Category Archives: Puritans

Traitorous Conceits

Posted on by Posted in Puritans

The Geneva Bible (GNV) was published by puritan scholars in Geneva in the 16th century. The first full edition was published in 1560, and a revision followed in 1599. King James I, who ruled England from 1603-1625, is well-known for his statement that he did not like the puritan Bible, because the notes revealed “traitorous conceits,” or seditious views. The king’s words were prophetic: his own son Charles was beheaded at the hands of the puritans during their violent uprising in England, accused as a “tyrant” and a “traitor.”

Among other things, the revolutionary teachings that came out of Geneva – which were completely contrary to the teachings of Tyndale, Luther, Cranmer, or the early Reformers – advocated the right of lesser officials, called “magistrates,” to overthrow a king or queen, or any greater power, for “tyranny.” The revolution in England was preceded by a great deal of demagoguery against “tyrannical lordships” and so forth. The puritan goal was to, by force if need be, overthrow the monarchy, the bishops, and the English Church, in order to install themselves in power and build their “Restored Church.” Oliver Cromwell, who led the rebel armies, had a post-millennial vision of inaugurating the reign of Christ on earth. During the civil war, Cromwell’s troops were issued copies of “The Soldiers’ Pocket Bible,” containing excerpts from the GNV.

But before the trouble exploded in England, in an attempt to mitigate the revolutionary influence of the GNV, King James commissioned the Bible that is known by his name, the King James Version. He was adamant that it should contain no notes. However, it may have escaped his notice that the notes were not the only problem with the GNV. The biblical text itself had been changed in subtle ways that undermined the authority of the monarchy.

The GNV Old Testament was a revision of the Great Bible (GRT), which was itself based on the 1537 Matthew Bible (MB). But when it favoured their cause, the puritans departed from the GRT translation to follow other versions more closely, or to introduce a new translation of their own. Perhaps due to the influence of the puritans on the KJV translation committee, a few of the GNV revisions were replicated in the KJV. Psalm 76 below is an example. In the Matthew Bible, God was described as “wonderful” among the kings. “Wonderful” translated the Hebrew yawray. However, the GNV changed this in a way that portended only evil for a king, and the note was even worse (note, in 16th century English, a “prince” was a supreme ruler, a king, queen, or emperor):

Psalm 76:11-12

MB & GRT Look, what ye promise unto the Lord your God, see that ye keep it, all ye that be round about him. Bring presents unto him that ought to be feared, which [who] taketh away the breath of princes, and is wonderful among the kings of the earth.

GNV 1599 Vow and perform unto the Lord your God, all ye that be round about him; let them bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. He shall *cut off the spirit of princes; he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

  GNV note: The Hebrew word signifieth to vintage, or gather grapes; meaning, that he shall make the counsels and enterprises of wicked tyrants foolish and vain.

KJV Vow and pay unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

The GNV note suggests that it is a fruit of God’s harvest to make “foolish and vain” the works of “wicked tyrants.” Be that as it may, the simple fact is that such a note would alarm King James, especially considering that, for many years now, the puritans had been agitating to put down the “wicked tyrants” in England.

Below, Proverb 16:10 in the MB and GRT says simply that a king will not go wrong in judgement when he has “the prophecy.” I believe this means, when he has God’s word. But the GNV imposes an absolute duty on kings not to transgress in judgement. This sets up a standard that could be used – and which was used in England – to justify an uprising. The verse was further revised in the KJV, with an odd result:

Proverbs 16:10

MB & GRT When the prophecy is in the lips of the king, his mouth shall not go wrong in judgement.

GNV 1599 A divine sentence shall be in the lips of the king: his mouth shall not transgress in judgement.

KJV A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgement.

The KJV revision above states that the king does not transgress in judgement, which, of course, is impossible. Kings are not infallible. It also conflicts with Psalm 76. Why would the Lord be terrible to, and cut off the spirit of, such a king? The MB and GRT are eminently superior translations for their common sense and how they glorify God.

In Proverb 20:2 below, the puritans changed the GRT to follow the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Roman Church (a thing they frequently did). Here the MB and GRT taught that the king ought to be feared, but the GNV robbed the monarch of this due. It might seem a small thing – and in itself, it is a small thing – but together with everything else, it contributed to undermining the honour and authority of the king. The GNV note then portrayed the offence of angering the king as wrong merely because it endangers the self:

Proverb 20:2

MB & GRT The king ought to be feared as the roaring of a lion; whoso provoketh him unto anger, offendeth against his own soul.

GNV 1599 The fear of the king is like the roaring of a lion: he that provoketh him unto anger, *sinneth against his own soul.

