the monosyllabic system, the use of mere intonation, in order to effect a sufficient extent and variety of vocal sounds, for the purposes of language, among a people ever so little advanced in civilization, literature and science. Moreover, as justly remarked in one of the extracts in the May No. of the OBSERVER, SO much time is necessarily consumed in the laborious acquisition of the written symbol, or arbitrary, if not hieroglyphic character, as to render the adoption of a simple visible expression of the sounds of this singular language a desideratum of no small moment, whether we regard the rapidity, or the facility and extension of its acquisition. The Japanese have outstripped the inhabitants of the "Celestial Empire," as have even the Coreans, the Tibetians, the Burmese, the Arracanese, the Siamese, and partially the people of Laos and Cochin-China; for all these nations have an alphabetic character more or less perfect, and apparently borrowed from the Sanskrit, either as to its power, or its form, or to both at once. In the No. of the OBSERVER for June last, I offered some remarks upon the character and language of Japan, which appears, as to its sounds, to be closely allied to the great Indian source; but, as to its written form, to be of indigenous production, being an application of some of the simplest of the Chinese characters, and a further simplification of others, to the purposes of an alphabetic expression. "BETA" in his second extract justly observes, that "of the need of an alphabetic writing for the Chinese, there can be no doubt. They spend so much time, on the present system, in learning merely to read and write, that little or no time is left for the study of science, history, or aught else that can raise them from their degraded situation." Yet he also thinks, that " a new alphabet similar to the Corean, and, like it, easy to be written with the Chinese brush," would be preferrible to the Roman letter for the Chinese. I add, that the Chinese character is cojectionable also, from its size, as well as from its complexity, and arbitrariness, and disconnection from every system of mere utterance. It is not a phonetic, but a visible, expression, and that too of singular clumsiness and difficulty. I trust therefore that some speedy efforts will be successfully made to bestow the boon of an alphabet upon the millions of China-a measure which must so eminently tend to approximate them to the rest of the nations, to break up their exclusive system and preju dices, and to facilitate and extend all the blessings of knowledge and of true religion over that vast empire.

As a matter of interest and laudable curiosity, I submit for your insertion in the OBSERVER, the following tabular view, in Roman character, of the Chinese colloquial medium, similar to that of the Japanese in your last number. I have extracted it from Marshman's admirable Grammar, only that I have adopted the vowel expressions as given by Sir W. Jones, and somewhat modified the arrangement.

I.-Initial Powers or Consonants, called "Mother-sounds."

11.-Final Powers, called " Auxiliary or helping sounds,” includiny

Vowels and Diphthongs.

a á i íuú e, oi or y, o, au, ah.

Here, at a glance, is a manifest variety of the Sanskrit alphabet, as to its system of sounds, which, however the connexion may be historically explained, cannot, I think, as to the fact of a common source, be doubted. The perfect feasibility too of writing the Chinese sounds in the Roman character is apparent. The expediency or advantage of its adoption must be determined by other considerations, some of which I have above alluded to. I remark on the above tables,

1. That the Chinese has really but the first or hard consonants of each of the four Sanskrit classes which it exhibits; for the third of each, the above arrangement shews no difference of sound from the first. Dr. Marshman asks, " Did the authors of the Chinese system insert these four initial powers, though useless, out of compliment to the Sanskrit system? or had they some faint idea, that there once existed sounds, if now lost, which, in some degree, differed from k, ch, t, and p, and in the same degree approximated to g, j, d, and b? for these are the sounds in which the Chinese are deficient.'

2. The 3rd series of the Sanskrit system is entirely wanting in the Chinese.

3. The 5th series of the Chinese initials is not found in the Sanskrit, but is evidently formed on the model of the others, so as to take in the vor w of that system, and supplies a deficiency in it, to express the sounds of the Chinese colloquial medium existing when the alphabetic arrangement was borrowed; unless we rather infer, that the authors of the Sanskrit system derived it from the Chinese phonetic powers, excluding such as their spoken tongue had no application for.

4. The 6th and 7th series are also in excess of the Sanskrit alphabet, with exception of the sibilants 's' and 'sh' in each. The 6th shews a sound similar to the Hebrew tsaddi, simple and aspirate, as the 7th does a sound somewhat harsher than the simple ch' class of the Sanskrit table. These are the filling up of the sibilants of the latter, as the 8th series is of the v or w.

