here. Besides, I have been the more free in applying my philological remarks in these discourses to various passages in the other apostolical writings, as I had a more extensive view in translating, when I first engaged in it, than that to which at last I found it necessary to confine myself.

I have endeavoured, in the interpretations given, to avoid, with equal care, an immoderate attachment to both extremes, antiquity and novelty. I am not conscious that I have, in any instance, been inclined to disguise the falsity of an opinion because ancient, or, with partial fondness, hastily to admit its truth because new. That an opinion is the opinion of the multitude is, to some, a powerful recommendation; to others, it appears an infallible criterion of error; to those who are truly rational, it will be neither. There are, indeed, many cases wherein antiquity and universality are evidences of some importance. It has been all along my intention, never to overlook these circumstances where they could be urged with propriety; for certain it is, that singularity is rather an unfavourable presumption. But I hope that, with the help of some things which are treated in the Preliminary Dissertations, the intelligent and candid reader will be convinced, that nowhere have I more effectually restored the undisguised sentiments of antiquity, than where I employ expressions which, at first sight, may appear to proceed from the affectation of novelty. I have, to the utmost of my power, observed the injunction which God gave to the prophet Jeremiah: I have stood in the ways; I have looked and asked for the old paths, Jer. vi. 16. And if in this research I have in any instances proved successful, men of discernment will, I am persuaded, be sensible, that nowhere have I been luckier in conveying the genuine conceptions of the most venerable antiquity, than in those places which, to a superficial examination, will appear, in point of language, most chargeable with innovation. The very command, to look and to ask for the old paths, implies that it may happen that the old paths are deserted, consequently untrodden, and known comparatively to very few. In that case it is manifest, that the person who would recommend them runs the risk of being treated as an innovator. This charge, therefore, of affecting novelty, though very common, must be, of all accusations, the most equivocal; since, in certain circumstances, nothing can more expose a man to it, than an inflexible adherence to antiquity.

I may, in this Work, have erred in many things; for to err is the lot of frail humanity, and no merely human production ever was, or ever will be, faultless. But I can say with confidence, that I have not erred in any thing essential. And wherefore am I thus confident? Because I am conscious that I have assiduously looked and asked for the old paths, that I have sought out the good way, that I might at all hazards both walk therein

myself, and recommend it to others; and because I believe the word of the Lord Jesus, "Whosoever will do the will of God, shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God," John vii. 17. This I think a sufficient security, that no person, who is truly thus minded, shall err in what is essential. In what concerns the vitals of religion, rectitude of disposition goes further even to enlighten the mind than acuteness of intellect, however important this may be in other respects. But the exercise of no faculty is to be despised, that can be rendered in any degree conducive to our advancement in the knowledge of God. Nay, it is our duty to exert every faculty in this acquisition as much as possible.

In an age like the present, wherein literary productions are so greatly multiplied, it is not matter of wonder that readers, when they hear of any new work, inquire about what, in modern phrase, is called the originality of the thoughts, and the beauties of style it possesses. The press teems daily with the labours of the learned. Plenty in this, as in every other commodity, makes people harder to be pleased: hence it happens, that authors are sometimes tempted, for the sake of gratifying the over-nice and fastidious taste of their readers, to affect paradoxes, and to say things extravagant and incredible, being more solicitous about the newness, or even the uncommonness, than about the truth of their sentiments. Though I cannot help thinking this preference injudicious, whatever be the subject, it is highly blameable in every thing wherein religion or morals are concerned. To this humour, therefore, no sacrifice can be expected here. The principal part of the present work is translation. A translator, if he do justice to his author and his subject, can lay no claim to originality. The thoughts are the author's; the translator's business is to convey them unadulterated, in the words of another language. To blend them with his own sentiments, or with any sentiments which are not the author's, is to discharge the humble office of translator unfaithfully. In the Translation here offered, I have endeavoured to conform strictly to this obligation. As to the remarks to be found in the Dissertations and Notes, nothing was further from my purpose than, in any instance, to sacrifice truth to novelty. At the same time I will, on the other hand, frankly acknowledge, that, if I had not thought myself qualified to throw some light on this most important part of holy writ, no consideration should have induced me to obtrude my reflections on the public. If I have deceived myself on this article, it is, at the worst, a misfortune which appears to be very incident to authors. But if some readers, for different readers will think differently, should find me, on some articles, more chargeable with the extreme of novelty than with that of triteness of sentiment, I hope that the novelty, when narrowly examined, will be discovered, as was hinted above, to result from tracing out paths which had been long forsaken, and clearing the ancient ways of part of the

rubbish in which, in the tract of ages, they had unhappily been involved. Those who are profoundly read in theological controversy, before they enter on the critical examination of the divine oracles, if they have the discernment to discover the right path, which their former studies have done much to prevent, and if they have the fortitude to persevere in keeping that path, will quickly be sensible, that they have more to unlearn than to learn; and that the acquisition of truth is not near so difficult a task, as to attain a superiority over rooted errors and old prejudices.

As to the exposition of the text where there is thought to be any difficulty, it is seldom that any thing new can be reasonably expected. If, out of the many discordant opinions of former expositors, I shall be thought, by the judicious, to have generally chosen the best, (that is, the most probable), I have attained, in regard to myself, my utmost wish. On this article, the exercise of judgment is requisite, much more than of ingenuity. The latter but too often misleads. In adopting the interpretation of any former translator or expositor, I commonly name the author, if at the time he occur to my memory; but not when the exposition has been so long, and is so generally adopted, that it would be difficult to say from whom it originated. Let it be observed also, that, when no person is named, I do not claim to be considered as the discoverer myself. A person will remember to have heard or read a particular observation or criticism, though he does not recollect from whom, or in what book; nay, more, to reading and conversation we doubtless owe many sentiments, which are faithfully retained, when the manner wherein they were acquired is totally forgotten.

