rica; (No. 546.) And thus the Vulgate became the only version of the Scriptures used in the Latin church, down to the times of the Reformation.

The Italic translation of the New Testament having been made from copies of the original, nearly as ancient as the apostolical age, the readings of these copies exhibited in the Vulgate were considered as so authentic, that in the fifth and following centuries, some of the transcripts of the Greek Testament were corrected by the Vulgate. In this manner the famous Alexandrian MS. was corrected, if we may believe Wetstein, (See Pref. to his Greek Testament), as likewise, according to Mill, (No. 1457. 1479.), were the Vatican and the St. Germain copies; and according to Kuster, some others. (See his Preface.) Nay, Mill himself thought the readings of the Vulgate so authentic, that he imagined certain passages of our present Greek Testament might, by these readings, be restored to what he calls their primitive integrity; (No. 1309. 133.) Be this as it may, if the Vulgate edition of the Italic version was in such esteem as to be used anciently in correcting the Greek copies, we may well believe that the persons who translated the New Testament into the Syriac the second time, and into the other eastern languages, would be much guided by the Vulgate, or by the versions which followed it. Hence, in the second Syriac, and other eastern versions, there is such a surprising agreement with the Vulgate, that Mill once thought them translations actually made from it; (No. 1249.) Afterwards, indeed, to give the greater authority to the readings of the Vulgate, he supposed the Greek copies, from which these oriental versions were made, were the same with the copy from which the Italic was taken; (No. 1250.) But it can hardly be thought that these translators met with copies of the original exactly similar to that from which the Italic was made. The general esteem in which that version first, and afterwards the Vulgate, was held in the early ages, makes it more probable that the oriental versions copied the Italic, or Vulgate, as the Italic itself seems to have been copied from, or corrected by the first Syriac translation. What confirms this conjecture is, that the Saxon version of the four gospels was made from the Italic, before it was corrected by Jerome; (No. 1401.) This version was printed at London in the year 1571, by John Fox, the martyrologist, from a copy now in the Bodleian library.

As most of the ancient translations of the New Testament copied the Vulgate, it may be presumed that the persons who, in later times, translated the inspired writings into the different European languages, made their translations from the Vulgate likewise. Accordingly, when Peter Waldus, in the year 1160, got the Gospels and some other books of Scripture translated into the French language, and John Wickliff, in the year 1367, translated the New Testament into English, these translations were not made from the originals, but from the Vulgate. About that time, likewise, there were other vernacular translations of the Scriptures used in different countries, which were all made from the Vulgate. (See Simon, Hist. Crit. V. T. 1. ii. c. 22.) Nor could they be otherwise made, very few in that age having any skill

If what is alleged above be true, namely, that the most ancient copies of the Greek Testament were corrected by the Vulgate, and that the Ethiopic, the second Syriac, the Arabic, and other orien tal versions of the New Testament, were translations from the Vulgate, it will follow, that the readings of these ancient MSS. and versions are to be considered in no other light than as the readings of the Vulgate. The same judgment must be passed on the readings of the Saxon version, for it was made from the Vulgate. Wherefore, though at first sight the agreement of so many MSS. and ver sions, in any reading, may seem to add weight to that reading, yet, in so far as these MSS. were corrected by the Vulgate, and the ver sions mentioned were made from it, their agreement in that reading is of less consequence, as the authority of the whole resolves itself ultimately into that of the Vulgate.

