Mr. Barnes, and say, ex animo, that such doctrines shake the foundation of our personal hopes for eternity.

The question is not whether an organic and formal union of all "believers" is either practicable or desirable; but, what would be the consequence of such a union? The author assures us, that it would turn the whole family of Christ into little else than "an association of free-thinkers;" that it would be "to relinquish every evangelical truth, everything held dear and sacred by any !!" He contradicts himself in the very act of making the statement. He concedes to "each communion" of believers "a sufficient amount of evangelical truth to preserve the integrity of their church state." If they have this amount, being separate, would they have any less when united? He fully grants the infidel scandal against the church of Christ; makes Christianity, as embodied in that church, a mere matter of moonshine; substantially affirms that there is no ground of "evangelical truth" common to, and held equally by all Christians-that there is no unity of faith-that Christains doctrinally cease to be Christians the moment you deduct their differences, and take only their agreements. If they would relinquish "every evangelical truth" by union, will the author tell us how many such truths they hold in a state of disunion? He will please also to show the beautiful symmetry of thought between this new doctrine and another idea of the same chapter, namely, "The church is in all ages the same, and her testimony is the same.' The same! What! when her differences are so great, that if these were given up for the sake of union, all would be gone! One general wreck would ensue! No wonder, the author with such a creed in his heart and in his head, and the other kindred custodes ecclesiarum omnium, should want to magnify "Differences." There is nothing else to magnify; the very life of Christianity is in them; the moment you lose sight of these, there is nothing to be seen but the ruins of a supposed faith. This certainly is a very sensible and comprehensive view of our glorious Christianity. Peradventure, it may be one of those rhetorical exuberances, sudden inspirations of fancy, that led the "Presbyterian" to think "that a little pruning would not injure the style." We suggest this as a very good passage to begin with.

It is really painful to witness such an exhibition of theological disease, or of the most radical, High-Church sectarian monomania. Under the influence of either, the mind acquires a cast of thought, which makes it almost insane. Amid all the actual harmonies of the Christian world, the subject of the strange passion is incessantly sounding his favorite note of "Differences." It is his key-note; and by a vitiated moral taste he learns to relish the music. he should write a book on this subject, if he writes anything, is no marvel. If he is a preacher, he will doubtless often edify his people with the theme. Go where he will, do what he will, his pre

That

vailing passion will steal the march on him. Put him in the World's Convention, laboring to form an Evangelical Alliance upon a doctrinal basis common to Protestant Christians; and there he is in a spasm of agony on account of his favorite theme. The idea of such an Alliance-why, it is a perfect humbug! The moment Christians undertake to agree by a relinquishment of "differences," all their supposed unity of faith evaporates! They agree! Never, except at the expense of "every evangelical truth!"

In taking leave of Mr. C. we remark, that he has presented no cause for trial, touching the "Doctrinal Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians." So far as his book is concerned, we know not what they are, and could make no reply, were we ever so much disposed to try it. The witnesses on one side only have been heard. It is not certain that even the brother himself is an "Old School" Presbyterian. How he would appear when brought to the standard of high authorities, no mortal can guess from his work. Hence we totally decline all comparison of the "Differences," with his statement for a basis.

ARTICLE IV.

THEOPHANIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

By Rev. E. Noyzs, A. M., Pastor of the Freewill Baptist Church, Boston.

THE Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, are exceedingly explicit in maintaining the invisibility of the Divine Being. Let the following texts be considered, viz: Ex. 33: 20, "There shall no man see me and live." Job 9: 11, "So he goeth by me, and I see him not; he passeth on also, but I perceive him not.' John 1: 18, "No man hath seen God at any time." John 5: 37, "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." Rom. 1:20," For the invisible things of him (are) his eternal power and Godhead." Col. 1: 15, "Image of the invisible God." Heb. 11: 27," He (Moses) endured, as seeing him who is invisible." 1 Tim. 6: 16, "Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.'

Now with these positive declarations of God's invisibility before us, what are we to do with that numerous class of texts found in the Old Testament, in which God seems to place himself within the scope of human senses, causing both his voice to be heard and his shape to be seen? We might indeed suppose that such language was made use of to express a spiritual appearance of God, did not the circumstances connected with such manifestations

utterly forbid the supposition, and make it apparent that there was indeed a visible form or an audible voice.

Of the numerous epithets applied to such manifestations, we select for present examination, the expression in Angel of Jehovah, which in our English version is rendered Angel of the Lord, and is evidently used with reference to some manifestation of God, which suggests itself to the natural senses of man. In the examination of this appellation, we shall consider its import as used in the PENTATEUCH, and then trace it through the other Historical and Prophetical books.

The first time this form of speech occurs is in Gen. 16: 7, where the found Hagar by a fountain of water in the wilderness. This Angel is represented as conversing with her in such language as she could understand, and which elicited an answer from her; commanded her to return to her mistress, promises to multiply her seed, tells her that Jehovah had heard her affliction, and foretells the character and habits of her progeny. But the name Hagar gave to the God that talked with her, is just what we might expect from one who had been taught to believe in the invisibility of the Divine Being: "And she called the name of the JEHOVAH that spake unto her, thou God of visibility," v. 13. This rendering, according to Boothroyd, is given by Le Clerk, Houbigant, and Michaelis, and it certainly accords with the usus loquendi. See I. Sam. 16: 12, And fair of appearance. Job, 33: 21, from being seen, i. e., it cannot be seen. Nahum, 3:21,

as a sight. The reason why Hagar gave the Jehovah that talked with her this name is thus given: "For she said, and have I also here, looked upon the back parts of the visible?" It is worthy of notice, that we have here the same form of expression which occurs in Ex. 33: 23, where God said to Moses, "Thou shalt

see my back parts.

