( ttvc 
 
 •H 
 • V <D 
 
 
 
 w x: 
 
 
 
 +J 
 
 -p 
 
 
 
 “H 
 
 
 
 
 5h 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 •H 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 a. o 
 
 
 • 
 
 w 
 
 p 
 
 m 
 
 e 
 
 
 a 
 
 (N 
 
 CO 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 
 00 
 
 -H 
 
 ■rH 
 
 o 
 
 vH 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 > 
 
 -p 
 
 
 rH 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 -H 
 
 
 W 
 
 n 3: 
 
 c 
 
 c: 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 
 0 
 
 >i 
 
 0 
 
 rH 
 
 r-H 
 
 CO 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 m 
 
 •H 
 
 w 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 0 
 
 s. 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 Pm 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 PQ 
 
 O < 
 
 
 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 f 
 
 https://archive.org/details/essayonevilspiri00carl_1 
 

■UCi 
 

 I 
 
 
 r 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ' ^ 
 
 j 
 
 .4 
 
 ."V', 
 
 
 
 ..vk 
 
 
J 
 

 
 
 /';.,jfe ...L 
 
 * 
 
 5 
 
 I*, 
 
 
 5 
 
 -J 
 
 
 f J 
 
 t • 
 
AN 
 
 ESSAY 
 
 ON EVIL SPIRITS; 
 
 OR, 
 
 REASONS TO PROVE TEEIR EXISTENCE, 
 
 IN 
 
 OPPOSITION TO A LECTURE, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 lEn^o ifo s'o 
 
 In tfie ©nitavian C:f)apel, ISratiforlj. 
 
 / 
 
 BY WILLIAM CARLISLE. 
 
 “ For if God spared not the angels that sinned, bntcast fhel5 down to hell, 
 and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” 
 2 Pet. it. 4. 
 
 “ And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habi¬ 
 tation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judge¬ 
 ment of the great day.” JudeGth Per. 
 
 “ The good and evil of eternity are too ponderous for the wings of wit: 
 the mind sinks under them in passive helplessness, content with calm be¬ 
 lief and humble adoration.” Johnson. 
 
 BRADFORD: 
 
 Dvinteli for tije autljov ; 
 
 .»Nt) SOLD BT T. INKERSLEY ; AND ALL OTHER BOOK.SELLER.S. 
 
 / 
 
^ ) 
 
 / . I 
 
 * 1 ' 
 
 / 
 
 ^'>m *; 
 
 
 
 
 *i ■■'.'■ •' '.ui.* 
 
 u 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 :■ -41,^ - ; .--• w/rr^ •> 
 
 ^ * .1 l_- . t 
 
 •.'/VV' '- 
 
 -‘■{ ' 
 
 , ^^■,^.,( VVm?) ■ ■' 
 
 • . .1. H' ■! ' 
 
 •..1- I, 
 
 uV,:.- • ,. . 
 
 • ■. • ' V ' . 
 
 •'-;. . j-.it' i- 
 
 . ; ■ X. • ■ 
 
 
 
 'iV . 
 
 
 ■ " '.f» 
 
 I "'I -r-< J' , ' 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 ’ -tt 
 
PREFACE.- 
 
 In these days of fanciful innovation and 
 bold impiety, scriptural doctrines are abused 
 and perverted on the one hand, by the ex¬ 
 travagance of folly and enthusiasm ; and are 
 insulted on the other by the scoffs of Socin- 
 ians: they are ridiculed as a vague and vision- 
 «ary scheme, which finds its origin only in the 
 wild imaginations of men. Notwithstand¬ 
 ing the contempt and ridicule which are con¬ 
 tinually poured from the lips of opposers; yet 
 I avow myself a believer in all the peculiar 
 and essential doctrines of the gospel; and my 
 intent in publishing this essay is to defend 
 these doctrines against the injudicious eva¬ 
 sions, wild reveries, bombastical assertions, 
 and sarcastical animadversions of those sen¬ 
 sual fanatics: and in this controversy I sin¬ 
 cerely wish truth to have its full weight. I 
 contend for no human creeds or explications 
 
4 
 
 whatever: I would not give a rush fora million 
 of them. They may be right, or they may be 
 wrong'; I trouble not my head about them. 
 The Scripture is sufficient for me, and I am 
 determined the Scripture shall be the grand 
 standard of my faith and practice, and its sa¬ 
 cred decisions the universal authority on 
 which I will build every part of that system 
 unto which I give my assent: and I would 
 have Mr.Heinekenand his SocinianBrethren 
 to recollect, that I attack them because I be¬ 
 lieve they are blinded by prejudice and plung¬ 
 ed into error; because I believe that the system 
 of Socinianism is false and derogatory to the 
 Son of God; injurious to Society at large; 
 dangerous in the extreme to all who em¬ 
 brace it; and in its nature absurd to such a 
 degree as to render it disgusting to every 
 sensible man. I have no doubt but the genu¬ 
 ine truths of Christianity will ultimately 
 prevail, whatever those truths may be. God 
 will vindicate his own cause. The gates of 
 hell have long attempted to subvert the whole 
 system of Divine truth, but they have not 
 yet prevailed, nor is it to be apprehended 
 they ever will. The Great Head of the Church 
 indeed is shaking the nations, and is about 
 
5 
 
 to purge his floor: the gold, silver, and 
 precious stones, shall abide the day of trial, 
 but the chaff* will be blown away ; the wood, 
 hay, and stubble, shall be burnt up, all su¬ 
 perstitious rites shall be subverted, but the 
 word of the Lord shall endure for ever, his 
 counsels shall stand, and he will do all his 
 pleasure. Here, then, I rest my faith. 
 Antichrist may fall, superstitious observ¬ 
 ances may cease, religious establishments 
 may be tumbled into ruins, empires and 
 kingdoms may be overturned, princes and 
 governors may be deposed, the wise men of 
 the earth may take part with the enemies 
 of truth, error and delusion may run like 
 wildfire among the thickest ranks of the 
 people, unbelievers may rage, and minute 
 philosophers imagine a vain thing: yea, all 
 nature may sink into a perfect nonentity : 
 the solid rocks may be dissolved, the vast 
 mountains on our globe may disappear and 
 be not, the vast invulnerable of all material 
 
 I 
 
 substances, yea, all the stupendous orbs 
 
 which garnish the heavens may vanish like 
 
 shadows, die like the shrill echo, and be no 
 
 more; but the Bible shall arise out of its 
 
 present obscurity, and, being stripped of 
 
 A 3 
 
6 
 
 all human appendages, shall be universally 
 had in honour, while the enemies of evan¬ 
 gelical religion shall be confounded world 
 without end; yea, they shall pass away like 
 the baseless fabric of a vision, and leave not 
 a wreck behind : while all those solemn re¬ 
 alities of the gospel shall survive “the wreck 
 of matter and the crush of worlds.” 
 
 I would have the reader to observe, that 
 1 shall generally use the term Unitarian in 
 this Essay: yet, at the same time, I shall use 
 . it gratuitously; for the body so designated, 
 have no more right to it than the Trinita¬ 
 rians, and 1 should not have used it, but a 
 certain friend, whom I highly esteem for 
 his kindness to me, and the coincidence of 
 sentiment which subsists betwixt us, advised 
 me to use the term, Unitarian, as they called 
 themselves by that name, instead of Socin- 
 ian. The reason why I would not call 
 them Unitarians is, because they, by adopt¬ 
 ing that name, intend to intimate that 
 they, among Christians exclusively, hold 
 the existence of one God, and that Trinita¬ 
 rians hold the existence of more Gods than 
 one—an imputation which they well know 
 every Trinitarian rejects with abhorrence. 
 
Again, in arguing with Trinitarians they 
 customarily undertake to prove, that the 
 Scriptures in a great variety of passages as¬ 
 sert, that there is but one God, as if this 
 " were the chief point at issue, or at least one 
 material point in debate between them and 
 the Trinitarians. Accordingly, when they 
 have proved this point, which a child can 
 easily do, they commonly triumph, and ap¬ 
 pear to consider the dispute as ended, and 
 their antagonists overthrown. In this way 
 they insinuate to their readers, that Trini¬ 
 tarians hold the existence of more Gods than 
 one, and that all their arguments are in¬ 
 tended to support this doctrine. 'Whereas, 
 every Unitarian knows perfectly well, that 
 the unity of God is as entirely and as avow¬ 
 edly holden by Trinitarians as by himself; 
 that none of their arguments are directed 
 against it; and that this point has never been, 
 and never can be, in debate between him and 
 them. That the doctrine of the Trinity in¬ 
 volves, or infers, the existence of more 
 Gods than one, every Unitarian has a right 
 to prove, and may with perfect fairness prove, 
 if he can. But to insinuate that Trinita¬ 
 rians believe the existence of more Gods 
 
8 
 
 than one, and to treat them as if they thus 
 believed, when it is perfectly well known that 
 every Trinitarian disclaims such belief with 
 indignation, is conduct, which, in my view, 
 admits of no justification. Every Trinitarian 
 with the strictest propriety may say, the Lord 
 our God is one Lord, and his Name one. 
 
 I went to hear Mr. Heineken deliver a 
 Lecture, in which he endeavoured to prove 
 the non-existence of an evil spirit. My mind 
 was much wounded to see so many Athe¬ 
 ists and Deists; and likewise a great num¬ 
 ber of men and women, who, in their sim¬ 
 plicity and ignorance, drank in his disgust¬ 
 ing heterodoxy, not knowing that it was 
 more dangerous than a draught of hemlock. 
 I likewise made two or three remarks, de¬ 
 termined to oppose him. When Mr. Hei¬ 
 neken heard of my intention, he very can¬ 
 didly came forward and made me an offer 
 of his Sermon, which I have read with the 
 utmost candour; yet, 1 must confess that 1 
 cannot find any thing in it but what is con¬ 
 trary to every principle of philosophy and the 
 plainlanguage of the Scriptures. But I am not 
 warranted in commenting on my own observ¬ 
 ations. Such as they are, I commit them 
 
9 
 
 to the world, and earnestly recommend them 
 to the candour and attention of those to whom 
 I now appeal. There perhaps is much in 
 this Essay that will be grating' in the ears of 
 the hypercritic who can derive a sort of flimsy 
 pleasure from labouring to pry into the deep¬ 
 est recesses of grammatical accuracy. How¬ 
 ever, I would observe, that my present cir¬ 
 cumstances forbid my being critically nice 
 respecting this in the present essay. I intend 
 this work for the benefit of the lower orders 
 of society in particular ; and if any of them 
 can be drawn from that labyrinth of ab¬ 
 surdity, or others be prevented from falling 
 into the same snare, my intent in writing 
 it will be realized. It is the first time that 
 I ever attempted to assume the character of 
 an author, and without dedication orpatron, 
 I abandon this essay to its ultimate fate. 
 
 Dudley-Hill, near Bradford, 
 January 14, 1823. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Miscellaneous Observations. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 The Introduction of Moral Evil considered. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 The Nanaes given to Satan in the Scripture, explained. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Demoniacal Possessions; or, Reasons for their Credibil¬ 
 ity according to the New Testament, 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 

 
 
 AK 
 
 
 ESSAY ON EVIL SPIRITS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Miscellaneous Observations. 
 
 Notwithstanding the light of Evange¬ 
 lical truth, which shines with a brilliancy not to be 
 equalled by mid-day splendour, yet it is amaz¬ 
 ing to think what ignorance and superstition re¬ 
 main: what darkness, more intense than midnight 
 gloom ! How true are the words of the prophet, 
 that darkness covers the earth and gross darkness the 
 people; for infidelity is stalking abroad with its ugly 
 features, spreading its contagion and infusing its poi¬ 
 son, exulting in the most ridiculous chimeras, and 
 carried away with the most bewildering enthusiasm. 
 Notwithstanding the blackness and darkness of infi¬ 
 delity, Mr. Heineken stands upon a basis ten thou¬ 
 sand times more awful, and his situation is ten times 
 aggravated; for when I take into consideration the de¬ 
 structive consequence of his principles, they appear 
 
12 
 
 fraught with results the most alarming, and conse¬ 
 quences the most fatal. They lead the unhappy 
 victim, who becomes fettered and entangled with 
 them, into a delusion superlatively awful; and hurry 
 him, under a garb of the most fantastical hypocrisy, 
 to the verge of eternal ruin: and unless divine 
 grace prevent it he must be eternally lost. As a 
 proof of what I have asserted, I would have Mr. 
 Heineken to observe, that there are many persons, 
 some of whom 1 am acquainted with, and others 
 of whom I have been informed, who were, a little 
 while ago, strongly attached to the Christian faith; 
 but by means of attending his Lectures their attach¬ 
 ment has been destroyed, and they are now wander¬ 
 ing in the dark regions of infidelity, and upon his 
 principles are defending that preposterous system 
 of Scepticism. This proves the assertion of Bishop 
 Warburton where he says, that Unitarianism “ is a 
 sort of infidelity in disguise;” or, as Mr. Wilberforce 
 represents it, “ a sort of half-way house from no¬ 
 minal orthodoxy to absolute infidelity ;” or, as Mr. 
 Barbauld is said to have called it, “ Christianity in 
 theFrigid Zone.” Now, I would ask Mr. Heineken 
 to tell me, what good has resulted from his preach¬ 
 ing ? I know of none; I have pointed him out an 
 evil, and one of a serious nature; “ and if he which 
 converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall 
 save a soul from death,”* what must be the conse- 
 
 * James iv. 20. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 13 
 
 quences of that preacher’s labour, which leads only 
 to death. It is strikingly evident to every sound 
 reasoned, that Unitarianism leads to the grossest 
 errors, and plunges its unhappy devotees into a 
 vortex of unfounded theories. What is there in 
 the gospel to recommend it, and render it a subject 
 worthy of a divine revelation, when all its peculiar 
 and essential doctrines are taken away ? I must 
 confess, that the arguments which the Unitarians 
 have made use of in order to support their system, 
 aud the miserable subterfuges which they have 
 resorted to, have done more towards convincing me 
 that their system is a destructive jargon, than all 
 the mighty series of reasoning which has been ad¬ 
 vanced against them. Seldom are they at a loss 
 for a gloss, or an evasion, in aiming at the accom¬ 
 plishment of their object. If they meet with a 
 passage whose indubitable reading, and whose ob¬ 
 vious plain meaning, is such as every unbiassed 
 man would pronounce favourable to any of those 
 'doctrines which they so unreas'onably despise, they 
 are ready with ample stores of metaphorical, enig¬ 
 matical, and idiomatical forms of interpretation; 
 and stubborn must be that text which will not bend 
 under one or other of their modes of treatment. 
 Thus they explain away the obvious import of the 
 Bible, and thereby forsake the paths of reason and 
 Scripture, and wander into the visionary regions of 
 dogmatical enthusiasm, which destroys the trans- 
 
 cendant grandeur and glory of the sacred pages. 
 
 6 
 
14 MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 According to the principle of Unitarianism, our 
 inquiry is not to be what is the plain and obvious 
 meaning of the writers of the Scripture, agreeably 
 to the ordinary and established rules of interpre¬ 
 tation ; but is it possible to understand their words 
 otherwise ? Men may talk of prejudice^ but I can 
 conceive of few prejudices more strong or more de¬ 
 ceitful than that which is involved in such a prin¬ 
 ciple. It is surely a very suspicious circumstance 
 as to the foundation on which any system rests, when 
 its abettors feel it necessary formally to warn their 
 readers, “ to he on their guard against what is 
 called the natural signification of words and 
 phrases."" * This is ignorance with a witness ! it 
 opens the flood-gate of error, and truth is lost in 
 the ocean of absurdity ; for if we reject the natural 
 signification of words and phrases, we must for ever 
 wander in the barren fields of speculation and un¬ 
 certainty. Here they slide into an error which 
 violates every sentiment of propriety, and converts 
 the plain and unadorned language of the Scriptures 
 into a useless and unnatural pleonasm; and those 
 doctrines which the writers have inculcated with so 
 much emphasis, they unnerve and paralyze, and 
 with false glosses and wild evasions, destroy all 
 point and emphasis, evaporate all its spirit, and 
 freeze every syllable of it to very ice. It is diffi¬ 
 cult to maintain a Scripture controversy with the 
 
 * Read Relsham’s Calm Inquiry, pages 4, 5. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBSEEVATIONS. 
 
 15 
 
 class of speculators I am now opposing, for two 
 reasons. First, they will say any thing rather than 
 give up their preconceived opinions. That their 
 opinions are merely preconceived, any person may 
 easily discern, who examines their writings with any 
 ' degree of attention. To prove that they will say 
 any thing, I need only refer the reader to two 
 assertions made by two of their most learned advo¬ 
 cates, relative to the innocence and purity of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. One of them speaks of him as 
 ^^Jallible and peccable and the other says,^jWe have 
 “ no sufficient data by which to determine whether 
 during his private, as well as public life, he was Jiree 
 from sin or not; and that it is to us a matter of no 
 material consequence."" * But what saith the Scrip¬ 
 tures : “ To the law and to the testimony; if we speak 
 not according to this word, it is because there is no 
 light in us.” If we examine both Testaments, we shall 
 invariably find that they represent Jesus Christ as 
 a holy and innocent character, without the least 
 iota of impurity or inherent depravity. Hence 
 says the Apostle, “ Such an high pries\ became 
 us, who is holy, harmless, undejiled, separate from 
 sinners, and made higher than the heavens ; who 
 needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up 
 sacrifice, frst for his own sins, and then for the 
 people’s.” -f- “ He did no sin, neither was guile 
 
 found in his mouth.” “Ye are redeemed with the 
 
 * Priestley and Belsham. 
 
 t Heb. vii. 26, 27. 
 
16 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 precious blood of Christ, as of a lamh^ without 
 hlemish and without spot."’"' * “ He was manifested 
 
 to take away our sins; and in him is no sin!'"' *f* 
 Are not these declarations sufficient to satisfy every 
 mind that feels itself bound by the authority of the 
 Scriptures? If Jesus Christ contained within 
 himself the least inherent depravity, or com¬ 
 mitted the slightest evil, all these scripture desig¬ 
 nations of him must be considered as the mere 
 rhapsody of admiration, or the unmeaning bombast 
 of eulogy. It perhaps is of no material consequence 
 to the frozen-hearted Unitarian, whether Christ was 
 a sinner or not; but to every sound Christian it is 
 a matter of the greatest importance; for if Jesus 
 Christ was a sinner, or an unholy being, the whole 
 system of Christianity tumbles into ruins. 
 
 The second reason why it is extremely difficult 
 to maintain a process of scriptural reasoning with 
 these men, is, that the notions which they entertain “ 
 respecting the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 
 are so very vague, futile, and undefined 
 
 ‘‘ The Scriptures,” says one of their most eminent 
 writers, “ were written without any particular in¬ 
 spiration, by men who wrote according to the best 
 of their knowledge, and who, from circumstances, 
 could not be mistaken with regard to the greater 
 facts of which they were properly witnesses ; but, 
 (like other men subject to prejudice) might be liable 
 
 •* 1 Peter ii. 22. i. 19. 
 
 f 1 John &—5. 
 
MtSCELLANEOltS OBSEEVAtlON*. It 
 
 to adopt a hasty and ill-grounded opinion concern¬ 
 ing things which did not fall within the compass of 
 their own knowledge, and which had no connection 
 with any thing that was so. We ought all of us, 
 therefore, to consider ourselves fully at liberty to 
 examine, with the greatest rigour, both the reason¬ 
 ings of the writers, and the facts of which we find 
 any account in their writings ; that, judging by the 
 rules of just criticism, we may distinguish what 
 may be depended on from what may not.” * 
 
 “ I like the honesty of this avowal,” (says a 
 learned critic,) “ but I presume you will agree with 
 me in thinking, that Deism ought to have been the 
 profession of him who makes it.” IJvery one must 
 af once perceive, that according to this view of the 
 Scriptures, there is nothing certain in them. And 
 if we deny the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, 
 and look upon them as the fallible productions of 
 men, all our hopes of arriving at truth must be 
 totally eclipsed, and the bright prospects of futmrity 
 be overspread with blackness and darkness for ever. 
 The same writer, in speaking of the Arian opinion, 
 that the world was formed by Jesus Christ as a 
 subordinate agent of the Father, has these words : 
 “ Now, as it is not pretended that there are any 
 miracles adapted to prove that Christ made and 
 supports the world, I do not see that we are under 
 
 * Priestley’s History of Early Opiniena, vol, ir. p. 6. 
 
 B 3 
 
18 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBSER V A I IONS. 
 
 any obligation to believe it, merely because it was 
 an opinion held by an apostle.” * 
 
 Dr. Priestley made no scruple “ to call the 
 apostle St. Paul an inconclusive reasoner.” *{* “ Nei¬ 
 ther I,” says he to Dr. Price, “ nor I presume 
 yourself, believe implicitly every thing which is 
 advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testa¬ 
 ment. I believe them to have been men, and 
 therefore fallible.” And again : “ That the books 
 of Scripture were written by particular divine in¬ 
 spiration, is a thing to which the writers themselves 
 make no pretensions.” But let the Apostles speak 
 for themselves : “ But there be some that trouble 
 you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But 
 though we, o5 an angel from heaven, preach any 
 other gospel unto you than that which we have 
 preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we 
 said before, so say 1 now again. If any man preach 
 any other gospel unto you than that ye have re¬ 
 ceived, let him be accursed. But I certify you, 
 brethren, that the gospel which was preached of 
 me is not after man. For I neither received it of 
 man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation 
 of Jesus Christ. Now the things which I write 
 unto you, behold, before God, I lie not,” J And 
 again he says: “ And my speech and my preaching 
 
 * Priestley’s History of Early Opinions, p. 63. 
 Priestley’s Corruptions of Christianity, -vol ii. p. 370. 
 } Gal. i. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 19 
 
 was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but 
 in demonstration of the Spirit and of power : that 
 your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, 
 but in the power of God.”* Now, reader, judge for 
 yourself. Can the gospel, which was inculcated by 
 the apostle, be both a revelation from God, and 
 at the same time, the fallible production of men ? 
 Impossible ! If we deny the universal inspiration 
 of the Scriptures, we involve ourselves in a dilemma 
 from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves. 
 But the writer to whom I have all along referred, 
 goes farther than this in one of his letters to Dr. 
 Price, relative to the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, 
 and says, “ I would not build an article of faith 
 of such magnitude on the correctness of John’s 
 recollection and representation of our Lord’s lan¬ 
 guage : and so strange and incredible does the 
 hypothesis of a pre-existent state appear, that, 
 sooner than admit it, I would suppose the whole 
 verse to be an interpolation, or that the old 
 apostle dictated one thing, and his amanuensis 
 wrote another.”-|- Hence, it appears, that. Dr. 
 Priestley would believe any thing, however mons¬ 
 trous, rather than the plain and obvious meaning 
 of the words of Scripture. Although all the writers 
 of this class may not reject, in terms equally un¬ 
 qualified, the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, 
 
 * 1 Cor. 2, 4, 5. 
 
 f Priestley’s letters to Dr. Price, page 68. 
 
20 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 yet they are all characterised by the same homo- 
 geneal laxity, relative to this important point. 
 Another of them says, that “ Peter speaks accord¬ 
 ing to the conception of the Jews, when he says, 
 Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, 
 but holy men of God spake as they were moved by 
 the Holy Ghostand adds, “ the prophets may 
 have delivered the offspring of their own brains as 
 divine revelation.” And another says, ‘‘ what 
 have we to do with the New Testament, when it 
 contradicts the light of nature I ask, where 
 does the Scripture contradict reason ; for I suppose 
 that is what he means by the light of nature. 
 There are many doctrines contained in the Scrip¬ 
 ture, which are necessarily above reason; but it 
 does not follow that they are contrary to it. Mr. 
 Belsham says, that “ Paul in his Epistles, intro¬ 
 duces many harsh and uncommon figures.”^ Again, 
 he says, “ The author of the Epistle to the He¬ 
 brews indulges himself in an ingenious, but forced 
 and fanciful analogy.” f Nay, he goes farther 
 than this, for he says, that “ Our Lord sometimes 
 uses metaphors of the most obscure and offensive 
 kind." I 
 
 I hope these quotations are sufficient to shew how 
 vague and undefined are the opinions of this class of 
 men respecting the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; 
 
 * Mr. Belsbam’s Calm Inquiry, p, 19. f Ibid, p. 19. 
 f Ibid, p. 18. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 21 
 
 for if we give up their universal inspiration, we must 
 look upon them as a mixed compoimd. And how am 
 I to distinguish between tliat which is inspired, and 
 that which is not ^ Here is a foundation for doubt¬ 
 ing; by this our confidence is at once destroyed; 
 the mind is carried into the cold regions of barren 
 speculation, and is lost in the great vortex of infi¬ 
 delity. This is a subject of importance, and one 
 which ought to be carefully studied by every Chris¬ 
 tian, in order that he may render a reason for the 
 hope that is in him. 
 
 That the Scriptures were written by plenary in¬ 
 spiration, is a doctrine that has been believed 
 through successive ages, and has remained im¬ 
 pregnable to all the shafts of impious ridicule, and 
 unshaken by the bolder artillery of blasphemous 
 invective. “ Some men,” says a learned author, 
 “ have adopted very strange and dangerous notions, 
 respecting the inspiration of the Scriptures. Dr. 
 Priestley denies that they were w'ritten by a particu¬ 
 lar divine inspiration ; and asserts, that the writers, 
 though men of the greatest probity, were fsxllible, and 
 have actually committed mistakes in their narrations 
 and their reasonings. But this man and his fol¬ 
 lowers, find it their interest to weaken and set aside 
 the authority of the Scriptures, as they have adopted 
 a system of religion from which all the distinguish¬ 
 ing doctrines of revelation are excluded. Others 
 consider the Scriptures as inspired in those places 
 where they profess to deliver the Word of God; but 
 
22 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 in Other places, especially in the historical part, 
 they ascribe to them only the same authority which 
 is due to the writings of well-informed and upright 
 men. But as this distinction is perfectly arbitrary, 
 having no foundation in any thing said by the sacred 
 writers themselves; so it is liable to very material 
 objections: it represents our Lord and his Apostles, 
 when they spoke of the Old Testament, as having 
 attested, without any exception or limitation, a 
 number of books as divinely inspired, while some 
 of them were partly, and some were almost entirely 
 human compositions: it supposes the writers of both 
 Testaments to have profanely mixed their own 
 productions with the dictates of the Spirit, and to 
 have passed the unhallowed compound on the world 
 as genuine. In fact, by denying that they w ere 
 constantly under infallible guidance, it leaves us 
 utterly at a loss to know when we should or should 
 not believe them. If they could blind their own 
 stories with the revelations made to them, how can 
 I be certain that they have not on some occasions 
 published in the name of God, sentiments of their 
 own, to which they were desirous to gain credit and 
 authority.^ Who will assure me of their perfect 
 fidelity in drawing a line of distinction between the 
 divine and the human parts of their writings ? The 
 denial of the plenary inspiration of the Scripture, 
 tends to unsettle the foundation of our faith, involves 
 us in doubt and perplexity, and leaves us no other 
 method of ascertaining how much we should believe. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 23 
 
 but an appeal to reason. But when reason is in¬ 
 vested with the authority of a judge, not only is 
 revelation dishonored, and its author insulted, but 
 the end for which it was given is completely defeat¬ 
 ed.” 
 
 Some, perhaps, may ask, why are the opinions of 
 the Unitarians so loose relative to this important 
 point.?—the answer is obvious; because the Unita¬ 
 rians know if they should admit that the Scriptures 
 were written by plenary inspiration, their system 
 would be swept away with an eternal sweep. “ It 
 is ever in vain that man essays to pierce the un¬ 
 fathomable arcana of the skies. By his limited 
 faculties, and superficial ken, the deep things of 
 eternity are not to be scanned.” The brightest 
 seraph that encircles the throne of the invisible, or 
 the highest order of possible intelligence, could never 
 make known one single counsel or purpose of the 
 divine mind, unless it had been previously revealed. 
 Nay, sooner could finite comprehend infinite, and 
 the less incircle the greater, or a part contain the 
 whole, of which itself is but a part, than that the 
 unfathomed counsels of Deity could be known but 
 by a revelation from himself. 
 
 Reader, whoever you are, or by whatever name 
 you are called, unless you admit of the plenary in¬ 
 spiration of the Scriptures, you have no resting 
 - place for thought, but are in danger of falling a 
 prey to the wiles of sophistry, and the imposing in¬ 
 fluence of high pretensions to learning and candour. 
 
24 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 There are many arguments which I might advert to 
 in order to prove that the Scriptures were written 
 by plenary inspiration, not to mention the power of 
 working miracles, or the fulfilments of prophecy, 
 which speaks their origin divine. And be it known, 
 that they who reject the authority of the Scriptures, 
 reject a part of the purest philosophy which ever 
 occupied the pens of writers, and truth which i® 
 more immutable than nature itself I would observe, 
 that if you take away the plenary inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, and look upon the writers as fallible and 
 liable to err while they wrote the sacred pages—I 
 would ask, how I am to know the truth of any doc¬ 
 trine, or to what must I appealIf I appeal to the 
 Scriptures, how do I know but those very parts unto 
 which I make my appeal, are only fallible produc¬ 
 tions of erring mortals Hence, it is evident, if we 
 deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, we 
 must for ever wander in the great wilderness of un¬ 
 certainty, and at last end in the dismal quicksand 
 of infidelity. The Scripture, as an inspired whole, 
 is my glory ; for when I read my Bible, I admire 
 its native energy and unadorned phrase: in its di- 
 dactive parts, what simplicity, artlessness, candour, 
 and sincerity: in the prophetic, what beauty and 
 impressiveness; and, in its sublime, how emi- 
 , nently just and lovely. In a word, the Scripture 
 language is remarkable for its sublimity. Each 
 writer is’distingished for peculiar beauties; but the 
 general style of all may be characterized as strong, 
 
1 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS. 25 
 
 animated, and impressive. Its ornaments are de¬ 
 rived, not from an accumulation of epithets or la¬ 
 boured harmony, but from the real grandeur of its 
 imagery, and the majestic force of its expression. 
 
