English language. They were printed at Hamburg, Cologne, and subsequently at Worms; for Rome had still the control of England, and the first edition was so effectually destroyed, that only two copies of it are known to exist. The priests, however, overreached themselves; for they bought up Tyndale's Testaments at a high price, and publicly burned them, but by the operation unwittingly put Tyndale out of debt, and gave him the means to issue a larger and better edition. By treachery he was betrayed into the hands of the priests and put to death; but his work lives to-day as the basis of our English Bible. Almost simultaneously with his death was published the whole Bible, translated by Myles Coverdale, and soon after the (so-called) Matthew's Bible, published under that name by John Rogers, the martyr. The accession of Bloody Mary drove the Reformers from England, and gave rise to the Genevan Pible, so entitled from the fact that it was prepared and published at Geneva. After her death the leading dignitaries in the English Church, under Queen Elizabeth, took measures for the publication of an official translation, which went by the name of the Bishops' Bible. And toward the close of the sixteenth century, yielding to the pressure which had become too great to be longer resisted, the Roman Catholic authorities prepared and published the Douay and Rhenish versions already alluded to.

These various versions were, in God's providence, only preparations for the great work of rendering the Bible in an authorized manner into the English tongue. On the accession of James I., fifty-four of the first scholars of the kingdom, without regard to sect or party, eminent alike for learning and for piety, were appointed to make a new translation. They were engaged in the work for seven years-A. D. 1604-1611. Three years were occupied in individual investigations; three more in systematic and united work. Only forty-seven of the fifty-four scholars were actually engaged. They were divided into six classes-two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. The books of the Bible were divided among these classes. Each member of each class translated all the books intrusted to the class. Then the whole class met, and, after thorough revision, adopted a common text. Then that text was transmitted in succession to each of the other classes for revision. Then the text of the whole Bible, approved by the entire six classes, was submitted to the final revision of six elected delegates, with six consulting assistants, and their approved manuscript was placed in the skilful hands of Dr. Smith, distinguished for his knowledge of ancient languages, to examine and prepare it for the press. In their work, not only the former English versions, but the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch, were all consulted; and among the commission were not only men eminent for Biblical learning, but men distinguished as linguists, naturalists, antiquarians, and historians. A single significant circumstance indicates how desirous the translators were to bring the reader into contact with the very letter of the originals. Every word which had no direct representation in the original Hebrew or Greek was printed in italics, that it might be seen what the translators had supplied; and in the marginal readings was added further information where the minds of the translators were in doubt. Thus it will be seen that the English version of the Scriptures is really the fruit of a century of study; to which should be added the reflection that it was prepared at a time when the Reformation was yet fresh, and the Reformers, scarcely free from the trammels of Rome, had not yet begun to divide into different denominations. There probably had never been an era in the history of the Church so favorable for the preparation of an unsectarian translation of the Scriptures as that in which the King James version was prepared.

Still, though a remarkable translation, it is not claimed by any to have been inspired or to be infallible. The state of the original text was imperfect; the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew grammars was less accurate and thorough than it is now; the same

Greek and Hebrew word is not infrequently rendered by different English words, and the English language itself has undergone changes which require in the translation some modifications. These facts have at various times induced individual scholars to attempt further revisions of the whole or of parts of the Bible; and at length a voluntary commission has been organized, including representatives from the different Evangelical churches of England and America, and embracing the ablest Biblical scholars of both lands, to prepare a new and revised translation of the Bible. Their avowed purpose is, however, to accept the Authorized Version as a basis, and to introduce as few alterations in the translation as is consistent with fidelity to the original. These committees, for there are two, one on the Old Testament and one on the New Testament, are now engaged upon their work. The notes in this Commentary accompany the Authorized or King James Version.

