There is always a reason involved in them, warranting their propriety. Without stopping to exemplify, we may ask, Who is meant in this instance? "Believeth on Him -on whom? on Christ or on God the Father? Well, on him that justifieth. And who is it that justifieth? We venture to say, God the Father. In the gracious economy it is his peculiar office, though it is also ascribed to the Son. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died," &c. Rom. viii. 33, 34. The second Person in the Trinity laid the foundation of our acceptance in blood and suffering. The Father honours what He did by pardoning men for His sake. His prerogative it is to pardon. It would look suspicious if the Father did not himself justify us. We speak with reverence thus. This view of the matter accords well with what Jesus says: “The Father himself loveth you." One citation more we add for confirmation: "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 26.

Finally, our attention is arrested by one particular word in the circumlocution. "Him that justifieth the ungodly." This word contributes materially to the general idea of acceptance on pure grace. If moral worth could be predicated of the candidate for justification, it might be supposed tributary to his success, and would impair the absolute graciousness of the act, in the proportion of his worthiness, more or less. The applicant for pardon cannot help his case at all by any personal goodness he can plead. He may be less sinful than other men, moral in habits, of amiable disposition, and of good report with his compeers. All this brings him no nearer; nor if he were quite otherwise would it put him further off. God justifies the ungodly. The atonement had respect to us as such. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." Rom. v. 6. Our justification has respect to us as in the same condition up to the very day and hour of our espousals. Mercy takes hold of us as ungodly, worthless, devoted, and condemned creatures. Even penitence (for that is sure to be cotemporary with faith) is not what we are justified for. Only our faith is counted for righteousness, and even that not for its quality, not for its virtue, but solely for the sake of its grand object.

We have done. This exercise will be useful if it shall tend to give us exalted views of Divine mercy and the great atonement, to humble us in our own eyes, to prompt us to confidence in God, and help us to a fuller obedience to His will. Amen.

T. G.

137

ART. V.-WORDS AND PLACES.

Words and Places; or, Etymological Illustrations of History, Ethnology, and Geography. By the Rev. ISAAC TAYLOR, M.A. Second Edition. Macmillan.

THIS is a solid and reliable book, the result of twelve years' laborious researches. The author has supplied a list of the works he consulted while preparing it, and on counting them we found they numbered 409. This of itself is presumptive proof that "Words and Places" is no sketchy superficial book, or one full of undigested materials. As to its general trustworthiness, the best guarantee for that is found in the method pursued by the author in his researches, which is the inductive one, and in the eminently practical turn of his mind, which gives the assurance that he will be a true disciple of his master Bacon. He is happily free from the besetting sin of his order, a liking for far-fetched and fanciful etymologies, a proneness to look for twelve at fourteen o'clock, as the French phrase has it. Even when our author does seem to incline towards such etymologies, as, for instance, when he favours the view that Saxon, Frank, and Lombard, were but terms descriptive of the characteristic weapons used by the tribes thus denominated, he does so with evident caution and some misgivings. Our first feelings on reading the book were amazement at the industry to which it bore witness, and pleasure at the variety and freshness of its contents. Like a museum, it seemed full of all sorts of curious things, collected from every quarter. But in writing the present paper, we have found it necessary to confine ourselves to one of the many departments of the work, instead of seeking, with every likelihood of failure, to furnish an intelligible view of all. Besides the chapters on the Celts, Saxons, and Northmen, which, with other helps, we have made the basis of the following pages, Taylor has fourteen more chapters which show how in various ways local nomenclature casts light on History, Ethnology, and Geology. To these the attention of the reader is directed.

Those who get their notions of early English history from the chroniclers and their copyists will believe that Britain was called after Brutus the son of Æneas. Nothing is easier than to etymologize in this way. To borrow or invent some personal name to account for the not very obvious origin of a local one is convenient, since it saves much time and brain sweat. Hence national

and civic vanity, together with sloth, have often led men to give it out that the country or city they were interested in derived its name from some notable person, real or imaginary. But work of a harder kind now awaits the etymologist or historian. He must no longer father Britain upon Brutus, or Paris upon the son of Priam, but must carefully search among the dead and living languages of Europe for a clue to guide his researches to a safe conclusion. This method has been followed in the case of Britain, and the result shows that such a name could not have been bestowed by a Celtic, Romance, Teutonic, or indeed by any Aryan race. The earliest knowledge of Britain seems to have been derived from Spain. The western parts of the Pyrenees are now inhabited by three quarters of a million of Basques who speak a Turanian dialect. The progenitors of these mountaineers may have been driven on our shores by stress of weather, or may have sailed thither from the opposite coasts of Bretagne; for certain it is that Br-itan-nia seems to contain the Euskarian suffix etan, used to signify a district or country. We find this same suffix in Aquitan-ia, in Lus-itan-ia, the ancient name of Portugal, in Mauritan-ia, the " country of the Moors," and in the names of other

districts or tribes known to the ancient Iberians.

