« PreviousContinue »
tance in view of the particular design of our author. We have thus far confined our attention, therefore, to the orthography, derivation, meaning, and original application of the name “Jehovah," as set forth by Mr. MacWhorter; for these are the pillars on which he proposes to sustain the fabric of a new “Christology." No one would object to informing mankind how the name “Jehovah" was probably or certainly spelled. But we think we have shown that to restore its orthography would be to sacrifice its euphony to no purpose ; that, in regard to its derivation and meaning, the world is no wiser now than it was two thousand years ago, and two or three hundred years ago, and at all intermediate and subsequent times down to the date of the commencement of modern scholarship, and that in regard to the original application of this “Memorial Name,” the world has not yet grown wise enough to lend the slightest countenance to the fiction-to the praise of which, we hope, Mr. MacWhorter is exclusively entitled-that Cain was the first to be called by it. We have shown, moreover, that Mr. MacWhorter has not only degraded but impoverished this great name, instead of restoring it “to its ancient significance and glory.” It means more than “He who will be,” or “He who will come." It was not bestowed in this meagre and uncertain sense even upon Cain, if it was bestowed upon him at all, but in all the fullness of its meaning, under the impression that he was that Jehovah who afterwards said, by the mouth of his prophet, “I am Jehovah; and beside me there is no Saviour.”
It is because our author has sapped this great Name of its vitality and strength that he has failed to discover the true nominal nexus between Jehovah of the Old Testament and Christ of the New Testament. That Jehovah and Christ are one and the same person of the Godhead he perceives, and that this fact iš intimated in the substitution of the Greek term “Kurios” for both these names, in both Testaments, he recog. nizes, though with a bad grace after pronouncing “Kurios" an “unmeaning term,” its use to suppress“ Jehovah" the last and basest act of "Alexandrian metaphysics and Jewish superstition." But when he comes to look in the New Testament for the exact equivalent to the name “Jehovah," we are not surprised that he hits wide of the mark, in the outmost circle which surrounds the point, at which he aims, and that that point itself is not the one at which he should have aimed. After reiterating that “YAHVEH, the original name of the promise, was veiled in superstition, and its meaning lost," he proceeds to affirm that “we find the Expectation of the World represented by a new term," and then proceeds to point out that new term in “Ho Erkomenos," only one-third of the descriptive appellation, rather than proper name, by which our Saviour reveals himself in Rev. i. 7-18, xxii. 13. It is surely one of the most pitiable proofs and results of the narrow and barren view of the meaning of the name “Jehovah,” advocated in “Yahveh Christ," that it should constrain our author thus to mutilate one of the sublimest passages of Scripture, and that which more than any other exhibits to our eyes an abiding Saviour, eternal and immutable, the source of complete unity to the many acts and scenes in the passing drama of Redemption.
But, after all, this passage-"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come"—is not a name. It is the bright halo with which “the Lord” surrounds himself, and in which we see him on his throne high and lifted up, inhabiting eternity. Mr. MacWhorter has overlooked the real name of our Lord, in which the name Jehovah yet lingers, though somewhat obscured by contraction and combination. It is a name which was divinely conferred, but if we remember rightly, Mr. MacWhorter has not even alluded to it. The old form of this name, viz: “ Joshua,” or “ Jehoshua," exhibits the first two syllables of “Jehovah” unchanged; and even in its new form, “ Jesus," the characteristic of the future tense remains. Why have we not an eloquent chapter in “Yahveh Christ” on the peculiarly interesting fact that the mother of our Lord was commanded by an angel from heaven to call his name "Jesus”-“Jehovah is and will be salvation :" " Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins ?”
