discard the rules relating to the article, as not applying to the unlettered Fishermen of Galilee, and to take refuge in the easy conclusion of the indefiniteness of the Greek article. This ready solution of a difficult passage is brought forward again and again, by different commentators, usque ad nauseam. Into this fault our own excellent translators have occasionally fallen. Yet who will believe, that when the Evangelist, for instance, John xviii. 15, speaks of o dos μalnrns," the other disciple,' he means no more than dos, another? But, then, there is a difficulty to know what is meant by "the other." Exactly so; and this is the very point to which we wish to call the attention of our readers, as constituting the grand excellence of Bishop Middleton's work. "O doc," says the Bishop, " must mean the other;" and though he does not know, à priori, who is meant by the other, yet he steadily adheres to the principle, that, whether he can explain it or not, so it must be translated. This is philosophical criticism.

The substance, then, of what the Bishop has done in his learned work, is comprised in two things: he has investigated, by a laborious induction of particulars, the rules of the Greek article, as used in classical writers; and he has shewn that these rules were understood and practised by the writers of the Greek Testament.

To touch, for one moment, on the latter point. It has been a fashionable error to suppose, that, because these writers were "unlearned and ignorant men," it is improbable that they should have been acquainted with the niceties of this doctrine. Bishop Middleton's last chapter of the first part of his work is full of sound sense and conclusive reasoning on this question. It is clear, that their circumstances would remove them far enough from the polish of Athenian elegance: "But I know not," says the Bishop,

of any reasonable presumption against their writing with perspicuity, and with grammatical correctness: and it is against these, and not against elegance, that the improper use of the article would offend. p. 152.

An unlearned Englishman falls into such mistakes as was for were, &c.; but, to borrow Professor Scholefield's illustration, he does not say, Shut a door, when he means, Shut the door. And whatever uses of the article in the Greek Testament appear to be peculiar, the Bishop shews to be consonant with the practice of classical writers.

To ascertain, then, the other point-namely, what are the rules by which the use of the article is regulated in classical writers-Bishop Middleton sets out with an investigation of its nature and origin. After reviewing the opinions of grammarians

upon it, he defines it to be a pronoun relative, having an anticipative reference. This definition he explains and vindicates at considerable length, and, in our opinion, satisfactorily; though we are free to confess, that we think something might have been gained, in this part of the work, both in compression and simplicity we do not, however, stop to enter into a discussion of this question, as we are hastening forward to that which appears to us to be the most interesting and important, as well as the most popular and intelligible, part of the subject.

He proceeds, then, in his third chapter, to support his own hypothesis, by shewing that it is one which will "solve the phenomena, or, in other words, that it will account for the most remarkable peculiarities in the usage of the article." Here we would remind our readers of what is the great practical utility of the inquiry-viz. to determine how the article is used in Greek writers, independently of the consideration from what principles such uses are derived; and then to shew how we are to interpret the Greek Testament in correspondence with such established uses. In other words, the reader has to ask himself, Do I find the article inserted or omitted in such or such a particular case? and, conformably with this usage, how am I to understand this or that particular passage of the Greek Testament?

The Bishop's work contains a very elaborate enumeration of cases, in which the article is either inserted or omitted, or in which insertions and omissions are combined; and proceeds to the investigation of particular points, which are copiously illustrated by examples from profane authors. To some of the most striking or important of these we will briefly advert, in the order in which they occur; first, however, stopping to explain the objection we have hinted at, to the want of simplicity in arrangement. The learned author, in his third and two following chapters, has divided his inquiry by a reference to the classes of nouns connected with the article-viz. appellatives, proper names, and abstract nouns-and the rules are successively discussed for application under these different heads: the consequence of which is, that we have the needless repetition of a rule under one head which has been already given under another. For example: the article is used in the sense of a possessive pronoun, both with appellatives (p. 49), and with abstract nouns (p. 122). Why could there not have been one general rule, which might have comprehended equally Tov vovv, your mind" (p. 49), and rov yeλwr," my laughter" (p. 122)? We are of opinion that the principle, which we here venture to suggest, might have been applied with advantage on a more

66

66

extended scale; and that from the Bishop's work, abridged and modified, there might be compiled an aureus libellus on this important subject of criticism. We recommend something of this kind to the consideration of the present editor.

The first three cases in the Bishop's third chapter, sect. i.— viz. renewed mention, kar' ¿loxŋy, and monadic nouns—are very simple, and exactly correspond with the English usage. The fourth case, which we have already adverted to in passing, is that in which the article bears the sense of the possessive pronoun. This is one of great importance in all writers, and is easily explained by understanding the reciprocal genitive after the noun. To take the Bishop's second example: aλyɛw rar Kepaλar, SC. ¿μavrov, the head of myself, that is, my head: and we apprehend the article may be so used in all cases, where it is is sufficiently obvious what is the genitive understood, or, in other words, whether the article is to be rendered by my, or his, or their, &c.

