may be said, in one sense, to pay them, since the money passes through his hands, and the legatees look to him for it; but he does not pay in the same sense in which he pays his labourers their wages, because the legacy money is not, nor ever was, his. And in one sense you may, if you will, call these legacies a tax levied by the government, inasmuch as the laws of the land enforce the payment of it; but in a very different sense from that in which any other tax is so called; viz. a portion withdrawn, at the command of the State, for the public exigencies, from that which was before the private property of the individual. It is easy to see to which description the chief part of the Church revenues belongs. Those who occupy glebe-lands pay the clergy exactly in the same sense of the word, and in the same manner, as the occupiers of any other land pay their landlords, whether bodies corporate, such as hospitals and colleges, or individuals. Nor is the case of tithes any thing materially distinct from that of other property. Some are held by laymen, some by incumbents of livings, some by bodies corporate; but in all cases, he who is called the owner of the land has manifestly no more claim to the nine-tenths of the produce, than the tithe-holder has to his one-tenth. It is most unreasonable, therefore, that the tithe-payer should complain of being obliged to surrender what never belonged to him; even the desire to retain it, is as manifest a breach of the tenth commandment, as to covet an adjoining farm.-Pp. 134-136.

-or in some

I know the Dissenters are apt to cast in the teeth of your clergy, that they are paid for their preaching; though in reality they are the only ministers of religion in England who are not. All dissenting teachers are dependent on contributions put into the plate,- -on the letting of pews in chapels,other way, on the wages their congregations choose to pay them. On the contrary, that which is paid to the clergy of the Church of England is not paid, in the same sense of the word; any more than a legacy is paid by an executor, whose property it is not, nor ever was. And the Church of England has the same equitable title to what she now possesses, as colleges, hospitals, and other such institutions, have to their respective possessions. The projected London University might as well claim a share of the revenues of Oxford and Cambridge, and of the Scotch and Irish universities, (of none of which the civil magistrate is the academical, but only the civil ruler,) as the Dissenters could of the property actually in possession of the Church. As for any portion of the national wealth which might hereafter be set apart for religious purposes, by all means let any sect come forward and urge its claims, and support them by such arguments as it thinks best. But that is quite a different question.

Λαοὺς οὐκ επέοικε ΠΑΛΙΛΛΟΓΑ ταῦτ ̓ ἐπαγείρειν.

As for the power of the sectaries to make good such an unreasonable demand, it is to be hoped that the government of Britain will never want either the will or the strength to protect one part of her subjects from being plundered by another. She might answer, and I trust would answer, to such claimants, "You have seminaries, chapels, ministers' houses, and other such property for the benefit of your own religious communities; to which the Church of England lays no claim: why should you claim her property? It is true, your possessions are very small in comparison of hers: so are your numbers; but they are also, we allow, much less in proportion to your numbers. What then? If mere inequality of wealth is to be admitted as a ground for a re-distribution, there is an end of society. Any one of you who possesses any thing, must on that principle admit the claim of any poor man, who may urge that his neighbour has more than enough for a subsistence, and that he himself would be glad of a share: by which rule, a general pillage of the rich by the poor must ensue. Covet not, then, what belongs to another; but seek by honest means to provide supplies for your own wants."-Pp. 162-164.

This advice would be serviceable to more than the dissenters.

The following too, is a not less faithful than melancholy picture of the state of the Church under the present lamentable abeyance of the convocation.

You, on the contrary, are even in a greater strait than the Church of Rome; whose pretence to infallibility only compels them to maintain, in theory, that each of their institutions was perfect at the time when it was established; whereas you have to maintain, in practice, the unerring rectitude of your own, not only originally, but for ever: they may say, "this is no longer expedient;" but your institutions are like the "law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not," even after two or three centuries. For you cannot alter any thing without the co-operation of the civil power; and with it, you are too wise to take any such steps; lest when once called in, it should do more than you would wish. You are well aware that those who are "set to judge in things pertaining to this world," may as likely as not be "those who are least esteemed in the Church," persons not necessarily better qualified to decide upon your concerns, than many a parish minister is to be a minister of State;-persons who, perhaps, have little interest or knowledge about any thing belonging to the Church, except its property. And you well know that it is dangerous to make any of your institutions matter of public legislative discussion, between two parties, most of whom usually agree in regarding the clergy as hired servants of the State, no less than military officers; and who only disagree as to the question, whether others may not be found to do the work cheaper, that they may seize upon the overplus. Of course you will not understand me to mean that any one is necessarily the worse moral man, or the worse Christian, or the worse theologian, for being a politician; but neither is he necessarily the better. If any one doubts the possibility of finding in eminent statesmen the grossest ignorance of the doctrines and institutions of the Church of England, let him read the speeches in parliament on the Catholic [Popish] question.-Pp. 173, 174.

