criticism. But suppose the word had meant, what it does not mean, an act
of solemn religious worship; and let it be granted (as I am not only
ready to grant, but prepared to maintain) that Abraham paid religious
adoration at that time, what inference can fairly and honestly be drawn
from that circumstance in favour of the invocation of angels? The
ancient writers of the Christian Church, and those whom the Church of
Rome habitually holds in great respect, are full and clear in
maintaining that the person whom Abraham then addressed, was no created
being, neither angel nor seraph; but the Angel of the Covenant; the
Word, the eternal Son of God, Himself God[11]. Before the visible and
miraculous presence of the God of heaven, who for his own glory and in
carrying on the work of man's salvation, sometimes deigned so to reveal
Himself, the patriarchs of old bowed themselves to the earth. Can this,
with any shadow of {40} reason, be employed to sanction the invocation
of Michael and all the myriads of angels who fill the court of heaven?

[Footnote 10: Not only is the Hebrew word precisely the same,
letter for letter, and point for point, [Hebrew: shahah], but
the Septuagint in each case employs the same, [Greek:
prosekunaesen]; and the Vulgate in each case renders it by the
same word, "adoravit." The Roman Catholic commentator De Sacy
renders it in each case, "se prosternavit," which corresponds
exactly with our English version. The Douay Bible in each case
renders it "adored."]

[Footnote 11: Many early Christian writers may be cited to the
same purpose: it is enough, however, to refer to Justin Martyr
and to Athanasius; who are very full and elaborate in
maintaining, that the angel here mentioned was no created being,
but was the Angel of the Covenant, God, in the fulness of time