apostle declares that this governor of the world, prince of the power of the air, or god of this world, was the spirit that wrought in the children of disobedience. This view is agreeable to the words before us, for this certainly blinded the minds of them which believed not.

We have now finished our remarks on all the passages which are supposed to contain the names and titles of an evil being in the universe, an angel who fell from heaven, and deemed by most Christians but little inferior in powers to its Creator. We have stated our views frankly, but in some cases very briefly. Such texts on which the greatest dependence is placed for proof, have been considered pretty fully.— The result of this investigation has been, a deep conviction, that the more the subject is examined, it will be found that the Bible gives no countenance to that evil being Christians call the devil and satan. But of this our readers must judge for themselves.

SECTION IX.

FACTS STATED, SHOWING THAT THE DEVIL IS NOT A FALLEN ANGEL OR REAL BEING.

In the preceding Sections, several facts have been developed, showing that the devil is not a fallen angel. We shall now very briefly advert to some other facts, not easily reconciled to this doctrine.

1st. No distinct account is given in Scripture of an angel of God sinning in heaven, thereby becoming

a devil, and on account of which he was cast out of it. When proof is demanded of such things, we are referred to texts where satan or the devil is said to have fallen from heaven, and to be cast out into the earth. But we have shown that the sacred writers attached no such ideas to those passages, and by quotations from Jahn, Newton, and others, that a very dif ferent thing was intended. How then is the fact accounted for, that no sacred writer gives such an account? Is it too much to expect, that such a remarkable event would be clearly and repeatedly mentioned, yea, recorded previous to the fall of man? If true, would all the sacred writers have been silent about it both before and after the fall? This is contrary to God's usual conduct with men. When God was about to destroy the world by a flood, and the cities of the plain by fire, he forewarns the people of their danger, so as to avoid the consequences. But concerning a holy angel becoming a devil in heaven, his fall from it, and the direful consequences which resulted to our race, God says nothing about such things. The want of such information is indisputable, and we think no man will affirm, that this is either like God's usual dealings with men, or that he assigns any reason for withholding such information. How then, do our orthodox friends account for all this, and where did they obtain such explicit information as they generally give to people about a fallen angel, and the consequences of his fall upon the human race? Was it from Paradise Lost and the Apocrypha, or was it from the Scriptures? We beg of them to re-examine this subject.

2d. If it be true that an angel fell from heaven, and has been walking about in the world seeking whom he might devour, for nearly six thousand years, how is

12

it to be accounted for, that no sacred writer asserts that any person ever saw him, or had personal intercourse with him? They repeatedly inform us of persons seeing good angels, and relate the conversations which men had with them. They even inform us of their appearance, and sometimes describe their clothing. But do they ever intimate, that any one ever saw the devil, describe his appearance and clothing, or relate any conversations held with him? It cannot be for want of powers on his part to do all this, for our brethren believe that he can do more remarkable things than any of these. Is he ashamed to show himself among men? We doubt this, for he is believed to be a shameless being. Well, does he conceal himself from men, that he may the more effectually accomplish his wicked designs against them? doubt this, also, for it is affirmed by his advocates, that he can assume a very fascinating form, yea, transform himself into an angel of light, the more effectually to deceive us. How then do our orthodox brethren account for it, that so sacred writer says any one ever saw the devil, or conversed with him? We are

We

aware, that they may object by saying "did he not assume the likeness of a serpent in Eden, and did he not converse with Eve?" But brethren, we have shown, Section ii., that this is a mistaken view of Gen. iii.

You will, perhaps, object again by saying, "did not satan make a personal appearance among the sons of God, as stated in the first and second chapters of Job, and is not his conversation distinctly related?"--We answer, yes; but can you disprove the evidence which has been adduced, that satan was not a real being, but only the evil imaginary god of the Magians? If you can, we shall feel greatly indebted to you, if you take the trouble to do this. But perhaps you will

object again, by saying, "did not the devil appear to the Saviour and hold a conversation with him?" Answer: did you ever notice, that neither in the first two chapters of Job, nor in the account of our Lord's temptation, nothing is said about any form, color, or shape, which satan assumed? Nor in either of these cases, are the conversations represented as held by him with sinful men. Besides, in considering those accounts, we think it has been shown that no such being was intended by the writers. Do you object further, by saying, are we not told that satan transformed himself into an angel of light, and is he not represented in the book of Revelations under the form of a great red dragon?" Yes; and you might add, "having seven heads, and ten horns, and crowns on his heads; yea, as having a pretty long tail, which could sweep from the firmament a third part of the stars and cast them to the earth." But brethren, is it correct to assume as true, that the devil is a fallen angel, and then recur to the symbolical language of Scripture for proof, which proofs, when adduced, render your doctrine ridiculous? Besides, have we not shown that such passages have no relation to such a subject? Is it still objected "does not the history of the world, since revelation was completed, furnish accounts of the devil appearing to men in various forms, conversing with them; of persons who have sold themselves, soul and body, to him, and at the agreed time he has come and carried them away, wholesale from the world?" Yes; verily such stories have been told. But if any

minister among us should preach such nonsense to the people, he might be looking out for another parish, in some other quarter of the globe. If any man among us should seriously say he had seen the devil, and conversed with him, his friends would soon procure

a place for him in the insane hospital. Do our orthodox friends believe such childish stories themselves? They would smile at me if I even suggested that they had any faith in them; still, however, they continue. to preach that an angel fell from heaven, has ruined the whole human race, deceives them, walks about seeking whom he may devour, and that he will be the eternal- tormentor of a considerable portion of them. Yet no person has ever seen him or conversed with him, nor do the Scriptures teach his existence, when carefully and candidly examined.

3d. If an angel fell from heaven before the sin of our first parents, how do our orthodox brethren account for the fact, that the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God, were obliged to go to Babylon to get information about him? Moses says nothing about him; nor delivers any injunctions to Israel concerning him. Nor, until after the Babylonish captivity, does it appear that such a being was known in Judea, except as an evil god among the heathen nations. We would ask our brethren, affectionately, how they account for this, if their views of the devil are drawn from divine revelation? The Old Testament writers use the term satan, but never use it to designate an angel who fell from heaven. They had the name, but wanted the evil being to whom they could apply it.

4th. It is a notorious fact, not easily accounted for on Scripture ground, that people in these days make very different uses of the terms devil and satan from what were made in the days of the inspired writers. I shall give an example or two of what I mean. First, you never find in those days, as in these, persons apologising for crines by blaming the devil. Nor do you find that any one ever made the devil a bugbear for