Wherefore I beseech you, O Sun, O King, not to overlook me who am in confinement, but if it seems good to you, that you should order a letter to be written to Posidonius the chief of the body-guard and general, that he should set Apollonius free from the public service, so that he may be near me.

And may Isis and Serapis the greatest of the gods grant to you to rule over the whole land upon which the sun looks down, and to your children for ever. May you be happy!

It does not appear what attention this second petition gained, but it was soon followed by a third.

To King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra, his sister, the mother-loving gods, Ptolemy the son of Glaucias a Macedonian, who is in the great temple of Serapis, in confinement in the temple of Astarte until now, sends greeting.

I am ill-treated by Argæus, a servant of the company of Dexilaus; for he deprives me of the allowance of corn which you gave to me, O King. For when in the year [24] I beseeched you to grant to me a favour in respect of my brother Apollonius, and you did grant me the favour, and handed him. over to the company of Dexilaus, yet the before-mentioned Argæus carried him away from me into the public services, and he deprives me of the allowance of corn, because I have no other protector against the wicked men in this place. And the priests and shrine-bearers and certain other persons, as soon as they know that he has been removed to the public service, being wholly deceived, violently plunder me and insult me, so much as to throw stones at me through the window. And when Posidonius, the chief of the body-guard and general, came upon them, I petitioned him through the door, and he called them up to him and chastised them.

Wherefore I beseech you, O Sun, O King, not to overlook me who am in confinement, but if it seems good to you to write to Posidonius that he allow Apollonius to be free from the public service so that he be near to me; and force him [Posidonius] to give to me the money and the allowance of corn for the time already past, and for the future to treat me properly, rightly, justly, and with kindness.

And may Isis and Serapis and the twelve gods who are in Heracleopolis grant to you to rule over the whole land which the sun looks down upon, and to your children for ever. May you be happy!

Astarte was a name for the Egyptian goddess Athor, or Venus; and more exactly perhaps for the goddess called by Herodotus the Phoenician Venus. Her temple however, here described as forming a part of the large temple of Serapis, was

not that mentioned by Herodotus, which would seem to have been in another part of Memphis.

The particulars of the young officer's pay cannot be explained with certainty. It was equal to four Artabas and a half of wheat. The measure of an Artaba is very uncertain; it was perhaps equal to three bushels; and then the pay was about fourteen bushels. This was probably the monthly pay. The symbol in the manuscript, here translated a piece of brass, must have meant that metal; it cannot have meant silver, or we should have the price of the wheat too high.

SAMUEL SHARPE.

ANCIENT ATHEISM AND SUPERSTITION.

As good and evil are almost invariably mixed in human affairs, the advance of science in modern times has given birth to many opinions adverse to a firm belief in revelation. Geology has brought into question the literal truth of the Mosaic cosmogony. Astronomy is held to be equally irreconcilable with the Scriptural narrative of the creation of the heavenly host." Ethnologists often treat with avowed contempt the genealogy of nations, as contained in the tenth chapter of Genesis.' Egyptology carries the history of Egypt on what it contends to be a firm basis to a period anterior to the Mosaic chronology of the deluge, or even of that of the creation. The labours of the Assyrian

We may also add that the arguments for the plurality of inhabited worlds (arguments which have been much enlarged and improved since the days of Fontenelle), have also caused, among the laity, many serious doubts of the truth of revelation. That all the fixed stars and planets are inhabited worlds we should think no reasonable man could doubt:-with the sceptical deductions drawn from this theory we see not the slightest ground to coincide.

An instance of this will be found in Bohn's edition of Mallett's Northern Antiquities, edited by Mr. J. A. Blackwell. The editor (p. 26) thus expresses his opinion of the incongruity between the Bible and ethnology. "We might certainly, like the writers of a by-gone age, leave the ark with Noah, and make Shem, Ham, and Japhet the progenitors of mankind; but when we confine ourselves within the domain of science, we must necessarily proceed on principles more in accordance with physiological researches and historical facts." We do not pretend to blame Mr. Blackwell for this free expression of his opinions; we only lament the superficiality of his science. The modern ethnologists have accumulated a most valuable treasure of important facts; but they have blundered most egregiously in their attempts to arrange and apply them.

