CAMEO III.

The King's replies. 1604.

The Apocrypha then had its turn, and the King desired Dr. Reynolds to note which passages he disapproved.

Mr. Knewstubbs said "weak brethren were offended at the cross in Baptism," and the King desired to know how ancient the custom was. Dean Andrewes cited Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, and James declared himself satisfied, decidedly quashing the further arguments of Reynolds and Knewstubbs, that having been used superstitiously it ought to be given up, like the brazen serpent by Hezekiah.

Mr. Knewstubbs took exception at the "wearing of the surplice, a kind of garment used by the priests of Isis."

"I did not think till of late," said the King, "it had been borrowed from the heathen, because commonly called a rag of popery. Seeing now we border not upon heathens, neither are any of them conversant with, nor commorant amongst us, thereby to be confirmed in paganism, I see no reason but for comeliness' sake it may be continued."

Dr. Reynolds then objected to the words in the Marriage Service, "With my body I thee worship."

"I was made believe the phrase imported no less than divine adoration," said the King, "but I find it an usual English term, as when we say a gentleman of worship,' and it agreeth with the Scripture's 'giving honour to the wife. As for you, Dr. Reynolds, many speak of Robin Hood who never shot in his bow. If you had a good wife yourself, you would think all worship and honour well bestowed on her."

The King seems to have been getting impatient, and cut short arguments with what he meant for wit. On the exception to the Churching of Women, as a Jewish ceremony, he said that women being loth of themselves to come to church, he liked this or any other occasion to draw them thither.

When Reynolds demanded that there should be regular meetings of the clergy in rural deaneries and synods, in which he was quite right, the King, who was fresh from the experience of the miseries and browbeatings he had suffered from the General Assembly, broke forth in a characteristic speech: "If you aim at a Scottish Presbytery, it agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the devil. Then Jack and Tom and Will and Dick shall meet and censure me and my council. Stay, I pray, for one seven years before you demand; and then, if you find me grown pursy and fat, I may perchance hearken unto you, for that government will keep me in breath and give me work enough."

He then spoke of the misrule that followed on the overthrow of the hierarchy in Scotland under his grandmother, Mary of Guise, saying of the Presbytery: "How they used the poor lady, my mother, is not unknown, and how they dealt with me in my minority," and he repeated his maxim, "No Bishop, no King."

James certainly had cause to dread the unrestrained voice of the clergy, but this refusal to permit the Church to make her voice known probably occasioned many of the ensuing troubles, and was a mistake

only in some degree repaired in the present day. Finally, James CAMEO III. asked if there were any more objections, and said, "If this be all your party hath to say I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse."

There was another day's conference, when the alterations made in the Prayer-book were read by the Bishops, the chief of which were the insertion of "and remission of sins" in the form of Absolution, and of "lawful minister" in the rubric respecting Private Baptism; also an explanatory word in some of the Sunday Gospels, showing to whom they were addressed, whether to the disciples or the multitude. The Puritans then begged that licence might be given to "certain honest ministers in Suffolk," who would suffer much in credit if they were compelled to wear the surplice and sign the cross. The Archbishop would have replied, but the King took the word out of his mouth, and refused to regard "the credits of a few private men above the peace of the Church." Cecil, Puritan though he was, objected strongly to "the indecency of ambuling communions," and the King wound up with a discourse very much admired by the orthodox.

Their opinion was that the King had risen above himself, Bishop Bancroft had been even with himself, and Dr. Reynolds had fallen below himself. So says Fuller; but the Puritans alleged that the speeches were very ill reported, and that they had been most unfairly treated. They went home murmuring, and though the Bishops complimented the King highly in their gratitude, they were very uneasy, expecting that in the coming Parliament there would be so strong a show of Puritans that he might be terrified into giving way.

