tribes of believing Ifrael." In an address to kinsmen and brethren, be avoids an authoritative and apoftolic ftile, writes as a Doctor of the Law, confining himself chiefly to argument and rational conviction. His defign, and what he had at heart, was, to convert his He brew brethren, and prove to them this grand truth, which their Scribes and Elders defpifed, and fo pofitively denied-That " Jefus of Nazareth, whom they had fo lately put to death, was the Chrift, the Son of God." And moreover, " that his Gofpel is of divine original, and of univerfal obligation." The doctrines of Chriftianity are here exprefsly afferted, and more fully explained in this his Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other writings of the Apoftle. As Paul was writing to Jews, he confirms thofe doctrines by teftimonies chiefly from their own Scriptures, the books of Mofes and the Prophets. Thus he establishes the truth of Chriftianity from records in their own hands, the revelation they fo much reverenced, and points out to them its perfect conformity with the revelation now made them by Jefus Chrift. His countrymen were many of them zealots, they had imbibed prejudices from early life, infifting ftill on the divine authority of Mofes, glorying and making their boat of the majefty and fplendour exhibited at Mount Sinai, at the promulgation of the Jewith law, and fetting a proud value on the high honours and privileges with which it had invefted them. Befides an enlarged view of the gofpel difpenfation, this epiftle exhibits throughout a deep extenfive knowledge of the Jewith Scriptures. Paul's education at the feet of Gamaliel, his acquaintance with learned men of his own nation-the illumination which accompanied his commiffion-the gifs and graces of the fpirit fuperior to his brethren-all of them combined, could alone qualify him fo divinely to treat of the fublime fubjects, in this moft eloquent compofition, never to be enough adınired. "He proves clearly to the Jew the fuperiority of the Chriftian Revelation over the law. The Jewish Economy, vaft and magnificent as it was, by no means equalled the incomparable excellence of the blef fings of the gospel. Inttead of a meffage delivered by angels, God had now fent to them a revelation by his fon. The vail was torn afonder. To Gentile as well as Jew, offers of falvation were freely made-Judaifm now witreted its completion in Chriftianity. In the courfe of his argument, the Apoftle enquires-in what refpect the Jew could be faid to be a lor by embracing the gofpel? The Jewish law was given them as a type, a guide only to a better covenant. By ein blems and figures, Mofes, their lawgiver, was defignedly leading them to Chrift. Of the coming of this Mellah he himself had prophesied. The religion of Chrift was the fubftance of that which the Jewish law had been the shadow. The epiftle throughout contains doctrines of general ufe-makes difcoveries refpecting the most important articles. of Chriftian faith-and adminifters to us the bett confolations, and fources of the most rational hope. The last chapter tranfcribes à lift of duties winningly enforced-to do good, and, to communicate, forget not-exhortations to fubmiffion-to a patient endurance--to peace-union-brotherly love-dependance on God-a grateful fenfe of his mercies-good will to all men." Vol. ii, p. 415. Το 2 To the fhort analysis which we have here prefented of these Scriptural Effays, we have only to add, that they are not writ ten quite in an unexceptionable flyle; nor are they altogether free from blemishes and defects. We do not, however, think the inaccuracies fuch as to detract materially from the general merits of the performance, or to difqualify it from becoming a ufeful and engaging guide to the attainment of religious knowledge. ART. XIII. A Vindication of Homer, and of the ancient Poets and Hfterians who have recorded the Siege and Fall of Troy. In Anfwer to Two late Publications of Mr. Bryant. With a Map and Plates. By J. B. S. Marrett, Efq. 4to. 1 25. Blanchard, York; Cadell and Davies, London. 