Chapter X: Part 10

In 1546 Coverdale's Bible was included in the proscription, the _Great Bible_ being the only translation not interdicted. During Edward VI.'s reign there was a brief respite, but with the accession of Mary the persecutions of the English Bible and its friends were renewed. Cranmer suffered martyrdom at the stake, as John Rogers had done before him. Other prominent reformers, amongst them Coverdale, sought refuge in Geneva, the town of Calvin and Beza, where they employed their enforced leisure in planning and carrying out a new revision of the Bible. The first fruits of these labours was a New Testament issued in June 1557, with an introduction by Calvin, probably the work of William Whittingham.[38] The volume, in a convenient quarto size, printed in clear Roman type, and provided with marginal annotations, gained immediate popularity in England, where a Bible suited for household demands had long been needed. It was the first Bible which had the text divided into "verses and sections according to the best editions in other languages."[39]

The Genevan Bible.

Whittingham's enterprise was, however, soon superseded by an issue of the whole Bible, which appeared in 1560, the so-called _Genevan Bible_, popularly also known as the _Breeches Bible_, from its rendering of Gen. iii. 7, "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches." This edition was mainly due to the combined efforts of William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby and Thomas Sampson, and the expenses towards printing and publication were borne by members of the congregation at Geneva. It represented in the Old Testament a thorough and independent revision of the text of the _Great Bible_ with the help of the Hebrew original, the Latin versions of Leo Judae (1543), Pagninus (1528), Sebastian Muenster (1534-1535), and the French versions of Olivetan. The New Testament consisted of Tyndale's latest text revised to a great extent in accordance with Beza's translation and commentary. The changes introduced by the Genevan translators were, as a rule, a great improvement, and the version received a ready welcome and immediate popularity, not only on account of its intrinsic merits, but because of its handy size, usually that of a small quarto, and of its being printed, like Whittingham's New Testament, in a readable Roman type instead of black letter. Like this earlier publication, it had the division of the chapters into verses, and a marginal commentary which proved a great attraction to the Puritans. The popularity of the Genevan Bible was so great that between 1560 and 1644 at least 140 editions of it were published,[40] and this in spite of its not being allowed for use in the churches.

In 1576 the New Testament of the Genevan Bible was again revised by Lawrence Tomson and provided with a new commentary mainly translated from Beza. It soon became popular and even replaced the Genevan New Testament in later editions of this Bible.

The Bishops' Bible.

Some time after the accession of Queen Elizabeth an attempt was made to improve the authorized _Great Bible_, and in this way to challenge the ever growing popularity of the Calvinistic _Genevan Bible_. The initiative was taken by Archbishop Parker, about 1563-1565, who, according to Strype (Parker i. 414) "took upon him the labour to contrive and set the whole work a going ... by sorting out the whole Bible into parcels ... and distributing these parcels to able bishops and other learned men, to peruse and collate each the book or books allotted them ... and they to add some short marginal notes for the illustration or correction of the text."

The rules upon which they proceeded were these:--

1. "To follow the common English translation used in the churches, and
not to recede from it, but where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew
or Greek original. 2. To use sections and divisions in the text as
Pagnine in his translation useth, and for the verity of the Hebrew to
follow the said Pagnine and Muenster specially, and generally others
learned in the tongues. 3. To make no bitter notes upon any text, or
yet to set down any determination in places of controversy. 4. To note
such chapters and places as contain matters of genealogies, or other
such places not edifying, with some strike or note, that the reader
may eschew them in his public reading. 5. That all such words as sound
in the old translation to any offence of lightness or obscenity be
expressed with more convenient terms and phrases."

The work was pushed forward with energy, and on the 5th of October 1568 the volume was ready for publication. It was a magnificent folio, generally known as the _Bishops' Bible_, since not less than eight of these dignitaries took part in the revision. But the detached and piecemeal way in which the revision had been carried out naturally caused certain inequalities in the execution of the work. The different parts of the Bible vary considerably in merit, the alterations in the New Testament, for instance, showing freshness and vigour, whereas most of the changes introduced in the Old Testament have been condemned as "arbitrary and at variance with the exact sense of the Hebrew text" (Westcott, op. cit. p. 237). Several editions of the _Bishops' Bible_ were afterwards published, but it is doubtful whether the ecclesiastical authorities in spite of repeated enactments (Cardwell, _Synodalia_, pp. 115, 123, 210, 292) ever succeeded in entirely enforcing its public use in the churches. After 1569 the Great Bible ceased, however, to be reprinted. But in the homes the Genevan version still maintained its supremacy. One thing is certain, that the book of Psalms of the new revision had fairly soon to give way before the well-known and smooth rendering of the Great Bible. In the second edition of the Bishops' Bible, 1572, the two texts were actually printed side by side; in all later editions except one (1585) the older Psalter alone remained.

The Reims and Douai Version.

From the time of Tyndale onwards the translation of the Scriptures into English had been more or less an outcome of the great reformatory movements within the church. It was not until Queen Elizabeth's reign that members of the Romanist party found it expedient to translate the Bible into the vernacular "for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes, and for the better preseruation or reclaime of many good soules endangered thereby" (_Preface_ to the Rhemish Version).

According to the title-page the New Testament was "translated faithfvlly into English ovt of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred vvith the Greeke and other editions in diuers languages.... In the English College of Rhemes, 1582." The Old Testament had been "long since" completed, but "for lacke of good meanes" (Preface to the New Testament), its appearance was delayed till 1609-1610, when it was published at Douai. The complete work, known as the _Rhemes and Douay Version_, was reprinted in Rouen in 1635, and after a considerable time revised by Dr Challoner (1749-1750). The translation is really anonymous, but there seems to be little doubt that it was carried out by some of the Romanist refugees connected with the Seminary at Douai and the English college at Reims, the chief amongst them being Gregory Martin, William Allen, Richard Bristow and J. Reynolds. Like the Wycliffite Versions it is merely a secondary rendering from the Latin Vulgate, and it suffered from many of the defects which characterized these versions, extreme literalness, often stilted, ambiguous renderings, at times unintelligible except by a reference to the Latin original, as in Luke xxii. 18, "I will not drink of the generation of the vine," or Phil. ii. 7, "But he exinanited himself."

