refer to chapter XIV., the "History of the Convent of Klingenthal," which seems rather superfluous.

We will conclude this review by congratulating the Abbé Dacheux on the subject he has chosen, on the conscientiousness and perspicacity with which he has treated it, and on his style. We would also commend the typographical excellence of the work and its price. We would wish to see it translated into English. Historical truth would thereby be the gainer. John Geiler died in 1510, at the moment Luther was beginning to preach a reform very different to the one Geiler had longed for. We shall next pass on to the events which took place at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

P. ALBERDINGX THIJM.

ART. V. THE REVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. The New Testament, translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth, A.D. 1611, compared with the most Ancient Authorities and Revised, A.D. 1881. Oxford University Press. 1881.

2. H KAINH AIAOHKH. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1881.

3. Considerations on the Revision of the English Version of the New Testament. By C. J. ELLICOTT, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. London: Longmans. 1870.

4. On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament. By J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D. London: Macmillan. 1872. 5. Biblical Revision: its Necessity and Purpose. By MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE. London: Sunday School Union.

6. Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament. By ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D. London: Cassell, Petter & Co.

7. Variorum Teacher's Bible. London: Queen's Printers. 1880.

HE English Bible has been likened to one of our old

THE Cathedrals, not only in the beauty and majesty of its

outlines, but also in the fact that it was originally Catholic. As in a much restored Cathedral, it is not easy to say what is old and what is new, how much belonged to Catholic times or how

much has been altered since; so it is with the oft-revised English Bible. Professor Blunt, in his "Plain Account," says that the foundation was certainly Catholic, being based on some version older than that of Wycliffe. Here, of course, he is at variance with most modern Protestant critics, who do not care to look back further than Tyndale. But he has Sir Thomas More to support him, and also the express statements of Cranmer and Fox, "who lived three hundred years nearer to the time they wrote of, were acute men, and recorded facts within their own knowledge." Had the Reformers spared the University and Monastic Libraries, we should have more evidence on the point. Again, it may be held that King James's Version is only the "Great Bible" twice revised; and that was Catholic, at least in its fourth edition, that of 1541, which was oversene and perused at the commandment of the kinges hyghnes, by the right reverende father in God Cuthbert (Tunstall) bysshop of Duresme and Nicholas (Heath) bysshop of Rochester." The Great Bible was published when England was still Catholic; it was approved by Catholic bishops, who assured the King that it supported no heresy, and it found a home in the Catholic Churches of England when Mass was still offered at their altars. This Bible was revised by the Elizabethan bishops in 1568, and, in 1611, after a more lengthened revision, it appeared again in the world as King James's "Authorized Version," and was passed off as a New Translation. a New Translation. Nor did people suspect how much even this last revision was due to Catholic influences. There is little doubt that the complaints of Catholics about corrupt translations, expressed by Dr. Gregory Martin in his "Discoverie of Manifold Corruptions," combined with the King's hatred of the Genevan Bible and its uotes suggestive of tyrannicide to bring about the revision. And in that revision King James's revisers were more largely influenced by the Rheims translation than they cared to own. Moulton, in his "History of the English Bible," says, "that the Rhemish Testament has left its mark on every page of the work" (p. 207). The Preface to the New Revision of 1881 acknowledges that King James's Bible "shows evident traces of the influences of a Version not specified in the Rules, the Rhemish, made from the Latin Vulgate, but by scholars conversant with the Greek Original."

Dr.

Catholics may therefore be said to have a deep vested interest in what concerns the English Bible. It is true that Father Faber called it one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country. Still the same might be said of the old cathedrais and parish churches. Besides, whatever affects the religious life of the nation must have an interest for Catholics, a mournful

interest though it may be. Cardinal Newman, in his "Grammar of Assent," says:

Bible Religion is both the recognized title and the best description of English religion. It consists, not in rites or creeds, but mainly in having the Bible read in the Church, in the family, and in private. Now, I am far indeed from undervaluing that mere knowledge of Scripture which is imparted to the population thus promiscuously. At least, in England, it has to a certain point made up for great and grievous losses in its Christianity. The reiteration again and again, in fixed course in the public service, of the words of inspired teachers under both Covenants, and that in grave majestic English, has in matter of fact been to our people a vast benefit. It has attuned their minds to religious thoughts; it has given them a high moral standard; it has served them in associating religion with compositions, which, even humanly considered, are among the most sublime and beautiful ever written; especially it has impressed upon them the series of Divine Providences in behalf of man from his creation to his end, and, above all, the words, deeds, and sacred sufferings of Him, in whom all the Providences of God centre (p. 56).

