designation of Satan, is directly noticed as appearing in the divine presence, and as obtaining permission to attack the integrity of Job by the severest temporal afflictions. This character, it is true is considered by some as merely ideal, as nothing more than an elegant embellishment of a sublime poem. Those, however, who thus consider it, do not perhaps sufficiently reflect, that poets are not philosophers that the celestial Beings usually described by them. are not the sole creatures of their own imagination, but such as are to be found in the popular creed of their times; and that the gods of Homer and Virgil, not less than the angels and devils of Milton, were supposed to exist in nature. Besides, if we are at liberty to presume that Satan is an ideal character, are we not at equal liberty to presume the same of the other party, in the dialogue, even of God himself? But, in truth, it is impossible for the character of Satan to be here contemplated as a mere poetical embellishment; and that for the plainest of all reasons; because the chapters in which it is introduced contain nothing bearing the slightest resemblance of poetry. the two first chapters of Job are manifestly prosaical, and are expressed after the manner of the simplest and purest narrative. No metrical composition occurs until the third chapter, and then commences a style wholly dissimilar, to the preceding, not only as being poetical, but as appearing, in the judgment of the best critics, to be replete with Arabisms, and an obsolete Hebrew phraseology anterior to the times of Moses. Since therefore the preparatory narrative, in which alone any mention is made of Satan, is perfectly prosaical, and bespeaks a different author, as well as a latter period, it is absurd to throw out crude conjectures about poetical imagery, where neither metre nor poetry exists. With the passage alluded to in Job may be compared another in 1 Kings xxii. 19, in which the prophet Michaiah describes an almost similar transaction in almost similar terms. The hosts of heaven are represented in both instances as standing in the presence of God, and a particular spirit is noticed as introducing himself into the angelical assembly, and as councelling, and subsequently executing evil against an individual among men. This spirit is in Job denominated on the Satan, a word usually considered as derived from a root signifying to hate or oppose; in the book of Kings he is denominated the spirit; the former being a designation taken from the malignity of his disposition, the latter one taken from the immortality of his nature. That the prophet Michaiah meant by the expression 1 a superior Being of a particular description, seems evident from the demonstrative prefix ; and as a superior Being of a particular descirption, is directly pointed out, is not his identity with the Satan of Job apparent from the nature of his counsel and agency, from his becoming "a lying spirit" in the mouths of the prophets of Ahab, to lead that prince on to destruction? Although we were to admit that the inspired writers might in neither instance intend to represent the celestial council as an actual occurrence, adopting the form of dialogue, that prominent feature of all oriental composition, because it was the most usual and most impressive; yet would it be one thing to suppose the dialogue, and another to suppose the characters, to which it is ascribed, fictitious. Nor does it appear more reasonable to make a partial selection among those characters at pleasure; to consider God and the angels as real beings, and Satan, the principal agent in both transactions, as an imaginary one; to introduce the Deity himself conversing with an absolute non-entity. Be sides, even in the boldest style of prosopopoeia, it would be unintelligible, to affix any other denomination to the thing or quality personified, than its true and appropriate one. Thus had Solomon, in his elegant personification of wisdom, (Proverbs viii.) substituted for wisdom the term friendship, because wisdom is friendly to the best inte rests of man; or, what would have been still more obscure, the friend; would not his allusion have been utterly incomprehensible? And yet must we say, according to what Unitarians consider as the only rational exposition of the passage, that the author of the two first chapters of Job, when he wished to personify evil, sufficiently marked his meaning by adopting the expression the enemy, solely because evil is inimical to man. To the preceding quotations from Job and Kings may be subjoined another of a similar import. It is this: "And he shewed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan 1 standing at his right hand to resist him, ¡. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan." Zech. iii. 1, 2. Here some have conjectured, that the word Satan means only those adversaries who opposed the high-priest in the rebuilding of the temple, after the return of the Israelites from captivity. It is remarkable, however, that St. Jude gives the precise form of reproof mentioned by Zechariah on this occasion; "The Lord rebuke thee," as one used by Michael the archangel in a contention with something more than a mere human adversary. Indeed most commentators are disposed to think, that St. Jude alludes to this very passage in Zechariah; and much ingenuity has been exhibited* in reconciling the texts. But for my pre * Certainly not the least ingenious conjecture on this subject is that of Stosch, which Schleusner gives in the following terms: Jude 9, ad quem locum tamen aliam eamque ingeniosam conjecturam protulit Stosch in Archæol. Econom. N. T. p. 41, qui dua Mwvoews reddit servum Mosis, ipsumque adeo pontificem maximum Josuam intelligit, simulque monet dwua in notione mancipii, servi, etiam honoratiori sensu adhiberi de militibus cujuscunque ordinis." Lexic. Art. owμa. For the acceptation of dwua in the sense of a servant, see Wetstein in Apoc. xviii. 13. Schoetgen, in his Hore Talmud. vol. i. p. 1080, offers another conjecture. He considers dwua Mwud'sws as a Hebraism, meaning only sent purpose it is not perhaps material. If St. Jude really alludes to it, the meaning of the word Satan, at least as he understood it, will be evident. If he does not, but refers to another author and a different transaction, this, instead of diminishing, will be only adding to, the testimony; for even apocryphal testimony, in corroborating the usual acceptation of a particular phrase, must be deemed admissible. If therefore the style of the angelical reproof be the same in Zechariah, in St. Jude, and in a preceding apocry phal, author, and if the party reproved be in each instance described under the same appellation, will it not follow, that in each instance also the same character is designated? So general indeed was the persuasion among the Jews of this reproof being uttered to an infernal spirit, that in the Talmud we find the repetition of the very words alluded to proposed as the most effectual protection against the attacks of Satan. The superstitious Talmudists* caution their timid disciple, a warning said to have been given by Sammuel, who is elsewhere termed Satan, the angel of death, not to stand in the way of a female procession returning from a funeral, "because," saith the angel of death, "because I, with sword in hand, leap exulting before it, מפני שאני מרקד .and I possess the dominion of torture ובא לפניהן והרבי בידי ויש לי רשות לחבל. But if," continues the Gemara, "the meeting be unavoidable, what is his remedy? Let him recede some paces from the spot. If a river be near, let him ford it; or if a road in another direction, let him proceed that way; or if a wall, let him stand behind it. But if, no retrcat ap Moses himself: but he does not make out his point. In Rabbinical Hebrew indeed is used reciprocally, but always, I conceive, with a pronominal affix, and not in construction with another substantive. * Ordo y Codex л cap. vii. Gemara. Bartoloccii Bib. Rabbin. v. iii. p. 369. A passage of a similar tendency is also quoted by Wagensail in his Sota, p. 484. pear, then let him turn his face and exclaim, The Lord said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, Satan;' and the danger shall depart from him." Would you then, perhaps the Unitarians will say, with that contempt which generally characterizes the conceit of superior wisdom, would you then revive the obsolete extravagance of Rabbinical reverie? Certainly not. But my argument surely will not suffer by the proof, that the Jews themselves, who manifestly could not have been influenced by Christian expositions, have always understood the text of Zechariah precisely as I do, and precisely indeed as the generality of Christians have always done. To establish the fact is one thing: but to approve of every absurdity which a superstitious imagination may deduce from it, is clearly another. In addition also to what has been said, it may be remarked, that the expression D, with the demonstrative prefixed, occurs but twice in the Old Testament, in Job and in Zechariah; and that in both cases the Being so denominated appears in the presence of, and is addressed by, God himself. Is it not therefore highly improbable, that the same expression, thus distinguished, should, in the first instance, signify the personification of an abstract idea, that of evil; and in the second, a mere human being? Were the foregoing observations insufficient to prove the ancient belief in a superior order of evil spirits, an additional argument might be brought from Deuter. xxxii. 17, where it is said, "They sacrified to devils, D', not to God." For it seems indisputable, that the word ', whatsoever difference of opinion may be entertained respecting its derivation, must mean detested objects of heathen worship, which were supposed to posses a real existence, because it is translated Aarovia, not only in the Septuagint, but by the author of the apocryphal book Baruch, e. iv. 7, and by the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. x. 20; and the |