 It is varied with striking propriety, and enlivened 
 with quick, but easy transitions. Its sudden bursts 
 of eloquence, its earnest warmth, its affecting ex¬ 
 hortations and appeals, afford very interesting proof 
 of that lively impression and inspired conviction, 
 under which the writers wrote and spake; and 
 which enabled them, among a people not distin¬ 
 guished for genius, to surpass, in every variety of 
 composition, the most admired productions of pagan 
 antiquity. Is there any book in the world, so per¬ 
 fectly adapted to all capacities, that contains such 
 sublime and exalted precepts, conveyed in such an 
 artless and intelligible strain, and that can be read v 
 with such pleasure and advantage, by the lettered 
 sage, or the unlettered peasant 
 
 r 
 
 
CHAP. II. 
 
 Th« Introduction of Moral Evil considered. 
 
 A 
 
 1T is self-evident that there is moral and physical 
 evil in the world. And various have been the 
 theories which men have adopted, in order to ac¬ 
 count for its introduction. Some have endeavoured 
 to account for its introduction by iron-handed fate 
 and destiny; consequently, they have made God the 
 author of all the evil in the world. While others, 
 not less absurd,^ ascribe its origin to bad example 
 and a corrupt education. It is the last opinion, 
 which I shall endeavour to confute, as it is adopted 
 by this class of men, who are falsely designated 
 “ rational Christians.''"' 
 
 I am inclined to think that Mr. H., as an indi¬ 
 vidual, believes that we were created by God, and 
 this being admitted, he cannot deny that the Power 
 which created all things, must be the general Parent 
 of the universe ; and that this great, exalted, and 
 incomprehensible Being, is perfection itself, in all 
 uncreated, original, necessary, and never ceasing 
 
 extremes. In fine, what we conceive of God, is an 
 
 * 
 
 assemblage of aU possible perfection, abstracted 
 from all possible moral evil. It is to this great 
 and exalted Being we now turn oiu* attention, and 
 ask., of what nature and essential properties did he 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 27 
 
 create man ? It is infallibly certain, that that being 
 who is infinitely holy, and contains within himself 
 an unchangeable hatred to evil, could not but 
 create man in a state of moral rectitude. Accord¬ 
 ing to every conception we can form of the wisdom 
 and goodness of the Deity, as well as according to 
 the most express and unequivocal language of the 
 Scripture, “ God made man upright.” For to say 
 that God created him morally evil, is to charge God 
 with the turpitude of every bad action, and to de¬ 
 stroy those attributes which are essential to his 
 nature and existence. Therefore, “ God created 
 man in his own likeness, in the image of God created 
 he himand that image, saith the apostle, consists 
 in righteousness and true holiness. 
 
 Again, man was not only created without the 
 least iota of inherent depravity, but he was furnished 
 with a clear and sagacious mind, with reason, bright 
 and strong, and possessed transcendent qualifica¬ 
 tions for the most elevated happiness. But that 
 he might be accountable, he was necessarily created 
 free; and that he might never forget that he was 
 under the cognizance and dominion of a moral 
 governor, a test of obedience was set before him. 
 And in this respect, God did not deal worse with 
 man than with other creatures; he pointed out to 
 them their respective Imas by instinct; but as man 
 was designed to be a distinguished link in the great 
 . chain of Being, God entered into a covenant with 
 him, and gave him a law^ not only as a test of 
 
28 
 
 MOEAL EVIL COKSIDEEED. 
 
 obedience, but as a proof of dependence, and as an 
 incitement to gratitude. This law was easily to be ' 
 obeyed, because it was plainly to be understood. 
 
 “ The greater the injunction, the more severity 
 would have appeared, and the more circumscribed 
 must have been human liberty ; but God on the 
 present occasion, reduced the discharge of moral 
 obligation to a single point, promising life on obe¬ 
 dience, and threatening death on transgression.” 
 But what were the conditions on which these great 
 events were suspended ? They follow : “ Of every 
 tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of 
 the tree of the knowledare of srood and evil, thou 
 shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest 
 thereof thou shalt surely die.” * The cavil about 
 this fruit being an object of temptation, is almost 
 too absurd to deserve a specific notice ; for surely 
 no being can be out of the reach of temptation but 
 God alone. He that is essentially^ is only un- 
 charigeahly, good. I am well aware that not only 
 infidels, but this class of men which I am opposing, 
 cry out in the language of impious ridicule against 
 this part of Sacred History; and say they, “ God 
 cannot be supposed to have condemned mankind 
 for the mere eating of an apple.” This, however, 
 is not the language of reason and common sense, 
 but of partiality and prejudice. The phraseology 
 here adopted is absolutely false and absurd. It in- 
 
 * Gen. ii. 17, 
 
MORAL EVIL COJJSIDERED. 
 
 29 
 
 tiraates that God was influenced in his condemna¬ 
 tion of our first parents, by a resentment excited 
 only by the value which he fixed on the forbidden 
 fruit. As the value of the fruit was in a sense 
 nothing, they therefore conclude that God could 
 not prize it so much, as to be angry at the trans¬ 
 gression, much less, to inflict so dreadful a punish¬ 
 ment on the transgressor. Were the principle 
 just, on which they profess to argue, I would readily 
 admit it, as would every other sensible man. But 
 the principle itself has no connection with the sub¬ 
 ject ; the ar-gument founded upon it is therefore 
 without the least foundation. Such views of God 
 as these, are not taught in the history, nor in any 
 part of the sacred record. The Scriptures univer¬ 
 sally declare that our first parents were condemned, 
 because they disobeyed their Maker, revolted from 
 his authority, and rebelled against his government. 
 The fruit, whatever it was, was plainly of no value 
 to him, at whose bidding suns lighted up their 
 fires, systems rolled to fulfil his pleasure, and 
 who could in a moment call into existence a world, 
 or a million of worlds, with all their magnificent 
 furniture. The guilt of our first parents lay solely 
 in rebelling against God, or in eating of that fruit 
 in opposition to his command, and for this they 
 ^ere condemned and punished. 
 
 Again, we are informed that the Serpent, or 
 tempter, who had fallen from his dignity and glory, 
 
 into a state of degradation and misery, envying the 
 
 c 3 
 
30 
 
 MOEAL EVIL CONSIDEEED. 
 
 happiness of our first parents, premeditated their 
 ruin; and with all the craft and subtilty imagin¬ 
 able, accosted the general parents of mankind, and 
 by reason of his cunning and falsehood, he pre¬ 
 vailed with this happy and innocent pair to rebel 
 against their Maker, and to sin against his infinite 
 Majesty. Thus they fell from their original and 
 happy state, and according to the constitution of 
 things, “ brought death into the world, and all our 
 woe.” By this means the first man was stripped of 
 his original righteousness, and became the subject 
 of moral and physical evil. 
 
 Should it be asked, what is moral and physical 
 evil ? I answer, that moral evil is not only the 
 practice of sin, but a never Jailing tendency to it, 
 which is inherent depravity^ or that principle of 
 corruption which inheres in the constitution of 
 every moral being in the world. And that physical 
 evil is not only those pains and diseases which are 
 incident to the human system, but all those dread¬ 
 ful evils and calamities that follow in such rapid 
 succession in this lower world, even all “ the ills 
 that flesh is heir to.” 
 
 But still it is asked, from whence arises this evil 
 principle, or how came it to exist ? I answer, that 
 it is evident that there cannot be an effect without 
 a cause, and that the cause of this effect is the vio¬ 
 lation of the law of God. For the very mention • 
 of moral evil pre-supposes a deviation from moral 
 rectitude, and till that took place, there could never 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. i31 
 
 be an evil principle. It is a contradiction in terms 
 to suppose an evil principle to propel, .when it was 
 not, or to act before it had an existence. The in¬ 
 quiry now renews itself—How can a holy principle 
 violate the law of God, or commit an unholy 
 action F I suppose the inquirer means by the 
 term principle, that never failing tendency to 
 equity and uprightness which inhered in the con¬ 
 stitution of man previously to the introduction of 
 moral evil. A holy principle could not commit 
 an unholy action, or the least evil whatever, as 
 EVIL. To suppose this, would be to suppose an 
 impossibility, and a downright contradiction. For 
 it would be to suppose a principle to act diamet¬ 
 rically opposite to its nature. Yet at the same 
 time I would observe, that man, as a moral being, 
 must be free to act, for free-agency arises neces¬ 
 sarily from the nature of man. Again, man as a 
 
 finite creature was not only mutable, but likewise 
 
 \ 
 
 liable to be deceived. For immutability, xadirfalli- 
 bility are infinite perfections ; therefore they could 
 never exist in a finite creature. From these pre¬ 
 mises we conclude, that our first parents, though 
 holy, were fallible, and that they were deceived into 
 the commission of an act of disobedience, through 
 the supposition of some supposed good, with¬ 
 out the least idea or apprehension of any evil 
 whatever. For if there be a law of nature, which 
 there is, they could never choose evil for its own 
 sake. Wherefore, man as a holy being, violated a 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 holy law, through the supposition of some supposed 
 or fancied good, without the least idea of any evil 
 whatever, as evil. For a holy principle could 
 not propel to the commission of an unholy action, 
 neither could an evil principle act before it had an 
 existence. Therefore, the violation of the law of 
 God is the cause of which moral evil is an effect; 
 and physical evil follows as a just punishment for 
 such violation and rebellion. 
 
 This view is fully corroborated by Scripture and 
 reason; for Satan, the arch deceiver of mankind, 
 said to our first parents, “ For God doth hnow, that 
 as soon as you have eaten of this fruit, you will be 
 benefitted by it, for your eyes shall be opened, and 
 ye shall be as gods.” * As much as if Satan 
 had said, such is the efficacy and virtue of this tree, 
 that by eating of it, your minds will be more illu¬ 
 minated, and you will be filled with divine know¬ 
 ledge like your Maker. And when the guilty cul¬ 
 prits were going through a process of strict exami¬ 
 nation before their Maker, Eve expressly said, 
 “ the Serpent beguiled j* The apostle St. 
 Paul, in his second epistle to the Corinthians, | 
 alludes to the same subject: “ I fear, lest by any 
 means as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his 
 subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from 
 the simplicity that is in Christ.” And when writing 
 to his son Timothy, he said : “ The woman being 
 
 ■* Gen. iii. 5. 
 
 f Ibid. iii. 13. 
 
 t 2 Cor. xi. 3. 
 
\ ' 
 
 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED 33 
 
 deceived, was in the transgression.” * Thus both 
 Testaments agree in establishing the opinion given 
 above. And again, to those who examine the na¬ 
 ture of moral beings, their secret springs of action, 
 and the physical modes and operation of intellect, 
 it will appear evident, that no external force can 
 compel the will to choose any thing but under the 
 notion of comparative goodness ; therefore, reason 
 and Scripture fully harmonize, and the Mosaic ac¬ 
 count of the introduction of moral evil into this 
 world, stands upon a firm and immutable basis', 
 which defies all opposition, from whatever quarter 
 it may come ; and the hopes of every orthodox 
 Christian are built upon an invulnerable foundation, 
 w'hich has stood firm and secure from the com- 
 mencement of time to the present day, and will re¬ 
 main stedfast as long as eternity endures.' Amidst 
 the fluctuations and changes of political principle, 
 this remains unchanged ; and in spite of the blas¬ 
 phemous invectives poured from the pens and lips 
 of infidels, and the activity with which the anti- 
 christian dogmas, and disgustful heterodoxy of Uni- 
 tarianism are propagated, truth will rise triumphant,^ 
 and they will all be confounded. 
 
 It will perhaps be said, “ That if we admit that 
 our first parents were deceived, either by the sub- 
 tilty of an agent, or by the plausibility of a certain 
 motive, their guilt almost shrinks to a nonentity. 
 
 * 1 Tim. ii. 14. 
 
34 
 
 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 and their punishment bears no proportion to their 
 crime.” Although such an objection may seem 
 plausible, I conceive it to be entirely founded upon 
 an erroneous idea, relative to the speciousness of 
 the motive which induced them to act, without 
 taking into consideration the evil nature of' the 
 means. For if the temptation, or the motive which 
 induced them thus to act, had been ten thousand 
 times more plausible, they ought not to have com¬ 
 plied with such inducement, so long as its tendency 
 led to a violation of a positive injunction, given to 
 them by their sovereign benefactor. Suppose the 
 present king were to give to one of his subjects a 
 positive command, founded upon reason, and agree¬ 
 able to the nature and circumstances of the indi¬ 
 vidual to whom it was given, threatening him 
 with the most severe punishment in case of viola¬ 
 tion ; and, vice versa, if he obeyed, he would con¬ 
 fer upon him every privilege and blessing which 
 his realm would afford. Now, if the individual 
 were to suffer himself to be deceived, either by 
 the specious reasoning of an intelligent agent, or 
 the mere inducement of a certain motive, so as to 
 violate the command of his majesty, would he not 
 be guilty of downright rebellion, and would it not 
 be just, that the threatened penalty should take 
 place ? Whatever are the motives and inducements 
 by which we act and pursue our various projects, 
 we ought never to overlook the means, under any 
 pretext that may be suggested, but connect the 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 3S 
 
 means and the benefit to be obtained together. 
 Should an object present itself to our view, the 
 obtaining of which would be of great personal ad¬ 
 vantage, yet, at the same time, if this object cannot 
 be obtained without violating either the law of God, 
 or the laws of our country, or that rule of reciprocal 
 justice, “ Whatsoever ye would that men should 
 do to you, do ye even so to themwe ought, as 
 rational beings, to give up the pursuit of such an 
 object, however plausible and good it may appear, 
 abstracted from the means by which it is to be ob¬ 
 tained. Therefore, whatever were the motive, 
 whatever were the agent, which tempted our first 
 parents, they ought with invincible firmness to have 
 repelled the temptation, and adhered firmly to the 
 command given to them by the God of the uni¬ 
 verse. 
 
 Again, the rebellion of the first man against his 
 Maker, was a sin so universal in its nature, as to 
 involve mankind in its guilt in all ages of the 
 world. The account which is given in the scrip¬ 
 ture, is grounded on the relation which all men 
 have to Adam as their natural head. Adam, in 
 his pristine perfection, had the privilege of immor¬ 
 tality, but by him, “ sin entered into the world, and 
 death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for 
 that all have sinned.” An hereditary corruption 
 is transmitted to all that naturally descend from 
 him. It is the universal and unchangeable law of 
 nature, that every thing produces its like, not only 
 
S6 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 in regard of the same nature that is propagated, 
 from one individual to another, without a change 
 of the species, but in respect of the qualities with 
 which that nature is eminently affected. As it is 
 natural, so it is universal—“ Who can bring a 
 clean thing out of an unclean ? ” That is, how 
 can a righteous person be born of a sinner ? The 
 answer is peremptory—not one. The fountain was 
 poisoned in Adam, and all the streams partake of 
 the infection. But, the Unitarians say, in oppo¬ 
 sition to ail this—“We admit the fact of the 
 great though not universal wickedness that prevails 
 in the world, but we cannot assent to what you 
 give as the Natural History of it. We do not 
 think it inseparable from man’s present nature, 
 but an accidental acquisition; we do not ascribe it 
 to be the influence of an hereditary taint, but 
 conceive it to be the effect of imitation and custom, 
 of acquired habit, of corrupt example, of injudici¬ 
 ous tuition.” “ This, by the way,” says Dr. Gre¬ 
 gory, “ is only saying in other words, that de¬ 
 pravity is the effect of depravity. Let us, how¬ 
 ever, examine the matter a little more closely. The 
 vile passions may in some be the result of improper 
 tuition, or of imitation, I have no inclination to 
 deny, but they cannot always be referred to such an 
 origin. How often do we see children in their 
 veriest infancy, exhibit strong and unquestionable 
 indications of boisterous tempers, of obstinacy, or 
 impatience. How often do children of the most 
 
/ MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 37 
 
 X 
 
 pious parents, who are so brought up, as during 
 the first six or seven years of their lives, never to 
 witness any species of crime, any instance of in¬ 
 gratitude, of falsehood, or deception, or any indul¬ 
 gence in irascible passions, furnish painful proofs 
 that they can be deceivers, wilful liars, ungrateful, 
 passionate, malignant, and unforgiving ? These 
 instances, I will venture to say, occur very fre¬ 
 quently, when it is impossible to ascribe them to 
 imitation. But suppose the contrary were admitted, 
 the opposers of the scriptural doctrines would gain 
 nothing by the concession; for of whom could a 
 child acquire iniquity by imitation, but of some one 
 that was born before him ; and whom did that per¬ 
 son imitate but some one born before him ? and 
 where must this series terminate ? If you say any 
 where short of the first man, you have to account 
 for the remarkable phenomenon of sin making its 
 first inroad at the identical time, and fixing upon 
 the identical person you have selected, and this will 
 be found infinitely more difficult, than.extending 
 the series to the great progenitors of the human 
 race. Besides, does not the very circumstance of 
 an aptitude to imitate evil, and rather to imitate 
 evil than good, indicate something lilie that here¬ 
 ditary taint which is brought forward to contravene 
 and supersede ? Can an inherent tendency to 
 imitate evil, an undeviating propensity to slide into 
 vice, (unless the strong hand of moral discipline, 
 
 or the suasive influence of divine grace prevents,) 
 
 D 
 
 / 
 
38 
 
 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 be fairly or rationally ascribed to any thing less than 
 such a cause as that with which the Bible makes 
 us acquainted —If good and evil were but mere 
 accidents of the mind, then we might rationally 
 expect to find as many morally good as morally 
 evil; but both Scripture and facts repulse this con¬ 
 clusion. Now, as the human heart tends universally 
 to evil, and as there are none but what are contami¬ 
 nated, there cannot be a more cogent proof than 
 that some evil principle predominates. Bad ex¬ 
 ample may influence the present generation of men, 
 but it could not influence where it was not, nor act 
 before it had a beginning, and there was a time 
 when bad example was not. As moral evil, there¬ 
 fore, must have been introduced, and have existed 
 prior to bad example, bad example could not be 
 the primary cause of moral evil. Mr. H. can no 
 more account for the introduction of moral evil into 
 this world, than for those phenomena of nature, 
 which lay beyond the confines of human perception. 
 He denies the account which is given in the sacred 
 Scriptures, therefore he is obliged to wander upon 
 a pathless ocean of uncertainty, confined in the 
 barren precincts of speculation, and liable to fall a 
 victim to the imposing influence of anti-christian 
 dogmatism. 
 
 Again, it is maintained by some, “ that evil is 
 necessary, and that we can have no knowledge of 
 good but by contrasting it with its opposite.” It 
 is an unquestionable fact, that in the natural world. 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 ' 39 ’ 
 
 physical reverses frequently give a colouring to 
 each other; and it is equally true, that in the moral 
 history of our species, the splendour of virtuous 
 actions is rendered more eminent by the deepness 
 of those shades with which these actions are con¬ 
 trasted. “ It will be readily admitted, that no 
 satisfactory reason can be drawn from pure abstract 
 principle, why such reverses should seem necessary 
 to give distinctness to each other. But the fact is 
 indisputable, and it may be traced without difficulty 
 to the present state of our mental constitution. 
 There can be no doubt whatever, that every good, 
 whether natural, moral, intellectual, or spiritual, is 
 capable in itself of shining by its own inherent 
 brilliancy. It would be nothing short of a severe 
 reflection on the infinitely wise Creator to suppose, 
 that he has given being to excellencies which could 
 only be rendered distinct]^ by the physical reverses 
 of themselves. According to such a constitution 
 of things, even natural good would be indebted for 
 the brightest display of its lustre, to natural evil; 
 but how any thing can be considered as a natural 
 evil, which is essentially necessary to the develope- 
 ment of natural good, is a problem which we cannot 
 solve, without impeaching the source of infinite 
 wisdom. 
 
 If from natural good and evil, we turn our at¬ 
 tention to that which is moral, the atmosphere with 
 which we are encircled becomes still more dense, 
 and we find the clouds of confusion gathering round 
 
40 
 
 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 US in every direction, and presenting us with dark¬ 
 ness which we cannot pierce. To say that more 
 evil is necessary to unfold in all its beauty the ut¬ 
 most perfection of moral good, is to destroy the 
 essence of vice. To say that the existence of vice 
 is necessary to that of virtue, or that the display of 
 the former is necessary to that of the latter, is a 
 solecism in language, and is little less than a contra¬ 
 diction in terms. If natural and moral good were 
 incapable of shining by their own intrinsic lustre, 
 reason would compel us to infer that each is de¬ 
 fective in its own nature; and from this inference 
 we could scarcely draw any conclusion which would 
 not amount to an impeachment of the Author of 
 both. We can by no means suppose that glorified 
 spirits in heaven, (whether we consider them as 
 natives of the celestial region, or as taken from our 
 terrestrial abode,) can stand in need of such an 
 unnatural aid, to make them sensible of the value 
 and importance of felicity. And, if moral evil had 
 not debased the human intellect, and, in its moral 
 consequences, disorganized the system of nature, 
 we have no more reason to suppose, that evil in any 
 form, would have been either absolutely or relatively 
 necessary, to give us the instructions which we are 
 now compelled to learn from it in our present state, 
 than that it is necessary in heaven. The only 
 rational inference which we can draw from the 
 whole amounts to this, that in the same proportion 
 as we find the existence of evil in any form neces- 
 
MORAL EVIL COXSIDEREO. 
 
 41 
 
 sary, to make us sensible of the value of good, we 
 behold evidences of our degeneracy, both as to its 
 extent and its degree. 
 
 The soul influenced by divine grace, and raised 
 from a death of sin to a life of righteousness, will 
 be taught to rise above this chequered state of 
 things, to lay hold on the spiritual good of which 
 it is called to partake, and to behold its beauty by 
 its native light.”* 
 
 Again, some will ask, “ Why did not God pre¬ 
 vent the introduction of evil Was it because he 
 could not ? If he could not, where is his infinite 
 power ? And if he could, seeing that he did not, 
 where is his Holiness and Goodness To which I 
 answer, what God can do, or what he cannot do, I 
 dare not pretend to say. Yet, at the same time, I 
 may venture to affirm without fear or contradiction, 
 that God.could not prevent the introduction of evil 
 ' consisten^'with his moral government and the nature 
 of man. As for infinite power, it is out of the 
 question. Man, as a moral agent, must be free to 
 act, consequently he was capable of a law. There¬ 
 fore, the government that was necessary for God 
 to exercise over him, was a moral government, 
 which government consists of laws, promises, threat- 
 enings, rewards, and punishments. Infinite power 
 could have prevented the introduction of evil, by 
 depriving him of his will; or he could have interfered 
 
 * 
 
 Imperial Magazine. 
 
 D 3 
 
42 
 
 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 on the occasion. But had God, in order to prevent 
 man from violating his command, taken away the 
 liberty of his will, or interfered on the occasion, he 
 would likewise have destroyed the foundation of all 
 virtue, and the very nature of man. 
 
 It was necessary that man should first be placed in 
 a state of trial, before he was confirmed in his happi¬ 
 ness. Had he obeyed to the end of his probation, 
 he would no doubt have been raised to an un- 
 changeable state; his innocence and obedience 
 would have been crowned with perseverance. The 
 permission of the fall, does not reflect on God’s un¬ 
 spotted providence; for the law which he gave to 
 direct man, the terrible threatenings annexed to 
 warn him, prove|i his irreconcileable hatred to evil. 
 Neither does it tarnish the divine piurity or Holiness; 
 for man was made upright, he had no inherent cor¬ 
 ruption to betray him, he had power to resist the 
 strongest temptation. In this situation, he was 
 removed far from death and disease, sorrow and 
 fear; he was formed for endless improvement. His 
 mind, like that of the angels, was capable of con¬ 
 tinual expansion, refinement, and elevation; and 
 his life, of perpetual exaltation in usefulness and 
 honour. The tempter did only allure, he could not 
 compel; his powers are so limited, that he cannot 
 fasten an immediate, much less an irresistible impres¬ 
 sion on the will. Therefore, a resolute negative 
 would have made him victorious. Nor does it tar¬ 
 nish the rich goodness of God, because he bestowed 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 43 
 
 on man every qualification relative to his perse¬ 
 verance; and it is unjust and unreasonable, to judge 
 of the value of a benefit, by the ungrateful abuse 
 of the receiver, and not from its own natme. The 
 evil of sin, man has brought upon himself, and 
 therefore it ought not to be imputed to any defect 
 in the Divine goodness. A state of trial pre-suppos- 
 es a liability to sin, and it cannot be proved that 
 it is inconsistent with the divine goodness of God, 
 to place his rational creatures in a state of trial. 
 Though Adam wilfully forfeited the favour of God, 
 and lost his original righteousness, and incurred the 
 just displeasure of an offended God; thus ruined 
 and helpless, God laid help on one that is mighty. 
 Here, the wisdom and goodness of the Deity shines 
 with amazing lustre, in as much, as that he hath 
 overruled the sin of Adam for good; and wonder¬ 
 fully devised a plan, that man, by repentance and 
 faith in the atonement, may be emancipated from 
 this scene of trouble, and translated to the realms 
 of bliss, then: — 
 
 “ Blooming' Eden withers^in his sight, 
 
 Death gives him more than was in Eden lost. ” 
 
 By virtue of the redemption of Christ, the whole 
 immense and eternal kingdom of Jehovah assumes 
 a new aspect, and God is seen by his intelligent 
 creatures in new manifestations of beauty, glory, 
 and loveliness. O, goodness, truly divine! Mighty 
 love ! Love that glowed in the bosom of God from 
 eternity! Our salvation by Christ is the product 
 
44 
 
 MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 of God’s eternal thoughts—He was delivered by 
 the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.”* 
 What astonishing goodness is it, that God, who is 
 the end of all things, should become the means of 
 our salvation. What is so worthy of admiration, 
 as that the Judge of heaven and earth should be 
 condemned by the guilty—that he should leave his 
 throne in heaven to be nailed to the cross—that the 
 Prince of life should taste death Infinite love ! 
 that is as admirable as saving! “Love that pass- 
 eth knowledge,” Well might an inspired apostle 
 cry out in an ecstasy—“0, the depths of the riches 
 both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How 
 unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
 finding out.”^ In our redemption by Christ, hu¬ 
 man nature is advanced to the highest pitch of dig¬ 
 nity and glory. In the person of Christ, it is risen 
 far beyond the confines of our mental perception; 
 but, thanks be to God, this we know, that every 
 humble and pious Christian “ shall be like him, for 
 they shall see him as he is,” “ and be with him in 
 glory.” There the mercy of God, the most per¬ 
 fect of his attributes, and the consummation of his 
 excellence, will be made known more fully; and 
 those things, “into which the angels desire to look,” 
 will be unfolded in all their mysterious and awful gran¬ 
 deur. Throughout never ending ages, virtuous minds 
 will be enlarged with knowledge, exalted in happi- 
 
 * Acts ii. 23. 
 
 f Rom. xi. 33. 
 
MORAL EVIL CONSIDERED. 
 
 45 
 
 ness, and improved in dignity ; and their affections, 
 obedience, and praises, become more refined and 
 elevated, in a rapid and regular succession. When 
 the revolutions which now measure time shall be 
 swallowed up in an unchangeable eternity, the saints 
 of the Most High shall be for ever with their Lord. 
 Hence, it is evident, that the glory of the redeem¬ 
 ed as far exceeds the felicity of Adam in the highest 
 state of his pristine vigour and perfection, as 
 heaven is above the fading beauty of this terrestrial 
 world. 
 
CHAP. III. 
 
 The Names given to Satan in the Scripture, explained. 
 
 Before i enter on the consideration of this 
 subject, it will be proper to observe, that the Uni¬ 
 tarians deny the existence of angels, whether good 
 or bad. Now, if there are no angels in existence, 
 it is absolutely impossible that there can be a super¬ 
 natural evil being, or Devil. If the existence of 
 angels is incredible, it must be for one of the fol¬ 
 lowing rcaaoiis. 
 
 That the nature of things disprove their 
 existence, or contains some evidence which renders 
 it highly improbable ; or, 
 
 9>nd. That it is not sufficiently revealed in the 
 Scripture, so as to command our belief. 
 
 It is not inconsistent with the nature of things, 
 but highly probable, that there are in existence jowre 
 immaterial spirits, or angels. As God is a pure 
 Spirit, and delights in the contemplation of his own 
 manner of existence; it is far more reasonable to 
 suppose that he would create beings as much like 
 himself as possible, than that he should create 
 beings compounded of matter and spirit, such as we 
 are. Suppose, for instance, that we were totally 
 unacquainted with the existence of either angels or 
 
THE NAMES GIVEN TO SATAN, &C. 47 
 
 men ; pure spirits would seem more likely to be a 
 part of the creation of God, than spirits united to 
 bodies, beings wholly rational, than beings partly 
 rational, and partly animal. 
 
 In creating men, a new mystery is presented to our 
 contemplation, viz. the union of soul and body, so 
 accomplished as to constitute but one percipient 
 being. Should the Unitarians object, and say, “ we 
 avoid this difficulty, by denying the existence of an 
 immaterial soul in man.”—But this, by the bye, is 
 only introducing to our view a ten times greater and 
 more perplexing difficulty, an hypothesis so myste¬ 
 rious, as to be no other than a gross absurdity and 
 contradiction in terms;— viz. the doctrine of cogi¬ 
 tative or thinJcwg matter; for we might as well 
 talk of a square circle, or a part being greater than 
 the whole, of which itself is but a part, as to sup¬ 
 pose that that which is simple and indivisible, to be 
 a property' of that which is compound. 
 
 Hence, it is highly probable from reason and 
 analogy, that there are pure immaterial spirits, or 
 angels, in existence. For, as in the visible material 
 world, we see no chasms, but a continued series of 
 things descending in the scale of being from man by 
 easy gradations; so we have reason to think it 
 suitable to the magnificent design of the great Ar¬ 
 chitect of the Universe, that the specieVof creatures 
 should ascend by the same gentle gradations above 
 us. And as we are much more remote from God, 
 than we are from the lowest state of corporeal exis- 
 
48 
 
 THE NAMES GIVEN TO SATAN 
 
 tence; so it is not improbable that there are far 
 more kinds of spiritual existences, than of embodied 
 beings beneath us. Hence, we may conceive that 
 there are in existence various orders of angelic 
 natures. 
 
 The declarations of the Bible, relative to the ex¬ 
 istence of angels, are as numerous and express as 
 language will admit. And it is truly astonishing, 
 that any person professing to receive the Scriptures 
 as a Divine revelation, ^n d yet at the same time 
 deny their existence. A few passages I hope will 
 be sufficient to settle this point beyond contradiction. 
 Jesus Christ said unto Peter, ‘‘ Thinkest thou that I 
 cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently 
 give me more than iicelve legions of angels; that 
 is, more than seventy-two thousand; and the Psalmist 
 declares that, “ the chariots of God, are twenty 
 thousand, even thousands oi angels these are 
 indefinite numbers, used to express a very large one. 
 Again, he exclaims, “ Bless the Lord, ye \n& angels, 
 who excel in strength.”^ When the Saviour of 
 mankind became incarnate, Gabriel announced his 
 birth to Zacharias and to Mary. An angel also 
 proclaimed, ^^glad tidings of great joyf to the 
 shepherds of Bethlehem; and “ a multitude of 
 the heavenly host praised God"'’’ on the same 
 occasion, in the noblest anthem ever heard in this 
 lower world, and sang, “ Glory to God in the 
 highest! and on earth, peace good-will towards 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. .53. + Psalm Ixviii. 17. 
 
 J ciii. 20. 
 
IN THE SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED. 
 
 49 
 
 men. * An angel rolled away the stone from the 
 sepulchre of. Christ—“ His countenance was like 
 lightning, and his raiment white as snow ; and for 
 fear of him, the keepers became as dead men.”-!* 
 I saw, says St. John, “ another mighty angel come 
 down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and a rain¬ 
 bow was upon his head, and his face was as is it were 
 the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire.”! From 
 hence, it is evident, that there are pure spirits, or 
 angels, in existence. “ And before any one is so 
 arrogant, as to conclude that no Devil exists, he 
 should first ascertain the improbability, and im¬ 
 possibility of his existence; but in order to this, 
 it is absolutely neeessary for him to comprehend 
 the various links in the ascending chain of possible 
 existences, to develope the realities of the unknown 
 world, to prove that angels were not free agents; 
 or, if they were free agents, (which we have reason 
 to believe,) in order to support the baseless hypothe¬ 
 sis of no Devil, it must be proved, that they never 
 in a single instance violated that compact, which, 
 considering them as free agents, must necessarily 
 exist between them and the father of all spirits. 
 But who are capable of fathoming this infinite, 
 this bottomless abyss —Where shall we begin ?— 
 The moment we attempt it we are lost! We enter 
 a region in which an impenetrable cloud every where 
 
 * See Second Chapter of'Luke, -f- Matt, xxviii. 2. 3. 4. 
 X Rev. X. 1. 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 THE NAMES GIVEN TO SATAN 
 
 encircles us ! we gaze and grope ! but all is dark ! all 
 is unknown, and enveloped in the deepest mystery. 
 
 Now, consonant with these remarks, is it reasona¬ 
 ble to conclude, that no devil exists.^ Certainly not. 
 Ignorance and our inability to comprehend a fact, 
 can never form a just, a philosophical basis, on 
 which to build our conclusions, and rest the fabric 
 of our faith: No, the only rational inference, under 
 such circumstance, would be, that not being able 
 to demonstrate the existence of the Devil, we have 
 no right to conclude that he does exist; but this 
 would not at all sanction the conclusion that he does 
 not exist; because, this would be building the edi¬ 
 fice of our knowledge, on the very basis of ignorance, 
 which is replete with absurdity.—But, if we take 
 the Scripture for our guide, and build the fabric of 
 our speculations on the sure basis of eternal truth, we 
 may, without involving ourselves in the painful 
 drudgery of unprofitable research, easily discover the 
 ' important doctrine of lapsed intelligences, or existing 
 Devils ; a doctrine, which, if disbelieved, will open 
 a door to infidelity, which all the energies of those 
 who deny the fact, will never be able to shut. The 
 term Devil, is used in the Bible in almost innume¬ 
 rable instances; and it is to the Bible alone, that 
 we must trace the true origin of the doctrine of De¬ 
 vils ; for how, or where, or when, should any one 
 dream of such a doctrine as this, a doctrine so uni¬ 
 versally received, unless it were of divine inspira¬ 
 tion ? 'file Bible makes known to us, that which 
 
IN THE SCRIPTURE, EXPLAINED. 51 
 
 philosophy could never develope; and I feel no 
 hesitation in saying, that unless we admit infernal 
 agency to be a scripture doctrine, we can make no 
 manner of sense of many of its parts; but, it must 
 be a complication of absurdities, a jumble of contra¬ 
 dictions.” 
 
 And I may further add, that as philosophers by 
 means of microscopes, have discovered to us vast 
 tribes of insects in various parts of nature, which 
 before, were totally unknown to us; so. Revelation 
 may diccover to us myriads of spirits, which, with¬ 
 out such aid, would have escaped our notice. And 
 it is as reasonable to suppose Revelation to be as 
 proper a mean of discovering invisible spiritual be¬ 
 ings in one case, as optical instruments are for the 
 discovery of minute corporeal ones in the other. 
 
 The names given to the arch-enemy of the human 
 race in the Sacred Scriptures, are taken from the part 
 he acts, and the different character he assumes in the 
 work of injuring the souls of men. It must not, how¬ 
 ever, be denied, that the names given to the arch-de¬ 
 ceiver, have sometimes ambiguous meanings. Satan^ 
 for instance,signifies an adversary among men; and 
 good angels, as well as among evil spirits. Peter was 
 a Satan, (that is, an adversary,) to our Lord.* And 
 the unbelieving Jews, the Satan or adversary, who 
 hindered St. Paul’s return to Thessalonica.^f* But, 
 though we find an ambiguity in the terms that are 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 23. 
 
 f 1. Thess. ii 18. 
 
52 
 
 THE NAMES GIVEN TO SATAN 
 
 given to the enemy of mankind; yet, it would be an 
 
 y 
 
 absurd and unwarranted conclusion, from such pre¬ 
 mises, to deny the existence of evil spirits. When 
 he opposes the people of God as far as he can, he 
 is called Satan, which signifies an adversary, one 
 who stands in the way, or stops the progress of 
 another. When he works all the evil that he can by 
 himself, or by his servants, in the church, or in the 
 world, he is called Belial; which signifies one with¬ 
 out yoke, or one who is not profitable to any, or 
 without the Most High. When he endeavours to 
 devour, he his called a roaring lion, 'm consequence 
 of his fury and desperation. When he is repre¬ 
 sented as standing in the presence of God, ac¬ 
 cusing and condemning the best of men as far as 
 he can, he his called the aceuser of the brethren, 
 or the Devil, which signifies a slanderer, or ealum- 
 niator; and when he acts as the destroyer, execut¬ 
 ing just vengeance upon the souls and bodies of 
 the wicked, he is called Ahadden, that is, the 
 destroyer; and when he acts as the deceiver of men 
 in general, he is called the old Serpent which de- 
 ceiveth the world. And, as he acted the subtle 
 part of the cunning deceiver at first, he is called the 
 Serpent. He is called a great and red dragon, not 
 only in respect of his great strength, and bloody 
 cruelty against the saints; but, because of the 
 poisonous nature of those principles, which he is 
 endeavouring to propagate, either by his own imme¬ 
 diate agency, or that of his servants. He is called 
 
IN THE SCRIPTURE, EXPLAINED. 5S 
 
 the old Serpent; meaning that serpent which of old 
 at the beginning deceived our first parents, and is 
 still deceiving the world. He is styled the tempter^ 
 which is his constant practice. He bribes some 
 with profit, and allures others with pleasure. He 
 is surprisingly subtle, his strength is great, but not 
 omnipotent; his malice is deadly, his activity and 
 perseverance are equal to his enmity; and he has a 
 great number of demons at his command. 
 
 Again, the Apostle St. Paul, in his Second Epis¬ 
 tle to the Corinthians, calls Satan, “ the God of this 
 world;'' because he sways his sceptre in theTiearts 
 of the children of disobedience. And our Saviour 
 styles him, a princef in the 12th. Chapter of St. 
 John’s Gospel. “ Now shall the prince of this world 
 be cast out.” That is, Satan, the ruler and God 
 of this world, shall be dethroned from that empire 
 which he has so long usurped over the minds of 
 men, and especially over the heathen nation. 
 And again, Jesus saith, “ the prince of this world 
 cometh and hath nothing in me.” By which ex¬ 
 pression he informed his disciples, that Satan, tlie 
 prince of the apostate world, was coming to encoun¬ 
 ter him; not only, by the most dismal suggestions 
 and allurements; but by raising a storm, which 
 would terminate in his death. Nevertheless, “ he 
 hath nothing in me;” no guilt whatever to accuse 
 me of, no inward corruption or inherent depravity 
 to take part in, or to follow his temptations, as the 
 
 needle does the attraction of the magnet. 
 
 E 3 
 
54 
 
 THE NAMES GIVEN TO SATAN 
 
 The Apostle styles him, the prince of the power 
 of the air.”* Not because he has power to raise the 
 wind, as some have supposed; for he could not 
 cause the wind to blow down the house in which 
 Job’s children were feasting, until £rod gave him 
 permission. But, because he is the prince, or chief 
 of those demons whose residence is in the air.—He 
 is called “ spiritual wickedness in high places.” 
 For, says the Apostle, “ we wrestle not against flesh 
 and blood, but against principalities, against powers, 
 against the rulers of the darkness of this world, 
 against spiritual wickedness in high places; ” or, as 
 the margin more literally reads, wicked spirits in 
 heavenly places.'^ 
 
 The meaning of the Apostle plainly appears to 
 be this:—We have not only to contend against oiu 
 own fears and passions, and a whole host of perse¬ 
 cutors ; but we have to maintain a perpetual war with 
 enemies more powerful ^^than jlesh and blood;'''' 
 even with invisible and formidable principalities 
 and powers, who are the rulers and cause of that 
 darkness and ignorance which is so predominant in 
 the world. And such is the power and malignity 
 of those enemies, that they even enter into our pub¬ 
 lic and private places of devotion, in order, if pos¬ 
 sible, to obstruct our worship, and draw our attention 
 from God. Hence, the Apostle styles them, 
 “ wicked spirits in heavenly places.'''' That this is 
 
 * 
 
 Eph. ii. 2. 
 
 f Eph. vi. 12. 
 
IN THE SCRIPTURE, EXPLAINED. 
 
 55 
 
 the proper meaning of this passage, will be still 
 more evident, when it is considered, that the Apos¬ 
 tle points out these enemies, in order to prove to the 
 Ephesians the necessity of putting on the whole 
 armour of God, that they might be able to withstand 
 in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.* 
 May God grant that both the author and reader of 
 this essay, may comply with the injunction of the 
 Apostle, and put on the whole armour of God, 
 that we may be able to stand firm in the Lord, and 
 in the power of his might; and at last, when our 
 warfare is accomplished, we may be translated to 
 the realms of eternal bliss. 
 
 * Eph. vi. 13. 
 
CHAP. IV. 
 
 Demoniacal Possessions; or. Reasons to prove their Reality 
 according to the New Testament. 
 
 It has been a subject of dispute for many centu¬ 
 ries, whether the demoniacs mentioned in the gospel, 
 were really possessed with infernal spirits, or demons, 
 or whether they were only persons afflicted with na¬ 
 tural distempers. Those who contend for the latter 
 opinion, suppose that the expressions,—possessed with 
 the Devil,—casting out Devils, are only an accom¬ 
 modation to vulgar opinion, and that the persons 
 said to be possessed, were only mad, or lunatic, or per¬ 
 sons subject to epilepsy. Thus they have explained 
 away the account given in the gospel concerning these 
 demoniacs. I have never had the opportunity of 
 examining one complete treatise against the opinion 
 of real possessions, except one wrote by Hugh 
 Farmer, which was put into my hands by a kind 
 friend. And I candidly confess, that it is a learned 
 and ingenious production, and the more I read it, 
 the more I am convinced of the truth of the two 
 following lines:— 
 
 “ I know the learned can with ease, 
 
 “ Twist words and meanings as they please.” 
 
REASONS TO i^ROVE THEIR REALITY. 
 
 57 
 
 Neither have I had the pleasure to read one 
 single work in favour of real possessions; conse¬ 
 quently, my mind is not biassed by the specious rea¬ 
 soning of any individual. I have met with various > 
 remarks on the subject in the course of my reading, 
 and probably some of them may appear in this 
 chapter. The plain, unadulterated language of the 
 Scripture, or the account which is given of possessions 
 - in the gospel, are more convincing to me, that the 
 demoniacs were really possessed with evil supernatu¬ 
 ral demons, than all the learning and sophistry which 
 has been summoned into action, in order to disprove 
 and evade the simple and unvarnished narration 
 given of possessions in the evangelic history. I 
 am firmly persuaded, that the representation of the 
 I demoniacs in the gospel history, together with their 
 condition, cannot be fairly accounted for but upon 
 I the principle of real possessions. And I would 
 ask the opposers of this scriptural doctrine, what 
 language would they use, in order to express real 
 possessions ? Can any doctrine be better attested ? 
 Are not the expressions of the Evangelist as plain 
 ' and forcible as language will admit Why, then, 
 i should any man endeavour to expunge from the 
 
 Scriptures, a doctrine so clearly and positively con- 
 ’ tained in them The modes of reasoning made 
 use of by these men to evade the truth of the gospel 
 history, are not only dangerous in the extreme, but 
 superlatively absurd; it tends to destroy the cer¬ 
 tainty of all language, and the unlearned, or un- 
 
58 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSES'IONS ; OR, 
 
 informed reader, is at once carried into boundless 
 regions of mere allegory and figure, like a pilot with¬ 
 out anchor and without compass, founders upon 
 a dismal ocean of uncertainty and confusion. And 
 not only so, but upon the same principle, we may 
 easily explain away every other doctrine contained 
 in the Bible; and thus, in an alembic of mental 
 chemistry, transmute all these heart-cheering doc¬ 
 trines of Christianity into mere shadows, and there¬ 
 by deprive the humble, sin-sick soul, of all his hope, 
 leaving him to perish in despair. 
 
 I shall, in the first place, point out a few of those 
 reasons which induce me to believe in real posses¬ 
 sions. 
 
 1st. Casting out Devils is frequently spoken of 
 as a thing different from the healing of diseases. 
 Hence, it is said of Jesus, that “his fame went 
 throughout all Syria,'and they brought unto him all 
 such people that were taken with divers diseases and 
 torments, and those which were possessed yiixh Devils, 
 and those which were lunatic, and those that had 
 the palsy, and he healed them.”* “ When the even 
 was come, they brought unto him many that were 
 possessed with Devils : and he cast out the spirits 
 with his word, and healed all that were siCK.”*f* And 
 it appears still more evident, from the commission 
 which Christ gave to his Apostles, that the demo¬ 
 niacs were literally possessed with infernal and in¬ 
 visible demons. For, says he—“ Heal the sick, 
 
 * Matt. iv. 24. 
 
 f viii. 16. 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY, 59 
 
 cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out Devils, 
 freely ye have received, freely give.”* Now, how 
 absurd it is to suppose, that Jesus Christ would say 
 “ to his Apostles, cast out Devils, if there was no 
 such being in existence, or such a thing as real 
 possessions. If the opinions of our opponents be cor¬ 
 rect, we must look upon Jesus Christ as an ignorant 
 novice, or else as a downright impostor. “ But let 
 God be true, and every man a liar,” who attempts 
 to pervert the plain declarations of his word. “And 
 at even, when the sun did set, they brought 
 j unto him all that were diseased, and them that were 
 
 I possessed with “Then he called his twelve 
 
 disciples together, and gave them power and author¬ 
 ity over all Devils, and to cure diseases.From 
 hence, it is evident, that our Lord and his Apostles 
 considered casting out Devils as distinct and separ¬ 
 ate from the healing of diseases; and that casting 
 out demons was one prominent feature in the Apos¬ 
 tles’ mission, when they went forth to unfurl the 
 f banners of the cross, and to proclaim to a ruined 
 h world the redemption of Christ, 
 j The sacred writers express themselves in 
 
 such terms, as seem undeniably to imply their own 
 I' persuasion of the fact; and that the distemper of 
 1 these deplorable sufferers, was owing to the influ- 
 ) ence of some personal agents wholly distinct from 
 ) themselves, and these no other than unclean infer- 
 i nal spirits. For, says the historian, “TheDevils 
 
 * Matt. X. 8. f Mark i. 32. I Luke ix. 1. 
 
60 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 besought him, saying, if thou cast us out, suffer us 
 to go away into the herd of swine.”^ “ As they 
 went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man 
 possessed with a Devil. And when the Devil was 
 cast out, the dumb spake; and the multitudes 
 marvelled, saying, it was never so seen in Israel. 
 But the Pharisees said, he casteth out Devils 
 through the prince of the Devils.”*}* “ And the 
 spirit cried and rent him sore, and came out of him: 
 and he was as one dead, insomuch that many said, 
 he is dead.”J Thus it is evident, that the Evange¬ 
 lists believed in real possessions; otherwise, they 
 must be considered as unfaithful historians, to 
 declare as facts the expelling of demons, when no 
 such thing ever took place. But, if we suppose 
 them constantly under infallible guidance, the opin¬ 
 ions of those who deny real possessions leads to the 
 grossest absurdity and contradiction. For it sup¬ 
 poses them to be under infallible guidance, and not 
 under infallible guidance, at the same time. 
 
 ^dly. Our Saviour himself in the actual cure of 
 these demoniacs, and in his treatment of them, 
 plainly appears to have looked upon them as not 
 only nominally, but really such. The Devils be¬ 
 sought him, saying, “ If thou cast us out, suffer us 
 to go away into the herd of swine. And he said 
 unto them. Go.” He speaks not to the man, but to 
 some other conscious being possessing and acting up¬ 
 on him. “ And Jesus rebuked him, (that is, the un- 
 
 * Matt. viii. 31. f ix, 32, 33, 34, X Mark ix. 26. 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 
 
 61 
 
 clean spirit,) saying, hold thy peace and come out 
 of him.” “ And he healed many that were sick of 
 divers diseases, and cast out many Devils, and suf¬ 
 fered not the Devils to speak, because they knew 
 him.”* “ And unclean spirits, when they saw him, 
 fell down before him, and cried, saying, thou art 
 the Son of God. And he straitly charged them 
 that they should not make him known.”*!* And 
 Devils also came out of many, crying out, and say¬ 
 ing, thou art Christ the Son of God. And he re¬ 
 buked them, and suffered them not to speak : for 
 they knew that he was Christ. J 
 
 ^thly. The denial of real possessions makes the 
 Gospel History to be a complication of absurdities, 
 and renders it absolutely impossible to make any 
 sense of many of its parts. For instance, the account 
 which is given by St. Luke concerning the ejection 
 of a demon. Now read the word disease instead of the 
 word Devil, and the absurdity of such an opinion 
 appears in its true light, and the folly of those who 
 are so absurd as to depart from the line of divine 
 truth, is at once exhibited to public contempt. 
 ‘‘ And in the synagogue there was a man which had 
 a spirit of an unclean disease, and the unclean disease 
 cried out with a loud voice, let us alone, what have 
 we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? Art 
 thou come to destroy us.? I, the unclean disease, 
 know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And 
 
 * Mark, 34. f 11. 12. 
 
 F 
 
 Luke, iv. 41. 
 
62 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 Jesus rebuked the unclean disease^ saying, hold thy 
 peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean 
 disease had thrown him down in the midst, he (the * 
 unclean disease) came out of him, and hurt him not. 
 And they were all amazed, and spake among them- 
 \ selves, saying, what a word is this;—for with 
 authority and power he commandeth the unclean 
 diseases, and they come out.* 
 
 “ It is well known,” (says Dr. Doddridge.) 
 
 “ that a late learned and ingenious writer has reviv¬ 
 ed the notion long since maintained by Mr. Joseph 
 Mede and Dr. Bekker, that these supposed demo¬ 
 niacs were only lunatics, or epileptics: but, on the 
 most impartial perusal of what has passed between 
 him and his learned antagonists, I am fully con¬ 
 vinced that there is no sufficient reason for depart¬ 
 ing from the received interpretation ; and I should 
 think this story alone a convincing proof on the 
 side of it- It is most incredible that an evangelist 
 should have been left to ascribe this man’s disorder 
 to the spirit of an unclean demon, if it were only 
 lunacy, or the falling sickness ; or, that a physician 
 of common sense should speak of it as a memorable 
 circumstance, that such a distemper did not hurt a 
 man by leaving him”—Again, our Lord represents 
 an evil spirit or demon after being cast out, as walk¬ 
 ing through desert places seeking rest and flndeth 
 none. But supply the word disease instead of spirit. 
 
 * Lukeiv. 33, 34, 35, 36. 
 
V REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 63 
 
 and the language of Jesus Christ becomes not only 
 altogether unintelligible, but absolutely absurd. 
 For instance, when the unclean spirit, or rather ac¬ 
 cording to the hypothesis of our opponents, the 
 unclean disease is gone out of a man, he (the unclean 
 disease) walketh through dry places seeking rest 
 and findeth none. Then the unclean disease saith, 
 I will return into my house from whence I came out; 
 and when the unclean disease is come, he findeth it 
 empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth the un, 
 clean disease and taketh with himself seven* other 
 diseases, more wicked than himself; and they, i. e. 
 eight diseases, enter in and dwell there.*)* Thus it 
 is evident, that if the opinions of these men who 
 deny real possessions be correct, Jesus Christ, instead 
 of speaking as never man spoke, hath used language 
 which amounts to nothing more than a mass of the 
 most incoherent and ridiculous jargon. But if we 
 understand the words of Christ as a faithful repre¬ 
 sentation of what had previously taken place, his 
 language on this occasion is intelligible and consist¬ 
 ent with the general tenor of the Gospel History. 
 Thus it is evident that our adorable Redeemer con_ 
 sidered possessions as real; otherwise, he would 
 
 * If the word seven be understood as denoting' perfection^ 
 the words, seven other spirits, mean a great number; there¬ 
 fore according to the principle of those who deny the re¬ 
 ality of possessions, this unclean disease took a great num- 
 l^er of diseases more wicked than himself. 
 
 See Matt. xii. 43. 44. 45. 
 
64 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 never have adopted the mode of expression made 
 use of on this occasion. 
 
 II. A Reply to the objections against this literal 
 intei pretation of these and similar expressions. 
 
 Objection 1st.—Mr. Heineken says, “ In order 
 as much as possible to narrow the ground of our 
 present inquiry, it will be proper to observe, that in 
 almost all these passages of scripture, where men 
 are described as possessed, our translators have in¬ 
 judiciously employed the term Dev\l^ instead of 
 Demon, which is the true meaning of the original 
 word, and this circumstance has given rise to a very 
 mistaken notion.” 
 
 Answer.—This is only an assertion without the 
 least shadow of proof brought to support it; and I 
 would have Mr. H. to observe, that an assertion 
 proves nothing without it be substantiated either by 
 positive facts, or upon the principles of sound rea¬ 
 son and argument. Therefore, it would be just to 
 pass it over in silence. But as assertions and mis¬ 
 representations are generally considered by rational 
 Christians,'" as strong weapons to attack their assail¬ 
 ants with, I shall therefore endeavour to prove to 
 be false, the assertion made in the above quotation. 
 Mr. Heineken ought to have proved that the trans¬ 
 lation of the term Demi instead of Demon, was 
 the cause of the opinion, that there are in existence 
 supernatural evil spirits, or Demons, or that it led 
 to the notion that the demoniacs were literally pos¬ 
 sessed. The demoniacs are frequently said to be 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 65 
 
 possessed with unclean spirits; and it is also said in 
 the history of these deplorable sufferers, that they 
 brought unto Jesus Christ “many that were pos¬ 
 sessed with devils, and he cast out the spirits with 
 his word.”—Here observe, the term spirit, is used 
 as synonymous with Devil. But suppose the word 
 Devil had never been employed by our translators, 
 would the opinion of re.al possessions never have 
 had an existence I defy Mr. Heineken, or any 
 other of his Unitarian brethren to prove that one 
 single individual believed in the existence of the 
 devil, or in the reality of possessions, merely be¬ 
 cause our translators have used the term Devil, 
 instead of Demon. Neither does the term Devil 
 injure the sense of the sacred texts, nor does it 
 convey a meaning which the writers did not intend. 
 Substitute the word Demon instead of Devil, and 
 the sense remains exactly the same: for instance, 
 “ They brought unto him many that weye possessed 
 with Demons.'''’ Christ said to his Apostles, “ cast 
 out Demons.'’'' Thus it is evident, that if the word 
 Devil had never been used, the doctrine of possess¬ 
 ions' would have been the same. Mr. Heineken 
 further adds, “ that it was a current opinion among 
 the Jews, who seem to have adopted it from the 
 Egyptians and other nations, that there was an 
 actual transmigration of the soul, and that the spirits' 
 of the dead, both good and bad, had power to enter 
 the bosoms of the living, and either to impart their 
 good qualities, or to inflict torments both of body 
 
66 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 and of mind, by the influence of their bad dispo¬ 
 sitions.” And he again adds, that, “ having very 
 indistinct ideas of a future state, they imagined 
 disembodied spirits were flitting about in the re¬ 
 gions of space; and that they were all under the 
 direction of a gov^erning spirit, whom they termed 
 Beelzebub, the prince of the Demons.'''' Although 
 the Egyptians, together with Pythagoras and his fol¬ 
 lowers, believed and taught the doctrine of the trans¬ 
 migration of the soul; and though a great part of 
 the heathens worshipped confessedly the ghosts of’ 
 departed heroes, conquerors, potentates, and the in¬ 
 ventors of thefine arts,whom popular superstiti on,after 
 disguising their history with fables and absurdities, 
 blindly defied. Yet, it was the opinion both of 
 Jews and Heathens, that the air was full of spirits, 
 a superior order of beings between men and God. 
 These, the Greeks termed Demons (knowing ones) 
 and the Romans, Genii. Hesiod roundly affirms 
 that— 
 
 “ Millions of spiritual creatures walk 
 
 The earth unseen.” 
 
 Hence, it is probable, says an able writer on this 
 subject, arose the numerous tales about the exploits 
 of their demi-gods. Hence, their Satyrs, Fauns, 
 Nymphs of every kind, wherewith they supposed 
 both the sea and the land to be filled. Some of these 
 Demons or Genii, the Heathens supposed to be 
 kind and benevolent, delighting in doing good; 
 others, to be malicious and cruel, delightng in doing 
 
EEASONS TO PEOVE THEIE EEALITY. 67 
 
 evil. Of the former, seems to have been the cele¬ 
 brated Demon of Socrates, concerning which so 
 many and various conjectures have been made in 
 succeeding ages. “ This gives me notice,” said he, 
 “ every morning, of any evil which will befall me that 
 day.”—“ My Demon,” said he, “ did not give me 
 notice this morning of any evil that was to befall 
 me to day ; therefore I cannot regard as any evil 
 my being condemned to die.” Undoubtedly, says 
 Mr. Wesley, it was some spiritual being: probably 
 one of the ministering spirits*—“ The Jews, in 
 the Pirh Avoth^"' (says a learned author) “ teach, 
 that from the earth to the firmament, all things were 
 full of these companies and rulers; and that there 
 was a prince over them, who was called the governor 
 of this worlds that is, the darkness of it.” This 
 agrees with the opinion of the ancient Fathers, con¬ 
 cerning whom St. Jerome says, “ this is the opinion 
 of the Doctors; that the air which divides between 
 the earth and heaven is full of contrary powers”— 
 It would probably be difficult to discover with cer¬ 
 tainty, from what is said in the Gospels concerning 
 possessions, whether the demons were conceived to be 
 the ghosts of wicked men deceased, or lapsed angels. 
 It is plain they were conceived to be malignant spirits* 
 They are exhibited as the causes of the most direful 
 calamities to the unhappy persons whom they pos¬ 
 sessed—dumbness, deafness, madness,palsy,epilepsy. 
 
 SerraOn on Heb. i. 14 
 
68 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 and the like. The descriptive titles given them al¬ 
 ways denote that they were wicked supernatural spirits^ 
 They are frequently called unclean spirits; either, 
 because of their personal dispositions, or, because of 
 the effects which they produced. They are repre¬ 
 sented as conscious that they are doomed to misery 
 and torments, though their punishment be delayed 
 for a while. When our Saviour was in the country 
 of the Gergesenes, there met him two men possessed 
 with Devils, or Demons, coming out of the tombs, 
 exceedingly fierce, so that no man might pass by that 
 way. Into these two men a legion of Devils had 
 entered; and, behold, they cried out, saying. What 
 have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God ?— 
 art thou come hither to torment us before the time ? 
 We see here, that those demons expected more griev¬ 
 ous torment than they had ever yet felt; that they 
 mentioned the time appointed for the completion of 
 their torment; and, as the season fixed on for this, 
 is the great day, they therefore expostulated with 
 him about the time of it—art thou come to torment 
 us before the time —And they besought him that 
 he would not command them to go out into the deep, 
 into the abyss ; by which expositors understand the 
 place of torment.* The state of endless misery, to 
 which Christ will sentence all wicked persons at his 
 second coming, is called “ everlasting fire, prepared 
 for the Devil and his angels which seems to 
 
 
 * Matt. Tiii. 29. and Luke viii. 3i. f Matt. xxv. 41. 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 69 
 
 imply, that the arch-apostate and his angels are not 
 in this punishment; that it is prepared for them, 
 and they are reserved unto it, and that at the ap¬ 
 pointed time, they shall be cast into it. We read, 
 And the Devil that deceived them, was cast into 
 the lake of fire and brimstone; where the beast and 
 the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and 
 night, for ever and ever. And I saw a great white 
 throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the 
 earth and the heavens fled away; and there was 
 found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small 
 and great, stand before God : and the books were 
 opened : and another book was opened, which is the 
 book of life: and the dead were judged out of those 
 things which were written in the books, according to 
 their works.* Here we see, that when the dead, 
 small and great, shall stand before God, and be 
 judged by him, the Devil, together with the beast 
 and the false prophet, shall be cast into the lake of fire 
 and brimstone. And again, “ Thou believest that 
 there is one God ; thou doest well: the Devils also 
 believe and tremble.-f From hence it appears, that 
 when the Apostle is representing the Devils as be¬ 
 lieving in the existence of God, he at the same time 
 represents them as trembling at the fearful expecta¬ 
 tion of some future misery which would be inflicted 
 upon them. These passages evidently intimate, 
 that their complete torment is yet to come, and that 
 
 * Rev. XX. 10—12. 
 
 f JaraeN ii. xix. 
 
