" and the second not, that both be referred to the "same person;" and if we act consistently we must submit to the Rule, unless it can be shown that it admits of exceptions. Can the production of passages in which, indeed, the personal nouns are connected by the copulative xal, but neither has the Article, be held as bearing at all on the question? Such passages as Rom. i. 7., &c. have nothing in common with the passage in 2 Thess. i. 12. so far as regards construction. Some of the same words, it is true, occur in both, namely Θεοῦ and Κυριοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ; but they are differently circumstanced, as already noticed, so [God] in 1 Cor. i. 7., having no Article, and being expressly coupled already with TαTρos [Father]; but in the passage under consideration so has the Article, and no other noun is present with which it can immediately be coupled excepting Kugíou. And as to the passage quoted from the Epistle to the Philippians (iii. 20.) it is difficult to conceive in what way the objector would make it assist his argument, since neither sós nor any other Attributive Noun occurs either in the text or immediate context!

It is hardly possible that too much attention can be paid to such a passage as 2 Thess. i. 12.: and it is on this account that I have thought it necessary to examine and refer to every passage of the same description as those advanced by the

objector: and I shall yet adduce the only remaining passages in which the words Kúpos 'InGous Xploròs occur, in the form quoted by him,that is, without the Article being prefixed to Kúpios,—that the reader, by the time I shall have finished this digression, may have the whole subject before him. The remaining passages are:

1.-1 Cor. viii. 6. " But to us there is but one "God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we “ in him; καὶ ΕΙΣ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ, "and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, by whom are "all things," &c.

2.-Philipp. ii. 11. "And that every tongue " should confess, ὅτι ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣ "TOX, that [Common Version] JESUS CHRIST is "LORD, to the glory of God the Father."

3.-2 Thess. i. 12.

deration.

4.1 Tim. v. 21.

The text under consi

Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον

τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κύριου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ayyéλwv &c. rendered in our Common Version, "I charge (thee) before God, and the Lord Jesus

66

Christ, and the elect angels," &c. but more correctly by Mr. Sharp-" before Jesus Christ, the GOD and LORD, and (before) the elect angels," &c. -referring “GOD" and "LORD" to the same person, JESUS CHRIST. If we follow the Greek order of the words, the passage will read thus:

"I charge (thee) before the GOD and LORD, Jesus

Christ, and (before) the elect ANGels.”

5.2 Tim. iv. 1. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ-rendered in the Common Version, "before God and the Lord Jesus Christ;"-but according to Mr. Sharp, following some Manuscripts which do not exhibit the Article after the copulative xaì, "before the God and Lord, Jesus Christ."

6.—James i. 1. Ιάκωβος, Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος.

The above six are the only other places in the New Testament in which the words Kúpos Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς occur without the Article.

The 1st and 2d of these passages we shall see noticed hereafter by the objector himself: and the 6th (James i. 1.), not exhibiting the article before Oo, may be dismissed entirely from our present consideration.

The 3d is the passage 2 Thess. i. 12., the proper meaning of which is disputed, on account οι Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς being, as alleged, a of common title of our Lord.

Κυρίου,

In the 4th some manuscripts and early versions omit Kupíau, which, of course, would exclude the passage from the application of the Rule. "The received reading may, however, "be the true one," says the author of The Doc

trine of the Greek Article; but, even if admitted, he acknowleges that still he would object to the conclusion furnished by the Rule, on the same ground that he objects to a similar interpretation of 2 Thess. i. 12.

66

Of the 5th passage (2 Tim. iv. 1.) the readings of some Manuscripts differ considerably. "There is," in Bishop Middleton's opinion, so little authority for omitting the Article before Kupiou, which however must be done before "this text can be subjected to the rule," that he expresses surprise at Mr. Sharp having adduced it as an example. But, even if the Manuscripts could be considered as warranting the reading preferred by Mr. Sharp, he would urge the objection before stated,--that, " Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστ

Tòs being a common title of our Lord, there is "no absolute necessity for detaching Kopíou from “ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in order to couple it with Θεοῦ.” In one word,-independently entirely of any thing that might be urged from diversity of readings, this is his real objection. He objects not to the rule, for he himself has produced, from the Greek Classical writers, irrefragable evidence of its indubitable certainty, but to this and the two preceding passages (the only texts in which the words τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Xploro occur) being interpreted according to the absolute requirement of the Rule: and the proof

he requires that they may be so interpreted is, "that in the form Kópios 'I. Xp., so frequently "occurring in the N. T., Kúpios commonly is to "be separated from the Proper Name in order "to be joined with some preceding Attributive: " and this proof, [says he] I fear cannot be obtained;"—a mode of expression (the word "commonly" being printed too in Italics) not easy to be accounted for, from so distinguished a scholar; since it is hardly credible that it could be unknown to him, that there are no other passages in the New Testament in which any preceding Attributive is so circumstanced that Κύριος might be separated from Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς to be joined with it. Indeed accumulations of Attributives, except when two or more, united, form the only proper title of the individual of whom they are predicated, occur but rarely in compositions of any kind: thus, for instance, the expression," Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ,” which most people, without previous examination, would expect to meet with very frequently, does not occur above twice or thrice in the New Testament.

"That Kópios is commonly subject to the "Rule," Bp. Middleton allows [p. 553]; and in proof that this Attributive may, to use his own mode of expression, "be separated from the "Proper Name," in order to be coupled with