tion into the Divine mind; "that the author of Ecclesiastes, in other words, belonged to that class of pantheistic philosophers who believed that the soul is an emanation from the Divine Spirit; and after death is re-absorbed by the latter. But the main doctrine taught in Ecclesiastes being, as we have already seen, that of a future retribution, how could the soul, if swallowed up by the Infinite All, be rewarded or punished? How could there be any difference hereafter between the good and the bad, the wise and the foolish, if all are absorbed alike by Pan, the vague deity of Pantheism, and thus deprived of consciousness and personality? There could then be no such thing as a future judgment of the soul.

In the forced interpretation which Warburton here gives, we see into what narrow straits an erroneous system is driven, that would be consistent. In order to make out that the ancient Hebrews had no knowledge of a future state, the ingenious divine is bound to assume that a doctrine destructive of all morality and religion, a doctrine which has never found its way into Judaism, is advocated in the Holy Scriptures! Well has Lord Brougham said: "There is nothing so plain to which the influence of a preconceived opinion, or the desire of furthering a favorite hypothesis, will not blind men. . . . . . their blindness in such cases bears even a proportion to their learning and ingenuity.” 1

Having thus shown that the books of Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes, far from doubting or calling in question the doctrine of immortality, even contain positive declarations of the same, can there still be any doubt as to the actual existence of that doctrine among the ancient Hebrews as well as in their scriptures? What other objections can be urged to the contrary? We have seen both history and revelation confirm our view that the ancient Hebrews actually did believe in a future state; while the objections based on either of these great, authentic sources have arisen from a misunderstanding of the facts of history, and a false interpretation of the text of scripture. There have been, indeed, other objections advanced to make it probable that the Israelites did not have, or could not have had, a knowledge of an

1 Natural Theology, p. 168.

existence hereafter. But these are so futile, and have been so often refuted, that it would be superfluous to consider them again. One objection alone, it would seem, has not yet met with a satisfactory explanation, and, therefore, deserves a momentary consideration before we close. It is the absence, in the Pentateuch, of any allusion to future retribution in all cases where the Divine Legislator would enforce the observance of his laws. The simple fact that Moses predicts temporal rewards and punishments for the observance or non-observance of the law, is considered ample proof that the people had no idea of a future state; and Archbishop Whately has taken great pains to parade at full length each and every passage relating to retribution in this life. Now, it seems to us that too great stress has been laid on this objection. For, in view of the irrefutable arguments advanced to prove the actual existence of the doctrine. among the ancient Hebrews, it cannot be regarded as an objection at all, but simply as a question: Why the Hebrew lawgiver did not avail himself of this popular belief, as all other ancient lawgivers did, in promising future rewards and punishments? Now, a proper understanding of the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, and the circumstances under which that legislation took place, will easily account for this. The principal aim of Moses was to form a nation, and give strength and solidity to that nation by the proper enforcement of moral and civil laws. He accordingly promises victory, peace, security from wild beasts, increase of population, in case of obedience to the laws; and threatens the people with war, famine, disease, dispersion over the whole earth, in case they violated the law. These, it is evident, are all national blessings and national curses; and though the lawgiver sometimes says, "Keep the commandments, that thou mayest live long and prosper," he does not, as some suppose, address the individual, but the nation; he does not so much refer to the longevity of the individual citizen, as to the life and prosperity of the whole nation. The welfare of the law-abiding citizen must needs promote that of the entire community. When, therefore, Moses predicts rewards or penalties, he always has an eye to Israel as a

whole, speaking in the capacity of a civil legislator solicitous for the preservation of the people in the land which they were to inherit. Who, now, would, under such circumstances, expect the inculcation of celestial rewards or infernal punishments? "These," says a profound scholar," apply only to the individual; for he alone, and not the nation, as a whole, inherits immortality." Besides, future rewards and punishments are but rarely adapted to influence men's conduct in this world. Even at the present day, when the doctrine of immortality is openly confessed by all sects, both Jewish and Christian, the preacher, according to the testimony of Whately himself, finds it difficult to draw the minds of his hearers from the things of this life, and fix their attention on the retribution awaiting them beyond the grave. The people of our day still continue to be affected much more by wars, epidemics, and even financial crises. Human nature ever remains the same; and so the prospect of present weal or woe, something within the grasp of every one, has always proved a far safer means of secur ing the fidelity and obedience of the individual, than the greatest amount of future happiness or misery. Indeed, when we consider that most of the ancient lawgivers strangely intermingled future with present rewards and punishments, we cannot but admire the wisdom and energy of the Hebrew legislator, in rigidly omitting any allusion to future retribution, and trusting, by the aid of Providence, to secure universal obedience to the laws by such motives as would conduce to the welfare of the nation and the patriotism of the individual.4

1 Saalschütz, das Mosaische Recht, chap. I.

2 Essays (first series), pp. 73, 74, and Future State, pp. 18, 19.

8 The legislator of the Persians, for example, disposed of the punishments in hell with the same liberty and want of moderation with which he distributes corporal punishment in this life. Thus the Zend-Avesta threatens imprisonment of three hundred thousand years in the infernal regions for even insignificant crimes. -See Saalschütz, ibid.

