LECTURES ON BIBLE REVISION.

LECTURES
ON
BIBLE REVISION.

With an Appendix

CONTAINING THE PREFACES TO THE CHIEF HISTORICAL
EDITIONS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

BY
SAMUEL NEWTH, M.A., D.D.,
PRINCIPAL, AND LEE PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, NEW COLLEGE, LONDON;
MEMBER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY OF REVISERS.

LONDON:
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCLXXXI.

[All rights reserved.]

PREFACE.

The following work is especially intended for Sunday-school and Bible-class teachers, and for such others as from any cause may be unable to consult many books or to read lengthened treatises. It has seemed to me to be of great importance that those who are engaged in the responsible service of teaching the young, and to whom the Bible is the constant source of appeal, should be able both to take up an intelligent position in regard to the new revision of the English Scriptures, and to meet the various enquiries that will be made respecting it by those about them. I have therefore endeavoured to provide for their use, in a compendious form, a survey of the general argument for revision, and of the facts which exhibit the present duty of Christian men in relation thereto. In the execution of this purpose it has been necessary to direct attention to the chief stages in the growth of the English Bible, but this has been done only so far as seemed to be requisite for the illustration of the main argument. Those who may desire to study this part of the subject more at length are referred to the full and interesting volumes of Dr. Eadie, or to the convenient manuals published by Dr. Moulton and by Dr. Stoughton. Such as may wish to investigate more minutely the internal history of the Authorized Version will find Dr. Westcott’s General View of the History of the English Bible a most trustworthy and invaluable guide.

In the Appendix I have brought together the prologues or prefaces to the chief historical editions of the English Bible. Some of these are not of easy access to ordinary readers, while all are of deep and lasting interest. They will abundantly repay a careful perusal. The reader will thereby, more readily than in any other way, come into personal contact with the noble men to whose self-denying labours our country and the world are so deeply indebted; will learn what was the spirit which animated them, and what were the aims and methods of their toil; and, in addition to much wise instruction respecting the study of the word of God, will learn how the deepest love and reverence for the Bible are not only tolerant of changes in its outward form, but will indeed imperatively demand them whenever needed for the more faithful exhibition of the truth it enshrines.

It has formed no part of my purpose either to exhibit or to justify the changes which have been made in the revision in which I have had the honour and the responsibility of sharing. The former will best be learnt from the perusal of the Revised Version itself; the latter it would be unbecoming in me to undertake. The ultimate decision respecting them must rest upon the concurrent judgment of the wisest and most learned; and they who are the most competent to judge will be the least hasty in giving judgment, for they best know how difficult and delicate is the translator’s task, and how manifold, and sometimes how subtle, are the various considerations which determine his rendering. Nor indeed would any such attempt be possible within the limits I have here assigned to myself. To be properly done it would require an appeal to special learning which I have no right to assume in my readers, and to habits of scholarly investigation which I may not presuppose. To the bulk of my readers the one justification for the changes they will discover in the Revised New Testament must practically rest in the fact that those who have for more than ten years conscientiously and diligently laboured in this matter, and who have with such anxious care revised and re-revised their work, have been constrained to the conclusion that in this way they would most faithfully and clearly present the sense of the sacred Word. May He whose word it is graciously accept their service, and deign to use it for His glory.

New College,
April 26, 1881.

CONTENTS.

LECTURES ON BIBLE REVISION.

LECTURE I.

SUBSTANCE AND FORM.

There are probably devout persons not a few in whose minds the mere suggestion of a Revision of the Scriptures arouses a feeling of mingled pain and surprise. In that Bible which they received from their fathers in the trustful confidence of childhood, they have heard the voice of God speaking to their souls. Not from any testimony given to them by others, but from their own lengthened and varied experience of it, they know it to be the Father’s gift unto His children. It has quickened, guided, and strengthened them, as no human words had ever done, answering the deepest cravings of their nature, stimulating them to endeavours after a nobler life, and enkindling within them the confidence of a sure and blessed hope. That it is from heaven, and not from men, they know, not because of what has been told them, but from what they themselves have seen and learnt; and they need no further evidence of its inspiration than the fact that it has opened their eyes to a knowledge of themselves, and to a perception of the loveliness of Christ. That any should dare to meddle with a book so precious and so honoured, seems to them a sacrilegious act, and a Revision of the Holy Scriptures is to them a presumptuous attempt to improve upon the handiwork of God.

In this feeling there is much with which every Christian man will warmly sympathize; but there is in it also something that calls for correction and instruction. There is need here, as elsewhere, of careful thought and self-discipline, lest, by confounding things that differ, we transfer our reverence for what is God-given and divine to what is only human, and therefore fallible. A little consideration will suffice to show that, in such a matter as this, it is peculiarly important to distinguish between substance and form, between what is essential and permanent and what is accidental and variable. By the substance of the Bible we mean the statements which, in various ways and diverse manners, it presents to our thoughts; the precepts and the promises, the histories and the prophecies, the doctrines and the prayers, the truths about God and about man, through which our minds are instructed, our consciences enlightened, and our hearts established by grace. By the form of the Bible, we mean the signs or sounds by which the various statements contained in the Bible are presented to us, and which are, as it were, the channel through which the truths it teaches are conveyed to our minds. It will be obvious upon the least consideration, that the kind and degree of reverence which it is right to entertain towards the form of Scripture, is very different from that which it behoves us to cherish for the substance of Scripture. Respecting the latter, it is fitting to watch with all jealousy that no man add unto it or take from it; it is precious for its own sake. Not so, however, with the former; its worth is not in itself, but only in that which it enshrines. The two sentences—

“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,”

“Gwir yw’r gair ac yn haeddu pob derbyniad, ddyfod Crist Iesu i’r byd i gadw pechaduriaid,”

are very different in form, whether judged by the eye or the ear, and yet the truth conveyed by the former to an Englishman, or by the latter to a Welshman, is essentially the same. And although one who had learnt to prize that truth under either of the forms here given would naturally cherish also the very words by which it had been taught him, his reverence for the truth would impel him to adopt the other form in preference whenever that might be the better instrument for conveying it to another. Changes, therefore, in the form of Scripture may be lawful and right.

Moreover, as a matter of history, the form of Scripture has, from the very beginning, been passing through a continued succession of changes, and with this fact it is most important that the Bible student should familiarize himself. These changes may be arranged under two general classes.

One class of changes has arisen out of the perishable nature of the documents, of which the Bible at the first consisted.

It is scarcely needful to state that we do not now possess the original copies of any of the books of the Old or the New Testament. Even while these were still in existence it was necessary to transcribe them in order that many persons in many places might possess and read them. In the work of transcription, however careful the transcriber might have been, errors of various kinds necessarily arose; some from mistaking one letter for another; some from failure of memory, if the scribe were writing from dictation; and some from occasional oversight, if he were writing from a copy before him; some from momentary lapses of attention, when his hand wrote on without his guidance; and some from an attempt to correct a real or fancied error in the work of his predecessor. If any of my readers will make an experiment by copying a passage of some length from any printed book, and then hand over his manuscript to a friend with a request to copy it, and afterwards pass on the copy so made to a third, and so on in succession through a list of ten or a dozen persons, each copying the manuscript of the one before him in the list, he will, on comparing the last with the printed book, have a vivid and interesting illustration of the number and kind of variations that arise in the process of transcription. In the case, therefore, of even very early copies of any of the books of the Scriptures, some sort of revision would become necessary, and the deeper the reverence for the book, the more obligatory would the duty of making such a revision be felt to be, and the more earnestly and readily would it be undertaken. So long as the original copies were in existence and accessible this work of revision would be comparatively easy and simple. It would call only for the ability to make careful and patient comparison. But when the originals could no longer be appealed to, and when, moreover, successive transcription had gone on through many generations, the work would become much more complex and difficult, calling for much knowledge and much persevering research, for a mind skilled in the appreciation of evidence, and able to judge calmly between conflicting testimony. At the same time, the need for revision would to some extent be greater than before. I say to some extent, because the natural multiplication of errors arising from successive transcription through many centuries, has in the case of the Scriptures been very largely checked. The special reverence felt for this book beyond other books led to the exercise of special care in the preparation of Biblical manuscripts, and special precautions were taken to guard them as far as possible from any variation. Owing to these and other causes a larger measure of uniformity is found in the later than in the earlier manuscripts now extant.

A second class of changes in the form of the Scriptures has arisen from the natural growth and development of language.

The earliest Bible of which we have any historical knowledge was in the form of a roll, made probably of skins, containing the five books of Moses, and written in the Hebrew language. This was described as “the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses” (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14); more briefly as “the Book of the Law of Moses” (Joshua viii. 31; 2 Kings xiv. 6; Neh. viii. 1), or as “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh. viii. 8); and more briefly still as “the Book of the Law” (2 Kings xxii. 8), or as “the Book of Moses.” (Ezra vi. 18; Mark xii. 26.) Two other collections of sacred books were subsequently added, known respectively as the Prophets and the Holy Writings, the former comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets; the latter comprising the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. It is in this order, we may note in passing, that the books of the Old Testament are still arranged in our Hebrew Bibles.

