LIBRARY 
 
 UN I VERITY OF I 
 \CAUFORNIA/ 
 
 
 
 
 \4 
 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON THE USES OF THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE 
 IN THE GREEK TEXT OF 
 
 The NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
Printed l^C. and, W. Galabln t 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON THE USES OP THE 
 
 DEFINITIVE ARTICLE 
 
 IN THE 
 
 GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 Containing many New Proofs 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DIVINITY OF CHRIST, 
 
 From Paffages which are wrongly translated 
 
 in the 
 COMMON ENGLISH VERSION. 
 
 BY GRANVILLE SHARP. 
 
 To which is added 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 Containing 
 
 i. A TABLE OF EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY, 
 By Dr. WTtitby. 
 
 z. A PLAIN ARGUMENT FROM THE GOSPEL HIS- 
 TORY FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, 
 
 By the former learned Editor. 
 
 AND TWO OTHER APPENDIXES, 
 
 kidded by the Author. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 sola by 
 
 VERNOR AND HOOD; F/AND C. RIVINGTONJ J. WHITE; AND 
 J. HATCHARD : 
 
 AND L. PENNINGTON, DURHAM. 
 1803. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 The Third Edition, publifhed by the Author himfelf, (for 
 the purpofe of coi retting fome of bis own inadvertent mif- 
 takes,) with the content of the learned and worthy Editor of 
 the former editions, the Rev. Dr Burgefs, (now Lord Bii'hop 
 of St David's,) whofe 'opinion and friendly patronage alone firit 
 oecafioued the publication of the work, as he felefted it from 
 among a number of other old MSS. that had been, for many 
 years, laid afide by the Author, without the leaft intention of 
 publishing them; ib that (except for this circumftance) the 
 work, moft probably, would never have been printed. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 FIRST EDITION. 
 
 frft fart of the following Remarks, on 
 the itfes of the definitive article in the Greek text of 
 the New Teftament, was printed in the ficond 
 Fajciculus of the Mufeum Oxcnienfe. A Supple- 
 ment to the Remarks was at the fame time fro- 
 mifed to be pMbli/hed in the third Fajciculus of the 
 Mufeum. But> as many learned friends con- 
 curred with the Editor in thinking that the Re- 
 marks contain a very valuable accejjion to the 
 evidences of Chrift's divinity, be was unwilling 
 to detain the Supplement) 'which exemplifies the 
 rules of the Remarks, any longer from the pub j ic, 
 and has therefore prevailed on Mr Sharp to per- 
 mit him tofubli/h it with the Remarks. He ear- 
 nejlly recommends them both to Mr Wakefidd's 
 moft deliberate confederation. 
 
 Aj ft 
 
 4- | 
 
20 Mr Sharp's Remarks and Supplement he 
 hasjubjoined a plain hiftorical proof of the divi- 
 nity of Chrift, founded on Chrift's own tefti- 
 mony of himfelf, attefted and interpreted by 
 his living witnefies and enemies, the Jews, 
 en the evidence of his trial and crucifixion, 
 and on the moft explicit declarations of the 
 Apoftles after the Refurrection of Chrift. 
 What appeared to him, on a former occafion,* 
 to be a Jubftantial and unanfwerable argument, 
 he has, in this little exercife on the fubjett, en- 
 deavoured to render an eajy and popular proof of 
 our Saviour's divinity. It was printed feparate- 
 ly for the uje of the unlearned part of his parijh- 
 ioners, and is Jubjcined to this treatife for the 
 convenience of other unlearned readers, and fuch 
 as have not much confidered thejubjeff. 
 
 DURHAM, Nov. 1798. 
 
 * In a fermon on the divinity of Cftri/t. Second 
 edition, 1792. 
 
 Letter 
 
Letter of the ivcrtfy and learned Editor, the Rev. Dr 
 Burgefs y to the Author, prefxed to the fecond edition. 
 
 To GRANVILLE SHARP, ESQ. 
 
 Dear Sir. 
 
 1 HAVE great pleafure in 
 preferring you with a new Edition of your 
 valuable Trad. That you have very happily 
 and decifively applied your rule of conftruction 
 to the correction of the common Englifh 
 verfion of the New Teftament, and to the 
 perfect eftablifliment of the great doctrine in 
 queflion, the divinity of Chrift, no impartial 
 reader, I think, can doubt, who is at all 
 acquainted with the original language of the 
 New Teftament: I :ay, decifively applied, 
 becaufe, I fuppofe, in all remote and written 
 teftimony the weight of evidence muft ulti- 
 mately 'depend on the grammatical analogy of 
 the language in which it is recorded. I call 
 the rule yours; for, though it was acknow- 
 ledged and applied by Beza and others to fome 
 
 of 
 
of the texts alleged by you, yet never fo 
 prominently, becaufe fingly, or fo effectually, 
 as in your remarks. 
 
 In the advertifement to the former Edition 
 I wifhed to excite the attention of a learned 
 and declared enemy to the doctrine of our 
 Saviour's Divinity. But he is no more: and 
 I do not know that he ever exprefied, or has 
 left behind him, any opinion on the fubjecl:; 
 or that any other Socinian has undertaken to 
 canvafs the principle of your Remarks. The 
 public, however, has very lately feen an 
 ample and learned confirmation* of your 
 rule, drawn from a very minute, laborious, 
 and candid, examination of the Greek and 
 Latin Fathers. 
 
 I have taken fome pains to improve the 
 flain argument tor (Thrift's Divinity, which I 
 before fubjoined to your Remarks. In this 
 edition I have prefixed to it a Table of Evi- 
 dences by Dr WHITBY, which, I hope, the 
 
 younger 
 
 * InSix LETTERS addrefied to GR ANVIL LE SHARP, 
 Efq. refpe&ing his Remarks on the ufes of the definite 
 article in the Greek Text of the New Tefiament. Lon- 
 don, 1802. 
 
younger part of your readers will find ufeful 
 to them in purfuing the different branches of 
 this moft important fubjectj and you, I think, 
 "will not difapprove, becaufe it is conducive 
 to the principal purpofe of your Tra6h 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 
 With great refpe6t and efteem, 
 Your faithful humble Servant, 
 T. BURGESS. 
 
 College, Durham, ") 
 March 5, 1802. j 
 
PREFACE 
 
 to the 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 By THE AUTHOR. 
 
 A.FTER the author had fent to the prefs 
 a copy of this work, containing all the cor- 
 rections and additional notes which are now 
 printed in this third edition, he received a 
 printed book, addrefied to himfelf, intituled 
 " Six more Letters to Granville Sharp, Efq. 
 on his Remarks upon the Ufes of the Article 
 in the Greek Teftament, by Gregory Blunt, Efq." 
 G. Sharp carefully perufed thefe " Six more Let- 
 ters,' 1 and could not difcover, throughout the 
 whole of Mr Blunt's laborious work, (confid- 
 ing of 218 pages,) more than one Jingle cen- 
 Jure which had any juft foundation, viz. that 
 
 which 
 
\vhich mentions G. Sharp's erroneous quotation* 
 from the Alexandrian MS. But all the other 
 cenfures and allegations of Mr G. Blunt are fo 
 evidently frivolous and groundk/s^\ and fome 
 of them fo blafphemous, that they form, alto- 
 gether, an attack more obvioufly levelled 
 againft the fupreme dignity and cc divinity of 
 Chrift" and againft the competency of the ori- 
 ginal writers of the New ^eftament, than againft 
 the Remarks of G. Sharpy which are founded 
 merely on their authority. 
 
 Mr Blunts unhappy want of faith in the 
 doctrine of Chrifis divinity ', (to which he too 
 plainly alludes when he mentions " a monftrous 
 consequence" p. 48 5 . and " an abjolute impojfi- 
 Ulity" p. 49 and 70,) together with his dis- 
 belief 
 
 * Before Mr Blunt* s book was publifhed, G. Sharp had 
 acknowledged his obligations to another perfon for the 
 frft difcovery and correction of this erroneous quotation, viz. 
 to a learned writer in the Britijb Critic, (fee note in p. 38 
 and 39,) whofe judicious remarks, publifhed fo long ago 
 as July, 1802, were evidently known to Mr Blunt, for he 
 has cited them in his own work, (not publifhed till March, 
 1803,) though he has not thanked that learned writer 
 for giving him the firft bint of G. Sharp's error ! 
 
 f .See note, No. 2, in the fourth Appendix, p. 124. 
 
belief even of the exiftence of the Holy Spirit, 
 p. xxii. 70, and 83,) are manifcftly the true 
 fources of his laboured oppofition to G. Sharp, 
 nay, the only foundations, it feems, that he 
 has for all his (otherwife) groundlefs remarks, 
 allegations, and cenfures ! But, if his un- 
 guarded aflertions had really been true, he 
 would not have found it neceflary, for the 
 fupport of his own groundlefs principles, fo 
 ftrenuoufly to decry the authority of the 
 original writers of the Greek Teftament ; and 
 to endeavour, in the moft contemptuous terms, 
 to depreciate their abilities, by denying their 
 competency to exprefs themfelves with gram- 
 matical accuracy or elegance: (p. 26, 1. i n, 
 and p. 27, 1. 19:) calling them " popular, 
 looje, and informal, writers," (p. 26,) cc men, 
 difqualified, by their rank and education, for 
 ELEGANT writing," (p. 34,) " more rude 
 than the moft rude of the Galilean penmen," 
 (p. 74.) As if he had never read or heard of 
 the miraculous <( gift of tongues," nor of the 
 pertinent remark of thofe who heard the won- 
 derful power of exprefilon, even in all lan- 
 guage^ that was then conferred upon thofe 
 b very 
 
very men whom Mr Blunt has deemed cc dif- 
 qualified J or elegant writing!" <f ARE NOT 
 
 ALL THESE THAT SPEAK GALILEANS?" 
 
 (Afts, ii. 7.) 
 
 Neverthelefs, Mr Blunt ventures to afiert, 
 that the wiiters of the Englifh Bible cc were 
 much belter acquainted with, and much more 
 ftudicus cf, grammatical niceties than any cf the 
 apoftles and evangelifts," &c. (p. 26.) 
 <c Let us appeal to thofe" (fays he, in p. 27,) 
 cc who, compared with apoftles and evangelifts, 
 were accuracy itfelf, to thofe who were men of 
 fuperior education, were trained to grammar from 
 their infancy, and wrote in their native lan- 
 guage; none cf which things cc.n be affirmed of 
 the writers of the New Teftament" 
 
 Now, though this is Mr Blunt' s own pro- 
 pofal and appeal, yet, when two gentlemen 
 of unexceptionable character in all the points 
 required by himfelf j (except, indeed, in the 
 unreafonable pride of pretending, like him, to 
 vie cc with apojlles and evangelifts" for accuracy 
 and abilities j) men of regular academical 
 education, and both of them juftly eminent 
 for their learning and abilities , when two 
 
 fuch 
 
ftich unexceptionable men have openly declared 
 their conviction of the truth of this apoftolical 
 deft rim, " the Divinity of Cbrift," contrary to 
 the unhappy prejudices of Mr Blunt-, the one, 
 (the learned editor of the two firft editions of 
 this little work,) by citing, in an appendix, 
 ample evidences, from the Hoi) Scriptures, 
 for " the Divinity of Chrift:" and the other, 
 (the learned writer of the firft <s Six Letters to 
 Granville Sharp" ) by his full and clear confir- 
 mation of the firft and principal rule of con- 
 ftruction, to demonllrate the fame necejfary 
 doftrine, as dated by thefe defpifed " apofties 
 and evangelifts" Such worthy examples, by 
 regular academical fcholars, ought to have 
 occafioned fome little reftraint on the mind 
 of Mr Blunt: but, alas! the clear teftimo- 
 nies of thefe two learned and refpedtable 
 advocates for apoftdic doctrine have had no 
 other effect on the violent oppofer of it than 
 that of irritating his prejudices, whereby he 
 has been unhappily hurried into the moft 
 iuconfiilent abui'e and contempt of thefe 
 " men of fuperior education" the very de- 
 b 2 fcription 
 
fcription of perfons to whom he himfelf has 
 propofed to appeal ! 
 
 And as to the author of the rules, G. Sharp, 
 who has no fuch literary pretenfions, not 
 the leaft claim to "Juperior education" or to 
 academical acquirements, Mr Blunt (con- 
 fiding, we will fuppofe, in the importance of 
 bis cwn claffical abilities) treats him with the 
 moft contemptuous language, and is careful to 
 imprcfs on the minds of his readers the de- 
 grading trait of G. Sharp's Inferiority of educa- 
 tion ; alluding, by frequent repetitions, to his 
 being bred as a mere trade/man^* mechanic, or 
 manufacturer .-\ Whereas, on the other hand, 
 Mr Blunt himfelf, being fufficiently fenfible, 
 no doubt, of his own " Juperior education"^ 
 is manifellly inflated) by the comparifon, to a 
 greater extent and fir etch of f elf -confidence than 
 any human fkin can contain: for, he has burft 
 forth into fuch drains of magifleri^l impor- 
 j and has afiumed fuch inquifitorial au- 
 thority 
 
 See Note, No. 4, in the fourth Appendix, p 133. 
 See Note, No. 5, in the fourth Appendix, p. 134. 
 See Note, No. 6, in the fourth Appendix, p. 137. 
 
( xvii ) 
 
 thority over the fuppofed tradefman, as if he 
 were really rsjponjible to his jurifdiftion ! 
 " What is your experience?'' ((ays he, p. 42.) 
 Wherein does it confifi? What does it 
 amount to?" No culprit was ever more con- 
 tempcuoufly examined, with fo many hafly 
 queftions all in a breach. But G. Shwp does 
 not wifh to evade thefe imperious demands, 
 howfoever worfliipful Mr Blunt may think 
 himfelf in his felf- appointed flation on the 
 upper bench of critical authority. As to the 
 experience, therefore, of G. Sharpy and, in the 
 firft place, the experience acquired by education, 
 it was juft like the experience of other tradej* 
 men and manufacturers, i. e. by no means 
 claffical. And, if he afterwards acquired fome 
 Jittle knowledge of Greek, he has not prefuvned 
 to extend his experience beyond the Greek 
 "Teftament; except now and then by occafional 
 reference to the ieveral Greek verfions of the 
 Old Teftament, and fome times aifo to a few 
 Greek httlorians. But, from the Greek Tefta- 
 ment, more efpecialiy, he has been convinced, 
 by experience, that the writings of thofe emi- 
 nent perfons, whom the magi/ferial Mr Blunt 
 b 3 con- 
 
( xviii ) 
 
 contemptuoufly calls " rude Galilean penmen," 
 as well as the more antienc canonical writings 
 of their Ifraelitijh countrymen,* are of fo 
 Juperior a nature, in companion with all other 
 writings^ (even with thofe that are deemed 
 moft eminently daffical,) and are fo very 
 different in their general idiom and peculiarity 
 of expreffion, that rules drawn from the fyntax 
 of thefe facred writings,-)- whether Hebrew or 
 Greek, (for the interpretation, refpedively, of 
 the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures,) cannot 
 reafonably be cenfured for want of conformity 
 to any other writings, either in fyntax or Jenti- 
 manty though they may fairly receive confir- 
 mation occafionally from other writings, as the 
 learned and modeft writer of the firft Six 
 Letters to G. Sharp has clearly proved by his 
 candid and judicious fele&ion of examples from 
 the writings of the Greek fathers in defence of 
 the frft and mod important rule, and whofe 
 remarks alfo on the other rules had induced G. 
 Sharp to withdraw an example from his fifth 
 
 rule, 
 
 * See Note, No. 7, in the fourth Appendix, p. 142. 
 f See Note, No. 8, in the fourth Appendix, p. 143. 
 
 1 
 
rule, and to place it among the exceptions, 
 becaule of the high and refpectable authorities 
 cited by the worthy writer of the firft Six 
 Letters in favour of a contrary interpretation 
 of that text, and more efpecially becaufe it 
 had been conftrued as a eeflimony of the Divi- 
 nity of Jefus. But, if G. Sharp had previoufly 
 feen Mr Blunfs a Six more Letters" he would 
 not fo readily have made that conceffion; be- 
 caufe the experience of the mechanic is conli- 
 derably enlarged fince he examined Mr Blunfs 
 frivolous and ground lejs objections, not only to 
 the firft rule, but alfo to all the other rules* 
 For, by the experience gained in perufmg 
 thefe Six more Letters, G. Sharp has difcovered 
 that Mr Blunt* s unhappy want of faith in the 
 necefTary doctrine of " Chrift's Divinity,"^ 
 is the true caufe of all his miierable twiftings, 
 ftrainings, Jhufflings, and fruitlefs endeavours to 
 evade the " articular Jlraps" "forcing irons," 
 and other bands propofed for literary/^^n/y in 
 the manufacturer s new- invented machine^ (as 
 
 Mr 
 
 See Note, No. 2, in the fourth Appendix, p. 124. 
 f See Note, No. 3, in the fourth Appendix, p. 131. 
 
Mr Blunt calls it,) by which Mr Blunt himfelf, 
 it feems, has been unwarily " caught and held 
 willy nilly"* notwirhftanding his moft violent 
 and unfair exertions to evade and oppofe it. 
 So that this fubfequcnt experience of G, Sharpy 
 which he acquired by Mr Blunt' s forcible trial 
 and proof of the machine^ has convinced him 
 that even the writings of the Chriftian Fathers 
 do not afford fufficient authority to fet afide 
 any rules cf fyntax which are fairly and honeft- 
 iy formed according to the general jynt ax of 
 the Greek Teftament-, no, not even for the 
 purpofe of retaining the Juppofed teiiimony of 
 any text whatfoever in favour of our Lord's 
 Divinity, eipecially as that doctrine is abun- 
 dantly and fufficiently confirmed by a great 
 multitude of other plain texts, without de- 
 viating from the ordinary Jyntax of the Greek 
 Teftament. For, as we are affured that ail 
 Scripture (all the canonical Scripture of the 
 Jewljh nation j-) is given "by injpir alien of God -^ 
 (2 Tim. iii. i6>) that " holy mm of God 
 
 Jpake 
 
 * See Note, No. 5, in the fourth Appendix, p. 134. 
 f See Notes, No. 7 and 8, in the fourth Appendix, 
 p. 1^2 to 144* 
 
/pake as they were moved by the Holy Ghcft-" 
 
 (2 Pet. 20, 21 ;) and not according to their own 
 
 willy as Mr Blunt Teems to fuppofe by his 
 
 quotation from Dr Whitby, " Serif ijftt ergo 
 
 Judas fi hoc voluiflet - t " -\ and that even thofe 
 
 pcrfonsjwhom he calls "rude Galilean fenmen>" 
 
 had an abfolute promife of being endowed 
 
 with the moft ample abilities for teaching. 
 
 " THE HOLY GHOST" (laid our Lord) Jball 
 
 TEACH you, in the Jame hour, what ye ought to 
 
 Jay." (Luke, xii. 12; though Mr Blunt has 
 
 been pleafed to prefer " the accuracy of our 
 
 Englijh tranflators" p. 20.) And it would 
 
 be abfiird to conceive that our divine and 
 
 infallible inflrudor, our blefled Lord, the light 
 
 of the world, fhould promife his difciples the 
 
 future guidance of the Holy Spirit in terms fo 
 
 imqueftionably expreffive of an aftual agency, 
 
 if the Holy Spirit was an imaginary bang, a 
 
 mere " temper" of the human mind, according 
 
 to the groundlejs notions of Mr Blunt! (p. 
 
 xxii. 1. 3 from bottom, 70, and 83.) At 
 
 another time our Lord faid to thefe Galileans, 
 
 " fbefe 
 
 f See Note, No. 9, in the fourth Appendix, p. 144. 
 
( xxii ) 
 
 <c Vbefe things have I Jpoken unto you, being 
 prefent with you-, but the HOLY GHOST, whom 
 the Father will fend in MY NAME," (for that 
 ineftimable gift mud be ajked in the name of 
 Jefus,) "HE WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS," 
 (fo that they could not be deficient, as Mr 
 Blunt has conceived, in any rcfpecl whatfo- 
 tver,) " and ((hall) bring all things to your re- 
 membrance whatjoever 1 have Jaid unto you" 
 John, xiv. 25 and 26. But, alas ! Mr Blunt' s 
 rooted prejudices againft " the divinity of Chrift," 
 and his fatal difbelief of the exiftcnce of the 
 Holy Spirit, by which alone he might have 
 been enabled to refift the faife fuggeftions of 
 evil Spirits, are ample and fufficient caufes to be 
 afTigned for the darknefe of his mind when he 
 charged the Apoftks and Evangelifts with the 
 want of grammatical " accuracy ," and with want 
 of ability to exprefs themfelves with elegance ! 
 
 G. Sharp, having thus far fubmitted to the 
 arbitrary demands of Mr Blunt, in freely de- 
 claring the nature of his experience, may now 
 feem entitled to demand of Mr Blunt, in re- 
 turn, " What is your experience ? therein 
 does it covfift? What does it amount to? 
 
 But 
 
( xxiii ) 
 
 But fuch haughty demands are fui table only to 
 the character of Mr Blunt himfelf ; and, in- 
 deed, he has precluded the neceflity of putting 
 any fuch queftions about his own experience^ by 
 venturing, boldly and bluntly) all at once, to in- 
 form us, both "wherein it doth confift" and 
 alfo "what it does amount to," nay, even 
 the fum total of all the experience and know- 
 ledge that he has acquired, as he fays, " by a 
 diligent and careful ft udy of the Bible !" - "namely, 
 (fays he, in p. 171,) that moral and practical 
 Chriftianity is the only Chriftianity contained in 
 the Scriptures.'' But, furely, this falls very 
 fliort of what he ought to have acquired by his 
 fludy of the Bible ! Did he never read, that 
 " without faith* it is impoffible to pleafe God?" 
 (Hcb. xi. 6.) So that Mr Blunt' s "moral 
 and practical Chriftianity," without that necef- 
 fary faith and knowledge^ which the Scripture 
 clearly teaches* is not worthy to be called Chrif- 
 tianity at all 1 For, even Pagans and Unbe- 
 lievers, from the natural knowledge of good and 
 evil in man, pretend to virtue and morality; and 
 ^ the Apoilate, the hero of Mr Gibbon, 
 
 would 
 * See note p. xxxviii 
 
( xxiv ) 
 
 would have contended as (tiffly for the morality 
 and practical virtue of the worfhippers of Ju- 
 piter and Hercules as our modern Unitarians 
 can poffibly do, or any other fectaries of 
 merely nominal Chriftians, who learn nothing 
 at all from the Holy Scriptures but morality 
 alone ! 
 
 This pretence to morality, when adopted fe- 
 parately from the necelTity of acquiring faith 
 and knowledge^ is manifeftly the baneful doctrine 
 of works, whereon the Papifts build that noto- 
 rious branch of Popifli fuperftition, Juperero- 
 gation; a doctrine not lefs unfcriptural and ab- 
 lurd than that of tranfubftantiation, which Mr 
 Blunt has fo earneftly and repeatedly prefTed 
 upon G. Sharp, (in the true Papiftical way, 
 under a cloak of contrary pretenfions,) in his 
 vain comparifon between that and the dodrine 
 of the Trinity ; infmuating, that he who ad- 
 mits the one mull needs admit the other ! 
 Now, with refpect to the doctrine of tranfub- 
 ftantiation, unlefs Mr Blunt and his friends, 
 the Popijh and Socinian advocates for it, (fee 
 the Unitarian tracts to which he refers us in a 
 note at p. 1513) can fhew, by plain proofs of 
 Holy Scripture, that our Lord's institution of 
 
 the 
 
( XXV ) 
 
 the facrament of bread and wine was not de- 
 figned merely for the purpofcs univerfally ac- 
 knowledged by the primitive churches of the 
 three firft centuries, and by the reformed churches, 
 or true Catholic Church, of the prefent day, but 
 for feveral other different purpofes, as that of 
 contouring the outward fymbol of bread to be 
 fet up as an object of public worjhip and ado- 
 ration, that of referving the bread, confecrated 
 on Eafter-Day, for a whole year, as an in- 
 fallible charm for various purpofes, and that 
 of making every mafs a new facrifae, inftead of 
 the commemoration , only, commanded by our 
 Lord, of the one efficacious facrifice once offered** 
 befides the grofs preemption of altering our 
 Lord's inilitution, by denying the cup to the 
 laity, though our Lord had expreflly com- 
 
 * " Knowing that Chriil, being raifed from the dead, 
 DIETH NO MORE; death hath HO more dominion over 
 him; for, in that he died he died unto fin, ONCE, but in 
 that he Jiveth he liveth unto God." Rom. vi. 9 and 10. 
 " And as it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, but 
 after this the judgement: fo Chrift was ONCE OFFERED 
 to bear the fins of many," &c< Hetu ix. 27 and 28. 
 ' For Chrif alfo hath ONCE SUFFERED for fins," 
 &c. i Pet. iii, 1 8. 
 
 c manded, 
 
( xxvi ) 
 
 manded, cc DRINK YE ALL OF IT, for tbis 
 is my blood of the new covenant "-\ (m xx>w <^a- 
 0w>K, inftead of the abrogated fign of the old 
 covenant circumcifion,) " which is Jhed for 
 many, for the remiffion of fins : " " But, I fay 
 unto you, I will not drink henceforth of THIS 
 FRUIT OF THE VINE until that day that I 
 drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" 
 Match, xxvi. 27 to 29. The commemora- 
 tion of our Lord's blood is more particulaily 
 defcribed by St Paul, i Cor. xi. 25 to 29. 
 " This tup is the NEW COVENANT in my BLOOD : 
 this doje, as oft as ye drink (it) IN REMEM- 
 BRANCE of me: 1 ' fo that the wine was the 
 outward fign only of our Lord's blood, to be fo 
 taken in remembrance of him. And in four 
 fucceeding verfes the drinking of the cup is 
 exprefsly mentioned, jointly with the eating of 
 the BREAD, as of equal importance, by being 
 equally commanded ; and, fo far from any 
 change of jub fiance, or tranfubftantiation, taking 
 place, that our Lord himfelf, according to St 
 Matthew's account, called the contents of the 
 cup '"this fruit of the vine," even after his 
 
 euchariftical 
 f See note p. xxxviii. 
 
( xxvii ) 
 
 confecration of it by t bank/giving, 
 ) So that unlefs all this grofs inno- 
 vation from the euchariftical ceremony, ordained 
 by (Thrift, can be plainly proved, either by 
 Papifts or Socinians, to be confiftent with the 
 faitb and praftice of the Apoftles and the pri- 
 mitive church, it furely does not (land upon the 
 fame foundation as the generally-received docr- 
 trine of the primitive church, concerning the 
 " divinity of Cbrift" and actual exiftence and 
 divinity of the Hdy Spirit ; and muft therefore 
 be condemned with an anathema^ even if ic 
 had been taught by one of the Apoftles, (con- 
 trary to the general evidence of the reft,) or 
 by " an angel from Heaven I (Gal. i. 8 and 9.) 
 And, in like manner, Mr Rlunt's declaration, 
 that " morality and pr&Slkal Cbriftianity is the 
 only Cbrifthnity contained in the Scriptures?' is 
 furely an entire excludon of the true Chriftian's 
 belief or faith -, an exclufion which manifeftly 
 favours the Popifh SUPEREROGATION of works, 
 whereby a man may lay up fuch a treafure of 
 bis own merits as may entitle him, after his 
 death, to a Papal canonization as a SAINT of 
 the Roman church, whereby he becomes a 
 c x Pofifo 
 
( xxviii ) 
 
 Pcpijh object of religious worjhip and prayer, 
 for his mediation, inftead of the only Cf ONE 
 MZDI ATOR between God avd Man," (iY\m.\i.$.) 
 And Mr Blunt feems not at all to be aware 
 that this deceitful Popijb atonement, by the 
 pretended mediation of dead feints, muft be 
 equally efficacious as that of the one mediator, 
 if the Sodnian Mafphemy was really true, that 
 (Thrift "was a mere man, and nothing more -," 
 for in this, as in many other points, the Papal 
 and Sodnian tenets are intimately and clofeiy 
 combined together for the perverfion of the 
 true primitive doctrines of Cbriftianity, notwith- 
 standing the imaginary differences which are 
 generally fuppofed to exift between thefe two 
 notorious fects of heretics, and their open op- 
 pofition and external contempt of each other. 
 This has been remarkably demonftrated in a 
 learned work of Mr Jamefon, printed at Edin- 
 burgh, in 1702, entituled "Roma Racoviana et 
 Racovia Romana" * which Mr Blunt, if he 
 
 pleafes, 
 
 * Id eft Papiftarum et Sociniftarum, in plurinus, iifque 
 maximi momenti, religionis fus capiubus, plena et exada 
 harmonia : in qua, unam eandemque utriufque religionis 
 
 efTe 
 
( xxix ) 
 
 pleafes, may add to the propofed new edition 
 of the Unitarian traffs, to demonftrate the in- 
 timate conne&ion between their two churches. 
 
 Mr Blunt himfelf informs us, in a note, 
 (p. 146,) "that the Papijls have not only con - 
 feffedy but contended, that the Trinity cannot be 
 proved by Scripture : " and he cites for this a 
 Popi/h writer, S'andius y and alfo the Unitarian 
 trafts-, and in notes, at p. 148 and 149, cites 
 nearly the fame doctrine from the Popijh writer, 
 PetaviuSy and from his oivn favourite Simian 
 writer, Taylor ', the author of Ben Mirdecai ! 
 
 Thus far it feems obvious, that the Papifts 
 conform to the Socinian notions againft the 
 Trinity ; and Mr Blunt, in return for this fo- 
 ciable degree of conformity, argues as ftoutly 
 as the Papifts for the Popijh doctrine of tranfub- 
 
 efle animam et medullam clariffime oftenditur ; unijm eun- 
 demque Spiritum pariter in utraque Apoftafia regnare 
 evincuur ; utriufque fedse avToxoiaxgwf late declaratur ; 
 fimpliciores, adverfus eorum impeiu.s et technas muniun- 
 tur ; S. literarum, in impleds vaticiniis, adverfus fcepticos 
 et atheo. , veritas, et divinitas demonftratur ; baud pauca, 
 denique, Chriftianae theologise amanti proficua oppido toti 
 paflim operi infpcrguntur." 
 
 c 
 
( XXX ) 
 
 fiantiatiotit (in p. 151 and 166,) in his com- 
 parifbn between that falfe notion and the doc- 
 trine of the family : and all this in the true 
 Papiflical or Jacobinical way, under a cloak of 
 contrary pretsnjions, to difguife his defire of fa- 
 vouring that Popijh error ! 
 
 In p. 168, Mr Blunt charges G. Sharp with 
 having, "for a while at leaft" forgotten cf that 
 love of the brotherhood, and charity towards all 
 mankind, which is the chara&eriftic of a true 
 Chriftian, and of having turned (his) back on 
 the maxim of doing to others as (he) would 
 that others fhould do unto (him)." In return 
 to this very ferious charge G. Sharp requefls 
 Mr Blunt to believe what he now afferts wich 
 great fincerity, viz. that his ufual fe verity, in 
 cenfuringthe dcflrines either of ROM AN CATHO- 
 LICS or of SOCINIANS, was never occafioned 
 by any the lead want of charity to the perfons 
 or individuals of either perfuafion, but, on the 
 contrary, was always exerted with the kindeil 
 intentions, to warn them of the extreme danger 
 of their refpe&ive errors. 
 
 With refpect to the Sociniansy G. Sharp has 
 produced, many years ago, fuch ample proofs, 
 
 in 
 
( xxxi ) 
 
 in his tra6l on the Nature of Man, of " the 
 divinity cf Chrift," and of "the Holy Spirit" 
 and more efpecially of that doftrine which Mr 
 Blunt denies, in p. 133, 1. 5 ; p. 136, 1. 10; 
 and p. 165, 1. 24; that the title of Jehovah is 
 applied to Chrift, and alfo to the Holy Spirit ; 
 that, if Mr Blunt will fairly examine thefe proofs, 
 he will find it impoffible to fet them afide 
 without an equal perverfion of the Holy Scrip- 
 ture from whence they are drawn. G. S. would 
 not make fuch a confident aflertion, if he had 
 not fubmitted that work, previous to its pub- 
 lication, to the careful examination of a very 
 learned and confciemious Socinian, who had 
 quitted holy orders, and a good living in the 
 Church of England-* merely on account of fome 
 prejudices he had imbibed in favour of the 
 Unitarian doclrines -, and G. S. has ample rea- 
 fon to helieve, that he would not have deferted 
 the Church of England if he had previoufly 
 been at ail aware that any fuch proofs exifted 3 
 for he did not make the lead objection to any 
 of them, but only requefted fome few altera- 
 tions of exprejfion, to lefTen the feverity of cen- 
 fure againft the Sociniam. And at another time 
 
 a 
 
( xxxii ) 
 
 a very learned Socinian Clergyman having ad- 
 drefFeH to G. Sharp a private letter, containing 
 many laboured argumt nts againft " the divinity 
 of Cbrift" G. Sh^rp returned fuch proofs of 
 the CONTRARY DOCTRINE, that the learned 
 and able difputant was obliged entirely to 
 change the ground and pofuion of his former 
 arguments, and to advance again with new pro- 
 pofitions, in a fecond letter ; which alfo G. Sharp 
 fully anfwered, indeed, but not in fufficient time 
 for the perufal of the candid inquirer ; whofe 
 death will be ever remembered by G. Sharp 
 with regret, through the confideration of his 
 own natural flownels, or, perhaps, want of fuf- 
 ficient exertion (though he is not confcious of 
 any wilful negledl) to return fuch a timely 
 anfwer as might have been ufeful to his foli- 
 citous correfpondent ! 
 
 Though the recital of fuch circumftances 
 may fubject G. Sharpy with too much appear- 
 ance of probability, to the invidious charges of 
 vanity, and even of boafting, yet he would wil- 
 lingly fubmit in filence to fuch charges, pro- 
 vided his true motive for mentioning them 
 ihould prove effectual, viz. that of exciting 
 
 in 
 
( xxxiii ) 
 
 in Mr Blunt a define to examine more carefully 
 and feriouOy the tendency of his own profeiTed 
 principles, the want of faith in Chrift, and in 
 the Holy Spirit: for, if Mr Blunt" s affertions 
 were true, that the latter is only an imaginary 
 being, it would follow, of courfe, that man, the 
 only being in God's creation which really (lands 
 in continual need of the guidance and protec- 
 tion of the HJy Spirit, v/ouid be miferably dif- 
 armed of the moft effectual promifed means of 
 refilling his moft dangerous enemies, the affid- 
 ucus, though filent> invaders of his foul 5 fo that 
 he muft be eafily conquered and Jed captive 
 into the moft deplorable Jlavery both of body 
 and mind : for, without the Spirit of God, there 
 can be no true liberty j and therefore G. Sharp, 
 as a fincere friend to liberty, cannot view the 
 profeffed principles of Mr Blunt and his Uni- 
 tarian brethren with indifference, nay, not with- 
 out the mod anxious concern and intereft for 
 their fafety and welfare, (whatever Mr Blunt 
 may think of his want of charity,) knowing, for 
 a certainty, that their moft valuable citizenship* 
 in the true Catholic Church, or univer/al commu- 
 nity of faints, (either in that branch of it which 
 
 is 
 
( xxxiv ) 
 
 is ftill militant here en earth, or in that other 
 mod numerous and glorious part of it which, 
 in fpite of all the malice of Pagan, 4rian y and 
 JV/jz/^perfecutors, is now triumphant with their 
 Lord, in Heavtn,) cannot poflibly exift with- 
 out the univerjal communion of the HOLY SPI- 
 RIT, that promifed participaiicn of the Divine 
 nature to the nature of man, in which the true 
 unity of the city of God, our moft ineftimabk 
 citizen/hip, muft necefiarily confift ! 
 
