shipped serpents, (or the ophi,) void of reason." This, in our opinion, is sufficient to show that Solomon did not consider the ophi, or snake, as the subtilest beast of all the field, or earth; as he expressly says, it was void of reason, or subtilty, and therefore he did not understand Moses, in the third chapter of Genesis, where the account of Eve and the Nach-ash is given, to have any allusion to such an animal as a snake, but rather to some other creature, which was not naturally void of reason, as he esteemed serpents or snakes to be.

That the Egyptians worshipped snakes in the time of Moses, is shown from this very statement by Solomon, as also from ancient history. The Egyptians were exceedingly superstitious, and worshipped all kinds of animals; but the serpent was had in particular veneration, as it was this reptile which even Jehovah came out against, when he caused the rod of Moses to become a serpent, and to devour the serpents of the magicians. In the time of Solomon they had not abandoned the worship of this creature, as he seems to speak of it, as quoted above, in the present tense, at the time of his reign.

But to all we have said on this subject, namely, of the existence of some kind of animal which Satan made use of on the occasion of man's fall, Universalists turn a deaf ear, for they allege, that there was no animal in the case, and that the whole that has been written in the Bible on that subject is but descriptive of Eve herself, her appetites and passions. This is necessary for them to do, as any acknowledgment of the existence of some creature having been used as an instrument of deception in the fall of Eve, draws after it the existence of an evil spirit, as certainly as effect follows cause, and this would ruin their scheme, as a supernatural evil spirit, having a real being, is that which they everywhere deny.

We think the account, as written by Moses, is of exceedingly great importance on this subject; for if the existence of Satan, or of an evil being, who was engaged in the moral destruction of the wife of Adam, cannot be made out from that account, we do not hesitate to acknowledge, that such an existence becomes extremely doubtful, notwithstanding so much is said in all the Bible of such a being; for if this cannot be shown at the head of the stream, how is it to be done at any other point farther down.

On this subject, we shall now bring forward some of the opinions of Balfour, as found in his book entitled his "Second Enquiry," and is written expressly to disprove the existence of a devil, as a being, who contends that all references to such a being, as are found in the Scriptures, are to be understood only of human beings, and their faculties, when engaged in immoral pursuits. That there is no such being he seems to make out, to his own satisfaction, from the circumstance that Moses has not plainly, or in so many words said there is. He supposes that if

there was such a being, who was so dangerous to the repose of Adam and his wife, that God ought to have forewarned them with an account of him, so that they might have guarded against his enmity. "It is evident," he says, on page 24, "that not a word of caution was given them." But to this we reply God did caution them against the wiles of this being, when he said: "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." And to prove this to have been a caution, we bring forward what St. Paul has said about death and him who has the power of death, that is the devil. Heb. ii. 14. Now if no being has the power of death but the devil, so far as it relates to our race, it follows that if they ate that fruit which was forbidden them, that the devil would be the being who had induced their death by tempting the woman to a breach of God's holy law; or here is a death which takes place aside, as to its cause from that of the devil, notwithstanding St. Paul's opinion to the contrary. Now inasmuch as God informed them of the possibility of death, he informed them of him who had the power of death, or else the revelation was an imperfect one, so far as it related to warning Adam against tasting that fruit. Now, inasmuch as God named the name of death, it is evidence that he cautioned them against this being, who had this power, and of necessity ascertains the existence of the devil, or St. Paul knew nothing of the subject he was speaking about.

