in connection with the third exception, (from the letter on, the martyrdom of Polycarp) to which it will easily be seen. to bear a close affinity, and of which Mr. Winstanley speaks, with great confidence that no objection can be imagined' against it.

The first letter-writer referred us to a passage not very. dissimilar to the above in the first Apology of Justin Martyr, (p. 131. § 79. Ashton's edition,) which was probably thrown out by him as a bait to insnare unwary and precipitate adversaries. If such were his design, the scheme, undoubtedly did not fail of success. For it was greedily. swallowed by Mr. Blunt. It is to be regretted that the prize escaped the vigilance of Mr. Winstanley; since it is just as free from any imputation of objection' as the fortunate and impregnable citation from the Smyrnæan Epistle on the martyrdom of Polycarp.

Again: if Mr. Winstanley had called to his aid the further addition of a little more industry, or had been more suc cessful in his researches, he might have enlarged and strengthened this single battery to a much greater degree, and, if he do not overrate the power of his ordnance, he might, even by this one avenue, have made a very practicable breach, and have reduced Mr. Sharp's rule to surren der at discretion. In plain English, we can ourselves easily help Mr. W. to a considerable accession of exceptions, just of the very same kind, and of precisely as much value as the one above, which he prizes so highly. For instance, and that we may be as concise as possible:

Φιλανθρωπία του κυρίου ήμων Ιησου Κρίσου, μεθ ̓ οὗ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνευματι. . T.-Basil. Magn. tom. I. p. 357.

Again:

χαριτι τὸν μεγάλου θεου και πατρος, και του μονογενούς αυτου υἱου και σωτηρος ήμων Ιησου Χριστου, και προσκυνητου αυτου πνεύματος, της ακτίστου και αχώριστου Τριαδος.-Theophanes Ceramens, p. 296. Again:

Ημεις μεν τοι γε τρεις υποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τον πατέρα, και υἱον, και ἅγιον πνευμα.—Origen in Joann. tom. II. p. 56, edit. Huet.

we

Itw ould not be difficult to increase these citations. But must spare our reader's patience, and our own.

*Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. p. 122.

CRIT. REV. Vol. 7. April, 1800.

A a

What then is our design by supplying Mr. W. with additional materials? To strengthen his argument by our numbers? No, in truth, but to shew that it is just good for nothing. By seeing these examples or exceptions multiplied, even if we wanted such aid before, we come easily to understand that they all take a discriminating character; that one principle runs through them all; that they are, shall we say proper names, or like to proper names? or rather, shall we refer to our grand general principle of exception, that they are already sufficiently discriminated and distinguished by their reference to the relations in the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that no other mark of distinction is necessary, inasmuch as no possibility of mistake or ambiguity could in any way arise?

This we think is enough to state in reference to the 1st and 3d of Mr. Winstanley's exceptions. The same reasoning nearly, is applicable also to that which we have placed as the seventh exception.. (Clemens Alexander. p. 115: Sylburg. edit.) But indeed very little reasoning would have been necessary had not Mr. W. broken off his quotation at Eμ, and if he had given us only the three next succeeding words, which are, Tarra TNI ENI, or had referred us to any such passages as the following in the same author, έλαθε τοις σοις, παιδαγωγε, παιδίοις, πατερ, ήνιοχε Ισραηλ, είς και πάτερ, ἐν αμφω, Κύριε, which stand only a few lines above the alleged exception which is quoted by Mr. Winstanley.

On the 2d, 4th, 5th, and 6th exceptions, we should have been glad to make two or three remarks: but we must content ourselves with the single observation that they may all, without much difficulty, be reduced to the grand and general principle that it is not possible that they should relate to one person, and that Mr. Sharp's rule was never pretended by any but its adversaries to assume the power of atchieving impossibilities.

One word more, however, we cannot refrain from subjoining, because it will convey what is to us a strong presumptive argument in favour of Mr. Sharp's theory. Of the text in the book of Proverbs, which is in truth one of the most weighty exceptions adduced by Mr. Winstanley, in our judgment the most deserving of that name of all which he has yet supplied us with, he expresses much surprize that it should have been overlooked by Mr. Sharp. We have ourselves also been collectors of specimens of this kind: and have requested contributions of them for a long time from all our friends whom we judged likely to make any accession to our cabinet. Sometimes we have offered a price

for them, just as the patriot prince of old did for a wolf's head, or as the hospitals now do for a case of small pox succeeding after the genuine vaccination. This very text in the Proverbs was one day brought to us in great triumph, by a friend who is one of the first Greek scholars in this kingdom. After suggesting a few remarks such as would obviously enough occur to most readers, to shew that allowing to it all possible efficacy and importance, it is far from a decisive case against the principle of Mr. Sharp's rule, we referred to our own collections, and there also we found the same text, standing nearly in single and unsupported majesty. Since then this one text has presented itself separately and independently to the search of Mr. W., our friend, and ourselves, and since we do not see that any thing more solid has yet been produced, we cannot allow that much has yet been done to shew that the principle of Mr. Sharp's rule must be evacuated as untenable.

I shall now subjoin,' says Mr. W. to Mr. S. several quotations which come within all the limitations of your first rule, and are direct exceptions to it.' P. 18.

These are principally the quotations to which we assigned the second place in our above general division, and which, according to our assumption, it is our duty to shew are misunderstood and misinterpreted by the vindicator, and are not only not exceptions against Mr. Sharp's rule, but are even strict and proper examples of it.

