66 chapter of the same book he supposes to be a prediction of Cyrus. These notes gave great offence both to Protestants and Catholics, and the work was condemned in the Expurgatory Indexes of Quiroga and Sottomaior. Yet Protestants and Catholics of great eminence have since adopted the very same principles of interpretation. Grotius "maintained that the predictions even of the Evangelical Prophet Isaiah, related, in their primary and literal sense, to the times and circumstances of the Jewish people, but that they respected the Messiah in a secondary and allegorical sense." Simon advocated the same opinion: but Father Baltus, the Jesuit, in his "Défense des Prophéties de la Religion Chrétienne," denounces this as "a Socinian_mode of expounding the prophecies." We are nevertheless indebted to Dr. Benson, a learned Unitarian writer of the last century, for one of the ablest treatises ever published on the other side of the question. After replying to all the arguments alleged in favour of a double sense, Dr. B. comes to the conclusion, that "no text of Scripture has more than one meaning;" and, what is perhaps still more remarkable, Dr. J. P. Smith, the highest authority among the English Calvinists of the present day, adopts that very principle of interpretation which Calvin himself alleged as one of the greatest aggravations of Servetus's offence against orthodoxy. "Notum est, Calvinum in accusando Serveto hæc quoque Biblia, imprimis adnotationem ad caput quinquagesimum tertium Esaiæ, crimini ipsi dedisse." (Allwoerden Historia Mich. Serveti, p. 167.) The following is the passage to which allusion is here made. Quis credidit auditui nostro, &c. Incredibilis res de Cyro, et magnum etiam mysterium, quod sub humilibus historiæ typis lateant CHRISTI arcana sublimia. Ibidem. Vulneratus est propter prevaricationes nostras. Quasi exigentibus populi peccatis interfectum Cyrum deflet Propheta, eo quod postea sub Cambyse multo deterius habuerint, impedita tunc et diruta Templi ædificatione jam inchoata, Daniel ix. Fuitque hæc a Deo data occasio prædicandi passionem CHRISTI cui soli convenit horum verborum sublimitas et veritas." Calvin is said to have uttered the most bitter reproaches against Servetus, when on his trial, for having been the author of these annotations; but whether the disposition to honour the Saviour is not quite as conspicuous here, as in the following remarks of Dr. J. P. Smith, upon another passage, (Is. vii. 14,) in the writings of the same prophet, let the candid reader judge: "It appears to me that the passage can be proved to be a prophecy of the Messiah in no other than a remote or typical sense, and that no argument can be drawn from the words or context, capable of determining whether Emmanuel was designed to be a descriptive title, and therefore declaratory of the union of the divine nature with the human, or a commemorative name to express and celebrate the fact of the divine interposition for the salvation of mankind." "It seems to be as clear as words can make it, that the son promised was born within a year after the giving of the prediction; that his being so born at the assigned period was the sign or pledge that the political deliverance announced to Ahaz should certainly take place; and that such deliverance would arrive before this child should have reached the age in which children are commonly able to discriminate the kinds of food." "This passage comes under the class of prophetic testimonies which had a primary but inferior and partial reference to some proximate person or event, but had another and a designed reference to some remoter circumstance, which, when it occurred, would be the real fulfilment, answering every feature, and filling up the entire extent of the original delineation." Subdued by pangs of heart and brain? To mourn and then to die? Angels are with the brave. Heaven's eyes are on the couch of woe. What shall man hope or fear In tumults or alone, 'Mid hosts or in the still recess, Feeling its power to feed and bless, Let each receive his own. V. DR. J. P. SMITH'S SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE MESSIAH. (Continued from p. 248.) "In several parts of the Old-Testament Scriptures," says Dr. Smith, “a person is introduced under the name angel of JEHOVAH, in circumstances and with attributes and ascriptions so remarkable as to require a peculiar consideration." We need not at present enumerate the passages selected. Our author states that three modes for their explanation are proposed: "Ist. That the angel of the Divine presence was some eminent, celestial creature; sent to convey the messages of the Divine will to those who were the immediate subjects of revelation; acting, therefore, on the behalf of the Deity, and allowed to personate the Deity in the assumption of the attributes and forms of address which are distinctive of him." This, the hypothesis of Episcopius, Le Clerc, Dr. S. Clarke, and Henry Taylor, in Ben Mordecai's Letters, is examined and rejected by Dr. S., but it does not seem necessary for us, in reference to the object we have at present in view, to detain our readers by its discussion. "2. That the expression is nothing but a Hebraism to denote God himself, or any peculiar token of the Divine presence, such as the burning bush was, or the pillar of cloud and fire, or the ark of the sanctuary. Thus Mr. Belsham says, "The phrase angel of Jehovah means either the visible symbol of the Divine presence, or Jehovah himself.' (Calm Inquiry, p. 308.) But this hypothesis utterly fails, by its leaving unaccounted for the very strong attributions of intelligence, will, power, moral action, and all personal properties; which it would be perfectly absurd to apply to a visible splendour, or any symbolical phenomenon whatever; and by its overlooking the essential part of the case, the clear and marked DISTINCTION which is preserved between this personal angel and him who sent him. It is this distinction so widely different from the idea of either a symbolical token or a personal periphrasis, which makes the insuperable difficulty upon the Unitarian hypothesis." "3 That the being eminently called the angel of Jehovah, is one who is in certain respects or properties distinct from God; and yet is at the same time truly and essentially THE SAME with God." To our minds this latter hypothesis is encumbered with difficulties incomparably greater than any which can be supposed to belong to either of the others. It is in fact perfectly unintelligible, predicating distinctness or difference, and sameness or identity, at one time, of the same subjects, which, if words have their ordinary meaning, is absurd and contradictory, and if otherwise, can convey no useful instruction; but we must inquire a little into the alleged utter failure of the Unitarian hypothesis. It fails, according to our author, 1st, by leaving unaccounted for the attributions of intelligence, &c., which it would be perfectly absurd to apply to a visible splendour or any symbolical phenomenon. But is it absurd to apply them to the being whose immediate interference the outward symbol was intended to manifest, and to whom alone the acts and words accompanying it were alleged to belong? The question we apprehend to be, whether it can be shewn by sufficient examples that the phrase angel of Jehovah is used to signify any agent, animate or inanimate, which is specially employed to accomplish the Divine Will, or any sensible manifestation of his presence visible, audible, or both, in human form or otherwise, which God was pleased to make in accomplishing his purposes. It is nothing to our present argument if the word angel is sometimes applied to human messengers, sometimes to a superior order of created intelligences. If we can shew that it is used in the manner stated above, Dr. Smith's objection is answered, and bis own explanation of the passages he has cited is rendered needless and improbable. Now, in Isa. xxxvii. 36, we read, "The angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred and fourscore and five thousand and when they arose early in the morning, they were all dead corpses," where, although there is some difference of opinion among the commentators whether God made use for the accomplishment of his purpose of a sudden plague, or of the Simoom, the pestilential wind of the desert, it is generally agreed that he employed some natural agent which is denominated the "angel of Jehovah," Ps. xxxv. 5. The angel of the Lord signifies any instrument of Divine vengeance. In Exod. iii. 2, the angel of Jehovah most plainly means the "flame of fire in the midst of the bush." It was a visible symbol of the Divine presence intended to fix the attention of Moses on the spot from which the voice was to proceed. Another indisputable instance of the symbol of the Divine presence being called the angel of God, is found Exod. xiv. 19, compared with xiii. 21, 22, "And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them, and (rather even) the pillar of cloud went from before their face and stood behind them." "And Jehovah went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, to go by day and night." Compare also Exod. xxiii. 20-22, xl. 33-38. The former of these passages is quoted by Dr. S., and the clause, " for my name is within him," seems to be properly understood by him as identifying the angel with Jehovah; but he does not seem to be aware that this angel means the pillar of cloud and fire from which Jehovah talked with Moses, and gave manifestations of his peculiar presence and agency, not in any respect a distinct being or person. In the cases of the angel of Jehovah appearing to Hagar, to Abraham, and to Manoab and his wife in human form, the angel is in each case identified in the narrative with Jehovah himself; we therefore conclude that the human form was only a manifestation of the peculiar presence of God, not a being commissioned by him. Our author indeed affirms that the Unitarian hypothesis "overlooks the essential part of the case, the clear and marked DISTINCTION which is preserved between this personal angel and him who sent him." The assertion is positive, but it is unsupported by evidence. We have shewn that the use of the word angel is not of itself sufficient to establish such distinction; and after the most careful examination of all the passages we can find nothing else which even appears to indicate it. Dr. S. has himself quoted the words of Rosenmüller: "Thus very frequently in these books the names Jehovah, and angel of Jehovah, are used interchangeably, the latter signifying that visible symbol under which God allowed himself to be seen by men." Dr. S., rightly we think, considers the passage in Gen. xviii., where three human figures appeared to Abraham, as of the same kind with the others which he produces, although the expression angel of Jehovah is not there employed; but we are at a loss to conceive how he could regard it as favouring his