We must here close our extracts. Our readers will see, from what we have already made, the strange treatment which the Church is to expect at the hands of her friends as well as enemies. May the State know and esteem her worth, forming as she does its best and worthiest security! But if the "march" (as it is the fashion to call it) of a false liberality is to take its direction through her hallowed precincts; if her ally, treacherous to a solemn trust, and regardless of the holiest obligations, takes advantage of their conventional treaty to obtrude new doctrines, or intermeddle with her lawful possessions; may she boldly withstand the usurpation, and assert the independence to which a violated pledge restores her! May she never consent, for any emolument or any consideration. whatever, to stain the purity of her doctrines, or the dignity of her character! "for a persecuted Church is not thereby less pure, though less fortunate."* And though her purity will afford her no safeguard from the malice of her enemies, but rather incite them to their work of iniquity, yet it will afford her a refuge where they cannot come, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.

*Letter of King Charles I. to the Prince of Wales. Clarendon, Book X.

ART. II.-Lectures on the Elements of Hieroglyphics and Egyptian Antiquities. By the Marquis SPINETO. London: Rivingtons. 1829. 8vo. pp. xx. 496, with eleven plates, price 16s.

THE learned author of this interesting publication has little cause to. express any fear that an apology is necessary for his style or language; for though we allow, that our mother-tongue is "full of idioms and niceties which present difficulties even to the natives themselves, and seem to baffle and defy all the efforts of a foreigner," he appears to have mastered them with a readiness and a precision which are very remarkable, and of which he is not a little proud. But the public already know his ability, the Marquis having acted as interpreter of the Italian witnesses in the Queen's trial.

Before we enter on the consideration of the topics treated of, it may be as well to remark that the Marquis Spineto is a little of an enthusiast, and on that account there is a deduction to be made from some of his reveries about Champollion, and the subterranean tunnels under the ruins of Memphis and Thebes. A learned contemporary in the Foreign Quarterly Review (No. 8,) has given a more accurate character of the great French hieroglyphist than the Marquis has done, and has also shewn up the folly of certain German writers on these subjects, which the Marquis* appears to have been not only ignorant of, but to have fathered on Champollion himself by mistake. The book professes to be a book of Lectures, and it certainly comes up to our ideas of what such a book should be-it is written in the gentlemanly style of an accomplished teacher.

The introductory Lecture treats of a variety of particulars connected with the subject, in which is the commencement of the inquiry into the meaning of hieroglyphics, by an examination of the Rosetta stone, of which our classical readers will remember that much has been written, and very learnedly, in the second volume of the Museum Criticum. That stone, containing inscriptions in the Greek, hieroglyphic, and Egyptian languages, opened a door to future inquiries; and not in vain. The results have been various; but thus much has been established,-that the Coptic, the Greek, and hieroglyphic characters are intimately connected :† that the hieroglyphics, instead of being a sacred and mysterious language confined to the priests, as its title supposes, and many ingenious writers have endeavoured to establish, are the characters of a universal and popular language,

* We beg our readers to compare p. 82. of the Marquis's book, with p. 440. of the Foreign Quarterly Review, vol. iv. No. 8, for a proof of our assertion. It is curious. Captain Light had pointed this out in his Travels many years ago.

which was once known to and read by the whole of the people of Egypt :* that the inscriptions on the monuments of ancient Egyptian splendour and magnificence record the exploits of the kings who governed Egypt; and that, in fact, they are the annals of their history; that, moreover, the legends of the deities whom these pagans adored are also sculptured, under the resemblance of figures of things or beings consecrated to them, upon the temples of Louqsor (Lucksor), Esné, Dendera, and Karnac. These, indeed, are important discoveries, and fully justify what the Marquis has said of them. It further appears, that the hieroglyphical language is of a similar nature with the Chinese, consisting of symbols which, in a great many instances, are equally employed by both nations: an additional proof to be added to the many already established, that there is more than conjecture in the notion, that the Chinese sprung from a colony of ancient Egyptians, and that (when science shall have further explored the character and history of that singular race) it will be found, that amongst them are many records of former days, which under the obscurity of an exaggerated chronology have been considered fabulous.

As our purpose is not to explain how all this has been discovered, our readers will excuse our going into details which would interrupt our order in this short paper, consume our space, and put out of our power the noticing of more general and interesting facts.

The Marquis divides hieroglyphics into three branches,-Proper, Abridged, and Conventional. There are also Symbolical characters. We give these quotations in explanation.

