Billeder på siden

ever, are comparatively unimportant, although interesting analogies.

The root of the Hebrew verb is found in its least disguised form in the præter Kal. The future is but a modification of this, as is especially evident from the facility with which it resumes the preterit import with “vau conversive.” The past is naturally the first and most frequent tense in use, because it is historical. In all these respects the præter answers to the Greek second aorist. The augment of this tense was a secondary or subsequent invention, and accordingly Homer habitually disregards it. The " Attic reduplication” (for example, øyayov) had a still later origin. The second aorist gives the root in its simplest if not purest form. It is further remarkable that none but primitive verbs have this tense, and no Greek verbs are primitive but those which exhibit a monosyllabic root as found in the stem of the second aorist. We invite the attention of scholars especially to these last enunciated principles. They show that this tense was originally the ground-form of the verb.

No tense in Greek exhibits greater modifications of the root than the present. This argues that the tense itself was of comparatively late date. Accordingly the derivative verbs most usually have it, although defective in many other parts; and the variety of forms 'under which it appears, occasions most of the so-called irregularities set down in tables of Greek verbs. Now the Hebrew has properly no present tense. Present time can only be expressed by means of the participle, with the substantive verb (regularly understood) like our “periphrastic present,” (“I am doing,” etc.) True to the analogy which we have indicated, the junior members of the Hebraistic family, especially the Chaldee and Syriac, constructed a present tense out of the participle, by annexing the inflective terminations appropriate to the different numbers and persons. This process illustrates the formation of

IV. VERB INFLECTIONS.--In Greek, as in Hebrew, the personal endings are obviously but fragments of the personal pronouns, appended to the verbal root or tense-stem. This is so generally recognized to be the fact with respect to both these languages, that we need dwell upon it only for the purpose of explaining, by its means, some of the peculiarities of the Greek verbs in -u. This termination, which reappears in the optative of other verbs, was doubtless the original and proper sign of the first person, rather than the ending in -W. The former is the basis of the oblique cases of the pronoun of the first person, , me; as the latter is the last, but non-radical, syllable of the nominative, éyú, I. It is in keeping with this that the verbs in - are some of the oldest in the language, for example, the substantive verb, eiui. The passive terminal -uai is doubtless but a modification of the same. Now the principle or fact to which we wish to call particular attention in this connection is this: Every primitive "pureverb in Greek is a verb in -ju. By this rule the student may always know them, as there are no others, except the few factitious verbs in vill, and very rare exceptions like péw, tiw, nívw, which are attributable to disguises of the true root. Let it now be further noted, in confirmation of what we have stated above concerning the Greek primal tense, that verbs in - have substantially the same inflection as the second aorist, and they have only those tenses with which these inflections are compatible. Neither of these lastnamed principles, it is true, is carried out with exactness, for the aorists passive of other verbs seem to have usurped these active terminations; but we are persuaded they are in general the real clue to the defectiveness and peculiar inflection of the forms in -ful. We therefore look upon the verbs in question as interesting links in the descent from the older Hebrew type.

V. DECLENSIONAL ENDINGS.-In the absence of any real declensions whatever in the Hebrew, or any proper cases unless the “construct state” be entitled to be regarded as a genitive—there is little ground of comparison with the copious series of modifications of the Greek noun and adjective. Yet Webster has noted the resemblance of the plural -- and Chaldee 75 to the English oxen, (archaic housen, etc.) The v “ epheleustic” has its analogue in the "paragogic” 7, and is strikingly generalized in the “nunnation” of the Arabic.

VI. VOWEL CHANGES.—To the learner the Hebrew language seems very complicated in this respect ; but the whole process of vocalization is wrought out under the following simple law: that“ without the tone, a long vowel cannot stand in a closed syllable, nor a short vowel in an open syllable.” From this results practically the alternative of a long vowel or an additional consonant (or dagesh forte) in every unaccented syllable. In the Greek the following fundamental principle prevails : that a long vowel (or diphthong) indicates the omission of a consonant, except where it represents two short vowels; and this latter is tantamount to the other, for there is one letter less. Thus the systems of syllabication in both languages essentially coincide in this: that length in the vowel is equivalent to another consonant. We might take room to exemplify these rules, but the modern scholar will readily see their truth. In none of the later cognate languages is this principle regarded with much uniformity, although from the nature of the vocal organs themselves, it follows, even in so arbitrary a tongue (or rather so historical a spelling) as the English, that a vowel is naturally long when it ends the syllable, and short when a consonant closes the sound. But in the Greek and Hebrew the law we have propounded is consistently carried out in a complete system of euphonic changes which lie at the very threshold of either language.

