of tutelar angels, or to an authority to advise the Lord God with respect to the measures of his government. Confidently I deny that a single text is to be found in holy writ, which, rightly understood, gives the least countenance to the abominable doctrine of such a participation of the holy angels in God's government of the world.

In what manner, then, it may be asked, are the holy angels made at all subservient to the purposes of God's government? This question is answered by St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, in the last verse of the first chapter; and this is the only passage in the whole Bible in which we have any thing explicit upon the office and employment of angels. "Are they not all," saith he, "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them that shall be heirs of salvation?" They are all, however high in rank and order, they are all nothing more than " ministering spirits," or, literally, "serving spirits;" not invested with authority of their own, but "sent forth," - occasionally sent forth, to do such service as may be required of them, "for them that shall be heirs of salvation." This text is the conclusion of the comparison which the apostle institutes between the Son of God and the holy angels, in order to prove the great superiority in rank and nature of the Son; and the most that can be made of angels is, that they are servants, occasionally employed by the Most High God to do his errands for the elect.

An accurate discussion of all the passages of Scripture which have been supposed to favour the contrary opinion would much exceed the just limits of this discourse I shall only say of them generally, that they

are all abused texts, wrested to a sense which never would have been dreamt of in any one of them, had not the opinion of the government of angels previously taken hold of the minds of too many of the learned. In the consideration of particular texts so misinterpreted, I shall confine myself to such as occur in the prophet Daniel, from whose writings this monstrous doctrine has been supposed to have received great support; and of these I shall consider my text

last of all.

In the prophet Daniel, we read of the angel Gabriel by name; who, together with others unnamed, is employed to exhibit visions typical of future events to the prophet, and to expound them to him: but there is nothing in this employment of Gabriel and his associates which has the most remote connection with the supposed office of guardian angels, either of nations and states, or of individuals.

We read of another personage superior to Gabriel, who is named Michael. This personage is superior to Gabriel, for he comes to help him in the greatest difficulties; and Gabriel, the servant of the Most High God, declares that this Michael is the only supporter he has. This is well to be noted: Gabriel, one of God's ministering spirits, sent forth, as such spirits are used to be, to minister for the elect people of God, has no supporter in this business but Michael. This great personage has been long distinguished in our calendars by the title of "Michael the archangel." It has been for a long time a fashion in the church to speak very frequently and familiarly of archangels, as if they were an order of beings with which we are perfectly well acquainted. Some say there are seven of them. Upon what solid ground

that assertion stands I know not: but this I know, that the word "archangel" is not to be found in any one passage of the Old Testament: in the New Testament, the word occurs twice, and only twice. One of the two passages is in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians; where the apostle, among the circumstances of the pomp of our Lord's descent from heaven to the final judgment, mentions "the voice of the archangel." The other passage is in the epistle of St. Jude; where the title of archangel is coupled with the name of Michael," Michael the archangel." This passage is so remarkably obscure, that I shall not attempt to draw any conclusion from it but this, which manifestly follows, be the particular sense of the passage what it may since this is one of two texts in which alone the word "archangel" is found in the whole Bible, since in this one text only the title of archangel is coupled with any name, -and since the name with which it is here coupled is Michael, it follows undeniably that the archangel Michael is the only archangel of whom we know any thing from holy writ. It cannot be proved from holy writ, and if not from holy writ, it cannot be proved at all, that any archangel exists but the one archangel Michael; and this one archangel Michael is unquestionably the Michael of the book of Daniel.

I must observe by the way, with respect to the import of the title of archangel, that the word, by its etymology, clearly implies a superiority of rank and authority in the person to whom it is applied. It implies a command over angels; and this is all that the word of necessity implies. But it follows not, by any sound rule of argument, that because no other superiority than that of rank and authority is implied

in the title, no other belongs to the person distinguished by the title, and that he is in all other respects a mere angel. Since we admit various orders of intelligent beings, it is evident that a being highly above the angelic order may command angels.

To ascertain, if we can, to what order of beings the archangel Michael may belong, let us see how he is described by the prophet Daniel, who never describes him by that title; and what action is attributed to him in the book of Daniel, and in another book, in which he bears a very principal part.

Now Daniel calls him "one of the chief princes," or "one of the capital princes," or 66 one of the princes that are at the head of all:" for this I maintain to be the full and not more than the full import of the Hebrew words. Now, since we are clearly got above the earth, into the order of celestials, who are the princes that are first, or at the head of all? are they any other than the Three Persons in the Godhead? Michael, therefore, is one of them; but which of them? This is not left in doubt. Gabriel, speaking of him to Daniel, calls him "Michael your prince," and "the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people;" that is, not for the nation of the Jews in particular, but for the children, the spiritual children, of that holy seed the elect people of God, description which applies particularly to the Son of God, and to no one else. And in perfect consistence with this description of Michael in the book of Daniel is the action assigned to him in the Apocalypse, in which we find him fighting with the Old Serpent, the deceiver of the world, and victorious in the combat. That combat who was to maintain, in that combat who was to be victorious,

but the seed of the woman? From all this it is evident, that Michael is a name for our Lord himself, in his particular character of the champion of his faithful people, against the violence of the apostate faction and the wiles of the Devil. In this point I have the good fortune to have a host of the learned on my side; and the thing will be farther evident from what is yet to come.

We have as yet had but poor success in our search for guardian angels, or for angels of the cabinet, in the book of Daniel; but there are a sort of persons mentioned in it whom we have not yet considered, —— namely, those who are called "the princes of Persia and of Græcia." As these princes personally oppose the angel Gabriel and Michael his supporter, I can hardly agree with those who have taken them for princes in the literal acceptation of the word, that is, for men reigning in those countries. But if that interpretation could be established, these princes would not be angels of any sort; and my present argument would have no concern with them. If they are beings of the angelic order, they must be evil angels; for good angels would not oppose and resist the great prince Michael and his angel Gabriel : if they were evil angels, they could not be tutelar angels of Persia and of Græcia respectively, or of any other country. But, to come directly to the point, since they fight with Michael, to those who are conversant with the prophetic style, and have observed the uniformity of its images, it will seem highly probable that the angels which fight with Michael in the book of Daniel are of the same sort with those who fight with Michael, under the banners of the

Devil, in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse.