Mark 4: 6. Rev. 7: 2. 16: 12. 22: 5. 1 Cor. 15: 41. Luke 21:25. Acts 27:20. So οὐρανός; for ἐξ οὐρανῶν and ἐξ οὐ pavou is the usual formula; see also Acts 3:21. 17:24. 2 Cor. 12: 2. 2 Pet. 3: 5, 12, 13. Rev. 21: 1. We have yn instead ofyn in 1 Cor. 15: 47. Eph. 3: 15. 2 Pet. 3: 5, 10, 13. Acts 17: 24. Luke 2: 14. Heb. 6: 7. 8: 4, 9. Mark 13: 27, et al. saepe. As to eós, the instances in which the article is omitted are too numerous to need any mention.

Nor is this New Testament license only. The Greek classic writers practise the same, or the like omissions; as may be seen in the third edition of Winer's excellent Grammar of the New Testament.

The truth is, that there are two ways in which a noun may be made definite; the first is, by adding the article to it, in which case definiteness of some kind or other is designated; the second, by adding some pronoun, adjective, noun, etc. i. e. some qualifying circumstance, which serves of itself to distinguish it and make it definite. In this last case, the article may be employed or omitted ad libitum scriptoris in many cases; and we find abundance of examples in accordance with this. But this is a part of Greek syntax which is yet very imperfectly illustrated, and which needs the skill of some critic very different from Middleton, and who has not, like him, a favourite theory to support and to render tolerable in all cases, even of the most refractory

nature.

I cannot go farther into this subject at present. But I must not quit it without cautioning the young interpreter, not to lay much stress on the presence or absence of the Greek article, in his reasonings either of a philological or theological nature. The ground is yet too slippery, and too imperfectly surveyed. There is scarcely a rule laid down for the article, which does not admit of numerous exceptions; and in very many if not most cases, it seems to have been a matter quite at the writer's pleasure, whether he inserted or omitted it. How can we hazard the proof of an important theological doctrine, then, upon such ground as this? Let the correction made above, as to xvolos and o xúgios, serve as a warning against such argumentation or criticism. Should it serve this purpose, it will prevent many a false argument and unfounded criticism among those, who are accustomed to make their appeal to the Scriptures in the original Greek.

II. The doctrinal views which stand connected with the subject of our investigation are truly important, in respect to the character of the Saviour, and the duty of his followers.

1. The Lord Jesus is the Lord on whom Christians call, i.e. he to whom they direct their petitions and their praises; comp. A. 1, 35. B. 15. pp. 759, 764, above.

2. The Lord Jesus is the Lord to whom the primitive Christians looked in a peculiar manner for guidance, for consolation, for illumination, for success in their work, and for victory over their spiritual and temporal enemies. Him they regarded, in a peculiar manner, as "Head over all things to his church;" as "King of kings and Lord of lords," for the express purpose of accomplishing the work of redemption. Hence their frequent supplications for his grace and favour; their desire for his benediction; their deep sense of dependence on his protection and his mercy. To cite the proofs of this, would be to cite a great part of the examples which have been already produced in the preceding pages. No attentive reader should overlook the instruction afforded by such examples.

It is indeed ordained of God, that "every knee shall bow to Jesus, and every tongue confess that he is Lord." He will surely "reign until all enemies are put under his feet." But is it not equally true, when "every knee shall bow to Jesus, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord," that this will be to the glory of God the Father?" So thought Paul, Phil. 2: 11; so then we ought to believe. But when the proper idea of the avotóτns of Christ as Mediator is once well understood, the explanation of this seeming paradox becomes much more easy. The xvocorns in question is delegated; see p. 750 sq. above. It will cease at the end of time, 1 Cor. 15: 24–28. But who delegated the mediatorial dominion to Christ as Messiah?

Το

The texts cited on p. 751 shew that it was the Father. the Father, then, glory will redound, when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." Why should it not? "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "Thanks be unto God, then, for his unspeakable gift." Glory and praise be unto him for ever and ever, for his boundless mercy!

But is glory due to him who said, "Lo I come, my God, to do thy will?" So thought and said the apostles; so the redeemed in heaven are represented as declaring, Rev. 5: 13. Why should the one exclude the other? Why should the glory

which redounds to God the Father, because that every tongue confesses Jesus to be Lord, detract from the glory which is to be given to this same Jesus as Lord?

But you will say, perhaps, that the glory to be given to Jesus is inferior and secondary praise. Be it so then, so far as that zugiórns is concerned which is delegated, and which will come to an end. But is there not something more than the praise of this voiórns due to "Him who was in the beginning with God, and "WHO WAS GOD;" who is "GOD OVER ALL and blessed for ever;" who is "OUR GREAT GOD and Saviour," who is "the TRUE GOD and eternal life?" The humble Christian will pause, at least, before he decides against this.