The agreement of the Italic with the first Syriac is shewn by Beza in many passages of his notes.

in the original languages. Nay, in times more enlightened, I mean about the beginning of the Reformation, when Luther translated the New Testament into the German language, and Tyndal into the English, and Olivetan into the French, though these excellent men are said to have made their translations from the Hebrew and Greek, it is more probable that they made them from the Latin, and corrected them by the Greek. This was the case with Tyndal, as shall be shown afterwards. These fathers of the Reformation, before their eyes were a little opened, having known no other word of God but the Latin Bible, it was natural for them to follow it in their translations, where the doctrine in dispute between them and the Papists did not interfere. The high esteem in which the Vulgate version was held at that time, was strongly displayed by the fathers of the council of Trent, many of them men eminent for their learning, when, in the fourth session, after enumerating the books of Scripture, they decreed as follows: If any person does not esteem these books, with all their parts, as contained in the Vulgate edition, to be Scriptures and canonical, let him be anathema." Then, to strengthen their decree, they added, "That in all public readings, disputations, preachings, and expositions, the Vulgate edition of the Scriptures is to be held as authentic." (Fra. Paolo's History of the Council of Trent.) It is true, the first reformers neither acknowledged the authority of the council, nor carried their respect for the Vulgate translation so far as to place it on an equality with the originals; yet it was natural for them to follow that highly esteemed ancient version, especially when they were at any loss for the meaning of the Greek text.

Beza, perhaps, may be thought an exception from this charge. He translated the New Testament into Latin, professedly to amend the Vulgate version. Yet any one who compares his translation with the Vulgate, will find that, notwithstanding he hath corrected a number of its faults, he hath often followed it in passages where it is erroneous. Many of the Greek particles he hath translated with more latitude than is done in the Vulgate. Yet, having followed its uniform translations of the particles in other passages, he hath perpetuated, in his version, a number of its errors. Besides, being deeply tinctured with the scholastic theology, by adopting the readings of the Vulgate which favoured that theology, (No. 1258.), and by strained criticisms, he hath made texts express doctrines, which, though they may be true, were not intended by the inspired writers to be set forth in them: And thus, by presenting his favourite doctrines to the view of the reader, more frequently than is done in the Scriptures, he hath led the unlearned to lay a greater stress on these doctrines than is done by the Spirit of God. Nor is this all; he hath mistranslated a number of texts, for the purpose, as it would seem, of establishing his peculiar doctrines, and of confuting his opponents;-of all which examples shall be given afterwards. Farther, by omitting some of the original words, and by adding others without any necessity, he hath in

The above decree may seem strange to those who know, that before it was made, the edition of the Vulgate mentioned in it was acknowledged by the fathers of the council to be exceedingly faulty, and to need much correction. Accordingly, after the council, Pope Sixtus V. employed a number of learned men to compare the com mon edition of the Vulgate with the best copies thereof. And they having finished their task, Sixtus published his corrected edition in the year 1589, and, by his bull prefixed to it, declared it to be that which the council of Trent held as authentic. Nevertheless, the succeeding Popes endeavoured to suppress this edition, as inaccurate and imperfect. And, in the year 1592, Pope Clement VIII. published a new edition, which not only differs from that of Sixtus, but in many places is directly contrary to it; as Dr. Thomas Jaines, keeper of the Bodleian library, who compared the two editions, hath shown in a book which he entitled, The Papal War. See Lewis's Complete History, 2d Edit. p. 258.

$ In the following texts Beza has adopted the erroneous transla tion of the Vulgate Rom. i. 17. 2 Cor. ix. 4. Eph. ii. 10. Heb. x. 15-18. 1 Pet. ii. 8. iv. 6.

been guided by it, we may now with some degree of confidence affirm, that the agreement observable in the ancient and modern versions of the New Testament, especially in the more difficult passages, is owing, not to the justness of the translation, but to the translators having, one after another, followed the old Italic version, as it was corrected by Jerome in the Vulgate edition. This being the case, it cannot be thought strange, that the errors and obscurities of the Vulgate have entered more or less into all the ancient versions of the New Testament, and that from them they have crept into many of the modern versions likewise.*

SECT. II. Of the modern Versions of the New Testament; and particularly of the English Translations of the greatest note.

