but an embodiment of the serpent idea; so that they are all calumniators of God in disbelieving His promises, and disobeying His commandments. Hence, Jesus could say to the Pharisees, "Ye serpents, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. xxiii. 33); and again, "Ye are of your father the devil (slanderer, serpent), and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning (he brought death upon mankind by inciting Adam and Eve to dis obedience), and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him.

When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it" (John viii. 44). All who are in the first Adam, are "the children of the devil,' because they are the progeny of a serpent-devil contaminated paternity. Their mortality is evidence of this, whatever be their moral qualities, because mortality is the fruit of the serpent-devil conceit operating in Adam to disobedience. But those who upon a belief of the promises of God, are introduced into "the second Adam" (who in his death destroyed the bonds of the devil in taking away sin), are emancipated from the family of the devil, and become sons of God.

the

Progeny is according to paternity; like produces like; "Children of the devil" must be devil; and hence it is that the world of human nature as a whole is regarded as the devil, because it is the embodiment of the devil principle. That principle originated in a personal agent; and for that reason, principle retains the personality of the originator in common discourse, for the sake of convenience; and thus by a very natural process, the abstract principle which lies at the bottom of human misery and mortality is personified. Hence, Jesus destroying the devil and his works, is Jesus taking away the sin of the world, which will ultimate in the complete abolition of human nature

on the Adam or serpent basis, and the swallowing up of death in victory. It will be the suppression of the prevailing order of things, and the establishment of a new one, in which righteousness and peace will reign triumphant, and the knowledge of God will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.

The temptation of Jesus is usually cited in opposition to these conclusions; it is supposed that this incontestibly proves the personality and power of the Bible devil. The great feature of the narrative relied upon, is the application of the word "devil to the tempter; but this proves nothing. If Judas could be a devil and yet be a man (Jno. vi. 70), why may the tempter of Jesus not have been a man? His being called "devil" proves nothing. But what about taking him to the pinnacle of the temple? it is asked: does it not require something more than human power to carry a man through the air to the top of a steeple? If this was what happened, it would, doubtless, be a little difficult to explain; but this is not so. The pinnacle of the temple, as we are informed by Josephus, was an elevated court or promenade, which, on one side, overlooked the depths of the valley of Jehosaphat to a depth of 200 feet, and offered the facility for selfdestruction which the tempter asked Jesus to wantonly brave, on the strength of a promise made in reference to inevitable suffering. To this court, the tempter, doubtless, walked with Jesus, and made the vain proposal suggested by the circumstances. The objector will then point to Christ's conveyance to a high mountain," from which the devil"showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." It is obvious that this must be taken in a limited sense; for the fact of ascending a mountain, to see what was to be witnessed, shows that the field of vision was in proportion to the altitude. From the top of one of the Syrian mountains, a

66

radius of eighty or a hundred miles, would be within range of the eye, and from the clearness of the atmosphere in the east, every part of the country so overlooked would be distinctly seen. The tract of country so seen would be Judea and neighbouring provinces. The offer of power would therefore relate to these. If it be contended that Christ was absolutely and miraculously shown "all the kingdoms of the world," what shall be alleged as the reason for the tempter ascending an elevation to show him them? This would have been no assistance to see 66 "" ALL the countries earth. If there was anything supernatural in it, there was no necessity for going up a hill at all.

on

But who was the devil who thus busied himself to subvert Jesus from the path of obedience? The answer is, it is impossible to say positively who he was. As in the case of Job's Satan, we can only be positive as to who he was not. Various probabilities are suggested by the circumstances of the temptation according to the phase in which they are contemplated. Some think the devil in the case was Christ's own inclinations: but this is untenable in view of the statement that 66 When the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season (Luke iv. 13). It is also untenable in view of the harmony that existed between the mind of Christ and the will of the Father (Jno. viii. 29). It has been suggested, from the fact that the tempter had power to allot the provinces of the Roman world, that he was a leading functionary of state, or the Roman emperor himself. Others have contended that, not the Roman emperor, but the angel controlling his position, could say concerning "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them," "these are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I will give them." A fourth suggestion has been that the temptation took place in vision

or trance.

