be somewhat fine writing, but no possible adaptation could make it a fair description of some of the battalions which we may see now-adays.

It would be impertinent as well as useless to venture upon such strictures as these if they were not borne out by the almost universal testimony of every officer whose opinion is recorded in General Airey's report. They are made in no spirit of disparagement of the courage and patriotism of our infantry soldiers, which have been so conspicuously proved of late. The Englishman is still, as he always has been, equal--perhaps more than equal-to men of any other race in fighting power. But it is neither fair nor reasonable to demand that he shall exhibit the high qualities which he possesses under every sort of artificial disadvantage.

It is easy enough to argue that, our army being a voluntary one, it must of necessity differ widely from those of the great continental powers. The fact is beyond dispute, but the inference to be drawn from it is this--that if we hope to hold our own against troops drawn indiscriminately from the manhood and strength of a great nation, we must either appeal to the same sources of strength, or we must be careful to make our artificial blade as keen and as finely tempered as the resources of science and wealth will allow.

Those who are anxious to know how nearly we have approached to that ideal under our present system should carefully study the evidence given before Lord Airey's Commission.

Once more let it be said, Sir Garnet Wolseley's arguments are, as far as the outside public are concerned, beside the mark. The army that won at Salamanca and Talavera may have been a very bad one. The men who enlisted before 1870 may have been very inferior. The collapse in the Crimea may have been very complete. In a word, our army may have been in a very bad way before Lord Cardwell's scheme came into operation. But all these considerations do not touch the real question, which is this: Is the condition of things now so much better than it was, that we can or ought to be satisfied with it?' Sir Garnet Wolseley himself gives the answer. We require an efficient reserve of 60,000 men. We have not got it. Going round hat in hand is an objectionable practice. Five regiments could not be put into the field without begging. We ought at any time to be able to put into the field an army of 60,000 men, which should leave behind it a thoroughly efficient reserve of well-trained soldiers of at least equal numbers. If, by superhuman efforts, we got together our 60,000 men, our reserve, it appears, would number 363.

These are the salient facts which strike a civilian. The shortcomings that meet his eye lie on the surface-he who runs may read. The new system was, on its own showing, to have provided us with

certain definite safeguards, and at present these safeguards do not exist.

If indeed, as he suggests, Sir Garnet Wolseley have some new scheme in the background by which all these faults are to be remedied, well and good. But whether it involve long service or short, it is allowable to prophesy that it will commend itself to the public in exact proportion to the extent to which its results differ from those which attend the working of our present system.

H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER.

A REVISER ON THE NEW REVISION.

In the following remarks on the revised version of the New Testament it is scarcely necessary to say that I propose to speak only as one of the multitude of readers usually designated as 'the public,' to whose perusal and judgment the work is now at length committed. Although from the commencement a member of one of the Revision Companies,1 I have no right to speak as from any special knowledge which that position may have given me; for it was a rule acted upon throughout that the work done in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as the opinions expressed by the members, with the results arrived at, and the grounds on which changes were either made or left unmade, should all be considered 'private and confidential.' This rule was understood to apply to all that took place, and it was carefully observed— except only as regarded such little details as were given each month in some of the newspapers, respecting the days of meeting, the members present, and the passages gone over from time to time.

While this was the case, however, it is equally true that every individual member of the company is left now at liberty, in his private character, to judge and criticise the completed work of the whole body of revisers. The results arrived at were determined by vote, as the preface to the volume now published informs us; no alteration being finally made as against the Authorised Version except by a majority of two to one of the members present. The minority, however, although outvoted, were not supposed to be also silenced for all future time, or prohibited from expressing their dissent or the reasons for it; but, on the contrary, naturally retained their right to do so, on and after the publication of the volume. Of this privilege I propose simply to avail myself; but I shall endeavour of course to guard against any breach of the understanding indicated by the old and familiar words 'private and confidential,' printed upon all the different sections of the work, as they were successively issued for the use of the two companies during the progress of the revision. I have nothing therefore to tell respecting anything said by any one at the meetings, or the numbers of the votes given either for or against any alteration made, or anything of this kind. I have simply to take the work as it is now issued, and, so far as may be practicable within the limited

So called after the example of 1611.

space at my command, to express my own individual judgment on the new text, basing this simply upon such general knowledge of the subject as is familiar, or easily accessible, to every critical student of the New Testament.

The volume which gives occasion to these remarks is a handsome octavo of 594 pages, without counting the Preface or the American Suggestions, which will make up some forty to fifty pages more, according to the size of the edition in which they are printed. The work professes to be the version set forth A.D. 1611, compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1881.' This latter date might have been more fully given as A.D. 1870 to A.D. 1881, for the task has been close upon eleven years in hand, including the time occupied in printing, having been commenced on the 23rd of June, 1870, and being now published on the 17th of May, 1881. Time enough certainly for its preparation, enough too for no small amount of elaborate over-correction, such as I greatly fear many readers will find in its pages.

