not 
remember that this construction has any parallel in the N. T. 
or that Christ is ever called the Lord of the Gospel, of the 
Faith, or of the Spirit. I prefer the common interpretation, 
the sense of which appears to me to be free from all objection : 
the Spirit of the Lord is that mentioned in the verse preceding. 
It ought, however, to be observed, that much doubt has always 
existed about the true construction of the words in question. 


V. 1. Tj liriyuoQ tijuwv oWia tov (TKrjvovg. English Version 
has " our earthly house of this Tabernacle," which is more than 
is warranted by the Greek. The Syr. understands the whole 
to signify, " our earthly abode of the body ;" so also do Mi- 
chaelis and Schleusner. The former, in his Anmerk. observes, 
** This word ctkyivoq in Greek frequently signifies no more than 
body : it is so used by the Philosophers, especially the Pytha- 
goreans, and even by the writers on Physic. The expression 
is not uncommon in Hebrew, but the Greeks borrowed it from 
the Egyptians, to whom it is so familiar, that regard is no 

• i. e. After Verbs o^ creating, appointingy choosing, &c. — H. J. R. 
3 The common marginal reading is, ** Of the Lord the Spirit." — J. S. 


longer paid to its derivation or primitive sense : thus the Phy- 
sician speaks of the Tent, and to paint the Virgin Mary is 
expressed by the phrase, To paint the Tent of the Mother of 
God. The reason is, that in countries like Egypt, inhabited 
by Nomadic tribes, human life was represented as the peregri- 
nation of roving shepherds dv^^elling in tents. Paul, indeed, 
may have adverted to the literal meaning of the word, and may 
have contrasted the temporary tent, the body, with the eternal 
and immoveable habitation which we shall occupy hereafter : 
tliis allusion, however, could not well be conveyed in German, 
the phrase House of the Tent not being very intelligible." The 
same objection must He in English against House of our Taber- 
nacle. The proposed interpretation is much strengthened by 
comparing ver. 4. with ver. 6 ^ 


V. 6. Iv irv^vfxaTi ayit^. Not merely the omission of the 
Articles, but the Nouns, which are here associated with irvtv- 
fiari ayttj^, forbid us to understand it in the personal sense : I 
suppose it, therefore, to signify the influence of the Spirit, 
MacknigJit appears to have understood irvtvfjLa in this place of 
the human mind, for he explains it by "a well regulated 

* In V. 15. 6t tif uTTfp TTOLVTOJV (XTtkQavtv, dpa oi Trdvreg dirkOavov, the Article 
inserted on the renewed mention o^TravrtQ refers us back to "TravTOJV, preceding, 
and marks the meaning of the two words as co-extensive. Whatever conchision 
this may lead to, it is quite certain that dirkQavov is wrongly translated were dead, 
a sense which it never did, and never could, bear. Where the Apostle wishes to 
express were dead, as in Ephes. ii. 1. he does it by the periphrasis, veKpovg ovrag. 
On the contrary, he uses dirsOavov frequently in its proper sense, they died or 
ARE dead. See Rom. v. 15; vi. 2. 8; vii. 2. Galat. ii. 19. Coloss. ii. 20; iii. 3. 
Once only, in Luke vili. 53. it is properly translated, ^^ was dead:" but this is 
owing to the difference between the Greek and English idioms, the latter pro- 
perly taking a past tense after a past, while the former, by a very common 
anomaly, admits the present. The construction, therefore, in Kartytkiiiv avTov, 
tidoreg on dirkQavtv, is precisely the same as in Plato, Apolog. § 6. Bekk. and a 
thousand otlier places, ^Tropowr rt 7ror« \kyti' I was at a loss to ktiow what in the 
world he means (Angl. mearit.) Compare John xi. 13— 4.— The passage of St. 
Paul, therefore, ought to be translated, Then all died, or are dead, as Coloss. iii. 3. 
The meaning I am not concerned with : my business is with the point of criticism, 
not of doctrine. — J. S. 


Spirit :" I have no wliere, however, observed it to be so used, 
where it has the epithet ayiov \ 


V. 8. ev ry ETrtaToXy, See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 

V. 11. Iv Ti^ TTpayfiaTi. In the afFaii', viz. of the incestuous 
person : the readiness with which the Corinthians, at the in- 
stance of the Apostle, had excommunicated the offender, justi- 
fied the acknowledgment of St. Paul, that they were not any 
longer to be blamed for what had happened. Some Com- 
mentators understand ti} irpayfiaTL as in 1 Thess. iv. 6. See 
on that place. 


V. 12. lav txV '^^^' ^ great many MSS. &c. omit rig. 
Grieshach prefixes to it the mark of probable spuriousness ; 
and Mr. Wakefield says, that it has been foisted in by some 
ignorant Scribe, to mend what he supposed a defective con- 
struction. In this conjecture Mr. W. may be right ; but when 
he makes TrpoOvjiia, repeated from the last clause, to be the 
Nominative to ^xp, I think he is mistaken. If rig be an inter- 
polation, it was still meant to be understood ; and we shall 
then have another instance of the usage noticed John viii. 44. 
It is remarkable that the ElHpsis in this place did not put Mr. 
.W. on the true construction of that passage, especially as he 
saw that tXq was there wanting to the sense. 


V. 8. iraaav x^P'^^y rendered rightly by Macknight, " every 
blessing." English Version has " all grace." See Part i. 
Chap. vii. § 3. 

' V. 17. cLKaOdpTov. Our version has the unclean thing, where the Article 
wears the appearance of renewed mention. Probably our Translators did not 
intend it, but meant to express only that which is unclean, any unclean thing. The 
Article is wanting here by Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. the proposition being exclusive. 
—H.J. R. 



V. 10 K at filv iTTKTToXai. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. ^bp. New- 
come has, however, observed, that St. Paul's Epistles were sent 
from one church to another to be publicly read ; he refers to 
Col. iv. 16. This is a valuable remark. 


^ V. 25. Iv rw (5v9m. Some Commentators have under- 
stood this of a prison, and others of a well : in either case, even 
if we admit the word ever to bear these senses, the Article 
would have been omitted. 


V. 18. Tov a^EX(l)6v, English Version has " a brother ;" but 
it is evident that this is merely to evade the difficulty of the 
original. Commentators have usually supposed, that by rbif 
a^eXcpbv is meant St. Luke, and the Subscription of this Epistle 
expressly informs us, that the bearers of it were Titus and 
Luke, though in the Syr. (not also in the Copt, as affirmed by 
Wetstein) the name of the latter is omitted. The Subscrip- 
tions, however, are not regarded as of high authority, and that 
of this Epistle is believed by Michaelis to be founded on Chap, 
viii. 18. Now to show that St. Luke is not the person there 
intended, the same Writer has (Introd. by Marsh, vol. iii. 
p. 254.) assigned the following reasons ; and if they be valid, 
neither can St. Luke be the aSeX^oc spoken of in the present 
verse. He says, " I have already observed in the preceding 
section, that the word evayyiXtov, as used by the Apostles and 
Evangehsts, does not denote a written narrative of the life of 
Christ, and therefore that St. Paul can hardly be supposed, in 
the passage in question, to allude to the Gospel of St. Luke. 

1 V. 13. 6 Osog fikTpov. Macknight translates " The God of measure," which 
is impossible. The Article would have been inserted, as in Rom. xv. 5. I appre- 
hend that fiSTpov, by a common Greek figure, is in concord with ov.—to fiirpov 

TOV KavOVOQ OV (SC. flETpOv) IflspKTEV K. T. \. — H. J. R. 

2 V. 4. 6 IpxoiitvoQ. This, says Winer, is that person who will, I think or fear, 
come among you. It is assumed, as Bishop Middleton would say, that a person 
will come. — H. J. R. 


It is, moreover, probable that by the expression, the brother^ 
whose praise is in the Gospel , he meant a totally different person 
from St. Luke. For this brother, as appears from the quoted 
passage, was sent by St. Paul to Corinth: yet though St. 
Paul himself went to Corinth soon after he had written this 
Epistle, St. Luke was not with him when he again departed 
from that city; for, according to Acts xx. 3 — 6. St. Luke 
went from Philippi (where he had staid several years) to join 
company with St. Paul at Troas. Besides, as this brother was 
sent with Titus, in order to remove all suspicions of St. Paul's 
making an improper use of the contributions of the Corinthians, 
St. Luke, who was his intimate friend and companion, was by 
no means qualified to answer that purpose. And if we may 
judge from what St. Paul says, 2 Cor. viii. 23, 24. both of the 
brethren, who are there opposed to Titus, whom St. Paul calls 
his partner and fellow-helper, were deputies from the churches 
in Macedonia. Who they were, it is impossible to determine : 
but as Sopater, Aristarchus, and Secundus were Macedonians, 
(see Acts xx. 4.) it is not impossible that two out of these three 
persons were the brethren of whom St. Paul speaks, 2 Cor. 
viii. 18 — 23." This appears to me to be conclusive against St. 
Luke's being the brother spoken of in the two places, viii. 18. 
and the present verse: but independently of this, there is 
something remarkable in the manner in which this brother is 
here mentioned ; for even if St. Luke had been meant, I do 
not perceive why he should be called rov aSeX^oy, unless 
indeed in the general sense of rov a^^Xf^ov rifjiwVf as in viii. 22. 
and even then he will be oddly distinguished from Titus, who 
must have been entitled to the same appellation, and so like- 
wise must the third person ; for that three were commissioned 
to be bearers of the Epistle, is plain from viii. 16. 18. 22. I 
rather wonder, therefore, that neither Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, 
nor Griesbach, have noticed in this place the reading of the 
Syr. which has the brethren, though Schaaf, it is true, in the 
V. R. subjoined to his Syr. N. T. mentions two Edd. which 
read brother in the Singular, but the original Ed. of Widman- 
stad, which Critics hold in the highest esteem, has the Plural ; 
and so have the other Edd. which are most valued. If this 
reading, then, be genuine, and if the Translator found in his 
copy TovQ adtX(povg, the difficulty, so far as it respects the 


Article in the present passage, entirely vanishes; for rovg 
adakipoifg will mean the brethren, whoever they may be, who 
in viii. 18. and 22. are mentioned as the colleagues of Titus. 

It may be added, that the opinion of Schleusner, which is 
adverse to what Michaelis has said on the Scriptural sense of 
avayyiXiov, is not suiRciently established. To show that this 
word signifies a Gospel, as we say the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
the four Gospels, &c. he refers us in his Lex. to Matt. xxvi. 13. 
and Mark xiv. 9. in both which places the judicious reader 
will, I think, discern that the word ivayyiXiov is used in a 
different sense. Schleusner mentions, indeed, the Inscriptions 
of the Gospels ; but these, though ancient, do not appear to 
have been of the apostolic age. It is of importance to mention 
this circumstance, because the notion that evayyeXiov, viii. 18. 
signified a Gospel in the alleged sense, has operated very 
powerfully in producing the decision, that the brother there 
mentioned is St. Luke. 




* V. 16. £^ epycuv v6fiov. Macknight rightly, I think, un- 
derstands this of Law indefinitely, and so also ver. 19. See 
on Rom. iii. 20. But with his interpretation of ver. 19. I am 
not wholly satisfied : " Besides, I through law have died by 
law, so that I must live by God:" he makes vofit^ and 0f(u 
to be " Datives, not of the object, but of the cause or instru- 
ment,'^ and he refers us to former passages of his work. I do 
not know, however, that any thing can be produced analogous 
to Z^v 0€(f, signifying to live by the agency of God. He 
quotes, indeed, at Rom. xiv. 7. Soph. Ajax 970. Ed. Brunch. 
Oeoig riOvriKEv ovtoq, which the SchoHast explains by Otwv 
jSouXojulvwy. That explanation may, perhaps, be disputed: 
at any rate, it is contrary to sound criticism to appeal to Sopho- 
cles , when phrases similar to that in question occur in the 
N. T. See Luke xx. 38. Rom. xiv. 7, 8. 2 Cor. v. 15. Co- 
loss, iii. 3. and this very Epist. vi. 14. The meaning, there- 
fore, of ver. 19. of this Chapter, I understand to be, " For I 
through law (i. e. the imperfection belonging to law of every 
kind, in not providing an atonement) died unto law, (i. e. re- 
nounced the harsh conditions on which alone it offered me 
salvation,) that I might live unto God (i. e. that I might em- 
brace the more merciful scheme by which eternal life is offered 

^ V. 7- 01 TapdaaovTiQ, says Winer, are here tliought of definitely as such, and the 
passage is similar to the well-k»own Grecism, eiVtv ot XiyovTtg, They who trouble 
you are some. What Bishop Middleton says on such points is clearer, though it 
perhaps is not very different, i. e. that it is assumed that there are persons who 
trouble the Galatians, and they are identified with nvig. See III. 3. 2. — 
H. J. R. 



me through Christ.") And with this interpretation the re- 
mainder of the Chapter very well agrees. Ahp. Newcome, 
indeed, supposes " dying through the law" to mean, " by the 
tenor of the law itself, which foretels a better covenant." But 
this arises from making vofii^ to signify the Law of Moses ; in 
which case it would have the Article. See on Rom. passim. 
Besides, this explanation appears not to harmonize with the 
reasoning which St. Paul pursues through the whole Epistle to 
the Romans, and which he repeats in the present, that the great 
defect of all law is its inevitable condemnation of imperfect 

Mr. Wakejieldi Silv. Crit, Part i. p. 125, observes, that the 
phrase lyw dia vo/jlov resembles Rom. ii. 27. aa tov Sm ypafx- 
fiaroQ, " ut ovum ovo non potest esse similius." A want of 
similitude, however, arises from the want of the Article in the 
present instance. See on 1 Cor. xiv. 9, 


V. 2. TO TTvEv/xa. Though the word here has the Article, I 
suppose it to mean the gifts of the Spirit, the well-known gifts : 
after the Galatians had received them, iXajSere, they became 
subjects of reference. 

V. 3. TTViVfiaTL and aagKi are here used adverbially for irvav- 
fiaTiKWQ and (rapKiKwg, 

V. 1 1 . 6 Se BiKaiog sk Tricrreiog Zriaerai. These words, which 
are an allusion to Habakkuk ii. 4. occur also Rom. i. 17. and 
Heb. X. 38. Macknight and others render *' the just by faith 
shall live ;" but I much doubt whether this deviation from our 
Common Version can be vindicated. If I mistake not, we should 
thus have read, 6 ^iKaiog 'O ek iriaTEiDg, or else 6 bk TricrTstjg 
SUaiog. Nor is this all : to say that he who is just or justi- 
fied by faith, shall live, amounts to very little ; but to affirm 
that the good man, he whose obedience, though imperfect, is 
sincere, shall reap life everlasting from faith, (as opposed to a 
law of works,) and from faith alone, is a most important declara- 
tion ; and it agrees exactly with the context. " That no man," 
says the Apostle, " is justified under the law, sv vo/kj) diKaiov- 
rai, is evident, for one of the Prophets hath said. The just man 
shall live by faith." The second Proposition, as it is repre- 


sented in the new translation, affords no proof of the truth of 
the former. 


V. 4. vTTo vofxov. The Mosaic Law. Part i. Chap. vi. 


V. 24. ai Suo SiaOriKai. Wetstein and Griesbach, with all 
the best MSS. reject at. The Article is by no means requisite 
to the sense : it was, probably, a subsequent interpolation of 
some one who did not attend to the purport of the Apostle's 
declaration; which was only, that the bond-woman and the 
free-woman were emblems of two Covenants : that these, in- 
deed, were the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations, is 
true ; but the application, being so obvious, was left to the 

V. 31. irai^iaKTig rejcva. A distinguished Prelate, the pre- 
sent Bishop of Durham, observes, (ap. Bowyer,) " The Article 
being prefixed to TraiSi(TKr}g in the preceding verse, suggests the 
probability of its being wanting to it here." This is certainly 
very plausible : but perhaps the omission may be accounted for 
by the Negative form of the Proposition. 

CHAP. v. 

V. 5. wivfiari. Spiritually, as in iii, 3. et passim, Rosenm. 
says that Trvcujua is either the mind, or else the Holy Spirit, 
" nisi malis intelligere perfectiorem illam mentis indolem, qua 
Christiani gaudent,'' &c. This is saying only, that Trvtvfia is 
here used in some one of the principal senses in which it is 
found in Scripture. About the real meaning in this place, 
there cannot, I think, be any reasonable doubt : the same ad- 
verhial use, and always without the Article, occurs in a multi- 
tude of instances: in this Chapter, besides the present, see 
verses 16. 18. 25. 

V. 13. rriv IX^vOepiav. Your liberty, as elsewhere ; so the 
Syr. and Syr.-Philox. Macknight has " this liberty," a sense 
which the Article will, indeed, sometimes bear, but which it is 
not any where necessary to introduce. 

V. 25. £1 Z(i>juLev TrvevfiaTi, irv^vfiari koI (ttolxm^^v, if we be 
spiritually affected, let us also walk spiritually. This I take to 


be the sense of the passage, and I understand it as a caution 
against the mischievous consequences of trusting to the all- 
sufficiency of Faith. Schleusner i who pays no regard to the 
Article in distinguishing the different senses of Trvcv/xa, has 
nearly the same interpretation. 


V. 8. UQ TO TTvsvfia, That which is spiritual, generally. 

V. 13. ov^e yap ol irspiTEiJivoij.svoL avTot v6/jlov (^tvXatjaovaLv, 
'NofjLov is here understood by Schleusner and Macknight and 
the other Critics, of the Law of Moses : but the absence of the 
Article led me to suspect that this is not the true meaning ; 
and this suspicion is not without confirmation. It is the object 
of the Apostle to show that the Jews, who were so zealous for 
the circumcision of the Gentile Christians, were ostentatious 
hypocrites. He says, that though they adhered to the Ritual 
of their Religion, of which Circumcision was so important a 
part, they paid no attention to its spirit and design, and being 
thus insincere, were unworthy of regard. They had the iv 
o-apKt irepiTOjjLTi, (see Rom. ii. 28, 29.) but not the Treptro/xij 
icapScac, which ought to follow: TrepiTOfxrj yap w^eXeT, lav 
vojuLov 7rpd(T(rgg (Rom. ii. 25.) There, indeed, both Schleusner 
and Macknight make vofjLov to signify moral obedience: the 
strict parallelism of the two passages affords the strongest pre- 
sumption that they are both to be interpreted in the same 
manner ; and of the former there is not, nor can there be, any 
doubt. — Michaelis, understanding voiiov as others have done, 
proceeds to show the impossibihty of closely adhering to all the 
ordinances of the Levitical Law in foreign countries : but this, I 
believe, is not the subject of complaint. In Acts xxi. 24. 
where the Brethren are urging the necessity of adhering to the 
ceremonies of the Jewish Religion, we find TON vojiov 

V. 14. KoafioQ. This word throughout the N. T. meaning 
the world in its common acceptation, has the Article wherever 
the rules will not account for its omission, except in two in- 
stances, viz. the present and 2 Cbr. v. 19. for in 2 Pet. ii. 5. 
the word is to be understood somewhat differently. It appears 
to me that Korrnog, like Qsog, is one of those words which 



partake of the nature of Proper Names. The same uncer- 
tainty prevails in the classical use, as will be evident on a 
cursory view of the Greek philosophical writers, though the 
Article is there, as in the N. T., almost always inserted. The 
word is used as a Proper Name by Plutarch, Trtpi 2r(t>tic. Ivavr, 
p. 470. fol. Basil 1574. 6 ^l Zsvq koL Koafiog.—F. G. in this 
place prefix 6, and some good MSS. — rw before koct jjlij^ : the 
former reading is probably the correction of some one vrho 
knew not the latitude allowed to KOfr/iog : the latter is probably 
genuine, and is so considered by Griesbach. 




V. 1. roTc ayioig roTc ov(tiv ev 'E^lcfj). It is a well-known 
subject of dispute among learned men, whether this Epistle 
was addressed to the Ephesians, or whether it be the Epistle 
to the Laodiceans mentioned Coloss. iv. 16 : the external evi- 
dence is in favour of the former opinion ; the internal, as is 
alleged, of the latter. They who would know the arguments 
on both sides, detailed at great length, may consult Michaelis's 
Introd. by Marsh, vol. iv. chap. 20 : my immediate concern is 
with a passage of St, Basil, quoted by Michaelis, and before 
him by Wolfius and others ; it is as follows : 'AXXa kol toiq 
'E0£o-fofc e7n<TTiX\u)v, tjg yvrimtjjg rivwfxivoiQ T(^ "Ovti ^i* hwi- 
yvtjjaetjjg, *'ONTAS avrovg l^iaZovrtog wvofiacrsv, eIttiov, toiq 
ayioiQ toIq Outre, Km inaTOiQ iv XpL(TTM 'Irjo-ou. Ovtw yap ol 
wpo 7]mi)v wapadedcoKacn, Ka\ -hfXUQ Iv roig iraXaioXg rwv avTi- 
ypcKjxiJv evptiKaiuLEv. Basilii Opera, tom. i. p. 254. Ed. Garnier. 
From this it has usually been inferred, that in St. Basil's judg- 
ment the addition of ev 'E«^£o-(j) was spurious : and yet nothing 
is more certain than that he acknowledged this Epistle to have 
been addressed to the Ephesians, from the mention of role 
'E^£(Tiotc above : and in another place, de Spir, Sancto, cap. v. 
cited by Matthdi, he says, ypdcjuov 6 'AttootoXoc Trpog 'E^e- 
criovg (piqaiv, ^ AXtiOevovTsg Iv aycnry, k. t. X. which words are 
still found in this Epist. iv. 15. Besides, we learn from Igna- 
tius, who lived in the first century, that St. Paul wrote an 
Epistle to the Ephesians, the description of which, as given by 
that Father, corresponds with the Epistle which is still extant. 
See the Bishop of Lincoln s Elem. of Christ. Theol. vol. i. 
p. 401. The same very learned Prelate observes, that it is 
recognised likewise by Irenseus, Clemens Alex. Tertullian, 

CHAFrER I. 353 

Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, and others. The question, there- 
fore, is, What is the meaning of the latter part of the quota- 
tion from St. Basil? " For thus our ancestors have delivered 
it to us, and thus have we found it in ancient copies." MiU, 
in his Proleg. 1st Edit. p. 9. and ad loc. contends, that certain 
ancient MSS. which St. Basil had seen, omitted the words Iv 
'E^I(T(i», and the late Dr. Foley ^ in his invaluable Horce Pau- 
Uncej chap. vi. No. 4. thinks that Mill, notwithstanding the 
objections which have been made, is right. Dr. Paley, how- 
ever, would perhaps have thought differently, if Mr. Marsh's 
Translation of Michaelis had at that time existed. The German 
Critic has shown, vol. iv. p. 144. that the context of the pas- 
sage in St. Basil is very important to its true interpretation, 
for that the Father, after having accumulated instances where 
the word Igtl is applied to the True God, endeavours to prove, 
that as the True God is called 6 'QN, to distinguish Him from 
false Gods, so true Christians are called ot ovrec, in opposition 
to the Heathens, to. fxri ovra, 1 Cor. i. 28 : now a man who was 
prosecuting this puerile conceit, might very naturally omit the 
words tv 'E(^£o-(j>, as not making for his purpose, without mean- 
ing that they were wanting in the old MSS. ; especially when 
he had said in the preceding sentence, that the Epistle was 
addressed to the Ephesians. Dr. Paley was possibly the more 
disposed to accede to Mill's opinion from a belief that " the 
name ev 'E<^£(T(j) is not read in all the MSS. now extant;" and 
if I understand him rightly, he supposes that a few have ev 
Aao^iKua. In this, however, he must have been mistaken ; 
for not a single MS. hitherto collated omits the words in quesr- 
tion, or has any various reading : unless, indeed, we except an 
emendation in one of the Vienna MSS. noticed in the new 
edition of Griesbach's N. T., but which Dr. Paley could not 
have in view : Iv 'E<pi(Tii), according to that emendation, is to 
be expunged. But this is no authority. 

If not, then, in behalf of the omission of ev 'E<^f(r(j>, why did 
Basil appeal to the ancient MSS. ? Some have thought that 
a few copies might before ovaiv have omitted roXg, the genuine- 
ness of which the Father vindicated as being necessary to his 
argument ; and Wolfius affirms that a MS. was in his time still 
extant, in which roTc was wanting. It is true, that one incon- 
siderable MS. in Griesbach (not known to him, however, wheu 

A a 


he published his former Edit.) does omit rote • whether this 
be, or be not, the MS. alluded to by Woliius, I cannot believe 
the supposed omission to be that to which St. Basil refers, 
partly because it would oifend against the general usage to 
omit the Article in this place, on which account such an omis- 
sion is the less probable ; and partly because St. Basil's argu- 
ment, such as it is, could sufi'er nothing from the absence of 
Totc;, its whole weight resting on oucrtv. The omission of ovaiv, 
therefore, I suppose with Michaelis to be the subject of St. 
Basil's implied censure, as being contrary to to. naXaia rwv 
avTiypcKJxjjv : and tliis omission would not only be hostile to his 
whimsical inference, but moreover is one with which it is highly 
probable that some MSS. were chargeable; for though ovtnv 
would not imply the subintellection of rolg, yet the Article 
might, and consequently does, imply the subintellection of the 
Participle of Existence. So in the very first clause of the 
Lord's Prayer ; an instance, by the way, not very favourable 
to St. Basil's reasoning. I conclude, therefore, that this Fa- 
ther's appeal to the old MSS. was in behalf of rote 0Y2IN Iv 
'E0£(Ta), against some few copies which had what is in truth 
exactly equivalent, viz. ro7g kv 'E^lo-tj), though not Hkely to be 
approved by St. Basil, as not being at all toTiis purpose. 

In answer to the objection that the Epistle contains no inti- 
mation of its being addressed to persons with whom the writer 
was acquainted, though St. Paul had resided two years at 
Ephesus, Macknight contends th^t there are passages in which 
this acquaintance is implied. Michaelis, however, gets rid of 
the difficulty by supposing the Epistle to have been circular, 
being addressed to the Ephesians, Laodiceans, and some other 
Churches of Asia Minor. It could hardly be circular in the 
sense in which Michaelis understands that term ; for he sup- 
poses that the different copies transmitted by St. Paul had Iv 
'E0£(Ttj), ev AaoSfKftot, &c. as occasion required, and that the 
reason why all our MSS. read Iv 'E^£(t<^ is, that when the 
Books of the N. T. were first collected, the copy used was ob- 
tained from Ephesus : but this seems to imply that the Canon 
was established by authority, and that all copies of this Epistle 
not agreeing with the approved edition were suppressed. Nei- 
ther does the ingenious conjecture of Dr. Faley, who tliinks 
that this is actually the Epistle to the Laodiceans referred to 

UHAFrER I. .3.55 

Coloss. iv. 16. ciltogether accord witli the fact, that all the 
extant MSS. have Iv 'E<l>i(Tt^: he says, " Whoever inspects the 
map of Asia Minor will see, that a person proceeding from 
Rome to Laodicea would probably land at Ephesus, as the 
nearest frequented sea-port in that direction. Might not Ty- 
chicus, then, in passing through Ephesus, communicate to the 
Christians of that place the letter with which he was charged ? 
and might not copies of that letter be multiplied and preserved 
at Ephesus ? Might not some of the copies drop the words of 
designation Iv ry AaoStict/jTi, which it was of no consequence to 
an Ephesian to retain ? Might not copies of the letter come 
out into the Christian Church at large from Ephesus; and 
might not this give occasion to a belief that the letter was 
\vritten to that church? And, lastly, might not this belief 
produce the error which we suppose to have crept into the 
inscription?" According to this account we should sm-ely ex- 
pect, that if not all the MSS. at least the greater part of them, 
would read ev AaoStjcc/ey, which, however, is not found in one. 
Besides, though the Ephesians, who might thus be disposed to 
multiply copies of the Epistle which Tychicus had shown them, 
were numerous, yet it ought to be considered that the Christ- 
ians of Laodicea, Colossae, and Hierapolis, (mentioned Coloss. 
iv. 13.) three considerable cities which lay very near each 
other, were probably not less numerous ; and therefore the 
copies disseminated from that quarter cannot well be supposed 
to be fewer than those which issued from Ephesus; not to 
insist that Tychicus, thus charged with a letter to the Laodi- 
ceans, would hardly of his own accord communicate to the 
Christians of Ephesus what was intended for those of another 
city. On the whole, I see nothing so probable as the opinion 
of Mackiiight on Col. iv. 16. " that the Apostle sent the 
Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send 
a copy of it to the Laodiceans, with an order to them to com- 
municate it to the Colossians." This hypothesis will account, 
as well as that of Michaelis, for the want of those marks of per- 
sonal acquaintance which the Apostle's former residence at 
Ephesus might lead us to expect : for every thing local would 
be purposely omitted in an Epistle which had a further desti- 

If ever there were a Letter from St. Paul to the Laodiceans 

A a2 


distinct from the present, it is lost, that preserved in Fahricius 
and in Jones s Work on the Canon being universally admitted to 
be a forgery ; and yet the loss of a Canonical Writing is of all 
suppositions the most improbable. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. and 
Macknight, Essay II. p. 59. Mr. Wakefield^ however, ex- 
plains Col. iv. 16. r?7V Ik AaodiKdag by " the Laodicean Epis- 
tle, viz. that sent to them by St. Paul ;" and this he would 
vindicate by the phrase avrjp tK rfjc noXetog, Luke viii. 27. a 
citizen of Gadara ; as if, because in one place the Preposition 
SK marks origin or derivation, it must in another denote the 
destination or end. The instances which Raphel has adduced 
from Polybius in support of the same construction, are not 
much better: the embassy from Rome, sent thither ^py the 
Lacedaemonians, rriv Ik rrig FwfjLrjg TrpEo-jSf/av, rjv aTri(TTu\av ol 
AaKsdaiiuLovtoi, returned without having accomplished the object 
of its mission ; and the other instance is similar, having only 
ambassadors for embassy. But between the case of an embassy 
and that of a letter, there is a manifest dilfference : ambassa- 
dors, such as were those of the ancients, were expected to 
X'eturn from the place to which they had been sent, so soon as 
their business was completed ; and when the ambassadors from 
a given place are expressly said to be on their return^ as hap- 
pens in both of RapheVs examples, they are necessarily under- 
stood to be the same who had already gone thither : but a letter 
is not sent to a place for the purpose of being sent back again 
to the writer, which, however, must be supposed before the 
cases can be admitted to be parallel. In short, nothing appears 
to me more certain, than that rriv £k Aao^iKeiag must be ren- 
dered, '* the Letter from Laodicea," whether, as some imagine, 
it was one which the Laodiceans had written to St. Paul, or 
one which had been transmitted to Colossae from Laodicea, 
though addressed to a different Church. 

Once, indeed, I thought that the Epistle referred to might 
be the First to Timothy, (which others have supposed,) and 
that on the following grounds: 1st. The subscription of that 
Epistle declares it to have been written from Laodicea ; and 
Schleusner, I know not for what reason, but doubtless on some 
better authority, affirms this to have been the case : see Lex. 
in Aao^iKSia. — 2. It was not improbable that the Colossians 
should have been referred to that Epistle, because, as Michaelis 


has shown, though not with a view to any such hypothesis, the 
1st Epistle to Timothy, no less than that to the Ephesians, 
relates partly to the same subject which gave rise to the Epistle 
to the Colossians. See Introduct, Vol. IV. Chap. xv. Sect. iii. 
— 3. It is not difficult to conjecture why that Epistle should 
be called by St. Paul the one from Laodicea, because not being 
addressed to a whole Chui'ch, but merely to an individual, it 
might seem more respectful to the Church of Phrygia, the 
country in which both Colossae and Laodicea were situated, to 
describe the Epistle by the place where it was written. — 4. The 
Syr. Version seems to favour the notion that the Epistle in 
question was ivritten from Laodicea: the Latin of Schaof's 
Edition is, " illam qu<B scripta est ex Laodicensibus .•" the Syr. 
Preposition may, indeed, be rendered '' by the Laodiceans ;" 
Schaaf had probably some ground of preference. — 5. Accord- 
ing to the Chronology adopted by Michaelis, the 1st to Timothy 
had been written a few years before that to the Colossians, and 
might therefore be the Epistle in question. — I am aware, how^ 
ever, of strong objections to this hypothesis, which, therefore, 
I am not disposed to urge, especially that founded on Col.ii. 1. 
to which Lardner has, indeed, attempted to give an interpreta- 
tion different from the received one, but without, so far as I 
know, having made any one convert to his opinion. 

CHAP. 11. 

* V. 21. Trao-a 7j oikoSojut). Very many MSS., including a 
large proportion of those oiMatthcii, omit 17, and many Editors 
adopt this reading ; among others, Bengel and Grieshach are 
disposed to think the Article spurious. But thus the sense 
will be " every building," (see Part i. Chap. vii. § 1.) which the 
context, as will be evident on looking at the passage, will 
not admit. This is, therefore, one of the instances in which 
the smaller number of MSS. has preserved the true reading. 
Macknight rightly renders " the whole building," but observes, 
" TTCKsa for 0X17," which I do not understand: is not iraq with a 
Substantive, which has the Article prefixed, always equivalent 
to oXogl 

' V. 8. Qtov TO Saipop. Sec perhaps Acts xxiii. fi.— H. J. R. 



V. 1. eyo) UavXog 6 §£<7jU£oc, k. t. X. I cannot better state 
the difficulty attending this passage than by abridging Wolfius. 
" There are two distinct opinions by which the Interpreters are 
here divided : since a Verb is wanting to make the sense com- 
plete, some supply 'ypa(^tt>, some Trpso-jSeuw or KiKavxnfiai, which 
two last are found in some MSS. or, which is more generally 
adopted, the Verb diii. Others, however, suppose a paren- 
thesis, the limits of which are variously represented; some 
making the sense to be continued at ver. 8. some at ver. 14. 
and others at the beginning of the next Chapter." Wolfius 
concludes by giving his own opinion, that " in ambages illi in- 
cidimt, qui commati primo plenum et ahsolutum sensum, sub- 
intellecto verbo elfxl, non vindicant'' 

On this I have to' remark, that tt/oco-jSci^w is found in only 
three MSS. and that KiKav')(i]fxai exists in only one still pre- 
served : Milly indeed, speaks of it, as having been found by 
Stephens, but it is not now known where. On these various 
readings, therefore, no stress is laid : the subintellection of iliii 
is the favourite solution : let us, therefore, consider wherein 
lies the objection to adopting it. 

This Ellipsis, we are told by Wolfius, is in other instances 
very common : I think, however, that it is not at all common 
in cases strictly similar to the present. After the Verb Sub- 
stantive, the Predicate, for the most part, rejects the Article, 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. but this, for a reason there 
assigned, does not always happen when the Subject is a Pro- 
noun Demonstrative, as Glass has observed, Philol. Sac. p. 325. 
Ed. 1711. Thus John x. 7. lyw h^l 'H Bv^a tCov 7rpoj3arwv. 
My objection, therefore, is not to the insertion of the Article 
before ^ia/uLiog, but to the subintellection of dfx(. Among the 
examples which Glass has enumerated in proof of his remark, 
he quotes the verse in question. One thing, however, seems 
to have escaped his notice : it is, that in every passage adduced 
by him, excepting this one, the Verb Substantive is expressed ; 
a strong presumption at least, that however frequently in other 
cases it is understood, in this particular case its subintellection 
is not allowable. But it is not merely from the examples col- 
lected by Glass, that I infer the impossibility of supplying uiu 



before 6 Biry/jiiog : the N. T. abounds with instances in which, 
where cyw is the subject, the Verb Substantive is expressed, 
both where the Predicate has the Article, and where it is 
anarthrous. Thus Matt. xxiv. 5. iyu) EI MI 6 Xpitrrog. Luke 
i. 19. ey(/» EIMI ra/3pnjX. John viii. 12. '^ytL EIMI to (fnog 
Tov KOcT/mov; xv. 1. tyto EIMI ?j ainireXog 17 aXrjdivi]. Acts 
xxiii. 6. lyu) <^api<Tai6g EIMI. 1 Tiin. i. 15. wv Trpwroc EIMI 
tyd). Rev. i. 17. lyw EIMI 6 7rp wroc ; xxii. 16. cyw EIMI 17 
/ot^a Aa/3(S. 

