workings, and place the sinner forever beyond its reach? If it arrest forever the course of God's mercy, why should it not, in like manner, arrest the course of what Mr. Barnes calls his justice? If it change not the sinner for the better, why should it change the Deity for the worse?

We most firmly believe that virtue will not be suffered to go unrewarded; nor can vice escape its condign punishment. Though the wicked may be the old or "new possessors" of the "profoundest hell," and may carry it within them from youth to middle age, from middle to old age, from country to country, from clime to clime, and even from one world to another, still the same God presides over them and their destinies, bears to them the same relation of Creator and Father, in one state as another; and when, like Jonah, they cry to him, 66 out of the belly of hell" he will hear their voice, or when, like David, who before he was afflicted went astray, but afterwards learned to keep God's law, they truly repent and call on God, through Christ, for mercy, he will, as in the case of the Psalmist, "deliver" their "soul from the lowest hell." They shall obtain mercy that had not obtained mercy; she shall be called beloved that was not beloved; and it shall come to pass in the place where it was said, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God.

To conclude. The great popularity of Mr. Barnes as a writer, the wide influence his writings have exerted and are still exerting in the religious community, and the reputation this Essay has obtained by its being made introductory to Butler's Analogy, a standard work and text-book in nearly all our colleges, have induced us to notice his work somewhat at length, and to show, as we trust we have succeeded in doing, that his own weapons are quite as sharp when turned against his theory as when employed against the infidel, and far more so than when aimed against the doctrine of the "restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began "-that reason, analogy, Christianity, revelation, all go against his theory of endless misery, while neither of them can be legitimately turned against our glorious faith when correctly stated, but that all of them sustain it; besides which fact, it har

monizes with the best affections and holiest desires of all good beings, not excepting Mr. Barnes himself, who, in the absence of this faith, declares that all is dark, dark, dark, to his soul, and he cannot disguise it.

D. S.

ART. XXVIII.

Scripture Doctrine of Satan, or the Devil.

THE belief in an evil deity, who is the author of all suf fering and misfortune, was common among the ancient nations. This belief may have been varied, or modified, to adapt it to the peculiar notions of different people, yet in some form it extensively prevailed.

The ancient Hebrews were an exception, since they seem not to have entertained this opinion in any form. They were taught to believe that Jehovah was the author of all things which befel them, whether good or evil. They were taught that there was no other being who had power to order events, or to direct the affairs of men. The Lord says, through the prophet, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." (Isa. xlv. 7.) For a long time they continued in this doctrine, rigidly adhering to it through every change which they, as a nation, experienced. But at length the primitive simplicity of their faith was corrupted; they adopted the belief in an evil deity, ascribing to him the evils which befel them in life. And since their belief in an evil deity is the basis of a similar belief, which so widely prevails among Christians, it is important to ascertain what was its origin, and precisely what it was.

To learn the opinion of the Jews respecting an evil deity, and to trace the progress of that opinion, it will be convenient to divide their history into three periods.

The first period will embrace that portion of their history which was written before the Babylonian captivity. At the commencement of their national organization, all

matters pertaining to religion were carefully prescribed and regulated by Moses. A succession of religious teachers was raised up, who labored diligently to preserve the faith of the people from admixture of foreign and false elements. Schools of the prophets were established, in which young men were instructed in the religion of Moses, and taught to observe and honor it. Hence it is not to be expected that the nation would readily change their religious opinions. Yet the people, as a mass, were prone to idolatry, and many times departed from their allegiance to Jehovah so far as to worship the gods of the people in the midst, or in the vicinity, of whom they lived. It does not appear, however, that their faith in the Author of all things underwent any important change in this portion of their history. Setting aside the book of Job, as of uncer tain date and authorship, and consequently of no value in the present discussion, there is no evidence that they believed in any deity but Jehovah. Him alone they were taught to worship, to him alone they were directed to offer sacrifice, and no other divine power, they were taught, had any influence or control over them. It does not appear that they had any knowledge of such a deity as, in a later period, they called Satan. Certainly there is no clear allusion to him in that portion of the Bible which was composed before the Babylonian captivity. They indeed frequently used the word "satan,' always in the sense of adversary in some form; as an enemy in war, (1 Kings, xi. 14, 23, 25); as an opponent in the forum, (Ps. cix. 6); as an opposer in a general sense, (Num. xxii. 22.) Should any think the text quoted from Psalms alluded to some other than an opponent in the forum, it may be sufficient to quote the sensible comment of Dr. A. Clarke, who says, As the word 'satan' means an adversary simply, though sometimes it is used to express the evil spirit Satan, I think it best to preserve here its grammatical meaning: 'Let an adversary stand at his right hand; that is, Let him be opposed and thwarted in all his purposes."

