On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Prolegomenon ,. , which Philo-Biblicua has ventured to mangle , has not given a full and clear account of the labours of Origin ; but our translator has been very solicitous to misrepresent his text , and to make bad worse When he tells us that Origen arranged the Greek versions of Aquila ,

    Theodotion and Symmaehus , in his Tetrapla and Hexapla , he closely copies Walton ; the confusion is not chargeable upon him , though the addition of a word er two might have rendered all plain and intelligible j but when he goes on to say that he added a fifth and sixth with the Hebrew text , whence he called these volumes

    Octapla , he palms a blunder upon the truly learned editor of the Polyglot ! which he has not committed . Supposing your readers to know that the Tetrapla was formed by the three Greek versions just mentioned and the Septuagint , arranged in four columns , how can they conceive of this

    becoming the Octapla by the addition of three columns more ? He indeed , who can comprehend engraving upon types , may well be imagined to have powers of conception superior to his neighbours , and to find no difficulty in making four and three equal to eight . The fact , however , seems to * be , that ^ our scholar was unable to

    discover in the -following words 4 t unde cum Hebraeo textu liter is Hebr&zs et Gracis exarato , Octapla nominavit heec volumina , " the important fact that Origen disposed the Hebrew in two columns , one in Hebrew ,

    the other in Greek characters ! I pass over the revolt of Aquila and the strangely-confused account of Theodotion ' s versatility , to notice the last , but by no means the least blunder of this unfortunate biblical critic .

    " The Coptic or Egyptian , as Athanasius conjectures , was made about the time of the Council of Nice . " As Athanasius conjectures ! thought I to myself , when I read this extraordinary sentence , as Athanasius conjectures ! Passing strange ! that Athanasius , a native of Alexandria ,

    an $ who succeeded to the see of that city in the very year after that m which the Council of Nice was held , should conjecture about such an interesting fact as the translation pf the scriptures into his native tongue ! What has Walton been about ? " Aliquando bonus dor mi tat Homerus . "

    Untitled Article

    Yet I could not help suspecting that the fault would not be found to lie with Walton , and under this impression I had recourse to him aeain Sure enough , he has written ut con jicit Athanas ., andAthanas . as every body knows , stands for Athanasius bat fortunately for our great Prolego menist , though most unfortunatel y fQ 1 " the credit of his translator , Athanm is immediately followed by these im ! portant words , Kircherus in Prodr . Coptico . The mystery was at once solved . Of Athanasius , Philo-Biblicus

    had heard or read something , as every one has who can he ' ar or read at all , but of Kircher he had never either read or heard , and of an Athanasius Kircher he could no more form a conception , than a man born blind , of colours . Kircherus in Protlr . Coptico has very much the air of a reference , as such

    it passed with our sagacious translator of Walton ; and since " omne ignotnm pro rnugnifico est , ^ the authority of this unknown Kircher is deemed by him amply sufficient to establish the fact , that Athanasius of Alexandria conjectured concerning the date of a version made in bis own times ,

    for the use of the churches under his immediate jurisdiction . I beg your pardon , Mr . Editor , for havin g extended these remarks so far ; it is , 1 acknowledge very much like u breaking a butterfly upon awheel , ' but I could not restrain my hand , under a deep conviction of the importance of deterring , if possible , such adventurers in biblical criticism as

    Philo-Kiblicus from disgracing the pages of your Miscellany in future . I am , &c . &c . .. WALTONFANUS . ——

    Untitled Article

    15 $ Inquiry concerning Mr . tfrend ' s Views of the Atonement .

    Untitled Article

    <^ Sir . Feb . 26 , 181 S . PERCEIVE that your learned I correspondent , Mr . Frend ( pp-S % 33 ) , avows that there is a difference between himself and other

    Unitarians on the subject of the atonement . Having read with much satisfaction and profit several of the publications of this gentleman , which indeed years ago helped me on the road to Unitarianism , I should b < -

    particularly obliged if Jie would con descend to explain , through the infr dium of your pages , what arc mj views upon this subject . 1 caiino learn them from the communicator to which I have referred . To n * '

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1815, page 152, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1758/page/24/