renunciation by Anaxagoras, are thus succinctly described by Mr.
Thirlwall: “Thales evolved his world out of a single simple substance,
(_water_) to which he attributed the power of passing spontaneously
through the various transformations necessary for the multiplicity of
natural productions. But he does not seem to have attempted accurately
to define the nature of these transformations. And so most of his
successors, who set out from a similar hypothesis, contented themselves
with some vague notions, or phrases, about the successive expansions or
contractions of the original substance. But as the contemplation of
animal life had led Anaximenes to adopt _air_ as the basis of his
system, a later philosopher, Diogenes of Apollonia, carried this analogy
a step further, and regarded the universe as issuing from an intelligent
principle, by which it was at once vivified and ordered—a rational, as
well as sensitive soul—still without recognizing any distinction between
matter and mind. Much earlier, however, Anaximander of Miletus, who
flourished not long after Thales, and is generally considered as his
immediate disciple, seems to have been struck by the difficulty of
accounting for the changes which a simple substance must be supposed to
undergo, in order to produce an infinite variety of beings. He found it
easier, in conformity with some of the ancient cosmogonies, to conceive
the primitive state of the universe as a vast chaos, for which he had no
other name than the infinite,—containing all the elements out of which
the world was to be constructed, by a process of separation and
combination, which, however, he considered as the result of a motion,
not impressed on it from without, but inherent in the mass. This
hypothesis, which tended to give an entirely new direction to the
speculations of the school, seems to have been treated with a neglect
which it is difficult to explain, and which has raised a suspicion that
some less celebrated names may have dropped out of the list of the
Ionian philosophers. But a century after Anaximander, Anaxagoras of
Clazomenæ revived his doctrine with some very fanciful additions, and
one very important change. He combined the principle of Anaximander with
that of his contemporary Diogenes, and acknowledged a supreme mind,
distinct from the chaos to which it imparted motion, form, and order.
The Pantheistic systems of the Ionian school were only independent of
the popular creed, and did not exclude it. The language of Thales and
Heraclitus, who declared that the universe was full of gods, left room
for all the fictions of the received mythology, and might even add new
fervour to the superstition of the vulgar. But the system of Anaxagoras
seems to have been felt to be almost irreconcilable with the prevailing
opinions, and hence, as we shall find, drew upon him hatred and
persecution.”[576]
In confirmation of the opinions expressed towards the close of this
Lecture, I cannot refrain from subjoining the following moral estimate
of the doctrine of two principles: it is from F. von Schlegel’s
Treatise, before alluded to, on the Language and Wisdom of the Indians.
“Pantheism inevitably destroys the distinction between good and evil,
however strenuously its advocates may contend in words against this
reproach; the doctrine of emanation depresses the moral freedom of the
will by the idea of an infinite degree of innate guilt, and the belief
that every being is predestined to crime and misery; the system of two
principles, and the warfare between good and evil, holds the middle
place between these extremes: it becomes, itself, a powerful incentive
to a similar contest, and a source of the purest morality.”[577]
B.
_Hebrew Names for the Evil Spirit._
The mere fact, that no proper names for the Evil Spirit exist in the
Hebrew language, except such as are of Apocryphal or Rabbinical
creation, is in itself a sufficient proof of the late and unscriptural
origin of the belief in his existence. A glance at an English
concordance will make it evident, that the word “Devil,” in the singular
number, does not occur in our authorized translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures. It is found in the plural in Lev. xvii. 7, 2 Chron. xi. 15,
Deut. xxxii. 17, Ps. cvi. 37; and in none of these instances can it for
a moment be supposed that the original word, if used in the singular,
would represent any idea corresponding to the popular notion of the
Devil; indeed, when the Rabbinical writers needed a name for the
expression of this idea, they had recourse to other terms than those
which are found in the verses just cited. In the two latter passages,
the Hebrew word is שׁדים, literally, _mighty beings_; it clearly denotes
_false gods_, and probably designates them by the title applied to them
by their votaries; for the name is evidently not contemptuous, and is
indeed radically the same which was applied by the Israelites to
Jehovah, and receives in our version the translation _Almighty_. In the
two former passages, the word is שׂעירים, literally, _goats_, and
evidently denotes the heathen deities, typified under the form of that
animal; especially, we may suppose, the Egyptian Pan, worshipped in the
Mendesian nome,[578] with rites the most abominable. In Isaiah xiii. 21,
the common translation renders the same word _satyrs_.