but_܂

There is an apparent discrepancy between 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, and 1 Chron. xxi. 1. The former teaches that God moved David to number Israel, while the latter passage imputes the influence to Satan. The books of

Chronicles were edited by some learned and pious Jew a long time after the events mentioned in them transpired. In the mean time, a change had been wrought in the Jewish faith, by which all evils were attributed to Satan as their author. The event, as recorded in Samuel, is related in accordance with the Jewish faith at that time; but in the Chronicles, which are probably selections merely from the full records of the secretaries appointed by the several kings, the numbering of Israel is ascribed to Satan as the moving cause, according to later belief. Hence there is really no discrepancy in the two accounts. The fact that in the Hebrew the article is connected with the word "satan," in certain instances, Gesenius uses as an argument to show that it thus assumes the nature of a proper name, and means Satan, the Devil. But this argument cannot be of any avail, in the period we are now considering, because the word satan is never used with the article in that portion of the Bible which was written before the captivity.

The result of our investigation thus far is, that the Jews, before their captivity in Babylon, a period of a thousand years, had no knowledge of a being, or personified principle, called Satan, or the Devil. In all that portion of the Bible written during this period, the word "satan" does not occur in the sense of an evil deity.

The second period will extend from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of our Saviour. At the beginning of this period, the Jews came in contact with religious opinions entirely new to them. Not long, probably, before this event, the Persian religion, as perfected by Zoroaster, became influential and popular in Babylonia. A prominent feature of this religion was its two deities; one the author of all good, the other the author of all evil. The good deity was represented by light, the evil deity by darkness. Hence the sun, being the source of light, was devoutly revenced; and there is at this day in that country a sect called Devil-worshippers. Image-worship, or idol-worship seems not to have been practised by them as by many other people. The Jews had ever manifested a readiness to be influenced by the religious opinions of their neighbors, how erroneous soever those opinions might be. It is probable that this still remained a trait of their

national character while in Babylonia. Hence they would readily yield to the opinions of the people among whom they sojourned, so far as to modify their own religious views to a considerable extent. While they were there cured entirely of their proneness to idolatry, they became familiar with a religion which taught that all good proceeds from one deity as its author, but all evil from another, who is evil in his nature. Denied the privilege of exercising their own religion, and exposed to the influence of a strange religion for many years, in which time almost an entire generation passed away, and a new one arose,familiar, from the first, with the Persian doctrine, it is by no means surprising that the Jews incorporated a belief in the evil deity into their creed, as an article of faith. For this new deity they found a name in their word satan," which means an adversary, an opposer. This new doctrine is alluded to, perhaps, by the prophet Zechariah, when he says, "And he showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan : even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee." (iii. 1, 2.) Although "satan" has here the article prefixed, in the original, as it usually has in that portion of the Old Testament written after the captivity, still it is by no means certain that the prophet alludes to the evil deity. The prophets may, in one or two instances, refer to this new article of Jewish faith, though there is some doubt of it. But the fact that they joined the article to the word "satan," after the captivity, favors the opinion that they might have received the new faith, or assented to it in some manner if they did not fully embrace it. In the Apocrypha, however, there is undoubted reference to the evil deity of the Persian religion. Tobias, while journeying to Media, found a sure antidote for the evils caused by a devil or evil spirit ;" while "good success in all things" he ascribes to God. (Tobit, vi. 7.) And in the Wisdom of Solomon, we are told that "through the envy of the devil came death into the world." (ii. 24.) Between the restoration of the Jews and the birth of Christ, we have but scanty means of ascertaining what change or modification the Jews' belief underwent; but we know that

66