fessor Selwyn's edition of the late Professor Scholefield's Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament is of considerable value, far more sparing in its suggestions than sundry subsequent publications, and far more cautious in its spirit. For the study of the Greek Testament Professor Scholefield recommended a Grammar (in Latin) of the Greek of the New Testament, by John Charles Wilhelm Alt, Ph. D., Pastor of the Church of the Holy Ghost at Eisleben near Halle, published in that city in 1829.

Our translators, in their Address to the Reader, inform us that they not only consulted the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, and Latin, but also the Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch, thereby meaning the German. A notice of all the European versions of the New Testament may be found in Rumpai Commentatio Critica ad Libros N. T. ed. 2da. Lips. 1757, frequently called Carpzov's, who wrote the Preface.

As this memorable Preface is only found in our great Bibles, the reader is here presented with the answer of the translators themselves to the charge of not having uniformly translated the same words. "Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before; if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere), we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c.; thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit or commodiously? A godly Father in the primitive time shewed himself greatly moved that one of new-fangledness, called

κράββατον [a bed] σκίμπους, though the difference be little or none.1 And another' reporteth that he was much abused for turning cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped, for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher; have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever; we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, to be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling; and so was, to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words. in his Holy Writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

"The marginal references are much more numerous in King James's Bible than in the earlier translations. In the New Testament alone we meet with 855 marginal annotations, whereof 724 are found in the first edition of 1611; the rest (including 20 explanations of coins, measures, &c.) having been subsequently added by various hands, chiefly by Dr. Blayney in the Oxford editions of 1769. Of the original marginal notes about 18 point out various readings of the Greek text: (Matt. i. 11; vii. 14; xxvi. 26: Mark ix. 16: Luke ii. 38; x. 22; xvii. 36: Acts xxv. 6: 1 Cor. xv. 31: Gal. iv. 17: Eph. vi. 9, a reading adopted by Tischendorf: James ii. 18: 1 Pet. i. 4; ii. 21: 2 Pet. ii. 2, the reading of

1 Niceph. Callist. 1. viii. c. 42.

2 St. Jerome in 4 Jona. See S. Augustin. Ep. 10.

Matthæi, Scholz, and Tischendorf: 2 Pet. ii. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 18, the reading of Scholz and Tischendorf: 2 John ver. 8, the reading of Tischendorf). Much the greater part present a different reading of a single word, or propose a change in the construction of a clause; the sense given in the margin being often, though not I think for the most part, superior to that in the text. Some may be interesting to an English reader as affording specimens of Greek or Hebrew idioms, (Luke xii. 20: Acts vii. 20; xviii. 11: Rom. vi. 13: Col. i. 13: Rev. xi. 13); while a few, no doubt, are sufficiently trifling, (John xix. 25: 1 Cor. v. 8:1 Thess. v. 11: Tit. iii. 6). Of the unauthorized additions to the margin of the New Testament I cannot speak quite so favourably. Here again several relate to the various readings of the Greek: Matt. vi. 1; x. 10: Acts xiii. 18: Eph. ii. 5: Heb. x. 2, 17: James iv. 2: 2 John, ver. 12: Rev. xv. 3; xxi. 7; xxii. 19. (To these may be added the frivolous variation Beelzebul for Beelzebub thrice repeated, Matt. x. 25; xii. 24: Luke xi. 15;) and so far may be deemed useful. The greater part, however, are either totally erroneous (Acts xv. 5: 1 Cor. iv. 9: 2 Pet. i. first note), or very idle (Matt. xxi. 19; xxii. 26: Mark vii. 22: Acts viii. 13; xvi. 13; xxvi. 7: Gal. iv. 24: Eph. vi. 12, &c.), or explain peculiar phrases with unnecessary minuteness (Matt. xiv. 6: Luke ii. 15: John xi. 33: 2 John ver. 3. In some places, however, this latter margin is undoubtedly correct (Matt. xviii. 19: Luke xviii. 2: Acts xiii. 34; xviii. 5, 28: Rom. v. 11: 2 Pet. i. second note), and in several others it should not be rejected without further inquiry (Mark xi. 17: Luke xxi. 8: Acts ii. 6: Heb. i. 6, 7), though on the whole I do not conceive that the additional notes have much enhanced the value of our excellent translation."

About 1833 a pamphlet was put forth in the form of Four Letters to the Bishop of London, arraigning in no measured terms the conduct of the privileged publishers of the English Bible, whom it accused of wilfully departing from the original edition of 1611 in numerous important

The Rev. F. H. Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 58, 59.

instances. The author soon after obtained and made public the sanction of a sub-committee of four dissenting ministers in London with regard to a portion of this charge. They appear to have lent their names in inexcusable ignorance to this abortive attempt-an attempt as malevolent as it was unfounded. In behalf of the University of Oxford Dr. Cardwell replied by a statement in the third volume of the British Magazine. In regard of the italics as printed in our present Bibles, the Bishop of Ely, then Dean of Peterborough, most amply vindicated the italics as they at present stand, and as they were corrected in 1638, the Bible of 1611 having in this respect been printed in a very faulty state.

The hitherto partial spirit in which the history of the Greek text upon which our authorized version of the New Testament is grounded has been hitherto treated of, and the interest that must ever be attached to that version itself, will I trust prove an adequate apology for this supplementary chapter. It will not have been without its use, should it tend in some measure to enhance in the eyes of its readers the value of the Authorized Version, and to excite in them a desire to follow up for themselves the many various questions that are comprehended in this branch of sacred criticism.

1 1 pp. 323-347.

CHAPTER XIV.

Easter 1612—Andrewes a Governor of the Charterhouse—His speech concerning Vows-His Whitsunday sermon-Ordination at Downham-His 5th of November sermon-And on Christmas-day— Casaubon's Answer to Cardinal Perron-Dr. Collins.

We find Casaubon again with Andrewes on the 3rd of February, 1612, in company with Overall, the only two Englishmen with whom he says in his diary he was on terms of intimacy.

On Maundy Thursday, April 9th, he dined at Ely House, Holborn, with our prelate. He after dinner was present with his wife at the washing of the feet of some poor men, quæ fit, he says, in hac ecclesiâ egregie. In 1639 Charles is said to have kept this day at York, where Wren, Bishop of Ely, washed the feet of thirty-nine poor old men in warm water, and dried them with a linen cloth. Afterwards Curle, Bishop of Winchester, washed them over again in white wine, wiped, and kissed them.1

Our prelate, on April 12, Easter-day, 1612, preached before King James at Whitehall Chapel, from 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, on the Christian Passover, deriving from this place the Easter festival. He cites 2 Sam. xii. 13, according to the Vulgate, The Lord hath transferred, or passed over thy sins, that is, to another and so the Septuagint. The death of the firstborn passed over to the Lamb. Our souls are dearer to us than our firstborn, and both our sin and curse pass over from us to Christ.

Drake's Eboracum, p. 137, as quoted in Hierurgia Anglic. p. 334.