S.°^5, 'C . 
 
 <^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented by OA <S.y^ V'N-^X \J\j . V^C\\^\<' 
 
 Division 
 Section 
 
* MAR 231910 * 
 
 THREE V5j^ 
 
 r-^ t -* -.^- 
 
 fl 
 
 <e/rt 
 
 A- 
 
 Bi 
 
 
 INQUIRIES 
 
 1. Into the Scriptural Doctrine ccncerning the 
 
 DEVIL AND SATAN. 
 
 2. The Estent of Duration, expressed ty the terms 
 
 OLIM, AION, AND AIONIOS, 
 
 RENDERED EVERLASTING, &c. &c. IN THE BIBLE, 
 
 AND ESPECIALLY WHEN APPLIED TO PUNISHMENT, 
 
 3. The ItJe-w Testamen.t Doctrine concerning the 
 
 POSSESSION OF DEVILS. 
 
 By WALTER BALFOUR, 
 
 OF CHARLESTOAYN, MASS. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 PROVIDENCE : 
 PUBLISHED BY Z. BAKER 
 
 GOSPEL MESSENGER OFFICE, 
 
 1842, 
 

 Entered According- to Act of Congress, m the year 1842, by 
 WALTER BALFOUR, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of IMassachusetts. 
 
 Providence : Benjamin F. Moore, Book, Job, Card and Fancy Printer. 
 
 i^ 
 

 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 Introduction .... - Page v, 
 
 Section i. Common opinions of the Devil and Satan briefly 
 
 stated ..... 13 
 
 Sect. ii. Remarks on Genesis iii. showing that the serpent 
 
 which deceived Eve was not a fallen angel 19 
 
 Sect, hi. All the texts m the Old Testement where the 
 original word Shaitan, or Satan occurs, consid- 
 ered ----- 35 
 
 Sect, iv. The opinion that the Devil or Satan is a real 
 being, with other connected opinions, shown 
 to have their origin in heathenism - 64 
 
 Sect. v. All the passages in the New Testamen where the 
 
 term Satan occurs, considered - - 97 
 
 Sect. vi. All the passages where the original word Diabolos, 
 
 translated Devil is used, considered - 115 
 
 Sect. vii. All the passages considered in which the terms 
 
 Devil and Satan are used synonymously - 146 
 
 Sect. viii. All the texts considered where the Devil is sup- 
 posed to be called the evil one, the tempter, the 
 great dragon, the serpent, and old serpent, the 
 princs of this world, the prince of the power of 
 the air, and the god of this world - 161 
 
 Sect. ix. Facts stated, showing that the Devil is not a fallen 
 
 angel, or a real being - - . 172 
 
 Sect. x. Objections considered - - - 182 
 
 Slct. XI. Concluding remarks, pointing out the evils which 
 have arisen from the common opinions enter- 
 tained of the Devi] and Satan - - 19Q 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 ^* xO 
 
 Sect, i. ..^AlWtlieigtQxLs noticed wlierqgpiimtoccTirs^n the • 
 Old Testament, but is rendered by xvords which 
 do not express or imply endless duration 197 
 
 Sf.ct. II. All the passages noticed where Olim is used, and '\ 
 
 rendered by words which convey the idea of 
 endless duration - - - 20;jl 
 
 Sect, hi. All the texts where Olim occurs, is rendered by 
 words wliich convey the idea of endless dura- 
 tion, and applied to punishment, particularly 
 considered .... 033 
 
 Sect. iv. General remarks on Aionand Aionios,as used in 
 
 the New Testament - - - 243 
 
 Sect. v. All the places noticed where Aion and Aioiiios 
 are rendered ages, course, never, forever, ever- 
 more, eternal, everlasting; but which have no 
 relation to punishment - - '25ii 
 
 Sect. vi. All the places where Aion and Aionios are ren- 
 dered world, considered - - 26'> 
 
 Sect. vij. All the pl-Tces where Aion find Aionios arc used 
 to express the duration of punishment, particu- 
 larly considered, in whatever way rendered in 
 the comncon version - - - 308 
 
 Sect- viii. Concluding remarks on Olim, Aion and Aionios, 
 throughout the Bible, whether applied to God, 
 to life, or punishment - - - 343 
 
 PART III. 
 
 An iNQcfRv into the possession of devils mentioned in the 
 New Testament ^^tt 
 
 if 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Lv presenting the following pages to the public, were any 
 apology necessary, I would make it in the words of Professor 
 Stuart "to Dr. Miller. He says, p. 12, 13. of his Letters, " it is 
 just as much our individual duty now, to bring every principle 
 of the creed of the Protestant churches to the test of the divine 
 word, as it was the duty of the Reformers to bring that of the 
 Catholics to the test of Scripture. This position is absolutely 
 certain ; unless we can prove that the formers of the Protestant 
 symbols were inspired. If they were not, they may have erred 
 in some things ; and if so, it is important to us, if possible, to 
 know in what they have erred. But how shall we, or how can 
 we know this, unless their creeds are subjected, anew and re- 
 peatedly, to the test of the Scriptures, &c. 
 
 " So long as we profess to be Protestants, and of course, pro- 
 fess to believe that the Bible is the sufficient and only rule of 
 faith and practice, so long, if we act consistently, we believe in 
 the symbols of faith which we receive, only because we find 
 them supported by the Scriptures. It is not only lawful then to 
 put 'them to the test ; but it is an imperious duty for every man 
 to do it, who is able to do it. There may be a show of modesty 
 and humility in receiving what others have believed, without 
 examination and without scrutiny ; but in every case, where 
 there is ability to investigate and bring to the Scripture test, a 
 failure to do it must arise from undue regard to the authority of 
 fellible men, or from mere inaction — from absolute sloth." &c. 
 
 According to my ability I have endeavored to bring to the 
 Scripture test three very important articles in the Protestant 
 creeds. Other articles, particularly those noticed in Part 1. 
 Section iv. intruded themselves in the course of my researches, 
 and it was deemed proper to give them a due share of attention, 
 being very closely connected with my subject. 
 
 It may be thought by some, that if the things stated in Part i. 
 Sect. 4. be true, the Second Part is a superfluous discussion ; for 
 it follows, of course, that endless punishment cannot be true. 
 This we admit ; but the texts where everlasting is applied to 
 punishment, will not be given up by many as teaching endless 
 punishment, until some rational Scriptural interpretation is pre- 
 sented, showing that their former views of them are incorrect. 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1 here can speak from experience ; for I never would have 
 relinquished the doctrine of endless punishment, unless I had 
 come to see how such texts could be' ftiirly explained as not 
 teaching it. I have felt the power of such previous views on 
 Vny own mind, and make allowance for others in the same con- 
 dition. On this account, if my explanations of the texts where 
 everlasting is applied to punishment be correct, the Second Part, 
 so far from being superfluous, is highly necessary. Many of my 
 former friends have wondered, how I could embrace my present 
 views with such texts staring me in the face." One object with 
 me, in the Second Part has been, to show, that I did not shut 
 my eyes to these texts, but obtaining very different views of 
 them, embraced my present opinions. W^hether my present 
 views be correct, they can now see and judge for themselves. 
 If I have embraced error, they are requested to have the good- 
 ness to correct it. 
 
 In tJie following pages, we have expressed our opinions frankly 
 and sincerely, and appealed to the Scriptures as the test of truth. 
 The author "hopes, that t]\e spirit in which his remarks are made 
 can give offence to none. He has studied to avoid all harsh 
 language, convinced that man's wrath can never work the righte- 
 ousness of God. If he has in any instance turned aside from this 
 path, he shall regret it much more than any of his readers, for his 
 object is to convince, not to irritate. Should it be said, some of 
 the opinions controverted are not held now by our orthodox 
 bretln-en, nor durst any preacher avow them, without forfeiting 
 his station. We are glad to hear of this, but doubt if it is gene- 
 rally true ; and certainly, we have never heard, that anv public 
 disavowal of them has been made. If such opinions are not held 
 now, why not publicly denounce them .•* For it will not be de- 
 nied, that they have been held by Calvinists in past ages. At 
 any rate, we would say, it has been far from our heart to misre- 
 present the opinions of our brethren. 
 
 Shoul'd any one reply to the following pages, the author begs 
 leave to say, that it will be of no consequence to point out defects 
 in his manner of discussing the subject, or, to shi)w that he has 
 misunderstood some texts which have come under his considera- 
 tion. As to the first, had liis time and avocations permitted, he 
 might have rendered the work freer of defects. As to the last, 
 thougli he has used all means in his power to interpret the Scrip- 
 tur(;s correctly, yet it would be surprising, if in no instance he 
 Jiad misunderstood the sacred writers- A reply in«M-(dy bearing 
 on these points, lie will pass over in silence. But, li(> will listen 
 with attention to whatever maybe advanced. He will attend to 
 argument and cvid(Mice drawn from Scripture, come from what 
 quarter they may, whether stated in a good or batl temper of mind. 
 If convinced he is wrong, he will be silent, but if not, he will 
 claim the privilege of stating iiis reasons for his dissent. Who- 
 
INTRODUCTION. Vll 
 
 ever undertakes to reply, we beg of them to give us proofs and 
 not mere assertions., for what they may advance, and to pay par- 
 ticuhir attention also to what we have advanced in Parti. Sect. 4. 
 To point out defects, without fairly meeting the grand points at 
 issue will be considered no answer. 
 
 I make no apology for availing myself of quotations from vari- 
 ous authors in the course of my remarks, for they are chiefly 
 taken from writers whose religious creeds embraced the opinions 
 controverted. None of them are taken from professed Universa- 
 lists, for by most people their testimony would be deemed excep- 
 tionable, however well supported by evidence. The testimonies 
 quoted in favor of my opinions, are from men competent to judge, 
 and in high repute as critics and commentators among orthodox 
 people. They are quoted, not to give sanction to my views by 
 the weight and number of their names, but on account of the 
 evidence which they produce. 
 
 In the present work, the strongest texts in favor of endless 
 punishment are considered, and attention given them in propor- 
 tion to the degree of stress laid on them in favor of this doctrine, 
 in some instances, we have referred to our former Inquiry into 
 the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, for an illustra- 
 tion, which the reader will please consult. And in ail cases, we 
 hope the texts referred to, will be turned to and read, as they 
 confirm or illustrate the sentiments advocated. 
 
 The author is deeply sensible, that the sentiments advanced 
 are very unpopular, and will be condemned by many without a 
 hearing. He is sorry for such persons on their own account; for 
 this cannotstop the advance of light and knowledge in the present 
 day, anjMiiore than sleeping all day can stop the sun in his course. 
 If what I have advanced be true, it must prevail against all 
 opposition, for great is the truth, and must prevail. If my 
 sentiments are false, the sooner they are refuted, neglected, and 
 forgotten, the better. If this can be done, it no doubt will be 
 done, and to the doing of it we shall add our hearty amen. 
 
INOTICE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 In this third edition, a third partis added — "On the posses- 
 sions of devils mentioned in the New Testament." Those who 
 comphiined of the want of this, in the two former editions, will 
 here find it supplied. This addition has considerahly increased 
 the size of the book, being unwilling to abridge the other parts 
 to make room for it. We have seen no reason to change our 
 opinions, or to alter them, and of course they remain in this as in 
 former editions. All the difference is, we have somewhat abridg- 
 ed the introduction, left out a few sentences and words of no 
 importance to the argument, and made a few verbal alterations 
 in the phraseology. But these are of so little importance, that 
 we deem them iiardly deserving this brief notice. We hope the 
 work is improved, and is rendered more perfect by the addition 
 made to it. In this addition, the subject is discussed very briefly 
 from what it might have been, for we deemed it most profitable 
 to confine our attention to the argument from Scripture. By this 
 test we wish our .^ientimcnts to stand or fall. If they are unscrip- 
 tural, no person hitherto has attempted to refute them from the 
 Bible. The attempt ought to be nnide soon, to benefit me, for I 
 shall ere long go the way of all the earth, and be beyond cither 
 men's praise or their blame. What thou doest then " do quickly" 
 for "there is no work, nor device, nor wisdom in the grave." 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 
 fjVTO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE CONCERNING 
 THE J) EVIL AND ^ATAN. 
 
 SECTION L 
 
 t 
 C;OMMON OPINIONS ENTERTAINED OF THE DEVIL AND 
 SATAN BRIEFLY STATED. 
 
 The opinions entertained, concerning a being called 
 the Devil a^id Satan, are many. We shall give a brief 
 summary of them under the following particulars : 
 
 1st, The Unity of the Devil. It is the common 
 opinion, that there is but one being properly called tAe 
 devil. The unity of God is not more certainly be^ 
 lieved, than that the Devil or Satan is one. Though 
 God is said by many to be three persons in one being, 
 yet the devil has never been supposed to be more than 
 one person in one being. Dr. Campbell, Dissert. 6, 
 says, "nor can any thing be clearer from Scripture 
 than that, though the demons are innumerable, there is 
 but one devil in the universe," 
 
 2d. The Origin of the Devil. The common opinr 
 ions about this are -—that he \vas originally, one of the 
 angels of God in heaven. God did not create him 3 
 
14 AN INQ^UIRY PART 1. 
 
 devil, but be became so, by bis own sin and rebellion. 
 It is also believed, that be drew a nuiltitude of the 
 heavenly bests into rebellion with him, who have 
 shared his fate, are called his angels, and that he has 
 become their chief. His sin is supposed to have been 
 pride ; but how, or about what it arose, we have never 
 seen properly defined. The time is not ascertained 
 when all this took place; but it must have been before 
 Adam and Eve sinned, as he is said to have been their 
 seducer. Supposing all this to be true, we can an- 
 swer the long agitated question — " whence cameth 
 evil ?" It came from heaven. It originated amonii; 
 the holy angels of God. But how it could orig?^^atein 
 heaven, and among such holy beings, I must leave 
 for others to explain. Admitting such opinions true, 
 } ask, if sin once originated there and among such 
 beings, why may it not again, yea, often ; and why 
 not extend it to all the ransomed of the Lord ? Why 
 may they not all finally become devils by sin and rebel- 
 lion against the Lord ? What is the security given 
 that not[iingof a like nature shall ever take place again 
 in heaven ? 
 
 3d. His expulsion from heaven and his place of 
 ahode since. How long the devil maintained his place 
 in heaven after he sinned, we have never seen stated. 
 All agree, that he was cast out of heaven, but where 
 he was cast to, and where his abode has been since, 
 very various opinions are entertained. Some say he 
 was cast down to hell, and has been there in chains of 
 darkness ever since. Others allege, that his abode is 
 in the air, or our atmosphere. The most general opin- 
 ion is, that he walks about in our world like a roaring 
 lion seeking whom he may devour, and will continue to 
 do so until the consummation of all things. Some have 
 thought, that he has his residence in the heart of every 
 
AN IN(^UIRY PART I. 15 
 
 wicked man, and is the cause of so much evil being de- 
 vised by it. These opinions cannot all be true, which 
 creates a suspicion they may all be false. 
 
 4th. The nature and character of the Devil. The 
 devil is universally believed to be a spirit. God is 
 not more certainly believed to be a good spirit, than 
 he is believed to be an evil spirit. Not one good 
 quality is supposed to be in his nature or char- 
 acter. On the contrary, every evil, and that in the 
 highest degree, is found in him. He is a perfect com- 
 pound of all that is evil, and the irreconcilable enemy 
 of God and man. As he is incapable of being made 
 better, it is believed he is so bad tliat he cannot be 
 made worse. To say a person or thing is as bad as 
 the devil, is saying the worst that can be said concern- 
 ing them. 
 
 5th. The extraordinary powers ascribed to him. — 
 Many people consider him almost omniscient, omni- 
 present, and omnipotent. He is supposed to know the 
 thoughts, words, and actions of all men ; that he is in 
 all parts of the world at the same time; and effects 
 things by his power, little inferior to God himself. God 
 is the only being in the universe who is able to control 
 him. He can assume any form, shape, or color; and 
 tliough an angel of darkness, can transform himself Into 
 an angel of light. One would be almost led to think, 
 he had greatly increased his powers by his sin and 
 rebellion, for no good angel is ever represented as pos- 
 sessing such extraordinary powers as Christians ascribe 
 to the devil. If his powers have been curtailed by his 
 rebellion against God, what must they have been be- 
 fore it ? 
 
 6th. How the Devil is employed. It would be an 
 endless task to enumerate all the various work in which 
 he is supposed to have engaged, since his expulsion 
 
16 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 from heaven. One of the first things he engaged in, 
 was to tempt our first parents to sin, and thereby ruined 
 them and all their posterity. Ever since, he has been 
 seducing every son and daughter of Adam to all kinds 
 of sin, fomenting all sorts of mischief, and producing 
 misery in our world. He is supposed to be walking 
 about seeking whom he may devour, deceives the 
 whole world, and accuses the very best of men before 
 God. He infuses evil thoughts and desires into men's 
 minds, and is ever ready to assist them in the execu- 
 tion of their wicked purposes, and the gratification of 
 their sinful lusts and passions. He is supposed not only 
 to inflict many severe bodily diseases, but to harrass the 
 mind, so as to drive persons to distraction and suicide. 
 He is believed to have been the cause of all .Job's 
 afflictions, to have bound a woman eighteen years with 
 an infirmity, and urged Judas on in his course of wick- 
 edness until he betrayed Jesus, and was finally led to 
 hang himself. He is also allowed to blind men's minds 
 about the gospel, and harden their hearts, and is at 
 work in the heart of every child of disobedience. He 
 not only picks up the seed of the word when sown, 
 lest men should believe it and be saved, but those who 
 do believe it, are the objects of his particular malice, 
 whom though he cannot ruin forever, he is determined 
 to render as miserable as possible. All wicked men 
 are his, and his care is, to keep them under his 
 power and dominion. Some marvellous accounts have 
 been given, of his torturing and torEiiCnting good peo- 
 ple, and of some who sold themselves soul and body to 
 him. At the stipulated time, he has come and carried 
 them away bodily to hell. It is the belief of some, 
 that at death, the devil carries off the souls of wicked 
 men to the same place. Those who wish to inform 
 themselves more fully may consult Boston's works. 
 
AN INQ,UIRr PART 1. 17 
 
 Edwards, Jeremy Taylor, Godwin, and many other 
 authors on this subject. 
 
 Ttli. The various names hy ivhich he is designated. 
 What the devil's name was before he sinned in heaven 
 we have never been able to ascertain ; but if we cannot 
 ascertain who or what the devil is, it is not for want of 
 names, which are supposed to distinguish him from 
 every other being. He iy called in Scripture, as 
 many suppose, satan, the devil, the evil one, the 
 tempter, the old serpent, the god of this world, the 
 prince of this world, and the prince of the power of 
 the air. These are his principal titles, with a few 
 others which are of less consequence, and do not re- 
 quire any particular notice. He has also a great 
 variety of vulgar names, which to put on paper, 
 would only be to promote the laughter of fools, which 
 is no object with me in writing. If such a being does 
 exist, we are called to weep, rather than to laugh. If 
 he does not, I wish soberly and seriously to expose 
 such a false and pernicious opinion. We protest 
 against the common use of such names in daily conver- 
 sation, whether the people believe or disbelieve his ex- 
 istence. One thing we remark, that all such vulgar 
 names are desio;ned to desio;nale a real beino; or fallen 
 angel, by people who thus use them. 
 
 8th. His endless existence and future prospects. It 
 is not only believed the devil does exist, but that 
 he will forever exist, the same wicked and malignant 
 being. It is the common opinion, that no Saviour has, 
 or ever will be provided for him. He is considered be- 
 yond the limits of God's mercy. This door is forever 
 closed to him, and his repentance and return to his for- 
 mer allegiance and happiness is considered utterly 
 hopeless. Nor is it thought that he will ever desire it, 
 but would scorn such a proposal ; for his mind is 
 
18 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 made up, rather to reign in bell than serve in heaven. 
 Some have held the opinion, he will finally be restored, 
 but will be the last being in the universe, who shall be 
 delivered from future misery. 
 
 But it is the general opinion, that however miserable 
 the devil is, he has nothing better to hope for ; nor is 
 he concerned for his miserable condition. As God can^ 
 not, or willnotd\iev it, so he disdains to complain, or to 
 sue for mercy. With such an endless, dreary prospect of 
 intolerable misery before him, yet he scorns to submit, 
 and his stout heart, supported by malice and revenge, 
 is consoled, that if God is to be his eternal tormentor, 
 to the same duration he shall be the tormentor of a 
 large portion of mankind. 
 
 Such is a brief summary of the common opinions 
 entertained of the Devil and Satan, and are by 
 some still preached to the world. It is true, 
 the ancient zeal for such opinions has considerably 
 abated, but still enough remains to prevent me from 
 being a favorite with the religious public for calling 
 them in question. From early life such opinions have 
 been imbibed; they have been nourished and strength- 
 ened by religious instruction in after life ; and from the 
 universal influence of public opinion in their favor, peo- 
 ple have been deterred from inquiring — are they true! 
 But, let any sober-minded man sit down and seriously 
 reflect on such opinions, and we think he must be sat- 
 isfied they cannot all be true. They are at variance 
 with each other, and some of them are incredible and 
 literally impossible, unless the devil be nearly equal to 
 God himself. When brought to the test of Scripture 
 and examined, we think they will be found wanting; 
 having no better foundation than the doctrine of witch- 
 craft, which is now almost exploded. The evidence of 
 this we hope will appear in succeeding Sections. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 19 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 REMARKS ON GEN. ill. SHOWING, THAT THE SERPENT 
 WHICH DECEIVED EYE WAS NOT A FALLEN ANGEL. 
 
 In considering the Scripture doctrine concerning the 
 devil and satan., Gen. iii. first claims our attention. 
 Those who are not famiharwith its contents will please 
 turn to it, and read it. The common opinion is, that 
 the serpent which deceived Eve, was a fallen angel, 
 and is throughout the Bible called the devil and satan. 
 This is taken for granted, and it will be considered vaia 
 and impious to call it in question. But I shall pro- 
 ceed to state facts and arguments, proving, that in 
 whatever way this chapter ought to be understood, it 
 gives no countenance to such opinions. 
 
 1st. Moses in the two preceding chapters of Gene- 
 sis, makes no mention of an angel, who fell from heaven. 
 If such an event had happened, he was either igno- 
 rant of it, was not authorised, or deemed it unnecessary 
 to mention it. We may with equal truth assert, that 
 God created the devil, as assert, that an angel had be- 
 come so, from any thing Moses has said in these chap- 
 ters. But ought not this to have been announced in 
 them, if it be true, that he is spoken of in the third as 
 the cause of the fall of man ? 
 
 2d. It is a fact equally indisputable, that Moses in 
 this account, does not say that the serpent was a fallen 
 angel. It is from what he does say, that we can learn 
 what he believed, and not from his silence on the sub- 
 
20 AN IN<^UIRY PART I. 
 
 ject. It is not easily conjectured, how such an opinion 
 came to be inferred from this account. The circum- 
 stances related lead to a very different conclusion. — 
 Observe the connexion between the second and 
 third chapters. In chapter ii. 19, 20, it is said, 
 ''And out of the ground the Lord God formed every 
 heast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and 
 brought them unto Adam, to see what he would 
 call them : and whatsoever Adam called every Irv- 
 ing creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam 
 gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and 
 to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not 
 found an help meet for him." The third chapter be- 
 gins thus — " Now the serpent was more subtle than any 
 heast of the field which the Lord God had made." — 
 Any one reading these two passages, would conclude 
 that the serpent was a beast of the field, whicli the 
 Lord brought to Adam, and which he had named ser- 
 fcnt. The connexion leads to this conclusion, unless 
 we suppose God brought a fallen angel among the 
 beasts of the field to Adam, and that he gave him this 
 name. But it would be foolish to assert this. 
 
 Again, let it be observed, that the woman did not 
 accuse a fallen angel as her deceiver, verse 13. God 
 says to her — " What is this that thou hast done ?" She 
 answers him, "the serpent beguiled me and I did eat." 
 Had either Eve or Moses believ'ed such an evil being 
 was the cause of her disobedience, would they have 
 imputed it to a beast of the field ? When God 
 made inquisition, he traces the evil from Adam 
 to the woman, and from the woman to the serpent, 
 and here both stop. But had there been any other 
 agent concerned, I ask, would either of them ha/e 
 slopped here? But again, Moses does not represent 
 the serpent as a fallen angel in the punishment inflicted. 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART I, 21 
 
 verses 14, 15. It is evident God calls the deceiver of 
 Eve, serpent. If a fallen angel used this reptile as a 
 cover for his deception, it is certain he is not accused 
 of the crime, nor doe-s he suffer any punishment. From 
 any thing said in the account, we may as justly accuse 
 the angel Gabriel of deceiving Eve, as a fallen angel, 
 and the punishment inflicted, fell on, and was as much 
 suited to the former as to the latter. Was this fallen 
 angel to go upon his belly and to eat dust all the days 
 of his life ? 
 
 3d. But another fact is, Moses in no part of bis wri- 
 tings, gives us any information about an angel who fell 
 from heaven and had become a devil. Let any one read 
 the five books of Moses, and he must be convinced, 
 that such a being is not once mentioned by him under 
 any name. Had Moses only recognized the ex- 
 istence of such an evil spirit, there might be some 
 ground for supposing that he used the serpent as 
 a tool to effect the deception of Eve. But his 
 entire silence on this subject, throughout his whole 
 writings, forbids such a supposition. For m.ore than 
 two thousand years then, such an evil being was 
 unknown among men. Was Moses afraid to speak out 
 on this subject ? But pray, what temptation had he to 
 conceal such information ? Let any candid man say, 
 if Moses knew such an evil being existed, had de- 
 ceived Eve, was such an enemy to God and the human 
 race, whether he would have been silent about him. 
 Such an important article we might naturally expect, 
 would be conspicuous in his writings. But will any 
 man affirm that this is the case ? 
 
 4th. Another fact strongly confirms all the pre- 
 ceding. No Old Testament writer says, Moses by 
 the serpent. Genesis iii., meant a fallen angel. — 
 They never speak of such a being by the name ser- 
 
22 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 pent, so that all foundation for such a supposition is 
 out of the present question. But 1 ask, had they be- 
 lieved as people do now, would this have been the 
 case ? It is true, there are seme texts in the Old Tes- 
 tament, from which it has been concluded that such a 
 being is called satan. These will be fully considered 
 in the next Section. Here, let the reader only notice, 
 that no Old Testament writer considered the serpent a 
 fallen angel, the devil of Christians. They frequently 
 use the term serpent, but never insinuate that a fallen 
 angel used this reptile in deceiving Eve. For four 
 thousand years, then, no such opinion seems to have 
 been entertained by any sacred writer. 
 
 5th. What shows that the serpent. Genesis iii., 
 \vas not a fallen angel is, in the Bible there are both 
 allusions and direct references to the account of Eve's 
 deception and the entrance of sin, but no intimation is 
 given, that a fallen angel was the cause of either. We 
 shall briefly notice the principal of them. Paul, 2 Cor. 
 xi 3, says — -'But I fear lest by any means, as the 
 serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your 
 minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is 
 in Christ." 
 
 Paul here calls the deceiver of Eve the serpent, as Mo- 
 ses did, but not a syllable escapes him, that the devil used 
 this beast of the field as a cover for his deception. If 
 this was the orthodox belief in Paul's day, he gave no 
 sanction to it as an inspired teacher. He agrees with 
 all the preceding sacred writers, in being silent about 
 the devil seducing our first parents. But if Paul 
 believed this doctrine, is it not strange, that in a 
 direct reference to the deception of Eve by the 
 serpent, he should give no intimation that such a 
 wicked being was the principal agent? But again, 
 Job says, chap. xxxi. 33 — '' If I covered my trans- 
 
AN INQUIRY PAB.T I. 23 
 
 gressions as Adam by hiding mine iniquity in my bo- 
 som." But instead of the w ords, '' as Adam," we have 
 in the margin, " after the manner of men." But al- 
 lowino; the renderino- in the text correct, Job gives us 
 no hint that he beheved an evil spirit was the cause of 
 Adam's sin. Again, in Hosea vi. 7, it is said — '^but 
 they hke men, (in the margin hke Adam) have trans- 
 gressed the covenant." But a more direct reference we 
 have, Rom. v. 12 — 14. — " Wherefore as by one man 
 sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so 
 death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned : 
 for until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not 
 imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death 
 reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had 
 not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, 
 who is the figu/e of him that was to come." Here Paul 
 expressly declares, that by one man, and not by a fallen 
 angel, sin entered the world. But again, he says, 1 
 Cor. XV. 22.— '* for as in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive." See also verses 45 — 
 49. But still, he does not say a word about the devil 
 or a fallen angel having any concern with either sin or 
 death by Adam. In 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14. the apos- 
 tle directly alludes to the third chapter of Genesis. — 
 ^'But Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam 
 was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was 
 in the transgression." The apostle here says. Eve was 
 deceived, but not a word about her being deceived by 
 a fallen angel. He told us, 2 Cor. xi. 3, that the 
 serpent beguiled her, and this is just what Eve said 
 herself, " the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." — 
 Gen. iii. 13. 
 
 Such are the references made in Scripture, to the ac- 
 count given us by Moses in the third chapter of Gene- 
 sis, except two or three passages, w^here we read of that 
 
24 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART 
 
 old serpent, the devil and satan. These will be con- 
 sidered in Section viii. 
 
 6th. Bat admitting such an evil spirit did exist, 
 call him by what name you please, how is the 
 character of God to be defended in not forew^arning 
 our first parents against his evil devices ? It is evi- 
 dent, not a word of caution was afforded them. They 
 have to learn his existence by the mischief he does 
 them, and if God gives them information afterwards 
 concerning l)im, it comes too late to be of any benefit 
 to them. Was God ignorant of the fall of this angel 
 from heaven ? Or, could he be ig:norant of his evil de- 
 vices, and not foresee the ruin of our first parents by 
 him? This is impossible. Are w^e then to conclude, 
 God concealed the knowledge of such a beinor from 
 them, that they might be seduced and ruined ? — 
 I should rather conclude that no such being ex- 
 isted, about which God cculd give them information. 
 He did foresee the consequences of their being seduced, 
 and he guarded them against the true tempter as we 
 shall presently see. 
 
 7tl]. The fall of an angel from heaven, and be- 
 coming a devil, is certainly a very remarkable 
 event. It is rendered more so, by its connexion 
 with the fall of man, in making him a sinner, and 
 entailing, according to many, eternal misery on his 
 posterity. The very nature of the case leads us to 
 think, that Moses would have related the lldl of this 
 angel, before he introduced the fall of man. But no- 
 thing like this is found, nor is the one related as having 
 any connexion with the other. Moses says just as much 
 about the ascent of a devil to heaven, and becoming a 
 good angel, as he does about the fall of an angel from 
 heaven, and becoming a devil ; and the deception of 
 Eve, is just as much ascribed to the former as to the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 25 
 
 latter. Nor, does any later scripture writer teach the 
 doctrine of a fallen angel, or ascribe the fall of man to 
 his evil irfluence. But allowing the existence of such 
 a being we would notice, 
 
 8ih. There is no evidence in this account, that a 
 fallen angel knew that one tree of the garden was pro- 
 hibited, and it is not easy to understand how a mere 
 serpent could know it. Did God inform the devil about 
 the prohibition ? Or was he present when it was given ? 
 It does not appear that Eve informed him, for the ser- 
 pent began the conversation with her, and seems to 
 have known all about it. This very circumstance, re- 
 presenting the serpent as perfectly acquainted with the 
 prohibition, su(,rgests that Moses merely used the 
 serpent to represent something else, which will ration^ 
 ally account for this. 
 
 9th. Admitting for a moment, that the devil did as- 
 sume the likeness of a serpent, how does this accord 
 with the policy which this arch deceiver is sup- 
 posed to possess ? For his advocates affirm, he 
 can assume a much more agreeable likeness than 
 that of a vile, contemptible reptile. Besides, he 
 does not seem to have chosen this appearance often 
 since, for people represent him as appearing in va- 
 rious forms, but seldom if ever in that of a serpent. 
 
 10th. Unless we believe that Eve was on familiar 
 terms with the devil, and knew that serpents spoke and 
 reasoned in those days, she was more likely to be 
 frightened than deceived. A speaking serpent, or the 
 devil under this likeness, would terrify the most coura- 
 geous female among us. But Eve show^ed no signs of 
 fear, or even suspicion on this occasion. She con- 
 versed with the devil, or the serpent, with as much ap- 
 parent composure, as she could have done with Adam. 
 The common belief makes her, a perfect holy creature, 
 
26 AN INq,UIRY PART I. 
 
 to fall before a temptation, and that by means of agents, 
 which almost all her sinful posterity would have re- 
 sisted. What man, what female, now, would be de- 
 ceived into disobedience by a speaking serpent, or the 
 devil under this likeness ? If pure mother Eve could 
 not resist such a temptation, how can it be expected 
 her corrupt offspring can resist any temptation 1 All 
 these things lead me to suspect, this account of 
 the deception of Eve by a serpent, was intended to 
 teach us something else ; and tliat we are indebted to 
 Milton, rather than Moses, for the common opinions 
 entertained on this subject. 
 
