the Concordance of Cruden we find no mention of the name of David, as occurring in the Books of Proverbs and of Ecclesiastes, in each of which it is found once; three only out of ten places in which the same name occurs in Isaiah are noticed; five only out of fifteen in Nehemiah; whilst no mention is made of the four instances in which the name occurs in Ezekiel. Again, Dr. Henderson's lists of those passages in which the names and titles of Deity occur are very valuable. It is well known that the same Hebrew words are represented differently in the English translation; consequently, accurately prepared lists, showing what is the Hebrew word employed, whilst saving the Hebrew student the necessity of referring in each case to the original, are, to the English reader, of incalculable service.

It would be unreasonable to expect that a book involving so much labour should be free from all blemishes and inaccuracies. We will notice a few of these, which have met our eye in a cursory examination of this work, not with any view of disparaging its value, but in the hope of offering some small contribution to a more complete and perfect edition.

We remark, then, that the first, according to Dr. Henderson's classification, of the four Hebrew words which are translated more or less frequently "Lord," viz., Adonai, though used generally to denote the Deity, is, strictly speaking, (as in Ps. xvi. 2,)" My Lord," i.e., that the noun has the pronominal suffix of the first person singular. This being the case, it would have been desirable to distinguish when the constructive state of the same word occurs, as in Deut. x. 17, "Lord of Lords;" also, when the word occurs with a different pronominal suffix, as in Hos. xii. 14, "his Lord."

Again; Dr. Henderson asserts (p. 166), that Adonai, as well as Jehovah, is used "exclusively with reference to the True God." He qualifies this assertion in p. 321, under the head "Lord," by a reference to Gen. xix. 18, where, as is well known, although included in the Masora, in the one hundred and thirty-four places where Adonai is used as Kodesh, i. e. as applied to God, a difference of opinion exists on the subject.

It is much to be regretted that Dr. Henderson should not have consulted the Authorized Version, as printed in England as well as in Scotland, before he stated (p. 321) that the distinction between Adonai and Jehovah is not generally marked by a difference in the printing of the word "Lord."

aware that, in the Bibles printed at Edinburgh, that difference is not uniformly marked, but, as far as we are aware, wherever the word Jehovah occurs in the original, it is uniformly distinguished, in Bibles printed in England, from Adonai, by the adoption of small capitals, thus-LORD.

There is much to be said in favour of Dr. Henderson's

attempt to discriminate between persons and places bearing the same name. On the other hand, the reasons which led him (erroneously, as we think) to change his intention of adding an explanation of the meaning of proper names, appear to us to apply, in some cases, with as great or even greater force, to the task which he has attempted.

We will take, by way of illustration, the one, two, three, or even four persons of the name of James, supposed by some writers to be mentioned in the New Testament. It would far exceed our limits to give even the shortest summary of what has been advanced on this interesting and, as bearing upon some grave theological questions, not unimportant subject. We think, however, that few who have considered it will be disposed to endorse the arbitrary distinction drawn by Dr. Henderson between James, "the Lord's brother," mentioned Gal. i. 19, and the person of the same name mentioned Gal. ii. 9, 12. The identification of the latter with James the son of Zebedee, seems to us, in a high degree, improbable; the argument in its favour, derived from the association of the three names, "James, Cephas, and John," being at least neutralized by the order in which the names occur, (an order quite intelligible on the supposition that James was the presiding minister at Jerusalem, but inexplicable, as we think, on Dr. Henderson's theory); whilst the determination of those Apostles to "go unto the circumcision," seems difficult of reconciliation with the circumstances of St. Paul's second journey to Jerusalem, which is supposed to have taken place at or about the time of Herod's persecution, and entirely conclusive against Dr. Henderson's opinion, if the journey in question was the third, or even a later visit; which journey must then have been subsequent to the death of James, the brother of John.*

Had it been our intention to criticise Dr. Henderson's work, we might easily select passages to which we should demur. We will give two instances in support of our observation. (1) We will notice the statement, in a note to p. 180, that "the expression, 'Would God that we had died in the land,' Num. xiv. 2, is not a translation of anything in the original." Dr. Henderson, probably, means only to remark that the word "God" is not found in the Hebrew, inasmuch as the desire expressed in the English version, is certainly contained in the Hebrew text. (2) Again, we notice a slight inaccuracy in the historical statement in p. 555, that the Agrippa mentioned in Acts xxv. and xxvi. "succeeded his father Herod as King

In fact, the "fourteen years" of Gal. ii. 1, whether dated from the first visit to Jerusalem, or from the conversion of St. Paul, seems to us to

Vol. 69.-No. 385.

decide the question against James, the son of Zebedee, being the James referred to in this chapter.

I

of Abilene, Galilee, Iturea, and Trachonitis;" the fact being that, in consequence of the youth of this Agrippa, at the time of his father's death, the intention of the Emperor to appoint him as his successor was abandoned; and that, having been made King of Chalcis at or about A.D. 50, he was subsequently transferred to the tetrarchies formerly held by Philip and Lysanias, with the title of king.*

We have already stated that we notice a few of the errors which could scarcely fail to creep into so large a book, with the sincere desire of seeing them very speedily corrected in a second, and yet more valuable, edition of a work without which no theological library can be said to be complete.

1. The Church Rights of the Laity, &c. &c. By John M. Clabon, Member and for many years Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Church Institution, &c. &c. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1869.

2. The Position of the Laity in the Church. By Charles Dallas Marston, M.A., Rector of Kersal, Manchester. W. Hunt and

Co. 1868.

3. Diocesan Organisation of Lay Help. A Paper read at a Conference of the London Diocesan Association of Lay Helpers. By the Rev. John Oakley, M.A., Vicar of St. Saviour's, Hoxton. Rivingtons. 1868.

THE above are a few of the many contributions with which the Pulpit, the Platform, and the Press now teem, towards the solution of a question, at all times of great interest, and, at the present time, of pre-eminent and urgent practical importance. Mr. Clabon's pamphlet is evidently the production of a man who has thought deeply on this subject, and who has had considerable practical experience in many of the points on which he writes. His pamphlet is characterized by a strong vein of practical common sense, clear judgment, and sincere desire to do full justice to the respective parties into which the English Church is unhappily divided.

Mr. Clabon's position is that the inherent Church rights of the Laity, though at length tardily recognized, are not yet practically conceded. These rights he enumerates under the heads of political and administrative. Under the former of these heads he includes the right of the Laity to the parochial system, their right to an Established Church, and also certain

* See Smith's Dictionary, vol. i., p. 795.

rights connected with the endowments of the Church. Under the latter head he refers to the rights of the Laity with regard to the performance by the clergy of their duties within the Church, with regard to the introduction and use of Church ornaments, and with regard to the performance of their duties in their respective parishes outside the walls of the church.

In Chapter VIII., which treats of the rights of the Laity as to the oversight of the clergy by the bishops, Mr. Clabon gives some interesting statistical details as to the number of the population, the benefices, and the curates in each diocese, and makes some important suggestions as to the manner in which the Episcopate could be increased, and made more extensively beneficial to the Church at large.

In Chapter IX. Mr. Clabon considers the subject of the cooperation of the Clergy and Laity in Church work; and expresses his opinion (1) that such co-operation is the undeniable moral right of the Laity; and (2) that the Clergy are, to a considerable extent, responsible for the limited extent to which it is now recognized.

In Chapter X. Mr. Clabon considers the right of the Laity to take part in Church Congresses, which he considers preferable to Convocations or Synods, and he concludes his pamphlet by a short but seasonable Eirenicon.

We ought to add, that not only does Mr. Clabon expose in its just light the mischief done to the Church of England by publications such as the Directorium Anglicanum, and accord a willing tribute of praise to the "great names of Charles Simeon, Daniel Wilson, Edward Bickersteth, and Josiah Pratt," but he also expresses, in a spirit of true Christian charity, his desire that "time will draw nearer the bonds which unite in Christ the Churchman with the Evangelical Dissenter."

The second of the Pamphlets of which we have given the titles is a short, but valuable argument, both historical and theological, from the pen of Mr. Marston, in defence of the true position of the Laity in the Church of Christ. In direct opposition to the description of the English Church adopted in "The Church and the World," as "the English body of Bishops and Priests, providing those who live in England with the grace of the Sacraments," Mr. Marston unequivocally accepts, and by arguments derived from Holy Scripture, from Antiquity, and from the Reformation period, vindicates the definition of the visible Church of Christ contained in the 19th of the Articles of Religion, as "a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered." We commend Mr. Marston's arguments in respect to the inherent rights of the laity in matters pertaining to the faith, as well as in those which belong

to the practical administration of Church affairs, to the serious consideration of our readers.

The testimony of Mr. Oakley to the readiness of Clergymen generally to welcome fully and heartily the co-operation of Laymen in Church work, differs considerably from that of Mr. Clabon, and is, we would fain hope, though we confess to serious misgivings on the subject, more in conformity with the facts of the case. Mr. Oakley's remarks upon lay-preaching are deserving of serious consideration. We think that the drift of his pamphlet may be fairly represented as an expansion and enforcement of the sentiments contained in the following extract which he quotes with approval, and which we reproduce with equal satisfaction, from the pen of the present Dean of Chester:"If the Church of England were disestablished to-morrow, it would be thrown out into the country, as regards organisation, in the form of a clerical skeleton. I take it as a matter of course that its main organic framework ought to consist of an authorised and regularly ordained clergy; but this is not enough, without the sinews and muscles of the laity to constitute a living and working body.'

THE CONFESSION OF A SINNER.

The Confession of a Sinner. Translated from the Spanish of Dr. Constantino Ponce De La Fuente, a Reformer of the Sixteenth Century. By John T. Betts. With a Biographical Sketch by Benjamin B. Wifen. London: Bell & Daldy. 1869. DR. CONSTANTINO Ponce de la Fuente was one of the most distinguished of the Spanish Reformers of the sixteenth century, in position, in learuing, and in eloquence. He was born about the year 1500. He attained, at an early period of life, great proficiency in the study of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages; and having declined an important and lucrative post in the metropolitan church of Toledo, he fixed his residence in Seville, as a Canon Magéstral of the Cathedral. There, in conjunction with Dr. Juan Gil, or Egidius, and Dr. Vargas, he laboured earnestly and assiduously in the exposition of the Holy Scriptures.

The jealous eyes of the officers of the Inquisition were soon fixed upon the three teachers of the new doctrines, and in spite of the powerful advocacy which was exercised in behalf of Egidius, who was nominated by Charles V. to the Bishopric of Tortosa, he, as the most obnoxious, at that time, of the three,