Accordingly, in exactness of phonetic representation these two languages have no rival, not even in the German, Italian, or Spanish. Though the original sounds are now somewhat uncertain, yet it is evident (unless we take the degenerate modern Greek, and the discrepant modern Rabbinical pronunciations as perfect guides) that each letter and vowel in both had its own peculiar power. The two alphabets, we know, were identical in origin; for if we distrust the story of the importation of the Phænician characters by Cadmus into Greece, we have but to compare the names, order, and forms of the written signs (reversing them, as the two languages were read in opposite directions,) in order to satisfy ourselves that they are essentially the same. Even the unappreciable a has its equivalent in the spiritus lenis, (as the y may be visually represented by the spiritus asper,) and the old digamma (Faū) reappears in the consonantal . Perhaps the reason why v initial always has the rough breathing, is owing to its affinity to both these last named.

We trust we have said enough to illustrate our proposition, that these two lingual families, and especially their two chiefly interesting representatives—which, widely variant as they are in age, culture, flexibility, and genius, yet by a remarkable Providence have been brought together in the only revelation written for man-have no ordinary or casual points of resemblance. We would be glad to see the subject extended by some competent hand, especially by a comparison of the venerable and rich Sanscrit and Arabic.





understanding. It was added that, if

the petitioner should desire to impugn GREAT BRITAIN.

the letters patent, as having been im. The Colenso Case-Its Final De: providently granted by the Crown, the THE PRIvy Council. We proper course for him to pursue would

be by proceedings to repeal the said let. have traced in the former numbers of the Methodist Quarterly Review the history of ters patent. The matter was elaborately this important case to the appeal of Cranworth, Lord Kingsdown, Sir J. Ro

argued before the Lord Chancellor, Lord Bishop Colenso from a decree of South African Bishops—by which he was, on

milly, and Sir S. Lushington. The account of heresy, deposed from his See Bishop Colenso, was prayed to admit

court, on the part of the counsel of of Natal—to the Queen's Privy Council. The decision of this court, which is

the appeal, and on the part of the countinal, was delivered by the Lord Chan

sel of the Bishop of Capetown, to

“advise Her Majesty to pronounce for cellor on March 29. The hearing of the appeal was commenced on June 27,

protest and against the said pretended 1864, when the Judicial Committee des complaint and appeal.” On these points

the court delivered judgment. After clined to entertain the question of the legality of the Bishop of Capetown’s ju

minutely recapitulating the circumrisdiction without fuller information. On

stances which led the Bishop of CapeDecember 14 the case again came on,

town to depose the Bishop of Natal

from the office of bishop and deprive when the Bishop of Capetown appeared him of his see, the Lord Chancellor under protest, denying, "with all due rev. erence, that her Majesty in Council has any jurisdiction in the subject matter of As the question can be decided only the petition, or that any appeal lies from

by the Sovereign as head of the Estabwhat he (Dr. Gray) has done in the

lished Church and depositary of ultimate matter, either to Her Majesty in Council, humbly report to Her Majesty their judg

appellate jurisdiction, their lordships will or to the Judicial Committee of the

ment and opinion that the proceedings Privy Council.” The defense concluded taken by the Bishop of Capetoron, and the by stating that Dr. Colenso not having judgment or sentence pronounced by him availed himself of the liberty of appeal against the Bishop of Natal, are null and to the Archbishop of Canterbury, against void in law. the sentence of deposition, as provided, This decision has a far-reaching imbut having appealed to the Judicial portance not only with regard to the inCommittee of Privy Council, the appealdividual case on which it has been should not be allowed, because Dr. Gray delivered, but with regard to all the cowas entitled to exercise the authority of lonial sees of the Church of England. a metropolitan bishop, and because Dr. It was allowed by the court that the Colenso received his bishopric on that I letters patent of Bishop Gray, of Cape

