IN a Work extending through three closely printed quarto volumes, a few typographical errors will be readily forgiven, especially when it is known that the Editor resided at a distance from the press. The gentleman who undertook to write the Index to this Work, offered, at the same time, to point out to me all such errors as he should observe when turning over the pages for his own purpose; but as he has pointed out none, I suppose he observed none. The following table, I trust, contains all such errors of any importance as are to be found in those parts of it for which I alone am answerable; and the candid reader will not be surprised, that, relying on the vigilance of another, I paid less attention to the typographical errors that may be found in the History itself, than otherwise I should certainly have done. These errors, however, are probably neither numerous nor great. VOLUME I. INTRODUCTION, p. vii. note, 2 col. 3 line from bottom, for Van Miderts read Van Mildert's. p. ix. line 9. for men read man. p. x. note, last line from bottom, for Verum read Veram. p. xv. line 12. for men read man. p. xviii. 5th line from top, for cermonies read ceremonies. P. 4. line 8th from top, for sublinary read sublunary. 8. line 14. insert genere after literaturæ. 15. line 4. from top, for inquitive read inquisitive. 75. line 39. for Palagians read Pelagians. -'76. note, line penult. for anualist read analyst. 92. note*, line 1. for word read words. 93. line 4. for clear read clean. 97. line 15. for affectation read affection. 99. note, line 3. from the bottom, for pænem read pœnam, 147. line 25. for corrector read correcter. 219. note, line 6. from the bottom, for Phalig read Phaleg. 241. line 8. from the bottom, for the second read the first book, &c. 242. line 33. for Bela, Rama read Bala-Rama. 296. note* line 1. read "This is not correct." 313. line 6. for was read were. Ir has been suggested by a learned and candid friend, that the terms in which I have controverted (p. 103 of this volume) Mr Archdeacon Churton's defence of what has been called the copying hypothesis, may be understood in a sense likely to wound his feelings. I hardly think that they will be so understood by himself; and I beg leave to assure the public that nothing has been farther from my intention than to wound the feelings of any respectable character. My unfeigned esteem for the Archdeacon of St David's, to whom I am not unknown, I have declared in some preceding pages of the same dissertation; but as I do not expect him to adopt implicitly any opinion of mine, I am sure that he does not even wish me to pay such undue deference to his. N. B. Owing to circumstances, which, though to me of some importance and unavoidable, were such as could not interest the public, there is an apparent confusion in some of the chronological dates at the tops of the different pages of this volume. This confusion, however, the reader will find no difficulty in removing, if he keep in mind that the letters A. D. or the words Ann. Dom. always refer to the commencement of the vulgar era; that our Lord was in reality born four or five years before that epoch; that as he first visited the temple when twelve years of age, that visit must have been made in the seventh or eighth year of the vulgar era; and that as he was baptized, when about thirty years of age, his baptism must have taken place in the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year of the same era. As I have introduced no other chronology than the vulgar and that of Dr Hales, the reader will therefore be pleased, at page 16, and thenceforward, to read, instead of the words ante vulg. era, or vulg. era, the words according to Dr Hales. I beg leave likewise to say, that as the different Indexes to this Work were not compiled by me, nor even according to the plan which I recommended, I can lay no claim whatever to the merit which they may display, nor be in any degree made justly answerable for their defects. |