trace the migrations of a people among whom history has never existed. But philology is also conversant with the interpretation of historical documents. It is philology which has extracted a wonderful array of chronological data from the hieroglyphical monuments of ancient Egypt. It is philology which has recognised the contemporaneous history of Darius in the cuneiform inscriptions of Behistun. It is philology which promises important revelations from a survey of the long-buried sculptures of Nineveh. And while the science of language deals thus familiarly with the contemporaneous records of ancient history, which modern research has discovered, or which have long been exposed to the careless eyes of an unobserving world, it belongs to the same instrument to test the genuineness and accuracy of traditionary annals which have been embellished and diffused by a more modern and popular literature. Historical criticism is the legitimate offspring of philology. Its functions are not destructive, but rather, in the highest degree, conservative: for its chief aim is to ascertain and establish the granite basis of history which is overlaid by the more recent strata of poetical, philosophical, and religious mythology*. It is true that there are still persons, especially in this country, who plead for the undisturbed enjoyment of an ignorant and childish credulity, and whose acceptance of historic truth is so intimately connected with their adoption of the legendary ingredients which enter so largely into all ancient records, that, for them, the kernel and the shell are irrevocably identical, and facts and fictions must stand or fall together. It is true also that those whose feeble conscience leans for support on * "Denkmäler bilden das Zifferblatt der Geschichte; so lange diese nicht vorhanden sind, gehört einem Volke nur seine Gegenwart, nicht seine Vergangenheit, es lebt ohne Geschichte. Verliert ein Volk seine Denkmäler, sei es durch eigne Schuld oder die der Verhältnisse, so wird es auch seine Geschichte nicht retten können, sie geräth in Unordnung, wird zur Tradition, und gewinnt im besten Falle statt des verlorenen rein geschichtlichen ein anderes Prinzip der innern Ordnung, ein poetischmythologisches wie bei den Griechen, ein philosophisch mythologisches wie bei den Indiern, oder ein religiöses wie bei den Israeliten, verliert aber stets ihren ursprünglichen zeitgeschichtlichen Werth." Lepsius, Chronologie der Egypter, pp. 1, 2. some authority supposed to be infallible, as well as those who are interested in the maintenance of such a tribunal of final appeal, are still as heretofore occupied with endeavours to check the inquisitiveness of our philisophical instincts. But the time is long passed and gone, when timid science, wearied with fruitless investigations, could be induced to sell its birthright of expectations for the tasteless mess provided and prepared by an eager and suspicious bigotry. Convinced of the truth of its own conclusions, inductive philosophy needs no support from without; and it has become incumbent upon those who advocate the claims of an assumed authority, to find some common ground on which it may succeed in reconciling its pretensions with the demonstrable truths of science. 14 Now it is philology alone, acting principally through its chief instrument, historical criticism, which can effectually mediate between tradition and reason; for it is philology alone which finds its materials in the former, and derives its principles from the latter. To the mere votary of abstract science, it matters not what opinions have been held by the most civilized nations of antiquity; he is not interested in attempts to indicate the first beginnings of his own speculations; satisfied with the possession of truth, he cares little who first discovered it. But the philologer, whose main principle is a recognition of the unity of human nature and of language as the necessary associate and exponent of reason, is as much concerned with the opinions of primitive Egyptians and Aramæans as with those of his own contemporaries; and he is predisposed to believe that there must be some portion of divine truth in that which man has in all ages accepted as binding on his faith and conscience. He is anxious therefore that a maximum of ancient history should be established on a scientific basis; and while he examines ancient documents with the rigorous accuracy which philosophy demands, he handles the recorded utterances of the past with a veneration which satisfies every enlightened believer. If the Christian religion is to maintain its distinctive position, if it is to enjoy other homage than that which must be always paid to its intrinsic truthfulness, its final triumph over the dangers to which it has been exposed by the ignorance and prejudices of its teachers, will be secured by the scientific philology which has cleared away the obstructive suburbs, and has thus shown the fortress in its true and naked strength. 15 That philology, as the method of interpretation, is of essential importance to the protestant divine, is nearly selfevident. According to his principles, no theology can be true which does not rest upon a sound exposition of particular Books. He must therefore regard his system of divinity as merely a branch or application of philological science. That this is so, was the unanimous opinion of those old writers to whom all Protestants appeal as the foremost champions of their cause. Luther thought that true theology was merely an application of grammar*; Melancthon maintained that Scripture could not be understood theologically, unless it had been previously understood grammatically†; and Scaliger said with great truth, that ignorance of grammar was the cause of all religious differences. And not only so in regard to the exegesis from which the protestant theologian derives his practical doctrines. In his controversies also, he would do well to limit himself to the same safe criterion, and his triumphs would leave no room for a second fight, if, dismissing all perplexing references to the uncertain echoes of ecclesiastical tradition, he were content to employ no weapons save those of Biblical Criticism