guage. It is a universal law, in the formation of language, to form no terms or names before we need them. For example, in Latin and Greek one cannot literally express any of our modern objects of invention. In what way, for instance, will he translate gun, cannon, gun-powder, steam-boat, sloop, brig, man-of-war, electricity, magnetism, and a thousand other things known only in recent times? He cannot do it. And why? Simply because the Greeks and Latins, having no acquaintance with objects of this nature, never invented any names to designate them. Exactly so was it with the Hebrews, antecedently to the times in which revelations of divine things were made to them. The language was already formed and in use at that period. It was formed in view of the objects of sense and of reflection, that were cognizable by the mass of the people, in that state which preceded a revelation. It had of itself no other names for objects of the invisible world, than such as are the result of the few and floating ideas of natural religion, which an unenlightened people may entertain.

Hence the anthropopathy of the Scriptures, in respect to God and all his attributes. He has eyes, ears, mouth, arms, hands, feet; he hears, sees, feels, tastes, smells; he loves, hates, is angry, takes revenge, sorrows, grieves, repents, rejoices, exults; he employs sword, bow, arrows, quiver, buckler, shield, helmet, and the like; he even contracts alliances, yea, espouses the virgin of Israel, and then divorces her, and treats her as an injured husband does a faithless wife. All this comes from the simple fact that God, having made man in his image, may be best represented by that which is appropriate to man; to which must be added the consideration, that language originally had no appropriate terms, which of themselves, in a literal way, would designate the attributes and actions of the Godhead. In other words, no such terms were invented for such a purpose, nor were any words used solely in this way.

Occasionally, moreover, the sacred writers go even beyond this. They borrow terminology from the objects of nature, and the animals of the natural world. God is now like to the sun; then he is like a roaring and ravening lion (to the wicked), rending while none can deliver. At another time, he has wings and feathers, like the stork or the eagle, under which the righteous find security and peace. All this, and much more of the like nature, the Scrip

tures exhibit. Most readers are so familiarized with such exhibitions, that they are not offended or misled by them. They see in them merely vivid imagery and tropical delineation; and because God is well known to be a spirit, omniscient, omnipresent, immaterial, invisible, eternal, and immutable, the intelligent portion of the community are in no danger of being misled by such modes of communication.

Justice to the scriptural writers obliges me to remark, that they have done all, in order to make themselves intelligible with respect to what they say of the divine Being, which the nature of the case and the imperfections of language permitted them to do.

Let us take another example from the representations of the inspired writers respecting Hades, or the invisible world, whither the dead, or the umbrae of deceased persons, were supposed to go. The reader will allow me, I would hope, to enlarge a little on the subject now before us, which is not simply important, but all-important in the exegesis of the Scriptures.

In speaking of the condition of men after death, the Old Testament writers, to whom the life and immortality revealed by the gospel was not fully known (2 Tim. 1, 10), often employ the same costume with which this subject was invested by common and popular usage. Thus, in Is. c. 14, the king of Babylon falls by the sword, and his umbra descends to Sheol, or the world beneath. There he is met by the kings whom he had formerly dethroned, who rise up from the respective places in the sepulchre, where they were lying in state, insult him, and mock at his calamities. How often too is Sheol presented as " a land of darkness and the shadow of death, where no light is;" as a gloomy, dreary place, a region of unsubstantial forms and mere resemblances of reality! And why have the scriptural authors so spoken and written? Because they have employed the language of common parlance, in reference to this subject. But must we conclude, that such is in fact the real state of the dead, I mean such as this language would naturally and literally seem to import? No more, I answer, than we are to conclude, that all the language employed in describing the attributes and actions of the Godhead is to be literally understood. Such passages as Ps. 16, 11. Ps. 17, 14. 15. Ecc. 12, 7. 12. 11, 9, and others, serve to show, that although the costume of popular usage

is often put upon descriptions of man's condition after death, yet views of a more exalted nature than are indicated by the literal exegesis of such descriptions, were in reality entertained by the Hebrew prophets.

In the New Testament there is much less of this mode of representation; and so we should naturally expect to find the state of this matter, in accordance with the fuller revelations of the gospel. Yet, occasionally, such cases as that of the rich man and Lazarus, where all the imagery is borrowed from material objects and popular modes of speaking, form a somewhat near approach to the style of the Old Testament.

Consider, still further, how heaven is represented to us, even in the New Testament. It is now a place of feasting, where the guest reclines on Abraham's bosom, Luke 16, 23. Then it is a paradise, Luke 23, 43. 2 Cor. 12, 4; that is, a garden of fruits, and flowers, and shade-trees, and fountains, and streams of water. Then it is a splendid city, Gal. 4, 26. Heb. 11, 16. Rev. c 21; which has walls built of precious stones, streets of gold, gates of pearl, a river of lie, and trees of life; and it is always resplendent by reason of the perpetual presence of God. John even goes so far as to give us the dimensions of the heavenly city. It is 375 miles square, the houses are as many miles high, and the wall is 216 feet in height; Rev. 21, 16. 17. In other words, the writer has sketched his ideal of perfection in architecture, in order to symbolize the new celestial abode in all its perfection and excelEnce. All this, moreover, we spontaneously interpret as tropical and symbolical. A man would hardly be deemed sane, who should refuse here to interpret in this manner.

