quence, makes their differences, when properly considered, appear as nothing. They are but like the inconsiderable variations in expression which different witnesses, though all perfectly unexceptionable, employ in relating the same fact. They rather confirm men's faith in scripture, as they show, in the strongest light, that all the various ways which men of discordant sentiments have devised, of ren. dering its words, have made no material alteration, either on the narrative itself, or on the divine instructions con. tained in it. People are at no loss to discover that the dif ference among interpreters lies chiefly in this, that one renders the account of things, which that book exhibits, more intelligible, more perspicuous, or even more affecting than another. These differences are, I acknowledge, of great moment to readers; they are such as may show one version to be greatly superior to another in point of use; yet as they are all compatible with justness of representation in every thing essential to the historical and didactic parts of the work, they are so far from affecting the credibility of the whole, that they serve not a little to confirm it."

To these judicious remarks extracted from Dr. Campbell's preface to his translation, I will add another. "Against the common translation, in use at present, which was made and authorized in the beginning of the reign o James I. there were precisely the same exceptions aken, founded in the like apprehensions of pernicious consequences. Whoever will consult the preface to that translation, and read the paragraph which is titled on the margin, "The Speeches and Reasons both of our Brethren and Adversaries against this Work," will be surprised to find how much they coincide, with what has been thrown out of late against any new attempt of the kind. It is remark. able that since the days of Jerome to the present, the same terrible forebodings have always accompanied the under. taking, and vanished on the execution; insomuch that the fatal effects predicted have never afterwards been heard of."

If the mere publication of a version of the inspired writings requires, as we think it does, the publisher to have no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being able to appeal to our whole course of public addresses, and to all that we have written on religious subjects, to show that we have no such object in view. We have disclaimed, and do again disclaim, all affection or partiality for any human system, creed, or formulary under heaven. The whole scope, design, and drift of our labors is to see Christians intelligent, united, and happy. Believing that all sects

have gone out of the apostolic way, and that every sect must go out of the way (for Christianity is in its nature hostile to each and to every sect) we will not, we cannot, we dare not do any thing for the erection of a new one, or for assisting any now in existence in its human appendages. As to any predilection or preference to any one now existing, we have none, farther than they hold the tradi tions of the Apostles. As far as they hold fast these, we hold with them; and where they desert these, we desert them. Besides, we have no aversion to, or umbrage against, any one more than another. We oppose them most, who most oppose and depart from the simplicity that is in Christ. I do most solemnly declare, that, as far as respects my feel ings, partialities, reputation, and worldly interest as a man, I would become a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Quaker, a Universalist, a Socinian, or any thing else, before the sun would set to-day, if the apostolic writings would, in my judgment, authorize me in so doing; and that I would not give one turn to the meaning of an adverb, preposition, or interjection, to aid any sectarian cause in the world. Whether every reader may give me credit in so declaring myself, I know not; but I thought it due to the occasion thus to express the genuine and unaffected feelings of my heart. May all, who honestly examine this version, abundantly partake of the blessings of that Spirit which guided the writers of this volume, and which in every page breathes, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, peace on earth, and good will among men!"

January 29th, 1826.

A. C.

PREFACE

TO THE NARRATIVES OF

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN.

THESE books were designed to be read and understood by persons of the humblest capacity, as well as by those of the most exalted genius. Readers of the most limited education, as well as those of the most liberal attainments, were equally embraced in the views of the writers. If particular attention was paid to any class of readers, it was doubtless to the poor, who have not the means of a refined education. One of the most striking evidences of the divine mission of the Saviour was, that, to the POOR his glad tidings were announced. A revelation not adap.

ted to them, forfeits all claims to a divine original.

In laying down some general principles or rules for read. ing intelligibly the following narratives, regard must be had to all sorts of readers-the young as well as the old; the illiterate as well as the learned; and also some attention must be paid to the difficulties that lie in the way of a rational and profitable perusal of them.

In the first place, then, there is no opinion or notion which is more prejudicial to an intimate acquaintance with these writings, than that of the Egyptian priests, introduced into the first theological school at Alexandria, and carried throughout christendom-viz. "That the words of scripture have a mystical, spiritual, theological, or some other than a literal meaning; and that the same rules of interpretation are not to he applied to the inspired writings, which are applied to human compositions:" than which no opinion is more absurd and pernicious. If this notion were correct, all efforts to understand this book must be in vain, until God sends us an interpreter who can resolve those enigmas and mystic words of theological import, and give us the plain meaning of what the Apostles and Evangelists wrote.

