swered, if the title he commonly assumed in the hearing of every body was understood to be of the same import? It is urged further, that this phrase is used in the Apocalypse (1: 13,) in describing the vision which the apostle John had of his Master. The answer is the same with that given to the argument, founded on Daniel's vision. First, the phrase is not entirely the same with that by which Jesus distinguishes himself in the Gospel. Our Lord calls himself o vios rou ἀνθρώπου, the Son of man ; John says, ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου, without any article, one like a Son of man, that is, in the human form. It is indeed evident that he is speaking of Jesus Christ; but this is what we gather from the whole description and context, and not from this circumstance alone. 14. But whatever be in this, there are several titles which, in the writings of the apostles and evangelists, are peculiarly applied to our Lord, though they do not often occur. I have already mentioned ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, and ὁ υἱὸς Δαβίδ. Add to these, o ayos rou Osov, the saint, or the holy of God, ó inλenzós Tou cou, the elect, or the chosen one of God, both expressions borrowed from the Prophets. Now, though these terms are in the plural number susceptible of an application to others, both angels and men, they are in the New Testament, when in the singular number and accompanied with the article, evidently appropriated to the Messiah. DISSERTATION VI. INQUIRY INTO THE DIFFERENCES IN THE IMPOrt of some SEVERAL Words in the New Testament considered by our translators as synonymous, and commonly rendered by the same English word, are not really synonymous, though their significations may have an affinity, and though sometimes they may be used indiscriminately. I shall exemplify this remark in a few instances. of words which occur in the Gospels. PART I. Διάβολος, Δαίμων, AND Δαιμόνιον. THE first of this kind on which I intend to make some observations, are διάβολος, δαίμων, and δαιμόνιον, all rendered in the common translation almost invariably devil. The word daßolos, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies calumniator, traducer, false accuser, from the verb diußailer, to calumniate, etc. Though the word is sometimes, both in the Old Testament and in the New, applied to men and women of this character, it is, by way of eminence, employed to denote that apostate angel who is exhibited to us particularly in the New Testament as the great enemy of God and man. In the two first chapters of Job, it is the word in the Septuagint by which the Hebrew Satan, or adversary, is translated. Indeed the Hebrew word in this application, as well as the Greek, has been naturalized in most modern languages. Thus we say indifferently, the Devil or Satan, only the latter has more the appearance of a proper name, as it is not attended with the article. There is this difference between the import of such terms, as occurring in their native tongues, and as modernized in translations. In the former they always retain somewhat of their primitive meaning, and, beside indicating a particular being, or class of beings, they are of the nature of appellatives, and mark a special character or note of distinction in such beings. Whereas, when thus Latinized or English ed, they answer solely the first of these uses, as they come nearer the nature of proper names. This remark extends to all such words as cherub, seraph, angel, apostle, evangelist, messiah. 2. Aiaßolos, I observed, is sometimes applied to human beings. But nothing is easier than to distinguish this application from the more frequent application to the arch-apostate. One mark of distinction is, that, in this last use of the term, it is never found in the plural. When the plural is used, the context always shows that it is human beings, and not fallen angels, that are spoken of. It occurs in the plural only thrice, and only in Paul's Epistles. Γυναῖ κας, says he, ώσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, “ Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers," 1 Tim. 3: 11. In scriptural use the word may be either masculine or feminine. Again, speaking of the bad men who would appear in the last times, he says, amongst other things, that they will be ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι, διάβολοι, in the common translation, "without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers," 2 Tim. 3: 3. Once more, Πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους, “ The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers," Tit. 2: 3. Another criterion whereby the application of this word to the prince of darkness may be discovered, is its being attended with the article. The term almost invariably is o deaßoδιάβο los. I say almost, because there are a few exceptions. 3. It may not be amiss, ere we proceed, to specify the exceptions, that we may discover whether there be any thing in the construction that supplies the place of the article, or at least makes that it may be more easily dispensed with. Paul, addressing himself to Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavored to turn away the proconsul Sergius Paulus from the faith, says, Acts 13: 10, "O full of all subtilty, thou child of the devil," vi diaßólov. There can be no doubt that the apostle here means the evil spirit, agreeably to the idiom of Scripture, where a good man is called a child of God, and a bad man a child of the devil: "Ye are of your father the devil," said our Lord to the Pharisees, John 8: 44. As to the example from the Acts, all I can say is, that in an address of this form, where a vocative is immediately followed by the genitive of the word construed with it, the connexion is conceived to be so close as to render the omission of the article more natural than in other cases. holds especially when, as in the present instance, the address must have been accompanied with some emotion and vehemence in the speaker. I know not whether ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος, “ your adversary the devil," 1 Pet. 5: 8, ought to be considered as an example. There being here two appellatives, the article prefixed to the first may be regarded as common, though I own it is more usual, in such cases, for the greater emphasis, to repeat it. In the word ὃς ἐστι διάβολος καὶ σατανᾶς, “ who is the devil and Satan,” Rev. This 20: 2; as the sole view is to mention the names whereby the malignant spirit is distinguished, we can hardly call this instance an exception. Now these are all the examples I can find, in which the word, though used indefinitely, or without the article, evidently denotes our spiritual and ancient enemy. The examples in which it occurs in this sense, with the article, it were tedious to enumerate. 