larly useful." At length a committee met, when the object of the intended Society was maturely considered, and it was unanimously determined "to promote the circulation of the Holy Scriptures in foreign countries, and in those parts of the British dominions for which adequate provision is not yet made, it being understood that no English translation of the Scriptures will be gratuitously circulated by the Society in Great Britain ;" and on the 1st February, 1803, an important minute appears,-"That the translation of the Scriptures established by public authority be the only one in the English language to be adopted by this Society."*

*

Minutes of the Committee of the Religious Tract Society.

HE idea of a Revision of our English Bible at the period of the Commonwealth we have seen came to nothing; and in the eighteenth century it attracted no large measure of attention. There were, however, learned men who saw the desirableness of attempting the object, and expressed an opinion to that effect. They felt that Biblical criticism had

made such strides, that so many мSS. had been collected for the rectification of the original text, that the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New were being more carefully examined than they had ever been; that the learned labours of much more than a hundred years had thrown additional light on the meaning of revelation, and that therefore these advantages ought to be made available for the improvement of our vernacular Scriptures. They appreciated the excellency of what is called the Authorized Version; but as there are spots even in the sun,

they did not think it presumptuous, nor any just cause of offence to the most enthusiastic admirers of what was finished in 1611, to assert that it contained obvious imperfections, which ought to be removed. Amongst those who took this view were Waterland, Blayney, Lowth, and Kennicott, not to mention others. But it was a long time before public opinion was ripe for a due consideration of the question.

In the meanwhile distinguished scholars issued versions of particular books, accompanied by explanatory notes, and more or less of critical discussion. Lowth's translation of Isaiah, Blayney's of Jeremiah, Newcome's of the Minor Prophets, and (in the present century Henderson's version of all these books) also Campbell's work on the Gospels, and Macknight's on the Epistles, may be regarded as productions of a tentative character preparing for a larger and a united effort. Boothroyd's Bible, Alford's Testament, and other books might be added to the list. The perusal of these volumes, though on some they produced the impression, and not without reason, of the superiority of the common version as a whole, on many they left the conviction that it was a great pity so noble a version as that universally used should not be made still more admirable, through a judicious use of modern scholarship for the purpose. More and more it came to be seen that objections to a revision of King James's Bible were no more valid than had been objections to a revision of the Great Bible, or of Matthew's Bible, or of any other ancient one. Every merely human work and translation is necessarily such a work-it was felt must admit of improvement, and that a careful distinction should ever be made between the perfect writings of men inspired,

and the rendering of them into a modern tongue by men uninspired.

In 1857 appeared a Revision of the Gospel of St. John by five clergymen-Dr. Barrow, Dr. Moberly, Henry Alford, B.D., William G. Humphry, B.D., and Charles J. Ellicott, M.A. In the preface to this publication they remark, “The subject of the revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture has been for some time past brought before the minds of men in various ways. It has been urged in Convocation and in Parliament, and has been extensively debated in public journals, in pamphlets, and other publications, and at the meetings of religious societies. In America the same subject has attracted great notice; and the design of revision has been pursued with considerable labour by the American Bible Union. In Holland a revision of the Dutch Bible has been set on foot, and is now in progress, under the authority and supervision of the Synod of the Reformed Church." "The two objects of this tentative revision of one Gospel," the editors stated to be," the one to exhibit in the fullest, most honest, and most loyal manner the actual meaning of the inspired Word of God, allowing no subjective preferences or preconceived views to interfere with the simple and faithful exposition in English of the original text of Holy Scripture; the other to show, as far as is compatible with this first and chiefest object, that the Authorized Version is indeed a precious and holy possession, and that the errors of it are very slight and few in comparison of its many and great excellences."

In the year 1858 the then Dean of Westminster, Dr. Trench, now Archbishop of Dublin, boldly called public attention to the subject. "It is clear," he remarks,

"that the question, Are we, or are we not, to have a new translation of Scripture? or rather-some few would propose this who did not wish to loosen from its anchors the whole religious life of the English people,—shall we, or shall we not, have a new revision of the Authorized Version? is one which is presenting itself more and more familiarly to the minds of men. This, indeed, is not by any means the first time that this question has been earnestly discussed; but that which differences the present agitation of the matter from preceding ones is, that on all former occasions the subject was only debated among scholars and divines, and awoke no interest in circles beyond them. The present is apparently the first occasion on which it has taken the slightest hold of the popular mind. But now indications of the interest which it is awakening reach us from every side. America is sending us the instalments . . . of a new version as fast as she can. The wish for a revision has for a considerable time been working among Dissenters here; by the voice of one of these it has lately made itself heard in Parliament, and by the mouth of a Regius Professor in Convocation. Our reviews, and not those only which are specially dedicated to religious subjects, begin to deal with the question of revision. There are, or a little while since there were, frequent letters in the newspapers, urging or remonstrating against such a step— few of them, it is true, of much value, yet at the same time showing how many minds are now occupied with the subject.

"On the whole I am persuaded that a revision ought to come; I am convinced that it will come. Not, however, I would trust, as yet, for we are not as yet in any respect prepared for it; the Greek and the English which should