When Satan is faid to have ftirred up David to number the people of Ifrael, 1 Chr. xxi. I. the thought may, in fact, have arisen from his own pride only, which being evil, is therefore afcribedto Satan; and it is remarkable, that the very fame scheme is by another historian, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. afcribed to God, because the purposes of his providence were finally anfwered by it. So alfo the evil spirit from the Lord, which is faid to have troubled Saul, 1 Sam. xvi. 14. was probably nothing but his own melancholy, or ill-humour, which was relieved by mufic.

All that may be meant by the " fire of hell "being prepared for the devil and his angels," Matt. xxv. 41. may be, that this punishment was originally appointed for the deftruction of all evil, and the inftruments of evil; nor can this language, with this conftruction, be faid to be more figurative than that of John, who fays, that "death and hell "were caft into the lake of fire." Rev. xx. 14.

As to the demoniacs mentioned in the New Teftament, it is pretty evident, that their disorder was some species of madnefs, or lunacy, which, in the time of our Saviour, was ufually afcribed, by Heathens as well as Jews, to the malignant influence, not of the devil, but of demons, or the fouls of evil difpofed perfons, which were imagined to range about the earth, and to delight in mischief, an abfurd and unphilofophical notion, but which it was not our Saviour's business to correct.

The

The only story of this kind which is not pretty eafy to be explained by this hypothefis, is that in which a legion of demons is faid to have gone out of two men into a herd of fwine, Matt viii. 28. Mark v. 1. Luke viii. 26. But if the fwine only happened to be drowned about the fame time that the two men were cured, it might have been fufficient to give rise to the story; which, it is to be observed, is not related by any perfon who was prefent at the transaction; Matthew not being called to follow Chrift till after his return from this excurfion beyond the fea of Galilee; fo that there was fufficient room for exaggeration and mistake. Or, which I think most probable, the madness of these men might be transferred to the fwine.

Much mistake, with refpect to this fubject, feems to have been occafioned by the ambiguity in the meaning of the words fatan, angel*, and devil, which fignify respectively, adversary, messenger, and accufer. Thus the angels that finned, 2 Peter ii. 4. and Jude 6. may mean the meffengers who were fent from the wilderness to spy out the land of Canaan, as the author of the Scripture meaning of the word Satan has ingeniously conjectured, or it may refer to his hif

*It is not unufual with the facred writers to call even the unconscious inftruments of God's pleasure, fuch as natural causes, &c. angels, Pf. civ. 4. "Who maketh the wind his angels, and "flaming fire his minifters." For fo it may with moft propriety be rendered.

tory,

tory of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, who, for their rebellion against Mofes, were destroyed by the earth opening and swallowing them up. Indeed, the common interpretation of these passages is not agreeable to the constant tenor of the scriptures, in which no more than one devil, or Satan, is ever mentioned.

When the devil is faid "to go about like a roar❝ing lion, seeking whom he may devour," 1 Pet. v. 8. the best interpreters fuppofe that Nero, or fome other known adversary, or accufer, is intended. Also, when St. Paul fays, that "he defired "to do" a certain thing" again and again, but

that fatan hindered him," I Theff. ii. 10. he might mean any human adversary, or fome of his friends, influenced by worldly confiderations.

These are only a few general hints upon the subject, nor do I know that any of them are peculiar to myself; but they appear to me to throw confiderable light upon the subject, and to remove fome difficulties from the fcheme of revelation, which, I hope, will recommend them to others as well as to myself.

SEC.

SECTION II.

Of abftinence from blood.

HE queftion concerning the lawfulness of eating blood, ought to have been confidered under the head of precepts that are not of a moral nature; but, as it is a subject of much less importance than the reft, and of a more doubtful nature, I have thought proper to referve the difcuffion of it to this Appendix, in which I fhall endeavour to do juftice to the arguments on both fides.

The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, feems to be obligatory on all his posterity; and as it accompanied the first express grant of animal food, it feems to be referved, by way of acknowledgment to God, as the giver of life, and of the food which fupports it. Alfo this refpect paid to blood, which is fhed when animals are killed for food, and which is the most apparent vehicle of life, may be intended to inculcate a respect for life, as the most valuable gift of God, and to warn us not to deprive any animal of it, and much less man, without neneffity.

It is obfervable, that the awful denunciation of the judgment of God against murder, immediately follows

follows the prohibition to eat blood, as if it had been understood that they had fome connection. Gen. ix. 3. "Every moving thing that liveth "fhall be meat for you; even as the green herb "have I given you all things; but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, fhall you And furely your blood of your lives "will I require: at the hand of every beaft will I *c require it, and at the hand of man, at the hand "of every man's brother will I require the life of Whofo fheddeth man's blood, by man "fhall his blood be fhed; for in the image of God "made he man.'

not eat.

man.

It may likewise be added, as an additional argument for abftaining from blood, that it is far from being a whole fome aliment, especially in hot countries, promoting leprous and fcorbutic diforders*.

Some have argued, that the precept given to Noah was only intended to prohibit the eating of the flesh of animals raw, or cut off without killing the animal; but the antient Jews understood it dif

* What Dr. Lardner fays upon this subject is pretty remarkable. "Blood appears to me to be very unwholesome. Indeed, I ❝esteem it filthy, and highly disagreeable. So that I cannot bear "the thought of eating it. If ever it comes to me in food, it is "more than I know. And I fuppofe it is never brought, either ❝alone, or mixed with other things, to the table of polite people." Remarks on Ward's Differtation, p. 132.

ferently;