all men. He must be apt to teach; he must be patient; and in meekness he must instruct those in the snare of the devil, or those who oppose themselves, who have not repented and acknowledged the truth. It should seem then, that both from the situation of those persons, and also the way in which they are delivered, the snare of the devil is their opposition to the gospel, and the various ways and means by which its enemies prevented men from believing it. M'Knight says"The snare of the devil, out of which the opposers of the gospel are to be taken alive by the servant of the Lord, signifies those prejudices, and errors, and habits of sensuality, which hindered both Jews and Gentiles in the first age from attending to the evidences of the gospel." In this view the snare of the devil is stated, Col. i. 13, Rom. vi. 17, and their recovery out of it, Acts xxvi. 18, and many other similar passages.

James iv. 7. "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The preceding verses point out this devil to be envy and pride, or their evil lusts and passions. Comp. chap. iii. 15, 16 and i. 13. That men's lusts and passions are called the devil and satan in other passages has been shown. Instead of indulging these, we are called to resist them. Comp. verse 8. It is easily understood how we can resist such a devil as this; but we have no clear ideas on the subject, to understand it of an invisible, fallen angel. The terms devil and satan, being used to designate men's evil lusts and passions, appear to be the foundation of all the other senses in which those terms are used in Scripture. It was Judas' evil lusts, which made him a devil, and on this account these terms are used to designate the enemies of the gospel. In short, it is such evil lusts and passions, which make men satans or devils. Accordingly, it is difficult to decide in

some texts, to which these terms are applied. Nor is it of importance to decide; hence, in some texts, we have given both views as agreeable to the Scripture usage of these terms.

Jude 9. "Yet Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil (he disputed about the body of Moses) durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee." Whitby, in his preface to Jude, quoting from Dr. Lightfoot, says: "In citing the story of Michael, the archangel, contending with the devil about the body of Moses, verse 9, he doth but the same that Paul doth, in naming Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. iii. 8, namely, allege a story which was current, and owned among that nation, though there was no such thing in Scripture; and so he argueth with them, from their own authors and concessions: for among the Talmudists, there seems to be something like the relics of such a matter, viz. of Michael and the angel of death, disputing, or discoursing, about fetching away the soul of Moses." Jude here, then, reasons with the persons he addresses, on a received story among them, for the purpose of refuting their wicked conduct in speaking evil of dignities. In this, he acted as our Lord did, in reasoning on the popular opinion, that satan had bound a woman eighteen years, for the purpose of refuting his adversaries. But the truth of this story is no more admitted in the one case, than the correctness of the opinion is in the other. Both are introduced merely for the sake of argument, without any regard to their truth or falsehood. This story about Michael and the devil must have been invented about the time of the Babylonish captivity or soon after it. Before the captivity we never read of angels having names. Nor before the captivity, does it appear, that the Jews knew any thing about a fallen

called the devil and satan. Besides, the words which Michael used in dispute with the devil," the Lord rebuke thee," are taken from Zachariah iii. 2, and it is well known that Zachariah prophesied during the captivity. See on this passage Sect. ii. The following quotation from Jahn, not only shows us, that similar opinions to that in the passage before us existed among the Jews, but when and how they came to adopt them. He says, pages 235-6: "The more recent Hebrews, adhering too strictly to the letter of their Scriptures, exercised their ingenuity, and put in requisition their faith, to furnish the monarch Death with a subordinate agent or angel, viz. the prince of bad spirits, ho diabolos, otherwise called Sammael, and also Ashmedai, and known in the New Testament by the phrases, the prince of this world, the tempter, who hath the power of death. The Hebrews, accordingly in enumerating the attributes and offices of the prime minister of the terrific king of Hades, represent him as in the habit of making his appearance in the presence of God, and demanding at the hand of the Divinity the extinction, in any given instance, of human life. Having obtained permission to that effect, he does not fail of making a prompt exhibition of himself to the sick; he then gives them drops of poison, which they drink and die. Comp. John xiv. 30, Hebrews ii. 14. Hence originate the phrases, "to taste of death," and "to drink the cup of death," which are found also among the Syrians, Arabians, and Persians, Matthew xvi. 28, Mark ix. 1, Luke ix. 27, John viii. 52, Hebrews ii. 9." It appears from this quotation, that "the more recent Hebrews," furnished death with an angel, the prince of bad spirits. But the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about such a being; and where could "the more recent Hebrews" imbibe such opinions but during

their captivity, and from their intercourse with the heathen? See Section iv. Jahn allows, that "adhering too strictly to the letter of their Scriptures," they "exercised their ingenuity" to get their Scriptures to favor such opinions. Christians have imbibed the Jewish opinions, and have exercised like ingenuity to find proof for them in the New Testament.

Rev. ii. 10. "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days; be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." It will not be questioned, that what John calls satan, verses 9, 13, 24, and chap. iii. 9, he here calls the devil. See remarks on all these passages, Section V., which are here sufficient for an illustration. Suffer ine to ask, does any one believe that the devil, a fallen angel, ever cast Christians into prison? No; but the adversaries of Christianity, then and since, have often done this. It will not answer to say, the devil, a fallen angel, influenced the enemies of the gospel to cast Christians into prison, for this is just taking for granted the point in question. But, are our orthodox brethren aware, that their faith in the devil influencing men to sin, militates against the doctrine of total depravity? What need is there of such a being's assistance? Total depravity is sufficient without him to produce all manner of wickedness. If men would be less wicked, without the devil's influence, then they are not so bad but he can make them worse: and who can tell but they might all be very good if he would only let them alone? Mankind are wicked enough, but all their wickedness arises from a different source. "From whence come wars and fightings? Come they not

hence of your lusts which war in your members?" Is the assistance of a fallen angel required to produce them? But the reader may pursue these reflections at his leisure.

SECTION VII.

ALL THE PASSAGES CONSIDERED, IN WHICH THE TERMS DEVIL AND SATAN ARE USED SYNONYMOUSLY.

THE first passages which present themselves for our consideration are Matth. iv. 1-12; Mark i. 12, 13, and Luke iv. 1-14, containing an account of our Lord's temptation. The reader will please turn to them and read them. Most religious people interpret this account literally. But concerning a literal interpretation, Esseņus thus writes, pp. 117-120. "The history of our Lord's temptation is commonly understood in a literal sense. Satan is supposed to be a real being; to have actually appeared and conversed with our Saviour. Having taken him up through the air to the top of the temple, and thence to some high mountain, he tempted him in the manner represented in the narrative. This interpretation is loaded not only with difficulties, but even with absurdities shocking to common sense. The learned Mr. Farmer has examined the question; and his objections to the literal translation are so numerous and decisive, that no thinking person can accede to it, without abandoning the first and most obvious principle of reason, and the tenor of the gospel. 'Why the devil at all assaulted our Lord, and what advantage he could possibly gain