margin." Such was the rule in regard of the text, and such was
the instruction as to the mode of notifying any alterations that it might
have been found necessary to make.

Let us deal first with the direction as to notifying the alterations.
Now as it was soon found practically impossible to place all the
alterations in a margin which would certainly be needed for alternative
renderings, and for such matters as usually appear in a margin, we left
the University Presses to publish, in such manner as they might think
most convenient, the deviations from the Greek text presumed to underlie
the Authorised Version. The Cambridge University Press entrusted to Dr.
Scrivener the publication of the Received Text with the alterations of
the Revisers placed at the foot of the page. The Oxford University Press
adopted the more convenient method of letting the alterations form part
of the continuous text (the readings they displaced being at the foot of
the page), and entrusted the editing of the volume to Archdeacon Palmer
(one of our Company) who, as we know, performed the duty with great care
and accuracy. Hence the existence of what I term throughout this address
as the Revisers' text.

We can now turn to the first part of the rule and describe in general
terms the mode of our procedure. It differs very slightly from the mode
described in the preface of the Revisers of the Old Testament. The verse
on which we were engaged was read by the Chairman. The first question
asked was, whether there was any difference of reading in the Greek text
which required our consideration. If there was none, we proceeded with
the second part of our work, the consideration of the rendering. If
there was a reading in the Greek text that demanded our consideration it
was at once discussed, and commonly in the following manner. Dr.
Scrivener stated briefly the authorities, whether manuscripts, ancient
versions, or patristic citations, of which details most of us were
already aware. If the alteration was one for which the evidence was
patently and decidedly preponderating, it was at once adopted, and the
work went onward. If, however, it was a case where it was doubtful
whether the evidence for the alteration _was_ thus decidedly
preponderating, then a discussion, often long, interesting, and
instructive, followed. Dr. Hort, if present (and he was seldom absent;
only forty-five times out of the 407 meetings) always took part, and
finally