400th Anniversary of the King James Bible

Today marks the 400th anniversary of what is arguably the greatest Bible translation ever prepared. Standing on the shoulders of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, John Rogers, William Whittingham, among many other martyrs and scholars; launched at the 1604 Hampton Court Conference by the proposal of that "living library," Puritan John Rainolds, and commissioned by a king with his own anti-Puritan agenda; prepared by a great company of translators, including Rainolds himself, using these translation rules; and ultimately embraced by the vast majority of not only Puritans, who had previously enjoyed their beloved Geneva Bibles, but also the entire Western world for centuries, believers and unbelievers alike in their own way; the King James Bible represents the high-water mark of English Bible translation.

It was on May 2, 1611, that the King's Printer, Robert Barker, published what became known both as the 'Authorised' and 'King James Version' of the Bible. David Norton notes that it was 'appointed' by King James to be read in all the churches, rather than 'authorised.'

David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible, p. 46:

The finely engraved title page, by Cornelius Boel, reads:

The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised: by his Majesties speciall Comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker. Printer to the Kings most excellent Maiestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.

The use of 'appointed' and the absence of 'authorised' are striking -- the more striking in that the Bishops' Bible after 1565 had been 'authorised and appointed to be read in Churches' (H188). Moreover, there is no official record of authorisation (for these reasons I prefer to call this Bible the King James Bible).

Whether 'appointed' or 'authorised,' we can give thanks to God for the labors of those men who bequeathed to the world a legacy that lives on today, four centuries later. Thankful as I am for the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, as well the labors of other faithful Bible scholarship, before and after 1611, it is true what T.S. Eliot said (Sunday Telegraph, No. 98 (16th December 1962), p. 7),

The age covered by the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I was richer in writers of genius than is our own, and we should not expect a translation made in our time to be a masterpiece of our literature or, as was the Authorized Version of 1611, an exemplar of English prose for successive generations of writers.

While I am not personally opposed to the ecclesiastical production of new, faithful English Bible translation one day that is based, as was the KJV, on the Majority Text, I have yet to see one among a 20th century landscape strewn with vastly inferior attempts at translation. C.S. Lewis has further rightly noted in a letter to T.S. Eliot that it is "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated (Letters, May 25, 1962).

For those who desire to study the textual and translation issues that underlie the modern attempts to supplant the KJV as the English ecclesiastical text, I recommend the literature of Dean Burgon, Edwards Hills, Theodore Letis, and the Trinitarian Bible Society. Joel Beeke has given his practical reasons for retaining the KJV here. For those seeking assistance in taking up the reading of the KJV, I recommend this aid prepared by Peter Lindstrom. For those seeking to better understand the legacy of the KJV, I recommend Leland Ryken, The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation.

The King James Version of the Bible is a monument not to the infallibility of man -- it is a fallible translation, yet the best I know of in my native tongue -- but to scholarship and eloquence grounded in fidelity to the Word of God. Thanks be to God for such a faithful labor of love.

It is this thought from the translators to their readers that I would leave with you, friend, in praise of God's Word, which is a spirit that we should all cultivate in love to God and his voice to us:

¶ The praise of the Holy Scriptures

But now what piety without truth? What truth, what saving truth, without the word of God? What word of God, whereof we may be sure, without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John v. 39. Isaiah viii. 20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts xvii. 11 and viii. 28, 29. They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe them. Matth. xxii. 29. Luke xxiv. 25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim. iii. 15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; tolle, lege; Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto St Augustine by a supernatural voice. Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, believe me, saith the same St Augustine, is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing and renewing of men’s minds, and truly so tempered, that every one may draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a devout and pious mind, as true religion requireth. Thus St Augustine. And St Hierome, Ama Scripturas, et amabit te sapientia, &c. Love the Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee. And St Cyrill against Julian, Even boys that are bred up in the Scriptures, become most religious, &c. But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practised, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ’s time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection of the Scripture? I adore the fulness of the Scripture, saith Tertullian against Hermogenes. And again, to Apelles an heretick of the like stamp he saith, I do not admit that which thou bringest in (or concludest) of thine own (head or store, de tuo) without Scripture. So St Justin Martyr before him; We must know by all means (saith he) that it is not lawful (or possible) to learn (any thing) of God or of right piety, save only out of the Prophets, who teach us by divine inspiration. So St Basil after Tertullian, It is a manifest falling away from the faith, and a fault of presumption, either to reject any of those things that are written, or to bring in (upon the head of them, ἐπεισάγειν) any of those things that are not written. We omit to cite to the same effect St Cyrill, Bishop of Jerusalem in his 4. Cateches. St Hierome against Helvidius, St Augustine in his third book against the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his works. Also we forbear to descend to latter Fathers, because we will not weary the reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them? of curiosity, if we be not content with them? Men talk much of εἰρεσιώνη, how many sweet and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosopher’s stone, that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornucopia, that it had all things necessary for food in it; of Panaces the herb, that it was good for all diseases; of Catholicon the drug, that it is instead of all purges; of Vulcan’s armour, that it was an armour of proof against all thrusts and all blows, &c. Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these for bodily good, we may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armour, but also a whole armoury of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves, and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal’s meat or two; but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a panary of wholesome food against fenowed traditions; a physician’s shop (St Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a pandect of profitable laws against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? the original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the penmen, such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God’s Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God’s word, God’s testimony, God’s oracles, the word of truth, the word of Salvation, &c.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

MHCC 32: Dominion Founded In Grace or Not?

Samuel Butler wrote in his satirical poetic attack on the Puritans, Hudibras (pt. III, canto III, l. 1173-1174), that:

Sure 'tis an orthodox opinion,
That grace is founded in dominion.

This was indeed the position of the Millenarians, or Fifth Monarchy movement, which believed themselves to be saints ushering in Christ's kingdom on earth, and perhaps that of the Levellers in Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, who sought to abolish civil and political inequalities, and the language can be traced further back to John Wycliffe. When Wycliffe argued that dominion was founded in grace,* however, his argument was an ideal one, aimed at ecclesiastical tyranny and worldly abuses within the Roman Catholic Church -- i.e., those ecclesiastics who claimed authority in the church and over temporal affairs while living ungodly lives -- rather than promoting a doctrine which would assert civil rights or temporal power on basis of being in a covenant relationship with God. He asserted that God was the Sole Proprietor of all things and the fountain of all authority, and that authority flowing from God to men could be deprived upon condition of living in 'mortal' in; yet he was emphasizing the de jure spiritual nature of the kingdom of God within the church on earth, not seeking to prematurely claim for the saints temporal dominion over God's creation and overthrow the de facto civil authority. Wycliffe certainly did not intend to preach political revolution, though the Peasant Revolt of 1381 soon followed.

Samuel Rutherford shows how Wycliffe's doctrine was wrested by the very Popish authorities with whom he was contending in Lex Rex, p. 205 (Quest. 41):

P. Prelate. -- Some said that the right of dominion is founded on grace, whether the Waldenses and Hus held any such tenet, I cannot now insist to prove or disprove. Gerson and others held that there must be a new title and right to what men possess. Too many confidently hold these or the like.

Ans. -- 1. That dominion is founded upon grace as its essential pillar, so as wicked men be no magistrates, because they are in mortal sin, was falsly imputed to ancient protestants, the Waldenses, Wicliff, and Huss, by papists; and this day by Jesuits, Suarez, Bellarmine, Becanus. The P. Prelate will leave them under this calumny, that he may offend papists and Jesuits as little as he can, but he would lay it on us; but if the P. Prelate that the dominion is not founded on grace, de jure, that rulers should have that spirit of God put on the seventy elders for their calling, and that they ought not to be "men fearing God and hating covetousness," as Gerson and others did, he belieth the Scripture. 2. It is no error of Gerson that believers have a spiritual right to their civil possessions, but by Scripture, 1 Cor. iv. 21; Rev. xxi. 7.

The Westminster Confession teaches both aspects of the dominion doctrine with respect to civil authority; ie., that de jure (23.1)

God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public
good:

and that de facto (23.4):

Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

Matthew Henry certainly felt the need to make his views known on this doctrine, and he emphasizes the de facto aspect, perhaps as a conservative dissenter in response to Butler or the Millenarians of the earlier Puritan age. By my reckoning, Henry repeats this observation at least seven times in his Commentary through the Book of Acts: "Dominion is not founded in grace."

