favourable consideration of the movement.

Though the subject had been abundantly discussed in the leading periodical literature of the day,' and could in no way be considered as new either to the Church or the country, still it was more than the conservatism of the House was then able to accept. An amendment was placed on the notice-board by Canon Wordsworth, which still further limited the proposal by the provision that alterations that might be recommended were not to appear in the text but only in the margin. The coup de grace was given by Archdeacon Denison, who added a further amendment to the effect that it was not desirable to give any encouragement to any

2

1 Of the many articles that appeared at the period referred to, or shortly before it, we may specify those which deserved, and received, considerable attention, and certainly produced some effect at the timeviz., Edinburgh Review for October, 1855, Vol. c11. p. 419 sq.; Christian Remembrancer for Dec. 1856, Vol. xxxII. p. 451 sq.; Westminster Review for Jan. 1857, Vol. xi. p. 134. In the interval between that period and the present time, the articles have been very few; we may, however, specify Edinburgh Review for Jan. 1865, p. 104 sq., in which the subject is discussed in an easy and readable article, apparently by a writer of known reputation. The leading treatises that appeared about the time referred to will be found

"That as to the question which has been brought under the notice of this House concerning the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures, it is not desirable to countenance any efforts to make changes in the text of the same, but that any alterations or additions which it may be deemed expedient by competent authority to be adopted, should be confined to the margin, and not be introduced into the text." See Journal of Convocation, Vol. 11. p. 363.

alterations whatever, whether in the text or in the margin.' The subject then appears to have dropped through.

When we contrast this treatment of the question with that which it has lately received, we cannot help feeling surprised at the striking change of sentiment. On the present occasion not only has the proposal of revision been favourably entertained by the Southern Convocation, but even re-introduced into that conservative body, and, when thus re-introduced, warmly welcomed. Nay more, the original proposal of the Bishop of Winchester was at once amplified. Our resolution, as first brought before the House, was limited to the New Testament. It was immediately extended to the Old Testament with an amount of assent that could never have been expected, and never could have been given if the real necessity for revision had not been very sensibly felt by all present. It may indeed be doubted whether this enlargement of the proposal was in itself wholly desirable. It may be very reasonably urged that it would have seemed at first sight more prudent to com

1 The exact terms of this concluding amendment were :

"That it is not expedient that this House give any encouragement to any alteration or modification of the Authorized Version, whether by way of insertion in the text, marginal note, or otherwise." See Journal of Convocation, Vol. 11. p. 363.

2 The original proposal of the Bishop of Winchester, as seconded by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, only extended to the New Testament, but was at once extended to the Old Testament by the Bishop of Llandaff and others. See Guardian for Feb. 16, p. 193 sq. The extension was agreed to unanimously.

Former discussions of the subject.

mence with a portion of the Holy Scripture, with the criticism and interpretation of which we are certainly more familiar than with that of the remaining part.1 Be this, however, as it may, the general feeling of the Southern Convocation has been very clearly expressed, and that too in a manner and with a promptitude that could hardly have been expected, except by those who closely watch the movements of public opinion. Such a fact is very significant, and seems certainly to point to the conclusion that there is in the minds of those fully qualified to form an opinion, and not likely to favour innovations, a growing conviction that the time has at length arrived, and that measures ere long must be taken for such a revision as will bring our venerable version more closely into harmony with the inspired Original.*

The general aspects of the former discussion of the subject, thirteen years ago, seem also to point in the same direction. The efforts of revision at that time, as several of us who then took part in the work probably well remember, were almost confessedly preparatory and tentative. It was

1 There is, we are afraid, only too much truth in the remark of Prof. Plumptre, that relatively Hebrew was more studied in the early part of the 17th century than it is now. See Smith's Dictionary of Bible, Vol. 111. p. 1682.

2 Some very sensible remarks on the subject of the revision will be found in the Quarterly Review for

April, 1870, Vol. cxxvIII. p. 129 sq. The article, which is of considerable interest, did not appear till the text of the greater part of the present volume had been written. Any similarities of opinion or sentiment may therefore be considered as due to the independent though coincident convictions of two separate writers.

very generally felt at the time that the question was not ripe for solution, and that though it was right and proper to do our best in advancing the cause of revision, yet that time must elapse before the work could be formally and authoritatively undertaken. Even those who entered with some ardour into the movement, and were at first unwilling to believe that it would ever cease till a revised version was in the hands of every earnest Englishman, soon showed a consciousness that there must be a time for maturation, and that first impulses must be content simply to prepare the way, and even by failure to demonstrate how and under what limitations the work itself was finally to be accomplished.1 We all saw, more or less clearly, that the movement in which we were then engaged would, by the nature of the case, become suspended, that there would be a pause, a time for reconsideration of the work actually done, and then after this pause, that the movement would recommence, and go on uninterruptedly to the end. This is commonly the history

1 It may be noticed that even after the favourable reception of the Revised Version of the Gospel of St. John, the Five Clergymen who took part in it, still speak of their work as fortunate if it has 'succeeded in striking the key-note upon which any authoritative Revision of the English Bible, hereafter to be made, is to be based:' Pref. to Revised Version of the Ep. to the Romans, P. iv. The impression on our

minds was that we were doing work for the future, not for the then present time. This feeling had a very good effect upon us. We did our work slowly, and without any reference to current expectations, or any desire to catch passing opportunities. When the interest in the subject died out, which it did a few years ago, we considered it a sign that for a season, at any rate, our work was done.

of all great undertakings, and will in all probability be the history of the future revision of the Authorized Version.

A very little consideration will show that such a forecast was natural and reasonable. The movement at that time was essentially a scholars' movement. The works of Dean Alford, Archbishop Trench, and others, had awakened a vivid interest in the interpretation of the New Testament, but it had not yet extended far beyond the circle of professed scholars. Within the circle there was soon shown a strong and natural desire to give a useful turn to the newly acquired knowledge, and to put at the disposal of the general reader the results of recent exegetical experience; and such general aid was commonly very thankfully received. But there was never much sympathy with these efforts whenever they took the particular form of revisions of the Authorized Version. Churchmen at that time were very tolerant of critical and grammatical comments, and even of corrections of the English Bible as long as they were confined to the notes or the margin; but whenever they took their place in the text there were but few general readers who then viewed them with any great amount of favour. And they were right. The versions and specimens of versions that appeared at the time we are alluding to and subsequently, were sufficiently accurate and precise, but they wanted tone and rhythm. They were translations through which the original Greek often showed itself far too distinctly; they were not idiomatic versions; they were suited, and even in some cases specially