ART. VIII. A Vindication of certain Paffages in the common English Verfion of the New Teftament; addreffed to Granville Sharp, Efq. Author of the" Remarks on the Uses of the Defi nilive Article in the Greek Text of the New Teftament;" by the Rev. Calvin Winftanley, A. M. 12mo. pp. 84. 3s. Longman. 1805. * WE E remember that when Mr. Gregory Blunt addressed his" Six more Letters" against Mr. Granville Sharp's "Remarks" on the Ufes of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Teftament, he was not contented with undertaking to prove the erroneoufnefs of Mr. Sharp's new interpretation of certain important texts in the facred. volume; but to confer a further obligation upon the public, he favoured his readers by fubflituting, at leaft in fome of thofe texts, another new verfion of his own, thereby coin. ciding fo far with Mr. Sharp as to agree with him in renounc ing the authorized vulgar interpretation, and affording us an opportunity of eftimating his fitnefs for condemning others, by a reference to his own unparalleled and unheard-of interpretations; and thus did he comply with the precept of one puct, and participate in the enthufiafin of another: "Let fuch teach others who themselves excel, And again, tentanda via eft, qua me quique poffim Tollere humo, victorque virun volitare per ora.” As Mr. C. Winflanley, although unintentionally, and withont any defign of imitation, (for he has prevailed upon himfelf to inform us, that he has not enjoyed the advantage of peruling Mr. Blunt's lucubrations) has in fomedegree followed this example of his predeceffor. the former gentleman gives us fpecimens of a new ver fion in the room of that of which he has deprived us, the latter favours us with a new theory. It is not enough that he demolishes Mr.. Sharp's, as he thinks, from the very Though the important avocations of the friend who fupplied this article have delayed it longer than we withed, yet the fubject is too important for us to withhold it from the public. We fhall alfo foon have to confider a much more important work n. the Greek Article. found tions; foundations; in place of it he establishes one of his own. If he pulls down with one hand, he at leaft builds up again with the other. At any rate, we are to have the confolation not to be left altogether without a theory of the ufes of the Greek article. In his fixth page Mr. Winftanley propofes the outlines of this Vindication. "In this difcuffion I fhall obferve the following method: "Firft, I fhall point out fome fources of error common to all your rules. "Secondly, I fhall confider a clafs of exceptions, which are not repugnant to the conclufion you would establish. "Thirdly, I fhall produce fuch exceptions as are inconfiftent with that conclufion. "Fourthly, I fhall offer fome remarks on the fyntax of the definitive article, and the copulative. "Laftly, I fhall examine the paffages of Scripture which are the objects of this investigation.' ,, In this sketch it will be eafily perceived, that it is Mr. Winstanley's aim in the firft, third, and fifth fubdivifions, to overturn what has been fuppofed to have been accomplifhed by Mr. Sharp, or any others who have been engaged in the fame defign with him; and that the remaining parts are dedicated to the fubftitution and establishment of Mr. Winftanley's own notions. In compliance therefore with the rules of arrangement and juft method, we are to confider ourfelves as fummoned firft to deliver our fentimentson thofe parts of this work whofe object is to destroy. And we apprehend that if it fhall appear, that Mr. W. has not exerted himself with any confiderable fuccefs there, it can hardly be expected that the public fhould look with much favour or intereft to any attempts towards the introduction of his own theory. Now, fhould it be afked, what method would common fenfe point out to be purfued by one who fhould undertake to overthrow Mr. Sharp's, or any other grammatical canon predicated of any ancient and dead language, it might be replied, he would endeavour to fhow, doubtlefs, either that the rule was founded upon erroneous and defective reafon.. ings, or that in practice it did not hold, but was liable to exceptions inconfiftent with its pretended exiftence; or laitly, that certain texts and paffages, affirmed to fall within the reach of the common theory, and their meaning and interpretation, claimed to them in confequence of that theory, were underflood and maintained by the ancient native writers and readers of the language in quellion, in a way difcor 003 dant dant and contradictory to the views and pretenfions of the modern grammarian. Mr. Winftanley, it will be found, has but very imperfectly filled up fome important parts of this outline. The first rule in Mr. Sharp's fyftem confeffedly is the only one of any very material and practical importance. The others feem to have been introduced chiefly or folely for the purpofe of ascertaining more precifely the exact object of the firft; to relieve and fet it off by the aid of contraft; and partly, perhaps, to fhow, that the infertions, and even the omiffions, of the Greek article or the copulative, were in most cases regulated by fome uniform and afcertainable principles. Now of this particular rule Mr. W. acknowledges ex、 prefsly, that it is generally true," (p. 16.) It is certain therefore, that he poffeffes no general and fundamental principle of logic or grammar to alledge against it. Hence it can only be by the production of a tolerably numerous and unquestionable band of exceptions that he can make it appear, that Mr. Sharp's rule will not fuftain the conclufions which that gentleman deduces from it; or by fhowing laftly, in op pofition to the evidence brought forward by Mr. Wordfworth, in his "Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Efq." that the Greeks themselves understood thofe texts, our Englifh authorized interpretation of which Mr. Sharp undertakes to rectify, in a fenle inconfiftent with his views. The former of these two is the expedient to which Mr. Winstanley principally or rather intirely reforts; and therefore immediately after the above-recited admiffion of the general truth of this first rule, he opens his train of argument. "This rule," fays he," is