« ÎnapoiContinuați »
rican tourist. We understand that, in 1826, Messieurs Strangeways and Anson passed over the ground, on the Gaza road from Petra, to the point where it deviates for Hebron. On the part of Mr. Stephens's course, which we have thus designated as new, it is well known that a great public road existed in the later days of the Roman empire, and that several cities were located immediately upon it
. Mr. Stephens discovered some ruins, but his state of health, unfortunately, prevented a minute investigation. Those which he encountered are represented as forming rude and shapeless masses ; there were no columns, no blocks of marble, or other large stones, indicating architectural greatness. The Pentinger Tables place Helusa in this immediate vicinity, and, but for the character of the ruins seen, we might have supposed them to be the rernnants of that city.
The latter part of our author's second volume is occupied with his journeyings in the Holy Land, and, principally, with an account of his visit to Jerusalem. What relates to the Dead Sea we are induced to consider as, upon the whole, the most interesting, if not the most important portion of his book. It was his original intention to circumnavigate this lake, but the difficulty of procuring a boat proved an obstacle not to be surmounted. He traversed, nevertheless, no little extent of its shores, bathed in it, saw distinctly that the Jordan does mingle with its waters, and that birds floated upon it, and flew over its surface.
But it is time that we conclude. Mr. Stephens passed through Samaria and Galilee, stopping at Nablous, the ancient Sychem; the burial-place of the patriarch Joseph ; and the ruins of Sebaste ; crossed the battle-plain of Jezreel ; ascended Mount Tabor ; visited Nazareth, the Lake of Genesareth, the cities of Tiberias and Saphet, Mount Carmel, Acre, Sour, and Sidon. At Beyroot he took passage for Alexandria, and thence, finally returned to Europe.
The volumes are written in general with a freedom, a frankness, and an utter absence of pretension, which will secure them the respect and good-will of all parties. The author professes to have compiled his narrative merely from “ brief notes and recollections," admitting that he has probably fallen into errors regarding facts and impressions-errors he has been prevented from seeking out and correcting by the urgency of other occupations since his return. We have, therefore, thought it quite as well not to trouble our readers, in this cursory review, with references to parallel travels, now familiar, and whose merits and demerits are sufficiently well understood.
We take leave of Mr. Stephens with sentiments of hearty respect. We hope it is not the last time we shall hear from him. He is a traveller with whom we shall like to take other journeys. Equally free from the exaggerated sentimentality of Chateaubriand, or the sublimated, the too French enthusiasm of Lamartine on the one hand, and on the other from the degrading spirit of utilitarianism, which sees in mountains and waterfalls only quarries and manufacturing sites, Mr. Stephens writes like a man of good sense and sound feeling.
ART. VI.-1. Standard Writings, adapted to the use of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Volume IV, containing, A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, and of the Apology of Justin Martyr: with an Introduction and brief Notes illus trative of the Ecclesiastical History of the first two Centuries. By the Rev. TEMPLE CHEVALIER, B. D., late Fellow and Tutor of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, England. Edited by W. R. Whittingham. New-York : Protestant Episcopal Press. 1834. 12mo. pp. 202.
2. Christian Spectator, Volume Fifth, Number Eight.
We propose to discuss in this article some positions advanced some time ago in the Christian Spectator, as the writer in that journal has come to conclusions concerning the Epistles of IGNATIUS which to us seem wholly unauthorized. We are the more persuaded to do this, as it affords an opportunity to lay before our readers some considerations relative to these epistles which have not been generally attended to; and we have chosen the title of the article in the Spectator as that is one of the latest direct attacks upon their genuineness, and because the article in question has of late been frequently referred to as conclusive. We also place at the head of this article a volume of the Standard Works, as containing the best English translation of these Epistles in the most accessible form, to which we beg to refer our readers as authority for the translations we have generally adopted.
We do not propose to go into an extended examination of all the objections which have ever been urged against these epistles, but to notice only those which, in the opinion of the writer in the Spectator, are important; and to make such
brief replies to them as will enable our readers to form an opinion of their nature and merits. But as there are some things about which we differ, so also there are some things in which we agree. It is agreed, then, that Ignatius was a distinguished man and Christian-that he was Bishop of Antioch—that he was sentenced to death by the Emperor Trajan, and sent to Rome to die—that on his passage he wrote epistles to several churches--and that he died at Rome either A. D. 107 or 116. It is also further agreed that we have two copies of seven epistles purporting to have been written by Ignatius, differing in many essential points; that the larger of these copies teaches Arianism, and that the shorter teaches the true doctrine of Scripture in regard to the Divinity of Christ ; that Eusebius had the same seven Epistles when he wrote his Ecclesiastical History, about A. D. 324, which we now have; and that they were, probably, the shorter ones. With these points of agreement from which to start, we shall proceed to inquire into the probable genuineness of the epistles attributed to Ignatius.
But before we proceed in the investigation, we ought to notify such of our readers as may not be already aware of the fact, that the dispute concerning these epistles is twofold, one touching their genuineness, the other relating to their theology, -questions which are entirely distinct in their nature, but yet are often confounded. Concerning the latter point, the question is whether they teach a Presbyterian or an Episcopal organization of the Church; and if an Episcopal, whether it be a Congregational or Diocesan Episcopacy. But as these points cannot affect the question of their genuineness, we shall not allude to them any further than the objections urged against them in a historical point of view, in which light only we propose to consider them, shall render it necessary. We therefore approach the subject with the simple historical inquiry : Are the epistles purporting to have been written by Ignatius, the genuine works of that Martyr, or are they the forgeries of a later age ?