Archbishop Whitgift, now seventy-three years old, was especially desponding, and hoped not to live to see the evil day. A conference of Bishops to consult on the matter was convened at Fulham Palace, to which Whitgift went by water on a bitter and windy day of February, 1604. He caught a violent cold, but on the Sunday crossed to Whitehall, and there went to church with the King, and had much conversation with him and the Bishop of London. While going to take his place at dinner he was struck with paralysis, and was carried home to die. The King came to see him, and sat long by his bedside. The dying Primate tried to speak to him in Latin, but nothing could be understood except the words " Pro ecclesia Dei, pro ecclesia Dei" (for the Church of God), oft-times and earnestly repeated. He tried to write, but failed, and with a sigh lay down again. He departed on Wednesday, the 29th of February, 1604, having done good and faithful service by checking the Puritan lawlessness, and bravely stopping Queen Elizabeth in the Tudor course of plundering the Church to gratify the rapacity of courtiers.

A week after his death came out a royal proclamation, calling on all men to conform to the Prayer-book with the recent alterations, including Overall's addition to the Catechism, although these changes had as yet had no sanction from the Convocation. This, however, followed in

Death of Whitgift.

1604.

CAMEO III. due time, when that body assembled together with Parliament in the ensuing March.

The transla

tion of the Holy Scriptures.

1607.

James's speech owned Rome as the mother of the English Church, and while strongly denouncing her corruptions, bade his Parliament consider of means to prevent recusancy. He at the same time threatened the Puritans if they would not conform.. An Act was also passed to prevent the alienation of Church property by gifts to the Crown. There was a good deal of discussion about the supplies, but the Parliament were unanimous in treating Popish recusancy with increased rigour, making every person educated beyond seas incapable of inheriting property, and to prevent the introduction of priests as tutors, insisting that all teachers of grammar should be licensed by the diocesan.

Convocation met at the same time, and licensed the book of Canons of the Church, which have ever since remained in force. They are the authority for the customs of the Church and clergy, and it is well that they were finally completed when there had been time for some settlement of men's minds after the tempests of the Reformation.

Richard Bancroft, though promoted to the see of Canterbury in the December of this same year, 1604, was still Bishop of London when King James addressed to him a letter respecting the revision of the Bible, which had been promised in the conferences at Hampton Court. Fifty-four scholars had been selected for the purpose, and the King requested the Bishops and other patrons to reserve benefices for such as were not already provided for, as a reward for their labours.

The translation of the Scriptures in most general use in England was the Bishops' Bible. This was Archbishop Parker's revision in 1568 of the translation set on foot by Tyndale and carried on by Coverdale, and the rhythm and general turn of the sentences had been fixed as it were by these two original translators; but there were defects in it manifest to all scholars, and knowledge of Greek and Hebrew had made much progress during the last century. Another translation had been made by some of the fugitives into Switzerland in Queen Mary's time, and was called therefore the Geneva Bible. This was much in vogue in Scotland and among the Puritans, but the King and his more orthodox subjects much objected to certain twists of the language and marginal notes which expressed Calvinistic views. However, all were agreed that the best energies of scholarship should be devoted to producing a standard version in the best English at command, though still adhering as much as possible to the former wording, to which the translators had all become attached from their childhood upwards.

The work was not actually put in hand till 1607, when some of the original fifty-four had died, and others had resigned, so that there were only forty-seven left, and of these Dr. Reynolds, one of the original movers, and Mr. Lively, Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, both died just as the work had begun. The King put forth a letter of instructions.

CAMEO III.

