LATER HISTORY OF REVISION

We are now arrived at the time when what was simple tentative and preparatory passed into definite and authoritative realization.

The initial step was taken on February 10, 1870, in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury. The Bishop of Oxford, seconded by the Bishop of Gloucester, proposed the subjoined resolution, which it may be desirable to give in the exact words in which it was presented to the House, as indicating the caution with which it was framed, and also the indirectly expressed hope (unfortunately not realized) of the concurrence of the Northern Convocation. The resolution was as follows:

“That a committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer with any committee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the Northern Province, to report upon the desirableness of a revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in the translations made from the same, shall on due investigation be found to exist.”

In the course of the debate that followed the resolution was amended by the insertion of the words “Old and,” so as to include both Testaments, and, so amended, was unanimously accepted by the Upper House, and at once sent down to the Lower House. After debate it was accepted by them, and, having been thus accepted by both Houses, formed the basis of all the arrangements, rules, and regulations which speedily followed.

Into all of these it is not necessary for me to enter except so far as plainly to demonstrate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on thus undertaking one of the greatest works ever attempted by Convocation during its long and eventful history, followed every course, adopted every expedient, and carefully took every precaution to bring the great work it was preparing to undertake to a worthy and a successful issue.

It may be well, then, here briefly to notice, that in accordance with the primary resolution which I have specified, a committee was appointed of eight members of the Upper House, and, in accordance with the regular rule, sixteen members of the Lower House, with power, as specified, to confer with the Convocation of York. The members of the Upper House were as follows: the Bishops of Winchester (Wilberforce), St. Davids (Thirlwall), Llandaff (Ollivant), Salisbury (Moberly), Ely (Harold Browne, afterwards of Winchester), Lincoln (Wordsworth; who soon after withdrew), Bath and Wells (Lord Arthur Hervey), and myself.

The members of the Lower House were the Prolocutor (Dr. Bickersteth, Dean of Lichfield), the Deans of Canterbury (Alford), Westminster (Stanley), and Lincoln (Jeremie); the Archdeacons of Bedford (Rose), Exeter (Freeman), and Rochester (Grant); Chancellor Massingberd; Canons Blakesley, How, Selwyn, Swainson, Woodgate; Dr. Jebb, Dr. Kay, and Mr. De Winton.

Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5, the following five resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them, were accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in the Lower House:

“1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.

2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorised Version.

3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgement of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary.

4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language employed in the existing version be closely followed.

5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.”

These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body. The second and third rules deserve our especial attention in reference to the amount of the emendations and alterations which have been introduced during the work of revision. This amount, it is now constantly said, is not only excessive, but in distinct contravention of the rules which were laid down by Convocation. A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop of Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known periodical that the revisers “largely exceeded their instructions, and did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow.” This is a very grave charge, but can it be substantiated? The second and third rules, taken together, refer change to consciously felt necessity on the part of “the most competent scholars,” and these last-mentioned must surely be understood to be those who were deliberately chosen for the work. In the subsequently adopted rule of the committee of Convocation the criterion of this consciously felt necessity was to be faithfulness to the original. All then that can justly be said in reference to the Revisers is this, not that they exceeded their instructions (a very serious charge), but that their estimate of what constituted faithfulness, and involved the necessity of change, was, from time to time, in the judgement of their critic, mistaken or exaggerated. Such language however as that used in reference to the changes made by the Revisers as “unnecessary and uninstructive alterations,” and “irritating trivialities,” was a somewhat harsh form of expressing the judgement arrived at.

But to proceed. On the presentation of the Report it was stated that the committee had not been able to confer with the Northern Convocation, as no committee had been appointed by them. It was commonly supposed that the Northern President (Abp. of York) was favourable to revision, but the two Houses, who at that time sat together, had taken a very different view , as our President informed us that he had received a communication from the Convocation of York to the effect that “The Authorised Version of the English Bible is accepted, not only by the Established Church, but also by the Dissenters and by the whole of the English-speaking people of the world, as their standard of faith; and that although blemishes existed in its text such as had, from time to time, been pointed out, yet they would deplore any recasting of its text. That Convocation accordingly did not think it necessary to appoint a committee to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury, though favourable to the errors being rectified.”

