Page images

insuperable bar to the progress of Socinianism? To show that they have the most direct“ reference” to our subject, we will observe that,

1. Of these demons the Jews deemed Beelzebub the chief. Mr. G. has granted this proposition; (vol. i, p. 74;) and St. Luke relates that “ some of them said, He casteth out demons through Beelzebub, the chief of the demons," Luke xi, 15.

2. This Beelzebub, the chief of the demons, our Lord called Satan. For when the Jews thus accused him of casting out demons by Beelzebub, he said unto them, “ If Satan be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand ? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelze. bub,” Luke xi, 18.

3. The name Satan is that which our Lord generally used in speaking of him; but he whom our Lord calls Satan, is by the evangelist, speaking his own language, called the devil. In the account which St. Matthew has given of our Lord's temptation, he relates that Jesus said, “Get thee hence, Satan,” Matt. iv, 10. But the evangelist

says, “ The devil taketh him up into the holy city;" “ the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high moun. tain ;” and “then the devil leaveth him,” Matt. iv, 5, 8, 11.

4. This Satan, the devil, Beelzebub, is called the chief of demons; and in perfect accord with this notion our Lord attributed to him a kingdom. 6 If Satan be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand ?” Luke xi, 18. Hence, we read so often of “ the devil and his angels.”

5. These demons, the subjects of Beelzebub, the de. vil's angels, are also called Satan.

Our Lord supposes that for Beelzebub to cast out demons, would be for “ Satan to cast out Satan,” Matt. xii, 26. Thus one demon or many is Satan. In like manner, as the operations of an army are attributed to their general because it moves under his direction, so the operations of the demons, under the direction of their chief, are attributed to him. “ Put on,” says the Apostle Paul, “ the whole armour of God,

be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,” Eph. vi,

that ye may

11, 12. Thus the devil, in the singular number, is equiva. lent to principalities, powers, and rulers, in the plural.

6. These “principalities, powers, and rulers” are said to be “not flesh and blood," not men, but spiritual wick. edness in high (heavenly) places,” Eph. vi, 12.

7. And lastly, This chief of demons, the devil and Satan, is called the tempter. And when “ the tempter came to him," &c., Matt. iv, 3.

6 That Satan tempt you not,” 1 Cor. yii, 5.

Thus, instead of finding that the passages in which demons are mentioned. have no reference to our subject,” we find them a most useful key to open the doctrine on which Mr. G. has so rashly and injudiciously made an attack. We will now consider some of those passages which still farther illustrate and confirm the truths which we have developed.

The first case which we shall consider is the seduction of Eve. The Mosaic account of that transaction Mr G. has attempted to puzzle by a dilemma. He supposes that we must interpret it either literally, and so make nonsense of it, or allegorically, and make nearly nothing of it. And is this really the case ? Must every thing which is said or written be interpreted as “perfectly literal” or entirely allegorical? Is there no medium ? Let us try.

There is no impropriety whatever in supposing that the whole transaction is related just as it appeared.

6 The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” The serpent then was a real serpent, a beast of the field, and a creature which God had made. “And he said unto the woman,” &c. So it

He actually spoke. And this circumstance leads us to inquire, whether in this transaction the serpent were a principal, or merely the tool of another. The reasoning and speech were not his own, and we are warranted to say that they were of the devil. “ Little children, let no man deceive you. 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," 1 John iii, 7, 8. Here we learn that sin is of the devil from the beginning, and that He that came to “bruise the serpent's head,” came to destroy the works of the devil. Nor is this interpretation in any measure forced, but perfectly consonant with the general tenor of Scripture. “ The old serpent” is said to be “the devil and Satan," Rev. xx, 2. Our Lord said to the Jews, “ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it,” John visi, 44. Who then can doubt that he was the father of that lie by which our parent was deceived; and by the effect of it a mur. derer from the beginning ? We do not, however, say, as Mr. G. supposes,


6 that there grew a tree whose fruit was capable of imparting a knowledge of good and evil," (vol. I, p. 80 ;) but of which the prohibition taught man to know what was good, viz., to abstain from that fruit; and what was evil, viz., to eat of it. We say “ that God walked in the garden to seek for Adam,” not because we forget that God is a spirit; but because we believe that if we had witnessed the transaction, we could not have described it in more appropriate terms. We do not say “ that Adam called to inform the Deity of his hiding place;" but that Mr. G. should read the passage on which he comments. We say that the serpent“was cursed above all cattle,” because we believe that Mr. G. cannot contradict that saying, any more than he can deny that it “was compelled to crawl upon the ground and eat the dust” with its food.

