Table Of Contents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

PAGE OBITUARYBro . Major Myers 274 " THAT GREAT , AWFUL , TREMENDOUS , AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE NAME " 275 & 276 FREEMASONRY IN THE EAST 27661 : 277 WEST OF ENGLAND SANATORIUM 277 NEWS OF DR . LIVINGSTONE 277

THE CRAFTMetropolitan 278 Provincial ... ... ... ... ... 278 . iOYAL ARCH 278 & 279 MARK MASONRYMetropolitan 279 Provincial 279 ORDERS OF

CHIVALRYRed Cross of Constantine 279 ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED RITE 279 K . H . S 279 INSTRUCTION 279 THE NEW GRAND OFFICERS 280 THE GIRLS' SCHOOL FESTIVAL 281 POMEROY ' S DEMOCRAT AND THE ROCHDALE

BRETHREN 281 MULTUM IN PARVO 281 FREEMASONRY IN IRELAND 282 ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCEQualification for the Mark Chair 282 Religious Aspects of Freemasonry ... 282 & 28 3 Insubordination in the Higher Degrees ... 2 S 3

The Red Cross Order ... ... ... ... 28 4 MASONIC RECEPTION AND BANQUET AT WASHINGTON CITY , U . S . A ., TO THE EARL DE GREY AND RIPON 284 & 285 POETRY—The Flowers of Spring 285

MASONIC FESTIVITIESGrand Ball at Whitby 285 Masonic Ball at Limerick 285 THEATRICAL 285 MASONIC MEETINGS FOR NEXT WEEK 286 ADVERTISEMENTS 273 , 274 , 286 , 287 , & 288

"That Great, Awful, Tremendous & Incomprehensible Name."

"That GREAT , AWFUL , TREMENDOUS & INCOMPREHENSIBLE NAME . "

BY BRO . WILLIAM CARPENTER , P . M . & P . Z .

ARTICLE 11 . In my former paper on this high subject , I confined myself to a consideration of the import and use of the sacred Name , suggesting that there is nothing in the circumstances attending

the adoption and special use of it , as the covenant and intransferable appellation of T . G . A . O . T . U ., which suggested that it was more awful or tremendous than any other name by which He had condescended to make

Himself known ; and that if we are under an obligation to utter that name with reverence and humility , we are under the same obligation also in the utterance of every other Divine name . It remains to say something about the name as

" incomprehensible "—emphatically so ; or , by way of eminence or distinction . I am not unmindful of the spirit in which we should enter upon any discussion of so high and holy a subject , but feel that we should approach it with

that reverence which was symbolised by the taking of the shoes from off the feet , as Moses was commanded to do when in the presence of the Great I AM . The two prominent names or appellations by

which God is known in the Pentateuch are Elohim and Jehovah ( or as abbreviated , Jah . ) , both frequently used , sometimes separately and sometimes conjoined ; and in the use of them we can discover nothing to indicate that the one

is more " incomprehensible" than the other . Let us take them separately , with a view to discover their meaning , for it is not to be supposed that God designated Himself by names without meaning , or names that were not intended to

convey some idea of His being , attributes , operations , or relationship to them to whom He thus made himself known . A careful student of the Bible soon perceives that the names are used discriminatively or appropriately , and not

arbitrarily , as though there was no idea of a distinctive character involved in them . I abstain from all nice or profound criticism , and treat the subject in as plain and popular language as I can .

The sacred name HliT ( whatever its correct pronunciation may be ) which we translate Jehovah , is the regularly formed future , in kal , of the verb XT \ T \ , to &*• Kalisch concludes that this holy name of God denotes His eternal Being .

"That Great, Awful, Tremendous & Incomprehensible Name."

—He who is immutable , subject to no change , through all generations ; for , as he remarks , the future implies , frequently , the meaning of duration , or prolonged existence . Names are , in the Hebrew , not unfrequently derived from the

future , as Israel , Jacob , & c . Let us take the word , then , as denoting He who is permanently , eternally—He who exists of and from Himself ; who is subject to no change , through all generations—" without beginning of days or end of

life . " Maimonides interprets the name—He who exists by internal necesssity . And this seems to be the primary meaning of the name ; but , as I formerly suggested , it was adopted as the covenant and theocratic Name of God . and

is especially or emphatically used in cases where the promise or idea of deliverance or redemption is involved or enunciated . The Jews assert that it is nomen misericordim , the name of compassion , which Elohim is not . The idea is a happy one , for compassion is necessarily

involved in every voluntary act of deliverance . It was Elohim who heard the groanings of the Israelites under the oppression of the Egyptians , and remembered His covenant with their fathers ( Exod . ii ., 24 ) , but when he signified to Moses that He was about to deliver them , the

name of compassion ( TTitl 7 takes the place of Elohim . " I ( Jehovah ) am come to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians , " & c . ( ch . iii ., 8 ) . But the deliverance of Israel from Egypt was typical of a much greater deliverance yet to

come ; and hence the Messiah is called , perhaps from Ps . cxviii ., 26 ; or it may be from Numbers xxiv ., 17 : "There shall come a star out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel . . . . Out of Jacob shall come he that shall

have dominion " — ' 0 epxopevos—The Coming One . Coming to do what ? To bruise the serpent ' s head ; to be man's " propitiation , " " deliverer , " " mediator , " " wisdom , righteousness , sanctification , redemption , " "Saviour , "

light , life ; and to be what embraces all within its vast compass , man ' s paraclete—the one coming to man's aid , to do for him everything he needs for time and eternity . But take the name in its primary or simple meaning , as

denoting God according to what He is in Himself , as Abarbanel puts it ; or as Maimonidesthe name which teaches of the substance of the Creator—He who is and -will be ; ever-during , everlasting , the Coming One , for ever and ever .

