m 
 
 I 
 
 mSSBSBM 
 
 wBKm 
 Warn 
 
 1! 
 
 ^^^^^1H 
 
«. ;f; Cc 
 ■O CC 
 .*■ cc 
 
 :« cc 
 
 :< cc 
 
 J c c 
 > c -'C 
 
 ccc < 
 
 c cc 
 
 ■c c< 
 
 c c 
 
 CC C< 
 
 CC C 
 
 <£ crccc 
 
 Ǥ c CCCC 
 
 § ^c ccc 
 
 c r c <cc 
 
 C C CC C 
 <5 <r cc c 
 
 c c ccc 
 
 C< C CC € 
 
 c c cc 
 
 c c cc 
 
 cc cc 
 
 C C (C 
 
 VC < 
 
 ' l v 
 
 Cc - 
 
 Cf 
 
 «CC'-- 
 
 C c 
 
 If 
 
 .sKC . 
 
 c e 
 
 cc 
 
 <ccc 
 
 
 C 
 
 xccc 
 
 \v 
 
 < 
 
 c<ccc 
 
 
 * 
 
 yCcc? 
 
 
 * 
 
 CCCC- 
 
 
 X 
 
 scree. 
 
 
 
 CC r > 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^■1 
 
 cc : 
 
 c <c 
 
 cc: " 
 c<E 
 
 cccc ^ 
 
 Cc C C c 
 
 •CCCC 1 
 
 CC ccc 
 
 Cc CC 
 cc c c 
 CC cc 
 CC cc 
 
 cc r c 
 
 cc 
 <^c 
 
 cc; 
 
 I 
 
 " M,MMM!W ' 
 
 !$$8&8 
 
 P" : - : 
 
 ^ccc 
 
 , c ccc 
 < ccc 
 
 CCCC- 
 
 «:c 
 r c^ 
 
 *m 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 cc 
 
 CC 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cr 
 
 Library of Congress. 
 
 Shelp__J\A/-5-- 
 
 ^r^UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ff 
 
 9—167 C^"' 
 
 C CC C Cc 
 
 C CCUC C( 
 
 c cccc . CC 
 
 /( Cccc <C C< 
 
 c Ccc cc 
 < c cc cc 
 
 ■ < Cccc CC' 
 ' C Ccc CO 
 C c cc cc < 
 
 -' cccccCc 
 ' CCcc ccc 
 CCCC CCc 
 CCCC CCC 
 c ccc cc c 
 
 . C CCC CC c 
 
 » C CCC cc < 
 
 r ^ cc cc c 
 cc c c c 
 cc c c c 
 cc C C c 
 cc c c < 
 
 CC CCc 
 CC C CC 
 CCC Cc 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 ■ ^Cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc ■ 
 
 cc 
 
 C CC 
 c CC 
 c< CC 
 c c 
 
 ( cc 
 cc 
 
 c CC 
 
 c cc 
 c c 
 
 ^ C ccc 
 CC ccc 
 < C ccc 
 cc ccc 
 
 : *r 
 
 CCc 
 
 CC 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 c:c 
 
 cc 
 c c 
 
+9L> i t&*\ iflH£»<Zfc-&6*,iSf 
 
 t 
 A 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 CERTAIN PASSAGES 
 
 THE COMMON EiYlxLISB VERSION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 GRANVILLE SHARP, ESq. 
 
 AUTHOR OS THE 
 
 "'• Remarks on the uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament 
 
 !Y THE 
 
 Set. CALVIN WINSTANLEY, A. M. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 UNIVERSITY PRESS HILLIARD AND MRTCALF 
 
 1819. 
 

 <b^> 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following tract being out of print in England, it was 
 thought of sufficient value to be republished in this country. 
 It is an able examination of an intricate subject, the discussion 
 of which has excited considerable interest, and which is in it- 
 self of sufficient importance to require the attention of the 
 theological student. 
 
 The remarks of Granville Sharp Esq. upon the Uses of 
 of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testa- 
 ment first appeared in the Museum Oxoniense. Two editions 
 of them were afterwards edited by Dr. Burgess, Bishop of St. 
 David's, and they were regarded by some critics as affording 
 to the Trinitarian an unanswerable argument in support of his 
 creed. The following are the alterations which Mr. Sharp 
 would introduce into the Received Version on the authority of 
 the rules he advanced. 
 
 Acts xx, 28. (Adopting the reading rov Kvgiav xut Geov) 
 he would translate "The church of him who is Lord and God.' 5 
 
 Ephes. v, 5. " In the kingdom of Christ our God." 
 
 2 Thess. i, 12. "According to the grace of Jesus Christ 
 our God and Lord." 
 
 1 Tim. y, 21. > (( Before j Christ, our God and Lord." 
 
 2 Tim. iv, 1. $ ' 
 
 Titus ii, 13. "The glorious appearing of Jesus Christ, 
 our great God and Saviour." 
 
 2 Peter i, 1. " Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 Jude 4. " Our only master Jesus Christ, both God and 
 Lord." 
 
 No alteration has been made from the English edition of 
 Mr. Winstanley's Vindication of the common version of these 
 texts, except the correction of numerous typographical errors. 
 An appendix has been added by a friend of the editor, contain- 
 ing some remarks upon Middleton's Treatise on the Greek 
 Article, and such extracts from the notice of that work which 
 appeared in the Monthly Review for May and June 1810, as 
 were thought applicable to the subject. 
 
VINDICATION, $c. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 w, 
 
 hen I first perused your Remarks on the uses of the defini- 
 tive article in the Greek text of the New Testament, I confess, I did 
 not see them in that imposing light in which they have since been 
 recommended to public attention. The tract appeared to my judg- 
 ment to be defective in several particulars ; but my opinion of it 
 was, for a time, considerably affected by reading afterwards the 
 strong and unqualified language of your learned editor, the present 
 Bishop of St. David's. I determined, therefore, to bestow upon it 
 as minute and careful an examination as I was capable of, that I 
 might not be l^d into error, either by a veneration for great names, 
 or by, what is not less common nor less natural, a secret spirit of 
 opposition to magisterial decisions on subjects incapable of demon- 
 stration. 
 
 The following observations have lain by me for a considerable 
 time, owing to causes which it is not necessary to state ; I only 
 mention this circumstance as affording some presumption that they 
 have not been hastily prepared for the press, as T have had time 
 enough to revolve and review them ; and that I may, without ar- 
 rogance, propose them to your candid reflection, as sufficient to con- 
 vince you, notwithstanding the acknowledged authority of your 
 learned editor, that you have not " decidedly applied a rule of con- 
 struction to the correction of the common English version of the 
 New Testament ;" that there exists no necessity for correcting that 
 version according to your rule ; and that it does not " conceal from 
 the English reader any tiling discoverable in the original." 
 
 In saying this, 1 incur the danger, it seems, of being thought a 
 partial reader > unacquainted with the Greek language, or even blinded by 
 unhappy prejudices, if I do not expose myself to the imputation of So- 
 cinianism. But if you will peruse my remarks with patience to the 
 end, though you may not acquit me of the involuntary imperfec- 
 tions of error and ignorance, you will, I am persuaded, not seri- 
 ously charge me with wilful perversion of the sacred writings : &v 
 yxp 7"xvJ^m vtKnTesi kxkc*s 9 etXTM ZfJWPA #X00?. 
 
 1. 
 
Be this as it may, the question between us is simply concerning 
 the accuracy and fidelity of the common English version in those 
 particular passages, which, you insist, ought to be corrected ; and 
 which, I think, need no such correction. To defend them as they 
 now stand, all doctrinal inferences for the present being kept apart, 
 should not be regarded as a useless labour, when it is considered, 
 that your censures tend to bring that version into disrepute, after it 
 has been read so long by authority in our churches, and been used 
 with confidence and veneration by a numerous body of unlettered 
 Christians. Some inconvenience, not to say some danger, might be 
 apprehended from admitting alterations into it, or even from pub- 
 licly proposing them as necessary -, and, therefore, they ought to be 
 rejected, until their necessity be proved by incontestible evidence. 
 Whether you have yet done this will appear in the sequel. 
 
 But before your rules are examined, it will not be improper to take 
 some notice of a principle of interpretation advanced by your learn- 
 ed editor, namely, that in all remote and written testimony the 
 weight of evidence must ultimately depend upon the grammatical 
 analogy of the language in which it is recorded. Admitting this to 
 be true, for it is indisputable, yet if applied, as it seems intended to 
 be, to the examination of separate passages, uncompared with, and 
 uncontrolled by, other passages of similar import in the same au- 
 thor, it will sometimes disappoint the student. Such passages, if 
 the grammatical construction alone be considered, may be ambigu- 
 ous, and, by themselves, afford no satisfactory evidence. They 
 want illustration and solution ; and the cardinal question is, Whence 
 is this solution to be sought ? Not ultimately from critics and com- 
 mentators, not from versions, nor yet from Greek and Latin fa- 
 thers. The learned Beza may be confronted with the no less learn- 
 ed Erasmus, the former versions with the present, and to the opinion 
 of the fathers may be opposed direct exceptions to your principal 
 rule : so that we are driven at last to that source of illustration, 
 which ought never to be rejected, except in cases of extreme neces- 
 sity. If the sacred writers have expressed themselves ambiguously 
 in some instances, and on the same subject clearly in others, and 
 still more in a great plurality of others, we are bound, in exclusion 
 of every extraneous authority, to consult them as their own best in- 
 terpreters ; dff y«g wig tm et<pxv6>9 Tots tpetvigotg (*a?TV£ioig %(>vi<rdott. 
 
 Should this appear to be the real state of all the passages adduced 
 for a corrected version, our common version may be satisfactorily 
 defended. This is all I undertake to do ; and for this purpose we 
 may now proceed to the discussion of yoc.r rules. They are here 
 transcribed for the sake of more convenient reference. 
 
Rule I. When two personal nouns of the same case are con- 
 nected by the copulative koh, if the former has the definitive article, 
 and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person. 
 
 Rule II. If both nouns have the article, but not the copulative, 
 they relate to the same person. 
 
 Rule III. If the first has the article and the second has not, 
 and there is no copulative, they relate also to the same person. 
 
 Rule IV. If the nouns are not personal, they relate to different 
 things or qualities. 
 
 Rule V. If personal nouns of the same case are connected by 
 the copulative, and the first has not the article, they relate to differ- 
 ent persons. 
 
 Rule VI. If they are connected by the copulative, and both 
 have the article, they relate also to different persons. 
 
 In this discussion I shall observe the following method : 
 
 First, I shall point out some- sources of error common to all 
 your rules. 
 
 Secondly , I shall consider a class of exceptions which are not re- 
 pugnant to the conclusion you would establish. 
 
 Thirdly, I shall produce such exceptions as are inconsistent with 
 that conclusion. 
 
 Fourthly, I shall offer some remarks on the Syntax of the defin- 
 itive article, and the copulative. 
 
 Lastly, I shall examine the passages of Scripture, which are the 
 objects of this investigation. 
 
 These rules are all founded on the presence or the absence of 
 the copulative or the article ; and nothing can be more imperfect 
 than such rules. Both the copulative and the article are frequently 
 suppressed by authors, and must be supplied by the reader's under- 
 standing. As this can only be done by attending to the context, 
 and sometimes to the signification of the words employed, so far is 
 the construction (the presence or absence of the copulative, for in- 
 stance,) from being always the sole guide to the sense, that an ap- 
 prehension of the sense must frequently precede our knowledge of 
 the construction ; as when we have to determine, whether two per- 
 sonal nouns of the same case, gender, &c. in immediate connexion, 
 
are in concord or apposition, and, therefore, relating to the same 
 person, or not. Thus, according to your second and third rules 
 taken together, and compared with your examples, personal nouns 
 connected without the copulative denote the same person. If you 
 mean nouns in concord or apposition, you beg the question, and no- 
 body will oppose you ; but if you mean simply nouns so arranged 
 in the same sentence, your rules are false : and that such is your 
 meaning is evident from your excepting nouns impersonal only, or 
 genitives depending on each other in succession. I will transcribe 
 two oi your examples, followed by two more of a different kind, but 
 constructed in the same manner. 
 
 xxt yyechhictri to 7nnvfcet fccv wri ru Sea xt» a-ant^i [&ov, 
 This example is intended to confirm your second rule. The 
 next is to serve the same purpose under your third ; but they prove 
 nothing but that nouns in apposition denote the same person or thing. 
 
 HxvbOS, $OV>.OS SiOV, dTTOTOXoi 2g \y<T0V, 
 
 But now let us compare these that follow. 
 
 Tig *i T6>9 T0G-0VT&J9 SV&J(?t$, KUt hcU£STi? iVOVf/AV&V, TO'J XViVft&TOff T6V 
 
 trui^oiy rev Trxr^os* — Athenag, Leg. 49. 
 
 ixv ftv) ctvaywrtOrtTi voxrt ^mrt f us ovcput craSTge?, viov, ayiov vevsvptctrtsy 
 eu un g<o-gA^J5« 8<$ Tjjy fixo-iXuott rav ovgocvuv. — Clementina, 698. 
 
 Here are nouns personal, constructed according to your rules, 
 and genitive cases too, not depending on each other, yet plain ex- 
 ceptions. They are instances of the copulative suppressed, accord- 
 ing to the figure called asyndeton, and very common with Greek 
 writers, when several similar words are used in succession. You 
 must have read of such a figure, though you must as certainly have 
 forgotten it ; for some of your examples adduced in confirmation of 
 your rules are only instances of it ; and your fourth rule is nothing 
 else. If the nouns (connected without the copulative) are not perso~ 
 naU they relate to different things or qualities. This is your fourth rule, 
 and here is your example : 
 
 %X£tS, iXios, u^tm w> Smv 7r«Tgef vpav. 
 
 The copulative is here suppressed, and might as well have been 
 50 with nouns personal ; or it might have been used in either case, 
 without any difference of signification. So little is to be inferred 
 from the omission of the copulative, without attention to the known 
 sense of the words employed. 
 
 Nothing, again, can be more fallacious than the manner in which 
 you have arrived at the formation of your rules ; which is evidently 
 by inferring a general rule of interpretation from a prevailing mode 
 of construction, Thus, having never found, that, when the same 
 
person is meant by nouns joined by the copulative, the article is re- 
 peated before the second noun ; you infer that whenever the article 
 is not so repeated, the same person is meant. Let us then compare 
 two examples from Aristotle's Ethics : 
 
 o & %x£tu$ kxi itevfcgtf ovraq i%n. 
 
 This example agrees with your first rule, and would be consid- 
 ered by you as some confirmation of it ; but take the other : 
 
 7rf£< a.% (<t7F0huv<ru$) Xiyopiv T»v (ra^^ova kcci ctxoXo&<rov, 
 
 This is a plain exception to your rule ; and is known to be so, 
 not from the context, nor the construction, but from the signification 
 of the nouns themselves, which cannot be understood of the same 
 person ; so that we must have recourse to a principle of interpreta- 
 tion distinct from any mentioned by you, namely, a regard to the 
 sense cf the nouns employed. Simple, and almost trifling, as all 
 this may appear, yet it deserves to be repeated ; for if you were to 
 add this principle as a limitation of your grand rule, by saying, the 
 nouns relate to the same person, except where their signification forbids it* 
 all your criticisms would avail little, and you would be obliged to 
 examine the New Testament upon more enlarged and liberal grounds 
 than you have taken. 
 
 To any rules founded on the use of the copulative, or article, or 
 both, and directing us to understand two persons to be intended, 
 there is a whole class of exceptions, which, as they do not affect 
 your final conclusion one way or other, should be brought together, 
 and set aside to prevent embarrassment ; I allude to nouns used as 
 predicates of a proposition. 
 
 The predicate of a proposition is thus constructed in Greek. Of 
 an inconvertible proposition the predicate never takes the article ; as, 
 
 o jfc«iv yoi(? jtegyotAoTrgetf-jjs ttevfcyos* o h*t etevdt(>tos ovhv pccthXov pttyxXo- 
 7T£S7rr,s> — Arist. 
 
 And, therefore, (excepting proper names, or pronouns having 
 the force of proper names) when two nouns are joined by a verb, 
 one having the article, and the other not, that which has the article 
 is the subject, the other the predicate, as, 
 
 bios qv o >oy«s. 
 
 Though too much stress may have been laid on the omission of 
 the article before &os •, yet that omission is by no means insignificant. 
 It serves, according to the Greek idiom, to exhibit the noun $g«s as an 
 attribute of the Logos ; not as an equivalent appellation that might 
 be substituted for it. In this sense the Greek fathers understood it, 
 as is evident from their using the noun Ss«s as an adjective in allu- 
 sion to this passage ; the expression « £so? Myo? being familiar to 
 
them. The common version is inferior in precision to the original 5 
 nor could it be otherwise, the English noun God not admitting the 
 distinction preserved in the Greek. But if the word Deity were sub- 
 stituted, the translation would approach as near to the precision of 
 the original, as the language would admit, as thus : 
 
 In the beginning was the Wordy and the Word was with the Deity, 
 and the word was Deity. 
 
 Of a similar kind is the much contested text of St. Peter, /8sG«<- 
 «•«£«» eX°P tf rov *pQvrM9 Xoyw, which Sherlock has rendered differ- 
 ently, as he confesses, from all the Greek expositors, and inconsist- 
 ently with the construction. Bt^enors^ot must be the predicate, and 
 the whole passage does not necessarily signify more than this, We 
 have the prophetic word more sure, or, it is more sure to us : whether in 
 its own nature, or in consequence of the transfiguration and its at- 
 tendant circumstances, this is not the place to enquire. The 
 above use of the verb «#», as well as of its corresponding verb habeo, 
 to connect a predicate to its subject is not uncommon* as in Origen's 
 comment on this passage from the 54th Psalm. 
 
 I$0V yotg c S-sof fioijisi uoi, text Kv^io; xmXnirra>(> t»j ^vp^nt (tov. 
 
 The comment is this : 
 
 B«jj0«» £s t% uv ^o>.oyti t«> 5*\fcfr£g«, xat kv^iov ecvrtXocpcGeciofttw wis •fyv- 
 y$<; otvrcvy ha. incy rov bm. 
 
 He confesses that he has the father his helper — that the father is his 
 helper, &c. where it is remarkable that Origen does not repeat the 
 article before xvgiov, though it is repeated in the text. 
 
 Of a convertible proposition (that is when the predicate is equally 
 comprehensive with the subject) both the subject and predicate have 
 the article, or are both without it, as 
 
 cdfi ^ijAflv, en kxi ^iKouoq text re vofiipos kxi urtq* — Arist. 
 
 The words « o*txettos, vop.fco*;, icos, are all convertible terms in 
 .the philosophy of Aristotle, and may be substituted one for another. 
 
 C<»v oipro; '0 vvo rov woirpos ooSus vto$ £$■<».— -Origen. 
 
 xotl v Ufiaprta tfiv « 7ru£0va/LCici. 
 
 On this passage, Pearson has somewhere remarked, that the 
 two nouns are constructed as perfectly convertible, as if there could 
 be no sin, where there was no transgression of law. 
 
 « rpotyn ron tyvoovpivwi rov xvpov v\ votytot, en rov Seov. 
 
 p.eyji yxg votynzs tyoncs nvgiov. — Origen* 
 
 Now two or more nouns may be connected as predicates of the 
 same subject, and, therefore, as relating to the same person in every 
 form of construction, with or without, either copulatives, or articles.. 
 
 ircivroc, yetp %io$ em etvrog o\vr&, Qaq ec7r^omoy, xotrpo? tsXsmj, mwftot,, 
 dwmis, Aayoj, — Athenag, Leg. 61. 
 
You would regard this example as a confirmation of one. of your 
 rules, though it is nothing to the purpose. There is no copulative -, 
 but there might have been four, as in the next ; 
 
 ovx i<ri (aov cc%ios, Xiyti, tov uvxt vioc #«ay, xxi ftxdijrns Siov, opov xxt 
 f>*A«; xxt rvyyvms.—Clem, Alex. 
 
 a£%ii(>iv$ yag raff 7Tfio<r<po(>t»v itoafv, xxt tt^o; toi izxTiex !txpxxMtos gf^f 
 • ites rev Siov. — Origen, 
 
 cv !)xipuv o rovs TOtovo^z txtr^vptts »"£«? tov &«v, xXhx 5g«j Xoyog, xxt 
 5wv *■*<$. — Origen, 
 
 fionfos fiov xxt avnXii7rT&£ (aov a a v. — Psalm, 
 
 tv%us fiov km xvtiX^tcto)^ fcov o Kvgiag. — Psalm. 
 
 cv u xvrog o fiocrtXivs fcov, Kxt o Sio<; f&ov. — Psalm. 
 
