with my own conclusions, I have shown that very great unanimity of opinion exists between us as to these portions, which constitute about two-ninths of the Book of Genesis, and in which Elohim' only is used as the Personal Name of God. In Chap.III I have given a Table of the chief peculiarities in style and expression which distinguish the Elohistic part of Genesis, being very freely employed in it,-twenty-nine of them each on the average ten times, but not at all in the other seven-ninths of Genesis.

In Chap.IV I have given a similar Table of more than a hundred different formula, which occur on the average each more than ten times-twenty of them forty-seven times-in these latter sections, but do not appear in the Elohistic portions.

Thus the reader will see at once, even without going further, that the matter due to the Elohist is distinguished in the plainest possible manner from the rest of Genesis.

In Chap.V I have drawn more particular attention to some of the most noticeable differences in tone and style, as also to the numerous discrepancies and contradictions, which exist between the Elohistic and the remaining parts of Genesis.

In Chap.VI I have shown, by numerous instances, that similar discrepancies exist in these remaining parts themselves, suggesting the possibility that in these also there may be found a difference of authorship. And, accordingly, I have given reasons for concluding that G.xiv belongs to a Jehovistic writer (the Second Jehovist), who has probably written no more than this of the Pentateuch, and also that G.xv, and some other short passages and notes, are Deuteronomistic interpolations.

In Chap. VII I have shown that in the matter which now remains, when the passages due to the above three writers have been removed,-about three-fourths of the whole Book

of Genesis, there are some sections-about one-tenth of this remainder which, as regards the use of the Divine Name, are also exclusively Elohistic, though differing entirely in style and phraseology from the old Elohistic matter, and agreeing substantially with the other nine-tenths, which are homogeneous throughout in tone and style, but employ, more or less freely, the name 'Jehovah.' These secondary Elohistic sections-which appear to be of later origin than those which constitute The Elohistic Narrative,' from their referring to it, and of earlier origin than the Jehovistic matter, from its referring to them— are assigned, in accordance with the views of most of the great continental critics, to a Second Elohist, who wrote between the Elohist and Jehovist, but nearer to the latter.

But I have shown also that the passages due to the Second Elohist and Jehovist do not seem to have formed,-as HUPFELD and BOEHMER, with some other critics, have thought,-complete, independent narratives, but were merely supplementary to the original story. And, further, I have given reasons for believing that the Second Elohist was not really different from the Jehovist-that the latter only appears to have made additions to the original work of the Elohist at different periods of his life. In Chaps. VIII, IX, I have examined into the question as to the age of the Elohist, and have shown that he must have lived in the latter years of Saul,—and may, very probably, have beenas suggested in Part II-the Prophet SAMUEL,-an opinion in which I find myself substantially at one, not only with TUCH and others, but with the latest continental critic, BOEHMER, who, after having bestowed very great labour on the separation of the Book of Genesis, having also had before him the standard treatise of HUPFELD,-has fixed the age of the Elohist within the first seven years of David's reign.

In Chaps.X-XV I have considered, in like manner, from the internal evidence, the age of the Jehovist, supposed by me to be identical with the Second Elobist. And I have shown that he must have written from shortly before the beginning of David's reign till shortly after the beginning of Solomon's. I have here had to examine closely into those facts of Scripture, which bear upon the origin of the Levitical Office in Israel.

In Chap.XVI I have considered the age of the Second Jehovist, have summed up the previous results, and drawn attention to the fact, that they seem to point unequivocally to the introduction of the name Jehovah,' as the name of the Covenant-God of Israel, in a later age than that assigned to it by the traditionary view, or even by some modern critics of eminence, viz. the Mosaic time. I have shown that this conclusion, to which we are first led by observing the peculiarity in the treatment of this Divine Name, which distinguishes the work of the Elohist, seems to be confirmed by that of the Jehovist, by his using at first Elohim' exclusively—then introducing Jehovah'-first sparingly, then more and more freely, till at last he comes to use it almost exclusively-a phenomenon which corresponds very much to what we observed in Part II in respect of the Psalms.

In Chap.XVII I have given separately the complete Elohistic Narrative, as it is now found imbedded in the Book of Genesis -one of the most ancient histories in the world-if not, indeed, the most ancient, which exists in the form of a written document. The reader will thus have before him the primitive story, upon which the complex narrative of Genesis is based.

In Chap.XVIII I have given all the successive supplementary additions, printed in different portions, according to their different ages, with a view to exhibit more clearly the process, by which the Book of Genesis appears to have been formed.

In Chap.XIX I have examined at length into the probable origin of the name Jehovah,' and have given reasons for supposing that it was gradually adopted by the Israelites, after their entrance into Canaan, from their coming into contact with the Syro-Phoenicians, with whom this name, or a name so like it as to be represented by Greek writers, Christian as well as heathen, by the very same letters, IAN, was the great mysterious name of their chief deity, the Sun, regarded as the source of Life, and hence called nn, He lives' or 'He makes to live,' which, either as a mere dialectic variety, or possibly as a real modifica tion, appears in Hebrew as 1', 'He is' or 'He makes to be.'* In Chap.XX, XXI I have shown how this view is supported by some of the actual facts of the religious history of Israel. In Chap.XXIII have added some Concluding Remarks, suggested by the results of this Enquiry.

I have then subjoined, for the use of Hebrew Students, a complete Analysis of the whole Book of Genesis, in which almost every line and word is brought under review, and any indications of style are carefully noted. Upon this Analysis the conclusions are based, which have formed the ground of my reasonings in the preceding Chapters. I believe these conclusions to be, in the main, sound and tenable. But, however this may be, it is satisfactory to know that the labour spent on this Analysis will not in any case have been spent in vain: since here are facts, which must at any rate be taken into account by all future labourers in this department of Biblical Criticism, and my register of which may afford some help, or at least save some tedious toil, to others in the prosecution of their own enquiries. I have tried several * GESENIUS, Thes.p.450, says that П, in its primary signification, is 'identical with 1,7,7, all which forms have flowed from this last, as from a common source.' He suggests, also, Thes.p.577, that the Hebrew Sacred Name 17 may perhaps mean, not He is, but He makes to be, that is, Creator, or, according to the primary force of the word, He who gives life, the same as

experiments with the view of compressing and condensing this part of the volume. But I have found no method more satisfactory than that which I have here followed-none which would protect me from the charge, which (as experience has taught me) may be so readily made against me, of having understated, or suppressed, or distorted, some portion of the evidence. The student will here have all the evidence before him, and can turn at once to any chapter or verse in Genesis, and see the reasons for which it is assigned to this or that particular writer. For the general reader, perusing the work with friendly eyes, the Tables, as given in the preceding Chapters, exhibiting some of the main results of this Analysis, will probably suffice.

In App.I I have given a summary of some of the remarkable results, which have been very recently set forth, with singular originality, by Prof. Dozy of Leyden, as showing the Israelitish origin of the Sanctuary and Ancient Worship at Mecca. And I have explained how these results-so far as they may be admitted as probable-have a bearing upon our present investigation. At any rate, they deserve to be brought to the notice of English students of Biblical Literature, as exhibiting a splendid specimen of modern criticism, applied to the solution of a very interesting and hitherto entirely unsolved question.

In App.II I have replied at length to the remarks of the Rev. J. J. S. PEROWNE and the Bishop (HAROLD BROWNE) of Ely, upon my criticism of the Psalms in Part II.

In App.III I have translated a chapter from MOVERS's Phönizie, 'On the Name IAO,' which seems to throw much light upon the origin of the name 'Jehovah.'

I have mentioned above Bishop BROWNE'S Reply to my criticism on the Psalms, which is fully discussed in App. II. This Reply is given in the fourth of 'Five Lectures,' which were