In regard to the second part of sees, as a sect;" Matt, xü. 22—29. the proposition contained, in the To those who, for the purpose of above argument, namely, that Christ shaping their conclusions to their was put to suffering by the tempter, wishes, are willing to take hypothesis Canonicus observes, that "after the for criticism, the doctrine of accomdevil had departed from him, no other modation may seem to furnish here mention is made of any such tempta- if any where, a ready answer to the tion through his whole life, till near argument; but it will not sweep its close, when he makes this remark- away the obstacles which our author able declaration: Hereafter I will has piled in its way, under these two not talk much with you, for the prince particulars, and still more under the of this world cometh and hath no- third, namely "that Christ taught the thing in me;" and to this renewed same doctrine to his disciples in prieffort of the adversary of his kingdom, vate." His explanation of the parain that hour which was "the power ble of the tares, in compliance with of darkness," when he was so for their request, when the multitude had saken of the Father as to be exposed left them and they were alone, was the to all that could be inflicted by him following: He that soweth the good "who has the power of death, that is seed is the Son of Man; the field is the devil;" "whose works he came the world; the good seed are the to destroy," and whose power and children of the kingdom; but the dominion at this hour trembled tares are the children of the wicked and were broken," Canonicus, as one: the enemy, that sowed them, others have done, attributes his ex- is the devil; the harvest is the end of treme agony in the garden. On no the world; and the reapers are the other hypothesis can he explain satis- angels. "I ask," says our author, factorily to himself the appearance of the Saviour on that affecting occasion. The prince of this world, then, tempted Christ, entering on his ministry, and agonized him, (so to express it,) finishing it. At these two periods we might, a priori, expect the enemy of all goodness, if ever permitted to assail the Prince of Peace, to be awake to the dangers of his kingdom, and active to prevent its overthrow. The commencement and the completion of the great work of redemption, were epochs too marked not to call forth all the art and venom of the powers of darkness. If Christ, if spotless perfection, could be thus tempted and caused to suffer, what shall we think of those in whose mortal members sin reigns, whose hearts are evil only, and continually? p. 23. Such is the conclusion of the first argument. The second is, that "Christ himself repeatedly and explicitly taught this doctrine." "He taught it, first, to the Jews at large, as a people;" John viii. 44-48. "Secondly, he taught it to the Phari I ask in the name of reason, of conscience, and of common sense, if words could have been selected more explicit, to express the same truth in the same compass? Words must fail to express ideas, and human language be given up not only as a medium of revelation, but as a medium of intercourse between man and man, if the Divine Teacher did not, in this explanation of a parable, before uttered with intentional comparative obscurity, assert distinctly the existence of an evil spirit, his influence in this world, and the agency of angels at the last day in separating the good from the bad among men. An accumulation of similar testimony, after an explanation so distinct, so pointed, so express, were a needless waste of time and paper. The mind, which is in a state to resist or explain away the explanation already given, would not believe though one were to rise from the dead. In relation to this very subject the Saviour said, " because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." Is there no reason to fear that a similar charge would still hold good? The nature of the truth itself is, often, the very reason why that truth is rejected. The passage quoted from Matthew presents to every mind, on first reading it, one meaning, and one meaning only. It admits of no other. This meaning the Saviour expressed to his confidential friends in their retirement, when they had requested him to explain the parable of the tares. There was no possible room for an ad hominem argument here. All occasion for obscurity was removed. The apostles express no remaining difficulty as to the parable. It is all cleared up. pp. 30, 31. Nay, it is not cleared up, that we can see. They were likely to be more in the dark than they were before, if the Unitarian view be the true one. The explanation itself needs explaining. It does at least to all those who have not such a Jewish familiarity with "the fictions of oriental mythology" as to be in no danger of understanding a figure of speech literally and such have been and ever will be the great mass of common readers of the Bible. In every other particular of his explanation save this one the Divine Teacher is understood according to the literal meaning of his words. "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man.' This is literal. So the interpretation of the field, the good seed, the tares, the harvest, and the reapers, is to be understood literally; but for an explanation of the "enemy" we have only one figure for another. "The enemy is the devil," and the devil is "the personification of the principle of evil." If we might take our Saviour's words according to their natural import, we should imagine we understood his ing, but this explanation of his explanation leaves us in perplexity. The same difficulty occurs in the parable of the sower. "Those by the way-side," says its author, explaining the parable to his disciples, "are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved;" or as another evangelist records it, "then cometh mean the wicked one," and another, "Satan cometh immediately, &c." Strange that the Teacher sent from God, and the disciples divinely taught of him, should be so attached to this particular figure of speech that they should never express its import in plain and literal terms. In what a variety of ways do both they, and the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures before them, use this personfication, without ever seeming to reflect how liable their simple readers might be, especially those of remote times and countries, to misapprehend their meaning. "I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven” "that old Serpent the devil"— "the prince of this world"-" the devil and his angels"-" the angels that sinned"-" the angels that kept "the devils not their first estate"-"that Satan believe and tremble”tempt you not"—"lest Satan get an advantage over us"- your adversary the devil"-"the wiles of the devil"-"the snare of the devil”—“Michael the archangel contending with the devil," &c. &c.