European from the nations which mostly speak them. This class embraces the Semitic languages, includSyriac, Hebrew, Arabic and others; it embraces also the Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Lithuanian, Sclavonic, Teutonic and Scandinavian languages, together with their several kindred tongues. These cover the most important countries of the earth, and are associated with the most advanced nations and with the highest forms of civilization.

Why such marked and radical differences should be found in the structure of various languages has not yet been explained. It is one of the many problems whose solution is reserved for future ages. Some have supposed that they arise from radical distinctions of race. But it is objected that they do not coincide with the classifications of ethnology. Others have supposed that they represent distinct grades of mental development or special forms of civilization. It is also evident that the present extremely different forms of languages may have been gradually developed from a common point of departure under the varied conditions and influences of human life in remote and primitive ages.

Philologists may find the study of these numerous languages interesting and profitable, but the Welsh has no apparent affinity with the Monosyllabic and Agglutinative languages. It is very different with the Aryan family. In this class the Celtic languages form one important member, and are closely related, not only to each other, but also to the other Aryan or IndoEuropean languages. They have much in their structure and vocabulary that is common to them all, showing that they have had a common origin and to a large extent a common history. The distinguished Welsh oriental scholar, Sir William Jones,

103

while pursuing his duties in the literature of India, was struck with the similarity between Sanscrit and the classical languages of Europe. This similarity led to the suggestion and finally to the discovery that Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, German, English, Welsh, and others, are branches that have grown from a common original stem, or members of a family which has had a common parentage, and a common home. Several facts tend to confirm this view.

1.

This is shown by a similarity of grammatical structure and of formative elements. For instance, the grammatical relations of nouns and adjectives were originally denoted in all these Aryan languages by a similar system of case terminations, and the conjugations of verbs have been formed by joining the verbal root or stem to the primitive forms of the personal pronouns, as they appear in the following terminations in Welsh: Pres. af-fi; i-di; a-e? wn-ni; wch-chwi; ant-hwynt, &c. (Rowland's Grammar) Similar primitive forms may be traced to some degree in the other Aryan languages. This similarity of structure tends to prove that they have all descended from some mother tongue whose structural forms and typical features have been retained as a common heritage. It is true that all these primitive forms have not been preserved in Welsh; but in comparing the old forms that remain, and in considering its close connection with the other languages, we may feel certain that Welsh also originally made use of these ancient forms. lustrations of these old forms see Lecture IV. in Rhys's Welsh Philology.

For il

2. Another proof of the organic relation of these Aryan languages may be found in the large number of words which are common to them all. And it is a remarkable fact concerning these words that they are mostly

household words-words which refer to the most common objects and affairs of daily life. As instances, we may note the following words which are found with slight variations in Sanscrit, the ancient language of India, in Greek and Latin, the classical languages of Greece and Rome, and also in most of the Aryan languages of modern Europe. They are taken mostly from "Lectures on Welsh Philology," by Prof. John Rhys, Oxford University, and from other

sources.

Un

The numerals from one to

ten, and for twenty and a hundred, are found in most of them, such asWelsh. Eng. Lat. Greek. Sans. One Un-us Eis-(en-s Aika Two Duo Duo Dwi Tri Three Tres Treis Tri Welsh, brawd; Gothic, brathair; Eng. brother; Lat. frater; Greek, phreter; Sans. brâtar.

Dau

Welsh, chwaer; Eng. sister; Lat. soror; Sans. svasâr.

Welsh, bywyd; Gothic, qvius; Lat. vivus, Greek, bios--bi(v)os; Sans. giva. Welsh, marw; Goth. mawr-thr (celanedd); Lat. mori; Greek, brotos(mortos); Sans. mar.

Welsh, nos cf. heno-henoeth; Irish, Anocht; Eng. night; Lat. noctis; Greek, nukt-os; Sans. nakti.

Welsh, heddyw; Eng. day; Lat. dies; Sans. dyu,

Welsh, Pedol (yr hen enw ar droed, wedi hyny yr hyn a roddir ar droed, ac wedi ei gyfyngu yn awr at droed anifail); Eng. foot; Lat. Ped-is; Greek, podos; Sans. pada (cam).

