[ 180 ] 



VI. 



THE riEST PEIXTIXG OF THE \"EW IESTA:\IEXT LN' EXGLISH 



AT DUBLIN'. 



By E. E. McC. De. 



Bead At-rtt. 10. Published Jciy 12. 1911. 



Whether the so-called " Authoiized Yei-sion " of the Bible, or of the ]!srew 

 Testament, was printed in Ireland before 1714, when Ehames's edition of the 

 Bible appeared, has been long the subject of dispute arising from an allegation 

 that the Bible, or Xew Testament, was printed in Belfast piior to that year : 

 hut this allegation is now generally rejected for lack of satisfactory evidence 

 to support it, though the point is not absolutely and finally settled even yet. 



Evidence, however, is now forthcoming to show that the Xew Testameni 

 was actually set up in type and printed oft" in sheets and some copies, in that 

 state, sold in Dublin in the year 1698. 



The Guild of St. Liike, one of the ancient Dublin Guilds, comprised the 

 Painter-Stainers, Cutlers, and Stationers of the City. Tlieu- original Minute 

 and Eecord Books are extant in the custody of the Master Paintei-s of Ireland ; 

 and Mr. Charles Keatinge, about ten years ago, read a paper on the Guild 

 before the Eoyal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, which paper appears in the 

 Society's Joirmal, vol x.xx, pp. 136 et seq. (1900). At p. 139 Mr. Keatinge 

 quotes from a Minute of a meeting of the GuUd [held on 7th Xovemher, 1698, 

 not 1699] in which a charge of lately printing (for James Malone & Partners) 

 an edition of the Xew Testament, containing very many erroi-s, is made 

 against Bryan Wilson and Cornelius Carter (the printers of it), and the 

 Stationers (Members of the Guild) were given leave to meet and advise what 

 cour-se or method was fit to be taken to suppress or detect the same, and that 

 the Clerk do draw any Petition or addr-ess as should be thought fit or 

 advisable. I have also recently been kindly aflbrded an inspection of the 

 original Minute Book, and took a copy of the ilinute in question so far as it 

 bears on the matter : the same appears at Appendix A, and is fuller than that 

 given in Mr. Keatinge's paper. 



The particulars aftbrded by this ilinute are very meagre and insufficient 

 alone, and also represent only one side, or version, of the alleged rUegaUty of 

 publishing a Xew Testament fuU of erroi-s. It may be stated here that 