1798. TOWARDS the latter end of the last century, the French critics, with C. Perrault at their head, commenced an attack upon Homer, for the rudenefs of his images, and the groffnels of his fentiments. Boileau refifted the affault, by Thowing that the language of fimplicity, the fcenery of nature, and the manners of mankind at large, were not to be measured by the standard of Parifian refinement, The prefent century is drawing to a conclufion, with the appearance of another controverfy, in which we are not to contend for the merits of Homer, but almost for his exiftence. On this question the learned and venerable Mr. Jacob Bryant has challenged all opponents, and dared every fpecies of hoftility, provided it is conducted with that candour and urbanity to which every man of learning, and, we add, partì-cularly fuch a man, has a claim. Mr. Morrit has accepted the challenge, certainly without any of the prejudice which Mr. B. imputes to all his antago nifts, and as certainly with all the candour that is due to Mr. B.'s acknowledged probity and erudition. But candour binds no one, according to the laws of controverfy, to pafs unnoticed Japfes arifing rather from a spirit of fyftem than a difregard to truth; and erudition never runs more to waste, than when it is employed in contributing to a ftream which is not pure at its fource. It is the fyftem of Mr. B. and its principle which Prejudice, he calls it in the preface to his Differtation; and candour he claims in the conclufion of the introduction to his Obfervations, ought ought to be refifted; and if these prove erroneous, whatever tribute may be due to his talents, and the extent of his reading they are but the trappings and the pageantry of his work. Mr. B.'s arguments, with his corollaries and conclufions, amount, according to his table of contents, to one hundred and twenty-three. Out of thefe, Mr. M. has felected for dif cuffion fuch as require a more particular notice; and in this confifts the first part of his work. The latter part contains his obfervations made on the fpor, while he was visiting the Troad, warm with the love of Homer, and tracing the difGovery of M. Chevalier with caution equal to his candour. What we have already faid on this fubject will be feen in vol. ix. pp. 585, 591, and 604; and we are ready to confefs, that when we firit viewed the stream affumed by M. Chevalier for his Scamander, pleafed as we were to fee the geogra phical difficulties of the ad removed, we were not without fcepticifm as to the fact. We faw a brook of Mr. Wood's converted into a river by M. Chevalier, and courfe of five miles augmented to ten or twelve, and when we reflected that Mr. Wood profeifed to have traced the geography of the Troad on the spot, as well as M. Chevalier, we helitated between two evidences equally entitled to credit. But it now appears that Mr. Wood was deceived by the fame error which misled thofe who had preceded him, aud went four and twenty miles up into the crags of Ida, for what lay under his feet in the plain, and clofe to the fea fhore. That this is the fact, and that M. Chevalier's Scamander is really a difcovery, we have now the evidence of feveral English gentlemen who visited the plain of Troy for the purpofe of ascertaining the truth; and Mr. Morrit, Mr. Stockdale, Mr. Dallaway, and Mr. Berners, all bear witnefs to the general accuracy of M. Chevalier's delineation of the tract. They all agree that the modern iffue of the Scamander is artificial; that the line by which it is conducted is trait, and totally diffimitar from the natural windings of a river; and that the bank is formed of earth thrown out of the channel. They all affert that the old channel of the Scamander to its junction with the Simois, is ftill visible, still capable of being traced through its whole extent, and filtreceives the drippings of its ancient occupant, however now dis verted in an oppolite direction. It is this difcovery of the Scamander which unravels all the difficulties that have disfigured the geography of Homer, from the time of Strabo to the prefent day. We now have a Scamander for the troops to pafs in their daily route to the scene of action: a Scamander on the left of the Trojan line, fördable, without the thallowness of a brook, and so narrow, that a tree tree falling across it, might well be faid to form a bridge from ade to fide. All these are circumstances neceffary to identify the stream we were to fearch for, and they never could be found by thofe, who traced the eastern stream from its itfue to its fource. - It is neceffary to infift upon this point above all others, not only becaufe M. Chevalier's publication gave origin to the controverfy, but because the restoration of the true geography overturns the whole hypothesis of Mr. Bryant. If we admit his Egyptian Troy, we mult not