would have been lost. What good would have been done if Gideon, Jephthab, Samson, and others, in risking life and body for their people, had been conquered and slain? Nothing; their own honor would have been gone, and their people would have only suffered all the more. The same would have been the case with Christ and His work. Therefore His resurrection is His whole honor and glory, and our entire salvation and deliverance.-Altenburger Bibel. EXEGETICAL AND EXPOSITORY SECTION. The Position of "also," as a Translation of Kai, in the Revised Version of the New Testament. BY PROFESSOR S. STANHOPE ORRIS, PH.D., L.H.D., PRINCETON COLLEGE, PRINCETON, N. J. THE word "also" fails more frequently, perhaps, than any other word in the English language to receive its proper position-a position in close proximity to the word or phrase which it serves, or should serve to render emphatic. Our literature, including the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, abounds in examples of this defect in style. But I wish to call attention to some of the numerous passages in the Revised Version of the New Testament only, where the revisers have failed to eliminate this defect. When kai in Greek is equivalent to "also" or "even" in English, it is never placed after but always before the word or phrase which it is employed to emphasize. For instance, 1 John iv. 21: "And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also" (kai Tòv ådeλpòv avrov). Acts. xii. 3: "And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also" (Kaì ПÉTрov.) Matt. xxv. 29: "From him that hath not shall be taken away even what he hath” (καὶ ὃ ἔχει). And in view of the common translation of a passage in 1 Thes., I deem it proper to say that kai, when used in this sense, is placed not only before but immediately before the word or phrase which it serves to emphasize, except when the word or phrase is preceded by This fixed position of the kai in Greek should have secured for its English equivalent the proper position in the Revised Version of the New Testament. But it has not always done so, and it is to be regretted that it has not. Take the following examples: Matt. vi. 14, "If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." The antithetic words, the latter of which is emphatic in this passage in the Greek, are not those which express the acts of forgiveness nor those which represent the agents of the acts, but the objects of them. This is made manifest, apart from other considerations, by the position of Kai and the fact that the pronoun "ye" is not expressed in the original. The verse should read: If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you also (καὶ ὑμῖν). Luke vi. 13: "And when it was day He called His disciples; and He chose from them twelve, whom also He named apostles." The verse should read: And when it was day He called His disciples; and He chose from them twelve, whom He named apostles also (καὶ ἀποστόλους). He had previously named them disciples; on choosing them, He named them apostles also. Acts xix. 21; "Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome." The emphasis in the closing part of this passage is not on the act of seeing but on the place seen. Accordingly, the verse should read: Paul purposed in the spirit... to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must see Rome also (καὶ Ῥώμην). Rom. v. 2: "Let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: through whom also we have had our access into this grace wherein we stand." When "also" is properly used, as the adverbial xaí in Greek is used, it imparts emphasis to a word or phrase as other than and additional to a preceding word or phrase of like grammatical relation. In the phrase, through whom also," the "also" is made to throw emphasis on the relative pronoun, as though the pronoun here represented a person other than and additional to that denoted by its antecedent! Paul, however, places the emphasis where it belongs, and says: Let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom we have had the access also (kai τὴν προσαγωγήν). Rom. vi. 5: "For if we have become united with Him by the likeness of His death, we shall be also by the likeness of His resurrection." The verse should read: For if we have become united with Him by the likeness of His death, we shall be by the likeness of His resurrection also (kaì Tūs ἀναστάσεως). 2 Cor. i. 7: Knowing that, as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also are ye of the comfort." The position of the word "also" in this verse, as in several of the previous verses, is an instance of an error which is common in English. But that the error should be common, as it is, in our translation of the Scriptures is unpardonable. The verse should read: Knowing that, as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so are ye of the comfort also (καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεσς). Jas. ii. 26: "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." The Kai in the original of this verse is not equivalent to "even," but to "also," and lends emphasis not to "so," but to the faith which is without works. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so the faith also (kal ʼn TIOTIC) [which is] without works, is dead." Heb. viii. 6: "But now hath He obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant." I doubt if any one with a knowledge of the English only, and without direct or indirect help from one who knows the Greek, could say what office the "also" in the phrase, "by how much also," performs or should perform. But if the “also" be placed where the kai is placed, so as to emphasize a “better covenant" as distinguished from a 'superior ministry," the passage will need no commentary: But now hath he obtained a ministry more excellent, by as much as he is the mediator of a better covenant also (καὶ κρείττονος dialýкns). Heb. xi. 12: "Wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of heaven in multitude." The verse should read: "Wherefore" -that is, for the signal faith displayed, “ there sprang even from one (rai áp Ėvóc) .. as many as the stars in heaven for multitude." 