departed souls are meant. He gives no reasons for the earlier opinion, nor any for the later, except a reference to Heb. xii. 23, Luke xxiv. 39.— Volkmar, in the same Zeitschrift, 1861, p. 115 and 427f, accepts Baur's interpretation, but holds, against Baur, to a preaching of salvation.Ewald, in Jahrbücher d. Bibl. Wissensch., viii. (1856), p. 190f. casually remarks that I Pet. iii. 19 points to the Book of Enoch. In his Sieben Sendschreiben d. Neuen Bundes, 1870, p. 48, he says that Christ preached to the spirits held imprisoned (according to the Book of Enoch from which also Jude 6 draws) as he had hitherto preached to men. But these were selected only as examples, because the worst conceivable. For, from iv. 6, it appears more plainly than from iii. 19, that Christ preached to all the dead (p. 53). This looks as if Ewald had men in mind, not angels, and indeed he calls them the men of Noah's day" (p. 47). Usteri conjectures that Ewald meant the giants, who were half angel, half man. That is, however, only a conjecture. Ewald does not say in what sense Peter refers to Enoch. He carefully avoids clearness, and seems to mix inconsistent views. Perhaps he wanted

to avoid borrowing from Baur, or appearing to do so.-Immer, Theologie d. N. T., 1877, p. 485f., also accepts the allusion to Enoch, but does not say in what sense.-F. Schnapp, of Bonn, in a review of Kühl, in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1888, p. 28f., favors Baur's theory, and suggests in a few lines certain arguments, namely, that “spirits" in the N. T. does not mean souls of the dead, that "prison" does not stand for the region of the dead, and that the spirits are themselves, as such, Isaid to have been disobedient. He refers to Enoch xii. 4, x. 4f, xv. 8, and lxxi. 14, from which it appears that he thinks of Noah's mission to the angels, and his announcement to them of God's judgment, as the type or suggestion of the mission of Christ. He finds a further possible connection with Enoch (xlviii. 3) in I Pet. i. 20, foreknown before the foundation of the world."

This, so far as I know, completes the brief list of those who have in any way favored the hypothesis. On the other hand it has received but meager notice from other writers. Alford does not mention it. Huther dismisses it with the remark above quoted. Kühl has omitted this, and merely copies the common references, including a common error. The brief objections of Usteri and others have been stated in the text.

In view of this record two things are to be said: (1.) A theory which has found so little favor with critics has a fair presumption against it. (2.) It is to be observed, however, that the theory has never (so far as I can discover) received anything approaching thorough and consistent treatment either favorable or unfavorable.

ARTICLE III.-HISTORY IN NAMES.

WHAT'S in a name? This was Juliet's contemptuous question; and no one ventured to reply, because that charming young lady was in no mood to receive an answer. She didn't ask for information, neither did she wish to argue the question; but, woman like, she carried her point by getting the last word. So it happened that it was suffered to go. on record-"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," which being interpreted means, there is nothing at all in a name.

As a consequence the words have been quoted parrot fashion again and again by persons who think that a name is to a man what a collar is to a dog, i. e., something put on for the benefit of tax collectors and the like. But this is a great mistake, and doubtless the heroine of Shakespeare's great tragedy would have acknowledged it such had her lover been known by some less pleasing title. Had he borne the name of Bill Sykes or Jack Ketch instead of the romantic Romeo Montague, we may be sure that the tragedy would never have been enacted.

Although we cannot fully adopt the theory of the elder Shandy that there are many "who might have done exceeding well in the world had not their characters and spirits been totally depressed, and Nicodemused into nothing," yet we must acknowledge a certain natural relation between name and character. Take an illustration from Dickens' Works. You can judge unerringly of each person's character as soon as you see his name, Pecksniff could be no other than the miserly rascal that he was without changing his name. Uriah Heep is stamped a hypocrite the moment he is introduced. The names of Whackford Squeers, Smike, Mrs. Gummidge, Peggotty, Susan Nipper, Arthur Gride, and Captain Cuttle bring before the reader's mind pictures of person and character so distinct and unalterable that the author's subsequent descriptions are almost unnecessary. Indeed had he taken the liberty to describe them other than as our fancy paints them it would show a lack of the true creative genius so necessary to the successful novelist.

No! names are not the empty, meaningless things that Miss Capulet and her followers would have us believe them to be. On the contrary, there is a great deal in them. They present. an interesting subject of study from many points of view, and can be made to reveal a variety of unexpected truths.

Let us take a single topic, that of history, and see what a few names can tell us about it. There is a universal history written in the names of all ages. From a well arranged catalogue of the principal names of different ages and lands we might construct a tolerably complete history of the world, giving the prominent characteristics of the various nations, their social condition and habits of life.