generally true, but it is defective, inasmuch as it is liable to exceptions, which, if taken together, and fairly confidered, muft be fatal to the inference you would deduce from it." P, 16. We have not room to follow Mr. W. through all the exceptions which are alledged by him in the 16th and next following pages. Were it neceffary, we should feel ourselves called upon to maintain, though they may have been worth the bringing together and claffing in the manner in which they have been done by Mr. W. yet that they are of very little or no value at all in the important work of demolition which Mr. W, has undertaken; nay rather, we would maintain that they do tend materially to establish and not to overthrow the very identical conclufions which Mr. Sharp and his colleagues are fo anxious to introduce. But in fact, there is little neceflity for any fuch interpofition. These excep tions, as he calls them, are fo faintly urged by Mr. W. himfelf, that of the strongest of them he fays, "it must be con feffed they differ materially from thofe of which you would correct the common verfion.” (P. 18.) And all that he claims for them is, that it fhould be allowed that "they are not totally inapplicable to our prefent purpose." (ibid.) We prefer therefore to let Mr. W. fpeak from his ftrong holds, and to call forth those fupplies upon whofe aid he reposes the most confidence. "I fhall now fubjoin feveral quotations, which come within all the limitations of your firft rule, and are direct exceptions to it. "Clemens Alexandrinus has this quotation from Plato : 66 τον πανίων θεον αίλιον καὶ τὰς ἡγεμονος καὶ αίτια παλέρα κυριον επομε γυνίας. "Here To nyeμovos x aile, is an agreement with your rule, but τον παίων θεον και παλέρα κυριον is in direft oppofition to it. Ori gen has the fame quotation with fome difference, but ftill without the repetition of the article before maliga, thus, "" και τον των παντων θεον, ήγεμονα των τε ούλων και των μελλονίων, τα σε ηγεμονος και αλια πατερα και κύριον επομουνίας. "Clemens obferves, that Plato appears to be defcribing the father and the fon; φαινεται πατέρα και ύιον εμφαίνων ; and Origen makes a fimilar obfervation: fo that neither of thefe Greek fathers thought the repetition of the article fo neceffary to dif tinguish two perfons. It may be remarked alfe, by the way, that where Clemens writes malega uglov, Origen writes walega xugio, for one perfon; which is an exception to your fifth rule. TW τῷ θεῷ τῶν ὅλων προσεχετε καὶ διδασκαλῳ των περί αυτά μαθηματων Inou-Orig. contra Cels. 497. "This is furely a pertinent example. The attribute da nados without the article repeated, must be referred, not to the preceding eros, but to the following & Indus as a diftinct fubject; and in the fame manner may five of your examples be understood. If you fhould object, that the article, though not prefixed to Sidaonados is to Inoes; it may be replied, that it is not there a mark of difference, but of identity with ddarnaλos, and being prefixed to a proper name might as well have been omitted. That it is not, in fuch a fituation, a mark of perfonal diftinction, might be fhewn in many inftances, fuch as these, 66 λέγει δε ὁ κύριος ήμων και σώλης Ιησες ὁ Χρισος εν ευαγγελίοις. Conft. Apoft. 258. τον κοινον ήμων θεον και κύριον τον Χρισον.—See Sharp, 110. " τω δε θεῳ παῖςι, και διῳ τῷ κυρίῳ ήμων Ιησε Χρισῳ συν τῳ αγιω nvμali doka. -See note in Burgh's Enquiry, 359. "In this example, as well as in the one laft cited from Ori. gen, the article is not repeated immediately after the copulative, 004 and and is fo far an exception to your rule. If it be objected, that it is afterwards repeated, I reply as before, that in fuch a situation it is a mark of identity, with the noun immediately preceding. Befides, if you should think it any thing more, you muft give up one of your own examples, namely, 66 Διαμαρτύρομαι εν εγω ενώπιον τω θεω και κυριε Ιητε Χρισα ΤΟΥ μελλοντος κρίνειν ζώντας και μικράς. ** quilas on αν τα πανιά τα ανθρωπο, ὅτι τα παντα τα θεες και κοινά aupowy TOW PINÓW тa mara, TO SI8 xa avgwr8.-Clem. Alexand. 76. "If any objection fhould be made to this example, it must be, that the laft noun avgas (by which the author means a pious Chriftian) is ufed in a general fenfe. It is, however, a farther proof that the repetition of the article is not fo neceffary as you have fuppofed. The reafon why it is omitted in this particular inftance, I shall confider hereafter; for the prefent I shall produce fome examples, to which no objection can be imagined. σε μεθ' έν δόξα τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί και αγιῳ πνευματι.—Ερίβ. Eccles. Smyrn. de Martyr Polycarp. φοβε τον θεον, ύτε, και βασιλέα, και · μηθ ̓ ἑτερῳ αυτών απείθησης. Param. cap. 24, V. 21. "This paffage from the Septuagint, which I am furprised you fhould have overlooked, is thus quoted, in the interpolated epile of Ignatius to the Smyrneans: 66 τιμα, φησιν, όνε, τον θεον και βασιλέα. "It would be unneceffary to examine the reft of your rules, if you had not propofed them as confirmations of the firft: but this being the cafe, fome notice must be taken of them; and it fhall be as fhort as I can make it." P. 18. In this extract then it appears that we have before us the principal ftrength in the way of exceptions to Mr. Sharp's rule, with which Mr. Winstanley's researches have furnished him. But before we come to the more particular examination of the value of Mr. Winftanley's materials, we inuft proteft loudly against the practice of citing Clemens and Origen, and many other fuch writers, especially in a matter of philological controverfy, without referring us to the edition, volume, &c. &c. where the paffage cited may be found; an inexcufable fault, which runs through the whole of this volume. Who would believe that we are referred repeatedly to Plato, Ariftotle, Demofthenes, Chryfoflom, &c. &c. always very inadequately, and often without any mention at all of the tract, page, or even volume? And this is not all. The fault of which we complain might have been in fome degree extenuated if Mr. W. had taken care to be large and copious in his extra&is, But the paffages which he produces, perhaps without a fingle exception, are little more than mere fcraps |