Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

arguments of more than ordinary weight to induce us to reject any part of the sacred text which has reached, without disturbance, so late a period as the present. Notwithstanding the reliance which it was natural to expect would be reposed on the authenticity of every part of the New Testament, still there are a few passages which have at different times been openly called in question, and which it therefore becomes our duty to examine with all that diligence and candor so peculiarly required in a subject of this nature.

Whatever may have been the origin of these objections, whether they have arisen from an imperfect comprehension of the proofs, by which the genuineness of ancient writings can alone be established, or whether, which has not unfrequently been the case, they are to be traced to the powerful prepossessions generated by the tenets of particular sects, no friend to revelation would willingly suffer them to be disseminated without examining the foundation on which they are alleged to be supported, and without ascertaining the degree of attention to which they are really entitled.

It is well known to those who are at all acquainted with theological science, that the authenticity of the first and second chapters of the Gospel of St. Matthew has been the subject of controversy, and has been more particularly contested by that class of Christians who avowedly disclaim the divinity of the Saviour.

As this part of the sacred writings contains the detail of Christ's nativity, we shall not be greatly surprised at the anxiety displayed by the advocates of Unitarianism to annul a portion of the text so subversive of their favorite opinions, and which they trust, if once expunged, would effectually undermine the belief of the received doctrine of the miraculous conception. As long as these chapters are considered as forming part of the original Gospel of one of our Lord's immediate disciples, as long as they retain the confidence which has so long been reposed in them, it will be in vain to attempt to invalidate the

formed cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. There does indeed exist an account of its having been arranged and settled at Ephesus before the close of the first century, but it is now generally rejected as destitute of sufficient proof to entitle it to belief; and it is the opinion of many eminent critics, amongst whom are Griesbach and Semler, that the scriptural canon could not have been formed before the middle of the second century. See Jones on the Canon. Dupin's Hist. of the Canon, Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. notes to ch. 7. sect. 6. Paley's Evid. vol. i.

doctrine which they explicitly declare, by reasoning on the abstract nature of the fact, or by any arguments derived from the antecedent probability of its truth.

This a priori mode of reasoning, however, has too frequently been resorted to in discussing the credibility of the peculiar articles of the Christian faith; but by no class of men has it been more notoriously perverted, than by those who without hesitation reject from their creed every doctrine which cannot be supported by obvious analogy or undisputed experience. On the same principle many have ventured to question the divine origin of Christianity itself; and because it was promul gated at a period so remote from the creation of the world, they think themselves justified in refusing their assent; falsely assuming that what so intimately concerned the felicity of human creatures, if communicated at all, must have been so from the beginning, or at least long anterior to the general depravity of the species; and that it is in the highest degree improbable that the Deity should restrict the revelation of his mercy within the narrow limits which the present case apparently supposes. Such, however, is the nature of the proofs in our possession, such the powerful body of evidence which the inquiries of every day tend to confirm, that it appears almost impossible, consistently with the unbiassed exercise of our sane faculties, to deny that the Christian religion has actually been published, though not till four thousand years after the formation of man; and that the sublime truths which it unfolds are not the less intimately connected with our highest interest because they have hitherto extended to only a portion of mankind. Our previous conceptions of what would be the conduct of the Supreme Being under any proposed circumstances, or of the manner in which he would display his attributes in the government of his intelligent creatures, have so repeatedly led to the most palpable errors, that they ought to obtain but little influence in our estimate of the positive proofs of any religious system offered to our examination, Nor will it require any elaborate investigation to impress upon the mind a conviction, which "daily observation alone is almost sufficient to produce. In the phænomena of external nature, in the occurrences which excite our attention in the records of history, and in the moral system which influences the conduct of man both as an individual, and as connected with society, numerous instances might be alleged, apparently at variance with the perfections of the Divine Being, or, at least, very remote from our preconceived ideas of their probability. Their actual existence, however, is not on that

account the less certain, nor less the effect of prospective wisdom.

All that the rational part of the creation can be admitted to claim with justice, or rather naturally to expect, from the benevolence of the Deity, is, that a preponderance of happiness should be placed within their reach, sooner or later, during the continuance of their existence. The means which the Almighty may adopt in the plenitude of his wisdom for effectuating and securing this happiness, may very consistently be supposed to form a subject far removed from the reach of human examina tion, and even beyond the limits of human comprehension. Why man should originally have been so constructed as to be liable to fall from his primeval state of bliss, when assailed by temptation, and why so many ages should elapse before the advent of that illustrious character appointed to be the great instrument in accomplishing his redemption, are questions which involve no greater difficulty than is to be discovered in that long contested point, the origin of evil. To expect to fathom the counsels of the Supreme Intelligence, with faculties so inadequate as our own, and to make the removal of every shade of darkness the previous condition of our assent, is what we practise on no other subject; and it has not yet been explained why we should adopt so unreasonable a conduct in that of religion.

After all the objections which have been advanced against the historical detail of the great legislator of the Jews, and all the bold attempts which have been made to destroy its credibility, still to every unbiassed inquirer it will be found to be more consistent with the facts of subsequent history, and with the observations of philosophers relative to the superficial structure of the globe, than any hypothesis which the infidelity of some and the love of distinction in others have led them to invent.* Our proper object, therefore, is not to institute an inquiry how far the Mosaic account accords with the ideas which we have previously entertained respecting the means which the Almighty would select in the creation and government of the universe, but whether the authority of the writings ascribed to the Jewish lawgiver is supported by incontrovertible evidence, and whether they contain nothing which the consent of cultivated understandings has decided to be contrary to the first principles of reason.

'See Bryant's System of Ancient Mythology; Maurice's Indian Antiquities; Sir William Jones's Discourses before the Asiatic Society.

When we are satisfied on these points, when we find a history of the origin of the world, of which the particulars, though often supernatural, are after minute examination allowed to be reconcilable with the known attributes of the Deity; when this history is proved by arguments, which the most labored ingenuity has hitherto been unable to invalidate, to have been written by the legislator whose name it bears, our assent seems unavoidable. No other conduct remains for us to pursue, but to ascertain the correctness of the text which is submitted to our notice, and to interpret its meaning in conformity with the laws of criticism invented by the wisdom and confirmed by the experience of profound scholars.

Thus also, when a revelation of more recent date has been once proved to have been communicated to the human species, we are not to proportion our belief of its contents to our antecedent sentiments of probability relative to its mode of promulgation, and to the nature of the doctrines it professes to disclose. We are not to say, though we certainly cannot, after a fair investigation of the arguments in its favor, refuse our assent to its general truth, that we think ourselves at liberty to make a reservation in this belief with regard to particular passages, because they appear to us to affirm what we can never be persuaded the Deity would have ordained, and because we conceive that in executing the same design he would have selected a mode much less complicated and refined, and more level to the apprehension of ordinary understandings.

This conduct and this language are altogether inadmissible in the examination of facts which are to be established by historical testimony, and are indeed, at all times, far removed from that diffidence in our own faculties and that perfect reliance on the divine perfections, so congenial with the condition of human frailty.

PHOCLIS

IN SOPHOCLIS DIP. COLON.

EMENDATIONES.

EMENDATIONES hæ maximam quidem in partem, jam decennio prope scriptæ diu meas inter schedas latebant, tempus sese proferendi opportunum expectantes. Quam vero occasionem nemo Divom promittere posset,' eam fortuna en! obtu

lit ultro.' Fabula etenim hac Sophoclea nuperrime bis edita, meam quoque ipsius symbolam volui conferre in cœnam a Reisigio Elmsleioque lautissime instructam. Idque eo libentius feci, quo perspexi melius plurima esse loca duumviris illis vel neglecta penitus vel arte, qua par fuit, non tractata. Neque id mirum cuivis oportet esse videatur in fabula, quæ una inter omnes Sophocleas maxime corrupta multorum ingenia potest exercere, cujusque sanatio, 'siquid recte curatum velis,' medicis ejusmodi committenda est, quibus, morbo penitus cognito, remedium sit facile inventu, aut, iisdem de remedio desperantibus, peritiorem quibus opperiri hominis fuerit parum sani.

In literis Græcis, quæ quidem ad res scenicàs pertinent, plane is hospes fuerit, qui nescierit fabularum Sophoclearum esse recensiones duas e veteribus Grammaticis profectas; quarum altera primitus ab Aldo, altera postea fuit a Turnebo typis impressa. Ex his duabus, quoties inter se dissideant, quod sæpè faciunt, toties Aldina scriptura majorem sibi auctoritatem vindicat apud Brunckium, Reisigium, Elmsleiumque; mihi vero Turnebiana visa est sæpius verba Sophoclis exhibere. In vulgus quidem levis, ut cum Reisigio loquar, fama permeavit de recensione Turnebiana minus vetusta, utpote a Demetrio Triclinio instituta; cujus in caput immerentis iram omnem Brunckius evomuit. At Grammaticus άvávuμos, Triclinio nondum nato ipse mortuus, potuit Anti-Triclinianis dicere, 'me, me, adsum, qui feci, in me convertite tela; feci etenim, ut Sophoclis verba genuina ne sint oblivioni tradita; nec tamen intercedo, quo minus vapulet Triclinius pugnis maxime ponderosis, qui meas partes, subdititius plane Sosias, agere voluit, interque cantus luscinia Sophocleæ iyxãola, more asini, ausus est impudentissime. Τουτονι γοῦν, παι Θύριγγα, παῖε, παῖε τῷ ξύλῳ. Verum, facetiis hujusmodi omissis, ad quas animum meum allexit Reisigius in Enarrat. ad Œd. c. 513. suo versu in Brunckium non optime facto, ad recensionem redeo Triclinianam; in qua Demetrius quidem habet aliquam partem, præcipue inter ea, quæ pertinent ad cantus Chori et metra hic illic resarcienda; nihil vero majus fecit, neque facere potuit. Quo tempore vixerit ille vetustior Grammaticus, se nescire fatetur Elmsleius, neque ego possum dicere. Id unum scio, eum ante Suidæ tempora vixisse. Suidas enim, qui, sæculo P. C. N. circiter undecimo, Scholia in Sophoclem descripsit, semper fere verba Sophoclis ipsa citat, Aldinæ scripturæ congruentia. At collatis inter se lectionibus variis, quas utraque recensio exhibent, liquido patet Aldinam de Pseudo-Tricliniana per lapsus scribarum devenisse. Illud etiam adjungo, quod Pseudo-Triclinianæ VOL. XXIX. Cl. JI. NO. LVIII.

U

« AnteriorContinuar »