Therefore any genuine effort, honestly made, to purify the text-book of English religion from errors, and to make it more comformable to the Divine originals, must enlist the sympathy of Catholics. If Church restoration serves the cause of Catholic truth, may we not expect the same of Bible revision? History proves that the Catholic Church in England was injured in the estimation of the people, mainly by corrupt translations. The so-called Reformation was an heretical appeal from the Church to the Bible, but to the Bible as translated by heretics, and in their translation there was no Church to be found, but only "congregation," no bishops and priests, but only "overseers" and "elders." Popular Bible religion was first schooled in the Calvinistic Genevan Bible of 1560, with its anti-Catholic notes. What wonder if, as it grew up, it spoke the language of Puritanism, and called the Pope anti-Christ and the Catholic Church the Beast. As Elizabeth could tune her pulpits, so could heretics phrase their Bibles. They stole the Scriptures from the Church, and then the Church from the Scriptures. Had the Bible been honestly translated and fairly interpreted, little harm. would have come of the appeal. The Scriptures would have borne testimony of the Church, as they do of her Divine Founder. As the works of God cannot contradict the words of God, so the Inspired Word cannot be at variance with the Living Voice of the Holy Sprit, in the Church of Christ.

In the long struggle for existence between the various translations, King James's Bible prevailed according to the law of natural selection; it was the survival of the fittest. But it was VOL. VI.—NO. I. [Third Series.]

K

not till Queen Anne's reign that it obtained so firm a place in the affection of the nation. Had the Long Parliament been a little longer, Anglican bishops at least would have been saved the trouble of further revision. Still it could hardly be denied that the Authorized Version was very imperfect. The greatest, Hebrew scholar of his day said "he would rather be torn to pieces than impose such a version on the poor churches of England." Bishop Lowth showed how defective was the Old Testament, from the fact that it rested entirely on the Masoretic text. The infallibility of the vowel points invented by the Masora in the sixth century was then a cardinal point in the creed of those who rejected the Church's authority. And in the New Testament it is well known that the translators had before them only the imperfect text of Stephens and Beza. How empty, then, was the boast of

Protestants that their Bible was better than the Catholic because it was a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, whilst the Catholic version was simply from the Latin Vulgate! With their imperfect text they could hardly be said to have had the originals at all, and it is pretty certain that the Vulgate as a whole is the closest approximation to the original attainable either then or now. In point of fidelity, the esssential matter in Scripture translation, the Douai Bible is as superior to King James's as it is inferior in its English. For, as Dr. Dodd says, "its translators thought it better to offend against the rules of grammar than to risk the sense of God's Word for the sake of a fine period." Dr. Moulton acknowledges that "the translation is literal and (as a rule, if not always) scrupulously faithful and exact. . . . . Only minute study can do justice to its faithfulness, and to the care with which the translators executed their work," Another defect in the Authorized Version is the want of grammatical precision. It mistakes tenses, ignores synonymes, and has no appreciation for article or particle. Here, again, the Rheims has the advantage, at least as concerns the Greek article. To quote Dr. Moulton again:

As the Latin language has no definite article, it might well be supposed that of all English versions the Rhemish would be the least accurate in this point of translation. The very reverse is actually the case, There are many instances (a comparatively hasty search has discovered more than forty) in which of all versions, from Tyndale's to the Authorized, inclusive, this alone is correct in regard to the article (p. 188),

Another defect of King James's Revision was the neglect of the principal of verbal identity. The Revisers of 1881 admit

"History of the English Bible," pp. 185-188.

That this would now be deemed hardly consistent with the requirements of faithful translation. They seem to have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they express a fear lest they should "be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words," which, without this liberty on their part, would not have a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be doubted that they carried this liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.

But the most serious fault of all is that the Authorized Versions contains absolute errors. Thomas Ward, in 1737, gave a list of some in the columns of his "Errata." Many of these were corrected in the editions 1762 and 1769. Dr. Ellicott, in the Preface to the "Pastoral Epistles," says:

It is vain to cheat our souls with the thought that these errors are either insignificant or imaginary. There are errors, there are inaccuracies, there are misconceptions, there are obscurities, not, indeed, so many in number or so grave in character as some of the forward spirits of our day would persuade us; but there are misrepresentations of the language of the Holy Ghost, and that man who, after being in any degree satisfied of this, permits himself to bow to the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or who, intellectually unable to test the truth of these allegations, nevertheless permits himself to denounce or deny them, will, if they be true, most surely at the dread day of final account have to sustain the tremendous charge of having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word of God.*

Considering that this is the candid confession of an Anglican Bishop, Protestants have set to work to revise their Bible none

too soon.

Perhaps it may be not uninteresting to give one or two specimens of not very successful attempts at revision or improved translation which have been made from time to time. Dr. Eadie and Professor Plumptre give many examples. "The young lady is not dead," "A gentleman of splendid family, and opulent fortune had two sons," "We shall not pay the common debt of nature, but by a soft transition," &c. These are from "Harwood's Literal Translation of the New Testament," made, as the author claims, with "freedom, spirit and elegance!" The next is from a version which is the reverse of elegant. Describing the death of Judas, it says: "Falling prostrate, a violent internal spasm

"Pastoral Epistles," p. xiii.