dominant. Where is Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Leibnitz, Wolf, Des Cartes, Locke, Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, and others? Where will shortly be Schelling, Hegel, Cousin, Stewart, Reed, Brown, Jouffroy, and others? Some or all of these expected their systems to be immortal, on the ground that they fully believed themselves to have discovered the truth. All of them have held some truth; but did any one, or does any one, discover all truth? And when is this to be fully ascertained and set forth in metaphysics? I will not say Never. I have no right to say this; and hardly do I believe it. In the Millenium I would hope men will become better metaphysicians than they have been, and that they will lean more to the Bible in support of a system of truth. Yet the Bible has not taught metaphysics as a science; neither has it taught even theology in this way. Still, there is in the Bible a recognition of all the constituent principles of our moral nature; and the time will probably come, when these, like theology, will be systematized, and be taught more plainly and with more success than they have heretofore been. Metaphysics, then, in their present state, are not a proper ground of division and alienation among churches; nor are they a proper subject of contention in the theological circle. It cannot be justified, therefore, that the churches should divide, and proscribe each other on such a ground as this. What then actually remains here, as a ground of contention ? Nothing, I answer again, except certain deductions, dependent on terminology merely, or else on metaphysical philosophy. But are disputes which mere terminology originates; or disputes which the psychological philosophy of the schools originates; a ground for rending asunder the body of Christ, and making the church a spectacle to the world of division and strife? I do not-I cannot believe this; and I put it to the conscience of every sober and pious man in our country, whether he ought to believe and admit it. Could all parties be persuaded to examine things as independently of names as possible; could they be brought fully to recognize the weakness and imperfection of human nature and of the knowledge which men possess; could they become altogether obedient to the apostolic injunction to "receive those who are weak in the faith," and this without any "doubtful disputations;" then peace might speedily return to our churches, and the energies now expended on mutually destroying each other's influence, and defaming and degrading each other, might all be turned to diffusing abroad the knowledge of a Saviour's precious name, and preaching the gospel to every creature. Is there a Christian who prays that God's kingdom may come, who does not earnestly wish that such a state of things may speedily take place, and that the Prince of peace may reign over a kingdom whose character, like his own, is peaceful? I am aware that my motives for writing an essay like the present may be called in question, and that I may be accused, after all, of cherishing party views, and of laboring to promote the interests of party. I am also aware, that protestations of innocence in respect to such a matter, do not avail much, and are of no great importance. A man must be known by his fruits. If the tenor of his writings is that of a party-man; if he shews an unwillingness to consider and weigh any arguments on the side opposed to that which he has espoused; if he urges considerations adapted to exasperate the spirit of controversy, or such as are designed to subject his opponents to contumely and reproach or degradation; then it matters not whether he disclains party views, nor whether he declares his impartiality and freedom from party spirit. By our works we must be known. And if there is, in the preceding essay, any thing which savours of this spirit, or which is conducted on such grounds and with such views as these, then I ask the reader to forgive me, and to put it to the account of human infirmity. But if there is apparent any sincere desire and effort to bring forward considerations which are in their nature irenical; if there is any thing adapted to shew that there is no sufficient reason for a quarrel among the churches in respect to the points under consideration; if there is any thing which may serve to shew, that the parties in contest do not after all differ as to essentials; then I beseech the candid and intelligent reader to open his ears to this, and to let it have with him all the weight which so serious a matter ought to have. Unhappily it is becoming a fashion, among one class of writers in our country, to contend by using odious appellations. Pelagian and Arminian on one side, Fatalist and Bigot on the other, are the small change in which not a few of the news-paper writers and party reviewers abound. How often is one compelled to say of those who employ epithets which they design to be reproachful, and who shew at the same time that they have no proper knowledge of what Pelagius or Arminius held, or what Fatalist and Bigot should be used to designate-how often must he say: "That the soul be without knowledge, is not good!" Michael the archangel did not venture thus to oppose the very devil himself. Shall we deal with our brethren and fellow Christians more rigidly, than the great "accuser of the brethren" has himself been dealt with? I am aware after all-and this occasions the deepest sigh that I can utter that even argument comes to be looked upon by heated controversialists as designed abuse, and an exposure of absurdities in reasoning, as little better than party venom. Should the thoughts which I have now thrown before the public come before the minds of such individuals, I do not expect their ear or their approbation. Yet I would submit, with patience, to any reproach which they may utter; and wait in silent hope that the time of exasperation will soon pass away, and that candour and a peaceful spirit may then again claim and exercise their rights. In the hour of dangerous sickness; in the recesses of communion with our own spirits; on a dying bed; before the bar of God; it will not be matter of exultation that we have been fomenters of strife, nor that we have triumphed over, or trampled under foot, the Christian rights of our brethren to think and to decide for themselves, in matters pertaining to religious faith and doctrine. By his own master each man will ultimately stand or fall. And when we know this, and feel obligated to act in accordance with the views which it inspires, we must not shrink from our duty, either to gain any applause, or to avoid any obloquy, which may be consequent upon our efforts to restore peace and mutual confidence where they have been destroyed. THE ORIGIN OF WRITING IN GREECE AND EGYPT.