Rosenmuller, however, one of the multitude who would in- 
sert dfxi, as if conscious of the difficulty of defending it, refers 
us to the idiom of the Hebrew : he says, " sicut Hehr, "T'DKil 
^^K expUces lyoj elfii 6 diajj-iog' comp. Mark xii. 26, Rom. 
viii. 33.'' The latter of these examples is dissimilar, because 
no Pronoun Demonstrative is there employed : the former is 
more deserving of consideration ; it is kyu) 6 Qeog 'Aj3paaju, 
K. r. X. where unquestionably Eifjl is understood: but the 
Reader, who has accompanied me thus far in these remarks, 
will have perceived the necessity of distinguishmg original pas- 
sages from citations. Now Mark xii. 26, is cited from Exod. 
iii. 6. and in the Hebrew, as every one knows who has but the 
most superficial knowledge of that language, the Verb Sub- 
stantive in such Propositions is almost always understood. The 
Hebrew says, " I (am) the God of your father, the God of 
Abraham, &c." Our Saviour omitted the clause, " the God of 
your father," as having no relation to his argument, and appears 
to have quoted in a cognate dialect, " I (am) the God of Abra- 
ham," which his Evangelist has faithfully and even scrupu- 
lously recorded, though even here a few MSS. and so also 
Origen, have inserted tt/if. But how, it will be asked, have 
the LXX. rendered the Hebrew? Translators are not re- 
stricted so closely as are the reporters of the sayings of illus- 
trious persons: the LXX. therefore, though generally not 
averse from Hebraisms, have rendered the Hebrew by lyw 
EIMI 6 0£oc TOV TTttTpog (TOV, 6 Qeog, &c. a plain intimation 
that in their judgment lyw 6 Qeog would be hardly tolerable. 
And I could show that elsewhere they have adopted the very 
same usage, or else, not inserting alfiij they have omitted the 
Article of the Predicate, as in Isaiah xii. 4. eyw Qeog wpwrog, 
not 'O Qeog 'O npwTog' and so in many other examples. 


There is, tlierefore, no force whatever in the imaginary He- 
brew instance (for I cannot find it in the O. T.) adduced by 
Rosenmiiller : there is no doubt that he who should meet with 
it, would render it as Rosenmiiller says, lyw EI MI 6 ^iajunogi 
but would he have sufficient authority for writing, for that is 
the question, lyu) 6 ^iajuLog, meaning ufxl to be understood? 
If not, which I think has been abundantly proved, the case 
stands on the same footing as if the Hebrew, instead of omit- 
ting the Verb Substantive, constantly inserted it. 

Thus far I have endeavoured to show that iljuu cannot be 
understood before 6 ^f o-^toc : to make the argument complete, 
I ought to remind the Reader that lyt^ 6 SscTfitog, on the hy- 
pothesis that etjut is not to be supplied, is the very form usual 
in similar instances: see on Luke xviii. 13. So also eyw 6 
^icFjuLog, ver. 1. of next Chapter. The result of the whole 
seems to be, that el/uii is not understood before 6 ^iafiiog, and 
that consequently we must have recourse to a Parenthesis. 

As to the limiis of this Parenthesis, I think that the whole 
reasoning will be perfectly connected and conclusive, if we 
suppose the thread to be resumed at the 14th verse. The 
principal truth announced in the preceding Chapter was, that 
the Ephesians, who had been Gentiles, were in common with 
the Jews admitted to all the privileges and blessings of the 
new Dispensation. " For this cause," (rovrov x^P'^^i ^^^' ^') 
says St. Paul, " I the prisoner of Jesus Christ, (for ye cannot 
but," (etye, see Hoogeveen de Part. Gr. who quotes this pas- 
sage,) *' have heard both of my divine commission and of the 
nature of the doctrine which I am commanded to teach," (ver. 
2 — 13.) " for this cause" {rovrov X'^9^'^ repeated ver. 14 — 19.) 
" I pray to God, who has been thus merciful in calling you, 
that ye may be strengthened with might by his Spirit, (ver. 16.) 
that so Christ may dwell in your hearts." After this prayer is 
subjoined (vers. 20, 2\.) a Doxology, with the concluding 
Amen. — The opinion that the sense is not resumed till the 
next Chapter, is certainly somewhat plausible: the reasons, 
however, which tend to show that it is continued at ver. 14. of 
the present Chapter, are also reasons against its being first 
resumed elsewhere : in addition to them I would observe, that 
the solemn Doxology with which the present Chapter con- 
cludes, forbids us to imagine that the sense is still incomplete. 

CHAPrER IV. 361 

Nor is it difficult to explain the wapaKoXC) ovv of the next 
Chapter, without supposing it to be the resumption of the 
argument. At ver. 1. Chapter iv. begins an exhortation, 
which is continued to the end of the Epistle : the ovv, which 
some suppose to indicate a resumption, is no other than the 
" qiKse cum ita sint'" of Cicero, which usually introduces his 
perorations. " These things being so," says St. Paul, i. e. God 
having thus called you to partake in the Covenant of mercy, 
*' I exhort you to walk worthy of your vocation :" and accord- 
ingly the remainder of the Epistle is devoted to moral pre- 

I have entered into this subject the more fully, from the 
perplexity which appears to have attended it. Our English 
Version supposes a Parenthesis, of which, however, the boun- 
daries are not very clearly marked. Macknight and Wakefield, 
as well as the French Translator, Beausohre, supply the Verb 
Substantive, and Michaelis goes on to the next Chapter. It 
is, moreover, a question of some curiosity, as tending to illus- 
trate the style of St. Paul. — If I have not attempted to refute 
the notion, that the resumption is at ver. 8. it is because I 
know not of any thing which can be alleged in its behalf. It 
was, indeed, the opinion of Grotius, but he has not assigned 
the grounds of it. 

V. 15. iraaa iraTpia. , All the modern Versions which I have 
met with, here render iracra by all, in the sense of the whole, 
or something equivalent thereto. It is, however, to be ob- 
served, that the reading is not Tracra 'H Trarpia, and that there- 
fore the sense is everi/ family. And so the Aticients appear to 
have understood it, i. e. they understood several Trarptag or 
Families on earth, and several in Heaven. See Theophyl. (Ecu- 
men, and others in Suicer, vol. ii. p. QoS, 


V. 30. jur) XuTrarc to irvEVfia to ayiov. I believe that I have 
already shown k Trspiovaiag, that wherever in the N. T. either 
action or passion is ascribed to the Spirit, irvevjuia has the Ar- 
ticle. See on Matt. i. 18. 



V. 5. ev ry jSao-fXeta rov Xpiarrov kol Oeou. This is, strictly- 
speaking, the first of the Examples adduced by Mr. Granville 
Sharp in proof that the same Person is in Scripture called 
Christ and God : for in Acts xx. 28. as was there shown, the 
reading is doubtful. The principle of the rule was sufiiciently 
demonstrated in Part i. p. 78 ; and it cannot be pretended that 
the present instance in any respect deviates from the conditions 
there prescribed, since both Xpiarbg and Oeocj the former 
retaining its more usual sense, and not being taken as a Proper 
Name, are as plainly what I have denominated Attributives, 
as are any of the words which appear in illustration of the 
rule : Qeog, indeed, is itself adduced in one or two of the ex- 
amples. I must, however, repeat, that this word never uses 
its licence with respect to the Article in such a way as to inter- 
fere with the construction usual in the case of the most com- 
mon Appellatives. If Qeov, therefore, be here meant other- 
wise than as a joint Predicate of rov, the construction is wholly 
destroyed ; an inconvenience which might easily, and unques- 
tionably would have been avoided by writing TOY 0£oi), in the 
same manner as 6 (iatriXevg kuX 'O riyefjLijJv. See on Acts xxvi. 
30. Matt, xviii. 17. second Note : et passim. 

The Unknown Writer, already noticed on Matt. xi. 11 . con- 
tends that " XpKTTog being an epithet, the expression is harsh 
and intolerable : and that he must be a rude Writer who should 
say, The anointed and God," p. 74. Rude he would be in- 
deed : but this is not similar to the Greek, and therefore ought 
not to have been so represented ; and yet this very misrepre- 
sentation is made to be the ground-work of the Writer's whole 
fabric. Without deigning to inquire whether the Greek and 
English Articles have any and what degree of analogy, he sets 
out with the bold assertion, that the rule laid down by his 
Opponent, and by all Antiquity, " may be tried just as well in 
English as in Greek. Now in English," he says, *' we have 
such phrases as the King and Queen, the Husband and Wife, 
&c. &c. which cannot be understood of the same person." See 
p. 19. And hence he concludes that Mr. Sharp and all the 
Greek Fathers, who, according to Mr. Wordsworth, support 
Mr. Sharp's interpretation, must be wrong. If it be so, for 


Mr. Sharp's error I cannot pretend to account ; but that of the 
Fathers should thus appear to have arisen from their ignorance 
of English. 

A mind accustomed to any thing like proof would have 
shrunk from such temerity. It might have been thought of 
some importance in a question of Greek criticism, to have 
ascertained the practice of the Greek Writers in cases precisely 
parallel : it might have been a consequence of this examination 
to have investigated the ground of an usage which, in the 
Greek Writers, both profane and sacred, was found to prevail 
universally : the result of this inquiry might have induced at 
least a suspicion, that the Greek idiom in some respects dif- 
fered from our own ; and on a subject of a very serious nature, 
which after all could be decided only by learning and calm dis- 
cussion, it might have been deemed neither necessary nor 
decent to catch at the applause of illiterate Unbelievers, by 
attempting to raise a laugh. On all these points, however, the 
Unknoion Writer thought differently from persons accustomed 
to sober and grave deliberation : at the outset he is satisfied 
with a mis-statement of the question, and he is not ashamed 
to triumph in the consequences. — The truth is, that the Article 
of our language not being a Pronoun, has little resemblance to 
that of the Greeks ; and the proper rendering of tov XpKrrov 
KoX Qeov is not " of the anointed and God," but ** of Him 
(being, or) who is the Christ and God ;" in which, I believe, 
there is nothing approaching to the " rudeness" of the bur- 
lesque translation, nor to the vulgarity of such phrases as " the 
King and Queen." Of the objection, that XpKTTog is an epi- 
thet, I do not see the drift : for epithets, being descriptive of 
qualifg, are more especially and strictly subject to the rule ; 
though epithets in many instances, as in Ksvog, 8cc. and in this 
also, become Substantives; and to them this Writer, being 
ignorant of the principle on which the rule is founded, seems 
to have supposed it chiefly, if not exclusively, to apply. But 
it is the strange infelicity of the Unknown Controversialist y 
that when he would reason, which rarely happens, he can only 

But not only the principle of the rule. Part i. Chap, iii. 
Sect. iv. § 2. and the invariable practice in the N. T. with 


respect to Otog and all other Attributives, compel us to 
acquiesce in the identity of Xptarou koX Qeov, but the same 
truth is evinced by the examination of the Greek Fathers so 
ably executed by Mr. Wordsworth ; who affirms, " we shall 
have the consolation to find, that no other interpretation than 
yours (Mr. Sharp's) was ever heard in all the Greek churches :" 
p. 26, He then adduces, among other examples, some very 
decisive passages from Chrysostom, Cyril Alex, and Theodoret, 
in which this very text is cited with the common Trinitarian 
texts, John i. 1. Rom. ix. 5. These passages, indeed, the 
Unknown Writer would evade by saying, that the arguments 
of the Fathers are a deduction from the unity of dominion ; 
meaning, I suppose, that Christ and God are no otherwise one, 
than as they jointly reign over one kingdom. But here again 
is the mischief of not inquiring into the principle of the rule 
which does and must apply perpetually in cases where a refer- 
ence to community of dominion cannot be supposed. Besides, 
how will this accord with Theodoret's explanation of Titus 
ii. 13. (see Wordsworth, p. 32.) " He" (the Apostle) " hath 
called the same person the Saviour and the Great God and 
Jesus Christ ?" It may here, indeed, with as much reason as 
in the former instance, be urged, that this is a deduction from 
the unity of appearance, lirKpaveiav rrig ^6E,rig : but then why 
is it not TOY arujTripoQ ri^iov, as in the former case why was it 
not TOT Qsov ? Almost every chapter of the N. T. contains 
some exemplification of the rule in question, with wliich, there- 
fore, the Sacred Writers were w^ell acquainted, and must have 
supposed their Readers to have been acquainted also ; and if in 
Titus ii. 13. they did not mean to identify the Great God and 
the Saviour, they expressed themselves in a manner which they 
well knew would mislead their Readers, and to mislead must 
have been their object : so absurd are the conclusions to which 
the subterfuges and conjectures of this Writer inevitably con- 
duct us. It ought to be observed, that Theodoret's explana- 
tion of Titus ii. 13. introduces the present text as a similar 
passage. — Mr. Wordsworth avers, (p. 132.) " I have observed 
more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form 6 
XpKTTog KaX 0£oc, (Eph. v. 5.) some hundreds of instances of 6 
jutyac Oeoc Ktti (T(i)Tr)^, (Tit. ii. 13.) and not fewer than several 


thousands of the form 6 Oeoc kol crwriip, {2 Pet. i, 1 :) while 
in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be deter- 
mined, any one of them used, but only of o?ie person." 

The same Writer, however, laments his inability to ascertain 
the sense of the Oriental Versions: though, as he rightly 
states, they are, in comparison with the interpretation of the 
Fathers, but of secondary importance ; for it is obvious that 
the Oriental Translators could not be better skilled in Greek 
than were such men as Chrysostom and Cyril Alex. : and the 
probability is, that some of them not being native Greeks, 
understood it not so well : still, however, this is a question of 
some curiosity, and I wish with Mr. Wordsw^orth, that I were 
capable of answering it satisfactorily. 

The Syriac does not appear to me to have any method, gene- 
rally applicable, of expressing the idiom noticed in Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iv. §s2. I had, indeed, once thought that in 
Genitives resembling the present instance, diversity of persons 
might be signified by inserting the Preposition > before the 
second Syriac Noun, as well as before the first, and that iden- 
tity was marked by the omission : this would show the Trans- 
lator to have understood Xpiarov kol Qbov of two persons : but 
in 2 Pet. iii. 18. where the Syr. Translator, after 'Iriaov Xpicr- 
Tov, read kqX Qtov irarpog, which could not be taken of Jesus 
Christ, he has, instead of |au:^>o as in the present example, 
simply jou^o. This, therefore, cannot be the rule. In one 
of Mr. Sharp's texts (viz. Jude 4.) identity is clearly expressed 
by appositioji, the Copulative being omitted: but in Heb. iii. 1. 
TOV cnrocTToXov kol apyi^pia, this does not happen. In the 
present text, at least, I suspect that the Syriac is ambiguous : 
others, perhaps, may detect some distinction which has escaped 
my notice. 

In examining the Coptic, I beheve we shall be more success- 
ful. This language has Articles, both determinate and in- 
determinate : they seem not to be employed to mark the dif- 
ference distinguishable in the usage, which we are now con- 
sidering ; yet, if I mistake not, the Coptic has a Canon, which 
is equivalent to the Greek one. In that language there are 
two Copulatives, ouch and nem : the latter, indeed, is a Pre- 
position corresponding with the Hebrew UV or Greek fura : 
but it is also commonly employed where the Greek has ica/". 


I have observed, however, that these Copulatives are not used 
indiscriminately : w^here the Translator understood two Attri- 
butives of the same person, koI is always, I think, rendered by 
OUCH ; where of different persons, as in 6 jdamXivg kol 6 -nye- 
jjLijjVj by NEM. A single example will illustrate my meaning : 
the Translator read ver. 20. of the present chapter, Iv ovo/uLan 
Tov Kvpiov 77/iwv ^Ir}(jov Xpicrrov koX tov Qeov koL irarpog' his 
Version is nem tov Q&ov ouch tov irarpog. Supposing, then, 
that we have here a Coptic Canon equivalent to the Greek one, 
what is the result ? It is, that of Mr. Sharp's seven texts, (for 
at Acts XX. 28. the Coptic read Kvpiov,) the present was un- 
derstood of two persons, contrary to the interpretation of the 
Greek Fathers : the three next, viz. 2 Thess. i. 12. 1 Tim. 
V. 21. and 2 Tim. iv. 1. also of two persons: but there the 
Fathers are silent: Titus ii. 13. and 2 Pet. i. 1. were inter- 
preted of one person : and Jude 4. where, however, the Coptic 
did not read 0£ov, is expressed, as in the Syriac, by apposition. 
For the Arabic and ^thiopic I must avail myself of the 
assistance of Mr. Wakefield. His rendering of this passage is 
very curious, " of the anointed Teacher of God." He observes 
in his Note, that the Arabic and jEthiopic Versions omit Kat , 
and he refers us in behalf of the phrase *' anointed of God," to 
Luke ii. 26. and ix. 20. On examining the places, I find 6 
XptcTTog Kvpiov and 6 XpicFTog TOY Qeov' both of which 
accord with the Greek usage: see on Luke i. 15: but where 
are we to look for 6 Xpicrrog Oeov ? It is somewhat singular 
that a man who had devoted the greater part of his life to Phi- 
lology, who had translated the N. T. and who had written the 
Silva Critica in illustration of it, should not have known that 
6 XpiGTog 0£ou is not Greek. But the Arabic and iEthiopic 
Versions, says Mr. W., omit jcat : was he, then, to learn Greek 
from Arabs and ^Ethiopians, when they presented him with a 
construction founded on a solecism? But after all, how does 
it appear that they omitted Kai ? I suspect, from the known 
analogy of the Oriental Languages, that neither the Arabic 
nor the iEthiopic Translator meant to indicate what Mr. Wake- 
field's rendering implies, that koi was wanting in the copies 
which they respectively used : for I know that in the Peshito 
o Qebg kuX TraTrjp is frequently, though not always, rendered 
by " God the Father :" I think it probable, therefore, that the 

CHAPfER VI. 367 

Arabic and ^Ethiopic Translators have here employed the same 
method of expressing identity. — On turning to Bodes Pseudo- 
critica, which I had not seen till some part of this work had 
been printed off, I found the very same solution. It appears, 
therefore, that the Arabic and JEthiopic Translators did actu- 
ally understand this passage of Him, who is Christ and God. 

On the whole, I regard the present text, as it stands in the 
Greek, to be among the least questionable of the authorities 
collected by Mr. Sharp, and as being, when weighed impar- 
tially, a decisive proof, that in the judgment of St. Paul, Christ 
is entitled to the appellation of God. 

V. 20. Ti^ Gfw Ktti Trarpt. Macknight would improve the 
English Version, " to God and the Father," which implies that 
God and the Father are distinct persons, by rendering " to 
God, even the Father ;" and Ahp, Newcome does the same. I 
have already shown, (p. 403, and in Part i.) that icai in such 
cases is no other than the common Copulative, and if it signi- 
fies eveuy there could be no reason for omitting the second 
Article : the Father /car' i^ox^v is always 'O Trarrjp. It is 
rather remarkable, that almost all the modern Translators 
should, in some instances at least, have been compelled to 
adopt the Canon, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect, iv. § 2. and yet that 
none of them should have stumbled on the principle which 
must have led them to a more general application of it. 

