I take to be correctly quoted, but as they are built on the rationalist assumption, that reason should sit in judgment on what the Bible ought to teach, and is at liberty to reject this or that, as not taught, when the plainest language asserts it, if it do not consist with our antecedent opinions of what is reasonable, instead of simply inquiring by the uses of the general rules of language, what is the meaning of the writer, I do not consider myself called upon particularly to notice them. The admission of such a principle is a departure from the legitimate principles of interpretation, and from such principles as Mr. B. himself has tacitly acknowledged through the main part of the discussion. The question is not whether it "comports with the dignity and sanctity of the Redeemer to be seen in conference with satan," nor any of a thousand such questions as might be started, but what saith the sacred record? If that be intelligible and true, the Redeemer was found, while in his voluntary humiliation, in many positions which to Mr. Farmer's mind might not seem to comport with his dignity and sanctity. All the objections here stated are therefore irrelevant to the question, what does this passage inculcate respecting evil spirits?

Mr. B. makes the tempter here a personification of three distinct things. In the first part of the story, he makes the devil to mean hunger; in the second, flesh and blood; and in the third, worldly grandeur. The first difficulty I have to suggest to this way of interpreting the passage is, that the occurrence of personification in such a narrative, and in such a connexion,is an absurdity without a parallel. Personification the most perspicuous of all figures, never occurs in any writings, sacred or profane, where it is possible to doubt whether the sense be figurative. Mr. B. is challenged to find another instance in the whole compass of written composition, where personification is introduced, in a manner so obscure, as to be mistaken for the literal sense. If this be an instance of personification it is marvellous that the study of the Bible for eighteen centuries by many of the most accomplished scholars, has never until now revealed the fact. And then what in

creases the difficulty is, that this personification is not true to itself, but that it assumes any and every shape, to elude detection or to suit the convenience of the interpreter. In the case before us it becomes three distinct things in one story. We have on the principle supposed, a devil so accommodating, as to become now lust or desire, now the Sabean and Chaldean free-booters, now hunger, now flesh and blood, now the glory and grandeur of the world, now the persecuting Jews, now the rigidity of the back bone, now dead men deified, and any thing that the exigences of a desperate cause demand. Το be convinced that this is an unwarrantable use of language, take any other word frequently personified, and see if it is capable of thus expressing different things? Take for instance Death. This has sometimes the properties of a living person ascribed to it, and is sometimes addressed as a living being, as -O Death where is thy sting? Destruction and Death say we have heard the fame thereof with our ears. Death is represented as riding upon a pale horse. Here are three instances, very diverse in which the same object is personified, and you see that the object still remains the same in all.

But let us see how these three devils figure in the passage before us. It should read to give us the sense (?)—Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of three devils, hunger, flesh and blood, and the grandeur of the world, and when he had fasted forty days he was an hungered. And when hunger came to him hunger said unto him, if thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Jesus said unto hunger, it is written man shall not live by bread alone. (Exit hunger.) Then flesh and blood taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, &c. and Jesus said unto him, it is written again (why again if he is addressing now another person) thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Exit flesh and blood.) And worldly grandeur taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, (worldly grandeur must have had powerful op

serve.

tical instruments) and saith all these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus-unto him, get thee hence, worldly grandeur. For it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou Then worldly grandeur left him, and the angels came and ministered unto him. And as angels must be the opposite of devils, and as Mr. B. seems not to believe in any spiritual beings, by that name, I suppose these angels were the opposites of the three devils above named whose exploits we have considered, that is, fulness of bread, spirituality of mind, and worldly poverty and degradation. These angels came and ministered to him. What beautiful and lofty sentiments are here set forth, and with what finished drapery are they clothed! Here we have flesh and blood pleading to be cast down from the pinnacle of the temple, as though flesh and blood delighted in such exercises and could artfully misquote the scriptures, to procure the desired privilege.