Gen. 4.6-7:

Dominion is not founded in grace, nor will religion warrant disloyalty or disrespect in any relation.

Gen. 23.16-20:

Note, Dominion is not founded in grace. The saints' title to an eternal inheritance does not entitle them to the possessions of this world, nor justify them in doing wrong.

Gen. 33.16-20:

Note, Dominion is not founded in grace. Those that have heaven on free-cost must not expect to have earth so.

Deut. 2.1-7:

They must not expect to have any part of their land given them for a possession: Mount Seir was already settled upon the Edomites, and they must not, under pretence of God's covenant and conduct, think to seize for themselves all they could lay hands on. Dominion is not founded in grace.

Jer. 27.1-11:

Note, Dominion is not founded in grace. Those that have not any colourable title to eternal happiness may yet have a justifiable title to their temporal good things.

Dan. 7.15-28:

Far be it from us to infer hence that dominion is founded on grace, or that this will warrant any, under pretence of saintship, to usurp kingship. No; Christ's kingdom is not of this world; but this intimates the spiritual dominion of the saints over their own lusts and corruptions, their victories over Satan and his temptations, and the triumphs of the martyrs over death and its terrors.

Luke 12.13-21:

Now this shows us what is the nature and constitution of Christ's kingdom. It is a spiritual kingdom, and not of this world. 1. It does not interfere with civil powers, nor take the authority of princes out of their hands. Christianity leaves the matter as it found it, as to civil power. 2. It does not intermeddle with civil rights; it obliges all to do justly, according to the settled rules of equity, but dominion is not founded in grace.

* For example, De Dominio Divino and De Civili Dominio; Trialogus 4.17; and his exposition of the seventh commandment.

Remarkable Providences

Ever since the Great Deluge of Noah's day, storms and other natural calamities have, in God's providence, altered the course of, or left their mark on, church history. Building on a plan and notes compiled by Matthew Poole, Increase Mather and, later, William Turner, wrote accounts of such "remarkable providences." Here are a few notable examples from the Reformation era that I have compiled in my own studies:

• On May 21, 1382 a synod meeting in London, convened for the purpose of condemning the articles of faith propounded by John Wycliffe, was shook by an earthquake. Ever since, that convocation has been known to history as the "Earthquake Synod."

• On July 2, 1505, young Martin Luther, at the time bound for the study of law, was caught up in a frightening thunderstorm while riding a horse on his way back to the University of Erfurt. When a bolt of lightning struck close by, in great fear, he vowed to become a monk, saying: "Help, Saint Anna, I will become a monk." Fifteen days later, he entered the Augustinian Friary, and began the path that would ultimately lead to the Reformation.

• In the summer of 1565, the French Huguenot colony of Fort Caroline, near what would become Jacksonville, Florida, under the command of René de Laudonnière, had suffered famine and illness before being resupplied, first, by English seadog John Hawkins, and finally, by the great French Huguenot naval commander Jean Ribault. In late August, however, almost at the same time as Ribault's arrival, Spanish admiral Pedro Menéndez de Avilés reached the Florida coast with orders to wipe out the "heretics." After a tentative skirmish, Menéndez sailed south and established a base camp at what would become St. Augustine. Against Laudonnière's advice, Ribault took his fleet of ships and most of the soldiers at Fort Caroline, and pursued Menéndez by sea, threatening in a bold gambit to overwhelm Menéndez's forces at St. Augustine. However, a hurricane struck at that very moment, scattering Ribault's fleet, destroying a number of ships, and leaving hundreds of Frenchman stranded on the shore far south of St. Augustine. Meanwhile, in a bold move of his own, Menéndez led his men on a forced overland march northward to Fort Caroline, calculating that the fort would be weak and unmanned, and vulnerable to a surprise attack during a hurricane. He was right, and he massacred most of the remaining colonists on September 20, hanging them under a tree bearing a sign that said they were executed "not as Frenchmen, but as Lutherans and heretics". Most of the stranded Frenchmen on the south shore were also later massacred the following month, which put an end to the French Huguenot dream of building a colony in Florida.