V. 2S, 6 avrip. Many MSS. — 6, which is not absolutely 
necessary. A. alone has 'O adyTrip, where, however, the Ar- 
ticle is dispensed with, as in the same verse is ij before icc^aXr^ 


V. 2, IvToXrj TrpwTrj. Mar Hand conjectures *H Trpwri), 
though he admits that this word is elsewhere without the Ar- 
ticle. So, frequently, are all Ordinals : see Part i. Chap, vi. 
§ 3. ^ 

1 V. 12. ?7 TTuXq, the contest referred to in the preceding verse, as Winer 
notes. — II. J. R. 




V. ^5. Eig Tr]v v/JLuJv irpoKOTr^v Kol X'^9^^ ^'^^ iricTTeuyg. Of 
these words there are various translations, which I forbear to 
enumerate. My objection to the greater part of them is, that 
they disjoin Trpo/coyrryv and ^apav, as if 7ri<jT£wg did not depend 
on the former of these as well as on the latter. That this, how- 
ever, is the construction, I infer from the omission of the Ar- 
ticle before xapav. So in verse 7. of this chapter, ev rp utto- 
\oyi^ Ktti j5£J5aid)(TEi Tov evayyeXiov, though even there Mac- 
knight disjoins the two governing Nouns without any apparent 
reason : for the words airoXoy ia svayyeXlov are found in the 
present chapter, verse 17. Neither in the passage under re- 
view would there be any thing harsh in joining TrpoKorrriv with 
TTttrrcwcj for in verse 12. it is joined with evayyiXlov, which in 
sense is not very dissimilar. I understand the translation, 
therefore, to be, " to promote your advancement and joy in 
the faith," i. e. for your religious improvement and your re- 
ligious comfort. Macknight renders " for the advancement of 
the joy of your faith," which does not seem to be deducible 
from the Greek. 


V. 2. TO £v ^povovvrc^. This reading is remarkable on two 
accounts, both as it is so nearly a repetition of a phrase whicli 
had already occurred in the same verse, viz. to avTo (ppovTJTEy 
and as having the Article (supposing the common interpreta- 
tion to be right) prefixed to tv, which always is anarthrous in 
the N. T. except where there is some kind of reference. A. C. 
17. 73. of Griesbach and the Vulg. have, indeed, the reading 


TO avTo : this relieves us from the difficulty attending the Ar- 
ticle in TO ev, but it rather increases that which arises from the 
repetition. Those MSS. however, are of considerable autho- 
rity, and it may well be contended, that even without admit- 
ting TO avTo the tautology is sufficiently evident : indeed 
Schleusner makes to avTo ^povdv and to tv (l)povuv to be 
equivalent. Markland and the Bishop of Durham (apud 
Bowyer) suspect that one of those clauses is a marginal ex- 
planation: in the collection of Conjectures, many are much 
more improbable ; the suspicion, however, is not confirmed by 
any MS. or Version. Rosenmiiller tells us that to avTo (l)po- 
vEiv and to tv (ppoveXv are different things : the former mark- 
ing consent in doctrine, as below, iii. 16. the latter, conformity 
in moral conduct, as in Rom. xv. 5. But in this there must 
be some mistake ; for in Rom. xv. 5. it is not to ev (l)povHv, 
but TO avTo ; neither does the phrase to ev (jtpovHv occur in 
the whole N. T. except in the present instance. Blackwall 
(Sacr. Class.) according to the fashion of his day, when it was 
presumed to be impossible that inspired thoughts could be ex- 
pressed in any other than classical Greek, admits the tautology, 
but defends it on the authority of Xenophon ; the two clauses, 
oruveoTjjKora ug to avro and (7vvi.<JTi]K0LEv etc fv, being found 
in the same sentence, Cyrop. p. 13. Edit. 1581. This, how- 
ever, proves at most that the best writers are sometimes inat- 
tentive ; but even the reading is not indisputable ; for accord- 
ing to Sturz, Lex. Xen. voce (jvviaTaadai, the Cod. Guelf. 
wants the latter clause : at any rate, it is observable that in 
Xenophon it is not ug TO tv : and in to %v (jipovovvTeg, even 
though the tautology could be shown to be of the essence of 
elegance, the Article is still to be accounted for, which can be 
done only by supposing some kind of reference ; since there 
is not in the LXX. or the N. T. any instance of ro tv in which 
the Article is not to be so explained : and in the profane Greek 
writers the usage is the same. But see on 1 John v. 7. This 
reference, then, I suppose here to be to what immediately fol- 
lows, /j,ri^lv KUT IpiOeiav rj KEvo^o^iav, as if the Apostle had 
said, " minding the one thing, viz. &c." This interpretation is 
favoured by the Vulg. " id ipsum sentientes, Nihil per conten- 
tionem neque per inanem gloriam" But what principally con- 
firms my opinion is the construction of the sentence following^ 



firi^lv KttT Ipldtiav, which in having no Verb assumes the form 
of a proverbial admonition, such as might naturally be made a 
subject of reference. Thus in /xr^Stv ayav we must supply 
TToteirs, exactly as in the instance before us. I observe that 
Grotius understood the passage in the manner here proposed : 
his words are, " hoc unum studentes, maximd scilicet, nequid 
contentiose" &c. 

V. 4. aXXa Tci tripwv. Some good MSS. have ra rwv, 
which is probably right. 

V. 6. Iv iJLop(p^ Qeov. I do not recollect that any one has, 
in consequence of the absence of the Article, asserted that 
0£ou is here to be taken in a lower sense ; yet Mr. Wakefield's 
translation, " in a divine form," savours somewhat of this kind 
of criticism. The Article, however, may be omitted by Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. Many modern Divines, and among 
the Fathers Theodoret, understand the clause ovx agirayfiov 
r}yy](TaTo somewhat differently from our English Version. The 
remark of Theodoret, as quoted by JVolfius, is, that *' Christ 
being by nature God, and having equality with the Father, did 
not pique himself on this His dignity, as is the manner of those 
who have obtained unmerited honour ; but having renounced 
His high station, he condescended to the exteeme of humility, 
and assumed the form of man." To this interpretation of ap- 
wayjuLov -nyijaaro, the few parallel expressions which Commen- 
tators have collected, appear to me to be favourable : since the 
terms most nearly approaching to apTrayjuiov are Xa(l>vp6vf 
tpfiaXov, (}>(i)pLov ; and no difficulty arises from the context, the 
passage being introduced by the admonition, " Let this mind 
be in you, wliich was also in Christ Jesus." Not dissimilar is 
the praise bestowed on Athanasius by Greg. Naz. vol. i. p. 377. 
ov yap ofiov rs KaraXajUj3av£i tov Opovov, loairep ol rvpavvi^a 
Tiva rj Kkripovofxiav irapa ^o^av 'APIIASIANTES, koi vjSpt^ct 
Sta TOV Kopov' a passage which I have no where seen quoted 
in illustration of the present verse. If, however, we admit 
even this explanation, the text affords the most decisive evi- 
dence of the Divinity of Christ. He is said to have been in 
the form and nature of God: I know not, indeed, whether 
vTrapx,<^v may not be rendered pre-existing, for Suidas, edit. 
Kust. vol. iii. p. 5S2. observes, ro virapxuv ov\ airXiog to uvai 
ar\jxaivH aWa to naXat tlvai, koi IIPOEINAI, <f)daveiv' even. 


however, if the word be taken in its looser sense, the inference 
will be the same : since Theodoret's interpretation makes the 
humility of Christ to have consisted in His relinquishing the 
dignity of being equal to the Father, which, of course, it 
admits Him to have enjoyed ; and if it was enjoyed, it could 
be only in a state of pre-existence. Unbelief has, indeed, 
endeavoured to explain aw^ay the force of the expression av 
IJ.op(l)y Qtov : but, as is well observed by the Bishop of Lin- 
coln, (Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 112.) " Being in the form of 
God, signifies being really God, just as the phrase, ' took 
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness 
of man,' signifies, that He was really a man in a low and mean 
condition." Besides, the Fathers explain /xop*^?] by ovaia : see 
Suicer, vol. ii. p. 377. 

V. 11. elg ^o^av Oeov irarpog, A good instance of Part i. 
Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 

V. 13. 6 Seog yap, k, r. X. Many MSS. — 6, possibly right: 
so Geoc 6 dtKaiwv, Rom. viii. 33. 


V. 1. Many MSS. and Editt. have TO aacjiaXig, of which I 
do not perceive the meaning. 

V. 3. 01 TTvevjULaTL Qsio XarpevovTEg. The majority of MSS. 
with some of the Fathers, have here Qeov : and to this reading 
modern Editors, as Wetstein, Matthlii, and Grieshach, give the 
preference, though Mill and Bengel prefer Get^. I know of 
no ground for adopting Gcou, except the preponderance of 
MSS. and I am persuaded that Gew is genuine, both because 
TTveujua Gcou is no where, that I recollect, used to signify the 
Holy Spirit, unless there be a reason for omitting the Articles, 
which here is not the case, and because the context plainly 
requires us to understand nvevfiaTi in the adverbial sense, and 
consequently to read 06w : unless, indeed, irvevij.aTL Qsov 
mean no more than irvevfiaTi. See above on Rom. viii. 13. 
The design of the Apostle is here to depreciate the rite of cir- 
cumcision, as no longer of any efficacy, which therefore he 
contemptuously calls the Kararo/xT/, or mutilation: he says, 
" beware of the concisio/i : we (viz. the Christians) are the cir- 
cumcision {t} irepiTOfxrf) who worship God spiritually, TrvEVfiaTi, 



and glory in Jesus, and have no trust in the flesh." Here, 
plainly, to worship God spiritually is made to be the essence 
of true Rehgion, as distinguished from the barren ceremonial 
observances on which principally the Jewish opponents of 
Christianity appeared to set a value. The very same argu- 
ment is elsewhere urged by the Apostle, especially Rom. 
ii. 25. to the end of the Chapter. — He who keeps in view these 
remarks, can hardly fail to acquiesce in the reading 0f<j>; 
which is further confirmed by the Syr. and Vulg. and, if we 
may trust the Latin, by the Arab, and ^thiop. — Mr. Gran- 
ville Sharp in his Tract, second edit. p. 32. endeavours to vin- 
dicate 060V, and contends, that if Qel^ be the reading, it ought 
to be rendered " the Spirit God," because the Preposition 
kv is not prefixed to wveviJLaTu But of TrvavfiaTL without ev, 
when used in the adverbial sense, many instances have been 
pointed out, and the N. T. supplies probably more than fifty. 
Besides, the Spirit God, or irvtvfia Oeoc, is a phrase which no 
where exists, not to insist that the duty of worshipping the 
Holy Spirit is entirely foreign from the reasoning. 

V. 5. irspiToiuy oKTarifxepog. Some Editions, among others 
that of Matthai, with whom agrees Schleusner in his Lexicon, 
have TrBpiTO/nrj in the Nominative : in that case we must con- 
strue ''my circumcision was," &c. ; but then I should have 
expected the Article, whereas in the more common construc- 
tion the Article is properly omitted. Moreover, Adjectives of 
time ending in rjjuspoc and aiog, are appHed to persotis, rarely 
to things. So in a passage quoted by Wetstein, we read Xpia- 
roQ cLviaraTai rpirjfjiepog) and in John xi. 39. rsTapraXog yap 
IdTt. Thus the construction will be, '' in respect of circum- 
cision (circumcised) on the eighth day." The structure also of 
the whole passage will be disturbed, if we make Trcptro/xr) the 
Nominative ; for the Apostle, both before and after the words 
in question, is himself the subject of the discourse; " I more, 
circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel," &c. : if, 
therefore, Trepirofiri be the Nominative, it is strangely inserted, 
nor do I perceive how we can, without great violence, restore 
eyo) in the next clause, Ik yivovg ^laparjX. 



V. 15. irpioTOTOKOQ TTtto-iic KTicTeLjg. OiiY Vei'sioii has " of 
every creature :" Macknight and Wakefield, " of the whole 
creation :" Neiccome says it may be either. But this, I appre- 
hend, is a mistake: the absence of the Article shows that 
KTimQ is here used for an individual, as in our Version, and not 
of the creation inclusively, which would have required Trao-rjc 
TH2 jcrto-ewc: so Mark xvi. 15. and Rom. viii. 22. I do not, 
however, perceive that this distinction throws any light on the 
controversy respecting the meaning of the passage. Michaelis, 
after Isidore the Pelusiot, would accent the Penult Trpwrorofcocj 
so as to make the sense active : but then it will signify, not 
simply having borne or begotten, but that /or the first time : so 
Homer. II. XVII. 5. The Socinians understand TT/Qwrorofcoc 
to represent the Hebrew "TlD^, and to be thus expressive only 
of the dignity of primogeniture. I am surprised that this 
interpretation should have been adopted by Schleusner ; for 
surely nothing can be more incompatible with the whole con- 
text : in illustration of the truth that Christ is ttqiototokoq 
TraarjQ KTicretjg, the Apostle adds, that through Him (Christ) 
were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and 
invisible, with the several orders of Angels : thus, then, it will 
be said that Christ was the Eldest born of his own Creation ; 
which is so absurd, that it requires no common hardihood to 
defend it. Schleusner, indeed, it must be admitted, adopts 
the derived, not the primitive sense of 7r/owroroKoc, making it to 
signify princeps et dominus ; but this does not relieve the diffi- 
culty, unless an instance can be produced in which Trpwrorofco^ 
signifies dominus otherwise than in reference to the brethren 
over whom the first-born among the Jews had authority. Of 


the literal sense, the instances cited by Schleusner are, Gen. 
xxvii. 29. 37. and 1 Sam. xx. 29. about which there can be 
no doubt : for the metaphorical he quotes Jeremiah xxxi. 9. 
in which, however, there is no confusion of metaphor, the 
words being, " I am Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my 
first-born ;" i. e. Ephraim shall have authority over the other 
tribes, who are his brethren; exactly as in Rom. \iii. 29. 
we have ttqmtotokov Iv iroWoig aStA^oTc. What is wanted 
is an instance in which Trpwrorojcoc is so used in the meta- 
phorical sense, that it not only has lost sight of its origin as 
a metaphor, but is used in direct contradiction to it, as is 
alleged in the present instance. — On the whole, I know of 
no better expedient than to understand the words as mean- 
ing " begotten before every creature," i. e. before any created 
being had existence : thus it was explained by the majority 
of the ancients ^ See Suicer, vol. ii. p. 879. That irpCjTog 
may be thus used is evident from John i. 15. and 30. MicJia- 
elis has observed, that in the language of the Rabbins, God is 
called the First-born of the World. At any rate, be the mean- 
ing of this text what it may, the utmost which can be expected 
by the malice of heresy, and achieved by the perversion of 
criticism, is to detach it from the verses which immediately 
follow ; with which, however, it seems to be most closely con- 
nected. But even this will be of no avail : with the 16th, and 
especially with the 17th verse, the reasonable Advocate for the 
Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ might, if he had no other 
evidence in his favour, be abundantly content. The positive 
assurance that Christ was before all things, and that by Him 
all things (rvvearriKB (the word used both by Josephus and Philo 
of the acknowledged Creator : see Krehs's Ohss. in N. T. e Jose- 
pho ; and also by many other writers) leaves no question as to 
the dignity of the Redeemer of Mankind. 

Mr. Wakefield translates, ** an image of the invisible God, 
a first-born," &c. as if there were several such : it is difiicult 
to suppose that he was ignorant of the usage after the Verb 

1 That this is the true interpretation, can hardly be doubted; and the doctrine 
is that which is more fully expressed in the Nicene Creed : " Begotten of his 
Father before all worlds."— The substitution of the superlative for the compara- 
tive in such cases, is too common to need illustration. — J. S. 


V. 23. Iv iracry ry ktlgu. Several considerable MSS. — ry, 
and Grieshach thinks the Article probably spurious : but see 
the last Note. Not a single MS. oi Matthdi omits the Article. 
The phrase here is equivalent to ver. 6. of this Chapter, Iv 

iraVTl Tt^ KOCTfJlti). 

CHAP. n. 

V. 10. ri KecjtaXri iracrrfQ ap-)(rig. See on 1 Cor. xi. 3. 

V. 14. TO xeipoypatpov roXg doy fmaaiv. There are few pas- 
sages of the N. T. in the interpretation of which the Trans- 
lators and Critics have more widely differed from each other. 
Our English Version has " hand-writing of ordinances," and 
this is adopted by Macknight and Newcome ; though how 
this meaning can be deduced from the words of the original, I 
am at a loss to discover. Rosenmuller explains the Greek by 
** legem illam scriptam prceceptis variis constantem ;" and some 
have made roTc Soyjuaaiv to have no dependence on to X^^P^' 
ypa^ov, but to be governed by t^aXeixpag. I believe that the 
true construction must be sought in an Ellipsis of <ruv, ex- 
amples of which are common in the profane Writers : the same 
Ellipsis occurs also in Revel. \'iii. 4. Toig irpocrevxatg twv 
ayiwv, which is well rendered by Abp. Newcome, " together 
with the prayers of Saints." It is some confirmation of this 
solution, that the Armenian adds avTov: that two or three 
authorities have SYN ToXg ^oyiuLarriv : and that in the Second 
Homily of Clemens Romanus (Coteler. vol. i. p. 631.) Moses is 
said to have delivered tov vm/mov arvv toiq kiriXixreGu The sense 
will thus be, " Having cancelled the bond, together with all its 
covenants ^ :" these covenants or conditions were the numerous 
expiations prescribed by the Levitical Law ; the Bond was the 
Law itself. The same Ellipsis is known to the Hebrew : see 
Noldius, p. 576. 

V. 17. TO (Tiofia tov XpitTTov, Hcrc many MSS. including 
a large proportion of Matthiii's — tov. This is probably right, 
especially since Xqicttov is not immediately dependent on to 

* See below, vcr. 20. and Eph. ii. 15. Author's MS. 