As the author does not pretend to be acquainted with all the vernacular translations of the Scriptures, used at present by the different nations of Europe, he will not take upon him to say how far they have copied the Vulgate. But this he may affirm, that most of the vernacular versions of the Scriptures made by the Roman Catholics since the reformation are translations of the Vulgate, And with respect to the Protestants, though Luther and Olivetan gave out that they made their versions from the Hebrew, they must be understood with some limitation, if F. Simon's opinion be true, namely, that neither the one nor the other understood Hebrew so well as to be able to translate the Scriptures from that language. Be that, however, as it will, this is known, that all the vernacular versions now used by the Lutherans are translations of Luther's German Bible, and that most of those used by

the Calvinists are translations either from Olivetan's ver

sion, as corrected by Calvin, or from Beza's Latin New Testament; consequently, neither the Lutheran nor the Calvinist vernacular versions can be supposed as exact as they should be. But without insisting on this, the author supposes the utility of a new English translation of the apostolic epistles will be sufficiently evinced, if it can be shown that the first English translators made their versions from the Vulgate, and that the subsequent translators, by copying them, have retained a number of the errors of that ancient version.

WICKLIFF'S NEW TESTAMENT.-If we except the Saxon translation of the four gospels, mentioned p. 2, the most ancient English version of the New Testament now remaining is that which was made by John Wickliff, a fellow of Merton College, Oxford. Such a change had taken place in the language since the Norman conquest, that the Anglo-Saxon, the only English version of the Scriptures then extant, was in Wickliff's time become unintelligible to the common people, who neither understood a number of the words, nor the spelling, nor even the letters in which it was written. This excellent person, therefore, with a view to expose the errors of popery, and

To prove what is asserted above, the following examples are and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.' This translation implies, that the other might fall without their Father. The same error is found in the Syriac and Vulgate versions, and in Beza, and most of the Latin translations, not excepting Erasmus, and in all the old English versions, and in the Geneva Bible. But the absurdity may easily be removed, by construing the nega tive particle with the word (a) one, thus: "Yet not one of them falleth on the ground,' &c.-Luke xxiii. 32. Ducebantur autem, et alii duo nequam, cum eo, ut interficerentur. This translation most falsely represents Jesus as a malefactor; and being found in the first Syriac and Vulgate versions, the Arabic, Ethiopie, &c. derived it either from the Syriac or the Vulgate. Wickliff also, Erasmus, Castalio, the Rhemish, and even our English translators, have all followed the Vulgate in this gross error. Yet the original, Hy 8. xxi Tigos duo xxxovey of OUR RUTH VIETA, by supplying the

produced:-Matt. x. 29. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing

word or, as Thomson hath done, may justly be rendered, 'Now with him also two others who were malefactors were led to be put to death;' or rather, without any addition, thus: 'Now, there

to spread the knowledge of religion among his countrymen, employed himself in making a translation of the New Testament into the English language, as it was then spoken, and finished it about the year 1367. But because, by translating the Scriptures, Wickliff put it in the power of every one who could read to compare the doctrines of Rome with the doctrines of Christ, his translation was universally condemned as heretical by the Romish clergy; and a bill was brought into the House of Lords, anno 1390, for suppressing it. But the Duke of Lancaster, a favourer of Wickliff, and uncle to King Richard II., opposing the bill, it was thrown out. After Wickliff's death, by a constitution of the convocation at Oxford, the reading of his translation was prohibited, and some, for using it, suffered death.

Wickliff did not make his translation of the New Tes

tament from the Greck, which it is thought he did not understand, but from the Latin Bible then read in the churches, which he rendered verbatim, without regarding A translation of the New the idiom of the languages. Testament made in that manner, from such an incorrect copy as the Latin Bible then was, could not miss to be Nevertheless, being anxboth erroneous and obscure. iously sought after, and much read by persons of all ranks, it was of great use in opening the eyes of the nation to the errors of popery; and the rather, that to the books of the New Testament Wickliff had prefixed a translation of Jerome's prologues, with some additions of his own, tending to expose the Romish superstitions. Afterwards, the faults of Wickliff's translation being discovered, some of his followers, as Lewis informs us, (p. 29.) revised it; or rather, made "another translation, not so strictly literal as his, and more according to the sense." Of this revised translation, the MS. copies are more rare, though some of them are still preserved in the public libraries. In the advocates' library at Edinburgh, there is a beautiful MS. of Wickliff's translation, on vellum. But whether it is of the first, or of the revised translation, the author does not know.

