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 kingdom 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

*

man and man, if the Divine Teacher did not, in this explanation of a parable, before uttered with intentional comparative obscurity, assert distinctly the existence of an evil spirit, his influence in this world, and the agency of angels at the last day in separating the good from the bad among men. An accumulation of similar testimony, after an explanation so distinct, so pointed, so express, were a needless waste of time and paper. The mind, which is in a state to resist or explain away the explanation already given, would not believe though one were to rise from the dead. In relation to this very subject the Saviour said, "because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." Is there no reason to fear that a similar charge would still hold good? The nature of the truth itself is, often, the very reason why that truth is rejected. The passage quoted from Matthew presents to every mind, on first reading it, one meaning, and one meaning only. It admits of no other. expressed to his confidential friends in their retirement, when they had requested him to explain the parable of the tares. There was no possible room for an ad hominem argument here. All occasion for obscurity was removed. The apostles express no remaining difficulty as to the parable. It is all cleared up. Philologically considered, this meaning lies on the surface, and pervades the substance of the passage. Those who have studied the scriptures, simply as a record of human opinion, without considering themselves bound to submit to its decisions, have come by general consent to this conclusion, that "Jesus did mean to teach the doctrine of diabolical agency. But he erred. It was however the error of the times, from which it is not rational to expect that any mind should have been entirely free." Whether Amer

This meaning the Saviour

* The following references would confirm, if additional testimony were needed, the position taken. Matthew, xiii. 18, 19, xvii. 19–21. Mark, iv. 14, 15. Luke, viii. 12, x. 17—21.

ican rational inquirers are willing to take this ground, remains to be seen. With us it is now a question of philology, what did the Saviour teach? That made out, the question is allowed to be at an end. What Jesus taught we acknowledge to be true. Philosophy, extraneous to the scriptures, whether skeptical, dogmatical or critical, knows nothing, and can teach nothing upon the subject. The doctrines of the Bible, in relation to the unseen, spiritual, eternal world, are yet held, in the land of the Pilgrims, to be sound philosophy. The private opinion of the Saviour, as divulged to his chosen companions and friends in their most secret retirement, we have found to coincide with the opinion which he openly advanced to the Jews at large, and to the Pharisees as a sect. He did not teach a Pythagorean, esoteric, Eleusinean system of doctrines, to gull and hoodwink the people, while to the initiated he intrusted the key which unlocked the whole mystery. His opinion was not cloaked in ambiguous generalities. It was distinctly uttered, and definitely understood. Can this be said of all who claim to be Christian teachers?

Additional proof as to the Saviour's private opinion is unnecessary. Other related truths will receive still further elucidation from a passage in the gospel of John. This is a part of his instructions in that solemn interview, which took place just before he was betrayed into the hands of men. The shepherd was about to be smitten, and the sheep to be scattered. Jesus was aware of his approaching end, of the conflict before him, of the agony he was to endure. Though desirous of avoiding, he was still resigned to meet it. "Not my will but thine be done." If ever he was honest and open in his instructions, one would think, from the account given by the apostle whom he loved, that it was on this occasion Jesus unbosomed all his heart to his sorrowing disciples. "I tell you the

truth; it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." John, xvi. 7-11. What does the Saviour mean when he says the Holy Spirit shall reprove or convince "of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged"? Does he here mean "the principle of evil," or an actual person? If the former, what does he mean when he says, the spirit shall convince "of sin"? Does not a plain understanding, or a profound and erudite understanding perceive, that, when the Saviour asserts that the spirit shall convince of sin, of righteousness and of judgment; adding, of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father; and of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged ; he meant to assert some distinction, some diversity of truth? But according to "the principle of evil” interpretation, the Saviour is unmeaning, or at least tautological in his declarations. A candid mind, unwarped by theory, cannot help seeing that Jesus taught here, as in a multitude of other cases, the existence of a mighty evil spirit, "the prince of this world," "an archangel ruined." This, he solemnly assures his disciples, is one of the doctrines which the Holy Spirit shall specially make known The following remarks by Hess, are well worth the attention and solemn thought of all, whose minds are not yet callous to evidence, who are not yet compromised to party, who are inquiring for truth, and willing to receive it, coming from whatever quarter and with whatever odium. "In this passage, Jesus is not addressing the illiterate populace, but he is speaking to his own apostles.

to men.