V. 5. Tov Kaipov E^ayopaZojULsvoi. Machnight renders this 
by " gaining time." But Kaipog is not equivalent to X9^~ 
voQf being always used in reference to something which is 
to be done. It seems to be the intention of St. Paul in this 
place, as well as Ephes. v. 16. to admonish his Christian 
Readers to " purchase the opportunity, (viz. of gaining over 
the Heathens,) by judicious concessions, and by a virtuous 
example." The reason subjoined is, " that the days are evil :" 
i. e. the times in which ye live are so unpropitious to the con- 
version of the Jews and the Pagans, that the zeal and circum- 
spection which I have recommended are indispensable, 

V. 16. i) kTTKXToXri, See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 




V. 5. Gfoc fiaprvg. Two MSS. have 6 Oeo'c. The Article 
is not necessary, since if fxaprvg were the subject, its Article 
could not be omitted \ 


V. 6. £v TiD TTpay/jLaTi, Our Version has " in any matter.'' 
Woljius thinks that n^ irpayjuiaTL is equivalent to roig Trpay- 
jua(Tt, by which he understands in business, i. e. in commercial 
transactions. Our own Version has the sanction of Schleusner, 
who explains rt^ by tlvi, though this, as has been shown, is an 
usage unknown to the N. T. He wavers, however, and sup- 
poses, that the words may mean, as they are explained by Wol- 
fius. This Writer is supported by Schoettgen, (Hor. Hebr.) who 
reasons from what he considers as a parallelism, 2 Tim. ii. 4. 
raXq tov ^iov irpayfiaTdaig : this, however, is not a parallelism, 
as might easily be shown. The only passage in the N. T. 
which is at all similar, is 2 Cor. vii. 11. Iv tc^ Trpdy/uLaTi, sig- 
nifying in the matter, viz. that of which the Apostle was speak- 
ing, the misconduct of the incestuous person ; an interpreta- 

^ The Reader will perhaps pardon me if I stop him for a moment, to ofFer a 
gratuitous piece of service, unconnected with the doctrine of the Article, in the 
correction and illustration of a passage somewhat remarkable in its construction. 
It occurs in this Epistle, iii. 5. tTriji-^pa dg rb yvwvai tjjv tz'kttiv vfidv, firj Trojg 
iTTtipaffsv vfidg 6 TTsipd^iov, Kai tig kevov ylvijrat 6 KOTTog rjuCJv. " I sent to 
know your faith whether the tempter have tempted you by any means, and lest (in 
that case) our labour be in vain." Exactly similar is Eurip. Phoeniss. 91-2. firj 
Tig TToXiTuiv iv rpi/3<^ (pavTat^erai, Ka'/ioi fiiv tX9y (pavXog, u}g 5ou\y, 4^6yog, ^ol 
S', u)g dvdcray. — In both cases [xrj has different senses, according to the different 
moods with which it is connected. — J. S, 


tion which Wolfius admits. And why should not the same 
words in this place be similarly explained ? Business or com- 
mercial dealing has no relation whatever to the context. Verses 
3, 4, 5, and 7, enforce the obligation to chastity : would it not, 
then, be extremely unnatural that the 6th should enjoin honest 
dealing in affairs of trade ? especially when to Trgayjia is a 
known euphemism for impurity. I have, therefore, no doubt 
that Macknight's way of understanding the passage, " in this 
matter," is the true one; except, indeed, that " the matter" 
suits the place as well, without needlessly multiplying the 
meanings of the Article. Mr. Wakefield, in his Sil/va Crit. 
Part i. p. 107. commends the Syr. Translation for rendering 
the passage, " quasi esset Iv tovtij^ TrpdyfiaTi ;" this is not very 
accurate Greek. — Among the advocates for the explanation 
which I have adopted, axe Michaelis and the Bishop oi Durham 
(ap. Bowyer.) It is remarkable, that Grotius should have con- 
jectured tv TIVU 


V. 19. TO irvevfjta. If this be understood of the influence of 
the Spirit, the Article will be in reference to that portion of 
influence which each had received. I prefer, however, under- 
standing it of the Person: compare Acts vii. 51. 

V. 22. airb iravTOQ uSovg irovripov. In this place Trovrjpov 
cannot be used substantively for TOY wovnpov, in which sense, 
however, modern Translators usually understand it. It is an 
Adjective agreeing vdth udovg : so Vulg. " ab omni specie 

V. 27. r?7v ImaTokrjv, See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 




V. \2. Kara rrjv Xapiv tov Qeov 7]jiCov kcli Ku(>tou 'Iij(TOu 
XpiOTow. This is another of the texts on which Mr. Granville 
Sharp would rest the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 
by rendering " of our God and Lord." To the validity, how- 
ever, of this and of one or two others of his proofs, there are 
objections, which I ought not to suppress. 

KvQLOQ is a word which has a peculiar construction : it so far 
partakes of the nature of Proper Names, that it sometimes 
dispenses with the Article, where other words would require 
it. Thus, for example, had we in the present instance, instead 
of Kupfou, read 2i2THPOS, no reasonable doubt could have 
been entertained that identity was here intended; there being 
no reason derived either from theory or from practice for omit- 
ting the Article before crojrf/poc, if different persons be meant. 
So 2 Pet. iii. 2. no one will deny that tov Kuptov kcli tjtjjTriQoq 
are spoken of one person. But I^vqloq 'Irjo-ouc Xpto-roc col- 
lectively is a title of our Lord familiar to the Writers of the 
Epistles. We have repeatedly airo 0£oi; Trarpoc i7juwv kol 
Kvptou 'I»j(Tov Xpttrrou* Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2, 
Gal. i. 3. et j^dssim. We have also, PhiHpp. iii. 20. Kupfov 
'Irjo-oOv XptoTov. Hence it is manifest, that in the present 
passage there is no absolute necessity for detaching Kuptow 
from 'Irjo-ou XoiaTOVf in order to couple it with Qeov, It is 
true that we find also 'O Kuptoc 'Irjcroi/c Xptoroc, as Rom. 
xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 2\, though in both those places some 
MSS. after Kvoiog add -njuLiov, which would make the Article 
necessary. Admitting, however, the title to have been some- 
times 'O Kwptoc 'I. Xp. still such is the ambiguity, that we 


shall not be compelled to apply the Canon Part i. Chap, iii. 
Sect. iii. § 2. 

Another, however, and a much stronger doubt may arise 
from the little notice which the Fathers have taken of this text. 
Mr. Wordsworth, indeed, finds a passage in the 121st of the 
Discourses (in Latin) of Theodorus Studites : of this passage, 
in which occurs " secundum gratiam Dei Dominique nostri 
Jesu Christi,^^ he offers what he conjectures to have been the 
original Greek : and that particular clause he renders by Kara 
TTjv x^p'^ "^^^ Qeov TjfJitov KOL Kvpiov ^Ir}(TOv XpitTTov, He then 
observes, that on this arise two questions ; both of which, he 
presumes, must be answered in the affirmative : viz. Does not 
the writer (Theodorus) quote the Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
and does he not understand tov Qeov r]fiu)v koX Kuptou of the 
same person, even Jesus Christ? for does he not, says Mr. W., 
use them just as St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes tov Kup/ou koI 
aijJTTiQog 7]fX(jjv 'I. Xp. : or aS*^. Basil, tov Qeov koX (rtoTripog rifiwv 
'li]o-. Xp. : or St. Gregory, tov fxeyaXov Qeov koX ap\nroifievog 
rjjLicjv 'I. Xp. ? The affirmative of the former of these ques- 
tions, viz. that Theodorus quotes this verse, can hardly be dis- 
puted; but the second may, perhaps, be otherwise determined. 
It is scarcely fair to conjecture from the Latin of his Trans- 
lator, Johannes Livineius, how Theodorus understood the pas- 
sage : moreover, if the Latin of Livineius be an exact render- 
ing of Theodorus, then must the Greek be, I think, not as 
Mr. W. represents it, but tov Qeov kol Kuptou -hixwv : or, on 
the other hand, supposing Mr. W.'s Greek to be that of Theo- 
dorus, then should the Latin translation have been, " Dei 
?iostri et Domini i'^ for to say that the present Latin is better 
suited to the place, would be to assume the very point in dis- 
pute. In short, the whole question appears to turn on the 
arrangement of the words in the original Greek, which might 
easily be ascertained by a reference to the Greek MS. pre- 
served in the Bodleian : if Theodorus has tov Qeov kcll Kvqlov 
i^fiiov instead of tov Qeov rifjiwv kul, k. t. X. he presents us, 
indeed, with a various reading, which, had it been found in a 
few of the more considerable MSS. of the N. T. would have 
had its value : but if the Greek of Theodorus be as conjectured 
by Mr. W. which probably it is, it is obvious that we have 


here, not an illustration of the Apostle's meaning, but only the 
same ambiguity transcribed. 

Again, as to the similarity between the supposed Greek of 
Theodorus and the expressions of Cyril, Basil, and Gregory, 
it must be observed, that in the passages recited, Kvpiov is 
either not found at all, or else is so placed as not to be involved 
in the difficulty arising from its peculiar usage. Had St. Paul 
written tov Kvpiov rjimojv koX Qeov '1. Xp. no person who had 
attended to the manner in which Qeog is used, could doubt the 
identity ; for, otherwise, it would have been TOY Qeov : see 
on Ephes. v. 5. It is true, that the passage from Theodorus 
concludes with a Doxology, " to whom with the Father and 
the Holy Ghost be glory," &c. and nearly the same is imme- 
diately subjoined to the expressions cited from Cyril, Basil, 
and Gregory : but even this will hardly authorize the infer- 
ence, that Theodorus understood the disputed words of the 
same Person, since even if he applied them to tivo Persons, the 
Doxology will still be free from absurdity, to whom referring 
to the latter. 

In a subsequent Letter, (p. 57.) Mr. W. has collected vari- 
ous examples of the form 6 Qeog koX Kvpiog ; " and it is some- 
thing," he observes, " to see that the phrase is always used of 
o?ie person.'' These examples amount to twenty-six: but few 
of them appear to me to be much to the purpose. That Ku- 
QLog is commonly subject to the rule, there can be no doubt : 
the question is, whether Kvptoc, being the second Attribute, 
may not be excepted from the rule in the particular form, 
KvpLog 'I. Xp. : and of this form the instances adduced are not 
numerous : for even those which have 6 Geoc kcH Kvpiog 
'HMON 'I. Xp. are not admissible, because this position of 
rjfjLuiv leaves no ambiguity : if identity were not intended, Kv- 
piog r}fxtjv would be preceded by 6, as in the beginning of this 
very verse : the difficulty arises from the single circumstance, 
that Kvpiog 'I. Xp. is a common title of Christ, and is often used 
independently of all which precedes it. Now of unexception- 
able instances, Mr. W. brings only two, the one from Gregory 
of Nyssa, 6 St Qaog riimwv koX Kvpiog 'I. Xp. 6 TrapaKoXwv, &c. 
and another from the Scholiast on Jude, quoted by Matthai, 
N. T. vol. vi. p. 2So. These examples prove, I think, that 
Kvpiog may be disjoined from 'Itjo-. Xptorocj ^i^d be identi- 

3./>. i/n 


fied with a preceding Attributive : but that Kvptog may be 
detached firom 'Irjo-. Xp. was akeady probable from 1 Cor. 
viii. 6. KuX etg Kvpiog ^lri<Tovg XpKTTog, and also from Phi- 
lipp. ii. 11: and yet those passages have been otherwise 
interpreted: the proof required is, that in the form Kvpiog 
'I. Xp. so frequently occurring in the N. T. Kvpiog com- 
monly/ is to be separated from the Proper Name, in order to be 
joined with some preceding Attributive : and this proof, I fear, 
/k ' >'• '^^-' cannot be obtained. On the whole, then, I am disposed to 
cM". Av4vi ^ y^ think, that the present text affords no certain evidence in 
favour of Mr. Sharp. We have seen that the words Kvpiog 
'Ir/o-. Xpicrrog are usually taken together ; and the acquiescence 
of antiquity induces a strong suspicion, that in this instance 
such was the received construction. On the other hand, the 
^ Syriac renders the passage by "of our God and our Lord 

Jesus Christ :" to modern ears, at least, this sounds like an 
expression of identity. 

The Unknown Writer already alluded to, " prefers, even to 
the Common Version, a construction which should apply both 
Nouns to one Person, viz. not to Jesus, but to the God of 
Jesus :" and he is persuaded that the true rendering is, ** by 
the blessing of the God of us and Lord of Jesus Christ :" p. 85. 
The same writer, consistent in his folly, would translate 2 Pet. 
i. 1, " the Saviour of Jesus Christ," 


V. 3. 17 arrroaTaaia. English Version, " a falHng away :'* 
Abp. Newcome observes, " from the true Christian faith and 
practice. Some render the Apostacy by way of eminence : but 
in many places of the Greek Testament the Article is used 
without its exact force." Of the truth of this latter assertion, 
it has now, I hope, become needless that I should urge my 
doubt: see on Matt. v. 1. ^ kiroaTaala, from its use in the 
LXX. (for in the N. T. it is found only here and in Acts 
xxi. 21.) appears to denote an act rather than a quality ; and 
if so, the Article cannot here be inserted without signifying 
that a particular act is meant. Neither do I see the necessity 
for denying that the Article has here its proper force : since 
Apostacy, however long continued, might fitly be spoken of as 



the Apostacy, the several acts marking its progress being con- 
sidered as one whole. 

Same v. 6 avOpwirog Trig aimapriag. The Papist, Bellarmine, 
vol. i. p. 839. ed. 1590. contends from these words, that Anti- 
christ must be a definite individual, being called 'O avOpujirog 
Trig a/jLapTiag ; and he wonders that this had not been observed. 
This criticism, however, is well answered by Newton on the 
Prophecies, Diss. xxii. who says that " it is agreeable to the 
phraseology of Scripture, and especially that of the Prophets, 
to speak of a body or number of men under the character of 
one. Thus a king (Dan. vii. viii. Rev. xvii.) is often used for 
the succession of kings, and the high priest (Heb. ix. 7. 25.) 
for the series and order of high priests. A single beast (Dan. 
vii. viii. Rev. xiii.) often represents a whole empire or king- 
dom in all its changes and revolutions, from the beginning to 
the end. The woman clothed with the sun (Rev. xii. 1.) is de- 
signed as an emblem of the true church ; as the woman arrayed 
in purple and scarlet (Rev. xvii. 4.) is the portrait of a corrupt 
communion. No commentator ever conceived the whore of 
Bahylon to be meant of a single woman : and why then should 
the man of sin be taken for a single man?" The remark, 
therefore, of Bellarmine is true, that 6 avOpwTroc Trig ajuLapTiag 
must primitively mean an individual ; but the inference from 
his remark is of no force ; since this is a case in which an indi- 
vidual may represent a multitude. 

V. 11. T(^ \pevdei. Markland (ap. Bowyer) conjectures tlo 
\ptv^u, " the false one, or the false thing, which he uttereth." 
The received reading appears not to need correction ; to \p£v^og 
is falsehood generally : so John viii. 44. otqv \aXy to \pkvdog, 


V. 3. airb Tov wovripov. See on Matt. v. 37. 

V. 14, TO) Xoytj) i7jU(I»y ^la Tiig tTrtoroXf^Cj tovtov (rrifiEiovTE. 
Grotius and others would alter the punctuation, placing a 
comma at tijxCjv, and making Sm Trig iTnaToXrig depend on 
(TrifiELovTi. According to this explanation. Trig liriaToXrig will 
signify a letter to be written by the Thessalonians to St. Paul. 
But then, I think, the Apostle would have omitted the Article, 
and have written either '^C kiriaToXrig or St' liTi<jTo\iov, for this 


direct reference to a letter, which was not yet in existence, 
and of which, so far as I know, the future existence was not 
with any certainty to be presumed, appears to be unnatural, 
and to be unsupported by any parallel example. If, indeed, 
it could be shown that the Thessalonians had promised to write 
to St. Paul, then Sm ttiq lirLarokriQ might mean " in your 
letter ;" but this is not alleged. That Si' cTrtoroXfjc, or Ittkt- 
toXmv, is the proper mode of expressing " by letter," where 
the case admits not reference, is evident from 1 Cor. xvi. 3. 
and this Epist. ii. 2, 



. ftK^r^ 


V. 9. StKaic^ vofiog-ov Kurau Here we have another pas- 
sage in which the Article, usually placed before vojiot;, is 
omitted, and, as I conceive, not without design. Macknighfs 
remark, that vofiog, meaning the law of Moses, commonly, but 
not always, has the Article, was noticed on Rom. ii. 13 : and, 
judging from his translation, I suppose him to have considered 
this as one of the exceptions ; for he renders " the Law," and so 
he explains it in his Note. Rosenmiiller also informs us, that 
" in explicando hoe loco mirifice a se invicem dissident et dis- 
crepant interpretes, Sed omnia sunt facilia, si animadvertas, 
vofiov h, I, non esse in universam legem moralem de officiis 
agentem (haec enim viris etiam probis lata est,) sed severam 
illam legis Mosaicae disciplinam cum suis pcenis'^ Notwith- 
standing these authorities, I am still of opinion that vofiog is 
here to be understood in the indefinite sense in which it is so 
frequently used in the writings of St. Paul; and that Mr. 
Wakejield's translation, " that no law lieth against a righteous 
man," expresses the true meaning. The Apostle had said in 
the preceding verse that koXoq 6 vojuiog, lav rig avri^ vojj.iiJ.(og 
Xpriraif i. e. the Mosaic law is an excellent institution, if men 
would make it subservient to the purposes for which it was 
given, \az. the restraining and subduing of their vicious desires 
and evil habits, (for we read. Gal. iii. 19. " the law was given 
because of transgressions ;") recollecting, continues the Apostle, 
that neither the Mosaic, nor any other law, is directed against 
the just and good, but only against the lawless and disorderly. 
So also Gal. v. 23. St. Paul, having enumerated the fruits of 
the Spirit, love, joy, peace, &c. subjoins, " against such there 

c c 


is no law," ouk icrri vo/xoc, which appears to be exactly equiva- 
lent to vojuoc ov Kurai in the present verse. In the former of 
these passages, Macknight explains vofiog in the same manner 
in which I would interpret it in both. 

Neither am I aware that the objections which may be urged 
against this interpretation are unanswerable. It may be said 
that the Apostle had confessedly been speaking of the Law of 
Moses in the verse preceding, and that, therefore, he must be 
presumed to do so here also. I do not, however, deny that 
the Mosaic Law is comprehended in vo/uloq : I contend only, 
that vofxoQ in this place is not limited to that Law, but that it 
comprises every law written and unwritten, human and di\dne ; 
nor could the argument of the Apostle be stated with greater 
force, than by his extending what was primarily meant of the 
Law of Moses to Law universally : the Mosaic Law, says St. 
Paul, was intended to restrain the wicked ; against the just, 
neither it nor any other law was ever promulged. — Again, it 
may be alleged that vojuiog seems to be limited to the Law of 
Moses, inasmuch as the lawless and disorderly are explained 
to be those who violate the precepts of the Decalogue. This 
position may, perhaps, be doubted : it ought, however, to be 
remembered, that the precepts of the Decalogue are for the 
most part the precepts of the Law which is written on the 
heart ; and that the several vices which St. Paul has enume- 
rated, are such as every system of ethics condemns. Even, 
therefore, supposing him to have alluded more immediately to 
the Decalogue, this allusion will not be inconsistent with the 
supposition, that vo/uiog was meant of law indefinitely : and in 
speaking of the vices which aU laws are designed to restrain, a 
Jew would naturally specify those which his own Law had 
particularly prohibited. — Lastly, it should be observed that 
this interpretation does not authorize any dangerous infer- 
ences, a commendable dread of which has, I suspect, led some 
Commentators to give the passage a different meaning from 
that which I defend. Wolfius informs us, that " comma hoc 
a prqfanorum hominum ahusu vindicat Spenerus in Vindiciis, 
&c. p. 376 :" without, however, stating either the abuse or the 
vindication. The work of Spener I have never seen : but it is 
easy to conjecture the nature of the abuse of this and some 
other passages in the writings of St. Paul, when they fall into 


the hands of ignorance or enthusiasm. The verse under re- 
view affords no countenance to tlie frenzy of those who, like 
the Anabaptists of Munster, first persuade themselves that 
they are just, and then conclude that therefore they are not 
amenable to the laws of the Government under which they 
live. There is a wide difference between affirming that the 
just, in the number of whom, however, no man will rank him- 
self without extreme temerity and presumption, are not sub- 
ject to any law, and saying that such are not its proper objects : 
the most virtuous man is and ought to be subject to the laws 
of his country, but he is not the object which those laws 
have principally in view, being the least likely to incur their 

I know not of any other objections which can be opposed to 
the grammatical interpretation of the passage : and the weight 
of those adduced is not such as to preponderate against an 
usage, the ground of which has been explained. See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. 

