Alford, already at work on the fourth volume of his Greek Testament, and soon to be appointed Dean of Canterbury. They issued (1857-58) a new version of the Gospel according to St. John, and of the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. One of their number, the Rev. C. J. Ellicott, who still happily presides over the diocese of Gloucester, described the situation in impassioned words in the preface to his edition of The Pastoral Epistles (1856, p. xiii.) 2 :

'It is vain to cheat our own souls with the thought that these errors in the Authorised Version are either insignificant or imaginary. There are errors, there are inaccuracies, there are misconceptions, there are obscurities; and that man who, after being in any degree satisfied of this, permits himself to lean to the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or who, intellectually unable to test the truth of these allegations, nevertheless permits himself to denounce or deny them, will have to sustain the tremendous charge of having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word of God.'

IV.

The controversies roused by the publication of Essays and Reviews and of the first part of the treatise on the Pentateuch by Dr. Colenso did not

1 The others were the Revs. Dr. Barrow (Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford), C. J. Ellicott, W. G. Humphry, and Dr. Moberly, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury. See Life of Dean Alford, 1873, pp. 262-4, and Dr. Ellicott's Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy Scripture, 1901, PP. 12-14.

2 With Dr. Ellicott's name it is natural to couple that of Dr. Lightfoot, whose first work on St. Paul, the Epistle to the Galatians, did not, however, appear till 1865. It contained his own reconstruction of the text, but no translation.

directly touch the question of Revision. But indirectly they helped to prepare the way; and the judgment of the Privy Council, by removing all restraints from Biblical investigation, powerfully promoted the general movement. As soon as the change had been effected in the terms of clerical subscription, attention was more and more carefully directed to the need of a fresh version of the Scriptures, and above all, to a fresh text of the New Testament. A generation had passed since Lachmann had first applied a new method of critical enquiry. Rich stores of additional material had been brought to light, and various eminent scholars had devoted themselves to the establishment of definite principles for their use in the reconstruction of the ancient text. By 1870, accordingly, the time was ripe, though Mr. Gladstone confessed to a little shock of surprise when the subject was brought before him. The first impulse proceeded from a representative of what was then known as the Broad Church, Mr. Charles Buxton, who gave notice of a question on the matter in the House of Commons. It was to come on in March, but he was adroitly forestalled. The Bishop of Winchester, with the ready insight of a shrewd ecclesiastical politician, at once moved in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury (Feb. 10) a resolution for the appointment of a joint Committee of both Houses (who should confer with any Committee that might be appointed by the Convocation of the Northern Province), to report on the desirableness of a

revision of the Authorised Version of the New Testament. This was seconded by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. On the proposal of the Bishops of Llandaff and St. David's its scope was enlarged to include the Old Testament also, and it was in due course adopted by both Houses. The Northern Convocation, however, declined to take any action.

In the meantime Bishop Wilberforce, who had really been prompted by Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford, put himself in communication with the Premier. The first idea, apparently, was that the work should be accomplished by a Commission appointed under the Crown. Writing to the Bishop of Winchester, however, on Feb. 21, relative to Mr. Buxton's approaching question, Mr. Gladstone emphatically rejected the suggestion: I must own myself totally at a loss to see how the preliminary difficulty of composing the Commission, if a Crown Commission, could be surmounted.' To Lord Shaftesbury, on the same day, he explained his position in the following terms2:

1

'Some short time back the Bishop of Winchester and Gloucester referred to me on the same subject. I was rather startled by the enquiry. I answered, however, that no pledge could be given by me on the part of the Government, that I did not think they would be disposed to stand in the way of a general desire, but neither would they, I thought, be responsible for any initiative in starting the question, or be disposed to take it up as a contested one.

1Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. iii. (1882), p. 348.

2 Printed in the Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. iii. p. 348.

'This was from an official point of view. Speaking as an individual, I may add that the more I think upon the subject, the more I am impressed with the difficulty of any interference by authority either for the purpose of settling a Greek text, or for the purpose of altering the present version of Holy Scripture. To all private labourers with a view to either purpose I give a hearty sympathy; and such labours may render possible hereafter what I cannot see my way to now.'

On the following day (Feb. 22) the Bishop of Winchester wrote to Mr. Gladstone indicating the scope of his own view of the enterprise1:

'Of course I was not privy to Buxton's notice. But the knowledge before I moved that the Broad party were about to move, convinced me of the wisdom of our moving and having the matter in our hands. C. Buxton's question is one of the troublesome movements I expected. My own impression is that it will be best to keep the text unaltered, and put any corrections into the margin. Thence by slow degrees they may migrate into the text. I would not give up our translation for anything-nor have I the faintest idea of the Bishop of St. Davids' vision of a final, once for all, revision. The only need at last for State authority will be for the Queen's printers to be allowed to print what the Church has adopted as the Authorised Version.'

The movement thus arose in its actual form out of the astute resolve of the Bishop of Winchester to secure for the Church the control which Mr. Buxton and his friends were willing really to entrust to Parliament. But it went much further than the Bishop proposed. On May 3 and 5, before the joint Committee of the two Houses presented their report, the two Houses separately adopted resolutions affirming (1) that it was desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version should be undertaken, and 1 Life, vol. iii. p. 350.

1

1

(2) that it should comprise not only marginal renderings, but also such emendations as it might be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorised Version. The report of the joint Committee was at the same time accepted, and on May 3 the Upper House proceeded to nominate its own members for another joint Committee to carry out the revision, expressly providing '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 wise and generous arrangement, due (as Dean Stanley afterwards stated) to the Bishop of Winchester, was also adopted by the Lower House. The Revision Committee, thus constituted, proceeded to invite experts, and to form two companies, one for the Old Testament and the other for the New, the first comprising twentyseven members, and the second twenty-six. They all, however, belonged to the United Kingdom. Co-operation with continental scholars would have involved many difficulties, but an American revision was organised, and the results of the fellow-labourers on each side of the Atlantic were duly interchanged.

The labours of the two English companies began on June 22, 1870. The New Testament occupied 407 days, the devoted Chairman, the Bishop of Gloucester, being present on no less than 405. Six years were devoted to the first revision; two years

1

1 A previous resolution, adopted by both Houses, even added to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.'

2 The names of the members are recorded by Bishop Ellicott, Addresses on the Revised Version, pp. 26, 27.