• During the Eighty Years' War, the Spanish laid siege to the Dutch city of Leiden, first in 1573, and then again a year later. The Spanish had defeated the forces of William of Orange were strangling Leiden slowly and successfully. The city fathers decided in September 1574 in act of desperation to break the dikes and flood the Spanish army but due to a lack of rain, there was insufficient water to accomplish their design. Finally, storms came in early October that enabled them to break the dikes and flood the Spanish. On October 3, the Spanish lifted the siege and the city was saved. The starving inhabitants were able to eat a dish of Hotchpotch or Hutspot (carrots and onion stew) left behind in haste by the Spanish. William of Orange established the University of Leiden as a gift to the city for its sacrifices during the siege, and to this day, annually on October 3, celebrations are held by the Dutch in remembrance of the Lord's providential deliverance, which include a dish of Hutspot.

• In August 1588, the 'invincible' Spanish Armada of Philip II threatened to bring the undeclared Anglo-Spanish war to the British seacoast by invading England in retaliation for the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, the previous year. The fleet had assembled at Gravelines, France, when it was attacked by English fire ships. With the winds against them, the Spanish ships were forced to sail north, while pursued by the English. The Spanish intended to sail around the British isles, but were pushed off course by the Gulf Stream and unusually powerful storms that devastated the armada. With many of its ships having lost its anchors in the Battle of Gravelines, a number of them were lost at sea or forced to run aground off the coast of Ireland, where Spanish forces were slaughtered by the English or died of starvation. Thousands of men were killed, after the remainder of the armada limped home, Philip is reported to have said, "I sent the Armada against men, not God's winds and waves." The English attributed their great victory to the "Protestant Wind," as described in a seal commemorating the event: "Flavit Jehovah et Dissipati Sunt" ("Jehovah blew with His wind and they were scattered").

• On June 2, 1609, the Sea Venture set sail with six other ships from Plymouth, England, on a mission to resupply the Jamestown, Virginia colony, with colonists and provisions. However, on July 24, the ship ran into a strong storm, possibly a hurricane, separating it from the other ships. After fighting the storm for several days, the Sea Venture ran aground at Bermuda on July 28, 1609, from which the English settlement of this island is dated. All 150 souls on board (and one dog) were saved, but were stranded on the island for nine months. The settlers were forced to salvage the Sea Venture and build two new ships, the Deliverance and Patience, in order to reach their ultimate destination: Jamestown. While on Bermuda, John Rolfe lost his wife and son. Later, he went on to found Virginia's tobacco industry and marry the Indian princess Pocahontas. The arrival of the Sea Venture's settlers helped the Jamestown colony, which was in imminent danger of collapse due to starvation. The story of the shipwreck of the Sea Venture, as recounted by William Strachey, is believed to serve as the origin of William Shakespeare's famous play, The Tempest.

• In August 1635, as Richard Mather and his family were on board the vessel James, along with one hundred others, fleeing persecution in England and aiming to settle in Puritan Massachusetts, they were overtaken by the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. It is reckoned by historians to have been a Category 4 hurricane when it struck Long Island, New York, and a Category 3 when the storm made landfall along the border of Rhode Island and Connecticut, with the eye of the storm eventually passing between Boston and Plymouth, Massachusetts. Many stories are told about this storm, including the tale of how Thacher Island got its name (from the sole survivor, Anthony Thacher, of a small bark, which shipwrecked on that island during the tempest), but the story of the James is perhaps most memorable because of Richard's account, and the fact that his survival led to the founding of the Mather dynasty (Increase was born after his parents' safe arrival in New England). While off the Isles of Shoals, at the border of modern New Hampshire and Maine, the James was buffeted so strongly by what is believed to be the strongest hurricane ever to hit New England, that it was in danger of foundering. The storm was written about by John Winthrop and William Bradford, as well as Richard Mather, who recorded the event in his journal, along with, in later accounts, his future progeny, Increase Mather and Cotton Mather. Richard wrote in his journal for August 15, 1635 (as recorded by Cotton):