Luke 10: 18. And he said unto them beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven. Here Mr. B. gives us to understand that satan must be used in a tropical sense, for human adversaries of the gospel, because, serpents and scorpions in the context are used figuratively. I will quote it in its connexion. And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven; Behold I give you power to tread on serpents, and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Now suppose serpents and scorpions, were used figuratively, there is nothing which would imply that saBut they are not used figuratively, the passage is most plainly parallel to that in Mark where similar privileges are conferred in these words,-In my name shall they cast out devils, and they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. Now this had a literal fulfillment. They did speak with new tongues, as on the day of pentecost; they did take up serpents unhurt, as in the Island of Melita. So Mr.

tan was.

B.'s attempt to prove a figurative sense fails in both premises. But this reasoning is followed up by such a question as this. "I would ask how many fallings from heaven satan has had; for he fell from heaven before he tempted eve, and fell again it seems while the seventy disciples were on their tour of preaching. But how did he get to heaven to make that second fall, and while there, was he walking over the earth seeking whom he may devour ?" Mr. B. has here amused himself with one of his own mistakes. The passage does not say that he fell while they were on their tour of preaching, but evidently refers to his original apostacy and fall. As Mr. B. seems here to assume with so much assurance that his opponents must receive the interpretation of this passage which he imputes to them, I will quote from so common a book as Scott's Family Bible. A book that probably coincides with, and influences the opinions of the orthodox more extensively than any other uninspired book: "When therefore they returned to him, (doubtless at the time and place appointed) they told him with joyful surprise that not only diseases, but even devils had been subject to them through his name. Our Lord, however, pointed out far more valuable blessings to be conferred on his disciples. He observed he beheld satan fall as lightning from heaven. Satan had thus instantaneously been cast down from heaven, on his original apostacy. And his usurped dominion on earth, with the idolatrous worship which he had devised to establish, was about to be thrown down in the same sudden and surprising manner, by means of the gospel preached to the nations, in which the seventy disciples should in a short time be employed. So that their success in casting out devils, was only an emblem of a far more decisive victory, which they and their coadjutors and successors would by his power obtain over satan, the ruler of the whole multitude of evil spirits." Does this make it appear that satan had had so many falls from heaven?

And now Mr. B. will you be so good as to tell, when it was that the adversaries of the gospel fell from the political heavens, of which you speak, before the apostles,-when it was that

"all the cunning and powerful adversaries of the gospel were so hurled from their seats of political power?" Was not political power during all the lives of the apostles, and for many centuries after, and for the most part till this day, the leading engine of opposition to the gospel? The gospel wrought its way in spite of political power, steadily arrayed against it, till the days of Constantine, and then it was received within the friendly embrace of this power, only to be palsied and crushed the sooner. Mr. B. would do well to have some care to have his interpretations tally with historical facts..

Luke 13: 16. Ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom satan hath bound, lo these eighteen years, be loosed from her bonds on the Sabbath day? Here and in some of the succeeding passages I shall quote from the above named writer in the Christian Magazine. "In this passage Mr. B. makes the cause and the effect, the agent and the action,one and the same thing. He makes the spirit of infirmity, not only the satan who bound the woman, but the bond with which she was bound. Accordingly satan must have bound this woman with himself, for eighteen years. Now as satan who bound her, and the infirmity with which she was bound, were one and the same, the passage may read thus:-Ought not this woman being a daughter of Abraham, whom the spirit of infirmity hath bound with the spirit of infirmity, lo these eighteen years, be loosed from this spirit of infirmity on the Sabbath day? Again, Mr. B. says, this complaint, medical men have called the rigidity of the back-bone. The rigidity of the back-bone, therefore, according to Mr. B. was the satan who bound the woman, and the satan with which she was bound. The passage then, may read thus-Ought not this. woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom the rigidity of the back-bone hath bound with the rigidity of the back-bone, be loosed from this rigidity of the back-bone on the Sabbath day? But Mr. B. says, 'let us suppose that satan positively was the cause of this woman's disorder, what follows? It follows that our Lord neither on this nor any other occasion warned men against his great power and malignity; nor were the people half so much alarmed as they