-a whole page -66 of Cruden would not contain all the instances of this "personification" in one form or other. Our author pursues his investigation under several propositions, of which the following is a summary; that Christ possessed and exerted the power of expelling devils from individuals tormented by them; that he imparted this power to his apostles and the seventy disciples; that he taught, concerning evil spirits, a continuity of agency, influence, and connexion, intelligible only on the supposition of personal existence; that he distinctly represents a mighty evil spirit as occupying a usurped dominion in this world; and that the apostles, Mathew, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, together with the disciples Mark and Luke, understood their commission to mean that men were literally to be turned" from the power of Satan unto God." Thus far the argument is Scriptural; and it is supported by abundant citations from the Scriptures, subjected to the test of the soundest principles of criticism. If the author has not anticipated all the difficulties which Unitarian opponents may be able to present to him, he has brought more difficulties to them than they will ever solve by any theory of theirs. He asks them to solve them if they can, not in the spirit of a challenge, but apparently with a wish to be instructed in the truth, if the truth be with them; or if they be in error, with a benevolent desire that they should come to a better knowledge. But the argument from the Scriptures is against them, and the more fully it is exhibited, the more critically it is examined, the more attentively it is pondered, the more overwhelming will it appear. To the Scriptures alone we are to look for an authoritative decision. Beyond what revelation tells us, of the spiritual world, we can know nothing. The argument from the Scriptures is sufficient, yet Canonicus presses the opposing theory with philosophical difficulties. The orthodox view, hermeneutically tested, the only decisive test on a subject of this nature, is natural and unembarrassed. The liberal theory is awkward and constrained, perplexed at every step, involving itself in palpable and sometimes even ludicrous absurdities. Now as a universal thing, which of two theories does philosophy adopt, as her own? That which is most, or that which is least embarrassed with difficulties; that which is consistent with all the facts in the case, or that which twists and tortures the facts to reconcile them to itself? We have given some examples of the manner in which the Orthodox interpret the sacred teachers on the subject of fallen spirits: it is but justice to the Unitarians that we should favor our readers with a specimen or two of their way of explain ing the same subject. Lardner, universally respected for his talents, industry, aud candor, explains the ac count of the two possessed with devils, in the country of the Gergesenes thus. Lardner states three hypotheses adopted to explain the destruction of the herd of swine. Christ either communicated the disease, (insanity,) with which the two men were affected, to down the hill; or evil spirits were cast the swine; or these men drove them out of them, and suffered to enter the swine, by which they were driven into the deep. He rejects the first as unreasonable. He adopts the second, as do rational Christians generally. The Orthodox adopt the third. Let us examine the rational theory. If the two maniacs drove the swine into the deep, (to say nothing of the difficulty [impossi bility?] of the attempt, and not to ask what the keepers were about,) they drove them before they were cured or afterwards. If they drove them before, while they were yet maniacs, why should the people so earnestly have besought Christ to depart out of their coast for curing afflicted maniacs, and preventing other cases, when Christ had cured the farther mischief? Was it common in sick, to beseech him to be gone? Would it not have been more rational in this instance to have besought him to stay? or were they, one and all, desirous of a further destruction of their property? If they drove them afterwards, were not the maniacs more insane after their in sanity was cured, than while their madness raged? From the narrative of the evangelists, it is evident, that the cure, in some degree, preceded the destruction of the swine. There is no hint nor shadow of a hint that the men were themselves the cause of this destruction; still less, if less be possible, that they were this cause after they were restored to their "right minds." This supposition is not only gratuitous and without evidence, but against the whole mass of evidence. Yet Lardner says, "when he had imagined the thought of gratifying the evil spirits by which he imagined himself to be possessed,with without much difficulty drive them off the destruction of the swine, he would the precipice. [Would two mad-men from the Insane Hospital drive two thousand swine off Central Wharf in the presence of" their keepers," "with out much difficulty?" Were swine less contrary in Judea than in Massachusetts?] If some few of them were put in motion, the whole herd would follow. Nor is it unlikely that the other person, his companion in affliction, joined his assistance; for St. Matthew speaks of two. They invested the herd [this partakes rather of an Irish than an Oriental idiom,] on each side and thus drove them before them." Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 474. All this is rational, very rational. No cne more highly respects the amiable character and extensive acquisitions of Lardner, than the writer. But I must protest against absurdity of explanation even though offered by Lardner. pp. 46, 47. Cappe, the writer noticed in the extracts which follow, is a man whom Canonicus characterizes as "among the most intelligent, critical, and cautious, of Unitarian writers," and is an able contributor to the English Monthly Repository, a work much esteemed by American Unitarians. The extracts are accompained by the comment of our author. To proced with this writer. "John viii. 44. Ye are of your father the devil,' &c. Such is the influence of association and of long established habits of thinking, that it will not be easy to suggest any interpretation of this passage different from the common one, which will not appear to many very harsh and unsupported." True. Reader how do you think he gets over, or round this difficulty? Tax your invention to the utmost, and you will be disappointed at last. This writer is not one of those, gravelled with a small or a sizeable difficulty. He thinks it most natural to suppose that Cain was the murderer, who abode not in the truth, referred to by Christ in this place. But should any of his readers have some" doubts and difficulties," as to this allusion, he has still another bridge over which he can retreat. In that case, he says, " Jesus nced only be supposed to refer to the commonly received opinion of the origin of evil designs and wicked practices." Any farther explanatory notice one would think a work of supererogation. How ever, he follows up these two rather startling propositions by a third, which is not far out of its proper place in cap. In the language ping such a climax. of his reproaches and of his accusations against those who were seeking his life, we are not to look for his authorized instructions upon a subject incidentally introduced"!!! Incidentally introduced! Expressly introduced by himself, without any call or extraordinary occasion for it on the part of the Jews. Such is the reverence of English Unitarians for what they allow to be the very declarations of Christ himself. No wonder after this, that the apostles should be treated quite cavalierly. "Acts xiii. 10. O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness,' &c. Paul was a man of strong feelings and strong passions, and no doubt was greatly irritated and provoked by the conduct of Elymas. It seems there was just occasion for this resentment, for it is recorded that Elymas was struck blind by the instrumentality of Paul; but no argument for the existence and agency of the devil can be founded on the indignant language of the apostle." Certainly not! If the language "of reproach and accusation" employed by Christ only confirmed his hearers in a long received error, what else could be expected from an "indignant" apostle? It matters not that, in the ninth verse, Paul is said to have been "full of the Holy Ghost;" a circumstance thought too unimportant by this writer to deserve even a passing notice. The devil, who goes about as a roaring lion, is, according to this writer, none other than Nero. We come to a passage, to which, and this writer's remarks upon it, I do most earnestly invite the serious, inquiring, reflecting reader to give special attention. "1 John. iii. 8. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Unquestionably the devil is here spoken of as the author of sin; and as a being who himself sinned; in reference to which the apostle again says, verse 10. in this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God." This writer allows, that inthe 12th verse, the same allusion sion. is made, "not as Cain, who was of that fact admitted, one of the doctrines wicked one and slew his brother." Even of Calvinism is received, and this a rational understanding could not help received-another and another of seeing that "the wicked one," of whom the features of that "gloomy sysCain was, differed from this very Cain himself, who is said to be the devil in tem" follow, and claim a like admisthe eighth of John. "It may however be questioned," [what cannot be questioned by a sturdy, heartless skeptic?] "whether the apostle means to support the truth of this opinion, or only adopts it as the common and prevailing one." pp. 104, 105. Specimens might be given from a great number of Unitarian expositors, more bold and ingenious than these of Cappe; but these will suffice. Expositions such as these, are the strongest arguments for the orthodox belief. On the subject of fallen spirits, as on that of the trinity, the faith which they adopt is never set in so clear a light as when we look at the manner in which the Bible must be treated in order to get rid of these doctrines. In the one case the "Word" is rendered "Wisdom," and in the other Satan is turned into the abstract "principle of evil," and on both subjects the sacred pages are converted into non sense. And why is it that Unitarians show so much reluctance to admit the existence of evil spirits; and compel themselves to such shifts in order to evade what the Bible reveals? They allow the existence of good angels: if they go to the Scriptures, does a just interpretation find there any more evidence for the good than for the bad? No, it is not their criticism, it is their theology that feels the difficulty. It is their serene system of religion which cannot bear these clouds upon its atmosphere. In that region of universal sunshine and peace, no wonder they are startled and disturbed at the idea of dark and guilty beings in the universe of God; for if there be fallen spirits, cast out from heaven, there may be fallen men too, who shall have their portion with them, even with the devil and his angels,"-and this In his closing Letter, our author has addressed some reflections to his readers, which no Unitarian can peruse soberly and candidly, after having gone through with the argument which precedes them, without receiving impressions which will not easily give place to thoughtlessness and indifference. Truth Illustrated; being an attempt to explain several of the most difficult passages, contained in the ninth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. By TOBIAS SPICER. Minister of the Gospel. New-Haven. 12mo. pp. 24. THIS little pamphlet has been lying on our table amid a mass of things for a twelve-month, and every time it has met our eye it has seemed to implore some little notice. And indeed as we look over the contents of the volume which we are now bringing to a close, we somewhat suspect that if we should be judged by Arminian principles we must be convicted of injustice toward Mr. Spicer's book. For it cannot be denied that we have bestowed considerable notice on some works whose intrinsic merit, as it regards both talent and scholarship, was truly inferior to the merit of this performance. The tract before us, considered as a specimen of thought and as a composition in the English language, is certainly much more respectable than the sermon on the same hard subject from the pen of the Rev. Daniel Burhans A. M. Indeed the compliment would hardly be excessive, if we should say that it surpassed in distinctness of conception and chasteness of diction perhaps |