the English method, sur-cum-ja-se-o, at once reveals to the pupil the origin of circumjacent. The likeness is clear even to a child.

But pronounce the same word by the Roman system, and circumjacco becomes keer-koom-yah-ke-o! The connection can be seen only by advanced scholars, and is very likely not seen then. Take the words rupture, rustic, social, rumination, from ruptum, rusticus, socius, and ruminatio. When these Latin words are pronounced by the English mode the origin of the word is clear; but let the Latin be pronounced roop-toom, roos-tee-coos, so-kee-ooss, and roo-mee-nah-tee-o, and the origin is obscured by foreign sounds. Try vicinity, vital, citation, equation, civil, and equity, from vicinitas, vitalis, citatio, aequatio, civilis, and aequitas. The English mode reveals the truth, for "sounds furnish the material for etymology." Apply the so-called Roman and say wec-kee-nee-tahs, wee-tah-leess, kee-ta-tee-o, aye-kahtee-o, kee-wee-leess, and aye-kee-tahs, and English etymology is offered a sacrifice to a revolutionary innovation. Again, look at the common verbal stems jac, val, dic, duc, pel, and so on through the list. Whenever these stems occur in our language, the English system of pronouncing Latin gives a clew to both the origin and meaning of the words, as, for example, ejaculatory, valid, diction, induction, compel. It does not require an advanced scholar to verify and apply the statements just made. The most diligent scholar of any age who has not made the trial, will be surprised to find in how many of our words these Latin verbal stems form the permanent home of the idea.

The student of Latin can easily be induced to form the habit, from the very start, of tracing up the derivation of words, and the habit thus formed may be of in

calculable benefit in other directions. On the other hand the Roman method confuses the student in both derivation and signification, or so entirely conceals them, that the beneficial results to genuine English scholarship are almost totally sacrificed. Loyalty to what some are pleased to call the "demonstrated rights of the Latin” may be a good thing, but loyalty to a masterly understanding of our own tongue is a far better. The Roman mode abandons one of the strongest incentives that can be brought to bear in the classroom,-that of enabling the pupil to see and hear at once and easily the intimate relation between the Latin and the English.

5. The sweeping change advocated by the new pronunciation tends to a complete revolution in the pronunciation of our own language. Professor Thacher, of Yale College, uses the following language: "For, to speak of Latin words which we have adopted, how long will Cicero maintain his place in English pronunciation after the rod shall have banished him from the lips of all Anglo-Saxon boys and girls who thumb the little Latin histories of the men of Rome, and shall have substituted the classical kee-ka-ro in his place? How long will Cæsar stand against Kaisar, Scipio against Skee-peeo, Fabricius against Fah-bree-kee-oos, Cyrus against Keeroos, Tacitus against Taketoos, and so on through a long list of proper names which make a familiar part of our English language. Prima facie evidence will become preemah fahkeeah evidence, the quid pro quo, keed pro co; the genius loci, a ganeeoos lokee; the mens conscia, a mans conskeeah (o as in cone); scilicet, skeeleekat; et cetera, at katarah."

Let v be pronounced like w, and note the way the most common expressions will be transformed: viva voce becomes wee-wah wo-kay.

per centum becomes par kane-toom.

yoo-ray dee-wee-no.

jure divino

jus civile

yoos kee-wee-lay.

And hopeless confusion is made of the many Latin words incorporated into English, as utile dulce must be oo-tee-lay dool-cay;

This illustration might be prolonged indefinitely, for the material is abundant, but there is no necessity for it.

What has been given is a fair sample of the radical change the so-called Roman must introduce to our classrooms, and, in fact, in all the walks of life where Latin is at all employed.

MOSAIC COSMOGONY.

BY A. MEYROWITZ, PROFESSOR OF THE SHEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

In entering upon the subject of Creation, we meet three classes of objectors to this doctrine: 1. The Atheists; 2. The Antiquarians, and 3. The Infidels. The answer to the first class we give thus: That the material universe, of which our globe forms a part, is not eternal---consequently the world which we inhabit is not eternal. Or we may argue thus: 'I exist,' this is selfevident. 'I am not the author of my existence;' this is also self-evident.' I therefore must be a created being. That being to whom I owe my existence derives his from himself, or, like me, owes it to another. If he exists himself, he must be the eternal God. If not, I argue about him as about the former. Thus I ascend, thus I must ascend, till I arrive at that being who does. exist of himself, and who has always existed. Dr. Grosvener says the Christian's creed is: "I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth.” The Atheist's creed is: "I believe in nothing the origin of all things." Which do you think is the most philosophical:

The second class, the Antiquarians say: "Remote

authentic antiquity ascribes a vastly greater age to this globe than that set forth by the inspired historian Moses. We answer, that the cosmogony of Moses contemplates simply a history of the origin of the human species; all the other parts thereof being incidental. And I maintain that the first verse is but an introductory passage, solving the great problem of "whence the existence of all that which we see?"

(B'reshith.) In the begining of time, when time. was yet not; for things existing measure time. It does not limit to any period, or calpa, put it at what extent you will.

(Bara)-Created, brought into existence what was not before. Upon comparison of this Mosaic record with the most ancient system of heathen philosophy, there can be traced tolerable marks of correspondence. Orpheus says: "In the beginning the heavens were made by God, and in the heavens there was a chaos, and a terrible darkness was on all the parts of this chaos, and covered all things under the heaven." Almost literally Biblical. Anaxagorus says: "All things were at first in one mass, but an intelligent agent came and put it in order." Aristotle, though he believed in a materia principia, says: "All things lay in one mass for a vast space of time, but an intelligent agent came and put them in motion and so separated them from one another."

(Elohim)-God, the creator being infinite can not be comprehended by the finite. All that man knows of the Creator, is, that He exists. Therefore when Moses

asked this Being "What is His name?" (Exodus iii-13.) that Being answered: (Ehejeh asher ehejeh) I shall be who shall be (English version I am that I am) i. e.: All that you mortal can know of me is, my existence. And