This obviously closed the question of co-operation with the Northern Convocation. We sincerely regretted the decision, as there were many able and learned men in the York Convocation whose co-operation we should have heartily welcomed. Delay, however, was now out of the question. The working out of the scheme therefore had now become the duty of the Convocation that had adopted, and in part formulated, the proposed revision.

The course of our proceedings was then as follows:

After the Report of the committee had been accepted by the Upper House, and communicated to the Lower House, the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Upper House (May 3, 1870), and in due course sent down to the Lower House:

“That a committee be now appointed to consider and report to Convocation a scheme of revision on the principles laid down in the Report now adopted. That the Bishops of Winchester, St. Davids, Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Ely, Salisbury, Lincoln, Bath and Wells, be members of the committee. That the committee be empowered to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from their biblical scholarship to aid them in their work.”

This resolution was followed by a request from the Archbishop that as this was a committee of an exceptional character, being in fact an executive committee, the Lower House would not appoint, as in ordinary committees, twice the number of the members appointed by the Upper House, but simply an equal number. This request, though obviously a very reasonable request under the particular circumstances, was not acceded to without some debate and even remonstrance. This, however, was overcome and quieted by the conciliatory good sense and firmness of the Prolocutor; and, on the following day, the resolution was accepted by the Lower House, and the Prolocutor (Bickersteth) with the Deans of Canterbury (Alford) and Westminster (Stanley), the Archdeacon of Bedford (Rose), Canons Blakesley and Selwyn, Dr. Jebb and Dr. Kay, were appointed as members of what now may be called the Permanent Committee.

This Committee had to undertake the responsible duty of choosing experts, and, out of them and their own members, forming two Companies, the one for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament. Rules had to be drawn up, and a general scheme formed for the carrying out in detail of the whole of the proposed work. In this work it may be supposed that considerable difficulty would have been found in the choice of biblical scholars in addition to those already appointed by Convocation. This, however, did not prove to be the case. I was at that time acting as a kind of informal secretary, and by the friendly help of Dr. Moulton and Dr. Gotch of Bristol had secured the names of distinguished biblical scholars from the leading Christian bodies in England and in Scotland from whom choice would naturally have to be made. When we met together finally to choose, there was thus no lack of suitable names.

In regard of the many rules that had to be made for the orderly carrying out of the work I prepared, after careful conference with the Bishop of Winchester, a draft scheme which, so far as I remember, was in the sequel substantially adopted by what I have termed the Permanent Committee of Convocation. When, then, this Committee formally met on May 25, 1870, the names of those to whom we were empowered to apply were agreed upon, and invitations at once sent out. The members of the Committee had already been assigned to their special companies; viz. to the Old Testament Company, the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff, Ely, Lincoln (who soon after resigned), and Bath and Wells; and from the Lower House, Archdeacon Rose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay: to the New Testament Company, the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and Salisbury; and from the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of Canterbury and Westminster, and Canon Blakesley.

Those invited to join the Old Testament were as follows: Dr. W. L. Alexander, Professor Chenery, Canon Cook, Professor A. B. Davidson, Dr. B. Davies, Professor Fairbairn, Rev. F. Field, Dr. Gensburg, Dr. Gotch, Archdeacon Harrison, Professor Leathes, Professor McGill, Canon Payne Smith, Professor J. J. S. Perowne, Professor Plumptre, Canon Pusey, Dr. Wright (British Museum), Mr. W. A. Wright of Cambridge, the active and valuable secretary of the Company.

Of these Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined the invitation.