 It is not> therefore, through any vanity or 
 fpirit of boaftingi that G. Sharp has recited 
 fome circumftances of his former communica- 
 tions with Unitarians, but really for the fake of 
 Mr Blunts own true intereft and welfare ; and 
 if, either under his real or feigned name, he will 
 call on G. Sharpy he will certainly find no oc- 
 cafion to complain of -any want of iharity in 
 his moft earned endeavours to warn, him of his 
 danger, to fatisfy his objections, and remove 
 his difficulties. 
 
 For, if he will but ftrioufly confider what 
 contemptuous exprefilons he has ufed againft 
 Cbrift, (p. 48, 49, 71, no, 136, 138, 140, 
 144, 150, 151, 153, 154, 1 60, 161, 164, and 
 
( XXXV ) 
 
 173') an ^ againft the Holy Spirit ! (p. xxii. 70, 
 83, &c.) he mud furely be convinced that the 
 ancient (-.p'jftates, mertioncd by the Apoftle to 
 the Hebrews, x. 29, could not, by any outward 
 profeffion of doctrine, have been more guilty 
 of tc treading under foot the Son of 6W," and of 
 doing cc defyite unto the Spirit of Grace" than 
 he himfelf has really been, in the fulled extent 
 of thofe impieties ! The former apoftates, in- 
 deed, were deemed worthy of a " much forer 
 punijhment than thofe that defpifed Mcfes' law, 
 and died without mercy, (compare the 28th and 
 29th verfes ;) but, as the Apoftle has added, 
 in ihe two next verfes, "for wt know him that 
 batb /aid, vengeance (belongeth) unto me, 1 will 
 recompense, faith the Lord" &c. we are thereby 
 afiured, that the u much forer pmijhment" there 
 denounced, is not of a temporal kind, like thac 
 inflicted by man on the defpifers of Mtfes* law : 
 for, as we are now under a milder and more 
 ptrfeft fyftem of revelation, we muft not (after 
 the manner of the Church of Rome, though 
 her dodrine s are deemed fo weighty and unan- 
 fwerable by Mr Blunt) preiume to perfecute 
 with fire and fword on account of religion, or 
 
 to 
 
( xxxvi ) 
 
 to burn men alive for their opinions, as (he has 
 done ! Thele are proofs only that the Roman 
 Church herfelf hath long ceafed to be Chriflian, 
 though (he has affumed the title of Catholic 
 Churchy to the exclufion of all other churches. 
 But her true character was forefeen by the be- 
 loved Apoftle, who has repre Tented her as feated 
 on \htfcarlet- colon red beaft of temporal power, 
 drunk with the -BLOOD of the Saints (note,* 
 No. 10) and with the BLOOD of the Martyrs of 
 JESUS I But the members of the true Catholic 
 Church are reftrained, by the principles of their 
 faith, from oppofing either Pofifh or Socinian 
 heretics with any other weapon than the two- 
 edged Jword of God's Wordy and from wifhing 
 to extirpate and diilblve them with any other 
 fort of beat than the purifying fire of truth, 
 accompanied with hearty withes and prayers, 
 that a timely repentance may avert the ven- 
 
 geance 
 
 The aweful warning which was given to an 
 eminent perfon, who for fome time unhappily 
 oppofed the neceilary doctrine of Chrift's divi- 
 nity, not lefs violently than Mr Blunt himfelfi 
 
 feems 
 * Fourth Appendix, p. 147. 
 
( xxxvii ) 
 
 feems as peculiarly applicable to the prefent 
 as to the former occafion ; and, as the femence 
 oiiginally proceeded from Jupreme Authority, 
 the citing of it now mud not be confide red as 
 having the lead reference to the facetious far- 
 cafm which Mr Blunt has affected throughout 
 his work, (i. e. the trite contrail between Sharp 
 and Blunt,) for, the true application of it is 
 certainly of. a much more fer ions -nature ; be- 
 caufe it fhews the extreme difficulty and dan- 
 ger of oppofing the divine dignity of our 
 blefTed Redeemer, <rx\ygov a-oi TT^G? x&tg& x&x- 
 lifyiv, (Acts, ix. 5, xxvi. 14:) and a man 
 who has wrote and published fuch degrading 
 and contemptuous expreffions againfl the divi- 
 nity cf Cbrijt, as are contained in Mr Blunt' s 
 book, furely, has not lefs caufe for "fear and 
 trembling" than Saul had, on his fupernatural 
 converfion ; nor lefs need, apparently, to be 
 "led by the hand" and inftructed, (Ads, xxii. 
 1 1 to 16,) until his eyes and underftanding are 
 opened to the bright and irrefiftible evidence, 
 throughout the Holy Scriptures, of Chrift's 
 fupreme dignity. 
 
 ~ o 1- 
 
( xxxviii ) 
 
 Note transferred from p. xxiii. 
 
 * What kind of faith is here to be underftood, may 
 clearly be known by the general topics of this epiftle ; but, 
 more efpecialiy, by thofe in the two preceding chapters, 
 and in the following chapter ; for, the objects of our 
 faith and hope are Mated in them all. See Heb. ix. 14 to 1 8 ; 
 x. 9 to 15, and 28 to 30; (wherein vengeance is de- 
 nounced againft him "who hath trodden under foot the 
 Son of God,' 1 Sfc. " and have done defpite unto the Spirit 
 of Grace ;) and chap. xii. 2, wherein our Lord Jefus is 
 expreffly called the Author" (or Leader, a^yoi] " and 
 fntjber of our FAITH." Tov TUJ nr uwyo KM rtAet- 
 
 UTW IvjOW, &C. 
 
 Note transferred from p. xxvi. 
 
 f It is, at the fame time, a new tejiament, (as well as a 
 new covenant, J of which "Chrift, by his death, was the 
 teftator. See Heb. ix. 15 to 18. 
 
 Note transferred from p. xxv. 1. 3 from bottom. 
 
 (the grofs preemption of altering J our Lord's infti- 
 tution, by denying the cup to the laity, &c.) 
 
 I Deut. xii. 32. " What thing foever I command you, 
 " off/erwe te do it : thou Jhalt not add thereto, nor diminijh 
 "from it?* A continual -breach of this COMMAND OF 
 GOD (in either " adding to " or " diminijhing from" al- 
 moft every divine ordinance) is a notorious mark of the 
 apojlacy of the Roman church, whatfoever her Socinian ad- 
 vocates may think of it ! The exorcifms of water, &c. 
 for Baptifm, and alfo for purpofes not commanded, are abo- 
 minable ads of for -eery ! See the deteftable forms in the 
 " MiJJale Romanum" under the heads of " Benedicl-o Fon- 
 tiSf 3 -(p^ 273 10,285,) and " Or do ad faciendam aquam 
 benedittam" (p. cxxvi to cxxix.) Plantin. edit. Antwerp, 
 1682. But the time of her judgement is now very near at 
 hand ! (See Note, No. 10, ^h Appendix, p. 147 and 
 148.) 
 
 CON2'NTS. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 RULE I. 
 
 When two perfonal nouns of the fame cafe are connected 
 by the copulative *at, if the former has the definitive 
 article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the 
 fame perfon .......... page 3 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 
 1. O 05 xat 9raTfl TW xy^toy ypuv ..... 4 
 
 2. Tu Qtu xcti waT^t ... ...... 5 
 
 3. E T>7 acrtAjta Toy X^wroy xat 0oy .... 30 
 
 4. Kara TJiv^a^tv rov soy ypuv xai xvgiov I*jcroy Xgicrroy, 34 
 
 5. EywTTJov TOW soy xat xygioy I7croy XgicrToy . . 3^ 39 
 
 6. Ew*^)aviai' T>?f oo%r t $ Toy [Aeyothou eoy xat Z#T>jOf 
 
 /^w f^o-oy X^tcrToy . ...... 22 50 
 
 7 E ^txatoaynij Toy toy ^/xwv xat SWTJJ^OJ j/>c^ 
 
 Ijaoy Xgtcrroy ......... 2O 52 
 
 8. Kat TOV i^ovon ot<T7roT5iP go* xai xy^iov ^.wc 
 
 Irnrovv Xgtcrro* a^oy^eyot ...... 54 
 
 Common Ferjion. 
 
 1. The God and Father of our Lord, 
 
 2. To Gcd, even the Father. 
 
 Corrected ^erfon. Cvmmvn Ve^Jton. 
 
 3. In the kingdom of In the kingdom of Chrift, 
 Chrift, even of God. and of God. 
 
 4. According to the . According to the grace of 
 grace or jefus Chrift, cur our God, and the Lord 
 God and Lord. Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Corretfij 
 
Ferfion. Common Verfeon. 
 
 5. Before Jefus Chrift, Before God, and the Lord 
 the God and Lord; or, our Jefus Chrift. 
 
 God and Lord : for, the de- 
 finite article ha< fomethnss ibe 
 po-Lver o a pajjive pronoun. 
 
 6. The glorious appear- The glorious appearing 
 ing of our great God and of the grt-at G.d, and our 
 Saviour Jems Chrift. Saviour Jeius Chrift. 
 
 7. Through the righte- Through the righteouf- 
 oufnefs of Jefus Chrift, our nefs of God, and our Saviour 
 God and Saviour. Jefus Chrift. 
 
 8. And denying our only And denying the only 
 Matter, God, and Lord, Je- Lord God, and our Lord 
 ius Chrift. Jefus Chrift. 
 
 RULE II. 
 
 If both nouns have the article, but not the copula- 
 tive, they relate to the fame perfon . . . page 7 
 
 RULE III. 
 
 If the firft has the article, and the fecond has not, 
 and there is no copulative, they relate aifo to the 
 fame perfon 10 
 
 RULE IV. 
 
 If the nouns are not perfonal, they relate to different 
 things or qualities . . 1 1 
 
 RULE V. 
 
 If perfona4 nouns, of the fame cafe, are connected by 
 the copulative, and che firft has not the article, they 
 relate to different perfons ^ . . 12 
 
 RULE VI. 
 
 If they are connefled by the copulative, and both 
 have the article, they relate alfo to different perfons j 3 
 
LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Mr 
 
 CONCERNING THE USES OF THE GREEK ARTICLE 
 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Old Jtivry, London, loth June, 1778. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 W HEN I look upon the date of your laft 
 obliging letter, I am much afhamed that I 
 have fo long neglected to acknowledge the 
 receipt of it. The truth is, I began a letter 
 a few days afterwards; but, recollecting that 
 I had written on the fame fubject (viz. the 
 ufe of the Greek article o and copulative xa*) 
 to a very learned friend, at a great diftance 
 in the country, I was willing to wait for his 
 anfwer, left it mould oblige me to make any 
 alterations in my rules; and fo, indeed, it 
 has proved; for, he objected to my firft rule, 
 B (as 
 
(as it was then dated,) and has cited feveral 
 exceptions to it, which he thought fufficient 
 to fet it entirely afide : but this, I am con- 
 vinced, is going too far, and would be an in- 
 jury to truth. The ufe, therefore, which I 
 'have made of my friend's objections, has 
 been, to correct my rule, and add to it fuch 
 limitations as might include the feveral ex- 
 ceptions cited by my learned friend, as well 
 as others that are fimilar to them. 
 
 The waiting for my friend's anfwer, and 
 the necefiary corrections in confequence of 
 it, together with a variety of other engage- 
 ments, have prevented me from complying 
 with your requeft fo foon as I could have 
 wifhed; but I mail now fubmit to your con- 
 fideration and candour the rules in quef- 
 tion, and beg that you will be pleafed to 
 favour me with whatever examples may oc- 
 ciir in the courfe of your reading, either as 
 exceptions to invalidate the frft rule> or as 
 proofs to eftablifh. and confirm it. The rea- 
 ibn of my recommending the firft rule more 
 particularly to your attention, is, becaufe it 
 is of much more confequence than any of 
 
 the 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 the reft, as it will enable us (if the truth of 
 it be admitted) to correct the tranQation of 
 feveral important texts in the prefent Englifh, 
 verfion of the New Teftament, in favour of 
 a fundamental article of our church, which 
 has, of late, been much oppofed and traduced ; 
 I mean the belief that our Lord Jefus Chrill 
 is truly God. 
 
 RULE I. 
 
 When the copulative xa* connefts two nouns of 
 the fame cafe, [viz. nouns (either Jubjlantive 
 or adjeftive, or participles) of perfonal dejcrip- 
 tion refpctting office, dignity, affinity, or connec- 
 tion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good 
 or ill,'} if the article o, or any of its cafes, pre- 
 cedes the firft of the Jaid nouns or participles, 
 and is not repeated before the fecond noun or 
 participle, the latter always relates to the fame 
 perfon that is exprejjed or dejcribed by the firft 
 noun or participle: i. e. it denotes a farther 
 defcription of the firft-named perfon; as, 
 i&Trtvcrzv auloi/5 cJ^e TON rv<pXov KAI xwpov xoti 
 KCCI (3Af7Tij/. Mat. xii. 22. And, again, 
 
 B 2 
 i 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 'O fo? KAI Ilar^ ra Ku^ia v\pw Iy,<ra 
 r OIIaT? TWV OJXTI^UWI/ KAI fcf zyao-ij? -sraf - 
 . 2 Cor. i. 3. This lad fentence contains 
 two examples of the firft rule. See alfo in 
 2 Cor. xi. 31, 'O 00j KAI nTjp ra Ku^* n'jttwv 
 I^cra X^rou oifa, &c. Alfo in Eph. vi. 21, 
 'O aya7r>?]o &Apoff KAI Triro? J'<xoi'8? f 
 Alfo in Heb. ill. I, xaravorurulg TON 
 a?roroXov KAI a^tf^fa rvjf o/xoXoyja? >?^wj/ ITKTHJ/ 
 
 Xf rov, &c. Sec alfo in 2 Pet. ii. 20, ev ctsriyvworn TOT 
 Ku^a KAI 2whfof Irj<ra X^ra, &c. And again, in 2 
 Pet. iii. 2, xa* T? rwi/ 7roroAwv ypwv tj/JoA?f, TOT 
 Kufia KAI !wTOf. And again, in 2 Pet. iii. j 8, 
 Au ai/fT ^f v p^a^/li xai y^w<rt TOT Ku^3 TI/AWV KAI 
 
 . -Alfo in Philippians, iv. 20, Tw <^ 
 w KAI nTfi y^M * dofa, &c. In Rev. xvi. 15, 
 
 *O y^nyo^w^ KAI T^WV ra i/Mftnof aJra, 
 7rt*zyofy, 5rc. And in Col. ii. 2, 
 ra juur'/jcis TOT 0s KAI Ilal^of xai ra 
 X^ira*, v w fieri Tra-fls*; 01 &IHTWJMI Trig (ro^uo.?, &C. 
 
 And in i Thef. iii. 1 1, A-J]o? ^ 1 O so? KAI 
 
 * The diftindlion of perfors mentioned in this fentence 
 is preferved by the infertion of the article TB before 
 which had been omitted before 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 Lj<rou? 
 
 This iblemn ejaculation 
 for the divine direction is addreffed jointly to 
 the God and Father, and to our Lord Jefusi* 
 (To that here is good authority for offering up 
 prayers to Chrift, which fome have lately op- 
 pofed;) and the diftindtion of the perfons is 
 preferred (as in the laft example) by again in- 
 fer ting the article o before Ku^to?, which had 
 been omitted be fore nrng. The apoftle James. 
 alfo ufed the fame mode of expreflion, 
 
 ai XVPZS sv VA dAit{/il 
 
 &c. James, i. 27. And there are at lead a 
 
 dozen other places, (viz. Rom. xv. 6. i Cor. 
 
 B 3 xv. 
 
 * This text is clearly a (application to Chrift for pro- 
 vidential affiftance ; and, being addrefled to him jointly with 
 God the Father, moft certainly amounts to fupreme <vuor- 
 jkip, becaufe the direction of Providence belongs to God 
 alone: fo that a prayer for it, addrefTed to Chrift, were he 
 merely a minifter and difpenfer of God's providence, 
 and not alfo truly God, would bs utterly unlawful': 
 and more efpecially fo if fuch an inferior difpenfer of 
 providence (one that was not truly God) was to be ad- 
 dreffed jointly with the heavenly Father; for, that would. 
 be blafphemous. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 xv. 24- Gal. i. 4. Ephef. v. 20. Col. i. 3 and 
 12.* andiii. 17. i Thef. i. 3. i Thef. iii. 13. 
 2 Thef. ii. 16. James, iii. 9. Rev. i. 6.) where- 
 in Cf /<? G^ and Father" is mentioned exactly 
 according to this rule ; and there is no excep- 
 tion or inflance of the like mode of expreflion, 
 that I know of, which necefiarily requires 
 a conftruction different from what is here 
 laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, 
 or in the plural number; in which cafes 
 there are many exceptions -, though there are 
 not wanting examples, even of plural nouns, 
 which are expreflcd exactly agreable to this 
 rule. 
 
 As the examples which I have annexed to 
 my firft rule confift of texts, wherein the 
 lenfe is fo plain that there can be no con- 
 troverfy concerning the particular perfons 
 to whom the feveral nouns are applicable, it 
 will be thought, I hope, that I have already 
 cited a fufficient number of them to authenti- 
 cate and juftify the rule. There are feveral 
 
 other 
 
 * Some copies have not the words 0jw xa in this twelfth 
 verfe; but only ra icar^i r&> fxavwcram ; in which laft cafe 
 this verfe affords an example only of the fecond rule. 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 other texts wherein the mode of exprtfiion 
 is exally fimilar, and which therefore do 
 neceiTarily require a conflru6tion agreeable 
 to the fame rule ; though the prefent tnglifh 
 verfion has unhappily rendered them in a 
 different fenfe, and . has thereby concealed, 
 from the mere Engitjh reader, many ftriking 
 proofs concerning the Godhead (V^i <c TUJ olu1oj," 
 Col. ii. 9.) of our Lord and Saviour, Jefus 
 Chrift. The rules which follow are intended 
 only to illuftrate the particularity of the 
 feveral fentences which fall under the jirft 
 rule, by mewing, in ctbsr fentences, the dif- 
 ferent fenfes that are occafioned by adding, 
 omitting, or repeating, the article, as well 
 with the copulative as without it. 
 
 RULE II. 
 
 A repetition of the article before the Jecond 
 noun, if the copulative be owiitsd> will have the 
 fame effeft and power: for, it denotes a farther 
 defcription of the fame perfon, property, or 
 thing, that is exprefled by the firft noun ; as in 
 the following examples: x<** *jyaAAia<re TO 
 HAOU f?Ti Tw fy Tw Swrj^i ^a, Luke, I 47* 
 
 KM 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 ay*, &C. Luke, ii. 26. & C O a/^j/o? ra 0*s 'O 
 a^wv TJII> otpctfltav TS xexrjus, John, i. 29. oidx^zv 
 on oitTog $-jv aA^Swf 'O Xwjtifl ra xoc^a, 'O X^ifof* 
 
 John, IV. 42. jUTI TJ^WV TOk 'YOV, OU T^Ct TON 
 
 NTrfiUiJ/flivJaauIov, John,V. 23. f^ya^(T0f 
 THN g^wo-iv THN azo-oAAu//,-^!/, jtAAa THN 
 THN lAtvuvuv fi? ^WTII/ aiuviov, y\v o 'Tio? ra 
 utv JWa" ra]ov y<^P 'O Ila]//fl itrtppctytiTW 'O 
 ?, John, vi. 27. This verfe contains three 
 examples. Taula ^f ^y^aTrlat /va rirni|f, ori *O 
 l>lo-a jr*y 'O X^ro? *O *Tio? ra 0;a, &C. John, XX. 
 J I . 'O Jf c? T?I? f tc*5j/uf *O 
 TON GTOI//.SV& TO/I/ 'WeoQaluv TON 
 
 * The apoftle, in this text, exprefsly calls our Lord Je- 
 fus Chrift " the Great SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP," 
 tov iro^tvu ruv vgoCddvi rov p.fya.v : and the apoftle Peter 
 entitles him " THE CHIEF SHEPHERD," 5 af^9roi/*j, 
 1 Pet. v. 4, which compare with Pfalm xxiii. i. " JEHO- 
 *' VAH is my SHEPHERD,'* and with Ifaiah, xl. 9, 10, n; 
 " O Zion that brin'geth good tidings " &c. "fay unto the ci- 
 tf ties ofjudab> behold YOUR GOD ! Behold the Lord JE- 
 t( HOVAH 'will come in mighty (po.-wer), and HIS arm Jh all 
 tl rule for him : behold H i s reward is with him , and H i s work 
 " before him. HE" (i.e. the Lord JEHOVAH) " Jhall 
 "feed H i s floek like a S H E P H R D ; he Jhall gather the lamb* 
 
 with 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 TON 
 
 &c. Heb. xiii. 20. This fentence alib 
 contains three examples. 
 
 GENERAL EXCEPTION. 
 
 Except when genitive cafes depend on one 
 another in fucceffion; as, u 
 
 TO 
 
 *? TO ^t* 
 
 TOT {u^yyiAiH TH2 ^ognff TOT Xf rra o? in*' 
 
 TOT 
 
 " w//^ /&w rw, M &c. &c. To explain this ftill farther, 
 the prophet Ezekiel foretold that all (hall have one Shcp- 
 r herd," Ezekiel, xxxvii. 24. And Chrift himfelf ex- 
 prefsly acknowledged that eminent paftoral character, fay. 
 ing, " / am the good Shepherd;" o jro^n o x*Xoj, " ^ / 
 " know MY fheep <&W<*; /KOZV ff/*MiNE." (John, x. 14.) 
 And a little farther (v. 27) our Lord mentions the true 
 mark by which bis flocks are known, viz. that o bearing 
 bisvcice: (compare with 95th Pfalm.) " Myjheep" (faidour 
 Lord) " bear my 'voice, and 1 know them; and they follow me, 
 tf and I give unto them eternal life" &c. which power of 
 giving eternal life cannot be an attribute of any perfon that 
 is not truly God, and one with Jehovah or the heavenly 
 Father, as in the 3Oth verfe he is exprefsly declared to be : 
 ** / and my Father are one" iy sapsv, we are one ; in which 
 brief expreffion both the plurality and the unity of the 
 two perfons are unqueilionably arTerted. 
 
TOT TOT o*T8, 2 Cor. iv. 3. And, again, 
 
 wet 7r<x,goc.xXi>iQu<riv cti xa^at avrwv cv i u,a(r$'VTW 
 AaTOK TH v^o<po^g TH2 
 TOT ju,ur>jH TOT fa xat 
 ra X^ira, &C. ColofT. ii. 2. 
 
 RULE III. 
 
 And the cmiffion of the copulative between 
 two or more noum (of thejame cafe) of perfonal 
 dcfcription or application^ even without the article 
 before the fecond noun, will have the Jame effeft: 
 viz. will denote a farther defcription of the 
 fame perfon, property, or thing, that is ex- 
 prefled by the firft nounj as in the following 
 examples. rit*ro6a?T <rax,vrov 'OAHrON fivai rvp- 
 Awy, ^nS ruv v crxoTfi, HAIAETTHN ^ovuv y AI- 
 AA2KAACN r/i uriwj/, EXONTA rnv pog<po(ri v rn<; yvw- 
 TW vjuw, Rom. ii. 19, 2O. 
 
 KTPIOT JIAUV IHSOT KPISTOT.ry w xat 
 
 VTTQTUffiropwoi aAArjAoi? i/ <po^u)* X^r, Ephef. V. 
 
 20, 
 
 * Ev (po^w X^r. In the modern printed editions the 
 reading is ev faGa Qw, but in the Complutenfian and fe- 
 veral of the olcieil editions it is ev <poa Xgr ; as alfo in. 
 the Alexandrian and other old MSS. as well as the antient 
 verfions, and the citations of the Fathers : for which fee 
 
 Wctftein's 
 
( II ) 
 
 20, 21. nATAOS, AOTAOS 0, 
 
 IH2OT, &C. Tit. i. I. IlauAo? AuToroAo? 
 
 TJ? eX-sridos -ny-uv, I Tim. L i. 
 
 RULE IV. 
 
 Tet It is otherwife when the nouns are not 
 cf perjonal defcription or application -, for, then 
 they denote diftinft things or qualities: as, Ti^oOsw, 
 yvwiu Ttwu sv Trirst, PC a f tf ' sAsof, tigwn <x,-&o 
 Tlargog -npwv, Y.CK.I X^r I^<y Ta HU^JS rj^wi/. I Tim. 1. 
 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Titus, i. 4-f See alfo 2 John, 
 
 3- 
 
 Wetftein's Teftimony. Now compare this expreffion ^g 
 QoGu X^ir^ with i Pet. ii. 17. TOV Ssoy <peCgo-0i, TOV ^a- 
 r^ea Tt^are: and alfo with ^ Kings, xvii. 35 and 36. 
 " Ye Jkall not fear" (rendered by the feventy ov <porfr/}ers<r- 
 Se) " other gods ; but JEHOVAH, 'who brought you out of 
 " the land of Egypt, &c. him fh all ye fear " 
 
 * Here the command of Chrift is mentioned jointly with 
 the command of God himfelf ; which is a mode of expref- 
 fion never ufed concerning any other man, but the Man 
 Chrift Jefus our Lord, '* by whom are all things : ( I Cor. 
 viii. 66. Hebrews, u 2. John, i. 3. Col. i. 16.) and 
 " by whom all things confift" Col. 1.17. 
 
 f In all thefe three texts, and in 2 John, 3, there is a 
 manifeft fupplication made to Chrift, jointly with God the 
 Father, for grace, mercy, and peace j all divine gifts. The 
 fupplications, therefore, muft necefTarily be confidered as 
 a&s of fuprems worjhip to both. 
 
>tiu 
 
 Kigiov IVHTQV Xcifs TS 'Tis 
 
 RULE V. 
 
 //# when there is no article before the 
 firft noun, the infertion of the copulative *<M be- 
 fore the next noun, cr name, of the fame cafe, 
 denotes a different f erf on cr thing from the firft: 
 as in the following examples.* IIa< niKPIA, 
 
 xat 
 
 * Note by the Author. [In the former editions of this 
 little work, as well as in the original MS. of it, the ift 
 verfe of the general epiille of St James was cited as the 
 frft example of this 5th rule ; viz. luxufi' QM KM Kv^m 
 Ivc-ti X^ra ^ouAoj. For, the author had fuppofed that the 
 words EU KI K.v& f having no article before the firft 
 fubftantive, muft here denote two different perfons, ac- 
 cording to the general idiom of fimilar exprefiions 
 throughout the New Teftament, when the copulative is 
 inferted without the article; but, having fince read the 
 juft reafons and ample tefiimonies produced for a contr *y 
 interpretadon of this particular text, in one of the fix 
 letters addreffed to himfelf (p. 11410 120) by the Rev. 
 Mr Cbr. Word/worth, (for, it would be injuitice to conceal 
 that gentleman's name, fince his merit and indefatigable 
 labour, in forming that learned v/ork, have been fo 
 generally approved,) he is thereby convinced that this 
 
 text 
 
0TM02, xi OPFH, xaiKPATrH, xa BAA2- 
 0]Tto &( vpwj (Tvv TTO/TJJ xaxa, Ephef. 
 iv. 31. This laft fentence contains four exam- 
 ples of the fifth rule. XAPIS u>u/ KM EIPHNH 
 ct-sro 0EOY nATPOS >i>wi/ x KTPIOT IH2OT 
 XPIITOY. 2 Cor. i. 2. i Ephef. i. 2. Gal i. 
 3. Philem.3. EIPHNH Tof^o*fKAI AFAHH 
 /*/!* wff a*r* EOT HATPOS KAI KTPIOT 
 IH2OT XPI2TOT, Ephef. vi. 23.* 
 
 C EXCEPT 
 
 text may with more propriety be placed among the ex- 
 ceptions to the fifth and fix rules than as an example of the 
 fifth ; and he hath, therefore, withdrawn it from the 
 examples, notwithftanding that Mr Wordfworth hath 
 produced (in p. 120) the authority even of an antient 
 Greek writer for that example, in the fame fenfe that was 
 at firft cited in this place as denoting two diftinft perfcns, 
 contrary to Mr Woidfworth's own opinion of it. lf But 
 " there is one Greek writer" (fays he) " who has clearly 
 * adopted the other interpretation. It is CEcumenius, in 
 ' his commentary. Itwuftos ea x Kt^ I^ Xfr &>y- 
 " Aoj rats Tlu$tKat. x. f. A. @tf ptv TW TLoiTgis, Kvgtx h ra 
 " w," &c. Vol. ii. p. 441.] 
 
 * The fupplications for grace and peace jointly from 
 God the Father, and from the Lord Jefus Chrift, in all 
 thete five texts laft cited, are fo many unqueftionable in- 
 ftances Qlprcyer.m&fuprem wor/hip to CHRIST, as being 
 
 a 
 
EXCEPT the numerical adjective ? precedes 
 the firft noun; in which cafe the copulative 
 xoci will have the fame effe6t that it has 
 between two nouns where only the firft is 
 preceded by the article, agreeably to the firft 
 rule ; as, E* 0EO2 KAI IIATHP vwrrw, o tn 
 
 XMTM, Y.KI $UX, TJCWTM, KM W TraO^V VfAW, Epheil 
 
 iv. 6. 
 
 RULE VI. 
 
 And as the infertion of the copulative x*i be- 
 tween nouns of the Jt*me cafe, without articles, 
 (according to the fifth rule,} denotes that the 
 Jecond noun expreffes a different perfon, thing, 
 or quality, from the preceding noun, Jo, like- 
 wife, the fame effect attends the copulative 
 when each of the nouns are preceded by articles: 
 as in the following examples. 'O 
 
 'H %&* KAI 'H &.XY$tllX, $l 
 
 John, i. 17. ors. KV yytfin' ( 
 v ot f^oc3"^Ton aura, <m 
 
 a. free difpofer of thofe divine gifts jointly with his Al- 
 mighty Father; agreeably to what I have already remarked 
 above on i ThefT. iii. 1 1 , and Titus, i. i . 
 
( '5 ) 
 
 , John, ii. 22. ?w 
 
 TOYS IIOAA2 KAI TA2 
 XEIPA2 xs^jaj?, xat 1} ovj/tf aura 
 John,xi. 44. f 
 
 , KAI TOT XPI2TOT, i/ w 
 TH2 2O$IA2 KAI TH2 
 . Col. ii. 2. u 
 
 ci, 2 Tim. 1. 5. *W 
 x Iutf-8 X^ra, w env 'H ^og KAI TO 
 <f raj ot,tw<x.$ ruv atiwwi/, A^nv. I JL Ct 
 v. ii. 
 
 EXCEPT diftindl and different aflions are 
 intended to be attributed to one and the Jame 
 per/on; in which cafe, if the fcntence is not 
 exprefled agreeably to the three firft rules, 
 but appears as an exception to this fixth rule, 
 or even to the fifth, (for, this exception relates 
 to both rules,) the context muft explain or point 
 out plainly the perfon to whom the two nouns 
 relate: as in i Thcff. iii. 6. Agri & EA0ON- 
 T02 TIMO0EOT TT^? tip*? *f J/*v KAI ETAF- 
 rEAJ2AMENOT tpw TW trw, &c. And alib in 
 C 2 John, 
 
John, XX. 28. K.a a.TTMgiQ'n o 0w/xa?, xat 
 *UTW 'O KTP10I ps KAI 'O EOS p*. If the 
 two nouns (viz. o Kv^og and J ->) were the 
 leading nominative fubftantives of a fentence, 
 they would exprefs the defcriptive qualities 
 or dignities of two diftinft perfons, according 
 to the fixdi rule j bur, in this laft text, two 
 diftinft divine characters are applied to one per- 
 Jon only ; for, the context clearly expreffes to 
 whom the words were addrejfed ly Thomas: 
 which perfpicuity in the addrefs clearly proves, 
 likewife, the futility of that glofs for which the 
 Arians and Socinians contend -, viz. that 
 Thomas could not mean that Chrift was his 
 God> but only uttered, in his furprife, a folemn 
 exclamation or ejaculation to God. The text, 
 however, exprefsly relates that our Lord firft 
 addreffed himfelf to Thomas: nra Ay TM 
 
 QULLOty <pg TOV ^HTUAOV (T8 cJjf, &C. Xt aTTfH^^T) 
 
 o &y/,af xai insn ot,DTu> (that is, without doubt, 
 
 tO JESUS,) o Kuuo? poDy x^t o f^ /xa. So that 
 
 both thefe diftinff titles (for, they are plainly 
 mentioned as diftinfit) were manifeftly addreffed, 
 UTW, to that one perfon, Jefus, to whom Thomas 
 replied, as the text exprefsly informs us. 
 
 The 
 
The language is fo plain, when the whole 
 context is confidered, that the Socinian per- 
 verfion of it is notorious. See alfo i Cor. i. 24. 
 Xgifov *s $vm[MV >cai fs (ropiai/,* and Acts, 
 ii. 364 There are alfo other examples of 
 this exception which clearly prove that Chrift 
 is God: as, Mn <poz. EFH uyi 'O tz-guros KAI 
 'O <r^aT*, KAI 'O ZHN.J xai tytvopw 
 x&i tJ'a fwi/ t/Urt $ TOU? Aiwva? TWV atwvojj/' up 
 c^w raj xXeK ^a J xat T8 3-avfitrs. J Rev. i. 17, 
 
 18. 
 
 Thefe are the words of him whom John 
 faw, QfMiw'VM ai/3-W7r, with a two-edged fword 
 proceeding out of his mouth ; which was 
 undoubtedly a reprefentadon of the Aoy*, 
 or word of God, as this declaration alludes 
 plainly to his death and refurrection. Eyfj/opjy 
 cxg0fj xcu icTa ^wv upi. And again in the fecond 
 C 3 chapter, 
 
 * Example of the exception to the fifth rule. 
 
 f Note lately added by the Author. [See alfo Jamesy 
 1, i. the text withdrawn from the examples of the fifth 
 rule for the reafons affigned by the learned and Rev. Mr 
 Chr. Wordfworth, in his fix letters to the author, p. 114 
 to 120.] 
 
 t Example of the exception to the fixth rule. 
 
chapter, ver. 8. T& Xtyn 'oV^ww KAI 'O 
 T<&,* (and the fame infallible mark of dif- 
 tinftion is added to prove which of the 
 divine perfons is here to be underftood,) 
 OS rymro i/^o?, xaj gfyurev. Now, though the 
 explanation which Grotius has given us of 
 thefe titles (o vgur&> xai o <rpaT^) is certainly 
 true when Applied to Chrift, yet it does not 
 appear to be the whole truth, or the full 
 meaning that ought to be attributed to thefe 
 titles, either in the Revelation or elfewhere; 
 for, they have a manifeft reference to the 
 fupreme titles of the Almighty in the firft chap- 
 ter and eighth verfe, (which alfo contains 
 examples of this exception,) EFH ^u TO Axat 
 TO 1,* Xiyu 'O xu^tof, a<opj >tai TfAo?,')' 'O wv KAI 
 O 75V,* x&i 'O f^ojWi/of, o TravTOX^aTW^. And, in 
 
 the 22d chapter, i^th verfe> where thefe titles, 
 TO A nai TO n, are mantfeftly, by the context, 
 to be underftood as the titles of Chrift, we 
 find them explained by thefe other titles, o 
 a-fUT& xcci I <r^aTo;, to which Grotius has at- 
 tributed a much inferior and lefs comprehen- 
 
 fivc 
 
 * Example of the exception to the fixth rule. 
 \ Example of the exception to the fifth rule. 
 
