tures, 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 favour 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 favour, that it is, in my judgment, the contrary. It savours 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 himself 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. xvi. 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 naturally just as applicable to human as to spiritual agents, and is, in the Old Testament, often so applied.

6. I acknowledge that the word daßolos, in the case under examination, is to be understood as used in the same latitude with the Hebrew satan, which, though commonly interpreted by the Seventy Saẞodos, is sometimes rendered Bovλos, insidiator, and may be here fitly translated into English, either spy or informer. The Scribes and Pharisees, in consequence of their

knowledge of the opposition between our Lord's doctrine and theirs, had conceived an envy of him, which settled into malice and hatred, insomuch that they needed no accuser. But though Judas did not properly accuse his Master to them as a criminal, the purpose which he engaged to the scribes, the chief-priests, and the elders, to execute, was to observe his motions, and inform them when and where he might be apprehended privately without tumult, and to conduct their servants to the place. The term used was therefore pertinent, but rather soft than severe. He calls him barely spy or informer, whom he might have called traitor and perfidious.

7. It is now proper to inquire, secondly, into the use that has been made of the terms dauwv and Sapoviov. First, as to the word dawv, it occurs only five times in the New Testament, once in each of the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and twice in the Apocalypse. It is remarkable, that in the three Gospels it refers to the same possession, to wit, that of the furious man in the country of the Gadarenes, who haunted the sepulchres. There does not, however, seem to be any material difference in this application from that of the diminutive dauovov, which is also used by Luke in relation to the same demoniac.

8. Aayuoviov occurs frequently in the Gospels, and always in reference to possessions, real or supposed. But the word daßodos is never so applied. The use of the term daioviov is as constantly indefinite as the term Staßolos is definite. Not but that it is sometimes attended with the article; but that is only when the ordinary rules of composition require that the article be used, even of a term that is strictly indefinite. Thus, when a possession is first named, it is called simply dayμoviov, a demon, or пvevμa akaθαρτον, an unclean spirit, never το δαιμονιον or το πνεύμα ακαOaprov. But when, in the progress of the story, mention is again made of the same demon, he is styled ro daioviov, the demon, namely, that already spoken of. And in English, as well as Greek, this is the usage with respect to all indefinites. Further, the plural Saluovia occurs frequently, applied to the same order of beings with the singular. But what sets the difference of signification in the clearest light is, that though both words, διαβολος and δαιμοviov, occur often in the Septuagint, they are invariably used for translating different Hebrew words. Alaßolos is always in Hebrew either tsar, enemy, or jo satan, adversary, words never translated daioviov. This word, on the contrary, is made to express some Hebrew term, signifying idol, pagan deity, apparition, or what some render satyr. What the precise idea of the demons, to whom possessions were ascribed, then was, it would perhaps be impossible for us with any certainty to affirm; but as it is evident that the two words Staßolos and Saμoviov are not once confounded, though the first occurs in the New Testament upwards of thirty times, and the second about sixty, they can, by

no just rule of interpretation, be rendered by the same term. Possessions are never attributed to the being termed & diaCoλos; nor are his authority and dominion ever ascribed to daμovia: nay, when the discriminating appellations of the devil are occasionally mentioned, dauovov is never given as one. Thus he is called not only ὁ διάβολος, but ὁ πονηρος, ὁ πειράξων, ὁ αντίδικος, ὁ σατανας, ὁ δρακων ὁ μεγας, ὁ οφις ὁ παλαιος, ὁ αρχων του κόσμου τούτου, 8 αρχων της εξουσίας του αέρος, and ὁ θεος του αιώνος τούτου, that is, the devil, the evil one, the tempter, the adversary, (this last word answers both to ο αντίδικος and ὁ σατανας, which cannot be translated differently,) the great dragon, the old serpent, the prince of this world, the prince of the power of the air, and the god of this world. But there is no such being as ro Sapoviov, the appellation daμovov being common to multitudes, whilst the other is always represented as a singular being, the only one of his kind. Not that the Jewish notion of the devil had any resemblance to what the Persians first, and the Manicheans afterward, called the evil principle, which they made in some sort co-ordinate with God, and the first source of all evil, as the other is of good. For the devil, in the Jewish system, was a creature, as much as any other being in the universe, and as liable to be controlled by omnipotence, an attribute which they ascribed to God alone. But still the devil is spoken of as only one; and other beings, however bad, are never confounded with him.

9. I know but two passages of the history that have the appearance of exceptions from this remark. One is that wherein our Lord, when accused of casting out demons by the prince of demons, says in return, "How can satan cast out satan?" Mark iii. 23. There is no doubt that & σaravaç and & Staßoλos are the same. Here then, say the objectors, the former of these names is applied to daiovia, which seems to show an intercommunity of names. Yet it must be observed, that this term satan is introduced only in the way of illustration by similitude, as the divisions in kingdoms and families also are. The utmost that can be deduced from such an example is, that they are malignant beings as well as he, engaged in the same bad cause, and perhaps of the number of those called his angels, and made to serve as his instruments. But this is no evidence that he and they are the same. The other passage is in Luke xiii. 11, where we have an account of the cure of a woman who had been bowed down for eighteen years. She is said to have had a spirit of infirmity; and our Lord himself says that Satan had bound her, ver. 16. But let it be observed, first, That nothing is said that implies possession. She is not called Sapoviloμevn, a demoniac. Our Saviour is not said to dispossess the demon, but to loose her from her infirmity. Secondly, that it is a common idiom among the Jews to put spirit before any quality ascribed to a person, whether it be good or bad, mental or corporeal. Thus the spirit of fear,

the spirit of meekness, the spirit of slumber, the spirit of jealousy, are used to express habitual fear, &c. Thirdly, That the ascribing of her disease to Satan does not imply possession. The former is frequent, even where there is no insinuation of the latter. All the diseased whom our Lord healed are said to have been oppressed by the devil, úrо Tov diaßodov, Acts x. 38. All Job's afflictions are ascribed to Satan as the cause, Job. i. and ii.: yet Job is nowhere represented as a demoniac.