  GNV note: Putteth his life in danger.

KJV The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.

In the next proverb, Geneva flipped the teaching to set a trap for princes. This was a new translation. The Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe Bible, MB, and GRT brought essentially the same message, but the GNV portrayed the evil as done by princes, and not against them. The KJV is again a strange revision:

Proverb 17:26

MB & GRT To punish the innocent, and to smite the princes that give true judgement, are both evil.

GNV 1599 Surely it is not good to condemn the just, nor that the princes should smite such *for equity.

  GNV note: For their well-doing.

KJV Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.

Thus, in the GNV, there were many new translations that could be used against princes and kings. Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, due for release in late 2020, will review several of the notes in the GNV, which validate King James’ concerns about their seditious tendencies, and which confirm that the Geneva Bible was published in order to support and advance the puritan revolutionary cause.

When the Party of the Puritan Moses Slew Their King

Posted on by Posted in Puritans

On January 30, 1649, the revolutionary Oliver Cromwell, working with his rebel parliament, beheaded King Charles I in England. Cromwell styled himself a “Puritan Moses,” and believed he was guided by the finger of God. He was also known as the “General of the Parliament.” His military successes buttressed his view that he was divinely appointed to establish Christ’s kingdom on earth and the long-awaited reign of the saints in the Church.

First the Puritan party, which had gained control of the English Parliament, held King Charles prisoner for three years. During that time, Cromwell constantly pressed the king for concessions to remove his power and increase parliament’s. But the beleaguered king would not agree to more than he had already given away (which was too much), so finally the time came to do away with him. The rebels brought a charge of treason against the lawful head of the state.

I can’t go into all the background here, but I will in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible. (It’s important, in order to understand many of the changes made to the Scriptures, and especially the notes, in the Geneva Bible.) Suffice to say, to help trump up a treason charge against Charles, parliament passed a resolution shortly before the trial declaring that “by the fundamental laws of the kingdom, it was treason in the king of England for the time being to levy war against the parliament and the kingdom of England.” The prosecutor at the specially constituted tribunal fanatically denounced Charles as the very image of “Nimrod, the first tyrant.”

Charles protested that the proceedings were illegal, because a king could not be tried by any superior jurisdiction on the earth. But these men were a law unto themselves. After they obtained Charles’ conviction on January 20, 1649, they stayed his execution for ten days to pass an Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions thereof. This made it an offence to proclaim a successor after the King died. Now no one, not even Charles’ lawful heir, could fill his shoes after they killed him. The goal was of course to undo the monarchy entirely, so that they could call the shots.

Finally then, with all their ducks in a row, the party of the Puritan Moses, after a long season of humiliating their true and right king, slew him. As his severed head fell from his body, there was a stunned silence, and then a long groan from the onlookers. Soon after, Charles’ statue was thrown down, and on the pedestal was engraved the inscription Exit tyrannus regum ultimus or The last of the tyrant kings passes away. Thus was he dishonoured right to the end.

When foreign governments would not deal with Cromwell’s illegal government, parliament appointed the poet John Milton as Latin Secretary to the Council of State, a kind of foreign ambassador, to champion their cause. Milton was the poet who had earlier penned the line, “Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large,” but he sold out to the Presbyters. Historian Goldwin Smith explains “It is on a principle something like that of the social contract that [Milton] bases the responsibility of kings, and maintains the right of tyrannicide in default of more regular justice.”(1)

But what is this principle of the “social contract” or “compact”? It was straight from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and other writings, which developed a doctrine of revolution based on God’s “natural law” and a “king’s compact.” To put is simply and clearly, Calvin taught that if a king or other high ruler breached his supposed “compact” with the people required by the supposed natural law, then lower level public officials may rise up against him. Therefore, Calvin’s “natural law” trumps the laws of the state.

Oxford Professor Herbert Foster put Calvin’s teaching together quite clearly in his essay The Political Theories of Calvinists before the Puritan Exodus to America. Foster is sympathetic to Calvin and the Puritans, but the discerning reader will (hopefully) see the terrible leaven that lurks herein. (It is always best to go to the source and learn what the advocates themselves say.)

For more study, see Theodore Beza’s book Droits des Magistrats. In it, Beza justified revolution to protect the people’s liberty, and also justified regicide as “tyrannicide.”  Beza’s treatise became a major manifesto of Puritanism, and the constant war-cry “tyrant, tyrant” was one of the slogans that stirred up simple,  gullible people, and fuelled the Puritan revolution in England.

(1) Goldwin Smith, The United Kingdom: Political History, Vol. I (Toronto: The Copp Clark Company, 1899), page 576.