TYNDAL'S TRANSLATION.-The next English translation of the New Testament which merits attention, was made in the reign of Henry VIII. by William Tyndal, a Welchman, educated in Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he read lectures in divinity. But after a while, becoming sensible of the errors of popery, to show their opposition to the word of God, he formed the design of translating the New Testament into English, and of publishing it from the press ;-a measure at that time necessary, as both the language and orthography of Wickliff's translation were become in a great measure obsolete. While Tyndal was executing his pious intention, he fell under the suspicion of heresy, and was obliged to flee to Antwerp, where, with the assistance of one John Frith, he finished his translation of the New Testament, and published it either at Antwerp or Hamburgh in the year 1526. When the copies of Tyndal's translation were imported into England, and dispersed, the Romish clergy were exceedingly provoked. Some of them said it was impossible to translate the Scriptures into English; others, that it was not lawful for the people to have them in their mother tongue; others, that it would make them all heretics. They were displeased, likewise, because Tyndal, like Wickliff, had interpreted the sacred words (see p. 8.), whose meaning they wished to hide from the people; because, having appropriated these words to themselves, as long as they were not understood, the clergy were at liberty to affix to them any sense they Wherefore pleased, for aggrandizing their own order. when they found that Tyndal, in his translation, had put the word senior for priest, congregation for church, love for charity, repentance for penance, &c. they were so en

and so the shocking absurdity will be avoided.

the whole of his translation as heretical, forbade the people to read it, made strict search after the copies of it, and all that they found they burnt publicly. But the more Tyndal's translation was condemned, the more it was sought after and read; insomuch that the Dutch booksellers printed four editions of it before Tyndal thought fit to reprint it. Concerning these Dutch editions, it is to be observed, that as the editors did not understand the English language themselves, and had no person skilled in it to correct their presses, three of their editions are extremely erroneous.

While the foreign booksellers were making gain of Tyndal s labours, he was employed in translating the five books of Moses into English, with an intention to publish them likewise. In this part of his work he was assisted by Myles Coverdale, a native of Yorkshire, and one of the Austin friars in Cambridge, who, being suspected of heresy, had fled to the continent. Having finished his translation, Tyndal printed it at Malborrow (Marpurg), in the land of Hesse, in the year 1530. To each of the books of Moses he prefixed a prologue, and on the margin placed notes, and added ten wooden cuts, representing the ark, the candlestick, &c. About this time, likewise, he translated the prophecy of Jonah, and some other books of Scripture.

In the year 1534, the Dutch booksellers having resolved to print a fourth edition of Tyndal's New Testament, they hired one George Joye (a Bedfordshire man, bred in Peterhouse, Cambridge), to correct the press. But, as Joye tells us in his preface, "he not only corrected the errors of the press; but when he came to some dark sentences, having the Latin text by him, he made them plainer, and gave many words their native signification, which they had not before." This edition was printed at Antwerp in August 1534.

In November 1534 the papal dominion was abolished in England, and the king's supremacy established by act of parliament; so that a way was opened for the reformation of religion, to the unspeakable advantage of the English nation.

This year, Tyndal published his New Testament a second time, because, in his former edition, as he acknowledges in the preface, "there were many faults, which the lack of help, and oversight, had occasioned." The title of this edition is, "The Newe Testament, diligently corrected, and printed in the year of our Lord 1534, in November." And at the end, "Printed at Antwerp by Marten Emperour." But the Dutch booksellers had made such haste, that, as was just now mentioned, their edition was published in August, three months before Tyndal's.

