ance out of this condition; and these feelings were now brought into livelier, excitement through the circumstances of the times. The gospel indeed could not, as in its relation to Judaism, proclaim itself as the fulfilment of that which already existed; on the contrary, it had to stand forth in opposition against that which already existed, against heathenism as the apotheosis of nature; and it could therefore here attach itself only upon those inward convictions of an unseen and unknown God, which lay at the foundation of such an apotheosis. On the other hand, there was here the advantage, that there could not, so easily as from the position of Judaism, spring up the temptation to regard Christianity only as a supplement to what already existed, and wholly to mistake the new spirit which pervaded it and which aimed at the entire transformation of the whole life; for to the convert from heathenism, to whom Christianity presented itself in opposition to his whole former religious position, Christianity must necessarily appear as something WHOLLY NEW, and destined to produce a total transformation of life. Meanwhile, although Christianity could here at first present itself to the consciousness only in opposition to heathenism; yet those Christians who continued to live on in their former relations in the midst of heathen society, were so much the more exposed, in a practical respect, to infection from the heathen corruption of morals, before their christian life had become firmly established. And although it did not lie so near to their position as to the Jewish, to make out of faith itself an opus operatum, and thus to use it as a prop of licentiousness; still, such a misapprehension ever arose readily out of human nature itself, even without the intervention of Judaizing teachers. It is apparent, that Paul held it necessary to guard himself and to warn others against this tendency.1

Another peculiar danger also threatened Christianity, when it spread among the cultivated classes in those cities which were seats of Grecian learning. As here the love of science was especially predominant, and outweighed all other propensities of human nature; as also Christianity in respect to knowledge imparted FAR MORE than heathenism; and as in many points it coincided with those forms of Greek philosophy which rested on an ethical basis, in their opposition to the former popular religion; it was therefore possible to make Christianity, in direct

1 The nevoì lóyou, vain words, against which Paul cautions, Eph.

contradiction to its nature and destination, predominantly a matter of science and transform it into a philosophy,to subordinate the practical interest to the theoretical, and thus obscure the true essential nature of the gospel. But all this we shall have opportunity to develope more fully and to present in more striking points of view, in the history of the further progress of Christianity among the heathen, and the history of the particular churches established among them. We pass now to the second missionary journey of the apostle Paul.

ART. III. HINTS AND CAUTIONS RESPECTING the Greek ARTICLE.

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem. Andover.

Ir may not be amiss, very briefly to suggest the reasons why I have given the title above to the following remarks. I call them Hints, because it is not my present purpose to write a grammatical essay in extenso on the subject of the Greek article, in which I might endeavour to exhibit all its various phases and uses; nor is it my design here to exhibit, in a formal way, even an abridged account of these, which might hold a place in an ordinary grammar. Preparation to write a work of such a nature in extenso, after the labours of Kluit, Matthiae, Middleton, and others, must cost the labour of many years, in case the design should be (as it ought to be) to add something to the stock of knowledge already accumulated. Such labour my duties will not allow me to perform; and perhaps we shall see some reason to doubt, in the sequel, whether the subject itself is of sufficient importance to justify the laying out of such expensive effort upon it. But still, it is my intention to discuss, on the present occasion, some of the leading doctrines of the Greek article; and this discussion must necessarily take a grammatical hue, because it cannot be conducted in any other manner, so as to be solid and satisfactory.

I have added the word Cautions to the title of this essay, beVOL. IV. No. 14.

36

cause of my sincere and full persuasion that the doctrine of the Greek article has very often been made too much of; for the presence or absence of this little word, has been made the turning point in some of the most important appeals that can be made to evidence, in the science of theology or philology. For example; Origen asserts, and after him a multitude of others have asserted, that in xai deos iv ó λóyos, John 1: 1, ɛós cannot designate the great and supreme God, because the article is wanting, which (in case it designated God supreme) must be supplied. So again in Tit. 2: 13, the phrase ingaveia ins dóns τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, has occasioned great and long protracted controversy, by giving rise to the question, whether the omission of the article before owroos necessarily unites it to sou, and makes both to relate to one and the same person; or whether the language as it now stands, is grammatically capable of being understood in such a way as to make a distinction between eos and owing, the former being applied to God the Father, and the latter to Christ his Son. These are only a specimen of the questions that the Greek article has occasioned. Years of laborious effort have been devoted to some of these questions; and, after all, without satisfactorily accomplishing the desired end. Much of this labour has, in certain points of view, been lost to the world; because a little more accurate knowledge of the true nature of the Greek article would have effectually shewn, that in whatever way the investigation might terminate, the labour would in some respects be in vain; since the presence or absence of the article would, after all, decide nothing in a satisfactory way, so long as the usages of the Greek language would, in most cases, permit either, without any essential variations of the meaning. A true knowledge of this subject, I doubt not, would contribute greatly to narrow the bounds of controversy as it respects the declarations of the New Testament in several respects. Critics also, as well as theologians, would have less controversy than they have had, about many a various reading which has respect to the insertion or omission of the article. Those who reject with disdain this or that reading, because the article is present or absent, as the case may be, might, in many instances perhaps, find that their disdain was more the progeny of unacquaintance with the nicer shades of Greek grammar, or at least the laws of syntax, than of critical skill; yea, that in many a case, they were making much ado about-nothing.