We need scarcely observe that the chronology of ancient Egypt is still a subject of warm debate among the learned. The Champollions place the commencement of the reign of Menei, or Menes, in the year 5867 B.c.; but the basis

explorers (which were at first hailed by certain of the clergy as a vast corroboration of Revelation), disclose historical facts of which the Hebrew records make no mention, although it should seem very difficult that they could inadvertently have omitted them. The Chaldean inscriptions seem to present some points not easily reconcileable with the early history of Genesis. The contemptible impostures which Professor Chwolson has disentombed from the libraries of Europe, and which modern credulity has received as happily preserved specimens of ancient Babylonian literature, while introducing confusion into all history, sacred and profane, have (it is to be feared) been principally welcomed as furnishing many points of attack against the Hebrew records. Glossology has proved, beyond dispute, the of their chronological system has been disputed by Bunsen and Lepsius, and the theories of the two Germans are likely enough to be in their turn overthrown. It is even still disputed whether some of the earlier dynasties were successive or collateral. The monumental notices of the foreign wars of Egypt would be of the very greatest historical interest if it were possible to identify the names of all the nations which they encountered; but this has hitherto been found impracticable with respect to some of the most important among them. Upon the whole, a vast deal has been accomplished; and yet Egyptology is a science which has barely emerged from its cradle.

It is well known that when the attempts to translate the Assyrian inscriptions began to produce reliable results, many of the clergy loudly expressed their conviction that important confirmations of the scriptural history might be expected from this source. Less sanguine persons at once perceived that the Assyrian monuments might illustrate the Bible, but could not reasonably be expected to confirm those parts which were the objects of scepticism. Even scepticism was not disposed to question the general correctness of the history of the Old Testament subsequent to the accession of David; it was the miracles only which were called in question, and which were quietly, but firmly, laid aside by writers of the German school of criticism. Now nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that the miracles (such, for instance, as that which caused the destruction of the host of Sennacherib) would have been noticed in the cuneiform inscriptions, as if expressly to insult the deities of Assyria. The result has sufficiently shewn that the Assyrian inscriptions have hitherto raised far more doubts with respect to revelation than they have contributed to solve. Of course we do not believe that these doubts have any reasonable foundation; our only object is to guard ill-informed and inconsiderate persons from resting the truth of revelation upon collateral matters which have no necessary connexion with it.

It would be difficult to deny that the reception given to what have been termed Professor Chwolson's discoveries is, in a great degree, to be attributed to the prevailing religious scepticism of the age. Books of such antiquity as that which is claimed for these pretended translations from Chaldean MSS. would have been rivals of no slight importance to the Pentateuch itself. It is difficult to conceive a more ludicrous instance of the erroneous direction of the views of modern criticism than is presented in the case of these MSS. To our surprise, we find the very persons who would gladly treat the Pentateuch as a compilation of the sixth or fifth century B.C. receiving, with the readiest acquiescence, the pitiable rubbish of these Baghdadi forgeries. That they were the productions of Syrian impostors settled in 'Irâc 'Arabî in the tenth century of our era we believe no one will doubt, when the ephemeral popularity which they have gained shall have expired. Of course we readily admit that very respectable men have, from unimpeachable motives, received these documents upon Chwol

startling fact that the Hebrew language, which appears from the writings of Moses to be at least as old as Nimrod and the foundation of Nineveh, nay, even as that of Babel shortly after the deluge, is in fact a comparatively modern language, composed of the debris of an earlier speech, and containing in its original biliteral roots a considerable portion of Teutonic. And even metaphysics have been compelled by those great refiners-who darken every subject which they mysteriously handle with their cobweb-arranging fingers-to confirm the too prevailing doubts of the existence of a Deity.

