son.

in their present state possess the excellences | misery as unavoidable and remediless. Great and perfections which are peculiar to spiritual wretchedness is often described by the Hebrews existences-great intellectual powers, internal under the image of captives bound in a dark prienergy and activity. Vide s. 59, II. And if good angels are invested with a body, or can assume one as occasion requires, the same must be supposed with respect to evil spirits. Vide ubi supra. But their moral state, their will and affections, are described as very depraved and evil. They therefore employ their intellectual powers in behalf of evil and not of good; they act in opposition to the divine purposes, and are the enemies of truth and righteousness, John, viii. 44. The copía årwdev xatepxquévn is contrasted with copía daμovidns, James, iii. 15; and men are warned of the μεθοδείαι του διαβό20v, Eph. vi. 11; ii. 2. 1 Pet. v. 8. Matt.

xiii. 39.

II. Their Present and Future State. Their condition is described as extremely unhappy. Vide Matt. xxv. 41. Even the natural consequences of sin-the power and dominion of the passions, the remembrance of their former happy condition, the frustration of their wishes and plans, remorse of conscience, &c., would be enough to render them miserable. But these are not all which they endure; since positive punishments, as we are taught in the scriptures, are inflicted on them, and will be more especially after the day of judgment. We are not able to determine accurately, from the language of the Bible, which is for the most part figurative, in what these punishments consist. The principal texts relating to this point, besides that already cited in Matt. xxv. 41, 46, are 2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6. Taptapovv, or, as the Greeks otherwise write it, xarataptapour, signifies, in Tartarum dejicere, (e cœlo.) Tartarus, in the Grecian mythology, is the place of punishment and condemnation. Hesiod, in his Theogony, and Plato, in his Gorgias, represent it as the prison of the Titans. But at a later period it came to signify the general place of suffering. It is that part of adns where the wicked were confined, and is represented as dark, and deep under the earth. The place of punishment was more commonly described by the Jews as Da, yɛévva, and eternal fire. But as their notion of yɛévva corresponded perfectly with the Grecian idea of Tartarus, they adopted the latter term into their own dialect, as in many other cases. In this place condemned men and spirits are confined; and hence the latter are said to suffer such judgments and dreadful torment as will constitute the punishment of wicked men after this life. Such is the representation, Matt. xxv. 41, 46, "Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The phrase, oɛpais Sópov rapédwxɛ (he bound them in dismal Tartarus with chains), describes their

|

The evil spirits are not as yet, however, chained for ever in Tartarus-i. e., they are not now confined to this single place of misery. They sometimes, under divine permission, roam beyond their prison, and exert their influence upon men. Vide Revelation, and Luke, viii. 31, &c. But a more strict confinement and a higher degree of punishment are impending over them, as over wicked men, and will fall upon them at the last day: sis xpiow enpoúvrai, cf. ver. 9, and Jude, ver. 6, eis xpiowv μegaans uépas. Cf. Matt. xxv. 41. The question of the demon, Matt. viii. 29, ήλθες δε πρό και pov Baoavioai uas, alludes to this impending punishment. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Hence the evil spirits are described as fearing God, and trembling before him as their Judge; James, ii. 19, δαιμόνια φρίσσουσι.

Note.-Will evil spirits repent, obtain forgiveness, and be restored to happiness? These are questions which have often been asked in modern times, and to which various answers have been given. Origen was the first among Christian teachers who distinctly avowed the opinion that evil spirits would repent, and be restored to happiness. Vide Augustine, Con. Jul. v. 47, and vi. 10. This opinion has been adopted in modern times by theologians of the most different parties; by Eberhard, in his " Apologie des Sokrates," th. i., by Lavater, in his "Aussicht in die Ewigkeit," th. iii., [Bretschneider, in his Handbuch, b. i. s. 691,] and others.