10. A late learned and ingenious author (Dr. Farmer) has written an elaborate dissertation, to evince that there was no real possession in the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospels, but that the style there employed was adopted merely in conformity to popular prejudices, and used of a natural disease. His hypothesis is by no means necessary for supporting the distinction which I have been illustrating, and which is founded purely on scriptural usage. Concerning his doctrine I shall only say, in passing, that if there had been no more to urge from sacred writ, in favour of the common opinion, than the name dayμoviloμevoç, or even the phrases δαιμονιον εχειν, εκβαλλειν, &c., I should have thought his explanation at least not improbable. But when I find mention made of the number of demons in particular possessions, their actions expressly distinguished from those of the man possessed, conversations held by the former about the disposal of them after their expulsion, and accounts given how they were actually disposed of; when I find desires and passions ascribed peculiarly to them, and similitudes taken from the conduct which they usually observe; it is impossible for me to deny their existence without admitting, that the sacred historians were either deceived themselves in regard to them, or intended to deceive their readers. Nay, if they were faithful historians, this reflection, I am afraid, will strike still deeper. But this only by the way. To enter further into the question here, would be foreign to my purpose. The reader of Dr. Farmer's performance, which is written very plausibly, will judge for himself.

11. I observe further, that though we cannot discover with certainty, from all that is said in the Gospel concerning possession, whether the demons were conceived to be the ghosts of wicked men deceased, or lapsed angels, or (as was the opinion of some early Christian writers) † the mongrel breed of certain angels, (whom they understood by the sons of God mentioned in

The following observation from the judicious Mr. Jortin's excellent remarks on Ecclesiastical History, (2d edit. vol. i. p. 10,) appears to me a strong confirmation of the judgment I have given. "In the New Testament, where any circumstances are added concerning the demoniacs, they are generally such as show that there was something preternatural in the distemper; for these disordered persons agreed in one story, and paid homage to Christ and to his apostles, which is not to be expected from madmen, of whom some would have worshipped, and others would have reviled Christ, according to the various humour and behaviour observable in such persons."

Just. M. Apol. i.

Genesis vi. 2,) and of the daughters of men; it is plain they were conceived to be malignant spirits. They are exhibited as the causes of the most direful calamities to the unhappy persons whom they possess, dumbness, deafness, madness, palsy, epilepsy, and the like. The descriptive titles given them always denote some ill quality or other. Most frequently they are called VEVματα ακαθαρτα, unclean spirits, sometimes πνεύματα πονηρα, malign spirits. They are represented as conscious that they are doomed to misery and torments, though their punishment be for a while suspended: "Art thou come hither," Baoavioaι nμas, “to torment us before the time?" Matt. viii. 29.

12. But, though this is the character of those demons, who were dislodged by our Lord out of the bodies of men and women possessed by them, it does not follow that the word demon always conveys this bad sense, even in the New Testament. This having been a word much in use among the heathen, from whom the Hellenist Jews first borrowed it, it is reasonable to expect, that, when it is used in speaking of Pagans, their customs, worship, and opinions, more especially when Pagans are represented as employing the term, the sense should be that which is conformable, or nearly so, to classical use. Now, in classical use, the word signified a divine being, though not in the highest order of their divinities, and therefore supposed not equivalent to ɛoç, but superior to human, and consequently, by the maxims of their theology, a proper object of admiration. "All demons." says Plato, 66 are an intermediate order between God and mortals."* But though they commonly used the term in a good sense, they did not so always. They had evil demons as well as good. "Juxta usurpatam," says Calcidius, "penes Græcos loquendi consuetudinem, tam sancti sunt dæmones quam profesti et infidi." But when no bad quality is ascribed to the demon or demons spoken of, and nothing affirmed that implies it, the acceptation of the term in Pagan writers is generally favourable. Who has not heard of the demon of Socrates?

13. In this way the word is to be understood in the only passage of the Acts, (xvii. 18,) where it occurs; 'Oi de, Eevwv daioviv SOKEL KATAYYEλEve Eva, "Others said, he seemeth to be a setter δοκει καταγγελεύς είναι, forth of strange gods." So our translators render it. The reason of this verdict is added, "because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection,” τον Ιησουν και την Αναστασιν. They supposed the former to be a male, and the latter a female divinity; for it was customary with them to deify abstract qualities, making them either gods or goddesses, as suited the gender of the name. This, if I remember right, is the only passage in the New Testament in which daovia is not rendered devils, but gods. If our translators had adhered to their method of rendering this word in every other instance, and said, "He seemeth to be a setter forth * Παν το δαιμονιον μεταξύ εστι θεου τε και θνητου. Sympos.