 You have adduced some passages of the same kind, as excep- 
 tions to your fifth, and sixth rules, as 
 
 Eye* Hftt to A xxt to J2, x$%n xxt rshos. 
 
 Tfl» oQiV T0V Xg%XlOV, OS gf< OtxQoXof KM CXTXVX$, 
 
 These (latter) you say, are two different names or appellatives, 
 attributed (by the explanatory words 05 w) to the same old serpent. 
 That is, they are predicates of the same proposition. So far your 
 distinction is sufficiently correct : but you have not always been 
 equally circumspect ; foi under your third rule, according to which,. 
 The omission of the copulative between two or more nouns (of the same 
 case) even without the article before the second noun, will denote the same 
 person, you give this example, 
 
 7riToi6xg it cnxvTov oo*/iyov uvxt tvQXmv, $&f rat iv trxoru, 7rxt$iVTn9 
 ettppovavt OtoxtrxxXcv vyittkcv, k. t. X, 
 
 The nouns, odviyev, (pa^ &c. are certainly descriptive of the same 
 person ; not, as you think, because the copulative is omitted ; but 
 because they are predicates of the same indirect proposition ,• and 
 would have equally described the same person, had the copulative 
 been used, as it might have been, as before ; 
 
 OVK 85"* ftOV x\tO$ t TOV itVXl VtOS SiOV, KXl pxQqTHf SiOV, 
 
 cri -^ivf/ig ITt xxt arafTJjg xvtov. 
 
 j}|s* Stov vto$ t tuv ortav x^iir t q, xxt rav xhxav xoXx?r,$. — Origen, 
 
 T have added this last example, for the sake of observing, that 
 the verb substantia is implied, and must be understood : The sort 
 of God will come (to be) the judge of the holy, &c. The same remark 
 is applicable to these examples that follow, and many more : 
 
 «5 tn6n* *»5gv| xxt xyroroXos xxt hdxo-xxXos ihav, 
 
 OTl KXl KVqtOY XXt X^fOV XVTOV SjOJ iXOiY&lV. 
 
 T0VTO9 S&Of XgXVyCV KXt tTUTVlPX V$M7l TV\ ^«|«a£ XVTOV, 
 
It is upon this occasion, that you bring in your Fourth Rule, 
 namely, Yet it is otherwise, 'when the nouns are not of personal descrip- 
 tion or application ; for then they denote distinct things or qualities, as 
 
 X*£Ki *Ase$, «£»}>»» «To 3-sav irxTgog r.ftuv. 
 
 But.these nouns are so many subjects of a sentence, divisible in- 
 to as many sentences, the copulative being suppressed ; had they 
 been predicates, they might have described the same person, or 
 thiftg, as 
 
 TrxvTct y«*g o £««$ «f« xvrog xvro), tyag «5?rga«T«» , x»<rtiog tiXsio;, itnvpx, 
 tivvetuig, hoyo?. — Athenag. Leg. 
 
 Or with the copulative, 
 
 lT 7C v * P 50 KCCi vpvwiS f*M XVQtOg, 
 
 The nouns ir%vg and bp.vwi<i-> separated from the context, are cer- 
 tainly names of different things ; but here they are descriptive of one 
 person o xv^og y as much as nouns personal would be j as for instance, 
 fioq6og xxt eivrtXn^ra^ in a former example. 
 
 vrx^axiv Ixvtov vzt(> tjp&af TrgorQogxv xxt &vcrtxv ra> 3«a>. 
 
 And now, Sir, having collected, in order to set aside, that class 
 of exceptions, which would otherwise only perplex and embarrass our 
 enquiry, I shall proceed to examine your several Rules in their or- 
 der, and prove them to be some defective, some fallacious, and oth- 
 ers absolutely false. 
 
 Rule I. When two personal nouns of the same case are con- 
 nected by the copulative xstt> if the former has the definitive article, 
 and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person, as 
 
 $i0$ XXt 5T<*T*Jg XVglOg XXI (FUTY,^, 
 
 This rule is generally true ; but it is defective, inasmuch as it 
 is liable to exceptions, which, if taken together, and fairly consider- 
 ed, must be fatal to the inference you would deduce from it. Nouns 
 not personal are excluded by the terms of the rule : and your ac- 
 knowledged exceptions are of plurals, and proper names. I add. 
 i sty That national appellations must be excepted, as 
 
 o MuxZmK Kstt AupxvtTvg. — Origen de Or at, 229. 
 
 2 d, If one of the nouns be a plural. 
 
 sreg* rev Ivitrov xxt ftfneixvuv, — Origen, 
 
 zig rug AQnvxg fyi-xipfyi rw tjj f«!Tg< xxt dovhotg. Clementina^ 7*8. 
 
 3<y, If one of the nouns be impersonal. 
 
 fiirx rev afyoTrpTriTXTov i%ifKvnrov iticuv, xxi xfytTrhoKov nnvfMiriKOV 
 <rt$civov Tov irtfr%vTfi>(ev vpwv,—Ignat, epist, 21. 
 
9 
 
 Aenrxtppxi rev et%iekxrev tftivxeneV) xxi $i97T£t7ri?xrev n^KAvn^tev. 
 
 4th, If one of them be a proper name. 
 
 ei 7ri<?oi tixevx t^evrt rev &(>%evre$ Bsev wxr^eq, xxi IqTev Xgirev. — - 
 /gnat, ad Magn. 
 
 iv SiMpxTt rev irccTgosi xxi la<rev X%i?ev rev 5*ev vyim% — /gnat, ad 
 Ephes. 
 
 $tb, When the signification of the nouns renders any farther 
 mark of personal distinction unnecessary. 
 
 viqi cts (xiteXxvriig) Xtyepiv rev o-utp^evx xxi xxeXxfev. — Ar'tit. Eth'iC 
 
 rev yxp iyxgxrovs xxi xx^arevs rev Xeyev tTrxtvovftiv. — Id. 
 
 irenqev tyx^xrm xxi xx^xrm un rat m^t x, n r* 5r»s> tfcovri; rqv 
 hxtyogecv.- — Id. 
 
 e^xyxhq xxt xxxeq *ixt?x ^tx^tXoi xttS vinev.——Id. 
 
 *> rev ihivhfev nxihtx dtxtygu tjjs rev xv^QXTrehuoevs) xui xv rev Tmrxi' 
 oivfAivev xxi xnxihivrev. — Id. 
 
 iv roo yoi(> 6%ut /xev, y.n %£n<r$xt $£, $ix<pz£ovs-uv o^a^v t#jv \%iv* «s ri xxi 
 t%uv was xxi fw e%uv* eiev rev xxhvhevrx y xxi ftxtvepivev, xxi etvcoptvev, — Id, 
 
 xxi Six revr u? rxvre rev xx^xrn xxi xxoXxqev rifcfttv, xxi tyx(>xri) xxi 
 tfatp^ovct, — Id. 
 
 In all the above-cited passages from Aristotle, the nouns, though 
 personal, are used in a general or universal sense. In this respect, 
 it must be confessed, they differ materially from those of which you 
 would correct the common version ; and so far may be thought in- 
 applicable to our present purpose. But they are not totally inap- 
 plicable ; as they prove, that when the signification of the nouns 
 renders any farther precaution unnecessary, the second article may 
 be omitted, without confounding the distinction of persons. They 
 prove also that the article mav be understood after the copulative ; 
 for the same author as frequently repeats it with similar nouns, as, 
 
 etrx 7ri£i toix rev xxearyi xxi rev lyxqxrq Sireev. 
 And sometimes he omits it altogether, and in the same sense, as, 
 
 « xvres Xeyeq xxi Tregt eiv&pivev xxi xx&tvoevreg. 
 
 ftiv evt Yligvuv n Vupxi&v fixe-iMa§ o-xr^xynj<; xxi VKi^efteq, 4 $*g«TY- 
 ye(. «. r. A. — Cels. apud Orig. 
 
 I shall now subjoin several quotations, which come within all 
 the limitations of your first rule, and are direct exceptions to it. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus has this quotation from Plato : 
 rev wxvTviv Sicv xtrtev xxi rs qyipovag xxi xtrta irxrsgx xvgtev fTefivvvrxq. 
 Here rev viyspovos xxi xtnev is an agreement with your rule, but 
 
10 
 
 T6v TTctvrav B-scv — xxi •xxtt^x xv^iov is in direct opposition to it. Origen 
 has the same quotation with some difference, but still without the 
 repetition of the article before 7rxTSgx f thus, 
 
 KXl 70V TO)V TrXVTUV 3iflV, ViyifAOVX TUV Ti OVTOiV XXI T&IV f«AAeVTA>V, TOV Tg 
 JiytUOVCg XXI XITIOV TTXTigX XXI KVglQV tVOpVVVTXg. 
 
 Clemens observes, that Plato appears to be describing the Fath- 
 er and the Son ; tyximxi tsxtipx xxi ttiov iptyxivav $ and Origen makes 
 a similar observation : so that neither of these Greek fathers thought 
 the repetition of the article so necessary to distinguish two persons. 
 It may be remarked also, by the way, that where Clemens writes 
 kxtipx xv^ov, Oiigen writes •xxviqx, xxi xv^iov, for one person ; which 
 is an exception to your fifth rule. 
 
 Tft) Si* TUV ChOiV TTQOeiftiTl XXI (}tOXO-KXXo) T6iV TTiPl XVTCV Mx6^XT&)V TU 
 
 Incrot/* — Orig. contra Cels. 497. 
 
 This is surely a pertinent example. The attribute 'hdxvxxXog 
 without the article repeated, must be referred, not to the preceding 
 e &<>s, but to the following U<rovg as a distinct subject ; and in the 
 same manner may five of your examples be understood. If you 
 should object, that the article, though not prefixed to $3x<rxxXog is to 
 Iwovc, it may be replied, that it is not there a mark of difference, 
 but of identity with $,$x<rxxXog, and being prefixed to a proper name 
 might as well have been omitted. That it is not, in such a situation, 
 a mark of personal distinction, might be shown in many instances, 
 such as these, 
 
 Xiyn h xvpiog hftav xxi <rm r ti% In^ovg Xgieog sv ivxyyiXitig,— Const. 
 Apost. 258. 
 
 tov xotvov vifiM 3-iov xxi xvpiov tov %pi^ov. — See Sharp, I IO. 
 
 Ton $i 3~e<» ^xtpi, xxi via to) xv^im vuav lyrov Xpisu crvv ra xyia %nv~ 
 (A.xit do%x. — See note in Burgh's Enquiry, 359. 
 
 In this example, as well as in the one last cited from Origen, the 
 article is not repeated immediately after the copulative, and is so far 
 an exception to your rule. If it be objected, that it is afterwards 
 repeated, I reply, as before, that in such a situation it is a mark of 
 identity with the noun immediately preceding. Besides, if you 
 should think it any thing more, you must give up one of your own 
 examples, namely, 
 
 Atxuxprv?v t uat ovv iya wanm tov &iov xxi xvgiov ln<rov Xgirov TOY 
 fAiXhcvrog xgivuv tavTxg xxt vixpovg. 
 
 yivsrcii &j ovv tx Trxvrx lev xvSpanoVf oti tx ttxvtx tov B-eov' xxi xoivx 
 xuQoiv 79iv (pihotv rti kxvtx, tov &6ov xxi xvfyuKQv, — Clem. Alexand. 76. 
 
11 
 
 If any objection should be made to this example, it must be, 
 that the last noun, av^ano?, (by which the author means a pious 
 Christian) is used in a general sense. It is, however, a farther proof 
 that the repetition of the article is not so necessary, as you have sup- 
 posed. The reason why it is omitted in this particular instance, I 
 shall consider hereafter ; for the present I shall produce some exam- 
 ples, to which no objection can be imagined. 
 
 (Al$ OV 2fl|# TO) SiC* X061 KClTgt KOCi UyM 7TVZVIMTI. Ep{St, Eccks, 
 
 Smyrn. de Martyr. Poly carp. 
 
 (potov 7ov B-ioVy vHy y-at fiatriXict, xai |K})0' Its^a* otvruv airuHinis — Param* 
 cap. 24, v. 21. 
 
 This passage from the Septuagint, which I am surprised you 
 should have overlooked, is thus quoted, in the interpolated epistle 
 of Ignatius to the S my means : 
 
 rifcx, <f>no-iv, va y roy B-eov kxi ficco-iteoi. 
 
 It would be unnecessary to examine the rest of your rules, if you 
 had not proposed them as confirmations of the first : but this being 
 the case, some notice must be taken of them ; and it shall be as 
 short as I can make it. 
 
 Your second rule is, that when both the nouns have the article but 
 not the copulative, they relate to the same person, 
 
 I call this a fallacious rule, because, if by the copulative omitted, 
 you mean neither expressed nor understood, the rule is indeed true ; but 
 then it is no more than a common rule of concord, and of much less 
 importance, than you intended it should appear. It is founded on 
 the manner in which an attribute is connected in Greek to its sub- 
 ject 5 which is, by prefixing the article to the attribute, wherever 
 the latter is placed. One of your examples, and they are all alike, 
 is, ray TTotftiw tov piyxv, the great shepherd, which may be thus expres- 
 sed, (tiyets iroiptw — voipw a (Aiysts — or irotpnv {ASyccg, This last 
 form of construction is the foundation of your rule, But if from 
 hence you would infer that the mere omission of the copulative be- 
 tween such nouns, shows them to relate to the same person, your 
 rule is false ; as for instance, 
 
 rat '2i£vXXav to 5tAjj0os, « 'ZetfAict, »5 KoXoQuv tee, h Kvpettet, h k. t. A.— 
 Clem, Alexand, 
 
 T*$ JJ 16>V T070VTM IvdKFlS, KOtt ^IXS^fftS liOVy.VJOJV, TOV 7FViV(AitT0$, TOV ITUiOOS) 
 
 roy iroiT£os. — Athenag. Leg, 49. 
 
 Your third rule is, that the omission of the copulative between two or 
 more nouns (of the same case) of personal description, even without the ar- 
 
12 
 
 tick before the second noun, will have the same effect ; namely, will denote 
 the same person. 
 
 This rule is no more than an extension of the former, and equal- 
 ly fallacious, and for the same reason. If you mean, when the copu- 
 lative is neither expressed nor understood, you have only given a com- 
 mon rule of concord, or apposition : if you mean any thing more, 
 your rule is false. Your first example is nothing to the purpose, the 
 several nouns being predicates of a proposition ; and for that rea- 
 son only are descriptive of the same person ; not, as you suppose, be- 
 cause the copulative is omitted, for it might as well have been in- 
 serted, 7Ti7r0l9xs T8 ViXVTCV OOYiyQV UVXt TvtyXm, $ag TCit 6V VKCTil, 7TC&ldiVTV)V 
 
 <z.<p£ova>v t o*3ot<rKotXov wxiw. «. r. A. St. Paul might have written, xxt 
 <pug, Kxi netihvrtiv, xxi dide/.o-KctXev, without any difference of signification. 
 
 Your following rules are instances of concord or apposition, and 
 are known to be so, not from the omission of the copulative, but 
 from that, and the signification of the nouns, taken together ; as 
 will appear from the subjoined examples, which are direct exceptions 
 to your rule : 
 
 AiotKovog x<pof>t£tt v^rooieiKcvov, ctvacyvarnv, -^ethTW, dteexono-s-xy. k. t. X. 
 —Constit. Apost. I. 8. 
 
 is&v pit etvecymvi&nTe v^etrt ^covrt, ug ovopa Ttxrgog, vtov, xyiov 7n/sv,uxTog, 
 ov fir, uo-iXHri its Ttfv fiatriXziotv xm ovgavM. — Clementina, 698. 
 
 67rov ovk ivt 'EXXv.v xxi Icvticciog, iti^iropn xeci xxgc&vTiX, fixg&xeag, 
 E«v0jj$, etovXog, tXiufagog — St. Paul. 
 
 iv rxvrxtg xaTtxuio tcXy$os noXv rav XT&ivowrav, tv^Xm, #«A»y, |jjp«v, 
 vthiy/imvm iw rov vdarog xtwrtv. — St. John. 
 
 Your fourth rule, relating to nouns not personal, may be passed 
 over. It is sufficient to repeat, that it is founded on the construction 
 called asyndeton. Let us proceed to the fifth ; viz. When there is no 
 article before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative before the next 
 noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different pen on or thing from 
 the first. 
 
 This rule, as it relates to things expressed by more than two 
 nouns, is only the fourth rule with the ellipsis of the copulative sup- 
 plied. In your first example, all the copulatives might have been 
 omitted. I ought to have observed before, that the asyndeton never 
 takes place, unless there be more than two nouns ; thus we have 
 %ptPic, Ifitv kou ztQwn uno Smv Karros, where the copulative could not be 
 omitted ; £«g«?, zXsog, upwi ano Sicv varpg, with the copulative un- 
 derstood. If, therefore, you had restricted your second and third 
 
rules, to two nouns only, they would have been true ; that is, they 
 would have been rules of concord ; but that was evidently short of 
 your intention : besides the concord may be carried through sever- 
 al nouns. 
 
 But this fifth rule, as it relates to persons, is utterly false ; nouns 
 constructed according to it, may relate to the same, or to different 
 persons. Of different persons you have given examples ; my busi- 
 ness is to adduce some, where the same person is described. 
 
 ov yxg e?tv — xetiKOWTU, xxi tmopxcvirxy xxi Tpivooftivov, ovvxiciv fifoxixv 
 xrwxo~$xi* — Demost, 
 
 ev^x^a^ctv at aig Siai xxi ttxtpi xxi xvpim* — Origen* 
 
 ivyfietixi -s.uxs ov ^*> xhXx h* agfcitgiag xxi •xapxx>w*-ov dvtxpevov rvfA- 
 ■rxkiv ixis eurfamuis yfttvt. — Origen. 
 
 7rt?ev<ro9 uvQpuTrt x^PU7cm xxi B-ta' kitivvov xvQeomi ra 7rxhvTt am ttpoT' 
 xvvovutvu §i# tyvrt. — Clem- Alex* 66. 
 
 irxgxtoXr.v xvqicv tts voniret, u f&n roQos xeci entr/ipa/v, xxi xyx?rav rev 
 xv^tot xvrov. — Clem* Alex* 578. 
 
 Your exception is, " when the numerical adjective h$ precedes 
 the first noun ; in which case the copulative xxi will have the same 
 effect that it has between two nouns where only the first is preceded 
 by the article, agreeably to the first rule ;" as, *Eiq S-ea? xxi ttxt^. 
 
 It is true that it will have the same effect ; that is, it will gener- 
 ally denote the same person, but not always ; as, 
 
 vuug ovv* a inivxo'xoi* 11$ hx >kxvipx*\ xxi vicv, xtci xyioi 7rv&vfcx, r^ircv 
 fiomritrxTi. — Constit* Apost. 
 
 Your sixth rule is, If both the nouns* connected by the copulative* have 
 the article* they relate to different persons. 
 
 There is no more truth in this rule than in the preceding one. 
 You- should have said, the nouns are distinct appellations, or attri- 
 butes, generally of different persons, but sometimes of the same per- 
 son. You have, in part, acknowledged this, by saying, *« except 
 distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and 
 the same person, that is, as far as may be discovered by the context." 
 But there frequently occur passages, in which neither the context, y 
 nor the grammatical construction, nor any thing present, without a 
 previous acquaintance with the usual application of the terms, can 
 enable us to determine whether one person, or two, be intended ; as, 
 * Ss apoXoyovftivos vto tow ^astjjj xrinaq Trgarotoxov* xxi tow viov rov 
 
 Xv6»tWT0V, CVVlfXTXt $IX Ttfc 10V VIOV 10V SiOV* XXI 10V VIOV 10V eCvOgtVTTCV 6U0~ 
 
 Xoyixs ia> tv ov^xms ?rxi*t*— Origen* 
 
14 
 
 No reader unacquainted with the language of the Greek Testa- 
 ment, or of ecclesiastical writers, could possibly discover whether 
 the above genitives were appellations of one person v or of two. It 
 would be difficult to show, why the like previous knowledge must be 
 abandoned during our attempts to interpret passages constructed 
 according to your first rule ; in order to determine whether they 
 must, or must not, be considered as exceptions to it. I add several 
 more exceptions to the last, or sixth rule. 
 
 irov ovv i?ii 6 sv rots Tr^otynroic Asy»y, xeti o rz^x^iu, niTroiijiceas. — Origen. 
 
 o5TSg jjv o tAoi/oytvvis rov Stov, K9ti o Trg/UTOTOKos iroto-vi<; xri<na$. — Origen. 
 
 hot, — o $io$ do^xtflTcit) Kct.i o fiovog xycc6og xett o (Aovo$ trmw ^*' vtov i% 
 mmog m cttuvoc iTriyivonrKnroti. — Clem. Alex. 723. 
 
 u ovv fcvgio; vipuVf koci ^utotexuXos, ovras irct,7tuvao-iv ixvrov.— Const. 
 Apost. 290. 
 
 xai g|o^Ki^&» ei kv^iov rov Bsov rov ovgc&vwt xui rov 3?ov tjj? yj)5. — Gen. 
 
 &ios A&^otctfA kcu Ssos Nxfcag xgtvit ecvat ftso-ov hfAM.—-Gen. 
 
 I should now proceed to the immediate consideration of the sev- 
 eral passages of Scripture in question, if I had not thought that the 
 following observations on the use of the prepositive article, and the 
 copulative, might contribute to the elucidation of the subject. Some 
 of them will contain nothing but what must be familiar to most 
 readers of Greek ; but others I have reason to regard in a different 
 light, having never met with them in any grammatical treatise : and 
 all of them may convey information to those who have not paid 
 particular attention to this portion of the Greek syntax. As I wish 
 to make myself clearly understood, I must bespeak your candour in 
 favour of any little prolixity that may appear in them. 
 
 The definitive article denotes that the appellation, whether single 
 or complex, to which it is prefixed, is peculiar to the thing signified, 
 or not common to it with any other thing. Of course it is used in 
 the whole extent of its signification, including all and every thing, 
 to which the single or complex term can be applied. The article 
 might, therefore, be defined to be, the symbol of universality or to- 
 tality. Accordingly, when it is prefixed to an appellative noun, 
 without any adjunct of limitation expressed or understood, it in- 
 cludes the whole genus, as, ctv^uwog, man ; in which case the arti- 
 cle is frequently omitted, as, 
 
 7?o>iiTiKOV yasg ccvQ^cono; xui crt/^jjv 7T£^a»0J.— AflSt. 
 QvjH noXmr.ov ocvfyaKos — Arist. ■ 
 
15 
 
 If the article with any term of distinction or limitation, is plac- 
 ed either before or after a noun appellative, the words include as 
 much of the genus, as they can be applied to, as, o xyx6o$ xv^a>7roq, the 
 good mart) i e. every good man. 
 
 And if the appellation, whether single or complex, be peculiar 
 to some individual, it will of course signify that individual only, as, 
 Anpoe-Oms o py?tȣ. TlXxim o <ptXo<ro$og . In this case, however, the 
 adjunct of distinction is frequently understood, as o x>jgy|, the messen- 
 ger, meaning, o kv>pv% o TrgoXiyoumq. — Thucyd. 
 
 As to the copulative xcti, in its proper sense of a copulative, it 
 always implies plurality ; and is used to connect words of the same 
 class, if not in grammatical, at least in logical consideration ; as, 
 several subjects, several attributes, several predicates or affirmations, 
 or words used as subjects, attributes or predicates : nor does it ever 
 connect dissimilar words, as an attribute to its subject ; whether these 
 consist of an adjective and substantive, or of two substantives ; as, 
 
 o xyx$o$ civ$p6>to$. o 3se? Aoyo$. 
 
 In like manner a proper name and appellative connected as sub- 
 ject and attribute, do not admit the copulative between them, as 
 Hhxruv o (pi\c<ro<f)oq. 
 
 There are, however, two seeming exceptions to this rule concern- 
 ing the copulative. The first arises from the frequent practice in 
 Greek of prefixing the copulative to all the words connected by it, 
 not excepting the first : and therefore, when an adjective agrees with 
 two following substantives, the copulative may be inserted between 
 the adjective and the first substantive, in the sense rendered by the 
 particle both, as, 
 
 Xiyoun — rov foXnevof xu xxi pc^iov xxt xvQgaTrov <r7T6vaxn>TS^xv rr,}> 
 in^ytixv. — Arist. 
 
 And when a substantive is followed by two adjectives agreeing 
 with it, the copulative may be inserted between the substantive and 
 the first adjective, as, 
 
 g» Toiq c-vvxAhxyptxo-t kxi rotq Ikovtiok; teat rot? xkovtiois- — Id. 
 
 The other seeming exception, according to which the copulative 
 may be inserted between an adjective and substantive, is, when it is 
 used as an amplification, expressed by vel, in Latin ; or in English 
 by though, or by even placed after both the nouns, as, 
 
 x ay^e S^s ru tcoQ^qvi kxi xvbqtticoi fi'h.ntuv. — Origen. Qua vel verecun* 
 do hom'ini adsptcere nefas. Which things to behold would be abominable 
 for a modest man even ; or for a modest person, though a man. 
 
 Except in the two cases above-mentioned, the attribute is placed, 
 without the copulative, in immediate connexion with its subject j the 
 
16 
 
 article, if it be used at all, being always prefixed to the attribute. 
 When the attribute is the former of the two nouns, there is only one 
 article, as, o xyxfog xv6^a7rog. When the attribute is in the latter place, 
 there may be one or two articles, as, xvfyuTrog o xyxfog, or, o xvfyuxog 
 c uyxhg. When the attribute is placed before the article and subject, 
 the words constitute a whole proposition, as, xyx&og c xvfyuTos, the 
 man Is good. The same may be said, when the attribute without an 
 article follows the article and subject, as o xv^wrog ay aits, the man h 
 good: nor is it agreeable to the general idiom of the Greek language 
 to use this last arrangement, to signify, the good math unless there be 
 another attribute or term of distinction inserted between the article 
 and subject, and something farther be expressly affirmed of the 
 whole, as, 
 
 o (roQwttoq Xoyog ipivdofiivog, avrogix. — Arist. 
 
 qpiT* Xoyev i|;s tf-gesx.T<x»j, lrgge» s$-; rajs flirt* Aayow 7roir t riKw l%ia$.—Id. 
 
 q $6 KotXovpivii yvcopn — «J rov smeiKovs Sf* xgwg op6q Id. 
 
 When several attributes are connected by the copulative, the 
 Greek writers seem to have been directed to the use of the article 
 solely by a regard to perspicuity ; according to which, the general 
 rule is, to repeat the article when different things, and especially 
 when different persons are intended ; and to avoid the repetition, 
 when the same thing, and especially when the same person is describ- 
 ed : but to this rule there are frequent exceptions, depending often 
 on the mere arrangement of the words. Thus, when two adjectives 
 precede the substantive, though relating to different things expressed 
 by that substantive, the article is not always repeated, as, 
 
 ov yag 7rctvTxv6v tcx rx oivyi^x nat trir^x purea.- — Arist. 
 
 If the adjectives follow the substantives, though they relate to 
 the same person or thing, the article may be repeated or not, as, 
 
 Siog o ftiyxg *e» i<Ty t vp<i$.-—'Jerem. 
 
 B-iog o piyxg xxt o w/jjeos* — 'Genes. 
 
 iv ly qpi^x ix.uvy I7ta.\u o Stog tjjv ftei%ccig<Z9 ?w xytxv, xai TJJV piytiAWy 
 %xi tjjv kt^v^xv iTri rov ^aneevras. — Isaiah. 
 
 But if one, or all the attributes follow the subject, and relate to 
 different things expressed by the same noun, the article is invariably 
 repeated ; as, 
 
 T0 ^S $i<T7rOTl>iOV StKXlOV KXl TO 7T0&TPIX.QV, OV 1 XVrO T0V70*;, «AA Q{M)10V.-— 
 
 Arist. 
 
 rx ri yesg vTipvaXXovrx yv/xvaa-txi kxi rx iXXii7rovrx Qfoigii tjjv tr%v». Id. 
 xxi ya(> rav wparm opav xxt rm lT%XT6)v f vovs e^t xxt ov Acyoj. — Id. 
 
17 
 
 The same rule is observed when any restrictive words are used 
 as attributes, and in the same order, as, 
 
 itc uvTOig xyx&x, xxt ret, xndgo)7rci$ ovvx'nxi Sw£itv.~~-[d, 
 
 When several words of the same class, as several subjects, attri- 
 butes, predicates, stand in the same relation with regard to each 
 other, as when they all relate to the same thing, or each to a differ- 
 ent thing, it is the prevailing, if not the invariable practice, to con- 
 nect them in the same manner with respect to the copulative ; so 
 that if the copulative be omitted at all, it is omitted altogether; and 
 if it be used, it is repeated. In this particular, the Greek construc- 
 tion differs materially from the English. Thus, we should write, 
 grace, mercy, and peace, reserving the copulative for the last place. 
 The Greek would be #Ǥ<?,' eAses, s^vjj, or %x^, xxt tXsog, xxt ugyvvi, as, 
 
 Tv%ixog o ayxTritfos «£gA@os, xxt TrtToq ^ixxcvoq, km o-vyoovhos 69 xv 
 g<0. — Coll, iv. 7. 
 
 •jrxQX row xvgtov xxt 9-gay xett G"#Ts}g«s jjfMfv I^tov X(>t<?6v — ,etx6eiv iyjtts,— 
 Clement, Epist. 
 
 ttoXvi<?&>£ km ir6}.vux6iis xctt lov%xtct$ xxt Xyrixvois utix&iav iyx.xt.rn 
 xxi xirxdivo-txv Kg^e-off. — Orlgen, 529. 
 
 (tow yxg rov e-oQov 01 <P(\o<ro<pct fixo-iXsx, vofiofarwy r%XTi)yov 9 otxxtw, 
 ee-ttv, 3-ga^iAaj, xqgvTTova-t. — Clem Alex, 35 1* 
 
 As several examples of the copulative omitted have been already 
 adduced under my occasional remarks on the asyndeton, it is unneces- 
 sary to multiply them here : I shall only add, that the several par- 
 ticulars are sometimes collected into pairs, the copulative being in- 
 serted between each pair, as in a former example from St. Paul. 
 
 07T0V CVK tVl EAAjJV XXI lo'JdUCOC, 7Tg£tT6fOJ XMt f&XQoZvflX, fiX(&Xg6ff 
 
 Sieves, (iovXo$, t'Aivfi^oc, 
 
 In the above remarks on the syntax of the article and the copu- 
 lative, I do not pretend to have produced any thing more than must 
 be familiar, and obvious, to every attentive reader of the Greek lan- 
 guage : but the following are such as I have reason to consider in 
 a different light. They are recommended to your particular atten- 
 tion, as they will afford additional evidence, that in the use of the 
 article and the copulative, the Greek writers were governed not so 
 much by any arbitrary rules, as by a regard to perspicuity and dis- 
 tinctness ; and that, accordingly, there are some cases, in which the 
 article can not be repeated after the copulative, whether the nouns 
 relate to the same thing or person, or to different things or persons ; 
 there are others, in which it must be repeated ; and there are others 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 again, in which the repetition depends on the pleasure of the writer, 
 or perhaps, on prevailing habit ; but in all, the fundamental princi- 
 ple seems to have been a regard to perspicuity : where this was suf- 
 ficiently secured, either by the terms or the context, there was evi- 
 dently a proportional latitude allowed in the construction* 
 
 There are at least three cases, in which the article cannot be 
 repeated after the copulative, whether the nouns express identity or 
 diversity of persons or things. That which shall be first mentioned, 
 is, when the nouns must be taken conjunctively ; that is, when what 
 is affirmed of them, must be understood as affirmed of them all in 
 conjunction, and cannot be applied to each of them separately, or, 
 when the nouns are not parts of so many distinct sentences, but of 
 one indivisible sentence, as, 
 
 o ts yctg kxvtx Qsvyav xxt <p<Joov[*tvos xxt (.tv^iv vvousmv, htXot ym- 
 rxt. — Arht. 
 
 Here, indeed, the same person is intended ; but it is not for that 
 reason that the article is not repeated ; but because the several nouns 
 connected by the copulative must be taken together to make up the 
 subject of the words ^Ao? ytnrxt, which could not be affirmed of 
 each of the preceding distinctly : so again, 
 
 it&ict(rt yetj> $;Aov, rev fiovMfttvov xxt tt^xttovix TxyxQx, «j (bxtnuevx, 
 
 iXUVCV hlXX. Id. 
 
 The words tow fiovXo/xivov xxt vgxtTovrx t'xyxdx, must be taken to- 
 gether, to complete the definition of o $1X05. Had either of the 
 terms been a sufficient description of a friend, the article would have 
 been repeated, to express, not different persons, but distinct and 
 complete appellations of the same person, as, 
 
 tpuvegov $ ix tovtov xxt &7riuxt]$ ri$ s$-<v. yxg ra>v romrwv 7F^txtpi- 
 
 TlXOq XXt 7rgXXTlX.6$, XXt fW XXg&dlitKXtOS 17TI TO %Sl£6V t xXh' eXXTTUTtKO?, 
 
 xxt e%av rev vopov /3flj30ov, i7riuxng 1st. — Id. 
 
 This example contains two descriptions of I 67tiukvi$. 
 iv ot$ yxfl (UYjozv xctvov irt ru xg%ovTi xxt X(>%c(Asva>, ovdi Qihta. — Id. 
 
 Though different persons are here signified, yet the article is 
 omitted before the second, because the word xotvog, cannot be applied 
 to each of them separately taken, but to them both in conjunction ; 
 for whatever is common, must be so to two persons, or things, at 
 least. Yet I would not venture to affirm, that this is always the 
 construction of the noun xomg, as the repetition of the article could 
 occasion no obscurity. The propriety of it, however, is evident ; 
 and receives some confirmation from a passage already adduced 
 from Clemens Alex. 
 
 ytviTXt ^jj ovv rx ttxvtx tov xvfyxvov, oTt rx kxvtx tov Ssoy* xxt xotvX 
 4ttt<p6iv rotv (piXotv ix kxvtx, tov Bsov xxt xv6g6>7rov. 
 
19 
 
 Tn these instances, the copulative without the article following, 
 has the same sense as the conjunctive preposition <rvv, or the Latin 
 cum, commune ett mlhi tecum. From this application of the copulative, 
 the construction of some of the texts, of which you would correct 
 the version, might be accounted for without going farther. Thus 
 the words £ (Zx<ri\ux rev %^cv kxi Stov may be so constructed, to ex- 
 press more emphatically the community of that kingdom — the com- 
 mon kingdom of Christ and God. Had the adjective Kotvti been insert- 
 ed in its proper place, the construction would have been perfectly 
 regular. If, however, you should consider this remark as a refine- 
 ment, you are at liberty to reject it ; for I shall make no farther 
 use of it ; and we will proceed with our examples. 
 
 Two infinitives are often comprehended under one common ar- 
 ticle, and for the same reason as the nouns above, as, 
 
 yiynrxi (i<r%vs) yxg s* rov ttoAAjjv rgotyw Xx(A*otnw xxt voXhovs novov$ 
 v7T6f>avitv. — Arh t. 
 
 The author evidently means that strength is generated, not from 
 each of the two actions distinctly, but from them both in conjunction. 
 The infinitives denote distinct actions, but the words ytyverxi to-%v$ ik 
 rov cannot be affirmed of each of them : so again, 
 
 «J pit xo-anx, -rat pw hhrxt kxi pn Xxp&xmv v7regoxhXu, ra h XxpGx- 
 
 Viiy iX\ll7Tll. — Id, 
 
 TO ZV$0t({A0VtiV Sftf 6V lOi ZflV, KDtt evtgyuv. — Id* 
 
 xyxOov to ftn iv^acrdxti q ro tv%X7$xi kxi {Ay X7ro<iovvxt,—-Ecclesia3t. 
 
 When the infinitives are affirmed of distributively, the article is 
 repeated, as, 
 
 %xXtKov <$t yivirxt y.Xi 70 o-vyxxtjfsty, kxi to crvvxXyuv oixuae ttoAAo*?. 
 — Jrist. 
 
 The author is plainly speaking of two distinct difficulties ; so 
 that the words %xtewov h ymrxi must be understood as separately 
 affirmed of each of the infinitives. 
 
 A second case, in which the article cannot be repeated, arises 
 out of the construction of oppositions. A noun set in opposition to 
 a preceding one has the article repeated, as, 
 
 OVOi OfAOlOV iS'iV iTTl T6 T»V Tg^VfiW, KXt TM XfpTQV. Id. 
 
 But when two or more nouns are collected together on one side 
 of such opposition, the article is not repeated on the same side, as, 
 
 ov^i yxg rov xvrot e%et t^ottov mi ts raw ncir/ipm kxi livvxpiwv, kxi i%i 
 TO>v \%%m. — Id. 
 
 The reason of this construction seems obvious enough. The 
 nouns iisiT^m and "bvixpwv are aot opposed to each other, but both 
 
20 
 
 of them to *m igora j a distinction that would entirely vanish, if they 
 were all constructed in the same manner : for then the three nouns 
 would stand in equal opposition to each other. The rule is so gen- 
 eral, that it is observed in the following example from the fifth book 
 of Thucydides, apparently without the same necessity. 
 
 s; 7ro.\t$ vj pt,ira.7zi^x^t i S^tra r» f*sv 07tA<tji xxi \^<A&> xxt rt^rr, r^ttg 
 0&0\OV<;, ltd %l tTTITU, ». t. A. 
 
 Though the several nouns are used in a general sense, the con- 
 struction is not reconcilable to your rule, and so far furnishes anoth- 
 er striking exception to it, 
 
 In such instances as this last, in which the whole context, espec- 
 ially with the particles pi? and h t renderb an adherence to the above 
 rule respecting oppositions less necessary, one might naturally ex- 
 pect to meet w T ith occasional exceptions to it ; and therefore, though 
 I have not met with any, I have only called the rule general. But 
 when there is nothing but the article to mark the points of opposi- 
 tion, I have no doubt that the rule holds invariably. 
 
 A third case, and the last that I can discover, in which the ar- 
 ticle cannot be repeated after the copulative, is, when between the 
 article and the first noun there is an attribute, or any term of limi- 
 tation, common to all the following nouns, as, 
 
 «J %o\x £' ecvTYi eteztt yzy$vntr9xi ix rm irsgt rw rgoQw hwxm xctt itoovav. 
 — Ar'tsU 
 
 It is evident, that had the article been prefixed to the latter noun 
 iiboiuv, the words would have signified pleasures generally, or univer- 
 sally, instead of the pleasures *■«§* r«v rgotpw. It is omitted, there- 
 fore, to preserve the reference to the foregoing, and common restric- 
 tion. As this rule is founded on a cogent reason, I have no hesita- 
 tion in pronouncing it invariable. Examples are of frequent occur- 
 rence ; such as these, 
 
 o-vft£xtvu %n 5r-£< r#> m^yuxi vovvxvrnv ano rait otxztm v^cvav ri xxt 
 >M%m. — Id. 
 
 TTSgi xx xvrm ayxQx xat rvptpigivrx.—Id. 
 
 Trsgi rx uvQ^wxa xyx&x xxt xxxx—Id. 
 
 roig ir(p£ri(>oi$ renvois xxt <piXtt<;.—Id. 
 
 teycpiv—rov fiiXrtovog ecu xat popov xai xv6ga7rov cxovoettorigav rr,v 
 svigyitciv . — Id. 
 
 otov rx Kigi rovg B-iovs xmQqpxra xxt xarxo-xivat xxt ^v<rtxt»—Id, 
 
 It may be remarked from the two last examples, that the rule 
 still obtains, though the nouns be of different genders, 
 
 ?? xxrx %^ov u^xititfltxti nt&wy ^tdetrxxhtx n xxt 7ro?uriix*—~Clfm» Ahx* 
 
£1 
 
 riKfit^vt tartoSxt t»j$ rcvrav B-^eta-vrnrc? xxi ro>.f/y/^. — Lysias* 
 
 fatyftaret t>j$ ixstvov yvapvis xat xxxodztpovixs. — Demosth, 
 
 q MetKidcvtKi) scgfcvi xctt ovvx^cig.—Ia, 
 
 It is very rare to meet with nouns personal of the singular num- 
 ber, thus constructed ; the following, however, is one : 
 
 o [tiv «vv Uigcrav 9} Taptxtav fiatriteas a-XT^xnys xxt V7rti>6%«; n Tgxrtiyog. 
 — Gels. ap> Orig, 
 
 The following contains only one personal noun : 
 
 Six tovto tyt* ra» xyieo UvSxtw Stu xxt voua> a-goj-g^yyav. — Clementi- 
 na, 6$$, 
 
 The next (to which a particular reference will be made hereaf- 
 ter) contains personal nouns only, and completely overthrows the 
 universality of your rule ; 
 
 ecttovnots jv£#gics<v, rq> fAttet tfxt^i xxt vim, via xxt vrxTgt, vxihxyaya 
 ixi SiSao-xaha y<a>, crvv xxt ra kyia nvivftXTt. — Clem. Alexand. 266. 
 