V. 17. rw §£ PaaiXei rtov alwvwv^ a^OapTi^, aopart^, f^^viif 
(to<Ik^ Qec^» English Version has, " Now unto the King eter- 
nal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God :" (and Newcome 
and Macknight are similar :) thus making cK^Oagrt^ and aogaTij^ 
to agree with rt^ (dacriXet tmv aiMVdJv. If, however, they be 
meant to be taken in immediate concord with ri^ (daaiXet, it is, 
as has been shown, against the usage (Part i. Chap, viii.) that 
they should be anarthrous ; and I do not perceive that they 
can be taken otherwise, if they agree with rtf (^aaiXei at all. 
The true construction is, " To the eternal King, the im- 
mortal, invisible, only wise God ;" the Article before cKpOapri^ 
being, as frequently elsewhere, omitted before a Title in appo- 

I have pleasure in being able, however rare the opportuni- 
ties, to commend Mr. Wakefield; who, in this instance, has 
deviated from his predecessors, not without reason, though 
without remark. I observe that Grieshach in his new edition 
has put a comma after atwvwv, as I have done above. I have 
no cause to infer from the Latin of any of the Oriental Ver- 
sions, and certainly not from the Syriac of the Peshito, that 
the old Translators saw the true construction : yet Gregory of 
Nyssa (as cited by Suicer^ vol. i. p. 596.) has these words : 

c c 2 


oTav Xiyei 6 Ottoc a7ro<rroXoc> cKpOapTtf), aopaTt^, fJ^ovt^ cto^w 
Gfo), fc. r. X. If the Fathers have generally been thus correct, 
a question which I leave to others to examine, they were, at 
least in this instance, better acquainted with the Greek idiom 
than were the Authors of the Oriental Versions. See above 
on Eph. V. 5. — The word (To<^t^ is wanting in many authori- 
ties, and is rejected by Griesbach. 


V. 5. avOpwirog 'Ijjo-ouc Xpiarog. Such is the reading of 
all the MSS. Pricmus, however, conjectures 'O avOpioiroQf as 
in 1 Cor. xi. 2. Matt. xix. 17; xxiii. 9. SO. Mark xiv. 20. 
James iv. 12. John vi. 8; viii. 41. But none of these in- 
stances are similar to the present. For my own part, I do 
not perceive that the Article is wanted in this place. I under- 
stand avdpbjirog 'I))(t. Xp. to be used as a Title, in the same 
manner with Kvpiog *It;o-. Xp. nor could Christ be called Kar 
V^oxnv, the man, not possessing the human nature in a pre- 
eminent degree. Michaelis observes, that Luther and other 
Translators have inserted the Article, but that he himself has 
been careful to omit it. 

If any one be still disposed to contend for the Article, I 
can afford him no assistance, except by reminding him of what 
Reishe has remarked, Orat, Gr. vol. iii. p. 490. that before 
avdpu)iroQ, avrip, &c. the Attic Writers usually omitted the 
Article ; though I believe that Reiske should have said rather, 
that they expressed the Article by the aspiration, viz. avOpd)- 
TTog. See Dawes's Misc. Crit, ed. Burgess, p. 123. Even 
this, however, will avail but little, since the vestiges of Attic 
usage are not in the N. T. very common. 

V. 6. TO juiapTvpiov, Of this abrupt and difficult passage, 
there are various readings and interpretations. D. F. G. and 
Codd. Latini have ov to fiapTvpiov Kaipolg i^ioig t^oOri, the 
sense of which is plain. A. omits to iiapTvpiov, and Matthtii, 
though he does not adopt this reading, thinks it better than 
most others of that MS. Ahp. Newcome is of opinion that we 
may render "/or a testimony to the world at the proper sea- 
son :" but this, I fear, is -impossible : see Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect, iii, § 4. Mr. Wakejield, in liis usual way of rendering 

CHAPTER V. . 389 

the Article, says, " that testimony." I know of nothing better, 
if the received reading be genuine, than to put the clause into 
a parenthesis : " the proof of it in due season '." 


V. 21. IvwiTLov Tov Gfcou KCLi Kvptou 'It^o". XpforroD. Tliis 
also is one of the texts which, by applying the rule Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. Mr. Granville Sharp would interpret 
as an evidence of the Divinity of Christ. Several MSS., Ver- 
sions, and Fathers here omit the word Kuptov, according to 
which reading the passage falls not under the rule : Griesbach 
prefixes the mark of probable spuriousness. The received 
reading may, however, be the true one ; and in that case, the 
present verse will deserve consideration. 

Mr. Wordsworth, in his examination of the Fathers, can- 
didly avows, that " not in one instance out of fourteen quota- 
tions from the Greek Fathers, and as many at least from the 
Latin," is the passage explained, so as to favour Mr. Sharp. 
" Some of them determine nothing either way; while the 
greater part correspond strictly in meaning with our English 
Translation." I really think, supposing the copies used by 
these Fathers to have had the received reading, (and that some 
of them read Kuptou, may be inferred from evidence adduced 
by Mr. Wordsworth,) on this supposition I cannot doubt that 
the particular form, Kvptoc 'Irjo". Xqigtoq ought to be excepted 
from the rule. The grounds of this opinion have been fully 
detailed above, 2 Thess. i. 12: and the whole of that Note was 
intended to be applicable to the present verse. 

Mr. W. concludes his Inquiry with stating, that " once, 
indeed, he thought that the Appellation Kuptoe might have 
become so appropriate to our Saviour, as to be considered as a 
Proper Name." I believe that Kupioc, in the form KvgioQ 
'Irjo-. Xp. became, as a Title, so incorporated with the Proper 
Name, as to be subject to the same law : and that the Fathers,^ 
in withholding the wished for testimony from the texts in wliich 

* V, 12 yvvaiKi SiSdffKeiv ovk iiriTpkiro), ovSk avOsvriiv avSpoQ. Here the 
Article is omitted, because the Proposition is exclusive, — any woman whatever, 
Chaj). iii. Sect. iii. § 5.— II. J. R. 

390 I. TIMOTHY. 

this form occurs, corroborates the proposed interpretation of 
the other passages. — The Sjrriac has, " before God and our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 


V. 5. TTOpitTfiov tlvai Ti)v £i>o-f/3ftav. EngHsh Version has, 
" supposing that gain is godhness." But the Article, as Abj). 
Newcome has remarked, shows that evaijdeia is the Subject, 
not the Predicate. 

V. 6. ri evaefdua. F. G. add Oeov, a reading which is im- 
possible, on account of the Article before svat^eia, Matthdi 
here observes, " Est hoe recensionis Occidentalis, quod miror 
ab oculatissimo Griesbachio non esse animadversum." 




V. 8. (TvyKaK0ira9r](T0v rtj svayysXiij^ Kara Svvafiiv Qeov, 
Mr. Wakefield here acknowledges that " he is quite at a loss 
whether the clause Kara ^vvajiiv Geou should be joined with 
the Verb, or be connected with cuayysXif^, the Gospel, w^hich 
is after the power of God." I cannot perceive that there is 
any ambiguity, for had the clause in question meant that the 
Gospel was after the power of God, the Article would have 
been repeated, rw tvayyeXi^) TQi Kara Suvojutv, &c. i. e. 
T([) ovTi. So in the next Chapter, ver. I. ev ry x^P*^^ "^V^ 
K. T. X. et passim. Nor do I know that this rule is ever vio- 
lated: cases resembling 1 Pet. i. 11; iii. 16, &c. are rather 
confirmations of it. Abp. Neivcome's Note is, " according to 
tlie support which God affords: the early Preachers of the 
Gospel had great support, from the certainty that God was 
with them." 



V. 6. TO. yvvaiKapia. The best MSS. omit the Article, 
which has the appearance of an interpolation. 

V. 16. iraaa yparftrj OtoTTvevaTog (koXi (^(piXi/uLog. This is one 
of the texts usually adduced in support of the inspiration of 
the Jewish Scriptures : but it has been doubted whether the 
rendering of the English Version be the true one. Some of 
the ancient Versions, with a few of the Fathers, would omit 
Kai, and thus join deoirvevcTTog in immediate concord with 
waaa ypa^jj. In this, however, they are not supported by a 
single MS. still extant. Besides, it is much more easy to 

S92 n. TIMOTHY. 

perceive why /cat does not appear in these ancient Versions, 
than how, supposing it not to have been in the earliest MSS., 
it found its way into those which remain : for a Translator, 
who had understood Oeoirvevarog as agreeing immediately 
with iracra ypa(j)ri, as was the case with the Syr., might find 
it difficult to express icat, which, indeed, even in the original 
would thus have little meaning : on the other hand, and for 
the same reason, if koI had been wanting in the Autograph, 
as its introduction could tend only to embarrass the sense, it 
could hardly be interpolated, and still less retained, by the 
consent of all the Transcribers. 

Mr. Wakefield remarks, that the " jEthiopic alone of the 
old Versions does not omit Kat, and that the ^thiopic is vdth 
him equivalent to all the rest in a difficult or disputed pass- 
age." Notwithstanding this declaration, Mr. W. without 
assigning any reason, renders in defiance of the jEthiopic, 
'* every writing inspired by God is useful," &c. I agree, 
however, with him in his translation of Trao-a ypa^rj. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. and I take the assertion to be, " every 
writing (viz. of the hpa ypafinara just mentioned) is divinely 
inspired, and is useful," &c. I do not recollect any passage in 
the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by 
the Copulative, were intended by the Writer to be so unnatu- 
rally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do 
much towards establishing the plausibihty of a translation, 
which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be 
forced and improbable. 


V. 1. IvwTTLov Tov 0£ou KaiTov Kvpiov 'Itj(t. Xp. Tlicrc is 
so little authority for omitting the Article before Kvpiov, 
which, however, must be done before this text can be subject 
to the rule Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. that I am rather 
surprised at Mr. Granville Sharp's having adduced the present 
passage as an example. Many MSS. &c. omit tov Kvpiov, and 
have XpKTTOv 'Iricrov : the reading which is preferred by Gries- 
bach. Some have rov Kvpiov rifiiov. If, however, any one 
should prefer the few which have the requisite reading, I must, 
to save repetition, refer him to 1 Tim. v. ^1. 




V. 13. Tov fxeyaXov Qeov koll (riorripog ri/uLMV^Irjcr. Xp. This 
text also Mr. Granville Sharp ^ has brought forward to notice : 
he translates it, " of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 

* Mr. Winstanley first chooses to introduce a Comma after Oeov, as he does 
also in the place of Jude. He then argues that fieydXov applies both to Qeov 
and CiOTiipoQ, and that this explains why the Article is not repeated. But he 
obviously feels that this is very forced, for he adds, ' If it be said that our Lord is 
no where else called the Great Saviour, neither is he called 6 fieyag Qeoq, nor any 
thing like it.' Now really in speaking of a human being, it may be worth while 
to observe, (if the case be so,) that he is often called a Saviour, but that the expres- 
sion, a Great Saviour, does not occur. But if a being is called God at all, he is 
called something very like the great God indeed ^ And Mr. Winstanley, of course, 
does not doubt this. He then states very candidly, that it is very rare to meet 
with Nouns Personal in the Singular Number thus constructed relating to dif- 
ferent persons. But he thinks, that as there are instances of Nouns not personal, 
or where one is, and one is not, so constructed, and as he has found otie instance 
in Clem. Alex. 266. viz. ry /xovy Trarpl Kai vi<^, where both are personal, (which 
instance is obviously one of those noted by Bp. Middleton, where the Article is 
omitted, because no ambiguity could arise,) he thinks himself justified in differing 
from Mr. Sharp. This needs no further remark. His only argument besides these 
is a mere petitio principii, viz. that the words tov fieydXov Qeov have a just claim 
to be considered as one of the incommunicable titles of God the Father. He seeks 
to answer the argument that kirKpavHa is never used but of Christ, by saying 
that it is of no consequence, for (as he found in Erasmus) St. Paul is not speak- 
ing of the appearance of God but of the glory of God ; and our Lord has told us 
that He will come in the glory of His Father. Mr. Winstanley might as well 
have added Erasmus's observation, that the omission of the Article makes some- 
thing for the opposite (i. e. Mr. Sharps) opinion. — H. J. R. 

1 St. Athanasius (De Communi Ess. 27-) undertakes to show on n'lyag Qebg 
IkXtjOtj 6 vioQ, and he quotes Rom. ix. 5. as well as this place : so that he differed 
from Mr. Winstanley. See Dr. Wordsworth, p. 69.-11. J. R. 

394 TITUS, 

According to the principles already laid down, it is impossible 
to understand Otou and (Ttorripog otherwise than of one person, 
(see on Ephesians v. 5. and 2 Thess. i. 12.) the word (Tvjrrip 
not being exempted from the operation of the rule : nor is 
there a single instance in the whole N. T. in which crwriipog 
^ ^ 7]fX(Jjv occurs without the Article, except in cases like the pre- 
4,1. . ]L sent, and in 1 Tim. i. 1. kot iTrtrayrjv.Bcou, o-wrf)poc 7]fiwVj 
where (Ti»)Tr\Qog wants the Article, on account of the preceding 
omission before Q^^oVf exactly as in the common forms, airo 
0£ov irarpoQ ijjuwv, Iv Qel^ iraTpl rjiuLwv, &c. Clarke, indeed, 
(Reply to Nelson, p. 88.) endeavours to get rid of the true ren- 
dering, by observing that cnoTrip is sometimes put for 'O crfjjTrjp : 
and he instances Luke ii. 11. Phil. iii. 20. and 1 Tim. i. 1. 
These examples, however, are wholly inapplicable to the pre- 
sent case : the last has been adverted to in this Note ; the first, 
in its proper place ; and for Phil. iii. 20. I refer the Reader to 
the Note on Acts xiii. 23, Clarke thinks that (tmttip, hke 
Qeog and Kvpiog, partakes in some degree of the nature of 
Proper Names : that Kvpiog and even Qsog have some pecu- 
liarities, has been shown above, on Luke i. 15. I know not, 
however, of any proof that (TtjjTrjp has the same peculiarities ; 
and even Qeog and Kvpiog are not used with the latitude sup- 
posed by Clarke : where, for instance, are we to look for Qebg 
i)liwv, no rule or usage accounting for the omission of the 
Article ? But this is only a weak attempt to embarrass an 
antagonist. Accordingly, we learn from Mr. Wordsworth \ 
that all antiquity agreed in the proposed interpretation ; and 
many of the passages which he has produced from the Fathers, 
could not have been more direct and exphcit, if they had been 
forged with a view to the dispute. 

Some Critics, indeed, of great name, besides Clarke, seem 
to have been aware of the ancient interpretation: of this 
number was Wetstein, who, without adverting to any of the 
Greek Fathers, informs us that fiiyag Qeog is to be understood 

^ Dr. Routh (Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 26.) adds two more to Dr. Wordsworths very 
large collections, viz. Didymus Alexandr. DeTrinitate, Tom. iii. 2. § 16. Ei tov 
fiuvov Oeov kKaiperov to vixvtiaQai fikyag Qeog' avacpOeyyerai d' 6 UauXog tov 
fieyaXov Otov Kal Swr^poc r)/iu;v 'I. X. ; and the title of the first Homily ascribed 
to Amphilochius, Eig rd yivt^Xa tov fxtyoKov Qtov Kai aiOTijpog ijnuiv 'I. X. — 
H. J. R. 


of Deiis Pater ; and he concludes with observing, that it was 
so understood by Hilary ^ Erasmus, and H. Grotius : i. e. by 
a Latin Writer, a native of Sardinia, who probably had at 
most but a smattering of Greek, and by two modern Scholars, 
confessedly great men, but, compared with ancient Greeks, 
extremely incompetent judges of the question. Of Erasmus, 
especially, this may be affirmed ; for an acquaintance with 
Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquire- 
ments ; as his Greek Testament plainly proves : indeed he 
seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages. But 
what says Erasmus on this text ? he tells us that the expres- 
sion is equivocal: he is inchned to think that two persons are 
meant ; yet he allows that the omission of the Article before 
(Twrrjpog (facit nonnihil) is somewhat in favour of the contrary 
opinion. Grotius, it must be admitted, went very far beyond 
Erasmus in the knowledge of Greek : yet what does he urge 
which could thus influence the mind of Wetstein against the 
concurring judgment of antiquity ? Grotius tells us only, that 
Ambrose (i. e. the aforesaid Latin writer, Hilary, the author 
of the Commentary printed with the works of Ambrose) under- 
stood the words as of two distinct persons : and that though 
the reading is not TOY trwr^pocj yet " it should be recollected 
that in these writings the Article is often inserted where it is 
not necessary, and omitted where the usage would require its 
insertion." Tcedet jam audire eadem millies. Grotius's state- 
ment amounts only to this, that he preferred one interpreta- 
tion, yet knew not well what could be said against the other. — 
That the Reader may not be misled by high authority, I will 
refer him to Matt. x\dii. 17. Mark xvi. 16. John vi. 40. 
Acts xxvi. 30; xxvii. 11. 2 Cor. i. 3. Coloss. ii. 2. 1 Thess. 
iii. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 16. et passim. These instances prove, that 
by the Sacred Writers the rule, both as it respects diversity 
and identity, has been observed : and where is the instance in 
which it has been \iolated ? It is idle to tell us, that a certain 
Canon is applicable to other Greek writings, but not to these, 
without attempting to prove so remarkable a difference by a 
single example. 