"The Lord had not yet done with us, nor had he let us see all his power and goodness, which he would have us take the knowledge of. And therefore about break of day he sent a most terrible storm of rain and easterly wind, whereby we were, I think, in as much danger as ever people were. When we came to land, we found many mighty trees rent in pieces in the midst of the bole, and others turned up by the roots, by fierceness thereof. We lost in that morning three anchors and cables; one having never been in the water before; two were broken by the violence of the storm, and a third cut by the sea-men in extremity of distress, to save the ship and their and our lives. And when our cables and anchors were all lost, we had no outward means of deliverance, but by hoisting sail, if so be we might get to sea, from among the islands and rocks where we were anchored. But the Lord let us see that our sails could not help us neither, no more than the cables and anchors; for by the force of the wind and storm, the sails were rent asunder, and split in pieces, as if they had been but rotten rags; so that of divers of them there was scarce left so much as an hand's-breadth that was not rent in pieces or blown away into the sea; so that at that time all hope that we should be saved, in regard of any outward appearance, was utterly taken away; and the rather, because we seemed to drive with full force of wind directly upon a mighty rock, standing out in sight above water; ao that we did but continually wait, when we should hear and feel the doleful crushing of the ship upon the rock. In this extremity and appearance of death, as distress and distraction would suffer us, we cried unto the Lord, and he was pleased to have compassion upon us; for by his over-ruling providence, and his own immediate good hand, he guided the ship past the rock, asswaged the violence of the sea and of the wind. It was a day much to be remembered, because on that day the Lord granted us as wonderful a deliverance as, I think, ever any people had felt. The sea-men confessed they never knew the like. The Lord so imprint the memory of it in our hearts, that we may be the better for it, and be careful to please him, and to walk uprightly before him as long as we live! and I hope we shall not forget the passages of that morning until our dying day. In all this grievous storm, my fear was the less, when I considered the clearness of my calling from God this way. And in some measure (the Lord's holy name be blessed for it!) he gave us hearts contented and willing that he should do with us and cure what he pleased, and what might be most for the glory of his name; and in that we rested ourselves. But when news was brought us into the gun-room that the danger was past, Oh! how our hearts did then relent and melt within us! We burst out into tears of joy among ourselves, in love unto the gracious God, and admiration of his kindness, in granting to his poor servants such an extraordinary and miraculous deliverance, his holy name be blessed for evermore."

• When Queen Mary of Modena, wife of James II, gave birth in June 1688 to a son, James (who would later be known as 'The Old Pretender'), all of England feared that the royal succession would become a Catholic dynasty, instead of passing the throne to his daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange. It was then that William began to plan, with the aid of a group of prominent Englishmen known as the Immortal Seven, to invade England and depose James II, thus ensuring that England would remain a Protestant nation. His fleet assembled at Hellevoetsluis that autumn but were prevented from crossing over by the 'popish wind' that for which Catholics all over Europe were praying. However, in October, the southwestly popish wind finally became an eastern Protestant Wind, thus enabling William's fleet to sail to England, bearing the standard of William which read "Pro Religione et Libertate" ("For Liberty and [the Protestant] Religion"), while working against James. William and his fleet landed, after another change in the winds favorable to his cause, at Brixham, England, on November 5 (Guy Fawkes Day, referring to another notable providential deliverance in British history), 1688 and marched toward London. James fled England in December, and Parliament declared that he had effectively abdicated the throne, after which William & Mary were crowned joint rulers of England. The English Bill of Rights then ensured that England would remain Protestant from henceforth.

Wycliffe on the Psalter

I have attempted another translation from Middle English into modern English from the prologue of John Wycliffe's Bible, this time concerning the Psalter - any translation errors are mine. To his own remarks, he appends the prologue to the commentary on the Psalms by Richard Rolle of Hampole, which will I translate separately, Lord willing.