5. The 8th series is the Sanskrit aspirate 'h,' of which the 'hh' is a harsher and stronger sound, approaching the Hebrew or Arabic. The 3rd letter of the series is a soft aspiration, approximating to the guttural y, or gentle g.

6. The 9th series supplies the place of the Sanskrit liquids, from which '' is excluded, as unpronounceable by the Chinese; while l'a gentle aspirate uttered perhaps somewhat as the Spanish I in llano, the nearest approach to which in English is our y.

7. The Chinese system, besides the above initials and vowels, has a variety which might be expressed by the Sanskrit Kya Phola and Kwa Phola, i. e. the insertion of a y, or a w, between the consonant and following vowel, which may be seen at large in Marshman. They form the compound nasals of the table.

8. The No. of sounds, or monosyllabic words, produced by the combina tion of the final with the initial powers, is but 684, according to Dr. Marshman. These are "all the words by which the Chinese have conveyed their ideas to each other (orally) from time immemorial; and all the sounds which they have used to express the multitude of characters contained in their written medium." "They really possess a colloquial medium, which contains the consonant, vowel and nasal sounds found in other alphabets," (and clearly referrible to the standard of the Sanskrit and its deriva tives,) as "well as some found in scarcely any other system; yet few will be

disposed," adds the Doctor, "to affirm that the Chinese have ever used this for the legitimate purposes of an alphabetic system, or that they have even any just idea of an alphabet*."

9. On the question of priority and mutation between the two systems, Dr. Marshman observes," Of the certainty of their independent origin, those will not hastily decide, who consider that the Arabic, Ethiopic, Persian, Greek, and Roman alphabets, and most of those in the western world, may be traced to one source, widely different as are the languages themselves, some of them, clearly forming distinct families, having few and small points of resemblance, one with another; and the formation therefrom of the Sanskrit alphabetic system has been already shewn to be at least possible. But to ascertain whether it was actually formed from this as an outline; or whether the Hindus invented a totally new system, requires a thorough research into the ancient history of both nations." A curious and interesting synopsis follows, in the grammar, of the variations from the Sanskrit standard on the one side, and the Chinese on the other, in the alphabetic systems of the Indo-Chinese nations, speaking more or less monosyllabic languages, as they approach or recede from the one source, or the other, in geographical position;-from which he concludes that, "while the Sanskrit alphabetic system prevails almost throughout the eastern part of Asia, where alphabetic symbols are used, the moment it passes the bounds of Bengal to the N. or E., it finds a different colloquial medium in possession of those countries. This medium, in various degrees, refuses to be identified with the Sanskrit alphabetic system; and has such firm hold on the respective countries, as to induce their inhabitants, while they receive the Sanskrit alphabet, to reject some of the letters wholly, and to change the sound of others. But this colloquial medium, as it recedes from the Sanskrit alphabetic system, is found to approximate in precisely the same degree toward the Chinese colloquial system. While this approximation is visible in the countries nearest Bengal, such as Bootan, Tibet, Arracan, and the Burmese dominions, it seems to increase in the countries nearer to China, till the alphabetic symbols of the Sanskrit are debarred an entrance by the use of the Chinese characters, as well as of their colloquial medium." "These facts seem to indicate that there was a time when all the countries W. and S. of China, up to the very borders of Bengal, comprising an extent of nearly 1000 miles in length, used the Chinese colloquial medium. But in after-ages, some event (which he justly deems to have been the expulsion of the Buddhists from Hindustán,) seems to have carried the Sanskrit alphabetic system into these countries, and to have caused its adoption in those nearest to Bengal, with such alterations, how. ever, as were necessary to accommodate it to the colloquial medium, already current in them. Still, such was the existing power of this medium, that the propelling cause was unable to carry the Sanskrit system fully into China, or even into certain of the countries contiguous thereto : thus the Chinese characters have there kept their ground to this day, as well as the colloquial medium."

Hoping the above may prove acceptable to some of your readers,
I am, Gentlemen, your's, &c.
CINSURENSIS.

Ignorant that sounds could be united, as well as characters, their colloquial medium is narrow and confined, beyond that of any other nation. The written medium is clear and distinct, having no two characters perfectly alike; while if we estimate the characters at about 30,000, and divide that number equally among the 178 intonations, we shall have an average of full 16 characters to each intonation; and were we to divide them by the number of monosyllables 630, we must allot 46 characters to each monosyllable," i. e. not one, two, or three, but 40 words, or upwards, of precisely the same sound though totally different meaning.—Marshman.