The Author

The text of the Bishops' Bible was to be preserved whenever it was possible. The names by which the personages in the Scriptures were univer ally known were to be preserved, instead of trying to make isedVersion. them more similar to the original, and correctness of pronunciation 1657. being impossible, this was a wise regulation. Most likely what we make of Ibraheem and Ysouf or Daoud, is quite as unlike as Abraham, Joseph or David, to what these patriarchs actually called themselves. The old ecclesiastical words were likewise to be preserved, such as Baptism instead of washing; and a preference was to be given to the meanings of words adopted by the early Fathers of the Church, who in dealing with Greek certainly had the advantage of us. The old divisions of chapter and verses were also to be preserved, marginal references were to be added, but no marginal notes except mere explanations conveying no special interpretation. The forty-five scholars were divided into six classes, two working at Westminster, two at Oxford, two at Cambridge. Each man of each class was to revise a chapter at a time separately, then with his emendations it was to be submitted to his whole class, and after the class had considered of it, the other composers overlooked the work. Where there was an obscure passage, scholars were consulted by letter, and when opinions differed, the question how the text should stand was fixed at a general meeting, and learned divines were appointed as censors of the work. Comparison was made with Luther's work, and with the French and Italian versions, by which much light was often obtained. In fact there never was a translation of the Scriptures made so entirely as the work of the Church which undertook it. It occupied four years, and was published, in 1611, with the same preface and dedication to King James that it still bears, and which was written by Dr. Miles Smith, Bishop of Gloucester. Thinking of King James I., as we are accustomed to do, we feel a fulsome tone of panegyric in this address, but we cannot wonder at the enthusiastic gratitude with which he was regarded by the English translators, who, after all their fears of him as Presbyterian by breeding, and Roman Catholic by sympathy, found him their ardent friend and, moreover, a scholar able to give intelligent appreciation to their labours. No wonder he seemed to them an English Solomon, raised up for this special work, which we really owe to his patronage and comprehension of the subject; for none save a king trained in theological erudition could have so understood the necessities of the case, and none without his peculiar authority over the Church could have issued such regulations.

The first edition was issued in 1611, with a promise that a copy should be presented to any scholar who detected and corrected an error in it. We call it the Authorised Version, curiously enough, for it never was authorised, either by King or Convocation; it only made its way by its own surpassing merits, not only in England but in Scotland. There was at first some clinging to the Genevan version by the Calvinists both in England and Scotland, but as this was never forbidden, no

Death of Bancroft. 1609.

CAMEO III. spirit of controversy was roused to defend it; and coming at the very moment when there was no declared war between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, there was no opposition to the book making its way in the north as well as the south. And thus, whatever unhappy divisions afterwards arose, the same version of the Holy Scriptures is equally dear to the Church and to the Kirk.

Another happy conjuncture of circumstances had brought about that the English language had just been moulded into its enduring form, by the scholarship of the early Tudor reigns, and the literature of the later. The diction preserved from the Bishops' Bible by the forty-five was still comprehensible to the homely English, and moreover to the lowland Scots, a matter in which the Scottish-speaking King may very possibly have had much influence; but the rudeness of the old tongue had been modified by (among others) Sir Thomas More, Archbishop Cranmer, Lord Bacon, and Shakespeare, all perfect masters of the powers of the language. Every modern tongue has at some time or other been fixed to a standard generally formed by some great work. Dante made the "lingua Toscana" of Florence standard Italian, Luther's Saxon High Dutch Bible fixed German; French, somewhat later, was pedantically moulded by the Hôtel Rambouillet and the Academy; and English took its instructions from the Bible and Shakespeare. The language of the first is familiar to all persons of the slightest religious training, the second to all of any culture. With these models, some words may be added, some forms dropped, but never entirely disused or forgotten. And there is a rhythm, a poetic taste, an inherent beauty, in the mere flow of the words that renders them a fit medium for the inspiration that dictates the substance, and makes them easy to retain on the memory, with an expressive charm of their own.

Scholarship and criticism have made progress, and now, two hundred and seventy years later, a fresh revision has been made, but thus far, more with the effect of confirming our trust in the main correctness of King James's translators; nor have the comparatively few alterations that have been made tended to disturb a single doctrine, handed down through the Church, and confirmed through the Holy Scripture, our precious birthright.

Archbishop Bancroft had not lived to see the completion of the work, but in the Convocation that accompanied the first Parliament of James, stringent canons were enacted in accordance with the decisions of the conference at the Savoy, and sentence of excommunication pronounced against the disobedient. There was much opposition, and the Parliament refused to confirm the Act. The judges were consulted, and declared it to be binding on the clergy, as passed by Convocation, but not on the laity as wanting the authority of Parliament.

The Archbishop enforced the canons on the clergy, and those who would not submit, lost their benefices. Accounts vary whether the number thus deprived amounted to fifty or three hundred. Possibly the fifty had considerable preferment, and the others had less to lose.