Before the completion of the canon of the Old Testament the language of the Jews began to exhibit evidences of change, and through their intercourse with the various peoples of Mesopotamia (or Aram) the later books show a distinct tendency towards Aramaic forms and idioms. This tendency, already apparent at the time of the return from the Captivity, was accelerated by the political events which followed. During the hundred and eighty years and more which intervened between the Restoration of the Temple, B.C. 516, and the overthrow of Darius Codomannus, B.C. 331, Judæa was a portion of that province of the Persian empire, in which the Aramaic was the prevalent dialect. The ancient Hebrew gradually ceased to be the language of the Jews in common life, and, before the time of our Lord, had been supplanted by the language of their Eastern neighbours.

With the decline of the Hebrew language there arose amongst the Jews the class of men known as Scribes, whose primary function was that of preparing copies of the Scriptures, and of guarding the sacred text from the intrusion of errors. Owing to their great zeal for the preservation of the letter of Scripture, and to their natural tendency to hold fast to the honour and influence which their special knowledge and skill gave to them, they did not, when Hebrew ceased to be intelligible to the common people, set themselves to the task of giving them the Bible in a form which they could understand; but, magnifying their office overmuch, assumed the position of authoritative teachers and expounders of the Law. Scholars might still study for themselves the ancient Bible, but for the people at large the form which the Scriptures now practically assumed was that of the spoken utterances of the Scribes.

How imperfect and unsatisfactory this must have been is obvious; and the more so as these teachers did not content themselves with simply rendering the ancient text into a familiar form, but intermingled with it a mass of human traditions that obscured and sometimes contradicted its meaning. It would have been a great gain for the people of Judæa if their regard for the outward form of their Scriptures had been less extreme and more enlightened, and if competent men amongst them had ventured so to revise the ancient books that their fellow countrymen might read in their own tongue the wonderful works and words of God.

This wiser course was adopted in that larger Judæa which lay outside of Palestine. The Jews scattered through Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, and other parts of the empire of Alexander and his successors, were less rigidly conservative than were the residents of Judæa, and for their use a translation into Greek was made in the latter part of the third century before Christ. This is the version known as the Septuagint.[1] It is probable, both on general grounds and from internal evidence, that the Pentateuch was the portion first translated, and that subsequently, though after no very long interval of time, the other portions were translated also. It is quite certain that the whole was in circulation in the middle of the second century before Christ. Various tales respecting the origin of this translation got spread abroad.[2] These are largely due to the vivid imagination of their authors. They may, however, be taken as evidence of the high esteem in which this version was held; and we shall probably not err in concluding from them that Alexandria was the city in which it originated. During, then, the two centuries that preceded the Advent, the Bible, as used by the great majority of its readers in various parts of the world, had assumed an entirely different form from that in which it at first appeared. It was in Greek, and not in Hebrew, and it included several additional works; those, namely, which are now called collectively the Apocrypha. The use of this translation amongst the extra-Palestinian Jews contributed largely to the spread of Christianity; and to many amongst the earliest Christian churches, and for many generations, it was still the form under which they studied the books of the Old Testament.

At the time of our Lord and His Apostles, Greek was the language which most widely prevailed through the Roman Empire. It was the ordinary language of intercourse amongst all the peoples that had formerly been subjugated by Grecian arms, and was read and spoken by many in Rome itself. It was in this language, and not in the sacred language of the ancient Church, that the books of the New Testament were written; and the lesson was thereby emphatically taught us that the Bible was for man, and not man for the Bible; that the form was subordinate to the substance, and should be so modified, as occasions occur, that it may best minister to the spiritual wants of mankind.

As years passed on Christianity spread into the rural parts of the districts already occupied, where Greek was but little known, and into new regions beyond, where that language had never prevailed. This called for further changes in the form of Scripture, and in the second century of our era both the Old and New Testaments were translated for the use of the numerous Christians in Northern and Eastern Syria into that form of Aramaic which is known as Syriac. This language—the Syro-Aramaic—differs by dialectic peculiarities from the Palestinian Aramaic. In its earliest forms, however, we have probably the nearest representation we can now hope to obtain of the native language of the people amongst whom our Lord lived and laboured.

About the same time also the Scriptures began to be translated into Latin for the use of the Churches of North Africa, and there is good reason for believing that in the last quarter of the second century the entire Scriptures in Latin were largely circulated throughout that region. This was what is termed the Old Latin version. It was the Bible as possessed and used by Tertullian and Cyprian, and subsequently, in a revised form, by Augustine. In the Old Testament this version was made, not from Hebrew, but from the Greek of the Septuagint, and so was but the translation of a translation.

From Africa this Bible passed into Italy. Here a certain rudeness of style, arising from its provincial origin, awakened ere long a desire to secure a version that should be at once more accurate and more grateful to Italian ears. Various attempts at a revision of the Latin were consequently made. One of these, known as the Itala, or the Italic version, is highly commended by Augustine. In the year A.D. 383, Damasus, the then Bishop of Rome, troubled by the manifold variations that existed between different copies of the Latin Scriptures then in circulation, used his influence with one of the greatest scholars of the age, Eusebius Hieronymus, to undertake the laborious and responsible task of a thorough revision of the Latin text. Hieronymus, or, as he is commonly termed, Jerome, at once set himself to the task, and his revised New Testament appeared in A.D. 385. He also once and again revised the Old Latin version of the Book of Psalms, and subsequently the remaining books of the Old Testament, carefully comparing them with the Greek of the Septuagint, from which they had been derived. In A.D. 389, when in his sixtieth year, he entered upon the further task of a new translation of the books of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, and completed it in the year A.D. 404. Out of the various labours of Jerome arose the Bible which is commonly known as the Vulgate. Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew was not made at the instance of any ecclesiastical authority, and the old prejudice in favour of the Septuagint led many still to cling to the earlier version. Only very gradually did the new translation make its way; and not until the time of Gregory the Great, at the close of the sixth century, did it receive the explicit sanction of the head of the Roman Church.[3] In the case of the Psalter, the old translation was never superseded.

The Vulgate is thus a composite work. It contains (1) Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew of all the books of the Old Testament, except the Psalms; (2) Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin version of the Psalms, that version being, as stated above, made from the Septuagint; (3) the Old Latin version of the Apocrypha unrevised, save in the books of Judith and Tobit; (4) Jerome’s revised New Testament, which in the Gospels was very careful and complete, and might almost be termed a new translation, though he himself repudiated any such claim.

During many centuries the Vulgate was the only form in which the Bible was accessible to the people of Western Europe, and it was the Bible from which in turn the earliest Bibles of our own and other countries were immediately derived. It will thus be seen that the history of the Bible has from the beginning been a history of revision. Only so could they who loved the Bible fulfil the trust committed to them; only so could the Bible be a Bible for mankind.

LECTURE II.

THE GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

The English Bible, more than any other of the forms in which the Scriptures have been used by Christian men, has been a growth. It is not the production of one man, or of one epoch. It has come down to us through a long series of transformations, and it is the result of the continuous endeavours of a succession of earnest labourers to give to their fellow-countrymen a faithful representation of the word of God.

At what date, and by whom, the Scriptures were first set forth in a form which was intelligible to the people of this country is not known. In the earliest period respecting which we have any clear information, the Latin Vulgate was the Bible of the clergy and of public worship. Some portions only were rendered into the language of the common people. Few of them probably were able to read, and this may explain why it was that the Psalms were especially selected for translation. They could be more readily committed to memory, and be more easily wedded to music. But whatever the reason, the Psalter is the earliest English Bible of which we have any definite knowledge. It was translated quite early in the eighth century, both by Aldhelm, sometime Abbot of Malmesbury, but at his death, in A.D. 709,[4] Bishop of Sherborne, and by Guthlac,[5] the hermit of Croyland, who died A.D. 714.[6] A few years later, A.D. 735, the Venerable Bede translated the gospel of John, dying, as related in the touching narrative of his disciple Cuthbert, in the very act of completing it. In the following century King Alfred greatly encouraged the work of translation, and it is to this period that we are probably to attribute those Anglo-Saxon gospels which have come down to us.[7] Towards the close of the tenth century, or early in the eleventh, the first seven books of the Old Testament were partly translated and partly epitomised by Ælfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. A verse from each of these two last-mentioned works will show of what sort was the form of these early English Bibles, and will at the same time illustrate one of the causes which from time to time have rendered the task of revision an imperative duty.

The Anglo-Saxon gospel presents Matthew v. 3 thus:

“Eadige sind ða gastlican þearfan, forðam hyra ys heofena rice.”

And in Ælfric’s Heptateuch, Genesis xliii. 29 reads:

“Ða josep geseah his gemeddredan broþor beniamin þa cwaeþ he, is þis se cnapa þe ge me foresaedon and eft he cwaeþ god gemilt sige þe sunu min.”