No abstraction in this name. On the old principle on which the names Moses, Noah, Seth, Cain, and a multitude more were formed, this name “Jesus” includes the whole meaning of the important word--the verb-in the sentence which defines it. It has too a worthy, a most honorable and noble history, It was first conferred by Moses on his successor, the conqueror of the earthly Canaan for the people of God, and in this respect the apt and striking type of the “Captain of our salvation,” who bared his own breast to the smiters, and shed his own blood, in order to conquer for the people of God “a better country, that is, an heavenly.” This is the name in which the Apostle preached, wrought miracles, and administered baptism, and for which they hazarded their lives, and many, if not all, of them suffered even unto death. And according to Peter, “neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved ;" while Paul, in a still loftier strain, concludes his affecting description of the voluntary humiliation of our Lord, even to the death of the cross, with the words, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth : and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” In this last expression “ Jesus” and “ Lord,” or “ Kurios," or “Jehovah," seem to be purposely identified in meaning as well as in application. The very last prayer addressed to our Saviour in the Bible is, “Even so, Come Lord Jesus.” And the very last words of the Bible are the benediction, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." But alas! the wide field opened to the imagination by the truth that the name “Jesus” includes the name of " Jehovah," and was bestowed by divine authority upon our Saviour-this wide and glorious field was forbidden ground to Mr. MacWhorter. For if he had made prominent the almost total hiding of the name " Jehovah” by contraction, combination, and change of spelling in the name “ Jesus,” and this sanctioned, not merely by philosophizing translators, nor merely by inspired Apostles, but by an angel from heaven, it would have left no room for the very spice of his work, his chivalrous defence of an orthography. If the angel minded not the change of spelling and the shortening process from “ Jehoshua” to “Jesus," why should their “fellow-servant” come down so heavily upon the poor Jews for giving us “ Jehovah" instead of “ Yahveh!"
When our author treads upon the old, familiar, solid, Apostolic ground, and proceeds to show that the inspired writers 6 without attempt at explanation, or hint at any species of accommodation, transfer to CHRIST all the predictions inevitably associated in their minds with the kingdom of YAHVEH,” we follow him with great delight. Guided by this thread which never breaks, we roam with him through the otherwise bewildering labyrinth of the Prophets, and in the confidence and joy of our souls we can smile at his persistency in changing the spelling of “Jehovah” wherever he finds it, and is ever and anon complacently insinuating that he is leading us where we have never been before, and never could have found our way but for the help of "modern scholarship.” We are not provoked to ask, but we ask in all good nature, if the Epistle to the Hebrews is the last work issued by the “ modern” press, and when we may look for another volume from the same able pen? Where was Mr. MacWhorter bred, in what branch of the Church was he trained, that he should be so constantly crying out with the irrepressible wonder and admiration of a novice, in view of the perfect reflection of the Sun of Righteousness in the mirror of prophecy, ages before his rising image was visible to the world at large; in view of the consequent unity of the two Testaments as one word by one Spirit manifesting one God and Saviour ; and in view of the grandeur of the scheme of Redemption, historically surveyed from Paradise Lost as described in Genesis, to Paradise Regained as disclosed in Revelation ? We had supposed that such glorious visions were the property of all Christians, the lot of their inheritance from their fathers, their daily study from their youth up, the perennial source of their consolation and support in this wearisome, enfeebling and sorrowful pilgrimage.
It was our design to have occupied the larger part of this article with an analysis of the old, yet it seems forgotten, argument upon which the “ doctrine of the Person and Kingdom of Christ” has rested securely since the days of the Apostles. But we must reserve this subject for another occasion.
Cyclopedia of American Literature : Embracing personal and critical
Notices of Authors, and Selections from their Writings: From the earliest Period to the present Day: With Portraits, Autographs, and other Illustrations. By EVERT A. DUYCKINCK and GEORGE L. DUYCKINCK. In Two Volumes, pp. 676, 781. New York: Charles Scribner.
About the end of the second decade of the present century, Sydney Smith concluded one of his most characteristic and trenchant articles in the Edinburgh Review, in the following contemptuous and illiberal strain: "In the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book? or goes to an American play? or looks at an American picture or statue? What does the world yet owe to American physicians or surgeons ? What new substances have their chemists discovered ? or what old one have they analyzed ? What new constellations have been discovered by the telescopes of Americans ? What have they done in mathematics? Who drinks out of American glasses? or eats from American plates ? or wears American coats or gowns? or sleeps in American blankets ?" It must be confessed that, as compared with the present, it was then a day of small things with us. There was far less untruth than scorn and truculence expressed in those obstinate questionings. Our young literati took them sorely to heart. The national vanity was deeply wounded, and its self-complacent pride would not brook the insult. Quills innumerable instantly bristled in a sharp defence. Some were angry, and answered scorn with scorn: some were grieved, and remonstrated: others were only amused, and laughed. Seybert produced voluminous statistics to enlighten our cousins on the other side. Walsh made a strong and effective appeal from their harsh and illiberal judgments. Cooper uttered a loud and indignant protest. But Halleck was more philosophical—he only smiled and pointed to the future. His humor is contagious and irresistible. We quote from the opening of his poem of Red Jacket :