VIII. Principles of Interpretation.—The Bible is not a substitute for thought; it is a stimulant to thinking. Its office is not merely to reveal necessary truth to the unlearned, but also to stir to the highest activity the faculties of all men. It is the storehouse of divine truth, whence the centuries gather their supply. It is the widow's cruse of oil, which, forever drawn upon, never grows less. Thus it abounds with apothegms, proverbs, germinant philosophies enwrapped in single seed texts, which yield their fruitfulness only to the careful and conscientious student. It treats of experiences which transcend thought; it deals with themes which lie beyond the utmost vision of the imagination. Its supreme teachings are hidden alike from the careless and superficial reader, and from the prejudiced and dogmatic controversialist; and are revealed only to the humble, earnest, and thoughtful student. For the assistance of such students, I embody here certain essential principles of interpretation, as they have been evolved in my own study of the New Testament, and have been applied and employed in its interpretation.

1. I have sought to secure the best Greek text. In general, I have followed that of Alford's New Testament; but wherever there appeared, on careful study, any adequate reason for varying from his conclusion, I have done so. Generally the external evidences should outweigh the internal; that is, we are generally to accept as the true text that which is indicated by the most ancient Greek manuscripts; rarely, if ever, may we justly set aside their concurrent testimony, because the reading they afford is difficult to interpret or to reconcile with other passages of Scripture.

2. I have sought, by a careful study of the original, to ascertain the exact literal meaning of the words. When that has been doubtful the translations of the best scholars, in Latin, German, and English, have been compared. In determining the exact meaning of a doubtful Greek word the New Testament usage is always, and the Septuagint usage is generally to be preferred to that of the classical writers. I have founded the notes on the English version, but my studies on the original Greek; and wherever a new translation seemed likely to convey more adequately or more freshly the meaning of the original, it has been given in the notes.

3. The original text and its meaning being understood, the student is next to master the general scope of the address or document which he is studying, and the aim of the speaker or writer. Texts are not to be taken out of their connection--still less to be woven into new connections and relations-to afford a basis for a doctrine, a ritual, or a discipline. The rule of legal interpretation is, in this respect, fundamental to a true interpretation of the Scripture, viz., that the parts of a document, law, or instrument are to be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. In many cases the neglect, on the part of Bible students, to put themselves en rapport with the sacred writer involves the writing

1 For a full account of the errors in our English version and the necessity for a new or revised translation, see The Revision of the New Testament, combining three papers by Lightfoot, Trench, and Ellicott respectively.

in needless obscurity. Thus the key to the famous parable of the laborers in the vineyard, in Matt., ch. 20, is given by the question of Peter in the preceding chapter, to which it is an answer; and the still more difficult parable of the unjust steward, in Luke, ch. 16, is relieved of much if not of all its difficulty, by observing the fact stated in verse 14, "the Pharisees also, which were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.” This hint that the parable is aimed at covetousness is the key to its right interpretation. 4. In studying the aim of the speaker or writer we may generally assume that he is to be understood as those to whom he spoke or wrote would have understood him. We are therefore to acquaint ourselves with their customs, their philosophies, their errors, their sins; we are to put ourselves in their place, and to hear and understand as they would have done. It is indeed often true that there is more in Scripture than they could have perceived, a fullness of truth which only time could interpret. But this deeper meaning is rarely if ever inconsistent with the less profound truth, which the contemporaries of Christ and the apostles might, and generally would, have apprehended from the discourse or the letter. The failure to apprehend and apply this principle has involved the familiar passage concerning the power of the keys in much of its mystery.'

5. Everything in the New Testament is written for a practical or spiritual purpose. It is not a book of abstruse metaphysics; its aim is always the development of a divine life in the soul. It is therefore essential to a correct apprehension of its wording that the student weigh well its practical or spiritual significance. A careful and prayerful pondering of the question, How is this passage to make men better, to bring them nearer to God, or to render their manifestations of the divine life more luminous? will often give the interpretation to passages which remain unsolved enigmas to unspiritual students. The spiritual and the critical study of the Scriptures must go together. The substitution of the critical for the spiritual deprives the New Testament of its soul; the substitution of the spiritual for the critical supplants the doctrine of the Word of God with the imagination of the commentator. Critical study has made great advance in modern times; but I have found no better spiritual interpreters of the New Testament than Chrysostom and Matthew Henry, i. e., none that realize more fully, and employ more constantly, the truth that the words of the New Testament are life. In this Commentary I have devoted little space to drawing doctrinal or ethical conclusions from the text; but I have sought always to ascertain its spiritual purpose, as a necessary condition of interpreting its true meaning.

