is therefore rendered accordingly in those passages by one or more of the versions. In the same manner the word UTEGEIDEN might very safely be translated in all the passagest where it corresponds to y, prævaricatus est, (he sinned;) and indeed in every place where it occurs in the Old Testament, excepting only Lev. xx. 4, which weighs but little against so many contrary authorities, and Numb. xxii. 30, (in which place it answers to roon solitus est,) where its meaning seems rather problematical.‡ On the whole, therefore, the authority of the LXX almost directly contradicts the interpretation commonly given to the particular passage in question, and, instead of leading us to suppose that GOD"winked at" the times of ignorance, teaches us rather to infer from the language of St. Paul, that he looked upon them with anger and abhorrence. From the LXX we turn to the great body of Greek writers. Here it should seem as if authorities for the word in question were particularly scarce. In the general Lexicon of Scapula, (Ed. Basilea 1620,) the word is omitted altogether; and Schrevelius, though he mentions it, gives it no other signification than conniventia dissimulo, a signification evidently taken from the supposed meaning of the very passage under consideration, and which he has not thought fit to confirm by the citation of any classical authority, though on other words of rare occurrence he is generally accustomed so to do. Hederic, on the contrary, assigns to the word no meaning but despicio, quoting for authorities Acts xvii. 30, and Ælian. V. H. ii. 30, and xii. 17, in the two last of which the word evidently bears that meaning.Schleusner, however, is very copious on the word,§ giving, besides some of the passages from the Septuagint cited in the Concordance of Trommius, one authority from Plato, (Phædr., p. 1229,) four from Ælian, (V. H. ii. 30, iii. 22, xii. 17 and 22,) and one from Marcus Antoninus, v. 31,) in all which passages the word means either to despise or to be angry with, a signification which is allowed by Hesychius and Suidas; whereas, for the signification connivendo dissimulo, though he (Schleusner) thinks the word may bear that meaning, he offers no direct authority at all. To the authorities given by Hederic and Schleusner may be added one given by Poole from Plutarch,** and four which I have lately met with in Thucydides and Herodotus, in all of Vid. Biblia Polyglotta. + Levit. xxvi. 40; Numb. v. 12, and xxxi, 16. This is conceding rather too much, for in the Latin translation commonly given with the Septuagint, the passage is rendered thus: Numquid despectione despiciens feci sic tibi? i. e. Have I ever thus contemptuously treated thes? Vide Biblia Polyglotta et Poli Synopsin, in loc. citat. Vide Lexicon Nov. Test. (Edin. 1814.) "Hesychius, vigoga." (Poli Synops. in Act. xvii. 30). “Suidas, vrıçıdır va Tagovai. Hesychius, vtgudu xaraggovt." Schleusner. *Synopsis in Act. xvi, 30. which the word vTepeidew has the same meaning as in the authorities which I have copied from Schleusner. Three of these are in Thucydides, and occur in the following places, viz. IV. 62, V. 6, and V. 43, where Duker in his Latin version uniformly renders them by the word contemno (to despise,) and where the word can have no other meaning. The remaining passage is from Hero dotus, and is as follows: ουτος (Κλεισθένης) υπερίδων Ιώνας, ίνα μη σφισι (Αθηναίοις) αι αὗται εωσι φυλαι και Ιωσι φύλας μετωνόμασε, και εποίησε πλευνας εξ ελασσόνων. * (V. 69.) τας The signification thus established by the authority of the -LXX, and other writers, is farther confirmed by the signification which all the Lexicographers agree in giving to the synonymous words υπεροπτομαι and υπεροραω, and to their numerous co-derivatives, in all which, without exception, is implied an idea either of anger or contempt, but chiefly of the latter. In addition to all this, and even supposing that vegeide may sometimes correspond in meaning to conniveo or condono, yet, according to the analogy of Greek construction, and the general usage of translation, such an interpretation is, in the passage in question, altogether inadmissible. It is well known, or at least it may safely be laid down as a rule, that when a participle and a verb in Greck are rendered by two verbs in English, those verbs must be connected by a conjunction COPULATIVE; whereas, in the present instance, in which unrepidav and awayуeλλ are so rendered, our translators have made use of a conjunction disjunctive. This they obliged themselves to do by interpreting negidar "winked at," because, in consequence of this translation, there is evidently "an opposition of meaning"+ implied in the two I mention this passage more particularly, because M. Rollin, in his Ancient History, has fallen into an error with respect to the circumstance here mentioned, which an attention to the proper meaning of the word vaegida, in connexion with that of the words immediately following, would certainly have prevented. Herodotus