« PreviousContinue »
troduce some alterations in his method of working up the materials, whether original, or otherwise; in fact, at once to enlarge, and yet contract his plan. Enlarge it by exploring the fountain heads of interpretation, as they are found in the Fathers of the first four centuries, and the Greek Commentators, Scholiasts, and Glossographers ;* and especially by perpetually interweaving his own critical and and explanatory remarks, and supplying, de suo, what seemed essential to complete the Corpus Annotationis ; moulding, at the same time, the whole into a perpetual Commentary, in which every point of the least importance should be discussed, the true reading, in all doubtful and important cases, canvassed, the connexion traced, the course of reasoning indicated, all probable expositions detailed and reviewed, and the true interpretation, as far as possible, ascertained and determined. In consequence of such a material enlargement of the plan, it was necessary to devise every possible method of otherwise contracting it, especially by using the critical knife freely, by getting rid of heavy masses of unimportant or precarious matter, and bringing what
* The use, though limited, which the Author had made, in the for. mer Part, of the antient Fathers and Commentators, had shown him their great importance to the interpretation of Scripture, and how unmerited was the neglect into which they had so long fallen among Protestant Commentators. In this judgment he was confirmed by the opinion of some distinguished Scholars, and eminent Churchmen, whose encouragement determined him to regularly examine at least Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Ecumenius, and the Greek Scholiasts, for the purpose of the present Work. By this course, as will be seen, the Editor has largely profited,
was essential into the most condensed form. Hence it became expedient to modify, and occasionally abandon his rule of ascribing each portion to its respective author ; to blend together much various matter, partly original and partly compiled, * nay, sometimes to express the substance rather than detail the words of an annotation. But though the apportioning of minute and scattered remarks to their respective authors was often impracticable, yet he has been every where diligent in stating the chief authorities by which any interpretation has been supported. Considering, too, the Doctrinal nature of almost the whole of this second Part, and the unsound. ness in doctrine, as well as inferiority in learning and judgment, of most of of the recent Foreign Commentators thereon, it was thought advisable to introduce far less matter from that quarter. The Author has, indeed, endeavoured not to introduce, from whatever source, any objectionable interpretation, except for the purpose of pointed censure and direct refutation.
* Hence the Editor has sometimes not been able sufficiently to distinguish his own original annotations from those of other Commentators ; though, upon the whole, the discrimination is sufficiently marked. Conscious of being guided by a general spirit of literary honesty, the Author trusts that the praise, in this point, awarded to him by the Reviewers of the former Part, will not be found less merited in the present.
† For this is not meant to apply to all of the recent German, much less the Dutch, school. To use the words of a great orator, Néyw dè ταύτα ου κατά πάντων, αλλά κατά των ενόχων τοίς ειρημένοις όντων. The names of Storr, Knapp, Staudlin, Tittmann, Winer, Borger, Fritzche, Laurman, Flatt, Schott, Wahl, and generally speaking, of Morus, Koppe, and Schleusner, are exceptions. To the erudition, acumen, and research of Kuin. Ros. Pott, Heinr. Dindorf. Jaspis, and others, the Author bears willing testiinony; and, as his references will show, he has largely profited by their learned labours.
It is obvious that these material alterations (by which the Work became less of a Synopsis, or Corpus Annotationis, and more of a Recensio, or Critical Digest,) would considerably increase the Author's difficulties, and therefore will satisfactorily account for a delay of nine months in the publication. It is, indeed, scarcely possible for the most experienced writer to conceive the labor improbus which the adoption of these alterations in the plan occasioned the Author ; under which, and a variety of difficulties he has had to struggle with, his chief support has been the very favourable reception which the First Part has met with from the Public in general, especially the friends to enlightened yet sound theology, amongst professing Christians of various denominations. Nay, even among some placed at the antipodes in respect of doctrine, and equally distant from the established Church, critiques have appeared, distinguished by a candour and courtesy as unusual towards the Church as it is honourable. But while the Author can, with truth, say that he has endeavoured to profit by every remark and suggestion thrown out by public criticism, from whatever quarter, he cannot dissemble his surprise at one or two mistakes respecting his opinions, and some misconceptions of the true features of his Work, even by some who must be considered alike intelligent and well affected to the undertaking. In the present Part, however, the perpetual discussions into which the importance of the subjects and the alteration of plan led him, must have so completely unfolded his prevailing opinions and principles as to preclude all future misapprehensions. In reference to one source of error, the Author must be permitted to observe, that, consistently with those broad and impartial principles so essential to the exercise of right judgment and just decision, it was not for him too hypercritically to scan the merits of annotations by justly celebrated Commentators, or diminish the reader's means of judging for himself, by suppressing aught that might, by any possibility, be the true interpretation, or contribute to its discovery. Were it not for some mistakes that have arisen, it were hardly necessary for the Editor to say that he must not be considered as participating in every opinion by him introduced, unless with a formal disclaimer. The limits prescribed to this Work would not have permitted such perpetual animadversions ; hence the Author has thought it sufficient to studiously suppress whatever he considered decidedly objectionable, or only to introduce it for the sake of censure* and refutation. In all other cases, he wished to afford his readers as much opportunity as possible of judging for themselves. In the exercise, indeed, of his Editorial and Critical functions, he cannot hope to have satisfied all; yet he trusts he shall not often fail of attaining it from those whose approbation it is bis especial wish to gain; those, namely, who, while they hail every beam of real light, and readily embrace whatever can be considered as solid improvement in religious knowledge, yet strenuously oppose all needless changes of interpretation, all innovating refinements, and metaphysical subtilties-in other words, the supporters of sound, yet enlightened orthodoxy. Novelties of interpretation, indeed, the Author's experience has taught him habitually to distrust, since it has shown him that the truth usually lies somewhere amongst the antient and earlier modern Commentators ; though it may, not unfrequently, have to be dragged forth piece-meal, and sometimes, according to the adage, may be said " to lie (overwhelmed with huge masses of useless erudition) at the bottom of a well.” It has been the Author's fortune sometimes to justify and confirm, by the suffrage of antiquity, what had been unjustly distrusted and rejected as mere novelty; but far more frequently to show the solid grounds of interpretations which it had been too long the fashion to reject, merely because they were common; though from their antiquity and general reception, they might have been presumed to be true; for, to use the words of Cicero, “ Opinionum commenta delet dies, Naturæ ac veritatis judicia confirmat.”
* Yet not a vestige, he trusts, will be found of that bitter, objurgatory, calumnious spirit, which, to the injury of the Gospel, has made the Odium Theologicum "a bye-word among the Heathen."
Hence may we learn, in the words of the Oracle, åkimtov iz) Kiveiv.
To advert to some peculiar features of the present Part, the Author can, with truth, say that he has employed the same diligence in selecting all opposite illustrations of the phraseology or sentiment from the Classical writers, by a careful recensio of