on the first day, instead of being created immediately after the heavens, they were created before them; for Moses states expressly, that the heavens were created on the second day. Gen. i. 6, 7, 8. "And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters; and let it divide the waters from the waters; (or, according to these literati, let it be a habitation for the angels) and God made the firmament, and divided the waters, which were under the firmament, from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so, and God called the firmament heaven; (or, according to the original, heavens) and the evening and the morning were the second day." The English editor proceeds to state, that "the scripture uses the term Angel, to denote other beings, or agents, besides those spirits, that occupy a rank and dignity, superiour to man. Accordingly, (he says) it has been the concurrent opinion of the Hebrew and Samaritan schools, that the word Angel, does not only mean a spirit, but sometimes also all sorts of powers or instruments, which God is pleased to use, and by means of which he acts. So that the elements of the world, fire, air, winds, and storms, in particular vision,* and, in the language There is here an errour of the press in the English edition, which the American editors have neglected to correct. In the edition of Lowman's Tracts, published at London, A. D. 1756, from which this sentence is taken, it stands thus at page 25, 26. "So that the elements of the world, fire and air, winds and storms, in particular visions, in the language of the scriptures, are called Angels of the Lord, which do his will." Perhaps, also it may not be amiss to state here, that a considerable part of this article in the English edition is compiled from these tracts, and particularly, that, some of the of scripture, are called Angels of the Lord, which do his will.' In this sense is to be understood the expression of the Psalmist, [Ps. civ. 4.) who maketh his Angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire;' i. e. who maketh winds his angels, and lightnings his messengers. Moreover, the scriptures call a dream, a visión, a voice from heaven, a plague, a burning wind, Angels of God; and whatsoever God is pleas ed to do by them, is said to be done by an Angel of the Lord;' for whatever declares God's will, or performs his pleasure, is his Angel." Upon this statement, our American literati remark, "Whatever may have been the 'concurrent opinion of the Hebrew and Samaritan schools' which, we know, were, in many respects, most profoundly igno rant of the true sense of the sacred ora cles, it seems strange, that any christian, who bas studied them with care, should be capable of entertaining the extraordinary notions, contained in this section. An attempt is made indeed, to force to their aid a passage of the 104th Psalm. But this is done by giving that passage not only a NEW, but a most unwarrantable TRANSLATION; a translation which divine authority stamps with falsehood, in Heb. i. 7; where if this rendering be introduced in place of the genuine reading, which is given verbatim from the Greek, the sacred penman will appear to have written the GROSSEST NONSENSE." Upon the assertion of these literati, that this is not only a new, but a most unwarrantable TRANSLATION Of the 4th verse of the 104th Psalm, we have to remark, that in Junius' and Tremellius' Latin translation of the Bible, published A. D. 1580, and also in Piscator's of Aw, 1684, this passage is rendered, "qui facit sentiments, which the American editors declare to be new and unwarrantable, may be found in them. angelos suos ventos, ministros suos ignem flammantam," i. e. who maketh winds his angels, and lightning, or flaming fire, his ministers or messengers. Likewise, in the French protestant bible, published A. D. 1710, it is rendered, "Il fait des vents ses anges, et du feu brûlant ses serviteurs," i. e. he maketh the winds his angels, and the burning fire his ministers. In Schindler's Pentaglot Lexicon, edit. 1612, under the root 11 part of this passage is cited, and rendered, faciens angelos suos ventos, i. e. making winds his An gels. In Cocceius Hebrew Lexicon, under the root part of this passage is likewise noticed, and rendered "faciens ventos nuncios suos," i.e. making the winds his messengers. In the same Lexicon, under the root from which is derived the word Angel, this passage is rendered, "qui facit angelos suos ventos," i. e. who maketh winds his Angels, and, it is added, "ventis utitur ut legatis suis," i. e. who em ploys the winds as his legates or ambassadours. Parkhurst, in his Hebrew Lexicon, gives as the primary signification of the root m "air in motion, a breeze, breath, wind; and cites among other passages in which it is to be thus understood, this 4th verse of the 104th Psalm. he defines Under the root the word to mean "one sent or employed by another, a messenger, a legate, an agent," and he adds "as St. Austin says of an ayos in Greek, so we may truly say of in Hebrew," Nomen non naturæ sed officii,"i. e. it is a name not of nature, but of office. It is applied, he says, sometimes to the created agents of nature, or powers of the heavens, as Vol. V. No. IV. 2 C being Jehovah's agents or ministers, and cites among other passages, in which it it to be understood in this sense, this 4th verse of the 104th Psalm. Farmer, in his Treatise on Miracles, at page 148, 9, makes the following observations. "The word Angel or messenger denotes only one employed in the execution of some commission. Hence it is applied not merely to intelligent beings acting by the order of God, but even to the inanimate parts of the creation, which he employs as the instruments of his government. The Psalmist, when celebrating the empire of God over the material world, says, "he maketh the winds his an or messengers, and lightnings his ministers." In a note subjoined, he says, "This is the true rendering of Psalm civ. 4. (compare Exod. ix. 23, 24. Psalm lxxviii. 