Puritan preaching. Who said Geneva?

All against the KJV, All the time?

In a footnote in my piece on John Bunyan yesterday, I wrote, “The general idea that the Puritans disliked the King James translation is a hand overplayed.” By this comment I do not discount that some Puritans did not like the new translation. However, some have stretched the idea beyond measure, even to the breaking point. To them it cannot just be a matter of folks being satisfied with the Bibles they had, not wanting to change, and such like. No, it must be a hatred for the King James Bible. A full hatred. By all Puritans. All the time.

Now, clearly there was opposition to the King James Bible on a level that exuded hatred. Hugh Broughton (1549–1612), a Puritan, shines as such an example. His critique of the new Bible was exceptionally rash. He wrote:

“The late Bible, (Right Worshipfull) was sent to me to censure, bred in me a sadnesse that will grieve me while I breathe. It is so ill done. Tell his Majest. I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than that any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor Churches.”[i]

However, Broughton’s critique needs to be viewed in context. He had eaten sour grapes and his teeth were set on edge. He was an exceptionally skilled Hebraist who was passed over. He was not included in the team of translators for the new Bible. Despite his skill, he was a hot-tempered contrarian whose people skills were lacking, to understate it. Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609), a French Calvinist religious leader and scholar, called Broughton “furiosuset maledicus” (abusive madman, frantic railer, raging maniac). Richard Hooker called him vain.[ii] Not only could he not tolerate the churchmen, he picked fights with his fellow Puritans, including John Reynolds / Rainolds (who suggested the new translation, and was a leading man on the Oxford Company of translators). He bitterly opposed Beza. Even John Lightfoot, who collected and published Broughton’s Works, described him as “Sharp, and severe,” could “withal be very angry with Scholars,” and “It were to be wished, he had been more sparing of his own Praises, and of bitterness, and Invectives against others…”[iii]

In a sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons, on August 27, 1645, Broughton’s editor, John Lightfoot, suggested their undertaking to review the translation of the Bible to make it more exact. He spoke of the translation in which he found his Revelation 20:1-2 text – the KJV, not Geneva.[iv]

Ambrose Ussher, who made an English Bible translation himself, implied that he thought the KJV translation was rushed. When King James “at your first coming…sharpe set” then “the cooke hasted you out a reasonable sudden meal…”[v]

I grant that some Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible to the KJV. Some of these spoke or wrote of it in negative terms. Others thought it a good translation that could be made better. Some simply continued to use the old Bibles they had.

On the other hand, unscrupulous authors present undocumented invective against the King James Bible, such as the accusations that they were “damnable corruptors of God’s Word,” blasphemers, and such like. “Damnable corruptors of God’s Word” is spread across the World Wide Web.[vi] Thus far, I have been unable to identify a source for this accusation. More simply, for most English-speakers, after its printing in 1611, the King James Bible progressively made its way into their experience, their acceptance, and their lives.

In The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years, Hamlin and Jones describe the timeline in this manner:

“Although the monopoly broke down along with the monarchy itself in the 1640s, English (mainly London) printers continued to prefer the KJB to the Geneva, perhaps because so many editions of the Geneva continued to be printed across the channel. Although one might think that the Puritan Commonwealth would have been committed to the Bible most associated with English Puritans (the Geneva), even Oliver Cromwell now favored the KJB (printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and then ‘one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers’)...” Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB, and its domination of the English Bible market was assured for the next 250 years.”[vii]

Puritan preaching

A brief demonstration from the writing and preaching of Puritans shows that they used the King James Bible translation in their works. This is not a claim that they were somehow “King James Only,” but evidence that they were not “Geneva Bible Only” – as some would have us believe.[viii] The list below, set in order by date, link just a few of the sermons available at the University of Michigan “Early English Books Online” Partnership. In most cases, there are three links – the transcribed sermon at EEBO, the 1611 KJV page showing the text, and the 1560 Geneva Bible page showing the text.[ix] This will be followed by a comment on which Bible the text used matches.[x]

Cornelius Burges was an influential Puritan minister active in the Westminster Assembly of Divines (which drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith). Stephen Marshall was an ally of Burges, powerful in oratory. Alexander Henderson represented the Scottish Church at the Westminster Assembly.

Cornelius Burges, Baptismall regeneration of elect infants professed by the Church of England, 1629
Romans 2:28-29, KJV
Romans 2:28-29, GNV
Matthew 3:11, KJV
Matthew 3:11, GNV
Acts 2:38, KJV
Acts 2:38, GNV

The referenced texts match the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Cornelius Burges, House of Commons, November 17, 1640, text Jeremiah 50:5
Jeremiah 50:5, KJV
Jeremiah 50:5, GNV

The sermon text matches the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Stephen Marshall, two Houses of Parliament, January 18, 1643, text 1 Chronicles 12:38-40
1 Chronicles 12:38-40, KJV
1 Chronicles 12:38-40, GNV

The printed text leaves out a phrase – “that could keep rank”/”that could lead an army” – in that differing from both translations; otherwise agreeing with the KJV.

