is, and will be. From the considerations now submitted, we cannot perceive the force of the argument, that the name JEHOVAH, as derived from the future tense of the Hebrew verb to be, contains a promise of his future coming as our Deliverer.

Our author attaches great importance to Jehovah or Yahveh--He who will be-as the Memorial Name of God. He says:

"The Memorial Name, 'Jehovah,' enfolds the whole doctrine of God in his relation to man, comprehends the work of redemption, contains the law and the gospel, reaches back in its extended significance to the gates of Eden, and forward to the final coming of the Redeemer. It is this name, long buried, but now risen again in the light of modern investigation, to which we would restore the significance and glory of its ancient meaning." "When Moses entreated the Lord for a name, by which he might justify to the children of Israel his mission as deliverer, God answered: "Go tell them, I am' hath sent you. This is my name forever, and this my memorial to all generations." We should naturally expect that a memorial name, given in such a crisis, (the distress of the Israelites in Egypt,) would express the relation in which God, the everlasting God, is brought nearest to his people; that it would represent those promises by which he was remembered with hope, through all the troubled times in which Zion was tossed with the tempest, and not comforted, save with the comfort of this memorial. Finally, that it would be the name, or would represent the relation, by which, in these last days, What then has become of that ancient we should remember him." name revealed for all time? and why is it not our memorial ?"-pages 12 14, 18, 19.

66

The importance of the Memorial Name of God is readily conceded. The question, however, will naturally arise, first of all, whether "Jehovah" alone constitutes the Memorial Name? or whether, in this memorial,' is not included "Elohim," God? For the language runs: "The Lord God"-Jehovah Elohim-" of your fathers, . . . hath sent me unto you: this is my NAME for ever, and this is my MEMORIAL unto all generations."-Ex. iii: 15. This compound name, it would seem, became the Divine memorial. "For thy Maker is thine husband;" as declared again : "JEHOVAH of hosts is his name;-the ELOHIM of the whole earth shall he be called."-Isa. liv: 5. There would also seem to be a natural fitness for the use of Elohim as a component part of the Divine Memorial. This name occurring in the first sentence of Divine Revelation, and throughout in connection with the creative acts of the Deity,—the works

of creation are every where made the ground of appeal to mankind in behalf of God, and in opposition to idolatry. And accordingly "this glorious and fearful name" of the Creator is given: "The Lord thy God-Jehovah thy Elohim."-Deut. xxviii: 58.

But JEHOVAH is also the Memorial Name of God. Then, however, the question arises: is this name used in reference to the future manifestation of the Son of God—he who will be? or, he who is, and was, and will be, the self-existent, all-sufficient One?

Our author says: "Let us substitute the phrase 'I am,' carrying with it the meaning of self-existence, for the term Lord, or Jehovah, wherever it occurs in the answering declaration, and see how much of meaning or of comfort it carries with it."-page 16. But let us, in turn, substitute the phrase, I WILL BE, carrying with it the meaning of future existence, "for the term Lord, or Jehovah, wherever it occurs in the answering declaration, and see how much of meaning or of comfort it carries with it." Certainly, at least, a present good, other things being equal, is preferable to a future one. And Jehovah, as the self-existent One, and the all-sufficient Good, administers the richest comfort to the Christian's heart.

But Mr. MacWhorter says: "Does not such a proclamation (Ex. vi: 2—8) seem out of place in the circumstances ?'' -page 17.

The proclamation, indeed, seems quite in place. The Egyptians oppress the Israelites; and while the former defiantly inquire, "Who is Jehovah ?" and the faith of the latter is feeble, God announces a name which banishes all doubt: "I AM JEHOVAH." It contains much that is adapted to their present circumstances. The Egyptian idols, being creatures, possessed the name, without the nature or attributes of Deity. But Jehovah, the Self-Existent, being supremely great and good, was adequate to every emergency, and able to render his worshipers completely happy.

Our author further inquires:

"If the fact of the POWER of God to accomplish what he had promised, was the fact he wished to impress upon the Israelites, why was not the name of God Almighty sufficient?"-page 17.

For the reason, we might say, that the whole is better than a part, or the greater is preferable to the less. Now the name El Shaddai, in the original, signifies, as it is rendered, God Almighty, (Ex. vi: 3,) or, emphatically and literally, the Almighty One. Both, El and Shaddai,

are from verbs signifying power; and the two used in combination, to form an expressive name of Deity, may be well understood as representing the Divine omnipotence. But the Memorial Name should express something more than a God of absolute power. The Lord of the universe should be exhibited in just proportions, and altogether glorious; and this is accomplished by announcing the name Jehovah. As, therefore, the Sovereign Ruler had made himself known under the idea of omnipotence, in an age when power became the rule of right, it was fitting, as the ages advanced, to give greater prominence to the name Jehovah; that he who was all powerful in dominion, might be known as most excellent in all perfections, the Supreme Good, worthy alike of our fear and of our love.

But it is still inquired:

'Is there not, on the face of the narrative, an implication of a greater difference in the significance of these names, than appears in cur translation?"--pages 17-18.

Doubtless there is. But this arises naturally from the fact that one of these names is translated, while the other is either transferred or rendered imperfectly. In the one case, instead of El Shaddai, we have the phrase "God Almighty;" in the other, for Yahveh or Jehovah, we either have the same transferred, or its feeble representative, Lord. And in either case, it must follow, that the full difference in the signification of the two names, as they occur But let us accord to in our version, would not appear.

the name Jehovah the import we have given it, and the difference in significance between this name and El Shaddai, is equal to anything that is indicated on the face of the narrative.

Once more the interrogation is made:

"Is it not probable, also, that a name adopted under such circum

stances, to be perpetuated as a memorial to all generations, would contain some fact revealed, or relation assumed by God, fitted to be remembered in the connection in which it was declared?"-page 18.

was fre

Such is probably the case. Let us, however, advert to the facts. First, the name "Jehovah Elohim," quently employed by the patriarchs before the time of MoSee Gen. ix: 26; xxiv: 7-27; xxviii: 13.

ses.

It is further worthy of remark, that when this name is adopted as the Divine Memorial, it is in answer to the inquiry of Moses as to the name by which he should establish his mission to Israel: "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, (I AM THAT I AM,) I AM, even Jehovah Elohim of your fathers, hath sent me unto you.”—Ex. iii: 13-15. The name Jehovah is here divinely sanctioned, but not introduced as a new name. But in answer to the inquiry: "What is his name?" the response is given virtually: "the same that you have heard from your fathers, 'Jehovah Elohim ;' and such will it continue to be through future ages." The answer intimates that God is the selfexistent and supreme Good, and that a further development of his name may not be given.

It may be of importance to state further, that the name Jehovah is represented, both here and elsewhere, as involving the most sacred and important relations to his people. He is exhibited as their Creator, Presèrver and Sovereign. He is their Father and their Friend. "Jehovah is our Judge; Jehovah is our Lawgiver; Jehovah is our King." -Isa. xxxiii: 22. And in all this representation, there seems no tendency towards any special development of the idea of futurity; but all is, as occasion or circumstance may render most fitting, past, present, or to come. The great idea is not that at some future period he will be, but that now he is their Lord God, their mighty Deliverer, ready and present to save.—Ps. xlvi.

And if the question be reiterated: "What then has become of that ancient name revealed for all time? and why is it not our memorial?" We answer: that reverend name we hail, as it now appears with grace and grandeur on the face of the sacred page; it is enshrined in the hearts of the

faithful; it adds sweetness and majesty to the hymns of the sanctuary; it falls with impressive emphasis from the sacred desk, and angels and martyrs from the hill of Zion may hear an echo of the prophet's voice from the vale of tears: "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is JEHOVAH; we have waited for him, we will be glad, and rejoice in his salvation."

Another argument by which Mr. MacWhorter endeavors to maintain his theory, is deduced from the manner in which the name Jehovah is used by Eve in application to her firstborn: "I have gotten a man from the Lord."-Gen. iv: 1. Here he contends, first, from the grammatical construction, that it is not to be understood as the name of God, but as the promise of the coming Deliverer of our race. He says:

"The preposition 'from' is not in the original. Literally it reads: 'I have gotten a man, even JEHOVAH."-page 24. Again: "It was natural that Eve should expect to witness, in her life-time, the realization of this prophecy," namely: that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. "Filled with this expectation, it was natural that, looking upon her first born, she should exclaim: 'I have received him, even Yahveh, even he who will be.”—page 31.

We are inclined to admit, with the author, that the particle (eth) should not be understood in the sense of "from" as in our version. But whether the sense of "with" should be rejected is not so clear. There are examples in which eth has the sense of "y (im), with.-Job xxxiv: 8, compared with Prov. xiii: 20.*

Let us, however, consider more particularly the author's own position, according to the language which he puts into the mouth of Eve; namely: "I have received him, even Yahveh, even he who will be." He maintains here that eth, rendered "from" in our version, but which he translates even, is to be understood as a designating and emphatic particle; (page 24;) that, as such, it is applied to Yahveh, and marks it as in apposition with "man," (ish,) and con

* Gesenius renders this passage, Gen. iv: 26: "I have gotten a manchild, with Jehovah, i. e. with his help, through his aid.”—Jer. i: 8; xv: 20.