The chief surnames whose paternity is traceable to ‘Clement’ are ‘Clements,’ ‘Clementson,’ ‘Clemms,’ ‘Clemson,’ and ‘Clempson.’ Archangelic names are found in our ‘Gabbs,’ ‘Gabbots,’ and ‘Gabcocks,’ from ‘Gabriel;’ and in our ‘Michaelson,’ ‘Mitchels,’ and ‘Mitchelsons,’ from ‘Michael.’ But let us somewhat more closely analyse these names. As I have said before, from the most casual survey one thing is evident, they represent the Church’s Calendar rather than the Church’s Bible. They are the extract of sacred legends rather than of Holy Writ. There is not a single name to betray any internal acquaintance with the Scriptures. Nor could there well be. An English Bible was unknown, and had there been one to consult, the reading powers of the nation were too limited for it to have been much used. Many of the clergy themselves could not read. Thus the Bible, so far as extends beyond the leading incidents it contains, was a sealed book. This had its effect upon our nomenclature. We cannot find a single trace of acquaintance with its rarer histories. What a wide change in this respect did Wicklyffe and the Reformation effect! With an English Bible in their hand, with the clearing away of the mists of ignorance and superstition, with the destruction of all forces that could obstruct the spread of knowledge, all was altered. The Bible, posted up in every church, might be read of all—and all who could probably did read it. This at once had its effect upon our nomenclature. Names familiar enough in our own day to those ordinarily conversant with the Scriptures, but till then absolutely unknown, were brought forth from their hiding-places and made subservient to the new impulse of the nation. Names associated with the more obscure books, and with personages less directly confronting us in our study of the Word, begin now to be inscribed upon our registers. The ‘Proceedings in Chancery’ is the best evidence how far this had affected our nomenclature towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth. We come across such names, for example, as ‘Ezechie Newbold,’ ‘Dyna Bocher,’ ‘Phenenna Salmon,’ ‘Ezekiel Guppye,’ ‘Dedimus Buckland,’ ‘Esdras Botright,’ ‘Sydrach Sympson,’ ‘Judith Botswain,’ ‘Isachar Brookes,’ ‘Gamaliel Capell,’ ‘Emanuel Cole,’ ‘Abigaill Cordell,’ ‘Reuben Crane,’ ‘Amos Boteler,’ ‘Philologus Forth,’ ‘Zabulon Clerke,’ ‘Archelaus Gifford,’ ‘Gideon Hancock,’ ‘Seth Awcocke,’ ‘Abacucke Harman,’ or ‘Melchizedek Payn.’ The ‘State Papers’ (domestic) of James I.’s reign are still more largely imbued with the new influence. We are now brought face to face with entries such as ‘Uriah Babington,’ ‘Aquila Wykes,’ ‘Hilkiah Crooke,’ ‘Caleb Morley,’ ‘Philemon Powell,’ ‘Melchior Rainald,’ ‘Zachæus Ivitt,’ ‘Ananias Dyce,’ ‘Agrippina Bingley,’ ‘Apollonia Cotton,’ or ‘Phineas Pett.’ So far, however, the change was of a certain kind. These new names did not clash with the old nomenclature. There was a greater variety, that was all. Both romance