and intelligible assertion of Christ? One might, with equal propriety, reason with a pendulum, as with such pretenders to logic; never at rest in one place, but first in one extreme, then in the other. I do not allow that there is the least contrariety between what Christ taught personally, and what he taught by the prophets before, and by the apostles after him. The only apostolical passage adduced against the personal existence of Satan, is that from James, which is perfectly consistent with all the passages on which any reliance has been placed, and the quotations from Isaiah and Amos are wholly irrelevant. Is there, then, any reason for explaining away and disbelieving the many reiterated declarations of scripture, which at the first blush, and after the most thorough examination, evidently state the fact of diabolical existence and agency? If this were an error, why did not Christ explode it? Why need he have confirmed it? Is not a single "thus saith the Lord," worth a thousand fancies, reasonings, and hypotheses of the most learned theologians? What do we know of the unseen, eternal, spiritual world, except what the Bible reveals? What can the Bible reveal, what can God himself possibly reveal, in regard to that unknown world, whither we are rapidly tending, if, after admitting the Bible to contain his revealed will, we subject his declarations to our purblind reason in this cradle and shell of our existence? Does not the short-sightedness of reason prevent our looking a step beyond the grave?" Cannot Omnipotence, that created millions of worlds, and spread them out through infinite space, have also peopled them with myriads of intelligences? Must all these be dwarfed to the puny dimensions of earth-born man? Is there not truth, as well as poetry in the declaration,

66

"Think not, though men were none,

That heaven would want spectators, God want praise." Among the millions of spirits "that walk the earth

unseen," why may not some be evil?* Will Unitarian notions of moral liberty present any obstacle to the belief, that some of them may have perverted their high powers, and apostatized from their allegiance to the Lord of the Universe? If good angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to encamp about the righteous," why may not evil spirits seduce the ungodly to greater ungodliness? What is there mysterious, unscriptural, irrational, or anti-analogical in the fact, that intelligences of a higher power, official or intellectual, real or relative, should be disposed to draw those of lesser capacity into sin? Were Jeroboam and Lord Byron scrupulously conscientious on this point? Is it not a most extensive principle, that "misery loves company ?" Does not the very nature and essence of sin consist in malevolence? just as, on the other hand, holiness is benevolence, God is love? Learned men may speculate what they will on the nature of sin, as consisting in the transgression of law published or imprinted on the original constitution of the soul, they do not reach the full truth of the case till they understand, that sin, of its own proper nature, exhibited, simply in and by itself, is unmixed, defecated malevolence, hostility to all good, inclination to all evil. Such it is in hell. Such it is among the fallen spirits of the unseen world. If such spirits exist, the simple question is, have they any influence over men? Who can answer this question? Can reason un*If the existence of Satan and of evil spirits be an oriental fiction, is not the existence of good spirits such a fiction also? What firmer foundation would a thorough rationalist want for his anti-angelical creed, than the following lines from Hesiod?

"Aerial spirits, by great Jove designed

To be on earth the guardians of mankind;
Invisible to mortal eyes they go,

And mark our actions, good or bad, below:

Th' immortal spies with watchful care preside,

And thrice ten thousand round their charges glide.
They can reward with glory or with gold,

Such power divine permission bids them hold."

Works and days. B. i. v. 120.

enlightened by revelation? Can experience, however general? Their answer might be ambiguous, and would certainly be unauthoritative. The only indisputable answer must come from one who knew the truth, would state the truth, and whose testimony, we know by sufficient evidence, is true. Such an answer we have heard from the lips of Jesus Christ, and heard it confirmed by all his apostles whose written testimony has come down to us. There is no room for a subsequent question as to the how in this matter. The current philosophy would teach us there is no how in the universe, at least no intelligible, explicable how. Actual facts, we are assured, antecedent, coincident, or subsequent, are the only hows of philosophical investigation or rational belief.

If, however, you will not believe a fact till you understand how it is, how is your soul united to your body? Are you not constrained to reply, as all others have been before you, "I do not know"? Disbelieve the fact then. Your soul is not united to your body; or you have no soul; or you have no body. If ignorance of the mode in which a fact exists is to disprove the fact, each and all of these conclusions may be legitimately drawn from man's ignorance of the mode in which spirit and matter are connected in himself.

Do you deny the existence, presence, and influence of evil spirits, because you cannot perceive and comprehend them? Can you perceive or comprehend the existence, presence, and influence of an all-pervading, ever-present, infinite Spirit, "in whom you live and move and have your being"? Must you not say with Job, "Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; backward, but I cannot perceive him; on the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him; he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him"? Follow out your principles. You cannot perceive by any internal sense, by any perspicaci

ty of intellect, a present, incomprehensible, impalpable Spirit. He cannot exist. You are an atheist. You shrink with horror from this conclusion. It is the legitimate, the inevitable result of your principles of reasoning. But if one Spirit may be present to our souls, yes, must be ever present or we sink into annihilation, and yet we are unconscious of this sustaining, ever-active energy, why may not other spirits be present, either constantly or occasionally, and we be unconscious of their presence? Does God know the creatures of his power? their nature, their capacities, dispositions, efforts and tendencies? If so, shall the Omniscient be credited when he speaks, or be subjected to the skepticism of an insect, that, but as yesterday, saw the sun, and to-morrow shall see it no more? Shall we believe God or not? Shall we follow the bewildering light, the ignis fatuus, which Hume or Eichhorn. may hold out to allure us, or HIM, who is the way, THE TRUTH, and the life?

There is, then, in short, no reason, no argument, no analogy, no plausibility, for which to give up the plain, repeated, intelligible declarations of eternal truth on this subject ?*

Before proceeding to some practical remarks, which either spring from, or are intimately connected with the subject discussed, I wish to say, that the testimony of the Lord Jesus, and of his apostles, is the only ground taken or desired for belief on this question. What their repeated, explicit, and united testimony is, has been seen. All other authority has been rejected. The Council of Trent and the Augsburg Confession, the Synod of Dort and the Racovian Catechism, the Thirty Nine Articles and the Assembly's Confession of Faith, Rome and Canterbury, Andover and Cambridge, the churches of Boston, whether creedless or "trust deed"-ed, have been thrown * See note G.

aside to give place to this one question, What saith the scripture ?*

Whoever shall honor the writer with the notice of a reply or review, or attempt to instruct an inquiring and intelligent community on the subject here discussed, will permit him to suggest, that a simply scriptural discussion is what the course here pursued and the exigencies of the times require. An answer, to deserve the name, must consist of a refutation of the arguments here advanced by a critical examination and satisfactory explanation of the texts here quoted. Let the remark, often quoted, "retorquere non est respondere," not be forgotten. "A virtual answer" may "differ widely" from an actual answer, and has sometimes been thought a softer name for "evasion." Having taken my stand on the great Protestant principle, a principle often acknowledged and appealed to by Unitarians, to wit, the entire sufficiency of the scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice, I shall not willingly and of my own accord be drawn into any other discussion. If, however, contrary to the wishes indulged and here expressed, any gentleman shall think that important information may be obtained or illustration thrown upon the subject by an examination of eastern mythology, or by a comparison of the philosophical tenets of minds widely separated in time and place, or by an etymological view of such words as Abaddon, Baalzebub, Diabolos, Satan, &c. or by an extended comparison of the classical and scriptural use of demon, daimonion, &c. or by an examination of patristical opinions, or by a collation of the opinions of all ages and all countries, early and late, remotę, savage, and civilized, the writer hereby expresses his entire readiness, should Providence permit, to enter on such an investigation, after a reply of the character above described shall have been given.

* See note H.