those where only one verse is quoted or alluded to, and those wherein the allusion is to two or more in succession. These are the only purposes to which I have appropriated the side-margin.

To give there a literal version of the peculiarities of idiom, whether Hebraisms or Grecisms, of the original, and all the possible ways in which the words may otherwise be rendered, has never appeared to me an object deserving a tenth part of the attention and time, which it requires from a translator. To the learned such information is of no significancy. To those who are just beginning the study of the language, it may indeed give a little assistance. To those who understand only the language of the translation, it is, in my judgment, rather prejudicial than useful, suggesting doubts which readers of this stamp are not qualified for solving, and which often a little knowledge in philology would entirely dissipate. All that is requisite is, where there is a real ambiguity in the text, to consider it in the notes. As therefore the only valuable purpose that such marginal information can answer, is to beginners in the study of the sacred languages, and as that purpose so little coincides with the design of a translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, I could not discover the smallest propriety in giving it a place in this work.

§ 16. THE foot-margin I have reserved for dif ferent purposes; first, for the explanation of such appellatives, as do not admit a proper translation in

to our language, and as, by consequence, render it necessary for the translator to retain the original term. This I did not consider as a proper subject for the notes, which are reserved chiefly for what requires criticism and argument: whereas all the explanations requisite in the margin, are commonly such as do not admit a question among the learned. Brief explanations, such as those here meant, may be justly considered as essential to every translation into which there is a necessity of introducing foreign words. The terms which require such explanations, to wit, the names of peculiar offices, sects, festivals, ceremonies, coins, measures, and the like, were considered formerly 130, Of certain terms, however, which come under some of these denominations, I have not judged it necessary to give any marginal explanation. The reason is, as they frequently occur in the sacred books, what is mentioned there concerning them sufficiently explains the import of the words. The distinction of Pharisee and Sadducee, we learn chiefly from the Gospel itself; and in the Old Testament, we are made acquainted with the sabbath, circumcision, and passover.

Those things which stand most in need of a marginal explanation, are offices, coins, measures, and such peculiarities in dress as their phylacteries and tufts or tassels at the corners of their mantles. In like manner their division of time, even when it does not occasion the introduction of exotic terms,

is apt to mislead the unlearned, as it differs widely from the division which obtains with us. Thus we should not readily take the third hour of the day to mean nine o'clock in the morning, or the sixth hour to mean noon. Further, when to Hebrew or Syriac expressions an explanation is subjoined in the text, as is done to the words, Talitha cumi, Immanuel, Ephphatha, and to our Lord's exclamation on the cross, there is no occasion for the aid of the margin, When no explanation is given in the text, as in the case of the word Hosanna, I have supplied it on the margin. Of the 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

upios was employed by the Seventy, 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 sug

gest 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 be attempted by one who, in his remarks on Scripture, often finds himself obliged to support controverted interpretations of passages, concerning the