{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42514/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42514","id":"gutenberg_42514","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42514","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. English -- History","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n LECTURES ON BIBLE REVISION.\n\n With an Appendix\n\n CONTAINING THE PREFACES TO THE CHIEF HISTORICAL\n EDITIONS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.\n\n\n BY SAMUEL NEWTH, M.A., D.D.,\n PRINCIPAL, AND LEE PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, NEW COLLEGE, LONDON;\n MEMBER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY OF REVISERS.\n\n\n LONDON:\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON,\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n MDCCCLXXXI.\n\n [_All rights reserved._]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe following work is especially intended for Sunday-school and\nBible-class teachers, and for such others as from any cause may be unable\nto consult many books or to read lengthened treatises. It has seemed to me\nto be of great importance that those who are engaged in the responsible\nservice of teaching the young, and to whom the Bible is the constant\nsource of appeal, should be able both to take up an intelligent position\nin regard to the new revision of the English Scriptures, and to meet the\nvarious enquiries that will be made respecting it by those about them. I\nhave therefore endeavoured to provide for their use, in a compendious\nform, a survey of the general argument for revision, and of the facts\nwhich exhibit the present duty of Christian men in relation thereto. In\nthe execution of this purpose it has been necessary to direct attention to\nthe chief stages in the growth of the English Bible, but this has been\ndone only so far as seemed to be requisite for the illustration of the\nmain argument. Those who may desire to study this part of the subject more\nat length are referred to the full and interesting volumes of Dr. Eadie,\nor to the convenient manuals published by Dr. Moulton and by Dr.\nStoughton. Such as may wish to investigate more minutely the internal\nhistory of the Authorized Version will find Dr. Westcott\u2019s _General View\nof the History of the English Bible_ a most trustworthy and invaluable\nguide.\n\nIn the Appendix I have brought together the prologues or prefaces to the\nchief historical editions of the English Bible. Some of these are not of\neasy access to ordinary readers, while all are of deep and lasting\ninterest. They will abundantly repay a careful perusal. The reader will\nthereby, more readily than in any other way, come into personal contact\nwith the noble men to whose self-denying labours our country and the world\nare so deeply indebted; will learn what was the spirit which animated\nthem, and what were the aims and methods of their toil; and, in addition\nto much wise instruction respecting the study of the word of God, will\nlearn how the deepest love and reverence for the Bible are not only\ntolerant of changes in its outward form, but will indeed imperatively\ndemand them whenever needed for the more faithful exhibition of the truth\nit enshrines.\n\nIt has formed no part of my purpose either to exhibit or to justify the\nchanges which have been made in the revision in which I have had the\nhonour and the responsibility of sharing. The former will best be learnt\nfrom the perusal of the Revised Version itself; the latter it would be\nunbecoming in me to undertake. The ultimate decision respecting them must\nrest upon the concurrent judgment of the wisest and most learned; and they\nwho are the most competent to judge will be the least hasty in giving\njudgment, for they best know how difficult and delicate is the\ntranslator\u2019s task, and how manifold, and sometimes how subtle, are the\nvarious considerations which determine his rendering. Nor indeed would any\nsuch attempt be possible within the limits I have here assigned to myself.\nTo be properly done it would require an appeal to special learning which\nI have no right to assume in my readers, and to habits of scholarly\ninvestigation which I may not presuppose. To the bulk of my readers the\none justification for the changes they will discover in the Revised New\nTestament must practically rest in the fact that those who have for more\nthan ten years conscientiously and diligently laboured in this matter, and\nwho have with such anxious care revised and re-revised their work, have\nbeen constrained to the conclusion that in this way they would most\nfaithfully and clearly present the sense of the sacred Word. May He whose\nword it is graciously accept their service, and deign to use it for His\nglory.\n\n NEW COLLEGE,\n _April 26, 1881_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n Page\n\n LECTURE I. SUBSTANCE AND FORM 1\n\n LECTURE II. THE GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE 11\n\n LECTURE III. THE FURTHER GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE 25\n\n LECTURE IV. THE REVISION OF 1611. THE SO-CALLED AUTHORIZED VERSION 39\n\n LECTURE V. REVISION A RECURRING NECESSITY 51\n\n LECTURE VI. ON THE IMPERFECT RENDERINGS INTRODUCED OR RETAINED IN\n THE REVISION OF 1611 61\n\n LECTURE VII. ON THE ORIGINAL TEXTS AS KNOWN IN 1611, AND AS NOW\n KNOWN 79\n\n LECTURE VIII. THE PREPARATIONS FOR FURTHER REVISION MADE DURING\n THE PAST TWO CENTURIES 91\n\n LECTURE IX. THE REVISION OF 1881 105\n\n\n APPENDIX.\n\n (A.) PURVEY\u2019S PROLOGUE TO THE WYCLIFFITE BIBLE. CH. XV. 129\n\n (B.) TYNDALE\u2019S PROLOGUES 137\n\n (C.) COVERDALE\u2019S PROLOGUE TO HIS BIBLE OF 1535 160\n\n (D.) PREFACE TO THE GENEVAN BIBLE. 1560 172\n\n (E.) PREFACE TO THE BISHOPS\u2019 BIBLE. 1568 177\n\n (F.) PREFACE TO THE REVISION OF 1611 199\n\n (G.) THE REVISERS OF 1568 235\n\n (H.) THE REVISERS OF 1611 237\n\n\n\n\nLECTURES ON BIBLE REVISION.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\n_SUBSTANCE AND FORM._\n\n\nThere are probably devout persons not a few in whose minds the mere\nsuggestion of a Revision of the Scriptures arouses a feeling of mingled\npain and surprise. In that Bible which they received from their fathers in\nthe trustful confidence of childhood, they have heard the voice of God\nspeaking to their souls. Not from any testimony given to them by others,\nbut from their own lengthened and varied experience of it, they know it to\nbe the Father\u2019s gift unto His children. It has quickened, guided, and\nstrengthened them, as no human words had ever done, answering the deepest\ncravings of their nature, stimulating them to endeavours after a nobler\nlife, and enkindling within them the confidence of a sure and blessed\nhope. That it is from heaven, and not from men, they know, not because of\nwhat has been told them, but from what they themselves have seen and\nlearnt; and they need no further evidence of its inspiration than the fact\nthat it has opened their eyes to a knowledge of themselves, and to a\nperception of the loveliness of Christ. That any should dare to meddle\nwith a book so precious and so honoured, seems to them a sacrilegious act,\nand a Revision of the Holy Scriptures is to them a presumptuous attempt to\nimprove upon the handiwork of God.\n\nIn this feeling there is much with which every Christian man will warmly\nsympathize; but there is in it also something that calls for correction\nand instruction. There is need here, as elsewhere, of careful thought and\nself-discipline, lest, by confounding things that differ, we transfer our\nreverence for what is God-given and divine to what is only human, and\ntherefore fallible. A little consideration will suffice to show that, in\nsuch a matter as this, it is peculiarly important to distinguish between\nsubstance and form, between what is essential and permanent and what is\naccidental and variable. By the substance of the Bible we mean the\nstatements which, in various ways and diverse manners, it presents to our\nthoughts; the precepts and the promises, the histories and the prophecies,\nthe doctrines and the prayers, the truths about God and about man, through\nwhich our minds are instructed, our consciences enlightened, and our\nhearts established by grace. By the form of the Bible, we mean the signs\nor sounds by which the various statements contained in the Bible are\npresented to us, and which are, as it were, the channel through which the\ntruths it teaches are conveyed to our minds. It will be obvious upon the\nleast consideration, that the kind and degree of reverence which it is\nright to entertain towards the form of Scripture, is very different from\nthat which it behoves us to cherish for the substance of Scripture.\nRespecting the latter, it is fitting to watch with all jealousy that no\nman add unto it or take from it; it is precious for its own sake. Not so,\nhowever, with the former; its worth is not in itself, but only in that\nwhich it enshrines. The two sentences--\n\n\u201cThis is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ\nJesus came into the world to save sinners,\u201d\n\n\u201cGwir yw\u2019r gair ac yn haeddu pob derbyniad, ddyfod Crist Iesu i\u2019r byd i\ngadw pechaduriaid,\u201d\n\nare very different in form, whether judged by the eye or the ear, and yet\nthe truth conveyed by the former to an Englishman, or by the latter to a\nWelshman, is essentially the same. And although one who had learnt to\nprize that truth under either of the forms here given would naturally\ncherish also the very words by which it had been taught him, his reverence\nfor the truth would impel him to adopt the other form in preference\nwhenever that might be the better instrument for conveying it to another.\nChanges, therefore, in the form of Scripture may be lawful and right.\n\nMoreover, as a matter of history, the form of Scripture has, from the very\nbeginning, been passing through a continued succession of changes, and\nwith this fact it is most important that the Bible student should\nfamiliarize himself. These changes may be arranged under two general\nclasses.\n\nOne class of changes has arisen out of the perishable nature of the\ndocuments, of which the Bible at the first consisted.\n\nIt is scarcely needful to state that we do not now possess the original\ncopies of any of the books of the Old or the New Testament. Even while\nthese were still in existence it was necessary to transcribe them in order\nthat many persons in many places might possess and read them. In the work\nof transcription, however careful the transcriber might have been, errors\nof various kinds necessarily arose; some from mistaking one letter for\nanother; some from failure of memory, if the scribe were writing from\ndictation; and some from occasional oversight, if he were writing from a\ncopy before him; some from momentary lapses of attention, when his hand\nwrote on without his guidance; and some from an attempt to correct a real\nor fancied error in the work of his predecessor. If any of my readers will\nmake an experiment by copying a passage of some length from any printed\nbook, and then hand over his manuscript to a friend with a request to copy\nit, and afterwards pass on the copy so made to a third, and so on in\nsuccession through a list of ten or a dozen persons, each copying the\nmanuscript of the one before him in the list, he will, on comparing the\nlast with the printed book, have a vivid and interesting illustration of\nthe number and kind of variations that arise in the process of\ntranscription. In the case, therefore, of even very early copies of any of\nthe books of the Scriptures, some sort of revision would become necessary,\nand the deeper the reverence for the book, the more obligatory would the\nduty of making such a revision be felt to be, and the more earnestly and\nreadily would it be undertaken. So long as the original copies were in\nexistence and accessible this work of revision would be comparatively easy\nand simple. It would call only for the ability to make careful and patient\ncomparison. But when the originals could no longer be appealed to, and\nwhen, moreover, successive transcription had gone on through many\ngenerations, the work would become much more complex and difficult,\ncalling for much knowledge and much persevering research, for a mind\nskilled in the appreciation of evidence, and able to judge calmly between\nconflicting testimony. At the same time, the need for revision would to\nsome extent be greater than before. I say to some extent, because the\nnatural multiplication of errors arising from successive transcription\nthrough many centuries, has in the case of the Scriptures been very\nlargely checked. The special reverence felt for this book beyond other\nbooks led to the exercise of special care in the preparation of Biblical\nmanuscripts, and special precautions were taken to guard them as far as\npossible from any variation. Owing to these and other causes a larger\nmeasure of uniformity is found in the later than in the earlier\nmanuscripts now extant.\n\nA second class of changes in the form of the Scriptures has arisen from\nthe natural growth and development of language.\n\nThe earliest Bible of which we have any historical knowledge was in the\nform of a roll, made probably of skins, containing the five books of\nMoses, and written in the Hebrew language. This was described as \u201cthe Book\nof the Law of the Lord given by Moses\u201d (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14); more briefly\nas \u201cthe Book of the Law of Moses\u201d (Joshua viii. 31; 2 Kings xiv. 6; Neh.\nviii. 1), or as \u201cthe Book of the Law of God\u201d (Neh. viii. 8); and more\nbriefly still as \u201cthe Book of the Law\u201d (2 Kings xxii. 8), or as \u201cthe Book\nof Moses.\u201d (Ezra vi. 18; Mark xii. 26.) Two other collections of sacred\nbooks were subsequently added, known respectively as the Prophets and the\nHoly Writings, the former comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets; the latter\ncomprising the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon, Ruth,\nLamentations, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. It is\nin this order, we may note in passing, that the books of the Old Testament\nare still arranged in our Hebrew Bibles.\n\nBefore the completion of the canon of the Old Testament the language of\nthe Jews began to exhibit evidences of change, and through their\nintercourse with the various peoples of Mesopotamia (or Aram) the later\nbooks show a distinct tendency towards Aramaic forms and idioms. This\ntendency, already apparent at the time of the return from the Captivity,\nwas accelerated by the political events which followed. During the hundred\nand eighty years and more which intervened between the Restoration of the\nTemple, B.C. 516, and the overthrow of Darius Codomannus, B.C. 331, Jud\u00e6a\nwas a portion of that province of the Persian empire, in which the Aramaic\nwas the prevalent dialect. The ancient Hebrew gradually ceased to be the\nlanguage of the Jews in common life, and, before the time of our Lord, had\nbeen supplanted by the language of their Eastern neighbours.\n\nWith the decline of the Hebrew language there arose amongst the Jews the\nclass of men known as Scribes, whose primary function was that of\npreparing copies of the Scriptures, and of guarding the sacred text from\nthe intrusion of errors. Owing to their great zeal for the preservation of\nthe letter of Scripture, and to their natural tendency to hold fast to the\nhonour and influence which their special knowledge and skill gave to\nthem, they did not, when Hebrew ceased to be intelligible to the common\npeople, set themselves to the task of giving them the Bible in a form\nwhich they could understand; but, magnifying their office overmuch,\nassumed the position of authoritative teachers and expounders of the Law.\nScholars might still study for themselves the ancient Bible, but for the\npeople at large the form which the Scriptures now practically assumed was\nthat of the spoken utterances of the Scribes.\n\nHow imperfect and unsatisfactory this must have been is obvious; and the\nmore so as these teachers did not content themselves with simply rendering\nthe ancient text into a familiar form, but intermingled with it a mass of\nhuman traditions that obscured and sometimes contradicted its meaning. It\nwould have been a great gain for the people of Jud\u00e6a if their regard for\nthe outward form of their Scriptures had been less extreme and more\nenlightened, and if competent men amongst them had ventured so to revise\nthe ancient books that their fellow countrymen might read in their own\ntongue the wonderful works and words of God.\n\nThis wiser course was adopted in that larger Jud\u00e6a which lay outside of\nPalestine. The Jews scattered through Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, and\nother parts of the empire of Alexander and his successors, were less\nrigidly conservative than were the residents of Jud\u00e6a, and for their use a\ntranslation into Greek was made in the latter part of the third century\nbefore Christ. This is the version known as the Septuagint.[1] It is\nprobable, both on general grounds and from internal evidence, that the\nPentateuch was the portion first translated, and that subsequently, though\nafter no very long interval of time, the other portions were translated\nalso. It is quite certain that the whole was in circulation in the middle\nof the second century before Christ. Various tales respecting the origin\nof this translation got spread abroad.[2] These are largely due to the\nvivid imagination of their authors. They may, however, be taken as\nevidence of the high esteem in which this version was held; and we shall\nprobably not err in concluding from them that Alexandria was the city in\nwhich it originated. During, then, the two centuries that preceded the\nAdvent, the Bible, as used by the great majority of its readers in various\nparts of the world, had assumed an entirely different form from that in\nwhich it at first appeared. It was in Greek, and not in Hebrew, and it\nincluded several additional works; those, namely, which are now called\ncollectively the Apocrypha. The use of this translation amongst the\nextra-Palestinian Jews contributed largely to the spread of Christianity;\nand to many amongst the earliest Christian churches, and for many\ngenerations, it was still the form under which they studied the books of\nthe Old Testament.\n\nAt the time of our Lord and His Apostles, Greek was the language which\nmost widely prevailed through the Roman Empire. It was the ordinary\nlanguage of intercourse amongst all the peoples that had formerly been\nsubjugated by Grecian arms, and was read and spoken by many in Rome\nitself. It was in this language, and not in the sacred language of the\nancient Church, that the books of the New Testament were written; and the\nlesson was thereby emphatically taught us that the Bible was for man, and\nnot man for the Bible; that the form was subordinate to the substance, and\nshould be so modified, as occasions occur, that it may best minister to\nthe spiritual wants of mankind.\n\nAs years passed on Christianity spread into the rural parts of the\ndistricts already occupied, where Greek was but little known, and into new\nregions beyond, where that language had never prevailed. This called for\nfurther changes in the form of Scripture, and in the second century of our\nera both the Old and New Testaments were translated for the use of the\nnumerous Christians in Northern and Eastern Syria into that form of\nAramaic which is known as Syriac. This language--the Syro-Aramaic--differs\nby dialectic peculiarities from the Palestinian Aramaic. In its earliest\nforms, however, we have probably the nearest representation we can now\nhope to obtain of the native language of the people amongst whom our Lord\nlived and laboured.\n\nAbout the same time also the Scriptures began to be translated into Latin\nfor the use of the Churches of North Africa, and there is good reason for\nbelieving that in the last quarter of the second century the entire\nScriptures in Latin were largely circulated throughout that region. This\nwas what is termed the Old Latin version. It was the Bible as possessed\nand used by Tertullian and Cyprian, and subsequently, in a revised form,\nby Augustine. In the Old Testament this version was made, not from Hebrew,\nbut from the Greek of the Septuagint, and so was but the translation of a\ntranslation.\n\nFrom Africa this Bible passed into Italy. Here a certain rudeness of\nstyle, arising from its provincial origin, awakened ere long a desire to\nsecure a version that should be at once more accurate and more grateful to\nItalian ears. Various attempts at a revision of the Latin were\nconsequently made. One of these, known as the Itala, or the Italic\nversion, is highly commended by Augustine. In the year A.D. 383, Damasus,\nthe then Bishop of Rome, troubled by the manifold variations that existed\nbetween different copies of the Latin Scriptures then in circulation,\nused his influence with one of the greatest scholars of the age, Eusebius\nHieronymus, to undertake the laborious and responsible task of a thorough\nrevision of the Latin text. Hieronymus, or, as he is commonly termed,\nJerome, at once set himself to the task, and his revised New Testament\nappeared in A.D. 385. He also once and again revised the Old Latin version\nof the Book of Psalms, and subsequently the remaining books of the Old\nTestament, carefully comparing them with the Greek of the Septuagint, from\nwhich they had been derived. In A.D. 389, when in his sixtieth year, he\nentered upon the further task of a new translation of the books of the Old\nTestament from the original Hebrew, and completed it in the year A.D. 404.\nOut of the various labours of Jerome arose the Bible which is commonly\nknown as the Vulgate. Jerome\u2019s translation of the Old Testament from the\nHebrew was not made at the instance of any ecclesiastical authority, and\nthe old prejudice in favour of the Septuagint led many still to cling to\nthe earlier version. Only very gradually did the new translation make its\nway; and not until the time of Gregory the Great, at the close of the\nsixth century, did it receive the explicit sanction of the head of the\nRoman Church.[3] In the case of the Psalter, the old translation was never\nsuperseded.\n\nThe Vulgate is thus a composite work. It contains (1) Jerome\u2019s translation\nfrom the Hebrew of all the books of the Old Testament, except the Psalms;\n(2) Jerome\u2019s revision of the Old Latin version of the Psalms, that version\nbeing, as stated above, made from the Septuagint; (3) the Old Latin\nversion of the Apocrypha unrevised, save in the books of Judith and\nTobit; (4) Jerome\u2019s revised New Testament, which in the Gospels was very\ncareful and complete, and might almost be termed a new translation, though\nhe himself repudiated any such claim.\n\nDuring many centuries the Vulgate was the only form in which the Bible was\naccessible to the people of Western Europe, and it was the Bible from\nwhich in turn the earliest Bibles of our own and other countries were\nimmediately derived. It will thus be seen that the history of the Bible\nhas from the beginning been a history of revision. Only so could they who\nloved the Bible fulfil the trust committed to them; only so could the\nBible be a Bible for mankind.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\n_THE GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE._\n\n\nThe English Bible, more than any other of the forms in which the\nScriptures have been used by Christian men, has been a growth. It is not\nthe production of one man, or of one epoch. It has come down to us through\na long series of transformations, and it is the result of the continuous\nendeavours of a succession of earnest labourers to give to their\nfellow-countrymen a faithful representation of the word of God.\n\nAt what date, and by whom, the Scriptures were first set forth in a form\nwhich was intelligible to the people of this country is not known. In the\nearliest period respecting which we have any clear information, the Latin\nVulgate was the Bible of the clergy and of public worship. Some portions\nonly were rendered into the language of the common people. Few of them\nprobably were able to read, and this may explain why it was that the\nPsalms were especially selected for translation. They could be more\nreadily committed to memory, and be more easily wedded to music. But\nwhatever the reason, the Psalter is the earliest English Bible of which we\nhave any definite knowledge. It was translated quite early in the eighth\ncentury, both by Aldhelm, sometime Abbot of Malmesbury, but at his death,\nin A.D. 709,[4] Bishop of Sherborne, and by Guthlac,[5] the hermit of\nCroyland, who died A.D. 714.[6] A few years later, A.D. 735, the Venerable\nBede translated the gospel of John, dying, as related in the touching\nnarrative of his disciple Cuthbert, in the very act of completing it. In\nthe following century King Alfred greatly encouraged the work of\ntranslation, and it is to this period that we are probably to attribute\nthose Anglo-Saxon gospels which have come down to us.[7] Towards the close\nof the tenth century, or early in the eleventh, the first seven books of\nthe Old Testament were partly translated and partly epitomised by \u00c6lfric,\nArchbishop of Canterbury. A verse from each of these two last-mentioned\nworks will show of what sort was the form of these early English Bibles,\nand will at the same time illustrate one of the causes which from time to\ntime have rendered the task of revision an imperative duty.\n\nThe Anglo-Saxon gospel presents Matthew v. 3 thus:\n\n\u201cEadige sind \u00f0a gastlican \u00feearfan, for\u00f0am hyra ys heofena rice.\u201d\n\nAnd in \u00c6lfric\u2019s Heptateuch, Genesis xliii. 29 reads:\n\n\u201c\u00d0a josep geseah his gemeddredan bro\u00feor beniamin \u00fea cwae\u00fe he, is \u00feis se\ncnapa \u00fee ge me foresaedon and eft he cwae\u00fe god gemilt sige \u00fee sunu min.\u201d\n\nIn the course of time our language gradually changed from the form\nexhibited in these quotations to that seen in the writings of Chaucer and\nWycliffe. During the earlier part of this transition period the Old\nEnglish (Anglo-Saxon) Scriptures continued in use; but towards the middle\npart they seem to have become partially unintelligible, and attempts were\nconsequently made to give the Scriptures to the people in the new form of\nlanguage then prevalent, and which is known as the Early English. It has\nbeen asserted that the entire Scriptures were issued in this form; but for\nthis there is no satisfactory evidence. We have certain knowledge only of\na poetical version of the Psalms (the \u201cOrmulum\u201d), written about the close\nof the twelfth century; of a poetical narration of the principal events\nrecorded in Genesis and Exodus, written about the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury; and of two prose verses of the Psalms, both belonging to the\nearly part of the fourteenth century, one by William de Schorham, vicar of\nChart-Sutton, in Kent, and the other by Richard Rolle, of Hampole, near\nDoncaster. In the version of the former the first two verses of Psalm i.\nare thus given:\n\n\u201cBlessed be the man that \u021ded nou\u021dt in the counseil of wicked: ne stode\nnou\u021dt in the waie of sin\u021deres, ne sat nou\u021dt in fals jugement. Ac hijs\nwylle was in the wylle of oure Lord; and he schal thenche in hijs lawe\nboth da\u021de and ny\u021dt.\u201d\n\nThe year 1382 is the earliest date at which it can with any confidence be\naffirmed that the entire Scriptures existed in the English language.[8]\nDuring several years previous to this date Wycliffe and his associates\nhad in various ways been working towards the accomplishment of this\nresult. But it was with some measure of secrecy, as of men who apprehended\ndanger from the attempt. This renders it difficult to determine with\nprecision the date when the work was completed, and what was the part\nwhich each of the joint labourers had in the common task. It is beyond\ncontroversy that the chief place of honour is due to John Wycliffe. His\nname is so closely and constantly associated with this Bible by those who\nrefer to it in the times immediately succeeding, as to put it beyond all\ndoubt that it is to his influence our country is mainly indebted for this\nunspeakable boon. The translation of the New Testament was probably in\nwhole or in large part the work of Wycliffe himself. That of the Old\nTestament, down to the twentieth verse of the third chapter of Baruch, is\ncredibly assigned, upon the authority of a MS. in the Bodleian library, to\nNicholas de Hereford, one of the leaders of the Lollard party in Oxford.\nIt is probable that this Bible was somewhat hurriedly completed, and that\neither the translators were prevented by circumstances from reviewing\ntheir work before issuing it, or, with the natural eagerness of men\nengaged in a first attempt, they did not allow themselves time for doing\nso. Possibly also they may themselves have regarded it but as a sort of\nfirst draft of their work, and the variations they had found to exist in\ntheir copies of the Vulgate had revealed to them the need of further\nlabour before they could satisfactorily complete the task they had\nundertaken.\n\nWycliffe died in December, 1384; but either before his death, or shortly\nafterward, a revision of this work was commenced by one of his most\nintimate friends, John Purvey, who, having resided with Wycliffe during\nthe latter part of his life, may be reasonably credited with acting herein\nunder a full knowledge of the wishes and aims of his honoured teacher.\n\nThe course pursued by Purvey, as described by himself in his prologue,[9]\nis interesting and instructive, setting forth, as it does, most distinctly\nthe main lines upon which any work of Biblical revision must proceed. His\nfirst step was to collect old copies of the Vulgate, and the works of\nlearned men who had expounded and translated the same; and then, by\nexamination and comparison, to remove as far as he could the errors which\nin various ways had crept into the Latin text. His second step was to\nstudy afresh the text so revised, and endeavour to arrive at a correct\napprehension of its general meaning. His third was to consult the best\nauthorities within his reach for the explanation of obscure terms, and of\nspecially difficult passages. His fourth was to translate as clearly as\npossible, and then submit the same to the joint correction of competent\npersons; or, to use his own words, \u201cto translate as clearly as he could to\nthe sentence, and to have many good fellows, and cunning, at the\ncorrecting of the translation.\u201d By the co-operation of this band of\nskilful helpers the work was completed about the year 1388, and copies of\nit were rapidly multiplied.[10] It became, in fact, the accepted form of\nthe Wycliffite version.\n\nBy a comparison of the two verses of Psalm i., given above, with the forms\nin which they appeared in the two Wycliffe Bibles, the reader will be able\nin some degree to estimate the growth of our language, and will also\nunderstand how painstaking and reverent was the care taken by these\n\u201cfaithful men\u201d that in this sacred work they might offer of their very\nbest.\n\nIn the earlier Wycliffe version the verses read thus:\n\n\u201cBlisful the man that went not awei in the counseil of unpitouse, and in\nthe wei off sinful stod not, and in the cha\u021der of pestilence sat not. But\nin the lawe of the Lord his wil; and in the lawe of hym he shal sweteli\nthenke dai and ny\u021dt.\u201d\n\nIn Purvey\u2019s revised version they read:\n\n\u201cBlessid _is_ the man that \u021dede not in the councel of wickid men; and\nstood not in the weie of synneris, and sat not in the chaier of\npestilence. But his wille _is_ in the lawe of the Lord; and he schal\nbithenke in the lawe of hym dai and ny\u021dt.\u201d\n\nThis Bible, so long as it remained in use as the Bible of English people,\nexisted, it should be remembered, only in a manuscript form.[11] The chief\npoint, however, to be noticed here is, that with all its excellences, and\nunspeakable as was its worth, it was but the translation of a translation.\nNeither Wycliffe nor his associates had access to the Hebrew original of\nthe Old Testament; and although some copies of the Greek New Testament\nwere then to be found in England, there is no reason to believe that\nPurvey or his friends were able to make any use of them. They were,\nindeed, aware that the Latin of the common text did not always faithfully\nrepresent the Hebrew; but their knowledge of this fact was second-hand,\ngathered chiefly from the commentaries of Nicholas de Lyra, a writer\nwhose works were held in high repute by Bible students in that age. They\ndid not, therefore, venture to correct these places, but contented\nthemselves with noting in the margin, \u201cWhat the Ebru hath, and how it is\nundurstondun.\u201d This, Purvey states, he has done most frequently in the\nPsalter, which \u201cof alle oure bokis discordith most fro Ebru.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe third stage in the growth of the English Scriptures is brought before\nus by the interesting series of printed Bibles that issued from the\nprinting press in the reign of Henry VIII.\n\nAfter the death of Wycliffe the efforts of the Popish party to crush the\nLollards had increased in violence, and various enactments were passed\nproscribing the use of the Bible which bore his name. An act, passed in\nthe second parliament of Henry V., went still further, and declared that\nall who read the Scriptures in their native tongue should forfeit land,\ncattle, life, and goods, they and their heirs for ever. Notwithstanding\nthese repressive measures, copies of the Wycliffe Bible were still made\nand read in secret. This could be done only with great risk and\ndifficulty, and none but persons of some wealth could afford the expense\nof a complete copy. Those in humbler positions deemed themselves happy if\nthey could secure a single book, or even a few leaves. Moreover, through\nthe growing changes of the language, many passages were becoming very\nobscure to ordinary readers. During the hundred years which followed after\nthe issuing of the law just referred to, two important events had\nhappened; namely, the invention of printing,[12] and the German\nReformation. Both of these had a large influence in stimulating the\nfriends of the Bible to new efforts in revising it for popular use.\n\nThe leader of this movement in our own country was William Tyndale, who,\nin the year 1525, printed on the Continent, whither he had been driven by\nthe opposition which beset him at home, the first edition of his New\nTestament, translated from the Greek. A second and revised edition,\n\u201cdylygently corrected and compared with the Greke,\u201d was printed at\nAntwerp, and published in November, 1534; and a third and final edition\nwas published in the early part of 1535, in the May of which year he was\narrested and committed to the castle of Vilvorde, near Brussels. Of other\nparts of the Scriptures Tyndale was able to publish only the Pentateuch\n(1530 or 1531) and the book of Jonah (1534). On the sixth day of October,\n1536, he was led to the stake. He was there strangled and his body burnt.\n\nJust twelve months before the martyrdom of Tyndale, the first printed\nedition of the entire Scriptures in the English language was issued from\nthe press of Jacob van Meteren, at Antwerp. The privilege and honour of\naccomplishing this memorable work belongs to Miles Coverdale, at that time\na poor scholar, dependent upon the patronage of Thomas Cromwell and\nothers, though subsequently, for a short period in the reign of Edward\nVI., Bishop of Exeter. The first edition of his Bible was \u201cprynted in the\nyear of our Lord MDXXXV., and fynished the fourthe day of October.\u201d\nCoverdale had been moved to the undertaking by his own deep sense of the\nneeds of his country, and by the earnest appeals addressed to him by\nothers. Through his modesty of disposition, and his lowly estimate of his\nown abilities, he would have declined the task, but the urgency of his\nfriends prevailed. The expenses also of the preparation and publication of\nthe work were met by the liberality of some of them. In his prologue he\nsays, \u201cIt was neither my labour nor desire to have this work put in my\nhand; nevertheless it grieved me that other nations should be more\nplenteously provided for with the Scripture in their mother tongue than\nwe; therefore, when I was instantly required, though I could not do as\nwell as I would, I thought it my duty to do my best, and that with a good\nwill;\u201d[13] and in the dedication to the king, prefixed to some of the\ncopies, he says, \u201cAs the Holy Ghost moved other men to do the cost hereof,\nso was I boldened in God to labour in the same.\u201d According to the\nstatement on the title-page this was not a translation made from the\noriginal texts,[14] but was faithfully and truly translated out of the\n\u201cDouche and Latyn in to Englishe.\u201d In the dedication he states that he\nhad, \u201cwith a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated this out of\nfive sundry interpreters,\u201d and in his prologue he explains further, that\nto help him in his work he had used \u201csundry translations, not only in\nLatin, but also of the Dutch interpreters;\u201d and he is careful, further, to\nexplain that he did not \u201cset forth this special translation\u201d \u201cas a\nreprover and despiser of other men\u2019s translations,\u201d but \u201clowly and\nfaithfully have I followed mine interpreters, and that under correction.\u201d\nThe five interpreters to whom Coverdale thus refers were probably the\nVulgate, the Latin version of Pagninus, Luther\u2019s translation, the Zurich\nBible, and Tyndale\u2019s New Testament and Pentateuch. Though the volume was\ndedicated to the king, and though Coverdale was backed by powerful\npatrons, this Bible was not published with a royal license. No direct\nattempt, however, was made to suppress it. In the following year (1536) it\nwas virtually condemned by the members of Convocation, who prayed the king\nthat he would \u201cgrant unto his subjects of the laity the reading of the\nBible in the English tongue, and that a new translation of it be made for\nthat end and purpose.\u201d But notwithstanding this two new editions of\nCoverdale\u2019s Bible were printed in London in 1537, and on the title-page of\nboth of these there appeared the words, \u201cSet forth with the kynge\u2019s moost\ngracious licence.\u201d\n\nIn the same year, 1537, and probably in the earlier part of it, there was\nissued in London another Bible, which also bore upon its title-page the\ninscription, \u201cSet forth with the kinge\u2019s most gracyous lycence.\u201d[15] This\nBible, commonly known as Matthew\u2019s Bible, was, it is now generally\nbelieved, prepared for the press by John Rogers, who suffered martyrdom at\nSmithfield, under the Marian persecution. In the New Testament and\nPentateuch he agrees substantially with Tyndale\u2019s version. Of the other\nbooks of the Old Testament, a portion is obviously taken from Coverdale,\nthe remaining part, Joshua to Chronicles, has been thought with good\nreason to be the work of Tyndale. It is known that Tyndale, after the\npublication of his Pentateuch, continued to labour at the translation of\nthe Old Testament. In a letter written during his imprisonment he prays to\nbe allowed to have his Hebrew Bible, and his Hebrew grammar and\ndictionary; and it is by no means unlikely that the results of his\nstudies were committed to the care of Rogers. If this surmise be correct,\nthen this Bible may be viewed as a compilation, two-thirds of it being due\nto Tyndale, and one-third to Coverdale. A sufficient reason for the\nadoption of the assumed name of Thomas Matthew is thus supplied, since\nRogers could not claim the work as his own, and Tyndale\u2019s name would have\narrayed against it the opposition both of the king and of the Romish\nparty.\n\nBoth of the last mentioned Bibles were open to certain obvious objections.\nCoverdale\u2019s, in that it was derived from German and Latin versions; and\nMatthew\u2019s, in that it was in part only made from the original texts.\nMatthew\u2019s also was accompanied by a considerable number of critical and\nexplanatory notes, many of which were of a decided anti-papal cast.\nAccordingly, at the instigation and under the patronage of Thomas\nCromwell, Coverdale set himself to revise his former work with the aid of\nthe valuable contribution supplied to him in Matthew\u2019s Bible. The printing\nof this new Bible was completed in April, 1539, and from the circumstance\nthat it was printed in the largest folio then used, 15 inches by 9, it\nwas, and is, commonly described as the Great Bible. In the title-page it\nis declared to be \u201ctruly translated, after the veryte of the Hebrue and\nGreke textes by ye dylygent studye of dyuerse excellent learned men,\nexpert in the forsayde tonges.\u201d[16] By this, it is now tolerably certain,\nwe are to understand, not that several living scholars took part with\nCoverdale in the preparation of the volume, but that he availed himself of\nthe published writings of men skilled in the ancient languages, who had\ntranslated and expounded the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures. His\nchief guides were Sebastian Munster for the Old Testament, and Erasmus for\nthe New. The Bible appeared without notes, and had no dedication.[17]\n\nIn the same year (1539) there appeared also the Bible[18] edited by\nRichard Taverner, formerly of Cardinal College (now Christ Church),\nOxford, afterwards of the Inner Temple, and more recently Clerk of the\nSignet to the King.[19] It may be briefly described as a revised edition\nof Matthew\u2019s Bible. Taverner had some reputation as a Greek scholar, but\nhis work is very unequally executed, and before the formidable competition\nof the Great Bible it soon sank into obscurity. After its first year of\nissue this Bible seems to have been only once reprinted in its entirety;\nnamely, in 1549.[20]\n\nNot content with what he had already done, Coverdale persevered in the\nrevision and re-revision of his work. A second edition was issued in\nApril, 1540, to which was prefixed a prologue by Cranmer,[21] and its\ntitle contained the words, \u201cThis is the Byble apoynted to the use of the\nchurches.\u201d Two other editions appeared in the same year, and three in the\nfollowing year.[22] (The edition of April, 1540, seems, however, to have\nbeen regarded as a sort of standard edition.) This Bible was the Bible\nread in churches in the reign of Edward VI., and in the early part of the\nreign of Elizabeth.\n\nHence it will be seen that of the four principal Bibles published in the\nreign of Henry VIII., namely, Tyndale\u2019s New Testament and Pentateuch,\nCoverdale\u2019s Bible, Matthew\u2019s Bible, and the Great Bible, the last three\nform a group of closely related versions, of which Tyndale\u2019s is the common\nparent, and the rest successively derived therefrom. And it is very\nnoteworthy that these Bibles are mainly the result of the patient and\ndevoted labours of two men only. The work done by such men as Rogers and\nTaverner, however important, is altogether of a subordinate kind. William\nTyndale and Miles Coverdale stand apart, and above all others, as the men\nwho, in those days of religious awakening and of conflict with the papal\ntyranny, gave the Bible to our countrymen in a form that could reach at\nonce their understanding and their heart. Remembering this, and\nremembering also in what difficult circumstances the work was done, the\nwonder is far less that room was left for improvement, and that further\nrevision was felt by themselves and others to be an imperative duty, than\nthat so much was accomplished, and so well, by the indomitable and\nself-denying labours of these noble men.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\n_THE FURTHER GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE._\n\n\nThe accession of Elizabeth, November 17th, 1558, conveniently marks the\ndate of a fourth stage in the growth of the English Bible. The former\ntranslations and revisions had been done in troublous times, in the midst\nof harassing opposition, and under circumstances which forbade the full\nuse of such aids as the scholarship of the times could furnish. The\nversions now to be mentioned were carried on in open day, and with free\naccess to all that was then available for the correction and explanation\nof the original texts.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAmongst the many earnest men driven into exile by the Marian persecution\nwas William Whittingham, some time Fellow of All Souls\u2019, Oxford, and\nsubsequently Dean of Durham.[23] Along with others he found a refuge,\nfirst at Frankfort, and afterwards at Geneva. On the 10th day of June,\n1557, there was published, in the last mentioned city, a small volume,\n16mo, entitled \u201cThe Newe Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Conferred\ndiligently with the Greke, and best approved translations. With the\narguments aswel before the chapters, as for every Boke and Epistle, also\ndiversities of readings, and moste proffitable annotations of all harde\nplaces; whereunto is added a copious Table.\u201d This translation, there is\nreason to believe, was the work of Whittingham alone. It may be noted, in\npassing, that it was the first English New Testament which contained the\nnow familiar division into verses, and the first also to indicate by\n_italics_ the words added by the translator in order to convey more fully\nor more clearly the sense of the original.\n\nThree years afterwards (1560) there was published in the same city, \u201cThe\nBible and Holy Scriptures conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament.\nTranslated according to the Ebrue and Greeke, and conferred with the best\ntranslations in divers languages. With moste profitable annotations upon\nall the hard places, and other things of great importance as may appeare\nin the epistle to the reader.\u201d This is the celebrated Genevan version,\nwhich for nearly a century onward was the form of Bible most largely\ncirculated in this country. It differed in several respects from its\npredecessors. It was a convenient quarto instead of a cumbrous folio. It\nwas printed in Roman letters instead of the heavy Gothic or black letters.\nIt marked by a different type all words inserted for the completion of the\nsense, and the chapters were divided into verses. But what was of more\nimportance, it was, as stated in the title, compared throughout with the\noriginal texts. Both in the Old and New Testaments it largely reproduces\nthe words of Tyndale. Sometimes it gives a preference to the version of\nCoverdale; but often it departs from both in order to give a more exact\nrendering of the Hebrew or the Greek. It seems that several of the Genevan\nrefugees consecrated their enforced leisure to \u201cthis great and wonderful\nwork,\u201d as they justly term it, moved thereto by the twofold consideration\nthat, owing to \u201cimperfect knowledge of the tongues,\u201d the previous\n\u201ctranslations required greatly to be perused and reformed,\u201d and that\n\u201cgreat opportunities and occasions\u201d for doing this work were presented to\nthem in the \u201cso many godly and learned men\u201d into whose society they had\nnow been brought.\n\nThe names of Miles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas\nSampson, William Cole, and William Whittingham are given as those who,\nwith some others, joined in this undertaking. On the accession of\nElizabeth most of the exiles returned home, conveying with them, for\npresentation to the Queen, the Book of Psalms as a specimen of the work on\nwhich they were engaged.[24]\n\nWittingham only, with one or two others, remained behind for a year and a\nhalf in order to complete the work. According to the statement given in\nthe address to the reader, the entire period spent upon the preparation of\nthis version was a little more than two years. It will hence be seen that\nwhatever may have been the part taken in the work by Coverdale and others,\nby far the chief share in it devolved upon Whittingham and the one or two\nreferred to, who were probably Gilby and Sampson. How weighty was the\nobligation which in the view of these self-denying men rested upon them to\ngive the word of God to their country in the form that would best and most\ntruly present it, and with what reverent care they laboured to attain\nunto this, is shown by the fact that although Whittingham had so recently\npublished his version of the New Testament, he is not content with a\nsimple reproduction of this, but subjects it to a thorough and very\ncareful revision. A comparison of the introduction to Luke\u2019s gospel as it\nappears in the Genevan Bible of 1560 with the same passage in\nWhittingham\u2019s version of 1557 will help our readers in some measure to\nrealize the nature and extent of this revision.\n\nIn the earlier version the passages read thus:\n\n \u201cFor asmuch as many have taken in hand to write the historie of those\n thynges, wherof we are fully certified, even as they declared them\n unto us, which from y{e} begynnyng saw them their selves, and were\n ministers at the doyng: It seemed good also to me (moste noble\n Theophilus) as sone as I had learned perfectly all thynges from the\n beginnyng, to wryte unto thee therof from poynt to poynt: That thou\n mightest acknowlage the trueth of those thinges where in thou hast\n bene broght up.\u201d\n\nIn the version of 1560 the same passage is given thus:\n\n \u201cFor as much as many have taken in hande to set foorth the storie of\n those thinges whereof we are fully persuaded. As they have delivered\n them unto us, which from the beginning saw them theirselves, and were\n ministers of the worde, It seemed good also to me (most noble\n Theophilus), as sone as I had searched out perfectly all things from\n the beginnyng, to write unto thee thereof from point to point, That\n thou mightest acknowledge the certaintie of these things, whereof thou\n hast bene instructed.\u201d\n\nIt will be seen that in this short passage the changes made from the\nearlier form of the work are as many as ten in number. As this, however,\nmay be deemed a somewhat exceptional passage, let us take an ordinary\nchapter in the Gospels, presenting no special difficulty, as for instance\nMatt. xvii. A collation of the two versions will show that in this chapter\nof twenty-seven verses the revision of 1560 departs from Whittingham\u2019s\nearlier work in no fewer than forty places.[25] Thus persevering was the\nendeavour of these faithful men to do their very best, and with what\nsuccess may to some extent be seen in the fact that of these forty\nchanges twenty-six were confirmed in after years by the judgment of King\nJames\u2019 translators.\n\n\u201cSo earnestly,\u201d says Strype[26] in his _Life of Archbishop Parker_, \u201cdid\nthe people of the nation thirst in those days after the knowledge of the\nScriptures, that that first impression was soon sold off.\u201d So earnestly\nalso did the translators seek to perfect their work, that about the\nbeginning of March, 1565, they had finished a careful review and\ncorrection of their translation in preparing for a fresh issue.\n\nPopular as was the Genevan Bible amongst the mass of the English people,\nthe decidedly puritanic cast of its annotations stood in the way of its\nuniversal acceptance, while its manifest superiority as a translation to\nthe Great Bible made it almost an impossibility that the latter could be\nmaintained in its place of pre-eminence as the Bible appointed by\nauthority to be read in churches. Steps were accordingly taken by Matthew\nParker, Archbishop of Canterbury, to prepare a Bible, by the aid of\n\u201cdiverse learned fellow-bishops,\u201d that would accord with the\necclesiastical sympathies of the party to which he belonged.[27] He\ndistributed portions to twelve of his episcopal brethren, and to other\nChurch dignitaries;[28] one portion he took under his own charge. The\ncompleted work was presented to Elizabeth within a few weeks of the\ncompletion of the tenth year of her reign, October 5th, 1568.\n\nThe rules laid down by Parker for the guidance of his colleagues were\nthese: 1. \u201cTo follow the common English translation used in the churches,\nand not to recede from it but where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew\nor Greek original. 2. To use sections and divisions in the texts as\nPagnine[29] in his translation useth; and for the verity of the Hebrew, to\nfollow the said Pagnine and Munster specially, and generally others\nlearned in the tongues. 3. To make no bitter notes upon any text, or yet\nto set down any determination in places of controversy. 4. To note such\nchapters and places as contain matter of genealogies, or other such places\nnot edifying, with some strike or note, that the reader may eschew them in\nhis public reading. 5. That all such words as sound in the old translation\nto any offence of lightness or obscenity be expressed with more convenient\nterms and phrases.\u201d From the first of these rules it is clear that the\nwork then undertaken was intended to be a revision of the Great Bible.\nSome of the revisers seem to have observed this rule in a most rigid\nmanner, and have followed the Great Bible so closely as to retain its\nwords, even in places which had been more correctly rendered in the\nGenevan. There appears to have been no co-operative action on the part of\nthe several revisers, and to this cause we may attribute much of the\nirregularity that attaches to the execution of their work. In many\nrespects they laid themselves open to adverse criticism, and a paper was\nsent to Parker by Thomas Lawrence, Head Master of Shrewsbury School, and\nan eminent Greek scholar, entitled, _Notes of Errors in the Translation of\nthe New Testament out of the Greek_.[30] He points out fifteen passages in\nwhich the words are not \u201captlye translated,\u201d eight in which \u201cwords and\npieces of sentences\u201d are \u201comytted,\u201d two in which superfluous words are\ninserted, two in which, owing to mistranslation, an \u201cerror in doctrine\u201d is\ninvolved, and two in which the moods and tenses of verbs are changed.\nThese passages, except one from the Colossians, are all taken from the\nGospels; and we may hence not unreasonably infer that the writer intended\nthe passages named to be regarded, not as an exhaustive list, but as\nillustrations simply of the kind of defects which called for correction.\nMoved, as would seem, by these criticisms, Parker set on foot a revision\nof his former volume; and in 1572 this Bible was, as his biographer\nexpresses it,[31] \u201ca second time by his means\u201d \u201cprinted with Corrections\nand Amendments and other improvements, more than the former Editions.\u201d\n\nAlthough this Bible received the sanction of Convocation, and every\nArchbishop and Bishop was ordered to have a copy in his hall or\ndining-room for the use of his servants and of strangers; and although\nsome editions bear on their title-page the words, \u201cSet forth by\nAucthoritie\u201d (meaning thereby the authority of Convocation), it never came\ninto anything like general use, nor did it even establish itself as the\nBible exclusively read in churches. The Genevan Bible was still used by\nmany of the clergy in their sermons and in their published works; and in\n1587, though nineteen years had then passed since its first publication,\nwe find Archbishop Whitgift complaining that divers parish churches and\nchapels of ease had either no Bible at all, or those only which were not\nof the translation authorized by the Synods of Bishops. Between 1568,\nwhen this Bible was first published, and 1608, when the last New Testament\nof this version was issued, there were sent forth altogether twenty\neditions of the Bishops\u2019 Bible and eleven of the New Testament. In the\nsame period there were published seventy-nine editions of the Genevan\nBible, and thirty of the Genevan New Testament.[32]\n\nBesides the Genevan and the Bishops\u2019, another Bible made its appearance\n(so far, at least, as the New Testament was concerned) in the reign of\nElizabeth. In the year 1582 there was printed at Rheims a translation of\nthe New Testament,[33] made by certain scholars connected with the English\nseminary for the training of Catholic priests, formerly established at\nDouai, in Flanders. The translators, in their preface, candidly confess\nthat they did not publish from any conviction \u201cthat the Holy Scriptures\nshould alwaies be in our mother tonge,\u201d or that they ought \u201cto be read\nindifferently of all,\u201d but because they had compassion to see their\n\u201cbeloved countrie men with extreme danger of their soules, to use only\nsuch prophane translations;\u201d viz., as the Protestant Bibles previously\nreferred to, \u201cand erroneous men\u2019s mere phantasies, for the pure and\nbeloved word of truth;\u201d and because, also, they were \u201cmoved thereunto by\nthe desires of many devout persons,\u201d and whom they hoped to induce to lay\naside the \u201cimpure versions\u201d they had hitherto been compelled to employ.\nQuite apart from the polemical purpose thus distinctly avowed, this\ntranslation was a retrograde movement. It did not profess to translate the\noriginal texts, but only the \u201cvulgar Latin;\u201d and the translators justify\ntheir procedure by this plea, amongst others, that \u201cthe holy Council of\nTrent ... hath declared and defined this onely of al other Latin\ntranslations to be authentical, and so onely to be used and taken in\npublike lessons, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no\nman presume upon any pretence to reject or refuse the same.\u201d\n\nIn the accomplishment of their work the Rhemish translators have very\nfaithfully observed the rule which they laid down for themselves, to be\n\u201cvery precise and religious in folowing our copie, the old vulgar approved\nLatin; not only in sense ... but sometime in the very wordes also, and\nphrases;\u201d that is to say, they have given a very literal and exact\ntranslation of the Vulgate, in many parts extremely Latinized in its\ndiction. A considerable number of words they virtually left untranslated,\nboldly venturing to transfer the unfamiliar, and in many cases\nunintelligible, vocables into their English text. Some of these Latinized\nwords have obtained a permanent place in our language, but the larger\nnumber have failed to commend themselves.[34]\n\nSuch then were the chief forms through which, at the close of the\nsixteenth century, the English Bible had passed. The devout and earnest\nscholars who from time to time sought to \u201copen the Scriptures\u201d to their\nfellow-countrymen were for the most part moved by a burning desire to give\nto God of their very best. They grudged no labour to render their work\nmore complete. They allowed no spirit of self-satisfaction to blind them\nto a perception of defects. They were too humble and too well convinced of\nthe greatness and manifoldness of their work to fancy that they had\nreached perfection, but were persevering and self-denying in their\nendeavours to attain unto it. And they have left behind them for us to\nfollow a noble example of patient continuance in well doing.\n\nHow in their hands the English Bible has grown, from the first attempt to\nset it forth in the language of our country to the form in which we are\nmost familiar with it, can be fully learnt only by a careful comparison of\nthe successive revisions to which it has been subjected. To aid my readers\nin forming some approximate idea of it I append Psalm xxiii., as it\nappears in the principal Bibles which have been mentioned in this and the\npreceding lecture.\n\n\n1. WYCLIFFE\u2019S, 1382. (?)