Notes on the Old and New Testaments

In the preparation of the following Notes, free use has been made of all the helps within the reach of the author. The works from which most assistance has been derived are, Walton's Polyglott; the Critici Sacri, particularly the notes of Grotius; LightfootV: Works; Macknight and Newcome's Harmony of the Gospels; Jahn's Archceoiogv; Home's Introduction; Doddridge's Family Expositor; Calmet's Dictionary; Campbell on the Gospels; the Com mentaries of Kuinoel, RosenmuIIer, Clarke, and Henry; Tittman's Meletemata Sacra on John; the Sacred Geography of Wells, ana that prepared for the American Sunday-School Union, by Messrs. J. & J. W. Alexander. The object has been to express, in as few words as possible, the real meaning of the gospels — the results of their critical study, rather than the process by which these results were reached.

This work is designed to occupy a place, which is supposed to be unappropriated, in attempts to explain the New Testament. It was my wish to present to Sunday-school teachers a plain and simple explanation of the more common difficulties of the book which it is their province to teach. This wish has given character to the work. If it should occur to any one that more minute explanations of words, phrases, and customs, have been attempted than might seem to them desirable, it will be recollected that many Sunday-school teachers have little access to means of information, and that nn small part of their success is dependent on the minuteness and correctness of the explanation which is given to children.

This work is designed also to be a Harmony of the Gospels. Particuler attention has been bestowed, especially in the Notes on Matthew, to bring the different narratives of the evangelists together, and to show that, in their narration of the same events, ther?" is no real contradiction. It will be recollected that the sacred narrative of an event is what it is reported to be by all the evangelists. It will also be recollected that the most plausible objections to the New Testament have been dravvn from the apparent contradictions in the gospels. The importance of meeting these difficulties, in the education of the young, and of showing that these objections are not well founded, will be apparent to all.

Particii ar attention has been paid to the references to parallel passages of sc;ipture. In all instances, in these Notes, they are an essential part of the explanation of the text. The authority of the Bible has been deemed the only authority that was necessary in such cases; and it is hoped that no one will condemn any explanation offered, without a candid examination of the real meaning of the passages referred to.

The main design of these Notes will be accomplished, if they furnish a just explanation of the text. Practical remarks could not have been more full without materially increasing the size of the book, and, as was supposed, without essentially limiting its circulation and its usefulness. All that has been attempted, therefore, in this part of the work, has been to furnish leading thoughts, or heads of practical remark, to be enlarged on at the discretion of the teacher.

These Notes have been prepared amidst the pressmg and anxious cares of a responsible pastoral charge. Of their imperfections no one can be more sensible than the author. Of the time and patience Indispensable in preparing even such brief Notes on the FJible, under the conviction that the opinions expressed 7nay form the sentiments of.the young on the subject of the Book of God, and determine their eternal destiny, no one can be sensible who has not made the experiment. The great truth is becoming more and more impressed on the minds of this generation, that the Bible is the only authoritative source of religious belief; and if there is any institution pre-eminently calculated to deepen this impression, and fix it permanently in the minds of the coming age, it is the Sunday-school. Every minister of the gospel, every parent, every Christian, must therefore feel it important that jvst views of interpretation should be imbibed in these schools. I have felt more deeply than I have any other sentiment, the importance of inculcating on the young, proper modes of explaining the sacred scriptures. If I can be one of the instruments, however humble, in extending such views through the community, my wish in this work will be accomplished. I commit it, therefore, to the blessing of the God of the Bible, with the prayer that it may be one among many instruments of forming correct religious views «nd promoting the practical love of God and man, among the youth f this country.

The first edition of these Notes on the Gospels was published is3 the yoar 1832. Since that time sixteen editions, of two thousand each, have been sold, making thirty-two thousand copies, or sixtyfour thousand volumes. I need not say that so extensive a sale hag greatly surpassed any expectations which I had formed, and that the favor of the public thus shown has laid me under the strongest obligations of gratitude. It has demonstrated what I deeply felt when the work was composed, that such a plain exposition of the Gospels was needed by the public, and particularly that the cause of Sabbathschool instruction required it.