The preface forms a very interesting and valuable introduction to the volume, and to this our attention must in the first instance be turned. After giving a brief account of the origin and character of the Authorised Version, the imperfections of which are fully acknowledged, it proceeds to speak of the formation of the two companies for its revision, and of the rules that were laid down for the execution of their undertaking. These were drawn up in May 1870, by a Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury,2 and were in sub

2 The following members of Convocation constituted this committee for the New Testament :-Bishops Ellicott, Moberley, and Wilberforce, the Prolocutor Dr. Bickersteth (now Dean of Lichfield), Deans Alford and Stanley, and Canon Blakesley (now Dean of Lincoln). This Committee had authority to invite the co-operation of others 'to whatever nation or religious body they might belong '—a wise and just provision considering the interest which all sects and parties have in the book to be revised. Accordingly, the following were invited to take part in the work:-Dr. Angus (Baptist), Archbishop Trench, Dr. Eadie (Scotch United Presbyterian), Rev. Dr. Hort (of Cambridge), Rev. W. G. Humphry, Professor Kennedy (of Cambridge), Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot (now Bishop of Durham), Professor Milligan (Scotch Church), Professor Moulton (Wesleyan Methodist), Dr. J. H. Newman (now Cardinal), Professor Newth (Congregationalist), Dr. A. Roberts (Scotch Church), Dr. Vance Smith (Unitarian), Dean Scott (of Rochester), Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Tregelles (Congregationalist), Dr. C. J. Vaughan (now Dean of Llandaff), Professor Westcott. To these some additions were subsequently made, namely, Bishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews), Dr. D. Brown (Scotch Free Church), Dean Merivale. The last named withdrew from the work before it had made much progress. Dean Alford, Bishop Wilberforce, Dr. Tregelles, and Dr. Eadie all died previous to 1876; and Dr. Newman declined the invitation. On the death of Bishop Wilberforce, his place was taken by Professor (now Archdeacon) Palmer. The number of members has throughout been about twenty-four, of whom the average attendance has been sixteen, during the ten and a half years of working time. The Company has met monthly, under the presidency of Bishop Ellicott, ten times each year, with one or two exceptions only, and has made a total working time of 412 days, of about seven hours each, to say nothing of the time necessarily spent in private study connected with the work. Clearly the revisers deserve a good name for application and industry.

stance as follows: (1) To introduce as few alterations as possible consistently with faithfulness; (2) Alterations to be expressed in the language of the Authorised and earlier English versions; (3) To go twice over the work; (4) The text to be adopted to be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; (5) To make or retain no change on the second or final revision, unless two-thirds of those present approved of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities; (6) Refers only to postponement of a decision in certain cases; (7) To revise the headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation; (8) When considered desirable, to refer to others not in the Company for their opinions. (It does not appear from the preface that this last rule has ever been acted upon.)

In these rules two features are very prominent: first, the extreme care for the Authorised, which was not to be altered except by a vote of two to one of the members present from time to time; secondly, the great care as to the style, that is to say, the words, in which alterations were to be made; for these were to be limited, as far as possible, to the language of the Authorised and earlier English versions.' These two rules should have been sufficient, if known, to allay the apprehensions of some notable opponents of the project of revision, one of whom spoke of the revising process as if it were the same as putting the Bible into a crucible and recasting it; or again, as laying it on the table of the anatomist and dissecting it. Archbishop Thomson was reported in the papers of the day to have expressed himself to this effect in his speech against revision in the York Convocation. He thus spoke much as if he were not aware that honest men who did not deliberately intend to misrepresent their original would be guided by the laws of the language from which they were translating; or as if he thought that a body of men appointed to the work, such as the Westminster revisers, were likely to corrupt or mutilate the English Bible under the pretence of removing its manifold and everywhere admitted imperfections. The Earl of Shaftesbury in a letter to the Times expressed himself with equal disfavour or hostility to the work. A revision of the Bible, he feared, would dilute and lower its style, would modernise and Frenchify it. Such anticipations were perhaps excusable on the part of a layman who may be supposed to be but slightly acquainted with the nature of the work to be executed. But they were not to be expected from a man professedly learned in the Scriptures, although I am half inclined to confess that in several respects the results which have been arrived at in the volume as now published go some way, if not to justify, at least to illustrate the doubts and fears of those who were against revision. But yet it will be seen on consideration that the adverse anticipations alluded to could not, by the nature of the case, be largely fulfilled. The rules just cited show at least that they