On this page

• Text (1)

  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

• 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

    be construed as a potential , and , I think , better . - But suppose Tertullian had used uorint as an indicative mood , present tense , regular , and thai : Mr . R . had translated it as such , will Mr . B .

    prove that either Tertullian or Mr . Robinson would have been positively and necessarily wrong ? Sanctius , the great Father of Latin grammar , has given examples of prseter perf . potent , regular , used for future time , mid among regular verbs , gives this very

    verb , nority though it is a defective . As to irregular and defective verbs , your Correspondent , perhaps , understands enough of his grammar to know that irregular aud defective verbs use potential form very much

    ad libitum : thus , Inquam , possim , velim , nolim , malim , oderim , meminerjm , faxim , norim . This promiscualityf or indiscriminateness , is so common as to require no examples . These matters are noticed in our

    common grammars . Noverim or norim is more commonly put by writers of the best classical authority in the proper subjunctive form : yet norim for noverim is nearly the same contraction as faxim for fecerim ; and exactly the same as ausim , I

    dare , for auscrim . For ausim ( according to the analogy of such defectives ) cannot be a potential present , though it may be used as a potential * and even as an indicative present , as it is constantly . And will your Correspondent shew me why noverim or norim , being an irregular defective of

    the same form , should not follow the same analogy , or prove that it does not ? I am far from being so certain , notwithstanding what I have said , as perhaps your Correspondent is , that norim , noris , &c , as frequently used by Plautus , Terence , Horace , is not sometimes in the present

    time-Indeed , some grammarians might not be so certain as perhaps your critic is , that Tertullian does not use the word here in an indicative sense . He does sometimes use preter . pot . for m ~ dicative present . They might urge ,

    too , perhaps with some plausibility , that Tertullian had been using here the imperative mood , veniant , let thern come ; fiaat Christiani , let them be made Christians ; and that he then goes off to the indicative mood , present time , " Quid festinat innocent

    Untitled Article

    setas ? " Why does an innocent age hasten , or , why is it in a hurry ? * ' Norint , they know how , iudeed , 7 &c . And suppose that such grammarians should say , that orcjer and grammar would better admit that form , will

    your Correspondent prove the contrary ? As for myself , 1 own this question is put more for the purpose of asking another : By what authority , and with what grace does your Correspondent in this passage translate

    festinaty as though 3 t were festinaret , why should they make haste ? After charging Mr . R , with misrepresenting and grossly mistranslating Tertullian on the subject of Baptism , and , producing only a single poor word , which

    he supposes to be in a wrong mood and tense , your good Correspondent does actually mistranslate Tertulliaa in the very same way , changing both mood and tense : a pretty piece of liberty !

    Suppose , further , that some critic should insist that Tertullian has beea corrupted here , ( and that he has been much corrupted , must be , and is , ad ^ mitted , ) and that norint should be n 6 rant , or norunt , as used by him for

    present time . Tertullian often uses a potential for an indicative mood , and an indicative for a potential ; and with respect to this very defective novi , he uses norat , cogn ^ rat , for novit or noscit , noverunt , for noverint , that is ,

    norunt for norint , and nosse , a line or two before our very passage ; that is ^ past tenses for present , an indicative mood for a subjunctive , and a past infinitive for a present ; and all this , it shall be admitted , according to good classical authority .

    Now these things are thrown out cursorily , without an intention of laying any great stress on them ; but they may go to shew , that a tense in such a writer might be misconceived , and yet a translator not be liable to the charge

    of misrepresenting and grossly mistranslating" on the subject of Baptism ; and that , after all , it is not so clear that Mr . R . haspiistranslated , or , that if he has , it is but by a very slight shade of difference .

    And here , Sir 3 to prevent your Correspondent from overrating his discoveries , permit me to observe , that it may be doubted whether Tertullian himself has used in this place a proper word , even if it is genuine . One of

    Untitled Article

    £ 36 On Mr . Behhams " Plea for Infant BUptism *

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1819, page 236, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1771/page/24/