Be these suggestions true or false, the temptation affords no real countenance to the popular theory which it is brought forward to prove. In fact, there is no real countenance to that theory in any part of the Bible. The countenance is only apparent; it is all an appearance, the chief power of which lies in the fact that there is a personal-devil theory of pagan origin extant, and taught from the days of infancy. Bible words and pagan theories are put together and made to fit; and superficially considered, the result is striking and impressive, and highly demonstrative of a personal devil. It is, however, a mere juggle and a deception of the most mischievous kind; a magic lantern contrivance by which, out of the dark box of ignorance, the sickly light of distorted information is made to flash forth upon the out-spread surface of know-nothingism, the hideous form of incarnate malignity which appears to sight as if real, while it is nothing more than shadow reflected from the slides of ancient superstition.

DEMONS.

a

It would be unwise to conclude the subject without a few words on "devils," in which the reader may see some lurking evidence of personal supernatural diabolism. As to the Old Testament, the word is only found four times, viz., in Lev. xvii. 7; Deut. xxxii. 17; 2 Chron. xi. 15; and Psalm cvi. 37. These passages only require to be read for the reader to see, that so far as the Old Testament is concerned, the word "devils," in Bible use, is applied very differently from that which popular views of the subject would indicate. For instance

"They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; TO GODS whom they ew not, to NEW GODS that came newly up, waom your fathers feared not (Deut. xxxii. 17).

Here the "devils" sacrificed to by Israel, were the idols of the heathen. This is still more apparent from Psalm cvi. 35, 37

"They were mingled among the heathen and learned their works; and they served their idols, which were a snare unto them-yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed UNTO THE IDOLS OF CANAAN."

"

It is needless to say that the idols of Canaan were "lifeless blocks of wood and stone,' and that, therefore, their designation as "devils shows that the Old Testament use of the word gives no countenance to the idea that "devils" are personal beings, of a malignant order, aiding and abetting, and serving the great devil in his works of mischief and damnation.

But it is to the New Testament that the orthodox believer will point, as the great stronghold for this belief. Thither we shall go, and with a result, we shall find, as unavailing for the popular creed, as that which has attended all the foregoing endeavours. In the first place, Paul's use of the word in the same way as it is used in the Old Testament, suggests that Paul ignored the Pagan view of the matter. He says "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; ye cannot be takers of the Lord's table and of the partable of devils" (1 Cor. x. 20, 21). Now, that "devils" here applies to the idols of Pagan worship is manifest; first, from the fact that the sacrifices of the Gentiles offered at the shrines of the idol-gods of their own superstition ; and second, from the following words of Paul in the same chapter: "What say I then, that the idol is anything? or that which is offered in sacrifice TO THE IDOLS is anything?" (verse 19). This is conclusive. Paul applies the word "devils" to idols, of which he says, "We know that an idol is NOTHING in the world" (1 Cor. viii. 4). Ergo, the word "devils," as used by Paul, lends no countenance to the popular view.

were

Of course, the reader will under

stand that "devils," in the original Greek, is a different word from that translated "devil.' The distinction between the two must be recognised, in order to appreciate the explanation applicable to "devils," as distinct from "devil." While "devil" is, in the original diabolos, "devils" is the plural of daimon, which has a very different meaning from diabolos. Daimon was the name given by the Greeks to beings imagined by them to exist in the air, and to act a mediatorial part between God and man, for good or evil. These imaginary beings would be expressed in English by demon, evil genius, or tutelar deity, all of which belong to Pagan mythology, and have no place in the system of the truth. We quote the following observations on the subject from Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon in exemplification of the origin of the idea

