I say ye are of your father, the devil," in whose personal existence and influence he knew them to believe, when at the same time he knew he was uttering an untruth; knew that there was no devil; that they could not be influenced by any such evil being; and that their belief was an "oriental fiction"? Should the Saviour now ask "who convinceth me of sin?" the reply would be easy, the writer quoted from the Register. "You say there is a devil. You know better. There is none. I do not believe you, because you do not say the truth." If that writer object to this as harsh, or in any way unfair, let him explain how those Jews necessarily understood Christ. It is not enough to say, that they sometimes perverted his meaning, wresting it to a sense which he did not intend. What, in the present instance, was the inevitable import of the Saviour's language? What meaning did he intend to convey to the ears of Jews, with their education, opinions and feelings, followers, as they were, of the Pharisees? I call upon the Unitarian critics, those best skilled in the science of interpretation as stated by Carpenter and Ernesti, to answer these short simple questions;* What did Christ, addressing Jews, followers of the Pharisees, mean, when he said, " ye are of your father, the devil”?

What must such Jews have understood him to mean? What did they mean when they disclaimed such a parentage, and threw a similar charge back upon him? The whole subject is here contained in a nutshell. Either Christ did assert to these Jews the existence and influence of a mighty evil spirit, or we must "go the whole" of the accommodation system, as advanced and de

* Before any gentleman reply to this argument, I would invite him to read Carpenter's introductory chapter to his work on Unitarianism. The principles of interpretation, stated by this writer, are generally correct, and happily expressed. I will only add, if he and his American coadjutors will abide by these principles, the question, as to the existence and influence of evil spirits, is settled.

*

fended by Semler, in its broadest and most offensive shape. Every mind, capable of understanding principles and of applying them logically, will see that there is no middle ground here. But, perhaps, some may think that these Jews might not have been all Pharisees, but part Sadducees. Grant it. What difficulty is removed? The dilemma will then be, he either knowingly confirmed an existing false impression, in case they were Pharisees, or asserted for truth what his hearers rejected as falsehood, if they were Sadducees. In the latter case, what room remains for any supposable species of "accommodation"? Let the impugners of the doctrine asserted, take which horn they please, neither will relieve the Saviour from the charge of teaching falsely, if he did not teach the existence and agency of evil spirits. From the passage quoted from John's gospel, and from the preceding remarks, these three inferences are fairly deducible.

"servant

1. The Jews did not understand the phrase, of sin," that is, of the evil principle, as a perfect synonyme with "child of the devil." It is evident that there was a personality of meaning attached to the latter phrase, over and above the import of the former.

2. The Saviour assumes the fact of the existence of an evil spirit, who was a liar and a murderer (homicide) from the beginning. This fact the Saviour assumes, asserts and reasserts.

3. The existence of such an agent is not denied, but *The accommodation system represents "Christ and his apostles as speaking and teaching in accordance with the erroneous opinions of their hearers, and as not expressing precisely and truly their own opinions." See Storr's Theology, vol. i. p. 228. For a full refutation of this fundamental principle of infidel neology, see the treatise on "The Historical Sense," by the same able writer. A new and revised edition of this treatise is much needed at the present moment. The learned and industrious translator would add to our many obligations of gratitude, another of no slight weight, by a new edition of that masterly performance.

assented to, and asserted on their part by the irritated and captious Jews.

But if, according to the "rational" interpretation, the word "devil" mean "principle of evil," it will not be easy to clear the Saviour from uttering, or confirming at least, three distinct untruths. He allowed, in this conversation, two falsehoods to pass uncontradicted, and asserted that which substantiated them. Was such the practice of the true and living teacher? Does any one say, "these were a blind, ignorant multitude. They could not know the truth"? The more need, one would think, that their errors should be rectified, not confirmed. But the fallacy of such an objection will soon be appa

rent.

II. Jesus taught the same doctrine to the Pharisees, as

a sect.

Proof. Matt. xii. 22-29. "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand; and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else, how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." Compare Mark, iii. 22-27, Luke, xi. 14-26, also Matthew, ix.

32-34. A man possessed of a devil, blind and dumb, had been restored by Jesus to sight and speech. The multitude, astonished at this miraculous display of power, asked, Is not this the promised son of David, the expected Messiah? The Pharisees, indignant that a carpenter's son should be mistaken by the populace for the king of Israel, answer this question by a most malignant charge against Jesus. "This fellow casts out devils, not by divine power, but by the assistance and co-operation of the prince of the devils." Jesus refutes the charge by this argument. "No one will destroy his own power. But Satan would destroy his own power were he to cast out himself. Therefore it is not by the assistance of Satan that I cast out devils. No. It is a stronger than he that hath come upon him. Here now is the proof of my divine mission. If I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils, then it is plain that the king lom of God has come unto you, the reign of the Messiah, the mighty descendant of David, under whom Satan is to be crushed, has commenced." Here the Saviour makes the evidence of his messiahship. turn on the fact of the subjection of evil spirits to him. This is the very point, the gist of the argument. Did he know it or not? Did the Pharisees thus understand him or not? Was the argument valid or not? Should any one suppose this was an ad hominem argument, let him read the record of this conversation as given by the three evangelists. Is there the remotest hint, the slightest ground in their narratives for such a supposition? Is it not an entire assumption? Does not the Saviour address the Pharisees with most evident sincerity and earnestness? Still more, was it necessary to give additional confirmation to their error? This, if it were an error, he did according to Luke, xi. 24-26. He here repeats the same doctrine, in entirely different phraseology. On what other occasion did Christ stake the

truth of his mission on an untruth, an oriental fiction"? In what other case was he so complaisant to the Pharisees, so tolerant of error and falsehood? In the fifteenth and twenty third chapters of Matthew, the reader will find that Christ openly denounced the Scribes and Pharisees, as hypocrites, as fools, blind leaders of the blind, closing with this terrible denunciation, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Was this the class of teachers whose errors Christ confirmed in the hearing of "all the people"?

Should a doubt yet lurk in the mind of any one, whether he might not have designed by this argument merely to silence his cavilling and supercilious opponents, no room will remain for such a doubt when we have considered,

III. That Christ taught the same doctrine to his disciples in private.

Proof. In Matt. xiii. 24-30, is recorded the parable of the tares, which was spoken in the hearing of "great multitudes, that were gathered together unto him." In 36—39 verses we have this interpretation of the parable by Christ himself. "Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house; and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy, that sowed them, is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." I ask in the name of reason, of conscience, and of common sense, if words could have been selected more explicit, to express the same truth in the same compass ? Words must fail to express ideas, and human language be given up not only as a medium of revelation, but as a medium of intercourse between