eremie); 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 {21} 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 subseque