this subject Dr. A. Clarke says, in a note on Gen. xxii. 1, "I wish, once for all, to remark, though the subject has been referred to before, that the Chaldee term meimera, which we translate word, is taken personally in some hundreds of places in the Targums. When the author, Jonathan, speaks of the Divine Being as doing or saying anything, he generally represents him as performing the whole of his meimera, which he appears to consider, not as a speech, or word spoken, but as a person quite distinct from the Most High. St. John uses the word hoyos in precisely the same sense with the Targumists, (chap. i. 1)." We suggest, then, that it is worthy of consideration whether "the angel Jehovah," and "the word of Jehovah," are not names by which the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Eternal Word, manifested himself previous to his incarnation.

1. If our views be correct,

We close with some reflections. this subject sets forth the pre-existence of Christ, and proves his divinity. It sets forth his pre-existence. The Jews thought they knew of his beginning. They regarded him as the son of Joseph and Mary; and hence, when he spoke of Abraham, in connection with himself, they asked, with wonder and indignation, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?" There are those, now, who look upon Jesus Christ as a mere man, and suppose that he began to exist about the time of the commencement of our era; but the Scriptures not only speak of him as existing long before this, but as being eternal; while, in answer to the inquiry of the Jews, Jesus replied, "Before Abraham was, I am, making, as we understand it, a direct assertion of his essential deity. And if our view of the Being of whom we have been writing be correct, then he not only existed in the bosom of the Father, and sat on his throne of glory, but he had been accustomed to manifest himself personally on earth, and to walk and talk with men whose nature he intended afterwards to assume, that in that nature he might suffer and die for their sins, "the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." And as we have already seen, the angel Jehovah claimed divine attributes and power, and if he be identical with Jesus Christ, the Son of

God, then have we additional evidence that Christ "is, over all, God blessed forever."

2. This view makes some passages of Scripture clear, which would otherwise seem to be confused or contradictory. For instance (Exodus iii. 2), we are told of Moses, that the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of the bush, and in verse 4, God called to him out of the midst of the bush, as if, some would say, the writer had forgotten that in the former verse he had spoken of a mere angel, and now spoke of God himself being there. But if the angel Jehovah was only another name for, and was a personal appearance of Jehovah, the Eternal Word, then all seeming difficulty and discrepancy are entirely removed. The same may be said with reference to many of the other passages we have examined, in which the names God, LORD, and Angel of the LORD, are used in succession in the same conversation or narrative; and if they are not used of the same person, there is difficulty in understanding the account, but if they designate the same beings, all is clear and plain.

3. It exhibits the grace of Christ in thus early appearing to the patriarchs. He had purposes of mercy towards our fallen race, and probably it was he who gave the first ray of hope to our first parents in the garden of Eden, by saying to the serpent, of the seed of the woman, "It shall bruise thy head." And then, afterwards, not content with sending messages of kindness and love to the patriarchs, or of speaking to them with an audible voice, he personally manifested himself to them, and spake with them face to face.

4. And yet the subject, after all, reminds us of the superior advantages we possess over those of past ages. In most of the cases recorded, there was fear manifested by those to whom the angel Jehovah came. While appearing in the form of man, there was that in his manner, his communications, or in the mode of his departure, which inspired in those who were thus visited, terror and surprise. But it is our privilege to serve him without fear. He came into the world, and to prove his love for us, he laid down his life for our sakes, and if we are truly his followers, it is because the Holy Spirit has re

newed us in the spirit of our minds, and has inclined us to love Christ, because he first loved us; and if we have perfect love for him, that casteth out fear, and we can "come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

We need scarcely add, that in this inquiry into the meaning of the designation, "Angel of the LORD," we confine ourselves to the Old Testament, because in the New Testament, when the designation is used with reference to that time, "an Angel of the Lord" simply means "an Angel of Jesus"—one commissioned by him, and under his control. We may also add, that the title we have been considering is always used in the singular, and that in the Old Testament we never read of "Angels of the Lord."

ARTICLE VI.-REMARKS ON MATTHEW XI. 2–14.