As Mr. G.'s prejudice has raised these, to him, insu. perable difficulties in the common interpretation of this passage, his ingenuity, with a little assistance, has found out another which he imagines to be more easy.

He has learned from Philo the Jew that “it is an allegory expressive of what really happened, under feigned images; and the serpent, says he, is an emblem of vicious plea. sure,” (vol. i, p. 81.) But here we must pay a just tribute to Mr. Go's prudence! He does not say that it is so, but makes use of this Jewish fable to get rid of the difficulty, and then leaves poor Philo to answer for it. But until Mr. G. honestly disclaim what he dare not ven. ture to maintain, it will not be unfair to say that he ought to be sure that he has not multiplied, instead of lessening our difficulties. 1. This half-adopted comment is a mere


gratuitous assumption, without the smallest particle of proof. But then, to a Socinian, proof is not always necessary for the support of his own hypothesis. To


rid of the testimony of Scripture is the task, and the means are not to be scrupulously examined. 2. If the whole be an allegory, and Mr. G. loudly insists upon consistency, then we have not only an allegorical serpent, but an allegorical tree, bearing allegorical fruit, and an allegorical garden; an allegorical woman, formed allegorically out of an allegorical man; in a word an allegorical creation. But Mr. G. has brought us into a labyrinth, from which it will puzzle both him and the “ learned Jew” to extricate

3. The serpent is indirectly said to be one of the beasts of the field, which the Lord God had made ; whereas vicious pleasure, however beastly, is neither a beast nor a creature of God. 4. “Vicious pleasure” had no existence in the woman until she had been guilty of sin, by tasting of a forbidden pleasure. Could she know any thing of the pleasure of sin before she had sinned ? 5. Moses describes the reasonings of the tempter as pre. ceding the thought of the pleasure of eating the forbidden fruit. The woman first heard the tempter, and afterward saw “that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one

The tempter was therefore distinct from the thought of any pleasure in the sin. 6. How is “ vicious pleasure” cursed ? Is there any curse 'attached to it now more than before the fall ? And how is “vicious pleasure” cursed above all cattle? 7. What enmity is there now put between the woman and vicious pleasure ? Was there not greater enmity between them before than since the commission of sin ? 8. How is vicious pleasure to eat the dust?

No absurdities are too great for those who refuse to take the plain letter of Scripture for their guide: who “ strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel !" When an atheist speaks of the phenomena around him, because he cannot do so without allowing a great, universal, free, and active first cause, he imagines à being whom he calls Nature, to whom he attributes the designs and operations of a real being, whose existence he is disposed to deny. Thus, they who wish to drive the devil out of the universe


cannot help observing how many of his works remain ; and feel themselves under the necessity of finding him a substitute, who, during his absence, may manage his affairs with as much discretion, and do his work with as much ability, as he himself. To effect this, a well imagined being is poetically created, which, lest it should seem to be nothing for want of a name, is dubbed

the evil prin. ciple," or " vicious pleasure." It must not be supposed that this is a devil, any more than that nature is a god. It has neither a body nor a soul. It is a mere accident, without any substance in which to inhere. It was not in God; for “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” It was not in man before the fall, “ for in the image of God made he him.” It did not exist in the serpent, for that is supposed to be a nonentity, and in fact was a mere arimal, and therefore incapable of moral principles, either good or evil. It was an effect without a cause. It had a beginning without an author. And it had an existence when, as yet, it was nothing. It was an absurdity fit only to nestle in the brains of would-be philosophers, and to cast its spawn in those works which are intended to supplant the Bible. It is the property of error to be incon. sistent, When the degeneracy of human nature is to be denied, no evil principle is acknowledged. But when the devil is to be destroyed, his ghost haunts his murderers in the shape of "the evil principle," and is left sufficiently alive and substantial to find a way into the heart of Eve, and to tempt even Jesus Christ. What devil that was ever invented could be worse than this “ evil principle ?"

The book of Job, which records the manifold tempta. tions of that " upright man,” imputes them all to Satan, and was probably written to make known to God's people the author of mischief, and to guard them against his temptations. Mr. G. grants that this great doctrine (the being of Satan) is more explicitly taught in that than in any other book,". (vol. I, p. 81,) and therefore needed not to suppose that it was “borrowed from the Persian the. ology, or conjured up by philosophers, at a nonplus to account for the origin of evil,” (vol. I, p. 76.) We, on the other hand, may be excused if we have imbibed our opinions from that book, for those opinions cannot now be said to be unscriptural. What then is to be done ? Why,

« PreviousContinue »