Several names of evil spirits occur in the Talmudical writings: and
among them are two which are appropriated to the Satanic chief, viz.,
סמאל, _Samael_; and אשמדי, _Asmodæus_. The latter is the term by which
the evil spirit is designated in Tobit iii. 8: and it would be easy to
show, by a multitude of passages, that the being to whom both these
names were given corresponded to the “Devil” of modern theology, as far
as correspondence can be affirmed to exist between any two creations of
the imagination. Thus we are told, in words which also show the use of
the word _Satan_ as a generic rather than a proper name; “The wicked
angel Samael is prince of _all the Satans_,” סמאל הרשע ראש כל השטנים
הוא.[579] Again, Jehovah is represented as saying to him, under his
title of Angel of Death (מלאך המות) “I have made thee Ruler of the
world,” שעשיתי איתך קוזמוקרטור (κοσμοκράτορα).[580] The same supremacy
is attributed to this being under his other name. Thus it is said, that
when Solomon became too much elated by his prosperity, there was sent to
him “Asmodæus, the Prince of evil spirits,” אשמדיי מלכא דשדים.[581] And
with slight variation of phrase he is described as “the devil Asmodæus,
the Prince of Spirits,” שידא אשמדון רבהון דרוחתא. [582] Buxtorf
identifies Samael and Asmodæus, on the authority of R. Elias; he says,
“Eundem esse _Asmodæum_, qui alio nomine Rabbinis dicitur
_Samael_.”[583] And Bertholdt again identifies this being with the enemy
of the Gospel described in 2 Cor. iv. 4, as ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου;
and in John xiv. 30, as ὁ τοῦ κόσμου [τούτου] ἄρχων: after quoting these
phrases, he says “Apud Targumistas et Rabbinos occurrit sub nomine סמאל
_Samael_.”[584]
The idea then of which we are in search, is unquestionably of frequent
occurrence among the Talmudists. In expressing it they have recourse to
new names not found in the Canonical writings. Surely a strong
presumption arises, that the Hebrew Scriptures did not furnish them with
the means of designating the personage about whom they discoursed.
C.
_The parallel Passages in the Epistles of Jude and 2 Peter._
For the sake of those readers of the English Scriptures who may not have
noticed the remarkable similarity between the Epistle of Jude, and the
second chapter of the second Epistle of Peter, I subjoin a comparison of
the two. A reference to the Greek Testament will make it evident, that
the parallelism is fairly exhibited in our common translation. My
present purpose, at least, will be sufficiently answered by taking the
citations thence.
2 Peter ii. Jude.
1 ... There shall be false teachers 4. For there are certain men crept
among you, who privily shall bring in unawares, who were before of old
in damnable heresies, even denying ordained to this condemnation,
the Lord that bought them, and ungodly men, turning the grace of
bring upon themselves swift our God into lasciviousness, and
destruction. denying the only Lord God, and our
3. And through covetousness shall Lord Jesus Christ.
they with feigned words make
merchandise of you: whose judgment
now of a long time lingereth not,
and their damnation slumbereth not.
4. For if God spared not the angels 6. And the angels which kept not
that sinned, but cast them down to their first estate, but left their
hell, and delivered them into own habitation, he hath reserved in
chains of darkness, to be reserved everlasting chains under darkness
unto judgment: unto the judgment of the great day.
6. And turning the cities of Sodom 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and
and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned the cities about them in like
them with an overthrow, making them manner, giving themselves over to
an ensample unto those that after fornication, and going after
should live ungodly: strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire.
10. But chiefly them that walk 8. Likewise also these filthy
after the flesh in the lust of dreamers defile the flesh, despise
uncleanness, and despise dominion, and speak evil of
government. Presumptuous are they, dignities.
self-willed, they are not afraid to
speak evil of dignities.
11. Whereas angels, which are 9. Yet Michael the archangel, when
greater in power and might, bring contending with the Devil he
not railing accusation against them disputed about the body of Moses,
before the Lord. durst not bring against him a
railing accusation, but said, The
Lord rebuke thee.
12. But these, as natural brute 10. But these speak evil of those
beasts, made to be taken and things which they know not: but
destroyed, speak evil of the things what they know naturally, as brute
that they understand not; and shall beasts, in those things they
utterly perish in their own corrupt themselves.
corruption.
13 ... Spots they are and 12. These are spots in your feasts
blemishes, sporting themselves with of charity, when they feast with
their own deceivings while they you, feeding themselves without
feast with you. fear.
17. These are wells without water, 12. Clouds they are without water,
clouds that are carried with a carried about of winds;...
tempest; to whom the mist of 13. ... Wandering stars, to whom is
darkness is reserved for ever. reserved the blackness of darkness
for ever.
18. For when they speak great 16. These are murmurers,
swelling words of vanity, they complainers, walking after their
allure through the lusts of the own lusts; and their mouth speaketh
flesh, through much wantonness, great swelling words, having men’s
those that were clean escaped from persons in admiration because of
them who live in error. advantage.
Very few readers, it is probable, will rise from the examination of this
parallelism, without the persuasion, that the writings betraying it
cannot be independent productions; and without amazement at the opinion
of Lardner, that “the similitude of the subject might produce,” to such
extent, “a resemblance of style. The design,” he continues, “of St.
Peter and St. Jude was to condemn some loose and erroneous Christians,
and to caution others against them. When speaking of the same sort of
persons, their style and figures of speech would have a great
agreement.”[585] Lardner appears to shrink from attributing to the
inspired St. Jude (supposing him to be the later writer) either
plagiarism or a needless repetition of instruction.[586] But why should
his inspiration deter him from such an act? It rather affords, as
Michaelis observes, a conclusive reason for ascribing it to him. “For
the Holy Ghost,” this author suggests, “certainly knew, while he was
dictating the Epistle to St. Jude, that an Epistle of St. Peter, of a
like import, already existed. And if the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding
this knowledge, still thought that an Epistle of St. Jude was not
unnecessary, why shall we suppose that St. Jude himself would have been
prevented from writing by the same knowledge?”[587] This argument of the
learned German certainly renders it unnecessary to _doubt_, with the
scrupulous Lardner, whether St. Jude would copy from a fellow-labourer’s
letter: but then, it also renders it unnecessary to _believe_ this: for
with the perfect familiarity which the _Holy Ghost_ possessed (“while
dictating”) with the previous epistle of Peter, there was no occasion
whatever for _St. Jude_ to have the knowledge too. Indeed so completely
might any degree of parallelism be explained in this way, that no
conceivable phenomena of agreement would furnish the slightest proof
that the one writer had seen the production of the other.
For some inscrutable reasons, however, all the ablest theologians seem
to have declined this easy solution, by appeal to the memory of the Holy
Ghost; and to have been convinced that some method, simply human, must
be sought, to account for the accordance between these two epistles.
Some have supposed, with Bishop Sherlock, that both authors drew their
materials from a common source, the imagery and phraseology of which
they freely used. But as Eichhorn has well observed, “Bare conjecture is
an insufficient support for this supposition; in the absence of all
trace of any document giving plausibility to the suggestion, by
disclosing a source in common relation with the corresponding passages
of the two epistles.”[588] If this explanation be untenable, nothing
remains but to conclude that one of the writers copied from the other;
and this, accordingly, has been the general opinion of theologians.
This, however, is the only point on which critics are agreed: for when
the question is proposed, whether St. Peter or St. Jude were the
original writer, it is curious to observe the confidence with which each
of the two answers may be returned, and the opposite views which may be
taken of the considerations affecting the decision. In the absence of
all external evidence, the intrinsic character of the two compositions
must determine our reply: and the chief impression which results from a
comparison of them is, that St. Jude has expressed his ideas with more
succinctness and unity; St. Peter with more vagueness and amplification.