70 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 they are looking forward with the most dismal fore¬ 
 bodings for their final destiny; the thoughts of 
 which make them tremble. 
 
 That the Jews were afterwards led into idolatryand 
 superstition by other nations, is evident from their 
 own history. But that they believed in the doctrine 
 of the transmigration of the soul, remains to be prov¬ 
 ed. We find no mention in the Scripture of such 
 a doctrine ever^ being held by them. Besides, the 
 doctrine of transmigration was contrary to the gene¬ 
 ral tenor of their own Scriptures. The Apostle St- 
 Paul, in one of his letters to Timothy, said, that 
 from a child he had known those Scriptures, and 
 that they were able to make him wise unto salva¬ 
 tion, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. From 
 hence it follows, that the Jews with these Scrip¬ 
 tures in their hands, could not be so ignorant of a 
 future state, as Mr. Heineken would have us believe. 
 Besides, it is well known that the Jews had the 
 strongest attachment to the Old Testament Scrip¬ 
 tures, and continue to have even to this day. That 
 the Jewish Babbies incorporated into their Targums 
 many absurdities, I do not deny ; but that the doc¬ 
 trine of the transmigration of the soul was either 
 taught^or believed by them, does not appear to me 
 to be probable; for the Jews thought their title to 
 heaven absolutely certain, because they were the 
 offspring of faithful Abraham ; therefore, John the 
 Baptist^said unto them, “ Think not to say within 
 yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; for I 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 71 
 
 say linto you, that God is able of these stones to 
 raise up children unto Abraham.”* 
 
 Jesus Christ himself laid the axe at the very root 
 of such a doctrine as the transmigration of the soul, in 
 his narrative of the rich man and Lazarus. He in¬ 
 forms us, that Lazarus died, and was carried by the 
 angels into Abraham’s bosom : the rich man also 
 died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, 
 being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, 
 and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said^ 
 Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Laz¬ 
 arus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water 
 and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this 
 flame. But Abraham said. Son, rem.ember that 
 thou in thy life time receivedst thy good things, 
 and likewise Lazarus evil things : but now he is 
 comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides 
 all this, between us and you there is a great gulf 
 fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to 
 you cannot; neither can they pass to us that would 
 come from thence.*!* Now, had the doctrine of 
 transmigration been a prevailing opinion of the 
 Jews, they would have said to Jesus Christ, that 
 what he had been relating concerning these two men 
 was not true; for that their spirits “ were flitting 
 about in the regions of spa6e,” and sometimes enter¬ 
 ing the bosoms of mankind. Even the thief upon 
 the cross used language quite opposite to such a be- 
 
 * Matt. iii. ix. 
 
 t See Luke xvi. Chap. 
 
72 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OE, 
 
 lief as this; for says he, “Lord, remember me when 
 thou comest into thy kingdom.”* Now, had he be¬ 
 lieved in transmigration, he would have said, Lord} 
 let my spirit and thine travel together in the bound¬ 
 less regions of eternal space ; or, let our souls enter 
 the bosoms of men and women together : thus, it is 
 evident, that the belief in the doctrine of transmi¬ 
 gration was not generally believed among the Jews.*f* 
 In the quotation already made from Mr. Heineken’s 
 lecture, he tells us, that departed spirits were sup¬ 
 posed to be under the direction of a governing spirit, 
 whom they termed Beelzebub, the prince of the De¬ 
 mons, or departed spirits. In another part of his 
 lecture, he ‘says,—“ Beelzebub has also been consi¬ 
 dered as descriptive of this being (that is,’of Satan,) 
 but it was the name of one of the imaginary Pagan 
 Deities, and implied no particular qualities either 
 good or bad.” Now is it not as reasonable to sup¬ 
 pose, that the Jews called Satan, Beelzebub, for a 
 certain reason, probably best known to themselves ; 
 as that the Heathens should designate the supposed 
 prince or chief of departed spirits by that name. 
 For the sake of argument, we will grant Mr. Heine- 
 ken what he contends for, viz. that Beelzebub was 
 only the name of a large image, whom the Ekronites 
 
 * Luke xxiii. 42. 
 
 •j- I do not mean that the doctrine of transmigration was 
 held by none of the Jews, for many I believe were led into 
 this opinion ; what I contend for is, that it was not a gene¬ 
 ral or prevailing opinion. 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 73 
 
 worshipped as a god. One of those passages in 
 which the term Beelzebub occurs, is in St. Mark’s 
 Gospel, third chapter and twenty-second verse^ 
 “ And the scribes which came down from Jerusa¬ 
 lem, said: He hath Beelzebub, and by the Prince 
 of the Devils casteth he out Devils.” Now, according 
 to the opinion of Mr. Heineken, the meaning of 
 this passage appeiirs to be this:—he hath the god of 
 Ekron, and by the prince of the gods of Ekron, he 
 casteth out gods of Ekron ; or, he hath an heathen 
 deity, and by the prince of heathen deities, he cast¬ 
 eth out heathen deities. An absurdity too glaring 
 to be admitted by any man, except one who is blind¬ 
 ed by prejudice, or determined to believe any thing, 
 however monstrous, rather than give up his pre¬ 
 conceived opinions; for it is making an image which 
 consists of nothing but inanimate matter, to be the 
 “ cause and the effect, the agent and the patient, 
 the moving principle and the thing moved:” “ but, 
 I refrain from drawing the absurd, the unphilosophic 
 conclusion; and humbly think, that the doctrine of 
 Devils is as clearly depicted, as any other truth in 
 the whole Bible; and as all that has been advanced 
 against it is mere hypothesis, unsupported by argu¬ 
 ment, and unauthorized by Scripture, I hope, like 
 the bursting bubble on the passing stream, it will 
 soon evaporate into empty air.” Mr. Heineken ought 
 to have told us how this god came from Ekron to 
 the place were Christ then was. We have yet to 
 learn whether he travelled, or he was borne upon 
 
 G 
 
T4> DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 angels’ wings!—And likewise, he ought to have 
 told us how it was possible for Christ to become 
 possessed with this image. Baalzebub, properly 
 signifies the lo7'd of jiies^ an idol or deity of the 
 Ekronites. How this idol came to obtain this name, 
 I know not. Some commentators suppose, that 
 this god was called Baal-Shamaim, or the lord of 
 heaven; but that the Jews by way of contempt, 
 gave him the name of Baalzebub; but others, 
 with greater reason suppose that he was styled 
 the god of flies by his votaries, because he de- 
 defended people from the flies, a troublesome and 
 destructive insect in some hot countries; in like 
 manner, as the Eleans worshipped Herculies under 
 the appellation of the Jly-chacer. And Pliny is of 
 opinion, that the name of Acher, the god invoked 
 at Cyrene against flies, came from Accaron or Ekron, 
 the city where Baalzebub was worshipped, and 
 where he had a famous temple, Ahaziah, king of 
 Israel, having fallen from the terrace of his house 
 into a lower room, and being dangerously hurt, sent 
 to consult this deity to know if he should be cured 
 of his wounds.* 
 
 The Ekronites, says Dr. Macknight—“being 
 near neighbours to the Jews, the great veneration 
 which they had for this idol, made him the object 
 both of the horror and detestation of the devout 
 worshippers of the true God. Accordingly, to 
 express in what detestation they held him, they 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 75 
 
 appropriated his name to the most hateful being in 
 the universe, calling the Devil, or the prince of the 
 the evil angels, BeelzehiibP Dr. Doddridge says, 
 “ The title in the Greek, is Beelzebul, which sig¬ 
 nifies, The lord of a dunghilV '—And a learned and 
 ancient author in his notes on the first chapter of 
 the second of Kings, says, that this idol or deity was 
 known by the name of the filthy god, because of the 
 stench and filth with which those heathen temples 
 , were infected. Hence, this name was given to the 
 apostate fiend, not only to denote that he was the 
 most filthy and corrupt of fallen demons, but to de¬ 
 note the filthiness and the corruptness of those prin¬ 
 ciples which he is endeavouring to instil into the 
 bosoms of mankind. It is certain, from the answer 
 which our Lord gave to the Pharisees when they 
 said,—“ This fellow doth not cast out Devils, but 
 by Beelzebub, the prince of the Devils;^ that they 
 meant to stigmatize Jesus Christ with having a con¬ 
 federacy with this great apostate; hence, says he, 
 “ How can Satan cast out Satan.'”’—“And if a 
 kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom 
 cannot stand.”‘f‘ As much as if he had said, if Satan 
 rise up to the subversion of his own cause and in¬ 
 terest, he is divided, and it follows as a necessary 
 consequence, that his kingdom cannot stand, but is 
 sure to come to a speedy desolation. 
 
 Objection 2nd. Mr. Heineken says, that, “ Jesus 
 Christ and his Apostles, it should be remembered 
 
 * Matt. xii. 24. 
 
 f Mark iii. 23, 24 
 
76 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 were born in Judea, and educated as Jews, and 
 therefore very naturally reasoned with their country¬ 
 men in many cases on their own principles, and 
 where no very important points of Christian doctrine 
 were immediately involved, employed the common 
 and popular language, in order to convey their sen¬ 
 timents to their hearers.” 
 
 This might account for general expression, such 
 as Demoniacs, or being possessed of the Devil; 
 but not for the manner in which the Evangelists 
 have related the dispossession of the Demons, who 
 would not have expatiated and enlarged upon the 
 notion, if they had not been satisfied that it had its 
 foundation in truth.—“ The more enlightened can¬ 
 not always avoid the use of metaphorical modes of 
 expression ; which, though founded upon error, yet 
 have been so established in language by the influ¬ 
 ence of custom, that they cannot be suddenly dis¬ 
 missed. But in descriptions 'of characters, in the 
 narration of facts, and in the laying down of sys¬ 
 tems of doctrines, we require different rules to be 
 observed. Should any person in compliance with 
 popular opinions, talk in serious language of the 
 existence, dispositions, declarations, and actions, of 
 a race of beings whom he knew to have no existence, 
 we surely could not praise him for his ingenuity : 
 we must suppose him to be either exulting in irony 
 over the weak credulity of those around him, or 
 taking advantage of their weakness, with the disho¬ 
 nesty and selfish views of an impostor. And if he 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 77 
 
 himself should pretend to any connection with this 
 imaginary system of beings, and should claim in 
 consequence of his connection with them, particular 
 honors from his contemporaries, whatever might be 
 the dignity of his character in all other respects, 
 nobody could hesitate to brand him as an impostor. 
 In this light we must regard the conduct of our 
 Saviour and his Apostles, if the idea of demoniacal 
 possessions were to be considered as merely a vulgar 
 error. They talked and acted, as if they believed 
 that evil spirits had actually entered into those who 
 were brought to them as possessed with Devils, and 
 as if those spirits had actually been expelled by 
 their authority out of the unhappy persons whom 
 they had possessed. They demanded too, that their 
 authority and declarations should be believed, in 
 consequence of their performing such mighty works, 
 and thus triumphing over the powers of hell.* Be¬ 
 sides, if we should suppose that our Lord in curing 
 these diseases, and his disciples in writing the his¬ 
 tory of his cures, used the vulgar language, or con¬ 
 ceded to popular superstition ; yet this will not 
 account for the possessed persons speaking in the 
 manner related of them by the Evangelists. The 
 demoniacs, it is probable, might while under the in¬ 
 fluence of outrageous insanity, fancy themselves to 
 be possessed; yea, they might even personate the 
 demons ; but is it possible they should even feign a 
 
 * See Martindale’s Dictionary, Article Demoniac. 
 
 G 3 . 
 
78 DEMONIACAL possessions; OR, 
 
 dread of being tormented “ before the time they 
 might have expostulated with Jesus Christ, asking 
 him why he came to disturb or torment them ; but 
 it is not probable, that mere maniacs should even 
 look forward to a certain period when their destiny 
 would be completed, with the most dismal torments, 
 and then reason with Christ about the unreasona¬ 
 bleness of coming to torment them before that time. 
 But should it be said, that the demoniacs might 
 express a dread of being relieved from the possession, 
 and beg of Christ not to restore them to their natu¬ 
 ral state: this is absolutely improbable; but be 
 this as it may, what shall we think of the man 
 mentioned in Luke iv. 33, who had a spirit of 
 an unclean Devil. This person was neither lunatic 
 nor mad ; for the distemper under which he labour¬ 
 ed was an epilepsy, as is plain from verse 35, where 
 we are told that the spirit convulsed him*. 
 
 This, Mr. Heineken will not deny ; but he will 
 deny that the distemper arose from any agency of 
 evil spirits. Now, I would ask, if there was nothing 
 in the case but an epilepsy, arising from natural 
 causes, how came the demoniac to cry out, saying, 
 “ Let Its alone, what have we to do with thee, Jesus 
 of Nazareth 9 Art thou come to destroy us f Can 
 it be imagined that this person, while in his right 
 mind, would be unwilling to be cured of his disease, 
 or, that he should express a dread at the very 
 
 ♦ See Doddridge’s Family Expositor. 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 79 
 
 thought of being relieved from siekness to health, 
 from the most excrueiating torture to perfeet ease 
 and vigour.'^ To suppose this, is to suppose a self- 
 evident absurdity; and a man that can thus think, 
 gives evident proof that he is himself possessed, or 
 is a maniac. Suppose that the man was strongly 
 tinctured with the opinions of his country, and 
 really imagined himself possessed with the Devil, 
 is it reasonable to think, that, being in his right 
 senses, he would dread the ejection of the Devil, 
 and look upon it^ashis own destruction From 
 hence it follows as a necessary consequence, that 
 this man was literally possessed with an evil super¬ 
 natural spirit or demon. Mr. Heineken says— 
 “ Where no very im'portant point of Christian doc¬ 
 trine was immediately involved, they employed the 
 common and popular language.” From hence it 
 follows, that Mr. H. believes that the doctrine of 
 possessions is an unimportant point of Christian doc¬ 
 trine, and the belief in real possession an harmless 
 error. Now, how does this agree with the division 
 of his lecture, where he says—“ I shall proceed in 
 the third place to shew, that the supposed interfer¬ 
 ence of an evil being would be hostile to the Divine 
 perfections, and utterly subversive of the Divine 
 government.” And in another place he says— 
 “ Nor is the belief in the existence of an evil spirit 
 less hostile to the sublime attribute of Divine v/is- 
 dom.” Thus it is evident, that he is at war with 
 himself; and if the belief in the interference of evil 
 
£0 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 spirits be hostile to the Divine perfections, and 
 utterly subversive of the Divine government, the 
 doctrine of possession is a most important point of 
 Christian doctrine. How does this agree with the 
 characters of Christ and his apostles, that they 
 should not only concede the people in an opinion 
 that is hostile to the Divine perfections, and utterly 
 subversive of the Divine government, but even 
 countenance it themselves. Here, observe, the 
 point of Mr. H.’s spear is turned against himself, 
 and he falls by his own weapon. Surely, Jesus 
 Christ ought to have told the people that there was 
 no such a thing as real possession ; yea, he should 
 expressly have said, that there was no such beings 
 in existence as evil spirits, if the belief in real 
 possession, or, in the existence of evil spirits, were 
 subversive of the Divine government. And again, . 
 in the latter part of the objection he says, that 
 Christ and his apostles adopted “ The common and 
 popular language,in order to convey their sentiments 
 to their hearers.” That the language of a country 
 must contain many allusions to the popular opinions, 
 
 I do not deny. Yet it does not follow as a neces¬ 
 sary consequence, that Jesus Christ, consistently 
 with goodness, could use phrases which alluded to 
 such popular opinions as were false, and especially 
 if they had a pernicious tendency ; for instance, to 
 use Mr. Heineken’s own words, if they led to an 
 opinion which is “hostile to the Divine perfections, 
 and subversive of the Divine government.” Besides, 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 
 
 81 
 
 there was no necessity for Jesus to adopt the vulgar 
 language of the people, as there was with Joshua 
 in that noted saying—“ Sun, stand thou still upon 
 Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ * 
 For it is agreed on all hands, that the Jewish lan¬ 
 guage afforded abundance of expressions, whereby 
 the truth of the fact might have been clearly ex¬ 
 pressed, if there had been no real possession. They 
 had proper names for every distemper incident to 
 the human system. Epilepsy, lunacy, and mad¬ 
 ness, are diseases which have more particularly ob¬ 
 tained the name of demoniacism; yet, these distem¬ 
 pers are as often designated by their proper names as 
 by the figurative name of demoniacism. Why is 
 not this language made use of in every cure, if it 
 had been intended by way of accommodation to 
 vulgar notions ? From hence it follows, that the 
 Jewish language was such, that our Lord could 
 have expressed himself in terms perfectly free from 
 error; therefore, it is inconsistent with the perfec¬ 
 tion of his character, to suppose that he would 
 use this mode of expression, when he knew that the 
 vulgar would be confirmed by it in their delusions. 
 Whatever reasons may be shewn why our Lord 
 adopted the common phraseology of the people, can¬ 
 not be urged with regard to the Evangelists, who 
 wrote the history of our Lord’s miraculous cures, 
 when they knew that their histories were to last 
 
 * Joshua X. 12. 
 
8!2 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 throughout succeeding generations. Now, if they un¬ 
 derstood the real nature of possessions, they ought to 
 have assigned a reason why they adopted modes of 
 expression which could not fail to lead their readers 
 into a most hurtful and delusive error. Mr. H. at¬ 
 tempts to solve this difficulty, by saying, “That Jesus 
 Christ and his Apostles were born in Judea, and edu¬ 
 cated as Jews, and therefore very naturally reason¬ 
 ed with their countrymen on their own principles.” 
 I hope that Mr. H. will not say that the Spirit of 
 God was born in Judea, or subject to Jewish pre¬ 
 judice ; therefore this error must be reconciled with 
 the notion of their inspiration. For surely it is 
 a matter of the greatest importance, and worthy of 
 the interference of the Divine Spirit, if the belief 
 in the existence of evil spirits is “subversive of the 
 Divine government.” 
 
 If Christ promised to his disciples, that when 
 they were brought before kings and governors for 
 his sake, it should be given them in that same hour- 
 that the Spirit of their Father would speak in them,* 
 it is fully as credible, that they would be assisted in 
 the same manner when they wrote the history of 
 our Lord’s miracles and cures, especially as the re¬ 
 cord was to last through all ages, and to be a rule 
 of faith to all the nations of the earth. And, 
 again, Jesus said to his disciples, that—“ When the 
 Spirit of truth is come, he shall guide you into all 
 
 * Matt. X. 19, 20; Lake xii. 11, 12. 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 
 
 8S 
 
 truth.” From hence it follows, that the doctrine 
 of real possession is true, otherwise the Spirit of 
 God has not only suffered them to remain in an er¬ 
 ror, but to write a positive falsehood and in con¬ 
 sequence of which, others have been led into the 
 same erroneous notion. Besides, to suppose that 
 the Evangelists were left to follow^the dictates of 
 Jewish prejudice, while they composed their his¬ 
 tories, is a reflection upon the Scriptures, which at 
 once annihilates their authority. “ Again,” says 
 Mr. Heinken, ‘'to have engaged in controversy on 
 every doubtful subject of enquiry, would have been 
 foreign, and even hostile, to the main purposes of 
 their office, have involved them in perpetual litiga¬ 
 tions, and have weakened the influence of their 
 more important labours.” 
 
 But is this a sufficient vindication of him who 
 came to bear witness of the truth ? Is he not 
 emphatically styled, ‘■Hhe light of the world?'''' there¬ 
 fore, to have acted consistently with his character, 
 he ought to have said as he did on other occasions, 
 “ Ye do greatly errf there is no such thing as being 
 possessed with the Devil, it is only a natural dis¬ 
 order of an extraordinary kind. Besides, how does 
 this agree with another zealous advocate for Unit- 
 arianism, who boldly asserts—“ That Jesus and his 
 Apostles pursued one direct course, in opposition, to 
 long-established opinions^ and regardless andfear¬ 
 less of consequences, leaving them to God.” And 
 another says it is the opinion of the Unitarians, that 
 
84 
 
 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 Jesus Christ, “ by the force of his doctrines and 
 eocample^ saves men from ignorance and superstitiony 
 Thus it is evident, that the Unitarians are at war 
 with themselves ; and such is the absurdity and 
 contradiction of the Unitarians’ creed, that, in or¬ 
 der to support any part of it, they are obliged to 
 annihilate all the rest. Again, says Mr. Heineken, 
 “ they prudently left the notion of possessions as 
 they found it.” Now, if it was an act of prudence 
 for Jesus Christ and his Apostles to leave the peo¬ 
 ple in error and superstition, continually tormented 
 with a fantastic dread of evil spirits, surely it is the 
 greatest imprudence in Mr. H. not to follow this 
 example, when, according to his own opinion, it is 
 a prudent one. But this is such a notion of pru¬ 
 dence as I have yet to learn. 
 
 I read Mr. H.’s lecture with astonishment. Some¬ 
 times he says, the supposed interference of evil- 
 spirits is subversive of the Divine government; at 
 others, he calls such an opinion an almost blasphem¬ 
 ous notion; but here he supposes it an act of 
 prudence in Christ and his Apostles, to leave 
 the people in the possession of an error, which, 
 according to his opinion, leads to the most serious 
 consequences. Such are the inconsistencies of this 
 all-searching, all-discerning, all-knowing, philoso¬ 
 pher ! Again, says he, “ Although for the espe¬ 
 cial purpose of establishing their authority, Jesus 
 Christ and his Apostles were endowed with a su¬ 
 pernatural power over the diseases of the body and 
 
EEASONS TO PEOVE THEIE EEALITY. 85 
 
 the mind ; yet, it by no means follows as a neces¬ 
 sary consequence, that they were themselves ac¬ 
 quainted with the real causes of the calamities they 
 removed.” This is a sweeping declaration, and 
 not less contradictory than other assertions in this 
 lecture. For, if Jesus Christ and his Apostles did 
 not know the real nature of possession, they could 
 not adopt the popular language of the times by way 
 of accommodation. Does not such language as 
 this cast a reflection on our Lord and his Apostles? 
 Is it not evident from this supposition, that Mr. 
 Heineken fancies that he is in possession of more 
 wisdom and knowledge than was the lot of our adora¬ 
 ble Redeemer and the first heralds of salvation. He, 
 of whom it is so often said—“ Whence had this man 
 this wisdom T' But Mr. Heineken, without a blush, 
 can suppose, that that Divine personage, whom the 
 Apostle styles “the brightness of his Father’s glory, 
 and the express image of his person,” was such a 
 simpleton as not to know a physical disease from a 
 diabolical possession. “ Thus situated, (says Mr. 
 Heineken,) it would be very natural for them to use 
 the common languatre of the times.” This is one 
 of Mr. H.’s wonderful discoveries : first, to suppose 
 them unacquainted with the real nature of posses¬ 
 sions, then it follows as a necessary consequence, 
 that they must adopt the common language of the 
 time in which they lived. This opinion is abso¬ 
 lutely absurd, if we consider Jesus Christ to be God 
 and man in one person; but Mr. H. will deny this, 
 
•86 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OK, 
 
 notwithstanding he acknowledges that Christ and 
 his Apostles were endowed with supernatural pow¬ 
 er to cure disease, both of the body and of the 
 mind. Now, is it not as reasonable to suppose, 
 that by this power (which is no other than the 
 Spirit of God,) they were not only able to cure, but 
 even to know the real nature of these diseases. For 
 it is not only inconsistent with reason and common 
 sense, but derogatory to the wisdom and goodness 
 of God, to suppose that he would suffer Jesus 
 Christ, and his disciples, to attribute these direful 
 calamities to the agency of beings which had no ex¬ 
 istence. Again, says Mr. H. “ Did any, whilst 
 under the influence of outrageous insanity, utter 
 incoherent speeches, and fancy themselves to be in¬ 
 habited by a legion of demons ? they were treated 
 as if they were possessed; and so they would pro¬ 
 bably have been in the present day ; for it would be 
 folly , to reason philosophically with a madman.” 
 It is certain, that the demoniacs were believed to be 
 really possessed with evil spirits. Now, if Jesus 
 Christ and his disciples were ignorant of the real 
 nature of possessions, it was morally impossible for 
 them to reason philosophically either with a mad¬ 
 man, or with one in his right mind. Neither could 
 they use these modes of expressions relative to the 
 demoniacs in a figurative sense. Can any man in 
 his right mind believe, that any physical disease 
 could give this certain knowledge of Christ, or that 
 any disease, epilepsy, or any thing else, could thus 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 87 
 
 talk, and say—“ Thou art Christ, the Son of the 
 living God.” Instead of the demoniacs uttering 
 incoherent speeches''' as Mr. H. intimates, they dis¬ 
 played a degree of knowledge which is not surpass¬ 
 ed even by the Apostles themselves. “ When 
 Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, 
 he asked his disciples, saying—Whom do men say 
 that I the Son of man am.? And they said—Some 
 say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias ; 
 and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He 
 saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am.? And 
 Simon Peter answered and said—Thou art Christ, 
 the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered 
 and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, 
 Jbr Jlesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 but my Father which is in heaven.”* Now, if the 
 people did not know the true character of Jesus 
 when in their right minds, is it reasonable to believe 
 that a mere madman, while under the influence of 
 outrageous insanity, could ever point out the true 
 character of our blessed Redeemer. Yea, if the 
 Apostle Peter did not know the real character of 
 Christ by the mere dint of his own natural under¬ 
 standing, is it not absurd to suppose, that a mere 
 maniac could ever arrive to this knowledge.? One 
 of the demoniacs styles him—“ Thou Son of' the 
 Most Highy Now, the title Most High is given 
 to the Supreme Being by the writers of the Old 
 
 * Matt. xvi. 13—17. 
 
88 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS; OR, 
 
 Testament, in order to distinguish him from all 
 other gods. Thus it is evident, that the demon¬ 
 iacs acknowledged Christ in the divinity of his 
 character, which Mr. H. so unreasonably denies. 
 
 “ With these observations,” says Mr. H. “ I 
 shall pass over all these passages of Scripture, in 
 which the afflicted are said to have been possessed 
 by demons; for this word ought, in all cases, to have 
 been employed by our translators instead of the 
 word Devil; and it would then very plainly appear, 
 that such passages have no actual bearing on the 
 present question.” With what propriety Mr. H. 
 can say such passages have no actual bearing on the 
 present question, I am at a loss to determine, unless 
 these passages are an insuperable bar to his progress 
 in denying the existence of a supernatural evil 
 being, whom we call the Devil, or Satan. The 
 term demon, signifies a spirit, whether good or bad; 
 and though the heathens generally used it in a good 
 sense, yet they sometimes used it in an evil one. 
 They had evil demons as well as good. “But when 
 no bad quality is ascribed to the demon or demons 
 spoken of, and nothing affirmed that implies it, the 
 aceeptation of the term in Pagan writers, is gener¬ 
 ally favourable.” If there had been nothing more 
 to urge in favour of real possessions than the mere 
 name Devil, or demon, I should think the contrary 
 opinion not so improbable. But when I find men¬ 
 tion made of the number of demons in particular 
 possessions, their actions particularly distinguished 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 89 
 
 from those of the man possessed, I cannot but ad¬ 
 mit that they were really possessed. And I am 
 firmly persuaded, that we must either admit of real 
 possessions, or else give up the Divine authority of 
 the gospel history. For the gospel expressly as¬ 
 serts real possession, and our Lord and his Apostles 
 never once told the people that there was no such 
 thing; but, on the contrary, countenanced the 
 common and prevailing opinion. Therefore, I shall 
 take it for granted, that the demoniacs were literally 
 possessed, until Mr. H. brings forward some proof 
 to the contrary. He has hitherto advanced nothing 
 but dogmatical assertions, that are as contradictory 
 as they are false. 
 
 It is maintained by those who deny the common 
 opinion, that “ the Devil was only a name for epi¬ 
 lepsy, lunacy^ or madness.'''' But I want clear proof 
 of this; and I assert, contrary to Mr. Mede, that 
 the sentence—“ He hath a Devil, and is mad,”* are 
 not synonymous expressions, any more than he hath 
 a fever, and is mad, are so. To be mad, is often 
 the consequence of a violent fever; but this is no 
 proof that they are synonymous terms, and mean 
 one and the same thing. It is reasonable to suppose, 
 that every one that was possessed of a demon grew 
 lunatic or mad, and at intervals might have fits, 
 and be more than ordinarily alfectcd, which might 
 be the reason why the demoniacs are said to be lu- 
 
 * John X. 20. 
 H 3 
 
90 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; Oil, 
 
 natic, or mad; but still this is no proof that 
 being possessed, and lunacy, or madness, were sy¬ 
 nonymous terms, or mean one and the same thing. 
 They are quite different disorders, though the latter, 
 perhaps, was generally, if not always, the conse¬ 
 quence of the former. But it is farther alledged, 
 “ that madness and lunacy maybe accounted for by 
 natural and secondary causes.” It is very true; 
 but this is no reason for believing that they may 
 not sometimes be owing to preternatural ones; thus, 
 a fever may be cured by natural means, but it no 
 way follows that it may not have been cured by the 
 efficacy of a miraculous power, exerted for that pur¬ 
 pose. And as nothing is more easy to be imagined, 
 than that our Saviour should be able to assign the 
 instance of such a preternatural agency, may we 
 not take his word for a plain matter of fact ? 
 