It hath been commonly said, that Tyndal made his translation of the New Testament from the Greek; but no such thing is said in the titles of any of the editions published by himself, or by Joye. In the library of St. Paul's church, London, there is an edition with this

If, as Lewis informs us, Tyndal translated an oration of Isocrates, he must have had some knowledge of the Greek; but as that language was very little studied in these days, it may be doubted whether he understood it so well as to be able to translate the New Testament from the Greek. The Hebrew being still less studied in England, it is generally believed that neither he nor Coverdale understood that language. Besides, the short time they spent in finishing their translations of the books of the Old Testament, renders it more than probable that they did not make their translations from the Hebrew, but from the Latin Bible. Perhaps they compared their translations with the originals. For, with a very slender knowledge of the languages, they may have done what Olivetan says he did, when he made his French translation from the Hebrew. "On meeting with any difficult text, which he did not understand, or which he doubted of, he consulted the translations and commentaries of others, and took what he judged best." (Simon, Crit. Hist. du V. T. L. ii. c. 24.) This, I suppose, is all that the learned men meant, who, in the title of the Bible which they published in the year 1539, say, they "translated it truely after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes." See page 6.

title: "The Newe Testament, diligently corrected and compared wyth the Greke, by William Tyndal, and finished in the yere of our Lord God 1534, in the moneth of November." But this edition was not published by Tyndal; for in a later edition, mentioned by Lewis, which was printed in 1536, the title is, "The Newe Testament, yet once agayne corrected by William Tindale." This, with other circumstances to be mentioned afterwards, shows, that Tyndal's translation was made from the Vulgate Latin, as most of the vernacular translations of the New Testament, made in that age, undoubtedly were.

Before Tyndal finished the printing of his second edition, in 1534, he was imprisoned in the castle of Antwerp, where he remained till he was strangled and burnt as an heretic, in the year 1536. Hall tells us, that after the publication of the first edition of his New Testament, Tydal prosecuted his design of translating the Old Testament with such diligence, that before he was put to death he had finished his translation, not only of the Pentateuch, and of Jonah, but of all the other books to Nehemiah. These translations, according to Johnson, he made not from the Hebrew, but from the Vulgate Latin; or, as the popish writers affirm, from Luther's German translation.

Tyndal's translation of the books of the Old Testament to Nehemiah, together with his translation of Jonah, and of the books of the New Testament, make what is called Tyndal's Bible.

COVERDALE'S BIBLE.-While Tyndal was in prison, the whole Bible, translated into English, was finished at the press, in the year 1535, with a dedication to Henry VIII., subscribed by Myles Coverdale. In this dedication Coverdale speaks with great bitterness against the bishop of Rome, and his usurpations, and tells the king, that "he took upon him to set forth this special translation, not as a checker, reprover, or despiser of other men's translations, but lowly and faithfully following his interpreters, and that under correction. Of these," he said, "he made use of five different ones, who had rendered the Scriptures, not only into Latin, but also into Dutch." Here it is to be observed, that Coverdale does not pretend that he made his translation from the originals; he only "followed his interpreters," that is, other translators. And by calling his "a special translation," he wished to have it considered as different from Tyndal's. Yet it is well known, that he adopted all Tyndal's translations, both of the Old Testament and of the New, with some small alterations. Only he omitted Tyndal's prologues and notes, because they had given offence to the Papists. That Coverdale adopted Tyndal's translations, appears likewise from his saying in his preface, that "Tyndal's helpers and companions would finish what Tyndal had left unfinished, and publish it in a better manner than himself had now done;" referring to the books of the Old Testament, and of the Apocrypha, which Tyndal had not translated, but which Coverdale had now published. These, therefore, are the only translations in this Bible which are properly Coverdale's own; and, joined with Tyndal's translations, are what hath been commonly called Coverdale's Bible, or rather Tyndal and Coverdale's translation. vicar-general to the king in matters ecclesiastical, ordered a Soon after the publication of this Bible, Cromwell, as copy of it to be laid in the quire of each church, that every one who pleased might read it.

