certain parts of divine worship, especially of the sacraments. But Bonwetsch quotes a passage from a work published by the celebrated theologian Dallaeus, (Daille,) of the Reformed Church of France, in 1666, which proves that he used the term before Meyer. Soon after the introduction of the term the subject gave rise to a very animated controversy. The Jesuit Schelstrate, in his Antiquitas illustrata, (Antwerp, 1678,) attempted to press the disciplina arcani into the service of his Church to account for the silence of the early Church writers as to penance, image worship, and other practices. He was refuted by W. E. Tentzel in the essay Dissertatio de Disciplina Arcani, (1683.) Schelstrate defended himself in 1685 in De Disciplina Arcani contra Disput. E. Tentzel, and the latter replied in a very thorough and complete manner in his Animadversiones. (The two writings of Tentzel and the last named essay of Schelstrate are contained in W. E. Tentzelii Exercitationes Selectæ, Frankfort, 1692.) Since then a large number of theologians have written on this subject. The Catholic writers, among whom are Schollner, (1756,) Döllinger, (1826,) Lienhardt, (1829,) Toklot, (1836,) Lüft, (1844,) Hefele, (1846,) and Mayer, (1868,) have substantially only repeated the arguments of Schelstrate, and added but little that is new. On the Protestant side very able treatises were written on the subject in the seventeenth century by Bingham (in his Origines Ecclesiastica) and by Mosheim (in his Church History.) Bingham believes that the institution originated at the time of Tertullian, and that it had chiefly the pedagogical object, to prevent the Christian rites from being despised by those who did not yet understand them, and to prepare the catechumens for their better understanding. Mosheim showed more clearly than had been done before him that the disciplina arcani must be well distinguished from the system of reserve or concealment of theology, (scientia arcani, μvorneiooopía,) which sprang up in Egypt in the second century. He also believed it to have had a pedagogical aim, namely, to lead the catechumens from an understanding of the easier doctrines into the more profound mysteries of Christianity. A number of writers (among them Planck and Creuzer) saw in the disciplina arcani nothing but a childish endeavor to have in the Christian Church something similar to the pagan mysteries. This view has now been gen

erally abandoned. The most important Protestant writers who in the nineteenth century have written on the subject are Richard Rothe, (in Herzog's Cyclopædia,) Zezschwitz, (Katechetik, 1863,) Niedner, (Kirchengeschichte, 1816,) and Harnack, (Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst, 1854.) The two former find the origin in the catechumenate; the institution is defended as a natural outgrowth of the condition in which the Church found itself at that time. Niedner and Harnack, on the other hand, believe that it originated in a systematic transformation of the divine service into a mysterious form as a deviation from the primitive Christian basis of the Church, and in an undue extension of the hierarchical power. The essay is very instructive, and though it will, of course, not end the controversy, it must be read by all who wish thoroughly to understand the subject.

ART. VIII.-QUARTERLY BOOK TABLE.

Religion, Theology, and Biblical Literature.

The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament. By J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., Canon of St. Paul's and Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge; RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin; C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. With an Introduction by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. 12mo., pp. 562. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1873.

In the hands of accomplished scholars and graceful writers like Schaff, Lightfoot, Trench, and Ellicott, biblical criticism becomes elegant literature. It is a curious fact that Germany should present in Dr. Schaff a mediator between England and America in the revision of our English Bible. Dr. Lightfoot is not so well known among us as the others named, but his Commentary on Galatians, published by W. F. Draper, proves him not one whit behind the chiefest.

It was in May, 1870, that the Convocation of Canterbury commenced the movement of revision. They resolved upon inaugurating not a new translation, but such a revision as, retaining all the traits that render our old English Bible venerable to our hearts, should remove those defects that by time or original error have impaired its clearness to the popular mind. A committee was appointed which divided itself into an Old Testament and a New Testament Company, whose first work, respectively, should be the

Pentateuch and the Gospels. To each of these Companies about a score of eminent scholars of various denominations were by invitation added.

In August, 1870, was commenced the work, by English invitation, of organizing two corresponding Companies in America. The whole arrangements have been made upon the assumption that while the Anglican Church was the proper authority to initiate the enterprise, the best Christian scholarship of all sects and denominations should be asked to combine, so that it might be the united work and be accepted as the one vernacular Holy Bible of our "English-speaking Christendom." To the best of our knowledge the movement has thus far been a delightful success. respective companies of the two nations have commenced their harmonious work. It will be a task of years, perhaps a decade. But, by the blessing of God, it cannot fail, and we entertain the cheerful trust that the text of our English Bible will come forth purified and renewed from the healthful process.

The

It is easy for the critical scholar to pick out plentiful fly-specks upon every page of our English Bible. Words have become obsolete or changed their meaning; they were badly selected from original caprice, and errors were committed from the imperfect scholarship of the age. Sometimes there appears a mistranslation from doctrinal prepossession. And last of all, it is severed into chapters and verses, not as dexterously dissected by a scalpel, but as sliced and chopped by a butcher's cleaver. Yet in spite of all this its power as BIBLE has shown forth. It has been the unifying platform of English-speaking religions. There is no denying the wonderful fact, that all sections of dissent as they have left the primary bodies have gone off with King James' version under the arm. Scholars have often drawn up a fresh translation. Wesley furnished such a work of the New Testament; but he would have sooner flung it into the fire than allow it to disturb the supremacy of our old English Bible. We believe no attempt of the kind, as an appeal to denominational feeling, has been enabled to supplant our translation in the homes of the people. The revisers, therefore, approach the book with a true conservative feeling. Where palpable defects of text, or inaccuracy or obsoleteness of phrase, obscure or pervert the meaning, modifications are to be made.

One rule, however, which they have adopted seems to us to sacrifice universally acknowledged truth to an ultra-conservatism. The rule is that no word should be used in the revision which does

not already stand somewhere in the present version. We cheerfully agree that words already imbedded in our vernacular should be decidedly preferred. All present shock to the ordinary reader or hearer should be sedulously avoided. But truth is paramount to all things, and where there is no doubt in any section of scholars what truth is, surely truth should take the place of falsehood. This law of unquestionable truth requires the omission of the celebrated text of the Three Witnesses. It equally requires that Hades and Gehenna should not be translated by the same words. No scholar of any denomination believes that Hades means hell in the same sense as Gehenna, or in any sense as used in our vernacular. The conservatism that fears to transfer the word Hades to the English version is based in a want of due confidence in the good sense of the people. We believe that in a period of fifty coming years there is less danger in setting things right than in covering up wrong..

Dean Trench has made a very tolerable defense of King James' translators against the charge of mistranslating from doctrinal motives. His main ground is that a comparison of texts will show that in the Calvinistic points, for instance, they gave as many translations unduly unfavorable to their views as favorable. His statement we think to be numerically incorrect; yet Arminians have seldom imputed more than an unconscious Calvinistic prepossession to the translators. Of intentional mistranslation they have rarely been accused.

One of the most remarkable pro-Calvinistic uses of words has been perhaps, in some degree, the simple result of time. It is one to which we have seen no reference; and though pervading the whole Bible, is very likely to be overlooked even by Arminian revisers. It is the use of the future shall where our modern vernacular requires will. At the present day, at least, this has become a very false translation, for our present shall has an imperative force, just as it has always possessed in the Decalogue. Should a parent at the present day say to his sons at table, "One of you shall betray me," (John xiii, 21), it would be understood as a command. And so Rom. ix, 12, "The elder shall serve the younger," makes an imperative of a simple future. It may be indeed said that God's futures are imperatives. Whether that be so or not, we should allow God to use his futures instead of imperatives when he pleases.

Under this class of the false shall comes perhaps one of the most curiously mistranslated, interpolated, misquoted, and abused

texts in the Bible, noticed by us in our Quarterly some years ago. It is Psa. cx, 3, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." This is a military Messianic psalm, and the words really mean, Thy people [are] ready in the day of thy military gathering. There is really no verb at all; and the shall be of the translators, as well as our [are], is an interpolation. Then the shall is made a false imperative. Next follows a laughable mutilation of the text, current among our Calvinistic brethren, not only colloquially and among the people, but even disclosing itself in the deliberate writings of the best scholars. The false shall be willing is transmuted into a falser make willing. We have, for instance, a venerable volume by old Dr. Spring, of New England, on Free Agency, (which abolishes all Free Agency,) in which this text is quoted as a titlepage motto, correctly according to our translation, but in entire perversion of the textual meaning. Next, our readers will find it used by Rev. Mr. Tyler, as it happens, on page 311 of this our present Quarterly, mutilated into "make willing." Next we will find it in Dr. Shedd's History of Doctrines, vol ii, p. 73, thus mutilated: "Makes him willing in the day of God's power." Next we will find it in Hodge on Romans: "God supersedes the necessity of forcing us by making us willing in the day of his power." And finally, we grieve to say it, even our friend, Dr. Schaff, has inserted a slight finger in this Credit Mobilier, by quoting with approbation this same unfortunate passage of Dr. Hodge's in his Romans, p. 95.* This is somewhat aside from the subject of the new revision of the Bible. It is additionally a suggestion to our Calvinistic friends to revise their proof-texts.

This volume will be a treat to biblical scholars; and especially will its perusal be a pleasant discipline for the student of the New Testament Greek text.

The Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. By JAMES GLASGOWw, D.D., Irish General Assembly's Professor of Oriental Languages; Late Professor of the University of Bombay, and late Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay. 8vo., pp. 611. (Imported and on sale by Scribner, Welford, & Armstrong, New York.) Edinburgh: J. & T. Clark. 1872.

The problem of the Apocalypse ever possesses its fascinations for a numerous class of minds. In that problem there is a large amount to start with that is fixed and certain. There is a second large amount so definite that large sections of thinkers will agree, yet. so indefinite that different and opposing schools will arise and

*Since writing the above we have found the same mutilation of the text in Dr. Hodge's Theology, vol. i, page 435.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXV.—22