tragic circumstances. On the evening before her execution, in Fotheringay Castle, the unfortunate Queen of Scots, laying her hand solemnly on a copy that happened to be on her work-table, took a solemn oath of innocence, when the Earl of Kent at once interposed that the book on which she had sworn was false, and that her oath, therefore, was of no value. Her answer was prompt and decided: 'Does your lordship suppose that my oath would be better if I swore on your translation, in which I do not believe?'"*

The Rhemish translators made a version of the Old Testament as well as the New. It issued from the press at Douay in 1609, forming two volumes. The editors, who were not the translators, state that this work, executed thirty years before, had remained unpublished so long, "owing to their poor estate in banishment." After rehearsing the

reasons given in the preface to the New Testament for adopting the Vulgate, they remark, in reference to the Clementine revision, to which they had confined their version: "By the way, we must give the vulgar reader to understand that very few or none of the former varieties touched controversies of this time, so that this recognition is no way suspicious of partiality, but is merely done for the more secure conservation of the pure text, and more ease and satisfaction of such as otherwise should have remained doubtful." In conclusion, the writers express their sympathy with their suffering brother Catholics in England; and they remind them that the honours of martyrdom surpass description, that patience is necessary, and persecution profitable, and they exhort those who are in Christ's fold to remain there, and persevere to the end.

* La Mort de la Reyne d'Escosse Douairière de France, reprinted in Jebb's collection, vol. ii. p. 616. Eadie, vol. ii. p. 136.

N the death of Elizabeth, James I. ascended the throne of England. His progress from Scotland to the capital of his new dominions was one scene of extravagant display and royal amusement. Making knights was his majesty's chief business; hunting in the parks of the nobility and gentry, and in the wild forests which still spread over so many acres of the Old England of that day, was his chief recreation. The same employments were continued after he arrived at his metropolis and his coronation had taken place; and it was during a sojourn at Wilton, while enjoying his favourite field sports, that he issued a proclamation which introduces us to a new chapter in the history of our English Bible. On the 24th of October, 1604, James appointed a meeting to be held for the hearing and the determining "things pretended to be amiss in the Church." The meeting arose out of the complaints of the Puritans, who early saluted their new

sovereign with a list of ecclesiastical grievances, which they besought him to remove. The time fixed for this important conference was the 14th, 16th, and 18th of January, and the place appointed for holding it was Hampton Court.

That noble building had then stood nearly a hundred years, one of the monuments of Wolsey's wealth, pride, and greatness. The fine quadrangle of Tudor architecture, and the magnificent hall, with some other apartments, still remain indicative of the state of the edifice as reared by the cardinal. The comparatively modern erections by William III. have quite altered the character of a considerable portion of Hampton Court Palace; but if the reader's imagination picture to him the whole of the building in

the style of the Tudor portion of it just referred to, he will have an idea of the appearance of the place when the famous conference was held out of which arose the translation of the Bible, now commonly used in this country. Of the multitudes who visit that specimen of our architectural antiquities, many more, it is probable, think of Wolsey's revels, or of Charles's misfortunes, in connexion with the building, than of the circumstance of its having been the birthplace of a design for furnishing the country with a new version of the Bible; yet certainly no other event, however romantic and affecting, associated with the place, can be compared with this in point of real interest and importance.

On Monday, the 16th of January-the only day of the conference which concerns us in the present work-there might be seen assembling in the withdrawing-room of the palace, in the presence of his majesty, who had no small taste for theological debate, certain prelates of the English Church, and a few of the Puritan party, with the wellknown Dr. Rainolds at their head. The learning and moral excellence of this remarkable man were so great as to inspire the admiration of his contemporaries generally, and Anthony Wood, in recording his merits, waxes into rapture which he finds it difficult to express. "The truth is," observes that historian, "he was most prodigiously seen in all kind of learning, and had turned over all writers, profane, ecclesiastical, and divine, all the councils, fathers, and histories of the Church. He was also most excellent in all tongues, of a sharp and nimble wit, of mature judgment, indefatigable industry, exceeding therein Origen, surnamed Adamantius, and so well seen in all arts and sciences as if he had spent his whole time in each of them. The

learned Cracanthorp tells us also that for virtue, probity, integrity, and, which is above all, piety and sanctity of life, he was so eminent and conspicuous, that, as Nazianzen speaketh of Athanasius, it might be said of him, to name Rainolds is to commend virtue itself. In a word, nothing can be spoken against him, only that he, with Thomas Sparke, were the pillars of Puritanism, and grand favourers of Nonconformity, as the general part of writers say; yet one of late date reports that Rainolds professed himself a Conformist, and died so."* Whatever the latter part of the statement may be, of the truth of which there is no good evidence, the former, by general consent, is indisputable; and hence, in point of condition and piety, this illustrious Puritan was well qualified to express an opinion on the merits of Biblical translations.t Rainolds objected to certain renderings in the extant versions, and he proposed to his majesty that there should be a new translation. Bancroft, the Bishop of London, no friend to the Puritans, and therefore no favourer of Rainolds, abruptly observed that "if every man's humour should be followed, there would be no end of translating." But James, in this one instance, sided with the Puritans, and professed himself friendly to a new translation. He objected, however, to any notes being appended, and railed against those in the Genevan version as untrue and seditious, though the cases he cited gave small countenance to the charge.‡ And

* Wood's Athen. vol. ii. p. 14 (ed. Bliss.)

+ Dr. Rainolds' brother William was at first a Protestant, and afterwards a Papist. The doctor himself was first a Papist, and afterwards a Protestant. It is said a conference between the brothers led to this remarkable change of sentiment (Neal, vol. ii. 37).

The Genevan translation said of the Hebrew midwives, "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil” (Exod. i. 19.) The trans