1 Thes. iv. 14: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with Him." This language teaches that, on condition of our belief in the death and resurrection of Christ, God will raise our friends who have fallen asleep in Him; teaches that the resurrection of departed believers is conditioned on the belief of those who are alive. But as this is at variance with the teaching of Christ, we must question the correctness of the verse as a translation of the Greek. εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀξει σὺν αὐτῷ. This is the original, quoted first, so far as I have observed, by Hippolytus,* Origen,† and Basil the Great. It is quoted also by Cyril of Alexandria,§ John of Damascus, and Theodorus Studita. But as these authors quote the passage literally, and without any attempt at exegesis, we cannot say what they regarded as the apodosis. who fall asleep in Christ. Others, among whom is, perhaps, Tertullian,* represent the apostle as teaching the doctrine which is contained in our own translation. German commentators, including Meyer and English commentators, including Ellicott, in saying what apodosis they should have expected, show that they fail to appreciate the position and office of the kai, and otherwise miss the real apodosis. According ly, they, with the German and English versions, with some Latin versions, and with Ecumenius, if not with Chrysostom and Theodoret also, make the apostle teach that God will raise believers who are fallen asleep, if friends who survive them believe that Jesus died and rose again! It is surprising that translators and commentators should have perpetrated and perpetuated such an error, and that the Church should have cherished and should still cherish and recite the language which embodies it. Gregory of Nyassa** quotes the passage in part, without using the conditional form: "For as Jesus died and rose again, so we also, says the apostle." Theophylact says, by way of comment on the verse: "As God raised the Lord Jesus, who corporeally suffered and died, so He will raise us also." Chrysostom and Theodoret§§ made the mistake of regarding the words Tous κοιμηθέντας, and not the clause of which they are a part, as the words requiring the emphasis of the Kaí. But, as Greeks, they knew that the Kai = also must in that case stand immediately before these words. They, therefore, removed the Kaι from the position which the apostle gave it, and which it must hold in order to express the apostle's thought, and placed it before τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, Ecumenius, essaying an exegesis of the passage, emphasizes the protasis, and makes it evident that he understood the consequent clause to be, "Them that sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him." Some of the Latin Fathers, as Cyprian, TT for instance, translate the passage verbally, and passing over the protasis without comment, emphasize the doctrine of the resurrection of those asleep in Jesus God will bring with * Patrol. Gr., vol. 10, p. 785, ed. Migne. + Vol. 1, p. 900, ed. Migne. Vol. 2, p. 401, ed. Garnier. § Vol. 1, p. 812, ed. Migne. | Vol. 2, p. 913, ed. Migne. Vol. 99, p. 1456. ** Vol. 2, p. 1189, ed. Migne. For the words which follow οὕτω καὶ --that is, for the words, "them that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with Him," let us substitute the word Tódɛ = “the following," and the verse will read, "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so the following also" (kaì Tódε). The reader must feel that after "so," noteboμev or its English equivalent is implied, and that what is said is, "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so we believe the following also." Hence, the translation of what the apostle says is, "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so we believe also that those who are fallen Him." These are a few of the numerous passages in which the authors of the Revised Version of the New Testament have failed to observe the position and office of the adverbial kai. The error is not an unimportant one, as these examples indisputably show. * De resurrectione carnis, cap. 24, ed. Oehler, and see Beza. The Divine Rule of Enjoyment. BY TRYON EDWARDS, D.D. Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Ecclesiastes xi. 9. 44 Most commentators and preachers seem to have understood this text as a pointed and solemn challenge, uttered in sarcastic irony by the writer. As if the wise man had said to the young, Plunge headlong if you dare and will into all the follies and sinful indulgences of the world; seek in them your highest enjoyments, forgetting God and conscience and duty; riot in them to the full, as if this life were all and eternity only a dream; but know that God will soon bring you into judgment and fearfully punish for it all." So we find good Dr. Watts, like many others, understanding it. In his wellknown paraphrase of the passage, so often sung as a hymn, he says: "Ye sons of Adam, vain and young, "Enjoy the pleasures you design, And cheer your hearts with songs and wine; "God from on high beholds your thoughts; "The vengeance to your follies due Should strike your hearts with terror through; All this, however, we believe, is an entire misapprehension of the meaning of the sacred writer. He does not speak in rebuke or in the spirit and tone of solemn challenge and threat. On the contrary, he evidently sympathizes with the young in their natural fondness for enjoyment, knowing and feeling that it is right for them, and that God intends and wishes