examination of the original translation and of each revision thereof, compared with the critical apparatus which each editor had to aid him, would reveal not only the progress made at each step, but the sources from which every improvement or change was derived. The article "Version Authorized," in Smith's Bible Dictionary, is also very full on the subject.

The Anglo-Saxons had several different versions of the Gospels, the Psalms, some of the Epistles and other parts of the Bible. But no trace has been found of a version of the entire Bible. These versions were made from the Latin Vulgate, which was then the only text in general use in Western Europe, and were made from the ninth to the twelfth centuries.

John Wickliffe completed an English version of the Vulgate New Testament in 1360, and with the aid of Nicholas de Hereford and Richard Purvey completed the entire Bible in 1380 or 1382. Wickliffe died 1384. A large number of the Wickliffe Bibles are extant in manuscript.

MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS.

1. Tyndale's

New Testament, 1526.

Pentateuch, 1531.

Book of Jonah.

Historical Books O. T. not published but

used by John Rogers in Matthew's Bible,

1537.

2. Coverdale's, 1535, printed (i. e., dated) but not published until 1537.

3. Matthew's, 1537. Edited by John Rogers under the fictitious name of Thomas Matthew, and composed of Tyndale's as far as translated by him, and the balance of Coverdale's, all somewhat revised and corrected.

4. Taverner's, 1539.

5. Cranmer's, 1540.

6. Genevan, 1557, 1560.

7. Bishop's, 1568.

8. Thomson's New Testament, 1576.

8A. Rheimish New Testament, 1587.

8B. Douay Bible, 1609.

9. Authorized Version, 1611.

JUDGE BRADLEY ON THE OLD ENGLISH BIBLE.

[The Evangelist, Thursday, May 3, 1883.]

[Mr. Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States, is not only a distinguished Judge but an eminent scholar as well. Master of several languages, his familiarity with them has taught him to appreciate the more the good old Saxon, which is the basis of our mother tongue. This leads him to prize and cherish the old English Bible without any of the modern "revisions" or improvements. The following, which a friend has kindly obtained for us, with permission to use it, was written years ago, before the recent Revision was entered upon, and had reference to some versions prepared by individuals, which had a very limited circulation. The observations, therefore, were not intended to apply to the recent Revision prepared by the best Biblical scholars in England and

America. No one would appreciate more highly the results of modern learning which might throw light on the word of God. And yet the bearing of what is said here would be against any attempt at revisions; and without his positive statement on this point, we are inclined to think that if he were asked to form his opinion as a Judge between the two versions-that of King James and the late Revision-he would say: The old is the better.-Ed. Ev.]

The English Bible taken altogether is a book which the English-speaking race should love and reverence. It is certainly inspired now if it were not at first. Spiritual meanings, hallowed associations, sacred memories, lurk on every page, in every passage. That which was coarse has become chaste; that which had little meaning has become big with meaning; that which was commonplace has become divine. It is pervaded with the odor of human sanctity, like a garment enclosed in a chest of sandal-wood. It is invested with a halo produced by reverential regard, which ever reacts upon itself, transfiguring that which it gazes upon. Generation after generation has brought to it each its contributions of inspired meanings, and it is consecrated by the divinest yearnings of humanity. Add to this its pure archaic English, the very form and body of which has become sacred to the national taste and dear to the national pride, and we may account, in some degree, for the talismanic effect produced by this book of books, which no irreverent hand should touch and no irreverent tongue defame. Properly appreciated and wisely used it is the most valuable aid and support to piety and virtue.

I have no patience with the constant attempts to change the common version of the Bible. When it expresses the sense of the original, why change it? Is it to avoid archaisms? I like them. I like them. They are generally pure old English, which it is well to preserve. In addition to its intrinsic beauty, it serves as an introduction to our earlier literature. Besides, we become attached to words that have become sanctified by long use. They often have associations for us that no affected elegance of diction can supply. For example, Noyse and others use the auxiliary verb will for shall. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God." What is gained by this change? It seems made for the sake of change. Campbell and Boothroyd retain "shall" but discard "blessed" for "happy," and the former discards "pure" for "clean." Thus, "Happy the clean in heart for they shall see God." Is the sense made more perspicuous by these changes? Not a particle. An old familiar expression is exchanged for a new one, which serves no better purpose in any point of view. Exactly the same moral thought is conveyed to the mind as by the old version; and that version has been the possession of English readers— not from the time of James, but from the time of Henry VIII, the time of Tyndale and Coverdale. It has been our inheritance for three centuries and a half. I may be over-nice, but I confess that such verbal changes in our sacred and venerable classic are offensive to my ears.

The moral lessons of the Bible relate to facts in our experience and to phases of our moral nature. Our own consciousness recognizes their application. Trifling variations of diction can make no alteration

in their substantial sense. That is determined by the real facts of thought, propensity, life. Some human characteristic is the object of each uttered formula of truth or precept, and fixes its true interpretation. Without this objective basis of fact for its application the formula would be meaningless. With it the meaning is definite and unchangeable. This is the great conservative element which makes the Bible a practical book and restrains all fanciful expositions of its language. Therefore it is, that even apologues and parables go straight to their mark and are rarely misunderstood. Conscience, seated in the inner recesses of the human bosom, is quick to perceive and understand what is meant. Some sore spot of guilt or sorrow is instantly touched and responds to the rebuke or the promise. The facts of human nature are the exponents of religious teaching. It is here, and here alone, that the teaching finds its application, just as the definitions of science find their true interpretation in the things themselves sought to be defined. No fanciful variations of phraseology in the definition or lesson can alter its substantial significance. When it is said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," we know as well what is meant by the annunciation as if Greek or Syriac were our vernacular tongue and we had heard the original words uttered by the Saviour himself. No exposition can make it clearer. No choice modern phrases can make it better understood. Purity of heart is a spiritual fact, which, like a straight line, is always the same under every change of description, and the happiness that springs from it is as aptly suggested by the word "blessed" as by any other. It is a happiness that has a moral