Page images
PDF
EPUB

ality his own. Such also were the papers ascribed to Shaks peare, about the close of the last century, and exposed by Mr. Malone. One circumstance regarding these it may be useful to note here, as bearing on a future portion of our argument. The spelling had been disguised, for the purpose of giving a more antiquated air to the language employed; but unfortunately the compilers adopted an orthography which not only did not agree with that of the age of Shakspeare, but which, from a diligent examination of well authenticated manuscripts from very early times, was proved never to have been in use at all. The phraseology was no less faulty; and one letter, professing to be from Queen Elizabeth to William Shakspeare, was addressed to him at the Globe by the Thames. The letter alludes to the Earl of Leicester, as then living. This nobleman died in 1588, and consequently the letter must have been written before that year; but the Globe Theatre did not open till 1594. The conclusion is inevitable, the letter is not genuine.

One more illustration of a somewhat different point shall close the present section. Its object will be, to show the strictures sometimes passed on suspicious passages in the writings of authors otherwise of good credit. The genuineness of a particular passage is often canvassed; but in this case the discussion is conducted on similar grounds to those just explained; what I here allude to are genuine passages, whose authenticity is called in question; and I shall select the well known story of the conversion of Constantine, as related by Eusebius, for an example. The historian tells us that he had the story from the mouth of the Emperor himself, who confirmed it by an oath. It was, that as Constantine marched against Maxentius, he beheld, just after noon, a glorious appearance in the sky, in the form of a cross, bearing an inscription, BY THIS CONQUER; and that the same night Christ stood before him in a vision, and bade him make a standard of a similar form, and bear it at the head of his army. The story consists of two parts; the appearance in the sky, and the vision. This last is of a nature precluding an appeal to corroborating circumstances; but the two are so connected, that if the former be true, there can be no difficulty in admitting the latter. The question therefore turns on the reality of the mid-day appearance. Now to this it is objected, first, that though an event of the

F

last consequence to the whole Christian Church, it is related only by Eusebius, and not so much as alluded to by any other extant writer of antiquity; secondly, that Eusebius himself has not inserted it in his Ecclesiastical History, but in the life of Constantine, and introduces it in a manner strongly indicating that he was desirous rather to put it on the authority of the Emperor, than to give it currency as a matter he himself believed; and thirdly, that though the appearance of the cross is said to have taken place at noon, and in the presence of the whole army, Eusebius appears never to have heard of it till it was told him by the Emperor, after an interval of twenty years; nor does he make any mention of subsequent inquiry, though many must have been alive who were present at the time; so that either no inquiry was made, or its result was unsatisfactory; and the great importance of the event makes this neglect the more strange, inexcusable, and suspicious. I need not bring forward the reasonings urged in vindication of Eusebius and the Emperor. It is not my intention to put the reader in possession of the whole controversy, with a view to its decision; but merely to show the nature of the touch-stone applied to every dubious fact, and the strict vigilance employed in sifting them to the bottom.

Enough I trust has now been said on this head to set forth the extreme difficulty of literary forgery. The impostor, we have seen, must be prepared to encounter the penetrating scrutiny of a host of lynx-eyed critics. To avoid error his learning must be superhuman, and his watchfulness extend to every syllable, for if he be betrayed into a single oversight, the chance of evading detection is small indeed. He is in danger of overreaching himself by his very precautions, and if, to avoid the double precipice, he abstain from much particularity, so far from standing him in any stead, this very abstinence will be imputed as designed, and be turned to his disadvantage, Now it requires no reasoning to show that the Christian Scriptures abound with the most minute details. Let the reader once more turn to the New Testament with this upon his mind; let him mark the continued reference to public persons; kings, emperors, governors, and officers of every grade; let him collect the allusions to Jewish, Greek, and Roman customs; let him set down the particularities of time and place as

they occur. Let him further remember that the history of the New Testament comprises a period of upwards of sixty years, full of complicated changes; and that its scene of action is co-extensive, or nearly so, with the Roman Empire: and then let him be told that a diligent comparison of its several parts with each other, and with contemporary authorities has detected scarcely a single discrepancy of any moment, in any of the particulars to which we have alluded. I think he cannot fail to regard this circumstance as one of no trivial importance: and that it may receive its due consideration, it ought to be fully understood that the statement which I have made is not hazarded on light and insufficient grounds. It may safely be asserted that so much time, talent, and anxious research has never been spent upon any subject as upon that of which I am speaking. The treasures of all antiquity have been ransacked for materials to elucidate it; and the character and principles of those by whom the inquiry has been conducted is worthy of our most serious consideration.

