poimanei. "For he is the Shepherd of Israel " (Gen. xlix. 24; Ps. lxxx. 1); "the chief Shepherd" (1 Pet. v. 4); and "the good Shepherd" (John x. 14), who appointed his apostles to “guide and pasture his sheep" (John xxi. 6).

4. The human birth of the MESSIAH is carefully distinguished by Micah from his eternal generation, in the parenthetical clause, which strongly resembles the account of the primeval birth of WISDOM (Prov. viii. 22-25).

5. The blessed virgin of Isaiah's former prophecy (ch. vii. 14) is evidently alluded to by Micah, and also the return of the remnant of the Jews (Isa. x. 20, 21); and of the final peace of his kingdom (Isa. ix. 6, 7).

This prophecy of Micah's is perhaps the most important single prophecy in the Old Testament, and the most comprehensive respecting the personal character of the MESSIAH, and his successive manifestation to the world. It crowns the whole chain of prophecies descriptive of the several limitations of the blessed seed of the woman, to the line of Shem, to the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to the tribe of Judah, and to the royal house of David, here terminating in his birth at Bethlehem, the "city of David." It carefully distinguishes his human nativity from his eternal generation; foretells the rejection of the Israelites and Jews for a season ; their final restoration, and the universal peace destined to prevail throughout the earth in the regeneration. It forms, therefore, the basis of the NEW TESTAMENT, which begins with his human birth at Bethlehem, the miraculous circumstances of which are recorded in the introduction of the gospels of Matthew and Luke; his eternal generation, as the

ORACLE of WISDOM, in the sublime introduction of John's gospel; his prophetic character, and second coming, illustrated in the four gospels and epistles, ending with a prediction of the speedy approach of the latter, in the Apocalypse (chap. xxii. 20.)*

'Analysis of Chronology," vol. ii. pp. 461-463.

THE BOOK OF HABAKKUK.

CHAPTER II.

"For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it."-Ver. 11.

THIS, as Dr. Henderson* observes, is an exquisite instance of bold and daring personification, by which the materials used in the construction of the royal palace and other sumptuous buildings at Babylon are introduced as responsively complaining of the injustice which they had suffered, either in their having been taken from their original owners, or in their being made subservient to the scenes of wickedness that were enacted in their presence.

"Minor Prophets," p. 306.

THE BOOK OF HAGGAI.

CHAPTER II.

"The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts."-Ver. 9.

IT is difficult to reconcile this with the fact of Herod's rebuilding the temple of Zerubbabel, as he is stated to have done by Josephus (Ant. b. xv. c. 11.) For if he pulled down the old temple to its foundations, and erected a new one, it is plain that this was a building as totally distinct from that of Zerubbabel, as that of Zerubbabel was from the temple of Solomon. How then are we to reconcile the prophecy above cited with the fact that our Saviour did not appear while the second temple was standing? For we can hardly suppose that the Jewish historian has erred in the statement which he has made, corroborated as that statement is by the Evangelist, in John ii. 20. Dr. Blaney has attempted to do this by a different rendering. "In the Hebrew," he remarks, "the words will be found to stand precisely thus: Great shall be the glory of this house, the latter more than the former.' So that the words latter and former may as well be construed with the glory as with this house. Accordingly, the LXX. have adopted this construction; and the context seems evidently to justify the propriety of their translation. For, in the introductory part of this prophecy, the word first, or former, is manifestly applied to glory, and not to this house. "Who is left among you, that saw this house in her first glory? And how do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing ?" (Hag.

It

ii. 3). It is manifest, too, that in this passage, the term this house is not confined in its application to the house the Jews were then building, but is undeniably meant of Solomon's temple. Nor, indeed, according to the common acceptation of language, is it necessary to render a house identically the same, that it be built at one and the same time, and exactly of the same form and materials; it is sufficient, though it should have been rebuilt at different times successively, if it be erected still on the same site, and devoted to the same purpose. is the house of God, the temple appropriated to divine worship at Jerusalem, which was intended by this house, whether built by Solomon, by the Jews under Zerubbabel, or by Herod. Were it otherwise, how could Solomon's temple be called this house, as it is in the passage just now cited? or how are we to understand the words (Ezra v. 11-13) which the Jews are said to have spoken to the Persian officers, who demanded their authority for rebuilding the temple?"We are," say they, "the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up. But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven to wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house.-But Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God." Here it is plain that the words this house are alternately applied to the temple of Solomon and to that built under Zerubbabel, and may certainly as well be extended to that of Herod.*

* See a Discourse preached before the University of Oxford, by Dr. Blayney, Nov. 9th, 1788, 4to.