66

If we had nothing but reason to guide us in our inquiries on this subject, we should probably argue thus:-(a) If wicked men truly repent, reform, and comply with the other conditions prescribed, God will forgive them, and remove the punishment of their sins. But considering that these spirits are in the highest degree depraved, that their vicious propensities, so long cherished, must have taken deep root, and that the habit of sin must have become confirmed, we must conclude, from all human analogy, that their repentance and reformation must be extremely difficult, though we might not be able to pronounce it absolutely impossible. (b) But should they from the heart repent of their sins, and were it possible for them to fulfil the other conditions prescribed, it is probable that God, who is perfect goodness, and who is ready to forgive men on certain conditions, and who desires the salvation and happiness of all his creatures, would also forgive them, and restore them to his favour; or at least, he might perhaps remove the positive punishments inflicted on them, should they comply with the conditions prescribed; if indeed we can suppose their situation such that conditions could be offered them

IV. Names of Evil Spirits.

Respecting the title evil angel, vide s. 59, V. [Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 627; Hahn, Glaubenslehre, s. 294, Anm.]

a point which we are unable to determine. But | plural. We are likewise informed that evil (c) since every good action has its natural and spirits compose a kingdom, and exist in a social permanent good consequences, and every evil relation; and hence the phrase Basinsia Tov action its natural and permanent evil conse- Zarava, Matt. xii. 26. This representation quences, it is certain that the happiness of such must be understood in the same way as that in repentant angels must always be less in amount reference to good angels. Vide s. 61, II. They than the happiness of those who never sinned, have a leader, prince, or commander, (¿ äpzxwv and have persevered in obedience. The former tv dauovíwr, Matt. xii. 24,) represented often must always take a lower stand, in point of as a fallen archangel, and called Beelzebub (vide happiness and character, than the latter; and in No. iv.), also, by way of eminence, daßoλos, this sense we may affirm, even on principles of Zaravas, x. 7. 2. In Rev. xii. 7, 9, in opposireason, that their punishment will be eternal. tion to the good angels who fought on the side But if we inquire what Christ and the apos- of Michael, the angels of Satan are called of tles teach on this subject, we can find nothing to ayyελo avrov. The names devil and Satan justify the hope that the fallen angels will be re- are not used in the Bible in the plural, and are stored. Their punishments are described as applied only to the apxwv tuv daμoviwr. It is δεσμοί αίδιοι, Jude, ver. 6 ; as πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις | not therefore according to scriptural usage to airios, Matt. xxv. 41, 46. These expressions speak of devils in the plural. do not, indeed, necessarily denote positive punishments, although it cannot be shewn that natural punishments are here exclusively intended. There is some plausibility in the argument that the words aivios and aidios, like the Hebrew by, do not denote eternity, in the strict philosophical sense, but only a long and inde- | terminate duration. Vide s. 20, III. But while this remark is doubtless true in itself, yet in the passage cited, Matt. xxv. 46, κόλασις αιώνιος | and ζωὴ αἰώνιος are contrasted, and if in the latter case aivios is allowed to denote absolute eternity, what right have we to use it in the former case, in a less strict sense? From these words, therefore, no argument can be drawn in behalf of the cessation of the punishments of fallen spirits; nor can it be shewn that these punishments are merely natural. The argument for restoration is therefore left by the scriptures very doubtful. The consideration of the question will be resumed, s. 157, 158. [However hesitating and undecided the theologians of the Lutheran church may be with regard to the endless punishment of the fallen angels, the doctrinal standards of their church express no doubts; and the Augsburg Confessible beings whom they supposed, in connexion sion (Art. xvii.) expressly condemns those, “qui sentiunt, hominibus damnatis ac DIABOLIS finem pœnarum futurum esse." Neander suggests, that the doctrine of the final and perfect restoration of all things (aroxarástasis яávτwv), which is ascribed to Origen as its author, was the result of the principles of the Alexandrine Gnosis, and was abandoned by him at a later period of his life. Allg. Kirchengesch, b. i. abth. 3, s. 1098.-TR.]

