etymological signification of proper names, I have given an account only when there is in the text an allusion to their etymology, in which case to know the primitive import of the term is necessary for understanding the allusion.

17. There is only one other use to which I have applied the foot-margin. The Greek word kuptoç was employed by the LXX, not only for rendering the Hebrew word adon, that is, lord, or master, but also to supply the word JEHOVAH, which was used by the Jews as the proper name of God, but which a species of superstition, that by degrees came generally to prevail among them, hindered them from transplanting into the Greek language. As the name Jehovah, therefore, was peculiarly appropriated to God; and as the Hebrew adon and the Greek kyrios, like the Latin dominus and the English lord, are merely appellatives, and used promiscuously of God, angels, and men-I thought it not improper, when a passage in the New Testament is quoted or introduced from the Old, wherein the word rendered in Greek kyrios is in Hebrew Jehovah, to mark this name in the margin. At the same time let it be observed, that I have made no difference in the text of the version, inasmuch as no difference is made on the text of the Evangelists my original, but have used the common English name Lord, in addressing God, where they have employed the common Greek name kyrios.

PART V.

THE NOTES.

I SHALL now conclude with laying a few things before the reader, for opening more fully my design in the notes subjoined to this version. I have in the title denominated them critical and explanatory;—explanatory, to point out the principal intention of them, which is to throw light upon the text, where it seems needful for the discovery of the direct and grammatical meaning; critical, to denote the means principally employed for this purpose, to wit, the rules of criticism on manuscripts and versions, in what concerns language, style, and idiom. I have called them notes rather than annotations, to suggest that as much as possible I have studied brevity, and avoided expatiating on any topic. For this reason, when the import of the text is so evident as to need no illustration, I have purposely avoided diverting the reader's attention by an unnecessary display of quotations from ancient authors, sacred or profane. As I would withhold nothing of real utility, I recur to classical authority when it appears necessary, but not when a recourse to it might be charged with ostentation. A commentary was not intended, and therefore, any thing like a continued explanation of the text is not to be

expected. The criticisms and remarks here offered are properly scholia, or glosses on passages of doubtful or difficult interpretation; and not comments. The author is to be considered as merely a scholiast, not a commentator. Thus much may suffice as to the general design. In regard to some things, it will be proper to be more particular.

2. From the short account of my plan here given, it may naturally and justly be inferred, that I have shunned entirely the discussion of abstract theological questions, which have afforded inexhaustible matter of contention, not in the schools only, but in the church, and have been the principal subject of many commentaries of great name. To avoid controversy of every kind, is, I acknowledge, not to attempted by one who, in his remarks on Scripture, often finds himself obliged to support controverted interpretations of passages, concerning the sense of which there are various opinions. But questions of this kind, though sometimes related to, are hardly ever coincident with the speculative points of polemic theology. The latter are but deduced, and for the most part indirectly, from the former. Even controvertists have sometimes the candour (though a class of men not remarkable for candour) to admit the justness of a grammatical interpretation which appears to favour an antagonist; no doubt believing that the deduction made by him from the text may be eluded otherwise than by a different version. But my reasons for keeping as clear as possible of all scholastic disputes, are the following:

First, If in such a work as this a man were disposed to admit them, it is impossible to say how far they would or should carry him. The different questions which have been agitated, have all, as parts of the same system, some connexion, natural or artificial, among themselves. The explanation and defence of one draws in, almost necessarily, the explanation and defence of another on which it depends. Besides, those conversant in systematic divinity scarcely read a verse in the Gospel, which they do not imagine capable of being employed plausibly, or which perhaps they have not seen or heard employed, either in defending or in attacking some of their dogmas. Whichsoever of these be the case, the staunch polemic finds himself equally obliged, for what he reckons the cause of truth, to discuss the controversy. I know no way so proper for escaping such endless embarrassments, as to make it a rule to admit no questions but those which serve to evince either the authentic reading or the just rendering of the text.

4. My second reason is, I have not known any interpreter, who has meddled with controversy, whose translation is not very sensibly injured by it. Disputation is a species of combat; the desire of victory is natural to combatants, and is commonly, the further they engage, found to become the more ardent. The

fairness and impartiality of a professed disputant, who, being at the same time a translator, has, in the latter capacity, the moulding of the arguments to which in the former he must recur, will not be deemed in the office of translating greatly to be depended on. A man, however honest his intentions, ought not to trust himself in such a case. Under so powerful a temptation, it is often impossible to preserve the judgment unbiassed, though the will should remain uncorrupted. And I am strongly inclined to think, that if Beza had not accompanied his translation with his controversial commentary, he would not have been capable of such flagrant wresting of the words, and perversion of the sense, of his author, as he is sometimes justly chargeable with. But in rendering a passage in the version, to be presently controverted into an argument in the annotations, it was not easy for a translator of so great ardour to refrain from giving it the turn that would best suit the purpose, of which, as annotator, he never lost sight, and for which both version and commentary seem to have been undertaken-the defence of the theology of his party.