As further examples of this rendering we print the same passages from St Matthew:--

(Matthew iii. 1-4.) And in those dayes cometh Iohn the Baptist
preaching in the desert of Ievvrie, saying. Doe penance: for the
Kingdom of heauen is at hand. For this is he that vvas spoken of by
Esay the Prophet, saying, A voyce of one crying in the desert, prepare
ye the way of our Lord, make straight his pathes. And the sayd Iohn
had his garment of camels heare, & a girdle of a skinne about his
loynes: and his meate was locustes & vvilde honie.

(Matthew vi. 9-13.) Ovr Father which art in heauen, sanctified be thy
name. Let thy Kingdom come. Thy wil be done, as in heauen, in earth
also. Giue vs to day our supersubstantial bread. And forgiue vs our
dettes, as we also forgiue our detters. And leade vs not into
tentation. But deliuer vs from evil. Amen.

The strongly Latinized vocabulary of this version was not without its influence on the next great venture in English translations of the Bible, the _Authorized Version_.[41]

The Authorized Version, 1611.

The English Bible, which is now recognized as the _Authorized Version_ wherever the English language is spoken, is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, begun in 1604, and published in 1611. It arose incidentally out of a Conference between the High Church and the Low Church parties convened by James I. at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604, for the purpose of determining "things pretended to be amiss in the church," and was originally proposed by Dr Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader and spokesman of the Low Church party, and subsequently on the committee which revised the translation of the Prophets.

No real opposition was offered to the proposal, and the king cleverly sketched out on the moment a plan to be adopted. He "wished that some special pains should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation--professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English--and this to be done by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the privy council; and lastly to be ratified by his royal authority; and so this whole church to be bound unto it and none other."[42] He also particularly desired that no notes should be added by way of comment in the margin, since some of those in the Genevan Bible appeared to him "very partial, untrue, seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits."

The appointment of the revisers was a work of much responsibility and labour, and five months elapsed before they were selected and their respective portions assigned to them; but the list of those who began the work, and who, with some few changes in consequence of deaths, brought it to a happy conclusion, shows how large an amount of scholarship was enlisted. It includes Dr Andrewes, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was familiar with Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, Latin and at least ten other languages, while his knowledge of patristic literature was unrivalled; Dr Overall, regius professor of theology and afterwards bishop of Norwich; Bedwell, the greatest Arabic scholar of Europe; Sir Henry Savile, the most learned layman of his time; and, to say nothing of others well known to later generations, nine who were then or afterwards professors of Hebrew or of Greek at Oxford or Cambridge. It is observable also that they were chosen without reference to party, at least as many of the Puritan clergy as of the opposite party being placed on the committees.

The following list[43] is drawn up in such a way as to show the
academical or other position which each of them occupied, and the
particular part of the work on which they were engaged.

Genesis-2 Kings.

Westminster.

Dr Lancelot Andrewes, dean of Westminster.
Dr John Overall, dean of St Paul's.
Dr Hadrian de Saravia, canon of Canterbury.
Dr Richard Clark, fellow of Christ's Coll., Camb.
Dr John Layfield, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.
Dr Robert Teigh, archdeacon of Middlesex.
Mr Francis Burleigh, Pemb. Hall, Camb., D.D., 1607.
Mr Geoffrey King, fellow of King's Coll., Camb.
Mr Thompson, Clare Hall, Camb.
Mr William Bedwell, St John's Coll., Camb.

1 Chron.-Eccles.

Cambridge.

Mr Edward Lively, fellow of Trin. Coll.
Mr John Richardson, afterwards master of Trin. Coll.
Mr Laurence Chatterton, master of Emm. Coll.
Mr Francis Dillingham, fellow of Christ's Coll.
Mr Thomas Harrison, vice-master of Trin. Coll.
Mr Roger Andrewes, afterwards master of Jesus Coll.
Mr Robert Spalding, fellow of St John's.
Mr Andrew Byng, fellow of St Peter's Coll.

Isaiah-Malachi.

Oxford.

Dr John Harding, pres. of Magd. Coll.
Dr John Reynolds, pres. of Corpus Christi Coll.
Dr Thomas Holland, afterwards rector of Ex. Coll.
Mr Richard Kilbye, rector of Lincoln Coll.
Dr Miles Smith, Brasenose Coll.
Dr Richard Brett, fellow of Lincoln Coll.
Mr Richard Fairclough, fellow of New Coll.

The Apocrypha.

Cambridge.

Dr John Duport, master of Jesus Coll.
Dr William Branthwait, master of Caius Coll.
Dr Jeremiah Radcliffe, fellow of Trin. Coll.
Dr Samuel Ward, afterwards master of Sid. Coll.
Mr Andrew Downes, fellow of St John's Coll.
Mr John Bois, fellow of St John's Coll.
Mr Robert Ward, fellow of King's Coll.

The Four Gospels, Acts, Apocalypse.

Oxford.

Dr Thomas Ravis, dean of Christ Church.
Dr George Abbot, dean of Winchester.
Dr Richard Eedes, dean of Worcester.
Dr Giles Thompson, dean of Windsor.
Mr (Sir Henry) Saville, provost of Eton.
Dr John Perin, fellow of St John's Coll.
Dr Ravens [fellow of St John's Coll.]
Dr John Harmer, fellow of New Coll.

Romans-Jude.

Westminster.

Dr William Barlow, dean of Chester.
Dr William Hutchinson, archdeacon of St Albans.
Dr John Spencer, pres. of Corp. Chr. Coll., Ox.
Dr Roger Fenton, fellow of Pemb. Hall, Camb.
Mr Michael Rabbett, Trin. Coll., Camb.
Mr Thomas Sanderson, Balliol Coll., Oxford, D.D., 1605.
Mr William Dakins, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.