 I shall now state for candid consideration my own 
 opinion of this passage. We find it then said, chap, 
 iii. 1 — '' Now the serpent was more subtle than any 
 beast of the field." — The question is — What ser- 
 pent did Moses mean ? Chapter ii. 19, would 
 lead us to conclude it was a beast of the field. — - 
 But it will be asked — What ! could serpents speak 
 and reason in those days ? I answer, we have no evi- 
 dence that they did. It will be asked, what then 
 did he mean by the serpent ? 1 would answer this by 
 asking — did not Moses in this account mean to inform 
 vs how Eve was deceived^ and hoiv sin was first intro- 
 duced 1 To this all will readily agree. Well, the 
 serpent v/as mo7X subtle than any beast ofthe field, and 
 was the fittest creature which could be chosen to illus- 
 trate by a figure how Eve was deceived. Let it be 
 recollected, Moses wrote this account more than two 
 thousand years after it happened, and selects the ser- 
 pent, celebrated for its subtilty among mankind. And 
 why might not Moses select this creature as a figure 
 for deception, as other scripture writers do the lioti for 
 ferocity, the lamb for meekness, and the dove for 
 harmlessness ? 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 27 
 
 It will be said, allowing this to be true, what de- 
 ceived Eve, and ivhich Moses here represents hy the 
 suhtiJty of the serpent 1 I answer, lust or desire. — 
 That Adam and Eve were created with appetites or 
 desires will not be questioned. They desired, or lusted 
 after the fj-uit of the other trees of the garden, and ate 
 of them. Nor would there have been any sin in lust- 
 ing after and eating the fruit of the prohibited tree more 
 than the others, but for the prohibition. It was this, 
 and this alone, which could render it criminal. Before 
 the prohibition was given, there was no sin in either. 
 But this only provokes the question — How came Eve 
 to desire the fruit of the prohibited tree? Answer; 
 she could no more prevent herself having desires, than 
 she could prevent herself being made, or made just such 
 a creature with such appetites ; and the very prohibi- 
 tion net to eat of this tree, was calculated to excite cu- 
 riosity in her about it, and create desire after it. What 
 man has not known the truth of this from experience ? 
 The evil did not lie in Eve's having appetites and de- 
 sires, but her appetites and desires took occasion from 
 the very prohibition, and in this way she was deceived 
 and eventually sinned. ¥/hat Paul says, Rom, vii. 
 7 — 11, Eve might have said, " I had not known sin 
 but by the law : for I had not known lust except the 
 law had said thou shalt not eat. But sin taking occa- 
 sion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner 
 of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 
 For I was alive without the law once ; but when the 
 commandment came,- sin revived, and 1 died. And the 
 commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to 
 be unto death. For sin, taking occasion hy the com- 
 mandment deceived me, and hy it slew wie." What 
 does Paul here say deceived him ? It was sin taking 
 occasion hy the commandment, or desire, which is the 
 
38 AN INQ.UIRY PART I. 
 
 origin of sin ; for lust or desire, " when it hath con- 
 ceived, bringeth forth sin." James i. 15. So in re- 
 gard to Eve. There could be no difference betwixt 
 Paul and her, unless we suppose one of two things. — 
 First, That Eve was created w ithout lust or desire al- 
 together, which was certainly not the case. Or, sec^ 
 ond, That she was incapable of desiring what God had 
 prohibited. If so, then she would have been incapable 
 of sinning. The event proved that she was not. It 
 should ever be kept in view, that sin does not consist 
 in having lust or desire, nor even in being tempted to 
 gratify desire contrary to the comniandment, but in 
 complying with the temptation. Jesus Christ had de» 
 sire, and was tempted, but resisted the temptation, as 
 will appear in Section vii. 
 
 If the serpent then was more subtle than any beast 
 of the field, it was the fittest creature which could be 
 selected to show the deceit of lust. In this view, the 
 whole dialogue between Eve and her own lust, is both 
 striking and natural. The serpent, or Eve's lust after 
 the fruit, says — -'' Yea, hath God said *, ye shall not 
 eat of every tree of the garden ?" Thus her lust takes 
 occasion by the commandment to desire the fruit. But 
 Eve knew the commandment, hence she replied to her 
 lust — " We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the gar* 
 den : but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst 
 of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, 
 neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." To this lust re- 
 plied — " Ye shall not surely die ; for God doth know-, 
 that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be 
 opened ; and ye shall be as gods knowing good and 
 evil." Permit me to ask, could any thing be more 
 fitly chosen to describe the artful, plausible insinuations 
 of lust or desire after some forbidden object? But the 
 woiiian ceases to oppose her lust., by reasoning further 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 29 
 
 on the subject. '^ And when the woman saw that the 
 tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the 
 eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she 
 took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also 
 unto her husband with her, and he did eat." From 
 its being said — " the woman saiv that the tree was 
 good for food," some have concluded, that she saw a 
 serpent eat of the fruit, and no evil following, she con- 
 cluded it must be good for her food also. If this is 
 true, it was calculated to excite desire in her, and em- 
 bolden her to proceed. It was also an additional rea- 
 son for introducing the serpent into this account. If 
 the word saw, is here used in the sense of considered, 
 as is evidently its sense in some other parts of Scrip- 
 ture, she must then have considered, or inferred that 
 the fruit was good for food, from seeing the serpent eat ; 
 or drew this conclusion, from looking at the fruit and 
 the reasonings of her own lust or desire about it. The 
 last I am inclined to think was the case. But let these 
 things be as they may, it is certain the tree appeared 
 pleasant to her eye, and a tree to be desired to maJce 
 one wise. This her lust told her. All know lust is 
 subtile and eloquent in its persuasions, and never fails 
 to promise, that we shall be wiser and happier by its 
 indulgence. Eve was overcome by the lust of the 
 flesh and the lust of the eye. She eat, and gave also 
 to her husband and he did eat. He hearkened to the 
 voice of his wife, and thus " Adam was not deceived, 
 but the woman being deceived was (first) in the tranS" 
 gression." — 1 Tim, ii, 14, 
 
 It will likely be said, plausible as this appears, what 
 evidence have we that Eve's lust is here represented by 
 the serpent, and that this dialogue was between her 
 and her own lust? The evidence which inclines me 
 to this view of the subject I shall very briefly state, 
 3 
 
30 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 1st. I 6nd lust or desire stated in Scripture to be 
 the source or origin of transgression. James says, ch. 
 i. 15 — "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth 
 forth sin ; and sin when it is finished bringeth forth 
 death." See also chap. iv. 1, and other texts which 
 I need not quote. The conceivings of lust after any 
 object, never could bring forth sin, unless that object 
 was prohibited. Paul says — " I had not known sin 
 but by the law : for I had not known lust, except the 
 law had said thou shalt not covet." Rom. vii. 7. It 
 is the doctrine of Scripture, and of common sense, that 
 where there is no law, there can be no transgression. 
 Allow me then to ask, must not lust in Eve have been 
 the source of sin, just as it is in us ? Can any good 
 reason be assigned why it is now the source of sin in us 
 but was not so with her ? 
 
 2d. Sin, and lust the source of sin, are always re- 
 presented in Scripture as deceitful and beguiling. Paul, 
 Heb. iii. 13, speaks of the ^' deceitfidness of sin," and 
 declares, Rom. vii. 11, that sin taking occasion by the 
 commandment " c?ecefre<Z" him and slew him. And 
 in Eph. iv. 22, he exhorts to put off " ihe old man, 
 which is corrupt according Xo the deceitful lusts^ And 
 as all the conceivings of lust are in the heart, it is said 
 — " the heart is deceitful above all things.''^ — Jer. xvii. 
 9. The serpent then was more subtle than any beast 
 of the field, and was just as fit to represent the deceit 
 of lust, as the dove is to represent the quality of harm- 
 lessness, or the lamb that of meekness. Those familiar 
 with the scriptures know, that many of the beasts of the 
 field are used as figures, in a similar way, which it 
 would be tedious to detail. For example: our Lord 
 says, " be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves." 
 And it is well known, that in Daniel and the book of 
 Revelation, the writers deliver their prophecies under 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. Si 
 
 the figure of beasts, and other symbols derived from the 
 material world. 
 
 3d. In after parts of Scripture, the serpent is used, 
 as a figure for cunning and deceit. The word rendered 
 serpent in the account before us is Nehesh. Taylor 
 says it signifies the " common snake. But in southern, 
 hot, desert countries, the snakes may be larger or more 
 venomous than in the cold northern climates." It is 
 used literally for the snake or serpent. Job xxvi. 13, 
 Eccles. X. 8, Prov. xxx. 19, Deut. viii. 15, Numb. 
 xxi.7, 9, Amos ix. 3, Jer. xlvi. 22, Mic. vii. 17, Jer. 
 viii. 17, Eccles. X. 11, Amos v. 19, Numb. xxi. 6. 
 The same word is used for the hrazen serpent which 
 Moses made, 2 Kings, xviii. 4, Numb. xxi. 9. Also 
 for Moses' rod changed to a serpent, Exod. iv. 3, and 
 vii. 15. It is used figuratively for tribes and nations, 
 and to express a state of subjugation, degradation, &,c. 
 Gen. xlix. 17, Isai. xxvii. 1, Mic, vii. 17. Isai. Ixv. 25. 
 This word is also used figuratively, to set forth the de- 
 ceit and lies of wicked men. Please consult the fol- 
 lowing passages. Psalms Iviii. 3 — 5, and cxL 1 — 4, 
 Eccles. x. 11, Isai. xiv. 29, Prov. xxiii. 32. If the 
 cunning and deceit of the serpent was learned by men 
 from experience and observation, and was used figura 
 tively for this purpose, why not also by Moses in this 
 account, in showing how Eve was deceived by her own 
 lust? Was it not just as proper a figure, to show how 
 sin entered by the deceit of lust, as to illustrate its de- 
 ceitfulness, in its progress among men afterwards ? If 
 lust is deceitful now, and if the serpent on account of 
 subtlety is a proper figure to express it, at what date 
 shall we fix the commencement of its deceit, and the 
 use of this figure, if my view of this subject is contro- 
 verted ? 
 
 4th. The view given of Eve's deception by the ser° 
 
32 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 pent, or her own lust, accords with every man's own 
 experience. We all, like her, have appetites and de- 
 sires, nor IS it sinful to have them, or even to gratify 
 them in the way, or to the extent God allows us. But I 
 ask, where is the man to be found, who has not felt the 
 conceivings of lust within him after some forbidden ob- 
 ject ? And can any man deny the subtle, deceitful 
 influence, which lust lias had over his reason and un- 
 derstanding ? Yea, 1 appeal to every man, if some- 
 thing of a similar dialogue has not taken yilace with 
 him and his own lust, as I have said took place between 
 Eve and hers. Our consciences, if well informed, will 
 reason and remonstrate against our desires, and in favor 
 of obedience to the commandment. And can the man 
 be found, who will affirm, that his lusts have never flat- 
 tered him into disobedience ? In the very best of men, 
 the flesh has lusted against the spirit, and the spirit 
 against the flesh, and made them exclaim — " O wretch- 
 ed man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body 
 of death." 
 
 5th. The view I have given of Eve's deception, ac- 
 cords with what is stated in the subsequent part of the 
 chapter. The first thing stated is — " the eyes of them 
 both were opened," as the serpent or lust had sug- 
 gested to Eve, verse 5. They came to know evil as 
 well as good by disobedience, but it did not add to their 
 happiness and comfort as was expected. Does not 
 every man find this, who yields to the flattery of his 
 lusts, and transgresses the commandments of God ? — 
 But what deserves our notice is, the account to which 
 the oflenders are called. Adam is first called up, and 
 asked — " What is this that thou hast done ?" He an- 
 swers — " the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, 
 she gave me of the tree and I did eat." The woman 
 is n^M interrogated — " what is this that thou hast 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 33 
 
 done ?" She answers — " the serpent beguiled me and 
 I did eat." What serpent beguiled her? I have said 
 her own lust taking occasion by the commandment be- 
 guiled her. Let us fee how this view accords with the 
 sentence pronounced on the serpent. God does not 
 say to Eve's lust or the serpent — '' what is this that 
 thou hast done?" But — "because thou hast done 
 this thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every 
 beast of the field : upon thy belly shalt thou go, and 
 dust shalt thoa eat all the days of thy life."* The 
 sentence is in accordance with the figurative use of the 
 term serpent. It would have destroyed the congruity 
 of the account to have done otherwise. Well, let us 
 see how this sentence agrees to men's bodily appetites 
 and d-esires., as figuratively expressed by the term ser- 
 pent. We have said that man was created with bodily 
 appetites, passions and desires. These were given him 
 to be in subjection to God's will, and not gratified be- 
 yond the limits which he prescribed. Eve, listening 
 to them beyond this limit, transgressed. In her, and 
 all who have followed her example, when gratified be- 
 yond this they become degraded and groveling even 
 below every beast of the field. The real bodily wants 
 of man are few, and their supply easily obtained. But 
 to his artificial, sinful desires, no boundaries can hardly 
 be prescribed. These often are so low, and filthy, 
 that no beast of the field is given to similar indul- 
 gencies. Men's lusts and passions — " are cursed 
 above all cattle and above every beast of the field." — 
 Like the natural serpent, dust or earthly gratifications 
 
 * It is not necessary to suppose here, as some have done, that 
 the serpent before this walked upright, any more than that there 
 was no rainbow before the flood. The rainbow was only used as 
 a sign that God would not destroy the earth again with a flood ; 
 and the grovelling nature of the serpent to set forth what would 
 afterwards be the state of men's bodily lusts or desires. 
 
34 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 are their enjoyment, until the person is created anew 
 in Christ Jesus, and is led to place his affection on 
 things which are above. What shall I eat, and what 
 shall I drink, are the questions in which our bodily de- 
 sires centre, and to have goods laid up for many years, 
 to eat, drink and be merry, are their happiness. But 
 the account proceeds — "And I will put enmity be- 
 tween thee and the woman, and between thy seed and 
 her seed : it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise 
 his heel." The seed of the woman here is generally 
 understood to refer to Christ. Well, what is the seed 
 of the serpent ? I answer sin, for "when lust hath 
 conceived it bringeth forth sin." This agrees precisely 
 to what Christ was manifested to do. " He was mani- 
 fested to take away our sins." This will be shown in 
 Sect. vi. The Jews, who were of their father the 
 devil, bruised Christ, in crucifying him, but he by his 
 death destroyed him that had the power of death, that 
 is the devil. The enmity between the seed of the wo- 
 man, and the seed of the serpent, is beautifully illus- 
 trated by such texts as the following: " They that 
 are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections 
 and lusts. Walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfil 
 the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the 
 Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh," Kic. To bruise 
 a serpent's head is to kill it. And Christ before he de- 
 livers up the kingdom is to accomplish the entire de- 
 struction of this devil and all his works. See 1 Cor. 
 XV. 24, &;c. Heb. ii. 14, 15, with many other texts. 
 
 I shall only add, to represent Eve as holding a dia- 
 logue with her own lust, can create no difficulty to per- 
 sons familiar with their Bible, The beasts of the field, 
 and trees of the wood, are in the figurative language of 
 Scripture represented as holding conversation together. 
 Nor is the Bible wanting in examples of persons hold« 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 35 
 
 ing dialogues with themselves. But I must suppress 
 many additional remarks, which I intended to make on 
 the first three chapters of Genesis, as the remarks al- 
 ready made, exceed the limits assigned to this part ol 
 the subject. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 ALL THE TEXTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHERE THE 
 
 ORIGINAL WORD SHAITAN, OR SATAN OCCURS, 
 
 CONSIDERED. 
 
 The passages where the term satan occurs in the 
 Old Testament, are now to be brought forward, and 
 we urge it on the reader to observe, if satan is a fallen 
 angel, the serpent which deceived Eve, as is very gene- 
 rally asserted. We shall take up the passages, in the 
 order they occur in the common version. Taylor, 
 Parkhurst, and all critics declare, that the word satan 
 signifies, '^ an adversary. ^^ In this sense it was under- 
 stood by our translators, for this is their usual rendering 
 of it, as we shall see immediately. It occurs then first 
 as a noun feminine. 
 
 Gen. xxvi. 21 . " And they digged another well, and 
 strove for that also : and he called the name of it sit- 
 nahJ' If the term satan be the name of a fallen an- 
 gel, it is strange the sacred writers should first apply it 
 to a well. Had the existence of such a being been 
 previously announced, it might be supposed he was the 
 cause of the strife about this well, and on account of 
 which it received this name. But nothins: like this is 
 
36 AN INQUIRY PART I, 
 
 to be found. The well is called sitnah, or satan in the 
 text, and we have haired in the margin as its expla- 
 nation. Hatred is the act of an adversary, and the 
 context sufficiently shows why it received this name. 
 Numb. xxii. 22, 32. " And God's anger was kin- 
 dled, because he (Baalam) went : and the angel of the 
 Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. — 
 And the angel of the Lord said unto him, wherefore 
 hast thou smitten thine ass these three times ? Behold 
 I went out to ivithstand thee, because thy way is per- 
 verse before me." The word satan in the original oc- 
 curs twice, and is here rendered by the words adver- 
 sary, and, to withstand, thee. In the margin of the 
 last verse we have, " to he an adversary unto thee.'^ 
 It is obvious, that the satan or adversary who with- 
 stood Baalam, instead of being a fallen angel, was the 
 angel of Jehovah. It is then a remarkable fact, that 
 the first time the term satan is applied to any being in 
 the Bible, it is to a o^ood beino;. But this is concealed 
 from the reader, by rendering the word satan, adver- 
 sary. It may be observed here, and the remark ap- 
 plies to other texts, that had the original word been 
 always retained in the text, or had it been uniformly 
 rendered adversary, we would have been less liable to 
 mistaken views on this subject. Had the first been 
 done, we must have recurred to the context and scope 
 of the writer to ascertain what he meant by satan ; and 
 if a being, what being was referred to. It would have 
 been easily perceived, some human adversary was re- 
 ferred to, or the angel of Jehovah, as in the passage 
 before us. But the word satan being sometimes re- 
 tained in the text, and sometimes rendered adversary, 
 the common Scripture usage of this word is not per- 
 ceived. Besides, people from education and habit, 
 have attached the idea of a fallen anirel to the word 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 37 
 
 satan, which always suggests the idea of such a being. 
 But not so with the word adversary, which is its ren- 
 dering in many passages. Accordingly, it is on the 
 texts where the term satan is left untranslated, that 
 people have built their faith about a fallen angel. This 
 idea has been associated with the word in their minds 
 from childhood, and it is next to impossible to effect a 
 separation. The term satnn will suggest it, and the 
 meaning of the word, its scripture usage, and the con- 
 text of the places where it occurs, are not sufficient to 
 destroy it. Commencing the study of the Bible with 
 this false idea, all must see how many texts may be 
 perverted, not from design, but from the influence of 
 this false association. We know of no better way to 
 correct it than to recur to the original sense of the 
 term satan, and examine all the places where it occurs, 
 with their respective contexts. 
 
 Should it be asked — why did not the translators of 
 our English version either render this word always ad- 
 versaTy, or uniformly leave the term sotoM untransla- 
 ted ? I answer: had they always rendered it adver- 
 sary, they could not so easily have infused into their 
 version the idea of a fallen angel. Had they always 
 retained the original word, its application to the angel 
 of Jehovah, human beings and things would have led 
 people to conclude that it did not designate such an 
 evil being. King James, under whose patronage the 
 version was made, not only believed that satan was'-a 
 fallen angel, but he wrote in defence of the doctrine of 
 witchcraft. 
 
 1 Sam. xxix. 4. " And the princes of the Philistines 
 said unto him, make this fellow return, that he may go 
 again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and 
 let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle 
 he be an adversary to us.^' Here again the terra satan 
 
 I 
 
. 38 AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 
 
 is rendered adversary, and it is evident from the con- 
 text, that David, not a fallen angel is meant. Nor, 
 need this surprise us, seeing the angel of Jehovah was 
 called so in the preceding passage. Many people do 
 not know this, but it would have been evident had our 
 translators, as in other places, left the term satan un- 
 translated. This is the first place in the Bible where 
 the word satan is applied to a human beinir, and it is 
 applied to a man who feared God. It need not then 
 surprise us. that our Lord called Peter satan, and Ju- 
 das a devil. It is very obvious, the idea of a fallen 
 angel attached to the word satan, is calculated to mis- 
 lead us, for this term is used to designate the very best 
 of created beino;s. 
 
 2 Sam. xix. 22. " And David said, what have I to 
 do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day 
 be adversaries unto me." Here the term satan is used 
 in the plural, and is rendered adversaries. The satayis 
 referred to, are expressly called the sons of Zeruiah. 
 Wicked men they might be, but no one supposes they 
 were fallen angels. Besides, it is commonly believed, 
 there is but one being in the universe which goes by 
 this name, yet here we find the term used in the plural 
 and applied to men. In the New Testatnent we read 
 o{ demons, and of a person possessed with a legion of 
 them. But David does not say the sons of Zeruiah 
 were demons, or possessed with demons or satans, but 
 that they were satans to him. This shows clearly, the 
 term simply means an adversary, and was the sense 
 David attached to it. We seldom if ever use it in the 
 plural, for the unity of satan is the common belief as 
 much as the unity of God. 
 
 1 Kings V. 4. " But now the Lord my God hath 
 given me rest on every side, so that there is neither 
 adversarv nor evil occurrent." Here the term satan 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. ^ 
 
 is used in the singular, and is again rendered adversa- 
 ry. Solomon does not name, as in the preceding 
 text, any person referred to, but the scope of the con- 
 text evidently shows, that he had in view, human be- 
 ings, who were accustomed to be satans or adversaries 
 to Israel. David had many such satans to contend 
 with during his reign, but now Solomon had none of 
 them to disturb the peace of his kingdom. He there- 
 fore determined to build an house to the Lord, which 
 his father was prevented from doing by his frequent 
 wars with them. We shall soon see that Solomon was 
 not altogether free from his troubles from such satans 
 or adversaries. 
 
 1 Kings xi. 14, 23, 25. "And the Lord stirred up 
 an adversary unto Solomon ; Hadad the Edomite : he 
 was of the king's seed in Edom. And God stirred him 
 up another adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah, which 
 fled from his lord Hadadezer, King of Zobah. And 
 he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, 
 beside the mischief that Hadad did : and he abhor- 
 red Israel and reigned over Syria." In these verses^ 
 the word satan is used three times, and is uniformly 
 rendered adversary. The term is applied to human 
 beings, who are distinctly named, Hadad the Edom- 
 ite, and Rezon the son of Eliadah. The last was a 
 satan to Solomon all his days. It would be ridiculous 
 to suppose the term satan here, had any reference to 
 a fallen angel ; for the in first case it would be to 
 make him an Edomite, and in the second the son of 
 Eliadah, and that he was called Hadad and Rezon 
 as well as satan. It is of more importance to ob- 
 serve, God stirred up those satans against Solo- 
 mon. Had only one satan been mentioned, and no 
 name given to show who was particularly meant, it is 
 likely some would have concluded, that God stirred 
 
40 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 up a fallen angel against him. But here, it is put be- 
 yond all controversy, that satan has no reference to a 
 fallen angel. We would then ask, ought not such 
 texts, where the circumstances mentioned, so clearly 
 decide that this term designates no such being, to 
 teach us caution in concluding that this is its meaning 
 in any passage ? When the word satan is introduced, 
 and no circumstances are mentioned clearly to decide 
 who or what is meant, is it rational or scriptural to 
 say a fallen angel or wicked spirit must be meant ? 
 We should think not; and until it is satisfactorily 
 proved, that such a being does exist, no rational man 
 would ever think of such a conclusion. 
 
 1 Chron. xxi. 1. " And satan stood up against Is- 
 rael, and provoked David to number Israel." Here, 
 for the first time, the word satan is left untranslated; 
 but I can perceive no good reason why it was not ren- 
 dered adversary, as it is in other places. No evi- 
 dence appears from the text or context, that a fallen 
 angel or wicked spirit provoked David to number Is- 
 rael. If the rule in otlier cases be allowed here, plain 
 passages ought to interpret doubtful and obscure ones, 
 and common scripture usage of a word, ought to de- 
 termine in particular cases in what sense the sacred 
 writers used it. It is then determined here, for no 
 previous scripture writer has said any thing about a 
 fallen angel, or used the word satan in reference to 
 such a being. Supposintr they had done this, it would 
 not be safe to conclude he was spoken of, for the term 
 satan is applied, to human beings in preceding pas- 
 sages, which might be the case here. In every text 
 the question ouglit to be, what satan or adversary is 
 intended ? As the word is not translated, and the 
 idea of a fallen angel lis associated with it in peo- 
 ple's minds, and nothing directly being said to the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 41 
 
 contrary, it is concluded that this being provoked Da- 
 vid to number Israel. Though the labor of proving 
 this belongs to them, yet I shall offer the following 
 proof to the contrary. 
 
 1st. If the term satan designates, in this passage, a 
 fallen angel, it is the first time we hear any thing con- 
 cerning such a being in the Bible, under this or any 
 other name. But it is evident satan is not here in- 
 troduced as a new and extraordinary being, nor is 
 there any evidence that the word is used in a different 
 sense from what it is in the passages already con- 
 sidered. To believe his existence from the text, is 
 not only implicit faith, but in face of evidence to the 
 contrary, arising from scripture usage of the word, 
 and the silence of all preceding writers about such a 
 being. 
 
 2d. Had the word satan been rendered adversary, 
 previous scripture usage would have led us to con- 
 clude, one of David's enemies had menaced him with 
 a new war, and thus provoked him to number Israel. 
 It should be remembered, that the strength of Israel 
 did not consist in the m,ultitude of their armies, but 
 their confidence in Jehovah and obedience to his laws. 
 In numbering Israel, David sinned greatly, as it inti- 
 mated a removal of his trust from God to that of the 
 number and strength of his forces. It has been 
 thought by some that David's sin consisted in his 
 wishing to establish a military government for con- 
 quest, hence gave orders to enrol all Israel for this 
 purpose. 
 
 3d. But what in this })assage is ascribed to satan, 
 is in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, ascribed to God. "And the an- 
 ger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he 
 moved David against them to say, go number Israel 
 _and Judah." We are sure that God tempts no man 
 
42 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 to evil, James i. 13. Should it be said God permit- 
 ted satan, a fallen angel, to do it, we ask where is the 
 proof of this ? The passage affords none, except the 
 gratuitous sense affixed to the term satan, which sig- 
 nifies an adversary. To say it here means a fallen 
 angel, is not only begging the question, but is opposed 
 to all former scripture usage of this word. 
 
 4th. When David's heart smote him for his sin, he 
 imputes no part of the blame either to satan or God. 
 No, he says — " I have sinned greatly because I have 
 done this thing." 1 Chron. xxi. 8. Nor, do we find 
 that satan suffers any part of the punishment, or is 
 threatened with any. Others suffered severely for his 
 sin, but if satan was the chief cause of all this evil, 
 why does he escape all punishment? David does not 
 plead his influence in mitigation of his offence, or the 
 punishment it incurred. But if either God or a fallen 
 angel moved David to commit this sin, why did no 
 blame attach to them ? 
 
 5th. But some orthodox critics declare, that there 
 is no reference to such a being in this passage. Park- 
 hurst says, on this word ; " I would understand it, 1 
 Chron. xxi. l,o[ ^ human adversary : compare 2 Sam. 
 XX vi. 1, which perhaps may be best rendered ; and 
 again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, 
 and David was moved against them by (one's) say- 
 ing, or rather indefinitely, and one moved David 
 against them saying, go number Israel and Judah." 
 See Dr. Chandler's Life of King David. Farmer, on 
 Christ's Temptation, quoting from Dr. Chandler, says, 
 "for, speaking of David's numbering the people, he 
 says, if the Devil had bid him do it, 1 suppose he might 
 have seen the cloven foot, and luould scarce have fol- 
 lowed the measure for the sake of the adviser J^ 
 
 Ezra iv. 6. " And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 43 
 
 beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accU' 
 sation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusa- 
 lem." In this text the word satan is a noun feminine 
 and is rendered accusation* Notice, it is not the per- 
 sons who wrote who are called satan, but the thing 
 written. The persons who wrote, were, properly- 
 speaking, the satan, or adversary, yet it is the written 
 document, sent by them to Ahasuerus, which is called 
 satan, for it was not them but it, which was to ap- 
 pear before the king as the accuser or adversary of the 
 Jews. Who the persons were we learn from verses 
 1 — G. " The people of the land weakened the hands 
 of the people of Judah and troubled them in building. 
 And hired counsellors against them to frustrate their 
 purpose, all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia." But 
 we are told that " in the reign of Ahasuerus in the 
 beginning of his reign," they wrote to him, and this 
 writing is called a satan or accusation. The term sa- 
 tan, then, so far from being the appropriate name of a 
 fallen angel, is applied to men's evil passions, the an- 
 gel of Jehovah, human beings, and here to a piece of 
 writing. 
 
 Job i. 6 — 13, and ii. 1 — 11, comes next to be 
 considered. To save room I forbear transcribing 
 these two passages. The reader can easily read 
 them. The term satan occurs here fourteen times, 
 but is uniformly left untranslated. It is rendered, in 
 the Seventy's version, by the word diaholos^ devil. 
 Here, say many good people, satan must mean a 
 fallen angel — " for the name, the things said to be 
 done, and all the circumstances mentioned, go to 
 prove his existence and wicked character." We 
 frankly admit, that these two passages have more the 
 appearance of teaching this doctrine, than all the other 
 texts adduced as proof of it. We admit, if the devil 
 
44 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 of Christians is taught in the Bible, this is the place. 
 We hope then, that they are willing to abide by the 
 result. 
 
 I have examined these two chapters, with all the 
 care and attention I could command, and shall submit 
 the result for candid consideration, by stating and an- 
 swering the following questions : 
 
 1st. Who wrote the book of Job ? Answer ; about 
 this there are various opinions. Some have ascribed 
 it to Job himself. Others to Elihu or one of the pro- 
 phets. Tlie general opinion has been, that it was 
 written by Moses, and composed from materials left 
 by Job or his friends in the Syriac or Arabic language. 
 See Gray's Key. 
 
 2d. When was the book of Job written? Answer; 
 It is generally agreed that it was written sometime be- 
 tween the death of Joseph and the delivery of the law 
 at Sinai. It is perhaps itnpossible for us to fix its pre- 
 cise date. Nor is this important in our present inves- 
 tigation. Those who wish to see the various opinions 
 entertained concerning this, may consult Gray's Key, 
 pp. 2-29—258. 
 
 3d. Was Job a real or only a fictitious person ? An- 
 swer; some have held the latter opinion. I think Job 
 was a real person ; for in after parts of scripture his 
 afflictions are represented as real afflictions, and his 
 patience under them as an example to us. He is 
 spoken of just as Noah and Daniel are. One of the 
 sons of Issachar is called Job, Gen. xlvi. 13, and was 
 one of Jacob's grandchildren, who went down with him 
 into Eirypt. If this was the person who forms the 
 subject of the book of Job, it fixes, generally, the 
 period in which he lived. 
 
 4th. Is every thing in the book of Job to be under- 
 stood liierallv, or is anv allowance to be made for em- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 1. 45 
 
 bellishment or allegorical representation ? Answer ; 
 although I think Job was a real person, yet many 
 things are set forth in the way of allegory. For ex- 
 ample, God is not only represented as talking with 
 satan, but as influenced by him to bring accumulated 
 sufferings on ' a just man without cause. These are 
 brought in such rapid succession, too, as seldom occurs 
 among men. Besides, there seems something studied 
 and artificial ; that only one servant should make his 
 escape to tell Job what had happened, and before he 
 is well done, only one more makes his escape to bring 
 additional evil tidings. And just as he closes his 
 speech, a third also in like manner, and a fourth in 
 the same way arrives, and closes the first scene of 
 Job's calamities. Besides, throughout the whole book, 
 there is something very studied and artificial in the set 
 speeches of Job and his friends, and even of God 
 himself at the close. The writer gives Job just dou- 
 ble the number of camels, oxen, sheep, and asses, 
 without one more or less, which he had at the begin- 
 ning. And he gives him precisely the same number 
 of sons, and the same number of daughters, as at the 
 first. And "finally leaves Job in a more prosperous 
 condition than before his afflictions came upon him, 
 with a long life of enjoying his prosperity. The book 
 concludes without any notice of the removal of Job's 
 disease, which by some is called elephantiasis, and 
 was deemed by physicians incurable. Had the whole 
 been matter of fact, and nothing in it allegorical, we 
 hardly think such artificial statements could have been 
 given. 
 
 5th. In what part of the world were the scenes of 
 
 the book of Job laid ? Answer ; we are told, chap. 1 : 
 
 1 , that — " there was a man in the land of Uz, whose 
 
 name was Job." That this was in Chaldea or its 
 
 4 
 
46 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 neighborhood, is almost certain, for the Chaldean rob- 
 bers or freebooters are said to have carried away Job's 
 flocks, chap. i. 17. Dr. Parish, in his Sacred Geo- 
 graphy, says — " Bochart and the authors of the Uni- 
 versal History, and some others place the land of Uz 
 far south from Damascus, and almost directly east from 
 the tribe of Reuben, and west from Chaldea, in Ara- 
 bia Deserta." But see his work on the word Uz, for 
 other opinions about this. See, also, Gray's Key, as 
 referred to above. It is not of essential importance, 
 to determine the precise spot where Job lived. It is 
 sufficient for our purpose that he lived in the east. See 
 Job 1 : 3. 
 
 6th, What were the religious opinions of the peo- 
 ple where the scenes of the book are laid ? Answer ; 
 This is a point of very great importance to ascertain. 
 Orthodox men who certainly did not write to favor 
 my opinions shall furnish us with all necessary infor- 
 mation. Prideaux, in his Connexions, vol. 1. pp. 
 185 — 6, thus writes : '' Directly opposite to these 
 were the Magians, another sect, who had their ori- 
 ginal in the same eastern countries; for they, abo- 
 minating all images, worshipped God only by fire. 
 They began first in Persia, and there, and in India, 
 were the only places where this sect was propagated ; 
 and there they remain even to this day. Their chief 
 doctrine was, that there were two principles, one 
 which was the cause of all good, and the other the 
 cause of all evil, that is to say, God and the devil ; 
 that the former is represented by light, and the other 
 by darkness, as their truest symbols ; and that, of 
 the composition of these two, all things in the world 
 are made : the good god they name Yazdan. and also 
 Ormudz, and the evil god, Ahraman : the former is, 
 by the Greeks, called Oramasdez, and the latter Ari- 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART I. 47 
 
 matiius. And therefore, when Xerxes prayed for 
 that evil upon his enemies, that it might be put into 
 ihe minds of all of them to drive their best and brav- 
 est men from them, as the Athenians had Themisto- 
 cles, he addressed his prayers to Arimanius the evil 
 god of the Persians, and not to Oramasdez, their good 
 ffod. And concerning these two gods there was this 
 difference of opinion among them, that, whereas some 
 held both of them to have been from all eternity, 
 there were others that contended, that the good god 
 only was eternal, and that the other was created. 
 But they both agreed in this, that there will be a con- 
 tinual opposition between those two till the end of the 
 world ; that then the fjood o;od shall overcome the 
 evil god, and that from thenceforward each of them 
 shall have his world to himself, that is, the good god 
 his world with all good men with him, and the evil 
 god his world with all evil men with him ; that dark- 
 ness is the truest symbol of the evil god, and light 
 the truest symbol of the good god. And therefore, 
 they always worshipped him before fire, as being the 
 cause of light, and especially before the sun, as being 
 in their opinion the perfectest fire, and causing the 
 perfectest light. And for this reason, in all their tem- 
 ples, they had fire continually burning on altars erect- 
 ed in them for that purpose. And before these sacred 
 fires they offered up all their public devotions, as like* 
 wise they did all their private devotions before their 
 private fires in their own houses. Thus did they pay 
 the highest honor to light, as being in their opinion 
 the truest representative of the good god ; but always 
 hated darkness, as being, what they thought, the 
 truest representative of the evil god, v/hom they ever 
 had in the utmost detestation, as we now have the 
 devil : and, for an instance hereof, whenever they had 
 
48 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 an occasion, in any of their writings, to mention his 
 name, they always wrote it backward, and inversed, 
 as thus, ueaiBJiiy." 
 