Appealing to this circumstance, Dr. Hug says, “the critic cannot fail to
perceive which was the original;” “it is evident that the passages of
Peter are periphrases and amplifications;” “the _originality of Jude is
clear_ from the comparison of both authors, and especially from the
language;” “Peter had, therefore, the Epistle of Jude before him, and in
his own manner applied it to his purposes.”[589] Michaelis, however,—who
rejects the Epistle of Jude, and says that, “judging by its contents,”
we “have no inducement to believe it a sacred and divine work,”—ventures
on the following confident statements: “No doubt can be made, that the
second Epistle of St. Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of St. Jude,
the original and not the copy:” “with respect to the date of this
(Jude’s) Epistle, _all that I am able to assert_ is, that it was written
_after_ the second Epistle of St. Peter;” “this appears from a
comparison of the two, which are so similar to each other both in
sentiments and in expressions, as no two epistles could well be, unless
the author of the one had read the epistle of the other. It is evident
therefore that St. Jude borrowed from St. Peter both expressions and
arguments, to which he himself has made some few additions.”[590]
After reading these positive statements on either side, we are struck
with the justice of the following remark of Eichhorn’s: referring to the
differences between the two epistles in respect to their style, he says:
“These phenomena admit of a twofold explanation. Peter might be regarded
as the original and Jude as the copy; inasmuch as, in the process of
revision, a writing may become more perfect in the expression and
disposition of the ideas: the superfluities will naturally be
retrenched, the march of the thoughts become quicker, the diction more
choice; the copyist having the matter all before him, and being able to
direct his attention exclusively to the form which it shall assume. But
with just as much truth we might turn round and say,—Jude was the
original, whom Peter illustrated, amplified, and paraphrased. In the
process, the style lost its unity, its compactness, its clear outline:
the paraphrast interrupted the succession of thoughts with several
foreign ideas; and the exposition of the subject thus became more
obscure, prolix, and disorderly. Who can decide between these two
possibilities?”
This acute author does not, however, consider the problem of impossible
solution. The suspense in which its difficulty holds us, continues, he
observes, “only so long as we confine ourselves merely to a mutual
comparison of the parallel passages. If we look at them in their
relation to the whole of St. Peter’s second epistle, we find a reason
for concluding that Jude is original, Peter the copyist. The author of
the _second chapter_ of Peter does not stand, as a writer, on his own
ground: if he did, his mode of writing would be the same as in the
_first and third chapters_, which, however, is not the case. It is clear
that we cannot apply to Jude this test of originality, derived from
consistency of style; for we possess no other composition of his, with
which to compare his epistle. Yet there is a compactness and unity in
his writing, from which its independent character may be inferred.
Whoever is content to take up the thoughts of others, yet not without
introducing something of his own, is easily drawn aside by accessory
ideas; by which the definite outline of a composition is lost. This is
by no means the case in the epistle of Jude.”[591]
It is generally admitted, then, that these two productions, as far as
their topics coincide, constitute but one authority: and we shall
follow, I think, the most judicious criticism, if we assign that
authority, whatever it may be, to the epistle of Jude. Whence, then, did
he derive his knowledge of such circumstances as those which are
mentioned in the sixth and ninth verses, respecting “the angels which
kept not their first estate,” and “Michael the archangel contending with
the Devil” “about the body of Moses?” There are but three supposable
sources; immediate personal inspiration; the Hebrew Scriptures; or some
non-canonical and unauthoritative work.
The first of these suppositions I do not find to be maintained by any
creditable theological writer; and it may be dismissed with the
following remarks of Michaelis:—“The dispute between Michael and the
Devil about the body of Moses, has by no means the appearance of a true
history: and the author of our epistle has not even hinted that he knew
it to be true by the aid of Divine inspiration, or that he distinguished
it from other Jewish traditions. On the contrary, he has introduced it
as part of a story, with which his readers were already acquainted: he
does not appear to have had any other authority for it, than they
themselves had: nor does the part which he has quoted at all imply,
either that he himself doubted, or that he wished his readers should
doubt, of the other parts of it.”[592]
The second supposition, that the writer makes no allusion, on these
points of celestial history, to any thing beyond the Old Testament, is
so universally regarded as untenable, that even Lardner’s great
authority will hardly avail to procure it any further attention. In what
part of the Hebrew Scriptures St. Jude obtained his information
respecting the fallen angels, Lardner, while deploring a like omission
on the part of his predecessors, has neglected to explain. And when, in
order to connect the story of Michael and the Devil with Zach. iii. 1-3,
he is obliged to construe “_the body of Moses_,” into _the Israelitish
people_, it surely becomes evident that the consideration of this
passage never fully engaged his incomparable judgment.[593] Happily,
Lardner’s is a reputation of which there is no need to be economical:
and even theological opponents cannot apply to him the description
which, with some truth and more severity, they have given of Mr.