1. General appellations of evil spirits as a body. (a) Ilvevμara áxásapra—i. e., morally impure and evil; Luke, xi. 24, et passim. Synonymous with this is (b) яvɛúμara яovnpá, Luke, vii. 21; Ephes. vi. 12, τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας. (c) Δαίμονες οι δαιμόνια. The etymology of this word is quite uncertain. In Homer and all the most ancient Grecian writers it means neither more nor less than gods, (Sɛoi.) And although, in process of time, it acquired various additional meanings, it always retained this. It is accordingly used by the LXX. to denote the heathen gods (,) and also in 1 Cor. x. 20, 21, and Rev. ix. 20, where dayμória and ɛidwra are connected. It was very commonly used in this sense by the Attic writers; and so, when Paul was at Athens, (Acts, xvii. 18,) some believed that he wished to introduce živa dayuóvia, foreign deities. But the name daiμoves was afterwards given by the Greeks to those invi

with their deities, to exert an agency in the world. Hence daiμoves, is the name given by Pythagoras, Plato, and others, to the human soul, even when connected with the body, but especially when separated from it. The intermediate spirits between God and our racedeified men, and heroes, were also called demons. And lastly, the internal spring, impulse, the foreboding or presentiment of the mind, which appeared so inexplicable to Socrates, and which he therefore personified and deified, was called by him his dauóviov. Whenever this invisible in-agent was the cause of good to men, it was called ἀγαθοδαίμων oι εὐδαίμων ; and when the cause of evil, xaxodaíuwv. At the time of Christ and the apostles, dainor was a common appellation given by the Grecian Jews to evil

III. Number and Classes of Evil Spirits. The New Testament gives us no definite formation with respect to the number of evil spirits; but they were supposed by the Jews to be very many (Luke, viii. 30), and indeed are often mentioned in the New Testament in the

spirits; those morally so, and indeed by the (e) BEESEBOUß, or BEEßova, who is expressly Apocryphal writers also. Vide Tob. iii. 8, called apxwv tur daμovior, Matt. xii. 24. This πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον. In the evangelists, the was an appellation very common among the phrases яvsúμara ȧzádapra and rovná are in- Jews at the time of Christ. In 2 Kings, i. 2, terchanged, times without number, with Saí- Beelzebub appears as a god of the Philistines. μονες and πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου. In Matt. | The name when written with final β, is derived xii. 24, daiμoves are distinctly mentioned as be- from. It most probably means, God of longing to the kingdom of the devil. The the flies, Fly-Baal, Deus averruncus muscarum, woman who is described in Luke, xiii. 11, as whose office it was to protect his worshippers Avevμɑ Exovoa dodɛvɛías, is said (ver. 16) to be from the flies, which were among the greatest one qv ednoev ò Zaravas. Vide s. 64, I. 2. The plagues of Egypt and Philistia. [It corresopinion of Farmer, therefore, in his "Essay on ponds with the Greek Zevs áróμuvios.] AccordDemoniacs," that other spirits-gods, departed ing to the later Jews, it means dominus crimisouls, &c., and not devils-were intended in the nationis, accuser, complainant, and is synonyNew Testament by this appellation is unfound-mous with diaẞoros and Σaravas, from the Syed. In James, ii. 19, dauóvia has clearly the signification above given. But how came daipoves to have this peculiar signification among the Grecian Jews? The LXX. usually rendered the Hebrew words which signify idols by the word daiμoves, and the Greeks called their gods by this name. Now the Jews connected with this name their idea that evil spirits ruled in the heathen world, and caused themselves to be worshipped as gods, under the names of Jupiter, Mercury, &c., and had seduced the heathen into this idolatry. Hence δαίμονες and evil spirits came to be regarded by them as synonymous

terms.

