THE PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR.

"According to the prince of the power of the air."-Eph. ii, 2.

66

But why

THERE can be no doubt that Satan is here intended, and that Paul means to say that they were under his control as their leader and prince. The phrase, the "prince of the power" may mean either "the powerful prince," or it may mean that this prince had power over the air, and lived and reigned there particularly. The word "prince"-apxovτaArchon, means one first in authority and power, and is then applied to any one who has the pre-eminence or rule. It is applied to Satan, or the chief of the fallen angels, as where he is called "the prince-pxwv -of the devils," Matt. ix, 34; xii, 24. Mark iii, 22. Luke xi, 15; "the prince of this world," John xii, 31; xiv, 30; xvi, 11. he is here called the prince, having power over the air, it is not easy to determine. Robinson supposes it to be because he is lord of the powers of the air; that is, of the demons who dwell and rule in the atmosphere. So Doddridge supposes that it means that he controls the fallen spirits who are permitted to range the regions of the atmosphere. It is generally admitted that the apostle here refers to the prevailing opinions, both among the Jews and heathen, that the air was thickly peopled with spirits or demons. That this was a current opinion may be seen fully proved in Wetstein. Why the region of the air was supposed to be the dwelling-place of such spirits, is now unknown. The opinion may have been either that such spirits dwelt in the air, or that they had control over it, according to the later Jewish belief. Cocceius and some others explain the word air here as meaning the same as darkness, as in profane writers. It is evident to my mind that Paul does not speak of this as a mere tradition, opinion, or vagary of the fancy, or as a superstitious belief; but that he refers to it as a thing which he regarded as true. In this opinion I see no absurdity that should make it impossible to believe it. For, (1.) the Scriptures abundantly teach that there are fallen, wicked spirits; and the existence of fallen angels is no more improbable than the existence of fallen men. (2.) The Bible teaches that they have much to do with this world. They tempted man; they inflicted disease in the time of the Saviour; they are represented as alluring and deceiving the race. (3.) They must have some localitysome part of the universe where they dwell. That they were not confined down to hell in the time of the Redeemer, is clear from the New Testament; for they are often represented as having afflicted and tortured men. (4.) Why is there any improbability in the belief that their residence should have been in the regions of the air? That while they were suffered to be on earth to tempt and afflict men, they should have been permitted peculiarly to occupy these regions? Who can tell what may be in the invisible world, and what spirits may be permitted to fill up the vast space that now composes the universe? And who can tell what control may have been given to such fallen spirits over the regions of the atmosphere-over clouds, and storms, and pestilential air? Men have control over the earth, and pervert and abuse the powers of nature to their own ruin and the ruin of each other. The elements they employ for the purposes of ruin and of temptation. Fruit

and grain they convert to poison; minerals, to the destruction caused by war. In itself considered, there is nothing more improbable that spirits of darkness may have had control over the regions of the air, than that fallen man has over the earth and no more improbability that that power has been abused to ruin men, than that the power of men is abused to destroy each other. No one can prove that the sentiment here referred to by Paul is not true; and no one can show how the doctrine that fallen spirits may do mischief in any part of the works of God, is any more improbable than that wicked men should do the same thing.

ON THE EATING OF Blood.

SIR,-In reply to the question of your correspondent in the August number, "Is the eating of blood a breach of the moral law, or was its observance abrogated with the Jewish dispensation," the following remarks are offered.

