On this page
- Text (3)
Mr . Cogan on a Canon of ® ritieisfn relating to the Greek Article . $ 4 #
were , Patrick Adair , William Setnfile ; Alexander Hutcheson , and Archibald Hamilton . Having consulted apart * they gave it afc their opinion , that each -minister-who was in the country in the year 1660 , should have all equal
proportion ; and that the widows and orphans of those who were removed by death , might share of the King ' s bounty : with which plan Sir Arthur being pleased , ordered immediate payment for the first quarter .
Towards the end of Charles ' s reign , however , the Court having revived its persecution of the Dissenters , the bounty was withdrawn ; [ To be continued . ]
Sir , Nov . 1 , 1824 . HAVING in my last ( pp . 531 — 533 ) alluded to a grammatical canon which has been applied to prove the divinity of Christ / 1 will now , with your leave , state the canon , as given in the Classical Journal , No . XVI .,
and make an observation or two upon it . " When two or more attributives 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 ornjtted . " That this canon holds true in general I have no doubt . But it is manifest that it is
applicable only when the noun which has th ^ article can be an attributive of the subject which is to follow . And it is worthy of observation , that the epistolary writers of the New Testament do not commonly use the article with an attributive standing before
the name of Jesus Christ , when such attributive is introduced by a conjunction , the word O ^ eoc having preceded . Before ® eo <; 9 in such case , I contend , that they employ the article or not as the occasion may require . Such passages as the following" are numerous ,
airo Sea KOLTpoq r }[/* Gov vtoti Kvpte lr )< T& Xpt ^ -e , and in all these passages Kvpio < is the same to us as o Kvpioq ; and before Seoq the article is not wanted . Should it be said that the article is omitted before Kvpioq because it is omitted before © eoc , I answer that this
reason , simply considered , is not sufficient , as might easily be shewn . * * The following passage is worthy of notice , e £ ov ncci orcorvj ' pa a , 7 T £ VLdexo f A ' ^ ' &v $ iov Ivio-av Xptroy . Phil . in . 20 .
VOL XIX . 4 O
M tte Epistle of James i . 1 / we read , Iolkg > € o <; X Sea koli Kvpia lycra ptrs SeXo ^ . Here the article before &&q is omitted as unnecessary ; hence Paul also wtitek , UavKos 8 s \ o $ ® ea . 2 ThesSv i . ft ? , we read kocxo . try % dptv tq ® ea yfAav , K&i Kvgte lyca Xp * r » . H ^ re the article
is inserted , because o ® eoq ^ pav is more correct than ® £ o <; facey . In the first Epistle to Timothy v . 21 , we find hiafAXfTvpoiAou avcoirtoy rB ' '& sa Kctt Kvpta Ivj < ra Xj >* $ re * Here again thei
article is inserted , because spcotuov t& Oes is the usual expression . But the apostle ^ it seem s , in these instances ought % o frave iiiSerted the article be « -r fore Kvpia , if he did not intend that Jesus Christ should be considered as
both God and Lord . But what if M the view of the apostle he could not be thus considered ? And certainly his habitual practice of speaking of God and our Lord Jesus Christ in the same sentence , as distinct from each otl * er , constitutes a point of difference
between these passages and those cases to which the canon is justly applied In illustration of the canon the following words of iEschines have been qtio ' ted , o < TVYA < fycwri \ $ koli izepizpym ; AvifA . o < j £ reMi $ . But vvho sees not , from the observations which have now befen
made 3 that this passage is not analogous to the controverted passages in the New Testament , except in form 9 and that their coincidence ih this respect may justly be considered as accidental ? We read o Kitpiot ; vJjawv yint cruryiQ lY }< ra <; Xpif-oq , and here the
canon holds good . But Kvqhh ; qji&v not only is an attributive , but a perpetual attributive of Jesus Christ ; whereas ® £ o $ and Kvpiog Ivjcraq Xpt ^ aq are perpetually distinguished from each other . It is easy to lay hold of a rule , and to apply it to cases which
appear similar , without considering in what they diffex " , but this has never yet been deemed the part of sotind criticism 3 nor will any vigilant critic suffer himself to accept an imperfect for a perfect analogy .
In a word , the canon in question will prove nothing until the divinity of Christ shall have been established by other evidence , and when this shall have been done , I shall say of tlie canon , valcat quantum nalere potest . But were I a Trinitarian , 1 sliould wonder that desus Christ should never be called our God , except with ano-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1824, page 649, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2530/page/9/