 That such were the rehgious opinions of the peo- 
 ple where Job Hved, we should think indisputable, to 
 whatever result it may lead. Ahraman or Arimanius, 
 the evil principle deified, was the evil god of the peo- 
 ple. The only objection which will be stated against 
 this is — .-'That Job lived at too early a period for the 
 opinions advanced in this quotation." But in answer 
 I would remark first, that Job*s day was not too early 
 for Sabianisra or the worship of idols, for this existed 
 in Abraham's day ; and when Israel entered Canaan 
 the worship of idols prevailed among the inhabitants. 
 Prideaux speaks of Sabianism, as opposite to Magi- 
 anism, but does not intimate that the former was of 
 a more ancient date. On the contrary, we shall see 
 in the next Section, that when Zoroaster arose and 
 revived the Marian religion he revived that, which 
 for '' many a(:es" had been the established religion 
 of Persia. In tliis account sotan is not represented 
 as a new or extraordinary being, who had never 
 been heard of before. It is taken for granted that 
 the people where the scenes of the book are laid, 
 were familiar with such a being, and the opinions ex- 
 pressed concerning him. This account, which ap- 
 pears strange to us, they needed no explanation of, any 
 more than people among us do, when any man preaches 
 about the devil. 
 
 But what shows such opinions prevailed where Job 
 lived, are the facts and circumstances mentioned in 
 the account itself. These we shall notice presently. 
 Here I would only say, that it is evident satan is in- 
 troduced as an evil being, and it is generally contend- 
 ed that he was the author of all Job's afflictions. This 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 49 
 
 perfectly asjrees to the opinions of the Magians, as 
 stated by Prideaux. Besides, previous scripture usage 
 of tlie term satan, forbids us thinking, that the sacred 
 writers recognised either an evil god or a fallen angel 
 under this name.. Where, let me ask, do any of them 
 intimate, that an evil l)eing, such as the Persian evil 
 o-od, or the Christian's devil, existed as a rival to Je- 
 hovah ? To what else then could the writer refer, 
 but to such heathen opinions ? If such a being as the 
 Christian's devil existed, how is it accounted for, that 
 he remained so quiet until the days of Job ? Job ap- 
 pears to have been the first man he ever troubled. 
 Noah, Abraliam, Isaac, and Jacob, with many others 
 were good men, and rich men, but he never attempted 
 to injure them in their property, or smite them with a 
 single boil in their whole lifetime. From any thing 
 which appears to the contrary, they had no fear of 
 such a being, nor knew of liis existence. Had satan 
 just fallen from heaven, in the days of Job, and began 
 his depredations on mankind ? Admitting this true, 
 how is it, that as Job was the first, so he was the last 
 man he ever so tormented ? The case of the woman, 
 whom he is said to have bound eighteen years, is no 
 exception to this, as we shall show, Section v. Let 
 it be accounted for then, why satan had such a particu- 
 lar hatred against Job, above all other men before or 
 since. It is easily perceived, these things are ration- 
 ally accounted for, on the presumption, that in this ac- 
 count there is a reference to the evil god of the people 
 among whom Job lived. Allowing this, the account is 
 just what might be expected. The character given to 5a- 
 ^tan, answers to that of their god, whom they believed 
 to be the author and director of all evil. 
 
 The question which now comes forward for con- 
 sideratioo, is — Was this account of satan introduced 
 
50 AN INQUIRY ^PART 1. 
 
 for the purpose of establishing, or was it jntrodaced to 
 refute such opinions ? Let satan here be considered, 
 either the evil principle deified, or the devil of Chris- 
 tians, were such opinions intended to be sanctioned by 
 the writer, or does he introduce them, to expose their 
 fallacy, and establish the supremacy of the one living 
 and true God in opposition to them? All, I think, 
 will agree that the whole must stand approved or con- 
 demned. No middle path can be here taken, for no 
 ground is afforded for it. It is then a matter of no 
 consequence, whether we consider satan in this account 
 the principle of evil deified, or, that he was the Chris- 
 tian's devil. Whether the same or different, I shall 
 proceed to show, by direct and I think conclusive evi- 
 dence, that neither of them had any influence in pro- 
 ducing Job's afflictions. That they were all sent by 
 the one living and true God, whom Job feared and 
 obeyed, is evident. 
 
 1st. From Job's own testimony concerning his af- 
 flictions. Job's heathen neighbors supposed their evil 
 god Ahraman was the cause of them. Christians be- 
 lieve their satan or devil was the cause of them. But 
 does Job ascribe them to either ? No ; when one 
 messenger after another is represented as announcing 
 to him the loss of his property and at last the death of 
 his children, he says — '^ The Lord gave and the Lord 
 hath taken away ; blessed be the name of the Lord." 
 Chap. i. 2L He does not for a moment admit that 
 either Ahraman or the devil had any kind of concern 
 in his afflictions. He no more admits their influence 
 in taking away his property and children, than in the 
 bestowment of them. The trivins: and taking them 
 away, are alike ascribed to Jehovah. Similar were 
 his views and feelings, when afflicted with sore boils. 
 His wife desired him to curse God and die. But ho 
 
AN INC^UIRY PART I. 51 
 
 says to her — "Thou speakest as one of the foolish 
 women speaketh. What ! shall we receiv^e good at 
 the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil ?" Job 
 ii. 9, 10. Does this look like acknowledging the Per- 
 sian evil god or the Christian's devil ? Notwithstand- 
 ing the popular opinions, that Ahraman was the cause 
 of all evil, the severe bodily pain he suffered, and the 
 taunts of his wife, he holds fast his integrity in the true 
 God. Now, periTiic me to ask, if Job had believed, 
 that either Ahraman or the devil brought his afflictions 
 upon him, why did he ascribe them all to the true God, 
 without reservation ? And why did he not correct his 
 wife's mistake, by telling her that Ahraman or the 
 devil ought to be cursed ? But Job had no faith in 
 either, and hence he told her that she spoke as one of 
 the fooluh QY heathen vvom^n speaketh. Job allowed 
 of but one God, and it is evident, that his adversity 
 and prosperity are both alike ascribed to him. See 
 chap. xlii. 10— 12, and i. 21. 
 
 2d. The speech of Job's wife, and his reply to her, 
 show, that neither Ahraman nor the detail was the 
 cause of his afflictions. She no doubt heard what he 
 said, ch. i. 21. Upon seeing him still persisti-ng in his 
 integrity, under his affliction of the boils, she was pro- 
 voked at him, and in taunting language says to him: 
 '' dost tl]ou still retain thine integrity ? Curse God and 
 die." On the word rendered to curse, Parkhurst thus 
 writes: "The lexicons have absurdly, and contrary 
 to the authority of the ancient versions, given to this 
 verb the sense of cursing in the six following passages : 
 1 Kings xxL 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11, and ii. 5, 9. As 
 to the two first, the Seventy render 5^re^, in both, by 
 eulogeo. and so the Vulg. by benedico, to bless. And 
 though Jezebel was herself an abominable idolatress, 
 
52 AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 
 
 yet, as the law of Moses still continued in force, she 
 seems to have been wicked enoucrh to have destroyed 
 Naboth upon the false accusation of blessing the 
 heathen aleim and Moloch, which subjected hirn to 
 death, by Deut. xiii. 6 — 12. and xvii. 2 — 7. Job's 
 fear, ch. i. 5, was lest his sons should have Messed the 
 false aleim; and verse 11, he says, ought to be ren- 
 dered — ' And indeed stretch forth thy hand now, and 
 touch all that he hath, surely he hath blessed thee to 
 thy face,' i. e. hypocritically ; the verb beino; used in 
 the past tense. The Seventy render it, truly he will 
 bless thee to thy face. And the Vulgate — unless he 
 hath blessed thee to thy face. Com p. verses 5, 7. 
 And 1 Kings xx. 23. Salan brings the same charge 
 of hypocrisy against Job, chap. ii. 5, which the Seven- 
 ty, Theodotian, and Vulgate render in the same man- 
 ner. And at verse 9, his wife says to him, ^^dost thou 
 yet i^etain thy integrity, thy regard for the true God, 
 blessing the aleim and dyifig, or even to death ?" 
 Thus far Parkhurst, whose remarks shed additional 
 light on this account. They agree with the usage of 
 the word, which is rendered to bless, in other texts ; 
 they also accord with the charge of hypocrisy, which 
 is brought against Job by his friends, throughout the 
 book. But what deserves particular notice, these re- 
 marks show, that Job lived among a people who had 
 a false aleim or god, and a contrast, if not a contest 
 between this irod and Jehovah is set fortli in the ac- 
 
 o 
 
 count. The false god is spoken of as one, and not 
 many ; and what god could this be but Ahraman ? For 
 the Persians had only two, their good god and their evil 
 god. That a contrast is set forth betwixt the false 
 god and the true, is evident from Job's fear, chap. i. 5, 
 lest his children should have blessed the false aleim, or 
 god, instead of cursing the true God, as in the com- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 53 
 
 mon version. It is also plain from the speech of his 
 wife, who, instead of desiring Job to curse the true 
 God, expresses her surprise, that he should continue to 
 bless him, though at the point of death in suffering 
 from his hands. It is apparent, that she believed in 
 Ahraman, and entertained the opinions concerning 
 him as stated above, by Prideaux. *■ She was dis- 
 pleased with her husband, for continuing to trust in 
 the true God, at the gates of death, and even blessing 
 him for his afflictions. In desiring him to renounce 
 his confidence in the true God, did she mean that he 
 should become an atheist, or live without any God ? 
 No ; she wished him to trust in Ahraman, the author 
 of all evil, and the cause of all his afflictions. Job 
 had despised him, and continued to trust in the true 
 God to the last. She therefore wished him to aban- 
 don this confidence, and trust in the evil god, the 
 true author of his afflictions. By doing so, he would 
 become his friend, remove his afflictions, or terminate 
 them by death. 
 
 3d. That this account of satan, is introduced to 
 be condemned, appears from the reasonings of Job 
 and his friends throughout the whole book. Job's 
 friends, like himself, did not believe in Ahraman, for 
 they maintain, that Jehovah, on account of his hypoc- 
 risy and wickedness, had sent such afflictions upon him. 
 But 1 ask, does any one of them ever intimate that 
 satan, whether Persian sod or Christian devil, had pro- 
 duced his afflictions ? No ; they are to a man agreed, 
 that they were the doings of Jehovah, nor do they in- 
 sinuate, that he used satan as a tool in producinor thern. 
 As a specimen of their sentiments on this subject, let 
 the reader consult chap. iv. 9, and v. 17, 18, and viii. 
 3, 4. Job defends himself against the charge of hypo- 
 crisy and wickedness brought by his friends. See as 
 
54 
 
 AN INQ,IJIRY PART I. 
 
 examples, chap. vl. 4, 5, vii. 20, 21, ix. 16—18, x. 
 2, xvi. 11—15, and xix. 21. 
 
 We may then appeal to every candid man, v^hether 
 Job's friends would have been silent about satan pro- 
 ducing his afflictions, if they believed so. And had 
 they believed in satan, or Ahraman, the author of all 
 evil, would they have ascribed his afflictions to Jeho- 
 vah ? Besides ; had Job or his friends believed, that 
 Jehovah used satan as an instrument in inflicting ihem, 
 why is nothing said about it, either in their charge or 
 his defence ? In repelling their accusations, would Job 
 have failed to urge that his afflictions arose from satan's 
 great enmity against him, had he but suspected that this 
 was true. All know, that people are not very scrupu- 
 lous now in blaming the devil. Nothins^ could have 
 been easier, or more natural, than for Job to repel the 
 charges against him by saying, that satan hated him, 
 and had thus afflicted him. Can any man then be- 
 lieve, that this account was introduced to establish the 
 existence of such an evil being, yet this be contradicted 
 by Job and his friends throughout the book ? If true, 
 why not rather go on to confirm such a doctrine. Is it 
 objected — " if false why introduce it all ?" I answer ; 
 for the purpose of refuting such an opinion, and for es- 
 tablishing the unify and supremacy of the true God. It 
 is well known, that false gods are often introduced in 
 Scripture, in contrast with the true, for the very purpose 
 of exposing their absurdity. But 1 ask, is any fcdse god 
 ever allowed to be able to do good or evil ? No ; they 
 are challenged to do either, to prove that they are gods. 
 It is admitted by every intelligent man, that in the after 
 parts of the Old Testament, and in the New, there are 
 allusions to the evil principle deified, or the evil god of 
 the Persians. And to darkness as the symbol of this 
 god. See a specimen of these, and how the sacred 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 65 
 
 writers expose such a doctrine, Isai. xl v. 5 — 7, 2 Cor. vi, 
 15, X. 3 and xi. 13, 14, Eph. vi. 10. 
 
 4tli. Job's aiSictions are referred to, James v. 11, 
 and bis patience under tbem, is set forth as an ex- 
 ample to us, but are not ascribed to satan but to Je- 
 hov^ah. Indeed, no sacred writers, these two chapters 
 excepted, say or insinuate, that Ahraman or satan had 
 any influence in producing them. But I have a right 
 to demand, why no sacred writer has donetbis, if they 
 believed as most people do now that satan was the au- 
 thor of Job's afflictions? If they had the same view 
 of those two chapters as most people now have, is it 
 possible that they would have been silent on such a 
 subject ? 
 
 5th. However prone the Jews were to idolatry, and 
 the superstitions of the nations around them, it was a 
 truth obviously taught in the Scriptures, that their God 
 was good, and that he had no evil being as a rival to 
 him. So far from giving any countenance to an evil 
 being called Ahraman, Satan, Devil, or by any other 
 name, all witchcraft, necromarcy, or appeals to any 
 other being or power stand condemned, and the Jews 
 were solemnly charged to have no concern with them. 
 Jehovah, and he alone, is declared to be the creator, 
 preserver, and ruler of all things, and all beings in the 
 universe. Life and death, sickness and health, pros- 
 perity and adversity, are all ascribed to him.. See Gen, 
 i. 1 ; Dan. iv, 35 ; 1 Sam. ii. 6, 7 : Isa. xlv. 7 ; Amos iii. 
 6 ; Micah i. 12 ; Ps. xxxiii. 13—15 ; Prov. xvi. 4, 9 and 
 xxi. 30. The idea of an evil being, which Christians call 
 the devil and satan, and other nations by a variety of 
 names, found no place in the Jewish Scriptures. That 
 the Jews learnt such opinions from the heathen, we shall 
 see in the next Section. In concluding our remarks 
 on this account of satan in the book of Job, let us com- 
 
5o AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 pare what is said in it, with the above quotation from 
 Prideaux, and we shall see all that has been advanced 
 strongly confirmed. 
 
 Let us begin with the term satan. We have seen 
 that this word signifies an adversary. That person or 
 thing, is called a satan to another, which stands in his 
 way, or in any shape opposes him. Thus, the angel 
 of Jehovah, was a satan to Baalam, and the writing 
 sent to Ahasuerus, was a satan to the Jews. Satan, in 
 this account, is represented as opposed both to God 
 and Job. He was their adversary or satan. Prideaux, 
 in the above quotation, informs us, Lhat Ahraman the 
 evil god, was opposed to the good God, and that this 
 opposition would continue to the end of the world. He 
 also informs us that the evil sod was considered the 
 author and director of all evil. Tins is precisely the 
 representation here given of satan. All Job's afflic- 
 tions are supposed to be the doings of satan. Ortho- 
 dox people contend that this was the case, and that 
 satan is their devil. They have then got a heathen 
 god, or the principle of evil deified, a mere nonentity 
 for a devil. But is this very honorable to Christianity? 
 And is it like persons, who reverence the word of God, 
 flatly to contradict Job, in ascribing afflictions to satan 
 which he ascribes to Jehovah ? Job contends, that the 
 good God was the author of his afflictions, as well as 
 his prospeiity. Those who believed in the evil god, 
 did not deny, but the good God was the author of his 
 prosperity, but would not admit him to be the author 
 of his adversity. Job maintained that Jehovah was the 
 author of both, blessing his name when he took away, 
 as well as when he gave. By this the excellency of 
 his character was made manifest. 
 
 But again ; in the above quotation from Prideaux, 
 it is not alleged, that the good and evil gods alwavs 
 
, AN INQUIRY PART I. 57 
 
 produced good and evil by their own immediate agen- 
 cy, but tluit these were brouujht about by the instru- 
 mentality of second causes. Though Job ascribes his 
 prosperity and adversity to Jehovah, yet he and all the 
 scripture writers represent him, as accomplishing both 
 by means. Looking at the first two chapters of Job, 
 the agents by which Job's afflictions were produced, 
 are distinctly mentioned. For example, the Sabean 
 and Chaldean freebooters carried away his flocks. — 
 Were not they then a satan to Job, in the common 
 scripture usage of this term ? And does not their very 
 manner of life, exactly agree to what satan says, chap, 
 i. 7 ? " And the Lord said unto satan, whence comest 
 thou ?" Well, what answer does he make ? He says, 
 '•' from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking 
 up and down in it." Just such an answer as those 
 freebooters would have given, for it was their mode of 
 life to roam about committing such depredations. Yea, 
 satan is the very name given to such persons in the 
 East to this day. Messrs. Fisk and King, two of the 
 Palestine missionaries, thus write : " For two hours, 
 however, as we moved along our attendants were en- 
 gaged in loud and violent disputes with these and other 
 companies of Bedouins, who came up after they went 
 away. They extorted a few dollars from the Arme- 
 nians and Greeks, and at last took an ass from one of 
 the Arabs. Our Shekh knew all these freebooters, and 
 it is probably owing to his acquaintance w^ith them, and 
 his faithfulness to us, that they were so easily satisfied, 
 and that we met with so little trouble from them. He 
 says, most of the Bedouins are much worse than these, 
 and yet he called these satans (shaitan)." See Chris- 
 tian Spectator, vol. vii. p. 222. Such is the account 
 given us by two orthodox missionaries. If the writer 
 of the book of Job, did not include the Sabean and 
 
58 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 Chaldean freebooters in the term satan, all will allow, 
 that the ancient and present u^age of this word in the 
 East fully warranted him. We see then, that there 
 was no need for the assistance of a fallen angel, to pro- 
 duce this part of Job's afflictions. The agent by which 
 he lost his children, is as distinctly mentioned. We 
 are told, chap. i. 18, 19. " That a great wind from the 
 wilderness, smote the four corners of the house, and it 
 fell upon them and killed them." Such was the cause, 
 which produced this effect, nor do we perceive, that 
 the aid of any evil being was required to accomplish 
 it. We may just as well accuse satan of blowing down 
 every house which is destroyed by a tornado. Job's 
 sheep were killed by lightning, and it and the wind are 
 agents in the natural world by which God accomplishes 
 his pleasure, over which Ahraman or the Christian's 
 devil have no control. 
 
 Again ; looking at this account, and comparing it 
 with the quotation from Prideaux, we see why Job's 
 boils are expressly ascribed to satan, without any other 
 agent being concerned in their production. All evil 
 indiscriminately, was ascribed to the evil god or satan, 
 as all good was to the good god. But, as there was no 
 visible agent to which the boils could be ascribed, no 
 agent in this case is mentioned. Satan, or the evil god, 
 has to father this affliction himself, without the assis- 
 tance of any agent. Hence it is said, satan smote Job 
 with the boils, which is not said respecting his other 
 afflictions, though the whole aspect of the account, is in 
 agreement with considering him the author and director 
 of all evil. I shall only add, that it has always ap- 
 peared strange, that in this account, satan should be 
 represented as conversing freely and familiarly with 
 God.* But if the account be as I have stated, the good 
 and evil gods are here only represented as conversing 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 59 
 
 together. It was in unison with the popular opinions 
 concerning them. 
 
 In concluding our remarks, let us briefly notice some 
 points of similarity in the Magian creed, to those of 
 Christian creeds in the present day. 
 
 The Persians then had one good being or god, and 
 also 07ie evil being. Or, as Prideaux observes, "that 
 is to say God and the devil." Christians in this are 
 perfectly agreed with them, for they believe in one 
 God, and also one devil. Again ; the Persians believed, 
 that these two gods were the authors of all good and 
 evil in the world. In this also Christians agree with 
 them, for all good they ascribe to God, and impute all 
 evil to satan or the devil. Further ; the Persians made 
 darkness the symbol of their evil god. So do Chris- 
 tians. When they speak of the devil he is described 
 as black, dark, and hideous, and as loving darkness, 
 dwelling in darkness, and keeping men in darkness, and 
 will lead them at last into eternal darkness. Again ; 
 the Persians believed that their good god was eternal. 
 Some believed also, that their evil god was eternal. — • 
 About this, there was a difference of opinion. So all 
 Christians believe their God to be eternal, but about 
 the devil there is a difference of opinion. Though none 
 of them believe him to have been from all eternity, yet 
 some of them believe that he is to live forever, and 
 shall remain eternally the same wicked being. Others 
 of them think, that after a long period of punisliment, 
 he will be either struck out of existence, or be redeem- 
 ed and made eternally happy. But again, the Per- 
 sians believed, that there was a continual opposition 
 between their good god and evil god, and that this 
 should continue to the end of the world. Then, the 
 good god shall overcome the evil god, and thence- 
 forward each of them shall have his world to himself, 
 
60 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 that is, the good god liis world with all good men with 
 him, and the evil god his world with all evil men with 
 him. Christians contend, that there is a continual op- 
 position between their God and the devil, and that this 
 opposition shall continue to the end of the world. Then, 
 God is to overcome the devil, and from that time hence- 
 forward, God is to have his world and all good men 
 with him, and the devil is to have his world, and all 
 wicked men with him. Such are a few of the leading 
 points of similarity, between the ancient Magian faith 
 and the faith of Christians in our day, respecting God, 
 the devil, and future punishment. It is but proper and 
 fair to notice 
 
 2d. Some of the points of dissimilarity between them. 
 The Magians believed, that their good and evil gods 
 were only "two principles." These principles they 
 not only personified, but deified and worshipped. When 
 Xerxes prayed for evil on his enemies, " he addressed 
 his prayer to Arimanius the evil god, and not to Or- 
 masdes, their good god." Christians believe their God 
 and the devil to be, not two principles, but two beings. 
 Their devil is not only a being, but was once an an- 
 gelic being, but for his sin and rebellion was cast out 
 of heaven. Christians do not worship their devil. But 
 alas, too many who profess to be Christians, like Xerxes, 
 when they wish evil on their enemies, pray to the devil. 
 Christians have a great numberof names for their devil. 
 But it is apparent, that whether such a being is called 
 Ahraman, Arimanius, satan, or devil, the leading fea- 
 tures of his character among all nat'ons are the same. 
 The evil god has become the Christian's devil. In 
 fact, they make their devil the worst being, for though 
 it was believed that their evil god, should at the end of 
 the world have a world to himself with all wicked men, 
 yet it does not appear, that they believed he was to be 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 61 
 
 their eternal tormentor. But it is well known, that this 
 is a principal article in most orthodox creeds, and no 
 man would be deemed orthodox, who denied it. I shall 
 only add, that though the Persians and Christians agree 
 in hating Ahraman or the devil, yet the latter have not 
 carried their hatred so far as to write the devil's name 
 inverted. In the next Section we shall see, that the 
 Magian creed was much improved by Zoroaster, and 
 that Christians have not only adopted his sentiments, 
 but the very language in which he expressed them. 
 
 Psalm xxxviii. 20, comes next to be considered. — - 
 " They also that render evil for good are mine adver- 
 saries.'^ Here the word satan occurs in the plural, and 
 is rendered as usual adversaries. It is useless to make 
 any remarks on this text, for its context clearly shows, 
 that David is not speaking of fallen angels but of men. 
 In verse 19 he calls them his enemies, and speaks of 
 them as lively, strong, and multiplied. 
 
 Psalm Ixxi. 13. "Let them be confounded and con- 
 sumed, that are adversaries to my soul." The word 
 satan\s also used here in the plural, and is again ren- 
 dered adversaries. In verse 10, David calls these satans 
 or adversaries his enemies, and the whole Psalm shows, 
 that he is not speaking of wicked spirits but of wicked 
 men. 
 
 Psalm cix, 4. " For my love they are my adversa- 
 ries.^^ Here again the word satan occurs in the plural 
 form, and is rendered adversaries. It is generally con- 
 tended, that this psalm relates to Christ and his adver- 
 saries, or satans. It is certain, that verse 8 is quoted 
 Acts i. and is applied to Judas. This term occurs in 
 several other parts of the psalm which we shall briefly 
 notice. In verse 6 it is said, '^ set thou a wicked man 
 over him : and let satan stand at his right hand." — 
 Here, the word satan is left untranslated, but is render* 
 5 
 
62 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 ed adversary in the margin. In the Jewish mode of 
 parallelism, a wicked man in the first part of the verse, 
 is the same as satan in the second. For an illustration 
 of what is said about satan, or a wicked man standing 
 at his right hand when he shall be judged in verse 7, 
 see on Zach. iii. 1, 2, below. In verse '^O, it is said — - 
 " let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the 
 Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul." — 
 The word satan is here again used in the plural, and 
 rendered adversaries. It is rendered in the same way, 
 verse 29. " Let mine adversaries be clothed with 
 shame, and let them cover themselves with their own 
 confusion, as with a mantle." On the whole of this 
 psalm, and the use of the term satan in it, we would 
 merely remark, that no person who reads it, can sup- 
 pose that there is the least reference to a fallen angel. 
 It is evident, if the psalm refers to the Messiah, Judas 
 and the persecuting Jews are designated by the term 
 satan ; and shows us the propriety of the terms devil 
 and satan being applied to them in the New Testa- 
 ment, as we shall afterwards see. 
 
 Zach. iii. 1,2, is the last place where the term satan 
 occurs in the Old Testament. " And he showed me 
 Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the 
 Lord, and satan standing at his right hand to resist h im 
 And the Lord said unto satan, the Lord rebuke thee, 
 O satan : even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, 
 rebuke thee : is not this a brand plucked out of the fire." 
 Here the v^'ord satan is again left untranslated, except 
 in verse 1, where it is rendered <^ to resist himJ' In 
 the margin, it is, to " Z>e his adversary." In the 
 Seventy's version, the word satan is throughout this 
 passage rendered diabolos. On the whole of it I re- 
 mark, 
 
 1st. Let the word satan be only rendered adversa- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 63 
 
 ry throughout these verses, and the idea of a fallen 
 angel vanishes. The reader can easily put this re- 
 mark to the trial, by substituting the term adversary 
 for satan, in reading the passage. From our habit of 
 associating the idea of a fallen angel with the term 
 satan, and not with the word adversary, this and some 
 other tests are supposed to teach such a doctrine. But 
 can this false association establish it ? 
 
 2d. If it were necessary, it could be shown, what 
 satan or adversary was meant. Let any one read 
 Ezra, chaps, iii. and iv., and note particularly what is 
 said concerning Tatnai, and Shethar-boznai, in chap. 
 V, and little doubt can remain, that they were the satan 
 or adversary referred to. [t is allowed, that Zacha- 
 riah prophesied about tlie time the events in the book 
 of Ezra took place. Compare with this, what is said 
 on Ezra iv. 6, above. If people will interpret this 
 passage literally of a fallen angel, why not also inter- 
 pret the following chapters, in the same book, literally. 
 See chaps, i., ii., v., vi. 
 
 3d. In this passage and in Psal. cix.6, above, Jahn 
 thinks there is an allusion to the forms of judicial trials 
 in ancjent times. He thus writes : " The ceremonies 
 which were observed in conducting a judicial trial, 
 were as follows: — -1. The accuser and the accused 
 both made their appearance before the judge or judges, 
 Deut. XXV. 1, who sat with legs crossed upon the floor, 
 which was furnished for their accommodation, with 
 carpet and cushions. A secretary was present, at 
 least in more modern times, who wrote down the sen- 
 tence, and indeed every thing in relation to the trial ; 
 for instance, the articles of agreement, that might be 
 entered into, previous to the commencement of the 
 judicial proceedings, Isa. x, 1, 2. Jer. xxxii. 1 — 14. 
 The Jews assert that there were two secretariesj th@ 
 
64 AN INQ,UIRY PART I, 
 
 one being seated to the right of the judge, who wrote 
 the sentence of not guilty, the other to the left, who 
 wrote the sentence of condemnation, Comp. Matth. 
 XXV. 33 — 46. That an apparitor or beadle was pre- 
 sent, is apparent from other sources. 2. The accuser 
 was denominated, in Hebrew, satan, or the adversa- 
 ry, Zach. iii. I — 3. Psalra cix. 6. The judge or 
 judges were seated, but both of the parties implicated 
 stood up, the accuser standing to the right hand of the 
 accused. The latter, at least, after the captivity^ 
 when the cause was one of great consequence, ap- 
 peared, with hair dishevelled, and in a garment of 
 mourning." 
 
 Such are all the texts in the Old Testament, where 
 the term satan occurs. The reader can now judge 
 for himself, if it is ever used by the writers as \\\Qname 
 of a fallen angel, who ruined our first parents and all 
 their posterity. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 THE OPINION, THAT THE DEVIL OR SATAN IS A REAI/ 
 BEING, WITH OTHER CONNECTED OPINIONS, SHOWN 
 TO HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN HEATHENISM. 
 
 It has been shown in the two preceding Sections, 
 that the Old Testament gives no countenance to the 
 common doctrine of a fallen angel, under the name 
 serpent, satan, or any other. Indeed, we think it has 
 been established, that the account of satan in the first 
 two chapters of Job, was introduced for the express 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 65 
 
 purpose of refuting such opinions. A very important 
 inquiry arises, How came such opinions to be imbibed 
 by Christians, become so current in the world, and 
 even seem to derive countenance from the New Tes- 
 tament? To account for these and other things shall 
 be our business in ttie present Section. 
 
 1st. fn the early stages of the Jewish history, we 
 read of witches and witchcraft, injunctions are given 
 against these, before we hear any thing about satan or 
 the devil. But nothing is said to them about witch- 
 craft, until they were about to enter Canaan. Many 
 of the injunctions delivered to the Jewish nation, were 
 for the purpose of fortifying them against such heathen 
 notions, and preserving them in the fear and service of 
 the one living and true God. See, concerning this, 
 Levit. xix. ^, 31 ; xx. 6, 27; Deut. xviii. 9—12; 
 Ex«d, xxii. 1.8. Comp. Isai. xlvii. 12, 13 ; 1 Sam. 
 chap, xxviii. The inhabitants of Canaan were given 
 to idolatry and witchcraft, with similar superstitions. 
 But such a being as Christians call the devil, was 
 neither worshipped nor known among them. They 
 had abundance of idols, but no devil ov satan, nor are 
 the Jews cautioned to beware of imbibing such an 
 opinion. It is then a very great mistake, which many 
 good people have made, in calling witchcraft the 
 devil's art, and in thinking witches and wiz2;ards were 
 in league with him. Concerning this, Micliaelis, on 
 the laws of Moses, thus writes, vol. iv. page 89 : '' We 
 must, however, entertain very different sentiments on 
 this point, in reference to the time of Moses. For in 
 the Biblical writings prior to the Babylonish captivity, 
 we meet with very little notice of the devil, and it 
 would seem that the effects which he could produce 
 on the material world, were considered as but very 
 tnfling. The wizzards of those days rather ascribed 
 
66 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 the efficacy of their conjurations to other gods ; and 
 therefore, in the Israelitish polity, witchcraft was com- 
 monly accounted a species of idolatry, and, of course, 
 most severely punishable. Hence orthodox theology, 
 in the time of Moses, could look upon it in no other 
 light, than as an imposture : for no one could maintain, 
 that it operated preternaturally, without admitting the 
 existence of other gods, and their power over the ma- 
 terial world." The Jews before they entered Canaan 
 knew nothing about the devil. Nor did its idolatrous 
 inhabitants, for he was not known in that part of the 
 world. If then, as now, he walked about seeking 
 whom he might devour, it is very unaccountable he 
 should not be familiarly known in Canaan, a land full 
 of idols, and witches, and all manner of wickedness. 
 It seems all these could exist in those days without any 
 devil to produce them. Nor is Moses, or rather God, 
 under any apprehension, that he would visit that 
 country. We shall see that the Jews were obliged 
 to go to a foreign land to find the devil. 
 
 2d, The Jews were carried to Babylon, and spent 
 seventy years in captivity. Here, the Magian reli- 
 gion, revived and improved by Zoroaster, prevailed ; 
 and here we shall find that they became acquainted 
 with the doctrine of the devil, and with other religious 
 opinions not found in their scriptures. To this point 
 I shall now turn the attention of the reader. Pri- 
 deaux, vol. i. pp. 219 — 240, gives us an account of 
 Zoroaster, his religion, and its success; a few brief ex- 
 tracts from which I shall only make. He says — " In 
 the time of his (Darius Hystaspes) reign first appeared 
 in Persia the famous prophet of the Magians, whom 
 the Persians call Zerdusht, or Zaratush, and the 
 Greeks, Zoroaster, He was the greatest impostor, 
 except Mahomet, that ever appeared in the world, and 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 67 
 
 had all the craft and enterprising holdness of that 
 Arab, but much more knowledge ; for he was excel- 
 lently skilled in all the learning of the East that was 
 in his time; whereas the other could neither read nor 
 write ; and particularly he was thoroughly versed in 
 the Jewish religion, and in all the sacred writings of 
 the Old Testament that were then extant, which 
 makes it most likely, that he was, as to his origin, a 
 Jew. And it is generally said of him, that he had 
 been a servant to one of the prophets of Israel, and 
 that it was by this means that he came to be so well 
 skilled in the Holy Scriptures, and all other Jewish 
 knowledge ; which is a further proof that he was of 
 that people ; it not being likely that a prophet of Is- 
 rael should entertain him as a servant, or instruct him 
 as a disciple, if he were not of the same seed of Is- 
 rael, as well as of the same religion with him ; and 
 that especially since it was the usage of that people, 
 by principle of religion, as well as by long received 
 custom among them, to separate themselves from all 
 other nations, as far as they were able. And it is 
 farther to be taken notice of, that most of those who 
 speak of his original, say, that he was of Palestine, 
 within which country the land of Judea was. And 
 all this put together, amounts with me to a convincing 
 proof that he was first a Jew, and that by birth, as 
 well as religion, before he took upon him to be pro- 
 phet of the Magian sect. 
 