Those invited to join the New Testament Company were as follows: Dr. Angus, Dr. David Brown, the Archbishop of Dublin (Trench), Dr. Eadie, Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Rev. W. G. Humphry, Canon Kennedy, Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot, Professor Milligan, Professor Moulton, Dr. J. H. Newman, Professor Newth, Dr. A. Roberts, Rev. G. Vance Smith, Dr. Scott (Balliol College), Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the Bishop of St. Andrews (Wordsworth), Dr. Tregelles, Dr. Vaughan, Canon Westcott.

Of these Dr. J. H. Newman declined, and Dr. Tregelles, from feeble health and preoccupation on his great work, the critical edition of the New Testament, was unable to attend. It should be here mentioned that soon after the formation of the company, Rev. John Troutbeck, Minor Canon of Westminster, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, was appointed by the Company as their secretary. A more accurate, punctual, and indefatigable secretary it would have been impossible for us to have selected for the great and responsible work.

On the same day (May 25, 1870,) the rules for the carrying out of the revision, which, as I have mentioned, had been drawn up in draft were all duly considered by the committee and carried, and the way left clear and open for the commencement of the work. These rules (copies of which will be found in nearly all the prefaces to the Revised Version hitherto issued by the Universities) were only the necessary amplifications of the fundamental rules passed by the two Houses of Convocation which have been already specified.

The first of these subsidiary rules was as follows: “To introduce as few alterations as possible in the text of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness.” This rule must be read in connexion with the first and third fundamental rules and the comments I have already made on those rules.

The second of the rules of the committee was as follows: “To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorised and earlier English versions.” This rule was carefully attended to in its reference to the Authorised Version. I do not however remember, in the revision of the version of the New Testament, that we often fell back on the renderings of the earlier English versions. They were always before us: but, in reference to other versions where there were differences of rendering, we frequently considered the renderings of the ancient versions, especially of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic, and occasionally of the Gothic and Armenian. To these, however, the rule makes no allusion.

The third rule speaks for itself: “Each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided.”

The fourth rule refers to the very important subject of the text, and is an amplification of the last part of the third fundamental rule. The rule of the committee is as follows: “That the text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.” The subject of the text is continued in the fifth rule, which is as follows: “To make or retain no change in the text on the second final revision by the Company except two-thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities.”

The sixth rule is of importance, but in the New Testament Company (I do not know how it may have been in the Old Testament Company) was very rarely acted upon: “In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those present at the meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the next meeting.” The only occasion on which I can remember this rule being called into action was a comparatively unimportant one. At the close of a long day’s work we found ourselves differing on the renderings of “tomb” or “sepulchre” in one of the narratives of the Resurrection. This was easily and speedily settled the following morning.

The seventh rule was as follows: “To revise the headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation.” This rule was very carefully attended to except as regards headings of chapters and pages. These were soon found to involve so much of indirect, if not even of direct interpretation, that both Companies agreed to leave this portion of the work to some committee of the two University Presses that they might afterwards think fit to appoint. Small as the work might seem to be if only confined to the simple revision of the existing headings, the time it would have taken up, if undertaken by the Companies, would certainly have been considerable. I revised, on my own account, the headings of the chapters in St. Matthew, and was surprised to find how much time was required to do accurately and consistently what might have seemed a very easy and inconsiderable work.

The eighth rule was of some importance, though, I think, very rarely acted upon: “To refer, on the part of each Company, when considered desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions.” How far this was acted on by the Old Testament Company I do not know. In regard of the New Testament Company the only instance I can remember, when we availed ourselves of the rule, was in reference to our renderings of portions of the twenty-seventh chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In this particular case we sent our sheets to the Admiralty, and asked the First Sea Lord (whom some of us knew) kindly to tell us if the expressions we had adopted were nautically correct. I believe this friendly and competent authority did not find anything amiss. It has sometimes been said that it would have been better, especially in reference to the New Testament, if this rule had been more frequently acted on, and if matters connected with English and alterations of rhythm had been brought before a few of our more distinguished literary men. It may be so; though I much doubt whether in matters of English the Greek would not always have proved the dominant arbiter. In matters of rhythm it is equally doubtful whether much could have been effected by appealing to the ears of others. At any rate we preferred trusting to our own, and adopted, as I shall afterwards mention, a mode of testing rhythmical cadence that could hardly have been improved upon.

