¥799-] 
of in the paffages above alluded to, yet, 
inthe Englifh bible it is tranflated, I 
think very properly, Lord; for it does 
not appear that the word JEHOVAH was 
at that time ufed as a particular title of 
diftintion, but afterwards, when God 
renews his promile to deliver the Iraelites 
from-the Egyptian bondage, and to car- 
ry them into Canaan, he more fully de- 
clares his power, and by the name of 
JEHOVAH enters into a covenant with 
them: here then is the firft paflage in 
which this word is ufed as a particular 
title of diftinStion ; for in the other paf- 
fages that great honour is not attached 
to the name, which here feems to be im- 
lied, and therefore it was not necefJary 
that it fhould be tranflated otherwife than 
by its common fignification; but where 
the Almighty fo exprefsly affumes this 
title to be a memorial of the covenant 
between him and the Ifraelites, then it 
appears as if it was to be confidered as a 
title of honour. M. R. feems to have 
mifunderftood my meaning, when he fays, 
that I maintained that the word ¢¢ fhem’’ 
fignified ** a titleof honour.” Idid not 
fay that that word figniticd "a title of 
honour,” but that a particular title of di- 
{tinction wag attached to the word JEHO- 
VAH inthat paflage. It is well known 
that the Jews retain fo great a veneration 
for the word JEHOVAH that they are 
forbidden to pronounce it. In former 
times it was only the high prieft that 
might pronounce it, and that but oncea 
year, at the folemn benediction of the 
people inthe feaft of expiation. It ap- 
pears by the fragments which we haye 
remaining of the Hexapla of Origen, that 
he wrote Adozaz in all places where JEHO- 
VAH was in the Hebrew ; and we do not 
find that St. jerome either makes ule of 
this word in his tranflation ot the bible, 
or in his other works; he follows the 
ancient Greek interpreters, tranflating 
it, for the moft part, Lord. I mutt, 
‘however, confefs that Iam) more inclin- 
ed to faveur bifhop Warburton’s expla- 
nation of.the paflage than M. R’s ob- 
jections againtt it, inafmnch as by his 
explanation the paffage feems to be ren- 
dered entirely free from that obfcurity 
which your correfpondent fuppofes to ex- 
ift in it. Your’s, &c. 
December 18, 17938. S: °E. 

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
HROUGH the channel of your 
excellent magazine, allow me to 
addrefs 2 few lines to the prefent judicious 
On the Word Angel, “Go* 
/ 
213 
editors and felectors of Calmet’s great 
Dictionary, now publifhing by C. Taylor, 
A. confiderable portion of part third is 
appropriated to the different inuterpreta-. 
tions of ayyeros, angels, oragents, mef- 
fengers, &c. but towards the clofe of 
this very interetting and entertaining 
article, there is an opinion which might 
have created no furprife inthe laft century 
when Calmet wrote, but which feems ra- 
ther extraordinary to havecrept into this 
modern edition at the end of the eighteenth 
century, Angels are here reprefented 
as fent from the throne of divine mercy in 
various fervices tomankind, ‘in which 
they may be (and probably are) always 
engaged, though invifible to us; we 
may receive from them much good or 
evil, without our being aware ofany an- 
gelic interference.” Upon reviewing the 
previous parts of this article, there does 
not feem to beany part of the references 
from facred authorities, nor can I trace 
any which lead to fo pofitive a conclufion 
as of this continual miniftration of angels. 
The various difpenfations and interpo- 
fitions of divine providence, as well ge- 
neral and particular, I am ready to ad- 
mit, and any thinking man who acknow- 
ledges a fuperintending caufe, cannot 
welldeny them ; but this miniftration by 
angels, over each individual, however 
inviiibly it may be effected, feems to be 
fo poetical, and at the fame time fo con- 
tradiétory to the divine declarations, 
which ftate that the feafons of God’s vifi- 
tations by miraculous agenis is pafled a- 
way, that I mutt beg to enter my protett 
againft the continuance, at this enlightened 
period, of any fuch doctrine. It has hither- 
to been the bafis on which fuperftition has 
built all her fearful terrors—upon which 
the ignorant and the young have been led to 
fear inftead of loving the ways of religion ; 
and facred things have been wrapped in a 
veil of alarm, which has fhaken the moft 
placid imnocence, and difturbed the moft 
peaceful mind! 
To ftrengthen this doétrine, the editors 
offer an inftance from Job, where Satan, 
an evil * angel is reprefented as producing 
ftorms, &c. by his attivity—though Job 
knew not that it was Satan.”’ It is re- 
markable that this book of Job, which 
moft critical writers have long fince fettled 
to be an allegorical or epic poem, fhould 
have been feleéted for an inftance or proot 
of the dottrine advanced; but if this 
did not fhake it, enough is {aid in the 
very next fentcnce to overthrow any re- 
liance upon this example—** but Job re- 
ferred it all to the good pleafure of God, 
acting 
