s could not be assembled for many years to
come, and that if the rendering was plainly more accurate and more true
to the original, it ought not to be put aside as incompatible with some
supposed aspect of the rule of faithfulness. Proposals were often set
aside without the vote being taken, on the ground that it was not "worth
while" to make them, and in a trivial matter to disturb recollection of a
familiar text; but the non-voting resulted from the proposal being
withdrawn owing to the mind of the Company being plainly against it, and
not from any direct appeal to the principle of faithfulness. If the
proposal was pressed, the vote of the Company was always taken, and the
matter authoritatively settled.

The contention, often very recklessly urged, that the Revisers
deliberately violated the principles under which the work was committed
to them is thus, to use the kindest form of expression, entirely
erroneous. I have dwelt upon this matter because when properly
understood it clears away more than half of the objections that have been
urged against our Revision. Of the remainder I cannot but agree with
good Bishop Westcott that no criticism of the Revision--and the
criticisms were of every form and kind "pedantry, spiritless literality,
irritating triviality, destroyed rhythm," and so forth--no criticism ever
came upon us by surprise. The Revisers, as the Bishop truly says, heard
in the Jerusalem Chamber all the arguments against their conclusions they
have heard since; and he goes on to say that no restatement of old
arguments had in the least degree shaken his confidence in the general
results. Such words from one now, alas, no longer with us, but whose
memory we cherish as one of the most wide-minded as well as truth-seeking
of the biblical scholars of our own times, may well serve to reassure the
partially hesitating reader of the Revised Version of its real
trustworthiness and fidelity. But we must not confine our attention
simply to the renderings that hold a place in the text of the Revised
Version. We must take into our consideration a very instructive portion
of the work of the Revisers which is, I fear, utterly neglected by the
general reader--the alternative readings and renderings that hold a place
in the margin, and form an integral portion of the Revision. Though we
are now more particularly considering the renderings, I include here the
marginal readings, as the relation of the margins to the V