ally had no inconsiderable influence on the interpretations which they present*. Nor are they by any means free from defects of a different kind. Let me not be suspected of wishing to depreciate those by whose labours I have so largely profited in the execution of the following work, nor of being insensible to their very great merits in many respects. Those merits are, however, too well known to require any panegyric from me. It is my less grateful task to point out some deficiencies which render any attempt, however humble, to produce a work likely to be more useful to at least one large class of readers, entitled to forgiveness, if not to commendation. Schleusner's work then is, I think, characterized by one defect, of a nature exactly opposite to that which I have remarked of Parkhurst. Instead of confounding various senses under one head, he multiplies † the senses of the same word in a manner frequently quite unreasonable, and calculated to mislead the student. Where the context, and the context alone, affixes a peculiar meaning to a word, that meaning becomes, in Schleusner's hands, a distinct and recognised sense of the word itself. In respect to the arrangement indeed of the various senses of words, as well as in critical powers, Wahl appears to me very far to surpass Schleusner. But Schleusner's work labours under another and very serious defect, one indeed which renders the execution of another Lexicon, on the same extended plan as his, almost indispensable. No one who has examined his work with any accuracy can suppress a doubt whether he has consulted a large portion of the places which he cites. His plan, it would appear, has been this:-He has collected the best commentators, and has copied their references, very often without examining them. If there were no proofs of this from internal evidence, it would be impossible to doubt the fact, when things are so managed that in the very same article we frequently find references to the same author from the book and section in one edition, and from the page in another, and then find the solution to the enigma by tracing the one reference perhaps to Elsner, and the other to Kypke. Writing as I do, in the country, with a very small command of books, I must freely own that I have not always myself been able to verify the references which I observe; but I confess my surprise that a man of Schleusner's learning and diligence, resident, as I believe he was, at Wittenberg, should have failed in discharging so necessary a part of the task he has undertaken. The student who uses Schleusner's work, if he finds a statement that such or such

With respect to Schleusner, it will be sufficient to notice, among many instances, his article on the word Þw, as showing his feelings. Wherever a voice from heaven is mentioned, he quietly (§ 6.) translates the word by thunder; and says, that it was a Jewish custom to designate thunder in a similar way. Even if he were right, it would be perfectly unpardonable for a Lexicographer thus arbitrarily to decide the sense of Scripture, in direct opposition to the general voice of scholars as well as divines. The reader who will look to the words ávaros and covers in Wahl will find that his orthodoxy is of a very questionable nature.

† As a single instance, I would refer to Schleusner's article on 'Erλaußásw, §. 6 and 7.

It is curious that Schleusner is often contented with the first loose reference even to those common authors whom he must have had by him. Thus, for example, in ПepiíTT, Herodotus is cited by page.

an usage of a word is supported by various places of profane authors, ought always to examine those places for himself, and not rely on the accuracy of the statement. Here again, as far as I have had opportunities of comparing them, Wahl is entitled to the undoubted preference. I must observe too, among Schleusner's minor defects, that he does not always cite the Scripture itself, either of the Old or New Testament, with accuracy*, though I doubt not that the carelessness thus evinced arises from the severity of the labour he had undergone, and under which the most patient and laborious spirit will occasionally bend.

Of Bretschneider's work I would only say, that it appears to me faulty because the author endeavours to reduce the fleeting and delicate senses of words to an arrangement too strictly logical, and thus sacrifices utility to the appearance of philosophical accuracy. Its principal value arises, I think, from his intimate acquaintance with the style of the Apocryphal writings of the Old and New Testament, and the illustrations of the sacred writings which he is enabled to adduce from that source.

Wahl appears to me very far the first of the three in powers of arrangement and in critical knowledge of the language of Scripture. To one who lived near a large library, and did not regard trouble, his book would be most useful; but for common readers, the mere fact, that, for the sake of saving space, he rarely or never cites the words of any authors, but gives references to them, is a serious, nay, an insuperable objection. In the edition, too, at present in use†, the errors of the press, especially in the references to Scripture, are so numerous, (a defect very rare in the works of Wahl's diligent and laborious countrymen) that mistakes and trouble are perpetually arising.

In addition to these objections, the fact, that all these works are written in Latin, renders them less useful to the class of readers for whom Parkhurst's Lexicon was especially designed. It appeared to me, therefore, that I might be useful, if I endeavoured, with the assistance of these later Lexicons, to make such additions to Parkhurst, and to introduce such corrections as would at once give the English reader some of the advantages now exclusively possessed by the readers of the foreign Lexicons, and present to the student in divinity a safe, and, at all events, a less insufficient assistant to his studies, than he could have found in Parkhurst heretofore.