One remark more, and I have done. It pertains to the practical part of our subject. 'Shall we separate, in our own minds, between the homage we pay to the Saviour as being Lord by delegation, and in our nature, and that which we pay to him as the eternal Logos?'

How can we do this? For myself, I have made the attempt in vain. Others may be more successful; but I cannot reach such a point of abstraction in my own views and feelings. Am I required to do it? I can find nothing in the New Testament which imposes this upon me. I find in the ascriptions to the Saviour, which John represents the redeemed in heaven as making, that he is praised and adored in the same words and by the same actions, which are employed in order to praise the Father, Rev. 5: 13. If worshippers in the temple above do not separate the objects of their worship, by the manner and matter of rendering homage, then worshippers on earth may dispense with such a separation. I doubt whether it is practicable. I am fully persuaded that it is not expedient. It would disturb the thoughts of the worshipper; it would give him a low instead of an elevated flight. If I am wrong here, most cheerfully will I submit to correction. If I am not, then let the humble Christian apply to practice the principle which I am endeavouring to confirm.

All this, however, does not hinder us from knowing and fully believing, that Christ as mediatorial xvotos, is in some important respects to be distinguished from Christ as xvotos in the character of Moyos and The whole of this mystery we cannot explain; it is deeper than we can fathom. I feel this to be true; and from the bottom of my heart I acknowledge it. But how can this be otherwise? God manifest in the flesh,' we have good authority for believing, 'is a great mystery ;' one which

perhaps the light of heaven itself will never fully unfold. But "Let me believe

then, even granting this, I would forever say, and adore," and not "wonder and perish!"

ART. VI. FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE.

THE following extracts of letters received from distinguished individuals abroad, are presented to the readers of the Repository in the belief, that nothing can be more acceptable to them, than thus to learn from time to time the views and feelings, as well as the occupations and prospects, of persons whose names and characters are well known to the American churches, but whose works are as yet little circulated among us. Indeed, one great object of the present work, and in the Editor's view one of the most important, is, so far as opportunity may arise, to communicate information of this kind; in order thus to bring Christians of different countries into more intimate acquaintance with each other, and enable them better to appreciate and honour and love the Christian character and exertions of each other. To the sentiments of fraternal affection expressed in the following extracts, the heart of every American Christian cannot but warmly respond. EDITOR.

1. Extracts from a Letter to Prof. Stuart, from the REV. EBENEZER HENDERSON, D. D. Prof. of Theol. in Highbury College, near London.†

MY DEAR SIR,

*

*

LONDON, FEB. 22, 1831.

*

I cannot proceed further, without tendering you my best thanks for the copy of the new edition of your Hebrew Grammar; I was already well acquainted with it, and quite agree with you as to the importance of the more condensed form in which it appears. Even as it is, it is, however, I am sorry to

+ Dr Henderson is the well known traveller in the northern parts of Europe and Iceland, as the agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society. ED.

say, too formidable for most of my countrymen; who have got so spoiled by the habit of learning the language without points, or with them so superficially, that I fear few copies will be in demand.

*

*

You have greatly the advantage of us, in having the young men that come to Andover already initiated into the elemental parts of the [Hebrew] language. With us all is to begin; and that with the Theological Tutor. I am happy to say however, that at Highbury College, (to which I removed last July, the Mission College having been given up on the ground of the disproportionate expense,) I have succeeded in getting Hebrew begun at the commencement of the second year; during which I find I can take the students through the Grammar and Genesis at least; the third year we can master the more important of the other Mosaic books and the Psalms; and this leaves us time in the fourth year to go through Job, Isaiah, or the minor Prophets. I have now a class that began Job last September, and have read the whole of it,-all the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, and two long chapters of Jonathan's Targum. Formerly the students only got a mere smattering, and never having got fairly over the threshold, could not enjoy the scenes within. It grieves me to think that I cannot devote more time to the prosecution of Biblical researches, for the immediate benefit of my Hebrew classes; but when I tell you that with the exception of a course on Biblical Criticism (already prepared), I have still in a great measure to get up lectures on Biblical Antiquities, Divinity, Church History, and Pastoral Theology, you will not wonder that it should be the case. In the preparation of my divinity lectures, it is my object as much as possible to make them exegetical, that the students may have the means of judging whether any view is contained in the book of God, or not, and what is the exact amount of evidence which any particular passage may furnish in its support.

A specimen I wish to send you with some other things. It is a defence of [the reading] GOD manifest in the flesh, brought out to meet the temporary exigency occasioned by an attempt on the part of the Socinians, to persuade the public that Sir Isaac Newton had proved a corruption of the passage.†

+ Of this little work the Archbishop of Canterbury says, that it is "a valuable specimen of critical ability, successfully exerted in the investigation and discovery of truth." It will be reprinted in the next number of this work. ED.