When this large body of scholars were set down to their task, an elaborate set of rules was drawn up for their guidance, which contained a scheme of revision as well as general directions for the execution of their work. This is one of the very few records that remain of their undertaking.[44]

"(1) The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called 'the
Bishops' Bible,' to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of
the original will permit. (2) The names of the prophets and the holy
writers, with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as
may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. (3) The old
ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word _Church_ not to be
translated _Congregation_, &c. (4) When a word hath divers
significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by
the most of the ancient fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of
the place and the analogy of the faith. (5) The division of the
chapters to be altered either not at all or as little as may be, if
necessity so require. (6) No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but
only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot,
without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the
text. (7) Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall
serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another. (8) Every
particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters;
and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he
thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and
agree for their parts what shall stand. (9) As any one company hath
dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest
to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for his majesty is very
careful in this point. (10) If any company, upon the review of the
book so sent, doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word
thereof, note the place, and withal send the reasons; to which if they
consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting,
which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the end of the
work. (11) When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters
to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for
his judgment of such a place. (12) Letters to be sent from every
bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of his translation
in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the
tongues and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular
observations to the company either at Westminster, Cambridge or
Oxford. (13) The directors in each company to the deans of Westminster
and Chester for that place; and the king's professors in the Hebrew or
Greek in either university. (14) These translations to be used when
they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible; viz.
Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. (15) Besides
the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient
and grave divines in either of the universities, not employed in
translating, to be assigned by the vice-chancellor upon conference
with [the] rest of the heads to be overseers of the translations, as
well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule
above specified."

It is not possible to determine in how far all these rules were adhered to. All we know of the way this noble work was carried out is contained in the Preface, where Dr Miles Smith, in 1612 bishop of Gloucester, in the name of his fellow-workers gives an account of the manner and spirit in which it was done:--

"Neither did we run ouer the worke with that posting haste that the
_Septuagint_ did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they
finished it in 72 days.... The worke hath... cost the workemen, as
light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two
dayes and more... Truly (good Christian Reader), we neuer thought from
the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet
to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or
out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be
excepted against.... To that purpose there were many chosen, that were
greater in other mens eyes than in their owne, and that sought the
truth rather than their own praise.... Neither did wee thinke much to
consult the Translators or Commentators, _Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian,
Greeke_, or _Latine_, no mor the _Spanish, French, Italian_ or _Dutch_
[German]; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done,
and to bring back to the anuitl that which we had hammered: but hauing
and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for
slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length,
through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that
passe that you see."

From the above it appears that the actual work of revision occupied about two years and nine months, an additional nine months being required for the final preparation for press. The edition appeared at length in 1611, the full title being as follows: The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues, & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie. _Anno Dom_. 1611.[45] Since that time many millions of this revised translation have been printed, and the general acceptance of it by all English-speaking people of whatever denomination is a testimony to its excellence.

Still the work of improving and correcting went on through the centuries, and a modern copy of the Authorized Version shows no inconsiderable departures from the standard edition of 1611. Dr Scrivener imputes some of those differences "to oversight and negligence... but much the greater part of them" he holds to be "deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown." (A. C. P.)

The Revised Version.

More ambitious attempts at amending the new version were not lacking, but they all proved fruitless, until in February 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of revision. The report of this committee, presented in May, was adopted, to the effect "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"; and shortly afterwards two companies were formed for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments.

These companies consisted of the following:--1. For the Old
Testament:--([alpha]) _Appointed by Convocation._--Connop Thirlwall,
bishop of St David's (d. 1875); Alfred Ollivant (1798-1882), bishop of
Llandaff; E. Harold Browne (1811-1891), bishop of Ely; Christopher
Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln; and Lord Arthur Hervey (1808-1894),
bishop of Bath and Wells; Archdeacon H.J. Rose (d. 1873); William
Selwyn (1806-1875), canon of Ely and Lady Margaret professor at
Cambridge; Dr John Jebb (1805-1886), canon of Hereford; and Dr William
Kay (1820-1886). ([beta]) _Invited._--Dr William Lindsay Alexander
(1808-1884), congregational minister; Thomas Chenery (1826-1884),
professor of Arabic at Oxford, and afterwards (1877) editor of _The
Times_; Frederick Charles Cook (1810-1889), canon of Exeter; Professor
A.B. Davidson; Dr Benjamin Davies (1814-1875), professor of oriental
and classical languages at Stepney Baptist College; the Rev. A.M.
Fairbairn, congregationalist; the Rev. Frederick Field (1801-1885),
fellow of Trinity, Cambridge; Dr C.D. Ginsburg; the Rev. Dr Gotch of
Bristol; Archdeacon Benjamin Harrison (1808-1887), Hebraist; the Rev.
Stanley Leathes (1830-1900), professor of Hebrew at King's College,
London; Professor M'Gill; Canon Robert Payne Smith (1819-1895), regius
professor of divinity at Oxford, dean of Canterbury (1870); Professor
J.J.S. Perowne, afterwards bishop of Worcester; the Rev. Edward Hayes
Plumtre (1821-1891), professor of exegesis at King's College, London,
afterwards dean of Wells; Canon E. Bouverie Pusey; William Wright
(1830-1889), the orientalist; W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge. Of these
Canons Cook and Pusey declined to serve, and ten members died during
the progress of the work. The secretary of the company was Mr W. Aldis
Wright, fellow of Trinity, Cambridge.

