Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

CONTENTS

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

128

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Erratum. In the article on Gothic Architecture in our last number, the plates to
Dr. Moller's work are inadvertently described as being lithographic; they are, in fact,
line engraving. The work referred to in the text is by Dr. Moller (of Darmstadt.)
There is another splendid work by Mr. Möller (of Carlsruhe) descriptive of the elegant
church of Oppenheim, complete in three livraisons.

THE

BRITISH CRITIC,

OCTOBER, 1826.

ART. I.-The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian. By John, Bishop of Bristol. Cambridge, 1826.

WE are not without hopes that the study of the Fathers is becoming more popular and more frequent in this country. It is true, that a Bibliotheca Patrum, in sundry folio volumes, does not present any very attractive appearance to the young divine. Even after the most critical precautions in rejecting spurious works, after making every reasonable deduction for Latin translations and redundant commentaries, enough remains to satisfy the most voracious, and to alarm the ordinary student. Added to this, so much has been said of the absurd notions, the false reasoning, the superstition and credulity of the early Fathers; so much abuse has been cast upon them by writers of all denominations and persuasions, that many persons begin their studies with a strong prejudice against them, and feel convinced that nothing is to be gained by wading through the pages of men who lived fifteen hundred years ago, whose style is uncouth and barbarous, whose interpretations of scripture are fanciful and unwarranted, and who, after all, are no better authority, upon matters of faith, than writers of our own country and our own times.

Such is the tone in which it has been the fashion to speak of the Fathers; and such, perhaps, is the opinion entertained of them by many, who only see their ponderous works on the shelves of a public library. We are not prepared to affirm, that all the charges which are brought against their writings are unfounded the style of some of them is, undoubtedly, uncouth and barbarous; but we cannot seriously bring this as a reason for not studying them, if the matter contained in their works repay the labour. No person would speak of the lan

will

[blocks in formation]

guage of the New Testament as a model of pure Greek; nor are the arguments of St. Paul always thrown into a form which would stand the test of modern criticism; but if this fact, which all are willing to allow, affords no ground for a neglect of the New Testament, we must not plead the style of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp, as being too barbarous to induce us to peruse them.

It has been said, that Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others, adopted many of the Platonic notions, and that the language of the Platonic school is deeply impressed upon their writings. This, perhaps, may partly be true; but no person would speak of all the dialogues of Plato as being remarkable for their good sense, or their edifying discussions; and yet we read them, that we may gather from them certain facts and principles of Grecian philosophy; and why, it may be asked, may not those who wish to ascertain the religious doctrines of the second and third centuries, consent to study Justin or Clement, although they are liable to meet with the subtleties and absurdities of the Platonic school? We have no hesitation in saying, without any reference to the doctrines which they contain, that the works of Clement of Alexandria are entertaining and full of information. The classical and the critical scholar will find something to engage his attention in every page, and if any person should lay them aside as wearisome and unprofitable, the defect is, perhaps, not in the book, but in the attainments of him who attempted to read what he was not qualified to understand.

Hippolytus, Origen, and Dionysius of Alexandria, naturally had their attention directed to the heresies which were so rapidly multiplying in their days; and the reader must expect to find more polemical discussion, with less of miscellaneous information, in those early champions of our faith. But this, surely, will be no reason for neglecting their works, with those who expect to find a Christian divine treating of divinity; and if their style is objected to as barbarous and corrupt, we ask how many books are there extant which are written in good Greek? We have nothing to say against the Attic writers being made the models of composition in our schools and universities, nor would there be any objection to a single volume of Xenophon or Plato being used as the text-book for Greek lectures; but whoever is fond of studying the writers of Greece in their own language, will soon find that he must lower the standard of his criticism, and that he must consent to shock his ears and his taste with a successive variety of barbarisms and corruptions. No person treats Polybius with contempt because

his style is bad; and whoever continues the perusal of Greek history, after he has finished Thucydides and Xenophon, must bid a final adieu to Attic elegancies. If the Byzantine historians are tolerated, we must put in a claim for the Fathers, both ante-nicene and post-nicene. We mean to confine ourselves in the present article to the former, but if we were to compare Chrysostom and the Gregorys with any writer of Greek who lived within a century of their own time, or, indeed, with any writer of the lower empire, we imagine that the homilies of the one will be decidedly preferred for language and composition, to the declamations or the histories of the other.

We certainly cannot commend the earliest Latin Fathers as elegant or agreeable in their style. Of Tertullian and his African Latin we shall have occasion to speak presently; but Cyprian, who had taught oratory by profession, was allowed, even by the Heathens, to have an elegant mind, and to have been unfortunate only in his subject; and if we wish to see the absurdities and inconsistencies of Paganism powerfully exposed, we shall look in vain for anything more conclusive or more entertaining than the works of Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius.

Another charge brought against the Fathers is, that they interpret scripture erroneously, and apply passages in a manner which common sense and sound criticism reject as preposterous. We do not mean to enter into a defence of the allegorical and mystical interpretations of Origen and his school. Undoubtedly, in such systems, there is much which weakens the defence of Christianity, and the practice is dangerous in the extreme; but we contend, that the existence of such misapplications furnishes no argument against the study of the Fathers. Though Origen applied scripture unfairly, he must have believed the doctrines which he was labouring to establish; and to ascertain what these doctrines were is a sufficient reason for studying his works; to which it may be added, that his numerous quotations, with whatever view he introduces them, have a great intrinsic value, inasmuch as they preserve to us much more ancient readings than those of any manuscript which has come down to us. No person, indeed, can pretend to have a critical knowledge of the sacred text without being versed in the writings of the Fathers.

The last accusation which we shall notice, is that of supersti→ tion and credulity. Upon this point there has been much misrepresentation and much begging of the question. The persons who are determined to reject all miracles except those of the apostles, must necessarily think that the Fathers were superstitious and credulous; but they must think more than this: they cannot acquit them of wilfully fabricating and circulating stories

« FöregåendeFortsätt »