centuries, when a popular style of speech was used in the pulpit, as elsewhere, much more than it is now. The coarseness of Geiler's expressions cannot be compared with that found in the discussions between Luther* and his adversaries, and this fault of style continued till a much later period. We find, for instance, Charles IX. of Sweden, writing to Christian IV. of Denmark, to decline a duel, in language coarser than the coarsest used now. The last phrase of this letter runs: "This is our answer to thy coarse letter" ("auf deinen groben Brief "t). Yet modern times were Brief”†). close at hand! Geiler's rigorism is apparent in his opposition to the dispensation given for the use of butter and eggs. He knew this custom already existed in the fourteenth century in the diocese of Cologne and Treves, but he opposed it because he saw it fostered the cupidity of the clergy (the "turpis lucri cupiditas" of Albert of Bavaria, p. 483). The avarice of the bishops had unfortunately become proverbial. The saying: "Es ist aber um gelt zu thun " (it is a question of money) referred to every fine inflicted for disorders of all kinds, concubinage, &c., &c. Geiler considered this cupidity as one of the principal causes of decay in the Church. "It is the mother of dissolution," said he; "it leads to the accumulating of benefices, and to all those intrigues for misleading the Pope, from whom these exemptions and ecclesiastical fines proceed. By the sale of benefices the most learned and worthy priests, who had spent twenty years in teaching theology, were thrust aside to make way for candidates whose nomination was more lucrative.§ Geiler, however, was sometimes too severe in his strictures on this and other points. For instance, when he reproaches the Papacy with always demanding supplies to fit out expeditions against the Turks. Even the Abbé Dacheux acknowledges this (p. 249), and goes on to state some facts which prove how much the Popes did, from Calixtus III. (1455) to Alexander VI., who died in 1503, to promote the war against the Osmanli." In 1481 it was feared in Rome that the city itself would before long be taken by the Turks.¶ Janssen and Höfler both insist upon the exertions made by the Popes against the Infidels. *See and compare Höfler, p. 261; and Luther's "Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians,” p. 377. + See Gfröver, "Gustav Adolph," b. i. ch. i. p. 39, n., quoted by Holberg, Dänische Reichshistorie," ii. 661. 66 In his work, "Peregrineti," Geiler speaks with more moderation about fasting. Dacheux, pp. 255, 290. Compare Wimpheling, quoted p. 122, n. 2. Dacheux, p. 294, n. The former cites (i. 555, n.) a work written by Hegewisch, a Protestant, and professor at the University of Kiel, towards the end of the eighteenth century, who, in his "History of the Emperor Maximilian," brought to light the efforts made by the Popes to organize a war against the Turks who threatened the German Empire. These efforts of the Roman Pontiffs were, as a rule, rendered futile by the indifference of the princes; for instance, those made by Pius II., aided by Cardinal Torquemada.* Herr Höfler in his turn gives undeniable proofs of the labours and anxieties of Hadrian VI. (p. 485) caused by the advance of the Turkish army, which advance Francis I. contemplated with satisfaction. To return to our "Reformer." Geiler attributed the prohibition against nuns reserving some small portion of their fortune on entering a convent to the cupidity of certain authorities. The introduction of Roman law, which helped considerably to change the face of Germany, he considered, and with greater truth, to be a stimulus to cupidity. Many young men threw up their theological studies thinking to find in the law a more direct road to fortune, or else they took service at Rome, then looked upon as the California of the idle (p. 116). We should exceed the limits of this Article were we to try to indicate all the interesting points of the Abbé Dacheux's work. It has already been reviewed by the critics of Germany, France, and other countries, who have noticed the striking features of a work which is a study of the innermost life and personal history of Geiler, rather than an account of the general movement of the period. In such a manner should we have liked to enter into Geiler's relations with his friends, especially with the Schott. family—a real picture, given in the thirteenth to sixteenth chapters. Fault has been found with the author for giving too many details of general history which had but small connection with Geiler himself. We are not of this opinion, for the Abbé Dacheux, in connecting the events of Geiler's life with the history of his age, only makes his sketch more attractive, and, indeed, more useful to our purpose, which is to give here an account, not of the advance made in the biographical details of this period, but of the progress made in discoveries relating to history taken as a whole, and of the coalescing causes productive of certain events. As is truly remarked by Dr. Janssen, the sermons of John Geiler are a real mine of knowledge, wherein to learn the popular life of that period (I. 263). One chapter might have been omitted by the author without breaking the harmony of his work; we *Lederer. refer to chapter XIV., the "History of the Convent of Klingenthal," which seems rather superfluous. We will conclude this review by congratulating the AbbéDacheux 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 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. 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 notes 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 |