2. For the New Testament:--([alpha]) _Appointed by
Convocation._--Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Winchester; Charles J.
Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; and George Moberly, bishop
of Salisbury; Dr Edward Bickersteth (1814-1892), prolocutor of the
lower house of convocation; Henry Alford, dean of Canterbury, and
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, dean of Westminster; Joseph Williams Blakesley
(1808-1885), canon of Canterbury, and (1872) dean of Lincoln. ([beta])
_Invited._--The Rev. Dr Joseph Angus, president of the Stepney Baptist
College; Dr David Brown; Richard Chenevix Trench, archbishop of
Dublin; the Rev. Dr John Eadie (1810-1876), Presbyterian; the Rev.
F.J.A. Hort; the Rev. W.G. Humphry (1815-1886), vicar of St
Martin-in-the-Fields, London; the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, canon of
Ely; William Lee (1815-1883), archdeacon of Dublin, and professor of
ecclesiastical history in the university; J.B. Lightfoot, afterwards
bishop of Durham; Professor William Milligan; the Rev. William
Fieldian Moulton (1835-1898), Wesleyan biblical scholar; Dr J.H.
Newman; the Rev. Samuel Newth (1821-1898), congregationalist,
professor of ecclesiastical history at, and afterwards president of,
New College, London; Dr A. Roberts; the Rev. G. Vance Smith; Dr Robert
Scott; the Rev. F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891), rector of St Gerrans,
Cornwall; Charles Wordsworth, bishop of St Andrews; Dr W.H. Thompson;
Dr S.P. Tregelles; Dr C.J. Vaughan; Canon Westcott. Of these, Dr
Thompson and Dr Newman declined to serve. Dean Alford, Dr Tregelles,
Bishop Wilberforce and Dr Eadie were removed by death. Only the first
vacancy was filled up. Dean Merivale was co-opted, and on his
resignation Professor, afterwards Archdeacon, Edwin Palmer. The Rev.
J. Troutbeck, minor canon of Westminster, acted as secretary.

Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of English-speaking Christendom as a whole; only the Roman Catholic Church, of the great English-speaking denominations, refused to take part in the undertaking. The Church of England, which had put forth the version of 1611, fitly initiated the work, but for its performance most wisely invited the help of the sister churches. The delegates of the Clarendon Press in Oxford, and the syndics of the Pitt Press in Cambridge, entered into a liberal arrangement with the revisers, by which the necessary funds were provided for all their expenses. On the completion of its work the New Testament company divided itself into three committees, working at London, Westminster and Cambridge, for the purpose of revising the Apocrypha.

The work of the Old Testament company was different in some important respects from that which engaged the attention of the New Testament company. The received Hebrew text has undergone but little emendation, and the revisers had before them substantially the same Massoretic text which was in the hands of the translators of 1611. It was felt that there was no sufficient justification to make any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions. The Old Testament revisers were therefore spared much of the labour of deciding between different readings, which formed one of the most important duties of the New Testament company. But the advance in the study of Hebrew since the early part of the 17th century enabled them to give a more faithful translation of the received text. The value of their work is evident, especially in Job, Ecclesiastes and the prophetical books.

It is the work of the New Testament committee which has attracted most attention, whether for blame or praise. The critical resources at the disposal of scholars in 1611 were very meagre, and the few early manuscripts with which they were acquainted failed to receive the attention they deserved. The results of modern critical methods could not fail to make the incompleteness of the "Received Text," and of the "Authorized Version," which was based on it, obvious. It had long been the opinion of all competent scholars that a thorough revision was necessary. A proposal in favour of this course was made in Convocation in 1856, but it was not until fourteen years later that the committee was appointed to undertake the work. The revisers' first task was to reconstruct the Greek text, as the necessary foundation of their work. In this difficult duty they were no doubt influenced by Westcott and Hort's edition of the New Testament. These two scholars were members of the committee which prepared the Revised Version, and on the question of various readings they appear to have exercised a predominating influence. The revisers were privately supplied with instalments of Westcott and Hort's text as their work required them. But it is scarcely necessary to say that the Revised Version is not the work of one or two scholars. Different schools of criticism were represented on the committee, and the most careful discussion took place before any decision was formed. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the version should represent the result of the best scholarship of the time, applied to the work before it with constant devotion and with the highest sense of responsibility. The changes in the Greek text of the Authorized Version when compared with the _textus receptus_ are numerous, but the contrast between the English versions of 1611 and 1881 is all the more striking because of the difference in the method of translation which was adopted. The revisers aimed at the most scrupulous faithfulness. They adopted the plan--deliberately rejected by the translators of 1611--of always using the same English word for the same Greek word. "They endeavoured to enable the English reader to follow the correspondences of the original with the closest exactness, to catch the solemn repetition of words and phrases, to mark the subtleties of expression, to feel even the strangeness of unusual forms of speech."

The revision of the New Testament was completed in 407 meetings, distributed over more than ten years. It was formally presented to Convocation on May 17, 1881. The revision of the Old Testament occupied 792 days, and was finished on June 20, 1884. The revised Apocrypha did not make its appearance until 1895.

The text of the Revised Version is printed in paragraphs, the old division of books into chapters and verses being retained for convenience of reference. By this arrangement the capricious divisions of some books is avoided. Various editions of the New Version have been published, the most complete being the edition of the whole Bible with marginal references. These references had their origin in the work of two small subcommittees of the revisers, but they received their present form at the hands of a specially appointed committee. The marginal references given in the original edition of the Authorized Version of 1611 have been retained as far as possible.

The work of the revisers was received without enthusiasm. It was too thorough for the majority of religious people. Partisans found that havoc had been played with their proof texts. Ecclesiastical conservatives were scandalized by the freedom with which the traditional text was treated. The advocates of change were discontented with the hesitating acceptance which their principles had obtained. The most vulnerable side of the revision was that on which the mass of English readers thought itself capable of forming a judgment. The general effect of so many small alterations was to spoil the familiar sonorous style of the Authorized Version. The changes were freely denounced as equally petty and vexatious; they were, moreover, too often inconsistent with the avowed principles of the revisers. The method of determining readings and renderings by vote was not favourable to the consistency and literary character of the Version. A whole literature of criticism and apology made its appearance, and the achievement of so many years of patient labour seemed destined to perish in a storm of resentments. On the whole, the Revised Version weathered the storm more successfully than might have been expected. Its considerable excellences were better realized by students than stated by apologists. The hue and cry of the critics largely died away, and was replaced by a calmer and juster appreciation.