In answer to this inquiry, the writer in the Spectator replies :-" Upon a fair estimate of the whole evidence for and against them, the preponderance appears fairly to be on the side of their heving been a forgery, made about a century
i The Martyrium Ignatii places his death in the 9th year of Trajan, which corresponds with A. D. 107. (sec. 2.) and this date is followed by the writers of the Romish Church; but Bp. Pearson supposes the date should read in the 19th year of Trajan, and that this was A. D. 116. Diss. de an. Ign. Wake. Apos. Pat. Mosh. Ecc. Hist, in loco.
after the death of the venerable Martyr whose name they bear.” (p. 396.) As this conclusion purports to have been drawn from “à fair estimate of all the evidence, for and against them,” we shall give the conelusions of two other men of similar religious prejudices, who had probably taken quite as “ fair a view of all the evidence" as the writer in the Spectator. MOSHEIM : “ The seven epistles of Ignatius, written while on his way to Rome, as published A. D. 1616 by J. Vossius, from a Florentine Ms. 1. e. the shorter copy,) are by most writers accounted genuine. To this opinion I cheerfully accede.” DR. MURDOCK :2 “ Moderate men of various sects, and especially Lutherans, are disposed to admit the genuineness of the epistles in the shorter form, but to regard them as interpolated and altered."
These opinions may be sufficiently conclusive to satisfy most of our readers ; but as there are many who, we doubt not, will be glad to see a summary of arguments for and against, we shall give a brief synopsis of them before we proceed to consider those points which it is our purpose more particularly to discuss, knowing also that this will be more satisfactory to all, than being obliged to take things from others on trust. We shall generally give the objections of the reviewer in the Spectator in his own language, though in some few instances we shall be obliged to give the substance of them, but never in such a manner as to change or omit any important idea.
Objection 1. " The account of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, which has been defended as ancient and authentic, disagrees with the relation Eusebius has given of his progress to Rome. The former declares that he sailed from Selucia to Smyrna, thence to Troas, and from thence to Neapolis. The latter relates that he passed through Asia, and confirmed the congregations throughout every city where he came.” (p. 393.)
Reply. The alleged difference between the two accounts, has no existence, save in the mind of the objector. The Martyrdom of Ignatius informs us, “that he went from Antioch to Selucia, where he set sail for Smyrna,—that having arrived at Smyrna, he went on shore and tarried some time,—that from this place he wrote letters to several Churches, who came to meet him by their governors, and one epistle to the Church at
1 Ecc. Hist. B. I. cent. 1. pt. 2. c. 2. Murdock's Transl. 2 Notes on above, p. 92, n. 31. 3 The title of the piece in English is, A relation of the Martyrdom of Ignatius. The genuineness of this is never doubted, except by those who deny that he wrote any epistles. It is quoted by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, without any intimation of its being spurious.
Rome,--that he sailed from Smyrna to Troas,-that from Troas he proceeded and landed at Neapolis, whence he proceeded on foot." The account by Eusebius, which is said to differ from this, contains only such particulars as could be gathered from the epistles themselves. It relates, that, being carried through Asia under a most rigid custody, “ he fortified the different Churches in the cities where he tarried,—that when he came to Smyrna, he wrote one epistle to the Church at Ephesus,-another to the Church at Magnesia,--another to the Church of the Trallians, and another to the Church at Rome. But after he had left Smyrna, he wrote an exhortation from Troas to those in Philadelphia, to Polycarp, and to the Smyrnians." Eusebius, therefore, says not a syllable in addition to what is contained in the account of his Martyrdom, nor does he once allude to the route pursued, or the mode in which he travelled, nor a word in contradiction to it. But the account of his Martyrdom gives many facts of which Eusebius takes no notice. Besides, it is admitted that Eusebius had the same epistles which we now have; and of these, those directed to the Churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Trallia, and Rome are dated at Smyrna ; and those to Philadelphia, Smyrna, and Polycarp at Troas. Here Eusebius breaks off his account of Ignatius, but the epistle to Polycarp informs us that he had not written to all the Churches, because he must suddenly sail from Troas to Neapolis." (c. 8.)
Objection 2. “ If the larger épistles be claimed as genuine, their Arianism militates against their genuineness ; if the smaller, their opposition to that doctrine equally proves them supposititious.” (p. 393.)
Reply. It has not been shown, nor do we believe it can be, that there is any thing in the shorter epistles referring either directly or indirectly to the doctrines of Arius ; and if there is no such reference, merely asserting the truth of a scriptural doctrine which Arius subsequently denied, is of itself no more evidence that these epistles are forgeries, than the occurrence of similar passages in the Scriptures is evidence that they are forgeries. Besides, it is plain that if there is any intended opposition in these epistles to the doctrines of Arius, as uttered by himself, they must have been written after Arius lived ; and hence, upon the reviewer's own principles, these epistles could not have been written until some time in the fourth century, that
1 Martyr of Ign. cc. 3, 4, 5, Trans. Chevalier. pp. 101–103. 12mo. N. Y. 1834.
2 Ecc. Hist. L. 3. c. 36. pp. 121, 122. Trans. Cruse. 8vo. N. Y. 1833.