before the captivity, or before the separation of the ten tribes; consequently, that the Samaritan letters, supposed to be the same with those on the coins, were the ancient Hebrew characters, in which the books of the Old Testament were originally written.

"But the learned are now generally agreed that these coins are spurious-that, admitting them to be genuine, the letters are not the same with those of the Samaritan Pentateuch, as appears from the plates given us of these coinsthat, supposing them the same, nothing could thence be concluded in favour of so remote an antiquity as they are intended to prove; for the oldest of these coins, as the dates on them show, do not precede the settlement of the high priesthood in the Asmonean family,12 which happened above three hundred years after the return of the Jews from captivity, or about one hundred and fifty years before Christ. "This single observa

12 "See Bayer's plates of these coins, the oldest of which he refers to Simon Maccabeus of the Asmonean family. Ch. ii. p. 62, &c.

tion,' as the authors of the Universal History

have remarked,13 renders all arguments drawn

from these shekels perfectly chimerical.'

Inscriptions of this nature, however, serve to show the variations which many of the ancient oriental characters have undergone. These variations have been ascribed to the diversity of dialects occasioned by the confusion at Babel : 'Neque literarum figuræ (says Hermannus Hugo) ante cœperunt esse diversæ quàm diversitas idiomatum nata est in confusione Babel; nunquam enim legimus unius alicujus linguæ aut gentis literas fuisse diversas, nisi forte capitales seu initiales, medias et finales ut apud Arabes; vel solas initiales et finales ut apud Hebræos ; vel solas capitales ut apud Latinos; aut certe, quando gens aliqua in alterius venit potestatem, a quâ cum legibus etiam literas acceperit.' p. 42, &c.

"As to the five letters here alluded to, which, at the end of words, assume another form in the

13 "See vol. xvi. b. iii. ch. 37, and the authors there quoted, p. 652.

Hebrew, and are therefore called finals, they affect not in the least the question before us; this will appear from the account given us by Dr. Kennicott of their origin and use. 'It is well known (says he) that the twenty-two Hebrew letters express numbers as far as four hundred, and that the five remaining hundreds (under one thousand) are expressed by different forms, and, as they are not in the least wanted to express words, and yet are used in the Bible, so may we conclude they were first introduced into the Bible for the purpose of numbers. This is the use made of them by the Jews in their own writings.' Kenn. Dissert. vol. ii. p. 209.”

CHAP. VII.

"The supposed change of Letters by Ezra unfounded— Credulity of St. Jerome―The Autograph of Moses— not the only book of the Law preserved by the Jews during their Captivity - Argument from Targums answered no twofold character in use among the

Jews-Bruce's Argument in favour of the Ethiopicdoes not affect the Antiquity of the Hebrew-the Hebrew Alphabet the original or parent Alphabet— Summary of the foregoing arguments-collectively taken they demonstrate the originality and purity of the Biblical Hebrew-an objection from the points.

"BUT objections to the present Hebrew letters have not been confined merely to a deviation from their original form; another, of a more general nature, has been also urged against their antiquity; for it has been said that Ezra and his companions of the great synagogue, when they formed a canon of the sacred books, had changed the old Hebrew characters for the Chaldean or square ones, as better known to the Jews who lived so long at Babylon. Resentment is also supposed to have had some share in this change, as they did not choose to make use of the same characters with the Samaritans, who had opposed the rebuilding of the Temple, and with whom they resolved to have no future intercourse : hence it has been inferred that the Samaritans

have retained the old Hebrew characters, thus relinquished by Ezra, for the square ones now

in use.

"In answer to this, it may be asked, in the first place, How does it appear that the square character was the Chaldean in the time of Ezra and the captivity? Is it not much more probable that the Samaritan was the Chaldean, (or, making some allowance for the effects of time, that it nearly resembled it,) inasmuch as the Samaritans were a colony of the Chaldeans, as has been already shown. Besides, it deserves consideration, that Daniel the Jew was a captive at this time, and wrote in the square character, if it be allowed that he wrote his own prophecies, which are handed down to us in this character; and he it was who read the hand-writing on the wall that terrified Belshazzar: (Dan. ch. v.) This writing was not in the Chaldee characters, or those used in Chaldea or Babylon, for the Chaldeans could not read them; but as Daniel, who was in Babylon at this time, read and interpreted them, it is evident they must have been those to which he