"DAIMONION, from daimon-a deity, a god, or more accurately, some power or supposed intelligence in that grand object of heathen idolatry, the material heavens or air. Thus the word is generally applied by the LXX, who use it, Isa. xv. II, for the destructive troop or powers of the heavens in thunder, lightning, storm, &c., in Deut. xxxii. 17; Psalm cvi. 37, for the pourers forth or genial powers of nature;. and, as by the mid-day demon, Psalm xci. 6, we may be certain they intended not a devil, but a pernicious blast of air-Comp. Isa. xxviii. 2-in the Hebrew; so from this and the forecited passages, we can be at no loss to know what they meant, when in their translation of Psalm xcvi. 5, they say, All the Gods of the Gentiles are daimonia, i.e. not devils, but some powers or imaginary intelligence of material nature. Most expressive are the words of Plato in Sympos. Every demon is a middle being between God and mortal men.' If you ask what he means by 'middle being,' he will tell you. 'God is not approached immediately by man, but all the commerce and intercourse between gods and men is performed by the mediation of demons.' Would you see the particulars? 'Demons are reporters and carriers from men to the Gods, and again from the Gods to men, ot the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other. Besides those original material mediators, or the intelligence, residing in them, whom Apuleius calls a higher kind of demons, who were always free from the incumbrances of the body, and out of which higher order Plato supposes that guardians were appointed unto men-Besides these, the heathen acknowledged another sort, namely, 'the souls of men deified or canonised after death.' So Hesiod,

one of the most ancient heathen writers, describing that happy race of men who lived in the first and golden age of the world, saith that 'after this generation were dead, they were, by the will of great Jupiter, promoted to be demons, keepers of mortal men, observers of their good and evil works, clothed in air, always walking about the earth, givers of riches; and this, saith be, 'is the royal honour that they enjoy.' Plato concurs with Hesiod, and asserts that he and many other poets speak excellently, who affirm that when good men die, they attain great honour and dignity, and become demons. The same Plato, in another place, maintains that ⚫ all those who die valiantly in war, are of Hesiod's golden generation, and are made demons, and that we ought for ever after to serve and adore their sepulchres as the sepulchres of demons' 'The same also,' says he, we decree whenever any of those who were excellently good in life, die, either of old age or in any other According

manner.

to Plutarch, tom. i. p. 958, E. edit Xylandr, it was a very ancient opinion that there were certain wicked and malignant demons who envy good men, and endeavour to disturb and hinder them in the pursuit of virtue, lest remaining firm (unfallen) in goodness, and un. corrupt, they should, after death, obtain a better lot than they themselves enjoy."

In view of the heathen origin of this "doctrine of demons," it is a natural source of wonder that it should appear so largely interwoven with the gospel narratives, and receive apparent sanction both from Christ and his disciples. This can only be accounted for on one principle; the Grecian theory that madness, epileptic disorders, and obstructions of the senses (as distinct from ordinary diseases), were attributable to demoniacal possession, had existed many centuries before the time of Christ, and had circulated far and wide with the Greek language, which, in these days, had become nearly universal. The theory necessarily stamped itself upon the common language of the time, and supplied a nomenclature for certain classes of disorders which, without reference to the particular theory in which it originated, would become current and conventional, and used by all classes as a matter of course, without involving an acceptance of the Pagan belief. On the face of it, the nomenclature would carry that belief; but in reality it would only

be used from the force of universal custom, without any reference to the superstition which originated it. We have an illustration of this in our word "lunatic," which originated in the idea that madness was the result of the moon's influence, but which nobody now uses to express that idea. The same principle is exemplified in the phrases "bewitched," "fairy-like,' hobgoblin," " dragon," "the king's evil," "St. Vitus's dance," &c., all of which are freely used denominatively, without subjecting the person using them to the charge of believing the fictions originally represented by them.

Christ's conformity to popular language did not commit him to popular delusions. In one case, he apparently recognises the god of the Philistines: "Ye say that I cast out demons through Beelzebub: if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out?" (Matt. xii. 27). Now, Beelzebub signifies the god of flies, a god worshipped by the Philistines of Ekron (2 Kings i. 6), and Christ, in using the name, takes no pains to dwell upon the fact that Beelzebub was a heathen fiction, but seems rather to assume, for the sake of argument, that Beelzebub was a reality; it was a mere accommodation to the language of his opponents. Yet this might, with as much reason, be taken as a proof of his belief in Beelzebub, as his accommodation to popular speech on the subject of demons is taken to sanction the common idea of "devils."

The casting out of demons spoken of in the New Testament was nothing more nor less than the curing of epileptic fits and brain disorders, as distinct from bodily diseases. Of this, any one may be satisfied by an attentive reading of the narrative and a close consideration of the symptoms, as recorded.

"Lord have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic and sore vexed, for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water, and I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. And Jesus