For example, in the word Karvati, he quotes e, for esa, in Rom. iv. 17; and in Koriá he quotes in and a dative, from John iv. 6, where we find ix with a genitive. So again (vol. iii. 615. in Ilvōpa, § 20.) we find an incorrect citation of Rom. viii. 2; and in professedly citing the LXX, it is not uncommon for him to use some of the other versions. Schleusner's way, too, of citing the Psalms is most troublesome. He follows no general rule, but sometimes refers to the LXX, sometimes to the Hebrew. Thus, in pooboxáw, he cites a given psalm, as Ps. cxviii., and in the very next word he cites it as Ps. cxix. I have referred generally to Mill's edition of the LXX, for the Psalms. The two latter instances of inaccuracy (viz. John iv. 6. and Rom. viii. 2.) are not corrected in the Glasgow 4to. edition of 1824. The first is.

+ The prospectus and a specimen of a new and improved edition have just appeared. To show how inaccurate Wahl is, I would beg the reader to examine his article on Пstów.

I am very far from thinking that I have done all that ought to be done, or all that under different circumstances of situation, of health, and of other occupations, I might perhaps have been able to do myself. What I have done has been nearly this. I have carefully examined the three Lexicons referred to, and have selected from each article such matter as appeared to me most useful, adding occasionally from my own very limited reading, such other information as that reading would supply. In particular, I have often briefly adverted to the various interpretations of the same passage, having often experienced, when without access to books, the pleasure and advantage of finding that an interpretation which had occurred to myself was at least not so unreasonable as not to have been proposed by some writer of credit. But I have not often presumed or pretended to decide on these interpretations, being fully sensible that that momentous task belongs to more advanced learning and maturer years than mine.

The additions to the present edition are enclosed within square brackets []; and when it is remembered that the number of additional pages in this edition is above 200, that a good deal of useless matter in Parkhurst (especially his etymologies) has been cut off, or printed in smaller type as notes, that many articles are entirely rewritten, that the page itself is very much increased in size, and the type closer, these additions will appear to amount to at least one third of the work.

I have thought that it would be useful for those who are attending to the style of the New Testament, to distinguish the words which do not occur in the LXX version of the Old; and such words are distinguished accordingly by the mark. I have usually added in such cases, as well as others, instances from the Apocryphal writings, where such instances are found *.

It may be right to notice that no change has been made in Parkhurst's view of the Greek Article in the Lexicon. The fact is, that, as is stated in the note there, I had prepared a long article, according to Bp. Middleton's view of this subject, adding instances from the New Testament under each head, and venturing to suggest such observations as occurred to me. But since I made that statement, Professor Scholefield has republished Bp. Middleton's work, and it can now be procured by every reader. Under these circumstances, as I am not ashamed to own that I cannot satisfy myself on a point on which opinions differ so widely, that, while Bp. Middleton maintains that the article is always used in compliance with the strictest rules, a living prelate has declared his opinion, that its use is guided by no rule at all, I have withheld the article in question for farther consideration.

In the Grammar I have endeavoured to introduce such additions from Buttman and Mathiæ as may make it (especially in the Syntax) more generally useful.

I cannot conclude this preface without publicly expressing the obligations I am under to my brother, the Rev. Henry Rose, Fellow of St. John's College, for the

From some misconception, which I am not now able to explain, this mark is not regularly prefixed to some of the words in the earlier sheets of this work; and occasionally afterwards a single word has escaped me. The reader will find a list of all these at the end of the Addenda, and I request hin to note them with his pen.

I remember, especially, that I am answerable for the note on KAñpes IV.

great assistance he has given me in the completion of this work. With the excepthe of a few additional notes, and a few trifling alterations, he is indeed entitled to By thanks for the whole of the matter from the word Kaprès to Evpáw, from Υακίνθινος το Ὑποτέλλω, and from Χάρτος to'Ωμος.

I have restored the accents to the Greek *; but I fear that my distance from the press, and my consequently never seeing more than the first proof, will have caused many errors of the press both on this and other points, for which I must entreat the reader's pardon. He is earnestly requested to make with his pen the corrigenda given at the end of the volume, as they are of some moment.

Horsham, Jan. 2, 1829.

• I should likewise have preferred affixing the points to the Hebrew, but as it was found on the phuumencement of the work that it would have been necessary to procure new types to carry this intention into effect, and that delay would have thence arisen, the plan was abandoned.