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

    sons which prevent me from feeling the least ' * regret on revising any part of my article / ' except as I have already expressed , and except so far as it was hastily com * posed . The first observation of Mr .

    Jones that deserves consideration , and , indeed , the only one which affects me 5 is , that "Jhe best defence of Gilbert Waktfield s critical talents will be a refutation of

    Griesbach" On this I mightmerely clap a non sequitur . The inconseqiience is apparent . Let it be granted that Griesbach is refuted by Mr . Jones , is that a proof of Mr . WakefieJd ' s skill as a critic ?

    It was incumbent on Mr . Jones to prove not merely that Mr . Wakefield was right and Griesbach wrong , but that the former hassup . ported his cause with skill , and judgment , and by good arguments refuted the latter . This he has not

    attempted , and I admire his prudence * For , the translation and tiote , which gave rise to this discussion , are dissipated fur ever , like the sand of the desart , and it will be out of the power of Mr . Jones to replace them , who may

    justly adopt the words of Eneas , Si Pergyma dextra dejend ' ipossent , etiam hac dejensafuissent . Primitivus is , therefore , safe from the danger of the recoil of his own

    severity , if such he has used , whatiever rnay become of Griesbach , against whom he has undesignedly drawn forth the reprehension of Mr . Jones . With me he is no

    " oracle , " as it is grpundlessly intimated , and no admiration of him is eKpressed id my paper , further than by recornjnending a translation of his very able note on this text , y > vl * i £ u ( ! , w £ t tiiij ^ time , more strenuously recommend , as the

    Untitled Article

    subject no \ # TtJore ! linperiousty re * - quires-it ; aiad in this I expect tu be supported by even Mr . Jones . Having now set Priraitivus in safety , I might bid adieii to the discussion , as the whole of Mr , Jones ' s paper , after the first para - graph , is new matter , not in the record when I wrote , and scarcely in any degree connected with Mr . W . ' s defence . Indeed , the last part of it is a decided condemna * tion of his client ' s translation , against which I felt a principal portion of dislike . However , being as ready to defend a person when wrongly condemned , as I am to reprove one that may deserve reproof , I will not shrink from giving such aid to Griesbach

    as I can legitimately lend him . Though Mr . W . is now g iven up , and I am in safety * yet I vviU volunteer in the cause of a distinguished

    critic , though not * ny ** or £ c ) e . " Mr , Jones says , that the authority of manuscripts is decidedly in favour of the ctommrfn text /" that is of rov 'fls . ow , 'in , opposition to rou Kvgiou adopted b £ Griesbacb . Here we are at is sue * and I venture

    to deny this position in unqualified terms . Tou nvgLov is supported by no less names , thfin those pf Wetstein , Michael )* and Qri , e , sbach . Dr . Middleton , with all

    tire willingness in the world to have rov tisov retained , " ^ cfcn pwledges , in more * than cite p lace ^ of his bulky volume on the Greek article , that die reading of this text is doubtful . prom Mr .

    Jones ' s statement bf the evidence I appeal to the abstract . < # hj " that work , and to G ^ sba ^' s note , which I 4 n ^ oa % wHh to see giveV to th ^ Wtllc , irt y ^ vali&bte Kefimbtf ^ ^ " ' Mr . Wakefield , adopting the

    Untitled Article

    522 Primitivus in Answer to Mr 0 Jones .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1813, page 522, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2431/page/34/