4 The existence of the doctrine of immortality among the ancient Hebrews having been thus established, it will, no doubt, be interesting to learn the several phases which this doctrine has assumed among the Jews down to the present day. This we may be able to show in some future Article.

ARTICLE V.

COMPARATIVE PHONOLOGY: OR, THE PHONETIC SYSTEM OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.

BY BENJAMIN W. DWIGHT, CLINTON, N. Y.

[Completed from Vol. XVII., from page 302].

2d. The phonetic force of the different Greek letters, in alphabetic order; or a synoptical view of the capacities of the Greek letters, for a variable manifestation of different equivalent sounds in the Sanskrit.

A. This represents the Sanskrit a, illustrations of which will be, of course, unnecessary.

It is sometimes euphonic, and so not a radical part of the stem of a word; as in domaiрw, to gasp, compared with σπαίρω. In ἀστέροπη (= ἀστηρ + ὄψ) lightning, (and also άoτρа) compared with oτéporn, we have, on the contrary, a full and contracted form of the same word, which might readily be mistaken, but for etymological reasons, for an instance of a euphonic. Like the Sanskrit a, the Greek a shaded off in kindred or derived forms, in different dialects, into almost all the other vowels: as e, Ionic epoŋv for åponv; η, Epic θώρηξ and σοφίη for θώραξ and σοφία ; ο, Æolic στρατός for στρατός.

In the Doric dialect, a was almost as great a favorite in all consonantal forms, as in Sanskrit; and it abounded. greatly also in the forms of the Eolic dialect. In the different dialectic forms of the genitive of vaûs, a ship (Sansk. navas, Lat. navis), as Doric vaós, Ionic vnós and veós and Attic ves, we see the radical vowel a represented by a variety of kindred vowels.

B. This is equivalent to the Sanskrit b, bh, g, j, and v. (b) Specimens of this kind will be unnecessary.

(bh) bhar to carry, Baoτágw.

This aspirate is, however, most commonly represented by in Greek.

(g) gô, a cow, Boûs; gâ, to go, Baivw (pure stem ẞa); gurus heavy, βαρύς.

(j) jyâ, a bowstring, Biós, a bow.

(v) vrish, to irrigate, ẞpéxw.

The sound of the Greek B was softer than ours, more like indeed, as in the Modern Greek, our v than b; or, as in Spanish, medial between the two. Before P. it was substituted in the Æolic dialect for the ordinary aspirate, as in βρόδον for ῥόδον and βράκος for ῥάκος. It was also epenthetically inserted before p after μ, as in μεσημβρία, for μέση ρ ἥμερα ; and άμβροτος for ἄμροτος.

It was interchangeable in the different dialects, with the following consonants:

Before 7 in ver

(1) π; as in Baтeîv for πaтeîv, to tread. bal forms, according to the law of the harmonization of mutes in Greek (smooth with smooth, middle with middle, etc.), B is regularly changed to π, as in τέτριπται for τέτριβται. Compare the change of b to p in Latin before s and t, as in scripsi and scriptum from scribo.

(2) φ; as in βρίγες and βρύγοι compared with φρύγες. Cf. Lat. fremo and Spéμw; and balaena, a whale and paλaiva.

(3) y; as yλýxwv for BAńxwv, penny-royal. Compare, also, Bapus and Lat. gravis; and also Báλavos an acorn and glans. (4) 8; as odeλós (Doric) for oßeλós, an obelisk.

(5) μ; as βροτός for βροτός by metathesis for μορτός, Sansk. marttas (mri, to die) Lat. mortuus (morior). Cf. μúpμn an ant, and Lat. formica; and also popμó a bugbear, and formido, fear.

r. This corresponds with the Sanskrit g, h, j, k (and ch), gh, and ç.

(g) gaûs, the earth (stem gâ), y, Archaic yaîa; sthag, to cover, σTey, Lat. tego.

Labials often represent gutturals in a cognate language, as a degenerate form of them, as in Eol. Tís, who; Attic ris; Sansk. kis; Lat. quis.