Page xcix

of the errors discovered in Bishop Lloyd’s edition. In some few instances he confesses himself to have been at a loss in finding out the true reference, though the corruption was manifest in the want of any the most distant resemblance between the passages compared together. Cases of this sort indeed did not often occur; so that a very small number only of the old references are, with the sanction of the Committee, omitted, and their places more usefully supplied.

It had been suggested by the late Archbishop of Canterbury1, that an improvement might be made in the present editions of the Bible, by taking in a number of additional references, of which many useful ones, as he supposed, might be furnished from other editions referred to by him, and particularly from a Scotch edition, of which the present Vice-Chancellor was kind enough to lend a Copy. The references found in it, which were indeed very numerous, having been severally turned to and examined, such of them were selected as the Editor judged most pertinent, together with others that occurred from his own reading and observation. In doing this he has endeavoured to keep clear of mere fanciful allusions, of which too many presented themselves in the before named Scotch edition; and to adhere as near as possible to the plan marked out in the former collection made by Bishop Lloyd; pointing out such passages chiefly, where the same history or the same name were introduced, the same matter treated of, or sentiment expressed, or at least where parallels might fairly be drawn; and sometimes where a similar use of a particular word or expression tended to illustrate the application of it, on another occasion. The number of References being thus augmented considerably, the Collection upon the whole will, it is hoped, be regarded as useful in the light of a Concordance, material as well as verbal, always at hand.

In this state the Quarto Copy was sent to press; and the first proofs carefully collated with the Copy both text and margin; after which the second proofs were again read, and generally speaking, the third likewise; not to mention the frequent revisions of proofs besides, which are common in correcting the press. This proved indeed a very tiresome and tedious task; but was not more than was absolutely necessary in order to attain the degree of accuracy that was wished. A particular attention was required with respect to the figures belonging to the marginal References, where errors were continually creeping in after a manner that would appear highly astonishing to those, who have never been concerned in correcting multitudes of figures, as they came from the press.

When the Quarto Sheets, were printed off, the Forms were lengthened out in order to make up the Folio Edition; in doing which the parts were often so jumbled together, and such Confusion introduced by misplacing the References and mistaking the Chronology, that nothing else would suffice than a fresh Collation of the whole with the Quarto Copy, and a repetition of almost the same trouble and care in the revisal, and in making up the running Titles anew, as had been used before. But the Editor thinks he has just reason to congratulate himself on the opportunity hereby given him of discovering and correcting some few trivial inaccuracies, which in spite of all his vigilance had escaped his notice in the Quarto Edition. So that the Folio Edition is rendered by this somewhat the more perfect of the two, and therefore more fit to be recommended for a standard Copy.

The Editor humbly hopes this Account of his proceedings will not be unacceptable to the Board; and will think his time and pains not ill bestowed, if he shall have succeeded in his desire of giving satisfaction to those who honoured him with the employment, and of contributing in any wise to God’s honour, and the public utility.

B. Blayney2.

Hertford College,

Oct. 25, 1769.