́ence.

are

which did not fall from the pen of the writer; for such a plan of criticism is too frequently ado ted by the author. In like manner, 3. "After verbs of appointing,choosing,creating, &c. the noun expressive of appointment, choice, &c. is always anarthrous?" on which similar remarks might be made with those on §. 2. 4. Nouns in apposition, explanatory not of the essence but of the end or object of the preceding noun, are always anarthrous. We should say, simply because the article is in no way necessary. 5. The article is omitted in negative propositions, where the negation is universal. Here also we should say, because the article, if not inapplicable, would usually have no force. 6. Of nouns in regimen, if the governed has not the article, the governing frequently loses it, even where applicable to it. The fact is, that, in a variety of cases, the governed noun sufficiently distinguishes the governing, so as to prevent the necessity of the article before it; and this holds good whereever only one of the class of objects denoted by the governing noun, can belong to the object denoted by the governed. However, as the Greek, and other languages, very often admit a definitive where it is not necessary but only applicable, we are prepared to find that the author's canon is less general even than those cases. 7. The same principle of correlation will explain why, when the noun governing is indefinite, the governed becomes anarthrous."

From the most remarkable inser. tions, the author proceeds to the most remarkable omissions of the article; and in this section he displays much acuteness in favour of his hypothesis; but as appears to us little decisive reasoning. We think too we perceive in several places a great tendency to a too rapid mode of generalization. 1. The subject of a proposition is without the article, if the proposition merely affirm or deny exist 2. In all cases where nouns preceded by verbs or participles, substantive or nuncupative," the noun is always anarthrous. In cases where the assertion holds good, it appears to us that the houns are either sufficiently defined by their adjuncts, or from the nature of the affirmation, do not require distinction. The author, after this strong and unlimited assertion, which we have no hesitation in considering as a canon formed more upon his hypothesis than upon induction, is obliged to make considerable restrictions which corroborate our position just stated. It perhaps deserves notice, that among his own his own examples, we see one in opposition to his canon, Agrans o dixios επικαλούμενος, xhours, which we find, on reEschines, is rightly quoted. We should not have been surprised to have found this example adduced as an exception

The author next proceeds to the cases where insertion and omission are combined. 1. In the case of the subjectand predicate of propositions. There is nothing peculiar in this case, but what has before undergone some remarks under the respective heads of omission and insertion. And the same remark may be made respecting convertible propositions.

66

illustrate Mr. Jones's doctrine. 2. "When two or more attributives," (meaning adjectives, participles, and all nouns " significant of character, relation, or dignity,") joined by a copulative 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." Our theological readers will recognize this prevailing usage as the foundation fo Mr. Sharp's celebrat. ed criticisms on the New Testa ment. The general principle is we presume admitted on all hands; the only question is, whether the converse of it be so universally and necessarily trueas to authorize modes of expression for which no unequivocal authority is found in the New Testament. We recommend the author's remarks to the attentive perusal of the critical reader.

We must mention before we leave this head, that Mr. M. states his principle to be inapplicable, where nouns are not significant of character, whether they are names of substances considered as substances, proper names, or names of abstract ideas; and also where the attributives are absolutely incompatible; and that he has fairly adduced an instance which militates against his principles, though not so decidedly as some which may be found in Winstanley.

In chap. IV. Mr. M. considers the employment of the articie as it respects proper names. He deduces two general principles from the usage of Aristophanes, which he considers as usually applicable in all other authors, viz. " 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 no. toriery, that even without previous mention he may be recognized by

are more or lessapplicable to other proper names.-The application of the article to proper names appears to us to have been caused by two or three different circumstances, which may contribute to account for the variations in this use of it. 1. Proper namesoriginally were in most cases appellatives, or at least capable of generic application. 2. They have actually been, in a vast variety of cases, in no way confined to an individual. 3. It is reasonable to suppose that in the original use of the names of places, the general term preceded them to serve as their distinctive epithets, and this might or might not have the article, according to circumstances. The article still appears in many cases to refer to some word understood.-So in English the Severn means the river Severn.-Whether or not these ideas are well founded, it is obvious that Mr. M.'s hypothesis in no way removes any difficulty arising from the variable use of the article which is not at least more readily removed by less refined speculations on the subject..

In chap. V. The author considers the use of the article before abstract nouns, or the names of attributes and qualities. He feels this usage to be attended, upon his principles, with much difficulty to us it appears perfectly accordant with Mr. Jones's account of the article, and to be fairly referable to the previous canons laid down by the author himself, and explicable though circuitonsly and awkwardly upon his own hypothesis.-We think that in this chapter the author appears to no great advantage as a philosophical philologist: but we must not pass it by without just mentioning what is stated as a very general usage, the well known employment of abstract nouns without the article, when they are used adverbially.

66

marks on the situation of the article in the concord of the substantive and the adjective. 1. In cases where the attribute is assummed of the substance, supposing one article only to be employed, it must be placed immediately before the adjective. 2. Where both substantive and adjective have the article, the substantive with its article is invariably placed first.-We do not enter into the author's mode of referring these usages to his hypothesis, because it must be sufficiently obvious; but shall bring forwards some of his remarks on the latter usage, where there are two articles. He says that he considers the usual form, as Barλεος and, το άγιον πνεύμα, as " strictly equivalent," with Bachus opeyes, and, TO WHING TO AYO; but he afterwards points out a shade of distinction"in the latter," says the author, "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 particuperson or thing intended, though by the addition of the adjective the substantive is absolutely restricted 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." In colloquial language, or in very rapid composition, the former case may

Jar

sometimes occur; but it is in the latter case that this usage is most frequently to be observed.

The last chapter of Mr. M.'s "Inquiry into the Nature and Uses of the Greek Article" respects the language of the New Testament as far as it concerns the object of the work. We think it, in general, a very just and satisfactory view of the subject; and should with great

pleasure analyse and examine it; but we must bring our remarks to a conclusion.

The second part of the work consists of notes on the New Testament. We have felt great interest in the perusal of this part; and, without pledging ourselves for the correctness of the author's theological sentiments, do cheerfully re.. commend it to all who have the power of employing it. In many of his explanatory, and in still more of his critical, remarks, we cordially agree; and in most places where we differ from him we have to admire great acuteness and considerable closeness of reasoning. The author too often discovers a want of candour to his theological opponents, and a degree of superciliousness for which there is no adequate justification. We observe too, as before, a great tendency to excessive rapidity of generalization; and he certainly carries to an extreme some of his critical positions. With all these faults, we consider the work as a valuable study for young critics, and believe that it will materially assist those who will think for themselves, in attaining an accurate knowledge of the original. If we had not extended this arti cle to such a disproportionate length, we should wish to go over the second part with the same minuteness of attention as we have bestowed upon the first: but we must satisfy ourselves with one remark respecting the author's criticisms on 1 John, v. 7. 8.