point. The use of the preposition, év, in a causal sense, is frequent in the sacred writings. The objection, also, that in this case a passive and not a middle verb would be required, is totally unfounded, for all the three voices occur alike in such a construction, as might easily be shown. The emphatic expression, their own conscience, which Mede has overlooked, is a further proof that the liars of the second verse are distinct persons from the apostates of the first; and thus confirms the view of Mede, and disproves the partitive construction.

There is only one other translation which seems possible; but as I have not seen it suggested by any one, I name it with some diffidence, though it differs but slightly from that of Mede in form, and still less in meaning, and would only confirm his view of the reference of the word demons. The genitives, then, ver. 2, may depend in common on spirits and doctrines, as genitives of the agent, though not agreeing with demons, which might be a genitive of the object governed by the same noun. This double genitive, though rather harsh, has many examples in classic authors. The version will thus become, "Giving heed to seducing spirits, and devilish (or demonolatrous) doctrines, of men that speak lies in hypocrisy, and are seared as with hot iron in their own conscience." The words, év vroкpiore, will thus belong exclusively to vevdoλóywv, with which they seem naturally connected; and the parties in the second verse will be expressly the teachers, in contrast to the disciples of error. But perhaps

the harshness of the double genitive may render the view of Mede preferable. Thus, however obscure the syntax, the only two constructions that seem lawful concur almost precisely in the same meaning.

2. This leads to a second inquiry. Does the word doctrine admit a genitive of the object, or thing taught, or does it require one of the agent? Mede adopts the former view; Bishop Pearson strongly asserts the latter. The doctrine of baptisms, Heb. vi. 2, is the first instance which Mede has adduced. The Bishop objects to the rendering; and urges that, even if it were correct, the instance is irrelevant, for baptisms are not persons, and a genitive of a person invariably denotes the agent or teacher, and not the subject of the teaching.

The objection, in this case, is just and solid. The true rendering of the phrase in Hebrews is, baptisms of instruction; that is, either, as the Bishop supposes, baptisms for which catechumens were trained by previous teaching; or else, rather, baptisms that instruct us as lively emblems of the inward cleansing of the soul. But there are two of Mede's examples, Acts xiii. 12, Tit. ii. 10, which the Bishop passes in silence. In proof of the opposite construction, he quotes Acts ii. 42, 2 Tim. iii. 10, Rev. ii. 14, 15; and then condemns the construction of Mede in the summary words,-"In vain this usage is sought for in the Scriptures, assuredly it can nowhere be found."

In this contrast of opinions let us appeal at once, by a full induction, to the Word of God.

Two words rendered, doctrine, occur, didaɣn and didaσkalia, the latter being used in this passage. The first occurs seven, the second four times, with a personal genitive; besides ten examples of one, and two of the other, with pronouns. In the latter cases, with one exception, the genitive denotes the teacher. The same is true in five of the former passages, Matt. xvi. 12; Acts ii. 42; Rev. ii. 14, 15; Col. ii. 22; and it is therefore the most usual construction.

But it is not universal. In Rom. xv. 4, the possessive pronoun, which is equivalent to a genitive, relates to the persons taught, and not to the teacher. This is distinct alike from both the agent and the object. In the five other texts, omitting the one in dispute, Acts xiii, 12; 2 John 9, bis; 1 Tim. vi. 1; Tit. ii. 12; the use is ambiguous, but seems to include both ideas alike, the object, and the agent. Nay, on a closer view, the object is more prominently intended. In Acts xiii. the doctrine of the Lord may denote that of which He is the author. But the simplest reference is to the previous words-Now, behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee. It was a doctrine concerning the Lord, as the powerful Avenger of open blasphemy, and its rapid confirmation, which smote the conscience of the deputy, and brought him to the faith.

In the second epistle of St John, the doctrine of Christ may also denote that of which Christ is the author. But the context points to the other meaning. 66 Many deceivers," it is said, "have entered into the world, who confess not Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Then the words

follow, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son." On comparing 1 John iv. 2, 3; v. 1; it is still plainer that the Apostle intends chiefly by that phrase, a doctrine concerning Christ, in His person, His incarnation, and His future return.

Tim. vi. 1, and

The same remarks apply to 1 Titus ii. 10, especially the latter. The title itself, God our Saviour, points at once to the object of the doctrine, salvation, and not to the means by which the truth is conveyed to us. And the context confirms this view; for it is a brief summary of Christian doctrine, closing with the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

The personal genitive, therefore, refers in one instance to the persons taught, and neither to the teacher nor the doctrine. More usually, and when applied to living men, or our Lord himself upon earth, it refers to the person of the teacher. But where God or Christ are thus mentioned, though both ideas are perhaps included, the idea of the subject of the teaching is more prominent, in every case, than that of its author.

To which class of texts does the present one bear the closest analogy? Clearly to the last. The doctrines of demons, however explained, are in plain contrast with the doctrine of God, or the great mystery of godliness, in the same epistle. We are thus led to a view intermediate to those

of Mede and Pearson, but nearer to the former. The doctrines of demons will be those of which demons are both the authors and the main subject; but the subject of the teaching will be the idea chiefly designed. This is confirmed by the use of similar terms. Faith and love, when applied to living men, denote the affections which those men feel towards others, as "the faith of God's elect." But when the faith of Christ, or the love of God occurs, the phrases denote commonly the faith and love of which they are the objects. (Compare Rom. iii. 22, 26; Gal. ii. 16, 20; iii. 22; Phil. iii. 9; Col. ii. 12; James ii. 1; Rev. xiv. 12; Luke xi. 42; John v. 42; Rom. xv. 30; 2 Cor. v. 14; 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 John ii. 15; iii. 17, v. 3.)

The second point then, like the former, must be decided in Mede's favour; though his view should perhaps be slightly modified, and may thus be restored into full harmony with the construction of the early Fathers, and of many later divines. Doctrines of demons, are those of which demons are the authors, and of which they are also the objects; but the latter idea, if analogy has weight, must be the more prominent in the text, as it is also in Mede's interpretation.

3. Another difficulty, and the chief one, still remains. May the word, demons, in Scripture, be explained with Mede, in its classical sense, for the souls of the dead, or mediating spirits between God and men; or must it be taken strictly for devils, or fallen angels? The latter is vehemently maintained by Bishop Pearson, who calls