making it of his own authorship, at least in form, throughout, Dr. Nast has been content to fill it, in large part, with copious extracts from all those authors, who, in his judgment, have given the essence of what is to be said on the various points, more perfectly than he himself could express it. His intention in this has been excellent, but we think the results less satisfactory than they might have been made. A collection of fragments, or a work largely interlaid with fragments, however excellent and pertinent they are in themselves, almost of necessity produces a jarring of mind, incompatible with a distinct or strong impression. A work to last must be homogeneous the production of one mind. Unity of treatment with reasonable ability, such as Dr. Nast's own writings show, is a merit outweighing any superiority of ability in the separate works from which a cento of quotations is made

up.

The original portions of the book, however, are less distinct and squarely cut, in style and thought, than we could wish to see them. There is a diffuseness hanging over it, which makes it fatiguing to read. This diffuseness, however, is perhaps not so great a defect for popular readers as for students. In one particular, nevertheless, the author has been brief where it would have been well for him to be extended. In his preliminary treatise on the genuineness of the Gospels, he refers to the various testimonies, direct and indirect, of ancient writers to the early existence and authority of our present canonical books. He refers to these testimonies, however, in terms so vague and general that they are less valuable than they might have been. Had he quoted these various passages in full, so that his readers could examine and judge for themselves, he would have rendered a very great service to the thinking men and women of the laity. With this exception, however, the preliminary treatise is quite a clear and comprehensive presentation of the evidence for the genuineness and authenticity of our present canon. The commentary, on the whole, is clear, full, candid, and devout, and will be extensively serviceable to American Christians. The author proposes to devote the remainder of his life to the continuation of the work on the same principles.

JEHOVAH, THE Redeemer GOD.1

This work is an enlargement of a former Article by the author, which appeared in the Journal of Sacred Literature, January, 1854, under the title of the Antediluvian Theocracy. Its distinguishing position in regard to the origin and import of the divine name “Jehovah " is the same that was subsequently maintained by Mr. Alexander McWhorter in the Bibliotheca Sacra, in an Article which appeared in January, 1857, entitled, Jehovah considered as a Memorial Name, and in a volume entitled, Yahveh Christ, or the Memorial Name; in respect to both of which productions the author

1 Jehovah, the Redeemer God: the Scriptural Interpretation of the Divine Name, Jehovah. By Thomas Tyler, B.A., London. 10177 3872 bæ 1177, Isa. xlix. 7. 12mo. pp. viii and 71. London: Ward and Co. 1861.

of the volume now under consideration complains that Mr. McWhorter has reproduced his view in a modified form, but with the omission of an acknowledgment of the source whence the ideas on which they were based were derived.

Both Mr. Tyler, the author of the present volume, and Mr. McWhorter after him, agree in rejecting the common interpretation of the divine name He is, or, He that is and in maintaining that its true signification is, He who will be. They both, moreover, ascribe its origin to our first parents, who, as they suppose, used it of the promised seed that should bruise the serpent's head; so that, upon the birth of Cain, Eve, supposing that she had received the fulfilment of the promise, exclaimed: "I possess a man, even Jehovah "; that is, the promised seed, known by us under the name of Him who shall be.

On the above view we remark:

First, that it necessarily implies the existence of the word

(Yahve or Yahave, according to the pronunciation now generally assumed) as a proper name previously to the declaration of Eve now under consideration. By no possibility could she have said, consistently with the laws of Hebrew syntax, I have gotten a man, even him who shall be, if be regarded as simply the future tense of the old verb; To express the idea intelligibly, the Hebrew must then have run either

, הָוָה b -The in . קָנִיתִי אִישׁ יַהְיֶה: or elliptically , קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֵת אֲשֶׁר יַהְיֶה : thus

troduction of r without marks as a noun; that is, if be taken as the sign of the accusative and not (as we prefer) as a preposition (=apud, with, with the help of)‚1