\n\nThe Lord gouerneth me, and no thing to me shal lacke; in the place of\nleswe[35] where he me ful sette. Ouer watir of fulfilling he nurshide me;\nmy soule he conuertide. He bro\u021dte doun me upon the sties of ri\u021dtwisnesse;\nfor his name. For whi and if I shal go in the myddel of the shadewe of\ndeth; I shal not dreden euelis, for thou art with me. Thi \u021derde and thi\nstaf; tho han confortid me. Thou hast maad redi in thi si\u021dte a bord; a\u021den\nhem that trublyn me. Thou hast myche fattid in oile myn hed; and my chalis\nmakende ful drunken, hou ri\u021dt cler it is. And thi mercy shal vnderfolewe\nme; alle the da\u021dis of my lif. And that I dwelle in the hous of the Lord;\nin to the lengthe of da\u021dis.\n\n\n2. PURVEY\u2019S, 1388. (?)\n\nThe Lord gouerneth me, and no thing schal faile to me; in the place of\npasture there he hath set me. He nurschide me on the watir of\nrefreischyng; he conuertide my soule. He ledde me forth on the pathis of\nri\u021dtfulnesse; for his name. For whi thou\u021d Y schal go in the myddis of\nschadewe of deeth; Y schal not drede yuels, for thou art with me. Thi\n\u021derde and thi staf; tho han coumfortid me. Thou hast maad redi a boord in\nmy siyt; a\u021dens hem that troblen me. Thou hast maad fat myn heed with oyle;\nand my cuppe, fillinge greetli, is ful cleer. And thi merci schal sue me;\nin alle the daies of my lijf. And that Y dwelle in the hows of the Lord;\nin to the lengthe of daies.\n\n\n3. COVERDALE\u2019S, 1535.\n\nThe Lorde is my shepherde, I can want nothinge. He fedeth me in a greene\npasture; and ledeth me to a fresh water. He quickeneth my soule, and\nbringeth me forth in the waye of rightuousness for his name\u2019s sake. Though\nI shulde walke now in the valley of the shadowe of death, yet I feare no\neuell, for thou art with me; thy staffe and thy shepehoke comforte me.\nThou preparest a table before me agaynst mine enemies; thou anoyntest my\nheade with oyle, and fyllest my cuppe full. Oh let thy louying kyndnes and\nmercy folowe me all the dayes off my life that I maye dwell in the house\noff the Lord for euer.\n\n\n4. GREAT BIBLE, 1539.\n\nThe Lorde is my shepherde, therefore can I lacke nothing. He shal fede me\nin a grene pasture and lead me forth besyde the waters of c\u014dforte. He shal\nconuerte my soule and bring me forth in the pathes of righteousnes for his\nname\u2019s sake. Yea, though I walke thorow y{e} valleye of y{e} shadow of\ndeath, I wyl feare no euell, for thou art w{t} me: thy rod and thy staff\nconfort me.\n\nThou shalt prepare a table before me, agaynst them that trouble me: thou\nhast annointed my head w{t} oyle, and my cup shal be ful. But (_thy_)\nlouing kyndnes and mercy shal folowe me all the dayes of my lyfe: and I\nwyll dwel in the house of the Lord for euer.\n\n\n5. GENEVAN, 1560.\n\n1. The Lord _is_ my shepheard, I shall not want.\n\n2. Hee maketh mee to rest in greene pasture, _and_ leadeth me by the still\nwaters.\n\n3. He restoreth my soule, _and_ leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse\nfor his Names sake.\n\n4. Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadow of death, I\nwill feare no euill, for thou art with me: thy rodde and thy staffe, they\ncomfort me.\n\n5. Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine adversaries:\nthou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, _and_ my cup runneth over.\n\n6. Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my\nlife, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.\n\n\n6. BISHOPS, 1568.\n\n1. God is my shephearde, therefore I can lacke nothyng: he wyll cause me\nto repose myselfe in pasture full of grasse, and he wyll leade me vnto\ncalme waters.\n\n2. He wyll conuerte my soule; he wyll bring me foorth into the pathes of\nrighteousnesse for his name sake.\n\n3. Yea, though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I wyll\nfeare no euyll; for thou art with me, thy rodde and thy staffe be the\nthynges that do comfort me.\n\n4. Thou wylt prepare a table before me in the presence of myne\naduersaries; thou has annoynted my head with oyle, and my cup shalbe\nbrymme full.\n\n5. Truely felicitie and mercie shal folowe me all the dayes of my lyfe:\nand I wyll dwell in the house of God for a long tyme.\n\n\n7. DOUAI, 1610.\n\n1. The Psalme of Dauid.\n\n2. Our Lord ruleth one, and nothing shal be wanting to me: in place of\npasture there he hath placed me.\n\n3. Upon the water of refection he hath brought me vp: he hath conuerted my\nsoule.\n\nHe hath conducted me upon the pathes of iustice for his name.\n\n4. For, although I shal walke in the middes of the shadow of death, I will\nnot feare euils: because thou art with me, Thy rod and thy staffe, they\nhaue comforted me.\n\n5. Thou hast prepared in my sight a table, against them; that truble me.\n\nThou hast fatted my head with oyle; and my chalice inebriating how goodlie\nis it!\n\n6. And thy mercie shal folow me al the dayes of my life; And that I may\ndwel in the house of our Lord, in longitude of dayes.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\n_THE REVISION OF 1611--THE SO-CALLED AUTHORIZED VERSION._\n\n\nAt the accession of James I. the GENEVAN BIBLE and the BISHOPS\u2019 BIBLE\nwere, as we have seen, the Bibles in current use, the latter being the\nBible upheld by ecclesiastical authority, the former the favourite Bible\nof the people at large. The Book of Psalms also in the version of the\nGreat Bible survived, as it still does, in the psalter of the Prayer Book,\nand probably in some few parish churches old and worn copies of the Great\nBible still maintained their place.\n\nThe state of religious parties at that date rendered it almost an\nimpossibility that either of the two first-named versions should become\nuniversally accepted. The close connection of the Genevan Bible with the\nPuritan party, and the decidedly puritanic cast of some of its notes,\ncreated an insuperable prejudice against it in the minds of the more\nzealous advocates of Episcopal authority; while the inferiority[36] of the\nBishops\u2019 Bible as a version effectually barred its claim to an exclusive\nuse. The need, then, for a new version was obvious, and a desire for it\nwas probably felt by many of all parties.\n\nPublic expression was first given to this desire on the second day of the\nHampton Court Conference, January 16, 1604, by Dr. John Rainolds,[37] the\nleading representative of the Puritans in that assembly. It was not\nbrought forward as one of the matters which he had been deputed to lay\nbefore the Conference; it seems rather to have been mentioned by him\nincidentally in connection with certain suggested reforms in the Prayer\nBook. \u201cHe moved his Majesty that there might be a new translation of the\nBible, because those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII.\nand Edward VI. were corrupt, and not answerable to the Truth of the\nOriginal,\u201d[38] referring in illustration to the renderings given of Gal.\niv. 25,[39] Ps. cv. 28,[40] and Ps. cvi. 30.[41] It is somewhat curious\nthat no direct reference was made to the Bishops\u2019 Bible; the reason,\nprobably, was that this Bible was not one of those which had been\n\u201callowed\u201d by royal authority. Of the three mistranslations quoted by\nRainolds, the first only is found in the Bishops\u2019 Bible; the other two\noccur in the Prayer Book Psalter.\n\nThe suggestion of Rainolds met with no opposition. The king himself\nexpressed his approval of it, not, however, without an ignorant and\ndisingenuous fling at the Genevan version; and \u201cpresently after,\u201d say the\ntranslators in their preface, the king \u201cgave order for this translation\u201d\nto be made. In the course of a few months a scheme for the execution of\nthe work was matured, and in a letter to Dr. Richard Bancroft, then Bishop\nof London, the king informed him that he had appointed fifty-four learned\nmen to undertake the translation. He even seems to have contemplated the\npossibility of securing the co-operation of all the biblical scholars of\nthe country; and in a letter to Bancroft, dated July 22, 1604, directed\nhim \u201cto move the bishops to inform themselves of all such learned men\nwithin their several dioceses as, having especial skill in the Hebrew and\nGreek tongues, have taken pains in their private studies of the Scriptures\nfor the clearing of any obscurities, either in the Hebrew or the Greek, or\ntouching any difficulties, or mistakings in the former English\ntranslation, which we have now commanded to be thoroughly viewed and\namended; and thereupon to write unto them, earnestly charging them, and\nsignifying our pleasure therein, that they send such their observations to\nMr. Lively, our Hebrew reader in Cambridge, or to Dr. Harding, our Hebrew\nreader in Oxford, or to Dr. Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, to be imparted\nto the rest of their several companies; that so our said intended\ntranslation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned\nmen within this our kingdom.\u201d[42] Directions to a similar effect were sent\nalso to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, who was empowered in the king\u2019s\nname to associate with those already appointed any \u201cfitt men\u201d he might be\nacquainted with; and we may infer that a corresponding communication was\nsent to Oxford.\n\nTo what extent this comprehensive scheme was carried out we have no means\nof determining. The names of the fifty-four learned men referred to are\nnot given, and we are consequently left in uncertainty whether those who\nultimately engaged in the work[43] were all men included in that list, or\nwhether other scholars, chosen by the universities or recommended by the\nbishops, formed part of the number.\n\nThe rules laid down for the guidance of the translators were as follows:\n\n1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops\u2019\nBible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the Original\nwill permit.\n\n2. The Names of the Prophets and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of\nthe Text to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were\nvulgarly used.\n\n3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept; viz., the word _Church_ not to\nbe translated _Congregation_, &c.\n\n4. When a Word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been\nmost commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to\nthe Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.\n\n5. The division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as\nlittle as may be, if necessity so require.\n\n6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of\nthe Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so\nbriefly and fitly be exprest in the Text.\n\n7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for\nthe fit reference of one Scripture to another.\n\n8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or\nChapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself,\nwhere he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done,\nand agree for their parts what shall stand.\n\n9. As any one Company hath despatched any one Book in this manner, they\nshall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously,\nfor his Majesty is very careful in this point.\n\n10. If any Company, upon the review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ\nupon any Place, to send them word thereof; Note the place, and withal send\nthe Reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded\nat the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each\nCompany at the end of the Work.\n\n11. When any Place of special obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be\ndirected, by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his\njudgment of such a Place.\n\n12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop, to the rest of his Clergy,\nadmonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge, as\nmany as being skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind,\nto send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster,\nCambridg, or Oxford.\n\n13. The Directors in each Company to be the Deans of Westminster and\nChester for that place; and the King\u2019s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek\nin either University.\n\n14. These Translations to be used, when they agree better with the Text\nthan the Bishops\u2019 Bible; viz., _Tindall\u2019s_, _Matthew\u2019s_, _Coverdale\u2019s_,\n_Whitchurch\u2019s_,[44] _Geneva_.\n\n15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most\nAncient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities not employed in\nTranslating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor upon conference with\nthe rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew\nas Greek, for the better observation of the 4th rule above specified.[45]\n\nBesides these rules, some others of a more definite nature seem to have\nbeen adopted by the translators themselves. At the Synod of Dort, held in\nthe years 1618 and 1619, the question of preparing a new Dutch translation\ncame under consideration, and for the guidance of its deliberations upon\nthis point the English Delegates[46] were requested to give an account of\nthe procedure observed in the translation recently made in England. In a\nmatter of such grave importance the Delegates felt that they ought not to\ngive any off-hand statement, and accordingly, after careful consideration,\nprepared a written account, which was presented to the Synod on its\nseventh Session, November 20th, 1618. In this account eight rules are\ngiven, the first three of which embody the substance of the first, sixth,\nand seventh of the rules given above. The others direct:\n\nThat where the Hebrew or Greek admits of a twofold rendering, one is to be\ngiven in the text, and the other noted in the margin; and in like manner\nwhere an important various reading is found in approved authorities.\n\nThat in the translation of the books of Tobit and Judith, where the text\nof the old Latin Vulgate greatly differs from that of the Greek, the\nlatter text should be followed.\n\nThat all words introduced for the purpose of completing the sense are to\nbe distinguished by a difference of type.\n\nThat new tables of contents should be prefixed to each book, and new\nsummaries to each chapter.\n\nAnd lastly, that a complete list of Genealogies[47] and a description of\nthe Holy Land should be added to the work.[48]\n\nFrom various causes, which cannot now be discovered, a period of three\nyears elapsed before the revisers commenced their labours. One reason may\nhave been that no provision was made for meeting the necessary costs of\nthe undertaking. With a cheap liberality the king directed Bancroft to\nwrite to the bishops, asking them, as benefices became vacant, to give him\nthe opportunity of bestowing them upon the translators as a reward for\ntheir service; and as to current expenses, the king, while professing with\nmuch effusiveness his readiness to bear them, cleverly evaded the\nresponsibility by stating that some of \u201cmy lords, as things now go, did\nhold it inconvenient.\u201d[49]\n\nThe revision was completed, as the revisers themselves tell us, in \u201ctwice\nseven times seventy-two days and more;\u201d that is to say, in about two years\nand three-quarters; and if to this be added the nine months spent in a\nfinal revision and preparation for the press, we have then only a period\nof three years and a half. The new Bible was published in 1611; the work,\ntherefore, could not have been commenced before 1607.\n\nAlthough the men who engaged in this important undertaking are called\n\u201ctranslators,\u201d their work was essentially that of revision. This is\nclearly shown both by the rules laid down for their guidance, and by the\nstatement of the translators themselves, who say in their preface, \u201cTruly,\ngood Christian reader, wee never thought from the beginning that wee\nshould need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good\none,\u201d \u201cbut to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one\nprincipall good one, not justly to bee excepted against; that hath beene\nour indeavour, that our marke.\u201d[50]\n\nFurther, this revision was a more extensive and thorough revision than any\nwhich had been heretofore undertaken. In former revisions, either the work\nhad been done by the solitary labours of one or two, or when a fair number\nof competent men were engaged in it no sufficient provision had been made\nfor combined action, and but few opportunities had been given for mutual\nconference. In this revision a larger number of scholars were engaged than\nupon any former, and the arrangements were such as secured that upon no\npart of the Bible should the labour of fewer than seven persons be\nexpended. The revisers were divided into six companies, two of which met\nat Westminster, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. The books of the Old\nTestament, from Genesis to 2 Kings inclusive, were assigned to the first\nWestminster company, consisting of ten members; from 1 Chronicles to Song\nof Solomon, to the first Cambridge company, consisting of eight members;\nand from Isaiah to Malachi, to the first Oxford company, consisting of\nseven members. The Apocryphal books were assigned to the second Cambridge\ncompany, which also consisted of seven members. Of the books of the New\nTestament, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse were\ngiven to the second Oxford company, in which as many as ten members were\nat different times associated; the Epistles were entrusted to the seven\nscholars forming the second Westminster company.[51]\n\nThe portions assigned to each company were not again subdivided amongst\nits members; but, in accordance with the eighth rule, \u201cevery particular\nman of each company\u201d translated and amended by himself each successive\nportion, and the company met from time to time to confer upon what they\nhad done, and to agree upon what should stand.[52] Of the mode of\nprocedure followed at the meetings of the several companies, we have no\nother information than the brief statement given by Selden in his _Table\nTalk_--that \u201cone read the translation, the rest holding in their hands\nsome Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian,\n&c. If they found any fault they spoke; if not, he read on.\u201d\n\nOne interesting and touching picture of the translators at work, which\nhowever seems to have escaped the notice[53] of all writers upon the\nhistory of the English Bible, is given us by Dr. Daniel Featley in his\naccount of the _Life and Death of John Rainolds_, and which is probably\nthe substance, if not the very words, of the oration delivered by him at\nthe funeral of the latter, when, on account of the large number of\nmourners, \u201cthe Chapell being not capable of the fourth part of the\nFunerall troupe,\u201d a desk was set up in the quadrangle of Corpus Christi\nCollege, and a brief history of Rainolds\u2019 life, \u201cwith the manner of his\ndeath,\u201d was thence delivered to the assembled company. Dr. Rainolds was\none of the Oxford scholars to whom the difficult task was assigned of\nrevising the prophetical books of the Old Testament; and Featley tells us\nthat \u201cfor his great skill in the originall Languages,\u201d the other members\nof the company, \u201cDoctor Smith, afterward Bishop of Gloster; Doctor\nHarding, President of Magdalens; Doctor Kilbie, Rector of Lincolne\nColledge; Dr. Bret, and others, imployed in that worke by his Majesty, had\nrecourse\u201d to him \u201conce a weeke, and in his Lodgings perfected their\nNotes; and though in the midst of this Worke, the gout first tooke him,\nand after a consumption, of which he dyed; yet in a great part of his\nsicknesse the meeting held at his Lodging, and he lying on his Pallet,\nassisted them, and in a manner in the very translation of the booke of\nlife, was translated to a better life.\u201d[54] Rainolds died May 21st, 1607.\n\nIn the discharge of their responsible task the translators made use of all\nthe aids accessible to them for the perfecting of their work. Not only did\nthey bring to it a large amount of Hebrew and Greek scholarship, and the\nresults of their personal study of the original Scriptures, they were\ncareful to avail themselves also of the investigations of others who had\nlaboured in the same field. Translations and commentaries in the Chaldee,\nHebrew, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch\nlanguages were laid under contribution. \u201cNeither,\u201d they add, \u201cdid we\ndisdaine to revise that which wee had done, and to bring back to the\nanvill that which wee had hammered; but having and using as great helpes\nas were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting\npraise for expedition, wee have at length, through the good hand of the\nLord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.\u201d\n\nWhen the several companies had completed their labours there was needed\nsome general supervision of the work before it finally issued from the\npress. There is no evidence that the six companies ever met in one body\n(though possibly the two companies in each of the three centres may have\nhad some communication with each other); but having spent almost three\nyears upon the revision, \u201cat the end whereof,\u201d says the writer of the\nlife of John Bois,[55] \u201cthe whole work being finished, and three copies of\nthe whole Bible sent from Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster to London, a\nnew choice was to be made of six in all, two out of every company,[56] to\nreview the whole work, and extract one copy out of all these to be\ncommitted to the press, for the dispatch of which business Mr. Downes and\nMr. Bois were sent for up to London, where,[57] meeting their four\nfellow-labourers, they went daily to Stationers\u2019 Hall, and in\nthree-quarters of a year fulfilled their task, all which time they had\nfrom the Company of Stationers thirty shillings[58] each per week duly\npaid them, though they had nothing before but the self-rewarding,\ningenious industry.\u201d[59] \u201cLast of all Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and\nDr. Miles Smith, again reviewed the whole work, and prefixed arguments to\nthe several books.\u201d\n\nAnd thus at length, as Thomas Fuller quaintly puts it, \u201cafter long\nexpectation, and great desire, the new translation of the Bible (most\nbeautifully printed) by a select and competent number of Divines appointed\nfor the purpose, not being too many, lest one should trouble another,\nand yet many, lest in any things might haply escape them. Who, neither\ncoveting praise for expedition, nor fearing reproach for slackness (seeing\nin a business of moment none deserve blame for convenient slowness), had\nexpended almost three years in a work, not only examining the channels by\nthe fountain, translations with the original, which was absolutely\nnecessary, but also comparing channels with channels, which was abundantly\nuseful.\u201d \u201cThese, with Jacob, rolled away the stone from the mouth of the\nWell of Life, so that now Rachel\u2019s weak women may freely come, both to\ndrink themselves, and to water the flocks of their families at the\nsame.\u201d[60]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\n_REVISION A RECURRING NECESSITY._\n\n\nOn the title-page of the first edition of King James\u2019s Bible there\nappeared as now the legend, \u201cAppointed to be read in Churches.\u201d Whence\nthis originated is unknown; it is even uncertain what meaning is to be\nattached to the words. Some contend[61] that they mean nothing more than\nthat the book contained the directions in accordance with which the\nScriptures were \u201cappointed\u201d to be read in public worship, such as are now\ngiven in the Book of Common Prayer. But, however this may be, there is no\nevidence that this Bible was ever formally sanctioned, either by the king,\nor by Parliament, or by Convocation. The king, as we have seen, encouraged\nthe making of the revision, but that the revision when made was, by any\npublic act on his part, invested with any special authority, is a fancy\naltogether unsupported by fact. Its designation as the Authorized\nVersion has been due simply to common parlance; the claim which that\ndesignation seems to assert is absolutely baseless.\n\nIt was not in virtue of any privileges conferred upon it by those in\nauthority, but by its intrinsic excellence, that this version made its way\ninto general use, and at length supplanted all previous versions. Its\nchief, if not only, competitor was the Genevan. So strong was the\nattachment of many to the latter that two editions of it, one a folio and\nthe other a quarto, were published by the king\u2019s printer in the very year\nin which the new version was issued, and during at least five years after\nthat date[62] various other editions were issued from the same source.\nAfter 1616 the Genevan ceased to be printed in England, but the demand for\nit still continuing, various editions were printed on the Continent, and\nthence introduced into this country. A folio edition, printed at\nAmsterdam, bears so late a date as 1644. In 1649, in order to win the\nfavour of those who still clung to their old favourite, an edition of the\nnew version was issued with the Genevan notes. After this date the\nrevision of 1611 may be said to have gained for itself universal\nrecognition, and for more than 230 years it has been the accepted and\ncherished Bible of almost all English-speaking people.\n\nWe should, however, form a very erroneous opinion both of the spirit and\nof the learning of King James\u2019s translators, if we were to suppose that\nthey would have claimed finality for their work. They were too well\nacquainted with the state of the original texts not to know what need\nthere was for further research after the most ancient and trustworthy\nauthorities. They were too keenly sensitive to the difficulties of\ntranslation not to feel that they must often have failed to convey the\nexact meaning of the words they were attempting to render. They were too\nconscious of the merits of their predecessors, and of the extent to which\nthey had profited by their labours, to hesitate to acknowledge that others\nmight in like manner profit by what they themselves had done. And they\nwere too loyal in their reverence for the Scriptures, and too devoutly\nanxious that every imperfection should be removed from the form in which\nthey were given to their fellow-countrymen, to offer any discouragement to\nthose who should seek to remove the blemishes that might still remain.\nThey would strongly have deprecated any attempt to find in their labours a\nplea against further improvement; and they would have emphatically\nproclaimed that the best expression of thankfulness for their services,\nand of respect for themselves, was in the imitation of their example, and\nin the promotion of further efforts for the perfecting of the book they so\nprofoundly loved.\n\nIn the case of such a book as the Bible, however perfect the translation\nwhich may at any time be made, the duty of revision is one of recurring\nobligation. The necessity for it is inevitable, and this from two causes\nin constant operation. (1) By the imperfection that attaches to all kinds\nof human labour various departures from the standard form became gradually\nintroduced in the process of reproduction; and (2) by the natural growth\nof language, and the attendant changes in the meaning of terms, that which\nat one time was a faithful rendering becomes at another obscure or\nincorrect.\n\nNo long time elapsed before blemishes arose in the version of 1611 from\nthe first of these causes, and, to use the language of the translators\nthemselves, their translation needed \u201cto be maturely considered and\nexamined, that being rubbed and polished it might shine as gold more\nbrightly.\u201d The invention of printing, although it has largely diminished\nthe liability to error in the multiplication of copies, has not, as\neveryone knows who has had occasion to minutely examine printed works,\naltogether removed them. Various typographical errors soon made their\nappearance in the printed copies of the Bible, and these became repeated\nand multiplied in successive editions, until at length no inconsiderable\nnumber of variations, sometimes amounting to several thousands, could be\ntraced between different copies. Most of these it is true were unimportant\nvariations, but some of them were of a more serious nature. The following\ninstances will serve to illustrate this. The dates attached are the dates\nof the editions in which the errors may be found:\n\nExod. xx. 14. \u201cThou shalt commit adultery,\u201d _for_ \u201cThou shalt not.\u201d 1631,\nLond., 8vo.[63]\n\nNumb. xxv. 18. \u201cThey vex you with their wives,\u201d _for_ \u201ctheir wiles.\u201d 1638,\nLond., 12mo.\n\nNumb. xxvi. 10. \u201cThe fire devoured two thousand and fifty men,\u201d _for_ \u201ctwo\nhundred and fifty.\u201d 1638, Lond., 12mo.\n\nDeut. xxiv. 3. \u201cIf the latter husband ate her,\u201d _for_ \u201chate her.\u201d 1682,\nLond.\n\n2 Sam. xxiii. 20. \u201cHe slew two lions like men,\u201d _for_ \u201ctwo lion-like men.\u201d\n1638, Lond., 12mo.\n\nJob xxix. 3. \u201cBy his light I shined through darkness,\u201d _for_ \u201cI walked\nthrough.\u201d 1613, Lond.\n\nIsaiah xxix. 13. \u201cTheir fear toward me is taught by the people of men,\u201d\n_for_ \u201cby the precept of men.\u201d 1638, Lond., 12mo.\n\nJer. iv. 17. \u201cBecause she hath been religious against me,\u201d _for_ \u201chath\nbeen rebellious.\u201d 1637, Edin., 8vo.\n\nJer. xviii. 21. \u201cDeliver up their children to the swine,\u201d _for_ \u201cto the\nfamine.\u201d 1682, Lond.\n\nEzek. xxiii. 7. \u201cWith all their idols she delighted herself,\u201d _for_ \u201cshe\ndefiled herself.\u201d 1613, Lond.\n\nMatt. xxvi. 36. \u201cThen cometh Judas with them unto a place called\nGethsemane,\u201d _for_ \u201cThen cometh Jesus.\u201d 1611, Lond.\n\nActs vi. 3. \u201cLook ye out among you seven men of honest report ... whom ye\nmay appoint,\u201d _for_ \u201cwhom we may appoint.\u201d 1638, Camb. fo.[64]\n\n1 Cor. v. 1. \u201cAnd such fornication as is not so much as not among the\nGentiles,\u201d _for_ \u201cnot so much as named.\u201d 1629, Lond., fo.[65]\n\n1 Cor. vi. 9. \u201cKnow ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom\nof God?\u201d _for_ \u201cshall not inherit.\u201d 1653, Lond., 32mo.\n\n2 Tim. iv. 16. \u201cI pray God that it may be laid to their charge,\u201d _for_\n\u201cmay not be laid.\u201d 1613, Lond.\n\nTitus i. 14. \u201cNow giving heed to Jewish fables,\u201d _for_ \u201cnot giving heed.\u201d\n1636 Edin., 8vo.\n\nJames v. 4. \u201cThe Lord of Sabbath,\u201d _for_ \u201cSabaoth.\u201d 1640, Lond., 8vo.\n\n1 John i. 4. \u201cThat our joy may be full,\u201d _for_ \u201cthat your joy.\u201d 1769, Oxf.\n\nThese facts will serve to show how soon some kind of revision became\nneedful, and that a true reverence for Scripture is shown, not by\nopposition to revision, but by a desire, and even demand, that it should\nbe undertaken. This necessity became all the more imperative in the case\nof the revision of 1611, because there existed no standard copy to which\nappeal could in all cases be made as evidence of the conclusions reached\nby the translators. It is a curious and remarkable fact, that two\neditions, differing in several respects, were issued by the king\u2019s\nprinter, Robert Barker, in 1611, and competent judges are not agreed as to\nwhich of these two priority in time belongs. Nor even if this point were\nsatisfactorily settled, would it suffice to reproduce that one of the two\ntexts which might be proved to be the earlier. For excellent as was the\nmain work done by the translators, the final revision and the oversight of\nthe sheets as they passed through the press were not so thorough as was to\nbe desired. In the most carefully prepared edition of this revision that\nhas ever been issued, viz., the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Dr.\nScrivener, the learned and laborious editor has seen it right to depart\nfrom the printed text of 1611 in more than nine hundred places.[66] It\nwill be manifest that such corrections, whenever called for, ought not to\nbe made in any haphazard way, and that it is in the interest of all that\ncareful revisions of the printed texts should from time to time be made,\nand that they should be made by men thoroughly competent for the task.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe second cause to which reference has been made is, of course, much\nslower in its operation, but though slow it is certain; and sooner or\nlater every version, whensoever and by whomsoever made, must call for\nrevision, because of the changes to which all language is subject. Words\nwhich were once in common use pass altogether out of currency, and are\nutterly unintelligible save to a learned few. Other words change their\nmeaning, and give to the sentences in which they occur a different and\nsometimes an alien sense to that which they formerly conveyed. Others\nagain, while retaining fundamentally their original sense, become limited\nin their range of application, and when used in other connections than\nthose to which they are thus confined by custom, become grotesque and\ndisturb the mind of the reader by the strange associations which they\nsuggest.\n\nHow many words found in our Bibles have, since 1611, passed out of general\nuse the following list will show. Most of these are wholly without\nmeaning, even to an educated reader; a few survive as local\nprovincialisms, and a few also are still employed in the technical\nvocabulary of certain arts or professions. All are out of place in a book\nintended for universal use.\n\n _Assay._ Deut. iv. 34; Job iv. 2; Acts ix. 26, &c.\n\n _Attent._ 2 Chron. vi. 40.\n\n _Bestead._ Isa. viii. 21.\n\n _Blain._ Exod. ix. 9, 10.\n\n _Bolled._ Exod. ix. 31.\n\n [_Brickle._ Wisd. xv. 13.]\n\n _Brigandine._ Jer. xlvi. 4; li. 3.\n\n _Bruit._ Jer. x. 22; Nah. iii. 19.\n\n _Calamus._ Exod. xxx. 23; Cant. iv. 14; Exek. xxvii. 19.\n\n _Camphire._ Cant. i. 14; iv. 13.\n\n _Causey._ 1 Chron. xxvi. 18.\n\n _Chanel-bone._ Job xxxi. 22, _marg._\n\n _Chapiter._ Exod. xxxvi. 38, &c.\n\n _Chapman._ 2 Chron. ix. 14.\n\n _Chaws._ Ezek. xxix. 4.\n\n [_Cithern._ 1 Macc. iv. 54.]\n\n _Cockatrice._ Isa. xi. 8, &c.\n\n _Collops._ Job xv. 27.\n\n _Confection._ Exod. xxx. 35.\n\n _Coney._ Lev. xi. 5, &c.\n\n _To Convent._ Jer. xlix. 19, _marg._\n\n _Cotes._ 2 Chron. xxxii. 28.\n\n _To Couch._ Dent, xxxiii. 13.\n\n _Countervail._ Esth. vii. 4.\n\n _Daysman._ Job ix. 33.\n\n [_Dehort._ 1 Macc. ix. 9.]\n\n _Delicates._ Jer. li. 34.\n\n _Dredge._ Job xxiv. 6, _marg._\n\n _Dure._ Matt. xiii. 21.\n\n _Earing._ Gen. xlv. 6.\n\n _Endirons._ Ezek. xl. 43, _marg._\n\n _Flue-net._ Hab. i. 15, _marg._\n\n _Gier eagle._ Lev. xi. 18.\n\n _Gorget._ 1 Sam. xvii. 6, _marg._\n\n _Habergeon._ Exod. xxviii. 32; xxxix. 23, &c.\n\n _Helve._ Deut. xix. 5.\n\n _Hough._ Josh. xi. 6, 9.\n\n _Implead._ Acts xix. 38.\n\n _Jewry._ Dan. v. 13; John vii. 1.\n\n _Knop._ Exod. xxv. 31, &c.\n\n _Leasing._ Ps. iv. 2; v. 6.\n\n _Makebate._ 2 Tim. iii. 3, _marg._\n\n _Muffler._ Isa. iii. 19.\n\n _Neesing._ Job xli. 18.\n\n _Ossifrage._ Lev. xi. 13.\n\n _Ouches._ Exod. xxviii. 11, &c.\n\n _Pilled._ Gen. xxx. 37.\n\n _Prelation._ 1 Cor. xiii., _heading_.\n\n _Purtenance._ Exod. xii. 9.\n\n _Ravin._ Gen. xlix. 27.\n\n _Rereward._ Num. x. 25, &c.\n\n _Scall._ Lev. xiii. 30.\n\n _Scrabble._ 1 Sam. xxi. 13.\n\n _A Settle._ Ezek. xliii. 14, &c.\n\n _Silverling._ Isa. vii. 23.\n\n _Sith._ Ezek. xxxv. 6.\n\n _Tabering._ Nah. ii. 7.\n\n _Tache._ Exod. xxvi. 6.\n\n _Throughaired._ Jer. xxii. 14, _marg._\n\n _Thrum._ Isa. xxxviii. 12, _marg._\n\n _Viol._ Isa. v. 12.\n\n _Wimple._ Isa. iii. 22.\n\nA still larger number of words or phrases, though still finding a place in\nour current speech, have wholly or partially changed their meanings.\nAmongst these are the following:\n\n _All to brake._ Judges ix. 5.\n\n _Base._ 1 Cor. i. 28; 2 Cor. x. 1.\n\n _Botch._ Exod. ix. 9.\n\n _Bought of a sling._ 1 Sam. xxv. 29, _marg._\n\n _Bravery._ Isa. iii. 18.\n\n _Bray._ Prov. xxvii. 27.\n\n _By and by._ Matt. xiii. 21; Luke xxi. 9.\n\n _Captivate._ 2 Chron. xxviii.; Jer. xxxix., _headings_.\n\n _Careful._ Dan. iii. 16; Phil. iv. 6.\n\n _Carriage._ Judges xviii. 21; Acts xxi. 15.\n\n _Cast about._ Jer. xli. 14.\n\n _Chafed._ 2 Sam. xvii. 8.\n\n _Champaign._ Deut. xi. 30.\n\n _Charger._ Matt. xiv. 8; Mark vi. 25.\n\n _Charity._ 1 Cor. xiii. 1, &c.\n\n _Churl._ Isa. xxxii. 5, 7.\n\n _Cieling._ 1 Kings vi. 15.\n\n _Clouted._ Josh. ix. 5.\n\n _Cockle._ Job xxxi. 40.\n\n _Comfort._ Job ix. 27.\n\n _Confectionary._ 1 Sam. viii. 13.\n\n _Contain._ 1 Cor. vii. 9.\n\n _Conversation._ Gal. i. 18; Phil. iii. 20; Heb. xiii. 5.\n\n _Convince._ Jno. viii. 48; Jas. ii. 9.\n\n _Cunning._ Ps. cxxxvii. 5.\n\n _Curious._ Exod. xxviii. 8; xxix. 5.\n\n _Damnation._ 1 Cor. xi. 29.\n\n _Delicately._ Lam. iv. 5; Luke vii. 25.\n\n _Discover._ Ps. xxix. 9; Mic. i. 6; Hab. iii. 13.\n\n _Doctrine._ Mark iv. 2.\n\n _Duke._ Gen. xxxvi. 15.\n\n _Ensign._ Num. ii. 2; Isa. v. 26.\n\n _Fast._ Ruth ii. 8, 21.\n\n _Fetch a compass._ Acts xxviii. 13.\n\n _Flood._ Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.\n\n _Footman._ Jer. xii. 5.\n\n _Fret._ Lev. xiii. 55.\n\n _Grudge._ Ps. lix. 15.\n\n _Hale._ Luke xii. 58; Acts viii. 3.\n\n _Harness._ 1 Kings xx. 11; xxii. 34.\n\n _Indite._ Ps. xlv. 1.\n\n _Jangling._ 1 Tim. i. 6.\n\n _Kerchief._ Ezek. xiii. 18, 21.\n\n _Lace._ Exod. xxviii. 28.\n\n _Latchet._ Isa. v. 27; Mark i. 7.\n\n _Let._ Exod. v. 24; Isa. xliii. 13; Rom. i. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7.\n\n _Lewd._ Acts xvii. 5.\n\n _Lewdness._ Acts xviii. 14.\n\n _Man-of-War._ Exod. xv. 3, &c.\n\n _Maul._ Prov. xxv. 18.\n\n _Minister._ Josh. i. 1; 1 Kings x. 5; Luke iv. 20.\n\n _Napkin._ Luke xix. 20; John xi. 44; xx. 7.\n\n _Naughtiness._ 1 Sam. xvii. 28; Prov. xi. 6; James i. 21.\n\n _Naughty._ Prov. vi. 12.\n\n _Nephew._ Judges xii. 14; 1 Tim. v. 4.\n\n _Observe._ Mark vi. 20.\n\n _Occupy._ Exod. xxxviii. 24; Judg. xvi. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 9; Luke xix.\n 13.\n\n _Painfulness._ 2 Cor. xi. 27.\n\n _Palestine._ Exod. xv. 14; Isa. xiv. 29.\n\n _Pap._ Luke xi. 27; Rev. i. 13.\n\n _Parcel._ Gen. xxxix. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32; Ruth iv. 3; John iv. 5.\n\n _Peep._ Isa. viii. 19; x. 14.\n\n _Poll._ Num. i. 2, &c.\n\n _Pommel._ 2 Chron. ix. 12.\n\n _Port._ Neh. ii. 13.\n\n _Prefer._ Esth. ii. 9; Dan. vi. 3; John i. 25.\n\n _Presently._ Matt. xxvi. 53; Phil. ii. 23.\n\n _Prevent._ Ps. lix. 10; cxix. 147; 1 Thess. iv. 15.\n\n _Proper._ Acts i. 19; 1 Cor. vii. 7; Heb. xi. 32.\n\n _Prophesy._ 1 Cor. xi. 5; xiv. 3, 4.\n\n _Publican._ Matt. v. 46, &c.\n\n _Purchase._ 1 Tim. iii. 13.\n\n _Ranges._ Lev. xi. 35.\n\n _Refrain._ Prov. x. 19.\n\n _Riot._ Titus i. 6; 1 Peter iv. 4; 2 Peter ii. 13.\n\n _Rioting._ Rom. xiii. 13.\n\n _Riotous._ Prov. xxiii. 20; Luke xv. 13.\n\n _Road._ 1 Sam. xxvii. 10.\n\n _Scrip._ 1 Sam. xvii. 40; Matt. x. 10, &c.\n\n _Secure._ Judges viii. 11; xviii. 7, 10; Job xi. 18; xii. 6; Matt.\n xxviii. 14.\n\n _Set to._ John iii. 32.\n\n _Shroud._ Ezek. xxxi. 3.\n\n _Sod._ Gen. xxv. 29.\n\n _Sottish._ Jer. iv. 22.\n\n _Table._ Hab. ii. 2; Luke i. 63; 2 Cor. iii. 3.\n\n _Target._ 1 Sam. xvii. 6; 1 Kings x. 16.\n\n _Tire._ Isa. iii. 18; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23.\n\n _Tired._ 2 Kings ix. 30.\n\n _Turtle._ Cant. ii. 12.\n\n _Vagabond._ Gen. iv. 12; Ps. cix. 10; Acts xix. 13.\n\n _Venison._ Gen. xxv. 28.\n\n _Wealth._ 2 Chron. i. 12; Ps. cxii. 3; 1 Cor. x. 24.\n\n _Witty._ Prov. viii. 22.\n\nIf, in reading these passages, we attach to the words here mentioned the\nmeaning that they ordinarily bear, the resulting sense will in each case\nbe very different from that intended to be conveyed by the translators. In\nsome of the passages the sense thus given will be so manifestly\ninappropriate that the reader is necessarily driven to seek for some\nexplanation; but in others of them no such feeling may be awakened, and\nthe reader is undesignedly betrayed into error. Through no fault of the\ntranslators, but by the inevitable law of change in language, the words\nwhich once served as stepping-stones, by whose aid the reader could rise\nto a clearer perception of the truth of God, have become stumbling-blocks\nin his path, and cause him to wander from the way. Respect, therefore, for\nthe translators, as well as loyalty to the Scripture, constrain the demand\nthat these rough places be made plain.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\n_ON THE IMPERFECT RENDERINGS INTRODUCED OR RETAINED IN THE REVISION OF\n1611._\n\n\nThe two reasons for further revision which were illustrated in the last\nlecture are, as will have been seen, of universal application, and must\nsooner or later apply to every version of the Scriptures, however perfect\nthat version may have been when it was first made. But whatever the skill\nwith which King James\u2019s translators fulfilled their labours (and it is\nuniversally acknowledged to be worthy of the highest praise), it would be\na vain fancy to imagine that theirs was a perfect work. They themselves\nwould never have claimed such an honour for it, and already in their own\nday some of their renderings were called in question by competent men.\nEven if they had never failed in applying the means at their command for\nthe interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek originals, they knew that the\nknowledge then possessed of these ancient tongues was far from complete,\nand that by further study and advancing research it would be possible to\nattain to a more accurate and extensive acquaintance with them.\n\nThe progress made in the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew during the last two\ncenturies has, in fact, been such as the revisers of 1611 could have\nlittle anticipated. A long list might easily be drawn up of eminent\nscholars who have given themselves to the investigation of the grammar of\nthe two sacred languages, and of others who have laboured in illustrating\nthe meaning of their terms. In the case of Hebrew, large additions to our\nknowledge, both of its grammar and its vocabulary, have been won from a\nsource almost entirely unexplored in former times; namely, the study of\nArabic and other cognate languages; and in the case both of Hebrew and\nGreek, much has been gained by the labours of those who have given\nthemselves to the investigation of the general principles of language, and\nto the study of the relations which different languages sustain to each\nother. The knowledge of Hebrew and Greek thus attained has been from time\nto time applied by a still larger number of eminent men to the elucidation\nof the several books of the Bible, and an immense amount of valuable\nmaterial for their interpretation has thus been stored up. The meaning of\nobscure and difficult passages has been elaborately and independently\ndiscussed by men of different nationalities, and of different types of\ntheological opinion, and in this way the sense of many passages formerly\nmisunderstood has been satisfactorily determined. And such being the case,\nit is clearly the incumbent duty of all who truly reverence the Scriptures\nto desire that these imperfections and obscurities shall be removed, and\nthe more so that some of these erroneous renderings have been used by the\nopponents of the Bible as their weapons of attack.\n\nThat the reader may be able to form some definite judgment upon the matter\nhere presented to him, his attention is called to the following selection\nof passages from different parts of the Bible, in which it will now be\ngenerally acknowledged by competent judges that the translators of 1611\nhave failed to give a faithful representation of the meaning of the\noriginal texts:\n\nGen. iv. 15 is rendered, in the version of 1611, as in previous versions:\n\u201cAnd the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him,\u201d\nand no small amount of ingenuity has been wasted in the endeavour to\ndecide what this supposed mark upon the body of Cain might be. The\nrendering moreover altogether misrepresented the import of the passage.\nThe \u201cmark\u201d or \u201csign\u201d was not something intended for the warning of others,\nbut was given to remove the fears of Cain himself, expressed in verses 13,\n14: \u201cThe Lord set a sign for Cain [to assure him] that whoever found him\nwould not kill him.\u201d\n\nGen. xx. 16. Here Abimelech is made to say to Sarah, \u201cBehold, I have given\nthy brother a thousand _pieces_ of silver; behold, he is to thee a\ncovering of the eyes, with all that are with thee, and with all _other_;\nthus she was reproved,\u201d a statement which is both misleading and obscure.\nIt was not Abraham, but the present of money, that was to be for Sarah a\ncovering of the eyes, that is, a testimony to her virtue, and by this act\nof the king she was not reproved for her conduct, but was cleared in her\ncharacter. The latter part should be rendered, \u201cBehold, it shall be to\nthee a covering of the eyes ... and thus she was righted.\u201d\n\nExod. xvi. 15. \u201cAnd when the children of Israel saw _it_, they said one to\nanother, It is manna, for they wist not what it was.\u201d To the ordinary\nreader this seems to involve a contradiction; but the stumbling-block is\nat once removed by the more faithful rendering, \u201cThey said one to another,\nWhat is it? for they wist not what it was.\u201d Further on, in verse 31, it is\nstated that from this cry, \u201cWhat is it?\u201d the bread from heaven thus given\nto them was called Manna, or more correctly Man (the Hebrew word for\nWhat?).\n\nJosh. vi. 4. \u201cAnd seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets\nof rams\u2019 horns.\u201d This is a very unfortunate rendering; for not only are\nrams\u2019 horns solid, and so also unsuitable for wind instruments, but also\nit is only by the merest fancy that any reference to rams can be brought\nin at all. The word rendered \u201crams\u201d is \u201cjubilee,\u201d the same as that given\nto the great Year of Release. It denotes either some kind of trumpet, and\nis so used Exod. xix. 13, or the sound or signal given by a trumpet. The\nYear of Release derives its name, the Year of Jubilee, from the solemn\nsounding of trumpets throughout the land with which it was inaugurated.\nThe original term should here be kept, and the verse should read, \u201cAnd\nseven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of jubilee.\u201d[67]\n\nJudges v. 7. \u201c_The inhabitants of_ the villages ceased, they ceased in\nIsrael, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.\u201d Here\nthe translators first of all misunderstood the word which they have\nrendered \u201cvillages,\u201d and were then driven to introduce the words \u201cthe\ninhabitants of,\u201d for which, as the italics show, there was nothing in the\nHebrew. The picture really drawn in the verse is not that of the\ndepopulation of the country, but of the defenceless and disorganized\ncondition of the people through the absence of judges or rulers. The\nSeptuagint gives the true sense: \u201cThe rulers ceased, they ceased in\nIsrael.\u201d[68]\n\nJudges xv. 19. \u201cBut God clave an hollow place that _was_ in the jaw, and\nthere came water thereout.\u201d A strange misrepresentation of the meaning of\nthe original. The hollow place was not in the jaw-bone with which Sampson\nhad slain the Philistines, but in some cliff in the neighbourhood, and\nwhich derived its name, Ramath-lehi, or more briefly Lehi, from this\nmemorable exploit. The words should be rendered, \u201cBut God clave the hollow\nplace which is in Lehi.\u201d\n\n1 Sam. ix. 20. \u201cAnd as for thine asses that were lost three days ago, set\nnot thy mind on them, for they are found. And on whom _is_ all the desire\nof Israel? _Is it_ not on thee and on all thy father\u2019s house?\u201d A needless\ndifficulty is here created by suggesting that already the hearts of the\npeople had been set upon Saul for their future king, whereas his future\nelevation to that office was as yet known to Samuel only. This is removed\nby the right rendering: \u201cWhose are all the desirable things of Israel? Are\nthey not for thee, and for thy father\u2019s house.\u201d[69]\n\n2 Sam. v. 6. \u201cExcept thou take away the blind and the lame thou shalt not\ncome in hither;\u201d a statement to which the reader finds it difficult to\nattach any appropriate sense. The verse is correctly rendered by\nCoverdale, who reads, \u201cThou shalt not come hither, but the blynde and lame\nshall dryve thee awaie.\u201d\n\n2 Sam. xiv. 14. \u201cFor we must needs die, and _are_ as water spilt on the\nground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect _any_\nperson: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from\nhim.\u201d The statement that God doth not respect _any_ person, however true\nin itself, has here no relation to the context. The natural meaning of the\noriginal words is very different, \u201cGod doth not take away life,\u201d that is,\nas shown by what immediately follows, does not at once and without mercy\ninflict punishment as soon as guilt is incurred, but \u201cdeviseth means,\u201d &c.\n\n2 Kings viii. 13. \u201cAnd Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that\nhe should do this great thing?\u201d Thus read, the words imply that Hazael\nshrank indignantly from the actions described in the preceding verse;\nwhereas the sense of the passage is that he viewed himself as too\ninsignificant a person to do what he clearly regarded as a great exploit.\n\u201cBut what is thy servant, the [or this] dog, that he should do this great\nthing?\u201d\n\n1 Chron. xvi. 7. \u201cThen on that day David delivered first _this psalm_ to\nthank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.\u201d This conveys the\nimpression that the psalm which follows is the first psalm that David\npublished, whereas the statement is that on this memorable day--the day\non which David brought up the ark from the house of Obed-edom--he formally\nappointed Asaph and his brethren to the office of superintending the\nservice of praise. (Compare verse 37.) \u201cThen on that day David first gave\nthe praising of the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.\u201d[70]\n\nJob iv. 6. \u201cIs not _this_ thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the\nuprightness of thy ways?\u201d By the insertion of \u201c_this_,\u201d a wrong complexion\nis given to the passage. Eliphaz, in reference to Job\u2019s fainting under his\nsufferings, calls attention to the confidence he had formerly professed on\nthe ground of his fear of God and of the uprightness of his conduct; and\nso indirectly suggests that Job\u2019s piety and uprightness had been unreal.\n\u201cIs not thy fear [_i.e._ thy fear of God, thy piety] thy confidence; and\nthy hope, _is it not_ even the integrity of thy ways?\u201d\n\nJob xix. 26. \u201cAnd _though_ after my skin _worms_ destroy this _body_, yet\nin my flesh shall I see God.\u201d As the italics show, the original contains\nnothing corresponding to the words \u201cthough,\u201d \u201cworms,\u201d and \u201cbody.\u201d Their\ninsertion does not indeed change radically the meaning of the verse, but\nthey weaken its force, and in a measure alter its imagery. The picture\npresented by the original is a very vivid one. The patriarch, pointing to\nhis body wasting away under disease, says, \u201cAfter my skin is destroyed\nthus, yet from my flesh shall I see God.\u201d\n\nJob xxiv. 16. \u201cIn the dark they dig through houses, _which_ they had\nmarked for themselves in the daytime; they know not the light.\u201d Here the\nmeaning of the second clause has been altogether missed, and the whole\npassage is thereby greatly obscured. The writer is describing the deeds of\nthose who rebel against the light and love the darkness: as with the\nmurderer (_v._ 14) and the adulterer (_v._ 15), so is it with the robber.\n\u201cIn the dark they dig through houses; in the daytime they shut themselves\nup; they know not the light.\u201d\n\nJob xxxi. 35. \u201cOh that one would hear me! behold, my desire _is_, _that_\nthe Almighty would answer me, and _that_ mine adversary had written a\nbook.\u201d Job, having asserted his innocence, expresses his strong desire\nthat the charges against him might be brought for decision before the\ndivine tribunal. He, on his part, is quite prepared for the trial; there,\nhe says, is his statement, signed and sealed; let the adversary in like\nmanner present his indictment; he would then be sure of a triumphant\nissue. \u201cOh that I had one who would hear me! Behold my mark! May the\nAlmighty answer me, and that I had the accusation that my adversary had\nwritten. Surely, I would carry it on my shoulder, I would bind it as\nchaplets upon me.\u201d\n\nPs. xvi. 2, 3. \u201c_Thou art_ my Lord; my goodness _extendeth_ not to thee.\n_But_ to the saints that _are_ in the earth, and _to_ the excellent, in\nwhom is all my delight.\u201d Every reader of this psalm must have felt how\nobscure, if not unintelligible, are these words. A more faithful rendering\ngives a clear and appropriate sense, \u201cThou art my Lord, I have no good\nabove thee. As for the saints on the earth, and the excellent, in them is\nall my delight.\u201d[71]\n\nPs. xlii. 4. \u201cWhen I remember these _things_, I pour out my soul in me,\nfor I had gone with the multitude. I went with them to the house of God.\u201d\nThe words of the Psalmist are not, as this rendering makes them to be, a\nmere statement of what happens whenever he remembers the sorrows of the\npast, and the mockery of his adversaries. They are a declaration of his\npurpose to remember, with lively emotion and gratitude, the privileges and\nmercies with which he had been blessed. \u201cI will remember these things\n[_i.e._ the things he is about to mention], and I will pour out my soul\nwithin me, how I passed along with the multitude, how I went with them [or\nhow I led them] to the house of God.\u201d\n\nPs. xlix. 5. \u201cWherefore should I fear in the days of evil, _when_ the\niniquity of my heels shall compass me about?\u201d This, though seemingly an\nexact rendering of the Hebrew, wholly misleads the English reader. The\nphrase, \u201ciniquity of my heels,\u201d can only suggest to him the iniquity which\nthe man himself has committed, a sense which is altogether unsuited to the\npassage. The Psalmist would never say that his own personal transgressions\nwere not to him a ground of fear. The word, which in Hebrew means \u201cheel,\u201d\nis that also which, by a slight modification, forms the name of the\npatriarch Jacob, the \u201cHeeler,\u201d or supplanter of his brother. In the\nopinion of many scholars, the simple form here used admits of the same\nmeaning, and they render, \u201cwhen the iniquity of my supplanters [or the\niniquity of those who plot against me] compasseth me about.\u201d Whatever be\nthe true explanation of the Hebrew phrase, it is quite certain that it is\nthe iniquity of others, and not of the speaker, which is referred to. Some\nchange, therefore, in the rendering is clearly called for.\n\nPs. xci. 9, 10. \u201cBecause thou hast made the Lord, _which is_ my refuge,\n_even_ the Most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee,\u201d\n&c. The earlier English translations, the Bishops\u2019, the Genevan, the Great\nBible, and Wycliffe\u2019s, have all kept nearer to the original than this. The\nmost ancient version of all, the Septuagint, renders it correctly. The\npsalm is one of those which are intended to be sung by two singers, or two\ncompanies of singers, responding one to the other, and hence arises the\nfrequent change of person that occurs in it. In the first clause of this\nverse we have one of the singers chanting, \u201cFor thou, O Lord, art my\nrefuge.\u201d In the second clause we have the response of the other singer,\n\u201cThou hast made the Most High thy habitation; there shall no evil befall\nthee,\u201d &c., down to end of verse 13.\n\nEccl. iv. 14. \u201cFor out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas, also, _he\nthat is_ born in his kingdom _becometh_ poor.\u201d The meaning attached by the\nRevisers of 1611 to the second clause seems to be, that the old and\nfoolish king referred to in the previous verse, who was \u201cborn in his\nkingdom,\u201d that is, who succeeded to the kingly power by inheritance,\nbecomes, through his obstinacy, a poor man. This sense can only be got\nfrom the words by much straining, and has led to the introduction of the\nword \u201cbecometh,\u201d which represents nothing in the original.[72] The correct\nrendering gives a plain and suitable sense: \u201cFor from the house of\nprisoners he goeth forth to reign, although in his kingdom [namely, the\nkingdom over which he now rules] he was born poor.\u201d\n\nIsa. lxiii. 19. \u201cWe are _thine_: thou never barest rule over them; they\nwere not called by thy name.\u201d The sense of this passage is entirely\nchanged by the introduction of the word \u201cthine.\u201d The verse is the\npenitential acknowledgment of the depressed condition into which the\nnation had fallen in consequence of its sins. They are no longer as the\nchosen inheritance (v. 17), they are as an alien people. The Genevan\ntranslators give the true sense of the passage, \u201cWe have been [better, We\nare become] as they over whom thou never barest rule, and upon whom thy\nname was not called.\u201d\n\nJer. iv. 1, 2. \u201cIf thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto\nme: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then\nshalt thou not remove. And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in\njudgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in\nhim, and in him shall they glory.\u201d This as it stands is hopelessly\nobscure. The passage is an emphatic announcement of the blessings that\nwould come to the nations from the penitent return of Israel to its\nfaithful allegiance. If Israel will return, will put away all its\nabominations, and no longer swearing by idols, as if they were the highest\nobjects of reverence, should make in truth and uprightness their appeals\nto Jehovah, then the nations would share in the blessedness of the\nkingdom. \u201cIf thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, wilt return unto\nme, and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, and wilt\nnot go astray, and wilt swear, \u2018The Lord liveth\u2019 in truth, in judgment,\nand in righteousness, then the nations shall bless themselves in him,\u201d &c.\n\nEzek. x. 14. \u201cAnd every one had four faces: the first face was the face of\na cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the\nface of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.\u201d This conveys a wrong\nimpression. The prophet is describing, not as he is here represented, the\nfour faces of all the cherubim, but one face only of each. The Bishops\u2019\nBible gives the true sense by rendering, \u201cEvery one of them had four\nfaces, so that the face of the first was the face of a cherub, and the\nface of the second was the face of a man, and of the third the face of a\nlion, and of the fourth the face of an eagle.\u201d\n\nEzek. xxii. 15, 16. \u201cAnd I will scatter thee among the heathen, and\ndisperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of\nthee. And thou shalt take thine inheritance in thyself in the sight of the\nheathen, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.\u201d The dark phrase, \u201cthou\nshalt take thine inheritance in thyself,\u201d is commonly explained to mean,\nthat whereas aforetime they were God\u2019s inheritance, they shall now be left\nto find their inheritance by themselves. A more lucid and more suitable\nmeaning is given to the words by the rendering adopted by most modern\ncommentators, \u201cthou shalt be profaned through thyself in the sight of the\nnations.\u201d\n\nDan. iii. 25. \u201cLo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,\nand they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of\nGod.\u201d It is clearly misleading to attribute to Nebuchadnezzar any such\nexalted conception as that which we attach to the phrase, \u201cthe Son of\nGod,\u201d and so to render the clause misrepresents the original. The correct\ntranslation is \u201cone like to a son of the gods.