« AnteriorContinuar »
is speaking of nature as one of the
E. B. R.
sent the Jewish phylactery; for in that case, why do they not appear on them all? Why not carry the conjecture further, and argue that the arrow-headed character was the ancient Hebrew? Again, several of the figures have trowsers or boots, which is certainly no part of the Jewish costume. The cap of the last in the procession is imagined by Sir Robert to be "an exaggerated representation of the mitre worn by the sacerdotal tribe of Levi;" which conjecture may perhaps be admitted when the tribe of Levi can be shewn to be one of the Ten Tribes of Israel. In Belzoni's plates of the tomb of Psammis, are some figures which
Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. are assumed to be beyond contra
ALLEGED BAS-RELIEF OF THE
IN Mr. Horne's truly valuable Introduction to the critical Study of the Scriptures (Vol. I. p. 222. 5th edition), I find an account of a bas-relief, which Sir R. K. Porter, from whose travels the description is taken, considers as a representationof the Ten Tribes of Israel carried into captivity by Shalmaneser; and which Mr. Horne has therefore adduced as affording a confirmation of the truth of the Scripture history. But, in reality, the meaning assigned to the basrelief is at best only conjectural; and the cause of truth is rather injured than aided by doubtful evidence. It does not appear to me that the sculpture in question has any relation to the event supposed to be commemorated by it. There are, it is true, ten captives delineated; but, with the exception of this circumstance, which may be accidental, and which, in the absence of other proof, is at least indecisive, I can discover no point of correspondence. Only two of the supposed Israelites have beards;
diction Jewish, because they have "black beards, black hair bound by a simple white fillet, and striped and fringed kirtles;"- an appearance not very closely resembling that of the figures in Sir R. K. Porter's basrelief, some of which have "bald heads," or "heads covered with a caul;" the greater part mustachios, and no beards; some "long robes," others "trowsers or boots."
For these reasons I cannot but esteem Sir Robert's supposition a fanciful one, grounded on nothing more substantial than a bare possibility: and I trust that Mr. Horne will see the propriety of expunging it from the next edition of his excellent work; the materials of which, consisting as they do of "gold, silver, and precious stones," are too valuable to be mixed up with the "wood, hay, and stubble" of conjectures like the above.
ON CLASSICAL QUOTATIONS IN
the rest, as may be seen by Sir R. K. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. Porter's plate, have merely mustachios on the upper lip. The arrowheaded characters which completely cover the lower garment of one of the figures can hardly be meant to repre
your Number for December last, Anti-Horatius strongly censures the introduction of quotations from the Greek and Latin classics, in
works upon serious and sacred subjects; and, without entirely exemping your own publication from the charge, he hints at even some editions of the Holy Bible itself, which offend in this respect. There is expressed in his paper a sense of the paramount importance of sacred things, which a Christian cannot observe without a feeling of affection and respect; and there doubtless is a possibility of carrying the practice, which he proscribes, to an excess, offensive at once to good taste and to piety. But I am happy to find that you are not prepared to go all lengths with him: because, to name no other reasons, I apprehend that there are minds so constituted, that they may be attracted to a devotional work, even by a happy classical quotation prefixed to it or contained in it; and that the attention, which has thus been conciliated, may, through the Divine blessing, be followed by most important results. Possibly AntiHoratius himself may be induced to revise his opinion, and to think that even an annotation on the Scriptures is not profaned by a classical quotation, when he is reminded that classical quotations are to be found in the sacred text of the Scriptures themselves; and that St. Paul did not disdain, now and then, to enforce his argument by the introduction of a scrap of heathen Greek. Certainly, when we see this great Apostle appealing to the poetry of Aretus (Acts xvii. 28), of Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33), and of Epimenides (Titus i. 12), we cannot conclude that he deemed the occasional introduction of an apt classical allusion, an inappropriate method of giving effect to the wish, expressed even by your correspondent himself," of making heathen learning altogether subservient to the doctrines of the cross of Christ." N. J.
EXCEPTIONABLE TENDENCY OF
Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.
OBSERVING in your Number for May, an article on Phrenology, in reference to morality, I am induced to draw your attention to a circumstance which occurred a few weeks since.