Secondly, upon the supposition that the word "Jehovah” (n) was used as a proper name by our first parents, before the birth of Cain, in the sense claimed, He who shall be, then, as Eve here employed it, it must have had exclusive reference to the promised seed, through whom redemption was to come. And since there is not the least intimation that it has in this passage a different meaning from that which elsewhere prevails in the Pentateuch, we come of necessity to the conclusion that it had originally a Messianic reference, being, in fact, equivalent to the well-known Jewish. designation of the Messiah, as He who is to come (2). This is, indeed, the position distinctly assumed by Mr. McWhorter. He explains the words of God to Moses, Ex. iii. 15, as follows: "Thus shalt thou say unto Israel's children, YAHVEH, He who will be, the Coming One, God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all all generations." Here he expressly makes Yahveh (Jehovah) equivalent to "the Coming One"; a name which is appropriate to the Messiah only. But this is utterly inconsistent with the Old Testament usage of the word "Jehovah," which distinguishes it from the Messiah in passages where both

1 As the Greeks use σύν and μετά - σὺν θεῷ, μετ' Αθηναίης.

Bib. Sacra, Jan. 1857, p. 110.

Jehovah and the Messiah are spoken of, as is shown in the Article entitled The Angel of Jehovah, which appeared in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October 1859. In the fourteenth chapter of the volume now before us, Mr. Tyler frankly admits, in view of several pertinent passages quoted by him, that "Jehovah is not the Old Testament name of the Messiah,” claiming that it rather "designates God as The Redeemer." We should rather say that it is the covenant-name of God, by which he pledges himself to give redemption to his people through the Messiah. But not to insist on this distinction, it seems to us that the above concession of Mr. Tyler virtually abolishes the whole fabric of argument built on the assumption of the original future significance of the word Jehovah (m).

With regard to the origin of the word "Jehovah," we are inclined to the view that it existed from the earliest times; though it was not till the period of the exodus that God assumed it as his special covenant-name, as recorded by Moses (Ex. iii. 13 – 16, vi. 2 – 9). Its prior existence is clearly implied in the words: "by my name Jehovah"; that is by the name "Jehovah” which already belongs to me. But its peculiar force dated its origin from the time when God solemnly assumed it as his covenant title, in connection with the declaration: "This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

As to its primitive significance, we adhere to the old view, that it means He is, or in the first person, I am; the future being used, as often in Hebrew, to express a permanent state without reference to time. Thus we readily explain the words of God to Moses: ons bus mons, I am who am (Ego sum qui sum, as the vulgate has it); that is, in accordance with the English idiom: I am he who is, precisely as the Septuagint renders: ¿yć ciμ å tv. If we may assume that God gave to himself the name "Jehovah" at the time when he created our first parents, "and called their name Adam” (Gen. v. 2), then we must understand it in the widest sense, as signifying that he who bears the name He is or I am has in himself all fulness of being — self-existence, eternity, and infinity included; in a word, as signifying all that God is by virtue of his own nature. Surely such a name was most appropriate as the covenant-title of the God of Israel.

It is true that some difficulties respecting the use of the divine names in the Pentateuch remain unsolved. Hengstenberg's attempt to show that Moses always employed the words by, God, and in, Jehovah, with a conscious apprehension of their difference and choice between the two, must be regarded as a failure. The documentary hypothesis, which assumes that Moses, in the composition of the book of Genesis, employed older documents, that varied in their usage of the divine names, explains some difficulties, but not all. Here, as in many other cases, we must reverently wait for more light.

'Page 62.

CHRIST THE Lord.1

This is by the author of "Jehovah, the Redeemer God," just noticed, and is an interesting description of the names applied in the New Testament to our Saviour, especially of the name kúpios, Lord, or 8 kúpios, the Lord. The fundamental position of the author is that this is "the fulfilment of the prophetic name Jehovah.'" Had he succeeded in establishing the grand position of the first volume, "that the Divine name Jehovah' has the signification, He who shall be"; that it "was a prophecy seeking its fulfilment and realization in him that should come,' and in the kingdom which he should establish," then, since kúpos is the word used in the New Testament for Jehovah of the Old Testament, his work would have been accomplished. But he himself admits, in the sixteenth chapter of the above-named first volume, that Jehovah is not the Old Testament name of the Messiah, which, as we contend, it must have been, if its proper significance was, He who shall be, or He that shall come. That it was prophetic of redemption by Christ we admit. For it was the covenant name of the God of Israel; and the sum of the covenant is Christ's redemption. But it did not itself specially designate the person of the Messiah, like the Jewish term Na, he who is to come. Consequently kúpios in the New Testament, as applied to our Lord, does not specially answer to Jehovah of the Old Testament.

It is indeed true that in many passages of the New Testament what is spoken of Jehovah in the Old Testament is applied to Christ directly or indirectly, and thus he is identified with the God of Israel, as is abundantly shown in the volume now under consideration. But in other passages the Lord (kúpios) of the Old Testament is distinguished from the Son, as, for example: "The Spirit of the Lord (Heb. in, the Lord Jehovah) is upon me, because he hath anointed me," etc. In a word, kúpos is used in the New Testament (1) of God in his simple unity, without reference to the distinction of persons, according to the common use of Jehovah in the Old Testament; (2) of the Father, in distinction from the Son, as in the passage just quoted; (3) of our Lord Jesus Christ, as "the Lord of glory," the God-man, whom all men are to honor as they honor the Father.

KALISCH'S HEBREW GRAMMAR WITH EXERCISES.*

This is a work of ripe learning, and will be hailed with pleasure by Hebrew scholars. Its two chief peculiarities are the following:

1 Christ the Lord, the Revealer of God, and the Fulfilment of the Prophetic Name "Jehovah." With a Reply to Bishop Colenso on the Name "Jehovah." By Thomas Tyler, B.A., Author of "Jehovah, the Redeemer God." XPINTOX KTPION, Luke ii. 11. 12mo. pp. xxx and 160. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co.; Edinburgh: T. Menzies. 1863.

A Hebrew Grammar, with Exercises. By M. M. Kalisch, Ph.D., M.A. In two parts: Part I. The Outlines of the Language, with Exercises; being a Practical Introduction to the Study of Hebrew. Part II. The Exceptional Forms

First, it has for its first part a system of Hebrew exercises interwoven with its sections throughout, making it at once a grammar and a chrestomathy. Such a system (either arranged by itself, with continual references to the sections of the grammar, or interspersed, as here, among the sections) is essential to any grammar that is designed for use in the class-room. The exercises in this grammar are very copious, and must essentially contribute to the thoroughness and accuracy of the student who shall faithfully use them.

Secondly, this grammar is arranged in two volumes, each containing a separate course. The first is designed to contain "all that is necessary in order to acquire the broad outlines of the language," but no more, that "an abundance of detail may not impede the first and most difficult steps of the beginner." The second part "completes and fills up the outlines drawn in the first. It embodies the exceptional forms and constructions, points out their divergence from the fundamental rules or principles, and endeavors to explain the nature of their anomalies." We have no doubt that in the hands of the author this double arrangement will work well. Every good teacher succeeds in carrying out his own system. We are not sure, however, but that most teachers would prefer the plan of a double text-a coarser, containing, for substance, what the author has thrown into his first volume; and a finer, "to complete and fill up the outlines," where the exceptional forms and constructions should be found and explained. Such a plan would have the advantage of keeping in convenient proximity the regular forms and constructions and the anomalous deviations from them. With regard to the syntax, the author admits that, from its close internal connection as one whole, he has been obliged to put it "in an almost complete connection" into the first volume. We think that, for the same reason, the regular and so-called irregular verbs ought to be treated in immediate connection.

It is with great delight that the thorough Hebrew teacher or student will refer to the full lists of anomalies contained in the second volume. There, for example, he will find all the verbs middle-doubled which contain irregularities arranged together, with the anomalous forms given under each. And so in respect to other things.

TESTIMONY OF THE HEATHEN TO THE TRUTHS OF HOLY WRIT.' Whatever may be the explanation of the fact, there are unquestionably striking resemblances between many truths and turns of thought in the and Constructions; preceded by an Essay on the History of Hebrew Grammar. 8vo. pp. xv and 374, and xvi and 324. London: Longman, Green, Roberts, and Green. 1862 and 1863.

1 Testimony of the Heathen to the Truths of Holy Writ: a Commentary on the Old and New Testaments; compiled almost exclusively from the Greek and Latin Authors of the Classical Ages of Antiquity. By Rev. Thomas S. Millington, Incumbent of Woodhouse Eaves. 8vo. pp. xxxi and 648. London: Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday. 1863,