 It follows, that when the noun subjoined to the copulative is not 
 subject to the preceding attribute or restriction understood, the arti- 
 cle must be repeated, as, 
 
 acrxep yasg ev rxiq noteo-it nt<r%vn rx voptpx xxt tx r„H) «vra xxi iv oixti* 
 xt$ 01 wxr^ixoi toy 01 xxt tx d^jj. — Arist. 
 
 Had the adjective jr*<rg<*«$ been understood with the second sub- 
 stantive, the article must have been omitted before it, according to 
 the former examples. 
 
 In all the above examples the application of the rule has been 
 considered with relation to different things or persons : when the 
 same thing or person is meant, the rule is still the same, provided 
 the preceding attribute or restriction be common to all the nouns 
 following : when it is not common, and the same person is meant, 
 the connexion is made by the article without the copulative; in which 
 case the same person will be described by a second and distinct ap- 
 pellation, of which the former makes no part, as, 
 
 ftXKX(>tO$ XXt /LtOVOS duVXfK 9 6 $Ct7lteVS TA'V fix7iXtV0VT&)9 XXt ZVgltg T6iV 
 
 Kv^tsvorm* 
 
 The same construction is often used without the same necessi- 
 ty, as, 
 
 xreoovtrtv us— to* xym ^(.ucv^yov T6V tfxvtox£XT6i>x pom &iov. — Clem, 
 Alex, 441. 
 
 X7rtra» i7ri%et£ovvTxs x%taxt<ra SiSxrxxXa tu fAova ewnjg* Sea. — Id. 369. 
 
 As to the cases in which the repetition of the article after the 
 copulative is especially necessary, they all arise out of a regard to 
 
2£ 
 
 perspicuity, distinctness, emphasis, or the like ; as may appear from 
 a few examples. 
 
 $gxu n xxt xXx^m uvxt o Sgxrvg xxi 7T£oo"7rotY,rtx6g tjj? xv^g&ixg — Ar'tst. 
 
 In this passage the words x\x£av and ^oc-5ro*jjT«as are two predi- 
 cates. Had the latter been a second subject, the article must have 
 been repeated. Accordingly, it will be found a very general rule, 
 that when a second subject follows the predicate, the article must be 
 repeated after the copulative, to distinguish it from a second predi- 
 cate, with which it might otherwise be "confounded; or even to pre- 
 vent its appearing to be constructed as one, as, 
 
 Soxtt oi o rs 7?U(>xvo[Aog xotxog uvxt xxi o irXeov6XTvig> xxt e civkto;. — Id. 
 
 wsgi rxvrx pciv ovv U(ri9 o re otthog, xxt o S^xo-vs, xxi o xidguog.'—Id. 
 
 vregt rug rotxvrag $q ij^ovxg q cruQ^oo-vvn xxt q xkoXxtix set*. — Id, 
 
 rotovrov oi fixXtrx v) i7Ti6vf(,(x xxt <nxtg.——Id. 
 
 Trxvrsg xyx7ra>cri pxXXov rx xvrav t(>yx 9 corm^ It yovetf xxi oi Trotqrot. 
 —Id. 
 
 And yet with the same arrangement there are some, though 
 very few, instances of the article not repeated, where the omission 
 can lead to no mistake, as, 
 
 uvxt o*e roiovrovg qyovptdx rovg oixovofttxovg xxi TroXtrixovg. — Id. 
 
 <xtqt v^ovxg xxt Xwxg etcrtv oi r syxftetrug xxi xx^re^ixcty xxt xxgxrsig 
 
 xxi {&XXXK61.——Id. 
 
 In comparisons, distinctions, distributions, the article is especial- 
 ly repeated, as, 
 
 tl <)i ^txtylQll Of Ot^lT'A XXI «J &W«M06*VP>}, ^nhcv.—-'Id. 
 
 oingqTXi to vrx6og, xxt «J TC^x\ig tig xvtrx. — Id. 
 
 to i.'.oveicv xxi to xkovfiov <$ix$t£ii -ttoXv. — Id. 
 
 o (tivrot xuZivv-tg xxi o Xoo7To!}vTm xxi o Ajjs-jjs teat xv&tevQegav urtv.—Id. 
 
 And when each of the nouns has the copulative with a particu- 
 lar emphasis, as, 
 
 ex yxg Toy xtQugtfyty xxi oi xyxQot xxt at xxxot ytyvovrxt xt6x£t$-xi. — Id. 
 
 wsg* wtcvxg xxt ?iV7rxg ttxfx q Tr^xyfAxrux, xxt ry #g£Tjj xxt Tjj ttoMti- 
 >;{j. — Id. 
 
 xxi tea xStxea xxt reo xxoXxea tfcnv rotovrctg ,«}} yivscSxt. — Id. 
 
 tvixrog ts yxg xxt V7ro tjjj qXtxixg, xxt vto ivig et?ro£txg. — Id. 
 
 But where no obscurity could follow from a different construc- 
 tion, a greater liberty was allowed ; as you have seen in the several 
 exceptions to your first rule : two examples shall be transcribed, that 
 you may compare them without farther trouble : 
 
 UTX ?>if>t vrotx t©» xxgxTviy xxt rov iyx^xm &TS3V. — Id. 
 
 tov yx% lyx^xrovg xxt xx^xrovg to* Koyov t7raivov l uiv t —'Id. 
 
25 
 
 And now, Sir, if you have impartially considered the above re- 
 marks, and recollect the several exceptions produced to your first rule, 
 you may probably suspect, that the texts of scripture which are the 
 immediate objects of this inquiry, may be farther exceptions to the 
 same rule of interpretation : and if you will permit the sacred writ- 
 ers to be explained by themselves, in preference to Chrysostom or 
 Theophylact, that suspicion will approach very near to conviction. 
 
 Upon the supposition that your rule may be acknowledged not to 
 hold universally, and that the authority of a few of the Greek fathers 
 is not finally decisive, I take it for granted, that any of the ordina- 
 ry sources of illustration may be applied to, in the prosecution of 
 this inquiry : such as comparing the author with himself, with the 
 prevailing modes of construction, in the New Testament, the Sep- 
 tuagint, the earliest Fathers, &c. and I shall have recourse to them 
 accordingly. 
 
 As the order in which the passages of scripture in question are 
 examined, is of no importance in itself, I shall follow that which 
 seems most suitable to the purpose of illustration ; and, therefore, 
 begin with Ephes. v. 5. 
 
 ovk iyjn KXngavof&iocv sv t'/i fictrttetot rev %i>wj xxt Bscv» 
 
 You insist that one person only can be intended here, because 
 the article is not repeated after the copulative. On the contrary, 
 the insertion of the copulative is, I should think, a clear proof, that 
 two persons are meant, and for these reasons : 
 
 1. The noun xgf?o$, though an adjective according to etymolo- 
 gy, yet in use and application assumes the nature of a proper name. 
 In this respect it does not essentially differ from such proper names, 
 as Justus, Clemens, Secundus, Tertius. It is used as a proper name in 
 a multitude of passages ; such, for instance, as #g<fos ctKifaw vx-sg 
 tm etfixgrtav vipav, — 'iiff-Trsg yxg i9 rca A^xp Trxvr&g xvohn<Tx.ova-iv t ovr® xeti 
 gj> too xgtff vecvTis ^ct>o7rct7idwoyrxi. — Maxryig fJt.iv %i<^o% iv oXco ra> oixw xvrov, 
 ag SigocrM, x^ros 2s, &>$ vto$ zxi rov oixov uvtov. In these two passages 
 the word #g<s-o$ performs the office of a proper name as completely 
 as the words Adam and Moses. 
 
 2. Accordingly the noun #g<r«£, whatever you please to call it, 
 is constructed as a proper name in every passage of the New Testa- 
 ment, with which the one before us can be compared : so that 
 wherever an attribute is joined to it, the connexion is made without 
 the copulative. As Herod the king, is 'h^jjs fixirttevs 5 so Christ 
 the king of Israel, 
 
 * #£'*"•« « fixntovs rev IrggqA, KxixZecra vvv euro rov <?xv%ov> — Mark. 
 
The construction is the same with the attributes, Lord and Sa- 
 viour, and with others, as, 
 
 reo yxg xv^iep X^if* dovtevzre. — Coll. 3. 
 
 dix Ivitov X^itov rev trunks npetv. — Tit, iii. 6. 
 
 uq kxi fiiriTiis B'tov xxt xvdf>a7rw 9 «v0g&>T©s Xqji?o% Ijjo-oyf.— i Tim, ii. C. 
 
 u ovrog $nv X^t<?o<; sxXtxrog rov §itv. — Luke xxiii. 35. 
 
 WfltgflSfcAjJTfl* il^OfAlV 5Tg0j TOV 7rXTi£X, l^OVV %f>l<T09 SiKXtOV. 1 jfohtl \l, I. 
 
 Many^imilar passages might be referred to, if it were not super- 
 fluous. Had there been in the New Testament one such expression 
 as x%iro<; xxt xvgtog, for Christ the Lord, or as Ijj<rcyj y^tsog xxt xv£tog t 
 Jesus the Christ and Lord t it would have been parallel to that under 
 examination, in the sense you ascribe to it. But as the case actually 
 stands, the passage we are considering must either be an exception 
 to your rule, or a deviation from the constant form of construction 
 in every similar instance. The former supposition contains no im- 
 probability, as the noun %%irt; is a proper name, or cognomen 5 and 
 we have seen that one proper name is sufficient to exempt the pas- 
 sage in which it occurs from the operation of your rule : the latter 
 is in the highest degree improbable. It may be affirmed with confi- 
 dence, that had one person been intended, the usual construction 
 would have been observed, and the author would have written xttso* 
 Siov, or rov S-Mv %%i<?ov, or the like. Similar examples occur frequent- 
 ly in the earliest writers, as nnvrx h-mrx\it Xyrca ra> fixrttet 'wmk — i 
 xv^tof Y,[Am Xqirog «£g<o"0jj. — Clem, Alex, 
 
 trotp&ov; ytvia-dxt tig btov rov x^tfov 7ret£ovrixv,—Id. 
 
 xxrx $vvxf£t9 %(>t?6v rov Siov. — Ignat. ad Trail. 
 
 xxXag t7roir,(TXTi v7rt$t%xfisvoi cog ^iUKovovg %gt?ov 9-gay. — Ad, Smyrn, 
 
 yxg B"iog rpav lyia-ovg Xg<roj. — Ignat. ad. Mag, 
 
 zvgofiir to caryotov iiftav ln<rovv X£trov f rov xtyit^tx rm TrgdTQogtn ti^cm. 
 — Clem, Rom. Epist. I. 
 
 TO XlfAX UVTOV g©Wg» V7T2g V,pm X^lTOf xv^tog *fA6tV.—-Id, 
 
 ytvtsh xgieoi it 7rx<rt %^a ra &ta> vum.— 
 
 But here I find from your third edition, which contains all that 
 I know of the laborious work of your diligent correspondent,* that 
 I encounter the imposing and formidable authority of some of the 
 Greek fathers ; who must certainly have understood the idiom of 
 their own language. They might so ; and yet might have erred, 
 by not adverting to the idiom of the Greek Testament. The whole 
 
 [* The Ivev. C. Wordsworth, who wrote Six Letters addressed to Granville 
 Sharp, Ei<q. in which lie endeavoured to prove, that the early Greek fathers 
 understood the controverted texts in the sense which Mr. Sharp affixed tn 
 them.] 
 
25 
 
 weight of their authority may be removed without any mighty effort, 
 either of intellect or of criticism. They evidently understood the 
 two nouns as attributes of a similar class, and therefore, not less 
 properly connected by the copulative to express one person in any 
 situation, than the nouns Lord and Saviour, or the like ; but the 
 sacred writers evidently regarded the noun Christ in a different light, 
 as appears by their constantly joining an attribute to it (when they 
 join one at all) in the same manner as an adjective to its substan- 
 tive ; not as a co-ordinate epithet. There is, indeed, an instance of 
 the words Lord and Christ, connected by the copulative, where they 
 are distinct predicates of a proposition resolvable into two : but that 
 instance is foreign to the present argument. 
 
 I Tim. V. 21. — Aiccf*Xf>rv(>oxxt uairtev rev Siev xxt xv^iev Ir,7ov Xgtrev 
 xxt rem iKXiKTH* xyyiXvv, X, T. A. 
 
 It is very doubtful whether the noun xveiog be part of the true 
 reading or not ; but upon either supposition, your proposed version 
 is exposed to insuperable objections. If the word in question be 
 omitted, the rest remaining in the same order as above, the passage 
 is unaffected by your rule, the proper name being immediately sub- 
 joined to the copulative. If you adopt the order of the Alexandrian 
 manuscript, and place the noun Xg<ros next after the copulative, the 
 same objections occur as to the former example. In no similar in- 
 stance, of unequivocal signification, do the sacred writers insert the 
 copulative between an attribute and a name of Jesus, whether that 
 name be Christy or Jesus, or Christ Jesus, or Jesus Christ ; o &o$ «** 
 X^ttrroi U<rovf for one person, is as little congruous to the style of the 
 New Testament, as would be, « xvgiog xxt X^tarreq, or Ino-evs a xvpes xxt 
 X^itrroi : and to suppose that St. Paul would deviate from the usual 
 construction, where an adherence to it would have prevented all am- 
 biguity, is repugnant to any principles of rational criticism. How 
 easy, and how natural, would it have been for him to write iwxm rev 
 $tev isfAaf Iwv X^itrrev, or I>j«-av Xftrrev lev B-iov, &C. as well as rev xv 
 £<«!/ hfMtr Iqs-ev X^ia-rev — It.tcv Xgurrov rev xv^ev vftav, and the like ? 
 
 If on the other hand we suppose the noun xv^og to be part of the 
 original context, your version is liable to objections, first, from the 
 order of the words ; and, secondly, from a comparison with two pas- 
 sages of similar import from the pen of the same writer, neither of 
 which can be interpreted in agreement with your rule. 
 
 As to the order of the words, it is evident that by inverting the 
 two nouns, all ambiguity would be removed, as %wvm rev xvysv x*< 
 4 
 
26 
 
 St»v TPurov Xpirrov • and It is highly probable, independently of the 
 advantage attainable by it of greater perspicuity, that such an ar- 
 rangement would have been observed, had the author intended to 
 describe no more than one person; because such arrangement would 
 have been consonant to that which constantly prevails throughout 
 the New Testament in every parallel instance. Thus when the two 
 attributes Lord and Saviour, are together ascribed to Christ, the 
 noun types is never so placed as to be connected with the other by 
 following the copulative, as in; t»j» xtmtot fixo-iXuxv rov xvpov *if*»9 xxi 
 trttrn^oq Iqrov X^arrov. — 2 Pet. i. II. 
 
 In the same epistle there are other similar examples ; but it is 
 useless to transcribe them, as the arrangement, I am speaking of, is 
 so familiar to every ear, that the contrary one would hardly be tol- 
 erated even in English — our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. But as 
 St Peter is no rule for St. Paul, I add one from the latter writer, 
 which may aflford some presumption at least what sort of arrange- 
 ment would have suggested itself to him, had he been describing the 
 same person in the passage under examination : uqvm *iro Seov -rxr^os, 
 xeci Kv^iiv lvi<rov X^urrov rov crurrj^os vipetv. This arrangement would 
 have removed all ambiguity ; name* xvgiov Ucrov X^io-rov rov 3-sav, as 
 i xvgios tips** xxt Sea? Iwovs Xgtrros o vtog rov &tov rov tyvrog yr^arof tiroiii- 
 o~i. — Ignat. ad. Ephes. interpoL 
 
 If, however, you should regard these remarks on the order of 
 the words, as of little consequence, you must be differently affected 
 by comparing the two next examples. 
 
 2 77m. iv. I. AixfAxgrvgopxt ovv tyu ivurrtov rov Siov xxt Ijjgw X^t-r- 
 rov rov fMXXovros xgmiv tuvrxq xxt vtx^ovg, k. t. X, 
 
 This is the reading of Griesbach's Testament; the common 
 reading has rov xvpov, after the copulative ; you prefer xvyov, omit- 
 ting the article, but without sufficient authority ; the best reading, 
 according to the authority of the most ancient and valuable MSS. 
 is Xgirrov IfiTov, not Ijjo-oy Xg-trrov, the noun xt/g/o? being omitted. 
 With this reading we must understand two persons to be intended 
 for the reason already assigned, namely, that it is contrary to the 
 invariable construction of the New Testament to insert the copula- 
 tive between the nouns, Ucovg or X^<rros, or \%vovs Xyvros, and any of 
 the indisputable attributes of Christ. But the next parallel passage 
 will decide the question, if any remain. 
 
 I Tim. vi. 13. Ux^ctyyiXXm trot tmvtov rov 5«oy rov fyoirotovvros ret 
 irxvrx, xxt X^torov Inrov rov fcx^rv^orxvros nrt Hoirtov UiXxrov tjjf xxXm 
 cpoXoyixv. 
 
SL7 
 
 You acknowledge, as you necessarily must, that in this last pas- 
 sage, the names of distinct persons are connected by the copulative ; 
 and of course in the former one, For what is the difference between 
 them ? In both, according to the most authoritative reading of the 
 former, the name Xyries U<rtv$ is immediately subjoined to the cop- 
 ulative ; and in both, that name is immediately followed by the ar- 
 ticle and a participle ; rov fitXXovros — rov [*.«.%rv£n<retirts. If it be ad- 
 mitted that the noun xvyog should be rejected from the first of the 
 three passages, (and it is so cited by Clem. Alex, Strom, lib. I.) then 
 they are all equally descriptive of distinct persons by construction, 
 independently of the light reflected upon the two former from the 
 last : but if you will have the noun xv^o$ to make part of the origi- 
 nal context, (except in the last passage) you are, I am persuaded* 
 contending for two direct exceptions to your rule, provided St. Paul 
 be allowed to interpret himself. For what have we before us in the 
 three passages I They are neither more nor less than so many sim- 
 ilar obtestations, from the same author, addressed to the same per- 
 son, comprising terms of the same import ; — before God and Christ 
 Jesus, I should think it utterly repugnant to any rational principle 
 of criticism to imagine any such difference of signification in them, as 
 you would ascribe to them ; and upon no better evidence, than that 
 of a doubtful reading, interpreted by a rule that is liable to many 
 exceptions, and not even applicable to any of the passages hitherto 
 examined, but upon the improbable supposition that they are devia- 
 tions from the form of construction observed in all similar instan- 
 ces : though that form has the advantage of being in no respect 
 ambiguous. 
 
 It may be added here, that St. Paul uses this expression, sMtsrw 
 rov Siov, where God the father only can be meant, as « & y^a<p&> vpv, 
 t$ov itairiov rov Siov, or$ ov "fyivhoftxi. Gal. i. 20.— -gy«jr<o» rov o~arnpos 
 iiftM $««v.— 1 Tim, ii. 3. 
 
 2 Thess. i. 12. Karat rr t v %et£iv rev B-tov ifta* kui xvpiov I^tov Xyrrov, 
 I cannot think that St. Paul intended to denominate one person 
 only in this passage, because jirst, in the Septuagint, when these 
 words xv^iog and $«»$ are ascribed to one person, the connexion is 
 made without the copulative ; xvpog &•;, xv^os Stof, the Lord 
 God—xvys Sue Itpciv, the Lord our God, St. Paul had only to adopt 
 this arrangement, with which he must have been sufficiently ac- 
 quainted, and the whole would have been incapable of any other 
 sense than that which you attribute to it : as x«t* my %*^ xvyov 
 
28 
 
 v6v Stov iipm U<rcv Xporov, and, therefore, I apprehend that the 
 insertion of the copulative between the two nouns affords a strong 
 presumption that he meant to separate the latter, xw§<«?, from the pre- 
 ceding o &o$, and assign it to the proper name, as a distinct subject. 
 But, secondly* had he preferred the insertion of the copulative to 
 designate the same person, it is highly probable that he would have 
 chosen a different arrangement, so as to preserve to the noun xvpos 
 its usual construction, tow xvpov xoci Sgow Ijjo-ow Xpo-rov, which would 
 also have determined, beyond dispute, the application of &iov. 
 