The stereotype plates of the Gospels, by a neglect of careful usage, and by the number of impressions taken, having become greatly worn, and it being found necessary to re-cast them, I have taken this opportunity to give to the work a careful revision. I have long felt that this was necessary, and have been prevented from doing it only by the difficulty of correcting a work which is stereotyped. Many points and letters had become broken ofT; many words were dimly printed; and many sentences had become obscure. I have found, also, in revising it, that in many places there were redundant words; that some were obscure in their meaning; that some had been printed erroneously at first; that in some instances there was need of additional explanations; and that there were some parts contradicting others. These errors I have endeavored to correct. Some places have been considerably enlarged. Numerous illustrations and wood-cuts have been introduced; and a valuable map of Jerusalem, by Catherwood, has been added. As the work on the Gospels is complete in itself, I have added at the close of the second volume such tables as I supposed would be useful to the teachers in Sabbathschools. In particular, the chronological table, and the index, have cost me much labour, and I trust will be found to be useful. In the revision of the work, valuable assistance has been derived from the Union Bible Dictionary of the American Sunday-School Union, which has been freely used, and the benefit derived from which is hereby gratefully acknowledged.

The essential character and form of the work have not been changed. I could easily have jnade it larger, and could have fur- 1 * ^)

nished many additional illustrations; but 1 supposed that the Chris tian public had expressed its approbation of the general form and style of the work in such a manner as to make a materia! deviation from either improper. In revising the work, I have made some references to other parts of my writings on the New Testament, whore a subject is more fully discussed. In a few places I have also made a reference to my Notes on Isaiah. Some who may possess the Notes on the Gospels, may also possess that work. To euch these references will be valuable, though not absolutely nccess^ary to an understanding of these Notes on the Gospels.

It is not probable that I shall live to see the present set of plates worn out, or to make another revision of these volumes necessary. I dismiss them, therefore, finally, with deep feeling; feeling more deep by far than when I first submitted them to the press. I cannot be insensible to the fact that I have been, by my expositions of the New Testament, doing something — and it may be much — to mould the hearts and intellects of thousands of the rising generation in regard to the great doctrines and duties of religion — thousands who are to act their parts, and develop these principles, when I am dead. Nor can I be insensible to the fact that in the form in which these volumes now go forth to the public, I may continue, though dead, to speak to the living; and that the work may be exerting an mfluence on immortal minds when I am in the eternal world. 1 need not say, that while I am sensitive to this consideration, I earnestly desire it. There are no sentiments in these volumes which 1 wish to alter; none that I do not believe to be truth that will abide the investigations of the great day; none of which I am ashamed. That I may be in error, I know; that a better work than this might be prepared by a more gii'ted mind and a better heart, I know. But the truths here set forth are, I am persuaded, those which are destined to abide, and to be the means of saving nuillions of souls, una of ultimately converting this whole world to God, That thesn volumes may have a part in this great work, is my earnest prayei — and with many thanks to the public for their favors, and to Got^ tlie Great Source of all blessings, 1 send them fi)rth again — con. mending them to his care, and asking in a s[iecial manner the coi iinued favor of Sabbath-school teachers and of the young.

The writings which are regarded by Christians as the sole staiidai^ ol faith and practice, have been designated at various periods by differenS names. They are frequently called The Scriptures, to denote that they are the most important of all ivriiings; — T/te Holy Scripttires. because composed by persons divinely inspired, and containing sacred truth; — and The Canonical Scriptwes, The word canon means a rule, and it was applied by the Christian fathers to the books of the Bible because they were regarded as an aulhoritaiive rule of faith and practice; and also tc distinguish them from certain spurious or apocryphal books, which, although some of them might be true as matter of history, or correct in doctrine, were not regarded as a rule of faith, and were therefore considered as not canonical.

But the most common appellation given now to these writings is The Bible. This is a Greek word signifying book. It is given to the scriptures by way of eminence, to denote that this is the Book of books, as being infinitely superior to every unassisted production of the human mind. In the same way, the name Koran or reading is given to the writings of Mohammed, denoting that they are the chief writings to be read, or eminently the reading.

