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, 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 daßo20s, in the case under examination, is to be understood as used in the same latitude with the Hebrew Satan,

9 Matth. xvi. 23.

which, though commonly interpreted by the Seventy διαβολος, is sometimes rendered επιβουλος, insi diator, 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 Saquon and δαιμονιον. First, as to the word δαιμων, 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 δαιμονιον,

which is also used by Luke in relation to the same demoniac.

§ 8. Δαιμονιον occurs frequently in the Gospels, and always in reference to possessions, real or supposed. But the word daßo205 is never so applied. The use of the term dauovov is as constantly indefinite, as the term Staßo20s 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 dauovov, a demon, or πνευμα ακαθαρτον, an unclean spirit, never το δαιμονιον οι το πνεύμα ακαθαρτον. But when, in the progress of the story, mention is again made of the same demon, he is styled to 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 dauova 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, daßoλos and Samuoviov, occur often in the Septuagint, they are invariably used for translating different Hebrew words. Acaßo20s is always in Hebrew either

tsar, enemy, or jo Satan, adversary, words never translated Sauovov. This word, on the contrary, is made to express some Hebrew term, signifying idol, pagan deity, apparition, or what some

o

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, διαβολος and δαιμονιον, 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 o diaßo20s. Nor are his authority and dominion ever ascribed to Saiμovia: nay, when the discriminating appellations of the devil are occasionally mentioned, dauovov is never given as one. Thus he is called not only o diaβολος, but ο πονηρος, ο πειράζων, ο αντίδικος, ο σατανας, ο δρακων ο μεγας, ο οφις, ο παλαιος, Ὁ αρχών τε κόσμε τότε, ο αρχων της εξουσίας το αερος, and o S805 78 auvos 7878, that is, the devil, the evil one, the tempter, the adversary (this last word answers both to o αντιδικος and ο 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 to dayuoviov, the appellation Samuovior 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 afterwards, 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 10? there is no doubt that o Zaravas and o AaBo20s are the same. Here then, say the objectors, the former of these names is applied to darovia, 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 ", where we have an account of the cure of a woman, who had been bowed down for eighteen years. She is said to

10 Mark, iii. 23.

11 xiii. 11.