heard, have tried by experiment, whether they have this power or not;, one, however, as related by a pioneer settler and hunter in the early times of Vermont, states the following respecting himself.

"In one of my hunting excursions, on a fine morning, accompanied by my wife, (as we were but just married,) the sun was shining warm and sultry, while all above was clear and bright. I had left my companion at a certain place, beneath the shade of a young pine, for a short time, in pursuit of game, which drew up a steep, ledgy hill, and while struggling to ascend, I was startled by a quick grating rattle very near me; when looking eagerly about, I discovered a short space before me, on a smooth rock which lay fair to the sun, a large rattlesnake, coiling himself, to make the deadly spring. The serpent was within a few feet of me, and I paused for a moment, ere I should kill it, to survey it. But while doing so, yet I know not why, a strange feeling of curiosity came over me, which unaccountably fixed my attention. Suddenly the snake unwound his coil, as if relenting from its purpose of hostility, and raising his head he fixed his bright eyes directly upon my own. A chilling and incredible sensation, totally different from any thing I had ever before experienced, followed this movemement of the serpent. Yet I stood still and gazed steadily and earnestly, for at that moment there was a visible change in the reptile: his form seemed to grow larger and his colors brighter. His body now seemed to move with a slow and almost imperceptible motion toward me, while there came a low hum of music from him, or at least it sounded in my ear, a strange sweet melody, faint as from the throat of the humming bird. Then the tints of his body deepened, and changed, and glowed with green, purple, scarlet, and gold, until I lost sight of the serpent entirely, seeing only wild and curiously woven circles of various colors, quivering around me like an atmosphere of rainbows. I seemed in the centre of a great prison,a world of mysterious colors: the tints varied, and darkened, and lighted up again, around me, and the low music went on without ceasing, until my brain reeled, and fear now for the first, came like a shadow over me. This sensation gained upon me rapidly, and I could feel the cold sweat gushing from my brow. I had no certainty of danger in my mind-no definite ideas of peril-all was vague and clouded like the unaccountable terrors of a dream; and yet my limbs shook and I fancied I could feel the blood stiffening with cold as it passed along my veins. I would have given worlds to have been able to tear myself from the spot; I even attempted to do so, or thought I did: but the body obeyed not the impulse of the mind-not a muscle moved, I yet stood still, as if my feet had grown to the solid rock, with the infernal music of the tempter in my ear, and the baleful colorings of enchantment around me. Suddenly a new sound

came on my ear-it was a human voice; but it seemed strange, and awful-again-again-but I stirred not-and then a white form stood beside me, and grasped my arm; it was my wife. With her touch the horrible spell was broken-the strange colors passed away from my vision. The rattlesnake was coiling at my feet, with burning eyes, reckless of danger; when with a quick stamp of one foot-having on shoes of hard leather-I crushed its head to powder-and thus I escaped."

But whether the larger kinds, as the boa, anaconda, &c. have this power is unknown, yet it is supposed they have not, as there appears no necessity of its being thus endowed; their agility and strength being equal to all their necessities. The steady unvarying glare of the rattlesnake, is aided by its never winking, as nature has covered their eyes with a transparent shining substance, which protects it from injury, and answers a better purpose as they burrow in the earth-than eyelids, like other animals.

Adaptation appears to characterize all the works of God, as well as first principles, starting points, and data. Man, therefore, is the starting point of all animal creation, as he stands at their head in the perfection of limbs, and intellect, and power of improvement and expression by speech. From this data, we therefore judge, that as animals approach in their forms, to that of man, that also their intellect conforms to the same rule. If this be so, we at once perceive that the Orang-outang is the creature marked by Moses, as the instrument of the devil in the ruin of man; because the shape of that creature is more like man than any other; while that of a serpent is farther removed from that form than the whole creation besides being nothing more than a congeries of long muscles, like a rope made from the fibres of hemp, having a head at one end and a tail at the other, without legs arms or wings, and is next in grade on the descending scale to the very worms of the dust, and could never therefore, have been the animal of the text of Moses, as it is not the subtilest beast of all the field; while the Orang-outang, in our opinion, most certainly is, and was therefore the identical animal. But as conclusive on this subject, the identity of the kind of animal in question, we are able to give the evidence of an accredited writer of great celebrity, who lived a thousand years before the time of Christ, that whatever animal it was; it was not a snake, and that the snake was not considered, in his time, as a beast of as much subtilty as the other animals of creation. This writer was the famous Solomon, of the Scriptures, whose wisdom has been celebrated in all ages and countries, since his time. Respecting his opinion about the subtilty of snakes, see Book of Wisdom, chap. xi. 15, where, speaking of the worship of the Egyptians in the time of Moses, he says, that from "the foolish devices of their wickedness, wherewith being deceived, they wor

1

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 is, 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.

But

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." 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