The concluding rule was one of convenience and common sense: “That the work of each Company be communicated to the other, as it is completed, in order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language as possible.”

All preliminaries were now settled. The invitations were issued, and, with the exceptions of Canon Cook, Dr. Pusey, and Dr. Newman, were readily accepted. Three or four names (Principal Douglas, Professor Geden, Dr. Weir, and, I think, Mr. Bensley), were shortly added to those already mentioned as invited to join the Old Testament Company, and, in less than a month after the meeting of the committee on May 25, both Companies had entered upon their responsible work. On June 22, 1870, both Companies, after a celebration of the Holy Communion, previously announced by Dean Stanley as intended to be administered by him in Westminster Abbey, in the Chapel of Henry VII, commenced the long-looked-for revision of the Authorised Version of God’s Holy Word. The Old Testament Company commenced their work in the Chapter Library; the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber.

The number of the members in each Company was very nearly the same, viz. twenty-seven in the Old Testament Company, and, in nominal attendance, twenty-six in the New Testament Company. In the former Company, owing to the longer time found necessary for the work (fourteen years), there were more changes in the composition of the Company than in the case of the latter Company, which completed its work three years and a half before its sister Company. At the close of the work on the New Testament (1880), the numbers in each Company were twenty-six and twenty-five; but owing to various reasons, and especially the distance of many of the members from London, the number in actual and regular attendance was somewhat reduced as the years went onward. How it fared with the Old Testament Company I cannot precisely state. Bishop Harold Browne, after his accession to the See of Winchester, was only able to attend twice or three times after the year 1875. In that year Bishop Thirlwall died, and Bishop Ollivant ceased to attend, but remained a corresponding member till his death in 1882. Vacancies, I am informed, were filled up till October 1875, after which date no new members were added. The Company, however, worked to the very end with great devotion and assiduity. The revision occupied 794 days, and was completed in eighty-five sessions, the greater part of which were for ten days each, at about six hours a day.

I can speak a little more exactly in reference to the New Testament Company. The time was shorter, and the changes in the composition of the Company were fewer. At the end of the work a record was made out of the attendances of the individual members , from which it was easy to arrive at the average attendance, which for the whole time was found to be as much as sixteen each day. The number of sessions was 101 of four days each, and one of three days, making a total of 407 days in all. More than 1,200 days were thus devoted to the work of the revision of the Authorised Versions of both Testaments. The first revision, in the case of the New Testament lasted about six years; the second, two years and a half. The remaining two years were spent in the consideration of various details and reserved questions, and especially the consideration of the suggestions, on our second revision, of the American Revisers, of whose work and connexion with the English Revisers it will now be convenient to speak.

The idea of a connexion with America in the great work of revision was nearly as early as the movements in Convocation of which an account has been given. It appears that, in the session of Convocation in July, 1870, it was moved in the Lower House by Lord Alwyne Compton (afterwards and now Bishop of Ely) that the committee of Convocation should be instructed to invite the co-operation of some American divines. This was at once agreed to by both Houses, and measures were taken to open communications with America. The correspondence was opened by the acting Chairman of the New Testament Company (the present writer) in a letter to Dr. Angus (dated July 20, 1870) who was about to visit the United States, empowering him to prepare the way for definite action on the part of American scholars and divines. This he did in a letter sent round to American scholars, and especially by communication with Dr. Philip Schaff of the Bible House at New York, who, from the first, had taken the deepest interest in the movement. This active and enterprising scholar at once took up the matter, and operated so successfully that, as he himself tells us in his valuable and accurate “Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version” (New York, 1883), a committee of about thirty members was formally organized De, 1871, and entered upon active work on Oc, 1872, after the first revision of the Synoptical Gospels had been forwarded by the New Testament Company.