The work of the revisers has been sharply criticized from the standpoint of specialists in New Testament Greek. Dr Rutherford stated the case briefly and pointedly in the preface to his translation of the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1900). He maintains that "the Greek of the New Testament may never be understood as classical Greek is understood," and accuses the revisers of distorting the meaning "by translating in accordance with Attic idiom phrases that convey in later Greek a wholly different sense, the sense which the earlier translators in happy ignorance had recognized that the context demanded."

The use of the new Version has become general. Familiarity has mitigated the harshness of the revisers' renderings; scholarship, on the whole, has confirmed their readings. The Version has been publicly read in parish churches both in London and in the country. In Canterbury cathedral and Westminster Abbey it has definitely displaced the older Version. Bishops have acquiesced and congregations approved. It is no longer possible to maintain the plausible and damaging contention that the Revised Bible is ill suited for public use. The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in May 1898 appointed a committee to consider the expediency of "permitting or encouraging" the use of the Revised Version in the public services of the Church. (H. H. H.*)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The principal works dealing with the separate versions
have been referred to in the text of the article. The following
authorities may also be cited:

For the version as a whole: J.R. Dore, _Old Bibles_ (2nd ed., 1888);
J. Eadie, _The English Bible: an External and Critical History of the
various English Translations of Scripture_ (2 vols., 1876: the most
complete account); A. Edgar, _The Bibles of England_ (1889); H.W.
Hoare, _The Evolution of the English Bible_ (2nd ed., 1902: gives
historical setting of the Versions); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts_ (1895); J.H. Lupton, article on "English
Versions," in Hastings' _Dict. of the Bible_ (extra vol.); R. Lovett,
_The Printed English Bible, 1525-1885_ (1894); G. Milligan, _The
English Bible, a Sketch of its History_ (1895); J.I. Mombert, _English
Versions of the Bible_ (1883); F. Moulton, _The History of the English
Bible_ (2nd ed., 1884); T.H. Pattison, _History of the English Bible_
(1894); J. Stoughton, _Our English Bible, its Translations and
Translators_ [1878].

For the earlier history: J. Lewis, _History of English Translations of
the Bible_ (1818); the historical accounts prefixed to Bagster's issue
of _The English Hexapla_ and of Forshall and Madden's edition of the
_Wycliffite Versions_ (Oxford, 1850). These are all to a great extent
antiquated, their errors being repeated in almost all subsequent
accounts of the subject. The only trustworthy authority on the
Anglo-Saxon Bible is A.S. Cook's "Introduction on Old English
Translations of the Bible," in _Biblical Quotations in Old English
Prose-writers_.

For the 14th and 15th centuries: See A.C. Paues, _The Bible in the
Fourteenth Century_.

For the early printed Bibles: H. Cotton, _List of Editions of the
Bible_ (1852), _Rhemes and Doway_ (1855); F. Fry, _The Bible by
Coverdale_ (1867); _Description of the Great Bible, 1539_ (1865);
_Bibliographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament_
(1878); N. Pocock, "On the Bishops' and Genevan Bible,"
(_Bibliographer_, vols. i.-iv.); Prime Wendell, _Fifteenth-Century
Bibles_ (1888); John Wright, _Early Bibles of America_ (1893).

For the Authorized Version: F.H.A. Scrivener, _The Authorized Edition
of the English Bible_ (1884). See also R. Gell, _Essay toward the
Amendment of the Authorized Version_ (1659); W. Kilburne, _Dangerous
Errors in ... Bibles_ (1659); R.C. Trench, _On the Authorized Version
of the New Testament in connexion with some recent proposals for its
revision_ (2nd ed., 1859).

For the Revised Version: J.B. Lightfoot, _On a Fresh Revision of the
English New Testament_ (London, 1871; 3rd ed. 1891); Westcott, _Some
Lessons of the Revised Version_ (London, 1897); Kennedy, _Ely
Lectures on the Revised Version_ (London, 1882). The Revisers fully
explained their principles and methods in the Preface. The American
Committee of Revision issued an historical account of their work (New
York, 1885). The case against the Revisers is ably stated in _The
Revision Revised_, by Dean Burgon (London, 1883). The literary defects
of the Version are elaborately exhibited by G. Washington Moon in two
works: _The Revisers' English_ (London, 1882), and _Ecclesiastical
English_ (London, 1886). See also _Some Thoughts on the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament_, by G. Salmon, D.D. (London, 1897);
Bishop Ellicott's _Charge_ (1901). The Greek Text of the New Testament
adopted by the Revisers was edited for the Clarendon Press by
Archdeacon Palmer (Oxford, 1881). Parallel editions of the Bible,
showing both the Authorized and Revised Versions, a large-type edition
for public use, a reference edition, and (1900) a "Two Version"
edition, have been issued by one or both the University Presses.
(A. C. P.; H. H. H.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See A.S. Cook, _Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose
Writers_, with an introduction on _Old English Biblical Versions_
(London, 1898-1903), vol. i. pp. xxvi. ff.; H. Sweet, _The Vespasian
Psalter_ in "Oldest English Texts" (E.E.T.S., No. 83, London, 1885);
F. Harsley, _Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter_ (E.E.T.S., No. 92, London,
1892); John Spelman, _Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus_
(London, 1640); Fr. Roeder, _Der altengl. Regius Psalter_ (Reg. II.
B. 5, Halle, 1904).

[2] Benjamin Thorpe, _Libri Psalmorum versio Antiqua Latina cum
paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica_ (Oxford, 1835); cf. J.D. Bruce, _The
Anglo-Saxon Version of the Book of Psalms ... known as the Paris
Psalter_ (Baltimore, 1894).