Mr. Balfour, on pages 24 and 25, of his book, seems to think that it was much worse, and much more ruinous to mankind to have fallen by the temptations of an evil spirit or apostate angel, than by any other means, although the consequences should be exactly the same; yet appears perfectly willing to have man fall, if he did fall, by the means of his own heart; but is very much opposed to its having been promoted by such a being as the devil, yet seems inclined to think that it woud have been far more chaste, delicate and orthodox, to believe that God made Adam and his wife just strong enough not to stand but a short time, and then to fall, by an inevitable and inherent propensity to sin, implanted by the everblessed Creator in their natures. In his, Balfour is more careful of the devil's character, than even those who believe in his existence, inasmuch as man's fal, if he did fall, was occasioned by the Creator himself, as Universalists view the subject. The very fact, which proves there was a fallen spirit or angel, called Satan, the Serpent and the Devil, who tempted Eve to her ruin, is taken by Balfour, as evidence that there is no such being. That conclusion is shown from his own statements, which are, that the creature, whatever it was, knew all about the prohibition; for says Balfour, this serpent began the conversation with the woman, which he says a dumb beast could not have done; to which we heartily respond, and say, that no animal could have known this, on which very account we see a neces

sity for the existence and presence of just such a being as the devil is shown to be, wherever he is spoken of in all the Scriptures, or such an effect could not have been produced on a dumb animal.

Page 26, of the Enquiry, he makes himself much sport, on account of Eve's conversing with so frightful a creature as a talking snake, and thinks it was an instrument far enough from being calculated to seduce any body, on which account, he believes it could not have been so. But in this slur, there is but little force, when it is recollected, that a holy and innocent being as Eve was in her sphere, could not possibly fear, or be startled by any accident. The only reason why she noticed, or listened to the tempter, in the form of a beast, no doubt was, because it spoke to her of an increase of knowledge, which to acquire, to her appeared a virtue of the highest order. All creatures were harmless to Eve, whatever their forms were, and however hideous or repulsive. She may have been often amused by the gambols and the varieties, every where met with in her walks, but could fear none, while in her innocence. Fear has torment in its nature, and is known no where, except with the guilty.

In one place of his book, namely, on the 26th page, he thinks we are indebted to Milton, rather than to Moses, for a belief in the existence of a devil; but if this is so, we ask, to whom were the early writers and fathers indebted, who lived and wrote many hundred years before Milton was born, who have transmitted on the page of Ecclesiastical history, the same opinions and doctrines now held by the orthodox sects, about the devil? In an other place of his book, however, he is sure that we have derived all our peculiar opinions, such as a hell, a day of judgment, and the being of a devil, from the writings of Zoroaster, to which we shall give our attention in its proper place. He seems not even to dream that we have derived them from the Bible, although its phraseology and composition abounds with accounts of the kind. Nay, it is the very object of the whole Scriptures to reveal these truths, and to teach men how to be good, and to flee the wrath to come, in an other world, as we understand them.

On page 27, of his work, Balfour says that Moses selected the serpent or snake as a mere figure of the deceitful nature of Eve's passions, appetites, and desires, which he calls LUSTS, because it wasa creature "celebrated for its subtilty among mankind." But this statement, is what neither Mr. Balfour, nor any other man can prove; namely, that serpents were celebrated in the time of Moses for subtilty. What record is there of this thing? none that we know of. The Bible, the oldest book in the world, has no hint or allusion to this effect; while we have produced a very early writer of a part of the Scriptures, namely, Solomon, who says that the serpents which the Egyptians worshipped, were void of reason or subtilty, and therefore, in his time, could not have been thus celebrated. We have said above, that we know