Welsh, geni; Lat. gigno (root, gen); Greek, gignomal (root, gen); Sans. gan.

Welsh, seren, ser; English, star; Lat. stella; Sans. staras; Gr. aster. Welsh, echel; Eng. axle; Lat. axis; Greek, axom; Sans. achsha.

Welsh, gên; Eng. chin; Lat. gena; Greek, genus; Sans. ganda.

Welsh, mysg-cymysgu. &c.; Eng. mix; Lat. misceo; Greek, misgo; Sans. miksh.

Niwl (mist or fog); Lat. nubes, nebula; Greek, nephos, Sans. nabas.

Mis (month); Lat. mensis; Greek,. men; Sans. mas (the moon) root ma, to measure.

Aradr (a plow); Eng. to ear, earth; Lat. aratrum (a plow); Greek, aroö, I plough.

An-negative prefix as in an-noeth, unwise, Ir. an; Sans, an; Greek, an; Lat. in; Eng. un.

Aden, a wing; adar, birds, from Pat., whence also Sans pat, to fly; Gr. pteron; Eng. feather.

Arch, a bidding, a request, from root park, whence also Latin precor, 'I pray,' Ger. frage, a question; Sans. prach, to demand.

Halen; hallt, salt, salted; Ir. salann; Gr. als; Lat. sals; Eng. salt.

Pa, what; Ir. ca; Sans. kas, who; Lat. quo, in quod; Eng. who. Pas, the whooping cough; Sans, kas, to cough.

I believe; Sans, craddhâ, trusting, Cred, belief; Ir. creitem; Lat. credo,

faithful.

Dehau, right, south, Ir. dess, Gr. dexios; Lat. dexter; Sans, dakshina. Ebol, a colt, O. Ir. ech, a horse; Lat. equus; Sans, acva.

Hen, old; O. Ir. sen; Gr. ene; Lat. senex; Sans. sana.

Moch, soon, quick; Ir. moch, Lat. mox; Sans. makshu.

Pobi, to bake; Gr. pesso, fut, pepso; Lat. coquo; Sans, pac.

Llawn, full; Ir. lan; Lat. plenus; Sans, prana.

Modryb, an aunt, from the word for mother, which is lost in Welsh, but is in Irish. mathair, Gr. meter;

Rhi, a king, O. Ir. ri, gen-rig; Gaul

that a principle of order prevails in these changes of consonants-the changes have the force of uniform facts. Sometimes an explanation may be given of the fact as, for instance, when letters or sounds, such as b, p, ph, m, which are produced by the same vocal organs, interchange with each other. Frequently, however, no full explanation of the change can be given. We can only accept the fact as it is. We cannot tell why the Irishman says mac, and the Welshman says mab, but it is easily seen that the word is the same.

From the above considerations, together with other historical facts, we are forced to the conclusion that all these nations, or rather their ancestors at some remote period, lived together enjoying the same social privileges, engaging in similar occupations, breathing the same air and speaking the same language. These languages are members of the same family; and all of them, to some degree, have preserved the family like ness in their form and constitution. They have also preserved and handed down to us a large fund of information concerning the ideas, sentiments, habits, occupations and conditions of life, which prevailed among our ancestors before the dawn of history. In the next article we shall refer more particularly to the Celtic group of these Aryan languages.

GOOD FRIDAY AND EASTER SUNDAY.

BY REV. R. GWESYN JONES, D.D., UTICA, N. Y.

Were we sure that all are impressed by the spiritual lessons connected with Easter, we would rejoice that there seems to be great attention given to it from year to year. It takes us back in thought to that wonderful display of divine power and loving kindness manifested by God

when he brought his people from Egypt, and to the still greater love shown by the death of Christ.