 Mr. Farmer says, that “ the miracle wrought 
 upon the demoniacs, is often described in the same 
 terms as that wrought upon the diseased, terms 
 that necessarily imply their having previously labour¬ 
 ed under a real distemper.” St. Matthew says, 
 equally concerning demoniacs, lunatics, and para¬ 
 lytics, “ He HEALED them.” What then ? Does 
 the term healing always imply a bodily disorder, or 
 such a disorder of mind as proceeds from natural 
 causes ? This Mr. Farmer dare not assert, firm as 
 his brow is for allegory and figure. We find it ap¬ 
 plied to unwholesome waters, to sin, and to outward 
 temporal calamities; therefore this argument proves 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 91 
 
 nothing. And as the demoniacs laboured under 
 various diseases, which were thought to have been 
 inflicted by the agency of evil spirits, the Evange¬ 
 list, by simply saying that they were healed or cured, 
 was a certain proof that the demons were dislodged. 
 Besides, they mention the dispossession of thedemons 
 in contradistinction to the healing of diseases; 
 hence, it is said of Christ, that “ He cast out’ the 
 with his word, and healed all that were 
 SICK.” Now, this language is nothing but unintel¬ 
 ligible jargon, on the supposition that the demoniacs 
 were only labouring under natural diseases. 
 
 Again, the account which is given of the Demo¬ 
 niacs of Gadara, and the ridiculous and miserable 
 subterfuges which have been resorted to by those who 
 deny the common opinion, is a convincing proof to 
 me in favour of real possession. It is said of one 
 of those Demoniacs, that “ no man could bind him, 
 NO not with chains.''''*' But Mr. Farmer says,— 
 “ That the ancients perhaps, were less skilful than 
 the moderns, in the methods of confining such un- 
 happy persons.” This is at best only an improba¬ 
 ble supposition ; for who can suppose, (unless he 
 has an hypothesis to support by it,) that the ancients 
 were such idiots as nottobe able to confine with chains 
 a mere maniac. Besides, why should the Evangelist 
 point out this circumstance with so much emphasis, 
 if the reason why he could not be bound, was owing to 
 
 ♦ Mark. v. 3. 
 
92 DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 the deficiency of wisdom in the people. It is fur¬ 
 ther said, that out of this deplorable sufferer, our 
 Lord dislodged a Legion of Devils; and that he 
 permitted them to go into a herd of swine, which 
 was feeding upon the mountain, in consequence of 
 which, the whole herd (which was about two thou¬ 
 sand) ran violently down a steep place and were 
 choked in the sea. But Dr. Lardner and Mr. 
 Mede, strenuously contend in opposition to reason 
 and Scripture, that this herd of swine was driven 
 into the sea by the joint assistance of two raging 
 madmen. Is it not a pity that men of learning 
 should ever suflPer themselves to be led into such 
 absurdities; and is it not a strong proof in favour 
 of real possessions, when those who deny the fact 
 are obliged to resort to such miserable shifts. I 
 hesitate not to say, that it was impossible, not for 
 two, but for twenty such madmen, however fierce, to 
 put so vast a number of swine as two thousand into 
 motion in an instant, and to cause them all to rush 
 with violence downa precipice into the sea; for it is 
 well known, that swine are the worst of tame animals 
 to be driven. Besides, it does not appear from the 
 history, that the men ever fell upon the swine, or 
 made any attempt to drive them into the sea; nay, 
 the history positively refers their destruction to a 
 different cause; for we are expressly told, that the 
 Devils went into the herd of swine. “ Now there 
 is a great deal of difference between the Devils go¬ 
 ing" into a thing, and a man^s following after^ or 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 93 
 
 ^riving it. Moreover, if this legion of demons, 
 were nothing more than a raging madman or two ; 
 and if these demons entered into the swine, as we 
 are assured they did; then these madmen entered 
 into the swine. Now, it remains for them to ex¬ 
 plain, how these madmen got out of themselves, 
 and how they got into the swine ; such are the ab¬ 
 surdities which men unavoidably run into, who 
 wish to be wise above what is written. Neither is 
 the supposition, that the demoniacs only laboured 
 under a natural disease less absurd; for if there was 
 nothing more than a bodily disease^ vfe must view 
 the subject of it as afflicted with a legion of diseases 
 at one time, that is, about Jive thousand; that the 
 diseases were possessed of the gift of speech ; for it 
 is said, they besought him that he would not com¬ 
 mand them to go out into the deep. There is one 
 thing more which ought not to be overlooked. When 
 .our Lord had commanded the unclean spirit, or 
 rather the unclean disease, to come out of the man, 
 the reply which was made was, “ What have we to 
 do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God Most High.?— 
 I beseech thee torment me not.” If we consider 
 this to be the language of the afflicted person 
 without diabolical influence, we are totally unable 
 to make any sense of the passage; and if we view it 
 as the language of a disease, it appears more absurd 
 still. Mr. Farmer supposes, that it was the disease 
 of the man that was transferred into the swine ; and 
 he further supposes, that the answer which one of 
 
94) DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS ; OR, 
 
 the demoniacs gave to Christ, viz. my name is Iie- 
 gion, was only the incoherent dogmas of a mere 
 madman ; hence, he fancies he evades the absurdity 
 of supposing a legion of disease to inhabit the bosom 
 of a man at one time. For the sake of argument, 
 we will grant Mr. Farmer what he contends for, 
 viz. that this demoniac was only mad. Now one 
 would almost be persuaded, that Mr. Farmer be¬ 
 lieved that a disease was injiyiitely divisible., for at 
 any rate, this disease must have been divided into 
 two thousand parts, in order to affect the whole herd. 
 Now suppose it possible, that a disease thus di¬ 
 vided, would cause two thousand swine to go 
 raging mad. Is it possible for a man to believe, in 
 his right mind, that the injection of the two thou¬ 
 sandth part of a disease into each of them, would 
 make them to go raging mad in an instant, and in 
 a moment cause them to rush with violence into the 
 sea. If it was only the mere disorder of a man which 
 caused them to go mad,hov/is it, that they should run 
 with one accord into the sea ? Why did not they run 
 in all directions, and thus squander themselves all 
 over the plain, tearing in pieces every thing that 
 came in their way.^ Mr. Farmer has only rejected 
 one absurdity to take up another. I shall conclude 
 this chapter with a few remarks upon the permission 
 given to the Devils when cast out of the man to go 
 into the herd of swine. 
 
 1st. It was not derogatory to the honour of our 
 SaviouFs character; since it is one of the very usual 
 
REASONS TO PROVE THEIR REALITY. 95 
 
 methods of God’s moral government, to awaken sin¬ 
 ners to repentance by alarming events. 
 
 2nd. Nor was it unjust in Jesus, since it is evi¬ 
 dent he acted not in his own personal character as 
 a private member of society, but by a special divine 
 commission and authority, and the miraculousness 
 of the fact, is a satisfactory attestation to the inno¬ 
 cence of it. Had the herd gone mad of themselves, 
 as we say, no one would have thought of assigning 
 the event as an objection against divine Providence; 
 nor do we find that the Gadarenes ever made the 
 least objection of this sort against our Saviour’s 
 conduct. 
 
 3rd. It proved, in the most convincing manner, 
 the reality of diabolical agency; for, says Dr. Dod¬ 
 dridge, “it was self-evident that a herd of swine 
 could not be confederates in any fraud: their death, 
 therefore, in this instructive circumstance, was ten 
 thousand times a greater blessing to mankind, than 
 if they had been slain for food as was intended.” 
 With these remarks I leave the reader to judge for 
 himself, and may God give his blessing. 
 
CHAP. V. 
 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 The first passage of Scripture which contains a 
 reference to the subject in debate, is in the Book of 
 Genesis, 3d Chapter and 1st verse. “Now the serpent 
 was more subtle than any beast of the field.”— 
 Perhaps no part of the sacred history has so much 
 perplexed the Unitarians, as this now under consider- \ 
 ation, in order to explain it agreeably with the I 
 hypothesis of no Devil. The method which some \ 
 have taken, in order to evade the force of the nar- j 
 rative, suppose, that the Serpent is a. personrfica- ] 
 tion of moral evil. To which I reply, that accord- i 
 ing to this mode of interpretation, the 14th verse | 
 of the same chapter ought to be paraphrased thus:— 
 And thou, moral evil^ art cursed above all cattle^ 
 and above every beast of the field; and thou, moral 
 evil, upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt | 
 thou eat all the days of thy life. Therefore, such 
 an hypothesis as this, carries its own refutation, and V 
 the bare mention of it is sufficient to expose it. : 
 While others consider the zvhole to be an allegory: i 
 then we have not only an allegorical serpent, but ; 
 
CONCLUDING EEMAEKS. 
 
 97 
 
 an allegorical tree, bearing allegorical fruit, and an 
 allegorical garden, an allegorical woman, formed al¬ 
 legorically out of an allegorical man, who partook 
 of the fruit of an allegorical tree, and thereby be¬ 
 came subject to an allegorical death ; but God, by 
 an act of infinite love and goodness to this allegori¬ 
 cal man, redeemed him by an allegorical redemp¬ 
 tion—in a word, an allegorical world. I should 
 not have troubled the reader with such dogmas as 
 these, had it not been to give a specimen of the 
 criticism of those men, who can bestow such high 
 compliments upon themselves, and the rationality 
 of their religion. But, Mr. H. is well aware of the 
 
 t 
 
 absurdity of such interpretations as these; and 
 being unable to find out an explication more plau¬ 
 sible, he therefore, in order to extricate himself 
 from this dilemma, rejects the whole narrative from 
 his creed. “ The history of the fall,’" says Mr. H. 
 “is a mere tradition, and a tradition of a most 
 corrupt kind ; totally inconsistent with itself; 
 founded on false principles ; and having no pre¬ 
 tension whatever to a divine revelation. And, he 
 again adds, “ that what has been called the Mosaic 
 history of tlie creation, is a mere fable?'' In a word, 
 he rejects the whole Pentateuch, as fabulous and 
 false. The inspiration of Leviticus and Deute¬ 
 ronomy, he possitively denies in the present lecture, 
 which is now under review. It is a matter of very 
 suspicious circumstances, as to the truth of any 
 system, which, in order to support it, obliges its 
 
 I 
 
98 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 devotees to such preposterous means. By this 
 means, a system, however absurd^ might be sup¬ 
 ported. The genuineness of the Pentateuch may be 
 inferred from the universal concurrence of all anti¬ 
 quity. The rival kingdoms of Judah and Israel, 
 the hostile sects of Jews and Samaritans, and every 
 denomination of early Christians, received the Pen¬ 
 tateuch as unquestionably written by Moses. It is 
 also mentioned and referred to by many Heathen 
 authors, in a manner, which shews it plainly to 
 have been the general and undisputed opinion of 
 the pagan world, that this book was the work of 
 the Jewish Legislator. But why refer to the uni¬ 
 versal opinion of antiquity, to prove the inspiration 
 of the Pentateuch, and the reality of its author, when 
 infallible proof is at hand. In the New Testament, 
 the writings of the Law, or Pentateuch, are expressly 
 ascribed to Moses. “We have found him, of 
 whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write;”* 
 and in a variety of passages in the Gospels, Acts, 
 Epistles, Moses is evidently considered as the author 
 of the Pentateuch ; and every one of the five books 
 is quoted, as written by him. The inspiration of 
 the Pentateuch is infallibly proved by Jesus 
 Christ. For he calls the words of Exodus, Le¬ 
 viticus, and Deuteronomy, the words of God him¬ 
 self. For God commanded, saying, “ Honour thy 
 
 * John i. 4.5, 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 99 
 
 » 
 
 Father and thy Mother.”* Hence, it is certain 
 from revelation, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch 
 by the immediate inspiration of God. 
 
 Notwithstanding Mr. H.’s inability to explain 
 the Mosaic history, consistent with his own system, 
 he has endeavoured to prove, that an invisible super¬ 
 natural Being is not contained in the narrative, 
 or that the history fails to prove such a Being, 
 supposing it to be true. But what are the reasons 
 which Mr. H. brings forwardthey are as follows:— 
 “We will^ for the sake of argument, suppose this 
 history to be true-, and what would it then prove— 
 that a natural animal, whom some ingenious men 
 have supposed to have been a walking snake, others 
 a satyr, others an ape, and others a winged seraph, 
 conversed with Eve, and excited her to disobedience; 
 but if our credulity could carry us to the belief of 
 this as a matter of fact, yet, even such a fact would 
 be very far from demonstrating the existence of an 
 invisible malignant Being, possessed of almost 
 divine attributes ; and indeed, the history itself, 
 (supposing H to he true) proves, that this tempter 
 must have been some animal, whose nature and 
 properties were well known ; because it is said to 
 have been wiser than all the beasts of the field, but 
 for its offence, deprived of its erect form, and con- 
 
 * Mat. XV. 4.; to which, compare Ex. xx. 12., Lev. 
 xix. 3., Deut. v. 16. 
 
100 
 
 COXCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 demned to creep on the ground, together with its 
 posterity, ever afterwards, so that it certainly could 
 not have possessed any thing like UBIQUITY.'” 
 Wonderful reasoning ! admirable philosophy ;— 
 what has all this bombast proved ?—that a natural 
 animal does not all space ; wonderful deduction ! 
 —a deduction, that a man possessed of common sense 
 would blush to have drawn. Surely it is not ne¬ 
 cessary for the tempter to be omnipresent, in 
 order to render him si7peri^atuRx\l. Mr. H. has 
 reasoned on the supposition, that the tempter was 
 only a me7'e animal; whereas this supposition is 
 absolutely false, and he contradicts himself—for, 
 says he, “in the Book of Genesis, we read that Eve 
 was tempted to disobey the divine command, by an 
 evil Being, in the form of a Serpent. And Mr. H. 
 knewvery well, that not one of those divines to whom 
 he has alluded, thought that the tempter .was a 
 mere animal in the abstract. That divines have 
 trifled with this part of sacred, history, I readily 
 grant,—yet it does not follow, that it is not true, or 
 that there is not an evil Being. The history itself 
 evidently supposes, that the tempter was something 
 more than a mere animal.—“ I will put enmity 
 between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
 and her seed ; it, (that is Christ) shall bruise thy 
 head, and thou, (that is the tempter) shalt bruise 
 his heel.”-—This verse is significant of- the -wh(de 
 plan of redemption—and to bruise the head,, means 
 a total and f,nal overthrow ; but who could -be 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 101 
 
 foolish as to suppose, that the sacred historian meant 
 that Christ should bruise the head of a mere ani. 
 mal, and give it a total and final overthrow. We 
 are told that Eve was deceived and tempted to 
 transgress the law of God, by an agent who could 
 speak and reason, called by Moses the Serpent; 
 because of the craft and subtilty he exhibited in the 
 seduction of our first parents, which he saith was 
 more subtile than any beast of the field. But a beast 
 of the field, ho\^ subtile or sagacious soever, could 
 not speak and reason. Who then was the agent 
 that deceived Eve ? —St. Paul speaks of this de¬ 
 ceiver in the same manner as Moses.—“I fear, lest 
 by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through 
 his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from 
 the simplicity that is in Christ.”* The apostle did 
 not suppose that the Corinthians might be corrupted 
 by the subtilty of an irrational creature; conse¬ 
 quently, he did not suppose that'Eve was deceived 
 by a mere animal. Hence, it is evident, that it was 
 the Devil, or Satan, an evil supernatural spirit, 
 which tempted Eve. 
 
 Again, says Mr. H. “ In the book of Leviticus, 
 (xvii. 7 V.) it is said, that the Israelites shall no 
 more offer their sacrifices to Devils. Now, even sup¬ 
 posing this book to have been written by Divine 
 authority —this passage proves nothing, because this 
 
 * 2 Cor. xi. 3. 
 
 I 3 
 
102 
 
 CO^rCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 word should have been translated goats, or hairy 
 animals; and, therefore, plainly refers to the religi¬ 
 ous rites of the surrounding Idolaters.” Having 
 already proved the inspiration of the Pentateuch, 
 I shall only observe in passing, had the hook of 
 Leviticus not been at war with his creed, he would 
 not have denied its authority. He supposes’ that 
 this passage proves nothing, because the word 
 rendered Devils, ought to have been translated 
 goats; whereas the fact is quiste the reverse, for 
 idolatry, is worshipping the Devil; and although the 
 children of Israel did not directly or intentionally 
 worship him, yet they did by construction or con¬ 
 sequence; because the Devil is the author of idola¬ 
 try, and is eminently served and honoured by it. 
 
 We read, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, there was one that 
 moved David against Israel to say—“ Go, number 
 Israel and Judah.” This, we are told, I Chron. 
 xxi. 1, was Satan; but the Unitarians say, it was 
 not a supernatural being, but “one of David’s coun¬ 
 sellors, who first started and advised the project.” 
 They say—“ It is reasonable to think this, because 
 Satan means an adversary. Supposing this to 
 have been the case, it is as reasonable to think 
 that the Devil put it into the heart of his counsel¬ 
 lors, as well as into the heart of Judas, to betray 
 our blessed Saviour: so that the Devil had a prin¬ 
 cipal hand in the affair. Therefore, this plea, that 
 it was one of David’s counsellors, is of no advan¬ 
 tage to them. But I say it is not reasonable to sup- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 lOS 
 
 pose this ; for the sacred historian is very particu¬ 
 lar in telling us the names of David’s counsellors, 
 and such ,aS’had a principal hand in matters of state 
 during his;-reign, and we have the names of persons 
 concerned, in, matters of much less importance than 
 this left oU record. Had it, therefore, been one of 
 his counsiellors^ that put him upon numbering the 
 people, we should, in all probability have heard some¬ 
 what of him from David himself, or from Joab, or 
 from the historian; but we hear nothing of him 
 from David’s command, Joab’s remonstrance, or 
 the historian’s account. It is, therefore, reasonable 
 to suppose, that this conjecture is false, and without 
 any foundation at all. Consequently, I shall take it 
 for granted, that it was an evil supernatural spirit 
 which influenced and prompted David to number 
 the children of Israel, contrary to the will of God. 
 Again say^ Mr. Heineken—“An evil spirit is said 
 to have been sent by the Lord: the expression 
 clearly relates to an unhappy disposition of mind 
 and contentious temper ; it would be blasphemous 
 to suppose, that God would employ such a being 
 as that called the Devil, as the agent of his sov¬ 
 ereign will.” But is it any more blasphemous, than 
 'to suppose, that God would employ an unhappy 
 disposition of mind and contentious temper as the 
 agent of his sovereign will.? Surely the Supreme 
 Being may employ, whatever agent he thinks 
 proper in the execution of his purposes; he may 
 either commission an angel, or let loose a Devil. 
 
104 
 
 CONCT.UDIKG REMARKS. 
 
 They are only instruments in his hands, and under 
 his direction and control. 
 
 “ To consider the Book of Job (says he) in any 
 other light than as an allegory, would be to give up 
 all title to common sense.” On the contrary, he that 
 can suppose that Job was a Jictitious being, and his 
 book a fable, must give up all title as a believer m 
 Divine revelation, and appropriate to himself the 
 designation of mfidel. That Job was a real, and 
 not a Jictitious character, may be inferred from the 
 manner in which he is mentioned by the prophet 
 Ezekiel and St. James—Though these three men, 
 Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should 
 deliver their own souls by their righteousness, saith 
 the Lord God.”* As Noah and Daniel were un¬ 
 questionably real characters, we must conclude the 
 same of Job. If Job were not a real intelligent 
 being, why did the inspired prophet class him with 
 Noah and Daniel, and positively call them three 
 men, and not only so, but repeated it thrice^ as if 
 to guard against any mistake of his name. From 
 hence it is evident, that the inspired prophet con¬ 
 sidered him as a real character. To suppose that 
 Job was only an imaginary being, is to suppose that 
 the prophet repeated a positive falsehood and, ab¬ 
 surdity. “ Behold, (says St. James,) we count 
 them happy that endure: ye have heard of the 
 'patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord, 
 
 * Ezek. xiv. 14. 
 
 V 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 105 
 
 that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.”* 
 But adopt Mrv H.’s opinion, and the language of 
 the Apostle would read thus—Ye have heard of the 
 patience of a Jictitious beings and have seen the 
 end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful and 
 of tender mercy. But to whom ? A Jictitious being! 
 Astonishing chimera! No person could ever believe, 
 unless he were biased by the most invincible preju¬ 
 dice, that the inspired Apostle would refer to an 
 imaginary character as an example of patience, or 
 in proof of the mercy of God. 
 
 Mr. H. has, by mere evasion, endeavoured to con¬ 
 vert the whole into an allegory. Now we must ob¬ 
 serve, that the allusions with which we meet in 
 Scripture, are allusions to real facts and to real 
 beings. • The writers of the Sacred Scriptures 
 neither did, nor could invent, consistent with their 
 inspiration, imagincbry beings^ either for the exer¬ 
 cise of their ‘ genius, or the amusement of their 
 readers. Such a conduct would but ill become 
 those who wete e.Qpmissioned to instruct mankind 
 in things spiritual. If, therefore, we should grant 
 that the first chapter of Job is an allegory, still we 
 should: maintain, that all its allusions are founded 
 in facts, and that t\ie poetical mention of Satan in 
 such: a: book, would be a proof of his existence. 
 Mankind have invented superstitions enough, .with¬ 
 out receiving addition to them from those Scriptures 
 
 * .Tames v. 11. 
 
106 
 
 CONCLUDING REMAKKS. 
 
 which are intended tor the destruction of error, and 
 the diffusion of Divine truth. So far is the Book 
 of Job from “ darliening counsel by words xvitliout 
 knuxvledge^’' that in that book the practice is reprov¬ 
 ed.* There is no ground for the .supposition that 
 the Book of Job is an allegory. “ It is an expo¬ 
 sition of what actually took place, couched in such 
 terms as will best convey the truth to human minds.” 
 In what terms would Mr. H. describe the transac¬ 
 tions of the invisible world, if he rejects such as 
 are used in the chapter in question ? “Have these 
 Socinians, who suppose their souls to be nothing 
 but organized matter, refined and spiritualized their 
 ideas, so as to speak of spiritual things in any other 
 manner than after the manner o/‘ men The 
 Scriptures speak of God after the manner of men, 
 condescending to our capacities, in order to suit 
 the revelation of his will and providence to our ap¬ 
 prehensions. And shall vv'e reject those parts of 
 sacred truth, and look upon them as Jabulous and 
 absurd, because God, out of his infinite love and 
 goodness to mankind, has been pleased, so far as 
 was necessary, to condescend to speak of himself, 
 and the dispensations of his providence, in a method 
 the best adapted to convey to our minds the truth 
 of those solemn realities, which is the subject of 
 the counsels of the unseen world “ God forbid C 
 rather let us adore such amazing condescension, 
 
 
 * Job XXX. 8; 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 107 
 
 and with implicit confidence receive his word, as 
 able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith 
 in the atonement. 
 
 “Again, in the 109th Psalm, (says Mr. H.) 
 “ and also in the book of Ezekiel, Satan is spoken 
 of as standing at the right hand of the righteous; 
 the WRITERS evidently refer to temporal enemies, 
 and especially those who opposed the reformation of 
 the Jewish Church.” I have not been able to find 
 the passage in Ezekiel, which Mr. H. has alluded 
 to, and I believe there is not such a passage in the 
 Bible; consequently, I am not able to point out its 
 meaning. But the expression in the Psalms, in 
 question, we will ' examine for a moment. The 
 whole verse reads thus—“ Set thou a wicked man 
 over him: and let Satan stand at his right handy* 
 Now, leaving the passage which Mr. H. says is in 
 Ezekiel, out of the question—is it consistent with 
 truth for him to say, that “ Satan is spoken of as 
 standing at the right hand of the righteous,” when 
 there is not such a sentence in the Psalms, nor 
 any thing said that will justify such a sentence 
 being drawn as an inference. The fact is, Mr. H. 
 has conjured up this sentence, not only to suit his 
 own purpose, but in order that he might with more 
 ease, evade the force of the sacred text. The 
 meaning of this passage appears to be this :—Set 
 thou a wicked man over him, to be as cruel to him, 
 
 * Psalm cix. 6. 
 
108 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 as he hath been to others ; and not only so, but let 
 Satan stand at his right hand; or, the adversary 
 shall stand at his right hand—that is, an evil spirit 
 shall molest, vex, and trouble him in all his affairs ; 
 or rather, shall accuse anil torment him. This 
 Psalm is prophetic, and evidently refers to the 
 enemies of Christ. And if David spake this in 
 reference to Doeg or Ahitophel, it was only as they 
 were types of Judas—at least the Holy Ghost in¬ 
 tended it of him, and the persecutors of the Mes¬ 
 siah ;* of whom, this whole paragraph to the end of 
 verse 19th is a prophecy. And it is unquestionably 
 certain, that this Psalm does not refer to the reforma- 
 tionof the Jewishchurch,asMr.H.supposes. David 
 composed this psalm, either when he was persecut¬ 
 ed by Saul, and calumniated by Doeg,*f- or, at the 
 time of Absalom's rebellion, but whether, I know 
 not. In one part of it he refers to the traitor, 
 Ahitophel, who, in a fit of despair, went out and 
 hanged himself,J in which last circumstance he 
 exactly typified Judas, who, without all question, 
 was prophetically intended in this psalm, for so an 
 inspired Apostle expounds it;|| including, however, 
 the persecuting Jews, against whom the Psalmist 
 denounces the most dreadful judgments. From 
 hence, it is certain, that Mr. H. has perverted the 
 passage m question, for the Psalmist evidently al- 
 
 * Actsi. 20. t 1 Sera. xxvi. 19. 
 
 II Acts. 1. 20. 
 
 I 2 Sam. xvii. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 109 
 
 ludes to the enemies of the Messiah, who would be 
 troubled and tormented by an evil spirit, as a just 
 punishment for their crimes, in betraying and cru¬ 
 cifying the Lord of life and glory. 
 
 “ Hear the just law—the judgment of the skies: 
 
 He that hates truth, shall be the dupe of lies; 
 
 And he that will be cheated to the last, 
 
 Delusion, strong as hell, shall bind him fast. ” 
 
 Again we read, that Zechariah saw in a vision, 
 
 “ Joshua, the high-priest, standing before the an¬ 
 gel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right 
 hand to resist him.”* The Devil here stands charged 
 by the prophet as resisting Joshua. The Unitarians 
 contend, that “ under the person of Satan, were 
 represented Tatnai and Shether-boznai, and other 
 enemies of the Jews, who vehemently opposed the 
 designs of Joshua, about restoring the temple.” 
 Suppose it was Tatnai and Shether-boznai, and > 
 other enemies of the Jews, that is here represented 
 as resisting Joshua, still it remains for them to 
 prove, that Satan, emphatically so called, or the 
 Devil, did not put them on to resist him; for, whe¬ 
 ther it was Satan, the apostate, that resisted Joshua, 
 or, that he made use of Tatnai and Shether-boznai 
 as his instruments and agents, the charge still recoibs 
 upon himself, and the existence of a Devil is prov¬ 
 ed. There is no doubt but that Satan endeavoured 
 to prevent the rebuilding of the temple by every 
 
 * Zech. iii. 1. 
 
 K 
 
no 
 
 CONCLUDING REMAEKS. 
 
 possible means; not only by exciting Tatnai and 
 Shether-boznai, and other enemies of the Jewish 
 nation, but by himself endeavouring to divert their 
 attention from such a purpose, or by presenting to 
 their minds the most insurmountable difficulties, in 
 order to discourage them ; and likewise by every 
 allurement which was in his power to suggest. And 
 lastly observe, that Joshua, the great high-priest 
 in this prophetic vision, stands as the representative 
 of the whole Jewish nation; and in like manner, 
 SataUy the great apostate foe, stands as the repre¬ 
 sentative of the whole army of opposers, whether 
 spiritual or natural. 
 
 Again, says Mr. H. “In the gospels Jesus Christ 
 is said to have been tempted, or tried, by Dkibolos^ 
 the accuser or calumniator ; but this is evidently a 
 scenical representation of what passed in his own 
 mind, during his retirement from the world, pre¬ 
 viously to his entrance on his public ministry ; we 
 may clearly infer from the account which is given, 
 that he had retreated to an uninhabited part of the 
 country, where, like John the Baptist, he siibsisted 
 on the wild fruits <f the earth.'’'' But we want proof 
 of this. The Scripture asserts, that he fasted forty 
 days. If Jesus Christ subsisted on the wild fruits 
 of the earth, why is it said—“ And in those days 
 he did eat nothings and when they were ended, he 
 afterwards hungered.”* And that “ Angels came 
 and ministered unto him.”-f* Mr. H-’s comment 
 
 * Luke iv. 2. f Matt, iv. 11.; Mark i. 13. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 contradicts the text. He makes no mentien of the 
 Spirit, because it is against his creed; but, how¬ 
 ever, the Unitarians generally suppose, that he was 
 led by his own thoughts : but Scripture positively 
 declares, that Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost, 
 returned from Jordan, and was led up of the 
 Spirit !—“ not his own thoughts.'''' One of the 
 Evangelists, in order to signify the strength of the 
 impulse, expresses it thus—“Immediately the Spirit 
 driveth him into the wilderness.” Mr. H. says, to 
 meditate on his exalted plans; but the Scripture 
 says, “ to be tempted of the DeviV' The Evan¬ 
 gelist names four times the Devil as the tempter, 
 and Mr. H. knows that it means a a slanderer, and 
 he has not been able to find a place where the word 
 is used, except where it is applied to some real 
 BEING. Hence it is declared, that he was tempted 
 by D'labolos, the accuser, or calumniator, which 
 certainly implies a real being. He further adds, 
 that Jesus Christ was tempted “by the suggestions 
 of an amb'it'ion, which was natural to the human 
 bosom.” Astonishing! but how does he prove this.? 
 Was there any thing in the conduct of Jesus, or 
 is there any thing said in the Scripture, to warrant 
 such an assertion.? May it not be said with pro¬ 
 priety, that HE 
 
 “ Pretends to take the Christian’s part, 
 
 But stabs his Sovereign to the heart.” 
 