48, 49) Nor is it certain that the words are applied, Heb. i. 7. to intelligent beings; as the apostle seems to have had no other view in citing them, than to observe, that the very name of angel, (however applied) imported ministry and subjection; whereas that of son implied authority and dominion. Very probably the scripture may represent the most active powers of nature as God's angels, in opposition to the heathen, who considered them as Deities." These authorities, we think, are amply sufficient to show, that the translation of the 4th verse of 104th Psalm, which is contended for by the English editor, is by no means a new one; and also that it is far from certain, that it is an unwarrantable one. We confess ourselves unable to conceive, how Heb. i. 7, (which is merely a verbal quotation of the septuagint transla to assent to it. tion of the Hebrew original, "stamps cited from Farmer, will be inclined. this translation with falsehood by divine authority." That there is a way, however, in which the meaning of a passage may be stamped by divine authority, we are by no means disposed to deny; and, in order to show how we conceive it may be, and, in fact, has been done, we will here adduce and compare Exodus ix. 23, 24, with Psalm 1xxviii. 48, 49. "And Moses stretched forth his rod towards heaven, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along the ground, and the Lord rained hail upon all the land of Egypt. So there was hail and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt, since it became a nation." The Psalmist, when referring to this transaction, says: "He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts. He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, by sending evil angels among them." Here we think the word Angels in the Psalm is stamped by divine authority," to mean something different from intelligent beings: at any rate if these "literati" will produce any passage, or passages from the scriptures, which will show as clearly, that the word angel is never used in them, to signify any thing besides an intelligent being, as these do, that it is sometimes applied to the inanimate powers of nature, we will give up all pretensions to any knowledge of biblical literature. With respect to the assertion, that "if this reading be introduced, the sacred penman will appear to have written the grossest NONSENSE," we shall only observe, that we doubt whether any persons of candour, who take into consider. ation the passage, which we have “And the various texts or portions of scripture, which are afterwards referred to, are all of them, as easily explained, and some of them incomparably more so, by adopting the generally received opinion, (i. e. the opinion of these literati) relative to angelick power and agency, than by the help of this singular system, which supposes that "all sorts of pow ers or instruments, which God is pleased to use, and by means of which he acts, are, in the language of the bible, denominated angels.' This assertion, we take to be as well founded, as the charge, of having given a NEW translation exhibited against the English editor, of the 4th verse, of the 104th Psalm. "Of this system, the direct tendency, if not the real design, appears to be, te represent the language of scripture, as so vague and equivocal, that it may receive any construction whatever, and to debeings as angels, considered as spirits, stroy the belief, that there are any such who possess a separate existence, extraordinary powers, and an important agency in the events and concerns of this world." Really, gentlemen, we are unacquainted with any species of logick, by which it can be shown, that a system, which represents a word of any book, as being used primarily to signify a being, or thing, of a certain description, by allowing, that it is likewise sometimes employed to designate some other being or thing, has a tendency to destroy the belief of the existence of the being or thing, which it is said primarily to signify. If there be such a spebe some new invented "patent locies of logick, we suppose it must gick," which, for ought we know, may be stiled logick of American literati, and, according to the rules of which, it may be proved to be very uncer tain, whether there be in America such a place as the city of Philadelphia. Thus, the word Philadelphia, was primarily used, in America, to designate a city in the state of Pennsylvania; but it has likewise been used to designate several other places; and, this has rendered the language of geography "so vague and equivocal," as to destroy the belief, that there is any such place as the city of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania." We will here close our remarks upon the first American section of this article, by observing, that "it seems strange to us, that any christian, who has studied them (the scriptures) with care, should be capable of entertaining the extraordinary notions contained in it." In the next American section of this article, these "literati," have manifested a wonderful quantity of zeal and satisfaction, in their endeavours to support the doctrine and belief of the fall of angels; and, not a little of bitterness towards those, who do not think quite so highly of the influence of this invincible power as they do. If, however, they had proceeded according