satan in the text, and we have hatred in the margin as its explanation. Hatred, is the act of an adversary, and the context sufficiently shows why it received this name. The satan here then, is hatred, or men's evil passions, a sense which we shall see it has also in other passages. Numb. 22: 22, 32. "And God's anger was kindled, because he (Baalam) went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him.And the angel of the Lord said unto him, wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? Behold I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me." The word satan in the original of these two verses occurs twice, and is here rendered by the words adversary, and, to withstand thee. In the margin of the last verse we have, "to be an adversary unto thee." It is obvious, that the adversary who withstood Baalam, instead of being a fallen angel, was the angel of Jehovah. It is then a remarkable fact, that the first time the term satan is applied to any being in the Bible, it is to a good being. But this is concealed from the reader by rendering the word satan, adversary. It may be observed here, and the remark applies to other texts, that had the original word been always retained in the text, or had it been uniformly rendered adversary, we would have been less liable to mistaken views on this subject. Had the first been done, we must have recurred to the context and scope of the writer to ascertain what he meant by satan, and if a being, what being was referred to. It would have been easily perceived, that some human adversary was referred to, or the angel of Jehovah as in the passage before us. But the word satan being sometimes retained in the text and sometimes rendered adversary the common Scripture usage of this word is not perceived. Besides, people from education and habit, have attached the idea.

of a fallen angel to the word satan, which always suggests the idea of such a being. But not so with the word adversary, which is its rendering in many passages. Accordingly it is on the texts where the term satan is left untranslated, that people have built their faith about a fallen angel. This idea has been associated with this word in their minds from childhood, and it is next to impossible to effect a separation. The term satan will suggest it, and the meaning of the word, its scripture usage, and the context of the places where it occurs, are not sufficient to destroy it. Commencing the study of the Bible with this false idea, all must see, how many texts may be perverted, not from design, but from the influence of this false association. We know of no better way to correct it than to recur to the original sense of the term satan, and examine all the places where it occurs, with their respective contexts.

Should it be asked--why did not the translators of our English version either render this word always adversary or uniformly leave the term satan untranslated? I answer: had they always rendered it adversary, they could not so easily have infused into their version the idea of a fallen angel. Had they always retained the original word, its application to the angel of Jehovah, human beings and things, would have led people to conclude that it did not designate such an evil being. King James, under whose patronage the version was made, not only believed that satan was a fallen angel, but he wrote in defence of the doctrine of witchcraft.

1 Sam. 29: 4. "And the princes of the Philistines said unto him, make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? Should

it not be with the heads of these men ?" Here again the term satan is rendered adversary, and it is evident from the context, that David, not a fallen angel is meant. Nor, need this surprise us, seeing the angel of Jehovah was called so in the preceding passage. Many people do not know this, but it would have been evident had our translators, as in other places, left the term satan untranslated. This is the first place in the Bible where the word satan is applied to a human being, and it is applied to a man who feared God. It need not then surprise us, that our Lord called Peter, satan, and Judas a devil. It is very obvious, that the idea of a fallen angel attached to the word satan, is calculated to mislead us, for it is notorious, that this term is used to designate the very best of created beings.

In

2 Sam. 19: 22. "And David said, what have 1 to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me." Here the term satan is used in the plural, and is rendered adversaries. The satans referred to, are expressly called the sons of Zeruiah. Wicked men they might be, but no one supposes that they were fallen angels. Besides, it is commonly believed that there is but one being in the universe which goes by this name, yet here we find the term used in the plural and applied to men. the New Testament we read of demons, and of a person possessed with a legion of them. But David does not say the sons of Zeruiah were demons, or possessed with demons or satans, but that they were satans to him. This shows clearly, that the term simply means an adversary, and that this was the sense David attached to it. We seldom if ever use it in the plural, for the unity of satan is the common belief just as much as the unity of God.

1 Kings 5: 4. "But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither

adversary nor evil occurrent." Here the term satan is used in the singular, and is again rendered adversary. Solomon does not name, as in the preceding text, any person referred to, but the scope of the context evidently shows, that he had in view, human beings, who were accustomed to be satans or adversaries to Israel. His father David had many such satans to contend with during his reign, but now Solomon had none of them to disturb the peace of his kingdom. He therefore determined to build an house to the Lord, which his father was prevented from doing by his frequent wars with them. We shall soon see that Solomon was not altogether free from his troubles from such satans or adversaries.

1 Kings 11: 14, 23, 25. "And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon; Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria." In these verses the word satan is used three times, and is uniformly rendered adversary. The term is applied to human beings, who are distinctly named, Hadad the Edomite, and Rezon the son of Eliadah. The last was a satan to Solomon all his days. It would be ridiculous to suppose that satan here had any reference to a fallen angel; for in the first case it would be to make him an Edomite, and in the second the son of Eliadah, and that he was called Hadad and Rezon as well as satan. It is of more importance to observe, that it is said God stirred up those satans against Solomon. Had only one satan been mentioned, and no name given to show who was particularly meant, it is likely some would have concluded, that God stirred up a fallen angel against him. This conclusion would

have been as correct as that drawn from the next passage, where it is supposed satan means a fallen angel, because it is said, satan provoked David to number Israel,, and in the parallel place that God moved him to do it. But here, it is put beyond all controversy, that satan has no reference to a fallen angel. We would then ask, ought not such texts, where the circumstances mentioned so clearly decide that this term designates no such being, to teach us caution in concluding that this is its meaning in any passage? When the word satan is introduced, and no circumstances are mentioned clearly to decide who or what is meant, is it rational or scriptural to say that a fallen angel or wicked spirit must be meant? We should think not; and until it is satisfactorily proved, that such a being does exist, no rational man would ever think of such a conclusion.

1 Chron. 21: 1. "And satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." Here for the first time the word satan is left untranslated; but I can perceive no good reason why it was not rendered adversary, as it is in other places. No evidence appears from the text or context, that a fallen angel or wicked spirit provoked David to number Israel. If the rule in other cases be allowed here, plain passages ought to interpret doubtful and obscure ones, and common scripture usage of a word, ought to determine in particular cases in what sense the sacred writers used it. It is then determined here, for no previous scripture writer has said any thing about a fallen angel, or used the word satan in reference to such a being. Supposing they had done this, it would not be safe to conclude he was spoken of, for it is evident that the term satan is applied to human beings and to the angel of Jehovah in preceding passages, which might be the case here. In every text the question ought to be, what satan or adversary is in