said :

town, granted him the rights of a met- | bishop to such, without an act of par. ropolitan. In these letters it is said: liament, so it is ruled that in a crown We do will and ordain that in case any

colony an act of parliament is necessary; proceeding shall be instituted against and in colonies which have their own any of the said Bishops of Grahamstown legislatures, the sanction of those legis. and Natal, when placod under the said latuses must be obtained to give validi. metropolitical see of Capetown, such ty to the establishment of a diocese. proceedings shall originate and be carried | The queen has a right of her own preon before the said Bishop of Capetown, rogative to command the consecration of whom we hereby authorize and direct to

a bishop, but no power to assign him take cognizance of the same.

And if any party shall conceive himself aggrieved any diocese not constitutionally created. by any judgment, decree, or sentence

Therefore the colonial bishopries already pronounced by the said Bishop of Cape- founded, with the exception of Calcutta, town or his successors, it shall be Bombay, and Madras, sanctioned by acts lawful for the said party to appeal to the of imperial parliament, and Jamaica, said Archbishop of Canterbury or his sanctioned by the local legislature, have successors, who shall finally decide or determine the said appeal.

no position in the eye of the law. The

judgment is most sweeping in its conseThe letters patent creating the See of quences, since it rendere all jurisdiction Natal contain the following:

in such unsanctioned bishoprics, not

only of metropolitans over bishops, but We do further will and ordain that the said John William Colenso and every valid; so that in fact there is no juris

of bislrops over the inferior clergy, inBishop of Natal shall, within six month's after the date of their respective letters diction at all, and the Bishop of Natal's patent, take an oath of due obedience to clergy may, if he return, refuse to acthe Bishop of Capetown for the time knowledge his authority, just as he rebeing as his metropolitan.

fuses to acknowledge that of the Bishop Colenso took the oath accordingly as

of Capetown. This places the Church follows:

of England in the colonies, with the

single exception of Jamaica, in an enI, John William Colenso, Doctor in tirely new position, making the authorand Diocese of Natal, do profess and ity of all bishops even to claim legally

the title assigned, dependent upon acts promise all due reverence and obedience to the Metropolitan Bishop of Cape of the legislature sanctioned by the town and to his successors.


Dr. Pusey has written an interesting Objection was raised in his appeal by letter on the decision of the privy counBishop Colenso, on the ground of there

cil. He hails it as an indication that the not being in reality, at the time the oath

Church of South Africa will soon be as was taken, any metropolitan see of Cape. free and as prosperous as the Scotch town, or any bishop thereof in existence, Episcopal Church and the Church of the this see having been created some

United States. The Church, he thinks, months later. Apart from this specific is now freed from all complicity with ohjection, which, whether valid or inval

Dr. Colenso, over whom, neither directid, could not have affected the generally nor indirectly, it has any jurisdicprinciple, the letters seemed to be very | tion. plain. The metropolitan had power to

The trustees of the Colonial Bishopcite the bishop and clergy to his bar,

ric's Fund, from which the salaries of and a final appeal was open from his de

the colonial bishops are for the most cision to the Archbishop of Canterbury. part paid, have announced that they are But the opinion of the privy council at

not prepared to pay the arrears of the once cuts away the entire foundation, salary of Bishop Colenso, and it is by stating that the queen's letters patent therefore expected that another legal have themselves no authority whatever,

contest may possibly take place. not having been made by any statute of the Imperial Parliament, nor confirmed MONASTICISM

CHURCH OF by any act of the legislature of the Cape ENGLAND.—The monastic institution of Good Hope, or of the legislative called the Benedictine Brotherhood, or Council of Natal. As in England and the “Order of English Benedictines," Ireland the queen has no power to and founded by “ Brother Ignatius," create a new diocese, or to appoint a seems to root itself in the Anglican



« ForrigeFortsæt »