 On a former occasion, I forbore to urge, as far as I might have 
 done, this argument founded on the arrangement of the words, be- 
 cause it was there less necessary : but on this, where it appears to 
 me nearly decisive of the author's meaning, if not entirely so, I 
 think it expedient to be more particular ; and, therefore, I observe, 
 that the noun xu^tog being in an eminent degree the discriminating 
 and leading title of Christ, it always takes, in the New Testament, 
 where there is no room for doubt, an emphatical and prominent posi- 
 tion ; not the subordinate one, to which you would reduce it. In 
 the only passage that unequivocally applies the two nouns Lord and 
 God, to Christ, namely, the address of St. Thomas, the former pre- 
 serves its proper position, though the two are expressed distinctly, 
 not conjunctively, my Lord* and my God* 
 
 Had all or any of the passages, we are considering, been under- 
 stood from the first, in the sense you impute to them, they must 
 have found their way, as forms, I mean, or models of construction, 
 into the earliest writings of the Christian Church ; because they 
 would have been the only models to be adopted. But in the earli- 
 est writings, whether genuine or spurious, those in particular collect- 
 ed by Cotelerius, under the common title of Patres Apostolict, though 
 containing several conjunctive applications of the titles Lord and God 
 to Christ, the collocation is never what it most probably would have 
 been, had the authors understood St. Paul as you do ; take these ex- 
 amples : 
 
 o epos xvgiog xett foot lr,<rcvs X%tfOf. — Mart. — Ignat, 163. 
 xvpos lifca>v kou B-ios I$trov§ Xg<«-o$ vm tow Siov rov ^mrog, — Ignat. 
 ad, Ephes, Interpol, 
 
 teteot, rov xvgtov xcti &ow xca trarngos mat Inrov Xpeov [tufau £#«?. 
 
 —Clement, Epitome, 
 
 t%oftiv lotrgov xxi rev xvjttoy iipw 3eov I)jff-oy» Toy Xg<s-o*.— Ignat, ad, 
 Ephes, Interpol, 
 
 ctTivettrt yet« rov rov xv^ovxeci &ow arum o§§<x.>.pm,—I > Qlyiarp\ Ep'ist, 
 186. 
 
29 
 
 In this last example the words are not apparently applied to 
 Christ ; but they serve to show the order that would be observed in 
 applying them to any one person. 
 
 Lastly, If to these arguments be added the consideration that 
 St. Paul frequently employs the noun B-tog absolutely in direct con- 
 tradistinction to our Lord Jesus Christ, as in the benediction, The 
 grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, &c. that he tells 
 us, we have one God, the Father ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ ; and 
 that your rule is liable to various and indisputable exceptions, you 
 may perhaps think that an impartial reader may have sufficient rea- 
 son to add the passage at the head of this discussion to those excep- 
 tions. In this light I shall continue to regard it, until I meet with 
 more convincing arguments to alter my opinion, than any you have 
 been able to advance ; and in the same light I consider the follow- 
 ing, without apprehension of error. 
 
 Jude 4. XXI TM {t6t»V $ie7T6T1tV B-iW, XXI XVgtOV tlfiUt In<7CV9 Xg<S-atr «g- 
 VOVfMVCl. 
 
 In every point of view in which I can contemplate this passage, 
 there occur to me insuperable objections to your translation of it ; 
 whether I reflect upon the construction, or upon the sense of the 
 words employed. With respect to the former, you understand the 
 three nouns 2«cr*-oT*i», 9im, xv$m, as so many attributes of Jesus 
 Christ. Had this been the intention of the writer, it is exceedingly 
 probable, because much more agreeable to the idiom of the lan- 
 guage, that he would have inserted the copulative between each of 
 them, as in these instances : 
 
 avxyxxtoy 2s iywecftYiv JLirxQ^edtrov tov a^iA<Pfly xxt cvvspyov xxt <rv- 
 ^xrtUTHf fcov, vfMV $6 xvoroXov, xett teiTovgyev mg %?iixg ftw, wiptyxt 
 Trgoj vpxg. — Phil. ii. 25. 
 
 Tv%tx»g i otyevxwros xoiXQog, xut wrog Stxxovog, y.xt e-vv^ovXcg tv xvgtu. 
 —Coll. iv. 7. 
 
 xxt tirtfupxptv TtfAo&iov, rev x2iX(p<n tiftav, xxt atXKavoy icv Qiov, xxt 
 ffvvigyci *i(tM. — I Thess. iii. 2. 
 
 On the other hand, if you should change your ground a little, 
 and understand the noun 'hirnvvw as the attribute of 0g«», and, there- 
 fore, as performing the office of an adjective to it, in the sense of 
 the only supreme God ; then it would have accorded better with the 
 Greek syntax, to have made the connexion with the following xvyv 
 by the article without the copulative, ret pow h<nrcTnv ©for, rot xvpov 
 hfceiv -, which was also a very obvious and easy expedient to exclude 
 
do 
 
 all ambiguity from the passage. I believe you will find it to be a 
 general, if not invariable, rule ; when the article, attribute, and sub- 
 stantive, are followed by another substantive, a farther appellation 
 of the same person or thing, the attribute not being intended as com- 
 mon to the two, that the connexion is made by the article alone ; of 
 this construction I have already given some examples, with the rea- 
 son of it, as, 
 
 a (&xxec(>iog xett povog ^r«fn;, o fix<rt\tv; rm fixrtXtvovroiv xect kv^ios ru¥ 
 xvgttvofTuv* — i Tim, vi. 15. 
 
 iZxTTiruXi rov pwoym ccvrtv viov ro9 kv^iov vtuar Uvov¥ Xg/sw— Clem- 
 ent :n. 762. 
 
 In the former of these examples I suppose St. Paul did not in- 
 tend the adjectives {txfcot£to$ and p.nt>% to be understood with &ot<ritevq j 
 yet as there was no incongruity in the application, he might have 
 substituted the copulative for the article ; but in the latter, the con- 
 nexion could not be made otherwise than it is, because the adjective 
 f&ovoytvv could not be applied to kv^cv. 
 
 The uncommonness of the construction in the passage from St. 
 Jude, supposing only one person to be meant, seems to have induc- 
 ed the Complutensian editors to put a correcting hand to it, contra 
 codices (see Griesbach's Test.) thus, rot ficvov hmom* xtct ©*e» w kv- 
 g*<» vipaiv Urtvy Xg<r«v, which indeed would render the whole clear and 
 plain ; and shews at the same time that, understanding the passage 
 as you do, they were dissatisfied with the construction. 
 
 However, taking the passage as it is given in our common edi- 
 tions, the former portion of it is in construction exactly parallel with 
 (nyTug ipuv Qiosi which occurs several times in the writings of St. Paul. 
 Now o-arn& in this form of expression is not a discriminating attri- 
 bute, as if there was a Saviour God, besides other Gods not Sav- 
 iours ; but the noun &&og is the particularizing name ; and performs 
 the same office that a proper name would in the same place ; and 
 the words may be rendered precisely, our Saviour, namely Godi or, 
 as they are rendered in the common version, God our Saviour, In 
 the same manner may the whole passage of Jude be rendered : 
 
 Denying God the supreme governor, and our Lord Jesus Christ,* 
 
 And that such is the true rendering, as to the sense, whether 0m$ 
 be part of the original or not, may be placed beyond all reasonable 
 doubt, if we farther consider the signification of the noun hviemif, 
 as well as its actual application in the New Testament, and in die 
 
 * Since these remarks were written, I have, by accident, seen an English 
 version of the date of 1585, in which the passage of St. Jude is thus ren- 
 dered, Denying God the only Lord, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
31 
 
 most ancient writings of the Christian Church. The noun htTrorm 
 is Herus, and is used by St. Paul as equivalent to uxohvirorns, pater 
 familias. 
 
 iv piyot\v\ $s 6iKicz ovx tet (aovov rrxtvn y,QV7x xxt xgyvgoi • . . . . II OVV 
 rig txxa&x^ iuvrov *%o rovruv, text crxivos its riftqv, vtytxo-fAivov xxt ev%£nrev 
 r» ©VwflTjj. — 2 Tim. ii. 20. ' 
 
 Now our Lord is not « hrx-onist pater familias j still less is he po* 
 teg hmvnK, in his father's house, but the son and heir of all things : 
 accordingly there is not a passage in the New Testament that une- 
 quivocally ascribes this title to Christ ; but several that do to God 
 the Father, as above, and, 
 
 vvv tcToXvus rov SoiXov o-ov, 2tTiroTX 9 xxrx ro jfyscas a-cv. — Luke ii. 29. 
 
 ofAoQutcocdov yj^xv tymw T^og rev Qtov, xett H7roV Swirorx, <rv 066$, feci' 
 wots, x, r, A. — Acts iv. 24. 
 
 Clemens Romanus, whose first epistle approaches the nearest of 
 all the ancient writings in style, and therefore, in point of authority, 
 to the canonical scriptures, uses the same noun as equivalent to 
 ©g«s, and in contradistinction to our Lord Jesus Christ, as, 
 
 ^rnracrt 0Y xvrov [Nut) $i<rirorqs rx etetXdovrx iv opovotx Zjuct us rip xi~ 
 Zarov 151. 
 
 rxvrx icxvrx a piyxs $viptov(>yos xett oimrorns rav xiexvrm iv eigyvy xxi 
 ofiovetx 7T/>oeirx%iv uvett, tvtf>yirav rx itxvrx, vTregvcirigivo-ws di fax; rovs 
 n%e<nci($ivyorxs rots oixn^ois xvrov, 2ix rov xv^tov nftav Iqvev Xgi?ov. — 
 159. 
 
 xxrxvoqvuptv, xyuwnrot, vets forirorns ivthixvvrxi $tvinx*>s ifctv raj* 
 fiiXXcvcxv xvxrartv %<ri<r&xt, w tjjj» xtx^viv inetwxre rev xv^tov Inorovv Xg<- 
 wv»-r- 160, 
 
 eW rovrov {%%t?6v) r^iXnortv ^sa-vorns nts xQxvxrn yvatcriui viftetg yiv 
 rxo-Oett. — 167. 
 
 In the same epistle there are more passages of the same kind, one 
 of which J will select, as it is completely parallel with the former 
 part of St. Jude's. 
 
 «|<#«y (E*-0>jg) rov irxvrovotitrYiv dicrirornv Qtov rm xtmeav, — 178. 
 
 Justin Martyr uses the same word as distinct from vtog, 
 
 «J o-garq ivvxptg, fesrx rov vxn^x itxvrav xxt hf7rcrnv Qtov, xxt viog, 
 Xoyts tnv.— See Clarke on the Trin, 119. 
 
 tv oveptxrt tau overgo? rm oXotv xxi $i<rnrorov ©gov, xxt roy crambos vftoiv 
 X^ts-ov Ijjtov, xxt irvtvfexros uytov. — See Bingham's Antiq. vol. iv. 191. 
 
 Not having the works of Justin Martyr, I am obliged to refer to 
 Clarke and Bingham, 
 
 Two or three of the above cited passages from Clem, Rom, are 
 also quoted by Clem, Alex, Strom, lib. 4. whose authority may there- 
 
32 
 
 fore be added to that of his predecessors; and indeed the consentient 
 language of antiquity, which has appropriated the titles of suprema- 
 cy^ as o (Lcoveg <*>io$, o nri -xetvrat Qiog, 080$ o ftttrrdjegarag, o 7roivrt7ro7rTi}g 
 Oeos, to the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 You are aware, as unavoidably you must be, that your interpre- 
 tation of St. Jude, as well as of St. Paul in another text, may prove 
 rather too much for the credit of your rule, as it applies to our Lord 
 the titles of the only potentate God, and the great God ; which are evi- 
 dently titles of supremacy, equivalent to o pxitxyts xxt pens 3t/v*«-ijf, 
 and therefore incommunicable ; for a communicable supremacy, in 
 the proper sense of the words, is a contradiction in terms. You 
 meet the objection by saying, " that the true Unitarian Christian, be- 
 ing convinced that the supreme attributes of the divine nature are ap- 
 plied to each of the three divine persons in both the Testaments, 
 will, of course, be aware also that each of these divine persons must 
 necessarily be the great God, and the only potentate, as there is but one 
 God, one only supreme power or Godhead." 
 
 This, Sir, is not the language of venerable antiquity, which has 
 uniformly preserved the distinction between » sw* iretnm 0s«$, and 
 c pov6yevr,s ©so? ; without fearing the imputation of maintaining the 
 existence of a superior and inferior God. The unity of the god- 
 head, Stow, was secured by asserting one only fountain and root of 
 Deity. Such words are figurative indeed, but they are intelligible. 
 From the supreme attributes, of which you speak, you must except, 
 I should suppose, that of underived self-existence, which is the ba- 
 sis of essential supremacy, and which gives and appropriates the 
 same quality of essential supremacy to all the attributes of the Fath- 
 er, without derogating from the divinity of the Son. The former, 
 even in the Nicene Creed, is distinguished by the title of 0«s i ***- 
 roxptcra^ - 3 the latter is there denominated, not o &eog, but &oc «« &ov> 
 in language as orthodox, guarded, and circumspect, as could possi- 
 bly be put together. You must acknowledge that the Father is the 
 God of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that our Lord is not the God of 
 his father ; that is, you must acknowledge a supiemacy not commu- 
 nicable, and which is the foundation of all those high titles of pre- 
 eminence that are appropriated to the Father : so that your observa- 
 tions do not remove the objection you have stated. It exists in all 
 its force, and, added to the arguments that have been brought for- 
 ward, proves, at least to my present conviction, that St. Jude speaks 
 of two distinct persons, and furnishes a direct, and fatal exception to 
 your rule. If any thing farther were wanting to show the fallacy of 
 
that rule, as an universal one, the following passage from Clem, Alex. 
 will be abundantly sufficient ; which I have reserved to this place, 
 for particular consideration, on account of its near resemblance to 
 that under examination : 
 
 cuvavvTXi tv%x(>truv, ra ftona ttxt^i xui via, via kxi irxr^t, •xxihxyvyta 
 kxi otoxFxxXa vi&y trvv xxi rep xyia TVivftuti. 
 
 This passage occurs in an address of praise to the Trinity, at the 
 end of his Pedagogue, in which he represents the Trinity as being all 
 one, h, one thing or being, not one person. That the article was not 
 omitted after the copulative to express that unity, is plain from his 
 speaking of the Holy Spirit, in as strong a form of distinction as the 
 language would admit : but the article was omitted, as T understand 
 him, for the same reason as in some former instances ; because the 
 adjective fiova is common to the two following nouns, Praising the on- 
 ly Father, and (only) Son, &c. but for whatever purpose the article 
 was not repeated, the passage is another direct exception to your 
 rule : and this being admitted, the remaining texts will not give us 
 much trouble. 
 
 2 Pet. i. I. ei $ikxi67w/i rav Qeov y.pm kxi o-arn^o? lr,<rev Xgtrov. 
 
 The arrangement of the words suggests no objection to your 
 rendering of them ; on the contrary they correspond exactly with 
 what follows very soon after in the same chapter, verse 1 1, ut t>;* 
 xtavtot fixnXuxv r»v xvpov hfAM xxt <r6>TYi£o$ lyrov Xgifov : and this par- 
 allelism would undoubtedly support you as a mere grammarian, or 
 philologist. But on the broad principles of general criticism, there 
 arise very strong objections to your interpretation. The attributes 
 Lord and Saviour, applied to the same person, are usually connected 
 by the copulative ; but the nouns <rwr^ and 3-io$ are as regularly 
 connected without it, as xxt eirtrxyw rov <ro!7Y)i>»$ iipav 0sdi>. Tit. i. 4. 
 — ivx t«» didxrxxXixy tov (rcsTr^oq quay ©soy. ii. IO. — aj (ptXxtflgaTrix sxe* 
 ?»vjj Tat; trarti^q ipuv Qiov. iii. 4. and therefore the interposition of the 
 copulative must appear to render St. Peter somewhat ambiguous. 
 It will be said, why then do you not understand him according to 
 the prevailing idiom of the language ? I answer, because he appears 
 to me to have explained himself in the very next verse, «v naytavu 
 Tov Qiov, xxt Iwov rov xv^iov tipm. It is not very probable that he 
 would thus, in immediate consecution, use the words God and the 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, and, God and our Lord Jesus Christ, first to 
 signify one person, and then two ; without any assignable reason for 
 so remarkable a difference. 
 5 
 
34 
 
 Moreover, the righteousness of God, occurs so frequently In the 
 writings of St. Paul, who is quoted in this epistle of St. Peter, that 
 we maybe well justified in paraphrasing the passage, so as to signify 
 that justification which we receive from God through the mediator. 
 
 The reading is somewhat doubtful ; some copies have the pro- 
 noun iftaf repeated, with other varieties ; but I pass over this cir- 
 cumstance, as of no great moment ; though as far as it goes, it is 
 unfavourable to your interpretation. What I would farther observe 
 is, that when you undertake to inform the English reader of the true 
 meaning of the words in a proper English idiom, by placing the 
 proper name first, you seem to forget, that such arrangement is 
 no more an English, than it is a Greek idiom. It would be equal- 
 ly proper and equally unequivocal in the latter, as in the former lan- 
 guage. Had St. Peter only thought of doing for himself in Greek, 
 what you have done for him in English ; not the least, even gram- 
 matical, ambiguity would have adhered to his words. He might 
 surely have written, X^is-ov rov G>iw xut cramps *>{tM f and I fear you 
 will find it difficult to assign any reason for his not so doing, that 
 shall be so respectful towards him, as acknowledging that he meant 
 to denominate two persons. But of this more hereafter. 
 
 Tit. ii. I 3. 7T{>t<?fo%6flM0l TJjF (AOtXXgtCtV tX7Tt$X XOti VXltyxmot* THIS $0- 
 
 |ij5 rev (ttyc&Xov Qsov, xeti cwnjgas qpuv lqcrov Xyrw, 
 
 In this passage the adjective pxKotgietv being common to the two 
 following nouns, the article is not repeated before the second, i*-<0«- 
 vuav — the blessed hope and (blessed) appearance. Of this invariable 
 rule cf construction, we have had already many examples. I will 
 add two or three more from the New Testament, to save your 
 time : — jJ ts ui'fitog avrov dvvxpis xxt BstoTiis — rav Qtw rtv kxXovvtos vpecc 
 tig jy,9 Ixvrov fixrtXuxv xxt ^o%xv — u%i tt o U<rcvs ?rgo$ revs 7ra(>tzyivo{Aivov{ 
 nr ecvrov x^rt^uq xett ^xrnyovg rov hgov xxi 7rgEsHot'T?gou$. Of the same 
 kind you will find several more. 
 
 Now, Sir, if you understand the adjective ptyctXov as common to 
 the two following nouns, as you must upon your own hypothesis, we 
 have then a sufficient reason to assign for the omission of the arti- 
 cle before the second, whether one, or two persons be intended. 
 The sense of the whole might then be, looking for the blessed hope and 
 (blessed) appearance of the glory of the great God, and our (great) Sav- 
 iour Jesus Christ. If it be said that our Lord is no where else cal- 
 led the great Saviour ; neither is he called i piyxs 0wj, nor any thing 
 
 kit\Z It* 
 
55 
 
 However it must be acknowledged, (for nothing, carrying the 
 least appearance of subterfuge, can be tolerated on such an occasion) 
 that it is very rare to meet with nouns personal in the singular num- 
 ber, constructed as above ; I mean with an article and adjective 
 common to two following nouns, relating to different persons. But 
 as instances of nouns not personal so constructed are very frequent ; 
 as we have had one, in which the former is a personal noun, ra k- 
 yiu UvSstMv Qta km ncpa, another just now from St. Luke, in which 
 both nouns are personal nouns, plural, rovg a-x£xy$v6 { uziov( en mjtov #g- 
 £«gs<* km rzetTnytvgt and a still more remarkable one from Clem. Alex. 
 in which both the personal nouns are singular, r* ptr* ttxt^i km lm 
 —with such instances before us, the application of the rule to the 
 text under consideration, will not be thought forced, in a grammat- 
 ical point of view. But in the present case, though it might suggest 
 a plausible reason for the omission of a second article, there is no 
 necessity for laying any stress upon it : the words rov puyxXw Quv 
 have in themselves a just claim to be considered as one of the pre- 
 eminent and incommunicable titles of God the Father. It is more 
 agreeable to the general tenor and language of scripture so to re- 
 gard them. 
 
 e yeto Kvgtos o Qicg « ( k#j>, ovreg 0g«j rui Ssvv, km Kv^tdg rav KV^tai, o 
 Geo$ pciyxg km urxp^s »*« $o&i£og. — Deuter. X. I J\ 
 
 There are many passages similar to this ; which also accords 
 with St. -Paul's King of kings , and Lord of lords, necessarily understood 
 of God the Father. 
 