Every Monday fortnight, during the session of the Phrenological Society, a conversation is held, at which ladies are present, when some subject connected with phrenology, so-called, but more truly cranioscopy, is discussed. At one of these parties, Dr. Epps read a paper on the ameliorating, sympathy-producing, and ennobling tendencies of phrenology; and in the course of his remarks, endeavoured to prove that the Church of England is founded on principles, and sanctions practices, quite opposed to the constitution of the human mind, as discovered by phrenology. His views are developed in a work expressly on the subject, in which he urges a distinction between piety and religion; endeavours to shew that mere piety without religion, which, he says is very common, is the shadow without the substance: it is the devotional feeling without the proper cause for its production. He calls mere piety "outward devotion," and gives several illustrations of this outward devotion; in some of which he is pleased to attack various practices of the Church of England, particularly that of dedicating sacred edifices to the service of God, which he tells us is an indubitable relic of Popery, or perhaps, more distantly viewed, of Paganism. Were then Moses and Aaron Papists, or was Solomon a Pagan? If the practice of consecration, in the present age, were as evil as Dr. Epps alleges, it at least originated in a Divine sanction; but then Solomon, with all his wisdom, was not a phrenologist !
NEED OF ADDITIONAL BISHOPS FOR THE COLONIES.
Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.
Ir is most gratifying to observe the rapid progress with which Christianity is spreading over the face of the earth. From all sides we behold labourers pressing into the vineyard to preach to the nations the great doctrines of salvation. But while in this I see much to rejoice the heart, and to excite us to persevere in the great work which we have, by the blessing of God, undertaken, still, as a member of our venerable Episcopal church, I observe one subject for regret, which can only be altered by the civil power, assisted by the cordial concurrence of the superiors in the church. There is but one bishop for the whole of our extensive and increasing colonies in the East. Now it is both evident and is proved by lamentable experience, that no one man can discharge the onerous duties entailed upon him by this situation: it is physically impossible; and yet the diocese remains undivided, and excellent men are found ready to undertake the weighty and important duties of its spiritual overseer. The matter has been again and again represented in the proper quarter; but the evil exists. The usually large income annexed to the office of a bishop in the present circumstances of our establishment is the chief difficulty. But why not in the case of our foreign dependencies increase the number of overseers with a reduced income? During a vacancy such an alteration might be effected; and something might also be done at once, without injury to any man. If bishops were appointed for Southern Africa, for Australia, for Madras, Bombay, and Ceylon, the bishop of Calcutta would still have more than sufficient duty to perform. The new incomes might be fixed at such a sum as would not be a serious object to the civil government; and thus
the offices of the church might be faithfully discharged, and confirmıation, ordination, and the enforcing of good discipline not be left to the casual call of bishops in their passage to other quarters. The advantage derived to our church, and our common Christianity, from this disposition, would be incalculable.
But it is objected, that our church would fall in the estimation of the world, if our foreign bishops were increased in number, and had not incomes far larger than ordinary presbyters. But this is not found to be the case in other religious communities. On the contrary, the Christian church rises by humility; and the estimation of the world is to be sought, and may be obtained, by a holy life, by pastoral diligence and affection, and by zeal in the cause of religion, rather than by the glittering ornaments of outward shew. No true Episcopalian would refuse to acknowledge the new bishops as our spiritual superiors, or be ashamed of them, because they resembled those of the primitive church, or the sister-episcopal church in the United States of America. I would not withhold even a large income from a bishop where circumstances allow of it; for no man living has greater opportunities of doing good with his pecuniary resources; but where the choice is between having no bishop at all, where one is much wanted, or having one with only a very moderate stipend, there surely cannot be a doubt what ought to be the decision. Why not at once select some venerable clergyman at several of our dependencies, allowing him, where his whole time would not be wanted for Episcopal duties, to retain his chaplaincy, and affording him a small honorary stipend to meet unavoidable expenses, while he still consorted with his brethren, being removed from them only by ecclesiastical dignity without affecting superiority of civil station. If I lived in Ohio, though I would not grudge the splendid revenues of
ON SIR W. SCOTT'S DENIAL OF THE WAVERLEY NOVELS.
Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.
The author of the Waverley Novels, after having entered, on antecedent occasions, into some explanations respecting his disavowals of all knowledge of the writer of those works, states more distinctly in his preface to the new edition of them his motives for those disavowals, and proceeds to an elaborate vindication of his conduct. The tenor of the reflections which the past denials will have excited in many considerate minds, will not be altered by the defence which he brings forward. The effect however which may have been produced on the private judgment of individuals respecting the author himself, is a personal subject which I mean not to pursue; but it is very important, that palpably false morality, supported by palpably insufficient reasonings, should not obtain currency in public opinion through the influence of a name of high reputation and popularity.
The various motives which Sir Walter Scott specifies as having induced him to commence, and deliberately to continue, the long course of the denials in question are not of a class which belongs to this discussion. That the concealment was his humour, was convenient, was gratifying, were points unimportant to the public, and were to be settled by himself with himself. They are motives which no by-stander is concerned to investigate. Our concern, as friends to pure and religious morality, is with the means employed to preserve the concealment, and the arguments advanced
in vindication of those means. these topics Sir Walter Scott may justly demand to state his own case. In the preface to which I have alluded (I quote the passage from one of the newspapers, not being myself a reader or purchaser of novels), he speaks as follows.
My desire to remain concealed in the character of the author of these novels, subjected me occasionally to awkward embarrassments, as it sometimes happened that those who were sufficiently intimate with me would put the question in direct terms. In this case, only one of three courses could be followed. Either I must have surrendered my secret—or have returned an equivocating answer-or, finally, must have stoutly and boldly denied the fact. The first was a sacrifice which I conceive no one had a right to force from me, since I alone was concerned in the matter. The alternative of rendering a doubtful answer must have left me open to the degrading suspicion that I was not unwilling to assume the merit (if there was any) which I dared not absolutely lay claim to; or those who might think more justly of me must have received such an equivocal answer as an indirect avowal. I therefore considered myself entitled, like an accused person put upon trial, to refuse giving my own evidence to my own conviction, and flatly to deny all that could not be proved against me. At the same time I usually qualified my denial by stating, that, had I been the author of these works, I would have felt myself quite entitled to protect my secret by refusing my own evidence, when it was asked for to accomplish a discovery of what I desired to conceal."
In the first place then, what was the course which Sir Walter Scott adopted? It was, by his own statement, stoutly, boldly, flatly, perseveringly, to deny the truth. It was gross, deliberate, determinate falsehood; falsehood steadily practised whenever occasion rendered
it commodious, year after year, until humour was gratified, or convenience suited.
to any human being unless it were to the author; and to him only because "such was his humour." Therefore, to preserve such a secret, deliberate and persevering falsehood was lawful. Is a word of refutation here necessary? The principle essentially involved in this defence is, That whenever a question is proposed by A to B, which A has no right to require B to answer, B may lawfully use falsehood in reply. Thus, were a person to ask me whether I ever was at a puppet shew, and on some ground of humour or convenience I was disinclined to answer truly, I should be at liberty to deny that I was ever present at one, though I had attended twenty during the preceding year. More serious illustrations of such morality might be framed.
Such was the course of proceeding;-and what is the defence? From that defence we may at once dismiss the attempt to represent an analogy between Sir W. Scott's flat denials, and the case of an accused person pleading Not Guilty in a court of justice. There is not the slightest analogy or moral similarity between the two cases. The writing of the Waverley Novels was not charged on the author as a crime: were the fact proved against him, the law had no penalty to inflict. But, further, the essence of the negation in the two instances is diametrically and totally different. The denial of a robbery on the part of a culprit before a Judge, is not even supposed to persuade any man that the accused did not commit the robbery: but the deliberate purpose of the denials on the part of the author of Waverley, was to persuade men that he was not the author. Had he believed that they would have no more persuasive effect than the plea of Not Guilty from the lips of a criminal on trial, he would not have taken the trouble of uttering them.
Of the remainder of the defence it is not more difficult to dispose. A doubtful answer, it is said, would have implied a degrading suspicion that Sir Walter Scott was not duly sensible of the merit of Waverley. Therefore, to prevent such a suspicion, deliberate and persevering falsehood was lawful! Does the conclusion deserve a single word in refutation? Or a doubtful answer would have had, like a direct avowal, the effect of discovering the secret. And what if the secret had been discovered? What was the secret? That a certain person wrote certain novels a secret of no moment in its results
In the preceding observations, which it would have been culpable not to put strongly, I would be understood to speak rather concerning the moral topics of the case, than concerning the individual, in various points of view so highly respectable, to whom it has been impossible not to refer. I ought too well to remember the warning," Consider thyself, lest thou also be tempted," to venture to be confident that had I been in the circumstances of the author of Waverley, I should have acted better. With respect to the public, I am anxious that his authorityshould not lead them into evil. And with respect to himself I am sincerely solicitous that he may re examine the subject, and under aspects to which he seems not to have paid adequate regard; in a word, that he may fully inquire by the light of Divine revelation what are those principles and that conduct which alone can be acceptable to a God of truth.