In the course of time our language gradually changed from the form exhibited in these quotations to that seen in the writings of Chaucer and Wycliffe. During the earlier part of this transition period the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) Scriptures continued in use; but towards the middle part they seem to have become partially unintelligible, and attempts were consequently made to give the Scriptures to the people in the new form of language then prevalent, and which is known as the Early English. It has been asserted that the entire Scriptures were issued in this form; but for this there is no satisfactory evidence. We have certain knowledge only of a poetical version of the Psalms (the “Ormulum”), written about the close of the twelfth century; of a poetical narration of the principal events recorded in Genesis and Exodus, written about the middle of the thirteenth century; and of two prose verses of the Psalms, both belonging to the early part of the fourteenth century, one by William de Schorham, vicar of Chart-Sutton, in Kent, and the other by Richard Rolle, of Hampole, near Doncaster. In the version of the former the first two verses of Psalm i. are thus given:

“Blessed be the man that ȝed nouȝt in the counseil of wicked: ne stode nouȝt in the waie of sinȝeres, ne sat nouȝt in fals jugement. Ac hijs wylle was in the wylle of oure Lord; and he schal thenche in hijs lawe both daȝe and nyȝt.”

The year 1382 is the earliest date at which it can with any confidence be affirmed that the entire Scriptures existed in the English language.[8] During several years previous to this date Wycliffe and his associates had in various ways been working towards the accomplishment of this result. But it was with some measure of secrecy, as of men who apprehended danger from the attempt. This renders it difficult to determine with precision the date when the work was completed, and what was the part which each of the joint labourers had in the common task. It is beyond controversy that the chief place of honour is due to John Wycliffe. His name is so closely and constantly associated with this Bible by those who refer to it in the times immediately succeeding, as to put it beyond all doubt that it is to his influence our country is mainly indebted for this unspeakable boon. The translation of the New Testament was probably in whole or in large part the work of Wycliffe himself. That of the Old Testament, down to the twentieth verse of the third chapter of Baruch, is credibly assigned, upon the authority of a MS. in the Bodleian library, to Nicholas de Hereford, one of the leaders of the Lollard party in Oxford. It is probable that this Bible was somewhat hurriedly completed, and that either the translators were prevented by circumstances from reviewing their work before issuing it, or, with the natural eagerness of men engaged in a first attempt, they did not allow themselves time for doing so. Possibly also they may themselves have regarded it but as a sort of first draft of their work, and the variations they had found to exist in their copies of the Vulgate had revealed to them the need of further labour before they could satisfactorily complete the task they had undertaken.

Wycliffe died in December, 1384; but either before his death, or shortly afterward, a revision of this work was commenced by one of his most intimate friends, John Purvey, who, having resided with Wycliffe during the latter part of his life, may be reasonably credited with acting herein under a full knowledge of the wishes and aims of his honoured teacher.

The course pursued by Purvey, as described by himself in his prologue,[9] is interesting and instructive, setting forth, as it does, most distinctly the main lines upon which any work of Biblical revision must proceed. His first step was to collect old copies of the Vulgate, and the works of learned men who had expounded and translated the same; and then, by examination and comparison, to remove as far as he could the errors which in various ways had crept into the Latin text. His second step was to study afresh the text so revised, and endeavour to arrive at a correct apprehension of its general meaning. His third was to consult the best authorities within his reach for the explanation of obscure terms, and of specially difficult passages. His fourth was to translate as clearly as possible, and then submit the same to the joint correction of competent persons; or, to use his own words, “to translate as clearly as he could to the sentence, and to have many good fellows, and cunning, at the correcting of the translation.” By the co-operation of this band of skilful helpers the work was completed about the year 1388, and copies of it were rapidly multiplied.[10] It became, in fact, the accepted form of the Wycliffite version.

By a comparison of the two verses of Psalm i., given above, with the forms in which they appeared in the two Wycliffe Bibles, the reader will be able in some degree to estimate the growth of our language, and will also understand how painstaking and reverent was the care taken by these “faithful men” that in this sacred work they might offer of their very best.

In the earlier Wycliffe version the verses read thus:

“Blisful the man that went not awei in the counseil of unpitouse, and in the wei off sinful stod not, and in the chaȝer of pestilence sat not. But in the lawe of the Lord his wil; and in the lawe of hym he shal sweteli thenke dai and nyȝt.”

In Purvey’s revised version they read:

“Blessid is the man that ȝede not in the councel of wickid men; and stood not in the weie of synneris, and sat not in the chaier of pestilence. But his wille is in the lawe of the Lord; and he schal bithenke in the lawe of hym dai and nyȝt.”

This Bible, so long as it remained in use as the Bible of English people, existed, it should be remembered, only in a manuscript form.[11] The chief point, however, to be noticed here is, that with all its excellences, and unspeakable as was its worth, it was but the translation of a translation. Neither Wycliffe nor his associates had access to the Hebrew original of the Old Testament; and although some copies of the Greek New Testament were then to be found in England, there is no reason to believe that Purvey or his friends were able to make any use of them. They were, indeed, aware that the Latin of the common text did not always faithfully represent the Hebrew; but their knowledge of this fact was second-hand, gathered chiefly from the commentaries of Nicholas de Lyra, a writer whose works were held in high repute by Bible students in that age. They did not, therefore, venture to correct these places, but contented themselves with noting in the margin, “What the Ebru hath, and how it is undurstondun.” This, Purvey states, he has done most frequently in the Psalter, which “of alle oure bokis discordith most fro Ebru.”

The third stage in the growth of the English Scriptures is brought before us by the interesting series of printed Bibles that issued from the printing press in the reign of Henry VIII.

After the death of Wycliffe the efforts of the Popish party to crush the Lollards had increased in violence, and various enactments were passed proscribing the use of the Bible which bore his name. An act, passed in the second parliament of Henry V., went still further, and declared that all who read the Scriptures in their native tongue should forfeit land, cattle, life, and goods, they and their heirs for ever. Notwithstanding these repressive measures, copies of the Wycliffe Bible were still made and read in secret. This could be done only with great risk and difficulty, and none but persons of some wealth could afford the expense of a complete copy. Those in humbler positions deemed themselves happy if they could secure a single book, or even a few leaves. Moreover, through the growing changes of the language, many passages were becoming very obscure to ordinary readers. During the hundred years which followed after the issuing of the law just referred to, two important events had happened; namely, the invention of printing,[12] and the German Reformation. Both of these had a large influence in stimulating the friends of the Bible to new efforts in revising it for popular use.

The leader of this movement in our own country was William Tyndale, who, in the year 1525, printed on the Continent, whither he had been driven by the opposition which beset him at home, the first edition of his New Testament, translated from the Greek. A second and revised edition, “dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke,” was printed at Antwerp, and published in November, 1534; and a third and final edition was published in the early part of 1535, in the May of which year he was arrested and committed to the castle of Vilvorde, near Brussels. Of other parts of the Scriptures Tyndale was able to publish only the Pentateuch (1530 or 1531) and the book of Jonah (1534). On the sixth day of October, 1536, he was led to the stake. He was there strangled and his body burnt.

Just twelve months before the martyrdom of Tyndale, the first printed edition of the entire Scriptures in the English language was issued from the press of Jacob van Meteren, at Antwerp. The privilege and honour of accomplishing this memorable work belongs to Miles Coverdale, at that time a poor scholar, dependent upon the patronage of Thomas Cromwell and others, though subsequently, for a short period in the reign of Edward VI., Bishop of Exeter. The first edition of his Bible was “prynted in the year of our Lord MDXXXV., and fynished the fourthe day of October.” Coverdale had been moved to the undertaking by his own deep sense of the needs of his country, and by the earnest appeals addressed to him by others. Through his modesty of disposition, and his lowly estimate of his own abilities, he would have declined the task, but the urgency of his friends prevailed. The expenses also of the preparation and publication of the work were met by the liberality of some of them. In his prologue he says, “It was neither my labour nor desire to have this work put in my hand; nevertheless it grieved me that other nations should be more plenteously provided for with the Scripture in their mother tongue than we; therefore, when I was instantly required, though I could not do as well as I would, I thought it my duty to do my best, and that with a good will;”[13] and in the dedication to the king, prefixed to some of the copies, he says, “As the Holy Ghost moved other men to do the cost hereof, so was I boldened in God to labour in the same.” According to the statement on the title-page this was not a translation made from the original texts,[14] but was faithfully and truly translated out of the “Douche and Latyn in to Englishe.” In the dedication he states that he had, “with a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated this out of five sundry interpreters,” and in his prologue he explains further, that to help him in his work he had used “sundry translations, not only in Latin, but also of the Dutch interpreters;” and he is careful, further, to explain that he did not “set forth this special translation” “as a reprover and despiser of other men’s translations,” but “lowly and faithfully have I followed mine interpreters, and that under correction.” The five interpreters to whom Coverdale thus refers were probably the Vulgate, the Latin version of Pagninus, Luther’s translation, the Zurich Bible, and Tyndale’s New Testament and Pentateuch. Though the volume was dedicated to the king, and though Coverdale was backed by powerful patrons, this Bible was not published with a royal license. No direct attempt, however, was made to suppress it. In the following year (1536) it was virtually condemned by the members of Convocation, who prayed the king that he would “grant unto his subjects of the laity the reading of the Bible in the English tongue, and that a new translation of it be made for that end and purpose.” But notwithstanding this two new editions of Coverdale’s Bible were printed in London in 1537, and on the title-page of both of these there appeared the words, “Set forth with the kynge’s moost gracious licence.”