 " He did not found a new religion, as his successor 
 in imposture, Mahomet did; but only took upon him to 
 revive and reform an old one, that of the Magians, 
 Nvhich had been for many ages past the national 
 religion of the Medes, as well as of the Persians : for 
 it having fallen into disgrace on the death of those ring- 
 leaders of that sect, who had usurped the sovereignty 
 
68 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 after the death of Cambyses, and the slaughter which 
 was then made of all the chief men among them, it sunk 
 so low, that it became almost extinct, and Sabianism 
 every where prevailed against it, Darius and most of 
 his followers on that occasion going over to it. But 
 the affection which the people had for the religion of 
 their forefathers, and which they had been all brought 
 up in, not being easily to be rooted out, Zoroaster saw 
 that the revival of tnis was the best game of imposture 
 that he could then play ; and, having so good an old 
 stock to graft upon, he did with the greater ease make 
 all his new scions to grow which he inserted into it. 
 
 " The ciiief reformation which he made in the Ma- 
 gian religion was in the first principle of it : for where- 
 as before they had held the being of two first causes, 
 the first light, or the good god, wlio was the author of 
 all good ; and the other darkness, or the evil god, who 
 was the author of all evil ; and that of the mixture of 
 these two, as they were in a continual struggle with 
 each other, all things were made; he introduced a prin- 
 ciple superior to them both, one supreme God, who 
 created both light and darkness, and out of these two, 
 according to the alone pleasure of his own will made 
 all things else that are, according to what is said in the 
 xlv. chapter of Isaiah, 5, 6, 7. " I am the Lord, and 
 there if none else : there is no God besides me ; I 
 girded thee, though thou hast not known me, that they 
 may know from the rising of the sun, and froni the 
 west, that there is none besides me. 1 am the Lord, 
 and there is none else. I form the light and create 
 darkness. I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do 
 all these thin(]js." For iheso words beino: directed to 
 Cyrus, king of Persia, must be understood as spoken in 
 reference to the Persian sect of the Magians, who then 
 held light and darkness, or good and evil, to be the su- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 69 
 
 preme beings, without acknowledging the great god 
 who is superior to both. And I doubt not it was from 
 hence that Zoroaster had the hint of mending this great 
 absurdity in their theology. But to avoid making God 
 the author of evil, his doctrine was, that God originally 
 and directly created only light or good, and that dark- 
 ness or evil followed it by consequence, as the shadow 
 doth the person ; that light or good had only a real pro- 
 duction from God, and the other afterwards resulted 
 from it, as the defect thereof. In sum, his doctrine as 
 to this particular was, that there was one Supreme 
 Being independent and self-existing from all eternity. 
 That under him there were two angels, one the angel 
 of light, who is the author and director of all good ; and 
 the other the other the angel of darkness, who is the 
 author and director of all evil ; and that these two, out 
 of the mixture of lio;ht and darkness, made all things 
 that are ; that they are in a perpetual struggle with 
 each other; and that where the angel of light prevails, 
 there the most is good, and where the angel of dark- 
 ness prevails, there the most is evil ; that this struggle 
 shall continue to the end of the world ; that then there 
 shall be a general resurrection, and a day of judgment, 
 wherein just retribution shall be rendered to all accord- 
 ing to their works; after which the angel of darkness, 
 and his disciples, shall go into a world of their own, 
 where they shall suffer in everlasting darkness the pun- 
 ishments of their evil deeds ; and the angel of light, 
 and his disciples, shall also go into a world of their own, 
 where they shall receive in everlasting light the reward 
 due unto their good deeds ; and that after this they shall 
 remain separated forever, and light and darkness be no 
 more mixed together to all eternity. And all this the 
 remainder of that sect, which is now in Persia and India, 
 
70 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 do, without any variation, after so many ages, still hold 
 even to this day." 
 
 On these extracts, and other things stated in the 
 pages referred to, 1 shall make a few general remarks. 
 Zoroaster being a Jew, well acquainted with the Jew- 
 ish scriptures, and skilled in all the learning of the East, 
 was pre-eminently qualified for the game of imposture 
 which he played. He did not invent a new religion, 
 but only revived and improved the ancient iMagian re- 
 ligion. As Prideaux says — " He grafted all his new 
 scions on this old stock and they grew." The Magian 
 religion " had been for many ages past the ancient na- 
 tional religion of the Medes as well as of the Persians." 
 Zoroaster's improved system soon became popular, na- 
 tional, and generally universal in the East. Though at 
 first, it met with great opposition from the Sabians, yet 
 he soon drew over to it Darius, whose example was 
 soon followed by the "courtiers, nobility, and all the 
 great men of the kingdom." The time in which he 
 flourished, " was while Darius Hystaspes was king of 
 Persia." The sect flourished from his time, which, to 
 "the death ofYazdejard, the last Persian king of the 
 Magian religion, was about eleven hundred years. But 
 after the Mahometans had overrun Persia, in the 
 seventh century after Christ, the Archimagus was forced 
 to remove from thence into Kerman, which is a province 
 in Persia, lying upon the Southern Ocean, towards 
 India, and there it hath continued even to this day." — 
 But lor these and other important statements I must 
 generally refer to Prideaux's account. Make Brun 
 says this sect exists in Africa, and that in Congo, •' the 
 good principle is named Zamba M'Poonga ; and the 
 evil principle which is opposed to him, Caddee 
 M'Peemba." Geog. B. 68 pp. 274, 328. Impostor 
 as Zoroaster was, he did not choose to make '• God the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 71 
 
 author of evil." To avoid this absurdity he held '^ that 
 God originally and directly created only light or good, 
 and that darkness or evil followed it by consequence, 
 as the shadow doth the person : that light or good had 
 only a real production from God, and the other after- 
 wards resulted from it as the defect thereof." But, we 
 shall notice some of the articles of Zoroaster's creed, 
 more immediately connected with our present subject, 
 and compare them with the articles found in Christian 
 creeds of the present day. 
 
 1st. Zoroaster taught, that under the supreme God 
 " there were two angels, one the angel of light, who 
 is the author and director of all good, and the other 
 the angel of darkness, who is the author and director 
 of all evil." It is very evident that his " angel of 
 darkness," answers to the devil of Christians, for they 
 believe their devil^to be the author and director of all 
 evil. They believe he was its author at first in de- 
 ceiving Eve, and has been its author and director ever 
 since. Both moral and physical evil are ascribed to 
 him. The resemblance between them, is not only 
 evident as it respects the powers and qualities both 
 are said to possess, but the very name given to them. 
 It is well known. Christians call their devil " the an- 
 gel of darkness." Between Zoroaster's " angel of 
 darkness," and the devil of Christians, I can perceive 
 little or no difference. The Magians first deified the 
 principle of evil, then Zoroaster changed this god into 
 an angel of darkness, and Christians have adopted him 
 for their devil ; and lest his origin should be lost in the 
 lapse of ages, have called him by the same name. 
 But the resemblance is further manifest, by consider- 
 ing, that the angel of light and the anjjel of darkness 
 " are in a perpetual struggle with each other ; and that 
 where the angel of light prevails, there the most is 
 
72 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 good, and where the angel of darkness prevails, there 
 the most is evil ; and that this strugiijle shall continue 
 to the end of the world," I ask all candid Christians, 
 if this is not what they believe concerning their devil? 
 Is it not their faith and their phraseology, that God 
 and the devil are in a perpetual struggle ? That this 
 struggle shall continue between them unto the end of 
 the world, and that God finally shall overcome the 
 devil ? Who can deny all this ? And what Chris- 
 tian man can have the face to deny that Christians 
 have made a devil out of Zoroaster's angel of dark- 
 ness, for it was impossible he could make his angel of 
 darkness out of their devil. It is also apparent, Chris- 
 tians believe, as Zoroaster has taught them, " that 
 where the angel of light or the good God prevails, 
 there the most is good, and where the angel of dark- 
 ness, or their devil prevails, there the most is evil." 
 Prideaux considers it a great absurdity in the ancient 
 Magian religion, that " light and darkness, or good 
 and evil, were the supreme beings, without acknow- 
 ledging the great good God, who is superior to both." 
 But is the absurdity much less among Christians, in 
 holding to one supreme God, and a devil, whom they 
 make but little inferior to him? It is true, they have 
 not two gods in name, for they do not believe in the 
 devil as a a^od. But what si<mifies a mere name, when 
 in fact they ascribe to him all the characteristics of a 
 God ; yea, the very same as the ancient Magians as- 
 cribed to their evil god, and Zoroaster to his angel of 
 darkness. Their devil struirsles with the true God, 
 and is in a continual struggle with him, and is not to 
 give it up until the end of the world. In all past 
 ages, they say that their devil has had the ascendancy 
 in this struggle, for evil hitherto has most prevailed. 
 See Mr. Emerson's treatise on the Milennium. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 73 
 
 I would suggest it for consideration, whether Zoro- 
 aster's "angel of light," is not a corruption of the 
 Scripture doctrine concerning the Messiah. He is 
 called the angel of the Lord, and the angel of the 
 covenant. Between him and the seed of the serpent 
 there is a continual struggle, and this struggle is to con- 
 tinue to the end of the world, when all things shall be 
 subdued to him. But, though he was manifested to 
 destroy the works of the devil ; yea, through death to 
 destroy the devil, this devil was not a '-fallen angel," 
 or " an angel of darkness,'^ or " an evil god," as we 
 shall see, Section vi. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 14, seems to 
 allude to this tenet of Zoroaster's creed, in saying, 
 satan is transformed into " an angel of light.^^ It is 
 implied, that before this transformation he was " a?* 
 angcl of darkness,^' which are the very expressions used 
 by Zoroaster. See, on this text, Section v. 
 
 2d. Let us now consider, what Zoroaster says shall 
 take place at the end of the world, and compare it with 
 the creeds of most Christians, He says—" then there 
 shall be a general resurrection." This article Zoroas- 
 ter no doubt learned from his acquaintance with the 
 Jewish Scriptures, for the resurrection from the dead, 
 was the ultimate hope of believers in Christ, who was 
 promised to the fathers. At this resurrection, he says 
 there shall be " a day of judgment." This, Zoroaster 
 could not learn from the Old Testament, for it does not 
 teach such a doctrine, and when he made his creed^ 
 the New was not in existence. The phrase " day of 
 judgment,^^ used by him, is that now used by Christians, 
 and in the same sense as he used it. In my answer to 
 Mr. Sabine, I examined every text in which this phrase 
 is found, and showed, that it is not once used in the 
 Bible, in the sense which Zoroaster and Christians have 
 attached to it. To it I beg leave to refer the reader, 
 
74 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 who inclines to examine this subject. Christians must 
 have borrowed the sense they attach to the phrase " day 
 of judgment" from his creed, for he could not borrow it 
 from theirs, as the chronology of the cases show. But 
 let us hear Zoroaster, about what shall take place at 
 the day of judgment ? He says — ''just retribution shall 
 be rendered to all according to their works." It can- 
 not be denied, that this is the very sentiment and lan- 
 guage of Christian creeds. But I ask, how Zoroaster 
 could learn either this sentiment or its phraseology from 
 the Old Testament? If he did,inteHigent and learned 
 orthodox men have erred greatly, in admitting this doc- 
 trine is not taught in the Old Testament. Jahn, in his 
 Archaelosy, thus writes, p. 398. " We have not au- 
 thority, therefore, decidedly to say, that any other mo- 
 tives were held out to the ancient Hebrews to pursue 
 the good and avoid the evil, than those. which were 
 derived from the rewards and punishments of tliis life. 
 That these were the motives which were presented to 
 their minds in order to influence them to pursue a right 
 course of conduct, is expressly asserted, Isai. xxvi. 9, 
 10, and may be learnt also from the imprecations, which 
 are met with, in many parts of the Old Testament. — • 
 The Me he st mil, y\' ho were disciples of Zoioaster, be- 
 lieved in the immortality of the soul, in rewards and 
 punishments, after death, and in the resurrection of the 
 body ; at the time of which resurrection, all the bad 
 would be purged by fire, and associated with the good. 
 Zend. Avesta,P. I. pp. 107,108; P. 11. pp. 2ll,~227, 
 229; 124, 125; 173, 245,246; Comp. Ezek.xxxvii. 
 1—14." 
 
 According to this writer, " the ancient Hebrews" 
 were not taught the doctrine of future rewards and pun- 
 ishments. But he honestly tells us that the " disciples 
 of Zoroaster believed in the immortality of the soulj in 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 75 
 
 rewards and punishments after death." It is true, the 
 Andover translator of Jahn's work, in the paragraph 
 preceding, inserts the following words in correction of 
 his author. [" And although he (Solomon) no where 
 in express terms holds up the doctrine of future re- 
 wards and punishments, informs us in chap. xii. 14, of 
 something very much like it, viz. ' That God shall 
 bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, 
 whether good or evil.' ''] Such is the proof adduced 
 in opposition to Jahn, of future rewards and punish- 
 ments. Our readers can judge for themselves as to its 
 conclusiveness. It leaves one serious difficulty unre- 
 lieved. How came Zoroaster and his disciples to speak 
 so explicitly ahout this doctrine, if it was not clearly 
 revealed in the Old Testament ? No Christian can 
 speak of it with more plainness than they did, if Pri- 
 deaux and Jahn in the above quotations speak truth 
 concerning them. Christians now, use their very lan- 
 guage, in expressing their ideas on the subject. With 
 pleasure we acknowledge our obligations to Mr. Up- 
 ham, for his translation of Jahn's valuable work, and 
 this obligation would have been much increased, had 
 he referred us to the parts of the Old Testament from 
 which Zoroaster could so clearly learn his doctrine 
 concerning the immortality of the soul and future pun- 
 ishment. Or, if he could not, account for this impos- 
 tor's knowing so much more about it than the inspired 
 writers. Accordino; to Jahn's account, Zoroaster dis- 
 ciples did not believe in endless punishment. At " the 
 resurrection, all the bad would be purged by fire, and 
 associated with the good" was their belief, and this ac- 
 cords with the opinions of some Christians in the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 But, let us hear Zoroaster, about what is to succeed 
 this day of judgment and retribution. He says — 
 
76 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 "After which the angel of darkness, and his disciples, 
 shall go into a world of their own, where they shall 
 suffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of their 
 evil deeds ; and the angel of light and his disciples, 
 shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall 
 receive in everlastini^ lisjht the reward due unto their 
 good deeds; and that after this they shall remain sepa- 
 rated forever; and light and darkness be no more mix- 
 ed together to all eternity." We have seen that Zo- 
 roaster's " angel of darkness," and " the devil" of Chris- 
 tians, are the same both as to qualities and name. — 
 Here the sameness is still more manifest, for what 
 honest man can deny, that Christians have adopted his 
 very sentiments and language. For example, Zoroas- 
 ter's "angel of darkness" had disciples. Well, Chris- 
 tians say their devil has disciples. His angel of dark- 
 ness with his disciples, after the day of judgment shall 
 go into a world of their own. So say Christians con- 
 cerning their devil and his disciples. His angel of 
 darkness with his disciples, in this world of their own, 
 "shall suffer in everlasting darkness the punishment of 
 their evil deeds." And do not Christians say the very 
 same of their devil and his disciples ? Every orthodox 
 man must believe that the devil with his discij)les, or 
 all wicked men, are to suffer in a world of their own 
 "in everlasting darkness the punishment of their evil 
 deeds," and that " the angel of light, and his disciples, 
 shall also go into a world of their own. where they 
 shall receive in everlasting light the reward due unto 
 their good deeds : and that after this they shall remain 
 separated forever, and light and darkness be no more 
 mixed together to all eternity." What man would be 
 deemed orthodox, who refused to helieve these things ? 
 And why not allow, that Zoroaster, the greatest im- 
 postor that ever arose, Mahomet excepted, was in these 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. tl 
 
 lliings as orthodox as they are. In these things he was 
 orthodox long before thetn. There is only one of the 
 above articles about which they differ from him in 
 opinion. To the honor of our orthodox brethren be it 
 spoken, they do not say, that the disciples of the angel 
 of light receive future blessedness as a reward for good 
 deeds done by them here. No, they say, it is not of 
 works but of grace, lest any man should boast. It is 
 true, the grace whereby they save men, is rather a pur- 
 chased grace, than free grace, but on this I forbear re- 
 marking. 
 
 But it is added by Prideaux — '' and all this the re- 
 mainder of that sect which is now in Persia and India, 
 do without any variation, after so many ages, still hold 
 even to this day." If they hold all the above articles, 
 "without any variation to this day," and if they are 
 all true, as Dean Prideaux asserts, why be at so much 
 trouble and expense to send them missionaries ? The 
 chief articles in modern Christian creeds were propa- 
 gated there many ages before the Christian religion 
 existed. 
 
 It deserves the serious consideration of the whole 
 orthodox body, whether missionaries ought not to 
 come from Persia and India here, to correct the inno- 
 vations and additions made In the creed of the great 
 Zoroaster. But I must leave this, and other reflec- 
 tions arising from the above statements to be made 
 by the reader. 
 
 We have now noticed some of the principal arti- 
 cles of Zoroaster's creed, and would ask Christians — 
 Bretlu'en, from what divine source did this arch impos- 
 tor learn all these articles of his creed? — 1st. Was it 
 from the Old Testament scripture ? This you will 
 not affirm, for intelligent orthodox men allow it does 
 not contain such articles. If it does contain them, 
 6 
 
78 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 you can find them there as well as Zoroaster, and we 
 call on you to prove them from this book. 2d. Did 
 Zoroaster learn such articles from llie New Testa- 
 ment? This was impossible, for it was not in exist- 
 ence for more than six hundred years after the days of 
 Zoroaster. 3d. Did Zoroaster learn them from God, 
 when he pretended God spoke to him out of the midst 
 of the fire? This cannot be affirmed unless you ad- 
 mit iiim to be a true prophet of the Lord. But he is 
 declared the greatest impostor which ever arose, Ma- 
 homet excepted. 4th. Did Zoroaster invent these arti- 
 cles of ills creed 1 No other alternative is left, but to 
 admit this, or prove that he derived them from the Old 
 Testament, or by special revelation from God. If he 
 invented them, then he was the author of the princi- 
 pal articles in modern creeds. 5th. Do you say, your 
 articles, so similar to his creed, were neither derived 
 from, him, nor from the old Testanient, but entirely 
 from the New ? This will not do, for even allowing 
 such articles to be clearly taught in the New Testa- 
 ment, it is evident Jesus Christ and his apostles had 
 not the honor of first revealing them to the world. 
 Zoroaster, the arch impostor, had published them all 
 over the East, six hundred years before Christ appear- 
 ed. If such articles are found in the New Testament, 
 Jesus Christ and his apostles were indebted to this 
 impostor for inventing them. Siiould you say, Jesus 
 Christ and his apostles derived these articles from God 
 by immediate revelation, permit me to ask you, who 
 revealed them to Zoroaster six hundred years before 
 the Christian era ? Did God reveal them to him ? 
 If he did, why not allow him to have been a true pro- 
 phet of the Lord ? And why not frankly own, that 
 Jjesus Christ and iiis apostles did not first reveal such 
 articles o/ faith, but that God first revealed them 
 
 ri 
 
AN IN(iUIRY— PART I, 79 
 
 through his great prophet Zoroaster? Perhaps you 
 may say, such articles were communicated by inspira- 
 tion to Christ and his apostles, and it is on their au- 
 thority that you beheve them. Beware, I beseech 
 you, of taking tiiis ground, for this is saying, Zoroas- 
 ter, a notorious impostor, inv^ented articles of faith, 
 which, six hundred years after their invention, God 
 sanctioned as divine revelation. Was God indebted 
 to an impostor for suggesting to him a religious creed 
 suited to the Christian dispensation ? For the honor 
 of God, of Christj and his apostles, yea, for the honor 
 of Christianity, we hope you will not assert this. If 
 Zoroaster learnt such articles of his creed from a di- 
 vine source, it must have been from the Old Testa- 
 ment. But few will be found who will assert that it 
 contains them, for this ground is abandoned by ortho- 
 dox intelligent men, and their defence is drawn from 
 the New Testtmnent. But if their defence can be 
 made from the Old, we request the different articles 
 be distinctly taken up and proved from it. Dan. xii. 
 2, is the most plausible text which can be adduced, 
 from which he could learn the doctrine of endless 
 punishment. This passage will be fully considered in 
 the Second Part, to which I refer the reader. As to 
 satan being a fallen angel, who deceived Eve, tormen* 
 ted Job, and has become the Christian's devil, we 
 leave all to form their own opinion from the evidence 
 which has been adduced. 
 
 Let it now be remembered, that while the Jews 
 dwelt in Canaan they knew nothing about the devil. 
 If they did, it was merely by report, that the Per-, 
 sians and other nations believed in such a being. 
 They had precepts, guarding them against witchcraft, 
 idolatry, and all the abominations of the Canaanites, 
 but not pne guarding them against that almost infjait^ 
 
80 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 being whom Christians call the devil. How our or- 
 thodox brethren account for this, I am unable to say. 
 On my views, it is easily and rationally accounted for. 
 The devil was the principle of evil deified, transform- 
 ed by Zoroaster into an angel of darkness, and the 
 Jews must go to Babylon to get acquainted with him. 
 That the Jews spent seventy years in captivity there, 
 is a fact disputed by no one. The question which 
 
 then comes forward for consideration is Did the 
 
 Jews imbibe, during their captivity, and did they 
 bring back from it any religious opinions which were 
 not taught in their sacred books ? fVere any of those 
 opinions derived from the creed of Zoroaster, and was 
 that now entertained concerning the devil of this num- 
 ber] To see how this matter stands, we solicit the 
 reader's attention to the following particulars, 
 
 1st. The Magian religion for many ages had been 
 the " national religion of the Medes as well as of the 
 Persians," as stated by Prideaux. About the time the 
 Jews were in captivity in Babylon, Zoroasier flourish- 
 ed there, in reviving and improving it. Jahn,p. 391, 
 thus writes respecting the time when the Jews were 
 carried there. " When at length admonitions ceased 
 to be of any great avail, and every thing was growing 
 worse and worse, the Israelitish commonwealth was 
 overthrown, two hundred and fifty-three years after 
 their separation from Judah, and seven hundred and 
 twenty-two before Christ. The people were carried 
 away by the Assyrians into Gozan, Chalacene, the 
 cities of Media, and into Assyria. The kingdom of 
 Judah was overthrown three hundred and eighty- 
 seven years after the separation, five hundred and 
 eighty-eight before Christ, by the Chaldeans, and the 
 people were carried captive to the banks of the river 
 Chebar, in Babylonia." Prideaux says, vol. i. p. 65, 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 81 
 
 that the Jews were carried to Babylon in the fourth 
 year of Jehoiakim, which, according to his chro- 
 nology, was six hundred and six years before Christ, 
 It was not for want of a fair opportunity, if the 
 Jews did not imbibe opinions not found in their scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 2d. When they were carried to Babylon no particu- 
 lar place was appointed for them, but they appear to 
 have been dispersed tlu'oughout the provinces of that 
 vast empire. It was not with the Jews here, as with 
 their forefather's in Egypt, a particular spot being as- 
 signed them, where they lived all together, and could 
 fortify each other against a departure from the religion 
 of Jehovah. Their dispersed condition rendered them 
 liable to forget their own religion, and insensibly im- 
 bibe the opinions of those among whom they lived. 
 
 3d. The very religion of Zoroaster had many things 
 about it calculated to lead Jews to embrace it. It re- 
 cognized the first principle of their own, the suprema- 
 cy of one God ; was the religion of ilje king, his court, 
 and of all the nobility. It was popular throughout the 
 whole empire. These, and other things noticed by 
 Prideaux, which I forbear particularizing, all concur- 
 red to make the religion of Zoroaster very fascinating 
 to the Jews. For them to oppose it was only to ren- 
 der themselves as odious there, as I am likely to be 
 among orthodox people here, in opposing their doc- 
 trine concerning the devil. Jahn, in his Archaeology, 
 thus writes, pp. 393 — 4 : •' The similitude, which ex- 
 isted between the system of Moses, and that of Zoro- 
 aster, which prevailed in Persia and Media, may be 
 summed up in a single article, viz., that they both dis- 
 countenanced the worship of idols. For, 1. That 
 original beginning of all things, called Hazaruam, was 
 neither the creator nor governor of the world, but the 
 
82 AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 
 
 endless succession of time, which was represented by 
 Zoroaster, as the supreme existence, ens, or fountain 
 of being. From Hazaruam, proceeded Ormuz and 
 Ahrimanes. Ormoz acted the part of creator of the 
 world; a circumstance which caused no little envy in 
 the mind of Ahrimanes, and induced him to mingle 
 with the workmanship of Ormuz, the seeds or princi- 
 ples of evil, which exist. By tlie Mehestani, more- 
 over, or followers of Zoroaster, not only Ormuz, but 
 six Amschaspandi, also innumerable spirits, dispersed 
 every where, the sun, moon, stars, and other earthly 
 existences, were worshipped without distinction. 2. 
 If the example of the Medes and Persians, who wor- 
 shipped Ormuz as tiie creator and governor of the 
 world, confirmed the Hebrews in the worship of Jeho- 
 vah, it was equally likely, on the other hand, to in- 
 duce them to adore the stars, and spirits, which occu- 
 pied so cons])icuous a place in the system of those na- 
 tions ; also the horses and chariots of the sun, which 
 the ancestors of King Josiah, influenced by the ex- 
 ample q{ the Mehestani, had introduced at Jerusa- 
 lem, and perhaps, to practise that species of Magian 
 worship, witnessed by Ezekiel in the temple of Jeru- 
 salem." 
 
 4th. The Jews previous to the captivity, had been 
 preparing themselves in the school of superstition and 
 wickedness, for embracing such opinions at Babylon. 
 Jahn says, p. 39'2, " During the period immediately 
 preceding their overthrow, every kind of superstition, 
 and every njoral pollution prevailed in both kingdoms, 
 especially in that of Judah. No other means tliere- 
 fore remained to correct their vices, but that of ex- 
 treme severity, by which their whole nation, dis[)ersed 
 from their country into distant regions, and humbled 
 and afflicted, might learn that they could do r.o- 
 
AN IN(iUIRY PART I. SJI 
 
 thing without God, and that idols could lend them no 
 assistance." 
 
 otli. The long duration of their captivity, unavoid- 
 ably led to the adoption of such opinions in religion. 
 It was known by the Jews, that their captivity was to 
 be for seventy years, and were desired to make their 
 temporal arrangements accordingly. See the prO'- 
 phets' injunctions about this. But let us suppose, 
 what is hardly supposable, that all the persons who 
 went to Babylon over twenty years of age, were proof 
 against imbibing any false opinion. SutFer me to ask, 
 how were all under that age, and all born there to be 
 preserved ? Without a constant miracle they could 
 not, and no one affirms that a miracle was wrought to 
 preserve them.. It is then morally certain, that the 
 Jews on their return, must bring back with them many 
 of the religious opinions of the people among whom 
 they had lived : unless we can prove, that they 
 changed all their religious opinions, as easily as a man 
 can shift his clothing, 
 
 6th. Prideaux shows from the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures, that some of the Jews had gone over to the Ma- 
 gian religion. He refers to Ezek. viii. 16, where the 
 prophet, being carried in vision to Jerusalem, saw 
 "about five and twenty men standing between the 
 porch and the altar, with their backs towards the tem- 
 ple of the Lord, and their faces towards the east ; and 
 ihey worshipped the sun. The meaning of which is, 
 that they had turned their backs upon the true worship 
 of God, and had gone over to that of the Magians." 
 Here then is direct proof of the fact from Scripture, 
 that Zoroaster's religion was not only imbibed, but 
 the worship it enjoined practised by the Jews. But 
 as very little of the Old Testament was written after 
 the captivity, we observe, 
 
84 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 7th. That learned men agree that the Jews brought 
 back from their captivity religions opinions, not taught 
 in their Scriptures. I shall only quote the following 
 writers in proof. Michael is, on the Laws of Moses, 
 vol. ii. p. 348, thus writes: "In the New Testament, 
 indeed, and in the Jewish language after the period of 
 the Babylonish captivity, from which the Israelites re- 
 turned much enriched in names for the devil, Belial 
 means the devil. But in the Old Testament it never 
 has this meaning." Again ; L'Enfant, in his Intro- 
 duction to the Reading of the Scriptures, p. 14, thus 
 writes: "But this much is certain, that from that time 
 (of Alexander the Great) the Jews began to Hdenize ; 
 that the Greek tongue, spoken by the Macedonians, 
 became more common among them, and that they 
 also introduced some of the opinions of the Greek 
 philosophers, as the transmigration of souls, for in- 
 stance. We find some steps of this notion even in 
 the New Testament, as in Luke xvi. 23, where there 
 is an account of the abode of departed souls, con- 
 formable to the Grecian philosophy, and in John ix. 2, 
 where we find an allusion to the prc-cxistence and 
 transmigration of souls. It is, moreover, evident 
 from the Apochryphal writings, from Philo, Jose- 
 phus, and the Talmudists, that the Jews, especially 
 the Pharisees, had learned and followed the Grecian 
 philosophy ever since their conveising with the Greeks 
 under Alexander the Great, the Ptolemies, and Seleu- 
 cidae, his successors, who reigned in Egypt and Syria/' 
 Those w4io wish to see more authority ir proof of this 
 point may consult Dr. Campbell's Sixth Dissertation, 
 part i. sect. 19, quoted in my First Inquiry, chap. i. 
 sect, 3, See also Jahn's Archae., pp. 235, 396. The 
 Jews then had two sources from which they derived 
 opinions in religion not taught in their Scriptures ; 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 1. 85 
 
 the opinions of Zoroaster, and those of the Greek 
 philosophers. 
 
 8th. What conclusively proves that the Jews 
 brought hack from their captivity many opinions not 
 learned from their sacred books, are the Apocryphal 
 writings. The books called Apocrypha, though not 
 canonical, are allowed to be the best writings extant, 
 relative to the Jews after the captivity. To these I 
 shall now call the attention of the reader, collecting 
 from them, what were the religious opinions of the 
 Jews in the times to which they relate. Let us con- 
 sider 
 
 1st. What were their opinions respecting evilheings 
 or spirits 1 We shall be^in with iheir use of tlie term 
 satan. It occurs only in Eccles. xxi. 27. It is doubt- 
 ful what idea the writer attached to this word. The 
 word diabolos occurs frequently in the original, but is 
 rendered slanderer, accusation, &c. in the English ver- 
 sion. See Eccles. xix. 15, xxvi. 5, xxviii. 9, xxxviii. 
 19, and li. 2, 1 Mac. i. 36, 2 Mac. xiv. 27. The only 
 place where it is rendered devil, and which has a con- 
 nexion with our present subject, is Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon, ii. 24. '' Nevertheless, through envy of the devil 
 came death into the world ; and they that do hold of 
 his side do find it." The allusion here is to Genesis 
 iii. and from this passage Christians have probably de- 
 rived the idea that it was the devil that deceived Eve. 
 If they can show a better source for this opinion, we 
 hope it will be done. Paul says, death entered by sin, 
 Rom. V. 12, and it was shown. Sec. ii, that no Old 
 Testament writer intimates that death entered by the 
 devil. Where then did the Apocryphal writers get this 
 opinion ? It must have been from the heathen, and it 
 is evident this idea agrees to Zoroaster's angel of dark- 
 ness, who was the author and director of all evil, death 
 
86 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 not excepted. In the Apocrypha evil spirits are fre- 
 quently mentioned. What child has not been amused 
 with the account of '' Asmodeus, the evil spirit"' killing 
 Sara's seven husbands? Also, of Raphael curing To- 
 bit's eyes, and binding Asmodeus. And of the won- 
 derful efficacy of the heart, liver and gall of a fish, 
 whicl] leaped out of the Tigiis, the smoke of which 
 smelled by the evil spirit, he fled into the utmost parts 
 of Egypt, where the angel bound him. See Tobit, 
 chaps, iii. vi. iiii. xi. In Baruch iv. 7, 35, we read of 
 devils, but the original word is not diabolos but diamo- 
 nion. But as it is admitted on all hands, that \itmons, 
 and the being Chiistians call the devil^ are very differ- 
 ent, it requires no attention from me in the present in- 
 vestigation. 1 would only remark in passim:, that peo- 
 ple's notions about satan, the devil, evil spirits, witches 
 and wizzards, must be from a heathen source, for none 
 of them are admitted to be real beings in the Old Tes- 
 tament. On the contrary they are there condemned 
 as superstitions, and the Jews commanded to give no 
 heed to them. Where then could the Jews learn such 
 opinions but from their intercourse with the heathen ? 
 If the Jews imbibed the idea of witches in Canaan, and 
 that of the devil and evil spirits at Babylon, and such 
 beings are mentioned in the Apocrypha, are these suffi- 
 cient reasons for our believing their existence? And is 
 it possible that such beings can be recognized as real 
 in the New Testament? 
 
 2d. Wliat are the opinions taught in the Apocrypha 
 about Hell] The Greek word Hades, rendered hell, 
 occurs, Eccles. xxi. 10, and li.5, 6. Songof the three 
 children, verse 66. Tobit xiii. 2, 2 Esd. iv. 8, viii. 
 53, and ii. 29. It is the same word which is frequent- 
 ly rendered hell in the New Testament, and is synony- 
 mous with Sheol, also rendered hell in the Old. The 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 87 
 
 word Gehenna, also rendered hell in the New Testa- 
 ment, does not occur in any of the books of the Aj30c- 
 rypha. By hell, in all the above texts, is meant the 
 same as Sheol, the grave, or state of the dead. The 
 idea ofa place of endless punishment, does not appear 
 to be meant in any one of them. Indeed such a place 
 of punishment could not be learned by the Jews, either 
 from the ancient Marian religion or from Zoroaster's 
 improvements of it, for not a word is said about hell in 
 either. I have shown, in my first Inquiry, that Hades 
 or hel! as a place of futui'e punishment was learned by 
 the Jews from their intercourse with the Greeks. See 
 chap, i, sec. 3. 
 
 3d. What were the opinions of the Apocryphal wri- 
 ters, concf.rning the number that should be saved l-^-' 
 Their opinion was, that all men "shall not be saved." 
 See 2 Esdras viii. 38 — 42. On the contrary, the Most 
 High " made this \vorld for many, but the world to 
 come for few. See 2 Esd. viii. I. And in verse 3 it 
 is said — "there be many created, but few shall be sa- 
 ved." And chap. ix. 15, " there be many more of 
 ihem which perish, than of them which shall be saved." 
 No sentiment like this is to be found in the Magian 
 creed, or in its impi'ovements by Zoroaster, so far as 
 my knowledge of them extends. Where the Apocry- 
 phal writers learned it I am unable to say with cer- 
 tainty ; but Whitby on Rom. ii. shows tliat the Jews 
 in our Lord's day, believed that none but Jews were to 
 be saved, and they were all to be saved. They be- 
 lieved that all the Gentiles were fuel for hell fiie. My 
 opinion is, that this idea originated among the Jews, 
 from their hatred of the Gentiles, and the high opinion 
 which they entertained of themselves as the seed of 
 Abraham. See Matih. ch. iii. No one we think will 
 contend, that they learned such an opinion from their 
 
88 AN INQUIRY PART 1. 
 
 Scriptures. Christians in time past, have not only be- 
 lieved t[)at few will be sav^ed, but they express them- 
 selves pretty much in the language of the Apocryphal 
 writers on the subject. Of late, Dr. Woods, Mr. Em- 
 erson, and some other orthodox writers aver, that the 
 greater part of the human race will be saved. The 
 number, who shall suffer eternal punishment, will not 
 be more in proportion to the whole human race, than 
 those who sufter capital punishment in any country, are 
 to that of the whole community. We ought not to de- 
 spise the day of small things. But this is a great thing, 
 for not long ago, it was the orthodox faith, that com- 
 paratively few of the human race would be saved. 
 
 4th. What were the opinions of the Apocryphal wri- 
 ters concernins^ immediate punishment after death 1 — 
 That they believed the wicked were punished after 
 death is evident from 2 Esdras, vii. 47. And that it 
 commenced immediately ^hav (\e-A{\\ seems also evident 
 from verse 56, and ix. 12. Compare also Eccles. xviii. 
 22 — 25. Tliis is precisely the doctrine of immediate 
 punishment after death taught in our day. But I would 
 ask, from what source did the Apocryphal writers learn 
 this doctrine? Not from the Old Testament, for it is 
 now conceded by intelligent orthodox nien, tliat the 
 Old Testament does not teach it. It was impossible 
 they could learn it from the New, for when they wrote, 
 it was not in existence. Not from Zoroaster, for 1 do 
 not find that his creed contained the doctrine of im- 
 mediate punishment after death. Where could the 
 Jews then learn such a doctrine ? I answer, from the 
 Greeks, from whom also they learned that Hades or 
 Hell was the place where tliis punishment was to be 
 suffered. See first Inquiry, chap, i, sect. 3. The Old 
 Testament writers, so far from teaching the doctrine of 
 immediate punishment after death, describe this state, 
 
 4 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 89 
 
 as a state of darkness, silence, insensibility, and that 
 there the very best of men cannot praise God or give 
 him thanks. Nor is a sin;ale individual ever represented 
 as in pain or misery in this state. But the Greeks be- 
 lieved in immediate happiness as well as misery after 
 death, and the Apocryphal writers believed both. See 
 Eccles. i. 13, 2 Esdras, xiv. 34, and vii. 28, 35, 2 
 Mac. vii. 14, Wisdom of Sol. chap. ii. See Jahn's 
 Arch. p. 398, quoted above. 
 
 5th. What were tlie opinions entertained by the wri- 
 ters of the Apocrypha concerning " the day of judg- 
 ment V The phrase, "the day of judgment," only 
 occurs once in the Old Testament, Prov. vi. 34, where 
 no one ever supposed it referred to a day of general 
 judgment at the end of this world. But in this sense, 
 the phrase, "the day of judgment," is used by Zoroas- 
 ter in his creed. And in tliis sense also it is used by 
 the Apocryphal writers ; 2 Esdras, xii. 34 ; Esther, i. 
 11. That they meant a day of judgment after the re- 
 surrection of the dead seems evident from the following 
 passages. The torment oi the wicked at this period 
 they believed to be " fire and worms in their flesh ; and 
 they shall feel them, and weep forever." See Judith, 
 xvi. 17, Eccles. vii. 17, Comp. 2 Esdras, ii. 34, and 
 vi. 9, 25. Suffer me now to ask, where could the wri- 
 ters of the Apocrypha learn the doctrine of " the day 
 of judgment" but from the creed of Zoroaster, for this 
 is both the sentiment and the very phraseology which 
 he uses as has been seen above from Prideaux. It can- 
 not be questioned, that the phrase " the day of judg- 
 ment" does not once occur in the Old Testament in 
 this sense. If it is denied, that they learned this sen- 
 tinflent from the creed of Zoroaster, show us from what 
 Divine source they could learn it? As Christians could 
 not learn either this sentiment or the language in which 
 
90 AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 
 
 it is expressed from the Old Testament, we ask how 
 came they by such sentiments and language, unless 
 they derived it from Zoroaster's creed or at second 
 hand frotn the Apocrypha. It will not answer to say, 
 Jesus Christ and his apostles used the phrase " the day 
 of judgment," and Christians have borrowed the lan- 
 guage and sentiment from them. No, this will never 
 do, for first, we have shown in our answer to Mr. Sa- 
 bine, that in no text where this language is used is such 
 a sentiment conveyed by it. But second, if we were 
 even to grant this, what would follow from it. It would 
 follow, that Jesus Christ and his apostles adopted the 
 sentiments and language of the Apocryphal writers, or 
 to speak all the truth, that both were indebted to the 
 great impostor, Zoroaster, for inventing both the senti- 
 ment and language for them some hundred years be- 
 fore. Yea, that all of them were indebted to the an- 
 cient creed of the Magians for this doctrine and the 
 language in which it is expressed, for both are found 
 there. Let our brethren, then, who contend for this 
 doctrine, consider its origin ; for to build their faith on 
 the New Testament as its source, is worse than the 
 Old ; it makes the writers not revealers of a new doc- 
 trine, nor teaching one before revealed, but adopting a 
 sentiment and lan^uasre, which oriijinated in the INIao-iaD 
 creed, was transmitted by the great impostor Zoroaster, 
 and the Apocryphal writers to Jesus Christ and his 
 apostles, and from them to all Christians ever since. 
 
 6th. What are the opinions taught by the Apocry- 
 phal writers, respecting the duration of future punish- 
 ment 1 Their opinion about this was, that it should 
 never end Thus in Judith, xvi. 17, where, speaking 
 of the wicked it is said — " The Lord Almighty will 
 take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in 
 putting fire and worms in their flesh ; and they shall 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 91 
 
 feel them and weep forever." Bad as the ancient Ma- 
 gian reliiijion was, it does not appear to have t^aught the 
 endless duration of punishment. And, if Jalmis to be 
 believed, as quoted above, Zoroaster's disciples taught 
 that the wicked were to he purified by fire at tlie day 
 of judgment, and made happy with the good. It is 
 certain the ancient Greeks believed in endless punish- 
 ment, and from this source, or the creed of Zoroaster, 
 the Apocryphal writers must have derived it. They 
 could not learn such a doctrine from the Old Testa- 
 ment scriptures, for it is not taught there. Many con- 
 tend that it is taught in the New Testament. Allow- 
 ing'it is, I ask how the writers of the Apocrypha came 
 to believe it and teach it long before the New Testa- 
 ment was written ? Did the New Testament writers 
 adopt a doctrine, tau^du by Apocryphal writers, which 
 they derived from the heathen ? This to be sure would 
 be doing great honor to them, but what comes of the 
 
 OB - 
 
 honoi', or credit of Christ and bis apostles if this was 
 admitted ? 
 
 Such are the religious opinions found in the Apoc- 
 rypha, all closely connected with our present inquiry. 
 We would candidly ask our orthodox brethren, how 
 those writers came to speak so clearly and explicitly 
 on these topics, long before the New Testament was 
 written ? As their information could not be derived 
 from the Old Testament, where did they obtain it ? — ^ 
 Did Daniel reveal it to the Jews while they were in 
 Babylon ? If he did, why was it mixed up with such 
 fables as are found in the Apocrypha, and transmitted 
 to posterity by Apocryphal writers? And, if such 
 opinions be true, why did the New Testament writers 
 not avail themselves of such explicit information, and 
 teach them to the world ? No man, we think, will 
 affirm that such opinions are taught so explicitly in the 
 
92 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 New Testament as they are in the Apocryplia. And 
 Christians cannot well deny, that the sentiments and 
 even the languai^e of their creeds, bear a ijreater resem- 
 blance to what is found in the Apocrypha, than any 
 thing taught either in the Old or JNew Testament. — 
 Many doubt the truth of such articles. But could any 
 man have disputed their truth, had the Apocrypha been 
 a part of divine revelation ? 
 
 7th. What were the religious opinions among: the 
 Jews not found in Scripture, during the days of Christ 
 and bis apostles? The New Testament itself affords 
 evidence that opinions prevailed not found in their 
 Scriptures. For example, our Lord told the Jews, in 
 general terms, that they had made God's law void, 
 through their traditions. See some of these opinions 
 noticed in the quotations from L'Enfant, Jahn and 
 others, above. Other opinions we shall have occasion 
 to notice in succeeding Sections. See also Whitby 
 on Romans ii, referred to above. The opinions of 
 Josephus concerning a state of future rewards and 
 punishments are well known, and need not be quoted. 
 Those who wish to see a pretty full account of the 
 opinions of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and other sects 
 among the Jews, may consult Prideaux, vol. iii. pp. 
 353—389. See also Jahn's Arch. pp. 402—404, 
 411, which my limits forbid quoting. Nor is it neces- 
 sary, for it would only be to repeat opinions already 
 noticed. 
 
 8th. The history of the Christian church shows, 
 that many heathen opinions were incorporated with 
 Christianity, and increased from bad to worse, until 
 what was called Christianity, became worse than hea- 
 thenism itself. The first converts were Jews, and 
 vast multitudes of converts were also made from 
 among the Gentiles* Such continued to retain many 
 
AN INQ.UIRY PART I. 93 
 
 of their former false opinions. When Christianity be- 
 came the rehfflon of the Roman empire, men, former- 
 ly heathen priests and philosophers, became teachers 
 in the Christian church, so that it soon became popu- 
 lar, but greatly corrupted. Those who wish to. see 
 this jjradual corruption traced and exposed, may con- 
 sult Dr. Campbell's Ecclesiastical History, Mosheim's 
 Church History, Milner's, and others. The fact is no- 
 torious, and universally admitted, and my limits forbid 
 a more particular statement. We shall conclude this 
 section by noticing the following facts. 
 
 1st. The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, which has 
 so long been the Diana of the religious world, was the 
 invention of Zoroaster. Prideaux, vol. I. p. 230, thus 
 writes: "And whether it were, that these Magians 
 thought it would bring the greater credit to them, or the 
 kino;s, that it would add a greater sacredness to their 
 persons, or whether it were (rom both these causes, the 
 royal family among tlie Persians, as long as this sect 
 prevailed among them, was always reckoned of the 
 sacerdotal tribe. They were divided into three or- 
 ders. The lowest were the inferior clergy, who 
 served in all the common offices of their divine wor- 
 ship : next above them were the superintendents, who 
 in their several districts governed the inferior clergy, 
 as the bishops do with us ; and above all was the 
 Archimagus, or arch-priest, who, in the same manner 
 as the high priest among the Jews, or the Pope now 
 among the Romanists, was the head of the whole re- 
 ligion. And, according to the number of their orders, 
 the churches or temples in which they officiated were 
 also of three sorts. The lowest sort were the paro- 
 chial churches, or oratories, which were served by the 
 inferior clergy, as the parochial churches are now with 
 us ; and the duties which they there performed were 
 7 
 
94 AN INQUIRY PART I, 
 
 to read the daily offices out of their liturgy, and at 
 stated and solemn times, to read some part of their 
 sacred writings to the people. In these churches 
 there were no fire altars ; but the sacred fire, before 
 which they here worshipped, was maintained only in 
 a lamp. Next above these were their fire temples, in 
 which fire was continually kept burning on a sacred 
 altar. And these were, in the same manner as cathe- 
 drals with us, the churches or temples where the 
 superintendents resided. In every one of these were 
 also several of the inferior clergy entertained, who, in 
 the same manner as the choral vicars among us, per- 
 formed all the divine offices under the superintendent, 
 and also took care of the sacred fire, which they con- 
 stantly watched day and night, by four and four, in 
 their turns, that it might always be kept burning, and 
 never go out. The highest church above all was the 
 fire temple, where the Archimagus resided, which was 
 had in the same veneration with them as the temple of 
 Mecca among the Mahometans, to which every one of 
 that sect thought themselves obliged to make a pil- 
 grimage once in their lives. Zoroaster first settled it 
 at Balch, and there he, as their Archimagus, usually 
 had his residence. But after the Mahometans had 
 overrun Persia, in the seventh century after Christ, the 
 Archimagus was forced to remove from thence into 
 Kerman, which is a province in Persia, lying upon the 
 Southern ocean, towards India, and there it hath con- 
 tinued even to this day. And to the fire temple there 
 erected, at the place of his residency, do they now 
 pay the same veneration as formerly they did to that 
 of Balch. This temple of the Archimagus, as also 
 the other fire temples, were endued with large reve- 
 nues in lands: but the parochial clergy depended sole- 
 ly on the tithes and offerings of the people ; for this 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART I, 95 
 
 usage also had Zoroaster taken from the Jewish 
 church, and made it one of the establishments among 
 his Magians." 
 
 Let it be remembered, that Dean Prideaux was a 
 prophet of their own, which forbids the slightest sur- 
 mise that this account is either misrepresented or ex- 
 aggerated. But, while eating the fat, and clothing 
 himself with the w^ool, arising from such an establish- 
 ment, he frankly confesses that it was invented by 
 Zoroaster, concerning whom he says, p. 220 — " He 
 was the greatest impostor, except Mahomet, that ever 
 appeared in the world, and had all the craft and enter- 
 prising boldness of that Arab." A very good origin 
 indeed for — " Mystery Babylon the great, the mother 
 of harlots and abominations of the earth." It was 
 surely proper, that the greatest imposition ever palmed 
 on the world, should be the invention of one of the 
 greatest impostors the world ever produced. As it 
 was invented at Babylon, published at Bal)ylon, and 
 imported from Babylon, it is very properly called — 
 ^' Slystery Babylon the great." After such a dis- 
 closure by one of the craftsmen, that man must be 
 dead drunk with the wine of her fornications, who 
 still continues to cry—" great is Diana of the Ephe- 
 sians." 
 
 2d. Another fact is, that all sects and parties in re- 
 ligion, are silent about the religion of Zoroaster. The 
 Ecclesiastical hierarchy has met with both assault and 
 insult from almost every sect. But in the course of 
 our reading we have never met with any one of them 
 who ventured to expose it as an invention of Zoroas^ 
 ter. Many a prayer has been made for the downfall 
 of Mahomet and the destruction of Paganism : but 
 who ever heard a prayer made for the destruction of 
 Magianism or the religion of Zoroaster ? But why 
 
96 AX INQUIRY PART 1. 
 
 not? Is it not because the creeds of the different 
 sects and that of Zoroaster are very similar? From 
 his Lord God the Pope, down to the lowest dissenter, 
 all firmly hold some articles invented by Zoroaster. 
 It would not do for any of the sects to insult the cler- 
 gy, by telling them that Zoroaster was the inventor of 
 their ecclesiastical establishment. No, they could re- 
 tort upon them, for if this was any argument against 
 it, they must admit it was of equal force against such 
 articles of their own creeds, as Zoroaster was the in- 
 ventor of both. If they attacked the hierarchy with 
 such a weapon as this they wounded themselves, and 
 if the building fell by such an assault, their own 
 creeds must be demolished with it. The base born 
 origin of the Mother of Harlots must be concealed, 
 for every grade of relationship, however distant, must 
 share in the disgrace. Dean Prideaux loved the in- 
 ventions of Zoroaster, but called him the greatest im- 
 postor that ever arose, Mahomet excepted. But in- 
 stead of this kind of abuse, the religious world ought 
 to erect a monument to his memory, for to him, more 
 than to Jesus Christ, have they been indebted for 
 much that has been counted great, glorious, and good 
 in religion. 
 
 3d. It has been noticed by many as a remaikable 
 fact, that before the captivity the Jews were prone to 
 idolatry, but after their return and ever since, have held 
 it in great abhorrence. Is not this great change in the 
 Jews, partly, at least, accounted for by their imbibing 
 Zoroaster's opinions, which were opposed to the wor- 
 ship of idols? But this I merely suggest for con- 
 sideration, and leave the reader to liis own reflections, 
 on the topics which have been discussed in the present 
 Section. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 97 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 ALL THE PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHERE 
 THE TERM SATAN OCCURS, CONSIDERED. 
 
 The term Satan among Christians, is as much a 
 proper name for a fallen angel, as Peter and Paul are 
 for two of Christ's apostles. In correction of this mis- 
 take, Dr. Campbell says, Dissert. 6, " Satan, though 
 conceived by us as a proper name, was an appellative 
 in the language spoken by our Lord ; for, from the 
 Hebrew it passed into the Syriac, and signified no 
 more than adversary or opponent. It is naturally just 
 as applicable to human as to spiritual agents, and is, 
 in the Old Testament, often so applied," The truth 
 of this statement we have seen, Sect, iii- 
 
 It has been alleged that the New Testament speaks 
 more frequently and explicitly, about the devil and sa- 
 fari than the Old. Let us see how this matter stands. 
 The term satan occurs thirty-four times in the Old 
 Testament, and is fifteen times rendered adversary, or 
 by some similar word. But though it occurs thirty- 
 five times in the New Testament, it is not rendered by 
 any word. It is easily perceived, then, that this cir- 
 cumstance gives to the New Testament the appear- 
 ance of teaching the existence of such a being, which 
 the Old has not. But every man must see, that it is 
 a very false appearance, and is very much increased 
 from the very frequent occurrence of the term 
 devil, and the plural devils, to which, like the- 
 term satan, people have attached the idea of a fall- 
 en an^eL But it is well known, that the words 
 
98 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 daimon and daimonion, have no reference to that being 
 Christians call the devil, but to demons or dead men 
 deified, as we shall see in the sequel. The word 
 diaholos, occurs in the New Testament thirty-six 
 times. Excluding all the other places where the 
 words devil and devils are the rendering of daimon 
 and daimonion, all must see what an alteration it 
 makes on the face of the New Testament. Even in 
 our English version the term diaholos is sometimes 
 rendered slanderer and false accuser, as the word sig- 
 nifies. Dr. Campbell, where Judas is called a devil, 
 renders it spy, and diaholos is rendered in a similar 
 manner by other translators. Supposing then, that the 
 words shaitan and diaholos, had been rendered adver- 
 sary nnd slanderer, or by similar words, it would have 
 been difficult to find a fallen angel under those names 
 in the Bible. In the Old Testament the term satan 
 signifies an adversary, and is applied to the angel of 
 Jehovah, the evil passions of men, a ))iece of writing, 
 the evil principle deified, Sic. The term satan is used 
 in a similar way in the New Testament, wliich we 
 shall now proceed to show. 
 
 Matth. xvi. 23. "But he turned and said unto Pe- 
 ter, get ihee behind me satan : thou art an ofi^snce 
 unto me : for thou savourest not the things that be of 
 God, but those that be of men." See also the parallel 
 text in Mark viii. 33, which I need not transcribe. 
 Here our Lord does not say that Peter was possessed 
 of satan, that he acted like him, or that he was influ- 
 enced by him, but })Ositively calls one of his own dis- 
 ciples satan. But was Peter a fallen angel or wicked 
 spirit? The expression " fj^e^ thee behind me satan,'^ 
 is the same that our Lord used, Luke iv. 8, when he 
 was tempted of the devil and satan. There is no- 
 thin(][ at all remarkable in callin;]i; Peter satan. as Da- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I, 99 
 
 vld and the angel of the Lord were called so in the 
 Old Testament. " Get thee behhid me adversary," 
 was highly proper language, for Peter was our Lord's 
 adversary, not from design, but from ignorance and 
 mistaken views, as is evident from the context, and 
 also from the reason assigned ; " For thou savorest not 
 the things which be of God, but those which be of 
 men." The Old and New Testament writers, there- 
 fore, perfectly harmonise in the sense attached to this 
 word. 
 
 Luke xxii. 31, 32. '^ And the Lord said Simon, 
 Simon, behold, satan hath desired to have you that he 
 may sift you as wheat." Peter in the last text, was 
 a satan or adversary, and now our Lord told him sa- 
 tan desired to sift him as wheat. But where in the 
 history of Peter, do w^e find that an evil being ever at- 
 tempted to injure him ? But if we consult verses 32 
 — 35, and verses 54 — 63, of this chapter, we see that 
 Peter was three times sifted like wheat, by being three 
 times charged with being one of our Lord's disciples, 
 and be as often denying him. Peter's faith seemed to 
 fail him for a season, but our Lord prayed for him that 
 it might not entirely fail. In Psalm cix, and other 
 places noticed in Section iii, we have seen that the 
 unbelieving Jews are called a satan or adversary to 
 our Lord. Here they showed themselves so by sifting 
 Peter as wheat, for their opposition was chiefly against 
 the Saviour. To assert that a fallen angel influenced 
 the Jews, has no evidence to support it from text or 
 context. Indeed, only render the term satan adver- 
 sary^ and no one would think of a fallen angel as con- 
 cerned in this affair. Our Lord only says, " behold, 
 the adversary hath desired you that he may sift you 
 as wheat." 
 
 Mark iii. 23. " And he called them unto him, and 
 
100 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 said unto them in parables, bow can satan cast out sa- 
 tan." See the whole context. The following re- 
 marks from Jahn are sufficient on this passage. He 
 says, p. "126—" Jesus, in Matt. xii. 24—30, Mark 
 iii. 22 — 30, Luke xi. 16 — 24, employs against the 
 Pharisees this argumentum ad hominem, which has 
 no bearing in this case any further than the refutation 
 of the adversary is concerned. The ground of his 
 employing this species of argument in the present in- 
 stance was this. The Pharisees, if we may believe 
 Josephus, taught that the demons, by which men were 
 possessed, were the spirits of bad men, who were dead, 
 and were commfssioned on their present business of 
 tormenting tlie children of men by Beelzebub. Jesus, 
 therefore, replied, provided this were the true state of 
 the case, that Beelzebub, by lending his assistance in 
 casting out his own devils, was overturning his own 
 kingdom. He then adds, that this powerful spirit, 
 for such the Pharisees supposed him to be, could 
 not be compelled to perform such an unwelcome 
 task, unless a stronger one than Beelzebub himself, 
 should first come, should bind him, and take away his 
 arms." 
 
 Luke X. 18. '' And he said unto them, I beheld 
 satan as lightning fall from heaven." The following 
 remarks from Jahn are also sufficient on this text. He 
 says, p. 225 — "Jesus, in Luke x. 17, does not as- 
 sert the operations of demons in men, for he couples 
 satans with serpents and scorpions, which places us 
 under the necessity of interpreting all these words 
 tropically, and of understanding by them cunning and 
 powerful adversaries, who opposed the progress of the 
 Gospel, but with all their power were unable to inter- 
 rupt its advancement. The expressions which he em- 
 ploys are as follows. ' 1 see satan,' i. e, all the adver- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 101 
 
 saries of the Gospel, who are afterwards called ser- 
 pents, scorpions, and the enemy's host, 'fall like light- 
 ning from heaven,' i. e. from the political heaven, from 
 power and authority. Consult Isai. xiv. 12, 13, Matt, 
 24th chapter, Luke x. 15, Revelation xii. 7 — 9; see 
 also Cicero, where he says to Mark Antony, you have 
 hurled your colleagues down from heaven. (The ad- 
 versaries of the Gospel occur in Luke xxii. 31, under 
 the name of Satan.) ' Behold, (he proceeds,) I give 
 unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and 
 over all the power of the enemy,' i. e. of overcoming 
 and subduing by your miraculous gifts all adversaries, 
 ' and nothing shall by any means hurt you,' i. e. op- 
 press and overcome you. ' Notwithstanding, in this 
 rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you, but 
 rather rejoice, because your names are written in 
 heaven,' i. e. rejoice rather in the favor of God, than in 
 the power of casting out devils, or of healing the most 
 difficult diseases." In addition to these remarks I 
 would ask, how many fallings from heaven has satan 
 had, for he fell from heaven before he tempted Eve, 
 and fell again it seems while the seventy disciples were 
 on their tour of preaching ? But how did lie get to 
 heaven to make a second fall from it, and while there, 
 was he also walkinoj about on our earth seeking whom 
 he might devour ? 
 
 Luke xiii. 16. '' And ought not this woman, being 
 a daughter of Abraham, whom satan hath bound, lo, 
 these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the 
 Sabbath day ?" Jahn on this passage says, p. 227 — 
 "Jesus liberates the woman, described in Luke xiii. 12, 
 as bowed down with infirmity, without making any men- 
 tion of a demon ; if, therefore, a little after, he asserts, 
 that she was a daughter of Abraham, bound by Satan 
 for eighteen years, the expressions are to be considered 
 
102 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 as figurative, beinor an allusion to the loosing of oxen, 
 which it was lawful to do on the Sabbath in order to 
 lead them to drink, and having reference at the same 
 time to an opinion among the Jews, that all diseases had 
 their ultimate origin, (not indeed from demons^ but 
 from tlie Devil, that overruling spirit of wickedness, 
 who tempted Eve, and to whom allusions are made in 
 Acts X. 38, and in 2 Cor. xii. 7." Dr. Lightfoot on 
 Matth. xvii. says — " that the Jews usually attributed 
 some of the more grievous diseases to evil spirits, espe- 
 cially those in which either the body was distorted ,or 
 the mind disturbed." Jahn and Dr. Lightfoot allow 
 that such opinions existed among the Jews, and we have 
 shown Sect. iv. how they came to imbibe them. But 
 no countenance is given to the truth of the opinion, 
 that a fallen angel was the cause of this woman's dis- 
 order. It is called " a spirit of iftjir7niti/.^^ Dr. Camp- 
 bell says, Dis^ert. vi. — " It is a common idiom among 
 the Jews, to put spirit before any quality ascribed to 
 a pel son, whether it be good or bad, mental or corpo- 
 real. Thus the spirit of fear, the spirit of meekness, 
 the spirit of slumber, the spirit of jealousy, are used to 
 express habitual fear," he. A spirit of infirmity 
 then, was an habitual infirmity, which was certainly 
 true of this woman, for she could in no wise lift up her- 
 self " for eighteen years." This complaint medical 
 men have called 'WAe rigidity of the hack honeJ^ — 
 Notice, when our Lord restored her, he does not com- 
 mand satan to leave this woman, nor does he rebuke 
 him, but says — '^ woman, thou art loosed." Loosed 
 from satan ? No, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 
 This hound her, and was sufficient without his assis- 
 tance. Notice further, that our Lord in the act of 
 healing her " laid his hands on her, and immediately 
 she was made straight and glorified God." The ruler 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 103 
 
 of the synagogue, speaking according to the true state 
 of the case, spoke of this woman as laboring under a 
 mere bodily disorder. He does not say — there are six 
 days, in them come and be loosed from sataiis bond- 
 oge, but in them come and be healed, verse 14. He 
 was filled with indignation because our Lord had healed 
 her on the Sabbatl). What was said by our Lord 
 about satan, in defence of his conduct, is predicated on 
 two grounds ; 1st. On the principles of common hu- 
 manity, which the Jews exercised towards their cattle 
 on the Sabbath. "Thou hypocrite," says Jesus, "doth 
 not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his 
 aFS from the stall, and lead him away to watering ?" — 
 What was the inference from this? Ought not this 
 woman, a daughter of Ahraham, to be loosed from her 
 infirmity on the Sabbath ? *2d. He defends his con- 
 duct on the supposition that satan had bound this wo- 
 man. If they believed this, how could they blame him 
 for loosing her on the Sabbath day. Who could resist 
 these reasons ? Accordingly it is said, verse 17, that 
 "alibis adversaries were ashamed : and all the people 
 rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by 
 him." But let us suppose, that satan positively was 
 the cause of this woman's disorder, what follows? It 
 follows, that our Lord, neither on this or any other oc- 
 casion, warned men against his great power and ma- 
 lignity, nor were the people half so much alarmed, as 
 they would have been, if a wild beast had yisited their 
 neighborhood. They showed no fear respecting such 
 a powerful wicked being. Whoever contends that sa- 
 tan bound this woman, ought to contend, that all per- 
 sons so bound now, and why not all diseases, are in- 
 flicted by him. If this be true^ we are in a miserable 
 condition. Medical men may scatter all their know- 
 ledge of the healing art to the winds, and henceforth 
 
104 AN INQUIRY^ — PART I. 
 
 learn to work miracles, or cultivate the friendship of 
 satan, as the only means left them of excelling in their 
 profession. 
 
 Luke xxii. 3. "Then entered satan into Judas, sur- 
 named Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." — 
 If satan entered into Judas, was not Judas possessed of 
 satan ? But it is a fact, that though persons are said 
 to have been possessed of demons, yet we never read 
 of one who was possessed of the devil or satan. But 
 how could satan be in Judas, tormenting the wicked in 
 hell, and temping all the world besides, unless we make 
 him almost equal to God himself? And if he did enter 
 Judas for the purpose of working evil, is it not strange 
 that some good angel did not also enter him to coun- 
 ter-work his evil devices? Well, what satan entered 
 into Judas ? I answer, the spirit of opposition to Je- 
 sus, the purpose to betray him. The 4th verse shows 
 this, for '' he went his way and commimed with the 
 chief priests and captains how he might betray him 
 unto them." See on the next passage. 
 
 John xiii. 27. •' And after the sop satan entered into 
 him." What satan now entered Judas, for it was said 
 in the preceding passage, that satan had entered into 
 him ? 1 answer, his fixed determination immediately 
 to execute his purpose. It was just before the last 
 Passover, Judas purposed to betray Jesus, and bargain- 
 ed with the chief priests about it, Matth. xxvi. 14 — 17. 
 This purpose is called satan entering into him, Luke 
 xxii, 1 — 7, and the devil putting it into his heart, John 
 xiii. 2. But, from the time he formed the purpose, until 
 he received the sop, none but himself, Jesus, and the 
 chief priests knew his design. At verse 10, Jesus 
 says, "ye are clean, but not all." Comp. verse 1 1. — 
 Again, at verse 18, he says — " but that the Scripture 
 may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 105 
 
 lifted up his heel against me." But at verse 21, Jesus 
 says plainly, "one of you shall betray me." This ex- 
 cited the inquiry, " Lord who is it ?" To point the 
 person out, Jesus says — " he it is to whom I shall give 
 a sop when I have dipped it. And when he had dip- 
 ded the sop he gave it to Judas " The words before 
 us immediately follow — " and after the sop satan en- 
 tered into him." What connexion could there be be- 
 twixt his receiving the sop and a fallen angel entering 
 into hiin ? But there is a rational connexion between 
 receiving the sop, and his determination to execute his 
 ipurpqse immediately. The delicate hints of guilt agi- 
 tated Judas' mind : but giving him the sop, must have 
 roused him to fury, as he was now openly exposed, and' 
 he departs to execute his design. The words which 
 follow confirm this — " that thou doest do quickly." — 
 These words, though not understood by the rest of the 
 disciples, appear to have been well understood by Ju- 
 das. They hastened his departure; for upon hearing 
 them he went " immediately out." But v\ here did he 
 go to, and for what purpose? To his employers, the 
 chief priests, that he might execute his determination. 
 See Matth. xxvi. 47 — 50. What is a remarkable fact, 
 and confirms the above view, satan is never said to have 
 entered into the Jews. And why not? Because they 
 had always been a satan or adversary to our Lord. — 
 But Judas had been one of Christ's professed friends, 
 and the same satan which had always been in the Jews, 
 entered into him when he formed the design to betray 
 Jesus, and also when he determined to execute his de- 
 sign. To this day, when a man acts a very wicked 
 part, contrary to his former professions, we in popular 
 language say, " satan has entered into him." Besides, 
 the view given is in agreement with the Old Testa 
 
106 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 ment usage of the term satan, where it is applied to the 
 evil principles and bad passions in men. 
 
 Acts V. 3. " But Peter said, Ananias, why hath 
 satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to 
 keep back part of the price of the land ?" It is not 
 said that satan entered into Ananias, but only that he 
 had Jilled his heart. But what is meant by the words 
 — "why hath satan filled thine heart," is in verse 4 
 thus explained — " why hast thou conceived this thing 
 in thine iieart." Here two thinfs are obvious. First, 
 what in the one sentence is said to be done by satan, 
 is in the other ascribed to Ananias himself; and sec- 
 ond, what is meant by satan filling the heart, is ex- 
 plained to mean, Ananias conceiving;' this thing in his 
 heart. It seems to be an Hebrew idiom, and is illus- 
 trated by the words of Ahasuerus to Esther the queen, 
 "Who is he? And where is he tliat durst presume in 
 his heart to do so ?" It is in the margin — " 2vhose heart 
 hath filled him^ See Esth. vii. 5. Notice fiu'ther, 
 it is not said satan had filled the heart of Sapphira, 
 verse 9, Peter only says to her — "how is it that ye 
 have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord ?" 
 But why ? for she lied as well as her husband. This 
 is accounted for by considering, that great or uncom- 
 mon instances of natural or moral evil among the Jews 
 were ascribed to satan. Peter speaks at the outset, of 
 the greatness of the sin of lying to the Hijly Spirit; in 
 the popular language of the times : but he had also ex- 
 plained his meaning, or spoken according to the true 
 state of the case, by saying, " why hast thou conceived 
 this thing in thine heart?" After this it would have 
 been incongruous to introduce again the popular lan- 
 guage about satan in speaking to Sapphira. Peter's 
 explanation of the popular language — " why hast thou 
 conceived this thing in thine heart/' agrees precisely 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 107 
 
 with James' account how people are tempted to sin, 
 chap. i. 13, 14. James does not allow any man to say- 
 when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God, for God 
 tempteth no man. But if it be true, that Ananias was, 
 or any man is tempted of satan, would he not allow 
 them to say the truih ? But James expressly declares 
 that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of 
 his own lust. Ananias and his wife were drawn away 
 by their lust or love of money. This satan filled their 
 heart, and they were enticed by it to lie to the Spirit 
 of God. But had a fallen angel enticed ihem, why is 
 he never bhuned for it by those whom he seduced? — 
 Did David blanie him? Did even Judas blame him? 
 No, bad as he was, he takes all the blame to himself — 
 "1 have betrayed the innocent blood." Nor is satan 
 ever threatened with any punishment. Ananias and 
 his wife are struck dead for their crime, but if satan was 
 the chief agent why does he escape? For a very good 
 reason, there never was such a being to be punished. 
 
