power of making those means effectual. Hence from the necessity of the case, we may perceive the necessity and propriety of depending upon his promised aid, and of applying to him for his blessing. We will not, at present, pursue the subject any further, neither can we attempt to say how far a deficiency in this respect, (i. e. in a spirit of prayer and humble dependance upon God) may interfere with the success of missions in this country. It is a subject of the deepest importance, because there is (as we hope we have, though in a cursory manner, shewn) a positive and intimate connexion, between great devotedness on the part of the church, and the success of her efforts to convert the world! We may go a step further than we have yet done, and assert upon scriptural grounds and historical facts, that in proportion as the church depends implicitly on the blessing of God, and cultivates a spirit of prayer, she will become more efficient, her efforts for the conversion of sinners will be crowned with greater success, in that proportion she will become "fair as the moon, bright as the sun, and terrible to her enemies as an army with banners."

ADELPHOS.

IV. Literary Controversy.-The use of the Particle NE in

Hindustání.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

DEAR GENTLEMEN,

I only saw your September Number, a day or two ago. I fear that you will have had enough of the "botherment" about the particle ne;" but one word more, and I have done.

66

I never doubted Y. Z.'s ability to translate: though mystified by a nonsensical theory, he understands the language; the parsing was what I said would puzzle him; and now that he has translated, "I beat him with his own stick;" let him parse his translation, if he can. When he has done that, let him try this sentence," apni beți mári main ne apni láthi se." On his theory "beti" is the nominative case to "mári," and is to be rendered" daughter beaten was ;" and on this construction, the first "apoi" is wrong and means nothing, and the second alters the meaning of the sentence altogether. If this will not convince him that his theory is nought, his case is hopeless.

He says, "Allow me to quote against him Shakespear, &c." but he did not quote Shakespear, and why? He dared not. To have done so would have shewn that my rule for the use of ne, and for the concord of active and transitive verbs in the past tenses, was most strictly correct; vide p. 132, para. 71, of Shakespear's Grammar: and compare my rule with his: they are precisely the same, and I cannot help thinking that mine is the better worded of the two.

The note to para. 25 contains his (Shakespear's) conjecture touching the derivation of the particle, and it appears therefore that Y. Z. is not even original in the discovery of the mare's nest, which he has been crowing

and clapping his hands over, and Shakespear is my real opponent. Be it so, I have no respect even for his conjecture, when unsupported by proofs. He certainly had no great conviction of its truth himself, for he sticks it into a note, and calls it a notion; there is no notice of it in the text, and I doubt that it is his; he admits, however, that if correct, the verb must be in" the passive form," which Y. Z. most industriously denies; and that admission proves the correctness of my remark, that the theory would introduce this greater anomaly, that active and transitive verbs were never used in the perfect tenses of the active voice, or used in "the passive forms," which is the same thing.

There is a dubiety in the expression, "passive form," which can only be attributed to the author's doubt of the truth of his "notion :" passive form, means passive voice, or it means nothing.

Y. Z. misunderstands me. I said he had not produced a single rule, nor has he; had he quoted Shakespear, he would have shewn that my rule was correct; and Arnot and Yates, I doubt not, would shew the same thing.

Y. Z. says, that I would persuade you, that the addition of " gaya makes no difference. My words were, that if the auxiliary were really understood, it might be supplied at pleasure, without injury to the construction: this is an intelligible and universal rule. Now if the verb be in the passive form, the auxilary must be understood. I supplied it, not, as Y. Z. says, for the purpose of persuading you that it made no difference, but to shew the exact reverse, that it made all the difference in the world, and therefore could not be understood; and therefore that the verb was active, and not passive, or in a passive form.

He says, I am obscure in my remark, about the greater anomaly, which his theory would introduce; yet he has understood me. I must therefore doubt the obscurity; but Shakespear says, the verb is in the passive form, and I am therefore right.

