125

Notices of New Books.

J. DÖLLINGER. Hippolytus u. Kallistus u. s. w. 8vo. pp. vi and 358. Regensburg, Manz. 1 Thlr. 20 Ngr.

[This work introduces a new element into the controversy on the treatise Against all Heresies, published by M. Miller, as representing a Roman Catholic view of the question. It was partly printed before the author was in possession of the Essays of Baur, Gieseler, and Wordsworth; and consequently he devotes one of his later chapters to a re-examination of the conclusions which he had originally obtained, and a fuller refutation of the objections to which they lie open. This circumstance detracts in some degree from the unity of his work, but it gives, we believe, an additional value to his results, as showing that they were derived from an independent criticism of the facts of the case, and are not merely a controversial answer to other scholars.

Döllinger agrees in the general belief that this treatise is the work of Hippolytus, though not the Syntagma read by Photius. Like Dr Wordsworth, he makes out this latter point convincingly against M. Bunsen.

After this, however, Döllinger diverges from the common track, and tries to prove that there is no satisfactory evidence for believing that Hippolytus was Bp of Portus-that, indeed, there is no proof that Portus was an episcopal see before A.D. 313-that before the middle ages there is no mention in the West of any such bishop-that in the East he was called Bishop of Rome and not Bishop of Portus-that the two titles are by no means convertible—that the poem of the Spaniard Prudentius is of no historical moment-that the single ground for the popular notion is drawn from the spurious Acta S. Aurea, dating from the 7th century, and first current at Constantinople. This being made out, he proceeds to explain the position of Hippolytus at Rome, which he supposes to have been this :-after the death of Zephyrinus, Callistus was chosen as his successor; through fear of Hippolytus Callistus abjured the teaching of Sabellius; but new differences arose both in doctrine and discipline, and in the end Hippolytus was chosen Bishop of Rome by a section of the Church in place of the heretical Callistus, and continued to be so regarded even after his rival's death (pp. 100—104).

The historical criticism is followed by an inquiry into the points at issue between Hippolytus and Callistus. Döllinger endeavours to make out that the principles of Callistus in reference to general absolution, the reception of penitents, the discipline of the clergy, and the laws of marriage, were in a great measure necessitated by the condition of the church (c. iii.) In like manner he seeks to establish a position for Callistus between the tenets of Hippolytus and those of Noetus (p. 224); and tries to show that the opinions of Origen condemned at Rome in 231 were connected with those of Hippolytus (p. 257). The whole is concluded by an investigation into some points in Hippolytus' doctrine—his teaching

on the Priesthood-on the "Christian Sacrifice"- -on Asceticism-on the descent into Hades.

The outline which we have given will indicate the importance of the work. Many of Döllinger's conclusions may appear to us unsound; but his whole view carries with it a naturalness wanting in every other with which we are acquainted. We must wait to see whether any thing can be added to the old arguments of Ruggieri reproduced by Dr Wordsworth; otherwise the Bishop of Portus must, it would seem, be deprived of his title and translated to the see of Rome.

Döllinger, it may be added, appears to be well acquainted with English literature, and he points out several errors into which Dr Wordsworth has fallen. The most important is one which he shares with M. Bunsen; for both of them cite Peter, Bp of Alexandria during the first ten or twelve years of the 4th cent., as stating (Chron. Pasch. p. 12. ed. Bonn): "And since there is full and demonstrative evidence of this in the holy teachers of the church, we will cite (rapoiooμev, yet the Bonn editor retains the version omittimus) here a few of their statements. . . . Hippolytus then, the witness of godliness, Bishop of Portus, near Rome," &c. tion from Peter begins at p. 4 of the Chron. Pasch., and cannot be continued beyond p. 9, where Athanasius is called "the great light of the church of the Alexandrians.” This he cannot have been in the year 309. The passage cited from p. 12 contains the words of the author of the Chronicon. Döllinger, does not, however, appear to do justice to the critical ability with which Dr Wordsworth has in many places corrected the text of the fragment which he has published.] B. F. W.

The quota

Harpocrationis Lexicon in X. Orat. Att. Ex recens. GUL. DINDORFII. Oxon. e typogr. Acad. 1853. 8vo. Tom. I. pp. xxxii. and 351. Tom. II. pp. lviii and 489. 21s.

