cr

"asowing." And this observation, confirmed by producing some examples of the ellipsis, he applies to the explanation of Tit. ii. 13. which you know, Sir, is one of your mis-translated texts, in which he says, that τε μεγάλο θες και σωτηρος, the very form we are speaking of, is the same as τε μεγαλε θες και τε wingos. See Clarke's Reply to Nelson, p. 87, 88.

Grotius too, in his comment upon the same text, says: "Qui putant T8 σnpos dici debuisse, si hæc "distinxisset, apostolus, norint in his libris ra apopor "(articulos) sæpe poni ubi opus non est, et sæpe ❝ omitti ubi ex usu ponerentur." He seems to consider the ellipsis, under these circumstances, as more peculiar to the sacred, than to other writers.

i

That our translators understood this form of expression as nothing more than an ellipsis, appears evidently from their occasional insertion of the article before the second noun, in their version, when it is omitted in the original. Thus in 2 Cor. i. 3. ὁ πατηρ των οικτίρμων και θεος πασης παρακλήσεως is rendered, "the father of mercies, and the God of all "comfort." And in Coloss. ii. 2. James i. 27. and other places, where Jeos and walng are coupled toge ther according to your rule, the definite article is inserted before the latter word in our version, though there is no article before it in the original. See also the translation of Luke xiv. 21.

Thus it appears, that in the general form & Sɛos xas πατηρ τε κύριε ήμων, the omission of the article before the second noun, walng, is nothing more than a common ellipsis. It is an omission exactly of the same kind as that which we, at other times, meet with,

of

απο

of a preposition, or other particle, before the second noun; as for instance of the preposition in Matt. xxiii. 25. γεμασιν εξ άρπαγης και ακρασίας, or of the preposition συν, in Acts iv. 27. συν εθνεσι και λαοις, οι of Em in Matt. v. 45. of ano in Luke xiii. 29. of xala in Acts xxi. 28. of To in Acts ix. 15. and many others that I could mention, were I disposed to give to my visit but half the rich exuberance which your other correspondent has bestowed on his visitation of you. But as I am not ambitious of shewing my great reading, I would willingly save you the trouble of perusing much that is for me, and all of that which is barely not against me.

κύριος,

Thus you might have applied your rule to the omission and insertion of any of these prepositions or particles, with just as much truth and reason as to the omission and insertion of the article, and might have contended, that the two nouns 980s and upios, for instance, in 1 Tim. v. 21. must both be referred to one and the same person, Jesus, because which is found before the former noun, is omitted before the latter: but that xupies and xpisos, in Acts iv. 26. must be referred to different persons, merely because xala is inserted before the latter noun as well as the former.

ενώπιον,

κύριος

There are, indeed, two other ways in which it is possible to construe the words in the general form i Deos xx πατηρ τε κύριε ήμων, without supposing an ellipsis of the article before maing. The one is by considering the article prefixed to 90s, not as being attached exclusively to that, or any other single word, but as detached, and as belonging to the

whole

και

whole phrase made up of the three words 90$ Xαι πατηρ, taken together, consolidated as it were, and considered as one word. The other is, by making x not a copulative, but an exegetical particle, in which way Noldius, (Concord. particular. hebr. p. 309. edit. 1734,) speaking of this very phrase, and the several passages in which it is found, observes : aliqui xa hic sumunt relative seu explanative; nempe xx walng, qui vel id est pater, &c. But, here, not to remark that, in the first of these ways of construing the words, there being no article proper to the first noun, the phrase should come under your fifth rule, and the nouns (unless you here make an exception on account of context, an exception which indeed entirely destroys that rule, and makes it good for nothing), accordingly be referred to different persons, and that in the second way, was being no copulative, the phrase, strictly speaking, would not come under any of your rules as you have worded them; we may observe, that in the one way the article, and in the other the conjunction, are construed in a manner which all will allow is not the common, ordinary, and usual manner of construing them: and, therefore, neither of these ways will answer your purpose. For on this ground you can never maintain that we must always explain the words as you do; it being evident, on the contrary, that we ought never so to explain them, unless the context will not allow us to explain them at all, or at least not so well, in the ordinary, usual way. There is nothing left for you, therefore, but an ellipsis.

Now, though this is a figure to which those who consult ease, perspicuity, and neatness of expression, when writing in a language natural and familiar to them, and of which they are thorough masters, will not often have recourse, where the ellipsis would be forced, harsh, and unnatural, and where the words omitted did not readily suggest themselves to the reader, yet this cannot always be expected to be the case with men so disqualified by their rank and education for elegant writing, as the authors of the New Testament; men too so little solicitous about such trifles as style and diction, and whose minds were so wholly engrossed by matters of much greater consequence, especially when it is considered, that to these men the greek was a foreign language. But, not to insist upon any of these considerations, I see no harsh or forced ellipsis, when the two nouns relate to different persons, in omitting the article before the second. I might perhaps allow, that when the nouns both relate to the same person, there being a somewhat more intimate bond of union between them, the idea of their being affected in the same way by the same article, might more readily suggest itself to the mind of the reader, and that therefore the ellipsis might be more natural, and on that account be oftener met with in exact writers, under such circumstances, than when the nouns relate to different persons. But I am very far indeed from allowing that, when the nouns relate to different persons, the ellipsis must necessarily be so harsh and violent, that it never can occur, even if the assertion were to be confined to the best and most accurate

writers,

writers, and still further from allowing it, if it be extended to such as are loose and popular.

The form of expression, therefore, in which the article is omitted before the second noun, differing in that circumstance alone, from the other form in which the article is repeated, so that the one is a mere ellipsis of what is contained at full length in the other, whatever is expressed in the latter form, may, or rather must be understood, cæteris paribus, in the former. But you yourself assert, in the exception to your sixth rule (page 14), that the form in which the article is expressed before the second noun must be interpreted by the context; and your correspondent, aware of what the assertion amounts to, honestly gives up that sixth rule altogether, and declares (p. 115), that this form is ambiguous, and < may be used indifferently of one or two persons. The other form, therefore, which is the mine that contains your boasted treasure, and in which the article, though not expressed, is understood before the second noun, must be ambiguous also, and may likewise be used indifferently of one or two persons.

you

And now, Sir, having shewn you the unsoundness of your theory by reasoning, I proceed to shew the same thing by fact, and to lay before you some examples incompatible with, and destructive of, that theory; examples in which, though no article is expressed before the second noun, the reader will be so far from finding himself obliged to refer them both to the same subject, as you contend, that he cannot possibly do so until he little regard pay as to common sense as you do in the interpretation of