give honours in heaven. The omission of the words in Italics, exhibits the true meaning. "To sit upon my right hand, is not mine to give, except for whom it is prepared." See John 17. 2: Rev. 3. 21. In some cases the Italic words ought to be printed in Roman letters: as the auxiliary verbs, the word 'not,' in such passages as Deut. 33. 6: Psa. 75. 5: Isa. 38. 18: Job 30. 20, 25: the Hebrew idiom not requiring the repetition of the negative. 126. The analysis of the chapters of the Bible, and the titles and subscriptions of the books of the New Testament, form no part of the inspired writings. (See § 51). Analysis of 127. The present division of the Scriptures too, into chapters and verses, and the order of the several books, Divisions. are not of Divine origin, nor are they of great antiquity. The books are now arranged, not with reference to their historical connexion, but chiefly with reference to their contents, and the position of their authors. The Vulgate was the first version divided into chapters: a work undertaken by cardinal Hugo, in the 13th century, or as Jahn thinks, by Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, 1227. He introduced the division of chapters only. The Hebrew Scriptures were similarly divided by Mordecai Nathan, in 1445, and in 1661 Athias added in his printed text, the division into verses. The New Testament was divided in the same way by Robert Stephens, who is said to have completed it in the year 1551, during a journey (inter equitandum), from Paris to Lyons. As might be expected, these divisions are very imperfect: and even when not inaccurate, they tend to break the sense and to obscure the meaning. The subject of 2 Kings begins at the 24th verse of chap. 6. The description of the humiliation and glory of Christ, (the subject of Isa. 53.) begins at chap. 52. 13: and the previous verses of chap. 52. belong to chap. 51. The 6th verse of Jer. 3. begins a distinct prophecy, which is continued to the end of chap. 6. The first verse of Col. 4. belongs to chap. 3. Connect in the same way, Gen. 2. 1-3, and chap. 1: Rom. 15. 1-13, and chap. 14: I Cor. II. 1, and chap. 10.: 2 Cor. 4. and chaps. 5. 6. 7. The latter part of Matt. 9. belongs to the roth chapter. John 8. 1, belongs to the 7th; and the last two verses of Acts 4. belong to chap. 5. As a rule, no importance is to be attached to the division of verses or of chapters, unless it coincide with the division of paragraphs. Follow the pauses of the narrative, and mark the change of the subjects discussed. 128. The ancient divisions of the New Testament are noticed in § 49. To complete information on this point, we append a brief account of the ancient divisions of the Old Testament. Jewish division of Old Testament. Modern Jews use the present division of chapter and verse. But ancient MSS. were differently divided. The law had fifty-four greater divisions, called Parashoth, and the Prophets had similar divisions called Haphtaroth, or dismissions, being read shortly before the close of the service. One of each of these divisions was read on the sabbath. Smaller divisions were employed especially in the law, called also Parashoth, sometimes "open" (ninin), where there is an obvious break in the sense, and sometimes "shut," or leaning upon (in or ni), where the sense runs on. Of these, there are in the Pentateuch alone, 669. They are marked D and Drespectively. 129. When Jews referred to the Old Testament, it was their Scripture how custom to mention the subject of the paragraph, quoted. as it still is among the Arabs, in quoting from the Koran. 'In Elias,' Rom. 11. 2, (marg.) refers to 1 Kings 17-19. The bow' in 2 Sam. 1. 18, refers to the poem so called, in the book of Jasher: So perhaps " in the bush" to Exod. 3. 130. These corrections must not lead to a depreciation of our English Bible. The more we examine it, the higher will be our estimate of its general excellence. But zeal for any version, must yield to zeal for that Divine word which it seeks to represent. 131. They have been given at considerable length, for se Object of these veral reasons. They furnish answers to objections, which have been brought against Sacred Scripture. corrections. They remove difficulties and reconcile apparent contradictions. They are of value moreover, because they illustrate very fully the nature of the differences which exist between the English version and the original text. It is obvious that very many of these differences may be rectified by a comparison of parallel passages, so that the English reader has in his own hands the means, to a large extent, of correcting them. Nor do they disturb the conclusion to which the most competent authorities have come, that the English Bible is on the whole, identical with the Bible of the early Church. History of version. Saxon versions. 132. The English version of the Scriptures now in use, is itself the result of repeated revisions. In the preface to the Bishops' Bible, (A. D. 1568), a distinct reference is made to early Saxon versions, and there are still extant, parts of the Bible in Saxon, translated by Bede, by Alfred the Great, and by Elfric of Canterbury. Early Saxon MSS. of the Gospels are still preserved in the libraries of the British Museum, and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. version. The first complete translation of the Bible was made by Wycliffe's Wycliffe, about A. D. 1380. It exists only in MS., though part of it (the New Testament), was printed in 1731. The work was regarded with grave suspicion; and a bill was introduced into the House of Lords for suppressing it; but through the influence of John O'Gaunt, this was rejected. In 1408, however, in a convocation held at Oxford, it was resolved that no one should translate any text of Scripture into English, as a book or tract, and that no book of the kind should be read. This resolution led to great persecution, though there is reason to believe, that notwithstanding, many MSS. of Scripture were at that time in extensive circulation throughout England. Tyndale's. The first printed edition of the Bible in English, was published by Tyndale, the New Testament in 1526, and the Bible in part, in 1532. Tonstall, Bishop of London, and Sir Thomas More, took great pains to buy up and burn the impression, but with the effect thereby, of enabling the translator to publish a larger and improved edition.