In the same year, 1537, and probably in the earlier part of it, there was issued in London another Bible, which also bore upon its title-page the inscription, “Set forth with the kinge’s most gracyous lycence.”[15] This Bible, commonly known as Matthew’s Bible, was, it is now generally believed, prepared for the press by John Rogers, who suffered martyrdom at Smithfield, under the Marian persecution. In the New Testament and Pentateuch he agrees substantially with Tyndale’s version. Of the other books of the Old Testament, a portion is obviously taken from Coverdale, the remaining part, Joshua to Chronicles, has been thought with good reason to be the work of Tyndale. It is known that Tyndale, after the publication of his Pentateuch, continued to labour at the translation of the Old Testament. In a letter written during his imprisonment he prays to be allowed to have his Hebrew Bible, and his Hebrew grammar and dictionary; and it is by no means unlikely that the results of his studies were committed to the care of Rogers. If this surmise be correct, then this Bible may be viewed as a compilation, two-thirds of it being due to Tyndale, and one-third to Coverdale. A sufficient reason for the adoption of the assumed name of Thomas Matthew is thus supplied, since Rogers could not claim the work as his own, and Tyndale’s name would have arrayed against it the opposition both of the king and of the Romish party.

Both of the last mentioned Bibles were open to certain obvious objections. Coverdale’s, in that it was derived from German and Latin versions; and Matthew’s, in that it was in part only made from the original texts. Matthew’s also was accompanied by a considerable number of critical and explanatory notes, many of which were of a decided anti-papal cast. Accordingly, at the instigation and under the patronage of Thomas Cromwell, Coverdale set himself to revise his former work with the aid of the valuable contribution supplied to him in Matthew’s Bible. The printing of this new Bible was completed in April, 1539, and from the circumstance that it was printed in the largest folio then used, 15 inches by 9, it was, and is, commonly described as the Great Bible. In the title-page it is declared to be “truly translated, after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes by ye dylygent studye of dyuerse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tonges.”[16] By this, it is now tolerably certain, we are to understand, not that several living scholars took part with Coverdale in the preparation of the volume, but that he availed himself of the published writings of men skilled in the ancient languages, who had translated and expounded the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures. His chief guides were Sebastian Munster for the Old Testament, and Erasmus for the New. The Bible appeared without notes, and had no dedication.[17]

In the same year (1539) there appeared also the Bible[18] edited by Richard Taverner, formerly of Cardinal College (now Christ Church), Oxford, afterwards of the Inner Temple, and more recently Clerk of the Signet to the King.[19] It may be briefly described as a revised edition of Matthew’s Bible. Taverner had some reputation as a Greek scholar, but his work is very unequally executed, and before the formidable competition of the Great Bible it soon sank into obscurity. After its first year of issue this Bible seems to have been only once reprinted in its entirety; namely, in 1549.[20]

Not content with what he had already done, Coverdale persevered in the revision and re-revision of his work. A second edition was issued in April, 1540, to which was prefixed a prologue by Cranmer,[21] and its title contained the words, “This is the Byble apoynted to the use of the churches.” Two other editions appeared in the same year, and three in the following year.[22] (The edition of April, 1540, seems, however, to have been regarded as a sort of standard edition.) This Bible was the Bible read in churches in the reign of Edward VI., and in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth.

Hence it will be seen that of the four principal Bibles published in the reign of Henry VIII., namely, Tyndale’s New Testament and Pentateuch, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, and the Great Bible, the last three form a group of closely related versions, of which Tyndale’s is the common parent, and the rest successively derived therefrom. And it is very noteworthy that these Bibles are mainly the result of the patient and devoted labours of two men only. The work done by such men as Rogers and Taverner, however important, is altogether of a subordinate kind. William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale stand apart, and above all others, as the men who, in those days of religious awakening and of conflict with the papal tyranny, gave the Bible to our countrymen in a form that could reach at once their understanding and their heart. Remembering this, and remembering also in what difficult circumstances the work was done, the wonder is far less that room was left for improvement, and that further revision was felt by themselves and others to be an imperative duty, than that so much was accomplished, and so well, by the indomitable and self-denying labours of these noble men.

LECTURE III.

THE FURTHER GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

The accession of Elizabeth, November 17th, 1558, conveniently marks the date of a fourth stage in the growth of the English Bible. The former translations and revisions had been done in troublous times, in the midst of harassing opposition, and under circumstances which forbade the full use of such aids as the scholarship of the times could furnish. The versions now to be mentioned were carried on in open day, and with free access to all that was then available for the correction and explanation of the original texts.

Amongst the many earnest men driven into exile by the Marian persecution was William Whittingham, some time Fellow of All Souls’, Oxford, and subsequently Dean of Durham.[23] Along with others he found a refuge, first at Frankfort, and afterwards at Geneva. On the 10th day of June, 1557, there was published, in the last mentioned city, a small volume, 16mo, entitled “The Newe Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Conferred diligently with the Greke, and best approved translations. With the arguments aswel before the chapters, as for every Boke and Epistle, also diversities of readings, and moste proffitable annotations of all harde places; whereunto is added a copious Table.” This translation, there is reason to believe, was the work of Whittingham alone. It may be noted, in passing, that it was the first English New Testament which contained the now familiar division into verses, and the first also to indicate by italics the words added by the translator in order to convey more fully or more clearly the sense of the original.

Three years afterwards (1560) there was published in the same city, “The Bible and Holy Scriptures conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament. Translated according to the Ebrue and Greeke, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages. With moste profitable annotations upon all the hard places, and other things of great importance as may appeare in the epistle to the reader.” This is the celebrated Genevan version, which for nearly a century onward was the form of Bible most largely circulated in this country. It differed in several respects from its predecessors. It was a convenient quarto instead of a cumbrous folio. It was printed in Roman letters instead of the heavy Gothic or black letters. It marked by a different type all words inserted for the completion of the sense, and the chapters were divided into verses. But what was of more importance, it was, as stated in the title, compared throughout with the original texts. Both in the Old and New Testaments it largely reproduces the words of Tyndale. Sometimes it gives a preference to the version of Coverdale; but often it departs from both in order to give a more exact rendering of the Hebrew or the Greek. It seems that several of the Genevan refugees consecrated their enforced leisure to “this great and wonderful work,” as they justly term it, moved thereto by the twofold consideration that, owing to “imperfect knowledge of the tongues,” the previous “translations required greatly to be perused and reformed,” and that “great opportunities and occasions” for doing this work were presented to them in the “so many godly and learned men” into whose society they had now been brought.

The names of Miles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, William Cole, and William Whittingham are given as those who, with some others, joined in this undertaking. On the accession of Elizabeth most of the exiles returned home, conveying with them, for presentation to the Queen, the Book of Psalms as a specimen of the work on which they were engaged.[24]

Wittingham only, with one or two others, remained behind for a year and a half in order to complete the work. According to the statement given in the address to the reader, the entire period spent upon the preparation of this version was a little more than two years. It will hence be seen that whatever may have been the part taken in the work by Coverdale and others, by far the chief share in it devolved upon Whittingham and the one or two referred to, who were probably Gilby and Sampson. How weighty was the obligation which in the view of these self-denying men rested upon them to give the word of God to their country in the form that would best and most truly present it, and with what reverent care they laboured to attain unto this, is shown by the fact that although Whittingham had so recently published his version of the New Testament, he is not content with a simple reproduction of this, but subjects it to a thorough and very careful revision. A comparison of the introduction to Luke’s gospel as it appears in the Genevan Bible of 1560 with the same passage in Whittingham’s version of 1557 will help our readers in some measure to realize the nature and extent of this revision.

In the earlier version the passages read thus:

“For asmuch as many have taken in hand to write the historie of those thynges, wherof we are fully certified, even as they declared them unto us, which from y^e begynnyng saw them their selves, and were ministers at the doyng: It seemed good also to me (moste noble Theophilus) as sone as I had learned perfectly all thynges from the beginnyng, to wryte unto thee therof from poynt to poynt: That thou mightest acknowlage the trueth of those thinges where in thou hast bene broght up.”

