EXAMPLES. Lys. vol. v. p. 139. ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν ἐμήν. Ibid. § 6. πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους τοὺς ἡμετέρους. Xen. Cyrop. lib. v. p. 86. ἐπὶ τῷ ἀγαθῷ τῷ σῷ πεποιημένα. Ibid. Hell. lib. II. p. 280. τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρῆσθαι. Plato, vol. iv. 61, οἷον τὰ σώματα τὰ καλά. Apollonius has adverted to this usage. He says that we must write ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθός, and not ὁ ἀγαθὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ὁ δοῦλος ὁ ἐμός, and not ὁ ἐμὸς ὁ δοῦλος ὁ παῖς ὁ γράψας and not ὁ γράψας ὁ παῖς· and the reason assigned by him accords in substance with the principles, which I have attempted to establish2. In the legitimate arrangement, the addition of ὁ ἀγαθὸς in apposition to ὁ ἄνθρωπος is admissible, because it says something more than was said in ὁ ἄνθρωπος : to assume of any one that he is a attended to both the rules here laid down: thus in a single sentence, ὦ θρέμμ' ἀναιδές, ἦ σ ̓ ἐγὼ καὶ Τ' ΑΜ' ΕΠΗ καὶ Τ' ΑΡΓΑ Τ' ΑΜΑ πόλλ ̓ ἄγαν λέγειν ποιεῖ. 2 Ρ. 87. ἐπεὶ τὰ ἐπιθετικώτερον ἀκουόμενα φέρεται ἐπὶ τὰ ὑποκείμενα· οὐ μὴν τὰ ὑποκείμενα πάντως ἐπὶ τὰ ἐπιθετικά· εἶχε τὸ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἐπιζητεῖ τὸ λόγιος, τό γε μὴν λόγιος τὸ ἄνθρωπος. • But without having recourse to emendation, ("the worst argument a man can use; So let it be the last,") Seidler has explained the construction with great felicity : τ' ἀνδρὶ is not τῷ ἀνδρὶ, as had been hastily supposed, but TE, to which answers in the next line but one. There are in fact two constructions combined: if I blame both my husband and this woman; and, if I blame either my husband or this woman. K J. S. man, is less than to assume that he is a good man: but in the transposed order the reverse happens; for when we have said ὁ ἀγαθός, (i. e. ὁ ὢν ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος) the addition of ὁ ἄνθρωπος will be wholly without meaning. And so of all similar instances. Hence we perceive that in cases of explanation or limitation something more is requisite, as was before hinted, than the addition merely of the Adjective in explanation of Ts xwpns we must add ΤΗΣ Αττικής : for in της χώρης, as was shewn, the Article has already a sufficient Predicate, and no other can be admitted: if, therefore, we have more to assume of the subject Ts, that subject must be repeated otherwise ATTIKйs will be predicated of nothing. Lastly, it is to be observed, that though this order is never violated, yet instances will occur, in which the former Article is omitted: thus, Herod. lib. ΙΧ. p. 327. κατιππάσατο ΧΩΡΗΝ τὴν Μεγαρίδα. Herod. lib. Ιx. p. 329. ΤΡΟΠΩι τῷ σφετέρῳ ἐτίμων Μασίστιον '. Xen. Cyrop. lib. v. p. 86. εἴ τις ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ τὴν σήν, κ. τ. λ. It is plain, that this ellipsis does not affect the meaning, since the Article prefixed to the Adjective is alone sufficient to correct the indefiniteness of the Substantive. The use of both Articles is, however, the more common: and in general, it may be observed that ὁ ἀγαθὸς πολίτης and ὁ πολίτης ὁ ἀγαθὸς are, in respect of the order of the several words, the This form is of very frequent occurrence in Herodotus. forms which prevail, where the Substantive and Adjective are to be taken in immediate concord. The apparent violation of the former order is no other than the ellipsis, which is sometimes observable in the latter. Still, however, it may be asked, whether between the two complete forms there be any difference in respect of the sense. A most acute critic makes o ȧyalos Toxiτns to be the suitable expression, where goodness is the idea, with which chiefly the mind is occupied; while o Toλiτns o ayatos implies, that the principal stress is to be laid on citizen.2 That instances may be found, which seem to favour this distinction, I will not deny: but to affirm that such a distinction is usually observable, would, I think, be an erroneous conclusion. Ὁ μέγας βασιλεὺς and ὁ Baoiλev's ò méyas are, I believe, strictly equivalent: so also are τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα and τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον in the New Testament: nor would it be easy from the passage of the Electra of Sophocles, cited above in the note on p. 145. to establish the proposed rule. I do not, however, mean that it is a matter of indifference in all cases, which of the two forms be used: the former, as it is the more simple and natural, is in all the Greek writers by far the more common: in the latter, 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 2 Quum οἱ οἰκτροὶ παῖδες dicimus, primarium est οικτροί: quum oi naïdes oi oiktpoí, potius est raîdes. Hermann, Hym. Homer. p. 4. the particular person 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. Thus, in the former case, Tò IIveûμa cannot easily be misapplied; yet the addition of Tò aylov absolutely limits the sense. Justin Martyr, ed. 1636. p. 479. has the expression τοῦ Πνεύματός, ΦΗΜΙ, τοῦ ἁγίου, which seems to indicate very clearly what is the force of the addition in that and in all similar instances.The other case may be illustrated by the following examples: Aristot. de Curâ Rei Fam. lib. 1. (Opera, vol. II. p. 387.) says, ἀνδρός τε καὶ γυναικὸς ὁμόνοιαν ἐπαινεῖ ὁ ποιητής, οὐ τήν γε μὴν ἀμφὶ τὰς θεραπείας ΤΑΣ ΜΟΧΘΗΡΑΣ, ἀλλὰ τὴν νῷ τε καὶ φρονήσει δικαίως συνηλλαγμένην where μοχθηρας is opposed to what is implied in v Te Kai povýσe. Demosth. (de Cor. § 27.) exulting in having saved the Chersonesus and Byzantium, exclaims emphatically, these successes poaiρεσις Η ΕΜΗ διεπράξατο and our Saviour has said, John x. 11. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν Ὁ ΚΑΛΟΣ, as opposed to him, who is MoOwrós. I am, therefore, of opinion that ὁ πολίτης ὁ ἀγαθὸς would not, in all cases, be admissible: I should expect to find it, only where a good citizen had recently been mentioned, and where, consequently, o Toλirns alone might in some measure be understood of the same citizen; or else, where the good citizen was to be opposed to another of a different character: though in the latter case the other form is not unfrequently employed. CHAP. IX. THE HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES RESPECTING ARTICLE APPLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE foregoing Inquiry having been instituted in order that the result might be applied to the language of the New Testament, it may be expected, before I conclude this part of my work, that I should vindicate the application of rules founded on classical usage to the diction of the Sacred Writers. The sequel, indeed, will shew, that from the Evangelists and Apostles, no less than from Xenophon and Demosthenes, those rules may be exemplified and confirmed: and it was principally with a view to the proof of this agreement, that in passages presenting no difficulty I shall be found frequently, though briefly, to refer the reader to the canons previously established; that thus in other passages, where the sense or the reading is disputable, recourse may be had to the same canons, as being of acknowledged authority even in the New Testament. Still, however, it may be right in this place to offer a few remarks on the style of the Sacred Volume, so far only as it may be supposed to affect my plan. It may be asked, Is it likely that writers, who were confessedly untaught, and whose Greek style |