I would pay that deference to the example of the ancient interpreters as to prefer their manner, wherever there is not, from perspicuity, energy, or the general scope of the discourse, positive reason to the contrary. Such reason, I think, we have in regard to the title last mentioned.* As to the term διαβολος, Ι have already considered the cases in which it is not proper to render it devil. The name arоσтоλoç is so much appropriated in the New Testament to a particular class of extraordinary ministers, that there are very few cases, and none that I remember in the Gospels, where either perspicuity or energy would require a change of the term.

9. It is otherwise with the name ayyeλoç, in regard to which there are several occurrences, where the import of the sentiment is, if not lost, very much obscured, because the word in the version has not the same extent of signification with that in the original. It was observed before, that there is this difference between the import of such terms, as they occur in their native tongues, whether Hebrew or Greek, and as modernized in versions, that, in the former, they always retain somewhat of their primitive signification, and, beside indicating a particular being or class of beings, they are of the nature of appellatives, and mark a special character, function, or note of distinction in such beings; whereas, when Latinized or Englished, but not translated into Latin or English, they answer solely the first of those uses, and approach the nature of proper names. Now, where there happens to be a manifest allusion in the original to the primitive and ordinary acceptation of the word in that language, that allusion must be lost in a translation where the word is properly not translated, and where there is nothing in the sound that can suggest the allusion. It is particularly unfortunate if it be in an argument, as the whole will be necessarily involved in darkness.

10. I shall illustrate the preceding observations by some remarks on the following passage:-Heb. i. 4, &c. "4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they: 5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. 6. And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." I cannot help thinking with Grotius, that there is here a comparison of the dignity of the different personages mentioned, from the consideration of what is imported in their respective titles. This is at best but obscurely suggested in the common version. For though the word son is expressive of a natural and * See the note on John xiv. 16. + Diss. VI. Part i. sect. 2-4. + Ibid. sect. 1.

near relation, the word angel in our language is the name of a certain order of beings, and beside that, expresses nothing at all. It is not, like the original appellation, both in Hebrew and in Greek, a name of office. Further, the seventh verse, as it stands with us, "Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire," is unintelligible: and if some mystical sense may be put upon it, this is at best but a matter of conjecture, and appears quite unconnected with the argument. It is well known that the word TvEvμara, rendered spirits, signifies also winds. That this is the meaning of it here, is evident from the passage (Psal. civ. 4) whence the quotation is taken. For the Hebrew m ruach is of the same extent. And though it be in that place, for the sake of uniformity, rendered the same way as here, nothing can be more manifest than that the Psalmist is celebrating the wonders of the material creation, all the parts of which execute, in their different ways, the commands of the Creator. Our translators not only render the same Hebrew word wind in the third verse, and spirits in the fourth, but in this last evidently start aside from the subject. Nothing, on the contrary, can be better connected than the whole passage in the true, which is also the most obvious interpretation, and may be thus expressed : "Who covereth himself with light as with a mantle; who stretcheth out the heavens like a curtain; who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters; who maketh the clouds his chariot; who walketh on the wings of the wind; who maketh winds his messengers, and flaming fire his ministers ;* who hath laid the foundations of the earth, that it should never be removed." There is an internal probability of the justness of this version, arising from the perspicuous and close connexion of the parts; and an improbability in the common version, arising from their obscurity and want of connexion; verse 4. "Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flame of fire," being a digression from the scope of the context, the material world, to the world of spirits.

66

Now, let us try, in the passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews referred to, how the same translation of the words TvEvμa and ayyedos by wind and messenger, through the whole, will suit the apostle's reasoning. Speaking of our Lord, he says, Being as far superior to the heavenly messengers, as the title he hath inherited is more excellent than theirs: For to which of those messengers did God ever say, Thou art my Son; I have to-day begotten thee:' And again, I will be to him a Father, and he

* Dr. Lowth (De Sacra Poesi Hebræorum, Præl. viii.) though he retains the word angelus, understands the passage just as I do, making winds the subject, and angels a metaphorical attribute. "Faciens ut venti sint angeli sui, ut ignis ardens sit sibi ministrorum loco." He adds: "Describuntur elementa in exequendis Dei mandatis, prompta et expedita quasi angeli, aut ministri tabernaculo deservientes." Houbigant to the same purpose: "Facit angelos suos, ventos, et ministros suos, ignem rutilantem."

shall be to me a Son:' Again, when he introduceth the first-born into the world, he saith, 'Let all God's messengers worship him: Whereas, concerning messengers, he saith, Who maketh winds his messengers, and flaming fire his ministers' But to the Son, Thy throne, O God, endureth for ever.'" To me it is plain, first, That the aim of his reasoning is to show the superior excellency of the Messiah, from the superiority of his title of Son, given him in a sense peculiar to him, (and which, from analogy to the constitution of the universe, should imply of the same nature with the Father,) to that of messenger, which does not differ essentially from servant. Now the English word angel does not express this: It is a name for those celestial beings, but without suggesting their function. Secondly, that, in proof of the inferiority of the title messenger, the writer urges, that it is sometimes given even to things inanimate, such as storms and lightning.

Every reader of reflection admits, that there runs through the whole passage a contrast of the things spoken_concerning the Messiah, to the things spoken concerning angels, in order to show the supereminence of the former above the latter. The seventh verse, as now rendered, perfectly suits this idea, and completes one side of the contrast. But does it answer this purpose in the common version? Not in the least: for will any one say that it derogates from the highest dignity to be called a spirit, when it is considered that God himself is so denominated? And as the term flaming fire, when applied to intelligent beings, must be metaphorical, the consideration that, by such metaphors, the energy and omniscience of the Deity are sometimes represented, will in our estimation serve rather to enhance than to depress the character. The case is totally different, when flaming fire, or lightning, in the literal sense, is made the subject of the proposition, and God's messengers the predicate. But it may be asked, do not the words in the Greek oppose this supposition, inasmuch as rouç ayyeλovç avrov, his messengers, has the τους αγγελους article, and should therefore be understood as the subject, whereas TVEVμara having no article, must be the predicate? But let it be remarked, that the article is found only in the translation of the Seventy, which is copied by the apostle: in the Hebrew, neither term has the article; the subject therefore must be determined by the scope of the place.

