« AnteriorContinuar »
REV. T. K. ARNOLD'S REMARKS
REV. E. B. ELLIOTT, A. M.
LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
Other engagements, and distaste to the controversy, united to prevent the Author from doing more, on first receiving Mr. Arnold's Pamphlet, than noting down on the margin of his copy of it, the heads in brief of answers to each of its criticisms and charges. A Paper however in the British Magazine of last September having been brought to his notice, which referred to Mr. A.'s Remarks on the Horæ as triumphant and unanswerable, he deemed it necessary not to delay longer drawing out his Reply: which however has given him somewhat more trouble than he expected : not from any difficulty in the matter of Reply; but from the difficulty of making the large questions treated of intelligible in so small a compass to the general Reader, and the Pamphlet readable.
It is the Author's wish that each Reader, where he has the opportunity, should have Mr. Arnold's Critique in hand as he peruses this Reply; and compare them passage by passage : in order so to do fuller justice to Mr. Arnold; and also to judge with better reason whether his attack on the Horæ has been in every point fairly met and refuted, or not.
Torquay, November, 1845.
Page 12, line 3.-The expression “like the rest of the futurists," seems to me, on
Page 13, line 12, for once, read at once.
- 32, line 24, for of, read one of.
THE Rev. T. K. Arnold has published a Pamphlet of Remarks on my Horæ Apocalypticæ, expressive of “his deep conviction that the mode of investigation there pursued, is perverse and uncritical, and the interpretations advanced such as will not stand the tests of grammatical construction, common sense, or the ordinary works of historians.”! By the epithet perverse, applied to my mode of investigation, Mr. Arnold means, I presume, such as involves, or is calculated to issue in, a distorted view of the subjects considered ; though the word is certainly one not quite so distinct in meaning as might be desired in an opening statement of charge: by uncritical the contrary to judicious, or (more exactly speaking) to a judge's wise and discriminative mode of discussing evidence and investigating truth. Elsewhere, on the same first page of his Pamphlet, Mr. Arnold protests against my “false method of interpretation.” Now the mode or process of investigation actually pursued in the Horæ is described at p. ix of the Preface :“ first to consider the simple grammatical meaning of the prophetic passage, comparing Scripture with Scripture ; then to consult the most authentic histories of the period supposed to be referred to, and, where necessary, such works also as might furnish antiquarian illustration : this done, and an independent judgment formed thereon, then to consult the most approved and elaborate commentators on the subject, more especially those of different views from the Author's own, and to weigh their arguments ere