I do not expect that the reader will believe all this on the ground of my assertion; nor do I wish that he should. If he does not see reason enough, in the sequel, for such remarks as I have made, then let him cancel them, if not from this book, at least from his mind. I ask for no credit upon trust. I have been obliged, in stating my reasons for the title given to this essay, in some measure to anticipate what I deem to be the result of its contents; and when the reader shall have gone through with these contents, I ask him then to turn back, and read the preceding remarks again, and inquire whether I have presumed more than I have proved.

It is one of the most singular phenomena that I know of in regard to language, that the Greek article has not yet received, as it would seem, a definition which is satisfactory to the great body of grammarians and critics. Nouns, adjectives, verbs, participles, and particles can be defined, and often have been, so that the great majority of those who speculate in these matters acquiesce in the definition. The verb and participle might, perhaps, be made an exception to this remark in certain particulars. Still, there is no controversy whether a verb is a noun, or an adjective, or other part of speech; and so in regard to the participle. But in respect to the article, there is still a contest concerning what it is, or at least what it originally was and still substantially is, although it may be employed with more latitude by the later than by the earlier Greek authors.

I cannot do requisite justice to my subject, without entering into this part of it with some degree of particularity. In the way of illustrating what I have just said, let me produce some of the definitions which have been given by some of the most celebrated grammarians and critics.

Aristotle, whom we might presume to be master of his own language, says: "Αρθρον δέ ἐστι φωνὴ ἄσημος, ἢ λόγου ἀρχὴν ἢ τέλος ἢ διορισμὸν δηλοῖ, οἷον τὸ φημὶ καὶ τὸ περὶ, καὶ τα alla, i. e. the article is a sound without a signification, which marks the beginning or end of a sentence, or distinguishes, as when we say the [word] qnui, the [word] neoi, etc." Middleton remarks on this, that "he despairs of discovering in it anything to his purpose;" and well he might say so, inasmuch as his purpose was, to shew that the article is in all cases essentially a relative pronoun, which it would be difficult enough to find in the definition of Aristotle. He conjectures, however, that as the article is usually prefixed to the subject of a sentence, i. e. to the

nominative case, this may tally with the first part of the definition, which refers, as is generally supposed, to the prepositive article; and the subjunctive article, ös, , ö, which is essentially a relative pronoun, is commonly used only when it is preceded by some phrase or declaration to which it refers, and therefore may be said to mark the end of such declaration.' But the misfortune is, the prepositive articles are often found in the predicates of propositions, as well as in the subjects, and that the subjunctive article is far from being always placed so as of itself to mark the end of a clause or sentence to which it relates.

But what shall we make of Aristotle's povn äonuos, a sound without a meaning? Are there any such words in any language? I am not aware of any. I know, indeed, that careless writers or speakers may employ many words that are superfluous and useless, so far as it respects the proper designation of what they mean. But this does not prove that there are any words which have of themselves no meaning; it proves only that the ignorant and the unskilful may abuse language.

One may here say, perhaps, that we must understand Aristotle as averring, that the article does not of itself designate any object, quality, attribute, action, etc. like the noun and adjective; nor, like the verb or participle, assert of these things any action or existence. But here again, where we seem to have obtained some light as to his meaning, we are met with the question: Which of all these does the preposition indicate? And is this a part of speech without a meaning?

Does he design, then, to convey the idea, that the article, in and by itself alone, has no significancy, but is dependent on its noun, etc. expressed or understood, for any and all of its significancy? Be it so; but how in this respect does it differ from the true and proper adjective, or the preposition, which in and by themselves alone have no proper significancy, being dependent parts of speech that show quality and relation only where the subject is expressed or understood to which they relate? If it be said, that the adjective often goes over into the noun, and so may have a significancy by itself; the answer is, that then as a noun, and not as a proper adjective, it has such an independent significancy. Besides, it is true of the article, also, that it often goes over into the demonstrative, and sometimes into the relative pronoun, and has the same significancy with these words. And even the preposition in some cases is used in like manner; as where the Greeks say ἄνα for ἀνάστηθι, πάρα for πάρειμι, ἔπι for ἔπεστι, ἔνι for ἔνεστι, ὕπο for ὕπεστι, etc.