FEW events in the history of our Lord are more unlooked for and startling than the one which is here recorded. John the Baptist was a man extraordinary alike in his personal and official character. Raised up by God for the express purpose of heralding the coming and preparing the way of the Messiah, his birth had been ushered in by prophecy and miracle-such miracles as must have abundantly guaranteed to him the validity of the office which he filled. He had, too, the most unquestionable independent evidence of the divine mission of the august personage whose advent he proclaimed. He had seen at his baptism the heavens opened, and the Spirit of God descending upon him, and from the parted heavens he had heard a divine voice set upon him the seal of a divine sonship, exclaiming, "This is my beloved Son." He had, himself, pointed him out to his followers as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world ;" and as he witnessed his growing reputation and influence, had rejoiced in his rising

glory, and soothed the jealousy of his disciples by assuring them that this was the precise purpose of his mission; that his office was, in its nature, subordinate and transitory, and that he cheerfully yielded to the higher claims of Him who, though coming after him, preceded him alike in existence and in dignity. This cheerful acquiescence in his descent to a subordinate position, this readiness to see all the honors that were accumulating about himself transferred to his master, is one of the delightful features in the character of John. There is but one circumstance which seems to break in upon the general tenor of the narrative, and mar the symmetry of the Baptist's character. It is the deputation before us. While our Saviour was proceeding with unobtrusive but unmistakable dignity in the exercise of his official functions; while, by deeds of miraculous beneficence, he was earning at once the homage and the affections of men; suddenly, like a thunderbolt in a clear sky, comes a deputation from John to his great supplanter with the abrupt and startling interrogatory, "Art thou he that cometh, or do we look for another?"

Such a question, coming from such a man-from the only man mentioned in the Gospel history from whom it would seem impossible that it should have emanated-and recorded without a word of explanation as to its origin or purpose, may well have perplexed the readers of the sacred narrative, and called forth the utmost variety of opinions among interpreters. Could John have entertained any serious doubts as to the Messiahship of Jesus? If so, on what were they based? If not, was the mission designed to dispel the prejudices, and clear up the doubts of his disciples? Or was it a mission, not of simple inquiry for the sake either of the disciples or their master, but intended to remind the Lord of yet unfulfilled expectations, and to urge him to a speedy assumption of his true Messianic functions? We propose first to state, though by no means exhaustively, a few of the opinions of both ancient and modern expositors, and then to add what we deem necessary for establishing the true interpretation. In this, as in other difficult portions of Scripture, we are satisfied that a thorough exami. nation will gradually reduce the difficulties, and at length unite intelligent scholars in a harmonious interpretation.

One of the opinions most widely prevalent, both in ancient and modern times, is that John dispatched the deputation for the sake of his disciples. It has been deemed utterly inconsistent with the history and experience of John that he should have himself harbored doubts respecting the divine mission of the Saviour. Many, therefore, have found the only solution of the problem in the assumption that John's disciples were still involved in doubt and prejudice, and that, for their sakes, he wished to bring them into nearer personal contact with the Lord, and by his direct and decisive declarations assure them that he was truly the sent of God. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, are among the ancient advocates of this view. "For what reason," asks Chrysostom, "did he put the inquiry? The disciples of John were turning away from Jesus, and always in fact regarded him with jealousy. This is evident from what they said to their teacher (John iii. 26), and again. from John iii. 25, and again from their language to Jesus, Matthew ix. 14. For they knew not as yet who was the Christ, but imagining Jesus to be a mere man, and regarding John as elevated above humanity, they were annoyed at seeing the former growing in reputation, and the influence of the latter gradually waning." This view is also espoused by many later interpreters, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, and Bloomfield. It is ably defended by Stier in his Discourses of Jesus (Reden Jesu), and is the view, we believe, generally presented in our popular American commentaries. Dr. Bloomfield writes thus: "John sent for the satisfaction of his disciples, who, mortified at seeing their master imprisoned for preaching the coming of the Messiah, and disappointed that he whom he testified to be such should make no such claim, nor make any attempt to deliver his forerunner; stumbling too at the humbleness of Jesus' birth and the lowliness of his station, and offended at his difference in character from their own ascetic master, had entertained doubts as to his Messiahship. Against them, therefore, and not against John, the rebuke is levelled. It should seem that for their satisfaction John had sent, and as they would not heed his repeated endeavors to remove their doubts, that he resolved to refer them