 The observation that God is never said to appear, and that the 
 word tmQetmx, must be understood of some appearance of Christ on- 
 ly, is of no consequence. St. Paul, is not speaking, of the appear- 
 ance ef God, but, of the glory of God; and our Lord has told us, that 
 he will come in the glory of his father. The common version, 
 which renders t«? 5o|*i? as equivalent to an adjective, the glorious ap- 
 pearance, is the less suitable to the context, as the noun ixt<p*met, is al- 
 ready furnished with its proper adjective ftxK*f>iu : besides, St. Paul 
 says, that through Christ we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, 
 tt*v%6)f*i&t£ %-k iknuiu. rr,g %nfy% rov ©say : a coincidence of expression, 
 not a little illustrative of a passage from the same pen. 
 
 The observation of Whitby that Clem. Alex, quotes this text of St. 
 Paul, when he is asserting the divinity of Christ, if it mean that he 
 quotes it as an argument, or proof, is a mistake. Clemens is all 
 along speaking of a past appearance only, and therefore he begins 
 his quotation with a former verse. *? %*»*f rev ®w» «? o-vr^te^ v*w 
 
36 
 
 *v6(>*i7rot$ i7rt<pstviii &c. and then proceeds, toot* i«-< re ttapx r* Ktctm, j& 
 twtQanue, q fvv SKXctfA-y/xrec tv ipiv rev sv *%%$ oj»t«s text jrgoarroj Afiyaw. 
 vm$tt*n 2s «y«y%«f « Tr^om Z«t»}£, &c. so that his authority inclines the 
 other way : for he has not appealed to this text, though he had it 
 before him, when he was expressly asserting the divinity of Christ, 
 as 0t«;, and a ©gas Aey«$, but not as i piyxs ®ga;. It may be added 
 here, that as the gracious appearance of Christ upon earth, is repre- 
 sented by St. Paul as the appearing of the grace of God; so his 
 glorious appearance hereafter, may well be described as the appear- 
 ance of the glory of God. 
 
 The authority of some of the Greek fathers, appealed to in your 
 support, adds nothing to the solidity of your inferences ; it only 
 serves to prove, what will not be contested, that your first rule has 
 a real foundation in the idiom of the language ; but has no tenden- 
 cy to prove that this or that particular text, cannot be an exception 
 to your rule, or, if you please, a violation of that idiom. The pos- 
 sibility of this seems never to have occurred to them, as a question 
 to be examined on the broad basis of general criticism. They read and 
 understood the New Testament as any man naturally reads and un- 
 derstands bis native language ; and for this reason especially, might 
 unwarily fall into mistakes in their expositions. What is called the 
 natural and obvious sense of an author, is not always his true sense; 
 particularly when that author writes in a foreign language, and 
 clothes his own idioms in it. That such is the character of the 
 Greek text of the New Testament is maintained by the acutest crit- 
 ics of modern times ; though some of them may perhaps have been 
 too fond of finding out Hebraisms, Syriasms, &c Be this as it 
 may, it is because the Greek fathers, those of whom we are now 
 speaking, acquiesced without farther inquiry in what appeared to 
 them the natural sense, that they failed to ask themselves, why, for 
 instance, a copulative should be inserted between a X%t?o$ and ©so?, 
 by St. Paul, who never inserts one between X^ra? and kv^os, though 
 the construction ought evidently to have been the same in both cases, 
 had the same person been intended in both ; and is found in fact to 
 be the same in the earliest writings of the Greek churches ; Xewi '<. 
 Qwg, and the like, occurring in them as familiarly, though not so fre- 
 quently, as Xg<s-aj o x.v£ios, &c. Even Theodoret, it seems, has once 
 inadvertently written ©saw tow Xg<s-ev, so that according to him the 
 copulative is a redundancy, to say the least of it. 
 
 I regret that my little library will not enable me to trace the 
 time when the form a X^ros km 0so$, as well as those of the other 
 
37 
 
 texts under discussion, began first to be used as indisputably descrip- 
 tive of one person. Certainly not in the Apostolic age, nor for a 
 considerable time after. The discovery would throw some light 
 upon the history of sacred criticism, and some upon the present sub- 
 ject. As long as those forms were not in use, they were either not 
 understood in the sense you ascribe to them, or were not thought 
 sufficiently explicit and unequivocal. 
 
 What has been observed concerning those Greek fathers, whose 
 authority is cited in support of your opinion; that it does not appear 
 to have ever occurred to them as an object of critical investigation, 
 whether the several texts, we have been examining, were particular 
 deviations from the prevailing idiom, is equally applicable to your- 
 self. After having established, by a fair induction of particulars, 
 a general rule of interpretation, with the exception of plurals and 
 proper names only, you ought, I apprehend, to have inquired 
 whether that rule was liable, or not, to farther exceptions, and of 
 what nature ; so as to reduce them, if possible, to some common 
 character ; and then to have stated, and fairly examined, the ques- 
 tion, whether those passages, to the interpretation of which you 
 would apply your rule, belonged to the class of exceptions, or if not, 
 whether they might not be particular and anomalous exceptions. 
 The neglect of this, I regard, as a radical defect that pervades and 
 vitiates your whole tract : a defect, which I have endeavoured to 
 the best cf my abilities to supply. How far I have succeeded must 
 remain with others to determine. 
 
 As to the objection which has been deduced from the considera- 
 tion that a different construction would have been chosen to secure 
 to the several texts the sense you ascribe to them ; I consider it as 
 completely decisive, where the noun X^n-og is placed either immedi- 
 ately before, or immediately after, the copulative : in the other pas- 
 sages, where the nouns Bus and xvycs or wtyiq occur in direct con- 
 secution, that objection might claim but little respect, if applicable 
 to any one instance exclusively; but as applicable to them all, it 
 must appear to carry too much weight to be easily overruled. For 
 why should the copulative be thrust between nouns, which in other 
 instances are placed in immediate connexion to express one person ? 
 Or if the usual construction must, contrary to all probability, be 
 abandoned without altering the sense, why should the important 
 noun &«; be always on the unfavourable side of the copulative, and 
 ne?erbe joined immediately to the proper name, as it might have 
 been in perfect conformity with the idiom of the language, and as it 
 
38 
 
 was in the times immediately succeeding that of the Apostles ? The 
 construction to which I object in your sense of the passages, was an 
 innovation of later days ; but when introduced, I have already 
 said, I possess not the means of determining with precision. 
 
 When to these reflections is added the sense of the words employ- 
 ed, together with the various exceptions to your rule, I think I stand 
 upon solid ground, when I assert, that there exists no necessity for 
 altering the common version in these particular passages ; and that 
 you have not decisively applied a rule of construction to the correc- 
 tion of that version. 
 
 To all this, you have tvfro main objections to urge, which you con- 
 sider as decisive on your part. The former is, that the several passa- 
 ges are in construction parallel with o ©s«? xeci narn^ and ought to be 
 interpreted accordingly. Now, Sir, if your rule and principles of criti- 
 cism must be permitted to close up every other source of illustration, 
 there is an end of all farther enquiry ; but if not, we may observe, 
 that the same Almighty Being is called indifferently $10$, ?t<*tjj£, Seog 
 <7rxmi>t o ^io( kcci irctTVH>, and once, o Ssog w«T»jg, but where do we meet 
 with o Sios Xgii-os ? Not in the New Testament, though frequently 
 enough in other writings. And here I cannot help remarking the 
 strange, not to say, extravagant language of Beba on occasion of the 
 the text, rev piyxXov Qiov xxt retrn^eg yJKav liprcv Xgiwv ; on which he 
 goes so far as to say, " dico non magis probabiliter ista posse ad duas 
 distinctas personas referri, quam illam locutionem, o ©so? xect iF*rr,£ 
 Ijjeraw Xg;r«v." How can two such passages be brought together in a 
 comparison o£ probabilities ? The latter cannot possibly be understood 
 of more than one person, independently of a grammatical rule ; it is 
 surely too much to say the same of the former.* 
 
 Your second objection is, that if, in any of the texts that have been 
 examined, distinct persons had been intended, the distinction would 
 have been preserved by the repetition of the article. But it is not a lit- 
 tle remarkable, that there is no instance in the New Testament, of 
 such distinction being so preserved, between the particular nouns in 
 question; I mean when the nouns $tt>s and xvyog or «wt>j$ are connect- 
 
 * It is not undeserving of notice in this place, that there is no such ex- 
 pression in the New Testament, as o irxryp B-to$, or Seas o vrxrqg. Of 
 these expressions, the latter especially would imply an acknowledgment 
 of more Gods than one, contrary to the decisive tenor of the sacred vol- 
 ume* the addition o Trxrvg, in such arrangement, being-, according to the 
 idiom of the language, constructed as a discriminating attribute. The use 
 of this expression Bsos i Karri?, was another innovation of later days. 
 
39 
 
 fed by the copulative : the form of construction is then, 9tt xxi xv^<a 9 
 o Sees xut xvyos, but never o Bsas xxi o xv%ie$. The most probable rea- 
 son that I can imagine for this peculiarity is, that these particular 
 nouns, when unequivocally descriptive of one person, being connect- 
 ed throughout the Septuagint, and the New Testament, without the 
 copulative, as xv^tos o Sun in abundance of instances in the former — 
 o Sus i wmg in several-— «t* xvyov tm $«» flM/T6>»,— mi ra> &io> ra> <ra>Tijg« 
 (in. St, Luke. — ray varn^ti yp#r ^g«y- St. PauL — the reason, I say, may 
 be, that the sacred writers naturally felt the interposition of the copu- 
 lative, as a sufficient mark of personal diversity, without being aware 
 of the necessity of the farther mark of discrimination- which you would 
 require from them. There would be nothing improper, nothing 
 ungrammatical, nor a particle of ambiguity, in writing xvgios o @eej 
 lne-ovs Xg<r«? j and it is quite as probable that, with these particular 
 nouns, they would have omitted the copulative to express one person, 
 as that they would have repeated the article to express two. At all 
 events, as you have founded an argument upon what would have 
 been the construction, to accord with a presumed signification, you 
 can have no just objection to the employment of the same kind of 
 reasoning on the opposite side of the question. 
 
 What has been observed concerning the manner of connecting 
 the noun Xgisvf-with its attribute, as well as the nouns xv^w and &a; 
 or er*Tjjg, to denote the same person, viz. that they aie, throughout 
 the Greek Bible, joined without the copulative, will furnish a satis- 
 factory answer to a remark of yours, which constitutes a prominent 
 feature in your argument. There are, you say, no exceptions, in 
 the New Testament, to your rule ; that is, I suppose, unless these 
 particular texts be such ; which you think utterly improbable. You 
 would argue, then, that if these texts were exceptions, there would 
 be more. I do not perceive any great weight in this hypothetical 
 reasoning. But, however plausible it may appear, the reply is at 
 hand. There are no other words so likely to yield exceptions ; be- 
 cause there are no other words, between which the insertion of the 
 copulative, would effect so remarkable a deviation from the establish- 
 ed form of constructing them to express one person ; and of course, 
 would so pointedly suggest a difference of signification. Had the 
 form o &«$ xctt xv^ies y,uav, as well as 3-to; o y.v^teg tipar, and, in the 
 same sense, been in use in the Septuagint, or the New Testament, 
 or o X^im xut xvyoi in the latter, for one person, all this reasoning 
 would have been spared ; but as the contrary is the fact, it is noth- 
 ing surprising to find all these particular texts in question appearing 
 
40 
 
 as exceptions to your rule, and the sole exceptions ; I mean in the 
 New Testament ; for we have had an incontrovertible one from the 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Throughout the whole of this discussion, I have purposely endeav 
 oured, as far as your tract would permit me, to render the argument 
 and the inference inaccessible to the mere English reader ; because I 
 consider him totally incompetent to estimate the force of the one, 
 and of course the justness of the other : except indeed, what could 
 not be avoided, that I have distinctly stated my present conviction, 
 that the common version needs not those corrections you would be- 
 stow upon it. This intermediate inference is expressed without 
 reserve ; but how far it may be supposed to affect the evidence for 
 a fundamental article of the catholic faith, he is not invited by me to 
 consider. I would rather tell him, that he may rest satisfied with his 
 Testament, and may consult it with his habitual veneration ; that a 
 better translation upon the whole, and better adapted to his purpo- 
 ses, will not easily be obtained. The learned will not acquiesce in 
 the authority of any version, however excellent, but will have re- 
 course to the original for information : so that I agree with you in 
 deprecating all clamour, not Socinian only, about the necessity of a 
 new translation ; all calumnious charges of corruption ; and all arro- 
 gant attempts at imaginary correction ; and even all pretensions to 
 a more close and literal rendering of the original text. To give to 
 certain words a new arrangement, that would be equally positive 
 and unequivocal in either language, and to call the process a neces- 
 sary accommodation to the English idiom, is to delude the reader 
 into a belief that your rendering is in no respect more than equiva- 
 lent to the original. The authors of the common version seem to 
 have been more scrupulous. They had before them the older ver- 
 sions, to which you appeal ; and had probably better grounds for 
 not adopting them, than ignorance or prejudice. They were men 
 of learning and integrity ; they might have been acquainted with all 
 the limitations of your rule ; and must evidently have thought, that 
 the older versions had said more than they had right to say. The 
 very circumstance of their having such versions to guide them, is in 
 favour of their authority, if an appeal must be made to versions at all ; 
 as it affords a fair presumption, that they had religiously considered 
 the subject, before they ventured to give to the public a different 
 rendering. 
 
 I place the whole of this discussion principally upon the footing 
 of a defence of the common version ; and, I frankly acknowledge, 
 
41 
 
 for the purpose of screening myself, if possible, from uncandid iiw 
 sinuations. To submit to any thing of the kind in silence might be 
 injurious to my character ; and to be put upon the defending of my- 
 self would be painful to my feelings. Whatever public notice may 
 be taken of this work, I hope and trust, will be confined to the argu- 
 ments, and the philological observations, and the author left out of 
 the question. It ought not to be represented as an invidious em- 
 ployment for a clergyman of the Church of England, to vindicate* 
 an authorised version, which he is bound to use in the discharge of 
 his office, to appeal to in his public instructions, and which it is 
 generally thought unadvised in a preacher to censure and correct 
 from the pulpit. Had I been prompted to this investigation by no 
 other motive than a wish to satisfy my conscience, and acquit myself 
 of blame, for having persisted, as an individual, in keeping your 
 candle under the bushel, where it has glimmered for centuries, un- 
 observed, except through the spectacles of a few poring critics, I 
 should be perfectly justified ; but I might, without affectation, as- 
 cribe this work to other motives, more impressive in themselves, and 
 of more general interest. 
 
 Your interpretation exhibits the sacred penmen in unfavourable 
 colours, irreconcilable with the uprightness and simplicity that 
 characterize their writings. It represents them as varying from 
 their constant practice, and rejecting a positive and unequivocal 
 mode of expression, upon occasions, when such a mode must have 
 forced itself upon their minds, from the inevitable effect of habit. 
 You will grant, that in the first example, St. Paul would have ac- 
 corded better with himself had he joined the attribute ©6«s to X^ag 
 in the same manner as he does thosp of xvtios or <rm^ and that by 
 so doing he would have been as explicit, and have left as little oc- 
 casion for doubt, in the one case as in the other. For my own part, 
 I do not perceive the least ambiguity in either case. But upon your 
 hypothesis, he has varied from himself, and thereby has perplexed 
 and obscured his meaning ; and for what conceivable end ? Was 
 an explicit declaration one of those things that were lawful indeed, 
 but not expedient ? Was he afraid, by two bluntly disclosing a sub- 
 lime and astonishing mystery, of offending the prejudices of the 
 Jews, or alarming the wisdom of the Greeks ? He was all things to 
 all men, and fed his recent converts to Christianity with milk ; but 
 he would not descend to a disingenuous artifice, a kind of pious 
 fraud, to promote the honour of his divine Master. But you will 
 say, his words do clearly, and without any obscurity or ambiguity, 
 6 
 
42 
 
 express the sense you ascribe to them. Let this be proved from 
 principles of impartial and liberal criticism with respect to any of the 
 texts, and every syllable of this censure shall be cheerfully retracted. 
 I do not mean,- that St. Paul, when teaching the divinity of ou* 
 Lord, was obliged by the law of probity, to assert the doctrine in 
 every or any instance, in direct terms, rather than by necessary con- 
 sequence ; but I do say, that whenever he intended to assert it totU 
 dem verbis, he would not obscure his language by a redundancy, 
 which he never admits in any parallel instance. 
 
 Upon a comprehensive view of the subject, the conduct of your 
 whole tract seems exposed to the charge of indiscretion ; and still 
 more does the tone of exultation with which it has been received and 
 applauded by your abettors. Your work has been held up in terms 
 of defiance, as bringing to light the most decisive argument that 
 ever was directed against the apostacy of Socinus ; one which our 
 adversaries can neither gainsay nor resist. , Never, it is said, was his 
 school attacked with so formidable a weapon. Thus, the old 
 grounds, to which you must, at last, return, and where alone you 
 can safely take your stand, are incautiously depreciated and degrad- 
 ed. Should your remarks prove at last to be fallacious, the termi- 
 nation of this temporary triumph may be eagerly received by the ad- 
 versary as a final concession, and turned upon you, perhaps, in the 
 true spirit of party zeal. You may have reason, therefore, to be sat- 
 isfied that they are confuted, if indeed they have been, by one who 
 is no Socinian ; and who thinks there are much more cogent argu- 
 ments in reserve, when your rule of interpretation shall be abandon- 
 ed. Had you succeeded in proving to a demonstration that the noun 
 0e«? was unequivocally applied to Christ, in a dozen of places of 
 scripture, the Socinian would retreat under cover of an inferior sense. 
 It is well for our cause that we can pursue him with arguments, 
 which, in a simple and honest mind, admit neither of strivings about 
 words, nor dividing about a name. There is more real, because 
 more practical consequence, in the plain and indisputable fact, that 
 grace, mercy, and peace are invoked from the Lord Jesus Christ in 
 conjunction with God the Father, than in a hundred grammatical 
 or metaphysical subtleties. 
 
 There is as much zeal as circumspection, in the laborious re- 
 searches of your learned correspondent, when he endeavours to prove 
 not by express testimony, but by analogy, that all the texts, which 
 we have been discussing, were uniformly understood, as you under- 
 stand them, from the times of the Apostles. I think it fortunate 
 
43 
 
 that this can neither be demonstrated, nor even rendered probable. 
 If it could, it might give occasion to the adversary to insinuate, that 
 a misunderstanding of the scriptures, easily traced to its source in 
 the prevailing idiom of the language, was coeval with the earliest 
 direct and positive assertions of our Lord's divinity. It cannot there- 
 fore, be disagreeable to you, though it may be unnecessary, to be 
 told that this doctrine was received, and directly asserted, in the 
 Greek churches, long before these texts were called to its support, 
 either directly, by way of appeal, (which indeed is not the practice 
 of the earliest writers,) or indirectly, by way of allusion, adoption, or 
 imitation. Hence it may be presumed that the doctrine then rested 
 on other grounds. 
 
 I have nothing farther to add to these remarks than to recom- 
 mend them to your serious consideration ; and to request that noth- 
 ing contained in them may be considered as wilfully disrespectful 
 towards yourself, or the learned editor of your former editions. His 
 character has long stood high for extensive erudition directed to the 
 best of purposes ; and I understand, that you are deservedly esteem- 
 ed as a gentleman and a Christian. Of your talents and scholarship 
 the evidence is before the public. But when an election is to be 
 made between personal respect, or a deference to authority, and a 
 veneration for truth, the preponderance of obligation is manifest, 
 and the decision ought to be immediate. 
 
 I am, Sir, with thanks for alluring me to an examination, which 
 perhaps I should otherwise never have thought of, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 ft Winstanley. 
 
hvf J^ yV^rrt^ 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 The first of Mr Sharp's lules respecting the article has been 
 stated by Bishop Middleton in a somewhat different form, and de- 
 fended by him in his ■ Doctrine of the Greek Article.' His lan- 
 guage in the statement of the rule and its limitations has reference 
 to the peculiarities of his own theory respecting the article. In the 
 following account of what he says, where expressions occur in his 
 work, which are not to be understood without a knowledge of his 
 theory, equivalent and more common terms have been substituted 
 for them. 
 
