elevation and depression. For, as the acute accent, as was sec. chove, is in place only when the elevation, throgh its quartity or its tone, sundin a certain equilibrium with the following de ression (__ or),

so, on the other hand, the practed accent takes its place when the syllable of elevation, throgh its nature and position, has a decided preponderance over the following depression, or (by means of contraction) absorbs it into itself. Hence the ancient grammarians describe this tone not merely as simply protracted, but as curved, i.e. as rising and then. Aling”, thus uniting in itself elevation and depression, which was appropriately represented by the sign or, and designated by the term περισπώμενος (also συνημμένος and κεκλασμένος οι TEPIKEKλAOμÉVOS. Consequently it stands (1) not on a sy lable merely lengthened by position, but only on one leng by nature, because only such an one is capable of protraction and of a preponderance; (2) not on the anteponitin ete (because the two following syllables completely lance the elevation), but only one of the last two; (3) also not on a long penultimate, when one equally long follows (because then again the depression forms the same equilibrium with the elevation as in the preceding case, and keeps the latter within bounds), but only when the following syllable is short, and thus gives the preponderance to the preceding, and gives to the accent full liberty to extend itself at pleasure, and thus, in a certain sense, to take a part of the depression into itself, as is wont to be done involuntarily in following the rhythmical impulse to fill up the measure and restore the equilibrium, e.g. πρῶτος = but πρώτου = (whereas aos is

心

his own faint, yet well-grounded doubts, nevertheless, without examining more carefully the correctness of the premise. Also the usual designation of the words in question as agúrova I must consider incorrect, and not justified by the fact that they appear at the close of the sentence. This position gives the accent a special force, and raises it thus to a high tone, but proves nothing as to the normal tone of the ultimate in connected discourse, any more than does in Hebrew the lengthening of a syllable in pause as to the normal quantity.

1 This is also virtually confirmed by the fact that in cases of enclisis another accent may follow this one immediately in the same word, as σῶμά μου, οἷός τε.

rather a pure trochee,=

); (4) on the last syllable only

either when it is known or obscurely felt to be a syllable formed by the contraction of two into one, hence really etymologically composed of rise and fall, as is shown in the sign ^ (musically represented⚫ or P), in which cases very early contractions have been retained in the feeling of the language (as, that of - from úwv, cf. Lat. -árum, found even in the Sanscrit), or when, as an inflection-ending, it receives special emphasis (a grave inflection-ending). Here belong, in the noun, in the 1st and 2d Decl., the terrainations of the oblique cases of the genitive and dative, in distinction from those of the casus recti, which receive the simple grave tone (on which see p. 34, note): 1st Decl. -s, -ĥ -ûîv, -, aîs, but ǹ, -à -ai, -às; 2d decl. -oû, -, -oiv, -wv, os, hat ù, -où, -cùs; Attic 2d Decl. - -v, -ŵv, -ŵs, but -òs. ìv, -i-ậ, -ìès (only the Gen. sing. - deviates from the rule); contracted forms of the 3d Pecl. -oûs, -oî, -oîv, -ŵv, vìs. hut - in the Ne, and Acc. ing. and dual.1 Herec to be reckoned also some adverbial forms, which stry in all languages, are similar oblique cases; not only those hat are commonly counted among this class, in -, -îs, -oû, î fc. -, -oî (in names of places, as locative), as is, oμoû, en but also, as I think, the most common adverbial ending -ws, when the final syllable is accented (cf. the Sanscrit adverbial endings -ât and -ŭsja, the former alive, t. laser genitive of words in -as =-os, from which -ws). Bo the verb, the grave endings in the the 2d Aor. Inf. -eiv, Subj. pass. -ŵ, of the so-called 2d Fut. of

い

simple (shortened) sic.n

-s, etc., Imp. middle -n

1 These are commonly exp ed by the rules of contraction, and for the recsant Accusative -❀ (inster fróc.) an arbitrary analogy, i.e. conformity to the Nom., is assume l but by refcrepes to me above general law of declensions the difficulty solved without doing y viclence. The difficult Vocative oi, found with them. (vhose diphthong also in Suscrit undergoes a gunification .. a diphthongification of the i andy & the Voc. m ê, ô = ai, au (eu)) has the cumflex probably on acer nic 1. diphthong (which, as being compound, is everywhere held to be longer than a 5. lng syable, and accordingly can more easily draw the circumflex to itsel syllable, made such by the dropping of the final s).

a from eùs (in an open

the verbs in A, μ, v, p: -ŵ, -eîs, etc., -eîv, -ŵv, and of the socalled Attic Fut. -, -eis, etc.; whose strong circumflex endings I would derive, not, with Buttmann, from contraction after the previous rejection of the s in the future, but from the weak or pure stem and an inflection peculiar to itself, and independent of that of the 1st Fut. (as of the 1st Aor.).1 As to the cases in which this accent stands on monosyllables which seem to be neither contractions nor inflection-endings, the interrogatives πῶς, ποῖ, πού, etc. are doubtless to be taken as case-endings, like the corresponding adverbial-endings; in other cases, the antithesis as vov and the enclitic vvv-and other emphasis, or an effort to make up for the smallness of the word by a counter-weight, as πûρ, μûs, etc., may have led to it. Moreover it cannot but be that in final syllables or monosyllables which have also the downward slide the boundary between the two is often indistinct, and our present means of investigation allow us to come to no determinate result.