For my own part, I do not pretend to much reading in this way. I have not been accustomed to read whole commentaries. My way is (what I recommend to others, especially students) to consult them only occasionally, when, in reading, I meet with any difficulty; and not even then, till after other helps-particularly the various readings, the ancient versions, the context, and the use of the sacred writers in other passages-have been, with the aid of concordances, in vain recurred to. Some seem to make the whole study of Scripture merely an exercise of memory; in my opinion it consists much more in the exercise of judgment and reflection. It is only thus that we can hope to attain that acuteness, and preserve that impartiality in judging, which will secure us against calling any man father upon earth. In this way, we shall avail ourselves of the services of the best expositors, on different, and even opposite sides, without subjecting ourselves to any. We may expect to meet, in all of them, with faults and imperfections; but, if I can safely reason from experience, I do not hesitate to say, that the least dogmatical, the most diffident of their own judgment, and moderate in their opinions of others, will be ever found the most judicious. Those, on the

contrary, who are either the idolaters of their own reason, or blindly devoted to that of some favourite doctor, to whom they have implicitly resigned their understandings, display as often the talent of darkening a clear passage, as of enlightening a dark one. However, I am far from thinking that even such may not be sometimes consulted with advantage. Considerable abilities are often united in the same person with considerable defects. And whatever a man's prepossessions in point of opinion may be, there are some things in Scripture which cannot be said to have any relation to them. In regard to all such it may justly be expected, that learning and talents will produce some light. There are few, therefore, who have really the advantages of literature and abilities, who, whatever be the party or system to which they have attached themselves, may not occasionally prove useful aids.

For the readings here adopted, I have been chiefly indebted to the valuable folio edition of the Greek New Testament published by Mill, and that published by Wetstein, but without blindly following the opinion of either. In the judgments formed by these editors with respect to the true reading, they appear to be in extremes: the former often acquiesces in too little evidence, the latter requires too much. This, at least, holds in general. But whether I agree with, or differ from either or both of these, about any particular reading by which the sense is affected, that every intelligent reader may judge for himself, I commonly assign my reason in the notes. I do not, therefore, mean to enter further into the subject, or examine the critical canons on which they found, or the opinions they have given on the comparative excellence of different manuscripts and versions. What has been written on this subject by Simon, Bengelius, Michaelis, and others, renders any discussion here the less ne

cessary.

For the ancient versions, where it appeared proper, I have had recourse to Walton's Polyglot; of some, as the Syriac, the Gothic, or as it is now with greater probability accounted, the Frankish, the Anglo-Saxon, the modern Greek, and the Vulgate, I have copies, as well as of all the modern translations quoted in this work. All the late English translations, of any account, I had provided. There is indeed one, or perhaps two, that I have not met with, about which, to say the truth, from the accounts I have had of their plan and method, and from some specimens, I have not felt much solicitude. I am, however, far from saying that these may not also have their use, and be, in expressing some things, luckier than versions which are on the whole superior.

As to the language, particularly of the version itself, simplicity, propriety, and perspicuity, are the principal qualities at which I have aimed. I have endeavoured to keep equally clear

of the frippery of Arias and the finery of Castalio. If I have hazarded, on any occasion, incurring the censure of the generality of readers on account of the diction, I am certain it is in those places where, from a desire of conveying neither more nor less than the exact thought of the author, I have ventured to change some expressions to which our ears have been long accustomed. But on this point I mean to say nothing further in this place. The reasons on which I have proceeded in such alterations, are fully explained in the Preliminary Discourses, which I consider as so necessary to the vindication of many things in the translation, that I do not wish the judicious reader, if in any degree acquainted with the original, to read the Version, till he has given these Dissertations a very attentive and serious perusal.

As I have never yet seen a translation of the Bible, or of any part of it, into any language I am acquainted with, which I did not think might be, in several places, altered for the better; I am not vain enough to imagine, that the version here presented to the public will by any class of readers be accounted faultless. Part of this work has long lain by me in manuscript; for I may justly say of it what Augustin, if I remember right, says of one of his treatises, "Juvenis inchoavi, senex edidi." Now, in that part I have been making corrections, or at least alterations, every year; and I have no reason to doubt that, if it were to lie longer by me, I should still be altering and correcting. As I am.not an implicit follower of any man, because I think no man can plead an exemption from either faults in practice or errors in opinion, I am, at the same time, far from arrogating to myself a merit which I refuse to acknowledge in others. It is not difficult to make me distrust my own judgment, and impartially re-examine my own reasoning. I say impartially, because I am conscious that I have often, in this manner, revised what I had advanced, when I found it was objected to by a person of discernment; and, in consequence of the revisal, I have been convinced of my mistake. I will venture to promise, therefore, that I shall give all due attention to any criticisms or remarks, candid or uncandid, which shall be made on any part of this Work. Criticisms made in an uncandid manner may, as to the matter of them, be well founded, and on that account deserve attention: but, if there appear neither reason in the matter of the criticism, nor candour in the manner of producing it, the most prudent part in an author is to let it pass without notice.

If the language of the translation shall be thought not unsuitable, and sufficiently perspicuous, I have, in what concerns the expression, attained my principal object. The rest, I imagine, will be intelligible enough to those who are conversant in questions of Christian antiquities and criticism. Sensible of the disadvantages, in point of style, which my northern situation