Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ral obligation; nor any promise, that it should be offered with effect to the worshipper."-pp. 310-311.

In the next place, with respect to the doctrine of sanctification by the Holy Spirit; the promise of the Holy Spirit, as an active power of sanctification in the heart of man, formed no part of the law, but belongs exclusively to the New Covenant of the Gospel:*

"Shall we then say, that the sanctifying graces of God's Spirit were altogether withholden from all who lived under the Mosaic covenant? Certainly not: because, had this been the case, we should not have read, as we now do, of holy men, living under that law, whose faith and piety were acceptable to God. To assert, with regard to these characters, that the principle of sanctification was, or could be, derived from any other source than the Spirit of God; can never be maintained by any but à Pelagian. The true state of the case is explained with admirable clearness and brevity by Bishop Bull: The Spirit of God was given under the law, but not by virtue of the law.""t-p. 312.

Of the remaining chapters, the VIIIth insists on the harmonious consistency which pervades the various dispensations and successive epochs of revealed religion, as affording the most convincing evidence of its truth. The IXth and Xth, in which the want of antiquity and universality in the scheme of revelation are considered, are thrown in "mantisse loco," and, to say the truth, seem rather out of place; they contain, however, some ingenious and forcible arguments, and are marked throughout by that spirit of sincere and enlightened piety, which shines in every page of this truly Christian writer. We will conclude our extracts from the present work with the following eloquent passage:

"Thus doth the whole body of Scripture, however detached may be its parts, however varied its temporary and relative provisions, exhibit to the view one united system. This harmonious character is principally seen, in the concurrent reference of all its parts to the plan of our redemption through the sacrifice of Christ. Every separate portion of revealed religion has a connection, nearer or more distant, with this leading purpose. Each distinct provision is subordinate and subservient to this. It is either auxiliary to it, or illustrative of it. Redemption is the great centre-point of scriptural instruction: every other Divine ordinance either meets in this point, or diverges from it. The doctrine of the Atonement is the great and leading doctrine of the Bible from beginning to end. This was darkly intimated to fallen man, before he was expelled from the abode of innocence and bliss,

Jer. xxxi. 33.

"Sub lege quidem, at non ex lege." Harm. Apost. Diss, II. c. xi. §. 4,

The sacrifices offered by the faithful immediately after the fall, were in unison with this intimation. Abraham rejoiced in it when he saw the day of Christ afar off. The bloody ordinances of the Levitical law shadowed out the same truth in emblem and mystery. The sweet psalmist of Israel spoke a congenial language, when he painted the sufferings of him who was to be the Saviour of men. In strains of mingled sadness and triumph, the prophetic song announced the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, who was bruised for our transgressions and wounded for our iniquities: and it bore also, in different ages of the Jewish church, a varied, yet harmonious, testimony, to the great Personage in whom that truth was substantially verified. The latest prophet under the Law, and the immediate harbinger of the Messiah, proclaims the same truth, when he announces Christ as the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. Christ himself declares the doctrine, he verifies, and bears witness to it in his death. The apostles proclaim our Redeemer, as him whom God hath set forth to be a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The holy martyrs under the agonies of death and torture testify the same. Nor does the attestation of it stop here. After the church militant hath maintained it throughout every stage of its warfare, the church triumphant takes up the heavenly theme, resounding it in hymns of exultation and praise to the end of time. It was first heard in the terrestrial Eden, and it ceases not to be heard in the songs of the blessed spirits who inhabit the celestial paradise : Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.' pp. 326-7.

[ocr errors]

*

ART. IV. ΑΙΣΧΥΛΟΥ ΧΟΗΦΟΡΟΙ. ESCHYLI CHOEPHORE. Ad fidem Manuscriptorum emendavit, Notas et Glossarium adjecit Carolus Jacobus Blomfield, S.T. P. Collegii SS. Trinitatis apud Cantabrigienses olim Socius. Cantabrigiæ, Typis ac sumtibus Academicis excudit Joannes Smith. Veneunt Londini apud J. Mawman. Cantabrigiæ apud J. Deighton et Filios, 1824.

IN proceeding to give an account of the progress of Dr. Blomfield's labours upon the father of Grecian tragedy, we have unfeigned satisfaction in knowing, that we are to review a work, not of Dr. Blomfield merely, but of the Bishop of Chester. The station of a writer indeed neither has, nor ought to have, the

* Rev. v. 12.

slightest effect upon the mind of him who proposes to give an impartial account of his performance; but we must be permitted to express our honest gratification, that so sound a classical scholar, as we know Dr. B. to be, and so good a parish priest, as we believe him to be, has attracted the notice of those, who have it most in their power to promote the interests of learning, and render substantial service to the cause of religion; and that he has been so appropriately seated in the episcopal chair, heretofore occupied by the stupendous learning, and the edifying piety of a Walton and a Pearson!

The name of Pearson, indeed, was an omen of good to his present successor, the editor of Eschylus; for it is well known that this truly learned prelate, amidst his episcopal duties and theological labours, found leisure to study and improve the text of this great tragedian.* The book before us contains some of these conjectures, as well as some concerning which Dr. Blomfield doubts whether he is to ascribe them to Pearson or to Portus. See Notes on vv. 411 and 503.

The learned editor has been permitted to avail himself of some conjectures, which appear to have been suggested by Portus and Auratus; and, probably, some readings from MSS. to which they had access. They occupy the margin of a copy of Eschylus, belonging to Mr. Mitford, and liberally communicated to the editor, as we learn from the preface to the work before us, as well as from the Cambridge Museum Criticum, (vol. ii. p. 488.)

These conjectural and other readings stamp additional value upon this edition; for, although the greater part coincide with suggestions, made independently by other scholars, yet in some instances they appear to be wholly new; and yet of such value, as occasionally to deserve admission into the text. See Notes on vv. 32, 122, 126, 146, 205, 211, 218, (where a conjecture of Auratus is permitted, and we think properly, to supersede the old reading,) 274, 277, 376, 483, &c.

We shall now proceed to mark more particularly some of the characteristic qualities of this edition; and, in so doing, shall select indifferently from the Notes and Glossary.

Gloss. v. 29. Here is quoted the celebrated passage from Ed. Col. 1623, where the argument is omitted; and which, upon that

* Dr. Butler says of Stanley's materials for a second edition, "Conjecturas adhibuerat nonnullas cum Casauboni, tum Joannis Pearsoni Episcopi Cestriensis."Præf. p. xx. In referring to Dr. Butler's edition of this most difficult author, we cannot help expressing a wish that some of the good fortune, which the last editor has experienced, may be extended to a man so learned, so excellent, and useful, as Dr. Butler of Shrewsbury.

account, most scholars, except Brunck, have agreed in pronouncing corrupt. Professor Porson, at Phoen. 5, restores it thus: "0éypa d' éžaipvηs Tivòs Deŵr ¿0wig." The last editor, however, of the Edipus Coloneus, the lamented Dr. Elmsley, thought the conjecture too bold, and that avτoy was to be retained; although he acknowledges that he knows of no authority for such a construction, as wooe with an accusative. He therefore conjectured, but somewhat timidly, "po. d'e. OεOÛ 'Owüğer avτór.” Our editor does not interpose his own judgment, but contents himself by marking Tos with an obelus, We side with Porson.

V. 53. "poßeîτai dé Tis." The Note and Glossary seem here at variance. The former says, "Clytemnestram innui puto; terretur autem quædam." But in the Glossary, TIS is explained "Unusquisque, pro was Tis." and this sense is illustrated, as usual, with great learning. No doubt, such is often the sense of Ts, as most of the passages quoted by our editor distinctly show. Still it is not the only sense. Tis is used by the tragedian in allusion to a person, whom the speaker is unwilling to name; and this we conceive to be the sense, admitted by our editor in his annotation, as belonging to the context. It is also used deLKTIK@s, as the critics say, where the speaker alludes to himself. Both these significations may be traced in a single passage, Antigone, 750. (Brunck.) Hæmon speaks DELKTIKOS, while the father replies angrily, conceiving that there is a threatening application to himself. See moreover Ajax, 786, 1138. Iph. Taur. 522, 548. (Markl.)