It were easy to show that descriptions of the world of woe are drawn in like manner, and follow the same rule of interpretation. But enough for my present purpose. I return to the angels.

After what has been said of the manner in which objects of the invisible world are and must be described, it needs no laboured effort to satisfy the mind, that angels, who belong to the invisible world, must be spoken of in a manner analogous to that in other descriptions of a similar nature. Hence, when we read in Dan. 9, 21, that Gabriel "had been caused to fly swiftly;" or in Is. 6, 2, that the Seraphim "had each six wings," we need not be anxious

to show how spiritual beings can possess wings and fly, in a literal sense. As well might we attempt to show that God himself possesses them, when the Scriptures represent the righteous as taking shelter under the shadow of his wings. The substance of the meaning, in respect to angels, is, that they have the power of most rapid movement, and especially that they are "swift to do the will" of Jehovah.

In the further discussion of our subject, we shall have occasion to revert to the like principles of interpretation in passages of Scripture that respect invisible beings; for to these principles we must conform our exegesis. The reader surely cannot fail to see, that the same general laws are applicable to communications respecting angels, as are to be applied to passages that concern other invisible objects and beings.

III. NAMES AND NATURE OF ANGELS.

The name which we employ to designate is order of beings, is only a Greek word anglicized, viz. pyelos. This is not, however, a name of nature, but merely of office. It means essenger, or one sent upon a special mission, and, in a more general sense, servant. A word with so general a meaning is, as we might well suppose, not always confined merely to the designation of spiritual beings of a higher class, but is also occasionally employed to designate merely messengers of men, Num. 20, 14. Josh. 6, 17. James 2, 25. Luke 7, 24. 9, 52; or men as messengers of God, Mal. 3, i Mark 1, 2. Gal. 4, 14. Under this last particular may be included both Priests, as in Ecc. 5, 5. Mal. 2, 7; and also Prophets, as in Hagg. 1, 13. Mal. 3, 1. Analogous to these last usages, is that of the ❝rysλos of the seven churches of Asia, in Rev. 2, 1. 8. 12. 18. 3, 1.7. 14. Even the elements, which are specially the causes of evil or the instruments of chastisement, appear to be sometimes so named; e. g. Ps. 104, 4, where the stormy wind and the lightning are called angels and servants of God; Ps. 78, 49, where various evils are perhaps named angels, (I say perhaps, for this mode of interpretation is not here a necessary one,) and the like sentiment may be found in Ps. 148, 8. Even Satan may have his angels or messengers also; 2 Cor. 12, 7 "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger

(arreλos) of Satan to buffet me," meaning probably some physical evil; Matt. 25, 41" the devil and his angels;" Rev. 12,7. 9" the dragon and his angels."

There is, however, no serious difficulty in distinguishing all these secondary classes of meaning from what may be called the leading and predominant one, viz. spiritual messenger or special agent of Gcd. The context is an almost infallible guide; and the designations, angel of God, angel of Jehovah, his (God's) angel, etc. leave no rational doubt on the mind of the reader what is meant, and need no comment on my part.

I will merely remark here, in passing, that other designations are occasionally given to the spiritual messengers in question. Thus sons of God, in Job 1, 6. 2, 9. 38, 7; servants, Job 4, 18; saints or holy ones, ip, yio, Job 5, 1. 15, 15. Mark 8, 38. Luke 9, 26. Acts 10, 22. Rev. 14, 10; watchman, , Dan. 4, 10. 14. 20; in which interpretations, however, all are not agreed. The corresponding yonyogos is so used in the Greek version of the Book of Enoch, in the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, and in the Pastor of Hermas. Whether in Ps. 8, 6. 82, 1. 97, 7. 138, 1, means angels, is disputed; but the New Testament writers sanction this principle (see Heb. 2, 7), and both ancient and modern critics in great numbers defend it.

Thus much for the names of angels. I pass to a very brief view of their nature.

They are spiritual beings. "Are they not all ministering spirits, лQεúμаτa?" Heb. 1, 14. This is predicated of good angels. They πρεύματα ?” are naturally invisible, ¿ógaro, Col. 1, 16; and hence they are spoken of as 'making their appearance' when they at any time become visible, Luke 1, 11. 22. Matt. 2, 13. 19. Gen. 18, 2. Thus far of good angels. But evil angels, as well as good, are ranked under the same general category, i. e. they are named spirits; Matt. 8, 16. 10, 1. 12,43-45. Mark 9, 20. Luke 10, 20. 11, 24. Eph. 2, 2. 6, 12. al. This seems to decide, for us, that angelic beings are incorruptible, immaterial, immortal, and impalpable (in their proper nature) to our senses. But there has not always been a unity of opinion in respect to this matter. Most of the ancient Christian fathers regarded angels as being constituted of ethereal and (so to speak) transcendental substance. Even Reinhard, Doederlein, and