As Atheism is a negation, the most useful mode of attacking it may be to shew its results; and to point out how invariably the Atheism of the instructors of a nation is concomitant with the superstition of the vulgar; how the yoke of superstition at length becomes intolerable even to the vulgar mind; how Atheism then steps forward to its relief; and how, when its merits have been fully tested, it is found necessary to recur

son's authority. [Upon the subject of Chwolson's imaginary Nabatean literature, a long and elaborate article appeared in the Times newspaper of Jan. 31, 1862. We are probably not far wrong in assigning that paper to the learned Max Müller.- ED.]

The merit of this discovery is due to Gesenius. It ought, however, to have been so obvious to any one who even carelessly looked over an Arabic lexicon, that the only subject for surprise is, that the first suspicion of so important a fact should have been reserved for the nineteenth century. Before we were aware of the discovery of Gesenius we had ourselves been led to the same conclusion, and had deduced from our observations the following rules:

I. All the pure Chamo-Semitic roots appear to have been originally biliteral. II. They were rendered triliteral upon settled and uniform principles, either, 1. By joining two biliteral roots, of such a description that the last letter of the first root should be the same as the first of the second. Thus

(tetigit

manu) is formed from (prope fuit, tetigit), and (tetigit). It may be observed that lamh, in Keltic, signifies a hand. 2. By adding a preposition at the beginning or end of the biliteral root. 3. By prefixing to the biliteral root one of the letters &,,, or . 4. By adding in the middle of the root. 5. By doubling the last letter of the root.

III. Many of the original biliteral roots are Teutonic, some Celtic, and others may be traced to other languages.

The important result of this discovery is, that the Hebrew, which the Jewish Rabbins assert to have been the language of Paradise,--an opinion in which they have been supported by many Christians of distinguished learning,-is, together with its kindred dialects, proved to have been a derivative language, and either more modern than the Teutonic, or formed, collaterally with the Teutonic, from the wreck of a language earlier than either. In this surprising fact we have the evidence of great revolations between the time of the deluge and the era when the Chamo-Semitic, with its triliteral roots, is first known to have existed; and for these revolutions we seem to have no adequate period of time allowed us, in the most enlarged system of Biblical chronology. This becomes of still more importance, because it is corroborated by the evidence of the Egyptian monuments, and by numerous other arguments which might be adduced, and which lead precisely to the same conclusion.

again to superstition, as a desperate relief from the kindred

monster.

The same thing "has already been of old which was before us," and we may especially discern it in the example of that people which all the nations of civilized Europe agree in representing as the most enlightened of antiquity.

We propose, therefore, to recall to the recollection of our readers the old and familiar, but still instructive picture of Grecian Atheism and superstition, that modern Europe may, if it is wisely inclined, reflect upon the example of that acute and highly favoured people,-the great guide in science, and model in arts, and the true leader of modern civilization, and may derive from them the instructive lesson, how inevitable is the fall from superstition to Atheism, and the counter-recoil, and how pernicious is the influence of each to the prosperity of a people.

These enquiries, we presume, will not be considered as foreign to the proper scope of a work dedicated to Biblical science, since the cause of truth cannot be better served than by exposing the errors and false steps of its opponents.

CHAP. I. Early Greek Atheism and its Egyptian origin.

The Grecian polytheism was based upon the chaotic philosophy; and the origin of that philosophy must be sought for in Egypt. In that country it appeared the natural offspring of the soil and its phenomena. It was precisely that theory of the origin of things which the annual new-birth of Egypt from the inundation of the Nile was likely to suggest, in the infancy of philosophy, to an inquisitive people. It may be useful, therefore, to take a cursory view of the staple philosophy of Egypt, rendered permanent by the traditions of a priesthood not much inclined to change, before we proceed to the Greek philosophy, constantly varying and changing its face from the variety of its teachers, and from the temper of a people fond of novelty, and infinitely more inclined to rash speculation than to laborious research.

According to Diodorus Siculus (whose statement in this respect may be accepted from its inherent probability, and the corroboration which it receives from other sources), the cosmogony of the Egyptian philosophers strongly resembled that of which Ovid presents to us the picture (poetically expanded and richly embellished), in the first book of his Metamorphoses. The Egyptian priests, in their esoteric philosophy, held that the materials of which the world was composed were originally mixed