 Mr. H. has attributed to this Divine Personage 
 
112 
 
 CONCLUDING REMAEKS. 
 
 inherent depravity, “an ambition that was natural." 
 If it was natural, it was inherent; and if our ador¬ 
 able Redeemer contained within himself the least 
 iota of depravity, the whole system of Christianity 
 tumbles into ruins, and the bright prospects of fu¬ 
 turity is covered with a dire eclipse. An expression 
 this, which is enough to cut the finest fibres that ever 
 concreted the hearts of true and genuine Christians. 
 But Mr. H. goes on to say, that while Jesus was 
 “ under the influence of these, (that is, the sugges¬ 
 tions of ambition,) and conscious of the superna¬ 
 tural gifts with which he was endowed, he was 
 tempted to make an ostentatious display of his mi¬ 
 raculous powers, and to employ them for the pur¬ 
 poses of self-interest and aggrandisement.’’' But by 
 whom was he tempted? It removes not the diffi¬ 
 culty by saying, that it was by the suggestions of 
 worldly pride and ambition, for this is only an asser¬ 
 tion without the least shadow of proof for its sup¬ 
 port. Neither does it evade the force of the text, 
 by saying, “that it was avisionary representation;” 
 for theEvangelistdeclares, that he was tempted by the 
 slanderery or caluMniator^ meaning some real being- 
 Again, says he, “Although he might have been re¬ 
 warded with the glory of the kingdoms of the earth, 
 by paying his homage to the principles of worldly 
 pride and ambition, yet he could not have been the 
 Captain of our Salvation.” Why does he call 
 Jesus Christ “ the Captain of our Salvation,” in 
 order that he may give him a more desperate thrust; 
 
CONCLUDING REMABKS. 
 
 113 
 
 like an army that retreats, in order to give the 
 enemy a more dismal attack. The Unitarians deny 
 that the death of Christ was a propitiatory sacrifice 
 for sin, and they look upon the doctrine of redemp¬ 
 tion, through his blood, as an entire mistake. Mr. 
 Belsham maintains, that “ we are totally ignorant 
 of the place where he resides, and the occupations 
 in which he is engaged; and, consequently, that 
 there can be no gratitude for favours now received, 
 or of confidence in his future interposition on our 
 behalf."”* But the Scripture speaks in a very different 
 strain; and, thanks be to God, we are not left to 
 follow these blind guides^ on whose hearts the light 
 of Divine Truth has never shone. To the law and to 
 the testimony. The apostle Peter tells us, that 
 God hath exalted Jesus “ with his right hand, to 
 be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance 
 to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."”*}* And the 
 Apostle Paul says—“ Let us run with patience the 
 race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the 
 Author and Finisher of our faith ; who, for the joy 
 that was set before him, endured the cross,despising 
 the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the 
 throne of God.'’J And again, “He is able also to 
 save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by 
 him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession 
 for them.”|| And the apostle St. John tells us. 
 
 * Dr. Magee’s Discourse on Atonement and Sacrifice, 
 j- Acts V. 31. f Heb. xii. 1, 2. j] Heb. vii. 25. 
 
114 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 that “we have an Advocate with tlie Father, Jesus 
 Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for 
 our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of 
 the whole world.”* Is it not then a thing most wonder¬ 
 ful, that these men should pretend to take their 
 religioU. from the Bible. The Unitarians never, 
 with ariimation, display the love of Christ in our 
 redemption. They call him our Saviour occasion¬ 
 ally. They propose him as an example, but when 
 do they make him the foundation of our hope, 
 »peak of him as the only name through which we 
 must be saved—‘treat largely on his character and 
 offices, and dwell with animation on his redeeming 
 love.^ When doqs Mr. H. urge his audience to 
 dee to him, and depend^on him for life and salva¬ 
 tion ? Therefore, to v call Jesus Christ “ the Cap¬ 
 tain of our Salvation,”"and at the same time to deny 
 his atonement, is the niost unaccountable rhapsody, 
 and a violation of every principle of propriety. 
 Again, says Mr. H. “Although he thus had it in his 
 power to have become rich, yet, for our sakes, he 
 became poor, that we through his poverty might be 
 made rich ; and thus did he deny himself, and be¬ 
 came of no reputation, and took upon him the form 
 of a servant. In this way we may very rationally 
 explain the history.” How these two misapplied 
 passages can serve as a key to explain this part of 
 our Lord’s history, I am at a loss to determine. 
 
 * l John ii. 1, 2. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 115 
 
 These two passages are an evident proof that our 
 Lord was more than human, or that he was truly 
 Divine, though they have been miserably perverted 
 by the false reasoning of these men. Without en¬ 
 tering into any particular discussion relative to the 
 Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, I shall only, in 
 passing, make a few remarks on those Scripture 
 truths, in order to shew the absurdity of this wild 
 chimeraist, in thus perverting the sacred truths of 
 the gospel. Now, 1 would ask, when was he rich 
 as a man ? When he was born in a stable, and 
 laid in a manger? When he said—“The foxes have 
 holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the 
 Son of Man hath not where to lay his head P” At 
 what time was he rich, and how did he become poor ? 
 The answer which the Unitarians generally give to 
 these and similar questions is—“He never became 
 poor.” The original word does not denote his 
 passing from an antecedent state of opulence, to a 
 subsequent state of poverty, but his living in pov¬ 
 erty, although he was at the same time rich. 
 “ While he was rich, yet for our sakes he lived in 
 poverty.” “ If, for a mopient, (says a learned au¬ 
 thor,) ‘^overlooking this criticism, you require, how 
 was this ? How was it, that, although rich, he 
 lived in poverty ? The reply is—‘ He was rich m 
 miraculous powers^ which it was at his own option to 
 employ for his own beneJiV Miraculous powers, 
 which it was at his own option to employ for his own 
 benefit!! What a strange supposition is this! 
 
116 
 
 CONCLUDING UKMAllKS. 
 
 What! a prophet of the Most High, with miracu^ 
 lous, that is, with Almighty power, at his own dis¬ 
 posal, to use as he may incline, for promoting his 
 own wealth, and honour, and aggrandizement ! 
 Divine power transferred to a creature ! Subjected 
 to the will and pleasure of a mere man, ‘ a fallible 
 and peccable man.’ Such transference of Divine 
 power, I would, in the first place remark, is a na¬ 
 tural impossibility. The might which effects the 
 miracles resides in God alone. It never can belong 
 to the creature; and residing as it must in God 
 alone, it can never be exerted to gratify the will of 
 a creature, who would pervert it to a selfish purpose, 
 or to any purpose different from that which he is 
 commissioned to accomplish, and for the accomplish¬ 
 ment and vindication of which alone, the interpo- 
 .sition of the power is pledged. The contrary sup¬ 
 position is pregnant with consequences the most 
 serious and fatal. It destroys the certainty of the 
 evidence of miracles, and thus subverts one of the 
 main pillars on which the truth of Christianity rests. 
 Meantime, consider how full it is of beauty and of 
 force, when referred to him, who, although rich as 
 the Great Creator and Sovereign Proprietor of the 
 universe, became poor in the assumption of our 
 nature, making no vise in that nature of those 
 riches, which were all his own; but ‘humblinghim¬ 
 self, and becoming obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross.’ This is grace indeed ! Grace 
 that shall be the theme, the worthy theme of ever¬ 
 lasting song!” 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 IIT 
 
 '• Kind bowels yearning’ in the eternal Son, 
 
 “ He left his Father’s court, his heav’niy throne ; 
 
 “ Aside he threw his most divine array, 
 
 “ And wrapt his Godhead in a veil of clay.” 
 
 “ But if we consider” (says Mr. H.) “ this trial 
 as arising from the natural suggestions of worldly 
 ambition, all the difficulties immediately vanish.” 
 And he further adds, that this view is “ fully illus¬ 
 trated by every subsequent action of his life.”—Is 
 it not astonishing, that Mr. H. should profess to be 
 a follower of Jesus Christ ? When did he discover 
 the least proof of worldly “ pride and ambition”— 
 was it when he washed his disciples’ feet, or when 
 he agonized in the garden, or when he hung 
 upon the cross ? In what part of his life did worldly 
 pride and ambition ever appearIs not this a 
 plain proof, that Mr. H. denies the “ Lord that 
 bought himHe supposes that “ all the difficulties 
 immediately vanish,"" by supposing, that after Jesus 
 Christ had received miraculous power, he was tempt¬ 
 ed by an innate principle of worldly ambition. 
 But this opinion, instead of removing the difficulties, 
 only increases them, and makes the history of our 
 Lord’s temptation ten thousands times more myste¬ 
 rious. Besides, this opinion is at variance with the 
 whole tenor of Scripture, and every action of his life; 
 it degrades his character, and destroys the foundation 
 of all our hope. Neither does this hypothesis in the 
 least explain the tragedy ; for the Scripture says, he 
 was tempted by the Devil, or the caluminator; not 
 
118 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 worldly ambition. Did worldly ambition lead Christ 
 into the wilderness ?—did worldly pride carry him 
 upon the battlements of the temple ?—did worldly 
 ambition take him “ up into an exceeding high 
 mountain was it worldly pride that said, if thou 
 wilt fall down and worship me, I will give thee all 
 the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them ?— 
 was it for maintaining a struggle with worldly pride 
 and ambition, that caused the heavenly messengers 
 to wing their flight to minister unto him ?—But I 
 refrain from drawing the absurd, the unphilosophic 
 conclusion, and will pass on to notice the objections 
 which Mr. H. has brought against the literal inter- 
 pretation. They are as follow :—“If we follow the 
 common notion, we shall find it full of absurdities 
 and contradictions, carried about from place to place 
 through the air, by the power of an evil Being, whose 
 supposed empire in the world he came to destroy; 
 enticed by offers and promises, which he must have 
 well known this Being could not fulfil; placed in 
 circumstances which were impossible; and urged to 
 prostrate himself before, and to pay divine honours 
 to one, whom he knew to be the most malignant 
 enemy, both of himself, and of the benevolent Being, 
 whose work he came to perform ; how could such 
 circumstances (even supposing them possible) have 
 afforded a momentary trial to his virtue 
 
 In the first place, I remark, that there is no ne¬ 
 cessity to suppose that Satan flew with our Saviour 
 through the air. Although it is said that the Devil 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 119 
 
 set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, he did not 
 do it by flying through the air with him, as Mr. H. 
 intimates ; but by going up with him to the roof of 
 one of the cloisters, where the people were at liberty 
 to walk, and by assisting him in getting up upon the 
 battlements thereof. 
 
 Sndly. The common interpretation is not so full of 
 absurdities, as Mr. H. supposes. The objections 
 which he has advanced, fall with equal weight upon 
 his own hypothesis. The strength of Mr. H.’s ob¬ 
 jection lays in the supposition, that Jesus Christ 
 knew, or was well acquainted, with the character of 
 the tempter. But did he not know likewise, the 
 dreadful nature of worldly pride and ambition ; how 
 it eclipsed in a moment all the splendour, virtue, 
 and dignity, of angels, and overcast in a moment, all 
 their beautiful and eternal prospects ; or did he not 
 know that pride and ambition were the principal causes 
 of all the misery in the world And by reason of it, 
 kingdoms have been desolated, and conquerors and 
 warriors, whilst under its dazzling fervor, have de¬ 
 lighted in war and in blood. And is not pride and 
 ambition hostile to God’s moral government, and 
 subversive of the whole kingdom of divine grace 
 Is not pride placed among that black catalogue of 
 evils, which Christ came to destroy Hence, he 
 has denounced against that principle the most dread_ 
 ful woes; therefore, (to retort Mr. H.’s question upon 
 himself, I would ask) how could pride and ambi¬ 
 tion “ afford a momentary trial to his virtue ?”— 
 
120 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Mr. H. has attributed to the Saviour of mankind, 
 a Devil without a substance ; and an evil principle 
 walking about, without a real Being in which to 
 inhere. An absurdity too glaring to be admitted 
 by any reasonable man.* 
 
 Again, as Adam had been overcome by Satan, it 
 is reasonable to suppose, that Jesus Christ, the 
 second Adam, should have a personal conflict, in 
 order that he might demonstrate his power over the 
 apostate foe. It is plain from the history^ itself, 
 that the contest was a pre-concerted design, a mea¬ 
 sure approved by heaven, and subservient to the 
 grand design in which our Saviour was engaged in 
 rescuing mankind from the power of Satan. Pro¬ 
 bably the Devil transformed himself into an angel 
 of light, hoping thereby the better to deceive him. 
 
 The Divinity of our Lord was also quiescenty 
 and that he overcame him by virtue of the Spirit, 
 which was given him. Thus he suffered being 
 tempted, that he might afford suitable help to us 
 when we were tempted. It is agreed by most or¬ 
 thodox divines, (says Dr. Whitby,) that the Di¬ 
 vinity in Christ was so quiescent for the space of 
 * 
 
 thirty years, as to afford no specimen of its resi- 
 
 * Q,uery, would Mr. H. and his Unitarian Brethren, 
 find that principle oipride and ambition, so observable in 
 the human bosom, if they were discussing the question of 
 the depravity of human nature P —Here they find it observa¬ 
 ble in Jesus Christ. 
 
CONCLUDING KEMAEKS. . 
 
 121 
 
 dence in him ; why might it not be quiescent also 
 in those things which had a particular reference 
 to his prophetic office, and also in those parts of 
 his life, which are set forth as an example, in order 
 that we should follow his steps. Therefore, Jesus 
 Christ, as man, endured and overcame the allure¬ 
 ments of Satan by the sole energy of the Divine 
 Spirit. 
 
 The Rev. Rowland Hill, in his Village Dia¬ 
 logues, has treated the impious folly of represent¬ 
 ing scriptural realities as mere figures, with that 
 pointed irony which cannot fail to produce the 
 effects he intended. He introduces one of his 
 dialogists, Mr. Wisehead, as saying, “We can¬ 
 not believe that there is any such thing as the 
 Holy Ghost; nor can we believe there is any such 
 thing as the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we have 
 nothing to do with the abstruse notion of regenera¬ 
 tion, or, as it is called, the work of the Spirit. We 
 believe that such sort of expressions are to be taken 
 as oriental figures, or as tropical language, and 
 that it only means a good disposition. We there¬ 
 fore deny the doctrine of original sin, as there is 
 quite as much virtue as vice in the world ; and we 
 have no doubt at all, as to the Devil, that he is en¬ 
 tirely a fabulous character; and as to what is said 
 concerning those who were possessed of the Devils, 
 it were irrational to suppose, that it could mean any 
 thing further, than that ‘ they were mad, or had hys¬ 
 teric fits and as to the existence of angels, though 
 
 L 
 
122 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 there are Jrequent''allusions to it in the New Tes¬ 
 tament—‘ Yet it is a doctrine that cannot be proved, 
 or made probable, from the light of nature 
 and what have we to do with the New Testament, 
 while it contradicts the light of nature ? Notwith- 
 standing, therefore, the allusion, we choose to say, 
 ‘ this is no where taught as a doctrine of revela¬ 
 tion.’ A judicious Christian, therefore, will dis¬ 
 card it from his creed, and that not only as a 
 groundless, but as a useless and pernicious tenet, 
 which tends to diminish our regard to the Omnis¬ 
 cient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent God, and to 
 excite superstitious respect to, and unreasonable 
 expectations from, imaginary and fictitious beings.* 
 When therefore we hear how Jesus was tempted 
 in the wilderness, it was (for we always talk very 
 rationally in our way,) only an allusion to ^ fictitious 
 being; and the proper and most rational meaning is, 
 thathewas fighting with some good and bad thoughts, 
 which alternately possessed him; but such were the 
 eastern metaphors and oriental figures then in use.” 
 
 To these considerate replies, then, Sir, might it 
 not have sounded still more rational, had you made 
 it out that he was fighting with two eastern 
 metaphors or oriental figures ; that when the angel 
 spake to Zacharias about the birth of John, the 
 forerunner of our Lord, he should not have said— 
 ‘ I am Gabriel,’ but, ‘ I am an oriental figure, and 
 that it was nothing but an oriental figure that spake to 
 
 * Belsliam’s Caution, p. 2!. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 123 
 
 Mary on the same subject ? and that eastern meta¬ 
 phors, or oriental figures, appeared unto the shep¬ 
 herds, and sung—‘ Glory to God in the highest, 
 on earth peace, and good will towards men.’ And 
 then, again, that our Lord had another meeting of 
 these eastern metaphors and oriental figures in the 
 Mount of Transfiguration ; that an eastern meta¬ 
 phor opened the prison in which Peter was confined; 
 and that an oriental figure knocked off his fetters ? 
 That Paul was converted at the sight of these 
 Eastern metaphors ? That Stephen saw somewhat 
 of the same sort before he was stoned ? And that 
 an eastern metaphor stood by Paul when nearly 
 shipwrecked ? And if these be not enough, I 
 could give you further lucubrations on your 
 RATIONAL w'ay of explaining these eastern meta¬ 
 phors.” 
 
 Mr. Hill adds, the Socinians suppose they have a 
 right to take these preposterous liberties on this 
 subject, because these spiritual existences are de¬ 
 scribed as being powers and virtues. Therefore, 
 they are not real existences, but figurative allu¬ 
 sions. We will produce a few passages where the 
 real existence of such spirits is positively mentioned,' 
 and then we shall see how far common sense will 
 befriend them in their ratioiial religion. 
 
 Beelzebub, the prince of the Devils—the prince 
 of the eastern metaphors .—Unto which- of the 
 angels, (oriental figures) said he, at any time 
 “ this day have I begotten thee.” Let all the angels 
 
124 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 of God (eastern metaphors) worship him.—Our 
 liOrd cast out a whole legion of eastern metaphors 
 from the man among the tombs, and the same set 
 of eastern metaphors drove the swine into the sea. 
 Whether they be thrones, dominions, principalities, 
 and powers—all tropical language, only eastern 
 metaphors. Christ spoiled principalities and powers : 
 he spoiled eastern metaphors and oriental figures. 
 The ministering spirits sent forth to minister to 
 those who shall he heirs of salvation, these are also 
 to be understood as nonentities, or oriental figures. 
 The angels (oriental figures) who kept not their 
 first estate. There was fire prepared for the Devil 
 and his angels (for an eastern metaphor and his 
 oriental figures). Eut enough of this, I had not 
 troubled the reader with so much, on a supposition 
 so absurd, had it not been to give a fair specimen 
 of the wisdom of those who can bestow such high 
 compliments on themselves, and on the rationality 
 of their religion.” 
 
 In the parable of the tares and the wheat, an evil 
 supernatural being is plainly declared to exist. In 
 answer to those questions relative to the tares grow¬ 
 ing up with the wheat. He (that is, Christ) said 
 unto them, an enemy hath done this. But when 
 he explained this parable to his disciples he said, 
 that this enemy was the Devil, or the accuser, a 
 supernatural evil being, who is either the direct or the 
 indirect cause of all wickedness. That this is the 
 proper import of the word Devil in this place, may 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 125 
 
 be inferred from the parable itself. For after Jesus 
 had addressed the multitude in parables, his dis¬ 
 ciples came unto him, saying, “ declare unto us 
 the parable of the tares of the field.” Then he be¬ 
 gan and explained unto them the proper import of 
 tliis parable. Nowj can any reasonable person for 
 a moment suppose, that Christ would deceive his be¬ 
 loved disciples by using a word which implies a real 
 being. Why did he not say that this enemy was 
 a ‘‘ corrupt principle,'’'’ rather than a' Dev'il. And 
 this will appear still more clear, when it is consi¬ 
 dered that he had laid aside his parabolic language, 
 and was teaching his disciples in private the great 
 
 truths contained in this narable. Therefore it is 
 
 1 
 
 reasonable to suppose that hff would use language 
 the most proper and easy to be understood, and par¬ 
 ticularly when they v-cve so much perplexed about 
 
 ' I 
 
 the tares and the enemy that sowed them; therefore, 
 it casts a reflection on our Lord to suppose that he 
 would tell them, “ that tlie tares were the children 
 of the EVIL ONE, and the enemy that sowed them 
 was the Devil, if there v/as no evil one or 
 Devil in existence. 
 
 When he explained to his disciples the parable 
 of the sower, he said, “ Now, the parable is this : 
 the seed is the word of God; those by the way side 
 are the)'^ that hear; then cometh the Devil and 
 taketh away the word out of their liearts, lest they 
 
 should believe and be saved.”* Mark says, “ that 
 
 / 
 
 Luke viii il, 12. 
 
 T ^ 
 
J26 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Satan cometh immediately.” And Matthew, then 
 cometh the wicked one.” The Devil is said to 
 come and take away the word from this sort of 
 hearers, not because he has power to rob men of 
 their religious impressions by any immediate acts, 
 but because they expose themselves through care¬ 
 lessness to the whole force of the temptations which 
 he lays in their way. 
 
 Note, lastly, that Mr. H.’s mode of explanation 
 is only an evasion, overlooking the first class of 
 hearers, which are said to be like seed sown by*the 
 way side, and substituting in their room those which 
 are compared to seed falling among thorns, and 
 likewise by paying no regard to the proper explana¬ 
 tion of those parables as given by our Lord. He ac¬ 
 knowledges that the enemy that sowed the tares, was 
 the “ accuser or the adversary.'*'' But he evades 
 the proper import of these terms by a positive false¬ 
 hood : for says he, “ Our Lord plainly declares 
 that these expressions, as well as those of the good 
 and bad seed, were figurative illustrations.” Where 
 does he say so ? Not in the parables, nor in any 
 other place. I have already observed, tliat our 
 Lord, in the explanation of those parables to 
 his disciples, had laid aside his parabolic language. 
 As a proof of this we would observe, that after Jesus 
 had delivered the parable of the sower, his disciples 
 came and said unto him, “ Why speakest thou 
 unto them in parables The import of the ques¬ 
 tion is this—Why is it, when thou speakest unto 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 127 
 
 US, thou doest it without a parable, thou talkest to us 
 in plain language; when thou preachest unto us 
 the gospel of the kingdom, it is without the aid of 
 parabolic language; why is it, then, that thouspeakest 
 unto us in plain terms, but to the ignorant multi¬ 
 tude in parables T' He answered and said unto 
 them, “ Because it is given unto you to know the 
 mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them 
 it is not given.”^' As much as if he had said, my 
 speaking to the multitude in parables need be no 
 obstacle to you, for should I say any thing which 
 you do not fully comprehend, you have only to ask 
 me and I will give you proper information. “ For 
 it is given unto you to know the mystery-f* of the 
 kingdom.” As love and sincerity give the first 
 impetus to all your enquiries after truth, you are 
 thereby prepared to hear and receive my doctrines 
 when delivered in their plainest and simplest manner 
 possible, but to the rest of the multitude it is not 
 given; that is, such is their pride, avarice, hypocrisy, 
 and unbelief, that if I were to deliver my doc¬ 
 trines to them as I do to you, it would have the 
 most injurious tendency; instead of proving to them 
 the savour of life unto life, it would only increase 
 their prejudice, exasperate their minds, and there- 
 
 •* Matt. xiii. 10, 11. 
 
 t A mystery, in the scriptural use of the term, sig-nifies 
 a subject in religion, of which we can know nothing, 
 except by revelation, and nothing more than is revealed. 
 
128 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 by prove to them the savour of death unto death— 
 therefore I speak unto them in parables. Hence, it 
 is certain that our Lord neither said nor did explain 
 these parables in a figurative sense, and that the 
 Devil and the zmckcd one are terms which properly 
 signify an evil supernatural being. 
 
 Mr. H. further adds, “ that the enemy which op¬ 
 posed itself to the upright, vras the God of this 
 world ; which, in another place, he (Christ) calls 
 the mammon of unrighteousness, or tliat spirit of 
 pride, avarice, and ambition, by which bad men are 
 governed.” Here, observe, he makes the phrase 
 “ mammon of unrighteousness^'' and tlie “ spirit of 
 prid(\ avarice, and amhition,''' to be sjmonymous, 
 and mean one and the same thing. What an ab¬ 
 surdity ! The sentence occurs in St. Luke’s gospel, 
 xvi. chap. 9 ver. “ Make to yourselves friends of 
 the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail 
 they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” 
 That is, endeavour to make yourselves sure friends 
 of those riches which may not improperly be called 
 the unrighteous or deceitful mammon, (as so little 
 confidence can be reposed in them,) that 'when you 
 ful,d,'ad. die out of this world, they may reenve you 
 'into everlasting habitations, and you may for ever 
 enjoy the reward of your pious charity and love in 
 an everlasting friendship with all those truly worthy- 
 persons who have been relieved by it.*' The con- 
 
 * See Doddridge, Mackuight, and Scott, on the place. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 129 
 
 trary supposition is pregnant with absurdity and 
 contradiction. For instance, can any reasonable 
 man, for a moment, suppose that Jesus Christ would 
 say to his beloved disciples, “ Make to yourselves 
 friends with the spirit qf pride^ avarice, and am¬ 
 bition, that when you fail (die) they (the spirit of 
 pride, avarice, and ambition,) may receive you into 
 everlasting habitations What! corrupt and evil 
 principles in the eternal regions above ! What! 
 will corrupt principles hail the heirs of salvation 
 welcome in the atmosphere of unsullied bliss and 
 purity ! ! A man that will thus pervert the gospel 
 of Christ ought to be suspected in every thing he 
 saith. 
 
 In the 25th chap, of St. Matthew’s gospel and 44th 
 verse, we read of the condemnation and punish¬ 
 ment of the Devil. When our Lord alludes to the 
 final destiny of wicked men, he says, “Depart from 
 me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for 
 the Devil and his angels.'’'' Thus has he pointed 
 out the antecedent sin of the Devil and his angels, 
 and the punishment prepared for them, in contra¬ 
 distinction to those men who are doomed to share 
 one common destiny, tience, it is evident, that 
 there is a supernahiral evil being', called the Devil 
 and Satan, who is distinguished from men on the 
 one hand, and from mere abstract principles on the 
 other. Mr. H. supposes that the expression, the 
 Devil and his angels, “ refers to the persecuting 
 Jews and Pagans,'''' which is a chimera so absurd, 
 
130 
 
 CONCLUDING REMAEKS. 
 
 that it scarcely deserves notice. The paragraph 
 out of which this verse is taken, evidently refers to 
 the judgment of the great day. “ When the Son 
 of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
 angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of 
 his glory ; and before him shall be gathered all 
 nations, and he shall separate them one from another, 
 as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. 
 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but 
 the goats on the left. Then shall the King say 
 to those on his right Iiand, Come, ve blessed of mv 
 Father, inlierit the kingdom prepared for you from 
 the foundation of the world. But to those on the 
 left, he shall say. Depart from me,, ye cursed, into 
 everlasting fire, j^^'cpared for the Devil and his 
 angelsP^' In this paragraph our Lord has exhibited 
 to our view the solemn and awful process of the 
 great day. The righteous arc hailed welcome to 
 the realms cf eternal bliss, and to a kingdom pre¬ 
 pared for them from the foundation of the world ; 
 while the wicked are consigned to irreversible 
 misery, preparedJbr lohom? not for MAN, but for 
 the Devil and his angels. Therefore, if man be¬ 
 came a sharer in this punishment, it is by being 
 self-jitted for destruction, or by his wilful rebellion 
 against the Most High, and rejection of the gospel 
 of Christ. But adopt Mr. H.’s view of this passage, 
 and the language of Jesus Christ on this occasion 
 
 * See Matt. xxv. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 131 
 
 becomes unintelligible jargon : for according to the 
 explanation which he has given of the verse in 
 question, it would read thus : Depart from me, ye 
 cursed, into long enduring punishment, pre¬ 
 pared for the Jew and his Pagans. Mr. H. with¬ 
 out the least iota of proof, either from reason or 
 scripture, supposes that the punishments, which in 
 this chapter aie said to bt> inflicted on the wicked, 
 are only 'natural calamities^'' and that the day of 
 judgment here alluded to, only refers to “ the se¬ 
 paration of true f/hristians from the corrupters of 
 truth and righteousness, who would thus suffer the 
 consequence of their own violence.” Such is the 
 verbosity of this all-knowing philosopher! How 
 he reconciles this hypothesis with the last verse of 
 this chapter I know not,—“ And these shall go 
 away into evci'lasting puniskvient. hut the righteous 
 into rife eternal.'’'’ Now, if the opinion of Mr. H. 
 be correct, the meaning of this verse is this, to use 
 his oion woi'ds, that tiie persecuting Jews and 
 Pagans, together with their emissaries, who would, 
 in consequence of their own schemes of pride and 
 ambition, be, for a long series oh years, involved in 
 the most terrible natural calamitiesy And he fur¬ 
 ther adds, that this “ appears evidently to be the 
 day of judgment which is here and in many other 
 places spoken of.” Consequently, the last clause of 
 this verse, instead of alluding to the final glorifica¬ 
 tion of the righteous, only refers to temporal bless¬ 
 ings, which would be conferred on them for a long 
 
132 
 
 CONCLUDING KEMARKS. 
 
 series of years for their virtuous actions ; therefor^ 
 it is evident that he robs the Scripture of all its in¬ 
 trinsic excellence and glory. I appeal to every im¬ 
 partial enquirer after truth, whether ever there was 
 a greater absurdity ever propagated in the whole 
 system of Popery. It is unquestionably certain, 
 that Mr. H. and his Unitarian brethren, when en¬ 
 deavouring to support their system from the Bible, 
 instead of considering the current language of Scrip¬ 
 ture, comparing it with' itself, and thus making it 
 its own interpreter, do, generally, strive to con¬ 
 found and perplex the ignorant and unwary, by se¬ 
 lecting and playing upon a few isolated passages. 
 