Our Old Testament Company was no less active and co-operative. As they tell us in the Preface prefixed to their revision, “the first revision of the several books of the Old Testament was submitted to the consideration of the American Revisers, and, except in the case of the Pentateuch (which had been twice gone through prior to co-operation) the English Company had the benefit of their criticisms and suggestions before they proceeded to the second revision. The second revision was in like manner forwarded to America, and the latest thoughts of the American Revisers were in the hands of the English Company at their final review.” Both our English Companies bear hearty testimony to the value derived from the co-operation. In the case of the New Testament Company, the “care, vigilance, and accuracy” which marked the work of their American brethren is distinctly specified.

But little more need be said of the American Companies. They were soon fully organized, and, so far as can be judged by the results of their work, carefully and judiciously chosen. The Old Testament Company consisted of fifteen members, Dr. Green, Professor in Princeton, being Chairman: the New Testament Committee consisted of sixteen members, three of those who had at first accepted having been obliged, from ill-health and stress of local duties, to resign. Dr. Woolsey, Ex-President of Yale College, was Chairman, and Bishop Lee, of the Diocese of Delaware, one of the most faithful and valuable participators in the work, a member of the Company. Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, was also a member, and was President of the whole undertaking, Dr. George Day of Yale College, a member of the Old Testament Company, being the general secretary. The two Companies met every month (except July and August) in two rooms in the Bible House, New York, but without any connexion with the Bible Society, which, as in England, could only circulate the Authorised Version.

The American Committee, Dr. Schaff tells us, included representatives of nine different denominations, viz. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists and, to the extent of one member, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Society of Friends. The Episcopal Church of America was applied to by Bishop Wilberforce with the request that they would take part in the revision: this was declined. The American Church however, as we have already shown, was not wholly unrepresented in the work. The whole Committee was obviously much more mixed than the English Committee; but it must not be forgotten that though the English Companies were chosen by Episcopalians, and Episcopalians, as was natural, greatly preponderated, nearly one-third of the two Companies were not members of the Church of England. If we assume that each Company consisted at any given time of twenty-five members, which, as we have seen, would be approximately correct, the non-Episcopal members will be found to have been not less than sixteen, viz. seven Presbyterians, four Independents or Congregationalists, two Baptists, two Wesleyans, and one Unitarian. Be this however as it may, it is certain that by the great blessing, we may humbly say, of God the Holy Ghost, the greatest possible harmony prevailed in the work both here and in America. Here, as is well known, this was the case; and in America, to quote one only out of many similar witnesses, one who was himself a reviser, and the only pastor in the Company (the Old Testament Company), thus gives his experience, “Never, even once, did the odium theologicum appear. Nothing was said at any time that required retraction or apology .”

This brief notice of our American brethren may close with one further comment. Their work began, like ours, with reliance on financial aid from the many who would be sure to be interested in such an important and long-desired work. Help in our case was at once readily proffered, but very soon was found not to be necessary, owing to our disposal of copyright to the Presses of the two Universities. With the American Revisers it was otherwise. During the whole twelve years all the necessary expenses of travelling, printing, room-rent, and other accessories were, as Dr. Schaff mentions, cheerfully contributed by liberal donors from among the friends of biblical revision. There remained, however, a grave difficulty. It was plainly impossible that such distinguished men as those who formed the two American Companies could simply act the part of friendly critics of what was sent over to them without being recognized as fellow revisers in the full sense of the words. How, however, formally to establish this parity of position was found to be very difficult, owing to our connexion with the Presses, who had trade rights which had properly to be guarded. The result was much friendly negotiation for several months, but without any definite adjustment . At last, by the wise and conciliatory action of the Presses an agreement was arrived at in August, 1877 , by which we on this side of the Atlantic were bound not only to send over the various stages of our work to our American brethren and carefully to consider all their suggestions, but also to sanction the publication in every copy of the revision of a list of all the important passages, in regard of text and renderings, upon which the English and American Revisers could not finally agree. The American Revisers on their part undertook not to publish any edition of their own for fourteen years.