 Acts xxvi. 18. "To open their eyes, and to turn 
 them from darkness to light, and from the power of 
 satan unto God." The history of Paul's preaching 
 does not afford an instance tnat he ever purposed, or 
 actually did turn a single individual from the power of 
 a fallen angel, called the devil or satan. Had such a 
 remarkable thing happened, it would have been noti- 
 ced, and the person congratulated on account of his 
 deliverance. He turned many from the power of the 
 adver'sary, for it is said he turned away much people, 
 saying they were no Gods which were made with 
 hands. Was there no satan or adversary but a fallen 
 angel from which he could turn men ? The persecu- 
 ting Jews are called satan. Peter was called satan. — 
 And surely the whole system of ignorance and super- 
 stition, upheld by priests and civil rulers, was a satan 
 
108 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 or adversary. See this more fully shown on Eph. vi. 
 11, in the next Section. From this satan many were 
 turned, as the history of the Acts of the Apostles 
 shows. Comp. Col. i. 13, where we read of men turn- 
 ed from " the power of darkness.'''' Accordingly some 
 read the passage before us thus : " to open their eyes, 
 and to turn them from darkness to light, even from the 
 power of satan unto God. " The darkness of ignorance, 
 superstition, and wickedness, were the satan from which 
 Paul turned men, and this he did by the light of the 
 glorious gospel of Christ. 
 
 Rom. xvi. 20. " And the God of peace shall bruise 
 satan under your feet shortly." It is not easily con- 
 ceived how a fallen angel was bruised under the feet 
 of Christians in the apostolic age. It does not accord 
 with fact, and satan is now believed to be as subtle, 
 powerful, and active as ever. The term satan is fre- 
 quently used to designate the persecuiing Jews, and 
 this declaration of the apostle is agreeable to the fact, 
 for they were bruised under the feet of Christians in the 
 destruction of their city and temple, and dispersed 
 among all nations as our Lord predicted, Matih. xxiv. 
 At this period the disciples of Jesus had rest from their 
 persecutions. 
 
 1 Cor. v. 5. "To deliver such an one unto satan for 
 the destruction of the flesh, that the «;pirit may be saved 
 in the day of the Lord Jesus." The term spirit, is 
 often used in Scripture as equivalent to person, or for 
 the person himself. Paul ceitainly did not mean this 
 person's spirit separate from his body, for it does not 
 appear, that his punishment included such a separation : 
 nor that it was to be punished to the end of the world 
 and then saved, for he says nothing about the destruc- 
 tion or punishment of this spirit. Besides, the com- 
 mon belief is, that unless persons' spirits are saved be- 
 
AN INQUIRY— ^P ART li lOO 
 
 fore death, they never can be saved after it ? If satan 
 was a fallen angel to whom this person was deliveredj 
 it is rather strange, that such a being should be in any 
 way the instrument of salvation. Besides, if the day 
 of the Lord here means the end of this world, and sph'ii 
 a part of man which exists separate from the body^ 
 why is the salvation of his spirit only mentioned? One 
 should rather think, that it would be the flesh that re- 
 quired salvation from the hands of satan, for he was to 
 destroy the Jlesh that the spirit might be saved. It is 
 well known, that the term satan signifies an adversa- 
 ry. It is often applied to the adversaries of Christians 
 and Christianity. This person in the church at Co* 
 rinth was guilty of incest. See verse 1. The apostle 
 commanded them to deliver him over to this satan, or 
 to put him away from among themselves, verse 13. — • 
 This was to be done for the person's good, the destruc- 
 tion or punishment of the flesh, or to bring him to re- 
 pentance, and that he micrht be saved in the day of the 
 Lord JesUs. The first question that arises here is, what 
 day of the Lord Jesus is meant ? I answer, that day 
 which our Lord had forewarned his disciples of, and ia 
 view of which he exhorted them to be found watchful 
 and faithful. See Matth. xxiv. Well, what kind of 
 salvation did the apostle mean, when he said, ' that the 
 spirit or person may be saved in the day of the Lord 
 Jesus?' I answer the same kind of salvation enjoyed 
 by all those who endured to the end. Matth. xxiv. 13. 
 This person was not believing to the salvation of his 
 soul or personj but was drawing; back to perdition. — 
 He was not looking for his Lord's coming, but was say- 
 ing by his conduct, my Lord delay eth his coming. 
 Such were the means prescribed for converting this sin- 
 ner from the error of his way, and saving a soul ot 
 person from death, and hiding a multitude of sins. Th# 
 8 
 
no AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 means proved effectual, as is evident from 2 Cor. ii. 
 where Paul commands the Corinthians to forgive him, 
 and to confirm their love to him ; and assigns as a rea- 
 son why they should do so, ' lest satan should get an 
 advantage of us ; for we are not ignorant of his devi- 
 ces.' What satan, pray ? The very same satan or 
 the adversaries of the gospel, to whom this person was 
 delivered for the destruction of the flesh." 
 
 1 Tim. i. 20. ''Of whom is Hymeneus and Alex- 
 ander; whom I have delivered unto satan, that they 
 may learn not to blaspheme." The remarks on the 
 last text are sufficient here. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 5. " Defraud ye not one the other, ex- 
 cept it be with consent for a time, that ye may give 
 yourselves to fasting and prayer ; and come together 
 again, that satan tempt you not for your incontinency." 
 At Corinth, prostitution formed a part of the worship 
 of the gods. To avoid fornication, the apostle com- 
 mands that every man should have his own wife, and 
 every woman her own husband, verse 2. But if the 
 one defrauded the other, the defrauded, in such a place 
 as Corinth, was liable to be tempted by satan, or the 
 adversaries of the gospel, to licentiousness. To guard 
 them against bringing such a reproach on Christ's name, 
 this injunction was delivered. Comp. verse 4, where 
 their mutual rights are stated. Butsoine\\hat of a dif- 
 ferent view may be given of this passage in agreement 
 with the Scripture usage of the term satan. It some- 
 times designates lust or sinful desire, which might, if 
 the one defrauded the other, prove a satan or adversary 
 to tempt them to licentious indulgence. 
 
 2 Cor. ii. 11." Lest satan should get an advantage 
 of us : for we are not ignorant of his devices." See on 
 1 Cor. V. 5, above, fcr the meaning of this text. I may 
 just add, that the Scripture usage of the term satan, 
 
AN INQUIRY ^PART I. Ill 
 
 would warrant us to say, that an unforgiving temper 
 of mind was the satan here referred to. It is surely oti 
 adversary to a Christian, and gets an advantage over 
 him if he indulges it. 
 
 2 Cor. xi. 14. " And no marvel ; for satan himself 
 is transformed into an angel of light." The whole 
 context goes to show that the apostle is speaking of 
 human beings. He speaks 1st. Of satan, which sim- 
 ply means an adversary; and we think it indisputable 
 that this term is applied both in the Old and New Tes- 
 taments to the unbelieving and persecuting Jews. They 
 were transformed into an angel of light, for their oppo- 
 sition was under the pretence of great zeal for God and 
 the law. It is implied, that in reality they were the 
 angel of darkness, considered by Zoroaster the author 
 and director of all evil. This was indeed the case with 
 the Jews, for they were the authors and directors of all 
 the opposition to Christians and Christianity, as the 
 New Testament shows. 2d. The apostle also speaks 
 of the " ministers'^ of this satan. No one we think can 
 dispute, that the apostle calls the false teachers in the 
 church at Corinth the ministers of satan. They were 
 transformed as ministers of righteousness, for under pre 
 tence of preaching the gospel they perverted it. See 
 verses 3, 4, 12, 13, 15. They preached another gos- 
 pel, see Gal. i. 6—10. Compare Acts xv. 1, &,c. 
 Gal. V. 1-— 7, and many other passages. They were 
 in heart opposed to the Gpspel, and were in fact joined 
 with the unbelieving Jews, in opposing the truth and 
 the apostles who preached it. They were the minis- 
 ters or assistants of the Jews, who were the open and 
 avowed adversaries of Christianity. If satan was trans- 
 formed into an angel of hght, there was no cause to 
 marvel, that his ministers should transform themselves 
 iuto the apostles oi Christ, and as ministers of right* 
 
112 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 eousness. The apostle says concerninor them, " whose 
 end shall be according to their works." What end ? 
 The apostle tells us that their end " is destruction," 
 Phil. iii. 18, 19. The same destruction which came on 
 the unbelieving Jews whose ministers they were, see 
 Phil. i. 28, 29; 1 Peter iv. 17, 18. See particularly 
 on Matth. xxiv. xxv, and 2 Thess. ii. in the Second 
 Part. 
 
 2 Cor. xii. 7. " And lest 1 should be exalted above 
 measure, through the abundance of the revelations, 
 there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messen- 
 ger of satan, to buffet me, lest I should be exalted 
 above measure." The word which is here translated 
 messenger is angp.los, and which in other places is ren* 
 dered angel. It was " the angel of satan," that buffeted 
 PauL Dr. Kennicott says. Dissert, i. p. 100, "For 
 the messenger of sat art means here a false teacher, in 
 opposition to a true apostle called * the messenger of 
 God,^ Gal. iv. 14." See Parkhurst on the word An- 
 gelos t and on the last passage for the satan here meant. 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 18. "Wherefore we would have come 
 unto you (even I Paul) once and again ; but satan hin- 
 dered us." Acts xvii. 1 Thess. iii. I — 9, with many 
 other passages show, that the satan who hindered Paul 
 from going to the Thessalonians, was the persecuting 
 Jews, who are frequently called satan. Nothing in 
 Paul's history shows a fallen angel ever troubled him. 
 Only render the term satan, adversary here, and in 
 other places, and such a being disappears. 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 9. " Even him^ whose coming is after 
 the working of satan, with all power, and signs, and 
 lying wonders." The apostle simply says here, "whose 
 coming is after the working of the adversary." If this 
 is understood of the persecutinn; Jews, who are called ■ 
 satan in other texts, it is agreeable to the fact, for many 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART I. 113 
 
 came in Christ's name before the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, pretending to work miracles, so that if it had 
 been possible they would have deceived the very elect. 
 See Matth. xxiv. and Whitby on 2 Thess. chap. ii. 
 
 1 Tim. V. 15. "For some are already turned aside 
 after satan." What satan had they turned aside after ? 
 The words which immediately precede show this : " I 
 will therefore that the younger women marry, bear chil- 
 dren, guide the house, give none occasion to the ad- 
 versary to speak reproachfully." The satan, after 
 whom they had turned aside, was evidently the Jews, 
 for they are called both satan and adversary in other 
 texts, and they did speak reproachfully of Christians. 
 It is not easily perceived, how persons could turn aside 
 after a fallen angel, but to apostatise from the faith, or 
 go over to its adversaries, is easily understood. 
 
 Rev. ii. 9. " I know thy works, and tribulation, and 
 poverty, (but thou art rich,) and I know the blasphe- 
 my of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but 
 are the synagogue of satan." Who a true Jew was, 
 Paul informs us, Rom.ii. 28, 29. The persons spoken 
 of, said they were Jews, but were not. They were of 
 synagogue of satan, belonged to the synagogue of the 
 unbelieving persecuting Jews. Who ever supposed 
 that a fallen angel had a synagogue, and, that the per- 
 sons John speaks of belonged to it ? Nor can it be be- 
 lieved, any number of men had a synagogue in those 
 days, which was called " the synagogue of satan," or of 
 a fallen angel. But the synagogue of the Jews, or the 
 adversary, occasions no difficulty. 
 
 Rev. iii. 9, " Behold I will make them of the syna- 
 gogue of satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, 
 but do lie ; behold I will make them to come and wor- 
 ship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved 
 thee." See on the last passage a sufficient illustration 
 
114 AN INQUIRY— PART 1. 
 
 of this text. I would only add, that it has been thought 
 by some, there is an allusion here to the subjection of 
 Jews to the Christians in the flourishing state of Chris- 
 tianity, 
 
 Rev. ii. 13. "I know thy works, and where thou 
 dwellest, even where satan's seat is : and thou boldest 
 fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in 
 those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr who 
 was slain amona: you, where satan dwellelh.*^ If satan 
 here means a fallen angel, it must be admitted, that his 
 seat was at Pergamus in the days of John. But if 
 satan is only rendered adversary, all difficulty is at once 
 removed. Pergamus was a noted place for opposition 
 to Christianity, for here Antipas suffered death, and 
 Christ's disciples are highly commended for holding 
 fast his name in such a place of persecution. It wiH 
 not be easy to show how a wicked spirit had his seat 
 or throne at Pergamus, and at the same time was walk- 
 inor about seekintr whom he midit devour. 
 
 Ci o c 
 
 Rev. ii. 24. " But unto you I say, and unto the rest 
 in Thyatira, (as many as have not this doctrine, and 
 who have not known the depths of satan, as they 
 speak) I will put upon you none other burden." Here 
 again it is only necessaiy to translate the word satan 
 adversary, and all idea of a fallen angel disappears. — 
 The deep things, or depths of satan, are the depths of 
 the adversary. It is said that the Gnostics called their 
 mysteries the deep things of God and the deep things 
 of By thus. And Lowman calls it the deep arts of de- 
 ceit and error. Paul says, we are not ignorant of his 
 devices, 2 Cor. ii. II. And the whole conduct of the 
 persecuting Jews is a comment on this passage and 
 others above considered. 
 
 Such are all the places in the New Testament where 
 the word satan occurs, and it is evident, the Old and 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 115 
 
 New Testament usage of it are similar, or rather the 
 same. In neither does it designate a fallen an^el, 
 whom Christians call the devil and satan. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 ALL THE PASSAGES WHERE THE ORIGINAL TERM DIA- 
 BOLOS, TRANSLATED DEVIL, IS USED, CONSIDERED. 
 
 We have seen that the term satan means an adver- 
 sary, and have noticed its various applications by the 
 sacred writers. We are now to pay some attention to 
 the meaning and application of the term (diaholos) 
 devil, where it occurs in the New Testament. 
 
 Let it be then observed, in general, that the terra 
 devils is used in the following places in the Old Tes- 
 tament. " And they shall no more offer their sacrifices 
 unto devils^ after whom they have gone a whoring. — 
 They sacrificed unto devils^ not to God ; to gods whom 
 they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom 
 your fathers feared not. And Jeroboam ordained him 
 priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for 
 the calves which he had made. Yea, they sacrificed 
 their sons and their daughters unto devils." Lev. xvii. 
 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 17 ; 2 Chron. xi. 15 ; Psalm cvi. 37. 
 The word rendered devils in this last text is daimonion 
 in the Seventy's version, and also in the following pla- 
 ces : Psalm xcvi. 5, and xci. 6 ; Isai. Ixv. 10, xxxiv. 
 14 and xiii. 21. It is evident, these devils, or demons, 
 were only heathen idols, or Pagan deities, which could 
 
116 AN INQUIRY— PART 1. 
 
 neither do good nor evil to any man. They were 
 made, and some of them were styled new gods, which 
 had come newly up, and which were not formerly 
 known by the Jews or their fathers. To these demons 
 or gods, the Jews sacrificed their sons and daughters. 
 But they were altogether different from what is meant 
 by the devil or satan ; for as Dr. Campbell observes — 
 ^' They could no more be said to have worshipped the 
 devil, as we Christians understand the term, than they 
 could be said to have worshipped the cannibals of New 
 Zealand : because they had no more conception of the 
 one than of the other." Dissert, vi. He adds, " As 
 to the worship of the devil, tou diaholous, nothing can 
 be clearer than that in Scripture, no Pagans are charged 
 with it." The fact is, the Jews knew notliing about 
 the devil until they went to Babylon. Dr. Campbell 
 says, " The word diabolos, in \ts ordinary acceptSiUon, 
 signifies calumniator, traducer, false accuser, from the 
 verb diaballein, to calumniate." This is also its mean- 
 ing, as given by Parkhurst and other lexicographers, 
 which need not be quoted. Its extraordinary accep- 
 tation, with them and others is, it designates a fallen an- 
 gel, who is the implacable enemy of God and man. — 
 But the first three passages which I shall quote, show 
 that our translators understood the word diabolos in the 
 way Dr. Campbell explains it, which he says, is its or- 
 dinary acceptation. The first is 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 11. " Even so must their wives be grave, 
 not slanderers (diaholous,) sober, faithful in all things." 
 Here pious women are exhorted not to be slanderers ; 
 literally, " not to be devils." The very same word is 
 used, verses 6, 7, in the singular number, and is ren- 
 dered devil. Again, it is said, Titus ii. 3, ^' the aged 
 women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh 
 lioWness, not false accusers^^ (diabolous.) Aged, pious 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 1 17 
 
 women are exhorted not to be devils ! Again, 2 Tim. 
 iii, 3, speaking of those who in the last days should 
 have a form of godliness but denying the power of it, 
 they are said to be " without natural affection, truce- 
 breakers, /a /se accusers^^ (diaboloi). Literally, devils. 
 Suffer me now to ask, why in these texts the word was 
 not rendered devils ? The reason is obvious ; it would 
 appear very strange to our ears to exhort Christian wo- 
 men not to be devils, for we have associated the idea of 
 a fallen angel with this word as we have with the term 
 satan. It would have been a similar impropriety, had 
 the angel of the Lord, David, and others been called 
 satan. But to avoid this, satan is rendered adversary 
 in the Old Testament, and in the above texts, the term 
 diaholos is rendered slanderer and false accuser^ These 
 texts however, show us, both how it was understood by 
 the apostle and also by our translators. Let the 
 reader keep these remarks in view, while we consider 
 all the other texts, where the term diabolos occurs m 
 the New Testament. 
 
 John vi. 70. " Have not I chosen you twelve, and 
 one of you is a devil ?" Dr. Campbell renders the 
 term diabolos here spy, and Newcome and Wakefield, 
 render it accuser. This is an agreement with the pre- 
 ceding texts, and further remark is unnecessary. 
 
 John xiii. 2. " And supper being ended (the devil 
 having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot,. 
 Simon's son, to betray him)." See on Luke xxii. 3, 
 and John xiii. 27, in the last Section, as a sufficient 
 explanation of this passage. What is said to be done 
 by satan in one, is said to be done by the devil in the 
 other. Suffer me here to ask, When one man betrays 
 another in our day, is the plea sustained in court or 
 any where else, that the devil urged him on to it ? 
 And, would any man hang himself, if he believed he 
 
118 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 was the tool of such a powerful and malicious being ? 
 Judas' crime is wholly imputed to himself, Acts i. 17, 
 18. And every man is conscious when he sins, that 
 he did not need the assistance of such a being. The 
 Scriptures, in plain language, refer sin to ourselves and 
 not to the devil. See James i. 14, and Mark vii. 21, 
 
 1 Peter v. 8, 9, " Be sober, be vigilant, because 
 your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh ^ 
 about, seeking whom he may devour : whom resist, 
 steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions 
 are accomplished in your brethren that are in the 
 world." As this is one of the principal texts quoted 
 in proof of the existence of an evil being, called the 
 devil, I shall consider it particularly. We have then, 
 1st. An exhortation, " be sober, be vigilant." This 
 was addressed to Christians scattered throughout Pon- 
 tus, Galatia, &Lc.,chap. i. 1. It is so plain, tliey were 
 suffering persecution from the enemies of the gospel, 
 that it would be loss of time to give any proof of it. 
 2d. We have next the reason assigned why this ex- 
 hortation should be obeyed. Why be sober and vigi- 
 lant? " Because your adversary the devil, as a roar- 
 ing lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may de- 
 vour." It is confidently believed by many good peo- 
 ple, that this devil who walketh about like a roaring 
 lion, is a fallen angel, or malignant spirit. But I ask, 
 how is such a belief to be reconciled with his having 
 his abode in hell, with some in the air, and others, his 
 tempting men in all parts of the earth at the same 
 time ? Such a belief is contrary to all facts and ex- 
 perience. Did ever any person see the devil in the 
 shape of a lion, hear him roar, or is an instance on re- 
 cord in the history of mankind of one being devoured 
 by him ? Such idle, childish stories have been told of 
 
AN IN^UIRr— PART 1. 
 
 119 
 
 the devil, but what man in our day gives the least 
 credit to them. I find human beings are frequently- 
 compared to lions — Numb, xxiii. 24 ; xxiv. 8, 9 ; Jer. 
 1. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; also to roaring lions, Psal. xxii. 
 13 ; Prov. xix. 12 ; xx. 2 ; Jer. ii. 15 ; Isai. v. 29. 
 They are also compared to a devouring lion, Psalm 
 xvii. 12; xxii. 21 ; Jer. ii. 30 ; iv. 7 ; Ezek. xix. 1 
 — 6 : xxii. 25. On examination I also find that God 
 is compared to a lion and a roaring lion, Isai. xxxi. 4^ 
 Hosea xi. 10 : xiii. 7, 8; Amos iii. 4 — 8. Not one 
 instance can I find where the devil, a fallen angel, is 
 compared to a lion. If he is so in this passage, it is 
 a solitary instance, which is presumptive evidence that 
 this was not the apostle's meaning. Who then was 
 this roaring lion ? Peter answers by saying, " your 
 adversary the dtvil. The word here rendered adver- 
 sary is antidikos. It only occurs in this and the fol- 
 lowing texts in the New Testament, Matth. v. 25 ; 
 Luke xii. 58 ; xviii. 3. Parkhurst says, it means " an 
 adversary or opponent in a law-suit," and quotes 
 Herodian in proof of it. The text under considera- 
 tion, is the only one in which he considers this word 
 to mean a fallen angel or the devil. He desires us to 
 compare Rev, xii. 10; Job i. 9; ii. 3, and Zach. iii. 
 1, in proof that antidikos in this text means such a 
 wicked spirit. It is very plain that he considered ad- 
 versary and devil to mean the same thing. We have 
 not only compared, but have considered the passages, 
 Section iii., and our readers may judge from the evi- 
 dence we have adduced if they teach such a doctrine. 
 In short, to say that the word devil, or the word adver- 
 sary here used as its explanation, refers to a fallen an- 
 gel, is taking for granted the very question at issue. — 
 Who then was this adversary, who went about like a 
 roaring lion ? By recurring to the New Testament 
 
120 AN INQUIRY PART I, 
 
 usage of antikeimai, also rendered adversary, we shall 
 see this. 
 
 1st. It is rendered adversary and applied to men 
 who were the adversaries of Christ and of Christiani- 
 ty, particularly the persecuting Jews. Thus, when 
 our Lord had refuted the Jews who had found fault 
 with him for healing a person on their Sabbath, it is 
 said — '" all his adversaries were ashamed," Luke xiii. 
 17. He also said to his disciples — " I will give you 
 a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall 
 not be able to gainsay nor resist," Luke xxi. 15. — 
 Again, Paul says, 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — " For a great door 
 and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many 
 adversaries.^^ And Philip, i. 28, he says, — " And in 
 nothing terrified by your adversaries : which is to 
 them an evident token of perdition." And in 1 Tim. 
 V. 14, he exhorteth young women to conduct them- 
 selves as to give " none occasion to the adversary to 
 speak reproachfully" In all these texts the adversa- 
 ries of the gospel, particularly the Jews are referred 
 to by the term adversary. 
 
 2d. It is rendered by the words opposeth and con- 
 trary, and applied to the following things. To the 
 man of sin. " Who opposeth and exalteth himself 
 above all that is called God," 2 Thess. ii. 4. To the 
 opposition between flesh and spirit. " For the flesh 
 lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, 
 and these are contrary the one to the other," Gal. v. 
 17. And in 1 Tim. i. 10, it is used to express what- 
 ever is opposed to the truth. '' And if there be any 
 other thing that is contrary, or an adversary, to sound 
 doctrine." It is then beyond all fair debate, that an- 
 tikeimai, adversary, is not once used in reference to 
 tlie devil or saian, though most people say he is the 
 greatest adversary of both God and man. The fact 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 121 
 
 is certain from the above texts, and the whole New 
 Testament is an illustration of it, that the opposing 
 Jews were the adversary of Christians and the chief 
 cause of all their persecutions. They were the de- 
 vil, the slanderer, or false accuser, who went about 
 as a roarinff lion seeking; whom he mio-ht devour. See 
 Acts xvii, and indeed all the New Testament. It is 
 also evident, that the lusts and evil passions of men 
 are termed adversary in several texts. And why are 
 they termed so ? I answer, because it is this devil or 
 adversary within men, which makes them devils or ad- 
 versaries in their conduct. I may add, the term satan 
 we have seen signifies an adversary, and devil and sa- 
 tan are used synonimously in the New Testament, 
 and both terms are used to express opposing persons 
 and opposing things. That person or thing, is a de- 
 vil, satan, or adversary to another which is opposed to 
 it, The unbelieving, persecuting Jews are in scrip- 
 ture compared to a lion. Thus Paul says, 2 Tim. iv, 
 16, 17. — '^ At my first answer no man stood with me, 
 but all men forsook me : I pray God that it may not be 
 laid to their charge. Notwithstanding, the Lord stood 
 with me and strengthened me ; that by me the preach- 
 ing might be fully known and that all the Gentiles 
 might hear; and I was delivered out of the mouth ot 
 the lion." It is thought by some, that by the lion, 
 Paul referred to Nero or his prefect Helius Cesarianus, 
 to whom he committed the government in his absence, 
 with power to put to death whom, he pleased. The 
 reason given for this application of lion to Nero is, 
 that Marsyas said to Agrippa when Tiberias died — 
 " the lion is dead." Whether Paul ever heard this 
 saying is uncertain, and if he had, we doubt whether 
 his wisdom and prudence, in his then crhical circum- 
 stances, would have allowed him to make such an al- 
 
122 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 lusion. What leads me to conclude that Paul, by the 
 lion, referred to his persecutors the Jews, are the fol- 
 lowing things : 
 
 1st. They actually went about like a lion to devour 
 him, and at the time he wrote he was in bonds from their 
 persecutions. Nero, nor any other Homan magistrate 
 sought afcer Paul, until stirred up by the Jews. He 
 was even obhged to appeal to Csesar to be delivered 
 from their hands. 
 
 2d. In Psalm xxii. 13, 21, where Christ and his 
 enemies are spoken of, the persecutinuj Jews are ex- 
 pressly compared to a roaring lion. If Paul compared 
 them to this, he had the example of David for it. To 
 this Psalm probably Paul alluded in the passage be- 
 fore us. 
 
 3d. To understand the apostle by the lion, referring 
 to the persecuting Jews, rendei's its usage uniform in 
 the New Testament, but to understand it a fallen an- 
 gel, is at variance with its entire usage throughout the 
 Bible. It is agreeable to the fact, that the Jew^s went 
 about as a roaring lion, but it is contrary to all facts 
 and experience, that a fallen angel ever did this. — ■ 
 But Peter adds, " whom resist steadfast in (he faith, 
 knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in 
 your brethren that are in the world." The " afflic- 
 tions" of Christians in the apostolic age arose from the 
 persecuting Jews. Compare verse 10, and various 
 other parts of the Epistle. But was a fallen angel in 
 various places at the same time afflicting them? Be- 
 sides, how could they resist steadfast in the faith an 
 invisible spirit? It was with wicked men they had to 
 contend, and from whom they suffered. See 1 Peter 
 iv. 12; i. 7. The word devil, we have seen, signifies 
 a slanderer or false accuser. Peter then says, in this 
 passage, — '' your adversary the slanderer or false ac* 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 123 
 
 cuser goeth about as a roaring lion." That this re- 
 ferred to men, no one, we think, can doubt who reads 
 chap. ii. 12, 15, 20; ill. 15 — 17, and iv. 4, of this 
 epistle. Nor will any one dispute, that the words o' 
 antidikos, 'uinon diaholos may be rendered thus : " the 
 adversary your false accuser," or, " your adversary the 
 false accuser." The whole epistle, is a comment on 
 this view of the passage, nor would any one have ever 
 thouo-ht of a fallen ano-el, had the word diaholos been 
 rendered false accuser, as it is in some other places. — 
 Common sense, and common scripture usage of words, 
 lead to no other interpretation. h should be remem- 
 bered Peter was a Jew, and was faniiliar with the 
 meaning of the terms satan and devil. Jesus had 
 called him satan, and Judas a devil ; and could there 
 be any impropriety in calling the persecutors of Chris- 
 tians '' your adversary, the devil ?" And on account 
 of their ferocious cruelty comparing them to a roaring 
 lion \valkino: about seeking whom he mi^ht devour. 
 
 It is objected to this view of the passage — "the 
 persecutors of Christians in Peter's day were manyy 
 but here he speaks of them as one.'' This objection 
 has no force, for it is well known, that in Scripture the 
 singular is frequently put for the plural, and the reverse. 
 Besides, ail know, that when many are spoken of col- 
 lectively they are considered as one, and especially 
 when they act in unison about any object. The per- 
 secutors of Christians were many, but never did many 
 act more in unison about any object than they did in 
 opposing Christians and Christianity. It is further ob- 
 jected — "Peter speaks emphatically of the devil, as 
 if he was a real being, for he calls him the devils — 
 Answer; the word diaholos here is without the article, 
 therefore this objection is without force. Even if it 
 had been used, the objection would derive little or no 
 
124 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 force from it, for it was very natural and proper for 
 Peter to speak of the persecutors of Christians in this 
 emphatic manner. 
 
 John viii. 44. " Ye are of your father the devil, 
 and the lusts of your father ye will do : he was a mur- 
 derer from the beorinnintr, and abode not in the truth, 
 because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh 
 a lie, he speaketh of his own : for he is a liar and the 
 father of it." Tf the devil was the father of the un- 
 believing Jews whom our Lord here addressed, it is 
 plain they were his sons or children. The question 
 then is, what devil was their father? Professor Stuart 
 shall inform us. In his letters to Dr. Miller, pp. 95 — 
 99, he thus writes: 
 
 " The word son was a favorite one among the He- 
 brews ; and was employed by them, to designate a 
 great variety of relations. The son of any thing, ac- 
 cording to oriental idioms, may be either what is close- 
 ly connected with it, dependent on it, like it, the con- 
 sequence of it, worthy of it, &fc. But this view of 
 the subject must be explained, by actual examples 
 from the Scriptures. The following I have selected 
 from the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 " The son of eight days, i. e. the child that is eight 
 days old ; the son of one hundred years, i. c. the per- 
 son who is one hundred years of age ; the son of a 
 year, i. e. a yearlihg ; the son of my sorrow, i. c. one 
 who has caused me distress ; the son of my right hand, 
 i. e. one who will assist or be a help to me ; son of old 
 age, i. e, begotten in old age ; soJi of valor, i. e. bold, 
 brave ; son of Belial, [lit. son of good-for-nothing,] 
 i. e. a worthless man : son of wickedness, i. e. wicked ; 
 son of a murderer, i. e. a murderous person ; son of 
 my vows, i, e. son that answers to my vows ; son of 
 death, i. e. one who deserves death ; son of perdition^ 
 
Al^ INQ.UIRY— ^PART I. 125 
 
 L e. one who deserves perdition ; son of smiting, i, e. 
 one who deserv^es stripes ; son of Gehenna, i. e. one 
 who deserves Gehenna ; son of consolation, i. e. one 
 fitted to administer consolation ; son of thunder, i. e. 
 a man of powerful, energetic eloquence or strength; 
 son of peace, i.e. a peaceable man ; son of the morn- 
 ing, i. e. morning star; son of the burning coal, i. e. 
 sparks of fire ; son of the bow, i. e. an arrow ; son of 
 the threshing floor, i, e, grain ; son of oil, i. e. fat ; 
 son of the house, i. e. domestic or slave ; son of man, 
 i. e. man, as it is usually applied ; but perhaps in a 
 sense somewhat diverse, in several respects, as applied 
 to the Saviour. 
 
 " Every kind of relation or resemblance whether 
 real or imaginary, every kind of connexion, is charac- 
 terised by caUing it the son of that thing to whi^h it 
 stands thus related, or with which it is connected." 
 