MATTHEW'S BIBLE.-In the year 1537, Richard Grafedition of Coverdale's Bible, with Tyndal's prologues and ton and Edward Whytchurch, printers, published a second notes. Because this Bible was printed with German types, and was superintended by John Rogers, pastor of a church at Marbeck in the dutchy of Wittemberg, Lewis thinks it was printed at Marbeck.-Rogers was educated

at Cambridge, where, in 1525, he took the degree of bachelor of arts; then removing to Oxford, he was made a junior canon of Cardinal's college; after that, taking orders, he was appointed chaplain to the English factory at Antwerp, where, meeting with Tyndal, he was by him made sensible of the errors of popery. From Antwerp he went to Marbeck, and became pastor of a congregation there. Before this edition of Coverdale's Bible was finished, Tyndal was burnt as an heretic. Wherefore Rogers, fearing that the prefixing of Tyndal's name to it might occasion its being ill received by the common people, he published it under the feigned name of Thomas Matthew, and dedicated it to Henry VIII. Bishop Bale says, Rogers translated the Bible from the beginning to the end, having recourse to the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, and German copies. But Lewis says this is evidently a mistake. For the Bible called Matthew's is not a new translation, but, as Wanley observes, to the end of Chronicles it is Tyndal's, and from that to the end of the Apocrypha, it is Coverdale's. He ought to have excepted Jonah, which is of Tyndal's translation, having his prologue prefixed to it. The translation of the New Testament is likewise Tyndal's, as are the prologues and notes. Farther, that the translation which goes under the name of Matthew's was not made from the originals, is evident from the title, which runs thus: "The Bible, which is all the Holy Scripture, in which are contayned the Olde and Newe Testament, truelye and purelye translated into Englysh: By Thomas Matthewe." This, which is commonly called Matthew's Bible, was begun and finished under the patronage of archbishop Cranmer; for it was presented by Grafton to him, and to the lord Cromwell; and Cromwell, at the archbishop's request, presented it to the king, who permitted it to be bought and used by all persons without distinction.-Rogers returned to England in Edward VI.'s time, and was made a prebendary of St. Paul's. But when Mary came to the throne, he was apprehended and condemned under the name of Rogers, alias Matthew, for having published this translation of the Bible under the name of Mathew. He was the first martyr in that reign.

HOLLY BUSHE'S NEW TESTAMENT.-It seems the Papists, about this time, to discredit the English translations of the Scriptures before mentioned, affirmed that they were contrary to the Latin Bible, which was then used in the churches, and which, as the Rhemish translators afterwards expressed it, was considered as truer than the ori ginal itself; by which they meant the copies of the Greek Testament then used. For in the year 1538, Coverdale,

to show that his translation of the New Testament was not different from the common Latin Bible, allowed one Johan Hollybushe to print, in a column opposite to the Vulgate Latin, the English translation of the New Testament, which Coverdale had formerly set forth in his Bible. This Hollybushe published while Coverdale was abroad, with the following title: "The Newe Testament, both in Latine and Englishe, eche correspondent to the other, after the Vulgate text, communely called St. Jerome's, faithfully translated by Johan Hollybushe, anno 1538."* GREAT BIBLE. In the year 1539, Grafton and Whytchurch published a new edition of the English Bible, with

To this edition Coverdale prefixed a dedication to Henry VIII. in which he takes notice of the reflections made on the translation of the Bible in English which he had published, "as if he intended to pervert the Scripture, and to condemn the commune translation into Latyn, which costumably is red in the church." To obviate these false suggestions, he tells his Majesty, "he has here set forth this commune translation in Latin, and also the English of it." Next he observes, "Concerning this present Latin text, forasmuch as it has been, and was yet so greatly corrupt, as he thought none other translation was, it were a godly and gracious dede, yf they that have authorite, knowledge, end tyme, wolde, under his Grace's correction, examen it better, after the most ancient interpre ters, and most true textes of other languages." Accordingly, in his epistle to the reader, speaking of the Latin text, he says, "Wherein,