11. I know that it has been objected to this interpretation, that ruach, though used in the singular for wind, does not occur in this sense in the plural, except when joined with the numeral adjective four. But from this, though it were true, we can conclude nothing. That the word is found in this meaning in the plural, is a sufficient ground for interpreting it so, when the connexion requires it. Further, though it were conclusive, it is not true. In Jeremiah (xlix. 36.) we find, in the same

never

passage, both arbang ruchoth, four winds, and A col haruchoth, all the winds, where it was doubted that both expressions were used of the winds. As to the insinuation that some have thrown out concerning this explanation as unfavourable to the doctrine of Christ's divinity, it can be accounted for only from that jealousy, an invariable attendant on the polemic spirit, which still continues too much to infect and dishonour theological inquiries. This jealousy, however, appears so much misplaced here, that the above interpretation is manifestly more favourable to the common doctrine than the other. I say not this to recommend it to any party, knowing that in these matters we ought all to be determined by the impartial principles of sound criticism, and not by our own preposses

sions.

12. But to return: A second case, wherein it is better to employ the general word messenger, is, when it is not clear from the context whether the sacred penman meant a celestial or a terrestrial being. In such cases, it is always best to render the term so as that the version may admit the same latitude of interpretation with the original; and this can be effected only by using the general term. For this reason, in the following expressions, oitives ελαβετε τον νομον εις διαταγας αγγελων, (Acts vii. 53,) and διαταγεις δι αγγελων εν χειρι μεσίτου, (Gal. iii. 19,) it would have been better to translate ayyeλwv messengers, as it is not certain whether such extraordinary ministers as Moses and Joshua, and the succeeding prophets, be meant, or any of the heavenly host. The same may be said of that passage, οφείλει ἡ γυνη εξουσίαν έχειν επι της κεφαλης, δια τους αγγελους, (1 Cor. xi. 10,) it being very doubtful whether the word in this place denotes angels or men.

13. A third case, wherein (I do not say it must, but) it may properly be rendered messengers, is when, though it evidently refers to superior beings, it is joined with some word or epithet which sufficiently marks the reference, as ayyedoç Kupiov, a messenger of the Lord, οἱ αγγελοι των ουρανων, the heavenly messengers, oi ayol ayyedo, the holy messengers; for, with the addition of the epithet, the English is just as explicit as the Greek. Not but that such epithets may in some sense be applied to men also; but it is customary with the sacred writers thus to distinguish the inhabitants of heaven. In this case, however, it must be admitted, that either way of translating is good. There is one advantage in sometimes adopting this manner, that it accustoms us to the word messenger in this application, and may consequently assist the unlearned in applying it in doubtful cases. In some cases not doubtful, to add the word heavenly in the version is no interpolation, for the single word ayyɛλos often includes it. Thus, though the word yλwooa originally means no more than tongue, it is frequently employed to denote an unknown or foreign tongue.*

Diss. XII. Part iv. sect. 9.

14. A fourth case, wherein the general term is proper, is when the word is applied to a human being. This rule, however, admits some exceptions, soon to be taken notice of. Our translators have rightly rendered it messenger, in the instances which fall under this description, noted in the margin, wherein they are not only human beings that are meant, but the message is from men.

6

15. I said that there are some exceptions from this rule. The first is, when not only the message is from God, but when it appears to be the view of the writer to show the dignity of the mission from the title given to the missionary, as being a title which he has in common with superior natures: in such cases, it is better to preserve in the version the term angel, without which the allusion is lost, and by consequence justice is not done to the argument. For this reason the word angel ought to be retained in the noted passage of the Gospels concerning John the Baptist: "What went ye to see? A prophet? Yea, I tell you, and something superior to a prophet; for this is he concerning whom it is written, Behold I send mine angel before thee, who shall prepare thy way,' Matt. xi. 9, 10. There is manifestly couched here a comparison between the two titles prophet and angel, with a view to raise the latter. Now to this end the common English word messenger is not adapted, as it does not convey to us the idea of greater dignity than that of a prophet, or even of so great. My argument here may be thought not quite consistent with what I urged in my first remark on this word. But the two cases are rather opposite than similar. The allusion was there to the ordinary signification of the term; the allusion is here not to the signification, but to the common application of it to beings of a superior order: the intention was there, comparatively, to depress the character; the intention here is to exalt it.

16. Another case in which the word angel ought to be retained, though used of man, is when there would arise either obscurity or ambiguity from the construction if the word messenger should be employed. It cannot be doubted, that the angels of the seven churches mentioned in the Apocalypse (ch. i. 20, ii. 1, 8, 12, 18, iii. 1, 7, 14.) are human creatures; but the term messenger would render the expression ambiguous, or rather improper. The messenger of societies (in like manner as of individuals) is one sent by them, not to them. In this, and some other instances, the Greek ayyɛλos is to be understood as corresponding in extent of signification to the Hebrew 8 malach, which often denotes a minister or servant employed in any charge of importance and dignity, though not a message. It would, therefore, be no deviation from what is included in the Hellenistic sense of the word, if through the whole of that passage it were rendered president.

* Luke vii. 24, ix. 52. James ii. 25.