For the examination has not been left solely in the hands of friends and defenders. Perhaps we might, not unfairly, classify our authorities, in this particular, under three heads. The first of them will include Divines, whose direct and immediate object has been to explain and illustrate the sacred narrative; and who, in the prosecution of their design, have diligently examined the entire range of extant classical writers, for the express purpose of comparing them with the Scriptures. These have been, for the most part, men whose honest candour ought to exempt them from the charge of partiality; but their testimony does not stand alone. A second class of enquirers is found in those whose taste or avocations have placed them among literary men rather than among divines. They may be Christians in name or in heart, and are no strangers to the word of God; but their main attention is directed to the illustration of other than ecclesiastical subjects. In the course of their reading, however, they do not fail to observe and point out such portions of their more peculiar field of labour, as have any bearing on our Scriptures; if for no other reason, and in no other manner, yet, at least, in the same way as they do in the case of other literary works which come under their

review. But thirdly, not a small proportion of those who have explored the remnants of antiquity have been enemies of the Christian faith; and they have added to learning the most profound, and ingenuity the most refined, a degree of rancour which only the keenest hatred could have supplied. But the violence of passion, if it fail to overwhelm the object of its resentment, both displays and increases the weakness of the aggressor, and gives fresh confidence to the assailed. The infidel admirers of the literature of Greece and Rome intended no service to Christianity; for they sought to undermine its defences. But their labours have rendered essential service. They have failed to shake the fabric which they ventured to assault, and instead of sapping, they have only displayed more openly the firm solidity of its foundations.

I must not, however, be understood to assert that no minor discrepancies with profane writers have been pointed out, or no omissions discovered. Of these I shall speak hereafter. It will be my business, in a future chapter, to show that in cases without number the coincidence between the facts directly stated, or what is of far greater weight, indirectly involved in our Scriptures, and those recorded by independent authors is most satisfactory and complete. When this has been done, it will be for the reader to judge whether such astonishing accuracy is to be overborne by a few isolated differences; or whether, in the case of conflicting statements, the presumption may not be in favour of the correctness of our books. Meanwhile I can only repeat, by way of assertion, that no discrepancy of any moment can be detected between our writers and the secular history of the period, perhaps I might say, none with any fact whatever supported by the authority of more than one historian ;—that is, none which can warrant the slightest shadow of a suspicion of spuriousness, or want of truth.

The negative character of this assertion forbids the possibility of demonstrating its correctness. The onus of producing such a serious contradiction as will overturn it, lies with the objector, if any be disposed to object. Το prove that there is no contradiction we must transcribe every extant author of the age of the Apostles entire, and then we are dependent on the diligence of the reader to

compare them with our Scriptures. That our story has never been successfully assailed on this ground, we may depend upon it, is because it is unassailable; and if So, I will put it to any man who boasts himself a lover of impartial dealing, whether I am asking too much in urging him to the further prosecution of the inquiry? Arrived at this stage of the investigation, the retrospect is not surely so discouraging as to justify its being dropped. I will not yet press the matter further; but I will entreat him to consider if there be not enough to make it worth going on; nay, to make it incumbent on him to go on, for where nothing appears to cast suspicion upon a witness, it is surely unfair not to allow him to give his testimony to the end, even if his tale be marvellous, or one which we are reluctant to find true. The direct and positive proof of truth, carries with it the necessary absence of every mark of forgery; but antecedent to such positive proof, this absence is of great service, and gives a real presumption of fidelity.

« EelmineJätka »