But Y. Z. is obscure himself. He says, "Apná signifies, my, thy, &c. and is always substituted for the possessive cases of the pronouns, when they refer to the same case as the agent, i. e. the nominative or instrumental case of the verb." Now what does he mean by this? that his nominative and instrumental, are the same case; or that it is indiffer ent to which of the two, the possessive pronoun, for which apná is to be substituted, refers? He may take whichever he likes, for both are wrong: his nominative and instrumental cases are not the same cases, vide his own parsing of "wazir ne arz ki," and it is not indifferent to which of the two cases, his nominative or his instrumental, the possessive pronoun refers, as he will find when he tries to parse apni beți mári, &c." He is therefore wrong, as well as obscure.

66

He misunderstands me, when I laughed at "impersonalia, &c." I laugh. ed at his lugging in Latin, and not at his rule: why did he not quote Shakespear's rules?

He is wrong in his English Grammar; the perfect active is" I loved," and not "I have loved."

He is evasive. I asked him to parse a perfectly grammatical sentence, he tells me that it is not idiomatical. I contend that it is, but it is enough that it is grammatical, and this he does not deny; if grammatical, his theory if true will parse it, but he feels that it will not stand the test, and he evades the application.

There is little reverence in the way in which he has lugged in the Bible: I am not likely to attack its truths; but should they be assailed, they will owe their triumph more to the force of their own truth, than to the logic of their advocate. Should Y. Z. be their defender, he would how. ever have a better cause, and might therefore afford to be more candid

with his opponent than he has been with me: as a proof of his utter want of fair dealing, read his 3rd paragraph, and recollect that Shakespear's rule and mine are the same precisely, and that Y. Z. must have known it. Your's very faithfully,

Q? P. S. I had not read Shakespear's Grammar, when I first addressed you.

I forgot to remark that Y. Z.'s rule of concord stated in his 3rd para. is garbled and incomplete, and that all that relates to ne, and which is to be found in every Grammar, and in full detail in Shakespear's, is suppressed. The whole question is a matter of Hindustani Grammar and not of Latin, the rules of which latter he seems to consider of universal applica tion, and herein is his error.

It is of no consequence where the ne came from; it is now the distin guishing mark of the nominative case to active and transitive verbs in the perfect tenses, liable to clear and intelligible rules, which Shakespear states plainly enough.

It had nearly escaped my notice, that Y. Z. had given me a sentence to parse, "aurat ne kahá;" he has done it himself correctly, and on my principles, and he will find the rules in Shakespear, p. 132 and 133; but he says, "I grant, for the sake of argument, that the particle "ne" relieves the verb from the necessity of agreeing with "aurat," what then does it agree with, for there is no other word? If a verb then stands with. out a nominative case, is it not used impersonally?" So because the verb does not agree with its nominative case, it therefore has not got a nominative case; because a man does not agree with his wife, he therefore has not got a wife: what a sequitur!" I dont wonder they call this place Stony Stratford, for I never was so bitten by fleas in my life!" This is about a parallel logic with Y. Z.'s.

V.-Right Observance of the Sabbath in India.

GENTLEMEN,

Q?

Will you permit me to request the favour of a few remarks on the right observance of the Sabbath. It is a subject of vast importance every where, but especially so in this heathen land; and the manner in which Christians regard the Sabbath, must, I conceive, in some way, affect the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom.

I suppose others may, in common with myself, have been much pained to observe the little outward respect paid to the day of sacred rest, by many Christians in this country; and it will be a cause of unfeigned joy, if, through the medium of the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, any should be induced to make it a subject of serious and prayerful consideration.

Even in many pious families very little difference is made as to the work required of the servants on that day; rooms are swept, furniture brushed, shoes cleaned, superfluities are cooked for the table, nearly if not quite as much as on other days; and conversation on common topics is indulged in. Can all this be consistent with a proper observance of the Sabbath?

Does it not appear like a sad and fearful neglect of the fourth commandment: The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger, that is within thy gates ?” What can be more explicit than these prohibitions? Are they the less binding upon us, because our servants are Hindus and Musalmáns?