Gloss. 61. The following is satisfactory, from its learning as well as its fairness. "Aiappony. Ita ut diffluat, seu diluatur, adverbium est; non adjectivum, quod ait Schneiderus in Lexico, qui fingit vocabulum diappvoneis. Recte autem observavit Schutzius, hæc populari quadam superstitione intelligenda, ad nostram usque ætatem propagata, quæ maculam ex sanguine hominis injuste cæsi, in terram effuso, semper manere, nec elui posse fingebat. Noster Theb. 731.

« Ἐπεὶ δ ̓ ἂν αὐτοκτόνως
Αυτοδάϊκτοι θάνωσι,
Καὶ χθονία κόνις πίη
Μελαμπαγὲς αἷμα φοίνιον,
Τίς ἂν καθαρμοὺς πόροι;
Τίς ἄν σφε λούσειεν ;

"Conf. Sophocl. Ed. T. 1236. Eurip. El. 320, alua d'êτi πатρòs κατὰ στέγας Μέλαν σέσηπεν.”

Gloss. 63. "Alapépw. Differo, i. e. discerpo. EασπарáσσEL,

Schol. quam interpretationem pessimam vocat Heathius; pro bat vero Abreschius."

Abresch's judgment is to be preferred to Heath's; and the learned editor might have confirmed it by two passages in Horace. That ardent admirer and close imitator of Greek forms of speech, has twice used differo in the very sense here affixed to its prototype, diapépw :—

"Post, insepulta membra different lupi." Epod. v. 99.

"Fractosque remos differat." ib. x. 6.

In the Glossary on v. 65 and 91, a passage from the Eumenides, 644, Pors. is quoted :

[ocr errors]

“ ἀνδρὸς δ' ἐπειδὰν αἱμ' ἀνασπάσῃ κόνις.”

We are disposed to think that Koris ought to be substituted here for Kovis, as it has most properly resumed its place in Antig. 602, where the old reading was veprépwv åμą kovis. The learned reader will call to mind the "hauserit ensis" of Virgil, Æn. ii. 600, and "gladio-latus haurit," x. 313:

V. 105. “ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὴν, χὤστις Αἴγισθον στυγεῖ.”

Dr. B. has, in our judgment, done well in adopting the Aldine reading. But we cannot help thinking that aur here has a peculiar sense, which he has overlooked, and which has been mentioned by some most learned men, as belonging to αὐτός. "Sunt avròs, et exeivos (says Casaubon, in his Commentary on the Characters of Theophrastus,' p. 120,) voces servorum, quas honoris causa propriorum nominum loco usurpant. Aristophanes Ranis,

« ἴσθι νῦν φράσων * πρωτιστα ταῖς αὐλητρίσι
Ταῖς ἔνδον οὔσαις αὐτὸς ὡς εἰσέρχομαι.

[ocr errors]

« Scholiastes, αὐτὸς, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ὁ δεσπότης. Sic apud Latinos, Plautus Casina, ubi Stalino, et ancilla colloquuntur. St. Quid tu hic agis? An. Ego eo quò me Ipsa misit. Ipsa, hoc est, Hera mea. Terentius Hecyra, Sed Pamphilum ipsum video stare ante ædes. Donatus, Ipsum, a quo missus sum: vel dominum; ut Græci, autóv. Idem notat Asconius in quendam Verrinarum locum. Erat et discipulorum vox, cum de præceptore loquerentur: unde illud Avròs epa," &c. Now, just as Plautus has used Ipsa in the passage above quoted, we conceive Æschy

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »