course of nine generations, all containing the root you, 'to hear.' In Judg. x. 1, we have, 'Tola the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar.' But in 1 Chron. vii. 1, 'The sons of Issachar were Tola, and Puah, &c.' And lastly, in the apocryphal book of Tobit, we have Tobias, i, the goodness of the Lord,' the son of Tobit, i, 'goodness,' the son of Tobi-el, i, 'goodness of God.' It would be easy greatly to increase this list, and to draw from the neighbouring nations also proofs of such hereditary names, as for example, from the Syrian royal family of Ben-hadads, and the Abimelechs of Gerar. But enough has probably been said to convince every reader that the recurrence of similar or identical names in the genealogy of our Lord is not accidental, or improper, but on the contrary, is a strong internal evidence of the historical truth and general accuracy of the genealogies, and affords also a new and remarkable confirmation of the scheme which has been propounded in these pages. One other example, however, shall be given for the purpose of illustrating the argument at pp. 39, 40, drawn from the supposed resemblance to names of the line of Solomon, of those borne by the ancestors of Christ between Abiud and Matthan: though that is, perhaps, the part of the argument upon which least stress can be laid. When Jehu the son of Nimshi came into possession of the throne of note. + Israel, he took care to give his son a name proper to the royal house of Ahab, at the same time that it resembled his own. He called him Jeho-ahaz, a name which, in the form Ahaziah, belonged also to the kings of Judah. His son again was called Joash, and the son of Joash was named after the founder of the kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam. So that the house of Jehu during the four generations that it possessed the kingdom, seems to have borne names marking their succession to the royal inheritance, rather than names proper to their own ancestral line. Just as we have supposed that portion of Nathan's line, which were in the direct succession to the throne of Solomon, to have borne names more peculiar to the line of Solomon than to their own'. Before we conclude this chapter, we will notice that the psalms and hymns interspersed in the writings of the Prophets, seem to have been one favourite source from which the pious Jews took the materials for the names of their children an observation which will lead us to the conclusion that the middle (yod), in many proper names, of which the name of God is the last element, is the pronoun of the first person suffixed. The eleventh and twelfth chapters of Isaiah, which contain so beautiful an account of the reflourishing of the stem of Jesse, and of the growth of the Branch from his It may be noted, that Eliakim and Eleazar (and consequently Azor also) are names common to both lines, and may have been selected on that very account. Compare Jeho-ahaz. note roots, and the song which shall then be sung in the שֵׁנִית יָדוֹ...... יוֹסִיף אֲדֹנָי,11 .to help. In xi עָזֵר we have the root of Joseph. Ch. xii. 1, 'thou comfortest me,' gives us the root of Naum, ,אוֹרְךָ יְהוָה ,1 .Praise the Lord, and xii הוֹדוּ לַיהוָה O Lord, I will praise thee,' gives us the origin of Hodijah and Judah. In 2 Sam. xxii. 28, we read, Thou art my lamp, O Lord.' Hence Neri, and the fuller form Neriah. And in like manner the names Zuri-shaddai, Uriah, Melchiah, &c., are expressions either actually found in psalms, or suitable for such compositions. And this observation convinces me that the right rendering of such names as Abijah, Malchijah, Urijah, Eliel, Elijah, &c., is, 'The Lord is my Father,' 'The Lord is my King,' 'the Lord is my light,' 'God is my God,'The Lord is my God,' &c. -Ming God is Joh. CHAPTER VII. Further evidence that the Shimei of Zech. xii. 13 is the person mentioned in 1 Chron. iii. 19. LLUSION was made at page 102 to the famous prophecy of Zechariah, chap. xii., wherein at ver. 13, special mention is made of the family of Shimei, as not only existing at the time of the prophet Zechariah, but as to continue to exist till the times of Messiah. And it was there argued that this specific mention of the family of Shimei makes it improbable that the author or compiler of the book of Chronicles should, in giving the genealogy of the remnant of the house of David, pass over in utter silence the posterity of Shimei, as according to the present text of 1 Chron. iii. 22 he does. And an argument was drawn thence in support of the emendation proposed, by which Shemaiah is identified with Shimei, and the theory of the identity of Hodaiah and Juda made possible. A few further remarks are now offered with a view of proving that the Shimei of Zech. xii. 13 is the brother of Zerubbabel, and that there was a peculiar propriety in the specification of the different branches of the house of David. The prophecy of Zechariah is as follows. 'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of VII.] FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY, &c. 161 supplications; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; all the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.' Here then we see that this great mourning was to be the result of the outpouring of the spirit of grace and of supplications upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem: as also in the 7th and 8th verses special mention is made of the house of David, and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. When therefore we read the specification of the mourners, and find that we have all the families that remain' in ver. 14, to correspond to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;' and that to correspond to 'the house of David,' we have four families mentioned by name, 'the family of the house of David, the family of the house of Nathan, the family of the house of Levi, and the family of Shimei;' it is natural to conclude, unless we have any special reason to the contrary, that these are different parts of what was before described in general as 'the |