 The Professor adds, " It will be remembered, how- 
 ever, that when we investif!;ate the meanino^ of the 
 phiase son of the devil, in the Scriptures, we are in- 
 vestigating the usus loqnendio^ a Sliemitish dialect. — - 
 This will of course be conceded, in regard to the 
 phrase in the Old Testament ; and I may add, that 
 all critics are now aojreed, that althouoh the words of 
 the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is Hebrew." 
 Mr. Stuart theE tells us that " the son of any thing, 
 acco^-ding to oriental idiom, may be either what is 
 closely connected vnth it, dependent on it, like it, the 
 consequence of it, worthy of it, ^c." He adds, 
 '*' every kind of relation or resemblance, whether real 
 or imaginary, every kind of connexion is characterised 
 by calling it the son of that thino- to which it stands 
 thus related, or with which it is connected.^' It is a 
 plain case then, that if the Jews were of their father 
 the devil, or sons of the devil, and if the term devil 
 9 
 
126 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 means a slanderer, our Lord only told them that they 
 were ^'slanderous persons." Were they not closely 
 connected with slander, depended on it, were like it, 
 and worthy of it ? Mr. Stuart, by the above remarks, 
 forever settles the question, that neither here nor any 
 where else, son of the devil refers to a fallen angel. — 
 1 might here close my remarks, but I shall briefly 
 notice what is further said in the passage, that we may 
 see how it agrees with the view which he has given 
 us. It is then said, ^^ and the lasts of your jather ye 
 will doy Well, did not the Jews slander the Sa- 
 viour ? They certainly did. But it is said, " He was 
 a murderer J rom the beginnin^.''^ W^e have seen from 
 the above quotation, that " son of wickedness," sim- 
 ply means ''' wicked ;" and that " son of a murderer" 
 signifies ''■a murderous person." That the Jews were 
 murderous persons no one disputes. But, it will be 
 said, how were the Jews murderous persons from the 
 heginning of the world ? This is not said. They 
 are only said to have been " murderers from the 6e- 
 ginningy The term arhes, here rendered the begin- 
 ning, is used to express, the beginning of our Lord's 
 ministry and miracles, John viii. 25 ; vi. 64 ; xv. 27 ; 
 XVI. 4 ; and ii. 1 1 ; 1 John i. 1 ; ii. 7, 13, 14, 24 ; 
 and iii. 11 ; 2d Epistle, verses 5, 6. In short, it is 
 used to express the beginning of persons and things in 
 a variety of ways. See Rev. i. 8 ; iii. 14; xxi. 6, 
 and xxii. 13 ; Mark i. 1 ; Philip iv. 15 ; Heb. ii. 3 ; 
 Luke i. 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Acts xi. 15 ; Heb. vii. 3 ; 
 Acts XX vi. 5 ; Matth. xxi v. 8 ; Mark xiii. 8 ; Heb. iii. 
 14 ; Col. i. 18, In the following places it refers to 
 the beginning of the world: Heb. i. 10; Matth. xix. 
 4, 8, and xxi v. 21 ; Mark x. 6 ; 2 Peter iii. 4. But 
 let the reader notice, that in these texts some addition- 
 al phrase or circumstance is introduced, showing that 
 
AN INCtUIRY PART I. 127 
 
 tlie beginning: of the world is meant. We are not left 
 to infer this, merely from the term beginning. Such 
 are all the places where this ^\^orcl is to be found, ex- 
 cept John i. 1, wliere it is said "in the beo;inning was 
 the Word." This forms no particular exception to its 
 ^^eneral usage. See the Unitarian and Trinitarian 
 controversy respecting this text. The only other text 
 which can be deemed an exception, is 1 John iii. 8, 
 which will be considered immediately. But it is not 
 necessary to confine its sense to the beginning of the 
 gospel dispensation, for the very same devil the Jews 
 were of, bad been from the beginning of the world; 
 had deceived Eve, and led Cain to murder his brother 
 Abel, Tlie Jews had been " murderous persons" 
 from the beginning of the gospel dispensation. From 
 our Lord's birth to his death they sought to slay him. 
 In verses 37, 40, he accused tlie Jews pf seeking to 
 kill him ; and this they did because his woj'd had no 
 place in them, verse 37, they abode not in the truth ; 
 there was no truth in them. They were of their 
 father the devil. What this was, is explained verse 
 23. " Ye are from beneath, — ye are of this world." 
 "And whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," 
 verse 34. And chap. iii. 31, our Lord told them, 
 " he that is of the earth is earthy and speaketh of the 
 earth." What was it then to be from beneath, of thi§ 
 world, and earthy ? Was it not to judge after the fleshj 
 or from their earthly corrupt principles and lusts I versB 
 15. If the Jews had abode in the truth, or Christ's 
 word had been in them, they would not have been 
 murderous persons, or made God's law void through 
 their traditions. Had they believed Moses, they would 
 have believed in Jesus, for he wrote of him. John v, 
 45—47. Perhaps it will be s^tid — Are not the Jews 
 exprgssl^ distin^'uisbe4 from the .devil; w^P is called 
 
128 AN INq.UIRY PART I. 
 
 their father ? Son and father must, in this case, be 
 the same. Professor Stuart informs us above, and I 
 think correctly, that " so?i of a murdtrcr^^ is simply a 
 Hebrew idiom for " a murderous person.^'' The Jews 
 were so, and ih.ey spoke a lie and were the fathers of 
 it. What lie did they speak ? They said, verses 39, 
 40. '^ Abraham is our father." They lied ; for, says 
 our Lord to them — " if ye were Abraham's children, 
 ye would do the works of Abraham, But now ye 
 seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth 
 which I have heard of God : this did not Abraham." 
 He adds, verse 41, "ye do the deeds of your father." 
 What father? What they had seen or learned from 
 their own evil lusts and passions ; and this accords 
 witli* the source from which all evil proceeds, stated by 
 James, chap. i. 14, 15. 
 
 We have seen that the principle of evil was not 
 only personified but deified. In this passage, and 
 others, it is spoken of as a person or being. Eve's 
 lust said to her, " ye shall not surely die," which was 
 a lie. It is in the passage before us represented as the 
 father of lies, and the lusts or desires of this father the 
 Jews did. Lust from the beginnint; abode not in the 
 truth, for it was by lust conceiving contrary to the 
 commandment, the first deviation from truth was made, 
 and the first lie told ; and when lust said " ye shall 
 not surely die," it was not only a liar, but the father 
 of it. From our mother Eve to the present day, all 
 men who listen to. the lies of their own lusts, contrary 
 to God's commandments, have found that the ways of 
 transgressors are hard. Men obeying the voice of 
 their lusts, murder themselves, are led to murder 
 others, and have turned the world into a Golgotha. — 
 But while lust is the true cause of all the mischief, an 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 129 
 
 imaginary being has been invented and believed in, to 
 bear the blame of it. 
 
 In concluding these remarks I would ask every can- 
 did man, did our Lord mean to tell the Jews that they 
 were of their father, a fallen angel, and that the lusts 
 of this fallen angel they would do? And did he mean 
 that this fallen angel was a murderer from the begin- 
 ning? That this wicked being abode not in the truth, 
 because there is no truth in him? And that "when 
 be speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own : for he is a 
 liar and the father of it?" Yes, all this is confidently 
 asserted to be our Lord's meaning. But why should 
 It be believed, tintil it is first proved, that an angel fell 
 from heaven and became a devil? The belief of this 
 is premature, until it is shown that such a being really 
 exists. To say he was a murderer from the beginning 
 of the world, and refer to Gen. iii., will not do, for we 
 have seen that the serpent that deceived Eve was not 
 a fillen angel ; nor is such a being once mentioned in 
 the Old Testament. Nor will it answer any better to 
 refer to Cain's murder of Abel, for not a single hint is 
 dropped, that the devil or a fallen angel had any con- 
 cern with it. Besides, when the Scriptures trace 
 crimes to their source in plain language, they never 
 refer them to the devil, but to lust within men, see 
 James iv. 1—16, and i. 13—16, Matth xv. 18—21. 
 
 1 John iii. 8, 9., 10. " He that committeth sin, is 
 of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. 
 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that 
 he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever 
 h born of God doth not eomrnit sin ; for his seed re- 
 inaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is born 
 of God. In this the children of God are manifest, 
 and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not 
 righteoiisaess, is not of God, neither he that loveth not 
 
130 AN INQUIRY FART J, 
 
 bis brother/' Tbis^ and the preceding passage, were 
 written by the same person. The language and sen- 
 timent of both are similar, and the quotations and re- 
 marks ma«le are applicable to both. We shall add 
 some brief remarks here, John says, " he that com- 
 mitteth sin is af the devilJ^ He v/as writing to Chris- 
 tians, who were the children of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus, and could not say to theniy as he did to the un- 
 believing Jews, " ye are of your father ibe devil." — 
 It appears from ve»-se 7,. that he said this to guard 
 them against sin. Comp. John viii. 34 and Rom. vi, 
 10 — 23. '^ For the devil sinneth from the beginning, ^^ 
 This corresponds to John viii. 44, " iie ivin a mur- 
 derer from the beginning y What devil sinned or 
 was a murderer from the beginning? An&v.er; at 
 verse 15, it is said — " whosoever hateth bis brother is^ 
 a murderer," and at verse 12, " not as Cain who was 
 of that wicked one and slew his brother." Cain, like 
 the Jews, was of his father the devil, and the lusts of 
 bis father he did. But no man will assert that Moses 
 intimates a fallen angel influenced Cain to siay AbeL 
 If he that hateth his brother is a murderer, Cain was- 
 one before he slev/ Abel. It was from this hatred, m 
 hh heart the bloody deed proceeded, and which, in 
 the eye of both God and man,, constitutes murder. — 
 Welly the very first tiine satein is mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture, the term is; applied to a well, and the explana- 
 tion given us in tbe margin^ is hatred. See Sect. iii. 
 Besides, in Sect, ii, it has been shown, that Eve's lust 
 or desire, when it had conceived, brought forth sin : 
 and this devil sinned from the beginning. It came to 
 l>e personified^ yea, was deified, as we have seen in 
 Sections iii., iv , is called satan in the book of Job, 
 and devil and satan in other parts of Scripture. This 
 Yiew is agreeable to the passage, for it is said — '' hi? 
 
AN INQUIRY^ PART I. 131 
 
 that committGtb sin is of the devil." It is added, '^ for 
 this purpose the Son of God ivas manifested, that he 
 might destroy the luorks of the devils What then 
 were the works of the devil ? 
 
 1st. All agree that sin is the work of the devil. — > 
 What then produces sin ? James says, chap. i. 15, 
 '•^ then, lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin." 
 Is it not plain that lust is the devil ? Compare Mark 
 vii. 21, 22. 
 
 2d. Death is also the work of the devil. Death 
 entered by sin, and sin entered by lust conceiving and 
 bringing it forth ; and when sin is finished it bringeth 
 forth death. The wages of sin is death, see Rom. v. 
 12, and vi, 23. 
 
 Was the Son of God manifested then to destroy sin ? 
 This is expressly declared, verse 5. — "And ye know 
 that he was manifested to take away our sins ; and in 
 him is no sin." We think, that, "• to take away our 
 sins," in this verse, is the same as to destroy the works 
 of the devil in the passage before us ; and in both 
 Christ is said to be manifested to do this. Yea, through 
 death he destroyed him that had the power of death, 
 that is the devil. See on Heb. ii. 14, below^ Does 
 the Son of God by his manifestation destroy death ? — 
 Nothing can be more explicitly stated than this. ''I 
 will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will 
 redeem them from death : O 1 death, I will be thy 
 plagues ; O ! grave, 1 will be thy destruction : re- 
 pentance shall be hid from mine eyes." Hos. xiii. 14. 
 See 1 Cor. xv. 53 — 58. At verse 26, it is expressly 
 declared, ^' the last enemy that shall be destroyed is 
 death." Sufter me now to ask — Is it any where said 
 Christ was manifested to destroy a fallen angel ? This 
 I think no man will affirm. Why then is it so confi- 
 dently affirmed that the devil is a fallen angel ? 
 
l^ AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 Heb. ii. 14, 15. '^Forasmuch then as the children 
 are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like- 
 wise took part of the same ; that through death he 
 might destroy him that had the power of death, that 
 is the devil ; and deliver them, who through fear of 
 death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.'^ 
 Supposing we admit for a moment the existence of 
 such a being as the devil, what follows from this pas- 
 sage ? It follows, that he is to be destroyed, for it is 
 expressly said, Christ died, that " through death he 
 might destroy him that had the power of death, that 
 is the devil.^^ But, do our orthodox friends allow, that 
 he is to be destroyed through the death of Jesus Christ 7 
 No, they aver, that he is to exist forever, the enemy 
 of God and the tormentor of men. But if this text 
 teaches his existence, it as certainly teaches his de- 
 struction. I urge then the belief of both, or the re- 
 jection of both doctrines. But this is not all, for if 
 this text teaches the devil to be a fallen angel, it as 
 explicitly declares that he has the power oj death. — 
 By the power of death, is generally understood, pow- 
 er to produce death, and retain men in this state when 
 dead. But is it not a very extraordinary supposition, 
 that such a wicked being should have such a power? 
 Besides, is it not contrary to other parts of Sciipture, 
 where God says, " I kill and I make alive ; 1 bring 
 down to the grave and also bring up again." Can 
 any one think God has delegated this power to the de- 
 vil ? By taking into view other parts of Scripture we 
 find death ascribed to a very different cause than the 
 power of a fallen angel. Rom. v. 12, and in chap, 
 vi. 23, we are told that the waives of sin is death, but 
 not a word is said as if the devil had any concern with 
 it. James, chap i. 15, also says, that when "sin is 
 finished it bringeth forth death," but says not a word 
 
 1 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 133 
 
 about the devil having any power to produce it, or 
 continue it. Nor does the apostle say the sting of 
 death is the devil, but the sting of death is sin. Be- 
 sides, when speaking of the victory obtained by Jesus 
 Christ over death, the apostle does not say — "O ! de- 
 vil, where is thy power over death," but says, " O ! 
 death, where is thy sting, O ! grave, where is thy vic- 
 tory ? The sting of deatli is sin ; and the strength of 
 sin is the law. But thanks be to God who giveth us 
 the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." The 
 apostle here renders thanks to God for victory over 
 sin, and the law which is the strength of sin, and also 
 over death, but renders no thanks to God through Je- 
 sus Christ for victory over a fallen angel or the devil. 
 Can any candid nian then think, that if such a being 
 had power over death, that Paul, in giving thanks to 
 God, w^ould have omitted thanking him for victory 
 over this malignant, wicked being, who had so long and 
 universally exercised it ? We should rather think, 
 had Paul believed this, victory over the devil would 
 have been one of the principal things he would have 
 mentioned. 
 
 What then, it may be asked, is the devil referred to 
 in this passaije ? I answer, whatever has the power 
 of death. What then has the power of death ? 1 an- 
 swer, sin and the law the strength of sin, by which 
 death came first to be introduced, and by which it hath 
 passed through to all the human race. See Rom. v. 
 12, 13. The judgment. Gen. iii. 19, was by one to 
 condemnation. Death reigned by one man's offence, 
 and no power of man has been able to resist his uni- 
 versal sway ; and but for the death of Christ, and his 
 resurrection from the dead, no hope of a resurrection 
 could ever be entertained. 
 
 But let us examine the passage itself a little more 
 
134 AN INq,UIRY— PART I. 
 
 particularly. '' Forasmuch then as the children are 
 partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise 
 took part of the same." Well, for what purpose did 
 he take part in flesh and blood ? " That through 
 death he mighi destroy him that had the power of 
 death, that is the devil." We have shown, on 1 John 
 iii. 8, what the works of the devil are, and that Christ 
 Was manifested to destroy them. But here Christ is 
 said to destroy the devil himself. What devil was it 
 then which produced such works ? Such is the work* 
 manship, but what devil was the workman? James 
 tells us in plain words — " then when lust hath con- 
 ceived it bringetii forth sin ; and sin when it is finished 
 bringeth forth death," Christ by his death would ac- 
 complish very little to the purpose, to destroy a fallen 
 angel, or even to destroy sin and death, if lust which 
 bringeth forth sin was not destroyed. It would only 
 be like lopping off the branches from a poisonous tree, 
 while the stock from which they all sprung, was allow- 
 ed to remain. But Christ, by his death, is not only 
 to destroy sin and death, the works of the devil, but 
 Just, or the devil. He is not only to destroy the work- 
 manship but the workman, not merely the branches 
 but the root, not only the streams of sin and death, 
 but the fountain from which they have flowed. He is 
 to destroy him that had the power of death, that is the 
 devil. See Col. i. 20; Eph. i. 10; 1 Cor. xv. But 
 it ought further to be noticed, that, " the strength of 
 sin is the laiv.^^ It is this which makes sin to be what 
 it is, for sin is the transgression of the law, and where 
 there is no law there is no transgression. The law 
 has always said — " the soul that sinneth shall die." — 
 The law of Moses entered that the offence might 
 abound. It gendered to bondage, and was the minis- 
 tration of death. 2 Cor. iii. 7. Comp. Rom. v. 20, 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART I. 135 
 
 21 ; Gal. iv. '24. It could not give life, but cursed 
 every one who did not continue in all things written 
 in the book of the law to do them. Gal. iii. 21, 10. 
 Well, did Christ through death abolish the law ? The 
 word \vhich is in this passage rendered cicstr'oy, Park- 
 hurst says, means, " to render ineffectual, abolish, an- 
 nul, destroy." It is the same word which in 2 Cor. 
 iii. 7, is rendered doiie away, and applied to the law 
 of Moses, which w^as done away in Christ : and is 
 rendered abolished, Eph. 11. 15, when speaking of this 
 very law. It is also rendered abolished, 2 Tim.i. 10, 
 where it is said of Christ, "who hath abolished, death, 
 and hath brought life and immortality to light through 
 the gospel." This then is agreeable to the fact. — 
 Christ, through death, destroyed or abolished the law, 
 which was the strength of sin, and denounced death 
 on the transgressor. It had the power of death, and 
 might with as much propriety be called the devil or 
 accuser as the writing, Ezra-iv. 6, was called a satan 
 or adversary to the Jews. The law is expressly said 
 to have been the accuser oi t\\Q Jews, John v. 45 — 47. 
 
 But it is added — "and deliver them who, through 
 fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage." 
 The Jews were kept in bondage under the law. But 
 Christ delivers from this bondage, Rom. viii. 15 ; v. 1 ; 
 viii. 1 ; and viii. 14. Whoever believes in Christ, is deliv- 
 ered not only from the law which is the strength of sin, 
 but is led to crucify his flesh with its affections and 
 lusts. And he is delivered from the fear of death, by 
 the knowledge of life and immortality brought to light 
 by the gospel. Indeed, the ultimate end of the death 
 of Christ, is to bring men to a state of incorruption and 
 glory. See 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 Acts xiii. 10. " O ! full of all subtilty, and all mis 
 chief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all right 
 
136 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 eousness ; wilt ihou not cease to pervert the right ways 
 of the Lord?" The quotation from Professor Stuart, 
 on John viii. 44 above, equally illustrates this passage. 
 The term devil signifies a slanderer. Child of a slan- 
 derer, according to Mr. Stuart, signifies " a slanderous 
 person," as son of a murderer, means " a murderous 
 person." In fact, Paul, verse 8, gives for substance 
 this very explnnation. " Elymas, the sorcerer with- 
 stood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the 
 faith." Being full of all subtilty and mischief, he was 
 a satan or devil, in opposing and slandering the faith 
 of Christ. 
 
 Matth, xiii. 39. " The enemy that sowed them is the 
 devil," The whole of this context is considered in the 
 Second Part, to which the reader is referred. See Mr. 
 Stuart's remarks quoted above on John viii. 44. The 
 question then is, difl a fallen angel mix those wicked 
 children with the children of the kingdom ? This must 
 be affirmed, by those who say that tlie devil is a fallen 
 angel. But though this is asserted, we have never seen 
 any proof of it, nor will it be easily explained, how such 
 a being could do this. Besides, we do not perceive 
 what need there was for the services of such a being to 
 produce such a crop. What then is meant by the 
 devil that sowed the tares ? In the Second Part we 
 have shown, that the lares were the unbelieving Jews, 
 who at the end of the world or age were destroyed. — 
 Well, what devil sowed them ? The same devil or 
 satan who pur it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus. 
 No other devil was required to produce a crop of tares 
 or wicker] men, but the evil principles of their own 
 hearts, for they were of their father the devil and the 
 lusts of their (\uher they did. See on John viii. 44, 
 above. 
 
 Matth. xxv. 41. '' Then shall he say also unto them 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 137 
 
 on the left hand, depart from nae ye cursed, into fever- 
 lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his annjels." — 
 This passat^e must be noticed in the Second Part, in 
 considerinir Matth. chaps, xxiv. 25. Here I shall only 
 notice the following things. 1st. It has been pioved, 
 we think beyond all controversy, that the unbeheving, 
 persecuting Jews are repeatedly called the devil and 
 satan. 2d. It has also been proved, that the angels or 
 messeno-ers of this satan, were the false teachers, or 
 those wlio joined with the persecuting Jews in opposing 
 the gospel and persecuting those v\ ho preached it. See 
 on 2 Cor. xi. 14 and xii. 7, in Section v. See also 
 the next Section. As this will not be disputed, let us, 
 3d. Notice the everlasting fire which is here said to be 
 prepared for the devil and his angels. This everlast- 
 ing fire, is not said to have been prepared for those 
 whom our Lord is represented as addressing thus — 
 " depart from me ye cursed." No ; it is said to have 
 been prepared for the persecuting Jews and their angels 
 or messengers. What then was this everlasting fire? 
 In my Inquiry into the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus 
 and Gehenna, chap. ii. Sect. iii. the following things 
 have been shown at length, to which I refer the reader. 
 It has been shown, that fire is a figure used in Scrip- 
 ture to express the temporal judgments of God which 
 came on the Jews in the destruction of their city and 
 temple ; that punishment which they have been suffer- 
 ing for nearly two thousand years, and are still endu- 
 ring. It has also been shown, that the phrase "ever- 
 lasting fire," is used as an equivalent expression for 
 " hell fire." All these, and other things connected 
 with this subject, have been shown there, and need not 
 be repeated here. See on this also 2 Thess. chap. i. 
 considered in the Second Part of this work. 4th. To 
 whom did our Lord refer when he said, '' depart from 
 
138 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 me ye c'jrs?d" into everlasting fire? The answer to 
 this question will be given in considering Matlh. chaps, 
 xxiv. XXV. in the Second Part, referred to, which to 
 avoid repetition we shall omit here. 
 
 Acts X. 38. '' God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with 
 the Holy Ghost, and with power; who went about 
 doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the 
 devil: for God was with him." Our Lord healed those 
 who were possessed with demons, and cast them out : 
 but it is no where said that he cast out diaboloi, devils ; 
 and this is the only place where he is said to have 
 healed those who were oppressed of the devil. la 
 curing persons he often commanded the demons to de- 
 part from them, yet on no occasion does he ever speak 
 to diaholos, the devil, and command him to depart. — 
 His temptation in the wilderness may be thought an 
 exception to this remark, which will be considered in 
 its place. If the devil, a fallen angel, inflicted bodily 
 diseases in those days, we can see no good reason why 
 he should not in these, for few think his power is con- 
 tracted or his malice abated by the lapse of seventeen 
 centuries. But who in our day ascribes diseases to the 
 devil ? If it is done, it is me»'ely in compliance with 
 a popular mode of speaking. The question will then 
 be asked — what devil weie those persons oppressed 
 with, for it is said our Lord healed all who were op- 
 pressed of the devil ? In answer to this, let it be ob- 
 served, that Peter is here evidently speaking of our 
 Lord's kindness in healing men of diseases generally, 
 whatever they were. They are spoken of in the ag- 
 gregate, and are called being " oppressed of the devil.^^ 
 This is in perfect agreement with what has been stated 
 Sections iii. and iv. that satan, the devil, or Ahraman, 
 was the author of all evil, just as much as the good god 
 Yazdan; was the author of all good. That thtJ -J^^ws 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 139 
 
 had imbibed such an opinion, and used language in ac- 
 cordance with it, has been shown. Ascribing all dis- 
 eases here to the o)3pression of the devil, shows that 
 Peter S[)oke in accordance with this popular opinion. 
 This our Lord did, in saying, that satan had bound a 
 woman eighteen years with an infirmity. Satan is also 
 said to liave afflicted Job, but it has been shown, that 
 this very account is introduced, for the purpose of re- 
 futing such an opin.on, and establishing that God is the 
 author of affliction? as well as of prosperity. 
 
 Eph. iv. '21. " Neither give place to the devil." In 
 the preceding ver?e, the apostle exhorts—" be ye an- 
 gry and sin not ; let not the sun ^lo down upon your 
 wrath." He immediately adds — " neither give place 
 to the devil." What devil ? Evidently wrath ; for 
 by letting the sun go down upon their wrath, they gave 
 place to this devil ; or, it gave occasion to the enemies 
 of the gospel to speak reproachfully. It is not easy to 
 understand how by anger they gave place to a fallen 
 angel. Besides, men's wrathful passions are ascribed 
 to themselves in Scripture. See James iv. 1—6. 
 
 Eph, vi. 11. "Put on the whole armor of God, that 
 ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." 
 See the whole context. See also all the other texts 
 where the enemies of Christianity are called the devil 
 and satan. What in this verse is called collectively 
 the devil, is thus particularised, verse 12. '' For we 
 wrestle not against flesh and blood,'' ov, we wrestle not 
 merely with men. For this sense of the phrase j^esA 
 and blood, see the following among other texts, Matth. 
 xvi. 17, 1 Cor. XV. 50, Gal. i, 16,' Heb. ii, 14. ''But 
 against principalities,'^ or supreme governors. For 
 this sense of the word principalities, see Rom.viii.38, 
 Tit. iii. 1. '' Against powers,'^ or, against magistrates 
 clothed with authority. See for this sense of the word 
 
140 AN INQUIRY— PART I, 
 
 powers, Rom. xiii. 1 — 3. It seems to include supreme 
 rulers both civil and ecclesiastical. See Luke xii. 11. 
 Col. i. 16, Eph. i. 21, Col. ii. 10, Luke xx. 2o'. 
 " Against the ruhrs of the darkness of this u'orJd.^^ 
 Wakefield renders the passasje thus — '' Clothe your- 
 selves in the whole armor of God, that ye may be able 
 to stand against the devices of the accuser. For we 
 not only have to wrestle against flesh and blooii, but 
 against authority, against the powerf, against the rulers, 
 of this dark age*, against the wickedness of spiritual 
 men in a heavenly dispensation." In his note he says, 
 " viz. ao;ainst Jewish governors, who have a dispen- 
 sation of religion from heaven, as well as against hea- 
 then magistrates, under the darkness of superstition and 
 idolatry." By the rulers of the darkness of this world, 
 Dodridge understands the " heathen rulers ; and by 
 flesh and blood the lower ranks of mankind." These 
 remarks are a sufficient illustration of this passage. If 
 it is asked — Wliat darkness did the apostle refer to ? I 
 answer, the ignorance, superstition, and wickedness 
 which abounded both among the Jews and Gentiles. 
 Comp. Luke xxii. 53, Col. i. 13. It is well known, 
 that principalities and powers, both civil and ecclesi- 
 astical, Jewish and heathen, were opposed to the 
 gospel. They were the rulers of this darkness, and 
 the people were often excited against Christianity by 
 the prevailing ignorance and popular superstitions. See 
 Acts xix. For the Sciipture usage of the words spirit- 
 ual and high or heavenly places, compare Rom. xv, 
 27, 1 Cor. ix. 11, 1 Peter ii. 5, Col. iii. J 6, John iii. 
 12, Eph. i. 20 and iii. 10. A phrase, the reverse of 
 the entire expression, ^^ spiritual wickedness in high 
 places,^^ occurs Eph. i. 3, and assists in explaining it. 
 But, let any one go over this passage, and see if he can 
 give any thing like a rational interpretation of it, on the 
 
AN INQUIRY-^PART I. 141 
 
 supposition that the devil referred to was a fallen 
 angel ? 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 6, 7. ''Not a novice, lest being lifted up 
 with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 
 Moreover, he must have a good report of them which 
 are without ; lest he fall into repraach, and the snare 
 of the devil." What devil does the apostle refer to? 
 In answer to this let us hear the following writers. — - 
 Wakefield renders the passage thus — " No novice ; lest 
 he be puffed up, and so fall into flanje from the accuser. 
 He ought also to have good testimony from without ; 
 lest he fall into reproach, and a snare of the accuser." 
 See a similar rendering in the Improved Version. — - 
 IVrKnight, on this passage, says—" According to Eras- 
 mus, this clause should be translated, \fall into the 
 condemnation of the accuser,'' A sense which the word 
 diaholos hath, verse 11. For he supposes that by the 
 accuser is meant, the persecuting Jevv^s and Gentiles, 
 who were ready to condemn the Christians for every 
 misdemeanor." See remarks on the next passage. 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25, 26. " And the servant of the 
 Lord must not strive ; but be gentle unto all men, apt 
 to teach, patient. In meekness instructing those that 
 oppose themselves ; if God, peradventure, will give 
 them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth : 
 and that they may recover themselves out of the snare 
 of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 
 The principal question to be considered here is — What 
 is the snare of the devil ? In the preceding text, some 
 were in danger of falling into it, and here we read of 
 some being in it, and needing to be recovered out of it. 
 They are described as persons who have not repented, 
 who have not acknowledged the truth, but are opposing 
 themselves to it. The servant of the Lord, in attempt- 
 ing their recovery, must not strive, but be gentle unto 
 
 10 
 
142 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 all men. He must be apt to teach ; he must be pa- 
 tient ; and in meekness he must instruct those in the 
 snare of the devil, or those who oppose themselves, who 
 have not repented and acknowledged the truth. It 
 should seem then, that both from the situation of those 
 persons, and also the way in which they are delivered, 
 the snare of the devil is their opposition lo the gospel, 
 and the various ways and means by which its enemies 
 }3revented men from believing it. IVl 'Knight says — 
 " The snare of the devil, out of which ihe opposers of 
 the gospel are to be taken alive by the servant of the 
 Lord, signifies those prejudices, and errors, and habits 
 of sensuality, which hindered both Jews and Gentiles 
 in the first age from attending to the evidences of the 
 gospel." In this view the snare of the devil is stated. 
 Col. i. 13, Rom. vi. 17, and their recovery out of it, 
 Acts xxvi. 18, and many other similar passages. 
 
 James iv. 7. " Submit yourselves therefore to God. 
 Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The pre- 
 ceding verses point out this devil to be envy and pride, 
 or their evil lusts and passions. Comp. chap. iii. 15, 
 16 and i. 13. That men's lusts and passions are called 
 the devil and satan in other passages has been shown. 
 Instead of indulging these, we are called to resist them. 
 Comp. verse 8. It is easily understood how we can 
 resist such a devil as this ; but we have no clear ideas 
 on the subject, to understand it of an invisible, fallen 
 angel. The terms devil and satan, being used to de- 
 signate men's evil lusts and passions, appear to be the 
 foundation of all the other senses in which those terms 
 are used in Scripture. It was Judas' evil lusts, which 
 (nade him a devil, and on this account these terms are 
 used to designate the enemies of the gospel. In short, 
 it is such evil lusts and passions, which make men sa^ 
 tans or devils. Accordingly, it is difficult to decide in 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 143 
 
 some texts, to which these terms are applied. Nor is 
 it of importance to decide ; hence, in some texts, we 
 have given both views as agreeable to the Scripture 
 usasje of these terms. 
 
 Jude 9. " Yet Michael, the archangel, when con- 
 tending with the devil (he disputed about the body of 
 Moses) durst not bring against him a railing accusation, 
 but said, the Lord rebuke thee." Whitby, in his pre- 
 face to Jude, quoting from Dr. Lightfoot, says . " In 
 citing the story of Michael, the archangel, contending 
 with the devil about the body of Moses, verse 9, he 
 doth but the same that Paul doth, in naming Jannes 
 and Jambres, 2 Tim. iii. 8, namely, allege a story 
 which was current, and owned among that nation, 
 though there was no such thing in Scripture; and so 
 he argueth with them, from their own authors and con- 
 cessions : for among the Talmudists, there seems to be 
 something like the relics of such a matter, viz. of Mi- 
 chael and the angel of death, disputing, or discoursing, 
 about fetching away the soul of Moses." Jude here, 
 then, reasons with the persons he addresses, on a re- 
 ceived story among them, for the purpose of refuting 
 their wicked conduct in speaking evil of dignities. In 
 this, he acted as our Lord did, in reasoning on the 
 popular opinion, that satan had bound a woman eigh- 
 teen years, for the purpose of refuting his adversaries. 
 But the truth of this story is no more admitted in the 
 one case, than the correctness of the opinion is in the 
 other. Both are introduced merely for the sake of ar- 
 gument, without any regard to their truth or falsehood. 
 This story about Michael and the devil must have been 
 invented about the time of the Babylonish captivity or 
 soon after it. Before the captivity we never read of 
 angels having names. Nor before the captivity, does it 
 appear^ that the Jews knew an^ thing about a fallen 
 
144 AN INQUIRY— PART 2* 
 
 called the devil and satan. Besides, the words tvbich 
 Michael used in dispute with the devil, " the Lord re-* 
 buke thee," are taken from Z-acbariah iii. 2, and it is 
 well known that Zachariah prophesied during the cap- 
 tivity. See on this passage Sect. iii. The following 
 quotation from Jafm, not only shows us, that similar 
 opinions to that in the passage before us existed among 
 the Jews, but when and how they came to adopt them. 
 He says, pages 235-— -6 : '' The more recent Hebrews, 
 adhering too strictly to the letter of their Scriptures, ex- 
 ercised their ingenuity, and put in requisition their faith,- 
 to furnish the monarch Death with a subordinate a";ent 
 or angel, viz. the prince of bad spirits, ho diaholos. 
 otherwise called Sammael, and also Ashmedai, and 
 known in the New Testament by the phrases, the 
 prince of this world, the tempter, who hath the power 
 of death. The Hebrews, accordingly in enumerating 
 the attributes and offices of the prime minister of the 
 terrific king of Hades, represent him as in the habit of 
 making his appearance in the presence of God, and 
 demanding at the hand of the Divinity the extinction, 
 in any given instance, of human life. Having obtain- 
 ed permission ta that effect, he does not fail of making 
 a prompt exhibition of himself to the sick ; he then 
 gives thetn drops of poison, which they drink and die. 
 Comp. John xiv. 30, Hebrews ii. 14. Hence origi- 
 nate the phrases, " to taste of death,^^ and " to drink 
 the cup oj death,^^ which are found also among the 
 Syrians^ Arabians, and Persians, Matthew xvi. 28, 
 Mark ix« 1, Luke ix. 27, John viii. 52, Hebrews ii. 
 9." It appears from this quotation, that *' the more 
 recent Htbrcivs,^^ furnished death with an angel, the 
 prince of bad spirits. But the ancient Hebrews knew 
 nothing about such a being; and wiiere could "the 
 more recent Hebrews" imbibe such opinions but during. 
 
AN INC^UIRY PART I. 145 
 
 t'heir captivity, and from their intercourse with the hea- 
 then ? See Section iv. Jahn allows, that "adhering 
 too strictly to the letter of their Scriptures," they "ex- 
 ercised their ingenuity" to get their Scriptures to favor 
 such opinions. Christians have inabibed the Jewish 
 opinions, and have exercised Jike ingenuity to find proof 
 for them in the New Testament. 
 
 Rev. ii. 10. "Fear none of those things which 
 thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of 
 you into prison, that ye may be tried ; and ye shall 
 liave tribulation ten days ; be thou faithful unto death, 
 and I will give thee a crown of life.^' It will not be 
 questioned, that what John calls satan, verses 9, 13, 
 ^4, and chap. iii. 9, he here calls the devil. See re- 
 marks on all these pas'^ages, Section v., which are here 
 sufficient for an illustration. Suffer ine to ask, does 
 miy one believe that the devil, a fallen angel, ever cast 
 Christians into prison ? No ; but the adversaries of 
 Christianity, then and since, have often done this. It 
 will not ariswer to say, the devil, a fallen angel, influ- 
 enced the enemies of the gospel to cast Christians into 
 prison, for this is just taking for granted the point in 
 question. But, are our orthodox brethren aware, that 
 their faith in the devil influencing men to sin, militates 
 against the doctrine of total depravity? What need 
 is there of such a being's assistance ? Total depravi- 
 ty Is suf6cient without him to produce all manner of 
 wickedness. If men would be less wicked,^ without 
 the devil's influence, then they are not so bad but he 
 can make them worse: and v/ ho can tell but they 
 might all be very good if he would only let them 
 alone? Mankind are wicked enough, but all their 
 wickedness arises from a different source. " From 
 whence come wars aiad fightings ? Come they not 
 
146 AN INQUIRY— -PART 1. 
 
 iienceof your lusts which war in your members V^ Is 
 the assistance of a fallen angel required to produce 
 them ? But the reader may pursue these reflections 
 at his leisure. 
 
