Page images


tinction 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. Γυναικας, says he 1, ωσαύτως σεμνας, μη διαβολος, Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers. 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 αςοργοι, ασπονδοι, διαBohol, in the common translation, without natural af. fection, truce-breakers, false accusers. Once more, Πρεσβυτιδας ώσαύτως εν καταςηματι ιεροπρεπεις, μη diaboars. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers. 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 al. most invariably is o diaBohos. 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, ad. dressing himself to Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavoured to turn away the proconsul Sergius Paulus

11 Tim, iji. 11.

2 2 Tim. iii. 3.

3 Tit. ii, 3.

from the faith, says “, O full of all subtilty, thou child of the devil, üle daßone. 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 '. 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 connection is conceived to be so close as to render the omission of the article more natural than in other cases. This 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 o avtıdıxos vuur diaβολος", your adversary the devil, 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 oς εςι διαβολος και σατανας', who 15 the devil and satan; 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

* Acts, xiii. 10.
6 1 Pet. v.


5 John, viii. 44.
7 Rev. xx. 2.

enemy. The examples in which it occurs in this
sense, with the article, it were tedious to enumerate.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

$ 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 I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? vuor 'els daßonos esc". 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 mo. ral 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 daßoros, one of

you is the devil, this being the only way whereby that evil spirit is discriminated. The words avtiδικος adversary, πειραζων 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

[ocr errors]

John yi. 70.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

do not suppose any allusion to the devil. The case
would be different, if one were denominated '•

afwv, 6 avridıxos, the tempter, the adversary.

There is not any epithet (for diaboros is no more than an epithet) by which the same spirit is oftener distinguished, than by that of o rovnpos, the evil one. Now, when a man is called simply rovnpos, without the article, no more is understood to be implied than that he is a bad man. But if the expression were


Trovnpos, 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 farther 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 diaboaos, but δαιμων or δαιμονιον. Νor can any thing be clearer from Scripture than that, though the demons are innumerable, there is but one devil in


[ocr errors]

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 devils, 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 equal-
ly suppose that there may be many of the sort.
Now, it is plain that those passages would lose great-
ly, by such an alteration. Instead of pointing, ac-
cording to the manifest scope of the place, to a par-
ticular 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 in,

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

§ 5. The only plea I know, in favour of the com. mon translation of the passage is, that, by the help of the trope antonomasia (for devil in our language has much 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


VOL. 1.

« PreviousContinue »