In the version of 1560 the same passage is given thus:

“For as much as many have taken in hande to set foorth the storie of those thinges whereof we are fully persuaded. As they have delivered them unto us, which from the beginning saw them theirselves, and were ministers of the worde, It seemed good also to me (most noble Theophilus), as sone as I had searched out perfectly all things from the beginnyng, to write unto thee thereof from point to point, That thou mightest acknowledge the certaintie of these things, whereof thou hast bene instructed.”

It will be seen that in this short passage the changes made from the earlier form of the work are as many as ten in number. As this, however, may be deemed a somewhat exceptional passage, let us take an ordinary chapter in the Gospels, presenting no special difficulty, as for instance Matt. xvii. A collation of the two versions will show that in this chapter of twenty-seven verses the revision of 1560 departs from Whittingham’s earlier work in no fewer than forty places.[25] Thus persevering was the endeavour of these faithful men to do their very best, and with what success may to some extent be seen in the fact that of these forty changes twenty-six were confirmed in after years by the judgment of King James’ translators.

“So earnestly,” says Strype[26] in his Life of Archbishop Parker, “did the people of the nation thirst in those days after the knowledge of the Scriptures, that that first impression was soon sold off.” So earnestly also did the translators seek to perfect their work, that about the beginning of March, 1565, they had finished a careful review and correction of their translation in preparing for a fresh issue.

Popular as was the Genevan Bible amongst the mass of the English people, the decidedly puritanic cast of its annotations stood in the way of its universal acceptance, while its manifest superiority as a translation to the Great Bible made it almost an impossibility that the latter could be maintained in its place of pre-eminence as the Bible appointed by authority to be read in churches. Steps were accordingly taken by Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, to prepare a Bible, by the aid of “diverse learned fellow-bishops,” that would accord with the ecclesiastical sympathies of the party to which he belonged.[27] He distributed portions to twelve of his episcopal brethren, and to other Church dignitaries;[28] one portion he took under his own charge. The completed work was presented to Elizabeth within a few weeks of the completion of the tenth year of her reign, October 5th, 1568.

The rules laid down by Parker for the guidance of his colleagues were these: 1. “To follow the common English translation used in the churches, and not to recede from it but where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew or Greek original. 2. To use sections and divisions in the texts as Pagnine[29] in his translation useth; and for the verity of the Hebrew, to follow the said Pagnine and Munster specially, and generally others learned in the tongues. 3. To make no bitter notes upon any text, or yet to set down any determination in places of controversy. 4. To note such chapters and places as contain matter of genealogies, or other such places not edifying, with some strike or note, that the reader may eschew them in his public reading. 5. That all such words as sound in the old translation to any offence of lightness or obscenity be expressed with more convenient terms and phrases.” From the first of these rules it is clear that the work then undertaken was intended to be a revision of the Great Bible. Some of the revisers seem to have observed this rule in a most rigid manner, and have followed the Great Bible so closely as to retain its words, even in places which had been more correctly rendered in the Genevan. There appears to have been no co-operative action on the part of the several revisers, and to this cause we may attribute much of the irregularity that attaches to the execution of their work. In many respects they laid themselves open to adverse criticism, and a paper was sent to Parker by Thomas Lawrence, Head Master of Shrewsbury School, and an eminent Greek scholar, entitled, Notes of Errors in the Translation of the New Testament out of the Greek.[30] He points out fifteen passages in which the words are not “aptlye translated,” eight in which “words and pieces of sentences” are “omytted,” two in which superfluous words are inserted, two in which, owing to mistranslation, an “error in doctrine” is involved, and two in which the moods and tenses of verbs are changed. These passages, except one from the Colossians, are all taken from the Gospels; and we may hence not unreasonably infer that the writer intended the passages named to be regarded, not as an exhaustive list, but as illustrations simply of the kind of defects which called for correction. Moved, as would seem, by these criticisms, Parker set on foot a revision of his former volume; and in 1572 this Bible was, as his biographer expresses it,[31] “a second time by his means” “printed with Corrections and Amendments and other improvements, more than the former Editions.”

Although this Bible received the sanction of Convocation, and every Archbishop and Bishop was ordered to have a copy in his hall or dining-room for the use of his servants and of strangers; and although some editions bear on their title-page the words, “Set forth by Aucthoritie” (meaning thereby the authority of Convocation), it never came into anything like general use, nor did it even establish itself as the Bible exclusively read in churches. The Genevan Bible was still used by many of the clergy in their sermons and in their published works; and in 1587, though nineteen years had then passed since its first publication, we find Archbishop Whitgift complaining that divers parish churches and chapels of ease had either no Bible at all, or those only which were not of the translation authorized by the Synods of Bishops. Between 1568, when this Bible was first published, and 1608, when the last New Testament of this version was issued, there were sent forth altogether twenty editions of the Bishops’ Bible and eleven of the New Testament. In the same period there were published seventy-nine editions of the Genevan Bible, and thirty of the Genevan New Testament.[32]

Besides the Genevan and the Bishops’, another Bible made its appearance (so far, at least, as the New Testament was concerned) in the reign of Elizabeth. In the year 1582 there was printed at Rheims a translation of the New Testament,[33] made by certain scholars connected with the English seminary for the training of Catholic priests, formerly established at Douai, in Flanders. The translators, in their preface, candidly confess that they did not publish from any conviction “that the Holy Scriptures should alwaies be in our mother tonge,” or that they ought “to be read indifferently of all,” but because they had compassion to see their “beloved countrie men with extreme danger of their soules, to use only such prophane translations;” viz., as the Protestant Bibles previously referred to, “and erroneous men’s mere phantasies, for the pure and beloved word of truth;” and because, also, they were “moved thereunto by the desires of many devout persons,” and whom they hoped to induce to lay aside the “impure versions” they had hitherto been compelled to employ. Quite apart from the polemical purpose thus distinctly avowed, this translation was a retrograde movement. It did not profess to translate the original texts, but only the “vulgar Latin;” and the translators justify their procedure by this plea, amongst others, that “the holy Council of Trent ... hath declared and defined this onely of al other Latin translations to be authentical, and so onely to be used and taken in publike lessons, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no man presume upon any pretence to reject or refuse the same.”

In the accomplishment of their work the Rhemish translators have very faithfully observed the rule which they laid down for themselves, to be “very precise and religious in folowing our copie, the old vulgar approved Latin; not only in sense ... but sometime in the very wordes also, and phrases;” that is to say, they have given a very literal and exact translation of the Vulgate, in many parts extremely Latinized in its diction. A considerable number of words they virtually left untranslated, boldly venturing to transfer the unfamiliar, and in many cases unintelligible, vocables into their English text. Some of these Latinized words have obtained a permanent place in our language, but the larger number have failed to commend themselves.[34]

Such then were the chief forms through which, at the close of the sixteenth century, the English Bible had passed. The devout and earnest scholars who from time to time sought to “open the Scriptures” to their fellow-countrymen were for the most part moved by a burning desire to give to God of their very best. They grudged no labour to render their work more complete. They allowed no spirit of self-satisfaction to blind them to a perception of defects. They were too humble and too well convinced of the greatness and manifoldness of their work to fancy that they had reached perfection, but were persevering and self-denying in their endeavours to attain unto it. And they have left behind them for us to follow a noble example of patient continuance in well doing.

How in their hands the English Bible has grown, from the first attempt to set it forth in the language of our country to the form in which we are most familiar with it, can be fully learnt only by a careful comparison of the successive revisions to which it has been subjected. To aid my readers in forming some approximate idea of it I append Psalm xxiii., as it appears in the principal Bibles which have been mentioned in this and the preceding lecture.

1. WYCLIFFE’S, 1382. (?)

The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing to me shal lacke; in the place of leswe[35] where he me ful sette. Ouer watir of fulfilling he nurshide me; my soule he conuertide. He broȝte doun me upon the sties of riȝtwisnesse; for his name. For whi and if I shal go in the myddel of the shadewe of deth; I shal not dreden euelis, for thou art with me. Thi ȝerde and thi staf; tho han confortid me. Thou hast maad redi in thi siȝte a bord; aȝen hem that trublyn me. Thou hast myche fattid in oile myn hed; and my chalis makende ful drunken, hou riȝt cler it is. And thi mercy shal vnderfolewe me; alle the daȝis of my lif. And that I dwelle in the hous of the Lord; in to the lengthe of daȝis.

2. PURVEY’S, 1388. (?)

The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing schal faile to me; in the place of pasture there he hath set me. He nurschide me on the watir of refreischyng; he conuertide my soule. He ledde me forth on the pathis of riȝtfulnesse; for his name. For whi thouȝ Y schal go in the myddis of schadewe of deeth; Y schal not drede yuels, for thou art with me. Thi ȝerde and thi staf; tho han coumfortid me. Thou hast maad redi a boord in my siyt; aȝens hem that troblen me. Thou hast maad fat myn heed with oyle; and my cuppe, fillinge greetli, is ful cleer. And thi merci schal sue me; in alle the daies of my lijf. And that Y dwelle in the hows of the Lord; in to the lengthe of daies.