\u201d A similar error occurs in\nvii. 13, where \u201cone like the Son of man,\u201d should be \u201cone like a son of\nman.\u201d\n\nHos. vi. 3. \u201cThen shall we know, _if_ we follow on to know the Lord;\u201d thus\nmaking the prophet to declare that the attainment of knowledge is\ndependent upon our perseverance in the search after it. This is an\nimportant truth, but is not the meaning of the verse, which is simply an\nemphatic exhortation to know God and to persevere in knowing Him. \u201cYea,\nlet us know, let us follow on to know, the Lord.\u201d\n\nHosea xiii. 14. \u201cO death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy\ndestruction.\u201d Though there is some difference of opinion respecting the\nright rendering of the earlier part of this verse, all are agreed that\nthese should be rendered as they are quoted in 1 Cor. xv. 55, \u201cWhere are\nthy plagues, O death? Where is thy destruction, O grave?\u201d\n\nMatt. vi. 16. The rendering \u201cthey disfigure their faces, that they may\nappear unto men to fast,\u201d misleads the reader by conveying the impression\nthat the Pharisees were endeavouring to obtain credit under false\npretences--were seeming to fast when not doing so in reality; whereas the\nconduct condemned is that of parading, and calling public attention to,\ntheir religious observances. \u201cThey disfigure their faces, that they may be\nseen of men that they are fasting.\u201d[73] So also in verse 18.\n\nMatt. xi. 2. \u201cNow when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ,\nhe sent two of his disciples.\u201d Here the true force of the passage is\nmissed. \u201cChrist,\u201d as used by us, is a proper name, designating the person,\nand not simply the office of our Lord. It was not because John had heard\nof certain works done by Jesus of Nazareth that he sent his disciples to\nHim, but because he recognized in the accounts which were brought to him\ndeeds characteristic of the Christ, the promised Messiah. \u201cWhen John heard\nin the prison the works of the Christ.\u201d\n\nMatt. xv. 3. \u201cWhy do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your\ntradition?\u201d The commandment of God might indeed be transgressed by\ncompliance with the traditions of men, but this is not the meaning of our\nLord\u2019s words. The Pharisees had asked why the disciples did not observe\nthe traditions of the elders respecting washing. Our Lord justifies them\nby calling attention to the wrong doing of those who so exalted these\noutward observations, in themselves mere matters of indifference, as on\ntheir account to make void the commandments of God. \u201cWhy do ye also\ntransgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?\u201d[74]\n\nMark vi. 20. \u201cFor Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an\nholy, and observed him.\u201d This erroneous rendering has come down through\nTyndale, the Great Bible, and the Genevan, the last of these, however,\ngiving it in the less obscure form, \u201cand did him reverence.\u201d The passage\nis rightly given by Wycliffe, \u201cand kept him;\u201d _i.e._ kept him in safety.\n\nLuke i. 59. \u201cAnd they called him Zacharias.\u201d The form employed in the\nGreek expresses that the action here spoken of was attempted only, not\ncompleted, \u201cthey would have called him Zacharias.\u201d\n\nLuke xxi. 19. \u201cIn your patience possess ye your souls,\u201d a translation\nwhich altogether misses the meaning. The clause is not an exhortation to\nthe maintenance of a calm composure in trouble, but is an exhortation to\nthe acquirement of a higher and nobler life through the brave endurance of\nsuffering. \u201cIn your patience win ye your lives.\u201d In the better texts this\nis given in the form of an assurance: \u201cIn your patience ye shall win your\nlives.\u201d\n\nLuke xxiii. 15. \u201cNo, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing\nworthy of death is done unto him.\u201d Words unto which an intelligible sense\ncan be put only by straining them to mean that nothing had been done to\nour Lord to show that in the judgment of Herod He was worthy of death. All\nobscurity is removed by the more faithful rendering, \u201cnothing worthy of\ndeath hath been done by him.\u201d\n\nJohn iv. 27. \u201cAnd upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he\ntalked with the woman.\u201d The surprise of the disciples was not occasioned\nby the fact that our Lord was conversing with this particular woman; they\nwere surprised that He should talk with any woman. The correct rendering\nis, as given by the Rheims, \u201cand they marueiled that he talked with a\nwoman.\u201d\n\nJohn v. 35. \u201cHe was a burning and a shining light.\u201d Though this, by\nfrequent quotation, has passed into a sort of proverbial phrase, it is a\nmost unfortunate rendering, and gives an entirely wrong impression of the\nmeaning of the passage. As thus read it sets forth the pre-eminence of\nJohn, whereas its true import is to emphasize the subordinate nature of\nhis office and work. Christ, as stated in the first chapter of this\nGospel, was \u201cthe Light.\u201d In comparison with Him, John was only a lamp\nwhich, in order that it may give light, must first be kindled from some\nother source. \u201cHe was the lamp which is kindled and [so] shineth.\u201d\n\nJohn xv. 3. \u201cNow ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto\nyou,\u201d thus representing the word to be the instrument through which the\ncleansing was wrought. But though this be true, it is not the truth here\nset forth. It was not \u201cthrough,\u201d but \u201con account of\u201d the word, _i.e._\nbecause of its virtue and its cleansing power, that they were clean.\nHere, again, Wycliffe is free from the error into which all the later\ntranslators (except the Rheims) have fallen. He renders, \u201cNow ye ben clene\nfor the word that I haue spokun to you.\u201d\n\nActs ii. 23. \u201cYe have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and\nslain.\u201d The ordinary reader naturally takes the \u201cwicked hands\u201d to be the\nhands of the Jews, whereas the reference is to the Romans, through whose\nagency the Jews brought about the crucifixion of Christ, \u201cand by the hands\nof lawless men, ye crucified and slew.\u201d Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the\nGenevan, the Bishops, and the Rheims, all render this clause correctly.\n\nActs xi. 17. \u201cForasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as _he did_\nunto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d This is incorrect, and\nsuggests a false contrast between \u201cus\u201d and \u201cthem,\u201d as if the latter were\nnot believers. Faith in Christ is the ground upon which, in the case of\nboth parties, the gifts referred to were received. The verse is thus given\nby Tyndale: \u201cFor as moche then as God gave them lyke gyftes, as he dyd\nunto vs when we beleved on the Lorde Iesus Christ.\u201d\n\nActs xxvi. 23. \u201cThat Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first\nthat should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and\nto the Gentiles.\u201d This both needlessly suggests a difficulty to many\nreaders, and altogether conceals one main point of the passage; namely,\nthat the resurrection of Christ was the great source from which\nillumination would come both to Jews and to Gentiles, \u201cand that He first\nby _His_ resurrection from the dead should proclaim light to the people\nand to the Gentiles.\u201d\n\nRom. ix. 3. \u201cFor I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my\nbrethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.\u201d Such a wish it is impossible\nthat the Apostle could have entertained. His words are the expression of\nhis strong affection for his fellow-countrymen. \u201cI could have wished,\u201d\n&c.; _i.e._ if such a wish had been right or possible.\n\nRom. xiii. 11. \u201cAnd that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to\nawake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we\nbelieved.\u201d This is ambiguous English, and though a very careful reader\nmight gather the true sense from this rendering, it is very liable to be\ntaken as if meaning that our salvation is nearer than we anticipated; nor\nis the ambiguity removed by the Genevan, which reads, \u201cnearer than when we\nbelieved it.\u201d The reference is to the time of their first exercise of\nfaith in Christ, \u201cnearer than when we _first_ believed.\u201d\n\n1 Cor. i. 21. \u201cFor after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom\nknew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them\nthat believe.\u201d This rendering has been a fertile source of error, as if\npreaching was in itself, or as viewed by the Corinthians, an inappropriate\nmeans for the diffusion of the Gospel, a thought altogether at variance\nwith the tone of the context, and with the facts of history. The Greeks\nwere, of all the peoples of antiquity, the least disposed to think lightly\nof oratory, and the whole tenor of the passage shows that their tendency\nwas to overrate, not underrate, the power of speech. What was foolishness\nto them was not the act of preaching, but the doctrine preached--salvation\nthrough a crucified Christ. The Rheims here clearly enough gives the true\nsense, \u201cit pleased God by the folishnes of the preaching to saue them that\nbeleeue.\u201d\n\n1 Cor. ix. 5. \u201cHave we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well\nas other apostles?\u201d This mode of speech implies that some only of the\nother apostles were married. What the Greek states is that all or most of\nthem were. Here again the Rheims correctly renders, \u201cas also the rest of\nthe Apostles.\u201d\n\n2 Cor. v. 14. \u201cBecause we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were\nall dead,\u201d thus seeming to imply that the death of Christ upon the cross\nis a proof that all men were in a state of spiritual death; whereas the\nconclusion which the Apostle draws from the death of Christ is, that all\nwho truly believe in Him die to their old fleshly sinful life, \u201cbecause\nwe thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died.\u201d\n\nEph. iii 10. \u201cTo the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in\nheavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.\u201d\nIt would only be after much careful consideration that the reader of these\nwords would discover that they cannot mean that the manifold wisdom of God\nis to be known _by_ the Church. What the Apostle really states is, that it\nwas in the Divine purpose that through the Church the manifold wisdom of\nGod was to be made known to the angelic powers. Of all the ancient\nversions the Rheims, though here, as usual, disfigured by its offensive\nLatinisms, most clearly expresses the sense of the verse; its rendering\nis, \u201cthat the manifold wisdom of God may be notified to the Princes and\nPotentates in the celestials by the Church.\u201d\n\nPhil. iv. 3. \u201cAnd I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women\nwhich laboured with me in the gospel.\u201d This leaves it quite uncertain who\nare the women referred to, whereas in the original it is plain that they\nare the two women previously referred to, Euodia, and Syntyche; and the\nreason why it is urged that assistance should be given to them, is that\nthey had bravely shared with Paul in the toil and conflict of the\nChristian service. \u201cHelp them, for they have laboured with me in the\ngospel.\u201d\n\n1 Tim. iv. 15. \u201cMeditate upon these things.\u201d This wholly fails to express\nthe apostle\u2019s meaning. His exhortation goes beyond the region of thought;\nit passes into the sphere of active life, and he urges Timothy to give\nhimself to the diligent practice of the several departments of labour\npreviously referred to. Of the old translators, Tyndale gives it\ncorrectly, \u201cThese thynges exercyse.\u201d\n\n1 Tim. vi. 2. \u201cAnd they that have believing masters, let them not despise\n_them_, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because\nthey are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.\u201d The last clause\nof this passage has, in all probability, grievously puzzled many a reader;\nbut with the fuller knowledge of the Greek syntax now possessed, all\nobscurity passes away. No scholar would now hesitate in rendering, \u201cdo\nthem service because they who partake of the benefit are faithful and\nbeloved.\u201d[75]\n\n1 Tim. vi. 5. \u201cSupposing that gain is godliness.\u201d Here again an\nunnecessary difficulty is introduced; for it is hard to see how any sane\nperson could consider \u201cgain\u201d to be \u201cgodliness.\u201d On the other hand, it is\nunhappily no uncommon experience to meet with persons who treat religion\nas a means of worldly advantage, and it is to such the Apostle refers. The\ncorrect rendering is, \u201csupposing that godliness is gain.\u201d[76]\n\nHeb. iv. 2. \u201cFor unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them,\u201d a\nrendering which at once raises the objection that \u201cthe Gospel,\u201d in the\nsense which ordinary readers attach to the term, was not preached to the\nIsraelites in the wilderness; nor does any reference to \u201cthe Gospel\u201d occur\nin the immediate context, but simply to the promise of entering into a\nrest. The plain sense of the passage is, \u201cunto us were good tidings\npreached as well as unto them.\u201d\n\nHeb. viii. 5. \u201cWho serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.\u201d\nThe introduction of the preposition \u201cunto\u201d almost entirely obliterates the\nmeaning of the clause; namely, that the Mosaic priesthood were the\nministers, not of the true sanctuary, but of that which is only its copy\nand shadow. The Rheims correctly renders, \u201cthat serve the examplar and\nshadow of heavenly things.\u201d\n\nHeb. xiii. 7, 8. \u201cWhose faith follow, considering the end of their\nconversation: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.\u201d\nHere there is a double error; first, the connection of the last clause\nwith the preceding, as if it were intended to affirm that Christ was the\nend of the conversation of their faithful pastors; and secondly, the wrong\nsense thus given to the word \u201cend,\u201d which here denotes the \u201coutcome\u201d or\nissue. The Hebrew Christians are urged to imitate the faith of their\npastors, considering the blessed issue of their Christian cause. Then\nfollows, as an independent statement, the assertion of the\nunchangeableness of Christ, which, though not altogether disconnected in\nthought with what precedes, stands in still closer connection with what\nfollows: \u201cConsidering the issue of their way of life, imitate their faith.\nJesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.\u201d\n\nSuch are some of the passages from which it may be said, that through the\nemphatic unanimity of Biblical scholars all obscurity and doubt have been\nremoved. Their true meaning may now be affirmed with a confidence that\nclosely borders upon moral certainty. Through numerous commentaries and\nother expository works, these results of scholarship are made widely\nknown, and they whose duty it is to expound these passages to others are\nconstrained to point out the imperfection that attaches to the renderings\ngiven in the English Bible now ordinarily used. It is obviously a most\nundesirable thing that the teacher or preacher should be placed under such\na necessity. It is not at all times easy so to discharge the duty as that\nhe shall give no offence even to educated hearers; while the simple-minded\nand unlearned are painfully perplexed; and, unprepared as they are to\nestimate the limits of possible error, seem to themselves to be launched\nupon a boundless sea of uncertainty. Revision, therefore, becomes\nimperative, both for the sake of removing acknowledged blemishes, and also\nfor reassuring the anxious that they are trusting to a faithful guide, and\nfor showing to them how little, comparatively, there is in their beloved\nBook that needs to be changed.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\n_ON THE ORIGINAL TEXTS, AS KNOWN IN 1611, AND AS NOW KNOWN._\n\n\nAnother, and distinct, class of reasons for the further revision of the\nEnglish Bible, arises from the more abundant material now possessed for\nthe determination of the original text of Scripture than was within the\nreach of the Revisers of 1611.\n\nEven if these honoured men had perfectly fulfilled their work, and had\nnever erred in their interpretation of the sacred books, the result of\ntheir labours would still be open to correction because of the less\nperfect form of the texts which they set themselves to translate. The\nexact words used by the inspired writers are, as was stated in the first\nlecture, not now to be found in any one book or manuscript. They have to\nbe gathered from varied sources, by long and careful labour, demanding\nmuch skill and learning. These sources, moreover, are so numerous that the\ninvestigation of them can be accomplished only by a large division of\nlabour, no one life being long enough for the task, and no one scholar\nhaving knowledge enough to complete it alone. Nevertheless, it is well\nthat our sources are thus extensive. Had one copy only of the books of the\nOld and New Testament come down to us, then, indeed, we should have been\nfreed from the necessity of this manifold and laborious research, but\nunless this were the original copy itself, we should have had no means\nwhereby to detect and to remove the errors which had crept in from the\nhuman imperfections of the transcribers. And though none of these errata\nmight in any serious degree have affected the great truths which the Bible\nconveys to us, or have diminished our estimate of its surpassing worth,\nthey would have been as blots upon its pages which our love and reverence\nfor it would long to see removed. The greater the number and variety of\nour resources, the greater is our ability, by the examination and\ncomparison of their differences, to remove these blemishes; and the\ngreater also is the confidence we are able to feel in the absolute\ncorrectness of those far more numerous and extensive passages in which our\nauthorities agree. And hence, though the toil imposed upon us is so\nlargely multiplied thereby, we cannot but rejoice in the number and extent\nof our authorities, and we gather therefrom a fresh illustration of the\nsaying, that \u201cin all labour there is profit.\u201d\n\nThe sources, whence our knowledge of the original texts is chiefly\nderived, are three in number: (1) Manuscripts containing one or more of\nthe books of Scripture; (2) Ancient Versions of the Bible; and (3)\nQuotations of Scriptural passages found in the works of early Christian\nwriters.\n\n * * * * *\n\nRespecting our Manuscript Authorities, the first fact claiming emphatic\nnotice is, that while in the case of the classic poets, philosophers and\nhistorians, the extant manuscript copies are numbered by tens and\nsometimes even by units, those of the Scriptures are numbered by hundreds.\nOf the New Testament alone nearly eighteen hundred manuscripts have been\ncatalogued and more or less carefully examined. Of these 685 are\nmanuscripts of the Gospels, 248 contain the Acts and Catholic Epistles,\n298 the Pauline Epistles, and 110 the Apocalypse; 428 are Lectionaries or\nservice books of the Greek church, 347 of which contain passages from the\nGospels and 81 passages from the Acts and the Epistles. Thus while our\nknowledge of the interesting narratives of Herodotus is dependent upon\nfive or six authorities only, and the history of Livy upon eight or nine\nonly (and none of these contain the whole even of the portions\nextant),[77] our knowledge of the life and words of our Lord is drawn from\nover a thousand manuscript authorities, and of which the larger part\ncontain the whole of the four Gospels.\n\nIn antiquity again the manuscripts of the New Testament far surpass those\nof classical authors. Few, if any, of the latter are older than the ninth\nor tenth century, while of the former we have copies belonging to the\nfourth and fifth centuries. The oldest manuscripts are written in capital\nletters, and on this account are called uncial[78] manuscripts, or briefly\nuncials. Later manuscripts are written in a smaller character, and in a\nstyle approaching to what we call a running hand, and are hence named\ncursives. Of uncial manuscripts, containing portions of the New Testament,\none hundred and fifty-eight have been examined and catalogued. Some of the\nmost valuable of these have been published under the superintendence of\ncareful editors. Others have been thoroughly examined, and their\nvariations so faithfully noted and recorded, that a private student is,\nfor most practical purposes, placed in the same position as the possessor\nof the manuscript itself. This work is technically described as\n_collation_, and the amount of painstaking labour spent upon the collation\nof Biblical manuscripts during the past two hundred years, and especially\nin the last forty or fifty years, is simply enormous. To one who has never\nexamined a document written many centuries ago it is difficult to convey\nany adequate notion of the amount of time and labour involved in the\ncollation even of a single manuscript. The unusual and varying forms of\nthe letters, the indistinctness of the characters, the various\ncontractions employed by the scribe, and, as is the case with our most\nancient documents, the non-separation of word from word, and the absence\nof stops, render the mere task of deciphering the manuscript very\ndifficult and painfully wearying to the eyes.[79] Much watchful attention\nis also demanded, as well as a good knowledge of the language, in making\nthe proper separation of the words, and in judging aright of any\npeculiarities of spelling that may attach to the writer. In making the\ncollation of any Biblical manuscript--say of the New Testament--the course\ngenerally pursued is as follows: The collator procures a printed copy of\nthe Greek text, commonly of some well-known edition, and in the margin of\nthis he marks all the variations of the manuscripts from the printed text\nbefore him, whether of omission, addition, or otherwise, including even\nvariations in spelling. He also marks carefully where each line and page\nof the manuscript begins and ends, what corrections or alterations have\nbeen made in it, whether these were made by the original writer or by a\nlater hand; and where several handwritings may be detected, he specifies\nand distinguishes these. All this is done with so much minuteness that it\nwould be possible for the collator to reproduce the original manuscript in\nevery respect save in the shape of the letters and the appearance of the\nparchment or paper.\n\nOf the uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the most ancient and\nimportant are the SINAITIC,[80] written in the fourth century, and now\ndeposited in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg; the VATICAN,[81]\nalso of the fourth century, and preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome;\nthe ALEXANDRINE,[82] of the fifth century, now in the British Museum; the\nEPHRAEM CODEX,[83] of the fifth century, in the National Library at Paris;\nBEZA\u2019S CODEX,[84] of the sixth century, in the University Library,\nCambridge; and the CLAROMONTANE,[85] also of the sixth century, which\nformerly belonged to Beza, but is now in the National Library at Paris. As\nwill be seen presently, only two of these most ancient manuscripts were\navailable for the preparation of the text from which the translators of\n1611 made their revision. The Alexandrine was not brought to light until\n1628, when it was presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of\nConstantinople. Although the Ephraem Codex was brought to Europe in the\nearly part of the sixteenth century, it was not known to contain a portion\nof the New Testament until towards the close of the seventeenth century,\nand was not collated until the year 1716. The Sinaitic was discovered by\nDr. Tischendorf, in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, so\nrecently as February 4th, 1859. And the Vatican, though deposited in the\nLibrary at Rome in the fifteenth century, was, during a long time, so\njealously guarded by the Roman authorities, that little use could be made\nof it. Now, however, all these six important manuscripts have been edited\nand published, some in the ordinary style of printing, and some in _quasi\nfac-simile_. At the present time, by the application of the processes of\nphotography, an exact copy of the Alexandrine is in course of preparation,\nand the New Testament portion has been successfully completed.\n\nIn these and other ways, by the laborious efforts of many English and\nContinental scholars, an immense amount of material for the determination\nof the sacred text has been gathered together and safely garnered; and\nknowledge which aforetime could be attained only by slow and wearisome\neffort, by many long journeys to distant places, and by much personal\nsearch amongst the books and papers stored away in national and other\nlibraries, can now be attained with comparative ease by the solitary\nstudent in his study. At the time when King James\u2019s translators entered\nupon their work a small fraction only of this mass of material was\navailable, and even that fraction was but imperfectly used. The means were\nnot then possessed for correctly judging of the relative value of the\nseveral documents, nor had experience given the skill to discriminate\nwisely between varying testimony.\n\nThe translators of 1611 have left on record no statement respecting the\nGreek text from which they translated, but as far as can be gathered from\ninternal evidence they contented themselves with accepting the forms of it\nwhich they found ready at hand. Of these the two then held in highest\nrepute were those connected with the names of Theodore Beza and Robert\nStephen. These, in their turn, were based upon the two primary editions of\nthe printed text, the Complutensian and Erasmus\u2019s, editions which were\nmade quite independently of each other. The Complutensian was the first\nprinted, though not the first published.[86] It formed the fifth volume of\nthe splendid Polyglot prepared under the munificent patronage of Cardinal\nXimenes, at Alcala, in Spain, from the Latin name of which city\n(Complutum) it derives its designation, and was completed January 10th,\n1514. It is not now known from what manuscripts the text of this edition\nwas derived, but it may be confidently affirmed that none of our most\nancient authorities were used. They were probably not many in number, and\nwere all what in this connection is termed modern; that is to say, not\nearlier than the tenth century. The first _published_ edition of the\nGreek New Testament was that edited by the celebrated Erasmus, and sent\nforth from the press of Froben, in Basle, February 24th, 1516. This was\nderived from six manuscripts, five of which are now in the public library\nof Basle, and one[87] in the library of the Prince of\nOettingen-Wallerstein. Of these one, and the most valuable, contained the\nwhole of the New Testament except the Apocalypse, but of this Erasmus made\nbut little use. Of the rest, one contained the Gospels only, two the Acts\nand the Epistles only, one the Epistles of Paul only, and one the\nApocalypse only. It will thus be seen that in the Gospels the text given\nby Erasmus rested almost entirely upon the authority of a single\nmanuscript; in the Acts and Catholic Epistles upon that of two only; in\nthe Epistles of Paul upon three; and in the Apocalypse upon one only, and\nthat an imperfect one. The last six verses were wanting, and these Erasmus\nsupplied by translating them into Greek from the Latin of the Vulgate. The\nwork too was hastily done. The proposal to undertake it was made to\nErasmus April 17th, 1515, so that less than ten months were given to the\npreparation of the volume, and this, too, at a time when Erasmus was\nbusied with other engagements; an unseemly haste that we may probably\nascribe to the publishers\u2019 eager desire to get the start of the\nComplutensian. Revised editions were published in 1519 and 1522, in the\npreparation of which the aid of a few additional manuscripts was obtained.\nThese, again, were further revised by the aid of the Complutensian, which\nthen became available, in an edition which Erasmus published in 1527.\n\nThe next stage in the history of the printed text of the Greek New\nTestament is marked by the publication at Paris, in 1550, of the handsome\nfolio of the celebrated and learned printer, Robert Stephen.[88] He tells\nus in his preface that in the preparation of this edition he made use of\nthe Complutensian and of fifteen manuscripts. Two of these were ancient,\none that is now known as Beza\u2019s Codex, which had been collated for him by\na friend in Italy, and another, a manuscript in the National Library of\nParis, written in the eighth or ninth century, and containing the four\nGospels;[89] the rest were modern, and all were but imperfectly\ncollated.[90]\n\nAfter the death of Robert Stephen (1559)[91] the work of revision was\ncarried on by Theodore Beza, who, like the former, had embraced the\nProtestant cause, and like him also had found a home in Geneva. His first\nedition was published in this city in 1565, a second in 1582, a third in\n1589, and a fourth in 1598. In the preparation of these he had in his\npossession the collations made for Robert Stephen, and, in addition, the\nancient manuscript of the Gospels and Acts which now bears his name; and\nfor the Pauline Epistles, the equally ancient Claromontane. Beza\u2019s\nstrength, however, lay rather in the interpretation, than in the\ncriticism, of the text, and he made but a slight use of the materials\nwithin his reach.\n\nIt will thus be seen how small, comparatively, was the manuscript\nauthority for the text used by King James\u2019s translators. In the main they\nfollow the text of Beza; sometimes, however, they give the preference to\nStephen\u2019s; in some few places they differ from both. By what principles\nthey were guided in their choice we do not know. They do not appear to\nhave set on foot any independent examination of authorities, and when they\nforsake their two guides they commonly follow in the wake of some of the\nearlier English versions.\n\nBut, as already stated, manuscripts are not the only source whence we\nderive our knowledge of the original texts. Translations of the Scriptures\nwere made at an early date; some at an earlier date than that of the\noldest manuscripts now extant. Two of these were referred to in the first\nlecture; namely, the old Latin and the old Syriac, both of which belong to\nthe second century, and give, therefore, most important testimony as to\nthe words of Scripture at that early period. Next to these in point of age\nmay be placed the two Egyptian versions, one in the language of Lower\nEgypt, and called the Memphitic (or Coptic), and the other in that of\nUpper Egypt, and called the Thebaic (or Sahidic). In the opinion of\ncompetent judges, some portions, at least, of the Scriptures must have\nbeen translated into these dialects before the close of the second\ncentury; in their completed form these versions may be referred to the\nearlier part of the third century. A Gothic version of the Scriptures was\nmade in the fourth century by Ulphilas, who was Bishop of the Moeso-Goths\n348-388; and of this some valuable portions are still extant. Two other\nancient versions, the Armenian (cent. 5), and the \u00c6thiopic (cents. 6 and\n7), though of inferior importance, are not without value. During recent\nyears a large amount of labour has been spent, first, in securing as\naccurate a knowledge as possible of the text of these various versions,\nand then in investigating the evidence they supply respecting the original\ntexts from which they were severally made. From this source much valuable\nmaterial has been obtained supplementary to that furnished by Biblical\nmanuscripts.\n\nThe works of early Christian writers contain, as might be expected, large\nquotations of Scripture passages. Some of these works are elaborate\nexpositions of various books of the Old and New Testament, and others are\ncontroversial writings in which there is a frequent necessity for\nappealing to Scriptural authorities. Although not a few of the writings of\nthe earliest Christian authors have perished, we have still a\nconsiderable collection of writings belonging to the second and third\ncenturies, whose pages supply us with valuable evidence concerning the\ntext of the New Testament, of a date earlier than the oldest of our\nmanuscripts. We have also a still larger collection of writings belonging\nto the same age as that of our most ancient manuscripts, and from them are\nable to gather a further mass of testimony in confirmation or correction\nof that given by these venerable documents.\n\nThe writings of Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen,\nbelonging to the latter part of the second century, and the beginning of\nthe third, contain a large body of quotations from the Gospels and\nEpistles. The works of Origen alone may, with scarcely any exaggeration,\nbe said to be equivalent to an additional manuscript of the New Testament.\nHe died about A.D. 253 or 254, and during his entire life gave himself\nwith a most indomitable perseverance to Biblical studies. In addition to\nan elaborate revision of the Greek text of the Septuagint, upon which he\nspent eight and twenty years, but of which unhappily some fragments only\nhave reached us, he composed expositions or homilies upon the larger part\nof the books of the Old and New Testaments. Of these some very\nconsiderable portions have come down to us, and as his expositions on the\nOld Testament abound in quotations from the New, the number of passages\nfrom the latter found in his writings is very large.\n\nOf writers belonging to the fourth century we have commentaries in Greek\nby Chrysostom and Didymus, and in Latin by Hilary of Rome, and Jerome;\nand, in addition, extensive theological treatises, involving numerous\nappeals to the Scriptures, by Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, Epiphanius, and\nthe two Gregorys.\n\nIn the following century we have the Greek commentaries of Theodore of\nMopsuestia and Theodoret; the commentary of Pelagius on the Epistles of\nPaul; and the voluminous writings of Augustine, including commentaries on\nthe Psalms, the Sermon on the Mount, John\u2019s Gospel and Epistles, and\nPaul\u2019s Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, together with a large number\nof Homilies on various parts of Scripture. These numerous writings form a\nmine of wealth to the Biblical critic; but it is a mine that has only been\ndiligently worked in comparatively recent years. Much wearisome toil has\nbeen necessary in bringing to light its treasures, and these were either\noverlooked or neglected by the earlier editors of the Greek New Testament.\n\nIt may perhaps be thought that, inasmuch as the documents from which these\nChristian writings are obtained are themselves of a later date, the\ntestimony they give to the text of Scripture is of no higher worth than\nthat of Biblical manuscripts of the same age. The scribes, it may be said,\nwould be influenced by the form of text then current, and in copying these\nwritings would naturally, when Scripture quotations occurred, give them in\nthe form with which they were familiar. To some extent this may have been\nthe case, and the testimony of these writings is of less weight when they\nsimply reflect the form of text which prevailed at the date when they were\ncopied. But then, on the other hand, their testimony is for the same\nreason proportionally the stronger whenever they do not agree with the\ncurrent form, but give a different reading. Moreover it must be remembered\nthat in many cases the authors comment minutely upon the Scripture text,\nand that here their testimony is quite unaffected by any tendency on the\npart of the copyist to use a familiar form, the comment itself showing\nbeyond all doubt what was the form of the text which the author was\nexpounding. In all such places the testimony of these early writers is\nespecially valuable.\n\nFrom this mere outline of the manifold researches which scholars have made\nduring the years that have passed since the Revision of 1611 was issued,\nsome notion may be gathered of the extent to which our resources for the\nsatisfactory determination of the sacred text have been multiplied. It\nwill hence be seen how great is the confidence with which we are thereby\nenabled to affirm the verbal correctness of that far larger portion of the\ntext in which our numerous and varied authorities are all agreed, and with\nwhat confidence also we can place our finger upon certain blemishes, and\nsay that here an error has crept in through the inadvertence, or\ncarelessness, or ignorance of the transcriber. If then there were no other\nreasons for the revision of the English Bible, this alone would be a\nsufficient ground for it. When it is in the power of any one to say that\nthere are passages in our common Bibles which, as there given, are found\nin no Greek manuscript whatever, as is the case in Acts ix., the latter\npart of verse 5, and the beginning of verse 6; 1 Peter iii. 20; Heb. xi.\n13; and Rev. ii. 20; and when there are other passages, respecting which\nthe evidence is greatly preponderating, that they ought to have no place\nin the text, as is the case with Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xvii. 21; Matt.\nxxiii. 35 (last clause); Mark xv. 28; Luke xi. 2, 4 (the last clause of\neach verse); John v. 3 (last clause), and 4; Acts viii. 37; Acts xv. 34;\nActs xxviii. 29; Rom. xi. 6 (last clause); 1 Cor. vi. 20 (last clause); 1\nCor. x. 28 (last clause); Gal. iii. 1 (second clause); Heb. xii. 20; and 1\nJohn v., from \u201cin heaven,\u201d verse 7, to \u201cin earth,\u201d verse 8. When these\nthings can be said, and can be truly said, then all true lovers of the\nBible will earnestly demand that they be forthwith removed.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\n_THE PREPARATIONS FOR FURTHER REVISION MADE DURING THE PAST TWO\nCENTURIES._\n\n\nIt has not been left to the present generation to be the first to\nrecognize the force of the various considerations presented in the\nprevious lectures. The duty of providing for a further revision of the\nEnglish Bible has been handed down as a solemn trust from generation to\ngeneration. Every new discovery made of Biblical manuscripts, and every\nfresh field of research opened up, has at once made the need of revision\nmore apparent, and given intensity to the desire that it should be\nundertaken; and, in their turn, this quickened desire and this increase of\nmaterial have prompted to renewed efforts in obtaining all possible\nsubsidiary helps. In this way it has come to pass that the whole period\nwhich has elapsed since the publication of the Revision of 1611 has been\nin effect a time of preparation for another and further revision, and\nhere, as elsewhere, the divine law of human discipline has been verified,\nthat every work accomplished is but the starting-point for fresh\nendeavours.\n\nIn this work of preparation four distinct stages may be clearly traced:\nthe first, that of unfriendly criticism; the second, that of premature\nattempts at correction; the third, that of diligent research and patient\ninvestigation; and the fourth, that of widespread conviction of the\ndesirableness of further revision, and the discussion of the plans by\nwhich it may best be accomplished.\n\nFrom the very first the new version had to undergo an ordeal of\ncriticism, springing sometimes from personal pique, sometimes from party\nprejudice, sometimes from a one-sided attachment to a favourite doctrine,\nthe evidence for which seemed to be obscured by the rendering given to\ncertain passages. Almost immediately upon the publication of the volume, a\nviolent attack was made upon it by Hugh Broughton, who, though a man of\nimmense erudition, and one of the best Hebraists of the day, was of so\noverbearing a temper that his offer to aid in the revision had been\ndeclined. Broughton declared that the version was so ill done that it bred\nin him a sadness which would grieve him whilst he breathed. \u201cTell his\nMajesty,\u201d he passionately said, \u201cthat I had rather be rent in pieces with\nwild horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged on\npoor churches.\u201d\n\nIn the sharp controversies of the Commonwealth period the slight\nindications given by the version of a certain ecclesiastical bias were\nunduly exaggerated. Charges of a direct prelatic influence were freely\nmade, and various rumours were circulated, as if upon good authority, that\nArchbishop Bancroft had taken upon himself to introduce alterations in\nopposition to the judgment, and even the protest of the translators.\nInfluenced probably by the feeling thus awakened, though not sharing it,\nDr. John Lightfoot, in a sermon preached before the Long Parliament on\nAugust 26th, 1645,[92] expressed the hope that they would find some time\namong their serious employments to think of a \u201creview and survey of the\ntranslation of the Bible.\u201d \u201cAnd certainly,\u201d he added, \u201cit would not be the\nleast advantage that you might do to the three nations, if they, by your\ncare and means, might come to understand the proper and genuine reading of\nthe Scriptures by an exact, vigorous, and lively translation.\u201d\n\nIn 1653 the charge that the New Testament \u201chad been looked over by some\nPrelates, to bring it to speak the Prelatical language,\u201d was formally\nrepeated in the preamble of a Bill brought before the Long Parliament,\nwhich proposed the appointment of a committee \u201cto search and observe\nwherein that last translation appears to be wronged by the Prelates or\nprinters or others.\u201d[93] In 1659 a folio volume of 805 pages, entitled,\n\u201cAn Essay toward the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the\nBible, or a Proof by many instances that the last Translation of the Bible\ninto English may be improved,\u201d was published by Dr. Robert Gell, \u201cMinister\nof the Parish of St. Mary, Alder-Mary, London.\u201d Dr. Gell was a man who\nstoutly maintained the doctrine that it is \u201cpossible and attainable\nthrough the grace of God and His Holy Spirit that men may be without sin,\u201d\nand his book is an elaborate attempt to show that this doctrine \u201cwas\nfrequently delivered in holy Scripture, though industriously obscured by\nour translators.\u201d An attack of another kind was made a quarter of a\ncentury later, by a Roman Catholic writer named Thomas Ward, who,\nrepeating many of the charges made against the earlier English versions by\nGregory Martin, one of the authors of the Rhemish version, charged the\ntranslators with corrupting the Holy Scriptures by false and partial\ntranslations, for the purpose of gaining unfair advantage in the\ncontroversy with the Church of Rome.[94]\n\nThese hostile criticisms, though made in a spirit of partisanship and\nmarred by much uncharitableness and unfairness, were nevertheless of\nservice. They forced upon all, though in a rude and unpleasant way, the\nrecognition of the fact that the new version, with all its excellences,\nwas still the work of fallible men; and despite their passion and their\nhard words, they did undoubtedly hit some blots that here and there\ndisfigured the sacred page. To this extent they served to prepare the way\nfor further revision.\n\nA second stage in the process of preparation is seen in the various\nattempts which have been made to produce a version which should remove\nacknowledged blemishes, and more faithfully convey the meaning of the holy\nWord. Some of these have been based upon a well-conceived plan, and have\nsought to accomplish the desired end by the united efforts of a band of\nfellow-labourers; others have been the work of individual scholars, and\nwere for the most part of a tentative character, intended simply to show\nwhat ought to be attempted, and how it might be done; others, again, have\nbeen the unwise labours of men who worked upon false principles, and with\ninsufficient knowledge; but all have in their own way helped on the work,\nthe former two classes by their felicitous renderings of some passages,\nand the light they have thrown upon the meaning of others, and the last\nmentioned class by their clear demonstration of what a translation of the\nScriptures ought certainly not to be.\n\nThe first[95] serious attempt at a further revision was made by the Rev.\nHenry Jessey, M.A., pastor of that greatly persecuted Congregational\nChurch in Southwark, which had been gathered by Henry Jacob in 1616. In\nthe time of the Commonwealth proposals were made by Jessey, that \u201cgodly\nand able men\u201d should be appointed by \u201cpublic authority\u201d \u201cto review and\namend the defects in our translation.\u201d Pending their appointment, he set\nhimself to secure the co-operation of a number of learned men, at home and\nabroad, writing to them in the following fashion: \u201cThere being a strange\ndesire in many that love the truth, to have a more pure, proper\ntranslation of the originals than hitherto; and I being moved and inclined\nto it, and desirous to promote it with all possible speed and exactness,\ndo make my request (now in my actual entrance on Genesis) that as you love\nthe truth as it is in Jesus, and the edification of saints, you with\nothers (in like manner solicited), will take share and do each a part in\nthe work, which being finished will be fruit to your account.\u201d Of the\nnames of his fellow-workers the only one recorded is that of Mr. John Row,\nHebrew professor at Aberdeen, \u201cwho took exceeding pains herein,\u201d and who\ndrew up the scheme in accordance with which the work was carried on.\nJessey\u2019s proposal received at least so much of support from \u201cpublic\nauthority,\u201d that he was one of the committee whose appointment was\nrecommended to the House of Commons in 1653. The result is thus quaintly\ntold by Jessey\u2019s biographer:[96] \u201cThus thorow his perswasions many persons\nexcelling in knowledge, integrity, and holiness, did buckle to this great\nWorke of bettering the Translation of the Bible, but their names are\nthought fit at present to be concealed to prevent undue Reflections upon\ntheir persons; but may come to light (if that work shall ever come to be\nmade publick), and unto each of them was one particular book or more\nallotted, according as they had leisure, or as the bent of their Genius,\nadvantages of Books or Studies lay, which when supervised by all the rest,\ndayes of assembling together were to have been set apart, to seek the Lord\nfor His further direction, and for conference with each other touching the\nmatter then under consideration. In process of time this whole work was\nalmost compleated, and stayed for nothing but the appointment of\nCommissioners to examine it, and warrant its publication.\u201d The death of\nCromwell, and the political events which followed, prevented the\nrealization of Jessey\u2019s hopes. It had been with him the work of many years\nof his life, and his soul was so engaged in it that he frequently uttered\nthe prayer, \u201cO that I might see this done before I die.\u201d\n\nThe ecclesiastical events arising out of the Act of Uniformity (1662) will\nsufficiently account for the absence of any efforts of revision during the\nlatter part of the seventeenth century. In the earlier part of the\nfollowing century there appeared one of those ill-advised attempts, whose\nchief use is to serve as a beacon of warning, in the Greek and English New\nTestament, published A.D. 1729, by W. Mace, M.D.[97] In his translation\nthis author allowed himself to employ an unpleasantly free style of\nrendering, and deemed it fitting to substitute the colloquial style of the\nday for the dignified simplicity of the version he undertook to amend.\n\nTowards the latter part of the century a considerable number of well-meant\nendeavours at revision were made by devout and scholarly men.\n\nIn 1764 \u201cA new and literal Translation of the Old and New Testament, with\nnotes, critical and explanatory,\u201d was published by Anthony Purver, a\nmember of the Society of Friends.\n\nIn 1770 there was issued \u201cThe New Testament, or New Covenant of our Lord\nand Saviour Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek according to the\npresent idiom of the English tongue, with notes and references,\u201d by John\nWorsley, of Hertford, whose aim, as stated in his preface, was to bring\nhis translation nearer to the original, and \u201cto make the present form of\nexpression more suitable to our present language,\u201d adding, with a laudable\ndesire to repudiate all sympathy with those who forced the Scripture to\nsay what, according to their own fancies, it ought to say, \u201cI have no\ndesign to countenance any particular opinions or sentiments. I have\nweighed, as it were, every word in a balance, even to the minutest\nparticle, begging the gracious aid of the Divine Spirit to lead me into\nthe true and proper meaning, that I might give a just and exact\ntranslation of this great and precious charter of man\u2019s salvation.\u201d[98]\n\nIn 1781 Gilbert Wakefield, late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, but\nthen classical tutor of the Warrington Academy, published \u201ca new\ntranslation of the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians,\noffered to the public as a specimen of an intended version of the whole\nNew Testament, with a preface containing a brief account of the Author\u2019s\nplan.\u201d This was followed in 1782 by a new translation of the Gospel of\nMatthew, and in 1791 by a translation of the whole of the New\nTestament.[99]\n\nIn 1786 a Roman Catholic clergyman (the Rev. Alexander Geddes, LL.D.)\nissued a prospectus of \u201ca New Translation of the Holy Bible from corrected\ntexts of the originals, compared with the Ancient Versions.\u201d This\nprospectus was very favourably received by many of the leading Biblical\nscholars of the day, especially by the great Hebraist, Dr. Benjamin\nKennicott, Canon of Christchurch, and by Dr. Robert Lowth, Bishop of\nLondon, and was followed in 1788 by formal proposals for printing the book\nby subscription. The first volume appeared in 1792, with the title \u201cThe\nHoly Bible, or the Books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians;\notherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully\ntranslated from corrected texts of the Originals, with various readings,\nexplanatory notes, and critical remarks.\u201d Two other volumes were\nafterwards published; but the death of the author, in 1801, prevented the\ncompletion of the work.[100]\n\nIn 1796 Dr. William Newcome, Archbishop of Armagh, published \u201cAn attempt\ntowards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the\nNew Covenant of Jesus Christ; and towards illustrating the sense by\nphilological and explanatory notes.\u201d\n\nPassing over some other works less worthy of notice, a scholarly attempt\nwas made in 1836 by Grenville Penn to introduce into the English version\nsome of the results which had then been attained by the critical\nexamination of ancient authorities. This work bore the title, \u201cThe Book of\nthe New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being a critical\nrevision of the text and translation of the English version of the New\nTestament, with the aid of most ancient manuscripts, unknown to the age in\nwhich that version was last put forth by authority.\u201d\n\nIt is not to be supposed that any of these translations were published\nwith the expectation of securing so large a measure of favour as to\nsupersede the current version. Their primary purpose was to aid the\nprivate study of the Bible; but they have been of great service also in\nkeeping the general question of revision before the notice of thoughtful\npersons, and they have each in their measure contributed to a more exact\nknowledge of the Scriptures.\n\nThe failure of the earlier of these attempts at revision arose in part\nfrom the imperfect state of the texts upon which they were based. This\nsoon became obvious, and Biblical scholars saw that for some time to come\ntheir labours must be spent rather in laying the foundation for a future\nrevision than in attempting it themselves, and this in three distinct\ndepartments. The first of these was the collection, as described in the\nlast lecture, of the material supplied by ancient manuscripts, and by\nearly versions and quotations. In this department a long succession of\nfaithful men have laboured, amongst whom may be mentioned Brian Walton,\nwho in 1657 published his famous Polyglot Bible in six folio volumes,\ngiving in addition to the original Hebrew and Greek, the Samaritan\nPentateuch, the Septuagint, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, \u00c6thiopic, and Persian\nversions; Dr. John Mill, whose New Testament was published in 1770, and of\nwhom it has been justly said that \u201chis services to Bible criticism surpass\nin extent and value those rendered by any other except one or two men yet\nliving;\u201d[101] Dr. Richard Bentley, who, having himself collated the\nAlexandrine and other ancient MSS., and by various agencies amassed a\nlarge store of critical material, published in 1720 his \u201cProposals for\nPrinting\u201d revised texts both of the Greek New Testament and the Latin\nVulgate; Dr. Kennicott, who in 1760 aroused public attention to the\nimportance of collating all Hebrew MSS. made before the invention of\nprinting, and who personally, or through the aid of others, collated more\nthan six hundred Hebrew MSS., and sixteen MSS. of the Samaritan\nPentateuch; John Bernard de Rossi, professor of Oriental languages in the\nUniversity of Parma, who in 1784-8 published the results of the collation\nof seven hundred and thirty-one MSS., and of three hundred editions of the\nHebrew Scriptures; and, to come to more recent times, Dr. Constantine\nTischendorf, Dr. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, and Dr. Frederick Henry\nScrivener, whose names are to be held in the highest honour, as of men who\nhave rendered invaluable service to their own and future generations in\nthe exhausting and self-denying work of the collation of Biblical MSS.,\nand through whose care and accuracy the means of obtaining an exact\nknowledge of a large number of most precious documents have been placed\nwithin easy reach of all.\n\nThe second department of labour is the application of the material thus\ncollected to the correction of the text. Here again a vast amount of\npatient work has been done, and out of the successive labours of a long\nseries of critics much valuable experience has been gained and the best\nmethods gradually learnt. Amongst those who have thus laboured in the\ncriticism of the text of the New Testament may be mentioned the names of\nBengel, Wettstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford,\nTregelles, Westcott, and Hort; and of that of the Old Testament, Buxtorf,\nLeusden, Van der Hooght, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicott, and Jahn.\n\nThe third department is that which is concerned with the investigation of\nthe meaning of the sacred writers; and how much has been done in this will\nbe manifest to any one who makes the attempt to reckon up the long series\nof commentaries, English and Continental, on the books of the Holy\nScriptures, published since the Revision of 1611, commencing with the\nAnnotations of the eminent Nonconformist, Henry Ainsworth, on the\nPentateuch, Psalms, and Song of Solomon, 1627, down to the recent\ncommentaries on Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, by Dr.\nJ. B. Lightfoot, the present Bishop of Durham. The attempt to make this\nenumeration will deepen the desire that the light which has been shed upon\nthe Bible by this long succession of its learned and earnest students\nshould now be employed for the guidance and help of the ordinary readers\nof its pages.\n\nTo such desire emphatic expression has been given in various ways through\nfull two generations, with an ever increasing intensity, and by\nrepresentative men amongst all Christian communities.\n\nSo early in the present century as the year 1809, Dr. John Pye Smith,\nPresident of the Congregational College at Homerton, thus wrote: \u201cThat\nsuch blemishes should disfigure that translation of the best and most\nimportant of volumes, which has been and still is more read by thousands\nof the pious than any other version, ancient or modern; that they should\nbe acknowledged by all competent judges to exist; that they should have\nbeen so long and often complained of; and yet that there has been no great\npublic act, from high and unimpeachable authority, for removing them, we\nare constrained to view as a disgrace to our national literature. We do\nnot wish to see our common version, now become venerable by age and\nprescription, superseded by another entirely _new_; every desirable\npurpose would be satisfactorily attained by a _faithful_ and\n_well-conducted revision_.\u201d[102]\n\nIn the following year (1810) Dr. Herbert Marsh, then Margaret Professor of\nDivinity at Cambridge, and subsequently Bishop of Peterborough, in the\nfirst edition of his _Lectures_ wrote: \u201cIt is probable that our authorised\nversion is as faithful a representation of the original Scriptures as\n_could_ have been formed at _that period_. But when we consider the\nimmense accession that has _since_ been made, both to our critical and\nphilological apparatus;\u201d \u201cwhen we consider that the most important sources\nof intelligence for the _interpretation_ of the original Scriptures were\n_likewise_ opened after that period, we cannot possibly pretend that our\nauthorised version does not require _amendment_.\u201d[103]\n\nIn 1816 Thomas Wemyss, a learned layman, who had devoted himself to\nBiblical studies, called attention, under the title of _Biblical\nGleanings_, to a number of passages which were generally allowed to be\nmistranslated; and in 1819 Sir James Bland Burges published _Reasons in\nfavour of a New Translation of the Scriptures_.\n\nDuring a few years after this, the subject remained in abeyance, but in\n1832 there was published, at Cambridge, a calm and scholarly pamphlet,\nentitled _Hints on an Improved Translation of the New Testament_, by the\nRev. James Scholefield, A.M., Regius Professor of Greek in the University\nof Cambridge. A second edition was issued in 1836, and a third, with an\nappendix, in 1849.\n\nThrough these and other publications a widely-spread conviction was\nproduced that the work ought at length to be attempted, and in the years\n1855-57 the question was in a very emphatic form brought under public\nnotice. In the _Edinburgh Review_ of October, 1855, in a notice of a\ncertain Paragraph Bible then recently published, there appeared the\nfollowing words: \u201cSurely it is high time for a further revision. It is\nnow almost 250 years since the last was made. During that long period\nneither the researches of the clergy nor the intelligence of the laity\nhave remained stationary. We have become desirous of knowing more, and\nthey have acquired more to teach us. Vast stores of Biblical information\nhave been accumulating since the days of James I., by which, not merely\nthe rendering of the Common Version, but the purity of the Sacred Text\nitself, might be improved. And it is essential to the interests of\nreligion that that information should be fully, freely, and in an\nauthoritative form, disseminated abroad by a careful correction of our\nreceived version of the Sacred Scriptures.\u201d\n\nIn the following year, 1856, the Rev. William Selwyn, Canon of Ely, and\nLady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, sent forth his _Notes on\nthe proposed Amendment of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures_,\nin which he states: \u201cI do not hesitate to avow my firm persuasion that\nthere are at least one thousand passages of the English Bible that might\nbe amended without any change in the general texture and justly reverenced\nlanguage of the version.