The Unknotvn Writer here again attacks Mr. Sharp and Mr. 
Wordsworth ; but, as usual, has proved only his utter ignorance 
of the idiom on which he pretends to write. He says, p. ^S, 

396 TITUS, 

" the Article wmch precedes the first Noun, must be supplied 
by Ellipsis before the second :" and on this axiom he founds a 
sort of reductio ad ahsurdum. But where did he learn that a 
second Article was thus to be supphed by Elhpsis ? In such a 
phrase as 6 Kupto? kclI moTriQ, a second Article is not to be 
supplied ; for then it might as well be expressed ; and if it 
were expressed, 6 Kuptoc koL 'O (jMTr]^, then we should have 
two Pronouns, and consequently two different Subjects, with 
their distinct attributes, instead of one Subject, to whom two 
attributes are assumed to belong. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. 
§ 2, This writer seems still to have had floating in his mind 
his English illustration of " the King and Queen." See on 
Ephes. V. 5. To that his reasoning may, for any thing that I 
know, apply : that it has nothing to do v^dth the Greek idiom, 
he might possibly have discovered, had he taken the pains 
to inquire. But what absurdities were not to be expected 
in a philological discussion which sets out with the principle, 
that what is true of one language, must be equally true of 
another ? 

The Syriac has in this place, " of the Great God and our 
Redeemer Jesus Christ." — In the Annotations of the Assembly 
of Divines y 1651, it is observed on this passage, " To the con- 
futation and confusion of aU that deny the Deity of Christ, 
the Apostle here calleth him not only God, but the great 
God." It would be a curious inquiry, but probably an unsuc- 
cessful one, to attempt to discover the reason why King James's 
Translators, about forty years before, rejected the true render- 
ing of the passage : if, indeed, their own rendering (which may, 
perhaps, be questionable) were not intended to convey the real 

CHAP. iir. 

V. 4. 17 (f)iXavOpu)7ria tov crcur^poc 17/iwv Oaov, This and 
some other similar passages ought in strictness to be rendered, 
" of our Saviour God," as if crwrrip had been an Adjective : 
the common rendering would require tov Qeov tov aioTripog 
r)fiwv. T(^ awTTioL Qeii^ has been already quoted from an 
Inscription, Acts xvii. 2S. It may be questioned whether, in 
this place, as well as Chap. i. 3 ; ii. 10. and 1 Tim. ii. 2. the 
" Saviour God" be not Christ, though usually understood of 


the Father. The Nouns which severally govern these Geni- 
tives, more especially ^i^acrKoXia, ii. 10. strongly support this 

V. 5. Bia XovTpov TraXiyyevEtTiag, A. alone has TOY Xov- 
Tpov. This is another instance of a reading which could 
scarcely have proceeded from a Greek copyist. See on Acts 
viii. 5. 

Same v. Trvcu/zaroc ayiov, I understand this of the in- 

V. 8. Ta Koka. I do not perceive the force of the Article : 
many of the best MSS. omit it. 



V. 9. J)c TlavXog 7rpecy(5vTr}g, The common reading, " as 
Paul the aged," conveys the idea that the Apostle was thus 
distinguished from others of the same name. The want of the 
Article in the original shows that nothing of this kind was 
meant : " Paul, an old man," is all which there appears. In 
Arist. Eth. Eudem. lib. i, cap. 5. we read '2wKpaTr)g filv ovv 
'O 7rpe(TJ5vTr)g (liero, k. r. X. 




V. 3. og wv a7rauya(T/xa r^c ^o^^IC Kai ;(^apaKr?7p, &;c. Mack- 
night is induced, by the absence of the Article, to translate 
" an effulgence," which impresses on the Enghsh Reader a 
somewhat different notion. This caution was wholly unneces- 
sary after wv. See on Rom. ix. 5 \ 

V. 7. roue ayyiXovQ avTOv TTvau/xara kol rovg XurovpyovQ 
avTov irvpog (pXoya. Abp. Newcome, adopting the opinion of 
many eminent critics, translates, " who maketh the winds his 
angels, and flames of lightning his ministers." His translation, 
however, would require to. irvevjULaTa ayyiXovg avrov kol Trjv 
(pXoya rov nvpog XeiTovpyovg, No usage in the language is 
more strictly observed: so in this chapter, ver. 13. See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. The passage is quoted verbatim from 
the LXX. Ps. civ. 4. Michaelis, (Introd. Chap. xxiv. Sect. xi. 
vol. iv.) on this and some other similar quotations, founds an 
argument for the Hebrew original of this Epistle. 

V. 8. 6 dpovog aov, 6 Qsog, ng tov alwva, k. r. X. The 
English Version here makes 6 Gfo'c, as is common elsewhere, 
to be the Vocative case : but Mr. Wakefield ventures to trans- 
late, " God is thy throne;" and in defence of this translation, 
which indeed may boast the support of Grotius and Rosen- 
mullevy and also of Semler and Doderlein, (see Ahresch Para- 
phr. in Epist. ad Hebr.) he refers us to his work on Early 
Opinions concerning Christ, p. 274. The substance of his 
defence is contained in the remark, that it is " contrary to the 
scope of the Psalm," (viz. the xlv. from which the passage is 

^ Again, KaOapiafibv TroirjcrdfMevog tuiv a/xaprtwr. This is explained on the 
same principle, and by a reference to Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 3. — H. J. R. 


cited,) " and to the rules of grammatical interpretation," to 
understand 6 Gebg of an address to the Deity. As to the 
scope of the Psalm, Mr. W. supposes the subject of it to be 
the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh's daughter. But the 
Rabbins (see Schoettgens Hor. Hebr. and Macknight, and 
some good remarks in Surenhus, B«)3X. icaraXX.) explained 
that Psalm of the Messiah : and, what is still more important, 
the verse in question is positively applied to the Messiah by 
the Writer of the Epistle, in the chapter under review ; the 
whole of which is clearly intended to prove the superiority of 
Christ over all created beings : and he cites the verse as having 
reference irgoq tov vlov. It is, therefore, most certain that 
the Psalm relates, if not in a primary, at least in a secondary 
sense (see below on ii. 6.) to the Messiah ; and the scope of 
the composition by no means excludes an address, if I must 
not, in deference to Socinian prejudices, say " to the Deity ^^ 
at least to One who, in the Hebrew, is called Elohim, and 
even Jehovah, (Isaiah xl. 3. Jer. xxiii. 6.) and in the N. T. 
0£oe. — With respect to the " rules of grammatical interpreta- 
tion," Mr. W. is, if possible, even more unfortunate. As a 
Philologist, he should have produced a few unquestionable 
instances in proof that the construction which he would vindi- 
cate, is not without its parallel : for to suppose him ignorant 
that it is attended with some difficulty, is scarcely possible. 
The difficulty alluded to lies in the Article prefixed to Opovog 
aov, I have, indeed, generally objected to the LXX. as 
evidence in questions respecting the Greek idiom : but as the 
present passage is a citation from the Septuagint Version of 
the Psalms, I am bounden in this instance to place those 
Translators, so far at least as the Psalms are concerned, on the 
same footing with the Writers of the N. T., reserving to m}^- 
self, however, the right of objecting to the reading, where cir- 
cumstances render it suspicious, in a work which abounds with 
corruptions. Now the point for which I contend is, that the 
Socinian interpretation would require simply Opovog aov 6 
Oeog. Thus Rom. i. 9. jLLagrvg yap fiov 1(jt\v 6 Qeoq' which is 
repeated Philipp. i. 8. So also in the LXX. Psalm xxiv. 1. 
Kvpiog ^(i)Ttaji6g fxov kol (twttJjO fiov. Ps. xxvii. 7. ¥.vpiog 
fior}66g iiov Koi vTr£pa(Tiri(jTr)g fxov. Ps. liii. G. 6 Kvpiog clvtl- 
XriTTTLop Trig "^v^g fiov, Ps. Ixi. 7. avTog Owg julov koi (Turrip 


juou. Ps. Ixxiii. 1^. 6 Sf 9foc (^aariXavQ y]}iu}v ttqu aluivoq. I 
will add another instance, because it is adduced by Mr. W. 
himself, to show that God may be styled the rock, the fortress, 
&:c. of David : it is Ps. xvii. 3. where, though he speaks of 
grammatical interpretation, the Critic has never noticed the 
grammatical objection which that very passage opposes again 
and again to the translation which he defends : the Psalmist is 
by the LXX. made thus to express himself; Kupfoc o-rf^ftujua 
fiov Koi KaTa(f)vy{] /nov kol pv(JTi]g fiov, 6 Qeog juov, [5ori06g fxov, 
Koi IXtths) Itt avTOVf VTrepaaTTKTTiig fxov kol Kepag awrriQiag /jlov, 
avrtkriTTTiop juou. Now in this accumulation of examples in a 
single verse, there is but one which even apparently favours 
Mr. W., while the rest are decidedly against him ; and that 
one on examination vanishes ; I mean 'O Oeog jUou, where the 
reader of the English Version might suppose that the Article, 
according to my argument, should not appear. This Psalm, 
however, is found likewise in 2 Sam. xxii. where, instead of 6 
Oeog fiou, |3orj0oc juov, we read 6 Qeog fiov ^uXaS 'E2TAI fiov, 
whence it is to be inferred, that in Ps. xvii. also we should 
translate, not " my God, my helper," as Predicates of Kvpiog, 
but " my God is (or, shall be) my helper :" for in Hebrew the 
Verb Substantive frequently suffers Ellipsis. — Many more 
proofs might easily be adduced of an usage which is constant ; 
and fewer would have been sufficient, if there were not persons 
who regard Mr. W. as an oracle of erudition. 

I ought not, however, to suppress, that Mr. Wakefield, 
apprehending, as I suppose, that his translation of this verse 
might not be satisfactory to all his Readers, subjoins in his 
Early Opinions f " Or perhaps. Thy throne is the everlasting 
God." Mr. W. found, no doubt, in common with other men, 
that it is sometimes easier to devise false solutions, than it is 
to discover the true one, or, where the truth is unwelcome, 
ingenuously to avow it : and here also, as usually happens to 
those who once equivocate, the progress is from bad to worse. 
The former interpretation has been shown to be incompatible 
with the idiom of the Greek language : the latter offends, if I 
mistake not, against both the Greek and Hebrew idioms, and 
also against common sense. I cannot easily believe that even the 
LXX. would admit such a solecism as " thy throne is 6 Otog 
i\g Tov mwva,'' meaning Ofoc o ^tc tqv alC)va : and if an 



example can be found in the Hebrew, where God is called 
"TV*) D/T^ DM^K, meaning the Everlasting God, it has escaped 
my notice ; while the instances in which IV) u?)^ are used to 
mark the duration of the action, passion, or existence signified 
in the Verb, are numerous : thus, as a single example. Psalm 
Hi. 10. i:;i d'^IV D'•^'?^^^D^2 '•JinrDn, the meaning is not, " I 
confide ifi the Eternal God,'' but " I confide to all eternity in 
God." — As to the Proposition, " thy throne is the everlasting 
God," if it be a mere inversion of the Subject and Predicate, 
it is resolvible into the former rendering, and has only the 
semblance of novelty : but if 6 Opovog aov be really to be 
taken as the Subject, then is this second attempt of the very 
essence of absurdity ; for what can be understood by saying, 
" thy throne (i. e. according to Mr. W., Solomons throne) is 
the everlasting God?" 

I will conclude with noticing what, indeed, is akeady known, 
that Eusebius, in his Dem. Evang. has, for 6 Gfoc, quoted Co 
9ff; and that Wetstein, whose bias is elsewhere sufiiciently 
manifest, candidly admits, at ver. 9. that 6 Geoc is here the 
Vocative, and that the Writer has called Christ by the name 
of God. 


V. 4. ayiov irvevfiaTog. This is evidently meant of the 

V. 6. avOpwTTog rj viog avOpwirov. From the present, and 
from one other application of the 8th Psalm, some persons 
have supposed that it was exclusively intended of the Messiah ; 
and the mention of vlog avOpwirov may possibly have con- 
tributed, though without reason, towards confirming them in 
their opinion : for vlbg avOpwirov is here no more than a com- 
mon Hebraism, and cannot, as is plain from the context, be 
meant of the Messiah. What is the Messiah, that thou hast 
such regard unto Him ? is a question which the Psalmist would 
hardly ask. It signifies, therefore, no more than " any son of 
man." I mean not to insist on the absence of the Articles, 
because in the Hebrew, before 12* the Article could not be 
admitted : the LXX. therefore, adhering closely to the original, 
have rendered vlbg avO^ioirov : and they have done so in 
Dan. vii. 13. But other reasons for supposing this Psalm 


to be meant exclusively of Christ, demand fuller considera- 

I scruple not to confess myself of the number of those who 
believe that various passages of the O. T. are capable of a two- 
fold application, being directly applicable to circumstances then 
past, or present, or soon to be accomplished ; and mdirectli/ to 
others which Divine Providence was about to develope under 
a future Dispensation : nor do I perceive that on any other 
hypothesis we can avoid one of two great difficulties ; for else 
we must assert, that the midtitude of applications made b}'- 
Christ and his Apostles are fanciful and unauthorized, and 
wholly inadequate to prove the points for which they are cited ; 
or, on the other hand, we must believe that the obvious and 
natural sense of such passages was never intended, or that it 
is a mere illusion. The Christian will object to the former 
of these positions ; the Philosopher and the Critic will not 
readily assent to the latter. The 8th Psalm, as well as some 
other parts of the O. T. quoted in this Epistle, and indeed 
throughout the N. T., furnishes an illustration of my state- 

Of the 8th Psalm, the primary and direct purport appears 
to be so certain, that it could not be mistaken. The excel- 
lent Machiight, however, has here a Note, in which he endea- 
vours to prove, that the apparent and ob\ious sense of this 
Psalm has no existence. His words are, " The place here 
referred to is Psalm viii. which hath been generally understood 
of that manifestation of the being and perfections of God, 
which is made by the ordination of the heavenly bodies ; and 
by the creation of man in the next degree to angels ; and by 
giving him dominion over the creatures. — But this interpreta- 
tion cannot be admitted, 1. Because at the time the Psalmist 
wrote, God's name was not rendered excellent in all the earth 
by the works of creation, as is affirmed in the first verse of 
the Psalm. The true God was then known only among the 
Israelites in the narrow country of Canaan. Neither had God 
displayed his glory above the manifestation thereof made by 
the heavens. Wherefore the first verse of the Psalm must be 
understood as a prediction of that greater manifestation of the 
name and glory of God, which was to be made in after times, 
by the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and by the 



preaching of liis Gospel. — 2. Next, our Lord, Matt. xxi. 15, 
16. hath expressly declared, that the second verse of this 
Psalm foretels the impression which the miracles wrought by- 
God's Son in the flesh, would make on the minds of the multi- 
tude, called babes and sucklings on account of their openness 
to conviction, as well as on account of their want of hterature. 
Struck with the number and greatness of Messiah's miracles, 
the multitude would salute him with hosannas, as the son of 
David. And thus his praise as Messiah would be perfected 
out of their mouth. — 3. Farther, it is declared in the Psalm, 
that this strong proof of his Son's mission was to be ordained 
by God, for the confutation of infidels, his enemies, and that 
he might still or restrain the devil, the great enemy of man- 
kind, called in the Psalm the avenger, because he endeavours 
to destroy mankind, as the avenger of blood endeavoured to 
destroy the manslayer, before he fled into the city of refuge. — 
4. With respect to the 6th and following verses of this Psalm, 
they are not to be interpreted of the manifestation which God 
hath made of his glory by the creation of man, in regard St. 
Paul hath assured us, that these verses are a prediction of the 
incarnation, and death, and resurrection of the Son of God, 
and of his exaltation to the government of the world. For, 
having quoted these verses, he thus explains and applies 
them ; Heb. ii. 8. Bi/ subjecting all things to him, he hath left 
nothing unsubjected. But now, we do not yet see all things 
subjected to him, 9. But we see Jesus, who for a little while 
was made less than angels — for the suffering of death crowned 
with glory and honour. Wherefore, according to the Apostle, 
the person who, in the Psalm, is said to be made for a little 
w^hile less than angels, and whom God crowned with glory and 
honour, and set over the works of his hands, and put all things 
under his feet, is not Adam, but Jesus. — 5. And whereas in 
the Psalm, the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the 
fish of the sea, are mentioned as subjected, they were with 
great propriety subjected to Jesus, that he might support and 
govern them for the benefit of man, his chief subject on earth : 
seeing the happiness of man, in his present state, depends in 
part on the sustentation and government of the brute creation. 
— Here it is proper to remark, that if to. iravTa, the expression 
in the Psalm, includes all things without exception, as the 


Apostle affirms, Heb. ii. 8 : 1 Cor. xv. 27. angels as well as 
men being subjected to the person spoken of in the Psalm, 
Adam cannot be that person, since no one supposes that the 
angels were subjected in any manner to him." — To the 1st 
objection the answer is obvious, that the Hebrew Y"1Krr'7D 
was quite as limited in its acceptation as Mackniglit could 
wish : see Reland's Palccst. B. i. C. v. : and as to the remark 
that " God had not yet displayed his glory above the mani- 
festation thereof made by the heavens," it may be replied, that 
nothing of this kind is affirmed ; the glory of God is elsewhere 
said to be above the heavens, Ps. cxiii. 4; cxlviii. 13. meaning 
only, that He is the Most High. — 2. The quotation made by 
our Saviour proves the secondary sense, against which I do not 
argue, whilst it by no means disproves the primary : for un- 
questionably the benevolence of God is conspicuous in the pro- 
tection of helpless infancy against violence and oppression. — 
3. Macknight understands the Avenger to mean the Devil : 
but this, though an allowable application, is not necessarily 
the only sense : see Ps. xhv. 16. — 4. The fourth objection 
seems to require no other answer than that which was offered 
to the second : it proves the secondary sense, without disprov- 
ing the primary. — 5. As to what is said of ra TravTaj I think 
the extent of that term in the Psalm is ascertained by the sub- 
joined enumeration of the several classes of brute creatures: 
to say that under the same term angels must be included, be- 
cause angels are subject to Christ, is to assume that the Psalm 
has no other than the secondary sense ; which is the very point 
in dispute. 

