“” 
GREGORY BLUNT’S LETTERS TO GRANVILLE SHARPE, E59. 
\fellowed Jesus to his crucifixion, and more- 
over, (from verse 49 of the same chapter) 
that all his acquaintance were persons of the 
“same sex who followed him from Gulilee. 
_.« From Acts xv. you might shew that 
Paul and Barnabas, who were very different 
“persons at the beginning of the chapter (ver. 
2) and who, though without any express 
articles of separation subsisting between 
them, (and therefore, by virtue of your fifth 
-tule and its exception, were beginning to 
grow rather ambiguous), still continued dis- 
tinct for some time after (verse 12), got so 
-confounded in the course of a few verses 
“more, {verse 22), that it was impossible to 
distinguish the one from the other, till the 
‘successful application of your wonderful dis- 
“covery restored each of them again, (verses 
25, 35), to his separate personal identity and 
diversity. 
** Many more discoveries, equally notable, 
“might you make from Luke xi. 27. Acts iv. 
5, 6.xv. 2. xxiv. 1. Rom. ii. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 9. 
2 Thes. i. 4. &c. &c. but I shall content my- 
‘self with mentioning only one, to be found 
4in 1 Tim. vi. 13. where §eos and xpisos being 
»connected in the way your rule requires, the 
former with, and the latter without the arti- 
cle, must necessarily be descriptive of one 
and the same person ; but since cach of these 
nouns is attended by a participle, and since 
‘the article which is prefixed to the first parti- 
ciple is repeated before the second, the two 
Mouns must on that account be descriptive 
‘of different persons: and thus we have both 
othe identity and diversity of God and Christ 
established in the compass of a single verse, 
roving clearly, as | have somewhere seen, or 
ard it expressed, that they are ‘* united, ° 
though divided ; divided, though the same.” 
- « It makes no difference, I apprehend, in 
this reasoning, that ‘ the substantive of per- 
sonal description, as you call ypisos (p. 30), 
is followed by the proper name Jesus ; since, 
“pisos here does not make any part of the 
oper name, but is merely an epithet, like 
the similax personal noun xvpios, 1n a similar 
situation, But what if it were unavoidably 
a proper name? We have seen that no reason- 
ing nor practice of yours, will justify us in 
depriving it of the benefit of your rule on that 
account. Or, lastly, what if Paul had 
thought fit to have omitted the word Jesus 
together, which he might have done if he 
chosen it, for any thing that I can see 
_ to the contrary ? 
** Such are the curious consequences to 
which your theory of the article fairly and 
directly leads ; consequences from which no 
arbitrary, groundless, and unsupported limi- 
4 
137 
tations can extricate you, as you must ece, 
unless some theological ignis fatuus has 
completely dazzled your sight,” 
As a bye-blow, the following will 
shew our knight’s dexterity. 
«« Your conclusion is no less curious, 
when you infer (p. 8, and g) that because 
Jesus is called a ihe yherd, and God is also 
called a shepherd, therefore Jesus is God. 
© Oh! most Taatie and impotent conclusion {* 
(Shaksp,) Saul is called king of Israel (1 
Sam. xxiy. 14), and God is also called king 
of Israel (Isa. xliv. 6) therefore Saul is God} 
The Lord have mercy upon us! If the Bible, 
in its object and design, had not been one of 
the plainest and simplest books in the world; 
if it had not been its on/y purpose to make 
us good and happy ; and if that purpose had 
not filled every page of it, it must long since 
have been overwhelmed by the treatment it 
has met with, No other book was everso 
used, or rather so abused, as this has been. 
No other book could have survived such 
usage. That it still continues to answer its 
design, and to do good among us, after it has 
been so bedaubed, so pitched and plastered 
over with one silly conceit or another, proves 
its consummate excellence, proves how co- 
pious and full, how constant, steady, and 
true it is to its main end and object, so that 
there is no way of wholly putting out its 
moral light, unless every chapter, nay, al- 
most every verse of it, be completely bunged 
up with theology... I. wonder no body ever 
took it into his head to maintain, that it 
ought to be read Bespognda, one line for- 
wards, and the next-backwards, or up and 
down, like the Chinese, or that the two e- 
lumns, where it is.so printed, ought to be 
read across, in the manner ef Papyrius Cur- 
sor. If it is to be explained so differently 
from all other books, I do not see why it 
not be read differently from all other books. 
If common sense is to be wholly laid aside in 
expounding it, why may we not as well el 
aside common sense in reading it? I verily 
believe, even then, it would look more like 
a book of morality than any thing else.” 
That Gregory Blunt has managed the 
contest ably, no one can deny; but many 
will think with us, that a little more 
attention to the feeling’s, and a little 
more forbearance towards the preju- 
dices of those whose creed he attacks, 
would have been more becoming and 
more wise. 
Arr. XI. Llements of Religion; containing a simple Deduction of Christianity, from its 
Source to its present Circumstances. In a Series of Letters toa Young Lady. By Mrs. 
4 _Marniotr. 4 vols. 8vo. pp. 1230. 
WHETHER thearticles of thechurch not, has long been a. topic of oni. 
of England are strictly Calvinistic, or 
versy. The spirit of the English church 