\u201d\n\nIn July of the same year an address to the Crown was moved in the House of\nCommons by Mr. Heywood, member for North Lancashire, praying that Her\nMajesty would appoint a Royal Commission of learned men to consider of\nsuch amendments of the authorized version of the Bible as had been already\nproposed, and to receive suggestions from all persons who might be willing\nto offer them, and to report the amendments which they might be prepared\nto recommend.\n\nIn the January of the following year a resolution in support of revision\nwas proposed at the general meeting of the Society for Promoting Christian\nKnowledge, by the Rev. G. F. Biber, LL.D., who subsequently published the\nsubstance of his speech in support of this resolution, under the title, _A\nPlea for an Edition of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture with\nexplanatory and emendatory marginal readings_. Pamphlets also were\npublished the same year by Dr. Beard and by Dr. Henry Burgess; but, what\nit is more important to note, in that year there was published the first\nof a series of works which were intended to show by example the kind of\nwork which the wiser advocates of revision desired to see undertaken. This\nwas _The Gospel according to John, after the Authorized Version, newly\ncompared with the original Greek, and revised by five clergymen--John\nBarrow, D.D.; George Moberly, D.C.L.; Henry Alford, B.D.; William G.\nHumphry, B.D.; Charles J. Ellicott, M.A._ In that same year also Dr.\nTrench, then Dean of Westminster (now Archbishop of Dublin), published his\nwork _On the Authorized Version of the New Testament_; and in 1863 Dr.\nPlumptre, in the _Dictionary of the Bible_, reiterated the statement, \u201cThe\nwork ought not to be delayed much longer.\u201d\n\nIn the spring of 1870 the desirableness of a fresh revision of the English\nBible was advocated--by Dr. J. B. Lightfoot in a paper read before a\nmeeting of clergy; by the writer of these lectures in a paper read before\nthe annual meeting of the Congregational Union of England and Wales; by\nthe _British Quarterly Review_ in its January number; and, finally, by the\n_Quarterly Review_ in its April number.\n\nA weighty sentence from the last-mentioned writer will be a fitting\nconclusion to the present lecture. \u201cIt is positive unfaithfulness on the\npart of those who have ability and opportunity to decline the task. The\nWord of God, just because it is God\u2019s Word, ought to be presented to every\nreader in a state as pure and perfect as human learning, skill, and taste\ncan make it. The higher our veneration for it the more anxious ought we to\nbe to free it from every blemish, however small and unimportant. But\nnothing in truth can be unimportant which dims the light of Divine\nRevelation.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\n_THE REVISION OF 1881._\n\n\nTo the general consensus of opinion described in the last lecture\npractical expression was first given by the action of the Convocation of\nCanterbury, in the early part of 1870.\n\nOn February 10, 1870, a resolution was moved in the Upper House of\nConvocation by Dr. Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester, and seconded by Dr.\nEllicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, \u201cThat a Committee of both\nHouses be appointed, with power to confer with any committee that may be\nappointed by the Convocation of the Northern Province, to report upon the\ndesirableness of a revision of the Authorized Version of the New\nTestament, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those passages\nwhere plain and clear errors, whether in the Greek Text originally adopted\nby the translators, or in the translation made from the same, shall, on\ndue investigation, be found to exist.\u201d On the motion of Dr. Ollivant,\nBishop of Llandaff, seconded by Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St. Davids, it\nwas agreed to enlarge this resolution so as to include the Old Testament\nalso, and the resolution as so amended was ultimately adopted.\n\nThis resolution was communicated to the Lower House on the following day\n(February 11), where it was accepted without a division.\n\nThe joint Committee appointed in accordance with this resolution consisted\nof seven Bishops and fourteen Members of the Lower House.[104] This\nCommittee met on March 24th, and agreed to the following report:[105]\n\n I. \u201cThat it is desirable that a Revision of the Authorized Version of\n the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.\u201d\n\n II. \u201cThat the Revision be so conducted as to comprise both Marginal\n renderings, and such emendations as it may be found necessary to\n insert in the text of the Authorized Version.\u201d\n\n III. \u201cThat in the above Resolutions we do not contemplate any new\n translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language except\n where, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, such change is\n necessary.\u201d\n\n IV. \u201cThat in such necessary changes, the style of the language\n employed in the existing Version be closely followed.\u201d\n\n V. \u201cThat it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of\n its own Members to undertake the work of Revision, who shall be at\n liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to\n whatever nation or religious body they may belong.\u201d\n\nThis Report was presented to the Upper House on May 3rd, where its\nadoption was moved by Bishop Wilberforce, and seconded by Bishop\nThirlwall, and carried unanimously.\n\nBishop Wilberforce then moved, and Bishop Thirlwall seconded, \u201cThat a\nCommittee be now appointed to consider and Report to Convocation a scheme\nof revision on the principles laid down in the Report now adopted, and\nthat the Bishops of Winchester, St. Davids, Llandaff, Gloucester and\nBristol, Salisbury, Ely, Lincoln, and Bath and Wells, be members of the\nCommittee. That the Committee be empowered to invite the co-operation of\nthose whom they may judge fit from their Biblical Scholarship to aid them\nin their work.\u201d This also was carried unanimously.\n\nIn the Lower House the above given Report of the joint Committee was\npresented on May 5th, when its adoption was moved by Canon Selwyn,[106]\nand seconded by Archdeacon Allen. In the discussion which followed two\nattempts were made to overthrow the principle embodied in the fifth\nresolution, and to confine the revision to Scholars in communion with the\nChurch of England. Both of these were unsuccessful, and the adoption of\nthe Report was carried, with two dissentients only. On the following day,\nMay 6th, the House completed its action by agreeing to the suggestion of\nthe Upper House, that on this occasion it should waive its privilege of\nappointing on joint Committees twice as many as were appointed by the\nUpper House, and should appoint eight Members only to co-operate with the\neight Bishops mentioned above. The Members selected were Dr. Bickersteth\nthe Prolocutor, Dean Alford, Dean Stanley, Canon Blakesley, Canon Selwyn,\nArchdeacon Rose, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay.\n\nThe first meeting of this second joint Committee was held on May 25th. It\nwas then agreed that the Committee should separate into two Companies--one\nfor the revision of the Old Testament, and one for that of the New. Of the\nMembers of Committee belonging to the Upper House five were assigned to\nthe former Company and three to the latter. The Members belonging to the\nLower House were divided equally between the two Companies. At the same\nmeeting the Committee selected the Scholars who should be invited to join\nthe Companies, and also decided upon the general rules that should guide\ntheir procedure. These were:\n\n 1. \u201cTo introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the\n Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness.\u201d\n\n 2. \u201cTo limit as far as possible the expression of such alterations to\n the language of the Authorized and earlier English versions.\u201d\n\n 3. \u201cEach Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once\n provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as\n hereinafter is provided.\u201d\n\n 4. \u201cThat the Text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is\n decidedly preponderating; and that when the Text so adopted differs\n from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration\n be indicated in the margin.\u201d\n\n 5. \u201cTo make or retain no change in the Text on the second and final\n revision by each Company, except _two-thirds_ of those present approve\n of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple\n majorities.\u201d\n\n 6. \u201cIn every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to\n discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next Meeting,\n whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those present at\n the Meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the\n next Meeting.\u201d\n\n 7. \u201cTo revise the headings of chapters, pages, paragraphs, italics,\n and punctuation.\u201d\n\n 8. \u201cTo refer on the part of each Company, when considered desirable,\n to Divines, Scholars, and Literary Men, whether at home or abroad, for\n their opinions.\u201d\n\nTo these it was added, that the work of each Company be communicated to\nthe other as it is completed, in order that there may be as little\ndeviation from uniformity in language as possible.\n\nOf the Scholars invited to join the Companies four[107] declined for\nvarious reasons, and one[108] was prevented by illness from taking part in\nthe work. The two Companies when formed consisted of the following\nMembers.\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY.\n\n Dr. W. L. Alexander, Professor of Theology in the Congregational\n Theological Hall, Edinburgh.\n\n Dr. E. H. Browne, Bishop of Ely.[109]\n\n Mr. O. T. Chenery, Lord Almoner\u2019s Professor of Arabic, Oxford.\n\n Dr. A. B. Davidson, Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,\n Edinburgh.\n\n Dr. Benjamin Davies, Professor of Hebrew, Baptist College, Regent\u2019s\n Park.\n\n Dr. P. Fairbairn, Principal of Free Church College, Glasgow.\n\n Dr. F. Field.\n\n Dr. Ginsburg.\n\n Dr. F. W. Gotch, Principal of the Baptist College, Bristol.\n\n Rev. B. Harrison, Archdeacon of Maidstone.\n\n Dr. A. C. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells.\n\n Dr. J. Jebb, Canon of Hereford.\n\n Dr. W. Kay, late Principal of Bishop\u2019s College, Calcutta.\n\n Dr. Stanley Leathes, Professor of Hebrew, King\u2019s College, London.\n\n Rev. J. McGill, Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews.\n\n Dr. A. Ollivant, Bishop of Llandaff.\n\n Dr. R Payne Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford.[110]\n\n Dr. J. J. S. Perowne, Professor of Hebrew, St. Davids College,\n Lampeter.[111]\n\n Rev. E. H. Plumptre,[112] Professor of New Testament Exegesis, King\u2019s\n College, London.\n\n Dr. H. J. Rose, Archdeacon of Bedford.\n\n Dr. W. Selwyn, Canon of Ely, and Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity,\n Cambridge.\n\n Dr. Connop Thirlwall, Bishop of St. Davids.\n\n Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln.\n\n Mr. W. A. Wright, Librarian[113] of Trinity College, Cambridge.\n\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY.\n\n Dr. H. Alford, Dean of Canterbury.\n\n Dr. J. Angus, Principal of the Baptist College, Regent\u2019s Park.\n\n Dr. E. H. Bickersteth, Prolocutor of the Lower House of\n Convocation.[114]\n\n Dr. J. W. Blakesley, Canon of Canterbury.[115]\n\n Dr. J. Eadie, Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to the\n United Presbyterian Church, Scotland.\n\n Dr. C. J. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.\n\n Rev. F. J. A. Hort.[116]\n\n Rev. W. G. Humphry, Prebendary of St. Paul\u2019s.\n\n Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Canon of Ely, and Regius Professor of Greek,\n Cambridge.\n\n Dr. W. Lee, Archdeacon of Dublin.\n\n Dr. J. B. Lightfoot.[117]\n\n Dr. W. Milligan, Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen.\n\n Dr. G. Moberly, Bishop of Salisbury.\n\n Rev. W. F. Moulton, Professor of Classics, Wesleyan College,\n Richmond.[118]\n\n Rev. Samuel Newth, Professor of Classics, New College, London.[119]\n\n Dr. A. Roberts.[120]\n\n Dr. R. Scott, Master of Balliol College, Oxford.[121]\n\n Rev. F. H. Scrivener.[122]\n\n Dr. G. Vance Smith.[123]\n\n Dr. A. P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster.\n\n Dr. R. C. Trench, Archbishop of Dublin.\n\n Dr. C. J. Vaughan, Master of the Temple.[124]\n\n Dr. B. F. Westcott, Canon of Peterborough.[125]\n\n Dr. S. Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester.\n\nTo these lists some changes have, from various causes, been made in the\ncourse of the last ten years, both in the way of addition, and in the way\nof removal.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo the Old Testament Company thirteen members have been added--\n\n Mr. R. N. Bensley, Hebrew Lecturer, Caius College, Cambridge.\n\n Rev. J. Birrill, Professor of Oriental Languages, St Andrews,\n Scotland.\n\n Dr. F. Chance.\n\n Rev. T. K. Cheyne, Hebrew Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford.\n\n Dr. G. Douglas, Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow.\n\n Mr. S. R Driver, Tutor of New College, Oxford.\n\n Rev. C. J. Elliott.\n\n Rev. J. D. Geden, Professor of Hebrew, Wesleyan College, Didsbury.\n\n Rev. J. R. Lumby, Fellow of St. Catherine\u2019s College, Cambridge.[126]\n\n Rev. A. H. Sayce, Tutor of Queen\u2019s College, Oxford.\n\n Rev. W. Robertson Smith, Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,\n Aberdeen.\n\n Dr. D. H. Weir, Professor of Oriental Languages, Glasgow.\n\n Dr. W. Wright, Professor of Arabic, Cambridge.\n\nDuring the same period it has lost ten members, seven by death: Professor\nDavies, Professor Fairbairn, Professor McGill, Archdeacon Rose, Canon\nSelwyn, Bishop Thirlwall, Professor Weir; and three by resignation--Canon\nJebb, Professor Plumptre, and Bishop Wordsworth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe New Testament Company has undergone less change. Four members have\nbeen added--\n\n Dr. David Brown, Professor of Divinity, Free Church College, Aberdeen.\n\n Dr. C. Merivale, Dean of Ely.\n\n Rev. Edwin Palmer, Professor of Latin, Oxford.[127]\n\n Dr. Charles Wordsworth, Bishop of St. Andrews.\n\nFour also have been removed--Dean Alford, Dr. Eadie, and Bishop\nWilberforce by death, Dean Merivale by resignation.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe first chairman of the Old Testament Company was Bishop Thirlwall. Upon\nhis resignation of the office in 1871 Dr. Harold Browne, then Bishop of\nEly, now Bishop of Winchester, was appointed to succeed him, and has\ncontinued to hold the office until now. Dr. Ellicott, Bishop of\nGloucester and Bristol, has from the first presided over the New\nTestament Company.\n\nThe Old Testament Company appointed one of their own number, Mr. Aldis\nWright, to act as their secretary, taking the minutes of their\nproceedings, and conducting all needful correspondence. The New Testament\nCompany deemed it better to assign this office to one who was not himself\nburthened with the responsibilities of the revision, and they were happily\nable to secure the efficient services of the Rev. John Troutbeck, M.A.,\none of the Minor Canons of Westminster Abbey.\n\nIt will be seen that of the sixty-five English scholars who have taken\npart in this work forty-one have been members of the Church of England,\nand twenty-four members of other churches. Of the latter number two\nrepresent the Episcopal Church of Ireland, one the Episcopal Church of\nScotland, four the Baptists, three the Congregationalists, five the Free\nChurch of Scotland, five the Established Church of Scotland, one the\nUnited Presbyterians, one the Unitarians, and two the Wesleyan Methodists.\n\nIt is on many grounds a matter for thankfulness that they who took the\ninitiative in the formation of the two Companies were able to secure so\nwide a representation of the various religious communities of our country,\nand men belonging to different schools of religious thought. For while no\none can reasonably suppose that in the present day any body of Scholars\nwould consciously allow themselves in the translation of the Scriptures to\nbe swayed by any theological bias, there is, as all know, such a thing as\nunconscious bias; and it was greatly to be desired that no such suspicion\nshould be raised against this Revision as for a long time obtained in\nreference to the Revision of 1611. It was also to be desired that no\nground should exist that would give an excuse for any to say that through\nthe bias of theological prepossessions the interpretations given by some\nto important passages of Scripture were unconsciously ignored, and that,\nhad such interpretations been brought under the consideration of the\nRevisers, they must, as honest scholars, have accepted them. Such a ground\nof objection has happily been excluded by the constitution of the two\nCompanies. The varieties of theological opinion found amongst the Revisers\nhave been an efficient protection against any lapse of the kind referred\nto, and it may safely be affirmed that no interpretation of any important\ndoctrinal passage for which any respectable amount of authority could be\nclaimed has failed to come under notice, or to receive a careful\nexamination.\n\nThe advantage resulting from this varied representation in the membership\nof the two Companies has been still further extended by the arrangements\nwhich have secured the co-operation of a considerable number of American\nScholars. Shortly after the formation of the two Companies steps were\ntaken for enlisting such co-operation; and after some correspondence with\nrepresentative men in America, the Rev. Dr. Philip Schaff, of New York,\nwas requested to act on behalf of the English Companies in selecting and\ninviting American Scholars. In October, 1871, it was reported to the New\nTestament Company that Dr. Schaff had verbally informed the secretary that\nthe American Revisers were prepared to enter upon their work. Various\ncauses of delay, however, intervened, and it was not until July 17th,\n1872, that the communication was made that the American Companies were\nduly constituted. These Companies held their first meeting on the 4th of\nOctober in that year. The following is the list of their Members.\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY.\n\n Professor T. J. Conant, Baptist, Brooklyn, New York.\n\n Professor G. E. Day, Congregationalist, New Haven, Conn.\n\n Professor J. De Witt, Reformed Church, New Brunswick, N.J.\n\n Professor W. H. Green, Presbyterian, Princeton, N.J.\n\n Professor G. E. Hare, Episcopalian, Philadelphia, Pa.\n\n Professor C. P. Krauth, Lutheran, Philadelphia, Pa.\n\n Professor Joseph Packard, Episcopalian, Fairfax, Va.\n\n Professor C. E. Stowe, Congregationalist, Cambridge, Mass.\n\n Professor J. Strong, Methodist, Madison, N.J.\n\n Professor C. V. Van Dyke,[128] Beir\u00fbt, Syria.\n\n Professor T. Lewis, Reformed Church, Schenectady, N.J.\n\nIn all eleven members.\n\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY.\n\n Professor Ezra Abbot, Unitarian, Cambridge, Mass.\n\n Dr. G. R. Crooks, Methodist, New York.\n\n Professor H. B. Hackett, Baptist, Rochester, N.Y.\n\n Professor J. Hadley, Congregationalist, New Haven, Conn.\n\n Professor C. Hodge, Presbyterian, Princeton, N.J.\n\n Professor A. C. Kendrick, Baptist, Rochester, N.Y.\n\n Dr. Alfred Lee, Bishop of Delaware.\n\n Professor M. B. Riddle, Reformed Church, Hartford, Conn.\n\n Professor Philip Schaff, Presbyterian, New York.\n\n Professor C. Short, Episcopalian, New York.\n\n Professor H. B. Smith, Presbyterian, New York.\n\n Professor J. H. Thayer, Congregationalist, Andover, Mass.\n\n Professor W. F. Warren, Methodist, Boston, Mass.\n\n Dr. E. A. Washburn, Episcopalian, New York.\n\n Dr. T. D. Woolsey, Congregationalist, New Haven, Conn.\n\nIn all fifteen members.\n\nFour Members have since been added to the Old Testament Company; namely:\n\n Professor C. A. Aiken, Presbyterian, Princeton, N.J.\n\n Dr. T. W. Chambers, Reformed Church, New York.\n\n Professor C. M. Mead, Congregationalist, Andover, Mass.\n\n Professor H. Osgood, Baptist, Rochester, N.Y.\n\nOne Member, Professor T. Lewis, has been removed by death.\n\nFour Members have been added to the New Testament Company:\n\n Dr. J. K. Burr, Methodist, Trenton, N.Y.\n\n Dr. T. Chase, Baptist, President of Haverford College, Pa.\n\n Dr. H. Crosby, Baptist, Chancellor of New York University.\n\n Professor Timothy Dwight, Congregationalist, New Haven, Conn.\n\nFour also have been removed by death, Dr. Hackett, Dr. Hadley, Dr. C.\nHodge, Dr. H. B. Smith; and two by resignation, Dr. Crooks and Dr. Warren.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt hence results that altogether ninety-nine Scholars have, to a greater\nor less extent, taken part in the work of this revision, forty-nine of\nwhom have been members of the Episcopalian Churches of England, Scotland,\nIreland, and America, and fifty members of other Christian Churches. This\nfact is in itself full of interest and significance. Upon no previous\nrevision have so many Scholars been engaged. In no previous revision has\nthe co-operation of those who were engaged upon it been so equally\ndiffused over all the parts of the work. In no previous revision have\nthose who took the lead in originating it, and carrying it forward, shown\nso large a measure of Christian confidence in Scholars who were outside of\ntheir own communion. In no previous revision have such effective\nprecautions been created by the very composition of the body of Revisers,\nagainst accidental oversight, or against any lurking bias that might arise\nfrom natural tendencies or from ecclesiastical prepossessions. On these\naccounts alone, if on no other, this revision may be fairly said to\npossess peculiar claims upon the confidence of all thoughtful and devout\nreaders of the Bible.\n\nThe New Testament Company assembled for the first time on Wednesday, June\n22nd, 1870. They met in the Chapel of Henry VII., and there united in the\ncelebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper. After this act of worship and holy\ncommunion they formally entered upon the task assigned to them. The Old\nTestament Company held their first meeting on June 30th.\n\nBy the kindness of the Dean of Westminster, the New Testament Company was\npermitted to hold its meetings in the Jerusalem Chamber. This room,\noriginally the parlour of the Abbot\u2019s Palace, is associated with many\ninteresting events of English history. It was to this spot that Henry IV.\nwas conveyed when seized with his last illness; and here, on March 20th,\n1413, he died. It was here, in the days of the Long Parliament, that the\ncelebrated Assembly of Divines, driven by the cold from Henry VII.\u2019s\nChapel, held its sixty-sixth session, on Monday, October 2nd, 1643; and\nhere thenceforward it continued to meet until its closing session (the\n1163rd), on February 22nd, 1649. Here were prepared the famed Westminster\nConfession of Faith, and the Longer and Shorter Catechisms so highly\nprized by the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, and during many\ngenerations by the Independents of England. Here also, just fifty years\nlater, assembled the memorable Commission appointed by William III., at\nthe suggestion of the Dean of Canterbury (Dr. Tillotson), to devise a\nbasis for a scheme of comprehension in a revision of the Prayer Book. In\nthis room the New Testament Company have held the larger number of their\nsessions. Upon the few occasions on which it was not available the Company\nhas most frequently met in the Dean of Westminster\u2019s library. Twice it has\nheld its monthly session in the College Hall, twice in the Chapter\nLibrary, and once in Queen Anne\u2019s Bounty Office.\n\nThe Jerusalem Chamber is an oblong room, somewhat narrow for its length,\nmeasuring about forty feet from north to south, and about twenty from east\nto west. Down the centre of the room there extends a long table; and on\nthis table, in the middle of its eastern side, is placed the desk of the\nChairman, Bishop Ellicott. Facing the Chairman, and on the opposite side\nof the room, is a small table for the use of the Secretary. The members\nof the Company took their places round the table without any\npre-arrangement, but just as each might find a seat most ready at hand.\nThe force of habit, however, soon prevailed, and most of the members sat\nconstantly in the place which accident or choice had assigned to them. On\nthe Chairman\u2019s right sat the Prolocutor, Dr. Bickersteth, and on his left,\nduring the sixteen meetings he was spared to attend, sat the late Dean of\nCanterbury, Dr. Alford, who, to the great sorrow of the Company, was so\nearly taken away from their midst. Between the Prolocutor and the northern\nend of the table were the places usually occupied by the Bishop of\nSalisbury, the Bishop of St. Andrews, Dean Blakesley, and Mr. Humphry.\nBetween the Chairman and the southern end were the places of the\nArchbishop of Dublin, Dr. Brown, Dr. Vaughan, Dr. Eadie, and Canon\nWestcott. Between the Secretary\u2019s table and the northern end of the long\ntable were the seats of Canon Kennedy, Dr. Angus, Archdeacon Palmer, and\nDr. Hort; and between the Secretary\u2019s table and the southern end were\nthose of Dr. Vance Smith, Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Lightfoot, Dean Scott, and\nDr. Newth. At the northern end of the table were the places of Archdeacon\nLee and Dean Stanley; and at the southern end those of Dr. Moulton and Dr.\nMilligan.\n\nAs the general rules under which the revision was to be carried out had\nbeen carefully prepared, no need existed for any lengthened discussion of\npreliminary arrangements, and the Company upon its first meeting was able\nto enter at once upon its work. The members of the Company had previously\nbeen supplied with sheets, each containing a column of the printed text of\nthe Authorized Version, with a wide margin on either side for suggested\nemendations--the left hand margin being intended for changes in the Greek\ntext, and the right hand margin for those which related to the English\nrendering. Upon these sheets each member had entered the result of his own\nprivate study of the prescribed portion, and thus came prepared with\nwell-considered suggestions to submit for the judgment of the Company. The\nportion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i. to iv. This portion\nopening with the genealogy, the question of the spelling of proper names\nat once presented itself for decision. It was felt that, by the twofold\nforms so often given in the Authorized Version to the names of persons and\nplaces, a needless difficulty was set in the way of the simple reader of\nthe Bible; and it was agreed that, while preserving in every case the\nfamiliar forms of names which had become thoroughly Englished, such as\nJohn, James, Timothy, Jacob, Solomon, &c., all Old Testament proper names\nquoted in the New should follow the Hebrew rather than the Greek or Latin,\nand so appear under the same form in both Testaments.\n\nThis question being thus settled, the Company proceeded to the actual\ndetails of the revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to\nan established method of procedure. So little need arose for any change in\nthis respect that the account of any one ordinary meeting will serve as a\ndescription of all. The Company assembles at eleven a.m. The meeting is\nopened by prayer, the Chairman reading three collects from the Prayer\nBook, and closing with the Lord\u2019s Prayer. The minutes of the last meeting\nare then read and confirmed. Any correspondence or other business that may\nrequire consideration is next dealt with. These matters being settled, the\nChairman invites the Company to proceed with the revision, and reads a\nshort passage as given in the Authorised Version. The question is then\nasked whether any _textual_ changes are proposed; that is, any readings\nthat differ from the Greek text as presented in the edition published by\nRobert Stephen in 1550. If any change is proposed, the evidence for and\nagainst is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty of\nstating this evidence is, by tacit consent, devolved upon two members of\nthe Company, who, from their previous studies, are specially entitled to\nspeak with authority upon such questions--Dr. Scrivener and Dr. Hort--and\nwho come prepared to enumerate particularly the authorities on either\nside. Dr. Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case,\nand by giving his judgment upon the bearing of the evidence. Dr. Hort\nfollows, and mentions any additional matters that may call for notice, and\nif differing from Dr. Scrivener\u2019s estimate of the weight of the evidence,\ngives his reasons, and states his own view. After discussion, the vote of\nthe Company is taken, and the proposed reading accepted or rejected. The\ntext being thus settled, the Chairman asks for proposals on the rendering.\nAny member who has any suggestion on his paper then mentions it, and this\nis taken into consideration, unless some other member state that he has a\nproposal which refers to an earlier clause of the passage, in which case\nhis proposal is taken first. The reasons for the proposed emendation are\nthen stated; briefly, if it be an obvious correction, and one which it is\nlikely that many members have noted down; if it be one less obvious, or\nless likely to commend itself at first sight, the grounds upon which it is\nbased are stated more at length. Free discussion then follows, and after\nthis the vote of the Company is taken. Succeeding suggestions are\nsimilarly dealt with, and then the passage, as amended, is read by the\nChairman, or by the Secretary. The meeting lasts until six p.m., an\ninterval of half-an-hour having been allowed for luncheon. The Company\nmeets every month, excepting only in the months of August and September,\nfor a session of four consecutive days.\n\nAt a very early period of their labours it became clearly manifest to the\nCompany that they could only do their work satisfactorily by doing it very\nthoroughly, and that no question in any way affecting the sense or the\nrendering could be passed over because of its seeming unimportance.\nQuestions, whether of text or translation, which appeared, when regarded\nin relation only to the passage under review, to be too minute to be\nworthy of serious attention, became oftentimes invested with a grave\nimportance when other, and especially parallel, passages were considered;\nand thus proposed changes, which might otherwise have been dismissed as\nunnecessary, claimed for themselves a careful examination. As a necessary\nresult of this determination to make the revision as complete as might be\nin their power, the progress made in the work was but slow, and at the end\nof the ninth day of meeting not more than 153 verses had been revised, an\naverage of only seventeen verses a day. Thereupon several members of the\nCompany became alarmed at the probable length of time over which the\nrevision would extend, and on the tenth day of meeting resolutions were\nsubmitted, that, \u201cwith a view to swifter progress, the Company be divided\ninto two sections, of which one shall proceed with the Gospels and the\nother with the Epistles,\u201d and \u201cthat on the last day of each monthly series\nof meetings the whole Company meet together to review the work done by the\ntwo separate sections.\u201d To these resolutions a full consideration was\ngiven, and with the result of producing an almost unanimous conviction\nthat such a division of the Company was undesirable. It was felt that the\nweight of authority attaching to this Revision, would, with many persons,\nbe largely dependent upon the fact that it represented the united judgment\nof a considerable number of scholars, and that the proposed division of\nthe Company would consequently tend to lessen the claims of the work to\nthe confidence of the public. It was found, too, that it would not be\npossible to make any satisfactory division of the Company; and from the\nvaried qualifications of the members, each felt that it would be a\npalpable loss to be deprived of the co-operation of any of the rest. It\nwas also exceedingly doubtful whether any saving of time would be secured\nby the proposed arrangement. The review by the entire Company of the work\ndone by the separate divisions would, in very many cases, reopen\ndiscussion; and questions which had been decided, perhaps unanimously,\nafter lengthened debate, would be debated afresh, and that, too, by those\nwho were less familiar with all the bearings of the question, and on\nwhose account it would be necessary to give lengthened explanations, and\nsometimes to retrace other ground also. The resolutions were consequently\nwithdrawn, and the conviction became general amongst the members of the\nCompany that they had no other alternative than to face the probability of\na much longer period of labour than any one amongst them had at first\nanticipated, and to accept the full responsibilities of the work which had\nbeen laid upon them.\n\nAfter this the work steadily proceeded, and various general questions\nhaving been decided as they arose, the rate of progress became more rapid;\nbut even then the average did not rise above thirty-five verses a day.\n\nIn accordance with the rules under which the Company was acting, all\nproposals made at the first revision were decided by simple majorities;\nbut at the second revision no change from the Authorized Version could be\naccepted unless it were carried by a majority of two to one. Though here\nand there this rule stood in the way of a change which a decided majority\nof the Company were of opinion was right, its action upon the whole was\nvery salutary.\n\nAt the second revision also the suggestions of the American Revisers came\nto the help of the Company. From time to time, as each successive portion\nof the first revision was completed, it had been forwarded to America. The\nAmerican Revisers subjected this to a careful scrutiny, and in their turn\nforwarded to England their criticisms thereupon. Where they approved the\nchanges provisionally made nothing was said; where they differed they\nindicated their dissent, and submitted their own suggestions. In like\nmanner, in passages where no change had been made, they either signified\ntheir assent by silence, or expressed their judgment by independent\nproposals.\n\nThe first revision of the Gospel of Matthew was completed on the\nthirty-sixth day of meeting, May 24th, 1871; that of Mark on the\nfifty-third day, November 16th, 1871; that of Luke on the eighty-first\nday, June 22nd, 1872; and that of John on the one hundred and third day,\nFebruary 19th, 1873. The first revision of the Acts and the Catholic\nEpistles was completed on the one hundred and fifty-second meeting, April\n23rd, 1874. Before proceeding to the first revision of the remaining books\nit was deemed desirable to undertake the second revision of the Gospels,\nand this was completed on the one hundred and eighty-fourth meeting,\nFebruary 25th, 1875. The first revision of the Pauline Epistles was then\ncommenced, and was completed on the two hundred and sixty-second meeting,\nFebruary 27th, 1877. The first revision of the Apocalypse was completed on\nthe two hundred and seventy-third meeting, April 20th, 1877.\n\nIt will thus appear that the first revision engaged the Company during two\nhundred and forty-one meetings; that is to say, during sixty monthly\nsessions, or six years of labour. The attendance during this important\nperiod of the work maintained so high an average as 16\u00b78.\n\nIt had not been originally intended that at the second revision fresh\nproposals should be entertained; but as it was obviously necessary to do\nthis with regard to the American suggestions, it was felt that we ought\nnot to preclude our own members from bringing forward any new proposal\nthat might seem worthy of consideration, and that we ought not, for the\nsake of gaining time, to fetter ourselves by any rigid rule. The second\nrevision thus became a far more serious business than had been originally\ncontemplated, and demanded a large measure of time and toil. It was\ncompleted on December 13th, 1878, having occupied on the whole ninety-six\nmeetings, or about two years and a half. By rule 5 the \u201csecond\u201d revision\nwas to be regarded as \u201cfinal,\u201d but the course of events rendered this an\nimpossibility, and so far the rule had to be annulled.\n\nIn due course the results of the second revision were forwarded to\nAmerica, and while it indicated the extent to which the English Company\nhad been able to adopt the American suggestions--or what was equivalent\nto this, some third suggestion that approved itself alike to the judgment\nof both Companies--it also necessarily invited a reply upon those points\nabout which there was still a difference of opinion, and this, as\nnecessarily, involved what was to some extent a third revision. The work\nof a further revision had, however, been previously imposed upon the\nCompany by a resolution of its own, in which it was agreed that the\nmembers should privately read over the version as now revised, with the\nview of marking any roughnesses or other blemishes in the English\nphraseology; and that if it should appear to them that, without doing any\nviolence to the Greek, the English might be amended, the emendations they\nproposed should be forwarded to the Secretary, and by him be duly arranged\nand printed. To the consideration of the various suggestions so forwarded,\nand of those contained in the further communications from America, the\nCompany devoted thirty-six meetings, extending from February 11th, 1879,\nto January 27th, 1880, with portions of one or two subsequent meetings,\nbeing finally completed on March 17th, 1880.\n\nAlthough the Company had endeavoured throughout the whole course of its\nwork to preserve, as far as the idiom of the English language permitted,\nuniformity in the rendering of the same Greek word, it had not been\npossible, when dealing with each passage separately, to keep in view all\nthe other passages in which any particular word might be found. It was\ntherefore felt to be desirable to reconsider the Revised Version with\nexclusive reference to this single point, and the pages of a Greek\nconcordance were assigned in equal portions to different members of the\nCompany, who each undertook to examine every passage in which the words\nfalling to his share might occur, and to mark if in any case unnecessary\nvariations in the English had either been introduced or retained. The\npassages so noted were brought before the notice of the assembled Company,\nand the question was in each case considered whether, without any injury\nto the sense, the rendering of the word under review might be harmonized\nwith that found in other places. This work of harmonizing, together with\nthe preparation of the preface, occupied the Company until November 11th,\n1880, on which day, at five o\u2019clock in the afternoon, after ten years and\nfive months of labour, the revision of the New Testament was brought to\nits close.\n\nOn the evening of the same day, St. Martin\u2019s day, by the kind invitation\nof Prebendary Humphry, the Company assembled in the Church of St.\nMartin\u2019s-in-the-Fields, and there united in a special service of prayer\nand thanksgiving; of thanksgiving for the happy completion of their\nlabours, for the spirit of harmony and brotherly affection that had\nthroughout pervaded the meetings of the Company, and for the Divine\ngoodness which had permitted so many with so little interruption to give\nthemselves continuously to this work; of prayer that all that had been\nwrong in their spirit or action might be mercifully forgiven, and that He\nwhose glory they had humbly striven to promote might graciously accept\nthis their service, and deign to use it as an instrument for the good of\nman, and the honour of His holy name.\n\nThe total number of meetings of the Company has been 407, and the total\nnumber of attendances 6,426,[129] or an average attendance at each meeting\nof 15\u00b78 members.\n\nUpon one other point our readers will naturally look for some information.\nHow have the necessary expenses of this undertaking been met? These, it\nwill readily be seen, would necessarily be large. So many persons could\nnot come together from various parts of the kingdom--some very distant,\nincluding the extreme north of Scotland, and the extreme west of\nCornwall--and remain in London for a week in every month, without a\nconsiderable expenditure of money. It was also found necessary for the\nsatisfactory execution of the work that each portion, from time to time as\nprovisionally completed, should be set up in type, and in this way further\nexpenses were entailed. The question of meeting these expenses was at an\nearly period forced upon the attention of the Company; for some members\nbefore many months had elapsed had been put to serious costs, and while\nall willingly gave their time and labour, as far as they might be able,\nwithout reserve to this important work, it was felt to be impossible to\nallow this extra burden to rest upon any, and the more so as the pressure\nof it must needs be very unequally distributed. An appeal to the public\nfor help having met with no adequate response, it was resolved to dispose\nof the copyright of the work, in the hope thereby of obtaining sufficient\nmeans of meeting the expenses of completing it. Several offers from\ndifferent sources were made to the Companies; but ultimately, for various\nreasons, it was deemed best to accede to that made by the University\nPresses of Oxford and Cambridge, whereby, in return for the copyright of\nthe Revised Version, the Chancellors, Masters, and Scholars of the two\nUniversities agreed to provide a sum which it was hoped would suffice for\nthe expenses that would be incurred in the prosecution and completion of\nthe work, and to advance a certain portion of the same from time to time.\nA draft deed embodying these agreements having been submitted to the\nCompanies was after some amendments accepted on December 10th, 1872.\n\nThe agreement with the University Presses binds the two Companies to a\nrevision of the Apocrypha, a work not contemplated in their original\nundertaking. The New Testament Company have made arrangements for taking a\nfull share of this revision, and entered upon the work in April last.\nUntil this is completed they will not be released from their\nresponsibilities.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n\n\n(A.)\n\n_PURVEY\u2019S PROLOGUE TO THE WYCLIFFITE BIBLE (1388?)_\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n[130] For as much as Christ saith that the gospel shall be preached in all\nthe world, and David saith of the Apostles and their preaching, \u201cthe sound\nof them went out into each land, and the words of them went out into the\nends of the world;\u201d and again David saith, \u201cThe Lord shall tell in the\nScriptures of peoples and of these princes that were in it;\u201d[131] that is,\nin holy Church, as Jerome saith on that verse, \u201cHoly writ is the Scripture\nof peoples, for it is made that all peoples should know it;\u201d and the\nprinces of the Church that were therein be the apostles that had authority\nto write holy writ; for by that same that the Apostles wrote their\nScriptures by authority and confirming of the Holy Ghost, it is holy\nScripture and faith of Christian men, and this dignity hath no man after\nthem, be he never so holy, never so cunning, as Jerome witnesseth on that\nverse. Also Christ saith of the Jews that cried Hosanna to Him in the\ntemple, that though they were still stones should cry; and by stones He\nunderstandeth heathen men that worshipped stones for their gods. And we\nEnglishmen be come of heathen men, therefore we be understood by these\nstones that should cry holy writ; and as Jews, interpreted\nacknowledging[132], signify clerks that should make acknowledgment to God\nby repentance of sins and by voice of God\u2019s praise, so our lewd (lay, or\nunlearned) men, suing (following) the corner-stone Christ, may be\nsignified by stones that be hard and abiding in the foundation; for though\ncovetous clerks be wood (wild, or mad), by simony, heresy, and many other\nsins, and despise and stop holy writ as much as they can, yet the lewd\npeople cry after holy writ to ken it and keep it with great cost and peril\nof their life.\n\nFor these reasons and other, with common charity to save all men in our\nrealm which God would have saved, a simple creature hath translated the\nBible out of Latin into English. First this simple creature had much\ntravail, with divers fellows and helpers, to gather many old Bibles, and\nother doctors and common glosses, and to make one Latin Bible some deal\ntrue; and then to study it anew, the text with the gloss and other doctors\nas he might get, and especially Lyra on the Old Testament, that helped\nfull much in this work; the third time to counsel with old grammarians and\nold divines of hard words and hard sentences, how they might best be\nunderstood and translated; the fourth time to translate as clearly as he\ncould to the sentence,[133] and to have many good fellows and cunning at\nthe correcting of the translation. First it is to know that the best\ntranslating out of Latin into English is to translate after the sentence,\nand not only after the words, so that the sentence be as open, either\nopener, in English as in Latin, and go not far from the letter; and if the\nletter may not be sued (followed) in the translating, let the sentence be\never whole and open, for the words ought to serve to the intent and\nsentence, and else the words be superfluous or false. In translating into\nEnglish many resolutions may make the sentence open, as an ablative case\nabsolute may be resolved into these three words, with convenable\n(suitable) verb, _the while_, _for if_, as grammarians say, as thus: _the\nmaster reading, I stand_, may be resolved thus, _while the master readeth\nI stand_, or, _if the master readeth, &c._, or, _for the master, &c._; and\nsometime it would accord well with the sentence to be resolved into _when_\nor into _afterward_, thus, _when the master read I stood_, or, _after the\nmaster read I stood_; and sometime it may well be resolved into a verb of\nthe same tense as others be in the same clause, and into this word _et_;\nthat is, _and_ in English, as thus, _arescentibus hominibus prae timore_;\nthat is, _and men should wax dry for dread_. Also a participle of a\npresent tense or preterite of active voice or passive may be resolved into\na verb of the same tense and a conjunction copulative, as thus, _dicens_;\nthat is, _saying_ may be resolved thus, _and saith_, or, _that saith_; and\nthis will in many places make the sentence open, where to English it,\nafter the verb, would be dark and doubtful. Also a relative, which may be\nresolved into his antecedent with a conjunction copulative, as thus,\n_which runneth_, _and he runneth_. Also when one word is once set in a\nclause it may be set forth as often as it is understood, or as often as\nreason and need ask. And this word _autem_, or _vero_, may stand for\n_forsooth_, or for _but_, and thus I use commonly; and sometime it may\nstand for _and_, as old grammarians say. Also when rightful construction\nis let (prevented) by relation, I resolve it openly; thus where this\nclause _Dominum formidabunt adversarii ejus_ should be Englished thus by\nthe letter, _the Lord His adversaries shall dread_, I English it thus by\nresolution, _the adversaries of the Lord shall dread Him_; and so of other\nclauses that be like.\n\nAt the beginning I purposed, with God\u2019s help, to make the sentence as true\nand open in English as it is in Latin, or more true and more open than it\nis in Latin; and I pray for charity and for common profit of Christian\nsouls, that if any wise man find any default of the truth of translation,\nlet him set in the true sentence and open of holy writ, but look that he\nexamine truly his Latin Bible; for no doubt he shall find full many Bibles\nin Latin full false, if he look many, namely, new;[134] and the common\nLatin Bibles have more need to be corrected, as many as I have seen in my\nlife than the English Bible late translated. And where the Hebrew, by\nwitness of Jerome, of Lyra, and other expositors discordeth from our Latin\nBibles, I have set in the margin, by manner of a gloss, what the Hebrew\nhath, and how it is understood in some place; and I did this most in the\nPsalter, that of all our books discordeth most from the Hebrew; for the\nchurch readeth not the Psalter by the last translation of Jerome, out of\nHebrew into Latin, but another translation by other men, that had much\nless cunning and holiness than Jerome had; and in full few books the\nchurch readeth the translation of Jerome, as it may be proved by the\nproper originals of Jerome which he glossed. And where I have translated\nas openly or openlier in English as in Latin, let wise men deme (judge)\nthat know well both languages, and know well the sentence of holy\nScripture. And whether I have done thus or not, no doubt they that ken\nwell the sentence of holy writ and English together, and will travail with\nGod\u2019s grace thereabout, may make the Bible as true and as open, yea, and\nopenlier, in English as in Latin. And no doubt to a simple man, with God\u2019s\ngrace and great travail, men might expound much openlier and shortlier\nthe Bible in English, than the old great doctors have expounded it in\nLatin, and much sharplier and groundlier than many late postillators, or\nexpositors have done. But God of His great mercy, give us grace to live\nwell, and to see the truth in convenable manner, and acceptable to God and\nHis people, and to spell out our time, be it short, be it long, at God\u2019s\nordinance.\n\nBut some that seem wise and holy say thus, If men now were as holy as\nJerome was, they might translate out of Latin into English, as he did out\nof Hebrew and out of Greek into Latin, and else they should not translate\nnow, so they think, for default of holiness and cunning. Though this\nreplication seem colourable, it hath no good ground, neither reason,\nneither charity; for why, (because) this replication is more against Saint\nJerome and against the first LXX. translators, and against holy church,\nthan against simple men that translate now into English; for Saint Jerome\nwas not so holy as the Apostles and Evangelists, whose books he translated\ninto Latin, neither he had so high gifts of the Holy Ghost as they had;\nand much more the LXX. translators were not so holy as Moses and the\nProphets, and specially David; neither they had so great gifts of God as\nMoses and the Prophets had. Furthermore, holy church approveth not only\nthe true translation of mean Christian men, but also of open heretics,\nthat did away mysteries of Jesus Christ by guileful translation, as Jerome\nwitnesseth in one prologue on Job, and in the prologue of Daniel. Much\nmore late the Church of England approve the true and whole translation of\nsimple men, that would, for no good on earth, by their witting and power,\nput away the least truth, yea, the least letter or tittle of holy writ\nthat beareth substance or charge. And dispute they not (let them not\ndispute) of the holiness of men now living in this deadly life; for they\nknow not thereon, and it is reserved only to God\u2019s doom. If they know any\nnotable default by the translators or their helps, let them blame the\ndefault by charity and mercy, and let them never damn a thing that may be\ndone lawfully by God\u2019s law, as wearing a good cloth for a time, or riding\non a horse for a great journey, when they wit not wherefore it is done;\nfor such things may be done of simple men with as great charity and virtue\nas some that hold themselves great and wise, can ride in a gilt saddle, or\nuse cushions and beds and cloths of gold and of silk, with other vanities\nof the world. God grant pity, mercy, and charity, and love of common\nprofit, and put away such foolish dooms (judgment) that be against reason\nand charity. Yet worldly clerks ask greatly (grandly) what spirit maketh\nidiots (laymen) hardy to translate now the Bible into English, since the\nfour great doctors durst never do this. This replication is so lewd\n(unlearned), that it needeth none answer but stillness or courteous scorn;\nfor these great doctors were none English men, neither they were\nconversant among English men, neither they knew the language of English,\nbut they ceased never till they had holy writ in the mother tongue of\ntheir own people. For Jerome, that was a Latin man of birth, translated\nthe Bible, both out of Hebrew and out of Greek into Latin, and expounded\nfull much thereto; and Austin and many more Latins expounded the Bible,\nfor many parts, in Latin, to Latin men among which they dwelt, and Latin\nwas a common language to their people about Rome, and beyond and on this\nhalf (side), as English is common to our people, and yet (still) this day\nthe common people in Italy speaketh Latin corrupt, as true men say that\nhave been in Italy; and the number of translators out of Greek into Latin\npasseth man\u2019s knowing, as Austin witnesseth in the ij. book of _Christian\nTeaching_,[135] and saith thus: \u201cThe translators out of Hebrew into Greek\nmay be numbered, but Latin translators, or they that translated into\nLatin, may not be numbered in any manner.\u201d For in the first times of\nfaith, each man, as a Greek book came to him, and he seemed to himself to\nhave some cunning of Greek and Latin, was hardy (bold) to translate, and\nthis thing helped more than letted (hindered) understanding, if readers be\nnot negligent, for why (because) the beholding of many books hath showed\noff or declared some darker sentences. This saith Austin here. Therefore\nGrosted (Grosseteste) saith that it was God\u2019s will that diverse men\ntranslate, and that diverse translations be in the church, where one said\ndarkly, one other more said openly.\n\nLord God, since at the beginning of faith so many men translated into\nLatin, and to great profit of Latin men, let one simple creature of God\ntranslate into English for profit of Englishmen; for if worldly clerks\nlook well their chronicles and books they shall find that Bede translated\nthe Bible, and expounded much in Saxon, that was English, or common\nlanguage of this land, in his time; and not only Bede, but also King\nAlfred that founded Oxford, translated in his last days the beginning of\nthe Psalter into Saxon, and would more if he had lived longer. Also\nFrenchmen, Beemers,[136] and Britons have the Bible and other books of\ndevotion and of exposition translated in their mother language. Why should\nnot Englishmen have the same in their mother language I cannot wit, no but\n(except) for falseness and negligence of clerks, or for (because) our\npeople is not worthy to have so great grace and gift of God in pain\n(penalty) of their old sins. God for his mercy amend these evil causes,\nand make our people to have, and ken, and keep truly holy writ, to life\nand death.\n\nBut in translating of words equivocal, that is, that have many\nsignifications under one letter, may lightly be peril (there may easily be\na danger of mistake); for Austin saith in the ij. book of _Christian\nTeaching_ that if equivocal words be not translated into the sense or\nunderstanding of the author it is error,[137] as in that place of the\npsalm, _the feet of them be swift to shed out blood_. The Greek word is\nequivocal to _sharp_ and _swift_, and he that translated _sharp feet_\nerred, and a book that hath _sharp feet_ is false, and must be amended, as\nthat sentence, _unkind young trees shall not give deep roots_, ought to be\nthus _plantings of adultery shall not give deep roots_.[138] Austin saith\nthis there; therefore a translator hath great need to study well the\nsentence, both before and after, and look that such equivocal words accord\nwith the sentence; and he hath need to live a clean life, and be full\ndevout in prayers, and have not his wit occupied about worldly things,\nthat the Holy Spirit, author of wisdom, and cunning, and truth, dress him\nin his work, and suffer him not for to err.\n\nAlso this word _ex_ signifieth sometime _of_, and sometime it signifieth\n_by_, as Jerome saith; and this word _enim_ signifieth commonly\n_forsooth_, and, as Jerome saith, it signifieth, _cause thus_, _forwhy_.\nAnd this word _secundum_ is taken for _after_, as many men say, and\ncommonly; but it signifieth well _by_ or _up_, thus _by your word_, or _up\nyour word_. Many such adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions be set off\none for another, and at free choice of authors sometime; and now they\nshould be taken as it accordeth best to the sentence.\n\nBy this manner, with good living and great travail, men may come to true\nand clear translating and true understanding of holy writ, seem it never\nso hard at the beginning. God grant to us all grace to ken well and to\nkeep well holy writ, and to suffer joyfully some pain for it at the last.\nAmen.\n\n\n\n\n(B.)\n\n_TYNDALE\u2019S PROLOGUES._\n\n\nI. NEW TESTAMENT[139] 1525. 4TO.\n\nI have here translated, brethren and sisters, most dear and tenderly\nbeloved in Christ, the New Testament, for your spiritual edifying,\nconsolation, and solace; exhorting instantly and beseeching those that are\nbetter seen in the tongues than I, and that have better gifts of grace to\ninterpret the sense of the Scripture and meaning of the Spirit than I, to\nconsider and ponder my labour, and that with the spirit of meekness; and\nif they perceive in any places that I have not attained unto the very\nsense of the tongue, or meaning of the Scripture, or have not given the\nright English word, that they put to their hands to amend it, remembering\nthat so is their duty to do. For we have not received the gifts of God for\nourselves only, or for to hide them; but for to bestow them unto the\nhonouring of God and Christ, and edifying of the congregation, which is\nthe body of Christ.\n\nThe causes that moved me to translate, I thought better that others should\nimagine, than that I should rehearse them. Moreover I supposed it\nsuperfluous; for who is so blind as to ask why light should be showed to\nthem that walk in darkness, where they cannot but stumble, and where to\nstumble is the danger of eternal damnation; other so despiteful that he\nwould envy any man (I speak not his brother) so necessary a thing; or so\nbedlam mad to affirm that good is the natural cause of evil, and darkness\nto proceed out of light, and that lying should be grounded in truth and\nverity, and not rather clean contrary, that light destroyeth darkness, and\nverity reproveth all manner of lying.\n\nAfter it had pleased GOD to put in my mind and also to give me grace to\ntranslate this fore-rehearsed New Testament into our English tongue,\nhowsoever we have done it, I supposed it very necessary to put you in\nremembrance of certain points, which are, that ye well understand what\nthese words mean: the Old Testament, the New Testament; the law, the\ngospel; Moses, Christ; nature, grace; working and believing; deeds and\nfaith; lest we ascribe to the one that which belongeth to the other, and\nmake of Christ Moses, of the gospel the law, despise grace and rob faith;\nand fall from meek learning into idle dispicions; brawling and scolding\nabout words.\n\nThe Old Testament is a book wherein is written the law of God, and the\ndeeds of them which fulfil them, and of them also which fulfil them not.\n\nThe New Testament is a book wherein are contained the promises of God, and\nthe deeds of them which believe them or believe them not.