The fourteen years have now passed away, but prior to the expiration of the time the long-needed marginal references were completed, and in September, 1898, were attached to the pages of all the larger English copies of the Revised Version of the Holy Scripture, with a short account of the sources from which they were derived, and of the circumstances of their delayed publication. As they were somewhat closely connected with the labours of two of the members of the New Testament Company, and had received the general approval of that Company, I had real pleasure in presenting to both Houses of Convocation on Fe, 1899, the completed body of references, and, in them, the very last portion of every part of the work of the Company with which I had so long been connected.

The appearance of the references was very seasonable, as it enabled the Universities to acquire copyright for any of the editions with these references which they might publish, or cause to be published in America. The University Press of Oxford has, I know, acted on this right, but whether in conjunction with the Cambridge University Press or independently I am not able to say. The right at any rate remains, and in the sequel may be of greater importance in America than we may now suppose, as it may tend to discourage the spread of altered editions of the revision, which from time to time might be brought forward by irresponsible publishers .

One subject still remains to be noticed in this portion of my address which cannot be passed over the revision of the Apocrypha. This the English revisers were pledged to the University Presses to complete, before our connexion with them could be rightfully concluded. This revision, as we know, has been completed, though perhaps not in a manner that can be considered as completely satisfactory, owing to the want of a co-ordinating authority. The arrangement, of which a full and clear account will be found in the preface to the published volume, was briefly as follows. On March 21, 1879, as the New Testament Company was fast approaching the completion of its labours, it was agreed that the Company should be divided into three portions, each consisting of eight members, to which the names of the London, Westminster, and Cambridge Companies were to be respectively assigned. The portion of the work that each of the three Companies was to take was settled by lot. To the London Company, of which I was a member, the book of Ecclesiasticus was assigned; to the Westminster Company, the first book of Maccabees, and subsequently the books Tobit and Judith; and to the Cambridge Company, the second book of Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon.

On the completion of their work, the Old Testament Company assigned to a special committee chosen out of their number the remaining books of the Apocrypha, viz. 1 and 2 Esdras, the remainder of Esther, Baruch, Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Prayer of Manasses.

It was agreed that each Company and the above-named committee should go through their work twice, but without the two-thirds condition, and that each body should send its work when completed round to the rest. The times, however, at which the portions were completed were by no means, even approximately, the same. The London Company completed its work in May, 1883. The Westminster Company finished the first book of Maccabees in November, 1881, and the books of Tobit and Judith in October, 1882. The Cambridge Company completed its revision of the second book of Maccabees in December, 1889, and of the Book of Wisdom, which underwent three revisions, in November, 1891. The revision of the remaining books, undertaken by the Old Testament Company, does not seem to have been completed till even two or three years later. This interval of ten or twelve years involved in some of the books, especially in reference to Ecclesiasticus, the clear necessity for further revision. This compelled me, with the help of my valued friend Dr. Moulton, to go over the work of my former Company on my own responsibility, my coadjutors in the work having been either called away by death or too seriously ill to help me.

It was thus with some sense of relief that, on the request of those connected with the publication of the volume, I presented the Revised Version of the Apocrypha to the two Houses of Convocation on February 12, 1896.

The rise and progress of the desire for a revision of the Authorised Version of Holy Scripture has now been set forth as fully as the limits of these Addresses permit. What now remains to be specified is what may be called the internal history of this Revision, or, in other words, the nature and procedure of the work, with such concluding comments as the circumstances of the present may appear to suggest.