III.-On Idolatry.

He

Every European sojourner in India must be sensible of a most painful alteration in his feelings as it regards the subject of idolatry. There, where it was unseen, it was contemplated with pity and abhorrence; but here, where it appears in all its deformity and ugliness, it is viewed, even by the Christian, with a light-mindedness and a thoughtlessness of which he never supposed himself capable. Temples, and idols, and idolaters are now to him matters of very small moment. is sometimes even amused with the sights; and not unfrequently almost desires that he could be permitted to have a peep behind the scenes, and view the hidden abominations, and the midnight orgies. He is not, however, indifferent. His wishes and prayers, that all would pass away, are sometimes most fervent. But still he does not feel what he once felt. Pity for the poor idolater is gone. Abhorrence of idolatry does not exist. And when he reflects on his state of mind, he not only wonders at the change, but hates it, and indulges in bitter reflections against himself.

This last is as it should be; but still the case is not altered. The Christian does not feel differently, nor do we suppose that he can feel differently. As the frequent sight of death and the tomb hardens the feelings of the naturally humane sick-nurse and grave-digger; so the frequent sight of idols and temples weakens our impressions of the hatefulness of idolatry. It is not, however, desirable that our religious sense should be more blunted than is unavoidable. We are commanded to let the same mind be in us which was in Christ; and if idolatry be hateful to Him, it should be so to us; and we should consequently seek that his spirit may be inwrought to our very natures. With a view to the effecting of something of this kind, we purpose to present to the reader a few observations on this important topic. The ideas may be common-place, and such as are familiar to the most ordinary Christian; but they may, nevertheless, be just, and also be calculated to accomplish the intended object.

1. Of all the sins mentioned in the Bible, none has such a prominent place as idolatry. It seems as if it covered as much of the page of revelation, as it does of the surface of the earth. Every where it is to be met with. It stands out in bold relief on almost every page. The Old Testament is replete with the most appalling descriptions of it, with the most solemn denunciations against it, and with details of the most awful judgments which it has brought down upon men. Nor is the New Testament less occupied with it. There are several accounts of

it in the Acts of the Apostles; one humiliating description of it in the first of the Romans, and almost innumerable notices of it in most of the other Epistles. The history of the rise, the progress, and the destruction of one of the most crafty and deadly idolatrous systems which have ever been invented, together with a statement of its lamentable effects on the church and the world, fill nearly one entire book, the book of Revelations. To select examples is therefore almost impossible. Let a few, however, meet the reader's eye; and should he be one who has been accustomed to regard idolatry with indifference, or to attend upon its assemblies for amusement, or to aid the worshipping of idols in any way with his presence or his money, let him take heed how he reads, and let the true sayings of God sink down into his heart. Idolatry is styled "the abominable thing which God hates." The worshipping of idols is pronounced to be a "sacrificing to devils, and not to God." An idol is declared to be "nothing in the world," that is, according to the Hebrew term, a thing of no good, a worthless thing, a thing absolutely loathsome, detestable, and abominable. And both the makers and worshippers of images are doomed to relentless vengeance here and hereafter: "Cursed is the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman ;" "All idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." These are indeed severe declarations; but against their severity we, who hold the Bible to be true, cannot object. They must either be admitted, or the book abandoned. There is no alternative here. And if they are true, what an awful thing must idolatry be; and in what a pitiable situation must be the poor idolater, and also that thoughtless or wicked European who lends to the worshipping of idols his personal attendance, and sometimes his smiles and applause!

2. Nothing tends so much to detract from the glory of God as idolatry; and this, doubtless, is one reason why it is so severely denounced in the sacred Scriptures. God cannot be regardless of his rights, nor can he view with indifference the waywardness of any of his creatures. To suppose the former, would be to make him unjust; and to suppose the latter, would be to make him any thing but good. Hence He is represented as a jealous God; one who closely connects himself with those whom he has formed; one that strictly watches all their movements; and one that feels, when they depart from him, all the resentment of disappointed affection. To wonder why it should be thus with God, would be stupidity and ignorance. Who in all the world is surprised at the desire