Now, suppose we were to imagine an alphabet of our own: to write the name of London, for instance, we might choose for the several letters the following images, or hieroglyphics. For the letter L we might take the figure of a lion, or of a lamb, or of a lancet, or a leaf, or any other such objects, whose names begin with an L. Again, to express the letter N, we might select a net, a negro, the north star, and the nave of a temple. To denote the letter D, we might choose the figure of a dromedary, or a dagger, the deck of a ship, or even the whole of the ship, to signify the deck; and for the letter O, we might pick out the figure of an oak tree, an ostrich, an ox, or an owl. Now if from all these images, or hieroglyphics, we should be obliged to write the word London, we ought not to select the lamb, but the lion, as the expression of the letter L, because the lion is the acknowledged emblem of England. For the O, we should prefer the representation of an oak-tree, or of the acorn its fruit, as connected with the building of a ship: for the N, you certainly would not pick-out the negro slave, for this choice would be quite unnatural, and contrary to the

*This was the opinion of a writer in the Quarterly Review, vol. xix. p. 388, who quotes De Brosses, and alludes to what we shall mention further on about the Chinese. The Mexicans and the Bretons supply proofs that symbolical writing is a natural style of composition. If it would not savour of levity, we might quote the story of the American quaker who kept accounts in hieroglyphics, and charged a friend, by mistake, for a cheese instead of a grindstone; the former represented by a circle with, the latter by one without, a dot for the centre-that dot making the difference! What is the mo

dern system of mnemonics?

decided antipathy which the English have to slavery; nor would you select the representation of the nave of a church, because this emblem would better suit an ecclesiastical government, and by no possible means could it apply to your nation; but you would choose, in preference, the fishing net, or the north star, as the only images which would convey to the mind of a beholder two of the characteristics of a sea-faring nation, as the English are. And, last of all, for the letter D, you would, I am certain, decidedly prefer the representation of the whole, or of a part of a ship, as the only image connected with the very existence of the nation. Thus the whole word London, written hieroglyphically, would then be represented by a lion, an oak-tree, a net, a ship, and the north star; for, you remember, we have no need to repeat the second O.-Pp. 91, 92. Besides these three different sorts of hieroglyphics, which all represent the image of the object, more or less accurately, there is another sort, which is called symbolical. These hieroglyphics not being able to express by themselves the forms and figures of the thing itself, are made to do so by borrowing the image of another object, which possesses some qualities common to both. This was

done in four ways:

1st. By taking a part for the whole: for instance, two hands and two arms holding a bow, and some arrows, were made to express a battle; a box, with a flame or smoke issuing out of it, as if burning frankincense, represented an act of adoration.

2dly. By taking the cause for the effect; for instance, to take the moon as the sign of the months; a reed, with a little box used to hold ink, or other colour, for the act of writing.

3dly. By employing the image of an object to express another metaphorically. Thus, the wings of a bird signify the wind; the head and shoulders of a lion, force and courage.

4thly. By convention; when the image of one object is made to signify another, with which it has no similarity, nor even a distant relation, except what convention has given to it. Some of these may appear real enigmas, and may occasionally require explanation; which, however, a tolerable acquaintance with the Coptic language allows us to obtain. Such is the scarabeus, to signify the world, or the male nature, or paternity; a vulture the female nature, or maternity; a twisted serpent the course of the planets; a mouse, destruction; a hare, openness. And, finally, we must reckon among these symbolical, or enigmatical hieroglyphics, those signs which are introduced to represent some of their gods and goddesses; and this representation may be done in three different ways.

First, by exhibiting an inanimate object, or even part of an animated one, such as an eye, for Osiris; an obelisk, for Jupiter Ammon; a nilometer, for the god Phtha.

Secondly, by representing each of their gods and goddesses under the human figure, but with the head of the animal that was consecrated to him or to her. Thus, the figure of a man, with the head of a ram, signified Jupiter Ammon; with the head of a hawk, the god Phtha; with the head of a crocodile, the god Souk, or Suchus, something like the Saturn of the Greeks; and so on.

Lastly, by leaving out, altogether, the figure, and exhibiting only the animal, with some of the divine attributes. Thus, a hawk, with a circle on its head, signifies the god Phré; a ram, having its horns surmounted by a feather, or more generally by a circle, Ammon Cnouphis; and so on.

However ridiculous, or, if you like it best, however monstrous, this combination may appear to us now, it was the consequence of the notion which has prevailed among mankind from time immemorial, that some particular animal enjoyed the protection of, and was consecrated to, a particular god; it exists to this day in many parts of Europe, and it has existed amongst all the ancient nations. The form, therefore, which the Egyptians gave of their deities, of a human figure with the head of a particular animal, was neither more nor less than what was afterwards practised by the Grecks and the Romans, and after