( 19 ) 
 five meaning. Eyw tipi TO A KAI TO n,* ao^n 
 
 KOLI TfAo?,f *O <3TWT0- xai *O sff%uro?.* And 
 
 as I have fhewn in my Traft on /<? Law of 
 Nature, &c. p. 270 and 271, that thefe titles, 
 " /&* firft and /fo /*/," are antient titles of 
 Jehovah, in the Old Teftament, to declare his 
 eternal exiftence, there can be nojuftreafon for 
 giving them an inferior fenfe when they are 
 applied to Chrift, who was truly Jehovah, as 
 a variety of texts demonftrate. \_Law of 
 Nature, p. 248 to 345.] 
 
 Another example of the exception to the 
 fifth rule occurs in the Rev. xx. 2. TQV o?i 
 rov <*fx<xM y og fr AIABOAO2 KAI 2ATANAS. 
 Thefe are two different names, or appellatives, 
 attributed (by the explanatory words <?V erO to 
 the &me Old Serpent. 
 
 THE END OF THE'RULES. 
 
 The various ufes of the article and copu- 
 lative, expreiled in the five laft rules and 
 their exceptions, mud amply illuftrate, to 
 
 every 
 
 * Example of the exception to the fixth rule. 
 f Example of the exception to the fifth rule. 
 
every attentive reader, die difference and 
 particularity of thofe fentences which fall 
 under the firft and principal rule; and there- 
 fore I may now proceed with more confidence 
 to point out feveral important corrections 
 that ought to be made in our common 
 tranflation of the New Teftament, if the fe- 
 veral fentences, which fail under the jirft 
 rule y be duly weighed and confidered; 
 corrections which may be fairly defended, 
 I apprehend, by the authority of the feveral 
 examples from which thofe rules were formed* 
 
 EXAMPLES 
 
 OfJenUnces which fall under the FIRST RULE, 
 and are improperly rendered in the Englijb 
 verfion. 
 
 EXAMPLE I. $ Pet. 5. i, fv ^xawo-uvw TOT 
 
 As the article rs is not repeated before the 
 next defcriptive noun, o-urvgo?, it is manifeft 
 that both the nouns are to be referred to 
 one and the fame perform and, therefore, in. 
 order to turn it into an intelligible Englifli 
 phrafe, the prefer name to which the two- 
 
 defcriptivs. 
 
defensive nouns refer ought to be placed 
 firft; as, " By the righteoufnefs of Jefus 
 " Chrift, OUR GOD and our SAVIOUR." 
 Among the various readings collected by 
 Curcellasus, it appears that in fome copies the 
 word i/x,wv was not repeated after C-WT^O?, 
 and I have by me twenty different editions 
 (including thofe of Erafmus, Stephens, Dr 
 Mill, Bengelius, &c.) which follow that 
 reading; viz. iv hxawrvw TOY EOT r'pwv KAI 
 o-wTn^o? Irjo-a X^rs, in which cafe, a literal ren- 
 dering into Englifh will fufficiently exprefs 
 the fenfe of *the Greek without tranfpofing 
 the proper name-, viz. ce 'Through the righteouj- 
 " mjs of our God and Saviour, Jefus Chrift." 
 The fenfe and purport, however, is exactly 
 the fame in both the readings; and, in the 
 old Englifh editions, has generally been ex- 
 prcffed in the terms required by my firft 
 rule; viz. " In the rigbteoujnefs that cometh of 
 <c cure God and Saviour, Jefu Ckrifl" (fol. 
 edit. 1549.) " through the right eoufnefle of 
 " our God and Saviour, Jefus Chrift" (i2mo 
 edit. 1595.) " By the righteoufnejft cf our 
 " God and Saviour, Jefus Chrift" (4to edit. 
 
*599-) " ?*>* rigbteoufnefe of Jejus Cbrift, 
 "our God and Saviour." (margin of the fo- 
 lio edit. 1611.) And even in the margin 
 of our prcfent verfion the proper reading is 
 cc of our God and Saviour" manifeftly refer- 
 ring both titics to one perfon. The learned 
 Beza alfo remarks, on the words of this 
 text, " 1ft a mceffe eft ccnjunttim legamus quia 
 " unicus eft articulus y ut copicfius diximus Tit. 
 < f ii. 13. it aqua ccntinet etiam hie locus mam- 
 * ( feftum divimtatis Chrifli teftimonium" The 
 two nouns are referred to Chrift alfo in the 
 Syriac verfion. There fcems, therefore, to 
 be ample authority for my firft rule. 
 
 EXAM. It. Titus, ii. 13. 
 TOT //.gyaAs KAI (ruT-ngcx; 
 In fome few copies a comma is inferted be- 
 tween @f and >t*j, but without authority. 
 The above-mentioned note of Bcza, upon this 
 text, is too long to be inferted here at length, 
 and therefore I muft refer you to the author 
 himielf. He infifts, however, that thefe two 
 tides do not refer to two di(lint perfons, 
 becaufe the article is omitted before the fe- 
 cond. In the prefent Engliih verfion it is 
 
 rendered 
 
rendered cc the glorious appearing of the great 
 " God and our Saviour Jejus Chrift:" but 
 fo great is the difference between the idiom 
 of the Greek tongue and that of the Englifh, 
 that a literal tranflation will not always 
 exprefs the fame lenfe without fome little 
 tranfpofition in the order of the words 3 and, 
 therefore, though the pronoun fyw is placed 
 after the two defcriptive nouns that are appli- 
 cable only to one perfon as they are exprefTed 
 in the Greek, yet the rendering of the faid 
 pronoun in Engli/b ought to be PREFIXED 
 to the faid defcriptive nouns, in order to ex- 
 prefs the fame fenfe in a proper Englifh 
 phrafe; as, " the glorious appear ing of OUR 
 <f great God and Saviour, Jefus Chrift" 
 This is the rendering of the learned Hugh 
 Broughton, according to a printed Englifh 
 Bible, corrected with a pen, in my collection. 
 It might, indeed, be literacy rendered with- 
 out tranfpofition of the pronoun; viz. "the 
 " great God and Saviour OF us/' inftead of 
 "OUR great God and Saviour:" but the lat- 
 ter is more agreeable to the general mode of 
 exprefiing that pronoun in Englifh. Thus 
 
 Chrift 
 
Chrift is not only entitled God, but even the 
 Cf great God" according to the plained gram- 
 matical conftruclion of the text: and, indeed, 
 if: we duly weigh the evidence of his 
 being really fcboyab, and one with the Father ', 
 [i<yw K&I o naryg iv cy/,t/, the plural verb 
 <T/A ( tc we are* ) marking the plurality, or 
 diftincYion of more perfons than one, as 
 much as the noun tv marks the unity of their 
 exigence,] he mud neceflarily be eileemed 
 " the great God,"* becaufe there is but ONE 
 GOD. 
 
 G. S. 
 
 * As we believe that three per Cons exift in one and the 
 fame God, we cannot believe any one of them to be lefs 
 than God, without denying the unity of the Godhead. And, 
 as each perfon is God, it follows that each muft be the great 
 God, Theophylaft bears an explicit teftimony to this con- 
 clufion in his commentary on St Paul's epiftle to Titus, ii. 
 13. " Hoy It turn (fays the learned and venerable commen- 
 tator, exultingly , on the authority of this pafTage of Titus) 
 tf wj 3s ucrw 01 TOV viov 6AaTroy>Te?, xa ov$ aov ays^of^evot 
 Xvytiv ; Ay.wilosrizv, or* xi GEOS ecrrt, xa MEFAS. 
 To ^e (M-iyaj ETH zoy htyTCt.i> ov xara <7t,"yx4<7ty TW TT^OJ 
 aXXov fjUK09, M* awoXeAwj^EWs, ^5 Qvni ATTOMEFAAOY 
 WTC?.'" Now what becomes of their objections, -ivbo degrade the 
 dignity of the Son, not allowing him even the name cfGod? Let 
 
 them 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 tbemlearihfrom tbispajjage, that be is not only God but our great 
 God. He is called great God, not relatively, by comparifon with 
 another inferior God, but, abfolutely,from his own native and 
 e/ential greatnefs. Whitby, in his note on the fame pafiage 
 of Titus, has given fome very folid reafons for applying the 
 terms fyAov 0iov to our Saviour. His words are: 
 " Here it deferveth to be noted, that it is highly probable, 
 " that Jefus Chrift is here flyled the great God; firft, be- 
 " caufe in the original the article is prefixed only before 
 " the great God, and therefore feems to require this con- 
 " ftruclion, ' the appearance of Jefus Chrift the great God 
 " * and our Saviour.* Secondly, becaufe as God the Fa- 
 " ther is not faid properly to appear, fo the word tmQx- 
 " m never occurs in the New Teftament, but when it is 
 "applied to Jefus Chrift, and fome coming of his; the 
 " places, in which it is to be found, being only thefe, 2 
 ThefT. ii. 8. I Tim. vi. 14. 2 Tim. i. 10. and iv. i, 
 " 8. Thirdly, becaufe Chrifl is emphatically flyled 
 " our hope, the hope of our glory. Col. i. 27. i Tim. i. i. 
 " And, laflly, becaufe not only all the antient commenta- 
 " tors on the place do fo interpret this text, but the Antc- 
 " Nicene fathers alfo; Hippolytus (Antichrift. feel. 64) 
 " fpeaking of* the appearance of our God and Saviour Je- 
 " fus Chrift;' and Clemens of Alexandria (ad Gent. p. 
 ce 5 6) proving Chrift to be both God and Man, our 
 " Creator, and the author of all ouf good things, from 
 " tliefe very words of St Paul." Fid. trafl. de vgra Chrijli 
 deitate, p. 44,45. Hammond, alfo, in his literal mar- 
 ginal verfion, tranilates tiri<pam\ou 7^ 5c|^$ rw ptyoifav sow 
 D 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 Iij<roy X^roy, thus, " the appearance of 
 " the glory of our great God and Saviour Jefus Chrift." 
 
 EDITOR. 
 
 The remainder of tils letter is loft. The author had not 
 lelfure to copy the original letter before hefent it to the gentle- 
 man to whom it was addrcJJ'ed, and therefore he requejled hint 
 to return it as foon as he had perufed and conjidered It ; but 
 the gentleman neghcJed this requeft ; and the author, after 
 federal years felicitation, obtained only a part of the letter, 
 ( as far as is here copied,) and the remainder (which was 
 written on a fcparate half -/he et} he/has never yet been able 
 to recover. He had however a fhort memorandum of the 
 feveral texts, which were explained in the latter part of the 
 letter ; and, having fence had favourable opportunities of 
 examining thefald texts, and 6f copying them very accurate- 
 ly from the ant lent Alexandrian manufcrlpt in the Eritljh 
 Mufeutn, he has been enabled to make feme fliort remarks on 
 the verfeons of all ths fald texts, which may ferve as a 
 fufficient Supplement to this imperfefi letter. Some notes have 
 teen added to this printed copy which were not in the original 
 Utter. 
 
 G. S. 
 
 EXAMPLES 
 
EXAMPLES 
 
 TO THE 
 
 GRAMMATICAL RULES 
 
 OF 
 
 CONSTRUCTION, Kc. 
 
 n 
 
 EXAMPLE I. 
 
 ACTS, XX. 28. 
 
 PO2EXETE ovv lotvrois xai Tram ru TTQI^VM tv 
 
 TO TTVcVtAO, TO CtyiOV t&STO fTrtCTHOTTOU? 
 
 ha, rs 
 
 The warning of the apoftle Paul to the 
 preibyters of the church of bphefus, which 
 is thus rendered in the common Engliih ver- 
 fion: " Take heed therefore unto yourfelve?, 
 cc and to all the flock over which the holy 
 " Ghoft hath made you overfeers^ to feed 
 " the church of God, which he hath purchafcd 
 " with his own blood.'* 
 
 D 2 In 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 
 
 In the Alexandrian MS. and a few other 
 MSS. inftead of ra Q^ y which is the moft 
 general reading, the word Ku^a is fubftitutedi 
 but many old MSS. have both words, T 
 Ku*s na; a,* whereby the text is brought 
 v/uhin the conftruction of the ift rule, and 
 fhould be rendered, " To feed the church 
 " of the Lord, even of God, which he hath 
 <c purchafed with bis own blood" 
 
 Though there is no word in the Greek to 
 correfpond with this word " even," fo as that 
 it might be deemed a literal rendering, yet 
 this Englifh word is frequently ufed by our 
 tranfiators to exprefs the identity of $erjon> 
 when a copulative, in the Greek text, joins 
 a lecond fubftantive (i. e. of perfonal defcrip- 
 tion without an article) to the former fub- 
 ftantive, preceded by an article, agreeably 
 
 to 
 
 * Note lately added by the Author. [Three of the 
 antient Greek MSS. in the Caefarian Library at Vienna, 
 and 1 Sclavonian MS. (cited in the Vienna edition of 
 1787,) have this reading; and it is inferted in the margin 
 of the elegant izmo edition of 1553, printed by John 
 Crifpin. For the fame reading Dr Mill refers to fifteen 
 MSS.] 
 
to the firft rule, as in Romans, xv. 6. rov 
 xai nxTsgz, and I. Cor. xv. 24. rw 0s x#i 
 IlaTjn : both of which are rendered, " God > 
 fc even the Father, (inflead of the literal 
 rendering, the God and Father,) that the 
 identity of per/on may be the more obvious. 
 See alfo II. Cor. i. 3 : wXoyvros 'O 0EO2 KAI 
 IIATHP TS Ku^s fl/xwv Lj<r* X^r, 'O IIATHP rwu 
 OMTigpui/y KAI EOS 7r<nif Tra^axA^crEco?. This 
 fentence contains two fucceffive examples of 
 the firft rule, and is rendered, " Blefled be 
 <c God, even the father of our Lord Jefus 
 " Chrift, the father of mercies, and the God 
 " of all comfort." See alfo James, iii. 95 TCI/ 
 . L ThefT ii-IJi rx 
 II. Xheflf. ii. 16; xtxii o 
 Benders thefe fix examples, wherein 
 the word even, in the Englifh verfion, ex- 
 preffes the copulative, there are alfo 13* other 
 examples of thefirfl rule in the New Teftament: 
 i. e. altogether 19 examples refpeding our 
 D 3 heavenly 
 
 * Viz. II. Cor. xi. 31. Gal. i. 4. Ephef. i. 3, and 
 iv, 6, and v. 20. Philip, iv. 20. Col. i. 3, and ii. 2, 
 and iii. 17. I. ThefT, i. 3, and iii. 11. James, i. 47. 
 I, Peter, i, 3. 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 heavenly Father alone; and therefore the 9 
 examples of the fame mode of expreftion, pro- 
 duced in this and the following pages 5 refpeft- 
 ing the Jon and the holy Jpirit, ought certainly 
 to be rendered in a Jenje fuitable to the fame 
 uniform rule of conftruction, to exprefs the 
 identity cf perfons, becaufe the fame mode of 
 grammatical exprefiion is ufed in them all. 
 
 EXAMPLE II. 
 
 EPHESIANS, V. 5. 
 
 (v ry flacriteia, TOT 
 
 XPI2TOT KAI 0EOT. 
 
 In the common Englim verfion the fen- 
 tence is rendered, " No whoremonger, &c. 
 " hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Chrift, 
 <c and cf God." As if two perfons had been 
 mentioned in the original text ; but, as the 
 part of the fentence above cited is the ge- 
 nerally-approved reading of the printed 
 Greek copies, and as this reading is confirmed 
 by the Alexandrian MS. and by all other 
 Greek MSS. of known authority, it affords 
 an unquefiionable proof againft the apoftacy 
 
cf tbe Sccinians in their denial of divine ho- 
 nour to our Lord the Chrift, or Meffiab, who, 
 according to the idiom of the Greek tongue, 
 is in this text exprefsly intitled Qeog, " GOD," 
 though the proof does not appear in the 
 Englifh verfion. Let it be remarked that 
 the two fubftantives of perfonal defcription, 
 X^tra and , are joined by the copulative 
 x<*i, and that the article m precedes the 
 firft, and that there is no article before the 
 word x, whereby, according to tbe jirfl 
 rule, both titles are necejfarily to be applied 
 to one and the fame perfon, and (if literally 
 rendered in Englifh) fhould be, " hath no 
 " inheritance in the kingdom of tbe Chrifl 
 " and God'' But this literal rendering does 
 not fufficiently exprefs the necefTary doclrine 
 of the Greek, that the Cbrift is alfo God: and 
 therefore to help the Englifh idiom, and to 
 accommodate the rendering more finally to the 
 true meaning of the Greek, the name of Jejus> 
 which is necefTary to be underftood, might 
 very fairly be inferted in italic, or between 
 hooks, as a parenthefis, to fupply the necefiary 
 fenfe of the Greeks as, " in the kingdom 
 
 " of 
 
Cf of (Jefus) the Chrift and God:'' or elfe to 
 be rendered, " in the kingdom cfChrift, (even) 
 <e of God" as recommended in the firft 
 example, 
 
 EXAMPLE III. 
 PHILIPIANS, iii. 3. 
 
 7T>lTOI/], 'OI VVeVpOlTl AA- 
 
 TPETONTE2, KAI KATXm/LENOI tv Xfirw I]<rou, 
 
 This is rendered, in our common verfion, 
 " For we are the circumcifion, which 
 cc worfhip God IN the fpirit, and rejoice in 
 cc Chrift Jefus, and have no confidence in 
 the flefh." 
 
 In the London Polyglott, and many other 
 valuable editions, the reading is 01 
 but in the Alexandrian MS.* it is ot 
 which feems to be the true reading $ becaufe 
 the other is fo unufual an expreffion, that 
 the generality of tranflators have forced 
 
 a 
 
 * Note lately added by the Author. [And in the 
 Vienna edition of 1786, and in all the feven Greek MSS. 
 of the Imperial Library, that have been feparately col- 
 lated with it.] 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 a conftrudlion which the context itfelf can- 
 not fairly bear, even if the dative cafe, 0, 
 were admitted to be the true reading, unlefs 
 another word, the prepofition w, be alfo added 
 to it before imu^aTi, as in John, iv. 23, and 
 Rom. viii. 9, where the fenfe, which they 
 have applied to this text, was really intended: 
 but, without this addition, (as we may fairly 
 judge by thofe examples,) the literal render- 
 ing ought to be, " We are the circumcifion, 
 <f who worjhip tbe Jpirlt God" Whereas 
 they have commonly rendered it as if the 
 prepofition / was really inferred in this text 
 before the dative, Tmu/xom, as in the two ex- 
 amples before cited ; viz. " ghii Jpiritu fervi- 
 <c mus DeoS' or " <$ui Jpiritu colimus Deum:" 
 or, as in the Syriac verfion, " <j>ui Deo fervi- 
 " mus injfiritu:" (fyr.) or, as in the com- 
 mon Engliih vcrfion, f Wbich worjhip God 
 "in tbe Jpirit." But there is no fuch pre- 
 pofition in the Greek. The di'tkuhy there- 
 fore of rendering the common reading, (@w,) 
 without fuppofing this addition of EN to be 
 underftood before TT^V^OCT^ proves that the 
 reading of the Alexandrian MS, in this text 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 is really to be preferred -, ot irnvp&n 0EOT* 
 ATuoi/Tc, " w0 worf/oip the Jpirit of God," 
 whereby the apoftle and Timothy, as an ex- 
 ample to the church at Phllippi, aflert their 
 profeflion, that they pay divine honour to. the 
 Jl>irit of God, and that they glory in Chrift. 
 
 EXAMPLE IV. 
 
 II. THESS. 1. 12. 
 
 Kara rw j^w TOT 0EOY rj>wj/ KAI KYPIOY 
 lycra X^ra. 
 
 This, in the common Englifh verfion, is 
 rendered (very erroneoufly) as if two dif- 
 
 tinft 
 
 * Many other antient and valuable Greek MSS. as Dr 
 Mill has teflified, have this reading, aa, but Auguftine 
 teflified, that, in his time, all or altnoft all Greek copies, 
 and many Latin, had the reading ' SPIRITUI DEI." 
 " P lures enim Codices etiam Latini fie habsnt, qul SPIRITUI 
 " DEI fervimus, GR^CI autem OMNES, AUT TENE 
 '* M N E s . In nonnullis autem exemplaribus L A T I N I s 
 " invenimus non SPIRITUI DEI S.ER.VIMUS," fed 
 " SPIRITUI DEO SERVIMUS. Sed qui in hoc errcwit et 
 ft autboritati gr avion cedert detrettarvit, &c." 
 
 In Wetftein's edition the word E is fubjoined with 
 this mark *?, to denote the preferable reading. 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 tinct perfons were mentioned, viz. cc according 
 e< to the grace of our God and the Lord Jefus 
 " Chrift" But, if two diftinft perfons had 
 really been intended to be exprefled, as (by 
 innumerable examples of the grammatical 
 conduction of fentences, for the accurate 
 diftinction of perfons peculiar to the Greek 
 tongue, ufed in the Greek Teftamenr, from 
 which the preceding rules were formed) 
 may be demonftrated, the article would 
 have been repeated (according to the fixrh 
 rule) after the copulative and before the 
 fecond fubftantive xu^a. For, it is manifeft 
 that the infertion of the comma, in fome 
 Greek copies, after r\^v, is a moclern 
 interpolation; becaufe the expedient of 
 breaking fentences into fmall divifions or 
 particles by commas, to preferve the neccflary 
 diftincYions, was not antiently ufed (nor 
 likely to have been ufed) by the antient 
 writers of the Greek tongue, who were ac- 
 cuftomed to much more accurate diftindlions 
 in their various peculiar modes of gramma- 
 tical expreffion, fpecified in the fix preceding 
 rules. 
 
 Whole 
 
Whole fentences are, indeed, diftinguiftied, 
 in the oldeft Greek MSS. by a fmglc 
 point placed at their end, fometimes towards 
 the top of the line, fometimes in the middle, 
 and fometimes towards the bottom ; but, ap- 
 parently, no diftinction of time has been in- 
 tended by any of thefe three different modes 
 of placing the point, for, they are all placed, 
 inciifcriminately, to the mo ft obvious and full 
 termination of fentences ; and, therefore, we 
 may be afiured, that, in all thefe three diffe- 
 rent modes of placing them, they were ori- 
 ginally intended only as periods to conclude 
 the fentences : fo that, when we find them in 
 the place of commas, to diftinguim merely 
 the parts or particles of a fentence, there is 
 great reafon to fufpect that they have been 
 the additions of later times. 
 
 In the Alexandrian MS. the text before us 
 is awkwardly divided by one of thefe points, 
 placed after the word r.puv, which point, for 
 the reafon before given, muft neceffarily be 
 deemed a feriod> and which did not exift in 
 the original text of the facred penman. 
 
 The 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 The intention of the tranfcriber, or inter- 
 polator, by adding this point to the text, (for 
 it cannot juftly be attributed to the original 
 writer,) has been probably to make a diftinc- 
 tion of perfons; as if two perfons had been 
 named in the text inftead of ons> in like 
 manner as the comma is added afcer the 
 word God, in the Engliili verfion, without 
 any authority. 
 
 But the necefiary grammatical conftrudion 
 of the whole fentence taken together detects 
 the interpolator, and demonflrates the abfurd- 
 ity of fuppofing that any fuch point ever 
 exifted in the original textj becaufe the words, 
 which are fevered by the fuppofidtious period, 
 cannot form a grammatical fentence (according 
 to the ordinary modes of expreffion ufed in the 
 Greek tongue) by themfelves alone j fo that 
 the obvious fenfe of the context demonftrates 
 their necefTary connexion with the preceding 
 words in one entire Jentence: and demonftrates, 
 alfo, at the fame time, the ignorance and 
 fallacy of the interpolator, who attempted to 
 make two fentences of it by inferting a full 
 period. 
 
 E If 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 If literally rendered, it ought to be, " ac- 
 " cording to the grace of the God and Lord cf 
 " us, Jefus Chrift:" but, more in the iaiom 
 of our own language, it might be juftly ren- 
 dered, <c according to the grace of 'Jefus Chrift, 
 cc our God and Lord'' In either way the 
 necefiary do&rine of our ^Lord's divine nature^ 
 manifeftly intended to be expreffed in the 
 original, is duly retained in the propofed 
 verfion. 
 
 EXAMPLE V. 
 
 I. TIM. V. 21. 
 
 Aia/ATUo/Aai WUTTM TOT EOT KAI KTPIOT 
 IH2OT XPISTOT xai TWJ/ fxAcrwv ayyfAwv, IVK 
 
 T&VTOt ^uXa^f, &C. 
 
 This, in the common Englifh verfion, is 
 rendered, ft I charge (thec) before God, and 
 <c the Lord Jefus Chrift, and the elect angels, 
 " that thou obferve thefc things, &c. J) 
 
 The word Kv^is* is omitted in the Alexan- 
 drian MS. where the reading is MUTTIQV rou @3 
 
 Y.8,1 
 
 * Note lately added by the Author. [The Author 
 acknowledges himfelf to be under great obligation to a 
 
 judicious 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 xai tyr* I<ra. And, as no points are inferted 
 
 between the fubftantives, we have the teftimo- 
 
 E 2 ny 
 
 judicious and learned writer in the Britijh Critic for a 
 very important correction of what was written under this 
 fifth example., and alfo under the 6th, in the former 
 editions of this little book; as well as for his general 
 candour in reviewing, and declaring a decided favourable 
 opinion upon, the whole defign of it. (See the Britilh 
 Critic for July, 1802; and alfo Remarks on a former 
 edition of the year 1798, in the 15th vol. of the Britifh 
 Critic, p. 70.) 
 
 Under this fifth example the Author had inadvertently 
 inferted the word X$r inftead of Kt;g*s, in his report 
 refpeding the omiflkm of a word in the Alexandrian MS. 
 And, in his remarks on the fixth example, he had reverfed 
 this miftake by mentioning Kt> inftead of Kgir- As 
 foon as the Author had read, in the Britijb Critic, the 
 detection of thefe two errors, he immediately referred to 
 the original paper on which he at firft, many years ago, 
 had carefully delineated the feveral texts in queilion from 
 the Alexandrian MS. in the exacl form of the letters and 
 length of the lines ; and, finding therein the true reading 
 of the MS. as ftated in the Britijb Critic, he was the 
 more fur prized to obferve that he bimfelf had inadvertent- 
 ly tranfpofed (in his fubfequent remarks drawn from that 
 very fame paper) the word Xgra for Kt/gu** and Kvgw for 
 X^r! 
 
 Thefe 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 r,y even of this MS. for a clear declaration 
 that Jefus is God as well as Cfcr//?: and, after 
 
 the 
 
 Thefe were involuntary errors of the Author bimfelf 
 alone, for which the very worthy and learned Editor (who 
 relied on the Authors examination of the MS.) is not at 
 all refponfible : and the Author himfelf, though he had fo 
 accurate a delineation of the texts, from the MS. in his 
 pofleffion, did not obferve this unaccountable tranfpofnion 
 that he had made of the two words, in his remarks, until 
 he was apprifed of the miflake by the learned writer in 
 the Eriti/h Critic, for which he thinks himfelf under very 
 great obligation. G. S. 
 
 An extract from the Britim Critic is inferted in the 
 Appendix, not only for the better illuftration of the fub- 
 ject in queiHon, but, alfo, more particularly, to fet forth, 
 in terms more fatisfactory to the Author than any ex- 
 preffions he himfelf could fnggeft, the indefatigable 
 labour, learning, and judicious criticifm, of the Rev. 
 Mr Chr. Wordsworth, of Trinity-College, Cambridge, in 
 his fix letters to G. S. on the fubjecl of this book; by 
 which the doctrine, particularly of the/?y? rule, has been 
 fo amply confirmed. 
 
 For the fame reafons are added extracts alfo from the 
 ingenious and learned obfervations on both thefe works, 
 (the Remarks by G. S. and Mr Wordfworth's fix letters 
 to him upon them,) which were publiihed in the Chriftian 
 Obferver for July, 1802, and in the Chrijlian Guardian fo? 
 December, 1802, and alfo in the Orthodox Churchman's 
 Magaxine and Review for February, 1803.] 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 the next copulative, which connects the men- 
 tion of different perfons, according to the 
 fixth rule, the adverb twviov, (before,) though 
 not exprefsly repeated, is plainly to be under- 
 ftood; as, " I charge' 1 (thee), " before the 
 " GOD and CHRIST, Jefus" (or, rather, be- 
 fore Jefus, the God and CbriftJ " and" (be- 
 fore) " the cleft angels > that thou obferve thefe 
 " things." Thus far the teftimony of the Alex- 
 andrian MS. But, according to the com- 
 monly-received text of the Greek, it ought 
 to be rendered, in the Englifh idiorn, cc / 
 " charge (thee), before Jefus Chrifly the GOD 
 " and LORD, and (before) the eleft angels, 
 " &c." 
 
 EXAMPLE VL 
 
 II. TIM. iv. I. 
 
 oui/ tyu UUTTIOV TOT EOT KAI 
 KTPIOT IH20T XPI2TOT rx peMorros *pmi> 
 MT<%$ XKI wx^sf, &c. (Geneva Edit. 1620.) 
 In the common Englifh verfion this is ren- 
 dered, tf I charge (thee) therefore before 
 " God, and the Lord Jefus Chrift, who mall 
 u judge the quick and the dead &c," 
 
 Ej In 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 In the Greek of this text, as it is common- 
 ly printed, the article ra is repeated before 
 Kuu, which, fo far, affords an excufe for the 
 prefent Englifh verfion in placing the comma 
 after the word God, to denote two diftinct per- 
 fons, according to the fixth rule ; but, in the 
 Alexandrian MS. and feveral other old copies, 
 *[ where the reading is ti/wTnoj/ ra @*a KM X^*r 
 Iro-a] the article ra is not repeated after the 
 copulative before Xsira: fo that the expreflion 
 is fimilar, in effect, to the declaration of our 
 Lord's divine nature, by the fame apoftle, in 
 the preceding example, viz. I. Tim. v. 21. 
 In fome printed editions the word Ku>;a is alfo 
 omitted, but, in the Geneva edition of 1620, 
 with Scaliger's notes, the word Kua is inferted 
 and the article ra omitted,-)- whereby the title 
 
 * [ ] Corre&ion and addition by the Author. 
 
 f Note lately added by the Author. [The expreflion 
 being exactly the fame as that which is generally allowed 
 to exift in the preceding example, viz. MUTTM ra KOH 
 Kt>ta Ij- Xgir> I. Tim. v. 21. And the Author has 
 lately difcovered feveral other editions e>f the Greek 
 Teftaoient which have this reading, and thereby .confirm 
 
 the 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 (God,) mufl necefiarily be conftrued ia 
 fuch a manner that it may be clearly under- 
 
 ftood, 
 
 the truth of this 6th example ; though it muft be allowed, 
 at the fame time, that not even one of the feveral editors 
 underflood the text in its proper grammatical fenfe^ becaufe 
 they have all (without any authority) placed commas after 
 is, in order to diftinguifh two perfons, contrary to the 
 neceflary grammatical conftruftion of the Greek text. 
 Two of thefe editions (in the Author's poffcffion) have 
 Montanus's interlineary Latin verfion. They are both in 
 8vo, though of different fizes, the one having four more 
 lines in each page than the other ; but the title-pages of 
 both being loft their refpeclive dates cannot be known. 
 (There are feveral other 8vo editions with the fame inter- 
 lineary verfion, but which have a different reading in this 
 place, viz. the common reading with the article inferted 
 in the fecond place after the copulative; and two fuch 
 editions are alfo in the Author's collection.) The fourth 
 printed authority, which the Author has found, in favour 
 of his fixth example, is the Vienna edition of 1787, 
 printed from an antient MS. in the Imperial Library at 
 Vienna. The title of it is, " Novum Teftamentum ad 
 t( Codicem Vindelonsnfem Greece exprtjjitm. Varietatem 
 " Letfionis addidit Francifcus Carolus Alter ProfcJJor 
 " Gymnafii Vindebonenjts" At the end of the fecond 
 volume (for it confifts of two very thick 8vo volumes) are 
 added the various readings of feven other antient Greek 
 
 MSS. 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 flood, in all verfions, to be expreffly applied 
 to Cbrift, as it really is in the original. The 
 
 tranfcriber 
 
 MSS. all containing the EpifHes, (befides the MS, from 
 which the edition was formed,) which have been feparate- 
 ly collated with this edition ; and the variations are 
 diftinctly and feparately ftated, under the proper titles of 
 each MS. in the Appendix. Two, only, of all thefe 
 eight MSS. have, in this text, the article T repeated 
 in the fccond place after the copulative, (viz. T E x 
 T Ki/, &c.) Another of them has the fame reading 
 exactly as the Alexandrian MS. ra a x<* X^ra lr,aa : 
 and, therefore, by the omillion of the article in the 
 fecond place before X^r, doth alfo, equally with that 
 MS. confirm the doctrine of my fixth example. And all 
 the other five MSS. (which Jikewife contain this Epittle) 
 muft neceflarily be allowed to have the other more correct 
 reading for which I contend, viz. T es xat Ki^ia im 
 Xgir: becaufe no difference or variation from that 
 reading, in the printed edition, is noted in any other of 
 the feven feparate collations of antient MSS. that have 
 been diftinctly compared with it, except in the three that 
 are firft mentioned above. 
 
 Though the infertion of the article in the fecond place 
 is undoubtedly the mod common reading in all the printed 
 editions, (for fifty- nine out of fixty-four printed Greek 
 Teftaments, in the poffeflion of the Author of this little 
 work, have this reading,) yet feveral of the moil learned 
 
 Editors 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 transcriber or interpolator of the Alexandrian 
 MS. however, being aware of this do&rine, 
 
 has 
 
 Editors of thefe fifty-nine editions, that have adopted it, 
 have, at the fame time, warned us that there are various 
 readings in this text, viz. Bifhop Walton, Curcell&us, 
 Bifhop Fell, Dr Mill, Plenty Wet ft en, and John Jac. 
 Wetften. The latter cites no lefs than fix antient MSS. 
 (befides feveral verfions,) which have not the reading ra 
 Kvis. (N.B. His mark for a deficiency is a fhort line, 
 thus ; and he has expreffed this various reading, in his 
 note on the text, as follows: " ra Kugts.] A CD a 
 " prima manu. FG. 31. EditioVulg. Copt. (Ethiop. Ba- 
 " fitius Eth. 89. Htlarius") And confequently we muft 
 underftand that all thefe fix MSS. have the fame reading 
 as the firft of them, A, by which mark he refers to the 
 Alexandrian MS. wherein, though the words TS Kugu* are 
 indeed omitted, yet the proper effect of this omiffion 
 ought to be at the fame time remarked, viz. that the 
 article TS is not repeated after the copulative, in the 
 fecond place, before the next noun Xgirt* : fo that the 
 expreflion, in all thefe fix MSS. mull be equally declara- 
 tory of our Lord's divine nature, as in the former example 
 (the fifth) from I. Tim. v. 21. To the evidence of thefe 
 fix MSS. muft be added that of one of the Imperial MSS. 
 at Vienna, mentioned above. 
 
 John Jac. Wetften (my authority for the evidence of 
 five of the ancient MSS. which agree with the Alexandrian 
 
 MS. 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 has endeavoured to pervert it by adding a full 
 period after the word 0*j>, as 0u' But this 
 
 period 
 
 MS. in the particular reading of the text laft-mentioned) 
 has alfo acknowleged a very confiderable degree of evi- 
 dence in favour of the other reading, which I have adopted 
 as my fixth example; (though he was, apparently, of a 
 very different opinion from myfeif refpeding the propriety 
 of it ;) for, he cites no lefs than three MSS. (befides the 
 Geneva edition, which I have quoted) wherein the 
 reading, as he alfcrts, is without the article in the Jecond 
 place. See his note, vol. ii, p. 364, viz. " ra fecundo 
 " loco.] E. 4. 52. kditio Gene<u. The fhort line 
 is his mark, or fign, for a deficiency, as fignified in his 
 prolegomena, p. 222; (lait line but one;) viz. ' in V. 
 "L." (i.e. in Variis Leclionibus,) " notat -voces, quibus 
 " appojltum eft, in coda, citatis non /<?/." And E is his 
 mark for the antient Bajil MS. But he muft have made 
 fome miftake refpeding the two otncr MSS. 4 and 52, for 
 he has defcribed them in his prolegomena (p. 46 and 51) 
 as containing the four Gofpels, without making any men- 
 tion of their having alfo the Epiftlss s fo that thefe two 
 MSS. have probably been cited, by miitakr, initead of 
 fome other MSS. which he had known to contain the fame 
 reading as the Bujil MS. and the Geneva Edition. 
 
 But, even if we fet afide thefe two fuppofed MSS. yet 
 as it appears that five out of the eight antient MSS. in the 
 .Imperial Library at Vienna, as well as the antient Bafel 
 
 MS. 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 period is unqueftionably fuppofititious, becaufe 
 the words before and after the period are not 
 two diftintt fentences, but obvioufly portions 
 only of one entire Jentence, which muft ne- 
 cefiarily be conftrued together, according to 
 the ordinary rules of exprefllon in the Greek 
 tongue, as I have remarked on a preceding 
 example; whereby a fecond fubftantive of 
 perfonal defcription, without an article before 
 i^ joined by a copulative to a preceding 
 fubftantive of the like nature, and in the 
 fame cafe, with an article before it, mud 
 neceflarily denote a farther defcription of the 
 fame perfon, exprefTed by the firft fubftantive; 
 (whenever there is an article before the firft 
 fubftantive and none before the fecond;) fo 
 that the infertion of the period m the Alexan- 
 drian 
 
 MS. cited by Wetilen, and alfo four printed editions, 
 have this reading; and that fix other MSS. agree with 
 the Alexandrian MS. in a different reading of this text, 
 which bears equal teftimony to the divinity of Cbrift s the 
 Author hopes it will be allowed that all this united evi- 
 dence affords fome reafonable ground of j unification for 
 his having cited this text as his fixth example.] 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 drian MS.* after is utterly vain, becaufe 
 the copulative fu.Ticiently proves the connexion 
 of the two fubftantives in one clear fentence, 
 and the omiiTion of the article before the 
 fecond fubflantive induces the neceflity of 
 applying the fame grammatical conflruction, 
 whereby alone the due diftindion of perfons is 
 fo peculiarly maintained in the Greek tongue, 
 and not ly points. The text flixmld therefore 
 be rendered, " I charge (thee,) therefore, 
 " before the God and Lord, Jefus Chrift, &c." 
 Or, rather, (to render the doctrine more ob- 
 vious in the Engltfn idiom,) "I charge 
 " (thee,) therefore, before Jefus Chrift, the 
 " God and Lord, who lhall judge the quick 
 " and the dead, &c." And thus the texts in 
 the two laft examples will perfectly accord as 
 the uniform exprefilons of the fame apoftle, 
 
 alTerting, 
 
 * Note lately added by the Author. [And alfo the 
 infertion of commas after &, in the four printed editions, 
 is equally vain, and proves only that the Editors were net 
 aware of the proper grammatical conftru&ion of the 
 text.] 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 averting, in both,* the divinity of his Lord and 
 Saviour, by whom he had been perfonally 
 fummoned to bear his tefiimony to the gen- 
 tiles, as being an eye and ear witnefs of his 
 glorious majefty. 
 
 Our Socinian Sadducees, who have im- 
 pioufly entitled our Lord " a mere man" and 
 "nothing but a man" and Cf Jimple human na- 
 " ture" will not be able to digeft this neceiTary 
 doctrine until they humble themfelves to re- 
 ceive inflrudtions from the holy fcripttires. 
 
 F EXAMPLE 
 
 * Note lately added by the Author. [This feems to 
 have been the opinion alfo of the learned Bengelius, that 
 both thefe texts had originally the fame mode of ex- 
 preffion. For, in his Gnomon, he remarks, on the text 
 of the former example, (i Tim. v. 21,) KM Kvgia et 
 Domini, " Articulus non additur, cum tamen mox adda- 
 '* tur de angelis. Ergo Dei appellatio et Domini ad unum 
 <f pertinet fubjedlum. Conf. tamen If. Tim. iv. i, w^iv 
 " non habet le&io vetufta." To reftore this antient 
 reading without the article in tve fecond place, there feem's 
 to be. ample authority by the teftimony of the MSS. and 
 editions which I have cited, in addition to the Similarity of 
 expreflion, by Obefame apojlle, in I. Tim. v, 21.] 
 
EXAMPLE VJI. 
 TIT. ii. 13. 
 
 Tic cKT^f 
 
 TOT pryaAa EOT KAI 
 IH2OT XPIITOT. 
 The prefent verfion of thefe words. In 
 the Englifh teftament, is, " Looking for 
 " that blefied hope, and the glorious appearing 
 " of the great God, and our Saviour Jefus 
 " Chriii." This text (though the next in 
 order, according to the ufual mode of arran- 
 ging the books of the New Teftament) has 
 already been produced as the fecond example 
 in the preceding letter. I have fince, however, 
 examined the Alexandrian MS. and find that 
 it agrees exactly with the above citation of this 
 texr, except that a point has been added in the 
 MS. after the word QIB or u. On which it 
 is neceflary to obferve, that the fame remarks 
 are obvioufly applicable to this fuperfluous and 
 abfurd addition of the point or period) that I 
 have made on the texts II. Thtff. i. 12, and 
 II. Tim. iv. i, in the fourth and fixth exam- 
 
 ples 
 
pics of this trad. For, as the proper eft-eft 
 or purpofe of periods is to feparate words 
 inco diftinft fin twees, it is obvious that the 
 words, which follow the fuppofitidous period 
 in this text, are incapable of a grammatical 
 conftruftion without reference to the preceding 
 words connected by the copulative : and there- 
 fore the note of Jeparation (a period) cannot 
 pofiibly have been intended by the inipired 
 writer. This teftimony, therefore, of the 
 facred text, in favour of our Lord's divine 
 nature, ought not to be withheld from the 
 mere Engiifh reader. 
 
 I am pcrfuaded that our modern Socinians 
 would not have made fo much clamour, 
 about the neceffity cf a new tranflation^ had 
 they been aware that a more clofe and literal 
 rendering of the original text (even in pafTages 
 which had efcaped their calumnious charges of 
 torrttptfar?) and their arrogant attempts at 
 imaginary correction) mud necedarily cut up 
 their favourite fyftem by the roots. 
 
 The text in queflion, if the truth of the 
 
 original be duly regarded, mud inevitably be 
 
 rendered, <f Expefting the blejfcd hope and ap- 
 
 F 2 " pearance 
 
" pearance of the glory of cur great God and 
 " Saviour, Jcjus Cbrift;* 
 
 EXAMPLE VIII. 
 
 II. PET. i. I. 
 
 TOY 8EOT jpw KAI 
 PC2 IH20T XPI2TOT. 
 
 Which, in the common EngHfli verfion, is 
 thus imperfectly rendered, " through the 
 <c rigbteoufnefs of God and cur Saviour, Jejus 
 " Ckrifl."* 
 
 This text, though //^^ ^/g^/^? in order, ac- 
 cording to the proper order of the books, was 
 tbefirft example cited in my letter -, and I have 
 only to remark farther, that the Alexandrian 
 MS. perfectly agrees with the prefent common 
 approved reading in the Greek text. In Dr 
 Woide's printed copy of the faid MS. there 
 is a point infected after the word JWanxruv*?, 
 
 which 
 
 * Note lately added by the Author. [But in the 
 margin (with the ufual mark of reference to the Greek 
 text, viz. Gr. when a more literal verfion is given) it is 
 properly rendered, "of our God and Saviour *"] 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 which is not in the MS. but that is manifeftly 
 a merely-accidental typographical error. 
 
 The Reverend Mr Crutwell has remarked 
 (in his ufeful edition of the Englifh Bible with 
 Bifliop Wilfon's Notes) that the words ren- 
 dered in our prefent verfion, viz. cc of God 
 " and our Savivur y Jefus Cbrift" were ren- 
 dered, cc of cur Gcd and Saviour, Jefus Ckrift" 
 in the verfions of WicklifF, Coverdale, 
 Matthews, Cranmer, in the Bifhops (Bible,) 
 (the) Geneva, (the) Rhemifh, (Bibles,) and 
 by Doddridge, Wefley, Scattergood, and 
 Purver; which is altogether a noble teilimony 
 of both antient and modern times againft the 
 Socinian impiety. The Englifh reader fhould 
 undoubtedly be informed of the true meaning 
 of thefe words in a proper Engliftj idiom, as 
 " Through the rightwufnefs of Jefus Cbrift, our 
 et God and Saviour : " which is agreeable to 
 a literal rendering into Latin by the late learned 
 Dr Thomas Mangey, Prebendary of Durham, 
 viz. " Jefu Chrijli Dei et Jervatoris nojlri". 
 
 F j EXAMPLE 
 
( 54 ) 
 EXAMPLE IX. 
 
 JUDE 4. 
 
 x TON fAovov AE2IIOTHN GEON KAI 
 
 JLTPION ypuv IHIOTN XPIITON otpxpew. 
 
 This, in the common EngHfh verfion, is 
 imperfectly rendered cc and denying the only 
 " Lord God, and cur Lord Jejus Ckrift." 
 
 I made a tranfcript of this text, feveral years 
 ago, from the Alexandrian MS. which I copied, 
 or rather drew, letter b) letter, in fize and 
 fhape as exactly as the eye could difcern. In 
 this tranfcript the word Qiov is omitted, as in 
 the MS. ; but I did nor, at that time, perceive 
 that there was any point or mark after the 
 word AfcrTroT^, and I was therefore much fur- 
 priied, afterwards, in comparing the faid tran- 
 fcript with the elegant edition of my late very 
 worthy and refpeftable friend, the Rev. Dr 
 \Voide, (who printed a copy of the New Tef- 
 tament from the Alexandrian MS. with new 
 types, in imitation of the letters of the MS.) 
 to find that he had inferted a point, in his new 
 edition, after the word Asc-TroTr/v. I was very 
 confident that I could not difcern any fuch point, 
 when I examined the MS. 5 and yet, as I en- 
 tertained 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 tcrtained the higheft refpect and efleem for 
 the veracity and accuracy of Dr Woide, (of 
 which he was, indeed, truly worthy,) it was 
 necefiary to have this matter properly ex- 
 plained ; and I was rendered perfectly aware, 
 by Dr Velthufen's account of his examining an 
 antient MS. that the faint lines and marks in 
 the very old MSS. are liable to bear different 
 appearances, according to the different degrees 
 of light in which they are feen. 
 
 I therefore took the firft opportunity, after- 
 wards, of going once more to examine the 
 M S. s and, on a more clofe irifpeftion, I per- 
 ceived, indeed, the faint mark which occa- 
 fioned Dr Woide 's 4nfertion of the period in 
 his edition ; but being afterwards afMcd by 
 the worthy librarian, the Rev. Mr Harper, in 
 a dill more attentive and accurate examination 
 of the mark with a magnifying glafs, I was 
 fatisfied that it had not been intended for a 
 period, but only for a fhort line of connexion, 
 becaufe it is nearly three times as long as it 
 is broad. 
 
 But if any perfon, from the authority of 
 Dr Woide's edition, fhouki be dill inclined 
 
 to 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 to fuppofe that it is really a pointy I muft re- 
 queft them carefully to confider what I have 
 before remarked on the fourth, fixth, and fe- 
 venth, examples in this tracl, refpecling the 
 addition of points in Greek manufcripts ; and 
 alfo concerning the more accurate modes of 
 grammatical diftinction in the Greek tongue, 
 which rendered the fmaller points, or par- 
 ticles of time, (fuch as femicolons and com- 
 mas,) abfolutely unneceflary in the Greek Jcrip- 
 iiire \ and, in addition thereto, let him ob- 
 ferve, particularly on the text before us, that 
 a point in that place, after ASOTTOTUV, (in the 
 middle of the fentence, between the accufa- 
 tive noun and verb,) is utterly inconfiftent 
 with grammar and common fcnfe -, and though 
 the word fov has been omitted in the Alex- 
 andrian M S. (perhaps for the fame reafon 
 that fome men would wilh to prove the in- 
 fertion of the point after Airfrorn*,^ yet, hap- 
 pily, neither of thefe alterations would at all 
 affect or injure the manife'fl teftimony of the 
 apoftle Jude to Cbrift's almighty power and 
 divinity, for " the only potentate and Lord 
 of us, Jejus Chrift" is equivalent to a full 
 
 declaration 
 
( .57 ) 
 
 declaration of Chrift's divinity, as well as ot 
 his almighty power ; and, with reipect to the 
 infertion of the fupfofed foint, they muft per- 
 ceive, if they duly confide r the text, that 
 the words Afo-7roT*i> and KV^OV cannot (confid- 
 ently with the necefTary grammatical fenfe of 
 the Greek, and the ufual modes of expreffion, 
 or idiom of that language) be feparated either 
 by points or confl ruction, fo as to be applied 
 to two different peribns, bccaufe the article 
 is not repeated after the copulative, before 
 xuiok : fo that Cbrift akne was unquellionably 
 that " cnly potentate" or fovereign Lord, 
 who was denied by the lafchious ferfons y 
 againft whom the the apoftle Jude bore tef- 
 timony of their reprobacy, and of their having 
 denied the Lord> who had redeemed them. Dr 
 Hammond's rendering of the text before us 
 may, therefore, be confcientioufly maintained, 
 viz. " cur only Mafter, God, and Lord> Jefus 
 " Chrifti * making* (fays he) " tbofe three the 
 Jever al attributes of Jefus Chrift" But 
 as the Doftor has been pkafed to add, 
 
 afterwards, 
 
 * Viz. in the margin of the text; and repeated in his 
 Annotations, p. 850, with the remainder of this quotation. 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 afterwards, <c dnd this interpretation proceeds 
 " upon that way of punftuation which is ordi- 
 (( narily retained in our copies, there being no 
 " comma after so*, &c." I am obliged to pro- 
 tcfl' againft that reafon, for the other reajons 
 already given \ and to infift, that the gram- 
 matical conftruction of the Greek text is, cf 
 itfelf, our fufHcient and beft warrant to juftify 
 that literal rendering. 
 
 But the applying to Chrift this Jupreme 
 title, "the wily potentate, God" (and, alfo, 
 in a former text, the Jupreme title of <f the 
 " great God" ) may, perhaps, induce fome per- 
 fons to conceive that this grammatical fyftem 
 of conftruction, if admitted as a rule, for all- 
 texts, in which the fame mode of expreflloa 
 renders it applicable, will fometim.es prove 
 rather too much, and may be liable to fa- 
 vour a modern feel: of Unitarian^ who have 
 adopted the Sabellian notions of the late Baron 
 Swedenborg, and who afTert, that " Jtfus 
 " ChriJ} is the only God-, " that is, they under- 
 ftand this in fo peculiar a fenfe,. that they do 
 not feem properly to acknowledge the per* 
 finality of the holy Jpirit, any more than a 
 
 very 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 very oppofite feet of Unitarians do, the mo- 
 dern Socinians, who impioufly aflert (in the 
 oppofite extreme to that of the Swedenlorgians) 
 that c Jefus Chrifl was a mere man, and nothing 
 but a man" according to one of their teachers, 
 and " Jtmpk human nature" according to 
 another : and fome of them have even pre- 
 fumed to charge the members of the church 
 of England with idolatry,* becaufe they pay 
 
 the 
 
 * This unjaft charge of idolatry againft the unqueftion- 
 able principles of the antient catholic church, profe/Ted by 
 the church cf England, affords a notable Ikreen to the Latin 
 church, by indifcriminately confounding all the due diftinc- 
 tions whereby a charge of idolatry is applicable ; and this 
 fhould teach us to be aware of what we fhould have to ex- 
 p:.ct on the removal of all tefts and reftraints from fuch in* 
 difcriminate teachers ; and, likewife, from all other fec- 
 taries (as much as from the pontifical hierarchy^ feated on 
 the throne of the dragon) who do not regulate their faith 
 iiiid practice by the plain doclrines of the holy Scriptures. 
 For, indeed, no man is jutlly entitled to have a vote or 
 ihare in the Icgiflature of this or any other Cbriftian nation, 
 uniefs he (at leaii) profefTes to regulate tils principles of ac- 
 tion by the t-jco firft foundations /* ENGLISH LAW, viz. 
 natural and revealed religion, to which (as being two nvit- 
 nffis of Gcd) univerfal obedience is due, fo that no ftatute 
 
 of 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 tie divine honour that Is due to their Lord and 
 Saviour, and to the holy Jpirit, their " other 
 " comforter. 
 
 So 
 
 of parliament can be valid, nor any other law, cullom, or 
 pradice, fuferable, if it be at all inconfiftent with either of 
 thefe liuo indifpenjllle foundations. For, without thefe, 
 M E N retain, indeed, tlie form, but not the dignity, of M A N ; 
 becaufe they are fubjeft to the impulfe of fpirits, inimical 
 to the nature of man ; and are, thereby, liable to be ren- 
 dered, in difpofition and pra&ice, the mod noxious of 
 'beafts, even " a generation of vipers ; " and, therefore, 
 the knowledge of our own NATURE, and of the principles of 
 atticn in MAN, <^ihat they are and what they ought to be, 
 (which, by the Scriptures alone, is revealed to us,) is the 
 firft and moft eflentia] branch of philofophy, whatfoever our 
 modern fceptical philofophers may think to the contrary ; 
 for, how fhould men be on their guard againil any invifible 
 enemies, of whofe very exiftence they are ignorant ? But 
 by the holy fcriptures we are informed, that " the prince 
 " of the power of the air ivorketb in the children of dif- 
 " obedience ; " and, certainly, wherever this Satanical 
 infpiratlon manifeilly takes place among men, their defcrip- 
 ti-ve title cannot be more accurately exprefled than in the 
 terms which our Lord himfelf (as well as John the Baptist, 
 before him) applied to the haughty fceptics whom they 
 oppofed, " a generation of vipers " (Matthew xii. 34 ;) 
 and "ftrpents:" (Matthew, xxiii. 33:) expreflly alluding 
 
 thereby 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 So that both thefe feds of Unitarians (as 
 well as their Unitarian brethren, the Maho- 
 metans) are, by miftaken notions of the 
 divine unity, feduced from perceiving and 
 acknowledging the declarations, throughout 
 the holy Scriptures, of the unqueftionable ex- 
 iftence of three divine perfons in ont only 
 divine nature, or Godhead. The old Arians 
 G (though 
 
 thereby to the Satan/col inspiration by which they became 
 the children t or generation, of the old ferpent, as our Lord 
 plainly warned them at another time:- Ye are of YOUR. 
 
 "FATHER THE DEVIL and the lufts of Y O U k F A - 
 
 *' T H E R ye 'will do : be was a MURDERER from tie 
 " beginning, and abode not in the truth, &c." Men, there- 
 fore, who will not be limited by the two fir ft foundations 
 of Englijh law, are unworthy to be admitted to an equal 
 participation of civil rights in any free Cbriftian ftate 
 whatever ; becaufe true liberty cannot be maintained with- 
 out that perfc&ion of law which arifes only from thefe 
 indfyenjible rules cf action* 
 
 They are indifperfble, becaufe we can have no hope that 
 our conftitutional eP.ablifhment of natural and religious. 
 rights (to "the glory of God, peace on earth," and good 
 will towards men "J can poflibiy be maintained,, if f uc h 
 perfons are admitted to a (hare of Itgijlatwe authority, 
 who do not acknowledge the only foundations on which, 
 alone, that happy conjlitution is built. 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 (though their fed was probably reprefented 
 by that cc fallen ftar" which opened the 
 " bottomlefs fit" for the emiffion of the 
 armed locufts of the Arabian herefy, more 
 ftriftly Unitarians than themfelves*) allowed, 
 
 indeed, 
 
 * Since I wrote the above remark, refpecting the Ma- 
 hometans and Arians, a more ftriking accompiimment of 
 the prophecy, refpecting the fallen Jlar that opened the 
 bcttomlefs pit, has occured to me, in the character of Nef- 
 torius, Archbilhop of Conftaiuinople and metropolitan of 
 the Greek church, whofe doctrine was, in effect, flill 
 " more Unitarian than" that of Arius ; for, the confe- 
 quences of his denying the miraculous birth of our Lord, 
 and afferting that " Cbrijl born of the Virgin Mary was 
 *' not the fon of God y " muil necefTarily be, that he was 
 *' a mere man" and ' nothing but a man" according 
 to the openly-declared notions of our modern Socinians, 
 which, in this point, is ftrictly Mahometan! With this 
 falfe and anticbriftian doctrine " tbe third part cf the 
 " rivers and fountains cf wafers" (viz. the fources of 
 the nations and the people of the Greek .Empire, the third 
 great monarchy) was .W?/V/mY/ and prepared for the fcor- 
 zuoir-like fcourge of Mahometan tyranny. 
 
 On account of this blafphemous doctrine, Neftcrius was 
 depofed (by the judgement of a great counfel of his peers, 
 the Cbriftian lijhops) from his dignity as Arclbifoap of the 
 greateft city (at that time) in Chriikndom, and from 
 
 bein? 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 indeed, that Cbrift was God, yet they fuppofed 
 
 him to be fo, in an inferior degree-, by which 
 
 G 2 they 
 
 being metropolitan, as It were, of the Greek Empire, (the 
 third great monarchy ;) and, therefore, he might truly be 
 faid to have fallen from the highefl elevation of ecclefiaf- 
 tical dignity ; fo that r.o prophetical type could more 
 amply prefigure this rejection than " the fallen ftar 
 "from leaven" the heaven or frmament of the then- 
 amply tftallifitd epifcopal authority throughout the Ro- 
 man empire. And the Unitarian doctrine of this fallen 
 ftar (I mean Unitarian in the Mahometan and Socinian 
 fenfe of that term) feems alfo to have been the 'very "key?* 
 whereby "the bottomlefs pit 9 * was opened to let out the 
 noxious and diabolical vapour of Mahomet anifm 5 for, it 
 is really the hading and firft inculcated tenet in all the 
 public profeffions of that baneful herefy. And it is re- 
 markable that a Neftorian monk, Sergius, profcffing the 
 fame blafphemous do&rine, (this " key of the lottomlefi 
 "pit" forged by Neftorius,) fhould actually have been 
 an afliftant to Mahomet, in producing his pretended reve- 
 lations ; and it is ilill more remarkable, that all the /tor* 
 f ion-like fcourges of Mahometan conqueft (firft, LAWLESS 
 TYRANNY and the fuppreffion of all popular rights s fe- 
 condly, ROBBERY and WAR notorioufly fanftioned or 
 authorized by this pretended religion againft all nations 
 and people that do not receive their doclrine; and, thirdly, 
 the fatal renewal of the old pagan opprefllons of Jlave- 
 
 holding 
 
they unwarily acknowledged a Juperior God, 
 and an inferior Gcd: i. e. mere Gods than one, 
 
 contrary 
 
 and Jlave-dealhig y * which had been happily extin- 
 guiilied by the general influence of 'Chrijlian benevolence) 
 fhould have completely pervaded all thofe eafiern and 
 fouthern regions of the third Empire, wherever the doc- 
 trines of Neftorius had been previotifly adopted, and had 
 embittered the rivers aud fountains of the waters, to pre- 
 pare them for this fignal retribution, juftly due to fuch 
 antichriftian apoflates, who deny the true rock on which 
 the Catholic church is built, viz. that " Jefus is the Chrift, 
 " the fan cf the living Cod j " or, as St John has exprefTed 
 the peculiar fonjhip, or filiation, of Chrift, viz. " the ONLY 
 " BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the lofom of the Father" 
 John, i. 1 8, compare with ver. 14, and chap. iii. 16 
 and 1 8. 
 
 All the arguments produced by the learned Vitringa t to 
 prove that Arius was the fallen ftar, are certainly much 
 more applicable to Neftorius, as being an archbijhop and 
 
 metropolitan 
 
 * Such diabolical enormities may furely be compared to the dark 
 exhalations of " the bottomlefs pit ;" and, therefore, our Englifh 
 promoters of Jlave-hzlding and /lave-dealing (who have carried thefe 
 Mahometan opprcfllons to a greater excefs even than the Mahometans 
 thcmfclvcs) have ample reafon to dread the approaching time of divine 
 retribution, when God will " deflroy the dcfiroyers of the eatth," 
 ^nd fliall caufe thofc that now "lead into captivity" (and, furely, 
 like wife, all their abettors) to be ltd into captivity! " 
 
contrary to the true Unitarian dcftrine or the 
 primitive churches, which always held and 
 atferted the unity of God (like the church of 
 England to this day) as much as they held ic 
 neceffary to acknowledge the three divine 
 fcrfons: both of which doctrines are inevita- 
 ble and indifpenfable while we profcfs to re- 
 gulate our faith by the teftimonies of the 
 holy Scriptures, as handed down to us, .without 
 prefuming to exercife the Socinian expedient 
 of lopping off, or altering, (as a fuppofed 
 corruption or interrelation,) every text of 
 Scripture that oppofes the fyftem or fet of 
 notions that we happen to have adopted. 
 And, therefore, the true Unitarian Chriftian, 
 who acknowledges but one Gcd, one Jeho- 
 vah, one divine nature, (*QW>) or Godhead, 
 and at the fame time, nevertheleis, is con- 
 vinced, that three divine ferfons are really re- 
 G 3 vealed 
 
 metropolitan of tie empire, and therefore more fitly prefi- 
 gured by a flar. And that the fmoke from "the lot" 
 tomlefs pit" which was let out by this fallen Jfar, was 
 really the mill or diabolical dailnefs of Mabometanifm, 
 feems to have been fairly proved by our learned country- 
 man, Jofeph Mede. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 vealed to us under the title of Jehovah* in 
 the old teftament, and under the title of 
 Gfo?, or God, in the New Teftament; and that 
 the Jupreme attributes of the DIVINE NATURE 
 are applied to each, in both Teftaments; will, 
 of courfe, be aware, alfo, that each of thefe 
 divine perfons muft neceffarily be " the 
 (( great God" and " the only potentate" as 
 there is but " cne God" cne only Jupreme power 
 or Godhead. 
 
 So that the effect of my grammatical rule,-); 
 when applied to the two particular texts be- 
 fore-mentioned, (viz. Tic. ii. 13, and Jude, 
 4,) will not (in the opinion of fuch true 
 Chriftians) feem to exceed the truth. 
 
 Though the apoftle Paul aflfcrted to the. 
 Coloffians, (ii. 9,) concerning Chrift, that 
 "in him dwdleth ALL the fulnejs of the God- 
 
 * I need not, here, recite the proofs of thefe ailertions 
 becaufe I have already produced a great variety of exam- 
 ples, collected from the Old as well as the New Tefta- 
 menr, in my trat on the " Law of nature and principles 
 ** of afiic-n in man," from p. 234 I?fe p. 301. 
 
 f Compared with the concurrent reafons and teHimo- 
 cies quoted in the note, p. 24.. EDITOR. 
 
cc bead" (TY,$ Qtorvrog,) " bodily " 
 a term of indiiputable ferfinality,) yet, furely, 
 this was without the leaft difparagement to 
 the fupreme diviniry of the Almighty Father, 
 and of the Holy Spirit, becaufe they are, alfo, 
 necefiarily included in the fame 0orn?> or 
 Godhead, as there is but cne God, and, there- 
 fore, as " it f leafed all fulnefs to dwell" in the 
 perfon of our Lord Jefus Chrift, (Col. i. 19,) 
 we may more eafily comprehend why he re- 
 quired, {C that all" (men) " jhould honour 
 " the Jon, EVEN AS they honour the Father-" 
 that is, undoubtedly, with fupreme honour, 
 >ca0w, EVEN AS, or according as, " they ho- 
 " nour the father. And our Lord faid, ex- 
 preffly, " he that honour eth not the Jon (that 
 is, according to the meafure before de- 
 clared, cc EVEN AS they honour" or ought to 
 honour > the father) " honour eth not the father 
 "which hath Jent him\ (John, v. 23;) and 
 he alfo claimed expreflly to be glorified with 
 the father himjdf. " And now, father, (faid 
 he,) "GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWN- 
 "SELF, with the glory which I had with thee 
 " before the world was-" (John, xvii. 55) 
 
 thereby 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 thereby afierting both his pre-exiftence and 
 Jupreme dignity. Ghriftians, therefore, who 
 humbly receive thefe and the many other 
 revelations of Chrift's divinity, have the lefs 
 difficulty in acknowledging the doftrines of 
 the antient catholic churches and the declara- 
 tions of our creeds. But let all other men, 
 likewife, who profefs to believe in the name 
 of Chrift, earneftly inquire, in the firft place, 
 as the firft means of progrefs to the true 
 faith, whether they are really " willing" 
 (for this is given as the true proof of faith, 
 IM ng 0fA*7,)- to conform themfelves to the 
 will of God, as revealed in all the mod ob- 
 vious declarations and injunctions of holy 
 Scripture, and more particularly to the puri- 
 ty, which is expreffly called <c the 'will of 
 " God" viz. the Jantlif cation of their bodies? 
 
 which 
 
 * " For this is the will of God, even your fan&ification, 
 " that you ihould abftain from fornication : that every one 
 <f of you fliould know how to polTefs his vefiel \vfanftifica- 
 " tion and honours not in the luft of concupifcence, even 
 " as the Gentiles, which know not God: that no one 
 ff fliould go beyond or defraud his brother, &c," I. 
 ThefT. iv. 3, 6. 
 
which cannot otherwife be capable of be- 
 coming cc temples of the Hqly Ghofl :" an 
 indifpenfable (late both of body and mind for 
 all Chriftians to maintain ; for, in that cafe, 
 they may afluredly rely on God's abfolute 
 promife, through Chrift, that <c if any cne 
 " Jhall be WILLING to do HIS WILL, be Jhall 
 fc know of the dottrine> 'whether it be of God, or 
 " whether IJpcak" (faid our Lord) <c from 
 c myfelf." (John, vii. 17.) 
 
 DEO SOLI GLORIA, 
 
INDEX 
 
 To the Texts cited in the preceding Work. 
 
 Abbreviations: r. rule. g. e. general exception. 
 
 - p. e. 
 
 particular exception. 
 
 - n. note. 
 
 
 
 JI. Kings. 
 
 
 viii. 
 
 44 .... 
 
 61 n. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 35 3^ 
 
 ii 
 
 X. 
 
 14 . . . . 
 
 91* 
 
 
 Pfalms. 
 
 
 
 
 27 .... 
 
 90. 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 i .... 
 
 8n. 
 
 
 
 30 - ... 
 
 9 n. 
 
 xcv. 
 
 7 .... 
 
 o n. 
 
 XI. 
 
 44, r. 6 . . 
 
 it; 
 
 xl 
 
 Ifaiah. 
 9, 10, ii . . 
 
 S 
 
 8n. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 XX. 
 
 5 .... 
 
 28, g.e. to r. 6 
 
 67 
 
 16 
 
 
 Ezekiel. 
 
 
 
 3 1 * f' 2 
 
 
 xxxvii 
 xii. 
 
 .24 .... 
 
 Matthew. 
 22, r. i . . 
 
 911. 
 } 
 
 ii. 
 
 XX. 
 
 Ads. 
 36, g. e. tor. 6 
 28 . . . . 
 
 27 
 
 
 34 . . . . 
 
 j 
 
 60 n. 
 
 
 Romans. 
 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 33 
 
 60 n. 
 
 ii. 
 
 19, 20, r. 3 . 
 
 10 
 
 
 Luke. 
 
 
 viii. 
 
 9 .... 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 XV. 
 
 6, r. i 
 
 5' 
 
 i. 
 
 47> r. 2 . . 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 14 ... 
 
 6 1 n. 
 
 
 ... 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 26, r. 2 . . 
 
 8 
 
 
 I. Cor. 
 
 
 
 John. 
 
 
 i. 
 viii. 
 
 24, g.e. to r. 6 
 66 .... 
 
 *7 
 1 1 n. 
 
 i.' 
 
 2 . 
 
 1 1 n. 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 17, r. 6 . . 
 
 14 
 
 XV. 
 
 24, r. i . . 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 I4and 18 . . 
 
 64 n. 
 
 
 . . 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 29, r. 2 . . 
 
 8 
 
 
 II. Cor. 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 22, r. 6 . . 
 
 j^ 
 
 i. 
 
 2, r, 5 . . 
 
 *3 
 
 iii. 
 
 1 6 and j 8 . . 
 
 64 n. 
 
 i. 
 
 
 4 
 
 iv. 
 
 23 .... 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 "~~~ * ~ . . 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 42, r. 2 . . 
 
 8 
 
 iv. 
 
 3, g.e. to r. 2 
 
 10 
 
 V. 
 
 23, r. 2 . . 
 
 8 
 
 XI. 
 
 3 1 , r. i 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 23 .... 
 