2. But one of the evil spirits is represented as their prince, leader, commander. Vide No. iii., and Morus, p. 91, s. 10. He is called by various names. (a) Satan, pv, Zaravas, literally, enemy, fiend, accuser, Ps. cix. 6; Job, ii. (s. 58); Matt. xvi. 23; and hence, by way of eminence, princeps dæmonum, because he is represented as the greatest enemy of man, and of the kingdom of truth and holiness. Synonymous with this title are the names & Spós and ô ávτídıxos. (b) 'O xovηpós, malignus, noxious, the foe of man. This name is frequently given him by John; as 1 John, ii. 13, 14. (c) AiáBoxos is the most common Grecian name of the devil; and from this word our devil and the German Teufel are derived. It signifies fiend, destroyer of peace, calumniator. The LXX. rendered the Hebrew by diáßonos, Job, i. 6; Ps. cix. 6. This name was sometimes applied to men, 1 Tim. iii. 11; Tit. ii. 3. (d) Bɛnían or Beλiap, 2 Cor. vi. 15, from byba, compounded of, not, and by, high-i. e., low, abject. It has different senses. In the Old Testament it sometimes signified the under world, the kingdom of the dead, Psalm xviii. 5; and sometimes unworthy men, abject principles, Deut. xiii. 13. After the Babylonian exile it was frequently used as the name of the devil, and occurs once in this sense in the New Testament, 2 Cor. vi. 15, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" -i. e., How can the worship of Christ consist with the worship of the devil (idolatry)?|

riac 22, which signifies criminari. The other form, BɛɛλŠεßouλ, is derived from, and is either an intentional alteration of the word into an epithet of disgrace, and so signifies deus stercoris (Mistgott), from bat, stercus; or signifies, deus, or præfectus sepulcri, (as signifies in Chaldaic and Syriac,) dominus inferni, or inferorum, ὁ κράτος ἐχῶν τοῦ θανάτου, Heb. ii. 14. It was at first, then, the name of the angel of death, and afterwards of the devil, when he was supposed to be the same person. (ƒ) 'O Spázwv ὁ μέγας, and ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, Rev. xii. 9, 13. This appellation might have been given to him from his general character for cunning and deceit, (ô πhavův Týv oixovμévyv.) But the word àpzaios evidently alludes to Gen. iii., since the agency of the devil in the occurrence there described was doubtless believed by the Jews at the time of Christ.

3. The Jews gave particular names to evil as well as to good spirits. Among these is 'Asuodaios, Asmodi, mentioned in the book of Tobias, iii. 8, also Samaël, Azazel, &c. But none of these proper names of evil spirits occur in the New Testament, unless the name of the angel of destruction, 'Aßaddwv—i. q., 'Añoλλúwv,—¿ ayyɛλ05 tys ȧßúσoov, Rev. ix. 11, be considered as such.

SECTION LXIV.

OF THE EMPLOYMENTS AND THE EFFECTS OF
EVIL SPIRITS.

I. Objections to the common theory.
THE power of Satan and his influence upon
men were formerly stated in a very exaggerated
manner, and represented as excessively great
and fearful; and this view was the more plausi-
ble, as it seemed to be supported by many pas-
sages in the New Testament. But this mistake
would have been avoided if the true spirit of the
Bible had been more justly apprehended, and
the true meaning of its language better under-
stood. Vide No. ii. According to the common
theory, evil spirits were supposed to be actively

would not be the agent of the wicked actions he seems to perform, but merely the instrument of the irresistible influence of Satan; and thus an excuse for sin would be furnished.

4. In many texts in the New Testament in which the common origin of particular sins is described, Satan is not mentioned, but their existence is accounted for in another way, agree

employed at their own pleasure all over the earth, to have immediate influence on the souls of men; to inspire wicked thoughts, doubts, and anxieties; to intrude themselves into all societies and mysteries; and to rule in the air, and over the whole material world. Such are the opinions which formerly prevailed to a great extent, and which are often found in the older ecclesiastical writers. They were long preserved, and trans-able alike to reason and experience. Cf. espemitted from one age to another with more or less of exaggeration. And many theologians of the protestant church, even in the sixteenth century, held opinions on this subject which were more conformed to the prevailing superstitious ideas of that age than to reason or scripture. Luther and Melancthon were inclined to the belief that good and evil spirits were at all times present in the world, and stood in a very intimate relation to men. In the symbols of the Lutheran church, however, the connexion of superior spirits with the world is not very minutely determined, and the doctrine of demons is exhibited in the general Biblical phraseology. Thus, in the Augsburg Confession many texts of scripture are cited, but no definite meaning is affixed to them. Many of the ideas formerly prevalent on this subject are either wholly without foundation, or are carried beyond the bounds of truth. For,

1. It is contradictory to the ideas of the power, wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God which we derive from the Bible and from reason, to ascribe to the devil such vast and almost infinite power. Nor can we see any rational way of accounting for it that God should permit so great and injurious an influence to be exerted in the world.

2. The opinion maintained by some that evil spirits can produce wicked thoughts in the minds of men by an immediate influence is incapable of proof. The evil influences exerted on the human mind have by some been supposed to be as immediate and efficient as the divine influences; and as God infuses good thoughts, as he inspired prophets and apostles, so does Satan, it is supposed, directly infuse evil thoughts into the minds of the wicked, and into the minds of the good also, when he is permitted so to do by God. That these inspirations of the devil can be distinguished by any certain signs from thoughts and desires which arise in the mind from other sources is not pretended; this opinion, therefore, cannot be established by experience, and certainly it cannot be derived from scripture; at least, the opinion that evil spirits do always or commonly exert an immediate influence of this kind cannot be proved from the Bible.

3. This theory, when carried to the length to which it has sometimes been carried, is inconsistent with human freedom. If the agency of Satan was of the nature often believed, man

cially James, i. 13-15, "Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed, when he gives indulgence to rising desires, which is internal sin. When lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, (it breaks forth in sinful words and works, which is external sin;) and sin, when it is brought into the world, bringeth forth death, (its uniform consequence is misery.)" Cf. Matthew, xv. 19; Gal. v. 16-21; Rom. vii. 5, 8, seq.

From these texts, however, we cannot conclude, as some have done, that the Bible excludes the agency of Satan in the sins of men. This would be an extreme equally contrary to the scriptures with the other, for the Bible expressly teaches (a) that Satan is hostile to man, and is active in promoting wickedness, Eph. ii. 2, vi. 11, seq., &c. Morus, p. 92, 93, n. i. (b) That he contributes something to the sins which prevail among men-e. g., 1 Cor. vii. 5, where Satan is distinguished from ȧxpasía, incontinence, to which he is said to tempt men; from which it is clear, as Morus justly observes, that Satan is not used in the scriptures to denote merely an abstract idea, and moral evil. Vide ubi supra, n. 2. (c) That he opposes goodness; Luke, viii. 12; John, viii. 44; and is therefore the enemy of Christianity and morality. Vide ubi supra, n. 3. This is what the Bible teaches; still it does not deny that the ignorance of man, his sinful passions, and other causes, have a tendency to lead him to sin; nor does it undertake to determine the manner in which Satan does what is ascribed to him; nor does it justify us in deciding in particular cases whether Satan has had any agency in the crimes committed, or what and how much it may have been. So thought Origen (epi ȧpxŵv, iii.) and many of the ecclesiastical fathers, who endeavoured to rectify the unscriptural notions respecting the power of the devil which were entertained by many of their contemporaries.

The extravagant opinions which formerly prevailed on this subject were the means of much injury, as appears from experience. (a) They led the common people to what was, in effect, a belief in two gods-a good and an evil deity; and also to entertain false conceptions of the attributes of the true God, which could not have been without a practical influence on the life. (8) They often furnished a real hindrance to