4. There is only one place, beside those above-mentioned, where the word is found without the article, and, as it is intended to express a human character, though a very bad one, ought not, I think, to have been rendered devil. The words are, "Jesus answered, have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? § vμav diapolós fori; John 6: 70. My reasons for not translating it devil in this place are, first, The word is strictly and originally an appellative, denoting a certain bad quality, and though commonly applied to one particular being, yet naturally applicable to any kind of being susceptible of moral character; secondly, As the term in its appropriation to the arch-rebel always denotes one individual, the term a devil is not agreeable to Scripture style, insomuch that I am inclined to think, that if our Lord's intention had been to use, by an antonomasia, the distinguishing name of the evil spirit, in order to express more strongly the sameness of character in both, he would have said, o diaßolos, one of you is the devil, this being the only way whereby that evil spirit is discriminated. The words avridinos, adversary, nášшv, tempter, with the article, are also used by way of eminence, though not so frequently, to express the same malignant being; yet, when either of these occurs without the article, applied to a man as an adversary or a tempter, we do not suppose any allusion to the devil. The case would be different, if one were denominated o nepásov, ó ávridixos, the tempter, the adver sary. There is not any epithet (for diaßolos is no more than an epithet) by which the same spirit is oftener distinguished than by that of ὁ πονηρός, the evil one. Now, when a man is called simply πονηρός, without the article, no more is understood to be implied than that he is a bad man. But if the expression were o novnoós, unless used to distinguish a bad from a good man of the same name, we should consider it as equivalent to the devil, or the evil one. Even in metaphorical appellations, if a man were denominated, a dragon or a serpent, we should go no further for the import of the metaphor, than to the nature of the animal so called; but if he were termed the dragon, or the old serpent, this would immediately suggest to us, that it was the intention of the speaker to represent the character as the same with that of the seducer of our first parents. The unlearned English reader will object, Where is the impropriety in speaking of a devil? Is any thing more common in the New Testament? How often is there mention of persons possessed with a devil? We hear too of numbers of them. Out of Mary Magdalene went seven; and out of the furious man who made the sepulchres his residence, a legion. The Greek student needs not be informed, that in none of those places is the term διάβολος, but δαίμων οι δαιμόνιον. Nor can any thing be clearer from Scripture than that, though the demons are innumerable, there is but one devil in the universe. Besides, if we must suppose that this word, when applied to human creatures, bears at the same time an allusion to the evil spirit, there is the same reason for rendering it devil in the three passages lately quoted from Paul; for, wherever the indefinite use is proper in the singular, there can be no impropriety in the use of the plural. Both equally suppose that there may be many of the sort. Now it is plain, that those passages would lose greatly by such an alteration. Instead of pointing, according to the manifest scope of the place, to a particular bad quality to be avoided, or a vice whereby certain dangerous persons would be distinguished, it could only serve as a vague expression of what is bad in general, and so would convey little or no instruction. 5. The only plea I know in favor of the common translation of the passage is, that by the help of the trope antonomasia, (for devil in our language has much of the force of a proper name), the expression has more strength and animation than a mere appellative could give it. But that the expression is more animated, is so far from being an argument in its favor, that it is, in my judgment, the contrary. It savors more of the human spirit than of the divine, more of the translator than of the author. We are inclinable to put that expression into an author's mouth, which we should, on such an occasion, have chosen ourselves. When affected with anger or resentment, we always desert the proper terms, for those tropes which will convey our sentiment with most asperity. This is not the manner of our Lord, especially in cases wherein he limself is the direct object of either injury or insult. Apposite thoughts, clothed in the plainest expressions, are much more characteristic of his manner. When there appears severity in what he says, it will be found to arise from the truth and pertinency of the thought, and not from a curious selection of cutting and reproachful words. This would be but ill adapted to the patience, the meekness, and the humility of his character; not to mention, that it would be little of a piece with the account given of the rest of his sufferings. I know it may be objected, that the rebuke given to Peter, (Matt. 16: 23), "Get thee behind me, Satan," is conceived in terms as harsh, though the provocation was far from being equal. The answer is much the same in regard to both. Satan, though conceived by us as a proper name, was an appellative in the language spoken by our Lord; for, from the Hebrew it passed into the Syriac, and signified no more than adversary or opponent. It is |