Wakefield, as a “scholar, who was great among Unitarians, but not among
scholars:”—
“Quem bis terque bonum cum risu miror; et idem
Indignor, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus?”
There remains, then, but the third supposition, that St. Jude derived
these notices of the supernatural world from some apocryphal and
traditional work. And we need the less scruple to admit this, as he
himself intimates the fact, in the fourteenth verse, where he refers to
the _Book of Enoch_. This work professes to be extant in the Æthiopic
language; and the copies of it contain the passage cited by St. Jude:
and whatever doubts may attach to Bishop Lawrance’s opinion, that we
have it substantially as it was originally written shortly before the
time of Christ, the citations from the “Book of Enoch,” by Syncellus,
and the references to it by both Greek and Latin Fathers, are too
numerous and ancient, to leave it questionable that such a work existed,
and was in use not long after the Christian era, and probably before.
Hug gives this account of it:—“The Book of Enoch, in fact, was full of
Jewish, Theurgical, and Magical reveries, as indeed the character of the
person, to whom this writing was ascribed, required it to be. According
to Eupolemus, he is said to have been the inventor of Astrology, or
rather a scholar of the Angels in this science, who initiated him into
the mysteries of it; for he had at one time obtained a mission to the
Angels, on which occasion he probably received their instruction. But it
did not suffice, that he was acquainted with the course of the planets,
the position of the Heavens, and their signification; but he likewise,
as the Jews and other Easterns maintained, learned in addition from the
heavenly natures, the art of prognostication, characters, offerings,
purifications, lustrations, and other things of this description, which
he imparted to mankind. According to these ideas, which were entertained
of him far and wide among Jews, Arabians, and others, we can easily
determine, to what sort of literature his writings must belong. The
remains of it, which we find in the Church-Fathers also, do not deceive
this expectation.”[594]
Though this is the only Apocryphal production to which St. Jude refers
by name, Origen informs us, in a passage already cited, that the
adventure between Michael and the Devil was taken from a work entitled
Ἀνάληψις or Ἀνάβασις τοῦ Μωσέως. “From a comparison of the relation in
this book with St. Jude’s quotation,” says Michaelis, “he was thoroughly
persuaded, that it was the book from which St. Jude quoted. This he
asserts without the least hesitation: and in consequence of this
persuasion, he himself has quoted the Assumption of Moses, as a work of
authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the Devil. But
as he has quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an
imperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the dispute
about the body of Moses. One circumstance, however, he has mentioned,
which is not found in the epistle of St. Jude, namely, that Michael
reproached the Devil with having possessed the serpent which seduced
Eve. In what manner this circumstance is connected with the dispute
about the body of Moses will appear from the following consideration.
The Jews imagined the person of Moses was so holy, that God could find
no reason for permitting him to die: and that nothing but the sin
committed by Adam and Eve in paradise, which brought death into the
world, was the cause why Moses did not live for ever. The same notions
they entertained of some other very holy persons, for instance of Isai,
who, they say, was delivered to the angel of death, merely on account of
the sins of our first parents, though he himself did not deserve to die.
Now in the dispute between Michael and the Devil about Moses, the Devil
was the accuser, and demanded the death of Moses. Michael therefore
replied to him, that he himself was the cause of that sin, which alone
could occasion the death of Moses. How very little such notions as these
agree, either with the Christian theology, or with Moses’ own writings,
it is unnecessary for me to declare.”[595]