Names portray the mind of the age that gives them birth. Every nation has had its peculiar nomenclature, and that nomenclature has been created, modified and developed by the circumstances of the national growth. It has been affected by varying degrees of intellectual culture; but intellect has not been the only modifying force. Names bear the impress of social and political movements also. And even religious developments have stamped themselves upon the popular names.

Let us take by way of illustration a few names from different periods of history and see how much they will tell us of the people to whom they belong. For convenience we will select names from only four nations, the Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and English.

First of all we have the Hebrew names found in the Bible. From them we will try to learn what sort of people the Hebrews were.

Earlier than the national Hebrew names are the names of the people who lived before the flood. Let us glance for a moment at these.

The first man is called Adam, a name signifying Red-earth. The name tells the story of man's origin in a single word and a short one at that. Man was made from red earth. There is nothing in that word about "anthropoid ape," or any other Darwinian fancy. Try as hard as you please, you cannot make those two short syllables disclose any such modern scientific ideas as the "Theory of Development," "Natural Selection," or "Survival of the Fittest." Let your imagination frame, if

it is equal to the task, a name which could with any real fitness designate the first human product of evolution, and compare it with the name Adam. Instead of a word of four letters easily pronounced, we should have a name which would of itself fill a small pamphlet, and which even the practised tongue of an Ojibway or a Russian could never articulate.

Again, what name could more fitly or simply express the universal motherhood of the first woman than Eve? The name means Life and points to her at once as the source of the natural life of the race.

The name Cain signifies Acquired or Begotten, the most natural of all titles for the first child born upon earth. It required a history to tell us the circumstances of the fall, but the name Abel, meaning Vanity or Lamentation, reveals the consequences of the first sin as plainly as the most elaborate history could do.

In these and other names that immediately follow them is depicted a most simple and artless state of mind among men, the children receiving names from any circumstance which from its novelty or importance deeply impressed the parents. Jabal, meaning a Stream or Wandering-one, tells us when men began to rove about, and we scarcely need the additional words of Scripture that "he is the father of such as dwell in tents." The name alone gives us a beautifully picturesque idea of the habits of the nomadic tribes of the East. In like manner we learn of the introduction of music from the name Jubal, meaning A-blast-of-trumpets.

When we come to the fifth generation or thereabouts in the family lines of both Cain and Seth, a new element appears in the names. "Men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord" (a not improbable rendering of Gen. iv. 26, last clause), whether the Scripture narrative tells us so or not. Mehuja-el, Methusa-el, Mahalale-el are all compounded with the syllable El, which is the earliest form of the Hebrew name of God. From these names we learn that there was a knowledge of God at that early period, and that men had some idea of their relations toward Him.

The first name that can properly be called a Hebrew national name is of course Abraham, a name signifying The-father-of-a

great-nation. In this name is indicated the characteristic idea of the patriarchal period, viz., the family the foundation of society, and the nation only an extension of the family relation. History tells us that it was the ambition of every man at this period to become the leader of a tribe or nation. Hence the common desire for a large family of sons which shows itself in the names given. Among the sons of Jacob we have Reuben, meaning Behold-a-son; Gad, A-troop; Joseph, An-addition; and Benjamin, Son-of-my-right-hand; all testifying to the ruling desire of the age.

Of course we are not to expect that every name of a particular period will display characteristics peculiar to that period. In every age we shall find the great mass of names are those which have been handed down from preceding generations. It is in the new elements of the nomenclature that we shall naturally discover the developing tendencies of the age.

Among the patriarchs we have the name Isaac, meaning Laughter; Jacob, A-supplanter; Esau, Hairy; Simeon, Hearing; and Issachar, Hire; names of the simplest class and precisely similar to those of the earliest age in the world's history. And as we trace the course of Israelitish history through its successive stages, we find these primitive ideas retained to a remarkable degree. All along down the history we meet with such simple names as Moses, which means Drawn-out; Saul, Sought-for; David, Beloved; Jeroboam, Enlarger-of-the-people; Ahaz, Possessor; Asa, Cunning; and the like. The peculiarly patriarchal names are also frequent. For example, we find Abiram, Father-exalted; Abishai, Father-of-a-gift; Absalom, Father-of-peace; and Abiel, Father-of-strength.

A class by far more numerous than either of the two just mentioned is composed of names containing a title of divinity. We have already noticed the appearance of the syllable El in names as early as the fifth generation from Adam. This element soon disappears however, so far as we can learn, from all but the one line of descent, the Hebrew. It is seen in Isra-el, A-prince-with-God; and Ishma-el, Whom-God-hears; and in the later Israelitish history is of such frequent occur rence that one can count a hundred names containing this