own views. The sacred historian commences by saying that Jehovah appeared to Abraham; the man who remained conversing with him spoke to him as Jehovah himself, not any distinct or inferior being; and the same thing may be observed of the one who spoke to Lot. As there were several different purposes to be accomplished, different manifestations of Divine agency were employed, strikingly representing to ignorant men the idea of sovereign power acting in different places and upon different affairs at the same time; but the language of the historian, taken strictly, identifies all the appearances with Jehovah; and upon the whole, this seems to us to be the explanation of the passage attended with least difficulty. Dr. S. quotes some of the Jewish commentaries, in order, as we understand him, to shew that the person who remained with Abraham, usually considered as the chief of the three, had a peculiar relation to Jehovah, yet a distinct personality. "Upon this passage the Jerusalem Targum says, the word (mimra) of Jehovah appeared to him (i. e. Abraham) in the valley of vision. Other Jewish writings have the following explications:- The Shekinah was associated with them, and detained Abraham till the angels departed. He said not who he was, but in all these (appearances) it was the angel of the covenant.” To understand these comments we must bear in mind that mimra, the word of any person, in the dialect of the Targums is only a fuller expression for the person himself, and is so used continually both of God and men, so that the words of the Jerusalem Targum express precisely the same as the words of the book of Genesis itself: "Jehovah appeared to him." A single example of this idiom we shall give for the satisfaction of our readers: the words a covenant betwixt me and thee are rendered in the Targum "a covenant between my word and thy word." So " the word of Jehovah" is a familiar expression for Jehovah himself. In like manner the word Shekinah is constantly used in the Jewish writings for God himself—the manifestation of his presence any where on earth; and the meaning of the second passage quoted is, that one of the persons was a manifestation of God himself, the other two were angels. With respect to the expression angel of the covenant, which our author would no doubt have us refer to our Lord Jesus Christ, we have the express testimony of an ancient Jewish writer, that wherever it occurs "the holy and blessed God himself is spoken of." This testimony is taken from the same book as Dr. S.'s quotation; (Sohar, Genes. fol. 68, col. 268;) but this is not all-will the reader believe it? the very passage which Dr. S. produces, and which it will be observed is broken off abruptly as he gives it, concludes, somewhat awkwardly for his argument, "and all these things are spoken of the holy and blessed God himself," clearly shewing that the Jewish writer understood the angel of the covenant, as a name of God himself in reference to his manifestation of himself in establishing a covenant with his people. Lest our readers should, too naturally, conclude that Dr. S. intentionally suppressed the important explanatory clause, which we have here given-a subterfuge of which we hope he is incapable, we will mention that in the authority to which he refers, (Schoettg. Hora Hebr. et Talm. Vol. II. p. 442,) the words of the original being inserted between the parts of the translation, the final clause would be very easily overlooked by one hastily consulting the passage, which, we conclude, must have been our author's case. Dr. S. refers to passages in the prophecies of Zechariah, i. 8, 10-13, ii. 8—11, iii. 1— 10, vi. 12, 13, 15,) in which, according to him, we find the great angel who is at once the messenger of Jehovah and Jehovah himself, " depicted in the appropriate and exclusive characteristics of the Messiah, the Saviour, the Priest upon his throne, the Intercessor: and not less certainly described as possessing the attributes, exercising the sovereignty, and wearing the holy and incommunicable name of JEHOVAH." Unfortunately he has not stated how he derived all this from the words of the prophet, and as we can form no conception of the process we know not what remarks to offer, but Dr. S. requests "the serious inquirer to examine the whole"-and if he will do this, he will, we think, participate in our curiosity to know what the particular clauses are upon which the imagination of our author has been at work, and how his ingenuity could find in them any semblance of a foundation for his assertions. In the passage quoted from Mal. iii. 1, we think it very clear that the last clause," Behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts," does not prove the person coming to be really or personally distinct from Jehovah himself. The prophecy is, that God will manifest himself amongst his people. They had vainly said, "Where is the God of judgment?" (Mal. ii. 17) In due time they should be brought to acknowledge his presence, and special interference in their affairs. This manifestation may be rightly explained of the coming and kingdom of the Messiah, who exhibited the most convincing proofs of Divine power accompanying his works, and Divine authority sanctioning his words, but it by no means follows that he must be personally spoken of: on the contrary, that "the Sovereign N whom ye seek," means God himself, seems to be justly inferred from the uniform use of 18 with the emphatic, and we have already given Jewish |