1st. The prohibition of the use of blood as an article of human food, is co-eval with the permission to eat the flesh of animals granted by God to man. Until after the deluge the food allowed for the use of man, consisted only of the produce of the earth, but at the period when God entered into covenant with Noah, he granted the use of animal flesh for food in these terms, " Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis ix. 3, 4. Now Noah and his sons were the progenitors of the new world; by them was the earth replenished after the flood, and the permission to use the flesh of animals for food, with the condition annexed, viz. that they must not eat blood, was a law intended for all the descendants of Noah, and was therefore binding upon man from the first establishment of civil society after the flood. Thus it was of divine origin; was a precept long before the law was given to Moses, or the institution of ceremonial requirements, and as such is to be regarded as the condition on which the use of animal food is permitted or continued. The law forbidding the eating of blood was further enjoined under the Mosaic dispensation. Now this was not a new commandment given to the children of Israel, it was but the precept given to Noah incorporated with that dispensation; the reason for its observance in both cases is the same, viz. the blood is the life of the creature, and the gracious Creator, as he would have his people to regard the life of the creatures, and to abstain from barbarous acts, as well as from cruelty, instituted, that as the blood was the essence of the animal vigour, so when the life was destroyed, the blood was to be regarded as having performed its functions, and was therefore to be poured out, as having no further purpose to serve; and consequently of no more use or value. We admit, that the subject now under consideration, was made under the Jewish economy to bear a ceremonial import as being connected with the law of atonement; but though blood under that dispensation was significant that the life of the creature was sacrificed in the stead of the life of man, as a transgressor, and whose life as such was forfeited,— yet this ceremonial import did by no means nullify the original cause or

intention of the prohibition, and disobedience to this injunction was by the law punished with death. "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."-Lev. xvii, 10. 3rd. That the observance of this command was not abrogated with the Jewish dispensation, is evident from the history of the early christian church, as related in the 15th chapter of Acts. We read, that certain men taught the Gentile converts, that unless they were circumcised, and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved; and when the apostles and elders met together to consider this matter, they decided, under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, to lay upon the brethren no greater burden than these necessary things, "That ye abstain from meat offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves ye do well."-Acts xv. 29. Why was abstinence from blood considered a NECESSARY THING to Gentile converts, if its observance was abrogated with the Jewish dispensation, for then it must have passed away with the law, which was but a shadow of good things to come. The abstinence required of the early christians was, in fact, a prohibition of the gross and barbarous practices of idol worship to which they had hitherto, or before their reception of christianity, been accustomed, and the very existence of these abominations as connected with idolatry, together with their disallowment to christians in general, whether Jews or Gentiles, prove that the practice of eating blood is to be regarded as immoral, opposed to the law of God, first given under the patriarchal dispensation, enforced under the Jewish economy, and yet obligatory on the Christian Church, because a NECESSARY THING imposed by the unanimous decision of the Church, acting under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit.

Sunderland.

T. D. STEPHINSON.

[In our humble judgment, this question is not of sufficient importance to render a continuance of the discussion either needful or desirable. One fact is certain, that the eating of blood was prohibited by the apostles, and the prohibition was not, that we are aware of, ever subsequently repealed. We do, however, think, that no serious inquirer need agitate his mind on the subject; if he cannot get his doubts removed, he has one safe course to pursue, that of altogether abstaining from the eating of blood. By this abstinence he cannot do wrong; and the practice of it, unless his appetite be in a very morbid state, will involve no self-denial. This is a very easy, and we repeat, a perfectly safe course for those who have conscientious scruples on the subject.]-ED.

QUERY ON THE USE OF THE WORD "SAINT."

DEAR SIR, IS not the use of the word Saint, as a prefix to the names of persons mentioned in the New Testament, as Saint Paul, Saint Peter, &c., and to others, as Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas á Becket, entirely Popish in its origin, and very unnecessary and improper? Or if it be necessary and proper, why should we Protestants limit the application of the word to those whom some holy or unholy father

of a pope has canonized? And why not apply it to Old Testament saints, and say Saint Abraham, Saint Daniel, and Saint Melchisedeck, when we speak of those persons; and also to holy men of modern times, as Saint Charles Wesley, Saint William Bramwell, and Saint James Mort, and Saint William R. Wood? If it be proper thus to employ the word saint, why should it be improper to apply it to the names of living men and women any more than to the names of the departed. In that case, it may become the province of our annual convocation, to consider who amongst us is worthy of being canonized; a new class of motives to holiness might thus be created, and you, my brother, might hope sometime to become another Saint John. The Romish Popes generally wait until some one or two centuries have elapsed, when all the errors of the to-be-made saints are forgotten, before they canonize them; but if the honour were more attainable, who can tell what good it might do?

