the future, in which the person predominates over the action, as

".יקְטל

Now, it is evident that both these must have been treated as realities in the Hebrew conception; whilst, with us, the past and present are only regarded as real, and the future as unreal. That the chosen language for uttering the "sure word" of prophecy should deal with the future time as no more unreal than the past would seem but natural (our own early favourite master, Schroeder, R. 46, d, notes this ): but this does not explain the whole of this peculiarity. Our western standard of time is what is called the present-the ever shifting present. The Hebrews selected some stationary point, by which were determined the past and the future (So Schroeder R. 49); all before that point being past, all subsequent to it future. This clears up a host of difficulties. Dr. Nordheimer's diagram, illustrative of this, is so simple that we introduce it—

Assume C the practical present. Then CA is past, and CB future. But shift the point C' back to d; then Cd, which was past, becomes d C the future: again shift it to e, and C e, which was future, becomes e C the past. Hence the times called past and future are purely relative, and depend for their determination on the position of the moment called the present; so that on shifting this last they may naturally be convertedthe past into the future, and the future into past time.

The present time is viewed in the Hebrew conception as so evanescent, that either the past (the momentary past), or the future (the momentary future), may equally express it, according to the prominent views of the writer or speaker; for both these coincide at the same point. A given moment, or that moment infinitely subdivided, separates the two eternities. Hence, "if an action be spoken of in the time of its performance, a part of it, during the very act of speaking, becomes lost in the past, whilst the remainder pertains, as yet, to the future; a separate tense, therefore, did not seem to be required by the Hebrews to denote a portion of time so fluctuating and transitory." The imperfection of the human faculties may make this mode of reckoning less adapted to the business of life; but in all sound philosophy the Hebrew method is the true one. Present time! indulgent word-fosterer of indolence and delay, conveying the notion of rest in that which knows no rest! The Roman's sentiment, identical with the Hebrew, is the true

one

"Dum loquimur, fugerit invida ætas."

To say, then, that the Hebrew is a defective language, because it rejects a particular form in the verb to express what we call the present time, is a very ill-grounded charge.

We alluded to its being but natural that the Hebrew, as the chosen language of prophecy, should regard the future time with as clear a vision as the past. With us the future is all uncertainty with the prophets-the seers-it was of necessity all absolute certainty, crowded with living realities, even more vividly before them than the cold facts of the past. Hence in prophetic language events precede and succeed each otheradopt their places as past or future, as in historical narrative. There must be, however, some reckoning point from which past and future are dated; and this lies in the mind whose choice it is to determine it. By this mode of computation, when the mind enters into byegone ages, it fixes on some dividing point that determines the past and the future: the past tense tells of all that happened before that point-the future of all that succeeded it. Or, if ecstatically carried amidst the clearly-defined shadows floating awfully before it in the future, it creates a like dividing point, and as boldly speaks of the past and the future.

A careful study of these views of time, in the Hebrew conception, will enable us to explain the apparent anomalies in the

tenses.

It is true that either the absolute past or absolute future tense is used to denote our present tense. This, according to our western views of time, is contradictory. The following is Dr. Nordheimer's solution :

יִקְטל

"As the past and future tenses, although of infinite extent, border immediately on each other, so do also the uses of the two forms, Sand Sp, which represent them; for each embraces the whole extent of time to whose designation it is assigned. So that may signify a past action performed just now, yesterday, or a hundred years ago; and a future action to be done immediately, to-morrow, or a hundred years hence. Again, as the province of one tense ends where the other begins, and as the point of their mutual coincidence is the time of narration; either of them may be properly employed to predicate an event at the time of its occurrence, the choice in every instance depending on whether the writer's attention is more particularly directed to the commencement of an action in the past, or its continuance in the future."

The examples verifying this theory are most satisfactory. They explain how the past, or the future, tense may be employed to predicate an event taking place at the time of narration. "The earth is full (past tense) of violence" (Gen. vi. 3);

i. e., "the earth has been filled with violence, and is so still." "The ox knows (past tense) his owner, and the ass his master's crib." (Isa. i. 3): "a general proposition, which is always held good."

"In the above instances the condition or action predicated, although in existence at the time of narration, had commenced at some period; and the writer directing his attention to this fact, makes use of the past or form."

But, when speaking of a present state or action, the writer's attention dwells rather on its future continuance than on its commencement, he employs the future or

.form יִקְטל

This is verified in the following instances: "Whatever seems good (future tense) to you I will do." (2 Sam. xviii. 4) i. e., "whatsoever seems so now, or shall seem so in future." "Why weepest (future tense) thou?" i. e., "why will you go on weeping?" "The Lord abhors (future) a bloody and deceitful man" (Ps. v. 7); here is a general proposition which will always hold good.