6. According to the Roman Catholic doctrine the Bible is made for the church, and the church is its interpreter to the people. It is thus like a ship's chart, which the officers, not the passengers, are to consult. Protestant commentators have sometimes practically adopted this view, while theoretically repudiating it. Believing that the Bible is given by God for the people, that it is meant to be their illumination and their inspiration in the divine life, I think it safe to assume that those interpretations which are abstruse, involved, or obscure, those which require peculiar logical and metaphysical acumen, those which do not illumine but darken, do not inspire but deaden, which confuse the mind and benumb the soul, are always to be rejected. And of two interpretations, one of which is characteristically ingenious and the other is characteristically simple, the preference is always, other things being equal, to be given to the latter. Ingenuity in interpretation is a fatal encomium to bestow upon a commentator. Often a knowledge of ancient life is necessary to an understanding of Scripture; often some proficiency in divine truth; still more frequently some attainment in spiritual experience, without which its sublimest declarations are incomprehensible. But these attainments are open to the unlearned many as to the cultured few. Whenever after careful study I have not been 2 Matt. 13: 11-16; 1 Cor. 2: 7-16.

1 See Matt. 16: 19, note

able to find a simple and natural interpretation, I have contented myself with frankly pointing out the difficulty, stating briefly the principal interpretations of other commentators, and so leaving the passage for the elucidation of the future.

7. A reasonable regard is to be paid to the peculiar idiosyncrasies of the sacred writers and their peculiar circumstances. That Paul should inculcate faith, and James works, and John love; that Matthew should recount the miracles and the ethical instructions of Jesus Christ, and John his spiritual teachings, accords with the free spirit of the Gospel. The truth is divine; its expression is human. Some consideration, therefore, of the temperaments and mental characteristics of the writers, as indicated by their writings, and some allowance therefor is essential to the best elucidation of the truth. From Paul's expression in Rom. 9 : 3, "I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren," a literal interpretation has deduced the doctrine that we ought to be willing to be damned for the glory of God. The interpreter who thus ignores the ardency and warmth of Paul's nature, and his constant use of hyperbole ir the endeavor to give utterance to unutterable feeling, loses the truth which is really conveyed, a truth of experience, not of philosophy, the ardent desire for souls which should always characterize the disciple of Jesus Christ. A not less striking illustration of the consequence of ignoring or denying this principle of interpretation is afforded by the doctrine of the Real Presence. This doctrine is founded upon Christ's declaration, This is my body, but with singular if not deliberate inattention to the circumstances under which it was uttered, the symbolic language of the Passover for which it was a substitution, and the fact that Christ often clothed his teaching in poetic forms, or, in other words, was a true poet.

8. Subject to these principles, due consideration is to be paid to the parallel or the contrasted teachings of Scripture. In this Con mentary the material for a study of these is afforded by the full marginal references, and by those which are incorporated in the notes. Where the meaning of any writer is in doubt, it is always legitimate to examine other utterances of the same writer, and to interpret what is enigmatical by what is clear. It is also legitimate to examine the utterances of other writers of the same general school or faith, and employ the one in interpreting the other. It is customary, upon this principle, to refer to the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and to the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and their contemporaries, in order to ascertain the meaning of doubtful phrases in the United States Constitution. The substantial harmony of doctrine of the various writers of the New Testament, and the consistency of each writer, is to be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and that interpretation is to be preferred which sustains this presumption. For this reason it is true that in many cases Scripture is its own best interpreter. Thus Christ's paradoxical saying in Luke 14 : 26, "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother *** he cannot be my disciple," is to be interpreted in the light of the humanizing influence of his general teachings, and his example of filial love to his own mother.

