certain to destroy effectually the ancient system. The dynasty of the Ptolemies, from B. C. 280 to A. D. 1, had introduced into Egypt so large a number of Greek settlers that a sensible effect was produced on the language and habits of the people. It is also said that there were at least a hundred thousand Jews, dwelling in Alexandria or the neighbouring provinces. The foreign element was therefore remarkably powerful, and, as we have seen, the ancient hieroglyphical system had long been modified by the introduction of initial letters used phonetically and no longer ideagraphically. But it was reserved for Christianity to effect the total overthrow of the hieroglyphics, and to assimilate the literature of Egypt to that of Greece and of other nations. The result of this change was the appearance of a new language, expressed in writing by Grecian characters. The Coptic language first appears soon after the introduction of Christianity into Egypt; and no books exist in the Coptic language, except rituals, books of devotion, and translations of the Scriptures.

There are strong grounds for believing that numerous words, remaining from the old Egyptian, entered into the composition of this dialect; but it is equally certain that the Greek language contributed its share, and perhaps also Arabia, which has so often been mixed up with the revolutions of Egypt, may have furnished a considerable number of words and idioms. All this was the natural course of events, as similar cases may be cited from almost every nation in the world. But why was the Greek alphabet selected as the vehicle in which this new language was to be conveyed? If the Egyptian language possessed an alphabet of its own, there would be no necessity for the adoption of any other. For the same reason, also, the older inscriptions of the country could scarcely have become unintelligible, as they now are. The gradual

change of the idiom would have shewn itself, no doubt, as it has done in the English language, but the letters, those fixed elements of words, would have been still the same. This, however, was not the fact: for the character, in which all Coptic books were written, is essentially Greek, and as different as can be conceived from all the older Egyptian writing, whether inscribed on the public buildings, or preserved in the numerous rolls of papyrus, which are continually found among the ruins. This is a remarkable circumstance; for there is no gradation between the hieroglyphics and the Coptic MSS. It appears, also, by the discoveries of Champollion, Dr Young, and others, that the hieroglyphical system comes much later down than the beginning of the Christian era. It therefore existed contemporaneously with the transcription of Coptic manuscripts, each decidedly different from the other.

It was

The

this difference which prevented a fusion of the two. hieroglyphics were essentially ideagraphic, like the present writing of the Chinese. All attempts to combine them with an alphabetical system are clumsy and unsuccessful. It is possible to express, as the Chinese have done, names by the characters which come nearest to the sounds of those names; or, as the Egyptians did, to use initial letters to express phonetically those words which they derived from their connection with other nations; but the fate which befel the Egyptian hieroglyphics, will probably some day or other fall upon the bulky and toilsome literature of the Chinese, if they should ever be conquered by an European nation, whilst at the same time they become Christianized by its missionaries. The result will be that an European alphabet will be adopted, in which all new books will be written, whilst their 260 simple characters with the 80,000 more complex ones which have been formed out of them, will, in seventy years after the change takes place,

become as unintelligible as the hieroglyphics. If such a revolution ever should be made, the argument on which I am now insisting will be as applicable to the case of the Chinese as it now is to that of the Egyptians. Their language, previously to the change, had no alphabet of its own, but was ideagraphic, because, when at a later date, it appears as decidedly alphabetic, it was obliged to borrow from a foreign language the characters which were to form its alphabet.

Dr Wall seems to have satisfactorily shewn that the phonetic or alphabetic writing of the Egyptians was derived fron their intercourse with the Greeks, and he supports his view by the authority of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus.

We are informed, says he, by Herodotus, that before the reign of Psammetichus, all foreigners were excluded from Egypt, but that he, having gained the throne by the aid of some Ionian and Carian soldiers who had been shipwrecked on the coast, gave them a settlement in the country, and had certain Egyptian children committed to their care, to be by them instructed in the Greek language, and consequently in the Greek mode of writing. The words of the original are as follows: Τοῖσι δὲ Ιωσι καὶ τοῖσι Καρσι, τοῖσι συνκατεργασαμένοισι αὐτῷ ὁ Ψαμμίτιχος δίδωσι χώρους ἐνοικῆσαι ἀντίους ἀλλήλων—πρῶτοι γὰρ οὗτοι ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἀλλόγλωσσοι κατοικίσθησαν—Καὶ δὴ καὶ παῖδας παρέβαλε αὐτοῖσι Αἰγυπτίους, τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν ἐκδιδάσκεσOat.*-HER. lib. ii, c 154. This account of Herodotus is corroborated by

Diodorus Siculus, both as to the reign in which the intercourse with Greeks began and as to the immediate consequence of that intercourse, But the latter historian makes a more direct reference to alphabetic writing, as he tells us of the Egyptian, being instructed, not merely in the Greek language, but in Greek learning. The following are his words :

Καὶ [Ψαμμήτιχος] φιλέλλην ὢν διαφερόντως, τοὺς υἱοὺς τὴν Ἑλλη νικὴν ἐδίδαξε παιδείαν. Καθόλου δὲ πρῶτος τῶν κατ ̓ Αἴγυπτον βασιλέων, ἀνέῳξε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔθνεσι τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην χώραν ἐμπόρια· καὶ πολλὴν ἀσφάλειαν τοῖς καταπλέουσι ξένοις παρείχετο. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ πρὸ τούτου δυναστεύσαντες, ἀνεπιβατὸν τοῖς ξένοις ἐποίουν τὴν Αἴγυπτον, τοὺς μὲν φονεύοντες, τοὺς δὲ καταδουλούμενοι τῶν καταπλεόντων. DIOD. SICUL. lib. i, cap. 67.

Literally translated thus: "But to the Ionians and Carians, who had worked with him, Psammitichus gives places to live in, opposite to one another-for these first, of a different language, were settled in Egypt-And indeed also he place d with them Egyptian boys, to be taught the Hellenic tongue."

+ Literally translated thus : “ And [Psammetichus] being singularly fond of the Greeks, taught the children the Greek learning. And in general, he first of the Egyptian kings, opened to other nations the ports throughout the rest of the country, and afforded much security to strangers who sailed thither. For those who ruled before him, made Egypt inaccessible to strangers, slaying some and enslaving others, of those who sailed thither.

CHAPTER 30.

STYLE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THE SAME THROUGHOUT-BECAUSE

ALL WRITTEN OR COMPILED AT THE SAME TIME.

CHALDAISMS

IN THE EARLY PARTS OF THE BIBLE, THOUGH NOT SO MANY
AS IN THE LATER BOOKS-REASON OF THIS-CHALDEE
AND HEBREW VERY SIMILAR.

It may, not without justice, be demanded, that I should now reply to an objection which may be made bearing reference to the language or style observable in different parts of the Old Testament. If that volume was compiled and put into its present form all at once after the Babylonish captivity, its style will certainly exhibit marks of uniformity, and also of the corruption, which it necessarily underwent by the mixture of Chaldee words and idioms. This is a reasonable inference, and I believe that facts will both warrant the inference, and confirm the supposition upon which it is grounded.

It has been observed by Bishop Tomline as quoted in chapter 6 of this work, that

those who are best acquainted with the original writings of the Old Testament, agree that there is a marked difference in the style and language of its several authors; and one learned man in particular concludes from that difference, "that it is certain the five books, which are ascribed to Moses, were not written in the time of David, the psalms of David in the age of Josiah, nor the prophesies of Isaiah in the time of Malachi."

As the writer of this extract was himself unacquainted with the language in which the Old Testament is written, the opinion declared in his work, being at second hand,