The first short chapter of English history is written in this word Britannia; a second, and a much larger chapter is found in the nomenclature of the great physical landmarks of our country. History shows that the names of rivers, and next to them the names of mountains, have a wonderful vitality, and live on in speech, although towns on their banks may rise and fall once and again. Primitive peoples, therefore, notwithstanding they may have left no written records of themselves, yet have sepulchral monuments in the hills and memorials in the streams they denominated. If after the local names of Britain have been analysed the result is placed before us in an intelligible way (as has been done by Taylor in the map prefixed to his work), then at once we see that the aboriginal race of our land must have been Celtic. For there is hardly a considerable river in Britain but bears a Celtic appellation, though Danish burghs and Saxon towns may cluster upon its banks. An analysis of the local names on the continent would yield similar results, and would prove that the Celts once occupied as important a relation to Europe as they did to Britain.

They seem to have been the first of the Aryan races who left Asia for the west; and history unites with philology in showing how wide was their distribution, and how great their power. Belgium and Gaul were in their possession, and the Celtic language was spoken in France down to the sixth century. Even now the Armoric of Brittany is the tongue of a million and a half of Frenchmen. In the time of Herodotus we find Celts in Spain;

and Switzerland, the Tyrol, and the country south of the Danube, have been the seats of Celtic tribes. Long before the Christian era they burnt Rome and pillaged Delphi, founded an empire in northern Italy and another in Asia Minor, whither Paul forwarded his "Epistle to the Galatians," or Gauls.*

66

Some interesting facts about these Celtic river names have been brought to light by Taylor and his fellow labourers. Anciently it seems they were common not proper terms. In these days of running to and fro" a man may take the express train from Edinburgh to London, and during his journey cross a great number of streams, which are distinguished from each other by individual names. Just as one Mr. is known from another Mr. by a peculiar surname, so is one river the Tweed and another the Thames. But in more primitive times men's acquaintance with rivers was so much narrower, that they might pass all their days in the vicinity of one considerable stream. Hence it sufficed to call it simply, "The Water," or "The River;" or else its most striking quality was singled out, and it was known as "The Quiet," or "The Swift," "The Rough," or "The Smooth." Thus the Cam is "The Crooked River," while the Thames, the Tamar and Tavy in Devon, and the many Tames and Temes found throughout Britain, are all from a root signifying broad, spreading, quiet. There are five Celtic words for water which enter into the names of almost all the larger rivers of Europe, to say nothing of the smaller. Two or more of these roots may very frequently be found combined in the name of one river. Thus Wansbeck Water contains four synonymous elements. To account for this strange aggregation of like meaning syllables it is supposed that when, through colonization or changes in language, a word had become obscure and had developed into a proper term, then another term was added, usually corresponding in meaning to the one which had lost its original significance. It was only when wan-s had grown unintelligible that the Teutonic settlers suffixed their word beck to it. During the course of ages this process may have been more than once repeated, as curious an agglomeration often resulting as we have in Wansbeck Water, which when analysed is found to be Riverwaterriver water.

In

The Celts have always been divided into the Cymric and Gadhelic families, speaking related, though dissimilar, tongues. Britain the Cymric was spoken in Cornwall, Wales, and in Scotland as far as the Perthshire hills, by the Picts. The Gadhelic branch possessed Ireland and the Isle of Man, and a sept of them, the Scots, crossed over to Galway, encroached on the Picts, and ultimately gave their name to the whole country. We call the Celtic

*

Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. 1, p. 223. Max Muller's Lectures on Science of Language, vol. 1, p. 203-4.

and civic vanity, together with sloth, have often led men to give it out that the country or city they were interested in derived its name from some notable person, real or imaginary. But work of a harder kind now awaits the etymologist or historian. He must no longer father Britain upon Brutus, or Paris upon the son of Priam, but must carefully search among the dead and living languages of Europe for a clue to guide his researches to a safe conclusion. This method has been followed in the case of Britain, and the result shows that such a name could not have been bestowed by a Celtic, Romance, Teutonic, or indeed by any Aryan race. The earliest knowledge of Britain seems to have been derived from Spain. The western parts of the Pyrenees are now inhabited by three quarters of a million of Basques who speak a Turanian dialect. The progenitors of these mountaineers may have been driven on our shores by stress of weather, or may have saile thither from the opposite coasts of Bretagne; for certain it is tha Br-itan-nia seems to contain the Euskarian suffix etan, used t signify a district or country. We find this same suffix in Aqu itan-ia, in Lus-itan-ia, the ancient name of Portugal, in Maur itan-ia, the "country of the Moors," and in the names of othe districts or tribes known to the ancient Iberians.

The first short chapter of English history is written in this wor Britannia; a second, and a much larger chapter is found in th nomenclature of the great physical landmarks of our country History shows that the names of rivers, and next to them th names of mountains, have a wonderful vitality, and live on i speech, although towns on their banks may rise and fall once an again. Primitive peoples, therefore, notwithstanding they ma have left no written records of themselves, yet have sepulchr monuments in the hills and memorials in the streams they denom nated. If after the local names of Britain have been analysed th result is placed before us in an intelligible way (as has been don by Taylor in the map prefixed to his work), then at once we se that the aboriginal race of our land must have been Celtic. Fo there is hardly a considerable river in Britain but bears a Celti appellation, though Danish burghs and Saxon towns may cluste upon its banks. An analysis of the local names on the continen would yield similar results, and would prove that the Celts one occupied as important a relation to Europe as they did to Britain They seem to have been the first of the Aryan races who lef Asia for the west; and history unites how wide was their distribution, Belgium and Gaul were in their po was spoken in France down to t Armoric of Brittany is the to Frenchmen. In the time of