them to rejoice, and has richly provided for and delights to behold their enjoyment. Take, he would say, all the happiness you can; enjoy to the full all the good things which the world can offer, but in all and as to all bear in mind your accountability, and remember so to enjoy them as not to be led into sin; so to enjoy them, with your final account in view, that you can feel they are not leading you away from God or duty, but rather making you faithful to both and thankful to the great Giver of them all. Enjoy, as your nature craves, all the good things which God has given as sources of enjoyment, but let the thought of your responsi- . bility ever be a check against everything which is forbidden and sinful, and with this and only this limitation enjoy to the full all the blessings which God is bestowing, knowing that He rejoices to see you do it, and that enjoyment in this spirit will ever keep you near to Him. This meaning seems clearly to be that which the context suggests, the one which is in keeping with the whole spirit of the Bible, which most accords with the wishes and feelings of God as the loving Father of His children, and through which He designs and seeks to prepare us for that blessed world where joy is to reign forever! SOCIOLOGICAL Ethics and Politics. BY PROFESSOR R. E. THOMPSON, S.T.D.,. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYL VANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA. I. The Ethics of Patriotism. SOME two years ago a brilliant West SECTION. ern senator turned from the superficial aspects of politics and entered a field which has been traversed by Hebrew prophets, Greek philosophers, Roman jurists, and the ethical thinkers of every school. These all have been occupied with the relations of ethics to politics; he frankly avowed his conviction that the two have nothing to do with each other-that the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount furnished no guidance to political action. The sensation his words produced was the greater in that their author by no means stood for the lowest grade of unscrupulous partisanship. But they owed still more of their effect to their putting before us a common maxim of our public life in all its native ugliness. They revealed us to ourselves, for deep moral distinctions like this will generally be found to run through us, not past us. This vicious notion is the monopoly of no party, of no set of men. It clings to all parties, to all movements, to all of us. Those who take this view conscious ly, as well as act on it unconsciously, are fond of comparing politics to a state of war, and of claiming for them that suspension of ordinary ethical rules which attends war. It is said that ethics define the relations of men in a state of harmony, while politics belong to a state of contention, and reject all anxiety to avoid injury to other men, and regard such injury as a duty if the other men are "on the other side." Ethics can pervade the whole of human life only by abolishing politics. But it is a false assumption that war lies outside ethics, even although it suspends some of the obligations which exist in time of peace. The ethics of war contain no justification of personal enmity; they justify no falsehood to those who are entitled to know the truth; they forbid acts of useless slaughter and of cruelty; they require the cessation of hostilities the moment the purpose of the war has been reached. Politics, like war, belong to a stage of conflict, and therefore to a transitional stage in human development. The conduct of government through the antagonism of parties is as much a makeshift as the redress of international wrongs by bloodshed. But the two are not as parallel as is assumed. In war men stand outside the social bond and renounce ordinary obligations. In poli tics the bond is unimpaired. Both parties profess to seek the highest good of all, including their antagonists. Both profess to value national welfare more than party success. Both are embraced in the same national unity, and are under unimpaired ethical obligations to all. The common understanding of a suspension of some of these exists in war, not in politics. The first thing to be considered is what is involved in this national bond. It is to the growth of a sense of patriotic duty to all that we must look for a check to partisan feeling, which regards only a part as friends and the rest as enemies. The more clearly the nation is brought into view as a higher object of devotion, the less parties will weigh with us, and the less will parties be able to put themselves into the place of the nation, to claim the credit of the nation's achievements, and to intercept the loyalty and enthusiasm which belongs to the nation only. Fortunately our political literature possesses a book in which the meaning and greatness of the nation has been treated with singular ability. Dr. Elisha Mulford's work, "The Nation: the Foundations of Civil and Political Order in the United States," is already a politi cal classic. He shows us that the nation is a moral personality, with a character as distinct as that of any individual, and like that the outcome of moral growth and discipline; that it possesses a life which is more than the sum total of the lives of its citizens, as every form of or ganic life embraces more than is to be found in the past. It is invested with an inalienable and indivisible sovereignty, for whose exercise it is responsi ble only to God; and it possesses the right to determine the form and order of its public life, and to maintain its independence of all other powers. Within it and by it are realized those natural rights and liberties which are necessary to the complete development of our human nature. In return it may make the largest demands on its people, not stopping short of their lives, in its de |