(2.) With the New Testament, however, as with the Old, the division into chapters adopted by Hugh de St. Cher superseding those that had been in use previous- ly, appeared in the early editions of the Vulgate, was transferred to the English Bible by Coverdale, and so became universal. The notation of the verses in each chapter naturally followed the use of the Masoretic verses for the Old Testament. The superiority of such a division over the marginal notation "A B C D" in the Bible of St. Cher led men to adopt an analogous system for the New. See Chapters. In the Latin version of Pagninus accordingly, there is a versieular division, though differing from the one subsequently used in the greater length of its verses. The absence of an authoritative standard like that of the Masoretcs left more scope to the individual discretion of editors or printers, and the activity of the two Stephenscs caused that which they adopted in their numerous edi- tions of the Greek Testament and Vulgate to be gen- erally received. In the preface to the Concordance, published by Henry Stephens, 1594, he gives the fol- lowing account of the origin of this division. His fa- ther, he tells us, finding the hoiks of the New Testa- ment already divided into chapters (j-ju^ictrcr, or sec- tion-), proceeded to a farther subdivision into verses. The name versiculi did not commend itself to him. He would have preferred r/ujfta-ia or sectiunculse, but the preference of others for the former led him to adopt it. The whole work was accomplished " inter equitandum" on his journey from Paris to Lyons. While it was in progress men doubted of its success. No sooner was it known than it met with universal acceptance. The edition in which this division was first adopted was published in 1551, another came from the same press in 1555. It was used for the Vulgate in the Antwerp , edition of Iientenms in 1559, for the English version
BIBLE, ATTRIBUTES OF
803
BIBLE SOCIETIES
published in Geneva in 1560, and from that time, with slight variations in detail, has been universally recog- nised. The convenience of such a system for reference is obvious ; but it may be questioned whether it has not been purchased by too great a sacrifice of the percep- tion by ordinary readers of the true order and connec- tion of the books of the Bible. In some cases the di- vision of chapters separates portions which are very closely united (see e. g. Matt, ix, 38, and x, 1 ; xix, 30, and xx, 1; Mark ii, 23-28, and iii, 1-5; viii, 38, and ix, 1 ; Luke xx, 45-47, and xxi, 1-4 ; Acts vii, GO, and viii, 1 ; 1 Cor. x, 33, xi, 1 ; 2 Cor. iv, 18, v, 1 ; vi, 18, and vii, 1), and throughout gives the impression of a formal division altogether at variance with the con- tinuous flow of narrative or thought which character- ized the book as it came from the hand of the writer. The separation of verses has moreover conduced large- ly to the habit of building doctrinal sj'stems upon iso- lated texts. The advantages of the received method are united with those of an arrangement representing the original more faithfully in the structure of the Par- agraph BiMes, lately published by different editors, and in the Greek Testaments of Lloyd, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The student ouj;ht, however, to re- member, in using these, that the paragraphs belong to the editor, not the writer, and are therefore liable to the same casualties rising out of subjective peculiari- ties, dogmatic bias, and the like, as the chapters of our common Bibles. Practically the risk of such casualties has been reduced almost to a minimum by the care of editors to avoid the errors into which their predecessors have fallen, but the possibility of the evil exists, and should therefore be guarded against by the exercise of an independent judgment. (Davidson, in Horne'slntrcd. new ed. ii, 27 sq. ; Tregelles, ibil. iv, 30 sq. ; Davidson, Bib. f 'riticism, i, 60 ; ii, 21.)— Smith, s. v. See Verses. Bible, Attributes of (Affectiones Scripturm), a title b}r which, in the 16th century, Protestant theo- logians designated certain true views of Scripture as opposed to Romish, Socinian, and other errors. They are divided into two classes :
1. Primary attributes (affections primaries), i. e. such as directly flow from the divina origin and canon- icity of the Scriptures. The}' are, (1) A uthority (auc- toritas), as opposed on the one hand to the Socinian undervaluing of the O. T., and on the other to the Roaiish doctrine that the Church settles the authority of Scripture. It is divided into (a) auctoritas normri- tiea, i. e. the authority of the Bible to bind men to be- lieve and do whatever it teaches or commands; (b) auctoritas judicialis, as the Bible is the final appeal in questions of faith and practice. (2) Sufficiency (sufh- cientia or perfectio), as the Bible contains all things necessary for faith and practice, opposed to the Quaker doctrine of special inspiration or the "inner light," and to the Roman demand for traditional and Church teaching in addition to Scripture. (3) Tntelligibhness (perspicuitas), opposed to the Romish doctrine that the Bible cannot be understood without the Church's exposition of it. (4) Efficacy, i. e. of its doctrines and principles for the salvation of men.