John Wycliffe, General Prologue of the Holy Bible, Chap. 11:

The Sautir comprehendeth al the elde and newe testament, and techith pleynly the mysteries of the Trinite, and of Cristis incarnacoun, passioun, rising a3en, stying in to heuene, and sending doun of the Holy Gost, and preching of the gospel, and the coming of Antecrist, and the general dom of Crist, and the glorie of chosen men to blisse, and the peynes of hem that schulen be dampned in helle; and ofte rehersith the stories of the elde testament, and bringith in the keping of Goddis heestis, and loue of enemyes. Noo book in the eld testament is hardere to vndirstonding to vs Latyns, for oure lettre discordith myche fro the Ebreu, and many doctouris taken litel heede to the lettre, but al to the goostly vndirstonding. Wel were him that koude wel vndirstonde the Sautir, and kepe it in his lyuyng, and seie it deuvontly, and conuicte Jewis therbi; for manye men that seyn it vndeuvoutly, and lyuen out of charite, lyen foule on hemself to God, and blasfemen hym, whanne thei crien it ful loude to mennis eeris in the chirche. Therefore God 3eue grace to vs to lyue wel in charite, and sey it deuoutly, and vndirstonde it treuly, and to teche it opinly to Cristen men and Jewis, and bringe hem therby to oure Cristen feith, and brennynge charite.

Translation:

The Psalter comprehends the Old and New Testament, and teaches plainly the mysteries of the Trinity, and of Christ's incarnation, passion, rising again, ascending into heaven, and sending down of the Holy Ghost, and preaching of the gospel, and the coming of Antichrist, and the general judgment of Christ, and the glory of chosen men to bliss, and the punishments of him that shall be damned in hell; and often rehearses the stories of the Old Testament, and brings in the keeping of God's statutes, and love of enemies. No book in the Old Testament is hard to understand to us Latins, for our writing differs much from the Hebrew, and many doctors taken little heed to the word, but all to the spiritual meaning. Happy is he can can well understand the Psalter, and believe it, and sing it devoutly, and convict Jews thereby; for many men that sing it undevoutly, and believe without charity, lie foolishly to God, and blaspheme him, when they cry it so loud to many ear in the church. Therefore God gives grace to us to live well in charity, and sing it devoutly, and understand it truly, and to teach it openly to Christian men and Jews, and bring them thereby to our Christian faith, and ardent love.

Wycliffe on the Judicials

John Wycliffe's Bible contains a lengthy prologue, a portion of which I have attempted to translate from Middle English into modern English. Any errors in translation are mine, and I have provided the original as well as the translation for comparison. This section has to do with Wycliffe's understanding of the trifold division of God's law, with specific focus on the moral and judicial laws.

John Wycliffe, General Prologue to the Holy Bible, Chap. II:

The old testament is departid in to thre parties, in to moral comaundementis, iudicials, and cerimonyals. Moral comaundementis techen to holde and preise and cherishe vertues, and to fle and repreue vicis, and these comaundementis bynden euer, and han strengthe, for tho ben groundid in charite and reson, and in lawe of kynde.

Judicials techen domes and peynes for orrible synnes, and iudicials of Moises lawe weren ful iust and profitable for men, for tho weren ordeined of God, that may not erre in his domes, and lawis, and workis. Netheles sithen Crist was maad man, and ordeyned lawe of mercy and of charite, and wole not the deth of a sinful man, but repentaunce and saluacioun, cristen men ben not bounden to kepe the iudicials of Moyses lawe, that was endid in the tyme of Cristis passioun. But 3it cristen lordis that han the swerd, and are Goddis vikers, in xiij. c. to Romayns, moun punishe men, that trespassen openly, in catel and bodyly prisoun, and sumtyme bi bodily deth, whanne the synne may not ellis be distried, neither the comynte may ellis be stablished in pees, as the foure doctours and other latter preuen opynly by holy writ and resoun; but looke that this be don for charite and comyn profit, with mercy and compassioun of bretheren, not for couetise, nether pride, neither for veniaunce of a mannes owne wrong.

Translation:

The Old Testament is divided into three parts, into moral commandments, judicials, and ceremonials. Moral commandments teach [us] to hold and practice and cherish virtues, and to flee and reprove vices, and these commandments bind always, and have strength, for they are grounded in charity and reason, and in laws of kind.

Judicials teach judgments and punishments for horrible sins, and judicials of Moses' law were completely just for men, for they were ordained of God, who may not err in his judgments, and laws, and works. Nevertheless, since Christ was made man, and ordained laws of mercy and of charity, and willed not the death of a sinful man, but repentance and salvation, Christian men are not bound to keep the judicials of Moses' law, that was ended in the time of Christ's passion. But yet Christian lords that have the sword, and are God's vicars, in the 13th chapter of Romans, may punish men, that trespass openly, in property and bodily prison, and sometimes by bodily death, when the sin may not else be destroyed, neither the community may else be established in peace, as the four doctors [of the mendicant orders (I think) -- RAM] and other [?] prove openly by holy writ and reason; but look that this be done for for charity and common profit, with mercy and compassion of brethren, not for covetousness, nor pride, neither vengeance of a man's own wrong.