First, then, let us hear the letter-writer.

Clemens Alexandrinus has this quotation from Plato:

τον παντων θεον αιτιον και του ἡγεμονος και αιτίου πατέρα κυριον επομνύντας.

Here του ηγεμόνος και αιτιον is an agreement with your rule, but τον παντων θεον-και πατέρα κυριον is in direct opposition to it. Origen has the same quotation with some difference, but still without the repetition of the article before mariga, thus,

και τον των πάντων θεον, ἡγεμονα των τε οντων και των μελλονίων, τότε ἡγεμονος και αλικο παλέρα και κύριον επομουνίας.

Clemens observes that Plato appears to be describing the Father and the Son ; φαινεται πατερα και υἱον εμφαίνων ; 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.' P. 18, 19.

To make a little amends for the very culpable deficiencies

of Mr. Winstanley, we shall first mention that the passages referred to are contained severally in the sixth epistle of Plato, p. 91-2, vol. ii. Bipont edit.; Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 598, edit. Sylburg. ; and Origen contra Cels. p. 280, edit. Spencer, or Opera, tom. i. p. 636, edit. Delmue; and that if Mr. W. had been desirous to give us all the instances in which the same passage is extant, he' might have further referred us to Eusebii Præparat. Evangelic. lib. 15, cap. 13, p. 675, edit. 1628. The original passage in Plato shall next be produced:

Ταύλην την επιστολήν παντας ύμας τρεις οντας αναγνώναι χρή μάλιστα μεν αθρόους, ει δε μη, κατα δυναμιν ὡς οἷοντ' εστι πλειστάκις, και χρήσθαι συνθήκη και νόμῳ κυρίῳ ὁ εστι δίκαιον επομνύντας σπουδη τε, ἅμα μη αμουσῳ και τη της σπουδής αδέλφη παιδεία, και τον των παντων θεον ἡγεμενα των τε οντων και των μελλόντων, του τε ἡγεμόνος και αιτίου πατερα κυρίου επομνυντας όν, αν οντως φιλοσοφωμεν, εισομεθα πάντες σαφώς, εις δυνάμε ανθρωπων ευδαιμόνων. The other passages we must dispense with the trouble of transcribing, (they will easily be found by the aid of our references) and this alone must serve as a specimen. But he who will take upon himself to make the search, will find that there is just as much pretence for a violation against Mr. Sharp's rule, in Clemens, or Origen, or Eusebius, as there is in the above extract from Plato, which in fact is just nothing at all. The observation of Origen, φαίνεται πατέρα και υἱον εμφαίνων, and that of Clemens to the same purport remain just as true as before; the Toy warran θεον αίτιον και πατερα κύριον in Clemens, and the τον των πάντων θεον, ηγεμόνα των τε οντων και των μελλόντων, τον τοπατέρα και κυριον plainly describes the Father, just as του τε ἡγεμονες και aTiO in the mind of both evidently signifies the Son.

The extract from Origen in page 11, we own has something more of difficulty in it. But after a careful inspection of the original (for nothing can possibly be made out from Mr. Winstanley's shreds and patches) we are by no means convinced that warga and upcy were designed to denote two persons.

Lastly, with regard to the passage in p. 19, from the same writer, it is to us, and will we suppose to most readers, be sufficiently plain that the xar does not connect (which is a requisite condition expressed in the very terms of Mr. Sharp's rule) θεῳ and διδασκαλῳ, but θεῳ and Ιησου.

We have now gone through with some care the whole of that which we consider as the most important part of Mr. Winstanley's performance. We have endeavoured to shew that he exceptions which he as produced, are of very little

efficacy towards the overturning the principle of criticism, for which the writers on the other side of the question have contended with so much force of evidence; and that therefore upon his own principles, since the rule is generally true, the important texts in the New Testament are not rightly translated in the common version: there does indeed exist a necessity for correcting that version, and it does conceal from the English reader something of no trivial moment, which is discoverable in the original. We think, however, that the literary world is in some degree debtor to Mr. Winstanley for his opposition, and shall be glad to hear that he is not discouraged from the prosecution of his undertaking, but that resuming the task with renewed spirit and zeal, and more in the way and with the industry of a tried and expert scholar, he is determined to persevere, either till he shall himself yield up his dissent and become a convert to the principle contended for, or till he shall fairly overwhelm it with the weight of opposite argument and testimony, and prove that it can no longer be maintained without a violation of truth, decency, and integrity. Should such be the issue of his labours, we shall be among the first and readiest to hail him as a public benefactor to the cause of our religion, being fully persuaded that he does the best service to truth, who hinders it from being supported by falsehood.'*

We have already intimated our belief that Mr. Winstanley has not condescended to peruse the Six more Letters of Mr. Gregory Blunt, which we regard as indicating a degree of confidence in his own unaided powers, that the event and success of his labours does by no means justify; and as a token of so much indolence, or want of respect towards the public and for his own character, as deserves the severest reprehension. Avowedly he has not read Mr. Wordsworth's Six Letters. Your third edition' (he writes to Mr. Sharp) contains all that I know of the laborious work of your diligent correspondent.' P. 48. And yet he proceeds to say, that the whole weight of that work may be removed without any mighty effort of intellect or of criticism.' Men much more learned than Mr. Winstanley, we have reason to think, entertain a very different judgment on this subject. But as our readers may already in some degree, form an estimate of the force and value of Mr. Winstanley's judgment and

* Porson aga i. Travis, p. 25, Pief.