On these and numerous other similar examples, Dr. Nordheimer observes: "The choice of forms in these passages depends upon whether the writer's attention rests chiefly on the commencement or further continuance of the action;" i. e., the reason, in a particular case, for employing the past or the future form is to be sought for, subjectively, in the writer's mind, and not, objectively, in reference to an imaginary present.

After having said that the Hebrew prophets would naturally deal with the future time as confidently as with the past, the events in one being not more sure to them than in the other, there can be no difficulty arising from meeting with the or past form, employed in reference to coming events.“ To thy seed will I give (past tense) this land" (Gen. xv. 18); meaning, I will merely give it them, having done so already in intent.

One example must suffice for exhibiting the future form employed for past events: "Since thou art lain down (past time) no feller has come up (future) against us." (Isai. xiv. 8). The future is used here, not in reference to the time of narration -which would be absurd-but in reference to the first event of the series: "since thou art lain down," with regard to that past event, "the coming up" of the feller would be future.

We pause here, believing that enough has been said to justify our warm recommendation of this work to the Hebrew student. We do not profess to agree with, or even comprehend, all the author's attempted solutions of difficulties. Yet his

own nicer tact may supply him with evidence imperceptible to less practised investigators, like ourselves.

But not only as one of the best introductions to a language, for which the steady pursuer of its literature gathers a growing love, is Dr Nordheimer's grammar to be commended-the youthful student, we assure him, cannot peruse it without gaining many other and important advantages in disciplining his mind. One sentence in the introduction will explain what we mean. Speaking of another grammar, he says:-"It is by no means calculated to meet the requisitions of the present age, in which reason is made to triumph over memory." All grammars will, of course, discipline the memory; but this, which yields to none as a well arranged storehouse of facts, will not only discipline that, but also the reason at the same time.

The grammatical analysis seems to be an useful companion to the grammar.

DERSPIN.

ART. V.-Early Discipline Illustrated. By SAMUEL WILThird Edition. London: J. S. Hodson. 1840. 2. A System of Education for the Young, applied to all the Faculties. By S. WILDERSPIN. London: J. S. Hodson. 1840.

3. The Infant System. By S. WILDERSPIN. tion. London: J. S. Hodson. 1840.

Seventh Edi

4. Manual for Nursery and Infant School. By S. WILDERSPIN, and T. J. TERRINGTON. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co. 1845.

THE problem of education is in itself a very difficult one. Its solution is of the highest consequence to a state; the politician and the philanthropist are alike interested in it; and it comes home to the bosom of every family. Most difficult does the problem become in a state of society so artificial and complex as that in which we live, and for which, not so much the development of the man is necessary, as the cultivation of certain marketable talents; not so much the perfect man is profitable, furnished in his measure unto every good work, as the man formally and technically qualified for that little professional range of action as priest, lawyer, artist, merchant, which can be allotted to him by an overcrowded society. Moreover, in a free country, where the will and choice of parents is subject to no control; where, indeed, the choice of the parent and almost that of the child are reckoned sacred, with no one even caring to

interfere with them; and where custom, class, rank, circumstances, expectations, are the only things by which the future lot of a youth, and by consequence his present so-called education, are determined; such a thing as a general system of education is altogether impossible. How far the parent's will is to determine the character and amount of his children's training— how far the Church may stand forward and claim a control over the education of a Christian youth-how far the State or commonwealth may legislate for a due preparation of her future servants, councillors, and defenders; these three questions present to us a difficult threefold balance, the adjustment of which has hitherto been left, in this country at least, to the good providence and mercy of God.

The diversities of religious sentiment, and the still greater diversities of religious denomination in Great Britain, have with us still further perplexed the question of education. The simple throng have no oracle to which they can apply; or rather the oracles have been so multiplied that no response is regarded as oracular. Who shall teach, what shall be learned, and how, what sort of constraints and discipline shall be used, and what precise results shall be endeavoured after; are with the mass of our population left to private caprice and invention. They are everywhere and perpetually discussed, and never decided. The comfort of being guided and directed by such as have authority to guide and direct is enjoyed by none; the pain and anxiety of judging for himself, with the conscious inability to judge, falls upon every individual. The consequence of this is, that instruc tion has been substituted for education, and has become a matter of trade; a region that ought to have been sacred has been made free to every sciolist and adventurer, to empirics and experimenters, to quacks and enthusiasts, to ephemeral self-constituted, societies, and committees; and, while the venerable institutions that have come to us by inheritance, from days when men had more time to think and more unity for counselling together than we enjoy, have as yet been preserved intact for forming the character of the higher ranks in our commonwealth, the mass of people are formed for public life on a plan, or on no plan, or on worse than none, just as one chance among a thousand casts up for each individual.

J

The subject of Infant Schools, in as far as it is treated in the works before us, introduces additional elements of perplexity. These are, the wholesome treatment of the poor, who have no means that of the labourer, who has no leisure-and that of the worthless, who has no inclination for the education of his children. All our readers are sufficiently acquainted with