\n\nEvangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word, and signifies good,\nmerry, glad, and joyful tidings, that maketh a man\u2019s heart glad, and\nmaketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy: as when David had killed Goliath\nthe giant, came glad tidings unto the Jews, that their fearful and cruel\nenemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger; for gladness\nwhereof, they sung, danced, and were joyful. In like manner is the\nEvangelion of God (which we call gospel, and the New Testament) joyful\ntidings; and, as some say, a good hearing, published by the apostles\nthroughout all the world, of Christ the right David, how that he hath\nfought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them: whereby all\nmen that were in bondage to sin, wounded with death, overcome of the\ndevil, are, without their own merits or deservings, loosed, justified,\nrestored to life and saved, brought to liberty and reconciled unto the\nfavour of God, and set at one with him again; which tidings, as many as\nbelieve, laud, praise, and thank God; are glad, sing, and dance for joy.\n\nThis Evangelion or gospel (that is to say, such joyful tidings) is called\nthe New Testament; because that as a man, when he shall die, appointeth\nhis goods to be dealt and distributed after his death among them which he\nnameth to be his heirs; even so Christ, before his death, commanded and\nappointed that such Evangelion, gospel, or tidings, should be declared\nthroughout all the world, and therewith to give unto all that believe, all\nhis goods; that is to say, his life, wherewith he swallowed and devoured\nup death; his righteousness, wherewith he banished sin; his salvation,\nwherewith he overcame eternal damnation. Now, can the wretched man, that\n[knoweth himself to be wrapped] in sin, and in danger to death and hell,\nhear no more joyous a thing than such glad and comfortable tidings of\nChrist; so that he cannot but be glad and laugh from the low bottom of his\nheart, if he believe that the tidings are true.\n\nTo strength such faith withal, God promised this his Evangelion in the Old\nTestament by the prophets, as Paul saith (Rom. i.), how that he was chosen\nout to preach God\u2019s Evangelion, which he before had promised by the\nprophets in the Scriptures, that treat of his Son which was born of the\nseed of David. In Gen. iii. God saith to the serpent, \u201cI will put hatred\nbetween thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed, that self seed\nshall tread thy head under foot.\u201d Christ is this woman\u2019s seed; he it is\nthat hath trodden under foot the devil\u2019s head; that is to say, sin, death,\nhell, and all his power. For without this seed can no man avoid sin,\ndeath, hell, and everlasting damnation.\n\nAgain (Gen. xxii.), God promised Abraham, saying, \u201cIn thy seed shall all\nthe generations of the earth be blessed.\u201d Christ is that seed of Abraham,\nsaith St. Paul. (Gal. iii.) He hath blessed all the world through the\ngospel. For where Christ is not, there remaineth the curse that fell on\nAdam as soon as he had sinned, so that they are in bondage under the\ncondemnation of sin, death, and hell. Against this curse blesseth now the\ngospel all the world, inasmuch as it crieth openly, saying, Whosoever\nbelieveth on the Seed of Abraham shall be blessed, that is, he shall be\ndelivered from sin, death, and hell, and shall henceforth continue\nrighteous, living and saved for ever, as Christ himself saith, in the\neleventh of John, \u201cHe that believeth on me shall never more die.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe law,\u201d saith the gospel of John in the first chapter, \u201cwas given by\nMoses: but grace and verity by Jesus Christ.\u201d The law, whose minister is\nMoses, was given to bring us unto the knowledge of ourselves, that we\nmight thereby feel and perceive what we are of nature. The law condemneth\nus and all our deeds, and is called of Paul in 2 Cor. iii. the\nministration of death. For it killeth our consciences and driveth us to\ndesperation, inasmuch as it requireth of us that which is impossible for\nus to do. It requireth of us the deeds of a whole man. It requireth\nperfect love from the low bottom and ground of the heart, as well in all\nthings which we suffer, as in the things which we do. But, saith John, in\nthe same place, \u201cgrace and verity is given us in Christ,\u201d so that when the\nlaw hath passed upon us, and condemned us to death, which is its nature to\ndo, then we have in Christ grace, that is to say, favour, promises of\nlife, of mercy, of pardon, freely by the merits of Christ; and in Christ\nhave we verity and truth, in that God fulfilleth all his promises to them\nthat believe. Therefore is the gospel the ministration of life. Paul\ncalleth it in the fore rehearsed place of 2 Cor. iii. the ministration of\nthe Spirit and of righteousness.\n\nIn the gospel, when we believe the promises, we receive the Spirit of\nlife, and are justified in the blood of Christ from all things whereof the\nlaw condemned us. Of Christ it is written in the fore rehearsed John i.\nThis is He of whose abundance, or fulness, all we have received, grace for\ngrace, or favour for favour. That is to say, for the favour that God hath\nto his Son Christ he giveth unto us his favour and good will, as a father\nto his sons. As affirmeth Paul, saying, \u201cWhich loved us in his Beloved\nbefore the creation of the world.\u201d Christ is made Lord over all, and is\ncalled in scripture God\u2019s mercy-stool; whosoever therefore flieth to\nChrist can neither hear nor receive of God any other thing save mercy.\n\nIn the Old Testament are many promises, which are nothing else but the\nEvangelion or gospel, to save those that believed them from the vengeance\nof the law. And in the New Testament is often made mention of the law, to\ncondemn them which believe not the promises. Moreover the law and the\ngospel may never be separate; for the gospel and promises serve but for\ntroubled consciences, which are brought to desperation, and feel the pains\nof hell and death under the law, and are in captivity and bondage under\nthe law. In all my deeds I must have the law before me to condemn mine\nimperfectness. For all that I do, be I never so perfect, is yet damnable\nsin, when it is compared to the law, which requireth the ground and bottom\nof mine heart. I must therefore have always the law in my sight, that I\nmay be meek in the spirit, and give God all the laud and praise, ascribing\nto him all righteousness, and to myself all unrighteousness and sin. I\nmust also have the promises before mine eyes, that I despair not; in which\npromises I see the mercy, favour, and good will of God upon me, in the\nblood of his Son Christ, which hath made satisfaction for mine\nunperfectness, and fulfilled for me that which I could not do.\n\nHere may ye perceive that two manner of people are sore deceived. First,\nthey which justify themselves with outward deeds, in that they abstain\noutwardly from that which the law forbiddeth, and do outwardly that which\nthe law commandeth. They compare themselves to open sinners; and in\nrespect of them justify themselves, condemning the open sinners. They set\na veil on Moses\u2019 face, and see not how the law requireth love from the\nbottom of the heart. If they did they would not condemn their neighbours.\n\u201cLove hideth the multitude of sins,\u201d saith St. Peter, in his first\nepistle. For whom I love from the deep bottom and ground of mine heart,\nhim condemn I not, neither reckon his sins, but suffer his weakness and\ninfirmity, as a mother the weakness of her son, until he grow up unto a\nperfect man.\n\nThose also are deceived which, without all fear of God, give themselves\nunto all manner vices with full consent, and full delectation, having no\nrespect to the law of God (under whose vengeance they are locked up in\ncaptivity), but say, God is merciful and Christ died for us, supposing\nthat such dreaming and imagination is that faith which is so greatly\ncommended in holy scripture. Nay, that is not faith, but rather a foolish\nblind opinion springing of their own nature, and it is not given them of\nthe Spirit of God; true faith is (as saith the apostle Paul) the gift of\nGod, and is given to sinners after the law hath passed upon them, and hath\nbrought their consciences unto the brink of desperation, and sorrows of\nhell.\n\nThey that have this right faith, consent to the law that it is righteous,\nand good, and justify God which made the law, and have delectation in the\nlaw, notwithstanding that they cannot fulfil it, for their weakness; and\nthey abhor whatsoever the law forbiddeth, though they cannot avoid it. And\ntheir great sorrow is, because they cannot fulfil the will of God in the\nlaw; and the spirit that is in them crieth to God night and day for\nstrength and help, with tears (as saith Paul) that cannot be expressed\nwith tongue. Of which things the belief of our popish (or of their)\nfather, whom they so magnify for his strong faith, hath none experience at\nall.\n\nThe first, that is to say, a justiciary, which justifieth himself with his\noutward deeds, consenteth not to the inward law, neither hath delectation\ntherein: yea, he would rather that no such law were. So he justifieth not\nGod, but hateth him as a tyrant, neither careth he for the promises, but\nwill with his own strength be saviour of himself; no wise glorifieth he\nGod, though he seem outward to do.\n\nThe second, that is to say, the sensual person, as a voluptuous swine,\nneither feareth God in his law, neither is thankful to him for his\npromises and mercy, which is set forth in Christ to all them that believe.\n\nThe right christian man consenteth to the law, that it is righteous, and\njustifieth God in the law; for he affirmeth that God is righteous and\njust, which is author of the law. He believeth the promises of God, and so\njustifieth God, judging him true, and believing that he will fulfil his\npromises. With the law he condemneth himself and all his deeds, and giveth\nall the praise to God. He believeth the promises, and ascribeth all truth\nto God: thus everywhere justifieth he God, and praiseth God.\n\nBy nature, through the fall of Adam are we the children of wrath, heirs of\nthe vengeance of God by birth, yea, and from our conception. And we have\nour fellowship with the devils under the power of darkness and rule of\nSatan, while we are yet in our mothers\u2019 wombs; and though we show not\nforth the fruits of sin, yet are we full of the natural poison whereof all\nsinful deeds spring, and cannot but sin outwardly, be we never so young,\nif occasion be given; for our nature is to do sin, as is the nature of a\nserpent to sting. And as a serpent yet young, or yet unbrought forth, is\nfull of poison, and cannot afterward (when the time is come, and occasion\ngiven) but bring forth the fruits thereof; and as an adder, a toad, or a\nsnake, is hated of man, not for the evil that it hath done, but for the\npoison that is in it and the hurt which it cannot but do; so are we hated\nof God for that natural poison which is conceived and born with us before\nwe do any outward evil. And as the evil, which a venomous worm doeth,\nmaketh it not a serpent; but because it is a venomous worm, therefore doth\nit evil and poisoneth; and as the fruit maketh not the tree evil, but\nbecause it is an evil tree, therefore it bringeth forth evil fruit, when\nthe season of fruit is; even so do not our evil deeds make us evil; but\nbecause that of nature we are evil, therefore we both think and do evil,\nand are under vengeance under the law, convict to eternal damnation by the\nlaw, and are contrary to the will of God in all our will, and in all\nthings consent to the will of the fiend.\n\nBy grace, that is to say by favour, we are plucked out of Adam, the ground\nof all evil, and graffed in Christ the root of all goodness. In Christ,\nGod loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began, and reserved\nus unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the\ngospel is preached to us, he openeth our hearts, and giveth us grace to\nbelieve, and putteth the Spirit of Christ in us, and we know him as our\nFather most merciful; and we consent to the law, and love it inwardly in\nour heart, and desire to fulfil it, and sorrow because we cannot; which\nwill (sin we of frailty never so much) is sufficient till more strength be\ngiven us; the blood of Christ hath made satisfaction for the rest; the\nblood of Christ hath obtained all things for us of God. Christ is our\nsatisfaction, Redeemer, Deliverer, Saviour, from vengeance and wrath.\nObserve and mark in Paul\u2019s, Peter\u2019s, and John\u2019s epistles, and in the\ngospel, what Christ is unto us.\n\nBy faith are we saved only in believing the promises. And though faith be\nnever without love and good works, yet is our saving imputed neither to\nlove nor unto good works, but unto faith only. For love and works are\nunder the law, which requireth perfection, and the ground and fountain of\nthe heart, and damneth all imperfectness. Now is faith under the\npromises, which condemn not; but give all grace, mercy, favour, and\nwhatsoever is contained in the promises.\n\nRighteousness is divers; blind reason imagines many manner of\nrighteousness. There is, in like manner, the justifying of ceremonies,\nsome imagine them their own selves, some counterfeit other, saying, in\ntheir blind reason, Such holy persons did thus and thus, and they were\nholy men, therefore if I do so likewise I shall please God; but they have\nno answer of God that that pleaseth. The Jews seek righteousness in their\nceremonies; which God gave unto them, not to justify, but to describe and\npaint Christ unto them; of which Jews testifieth Paul, saying how that\nthey have affection to God, but not after knowledge; for they go about to\nstablish their own justice, and are not obedient to the justice of\nrighteousness that cometh of God. The cause is verily that except a man\ncast away his own imagination and reason, he cannot perceive God, and\nunderstand the virtue and power of the blood of Christ. There is the\nrighteousness of works, as I said before, when the heart is away and\nfeeleth not how the law is spiritual and cannot be fulfilled, but from the\nbottom of the heart, as the just ministration of all manner of laws, and\nthe observing of them, and moral virtues wherein philosophers put their\nfelicity and blessedness--which all are nothing in the sight of God. There\nis a full righteousness, when the law is fulfilled from the ground of the\nheart. This had neither Peter nor Paul in this life perfectly, but sighed\nafter it. They were so far forth blessed in Christ, that they hungered and\nthirsted after it. Paul had this thirst; he consented to the law of God,\nthat it ought so to be, but he found another lust in his members, contrary\nto the lust and desire of his mind, and therefore cried out, saying, \u201cOh,\nwretched man that I am; who shall deliver me from this body of death?\nthanks be to God through Jesus Christ.\u201d The righteousness that before God\nis of value, is to believe the promises of God, after the law hath\nconfounded the conscience: as when the temporal law ofttimes condemneth\nthe thief or murderer, and bringeth him to execution, so that he seeth\nnothing before him but present death, and then cometh good tidings, a\ncharter from the king, and delivereth him. Likewise when God\u2019s law hath\nbrought the sinner into knowledge of himself, and hath confounded his\nconscience and opened unto him the wrath and vengeance of God; then cometh\ngood tidings. The Evangelion showeth unto him the promises of God in\nChrist, and how Christ hath purchased pardon for him, hath satisfied the\nlaw for him, and appeased the wrath of God. And the poor sinner believeth,\nlaudeth, and thanketh God through Christ, and breaketh out into exceeding\ninward joy and gladness, for that he hath escaped so great wrath, so heavy\nvengeance, so fearful and so everlasting a death. And he henceforth is an\nhungered and athirst after more righteousness, that he might fulfil the\nlaw; and mourneth continually, commending his weakness unto God in the\nblood of our Saviour, Christ Jesus.\n\nHere shall ye see compendiously and plainly set out, the order and\npractice of every thing before rehearsed.\n\nThe fall of Adam hath made us heirs of the vengeance and wrath of God, and\nheirs of eternal damnation; and hath brought us into captivity and bondage\nunder the devil. And the devil is our lord, and our ruler, our head, our\ngovernor, our prince, yea, and our god. And our will is locked and knit\nfaster unto the will of the devil, than could a hundred thousand chains\nbind a man unto a post. Unto the devil\u2019s will consent we with all our\nhearts, with all our minds, with all our might, power, strength, will, and\nlusts. With what poison, deadly and venomous hate, hateth a man his enemy!\nWith how great malice of mind, inwardly, do we slay and murder! With what\nviolence and rage, yea, and with how fervent lust, commit we advoutry,\nfornication, and such like uncleanness! With what pleasure and delectation\ninwardly serveth a glutton his belly! With what diligence deceive we! How\nbusily seek we the things of this world! Whatsoever we do, think, or\nimagine, is abominable in the sight of God. And we are as it were asleep\nin so deep blindness, that we can neither see nor feel what misery,\nthraldom, and wretchedness we are in, till Moses come and wake us, and\npublish the law. When we hear the law truly preached, how that we ought to\nlove and honour God with all our strength and might, from the low bottom\nof the heart; and our neighbours, yea, our enemies, as ourselves,\ninwardly, from the ground of the heart, and do whatsoever God biddeth, and\nabstain from whatsoever God forbiddeth, with all love and meekness, with a\nfervent and a burning lust from the centre of the heart, then beginneth\nthe conscience to rage against the law, and against God. No sea, be it\never so great a tempest, is so unquiet. For it is not possible for a\nnatural man to consent to the law, that it should be good, or that God\nshould be righteous which maketh the law; his wit, reason, and will being\nso fast glued, yea, nailed and chained unto the will of the devil. Neither\ncan any creature loose the bonds, save the blood of Christ.\n\nThis is the captivity and bondage whence Christ delivered us, redeemed,\nand loosed us. His blood, his death, his patience in suffering rebukes and\nwrongs, his prayers and fastings, his meekness and fulfilling of the\nuttermost point of the law, appeased the wrath of God, brought the favour\nof God to us again, obtained that God should love us first, and be our\nFather, and that a merciful Father, that will consider our infirmities and\nweakness, and will give us his Spirit again (which was taken away in the\nfall of Adam) to rule, govern, and strength us, and to break the bonds of\nSatan, wherein we were so straight bound. When Christ is thuswise\npreached, and the promises rehearsed which are contained in the prophets,\nin the psalms, and in divers places of the five books of Moses, then the\nhearts of them which are elect and chosen, begin to wax soft and melt at\nthe bounteous mercy of God, and kindness shewed of Christ. For when the\nEvangelion is preached, the Spirit of God entereth into them whom God hath\nordained and appointed unto eternal life, and openeth their inward eyes,\nand worketh such belief in them. When the woful consciences feel and taste\nhow sweet a thing the bitter death of Christ is, and how merciful and\nloving God is through Christ\u2019s purchasing and merits, they begin to love\nagain, and to consent to the law of God, that it is good and ought so to\nbe, and that God is righteous which made it; and they desire to fulfil the\nlaw, even as the sick man desireth to be whole, and are an hungered and\nthirst after more righteousness and after more strength to fulfil the law\nmore perfectly. And in all that they do, or omit and leave undone, they\nseek God\u2019s honour and his will with meekness, ever condemning the\nimperfectness of their deeds by the law.\n\nNow Christ standeth us in double stead, and us serveth in two manner wise:\nFirst, he is our Redeemer, Deliverer, Reconciler, Mediator, Intercessor,\nAdvocate, Attorney, Solicitor, our Hope, Comfort, Shield, Protection,\nDefender, Strength, Health, Satisfaction, and Salvation. His blood, his\ndeath, all that he ever did, is ours. And Christ himself, with all that he\nis or can do, is ours. His blood-shedding and all that he did, doth me as\ngood service as though I myself had done it. And God (as great as he is)\nis mine, with all that he hath, through Christ and his purchasing.\n\nSecondarily, after that we be overcome with love and kindness, and now\nseek to do the will of God, which is a christian man\u2019s nature, then have\nwe Christ an example to counterfeit, as saith Christ himself in John, \u201cI\nhave given you an example.\u201d And in another evangelist he saith, \u201cHe that\nwill be great among you, shall be your servant and minister, as the Son of\nman came to minister and not to be ministered unto.\u201d And Paul saith,\n\u201cCounterfeit[140] Christ.\u201d And Peter saith, \u201cChrist died for you, and\nleft you an example to follow his steps.\u201d Whatsoever therefore faith hath\nreceived of God through Christ\u2019s blood and deserving, that same must love\nshed out every whit, and bestow it on our neighbours unto their profit,\nyea, and that though they be our enemies. By faith we receive of God, and\nby love we shed out again. And that must we do freely after the example of\nChrist, without any other respect, save our neighbour\u2019s wealth only, and\nneither look for reward in the earth, nor yet in heaven, for our deeds.\nBut of pure love must we bestow ourselves, all that we have, and all that\nwe are able to do, even on our enemies, to bring them to God, considering\nnothing but their wealth, as Christ did ours. Christ did not his deeds to\nobtain heaven thereby (that had been a madness), heaven was his already,\nhe was heir thereof, it was his by inheritance; but did them freely for\nour sakes, considering nothing but our wealth, and to bring the favour of\nGod to us again, and us to God. And no natural son that is his father\u2019s\nheir, doth his father\u2019s will because he would be heir; that he is already\nby birth, his father gave him that ere he was born, and is loather that he\nshould go without it, than he himself hath wit to be; but out of pure love\ndoth he that he doth. And ask him, Why he doth any thing that he doth? he\nanswereth, My father bade, it is my father\u2019s will, it pleaseth my father.\nBond servants work for hire, children for love: for their father with all\nhe hath, is theirs already. So a Christian man doth freely all that he\ndoth, considereth nothing but the will of God, and his neighbour\u2019s wealth\nonly. If I live chaste, I do it not to obtain heaven thereby; for then\nshould I do wrong to the blood of Christ; Christ\u2019s blood has obtained me\nthat; Christ\u2019s merits have made me heir thereof; he is both door and way\nthitherwards: neither that I look for an higher room in heaven than they\nshall have which live in wedlock, other than a whore of the stews, if she\nrepent; for that were the pride of Lucifer, but freely to wait on the\nevangelion; and to serve my brother withal; even as one hand helpeth\nanother, or one member another, because one feeleth another\u2019s grief, and\nthe pain of the one is the pain of the other. Whatsoever is done to the\nleast of us (whether it be good or bad), it is done to Christ; and\nwhatsoever is done to my brother, if I be a christian man, that same is\ndone to me. Neither doth my brother\u2019s pain grieve me less than mine own:\nneither rejoice I less at his welfare than at mine own. If it were not so,\nhow saith Paul? \u201cLet him that rejoiceth, rejoice in the Lord,\u201d that is to\nsay, Christ, which is Lord over all creatures. If my merits obtained me\nheaven, or a higher room there, then had I wherein I might rejoice besides\nthe Lord.\n\nHere see ye the nature of the law, and the nature of the evangelion. How\nthe law is the key that bindeth and damneth all men, and the evangelion\nlooseth them again. The law goeth before, and the evangelion followeth.\nWhen a preacher preacheth the law, he bindeth all consciences; and when he\npreacheth the gospel, he looseth them again. These two salves (I mean the\nlaw and the gospel) useth God and his preacher to heal and cure sinners\nwithal. The law driveth out the disease and maketh it appear, and is a\nsharp salve, and a fretting corosy, and killeth the dead flesh, and\nlooseth and draweth the sores out by the roots, and all corruption. It\npulleth from a man the trust and confidence that he hath in himself, and\nin his own works, merits, deservings, and ceremonies. It killeth him,\nsendeth him down to hell, and bringeth him to utter desperation, and\nprepareth the way of the Lord, as it is written of John the Baptist. For\nit is not possible that Christ should come to a man, as long as he\ntrusteth in himself, or in any worldly thing. Then cometh the evangelion,\na more gentle plaster, which suppleth and suageth the wounds of the\nconscience, and bringeth health. It bringeth the Spirit of God, which\nlooseth the bonds of Satan, and uniteth us to God and his will, through\nstrong faith and fervent love, with bonds too strong for the devil, the\nworld, or any creature to loose them. And the poor and wretched sinner\nfeeleth so great mercy, love, and kindness in God, that he is sure in\nhimself how that it is not possible that God should forsake him, or\nwithdraw his mercy and love from him; and he boldly crieth out with Paul,\nsaying, \u201cWho shall separate us from the love that God loveth us withal?\u201d\nThat is to say, What shall make me believe that God loveth me not? Shall\ntribulation? anguish? persecution? Shall hunger? nakedness? Shall sword?\nNay, \u201cI am sure that neither death nor life, neither angel, neither rule\nnor power, neither present things nor things to come, neither high nor\nlow, neither any creature, is able to separate us from the love of God,\nwhich is in Christ Jesu our Lord.\u201d In all such tribulations, a christian\nman perceiveth that God is his Father, and loveth him even as he loved\nChrist when he shed his blood on the cross.\n\nFinally, as before, when I was bond to the devil and his will, I wrought\nall manner of evil and wickedness, not for hell\u2019s sake, which is the\nreward of sin, but because I was heir of hell by birth and bondage to the\ndevil, did I evil (for I could none otherwise do; to do sin was my\nnature), even so now, since I am coupled to God by Christ\u2019s blood, do I\nwell, not for heaven\u2019s sake, but because I am heir of heaven by grace and\nChrist\u2019s purchasing, and have the Spirit of God, I do good freely, for so\nis my nature: as a good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and an evil tree\nevil fruit. By the fruits shall ye know what the tree is. A man\u2019s deeds\ndeclare what he is within, but make him neither good nor bad. We must\nfirst be evil ere we do evil, as a serpent is first poisonous ere he\npoison. We must be also good ere we do good, as the fire must be first hot\nere it warm any thing. Take an example: As those blind which are cured in\nthe evangelion could not see till Christ had given them sight, and deaf\ncould not hear till Christ had given them hearing, and those sick could\nnot do the deeds of an whole man till Christ had given them health; so can\nno man do good in his soul till Christ have loosed him out of the bonds\nof Satan, and have given him wherewith to do good; yea, and first have\npoured into him that self good thing which he sheddeth forth afterwards on\nother. Whatsoever is our own, is sin. Whatsoever is above that, is\nChrist\u2019s gift, purchase, doing, and working. He bought it of his Father\ndearly with his blood, yea, with his most bitter death, and gave his life\nfor it. Whatsoever good thing is in us, that is given us freely, without\nour deserving or merits, for Christ\u2019s blood\u2019s sake. That we desire to\nfollow the will of God it is the gift of Christ\u2019s blood. That we now hate\nthe devil\u2019s will (whereunto we were so fast locked, and could not but love\nit) is also the gift of Christ\u2019s blood; unto whom belongeth the praise and\nhonour of our good deeds, and not unto us.\n\n\nII. \u201cTHE EPISTLE TO THE READER\u201d ATTACHED TO THE 8vo EDITION, 1525.\n\nGive diligence, reader, I exhort thee, that thou come with a pure mind,\nand, as the Scripture saith, with a single eye, unto the words of health\nand of eternal life; by the which, if we repent and believe them, we are\nborn anew, created afresh, and enjoy the fruits of the blood of Christ,\nwhich blood crieth not for vengeance, as the blood of Abel, but hath\npurchased life, love, favour, grace, blessing, and whatsoever is promised\nin the Scriptures to them that believe and obey God, and standeth between\nus and wrath, vengeance, curse, and whatsoever the Scripture threateneth\nagainst the unbelievers and disobedient, which resist and consent not in\ntheir hearts to the law of God that it is right, holy, just, and ought so\nto be. Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in\ndoubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them, but as\n(Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith. Note the\ndifference of the law and of the gospel. The one asketh and requireth,\nthe other pardoneth and forgiveth; the one threateneth, the other\npromiseth all good things to them that set their trust in Christ only. The\ngospel signifieth glad tidings, and is nothing but the promises of good\nthings. All is not gospel that is written in the gospel-book; for if the\nlaw were away thou couldest not know what the gospel meant, even as thou\ncouldest not see pardon and grace, except the law rebuked thee and\ndeclared unto thee thy sin, misdeed, and trespass. Repent, and believe the\ngospel, as Christ saith in the first of Mark. Apply alway the law to thy\ndeeds, whether thou find lust in thine heart to the law-ward; and so shalt\nthou no doubt repent and feel in thyself a certain sorrow, pain, and grief\nto thine heart, because thou canst not with full lust do the deeds of the\nlaw. Apply the gospel, that is to say the promises, unto the deserving of\nChrist, and to the mercy of God and his truth, and so shalt thou not\ndespair, but shall feel God as a kind and merciful father. And his Spirit\nshall dwell in thee, and shall be strong in thee, and the promises shall\nbe given thee at the last (though not by and by, lest thou shouldest\nforget thyself and be negligent), and all threatenings shall be forgiven\nthee for Christ\u2019s blood\u2019s sake, to whom commit thyself altogether, without\nrespect either of thy good deeds or of thy bad.\n\nThem that are learned Christianly I beseech, forasmuch as I am sure, and\nmy conscience beareth me record, that of a pure intent, singly and\nfaithfully, I have interpreted it, as far forth as God gave me the gift of\nknowledge and understanding, that the rudeness of the work now at the\nfirst time offend them not; but that they consider how that I had no man\nto counterfeit, neither was helped with English of any that had\ninterpreted the same or such like thing in the Scripture beforetime.\nMoreover, even very necessity, and cumbrance (God is record) above\nstrength, which I will not rehearse, lest we should seem to boast\nourselves, caused that many things are lacking which necessarily are\nrequired. Count it as a thing not having his full shape, but as it were\nborn before his time, even as a thing begun rather than finished. In time\nto come (if God have appointed us thereunto) we will give it his full\nshape, and put out if ought be added superflously, and add to if ought be\noverseen through negligence, and will enforce to bring to compendiousness\nthat which is now translated at the length, and to give light where it is\nrequired, and to seek in certain places more proper English, and with a\ntable to expound the words which are not commonly used, and show how the\nScripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common\npeople, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not\nanother; and will endeavour ourselves, as it were, to seethe it better,\nand to make it more apt for the weak stomachs, desiring them that are\nlearned and able to remember their duty, and to help them thereunto, and\nto bestow unto the edifying of Christ\u2019s body, which is the congregation of\nthem that believe, those gifts which they have received of God for the\nsame purpose.\n\nThe grace that cometh of Christ be with them that love him. Amen.\n\n\nIII. THE PREFACE TO THE PENTATEUCH, 1530.\n\nWhen I had translated the New Testament, I added an Epistle unto the\nlatter end, in which I desired them that were learned to amend if aught\nwere found amiss. But our malicious and wily hypocrites, which are so\nstubborn, and hard hearted in their wicked abominations, that it is not\npossible for them to amend any thing at all (as we see by daily\nexperience, when both their livings and doings are rebuked with the truth)\nsay, some of them, that it is impossible to translate the Scripture into\nEnglish; some that it is not lawful for the lay people to have it in their\nmother tongue; some that it would make them all heretics; as it would no\ndoubt from many things which they of long time have falsely taught; and\nthat is the whole cause wherefore they forbid it, though they other\ncloaks pretend. And some, or rather every one, say that it would make them\nrise against the king, whom they themselves (unto their damnation) never\nyet obeyed. And lest the temporal rulers should see their falsehood, if\nthe Scripture came to light, causeth them so to lie.\n\nAnd as for my translation, in which they affirm unto the lay people, (as I\nhave heard say) to be I wot not how many thousand heresies, so that it\ncannot be mended or correct, they have yet taken so great pain to examine\nit, and to compare it unto that they would fain have it, and to their own\nimaginations and juggling terms, and to have somewhat to rail at, and\nunder that cloak, to blaspheme the truth, that they might with as little\nlabour (as I suppose) have translated the most part of the Bible. For they\nwhich in times past were wont to look on no more Scripture than they found\nin their _Duns_, or such like devilish doctrine, have yet now so narrowly\nlooked on my Translation, that there is not so much as one _i_ therein, if\nit lack a tittle over his head, but they have noted it, and number it unto\nthe ignorant people for an heresy. Finally, in this they be all\nagreed,--to drive you from the knowledge of the Scripture, and that ye\nshall not have the text thereof in the mother tongue; and to keep the\nworld still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences\nof the people, through vain superstition and false doctrine; to satisfy\ntheir filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and unsatiable covetousness; and\nto exalt their own honour above king and emperor, yea, and above God\nhimself.\n\nA thousand books had they lever to be put forth against their abominable\ndoings and doctrine, than that the Scripture should come to light. For as\nlong as they may keep that down, they will so darken the right way with\nthe mist of their sophistry, and so tangle them that either rebuke or\ndespise their abominations, with arguments of philosophy, and with worldly\nsimilitudes and apparent reasons of natural wisdom, and with wresting the\nScripture unto their own purpose, clean contrary unto the process, order,\nand meaning of the text; and so delude them in descanting upon it with\nallegories; and amaze them, expounding it in many senses before the\nunlearned lay people, (when it hath but one simple, literal sense, whose\nlight the owls cannot abide) that though thou feel in thine heart, and art\nsure, how that all is false that they say, yet couldst thou not solve\ntheir subtle riddles.\n\nWhich thing only moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I had\nperceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay\npeople in any truth except the Scripture were plainly laid before their\neyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and\nmeaning of the text: for else, whatsoever truth is taught them, these\nenemies of all truth quench it again, partly with the smoke of their\nbottomless pit, whereof thou readest in Apocalypse chap. ix. that is, with\napparent reasons of sophistry, and traditions of their own making, founded\nwithout ground of Scripture, and partly in juggling with the text,\nexpounding it in such a sense as is impossible to gather of the text, if\nthou see the process, order, and meaning thereof.\n\nAnd even in the bishop of London\u2019s house I intended to have done it. For\nwhen I was so turmoiled in the country where I was, that I could no longer\ndwell there (the process whereof were too long here to rehearse), I this\nwise thought in myself--this I suffer because the priests of the country\nbe unlearned; as God knoweth, there are a full ignorant sort which have\nseen no more Latin than that they read in their Portesses and Missals,\nwhich yet many of them can scarcely read (except it be _Albertus de\nSecretis Mulierum_, in which yet, though they be never so sorrily learned,\nthey pore day and night, and make notes therein, and all to teach the\nmidwives as they say; and Linwode, a book of constitutions to gather\ntythes, mortuaries, offerings, customs, and other pillage which they call\nnot theirs, but God\u2019s part, and the duty of holy church to discharge their\nconsciences withal: for they are bound that they shall not diminish, but\nincrease all things unto the uttermost of their powers), and, therefore\n(because they are thus unlearned, thought I), when they come together to\nthe ale-house, which is their preaching place, they affirm that my sayings\nare heresy. And besides that, they add to of their own heads which I never\nspake, as the manner is, to prolong the tale to short the time withal, and\naccused me secretly to the chancellor, and other the bishop\u2019s officers.\nAnd, indeed, when I came before the chancellor, he threatened me\ngrievously, and reviled me, and rated me as though I had been a dog, and\nlaid to my charge whereof there could be none accuser brought forth (as\ntheir manner is not to bring forth the accuser), and yet all the priests\nof the country were the same day there.\n\nAs I this thought, the bishop of London came to my remembrance, whom\nErasmus (whose tongue maketh of little gnats great elephants, and lifteth\nup above the stars whosoever giveth him a little exhibition) praiseth\nexceedingly, among other in his Annotations on the New Testament, for his\ngreat learning. Then, thought I, if I might come to this man\u2019s service, I\nwere happy. And so I gat me to London, and, through the acquaintance of my\nmaster, came to Sir Harry Gilford, the king\u2019s grace\u2019s comptroller, and\nbrought him an _Oration of Isocrates_, which I had translated out of Greek\ninto English, and desired him to speak unto my lord of London for me,\nwhich he also did as he shewed me, and willed me to write an epistle to my\nlord, and to go to him myself, which I also did, and delivered my epistle\nto a servant of his own, one William Hebilthwayte, a man of mine old\nacquaintance. But God (which knoweth what is within hypocrites) saw that I\nwas beguiled, and that that counsel was not the next way unto my purpose.\nAnd therefore he gat me no favour in my lord\u2019s sight.\n\nWhereupon my lord answered me, his house was full, he had more than he\ncould well find, and advised me to seek in London, where he said I could\nnot lack a service. And so in London I abode almost a year, and marked the\ncourse of the world, and heard our praters (I would say our preachers),\nhow they boasted themselves and their high authority; and beheld the pomp\nof our prelates, and how busy they were, as they yet are, to set peace and\nunity in the world (though it be not possible for them that walk in\ndarkness to continue long in peace, for they cannot but either stumble or\ndash themselves at one thing or another that shall clean unquiet all\ntogether) and saw things whereof I defer to speak at this time, and\nunderstood at the last not only that there was no room in my lord of\nLondon\u2019s palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no\nplace to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare.\n\nUnder what manner, therefore, should I now submit this book to be\ncorrected and amended of them, which can suffer nothing to be well? Or\nwhat protestation should I make in such a matter unto our prelates, those\nstubborn Nimrods which so mightily fight against God, and resist his Holy\nSpirit, enforcing with all craft and subtlety to quench the light of the\neverlasting Testament, promises, and appointment made between God and us?\nand heaping the fierce wrath of God upon all princes and rulers; mocking\nthem with false feigned names of hypocrisy, and serving their lusts at all\npoints, and dispensing with them even of the very laws of God, of which\nChrist himself testifieth, Matt. v. \u201cThat not so much as one tittle\nthereof may perish, or be broken.\u201d And of which the prophet saith, Psalm\ncxviii., \u201cThou hast commanded thy laws to be kept\u201d _meod_, that is in\nHebrew, exceedingly, with all diligence, might, and power; and have made\nthem so mad with their juggling charms, and crafty persuasions, that they\nthink it a full satisfaction for all their wicked lying to torment such as\ntell them truth, and to burn the word of their soul\u2019s health, and slay\nwhosoever believe thereon.\n\nNotwithstanding, yet I submit this book, and all other that I have either\nmade or translated, or shall in time to come, (if it be God\u2019s will that I\nshall further labour in his harvest,) unto all them that submit themselves\nunto the word of God, to be corrected of them; yea, and moreover to be\ndisallowed and also burnt, if it seem worthy, when they have examined it\nwith the Hebrew, so that they first put forth of their own translating\nanother that is more correct.\n\n\n\n\n(C.)\n\n_COVERDALE\u2019S PROLOGUE TO HIS BIBLE OF 1535._\n\n\nConsidering how excellent knowledge and learning an interpreter of\nscripture ought to have in the tongues, and pondering also mine own\ninsufficiency therein, and how weak I am to perform the office of a\ntranslator, I was the more loath to meddle with this work.\nNotwithstanding, when I considered how great pity it was that we should\nwant it so long, and called to my remembrance the adversity of them which\nwere not only of ripe knowledge, but would also with all their hearts have\nperformed that they began, if they had not had impediment; considering, I\nsay, that by reason of their adversity it could not so soon have been\nbrought to an end, as our most prosperous nation would fain have had it;\nthese and other reasonable causes considered, I was the more bold to take\nit in hand. And to help me herein, I have had sundry translations, not\nonly in Latin, but also of the Dutch interpreters, whom, because of their\nsingular gifts and special diligence in the Bible, I have been the more\nglad to follow for the most part, according as I was required. But, to say\nthe truth before God, it was neither my labour nor desire to have this\nwork put in my hand: nevertheless it grieved me that other nations should\nbe more plenteously provided for with the scripture in their\nmother-tongue, than we: therefore, when I was instantly required, though I\ncould not do so well as I would, I thought it yet my duty to do my best,\nand that with a good will.\n\nWhereas some men think now that many translations make division in the\nfaith and in the people of God, that is not so: for it was never better\nwith the congregation of God, than when every church almost had the Bible\nof a sundry translation. Among the Greeks had not Origen a special\ntranslation? Had not Vulgarius one peculiar, and likewise Chrysostom?\nBeside the seventy interpreters, is there not the translation of Aquila,\nof Theodotio, of Symmachus, and of sundry other? Again, among the Latin\nmen, thou findest that every one almost used a special and sundry\ntranslation; for insomuch as every bishop had the knowledge of the\ntongues, he gave his diligence to have the Bible of his own translation.\nThe doctors, as Hireneus, Cyprianus, Tertullian, St. Hierome, St.\nAugustine, Hilarius, and St. Ambrose, upon divers places of the scripture,\nread not the text all alike.\n\nTherefore ought it not to be taken as evil, that such men as have\nunderstanding now in our time, exercise themselves in the tongues, and\ngive their diligence to translate out of one language into another. Yea,\nwe ought rather to give God high thanks therefore, which through his\nSpirit stirreth up men\u2019s minds so to exercise themselves therein. Would\nGod it had never been left off after the time of St. Augustine! then\nshould we never have come into such blindness and ignorance, into such\nerrors and delusions. For as soon as the Bible was cast aside, and no more\nput in exercise, then began every one of his own head to write whatsoever\ncame into his brain, and that seemed to be good in his own eyes; and so\ngrew the darkness of men\u2019s traditions. And this same is the cause that we\nhave had so many writers, which seldom made mention of the scripture of\nthe Bible; and though they sometime alleged it, yet was it done so far out\nof season, and so wide from the purpose, that a man may well perceive, how\nthat they never saw the original.\n\nSeeing then that this diligent exercise of translating doth so much good\nand edifieth in other languages, why should it do evil in ours? Doubtless,\nlike as all nations in the diversity of speeches may know one God in the\nunity of faith, and be one in love; even so may divers translations\nunderstand one another, and that in the head articles and ground of our\nmost blessed faith, though they use sundry words. Wherefore methink we\nhave great occasion to give thanks unto God, that he hath opened unto his\nchurch the gift of interpretation and of printing, and that there are now\nat this time so many, which with such diligence and faithfulness interpret\nthe scripture, to the honour of God and edifying of his people: whereas,\nlike as when many are shooting together, every one doth his best to be\nnighest the mark; and though they cannot all attain thereto, yet shooteth\none nigher than another and hitteth it better than another; yea, one can\ndo it better than another. Who is now then so unreasonable, so despiteful,\nor envious, as to abhor him that doth all his diligence to hit the prick,\nand to shoot nighest it, though he miss and come not nighest the mark?\nOught not such one rather to be commended, and to be helped forward, that\nhe may exercise himself the more therein?\n\nFor the which cause, according as I was desired, I took the more upon me\nto set forth this special translation, not as a checker, not as a\nreprover, or despiser of other men\u2019s translations, (for among many as yet\nI have found none without occasion of great thanksgiving unto God;) but\nlowly and faithfully have I followed mine interpreters, and that under\ncorrection; and though I have failed anywhere (as there is no man but he\nmisseth in some thing), love shall construe all to the best, without any\nperverse judgment. There is no man living that can see all things, neither\nhath God given any man to know everything. One seeth more clearly than\nanother, one hath more understanding than another, one can utter a thing\nbetter than another; but no man ought to envy or despise another. He that\ncan do better than another, should not set him at nought that\nunderstandeth less. Yea, he that hath the more understanding ought to\nremember, that the same gift is not his, but God\u2019s, and that God hath\ngiven it him to teach and inform the ignorant. If thou hast knowledge\ntherefore to judge where any fault is made, I doubt not but thou wilt\nhelp to amend it, if love be joined with thy knowledge. Howbeit,\nwhereinsoever I can perceive by myself, or by the information of other,\nthat I have failed (as it is no wonder), I shall now by the help of God\noverlook it better, and amend it.\n\nNow will I exhort thee, whosoever thou be that readest scripture, if thou\nfind ought therein that thou understandest not, or that appeareth to be\nrepugnant, give no temerarious nor hasty judgment thereof; but ascribe it\nto thine own ignorance, not to the scripture: think that thou\nunderstandest it not, or that it hath some other meaning, or that it is\nhaply overseen of the interpreters, or wrong printed. Again, it shall\ngreatly help thee to understand scripture, if thou mark not only what is\nspoken or written, but of whom, and unto whom, with what words, at what\ntime, where, to what intent, with what circumstance, considering what\ngoeth before, and what followeth after. For there be some things which are\ndone and written, to the intent that we should do likewise; as when\nAbraham believeth God, is obedient unto his word, and defendeth Loth his\nkinsman from violent wrong. There be some things also which are written,\nto the intent that we should eschew such like; as when David lieth with\nUria\u2019s wife, and causeth him to be slain. Therefore, I say, when thou\nreadest scripture, be wise and circumspect; and when thou comest to such\nstrange manners of speaking and dark sentences, to such parables and\nsimilitudes, to such dreams or visions, as are hid from thy understanding,\ncommit them unto God, or to the gift of his Holy Spirit in them that are\nbetter learned than thou.\n\nAs for the commendation of God\u2019s holy scripture, I would fain magnify it,\nas it is worthy, but I am far unsufficient thereto: and therefore I\nthought it better for me to hold my tongue, than with few words to praise\nor commend it; exhorting thee, most dear reader, so to love it, so to\ncleave unto it, and so to follow it in thy daily conversation, that other\nmen, seeing thy good works and the fruits of the Holy Ghost in thee, may\npraise the Father of heaven, and give his word a good report: for to live\nafter the law of God, and to lead a virtuous conversation, is the greatest\npraise that thou canst give unto his doctrine.\n\nBut as touching the evil report and dispraise that the good word of God\nhath by the corrupt and evil conversation of some that daily hear it and\nprofess it outwardly with their mouths, I exhort thee, most dear reader,\nlet not that offend thee, nor withdraw thy mind from the love of the\ntruth, neither move thee to be partaker in like unthankfulness; but seeing\nthe light is come into the world, love no more the works of darkness,\nreceive not the grace of God in vain. Call to thy remembrance, how loving\nand merciful God is unto thee, how kindly and fatherly he helpeth thee in\nall trouble, teacheth thine ignorance, healeth thee in all thy sickness,\nforgiveth thee all thy sins, feedeth thee, giveth thee drink, helpeth thee\nout of prison, nourisheth thee in strange countries, careth for thee, and\nseeth that thou want nothing. Call this to mind, I say, and that\nearnestly, and consider how thou hast received of God all these benefits,\nyea, and many more than thou canst desire; how thou art bound likewise to\nshew thyself unto thy neighbour, as far as thou canst, to teach him, if he\nbe ignorant, to help him in all his trouble, to heal his sickness, to\nforgive him his offences, and that heartily, to feed him, to cherish him,\nto care for him, and to see that he want nothing. And on this behalf I\nbeseek thee, thou that hast the riches of this world, and lovest God with\nthy heart, to lift up thine eyes, and see how great a multitude of poor\npeople run through every town; have pity on thine own flesh, help them\nwith a good heart, and do with thy counsel all that ever thou canst, that\nthis unshamefaced begging may be put down, that these idle folks may be\nset to labour, and that such as are not able to get their living may be\nprovided for. At the least, thou that art of counsel with such as are in\nauthority, give them some occasion to cast their heads together, and to\nmake provision for the poor. Put them in remembrance of those noble cities\nin other countries, that by the authority of their princes have so richly\nand well provided for their poor people, to the great shame and dishonesty\nof us, if we likewise, receiving the word of God, shew not such like\nfruits thereof. Would God that those men, whose office is to maintain the\ncommonwealth, were as diligent in this cause, as they are in other! Let us\nbeware bytimes, for after unthankfulness there followeth ever a plague.\nThe merciful hand of God be with us, and defend us, that we be not\npartakers thereof!\n\nGo to now, most dear reader, and sit thee down at the Lord\u2019s feet, and\nread his words, and, as Moses teacheth the Jews, take them into thine\nheart, and let thy talking and communication be of them, when thou sittest\nin thine house, or goest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou\nrisest up. And, above all things, fashion thy life and conversation\naccording to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost therein, that thou mayest be\npartaker of the good promises of God in the Bible, and be heir of his\nblessing in Christ: in whom if thou put thy trust, and be an unfeigned\nreader or hearer of his word with thy heart, thou shalt find sweetness\ntherein, and spy wondrous things, to thy understanding, to the avoiding of\nall seditious sects, to the abhorring of thy old sinful life, and to the\nstablishing of thy godly conversation.\n\nIn the first book of Moses, called Genesis, thou mayest learn to know the\nalmighty power of God in creating all of nought, his infinite wisdom in\nordering the same, his righteousness in punishing the ungodly, his love\nand fatherly mercy in comforting the righteous with his promise, &c.\n\nIn the second book, called Exodus, we see the mighty arm of God in\ndelivering his people from so great bondage out of Egypt, and what\nprovision he maketh for them in the wilderness; how he teacheth them with\nhis wholesome word, and how the tabernacle was made and set up.\n\nIn the third book, called Leviticus, is declared, what sacrifices the\npriests and Levites used, and what their office and ministration was.\n\nIn the fourth book, called Numerus, is declared, how the people are\nnumbered and mustered, how the captains are chosen after the tribes and\nkindreds, how they went forth to the battle, how they pitched their tents,\nand how they brake up.\n\nThe fifth book, called Deuteronomium, sheweth how that Moses, now being\nold, rehearseth the law of God unto the people, putteth them in\nremembrance again of all the wonders and benefices that God had shewed for\nthem, and exhorteth them earnestly to love the Lord their God, to cleave\nunto him, to put their trust in him, and to hearken unto his voice.\n\nAfter the death of Moses doth Josua bring the people into the land of\npromise, where God doth wonderous things for his people by Josua, which\ndistributeth the land unto them, unto every tribe their possession. But in\ntheir wealth they forgat the goodness of God, so that ofttimes he gave\nthem over into the hand of their enemies. Nevertheless, whensoever they\ncalled faithfully upon him, and converted, he delivered them again, as the\nbook of Judges declareth.\n\nIn the books of the Kings is described the regiment of good and evil\nprinces, and how the decay of all nations cometh by evil kings. For in\nJeroboam thou seest what mischief, what idolatry, and such like\nabomination followeth, when the king is a maintainer of false doctrine,\nand causeth the people to sin against God; which falling away from God\u2019s\nword increased so sore among them, that it was the cause of all their\nsorrow and misery, and the very occasion why Israel first, and then Juda,\nwere carried away into captivity. Again, in Josaphat, in Ezechias, and in\nJosias, thou seest the nature of a virtuous king. He putteth down the\nhouses of idolatry, seeth that his priests teach nothing but the law of\nGod, commandeth his lords to go with them, and to see that they teach the\npeople. In these kings, I say, thou seest the condition of a true\ndefender of the faith; for he spareth neither cost nor labour to maintain\nthe Laws of God, to seek the wealth and prosperity of his people, and to\nroot out the wicked. And where such a prince is, thou seest again, how God\ndefendeth him and his people, though he have never so many enemies. Thus\nwent it with them in the old time, and even after the same manner goeth it\nnow with us. God be praised therefore, and grant us of his fatherly mercy\nthat we be not unthankful; lest where he now giveth us a Josaphat, an\nEzechias, yea, a very Josias, he send us a Pharao, a Jeroboam, or an\nAchab!\n\nIn the two first books of Esdras, and in Hester, thou seest the\ndeliverance of the people, which though they were but few, yet is it unto\nus all a special comfort; forsomuch as God is not forgetful of his\npromise, but bringeth them out of captivity, according as he had told them\nbefore.\n\nIn the book of Job we learn comfort and patience, in that God not only\npunisheth the wicked, but proveth and trieth the just and righteous\n(howbeit there is no man innocent in his sight,) by divers troubles in\nthis life; declaring thereby, that they are not his bastards, but his dear\nsons, and that he loveth them.\n\nIn the Psalms we learn how to resort only unto God in all our troubles, to\nseek help at him, to call only upon him, to settle our minds by patience,\nand how we ought in prosperity to be thankful unto him.\n\nThe Proverbs and the Preacher of Solomon teach us wisdom, to know God, our\nown selves, and the world, and how vain all things are, save only to\ncleave unto God.\n\nAs for the doctrine of the Prophets, what is it else, but an earnest\nexhortation to eschew sin, and to turn unto God; a faithful promise of the\nmercy and pardon of God unto all them that turn unto him, and a\nthreatening of his wrath to the ungodly? saving that here and there they\nprophesy also manifestly of Christ, of the expulsion of the Jews, and\ncalling of the heathen.\n\nThus much thought I to speak of the old Testament, wherein Almighty God\nopeneth unto us his mighty power, his wisdom, his loving mercy and\nrighteousness: for the which cause it ought of no man to be abhorred,\ndespised, or lightly regarded, as though it were an old scripture that\nnothing belonged unto us, or that now were to be refused. For it is God\u2019s\ntrue scripture and testimony, which the Lord Jesus commandeth the Jews to\nsearch. Whosoever believeth not the scripture, believeth not Christ; and\nwhoso refuseth it, refuseth God also.\n\nThe new Testament, or Gospel, is a manifest and clear testimony of Christ,\nhow God performeth his oath and promise made in the old Testament, how the\nnew is declared and included in the old, and the old fulfilled and\nverified in the new.\n\nNow whereas the most famous interpreters of all give sundry judgments of\nthe text; so far as it is done by the spirit of knowledge in the Holy\nGhost, methink no man should be offended thereat, for they refer their\ndoings in meekness to the spirit of truth in the congregation of God: and\nsure I am, that there cometh more knowledge and understanding of the\nscripture by their sundry translations, than by all the glosses of our\nsophistical doctors. For that one interpreteth something obscurely in one\nplace, the same translateth another, or else he himself, more manifestly\nby a more plain vocable of the same meaning in another place. Be not thou\noffended, therefore, good reader, though one call a scribe that another\ncalleth a lawyer; or elders, that another calleth father and mother; or\nrepentance, that another calleth penance or amendment. For if thou be not\ndeceived by men\u2019s traditions, thou shalt find no more diversity between\nthese terms, than between fourpence and a groat. And this manner have I\nused in my translation, calling it in some place _penance_, that in\nanother place I call _repentance_; and that not only because the\ninterpreters have done so before me, but that the adversaries of the truth\nmay see, how that we abhor not this word penance, as they untruly report\nof us, no more than the interpreters of Latin abhor _p\u0153nitere_, when they\nread _resipiscere_. Only our heart\u2019s desire unto God is, that his people\nbe not blinded in their understanding, lest they believe penance to be\nought save a very repentance, amendment, or conversion unto God, and to be\nan unfeigned new creature in Christ, and to live according to his law. For\nelse shall they fall into the old blasphemy of Christ\u2019s blood, and believe\nthat they themselves are able to make satisfaction unto God for their own\nsins: from the which error God of his mercy and plenteous goodness\npreserve all his!