to the principles, by which they have professed to be governed; and had resorted to the original of the New Testament, instead of the English translation of it; and, had "not brought to the study of it, a system, already formed in their own minds, and fortified by prejudice;" they would probably have discovered, that all the passages, which they have cited, were not exactly to their purpose. We will mention one, which we think has no more relation to "fallen Angels," than it has to these gentlemen themselves. It is that which they have cited from 1 Timothy, iv. 1. where the apostle says, "that in the later times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to · "So much for this subject in general, which it seemed necessary a little to discuss, and for which this appeared as proper a place as any. Since, indeed, it has been determined, that nothing which appears in Rees' New Cyclopædia,' shall henceforth be omitted in the American edition of the work, we thought it incumbent to avow, and we have accordingly here avowed the principles, which will govern us in remarking on the moral and theological opinions, which it exhibits. We are sensible, that this is an arduous, an important, and a delicate duty. We have approached it, not without undissembled diffidence in our abilities to discharge it worthily. In its execution we believe we can promise deavour not to transgress the prescripdiligence and vigilance; and we shall entions of decorum, the laws of candour, nor the demands of christian meekness: With all this, however, we believe it to be matter of little consequence to us, in be perfectly consistent to say, that it will what class of living literary merit the name may be enrolled, or in what niche of the temple of fame the statue may be found, of him, who has touched irrevently the hallowed depository of God's re vealed will. In the best manner we can, we will withstand his audacity, expose his impiety, and invest him with his proper character: for we believe, with Young, that with the talents of an Angel, a man may be a fool.' Those, who sympathise with hereticks and infidels, will, in vain, endeavour to turn us from our purpose. Our work is sacred, and we dare not slight it; our responsibility is not only to man but to God." "Our responsibility is not only to man but to God." Doubtless, gentlemen, this is very true, and are not the English editors, precisely in the same predicament? or, is this meant as an insinuation, that they "fear not God, neither regard man?" "Our work is sacred, and we dare not slight it." This, also, looks somewhat like hinting, that the English editors do not consider their work to be sacred, and that they, probably, intend to slight it. We doubt whether it be very politick, to throw out such insinuations as these, for those, that set them. selves up to be better than their neighbours, are generally suspected, by other people, not to be quite so fair and good as they ought to be. "Those, who sympathize with hereticks and infidels, will, in vain, endeavour to turn us from our purpose." That is to say, these liter ati have "all wisdom and all knowledge," and are infallible judges of the meaning of the scriptures, and those who differ from them in opinion, are either hereticks, or infidels, and must expect to be treated accordingly or as Lord Peter did poor Martin and Jack, who had not senses enough to discern, that a crust of bread was a shoulder of mutton; "Look you, gentlemen," cries Peter, in a rage, "to convince you what a couple of blind, positive, ignorant, wilful puppies you are, I will use but this plain argument with you. By G-it is true, good, natural mutton, as any in Leadenhall market; and G confound you both eternally, if you offer to believe otherwise." "We believe with Young, that with the talents of an Angel a man may be a fool." This seems to us very much like believing without evidence, for we are confident that these gentlemen themselves, will not pretend, that there ever was a man, who had the talents of an Angel, (in their sense of this word) or, that there is any sort of evidence, what the character of such a being would be. If they meant, here, to give it as their opinion, that the Angels themselves might behave like fools, we think they might have cited higher authority to support it, for Job declares, "his Angels he [God] charged with folly !" Chap. iv. 18. "It will be matter of little importance to us, in what class of living literary merit, or in what niche of the temple of fame the statue may be found of him, who has touched irreverently the hallowed depository of God's revealed will. In the best manner we can, we will withstand his audacity, expose his impiety, and invest him with his proper character." We are disposed highly to commend this resolution, and we would hint to these "literati," that they had better commence their chastisement, where charity is usually said to be gin, that is, at home; for we are of opinion, that they have themselves, "touched irreverently the hallowed depository of God's revealed will," by asserting that if Heb. i. 7, is to be understood in a sense, different from that in which they understand it, "the sacred penman will appear to have written the grossest nonsense." "We shall endeavour not to tramgress the prescriptions of decorum, the laws of candour, nor the demands of christian meekness." These gentlemen have shown a competent degree of prudence and we commend them for it; for we think that persons, who possess such a bigotted temper, as has been man ifested in this article, should never promise absolutely not to transgress the prescriptions of decorum, A promise to "endeavour" not to |