it will get rid of what they are pleased to consider as "the marvellous"- especially any thing that might seem to countenance an idea of intercourse between the visible and invisible world. I entreat the reader (if it be for only ten minutes) to lay aside the legend; to turn to the naked text of Scripture; and to give his candid attention to what may be offered in favour of the ancient, and, in my opinion, the less fanciful exposition of the text. First, however, I will just notice an objection which may arise in the mind of some reader; and which, if valid, would render all farther argumentation useless. "How could angels take wives of the daughters of menare they not spirits, and is it not impossible?” To this I must reply, that I know not how far the objector may be able to argue on such grounds; but that for myself, I know so little of the nature of angels, and of the limits of possibility, that I feel it safest to borrow the language of St. Augustine on this point, and say, "non hic aliquid audeo temere definire." It does not appear to me more incredible, or more remote from my ideas of a spirit, than that angels should assume the human form, and eat the calf of Abraham and the unleavened bread of Lot. When the objector has explained these facts, he will perhaps be able to explain the other. This, however, is not the point. All that I contend for is, that credible or incredible to man's wisdom-whether congenial or foreign to his conceptions of things, in which a pretence to knowledge is mere folly- whether apparently possible or impossible, the fact is stated in the Bible, and that so plainly, that the wisest commentators have been reduced to childish absurdity in attempting to evade it. Let us then see what may be said in favour of this opinion. I. One would really suppose, from the offhand way in which Mr. Scott says, "the 66 spiritual worshippers of God are called his "children, and the honourable title is some"times conferred on all who profess the true "religion," that the title in question ( b) was one frequently used in the Scriptures, and with considerable laxity. I believe, however, that this title is only found in exactly this form in three other places of the Old Testament, and I am not aware that in either of them it has ever been supposed to mean any thing but angels. These are, Job i. 6, ii. 1, and xxxviii. 7. There are two passages in the Psalms which are commonly considered as similar, though they are translated differently. The first is Ps. xxix. 1, Give unto the Lord, O ye » הבו ליהוה בני אלים mighty," and Ps. lxxxix. 6, (heb. 7), "Who "in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord, "who among the sons of the mighty, (bx 2) 66 can be likened unto the Lord!" I will say nothing here of the difference between and, because I feel no doubt that in each case angels are meant. Indeed, in the latter, the parallelism seems to put it beyond all doubt. I say then, that every where else in the Old Testament this title, "the sons of God," designates angels; and I add, that it designates angels only; and we ought to have some very good reason, (if a good reason can ever be given,) for departing from the obvious meaning of words. I need hardly add, that I do not find this title ever given to men in the Old Testament. That which comes nearest to it, (but which forms no ground for the interpretation which these expositors would support,) is that God was pleased to call Israel collectively and nationally His "first-born son;"* and that it is said, that they shall, at some future time, be called the "sons of the living God," +.אל חי Taking the phrase, however, as it is used in the New Testament, where it is applied to men, I absolutely deny that it " is sometimes conferred on all who profess the true religion," in any such way as shall prevent its being a distinguishing title of those who shall here. after" be equal to the angels, and be the sons of God." II. The passage referred to appears to have been understood of angels by the Jewish church. It seems that in the time of St. Augustine the majority of manuscripts of the SEPTUAGINT had oi άyyeλoı тỡ Oɛ as the translation He acknowledges that the בני אלהים of Seventy translated the title " Angels of God;" but adds, that it is not so in all copies of their version for that some had only "Sons of God." This is confirmed by the fact, that : * Ex. iv. 22. + Hosea i. 10, (heb. ii. 1.) † ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσι καὶ υἱοί εἰσι τῇ Θεοῦ. Luke xx. 30. § "Septuaginta quidem interpretes et angelos Dei dixe"runt istos et filios Dei; quod quidem non omnes codices we find this reading in that most important manuscript, the Codex Alexandrinus. Whether it was (as Mangey suggests) from following this reading, or from his own idea, of what was meant by the title "Sons of God," it is clear that PHILO JUDEUS understood the passage as relating to angels.* In either case his testimony is worthy of notice. In the former it adds greatly to the probability that ayyeλo is the true reading of the Septuagint; in the latter it shews us what a learned Jew of that early age understood by "Sons of God." In like manner JOSEPHUS understands angels to be meant ;t and, if Bishop Laurence is right in supposing the Book OF ENOCH to have been written by a Jew, before the Christian æra,‡ it should be noticed in this place, as Selden says, "habent; nam quidam nisi 'filios Dei' non habent." August., de Civ. Dei, XV. xxiii. "Qualem lectionem "etsi fuere inter patres qui non agnoscerent, manifestum tamen "est antiquissimam fuisse, eo quod etiam reperiatur in codice "Hellenistarum versionis summæ antiquitatis, quod cimelion "est Serenissimi Regis nostri ad D. Jacobi Bibliothecæ, ex "oriente ante annos aliquot allatum." De Jure, Nat. et Gent., Lib. V., c. 8, Vol. I., p. 534. * De Gigant, p. 263. † Antiq., Lib. i., cap. iii. |