What is there , then , incomprehensible in the name ? Nothing . But there is in that which the name indicates . We can comprehend , clearly enough , that ever-existing in and from itself , signifies eternal—without beginning , or

end , or change ; but if we make an effort to comprehend the idea , we utterly fail . We may carry the imagination backward and forward to the utmost extent to which it is capable , but we fail to realise the idea . Pile countless ages upon

ages , as to both eternity past and eternity to come , and we still fall infinitely short of comprehending the sublime and sacred mystery of the divine existence . We accept the name by which that incomprehensible mystery is indicated , and comprehend its meaning ; but the existence

itselfnever . Let us now consider the other divine Name , ELOHIM , that we may see whether the Being designated by it is more comprehensible than He is under the one we have been considering .

If a word may be said to be incomprehensible in proportion as it difficult to ascertain its radical meaning , then the word Elohim would rank , in that respect , before Jehovah . Its meaning has occasioned much controversy , but to advert to

this , particularly , would accord with neither my space nor my purpose . It will suffice to say , that some eminent critics derive it from alch , a root still existing in the Arabic , where it signifies the adored , the worshipped ; but as Kurtz

observes : it is better to derive it from the Hebrew root aleh = VlN , to be strong . Hence , the fundamental idea attaching to the word will be that of strength , power , might . And this

derives weight from the circumstance , that the work of creation is ascribed Xo Elohim , as the Almighty , or the Almighty power . Among the Jewish writers of the middle ages , A . Jehuda , the author of the Book of Cozri , in-

"That Great, Awful, Tremendous & Incomprehensible Name."

terpreted it as the name which distinguished the Deity as manifested in the exhibition of His power , without reference to His personality or moral qualities , or to any special relation which he bears to man * and Maimonides holds that it

conveys the idea of the impression made by His power . In accordance witli this , it may be . remarked , that , upon an examination of the passages in which Elohim occurs alone , it will be found that it is chiefly in places in which God is

exhibited only in the plentitude of His power , and where no especial reference is made to His unity , personality , or holiness , or to his relation to Israel and the theocracy . But the word , it should be observed , is in the

plural—Elohim ( t * : * - *" - *** ?^) , not Eloeh ( nl 7 ^) - There must be some reason for this , but it is not easy to discover it . Dean Stanley , following Le Clerk , Herder , De Wette , and others , finds in it a remnant of polytheism . According to this

hypothesis , the earliest speakers of the Hebrew , believing in a plurality of deities , were wont to speak of " the gods , " which usage was retained after correcter views of the Deity came to prevail among their descendants . But to this it

is enough to reply , that there is no evidence whatever that the religion of the Hebrews grew out of a polytheistic system ; but abundant evidence to the contrary . Besides , all analogy goes to show that the effect upon their language

of such a change of opinion regarding the Deity would have been the very reverse of that supposed , inasmuch as all peoples , on renouncing a belief in a plurality of deities , are careful to avoid every mode of expression that may be

construed to imply such a belief . Many grammarians , following Rabbinical teaching , include this usage of the plural under what they have called the Pluralis Majcstaticus , an idiom denoting the relations of greatness or power .

But this hypothesis is not well founded , for bating the terms for Deity and the term for master , and one or two others , there is no noun of dignity which is used in the plural form ; the words for king , judge , priest , prince , noble ,

general , & c , all terms expressive of authority and dignity , are singular , and do not assume this plural-of-majesty form . Some regard the use of the plural form as denoting tlie abstract—the numen vcncrandiim . the abstract embodiment of

the ideas of reverence , authority , power , and judgment . But this fails , for the Jews did not conceive of God as a personification , but as a person ; and it seems to the last degree improbable that they should use words to designate Him formed according to the words expressive

of an embodied or personified abstract . Hengstenberg and some others explain the usage of the plural as an instance of the plural intensive , and consider it as serving the same end as the repetition of the names of God , as found in some passages . But though this use of the plural may serve to account for some of the instances of

plural appellatives of Deity , it is not sufficient to account for all , and especially for thc peculiar term of Deity—Elohim . When the Hebrews would denote a fierce lord , or an absolute proprietor , they use Adonim and Baalim pi .,

instead of Adon and Baal , sing . ; and as God is the all-powerful Lord and the absolute Mas . cr of all , it may be said that the plural terms are applied to Him on this account . To this it would be difficult to reply ; but when we come

to consider the word Elohim we shall perceive that the cases are not excatly parallel . In thc case of Adonim , Baalim , & c , the plural intensive is used to describe one who possesses in a

very high , or 111 the highest degree , the quality possessed by every one whom we may designate by the singular . Atlon , a lord ; Ailonim , ( pi . intens . ) , a very lord , dominissimus . But Elohim is not the intensive of Eloeh . In this case the

singular means as much . as thc plural ; and , accordingly , is occasionally used to signify the Great Supreme . The 1 ' shere , therefore , for thc intensive fails , and musl be set aside by us as inadequate to explain the phenomena of the case . The same is true of Shaddai . We

cannot aver that this is thc intensive plural ot a singular denoting a mighty one , for it has no singular , and so far as we know anything of the language , never had ; for it , therefore , wc must