against adversaries who have raised a fabric of error on their misconception of the difference between πέτρος and πέτρας. Nor is the tradition of * "Lutherus-theologiam veram et summam nihil aliud esse quam grammaticam—h. e. Græcarum Hebraicarumque literarum scientiam putabat." Ernesti Opera Philol. p. 199. "Melancthonis hoc dictum est: Scripturam non posse intelligi theologice, nisi antea sit intellectam grammatice." Ernesti Op. Phil. p. 223. "Utinam essem bonus Grammaticus; sufficit enim ei, qui omnes auctores probe intelligere vult, esse bonum grammaticum. Non aliunde dissidia in religione pendent, quam ab ignoratione grammaticæ." Scaligerana, Prima, p. 86. § Matth. xvi. 18. To those who argue for the pre-eminence of the Apostle Peter it is sufficient to refer to ver. 23 in this same chapter, which shows that the address has reference to his words and not to his person; the Italian Church the only form in which an assumed infallibility is made a pretext for degrading the intellect of man, and contravening the instincts of conscientious morality. Protestantism has submitted to a tyranny even more revolting to our nobler aspirations than that of a Papal priesthood. And it has become a duty for laymen, no less than for professed theologians, to examine certain dogmas which are as prejudicial to true religion and as untenable in themselves as the theory of transubstantiation or the practice of indulgences*. But not to speak of the uses of philological criticism, it may be shown that הי כאפא ועל היא and the writer of the Apocalypse at all events considered the other Apostles equally foundation-stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi. 14; cf. Ephes. ii. 20). The linguistic argument of the Romanists, that in the original languages of Palestine "ista generis differentia quæ Græce et Latine est inter Petrum et petram non reperitur, sed uno eodemque nomine, sive Hebraice sive Syriace, Christus dixit: -->> 18-JAN NEN, tu es petra, et super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam" (Maldonat. ad l.), seems to be supported by the Syriac version, but will not stand the test of philological criticism; for nέtoos is a single stone, but néτqa is a rock, considered as including many néτqoɩ, and this opposition is implied by the context; for otherwise he must have said καὶ ἐπὶ σοί. Moreover, in biblical Hebrew we have only the plural DE "stones" in the signification of a rock, and the analogy of all the Scriptures shows that the rock on which the Church was to be built would be properly designated by and not by N. The fact that neither the Peshito nor Mr Cureton's newly discovered Syriac version distinguishes between the "rock" and the "stone," must be added to the arguments against the supposition that the Syriac New Testament has incorporated the lost Aramaic original of St Matthew's Gospel. * See a calm and dispassionate pamphlet, entitled Free Theological Inquiry the Duty of the Laity. Lond. 1858. Bunsen has well remarked (Ægypten V, a, p. 52), that "a mere belief in authority, which is nothing but an unthinking, and therefore spiritually feeble acceptance of misunderstood traditions, must produce either a childish superstition, which destroys the childlike truth of that belief, or a denying and deadening incredulity, whether it speaks out honestly or hides itself behind the mask of hypocrisy." He adds (p. 53): "It is almost more necessary to give a strong expression to this in protestant than it is in catholic countries. For the superstition, which the protestants practise with their Bible, in order to conceal their laziness and want of thought, is now employed to obtain the same object which was attained centuries ago in southern Europe-an absolute retrogression in the scientific study of the sacred records. Ignorance goes step for step along with perversity." linguistic ethnography contributes in no small measure towards establishing the grounds of Revelation. According to the theological system, which lays claim to exclusive orthodoxy, all the truth, or, at least, all the intelligibility of the Christian dispensation, depends on the derivation of the human race from one stock. If mankind had not a common origin, there must be branches of our race which have no more share in hereditary corruption or transmitted sin, than the supposed inhabitants of another planet. Now it is by philology alone that we can attempt to demonstrate the primeval unity of man. We are already so far advanced as to be able to divide all the known languages of the world into two main classes; and although we do not yet possess sufficient knowledge of the whole body of languages to be able to say what affinity exists between the two great divisions, approximations have been made to the conclusion that there are certain points in which they osculate; and, judging from the progress of linguistic studies hitherto, we may fairly hope that, as in the case of languages now known to be cognate, we were impressed with the differences long before we perceived the similarities which are now the most prominent features, so it will be hereafter with all the languages of the world; and investigation will fully confirm what the great Apostle proclaimed in the Areopagus, "that God has ordained that from one common parentage all the different tribes of men should spread themselves over the whole face of the earth, having determined the particular times of their successive emigrations, and the boundaries of their respective settlements*.” 16 On the whole then it may be asserted, that philology is essential to a liberal education, and useful as a branch of science; that it is the great link which connects the past with the present, and the indispensable instrument of theological interpretation * Ἐποίησέ τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματος πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προτεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν (Act. Apostol. xvii. 26). Here it is clear that ἐποίησε is construed with the accus. and inf. as in Matth. v. 37, Mark vii. 37, and that the vòs aluatos is the main point in the passage. The other words indicate the manner in which ethnical distinctions really arose. |