5. My third reason for declining all such disputes is, because much the greater part of them, even those which are treated by the disputants on both sides as very important, have long appeared to me in no other light than that of the foolish questions which the apostle warns Titus to avoid as unprofitable and vain. Tit. iii. 9; or of the profane babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so called, against which he repeatedly cautioned Timothy, 1 Tim. i. 4; vi. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 23. If we may judge of them by their effects, as of the tree by its fruits, we shall certainly be led to this conclusion. For, from the marks which the apostle has given of the logomachies, or strifes of words, then beginning to prevail, we have the utmost reason to conclude, that a great proportion of our scholastic disputes comes under the same denomination. What character has he given of the vain janglings of his day, which is wanting in those of ours? Do not the latter gender contention as successfully as ever the former did? Cannot we say with as much truth of these, as Paul did of those, "whereof cometh envy, strife, revilings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds?" Do our babblings, any more than theirs, minister godly edifying? Do they not, on the contrary, with equal speed, when they are encouraged, increase unto more ungodliness? Have our polemic divines, by their abstruse researches and metaphysical refinements, contributed to the advancement of charity, love to God, and love to man? Yet this is, in religion, the great end of all; for charity is the end of the commandment, and the bond of perfectness. These questions I leave with every considerate reader. The proper answers will, with the aid of a little experience and reflection, be so quickly suggested to him. that he will need no prompter.

6. Lastly, Though I am far from putting all questions in theology on a level, the province of the translator and that of the controvertist are so distinct, and the talents requisite in the one so different from those requisite in the other, that it appears much better to keep them separate. I have therefore, in this work, confined myself entirely to the former.

7. Further, I do not attempt, in the notes, to remove every kind of textuary difficulty in the books here translated; such, for example, as arise from apparent contradictions in the accounts of the different evangelists, or from the supposed contradiction of contemporary authors, or such as are merely chronological or geographical. Not that I consider these, like the dogmas of the controvertist, as without the sphere of a critic on the sacred text; not that I make it, as in the former case, a rule to exclude them, if any thing new and satisfactory should occur to me to offer; but because, on most questions of this nature, all the methods of solution known to me are either trite or unsatisfactory. Much has been written for solving the difficulty arising from the different accounts given of our Lord's genealogy by Matthew and Luke; and different hypotheses have been framed for this purpose. Though I do not pretend to have reached certainty on this question, I incline most to the opinion of those who make the one account the pedigree of Joseph, the other that of Mary. having nothing to advance which has not been already said over and over by others, and the evidence not being such as to put the matter beyond doubt, I see no occasion for a note, barely to tell my opinion, which is entitled to no regard from the reader unless so far as it is supported by evidence.

But

For similar reasons, I have avoided entering upon the examination of the difficulties occasioned by the different accounts given of our Lord's resurrection, and his appearances to his disciples after it. On some of these points there is a danger lest an interpreter be too hasty in deciding. A judgment rashly formed may give his mind such a bias as shall affect his translation, and lead him to make stretches in support of his opinion which the laws of criticism do not warrant. I acknowledge, on the other hand, that there are instances wherein a small variation, very defensible, in the pointing, or in rendering a particular expression, may totally remove a difficulty or apparent contradiction. In such a case, it would be both uncandid and injudicious not to give that, of all the interpretations whereof the words are susceptible, which is attended with the least difficulty; and, if the interpretation be uncommon, to assign the reasons in the notes. But, to do violence to the rules of construction, and distort the words, for the sake of producing the solution of a difficulty, is in effect to substitute our own conjectures for the word of God, and thus to put off human conceit for celestial verity. It is far better to leave the matter as we found it. In solving difficulties

to which we find ourselves unequal, future expositors may be more successful.

8. One great fault, far too common with scriptural critics, is, that they would be thought to know every thing: and they are but too prone to think so concerning themselves. This tends to retard (instead of accelerating) their progress in true knowledge, Men are unwilling to part with what they fancy they have gotten a sure hold of, or to be easily stripped of what has cost them time and painful study to acquire. Custom soon supplies the place of argument; and what at first may have appeared to be reason, settles into prejudice. It is necessary, in our present state, that habit should have influence even on our opinions. But it is particularly fortunate when the habit, in matters of judgment, extends not barely to the conclusions, but to the premises: not to the opinions only, but to the reasons on which we have founded them. When this is the case, we experience all the advantages derived from an habitual association, without much danger of bigotry or blind attachment. Now it is well known, that opinions hastily formed preclude all the advantage which may afterwards redound from better information. The truth of this remark is, even in the ordinary affairs of life, too well seen and felt in its unhappy consequences every day.

9. Again, I have in these notes avoided meddling with questions relating to the order in which the different miracles were performed, and the discourses spoken, and also settling the doubts which have been raised concerning the identity or diversity of some of the facts and speeches recorded by the different Evangelists. I have shunned, in like manner, all inquiry about the time occupied by our Lord's ministry, and about several other historical questions which have been much canvassed. I do not say that such inquiries are useless. A connexion with the evidence of other points which may be of great importance, may confer on some of them a consequence much beyond what, at first, we should be apt to imagine; but, in general, I do not hesitate to affirm, that though I have occasionally attended to such inquiries, I have not been able to discover that their consequence is so great as some seem to make it. They are still, upon the whole, rather curious than useful. Besides, on the greater part of them, little is to be expected beyond uncertainty and doubt.

Some people have so strong a propensity to form fixed opinions on every subject to which they turn their thoughts, that their mind will brook no delay. They cannot bear to doubt or hesitate. Suspense in judging is to them more insufferable than the manifest hazard of judging wrong; and therefore, when they have not sufficient evidence, they will form an opinion from what they have, be it ever so little; or even from their own conjectures, without any evidence at all. Now, to believe without proper evidence, and to doubt when we have evidence suffi