that which God commands to some, leaves free to all; in the other, a clause is inserted, excepting from its provisions priests and others under vows of celibacy:[336] in the one, the exposition of the second commandment begins thus--“By these words we are utterly forbidden to make or to have any similitude or image, to the intent to bow down to it, or to worship it;” in the other--“By these words we be _not_ forbidden to make or to have similitudes or images, but only we be forbidden to make or to have them to the intent to do godly honour unto them, as it appeareth in the xxvith chapter of Leviticus.”[337] It is true that the ulterior interpretation of the commandment in the two cases does not differ so materially as might be expected from the respective introductions; still the introductions are sufficient to show that the spirit in which the commentaries were made was not, in both instances, quite the same. Other examples of a similar declension in the principles of the Reformation might be gathered from a close comparison of these documents; at the same time, it would afford some minute indications that a better knowledge of the Scriptures had been meanwhile diffusing itself over the country, and that the six years privilege of consulting them had not been altogether lost. Thus, it may be remarked, that in the Bishops’ Book we read of “_one_ Pontius Pilate being the chief judge in Jerusalem;”[338] whereas in the King’s Book the same individual is called “Pontius Pilate,” &c.,[339] as though he were a character with which the people were more familiar: again, in the former, the legend of binding “Christ fast to a pillar,” and so crowning and scourging him, is inserted in the details of his passion;[340] in the latter, this incident is omitted, and the scriptural account is strictly followed.[341] It is singular, too, that, in the one, the escape of “Lot and his _three_ daughters” is spoken of; a mistake which the other corrects, his “_two_ daughters” being here the reading.[342]