It has been urged, I know, that if servants are not employed in their regular work, they will spend their time in something worse. May I ask, if this will release us from our responsibility? Will it remove our obligation to permit no unnecessary work to be done in our houses? Is it not the duty of Christians to afford their servants leisure, and use the means in their power to bring them under spiritual instruction? If they refuse to attend, the responsibility is theirs we shall have done what we could we shall be clear from the guilt of obliging them to labour, and no longer furnish them with the excuse that they have no time to attend to the concerns of their souls.

I am quite aware, that a most scrupulous regard to the outward observance of the Sabbath may be maintained, while a worldly frame of mind is habitually allowed, and the spiritual design of its institution lost sight of. But while I fully admit that a proper state of mind, and an endeavour to devote the day to the holy exercises for which it was appointed, are of paramount importance, and that without them all outward observance is vain, I would ask, if we may therefore dispense with a regard to the letter of the command? Is it not most fit that those who chiefly regard its spiritual design, and count the Sabbath a delight, should honour it in the eyes of their servants, by making a marked distinction between it and other days, and affording every possible facility for improving it to the best purposes? If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, &c."-Is. lviii. 13, 14.

If you will kindly introduce the subject, and call forth some remarks without inserting this imperfect paper, you will greatly oblige,

June 13, 1836.

ESTHER.

[Our fair correspondent will forgive our having inserted her communication, as the most effectual way of securing the object she has in view. We trust that some of our correspondents, in accordance with her wishes, will supply us without delay with a paper or two on the very important subject to which their attention has thus been called.-ED.]

VI.-Religious Instruction in the National Schools of

France.

We invite the attention of our readers, to the following important documents, just issued at Paris, from the office of the Secretary of State for Public Instruction, on which we hope to offer some remarks next month.

"To the President of the Consistory of

"Mr. President,—I have the honor to send you two copies of a circular which I am addressing to the Rectors relative to the religious instruction of pupils belonging to communions not Catholic, in all the establishments of the University*, whether primary schools, normal primary schools, or colleges royal or communal. I am desirous, that this circular, which has for its object the insuring of efficacy and liberty of religious instruction for all religious denominations recognised by law, shall come to the knowledge of all the churches of your communion, and that it may guide both these churches and private families, in the measures they shall adopt in regard to the education of their children.

"Receive, Mr. President, the assurance of my most marked consideration.

"The Minister of Public Instruction,
"GUIZOT.
(Signed)

"The Secretary of State for the department of Public Instruction to the Rector of the Academy of

"Mr. Rector,-Seeing that the law of 28th June, 1833, has declared (art. 1) that instruction, primary and elementary, comprehends moral and religious instruction; and (art. 2) the wish of fathers of families shall always be consulted and followed in what relates to the participation of their children in religious instruction, it means that there shall be insured for all children in all schools, the reality of religious instruction on the one hand, and its liberty on the other.

"But when we have to do with religious creeds which are in a minority in the country, it is more difficult effectually to accomplish this double design of the law, and everywhere to guarantee to children belonging to families who profess such creeds, the religious instruction they require, and the full freedom to which they have a right. Some special measures, and a constant surveillence, are indispensable to the attainment of this end. These form the object of the instructions which I now address to you.

"Viewed in reference to religion, the primary schools may be either mixed, that is, comprehending children of different creeds, or attached to one particular worship among those acknowledged by the State, as is authorised by the 9th article of the law of 28th June.

"As for these last schools, I have already pointed out to you, Mr. Rector, in my instructions of 24th July, 1833, the line of conduct which you have to follow. It is not necessary to multiply them uselessly, and when not explicitly called for by the diverse parts of the population; but care ought nevertheless to be exercised so that they shall not be refused where required. More than once the municipal councils, whether from violent prejudice or from wishing to escape from an additional expense, have rejected proposals for establishing schools specially connected with a worship differing from that which predominated within their bounds, although such establishments may have been warmly solicited by the minority of the population, and alone could satisfy their religious needs. • The University comprehends all the colleges and schools of the kingdom.