 67 
 
 ~~~ 
 
 . 
 
 
 vi. 
 
 27, r. 2. . . 
 
 8 
 
 
 Galatians. 
 
 
 vii. 
 
 17 ... 
 
 69 
 
 i. 
 
 3, r.c . . 
 
 M 
 
i. 
 
 4, r. i .* . 
 
 6 
 
 iii. 
 
 1 1 , r. i 
 
 .4,1411. 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 29 n. 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 29 n. 
 
 
 Ephefians. 
 
 
 
 
 13, 
 
 . 6 
 
 i. 
 
 2, r. 5 . . 
 
 3,r. i 
 
 13 
 
 29 n. 
 
 iv. 
 
 1,6 . .' 
 
 . 29 
 
 . 68 
 
 it. 
 
 2 . . . . 
 
 60 n. 
 
 
 II.Theff. 
 
 
 iv. 
 
 6, g.e. tor. 5, 
 
 14 
 
 i. 
 
 12, r. i 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 r. i . . 
 
 29 n. 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 50 
 
 
 
 g.e. tor. .5, 
 
 14 
 
 ii. 
 
 8 ... 
 
 . 25 n. 
 
 
 
 31,1-. 5 . . 
 
 1J 
 
 
 
 1 6, r. i 
 
 6 
 
 V. 
 
 5,r. i . . 
 
 30 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 . 29 
 
 
 
 20, . . 
 
 6 
 
 
 I. Tim. 
 
 
 
 
 -i- . . 
 
 29 n. 
 
 i. 
 
 i ... 
 
 . 25 n. 
 
 
 
 20, 21, r. 3 . 
 
 10 
 
 -. 
 
 r. 3 . 
 
 1 1 
 
 vi. 
 
 2 1 , r. i . . 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 ' 
 
 23. r. 5 . . 
 
 13 
 
 V. 
 
 21, r. i . 
 
 . 38 
 
 
 Philemon. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 42 
 
 
 3,r. 5 . . 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 45 n. 
 
 iii. 
 
 Philipians. 
 3, r. i . . 
 
 3 2 
 
 vi. 
 
 14 ... 
 
 . 49 n. 
 . 25 n. 
 
 iv. 
 
 20, r. i . . 
 
 4 
 
 
 II. Tim. 
 
 
 , 
 
 . . 
 
 29 n. 
 
 i. 
 
 2, r.4 . 
 
 . 11 
 
 
 Coloflians. 
 
 
 
 
 5, r.6 . 
 
 '5 
 
 i. 
 
 3 and i : , r. i 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 10 . . . 
 
 . 25 n. 
 
 _ - 
 
 3, r. i . . 
 
 29 n. 
 
 iv. 
 
 I, r. i 
 
 41,50 
 
 
 
 16 . . . 
 
 1 1 n. 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 . 49 n. 
 
 
 
 17 . . . 
 
 I i n. 
 
 . 
 
 i and 8 . 
 
 . 25 n. 
 
 
 
 19 . . . 
 
 67 
 
 
 Titus. 
 
 
 
 
 27 . . 
 
 25 n. 
 
 i. 
 
 j, r. 3 
 
 . ii 
 
 ii. 
 
 2, T.I, 
 
 4,29 n. 
 
 
 
 . ic n. 
 
 
 
 r.6, 15 . 
 
 15 
 
 
 4, r. 4 
 
 J 
 
 . ii 
 
 
 
 g.e. to r. 2, 
 
 10 
 
 ii. 
 
 13, r. i 
 
 . 22 
 
 z 
 
 9 . . . . 
 9 . . . . 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 
 . 50 
 
 . 66 
 
 iii. 
 
 17, r. I . . 
 
 6 
 
 
 __ 
 
 -4- 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 29 n. 
 
 
 
 
 
 I, ThefT. 
 
 
 
 Heb. 
 
 
 i. 
 
 3 ,r. i 
 
 6 
 
 i. 
 
 2 ... 
 
 . ii n. 
 
 
 
 29 n. 
 
 iii. 
 
 i, r. i 
 
 4 
 
 iii. 
 
 6, g.e. to r.6, 
 
 15 
 
 xiii. 
 
 20, r. 2 
 
 . 8,9 
 
 
 
 
 
 James. 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 
 James. 
 
 
 
 II. John. 
 
 
 i. 
 
 i ... 
 
 I2n. 
 
 iii. 
 
 3, r. 4 . . 
 
 ii 
 
 ~ 
 
 p.e. to r. 
 
 5, 13 n. 
 
 
 Jude. 
 
 
 i. 
 iii. 
 
 27, r.! 
 9 r. i 
 
 5 
 . 29 n. 
 6 
 
 . 
 
 4 r. i . . 
 
 Rev. 
 6,r. i . . 
 
 54>66 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 . 29 
 
 
 
 S,g.e.tor.5, 
 
 18 
 
 
 I. Pet. 
 
 
 . 
 
 r. 6, 
 
 18 
 
 i. 
 
 
 . 29 n. 
 
 " 
 
 I7,g.e.tor. 6, 
 
 Q 
 
 17 
 
 T 
 
 ii. 
 iv. 
 
 17 . 
 u,r.6 
 
 . ii n. 
 '5 
 
 viii. 
 ix. 
 
 IO tO 12 . . 
 I tO 12 . . 
 
 I O 
 
 64 n 
 62 n 
 
 V. 
 
 4 ... 
 II. Pet. 
 
 8 n. 
 
 
 
 2, . . . 
 
 2, (2dnote) 
 
 63 n 
 64 
 
 i. 
 
 i, r. i 
 
 . 20,52 
 
 xvi. 
 
 15, r. i . . 
 
 4 
 
 Ii. 
 
 20, 
 
 4 
 
 XX. 
 
 ^2, g.e.tor.5, 
 
 
 iii. 
 
 2, 
 
 4. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 
 T R 
 
 
 
 18, . 
 
 T 
 
 4 
 
 
 ,g.e.tor.6, 
 
 1 O 
 
 I n 
 
 H 
 
I N D EX 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 A. 
 ACTS, xx. 28. A corre&ion from MSS. 
 
 propofed, p. 2"8. 
 Alexandrian MS. p. 10, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 
 
 3 6 > 3 8 > 39 n > 40> 4*> 42> 43> 45> 4^ 47> 
 
 48, 50, 54 to 57. 
 Ame-Nicene Fathers acknowledged Chrift to 
 
 be the great God, 25. 
 Arians, 16, 61, 62 n. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bafil MS. 46 n. 
 
 Belief in Chriftianity, an indifpenfable requifitc 
 in a Britifh member of parliament, 59, 61 n. 
 Bengelius, 49 n. 
 Beza, 22. 
 Britilh Critic, 390. 40 n., and 3d Appendix. 
 
 C. 
 
 Chrift was truly Jehovah, 18, 19, 66. 
 our God and Lord, 34, 38, 41. 
 
 H 2 Chrift 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 Chrift our God and Saviour, 50, 52, 53. 
 our great God and Saviour, 22 to 24, 
 
 50, 52. 
 , the great God y fo intitled according to 
 
 the plain grammatical conftrucYion of Tit. 
 
 ii. 13. 24 n. 
 , fo acknowledged (as thegr. God) by the 
 
 Ante-Nicene Fathers and all the mofl antient 
 
 commentators on the New Teftament, 24 n. 
 Chriftian Obferver, 40 n, and jd Appendix. 
 
 Guardian, 40 n, and 3d Appendix. 
 
 Crutt well's edition of Wilfon's Bible, 53. 
 
 D. 
 
 Divinity of Chrift proved 
 
 1. From his being an object of fupremc 
 
 worfhip, 5, n. n, n. 12, n. 
 
 2. From his participation of the fame titles 
 
 with God, the Father, 8, 9, n. 
 
 3. From his power of giving eternal life, 
 
 9, n. 
 
 4. From his being an object of religious 
 
 fear, 10, 1 1, n. 
 
 5. From the commands of Chrift being 
 
 mentioned by the Apoftles jointly 
 with the commands of God, the Fa- 
 ther, u, n. En glim 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 E, 
 Englifh Law, fee Law. 
 
 G. 
 
 Godhead of Chrift, many ftriking proofs of 
 it concealed from the mere Englilh reader 
 by the mis-tranfladons of the common 
 Englifh veriion, 7. 
 
 Godhead, each of the three perfons of the 
 Godhead mud necefTarily be the great God, 
 66. 
 
 Greek language, the idiom of it obliges us, 
 on the authority of the New Teftament, to 
 acknowledge Chrift to be God, 30. 
 
 Grotius, 1 6. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hammond, 25, n. 57. 
 
 I. 
 
 Jehovah, Jee Chrift. 
 Imperial Library, fee Vienna. 
 
 L. 
 
 Law, natural and revealed religion the two 
 firft foundations of Englifh Law, 59. 
 
 M. . 
 Mangey, Rev, Dr, 53. 
 
 H 3 Neftorius, 
 
( 78 ) 
 
 N. 
 Neftorius, archbilhop of Conftantinople, the 
 
 fallen ftar that opened the bottomlefs pit, 
 
 62, n. 
 New Teftament, a clear and literal tranflation 
 
 would cut up the Socinian fyftem by the 
 
 roots, 51. 
 
 O. 
 
 QEcumenius, 13 n. 
 
 Orthodox Churchman, 40 n, and 3d Appendix. 
 
 P. 
 
 Parliament, Jee Belief in Chriftianity. 
 
 Pcrfbns, fee Godhead. 
 
 Philipians, iii. 3, reading of the Alexandrian 
 MS. preferred, 32 to 34. 
 
 'O UguTog xai o o-^ar&?, the explanation which 
 Grotius gives of thefe titles contains the 
 the truth, but not the whole truth, 1 8 . 
 
 Punctuation of Greek MSS. 35 to 37, 47, 48, 
 
 R. 
 
 Religion, natural and revealed, the two firft 
 foundations of Englilh Law, 59n. 
 
 Reviewers, 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 Reviewers, (monthly,) fee Britilh Critic, 
 Chriftian Obferver, Chriftian Guardian, and 
 Orthodox Churchman. 
 
 S. 
 
 Slave-holding and fiave- dealing compared to 
 the dark exhalations of the bottomlefs pit, 
 63, 64, n. 
 
 Mahometan oppreffions, 
 
 63, n. 
 
 . carried to a greater ex- 
 
 cefs by the Englifh than even by the Ma- 
 hometans themielves, 64, n. 
 
 Socinians, 49, 51, 53, 59, 63, n. 
 
 would not have fo much urged 
 
 the necefiity of a new tranflation of the 
 New Teftament, if they had feen how op- 
 pofite to their opinions a clofe and literal 
 tranflation would be, 51. 
 
 Socinian impiety, a noble teftimony of both an- 
 tient and modern times againft it, 21, 22, 53. 
 
 Swedenborgians, 58, 59. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tefts, the necefiity of them as reftraints on 
 Papifts, Sedaries, and Unbelievers, 59,60. 
 
 Theophylacl:, 
 
Theophylaft, 24, n. 
 
 Tranfladon, new, of the New Teftament, fa 
 
 New Teftament and Socinians. 
 .Trinity, the three perfons or the Godhead 
 
 revealed in the Old Teftament under th? 
 
 title of Jehovah, 66. 
 
 V. 
 Velthufen's account of the very faint lines 
 
 and marks in very old MSS. 55. 
 Vienna edit, of Gr. Teft. 28, n. 32, n. 43, n. 
 
 -MSS. of ditto, 28,11. 32, n. 44, n. 
 46, n. 
 
 Unbelievers in Chriftianity unworthy to be 
 admitted to an equal participation of civil 
 rights in any free Chriftian ftate whatever, 
 
 59 n - 
 
 W. 
 
 Wetftein, n,n. 34, n. 45, n. 
 
 Whitby, 25, n. 
 
 Willingnefs to obey the will of God the 
 
 firft ftep rowa'rds the true faith, 68, 69. 
 Woide, Rev. Dr. 52, 54, 55, 56. 
 Wordfworth, Rev. Chr. 12, n. 13, n. 17,0. 
 
 40, n. 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 P, 25> It 6, /AsysAov for 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 A TABLE OF EVIDENCES 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRIST'S DIVINITY, 
 
 FROM 
 
 Dr WHITBY's 
 COMM. on the NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 II. 
 
 A PLAIN ARGUMENT, 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 GOSPEL-HISTORY, 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 DIVINITY of CHRIST, 
 
 BY 
 
 THE EDITOR OF THE TWO FIRST EDITIONS, 
 
Exiraft from Dr Whittys third Difcourfe > Jub- 
 joined to Ms Lafl Thoughts. 
 
 " THAT our Lord Jefus Chrift is true God, as having 
 w true dominion over all things in heaven and earth 
 " delivered to him from the Father, and as having all 
 " divine excellencies which are nsceffary to enable him 
 " to exercife dominion while this world lafts, and at the 
 " clofe of the world to make manifeft the fecrets of all 
 " hearts, and to render to every man according as his 
 " works fhall be, has been fully proved in my Laft 
 " Thoughts, Seft. 4 and 5," 
 
 III. p. 143, fubjoined to his Loft Thoughts* 
 
A TABLE 
 
 OF 
 
 EVIDENCES 
 
 OK 
 
 CHRIST'S DIVINITY.* 
 
 JL HE divine nature of Chrift may be proved, 
 I. From John, i. j, 2, 3. v. 21, 22, 23. 
 viii. 58. x. 30. xii. 41. xvi. 14, 15, 
 xviii. 5. xx. 28. Luke, i. 43. 
 
 1. Jehovah, Rom. x. 13. 
 
 2. God, Rom. xiv. 12. I. 
 Cor. x. 9, Heb. i. 8. 
 and iii. 4. 
 
 3. The true God, I. John, 
 v. 20. 
 
 4. God manifefled in the 
 flefh, I. Tim. iii. 16. 
 
 5. The great God, Tit. ii. 13. 
 
 6. God over all, blefled for 
 ever, Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 7. The Lord of all, Rom. 
 
 X. 12. 
 
 The 
 
 * For the details of thefe evidences fee Dr Whitby's 
 Commentary on the feveral paflages here quoted. 
 
 II. From his 
 titles, he 
 - being 
 
84 
 
 The divine nature of Chrift may be proved, 
 III. From the divine worfhip afcribed to him, 
 he being the object of religious adora- 
 tion and invocation, Rom. x. 13. Col. 
 iiu 24. II. Theflf. iii. 16. Acts, vii. 59. 
 Acts, ix. 14. Compare Matt. iv. 10, 
 with John, v. 23, and Heb. i. 6. 
 
 \. Omnifcient, John, ii. 25, 
 xxi. 17. The fearcher of 
 all hearts, I. Cor. iv. 5. 
 
 2. Omnipotent, Philip, iii. 21. 
 
 3. The raifer of all men from 
 the dead, Col. i. 19. 
 
 4. Who raifed himfelf from 
 the dead, John, ii. 19. x. 
 18. 
 
 5. The Creator of all things, 
 John, i. 3. Col. i. 16. 
 Heb. i. 2, 10, 
 
 6-. The upholder of all things, 
 Col. i. 17. Heb. i. 3. 
 
 7. Who was in the form of 
 God, and was God before 
 he was made man, Philip, 
 ii. 6. John, i. i. 
 
 8. In whom dwelt all the ful- 
 nefs of the Godhead bodi- 
 ly, Col. i. 19. ii. 9. 
 
 IV. From the 
 divine ac- 
 tions and 
 attributes 
 afcribedto 
 him, he 
 being 
 
A PLAIN ARGUMENT,* 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 GOSPEL- HISTOR Y, 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 DIVINITY of CHRIST. 
 
 QUESTION. 
 
 JrOR what END did Cbrift COME INTO THE 
 WORLD ? 
 
 A. " Chrift came into the world to fave 
 "Tinners." (I.Tim, i. 15.) 
 
 Q^ How do you mean "tofavefinners?" 
 
 A. To fave them from the power of fin 
 here, and the everlading punifhment of it 
 hereafter. 
 
 Q^ How muft we be Javed from the wet-lof- 
 ting funijhment of fin ? 
 
 A. By Chrift's DEATH. He was "-mani- 
 
 " fefted in the flefh," that is, was made man, 
 
 I to 
 
 * Reprinted from the fecond Edition of a Cbriftmas 
 Gift. 
 
( 86 ). 
 
 to DIE, and to be "THE PROPITIATION, for 
 <f the fins of the whole world." <c By his own 
 <f blood Chrift obtained eternal redemption for 
 " us." (I. Cor. xv. 3. I. John, ii. 2. Heb. 
 ix. 12.) 
 
 Q^ How muft "joe be delivered from the pow- 
 r cf fin btre? 
 
 A. By the fpirit of Chrift." (Rom. 
 viii. 9,) " For he came to deftroy the works 
 * c of the devil, to redeem us from all iniquity, 
 <c and to purify unto himftlf a peculiar people 
 f< zealous of good works." (I. John, iii. 8. 
 Tit. ii. 14.) 
 
 Q^ Muft ive not aljo life our own moft earneft 
 tndeavcurs ? 
 
 X Yes. We mud " watch and pray" a- 
 gaind all temptation to fin; (Matt. xxvi. 41. 
 Mark, xiii. 135) and ftudy God's word that 
 we may be ilinditkd by it. (John, x.-ii. 17.) 
 
 Q^ Cculd no onej^oefinners but Chrift ? 
 
 j$. No. <c There is none other name un- 
 xt der heaven given among men, whereby we 
 " muft be faved." (Ads, iv. 12.) 
 
 Q^ Cculd net Chrift fave fmners without 
 dyhigfor their fins? 
 
 4. 
 
A. No. 
 
 Q^ Why could not man's redemption le accom- 
 flijhed without the death of Chrift ? 
 
 A. Becaufe it was the will of God, and 
 fore-ordained by God, that Chrift fhouid die 
 for the fins of the world. 
 
 Q^ How do you know that Chrift^s death 
 was fore-ordained by God? 
 
 A. Becaufe it was fore- told by the pro- 
 phets. 
 
 Q^ Have you any other reajon for believing 
 that Chrift' s death was necejjary far our Jal- 
 vation? 
 
 A. I believe that without Chrift's death 
 there could have been no fulvation, becaufe 
 we are allured, by the holy fpirit, in the words 
 of St Paul, that <c without {bedding of 
 " blood there is no re million" of fins. (Heb, 
 ix. 22.) 
 
 Q^ Have you any other reafon? 
 
 A. Yes. The INCARNATION* of Chrift,, 
 that is, Chrift's being made man y and being 
 born into the world, feems alfo to be a proof 
 that his death was necefTary for our falva- 
 tion. For he who <c in the beginning was> 
 1 2., ' wkhs 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 " with God, and was God/* was " made 
 " flefh," and " took upon him the form," 
 that is, the nature " and likenefs, of man, 
 on purpofe, as it feems, that he might " be- 
 " come obedient unto death," (and thus might 
 be capable of dying,) " even the death of the 
 crofs." (John, i. i. Philipp. ii. 6, 7, 8.) 
 
 2. 
 
 Q^ Where was Chrift before be came into 
 this world, and was m.mifefted in tbefleflj? 
 
 A. He was in Heaven. u He came down 
 " from Heaven. He was with God, his Father, 
 ce before the world was, before the founda- 
 " tion of the world: he was in the bofom of 
 " his Father, and in his Father's glory." 
 (John, iiL 13. vi. 33, 62. i. I. xvii. 
 5, 24. i. 18. xvii. 5.) 
 
 . 3- 
 
 Q^ How was Chrift' s manifeftation in the 
 Jlejh made known to the world? 
 
 A. By the meffage of an angel, who de- 
 clared to Mary, his mother, and to Jofrph, 
 what manner of child ft fhould be that 
 
 Ihould 
 
fhould be born of her, and at his birth pro- 
 claimed him to certain fhepherds.- 
 
 Q^ Where was Chrifl born? 
 
 A. In Bethlehem of Judea. (Matt. ii. i r 
 
 5> 6.) 
 
 Q^ Under what name was he made known ? 
 
 A. He was called JESUS, a Saviour, the 
 Son of God, the Son of the Higheft. 
 
 Q^ Who was the mother of Jefus? 
 
 A. The Virgin Mary. 
 
 Q^ Was any prophecy fulfilled by the birth 
 cf Jefus Chrifl? 
 
 A. Yes. f All this was done that it might 
 " be fulfilled, which was fpoken of th^ Lord 
 <f by the prophet, faying, behold a virgin 
 " mail be with child, and mail bring forth a 
 " fon, and they (hall call his name EMMANU- 
 C EL, which, being interpreted, is GOD WIT 
 us. 17 (Matt. i. 22, 23. liaiah, vii. 14.) 
 
 4- 
 
 Q^ What was Cbrifiput to de alb for? 
 A. For blafphemy, as the Jews thought it,, 
 in calling himfelf the Son of God. 
 1 3 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 In what did the Jews Jay the Uafihemy 
 confifad? 
 
 A. In this, that he, being, as they fup- 
 poicd, a mere man, called God his own Fa- 
 ther, thereby declaring himfelf to be equal 
 with God, and to be very God. (John, v. 
 IS. x.jj.) 
 
 5- 
 
 Q^ What did Chrift ever Jay of himfelf \ which 
 implied that he was God? 
 
 A. He faid that he was one with God, and 
 partook of the glory of God, before the 
 world was, that is, from all eternity. 
 
 Catechift. Repeat the pajfage in which le 
 Jald that he "partook of the glory of God before 
 the wcrld was. 
 
 A. " And now, O Father, glorify thou 'me 
 " with thine ownfelf, with the glory which I 
 " had with thee before the world was." (John 
 xvii. 5.) 
 
 Q^ What did Chrift ever Jliy cf himjdf, which 
 implied that he was equal with God? 
 
 A. He faid that " he and his Father are 
 c one:" that " the Father had given all things 
 
 " into 
 
C 9' ) 
 
 " into his hand:" that " what things foever 
 " the Father doeth, thefe alfo doeth the Son 
 " likewife :" that " the Father hath com- 
 c< mitted all judgement to the Son, that all 
 " men ihould honour the Son, even as they 
 " honour the Father:" (John x. 30. iii. 35. 
 
 V. 19. V. 22.) 
 
 6. 
 
 Q^ Where do we find the firft evidences cf 
 CkriJFs Divinity ? 
 
 A. In the antient prophets, Ifaiah, (vii. 
 14.) Jeremiah, (xxiii. 6.) and Daniel, (vii. 
 14.) where he is called " Immanuel," that 
 is, GOD with us : " The Lord," that is, 
 "JEHOVAH, " our righteoufhefs:" and his 
 " dominion" is declared to be an " EVER- 
 <e LASTING dominion." 
 
 Q^ Wko> 'in Chrift's time, firft lore teftimony 
 to his divinity ? 
 
 A. The angel, who at his birth proclaimed 
 him to the fhepherds, as " Chrift, THE 
 " LORD :" The fhepherds who made known 
 this faying that was told them: And the 
 
 Demoniacks, 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 Demoniacks, who acknowledged him to be 
 THE SON OF GOD. (Mark, iii. u.) 
 
 Q^ Wbo were the firft witnejjes to Chrift's 
 own teftimony of his divinity ? 
 
 A. His enemies, the unbelieving Jews, 
 both the people, and the ir rulers. 
 
 Q^ How were the unbelieving Jews witvejfes: 
 to ChriJFs teftimony of himfelf? 
 
 A. By reporting and interpreting his words. 
 
 Q^ Do you call the unbelieving Jews earlier 
 witnejjes than the Apjlles ? 
 
 A. Yes: becaufe the apoflles appear not 
 to have known that Chrift was God, till af<- 
 ter his Refurrection and Afcenfion into hea- 
 ven. 
 
 Q^ In what manner was the Divinity of 
 Chrift unfolded to the world in Cb rift's time? 
 
 A. An angel proclaimed it at his birth ; 
 the fhepherds reported it; the Demoniacks 
 confefled it. Chrift afterwards aflerted him- 
 felf to be God, by calling God his own 
 Father, and himfeif the Son of God, in a 
 fenfe, which implied, that he was equal 
 with God, and was God; fo even his un- 
 believing hearers underftood him: the Jews 
 
 condemned 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 con Jemned him to death for it : the Apoftks, 
 after his Refurreflion and Afcenfion, preached 
 it to the world. 
 
 7- 
 
 Q^ As Chrift knew that this was tie fenfe 
 in which tie Jews underjlocd his tsftimony of 
 him/elf, when they firft charged him with Uaf- 
 fhemy for it, did be, at his trial, attempt to 
 deny the charge? 
 
 A, No: he admitted the charge, and con- 
 firmed it, and died for it , and appealed to 
 the day of judgement as their future proof 
 of it. 
 
 CK What are Chrift' s words ? 
 
 A. When " the high Pried afked him, 
 ff and faid unto him, art thou the Son of the 
 " BlefTtd? Jefus faid, I am -, and (as a frocf 
 " that I am) ye fhall (at the day cf judgement) 
 " fee (me) the Son cf Man, fitting at the 
 " right hand of power^ (that is, at the right 
 <f hand of God.) and coming in the clouds of 
 " heaven." (Markxiv. 61, 62.) 
 
 Q^ If Chrift had not leen the Me/ ( ah, the 
 Son cf God, in the Jenfe in which they un- 
 
 derjlood 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 derftood him, would be not have undeceived 
 them? 
 
 A. If Chriil had not been the Median, the 
 Son of Goc 1 , in the fenfe in which the Jews 
 underflood him, he would have undeceived 
 them, to lave his own life, and to free them 
 from a very great delufion. 
 
 Q._ But Chrijl was put to Death j or calling him- 
 Jelf the Son of Gcd-> wbat then do you con- 
 clude? 
 
 A. I conclude that Jefus Chrift really was 
 what they charged him with calling himfelf, 
 THE SON OF GOD; and in the fenfe in which 
 they underftood him; that is, that he was 
 EQ^JAL WITH GOD, and therefore was VERY 
 GOD. 
 
 |. 8. 
 
 Q^ Ton fay that in the lifetime of Chrift tht 
 jipoftles appeared not to know that Chrijl was. 
 God: where do you find this ? 
 
 A. It appears from their expecting a tem- 
 poral deliverer inflead of a fpiiitual one; and 
 from their riot knowing, till after the Refur- 
 
 rection 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 rcclion and afcenfion of Chrift, the end of his 1 
 coming into the world. 
 
 Q^ Where do you ham that, before the re- 
 Jurreftion and afcer.fion of Chrift y his difcifles 
 did net knew the end of his coming into the 
 world? 
 
 A, I learn it from Chrift's rebuke of St 
 Peter. (Matt. xvi. 23.) 
 
 Q^ Where do you learn that they expeffed a 
 temporal deliverer ? 
 
 A. I learn it from the acknowledgement 
 of the two clifciples, (who were going to. 
 Emmaus,) that their hopes of his being their 
 deliverer were difappointed by his death ; 
 (Luke xxiv. 21.) and 'from their inquiring 
 of Chrift, foon after his refurredlion, if he 
 would, at that time, redo re the kingdom to 
 Ifrael. (Ads i. 6.) 
 
 Q^ Whc.t was their opinion of Chrift after 
 his rejur region and Afcenfion into heaven ? 
 
 A. Convinced partly by his rcfurre6Hon 
 from the dead, according to his promife 
 that he would raije hinifelf from the dead, 
 and, fully inflructed by the Holy Spirit after 
 his afcenfion, they believed him to be " cheir 
 
 " Lord 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 " Lord and their God," "the Word made 
 " flefhi" God manifeft in the fledi ;" in 
 whom tc dwelt ALL the fulnefs of the God- 
 " head bodily i" Emmanuel," or, " God 
 <c with us," " the creator and upholder of 
 c< all things," who " in the beginning" of all 
 things, " was with God, and was God;" 
 " the true God and eternal life ;" and " over 
 " all God bleffed for ever." (John >:x. 28. 
 i. 14. i Tim. iii. 16. Col. ii. 9. Matt. 
 i- 23. John i. 3. CoL i. 17. Hcb. i. 3. 
 John i. i. i. John v. 20. Rom. ix. 5.*) 
 
 s- 9- 
 
 Q^ Now, tell me y in few words, what you 
 conclude from Cbrift's teflimony of himfelf, as 
 attefted by the -Jews of bis own time y condemned 
 by their rulers, but univerfally declared by the 
 afoftles. 
 
 A. 
 
 * Whatever difficulty may be found in th^ various 
 readings of any of thefe pafTages, it muft vanifh in the 
 full light of their united evidence. To them we may 
 confidently add the very important teftimonies, which, 
 in the preceeding remarks and examples, Mr Sharp has 
 moft happily recovered from the erroneous conftru&ions 
 of the common Engliih verfton. 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 y/. I conclude that Chrift, the Son of God, 
 is one with God, and equal with God, both 
 in nature, and power, and in glory, and 
 therefore is very God. Chrift afiferted it; 
 the Jews condemned him to die for it; he 
 fealed his teftimony with his blood. The 
 apoftles, partly convinced by his refurrec- 
 tion from the dead, and fully inftructed by 
 the Holy Spirit after his afcenfion into hea- 
 ven, believed it, and preached it, and died 
 for it. 
 
 . 10. 
 
 Catechift. fbe Jews, then, put Chrljl to 
 death as an impoftor and blafpbetner ; and yet 
 Chrtftians have believed in him, and wcr- 
 /hipped him, as the Son of God, for almoft eigh- 
 teen hundred years. Plow do you account for 
 this? 
 
 A. It was the will of God that Chrift 
 fhould die for the fins of mankind. If the 
 Jews had believed him to be the Son of 
 God they would not have put him to death; 
 if he had not been put to death as he 
 was he would not have " borne our fins 
 K 
 
<c in his own body on the crofsj" that is, he 
 would not have died for our fins, THE END 
 
 FOR WHICH HE CAME INTO THE WORLD*. he 
 
 would not have given that great and inefti- 
 iTiable proof of the truth of Scripture, and 
 of his own promifes, which HE did, by ri- 
 firig from the dead : and the Apoftlcs would 
 riot have given that fure evidence of their 
 own belief in Chrift, (the ground and con- 
 firmation of -OUR?,) which THEY did, by dying 
 for their crucified Lord and Mailer. 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX THE THIRD. 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 EXTRACTS 
 
 THE UNDERMENTIONED REVIEWS. 
 
 The BRITISH CRITIC for January, 1800. 
 
 for July, 1802. 
 
 The CHRISTIAN OBSERVER for July, 1802. 
 
 The CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN for December, 1802. 
 
 The ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN for February, 1803, 
 
 K 2 
 
EXTRACTS, Xc. 
 
 EXTRACT from the BRITISH CRITIC for January, 
 1800. No. I. of vol. xv p. 70, ar:. xii. 
 
 " The defign of the author, Mr G. Sharp, 
 
 is to demonstrate the diviniiy of our Saviour by mowing, 
 that, in feveral paflages of the New Teitament, tnn- 
 flated as they ought to be, according to drift grammatical 
 analogy, that article of our faith is expreffly and pofitive- 
 ly aflerted; though that aifertion has, in our common 
 verfion, difappeared for want of a correct rendering of 
 the original. The fix rules laid down for this purpofe, 
 the accuracy of which is proved in various ways, and 
 particularly by the conduct of our tranilatora on other 
 occafions, we extracted at large in oar notice of the 
 Mufeum Oxonienfe; but we (hall now ROW to them, 
 becaufe, in the table of contents here prefixed, we obferve 
 fuch an abftracl of them, and of the examples, as to a 
 fcholar almoit fufficiently explains the whole argument, 
 its force, and application. The fir ft rule is moft impor- 
 tant, being more extenfive in its applies;] on than the reft; 
 to this, therefore, we particularly -jail the reader's atten- 
 tion. It is thus ftated in the table of contents, more 
 briefly, but perhaps more clearly, than in the body of 
 the work," &c. 
 
 After citing feveral examples of the firft rule, the 
 Britim. Critic adds as follows, in p. yz. *' The exam- 
 ples Jiere cited are by no means all that have the fame 
 tendency, but they are the ir.oft remarkable; and the 
 remaining rules appear no lefs folid th ;n the firft. It 
 fiiould be obferved, alfo, that, in feveral inftances more 
 than we have mentioned, the verfion recommended by 
 Mr G. S. has the (anftion of feveral early tranflators and 
 commentators. 
 
 K 3 And 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 And he concludes, in p. 73, with the following obfer- 
 vations on the appendix, viz. " The part fubjoined to 
 Mr G. Sharp's remarks by the learned Editor, entitled 
 a plain matter-of-faft argument,' &c. turns on this cir- 
 cumitance, that our Saviour was actually condemned to 
 death by the Jews for blafphemy, in alTerting his own 
 Godhead ; and that, inftead of denying the circumftance, 
 he confirmed it, and fealed his teihmony with his blood. 
 It is thrown into the form of queftion and anfwer, in or- 
 der to be ufed in catechetical initrudtion, and is drawn up 
 with great precifion, clearneis, and cogency of reafon." 
 
 Remarks of the BRITISH CRITIC for July, 1802, 
 No. I. of vol. xx. p. 15, art. iv. 
 Six Letters to Gran-ville Sharp, Efq. refyeRing bis Remarks 
 
 on the ufes of the Definite Article in the Greek Text of the 
 
 New 'reftament. 
 
 " A great acceiTion of authority, and, we trutt, a pro- 
 portionable increaie of celebrity, will be given, by thefe 
 acute and learned^ letters, to the Remarks of Mr Gran- 
 ville Sharp on the Greek article, which, in our i5th vol. 
 (p. 70,) we introduced to public notice, as of the highefl 
 utility and importance.* Thole remarks, it mult be 
 recollected, are not merely, of a philological nature, as the 
 title might feem to imply ; but, by means of a clear 
 idiom and analogy of the Greek language, eitablim cer- 
 tain texts of the New Te'uament, as invincible barriers 
 again ft the doclrir.es and fubierfuges of Socinian teachers. 
 
 * This account applies principally to the firft rule laid 
 down in the Remarks, to whicri allo the letters now an- 
 nounced refer; and we mutt remind or inform our readers, 
 
 that 
 
 * " A fecond edition of Mr Granville Sharp's Remarks 
 has very recently been publilhed by the original editor, 
 Mr Burgefs, Prebendary of Durham, and is fold by 
 Vernor and Hoed, Rivingtons, and Hatchard. As, ac- 
 cidentally, we have not the former edition at hand, to 
 make a'n accurate comparifon between them, we ihall not 
 at prefent give a feparate article on the new edition, nor 
 at all, unlefs we find the alterations important.'' 
 
that by the natural and neceflary operation of this rule 
 are produced thefe texts : ' according to the grace of 
 JefusChrift, cur God and Lord;' (2 Tht-fT. i. 12;) 'wait- 
 ing for the glorious appearance of our great GoJ and Sa-- 
 viour, Jefus Chrift;' (Titus, ii. 13;) and feme others 
 of fimilar force; in which pafiages, by the vicious neglect 
 of the rule, God and Clirill have been feparated into two 
 perfons, in our public verfion, contrary to the intention 
 of the original writer, and the undoubted idiom of the 
 language in which he wrote.* 
 
 " According to our own opinion, formed with the ftrict- 
 eft attention to the evidence produced, this rule, as Hated 
 by Mr Sharp, appeared perfectly clear, and the deductions 
 from it r;o lefs than inevitable. We confi-Jered it as 
 founded in truth and demonftrated with ability. But we 
 fee, with much additional fatisfaction, the explicit teili- 
 rr.ony of fo great a mailer of Greek Hteratute as Mr 
 Burgefs, ftated in the fecond edition of the Remarks. 
 His opinion was before implied in the act of publishing 
 the Remarks, and was otherwife intimated in the firft 
 edition; but it is now, in an introductory letter to Mr 
 Sharp, expreiled in the itrongeft terms. 
 
 ' That ycu have happily and decisively applied your 
 rule of conduction to the correction of the common Eng- 
 li(h verfion of the New Telrament, and to the perfett 
 epablijhmtnt of the great doctrine in queftion, the 
 JJiviNiTY of CHRIST, no impartial reader, I think, 
 can doubt, -who is at all acquainted <with the original lan- 
 guage of the New Teftament.' 
 
 " When it is confidered that the writer who gives this 
 teftimony is Mr Burg-Ts, vvhofe knowledge of the Greek 
 language qualified him, very early in life, to produce a 
 
 much 
 
 * The rule may be thus briefly and Icofely expreffed, 
 though to be ftrictly accurate it will require, as Mr Sharp 
 has given it, more limitations. " When two nouns def- 
 criptive of a peribn, and united by a conjunction, have 
 only one article prefixed to both, they are both intended 
 to defcribe the fame perfon.' This rule is uniformly 
 followed by all Greek waters.'' 
 
104 ) 
 
 much improved edition of one of the acutefl books we 
 have on Greek lit- rature, Da<wes's Mifcellanea Critica; 
 and who, from that time to this, has dh'Hnguimed him- 
 felf by various works illuftrative of the Greek language 
 and the authors who have ufed it, the force and value of 
 the dec! iion may be duly estimated. Speaking firther of 
 the rule in queftion, the fame learned editor fays to Mr 
 Sharp, I cail the rule yours; for, though it was 
 acknowledged and applied by Beza and others * to fome 
 of the texts alleged by you, yet never was it fo promi- 
 nently , becaufe iingly, or fo effectually, as in your Re- 
 marks.' This telKmony of Theodore Beza, an acknow- 
 ledged fcholar, and a tranflator of the whole New 
 Teftament, is particularly valuable; and, as it has not 
 been given at length, in what has hitherto been publiftied, 
 we (hali here infert it. In commenting on the text, f it. 
 11. 13, 9rjfsay rr.s So^ng T /usyaAa @a KOH Sw-nj 
 
 * " Beza is not the only one among the biblical critics 
 who has noticed t.,is idiom; it has occafionally been urged 
 by various writers. Abundant praife is due to Mr Gran- 
 ville Sharp for bringing it forward in the diftinct manner 
 he has, and for il.udrating it by fo great a variety of 
 appofite examples; but we mull not, if we would be cor- 
 rect, confider it as his difcovery even among the moderns. 
 Wolfius fays, Articulus ra prasmittendus ruiflet voci 
 Zurnfos (in Tit. ii. 13) fiquidem hie a ptyofou w diftin- 
 gut debuiflet.' In loco. Drufius, on the iame text, fays, 
 ' Non folum Deus, fed ctiam Deus Magnus, vocatur hie 
 Chriitus' (in Grit. Sacro) ; where, though the rule is not 
 mentioned, it is taken for granted as undeniable Bifliop 
 Bull, Calovius, Vitringa, and Dr Twell5, are all referred 
 to by Woltius, as fupporting this fenfe, on the verfe of 
 Titus above-mentioned : and Erafmus, who fpeaks of that 
 paHage as ambiguous, had too much knowledge of Greek 
 not to own, that the omiifion of the article had fome 
 force againit that opinion. ' Quanquam omiflus articulus y 
 in libris Gra:cis, ftcit nonnihil pro diveria fententia. 
 Mtya^a a KO.\ Swrrpoj, evidentius diilinxiilet perfonas fi 
 dixiffet, xa 
 
. after fpeaking of the E</rcpayiia, which he right- 
 ly infills muft belong to Chriil, and which he tranflates 
