On this page
- Text (3)
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
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the end of Charles ' s reign , however , the Court having revived its persecution of the Dissenters , the bounty was withdrawn ; [ To be continued .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/