Candles and Preaching

J.C. Ryle, What Do We Owe to the Reformation?:

I. I begin by saying that the Reformation delivered England from an immense quantity of evils.

In describing those evils, it is hard to know where to begin and where to leave off. Their number is legion. The utmost I can do is to give you a short summary of them, and to ask you to believe that the half is left untold.

(a) For one thing the Reformation delivered England from gross religious ignorance and a spiritual darkness that might be felt. No doubt there was a professing Church of Christ in the land when Henry VIII. ascended the throne, a Church abounding in wealth, and garrisoned by a whole army of Bishops, Abbots, Friars, Priests, Monks, and Nuns. But money and clergymen do not make a Church of Christ any more than “men with muskets” make up un army. For any useful and soulsaving purposes the English Church was practically dead, and if St. Paul had come out of his grave and visited it, I doubt if he would have called it a Church at all. The plain truth is, that it was a Church without a Bible; and such a Church is as useless as a light-house without a light,—a candlestick without a candle—or a steam-engine without a fire. Except a few scattered copies of Wycliffe’s translation of the Vulgate, there were no English Bibles in the land, and the natural consequence was that priests and people knew scarcely anything about God’s truth and the way to be saved.

As to the clergy, as a general rule, their religion was the merest form, and scarcely deserved to be called Christianity at all. Most of them were pitiful turncoats without a conscience, and were ready to change sides in religion at word of command. In fact they did so no less than four times;—once under Henry VIII., once under Edward VI., once under Bloody Mary, and once more under Elizabeth.

The immense majority of the clergy did little more than say masses and offer up pretended sacrifices—repeat Latin prayers, and chant Latin hymns which of course the people could not understand,—hear confessions, grant absolutions, give extreme unction, and take money to get dead people out of purgatory. Preaching was utterly at a discount. As Bishop Latimer truly remarked, “When the devil gets influence in a Church, up go candles and down goes preaching.” Quarterly sermons were indeed prescribed to the clergy, but not insisted on. Latimer says that while mass was never to be left unsaid for a single Sunday, sermons might be omitted for twenty Sundays in succession, and nobody was blamed. After all, when sermons were preached they were utterly unprofitable; and latterly, to preach much was to incur the suspicion of being a heretic.

To cap all, the return that Bishop Hooper got from the rich diocese of Gloucester, no barbarous and uncivilized corner of England, when he was first appointed Bishop in 1551, will give you a pretty clear idea of the ignorance of pre-Reformation times. He found that out of 311 clergy of his diocese, 168 were unable to repeat the Ten Commandments; 31 of the 168 could not say in what part of the Scripture they were to be found; 40 could not tell where the Lord’s Prayer was written; and 31 of the 40 did not know who was the author of the Lord's Prayer!

As to the laity it is not too much to say that the bulk of them, except in the hour of trial, sickness, and death, had no religion at all. Even at such seasons as those there was no one to tell them of the love of God, the mediation of Christ, the glad tiding of free salvation, the precious blood of atonement, and justification by faith. They could only send for the priest, who knew nothing himself and could tell nothing to others; and then at last they received absolution and extreme unction, and took a leap in the dark. “The blind led the blind and both fell into the ditch.”

To sum up all in a few words, the religion of our English forefathers before the Reformation was a religion without knowledge, without faith, and without lively hope,—a religion without justification, regeneration, and sanctification,—a religion without any clear views of Christ or the Holy Ghost. Except in rare instances, it was little better than an organized system of Mary-worship, saintworship, image-worship, relic-worship, pilgrimages, almsgivings, formalism, ceremonialism, processions, prostrations, bowings, crossings, fastings, confessions, penances, absolutions, masses, and blind obedience to the priests. It was a huge higgledy-piggledy of ignorance and idolatry, and serving an unknown God by deputy. The only practical result was that the priests took the people’s money, and undertook to secure their salvation, and the people flattered themselves that the more they gave to the priests the more sure they were to go to heaven. As to the grand cardinal question, “What must I do to be saved ?” probably not one Englishman in fifty could have given you half as good an answer as any ordinary Sunday school child would give in our own day. Such was the IGNORANCE which was scattered to the winds by the English Reformation. Mind you do not forget it.