3. COVERDALE’S, 1535.

The Lorde is my shepherde, I can want nothinge. He fedeth me in a greene pasture; and ledeth me to a fresh water. He quickeneth my soule, and bringeth me forth in the waye of rightuousness for his name’s sake. Though I shulde walke now in the valley of the shadowe of death, yet I feare no euell, for thou art with me; thy staffe and thy shepehoke comforte me. Thou preparest a table before me agaynst mine enemies; thou anoyntest my heade with oyle, and fyllest my cuppe full. Oh let thy louying kyndnes and mercy folowe me all the dayes off my life that I maye dwell in the house off the Lord for euer.

4. GREAT BIBLE, 1539.

The Lorde is my shepherde, therefore can I lacke nothing. He shal fede me in a grene pasture and lead me forth besyde the waters of cōforte. He shal conuerte my soule and bring me forth in the pathes of righteousnes for his name’s sake. Yea, though I walke thorow y^e valleye of y^e shadow of death, I wyl feare no euell, for thou art w^t me: thy rod and thy staff confort me.

Thou shalt prepare a table before me, agaynst them that trouble me: thou hast annointed my head w^t oyle, and my cup shal be ful. But (thy) louing kyndnes and mercy shal folowe me all the dayes of my lyfe: and I wyll dwel in the house of the Lord for euer.

5. GENEVAN, 1560.

1. The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.

2. Hee maketh mee to rest in greene pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

3. He restoreth my soule, and leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse for his Names sake.

4. Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadow of death, I will feare no euill, for thou art with me: thy rodde and thy staffe, they comfort me.

5. Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine adversaries: thou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, and my cup runneth over.

6. Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my life, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.

6. BISHOPS, 1568.

1. God is my shephearde, therefore I can lacke nothyng: he wyll cause me to repose myselfe in pasture full of grasse, and he wyll leade me vnto calme waters.

2. He wyll conuerte my soule; he wyll bring me foorth into the pathes of righteousnesse for his name sake.

3. Yea, though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I wyll feare no euyll; for thou art with me, thy rodde and thy staffe be the thynges that do comfort me.

4. Thou wylt prepare a table before me in the presence of myne aduersaries; thou has annoynted my head with oyle, and my cup shalbe brymme full.

5. Truely felicitie and mercie shal folowe me all the dayes of my lyfe: and I wyll dwell in the house of God for a long tyme.

7. DOUAI, 1610.

1. The Psalme of Dauid.

2. Our Lord ruleth one, and nothing shal be wanting to me: in place of pasture there he hath placed me.

3. Upon the water of refection he hath brought me vp: he hath conuerted my soule.

He hath conducted me upon the pathes of iustice for his name.

4. For, although I shal walke in the middes of the shadow of death, I will not feare euils: because thou art with me, Thy rod and thy staffe, they haue comforted me.

5. Thou hast prepared in my sight a table, against them; that truble me.

Thou hast fatted my head with oyle; and my chalice inebriating how goodlie is it!

6. And thy mercie shal folow me al the dayes of my life; And that I may dwel in the house of our Lord, in longitude of dayes.

LECTURE IV.

THE REVISION OF 1611—THE SO-CALLED AUTHORIZED VERSION.

At the accession of James I. the Genevan Bible and the Bishops’ Bible were, as we have seen, the Bibles in current use, the latter being the Bible upheld by ecclesiastical authority, the former the favourite Bible of the people at large. The Book of Psalms also in the version of the Great Bible survived, as it still does, in the psalter of the Prayer Book, and probably in some few parish churches old and worn copies of the Great Bible still maintained their place.

The state of religious parties at that date rendered it almost an impossibility that either of the two first-named versions should become universally accepted. The close connection of the Genevan Bible with the Puritan party, and the decidedly puritanic cast of some of its notes, created an insuperable prejudice against it in the minds of the more zealous advocates of Episcopal authority; while the inferiority[36] of the Bishops’ Bible as a version effectually barred its claim to an exclusive use. The need, then, for a new version was obvious, and a desire for it was probably felt by many of all parties.

Public expression was first given to this desire on the second day of the Hampton Court Conference, January 16, 1604, by Dr. John Rainolds,[37] the leading representative of the Puritans in that assembly. It was not brought forward as one of the matters which he had been deputed to lay before the Conference; it seems rather to have been mentioned by him incidentally in connection with certain suggested reforms in the Prayer Book. “He moved his Majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were corrupt, and not answerable to the Truth of the Original,”[38] referring in illustration to the renderings given of Gal. iv. 25,[39] Ps. cv. 28,[40] and Ps. cvi. 30.[41] It is somewhat curious that no direct reference was made to the Bishops’ Bible; the reason, probably, was that this Bible was not one of those which had been “allowed” by royal authority. Of the three mistranslations quoted by Rainolds, the first only is found in the Bishops’ Bible; the other two occur in the Prayer Book Psalter.

The suggestion of Rainolds met with no opposition. The king himself expressed his approval of it, not, however, without an ignorant and disingenuous fling at the Genevan version; and “presently after,” say the translators in their preface, the king “gave order for this translation” to be made. In the course of a few months a scheme for the execution of the work was matured, and in a letter to Dr. Richard Bancroft, then Bishop of London, the king informed him that he had appointed fifty-four learned men to undertake the translation. He even seems to have contemplated the possibility of securing the co-operation of all the biblical scholars of the country; and in a letter to Bancroft, dated July 22, 1604, directed him “to move the bishops to inform themselves of all such learned men within their several dioceses as, having especial skill in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, have taken pains in their private studies of the Scriptures for the clearing of any obscurities, either in the Hebrew or the Greek, or touching any difficulties, or mistakings in the former English translation, which we have now commanded to be thoroughly viewed and amended; and thereupon to write unto them, earnestly charging them, and signifying our pleasure therein, that they send such their observations to Mr. Lively, our Hebrew reader in Cambridge, or to Dr. Harding, our Hebrew reader in Oxford, or to Dr. Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, to be imparted to the rest of their several companies; that so our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.”[42] Directions to a similar effect were sent also to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, who was empowered in the king’s name to associate with those already appointed any “fitt men” he might be acquainted with; and we may infer that a corresponding communication was sent to Oxford.

To what extent this comprehensive scheme was carried out we have no means of determining. The names of the fifty-four learned men referred to are not given, and we are consequently left in uncertainty whether those who ultimately engaged in the work[43] were all men included in that list, or whether other scholars, chosen by the universities or recommended by the bishops, formed part of the number.

The rules laid down for the guidance of the translators were as follows:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the Original will permit.

2. The Names of the Prophets and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept; viz., the word Church not to be translated Congregation, &c.

4. When a Word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be exprest in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath despatched any one Book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

10. If any Company, upon the review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them word thereof; Note the place, and withal send the Reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed, by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop, to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge, as many as being skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridg, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These Translations to be used, when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops’ Bible; viz., Tindall’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s,[44] Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor upon conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th rule above specified.[45]

Besides these rules, some others of a more definite nature seem to have been adopted by the translators themselves. At the Synod of Dort, held in the years 1618 and 1619, the question of preparing a new Dutch translation came under consideration, and for the guidance of its deliberations upon this point the English Delegates[46] were requested to give an account of the procedure observed in the translation recently made in England. In a matter of such grave importance the Delegates felt that they ought not to give any off-hand statement, and accordingly, after careful consideration, prepared a written account, which was presented to the Synod on its seventh Session, November 20th, 1618. In this account eight rules are given, the first three of which embody the substance of the first, sixth, and seventh of the rules given above. The others direct:

That where the Hebrew or Greek admits of a twofold rendering, one is to be given in the text, and the other noted in the margin; and in like manner where an important various reading is found in approved authorities.

That in the translation of the books of Tobit and Judith, where the text of the old Latin Vulgate greatly differs from that of the Greek, the latter text should be followed.

That all words introduced for the purpose of completing the sense are to be distinguished by a difference of type.

That new tables of contents should be prefixed to each book, and new summaries to each chapter.

And lastly, that a complete list of Genealogies[47] and a description of the Holy Land should be added to the work.[48]

From various causes, which cannot now be discovered, a period of three years elapsed before the revisers commenced their labours. One reason may have been that no provision was made for meeting the necessary costs of the undertaking. With a cheap liberality the king directed Bancroft to write to the bishops, asking them, as benefices became vacant, to give him the opportunity of bestowing them upon the translators as a reward for their service; and as to current expenses, the king, while professing with much effusiveness his readiness to bear them, cleverly evaded the responsibility by stating that some of “my lords, as things now go, did hold it inconvenient.”[49]

The revision was completed, as the revisers themselves tell us, in “twice seven times seventy-two days and more;” that is to say, in about two years and three-quarters; and if to this be added the nine months spent in a final revision and preparation for the press, we have then only a period of three years and a half. The new Bible was published in 1611; the work, therefore, could not have been commenced before 1607.