Alexander Henderson, House of Commons, December 27, 1643, text Ezra 7:23
Ezra 7:23, KJV
Ezra 7:23, GNV

The sermon text matches the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Stephen Marshall, sermon of the baptizing of infants preached in the Abbey-Church at Westminster, 1644, text 1 Peter 3:21
1 Peter 3:21, KJV
1 Peter 3:21, GNV
1 Corinthians 7:14, KJV
1 Corinthians 7:14, GNV 1560
1 Corinthians 7:14, GNV 1599

The sermon text matches the KJV reading rather than Geneva. The KJV and 1560 Geneva readings of 1 Corinthians 7:14 match. However, “by the wife” and “by the husband” are changed to “to the wife” and “to the husband” in the 1599 Geneva Bible.

Stephen Marshall, House of Lords, March 26, 1645, text Psalm 102:16-17
Psalm 102:16-17, KJV
Psalm 102:16-17, GNV

The sermon text matches the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Stephen Marshall, two Houses of Parliament, June 19, 1645, text Psalm 102:18
Psalm 102:18, KJV
Psalm 102:18, GNV

The KJV & Geneva readings match, while the printed text adds the word “all”. That may be a misprint, as other English Bibles do not seem to have that word either.

John Lightfoot, Honourable House of Commons, on August 27, 1645, text Revelation 20:1-2
Revelation 20:1-2, KJV
Revelation 20:1-2, GNV

The sermon text matches the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Stephen Marshall, at Margarets Westminster, January 27, 1647, text Matthew 11:12
Matthew 11:12, KJV
Matthew 11:12, GNV

The sermon text matches the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Conclusion

The Puritans were not a consistent conglomerate of firebrands who hated the King James translation of the Bible with untold vehemence. There were Broughtons, Lightfoots, Cromwells, Marshalls, and more, with varying degrees of or allegiance to this grand old book. The story is not rightly related if that fact is not rightly revealed.

Whatever “railing for railing” might have been thrown at the King James Version by some Puritans who preferred the Geneva Bible, by the middle of the 17th century this had surely subsided, and in the latter half of it “even for non-conformists, radicals, and dissenters, the KJB had become the English Bible.”[xi]

---

[i] “A Censure of the late translation for our Churches, sent unto a Right Worshipfull Knight, Attendant upon the King,” as printed in Works, p. 661. Some quote Broughton saying, “It crosseth me and I require it to be burnt!” See Wide as the Waters: the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution it Inspired, Benson Bobrick. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001, p. 257.
[ii] “Giordano Bruno in England, Revisited,” Mordechai Feingold. Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 3, p. 337.
[iii] However, Lightfoot accounts some of this to the way he was treated by others. “The Preface,” The Works of the Great Albionean Divine, Renown’d in Many Nations for rare Skill in Salems & Athens Tongues, and familiar Acquaintance with all Rabbinical Learning, Mr. Hugh Broughton, Mr. Hugh Broughton, John Lightfoot, editor. London: Nath. Ekins, 1662, no page number.
[iv] These comments may be found after he spoke against “libertie of conscience...in matters of Religion,” where he advised against it. Rather, Christ must reign in the conscience – not only through the word and spirit, but also through the power of the magistrate! The comments may be found before he spoke against “when mechanicks, unlettered and ignorant men will take upon them to bee preachers, and to instruct others when they need teaching themselves; and this if it bee not stopped, wil overflow all with a puddle of errours and heresie: you have made good orders for the stopping and preventing of this, but execution is all.” John Lightfoot, “A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons, on August 27, 1645.”
[v] “Extract from ‘Epistle dedicatorie’ to James I in Ambrose Ussher’s English Version of the Bible” (circa 1620), in Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Part I, Report and Appendix, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1874, p. 598.
[vi] For example: “Puritans opposed it violently as a dangerous compromise with Episcopacy. Some branded the K.J.V. translators as ‘damnable corruptors of God’s Word.’” “The King James Version Today,” Edward Hindson in SOR Faculty Publications and Presentations, November 1982, p. 35.
[vii] “Introduction: the King James Bible and its reception history,” by Hamlin and Jones, in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hannibal Hamlin, Norman W. Jones. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 8. “The survival of English nonconformity and the reputation of the English for tolerance is part of his [Oliver Cromwell’s] abiding legacy.” Oliver Cromwell, David Sharp. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 2003, p. 68.
[viii] In “The Translators to the Reader,” the preface to the new 1611 translation, Miles Smith often quoted Scripture from the Geneva Bible. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence, David Daniell. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003, p. 294.
[ix] Baptismall regeneration of elect infants professed by the Church of England is a book rather than a sermon.
[x] By matches in the texts, I mean by the words – not exactness of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. These were quite variable in the English language of that day, even from one printing of the same Bible to another.
[xi] “Introduction: the King James Bible and its reception history,” by Hamlin and Jones, in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hannibal Hamlin, Norman W. Jones. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 12.