of space forbids. We can only refer to some remarks in this Quarterly for April, 1878, from the scholarly pen of Professor W. S. Tyler, and give the following from the late Professor Tayler Lewis:

The single terms (olam and alwv) do not of themselves, or necessarily, denote endless, but simply unmeasured duration. It should be borne in mind, however, that it is by their fearful reduplications the scriptural writers express that idea which no single noun, unless it be an abstract negative, can fully set forth. But what the single noun fails to do is accomplished by the adjective aivios, as a term of greatest measurement. Eonian duration is that which is measured by æons, ages, worlds, or eternities, just as finite periods are measured by years and centuries, and are therefore called centennial, millennial, etc. being no greater unit of measurement than the olam, there is no limit to the conception of the whole which it measures or divides. In this way the adjective comes to denote absolute eternity, as is put beyond all doubt by its use, 2 Cor. iv, 18. It is there the antithesis of the temporal, and can have no measurable bound.*

There

These words from this eminent scholar amply offset the opinion of Drs. Smyth and Whiton, which they seem to have borrowed from F. D. Maurice, that aiúvos is not a word of duration. Its import of endlessness proves the finality of the judgment doom pronounced on evil conduct in this life.

The thought of the eternal ruin of a human soul without remedy or hope is appalling. Nor is there relief in the knowledge that it is self-produced by willful persistence in chosen sin in spite of all God's efforts to save him. Look at it as we will, it is terrible. And a free, full, and sufficient probation for every man, in which the means of salvation are urgently placed before him for acceptance, and none is rejected except for his rejection of mercy, is God's sufficient and perfect vindication.

*"The Six Days of Creation," p. 366.

ART. VIIL-THE GNOMIC AORIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE best known and most elaborate New Testament grammar* now extant denies the existence of this form of Greek usage in the New Testament. On the other hand, an authority no less eminent for Greek grammatical scholarship † admits this mode of expression in the grammar of the New Testament, and gives a few examples of its use. The contradictory views, expressed by grammarians so eminent, allow the inference that the question is not settled, and that any contribution on such a subject, even viewed as a matter of philological inquiry, is not without value.

When, however, the usage is one which has its application in some of the life-truths of the New Testament, it becomes not only a scholastic delight, but a duty, to investigate the topic. Neither of the grammarians referred to-Winer or Buttmann-have made any use of it in its bearing on difficult exegetical problems. An inquiry into this usage is not out of place, especially if it can be shown to have an application to some interesting and difficult passages of Holy Scripture.

The accuracy of the Greek language in the expression of the finer shades of meaning is too well known to need special argument. It is this which gave to it such a wonderful adaptation to convey to mankind the teachings of Christ and his apostles, and it is one of the recognized providential preparations for the Saviour's advent. It is therefore natural to suppose, that although the language at the time of Christ varied largely from Attic purity, it would yet retain those elements of special value for the conveyance of the loftiest thoughts on spiritual things.

It is at this point, however, that Winer makes his strong objection to the existence of the gnomic Aorist in the New Testament. It is in his view a refinement too subtle for the writers of the New Testament. It is well known that some

of the finer forms have disappeared. Especially is this the case in the use of the particles. This laxity in the use of **A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek," by Dr. G. B. Winer. "A Grammar of New Testament Greek," by Alexander Buttman.

particles is not confined to New Testament Greek, but is found also in some of the Attic prose writers.* Other variations are frequent and need not be enumerated. Without claiming for it the character of Attic purity, it is yet a language which, though modified by Hebraisms and other causes, is well calculated to express the rich thoughts which the sacred writers intended to convey.

The question before us is not whether some of the choice forms of expression had passed away at the time when the New Testament was written, but whether this precise form, the gnomic Aorist, had entirely disappeared. It is not necessary to show that it was frequently employed, but that it is clearly found there. The gnomic Aorist is, as will afterward appear, that form of speech which expresses proverbs or general truths, and is of the nature of a pictorial or vivid presentation of a subject. This is precisely the characteristic which belongs to the New Testament, and is especially characteristic of the writings of the apostle Paul. His style is graphic, and partakes often rather of the characteristics of the orator face to face with his audience than of the prose writer dispassionately and methodically discussing his subject. And yet in his most rhetorical flights logic and precision of expression are rigidly maintained.

One of the finest forms of Greek usage is that of conditional sentences. These distinctions are for the most part rigidly maintained. The force of many passages in the writings of Paul is clearly seen by noticing the form of the conditional sentence employed. It is not intended to maintain the exact conformity to classical models, but a general adherence to them. A clear case of this is found in Gal. i, 8-10:

̓Αλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ' ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ὡς προειρήκαμεν, καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ' δ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν Θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν ; εἰ γὰρ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην.