Although the men who engaged in this important undertaking are called “translators,” their work was essentially that of revision. This is clearly shown both by the rules laid down for their guidance, and by the statement of the translators themselves, who say in their preface, “Truly, good Christian reader, wee never thought from the beginning that wee should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,” “but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to bee excepted against; that hath beene our indeavour, that our marke.”[50]

Further, this revision was a more extensive and thorough revision than any which had been heretofore undertaken. In former revisions, either the work had been done by the solitary labours of one or two, or when a fair number of competent men were engaged in it no sufficient provision had been made for combined action, and but few opportunities had been given for mutual conference. In this revision a larger number of scholars were engaged than upon any former, and the arrangements were such as secured that upon no part of the Bible should the labour of fewer than seven persons be expended. The revisers were divided into six companies, two of which met at Westminster, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. The books of the Old Testament, from Genesis to 2 Kings inclusive, were assigned to the first Westminster company, consisting of ten members; from 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon, to the first Cambridge company, consisting of eight members; and from Isaiah to Malachi, to the first Oxford company, consisting of seven members. The Apocryphal books were assigned to the second Cambridge company, which also consisted of seven members. Of the books of the New Testament, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse were given to the second Oxford company, in which as many as ten members were at different times associated; the Epistles were entrusted to the seven scholars forming the second Westminster company.[51]

The portions assigned to each company were not again subdivided amongst its members; but, in accordance with the eighth rule, “every particular man of each company” translated and amended by himself each successive portion, and the company met from time to time to confer upon what they had done, and to agree upon what should stand.[52] Of the mode of procedure followed at the meetings of the several companies, we have no other information than the brief statement given by Selden in his Table Talk—that “one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault they spoke; if not, he read on.”

One interesting and touching picture of the translators at work, which however seems to have escaped the notice[53] of all writers upon the history of the English Bible, is given us by Dr. Daniel Featley in his account of the Life and Death of John Rainolds, and which is probably the substance, if not the very words, of the oration delivered by him at the funeral of the latter, when, on account of the large number of mourners, “the Chapell being not capable of the fourth part of the Funerall troupe,” a desk was set up in the quadrangle of Corpus Christi College, and a brief history of Rainolds’ life, “with the manner of his death,” was thence delivered to the assembled company. Dr. Rainolds was one of the Oxford scholars to whom the difficult task was assigned of revising the prophetical books of the Old Testament; and Featley tells us that “for his great skill in the originall Languages,” the other members of the company, “Doctor Smith, afterward Bishop of Gloster; Doctor Harding, President of Magdalens; Doctor Kilbie, Rector of Lincolne Colledge; Dr. Bret, and others, imployed in that worke by his Majesty, had recourse” to him “once a weeke, and in his Lodgings perfected their Notes; and though in the midst of this Worke, the gout first tooke him, and after a consumption, of which he dyed; yet in a great part of his sicknesse the meeting held at his Lodging, and he lying on his Pallet, assisted them, and in a manner in the very translation of the booke of life, was translated to a better life.”[54] Rainolds died May 21st, 1607.

In the discharge of their responsible task the translators made use of all the aids accessible to them for the perfecting of their work. Not only did they bring to it a large amount of Hebrew and Greek scholarship, and the results of their personal study of the original Scriptures, they were careful to avail themselves also of the investigations of others who had laboured in the same field. Translations and commentaries in the Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch languages were laid under contribution. “Neither,” they add, “did we disdaine to revise that which wee had done, and to bring back to the anvill that which wee had hammered; but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”

When the several companies had completed their labours there was needed some general supervision of the work before it finally issued from the press. There is no evidence that the six companies ever met in one body (though possibly the two companies in each of the three centres may have had some communication with each other); but having spent almost three years upon the revision, “at the end whereof,” says the writer of the life of John Bois,[55] “the whole work being finished, and three copies of the whole Bible sent from Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster to London, a new choice was to be made of six in all, two out of every company,[56] to review the whole work, and extract one copy out of all these to be committed to the press, for the dispatch of which business Mr. Downes and Mr. Bois were sent for up to London, where,[57] meeting their four fellow-labourers, they went daily to Stationers’ Hall, and in three-quarters of a year fulfilled their task, all which time they had from the Company of Stationers thirty shillings[58] each per week duly paid them, though they had nothing before but the self-rewarding, ingenious industry.”[59] “Last of all Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Miles Smith, again reviewed the whole work, and prefixed arguments to the several books.”

And thus at length, as Thomas Fuller quaintly puts it, “after long expectation, and great desire, the new translation of the Bible (most beautifully printed) by a select and competent number of Divines appointed for the purpose, not being too many, lest one should trouble another, and yet many, lest in any things might haply escape them. Who, neither coveting praise for expedition, nor fearing reproach for slackness (seeing in a business of moment none deserve blame for convenient slowness), had expended almost three years in a work, not only examining the channels by the fountain, translations with the original, which was absolutely necessary, but also comparing channels with channels, which was abundantly useful.” “These, with Jacob, rolled away the stone from the mouth of the Well of Life, so that now Rachel’s weak women may freely come, both to drink themselves, and to water the flocks of their families at the same.”[60]

LECTURE V.

REVISION A RECURRING NECESSITY.

On the title-page of the first edition of King James’s Bible there appeared as now the legend, “Appointed to be read in Churches.” Whence this originated is unknown; it is even uncertain what meaning is to be attached to the words. Some contend[61] that they mean nothing more than that the book contained the directions in accordance with which the Scriptures were “appointed” to be read in public worship, such as are now given in the Book of Common Prayer. But, however this may be, there is no evidence that this Bible was ever formally sanctioned, either by the king, or by Parliament, or by Convocation. The king, as we have seen, encouraged the making of the revision, but that the revision when made was, by any public act on his part, invested with any special authority, is a fancy altogether unsupported by fact. Its designation as the Authorized Version has been due simply to common parlance; the claim which that designation seems to assert is absolutely baseless.

It was not in virtue of any privileges conferred upon it by those in authority, but by its intrinsic excellence, that this version made its way into general use, and at length supplanted all previous versions. Its chief, if not only, competitor was the Genevan. So strong was the attachment of many to the latter that two editions of it, one a folio and the other a quarto, were published by the king’s printer in the very year in which the new version was issued, and during at least five years after that date[62] various other editions were issued from the same source. After 1616 the Genevan ceased to be printed in England, but the demand for it still continuing, various editions were printed on the Continent, and thence introduced into this country. A folio edition, printed at Amsterdam, bears so late a date as 1644. In 1649, in order to win the favour of those who still clung to their old favourite, an edition of the new version was issued with the Genevan notes. After this date the revision of 1611 may be said to have gained for itself universal recognition, and for more than 230 years it has been the accepted and cherished Bible of almost all English-speaking people.

We should, however, form a very erroneous opinion both of the spirit and of the learning of King James’s translators, if we were to suppose that they would have claimed finality for their work. They were too well acquainted with the state of the original texts not to know what need there was for further research after the most ancient and trustworthy authorities. They were too keenly sensitive to the difficulties of translation not to feel that they must often have failed to convey the exact meaning of the words they were attempting to render. They were too conscious of the merits of their predecessors, and of the extent to which they had profited by their labours, to hesitate to acknowledge that others might in like manner profit by what they themselves had done. And they were too loyal in their reverence for the Scriptures, and too devoutly anxious that every imperfection should be removed from the form in which they were given to their fellow-countrymen, to offer any discouragement to those who should seek to remove the blemishes that might still remain. They would strongly have deprecated any attempt to find in their labours a plea against further improvement; and they would have emphatically proclaimed that the best expression of thankfulness for their services, and of respect for themselves, was in the imitation of their example, and in the promotion of further efforts for the perfecting of the book they so profoundly loved.

In the case of such a book as the Bible, however perfect the translation which may at any time be made, the duty of revision is one of recurring obligation. The necessity for it is inevitable, and this from two causes in constant operation. (1) By the imperfection that attaches to all kinds of human labour various departures from the standard form became gradually introduced in the process of reproduction; and (2) by the natural growth of language, and the attendant changes in the meaning of terms, that which at one time was a faithful rendering becomes at another obscure or incorrect.

No long time elapsed before blemishes arose in the version of 1611 from the first of these causes, and, to use the language of the translators themselves, their translation needed “to be maturely considered and examined, that being rubbed and polished it might shine as gold more brightly.” The invention of printing, although it has largely diminished the liability to error in the multiplication of copies, has not, as everyone knows who has had occasion to minutely examine printed works, altogether removed them. Various typographical errors soon made their appearance in the printed copies of the Bible, and these became repeated and multiplied in successive editions, until at length no inconsiderable number of variations, sometimes amounting to several thousands, could be traced between different copies. Most of these it is true were unimportant variations, but some of them were of a more serious nature. The following instances will serve to illustrate this. The dates attached are the dates of the editions in which the errors may be found:

Exod. xx. 14. “Thou shalt commit adultery,” for “Thou shalt not.” 1631, Lond., 8vo.[63]

Numb. xxv. 18. “They vex you with their wives,” for “their wiles.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Numb. xxvi. 10. “The fire devoured two thousand and fifty men,” for “two hundred and fifty.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Deut. xxiv. 3. “If the latter husband ate her,” for “hate her.” 1682, Lond.