\n\nNow to conclude: forsomuch as all the scripture is written for thy\ndoctrine and ensample, it shall be necessary for thee to take hold upon it\nwhile it is offered thee, yea, and with ten hands thankfully to receive\nit. And though it be not worthily ministered unto thee in this\ntranslation, by reason of my rudeness; yet if thou be fervent in thy\nprayer, God shall not only send it thee in a better shape by the\nministration of other that began it afore, but shall also move the hearts\nof them which as yet meddled not withal, to take it in hand, and to bestow\nthe gift of their understanding thereon, as well in our language, as other\nfamous interpreters do in other languages. And I pray God, that through my\npoor ministration herein I may give them that can do better some occasion\nso to do; exhorting thee, most dear reader, in the mean while on God\u2019s\nbehalf, if thou be a head, a judge, or ruler of the people, that thou let\nnot the book of this law depart out of thy mouth, but exercise thyself\ntherein both day and night, and be ever reading in it as long as thou\nlivest: that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God, and not to turn\naside from the commandment, neither to the right hand nor to the left;\nlest thou be a knower of persons in judgment, and wrest the right of the\nstranger, of the fatherless, or of the widow, and so the curse to come\nupon thee. But what office so ever thou hast, wait upon it, and execute it\nto the maintenance of peace, to the wealth of thy people, defending the\nlaws of God and the lovers thereof, and to the destruction of the wicked.\n\nIf thou be a preacher, and hast the oversight of the flock of Christ,\nawake and feed Christ\u2019s sheep with a good heart, and spare no labour to do\nthem good: seek not thyself, and beware of filthy lucre; but be unto the\nflock an ensample in the word, in conversation, in love, in ferventness of\nthe spirit, and be ever reading, exhorting, and teaching in God\u2019s word,\nthat the people of God run not unto other doctrines, and lest thou\nthyself, when thou shouldest teach other, be found ignorant therein. And\nrather than thou wouldest teach the people any other thing than God\u2019s\nword, take the book in thine hand, and read the words, even as they stand\ntherein; for it is no shame so to do, it is more shame to make a lie. This\nI say for such as are not yet expert in the scripture; for I reprove no\npreaching without the book, as long as they say the truth.\n\nIf thou be a man that hast wife and children, first love thy wife,\naccording to the ensample of the love wherewith Christ loved the\ncongregation; and remember that so doing thou lovest even thyself: if thou\nhate her, thou hatest thine own flesh; if thou cherish her and make much\nof her, thou cherishest and makest much of thyself; for she is bone of thy\nbones, and flesh of thy flesh. And whosoever thou be that hast children,\nbring them up in the nurture and information of the Lord. And if thou be\nignorant, or art otherwise occupied lawfully, that thou canst not teach\nthem thyself, then be even as diligent to seek a good master for thy\nchildren, as thou wast to seek a mother to bear them; for there lieth as\ngreat weight in the one, as in the other. Yea, better it were for them to\nbe unborn, than not to fear God, or to be evil brought up: which thing (I\nmean bringing up well of children) if it be diligently looked to, it is\nthe upholding of all commonwealths; and the negligence of the same, the\nvery decay of all realms.\n\nFinally, whosoever thou be, take these words of scripture into thy heart,\nand be not only an outward hearer, but a doer thereafter, and practise\nthyself therein; that thou mayest feel in thine heart the sweet promises\nthereof for thy consolation in all trouble, and for the sure stablishing\nof thy hope in Christ; and have ever an eye to the words of scripture,\nthat if thou be a teacher of other, thou mayest be within the bounds of\nthe truth; or at the least, though thou be but an hearer or reader of\nanother man\u2019s doings, thou mayest yet have knowledge to judge all spirits,\nand be free from every error, to the utter destruction of all seditious\nsects and strange doctrines; that the holy scripture may have free\npassage, and be had in reputation, to the worship of the author thereof,\nwhich is even God himself; to whom for his most blessed word be glory and\ndominion now and ever! Amen.\n\n\n\n\n(D.)\n\n_PREFACE TO THE GENEVAN BIBLE, 1560._\n\n\n To our Beloved in the Lord,\n The Brethren of England,\n Scotland, Ireland, &c. Grace, mercie, and peace,\n through Christ Jesus.[141]\n\nBesides the manifold and continuall benefits which Almightie God bestowed\nupon us, both corporall and spirituall, we are especially bound (deare\nbrethren) to giue him thankes without ceasing for his great grace and\nvnspeakable mercies, in that it hath pleased him to call vs vnto this\nmarueilous light of his Gospell, and mercifully to regarde vs after so\nhorrible backesliding and falling away from Christ to Antichrist, from\nlight to darknesse, from the liuing God to dumme and dead idoles, and that\nafter so cruell murther of God\u2019s saints, as alas, hath bene among vs, wee\nare not altogether cast off, as were the Israelites, and many others for\nthe like or not so manifest wickednesse, but receiued againe to grace with\nmost evident signes and tokens of God\u2019s especiall loue and fauour. To the\nintent therefore that wee may not be vnmindfull of these great mercies,\nbut seeke by all meanes (according to our duetie) to bee thankefull for\nthe same, it behoueth vs so to walke in his feare and loue, that all the\ndayes of our life we may procure the glorie of his holy name.\n\nNowe forasmuch as this thing chiefely is atteined by the knowledge and\npractising of the worde of God (which is the light to our paths, the keye\nof the kingdome of heauen, our comfort in affliction, our shielde and\nsworde against Satan, the schoole of all wisdome, the glasse wherein we\nbeholde Gods face, the testimonie of his fauour, and the onely foode and\nnourishment of our soules), wee thought that wee coulde bestowe our\nlabours and studie in nothing which coulde be more acceptable to God and\ncomfortable to his Church then in the translating of the holy Scriptures\ninto our natiue tongue: the which thing albeit that diuers heretofore haue\nendeuoured to atchieue; yet considering the infancie of those times and\nimperfect knowledge of the tongues in respect of this ripe age and cleere\nlight which God hath now reueiled, y{e} translations required greatly to\nbe perused and reformed. Not that we vendicate anything to our selues\naboue the least of our brethren (for God knoweth with what feare and\ntrembling we haue bene for the space of two yeeres and more day and night\noccupied herein), but being earnestly desired and by diuers, whose\nlearning and godlinesse we reuerence, exhorted and also encouraged by the\nready willes of such, whose hearts God likewise touched, not to spare any\ncharges for the furtherance of such a benefite and fauour of God towarde\nhis Church (though the time then was most dangerous, and the persecution\nsharpe and furious), we submitted our selues at length to their godly\njudgements, and seeing the great opportunitie and occasions, which God\npresented unto vs in his Church, by reason of so many godlie and learned\nmen: and such diuersities of translations in diuers tongues, we vndertooke\nthis great and wonderfull worke (with all reuerence, as in the presence of\nGod, as intreating the word of God, whereunto we thinke our selues\nvnsufficient) which now God accepting according to his diuine prouidence\nand mercie hath directed to a most prosperous ende. And this we may with\ngood conscience protest that we haue in euery point and worde, according\nto the measure of that knowledge which it pleased Almightie God to giue\nvs, faithfully rendred the text, and in all hard places most sincerely\nexpounded the same. For God is our witnesse that we haue by all meanes\nindeuoured to set foorth the puritie of the word and the right sense of\nthe holy Ghost for the edifying of the brethren in faith and charitie.\n\nNowe as we have chiefely obserued the sence, and laboured allwayes to\nrestore it to all integritie, so haue we most reuerently kept the\nproprietie of the wordes, considering that the Apostles who spake and\nwrote to the Gentiles in the Greeke tongue, rather constrained them to the\nliuely phrase of the Ebrew, then enterprised farre by mollifying their\nlanguage to speake as the Gentiles did. And for this and other causes wee\nhaue in many places reserued the Ebrew phrases, notwithstanding that they\nmay seeme somewhat hard in their eares that are not well practised and\nalso delite in the sweet sounding phrases of the holy Scriptures. Yet\nleast eyther the simple should be discouraged, or the malicious haue any\noccasion of just cauilation, seeing some translations reade after one\nsort, and some after another, whereas all may serue to good purpose and\nedification, we haue in the margent noted that diuersitie of speech or\nreading which may also seeme agreeable to the minde of the holy Ghost, and\nproper for our language with this marke. \u2225\n\nAgaine, whereas the Ebrewe speache seemed hardly to agree with ours we\nhaue noted it in the margent after this sort \u2021, vsing that which was more\nintelligible. And albeit that many of the Ebrewe names be altered from the\nolde text, and restored to the true writing and first originall, whereof\nthey haue their signification, yet in the vsuall names litle is changed\nfor feare of troubling the simple readers. Moreover, whereas the\nnecessitie of the sentence required any thing to be added (for such is the\ngrace and proprietie of the Ebrew and Greeke tongues that it cannot, but\neither by circumlocution, or by adding the verbe or some word, be\nunderstood of them that are not well practised therein) wee haue put in\nthe text with an other kinde of letter that it may easily be discerned\nfrom the common letter.[142] As touching the diuision of the verses wee\nhaue followed the Ebrewe examples, which haue so euen from the beginning\ndistinguished them. Which thing as it is most profitable for memorie, so\ndoeth it agree with the best translations, and is most easie to finde out\nboth by the best Concordances, and also by the quotations which we haue\ndiligently herein perused and set foorth by this *. Besides this the\nprincipall matters are noted by this marke \u00b6. Yea, and the arguments both\nfor the booke and for the chapters with the number of the verse are added,\nthat by all meanes the reader might be holpen. For the which cause also we\nhaue set ouer the head of every page some notable worde or sentence which\nmay greatly further as well for memorie as for the chiefe point of the\npage.\n\nAnd considering howe hard a thing it is to vnderstand the holy Scriptures,\nand what errors, sectes, and heresies growe dayly for lacke of the true\nknowledge thereof, and howe many are discouraged (as they pretend) because\nthey cannot atteine to the true and simple meaning of the same, we haue\nalso indeuoured both by the diligent reading of the best commentaries, and\nalso by the conference with the godly and learned brethren, to gather\nbriefe annotations upon all the hard places, as well for the\nvnderstanding of such wordes as are obscure, and for the declaration of\nthe text, as for the application of the same, as may most appertaine to\nGod\u2019s glory and the edification of his Church.\n\nFurthermore, whereas certaine places in the bookes of Moses, of the Kings,\nand Ezekiel, seemed so darke that by no description they could be made\neasie to the simple reader, wee have so set them foorth with figures and\nnotes for the full declaration thereof, that they which cannot by\njudgement, being holpen by the letters a, b, c, &c., atteine thereunto,\nyet by the perspective and, as it were, by the eye, may sufficiently knowe\nthe true meaning of all such places. Whereunto also wee haue added\ncertaine maps of Cosmographie which necessarily serue for the perfect\nvnderstanding and memorie of diuers places and countries, partly described\nand partly by occasion touched both in the olde and newe Testament.\n\nFinally, that nothing might lacke which might be bought by labours, for\nthe increase of knowledge and furtherance of God\u2019s glorie, we have\nadioyned two most profitable Tables, the one seruing for the\ninterpretation of the Ebrew names, and the other conteining all the chiefe\nand principall matters of the whole Bible, so that nothing (as wee trust)\nthat any could iustlie desire is omitted. Therefore as brethren that are\npartakers of the same hope and saluation with us, wee beseeche you that\nthis rich pearle and inestimable treasure may not be offred in vaine, but\nas sent from God to the people of God, for the increase of his kingdome,\nthe comfort of his Church, and discharge of our conscience, whom it hath\npleased him to raise vp for this purpose, so you woulde willingly receive\nthe worde of God, earnestly studie it, and in all your life practise it,\nthat you may nowe appeare in deede to bee the people of God, not walking\nany more according to this worlde, but in the fruits of the Spirit, that\nGod in vs may bee fully glorified through Christ Jesus our Lorde who\nliueth and reigneth for euer. Amen. From Geneva, 10th April, 1560.\n\n\n\n\n(E.)\n\n_THE PREFACE TO THE BISHOPS\u2019 BIBLE, 1568._\n\n\n A Preface into the Byble\n folowyng.\n\nOf all the sentences pronounced by our Sauiour Christe in his whole\ndoctrine, none is more serious or more worthy to be borne in remembraunce,\nthan that which he spake openly in his Gospell, saying: [Sidenote: John\nv.] Scrutamini scripturas, quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam eternam habere,\net ill\u00e6 sunt qu\u00e6 testimonium perhibent de me. Search ye the scriptures,\nfor in them ye think to have eternall lyfe, and those they be which beare\nwitnes of me. These wordes were first spoken vnto the Jewes by our\nSauiour, but by hym in his doctrine ment to all: for they concerne all, of\nwhat nation, of what tongue, of what profession soeuer any man be. For to\nall belongeth it to be called vnto eternal life, so many as by the witnes\nof the scriptures desire to find eternall life. No man, woman, or chylde,\nis excluded from this saluation, and therefore to euery of them is this\nspoke proportionally yet, and in their degrees and ages, and as the reason\nand congruitie of their vocation may aske. For not so lyeth it in charge\nto the worldly artificer to searche, or to any other priuate man so\nexquisitely to studie, as it lyeth to the charge of the publike teacher to\nsearche in the scriptures, to be the more able to walke in the house of\nGod [Sidenote: 1 Tim. iii.] (which is the church of the lyuyng God, the\npyller and ground of truth) to the establishing of the true doctrine of\nthe same, and to the impugnyng of the false. And though whatsoever\ndifference there may be betwixt the preacher in office, and the auditor in\nhis vocation, yet to both it is said, =Search ye the scriptures=, whereby\nye may fynde eternall lyfe, and gather witnesses of that saluation which\nis in =Christe Jesus= our Lorde. [Sidenote: Deut. xvii.] For although the\nprophete of God Moyses, byddeth the kyng when he is once set in the throne\nof his kingdome, to describe before his eyes the volume of God\u2019s lawe,\naccording to the example whiche he shoulde receaue of the priestes of the\nliuiticall tribe, to haue it with him, and to reade it in all the dayes of\nhis life, to thende[143] that he might learne to feare the Lorde his God,\nand to observe his lawes, that his heart be not aduanced in pryde ouer his\nbrethren, not to swarue eyther on the ryght hande or on the left: yet the\nreason of this precept for that it concerneth all men, may reasonably be\nthought to be commanded to all men, and all men may take it to be spoken\nto them selfe in their degree. [Sidenote: Iosue i.] Though almightie God\nhim selfe spake to his captayne Iosue in precise wordes, Non recedat\nvolumen legis huius ab ore tuo sed meditaberis in eo diebus ac noctibus,\n&c. Let not the volume of this booke depart from thy mouth, but muse\ntherein both dayes and nyghtes, that thou mayest kepe and perfourme all\nthinges which be written in it, that thou mayest direct well thy way and\nvnderstande the same: yet as well spake almightie God this precept to all\nhis people in the directions of their wayes to himwarde, as he ment it to\nIosue: [Sidenote: Peter v. Ephe. vi.] For that he hath care of all, he\naccepteth no man\u2019s person, his wyll is that all men should he saued,\n[Sidenote: 1 Tim. ii. Ioh xiiii.] his wyll is that all men should come to\nthe way of trueth. Howe coulde this be more conueniently declared by God\nto man, then when Christe his welbeloued sonne our most louing sauiour,\nthe way, the trueth, and the lyfe of vs all, dyd byd vs openly =Search the\nscriptures=, assuring vs herein to finde eternall life, to finde full\ntestification of all his graces and benefites towardes vs in the treasure\nthereof. Therefore it is most conuenient that we shoulde all suppose that\nChriste spake to vs all in this his precept of searching the scriptures.\nIf this celestiall doctour (so aucthorised by the father of heauen, and\ncommaunded [Sidenote: Matt. xvii.] as his only sonne, to be hearde of vs\nall) biddeth vs busily to =Search the scriptures=: of what spirite can it\nproceede to forbid the reading and studying of the scriptures? If the\ngrosse Iewes vsed to reade them, as some men thinke that our sauiour\nChrist dyd shew by such kynd of speaking, their vsage, with their opinion\nthey had therin to finde eternall lyfe, and were not of Christe rebuked,\nor disproued, either for their searching, or for the opinion they had,\nhowe superstitiously or superficially soeuer some of them vsed to expende\nthe scriptures; How muche more vnaduisedly do suche as bost them selfe to\nbe either Christe\u2019s vicars, or be of his garde, to lothe christen men from\nreading, by their couert slaunderous reproches of the scriptures, or in\ntheir aucthoritie by lawe or statute to contract this libertie of studiyng\nthe worde of eternall saluation. Christe calleth them not onlye to the\nsingle readyng of scriptures (saith Chrisostome) but sendeth them to the\nexquisite searching of them, for in them is eternall lyfe to be founde,\nand they be (saith hym selfe) the witnesse of me: for they declare out his\noffice, they commende his beneuolence towardes vs, they recorde his whole\nworkes wrought for vs to our saluation. Antechriste therefore he must be,\nthat vnder whatsoeuer colour woulde geue contrary precept or counsayle to\nthat whiche Christe dyd geue vnto vs. Very litle do they resemble Christes\nlouing spirite mouing vs to searche for our comfort, that wyll discourage\nvs from suche searching, or that woulde wishe ignoraunce and\nforgetfulnesse of his benefite to raigne in vs, so that they might by our\nignoraunce raigne the more frankly in our consciences, to the danger of\nour saluation. Who can take the light from us in this miserable vale of\nblindnesse, and meane not to haue us stumble in the pathes of perdition to\nthe ruine of our soules: who wyll enuie vs this bread of lyfe prepared and\nset on the table for our eternall sustenaunce, and meane not to famishe\nvs, or in steede thereof with their corrupt traditions and doctrines of\nmen to infect vs: All the whole scripture, saith the holy apostle\n[Sidenote: ii. Tim. iii.] Saint Paul inspired from God aboue, is\nprofitable to teache, to reproue, to refourme, to instruct in\nrighteousnesse, that the man of God may be sounde and perfect, instructed\nto euery good worke.\n\n=Searche therefore=, good reader (on God\u2019s name), as Christe byddeth thee\nthe holy scripture, wherein thou mayest find thy saluation: Let not the\nvolume of this booke (by Gods owne warrant) depart from thee but occupie\nthy selfe therein in the whole journey of this [Sidenote: Psal. i.] thy\nwordly pilgrimage, to vnderstand thy way howe to walke ryghtly before hym\nall the dayes of thy lyfe. Remember that the prophete David pronounceth\nhym the blessed man whiche wyll muse in the lawe of God [Sidenote: Psal.\ncxix.] both day and night, remember that he calleth him blessed whiche\nwalketh in the way of the Lorde, which wyll searche diligently his\ntestimonies, and wyll in their whole heart seeke the same. Let not the\ncouert suspicious insinuations of the adversaries driue thee from the\nsearche of the holy scripture, either for the obscuritie whiche they say\nis in them, or for the inscrutable hidden misteries they talke to be\ncomprised in them, or for the straungnes and homlynes of the phrases they\nwould charge Gods booke with. Christe exhorteth thee therefore the rather\nfor the difficultie of the same, to searche them diligently. [Sidenote:\nHebr. v. 1 Cor. xiiii.] Saint Paul wylleth thee to haue thy senses\nexercised in them, and not to be a chylde in thy senses, but in malice.\nThough many thinges may be difficulte to thee to vnderstand, impute it\nrather to thy dull hearing and reading, then to thinke that the scriptures\nbe insuperable, to them whiche with diligent searching labour to discern\nthe evil from the good. [Sidenote: Math. vii.] Only searche with an humble\nspirite, aske in continuall prayer, seek with puritie of life, knocke with\nperpetuall perseueraunce, and crye to that good spirite of Christe the\nComforter: and surely to euery suche asker it wyll be geuen, such\nsearchers must nedes finde, to them it wylbe opened. Christ hym selfe wyll\nopen the sense of the scriptures, [Sidenote: Math. xi. Esai. lxi.] not to\nthe proude, or to the wyse of the worlde, but to the lowly and contrite in\nheart; [Sidenote: 1 Cor. xii.] for he hath the kay of Dauid, who openeth\nand no man shutteth, who shutteth and no man openeth. [Sidenote: Apoc.\niii.] For as this spirite is a bening and liberall spirite, and wyll be\neasyly founde of them which wyll early in carefulnesse ryse to seeke hym,\n[Sidenote: Sapi i.] and as he promiseth he will be the comforter from\naboue to teache vs, and to leade vs into all the wayes of truth,\n[Sidenote: Iob xiiii.] if that in humilitie we bowe vnto hym, deniyng our\nowne naturall senses, our carnall wittes and reasons: [Sidenote: Sapi i.]\nso is he the spirite of puritie and cleannes, and will receede from him,\nwhose conscience is subiect to filthynesse of lyfe. Into suche a soule\nthis heavenly wysdome wyll not enter, for all peruerse cogitations wyll\nseparate vs from God: [Sidenote: Psal. lxviii.] and then howe busyly\nsoeuer we searche this holy table of the scripture, yet will it then be a\ntable to suche to their owne snare, a trap, a stumbling stocke, and a\nrecompense to them selfe. We ought therefore to searche to finde out the\ntrueth, not to oppresse it, we ought to seeke Christe, not as Herode did\nvnder the pretence of worshipping hym to destroy hym, or as the Pharisees\nsearched the scriptures to disproue Christe, and to discredite him, and\nnot to folowe him; but to embrace the saluation whiche we may learne by\nthem. Nor yet is it inough so to acknowledge the scriptures as some of the\nIewes dyd, of the holyest of them, who vsed such diligence, that they\ncould number precisely, not only euery verse, but euery word and sillable,\nhow oft euery letter of the alphabete was repeated in the whole\nscriptures: They had some of them suche reuerence to that booke, that they\nwoulde not suffer in a greate heape of bookes, any other to lay over them,\nthey woulde not suffer that booke to fall to the grounde as nye as they\ncoulde, they woulde costly bynde the bookes of holy scriptures, and cause\nthem to be exquisitely and ornately written. Whiche deuotion yet though it\nwas not to be discommended, yet was it not for that intent, why Christe\ncommended the scriptures, nor they therof alowed before God: For they did\nnot call vpon God in a true fayth. they were not charitable to their\nneighbours, but in the middes of all this deuotion, they did steale, they\nwere adulterers, they were slaunderers and backbiters, euen muche like\nmany of our Christian men and women nowe a dayes, who glory muche that\nthey reade the scriptures, that they searche them and loue them, that\nthey frequente the publique sermons in an outwarde shewe of all honestie\nand perfection, yea they can pike out of the scriptures vertuous sentenses\nand godly preceptes to lay before other men. And though these maner of men\ndo not muche erre for suche searching and studying, yet they see not the\nscope and the principall state of the scriptures, which is as Christe\ndeclareth it, to finde Christe as their Sauiour, to cleaue to his\nsaluation and merites, and to be brought to the lowe repentaunce of their\nliues, and to amend them selfe, to rayse vp their fayth to our Sauiour\nChriste, so to thinke of him as the scriptures do testifie of hym. These\nbe the principall causes why Christe did sende the Iewes to searche the\nscriptures: for to this ende were they wrytten, saith Saint Iohn, Hae\nscripta sunt ut credatis, et vt credentes vitam habeatis eternam. These\nwere written to this intent, that ye shoulde beleue, [Sidenote: Iohn xx.]\nand that through your beliefe ye shoulde haue euerlasting life.\n\nAnd here good reader, great cause we have to extoll the wonderous wisdome\nof God, and with great thankes to prayse his prouidence, considering howe\nhe hath preserued and renued from age to age by speciall [Sidenote: Hebr.\nv.] miracle, the incomparable treasure of his Churche. For first he did\ninspire Moyses, as Iohn Chrisostome doth testifie, to wryte the stonie\ntables, and kept him in the mountayne fourtie dayes to giue him his lawe:\nafter him he sent the prophetes, but they suffred many thousande\naduersities, for battayles did folowe, all were slayne, all were\ndestroyed, bookes were brent vp. He then inspired agayne another man to\nrepayre these miraculous scriptures, Esdras I meane, who of their leauings\nset them agayne together: after that he provided that the seuentie\ninterpreters should take them in hande: at the laste came Christe him\nselfe, the Apostles did receaue them, and spread them throughout all\nnations, Christe wrought his miracles and wonders: and what followed?\nafter these great volumes the Apostles also did wryte as Saint Paul doth\nsay, [Sidenote: 1 Cor. x.] These be wrytten to the instruction of vs that\nbe come into the ende of the worlde: [Sidenote: Math. xxii.] and Christe\ndoth say, Ye therefore erre, because ye knowe not the scriptures nor the\npower of God: and Paul dyd say, [Sidenote: Colo. iii.] Let the worde of\nChriste be plentifull among you: and agayne saith Dauid, [Sidenote: Psal.\ncxix.] Oh howe sweete be thy wordes to my throte: he saide not to my\nhearing, but to my throte, aboue the hony or the hony combe to my mouth.\nYea, Moyses saith, [Sidenote: Deut. xvi.] Thou shalt meditate in them\nevermore when thou risest, when thou sittest downe, when thou goest to\nsleepe, continue in them he saith: and a thousand places more. And yet\nafter so many testimonies thus spoken, there be some persons that do not\nyet so much as knowe what the scriptures be: Wherevpon nothing is in good\nstate amongst vs, nothing worthyly is done amongest vs: In this whiche\npertayne to this lyfe, we make very great haste, but of spirituall goodes\nwe have no regarde. Thus farre Iohn Chrisost. It must nedes signifie some\ngreat thing to our vnderstanding, that almightie God hath had such care to\nprescribe these bookes thus vnto vs: I say not prescribe them only, but to\nmaintaine them and defende them against the malignitie of the deuill and\nhis ministers, who alway went about to destroy them: and yet could these\nnever be so destroyed, but that he woulde have them continue whole and\nperfect to this day, to our singular comfort and instruction, where other\nbookes of mortall wise men haue perished in great numbers. It is recorded\nthat Ptolomeus Philadelphus kyng of Egypt, had gathered together in one\nlibrarie at Alexandria by his great coste and diligence, seuen hundred\nthousand bookes, wherof the principall were the bookes of Moyses, which\nreserued not much more, then by the space of two hundred yeres, were all\nbrent and consumed, in that battayle when C\u00e6sar restored Cleopatra agayne\nafter her expulsion. At Constantinople perished under Zenon by one common\nfire, a hundred and twentie thousande bookes. [Sidenote: _Iohannes\nSarisberi. In Policratico, lib. 8, cap. 19. W. de regibus._] At Rome when\nLucius Aurel Antonius dyd raigne, his notable librarie by a lightning from\nheauen was quite consumed: Yea it is recorded that Gregorie the first, dyd\ncause a librarie at Rome contayning only certaine Paynim\u2019s workes to be\nburned, to thintent the scriptures of God should be more read and studied.\nWhat other great libraries haue there ben c\u014dsumed but of late daies? And\nwhat libraries haue of olde throughout this realme almost in euery abbey\nof the same, ben destroyed at sundry ages, besides the losse of other\nmen\u2019s private studies, it were to long to rehearse. Wherevpon seyng\nalmightie God by his diuine prouidence, hath preserued these bookes of the\nscriptures safe and sounde, and that in their natiue languages they were\nfirst written, in the great ignoraunce that raigned in these tongues, and\ncontrary to all other casualties, chaunced vpon all other bookes in mauger\nof all worldly wittes, who would so fayne haue had them destroyed, and yet\nhe by his mightie hande, would haue them extant as witnesses and\ninterpreters of his will toward mankind: we may soone see cause most\nreuerently to embrace these deuine testimonies of his will, to studie\nthem, and to searche them, to instruct our blinde nature so sore corrupted\nand fallen from the knowledge in whiche first we were created. Yet hauing\noccasion geuen somewhat to recover our fall and to returne againe to that\ndeuine nature wherein we were once made, and at the last to be inheritours\nin the celestiall habitation with God almightie, after the ende of our\nmortalitie here brought to his dust agayne: These bookes I say beyng of\nsuch estimation and aucthoritie, so much reuerenced of them who had any\nmeane taste of them, coulde neuer be put out of the way, neither by the\nspyte of any tiraunt, as that [Sidenote: _Galfride mon_] tiraunt Maximian\ndestroyed all the holy scriptures wheresoeuer they coulde be founde, and\nburnt them in the middes of the market, neither the hatred either of any\nPorphiran philosopher or Rhetoritian, neither by the enuie of the\nromanystes, and of such hypocrites who from tyme to time did euer barke\nagainst them, some of them not in open sort of condempnation: but more\ncunningly vnder suttle pretences, for that as they say, they were so harde\nto vnderstande, and specially for that they affirm it to be a perilous\nmatter to translate the text of the holy scripture, and therefore it\ncannot be well translated. And here we may beholde the endeuour of some\nmen\u2019s cauillation, who labour all they can to slaunder the translatours,\nto finde faulte in some wordes of the translation: but them selfe will\nneuer set pen to the booke, to set out any translation at al. They can in\ntheir constitutions prouinciall, [Sidenote: _Tho Ar\u016bdel in concilio apud\nOxon. An 1407 articlo 7._] vnder payne of excommunication, inhibite al\nother men to translate them without the ordinaries or the prouinciall\ncounsayle agree therevnto. But they wyll be well ware neuer to agree or\ngeue counsayle to set them out. Whiche their suttle compasse in effect,\ntendeth but to bewray what inwardly they meane, if they could bring it\nabout, that is, vtterly to suppresse them: being in this their iudgement,\nfarre vnlike the olde fathers in the primitiue church, who hath exhorted\nindifferently all persons, aswell men as women, to exercise them selues in\nthe scriptures, which by Saint Hieroms aucthoritie be the scriptures of\nthe people. Yea they be farre vnlike their olde forefathers that have\nruled in this realme, who in their times, and in diuers ages did their\ndiligence to translate the whole bookes of the scriptures to the erudition\nof the laytie, as yet at this day be to be seene diuers bookes translated\ninto the vulgar tongue, some by kynges of the realme, some by bishoppes,\nsome by abbotts, some by other deuout godly fathers: so desirous they were\nof olde tyme to have the lay sort edified in godlynes by reading in their\nvulgar tongue, that very many bookes be yet extant, though for the age of\nthe speache and straungenesse of the charect of many of them almost worne\nout of knowledge. In whiche bookes may be seene euidently howe it was vsed\namong the Saxons, to haue in their churches read the foure gospels, so\ndistributed and piked out in the body of the euangelistes bookes, that to\neuery Sunday and festiuall day in the yere, they were sorted out to the\ncommon ministers of the church in their common prayers to be read to their\npeople. [Sidenote: 1 Pet. i.] Now as of the most auncient fathers the\nprophets, Saint Peter testifieth that these holy men of God had the\nimpulsion of the holy Ghost, to speak out these deuine testimonies: so it\nis not to be doubted but that these latter holy fathers of the Englishe\nChurch, had the impulsion of the holy Ghost to set out these sacred bookes\nin their vulgar language, to the edification of the people, [Sidenote:\nActs xvii.] by the helpe whereof they might the better folowe the example\nof the godly Christians, in the beginning of the Churche, who not only\nreceaued the worde withall readinesse of heart, but also did searche\ndiligently in the scriptures, whether the doctrine of the Apostles were\nagreable to the same scripture. And these were not of the rascall sort\n(saith the deuine storie) but they were of the best and of most noble\nbyrth among the Thessalonians, Birrhenses by name. [Sidenote: 1 Pet. i.]\nYea the prophetes them selues in their dayes, writeth S. Peter, were\ndiligent searchers to inquire out this saluation by Christe, searching\nwhen and at what article of time this grace of Christes dispensation\nshoulde appeare to the world. What ment the fathers of the Church in their\nwritinges, but the advauncing of these holy bookes, where some do\nattribute no certaintie of vndoubted veritie, but to the canonicall\nscriptures: [Sidenote: _Aug. contra epistolam permemini Hieronimus\nTertullian de doctrina Christiana Chrisost in Matt._ Ho. 47. _Basilius\nHieronim._] Some do affirm it to be a foolishe rashe boldnesse to beleue\nhym, who proueth not by the scriptures that whiche he affirmeth in his\nworde. Some do accurse all that is deliuered by tradition, not found in\nthe legall and evangelicall scriptures. Some say that our fayth must\nneedes stagger, if it be not grounded vpon the aucthoritie of the\nscripture. Some testifieth that Christe and his Churche ought to be\naduouched out of the scriptures, and do contende in disputation, that the\ntrue Church can not be knowen, but only by the holy scriptures: For all\nother thinges (saith the same aucthor) may be found among the heretikes.\nSome affirme it to be a sinfull tradition that is obtruded without the\nscripture. [Sidenote: 1 Pet. i.] Some playnely pronounce, that not to\nknowe the scriptures is not to know Christe. Wherefore let men extoll out\nthe Churche practises as hyghly as they can, and let them set out their\ntraditions and customes, their decisions in synodes and counsayles, with\nvaunting the presence of the holy Ghost among them really, as some doth\naffirme it in their writing, let their groundes and their demonstrations,\ntheir foundations be as stable and as strong as they blase them out:\n[Sidenote: 1 Pet. i.] Yet wyll we be bolde to say with Saint Peter,\nHabemus nos firmiorem sermonem propheticum. We have for our part a more\nstable grounde, the propheticall wordes (of the scriptures) and doubt not\nto be commended therefore of the same Saint Peter with these wordes: Cui\ndum attenditis ceu lucerne apparenti in obscuro loco, recte facitis donec\ndies illucescat &c. Wherevnto saith he, whyle ye do attende as to alight\nshining in a darke place, ye do well vntill the day light appeare, and\ntill the bright starre do arise vnto our heartes, For this we know, that\nal the propheticall scripture standeth not in any priuate interpretation\nof vayne names, of severall Churches, of catholique vniuersall seas, of\nsinguler and wylfull heades, whiche wyll chalenge custome all decision to\npertayne to them only, who be working so muche for their vayne\nsuperioritie, that they be not ashamed now to be of that number,\n[Sidenote: Psal. xi.] Qui dixerunt linguam nostram magnificabimus, labia\nnostra a nobis sunt, quis noster dominus est: Which haue sayd with our\ntongue wyll we preuayle, we are they that ought to speake, who is Lord\nouer vs. And whyle they shall contende for their straunge claymed\naucthoritie, we will proceede in the reformation begun, and doubt no more\nby the helpe of Christe his grace, of the true vnity to Christes\ncatholique Churche, [Sidenote: _Concilium braccar secundum._] and of the\nvprightnesse of our fayth in this prouince, then the Spanishe cleargie\nonce gathered together in counsaile (only by the commaundement of their\nking, before whiche tyme the Pope was not so acknowledged in his\naucthoritie which he now claymeth) I say as surely dare we trust, as they\ndyd trust of their faith and veritie. Yea no lesse confidence haue we to\nprofesse that, whiche the fathers of the vniuersall counsaile at Carthage\nin Affrike as they wryte them selfe did professe in their epistle written\nto Pope Celestine, laying before his face the foule corruption of him\nselfe (as two other of his predecessors did the like errour) in\nfalsifiying the canons of Nicen counsayle, for his wrong chalenge of his\nnewe claymed aucthoritie: Thus wrytyng. Prudentissime enim iustissimeque\nprouiderunt (Nicena et Affricana dicreta) quecunque negotia in suis locis\n(vbi orta sunt) finienda, nec vnicuiqui prouinci\u00e6 gratiam sancti spiritus\ndefuturam qua equitas a Christi sacerdotibus et prudenter videatur, et\nconstantissime teneatur, maxime quia vnicuique concessum est, si iuditio\noffensus fuerit cognitorum, ad concilia suae prouinci\u00e6 vel etiam\nvniuersale prouocare. That (the Nicen and Affrican decrees) haue most\nprudently and iustly prouided for all maner of matters to be ended in\ntheir teritories where they had their beginning, and they trusted that not\nto any one prouince shoulde want the grace of the holy Ghost, whereby both\nthe truth or equitie might prudently be seene of the Christian prelates of\nChriste, and might be also by them most constantly defended, specially for\nthat it is graunted to euery man (if he be greeued) by the iudgement of\nthe cause once knowen to appeale to the counsayles of his owne prouince or\nels to the vniuersall. Except there be any man, whiche may beleue that our\nLorde God woulde inspire the righteousnesse of examination, to any one\nsingular person, and to denie the same to priestes gathered together into\ncounsaile without number, &c. And there they do require the bishop of Rome\nto send none of his clarkes to execute such prouinciall causes, lest els\nsay they, mought be brought in the vayne pride of the world into the\nChurche of Christe. In this antiquitie may we in this christian catholique\nChurche of Englande repose our selfe, knowyng by our owne annales of\nauncient recorde that Kyng Lucius whose conscience was much touched with\nthe miracles whiche the seruauntes of Christe wrought in diuers nations,\nthervpon beyng in great loue with the true fayth, sent vnto Eleutherius\nthen byshop of Rome requiring of hym the christian religion. [Sidenote:\n_Inter legis Edwardi._] But Eleutherius did redyly geue ouer that care to\nKing Lucius in his epistle, for that the King as he wryteth, the vicar of\nGod in his owne kingdome, and for that he had receiued the faith of\nChriste: And for that he had also both testamentes in his realme, he\nwylled hym to drawe out of them by the grace of God, and by the counsaile\nof his wisemen, his lawes, and by that lawe of God to gouerne his realme\nof Britanie, and not so much to desire the Romane and Emperour\u2019s lawes, in\nthe whiche some defaulte might be founde saith he, but in the lawes of God\nnothing at all. [Sidenote: _Ex archiuis de statio landauensis ecclie in\nvita archiepiscopi dubritii, et in I. capgraue._] With which aunswere the\nKinges legates, Eluanus and Medwinus sent as messengers by the King to the\nPope, returned to Britanie agayne, Eluanus beyng made a byshop, and\nMedwine alowed a publique teacher: who for the eloquence and knowledge\nthey had in the holy Scriptures, they repayred home agayne to Kyng Lucius,\nand by their holy preachings, Lucius and the noble men of the whole\nBritanie receiued their baptisme, &c. Thus farre in the storie. Nowe\ntherefore knowing and beleuing with Saint Paul, Quod quecumque prescripta\nsunt, ad nostram doctrinam prescripta sunt vt per pacientiam et\nconsolationem scripturarum spem habeamus: [Sidenote: Rom. xv.] Whatsoeuer\nis afore written, is written before for our instruction, [Sidenote: =And\nyet may it be true that W., of Malsberie, writeth that Phaganus and\nDernuianus were sent after (as Coadiutours) with these learned men to the\npreaching of the Gospell, whiche was neuer extinguished in Britaine fr\u014d\nJoseph of Aramathia his time as to S. Austen, the first byshop of Canter,\nthey do openly abouche.=] that we through the patience and comfort of\nscriptures might haue hope, the only suretie to our fayth and conscience,\nis to sticke to the scriptures. Wherevpon whyle this eternall worde of God\nbe our rocke and anker to sticke vnto, we will haue pacience with all the\nvayne inuentions of men, who labour so highly to magnifie their tongues,\nto exalt them selues aboue al that is God. We wil take comfort by the holy\nscriptures against the maledictions of the aduersaries, and doubt not to\nnourishe our hope continually therewith so to liue and dye in this\ncomfortable hope, and doubt not to pertayne to the elect number of\nChristes Churche, howe farre soeuer we be excommunicated out of the\nsinagogue of suche who suppose themselues to be the vniuersall lordes of\nall the world, Lordes of our fayth and consciences, at pleasure.\n\nFinally to commend further vnto thee good reader the cause in part before\nintreated, it shalbe the lesse needefull, hauing so nye folowing that\nlearned preface, which sometime was set out by the diligence of that godly\nfather Thomas Cranmer, late byshop in the sea of Canterburie, which he\ncaused to be prefixed before the translation of that Byble that was then\nset out. And for that the copies thereof be so wasted, that very many\nChurches do want their conuenient Bybles, it was thought good to some well\ndisposed men, to recognise the same Byble againe into this fourme as it is\nnowe come out, with some further diligence in the printing, and with some\nmore light added, partly in the translation, and partly in the order of\nthe text, not as condemning the former translation, whiche was folowed\nmostly of any other translation, excepting the originall text from whiche\nas litle variaunce was made as was thought meete to such as toke paynes\ntherein: desiring thee good reader if ought be escaped, eyther by such as\nhad the expending of the bookes, or by the ouersight of the printer, to\ncorrect the same in the spirite of charitie, calling to remembraunce what\ndiuersitie hath ben seene in mens iudgementes in the translation of these\nbookes before these dayes, though all directed their labours to the glory\nof God, to the edification of the Churche, to the comfort of their\nchristian brethren, and alwayes as God dyd further open vnto them, so euer\nmore desirous they were to refourme their former humain ouersightes,\nrather then in a stubborne wylfulnesse to resist the gyft of the holy\nGhost, who from tyme to tyme is resident as that heauenly teacher and\nleader into all trueth, by whose direction the Churche is ruled and\ngouerned. And let all men remember in them selfe howe errour and\nignoraunce is created with our nature; [Sidenote: Eccle. xi. Sapi. ix.]\nlet frayle man confesse with that great wise man, that the cogitations and\ninuentions of mortall man be very weake, and our opinions sone deceaued:\nFor the body so subiect to corruption doth oppresse the soule, that it\ncannot aspire so hye as of dutie it ought. Men we be all, and that whiche\nwe know, is not the thousand part of that we knowe not. Whereupon saith\nSaint Austen, otherwyse to iudge then the truth is, this temptation ryseth\nof the frailtie of man. [Sidenote: _De doctri Christia._] A man so to loue\nand sticke to his owne iudgement, or to enuie his brothers to the perill\nof dissoluing the christian communion, or to the perill of schisme, and of\nheresie, this is diabolicall presumption: but so to iudge in euery matter\nas the truth is, this belongeth onely to the angellicall perfection.\nNotwithstanding good reader, thou mayest be well assured nothing to be\ndone in this translation eyther of malice or wylfull meaning in altering\nthe text, eyther by putting more or lesse to the same, as of purpose to\nbring in any priuate iudgement by falsification of the wordes, as some\ncertaine men hath ben ouer bold so to do, litle regarding the maiestie of\nGod his scripture: but so to make it serue to their corrupt error, as in\nalleaging the sentence of Saint Paule to the Romaines the 6. One certaine\nwryter to proue his satisfaction, was bold to turne the worde of\n_Sanctificationem_ into the worde of _Satisfactionem_, thus, _Sicut\nexhibuimus antea membra nostra seruire immundicie et iniquitati ad\niniquitatem ita deinceps exhibeamus membra nostra seruire iustitiae in\nsatisfactionem_. [Sidenote: _Hosius in confessione catholic\u00e6 fidi de sacr\u014d\npenitenti\u00e6 Idem Hosius de spe. et oratione._] That is, as we have geuen\nour members to vncleannesse, from iniquitie to iniquitie: euen so from\nhencefoorth let vs geue our members to serue righteousnesse into\nsatisfaction: where the true worde is into sanctification. Even so\nlikewise for the auauntage of his cause, to proue that men may haue in\ntheir prayer fayth vpon saintes, corruptly alleageth Saint Paules text, Ad\nphilemonem, thus, _Fidem quam habes in domino Iesu et in omnes sanctos_,\nleauing out the worde _charitatem_, which would have rightly ben\ndistributed vnto _Omnes sanctos_. As _fidem_ vnto _in domino Iesu_. Where\nthe text is _Audiens charitatem tuam et fidem quam habes in domino Iesu in\nomnes sanctos_, &c. It were to long to bryng in many examples, as may be\nopenly founde in some mens wrytynges in these dayes, who would be counted\nthe chiefe pillers of the Catholique fayth, or to note how corruptly they\nof purpose abuse the text to the comoditie of their cause. What maner of\ntranslation may men thinke to looke for at their handes, if they should\ntranslate the scriptures to the comfort of God\u2019s elect, whiche they neuer\ndid, nor be not like to purpose it, but be rather studious only to seeke\nquarrels in other mens well doynges, to picke fault where none is: and\nwhere any is escaped through humaine negligence, there to crye out with\ntheir tragicall exclamations, but in no wyse to amende by the spirite of\ncharitie and lenitie, that whiche might be more aptly set. Whervpon for\nfrayle man (compassed hym selfe with infirmitie) it is most reasonable not\nto be to seuere in condemning his brothers knowledge or diligence where he\ndoth erre, not of malice, but of simplicitie, and specially in handeling\nof these so deuine bookes so profounde in sense, so farre passing our\nnaturall vnderstanding. And with charitie it standeth, the reader not to\nbe offended with the diuersitie of translators, nor with the ambiguitie of\ntranslations: For as Saint Austen doth witnesse, [Sidenote: _De doctr.\nChristi. lib. 2. cap. 5._] by God\u2019s prouidence it is brought about, that\nthe holy scriptures whiche be the salue for euery mans sore, though at the\nfirst they came from one language, and thereby might have ben spread to\nthe whole worlde: nowe by diuersitie of manye languages, the translatours\nshoulde spreade the saluation (that is contayned in them) to all nations,\nby suche wordes of vtteraunce as the reader might perceaue the minde of\nthe translatour, and so consequently to come to the knowledge of God his\nwyll and pleasure. And though many rashe readers be deceaued in the\nobscurities and ambiguities of their translations, whyle they take one\nthing for another, and whyle they vse muche labour to extricate them\nselues out of the obscurities of the same: yet I thinke (saith he) this is\nnot wrought without the prouidence of God, both to tame the proude\narrogancie of man by his suche labour of searching, as also to kepe his\nminde from lothsomnesse and contempt, where if the scriptures vniuersally\nwere to easie, he woulde lesse regarde them. And though (saith he) in the\nprimitive Churche the late interpreters whiche did translate the\nscriptures, be innumerable, yet wrought this rather an helpe, than an\nimpediment to the readers, if they be not to negligent. For saith he,\ndiuers translations haue made many tymes the harder and darker sentences,\nthe more open and playne: so that of congruence, no offence can iustly be\ntaken for this newe labour, nothing preiudicing any other mans iudgement\nby this doyng, nor yet hereby professing this to be so absolute a\ntranslation, as that hereafter might folowe no other that might see that\nwhiche as yet was not vnderstanded. In this poynt it is conuenient to\nconsider the iudgement that John, once byshop of Rochester was in, who\nthus wrote: [Sidenote: _Articulo, 17, contra Luth._] It is not vnknowen,\nbut that many thinges hath ben more diligently discussed, and more\nclearely vnderstanded by the wittes of these latter dayes, as well\nconcerning the gospels as other scriptures, then in olde tyme they were.\nThe cause whereof is (saith he) for that to the olde men the yse was not\nbroken, or for that their age was not sufficient exquisitely to expende\nthe whole mayne sea of the scriptures, or els for that in this large field\nof the scriptures, a man may gather some eares vntouched, after the\nharuest men howe diligent soeuer they were. For there be yet (saith he) in\nthe Gospels very many darke places, whiche without all doubt to the\nposteritie shalbe made muche more open. For why should we despayre herein,\nseing the Gospell (wryteth he) was deliuered to this intent, that it might\nbe vtterly vnderstanded of vs, yea to the very inche. Wherefore, forasmuch\nas Christe showeth no lesse loue to his Churche now, then hitherto he hath\ndone, the aucthoritie wherof is as yet no whit diminished, and forasmuch\nas that holy spirite the perpetuall Keper and Gardian of the same Church,\nwhose gyftes and graces do flowe as continually and as aboundantly as from\nthe beginning: who can doubt, but that such thinges as remayne yet\nunknowen in the Gospell, shalbe hereafter made open to the latter wittes\nof our posteritie, to their cleare vnderstanding. Only good readers let vs\noft call vpon the holy spirite of God our heauenly father, by the\nmediation of our Lorde and Sauiour, with the wordes of the octonary psalme\nof Dauid, who did so importunately craue of God to haue the vnderstanding\nof his lawes and testament: [Sidenote: Psal. cxix.] Let vs humblye on our\nknees pray to almightie God, with that wyse [Sidenote: Sapi. ix.] Kyng\nSolomon in his very wordes saying thus--O God of my fathers, and Lorde of\nmercies (that thou hast made all thynges with thy worde, and didst ordain\nman through thy wisdome, that he shoulde haue dominion ouer thy creatures\nwhiche thou hast made, and that he shoulde order the worlde according to\nholinesse and righteousnesse, and that he shoulde execute iudgement with a\ntrue heart) geue me wisdome whiche is euer about thy feate, and put me not\nout from among thy chyldren: For I thy seruant and sonne of thy handmayden\nam a feeble person, of a short time, and to weake to the vnderstanding of\nthy iudgementes and lawes. And though a man be neuer so perfect among the\nchildren of men, yet if thy wisdome be not with him, he shalbe of no\nvalue. O sende her out therefore from thy holy heauens, and from the\nthrone of thy maiestie, that she may be with me, and labour with me, that\nI may know what is acceptable in thy sight: for she knoweth and\nvnderstandeth all thinges, and she shall lead me soberly in my workes, and\npreserue me in her power, So shall my workes be acceptable by Christe our\nLorde, To whom with the father and the holy Ghost, be all honour and\nglorie, worlde without ende. Amen.\n\n\n\n\n(F.)\n\n_THE PREFACE TO THE REVISION OF 1611._\n\n\n[Sidenote: The best things have been calumniated.] Zeal to promote the\ncommon good, whether it be by devising any thing ourselves, or revising\nthat which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect\nand esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is\nwelcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of\nthanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if\nit do not find an hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and\nin danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know\nstory, or have any experience. For was there ever any thing projected that\nsavoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm\nof gainsaying or opposition? A man would think that civility, wholesome\nlaws, learning and eloquence, Synods, and Churchmaintenance, (that we\nspeak of no more things of this kind,) should be as safe as a Sanctuary,\nand[144] out of shot, as they say, that no man would lift up his heel, no,\nnor dog move his tongue against the motioners of them. For by the first we\nare distinguished from brute beasts led with sensuality: by the second we\nare bridled and restrained from outrageous behaviour, and from doing of\ninjuries, whether by fraud or by violence: by the third we are enabled to\ninform and reform others by the light and feeling that we have attained\nunto ourselves: briefly, by the fourth, being brought together to a\nparley face to face, we sooner compose our differences, than by writings,\nwhich are endless: and lastly, that the Church be sufficiently provided\nfor is so agreeable to good reason and conscience, that those mothers are\nholden to be less cruel, that kill their children as soon as they are\nborn, than those nursing fathers and mothers (wheresoever they be) that\nwithdraw from them who hang upon their breasts (and upon whose breasts\nagain themselves do hang to receive the spiritual and sincere milk of the\nword) livelihood and support fit for their estates. Thus it is apparent,\nthat these things which we speak of are of most necessary use, and\ntherefore that none, either without absurdity can speak against them, or\nwithout note of wickedness can spurn against them.\n\n[Sidenote: _Anacharsis, with others._] Yet for all that, the learned know,\nthat certain worthy men have been brought to untimely death for none other\nfault, but for seeking to reduce their countrymen to good order and\ndiscipline: [Sidenote: _In Athens: witness Libanius in Olynth. Demosth.\nCato the elder._] And that in some Commonweals it was made a capital\ncrime, once to motion the making of a new law for the abrogating of an\nold, though the same were most pernicious: And that certain, which would\nbe counted pillars of the State, and patterns of virtue and prudence,\ncould not be brought for a long time to give way to good letters and\nrefined speech; but bare themselves as averse from them, as from rocks or\nboxes of poison: And fourthly, that he was no babe, but a great Clerk,\n[Sidenote: _Gregory the Divine._] that gave forth (and in writing to\nremain to posterity), in passion peradventure, but yet he gave forth, That\nhe had not seen any profit to come by any synod or meeting of the Clergy,\nbut rather the contrary: And lastly, against Churchmaintenance and\nallowance, in such sort as the Embassadors and messengers of the great\nKing of kings should be furnished, it is not unknown what a fiction or\nfable (so it is esteemed, and for no better by the reporter himself,\nthough superstitious) was devised: namely, [Sidenote: _Nauclerus._] That\nat such time as the professors and teachers of Christianity in the Church\nof Rome, then a true Church, were liberally endowed, a voice forsooth was\nheard from heaven, saying, Now is poison poured down into the Church, &c.\nThus not only as oft as we speak, as one saith, but also as oft as we do\nany thing of note or consequence, we subject ourselves to every one\u2019s\ncensure, and happy is he that is least tossed upon tongues; for utterly to\nescape the snatch of them it is impossible. If any man conceit, that this\nis the lot and portion of the meaner sort only, and that Princes are\nprivileged by their high estate, he is deceived. [Sidenote: 2 Sam. 11.\n25.] As _the sword devoureth as well one as another_, as it is in\n_Samuel_; nay, as the great commander charged his soldiers in a certain\nbattle to strike at no part of the enemy, but at the face; [Sidenote: 1\nKin. 22. 31.] and as the king of _Syria_ commanded his chief captains _to\nfight neither with small nor great, save only against the king of Israel_:\nso it is too true, that envy striketh most spitefully at the fairest, and\nthe chiefest. _David_ was a worthy prince, and no man to be compared to\nhim for his first deeds; and yet for as worthy an act as ever he did, even\nfor bringing back the ark of God in solemnity, he was scorned and scoffed\nat by his own wife. [Sidenote: 2 Sam. 6. 16.] _Solomon_ was greater than\n_David_, though not in virtue, yet in power; and by his power and wisdom\nhe built a temple to the Lord, such an one as was the glory of the land of\nIsrael, and the wonder of the whole world. But was that his magnificence\nliked of by all? We doubt of it. Otherwise why do they lay it in his son\u2019s\ndish, and call unto him for[145] easing of the burden? _Make_, say they,\n_the grievous servitude of thy father, and his sore yoke, lighter_.\n[Sidenote: 1 Kin. 12. 4.] Belike he had charged them with some levies, and\ntroubled them with some carriages; hereupon they raise up a tragedy, and\nwish in their heart the temple had never been built. So hard a thing it is\nto please all, even when we please God best, and do seek to approve\nourselves to every one\u2019s conscience.\n\n[Sidenote: The highest personages have been calumniated _C. C\u00e6sar.\nPlutarch_.] If we will descend to latter times, we shall find many the\nlike examples of such kind, or rather unkind, acceptance. The first Roman\nEmperor did never do a more pleasing deed to the learned, nor more\nprofitable to posterity, for conserving the record of times in true\nsupputation, than when he corrected the Calendar, and ordered the year\naccording to the course of the sun: and yet this was imputed to him for\nnovelty, and arrogancy, and procured to him great obloquy. [Sidenote:\n_Constantine._] So the first Christened Emperor (at the least wise, that\nopenly professed the faith himself, and allowed others to do the like,)\nfor strengthening the empire at his great charges, and providing for the\nChurch, as he did, got for his labour the name _Pupillus_, as who would\nsay, a wasteful Prince, that had need of a guardian or overseer.