1 The very similarity and close relation to one another of the 1st Aor. and 1st Fut. on the one hand, and the 2d Aor. and 2d Fut. on the other, and on the contrary the total difference of the formations on both sides, clearly shows that we have before us here two different modes of formation of the Pret. and Fut., which go independently alongside of each other. In the Aor. this is already acknowledged; but it is true also of the Fut. The one, 1st Aor. and 1st Fut., is formed by welding on the auxiliary verb as (esse) in the corresponding forms, as is now evident from the Sanscrit, and repeats itself in almost all languages. The other, 2d Aor. and 2d Fut., however, is formed from the pure stem in its simplest form with strong mode-endings; the former often with a reduplication in front (so in Sanscrit); the latter has no analogy in Sanscrit, but has it in Latin, and is plainly, in strictness, a Subjunctive (like the Lat. Fut. in the 3d and 4th Conj.), which, as is well known, is most closely related to the Future. That those strong endings with the circumflex however, cannot have arisen merely from contraction, is shown by the Inf. of the 2d Aor. act. -ev (Dor. -év or -y, with -ev, -ny in the Pres.), which can be derived from no conceivable contraction, and by the Imp. middle -o, which at least does not conform to the rule of contraction, and points to an -éro, consequently (as in -è of the Imp. act. of many words, in -éreas of the Inf. middle, and -wv, -eìs of the Part.) can be explained only by an independent tendency of the accent towards the formation-endings, i.e. a tendency lying in the character of the formation. Since, nevertheless, in the case of -e there are in Ionic corresponding resolved forms, it is obvious how little reliance can be placed on this argument in the other cases.

ARTICLE II.

THE DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURES IN CHRIST.

BY REV. EDWARD A. LAWRENCE, D.D., LATE PROFESSOR IN EAST WINDSOR

THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION.

THE fundamental idea of Christianity is a deed, rather than a doctrine or a law. As a moral force it had its beginning in the faith of Abel. As a historic fact it began in that marvellous birth at Bethlehem, in which God revealed himself to men in man's nature. Any adequate philosophy of Christianity must, therefore, take into account this central fact. It must be able to construe it in all its modes and tenses; its logical and chronological relations; its vital forces, simple and compound, ethical and psychological. But who can thus compass this most stupendous work of God? Who can ascend to its sublime heights, or sound the depths of its wisdom and love?

When we propound the doctrine of man we have a single idea, an identical and finite organism, and in a department where consciousness helps us and experience gives us light. Even when God is our theme the subject, though illimitable, is homogeneous and a unit. But when we come to study the person of Christ our Lord, we pass from the simple to the complex, from the difficult elements of the problem to its more difficult solution. Ideas, not only distinct, but metaphysically opposite, the infinite and the finite, the absolute and the relative, require to be conciliated in the most wonderful of all unities and agencies.

Just here comes the real "conflict of the ages." Upon this battle-field the contest between faith and false philosophy, reason and revelation, has been sharpest. More and more the opposing forces are drawn towards this centre, where all

1 Concio ad Clerum; delivered at the Commencement of Yale College, July 26, 1864, on the text John i. 1-14.

for the church is to be won or lost. The deiers of miracle and of mystery array themselves more and more Gently again. this greatest of miracles and profound st of mysterie Never, perhaps, has the thinking world been more attractto the founder of Christianity, as the problem of history as well as theology, than in the present age. Germany, that vast mental kaleidoscope, where beliefs and disbeliefs revolve and sparkle with the fascinations of genius, where the losophies, atheistic and pantheistic, have en employed in coroners' inquests and reputed post-mortem examinations of the Christian religion, and in digging its grave; ere the schools, serious and sardonic, have been intert pulling down the kingdom of heaven, the land of Luther, notwith standing these adverse things, has yet, during the last halfcentury, produced a Christological literature ric i herme neutical and historical research beyond the of most any other age or nation.

But, in entering on my subject, I hate host conviction that, while the light elicited by ese discy sons is shi ing more directly than ever upon in whom vel Saviou and Lord, philosophy cannot interpret r us either him or his mission. Scie ce cannot do it. The lif f Christ m explain for us the mystery of his person; and only the pecu liarity of his person is able to account for the peca fa ts of his life. He himself is the key to himself, and fr. The whole evangelic history, of which he is the central cnrolling figure. Christ in the Bible, Christ in here, is "the

......་

is made up of the septThese two factors be peak, No essential element of Farbing the

therefore, our car ful amination.

either can L left out of the inquiry with process, and no foreign one can be brough, to it without prodicing the result.

I. My first inquiry relates to the Divine Nature in Christ Let me in the outset free my subject from the incubas of a certain philosophic pre-supposition, that a conception of the