The real difficulty of the Psalm, as apphed in the Epistle, 
seems to me to He in the word WD, which signifies both in a 
small degree, and also /or a short time: the former sense is 
adapted to man, the latter to our Saviour. Macknight, indeed, 
alleges that man is 7iot in a small degree inferior to the angels : 
this, probably, is true, yet it is not a truth to which the writer 
of the Psalm was required to attend : in proclaiming the dig- 
nity of human nature, the remark was sufficiently just, since 
between men and angels the writer knew not, in the chain of 
being, of any intermediate link. Macknight, however, adopts 
an expedient which, if it were authorized, would make every 
thing plain : he supposes the Pronoun Him, in *' Thou hast 


made Him,'' &c. to refer, not to the immediate antecedent 
Man, or the Son of Man, " but to a Person not mentioned in 
the Psalm, of whom the Psalmist was thinking, viz» the Son of 
God." His proofs, however, of this usage are extremely un- 
satisfactory ; they are, 2 Pet. ii. 11. 1 John iii. 2. 16. and 
1 Pet. iii. 14. besides the present instance. Now in 1 Pet. 
iii. 14. Tov ^l (j)6(5ov AYT12N pretty plainly refers to the per- 
sons from whom the suifering was to be expected, as implied 
in wd(Txoire. In 2 Pet. ii. 11. the difficulty is even less ; for 
nothing can be plainer than that Kar avTwv is against the 
ToXfjLriTai, avQa^uQ, &c. mentioned in the verse preceding. 
And in 1 John iii. 2. 16. I really wonder that the reference 
should have escaped Macknight's notice : in ver. 2. we have 
nvTi^ referring to Geou in the former part of the verse ; and as 
to Ikuvoq in ver. 16. it is the same w^ith Ikuvoq in verses 7. 5. 
3 ; and in ver. 3, it is the same with avTt^ in the verse pre- 
ceding ; i. e. it refers to Oeov ; it is first introduced with the 
strictest propriety, the reference being to an antecedent at 
some distance. A question, indeed, may be raised about the 
sense of 0£oi; : is the Father meant, or is it the Son ? Ver. 5. 
seems strongly to favour the latter supposition, for no mani- 
festation had been made but of the Son ; and in this case we 
have here a close parallelism to the received, though disputed, 
reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. deserving some notice in the contro- 
versy. — Macknight's proofs, then, of the usage alleged, are not 
the most convincing : but supposing the reference in the cited 
passages to have been somewhat more doubtful, how will in- 
distinctness of reference, which is all that can be pleaded, and 
that only in a single instance, apply to Ps. -vdii. ver. 6 ? In 
ver. 5. we have avTov and avrov, and in ver. 6. we have avTov 
again : and is it to be inferred from any proof adduced, that 
the last avTov relates to a person who has never been men- 
tioned or even alluded to in any the remotest manner ? This 
would not be indistinctness of reference, but the confusion and 
destruction of all reference whatever. Besides, we want a few 
examples of this strange anomaly deduced from the Hebrew 
Affixes, rather than from the Greek Pronouns Relative. — On 
the whole, therefore, I am persuaded that the meaning of lOi^D 
derives no illustration from Macknight's conjectm-e, but that it 
must be determined on some other ground. Three supposi- 


CHAPrER II. 4-07 

tions appear possible ; either that the Psahnist has used tliis 
word to signify in a small degree^ wliich is the more common 
meaning, and tliat Apostle, availing himself of its ambiguity, 
has employed /Soax" rt in the other sense ; or else that the 
Psalmist had by inspiration a knowledge of man's future resur- 
rection and exaltation to the condition of angels, in which case 
he might properly say, for a little time ; or, lastly, that the 
Apostle was content to use the phrase, as the Psalmist had 
used it, to signify in a small degree, since this was sufficiently 
expressive of the condition of human nature, though the other 
sense would have been more immediately appHcable to tlie con- 
descension of Christ : and of these the last appears to me to be 
the least embarrassed with difficulties. If the Psalmist ha;^ 
declared man to be little inferior to the angels, the application 
of this phrase to Christ will signify, that He took the human 
nature : the only difference will be, that what in the one case 
is made a matter of pride and exultation, is a subject of humili- 
ation in the other. 

I cannot, then, discover any ground for rejecting the ob- 
vious sense of the Psalm under review; and the secondary 
sense can as little be questioned, for a reason already assigned. 
And the same will be true in many other cases. Against the 
doctrine, therefore, of a twofold explanation, what is to be 
urged ? I know of no objection worthy of regard, unless, 
indeed, it be said that the door will thus be opened to the 
caprice of mystics and entliusiasts. But it is not for unauthor- 
ized applications that I contend ; it is only for those which 
have been made by Christ or his Apostles ; and unless we 
admit that such future applications were originally intended 
by the Holy Spirit, who influenced the minds of the Inspired 
Writers with a view to this very end, it will be impossible to 
place any of the citations in the N. T., except, indeed, direct 
and avowed prophecies, on any better footing than that of 
being accidentally apposite to the occasion. A quotation 
from the Psalms by St. Paul will not, in its application, possess 
any advantage over a quotation from Horace by Addison. 

That the difficulties on which this reasoning is founded have 
been felt by wise and good men, is evident from the attempt 
which we have witnessed in Macknight, to explain away the 
obvious meaning of Psalm viii. : he saw that its reference to 


Christ was not to be denied nor disputed ; and not admitting 
a double sense, he had no alternative but that which he 
adopted : but this is to save the application at the expense of 
the passage which is applied, and ultimately even of the 
Christian Revelation: for when once we begin to withhold 
from words their ordinary and natural signification, we must 
not complain, if Infidels charge our Religion with mysticism, 
or its Expositors with fraud. But to assign, on the authority 
of Christ and his Apostles, to certain passages of the O. T. a 
further and remote meaning, cannot give offence to any one 
who admits the possibility of Inspiration. The Being who 
directs the mind and its operations is Omnipotent; and he 
who shall concede to such a Being any purpose at all, must 
also concede any variety of purposes not inconsistent with His 
Benevolence and Wisdom. These His Attributes are known 
to man, chiefly by the scheme of human redemption. It is, 
therefore, neither unreasonable nor improbable, that having 
the Gospel Dispensation in view. He may not only have sug- 
gested to the Writer of the O. T. expressions and descrip- 
tions adapted to affect the minds of those who should mtness 
their future and secondary signification, but may also have 
ordained various events to be the forerunners and types of 
others of greater moment. In examples of both these kinds 
of coincidence, the Sacred Volume abounds : and when we 
perceive how numerous are the phrases and circumstances 
occurring in the O. T., which admitted a hitherto un thought 
of application in the New, we can hardly fail to acknowledge 
in the transactions recorded, and in the language employed in 
both, one directing hand, and One Omniscient Spirit. 

V. 9. Tov ^l l^p^X^ ^' "^^9 ayyiXovg, k. r. X. Abresch 
remarks, that "it is inconceivable how the Interpreters are 
embarrassed in settling the construction and sense of this pas- 
sage." Yet the construction is very clearly defined, nor does it 
meet with any opposition from the context. " Him, who was 
made somewhat lower than the Angels," i. e. who took the 
human nature, " even Jesus, we behold, on account of his 
having suffered death, crowned with glory and honour :" the 

Subject is, tov ^l fipaxv) k. r. X 'Irjaovv, and the 

Predicate is all which follows. The subjoined clause, oirtjg 
Bavarov, I understand to be the reason assigned why 


Christ suffered death as mentioned in ^la to TraQr]p.a. It is 
remarkable that the Syr. instead of \aQLTL 0€ou, reads x^P^''* 
0foc, /* that God might graciously taste of death." Adler, 
however, says, that some Nestorian MSS. of the Syr. have 
what is equivalent to ipse enim prcdter Deum pro omnibus gus- 
tavit mortem : the w^ords prceter Deum are explained to signify, 
" in his human nature." See Verss, Syr. p. 37. 

V. 16. (TTripjuaTog ^Afipaajui. The Article is omitted before 
(TTTEpfiarog by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 6 : thus also oIkoq 
'l(Tpa{]\, &c. passim,, Mr. Wakejield had, therefore, no occa- 
sion to translate " a race of Abraham :" the Greek idiom does 
not require it, and the EngHsh will not endure it. These, it 
is true, are little things : but occurring in almost every page 
of his Translation, they give it the appearance of having been 
made by a person of whom English was not the mother-tongue. 
So also in the preceding chapter, ver. 2. he renders Iv utw " by 
a Son," which of course implies a plurality of Sons : yet no- 
thing is plainer than that the Son here spoken- of is the same 
who, in John i. 18. is called 6 /iiovoyavrig tov Oeov. 


V. 3. TOV OLKov, Ahresch explains tov by tlvoQ) an usage 
unknown to the N. T. The same Critic would in the next 
verse make to. to mean TovTa : but see below, on vi. 3. 

V. 6. ov oIkoq l(Tfi\v rifxeXg. Two MSS. read ov 'O oIkoq, 
and several 6c oT/coc. It is observed by Ahresch, that if ov be 
the true reading, the idiom requires the Article before oIkoq, 
and he cites Heb. xii. 26. Acts xviii. 7. John iv. 46. Rom. 
ii. 29. But in all these instances, the Noun governing ov is 
the Subject: here oIkoq is the Predicate, in which case the 
Article is usually omitted : I say usually, for where the Sub- 
ject is a Pronoun Demonstrative, it is not improbable that an 
exception may exist. There is not^ therefore, any reason to 
infer, that the received reading is faulty, and on that account 
to adopt the reading oc, which, after all, does not alter the 
sense : *' whose household we are," is equivalent to " which 
household," if the former be taken in connexion with what 
immediately precedes. 



V. 12. \pvxriQ TE KoX aifiarog. Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. So 
tvOufirjcFewv koX Ivvoiiov, after which KapBiag wants the Article 
hy Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 


V. 4. 6 KoXovfievog 6 'Aapcov, With many MSS. 

we should probably omit both these Articles. The latter, in- 
deed, may be tolerated: but the former disturbs the sense: 
KoXov/mevog is opposed to kavTM, as if the Writer had said, '' not 
of his own accord, but being called thereto by God." 


V. 4. TrJQ Stuptac Trig eirovpaviov, Ahresch here, as in some 
other instances, supposes the Article to supply the place of 
ovTog, and renders " this heavenly gift :" and on this hypothesis 
principally, he founds remarks which occupy a note of con- 
siderable length. I have already had occasion to observe, that 
there is nO authority for such a supposition. There may, in- 
deed, be cases in which the sense will not be affected, whether 
we insert the Pronoun Demonstrative or not : this will depend 
on the context. But that Ti]g is frequently put for ravTrig, is 
not true ; for if it be, what are the cases in which this usage is 
allow^able? Besides, they who make this assertion do not 
appear to consider, that if ravrrig, to use the present in- 
stance, were inserted, rrig would still be requisite. See Part i. 
Chap. vii. § 5. They should, therefore, rather affirm, that 
ovTog often suffers Ellipsis: of which, however, I have not 
seen any example. 

V. 5. ^vvafiug re fxiWovrog auovog. Markland conjectures 
TE TOY iiiWovTog. This may at the first view appear requi- 
site : yet, I believe, that the received reading is genuine, the 
clause being part of an enumeration of particulars ; hence ^vva- 
jxug is anarthrous, and fiiWovTog aluivog may be so Hkewise 
by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. In the- clause preceding, had 
there been no enumeration, we might have expected TO KaXoi/ 


f)Ti]pLa TOY Gtou. So also the whole second verse of this 
Cliapter is made up of Nouns which would not have been 
anarthrous in other circumstances. Very similar to the pre- 
sent instance is irgoayovang IvtoXtiq in the 18th verse of the 
next Chapter : the irQoayovaa IvToXrj is the Law of Moses, than 
which nothing can be more definite : yet the Article is want- 
ing, because aOirriatg is anarthrous by Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 1. It is thus that conjectures the most plausible are often 
found on inquiry to be gratuitous. 

The words SwajuHQ re /liXXovrog alwvog, are rendered by 
Tertullian occidente jam cevo, in accounting for which much 
labour had been bestowed to very little purpose : among 
others, Grieshach attempted to solve the problem, but without 
success. They who would see an admirable specimen of con- 
jectural criticism, may consult MattJidi on this passage : his 
Note discovers the hand of a consummate master, as indeed 
does every part of his edition of the New Testament. 

V. 12. Tag tTrayyeXiag. Mr. Wakefield thinks it " not im- 
probable that we should read rf/c for rag" and observes, that 
" so several of the ancient Translators appear to have read. 
The Participle," he adds, " is used as a Substantive as often." 
— What is to be gained by this emendation, he does not even 
hint : the word lirayysXia is as frequently used in the Plural 
as in the Singular ; and as to the remark, that Participles are 
often used as Substantives, if he mean that ol KXrjpovojULovvT^g 
Trig e-rrayy^Xiag would be tolerable Greek, I apprehend that he 
is mistaken. " The Creator of all things" may in Greek be 
expressed by 6 iroii]Gag tcl navra: but he who should write 
Tivv TravTwv, would do little honour to his teacher. Yet on 
some points Mr. Wakefield is extremely fastidious. Thus he 
complains that the usual rendering of the 7th verse of this 
Chapter is " unintelHgible and absurd ;" and he would there- 
fore join ttTTo row Qsov, placed at the end of the sentence, with 
IpXofJLevov, which stands near the beginning. He then refers 
us to Acts xiv. 17. Zech. x. 1. and to a few passages of the 
Classics, which represent rain as coming from God, though not 
to a quarter of those which ascertain the same undisputed fact. 
If this and some others of his Notes were not written with the 
intention of making criticism ridiculous, it will be difficult to 
assign to their Author any thing like an adequate motive : 


compared with them, the Virgilius restaur atus of Martinus 
Scrihlerus scarcely maintains its pre-eminence. — In proof that 
fiiToXajjL^avu ivXojiag airo rov Ofou, applied to the earth, is 
miexceptionable, the Reader may consult Gen. xxvii. 27. and 
xlix. 25. 

V. 16. TrarrriQ avriXoyiag wtpag elg (5e(5auo(nv 6 opKog. 
Translators generally connect etc jStjSatoxrtv with 6 opKog. But 
then we should have read 6 elg (5ei5ai(i)(nv opKog : in which 
remark, however, I find that I have been anticipated: see 
Ahresch. The meaning is, " The oath (impHed in o/ulvvovcti 
preceding) is to them the termination of all controversy unto 
confirmation :" i. e. it causes uncertainty to end in assurance. 


V. 1. ovTog yap 6 MeXx_i(^^^iic. Some doubt has arisen 
whether these words are to be taken in immediate concord : 
the Article appears to me to prove that they are. 

Same v. rov Oeov vxpiarov. With many MSS. Wetstein 
and Grieshach have TOT v\pLaroVf which is absolutely neces- 
sary. Part i. Chap. viii. § 1. Scarcely any oi Matthdis MSS. 
want the true reading. 

V. \2. Koi vofiov. Here it is not denied that the Levitical 
Law is meant. See what is said on ver. 18. of this Chapter ; 
above, vi. 5. 


V. 4. ovT(x)v Twv hpevjv twv TTporrcpepovTOJv. Three MSS. 
and as many Versions want the words rwv hpiwv, and three 
of Matthdi's omit only the former Article. This latter read- 
ing is to be preferred ; " there being Priests," &c. Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. 

Same v. ra dwpa, the gifts, in reference to the Law just 

* V, 2. rwv aytwi/ Xeirovpyos. AeiTOvpybg is here the Predicate of og in v. 1. 
—H. J. R. 



V. 1. TO, T£ ayiov KOafiiKov, English Version, " a worldly 
sanctuary." This rendering is wholly inadmissible ; it would 
require us to read either to ayiov TO koctjuiikov, or else to 
Koa/LUKov ayiov' of the present form, the whole N. T. furnishes 
not, I believe, one unexceptionable instance : apparent exam- 
ples may always be corrected by the help of the MSS. : see 
on \'ii. 1 . and on 1 John v. 20. Or if it be thought that where 
a Copulative follows the Article, the rules may be dispensed 
with, I oifer to the reader's notice, out of a multitude of in- 
stances, the following: Xen. Hell. iv. p. 314. to. re fiaKQa 
Tei\rj' Arist. de Rep. v. cap. 12. rr/c te yap apiaTr)g iroXiTdag* 
LXX. Ex. XX. 10. Ty de rjiuipq. Ty lj3So>r}- Matt. vii. 17. to de 
aaTTpbv divdpov. It is, therefore, matter of surprise, that this 
difficulty has not been generally observed; yet, so far as I 
know. Translators both ancient and modern, with a single 
exception, have acquiesced in the common construction. Mr. 
Wakefield, indeed, tells us, " that the reading TON re ayiov 
KOSMON, so suitable to the context, was a conjecture of his 
in very early life, and that he afterwards found it to be the 
reading followed by the Coptic Translator." He then refers 
us to his Siha Grit. Part v. § 216; where, however, he aban- 
dons his emendation, on discovering in Josephus de B. J. lib. iv. 
the phrase ttJv iegav eaOriTa irepiKeifievoi Kal Trjg KOo-jUfK^c Xa- 
Tpeiag KaTapxovTeg. This Critic, therefore, was led to his 
conjecture merely by the exigency of the context ; but he did 
not perceive that the short quotation from Josephus contains 
two examples so unfavourable to the common construction of 
the passage, that they should rather have encouraged him to 
proceed in attempting a new interpretation. It is neither tt^v 
eaOriTa hpav nor Trjg XaTpeiag KOcr/iiKrig' he saw, however, 
that KO(TfjLiKrig might be an Epithet of XaTpeiag, and with this 
he was satisfied. 

The Coptic was supposed by Mr. W. to have read conform- 
ably with his conjecture. Tliis is a very curious circumstance. 
The Latin of Wilkins is, " primum quidem igitur tahernaculum 
hahuit justitias ministerii et sanctum splendorem :" the 
Coptic word, which is here rendered splendorem, is by La 
Croze (Lex. iEgypt.) explained hy ^rnamentum. Had, then, 


the Coptic Translator the reading TON ayiov KOSMON, the 
sacred furniture ? I believe not ; but that his interpretation 
was founded on the reading of all the MSS. to ayiov kocfiuikov. 
In Rabbinical Hebrew we meet with the very word 1')p"'Dtp» 
explained by Buxtorf (Lex. Talm. p. 2006, who cites a pas- 
sage from the Bereschith Rabba, § 19.) to mgwiiy ornamenta ; 
and Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. adduces a Gloss on the same pas- 
sage, which interprets the word by ]''D''l^DD ''^''tD species ves- 
tium pretiosarum. It is, therefore, conceivable that the Coptic 
Translator's et sanctum splendorem or ornamentum^ may be 
accounted for without having recourse to conjecture ; and that 
too, on either of the hypotheses as to the language in which 
this Epistle was originally written. If it were written, as 
several of the Fathers assert, and as Michaelis, In trod. vol. iv. 
p. 215. attempts to prove by very ingenious arguments, in Tal- 
mudic Hebrew, it is not impossible that the Coptic Version 
might have been made immediately from an original, in which 
there was no ambiguity : for supposing the Hebrew to have 
been Wlp \\\>'^12V\\j> something equivalent to sanctum ornamen- 
turn would be the almost inevitable translation. It is true, 
that this is to assume either that the Coptic Version was made 
very early, or else that the original Hebrew of the Epistle was 
extant for a considerable time. In the opinion of WilkinSj 
the Editor of that Version, it was made in the middle of the 
third century ; but supposing it to have been of somewhat 
later date, I do not discover any difficulty in the supposition, 
that a copy of the original might have been preserved through 
such a period, and yet afterwards have disappeared. Every 
one knows that Greek MSS., which were in use among Scho- 
lars two or three centuries ago, are no longer to be found.— 
On the other hand, if we assume