Chap. ii. Two Bibles in use at of James I. $10. THE AUTHORISED VERSION. There were, as we have seen, during the latter part the accession of Elizabeth's reign two rival English Bibles', the Bishops', which was sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority for public use, and the Genevan, which was the common Bible of the people and even of scholars. If we may judge from the editions published, the circulation of the latter was more than quadruple that of the former, and the convenient forms in which it appeared marked its popular destination. There are only six editions of the Bishops' Bible in quarto and one in octavo; all the others (thirteen) are in folio; and no small edition was printed after that prepared by authority in 1584. Of the Genevan Bible, on the other hand, there are between 1568 and 1611 sixteen editions in octavo, fifty-two in quarto, and eighteen in folio3. Proposals for a revision of the Bible. Jan. 16, 1604. This rivalry was in every way undesirable; and in the conference on ecclesiastical matters which was held at Hampton Court shortly after the accession of James I., the authorised version of the Bible was brought forward as one of the things 'amiss in the Church.' The conference had no official or constitutional character, and was summoned by the king's proclamation, who had not yet himself been recognized as king by Parliament. But though it proved ineffectual in all other points, we owe to it our present Bible. The question was brought for ward by Dr. Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, who quoted several mistranslations rom the authorised Bibles'. 'My Lord of London (Bancroft) well added: That if every man's humour should be followed there would be no end of translating. Whereupon his Highness wished some special pains should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation-professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but the worst of all his Majesty thought the Geneva to be-and this to be done by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the Privy Council; and lastly to be ratified by his royal authority; and so this whole Church to be bound unto it and none other. Marry withal he gave this caveat, upon a word cast out by my lord of London, that no 'marginal notes should be added, having found in them 'which are annexed to the Geneva translation, which he 'saw in a Bible given him by an English lady, some ‘notes very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too 'much of dangerous and traitorous conceits (e.g. those 'on Ex. i. 19: 2 Chron. xv. 16)2.' 1 Gal. iv. 25; Pss. cv. 28, cvi. 30. The account given in the Preface to the Authorised Version is somewhat different from, though reconcileable with, Barlow's. The very 'historical truth is that upon the im'portunate petitions of the Puritans, 'at his Majesty's coming to this 'crown, the conference at Hampton 'Court having been appointed for 'hearing their complaints: when by 'force of reason they were put from 'all other grounds, they had recourse at the last to this shift, that they could 'not with good conscience subscribe 'to the Communion-book, since it Chap. ii. Chap. ii. The king presses forward the scheme. Nothing further was done at the Conference, and the Ecclesiastical authorities do not appear to have been anxious or even ready to engage in the proposed revision'. Bancroft had expressed what was probably a very general feeling; and in the Convocation which followed shortly afterwards (March-July 1604) it was enjoined that every parish as 'yet unfurnished of the Bible of the largest volume" should provide one within a convenient time, so that it seems unlikely that they even expected that it would be speedily carried out. But about the same time the King had matured his scheme. It is not known in what manner the scholars to be entrusted with the revision were selected. It appears however that some were submitted to the king who approved of the choice, and the list was complete 6 6 originally that the translation should ble to read Dr Cardwell, he would have been saved from committing a very serious error, and indulging in a very unworthy comment. 1 Still in the note which was made apparently by Bancroft himself of 'things as shall be reformed,' occurs 'One uniform translation of the Bi'ble to be made, and only to be used in all the churches of England' (Cardwell, Hist. of Conferences, p. 142). Canon 80. From a comparison with Whitgift's injunctions (p. 138) the reference is probably to the Bishops' Bible. But Dr Reynolds' quotations from the Great Bibles' allow by June 30th. The undertaking was no doubt really Chap. ii. An immediate pro Having provided in this manner for the future remuneration of the scholars whose services he had engaged,visers 1 Cardwell, Doc. Annals, 11. 84. for proposed. I Chap. ii. The revisers chosen. the king was equally prudent in endeavouring to obtain It does not appear in what way the actual selection of the revisers was made, but it is most likely that names were suggested by the universities and approved by the king. There is also some discrepancy as to the number engaged upon the work. The king speaks of fifty-four, and only forty-seven names appear upon the list. It is possible that some were originally appointed who did not in the end take any part in the revision, or that a committee of bishops was chosen as an inde pendent group of revisers; but no satisfactory solution of the difficulty has yet been proposed. The delay, |