On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
Marsh , && £ ' AHtfwtine ma pot g * r nerally followM in applying Ac eighth-verse to the Trinity , aEd actually produces this passage from BncTOTTns , -with Us ivew interpreta tion , as a proof trot Marsh is wrong . And what does Eucheriua say in the New Version ? ** / interpret the water and the blood of the crucifixion ;
certain persons of baptism ; the majority , however , explain it mystically of the Trinity . ** Is not the Bishop •* a truly polite and moderate arguer , when every third word is in favour of his antagonist )?" The opponents of the Heavenly Witnesses have observed , that as the
Latin Fathers very seldom understood Greek , they can only be con sidered , even when they use the seventh verse , as evidences of the reading in the Latin Version . This ,
Bishop Burgess will by no means allow , and produces some reasons why they must have been good Greek scholars : " Justinian published his Laws in Greek as well as in Latin . "
This is a specimen of the ignoratio elenchi worthy to stand beside the reasoning in a circle which we quoted before : it is a very good proof that many Greeks understood no Latin ;
how it proves that most of the Latins understood Greek we are utterly at a loss to conceive . Again , " Greek was spoken and written at Carthage in its Pagan state , " and , hence , it is inferred that it cannot have been
neglected in the Christian church of that place . This is the argument & fortiori ; let us try its validity by a parallel case . The youth of Britain , in its Pagan state , spoke Latin fluently , ( Tac- Agr . 21 , Juv . Sat . 15 , ) of course Alfred cannot have told the truth when he says , that at his accession there was not , to his
knowledge , a priest south of the Thames who could translate a piece of Latin . 4 . Although Bishop Burgess denies that he is bound to give any explanation of the disappearance of I . Jplin-T 7 ? from the Greek MSS , an * l its nonquotation by the Fathers , he appears to rel y not a little on Mr . Nolan ' s " profound and interesting Inquiry " into the , Greek Vulgate , and the rea
son * which he gives for believing that Eusebi ^ fe cut this text out . We have no intention of entering into -any minute examination of that confused and
Untitled Article
Yrcth . oux preacjai tops we # prapp ^^ ^^^^^^ jp ^ F ^^^ p ^^^^^^ ^^^ Hi jp *^ r c ^ f ^^^^^ ^^^^^ p ^ " ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cBbv ^^^^^ ^ ^ tP ^ p ^ HHBIHBB ^^^ Euaebius rests on a moat 5 * up « & £ toQa blunder or a roost disingemtt ^ jeq version of Mr . Nolan ' s . The copies of the Scriptures having be ^ en reduced in number by jt&e persecutions of Dioclesian aijdr ftfo ^ unian , Constwuine commissions Eu ^ eba ^ s to cause fifty to be
legible and po ^*| e MSS . pre ~ pared by calligr ^ pw : rm » $ T £ * & »» S « jXa 8 ^ ypcupwv , &v tmtefa , r ^ y £ iirienut ^ KOU T $ V X &CFIP f ^ Tafc bw > WrloL <; \ oytp dvaiyKoikc&v £ * yo $ < v 0 r * iax € K- See Nolan , p . 26 . If he really believes that this passage confer ^ on Euaebius * Va power to select those Scriptures cljieflv which he knew to be useful to - Ae doctrine
of the church / fe ^ 4 ? OBStr » ea ^^ e ^ m no man , we believe , ever did before him , and as we hope no man , at least no man who writes a book on the Greek Testament , ever > will again
Where the whole charge rests on the ignorance of the accuser , it is useless to argue its absurdity * The Bishop of St . David ' s and M * V Nolan are worthy of each others panegyric . Qui Bavium non odit amei iya carmim
Mtcvi . 5 . The Codex Dubliuenais , the only Greek MS . which contains the Heavenly Witnesses , was thought &t $ * & to have been purposel y forged to meet the natural demand for $ cm * e testimony which might justify editors in
inserting the text . Mr . Porson , who had seen copies of the hand-writing pronounced it to be " certainly not earlier than the fifteenth , and possibly as late as the sixteenth century . " Dj % Adam Clarke , it seems , thinks it more likely to have been written in U * e thirteenth than in the fifteenth . We hare
a great respect for Dr . A . Clarke , w a learned and an honest man ; but we have yet to be informed of the reason why we should prefer his judgment tfn the age of a MS . to that ot Poraw * That it was forged for the purpose of fraud we see no reason to mamtain - but the swoae . author has observed »
circumstance which is quite as fo&Up its authority ? viz . that lite-. ctmtt © verted passage is tranglated in a bu » - gling manner from the modern copiea of the Vulgate . JLetters , p . ^ W 7- *^* this is the I ^ S . which BisWp Burge vaunta as sufficient , will * hi ? &tfltyp * evidence already e ^ amined ^ io counter-
Untitled Article
46 IfctuW . —Bi * % q ^ S ^ Dfloi ^ w 7 % r «? e Sffew ^ a' Texti
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1822, page 46, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2508/page/46/
-