[3] K.W. Bouterwek, _Die vier Evangelien in alt-nordh. Sprache_
(Guetersloh, 1857), _id. Screadunga_ (Elberfeld, 1858, prefaces to the
Gospels); J. Stevenson and E. Waring, _The Lindisfarne and Rushworth
Gospels_ (Surtees Soc., 1854-1865); W.W. Skeat, _The Holy Gospels in
Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian Versions_ (Cambridge,
1871-1887).

[4] See Stevenson, Waring and Skeat, op. cit.

[5] W.W. Skeat, _The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, &c._ (Cambridge,
1871-1887); J.W. Bright, _The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon_
(Oxford, 1893); for earlier editions see Cook, op. cit, p. lx.

[6] C.W.M. Grein, _AElfrik de vetero et novo Testamento, &c._--Bibl.
d. Angels. Prosa (Cassel and Goettingen, 1872), p. 6; E. Thwaites,
_Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice_
(Oxon., 1698).

[7] K.D. Buelbring, _The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter_
(E.E.T.S., No. 97), part i. (London, 1891); cf. A.C. Paues, _A
Fourteenth-Century Engl. Bibl. Version_ (Upsala Diss.) (Cambridge,
1902), p. lvi.

[8] H.R. Bramley, _The Psalter and Certain Canticles... by Richard
Rolle of Hampole_ (Oxford, 1884); cf. H. Middendorff, _Studien uber
Richard Rolle van Hampole unter besonderer Beruecksichtigung seiner
Psalmen-Commentare_ (Magdeburg, 1888).

[9] A.C. Paues, _A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version_
(Cambridge, 1904), pp. xxiv. ff.

[10] See Paues, _op. cit._ p. 210.

[11] For a different view as to the authorship of the Wycliffite
versions, see F.A. Gasquet, _The Old English Bible and Other Essays_
(London, 1897), pp. 102 ff.

[12] Sir F. Madden and Rev. J. Forshall, _The Holy Bible... made from
the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers_ (4 vols.,
Oxford, 1850), pp. xix., xxiv.

[13] Cf. A.C. Paues, _The English Bible in the Fourteenth Century_.

[14] See Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, iv. 135 ff. (ed. Townsend,
1846).

[15] Wilkin's _Concilia_, iii. 317.

[16] T.G. Law, _The New Testament in Scots_, being Purvey's Revision
of Wycliffe's version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet, c. 1520
(Scot. T.S., Edinburgh, 1901-1905).

[17] B.F. Westcott, _History of the English Bible_ (3rd ed.), revised
by W. Aldis Wright (London, 1905), p. 25.

[18] _Pref. to Genesis_, p. 396 (Parker Soc.).

[19] Photo lithographed by Edw. Arber (London, 1871).

[20] Reprinted by G. Offor (London, 1836); reproduced in facsimile by
Francis Fry (Bristol, 1862).

[21] Reprinted with an introduction by J.T. Mombert (New York, 1884).

[22] Reproduced in facsimile by Francis Fry (1863).

[23] Cf. H. Bradshaw, _Bibliographer_ (1882-1881), i. 3 ff.
(reprinted 1886).

[24] See F. Jenkinson, _Early English Printed Books in the Univ.
Libr. Cambridge_, iii. (1730).

[25] See _Biographical Description of the Editions of the New
Testament, Tyndale's Version, in English_ (1878).

[26] _Epistle to the Reader_ in the New Testament of 1526, reprinted
by G. Offor; cf. _Parker Soc._ (1848), p. 390.

[27] Westcott, op. cit. p. 57 note.

[28] See Dr Ginsburg's information to Mr Tedder, _D.N.B._ xii. 365.

[29] Cf. H. Stevens, _Catalogue of the Caxton Exhibition_ (1877) p.
88.

[30] _Remains_, Parker Soc., pp. II f.

[31] Westcott, op. cit. p. 172 note.

[32] Cranmer's _Works_, letter 194 (Parker Soc.).

[33] See examples in Westcott, op. cit. pp. 208 f.

[34] Burnet's _Ref._, ed. Pococke, 1865.

[35] Westcott, op. cit. pp. 180 f.

[36] _Remains_ (Parker Soc.), p. 493; cf. J.A. Kingdon, _Incidents in
the Lives of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton_ (1895).

[37] Cf. Burnet's _Ref._ i. 584.

[38] Printed in Bagster's _Hexapla_, 1841, reprinted separately in
1842.

[39] See "Address to the Reader." The division into verses of the New
Testament was first found in R. Stephanus' Greek-Latin New Testament
(4th ed., 1551), whereas these divisions already existed in the
Hebrew Old Testament.

[40] See T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule, _Historical Catal. of the
Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Libr. of the Brit, and
Foreign Bible Soc._ (London, 1903).

[41] See J.G. Carleton, _The Part of Rheims in the Making of the
English Bible_ (Oxford, 1902).

[42] Barlow, _Sum and Substance of the Conference ..._ in Cardwell's
_History of Conferences_, pp. 187 f.

[43] Compiled chiefly from the list found in Cardwell's _Synodalia_
(ed. 1844), ii. 145-146, a reprint from Burnet's _Doc. Annals_, ii.
106 ff., "who himself took his list from a copy belonging originally
to Bishop Ravis." The list is correct for the year 1604; cf.
Westcott, op. cit. pp. 112 f.

[44] Quoted from G. Burnet's _Hist. of Reformation_, ii. p. 368
(1861).

[45] A reprint of this edition has been published by the Clarendon
Press (Oxford, 1833).

