X. KiiKiMs andDou.vy. — 1. The successive changes in the Protestant versions of the Scriptui-es were, as might be expected, matter of triumjih to the contro- versialists of the Latin Church. Some saw in it an argument against any translation of Scripture into the sjiokcn language of the people. Others pointed de- risively to the want of unity which these ciianges dis- jilaycil. 'i'here were some, however, who took the line whicli Sir ']'. More and (iardiner had taken under Hen- r}' VIII. They did not object to the princijile of an English translation. Tliey only charged all the ver- sions hitherto made with being false, corrupt, heretical. To this there was the ready retort that they had them- selves done nothing ; tiiat their liishops in the reign of Henry had promised, but had not i)erformcd. It was felt to be necessary that they should take some steps which might enal)le them to turn the edge of this re- proach. Accordingly, the English refugees who were settled at Riieims — Martin, Allen (afterwards cardi- nal), and Bristow — undertook the work. Gregori' ^lar- tin, \vJio had graduated at Cambridge, had signalized himself liy an attack on tiic existing versions, and had been answered in an elaborate treatise bj'Vulke, mas- ter of Caths-nine Hall, Cambridge (^1 Defence of the Si?i-
cere and True Translation, etc.). The charges are most- ly of the same kind as those brought by Sir T. More against Tyndale. " The old time-honored words were discarded. The authority of the Septuagint and Vul- gate was set at naught when the translator's view of the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek differed from what he found in them." The new model translation was to avoid these faults. It was to command the re- spect at once of priests and people. After an incuba- tion of some years, it was published at Bheims in 1582. Though Martin was competent to translate from the Greek, it professed to be based on "the authentic text of the Vulgate." Notes were added, as strongly dog- matic as those of the Geneva Bible, and often keenlj'' controversial. The work of translation was comjileted somewhat later by the publication of the O. T. at Dou- ay in 1609. The language was precisely what might have been expected from men who adopted Gardiner's ideal of what a translation ought to be. At every page we stumble on " strange inkhorn words," which never had been English, and never could be, such, e. g. as " the Pasche and the Azymes" (Mark xvi. 1), "the arch-synagogue" (Maik v,35), " in prepuce" (Ilom. iv, 9), " olidurate witli the fiillacie of sin" (Heb.iii.lo), "a greater hoste" (Heb. xi, 4), " this is the annuntiation" (1 .John V, 5), " pre-ordinate" (Acts xiii, 48), "the jus- tifications of our Lord" (Luke i, 6), " what is to me and thee" (John ii, 4), " longanimity" (Eom. ii, 4), " purge the old leaven that you may be a new paste, as you are azymes" (1 Cor. iv, 7), "you are evacuated from Christ" (Gal. v, 4), and so on.
2. A style such as this had, as might be expected, t ut few admirers. Among those few, however, we find one great name. Bacon, who leaves the great work of the reign of James unnoticed, and ciuotes al- most uniforml}' from the Vulgate, goes out of his waj' to praise the Ehemish version for having restored "charity" to the j)lace from Mhich Tyndale had ex- pelled it, in 1 Cor. xiii (J'f the Pacif cotton of the Church). Even IJoman Catholic divines have felt the superiority of the A.V., and Challoner, in his editions of the N. T. in 17-18, and the Bible, 17C3, often follows it in preference to the Kheims and Douay translations.
XI. King James's Version. — 1. The position of the English Church in relation to the versions in use at the commencement of the rei.un of James was hard- ly satisfactorj'. The Bishops' Bible was sanctioned b}' authority. That of (Geneva had the strongest hold on the affections of the people. Scholars, Hebrew scholars in particular, found grave fault with both. Hugh Broughton, who spoke Hebrew as if it had been his mother tongue, denounced the former as being full of " traps and jiitfalls," "overthrowing all religion," and proposed a new revision to be effected by an Eng- lish Septuagint (72), i\ ith power to consult gardeners, artists, and the like, about the words connected with' their several callings, and bound to submit their work to " one qualified for difliiculties." This ultimate ref- eree was, of course, to 1 e himself (Strype, Whitfft, iv, 19, 23). Unhajipily, neither his tcmi)er nor his manners were sucli as to win favor for this suggesticn. AVhit- gift disliked him, worried him, drove him into exile. Broughton's views were, however, shared by others; and among the demands of the Puritan representatives at the Hamjiton-Court Conference in 1G04 (Dr. Eei- nolds being the spokesman), was one for a new, or, at least, a revised translation. The special objections which they urged were neither numerous (three pas- sages only — Psa. cv, 28 ; cvi, 30 ; Gal. iv, 25 — were re- ferred t<0 nor important, and we must conclude either that this part of tlieir case had not been carefully got up, or that the bullying to which they were exposed had had the desired effect of throwing them into some confusion. The bishops treated the difficulties which tiicy did raise with supercilious scorn. They were "trivial, old, and often answered." Bancroft raised the cry of alarm which a timid conservatism has so of-