The reader will please to consider that, when God spoke to man, he adopted the language of man. To the fathers of the Jewish nation he spoke in their mother tongue. By his Son, and his Son by the Apostles, spoke to every na.

16

tion in its own language. When he spoke to any nation he uniformly adopted the words of that nation in express. ing his will to it. And that he used their words in the commonly received sense, needs no other proof than this; that if he had not done so, instead of enlightening them in the knowledge of his will, he would have deceived and confounded them: than which no hypothesis is more impi. ous. For example, were God to speak to us in English, and select from our vocabulary the words death, punishment, perpetual, and wicked; were he to use the last term as we use it, and annex to the others a signification different from that we affix to them- such as to mean life by the term death, happiness by the term punishment, and a limited time by the.word perpetual; and, without apprising us of such a change in their meaning, say, "Perpetual death shall be the punishment of the wicked," what a deception would he practise upon us! His words, in our acceptation, would convey a tremendous thought; but, in his reserved sense, would mean no more than, "A limited life shall be the happiness of the wicked."

Once more on this topic. As nothing can be said to be revealed or made known by words which are not perfectly intelligible, so we find the sacred writers so conscious of this, that when they used any word which was not familiar to the readers whom they addressed, they immediately add, "Which being interpreted, signifies." If, then, those wri ters were accustomed to explain any word not familiar to their readers, does it not undeniably follow that they sup posed every word or allusion not so explained sufficiently plain already? And again, would not the same benevo lence and respect to the capacity and understanding of their readers, which induced them to explain some terms of very subordinate importance, such as "corban," "talitha cumi," "Aceldama," "Golgotha," &c. &c. have caused them to explain words of infinitely more importance, such as "repentance," "faith," "hope," "love," "justify," "cove nant," "baptism," "ambassador," "Son of God," "eternal life," "everlasting punishment," &c. if they had not sup posed such terms sufficiently plain in the common usage, and quite intelligible to all their readers. From these plain facts and arguments we deduce the following rule or direc. tion to all those who, under the guidance of Heaven, desire to understand these sacred books:- You are to under stand the words and sentences in these narratives, (and indeed in all the apostolic writings,) by the application of all those rules through which you arrive at the meaning of any other book or writing of the same antiquity.

Next to a regard to the commonly received sense of the words in these writings, nothing contributes more to the clear and certain understanding of them, than a knowledge of the design of the respective writers of each part of this volume. In one respect they all may be said to have but one design. Taking the ultimate happiness of man as the grand design of all revelation, it must be granted that all the inspired writers had this object in view in all that they wrote. It is, however, capable of the clearest proof; and, indeed, it is universally admitted that every writer who has written different parts of this book, had a specific design in each separate communication. For in the prosecution of one grand design, there are often a thousand items, distinct from each other, to accomplish; each of which may be the design of one particular effort. Now it requires not a moment's reflection to see that Paul had one design in writing to Timothy, another in writing to Phile mon, and another in writing to the congregation in Rome. It is granted by all critics, that when all grammatical rules fail to settle the meaning of any ambiguous word or sentence, a knowledge of the design of the writer or speaker will do it. Even when a writer's terms are badly selected, or improperly used, a knowledge of his design makes his meaning plain. Daily experience must convince us that we can more easily solve difficulties and correct mistakes in composition, by a knowledge of the design of the writer, than by any other means we possess. Indeed, the more weighty and important criticisms upon verbal inaccuracies, are predicated upon a knowledge of the design of the writer or speaker. If, then, a suitable regard be paid to the design of any speaker or writer, how ambig. uous and incorrect soever his words may be, we shall seldom, if ever, fail in understanding him. For example-little children, when they first begin to speak, have but few terms at command, and necessarily apply them very inaccurately; yet their nurses and attendants find little or no difficulty in understanding them. In regarding what they design to communicate, their language becomes as definite and precise as that of the Grecian or Roman orator.

To those who inquire how we are always to find out the design of a writer, we would just observe, that his design becomes apparent either from an express avowal of it, or from attention to a variety of circumstances connected with his writing, or from both. But this will in the sequel become sufficiently plain. Indeed, many readers appear to discover the design of a writer much sooner than they do the meaning or propriety of what he says.