Now it is apparent that our translators have in the instance under consideration given us, not the clear and definite import of the original text, but, closely adhering to the points and following the steps of their Rabbinical guides, have given at second-hand a version of their _sense_, "a translation of their interpretation." In every instance but one (Malachi iii.) in their translation of the word _Melach_, (except when applied to men,) they employ the word _Angel_, a personal designation, not a name of office; and in most cases, if not in all, the English reader must naturally suppose that the reference was merely to one of the many created beings called angels. Accordingly, though they sometimes say, _the_ angel of the Lord, in other instances, where the original is the same, they say, _an_ angel of the Lord, implying that they did not uniformly refer to the same Person, nor in any case to any other than a created angel. The same thing is further illustrated and confirmed by their grammatical construction of the formula in accordance with the points, rendering it uniformly, the angel, or an angel _of_ the Lord, or of God. For instance, in Judges, chap. ii. 1, in the original, _Melach Jehovah_ came up from Gilgal to Bochim, is translated, "_an_ angel _of_ the Lord came up," &c. So in chap. vi. 11 of the same book, _Melach Jehovah_ is rendered, _an_ angel _of_ the Lord; and in the next verse the same formula is rendered, _the_ angel _of_ the Lord; and three times in the 20th and 21st verses, _the_ angel; and twice in the 22d verse, _an_ angel. In all these cases, and many others like them, it is demonstrable from the context that one and the same person is referred to; that the same acts are ascribed to him and to Jehovah, and that the formula by which he is designated is employed interchangeably with the names Jehovah and Elohim. Yet, looking no farther than the sentences which announce the actor or speaker as an angel, neither collating those sentences with others in the same or other chapters, nor being able, if he did, to explain or reconcile the various and discordant renderings, the reader is left in doubt and perplexity, or else concludes that a created angel is referred to. Had the translators in this and other cases of the kind taken the unpointed Hebrew text as their guide, compared all its parallel passages, and understood the word Melach according to its original and primary meaning, and its specific and necessary import where joined with the Divine names, as in the formulas above-mentioned, to be a name of office, signifying Messenger, Legate, one delegated, sent; who can doubt but that they would have discerned in the designation an unmistakable reference to the Messiah; that they would have retained the original Hebrew formulas, or translated them intelligibly and uniformly, and left their readers in no perplexity as to their sentiments or the meaning of their version?