The name Hagar gives to the well, 3 (verse 14,) Boothroyd thinks has been corrupted, and should read or

for

, the well of the invisible God. Without such a rendering, the paronomasia is destroyed.

The ancient versions go to substantiate the idea that Hagar was deeply impressed with the fact that God had appeared to her in a visible form. The Greek reads (v. 13), “For I have openly seen him that appeared unto me." The Chaldee, "Lo, I begin to see after that he appeared unto me." Syriac, "Lo, I have beheld a vision, after he beheld me." Arabic, "Even here I have seen, after his seeing me." Targ. of Jon., "Behold here is revealed the divine majesty after the vision." We think from a candid examination of this subject, two things must be quite evident: 1st,

Hagar saw a visible appearance of God; 2d, Having previously believed the Divine Being to be invisible, she is struck with astonishment, and calls him a visible God.

The appellation,

next occurs in Gen. 22: 11, "And the Angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham." That this Angel was identical with God himself, is clear from the considerations following: 1st, He was the one who commanded the sacrifice, and hence he says, (v. 12,) Thou hast not withheld thine only son from me; and the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses say, that God tempted Abraham, and commanded him to sacrifice his son.

Of this same Angel it is said in verses 15, 16, and 17, “And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham, out of heaven, the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven," &c. Now it is evident that no ordinary angel could have sworn to bestow such blessings as are here promised; and the fact that Abraham calls the one who swore to him, the Lord God of heaven, in Gen. 24 : 7, fully identifies this Angel with the Supreme God.

The name Abraham gives to the place, and the remark he makes on the occasion, seems to be designed to commemorate the fact, that he had, at this time, enjoyed a visible interview with God. (v. 14.) "And Abraham called the name of the place

Jehovah shall see, or differently pointed, it might have a passive signification, Jehovah shall be seen, by which reading the paronomasia is preserved with the latter clause, as given by the Septuagint, which reads, "As it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord will appear." It appears that this saying had become a proverb in the days of Moses, and hence would, of course, continue a long time after him, and some have regarded them as prophetical, pointing to the erection of the temple on this spot; which idea is favored by the Chaldee. In that temple God was pleased to manifest Himself to men, not unfrequently to the natural senses; and the texts which represent Him as dwelling in "his holy mountain," "in his holy temple," are numerous. See Ps. 11:4, and 87: 1. Isa. 11: 9 and 5—6: 7. Joel, 3: 18. Jonah, 2: 7. Mic. 1 2. Heb. 2: 20.

True, some distinguished names dissent from the reading of the Septuagint, but it appears to us that that reading accords best with the whole tenor of the discourse, and it is supported by Pagnine, Houbigant, and others.

The same Being appeared to Isaac, as in in Gen. 26: 2, and commanded him to go down into Egypt on account of the famine. In the second verse he says to Isaac, "I will give thee these coun

tries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham, thy father." The Jehovah who swore to Abraham we have just seen was identical with the Angel of Jehovah which commanded the sacrifice of Isaac, Gen. 22: 15, 16, 17, compared with Gen.

24: 7.

The same Being appeared to Jacob as a man (Gen. 32: 24); but Hosea, in chap. 12: 4, calls this man the Angel: "Yea, he had power over the Angel and prevailed, and he made supplication to him: he found him in Beth-el and there he spake (?) with him (v. 5); even the Lord God of hosts, in in his memorial." Now the prophet, in the last clause of the passage, refers to the second appearance when Jacob had come out of Pandan-aram, as recorded in Gen. 35: 9-15, to which being, called a man when he wrestled with Jacob at Penuel, the Angel, the Jehovah God, and the Jehovah, by Hosea, is applied the names God and God Almighty, and He is represented as confirming the promise He made to Abraham and Isaac, who is called Jehovah in Gen. 12:7; 13: 14; 28: 13.

This was the Angel that redeemed Jacob from all evil, whom he represents as identical with the God before whom his fathers had walked, and who had fed him his life-long. See Gen. 48: 15, 16. This is the Angel of God that spoke to him in a dream at Padanaram, and who declared himself to be the God of Bethel, to whom Jacob made his vow. See Gen. 31: 11–13.

39 66

Jacob, it appears, inquired for the name of the man with whom he wrestled at Penuel, but his curiosity is not gratified, and in allusion to this, Hosea says, "Jehovah is his memorial," i. e., his name. Jacob called the name of the place "the face of God," for," said he "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Such visible appearances of God seem to have been so rare that they always excited great astonishment, and there appears to have been an impression that no one could see him and live. See Judges, 13:22.

The next account of the appearance of the Angel Jehovah, was to Moses, in Ex. 3: 2, "And the Angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire," &c. This appearance (verses 6-10) calls himself the God of his father, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; says he had seen the affliction of his people in Egypt, that he had come down to deliver them and to bring them to a good land, appoints Moses their conductor, &c. Moses gives to this being the appellation God, and hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon him, and when Moses inquired what name he should give to the children of Israel, this same Angel said (v. 14), I AM THAT I AM, and commanded him to say to the children of Israel, that one, bearing the appellation of I AM, had sent him unto them.

This, therefore, was the Angel of Jehovah, who pledged himself to conduct the Israelites to the promised land; and that he was no