future state, or its endless duration, for the New Covenant is called everlasting. The kingdom, reign, and priesthood of Christ, are called everlasting. But does this mean endless duration? This kingdom Christ received, and he is again to deliver it up to God the Father. Hence the Jews say "that the kingdom of the Messiah shall return to its first author." And shall not his priesthood, called an everlasting priesthood, cease when he shall have none to intercede for, and his reign end when all are subdued, and God be all in all? His priesthood shall not pass away, like that of Aaron's, nor his kingdom like other kingdoms of this world, but shall continue while sun and moon endure. The life enjoyed in this kingdom is called everlasting life, and the consolation in it everlasting consolation. In short, I conceive that all the everlastings of which the Scriptures speak, stand in some shape or other connected with God's dispensation of love and mercy to man through Jesus Christ. The ages or everlastings began with it, and shall terminate when Christ hath subdued all things, and the last enemy, death, is destroyed. Hence the state after this does not appear to me to be described in Scripture by the expression, "everlasting life," but by other words and phrases. For example, the dead are said to put on incorruption or immortality. Mortality is then to be swallowed up of life. They cannot die any more, but are equal unto the angels; being sons of the resurrection, their inheritance is incorruptible and fadeth not away, and they are to be (pantote) forever with the Lord.

The phrase "everlasting life," occurs only once in the Old Testament, but is of frequent occurrence in the New. But why was this the case, and why is it spoken of as a thing enjoyed upon believing in Jesus, and as connected with his reign or kingdom, which is to end, if it designated the life and enjoyment beyond the resurrection of the dead? Besides, it is set in contrast with the everlasting punishment, into which the Jews and others were sent for nearly eighteen hundred years, as shown above.

It never can be proved that it is ever contrasted with eternal death, or a punishment after the resurrection of all the dead. But this ought to have been its contrast, and contrasted as often as everlasting life is contrasted, if the common doctrine be true. Were the inspired writers so perfectly indifferent about the eternal death of their fellow-creatures, that they did not think it worth while once to mention it? They were, surely, not so much alarmed about this as many modern preachers are ; for eternal life and eternal death are their constant themes, and they cannot deny that these expressions are used by them, in contrast, to describe the endless felicity and misery of men in a future state. But where did they learn this? Not from their Bible, for it contains no such contrasts. Such men must presume a great deal on the ignorance and credulity of their hearers, who think to make their sayings pass for the declarations of Jehovah.

3d. The term everlasting is also applied to punishment, and it is confidently affirmed that it expresses the endless duration of it. The places where it is so applied are few in number, and can easily be counted by the reader, as they have all been laid before him. Such of them, on which dependence is placed in proof of the doctrine of endless punishment, have been fully and particularly considered. For example, Matt 15: 46, and 2 Thess. 1: 9, the strongholds of this doctrine, have been razed to the foundations. It has been proved, we think, that, so far from those passages teaching the doctrine of endless punishment, they do not even teach a punishment beyond this life. If these two texts fail in supporting it, it is useless to attempt its defence from any other part of Scripture.

To conclude. We have attempted to examine the common doctrines of the devil and eternal punishment with all the candor and fairness we could command. It has resulted in the fullest conviction that these doctrines are not taught in Scripture, but are the production of the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God, and

which cometh to naught. Persuaded the more the Scriptures are examined this will the more clearly appear, we have published our views on the subject, hoping it will be pursued by others, who have more time and better talents, to throw additional light upon it. We can sincerely say we have sought after the truth, and from the love of truth, for this only can stand when all human devices in religion shall fail. If we have not found the truth, but have embraced error, we hold ourselves in readiness to attend to whatever can be said on the other side. Truth can never suffer by calm, candid discussion; but error shuns the light, deprecates investigation, and is ever ready to cry heresy, and that the church is in danger.*

* De Quincey, one of the most popular writers of the age, devotes one of his Theological Essays in vol. I. to a consideration of the " Supposed Scriptural Expression for Eternity." He takes strong ground against the popular signification of aion and aionios; and after showing that they did not signify endless, he answers the objection, that if we say punishment is not endless, we must also say happiness is not. He says, "I, separately, speaking for myself only, profoundly believe that the Scriptures ascribe absolute and metaphysical eternity to one sole Being, viz., to God; and derivatively to all others according to the interest which they can plead in God's favor. Having anchorage in God, innumerable entities may possibly be admitted to a participation in divine aeon. But what interest in the favor of God can belong to falsehood, to malignity, to impurity? To invest them with aeonian privileges is, in effect, and by its results, to distrust and to insult the Deity. Evil would not be evil if it had that power of self-subsistence which is imputed to it in supposing its aeonian life to be coëternal with that which crowns and glorifies the good." O. A. S.

AN INQUIRY

INTO THE POSSESSIONS OF DEVILS, MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In the first part of this work it has been shown that the terms Devil and Satan, in the Bible, do not designate an evil spirit-an angel who fell from heaven. We shall now inquire if the devils, with which persons were supposed to be possessed, are evil spirits who fell with him, as many believe. It is often said, in the New Testament, that certain persons were possessed with a devil, and one man declared that he had a legion of them within him. But no such statements are to be found in the Old Testament, nor do we find any such things in the present day. In the apostolic age these devils were supposed to inflict madness and other disorders on men; yet no person imputes the same evils to them in the present day. Are such devils all dead? Have they lost their power to inflict such disorders? Are they all turned good devils; or have we been mistaken in what is said in the New Testament about them?

It is very certain the word devil misleads the English reader. The Greek words, diabolos, daimon, daimonion, are all rendered, in the common version of the New Testament, by this word devil, and, in the plural, devils. But the last two words are essentially different in meaning from the first, and in modern translations are rendered demon, and, in the plural, demons. The three words are never used to express the same being or thing by

the sacred writers. They never intimate that any person was possessed with diabolos, the devil. The devil is spoken of as one, and is only used in the plural number when speaking of human beings. But the demons are spoken of as many, and were cast out of persons. Diabolos is never said to be cast out of any person. This marked distinction between the devil and demons is lost in our common English version; for diabolos, daimon and daimonion, are all rendered by our English word devil.

If the terms devil and satan do not designate an angel who fell from heaven, the presumption is, demons are not angels who fell with him. It is very certain no such thing is taught in the Bible, and, if not found there, how came it to be known that demons are fallen angels? Some suppose demons to be the product of a union of angels with the daughters of men. Others, as a race of malignant and mischievous spirits; and we shall see they are deemed by some the ghosts of deified dead men, mere imaginary beings, and originated in the vain imaginations of the heathen. It is certain the Bible nowhere says that God created them, or gives us any account of their origin. Dr. Campbell says, "What the precise idea of demons, to whom possessions were ascribed, then was, it would be, perhaps, impossible for us with any certainty to affirm. This in one sense is true, for the Bible gives us no precise idea of demons as real beings. But if they were ideal beings, created by the imaginations of men, we may, perhaps, ascertain this to be a fact, which is sufficient on the subject. It is evident the New Testament writers speak of demons, and of persons being possessed with them, not as a new thing under the sun, but as a popular and common thing, and speak in the common language of the age about them. They speak of demons, the devil and satan, of the god Mammon, of transmigration, and other things, without saying how such opinions originated, or whether they were true or false. To have corrected all the false