the following title: "The Byble in Englishe, that is to say, the content of all the Holy Scripture, bothe of the Olde and Newe Testament, truely translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes, by the dylygent studye of diverse excellent fearned men, expert in the This is the first time any English forsayde tonges." translation of the Bible was set forth as made after the verity of the originals. (See page 5. note.) Who the divers excellent learned men were, by whose diligent study this translation was made, is not known. Johnson says it was corrected by Coverdale. And from the splendid manner in which it was printed, Lewis conjectures that it was intended to be used in the churches, and was patronized by Cranmer, who might appoint some learned men to assist Coverdale in correcting it. But whoever these excellent learned men were, it is certain that this is no new translation from the originals, but, as Lewis observes, a revisal only of Matthew's, that is, Rogers' edition, with some small alterations. However, to make it appear different, Matthew's name was omitted, as were Tyndal's prologues and notes, because they had been blamed as heretical and defamatory. In this edition, the additions to the Hebrew and Greek originals in the Vulgate Latin are translated, and inserted in a smaller letter than the text, particularly the three verses in Psalm xiv. which were omitted by Coverdale and Matthew; likewise the famous text, 1 John, ch. v. 7. which Tynd 1, in his New Testament, (published in 1526), had printed in small letters, to show that it was not then in the common Greek copies. Next, where the editors found various readings in the text, they prefixed a cross to the word. In the third place, to supply, in some measure, the want of the notes, they placed on the margin, hands pointing to the texts which were supposed to condemn the errors of popery, that the reader might attend to them. This Bible being printed with types of a greater size than common, and in a large folio, with a fine emblematical frontispiece, said to be designed by Hans Holben, and beautifully cut in wood, it was called The Great Bible.

When the liturgy was first compiled, in the reign of Edward VI., the epistles, gospels, and psalms put into it, were all according to this translation; and so they continued till the restoration of Charles II., when the epistles though in some places he used the honest and just libertye of a

grammarian, as was needful for the reader's better understandynge; yet, because he was lothe to swerve from the text (the Vulgate Latin), he so tempered his pen, that, if the reader wolde, he might make plain construction of it by the English that standeth on the other side." In 1539 Coverdale set forth a second edition of this New Testament, with a dedication to the lord Cromwell, in which, speaking of his inducement to publish the former edition, he says, "Inasmuch as the New Testament which he had set forth in Englis before (namely, in his Bible), did so agree with the Latyn, ho was hartely well content that the Latyn and it shulde be set together, (namely, by Hollybushe), provyded alwaye, that the corrector shulde followe the true copye of the Latyn in anye wyse, and to kepe the true and right Englishe of the same; and so doing, he was content to set his name to it; and that so he did, trusting that, though he was out of the land, all shulde be well. But when he had perused this copie, he found, that, as it was disagreeable to his former translation in English (Tyndal's translation, which he had copied in his Bible), so was not the true copye of the Latyn text observed, neither the English so correspondent to the same as it ought to be. Therefore he had endeavoured himself to wede out

the faults that were in the Latyn and English," &c. From these quotations it is evident, that the translation of the New Testament which Coverdale allowed Hollybushe to print with the Latin text, was the one which he had published in his Bible; consequently it was Tyndal's translation. It is evident, likewise, that that trans lation was made from the Vulgate, and in so literal a manner, that the reader might make plain construction of the Latin by the English. It is true, Coverdale in some places corrected the Latin text; but it was only as a grammarian; and in these corrections he was careful to swerve as little as possible from his text. Wherefore, Coverdale having assisted Tyndal in making his translation, they followed one and the same method; that is, both of them translated the Scriptures from the Vulgate; both of them translated the Vulgate literally; and both of them corrected the text of the Vulgate as grammarians, making use of other translations for that purpose; such as, for the Old Testament, the Septuagint, Lather's German version, and Munster's Latin translation; and for the New, Wickliff's and Frasinus' versions, and what others they could find.