Nottingham, Aug. 19th, 1847.

I am, yours truly,
ANTI-SAINT.

[The application of the term Saint, as it is generally used in connection with the names of the Apostles, and what are termed the Fathers and Confessors of the Church, is unquestionably of Popish origin, and the canonization of saints is still a Popish practice, when plenty of money is paid for it. The use of the epithet, as a prefix and title to names, whether of apostles or martyrs, ought undoubtedly to be discarded by all consistent Protestants.-ED.]

RIGHT DEALING WITH INFIDELS.

He that can sustain, for a long life, an argument like that of the aged Christian we are about to mention, will never be overcome by infidels. In one of the back towns in Massachusetts, a few years since, there was a man who took in an infidel paper, and set himself up as an avowed infidel. He argued with, and, as he thought, refuted all the Christians in the place. But there was one old professor in the village who would not debate with him. He spoke of the unspeakable love of Christ; of the preciousness of a good hope; of the comfort it afforded him. His conduct worried his sceptical neighbour. For all the rest he cared not a whit; but that old man-he thought about him most of the timesomething harrowed up his mind so that he could not rest. And so great was the trouble this old man caused him that it led him to reflect, repent, and believe on Christ. When he came into Conference to relate his experience, anterior to uniting with the church, he pointed to the hoary-headed member, and exclaimed, "The life of that man slew me!" The power of holy living is great. May the Lord multiply "living epistles," read and savingly known to many.

A CHRISTIAN looks not on the work he has accomplished, but on that which he has to do. Alone, he has his thoughts to watch; in company, his tongue. It will be his endeavour to illustrate his devotion in the morning, by his actions during the day.

OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.

A FEW OF THE DANGERS TO WHICH YOUNG MEN ARE EXPOSED.

WHEN a young man is placed out as a clerk, or an apprentice, his importance in society is immediately enhanced. A new sphere of activity presents itself, new emotions are enkindled in his bosom, and he gives while he receives new impulses. The arrangements having been completed which are to affect his future destiny, he begins at once to cast a look around upon his companions, and as their individual peculiarities of talent and temper unfold themselves, he selects his friend, or his friends. That friend, or those friends, are materially to mould his early character, as he is to mould theirs. The inward promptings of his own disposition may have determined his choice; but the results of that choice depend upon the reciprocal influence which these new companions exert upon each other, and which unitedly they may exert upon, or be affected by, a larger circle. In the face of such an assertion as that of the poet

"A world in purchase for a friend is gain"

it may seem strange to maintain, that friendship is a hazardous experiment. It is true, that when it is formed in other years, under the guidance of mature judgment and true religion, it becomes an element of happiness, and a means of good; but when the fruit has not had time to ripen, it may be dangerous to gather it; or when the ground has not undergone the necessary process of previous cultivation, it may be worse than useless to sow it. The friendships which are formed in very early youth, may be productive of beneficial and permanent consequences, and there have been gratifying evidences of their occasional utility; but when we recollect the casualty and uncertainty of the connexion under the circumstances supposed, and when we bring into view the want of experience, both as to men and things, which is inevitable at this outset in life, as well as the real deceptiveness and selfishness of the human heart, we cannot but be apprehensive lest the young man of a warm and confiding temperament should plunge into premature evil, or the young man of a bold or intriguing character, should inflict upon another a mighty, and perhaps incurable wrong. There is in this, as in so many other instances, a Scylla and a Charybdis, between which it is difficult to steer the little bark, laden with so many treasures for future time but the very existence of the difficulty, the very predicament of the young adventurer, shows the positive influence which belongs to him in either direction; and this it is which, in connexion with so many other facts, gives him a claim of the strongest kind upon the society from which he springs, in which he lives, and on whose condition he is to exert more or less of a moral power.

There is another class who may, at first sight, appear more detached and isolated, but, nevertheless, are so widely spread, and retain their peculiar habits, and often their peculiar position in life, so long, that in this estimate of the claims of young men, they demand a very distinct