The most common and general division of the Bible is into the OIg and New Testaments. The word testament, with us, means a will,- an instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will in relation to his projierty after his death. This is not, however, its meaning when applied to the scriptures. It is taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word meaning covenant, compact, or agreement. The word is applied to the covenant or compact which God made with the.Tews to be their God, and thus primarily denotes the atrreement, the compact, the promises, the institutions, of the old dispensation, and then the record of that compact in the writings of Moses and the Prophets. The name " Old Testament," or " Old Covenant," therefore, denotes the books con taining the records of God's compact with his people, or his dispensa tions under the Mosaic or Jewish state. The phrase New Covenant, ot Testament, denotes the books which contain the record of his neiu covenant or compact with his people under the Messiah, or since Christ came We find mention made of the Book of the Covenant in Ex. xxiv. 7, and in ilie New Testament the word is once used (2 Cor. iii. 14) with an undoubted reference to the sacred books of the Jews. By whom, or at what time, these terms were first used to designate the two divisions of the Sacred Scriptures, is not certainly known. There can be no doubt, however, of the great antiquity of the application.

The Jews divided the Old Testament into three parts, called The Law, Tub Prophets, and The Hagiographa. or the h:ly writings. This division is ncticed by our Saviour in Luke xxiv. 44,* "All things must bo fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Josephus, the Jewish historian, also makes mention of the same division. f " We have," says he, " only twenty-two Sooks wiiich are to be believed to be of divine authority; of which five are the books of Moses. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who were the successors of Moses have written in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and documents of life for the use of men." It is probable that ])Tecisely the same books were not always included in the same division; but there can be^no doubt that the division itself was always retained. The division into twenty-two books was made partly, no doubt, for the convenience of the memory. This was the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The English Uible contains thirty-nine instead of twenty-two books in the Old Testament. The numbe-r which Josephus reckons may be accurately made out as follows: Tlie first division, comprehending the five books of Moses, or the Law. The second, including, 1st, Joshua; 2d, Judges, with Ruth; 3d Samuel; 4th, Kings; 5th, Lsaiah; 6th, Jeremiah, witli Lamentations; 7th, Ezekie!; 8th, Daniel; 9th, the twelve minor prophets; 10th, Job; ilth, Ezra, including Nehemiah; 12th, Esther; 13th, Chronicles; these thirteen books were called The Prophets. The four remaining will be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. In regard to the second division, it is a fact well known, that the twelve smaller prophets, from Hosea to Malachi, were for convenience uniformly united in one volume; and that the small books of Ruth and Lamentations were attached to the larger works mentioned, and Ezra and Nehemiah were long reckoned as one book.

The arrangement of the books of the Bible has not always been tha same. The order followed in the English Bible is taken from the Greek translation called the Septuagint. Probably the best way to read the Bible is to read the books as nearly as possible in the order in which they were written. Thus Isaiah informs us (Isa. i. 1) that his prophecies were delivered in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; and to be correctly understood, should be read in connexion with the record of those reigns in Kings and Chronicles.

The names of most of the books in the Bible are taken from the Greet translation above mentioned.

The books of the Bible were anciently written without any breaks, oi divisions into chapters and verses. For convenience, the Jews early divided the Old Testament into greater and smaller sections. These sections in the law and prophets were read in the worship of the synagogues. The New Testament was also early divided in a similar mancicr.

The division into chapters and verses is of recent origin. It was firs! adopted in the 13th century by Cardinal Hugo, who wrote a celebrated commentary on the scriptures. He divided the Latin Vulgate, the version used in the church of Rome, into chapters nearly the same as those which now exist in our English translation. These chapters he divided

* See Note on that place. t Against Apion.

rnto smallpf spctinns hj placing ihe letters A, B, C, fcc, at equal distances frnni each other in the niHrsjin.

The divisiidi into verst^s was not made until a still later period. The division of Cardinal Huiro into chapters hecanie knfivvn to Rahhi Nathan, a distiiiouished Jew, who adopted it for the Hehrew Bihle, and phiced the Hehrew letters, used also as numerals, in the marfjin. This waf used hy Rahhi Nathan in puhlishinij a coneordance, and adopted b] \thias in a printed edition of the Hehrew Bible in Uitil.

The verses into wiiich the New Testament is divided are still mor modern, arid are an imitation of those used hy Rahhi Nathan in the Cil teenth eentury. This division was invented and first used by Stephenr in an edition of the New Testament printed in 1551. The division wamade as an amusement while he was on a journey from Lyons to Pari? during the intervals in which he rested in travelling. It has been adopte** in all the subsequent editions of liie Bible.

In reg-ard to this division into cha[)ters and verses, it is clear that thej are of no authority, whatever. It has been doulUed whether the sacrec^ writers used ant/ points or divisions of any kind. It is certain that thej were wholly unacquainted with those now in use. It is further eviden* that in all cases these divisions have not been judiciously made. The sense is often interrupted by the close of a chapter, and still oftener by the break in the verses. In reading the scriptures, little regard should.be had to this division. It is of use now only for reference; and inaceurate as it is, it must evidently be substantially retained. All the books that have been printed for three hundred years, which refer to the Bible, have made their reference to these chapters and verses; and to attempt any change now, would be to render almost useless a great part of the religious books in our language, and to introduce inextricable confusion in all attempts to quote the Bil)le.

The first translation of the Old Testament was made about the yea? 270 before the Christian era. It was made at Alexandria in Kgypt into the Greek language, and probably for the use of the Jews who were scattered among Pagan nations. Ancient writers inform us, indeed, that it was made at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to he deposited in the Library at Alexandria. It bears internal marks of having been made by difTerent individuals, and no doubt at different times. It came to be extensively used in Judea, and no small part of the quotations in the New Testament were taken from it. There is no doubt that the apostles were familiar with it; and as it had obtained general currency, they chose to quote it rather than translate the Hebrew for themselves. It is called the Septuagint, or the version by the seventy, from a tradition that seventy elders of Israel, deputed for that purpose, were employed in making the translation.

The language spoken by our Saviour and his apostles was a corruptjor of the Hebrew, a mixture of that and the language spoken in Chaldee, called Syro-Chaldaic, or more commonly the Syriac. The reason why the New Testament was not written in this language was, that the Greek had become the common language used throughout the (^astern nations subject to the Romans. This genera! use of the Greek language was produced by the invasion and conquest of those nations hy Alexander thi Great, about.330 vears before Christ. — The Nev^ Testament was, how- uvpr, early tra.islated into the Syriac languaore. A translation is now extnin in that language, held in great veneration by Syrian Christians, said to have been made in the first century, or in the age of the apostles, and acknowledged by all to have been made before the close of the second century.

About the beginning of the fourth century, the Bible was translated into Latin by Jerome. This translation was made in consequence, as he savs, of the incorrectness of a version then in use, called the Ifalic. The translation made by Jerome, now called the Latin Vulgate, is the authorized version of the church of Rome.

The Bible was translated by Luther in the beginning of the Reformation. This translation has done much to fix the German language, and is now the received version among the Lutheran churches.

Ti^ere have been many other translations of the Bible, and there are many more still in progress. More than one hundred and fifty translaiions of the whole Bible, or parts of it, have been made during the last half century. Those which have been mentioned, together with the English, have been, however, the principal, and are most relied on as faithful exhibitions of the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures.

The English translation of the Bible now in use, was made in the reign of James L This translation was intended only as an improve ment of those previously in existence. A short account of the translation of the Bible into our own language cannot fail to be interestino-.

It is not easy to ascertain the precise time when the gospel was introduced into Britain, or when the inhabitants were first in possession of t..e Bible. The earliest version of which we have any account, is a translation of the Psalms into the Saxon language about the year 706. But the principal translation at that early period, was made by the "venerable Bede," about the year 730. He translated the whole Bible into the Saxon language.

The first English translation of the Bible was executed about the year 1290, by some unknown individual. About the year 1380, John Wickliffe; the morning star of the Reformation, translated the entire Bible into English from the Latin. The great labor and expense of transcribing books before the invention of priiitiiig, probably prevented a very extensive circulation of the scriptures among the people.* Yet the translation of Wickliffe is known to have produced a vast effect on the minds of the people. Knowledge was beginning to be sought for with avidity. The eyes of the people were beginning to open to the abominations of the church of Rome; and the national mind was preparing for the great ciiange which followed in the days of Luther. So deep was the impression made by Wickliffe's translation, and so dangerous was it thought to be to the interest of the Romish religion, that a bill was brought into the house of lords for the purpose of suppressing it. The bill was rejected

* So great was the expense of transcribing the Bible at that time, that the price of one of WicklifFe's New Testaments was not lers than forty pounds sterling, or one Iiundred and seventy-seven dollars seveiity-cight cents of our money. And it should be matte? of devout gratitude to God, that, by the art of printing, tlie New Testament can now be obtained for the trifling sum of ten cents ' f*...ugli the influence of the Duke of Lancaster; and this grave encoiirageniOiJt to ihe frie..ds of WicUlilTe to publisii a more correct translation of the Bible. At iv convocation, however, held at Oxford, in 1408, it was decreed that no c.ie should translate any text of the Holy Scripture into English by way of a book, or little book, or tract, and tha» no book of this kind *hould be read that was composed in the time cf John VV icklitfe, or since liis daath. This decree led the way to a great persecution; and many persons were punished severely, and some even with death, for reading the Cil.le in English. The Bible translated by WicklilTe was never printed. Some years since the New Testament was printed ill England.*

For the first printed English translation of the scriptures we are indebted to William Tindal. He printed this translation at Antwerp in Flanders; and the copies were brought thence into England. So great was the opposition to ibis by the Roman Catholic clergy, that the bishop of London endeavored to buy up whole editions as fast as they were printed, to burn them. This effort, however, produced little etTect. Copies of the New Testament were multiplied, it is said, that on one occasion Sir Thomas More, then chancellor of England, asked how Tindal contrived to maintain himself abroad. To which it was replied that the bishop of London supported him, by purchasing the scriptures as fast as ihey could be printed.

Ill 1635 the whole Bible, translated into English, was printed in folio, and deoicated to. the king, by Miles Coverdale. This was the first English irauslation of the Bible allowed by royal authority.

* The following' is a specimen of this translation:

Mattbrw, cliiip. v. — And Jhosus seynge the people, went up into an hil; and whanne he was sett, his disciplis camen to him. And he openyde bis mouthe, and tau^tite them; and seide, Blessid be pore men in spirit; for the kyngdom of he.enes is hereun.t Blessid ben mylde men: for thei schulen weelde the erthe. Blessid ben thei that mournen: for thei schal be comfbrtid. Blessid be thei that hungren and thirsten rigtvvisnesse:t fijr thei schal be fulfilled. Blessid ben merciful men: lor thei schul gete mercy. Blessid ben thei that ben of clene herte: for thei schulen se god. Blessid ben pesible men: for thei sehulen be clepid goddis children. Blessid ben tiiei that sulFren persecucioun for rightwisnesse: tor the kyngdom of bevenes is liern. Ye schul be blessid wiianne men schul curse you, and schul pursue you: and schul seye al yvel agens you liynge for me. Joie ye and be ye glade: for your meede is plenteous in hevenes: for so thei han pursued al.^o prophets that vveren bifore you. Ye ben salt of the erthe, that if the saJt vaiiisiie awey wherynne schal it be salted? to nothing it is worth over, no but it be cast out, and be defoulid of men. Ye ben light of the world, a citee sett on an hill may not be hid. Ne me teendith not a lanterne and puttith it under a bushel; but on a candlcstik that it give light to alle that ben in the hous. So, scliyne your light bifore men, that thei see youre gode vvorkis, and glorifie your fadir that is in hevenes. Nyle glie dome that I cam to undo the Lawe or the prophetis, I cam not to undo the lawe but to fulfille. Forsothe I sey to you till lieveiie and erthe pisse, oon lettre, or oon title, schal not passe fro the Lauc till alle thingis be don. Therefore he that brckilii oon of these Iceste maundeuientis, and tecliitli thus men, schal be clepid the Leest in the lewme of hevenes; but be thai doth and techith, schui be clepid greet in the kyngdom of hevenes. — Babcfs Edit

Various editions and translations of the scriptures, with various degrrees of correctness, were printed in successive years, till, in ISB-*, the edition appeared uiiich was called " the Bishop's Bible," or " the great Entrlish Bible." This vvas jirepared by royal authority. It was the work of much care and learniiij. Different learned men undertook to translate different parts of the Bible, and after beino; carefully performed and compared, it was printed, and directed to he used as an authorized F^ng-'ish translation of the scriptures. This, after beinff reprinted many times, and after beinir in use for half a century, was succeeded by the translation at present in use.

As this is, in many respects, the most important of all Eng'lish translations of the Sacred Scriptures, it is proper to dwell more fully on the circumstances under which it was made.

It was undertaken by the authority of king James I. of England. He came to the throne in 1603. Several objections having been made to the " Bishop's Bible," then in general use, he ordered a new translation to be made. This work he committed to fifty-four men; but before the translation was commenced, seven of them had either died, or had declined the task, so that it was actually accomplished by forty-seven All of them were eminently distinguished for their piety, and fortheif profound acquaintance with the original languages. Tliis company ol eminent men was divided into six classes, and to each class was allotted a distinct part of the Bible to be translated. "Ten were to meet at Westminster, and to translate from Genesis to the end of the second book of Kings. Eight assembled at Cambridge, and were to translate the remaining historical books, the Psalms, Job, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. At Oxford seven were to translate the four greater Prophets, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the twelve minor Prophets. The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation, were assigned to another company of eight at Oxford; and the Epistles were allotted to a company of seven at Westminster. Lastly, another company at Cambridge were to translate the Apocrypha."

To these companies the king gave instructions to guide them in their work, of which the following is the substance:

The Bishop's Bible, then used, to be followed, and to be altered as little as the original would permit.

The names of the sacred writers to be retained as they were commonly used.

When a word had different significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the fathers, and most eminent writers.

No alteration to be made in the chapters and verses. No marginal notes to be affixed, except to explain the Greek and Hebrew words that couM not be briefly and fitly explained in the text. Reference to parallel places to be set down in the margin.

Kach man of a company to take the same chapters, and translate them according to the best of his abilities; and when this was done, all were to meet together, and compare their translations, and agree which should be regarded as correct.

Each book, when thus translated and approved, to be sent to every other company for their approbation.

Besides this, the translators were authorized, in cases of great diffi- ciilty, to send letters to any learned men in the kingdom to obtain thcii ojiinions.

In this manner the Bible was translated into Eno-lish. In the first instance earh individual translated each bonk allotted to his csinpany. Secondly, the readincfs to be adopted were agreed upon by thai company assemhied toacther. The bonk thus finished was sent to each of the other companies to he examined. At these meeting^s one read the Enorlish, and t!ie rest held in their hands some Bible, of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, &c. If they found any fault, says Selden, they spoke; if not, he read on.

The translation was commenced in 1607, and completed in about three years. At the end of that lime, three copies of it were sent to London. Here a committee of six reviewed the work, which was afterwards reviewed by Dr. Smith, who wrote the preface, and by Dr. Bilson. It was first printed in 1611 at London, by Robert Barker.

From this account it is clear that no ordinary care was taken to furnish '0 English readers a correct translation of the Sacred Scriptures. No translation of the Bible was ever made under more iiappy auspices; and it would now be impossible to furnish another translation in our ianguao-e under circumstances so propitious. Whether we contemplate the num ber, the learning, or the piety of the men employed in it; the cool delibe ration with which it was executed; the care taken that it should secure the approbation of the most learned men, in a country that embosomed a vast amount of literature; the harmony with which they conducted their work; or the comparative perfeciion of the translation, we see equal cause of gratitude to the great Author of the Bible that we have so pure a translation of his word.

From this time the English language became fixed. More than two hundred years have elapsed, and yet the simple and majestic purity and power of the English tongue is expressed in the English translation of the Bible, as clearly as when it was given to the world. It has become the standard of our language; and nowhere can the purity and expressive dignity of this language be so fully found as in the Sacred Scriptures.

