"Here the question yet arises: If the distinction between the revealed and the unrevealed God was already made known under the Old Testament, wherein is the New Testament in this respect superior to the Old? The preference consists in this: Under the Old Testament the distinction was necessarily kept more out of view, and hence might easily appear to be founded not so much on a relation in the Godhead itself, as on a relation to those to whom the revelation was made. In the Old Testament, the Mediator commonly spoke and acted in the name of God, whom he revealed. Nor could it be otherwise before the Logos had become flesh. Hence the Revealer and He who was revealed in a manner lost themselves in each other. But under the New Testament, on the contrary, they appeared distinguished from each other, as Father and Son. Religion thus gained a two-fold advantage. It became more spiritual, and at the same time more an object of sense: more spiritual, by the exclusion of those limited conceptions of the spirituality, the omniscience, and the omnipresence of God which arose from confounding the Revealer with him who was revealed; more an object of sense, because the Son of God, in his life, sufferings, and death, brought the Divine Being nearer to man than was possible in the transient appearances of the Angel under the Old Testament. But such a condescension of the Deity to fallen man is indispensable to his becoming like God." On these passages it may be observed, that in what the author says of the Mediator having "constantly filled up the infinite distance between the Creator and the creation," he proceeds on the common theory that the invisible, the concealed God, in distinction from the personal Word, is the Creator. This is inconsistent with the preceding statement, that he never manifests himself in a sensible form: for He who created, upholds and governs, appeared personally and visibly to Abraham, Jacob, Moses and others, as Jehovah, gave the law at Sinai, and was the leader of Israel. With respect to the distinction which he refers to as existing in a certain respect between the Angel of Jehovah and the Son of God, it is presumed that he considered the latter title as applicable to the second Person of the Trinity, eternally, and as designating that Person anterior to his appointment as Mediator, and without reference to his incarnation or his official work in any respect. The doctrine which he ascribes to the Fathers is presumed to be, that the official Person who is called the Angel Jehovah, and who took on him the seed of Abraham, was identically the same Person before and after the accession and union of man's nature to the Divine; and that he was designated as the same person by the phrase, "the Son of God." In the passages above quoted, where the preposition _of_ is not inserted between the words Angel and Jehovah, the author gives the Hebrew words. When he translates them, he inserts the preposition. CHAPTER VI.