chon, Principles; so essentially, that they could not cease to be so, even after the fall.

But the truth is, as it appears to me, the doctrine of tutelary angels, properly so called, and understood in that sense in which the bishop endeavours to confute it which is the doctrine of created spirits, of a kind superior to human, but good, delegated and deputed by the Supreme Being to have the charge of particular countries, or particular portions of mankind-is not concerned in the solution of this present question. For, as far as I can see my way by the light of scripture, through what is confessedly a mysterious and doubtful subject, I think there is reason to come to the conclusion, that the notion of archon, or ruling spirits, as far as regards our own world more especially— having power, dominion, or jurisdiction over particular nations or countries, with the exception of the Jews under the old dispensation, and of Christians under the new, is not to be indiscriminately applied to the angels, but to be confined to the evil angels in particular. Bishop Horsley (p. 377) adverts to the possibility that the Prince of Persia and the Prince of Grecia might be angels of this description; but then, he contends, they could not in that case be tutelar angels of Greece or Persia, or of any other country. And while I allow him his conclusion, that no evil angel could be a tutelar angel, (which would be a contradiction in terms,) still, if there is any foundation for the opinion which I have just expressed, it will not follow that an evil angel, though no tutelar angel, might not be an archon or ruling angel.

To enter at large upon the reasons which have induced me to form this opinion, would take up too much time, and would require the review of too many texts

of scripture, to be at present attempted. I can only refer to them in a general manner; which, perhaps, will not be considered to do them justice: but this I will venture to say, that if the reader of scripture, and of the New Testament in particular, will take this persuasion along with him, he will find it throw a wonderful light upon many obscure passages of Holy Writ, as well as greatly illustrate the scheme of human redemption in general.

Now, I think, this mystery or secret of the angelic world, if I may so call it, is intimated in the allusion to the fallen angels at Jude 6: which the Bible translation has rendered, "The Angels that kept not their first estate;" but which would more properly have been rendered, "The Angels, that kept not their own dominion" for the words of the Greek are, 'Ayyéλous τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν—where though apy may denote beginning, it may also denote dominion; and though τηρῆσαι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν may well be rendered, to keep their own dominion, it cannot properly be rendered, to keep their own beginning― which would be just as unnatural a mode of speaking in Greek as in English. Our translators appear to have been sensible of this, when, while they rendered Tηpñσa by keeping, its natural sense, they softened and qualified the proper sense of apyn, by what they considered equivalent to beginning; viz. first estate: which however was not to render, but to paraphrase, the Greek. To keep their first estate might be an allowable phrase in our language; but to keep their beginning was scarcely so.

We find the Tempter, in the presence of our Lord himself, and at the time of the third temptation, when he could not but know the truth of his character and relation as the Son of the Most High God; claiming to him

self the disposal of the kingdoms of the world, and the right of giving them to whom he would; Matt. iv. 9. Luke iv. 6: and we do not find our Saviour denying this right, or disallowing this claim; from which we cannot but conclude, I think, that it must have been true in some sense or other-which would argue that he was so far the Lord of the world in the strictest sense of the term particularly too, as he uses such language in speaking of this right, as not to imply that he claimed it absolutely as his own, as derived and held from himself, but as received in trust, as something which had been committed to him by another; ori éμoì IIAΡΑΔΕΔΟΤΑΙ (sc. ἡ ἐξουσία αὕτη ἅπασα) καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν.

We find our Saviour on three several occasions describing this Being, as the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: John xii. 31. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. We find St. Paul applying the title of archons or rulers of this world, to this Being and his angels generally; 1 Cor. ii. 6. and 8. We find the same apostle designating this Being in particular, as the God Toû aivos TOUTOU: 2 Cor. iv. 3. 4. We find the same apostle designating him as the archon of the authority of the air; Ephesians ii. 2: which is but another way of speaking for the archon Twv eovσiv Twv άepíwv: where while the epithet, aerial, will describe the seat of their abode, or locality of their residence, so the appellative, ¿¿ovoía, the abstract being put for the concrete, will describe the capacity in which they are supposed to reside and to dwell there collectively; viz. in the relation of rulers and superiors of some kind, and with some jurisdiction or other, which is most naturally to be presumed to be that of this lower world, of which the air itself forms a part. We find the same apostle, describing this Being and his angels collectively, Ephesians vi. 12, not only as vevμatika

TS TOνnpías, which defines their nature, or what they are in themselves, but as ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι, which implies their relation to other things, as governing or authority-having principles in general; and as the κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, which describes their relation to this world in the same capacity in particular, and under a compound designation is equivalent to aрxovтes тоû кóσμov, used of them, to express the same relation before.

It would be easy to multiply testimonies to the same effect, directly or indirectly, from other passages of scripture. But these are sufficient to shew what the established language of sacred writ is, in speaking of the Devil and his angels, more especially with reference to this present world and this present state of things, in connection with which alone we know any thing of them, or have any interest in their being and agency: viz. as beings or principles, whose specific relation to this world is that of ἄρχοντες, ἐξουσίαι, κυριότητες—whose jurisdiction over it is limited in one respect, and one only—archons, authorities, rulers, and governors of this part of the world, whose power and supremacy extend over all but the people of God as such-the Jews under the Mosaic dispensation, and the Christians under the Gospel.

Now this being the case, it is certainly in unison with that mode of speaking, that the archon of the kingdom of Persia, and the archon of Greece, should be mentioned in the Book of Daniel, and the archon of Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel; and all three as coordinate powers or rulers of this description—or the two former as subordinate powers, belonging to the number in general, and the last of them, to judge from the terms in which he is spoken of, which are much too magnificent to apply in strict propriety to any but

the most exalted among them, very possibly as the chief of all, as the head of those powers and rulers in particular. It is in unison with it, too, that while Persia and Greece have each their ruler or archon, and each one opposed to the angel Gabriel, and to his labours for the good of Daniel and of his people; this people, too, have their archon or ruler in the person of Michael, "the prince of princes," or archon of archons, (viii. 25.)—one of the chief, the first, or the capital archons or princes, (x. 13.)-the great archon or prince, (xii. 1.) who holds with Gabriel in this capacity, in behalf of his people, who stands up for them, in the last extremity, who fights with those that fight against them, and treats all as the enemies of himself, who are the enemies of them.

I have thought it necessary to say thus much, to vindicate the literal construction of the text of Daniel in this present instance; especially against so formidable an authority as the name of bishop Horsley. But as to pretending to explain in what way the parties concerned in this reciprocal warfare, the Prince of Persia and the Prince of Greece on the one hand, and the angel Gabriel, and Michael their prince on the other, discharged their respective parts, the one in opposing and thwarting, the other in abetting and promoting, the counsels of God for the good of his peopleit would be to presume to be wise beyond what is written, were we to attempt to do that. It would be to pry into secrets, which are inaccessible to the eyes of flesh. Spiritual enemies must carry on a spiritual warfare; and a spiritual warfare must be maintained with spiritual weapons, and by spiritual modes of attack or defence: concerning which we can know or conceive but little at present. The influence of spirits indeed upon agents of a different description, may be called into ac