 In the 8th chapter of St. John’s gospel and 44th 
 verse, Jesus Christ said to his enemies, “ Ye are 
 of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your 
 father you 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 ” As to the proper meaning of this 
 verse, there can be but one opinion entertained by 
 all those who receive the truth in the love of it. 
 The language of this passage is altogether unin¬ 
 telligible, on the supposition that there is not in 
 existence an evil supernatural being. But Mr. H. 
 has a'key that will almost suit every lock. Should 
 it be asked, what is this key ? I answer, it is the 
 word EVIDENT, which he almost brings forward on 
 every occasion, as a sufficient proof to establish 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 133 
 
 every proposition. The fact is, it is almost the 
 only source that he has left, for reason and Scrip¬ 
 ture has proclaimed an eternal war against him. 
 He tells us, that “ ithe whole conversation on this 
 occasion is evidently a personification of that 
 wicked and persecuting spirit^ which had for ages 
 been so prevalent in the world.” He further adds, 
 “ On another occasion, he (Christ) beautifully ex¬ 
 emplified this wicked and murderous spirit in his 
 parable of the vineyard, But let his language 
 to the Jews, on this occasion, be understood literal¬ 
 ly, and it would convey an absurd falsehood ; for 
 he would positively have asserted that the Jews 
 were the descendants of a supernatural evil spirit, 
 although he knew that they, as well as himself, 
 were the lineal posterity of the righteous Abraham.’' 
 I candidly and honestly confess, that I was struck 
 with astonishment, and could scarcely believe my 
 own eyes, when I first read this part of Mr. H.’s 
 lectui'e. I got my Bible, and found every one of 
 the parables of the vineyard—I read them over and 
 over again, and I could not find that the parables 
 i of the vineyard had the most distant bearing on 
 the subject in question. How Mr. H. could, in 
 the face of a large congregation, conjure up such a 
 barefaced misrepresentation, I am at a loss to de¬ 
 termine, unless he was worse than mad, and thought 
 every body else fools. I am but 
 
 “ A plain, blunt man, that .speaks directly on.” 
 
 How Mr. H. explains any one of the parables of 
 
 M 
 
f 
 
 134 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 the vineyard consistent with this part of his lec¬ 
 ture, would surpass the comprehension of the 
 wisest sage that ever lived on the face of animated 
 nature. Certain I am, that'if we were to understand 
 all the parables of the vineyard literally, it would 
 be impossible to fix such a meaning upon them as 
 given by Mr. H., without we had a purpose to serve 
 by it, and determine to have our point, like him, 
 at the sacrifice of truth and reason. 
 
 “ Thus men go wrong', with an ingenious skill, 
 
 Bend the straight rule to their own crooked will; 
 
 And, with a clear and shining lamp, supplied. 
 
 First put it out, then take it for a guide; 
 
 Halting on crutches of unequal size. 
 
 One leg' by truth supported, one by lies ; 
 
 They sidle to the goal with awkward pace. 
 
 Secure of nothing—but to loose the race!” 
 
 When the disciples of Christ returned to inform 
 him of their success, they told him in joyful sur¬ 
 prise, that “ even the Devils are subject unto us 
 through thy name.” He said unto them, I be- 
 lield Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”* I 
 saw him on his first transgression, when he was 
 hurled from the transparent regions of unsullied 
 bliss and happiness, to live in an atmospliere of 
 ntiscry and woe, and well remember how immediate 
 and dreadful was his ruin. 
 
 “-1_ Him, liie .4Imighty power 
 
 Hurled headlong, flaming, from th’ ethereal sky, 
 
 * Luke-x. 17, 18. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 135 
 
 
 With hideous ruin and combustion, down ■ 
 
 To bottomless perdition, there to dwell 
 In adamantine chains and penal fire. 
 
 Who durst defy th’ Omnipotent to arms.” 
 
 And I also foresee in spirit that renewed, swift, 
 and irresistible victory, which shall be accomplish¬ 
 ed by the preaching of the gospel, when Satan, the 
 prince of the demons, shall be dethroned from his 
 usurped dominion on earth, v/ith the idolatrous 
 worship which l\e has devised to establish, so that 
 your casting out devils is only an emblem of a far 
 more and decisive victory, when all rebel powers 
 shall be subjugated, and the gospel shall wing its 
 way to the ends of the earth. “ Satan being spoiled 
 of his dominions, may be said to fall from heaven.’' 
 So of the fall of the king of Babylon, the prophet 
 says, “ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Luci¬ 
 fer !” Of the fall of the colleague of Antonius, 
 Cicero says, “ Thou hast pulled him down from 
 ’heaven.” “ And when Pompey was overthrown, 
 he is said to have fallen from the stars.” 
 
 The Apostle, St. Paul, said to those to whom he 
 wrote, “ that God would bruise. Satan under their 
 feet shortly.”‘f' Thus assuring them that God, the 
 author of all their blessings, whether spiritual or 
 temporal, would speedily bruise the great enemy of 
 mankind, and all his agents, under their feet, and 
 thereby give them, and every true believer, an en¬ 
 tire and final victory. 
 
 Homans xvi. 20. 
 
136 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 The Devil manages his mode of attack with 
 deep subtilty and invidious cunning. Hence, 
 says the Apostle, “ Lest Satan should get an 
 advantage of us^"' that is, that we may not be 
 overreached by Satan. The Apostle adds, “/or 
 we are not ignorant of his devices."'''* The term 
 devices, signifies his machinations, far fetches, 
 and contrivances. These devices are called by 
 the same Apostle, “ the wiles of the Devilf'f 
 which signifies his crafty, artful methods to deceive. 
 These fraudulent methods are also called the snare 
 of the Devil.'" This snare the Devil lays with all 
 the cunning of which he is master, in order to 
 catch and entangle the souls of men. “ It is,” says 
 Bishop Taylor, -- by the mercy of God we have 
 the quietness of a moment, for if the Devil’s chains 
 were taken off, he would make our beds a terror, 
 our tables to be a snare, our sleep fantastic, lust¬ 
 ful, and illusive, and every sense should have an 
 object of delight and danger, an hyena to kiss, and 
 to perish in its embraces.” 
 
 The Apostle Paul, in his second epistle to the 
 Corinthians, says, “ Satan himself is tran formed 
 into an angel of light.'"\ It is certain, from the 
 connexion in which this verse stands, that the 
 Apostle alludes to the chief or head of the apostate 
 demons. The reason why he informs them of this 
 species of imposture, which is carried on by this 
 
 * 2 Cor. ii. 11. f Eph. vi. 11. 
 
 X 2 Cor. xi. 14. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 137 
 
 arch-deceiver, was owing to certain false teachers, 
 who had crept into the church, and by reason of 
 their splendid eloquence and high pretensions to 
 sanctity and sublimity of devotion, deceived their 
 deluded followers. The Apostle designates these 
 false .teachers, “ deceitful workers,^ transforming 
 themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And then 
 he adds, And no marvel., for Satan himself is 
 transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is 
 no great thing if his ministers also be transformed 
 as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall 
 be according to their works.’* The drift of the 
 Apostle’s reasoning is this : you need not wonder, 
 or be astonished at such wicked men as these being 
 so specious in their appearance and pretensions, for 
 even Satan, their master, often disguises himself, 
 and tempts the true followers of Christ in the form 
 of an heavenly messenger, instead of appearing as 
 the prince of darkness. Therefore, if Satan, the 
 head and ringleader of all impostures and false 
 teachers, thus transforms himself, it is reasonable, 
 and only what we may naturally expect, that his 
 ministers should transform themselves into the mi¬ 
 nisters of righteousness. Mr. H. supposes, without 
 any show or reason, that the Apostle only “ refers 
 to some leading character among those Judaising 
 teachers, who violently opposed his apostolic la¬ 
 bours, and endeavoured agajn to bring the Chris¬ 
 tian Churches under bondage to the ceremonial law.” 
 
 The fact is, that it does not appear that these false 
 
 M 3 
 
138 
 
 CONCLUDING REMAilKS. 
 
 Apostles were Judaising teachers, or that they 
 ever attempted to re-establish the ceremonial law. 
 “ For,” says Mr. Locke, “ if subjection to the 
 Jewish rites had been that which the Apostle was 
 so zealous against, he would have spoken more 
 plainly and warmly, as we see in the epistle to the 
 Galatians, and not have touched it only, by the 
 bye, slightly, in a doubtful expression. Besides, 
 • it is plain, that no such thing was yet attempted 
 openly, only St. Paul was afraid of it.” “ Conviction 
 and steadiness of principle,” says Dr. Beattie,“is that 
 which gives dignity, uniformity, and spirit, to the 
 human conduct, and without which our happiness 
 can neither be lasting nor sincere. It constitutes, 
 as it were, the vital stamina of a great and manly 
 character; where, as scepticism betrays a sickly 
 understanding, and a levity of mind, from which 
 nothing can be expected but inconsistency an> 
 folly.” 
 
 “ The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, 
 
 With loads of learned lumber in his head.” 
 
 The existence of a supernatural evil being has been 
 believed in all ages, by the wisest and best of men 
 that ever graced the republic of letters with their 
 learning, adorned the Christian Church with their 
 piety, or benefited the world by their labours. 
 
 The same Apostle informed the Thessalonians, 
 that he would gladly have come to Thessalonica 
 “ once and 'again ;” but Satan, by raising a storm 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 139 
 
 of persecution, hindered him.* The Apostle cer¬ 
 tainly alluded to temporal enemies ; but as Dr. 
 Whitby judiciously observes, “ they who obstruct 
 the progress of the gospel, and persecute the pro¬ 
 moters of it, are the ministers of Satan, and there¬ 
 fore bear his name.” The Apostle, in his second 
 epistle to this people, warns them of an approaching 
 evil, which would befal the Church by reason of 
 one whom he denominates the “ the man of sinf 
 the “ son of perdition, whose coming is after the 
 working of Satan, with all power and signs, and 
 lying wonders.”*!* We shall not stay to enquire 
 ' whom the Apostle meant by the “ son of perdi¬ 
 tion,” or whether he meant (which is probable) a 
 succession of individuals, who would be governed 
 by the same dispositions, and induced by the same 
 motives. One thing is certain, that this diabolical 
 person would gain his object by force, and deep 
 subtilty, lying miracles, and every kind of im¬ 
 posture which human ingenuity and satanical cun¬ 
 ning were able to invent. iVIr. H. tells us, that 
 “ the wicked spoken of, whose coming is described 
 as after the working of Satan, with all power, and 
 signs, and lying wonders, is an evident reference to 
 some of the ecclesiastical oppressors, who would, at a 
 fiiture time, domineer over the Church.” But he 
 has overlooked the doctrine in question; he has left 
 us to learn who this Satan is, whose working this 
 ecclesiastical oppressor is described as coming after. 
 
 * 1 Thes. ii. 18. 
 
 t 2 Thess. ii. 3, 9. 
 
140 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Therefore I shall take it for granted, that the 
 Apostle alludes to that infernal spirit, which is 
 calked elsewhere, the Devil and Satan, who is the 
 great deceiver of mankind, and the author of all 
 delusions. This opinion is supported by the same 
 Apostle, who says to his son Timothy, “ That in the 
 latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving 
 heed to seducmg spirits, and doctrines qf‘ devils.''’'* 
 Thus the Apostle informs Timothy, that in the 
 latter days some would depart from the true faith of 
 the gospel, and that this apostacy would be affected 
 by false teachers, who would hearken to seducing 
 spirits, and consequently preach those doctrines 
 which are devised and suggested by devils or de¬ 
 mons. 
 
 He also informs him, that he had delivered 
 Hymenius and Alexander unto Satan,-f that is, he 
 had openly excommunicated and cast them out of 
 the Church of Christ into the visible kingdom of 
 Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. 
 
 The Apostle, in describing the characteristical 
 marks of a scriptural Bishop, says, he must “ Not 
 be a novice, lest, he'ing lifted up with pride, he fall 
 into the condemnation cf the Devil.'‘'\ Here I 
 think it is clearly intimated, that pride was the first 
 spring of the defection, fall, and ruin, of the Devil. 
 Not a novice, that is, he must not be a new con¬ 
 vert to Christianity, or a new plant in the garden 
 
 * 1 Tim. iv. 1. 
 
 t 1 Tim. i. 20. J 1 Tim. iii. 6. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 141 
 
 of the Church : and he gives this reason for it, 
 lest, being puffed up with pride on account of his 
 being promoted to such an high station, he fall into 
 the condemnation of the Devil. l''his reason, cer¬ 
 tainly implies, that pride was the Devil’s first and 
 chief sin, or his affecting some spiritual highness 
 beyond the bounds of God’s will. Why does the 
 Apostle make use of the condemnation of the Devil 
 to deter from pride, if that was not the cause of his 
 apostacy, and the sin for which he was condemned 
 of God ? 
 
 He likewise observes, that “ some are already 
 turned aside after Satan.''* “ The converting men 
 to the Christian faith,” says Dr. Whitby, “ being 
 the turning them Jrom Satan unto God." The 
 casting off the faith may well be styled, “ the turn¬ 
 ing aside after Satan." 
 
 The Apostle has pointed out, in his second 
 epistle to his beloved Timothy, how a Christian 
 minister ought to conduct himself to those who had 
 fallen into the snare of the Devil, or “ who are 
 taken captive by him at his will." “ The word 
 rendered taken captivef says a learned author, 
 “ was originally taken from Jishing, Jbwling, or 
 hunting.) and signified to catch the prey alive, by 
 way of opposition to killing it. Hence, it was 
 transferred to other things, and here, should be 
 rendered caught alive." “ According to this sense ^ 
 of the word,” says Dr. Macknight, “it is used by 
 
 ♦ 2 Tim. ii. 26. 
 
142 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 
 tlie Apostle with great propriety. For the purpose 
 of the Devil’s ensnaring men, being to kill them. 
 The servant of God who takes the wicked alive out 
 of his snare, saves their lives, by giving them an op¬ 
 portunity of escaping and returning to God.” 
 
 “In Hebrews ii. 11,” says Mr. H. “ the ac¬ 
 cuser is said to have the power of deaths which 
 clearly refers to the strict requisitions and fatal de¬ 
 nunciations of the Jewish law, which, in the same 
 passage, the Apostle declares, Jesus Christ came 
 to abolish, in order to free men from that fear of 
 death, by which they were all their life-time made 
 subject unto bondage.” Mr. H. thinks this is clear, 
 but for what reason because he supposes that the 
 “ staunchest advocates for the existence of an evil 
 being, will hardly venture to maintain, that life 
 AND DEATH Were ever at his disposal.” Life and 
 death is at the complete disposal of God, who rules 
 the armies of heaven, and amongst the inhabitants 
 of the earth, and, therefore, life and death was never 
 at the disposal of the Jewish law. “ For,” says the 
 Apostle, “ the letter Mlleth, 'hut the spirit giveth 
 life!'''* And again, '"'■if there had been alaw-giver 
 which could have g'lven I'fe, ver'xly righteousness 
 would have been by the Zarc.”*f* Now, if Mr. H. 
 thinks it a sufficient reason that the Apostle did not 
 mean an evil being, because the staunchest advo¬ 
 cates for his existence would hardly venture to 
 affirm that life and death were at his disposal; it 
 
 * 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 
 f Gal. iii. 21. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 143 
 
 is equally as good a reason, that he did not mean, 
 by the term Devil, the Jewish law ; for I think 
 that the staunchest advoeates against *the existence 
 of an evil being, would hardly venture to maintain 
 that life and death were ever at the disposal of this 
 law. Besides, I know not for what purpose he has 
 conjured up the word life ; for certain it is, that 
 it has no connexion with the subject, for if the 
 Apostle meant the Jewish law, and that that law 
 could have given life, why should Jesus Christ 
 have come to abolish it ? Therefore,- that system, 
 which depends upon such miserable subterfuges as 
 this for its support, is a bad system, and stands 
 upon a tottering foundation. Besides the decalogue, 
 or moral law', is not abolished, but is in full force 
 now', and will be to the end of time ; it is only the 
 ceremonial law which Jesus Christ has put away by 
 the sacrifice of himself. Hence, says the Apostle, “/^or 
 df/ one offering he hnih'perfected for ev-erthem thatare 
 sanctified.'''"^ And likewise observe, that salvation was 
 as much by faith under the Old Testament dispensa_ 
 tion, as it is now; and by reason of this faith in the 
 atonement of Christ, w'hich was pointed out to them 
 by promises, types, and shadow's, many of the Old 
 Testament saints were delivered from this fear of 
 death. If the Apostle meant by the term Devil,ox: 
 Accuser, the Jewish law, then none could be kept 
 
 i 
 
 subject to this bondage but those who were under 
 this law; consequently, the whole Gentile nation was 
 
 * Heb. X. 14. 
 
144 CONCLUDIIJG REMARKS. 
 
 exempt from this fear of death. But certainly the 
 Apostle had the pious Gentiles in view, who were 
 enslaved by the fears of death, because they lived 
 without any written revelation from God ; therefore 
 they had not that bright assurance of the pardon of 
 sin, nor that bright hope of a blessed immortality. 
 The reasoning of the Apostle is as follows— ^^For¬ 
 asmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh 
 and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the 
 same that is, as the children were partakers of 
 human nature, so Christ voluntarily condescended 
 to partake of the same, in order that he might stand 
 in the nearest relation to them, and be rendered 
 capable of suffering and dying, that through death 
 he might destroy him that had the power (f death, 
 that is, the Devil f that by his death in the flesh, 
 he might frustrate the malicious contrivance of him 
 who first introduced death into the world, that is, 
 the Devil. The Devil’s intention in tempting our 
 first parents was to destroy them, and thereby to put 
 an end to the human species. This Satanical de¬ 
 sign the Son of God frustrated, and rendered inef¬ 
 fectual, by assuming our nature, and dying as a sa¬ 
 crifice for sin. The sentence, “ Him that had the 
 power of death,''' means a power that is usurped bv 
 guile; and the Apostle evidently alludes to that era, 
 when Satan, by an exertion of this power, deceived 
 our first parents, and, consequently, brought death 
 on all mankind. Hence, he is called a “ murderer 
 from the beginning.’’'’ But Christ, by his atonement 
 
CONCLUBING REMARKS, 
 
 145 
 
 and resurrection, would remove the baneful effect 
 of this power, and “deliver them, who through 
 fear of death were all their life-time subject to bond¬ 
 age ; when one common salvation was preached to 
 both Jew and Gentile, and the copious influence of 
 , the Spirit was poured upon all the nations of the 
 earth. “ For verily he toole not on him the nature of 
 angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham f* 
 or, as the margin renders it, he taketh not hold 
 angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. 
 Here the Apostle represents the apostate angels and 
 mankind, as it were,falling from an eminence; but our 
 merciful high-priest is represented as catching hold 
 of his falling creature, man, in order to bring him 
 back to his former inheritance, while he leaves the 
 rebellious angels to fall lower and lower, as on them 
 he taketh not hold. The reason of this difference 
 probably is, because they rebelled presumptuously 
 against God without a tempter, while the first pa¬ 
 rents of mankind sinned only by the invidious cun¬ 
 ning of another. 
 
 “ On the subject of temptation,” (says Mr. H.) 
 we have the authority of the Apostle James for 
 maintaining that every man is tempted, when he is 
 ‘ drawn away by his own lust, and enticed’.” It is 
 generally believed by the most learned men that 
 ever graced the republic of letters, that the Apostle, 
 by the sentence ‘ being drawn away by his own lust 
 and enticed^-\ alludes to the drawing of fish out of 
 
 * Heb. ii. 14—16, f James i. 14. 
 
 N 
 
146 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 a river with a baited hook. Therefore, the meaning 
 of the Apostle is this, that the corrupt desires of 
 our nature prompts us to seize the bait which Satan 
 throws in our way; so we are drawn out of the line 
 of duty, as the fish is drawn out of the water by 
 the delusive morsel that covers the hook. There¬ 
 fore, instead of this verse being a support for Mr. 
 H. it makes completely against him. The Apostle 
 St. Peter says—“ Your adversary, the Devil, as a 
 roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may 
 devour.'"* Here, observe, it is not whom he will, 
 but whom he may devour : were his power as great 
 as his malice, he would, no doubt, destroy every 
 true Christian from off the face of the earth. 
 Whatever power he may be possessed of, he is not 
 invulnerable, nor irresistible. He may be strong, 
 but not omnipotent. He may be cunning, but 
 he is not omniscient. He walks about, therefore 
 he is not omnipresent. He is under the Divine 
 controul, and in his warfare with human beings, 
 
 . the advantage is graciously allowed to man. Satan’s 
 dominion on the earth is hastening to a close. 
 Therefore he is of great wrath, because his time is 
 short on the earth. Infinite wisdom gives us in¬ 
 struction in the Scriptures of Sacred Truth, and if 
 we abide by them, and follow the direction of the 
 Holy Spirit, we shall never be deceived. Almighty 
 power, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 which is given to every true believer in Christ, en- 
 
 ♦ 1 Pet. V. 8. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 147 
 
 ables him to be more than conqueror in conflict with 
 Satan on any ground, at any time it is his privilege 
 to triumph. 
 
 “ On even ground against our moral foe.” 
 
 This verse with the two following, Mr. H. took for 
 his text; and he tells us that the expressions in these 
 ' verses evidently relate “ to the persecuting Jews 
 and Pagans."''' Suppose that the expression, your 
 adversary, the Devil, alludes to the persecut¬ 
 ing Jews and Pagans, does it follow that there is no 
 Devil, or that the Devil did not excite them thus to 
 oppose the people of God. The word devour. Dr. 
 Macknight translates swallow up. “ So the word 
 literally signifies, being used concerning solids as 
 well as liquids. It strongly expresses the insatiable 
 rage of the enemy of mankind, to hinder their sal¬ 
 vation, and the danger we are in from his devices. 
 For he sometimes attacks the people of God in 
 person, though not visible; and sometimes by his 
 ministers, the other evil spirits, who are in league 
 with him ; and sometimes by wicked men, his sub¬ 
 jects, whom he instigates to tempt them by the 
 terror of persecution.” The same Apostle says, in 
 his second epistle—“ For if God spared not the 
 angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and, 
 delivered them unto chains of darkness, to be re¬ 
 served unto judgment.”* Now, sin is a relative 
 term, and supposes a rule or law of which it is a 
 breach ; for, says the Apostle, “ Where no law is, 
 there is no transgression.”*!* And though that 
 
 I 
 
 * 2 Pet. ii. 4. f Horn. iv. 15. 
 
148 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 particular law which they transgressed be not reveal¬ 
 ed, it must be a positive one, or that of nature; if 
 the law of nature, it is the same as the moral law, 
 so far as it agrees with the angelical spiritual nature, 
 and requires Divine worship, and other duties re" 
 suiting from the relation of creatures to God their 
 Creator. And supposing the law which they trans¬ 
 gressed, to be a positive one, they could not violate 
 it without transgressing the law of nature. But a 
 question naturally arises, how could pure and exalt¬ 
 ed beings violate any law ? Supposing we were not 
 able to give any definite answer to this question, 
 would it follow that they never sinned; certainly not, 
 because our ignorance can never alter facts. Nothing 
 is more unaccountable than the motives and causes 
 of action in free agents, when any being is at liberty 
 to act as it will, no other reason need be required 
 for its actions but its own will. They who are at 
 liberty to sin, may sin, whatever be the motives 
 that induced them to it; and to enquire what is that 
 motive, is to enquire what motive may determine a 
 free agent, that is, an agent which may determine 
 itself upon any ground or motive. Immutability is 
 an infinite perfection, therefore it could not inhere 
 in a finite creature, however exalted in the scale of 
 being. But how perfect and excellent soever any 
 creatures are, they may be supposed to admire their 
 own perfections and excellencies, and, by degrees, 
 to neglect to acknowledge God, till they end in 
 downright rebellion against him. And it is most 
 
CONCLUDING KEMAEKS. 
 
 149 
 
 agreeable to Scripture, that pride, or affecting some 
 spiritual greatness above their station, was the cause 
 of the fall of angels; and those perfections, which 
 might secure them against every other temptation, 
 might be the cause of this. But though they sin- 
 ned, God spared them not, but cast them down to 
 hell, and delivered them unto chains of darkness, 
 to be reserved unto judgment. Neither will he 
 spare any other persevering sinner who violates his 
 law, and rebels against his government. 
 
 The apostate angels jn their state of degradation 
 and misery, retain the same disposition as when 
 they first rebelled against their Creator. They 
 sinned without remorse: we never read of the least 
 compunction in them, but meet with many proofs 
 , of their fixed malignity against God and all good¬ 
 ness. Hence, says the Apostle, “ the Devil sinneth 
 from the beginning.''''* He does not say he sinneth 
 AT the beginning, though that be true, but he 
 sinneth from the beginning, that is, sinning is his 
 and all the host of evil spirits’ continual practice, 
 and has been ever since their rebellion. But Mr. 
 H. tells us that the words used here, “ are an evi¬ 
 dent personification of bad and good dispositions of 
 the mind, and the wicked are called the children 
 of the accuser or adversary; in exactly the same 
 SENSE as on another occasion, he that committeth 
 sin is the servant of sin; and the righteous are 
 called the children of God in the same sense, al- 
 
 I 
 
 * 1 John iii. 8. 
 N 3 
 
150 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 though in a different degree with Christ, who wa.s 
 styled the Son of God, on account of his exalted 
 goodness.” This is a sweeping declaration, which 
 leads us at once into a self-evident absurdity, viz. 
 to believe that sin has an independent existence, or 
 ^ it robs us of our God, and leads us to suppose that 
 that Being, whose existence is necessary and inde- 
 •pendent, only exists in a relative manner. We 
 will examine, for a moment, the modes of expres¬ 
 sion made use of in this quotation. The expression 
 “ lie that committeth sin is the servant of sin^''^ is 
 the language of Christ, and evidently means one 
 leho habitually practises sin. That sin has only a 
 relative existence may be inferred from the expres¬ 
 sion itself; for, if its existence were positive and 
 independent, it would be absurd to say, he that 
 committeth or practises sin, and it would be abso¬ 
 lutely impossible to attach to this expression of 
 Christ’s, any definite idea. That sin has in itself a 
 positive and independent existence, I believe no 
 one will venture to affirm it, therefore can have no 
 more than a relative being, and can exist no longer 
 than those beings continue to exist which are 
 
 i 
 
 capable of moral actions. For, if all moral agents 
 were once annihilated, it would be an absurdity too 
 gross to be imposed upon the mind of man to 
 suppose that sin, in this case, could have any kihd 
 of existence. As, therefore, sin has not in itself 
 any kind of positive existence, we must look to 
 
 Joha viii. 34. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 151 
 
 moral agents for all the being which it can possibly ' 
 possess. And although sin is, in a moral point of 
 view, nothing more than the sinful thoughts and 
 actions of moral agents, physically capable of a 
 better conduct, yet so far can it extend its baneful 
 influencein its effects and consequences, as to derange 
 the whole human system. 
 
 Sndly. “ He ihat committeth sin is of the Devil 
 that is, he that lives habitually in the practices of 
 sin belongs to the family of the Devil; and as a 
 proof of this the Apostle adds, ^\for the Devil 
 sinneth from the beginningf that is, from the time 
 of his apostacy in heaven. Now, how absurd it 
 would be to say, he that committeth or transgresseth, 
 the Devil is of the Devil; and it is equally as ab¬ 
 surd to say, that sin sinneth from the beginnings 
 for sin has only a relative being, and depends on 
 moral agents for its existence, and therefore it could 
 never act independent of these moral agents. , 
 Therefore, to suppose that it was sin that sinneth 
 from the beginning, leads us to believe a self-evi¬ 
 dent contradiction, viz. that sin is dependent and 
 not dependent at the same time, or that sin acts in¬ 
 dependent, although it has at the same time no in¬ 
 dependent existence. 
 
 3rdly. The righteous are called the children or 
 servants of God, because they habitually serve, 
 honour, and obey him. Now, it would be abso¬ 
 lutely nonsense to say, he that committeth God is 
 
 * 1 Jolin iii. 8. 
 
152 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 the servant of God. Therefore, 1 conclude, that 
 God and Satan have a positive and independent 
 existence, while sin has only a relative being; and 
 the man that committeth sin is the servant of sin, 
 or he is a slave to those actions which he commits. 
 Surely, Mr. H. will not say, that God has no in¬ 
 dependent and personal existence? Why, then, 
 has he classed him with sin, without he meant to^ 
 say, he^had no real being ; or, that sin had a positive 
 and independent existence. It is evident, that no 
 absurdity is too great for this knowing , one to 
 adopt! 
 
 It is awful and affecting to consider, that the 
 fallen angels are our inveterate enemies. The 
 Scriptures attribute to the Devil, all the various 
 degrees of malice; such as indignation, wrath, envy, 
 and hatred. Malice is the Devil’s character and 
 disposition;—it is this which excites him to all 
 mischief, and of breathing after all kinds of wicked¬ 
 ness. Hence he is styled the wicked one, which 
 denotes a special wickedness. God is called by the 
 Prophets, the holy one, because he is infinitely 
 and altogether holy.—So the Devil, because he his 
 the most malicious, envious, and wicked beincp that 
 exists, is called the wicked one. 
 
 The Apostle Jude tells us, that the “ angels Teept 
 not their first estate^ Though the angels were 
 created holy, and without the least inherent de¬ 
 pravity, yet they were mutable ; and, indeed, mu¬ 
 tability is essential to a creature, considered as such; 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 153 
 
 it is God’s prerogative alone to be unchangeable; 
 none but he can be naturally free from change. The 
 angels that fell were not fixed in a state of unaltera¬ 
 ble purity and happiness; and as responsible beings 
 they were left to the freedom of their own choice. 
 Jesus Christ tells us, they 'abode not in the 
 truths* and the Apostle says they kept not their first 
 estate: the meaning of the Apostle is this—that a 
 certain number of angelic beings, who were pos¬ 
 sessed of all those physical energies, which are es¬ 
 sential to moral agents, kept not their first estate; 
 or, they retained not their original purity; therefore, 
 “ they left their own habitation," that is, they gave 
 up their office or station, which was assigned them 
 by their Sovereign Creator; therefore, he cast them 
 out of his celestial mansion, and “ reserved them 
 in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the 
 judgment of the great day.” Should it be said, 
 how can Satan and his host range up and down the 
 earth, and at the same time be confined in chaiijs ? 
 We answer, that chains is a metaphorical expression, 
 which denotes, that they have no power to escape the 
 present punishment which is inflicted upon them ; 
 than a man who is strongly bound with iron chains 
 cannot break them. Therefore, these chains do not 
 denote their being confined to a certain place, but 
 that wherever they go they carry their punishment 
 with them. 
 
 The same Apostle informs us of a contest which 
 
 * JohDviii.44. 
 
I 
 
 154 CONCLUDING REMARKS, 
 
 took place between an archangel, and the head or 
 chief of apostate demons : “ Yet, Michael, the arch¬ 
 angel, when contending with the Devil, (he dis¬ 
 puted about the body of Moses,) durst not bring 
 against him a railing accusation, but said. The 
 Lord rebuke thee.” Now, a good angel would not 
 be the adve7'sary of Michael. A good angel would 
 not dispute with this archangel, and contend about 
 the body of Moses. To a good angel, Michael 
 
 would not say, the‘Lord rebuke, thee;'" therefore 
 
 % 
 
 these words of the Apostle afford a direct and posi¬ 
 tive proof of the existence of a supernatural evil 
 being. In the Apocalypse we are informed, that 
 “ there was tear in heaven that is, the gospel 
 kingdom, which in many places in Scripture is 
 called the kingdom of heaven. Michael and 
 his angels fought against the dragon, and the dra¬ 
 gon fought, and his angels, and prevailed not; 
 neither were their places found any more in 
 heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that 
 old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which 
 deceiveth the whole world : he was cast out into 
 the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.* 
 Michael signifies, who is like God, and therefore 
 may fitly represent Christ; and the Devil, or Satan, 
 is here styled the great dragon, which term is em¬ 
 blematical of his great strength and bloody cruelty 
 against the church. The former employed as his 
 instruments in this war, Christian magistrates. 
 
 * Rev. xii. 7, 8, 9. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 155 
 
 faithful ministers, and true believers, as well as 
 angels, which he sent forth as ministering 
 spirits to those heirs of salvation ; while the latter; 
 fought b}^ persecuting emperors, idolatrous priests, 
 and heathen philosophers; this conflict ended in 
 the total defeat of Satan’s army, when the opposers 
 of the kingdom of the Messiah were spoiled of their 
 dominion and power, which is intimated by the ex¬ 
 pression, “ he was cast out into the earths This 
 alludes to a time when the Christian Church 
 emerged by a resolute struggle from a state of cap¬ 
 tivity and bondage, when she conquered her ene¬ 
 mies, dethroned them of their dominion and power; 
 then was Satan cast down from his dignity as God 
 and prince of this world. Here, observe, this vic¬ 
 tory is not ascribed to the sword of war, but to the 
 merit and efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, 
 by faith in his blood, and a bold and holy pro¬ 
 fession of his gospel. Hence, it is said, “ they 
 overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by 
 the word of the testimony, and they loved not 
 their lives unto death.” 
 
 Mr. H. has made a great flourish about the ab¬ 
 surdity of a literal interpretation of two passages, . 
 and tlien concludes, that there is no Devil, be¬ 
 cause it would be absurd to interpret those passages 
 literally: we will examine them for a moment. 
 Our Lord said unto Peter, “ get thee behind me, 
 Satan;’''' literally, get thee behind me, thou ctdu^r- 
 sary. Now, the question is, who was this adver- 
 
156 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 sary we answer, Peter. “ Have I not'chosen you 
 twelve, and one of you is a Devil; literally, Have 
 I not chosen you twelve, that is, some time ago; j 
 but in the present tense, one of you is a calumnia- | 
 tor. Who was this calumniatoi' ? we answer, Ju¬ 
 das. We read that Jesus was tempted of the 
 Devil; literally, the accuser or calumniator: but 
 who was this accuser or calumniator 9 We answer, 
 an evil supernatural being. Hence, it is certain, 
 that we do not slide into any absurdity, by interpret¬ 
 ing these passages literally. And if Mr. H. could 
 find ten thousand more passages, where the term 
 Devil, or Satan, were applied to human beings, it 
 would not follow that there was not an evil super¬ 
 natural being, or spiritual Devil, or hellish Satan. 
 
 Should it be asked, how can a finite being tempt j 
 persons in different places at one time—We | 
 answer, 1st. That the Devil has many demons 
 under his direction. 2nd. That we do not pre- j 
 cisely know what relation spirit has to place. 3rd. 
 That we are not sure that evil spirits may not pro¬ 
 duce efiects, which often remain when those spirits 
 are no longer immediately present. We know that 
 a moral principle once imbibed, often produces 
 effects for a long period after the departure of the 
 
 person from v/hom it has been imbibed. 
 
 * 
 
 Mr. H. calls the opinion that there is in existence 
 an evil being, “ an absurd and frightful notion.'" 
 Now, it must be obvious to every attentive reader of 
 these quotations which I have made from Mr. H.’s 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 157 
 
 Lecture, that he believes in an evil principle, 
 which is as bad, nay, worse than the Devil, for 
 this evil principle found its way into the bosom of 
 Jesus Christ, which none of the advocates for the 
 existence of an evil being dare venture to affirm. 
 It is the property of horror to be inconsistent. When 
 the degeneracy of human nature is to be denied, 
 the Unitarians will acknowledge no evil principle ; 
 ^but when the Devil is to be destroyed, his ghost 
 haunts his murderers in the form of an evil 
 PRINCIPLE, which corrupted the pious heart of 
 Eve, and fermented the pious mind of Christ. 
 What Devil that ever was invented, could be worse 
 than this evil principle.” 
 
 In a subject so abstruse in its nature as the pre¬ 
 sent, in the investigation of which the mind is 
 carried into unknown regions, we must expect that 
 mystery will set a boundary to all human reason, 
 a boundary that we can never pass ; and unless we 
 implicitly believe the Bible, we must for ever wan¬ 
 der in darkness. 
 
 Abstracted from revelation, we can neither ac¬ 
 count for the existence or non-existence of the 
 Devil, for the following obvious reason :—The 
 existence of all spirits is beyond our comprehension, 
 above our nature; and whenever we, on the prin¬ 
 ciples of natural reason, can account for their ex¬ 
 istence, then it must necessai'ily cease to be super¬ 
 natural ; and in attempting to make that to be 
 
 natural which we admit to be supernatural, we at- 
 
 o 
 
158 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 tempt to explain that which we admit to be inex¬ 
 plicable. The rules of duty dictate, that we should 
 divest our minds of prejudice to look into our 
 Bibles; and when this is done, we shall soon dis¬ 
 cover, that the doctrine of Devils is no bugbear ; 
 that hell itself’ is an eternal, an indestructable 
 reality, a receptacle prepared for the devil 
 
 AND HIS ANGELS.” 
 
 To assert that God would be unjust if he suffered 
 his rational creatures to be tempted by a supernatural 
 evil being, is the most unaccountable folly. For 
 what does any man know of the justice of that Being, 
 who fills immensity with his presence, before whom 
 angels stand confounded.^ Can any man by search¬ 
 ing find out God, or trace the unfathomed counsels 
 of Deity ? If any finite creature could comprehend 
 this great and exalted Being, and trace his in¬ 
 finite modes of action, he must cease to be infi¬ 
 nite, for finite can never fathom infinite, nor the 
 less encircle the greater. How far the justice of 
 God may permit man to be tempted before he ap¬ 
 proximates towards injustice, lays beyond the con¬ 
 fines of human comprehension to determine. For 
 what does any one know of the justice and govern¬ 
 ment of God.'’ Can any one trace infinite relations, 
 or view completely the amazing chain of causes and 
 effects ? Does it lay within the reach of human 
 understanding to comprehend all the possible forms 
 which justice can assume, and the diversified in¬ 
 stances in which it can display itself.? Is it possible 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 159 
 
 for any finite creature to see the close connection 
 that exists between time and the immense ocean of 
 eternity ? Can any one penetrate all contingencies— 
 all certainties—all probabilities—all realities—ally 
 causes and effects—traverse the unbounded and il¬ 
 limitable regions of space, and survey the close 
 connection that exists in the great chain of intelligent 
 and unbounded being ? If not, no one has a right 
 to conclude that God is unjust in suffering his ra¬ 
 tional creatures to be tempted by an evil being, or 
 that it is inconsistent with his moral government. 
 
 Mr. H. tells us, that “ the supposed existence 
 of an evil being contradicts every rational notion of 
 the Divine power, for this power must of necessity 
 be imperfect, if there is a corrupter busily at work 
 in the universe.” He might with as good a shew 
 of reason have said, that the power of God is im¬ 
 perfect, because he permitted superstitious bigots 
 to quench their thirst in the blood of the martyrs. 
 We have to contend with our own natural passions, 
 the prevalence of surrounding example, the stigma 
 and insults of malignant enemies; but does it follow 
 that God is deficient in power, because he suffers 
 all these enemies to unite together, in order to stop 
 our progress in the ways of piety and virtue. The 
 Apostle tells us, that some of the ancient worthies 
 “ had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings ; yea, 
 moreover, of bonds aud imprisonment. They were 
 stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were 
 slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheep- 
 
l60 ' CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 skins and goat-skins,‘'‘being destitute, afflicted, tor¬ 
 mented.”* But did any of these sufferers ever com¬ 
 plain that the power of God was imperfect.^ "No : 
 they rather said, with good old Elisha—“ Fear not, 
 for they that be with us are more than they that be 
 with them.” God may suffer us to be tempted by 
 our, enemies for a while, but when our warfare is 
 accomplished, he will avenge us of our adversaries, 
 and bless us with an eternal peace. ' 
 
 Infinite power can do every thing that does not 
 imply a contradiction. He could, with infinite ease, 
 annihilate the revolving sphere in which we live, 
 and destroy the entity of all created existencies in a 
 moment. Whatever depends upon infinite power 
 for its accomplishment, except it imply a contradic¬ 
 tion, can be effected. 
 
 Modern infidels, and particularly that implacable 
 character, Richard Carlile, has done much of 
 • late to propagate the opinion that matter is eternal, 
 and that it can never be destroyed. In passing, I 
 would observe, that if we admit matter to be eter¬ 
 nal, we must admit many self-evident absurdities ; 
 and that it can be destroyed, is neither impossible, 
 contradictious, nor absurd. If there be in existence 
 an infinite power, it is possible for matter to be de¬ 
 stroyed, unless we suppose matter to be more than 
 infinite, which is an absurd contradiction. 
 
 “ Nor is the belief in the existence of an evil 
 spirit,” says Mr. H. “ less hostile to the sublime 
 
 Heb. xi. 36, 37. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 161 
 
 attribute of Divine wisdom.” Is it possible to 
 imagine, tliat he \vliose knowledge is perfect and uni¬ 
 versal, eould have devised a method for the trial 
 of human virtue, which subverts the first principle 
 of moralityHere, observe, that this part of Mr. 
 H.’s reasoning is founded upon a false principle, 
 viz. that God has devised, or invented, the Devil to 
 tempt his children, merely to try their virtue; 
 therefore, the superstructure that is built on this 
 absurd principle, must be false. It would have 
 been equally as good logic if he had said, that God 
 created every persecuting sinner, and every other 
 temptation, merely to try the virtue of his people. 
 The true state of the case may be illustrated by 
 two or three examples :—1st. When Joseph’s 
 brethren sold him to the Ishmaelites, it was a vo¬ 
 luntary action on their part, and though God per¬ 
 mitted it, he did not devise it; but he so over¬ 
 ruled this free and voluntary action for good, as to 
 make it the very means of advancing Joseph next 
 to the throne of Pharaoh, and of saving the whole 
 family of Israel alire. 
 
 2nd. When David voluntarily and courageously 
 engageddn contest with Goliath, God made this 
 spontaneous and free action subservient to the in¬ 
 terest of this young son of Jesse, and the very 
 means of advancing him to the throne of Israel. 
 
 3rd. And when the enemies of the Messiah crucified 
 
 and put him to death, such was the wisdom of God, 
 
 that he overruled it for good, and though it was a 
 
 o 2 
 
162 
 
 CONCLUDING REMAllKS. 
 
 free act on their part, yet (lod effected the re¬ 
 demption of the world by it. And though Satan 
 may voluntarily tempt the true followers of Christ, 
 such is the wisdom of God, that he makes these 
 very temptations subservient to the interest and 
 advancement of the Messiah’s kingdom. 
 
 Nor is it inconsistent with the Divine goodness, 
 for Satan can only tempt or allure, he cannot 
 COMPEL. And every true disciple of Jesus may 
 ask,' with an inspired Apostle, “ Who shall se¬ 
 parate us from the love of Christ —shall tribula¬ 
 tion, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or 
 nakedness, or peril, or sword i^ay? in all these 
 things we are more than conquerors through him 
 that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither 
 death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor 
 powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 
 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall 
 be able to separate us from the love of God, which 
 is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Nor can Satan pre¬ 
 vent any one from coming to Christ; man is a free 
 agent, and cannot be compelled. Satan may tempt 
 or allure, but in vain, if man be determined by 
 the grace of God to come. And be it remembered, 
 that a sinner had better contend with the allure¬ 
 ments of Satan, with the Spirit of God to sup])ort 
 him, than have to contend merely with his own pas¬ 
 sions, without the Spirit of God to assist him. 
 
 ' I 
 
 “ Some dream, that they can silence when they will 
 
 The storm of passion, and say—/>e«ce, Jte still; 
 
CONCLUDING UEMARKS. 
 
 16 S 
 
 But, ‘ Thus far and no farther f when addressed 
 To the wild waves, or wilder human breast, 
 
 Implies authority, that never can, 
 
 That never ought to be the lot of man.” 
 
 Therefore, the orthodox Christian, though he 
 may have to contend against the temptations of the 
 Devil, yet, with the Spirit of God to assist him, 
 he stands upon a more lirm and sure basis, than 
 any Unitarian who has to contend against an evil 
 principle, without the Spirit of the living God to 
 support him. 
 
 “ Bound on a voyage of awful length, 
 
 And dangers little known ; 
 
 A stranger to superior strength, 
 
 Man vainly trusts his own. 
 
 But ours alone can ne’er prevail, 
 
 To reach this distant coast; 
 
 The breath of heav’n must swell the sail, 
 
 Or all the toil is lost.” 
 
 Mr. H. tells us towards the close of his lecture, 
 “ that natural light and natural darkness, cannot pos¬ 
 sibly be so much at variance, as the cotemporary 
 existence of a good and evil principle in the moral 
 world !” Having already met with so rtiany con¬ 
 tradictions, misrepresentations, and absurdities, in 
 Mr. H.’s lecture, my ir ind is prepared for the re¬ 
 ception of this. The attentive reader will remem¬ 
 ber, that Mr. H. has often acknowledged the ex¬ 
 istence of a good and evil principle; and he has 
 endeavoured to explain many passages of Scripture, 
 
164 - 
 
 -CONCLUDINCi REMARKS. 
 
 by saying its language was evidently a personifi¬ 
 cation of good and bad principles ; yea, he acknow¬ 
 ledges a good and bad principle to have heaved the 
 bosom of Jesus Christ, at one and the same time. 
 But here this consistent reasoner tells us, that 
 light and darkness are not more opposed to each 
 other, than the cotemporary existence of a good and 
 bad principle. If we trace this assertion to its ul¬ 
 timate tendency, it is not only at variance with every 
 part of his lecture, but it annihilates at one stroke, 
 all the evil that exists in the world ; or else, every 
 principle of virtue and moral goodness, that exists 
 in the universe. Therefore, if we should admit the 
 wild chimeras of these men, we should at once be led 
 into the bewildering vortex of absurdity, and expire 
 amidst rhapsody and confusion. 
 
 Whether the present essay, like the bursting 
 bubbles on the passing stream, will expire, or it will 
 pass on to ages yet to come, which its author can 
 never reach, are points which events alone can 
 decide. 
 
 The author of this essay, returns his warmest 
 thanks to his numerous, and highly respectable list 
 of subscribers, for their kind patronage. If the 
 work should not entirely meet with their appro¬ 
 bation, he begs them to keep the words of Burns in 
 mind.— 
 
 “ An’ ablins, when it winnastaa’ the test, 
 
 “ Wink hard, an’ say, ‘ the chap has done his best’. ” 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 165 
 
 Or tlie generous maxim of Pope— 
 
 “ To err—is human: to forgive—divine.” 
 
 The author hopes it will be a sufficient apology 
 for this long delay of publishing, to say, that when 
 he had got the work ready for the press, and a 
 certain portion printed, he found that he had more 
 written than two volumes would contain ; conse¬ 
 quently, he was obliged to take it home and abridge 
 it: and be it remembered, that his family depends 
 upon his hand labour for its support; consequently, 
 his time was limited, and he had to write the 
 work over again, at a time when he should have 
 been asleep ; and in addition to which delay, it has 
 been detained a long time in the press, for which 
 delay, the author is sorry : and likewise he hopes, 
 that the candid and impartial reader will ever bear 
 in mind, that the author has not had the advan¬ 
 tages of a liberal education. From an early period 
 of his existence, he was convinced of the depravity 
 of human nature, and the necessity of salvation by 
 faith in the attonement; consequently he was led 
 to seek redemption through the merits and efficacy 
 of Christ’s death, and to cast off all dependence upon 
 any thing he could do or suffer: and the author is 
 of the same opinion, that salvation is of grace, from 
 first to last; and he trusts that in a little while, he 
 will have to sing with the redeemed above, that 
 ever-blessed anthem, “ Not unto us, but unto thy 
 name be all the praise.” 
 
166 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Should there be any thing said in this essay, 
 whicli the reader may think harsh and severe, the 
 author hopes he will attribute it to the heat of con¬ 
 troversy, and not to any malicious design which the 
 author has against Mr. H. As touching Mr. H.’s 
 moral character, the author highly esteems him ; 
 and he candidly and honestly confesses, that as a 
 benevolent and moral character, Mr. H. is worthy 
 of being set forth as an example ; and firmly be¬ 
 lieves, that in acts of charity and kindness, he is 
 exceeded by none, if equalled by many. Notwith¬ 
 standing Mr. H.’s amiable and unimpeachable cha¬ 
 racter, as it respects morality, such is the dreadful 
 nature of his religious principles, that were his 
 morals ten thousand times more excellent, they 
 would not stand in equilibrium against the evil ten¬ 
 dency of these principles. And so long as Mr. 
 H. entertains these principles, though the author 
 may esteem him as a benevolent character, yet he 
 cannot concede to him the term of Christian Minister. 
 It is Mr. H.’s religious principles, and those alone, 
 that these pages are directed against; and how far 
 the author has succeeded in his endeavours to con¬ 
 fute these principles, is left for the candid and im¬ 
 partial reader to determine. May the God of all 
 grace, and the giver of all our blessings, grant that 
 the reader and author, may at last meet in the man¬ 
 sions of the blessed, and sing together, through a 
 never-ending eternity, “ Worthy is the Lamb that 
 was slain, to receive honour, and glory, and blessing, 
 for ever and ever.” Amen. 
 
NAMES OF SUBSCRIBERS 
 
 BHADFOBO. 
 
 ftev. W. Atkinson, A.M. 
 
 . W. Morgan, B.D. 
 
 2 Copies. 
 
 . J. Taylor, 
 
 . \\ . Steadman, D D. 
 
 .J. 7’ownley, D.D. 
 
 . B. Godwin, 
 
 .John Flickling’, 
 
 . John Hiffff, 
 
 . T. Taylor, 
 
 .. N. T. Heineken, 
 
 . E. Sandys, 
 
 . A. Nichols, 
 
 . R. T. Freasou, 
 
 . J’hos. Wilmore, 
 
 Wm. Pollard, Esq. 
 
 Joshua Pollard, Esq. 
 
 John Rand, Esq. Jun. 
 Henry Dawson, Esq. 
 
 A Friend, 
 
 John Simpson, M.D. 
 
 John Outhwaite, M.D. 
 
 Mr. Beaumont, Surgeon, 
 ...... J. A. Illingworth, Ditto 
 
 . Alex. Muir, Ditto, 
 
 .John Trotter, Ditto, 
 
 . T. Inkersley, 3 Copies, 
 
 .John Key, Druggist, 
 
 . J . Rimrraington, Ditto, 
 
 .. W. Atkinson, Ditto, 
 
 . James Rennie, 
 
 . J. Midgiey, 
 
 .John Lawson, 
 
 '.. Thos. Haigh, 
 
 . E. VVarburton, 
 
 .. Thos. Holmes, 
 
 Mr. Sherwin, 
 
 . A. Brumfit, 
 
 .John Allott, 
 
 . Thos. Robertson, 
 
 ...... Wm. Mellor, 
 
 . J. Parkinson, 
 
 . Wm. Smith, 
 
 .James Marshall, 
 
 .John Blackburn, 
 
 . M’C'roben, 
 
 Miss Mary Brumli!;, 
 
 Mr. Michael Ogden, 
 
 . Thos. Wyrill, 
 
 .John Greenwood, 
 
 . Wm. Tetley, 
 
 .John Davis, 
 
 . G. Nicholson, 
 
 . E. Nicholson, 
 
 .W. H. Blackburn, 
 
 . John Stanfield, 
 
 .John Tankred, 
 
 Robert Halliday, 
 Robert Almgiil, 
 
 Wm. Rnapton, 
 
 J. Rush ton, 
 
 Richard Waddington, 
 S. Moore, 
 
 E. J. Mitchell, 
 
 Thos. Fearnley, 
 David Smith, 
 
 Wm. Hall, 
 
 J. Milnes, 
 
 M. Milligan, 
 
 W. Milligan, 
 
 Wra. Marshall, 
 
 J. Ward, 
 
 Wm. Pullan, 
 
 Wm. Wells, 
 
368 
 
 Names of Subscribers. 
 
 Mr. John Taylor, 
 
 .Thos. Liversedge, 
 
 .Th os. Wilkinson, 
 
 ...... David March, 
 
 A Friend, 
 
 A Friend, 
 
 Mr. John Marshall, 
 
 . John Taylor, 
 
 A Friend, 
 
 Mr. Geo. Mawson, 
 
 . J. Wells, 
 
 Mr. John Leaper, 
 
 .David Hillary. 
 
 BIERLEY. 
 
 Rev. J. B. Cartwright, A.M. 
 
 . Thos. Clayton, 
 
 . G. Gibson, 
 
 ... John Law, 
 
 .S. Clough, 
 
 .James Swaine, 
 
 BAILDON. 
 
 t 
 
 Rev. R. Shnfflebotham, 
 
 Mr. M. Stead, 
 
 BINjGLEY. 
 
 Rev. Win. Cooper, B.A. 
 
 Mr. Wm. Holdsworth. 
 
 BRAMLEY. 
 
 Mr. M. Smith. 
 
 Mr. John Cole, 
 
 .Thomas Wright, 
 
 .J ohn Clayton, 
 
 . I. Ellis, 
 
 .J. Hustler, 
 
 .. I. Wells, 
 
 . R. Sugden, 
 
 ...... VVm. Wright, 
 
 .J. Riley, 
 
 . B. Marsden, 
 
 .C. Probert, 
 
 .M. Pitts, 
 
 . C. Dearden, 
 
 .D. Clayton, 
 
 . G. Field, 
 
 . S. Sharp, 
 
 . Wm. Wilkinson, 
 
 . J. Crabtree, 
 
 .William Cole, 
 
 .James Ludlam, 
 
 . Edward Unwin, 
 
 .J. Wells, 
 
 .J. West, 
 
 .Thos. Owroyd, 
 
 . J. Stead, 
 
 ...... Wm. .Smith. 
 
 . Jonathan Wells, 
 
 BIRSTAL. 
 
 Rev. .John Nelson, 
 
 CALVERLEY. 
 
 Rev. S. Redhead, Vicar. 
 
 Mr. Wm. Johnstone, 2 Copies. 
 
 BOWLING. 
 
 G. B. Paley, Esq. 
 
 Mr. Bankart, 
 
 Mr. V. m, Terry, 
 
 . .1. Thompson, 
 
 . G. Akroyd, 
 
 .William Mellor, 
 
 . Michael Billingsley,, 
 
 . Geo. Gomersal, 
 
 CLECKHEATON. 
 
 Rev. Geo. W'intcr, 2 Copies. 
 Rev, James Scott, 2 Copies. 
 Rev. S. Armitage, 
 
 Mr. Alex. Dixon. 
 
 . J.Crosley, 
 
 DAISY-HILL. 
 
 Mr John Clayton. 
 
169 
 
 Names of Subscribers. 
 
 UEVVSBURY. 
 
 Rev. T. Robinson. 
 
 ECCLESHILL. 
 
 Mr. £. Gaunt, Surgfeoii 2 Cop. 
 
 . J. Thornton, 
 
 . Wm. Yewdall, 
 
 . Wm. Yewdall, Jiin. 
 
 . John Barraclough. 
 
 PARSLEY. 
 
 Kev. Jonas Forster, 
 
 . FULNECK. 
 
 Rev. J. Kola^es, 
 
 .C. Reichel, 
 
 .Thos. Rogers, 
 
 Mr. John Smith, Surgeon, 
 
 .J. Collins, 
 
 . Mr. R. Clayton. 
 
 GILDERSOME. 
 
 Rev. Wm. Scarlett, 
 
 Wm. Hudson, Esq. 
 
 HAXBY-HALL. 
 
 Rev. John Heslop, 2 Copies. 
 
 HORSFORTH. 
 
 Mr. Wilkinson, Surgeon, 
 
 HORTON. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Boddington, 
 
 John Knight, Esq. 
 
 Benjamin Knight, Esq. 
 
 Mrs. Charnock, 
 
 Mr. T. Hirst, 
 
 . W. Kellet, 4 Copies, 
 
 . C. Haley, 
 
 . T. Biamires, 
 
 Mr. James Shaw, 
 
 .James Brooke, 
 
 .John Hudson, 
 
 .Timothy Rawnsley, 
 
 .John Hudson, 
 
 .James Wheater, 
 
 .J. Sutcliffe, 
 
 . John Chadwick. 
 
 IDLE. 
 
 Rev. Wm. Vint, 
 
 . Thos. Howaitli. 
 
 KELBURN. 
 
 Rev. John Horner, A.M. Fel 
 low of Clare-Hall, Cam¬ 
 bridge, 8 Copies. 
 
 LIVERSEDGE. 
 
 A Friend. 
 
 LOW-MOOR. 
 
 Mr. J. Tordoff, 
 
 . John Wright, 
 
 . G. Greenwood, 
 
 . E. Carter, 
 
 . J. Worsnop, 
 
 . Thos. Fearnley. 
 
 LEEDS. 
 
 Rev. F. T. Cookson, A.M. 
 
 . A. Farrar, 
 
 . R. W. Hamilton, 
 
 . Thos. Scales, 
 
 . Thos. Stanley, 
 
 .J, P. Maliison, 
 
 Mr. Wm. Dawson, 
 
 . R. Votts, • 
 
 . C. Bowes, 
 
 .J. W. Howard, Surgeon, 
 
 A Friend, 
 
 Mr. Peter Collier, 
 
 . Thos. Fenteman. 
 
170 
 
 A'anic.s- of Suhcribcrs. 
 
 \ 
 
 MIRFIELD. 
 
 Rev. Thos. Sedg wick, Vicar, 
 . N. Ray. 
 
 PUDSEY. 
 
 Rev, David Jenkins, 
 
 . Thos. Laird, 
 
 Mrs. Carlile, 
 
 31 r. J Parker, 
 
 . G. Pool. 
 
 .J. Holmes, 
 
 .J. Watson, 
 
 .John Dufton, 
 
 . J. Sutcliffe. 
 
 . RICHMOxND. 
 
 Rev. W. Howarth. 
 
 SHIPLEY. 
 
 Rev. 1. 3Iann, 2 Copies. 
 
 3Ir. Thos. Tilley. 
 
 SPANNING LEY. 
 
 Mr. J. Rayne , 
 
 ...... G. Wilson, 
 
 . C. Taylor, 
 
 .J. Giggins. 
 
 SMIDDLES. 
 
 31r. J. Sutcliffe, 
 
 .0. Hill, 
 
 .John Haw, 
 
 . .John Sutcliffe, 
 
 . B. North, 
 
 . C. Rotheray, 
 
 .J. Wilkinson, 
 
 Miss Whitehead. 
 
 TONG. 
 
 Rev. W. Uammerton. 
 
 .John Driver, A.B. 
 
 (’aplain Leroyd. 
 
 Mr. Balm, 
 
 . H. Carr, 
 
 .Wm. Cawthray, 
 
 .Wm. Marsden, 
 
 .John Holmes, 
 
 . G. Hill, 
 
 ..J. Rogers, 
 
 .. J. Fenteman, 
 
 . P. Marsden, 
 
 . H. 3Iuffet, 
 
 . E. 3Iarsden, 
 
 ...... H. Jowett, 
 
 . B. Schofield, 
 
 .S. Marsden, 
 
 . Wm.tBolton, 
 
 .J. Jennings, 
 
 .J. J’hackray, 
 
 .J. Leeroyd, 
 
 . A. Hopkinson, 
 
 .J. Andes, 
 
 . R. Hill, 
 
 .J. Day, 
 
 .J. Pitts, 
 
 .J. Mirfield, 
 
 .A. Holmes, 
 
 .J. Rhodes, 
 
 ...... J. Clough, 
 
 .. R. Firth, 
 
 .J. Marsden, 
 
 .J. Gomersal, 
 
 .J. Driver, 
 
 31is3 Holds worth, 
 
 Mrs. Sutcliffe, 
 
 Mr. J. Holmes, 
 
 ...... John Brooke, 
 
 ...... J. Shires, 
 
 . J. 3Vilkinson, 
 
 TYERSAL. 
 
 H. Simons, Esq. 
 
 .Mr. Thos. Beanland, 
 
 .J. Bulloch, 
 
 . 1. Burebel 1, 
 
 WIRE. 
 
 Rev. B. Firth, 2 Copies, 
 Mr. J. Collins. 
 
 r. INKERSI.F.y, PRINTER, RRADFORD. 
 

 \ 
 
 '*■1 . 
 
■iT 
 • « 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 .y 
 
 •■1 
 
I