\n[Sidenote: _Aurel. Vict. Theodosius. Zosimus._] So the best Christened\nEmperor, for the love that he bare unto peace, thereby to enrich both\nhimself and his subjects, and because he did not seek war, but find it,\nwas judged to be no man at arms, (though indeed he excelled in feats of\nchivalry, and shewed so much when he was provoked,) and condemned for\ngiving himself to his ease, and to his pleasure. [Sidenote: _Justinian._]\nTo be short, the most learned Emperor of former times, (at the least the\ngreatest politician,) what thanks had he for cutting off the superfluities\nof the laws, and digesting them into some order and method? This, that he\nhath been blotted by some to be an Epitomist, that is, one that\nextinguished worthy whole volumes, to bring his abridgements into request.\nThis is the measure that hath been rendered to excellent Princes in former\ntimes, _cum bene facerent, male audire_, for their good deeds to be evil\nspoken of. Neither is there any likelihood that envy and malignity died\nand were buried with the ancient. No, no, the reproof of _Moses_ taketh\nhold of most ages, [Sidenote: Num. 32. 14. Eccles. 1. 9.] _You are risen\nup in your fathers\u2019 stead, an increase of sinful men. What is that that\nhath been done? that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under\nthe sun_, saith the wise man. And St. _Stephen_, _As your fathers did, so\ndo ye_. [Sidenote: Acts 7. 51. His Majesty\u2019s constancy, notwithstanding\ncalumniation, for the survey of the English translation. \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.] This, and more to this purpose, his Majesty\nthat now reigneth (and long, and long, may he reign, and his offspring for\never, _Himself, and children, and children\u2019s children always_!) knew full\nwell, according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God, and the rare\nlearning and experience that he hath attained unto; namely, That whosoever\nattempteth any thing for the publick, (especially if it pertain to\nreligion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God,) the same\nsetteth himself upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye; yea, he\ncasteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue.\nFor he that meddleth with men\u2019s religion in any part meddleth with their\ncustom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that\nwhich they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.\nNotwithstanding his royal heart was not daunted or discouraged for this or\nthat colour, but stood resolute, _as a statue immovable, and an anvil not\neasy to be beaten into plates_, as one saith; [Sidenote: \u1f6b\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] he knew who had chosen him to be a soldier, or rather a\ncaptain; and [Sidenote: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03ba\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _Suidas_.] being assured that\nthe course which he intended made much for the glory of God, and the\nbuilding up of his Church, he would not suffer it to be broken off for\nwhatsoever speeches or practices. It doth certainly belong unto kings,\nyea, it doth specially belong unto them, to have care of religion, yea, to\nknow it aright, yea, to profess it zealously, yea, to promote it to the\nuttermost of their power. This is their glory before all nations which\nmean well, and this will bring unto them a far most excellent weight of\nglory in the day of the Lord Jesus. For the Scripture saith not in vain,\n[Sidenote: 1 Sam. 2. 30.] _Them that honour me I will honour_: neither was\nit a vain word that _Eusebius_ delivered long ago, [Sidenote: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\n_Eusebius, lib. 10. cap. 8_.] That piety toward God was the weapon, and\nthe only weapon, that both preserved _Constantine\u2019s_ person, and avenged\nhim of his enemies.\n\n[Sidenote: The praise of the holy Scriptures.] But now what piety without\ntruth? What truth, what saving truth, without the word of God? What word\nof God, whereof we may be sure, without the Scripture? The Scriptures we\nare commanded to search, _John_ v. 39. _Isaiah_ viii. 20. They are\ncommended that searched and studied them, _Acts_ xvii. 11, and viii. 28,\n29. They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe\nthem, _Matth._ xxii. 29. _Luke_ xxiv. 25. They can make us wise unto\nsalvation, _2 Tim._ iii. 15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if\nout of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform\nus; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us.\n[Sidenote: _St. August. Confess. lib. 8. cap. 12. St. August. De utilit.\ncredendi, cap. 6._] _Tolle, lege; tolle, lege_; Take up and read, take up\nand read the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction,) it was said\nunto St. _Augustine_ by a supernatural voice. _Whatsoever is in the\nScriptures, believe me_, saith the same St. _Augustine_, _is high and\ndivine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing\nand renewing of men\u2019s minds, and truly so tempered, that every one may\ndraw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with\na devout and pious mind, as true religion requireth_. Thus St.\n_Augustine_. And St. _Hierome_, [Sidenote: _St. Hieron. ad Demetriad. St.\nCyrill 7 contra Julian._] _Ama Scripturas, et amabit te sapientia_, &c.\nLove the Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee. And St. _Cyrill_ against\n_Julian_, _Even boys that are bred up in the Scriptures become most\nreligious_, &c. But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture,\nwhereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practised, or hoped for, is\ncontained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since\nwhosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ\u2019s time downward,\nhath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection\nof the Scripture? [Sidenote: _Tertul. advers. Herm. Tertul. De carn.\nChrist._ \u039f\u1f37\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5, _Justin_. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd. \u1f59\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1,\n_St. Basil_. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.] _I adore the fulness of the Scripture_, saith\n_Tertullian_ against _Hermogenes_. And again, to _Apelles_ an heretick of\nthe like stamp he saith, _I do not admit that which thou bringest in_ (or\nconcludest) _of thine own_ (head or store, _de tuo_) without Scripture. So\nSt. _Justin Martyr_ before him; _We must know by all means_ (saith he)\n_that it is not lawful_ (or possible) _to learn_ (any thing) _of God or of\nright piety, save only out of the Prophets, who teach us by divine\ninspiration_. So St. _Basil_ after _Tertullian_, _It is a manifest falling\naway from the faith, and a fault of presumption, either to reject any of\nthose things that are written, or to bring in_ (upon the head of them,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) _any of those things that are not written_. We omit to cite to\nthe same effect St. _Cyrill_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_ in his 4. _Catech._ St.\n_Hierome_ against _Helvidius_, St. _Augustine_ in his third book against\nthe letters of _Petilian_, and in very many other places of his works.\nAlso we forbear to descend to later Fathers, because we will not weary\nthe reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so\nperfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study\nthem? of curiosity, if we be not content with them? [Sidenote: \u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\n\u03c3\u1fe6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, &c. An\nolive bough wrapped about with wool, whereupon did hang figs, and bread,\nand honey in a pot, and oil.] Men talk much of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, how many sweet\nand goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosopher\u2019s stone, that\nit turneth copper into gold; of _Cornu-copia_, that it had all things\nnecessary for food in it; of _Panaces_, the herb, that it was good for all\ndiseases; of _Catholicon_ the drug, that it is instead of all purges; of\n_Vulcan\u2019s_ armour, that it was an armour of proof against all thrusts and\nall blows, &c. Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these\nthings for bodily good, we may justly and with full measure ascribe unto\nthe Scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armour, but also a whole\narmoury of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save\nourselves, and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or\nrather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every\nmonth, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It\nis not a pot of _Manna_, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or\nfor a meal\u2019s meat or two; but, as it were, a shower of heavenly bread\nsufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, and, as it were, a\nwhole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be\nprovided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a panary of\nwholesome food against fenowed traditions; [Sidenote: \u039a\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\n_St. Basil in Psal. primum._] a physician\u2019s shop (as St. _Basil_ calls it)\nof preservatives against poisoned heresies; a pandect of profitable laws\nagainst rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels against\nbeggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up\nunto everlasting life. And what marvel? the original thereof being from\nheaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the\nHoly Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the penmen, such as\nwere sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of\nGod\u2019s Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form,\nGod\u2019s word, God\u2019s testimony, God\u2019s oracles, the word of truth, the word of\nsalvation, &c.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of\npersuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace,\njoy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof,\nfellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition\nof an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away.\nHappy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that\nmeditateth in it day and night.\n\n[Sidenote: Translation necessary.] But how shall men meditate in that\nwhich they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept\nclose in an unknown tongue? as it is written, [Sidenote: 1 Cor. 14. 11.]\n_Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a\nbarbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me_. The Apostle\nexcepteth no tongue; not _Hebrew_ the ancientest, not _Greek_ the most\ncopious, not _Latin_ the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess,\nthat all of us in those tongues which we do not understand are plainly\ndeaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. [Sidenote: _Clem. Alex. 1 Strom.\nSt. Hieronym. Damaso. Michael, Theophili fil. 2 Tom. Concil. ex edit.\nPetri Crab._] The _Scythian_ counted the _Athenian_, whom he did not\nunderstand, barbarous: so the _Roman_ did the _Syrian_, and the _Jew_:\n(even St. _Hierome_ himself calleth the _Hebrew_ tongue barbarous; belike,\nbecause it was strange to so many:) so the Emperor of _Constantinople_\ncalleth the _Latin_ tongue barbarous, though Pope _Nicolas_ do storm at\nit: [Sidenote: _Cicero 5. De Finibus._] so the _Jews_ long before _Christ_\ncalled all other nations _Lognasim_, which is little better than\nbarbarous. Therefore as one complaineth that always in the Senate of\n_Rome_ there was one or other that called for an interpreter; so lest the\nChurch be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations\nin a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the\nlight; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth\naside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that\nremoveth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water; [Sidenote:\nGen. 29. 10.] even as _Jacob_ rolled away the stone from the mouth of the\nwell, by which means the flocks of _Laban_ were watered. Indeed without\ntranslation into the vulgar tongue, [Sidenote: John 4. 11.] the unlearned\nare but like children at _Jacob\u2019s_ well (which was deep) without a bucket\nor something to draw with: [Sidenote: Isai. 29. 11.] or as that person\nmentioned by _Esay_, to whom when a sealed book was delivered with this\nmotion, _Read this, I pray thee_; he was fain to make this answer, _I\ncannot, for it is sealed_.\n\n[Sidenote: The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into\nGreek. _See St. August. lib. 12. contra Faust. cap. 32._] While God would\nbe known only in _Jacob_, and have his name great in _Israel_, and in none\nother place; while the dew lay on _Gideon\u2019s_ fleece only, and all the\nearth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all\nof them the language of _Canaan_, that is, _Hebrew_, one and the same\noriginal in _Hebrew_ was sufficient. But when the fulness of time drew\nnear, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the\nworld, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his\nblood, not of the _Jew_ only, but also of the _Greek_, yea, of all them\nthat were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the\nspirit of a _Greek_ prince, (_Greek_ for descent and language,) even of\n_Ptolemy Philadelph_ king of _Egypt_, to procure the translating of the\nbook of God out of _Hebrew_ into _Greek_. This is the translation of the\n_Seventy_ interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our\nSaviour among the _Gentiles_ by written preaching, as St. _John Baptist_\ndid among the _Jews_ by vocal. For the _Grecians_, being desirous of\nlearning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings\u2019\nlibraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them\nout, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again the _Greek_ tongue\nwas well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in _Asia_ by reason\nof the conquests that there the _Grecians_ had made, as also by the\ncolonies which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well\nunderstood in many places of _Europe_, yea, and of _Africk_ too. Therefore\nthe word of God, being set forth in _Greek_, becometh hereby like a candle\nset upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house;\nor like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men\npresently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to\ncontain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to\nappeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make\nsearch and trial by. It is certain, that that translation was not so sound\nand so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had\nbeen so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolick men? Yet it\nseemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found,\n(the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient,) rather than by\nmaking a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose\nthemselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a\ntranslation to serve their own turn; and therefore hearing witness to\nthemselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be\nsome cause, why the translation of the _Seventy_ was allowed to pass for\ncurrent. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did\nnot fully content the learned, no not of the _Jews_. For not long after\n_Christ_, _Aquila_ fell in hand with a new translation, and after him\n_Theodotion_, and after him _Symmachus_; yea, there was a fifth, and a\nsixth edition, the authors whereof were not known. These with the\n_Seventy_ made up the _Hexapla_, and were worthily and to great purpose\ncompiled together by _Origen_. Howbeit the edition of the _Seventy_ went\naway with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by\n_Origen_, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as\n_Epiphanius_ gathereth,) [Sidenote: _Epiphan. De mensuris et ponderib. St.\nAugust. 2. De doctrin. Christian. c. 15. Novel. diatax. 146._] but also\nwas used by the _Greek_ Fathers for the ground and foundation of their\ncommentaries. Yea, _Epiphanius_ abovenamed doth attribute so much unto it,\nthat he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, [Sidenote:\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03bc\u03c8\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.] but also for prophets in\nsome respect: and _Justinian_ the Emperor, injoining the _Jews_ his\nsubjects to use especially the translation of the _Seventy_, rendereth\nthis reason thereof, Because they were, as it were, enlightened with\nprophetical grace. [Sidenote: Isai. 31. 3.] Yet for all that, as the\n_Egyptians_ are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their\nhorses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and St. _Hierome_\naffirmeth as much,) [Sidenote: _St. Hieron. de optimo genere interpret._]\nthat the _Seventy_ were interpreters, they were not prophets. They did\nmany things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell,\none while through oversight, another while through ignorance; yea,\nsometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take\nfrom it: which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left\nthe _Hebrew_, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of\nthe word, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the\n_Greek_ translations of the Old Testament.\n\n[Sidenote: Translation out of Hebrew and Greek into Latin.] There were\nalso within a few hundred years after _Christ_ translations many into the\n_Latin_ tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and\nthe Gospel by, because in those times very many countries of the West, yea\nof the South, East, and North, spake or understood _Latin_, being made\nprovinces to the _Romans_. But now the _Latin_ translations were too many\nto be all good: for they were infinite; (_Latini interpretes nullo modo\nnumerari possunt_, saith St. _Augustine_.) [Sidenote: _St. August. de\ndoctrin. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 11._] Again, they were not out of the\n_Hebrew_ fountain, (we speak of the _Latin_ translations of the Old\nTestament,) but out of the _Greek_ stream; therefore the _Greek_ being not\naltogether clear, the _Latin_ derived from it must needs be muddy. This\nmoved St. _Hierome_, a most learned Father, and the best linguist without\ncontroversy of his age, or of any other that went before him, to undertake\nthe translating of the Old Testament out of the very fountains themselves;\nwhich he performed with that evidence of great learning, judgment,\nindustry, and faithfulness, that he hath for ever bound the Church unto\nhim in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness.\n\n[Sidenote: The translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues.] Now\nthough the Church were thus furnished with _Greek_ and _Latin_\ntranslations, even before the faith of _Christ_ was generally embraced in\nthe Empire: (for the learned know, [Sidenote: _St. Hieron. Marcell.\nZosim._] that even in St. _Hierome\u2019s_ time the Consul of _Rome_ and his\nwife were both Ethnicks, and about the same time the greatest part of the\nSenate also:) yet for all that the godly learned were not content to have\nthe Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, [Sidenote: 2\nKin. 7. 9.] _Greek_ and _Latin_, (as the good lepers were not content to\nfare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that\nGod had sent, that they also might provide for themselves;) but also for\nthe behoof and edifying of the unlearned, which hungered and thirsted\nafter righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they\nprovided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that\nmost nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion hear _Christ_\nspeaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their\nminister only, but also by the written word translated. If any doubt\nhereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the\nturn. [Sidenote: _St. Hieron. Pr\u00e6f. in 4. Evangel._] First, St. _Hierome_\nsaith, _Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata docet falsa esse\nqu\u00e6 addita sunt_, &c.; that is, _The Scripture being translated before in\nthe languages of many nations doth shew that those things that were added_\n(by _Lucian_ or _Hesychius_) _are false_. [Sidenote: _St. Hieron.\nSophronio._] So St. _Hierome_ in that place. The same _Hierome_ elsewhere\naffirmeth that he, the time was, had set forth the translation of the\n_Seventy_, _su\u00e6 ling\u00e6 hominibus_; that is, for his countrymen of\n_Dalmatia_. Which words not only _Erasmus_ doth understand to purport,\nthat St. _Hierome_ translated the Scripture into the _Dalmatian_ tongue;\n[Sidenote: _Six. Sen. lib. 4. Alphon. a Castro, lib. 1. cap. 23. St.\nChrysost. in Joann. cap. 1. hom. 1._] but also _Sixtus Senensis_, and\n_Alphonsus a Castro_, (that we speak of no more,) men not to be excepted\nagainst by them of _Rome_, do ingenuously confess as much. So St.\n_Chrysostome_, that lived in St. _Hierome\u2019s_ time, giveth evidence with\nhim: _The doctrine of St. John_ (saith he) _did not in such sort_ (as the\nPhilosophers\u2019 did) _vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians,\nPersians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations, being barbarous people,\ntranslated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned, to be (true)\nPhilosophers_, he meaneth Christians. [Sidenote: _Theodor. 5. Therapeut._]\nTo this may be added _Theodoret_, as next unto him both for antiquity, and\nfor learning. His words be these, _Every country that is under the sun is\nfull of these words_, (of the Apostles and Prophets;) _and the Hebrew\ntongue_ (he meaneth the Scriptures in the _Hebrew_ tongue) _is turned not\nonly into the language of the Grecians, but also of the Romans, and\nEgyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and\nSauromatians, and, briefly, into all the languages that any nation useth_.\n[Sidenote: _P. Diacon. lib. 12. Isid. in Chron. Goth. Sozom. lib. 6. cap.\n57. Vasseus in Chro. Hisp. Polydor. Virg. 5. hist. Anglorum testatur idem\nde Aluredo nostro. Aventin. lib. 4._] So he. In like manner _Ulpilas_ is\nreported by _Paulus Diaconus_ and _Isidore_, and before them by _Sozomen_,\nto have translated the Scriptures into the _Gothick_ tongue: _John_ Bishop\nof _Sevil_ by _Vasseus_, to have turned them into _Arabick_ about the Year\nof our Lord 717: _Beda_ by _Cistertiensis_, to have turned a great part of\nthem into _Saxon_: _Efnard_ by _Trithemius_, to have abridged the French\nPsalter (as _Beda_ had done the _Hebrew_) about the year 800: King\n_Alured_ by the said _Cistertiensis_, to have turned the Psalter into\n_Saxon_: _Methodius_ by _Aventinus_ (printed at _Ingolstad_) to have\nturned the Scriptures into _Sclavonian_: _Valdo_[146] Bishop of _Frising_\nby _Beatus Rhenanus_, to have caused about that time the Gospels to be\ntranslated into _Dutch_ rhyme, yet extant in the library of _Corbinian_:\n_Valdus_ by divers, to have turned them himself, or to have gotten them\nturned, into _French_, about the Year 1160: _Charles_ the Fifth of that\nname, surnamed _The wise_, to have caused them to be turned into _French_\nabout 200 years after _Valdus\u2019_ time; of which translation there be many\ncopies yet extant, as witnesseth _Beroaldus_. [Sidenote: _Beroald.\nThuan._] Much about that time, even in our King _Richard_ the Second\u2019s\ndays, _John Trevisa_ translated them into _English_, and many _English_\nBibles in written hand are yet to be seen with divers; translated, as it\nis very probable, in that age. So the _Syrian_ translation of the New\nTestament is in most learned men\u2019s libraries, of _Widminstadius\u2019_ setting\nforth; and the Psalter in _Arabick_ is with many, of _Augustinus\nNebiensis\u2019_ setting forth. So _Postel_ affirmeth, that in his travel he\nsaw the Gospels in the _Ethiopian_ tongue: And _Ambrose Thesius_ alledgeth\nthe Psalter of the _Indians_, which he testifieth to have been set forth\nby _Potken_ in _Syrian_ characters. So that to have the Scriptures in the\nmother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord\n_Cromwell_ in _England_, or by the Lord _Radevile_ in _Polony_, or by the\nLord _Ungnadius_ in the Emperor\u2019s dominion, but hath been thought upon,\nand put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of\nany nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable to cause\nfaith to grow in men\u2019s hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to\nsay with the words of the Psalm, [Sidenote: Psal. 48. 8.] _As we have\nheard, so we have seen_.\n\n[Sidenote: The unwillingness of our chief adversaries that the Scriptures\nshould be divulged in the mother tongue, &c. \u0394\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u1f40\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n_Sophocl._] Now the church of _Rome_ would seem at the length to bear a\nmotherly affection toward her children, and to allow them the Scriptures\nin the mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called\na gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing\nbefore they may use them; and to get that, they must approve themselves to\ntheir Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs,\nyet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit it seemed too\nmuch to _Clement_ the Eighth, that there should be any licence granted to\nhave them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and\nfrustrateth the grant of _Pius_ the Fourth. [Sidenote: See the\nobservation (set forth by Clement\u2019s authority) upon the 4th rule of _Pius_\nthe 4th\u2019s making in the _Index lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5. Tertull. de\nresur. carnis._] So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture,\n(_Lucifug\u00e6 Scripturarum_, as _Tertullian_ speaketh,) that they will not\ntrust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn\nmen, no not with the licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so\nunwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people\u2019s\nunderstanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we\nforced them to translate it into _English_ against their wills. This\nseemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are,\nthat it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the\ntouch-stone, but he that hath the counterfeit; [Sidenote: John 3. 20.]\nneither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor,\nlest his deeds should be reproved; neither is it the plaindealing merchant\nthat is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard, brought in place,\nbut he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and\nreturn to translation.\n\n[Sidenote: The speeches and reasons both of our brethren, and of\nadversaries, against this work.] Many men\u2019s mouths have been opened a good\nwhile (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so\nlong in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what\nmay be the reason, what the necessity, of the employment. Hath the Church\nbeen deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled\nwith leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with\nlime? (_lacte gypsum male miscetur_, saith St. _Irenee_.) [Sidenote: _St.\nIren. lib. 3. cap. 19._] We hoped that we had been in the right way, that\nwe had had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the\nworld had cause to be offended, and to complain, yet that we had none.\nHath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it? Hath\nthe bread been delivered by the Fathers of the Church, and the same proved\nto be _lapidosus_, as _Seneca_ speaketh? What is it to handle the word of\nGod deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certain brethren. Also the\nadversaries of _Judah_ and _Jerusalem_, [Sidenote: Neh. 4. 2, 3.] like\n_Sanballat_ in _Nehemiah_, mock, as we hear, both at the work and workmen,\nsaying, _What do these weak Jews, &c., will they make the stones whole\nagain out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet\nif a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall_. Was their\ntranslation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why\nthen was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholicks (meaning\nPopish _Romanists_) always go in jeopardy for refusing to go to hear it?\nNay, if it must be translated into _English_, Catholicks are fittest to do\nit. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can\n_manum de tabula_. We will answer them both briefly: [Sidenote: _St.\nHieron. Apolog. advers. Ruffin._] and the former, being brethren, thus\nwith St. _Hierome_, _Damnamus veteres? Minime, sed post priorum studia in\ndomo Domini quod possumus laboramus._ That is, _Do we condemn the ancient?\nIn no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take\nthe best pains we can in the house of God._ As if he said, Being provoked\nby the example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it\nmy duty to assay, whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues may be\nprofitable in any measure to God\u2019s Church, lest I should seem to have\nlaboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men\n(although ancient) above that which was in them. Thus St. _Hierome_ may be\nthought to speak.\n\n[Sidenote: A satisfaction to our brethren.] And to the same effect say we,\nthat we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that\ntravelled before us in this kind, either in this land, or beyond sea,\neither in King _Henry\u2019s_ time, or King _Edward\u2019s_, (if there were any\ntranslation, or correction of a translation, in his time,) or Queen\n_Elizabeth\u2019s_ of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have\nbeen raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church, and\nthat they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting\nremembrance. The judgment of _Aristotle_ is worthy and well known:\n[Sidenote: _Arist. 2. Metaphys. cap. 1._] _If Timotheus had not been, we\nhad not had much sweet musick: But if Phrynis_ (_Timotheus\u2019_ master) _had\nnot been, we had not had Timotheus_. Therefore blessed be they, and most\nhonoured be their name, that break the ice, and give the onset upon that\nwhich helpeth forward to the saving of souls. Now what can be more\navailable thereto, than to deliver God\u2019s book unto God\u2019s people in a\ntongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a\nfountain that is sealed, there is no profit, as _Ptolemy Philadelph_ wrote\nto the Rabbins or masters of the _Jews_, as witnesseth _Epiphanius_:\n[Sidenote: _St. Epiphan. loco ante citato. St. August. lib. 19. De civit.\nDei, cap. 7._] and as St. _Augustine_ saith, _A man had rather be with his\ndog than with a stranger_ (whose tongue is strange unto him.) Yet for all\nthat, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter\nthoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their\nfoundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do\nendeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are\nsure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were\nalive, would thank us. The vintage of _Abiezer_, that strake the stroke:\nyet the gleaning of grapes of _Ephraim_ was not to be despised. See\n_Judges_ viii. 2. [Sidenote: 2 Kin. 13. 18, 19.] _Joash_ the king of\n_Israel_ did not satisfy himself till he had smitten the ground three\ntimes; and yet he offended the Prophet for giving over then. _Aquila_, of\nwhom we spake before, translated the Bible as carefully and as skilfully\nas he could; and yet he thought good to go over it again, and then it got\nthe credit with the _Jews_, to be called \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, that is,\naccurately done, as St. _Hierome_ witnesseth. [Sidenote: _St. Hieron. in\nEzech. cap. 3._] How many books of profane learning have been gone over\nagain and again, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same\nbook of _Aristotle\u2019s_ Ethicks there are extant not so few as six or seven\nseveral translations. Now if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd,\nwhich affordeth us a little shade, and which to day flourisheth, but to\nmorrow is cut down; what may we bestow, nay, what ought we not to bestow,\nupon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and\nthe stem whereof abideth for ever? And this is the word of God, which we\ntranslate. [Sidenote: Jer. 23. 28.] _What is the chaff to the wheat? saith\nthe Lord. Tanti vitreum, quanti verum margaritum!_ (saith _Tertullian_.)\n[Sidenote: _Tertull. ad Martyr. Si tanti vilissimum vitrum, quanti\npreciosissimum margaritum! Hier. ad Salvin._] If a toy of glass be of that\nreckoning with us, how ought we to value the true pearl! Therefore let no\nman\u2019s eye be evil, because his Majesty\u2019s is good; neither let any be\ngrieved, that we have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spiritual\nwealth of _Israel_; (let _Sanballats_ and _Tobiahs_ do so, which therefore\ndo bear their just reproof;) but let us rather bless God from the ground\nof our heart for working this religious care in him to have the\ntranslations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this\nmeans it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, (and all is\nsound for substance in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours\nfar better than their authentick vulgar) the same will shine as gold more\nbrightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or\nsuperfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be\ncorrected, and the truth set in place. And what can the King command to be\ndone, that will bring him more true honour than this? And wherein could\nthey that have been set a work approve their duty to the King, yea, their\nobedience to God, and love to his Saints, more, than by yielding their\nservice, and all that is within them, for the furnishing of the work? But\nbesides all this, they were the principal motives of it, and therefore\nought least to quarrel it. For the very historical truth is, that upon the\nimportunate petitions of the Puritanes at his Majesty\u2019s coming to this\ncrown, the conference at _Hampton-court_ having been appointed for hearing\ntheir complaints, when by force of reason they were put from all other\ngrounds, they had recourse at the last to this shift, that they could not\nwith good conscience subscribe to the communion book, since it maintained\nthe Bible as it was there translated, which was, as they said, a most\ncorrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor\nand empty shift, yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink\nhimself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently\nafter gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee.\nThus much to satisfy our scrupulous brethren.\n\n[Sidenote: An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.] Now to the\nlatter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the\nvery meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our\nprofession, (for we have seen none of their\u2019s of the whole Bible as yet)\ncontaineth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: As the King\u2019s speech\nwhich he uttered in Parliament, being translated into _French_, _Dutch_,\n_Italian_, and _Latin_, is still the King\u2019s speech, though it be not\ninterpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so\nfitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. For it is\nconfessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part;\n[Sidenote: _Horace._] and a natural man could say, _Verum ubi multa nitent\nin carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c._ A man may be counted a\nvirtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were\nnone virtuous, for _in many things we offend all_,) [Sidenote: Jam. 3. 2.]\nalso a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand;\nyea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore\nwhy the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to\nbe current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be\nnoted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the sun,\nwhere Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an\nextraordinary measure of God\u2019s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege\nof infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing\nto hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite\nthe Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense\nand meaning, as well as man\u2019s weakness would enable, it did express. Judge\nby an example or two.\n\n[Sidenote: _Plutarch in Camillo._] _Plutarch_ writeth, that after that\n_Rome_ had been burnt by the _Gauls_, they fell soon to build it again:\nbut doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the\nhouses, in such comely fashion, as had been most sightly and convenient.\nWas _Catiline_ therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to\nbring it to a combustion? Or _Nero_ a good Prince, that did indeed set it\non fire? So by the story of _Ezra_ and the prophecy of _Haggai_ it may be\ngathered, [Sidenote: Ezra 3. 12.] that the temple built by _Zerubbabel_\nafter the return from _Babylon_ was by no means to be compared to the\nformer built by _Solomon_: for they that remembered the former wept when\nthey considered the latter. Notwithstanding might this latter either have\nbeen abhorred and forsaken by the _Jews_, or profaned by the _Greeks_? The\nlike we are to think of translations. The translation of the _Seventy_\ndissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it\nfor perspicuity, gravity, majesty. Yet which of the Apostles did condemn\nit? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as St.\n_Hierome_ and most learned men do confess;) which they would not have\ndone, nor by their example of using of it so grace and commend it to the\nChurch, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of\nGod. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and\nabusing of the _English_ Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet\nwith, for that hereticks forsooth were the authors of the translations:\n(hereticks they call us by the same right that they call themselves\ncatholicks, both being wrong:) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We\nare sure _Tertullian_ was of another mind: [Sidenote: _Tertull. de\npr\u00e6script. contra h\u00e6reses._] _Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide\npersonas?_ Do we try men\u2019s faith by their persons? We should try their\npersons by their faith. Also St. _Augustine_ was of another mind:\n[Sidenote: _St. August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30._] for he, lighting\nupon certain rules made by _Tychonius_ a _Donatist_ for the better\nunderstanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to\ninsert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far\nforth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in St.\n_Augustine\u2019s_ third book _De Doct. Christ_. To be short, _Origen_, and\nthe whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind:\nfor they were so far from treading under foot (much more from burning) the\ntranslation of _Aquila_ a proselyte, that is, one that had turned _Jew_,\nof _Symmachus_, and _Theodotion_, both _Ebionites_, that is, most vile\nhereticks, that they joined them together with the _Hebrew_ original, and\nthe translation of the _Seventy_, (as hath been before signified out of\n_Epiphanius_,) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused\nby all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much; and trouble\nthe learned, who know it already.\n\nYet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of their\u2019s\nagainst us, for altering and amending our translations so oft; wherein\ntruly they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it\nimputed for a fault, (by such as were wise,) to go over that which he had\ndone, and to amend it where he saw cause? [Sidenote: _St. August. Epist.\n9. St. August. lib. Retract Video interdum vitia mea. St. August. Epist.\n8._] St. _Augustine_ was not afraid to exhort St. _Hierome_ to a\n_Palinodia_ or recantation. The same St. _Augustine_ was not ashamed to\nretractate, we might say, revoke, many things that had passed him, and\ndoth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sons of the\ntruth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit,\nyea, and upon other men\u2019s too, if either be any way an hindrance to it.\nThis to the cause. Then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought\nto be most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what\nalterations have they made, not only of their service books, portesses,\nand breviaries, but also of their _Latin_ translation? The service book\nsupposed to be made by St. _Ambrose_, (_Officium Ambrosianum_,) was a\ngreat while in special use and request: but Pope _Adrian_, [Sidenote:\n_Durand. lib. 5. cap. 2._] calling a council with the aid of _Charles_ the\nEmperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the service book of\nSt. _Gregory_ universally to be used. Well, _Officium Gregorianum_ gets by\nthis means to be in credit; but doth it continue without change or\naltering? No, the very _Roman_ service was of two fashions; the new\nfashion, and the old, the one used in one Church, and the other in\nanother; as is to be seen in _Pamelius_ a Romanist, his preface before\n_Micrologus_. The same _Pamelius_ reporteth out of _Radulphus de Rivo_,\nthat about the year of our Lord 1277 Pope _Nicolas_ the Third removed out\nof the churches of _Rome_ the more ancient books (of service,) and brought\ninto use the missals of the Friers Minorites, and commanded them to be\nobserved there: insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the\naboved named _Radulphus_ happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to\nbe new, of the new stamp. Neither was there this chopping and changing in\nthe more ancient times only, but also of late. _Pius Quintus_ himself\nconfesseth, that every bishoprick almost had a peculiar kind of service,\nmost unlike to that which others had; which moved him to abolish all other\nbreviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by\nBishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was\nof his own setting forth in the year 1568. Now when the Father of their\nChurch, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people\nsoftly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with\nthem for their odds and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause\nto vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between\nour translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we\nare specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves\nbe without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault to correct,)\nand whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: _O tandem major parcas\ninsane minori_: They that are less sound themselves ought not to object\ninfirmities to others. If we should tell them, that _Valla_,\n_Stapulensis_, _Erasmus_, and _Vives_, found fault with their vulgar\ntranslation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one\nto be made; they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies\nfor witnesses against them; albeit they were in no other sort enemies,\nthan as St. _Paul_ was to the _Galatians_, [Sidenote: Gal. 4. 16.] for\ntelling them the truth: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to\ntell it them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this, That\nPope _Leo_ the Tenth allowed _Erasmus\u2019_ translation of the New Testament,\nso much different from the vulgar, by his apostolick letter and bull?\n[Sidenote: _Sixtus Senens._] That the same _Leo_ exhorted _Pagnine_ to\ntranslate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for\nthe work? Surely, as the apostle reasoneth to the _Hebrews_, [Sidenote:\nHeb. 7. 11. & 8. 7.] that _if the former Law and Testament had been\nsufficient, there had been no need of the latter_: so we may say, that if\nthe old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had\nlabour and charges been undergone about framing of a new. If they say, it\nwas one Pope\u2019s private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then\nwe are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief\nmen of all sorts, even their own _Trent_ champions, _Paiva_ and _Vega_,\nand their own inquisitor _Hieronymus ab Oleastro_, and their own Bishop\n_Isidorus Clarius_, and their own Cardinal _Thomas a vio Cajetan_, do\neither make new translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men\u2019s\nmaking, or note the vulgar interpreter for halting, none of them fear to\ndissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an\nuniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their\nworthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come\nnearer the quick. [Sidenote: _Sixtus 5. Pr\u00e6f. fixa bibliis._] Doth not\ntheir _Paris_ edition differ from the _Lovain_, and _Hentenius\u2019s_ from\nthem both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not _Sixtus\nQuintus_ confess, that certain Catholicks (he meaneth certain of his own\nside) were in such an humour of translating the Scriptures into _Latin_,\nthat Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter,\ndid strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of\ntranslations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left\ncertain and firm in them, &c.? Nay further, did not the same _Sixtus_\nordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of\nhis Cardinals, that the _Latin_ edition of the Old and New Testament,\nwhich the council of _Trent_ would have to be authentick, is the same\nwithout controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected\nand printed in the printinghouse of _Vatican_? Thus _Sixtus_ in his\npreface before his Bible. And yet _Clement_ the Eighth, his immediate\nsuccessor to account of, publisheth another edition of the Bible,\ncontaining in it infinite differences from that of _Sixtus_, and many of\nthem weighty and material; and yet this must be authentick by all means.\nWhat is to have the faith of our glorious Lord _Jesus Christ_ with yea and\nnay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?\nTherefore, as _Demaratus_ of _Corinth_ advised a great King, before he\ntalked of the dissensions among the _Grecians_, to compose his domestick\nbroils; (for at that time his queen and his son and heir were at deadly\nfeud with him) so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and\nso various editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and\nauthority of them, they can with no shew of equity challenge us for\nchanging and correcting.\n\n[Sidenote: The purpose of the Translators, with their number, furniture,\ncare, &c.] But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we\nproposed to ourselves, and what course we held, in this our perusal and\nsurvey of the Bible. Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from\nthe beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to\nmake of a bad one a good one: (for then the imputation of _Sixtus_ had\nbeen true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons\ninstead of wine, with wheal instead of milk;) but to make a good one\nbetter, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be\nexcepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. To that\npurpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men\u2019s eyes than\nin their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.\nAgain, they came, or were thought to come, to the work, not _exercendi\ncausa_, (as one saith,) but _exercitati_, that is, learned not to learn;\nfor the chief overseer and \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 under his Majesty, to whom not only\nwe, but also our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wisdom, which\nthing only _Nazianzen_ taught so long ago, [Sidenote: _Nazianz._ \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c1\u03bd\u2019,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3. _Idem in Apologet._] that it is a preposterous order to\nteach first and to learn after; that \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd to\nlearn and practise together, is neither commendable for the workman, nor\nsafe for the work. Therefore such were thought upon, as could say modestly\nwith St. _Hierome_, _Et Hebr\u00e6um sermonem ex parte didicimus, et in Latino\npene ab ipsis incunabulis, &c., detriti sumus; Both we have learned the\nHebrew tongue in part, and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from\nour very cradle._ St. _Hierome_ maketh no mention of the _Greek_ tongue,\nwherein yet he did excel; because he translated not the Old Testament out\nof _Greek_, but out of _Hebrew_. And in what sort did these assemble? In\nthe trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or\ndeepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They\ntrusted in him that hath the key of _David_, opening, and no man shutting;\nthey prayed to the Lord, the Father of our Lord, to the effect that St.\n_Augustine_ did: [Sidenote: _St. August. lib. 11. Confess. cap. 2._] _O\nlet thy Scriptures be my pure delight; let me not be deceived in them,\nneither let me deceive by them_. In this confidence, and with this\ndevotion, did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should\ntrouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them.\nIf you ask what they had before them; truly it was the _Hebrew_ text of\nthe Old Testament, the _Greek_ of the New. These are the two golden pipes,\nor rather conduits, wherethrough the olivebranches empty themselves into\nthe gold. [Sidenote: _St. Aug. 3. De doctr. cap. 3., &c. St. Hieron. ad\nSuniam et Fretel. St. Hieron. ad Lucinium, Dist 9._ Ut veterum.] St.\n_Augustine_ calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; St. _Hierome_,\nfountains. The same St. _Hierome_ affirmeth, and _Gratian_ hath not spared\nto put it into his decree, That _as the credit of the old books_ (he\nmeaneth of the Old Testament) _is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes; so of\nthe new by the Greek tongue_, he meaneth by the original _Greek_. If truth\nbe to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a translation be made,\nbut out of them? These tongues therefore (the Scriptures, we say, in those\ntongues) we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was\npleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles. [Sidenote:\n_Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12._] Neither did we run over the work with that\nposting haste that the _Septuagint_ did, if that be true which is reported\nof them, that they finished it in seventy-two days; neither were we barred\nor hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like St.\n_Hierome_, [Sidenote: _St. Hieron. ad Pammach. pro lib. advers. Jovinian._\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9.] if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no\nsooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him, and\npublished, and he could not have leave to mend it; neither, to be short,\nwere we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into\n_English_, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of\n_Origen_, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write\ncommentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel if he overshot\nhimself many times. None of these things: The work hath not been huddled\nup in seventy-two days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth,\nthe pains of twice seven times seventy-two days, and more. Matters of such\nweight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity: for in a business\nof moment a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness. Neither did\nwe think much to consult the translators or commentators, [Sidenote: \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f40\u03ba\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1, _Sophocl. in Elect._] _Chaldee_,\n_Hebrew_, _Syrian_, _Greek_, or _Latin_; no, nor the _Spanish_, _French_,\n_Italian_, or _Dutch_; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had\ndone, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but\nhaving and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach\nfor slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length,\nthrough the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass\nthat you see.\n\n[Sidenote: Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin,\nwhere there is great probability for each. \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b1.] Some\nperadventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin,\nlest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that\nshew of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment\nnot to be so sound in this point. For though _whatsoever things are\nnecessary are manifest_, as St. _Chrysostome_ saith; [Sidenote: _St.\nChrysost. in 2 Thess. cap. 2. St. Aug. 2. De doctr. Christ, c. 9._] and,\nas St. _Augustine_, _in those things that are plainly set down in the\nScriptures all such matters are found, that concern faith, hope, and\ncharity_: Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to\nexercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from lothing of\nthem for their every where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion\nto crave the assistance of God\u2019s Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we\nmight be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never\nscorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be,\nbeing to seek in many things, ourselves, it hath pleased God in his Divine\nProvidence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that\ndifficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern\nsalvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are\nplain,) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better\nbeseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty\nwith St. _Augustine_, [Sidenote: _St. August. lib. 8. De Gen. ad liter.\ncap. 5._] (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same\nground,) _Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis_: It\nis better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive\nabout those things that are uncertain. [Sidenote: \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.] There be\nmany words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having\nneither brother nor neighbour, as the _Hebrews_ speak,) so that we cannot\nbe holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of\ncertain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c. concerning which the\n_Hebrews_ themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that\nthey may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say\nsomething, than because they were sure of that which they said, [Sidenote:\n_Hier. in Ezek. cap. 3._] as St. _Hierome_ somewhere saith of the\n_Septuagint_. Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the\nReader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that\nperemptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those\nthings that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of\nGod hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be\nno less than presumption. [Sidenote: _St. Aug. 2. De doctr. Christ. c.\n1._] Therefore as St. _Augustine_ saith, that variety of translations is\nprofitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so\ndiversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not\nso clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.\n[Sidenote: _Sixtus 5. Pr\u00e6f. Bibl._] We know that _Sixtus Quintus_\nexpressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition\nshould be put in the margin; (which though it be not altogether the same\nthing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way;) but we think he\nhath not all of his own side his favourers for this conceit. They that are\nwise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of\nreadings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.\n[Sidenote: _Plat. in Paulo secundo._] If they were sure that their high\npriest had all laws shut up in his breast, as _Paul_ the Second bragged,\nand that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the dictators\nof _Rome_ were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his\nword were an oracle, his opinion a decision. [Sidenote: \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b3\u2019 \u1f21 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9.] But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked,\nand have been a great while; they find that he is subject to the same\naffections and infirmities that others be, that his body is subject to\nwounds; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth,\nthey grant and embrace.\n\n[Sidenote: Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of\nphrasing.] Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader,\nthat we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an\nidentity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done,\nbecause they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact\nas they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of\nthat which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing\nin both places, [Sidenote: \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.] (for there be some words that be not\nof the same sense every where,) we were especially careful, and made a\nconscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same\nnotion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the\n_Hebrew_ or _Greek_ word once by _purpose_, never to call it _intent_; if\none where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where _think_, never\n_suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where _joy_, never\n_gladness_, &c. thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of\ncuriosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the\natheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God\nbecome words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may\nbe free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as\ncommodiously? [Sidenote: Abed. _Niceph. Calist. lib. 8. cap. 42. St.\nHieron. in 4 Jon\u00e6. See St. Aug. Epist. 10._] A godly Father in the\nprimitive time shewed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangledness\ncalled \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, though the difference be little or none; and\nanother reporteth, that he was much abused for turning _cucurbita_ (to\nwhich reading the people had been used) into _hedera_. Now if this happen\nin better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard\ncensure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We\nmight also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a\ngreat number of good _English_ words. For as it is written of a certain\ngreat Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that\nwere made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay\nfor blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain\nwords, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of\nlike quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever; we might be taxed\nperadventure with St. _James\u2019s_ words, namely, _To be partial in\nourselves, and judges of evil thoughts_. [Sidenote: \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. \u1f70\u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. _See Euseb._ \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba. _lib. 2. ex Plat._] Add\nhereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to\ntrifling; and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot\nfollow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using\ndivers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature:\nwe, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our\n_English_ versions out of _Hebrew_ and _Greek_, for that copy or store\nthat he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the\nscrupulosity of the Puritanes, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and\nbetake them to other, as when they put _washing_ for _baptism_, and\n_congregation_ instead of _Church_: as also on the other side we have\nshunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their _azymes_, _tunike_,\n_rational_, _holocausts_, _prepuce_, _pasche_, and a number of such like,\nwhereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the\nsense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language\nthereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the\nScripture may speak like itself, as in the language of _Canaan_, that it\nmay be understood even of the very vulgar.