Here, within the compass of three verses, three out of the four forms of conditional sentences are employed, with clear discrimination of the meanings of them. If the conditional sentence is so well preserved, why not the gnomic Aorist? If

* Buttman, p. 71.

a probability can be established that such will be the case, it will help in the investigation of the passages where it is supposed to be employed. We propose to give a few illustrations of this usage from classical Greek, taken almost at random from examples in classical grammars in common use, and then to inquire into the biblical usage. That it is a common form in Greek, we can readily see by the following citations:

Curtius's Greek Grammar, sec. 494, says:

The Aorist Indicative is used in statements of experience, implying that a thing once happened, but admitting an application to all times : poet. τῷ χρόνῳ ἡ δίκη πάντως ήλθ' αποτσαμένη, with time avenging justice always came, (and hence always comes;) καὶ βραδὺς εὔβουλος εἷλεν ταχὺν ἄνδρα διώκων, even a slow man when well advised overtook (overtakes) by pursuit a quick man. In English we employ the Present in such general assertions, and often add such adverbs as usually, commonly, always, etc.; Tàç τῶν φαύλων συνουσίας ὀλίγος χρόνος διελυσεν, a short time usually dissolves the associations of the bad. This Aorist is called the gnomic Aorist, because it is often used in gnomes, proverbs, or maxims.

Jelf, sec. 402, 1, says:

As the force of the Aorist may extend over the whole space of past time, without reference to any single definite moment, it is used to express an action which took place repeatedly in past time, or in the statement of some general fact or habitual practice which operated at different indefinite moments of past time.

Goodwin, "Moods and Tenses," sec. 30, 1, says:

The Aorist and sometimes the Perfect Indicative are used in animated language to express general truths. These are called the gnomic Aorist and the gnomic Perfect, and are usually translated by our Present. These tenses give a more vivid statement of general truths by employing a distinct case or several distinct cases in past time to represent (as it were) all possible cases, and implying that which has occurred will occur again under similar circumstances.

These statements, from strictly classical grammars of the Greek language, show how prevalent this usage was among the best authors.

When we come to the New Testament, Winer objects. His language is: "In no passage of the New Testament does the Aorist an habitual act." express

*Thayer's Translation, pp. 201, 202.

In reply to this we quote at length from "Buttman's Grammar," already mentioned:

According to Moller's exposition, this Aorist, used alike by poets and prose writers of every age, can, indeed, express habitualness; but just as well, and still more frequently, the necessity or universality of an action or state, which does not, like habitualness, permit of exceptions. Since, now, this Aorist was employed for the most part in general propositions deduced from experience-propositions whose contents are valid not only for the past, but also for the present and the future-the title, "Gnomic Aorist," designates more correctly its essential nature.

Its use in Greek occurs not only in similitudes, propositions involving comparisons, (as so often in Homer,) and ideal pictures, (Plato, Phædr., p. 246, sq.,) but also in abstract, maxim-like declarations, founded in practical observation. (See the examples from Thucyd. and Demosth., given by Moller.)

When, then, Winer asserts that the Aorist never in the New Testament expresses what is habitual, the assertion is well founded so far forth as the peculiarity of the Aorist in question is not adequately described by the feature of habitualness; but the occurrence of the gnomic Aorist, according to the above description of it, ought at the same time not to be denied. For the objection that the whole idiom presumes too nice an observance of the laws of classic Greek, and greater familiarity with them than can be supposed in the New Testament authors, may perhaps be decisive for a portion of them, but not for all. On the contrary, the employment of the Aorist, as the most common historic tense, corresponds perfectly to the character of popular expression, which so gladly endeavors to break away from the form of abstract presentation, and spontaneously falls into the tone of narration. Observe the form of the Homeric comparisons, or the description of the shield in the Iliad, where, moreover, Imperfects and Aorists continually alternate in the narrative.

If, then, it is evident, from the exposition given, that the New Testament writers, so far forth as their writings, philologically viewed, are products of Greek modes of thought, must have been led by the very nature of the popular language to use this Aorist as a matter of course when occasion occurred, (and the cases would certainly be more numerous if the compass of the books were greater, since with the present compass they are already pretty numerous,) etc.

He sustains this view by the following examples:

Jamas i, 9, 8q.: Καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ. δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύ σεται. ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι, καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρ τον, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε, καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ οὕτω καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ μαρανθήσεται.