is speaking of the change made by Clisthenes, (the rival of Isagoras,) in the number and denomination of the Athenian tribes. On this subject (V. 66,) he says: Terçapuλους εόντας Αθηναίους, δεκάφυλους εποίησε, των Ιωνος παίδων, Γελέοντος, και Αιγικοξέος, και Αργάδες και Οπλητος, απαλλάξας τας επωνυμίας επιχωρίων δ' ετέρων ηρώων επωνυμίας εξευ pav, x. T. X.; and then, after one of those digressions for which he is remarkable, adds the passage above quoted. From these sentences (for he refers in this part of his History to Herodotus) M. Rollin, misled perhaps by the involution of one sentence, and certainly overlooking the meaning of epida in the other, has gathered, that Clisthenes made an "alteration in the form of their (the Athenian) establishment; and, instead of four tribes, whereof they consisted before, divided that body into ten tribes, to which he gave the names of the ten sons of Ion !" (Eng. Translation, B. V. art. 8) Now it does not appear that Ion ever had more than four sons, viz. those whose names have just been mentioned, and to whom Euripides refers in a passage of his lon quoted by Archbishop Potter in his Archæologia Græca, (B. I. c. 9.) And it is manifest from this very passage in Herodotus that Clisthenes was so far from giving their names to the Athenian tribes, that he even-vapidav Ivas (i.e. in Ionum contemtum, as Schweighauser has expressed it)-abolished them, and substituted others in their stead, introducing among the rest the name of Ajax (son of Telamon.) + Vide L. Murray's Definition of Conjunctions. clauses in which the words υπεριδων and απαγγελλει respectively occur. But, in so doing they have both violated the structure of the sentence, and gone contrary to their own general usage, according to which, in every other place where a participle and verb are rendered by two verbs, those verbs are (I believe) invariably connected together by the copulative and; not excepting even those passages, where, as in the present, a verb of the present tense follows a participle of the aorist. In answer to these observations it may be said that our English version of the passage is countenanced by the Æthiopic, and by the opinion of numerous critics and commentators. So it certainly is. Chrysostom, among others, is very particular in his comment on it, distinguishing between the meaning of vɛɛpedew and περιείδεω. He says,* τι ουν; ουδείς τουτων κολάζεται; ουδείς των θελόντων μετανοειν περι τουτων λεγει ου περί των απελθόντων, αλλ' οις παραγγέλλει ουκ απαιτει λογον υμας, φησιν. ουκ είπεν, εκείνος περιο είδεν, ουκ είπεν, ειασεν. αλλ' υμεις ηγνόησατε, υπερείδεν, τουτ' τζιν, εκ απαιτει κολασιν, ως άξιους εοντας κολάσεως. And on the same side are found Grotius, Erasmus, Beza, Sanctius, Vatablus, Pricæus, and a host of others. But their opinion will be found to rest chiefly on those passages in the Septuagint where vepridew answers to ynn, (in which the Greek word has been shown above to correspond to the signification contemsit or iratus est, rather than connivendo dissimulavit,) without any direct confirmation from other writers of the interpretation which they have thought proper to adopt. It may also be said, that in two copies the word is not vapidus, but wapidav, which would certainly be very well rendered by connivendo dissimulare, or oculo non attento pætermittere, in which sense it is frequently employed. But the small number of copies in which this lectio varia occurs, and the similarity existing between υπεριδων and παρίδων, when written in the abbreviated form, make it probable almost to certainty, that this difference is assignable solely to an error on the part of the transcribers. Other objections, which persons of more extensive research may be acquainted with, may possibly be offered in addition to those already stated. But there is none perhaps more plausible than that which is supplied by the parallel passage already quoted in the note upon Chrysostom; a passage which seems at first sight to be totally irreconcilable with the interpretation for which I am contending, and has been, in the judgment of some critics, the principal barrier against its universal acceptation as the legiti * Vide Homil. in Act. xvii. + Chrysostom is rather unfortunate in the use of this word (a), as it happens to be precisely the word which the Apostle has made use of in the parallel passage, Acts xiv. 16. Ος εν ταις παρωχημέναις γενεαις ειασε παντα τα έθνη πορεύεσθαι ταις οδοις avTava passage which the comment of Chrysostom directly contradicts. "Duo codd. habent magidwy." Schleusner. See also Griesbach. mate and only meaning of the word. So Schleusner, though he allows the authority of the LXX to favour this interpretation,* adds almost immediately, "possunt tamen hæc verba etiam ita explicari, connivendo dissimulavit, vcl silentio transmisit tempora ignorantiæ," and refers to the parallel passage above mentioned. But the difficulty arising from this passage will vanish in a moment, when it is remembered that, though GoD is said therein to have "suffered (or left) all men to walk in their own ways," it is not said whether he did so by connivance, or in contempt and anger, and the word saw is employed sometimes in the latter sense as well as in the former. Thus Thersites, in the very paroxysm of his scorn and resentment against Agamemnon, and while attempting to rouse the Grecks to avenge themselves upon him for the wrong he had done to them, says, Οικαδε περ συν νηυσι νεωμεθα τονδε δ' εωμεν Αυτό ενί Τροίη μέρα πεσσέμεν, ILIAD II. 236. i. e. Let us return home with the fleet, and leave (or abandon) this (fellow) here in Troy, to enjoy his booty (as he can.) This signification will also accord with Rom. ch. i. where St. Paul mentions again the moral dereliction of the heathen, and attributes it not to the connivance of JEHOVAH, but to his judgment on their inveterate and infatuated obstinacy.+ (See particularly verses 19-24.) On the whole, therefore, would it not be better that the passage, instead of standing as it does in our authorised translation, should be rendered in some such manner as the following: Moreover GOD (hath been angry with or) hath despised the times of (such) ignorance, and now commandeth all men every where to repent. There will then be no need of a long comment to clear JEHOVAH from the charge of hypocritical connivance, and a proper consistency will be maintained between the interpretation of this passage, and the general tenor of other passages in Scripture where idolaters are mentioned. I shall not lengthen the article by pushing this interpretation to its consequences: nor, at present, can I do so, without the risk of running to an extent which some persons might think beyond the limits of my subject. I shall therefore conclude by praying that the veil of darkness, which has so long been thrown as a covering and as a curse over all nations, may soon every where be lifted up, and all flesh see the salvation of our Gon. Frodsham, Cheshire. J. CROWTHER. * Priorem vero explicationem (i. e. Vulg. Lat. despiciens) suadet et commendat non solum series orationis sed etiam usus loquendi apud Alexandrinos interpretes." Vide Lexicon, sub. voce. +So says St. Ambrose. "Hec irato Deo propter idolatriam humano generi provenisse testatur" (Apostolus.) Vide Comment. in Rom. i. 26. "GoD dispisith the tymes of this uncunnynge." Wicliff's Translation. VOL. XLIV. JUNE, 1821. THE WORKS OF GOD DISPLAYED. SOME ACCOUNT OF ICELAND: Extracted from the REV. DR. HENDERSON's Travels in Iceland, published in 1818. The Island of Iceland is situated in the Atlantic Ocean, on the confines of the polar circle, between 63° 24′ and 66° 30′ of north latitude, and between 13° 15' and 24° 40′ in longitude west of Greenwich. The opinion that this island owes its formation to the operation of submarine volcanoes, is not only confirmed by analogical reasonings, deduced from the appearances presented by other islands which are confessedly of volcanic origin, but gains ground in proportion to the progress of a closer and more accurate investigation of geological phenomena, which every part of it exhibits to the view of the naturalist. In no quarter of the globe do we find crowded within the same extent of surface such a number of ignivomous mountains, so many boiling springs, or such immense tracts of lava, as here arrest the attention of the traveller. The general aspect of the country is the most rugged and dreary imaginable. On every side appear marks of confusion and devastation, or the tremendous sources of these evils in the yawning craters of huge and menacing volcanoes; nor is the mind of a spectator relieved from the disagreeable emotions arising from reflection on the subterraneous fires which are raging beneath him, by a temporary survey of the huge mountains of perpetual ice by which he is surrounded. These very masses, which naturally exclude the most distant idea of heat, contain in their bosom the fuel of conflagration, and are frequently seen to emit smoke and flames, and pour down upon the plains immense floods of boiling mud and water, or red-hot torrents of devouring lava. Tracts of lava traverse the island in almost every direction. To the east of Krabla, and the sulphur mines of Keykiahlid, a large stream of lava stretches into the interior, where the Fremri, or more distant sulphur mines, are situated, the vicinity of which also consists of lava; and from the mountain around which these mines lie, as far as the eye can reach, nothing is seen but one interminable region of desolation. The dismal gloom of this tract is barely relieved by the columns of smoke that are constantly ascending into the atmosphere, through apertures and fissures in various parts of the surface. Another proof of the universality of volcanic agency, and of the continual existence of subterraneous fires in Iceland, is the multiplicity of hot springs in which it abounds. Many of these springs throw up large columns of boiling water, accompanied |