instead of "gush'd." It is so in the original edition, in the Works, and in the splendid edition of 1841, all three. Can there be any doubt of the superiority of "gush'd?" To me there seems none; and, singularly enough, it so happens that twice in conversation with two of the most distinguished writers of this age—one a prosaist and the other a poet, whose names I wish I were at liberty to mention—I have had occasion to quote this passage, and they both agreed with me in ascribing the highest degree of poetical excellence to the use of this very word. I wish I could believe myself the author of such an improvement; but I have certainly somewhere seen the line printed as I have given it; very possibly in Ebenezer Elliott the Corn-law Rhymer's Lectures on Poetry, in which I distinctly remember that he quoted the stanza.
T. W.
"NOTES" ON THE OXFORD EDITION OF BISHOP JEWEL'S WORKS.
I send, with some explanation, a few Notes, taken from among others that I had marked in my copy of the edition of Bishop Jewel's Works, issued by the Oxford university press, 8 vols. 8vo. 1848.
Vol. ii. p. 352., l. 6., has, in Jewel's Reply to Harding's Answer, Article v., "Of Real Presence," seventh division, the following: "And therefore St. Paul saith, 'That I live now, I live in the flesh of the Son of God.'" To this the following is appended by the Oxford editor:
"[Galatians ii. 20 '... And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me?' It cannot be denied that Jewel is here guilty, to say the least, of very unjustifiable carelessness.]"
The true state of the case is, that Bishop Jewel, in the original Reply to Harding, published in his lifetime, 1565, had given the text with entire correctness—"That I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God:" but this, long after the Bishop's death, was misprinted in the editions of 1609 and 1611. The Oxford Jewel, moreover, of 1848 does not even profess to follow the editions of 1609 and 1611; and it is stated, vol. i. p. 130., that "this edition of the Reply in passing through the press has been collated with the original one of 1565." Still in this vital case, where the very question was, what Jewel himself had written, it is plain that the early edition of 1565 was never consulted. The roughness of the censure might surely in any case have been spared. It may be noted (vol. viii. p. 195. Oxf. edit.), that Jewel in 1568 wrote to Archbishop Parker: "I beseech your grace to give strait orders that the Latin Apology be not printed again in any case, before either your grace or some other have well perused it. I am afraid of printers: their tyranny is intolerable."
In vol. iv. p. 92., l. 1. et seq., in the Recapitulation of Jewel's Apology, the words of the original Latin, "quid de Spiritu sancto," marked in the following extract by Italics, are omitted in the Oxford edition "Exposuimus tibi universam rationem religionis nostræ, quid de Deo Patre, quid de ejus unico Filio Jesu Christo, quid de Spiritu sancto, quid de ecclesia, quid de sacramentis ... sentiamus." And in vol. vi. p. 523., l. 6., where Bishop Jewel gives that passage as rendered by Lady Bacon, namely: "We have declared at large unto you the very whole manner of our religion, what our opinion is of God the Father, and of his only Son Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, of the church, of the sacrament," the following is appended:—
"[In the Latin Apology no words occur here relating to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.]"
A similar notice is also given in vol. viii. p. 385.—The fact is, that the words "quid de Spiritu sancto" do occur in the Latin Apology, 1562, which was the first edition of that work, and, so far as I am aware, the only edition printed in Jewel's life, from which too the Oxford reprint professes to be taken, and a copy of which any one can consult in the British Museum. Those words will also be found, within six or eight pages of the end, in the various later editions, as for example those of Vautrollier, London, 1581; Forster, Amberg, 1606; Boler, London, 1637; and Dring, London, 1692 (which are in my own possession); as also in the editions of Bowier, 1584; Chard, 1591; and Hatfield, London, 1599. The editions of Jewel's works printed in 1609 and 1611, edited by Fuller, under the sanction of Archbishop Bancroft, did not contain the Latin Apology. There is not a shadow of authority for the omission. All the modern reprints too, with which I am acquainted, only excepting a small edition printed at Cambridge, 1818, p. 140., give the words in question. It would seem that the Oxford editor must have used the very inaccurate reprint of 1818, for supplying copy for the printer;[6] and reference either to that first edition of 1562, which the reprint of 1848 professes to follow, or to any early edition, even in this case, where the context clearly requires the omitted words, was neglected.