nutely the Scripture record, whether such a detail be contained in it or not.

The first mention made of the word ANGEL' in Scripture, is in the history of Hagar, who bare unto Abram his Son Ishmael'. Now there had been appearances of Deity before this period; and it is for my purpose enough to remark, that both the inspired historian, and the christian Fathers, do expressly call the angel who appeared unto Hagar, by the incommunicable name Jehovah.

86

66

But the apparition vouchsafed to Abraham is thought of more authority than the above; and is, consequently, adduced to prove the introduction of created angels' into the divine economy. Although the passage merely relates, that the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre-and he lift up his eyes, and looked, and "lo! three men stood by him o'wx nwbw—” literally a TRINITY of men, whom the patriarch entertained with equal reverence and equal adoration. Yet, according to Dr Bull, two of the three were created angels, while the third was the Son of God. This, I hesitate not to call, a mere gratis dictum, since except the marginal reference of the English Bible, to the text of St Paul, where angels' are said to have been "entertained unawares 3," the Doctor's

3 Heb. xiii. 2. Here the apostle may have pointed to the history of Rahab's kindness to the spies of Joshua, with the beneficial consequences of that kindness to herself, which, was this the proper place, could be further illustrated.

tor's explication is unsupported even by the shadow of scriptural authority. It is true, the men who "went towards Sodom "" are called angels, and men', yet it would seem, that they also were Jehovah; for "Jehovah rained upon Sodom," &c. "from Jehovah out of heaven ✦.” It will therefore be more difficult than has perhaps been imagined, to bring irrefragable demonstration, that any of the angelic appearances, in the Old Tessament, must necessarily be construed of " created intelligences." I know well, that some of the old Fathers, and that all the modern schoolmen think otherwise. But I equally well know, that it is possible, by a certain stretch of exposition, to make the Fathers say any thing whatever; if, as in this very instance, Dr Bull's elucidation be admitted respecting what Clemens Alexandrinus has said "。 λoyayyλ ŋy—the Lo

66

gos was an angel;" which the Doctor thus explains-" per angelos hominibus apparuit-he appeared unto men by angels." Indeed what Dr Bull has further asserted, although agreeing with Augustine and Petavius, is wholly without proof, viz. "that, in the appearances under the Old Testament, "God was not always in the angel by an especial presence, but acted many things, by angels alone 5 ;" and then he adds, "we willingly confess, that it is very difficult to conjecture, when a mere angel appeared,

86

1 Gen. xviii. 22.

3 Gen. xix. 10. 12. 16.

2 Gen. xix. 1. 15,

4 Gen. xix. 24.

$ See Def. Sect, IV. cap. 3. § 15.

66

'peared, or when it was God that appeared in the angel." But, is it not surprising, that an affair of such moment should be left to human conjecture, especially when even " to conjecture is found to be difficult matter?" Yet, after all this acknowledged uncertainty, he writes thus: "Where"ever it is evident that the apparition is not of a mere angel, but of God himself, there, in strict concurrence with the consentient judgment of primi-' tive antiquity, we constantly affirm, that not the "Father, but the Son, is to be understood.”

a very

It is obvious, that the purpose of this rule is to serve the doctrine Of the Subordination,' &c. since it is, in the section under this title, that we find it laid down and I have long observed, that, in support of this doctrine, there is no argument more dwelt upon than that which is afforded by the designation of angel,' as applied to our Saviour. The argument is simply this: "The " Logos' is called an angel;' the word angel implies being sent; being "sent implies a state of subordination: therefore is "the Son subordinate to the Father." Here, however, besides the fallacy of altering the title Lo'gos,' in the first branch of this Sorites, into the title Son,' in the conclusion, (a fallacy which runs through every dissertation on this subject, and is a manifest petitio principii), it ought previously to have been proved, that the second assumption is valid, viz." that the word angel implies being sent."— The Fathers are agreed, that the term angel is not

cable to the nature of the Being so denominated, but to his office; and so may be used to signify "officiator, officer, or worker;' and that, where there is no reference to being sent. This is the radical meaning of the Hebrew term w, of which

ayy is the Greek interpretation; as might be exemplified from numberless passages in the Old Testament, where the word will bear no other sense. Even the Greek' ayyλ does not contain in it, radically, the idea of being sent. Its known, usual, and radical sense is that of the Latin term nuncius, the bearer or reporter of news:' an office which one may undertake, without "being sent.” There is a passage in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with the Jew, Trypho, which goes to support this hypothesis, and which, coming from the pen of such a master in the Greek tongue, is the next thing to being decisive on the subject. « Ο λογος και αγα γελος δε καλείται και αποτολα, αυτο γαρ απαγγέλλει όσα ἐε δει γνωσθήναι, και αποτέλλεται μηνυσων όσα απαγγέλλεται "the Logos is called both angel and apostle; for he "declares, as angel, what things ought to be known; "and is sent, as apostle, to interpret what things are "declared." To balance this authority of Justin Martyr, or rather, I fear, to combat the weight of it, Dr Bull gives us a quotation from Isidore of Seville, in the following terms: It was the Son, who 'being always sent by the Father, visibly appeared 'unto men, and from this mission, he is properly 'called

R

Dial. with Trypho, p. 95.

⚫ called an angel.' Yet how this passive signification of angel, which is neither contained in the Hebrew, nor in the Greek ayyλ®,' nor in the Latin nuncius,' came into vulgar use, I am wholly at a loss to say. One thing I know, that, but for this passive signification having obtained such undue regard, the Septuagint translation of the words of Isaiah had not been made such use of by the advocates of Christ's subordination.

Thus Dr Knight, one of those advocates, contrives to state a parallel between the words of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, as translated also by the Septuagint; and, from the difference of dignity between Lord' and angel,' would infer the same difference between Father' and Son," regardless of the term, wonderful, as used by

Isaiah, or the term, great,' used by Jeremiah; both of which, as they express no such difference, are often joined together, as constituent epithets in the character of absolute Deity'. It might perhaps be thought too much for me to say, that the Septuagint translators, being men of like passions with others, had a favourite hypothesis to serve. I own however, that I am not wholly free of suspicion as to this matter, from a circumstance already noticed, viz. the sense which they have, by their unjusti

fiable

1 See Knight's Serm. p. 163. Note. The Septuagint translate, as we have already seen, Isaiah ix. 6. megaλns Bovans ayy, while they translate Jerem. xxxii. 19. xvg® pseyaλns Bovans, "The Lord of the

great counsel."