* By the Rev. T. Parker, West Roxbury, Mass. THE origin of all the most useful arts is involved in obscurity. The inventors of the Plough and the Loom, of the Ship and [* In a note accompanying this article, the author remarks that, in investigating the genuineness of the Pentateuch, he had often been embarrassed by the antecedent question concerning the state of letters the Harp, were deified because they were unknown. All inventions were ascribed to the gods, who, as Warburton has wittily said, "took what there were none to claim, as strays belong to the lord of the manor." The invention of letters is one of the most remarkable triumphs of the human mind. To devise a score of characters that shall represent the words of one man, or of all nations, countless as these words appear, is to render an unparalleled service to mankind. It is to invent a process whereby the thoughts of a nation shall be embalmed in beautiful speech, and preserved, without loss of vitality, to the end of time. The inquiry upon the origin of writing is attended with numerous and great difficulties. The early writers who touch upon the subject, were careless, uncritical and notoriously inaccurate. Some of them were industrious collectors of facts; others made ingenious arrangements of them, but few, if any, decided upon critical principles. Most of them merely reflect the current opinion of the market-place or the temple, without inquiring whether that opinion was true or false. Among the more modern writers, Theory has mostly taken the place of Observation; and conjectures, often fantastic, and sometimes absurd fill their pages. The most extravagant pretensions as to the antiquity of letters have been based on mere rumor or caprice. In this inquiry an attempt will be made to investigate the origin and early use of letters in Greece and Egypt. I. USE OF ALPHABETIC Writing in Greece. 1. Early use of letters, in books, in Greece. It is the commonly received opinion that about 1500 B. C., Cadmus came from Phoenicia, or Egypt, to Greece, bringing with him alphabetical letters, which he introduced among the people.* Some maintain that the Greeks were previously ac in Egypt in the time of Moses, and so was led into this inquiry. The subject is important and interesting not only to the Biblical, but to the general scholar.-ED.]· See Jackson's chronological antiquities, London, 1792—3. Vol. IV. In his modest title-page the author says, "In this book all the difficulties of the Scripture chronology are cleared-the origin of letters, fully treated of and explained." He informs us of the veritable inventor of letters. It was one Taaut. By a singularly ingenious process, he determines the very year of the great invention, namely, 2619 before Christ! Reasoning from the use of letters at this date among the Phenicians, he concludes the Greeks must have been quainted with letters, and Cadmus merely exchanged them for the more convenient Phenician characters, which subsequently prevailed. Others contend, the Greeks had no letters, but employed hieroglyphics before the arrival of Cadmus. Learned authors are divided upon the question, but it is quite singular that no ancient writer, of any authority, ever pretends that the Greeks were acquainted with letters before that time. There are numerous passages, in which the old Pelasgi* are mentioned with applause and veneration; but the use of letters or even of picture writing is never once ascribed to them. The most satisfactory method of investigating the origin and early use of writing among the Greeks, is perhaps, to commence at some era, when letters were well known, and descend towards the time of the alleged arrival of Cadmus, noticing the state of letters as we proceed. In the time of Herodotus, letters were in common use, in compositions, both in verse and prose. In the year 445 B. C., he read his history at the public games. From the fact that a work of such extent and familiar with them long before the time of Cadmus, for how, he asks, with unwonted pertinence, could they remain in ignorance of them 1500 years after the invention? Vol. III. p. 94 sq. p. 102 sq. Astle defends the early use of letters in Greece. See the Origin and Progress of Writing, Lond. 1794. The same opinion is defended by Bouhier in his valuable dissertation on the ancient letters of the Greeks and Romans, at the end of Montfaucon's Palaeographia Grae cae. Francis Wise, one of the most sensible of the English writers upon this subject, thinks that they only employed hieroglyphics. See his Enquiry concerning the first inhabitants, language, religion, and letters of Europe, Oxford, 1758, 4to p. 109. M. de Gebelin, an ingenious and learned, but fanciful writer, maintains that writing was currently practised, at least as early as the 25th century B. C. See his Monde Primitif considerè dans l'Histoire Naturelle, de la Parole, etc. Paris, 1775, 4to p. 423 sq. Lucan (Pharsalia, Lib. III. v. 220), ascribes the invention to the Phenicians at a very early age. Phoenices primi, famae, si creditur, ausi * See Wolfii Proleg. ad Homerum, Vol. I. Ch. XIII., who makes the above statement. The remark of Diod. Sic. Lib. V. p. 328 of Rhodoman's edition (fol. 1604), though often misunderstood, is no exception to this remark. See also Lib. III. p. 200 at bottom. 10 SECOND SERIES, VOL. II. NO. III. |