Notice further, that our Lord in the act of healing her “laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight and glorified God." The ruler of the synagogue, speaking according to the true state-of the case, spoke of this woman as laboring under a mere bodily disorder. He does not say-there are six days, in them come and be loosed from satanʼs bondage, but in them come and be healed, verse 14. He was filled with indignation because our Lord had healed her on the Sabbath. What was said by our Lord about satan, in defence of his conduct, is predicated on two grounds; 1st. On the principles of common humanity, which the Jews exercised towards their cattle on the Sabbath. "Thou hypocrite" says Jesus, "doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?" What was the inference from this? Ought not this woman a daughter of Abraham to be loosed from her infirmity on the Sabbath?

2d. He defends his conduct on the supposition that satan had bound this woman. If they believed this, how could they blame him for loosing her on the Sabbath day. Who could resist these reasons? Accordingly it is said verse 17. that "all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him." Here our Lord showed his wisdom in refuting his adversaries. But let us suppose, that satan positively was the cause of this woman's disorder, what follows? It follows, that our Lord, neither on this or any other occasion, warned men against his great power and malignity, nor were the people half so much alarmed, as they would have been, if a wild beast had visited their neighborhood. They showed no fear respecting such a powerful wicked being. Whoever contends that satan bound this woman, ought to contend, that all persons so bound now, and why not all dis

eases, are inflicted by him. If this be true, we are in a miserable condition. Medical men may scatter all their knowledge of the healing art to the winds, and henceforth learn to work miracles, or cultivate the friendship of satan, as the only means left them of excelling in their profession.

Luke xxii. 3. "Then entered satan into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." If satan entered into Judas, was not Judas possessed of satan? But it is a fact, that though persons are said to have been possessed of demons, yet we never read of one who was possessed of the devil or satan. But how could satan be in Judas, tormenting the wicked in hell, and tempting all the world besides, unless we make him almost equal to God himself? And if he did enter Judas for the purpose of working evil, is it not strange that some good angel did not also enter him to counter-work his evil devices? Well, what satan entered into Judas? I answer, the spirit of opposition to Jesus and the secret purpose to betray him. The 4th verse shows this, for he went his way and communed with the chief priests and captains how he might betray him unto them." See on the next passage.

John xiii. 27. "And after the sop satan entered into him." What satan now entered Judas, for it was said in the preceding passage, that satan had entered into him? I answer, his fixed determination immediately to execute his purpose. It was just before the last Passover, Judas purposed to betray Jesus, and bargained with the chief priests about it, Matth. xxvi. 14-17. This purpose is called satan entering into him, Luke xxii. 1-7: and the devil putting it into his heart, John xiii. 2. But, from the time he formed the purpose, until he received the sop, none but himself, Jesus, and the chief priests knew his design. At verse 10. Jesus says, "ye are clean but not all."

comp. verse 11. Again at verse 18. Again at verse 18. he says" but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." But at verse 21. Jesus says plainly, "one of you shall betray me." This roused among the disciples the inquiry, "Lord who is it?" To point the person out, without naming him, Jesus says "he it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop he gave it to Judas." The words before us immediately follow" and after the sop satan entered into him." What connexion could there be betwixt his receiving the sop and a fallen angel entering into him? But there is a rational connexion, between receiving the sop, and his fixed determination to execute his purpose immediately. The delicate hints of his guilt must have agitated Judas' mind: but giving him the sop, must have roused him to fury, as he was now openly exposed, and he departs to execute his design. The words which follow confirm this-"that thou doest do quickly." These words, though not understood by the rest of the disciples, appear to have been well understood by Judas. They hastened his departure; for upon hearing them he went "immediately out." But where did he go to, and for what purpose? To his employers, the chief priests, that he might execute his determination. See Matth. xxvi. 47-50. What is a remarkable fact, and confirms the above view, satan is never said to have entered into the Jews. And why not? Because satan had always been in them. They never had been any thing else, but a satan or adversary to our Lord. But Judas had been one of Christ's professed friends, and the same opposition or satan which had always been in the Jews, entered into him when he formed the design to betray Jesus, and also when he determined to execute his design. To this day, when a man acts a very wicked part,

contrary to his former professions, we in popular language say, "satan has entered into him." Besides, the view we have given is in agreement with the Old Testament usage of the term satan, where it is applied to the evil principles and bad passions in men. Acts v. 3. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land." It is not said that satan entered into Ananias, but only that he had filled his heart. But what is meant by the words

"why hath satan filled thine heart," is in verse 4. thus explained" why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart." Here two things are obvious. First, what in the one sentence is said to be done by satan, is in the other ascribed to Ananias himself; and second, what is meant by satan filling the heart, is explained to mean, Ananias conceiving this thing in his heart. It seems to be an Hebrew idiom, and is illustrated by the words of Ahasuerus to Esther the queen. "Who is he? And where is he that durst presume in his heart to do so?" It is in the margin"whose heart hath filled him." See Esth. vii. 5. Notice further, that it is not said satan had filled the heart of Sapphira, verse 9. Peter only says to her-" how is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" But why? for she lied as well as her husband. This is accounted for by considering, that great or uncommon instances of natural or moral evil among the Jews were ascribed to satan. Yea, we have seen, Sect. 4. that satan was considered the author and director of all evil. Peter speaks at the outset, of the greatness of the sin of lying to the Holy Spirit; in the popular language of the times-"why hath satan filled thine heart." But he had also explained his meaning, or spoken according to the true state of the case, by saying "why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart." After this it would have

been incongruous to introduce again the popular language about satan in speaking to Sapphira. What shows Satan, a fallen angel, had nothing to do with the sin of either of them is, Peter's explanation of the popular language-"why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart," agrees precisely with James' account how people are tempted to sin. "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed," chap. i. 13, 14. James does not allow any man to say when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God, for God tempt. eth no man. But if it be true, that Ananias was, or any man is tempted of satan, would he not allow them to say the truth? But James expressly declares that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust. Ananias and his wife were drawn away by their lust or love of money. This satan filled their heart. They were enticed by it to lie to the Spirit of God. But had a fallen angel enticed them or others, why is he never blamed for it by those whom he seduced. Did David blame him? Did even Judas blame him? No, bad as he was, he takes all the blame to himself. "I have betrayed the innocent blood." Nor is satan ever threatened with any punishment. Ananias and his wife are struck dead for their crime, but if satan was the chief agent why does he escape? For a very good reason, there never was such a being to be punished.

Acts xxvi. 18. "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith which is in me." The history of Paul's preaching does not afford an instance that he ever proposed, or actually did turn a single individual from