Hugh Latimer, Sermon of the Plough, in Sermons (1906 ed.), p. 64:

And now I would ask a strange question: who is the most diligentest bishop and prelate in all England, that passeth all the rest in doing his office? I can tell, for I know him who it is; I know him well. But now I think I see you listening and hearkening that I should name him. There is one that passeth all the other, and is the most diligent prelate and preacher in all England. And will ye know who it is? I will tell you: it is the devil. He is the most diligent preacher of all other; he is never out of his diocess; he is never from his cure; ye shall never find him unoccupied; he is ever in his parish; he keepeth residence at all times; ye shall never find him out of the way, call for him when you will he is ever at home; the diligentest preacher in all the realm; he is ever at his plough: no lording nor loitering can hinder him; he is ever applying his business, ye shall never find him idle, I warrant you. And his office is to hinder religion, to maintain superstition, to set up idolatry, to teach all kind of popery. He is ready as he can be wished for to set forth his plough; to devise as many ways as can be deface and obscure God's glory. Where the devil is resident, and hath his plough going, there away with books, and up with candles; away with bibles, and up with beads; away with the light of the gospel, and up with the light of candles, yea, at noon-days. Where the devil is resident, that he may prevail, up with all superstition and idolatry; censing, painting of images, candles, palms, ashes, holy water, and new service of men's inventing; as though man could invent a better way to honour God with than God himself hath appointed. Down with Christ's cross, up with purgatory pickpurse, up with him, the popish purgatory, I mean. Away with clothing the naked, the poor and impotent; up with decking of images, and gay garnishing of stocks and stones: up with man's traditions and his laws, down with God's traditions and his most holy word. Down with the old honor due to God, and up with the new god's honour. Let all things be done in Latin: there must be nothing but Latin, not so much as Memento, homo, quod, cinis es, et in cinerem reverteris: "Remember, man, that thou art ashes, and into ashes thou shalt return:" which be the words that the minister speaketh unto the ignorant people, when he giveth them ashes upon Ash-Wednesday; but it must be spoken in Latin: God's word may in no wise be translated into English.

Help-Meet

In the history of English Bibles, John Wycliffe's version (1380's) describes Eve as Adam's "helpere" (helper); but moving forward through history, the 1560 Geneva Bible says that "The man therefore gaue names vnto all cattel, and to the foule of the heauen, and to euerie beaft of the field: but for Adam founde he not an helpe meete for him" (Gen. 2.20). "Helpe" means "aid" and "meete" clearly means "suitable" or "fit." This describes the woman in relation to man as God designed them.

The phrase "help-meet" is one that Christians sometimes use today to describe a wife -- the terminology of "help meet" (two words, lacking the following "for him") is common in Puritan literature, for example -- and came into common parlance in the 19th century (Wordsworth and Tennyson employed "helpmeet"). However, as a single hypenated word, "help-meet" has its origins in a play published by poet and playwright John Dryden in 1673: Marriage a la Mode. In Act 4, Scene 1, the character Rhodophil has this to say of his wife Doralice: "[W]ell, if ever woman was a help-meet for man, my Spouse is so...". The phrase took another turn in 1715 when Myles Davies (Athenae Britannicae) referred to "Helpmates". Soon after (1722), Daniel Defoe helped to define "helpmate" as a term equally applicable to husband or wife: "A woman is to be a helpmate, and a man is to be the same" (Religious Courtship). These words elicit scorn from some, but are memorable for succinctly encapsulating the nature of marriage. Dryden's turn of the phrase made for a special word in the English language. But Milton, a few years before (Paradise Lost, VIII, 449-451, 1667), said it so well too, as only a brilliant poet can:

What next I bring shall please thee, be assured,
Thy likeness, thy fit help, thy other self,
Thy wish exactly to thy heart's desire.