The seventh case, that of correlatives, as the author calls them, somewhat obscurely-i, e. the case of nouns dependent on one another, so that the second is the genitive case after the firstpossesses great importance in itself, and especially on account of its entirely differing from the practice of our own language. The rule, with its limitations and exceptions, is clearly explained p. 50-53, though we think there is considerable obscurity in the original statement of it. And here again we must express our regret that the excellent author did not adopt a different method of arrangement, The rule now under consideration regards the insertion of the article: if it be inserted with the governing noun, it must be with the governed: it must either be λεοντος σκύμνιον, oι το του λέοντος σκύμνιον, and it cannot be in a prose writer το λεοντος σκύμνιον, Now, in the statement of the rule, as given from Apollonius, though too loosely-viz. "that nouns in regimen must have articles prefixed to both of them or to neither" (p. 51)—the converse is evidently included; and yet, in p. 67, where the author is considering cases of omission, this converse is again propounded, and time and words are wasted to inform us that

Exactly as the insertion of the article before the governed noun is made necessary by its insertion before the noun which governs, so the indefiniteness of the governed will cause the governing noun to assume the indefinite form.

Surely much would have been gained in clearness and simplicity, if the positive and negative form of the rule had been blended in one.

Following, however, the order adopted by the author, in favour of which we are not unaware that something may be

said, we must remark, that his section on omissions (pp 59—68) is very important, and the conclusions in it quite satisfactory. They have been assailed-they have been ridiculed-but they have not been refuted. The case of verbs substantive, followed by a nominative without the article, section ii., we hinted at in the outset what would the Socinians give to have it overturned? But it is a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of the rules of this eminent critic, that they so strikingly meet and fall in with one another, that one can no otherwise be accounted for than by assuming the truth of another. For instance: in Luke i. 32, even the Socinians, those sturdy champions of accurate grammar, render vios vorov, “a son of THE Highest:" then why not rov vorov? The Bishop's solution is clear: it could not be ὁ υἱος after κληθήσεται, and, υίος being without the article, vorov is too. The Socinians have no solution.

Our limits will not allow of our following the learned author through the developement of his hypothesis in its application to proper names and abstract nouns; and indeed it is the less necessary to detain our readers where no particular remark is called for, as the work has been so long before the public. But these two chapters are followed by another, on the anomalies which occur in the use of the article, the existence of which the Bishop candidly acknowledges, and which he proceeds to reduce to their several classes. "It is to be observed," says he, respecting them-and the observation is important

That they are omissions of the article where it might have been inserted, not insertions irreconcileable with its alleged nature. p. 129.

The omissions which he had noticed in the previous part of his discussion, were such as arose out of his view of the nature of the article: those which he now proceeds to notice, are exceptions to the general rule. The most important of these cases is that which occurs in the use of nouns after prepositions: the remaining cases discussed in this chapter, are those of enumeration, ordinals, and superlatives. The other cases of anomaly are detailed in a separate chapter, and relate to the use of the article with raç, ôλos, ouros, ode, and Keivos. We think, decidedly, that these two chapters should have constituted two different sections of the same chapter.

It is evident that the words just mentioned are words peculiar in their kind; and those of them which are strictly adjectives, was and oλos, would hardly be expected à priori to be connected with the article exactly in the same way as other adjectives are. All that the author had to do with these words, was to investigate their use; and if they were found to differ

from the general practice, as laid down with respect to other words, this could make no reasonable objection to the hypothesis.

We pass on, then, to a brief notice of the eighth chapter, on the position of the article in the concord of the substantive and the adjective. The general rule comprehends two cases, according as one or two articles are admitted: ex. gr. "the good man" is expressed either by ὁ ἀγαθος άνθρωπος, οι ὁ άνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθος that is, the article is placed with the adjective—but when both words have the article, the substantive must stand before the adjective, not i ayatos ó ávОрwños. This part of the subject is ἀγαθος ἀνθρωπος. discussed with great clearness, and the apparent exceptions are satisfactorily explained in the text and in the editor's notes.

But there is a case, connected with this principle of the position of the article, which we do not recollect that either Bishop Middleton or Professor Scholefield has noticed; and yet it is one which appears to us to be of great importance. The principle applies, where the circumstance which qualifies the meaning of the substantive is expressed not by an adjective, but by a periphrasis. Take a simple example: in the expression, the heavenly father, the term heavenly may be rendered either by οὐράνιος οἱ ἐν οὐρανῳ. Whichever form be used, the rules for the article equally apply: it will be either ỏ εv ovpavų tarne, Οι ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν οὐρανῳ, like ὁ πατηρ ὁ οὐρανιος. The classical reader will see at once the truth of the remark; and his memory will easily supply him with examples.

This investigation of the uses of the Greek article, which forms the first part of the Bishop's learned work, occupies in the present edition one hundred and fifty-seven pages: the second part, which contains the application of the rules in a kind of running commentary on the Greek Testament, occupies nearly five hundred. The Greek Professor, in his preface, has anticipated us in a remark, which we were going to make, on the length to which this part of the work is extended. There are some of the notes unpardonably long; and some of these have little to do, either in whole or in part, with the subject of the article; that, for instance, on Hebrews ii. 6, referred to by the Professor, which covers nine pages. That on the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7, 8, occupies nineteen, though the strength of the argument on neither side turns upon the article. We have yet a more serious objection to that on Acts ii. 47, though it extends to only two pages; but it really appears to us to be the most unphilosophical note in the whole book. We are utterly incapable of speaking with any thing like a feeling disrespect of Bishop Middleton; but we cannot help saying,

of