your mistranslated texts: and then he may do just what he pleases with these or any other passages of holy writ. ήμεραν και μήνα In Rev. ix. 15. We find την ώραν και ήμεραν και ενιαυτον : In Luke xiv. 21. τες πίωχες και αναπήρες in Acts xv. 23. την Αντιο και χωλές και τυφλές: and χειαν και Συρίαν και Κιλικίαν. Now, who but he, who has such a passion for impossibilities,* that he will find them in a greek article, rather than go without them, will affirm, that " an hour, and a day, and a "month, and a year;" or that "the poor, and the “maimed, and the halt, and the blind;" or that "Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia," are descriptive of one and the same subject? Then again in Luke we read "Oh, but stop, stop," (methinks I hear you exclaim)" these examples, though the nouns, as to ar❝ticle and conjunction, are circumstanced as I re"quire, and though they do unquestionably refer to "different subjects, (for I would have you to know, "Mr. Blunt, that I am for explaining scripture upon "the principle of common sense, except where an ar"ticle of faith, or a mystery, is concerned) yet they "do not affect my theory in the least. These are examples which I cannot allow you to make use "of, in arguing against me. In your first instance, "the nouns are not personal nouns. In your second, (૮ 16 66 * "Methinks there be not impossibilities enough in religion for an active faith. I can answer all the objections of Satan, and my rebellious reason, with that odd resolution I learned of "Tertullian, Gertum est quia impossibile est." SIR THOMAS BROWN's Religio Medici. "they they are plural: and in your third, they are proper "names. All these I have expressly excepted from "the operation of my golden rule. By bringing "such examples, you transgress the bounds of my limitations, and attack me with unlawful weapons, "using such as I have proscribed and prohibited." Yes, Sir, I do so. I chose them purposely for that very reason, because you had proscribed them; in order that they might lead us to discuss those same limitations a little; a subject which I promised you, in my former letter, I would inquire into. Now, Sir, as you have not told us what there is either in the nature of language in general, or of the greek in particular, or what there is in the nature of things, that should make such nouns as are not personal, or such as are plural, or proper names to be differently affected by the article and conjunction from all other nouns, I cannot see what reason, or authority, you have for making these fanciful li mitations, or for excmpting such nouns, any more than others, from the operation of your rules. The name of a brute, a tree, or a stone, of a house, a ship, or a garment, or of any other substance, na tural or artificial, things not personal, contains nothing in its own nature, as far as I can see, which should make it, of itself, either in the greek, or any other language, more or less expressive of identity, or diversity, of any sort, than the name of any of those moral relations of dignity, office, affinity, &c, which you comprehend under the term personal And the same thing may be affirmed of the names of modes, whether simple or mixed, such as nouns. an hour, a day, a month, &c. or such as grace, mercy, truth, &c. things also not personal. So that unless there be really more in the nature of personality than I am aware of, more than, with all my efforts, I can find out-and if there be, it will be kind in you, or any one else that has made the discovery, to tell me what it is-there must be just as much need of something external and foreign to the nouns themselves, that is, in this case, as much need of the omission or insertion of the article, to mark an identity or diversity in nouns of the one sort, as in those of the other. Till, therefore, you can purge my visual organs with a little of your euphrasy, and make them much more sharp sighted than they are at present, I conclude, that the omission or insertion of the article before the second noun, marks an identity or diversity of reference in the two, neither more nor less, necessarily and infallibly, when they are personal, than when they are impersonal. As to plurality, what power is there in that to deliver nouns from the gripe of your forcing irons, as often as they come within reach of the machine? Is it in grammar, as it is in politics-divide et impera? Are nouns, like men, compelled, when taken singly, to wear a yoke, which, by combining, they are able to shake off at pleasure? If when the singular num-. ber of ruphos, with the article, be joined to the singular number of xwpos, without the article, they must, both of them, from the mere circumstance of being so suated, independently of any consideration of context, common sense, &c. be of necessity referred to the same individual, so that one man shall shall be both blind and dumb; what is to prevent the plural numbers Tupo and xapo, in the very same situation from being as necessarily both of them referred to the same individuals, so that every one of these shall likewise be both blind and dumb. The texture of your articular straps must indeed be truly singular, in every sense of that word, if they necessarily and inevitably bind whatever load you please upon any number of individuals, making every one of them, as often as you can catch him by himself, apart from his fellows, willy-nilly to submit, and, it may be, to become at once poor, and maimed, and halt, and blind, and, in short, afflicted with every evil that human life is heir to; and that, let the strength of his constitution, his habits, and his connections, be what they may, let him be ever so well fitted and disposed in himself, and ever so loudly urged to resistance by all around him, yea, though he be as strong as Samson and have the Philistines upon him to boot ;-I say, Sir, if your straps spontaneously and irresistibly do all this, and yet can not exert the smallest force, nor impose the least necessity of submission upon the meanest and weakest of mortals, without power and without motive for resistance, provided one equally mean and weak, and every way like himself, do but hold him by the hand, they must indeed be made of most uncommon stuff. No book of magic that has ever fallen in my way can furnish a spell like your's, of such strange and singular potency, as to bewitch a single king and cobler, so confounding all sense of personal identity and diversity in their minds, that the one shall not know himself from the other; and yet of no more power to work upon two kings arm in arm with each other, or upon two coblers, in the same situation, than if they were intrenched behind a threshhold, with a horse-shoe nailed in the front. In proper names, perhaps, you may discover something which, at first sight, seems to afford ground for a partial distinction between them and other nouns. As they each mark a certain exclusive, appropriate, peculiarity in their very nature, and point out a diversity between themselves and other nouns, you might contend that this diversity is so great as to counteract and over-rule any identity arising from the omission of the article before the second noun, or as not to stand in need of any additional diversity arising from the insertion of the article.* But even * Bishop Pearson has discovered more of mystery in the omis sion of the article before the second noun, than you have done. You find that the omission denotes identity. He finds that it denotes both identity and diversity : as, for instance, when Jesus says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father." John xx. 17. there being an article before the first Father only, (see the greek) it shews not only that the same being is the father of both, but also that he is father of Jesus in a different manner, from the way in which he is our father. See Pearson on the Creed, p. 30. fol. edit, How keen the discernment of some men is! and what endless and beautiful variety there is in the modes of discovering the hidden treasures of our mysterious religion! Postellus could provę the trinity from 11,000 texts in the Old Testament alone. On the other hand, I have somewhere read of a commentator who confined himself to one text only to prove the same doctrine, both for the Old and the New, viz. Deut. vi. 4. and Mark xii. 29. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord !" or as it ought to |