 adventusy he thus proceeds: * Quod autem ad alterum 
 attinet quum fcriptum lit, H. TH {^yctte fa? xat Zwlrfos ri/x^v 
 I. X. non autem T ptyctte tx xai T Ewhpoji Uico non 
 magis probabiliter iita pofle aa cL.is diilinc'tas perfonas re- 
 fcrri, quam iilam locutionem i oj xai Ilaljjp I^<r Xptj-a- 
 Nam id certe poftulat Gr<eci feniionis uius, quum unus 
 tantunt Jit articulus, duolus iff is, nempe ta xat Sw%pof, 
 so? xa* Ilol^fj, communis : quum praDfertim, ut ante dixi, 
 nunquam sm$stvn aut irccpeo-Kn. nifi uni Filio tribuatur. 
 Jtaque fie conc.udo, Chriitum Jeium hie aperte Magnum 
 Deum dici, qui et beata ilia fpes noftra metonymice vo- 
 catu^-. Jlli igitur ut vere magno et asterno Deo, fit 
 gloria et laus omnis, in faecula fasculcrum.* Here the 
 rule, refpefting the article, is dittin.dly laid down, as by 
 Mr Sharp, and the fame concluiion, with equal diftincl- 
 nefs, drawn. 
 
 " But the authority of Beza, or of any modern, was 
 not fufficient for the ingenious writer of theie Six Letters.* 
 He thought of a higher appeal, to the Greek Fathers; 
 as men who could not but be competent judges of their 
 native language. ' If Mr Sharp's rule be true,' faid he, 
 ' then will their interpretation of thole texts be invariably 
 in the fame fenie in which he uaderltands them,' p. 3. 
 To thefe judges, then, he appealed; and, by a molt la- 
 borious examination of their works, has produced fuch an 
 additional teftimony, in behalf of the rule, as cannot fail 
 to aftonifli thofe who are mofl unwilling to be convinced. 
 When we thi:.k of examining, for a few texts, the volu- 
 minous works of feventy Greek and near fixty Latin 
 Fathers and otner divines, befides theological collections 
 of great magnitude, we think of a labour which refem- 
 bles rather the indefatigable diligence of fonder times 
 than the fupinenefs of modern refearch. Yet fuch was the 
 
 origin 
 
 * " This writer we learn, on inquiry, to be Mr C. 
 Wordfworth, of Trinity-college, Cambridge; who, 
 though he modeftly withheld his name at firft, is not, we 
 underfland, anxious to be concealed.'* 
 
origin of the prefent volume," (the 6 letters,) " and fuch 
 the induftry and acutenefs employed to furnifh the materials. 
 
 " In the fequel to Mr Sharp's remarks are nine exam- 
 ples of his firil rule, eight of which are fuch as muft, by 
 their genuine application, introduce important alterations 
 in the verfion, and become, only by being rightly tranf- 
 lated, direft affertions of the Divinity of Chrift.* Thefe 
 eight examples, therefore, are made the fubjeft of the 
 prefent letters, in which they are regularly difcuffed in 
 order, as to the manner in which they were read and 
 underftood by the antient Fathers.f In making this 
 examination, to the extent which we have already men- 
 tioned, the moft important refults were found, as might 
 be expedled, in the writings of the Greek Fathers : and, 
 as we have Mated the appeal to their accurate knowledge 
 of their own language as the chief objedt of thefe letters, 
 we (hall, in our report upon them, pay little attention to 
 any other authorities. 
 
 " I . The firft of thefe eight examples adduced by Mr 
 Sharpf is Adls, xx. 28; but, as this is not applicable 
 unlefs T Kt/pit* xat w can be proved to be the genuine 
 reading, which is very doubtful, it is parted over in 
 thefe letters. || But the queflion concerning the right 
 reading ftill remains open. 
 
 2. " The fecond example is Ephef. v. 5, ct-x s^exX^o>o- 
 T Xf>r xt ,^y rendered, in our 
 
 common 
 
 * " The remaining example, which is the third in 
 order, has no operation of that kind, and feems to be 
 introduced chiefly for the fake of ellablilhing the reading 
 wnvpM\\ sa, from the Alexandrian and other MSS. in 
 Philip, iii. 3. See p. 31, 2d edit." 
 
 f " They are fet down together at p. vi." 
 J " P. 27, fecond edit." 
 
 " Bengelius notices this reading, but marks it with 
 , one of his figns of difapprobation." 
 
 |i " See Letter II. p. 12." 
 f " Sharp, p. 30." 
 
common translation, hath any inheritance in the king- 
 dom of Chrift am! of God;' bur, according to the rule 
 of conftruclion laid down by Mr Sharp, * in the king- 
 dom f the Chrift and God;' or, according to an expla- 
 natory lubftitution, ufual with our tranflators in other 
 cafes, * of Chrift, even of God;' meaning that it is one 
 and t e fame perfon who is here called both Chrift and 
 God. The examination here taken up * is, whether this 
 text was fo underftood by the Greek Fathers, or in any 
 other way. The conclufion is, as this author tells his 
 correfpondent, ' that no other interpretation than yours, 
 (Mr Sharp's) was ever heard in all the Greek churches.' 
 The paflages that moft remarkably prove this (for we 
 cannot be expected to cite them all, or to notice the in- 
 cidental difcuflionsf) are the following: i. A paflage in 
 the fifth Homily of St Chryibftom, on the incomprehen- 
 fible nature of God, where this text is cited, with three 
 ether of the ftrongeft fcriptural declarations, to fhow that 
 Chrift is God. 2. A pafiage from Cyrill of Alexandria, 
 who, after quoting this verfe from the Ephefians, fays, 
 I$ TraAjy X^ro* ovo/xaua? tvQv<; ctvrov ttstytpti xai Qw. 
 * Obferve, again, that, having named Chrift, he imme- 
 diately adds, that he is alfo God.'' In other parts of his 
 works, the fame Father cites this verfe, as denominating 
 our Saviour both Chrift and God, X^rov otvlov uvopafy xai 
 soi/ alu Aiyw. ' He calls Chrift himfelf God alio, when 
 he thus fpeaks,' xamely, when he writes this verfe. 3. 
 The testimony of Theodoret is no lefs explicit, for he 
 cites this verfe, with that to Titus, (ii. 13,) and others, 
 expreflly for the fake of proving that Chrift is God ; and 
 in one of the pafoges inadvertently fubrtitutes Xgr ra 
 as perfectly equivalent to m Xra xa 0e. Having given 
 thele leading fpecimens, let us lum up the whole of what 
 is done, reflecting this verfe, in the words of the letter- 
 writer himfelf. 
 
 * We have referred to twenty-one Greek paflages in 
 which the words t ry Bao-iAstara X^irs xa e are quoted. 
 
 Of 
 
 * 4< Letter II. p. 12." 
 
 f " Thefe are numerous, and the extreme candour and 
 caution of the author appear in every inftance." 
 
Of thefe we confidef twelve as determining nothing either 
 way with refpecl to the meaning of thole particular words ; 
 but then we obferve, that it is not for the fake cf thofe 
 words their quotations are made. The remaining nine 
 are, with one voice, clear teftirronies for your (Mr 
 Sharp's) interpretation. That is, in fact, all tne Greek 
 authorities that do fpeak at all are on your fide.' P. 56. 
 
 " Much difcuflion is alfo taken up in this letter con- 
 cerning the comparative value of the Latin writers, and 
 the weight of their tefcimony when they are contrary to 
 the Greek: but this, which is managed with great judge- 
 ment, we cannot repeat. 
 
 " 3. On the next example,* (2 ThefT. ii. 12,) which 
 is the fubject of the third letter, it fo happens that there 
 are no decisive authorities. The verfe appears not in the 
 polemical writings of the Fathers, b.'caufe it contains 
 nothing decifive againft the Arians,f with whom their 
 chief controverfies were carried on : and they who wrote 
 continued commentaries (aw no occafion to expatiate upon 
 words which to them appeared perfectly clear. This 
 example, therefore, does not long detain the writer of 
 the letters, who is careful, however, to remark, that 
 nothing appears againft the propofed interpretation, and 
 that feveral preemptions flrongly favour it. 
 
 4. " In the fourth example, ;{: (i Tim. v. 21,) we are 
 again in part defer ted by the reading of the text, the 
 citations of the Fathers being made in general without 
 
 the 
 
 * " The third here, the fourth in Sharp, (p. 34,) 
 tranflated by him, ' according to the grace of Jefus 
 Chrift, our God and Lord." 
 
 f " Who allowed the Divinity of Chrift, which this 
 verfe afferts, but conceived his Godhead to be of a fe- 
 condary kind, againft which it fays nothing. Had it 
 placed Chriil before the Father it would have been often 
 cited." 
 
 t " The fifth in Sharp, p. 38." 
 
( I0 9 ) 
 
 the important word *ygi,* thus removing it from any 
 application cf the rule. It ftill, however, remains to be 
 inquired which is the proper reading of tUe verie, by 
 means of MSS. ami veriions; a fearch which the prefent 
 author does not fully undertake, (as being fore'gn to his 
 immediate object,) but touches with great judgement. 
 Mr Sharp fays that the word Xjurs is omitted in the Alex- 
 andrian MS. contrary to the authority of Wetllein and 
 Griefbach, who aflert it of wpa. We have examined 
 the MS. itfelf, and fmd that ivir S. is in this inilance 
 miitaken, and that avpa is the word omitted, the text 
 
 ' being UOVM TOY Y KAI XY IY, which are the un- 
 doubted abbreviations of KOU Xfira Iijcra." [This 
 error is corrected in the prefent edition, fee note, p. 38 
 to 40.] 
 
 " On this paiTage alfo occurs the only apparent contra- 
 diction of Mr Sharp's rule which the whole refearch has 
 produced, in three citations, namely, from Chryfoitom, 
 CEcumenius, and Theophylacl, in which TS ES KOU Kt'^tt 
 is retained, and yet the words are. interpreted of two 
 perfons. As the only foiution of this difficulty, Mr 
 Wordfworth fuggefts that the MSS. of thefe writers had 
 not xff<, which, with refpedt to the two latter, appears 
 probable. But here he does not quite retain his ufual 
 acuteneis; for, Chryfoilom (unlefs it be an error of the 
 prefs in this book) mull: have had x^j. as he has, pecu- 
 liarly to himfelf, the additional word M.M fubjoined. 
 But it may fairly be conje&ured that he read it xou TOY 
 xtfa ypuv, which, by inferting the article again, equally 
 removes it from the influence of our rule. As a col- 
 lateral proof (and a very iirong one it is) that the 
 L inconfiftency 
 
 * " Thus: Ej'o7r*o T E y.au \r,ff8 Xgir> which makes 
 it no longer an example of Mr Sharp's rule. The com- 
 mon reading is tw EW xat xy^ts I. X. On looking back to 
 our article on Mr sharp's book; (vol. xv. p. 71,) we 
 perceive, that, in the hurry of a periodical prefs, we 
 ourfelves have omitted x.yps : a mod materiaj error. Alfo 
 TJJK before X$i, in ;he preceding text. 
 
inconfiftency of conftrulion, apparently found in thefs 
 three paflages, cou d not really belong to them, this 
 author obferves that fnnilar phrafes in the fame three 
 Greek Fathers,* and the very words I j Y.CU xvf.oc, in 
 twenty-fix citations from others, are uniformly referred to 
 cne perfon. 
 
 *' 5- The fifth exarnple,f (2 Tim. iv. i,) which is 
 nearly in the fame words as the preceding, mares a very 
 fimilar fate, being removed from the influence of the 
 rule by the repetition of the article ra ea xa* ra MQM. 
 Mr Sharp, however, alleges that ra ga KOU xvfm is the 
 reading of the Alexandrian MS. But the text of that 
 
 tylS. gives, as in the former pafiage, TOY Y KAI XY IY, 
 T Qua xou Xpra i>:~a." [This error is alfo correded in 
 the prefent edition, fee note, p. 38 to 40.] " It remains, 
 therefore, to confirm the reading he fupports by other 
 authorities." [For which fee note in 3d edit. p. 42 47.] 
 " 6. If we have had difficulties relpedting the readings 
 cf feme of thefe examples, we fhail have none in that to 
 which we are now arrived.^ It is that in the Epiftle of 
 St Paul to Titus, (ii. 13,) mtyxvucx,* rw ^o|-/i? ra /xsya^a 
 }aa KO.I 1,uir,fo<; r,{j.uv Ir t (7a Xgtra: a tex: of which the read- 
 .ing is uniform, <.nd the interpretation of the Fathers 
 ?xaclly coniifteiU with that at prefent under coniideration. 
 The text was urged by them, in general, againft the 
 /Brians; n. t to prove that Chrift is God, for that was 
 granted by both parties, but to prove that his Godhead is 
 
 not 
 
 * " It is a very fingular and curious proof of diligence 
 that the author of theie ietiers mould be able to iay (even 
 with the modeity he obferves in it) of four fmall words, 
 e EC? xon xvpwc, that they occur together but once in the 
 twelve hu^e tbiios of Chryfoilom. The one pafiage in 
 that writer is TOV xstvov ^av sov xat xvfiov rov Xprc**- A 
 very ftrong one in ail rcipccts. Ste p. 56." 
 
 f " Sharp's 6th, p. 39." 
 
 t " Mr Sharp's 7th Ex, p. 42. Of thefe letters the 
 5th, p. 65. 
 
( III ) 
 
 not inferior to that of the Father, becaufe the Apo'M? 
 here calls him the GREAT GOD." To this argument 
 it was iudilpenfably necefTary that the paflage (hould he 
 under/rood according to Mr Sharp's tranflation, ' the 
 appearance of the glory of our GREAT GOD and 
 SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST;' and not according to our 
 public verfion, the great God, AND our Saviour Jefus 
 Chrift.' 
 
 - " On this text the authorities are fo decifive that we fhall 
 content ourfclvcs with recounting their numbers inftead of 
 ellirrating their force. The Greek authorities are fifty- 
 four in number, as cited in thefe Letters,* and extend 
 from the fecond century to the twelfth, a period of nearly 
 a thoufand years. In this inttance, alfo, the Latin fathers 
 and divines bear the fame teilimony, with very few and 
 inconfiderable exceptions, and are cited to this eftecl in 
 about fixty inftances. Even the heridcs of the Latin 
 church, till very late times, acknowledged the interpreta- 
 tion contended for by Mr Sharp; and -that adopted in our 
 public verfion ' was never once thought of in any part of 
 the Chriftian world, even when Arianifm was triumphant 
 over the Catholic faith. Surely,' acids the author of 
 thefe Letters, and \ve heartily add with him, ' this fail 
 might of itfeiffufiice to overturn every notion* of an ambigui- 
 ty in the form of expreffion.' P. 95. The perfecl eflablifh- 
 nient even of this one text, in the fenfe here afcribed to 
 it, if that were all that could be done, ought to give the 
 Socinian feme apprehenfion, when he prefumes to degrade 
 to the rank of a mere man, him whom the Apoftle Paul 
 unequivocally ftyles 'the GREAT GOD.' We believe, 
 indeed, v. ith the author of the Letters, that even the 
 leaders of the fed have had their fecret compunctions on 
 this fubjed-f 
 
 " 7. Of the two remaining examples we mufl expect to 
 
 find le/s illuftration. The Catholic Epiftles were lefs 
 
 quoted, and lefs commented upon, than thofe of St Paul; 
 
 L 2 and 
 
 * " And the author fhovvs that he could have increafed 
 them." 
 
 f " See p. 66." 
 
and even Chryfoftom, voluminous as he is, deferts in 
 when we come to the fecond Epiftle of St Peter. The 
 fevemh example* is taken from that Epiftle, 2. Pet. i. i. 
 > w.a.wavw T yywv KCH Eoftnpoc Ircrs X;r> that is, in 
 trie conm on verfion, through the righteoufnets of God }- 
 and our Saviour jefus Chrift:' in Mr Sharp's rendering, 
 * through the righteoufcrfs of our God and Saviour, Jefus 
 U! rift.' The authorises of the Fathers, both Greek and 
 Latin, are here neutral; but it is forr.ething of importance 
 to- our inquiry, (which is noted by Mr Sharp,) that 
 U'icklifF, Coverdale, Matthews, Cranmer, the Geneva 
 and Rhemiih Bibles, Doddridge, Scattergocd, Weiley, 
 ar,d Purvei, all tranfiate the words according to his rule. 
 " 8. We come now to the laft of thefe -examples, Jude, 
 ver. 4 TOP [A^VIJV nfVimti Qsov, xati ttveisv wp-uv> Ivcm* 
 X^ircf, apr/x,?j/ot,t ' denying our only Mailer, God, and 
 Lord, Jefus Chrift.' Here is fome difficulty in the read- 
 ing, rov bi-ing wanting in many MSS. The chief teiti- 
 xnony adduced is from fome fchclia of the Iith century, 
 publillied by Profeiibr Malthas, which conclude ST* |^ 
 ICTTU/ o wahaixs xsu mcx.$ fiodtffeiff 05 xui K'jpi&s, Iijaaj Xpro?. 
 ' I'nat there is one j :!"us Chrilt, the God and Lord of the 
 Old and New Tefiar/ients.' 
 
 We (hould here finiih, but that the author of thefe 
 Letters has fuggeftcd a new paffage as belonging to th 
 fame interpretation, though rot to the fame rule. This 
 is James, i. I , Iaxwo$ ea v.at,\ xvpiu Ir,c-u Xp;r IM? ? wher^, 
 though the article is not prefixed to a, it is thought 
 probable, and by fome proofs much coniirn.ed, that the 
 Apoftle meant to ftyle himielf, * a fcrvant of our God and 
 Lord, Jefus Chriit.' The author concludes his collection 
 
 by 
 
 * " Sharp 8th, p. 44. Letter VI. p. 103." 
 
 f " Erroneoufly printed, in Mr Sharp's remarks, 'of 
 cur God.' P. 45, 2d edit." (Corrected 3d edit. p. 51.) 
 
 | " Sharp's Ex. 9, p.^6. Letters, p. 108." 
 
 " See alfo Rev. >ix. 17, if the true reading there 
 fhould turn out to be Seiirwv ra jw-ayaXs s, inflead of 
 5, TO fteya ra . See p. 66." 
 
( "3 ) 
 
 by various paffages, from twenty different Greek writers. 
 exemplifying the alleged ufe of the article, and many cu 
 them Irrongly declaring the Godhead of Chrift. 
 - " Thus have we completely fhown the fubftance of the 
 information contained in thefe Letters. It is extremely 
 important; and. though the candour of the letter-writer 
 prevents him from attempting to take advantage of any 
 dubious text or readings, the whole mafs of evidence 
 which he has collected is abundantly ftrong and valuable. 
 The work is rendered of additional .value by fupplemental 
 tables of the Greek and Latin Fathers, placed in chrono- 
 logical order, with fome account of their extent and of 
 the editions ufed by the author. We cannot conclude 
 without recommending to every diligent ftudent in divi- 
 nity to read both this book and that of Mr Sharp, to 
 confirm themfelves in that doctrine of which the primitive 
 church never enteriained a doubt,* the ' DIVINITY of 
 our BLESSED SAVIOUR.' Nor ihall we attempt to con- 
 ceal, that we view with great pleafure thefe rational 
 endeavours to fupport a doctrine fo fundamental to our 
 religion." 
 
 Review of G. Sharp's Remarks on the ufes of the 
 Definite Article, and on the Six Letters to G. Sharp, in 
 the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER for July, 1802. No. VII. 
 vol. i. p. 438, art. xxvii. 
 
 After reciting the firil rule propofed by G. Sharp, the 
 learned reviewer remarks, 
 
 "This rule is valuable, not -merely in a philological 
 view, but becaufe it enables us to correct the tranflation of 
 fevcral paflages in the New Teilament, which, properly 
 undcritood, afford " many (Inking proofs concerning the 
 godhead of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift." Under. 
 this idea we are referred to the following paffages. Acts, 
 xx. 28. Eph.v. 5. zTheff.i. 12. i Tim. v. 21. 2 Tim. 
 iv.i. Titus, ii. 13. 2 Pet. i. i. Jude, 4. 
 
 * " Notwithflanding the daring aflertions that have, 
 in. modern limes, been made to the contrary," 
 
 L 3 "The 
 
( "4 ) 
 
 " The Six Letters addreffed to G. Sharp, Efq. (which 
 we have heard attributed to the Rev. C. Wordfworth, M. A. 
 and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge) may be con- 
 fidered as an important fupplement to his work, it feems rea- 
 ibnable to fuppofe, that, if Mr Sharp's rule be true, the an- 
 tientintcrpretations of any particular example by the Greek 
 fathers mui> tend to confirm it. The object of this work, 
 therefore, is to examine, by actual reference, what were the 
 opinions of the early Greek writers upon thofe eight texts 
 which are mentioned above. In the courfe of this learned 
 and mod laborious investigation, the author not only 
 proves, by a great variety of quotations, in what ienfe 
 the fathers underftood thcfe paiiages, but thews, farther, 
 at what time and amongft what writeis the interpretation 
 began to be ambiguous. To anv ore at all conversant 
 with the Latin and Greek languages it cannot be a matter 
 of aftoniihment, if, for want of the ddimte article, an 
 ambiguity frequently occurs in the Latin translation of a 
 Gr.ek fentence, where there is no difficulty whatever in 
 the original. And to this iburce the author traces the 
 uncertainty which has fo long exited with reipecl to the 
 true meaning of the texts cited by Mr Sharp. Few of 
 the Latin .fathers were converfant with Greek ; they 
 quoted in general from their own tranflations, and there- 
 fore generally adopted that fen r c which, to a mere Latin 
 reader, would appear the moil obvious. If, then, the 
 Gretk and Latin writers f-em to differ with reipecl to the 
 meaning of a Greek paffage, the queition to us becomes 
 this : " Shall we take the explanation of a Greek paflage 
 from Greeks or prefer from Latin writers, not the expi- 
 ration of the Greek, but of a tranjlation of it into their 
 language; which tranflation, though capable of both mean- 
 ings, and fo originally not a falte tranflation, would much 
 more naturally lead men to that fer-fe which is contradic- 
 tory to the common Grecian idiom and the uniform voice 
 of Grecian interpreters?" p. 38. As our limits will not 
 allow" us to follow this author through his numerous and 
 truly valuable quotations, let it fuoice to Hate the general 
 refuit. It appears, then, that where there is no reaion to- 
 fiippuie a different reading obtained from that adopted by 
 Mr Sharp, the Greek writeis are dcciir/e in iupport of 
 
 his 
 
hi. interpretation; the contradictions and ambiguities reft 
 with the Latin writers. In the frcond, fc.th, and fixth, 
 Letters, the quotations are numerous and highly fatisf.ic- 
 ory : they prove, iuconteilably, that words nr ranged ac- 
 cording to the rule never did, from the times of the 
 Apollles, bear any other fcnie than that afligned by 
 Mr Sharp during the period while the Greek was a native 
 language. This remark is not to be underfeed as ap- 
 plicable merely to the verfes in queftion, but as extending 
 to this mode of expreiHon wherever it is ufec*. In proof 
 of this afiertion, a coniiderable number of paffages is here 
 produced from the earlieil fathers down to the thirteenth 
 century : and the author adds, " I have obfcrvcd more 
 (I vr- ^erfuaded) than a thoufand initances of the form 
 " O Xero; xai eo;," (Ephef v. 5.) forue hundreds of 
 inttances : t iue " O /-uya; EO, xou ZoTyg." (Tit. ii. 13.) ; 
 and not frwer than ieveral thouia -.is oi ih- form < f O eaj 
 x t SCETT*)^," (2 Pet. i. i.) ; while in no fingle cafe have I 
 feea (where the fenfe could be determ "ed) any one of 
 them ufed, but only of one pedbn." p 132. Nay, the 
 Arians themftlves, it (hould feem, even at a time \\ \en 
 their herefy was triumphant, acknowledged this contrac- 
 tion, in admitting that Chrift is ilyied, by St Paul, the 
 great God. The words of Maximin, the Arian Bimop, 
 as cited in this work, (p. 95,) are very remarkable: 
 " A nobis unus colitur Deus, intiaius, infeftus, invijibilis, 
 qiti ad bumana cbntagia> et ad bumanam carnem non de- 
 fcendit. Eft autem et fiius fecund urn apoftolum* non pu/jlluSf 
 fed magnus Deus. Sicut ait beatus Paidus :" " Expectan- 
 tes beat am Jpe;n et adventum glortse magni Dei et Salavat or is 
 n&jiri J:fu Cknfti, &c. They did not deny that Chriit is 
 here called the great God, but contended that the Father 
 was greater. 
 
 Towards the clofe cf his work the author fuggefts 
 fume philological remarks, which well merit attention. 
 
 We cannot Jifmifs this article without offering a few re- 
 marks upon ihe fubject which this work is meant to 
 exririne. The rule laid down by Mr Sharp was origi- 
 propofed by beza : his words relating to the pafifage 
 in Titus are the foil'.. wing : " Qt.od autem ad alterum atti- 
 net t $uu?a fcrty urn Jit" f< 
 
( "6 ) 
 
 0# autem, tc rev (Atyafav eoy 
 
 TOY rwntgof;" &c. ^/Vo o magis probabiiiier ifia 
 ad f;., as difttnftas perfonas rcferrz, quam ill am locutionem, 
 "o go? xsti 9rT95 Ijaoy Xg*roy." JV<?;/z /W rcrf* poftulat 
 Grecci Jermonis u/us, quum unus tantum Jit articulus, du^bus 
 ijti wm^e, " Otov KCC,I Ea-pjpo? " et " to? y.ou Trarvjg" com- 
 munis." 'T/ii- rule, however, not being L'kl uo\vn with 
 fufficient accuracy, and a due regard to the exceptions of 
 a proper name and a plural number, Erafmus and Gro- 
 tius p. t id little* regard to it. Since that period it haa 
 often been afferted or denied, according to the precon- 
 ceived opinions of different writers ; it has been generally 
 admitted that it might, be true, but contended on the other 
 hand that it might alfo be falfe. Mr Sharp was the firft 
 \vho laid down the rule with clearnefs and precifion, de- 
 claring that words thus arranged muft bear this conrtruc- 
 tion, and can bear no other. The public have now been 
 for feme years in pofleilion of it ; and we believe it has 
 never yet been controverted by any man. The rule muft 
 have been known to his learned Editor, Mr Burgefs, fome 
 time before ; yet it ieems a fair prefumption that no ex- 
 ceptions have come under his notice, for he has lately pub - 
 limed a fecond edition of the fame pamphlet.* The in- 
 formation contained in the Six Letters is calculated to 
 give the ftrongeft fupport and moil ample conformation 
 
 * "We have heard the queftion advanced, " Does Mr 
 Sharp's firft rule obtain in the Septuagint and claifical 
 Greek writers ? " This mode of expreffion does rot 
 often occur in the LXX ; but where it does cccur, we 
 believe, all the inftances are in favour of this conftrucYion ; 
 if we mittake not, the firft example which can be produced 
 is in Levit. xxi. 10. In the writings of the Greek daf- 
 fies we have noticed hun.'reds of inftances, and have not 
 yet feen one which makes againlt the rule. Take an ex- 
 ample or two : " Ot $s, arc ov ^w^otfoxo* ovrs$, %a,TGc$govot,ffi* 
 aTTcti/ruv rovtuvf uq <p?crv *O 0cO$ KAI Qiuv irgoQriT'/is (viz. 
 Hc>rn.?r : , Plato's 2d A.cibiad. Ka< ya.% rot arcpj/af ITTTTO- 
 yxo O crvu,ut.a.xpg KAI (p^oJ fT>*$ ^jPvjTTTroj. (Demofth. 
 .)" 
 
 to 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 to the role. In this view, therefore, we confider this 
 work as of very great importance ; it enlifts into the fer- 
 vice of the catholic faith feveral texts which have been 
 frequently claimed by Allans and Socmians, as exclufively 
 in their favour; thus depriving herefy of one of its greater! 
 itrong-holds, and affording another proof of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, which it will not be eafy to elude. 
 
 " Feeling, as we do, the fulleft conviction, that a body 
 of evidence is here brought forward which the adverfa- 
 ries of our faith can neither gainfay nor refift, we challenge 
 them to the examination of it : if Mr Sharp's rule be 
 falfe, let them prove it by an appeal to the Greek Te (la- 
 ment ; if the quotations in thefe Letters can bear any 
 other conftruclion than that which the Author gives them, 
 let another interpretation be produced. Till this {hall be 
 done, and we are perfuaded it never can be done, we do 
 mod earneilly recommend this learned work to ail thofe 
 who are able to appreciate the value of fuch evidence, and 
 are defirous to " contend earneilly for that faith which was 
 once delivered to the faints. 
 
 " For the fake of the mere Engli(h reader, we fubjoin 
 a tranilation of the paff iges mentioned by Mr Sharp, ac- 
 cordi; g to his rule, and the interpretations of the Greek 
 father* : we omit the firlt and fifth, becaufe the reading 
 in our common editions of the Greek Teftament is dif- 
 ferent from that adopted by Mr Sharp. 
 
 " Ephcf. v. 5. * For this ye know, that no whore- 
 monger, &c. hath any inheritance in 
 the kingdom of him who is Chriii 
 and God.' 
 " 2 Thef. i. 12. * according to the grace of Jefus 
 
 Chrift, our God and Lord.' 
 " i Tim, v. 21. * I charge thee, before Jefus Chriit, the 
 
 God and Lord,* &c. 
 
 " Titus, ii. 13. 'Looking for that bleffed hcpe, and the 
 glorious appearing of jefus Chriii, 
 the great God and our Saviour.' 
 " 2 Pet. i. i. Through the righteoufncfs of Jefus 
 
 Chrirt. cur Gcd and Saviour.' 
 
 " Jude iv. * And our o--ly Matter, God, and Lord, 
 
 Jefus Chrift.' " 
 
 The 
 
The reader is requeued to examine alfo'a very learned; 
 fenfible, -and candid, review, in anfwtr to Mr Blum's 
 Six more Letters to G. S. c the fame fubjeft, in the Cbrif- 
 tian Qbferver for June, itcj, No. vi. p. 363. 
 
 CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN. 
 
 from the CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN, for De- 
 cember, 1802, Number XII. p. 348. 
 
 " Remarks on the Ufes of the Definite Article in the 
 Greek Text of the New Teftament, &c by Granville 
 Sharp, Efq.: to which is added an Appendix, containing, 
 I. A table, of evidences of ChrifPs divinity, by Dr 
 Whitby ; 2. A plain argument from the Gofpel Hiftory 
 of the divinity of ChrUt, by the editor, the Rev. T. Bur- 
 gefs, Prebendary of Durham, pp. 80. 
 
 " The rew fpecies of argument which is here fo hap- 
 pily adduced, and addreficd to die learned world, in fup- 
 port of the dcclrine of our Saviour's divinity, not only 
 merits the grateful attention of its friends, but imperioufly 
 demands the diiigent fcrntiny of its rnoft inveterate ere- 
 mies. It approaches fo r.;.rly to mathematical demon- 
 ilraiion thr: we conceive i: to be abfolutely incapable of 
 confutation The fchool of Socinus was never attacked with 
 a more formidable weapon ; and it is with p'eafure we fee 
 this treatif particularly recommended, in the preface, to 
 Mr Wj-kef. ; d's moil deliberate confide rat ion. 
 
 Jt wouio be impoifibie for us, in oar analylis, to do juf- 
 tice to iiie elaborate work before us, without tranfcribing 
 a very conficierable portion of its invaluable contents, 
 We will, hcwever, communicate fo much as may enable 
 the judici. us part of our readers to form a true eiiimate 
 of the force of the arguments employed, and excite in 
 them a povyerful defire of becoming acquainted with it at 
 full length." 
 
 After reciting the rules and referring to the examples, 
 the learned Reviewer makes the following obiervation, in 
 p. 350, on the Appendix : 
 
 "Mr Burgefs's plain argument, from the Gofpel hif- 
 tory, for the divinity of Chrift, is- drawn up by way of 
 
 quettior* 
 
( "9 ) 
 
 queftion and anfvver, and forms a kind of catechifm on the 
 fubjecl, comprifcd within the fpace of fourteen pages. 
 The argument is arranged with fuch judicious (implicit/ 
 and perfpicuity, as mull carry irreiiitibie conviction to 
 the underttanding of every man who poflefles in his heart 
 a fincere love of truth; and who is not influenced by 
 paflion or prejudice to prefer darknefs belore light" 
 
 ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN. 
 
 Review of G. Sharp's Remarks on the ufes of the 
 Definite Article, and on the Six Letters to G. Sharp, in 
 the ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE AND RE- 
 VIE w for February, 1803. No. II. vol. iv. p. 105. 
 
 " Thefe two works we introduce together, to the n nice 
 of our readers, on account of their intimate connexion 
 v.'ith each other. 
 
 " The principal object of the former is, to deduce 
 from the New Teftament an important rule with regard 
 to the ftru&ure of the Greek language; and afterwards to 
 apply that rule to the correction of the tranflation of fe- 
 veral paftages in pur eftabliihed Englifh verfion of the 
 .Scriptures, which pafiages will be found, when rendered 
 according to Mr Sharp's ideas, . to contain the moft 
 exprefs teftimonies to the divinity of our Saviour. The 
 rule in quelUon is briefly this : ' whenever two perfonal 
 r/ouns come together, (excepting proper names,) which 
 are connected by the particle x.ou, and to the former of 
 which any cafe of the definite article is prefixed, both 
 thofe nouns are invariably to be underftood of the fame 
 perfon.' A large collection of paffages from the New 
 Tellament is here exhibited, to afford fuffieient and 
 fatisfadory inftances of the rule thus laid down. After 
 which Mr S. points out certain other texts, which, con- 
 taining in the original precifely the fame conftruction, 
 ought, he affirms, (and we apprehend with the fulleit 
 juftice,) to be fo tranfl ated as to convey to the Englifli 
 reader that they are to be imchrtlood (according to the 
 rule) of the fame perfon. The texts reierred to by Mr 
 S. and which bring with them, according to his fytfem, 
 
 the 
 
the very important dodlrinal conclufions which we have 
 briefly mentioned, are the following: Ads, xx. 28. (if 
 we follow the reading, rov Kvgiw xai Qtw.) Ephef. v. r. 
 2 Thef. i. 12 I Tim. v. 21. 2 Tim. iv. i. (if we 
 read rov *ov KOH Kvgiw.) Titus, ii. 13. 2 Peter, i. i. 
 }ude, 4. All of which are, therefore, to be rendered 
 fevcrally in thefe fignrfkations : 
 
 (i.) The Church of him who is Lord and God. 
 (2.) In the kingdom of Chrift, our God 
 (3.) According to the grace of Jefus Chrift, our God 
 and Lord. 
 
 [f'\ ? Before Jrfus Chrift, oar God and Lord. 
 
 (6,) The glorious appearing of Jefus Chrift/ our great 
 GoJ and Saviour. 
 
 (7.) Of our God and Saviour, Jefus Chrift. 
 
 (S.) Our only mailer Jefus Chrift, both God and Lord. 
 
 *' The importance of this rule, efpecially on account of 
 the very itriking conclufions to which it thus leads us, will 
 \ve truft fufficieridy recommend it to the ftricleft inveftiga- 
 tion and fcrutiny of the learned world. For oarfelves we 
 freely declare, that, having given the fubjeft a confidera- 
 ble portion of our attention, we find, daily, frefh in- 
 itances and exemplifications of the rule, and as yet have 
 met with nothing which in any refpect tends to impeach 
 Its certainty and univerfality. For, it muft be obferved, 
 that, though Mr S. has drawn all his examples from the 
 New Teftarnent, yet the rule itfelf he has exprefled in 
 general terms; and the application of it, therefore, is by 
 no means to be confined to the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment. His reafons for not himfelf applying it to claflical 
 and other Greek writers were, probably, that in fo doing 
 he muft have greatly extended his work, without any 
 equivalent advantage: whilft, by afferting the rule in 
 general terms, he has boldly fubmitted it to the fcrutiny 
 of all readers of all kinds of Greek books, and has there- 
 by put the public, we apprehend, into a much fu-er road 
 of attaining a fpeedy and certain knowledge of its extent 
 and truth, than he could have done by a long, tedious, 
 and after all very unfatisfaftory, accumulation of pafiages 
 from all the wide extent of Grecian literature. Let 
 
 the 
 
the thoufands of readers of Greek produce a few Inftances* 
 to contradict the rule, and then will be the proper time to 
 confider xvhether or no it muft be given up for ever. 
 
 " The conciufions, however, which Mr Sharp has drawn 
 with regard to the interpretation of thofe texts of the 
 New Teitament above referred to, feem, in general, to 
 be fecured within a fecond wall by the interefting, and 
 we will fay furpriftng, refult of the investigation of the 
 laborious author of the " Six Letters.'* The general 
 object of which work is, to arrive at thofe fame conciu- 
 fions by another road ; to eftablifh the fame truths by a 
 fecond perfectly difttnft train of reaibning. It occurred 
 to me,' (fays this author,) that I mould probably find 
 fome, at leaft, of thofe texts, the vulgar interpretation of 
 which you have called in queftion, cited and explained by 
 the antient Fathers; not, indeed, as inftances of acy 
 particular rule, but expounded by them naturally, as men 
 would underitand any other form of expreflion in their 
 native language.* If thefe interpretations, thus difco- 
 vered, mould differ from Mr Sharp's interpretation, it 
 would feem to follow that his rule could not be true : if 
 they accorded with his, it would then feem that thofe con- 
 ciufions mull now for a fecond reafon be admitted ; and the 
 vulgar interpretation ought of courfe to be reformed 
 according to the ftandard of the primitive authorities, 
 This inference, however, would be ftill farther fecured, 
 if we mould difcover, from our inveftigation, that thofe 
 heretics who were moft prefled with thefe paffages of 
 Scripture, while Greek was underftood as a living lan- 
 guage, never devifed fo ready an expedient of eluding 
 their force as modern ages have perpetually had recourie 
 
 * " As we coniider the fubjedt which we are now upon 
 ds of the very rft magnitude, we mail be happy if any 
 of oar readers will favour us with communications (mould 
 they meet with them) to fuch effect. And we mould be 
 equally glad to infert any additional citations in the 
 Fathers which may have efcaped the vigilance of the 
 writer of the " Six Letters;" or any particulars which 
 may tend to fupply the deficiencies, or remove the diffi- 
 culties, ftill remaining in that inveftigation. " 
 
 M to, 
 
to, viz. a pretended ambiguity in the form of expreffion 
 in the^original; and if it fliould ftill farther appear, in 
 other ir.fiances, that the orthodox never betook themfclves 
 to this alleged ambiguity, even in ihofe cafes where it 
 may be (hewn they mull, from their principles, naturally 
 have been inclined to do fo. 
 
 " Upon this fimple and unobjectionable ground-work 
 thefe letters are founded. The remaining five, after the 
 firft, are principally occupied in laying before us, in a 
 chronological order, the rcfult of the author's inquiries 
 on each particular text ; and they prelent an example of 
 well-direfted patience and perfeverance which has leldom 
 been furpaffed. Almoil all the vaft remains of the Greek 
 Fathers, and a great part of the Latin, appear to have 
 been clofely examined; and, what is fcarcely of lefs im- 
 portance, the labour feems to have been carried on, as 
 the work is written, in a fober, cautious, and candid, 
 temper. We cannot give a more correct general defcrip- 
 tion of the work than by faying that it contains, as far as 
 materials could be found, a hiilory of the interpretation 
 of the texts in queftion, from the earlieft times nearly to 
 the age of the reformation. With regard to more modern 
 tranflators and commentators, Mr S. has given fufficient 
 information in the latter part of his " Remarks." It is 
 an important advantage of this hiilory that we learn from 
 it not only what is true, but we difcovcr alfo the origin 
 and progress of the falfe modern interpretation. The 
 origin is undoubtedly to be traced to the imperfe&ion of 
 the Latin language ; and the progrefs was accelerated and 
 increafed by the great number of Latin commentators, by 
 the greater familiarity of our early interpreters with thoie 
 writers; perhaps, alfo, by the inclination to heterodoxy 
 in Eraimns and others; ar.d not a little, probably, by 
 the referve and timoroufnefs of certain orthodox writers, 
 forbearing and fearing to afTert the true interpretation, 
 not bccaufe they themfelves did not hold it, but out of a 
 love of peace, and because they knew it was denied or 
 difliked by others. 
 
 " Having mentioned Mr Sharp's conclufions, it feems 
 but right that we mould point cut how far they appear to 
 be eftablifhed, or other wife, by this fecond inveiligation. 
 
 "In 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 tc In the firft, fourth, and fifth, inftances, the readings 
 In the Fathers do not correfpond with Mr Sharp's readings, 
 and therefore the interpretation is, as it ought to be, 
 different. Jn the fecond it is proved, to our fatisfacYion, 
 ' that no other interpretation than Mr Sharp's was ever 
 heard in all the Greek churches;' and, farther, (what 
 may feem ftrange to thofe who come to the confideration 
 of the fubjeft only with modern ideas,) that, if they 
 could, the Greeks ivcu!f/ 9 (as the Latins did) have inter- 
 preted it otherwife. On the third example the quotations 
 are lefs numerous and lefs fausfadory ; fufficient, however, 
 when combined with a feries of other quotations, given 
 in the founh letter, to corroborate the general conclufion. 
 The fixth inftance, by far the moft important of all, is 
 confirmed by a profufion of evidence. The ieventh and 
 eighth have again little direft evidence; but what we 
 have affirmed of the third is, we apprehend, true of them 
 alfo. 
 
 " In the la/1 letter a long feries of in/lances is given, 
 tending to (he\v, that, frcm the very times of the Apoflles, 
 the identical forms of expreffion ufed in thefe texts of St 
 Paul, &c. were applied perpetually and invariably in the 
 ienfe which is agreeable to Mr Sharp's rule ; and hence 
 proving furricientiy in what fenfe even thofe writers wno 
 have not quoted them did underftand, and would have 
 explained and interpreted, the pafTages in quelHon. 
 
 " In' this lait letter, alfo, authorities are given which 
 render it probable that the text of St James, c. i. v. i, 
 is to be added to thofe in which our Saviour Chrift is 
 calle.i God. 
 
 ' Having thus given a view of the contents of thefe 
 publications, we (hall conclude with earneltly recom- 
 mending them to the not'-ce of the public; and efpecially 
 to thofe who have imbibed an inclination to Socinianifr.i, 
 to which fyftem a blow fetn:s to be here given which mult 
 fpread a ficknefs through the whole frame. And, though 
 far from being prejudiced in favour of novelties in 
 divinity, we cannot but add that thefe works are, in our 
 eflimation, calculated to produce the moft remarkable 
 change which has long be n witnefTed in the theological 
 world; and as conftituting together, though of fmall fize, 
 M 2 the 
 
the moft important defence of Chriftian dc&rines which 
 this age, by no means deficient in fuch, has produced. 
 For, what is here done (if any thing be done) will have 
 the remarkable diftinclion of being done once for al', and 
 mull be not of a confined and temporary, but a univer- 
 fal and perpetual, e. 
 
 In a Letter to the Editors of this Review, thp reader 
 will find a very juft and fenfible cenfure of Mr Blunt* s 
 Six MORE LETTERS TO G.S. The faid letter is pub- 
 limeri in the ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZI NE 
 for June, 1803, No. xxx; being the* fix th number of 
 vol. iv. p. 347. 
 
 FOURTH APPENDIX, 
 
 In the matter of SHARP and BLUNT: 
 
 Confuting of Notes, with proofs and explanations tranf- 
 ferred from the third preface by G. Sharp, in reply to 
 the oppofite pretenfions, titles, and allegations, fet up 
 by G. Blunt, Efq. alias *****, alias *****, in his 
 ' Six more Letters to G. Sharp" 
 
 Note the zd, transferred from the third preface, p. i. 
 
 " But all the other cenfures and allegations of Mr G. 
 Blunt are fo evidently_/H-zW0tfj and groundlefs"*} 
 
 * Of the various remarks, by Mr Blunt, which may 
 juftly be clafied under this head of frivolous and groundlefs* 
 thofe which relate to the rules of Syntax feem to demand 
 the firrt notice in this place. In p. 6 and 7, (after much 
 abafe about " a*wk*iuard and confufed manner," " znac- 
 curacy" " in*v eloped in mijl and fog" &c.) Mr Blunt 
 thus charges G. Sharp : " Thus you forrjerimes feem to 
 
 confine 
 
( "5 ) 
 
 confine your remarks, to what you call nouns of perfonai 
 defcription or application, fuch as 0aor, ttcfag, Ky^to;, EWTJ?, 
 &c. at other times you extend them, without giving us 
 any notice, to nouns which are mere names of thing;, with- 
 out any reference whatever to per -fans, fuch as a^yj;, E^uo-n;, 
 <put, ypcttp'/), &c. as in pages 8, 10, 12, 13, &c." (referring 
 to the 2d Edition.) 
 
 In p. 43, he renews'this charge, " now, you, in yourprac- 
 tice," (lays he,)'* have neglected all thefe limitations, and 
 have brought examples to confirm your rules, which vio- 
 late every one of them. Thus, many of the examples" 
 (fays he) " in youvfecond, third, and fifth, rules, and the 
 majority of thofe in. the Jixth, confift of nouns which are 
 not perfinai" 
 
 But thefc charges are entirely groundlef, as far as they 
 refpeft the fuppoled introduction of nouns, which are not 
 perfonal, or mere names of things, " nviihcut giving any no- 
 tice"', becaufe it is expreflly declared in the body, both 
 of the zd and of the 3d rules refpe&ively, that " it de- 
 notes A fart her defcription of the fame PERSON, PROPERTY, 
 or THING, that is exprefled ly the fir ft noun /" and, in the 
 fifth and fixth rules, not only perfons but alfo thing: , are 
 fxprejjly included, fo that G. Sharp would really have de- 
 ferved cenfure if he had not given fome examples of 
 nouns which are " not perfonal" or <f mere names of things'*^ 
 and, if Mr Blunt himfelf had not been " in--veioped in the 
 mift and fog" (to ufe his own words) of moft inveterate 
 prejudices, he certainly would not have made fuch ground- 
 lefs objections. 
 
 Concerning the 3d rule, he objects in p. xii. that " it is 
 not fpecified whether there is, or is not, to be an article 
 before the firft noun." But this cmiffion is of very little 
 confequence, becaufe Mr Blunt will find, on examination, 
 (if he does not fhuffle from the point by fearching for eva- 
 fions in the Englijh verfion, or by fetting up dih'erent rules 
 of his own, formed from the Engl/h iyntax, inilead of fairly- 
 examining G. Sharp's ruies by ihe text of the Greek Tef- 
 tament, from whence alone they were formed,) that, in 
 either cafe, with or without the article before the firll noun, 
 the rule has no exception, not even if we include proper 
 M 3 names, 
 
which are expreflly excluded from the firft rule, f 
 that the charge of not giving notice is entirely grcundlefs. 
 
 Refpe&ing the fourth rule, Mr Blunt obje&s in p. viii that 
 it" is very locfely worded-," but, as nounsof perfcnal defcrip- 
 tion are expreffly excluded from it, there feems to be no 
 need of any farther defcription. 
 
 His imitation of the 5th rule, from the Engtifn verfion in 
 p. xiii and xiv, is extremely frivolous, not only as being a 
 rule of his own forming, from the perverfion of a mere 
 Engli/h exprefiion, which cannot reafonably be admitted as 
 a proper ground of cenfure againil a rule founded on no 
 other fyntax but that of the Greek teftament ; but alfo because 
 his own example of it, viz. " God and Father of" makes 
 dire&ly against himfelf; for, if " two different fubjefis " 
 were really intended, even the English idiom would cer- 
 tainly require the article the before the fecond noun, viz. 
 " God and THK Father of." 
 
 All this is the more efpeciallyyr/Wciw and trifling, be- 
 caufe he himfelf was aware that this Englifh example of his 
 was defective. ( " The Englijh Example** (fays he, in 
 p. xiv.) "which 1 have given as an ittuft ration of this rule, 
 though it txattly cor refunds to the defcription rewired in the 
 rule, --will probably, to an ENGLISH READER conwerfant 
 with fuc b forms of exprejpon, found rather as a contradiction 
 to the rule,") and his only reafon for thele miferable eva- 
 fans feems, by what follows, to have been a vain endeavour 
 to invalidate G. Sharp's example, taken from Ephff. vi. 23. 
 which, '* <wben underftood or tranjlated , as it ought to be," 
 (fays he, referring; us "for the meaning of this Text" to 
 his note in p. 158, " does actually contraditf, inftead of 
 fonjirming, his $tb Ri<k> though he chufe* to under ft and it 
 ctherwife" But, when we turn, as re/eired, to p. 158, we 
 find only the bare mention of this Text, and not hi > ^inf- 
 lation of it; for, he leaves us to j>'.dge of what his meaning 
 of it is by his grofs miftranjlat;on, n that page, of ieveral 
 other Texts, fome of which G. Sharp had cited (p. 2, 2d 
 Edit.) as examples of manifeft {upplications made to 
 Chrijl, jointly ivith God the Father, for grace, mercy, and 
 peace ; all divine gifts, &c." But Mr B. has mamfeiied a 
 nvilful pewerjion of all thefe plain TejOirconies of ccrpture 
 againft the Unitarian fyftem, not only by his ungrammat- 
 
 ical 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 ical rendering of the firfl example given us in that 
 (ttar 1 tirflocyw jrwTjpo; $// xa xvf iw Ircrs X^ir "Thus," 
 fays he, * I Tim. i. i. Ihould be rendered' *' according to 
 (not /y>) the. commandment of God t Saviour of us, and Lord 
 of Jefus Chrift-"} but, alfo, by his having fubitituted i Tim. 
 i. i. for i Tim. i. 2. the former having never been cited 
 by G. Sharp, for any fuch inference about joint prayer to 
 Jefus, as it contains nothing of that kind, but only the 
 latter, I Tim.i. 2. Xapi? EAEO? t^vr, avro es wa^o; 'tyuab 
 XKI XgrIj* Taxt>pi*)f*ft>, which Text, he was moil cer- 
 tainly well aware, would more obvioufly, than the other, 
 expofe the fallacy of his nenvfyftem, if rendered, according 
 to his conduction of all the other Texts there cited, viz. 
 his making the fecond noun to mean \\\t fame perfon as the 
 firft noun, though there is no article before the firft noun, 
 nor, inftead of it, no omijfion of the Copulative before the 
 fecond, which would have the lame effect; and, therefore, 
 this Text, according to Mr Blunt's curious method of 
 tranflating all the reft, mult neceflarily have appeared in the 
 following abfurd and unfcriptural form, to match the reft of 
 his miftranjlaied examples : *' God. Father of us, and 
 Chnjt of Jefus our Lord?' 'I his is a literal fpecimen of 
 bis rucde of tranJJating all the other Te>,ts ; and it is mani- 
 feft that he was aware of this abfurdity, or elfe he would 
 not have evaded it by citing, inftead of the proper Text, 
 the preceding verfe, from which G. Sharp never pretended 
 to draw any inference about, " joint prayer to Jcfus," for 
 it contains nothing to that purpofe. 
 
 As to his two other miftranjlated examples in the fame 
 note, p. 158. viz. Tit. i. \v.from God, Father and Lord 
 of Jefus, and 2 Cor. i. ii." from God, Father of us, and 
 Lord of Jefus ," he muft very wtll know, as a Greek 
 fcholar, that nothing could juftify his attributing, in that 
 manner, the two principal diftirguitning nouns in the fen- 
 tence (nolfo? and Ki^ta) to one and the fame perfon y unKfs 
 either the article had been inferted bcfort n*7p$, or elfe 
 the Copulative omitted before Kvpa; but, as neither the one 
 nor th.' other is really the cafe, his mode of rendering tiicfe 
 fenterces is not only frivolou* , but miferably peri/er/e, and 
 contrary to the general mode of exprrffion by the facn d 
 writers of the New Teftamem, from whom alone G. Sharp's 
 
 rules 
 
( "8 ) 
 
 rules of Syntax were formed, and contrary alfo to their 
 moft general application of the word Kvpo$ to Chrift in 
 other Texts, which are clearly independent of any dif- 
 pute about thefe Rules of Syntax. 
 
 Mr Blunt objects farther in p. xiii to the fifth Rule, as 
 follows" Jt is not fuid," (ne remarks,) " either in Mr 
 Sharp's Table of Contents, or in his Remark, (pnge 12,) 
 whether there is or is not to be an article before the 2<i 
 Noun." But, certainly, this was not neceffary in a Rule 
 intended n-.erely for the Greek tongue; for, as there is no ar- 
 ticle before the ift Noun, it cannot make any difference 
 in tranflating, whether there is or is not an article before 
 the 2d noun, and therefore it would have been fuperfluous 
 to mention it. And, with refpecl to his ether objections 
 about imperfonah and want tf notice* &c. before cited, he 
 himfelf has ackowledged, in p. xiv. that the Rule has 
 '* perfon and thing" and he might have added even name ; 
 fo that ample mention and notice feems to have been given 
 of the enlargement of this Rule, and, (ur.lefs the edge of 
 his literary penetration be totally blunted by Unitarian 
 prejudices,) it is fufficient, one would fuppofe, to 
 have prevented his greuxdltft cenfures ! but it is not fuf- 
 ficiently enlarged, it teems, for .the admifiion of his loofe 
 and vague contractions, either of Greek or even of his 
 more fiippery famples of Englijh, which cannot pafs or 
 evade it; (fo that the Machine, as he calls it, really binds and 
 fecures the true meaning of the Text more effectually on 
 this trial of it than the manufaflurer himfelf ever expected;) 
 for, indeed, Mr Blum's Englijh examples are quite foreign 
 to the fubjectj fo that there can be no pretence for admit- 
 ting them ; and, as to hislranflaticns of the Greek ,\i\$ fam- 
 ples are not only contrary to the general idiom of the 
 Greek tongue, but contrary alfo to the moft general appli- 
 cation of the title Kvpioj throughout the whole Greek Tef- 
 tament. 
 
 Mr. Blunts objections to the 6th and laft Rule, in p. xv, 
 are equally frivolous and groundltft ; for, he refers .to the 
 Table of Contents again, inftead of the Rule itfelf t wherein 
 expieis notice is given, that it includes nouns, either of 
 per/on, thing, or quality ; fo that the inclufion of imperfonals, 
 in the examples of it, cannot with juftice be condemned as 
 
 a 
 
a deviation from it. Another equally vnjuft cenfure by 
 Mr /' of the 6:h Rule is in p. 43. " Inycur 6tb Rule" 
 (fays he) '* ive have an Example from Jc'.-n :J. 44. con/fft- 
 ing of two p L U R A L 0#.f / ^W, again in the ^li&X'.-.mple, iff 
 page 31 w<? have." (lays Mr Blunt, '* /wo PLURAL nouns 
 taken Jrom Philip, iii. 3. which you. mark as a CAPITAL 
 confirmation ofyourfrj} rule." But G. Sharp has neither 
 marked or remarked any fuch thing. G. Sharp has faid, 
 indeed, in page 6, as Mr //// himfelf has remarked, that, 
 * there are not wanting examples even of PLUR AL Nouns, 
 which are exprejjed ex.-tftly agreeably to thefirft Rule." On 
 which MrJBuf*/ again remarks, that it is " an obfer<vation 
 made for no othzr purpofe" (fays he,) " that I can difcover, 
 but that of infenuating that there is nothing in PLURALITY 
 so I NCOMP AT IB-LE with your Rule, as to prevent even 
 plural nouns from being fome confirmation of its troth. But 
 G. Sharp could not furely have any fuch purpofe, (with due 
 fubmiflion to Mr Blunt' s penetration,} becauie he had, juft 
 before, and even in the fame fentence, expreffly excepted 
 nouns that are " proper names, or in the plural nu>i.ber*' and 
 declared, alfo, that, in thefe ** cafes, there are many ex- 
 ception." This was furely an amp-e reafon for excluding 
 them from the ift rule ; fo that Mr Blum's cenfure on this 
 head, alfo, is really bothyfc**/*** and groundless, as well as 
 his cenfures of the firft Rule itfelf, becauie it does not ac- 
 cord with the common Englijh expreffions, the King and 
 Queen; //^Hufband and Wife; the Father and Son," &c. 
 -~-nor with his own vain and evaiive quotations from the 
 Englijb verfion of the Bible! 
 
 And, as he has not been able to produce againft the Rules 
 one Angle example properly applied to confute them from 
 tht Greek text of the new Teflament, (the only true crite- 
 rion of their truth,) his abufive cenfure of the Rules and 
 of their Author, in p. xvi. muft furely deferve fome epithet 
 flill more cutting and fevere than either frivolous or ground- 
 lefe ; for, Mr Blunt has no right to take offence at this 
 freedom of expreffion, which he himfelf has fo liberally 
 bellowed, \\Q\v\oever pungent the retort may be. "Theft 
 Rules and Limitations" (fays Mr Blunt, p. xvi.) " are deli- 
 <versd and fupportcd by the original Inventor with a hazinefs> 
 <wbtcb few foggy, Jhujfling, Trinitarians have exceeded, ana" 
 
 IranfgreJJed 
 
( '30 ) 
 
 franfgrefled with a bold freedom, which few impious, or 
 apoftate, Socinian Sadducees have equalled" &c. 
 
 Mr Blunt, perhaps, confiders this grois abufe as a mere 
 retort upon G. Sharp for having fomeiimes diilinguifhed 
 tibeSactniant by the name of Sadducees; (for,that defcrip- 
 tive term feems to have penetrated moft deeply into the 
 wounded mind of Mr Blunt, and whetled up his refentment, 
 if we may judge by the repeated mention he has made of it 
 throughout his work;) but, as the propriety, or otherwise, 
 of all cenfures ought to be weighed, in the firft place, by 
 the confideration whether or not they are true? and, 
 fecondly, whether they have been applied perfonally, by 
 name, to any known individual? or, thirdly, only in a 
 general nvay to the mere errors and falfe tenets of the per- 
 ibns who profcfs them? Thefe confederations will enable 
 every attentive and unprejudiced Reader of G- Sharp's 
 remarks very eafily to judge and decide whether he has 
 really merited any fuch grofs abufe! Though the apply- 
 ing to the Socinians the title of Sadducees ieems to have 
 been particularly cffenfive toMrJ5/a/, yet he does not 
 appear to be aware of the true meaning of the term Sad- 
 ducee, or he could not, with the Jeaft propriety, have ob- 
 jefted to the application of that character to the Socinian; ; 
 becauie he himleif, their bo'.deft and molt adve, turcus cham- 
 pion, has repeatedly, throughout his work, openly and 
 publicly profeflcd the leading principle of the old jewJfii 
 Sadducees, which has alfo been ootorioufly held by many 
 other Sotinians befid-s himfelf ; viz. that of defying the 
 exigence of Spirits, either good w evil ! An opinion as 
 entirely inconiiltent with the Chrifitan Faith as ii is with 
 that moft important and imerefting branch of natural phi- 
 lofopby, the ftudy and knowledge of our own nature: for, 
 without the protection and gui la^ce of the HOLY SPIRIT, 
 we can neither hope to " be PART AKEK s of the divine na- 
 ture" (according to the exceeding great and precious promifes" 
 which we hold " through the knowledge of him that hath called 
 us to glory and virtue" 2 Pet. i. 3 4,) nor will it be poffible 
 for us to refirt an other wife unavoidable PARTICIPATION 
 of the contrary nature of Demons I 
 
 (Note 
 
( IJI 
 
 Note the 3d, transferred from the 3d Preface, p. xbc. 
 
 ('* Mr Blunt's unhappy want of faith in the doctrine of 
 " Christ Divinity,* &c.") 
 
 * In p. 153, where Mr Blunt is fpeaking expredly " cf 
 Our Saviour's Divinity," he calls it a doctring '* repugnant 
 to every thing in reafon and nature y" and, in the next page 
 (p. 154,) he boldly aiTerts, that it is " generally contrzdittcd 
 by the whole tenor of Holy Writ." And, in a note in 
 p. 151* Mr Blunt very hardily plunges on in the lame 
 groundlcfs error, aflerting " that the Divinity ofjefus, upon 
 which the Trinity depends, is denied and declared to be falfe 
 by the Apojlles, in terms as pojitive, direct, and explicit, as 
 can well be conceived" But, the very firft text to which he 
 has referred us for this ftrarge affertion, both in this note 
 and in p. 154, (viz. John,xvii. 3,) bears ample evidence to 
 the contrary ; for, though our Lord there addrefies his 
 heavenly Father as " the only true Gcd" yet this cannot 
 imply (either in this Text or in any of the other Texts to 
 which Mr Blunt has referred) that our Lord himf^if, 
 though eminently "the Son rfMan," " the Son of David ," 
 *' the Seed of Abraham" &c. is not alio truly God-, of 
 the ONE divine Nature, " Godhead," or SOT*;? ; becaufe, in 
 the fame prayer, plainly and openly, (doubtlefs for the in- 
 ftruction of his faithful witneiks,) he afics to be glorifed 
 with his heavenly Father ; which he could not have done 
 without being liable to the charge of a very criminal pre- 
 fumption, if he had not perfectly known that he himfelf 
 was truly God as well as Man ! And he demonftrated his 
 eternal pre-exijlence and divinity by requiring, in the plainefl 
 terms, that the glory, which he a(ked in his then lately 
 acquired Human Nature, mould be the fame Glory which he 
 had with his heavenly Father before the world was ;" 
 and yet this is the fame identical perfon whom Mr Blunt 
 prefumes to call '* a mere Man, and nothing more, or he 
 ivas a deception. "" p. 71. Such a contemptuous (and of 
 courfe impious) declaration againft one, who is not only 
 truly " man," but alfo, at the fame time, fo much " more" 
 as to be expreffly called ira.rruv Kfpjc?, " Lord of all." 
 (Acts x. 36.) and emphatically d xwgo$, " the Lord," 
 
 (equivalent 
 
( 13* ) 
 
 (equivalent to \htfupreme Title JEHOVAH, which lafl is 
 alfo exprrffly attributed to him, *) could not proceed from 
 the ordinary tenets of any Sectaries which {till profefs to 
 retain the Faith and gener.il' //>/* of Chriftians ; but mail 
 be attributed to principles of downright infideli'v! 
 
 In the fame contemptuous ftyle, (p. 144, note,) Mr 
 Blunt propofes the following qaeftion, in anfwer to a Rev. 
 Advocate for" the Divinity ofjefu ," "Can \e believe" 
 (fays Mr Blunt) * c that the Difciples of Jeius mould con- 
 verfe with him, as a mere man, mould fee him live and die 
 like a man, and afterwards be thus completelyy*///^in the 
 perfuafion of his being the Almighty God, without leaving 
 behind them fo much as a hint of the tranfition of their 
 minds from one opinion to the other, without taking the 
 
 
 
 Difciples conceived, like IVIr Blunt, that the Lord was " a 
 mere man and nothing more /' and the other, that they have 
 not left behind them fumcient testimonies of his Divine na- 
 ture ; for this whole quibbling argument hinges upon the 
 required " hint of the tranfition of their minds from one dpi' 
 nion to the other." The Difciples, indeed, rightly con- 
 fideied their Lord as " a ma t " but not as " a mere man 
 and nothing more ;" becaufe they muft have known, by the 
 canonical Scriptures of the Jews, that the promifed Mef- 
 
 Jiah ought to be of much fuperior dignity ; and, therefore, 
 even with refpzct to the Difciples opinion of his human 
 nature, Mr Blunt ought to have been aware, that, as proofs 
 gradually occurred of the fuperior and really ^^fv/ cha- 
 racter of the true Meffiah, the difciples did not negleft to 
 tc leave behind them" ample and fufhcient declarations of 
 their full conviflion that he was really " more than a man;" 
 for fuch is their open acknowledgement of his divine attri- 
 butes'* NO-TV are vjejure," faid they " that thou kno~>jeejl all 
 things ." &c. ** by this we believe that thou cameft forth 
 
 from God." (John xvi. 30.) Let Mr Blunt, notvvithitand- 
 
 * G. Sharp proved this many years ago by abundant 
 tefiimonies of Holy Scripture. See his Tra<ft on the Law 
 of Nature and Principles of Action in Man, p. 230 to 294.- 
 
 ing 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 ing his inveterate prejudices, carefully examine the extra- 
 ordinary afl'rrtion or" our Lord himfelf, in the preceding 
 context, which occafioned this decided conviction of his 
 followers. (See vcrfes 27 and 28.) And fo far was the 
 opinion, refpecling ' the divinity of Jefus," from i'eing 
 *' denied and declared to be FALSE by the A->oftles, in 
 terms pojitive', direct, and explicit" as Mr Blunt has 
 FALSELY a-lTerted, that, befi-Jes their very frequent ex- 
 ptej's declarations and teftimonies of his divinity, through- 
 out the whole New Teftament, they actually worfoipped 
 him after his refurrefiion, (Matth. xxviii. 9 & 17,) and 
 prayed to him after his afcenfion, (A els i. 24 & 25,) when 
 he war- abfcnt from them : [i. e. abfent in body, and out- 
 ward, perfonal, appearance, but his fpiritual prefence was 
 always with them, as promifed to ail churches, or congre- 
 gations tf faithful believers, even where two or three nvere 
 gathered togeiber in bis name, (Matth xviii. 20,} a moft 
 cflential privilege of the Chriflian Church, which is totally 
 inconfillent with tinsfalfe id.a of Mr Blunt, and other So- 
 cinians, that he was " a mere man, and nothing mortV] 
 And thc-fe acls of ivorjbip and prayer to Chriii would 
 have been idolatrous offences to \\\s Almigh.y Father if the 
 Difciples had not been moil certainly convinced, that their 
 Ltrd Jefus was truly God as well as Man. 
 
 Notes, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6, transferred from the 
 third preface, p. xvi. 
 
 ( alluding by frequent repetitions to his (G. Sharp's) 
 
 being bred as a mere tradefman* (4th Note) mecbanis, 
 or mahufa8urer-\ (jth Note) ; whereas, on the other .hand, 
 Mr Blunt himfelf being fufficiently fenfible, no doubt, of 
 his own fuperior education^ (6th Note), is manifeftjy /;.- 
 fated, &c.) 
 
 * Note, No. 4." But you, Sir, a dealer in Gr<ek in 
 the fmall way," (fays Mr Blunt in p. 22,) " feem to 
 think more highly of your flock in trade th n thofe 
 who are more in the vjbolefule line, no ur.common cafe, 
 and to imagine, as the retail dealer often does, that 
 your little commodity contains fome fecret, myfterious, 
 and extraordinary, virtues, not to be found elfcwhere, 
 N or 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 *' f>r by thofe who know more of the article dealt in. In 
 *' Cnek, at kail, vvhaiever iuay be the cafe in Englijh, 
 ft you Teem to fuppofe that a man may bid defia ice to the 
 *' reafuti, and common fenfe, and experience, of all mankind, 
 " and make out any myiiery he has a mind for." 
 
 Now G. Sharp will not p Mil me lo deny the pre emi- 
 nence cf Mr JBlunf, in the whole charuflL'r vffuperiorify 
 here defcribed ; for, whether it arofe from Mr Blunt's 
 tf fuperior education" or whether, as being ' a dealer in 
 Greek" (as Mr Blunt fays) " in tie nMefale line," 
 either of mifconjlruttion, or of groundhfs affertions and 
 abufc, he has certainly far exceeded ' the retail trader"''' 
 (G. Sharp himfelf mail allow) in " bidding dif.ance to 
 reajon, common fenfi, and experience,"" not only in Greek, 
 butalfo in downright, plain, Englijh, throughout his whole 
 work, as the {cver&lfamples here cited demonftrate ! (See 
 JNote the zd, p. 124 to 130. 
 
 f Note, No. 5. G. Sharp's rules arc dirtingnimed by 
 iVlr Blunt as being *' wrought goods, or Jamples of his ne-iu 
 " mode of manufacliu 'ing a God-man^ (p. Xj.) A mecha- 
 ' meal po^uer, ivhick flail fcre-iv do uun any writer of 
 "Greek." (p. 25.) " Articular Straps" (p. 39.) which 
 *' muji lie trul; jingular, if they neceflarily and inevitably bind 
 * ( whatever load you pleaj'e upon any number of individuals y 
 " making every one of 'them , as often a> you catch him by 
 f( himfelf" (which fee m s to be the unhappy cafe at prefent 
 with Mr Blunt,} lt apart from bis fellows, w i L I. Y- N i L L Y 
 *' to fubinit, and, it may be, to become at once poor, and 
 " maimed, and halt, and blind" &c. (rtill frivdoufy 
 jcarping upon a mere Englijh phrafe, inftead of the only 
 point in quellion, the fyntax of the Gr&ek Teilament,) 
 ^ : let him be ever fo well fried" (meaning, we fuppofe, 
 by his ** fuperior education' 1 ''} "and dijfojetl, in bimfejf, 
 *' and -ver jo loudly urged to refinance" [as he acknow- 
 ledges himle'lf to have been, " or I jbould nevsr," f;>ys 
 he, in p. J2, *' have fubmit ted lo my friend's fudonfc ;" fo that 
 his friend, it feems, the Editor, was the promoter, or 
 father, of *' the literary bantling " according to one of 
 his own blunt expreflions, p. i.] 4< by all around him, yea, 
 J * tbwgb he be asjlrong as SAMPSON, and have the PH i- 
 
 " LISTI NE" 
 
( 135 ) 
 