 His rule is, " When two or more attributives, joined by a copula- 
 tive or copulatives, relate to the same person or thing, before the 
 first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it 
 is omitted." p. 44. Amer. Ed. 
 
 By attributives he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns 
 which are significant of character, relation and dignity. 
 
 There is no similar rule with iegard to " names of substances 
 considered as substances " Thus we may say Xtfat xxi %£v<ro$, with- 
 out repeating the article before %£vro;, though we speak of two dif- 
 ferent substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated 
 to be that " distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to 
 the same thing ;" or in other words, that the same thing cannot be 
 supposed to be two different substances. — In this case then it ap- 
 pears that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not 
 necessary to prevent ambiguity. This is the true principle which 
 accounts for all the limitations and exceptions to the rule which are 
 stated by Bishop Middleton and others. It is mentioned thus early, 
 that the principle may be kept in mind ; and its truth may be re- 
 marked in the other cases of limitation or of exception to be quoted. 
 
 No similar rule applies to proper names. " The reason," says 
 Middleton, " is evident at once ; for it is impossible that John and 
 Thomas, the names of two distinct persons, should be predicated of an 
 individual." p. 48. This remark is not to the purpose ; for the same 
 individual may have two names. The true reason for this limitation 
 is, that proper names, when those of the same individual, are not 
 connected by a copulative or copulatives, and therefore that when 
 they are thus connected no ambiguity arises from the omission of 
 the article. 
 
 '* Nouns," says Middleton, " which are the names of abstract 
 ideas, are also excluded ; for as Locke has well observed, ' Every 
 distinct abstract idea is a distinct essence, and the names which stand 
 for such distinct ideas are the names of things essentially different.'" 
 Ibid, It would therefore, he reasons, be contradictory to suppose 
 
46 
 
 that any quality were at once un-upcc and uvudtvnet. But the nairies 
 of abstract ideas, it may be observed, are used to denote personal 
 qualities, and the same personal qualities, as they are viewed under 
 different aspects, may be denoted by different names. The reason 
 assigned by Middieton is therefore without force. The true reason 
 for the limitation is, that usually no ambiguity arises from the omis- 
 sion of the article before words of the class mentioned. 
 
 The rule, it is further conceded, is not of universal application- 
 as it respects Plurals ; for, says Middieton, '* Though one individual 
 may act, and frequently does act, in several capacities, it is not like- 
 ly that a multitude of individuals should all of them act in the same 
 several capacities: and, by the extreme improbability that they 
 should be represented as so acting, we may be forbidden to under- 
 stand the second Plural Attributive of the persons designed in the 
 Article prefixed to the first, however the usage in the Singular might 
 seem to countenance the construction." p. 50. 
 
 Lastly, "we find," he says, " in very many instances, not only 
 in the plural, but even in the singular number, that where attribu- 
 tives are in their nature absolutely incompatible, i. e. where the applica- 
 tion of the rule would involve a contradiction in terms, there the first 
 attributive only has the article, the perspicuity of the passage not requir- 
 ing the rule to be accurately observed." p. 51. 
 
 Having thus laid down the rule with its limitations and excep- 
 tions, Bishop Middieton applies it to some of the passages in the 
 New Testament adduced by Mr. Sharp in proof of the divinity of 
 Christ. These were Acts xx, 28. (supposing the true reading to be 
 row Kvyov kxi Qtov) Ephes. v, 5. 2 Thess. i, 12. 1 Tim. v, 21. (if 
 kvoiov should be retained in the text) 2 Tim. iv, 1. (if we read rev 
 &iov koci xvyov) Titus ii, 3 2 Peter i, 1. Jude 4. (supposing 0se» to 
 belong to the text. ) In four of these eight texts, the reading adopted 
 to bring them within the rule is probably spurious, as may be seen by 
 referring to Griesbach ; and they are in consequence either given up, 
 or not strongly insisted upon, by Middieton. In one of the remaining, 
 2 Thess i, 12, the reading is kxtx tw %olqw rov ©saw qua* kui xvgtw I>j- 
 g-ov Xps-Tov. Of this Middieton is " disposed to think that it affords 
 no certain evidence in favor of Mr. Sharp," because he " believes that 
 xvgta? in the form of Kvpos Ijj<r«y? X^ta-ros became as a title so incorpo- 
 rated with the proper name as to be subject to the same law." p 305. 
 The three remaining texts are those on which he principally relies. 
 
 By the application of the rule to the passages last mentioned, it 
 is inferred that Christ is called God, and the great God ; and it is 
 affirmed that the rule requires us to understand these titles as applied 
 to him. The general answer to this reasoning is as follows. 
 
 It appears by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limita- 
 tions, that it, in fact, amounts to nothing more than this : that when 
 substantives, adjectives, or participles are connected together by a 
 copulative or copulatives, if the first have the article, it is to be omit- 
 ted before those which follow when they relate to the same person or 
 thing ; and is to be inserted when they relate to different persons or 
 thing, except when this fact is sufficiently determined by some oth- 
 er circumstance, 
 
47 
 
 The principle of exception just stated is evidently that which runs 
 through all the limitations and exceptions which Middleton has laid 
 down and exemplified, and is in itself perfectly reasonable. When, 
 from any other circumstance, it may be clearly understood that dif- 
 ferent persons or things are spoken of, then the insertion or omission 
 of the article is a matter of indifference. 
 
 But if this is true, no argument for the divinity of Christ can be 
 drawn from the texts adduced. With regard to this doctrine, the 
 main question is, whether it was taught by Christ and his apostles, 
 and received by the early Christians. Unitarians maintain that it 
 was not ; and consequently maintain that no thought of it was ever 
 entertained by the apostles and first believers. But if this supposi- 
 tion is correct, the insertion of the article in these texts was wholly 
 unnecessary. No ambiguity could result from its omission It was 
 perfectly evident from other sources that two distinct persons were 
 spoken of. The imagination had never entered the minds of men 
 that God and Christ were the same person. The apostles in writ- 
 ing and their converts in reading the passages in question, could have 
 no more conception of one person only being unders ood, in conse- 
 quence of the omission of the article, than of supposing but one sub- 
 stance to be meant by the terms o Xt&eg xut xz v<r °si on account of the 
 omission of the article before x^vros. These texts therefore cannot 
 be brought to disprove the Unitarian supposition, because this sup- 
 position must first be proved false, before these texts can be taken 
 from the exception and brought under the operation of the rule. 
 The truth of the supposition accounts for the omission of the article. 
 
 This, it is conceived, is the general answer to the argument 
 founded upon these texts. Other objections to this argument of 
 much force are stated in the preceding tract. 
 
 Bishop Middleton's work was reviewed quite at length in the 
 Monthly Review (vol. 62 for 18 10) with much ability and learning, 
 though pei haps with a little too much levity of manner ; and though 
 some points, it may be thought, are too hardly pressed. But the 
 article should be read by all who are disposed to receive upon his 
 authority the canons which he has laid down. It has been thought 
 worth while to give in this appendix those parts of the review, which 
 relate particularly to the subject treated of in the piesent pamphlet. 
 The original references to the pages of the English edition of his 
 work are altered to correspond with those of the American edition. 
 
 " When attributives (that is, as Dr. M understands the term, 
 when adjectives and participles of any sort, or such substantives as 
 are significant of character, relation, or dignity* joined together by 
 copulatives,) are meant as descriptions of the same person or thing, 
 
 * Such as *T/fl5, pyrcopi ijryepfiWj SovXos, ^eo-Trcr^ &c. * Such nouns,' 
 says Dr. M. '(so at least they are denominated,) differ little in their nature 
 from adjectives ; they are adjectives of invariable application, being constant- 
 ly used to mark some attribute of the substance *»0f«sro$ ; which is in all of 
 them understood.' 
 
48 
 
 the article is inserted before the first, but omitted before the others. 
 For example; Pa><rx«$ 'O vtog K.AI xA^ovo^o; t«v Tfi0»jxeT«$ nyxveucrtt* 
 Plut. Vit. Cic. ed. Bast. p. 68. 
 
 " Of the limitations to this canon, or rule, we may perhaps speak 
 hereafter : but we must now observe that, as Dr. M. has laid them 
 down, they are such as utterly exclude all application of the rule to 
 the proof of our Saviour's divinity. The Son cannot be proved, by 
 this rule, to be ' of one substance, essence, or nature, with the Father/ 
 unless the word &o$, in those texts to which the rule is applied, denote 
 substance, essence, or nature : — but, by his first and third limitations, the 
 Doctor says that, whenever a noun denotes any of these things, the 
 rule becomes inapplicable. He farther says (p. 46.) that 'all nouns 
 are excluded' from the rule, « except those which are significant of 
 character.' If so, &•$, whenever it is subject to the rule, can signify 
 nothing more than a divine character : but a divine character is no 
 more than what every Christian is repeatedly required, by various 
 precepts in the New Testament, to assume. 
 
 *« We think that the Doctor's remarks on proper names and ab- 
 stract nouns, with reference to this rule, are erroneous ; and that 
 what he says of them afterward, in his 4th and 5 th chapters, which 
 he has separately allotted to them, is trifling. Nay even that, in 
 some parts, — especially where he talks about the article in Homer 
 first keeping an awful distance from the proper name, and then ap- 
 proaching nearer and still more near, till at last they come into im- 
 mediate contact, and about half and whole converts in Aristophanes, 
 — it is open to ridicule. We see no reason for making any distinc- 
 tion between appellatives and other nouns, whether proper names or 
 abstract nouns, with regard to the use of the article. They are all 
 subject to one and the same law in this respect. 
 
 " When Dr. M. says (p. 48.), ' it is'impossible that John and 
 Thomas, the names of two distinct persons, should be predicated of 
 an individual,' this is very true, as long as these names* are consider- 
 ed as names of two distinct persons ; and it is equally impossible 
 that w*$ *xt ttXti£tv«ftos 9 or any of the Doctor's attributives, should 
 be predicated of an individual whenever they are considered as at- 
 tributives of two distinct persons : — but, if John and Thomas be 
 only two distinct proper names, they may then be predicated of an 
 individual as easily as y;e$ x«< xAugave^fis can, when they are no more 
 than two distinct attributives. How many men are called both John 
 and Thomas ? and is not a ship called The William and Mary ? Surely 
 we may asseit of a man's conduct that it is at once both xira^x and 
 wx-ultitvMcc, without falling into that contradiction which the Doctor 
 apprehends. (Ibid) 9 * M. R. vol. lxii. pp. 81, 82. 
 
 "We shall here recur to Dr. M.'s canon about attributives, to 
 which we have before promised farther attention. What the Doc- 
 tor has laid down in that canon is the converse of Mr. Sharp's rule : 
 but he stoutly contends, as far as words go, for the truth of the rule 
 
49 
 
 itself, in p. 52 ; and he says, that it ' prevails universally,* that ' we 
 are compelled to acquiesce in it,' (pp. 285, 297.) that if the sacred 
 writers did not mean to apply it, in Tit. ii. 13, c to mislead must 
 have been their object,' (p. 286.) and he asks, ' Where is the instance 
 in which it has been violated V (p 308.) We say he contends as 
 far as words go, because, while he is thus verbally strenuous for t£ie 
 rigorous application of the rule, he, in/act, by a most unaccountable 
 confusion of ideas, quite overthrows and destroys it. He thinks that 
 some of Mr. Sharp's texts * afford no certain evidence in his favour,' 
 p. 299 ; is ' surprized at his having adduced them,' p. 306 ; (see 
 also p. 304.) says that 'few of Mr. Wordsworth's twenty six examples 
 appear to be much to the purpose,' p. 298 ; that 'the word %g<?d?» 
 even during our Saviour's lifetime, had become a proper name,' 
 p. 150 ; (see also p. 284.) that kv^os 'so far partakes of the nature 
 of proper names that it sometimes dispenses with the article where 
 other words require it,' p 297 ; and that ' the same, or nearly the 
 same, is true of &«?,' which word, however, though it makes ' ap- 
 proaches, does not make such near approaches, to be a proper name,' 
 as the word xvyog does : but that both these words approach so near 
 as to receive occasional shocks from their approaches, if they are 
 not permanently affected by them ; and to derive from these shocks 
 ' a license, or privilege, of taking or rejecting the article indifferent- 
 ly, or indiscriminately, which license, or privilege, they sometimes 
 do and sometimes do not use, or exercise ;' (pp. 95. 159 160. 230. 
 284.) for even *vg<o?, which approaches the nearest of the two, 
 though ' commonly subject to Mr, Sharp's rule,' is not subject to it 
 in some of the texts which he has adduced, (such as 2 Thess. i. 12. 
 1 Tim. v. 21. and 2 Tim. iv. 1.) on account of its being a proper 
 name, or part of, a proper name, and yet may, even when standing 
 close to the proper name U<rov$ Xg*$-o?, be so ' disjoined and detach- 
 ed from it' as to make no approach towards a proper name, but, on 
 the contrary, be so perfectly appellative as to ' be identified with a 
 preceding attributive.' Whether it is ' commonly to be so separated 
 from the proper name, in order to be joined with some preceding 
 attributive,' the Doctor ' fears no proof .can be obtained,' p. 299 : 
 though he * believes that xv^os in the forrn xv%to$ U<r. X^. became, as 
 a title, so incorporated with the proper name, as to be subject to the 
 same law.' (p. 305.) 
 
 " Now as Mr. Sharp, by one of his limitations, has excluded 
 proper names from his rule, Dr. Middleton, by his remarks concern- 
 ing Xg<f»c, xv£u>s, and &«?, and their approaches towards proper 
 names, has rendered it very doubtful whether there be, if he has not 
 made it clear that there is not, any word left in the New Testament 
 to which Mr. Sharp can apply his rule, so as to make it support the 
 theological tenet of our Saviour's divinity, except the word ttai^. 
 Yet even that word, which, according to Dr. M. (p. 46.) must be 
 an 'adjective of invariable application,' before Mr. Sharp's rule can 
 have any thing to do with it, and which may therefore (as he says 
 in his note, p. 44.) 4 be interchanged with a participle,' would, we 
 think, have reason to complain of being unfairly treated, if it were 
 
50 
 
 to be deprived of the privilege of approaching a proper name, ot 
 even of being incorporated with it, and of having a license, in virtue 
 of such approach- or incorporation, to take or reject the aricle in- 
 differently, as well as its brethren ; more especially as the Doctor 
 says it may be considered as an adjective, and ought sometimes in 
 strictness to be so rendered, (pp. 225. 309 ) and as we find not only 
 traxrm (Matt, xxvii. 49 ) but even <r<ar^ itself, in many passages of 
 the New Testament, without the article. Though Dr. M. con- 
 ceives that he has accounted for the absence of the article, by some 
 reasoning (in p. 307.) of which we do not feel the cogency, we can- 
 not, either with or without his assistance, see why e-#£#v, or <™t«£, may 
 not take or reject the article as readily as *£%m, (see the Doctor's 
 note on Luke xi. 15. p. 177 compared with his note on Jude 25. p. 
 $56 ) or approach occasionally as near to a proper name as t«^«v, 
 or fixim&v, or as fix7rT*s-ns 9 or any other attributive The Doctor 
 himself in p. 52. seems to put bug and c-arn^ on the same footing; 
 and when it suits his purpose, and supports his rules, he makes wog 
 (see his second note on 1 John ii. 22. p. 341 ) and «v0£*wo«, (note 
 on 1 Tim. ii 5. p. 303 ) and even 0**05, (notes on Matth. xv. 24. p. 
 128. and on Acts ii. 36. p. 209.) and *o<tm*«$, (note on Galat. vi 14, 
 •p. 275.) nouns which are not even attributives, proper names and 
 parts of titles ; and he says (ncte on Jude up 356.) that /tworflo?, 
 we know not why, * does not require the article.' 
 
 " Be this, however, as it may, we think that Mr. Sharp, who 
 invented the rule, (we mean, so far as it respects its absolute inviola- 
 bility within those limits which he prescribed to it,) has an undoubt- 
 ed right to determine for himself whether any example has, or has 
 not, the conditions which he requires in order to make it subject to 
 his rule. If, however, some of the texts to which he applies his rule 
 have all his conditions, (which is implied by the application,) and 
 yet do not, as Dr. M. contends, support the rule, they must over- 
 throw it ; for they shew that it is not an inviolable rule, even within 
 those limits on which the inventor has fixed for the purpose of mak- 
 ing it such. : 
 
 "Another of Mr. Sharp's limitations, which excludes plural 
 nouns from his rule, the Doctor would abrogate ; because he thinks 
 that the rule is applicable to plurals as well as to singulars, with this 
 difference only, that * though one individual may, and frequently 
 does, act in several capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of indi- 
 viduals should alt of them act in the same several capacities.' With 
 the Doctor's leave, this' makes no difference in the case, because plu- 
 rality does not necessarily imply a multitude ; and if it did, the im- 
 probability of that multitude acting in the same several capacities 
 does not depend on the plurality of the persons, but on the singular- 
 ity of the capacities in which they are required to act. To illustrate 
 his position, Dr. M. has fixed on the capacities of a member of par- 
 liament and the colonel of a regiment ; and in these capacities, no 
 doubt, it is not very usual for a multitude to act : but suppose that 
 he had fixed on the capacities of a man and a mortal, *»0§«7ro$ and 
 Syjjroj, as in Prov. iii. 13. the first of which may be an attributive, 
 
51 
 
 and the latter, being an adjective, is the purest of attributives. (See 
 Dr M p- 47.) In these capacities, every individual of his multi- 
 tude, however large, must constantly act. Or suppose that he had 
 fixed on any of the capacities mentioned in the first four of those 
 examples by which he supports the rule, viz. vtog x*t kX^ovo/uo?, or 
 teyav k»i y$x<puv> &c. in* which it is as common to find a multitude 
 acting as to find an individual ; and theiefore it is we suppose, that 
 the Doctor has extended the rule to plurals, and that he says he has 
 * not observed that it is ever infringed mjuch instances.' 
 
 " The rest of Mr Sharp's limitations, viz. those by which he 
 excludes nouns not personal, aud proper names, from his rule, Dr. 
 M. defends ; dividing the former into two kinds, the names of sub- 
 stances considered as such, and the names of abstract ideas : but, in 
 our opinion, his defence only serves to show the nakedness of the 
 land. We always looked on these limitations as the worst and weak- 
 est part of the rule ; because they appear to us to be not limitations 
 found, but limitations made. — to have no existence in reality, either 
 in rerum or in verborum natura — but to be wholly factitious and imag- 
 inary. Not that we believe Mr. Sharp to have been at all aware of 
 his making them. He is too good and upright, by far, to think of 
 imposing on others : but a man who has a system which he wishes to 
 support, and who is urged to maintain it by the temptation'of a dis- 
 covery thrown in his way, is very apt to impose on himself; and a 
 little friendly opposition from those about him will often render his 
 wishes and his temptation more keen and seductive. Now Mr. 
 Sharp, it appears from the date of the letter with which his publica- 
 tion opens, began to form his notion of the article as far back as the 
 year 1778, though the first edition of that publication did not come 
 out till 1798 ; and it appears also that during the twenty years 
 which intervened, the subject had been canvassed and sifted in pri- 
 vate : in which time, probably, the disputants on one side or the oth- 
 er would find ail the examples any way bearing on the question, 
 which were contained in the compass of a book no larger than the 
 New Testament. Indeed, this seems to have been actually the case; 
 for in his * Dissertation' in reply to Mr. Winstanley's tract, Mr. 
 Sharp says (p. 4 ) that the examples which are agreeable to his rule 
 in the Greek Testament are * twenty-five at least in number.' Mr. 
 Sharp, therefore, would see that a very few limitations only were 
 wanted to enable him to answer every objection which could be 
 brought against him from the New Testament ; and the temptation 
 to dis-ovtr that those limitations were real, and well founded, would 
 be irresistible. To us, who are trained by profession not to believe 
 without evidence, it appears that these limitations are groundless ; 
 and that the New Testament alone contains examples abundantly 
 sufficient to show that Mr Sharp's rule does not always prevail. 
 The only use of going beyond the New Testament for examples is 
 to undeceive those who are willing to believe that, within the limits 
 which Mr. Sharp has prescribed, the rule is infallible. 
 