only rob the Phrygian Troy of its name, but its locality, and all the circumftances of its locality; a fuppofition extravagant beyond all bounds. If Homer's pictures of the plain of Troy were fictions, his fcene might be transferred to Egypt or to India; if it be true, the scene must be there only where the geography is confiftent with the truth. On this fubject more will be faid when we come to confider the second part of Mr. Morrit's work ; but our immediate bufiness is with his refutation of Mr. Bryant's attack on Homer. Out of Mr. B's hundred and twenty-three divifions of his argument, Mr. M. has felected forty-one for animadverfion. Our readers will not expect from us the detail on either fide, but we fhall obferve generally, that the nature of the defence is as fimple as it is modeft. It is, in truth, common sense employed against a mafs of erudition; and a collection of evi dence from the most approved authors, placed in oppofition to the capricious judgment of the few and the most obscure, The catalogue at the end of Mr. M.'s work gives a lift of forty-three authors (and the number might be greatly increased) in oppofition to three* names quoted at fecond hand, to three writerst in propria perfona, to an epigram, and to Mr. Bryant himself; the only author who ever imagined that the fcene of the Iliad was in Egypt. The question however is to be decided, not by numbers, but by argument; we fhall begin therefore with the chronology. Mr. B. objects to the whole chronology of Greece prior to the first Olympiad. Mr. M. confiders this as drawing a line between history and fable, with a precifion which can hardly be fupported. He complains juftly in another part of his work, that if the Hiftory of the Trojan War is fet aside, it Anaxagoras, and Metrodorus, quoted by Diog. Laertius; a person by Athenæus. + Bafil Magnus, Tatianus Affyr. Chryfoftom. ✦ Morrit, p. 3. abrogates abrogates the whole Hiftory of Greece, with which it is fo interwoven, that both must stand or fall together; and that this is fuch a fweeping deluge, as even the incredulity of Mr. B. can hardly require. Now if we cannot vouch for the precision of the Arundelian marbles, which fix the taking of Troy on the night between the 11th and 12th of June*, in the year answering to 1184 before the Chriftian æra; if we cannot ascertain this fact within a century, and fuppofe the whole to be a chronological accommodation fuited to the tradition, yet that there is a poetical chronology.confiftent with the poetical history in all is parts, is as evident, as that there is an historical chronology of any country this day in Europe. The two moft confpicuous families of Greece, at Thebes and Mycenae, coincide in all the leading facts relating to their poetical history, with as much order, and as much perfpicuity, as the hiftory of Sparta and Athens, in the time of the Peloponnelian war. They correfpond likewife with the families of Thefeus, Peleus, acus, Aerilius, Neftor, and many others, in fuch a chain of connexion, intercourfe, and mutual relation, that by confulting the local hiftories of each territory in Paufanias, a more regular feries might be formed and arranged of thefe independent Rates, than of our own Saxon heptarchy in this kingdom. That there is a mixture of fable or mythology interfperfed in this hiftory, is granted ; but that the whole should be annihilated, requires the fcepticifm of a Bolingbroke. Let us try the experiment upon the family of Pelops. Tantalus is the fon of Jupiter Phrygiust, he reigned over Phrygia and Cappadocia; his fon, Pelops, was driven out of Phrygia ‡ by Ilus; he came over into Greece; he married the daughter of Euomaus, king of Elis; by inheritance or conqueft, he obtained the chief power in the Peninfula, and gave it his own name; his family reigned at Mycene; their power extended over Corinth, Sicyon, Achaia, and Lacedaemon; the walls of Mycena were built by the Cyclopes; the naval power of Mycenæ extended over many islands in the Ægean Sea. Here is a brief history without inconfilience; and, before it can be set alide, we mult anaihilate two circumstances of proof, which * See Blair. + Zaus guyios. Zeus was of all countries, Ammonite, Cretan, Phrygian, and Olympian. Are not all the gods of Greece, and all the genealogists traced up to them, afcribable to the first fettlers from Phoenicia, Egypt, Afia? Paufan, Cor. p. 64. Eliac. 160. Strabo, p. 372. Paufan. cor. 59. Homer. exift |