[Dindorf has used several MSS., both of Harpocration and of the Epitome, which Bekker had neglected, or only partially collated. Among them are three English MSS., one in the British Museum, one in the Cambridge Univ. Library, and one in the Library of Trin. Coll. Cambridge. The 2nd volume contains Maussac's Dissertation, H. Stephanus's Preface to his Diatribe in Isocratem, and Commentaries. Most of the notes of Gronovius, and some of Maussac's have been omitted; those of Hemsterhuis (published by Geel in the Anecdota Hemst. Leyden. 1825), have been given entire, as have, with few exceptions, those of Valesius and of Stephanus (on the glosses to Isocrates). Dindorf's own notes are in the first volume. He has used the labours of Pearson (Advers. Hesych.), Toup, Dobree, Schleusner, Bernhardy and Sauppe; but he has himself done comparatively little to illustrate his author. For instance, he has not referred the fragments of the Comic poets, the Historians, and the Orators, to their places in the collections of Meineke, Müller, and Sauppe; he has not noticed that Nikávwp and étiσtárns, which words Harpocration cites from Hyperides's Oration against Demosthenes, occur in the recently discovered fragments. On the name Nikάvwp Valesius quotes an obscure

passage from Aristotle's Rhetoric, which refers to a Nicanor, who cannot be identified (as he assumes) with the Stagirite in Harpocration; he then adds, "meminit Dinarch. c. Dem. pp. 90 and 92;" a reference which should not have been reprinted, as it is given in the next note of Valesius: "Pro 'Yepidns forte Aeivapxos, nam in Dinarchi c. Dem. oratione Nicanoris fit mentio non semel, p. 90." As we now have the passage of Hyperides referred to by Harpocration, such a note as this can only mislead. The same may be said of Maussac's note, in which he mentions several Nicanors, one of whom lived under Hadrian, while none can be identified with any of those spoken of by Harpocration.]

CH. B.

The Bible in the Middle Ages, with remarks on the Libraries, Schools, and social and religious aspects of Medieval Europe, by LEICESTER AMBROSE BUCKINGHAM; London, T. C. Newby, 1853, 8vo. pp. 305. [The author of this volume is a layman and a Roman Catholic. Desirous, it would seem, of winning from us a more favourable estimate of Medieval Christianity, he undertakes to prove that one of the most popular objections to it is unfounded and absurd. The following ex

tracts will evince the general animus of his production:

"We seek in vain, in the records of medieval centuries, for any act of the church, in her councils, tending even indirectly, to prevent or impede the reading and diffusion of authentic versions of the unmutilated scriptures," p. 39.

In p. 41, the author is still more explicit :

"It was not until versions of the Bible, held by the church to be mutilated and spurious, had issued from the press, and become disseminated among the people, and false teachers perverting the sense of Holy Writ, had sought to mislead the simple by the citation of corrupted texts of their defective Scriptures in maintenance of their new opinions, that the Church put forth the strong arm," &c.

And in p. 42 we are informed distinctly, that Christendom had no experience of this law until "the sixteenth century." Nay, Mr Buckingham has on this subject made a strange and very startling discovery. He asserts that Roman pontiffs ultimately took a hint for getting rid of the vernacular translations from Henry VIII. of England, or at least that it was left for this redoubted monarch to impose "restrictions which had no existence under the dominion of the Church."

Now we must here join issue with the author, not indeed on points of doctrine, but of fact. It is quite true, that by the statute 34 and 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1, the reading of the New Testament in English was interdicted to women and artificers, prentices, journeymen, servingmen of the degree of yeomen or under, husbandmen and labourers: but the prohibition, as the date itself (1542) would shew, was one result of the ascendancy obtained in Henry's later years by Gardiner and other zealots of the anti-reformation school. To them we owe the "Statute of the Six Articles" (the 'whip withe sixe stringes"), which they had carried, in the teeth of a determined opposition, two years before. But even if this point were