BIBLE CHRISTIANS, one of the denominations now merged in the United Methodist Church (see UNITED METHODISTS), so called because its early preachers appealed solely to the Bible in confirmation of their doctrines. The denomination arose in the agricultural districts and fishing villages of north Cornwall and Devon; a district only slightly influenced by John Wesley and the original Methodist movement. The founder was William O'Bryan (afterwards Bryant), a Methodist lay preacher of Luxillian, Cornwall. Finding that the people had no evangelical preaching he began an itinerary to supply the need. The coastmen were expert smugglers and wreckers, the agriculturists were ignorant and drunken, the parish clergy were slothful, in many cases intemperate, and largely given to fox-hunting. Only in a parish or two was there any approach to religious ministry. O'Bryan commenced his labours in north Devon, and in 1815 a small society was formed at Lake Farm, Shebbear. The movement had the seeds of great vitality in it. In 1819 the first conference was held at Launceston. There were present besides O'Bryan one accepted minister--James Thorne--fourteen ministers on trial and fifteen women preachers, a class that was always conspicuous in the denomination. At that conference the work had spread from Ring's Ash in Devon to Morrah, a lonely and desolate parish in west Cornwall. In 1820-1821 Kent, Northumberland, the Scilly and Norman (i.e. Channel) Islands appeared on the list of stations. Then came a serious break. In 1829 there was a severance between the larger part of the new body and O'Bryan, who had claimed to be perpetual president, and to have all property vested in him personally. He tried to establish a separate conference, but failed, and in 1836 there was a reunion. O'Bryan left England for America, where he remained for the rest of his life, and his contingent (numbering 565 members and 4 ministers) returned to the original conference. The growth continued. In 1831 agents were sent to Canada and Prince Edward's Island, in 1850 to South Australia, in 1855 to Victoria, in 1866 to Queensland, in 1877 to New Zealand and in 1885 to China, so that the original O'Bryan tradition of fervid evangelism was amply maintained.

On O'Bryan's departure, James Thorne, the first fully recognized minister, at whose father's farm the connexion started, became its leader. Although reared as an ordinary farm lad, he proved to be a man of singular devotion and spiritual genius. He laid the foundations broadly in evangelism, finance, temperance and education, founding in the latter connexion a middle-class school at Shebbear, at which generations of ministers' sons and numerous students for the ministry have been educated. James Thorne was five times president of the conference and fifteen times secretary. He died in 1872. In this period there was much persecution. Landowners refused sites, and in the Isle of Wight the people worshipped for many months in a quarry. The preachers were sometimes imprisoned and many times assaulted. The old Methodist body even excommunicated persons for attending "Bryanite" meetings. Partly co-operative with James Thorne and at his death independently, the Church was favoured with the influence of Frederick William Bourne. He was a minister for fifty-five years, and served the Bible Christians as editor, missionary treasurer, book steward and three times president of conference. With him will always be associated the name of Billy Bray, an illiterate but inimitable Cornish evangelist, a memoir of whom, written by Bourne, exerted a great influence in the religious life of the denomination.

In doctrine the Bible Christians did not differ from the other
Methodists. In constitution they differed only slightly. There was an
annual conference with full legislative power, and ability to hold and
dispose of property, composed of an equal number of lay and
ministerial representatives meeting together. The local churches were
grouped into circuits governed representatively by a quarterly
meeting. The quarterly or circuit meetings were in turn organized into
twelve districts, eleven in England and one in China. In 1906 the
statistics showed 218 ministers, 32,549 members and 652 chapels, with
47,301 scholars in Sunday-schools. These figures include nearly 1400
full and probationary members in the China mission, the first-fruits
of two years' labour amongst the Miao tribe. In the various colonial
Methodist unions the Bible Christians have contributed a total of 159
ministers, 14,925 members and 660 chapels.

The community supported a regular ministry from the beginning. Its
members have been keen evangelists, trusting largely to "revivals" for
their success, staunch Radicals in politics and total abstainers to a
man. Both ministers and people entered with interest and sympathy into
the scheme for union between themselves, the Methodist New Connexion
and the United Methodist Free Church, which was successfully
accomplished in 1906. See METHODISM.

BIBLE SOCIETIES, associations for translating and circulating the Holy Scriptures. This object has engaged the attention of the leaders of Christendom from early times. In an extant letter, dated A.D. 331, the emperor Constantine requested Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to provide him with fifty copies of the Old and New Testaments for use in the principal churches in Constantinople. In 797 Charlemagne commissioned Alcuin to prepare an emended text of the Vulgate; copies of this text were multiplied, not always accurately, in the famous writing-schools at Tours. The first book printed in Europe was the Latin Bible, and Copinger estimates that 124 editions of the Vulgate had been issued by the end of the 15th century. The Italian Bible was printed a dozen times before A.D. 1500, and eighteen editions of the German Bible had already been published before Luther's version appeared.

The Reformation quickened men's interest in the Scriptures to an extraordinary degree, so that, notwithstanding the adverse attitude adopted by the Roman Church at and after the council of Trent, the translation and circulation of the Bible were taken in hand with fresh zeal, and continued in more systematic fashion.

Thus, the Revised French Geneva Bible of 1588, which was issued in
folio, quarto and octavo, and became a standard text, bears the
following note on the verso of the title: _"Les frais de cet ouvrage,
imprime en trois diuerses formes en mesme temps, pour la commodite et
contentement de toutes sortes de personnes, ont este liberalemet
fournis par quelques gens de bien, qui n'ont cherche gagner pour leur
particulier, mais seulement de servir a Dieu et a son Eglise."_ The
Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ in New England (founded in 1649) bore the expense of printing
both the New Testament and the Bible as a whole (Cambridge, Mass.,
1663--the earliest Bible printed in America), which John Eliot, one of
the Pilgrim Fathers, translated into "the language of the
Massachusetts Indians," whom he evangelized. In Arnauld's _Defence_
(1669) of the famous Port Royal version of the New Testament in French
(issued, 1667), he states that it had been printed in many forms and
sizes, including very cheap editions for the poor, and goes on to
describe how its circulation was promoted by _"les sacrifices que
s'imposaient les pieux solitaires pour faire participer les plus
indigents au bienfait de leur entreprise. Des que leur traduction fut
prete, ils envoyerent de Paris un grand nombre de colporteurs charges
de la vendre au prix de revient et meme, dans certaines circonstances,
a des prix reduits; et ils couvrirent la depense par des dons
volontaires"_ (E. Petavel, _La Bible en France_, p. 152).