"So important was the doctrine of Christ's resurrection in the view of the primitive church that not only was an annual festival set apart to commemorate it, but the Lord's day was made a weekly memorial of the same event. This festival was therefore celebrated with great solemnity. It was styled by Gregory Nazienzen, the king of days, the festival of festivals, excelling all others as the sun outshines the stars."--Coleman's Christian Antiquities, P. 437.

It is singular in view of this that the time of the crucifixion and resurrection should be undecided, and that the accounts given by the three first Evangelists and that given by John should be thought to contradict each other.

Tholuck says, "The larger portion of modern critics have been led by an examination of this subject to the ultimate result that there must be a mistake on one or other side, either on the part of John or on that of the three other Evangelists.

While Bretschneider in his Probabilia and Weis charge the error to John, by far the larger number, including Usteri, DeWette, Theile, Lucke, Neander, find the mistake in the first three Gospels. Strauss, however, winds up with the observation that no decision is yet to be hazarded as to which statement is the correct one. Com. on John, Chapter 13th.

I think the mistake is not with the Evangelists at all, but in the following statement by Tholuck: "All the four accounts concur in the statement that the Redeemer was crucified on Friday." Though hosts of learned men think the same, I cannot find one of the Evangelists who names the day on which He was crucified. Some

of them say that the day following his crucifixion was a Sabbath, but the question is, was it the weekly Sabbath or a ceremonial Sabbath ordered in connection with the Passover?-Exod. 12:16; Levit. 23:7; Num. 58:18. It seems to me the latter. I think Calvin is right, "For John says plainly that the day when he was crucified was held by the Jews for the preparation, not for the weekly Sabbath but for the Passover." "Further they went not into the judgement hall lest they should defile themselves because the next day they they were to eat the Passover. I know that many men do seek for shifts but they are such as avail them not. For this cannot be shifted over by any cavil. They kept not their feast on that day in which they crucified Christ, (for it would not have been lawful for them on that day to execute any man) therefore they held the preparation so that after the burial of Christ they might eat the Passover." Harmony of the Evangelists. Matt. 26:17.

The twenty-four hours at the beginning of which the Passover was eaten was, by the law of Moses, a Sabbath on whatever day of the week it might happen. If this is kept in mind, I think it will be easy to harmonize the Evangelists and show that every one is accurate in every statement. If this is denied, confusion will continue as heretofore.

The supposition that Christ was crucified on Friday seems to be wrong. First, He said distinctly that he would remain in the bowels of the earth three days and three nights. Matt. 12:40. That he would rise the third day. Matt. 16:21. At the end of three days, meta treis emeras. Mark

8:31.

His enemies evidently understood him literally, for they said unto Pilate that he said he would rise meta treis

107

emeras at the end of the third day, and they wanted the grave guarded until the third day was over. Had he risen sooner, they might accuse him of having deceived them, or pleaded that he had not died. Matt. 28: 63-64. Paul also said that Christ rose the third day. 1 Cor. 15: 4. Therefore we must insist that he was in the grave three whole days and nights, or seventy-two hours, or allow that he misled his hearers. A theory must account for all the facts of the case before it can be accepted. The theory that Christ was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday utterly fails at every point. It fails to explain the last supper. It seems very evident that the last supper eaten by Christ and his disciples in the upper room was not the Passover.

1. There is no mention of the lamb or any other flesh meat there, only bread and wine. Flesh was essential to the Passover supper.

2.

Christ and his disciples went out immediately after their supper, when the command was not to go out till morning after the Passover supper. Exod. 12:22. Is it likely that he who gave the command would thus break it?

3. John says the disciples thought Jesus commanded Judas, "That thou doest do quickly," because he wanted, him to buy something for the Passover feast. Ch. 13: 2ff-29. He also

says that the Jewish leaders wanted not to go into Pilate's judgement hall lest they be defiled and thus be unfit to eat the Passover. Ch. 18:28. This seems to prove that the Passover was not yet eaten.

4. The twenty-four hours which began with the eating of the Passover was a Sabbath from even to even, therefore neither Christ nor any one else could have been crucified on the the same day as the Passover was eaten. Exod. 12:16.