2 Sam. xxiii. 20. “He slew two lions like men,” for “two lion-like men.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Job xxix. 3. “By his light I shined through darkness,” for “I walked through.” 1613, Lond.

Isaiah xxix. 13. “Their fear toward me is taught by the people of men,” for “by the precept of men.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Jer. iv. 17. “Because she hath been religious against me,” for “hath been rebellious.” 1637, Edin., 8vo.

Jer. xviii. 21. “Deliver up their children to the swine,” for “to the famine.” 1682, Lond.

Ezek. xxiii. 7. “With all their idols she delighted herself,” for “she defiled herself.” 1613, Lond.

Matt. xxvi. 36. “Then cometh Judas with them unto a place called Gethsemane,” for “Then cometh Jesus.” 1611, Lond.

Acts vi. 3. “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report ... whom ye may appoint,” for “whom we may appoint.” 1638, Camb. fo.[64]

1 Cor. v. 1. “And such fornication as is not so much as not among the Gentiles,” for “not so much as named.” 1629, Lond., fo.[65]

1 Cor. vi. 9. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” for “shall not inherit.” 1653, Lond., 32mo.

2 Tim. iv. 16. “I pray God that it may be laid to their charge,” for “may not be laid.” 1613, Lond.

Titus i. 14. “Now giving heed to Jewish fables,” for “not giving heed.” 1636 Edin., 8vo.

James v. 4. “The Lord of Sabbath,” for “Sabaoth.” 1640, Lond., 8vo.

1 John i. 4. “That our joy may be full,” for “that your joy.” 1769, Oxf.

These facts will serve to show how soon some kind of revision became needful, and that a true reverence for Scripture is shown, not by opposition to revision, but by a desire, and even demand, that it should be undertaken. This necessity became all the more imperative in the case of the revision of 1611, because there existed no standard copy to which appeal could in all cases be made as evidence of the conclusions reached by the translators. It is a curious and remarkable fact, that two editions, differing in several respects, were issued by the king’s printer, Robert Barker, in 1611, and competent judges are not agreed as to which of these two priority in time belongs. Nor even if this point were satisfactorily settled, would it suffice to reproduce that one of the two texts which might be proved to be the earlier. For excellent as was the main work done by the translators, the final revision and the oversight of the sheets as they passed through the press were not so thorough as was to be desired. In the most carefully prepared edition of this revision that has ever been issued, viz., the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Dr. Scrivener, the learned and laborious editor has seen it right to depart from the printed text of 1611 in more than nine hundred places.[66] It will be manifest that such corrections, whenever called for, ought not to be made in any haphazard way, and that it is in the interest of all that careful revisions of the printed texts should from time to time be made, and that they should be made by men thoroughly competent for the task.

The second cause to which reference has been made is, of course, much slower in its operation, but though slow it is certain; and sooner or later every version, whensoever and by whomsoever made, must call for revision, because of the changes to which all language is subject. Words which were once in common use pass altogether out of currency, and are utterly unintelligible save to a learned few. Other words change their meaning, and give to the sentences in which they occur a different and sometimes an alien sense to that which they formerly conveyed. Others again, while retaining fundamentally their original sense, become limited in their range of application, and when used in other connections than those to which they are thus confined by custom, become grotesque and disturb the mind of the reader by the strange associations which they suggest.

How many words found in our Bibles have, since 1611, passed out of general use the following list will show. Most of these are wholly without meaning, even to an educated reader; a few survive as local provincialisms, and a few also are still employed in the technical vocabulary of certain arts or professions. All are out of place in a book intended for universal use.

Assay. Deut. iv. 34; Job iv. 2; Acts ix. 26, &c.

Attent. 2 Chron. vi. 40.

Bestead. Isa. viii. 21.

Blain. Exod. ix. 9, 10.

Bolled. Exod. ix. 31.

[Brickle. Wisd. xv. 13.]

Brigandine. Jer. xlvi. 4; li. 3.

Bruit. Jer. x. 22; Nah. iii. 19.

Calamus. Exod. xxx. 23; Cant. iv. 14; Exek. xxvii. 19.

Camphire. Cant. i. 14; iv. 13.

Causey. 1 Chron. xxvi. 18.

Chanel-bone. Job xxxi. 22, marg.

Chapiter. Exod. xxxvi. 38, &c.

Chapman. 2 Chron. ix. 14.

Chaws. Ezek. xxix. 4.

[Cithern. 1 Macc. iv. 54.]

Cockatrice. Isa. xi. 8, &c.

Collops. Job xv. 27.

Confection. Exod. xxx. 35.

Coney. Lev. xi. 5, &c.

To Convent. Jer. xlix. 19, marg.

Cotes. 2 Chron. xxxii. 28.

To Couch. Dent, xxxiii. 13.

Countervail. Esth. vii. 4.

Daysman. Job ix. 33.

[Dehort. 1 Macc. ix. 9.]

Delicates. Jer. li. 34.

Dredge. Job xxiv. 6, marg.

Dure. Matt. xiii. 21.

Earing. Gen. xlv. 6.

Endirons. Ezek. xl. 43, marg.

Flue-net. Hab. i. 15, marg.

Gier eagle. Lev. xi. 18.

Gorget. 1 Sam. xvii. 6, marg.

Habergeon. Exod. xxviii. 32; xxxix. 23, &c.

Helve. Deut. xix. 5.

Hough. Josh. xi. 6, 9.

Implead. Acts xix. 38.

Jewry. Dan. v. 13; John vii. 1.

Knop. Exod. xxv. 31, &c.

Leasing. Ps. iv. 2; v. 6.

Makebate. 2 Tim. iii. 3, marg.

Muffler. Isa. iii. 19.

Neesing. Job xli. 18.

Ossifrage. Lev. xi. 13.

Ouches. Exod. xxviii. 11, &c.

Pilled. Gen. xxx. 37.

Prelation. 1 Cor. xiii., heading.

Purtenance. Exod. xii. 9.

Ravin. Gen. xlix. 27.

Rereward. Num. x. 25, &c.

Scall. Lev. xiii. 30.

Scrabble. 1 Sam. xxi. 13.

A Settle. Ezek. xliii. 14, &c.

Silverling. Isa. vii. 23.

Sith. Ezek. xxxv. 6.

Tabering. Nah. ii. 7.

Tache. Exod. xxvi. 6.

Throughaired. Jer. xxii. 14, marg.

Thrum. Isa. xxxviii. 12, marg.

Viol. Isa. v. 12.

Wimple. Isa. iii. 22.

A still larger number of words or phrases, though still finding a place in our current speech, have wholly or partially changed their meanings. Amongst these are the following:

All to brake. Judges ix. 5.

Base. 1 Cor. i. 28; 2 Cor. x. 1.

Botch. Exod. ix. 9.

Bought of a sling. 1 Sam. xxv. 29, marg.

Bravery. Isa. iii. 18.

Bray. Prov. xxvii. 27.

By and by. Matt. xiii. 21; Luke xxi. 9.

Captivate. 2 Chron. xxviii.; Jer. xxxix., headings.

Careful. Dan. iii. 16; Phil. iv. 6.

Carriage. Judges xviii. 21; Acts xxi. 15.

Cast about. Jer. xli. 14.

Chafed. 2 Sam. xvii. 8.

Champaign. Deut. xi. 30.

Charger. Matt. xiv. 8; Mark vi. 25.

Charity. 1 Cor. xiii. 1, &c.

Churl. Isa. xxxii. 5, 7.

Cieling. 1 Kings vi. 15.

Clouted. Josh. ix. 5.

Cockle. Job xxxi. 40.

Comfort. Job ix. 27.

Confectionary. 1 Sam. viii. 13.

Contain. 1 Cor. vii. 9.

Conversation. Gal. i. 18; Phil. iii. 20; Heb. xiii. 5.

Convince. Jno. viii. 48; Jas. ii. 9.

Cunning. Ps. cxxxvii. 5.

Curious. Exod. xxviii. 8; xxix. 5.

Damnation. 1 Cor. xi. 29.

Delicately. Lam. iv. 5; Luke vii. 25.

Discover. Ps. xxix. 9; Mic. i. 6; Hab. iii. 13.

Doctrine. Mark iv. 2.

Duke. Gen. xxxvi. 15.

Ensign. Num. ii. 2; Isa. v. 26.

Fast. Ruth ii. 8, 21.

Fetch a compass. Acts xxviii. 13.

Flood. Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.

Footman. Jer. xii. 5.