9. But it is not legitimate to deny, limit, or interpret away the plain and unenigmatical declarations of a writer, in order to make them accord with his other utterances, or with the utterances of other writers. This has been often done in the predetermined endeavor to construct a system of theology and ethics out of the Bible. As in science it is the duty of the investigator to accept the plain facts of nature, to harmonize in his system such as he can, and to leave the rest to other investigators, denying nothing because he cannot understand it, so it is the duty of the Bible student to accept the plain facts of Revelation, to interpret in accord such as he can, and to leave such as do not adjust themselves to his system for the study of those that will come after him. It is my simple endeavor in this work to unfold the meaning of the New Testament, passage by passage,

1 See Section IV., on the Limits of Inspiration.

leaving to others to adjust the teachings in one harmonious whole. This is the work of the theologian, not of the commentator. The one constructs, the other simply gathers the materials. If there appear to be unreconciled views in the notes, there are also unreconciled (I do not say irreconcilable) teachings in the Scripture text.

10. Finally, there is no book that has been such a battle ground as the Bible. The great body of those who accept its teachings as adequate authority, agree in respect to the fundamental truths which it teaches; the chief differences in interpretation are between Protestant students and Roman Catholic theologians on the one hand, who deny that it is adequate without the church, and Rationalistic students on the other, who deny that it is authoritative. Still there are passages concerning the interpretation of which there are important and honest differences of opinion between Congregational, Presbyterian, Epis copalian, Baptist, and Methodist students. In respect to all the more important of such passages, where a reasonable room exists for a difference of interpretation, I have endeavored to set forth the different opinions briefly, usually indicating my own conclusion. Whether I have succeeded or not in laying aside denominational bias, it is certain that the student who wishes to get, unmixed, the teachings of the Scripture, must disabuse his mind of theological prepossessions. An unprejudiced mind is as essential to a fruitful study of God's word as a clear lens to the telescopic study of the stars. Next to the prejudices bred of sinful habits and affections, those which spring from a determination to find in the Bible a support for a previously accepted system of doctrine, or a means of assault upon a system prejudged, are the most fatal to a true understanding of the Divine Word. We must approach that Word like little children, in that we must approach it, as they their early studies, with unbiased minds, ready to receive whatever our inspired Instructor has to teach us.

That I have always succeeded in applying these principles I do not claim; to those that would build their religious faith and life upon the Bible, and the Bible only, they are none the less sincerely commended, as the conditions of a successful study and interpretation of the Word of God.

PART II. THE GOSPELS.

1. Relation of the Gospels to Each Other.-The word Gospel is composed of two Anglo-Saxon words, God spel, meaning good news. It is a translation of a Greek word euaggelion (εvayyéñ:ov). From a cognate word is derived our English word Evangelist, who is, literally, a messenger or herald of good news. The title, which is commonly given to each of the first four books of the New Testament, is interpreted by, and perhaps derived from, the announcement by the angels to the shepherds of the birth of Jesus Christ: "Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy." The Gospel is, then,

1

the announcement to the world of good news, namely, the advent, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of One whose life is our example, and in whose death is our pardon, and whose perpetual spiritual presence is the source and the assurance of spiritual life, both here and in the hereafter, to all those who accept him. Thus the word Gospel accords with and carries out the idea embodied in the title New Testament, as explained above.2

A very marked difference is noticeable between the first three Gospels and the last. This difference is both external and internal.

Matthew and Mark narrate chiefly Christ's ministry in Galilee, with only a brief account of teachings in Perea. Luke narrates also the events and teachings in Galilee, but adds

3

2

1 Luke 2: 10...... See Part I., Section I...... 3 Matt., ch. 19:; 20: 16; Mark 10: 1-31.