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

    author of that Review , has Indeed furnished Dr . Nares with the fact , which you might not otherwise have known , that in the first edition of the Improved Version , there were many deviations from Newcome ' s translation ; but he has been far from warranting you to asserty

    that these deviations were generally of any importance . When censuring the Editors of the Improved Version , for using the name of the Archbishop , in order to mislead the unwary , you ought to have been particularly careful not to expose yourself to a similar censure , by a disingenuous use of the name of a

    Unitarian reviewer . The note upon the note in page 57 , is certainly calculated , whatever may have been its design , to mislead your readers , by making them believe that the whole of your assertion is supported by the authority of Dr . Carpenter . I will endeavour to disabuse them , by citing his words on this subject . "

    Mr . Wellbeloved , accordingly , makes an extract from the Monthly Repository , IV . p » 216 , and another from Dr . Carpenter ' s Reply to Magee , p . 306 ; both which , quotations completely disprove the statement of Archdeacon W ^ rangbam .

    This dignitary further censures the Improved Version for its professing to be by a Society for promoting Christian Knowledge , aad thus attempting to impose upon the unwary the

    authority of the Venerable Society , &c . The objection is borrowed from Magee ; but , come from whom it may , nothing of the sort can well be more trifling or more uncandid :

    " Is the definite article , " asks Mr . WeJlbeloved , " of such mighty efficacy in the Greek language , as by its presence or its absence in given circumstances , to prove the Deity of Christ ; and is it of

    such insignificance in English , as not to be distinguishable from the indefinite ? Are the terms a society and the society equivalent ? If they be , as your accusation of the Improved Version seems to suppose , on what ground have Archbishop

    Magee , Dr . Moy&ey and others so severely censured the Editors of the Improved Version , as amongst their numerous artifices , making free with the article , substituting a Son for the Son of God , whenever they find it convenient to do so r *

    These are searching questions : nor can they be answered l > y the Archdeacon of Cleveland , and by his colleagues in * ' ttie work of criming

    Untitled Article

    tion , " in a way that st&U reave them guiltless of the charge of inconsistency , or of something worse . <( As a specimen of no moderate garbling / ' this gentleman refers to t the expulsion of nearly the first two chapters both of Matthew and Luke from the canon of the New

    Testament . And he goes on to state , what the Editors of the Improved Version have themselves candidly told their readers , that these passages are found in all MSS . and in all ancient versions . " But / ' adds Mr . Wellbeloved , " these passages , though their

    authenticity is disputed , are not expelled * They ^ are found in the Improved Version , nearly word for word as they appear in the Version of the Primate . They are indeed printed in Italics , as an intimation , say the Editors , 5

    that they are of doubtful authority . * Archdeacon Wrangham had either seen or not seen , the Improved Version . If he had seen it , how could he permit himself to speak thus of the expulsion of these chapters ? Or if he had not seen it , why did he venture to affirm what he had not and could not

    have verified ? - Mr . Wellbeloved proceeds to remind his opponent that Dr . Durell and the late Bishop Stock would have expunged from the canon of the Jewish Scriptures , the one a whole book , the other a long passage , solely on internal evi- < tie nee . —P . 64 .

    Dr ., now Archbishop , Laurence had accused the Editors , &c . of having altered the text by critical conjecture , in two very important passages , John i . I , and Rom . ix . 5 . How stands the fact ? The Editors have not in ( s single instance admitted conjectural criticism into the text . Yet

    Archdeacon Wrangham , without and against evidence , insinuates the same charge ! By another of his oracles , Dr . Nares , our dignitary is woefully misled . His words are : " So again as to the decisive compellation of Thomas to his Saviour , ( John

    xx . 28 , ) we are to conceive it only qn irreverent expression of surprise ! Beza more truly says , ' Verba sunt non tantum admirantis Thoime / &e . And yet the Editors of the Improved Version refer to Beza !"

    Our renders will mark Mr . Wellbtloved's answer : ¦ * ' * It is Archbishop Ncwcoiuc who refers

    Untitled Article

    Review- —Wellbetdved * s Letters to Archdeacon tFrangham . 43

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1825, page 43, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2532/page/43/