\n\nMany other things we might give thee warning of, gentle Reader, if we had\nnot exceeded the measure of a preface already. It remaineth that we\ncommend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to\nbuild further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our\neyes, the vail from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand\nhis word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we\nmay love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end.\n[Sidenote: Gen. 26. 15.] Ye are brought unto fountains of living water\nwhich ye digged not; do not cast earth into them, with the Philistines,\nneither prefer broken pits before them, with the wicked Jews. [Sidenote:\nJer. 2. 13.] Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours. O\nreceive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation. Be\nnot like swine to tread under foot so precious things, neither yet like\ndogs to tear and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour with the\n_Gergesites_, [Sidenote: Matt. 8. 35. Heb. 12. 16.] Depart out of our\ncoasts; neither with _Esau_ sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. If\nlight be come into the world, love not darkness more than light: if food,\nif clothing, be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves. [Sidenote:\n_Nazianz._ \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03b3 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4. \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.] Remember the advice of _Nazianzene_, _It is a\ngrievous thing_ (or dangerous) _to neglect a great fair, and to seek to\nmake markets afterwards_: also the encouragement of St. _Chrysostome_, _It\nis altogether impossible, that he that is sober_ (and watchful) _should at\nany time be neglected_: lastly, the admonition and menancing of St.\n_Augustine_, _They that despise God\u2019s will inviting them shall feel God\u2019s\nwill taking vengeance of them_. [Sidenote: _St. Chrysost. in Epist. ad\nRom. c. 14._] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living\nGod; [Sidenote: _orat. 26. in_ \u1f20\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba. \u1f08\u03bc\u03ae\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ac\u03bc\u03ae\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.] but a\nblessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the\nend, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word\nbefore us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to\nanswer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, O God. [Sidenote: _St.\nAugust, ad artic. sibi falso object. Art. 16._ Heb. 10. 31.] The Lord work\na care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be\nacknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, to whom\nwith the Holy Ghost be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.\n\n\n\n\n(G.)\n\n_THE REVISERS OF A.D. 1568._\n\n\nThe twelve bishops who are mentioned as taking part with Archbishop Parker\nin this revision, are:\n\n William Alley, Bishop of Exeter.\n\n William Barlow, Bishop of Chichester.\n\n Thomas Bentham, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.\n\n Nicholas Bullingham, Bishop of Lincoln.\n\n Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely.\n\n Richard Davies, Bishop of St. Davids (Menevensis).\n\n Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London.\n\n Edmund Guest (or Geste), Bishop of Rochester.\n\n Robert Horne, Bishop of Winchester.\n\n John Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich.\n\n Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester.\n\n Edmund Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough.\n\nThe other church dignitaries who are mentioned are:\n\n Andrew Pearson, Canon of Canterbury.\n\n Andrew Perne, Prebendary of Ely.\n\n Thomas Beacon, Prebendary of Canterbury.\n\n Gabriel Goodman, Dean of Westminster.\n\nAt the end of sixteen of the books are placed initials, which are\nevidently those of the revisers. These, with more or less of certainty,\nhave been identified with names given in the above list.[147] They are as\nfollows, and in the following order:\n\n Deuteronomy W. E. Bishop of Exeter.\n 2 Samuel R. M. Bishop of St. Davids.\n 2 Chronicles E. W. Bishop of Worcester.\n Job A. P. _C_ Andrew Pearson.\n Psalms[148] T. B. Thomas Beacon.\n Proverbs A. P. _C_ Andrew Pearson.\n Canticles A. P. _E_ Andrew Perne.\n Lamentations R. W. Bishop of Winchester.\n Daniel T. C.L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.\n Malachi E. L. Bishop of London.\n Wisdom W. C. Bishop of Chichester.\n 2 Maccabees J. N. Bishop of Norwich.\n Acts R. E. Bishop of Ely.\n Romans R. E. Bishop of Ely.\n 1 Corinthians G. G. Gabriel Goodman.\n\nFrom a list of the revisers, enclosed in a letter from Parker to Cecil,\ndated October 5th, 1568, and now in the State Paper Office, we may further\ngather that the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse were revised by\nBishop Bullingham, the Gospels of Luke and John by Bishop Scambler, and\nthat the portions undertaken by Parker himself were Genesis, Exodus,\nMatthew, Mark, and the Epistles from 2 Corinthians to Hebrews\ninclusive.[149]\n\n\n\n\n(H.)\n\n_THE REVISERS OF 1611._\n\n\nIn the collection of Records appended to the Second Part of Bishop\nBurnet\u2019s _History of the Reformation of the Church of England_, there is\ngiven a list of the Revisers of 1611, copied, as the writer tells us,[150]\nfrom the paper of Bishop Ravis himself, one of the number. The list is\nthus given:[151]\n\n WESTMINSTER (1). Mr. Dean of Westminster, Mr. Dean of Pauls, Mr.\n Doctor Saravia, Mr. Doctor Clark, Mr. Doctor Leifield, Mr. Doctor\n Teigh, Mr. Burleigh, Mr. King, Mr. Tompson, Mr. Beadwell.\n\n CAMBRIDGE (1). Mr. Livelye, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Chatterton, Mr.\n Dillingham, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Spalding, Mr. Burge.\n\n OXFORD (1). Doctor Harding, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Holland, Dr. Kilbye, Mr.\n Smith, Mr. Brett, Mr. Fairclough.\n\n CAMBRIDGE (2). Doctor Dewport, Dr. Branthwait, Dr. Radclife, Mr. Ward\n (Eman.), Mr. Downes, Mr. Boyes, Mr. Warde (Reg.).\n\n OXFORD (2). Mr. Dean of Christchurch, Mr. Dean of Winchester, Mr. Dean\n of Worcester, Mr. Dean of Windsor, Mr. Sairle, Dr. Perne, Dr. Ravens,\n Mr. Haviner.[152]\n\n WESTMINSTER (2). Dean of Chester, Dr. Hutchinson, Dr. Spencer, Mr.\n Fenton, Mr. Rabbet, Mr. Sanderson, Mr. Dakins.\n\nSome difference of opinion has existed in reference to the date of this\ndocument. Its date is determined within comparatively narrow limits by\ninternal evidence.\n\nThe writer, Dr. Ravis, describes himself as Dean of Christ Church; it must\ntherefore have been written _before_ March 19, 1605, when he was\nconsecrated Bishop of Gloucester. He also refers to the Dean of Worcester\n(Dr. Eedes), who died November, 1604, and hence he may be assumed to have\nwritten before that date also. The difficulty is that he describes Dr.\nBarlow, who is known to have taken part in the work, as Dean of Chester,\nand it must therefore have been written _after_ Barlow\u2019s appointment of\nthis office. This appointment, as stated by Cardwell, took place in\nDecember, 1604;[153] but the correctness of that date is open to some\ndoubt.[154]\n\nThe names contained in the above given list have, with some few\nexceptions, been satisfactorily identified; namely, as follows:\n\n\nFIRST WESTMINSTER COMPANY.\n\n Dr. Launcelot Andrews, Dean of Westminster.[155]\n\n Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul\u2019s.[156]\n\n Dr. Adrian de Saravia.\n\n Dr. Richard Clark, Fellow of Christ\u2019s College, Cambridge.\n\n Dr. John Layfield, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.\n\n Dr. Robert Tighe, Vicar of All Hallows, Barking.\n\n [Dr. Francis Burley, Fellow of King James\u2019s College, Chelsea.]\n\n Mr. Geoffry King, Fellow of King\u2019s College, Cambridge.[157]\n\n Mr. Richard Thomson, Clare Hall, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. William Bedwell, Vicar of Tottenham.\n\n\nFIRST CAMBRIDGE COMPANY.\n\n Mr. Edward Lively,[158] Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. John Richardson,[159] Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. Laurence Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. F. Dillingham, Fellow of Christ\u2019s College, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. Thomas Harrison, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. Roger Andrews.[160]\n\n Mr. Robert Spalding,[161] Fellow of St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge.\n\n Mr. Andrew Byng, Fellow of Peter House.\n\n\nFIRST OXFORD COMPANY.\n\n Dr. John Harding, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and President of\n Magdalen.\n\n Dr. John Rainolds, President of Corpus Christi College.\n\n Dr. Thomas Holland,[162] Regius Professor of Divinity.\n\n Dr. Richard Kilbye, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.\n\n Dr. Miles Smith,[163] Brasenose College, Oxford.\n\n Dr. Richard Brett, Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.\n\n Mr. Richard Fairclough, Fellow of New College, Oxford.\n\n\nTHE SECOND CAMBRIDGE COMPANY.\n\n Dr. John Duport, Master of Jesus College.\n\n Dr. William Branthwaite, Master of Caius College.\n\n Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe, Fellow of Trinity College.\n\n Mr. Samuel Ward, Fellow of Emmanuel College.[164]\n\n Mr. Andrew Downes, Regius Professor of Greek.\n\n Mr. John Bois, Fellow of St. John\u2019s, and Rector of Boxworth.\n\n Mr. Ward, Fellow of King\u2019s College.[165]\n\n\nTHE SECOND OXFORD COMPANY.\n\n Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dean of Christ Church.[166]\n\n Dr. George Abbot, Dean of Winchester.[167]\n\n Dr. Richard Eedes, Dean of Worcester.[168]\n\n Dr. Giles Thomson, Dean of Windsor.\n\n Mr. Henry Saville,[169] Warden of Merton and Provost of Eton.\n\n Dr. John Perin, Fellow of St. John\u2019s College.\n\n [Dr. Ralph Ravens, Fellow of St. John\u2019s College.]\n\n Dr. John Harmer, Regius Professor of Greek.\n\nTo these, Wood, who does not mention the names of either Eedes or Ravens,\nin the list given in his _History of the University of Oxford_, adds the\nfollowing two; they were probably appointed to take the places of some\nremoved by death:\n\n Dr. John Aglionby,[170] Principal of Edmunds Hall.\n\n Dr. Leonard Hutten,[171] Canon of Christ Church.\n\n\nTHE SECOND WESTMINSTER COMPANY.\n\n Dr. William Barlow, Dean of Chester.\n\n Dr. Hutchinson. (?)\n\n Dr. John Spenser, Chaplain to King James.[172]\n\n Mr. Roger Fenton, Pembroke Hall, Oxford.\n\n [Mr. Michael Rabbett, Rector of St. Vedast, Foster Lane.]\n\n [Mr. Thomas Sanderson, Rector of All Hallows.]\n\n Mr. William Dakins, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE TO PAGE 117.\n\n\nDEAN STANLEY (_Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, p. 440) states\ngenerally that the Assembly of Divines removed from Henry VII.\u2019s Chapel to\nthe Jerusalem Chamber at the end of September. The exact date is, as\nstated in the text, October 2nd. In the Minutes of the Sessions of the\nAssembly, preserved in Dr. Williams\u2019s Library, there occurs at the close\nof the sixty-fifth session the entry, \u201cAdjourned to the Hierusalem Chamber\non Monday, at ten o\u2019clock,\u201d and the following session, the sixty-sixth, is\ndated Monday, October 2nd. The permission to adjourn to the Jerusalem\nChamber from Henry VII.\u2019s Chapel, \u201con account of the coldness of the said\nchapel,\u201d was granted by Parliament on September 21st, 1643.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n A.\n\n Abbot, Dr. Ezra, 115\n\n \u00c6lfric\u2019s Heptateuch, 12, 13\n\n Aiken, Dr. C. A., 115\n\n Ainsworth, H., his Commentaries, 101\n\n Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne, 11\n\n Alexander, Dr. W. L., 109\n\n Alexandrine Manuscript, 83\n\n Alford, Dean, 104, 107, 110, 112, 125\n\n Alfred, King, 12\n\n Allen, Archdeacon, 107\n\n Andrews, Dr. Launcelot, 41\n\n Anglo-Saxon Gospel, 12\n\n Angus, Dr. Jos., 110, 125\n\n Authorized Version, first suggestion of, 40\n\n ---- ordered by King James, 41\n\n ---- a revision, not a translation, 45\n\n ---- rules followed by the revisers, 42-44\n\n ---- misprints in, 54\n\n ---- obsolete words in, 57-59\n\n ---- imperfect renderings of, 62\n\n ---- preface to, 199\n\n ---- list of its revisors, 237\n\n\n B.\n\n Bancroft, Archbishop, 41, 45\n\n Barrow, Dr. John, 104\n\n Bede, 11\n\n Bensley, Mr. R. N., 111\n\n Bentley, Dr. Richard, his proposals for revised texts of the Greek New\n Testament and of the Vulgate, 100\n\n Beza\u2019s Codex, 83\n\n Beza, Theodore, his edition of the Greek New Testament, 84, 86\n\n Biber, Dr. G. F., 103\n\n Bible, earliest form of, 4\n\n ---- Authorized Version of, 39\n\n ---- Bishops\u2019, 30, 37, 39\n\n ---- Coverdale\u2019s, 18, 36\n\n ---- Douai, 33, 38\n\n ---- Genevan, 26, 37, 39\n\n ---- Great, 21, 36\n\n ---- Matthew\u2019s, 20\n\n ---- Purvey\u2019s, 15, 36\n\n ---- Taverner\u2019s, 22\n\n ---- Wycliffe\u2019s, 13, 14, 35\n\n Bickersteth, Dean, 107, 110, 125\n\n Bilson, Bishop, 49\n\n Birrell, Rev. J., 111\n\n Bishops\u2019 Bible, 30, 37, 39\n\n Bishops\u2019 Bible, preface thereto, 177\n\n ---- translators of, 235\n\n Blakesley, Dean, 106_n_, 107, 110, 125\n\n Bodley, John, bears the expenses of the Genevan Bible, 30_n_\n\n Bois, John, 46, 49\n\n Broughton, Hugh, 92\n\n Brown, Dr. David, 112, 125\n\n Browne, Dr. E. H. (Bishop of Winchester), 106_n_, 107, 109\n\n\n C.\n\n Chambers, Dr. T. W., 115\n\n Chance, Dr. F., 111\n\n Chenery, Professor, 109\n\n Cheyne, Rev. T. K., 111\n\n Claromontane Manuscript, 83\n\n Clergymen, Five, their revision of the Gospel of John, 104\n\n Collation of Manuscripts, 82\n\n Complutensian Polyglot, 84\n\n Conant, Dr. T. J., 114\n\n Coverdale, first edition of his Bible, 18\n\n ---- his Prologue thereto, 160\n\n ---- prepares the Great Bible, 21\n\n ---- issues a second and other editions of the Great Bible, 23\n\n ---- a refugee at Geneva, 27\n\n Cranmer, his opinion of Matthew\u2019s Bible, 20_n_\n\n ---- his Prologue to the second edition of the Great Bible, 23\n\n Cromwell, Thomas, patron of Coverdale, 18\n\n ---- promotes the preparation of the Great Bible, 23\n\n Crooks, Dr. G. R., 115, 116\n\n\n D.\n\n Davidson, Dr. A. B., 109\n\n Davies, Dr. B., 109\n\n Day, Dr. G. E., 114\n\n De Witt, Dr. J., 114\n\n Dort, Synod of, 44, 49\n\n Douglas, Dr. G., 111\n\n Downes, A., 49\n\n Driver, Mr. S. R., 111\n\n\n E.\n\n Eadie, Dr. J., 110, 112\n\n Ellicott, Bishop, 104, 105, 110, 125\n\n Elliott, Rev. C. J., 112\n\n Ephraem Codex, 83\n\n Erasmus, his editions of the Greek New Testament, 85\n\n\n F.\n\n Fairbairn, Dr. P., 109\n\n Field, Dr. F., 109\n\n\n G.\n\n Geddes, Dr. A., his projected translation of the Bible, 98\n\n Geden, Professor, 112\n\n Gell, R., his essay upon the amendment of the Authorized Version, 93\n\n Genevan Bible, 26-30, 37\n\n ---- popularity of, 32, 52\n\n ---- preface to, 172\n\n Genevan Psalter, 27\n\n Genevan New Testament, 28, 29\n\n Ginsburg, Dr., 109\n\n Gotch, Dr. F. W., 109\n\n Green, Dr. W. H., 114\n\n Gutenberg Bible, 17_n_\n\n Guthlac of Croyland, 11, 12\n\n\n H.\n\n Hackett, Dr. H. B., 115, 116\n\n Hadley, Dr. J., 115, 116\n\n Hampton Court Conference, 40\n\n Harding, Dr. J., 41\n\n Hare, Dr. G. E., 114\n\n Harrison, Archdeacon, 109\n\n Harwood, E., his translation of the New Testament, 97_n_\n\n Hereford, Nicholas de, 14\n\n Hervey, Bishop, 107\n\n Heywood, James, his motion in the House of Commons for a new revision,\n 103\n\n Hodge, Dr. C., 115, 116\n\n Holbein, his design for title-page of Great Bible, 22_n_\n\n Hort, Dr. F. J. A., 110, 120, 125\n\n Humphry, Prebendary, 104, 110, 125\n\n\n I.\n\n Itala, The, 9\n\n\n J.\n\n Jebb, Dr. J., 106_n_, 107, 109\n\n Jerome, revises the old Latin version, 9\n\n ---- translates Old Testament, 9\n\n Jerusalem Chamber, 117, 127, 242\n\n Jessey, Henry, his attempted revision of Authorized Version, 95\n\n Johnson, Anthony, his Historical Account, 27_n_\n\n\n K.\n\n Kay, Dr. W., 106_n_, 107, 109\n\n Kendrick, Dr. A. C., 115\n\n Kennedy, Canon, 110, 125\n\n Kennicott, Dr. B., 100\n\n Kilbie, Dr. R., 47\n\n Krauth, Dr. C. P., 115\n\n\n L.\n\n Latin Versions, 8, 9\n\n Lawrence, T., his notes of errors in the Bishops\u2019 Bible, 32\n\n Leathes, Dr. S., 109\n\n Lee, Archdeacon, 110, 125\n\n Lee, Dr. A., 115\n\n Lewis, Dr. T., 115\n\n Lewis, John, his History of the English Bible, 41, 49_n_\n\n Lightfoot, Dr. J., urges upon Parliament the revision of the English\n Bible, 92\n\n Lightfoot, Dr. J. B. (Bishop of Durham), 101, 110, 125\n\n Lindisfarne Gospels, 12_n_\n\n Lively, Ed., 41\n\n Lumby, Rev. J. R., 112\n\n Lyra, Nicholas de, 17\n\n\n M.\n\n Mace, W., his Greek and English New Testament, 96\n\n Marsh, Bishop, on the Authorized Version, 102\n\n Manuscripts of the New Testament, 80\n\n Mazarin Bible, 17_n_\n\n McGill, Professor, 109\n\n Mead, Dr. C. M., 115\n\n Merivale, Dean, 112, 125\n\n Mill, Dr. J., 99\n\n Milligan, Dr. W., 110, 125\n\n Moberly, Bishop, 104, 110, 125\n\n Moulton, Dr. W. F., 111, 125\n\n M\u00fcnster, Sebastian, 22, 31\n\n\n N.\n\n Newcome, Archbishop, his revised New Testament, 98\n\n Newth, Dr., 111, 125\n\n\n O.\n\n Ollivant, Bishop, 105, 106_n_, 107, 109\n\n Ormulum, The, 13\n\n Osgood, Dr. H., 115\n\n\n P.\n\n Packard, Dr. J., 115\n\n Pagninus, his Latin translation, 19, 31_n_\n\n Palmer, Archdeacon, 112, 125\n\n Parker, Archbishop, superintends the preparation of the Bishops\u2019 Bible,\n 30-32\n\n ---- his letter to Cecil, 30_n_\n\n Payne Smith, Dean, 110\n\n Penn, Grenville, his revised text and translation of New Testament, 99\n\n Perowne, Dean, 110\n\n Plumptre, Dr. E. H., 110\n\n Printed Bible, the first, 17\n\n Printing, invention of, 17\n\n Psalter, Genevan, 27\n\n ---- Guthlac\u2019s, 11_n_\n\n ---- Prayer Book, 9_n_, 39\n\n ---- Rolle\u2019s, 13\n\n ---- Schorham\u2019s, 13\n\n Purver, A., his translation of the Bible, 97\n\n Purvey, John, Wycliffe\u2019s friend and fellow-labourer, 15\n\n\n Q.\n\n Quotations in early Christian Writings, 87-89\n\n\n R.\n\n Rainolds, Dr. J., moves for a new revision, 40\n\n Rainolds, Dr. J., appointed one of King James\u2019s revisers, 47\n\n ---- works at the revision on his death-bed, 47\n\n Revisers, the American, 114, 116\n\n ---- of 1568, 235\n\n ---- of 1611, 237\n\n ---- of 1881, 109-112\n\n Riddle, Dr. M. B., 115\n\n Roberts, Dr. A., 111\n\n Rogers, John, the probable editor of Matthew\u2019s Bible, 20\n\n Rolle, Richard, 13\n\n Rose, Archdeacon, 106_n_, 107, 110\n\n Rossi, J. B. de, 100\n\n\n S.\n\n Sayce, Rev. A. H., 112\n\n Schaff, Dr. Philip, 114, 115\n\n Scholefield, Professor, on an improved translation of the New Testament,\n 102\n\n Schorham, W. de, 13\n\n Scott, Dean, 111, 125\n\n Scribes, primary function of, 3\n\n Scrivener, Dr. F. H., 56, 100, 111, 120, 125\n\n Selwyn, Canon, 103, 107, 110\n\n Septuagint Version, 6\n\n Short, Dr. C., 115\n\n Sinaitic Manuscript, 82\n\n Smith, Dr. G. Vance, 111, 125\n\n Smith, Dr. H. B., 115, 116\n\n Smith, Dr. J. Pye, his testimony in favour of revision, 101\n\n Smith, Dr. Miles, 47, 49\n\n Smith, Professor, W. R., 112\n\n Stanley, Dean, 107, 111, 125\n\n Stephen, Robert, his editions of the Greek New Testament, 85\n\n Stephen, Henry, 86_n_\n\n Stowe, Dr. C. E., 115\n\n Strong, Dr. J., 115\n\n Syriac Version, 8, 87\n\n\n T.\n\n Taverner, John, 22_n_\n\n Taverner, Richard, 22\n\n Testament, New, Genevan, 28\n\n ---- Rheims, 33\n\n ---- Tyndale\u2019s, 18\n\n ---- Whittingham\u2019s, 25\n\n ---- See \u201cBible\u201d\n\n Thayer, Dr. J. H., 115\n\n Thirlwall, Bishop, 105, 106, 110\n\n Tischendorf, Dr. C., 100\n\n Transcription, errors of, 3\n\n Tregelles, Dr. S. P., 100, 109_n_\n\n Trench, Archbishop, 111, 125\n\n Tyndale, W., his translations, 18\n\n ---- his Prologue to New Testament, 137\n\n ---- his Epistle to the Reader, 152\n\n ---- his Preface to the Pentateuch, 154\n\n\n U.\n\n Ussher, A., his revised version, 94_n_\n\n\n V.\n\n Vatican Manuscript, 83\n\n Van Dyke, Dr. C. V. A., 115\n\n Vaughan, Dean, 111, 125\n\n Version, \u00c6thiopic, 87\n\n ---- Armenian, 87\n\n ---- Gothic, 87\n\n ---- Italic, 8\n\n ---- Memphitic, 87\n\n ---- Old Latin, 8\n\n ---- Septuagint, 6\n\n ---- Syriac, 8\n\n ---- Thebaic, 87\n\n Vulgate, 9\n\n\n W.\n\n Wakefield, G., his translation of the New Testament, 98\n\n Walker, Anthony, his Life of Bois, 46_n_, 49_n_\n\n Walton\u2019s Polyglot, 99\n\n Ward, Dr. S., 44_n_\n\n Ward, T., his Errata to the Protestant Bible, 33_n_, 93\n\n Warren, Dr. W. F., 115, 116\n\n Weir, Dr. D. H., 112\n\n Wemyss, T., his Reasons in favour of a new translation, 102\n\n Westcott, Canon, 22_n_, 41_n_, 111, 125\n\n Whittingham\u2019s New Testament, 25\n\n ---- his version and the Genevan compared, 28, 29\n\n Wicked Bible, 54_n_\n\n Wilberforce, Bishop, 105, 106, 111, 125\n\n Woolsey, Dr. T. D., 115\n\n Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher (Bishop of Lincoln), 107, 110\n\n Wordsworth, Dr. Charles (Bishop of St. Andrews), 112, 125\n\n Worsley, J., his translation of the New Testament, 97\n\n Wright, Dr. W., 109_n_, 112\n\n Wright, Mr. W. A., 110, 113\n\n Wycliffe, John, 13, 14\n\n ---- his Bible, 16, 35\n\n ---- preface to his Bible, 129\n\n\n Z.\n\n Zurich Bible, 19\n\n\n_W. Brendon and Son, Plymouth._\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] From the Latin for seventy, this being the supposed number of the\ntranslators. It is referred to as the translation of the Seventy Elders so\nearly as the middle of the second century. See Justin Martyr, _Dialogue\nwith Trypho_, c. 68.\n\n[2] See Philo Jud\u00e6us, _Life of Moses_, book ii. Josephus, _Antiquities_,\nxii. ii. 5, 11, 12, 14. Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 8. Josephus states\nthat the translation was made by seventy-two elders in seventy-two days.\nThe story as given in Eusebius is, that the seventy elders were placed\napart in seventy different cells, that each translated the entire\nScriptures, and that the seventy translations when compared were found to\nagree to a word.\n\n[3] And this he gave, not by any formal enactment, but by using Jerome\u2019s\ntranslation as the basis of his own _Exposition of the Book of Job_. (See\nGregory\u2019s _Letter to Leander_, forming the preface to that work.) The old\nversion of the Psalms retained its ground apparently from its close\nconnection with the music of the Church. From a like cause the old version\nof the English Psalms, which in fact was made from the Latin of the\nVulgate, retains its place in the Psalter of the Prayer Book. It should\nhowever be noted that it is but the translation of the translation of a\ntranslation.\n\n[4] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, A.D. 709.\n\n[5] \u201cI have seen a book at Crowland Abbey, which is kept there for a\nrelic. The book is called _Saint Guthlake\u2019s Psalter_, and I weene verily\nthat it is a copy of the same that the king did translate; for it is\nneither English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, nor Dutch, but something sounding\nto our English; and as I have perceived since the time I was last there,\nbeing at Antwerp, the Saxon tongue doth sound likewise, and it is to ours\npartly agreeable.\u201d The answer of John Lambert to the twenty-sixth of the\nArticles laid against him. (FOXE, _Acts and Monuments_, vol. v. p. 213.)\n\n[6] _The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester_, A.D. 699, and A.D. 714.\n\n[7] Many of the clergy were probably at this time unable to interpret the\nLatin Bibles used in the Church services. Several MSS. exist which have an\nEnglish translation (gloss) inserted between the lines by writers of the\nninth or tenth centuries. One of these, the \u201cLindisfarne Gospels,\u201d now in\nthe British Museum, is a most richly-adorned MS. It was written by one\nbishop of Lindisfarne, and ornamented by another, and was encased in\njewelled covers. Over each Latin word is written its equivalent in English\n(Anglo-Saxon). This, as is explained by a note at the end, was done by one\n\u201cAldred, the priest,\u201d and, as his handwriting shows, in the tenth century.\nIt cannot be supposed that this was done for the benefit of ordinary\nreaders. So valued a MS. would not be likely to come into any other hands\nthan those of the clergy or the monks.\n\n[8] There is no direct evidence for the existence at an earlier date of\nany translation of the entire Scriptures into any form of English. In an\ninteresting tract (commonly assigned to the earlier part of the fifteenth\ncentury, and printed by Foxe in the first edition of his _Acts and\nMonuments_, 1563), entitled, \u201cA Compendious Old Treatise, showing how that\nwe ought to have the Scripture in English.\u201d It is stated, \u201cAlso a man of\nLondon, whose name was Wyring, had a Bible in English, of northern speech,\nwhich was seen of many men, and it seemed to be two hundred years old.\u201d\n(FOXE, _Acts and Monuments_, vol. iv. p. 674.) It cannot, however, be\ninferred from this statement that the volume referred to was a complete\nBible.\n\n[9] See Appendix A.\n\n[10] As many as one hundred and fifty manuscripts, containing the whole or\nparts of Purvey\u2019s Bible, are still in existence, and the majority of these\nwere written within forty years from the time of its completion.--FORSHALL\nand MADDEN, _Wycliffite Versions of the Holy Bible_, Preface, p. xxxiii.\n\n[11] No portion of the Wycliffe Bible was printed until 1731, when the New\nTestament, in the later of its forms, was published by the Rev. John\nLewis, of Margate. This was reprinted in 1810, under the editorship of the\nRev. Henry Baber. The complete Bible was not printed till so recently as\n1850, in the splendid volumes issued from the University press of Oxford,\nand edited by the Rev. J. Forshall and Rev. F. Madden.\n\n[12] The first work known to have been printed with moveable metal type is\nthe Latin Bible, issued from the press of John Gutenberg at Maintz,\n1450-55. This Bible is sometimes referred to as the Mazarin Bible, from\nthe accidental circumstance that a copy of it was found about the middle\nof last century in Cardinal Mazarin\u2019s library at Paris. (HALLAM,\n_Literature of Europe_, vol. i. p. 210.) With more propriety it may be\ncalled the Gutenberg Bible.\n\n[13] See Appendix C.\n\n[14] Mr. Blunt, in his article \u201cEnglish Bible,\u201d in the _Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBritannica_, maintains that Coverdale translated directly from the Hebrew\nand Greek. But in order to this he has, first, forcibly to set aside the\nstatement on the title-page as \u201cplaced there by mistake,\u201d and then to\nrepresent Coverdale as including the Hebrew and Greek originals in the\nsame category as Latin, German, and English translations, and as\ndescribing them all as \u201cfive interpreters\u201d from which he had translated.\n\n[15] This license seems to have been obtained from the king by Cromwell at\nCranmer\u2019s suggestion. (See Cranmer\u2019s Letter to Cromwell, August 4th, 1537.\n_Remains and Letters_, p. 344. Parker Society.) In this letter Cranmer\nthus expresses his opinion of the book: \u201cAnd as for the translation, as\nfar as I have read thereof I like it better than any other translation\nheretofore made; yet not doubting but that there may be and will be found\nsome fault therein, as you know no man ever did or can do so well, but it\nmay be from time to time amended. And forasmuch as the book is dedicated\nunto the king\u2019s grace, and also great pains and labour taken in setting\nforth of the same: I pray you, my lord, that you will exhibit the book\nunto the king\u2019s highness, and to obtain of his grace, if you can, a\nlicense that the same may be sold and read of every person, without danger\nof any act, proclamation, or ordinance, heretofore granted to the\ncontrary, until such time as we bishops shall set forth a better\ntranslation, which I think will not be till a day after doomsday.\u201d\n\n[16] The full title is, \u201cThe Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the\ncontent of all the holy scrypture, bothe of the olde and newe testament,\ntruly translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes by y{e}\ndylygent studye of dyuerse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde\ntongues. Prynted by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch. Cum privilegio\nad imprimendum solum. 1539.\u201d\n\n[17] This was more than compensated by the remarkable and interesting\nengraving, said to be designed by Hans Holbein, which formed the\ntitle-page. Herein the king is flattered to his heart\u2019s content. On the\ntop of the engraving the king on his knees and uncrowned is addressed by\nour Lord in the words, \u201cI have found a man after mine own heart, who shall\nfulfil all my will.\u201d Below this the king on his throne distributes books\nlabelled \u201c_Verbum Dei_,\u201d the Word of God, to the clergy with his right\nhand, to Cromwell and others with the left. Lower down on the right of the\npage is the figure of Cromwell distributing the books to the laity, and on\nthe left that of Cranmer distributing it to the clergy. At the bottom of\nthe page is a crowd of people of all sorts and conditions, some crying out\nin Latin, \u201c_Vivat Rex_\u201d others in English, \u201cGod save the king.\u201d\n\n[18] With the title, \u201cThe Most Sacred Bible, which is the Holy Scripture,\nconteyning the old & new testament translated into English, & newly\nrecognised with great diligence after most faythful exemplars, by Rychard\nTaverner. Harken thou heuen, & thou earth gyve eare: for the Lorde\nspeaketh. Esaie i. Printed at London in Fletestrete at the sygne of the\nsonne by John Byddell, for Thomas Barthlet. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum\nsolum M.D. XXXIX.\u201d\n\n[19] In Fox, _Acts and Monuments_, v. 428, amongst the names of \u201cgodly\nbrethren at Oxford\u201d suspected of heresy, and compelled to do public\npenance, mention is made of \u201cTaverner the musician,\u201d of \u201cFriswide College\u201d\n(Frideswede, now Christ Church); and again, v. 423, Anthony Dalaber says,\n\u201cI stode at the quier door and heard Master Taverner play.\u201d Dr. EADIE,\n_The English Bible_, i. 343, assumes that the reference in this last\npassage is to Richard Taverner; but far more probably the reference is to\nJohn Taverner, who, according to WOOD, _Athen\u00e6 Oxoniensis_, i. 124, was\n\u201csometime organist of Cardinal College.\u201d I find no other foundation than\nthese doubtful passages for the statement made by WESTCOTT, _History of\nthe English Bible_, ed. 2, p. 85, and by EADIE, _loc. cit._, that Richard\nTaverner was one of those who suffered persecution upon the first\ncirculation of Tyndale\u2019s New Testament.\n\n[20] See COTTON, _Editions of the English Bible_, p. 21.\n\n[21] From this circumstance the Great Bible is often, but improperly,\ncalled Cranmer\u2019s Bible. \u201cThe Prologue or Preface made by Thomas Cranmer\nsometime Archbishop of Canterbury,\u201d is prefixed to many Bibles, to some\neditions of the Genevan, and to the Bishops.\n\n[22] The dates of these editions, as given in the colophons, are, July,\n1540; November, 1540 (1541 on title-page); May, 1541; November, 1541;\nDecember, 1541.\n\n[23] He married Catherine, sister of John Calvin. An interesting account\nof \u201cThe Life and Death of Mr. William Whittingham, Deane of Durham, who\ndeparted this life A.D. 1579, June 10,\u201d found amongst the papers of\nAnthony \u00e0 Wood, preserved in the Bodleian Library, is given by DR.\nLORIMER, _John Knox and the Church of England_, pp. 303-317.\n\n[24] The dedication to the queen, prefixed to this volume, is dated\nGeneva, February 10th, 1559. After exhorting the queen to persevere in the\nreformation of religion, the writers state that \u201calbeit they had begun\nmore than a year ago to peruse the _English_ Translation of the Bible, and\nto bring it to the pure simplicity and true meaning of the Spirit of God,\nyet when they heard that Almighty God had miraculously preserved her to\nthat most excellent dignity, with most joyful minds and great diligence\nthey endeavoured themselves to set forth this most excellent Book of the\nPsalms unto her Grace as a special token of their service and goodwill\ntill the rest of the Bible, which was in good readiness, should be\naccomplished and presented.\u201d (ANTHONY JOHNSON, _Historical Account of the\nSeveral English Translations of the Bible_. Reprinted in WATSON\u2019S\n_Collection of Theological Tracts_, vol. iii. p. 87.)\n\n[25]\n\n _verse._ 1557. 1560.\n 1. out of the way apart\n 3. they saw there appeared unto them\n 4. here is good beying for us it is good for us to be here\n 5. that cloude the cloude\n my deare sonne my beloved sonne\n in whom I delyte in whom I am well pleased\n 6. were afrayed were sore afrayde\n 7. But Jesus Then Jesus\n 8. loked up lifted up their eyes\n 9. See that ye shewe Shewe\n be risen rise\n death the dead\n 11. Jesus And Jesus\n 12. lusted would\n In like wise likewise\n 14. people multitude\n 15. mercie pitie\n oft ofttimes\n 17. Jesus Then Jesus\n how long (_bis_). how long now (_bis_)\n 18. came out went out\n even that same at that\n 19. secrectly apart\n 20. Jesus And Jesus\n if ye had if ye have\n ye should ye shall\n it should it shall\n neither could anything and nothing shall\n for you to do unto you\n 22. As they And as they\n passed the time abode\n betraied delivered\n 23. and the thyrd but the third\n sorowed greatly were verie sorie\n 24. were wont to gather received\n 25. spake first to him prevented\n 27. thyne angle an angle\n the fyshe that first the first fish that\n pay give it unto them\n\n[26] Strype also tells us that the expenses of publication were borne\nchiefly by John Bodley, father of Sir Thomas Bodley, the founder of the\nBodleian Library at Oxford.--_Life of Parker_, p. 206.\n\n[27] It is very pleasant to read that, notwithstanding this, Parker joined\nwith Grindal, Bishop of London, in pleading for an extension of the patent\ngranted to Bodley, in order to enable him to publish the new edition of\nthe Genevan referred to above. Writing, March 9th, 1565, to Cecil, the\nQueen\u2019s Secretary, the Archbishop and Bishop say, \u201cThat they thought so\nwell of the first Impression, and the Review of those who had since\ntravelled therein, that they wisht it would please him to be a Means, that\nTwelve Years longer Term might be by Special Privilege granted him, in\nconsideration of the Charges by him and his Associates in the first\nImpression, and the Review sithence sustained. And that tho\u2019 one other\nspecial Bible for the Churches were meant by them to be set forth, as\nconvenient Time and Leisure hereafter should permit, yet should it nothing\nhinder, but rather do much good, to have Diversity of Translations and\nReadings.\u201d--STRYPE, _Life of Parker_, p. 207, Folio Edition.\n\n[28] See Appendix G.\n\n[29] Pagninus was a learned Dominican, who published at Lyons, in 1528, a\nnew translation in Latin of the Old and New Testaments.\n\n[30] STRYPE, _Life of Parker_, Appendix, p. 139.\n\n[31] _Ibid_, p. 399.\n\n[32] In an attack made upon Protestant versions of the Scriptures by\nThomas Ward, in the reign of James II., or three-quarters of a century\nafter the publication of the Authorized Version, the writer selects his\nexamples from Genevan Bibles of the years 1562, 1577, and 1579, and speaks\nof this Bible as \u201cwell known in England even to this day, as being yet in\nmany men\u2019s hands.\u201d--_Errata to the Protestant Bible_, p. 19, ed. 1737.\n\n[33] The Old Testament was not published till long afterwards, when the\nCollege was once more settled at Douai. It is hence called the Douai\nBible. The first volume was published in 1609, and the second in 1610. In\nthe preface it is stated that the translation was made \u201cabout thirtie\nyeares since.\u201d\n\n[34] Amongst the former are advent, allegory, anathema, assumption,\ncalumniate, co-operate, evangelize, eunuch, gratis, holocaust, neophyte,\nparaclete, pentecost, victim. Amongst the latter are agnition, azymes,\ncommessation, condigne, contristate, depositum, donaries, exinanited,\nparasceue, pasche, prefinition, loaves of proposition, repropitiate,\nsuperedified.\n\n[35] Compare the word \u201cleasowes,\u201d still used in some parts of the country\nfor \u201cmeadows.\u201d\n\n[36] \u201cOf all the English versions, the Bishops\u2019 Bible had probably the\nleast success. It did not command the respect of scholars, and its size\nand cost were far from meeting the wants of the people. Its circulation\nappears to have been practically limited to the churches which were\nordered to be supplied with it.\u201d--Dr. PLUMPTRE, _Dictionary of the Bible_,\nvol. iii. p. 1,675.\n\n[37] His name is variously spelt Rainolds, Rainoldes, Reinolds, Reynolds.\n\n[38] See Dr. WILLIAM BARLOW\u2019S _Sum and Substance of the Conference which\nit pleased his Excellent Majesty to have with the Lords Bishops, and\nothers of his Clergy, in his Majesty\u2019s Privy Chamber at Hampton Court,\nJan. 1603_ (o.s.). Reprinted in _The Phenix: or a Revival of Scarce and\nValuable Pieces_, p. 157. Lond. 1707.\n\n[39] Rendered in the Bishops\u2019 and the Great Bible, \u201cand bordereth upon the\ncity which is now called Jerusalem,\u201d instead of, \u201cand answered to\nJerusalem which now is.\u201d\n\n[40] Rendered in the Great Bible and Prayer Book Psalter, \u201cthey were not\nobedient,\u201d instead of, \u201cthey were not disobedient,\u201d as in Genevan, or\n\u201cthey rebelled not,\u201d as in our present Bibles.\n\n[41] Rendered in the Great Bible and Prayer Book Psalter, \u201cand prayed,\u201d\ninstead of, \u201cand executed judgment.\u201d\n\n[42] See LEWIS, _History of the English Translations of the Bible_, p.\n313; or EADIE, _The English Bible_, vol. ii. p. 180; or WESTCOTT, _History\nof the English Bible_, p. 113. The king\u2019s letter is given in full by\nCARDWELL, _Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England_, vol. ii.\np. 65, ed. 1839.\n\n[43] For the names of the Revisers of 1611 see Appendix H.\n\n[44] That is, the Great Bible; called Whitchurch\u2019s, from the name of one\nof the printers.\n\n[45] BURNET, _History of the Reformation_, part ii., Appendix, p. 368, ed.\n1681.\n\n[46] One of whom, Dr. Samuel Ward, had himself taken part in the English\nrevision.\n\n[47] Tables of Genealogies and a description of the Holy Land are found\nprefixed to many early editions of King James\u2019s Bible.\n\n[48] _Acta Synodi Dordrechti habit\u00e6_, p. 19, ed. 1620.\n\n[49] CARDWELL, _Documentary Annals_, vol. ii. p. 68, ed. 1839.\n\n[50] See Appendix F.\n\n[51] For a list of the Revisers see Appendix H.\n\n[52] In some cases, however, this further subdivision of work seems to\nhave taken place. Anthony Walker, in his _Life of John Bois_, p. 47\n(reprinted in PECK\u2019S _Desiderata Curiosa_), says: \u201cSure I am that Part of\nthe Apocrypha was allotted to him (for he hath showed me the very copy he\ntranslated by), but to my Grief I know not what part.\u201d Bois was a member\nof the company to which the Apocrypha was assigned. Walker goes on to say,\n\u201cAll the time he was about his own Part, his Commons were given to him at\nSt. Johns, where he abode all the week till Saturday night; and then he\nwent home to discharge his Cure, returning thence on Monday morning. When\nhe had finished his own part, at the earnest request of him to whom it was\nassigned he undertook a Second, and then he was to common in another\nCollege. But I forbear to name both the person and the House.\u201d\n\n[53] The bare fact that the Oxford Revisers met in Rainolds\u2019 lodgings is\nmentioned by WOOD, _Historia Univ. Oxon._, vol. i. p. 311, and is referred\nto by STOUGHTON, _Our English Bible_, p. 248.\n\n[54] FULLER\u2019S _Abel Redivivus_, p. 487. In his _Church History_, book x.\np. 48, Fuller says of Rainolds that he was a man deserving of the epitaph.\n\u201cIncertum est utrum Doctior an Melior.\u201d \u201cWe know not which was the\ngreater, his learning or his goodness.\u201d\n\n[55] PECK, _Desiderata Curiosa_, p. 47.\n\n[56] It is clear, from the words which immediately follow, that the writer\nuses the word \u201ccompany\u201d here for the entire number of translators\nbelonging to any one of the three centres. In the written account\npresented to the Synod of Dort by the English delegates, it is said that\n_twelve_ persons, selected out of the companies, met together, and\nreviewed and corrected the entire work. Wood also (_Athen\u00e6 Oxon._, vol. i.\np. 490) gives twelve as the number of the \u201cselected,\u201d and amongst them\nincludes Bilson and Miles Smith.\n\n[57] The writer quaintly remarks in a parenthesis, \u201cThough Mr. Downes\nwould not go till he was either fetcht or threatened with the Pursuivant.\u201d\n\n[58] Lewis (_History of the English Translations of the Bible_, p. 323) by\na strange blunder turns these shillings into pounds.\n\n[59] Walker adds, \u201cWhilst they were employed in this last business, he and\nhe only took notes of their proceedings, which notes he kept till his\ndying day.\u201d If these notes could be recovered they would throw much light\nupon many points of interest in connection with the Revision of 1611.\n\n[60] FULLER, _Church History_, book x. p. 57.\n\n[61] See Mr. HENRY STEVENS, _Printed Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition_, p.\n110. But if Mr. Stevens be right in this contention, the publisher can\nscarcely be held free from the charge of false suggestion, since the\nphrase occurs in earlier Bibles in the sense which it most naturally\nbears. In the edition of the Great Bible dated April, 1540, we have on the\ntitle-page: \u201cThis is the Byble apoynted to the use of the churches,\u201d and\nthe meaning of this is shown by the fuller form that appears in the\ntitle-page of the edition of November, 1540, \u201cauctorysed and apoynted by\nthe commaundement of oure moost redoubted Prynce and soveraygne Lorde\nKynge Henrye the VIII. ... to be frequented and used in every churche\nwithin this his sayd realme.\u201d An edition of the Bishops\u2019 Bible dated 1585\nhas the inscription, \u201cAuthorized and appointed to be read in Churches;\u201d\nand King Charles II.\u2019s _Declaration to all His Loving Subjects_, is\n\u201cAppointed to to be Read in all Churches and Chapels within this kingdom.\u201d\n\n[62] The latest quarto edition of the Genevan published in England bears\nthe date 1615, the latest folio, 1616.\n\n[63] This edition has hence been described by Bible collectors as the\n\u201cWicked Bible.\u201d The error was of course speedily discovered and the\nedition suppressed. Archbishop Laud fined the printer in the sum of \u00a3300,\nand with this he is said to have bought a fount of Greek type for the\nUniversity of Oxford.\n\n[64] In the reign of Charles II. a silly report was set afloat that Field,\nthe printer of what is known as the Pearl Bible of 1653, had received a\npresent of \u00a31,500 from the Independents to introduce this corruption into\nthe text. See D\u2019ISRAELI\u2019S _Curiosities of Literature_, Art. Pearl Bible.\nMr. D\u2019Israeli must have been ignorant of the fact that this error occurs\nin Bibles printed fifteen years earlier than the Pearl Bible, and by the\nUniversity Press, Cambridge.\n\n[65] This may possibly have been a change deliberately made by the editor,\nwho either had a different Greek text or followed the Vulgate; but even in\nthat case it would be a very awkward way of rendering the text before him.\n\n[66] This he has done, professedly, in the attempt to represent the\nversion of 1611, \u201cso far as may be, in the precise shape that it would\nhave assumed if its venerable translators had shown themselves more exempt\nthan they were from the failings incident to human infirmity; or if the\nsame severe accuracy which is now demanded in carrying so important a\nvolume through the press had been deemed requisite, or was at all usual in\ntheir age.\u201d--Introduction to Cambridge Paragraph Bible, p. i.\n\n[67] The LXX. and Vulgate are here right; so also Wycliffe, who,\ntranslating from the Latin, renders, \u201cSeven trompes, whos vse is in the\niubile.\u201d\n\n[68] Wycliffe, \u201cStronge men seseden in Yrael.\u201d\n\n[69] Here again the LXX., Vulgate, and Wycliffe are right. Wycliffe\nrenders, \u201cof whom shulen be alle the best thingis of Yrael.\u201d\n\n[70] The LXX., Vulgate, Wycliffe, the Great Bible, the Genevan, and the\nBishops\u2019, all give the true sense.\n\n[71] In their rendering of verse 3 the Revisers of 1611 have followed the\nGenevan. Of the older versions, the Great Bible best renders this verse,\n\u201cAll my delyte is upon the saynctes that are in the earth, and upon suche\nas excell in vertue.\u201d\n\n[72] The Vulgate leads the way in this error.\n\n[73] Tyndale, the Great Bible, and the Genevan render correctly.\n\n[74] So the Rheims, \u201cWhy do you also trangresse the commaundement of God\nfor your tradition?\u201d\n\n[75] So Wycliffe, \u201cfor they ben feithful and loued, the whiche ben\nparceners of benefice;\u201d and the Rheims, \u201cbecause they be faithful and\nbeloued which are partakers of the benefite.\u201d\n\n[76] Here all the older versions go wrong.\n\n[77] The first four books of the _Annals of Tacitus_ are found only in a\nsingle MS. (the Medicean) of the eleventh century. The nine books of the\n_Letters of Pliny the Younger_ are found complete in one MS. only, of the\ntenth century; this also is in the Medicean Library.\n\n[78] From the Latin _uncia_, an inch.\n\n[79] In some MSS. called _palimpsests_, the more ancient, and to us the\nmore valuable, writing has been partially washed away, in order that the\nvellum might be used again for some more recent work. In these cases it is\nexceedingly difficult to decipher, beneath the later and darker writing,\nthe traces of the older writing; indeed, not unfrequently the characters\nare so faded that they cannot be read at all until revived by some\nchemical preparation. The Ephraem Codex is a MS. of this kind.\n\n[80] Commonly referred to under the symbol \u05d0, the Hebrew letter, _Aleph_.\n\n[81] Referred to as B.\n\n[82] Referred to as A.\n\n[83] Referred to as C.\n\n[84] Referred to as D of the Gospels.\n\n[85] Referred to as D of the Epistles.\n\n[86] The License for its publication was not granted until March 20, 1520.\n\n[87] Namely, his sole authority for the Apocalypse.\n\n[88] He had previously published two smaller editions (16mo), one in 1546,\nand another in 1549.\n\n[89] Now called the Codex Regius, and denoted by L.\n\n[90] The collation of the eight Parisian MSS. was done for him by his son\nHenry, then a youth of eighteen.\n\n[91] At Geneva, whither he had deemed it prudent to remove shortly after\nthe publication of his celebrated edition of the Greek New Testament.\n\n[92] _Works_, vol. vi. p. 194.\n\n[93] The draft of this Bill is preserved in the State Paper Office\n(_Domestic Interreg._, Bundle 662, f. 12), and is given in full by Dr.\nSTOUGHTON, _Church of the Commonwealth_, p. 543.\n\n[94] _Errata to the Protestant Bible_, Pref. p. 3., ed. 1737.\n\n[95] In the library of Trinity College, Dublin, there is a manuscript in\nthree volumes of an English version of the Bible, by Ambrose Ussher,\nbrother of Archbishop Ussher. The date assigned to it is about 1620. It\ndoes not, however, seem to be in any proper sense a revision of the\nversion of 1611, but rather an independent revision based upon the earlier\nversions. In an \u201cepistle dedicatorie\u201d to James I. the writer describes\nhimself as having \u201cleisurelie and seasonablie dressed\u201d and \u201cserved out\nthis other dish\u201d while His Majesty was \u201ca doing on\u201d the \u201cseasonable sudden\nmeale\u201d which the translators had hastily prepared. He further states that\nhe did not oppose \u201cto our new translation old interpretationes alreadie\nwaighed and reiected,\u201d but \u201cfresh and new that yeeld new consideration and\nthat fight not onlie with our English Bible, but likelie with all\ntranslated bibles in what language soeuer and contrarieth them.\u201d As far as\ncan be gathered from the examination of a single chapter, the work seems\nchiefly based upon the Genevan. The version is incomplete. Vol. i.\ncontains Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua\n(imperfect), Judges, Ruth, Samuel; vol. ii. contains Kings, Chronicles,\nEzra, Nehemiah (imperfect), Esther, and a Latin version of part of Joshua;\nvol. iii. contains Job, Psalms (partly in Latin), Proverbs, Song of\nSolomon, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel\n(partly in Latin), the Minor Prophets, the first chapter of St. John\u2019s\nGospel, Romans, Corinthians, Philemon, James, Peter, John, Apocalypse\n(partly in Latin), Jude.--Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts,\n_Fourth Report_, pp. 589-598.\n\n[96] _The Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey_, p. 47.\n\n[97] Mace\u2019s rendering of James iii. 5, 6 is the passage most frequently\nquoted in illustration of his style. \u201cSo the tongue is but a small part of\nthe body, yet how grand are its pretensions, a spark of fire! what\nquantities of timber will it blow into a flame? the tongue is a brand that\nsets the world in a combustion, it is but one of the numerous organs of\nthe body, yet it can blast whole assemblies: tipped with infernal sulphur\nit sets the whole train of life in a blaze.\u201d It is but right, however, to\nstate that this is perhaps the very worst passage in the book. The\nfollowing verses are a fair specimen of his ordinary style. Acts xix. 8,\n9: \u201cAt length Paul went to the synagogue, where he spoke with great\nfreedom, and for three months he conferred with them to persuade them of\nthe truth of the evangelical kingdom, but some of them being such obdurate\ninfidels as to inveigh against the institution before the populace, he\nretired, and taking the disciples with him, he instructed them daily in\nthe school of one Tyrannus.\u201d\n\nA yet more offensive specimen of this style of translation was supplied by\nthe New Testament published in 1768, by E. Harwood, and entitled, _A\nliteral translation of the New Testament, being an attempt to translate\nthe Sacred Writings with the same Freedom, Spirit, and Elegance with which\nother English Translations from the Greek Classics have lately been\nexecuted_; a work which, however faithfully it may represent the inflated\nand stilted style which then prevailed, can now be read only with\nastonishment and disgust.\n\n[98] Worsley died before the publication of the volume. It was edited by\nM. Bradshaw and S. Worsley.\n\n[99] In 3 vols., 8vo. A second edition in 2 vols., 8vo., was published in\n1795. _Memoirs of Gilbert Wakefield_, vol. i. p. 355; vol. ii. p. 468.\n\n[100] The work was intended to form eight vols. 4to.\n\n[101] SCRIVENER, _Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, p.\n397.\n\n[102] _Eclectic Review_, January, 1809, p. 31.\n\n[103] _Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible_, p. 297,\ned. 1828. The italics are Dr. Marsh\u2019s own.\n\n[104] The members of this first joint Committee were Dr. Wilberforce, Dr.\nEllicott, Dr. Thirlwall, Dr. Ollivant, Dr. E. H. Browne (Bishop of Ely),\nDr. Chr. Wordsworth (Bishop of Lincoln), and Dr. G. Moberly (Bishop of\nSalisbury); Dr. Bickersteth (the Prolocutor); Deans Alford, Jeremie, and\nStanley; Archdeacons Rose, Freeman, and Grant; Chancellor Massingberd;\nCanons Blakesley, How, Selwyn, Swainson, and Woodgate; Dr. Kay, Dr. Jebb,\nand Mr. De Winton.\n\n[105] The Convocation of York declined to take part in the revision, on\nthe ground that in their judgment the time was unfavourable for such a\nwork.\n\n[106] Canon Selwyn had persistently advocated the claims of revision, and\nhad brought it before the Notice of the Lower House of Convocation so\nearly as March 1st, 1856. Notice of a renewed motion on the question had\nbeen given by him for the meeting of Convocation on February, 1870, and\nwas only withdrawal when superseded by the proposal sent down on February\n11th from the Upper House.\n\n[107] Canon Cook, Dr. J. H. Newman, Canon Pusey, and Dr. W. Wright. Dr.\nWright, however, subsequently joined the Old Testament Company.\n\n[108] Dr. S. P. Tregelles.\n\n[109] Now Bishop of Winchester.\n\n[110] Now Dean of Canterbury.\n\n[111] Now Dean of Peterborough.\n\n[112] Now D.D.\n\n[113] Now Bursar.\n\n[114] Now Dean of Lichfield.\n\n[115] Now Dean of Lincoln.\n\n[116] Now D.D. and Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge.\n\n[117] Now Bishop of Durham.\n\n[118] Now D.D., and Master of the Leys School, Cambridge.\n\n[119] Now D.D., Principal of New College, London, and Lee Professor of\nDivinity.\n\n[120] Now Professor of Humanity, St. Andrews.\n\n[121] Now Dean of Rochester.\n\n[122] Now LL.D.\n\n[123] Now Principal of the Presbyterian College, Carmarthen.\n\n[124] Now also Dean of Llandaff.\n\n[125] Now also Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge.\n\n[126] Now Lady Margaret Preacher, Cambridge.\n\n[127] Now Archdeacon of Oxford.\n\n[128] Corresponding Member.\n\n[129] These have been thus distributed:\n\n Bishop of Gloucester 405\n Dr. Scrivener 399\n Mr. Humphry 385\n Dr. Newth 373\n Dr. Hort 362\n Dean of Lichfield 352\n Dean of Rochester 337\n Canon Westcott 304\n Dean of Llandaff 302\n Dean of Lincoln 297\n Bishop of Durham 290\n Archdeacon Lee 283\n Dr. Moulton 271\n Archdeacon Palmer 255\n Dean of Westminster 253\n Dr. Vance Smith 245\n Dr. Brown 209\n Dr. Angus 199\n Dr. Milligan 182\n Canon Kennedy 165\n Dr. Eadie 135\n Bishop of Salisbury 121\n Bishop of St. Andrews 109\n Dr. Roberts 94\n Archbishop of Dublin 63\n Dean Merivale 19\n Dean Alford 16\n Bishop Wilberforce 1\n\n[130] As the original would be very obscure to many of my readers, I have\nsomewhat reluctantly decided to give the modern spelling and the modern\nequivalent for obsolete words.\n\n[131] Psalm lxxxvii. 6 is thus rendered in the Wycliffite versions, after\nthe Vulgate and LXX. The LXX. here differs from the Hebrew.\n\n[132] The word Judah, from which \u201cJew\u201d is derived, is from a Hebrew verb,\nmeaning \u201cto praise.\u201d (See Gen. xxix. 35; xlix. 8.)\n\n[133] By \u201csentence\u201d Purvey commonly means \u201csense,\u201d or \u201cmeaning.\u201d\n\n[134] That is, if he examine many copies, and especially those of recent\ndate.\n\n[135] AUGUSTINE, _Christian Doctrine_, book ii., c. xi.\n\n[136] Bohemians.\n\n[137] AUGUSTINE, _Christian Doctrine_, b. ii. c. xii.\n\n[138] Wisdom, iv. 3.\n\n[139] This Prologue contains but little in the way of historical\ninformation. It has this especial interest, that it is the preface of the\nfirst printed portion of the English Bible.\n\n[140] Imitate.\n\n[141] Changed in later editions, first into \u201cTo the diligent and Christian\nReader. Grace, mercie, and peace, through Christ Jesus,\u201d and then \u201cTo the\nChristian Reader\u201d simply.\n\n[142] Whittingham had previously done the same in his New Testament of\n1557. In his address \u201cTo the Reader\u201d he says: \u201cAnd because the Hebrewe and\nGreke phrases, which are strange to rendre in other tongues, and also\nshort, shulde not be to hard, I haue sometyme interpreted them without any\nwhit diminishing the grace of the sense, as our l\u0101gage doth vse them, and\nsometyme have put to that worde which lacking made the sentence obscure,\nbut haue set it in such letters as may easily be discerned from the c\u014dmun\ntext.\u201d\n\nIn some later editions of the Genevan Bible, printed in black letter, this\nclause is altered into \u201cwee have put in the text between these two markes\n[ ] such worde or verbe as doth more properlie explane or manifest the\ntext in our tongue.\u201d\n\n[143] To the end that.\n\n[144] \u1f14\u03be\u03bf \u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\n[145] \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\n\n[146] _Circa annum 900. B. Rhenan. rerum German lib. 2._\n\n[147] STRYPE, _Life of Parker_, b. iv. c. 20; JOHNSON, _Historical\nAccount_, p. 87; BURNET, _History of the Reformation_, part ii. book iii.\np. 406, ed. 1681.\n\n[148] The Psalms were in the first instance assigned to Guest, Bishop of\nRochester. It is probable that the Archbishop was dissatisfied with\nGuest\u2019s work, and on good grounds, for he despatched it very quickly, and\nforwarded it to the Archbishop with a letter, in which he thus sets forth\nhis estimate of his duty as a translator: \u201cI have not altered the\nTranslation but where it giveth occasion of an error. As in the first\nPsalm, at the beginning I turn the preterperfect tense into the present\ntense; because the tense is too hard in the preterperfect tense. Where in\nthe New Testament one piece of a Psalm is reported, I translate it in the\nPsalm according to the translation thereof in the New Testament, for the\navoiding of the offence that may rise to the people upon diverse\ntranslations.\u201d (STRYPE, _Life of Parker_, b. iii. c. 6; _Parker\nCorrespondence_, PARKER, sec. ed. p. 250.)\n\n[149] _Parker Correspondence_, PARKER, sec. ed. p. 335.\n\n[150] _Hist. of Ref._, part ii. book iii. p. 406, ed. 1681.\n\n[151] _Collection of Records_, part ii. book iii. number 10.\n\n[152] Probably a misprint for Harmer.\n\n[153] CARDWELL, _Documentary Annals_, vol. ii. p. 110.\n\n[154] Barlow was present at the Hampton Court Conference in January, 1601,\nand all accounts describe him as then Dean of Chester; and his narrative\nof the Conference, published in 1604, is described as \u201ccontracted by\nWilliam Barlow, Doctor of Divinity, and Dean of Chester.\u201d Sir Peter\nLeycester, _Hist. Antiq. of Cheshire_, p. 169, states that Barlow was\nappointed Dean in 1603.\n\n[155] Bishop of Chichester, November 3rd, 1605; Bishop of Ely, 1609;\nBishop of Winchester, 1619.\n\n[156] Bishop of Lichfield, April, 1614; Bishop of Norwich, 1618.\n\n[157] Subsequently Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge.\n\n[158] Lively died May, 1605, and hence could not have taken any active\npart in the Revision.\n\n[159] Afterwards D.D., and successively Master of Peterhouse and of\nTrinity College.\n\n[160] Succeeded Dr. Duport in the Mastership of Jesus College, Cambridge.\n\n[161] Succeeded Mr. Lively as Regius Professor of Hebrew.\n\n[162] Afterwards Rector of Exeter College, Oxford.\n\n[163] Afterwards Bishop of Gloucester.\n\n[164] Master of Sidney College, January, 1609; Archdeacon of Taunton,\n1615; Vice-Chancellor, Cambridge, 1620; Lady Margaret Professor of\nDivinity, 1621.\n\n[165] Afterwards D.D., Prebendary of Chichester, and Rector of Bishop\u2019s\nWaltham, Hants.\n\n[166] Bishop of Gloucester, March 19th, 1605; Bishop of London, May 18th,\n1607.\n\n[167] Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, 1609; Bishop of London, 1610.\n\n[168] Died November, 1604, and hence could have taken no part in the work\nof the Company. His name is not mentioned by Wood in the list given in\n_Hist. et Antiq. Univ. Oxon._, i. p. 311, ed. 1674.\n\n[169] Knighted at Windsor, September 21st, 1604.\n\n[170] WOOD, _Athen\u00e6 Oxoniensis_, i. 355.\n\n[171] _Ibid_, i. 570.\n\n[172] Subsequently, on the death of Rainolds, President of Corpus Christi\nCollege. Dr. WESTCOTT, _History of English Bible_, sec. ed. p. 117, and\nDr. MOULTON, _History of English Bible_, p. 196, both have Dr. _T._\nSpencer, but his name, as inscribed on the monument in the Chapel of\nCorpus Christi College, is IOHANNES SPENSER, and is so given by Wood.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nPassages in bold are indicated by =bold=.\n\nSuperscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.","title":"Lectures on Bible Revision","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":81195}