reader will please to turn to the following passages; recollecting that the word LORD, when in capitals, stands for JEHOVAH in the original: Amos 5: 8. 9: 6. Jer. 10: 16. 46: 18. 51: 19. 16: 21. Is. 41: 1—4, 13, 17, 20. 42: 5, 6. 43: 3, 11—17. 44: 6-8, 24. 48: 2. Throughout the books belonging to the Mosaic dispensation,, El Shaddai, occurs but once, viz. Ezek. 10: 5. If that instance could be exchanged for the corresponding one under the patriarchal dispensation, Gen. 15: 7, the usage, in conformity to God's declaration in Ex. 6:3, would be perfect. And yet I would not have it done; by this one case under each, the two systems seem to recognize each other, and their common relation to the same one God.

We have then, in all this, the exact counterpart of what was found to be true under the patriarchal dispensation—a use of the name Jehovah, and an importance given to its significant meaning, which it has been shown, are recognized in several passages, and which throw the light of the Bible itself upon the design and meaning of God, when he said, Ex. 6: 2, "I am Jehovah;" and c. 3: 14", I am, hath sent me unto This result has been equally surprising with the other; the two, forming the exact counterpart of each other, just meet, with their broad and uniform array of facts, the corresponding counterpart clauses of Ex. 6:2, 3. Can there be any more doubt, that the interpretation we have given is the true meaning of the passage?

you.

Two very interesting subjects receive a good deal of light from the facts brought to view in the preceding discussion. The first is, the distinctive character of each of the three dispensations; the relative importance of the patriarchal and Mosaic; and the relation of each of these to the Christian. We know from the Bible, that one important feature of the Mosaic was, that a great part of its rites, ceremonies, and institutions, were shadows and types of the great realities of the Christian dispensation; and we know too, that it contains provision for the conversion, sanctification, and salvation of men. But it is remarkable that in both these respects, it agreed with the patriarchal. This, by the way, explains a great deal of the significant use, under the Levitical dispensation, of those names of Deity, which according to Ex. 6: 3, have a peculiar connexion with the patriarchal. Thus, &, El, one of these, occurs in the books written under the Mosaic institution in about one hundred and fifty places; and sixty-three of these are in

the Psalms alone. Now, however this may be accounted for, by supposing that this name is more poetic or ancient than the rest, a part at least of the cause of this, is doubtless the fact, that the Psalms deal principally in subjects, with regard to which persons under all the dispensations are on common ground. As to the glory of God, personal sanctification, dependence on God and the hope of salvation, Abraham and David felt alike, and looked to and found consolation in the same attributes and promises of God. The distinctive feature of the Mosaic dispensation was, as has been shown, the theocracy; the grand scope and end of which was, to hold up and teach to men the great truth expressed in the name JEHOVAH.

It is equally plain, from Ex. 6: 3, that the patriarchal dispensation in its spirit, end, doctrines, commands, and promises, had special reference to God as El Shaddai. What the actual significancy of this name in this connexion is, and what the actual distinctive genius of that dispensation was, are subjects of very interesting and important inquiry. I can barely enter upon them here. The thoughts that have suggested themselves are few, and not thoroughly examined or carried out. We know that the patriarchal dispensation was the first form under which God established his church among men-that church, for the salvation of which, the great plan and covenant of grace were instituted, to which all the promises of grace, and help, and pardon were given; and which now rests upon those original promises which were given to the patriarchs. If then we look around for the fundamental character of the first dispensation, we naturally turn first to these promises and this covenant, as the most important feature. Its few types and ceremonies were grounded entirely upon these, and only looked forward to their actual accomplishment under the gospel. To be sure, the covenant and promises are the common property of the church under every form; but they belonged first to the patriarchs. It is then to this dispensation as THE REPOSITORY OF THE COVENANT AND PROMISES OF GOD TO MAN, that we suppose the name , El Shaddai, to have reference-that name in connexion with which God revealed himself as the source of all good, of all the good which as the Almighty God and Father, he confers on man. I acknowledge that I have not at hand any etymological testimony to support this sentiment; and therefore I made the above remark; but there is this in its support, that whenever the covenant and promises of grace are appealed to, it is

in connexion with one or both of these names; and whenever there is an appeal or a reference to God as a God of goodness, and mercy, and help, the fact is the same. He is then spoken of as El, or El Shaddai. As to the covenant made with Abraham, consult the well known formula, Gen. 26: 24. 28: 13. 32: 9; and especially Ex. 3: 6, keeping in mind that according to the New Testament, the Abrahamic covenant is the covenant of grace. And for the idea of other references to this same name, consult those enumerated on p. 741. The references in the Psalms to God, under the name of b, El, would also greatly illustrate this point; and also the meaning under the theocracy, of the phrases, my God,' thy God,' your God,'

etc.

But the whole of this essential and fundamental part of the patriarchal dispensation is common to it with the Christian. Christ and his apostles built the Christian church upon these same promises and covenant. See Luke 24:27. Acts 3: 13, 25, 26. Rom. 3: 16, 17. Gal. 3: 7, 14-17, 21, 29. These parts of the patriarchal system, which were referred to and expressed in the divine name, have become, with the difference of the great prospective promise of Christ having been fulfilled, the fundamental portions of the Christian system.

All this was also recognized in the Jewish system. But it constituted its internal, and if I may say so, its hidden substance. Its outward form and features, and its external operation had another object-an object not immediately connected with the great plan of man's salvation. The state and tendency of things among depraved and debased men made this necessary. While the system of grace, as first founded, was more privately exerting its influence, and leading souls to heaven; the state of the world required that God should turn aside from his great and permanent scheme of grace, and institute a dispensation of things, and carry on a system of providence, which should have for its great object, to prevent men from entirely forgetting his existence. When this object had been accomplished; when the state of the world called no more for this extra machinery; it was dissolved and removed, and the original system, with its primitive principles and objects, was brought out again into exclusive prominency and with ten-fold efficiency.

This view of the genius and relations of the different dispensations, will of itself afford a solution of the remaining topic of

inquiry, viz. The relative importance of the different names of Deity, and the relation of each to the Christian dispensation.— The name JEHOVAH, is certainly not to us what it was to the Jew. To him, it expressed that great truth respecting God, which it was the grand design of his system to illustrate and enforce. To him there was a sacredness and an importance attached to the name, which certainly well accounts for the huge mass of superstition which came to be connected with it.And by the way, the very fact of the existence of this superstition, confirms our doctrine of the peculiar relation of this name to the Jewish dispensation. It is the recognition of that connexion by ignorance and stupidity themselves ;-but it at the same time proves the existence of an enlightened knowledge of this connexion, during the better ages of that system.-Here also are converging testimonies strengthening each other. We have the whole Jewish nation, during its whole history, supporting the views which have been presented.

But to us this peculiar importance and sacredness of the name Jehovah have passed away with the system with which they were connected; and, El Shaddai, the precious name of God which expresses the character in which he first made himself known as the designer and founder of the glorious scheme of grace, is the name which has the first and most intimate connexion with all that we under the gospel want and hope for. Still the name n, Jehovah, is not done away, any more than it was unknown to the patriarchs. As in reference to Enoch, Heb. 11: 6, so in reference to us, it may be said that "he that cometh to God must believe that HE IS, as well as that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." As long as THERE Is a God, so long will the name Jehovah be one of his appropriate epithets; and it may be said that every other name of God implies this one, as every character and attribute implies the existence of a subject possessing them. The name Jehovah, then, is still an important sacred name of God, and to be associated forever with the other names by which the Deity has made himself known. This is beautifully and strikingly asserted by God himself, Ex. 3: 15, immediately after declaring himself the great, I AM. "And God said moreover to Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, , Jehovah Elohim, of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me un

1

, to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial throughout all generations."

There is one view too in which the name, Jehovah, has an essential, peculiar, and unchangeable importance. On account of its peculiar character and signification, it can never be appropriated to any but HIM WHO IS REALLY GOD; and we have seen that its distinctive use is to affirm real Deity of him to whom it is given, and to deny it of all others. This is its only relevancy and power. Yet it is given most plainly and absolutely to Christ; and that too, during the very existence of a dispensation, the great object of which was to maintain the exclusive Deity of the one living and true God. Mal. 3: 1, "Behold I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and JEHOVAH whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in." Is. 40: 3, "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of JEHOVAH; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Jer. 23: 5, 6, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely and this is his name whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

ART. VII. ON THE DURATION OF CHRIST'S KINGDOM.

By Henry Mills D. D. Professor of Biblical Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Auburn, N. Y.

THE kingdom of Christ, as mediator, is a delegated dominion; but it is not therefore necessarily limited in its duration. The rule which he maintains, as head over all to his church, could not be exercised without attributes truly divine. As God, he will ever live, as God-man mediator he may ever live and reign, the glorious medium of blessings to his people, the unceasing object of their love and worship, to the eternal glory of the Father. That all the purposes of his government will have been answered on the subjection of his enemies, and his authority thenceforth cease, is not for us to determine. The extent of