^ On the death of Tyndale (who died a martyr to the truth), Coverdale, Miles Coverdale revised the whole, and dedicated etc. it to king Henry the 8th, A. D. 1535, and in 1537, John Rogers, who had assisted Tyndale, and was then residing a See Anderson's Annals of the English Bible: and "Our English Bible," published by the Religious Tract Society. at Antwerp, reprinted an edition, taken from Tyndale and Coverdale. This edition was published under the assumed name of Thomas Matthews. A revision of this edition again was published (A. D. 1539), by Richard Taverner. The Great Bible appeared A. D. 1539. It was Coverdale's, revised by the translator, under the sanction of Cranmer. It was printed in large folio. For the edition of 1540, Cranmer wrote a preface, and it is hence called Cranmer's Bible. It was published by authority.' During the seven years of king Edward's (VI.) reign, eleven editions of the Scriptures were printed: but no new version or revision was attempted. During the reign of Mary, was published the Geneva Bible, A. D. 1557-60. Coverdale and others who had taken refuge in Geneva, edited it, and added marginal annotations. Archbishop Parker obtained authority from Queen Elizabeth, to revise the existing translations, and with the help of various bishops and others, published in 1568 what was called the Bishops' Bible. It contains short annotations, and in the smaller editions (from 1589,) the text is divided, like the Genevan, into verses. The same text was afterwards printed (in 1572), in a larger size, and with various prefaces, under the name of Matthew Parker's Bible. It continued in common use in the churches for forty years, though the Genevan Bible was perhaps more read in private. The Rhemish New Testament, and the Douay Old Testament, form the English Bible of the Romanists. The former was printed at Rheims (A. D. 1582), and the latter at Douay (A.D. 1609-10). In 1603, King James resolved on a revision of the translation, and for this purpose appointed fifty-four men of learning and piety. Forty-seven only undertook the work, and in four years (from 1607-11), it was completed. The text, as thus prepared and printed in 1611, is the authorized version. Advantage of 133. What wisdom is seen in the fact, that we have a written word: Scripture and not tradition: and not many Bibles, but one. A revelation more than this, would have multiplied the difficulties of inquiry. A revelation less than this, would long ago have lost a written record. its distinctness. Apart from any desire to vitiate a Divine message, merely oral tradition must have suffered from the condition of those to whom it was addressed. So incessant is the influence of man's moral state upon his judgment and perceptions, any unwritten revelation must have undergone essential, though perhaps insensible modifications. Every truth too, which had ceased in one age to be of present importance, would have been omitted in the number of truths handed down to the next. But for the Bible, we should have had a fearfully mutilated revelation, and of what remained we should have been contending, not so much for the sense of our Master's words, as for the words themselves. What grace is it, therefore, that in a world prone to deteriorate everything holy, and to falsify everything true, whatever may have grown old with age, has the means of renewing its youth: whatever may have been lost from the memory of the church, is not lost irrecoverably. We have the seeds of reformation, and of renewed knowledge: the very “word of the Lord, which liveth and abideth for ever." Danger to which a written revelation may expose us. 134. And yet this blessing of a written Bible will prove a curse, if on that account we forget the reverence that is due to it. As each truth of Scripture was made known of old, God gave sensible evidence whence it came, and wherefore it was sent. Men were called to believe the report, because the arm of the Lord was revealed. Awe and submission, and the consciousness of a Divine approach were impressed upon the minds of men by the most instructive solemnities. Adam heard God in the garden, before he had to answer for his disobedience. When God spoke to the children of Israel, they had such sensible proofs of his power, that they desired to hear his voice (without a Mediator) no more. When He spoke to Moses, the cloud was on the tabernacle, or his thunders shook the mountain. Samuel was taught by miraculous signs to give the Divine message a fervent welcome. Isaiah witnessed the scenes which we now read with so little awe, and he cried out in conscious unworthiness, "Woe is me, for I am of unclean lips." John was prepared to receive his visions by a spectacle which absorbed all his faculties, and made him fall down as one that was dead. A complete written revelation is clearly inconsistent with such miraculous evidence and |