The friends of this translation have never claimed for it inspiration or infallibility. Yet it is the concurrent testimony of all who are competent to express an opinion, that no translation of the Bible into any language has preserved so faithfully the sense of the original as the English. Phrases there may be, and it is confessed there are, which modern criticism has shown not to exjiress all the meaning of the original; but as a whole, it indubitibly stands unrivalled. Nor is it probable tliat any translation can now supply its place, or improve upon its substantial correctness. The fact that it has for two hundred years poured light into the minds of millioLs, and guided the steps of generation after generation in the way to heav ^n, has given to it somewhat of the venerableness which appropriately belongs to a book of God. Successive ages may correct some of its few unimportant errors; may throw light on some of its obscure passages; but to the consummation of all things, it must stand, wherever the English language is spoken, as the purest specimen of itg power to give utterance to the meaning of ancient tongues, and of tl"^ timple and pure majesty of the language which we speak.

These remarks are made, because it is easy for men who clisVike the plain doctrines of the Bible, and for those iornorant of the true history of its translation, to throw oul insinuations of its unfaithfnlness. Froip various quarters, from men opposed lo ti.e clear doctrines of the scriptures, are often heard demands for a new translation. We by no means assert the entire infallibility, much less the inspiration, of the English translation of the Bible. Yet of its general faitiifnlness to the original, there can be no doubt. It would be easy to multiply testimonies of the highest authority to this fact. But the general testimony of the world; tl 3 profound regard paid to it by men of the purest character and most extensive learning; the fact that it has warmed the hearts of the pious, ministered to the comforts of the wretched and the dying, and guided the steps of millions to glory, for two hundred years, and now commands the high regard of Christians of so many different denominations, evinces *hat it is, to no ordinary extent, faithful to the original, and has a claim on the continued regard of couiing generations.

It is perfectly clear, also, that it would be impossible now to translate the scriptures into the English language, under so favorable circumstances as attended the translation in the time of James I. No single set of men could so command the confidence of the Christian world; no convention who claim the Christian name could be formed, competent to the tasli, or if formed, could prosecute the work with harmony; no single denomination could make a translation that would secure the undisputed respect of others. The probability is, therefore, that while the English language is spoken, and as far as it is used, the English Bible will continue to form their faith, and direct their lives; and that the words which now pour light irto our minds will continue to illuminate the understandings, and mould the fselings, of unnumbered millions, in their }<4th tc iffliBonal life.

The word Gospel means good news, or a joyful message. It commotily signifies the message itself. But it is here used to denote the book containing the record of the message. The title " snint," given to the sacred writers cf the New Testament, is of Roman Catholic origin, and is of no authority.

It is now conceded pretty generally that Matthew wrote his gospel in his native tongue; that is, the language of Palestine. That language was not pure Hebrew, but a mixture of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac, commonly called Syro-Chaldaic, or Jramecm. This language our Saviour undoubtedly used in his conversation;* and his disciples would naturally use this language also, unless there were good reasons why they should write in a foreijn tongue. It is agreed that the remainder Df the New Testament was written in Greek. The reason for this, in ^reference to the native language of the writers, was, that Greek was the language then generally spoken and understood throughout the eastern countries conquered by Alexander the Great, and particularly in Judea, and in the regions where the apostles first labored.

The Christian Fathers, without any exception, assert that Matthew wrote his gospel for the use of the Christians in Palestine; and say that it was written in the Hebrew dialect. It should be remarked, however, that many modern critics of much eminence do not suppose the evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew to be decisive; and believe that there is sufficient proof that, like the other writers of the New Testament, Matthew wrote in Greek. See Lardner's works, vol. v., p. 308 — 318, London edition, 1829.

The Gospel of Matthew exists now, however, only in Greek. The original Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic, if it was written in that language, has been designedly laid aside, or undesignedly lost. The question, then, naturally arises, who is the author of the Greek translation which we possess? and is it to be regarded as of divine authority?

It has been conjectured by some that Matthew himself furnished a Greek translation of the Hebrew. This conjecture, in itself probable enough, wants human testimony to support it. Alhanasius, one of the parly Fathers, says that it was translated by ".lames, the brother of oui Lord-according to the flesh." Papias, another cf the early Fathers, savs,