To meet the cost of publishing the Finn Bible in 1685, the editor, J.
Gezelius, bishop of Abo, obtained an order from the Swedish government
for the appropriation of certain corn-tithes, still known as _Bibel
Tryck-Tunnan_. When the Finnish Bible Society began to publish
editions of the Scriptures, the tsar Alexander I. contributed 5000
roubles from his privy purse, and ordered that these corn-tithes
should again be appropriated to this purpose for five years from 1812.
In 1701 at Frankfort-On-Main there appeared a quarto edition of the
Ethiopic Psalter, whose editor, H. Ludolf, writes in his preface:
_"Quamobrem nullum gratius officium Christianae huic nationi a me
praestari posse putavi, quam si Psalterium Aethiopicum, quod apud
illos non aliter quam in membrana manuscriptum habetur, et caro satis
venditur, typis mandari, ejusque plurima exemplaria nomine Societatis
Indicae in Habessinia gratis distribui curarem."_

In 1719 appeared the first of numerous editions of the French New
Testament, connected with the name of the Abbe de Barneville, a priest
of the Oratory at Paris. Impressed by the popular ignorance of the
Scriptures, he himself translated, or caused others to translate, the
New Testament into French from the Vulgate, and formed an association
to distribute copies systematically at low prices. The prefaces to his
various editions contain details as to the methods of this
association, and repeatedly insist on the importance of reading the
Scriptures. (On this _Societe biblique catholique francaise_ see O.
Douen, _Histoire de la societe biblique protestante de Paris_, Paris,
1868, pp. 46-51.)

Christian missionaries to non-Christian lands have naturally been among the most skilful translators and the most assiduous distributors of the Bible. The earliest complete Arabic Bible was produced at Rome in 1671, by the _Congregatio de Propaganda Fide_. Protestant missionary societies have engaged energetically in the task not only of translating, but of printing, publishing and distributing the Scriptures. Thus the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (founded 1698), besides its other activities, has done much to cheapen and multiply copies of the Scriptures, not only in English and Welsh, but in many foreign languages. Early in the 18th century it printed editions in Arabic, and promoted the first versions of the Bible in Tamil and Telugu, made by the Danish Lutheran missionaries whom it then supported in south India. The earliest New Testament (1767) and Old Testament (1783-1801) in Gaelic were published by the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (founded 1709). The S.P.C.K. now publishes versions of the Scriptures (either complete, or in part) in 38 different languages (without reckoning versions of the Prayer Book in 45 other languages); and during 1905-1906 the S.P.C.K. issued in England 116,126 Bibles and 17,783 New Testaments.

The earliest noteworthy organization, formed for the specific purpose of circulating the Scriptures, was the Canstein Bible Institute (_Bibelanstalt_), founded in 1710 at Halle in Saxony, by Karl Hildebrand, baron von Canstein (1667-1719), who was associated with P.J. Spener and other leaders of Pietism in Germany. He invented a method of printing, perhaps somewhat akin to stereotyping--though the details are not clearly known,--whereby the Institute could produce Bibles and Testaments in Luther's version at a very low cost, and sell them, in small size, at prices equivalent to 10d. and 3d. per copy, respectively. In 1722 editions of the Scriptures were also issued in Bohemian and Polish. At von Canstein's death he left the Institute to the care of his friend August Hermann Francke, founder in 1698 of the famous _Waisenhaus_ (orphanage) at Halle. The Canstein Institute has issued some 6,000,000 copies of the Scriptures.

In England various Christian organizations, which arose out of the Evangelical movement in the 18th century, took part in the work. Among such may be mentioned the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge among the Poor (1750); and the Society for the Support and Encouragement of Sunday Schools (1785). An institution was founded in 1780 under the name of the Bible Society, but as its sphere was restricted to soldiers and seamen the title was afterwards changed to the Naval and Military Bible Society. The first ship among whose crew it distributed the Scriptures was the "Royal George," which had 400 of this society's Bibles on board when it foundered at Spithead on the 29th of August 1782. The French Bible Society, instituted in 1792, came to an end in 1803, owing to the Revolution.

_The British and Foreign Bible Society._--In 1804 was founded in London the British and Foreign Bible Society, the most important association of its kind. It originated in a proposal made to the committee of the Religious Tract Society, by the Rev. Thomas Charles of Bala, who found that his evangelistic and philanthropic labours in Wales were sorely hindered by the dearth of Welsh Bibles. His colleagues in the Religious Tract Society united with other earnest evangelical leaders to establish a new society, which should have for its sole object "to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment." This simplicity of aim is combined with a catholicity of constitution which admits the co-operation of all persons interested in the society's object. The committee of management consists of thirty-six laymen, six of them being foreigners resident in or near London, while of the remaining thirty, half are members of the Church of England, and half are members of other Christian denominations.

Supported by representative Christian leaders, such as Granville Sharp, Zachary Macaulay, William Wilberforce, Charles Grant and Henry Thornton, with Lord Teignmouth, ex-governor-general of India, as its first president, and Dr Porteus, bishop of London, as its friendly counsellor, the new society made rapid progress. It spread throughout Great Britain, mainly by means of auxiliaries, i.e. local societies, affiliated but self-controlled, with subsidiary branches and associations (these last being often managed by women). Up to 1816-1817 the parent society had received from its auxiliaries altogether L420,000. This system continues to flourish. In 1905-1906 the society had about 5800 auxiliaries, branches and associations in England and Wales, and more than 2000 auxiliaries abroad, mainly in the British Colonies, many of which undertake vigorous local work, besides remitting contributions to London.