principle invented to terrify the weak and ignorant; or at best, to represent, by a forcible metaphor, the regularity of concert, of purpose, and of tactics, with which, like an army under a skilful leader, our various enemies pursue their unholy warfare?

Of these three hypotheses, the first and the second are, I admit, extremely consistent with each other. A man may believe, to the fullest extent, in the existence of evil spirits, though he may suppose that the principalities and powers here mentioned are not spirits, but the mortal and persecuting governors of the Roman empire, and of the Jewish synagogue. He may admit the general doctrine, while he denies that this particular text inculcates it. But though the first and the second be thus compatible, yet are the first and the third hypotheses completely irreconcileable with each other. It is difficult for a professed Christian to deny the existence of evil spirits, if he admits that the present words of St. Paul are to be interpreted of them; it is impossible for a reasonable man to deny the existence of a devil, when he allows that there are many; and it would be mere idleness, the existence of such creatures being established, to cavil at the account given us in Scripture, of their nature and the form of their government.

The text, therefore, which I have chosen, is extremely important in determining a question which has of late years arisen among Christians, concerning the existence of that person, or those persons, to whose influence is ascribed so large a portion of

the sin and misery which, in our present state, surround us. I say, it is of late years that this controversy has arisen; because it is certain that, during more than 1700 years the Christian world, (however otherwise divided,) had on this point no difference of opinion. Even of that sect whose leaders have, in our own times, embraced with the greatest warmth the negative side of the controversy, the earlier doctors never questioned the existence of evil spirits in general, or of the evil one peculiarly so called; and Socinus and Crellius, and the other commentators of the Racovian school, have received and maintained the doctrine of the devil and his angels, not only without qualification, but apparently without suspecting that any qualification of it was possible.*

This is not, indeed, the only nor the most important instance in which the modern English unitarians have outstripped, in the race of unbelief, their more learned or more cautious masters; but it is an additional proof that, the rule once transgressed which binds us to adhere to the obvious sense of

* Socinus ad Def. F. Puccii Resp. Op. tom. ii. p. 324, et alibi passim. Crellius, Comm. in 1 Cor. Op. tom. i. p. 359. “Paulus, cum de Christianorum hominum pugnâ loquitur, non obscure carnem et sanguinem opponit spiritibus malis, quibuscum nobis est luctandum, Eph. vi. 12." Id. tom. i. p. 50. 52, et alibi passim. Schlichting, ad h. 1. Op. p. 172. Wolzogen, tom. i. p. 400. Przicpovius, ad h. 1. Op. p. 152, 153. Brennius, Not. in St. Matt. Catechism. Eccl. Polon.

p. 5. Not. in Ephes. ad h. 1. p. 66.

p. 338. "Nec hominibus tantum, verum etiam angelis et bonis et malis Christus dominatur."

Scripture, no reasonable limit can be anticipated to that tide of allegory which will then enter in; no doctrine, no fact be conceived, which the same process may not resolve into fable.

But however modern the objection, and however its recent date may be fairly urged as an argument against its probability, yet is the fact that an objection has been made to the usual doctrine of the Church on this subject, a sufficient reason for examining with greater care the grounds on which that doctrine rests. It is, indeed, but vain to conceal the truth from ourselves, that, partly from the natural disposition of men to confine their views within the limits of the visible world; partly from disgust at those monstrous and abominable follies with which priestcraft and superstition have, at different times, abused the notion of spiritual agency; and partly, perhaps, through the arts of Satan himself, who may expect to ensnare us with the greater ease when his influence is unsuspected, the notion of evil spirits has fallen into discredit and disregard with many who are far, indeed, from disbelieving or from disobeying the Gospel, but who might have derived, from the contemplation of this truth, yet stronger motives to Christian watchfulness, and a yet deeper sense of their dependence on Him who alone can deliver us from the evil one.

From this cause I have undertaken the discussion of the text which has been read to you, and will proceed to consider the interpretation which has been already slightly noticed, and which regards

the enemies enumerated by St. Paul as mortal ene mies only. And here it will be readily acknowledged that many of the words employed by him to denote their power and dignity, are by no means inapplicable to the potentates of the visible world.

"Principatus," and "potestates," the corresponding Latin terms to 'Agxa and 'Egovoías are the wellknown and technical names for the supreme and delegated authorities of the Roman empire. "The rulers of the world's darkness," is a phrase which has been thought to apply with much propriety either to the rabbins of the corrupt and darkened synagogue, or to those heathen priests and false philosophers, whose dominion was erected on the ignorance and superstition of mankind. And the number of sects, and of perverse and wicked doctrines which, even in the age of the Apostles, had begun to infest the Church, has been conceived to tally with the description of "spiritual wickedness in high (or heavenly) places."* But these presumptions are, I conceive, greatly overbalanced by what may be urged against them. First, we are told by the Apostle, that the "wrestling" of which he speaks, is," not against flesh and blood," an expression which he could not have used had his description been intended to apply to the fleshly sove

*Sueton. Cal. 22. "Nec multum abfuit quin statim diadema sumeret, speciemque principatus in regni formam converteret." Juv. Sat. x. 99. 66 Hujus, qui trahitur, prætextam sumere mavis, An Fidenarum Gabiorumque esse Potestas?" Wolf. ad h. 1. Cur. Philol. tom. iv.p. 150, 151. Schottgen. Hor. Hebr. p. 790.

reigns of mankind, or to the acts of any mortal adversary. It is true that some commentators of no vulgar name have conceived that "flesh and blood" may signify "men of mean condition," as opposed to "men of rank and power;" or "the ignorant," as opposed to "the learned."* But to pass over the apparent absurdity of distinguishing degrees of rank or acquirement by terms which apply equally to the tyrant and his slave, the doctor and his disciple, no ancient author has been found (I might say no author of any age or country,) who has used the terms in question as these persons would have us understand them. The Jewish writers (with whom the phrase is one of frequent occurrence, and whose authority on such points cannot but be considerable with all such as consider who St. Paul was, and to whom the greater part of his Epistles were addressed) the Jewish writers always, so far as I have been able to discover, employ them in the sense of "mortal man," or to express the weakness of our common nature.† And, still more, there

*Wolf, ubi. supr. Schöttgen, ubi supr.

† Hammond on St. Matt. xvi. 17. Works, vol. iii. p. 83. "The phrase dagğ xrì aîμa flesh and blood, is a Hebrew phrase,

signifying no more than a mere man here upon the בשר ודם

earth, one that hath ascended no higher than the common state of men. Thus it is ordinary in the Jewish writers. Take one example for all, in Gemara Babyl. ad Cod. Berachoth, where a parable of a rich man (the first draught as it were and monogram of that which is enlarged and filled up with lively colours

בשר ודם משל למלך by our Saviour,in St. Luke xvi.is called

a parable of a king of flesh and blood; that is, of a human

L