 " Here we behold the strongest and the most deadly of all the 
 blows which Dr. Middleton has given by facts, to a rule which he 
 
52 
 
 supports by words : for he produces several instances of the viola- 
 tion of the rule with respect both to singulars and plurals. To those 
 who adhere to the rule as Mr. Sharp laid it down, it is useless to 
 point out instances of its violation in the case of plurals, because 
 these persons do not extend it to such nouns, though Dr M. does. 
 We will therefore only bring forward one of his examples of this sort ; 
 aud that shall be the one which, in his opinion, pleads the strongest 
 against extending the rule to plurals, which we select in order that our 
 readers may see how the Doctor disposes of it, and why he would ex- 
 tend the rule to plurals in defiance of it. The example is this. <*< sy^og- 
 (pot TAS ottio£$ov: KAI ifr>m£ovs i&3ocav. Herodot. lib. i. p. 15 : * where 
 it may be said, that the e^xsjgo* must be supposed to be in general 
 distinct from the etfic^ot, and that the author, though he has not 
 prefixed the article to the second attributive, meant so to distinguish 
 them,' • Granting this to be the case, and that other less question- 
 able instances may be found,' the Doctor thinks that the rule may 
 may still be extended to plurals ; first because, ' in the course of a 
 somewhat extensive examination, he has met with very few such in- 
 stances ;\ and next because, 'our observation having taught us that 
 the upogpot are not usually cpo^d*, and vice versa, we are not liable 
 to understand these epithets of the same individual, any more than 
 if the second of them had the article prefixed.' This is not applying 
 Mr Sharp's but a very different rule to plurals. His rule is so far 
 from admitting a very few exceptions, that it does not allow of a sin- 
 gle exception ; and it is so far from admitting of being set aside as 
 often as any thing unusual would arise from adhering to it, that it 
 will never allow of being set aside on any account whatever. Like 
 the law of the Medes and Persians, (Dan vi. 8.) it altereth not. 
 
 '* Of the examples which Dr. Middieton has produced to shew 
 that Mr. Sharp's rule does not always hold true, even with respect 
 to singulars, we will lay the whole before our readers ; because these 
 are more serviceable and necessary for persons who would willingly 
 persuade themselves that some hidden and secret virtue resides in 
 the imitations ; and we will give the precedence to those examples 
 of which the Doctor seems to think it is the easiest to get rid, reserv- 
 ing the most refractory and untraceable example to the last. Ev oV«s 
 bnttytii re nFOTEPON kxi T2TEP0N, Aristot. Eth. ad Eudem. lib. 
 i c. 8. Hip rott AAYNATOY ii aoti ANArKAIOY. Arist. de Interp. 
 cap. 12 MiT*gi> roy IIOIOYNTOS re koli IIAEXONTOS. Plato 
 Theset. vol. ii. p. 1 34, T« T'ArTON x«< 'ETEPON. Ibid. p. 142. 
 Tow APTIOY kxi nEPITTOY, tou AIKAIOY xui AAIKOY. Id. Gorg. 
 vol* iv. p. 32. 
 
 " To save the rule from being destroyed by these examples, Dr. 
 M. deems it sufficient to say that here the attributives ' are in their 
 nature absolutely incompatible, and such as cannot be predicated of. 
 the same subject without the most evident and direct, contradiction :' 
 — but do not those against whom Mr. Sharp levelled his rule says 
 that 3-405, when taken literally, and understood to be significant of 
 nature and essence, is far more incompatiable with, and far more 
 contradictory to, the other attributives in Ephes. v. 5. Tit. ii. 13. 
 
53 
 
 2 Pet. i. i. &c. when understood of Jesus, than any of the attribu- 
 tives in the foregoing examples are to each other ? And were not 
 the limitations made for the express purpose of overpowering and 
 bearing down such carnal reasoning against the divinity of our Sav- 
 iour ? If the rule be not strong enough to do this, what is it 
 worth ? 
 
 " Now, if the foregoing examples were not sufficient to destroy 
 the rule, how can it be saved from the following ? Tav TrxXha.'aav 
 Tf f*,w et^07ni%stvTiq Sxtttovo-i, kxi TON em^ty, KAI ftetyitpf, KAI <Wo- 
 \»/btet, KAI £r/iX0V«». «yy?A«i<pog«i', KAI mxtvs KAI, &C Herodot. ed. 
 Steph lib. iv. p. 154. What does Dr. Middleton say in order to 
 get rid of this ? Why, he says (p. 5 1 Note. ) in the first place that, 
 not having Wesseling's edition at hand, he cannot ascertain whether 
 this be the reading of the MSS : but we have looked at Wesseling, 
 (p. 313. line 14.) and find no variation. — Secondly, he says 'it is 
 impossible that all these various offices should have been united in 
 the same person ; and this obvious impossibility may be the reason, 
 that the writer has expressed himself so negligently :' — but what the 
 Doctor here calls an impossibility amounts, at the most, to no more 
 than an improbability ; and not of the highest kind. All our read- 
 ers know that Scrub, in the Beaux Stratagem, had a different office 
 for every day in the week ; and many a Scrub, in this grasping 
 world of ours, is as great a monopolizer of offices. Surely, Dr. M. 
 can never consider it as equally improbable that the same person 
 should exercise five different offices as that the same person should 
 be God and man ! He can never think that, if the rule does not 
 compel the reader to understand the nouns in the passage of Herodo- 
 tus as being descriptive of one person, it can compel him to under- 
 stand Ephes. v 5. Tit. ii. 13. i Pet. i 1. and those other texts to 
 which it it applied by Mr. Sharp or himself, as being such descrip- 
 tions of one person as those for which they contend. — Thirdly, he 
 says, * he once thought that fcetyu^ov, *Wa*of«oi>, &c. might signify one 
 of every kind.' This notion he has abandoned : but suppose it to 
 be admitted, would it do any thing towards making the nouns more 
 descriptive of the same person, or towards supplying the articles 
 which are omitted ? — Fourthly, he says, he does « not recollect any 
 similar example :' — but this one example, alone, is quite sufficient 
 to deprive the rule of all pretensions to that compulsive power which 
 the limitations were designed to infuse into it, and to sink it down 
 to the old level at which it stood before Mr. Sharp began to meddle 
 with it. At this level, Glass, among other writers, has placed it, 
 who lays it down in his Philohgia Sacra as a rule which prevails 
 c quandoque ;' who, being as orthodox as any man could wish, ap- 
 plies it to Ephes. v 5. Tit. ii. 13 2 Pet. i. 1. and Jude 4, as many 
 had done before him, but says at the same time, * addendum tamen, 
 non esse xkSoXm banc observationem ; 3 and who, after having produced 
 from the New Testament some examples in which the rule is violat- 
 ed, adds ; * ex quo patet, dubia et infirma sape esse, qua ex articulorum 
 emphasi dcsumuntur argumenta pro articulis Jidei comprobandis.' (Vol. i. 
 P« l $$* 2 36' ex edit. Dathii. 8vo. Lips. 1726.) — Lastly, the Doctor 
 
54 
 
 says, s it has subsequently occurred to him, that the several nouns 
 fAscyu^oVf fWoKe^ov, &c. may want the article by* what he calls 'Enu- 
 meration* What power this has to extricate any passage from the 
 operation of Mr. Sharp's rule, we cannot see : but we can see that 
 it is just as easy for Unitarians to call the disputed texts (Ephes. v. 
 5. Tit. ii. 13. &c ) enumeration, as it is for the Doctor to call this 
 passage of Herodotus by that name. Whether there be any thing 
 more in the term than a mere name, our readers will have an oppor- 
 tunity of determining for themselves when we come to speak of the 
 Doctor's anomalies, of which enumeration makes one, and of which 
 we will lay his description before them. 
 
 '^Several examples subversive of Mr. Sharp's rule were produc- 
 ed by those who professedly opposed it, especially by Mr. Winstan- 
 ley. This we anticipated : but who would have expected that the 
 examples which we have quoted in this note should be found in an 
 author who after having brought them forward, asks * where is the 
 instance in which the rule has been violated 1* This is such an ex- 
 traordinary instance of learning deceiving itself, that we conceived it 
 to be our duty, equally to the public and the author, to go into it 
 more at length than we should have done in any common case, in 
 order that we might dispel the cloud and exhibit the truth. For 
 the same purpose, we will add an example or two of oar own, which 
 have fallen in our way. c O nxarav (pnnv tv%xnu.otx kxi p,x*x%txv uvxi 
 7eo\tv iv vi TO ipov KAI cvk gjtAoV *jKifc6 ^hyyofxtvuv XKOvovn. Plut. Prae- 
 cept. Conjug. vol i. p. 243. edit. Steph. 8vo. 1572 Eihtxt TO ft 
 ca-ov KAI fw. Plato Euthyphr. vol. i. p. 15 E. edit Steph. 1578, 
 ard immediately after wad, TA re cnx KaI <w>j. in the plural Diog^ 
 e. s Laertius, having divided some of Plato's dialogues into two 
 kinds SiwgqpxTiKos ts kxi 7r£XKrtx.of, again subdivides each of these, c 
 f.U9 S-iugqpxTixoq u$ TON (pvcriKov KAI >.cyiKoi m ^e 5rgas«T«c«« s«5 TON v t 6t- 
 Kov KAI 7rohiriKov. Lib. iii p. 192. vol i. edit 4to. Meibomii Amst. 
 1692. Tew £s tyimTtKov KUi xvt6v $vo iinv at 7rg0T«* #<*g«*TU£S5, 'O n yvft- 
 vxs-ucos KAI xyavtrucos. Id ibid. 
 
 " We are rather surprized that none of the disputants, for or 
 against Mr. Sharp's rule, should have adverted to a passage in 
 Campbell's Philosophy of Rhtoric, vol. ii pp. 52 — 57. in which he 
 says expressly, p 56, that ' when the definite article is prefixed to the 
 first adjective, it ought to be repeated before the second, if the ad- 
 jectives are expressive of qualities belonging to different subjects ; 
 but not if they refer to the same subject.' Yet the Doctor himself 
 has violated the latter part of his rule (if he meant to include Dr. 
 Middleton's ' adjectives of invariable application' under the rule, 
 which from what he says in p. 56, we think he did,) by repeating 
 the article where the person is the same ; and that too when he is 
 correcting a faulty expression of another writer, and may therefore 
 be supposed to be more than usually attentive to his own language : 
 for in page 39, line last, he says ; * Solomon the son of David, and 
 the builder of the temple.' So liable are rules of this sort to be 
 broken through ! — but perhaps the Doctor might not allow this to 
 be any breach. He can, possibly, account for insertion here as easily 
 
55 
 
 and as satisfactorily as he does for omission before. In a similar case 
 of insertion, (John xiii. 13.) he tells us that * though both titles « 
 }t$ot<rxx\os kxi Kvpos are meant to be applied to our Saviour, yet 
 they are not spoken of as being applied at the same time V — See John 
 xx. 28. y-v^tot p.v >coti hog pcov. See also the Doctor's note on 
 2 John 7. p. 354. 
 
 " In Mr Lindley Murray's Grammar, also, are some remarks 
 illustrative of this use of the article. (See his Syntax, rule 21. p. 300. 
 edit. 8vo. 1808.) Dr. Middleton, indeed, seems to think that little 
 analogy or resemblance, prevails between the Greek and the mod- 
 ern languages, with respect to the use of the article ; and that such 
 arguments as have been founded by Dr. Campbell and others on 
 that analogy are inconclusive, (pp. 4. 209 285.) He is, however, 
 quite si; gular in this opinion, since scarcely a modern scholar can 
 be found who has written on the Greek article without expressly 
 noticing the great resemblance between it and the article in modern 
 languages. Harris says; 'though the Greeks have no article cor- 
 respondent to the article A yet nothing can be more nearly related 
 than their 'O to the article The. Nor is this only to be proved by 
 parallel examples, but by the attributes of the Greek article, as they 
 are described by Apollonius, one of the earliest and most acute of 
 the old grammarians now remaining.' (p. 219 edit. 1771. 8vo. ) 
 The German Reviewers of Kluit's tract on the Greek article inform 
 us that he treats ' de similitudine, qua in usu articuli hujus, inter linguam 
 Gracam et Belgicam, omninoque linguas septtntrionis, intercedit,' (Nov. Acti 
 Eruditorum, for July 1769, p. 327 ) Sch/eusner, in his Lexic Nov. 
 Test, sets out with noticing the similarity between the Greek and 
 the German article. The French grammarians, Lancelot (in his 
 Gr. Gram, better known by the name of the Port Royal Grammar,) 
 Du Marsais, (in the Encyclopedic* vol. i. edit. 1 75 1 . fol ) and Beauzee 
 (in his Gram Generale>) all point out the similitude ; and in short it 
 might just as well be said that the noun or the verb, is a different 
 part of speech in Greek from what it is in any modern language, as 
 to say, with Dr. M., that the article is a different part of speech." 
 M. R. vol. lxii. pp. 151 — 159. 
 
 Since the publication of Bishop Middleton's work, another has 
 appeared on the same subject written by the Rev. Daniel Veysie, 
 B. D. entitled, On the Greek prepositive article, its nature and uses, A 
 Grammatical Dissertation. A review of it may be found in the 
 Monthly Review, vol. lxvii, 181 2; 
 
Page 4. line 18. 
 
 5- 
 6. 
 
 17- 
 
 17 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 for vwrts read hurts, 
 
 and for ivovpivm " tvovfiivw. 
 
 5. for g|s« «« £g». 
 
 I. from bottom, for Trx^vofitx " -TFet^otvofttet 
 
 1. for F.nisf- » F.nit. 
 
 for Epist. " Epit. 
 
 
z 
 
3 > > 
 >3 3 
 
 33 3 
 3 3 3 
 
 >O^BJ> 3 
 j :*> 3 r: 
 
 :>:» 3 ~3 
 )»j) 3 3 
 
 >3 
 
 3 3^ 
 
 33 
 
 3 3> 
 
 3^ 
 
 » 3 
 
 3 3 ; 
 
 3 3 
 
 ) 3:; 
 
 3 3 
 
 )3v 
 
 3» 3 
 
 ^^P* 
 
 1m ) 
 
 »; 
 
 & : 
 
 >3 
 
 S ) 
 
 3 3 
 
 33* ^ 
 
 3 3) 3 3 
 
 33 3 .p 
 
 3 3 ))3 
 3 3 3 3 
 3 3 3 3 
 
 3D 32> 
 
 ) 3 33 
 
 33 3333 ) 3 
 
 >3 3333 3 33 
 > 3 ».)3) 
 
 3 3 33 3 3> 
 >3jDD 3) 
 
 ^-J»3: £ 
 my j m 
 ?3 3S>3 fe>^" 
 
 33 »3 '33 : 
 
 )OD ^3 
 
 3 3»3 33 
 
 3 3 33^> 33 
 
 33 3 333 33 
 
 0>B) 3>: 
 
 i)3M) 33" 
 
 J >3 
 3 33 
 
 3 3 3 
 
 S3 *« 
 
 3>3 
 
 3 3 » 
 
 3) 3 ) 
 
 '3>33 
 3 3a 
 ? 3 ; 
 3 3 ) 
 
 > * 3.) 
 ) j 3 ) 
 
 > ^3 3 
 ? 3 3 
 
 ? 3 3 
 
 :>|)3 
 
 } '3_3 3, 
 
 3 3 >>■ 
 33 3 
 3 3 o 
 
 1 03 m 
 
 f M£> 3 
 
 2>333> 
 
 |333333 
 
 •^>3^33 
 
 3J3133 
 0>)33 
 
 3 -3 3 3 J> 33 5 3 
 
 ' >3 3B 33 33 I 
 
 >33 333 33 33- 
 
 > >3 3.33) 3> 33 3 
 
 »S3) 3> 33 
 
 _ >3» 33 3 3* > 
 
 »>-3>l> 3*> DI> ) 
 
 >»333K>3 3>3> 3 
 
 »3 33K>33 r 
 
 33 333*233 : 
 
 >3 ) 3 JIT)) J 
 
 33>3j6Q33 3 
 
 333 3L»3>3> : 
 
 333 32JD33 : 
 
 ' ] 3V 33333 t 
 
 - »> 3>333 3 
 
 ' ? ^33 33 3 
 
 - >V ^33 33 3 3 33 
 
 3> 333333 3 3 33 
 
 3>3 33) 33 "3 1*3 ' 
 
 3) 3 -D 33 333 3 
 33 333 3 
 33330 3 
 
 3 3i3« 3 > 
 
 3333-0. 
 3 33 j 3 
 3 3E>3^ 
 
 > 3 33 
 33 3 3 
 
 >333 3 
 )>3D) 
 3 333 3 
 33 
 3>3>3 
 333 > 
 
 333 > 
 » ^ 
 
 3333 
 
 ») 
 
 33) 
 33) 
 33) 
 
 :>3333) ; 
 
 3 3»33) 3 
 
 3>0 
 
 >-b ) 
 
 f <>3> 3 3 
 333 3 3 
 
 3»- 
 
 33. 
 
 33: 
 
 33 = 
 D3T 
 33" 
 3^ 
 ST 
 
 
3 > J> 
 33 3 
 3) :> 
 
 J>3 )» 3 
 
 p 33 2) 
 
 O J2D )3 
 
 > 3 ^)5> 
 
 *33 
 
 3 3> 333 
 
 3:Jb> 33 
 B33 
 
 3 >3 ) 
 D 33 
 3 33 
 l> 33 
 3 33 
 >> 3 33 
 
 33 
 33 
 
 333 
 
 '; 333" 
 
 3 3 ") 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 3 >3 3» 
 -> 3>3> 3> 
 
 3 333 3*> > 
 
 3 »3>:»^ 
 
 >3 3332> 
 
 ► 3 3 33 
 
 . 3 3335> 
 
 >■ d 3> 33 
 
 j *q>33 
 
 3 33333 
 
 >3 ).);^) 
 
 D 33)33 
 
 >33» 3fe> 
 
 )33 
 
 |o>0 >3 33:333 
 
 >3j3»3 x> 
 
 0333 
 
 >3 33333)3* 3 
 >3 gD)» ; 
 
 L> 33333: 
 
 > >33»: 
 
 d 33:03: 
 
 > 33333: 
 
 >2>3333 ^fc > ; 
 ^33 3S> y> 1 
 
 f3j) ">3> 1 
 
 i£3 33^33^ 
 
 §>3 >3 ">3>1 
 
 3>3 3)} 333 3 
 *S>3 3 3 333 ^ 
 
 ^ ?> » y ^> 
 
 I1R 3 3 333 3> 
 
 >33 ^ -:>^.3> 
 
 P? j?<3 33.>_3>, 
 
 ^ ^^ >3J° £>- 
 £>> 33 > 33333. 
 
 S&^'-C* 3 33) 
 
 »oj>33: 
 » 3^33: 
 33 3^3 
 
 30O3XV 
 
 33K> 
 3 
 
 33) 3 
 3333 PS 
 
 >3) ) 
 
 _ i )33 ^ 
 
 ' J>? 3) 
 
 . X) 3 33 
 333 o 
 D3 >3 
 33) 3 
 
 33 J* 
 
 3 3 )■ 
 
 333 5 
 
 333 
 
 333 5 
 
 33) 
 333:>T*0 3> 
 333 33>3IV3 33 
 333 2>:3|3E)3 33 
 3>^ i» >3^ >> :>> ' 
 33.) 30Z>33 3 33 
 
 f 
 
 33 
 
 3> 
 33 
 
 )3 - 33 
 g 33 
 ^ ^>3 
 ^ 33 
 )) 33 
 ^3 3 
 
 ^ >:^tt)X33 ^ 
 3^>T»33 
 
 ^3 1 
 »33 $ 
 
 »3 3 j) : 
 >33 3^ 
 333 >y 
 
 >» as 
 
 
 ^33 
 
 ) ^>33 
 
 33) J 
 
 :Bf 
 
 33 n" 
 3 3 .T - 
 
 33 rr 
 -3 ^> 5T 
 
 3 3 jy 
 
 J^> 33 
 
 m 33 
 ^3 3 a 
 
 J33 33J S 
 ^X>33 ) 3> 
 
 >PJ>3 33 
 
 03 ))3» 3 33 
 
 >43X>33 3 33 
 
 ^>>3)>^3 3 >r> 
 
 ))33 3 3 3 33 
 3 33 33 33) 
 3 » 33 3 33 
 y» );> 3) 33 3> 
 3; )3 3 3 3 3) 
 
 3) 3 ^©/^.-^ 
 
 "i 3V> 3 
 
 3 3 3 ) 
 
 & 3 3^ 
 
 3 3 3) 
 
 > > .x> • 
 
 3 ) )3 
 
 3 . >3) ; 
 
 )3 3 3V 
 
 >3 3> 
 3 3 3). 
 
 > 33 g 
 1 33 £ 
 33 i3 
 33 O 
 33 3 
 ^3 ^ 
 3 3 
 3 3 )> 
 
 333