of no allusion in the Bible, which can lead to a supposition that snakes are wise or subtil; but lest the reader should be alarmed, we make haste to quote what Christ said at a certain time to his disciples, on the subject of serpents, and to explain it. He said, "be ye wise as serpents but harmless as doves." Does not this, says one, not only hint, but plainly make out, that serpents are indeed wise and cunning, and were so considered by Jesus Christ? we think not; and the following is our reason. A man, or a human being, is certainly far more wise and subtil than a snake. If so, then the Saviour could never have chosen this contemptible reptile as a figure of emulation for his disciples. Did he, indeed, wish them to be as wise as common snakes? This would be to suppose them at least, somewhat below serpents in ability, a very strange predicament for human beings, who had the use of their reason. The supposition is altogether ridiculous. What then did he mean? He meant, no doubt, that they should be as wise as devils-or evil spirits, of whose wiles St. Paul said, on a certain occasion, that the saints of his day were not ignorant. Also-he meant, that he desired his disciples to be as wise as the Jews their enemies, who on two occasions are called a generation of vipers, or serpents. So that in our opinion these texts give no countenance to the idea of the wisdom of snakes. But more than this, Mr. Balfour makes Moses choose this creature, not because it is, or was in fact the subtilest beast among animals; but because it was thus celebrated, as he assumes to believe. Such a course would be deception, even in Moses, for if the snake in fact, is not such a creature, then has Moses made his selection unwisely and deceitfully, as he should have been guided, not by a false celebrity, but by matter of fact, or the lusts of Eve were not fitly represented. But here we wish to remark, that in our opinion, this stroke of Mr. Balfour's invention, should go for nothing, as it is not true in its main feature. And what is its main feature? It is this: he says, Moses chose this animal as descriptive of Eve's nature, as it related to her appetites; but where is the proof of this, that Moses chose it for that purpose? we answer there is no proof-while, to the contrary there is proof irrefragible, that he did not. But how is this, says one, did he not write the book of Genesis, where the whole account is found? Most certainly he did. How then is it, that he did not choose this creature for the purpose Mr. Balfour alledges? This is our proof and our reason:· -Moses has but recorded the conversation which took place between God and Eve; and says that EVE said the serpent or nachash beguiled her. Now if any body chose an animal for this purpose, it was Eve, herself, while Moses does nothing but rehearse the fact as a matter of history and truth. Are we to believe she chose this horrid animal, to show up to her God, by a hieroglyphic of this sort, the very nature which himself had but a few days previous

created? we think not. She did nothing more than to speak of the creature which she supposed had misled her, having no idea whatever, that the devil who had the power of death, had entered into the animal, and inspired it with the abilities of articulation and reason. Wherefore, so far as we are able to comprehend our subject, Mr. Balfour has failed, totally failed, to make out that either Moses or Eve chose an animal as a representative of her appetites; on which account it remains, that the belief of a real animal called by Eve the nachash, being inspired, by Satan, conversed with her, is a true belief. What follows, therefore, on this fact? it follows that there was an evil spirit or being, who was the real tempter, and not the animal. This is made out from Balfour's own showing; who, in his struggle to oppose the being of Satan, says on page 25 of his work, that a dumb beast could not have thus conversed. To this we agree, no dumb beast could ever talk except by the aid of a superior and competent power. Now, as he has failed in his statement about Moses' choosing this animal for the purpose of a figure, he fails to disprove the existence of the devil in the case of Eve, as the animal could not of itself have said any thing of the matter. We wish to be particular on this subject, in this place, for if we fail to make out in a reasonable manner, the existence of an evil being, who was engaged in Eve's ruin, we fail in a great measure of the main object of this work, as before remarked.

Mr. Balfour thinks it foolish and ridiculous to believe that any animal whatever, was made use of by any being in the ruin of Eve, and contends in his work, page 26, that the doctrine intended by the reference of Moses to an animal, which conversed with woman, is simply to inform us that Eve's lusts or desires, after food when she was hungry, was the true serpent, or devil, which destroyed her, if she was destroyed. But to refute this in another form, we ask: could LUSTS OF DESIRES have known more about the forbidden fruit, and the consequences which would follow on her tasting it, than Eve did herself? Did her appetites know more than her mind? This must have been the case, however preposterous the opinion may appear, if nothing but her appetites are intended by Moses, or by Eve; for we see her lusts, as Balfour calls her desires, commencing the conversation with Eve, by saying, "God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, that your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as the gods [the angels] knowing good and evil." How is it that Eve's superior powers, her mind, her reason, her perception, knew nothing of this, while her inferior powers, her mere animal innocent appetites for food when hungry, knew all about it; we might as well argue that her body, composed of muscles and limbs, were superior in their nature to her mind, her soul, her immortal and her undying intellect. But if indeed, the opinion is correct, as Balfour holds, is it not strange that Moses, who