 LISTIN ES upon him to boit -" &c. (p. 39.) But, though 
 the rules were formed, indeed, rather in a mechanical way, 
 as Mr Blunt ir.fiuuates yet, as they were all formed from 
 the fvntax of Sacred Scripture, in the original Greek tongue 
 in which they were firll written, and not from any other 
 Greek books whatever, (not even from the Greek Tranlla- 
 tions of t if Oid Tellament, which have not the authority 
 of the original ivfpired writers, nor from tranjlations into 
 a different language, like the frivolous quotations from the 
 Englijb vc-j-fion, which Mr Blunt has abiurdly oppofed to 
 them,) but from ihzfyntax of the Greek Tellaircnt alone, 
 the more mechanically exact they have been drawn, accord- 
 ing to the general examples of exprefTion in the original 
 text, the more irrefrekenjlble, furely, and authoritative, 
 muft the rules be, (according to the moil effectual method 
 of judging icripture by fcripture,) to guide us in the true 
 interpretation of all other iimilar expreliions, ufcd by the 
 fame infpired writers, who had frequent promifes, from 
 their Lord, of furHcient help, by the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit :~ " He Jhall tenth you all things." (John xiv. 
 26.)" When be, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he Jhall 
 guide you into all truth ." (Johnxvi. I 3.) " He Jhall re- 
 ceive of mine, and Jhall Jhe*iv it unto you. (Jotin xvi. 14 
 & 15.) " For, the H o L Y GHOST Jhall teach you in the 
 fame hour, nvhat ye ought to fay. "(Lukexii. 12). 
 
 The repeated objections, therefore, of Mr Blunt, to 
 the competency of iuch infpired writers, are not only _/>;'- 
 votous and groundlrfs, like his other nrguments cited in 
 a former note, but alfo extremely wicked, having no other 
 foundation than his own infidelity and fhameful denial of 
 the very exigence of the Holy Spirit ! 
 
 N'-'verthelefs, though he is apparently an infJcl, yet, 
 as he isfuppoied to be atle.iil a clafficalfcbilar," trailed 
 " to grammar f.'om his infancy" (p. 27.) his fruitlefs 
 and vain endeavours to let afivie the rules inuft be conli- 
 dered as a llrong evidence in their favour; for, though the 
 firil rule has been well elhblim-d, by the fatisfaclory prjofs 
 of it produced by the learned and candid author of the 
 frftfix Letters to G. Sharp, yet the manufacturer of the 
 rules was not completely aware of the importance and 
 real value of all the other rules, until he had read 
 
 ?norg 
 
( '36 ) 
 
 mere Letters of Mr Blunt, and obferved the laboured exer- 
 tions of ail the critical might and ftrength of this Secinian 
 Samtfon, to burft away from the rules, and to evadt- and 
 flip out from the mechanical " ftraps, fcrews> -forcing 
 irons," &c. as Mr Blunt calls them ; for, indeed, all the 
 other rules, as well as the frft, feem neceflary to render 
 the general conftruction of G. Sharp's MACHINE com- 
 pletely effectual to '< bind" and " hold faff" all unrea- 
 Jonalle cavillers, that happen to be caught, through their 
 own vain attempts to oppofe it: for, Mr Blunt has noto- 
 rioufly manifeiled, in his own conduct, the fame unrea- 
 fonnble excels of falfe zeal, in favour of his own Socinian 
 prejudices, that he has attributed, in p. 93, to St, Jerome, 
 in fupport of an oppofite doctrine, viz. that " he would not 
 ' ' fcruple to violate all grammar , and to write what he avowed 
 " to be barbarous and corrupt, to fupport" (not, like Jerome, 
 " the Divinity if j'efus" but, in the oppofite extreme of 
 hardened prejudice to that which Mr Blunt has attributed 
 to Jerome,) his own infidelity, and the blafphemous no- 
 tions which proceed from it, however accurate he may be 
 as a claj/icul icholar in other matters ! All thefe abfurdi- 
 ties are evident marks upon him of his having been (as 
 he lays) * % faft bound in mi f try and grammar:" (p. 26,) 
 i. e. we muft fuppofe, by the tight fitting of the " articu- 
 lar jiraps" and " iron Jcrews" for which he has ex- 
 pre/?ed lo much abhorrence, fo that, from his neck to his 
 feet, (for, his wandering head and <vague underftanding have 
 not, indeed, been fufficiently fecured,) he muft have been 
 grievoufly held in the " yoke," (p. 38.) pillory, (xix.) and 
 " flocks" (p. 29.) of G. Sharp's mechanical invention : 
 nay, " the iron of the d;fccvery" (feenvs to have) " entered 
 " into his foul, (p. 29.) and " the forcing irons" have 
 really been effectual to bind down this Sa?npjon of gram- 
 matical prowefs, not with any help of " the Prnlijiines 
 " upon him to boot" as lie has fuggeiled in p. 39, but ra- 
 ther (as a much more likely cafe) with all his Unitarian 
 brethren, Mahometans, and other Pbilijlines, on his fide 
 to affill him I For, he has luftily called cut and appealed 
 to the Unitarian Tratts, Taylor's Ben-Mordecai, and 
 other partial and prejudiced combatants, to afiift him 
 throughout his whole agonizing conflict ! 
 
 NOTES 
 
( 137 ) 
 
 NOTES Continued. 
 
 Note, No. 6, transferred from the third preface, p. xvi. 
 
 ( through a confidence in his own fuperior educa- 
 
 tion*.) 
 
 * Superior education, without a found natural judge- 
 ment, will avail but little. Though Mr Blunt was proba- 
 bly " trained to grammar from bis infancy" (p. 27,) yet 
 this claffical fcholar occafionally forgets the very firlt rudi- 
 ments of grammar, (which " every fcboolboy knows," p. 
 78,) the due dillinclion between ajw/fa*/iv**2AcE an ad- 
 jeflive. For, in his objections, in p. 73, to one of G. 
 Sharp's examples of the ill Rule, viz. Ephef. v. 5, he 
 affects, that the word X^ro; " is an ajjetfive :" for, he 
 had forgot to dilHngoifh this Text from fome other Texts, 
 wherein the word X^troj has the proper name I^crov? added 
 to it ; in which cafe it may indeed be called a verbal ad- 
 jeli--ue ; but, in this Text, and in a great multitude of 
 other Texts, where the proper name is wanting, the word 
 X^roj undoubtedly ftands as zfulftantive ; which any lit 'tie 
 jcboolbry, even one that is bred for trade and mechanics, 
 could have told, from the veryfirft page of his accidence, 
 or Englifh grammar, viz. " A noun fubftanii-ve is that 
 '"' Jhmdetb by bimfelf> and requireth not another word to be 
 '* jcined *witb him, fo Jke-tu bis fe unification" which is 
 manifeltly the cafe with the noun X^troi> in Ephef. v. 5, 
 and in moil other Texts where it occurs ; and, 2dly, (Ac 
 cidence, p. 2,) That *' a notin-adji'li<ve is that cannot 
 *' ft and by itfelf, in reafon or Jtgnijication, but requiretb to 
 t( be joined with another word" &c. So that Mr Blunts 
 curious remark upon this Text, in p. 73, that X^ire; " fo 
 41 the bye, is an adjetfi--ve" is furcly a notable proof, againit 
 himfelf, of that very perverfenefs which he has attributed 
 to Jerome, in p. 93, that " he would n r ,t fc*uple to violate 
 tf <*M grammar, and to write 'what be avcived to be bar- 
 N 3 " barou; 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 ff baroits aud corrupt t in order tofupporf* his own unfcrip- 
 tur.il prejudices ! 
 
 He contends, repeatedly, that so; is a proper name, 
 (p. 36, 1. 25 ; p. 88, 1, 10 ; p. ico & 101 ; p. in, 
 1. 12;) though he himfelf clearly proves, in p. 132, that 
 it is not a proper name, by its being applied to feveial dif- 
 ferent perfons as an appellation. " The title cf GOD'* 
 (has he) is an appellation, which even Sod mam" (be 
 pleafed to remark,) " without reading it in ycur texts, have 
 '* admitted, that the fcriptures have beftmutdt not only upon 
 " 7"f us > but upon many other human beings** Nay, it is fo 
 far from b^ing a proper name, that he might have fliewn 
 that it is applied, a!fo, to the Devil himfelf ; {the God of 
 this iv:,rld, 2 Cor. iv. 4;) nay, even to the bellies cf 
 voluptuous finncrs ; (whoft GOD is their belly ;) and, in 
 his vain exertions to tvade the rules, in p. 41, he requefts 
 G. Sharp to fhevv, that X^roj. Kvgio?, and Ewbg, as applied 
 to Jefus, dinVr lefs widely from o EO? and o ptyotq ECJ 
 than o.^e proper name does from another ;" and he informs 
 us that Dr. Clarke cills ** thefe nouns tbaraQerijiical 
 " and equivalent (as it were) to proper name;?' To all 
 which, a plain anfwer readily occurs, viz. That they are 
 all, indeed, " nouns c barafieriftical /' i. e. nouns defcrip- 
 tive of perfo,ial qualities, as G. Sharp has before aliened, 
 but. certainly not proper names, and, therefore, not equiva- 
 lent to them ; which is proved by the regular diftinction 
 made between fuch chnra&eriiHcal nouns and proper names 
 by all the writers of ihe Greek Teftament without excep- 
 tion ; and Dr. Clark, had he not been darkened by his 
 o.xvn prejudices as well as Mr Blunt, mult have known 
 the due diliindions between appellations (arifing from 
 perlbnal qualities, rank, or condition,) and proper names : 
 and, though Mr Blunt himfelf has, alio, repeatedly afierted 
 that ios is a proper name, he has not yet been able to pro- 
 duce the leait proof that it is fo; and, therefore, G. Sharp 
 nuift ftill confider it as a ptrfonal noun, defcriptive of qua- 
 lify, or rank, as well as the reft, differing only in the de- 
 gree of quality ; and, ofcourfe, he mult ftill "maintain, 
 " that perjonal nouns, EVEN OF THIS SORT, are differently 
 <f ajj'elied by the article and conjunction from prtper 
 ' names ?' (G. B.'s Reai. p. 42 ;) Specially as G. Blunt 
 
 has 
 
lias not been able, with all his moil /ealous exertions, to 
 produce a fmgle example from the Greek Teftament to 
 the contrary. But, with refpecl: to ihe proper name of G. 
 BLUNT himfelf, G. Sharp, though only &mamifalurer t 
 perceives much more difficulty ; for, though it is obvious 
 that Blunt 13 not, really, his proper name, fo as " to mark 
 an identity" (as he fays, in p. 30,) in the ordinary fenfe 
 and ufe of proper names, yet, in another IVnfe, the word 
 Blunt may be confide red, perhaps, as a dgf<:rif.ti<ve notin, 
 whether of his ungracious manners and rough addrefs, 
 or whether, with reference to his vr/iuiJ organs, which he 
 calls upon G. Sharp " to PURGE with (his) euphrajy, 
 ** and make them mere S H A R P -fight ed than they are at pre- 
 '* feat ;" or whether, ftill, by ' a diwjity of references," 
 (as he fays,) it may allude to the impenetrating defecls of 
 a mind, unhappily clouded, at prefent, by the darkelt pre- 
 judices of dangerous errors ; (for, we do not prefume to 
 arraign his natural mind ; but, only, thofe perverted pro- 
 perties of it, for which lie himfelf alone is molt awe- 
 fully accountable ;) fo that, with refpeft to both thefe 
 points, of " Identity" and " Di-wfoy of References," 
 JV'lr Blunt has afforded us very confiderable proofs, that 
 Blunt is the proper name for fuch a writer ; though we are 
 convinced, at the fame time, that he has affumed this 
 name of Blunt merely for the prefent occafion. And, 
 though Mr Blunt declares, in p. 37, * I CANNOT SEE 
 * (lays he) what reafon or authority you have for 
 ** making \.'s*tfefanfiftd limitations, or for exempting fuch 
 '* ncuns (nouns not perfonal, or proper names,} any more 
 4i than others, from the operation of your rules." Yet, 
 us Mr Blunt cannot produce a fingle example from the 
 Greek Tertament, which can fairly be fet in oppofition to 
 thefe limitations, he has, furdy, no right to call them 
 fanciful \ becaufe the facls deicribed in the rules, refpecl- 
 ing nouns pet-final and proper names, are really true, 
 throughout the general fyntax of the Greek Tetiament ; 
 and, though Mr Blunt CAN NOT SEE them, G. SHARP 
 is, furely, under no obligation either to " purge bis <vi- 
 fual organs," (as lie fays,) " to make them more SHARP- 
 jightedy" to perceive the futility of his oppofition to them, 
 and the grois abfurdity of his having rccourfe to mere 
 
 Engltfi 
 
( HO ) 
 
 Enghjh examples, for want of better proofs, agamft G. 
 Sharp's rules : as, for ir.ftance, *' 1'he king arid queen ; 
 the hujband and wife,' 1 &c. (p. 19,) as if thefe Englijh 
 expreflions could aiFord him any jull argument as:ainit the 
 ufual Greek fyntax, explained by the ill rule ; and, though 
 he cites the lame Englijh nouns, in p, 41, without the ar- 
 ticle before the ill noun, to " exprefs di-verjity" (fays he) 
 "as ftrongly and as neceffarily as any proper names -jJial- 
 " ever can p'ffibly do ;" yet, as he has here omitted the 
 article before each of the two firft Englifh nouns, he 
 cannot any longer oppofe them to the ift rule, becaufe he 
 has here expreffed the dwvjlty, ftric~tly, according to the 
 terms of the 5th rule, which requires two diftir.ct perfons 
 to be underftood. But, as both tfacfepajri are, refpec- 
 tively, only one Jlejh in law, his di*uerjity is, fnrely, very 
 defective. But what has this to do with the di-~;erjity, 
 really required, between the Greek and Englijh fyntax, 
 though he refers, by an et cetera, to all thole examples 
 which (fays he) ft I mentioned in my former letter, and 
 " many more that might be mentioned are as different (fays 
 he) as SHARP and BLU NT." Di FFERE NT, indeed ; 
 for, when we tl compare the enormity of Mr Slant's ccnclu- 
 Jions with the weaknefs of (his) premifes," we " can 
 " have no other alternative" (as he fays, p. 137) " but 
 " to fuppofey either a total want of reflection" or that his 
 mind is fo clouded by the_ habitual perfuafeon of his own 
 Unitarian prejudices, " that, as to inquiries r<f this fort, 
 ** it is become (according to his own expreffion, p, 137 & 
 *? 138) like the confciences Paul fpcaks of, perfectly feared 
 " ivit/j a hot iron, and (has) lojt all fenfe of feeling for 
 " any thing but (his) own prepojjejfions upon the jubject :" 
 and, therefore, until he can recover a little more of the 
 natural acumen and penetration, both of his mind and 
 eyes, every attempt mult be ineffectual to convince him, 
 that all the other examples, to which he has referred in 
 his former letter, are equally impertinent as thefe to the 
 fubject in queflion, and that mere Englijb examples can- 
 not afford any reafonable proofs againft the Greek fyn- 
 tax. 
 
 In his third letter (p. 45) he fays, " / now proceed 
 *' to lay before you. feme further examples of your rule, from 
 
 f which 
 
'*' which ycu will fee mere cf tie many admirable conferences 
 " D f y ur difcovery, than, perhaps, you were fully awarg 
 "of. y the application of ycur rule (probably meaning 
 '* the firft) to the Greek text cf the following ptffages, ycu 
 " may jhe*iv that there is no difference, not only between A 
 " STREET and A LANE, (Luke xiv. 2.) lut between A 
 " HIGHWAY and A HEDGE," (ibid. v. 23,) Sec. Sec. 
 
 And he cites a great number of other texts in the two 
 following pages, 46 & 47, which are quite as foreign to 
 the purpole of affording the ieall juf grcund of cenfure 
 agalnft any of the rules, becaufe he has totally disregarded 
 all the circumftances offyntax defcribed in the rules, agree- 
 able to his own notable refolution, profeffed in the begin- 
 ning of that letter, viz. To " fet afide thofe limitations 
 " fivhich (fays he) 1 have PROVED to be futile and ground- 
 "left." But of his manner of PROVING 1 have al- 
 reauy given a fufKcient number cf notable examples, un- 
 der the head ot "frivolous and grcunalefs'S* fo that, 
 through this notorious ivant of foundation in all that he 
 has advanced, Mr Blunt is in danger of finking over head 
 and ears in the quagmire of his own grotnidlefs cenfures 
 and abfurdities. 
 
 Not a {ingle text cf all that he has cited affords th? 
 leaft ground of/'// argument againft the rules, unlefs the 
 fame abiurd liberties be admitted, of " fet ting afide all 
 limitations" according to his profefled refolution ; and he 
 himfelf feems fenfible of this ; for. in the laft of the above 
 cited pages (47 }, he adds, '* but 1 Jh ail content myfelf" 
 (fays he) " with mentioning ONLY ONE ;" fo that all the 
 reft that he has mentioned juft before are manifeftly fuperfiu- 
 ous, even in his own eftimation. 'i'he text hethospartkolarly 
 mentions is i I im. vi. 13, where " 0co,- and X^ire being 
 " connected" (fays he) " in the <vucy your rule requires, "the 
 "former -tvith, and the latter witbcut the article, MUST 
 *' NECESSARILY be defer I'^ti'ue of one and the fame pcrfon." 
 But, on the contrary, it turns out, that Mr Blunt has 
 Ccndeicen J ed to furnifh G Sharp with an ample reafon 
 why it MUST NOT " be aefcriptive of one perfon and the 
 fame perfon" viz. A peculiarity of expreffien, which with- 
 draws it entirely from the cafe defcribed and intended 
 by the ift rule: lee the text, 
 
r owoiouyo? rot, nuiot., x X^;$ 
 
 9rt rio^lia n^a1a rr/ xaX*jv ^xo^oyiav, &c. For, i\ij Blunt, 
 very properly, in this one fingie in/lance, remarks, that, 
 " fince each of tbife nouns is attended by a participle > and 
 tf Jtnce the article, which is prefixed to the firft participle, 
 " is repeated before the fecond, THE TWO nouns mujl, on 
 " that account, be defcriptive of different perform. In which 
 remark G. Sharp perfectly agrees wiia Mr.5//;/; b.-ing 
 fenfible, that the intervention of the participle and its ai- 
 ticle, and the repetition of the article, alfo, before the 2d 
 participle, mult render the Sentence completely different 
 from the common mode of exoreffion, defcribed by the i(l 
 rule, and iufficiently explained by the firft examples cited 
 for it, from whence the rule was drawn, and of which the 
 true interpretation has never bc-en called in quel'tion, as 
 they are not texts tnat are favourable to any particular 
 controvcrfy ; and, therefore, the <very different form of 
 exprpjpon, above defcribed, proves that rhis text of" i Tim. 
 vi. 3, (the ' only one" text that Mr Blunt relied on, as a 
 proof, to fubveri the rule,) reaLy affords no juft argument 
 or exception againft it; and,, confequently, demonitrates, 
 that the conclufion he has drawn from it, about identity 
 and diverjity, is not only abfurd, but (as i: includes the 
 mention of God and Chrijl) is extremely wicked ! 
 
 Notes, No, 7 and No. 8, transferred from the third 
 preface, p. xviii.. 
 
 (- as well as the more antient canonical writings of 
 
 their Ifraelitljh countrymen,* are of fo fuperior a nature, 
 in companion with all other writings, even with thofe 
 that are deemed mod eminently clajfical, and are fo very 
 different in their general idiom and peculiarity of cx- 
 preilion, that rules, drawn from the fyntax of ihefe facred 
 writingsf c.) 
 
 Note, No. 7. * The firft promulgation or delivery of 
 the oracles, or true revelations, of God belongs in a 
 peculiar manner, it feems, to the Jewijb, or (more pro- 
 perly) 
 
( 143 ) 
 
 perly) the Ifraelitijb, nation; for, it is a very extraordinary 
 circumtfar.ee, that a!l the true prophets, mentionecTboth 
 in the Old and New Teftaments, [except Balaam, who, 
 as a llranger and enemy to Ifratl t was held under a very 
 different and peculiar rt-itricUon and compulfion of God's 
 power over him, to enforce his firic! obedience to the re- 
 pealed truth during the time he prophecied,] homMq/?s 
 down to the l;ift authentic, prophetical, Revealer of God's 
 will, John, the belovtd difciple of our Lord, were all 
 Israelites ! This extraordinary mark of favour to the 
 jews was declared by St. Paul, when, in anfwer to his 
 own quetlion '* What advantage, then, bath the Jeito?" 
 he fa id " Much, every way : CHIEFLY, becaufe that 
 " unto them were committed ths oracles cf God.'* (Rorn. iii. 
 i & 2.) 
 
 This was, therefore, the chief and moil valuable inhe- 
 ritance of the Jewiih nation ; becaufe, the prffijfion, or, 
 rather, now, the re-pojjtffign, even of their former temporal 
 inheritance, depends upon their attention and obedience 
 lo thefe divine oracles and revelations of their countrymen, 
 in the //? or New Tejiament t as well as in the Firit, by 
 Mc/es, who, fpeaking of this very privilege, claimed it as 
 their " inheritance for ever /" " The fecret things (faid 
 he) belong unto the Lord our God ; but thofe things 
 " which are revealed belong unto us and our children 
 " for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." 
 (Deut. xxix. 29.) 
 
 Note, No. 8. 
 
 f All the facred writings have an unufual ftyle of 
 expreflion, peculiar to the facred books, and different 
 from all other writings : but the Hebrew Scriptures are 
 jemarkable for an idiom or ftyle ftill more particularly 
 different than the reil from all other writings. 
 
 A little trad, to demontlrate this point, (written by 
 the Author of theie Remarks,) is now in the prefs, con- 
 taining Rules of Conjlrudion, carefully proved by examples, 
 drawn from the general fyntax of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 The unufual jiyle of the Holy Scriptures, and the pre- 
 ference that is due to them, on the companion with any 
 other writings, ho wfoever learned and generally approved, 
 is Wrongly marked in a fenfible French work, printed at 
 
 Paris, 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 Paris, in 1626, entituled " Les Diverfitez Naturelles de 
 rUniverfe, de la Creation et Origin de toutes chofes." 
 p. 40 and 41. *' Car, ii nous voulons porter reverence 
 aux autheurs ; auxquels je vous prie en faut il porter 
 d'advantage, ou a 1'Ariftote, Avcrrois, Epicure, et leurs 
 femblables, qui luifent feulement d'un petit flambeau de 
 doftrine humaine, ou bien a Moyfe, aux Prophetes, a 
 Salomon, le plus fage de tous ccux de (on fiecle, aux 
 Evangelifles et aux Apotres, lefquel tous en lapience, en 
 fagefle, en mocurs, en propheties, en oracles, et en toute 
 forte de fainftete, efclairent ct flamboyent comme torches 
 ardentes, qui afleurent, D'UN STYLE JNUSTTE', ce quils 
 difent des chofes divines, ie prouvent au peril de leur vie, 
 et le confirment par prodiges ? " &c. 
 
 Note, No. 9, transferred from the 3d Preface, p. xxi. 
 
 (That Holy Men of God fpake as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghoft (2 Pet. xx. 21,) and not according to 
 their own will, as Mr Blunt feems to fuprtofe, by his quo- 
 tation from Dr Whitby, " Scripiffet ergo Judas ft hoc <vo- 
 luiffet,"^ &c.) 
 
 f So little does Mr Blunt regard the information we re- 
 ceive from the Holy Scriptures, as cited above, and 
 elfewhere, refp;:6\ing the Guidance of the Infpired Writers 
 by the Holy Ghoft, that, as he could not find real texts in 
 the Greek Teftament to oppofe to G. Sharp's rules, (the 
 only fair method of confuting them if they had been 
 wrong,) Mr Blunt* s dark prejudices have prompted him, 
 in p. 55, to urge the fuppofed confequences that <~MouU 
 arife to confute G. Sharp, if fome particular texts had 
 been written differently from what they are ! for, indeed, 
 all his objections are founded, in like manner, on falj'e 
 fuppofitions ! 
 
 In p. 46, he fays, " From Luke viii. I, 2, Tou m:ght 
 /hew, by your rule, that the twelve Apoflles were <womnj* 
 &c &c. But this, furely, is not by G. Sharp's rule, but 
 only by Mr Slant's own abfurd manner of treating it; 
 through the unreafinable refolution he had previously de. 
 
 clared, 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 chrcd, in p. 44, viz. " Looking upon m^ftlf,' therefore; m 
 : at liberty, in arguing again ft jcur rule, (lays he,), to 
 elijrtgard limitations, which 1 have Jbewn to be dejlituie of 
 ail foundation, and 'which jou yourjelf hu<ve difregarded 
 tn your attempts to eflablijh your rule, 1 Jhall now go on to 
 give you the remainder of ihofs examples" Sec. This Tingle 
 ientence abounds with falfe fuppofitions: (ift,) That he* 
 Mr Blunt, has fhewn the 'limitations to be deftitute of all 
 foundation ; a fuppofition which could only be founded on 
 another J'uppoptton equally falfe, viz. (2dly,) that rules 
 for the Greek fyntax ought to be examined by mere Englijb 
 examples, (for, he has produced no others in his firft 
 letter ;) nn<i (jdly,) that G Sharp himfelf has difregarded 
 his own limitations, an affertion, which Mr Blunt, with ail 
 his grammatical ibphiftry, cannot maintain ; for, it is ob- 
 vious that all the texts' which he has cited in his fecond 
 and third letters, as objections to the rules, are rendered fo 
 merely by his wilfully " fetiing ajtde thofe limitations" See 
 the firft line of his third letter, p. 45. 
 
 In p. 48, he fays, "It makes no difference, I appre- 
 hend, in this reafoning, that the ' fubftantive of peffonal 
 description^ as you call Xgiroj, (p. 30,) is followed by the 
 proper name Jefus ; fmce Xgtro? H R E " (he muft mean in 
 the text cited at p. 30) " does not make any part of the pro- 
 per name, but is merely an epithet, like the fimilar perfonal 
 noun x^to?, in a fimilar fituation." All this argument is 
 on the erroneous fuppofet ion that the text cited by G. Sharp, 
 in p. 30, has the proper name JESUS, as well as " the fub-, 
 ftantive of perfonal defer ipt ion," X^ro?, (which, unluckily 
 for his carelefs and groundlefs argument, happens not to be 
 the cafe :) neverthelefs, he adds, "But what if it <were, 
 unavoidably, a proper name?" But, without any if or 
 other imaginary fuppofition, Mr Blunt, by his own fruitlefs 
 attemps to make it a proper name, has proved that it is, 
 unavoidably, othervvife, (and he has cited, in a note at 
 p. 73, very ample authority, which he cannot reafonably 
 gainlay, that it is NOT a proper name.) And yet he add^ 
 again-, in p. 48, Or, lajtly," (fays he, refer ving his 
 clinching argument for a conclufion, we will hope, of his 
 vain fuppofitions,) " what IF Paul had THOUGHT FIT to 
 have omitted the word JESUS altogether, which he might 
 O have 
 
( '46 ) 
 
 have done if he bad chofen it, for any thing that I can fee to 
 the contrary ?" Thus Mr Blunt is thoroughly prepared 
 to controvert whatever Paul may have written, by a <vain 
 Juppojition that he " might have" wrote otherwife "if be bad 
 chojenit !" But, in this particular text, cited by G. Sharp, 
 (p. 30, zdedit.) to which herefers, Paul really has "thought 
 ft" to omit the 'word JESUS altogether. And yet Mr Blunt V 
 argument is equally futile and vain ; for, he had neglefted 
 to examine Paul's Greek as he ought, and unluckily formed 
 his ideas, as ufual, from a mere Englijb verfion of it, and 
 that even by G. Sharp himfelf, the manufacturer, who had 
 fupplied the word Jefus, in a parenthefis, merely for the 
 fake of explication ! Oh ! Mr Blunt /Mr Blunt ! 
 
 But, in other fuppofit ions which he has taken, even from 
 the Greek text, his endeavours have been equally fruitlefs ; 
 for, in p. 55, he ferioufly warns us of feveralfuppofed con- 
 fequences, that would arife from fome particular texts : 
 IF Mark, forinftance, in one text, had omitted " the arti- 
 cle before the fecond noun ;" or, i F John, in another, '* had 
 omitted both prepojition and article before the fecond noun ;" 
 or, i F Paul, in another, " had inferted the article before 
 the firft noun," &c. ; or, " Suppofe" (fays he) " Luke 
 bad told us > " i. e. fomething different from what he 
 really did write, &c. &c. But, in drawing proofs from 
 the Greek Teftament, we cannot furely have any bufinefa 
 with fuch idle fuppcfitions and trifling inconfiftencies ; for, 
 as neither Mark nor John have omitted, nor Paul in* 
 ferted, nor Luke exprejjed, any thing at all like his own 
 vAinfuppofitions, of courfe, all the texts that he has cited 
 from them, as pretended proofs again ft G. Sharp's Rules, 
 (for, this is a \xwtfample of Mr Stunt's method of ' Jbe--wing 
 that the limitations are deftitute of all foundation 9 ) are com- 
 pletely contrary to his purpofe, and impertinent to the bufi- 
 nels in quelUon ; becauie the rules convey the teftimony of 
 what the Apoilles and Evangelifls really did^rite, in full 
 aufvver to all Mr Plant's abfurd fuppofitions ! So that if 
 G. Sharp's fecond *' correfyondent had paid more attention 
 to this circumjiance" (i. . th" teftimony cf what the Apof- 
 tles and Evangeliils really did write, inftead of his fuppofi- 
 tions of what they might have written, //"they had cbofen 
 it,) "he would /save under /hod more" (according to his 
 
 own 
 
own polite obfervation, p. 84,) " and mi/applied left, of the 
 rubbijb be has raked together!" 
 
 Note, No. lo, transferred from the third preface, p. xxxvi. 
 
 ( " Drunk with the blood of the Saints, and 'with 
 
 f the Hood of the Martyrs ofjefus.*} 
 
 * This is a prophetical mark againft the Roman church, 
 (the adopted ally of the Socinians,) a mark too peculiar to 
 be miftaken ! eipecially as the farther mark of her nearly- 
 approaching judgement is already come ; viz. That the 
 Royal Horns oftheBeaft, her fupportcrs, " jhall hate THE 
 " WHORE, and jhall make her defolate> and naked, and 
 tc Jhall eat HER FLESH," &c. (Rev. xvii. 16; a judge- 
 ment which was firft begun by our Englifh Horn, K. Henry 
 VIII. (whom (he had intituled " Defender of the Faith ;" 
 i. e. of her faith againft the perfecuted Saints :) yet he fet 
 the firil example of " eating her flejh" by the fequeftration 
 of Ecclefiaftical Eilates and Revenues to the Royal Exche- 
 quer. This precedent, for fulfilling the prediction, was 
 not followed by the other Popifh Horns of the Beaft, until 
 the difioiution of the Order aSJefuits, in our own times, 
 (about 1763 or 1766,) when all the other Popilh Kings 
 of the Roman Empire, the Kings of France, Spain, Portu- 
 gal, Sardinia, Naples, and the Emperor and King, Jofeph 
 the 2d, &c. all followed the example ; and, laftly, fince 
 the Treaty of Amiens, the remainder of her flejh leems to 
 have occafioned a notable Royal fcramble among the re- 
 maining Royal Horns, under the general title of Ecclefiaf- 
 tical Indemnities ; fo that, as the fegn of the approaching 
 vengeance is fo notoriouily fulfilled, the judgement itjelf 
 cannot be far dirtant, to punifh her apoftucy, and that of 
 her prefdinptUOB* jfrdfflf 0/$a&/, Pont if ex Maximus, 5 - 
 ^WTTO? TS a^a^rta?, (2 Thefl". ii. 3,) called alfo, " the Lit- 
 tle Horn,' 1 as> being lefs in temporal power, than all her 
 other paramours, the Horns of the Beaft, and which, ne- 
 verthelefs, the adult ercus church blafph'-moufb addrefles, 
 by the divine tide, of " SancliJJlmus Dominus >" though 
 
 her 
 
( 148 ) 
 
 "hcrfirft Lord and Matter {till reigns, in Heaven, and on 
 Earti/, *' The Lord of Lord , and King of Kings /" (Rev. 
 xvii. 14, and xix. 16 ) So that he cannot be " a mere 
 man" i.nd " nothing Lut a man," ?iccording to Mr Blunt's 
 corte . ptuous affertions, in p. 151 and 173 ! 
 
 But the time is juft at hand, when Great Babylon muft 
 come " /'// remembrance before God, to give unto her the 
 " cup of the wine of the fiercenefi of h.is wrath" (Rev. xvi. 
 19.) For, all the aweiul figns ddcribed in this very text, 
 the i pth verfe, though not yet completely fulfilled, are moft 
 evidently approaching to their completion. The ten greater 
 divifions (called horns, or kings] of the fourth and laft 
 great kingdom, the Roman empire, are now fo wounded 
 and, fubdued, as to have an apparent tendency to be " di- 
 vided into three parts" only, inftead of ten parts or horns: 
 and ag to the other Jign, refpecling the fall of " the cities 
 of the nations " mentioned in the iame verfe, (and necef- 
 iarily to be und.rftood as an inferior dilHnclion for the 
 Differ governments or ftates of the, empire, which were not 
 regal monarchies, or horns of the beall, but were deemed 
 only republics and hanse towns of the empire, therefore^ 
 properly s < the cities of the nations") they are furely 
 ab-eady falh n ! Where now exi0 the late noble and inde- 
 pendent flatus of Venice, Genoa, Switzerland, Holland, Bel- 
 gium, Parma, Florence, (Etruria, or Titfcany,} or even Ra^ 
 gufa! b ei ci-:ufe nore but the piratical ft ates exilt, (referved, 
 pv^riiaps, for a more arcadiul vengeance !) for, even Bremen 
 and Hamburgh hav . > n i it ly feized. So that the " T H i R D. 
 \vot " realr, " comet h juicaly" O! that all virtuous indivi- 
 duals of tht; Roman com IIH ;^n (it r many iuch undoubtedly 
 there are) L.:;y fi ,cer ly, a-:d in due time, obey the divine 
 warning, K * Come ^ut of her . my people, that ye be not par - 
 * takers of l^er Jt;is, -.ma that ye receive not cf her plagues :" 
 for, in her was fand :he biooJ of prophets, and of faint S* 
 " and cf ail that were jlutn upw the earth" Rev. xviii. 
 4 and 24. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Printed ij\ C,unu & Giuabihf ingram'C'.urt t London. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 o 
 
 Page line 
 xxv. 15, after the word altering, add J, a reference to 
 
 a note in p. xxxviii. 
 8, 12, for lyffx ?$- 
 25, 6, /or jAsyiA 
 32, 7, /or TTggtToyjj read 
 141, 32, /or EO r^^ 05. 
 , 38, dele perfon. 
 
 145, 34, for attemps read attempts. 
 
 146, 39, $/br fuppofitions add vain. 
 
 1 47, 31, after Pontifex Maximus add Sponfus Ecclefias, 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO- * 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 SENTONJU. 
 
 
 
 APR 3 1995 
 
 
 
 LI. C. IJERKPIEY 
 
 Ut VI WVB*vTOKKX~f 
 
 QCT 1 9 1995 
 
 t 
 
 
 Ui.- 1 : | 9 \77<J 
 
 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 
 
 OCT 7 1995 
 
 
 
 Jin .ji ATinwniTD- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELE 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
VB 72239 
 
 U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES