divine nature; all that stretches out into the illimitableand what smallest object does not? - testifies of his infinity. "The heavens declare his glory, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge."

"Look how the floor of heaven

Is thick inlaid with patens of bright gold!

There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st
But in his motion like an angel sings,

Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubim."

"Earth's crammed with heaven

And every common bush afire with God.
Every natural flower which grows on earth
Implies a flower upon the spiritual side,
Substantial, archetypal, all aglow

With blossoming causes, not so far away
But he whose spirit-sense is somewhat cleared

May catch at something of the bloom and breath."

In a word, it is a plain contradiction in terms, to declare that anything which manifests itself is utterly inscrutable. Nay, it would indeed make God inscrutable, and dim the perfect conception of his moral character, to imagine that he could spread around us such a magnificent profusion of worlds in which it should not be possible to trace one vestige of his character, and which it would be our highest duty and only religion to declare utterly unlike their author.

Hence Mr. Spencer's account of religion falls to the ground, and with it, for the most part, goes his attempted reconciliation of science and religion.

ARTICLE V.

ON A PASSAGE IN MATTHEW XXVI. 50.

BY THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, LATELY PRESIDENT OF YALE COLLEGE.

THE expression which I propose to discuss is, ¿p' ô tápel. I shall say no more of éraîpe than to refer to chapters xx. 13; xxii. 12, and shall assume that ep' is the unquestionably true reading, and not ep'. That i with the Accusative can denote the aim or object, answering to our for or after, may be shown by many examples from the best authors; so that it is no Hellenistic usage, as Bloomfield strangely imagined. Compare Herodot. vii. 32 ἀπεπέμπετε ἐπὶ γῆς αἴτησιν, Soph. Trachin. 503 ἐπὶ τάνδε ἄκοιτιν τίνες κατέβαν ; Philoct. 591 ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἄνδρε τώδε . . . πλέουσι, Eurip. Bacch. 454 ep' oπep ès Ońẞas Tápel, Aristoph. Lysistr. 1101 ἐπὶ τί πάρεστε δεῦρο ; Nubes 266 ἐπὶ τί στέφανον i.e. λάβω ; Plat. Gorg. 447 Β. ἐπ' αὐτό γέ τοι τοῦτο Táрeσμev, where it is noticeable that one Ms. has the Dative. The same phrase occurs in Euthydem. 274 A., cited by Stallb., who also adduces from Theages 122 A. vûv oùv žкw ἐπ' αὐτὰ ταῦτα.

...

...

The meaning of ep'd πúpe is what we desire to discuss more at length. There are four interpretations of it, all of which have their advocates at the present day.

The first of these which I shall name, after having fallen out of notice for a very long time, has again been brought forward in the present day, and has received the votes of some of the most distinguished commentators. It regards the sentence as having the relative form, and explains the sense by an aposiopesis: "that for which thou art come,do." This may be called the interpretation of Euthymius Zigabenus (cent. xii.); but it will be made to appear that he was by no means alone, among the ancient interpreters,

in his view of the passage. He is followed, in modern times, by Meyer (H. A. W.), Ewald, Lightfoot, Alford in his last editions, by Lange, Steinmeyer(in his Leidensgesch. des Herrn, Berlin, 1868), and the Dutch Bible Company (1868), in their alternative rendering.1

The second explanation, which regards èp' o as interrogative, has the vast majority of voices in its favor. It appears in some MSS. of the Old Latin, and is the received rendering of the Vulgate, which the later Latin ecclesiastical writers naturally followed; it is adopted by some Greek interpreters, as perhaps by Origen and Chrysostom, and without doubt by Theophylact; the greater part of the Protestant commentators, as Calvin, Grotius, Casaubon, and more recently, Kuinoel, De Wette, Wordsworth, Alford in his earlier editions, know of no other; and the same is true of the lexicographers, as E. Robinson and Grimm; of grammarians, such as Winer; and of all the principal editors of the sacred text.

The third opinion, which regards the passage as exclamatory, was known to earlier interpreters, but was made prominent in later times by Fritzsche, who does not, in his very able comment on the passage, seem to be aware that he had been anticipated in his judgment. He is followed by Noyes in his translation, Alexander Buttmann in his Grammar, and Holtzmann in the Bibelwerk of Bunsen (viii. 212).

The fourth interpretation proceeds on the supposition of an ellipsis; the sentence being interrogative, but the relative force of being preserved: "Was it this for which thou art come?" This mode of explanation was followed by the Peshito, and in modern times by Bengel, but has had very few advocates besides.

A question preliminary to all others is, whether the relative ős can be used in interrogation. To the consideration of this point we invite our readers, regretting that it cannot be despatched in a few words, but hoping that in a monograph

1 To whom I add, on information received from Professor Abbot, of Harvard, Rilliet, formerly Professor in Geneva, in his French translation of the New Testament (1860), Volkmar (with some hesitation) in die Evangelien (Leipzig, 1870), and Burger in a recent Commentary.

like this a certain fulness of discussion will not be found to be out of place. The method adopted in these remarks will be, first to consider the grammatical point just mentioned, and then to enter somewhat fully into the history of the interpretation of the clause, and the claims of the several explanations of it to our acceptance.

1. As it regards the use of relatives exclusive of os and interrogatives in indirect questions, Lobeck's doctrine is (in a note on Phrynichus, p. 57, Leipz., 1820), that they are used indiscriminately, and often in the same sentence. His words follow the citation of a passage from Demosthenes, in which ὅποι, ὅ τι, and τίς, ποδαπόν, and ἐκ πόσου occur in the same sentence and construction, and where Reiske edited from a MS. OTоdaπóv.1 Lobeck then adds: "Consulto autem hunc locum commemoravi ut pateret tironibus Graecos data opera in interrogationibus obliquis pronomina αναφορικά et έρωTMημatiká effugiendae repetitionis causa commiscuisse." He then cites several examples, partly from earlier, partly from later authors. Stallbaum, on Plat. Gorg. 448, remarks: "Relativa post interrogativa in eodem verborum ambitu frequenter inferri docuimus ad Critorem" (48 A., pp. 141, 142, where a great number of examples are cited). But the restriction" post interrogativa" will not stand. The compound relatives, in the received texts, sometimes come first.2 Thus, in Republ. iii. 414 D., we have οὐκ οἶδα ὁποίᾳ τόλμῃ ἢ ποίοις λόγοις, — where Stallbaum himself defends ὁποία against the reading wolą; and in Charmid. 160 D. we have évvońoas ὁποῖόν τινα ... καὶ ποία τις οὖσα. There is no rule of succession as yet discovered, known to the writer; and hiatus, as well as dislike of repetition, must have had much to do with the usage. The frequent various readings, as of the shorter forms of Tolos for the longer of orrocos, seem to show that the Greeks themselves confounded the two sets of pronouns.

2. Are the relatives exclusive of os used in direct interroga

1 Reiske says that he is ignorant whether dwodanós is to be met with elsewhere. But it is found in Herodotus at least three times, vi. 13; vii. 218; ix. 16.

2 Kühner, larger Grammar (1st ed. § 837), contents himself with saying that the relative forms rarely come first.

tion? Lobeck says again, in the same note, that what Brunck says on Aristoph. Plut. 392, that “ ὁποῖος, ὅπως, ὡς, ὅστις centies apud Atticos poetas occurrere in interrogatione [directa], idem valet de scriptoribus cujusvis generis et in relativis omnibus." The passages are all but two from later Greek writers. One of these is from Eurip. Rhes. 702: τις, πόθεν ἢ ποίας πάτρας ;

ὁποῖον εὔχεται τὸν ὕπατον θεόν ;

Where, however, the modern critics read:

τίς ἦν πόθεν ; ποίας πάτρας;

ποῖον ἐπεύχεται τὸν ὕπατον θεῶν ;

Here measure and sense are satisfied, the last line in both strophe and antistrophe consisting of two exactly similar dochmii.

The other passage is from Demosth. c. Timoth. p. 1199, ὁπόσον τινὰ καὶ ποδαπὸν καὶ πόθεν γενόμενον τὸν χαλκὸν τοῦτον. On this Schaefer (apparat. in Demosth. v. 285), says: "Scribe TÓGOV. Nec me movet, quanquam gravis, auctoritas Lobeckii ómóσov tuentis. . . . . Vulgatam textui affricuisse videtur labes Graecitatis citerioris; idemque, opinor, tenendum aut de omnibus aut de pluribus classicorum scriptorum locis ubi relativa vice funguntur interrogativorum." 1

Here Schaefer admits that in lower Greek the relatives (i.e. especially the correlative ones) have found their way into interrogative sentences. Prof. Sophocles, in his Lexicon of later Greek, gives examples of such use of ooris from PseudoJustin, Julian (frag.), Cyrill, Theodoret, Theodor. Studites. A passage in Plato (Meno 74 D.) contains or so used, but in so involved a sentence that the author may have forgotten the construction with which he set out. But there are other passages where this class of relatives is used in direct questions by the best authors. Here we do not refer to cases, such as a number to be found in Aristophanes, where the interrogative of a question is repeated in the answer by the

1 Dindorf has received Schaefer's Tóσov without Ms. authority into his Oxford edition of Demosth. 1849.