66

doubtful, is it not established beyond any question that the law of Henry VIII. had precedents enough in medieval history? Did Mr Buckingham, for instance, never hear of the important council of Toulouse in 1229 ? Let us remind him that the 14th canon absolutely condemns the use of vernacular translations, and forbids the laity to read the sacred books in almost any form whatever: "Prohibemus etiam, ne libros Veteris Testamenti aut Novi laici permittantur habere, nisi forte Psalterium vel Breviarium pro Divinis officiis, aut Horas beatæ Mariæ aliquis ex devotione habere velit. Sed ne præmissos libros habeant in vulgari translatos arctissime inhibemus." Labbe, Concil. XI. 430. A still more stringent order was put forth by the provincial synod of Narbonne, which met at Béziers in 1246. When writing of the former, Fleury (Liv. LXXIX. s. 58) says, with manifest embarrassment: "C'est la première fois que je trouve cette défense; mais nous pouvons l'expliquer favorablement, en disant que les esprits étoient tellement aigris, qu'on ne pouvoit arrêter les contestations qu'en ôtant les livres saints dont les heretiques abu soient." Be the worth of this apology what it may, one thing is at least established, viz. that Mr Buckingham has altogether misdated the commencement of the war against vernacular translations. How or why a writer who is well-informed on other points of medieval antiquities, could have been guilty of this grievous oversight, we do not care to pronounce. If he had fairly weighed the records of the period, he would have been constrained to admit, that from the growth of the Paulicians, Cathari, and Waldenses, all vernacular translations of the Bible, good and bad alike, were far too commonly regarded with suspicion. A distinguished man like Gerson, who in many points had shewn himself superior to his age, resisted the translation and diffusion of the Scriptures as a whole: and others (such, for instance, as the canon of Leicester, Wycliffe's adversary,) argued that to give the Bible in the vulgar tongue to laymen and to women, was to cast the " evangelical pearl" before swine.

If, notwithstanding this repugnance, it was actually translated into many of the European languages, and, thanks to Mr Buckingham, we know it was, our inference is the very opposite of his. We see in the vernacular translations a fresh proof that better principles continued to diffuse themselves in many members of the Church, the logical result to which they pointed being the Reformation.]

C. H.

History of the Christian Church to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great, by JAMES CRAIGIE ROBERTSON, M.A., Vicar of Bekesbourne. London, Murray, 8vo. pp. 528.

[Mr Robertson, in one respect, has more than realized his purpose. He only professes to supply us with " a readable introduction" to the early history of the Church; but with his volume in our hands we are disposed to rank it somewhat higher. It is written by a man who understands the bearings of his subject, and exhibits more than ordinary skill in the construction of his materials: but the features we select for special

commendation are his candour, honesty, and independence in handling controverted questions. See, for instance, the remarks on the celibacy of the clergy, and on the progress of monasticism, pp. 290-316.

The work, however, suffers in our judgment from attempting to fall in with the requirements of too large a class of readers. If Mr Robertson had only written for intelligent laymen, he might have made his book more interesting, and might also have dispensed with not a few of his references: while, on the other hand, it hardly meets the case of the professed student, who will not be satisfied with secondary authorities, and who at least would have preferred the formal and scholastic mode of treatment generally adopted by modern historians.] C. H.

Clementis Romani quæ feruntur Homilie Viginti nunc primum integræ. Text. ad cod. Ottob. constit. vers. Cotelerii passim correx., eamque absolvit, select. virr. doctt. not. suasque subjunxit A. R. M. DRESSEL. Gottinga. 1853.

[The Paris MS., from which Cotelier (whom subsequent editors have followed) published the Clementine Homilies, breaks off in Hom. xix. сар. 14. Fifteen years ago Dressel discovered in the Vatican Library a MS. containing the twenty Homilies entire. He has since been preparing an elaborate edition of the Apostolic Fathers: but, being interrupted by various causes, has consented to publish the Homilies at once, without waiting to complete his illustrations. The additional matter

consists of eleven chapters and a half of Hom. XIX. and the whole of xx. The last chapter conducts St Peter to Antioch, and corresponds with capp. 65—68 of lib. x. of the Recognitions. The latter diffuse recension has four additional chapters, but the completeness of the Homilies is shewn by the word 'Aμnv, with which they conclude. The Vatican MS., though faulty enough, exhibits throughout on the whole a much purer text than that of Paris. Dressel justly blames Schwegler for taking Cotelier's text not from the fountain-head, but from Le Clerc's corrupt reprint. Yet to Schwegler are mainly due the scanty notes vouchsafed to us: and he must still be pronounced the most meritorious editor. Abundant work remains for future labourers.] F. J. A. H.

Real-Encyclopädie für protest. Theologie u. Kirche, hrsg. von Dr HERZOG. Stuttgart. 1853, &c.

[To be completed in 10 vols., each vol. consisting of 10 parts, or 800 pages, price 8 Ngr. a part. The list of contributors comprises almost every important name among the Protestants of Germany. Many of the articles are far too slight, containing no references whatever, though such a cyclopædia is chiefly useful as a guide to direct the student to further sources of information. English works, even such as are known in Germany, (e.g. Pearson on the Creed, and Waterland on the Athanasian Creed) are too often neglected. Abp. Abbot has a notice, while Bp. Andrewes is passed over.

VOL. I. March, 1854.

Still the work is on the

9