"Authors' of (though that be true) as "if the Genitive Case were Active; but "DOCTRINES CONCERNING DEMONS; "the Genitive Case Axorov being "here" (says he) "to be taken pas"sively for the object of these Doctrines; “as in Hebr. vi. 2. we have dioxxx Carlour doctrines of Baptisms, and doctrines of laying on of hands, of the "resurrection of the Dead, and of éter"nal judgment, that is" (says he) "Doctrines about and concerning all· "these," &c. And therefore he concluded that the Διδασκαλίας δαιμωνιών "are Doctrines of Dæmons, or Doctri“næ Deustrorum; that is," (says he) "The Gentiles' idolatrous Theology of "Dæmons should be revived amongs Christians," &c. 2d Vol. p. 771.

.

But in order to introduce this construction, Mr. Mede is obliged to leave the literal interpretation of the preceding verse, which ought never to be done TOMBA with

without a necessity; and there is, certainly, no necessity in the present

case.

The Words Προσεχονίες πνεύμασι Tavos (which are literally rendered— "attending to SEDUCING Spirits") he is obliged to construe" attending to "ERRONEOUS Doctrines"-but the word ERRONEOUS by no means expresses the full meaning of the word Thavos, which, either as an adjective or substantive, signifies rather one who, in an ACTIVE SENSE, is a Seducer, or Deceiver, than one who, PASSIVELY, is seduced, and is erroneous, or in error The word is no where used in the New Testament, I believe, in this latter sense, though it is several times used in the former ACTIVE SENSE: as for instance, in 2d John, ver. 7. oli toh hor πλανοί εισήλθον εις τον κόσμον, &c. " For

4.6

many Deceivers are gone out into the "World," &c. and the active sense of

66

the word is still more strongly pointed out by the application of it in the end of the same verse to the first Mover of Deceit, the Spirit of Antichrist, by whom the visible Deceivers before mentioned were most certainly actuated: “ όντος σε εστιν ὁ πλανο και ὁ Αντίχριστο,” that is, not merely a Deceiver and an Antichrist, as rendered in the common English Translation; for the Article o before each substantive marks the Emphasis" This is THE Deceiver and

THE Antichrist," &c. denoting, that the many Deceivers (πολλοι πλανοι) are actuated by the Angels or power of one principal Deceiver, who is called o ThavO THE Deceiver, and ò ArtixpıCT@ THE Antichrist, by way of eminence, as being the Father and Director of all other Deceivers, because" he that "committeth. Sin is of the Devil'; for "the Devil sinneth from the begin

ning," (1 John iii. 8.)and is the Father of Lies, or, as the Apostle expressly

pressly describes him," he is a Liar, " and the Father of it." (John viii. 44.) He is therefore emphatically THE Deceiver and THE Antichrist by way of Eminence, as the First Mover and instigator (either by himself or his Angels) of all other Deceivers: and therefore as the word have in this Text cannot be understood otherwise than as а Deceiver or Seducer, it is clear that πνεύμασι πλάνοις must signify Seducing or Deceiving Spirits, and not Erroneous Doctrines, as Mr. Mede, to favour a particular opinion, has construed it.

And with respect to his Supposition that the Substantive Avεvyao Spirits, i which is joined with the last-mentioned Adjective, must signify Doctrines * in this place, and not Spirits, it is evident that the Text, which he has cited as an

* But I had rather" (says Mr. Mede) "take "SPIRITS in this place for DOCTRINES themselves," &c. (p. 770),

exam

example, does not necessarily demand such a construction, but, on the contrary, requires rather a literal rendering-viz, (1 John iv. 1. un πavke μη παντι πνευματι πιστευετε; « Believe not every

66

66

Spirit," i, e. (says Mr. Mede) every "Doctrine:" but if the reason why this advice is given ("Believe not every "Spirit") be duly considered, we shall see no room for such an interpretation-happily the remaining part of the same verse contains this reason→ "Because many false Prophets are

66

gone out into the World." Now all Prophets are supposed to be actuated by the inspiration of some Spirit, either good or bad, and not by mere human sagacity. A remarkable instance of a Lying-Spirit sent expressly to deceive Ahab " in the mouth of all his Prophets," has already been quoted and the Spirit is always said to speak, though the Prophet himself is the only visible organ of communication. And

therefore