 SECTION VIL 
 
 ALL THE PASSAGES CONSIDERED, IN WHICH THE TERMS- 
 DEVIL AND SATAN ARE USED SYNONYMOUSLY. 
 
 The first passages which present themselves for ouk 
 consideration are Matth. iv. 1 — 12; Mark i. 12, 13, 
 and Luke iv. 1 — 14, containing an account of our 
 Lord^s temptation. The reader will please turn to 
 them and read them. Most religious people interpret 
 this account literally. But concerning a literal inter- 
 pretation, Essenus thus writes, pp. 117 — 120. "The 
 history of our Lord's temptation is commonly under- 
 stood in a literal sense. Satan is supposed to be a 
 real being ; to have actually appeared and conversed 
 with our Saviour. Having taken him up through the 
 air to the top of the temple, and thence to some high 
 mountain, he tempted him in the manner represented 
 in the narrative. This interpretation is loaded not 
 only with difficulties, but even with absurdities shock- 
 ing to common sense. The learned Mr. Farmer has 
 examined the question ; and his objections to the lite- 
 ral translation are so numerous and decisive, that no 
 thinking person can accede to it, without abandoning 
 the first and most obvious principle of reason, and the 
 tenor of the gospel. ' Why the devil at all assaulted 
 our Lord, and what advantage he could possibly gain 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 147 
 
 over him, has, he observes, always been acknow- 
 ledged to be a great difficulty, by the advocates of 
 the common interpretation.' But this difficulty is in- 
 creased by the manner the devil proposed his tempta- 
 tion to our Lord. For lie came to him in person, and 
 urges temptations such as could proceed only from an 
 evil being. Now with what prospect of success could 
 he tempt our Lord, if he thus exposed himself to open 
 view? By a personal and undisguised appearance, he 
 can never hope to prevail over the feeblest virtues, 
 much less could he expect the illustrious person, 
 whom he knew to be the Son of God, and who knew 
 him to be the devil, to comply with his temptations. 
 
 " In the first temptation, in which Jesus is solicited 
 to turn stones into bread, nothing is promised on the 
 part of satan to gain his consent ; the request of an 
 implacable enemy, when no advantage attends it, be- 
 ing in itself a reason for rejecting it. But satan de- 
 feats his own temptation by asking an useless favor. 
 
 " While the foe betrays great folly in the first temp- 
 tation, he supposes Christ to be actuated by still great- 
 er in the second. The people, on seeing Jesus throw- 
 ing himself from the top of the temple, might conclude 
 that he was the Son of God. But he knew that the 
 tempter had it in his power to lead them to draw the 
 same conclusion of himself. Satan also would throw 
 himself down unhurt ; and his miraculous preservation 
 would prove him, as well as Jesus, to be the Son of 
 God. Nay, he might claim the superiority ; for it was 
 a greater exertion of power to convey him from the 
 wilderness to the top of the temple, than in sustaining 
 his fall to the court below. What inducement, then, 
 could Christ have for a compliance with the proposal 
 suggested ? Would he be disposed to gratify satan, 
 by doing an act at his mere suggestion ? Was he to 
 
148 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 acquire any glory, or advantage to himself? No; on 
 the contrary, he would only have incurred the infamy 
 of havino: entered the lists with the devil, without hav- 
 ing acquired any superiority over him. 
 
 "With regard to the third temptation, the Son of 
 God knew that the father of lies had not the empire 
 of the world at his disposal, and that he therefore 
 promised what he had not power to perform. Such 
 a promise was rather an insult than a temptation, and 
 was calculated only to provoke scorn or resentment. 
 Could the devil then hope hy such contemptuous 
 treatment, to engage the Son of God to listen to his 
 accursed counsels ; and to seduce him to an act of the 
 highest dishonor to his heavenly Father, that of pay- 
 ing divine homage to this infernal spirit ? This inter- 
 pretation represents the old serpent as acting quite out 
 of character, and supposes him to be as void of policy 
 as he is of goodness ; inasmuch as he used the least 
 art in proposing temptations, where the greatest would 
 have been insufficient to insure success. 
 
 " The common opinion further ascribes to satan the 
 greatest miracles. It supposes that the devil, by na- 
 ture a spiritual and invisible agent, has a power of as- 
 suming at pleasure a corporeal or invisible form, and 
 of speaking with an audible voice ; though there is no 
 more ground from experience, (our sole instructor in 
 the established law of nature,) to ascribe this power 
 to the devil, than to ascribe life to the inanimate, or 
 speech to the brute creation. 
 
 " It is a still greater objection to the common opin- 
 ion, that it ascribes to the devil tlie performance of 
 things, not only preternatural, but absurb and in)possi- 
 ble. Such we must reckon, his showing Christ all the 
 kingdoms of the world from an exceedingly high moun- 
 tain ; for the earth being a spheroidical figure, what 
 
AN INQ^UIRY PART . I. 149 
 
 single mountain can command a view of all the parts 
 of it, or those in particular which are opposite to each 
 other ? The sun itself, at its immense height above 
 the lofliest mountains of our globe, commands and en- 
 lightens, at once, only a single hemisphere. Could 
 the devil, then, from one point of view, show Christ 
 not only the entire circumference of the globe, but 
 also whatever constitutes the glory and grandeur of its 
 kingdoms ; and show him such infinitely numerous ob- 
 jects, in situations so distant and so opposite, not gradu- 
 ally and successively, but in one and the same instant 
 of time ? This does not seem so properly a miracle, 
 as an absurdity and contradiction." 
 
 The question will now be asked — If our Lord was 
 not literally tempted of the devil, a fallen angel, how 
 is this account to be understood ? Before directly an- 
 swering this question, w^e shall make some general re- 
 marks on it, in connexion with its context. The fol- 
 lowing things then appear obvious : — It is evident, 
 that our Lord's temptation took place immediately af- 
 ter the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, and just 
 before he entered on his public ministry. His temp- 
 tation was passing trial for the work given him to do, 
 and in which he was about to engage. Again ; it is 
 equally obvious, that the tempter did not lead our 
 Lord out into the wilderness for the purpose of tempt- 
 ing him, but on the contrary, he was led out there by 
 the Spirit of God, to be tempted of the de\nl. See 
 Matth. iii. 16; iv. 1, and Luke iv. 1, compared with 
 verse 14. Again ; all will allow, that " devil, satan," 
 and " the tempter," are used as synonymous terms. 
 Nor is it less apparent, that our Lord's temptation is 
 related by all the three historians, without any suspi* 
 cion on their part that it was to be misunderstood. — 
 They use the terms devil, wilderness, satan, Spirit of 
 
150 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 God, and tempter, as what would be alike easily un- 
 derstood by their readers. But again ; it is taken for 
 granted in this account, and is plain from many other 
 parts of Scripture, that our Lord was susceptible ol 
 temptation. To deny this, is to say Jesus was not a 
 partaker in flesh and blood with the children, Heb. ii. 
 14, that he was not tempted, for without such things 
 we may as well speak of tempting a tree or a stone. 
 But he sutfered being tempted, and is able to succour 
 them that are tempted, Heb. ii. 15. He was hungry, 
 and thirsty, and weary, as we are : he was sorrowful, 
 and joyful, felt pain and enjoyed ease. In short, he 
 was pleased and angry, Mark iii. 5, was grateful for 
 kindness, and felt an insult, as could be shown, if it 
 were necessary. Many good people seem to forget, 
 that sin does not consist in having such appetites and 
 passions, hut in their indulgence in a way and to an 
 extent, which God has prohibited. They only render 
 their possessor susceptible of sinning. Jesus was in 
 all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. — 
 Heb. iv. 16. I may just add, that ilie tempter, here 
 mentioned, like the tempter which deceived Eve, pro- 
 fessed to be our Lord's friend, and that listening to 
 the proposals made would be for his advantage. This 
 is apparent from comparing the two accounts. With 
 these general remarks in view, let us attend to the 
 
 1st. Temptation of our Lord. " And when he had 
 fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards 
 an hungered. And when the tempter came to him, 
 he said, if thou art the Son of God command that 
 these stones be made bread." To fast, in Scripture 
 language, does not always mean total abstinence from 
 food during t!ie period persons are said to fast, but 
 using a less quantity, and coarser kind of food. See 
 the book of Daniel, and other passages. When it is 
 
AN IN<iUIRY PART I. 151 
 
 said, Luke iv. 2, that our Lord •■' did eat nothing^'' 
 during forty days, seems, from comparing Acts xxvii. 
 33, to mean nothing more than that he had no regular 
 meals. Without a miracle, he could not have lived 
 forty days entirely without food, and no miracle is 
 supposed to have been wrought to sustain him. Nor 
 is it easily perceived, why it would have been sin to 
 turn stones to bread, yet no sin to work a miracle to 
 support nature without food. Our Lord might have 
 been said to have fasted forty days, by eating only of 
 such food as was furnished hini by the fields. It is 
 evident that his fasting gave rise to the first tempta- 
 tion. What tempter came to him ? What other but 
 his hunger 1 No other tempter in this case was ne- 
 cessary. Unless our Lord was sustained by a mira- 
 cle, he must have felt the sensations of hunger before 
 they were ended, but it was not until then that his ap- 
 petite became claniorous for food, and tempted him. 
 by suggesting " command that these stones he made 
 breads What said this? Was it not the craving of 
 his bodily appetite for food? It suggested a miracle 
 to be wrought. It has suggested to many since, to 
 steal to satisfy its cravings, and God, who remembers 
 that we are dust, has sometimes interposed by miracle 
 to satisfy it. Even " men do not despise a thief, if 
 he steal to satisfy his soul w^ien he is hungry." Prov. 
 vi. 30. Comp. verse 3L There are some points of 
 similarity, and dissimilarity, between Eve's temptation 
 and that of our Lord's, which deserve to be noticed. 
 For example ; bodily appetite was. the tempter in both 
 cases, and in both a dialogue between them and their 
 appetite is represented as having taken pLice. But 
 notice, when Eve lusted after the fruit, she had all the 
 other trees from which to supply her necessities. Her 
 appetite did not become a tempter to her from want, 
 
152 A.N INQ,UIRY PART I. 
 
 but took occasion from the restraint which God had 
 laid on it, in prohibiting the use of one tree of the 
 garden. She hstened to the voice of her appetite and 
 sinned. But our Lord's appetite became a tempter to 
 him from want of food, and attempted to seduce him 
 to work a miracle for a supply. But he repelled the 
 temptation by saying, verse 4, "It is written, man 
 shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that 
 proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It was no sin 
 in Eve or our Lord to have the appetite, or to gratify 
 it. It became sin in Eve to gratify her appetite from 
 that which God had prohibited. It would have been 
 sin in Jesus, to have wrought a miracle to gratify his 
 appetite, for his divine power was not given him for 
 this purpose, but to establish his mission as the Sa- 
 viour of the World. To hav-e complied with the 
 temptation would have shown his want of trust in 
 God, and been an improper exeicise of his power for 
 his own personal gratification. To say that our Lord 
 was hungry, yet felt no inclination to enjoy food, is in 
 other words telling us tliat he was not hungry, and de- 
 nying that this was any temptation. But feeling all 
 the painful sensations of hunger, and having power to 
 turn stones to bread, yet resisting the suggestion, could 
 only be done by him who was manifested to destroy 
 the works of the devil, or evil desire. 
 
 2d. Our Lord's second temptation is related verse 
 5 — 8. " Then the devil taketh him up into the holy 
 city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of tlie temple, and 
 saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself 
 down : for it is written, he shall give his angels charge 
 concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear 
 thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a 
 stone." What tempter now assailed our Lord ? In 
 order to answer this question several things must be 
 
AN IN^Umy PART 1. 153 
 
 noticed. The scene of this temptation is not laid in 
 the wilderness, but in Jerusalem, and at the temple, 
 where all the tribes of Israel assembled to worship. — ■ 
 Further, the Jews at that time were not only in high 
 expectation of Messiah's appearance, but they expect- 
 ed him to come in a miraculous way for their deliv- 
 erance and glory. The scene is laid at the place suited 
 to the nature of the temptation. On the other hand, 
 our Lord was just about to enter on the work given him 
 to do. Unless we say that he was ignorant and stoical^ 
 we must allow him to feel sensibly, in view of the suf- 
 ferings which awaited him. In fact, if we admit that 
 he foresaw what afterwards took place, and was not 
 deeply affected by the prospect, yea, wished if possible 
 to avoid it, we must believe him destitute of the com- 
 mon feelings and sinless frailties of ournature. If after 
 he had learned obedience by the things which he suf- 
 fered, he said, " Father let this cup pass from me." can 
 any man think, that nature would not say the same, 
 yea, suggest some mode of escaping them, when he sur- 
 veyed the whole scene of suffering at the commence- 
 ment ? To deny this, is to deny that our Lord was a 
 man, and a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. 
 Yea, to deny that our Lord possessed the fine feelings 
 and tender sensibihties which so conspicuously shown 
 in him. It is in fact saying, our Lord was totally un- 
 concerned about the success of his future ministry 
 among the Jews, that he had no desire that they should 
 receive him as the true Messiah, and that no reflections 
 passed through his mind respecting the best manner in 
 which he might gain the attention and affections of his 
 nation. What then was the tempter? It v^^ as flesh 
 and blood suggesting the propriety of accommodating 
 himself to the prevailing opinions and expectations of 
 the Jews to secure his success : or, their prevailing ex- 
 
154 AN INQ,UIRY PART 1 
 
 pectations and opinions, presented themselves to his 
 mind, pointed out a course, which, if pursued, he would 
 avoid all opposition from them, and be received as their 
 Messiah. What was this ? The Jews expected their 
 Messiah to come from heaven, or in a miraculous man- 
 ner among them. This is generally admitted. It was 
 suggested, cast thyself down from the pinnacle of the 
 temple among them, while at worship in the court be- 
 low ; seeing you fall from such a stupendous height un- 
 hurt, they will immediately receive you as the Messiah, 
 and invest you with all the honors, powers, and emolu- 
 ments of the Jewish church. If, or rather, since thou 
 art the son of God, there can be no danger, " for it is 
 written, He shall give his angels charge concerning 
 thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up. lest 
 at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." But 
 our Lord did not listen to flesh and blood, reasoning on 
 the principles of accommodation, but repelled the temp- 
 tation by saying — "it is written, again, thou shalt not 
 tempt the Lord thy God." A compliance with it would 
 have been presumption, a perversion of Scripture in 
 justification of it, and doing evil that good might come. 
 It would have been sacrificing truth at the shrine of 
 prejudice and popular opinion, and shrinking from trials 
 and sufferings through which he must pass, if he would 
 accomplish the end of his mission. It behoved Christ 
 to suffer, Luke xxiv. 46. 
 
 3d. The third temptation is staled in verses 8, 9. — 
 *' Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high 
 mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the 
 world and the glory of* them ; and saith unto him, all 
 these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and 
 worship me." What devil now tempted our Lord ? It 
 ■ was certainly that which said to him, if thou wilt fall 
 down and worship me ; and which said, Luke iv. 6. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 155 
 
 " All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them : 
 for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I 
 will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worsfiip me, all 
 shall be thine." Well, allow me to ask, had a fallen 
 angel all these things at his disposal? Could he con- 
 fer all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them ? 
 No man will say so : nor does our Lord call him a liar 
 or deceiver, in promising such things. What then 
 promised, and could confer all these things on our 
 Lord ? I answer ; in the days of our Lord the power 
 of the Romans had subdued all the then known world. 
 To whomsoever they would they gave its kingdoms and 
 the glory of them. This was done by the force of arms. 
 If our Lord would then make his extraordinary power 
 the means of propagating his kingdom, he niight raise 
 himself to the head of the Roman Empire, or become 
 master of the whole world. The tempter was then, the 
 glory and grandeur of the world presented to the Sa- 
 viour's mind, to excite his ambition to use his power in 
 raising himself to universal empire. But this tempta- 
 tion he repelled by saying — " get thee hence satan (or 
 adversary) for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord 
 thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." It is addexl, 
 that satan departed from him for a season, which inti- 
 mates that our Lord was assailed with similar tempta- 
 tions afterwards. But was he ever tempted afterwards 
 by a fallen angel or evil spirit ? Nothing of the kind 
 appears, but he was certainly tempted afterwards with 
 like ten^ptations to those I have mentioned. In short, 
 these three temptations are, for substance, all the va- 
 rious temptations with which our Lord was assailed du- 
 ring his ministry. Indeed, they comprise all that is in 
 the world, which prove tempters to mankind, " The 
 lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride 
 of life," 1 John ii. 16. Was not our Lord, during his 
 
156 AM INquiUy— PART 1. 
 
 ministry, repeatedly hungry, and under temptation to 
 supply his wants by his divine power? Certainly he 
 was, but we find he always resisted such a temptation, 
 and trusted in God for food, in the ordinary course of 
 Providence. Again, was he not under strong tempta- 
 tions to sacrifice truth and duty to the prejudices and 
 opinions of the Jews, in order to his ministry being 
 useful among them ? No one will deny this. But, do 
 we ever find him making sinful compliances with them, 
 to induce them to receive him as their Messiah ? No, 
 he was deaf to all such temptations and allurements. 
 Again, during his ministry, he had temptations present- 
 ed to him to raise himself to a throne, yea, to the em- 
 pire of tlie world. The people seeing his power, on 
 one occasion would have come by force to make him a 
 kinc^ But. did he encourage them, or avail himself of 
 this, to raise himself to honor and glory ? All know, 
 the reverse of this was the case. He was likewise ac- 
 cused of making himself a king. But he repelled the 
 charge by savino- his kingdom was not of this world. — 
 All these temptations our Lord encountered during his 
 ministry, but was more than a match for them all. He 
 suffered being tempted, that he might know how to 
 succor them that are tempted, to turn aside from truth 
 and dut}^ in his service by similar allurements. But 
 alas! how many " Vicars of Bray^^ have professed to 
 be his servants, who have counted gain godliness, and 
 sacrificed ev^y thing for the honor, the power, and the 
 wealth of the world. 
 
 Sucli are my views of our Lord's temptation, but 
 my limits forbid entering more minutely into a detail 
 of the evidence whereby they might be supported. It 
 is easily perceived, that these views are in accordance 
 with the meaning of the terms devil and satan, as used 
 in other parts of Scripture, and agree to the tempter 
 
which tempts men every day. But to understand a 
 fallen ano;el designated by these terms, is not supported 
 by other parts of Scripture, and involves this account 
 in absurdities and utter impossibilities. 
 
 Mark iv. 15. '^ And these are they by the way sidcj 
 where the word is sown ; but W'hen they have heard, 
 satan cometh immediately, and taketh aw^ay the word 
 that was sown in their hearts," By comparing Luke 
 viii. 12, the devil is said to do this, and in Matth. xiii. 
 19, it is said to be done by " the wicked one," or 
 rather '' the wicked," for one is in italic. What satan, 
 devil, or wicked one, then took away the seed of the 
 word sown in men's hearts? It has been shown, that 
 the terms devil and satan, are often used to designate 
 the Jews, the adversaries of our Lord and his doctrine. 
 That they were wicked persons no one questions. It 
 is then agreeable to the fact, that as soon as our Lord 
 sowed the good seed of the word they were ready to 
 prevent its salutary effects on the minds of his hearers, 
 by contradicting and blaspheming it. Every scheme 
 was devised by them to excite popular prejudice against 
 our Lord and his doctrine. No assistance from a fallen 
 angel was needed in this case, for we are told such 
 hearers of the word did not understand it. What is 
 not understood and believed, is little regarded, soon for- 
 gotten, and easily parted with ; and especially if public 
 prejudice be against it. If we were even to say, men's 
 evil lusts and passions were the devil and satan that 
 took away the seed of the word from their minds, it 
 would be in agreement with the Scripture usage of these 
 terms. How the seed could be taken away by means 
 of either of these, is easily understood, but how it could 
 be removed by a fallen sngel is to me inexplicable.-— 
 Let it be remembered that it is no where said that such 
 11 
 
158 AN 1NQ,UIRY PART I. 
 
 a being made use of tliem as his tools to accomplish 
 this. See quotations fioiii Jahn, above. 
 
 Rev. xii. 9. " And the great dragon was cast out, 
 that old serpent, called tbe devil, and satan, which de- 
 ceiveth the wliole world : he was cast out into the 
 earth, and his angels were ca t out with him." See 
 verses 10, II, 12, yea, the whole chapter. Again, it 
 is said, Rev. xx. 1, 2, " And I saw an angel come 
 down from heaven, havinii the key of the bottomless 
 pit, and a great chain in his, hand. And he laid hold 
 on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and 
 satan, and bound him a thousand years." See the 
 whole chapter. In these two passages, we have John's 
 authority for saying, that the great dragon, old serpent, 
 devil, satan, and accuser of the brethren, all mean the 
 same thing. This thing, or being, is also said to de- 
 ceive " the whole world.^^ It is from these tu o passa- 
 ges chiefly, that people conclude that the serpent w hich 
 deceived Eve was a fallen angel, for here, say they, 
 ^* the devil and satan is called that old serpent, and we 
 know that the devil is a fallen angel." And how do 
 they know all this so clearly and confidently ? Their 
 fathers, their catechisms, and their ministers have told 
 them so : and this conclusion is drawn too from a book 
 so highly figurative, that no man has hitherto been able 
 satisfactorily to explain it. Notwithstanding, this is 
 frankly owned by every candid man, yet from this v^ery 
 book the strongest proofs are generally adduced for a 
 personal devil, and eternal punishment. We would 
 respectfully ask our orthodox brethren, why they allow 
 the book of Revelations to be hii^hly figurative or sym- 
 bolical, yet give a literal interpretation to the above 
 passages concerning the serpent, devil, and satan ? We 
 would affectionately press it on their attention, why 
 they interpret the parts of these passages concerning 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 159 
 
 the devil and satan literally, and yet would refuse to go 
 through with a literal interpretation of them ? I shall 
 give a specimen of the absurdities which such a literal 
 interpretation involves. It must then be believed, that 
 the- devil has seven heads and ten horns, and seven 
 crowns on his heads. And it must be beheved, that 
 Michael and his angels, had a battle with the devil and 
 his angels, and that it was fought in heaven. Besides, 
 our orthodox friends ought to inform us, how the devil 
 got back to heaven to fight this battle there, seeing they 
 believed he fell from heaven before he tempted Eve. 
 In short, he has been in heaven and fallen from it a 
 number of times, if such principles of Scripture inter- 
 pretation are admitted. He fell from heaven before 
 Eve's temptation. He fell again when the Seventy 
 were out preaching. And John in the above chapters 
 informs us that he was cast out of heaven to the earth 
 a third time. And if Lucifer be the devil, he has at 
 least had four falls from heaven, for it is said, how art 
 thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning. 
 
 Is it then asked, what this great dragon, that old ser- 
 pent, the devil and satan was ? Dr. Newton says, vol. iii. 
 135 — 139, speaking^ of this dragon — "We find the 
 kings and people of Egypt, who were the great perse- 
 cutors of the primitive church of Israel, distinguished by 
 this title in several places of the Old Testament : Psalm 
 Ixxiv. 13 ; Isai. li. 9 : Ezek. xxix. 3, and with as much 
 reason and propriety may the people and emperors of 
 Rome, who were the great persecutors of the primitive 
 church of Christ be called by the same name, as they 
 are actuated by the same principle. For that the Ro- 
 man Empire was here figured, the characters and attri- 
 butes of the dragon plainly evince." See the pages 
 referred to. 
 
 Such are his remarks on the first of these passages. 
 
160 AN INi^UIRY PART I. 
 
 On the second he says, " After the destruction of the 
 beast and of the false prophet, there still remains ' the 
 dragon,' who had delegated his power to them, • that 
 old serpent, which is the devil and satan :' hut he is 
 bound by ' an angel,' an especial minister of Provi- 
 dence ; and the famous millennium commences, or the 
 reign of the saints upon earth for a thousand years, 
 verse I — 6. 'Binding him with a great chain, casting 
 him into the bottomless pit, shutting him up, and set- 
 ting a seal upon him,' are strong figures to show the 
 strict and severe restraint which he should be laid under, 
 ' that he might deceive the nations no more,' during the 
 whole period. Wickedness being restrained, the reign 
 of righteousness succeeds, and the administration of jus- 
 tice and judgment is given to the saints of the Mo-^t 
 High." p. 205. 
 
 He adds, page 215. "At the expiration of the thou- 
 sand years, verses 7 — 10, the restraint shall be taken 
 off from wickedness, and for 'a little season' as it \va9 
 said before, verse 3, ^ satan shall be loosed out of his 
 prison,' and make one effort more to re-establish his 
 kingdom. As he deceived our first parents in the 
 paradisaical state, so he shall have the artifice ' to de- 
 ceive the nations' in this millennial kingdom, to show 
 that no slate or condition upon earth is exempted and 
 secured from sinning." I would only add, that it is 
 lust or evil desire " ivhich deceiveth the ivhole world,^' 
 and has been the source of its wars and bloodshed, 
 James iv. 1-^4. This is the universal deceiver. 
 
 We have now finished our investigation of all the 
 texts in the Bible, where the terms devil and satan are 
 used. Having expressed our own views of the differ- 
 ent passages, we leave the candid reader to form his 
 own opinions, and make his own reflections on the 
 subject. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 161 
 
 SECTION VIIL 
 
 ALL THE TEXTS CONSIDERED, WHERE THE DEVIL IS 
 SUPPOSED TO BE CALLED THE EVIL ONE, THE 
 TEMPTER, THE GREAT DRAGON, THE SERPENT, AND 
 OLD SERPENT, THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD, THE 
 PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR, AND THE GOD 
 OF THIS WORLD. 
 
 These names., given to the devil, a supposed falleo 
 angel, will require but a brief consideration, for some of 
 them have been introduced in the preceding sections. 
 Indeed^ \( devil and saian designate no such being in 
 the Bible, rt y.i'il be allowed by most people, that he is 
 not to be foiand in the Bible. But we shall not take 
 this for granted. The devil is then 
 
 1st. Supposed to be called o^ f oner 02, the evil one, 
 or, the wicked one. This word is rendered in the con>- 
 mon version, evil, wicked, wickedness, 'harjn, &;c. The 
 sacred writers use it to express evil or wickedness in a 
 variety of ways. Such as evilor unclean spirits, Matth. 
 xii. 45 ; Acts xix. 12, 13, 15, 16; Luke vii. 21 ; viii. 
 2, and si. 26. An evil or unclean spirit is the same 
 as an evil or unclean demon, and have no connexion 
 with our present subject. This word is used to express 
 moral evil, Maltii. v. 37; 1 Thess. v. 22; 2Thess. iii. 
 o ; John xvii. 15 ; Physical evil, Acts xxviii. 21 ; Rev. 
 xvi. 2 ; Matth. v. 39. The day of persecution is 
 called the evil day, Eph. vi. 13. The heart ofman, 
 from whence all evil proceeds, is called ''an evil heart 
 of unbelief/^ Heb. iii- 12. Out of this source proceed 
 
162 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 evil thoughts, Matth. ix. 4 ; Luke xi. 29 ; James il. 
 
 4 ; Malth. xii. 35 ; Luke vi. 45. Also, wicked and 
 malicious words, 3 John 10; Malth. v. 1 1 ; Luke 
 vi. 22. Also, evil works or deeds, Matth. xii. 35 ; 
 Mark vii, 23 ; Matth. xv. 19; Luke vi. 45; John iii. 
 19, and vii. 7 ; James iv. 16 ; Col. i. 21 ; 2 John 
 11 ; Acts xxviii. 21 ; Rom. xii. 9; 2 Tim. iv. 18; 
 Luke iii. 19; Matth. vii. H, 18. Men practisini; wick- 
 edness, are hence called evil, or wicked persons, Matth. 
 xii. 39 ; xvi. 4 ; vii. 1 1, and xii. 34 ; Luke xi. 13 ; 2 
 Tim. iii. 13; Luke vi. 45; 1 Cor. v. 13; Matth. v. 
 45; xiii. 49, and xxii. 10; Luke vi. 35 ; Acts xvii. 
 
 5 ; 2 Thess. iii. 2. Such wicked person*; have an evil 
 conscience, Heh. x. 22. An evil eye, Malth. vi. 23, 
 and XX. 15; Mark vii. 22; Luke xi. 34. Become 
 evil servants, in various conditions of life, Matth, xviii. 
 32, and xxv. 26 ; Luke xix. 22. And as evil or wick- 
 edness prevails, the world or age is said to be evil. Gal. 
 i. 4. Such is a brief review of all the places wherie 
 the word poneros occurs, except the following, and are 
 the only passages, where any one can suppose this 
 word designates an evil being or fallen an^el. 
 
 Matth. vi, 13. " Deliver us from the evil." See also 
 Luke xi. 4, where the same language is used. Some 
 have said, this expression njeans, "deliver us from the 
 evil ane,''^ thereby meaning the devil, a fallen angel. — 
 But the word one does not occur in the original, is not 
 even in the common version, nor does the scope of the 
 passage require it. Such a mode of establishing this 
 doctrine, does not require a serious refutation. In 
 Malth. xiii. 19, the phrase '■^wicked one'^ occurs, but 
 the word one is in italic, which might be omitted, or the 
 word person, or thing, substituted in its place. But as 
 it has been shown in the last section, that this phrase 
 is synonymous to devil and satan, and has no reference 
 
 I 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 163 
 
 to a fallen angel, it requires no fiirther notice here. — 
 The same remarks apply to Matlh. xiii. 38, wliich has 
 been sufficiently considered already. Tlie expressions 
 " the tares are tlie children of the wicked," and " the 
 good seed are the children of the kin_ffdom," are explain- 
 ed by the quotation fiom professor Stuart on John viii. 
 44, above. "Children of the wicked one," sinjpiy 
 means "wicked children," or, "children of wicked- 
 ness." The Improved Version, in a note on this pas- 
 sage, says, " sons of the evil one," are wicked men. — 
 Such, in the Old Testament, are called sons of Belial, 
 or worthlessness, i. e. worthless men, 1 Sam. ii. 12; I 
 Kinus xxi. 10. See 2 Cor. vi. 15. In I John ii. 13, 
 14, the phrase " wicked one," is used twice. The word 
 one is not put in italic type, but ought to have been, 
 for there is no reason for this alteration. See also Eph. 
 vi. 16; 1 John iii. 12, and v. 18, 19, where the wick- 
 ed, or evil one, or thing, is also mentioned. The con- 
 texts of these passages show, that the word thing m\g\\t 
 be substituted for the word one. Take the last passage 
 for an example. The wicked one or thing, which 
 toucheth or rather hurteth not those who are born of 
 God, is that from which they keep themselves, and this 
 is sin, for it is said, " whosoever is born of God sinneth 
 not," verse 18. This is confirnied from verse l9, for 
 John adds, " we know that we are of God, and the 
 whole world lieth in wickedness, or sin ; or, simply 
 evil. See, on all these passages, our remarks on the 
 passages where the devil and satan are mentioned, and 
 which are synonymous terms with evil or wicked one. 
 I shall only add from Wakefield, on Matth. v. 37. — 
 " The evil one. So I render again, verse 39, and in 
 other places ; as our translators rightly render below. 
 Nearly in the same manner, xiii. 19, and elsewhere, 
 the wiclced one. Whatever is calculated to seduce men 
 
164 AN INQUIRY PART J, 
 
 to sin, is represented by the sacred writers under the 
 figure of a living agent, called the evil one — the ad- 
 versary — the enemy — the devil, and saton,'^ 
 
 2d. The devil is also supposed to be called ^^ o pei- 
 radzon, the tempter." This word is rendered to tempt, 
 to try, to prove. The following are all the places where 
 it occurs in the New Testament. James i. 13, 14; 
 Gal. vi. 1 ; Rev. ii. 10; Acts xv. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; 
 1 Cor. vii. 5; Heb. xi. 17 ; John vi. 6 ; 1 Thess. iil. 
 5; Acts V. 9 ; Rev. iii. 10 ; 1 Cor. x. 13; Matth. xxii. 
 18 ; Mark xii. 15 ; Luke xx. 23 ; Heb. ii. 18 ; Mark 
 i. 13; Luke iv. 2; Matth. xvi. 1, and xix. 3 ; Mark 
 viii. 11, and x. 2; Luke xi. 16; John viii. 6; Matth. 
 iv, 1, and xxii. 35; Heb. iv. 15, We have given 
 book, chapter and verse, that the reader may consult 
 the passages and see, if in any one of them, the tempter 
 mentioned, refers to snch a being. The following are 
 the only places from which such a thing could be sup- 
 posed. 
 
 Matth. iv. 3; Mark i, 13, and Luke iv, 2, 13, have 
 already been noticed in considering our Lord's tempta- 
 tion and require no further attention. If the devil and 
 satan do not refer to a fallen angel, the tempter cannot, 
 for it is allowed these terms are used as names for the 
 same thing. In 1 Thess. iii. 5, it is said, "For this 
 cause when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know 
 your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempt- 
 ed you and our labor be in vain." What tempter did 
 the apostle refer to ? Answer, we have seen from va- 
 rious passages, that the principle of evil, or sensual de- 
 sire, is the tempter, and is called the devil and satan. 
 Indeed, this is the foundation of the other senses in 
 which these words are used. This j)rinciple, operated 
 in every possible way, in the opposers of Christianity, 
 whom Paul calls satan, chap. ii. 18, noticed, sect. v. 
 
AN INQ.UIRY PART I. 165 
 
 the Thessalonians were called to suffer persecution from 
 them, chap. iii. 3, 4. They were also liahle to be in- 
 fluenced by the principle of evil or sensual desire. — 
 Anxious for their steadfastness in tlie faith, the apostle 
 expresses his fear, lest by some means the tempter had 
 tempted them, and his labor prove vain. This view 
 is confirmed, from verses 6, 7, where we are informed 
 what relieved the apostle's anxiety of mind. It was 
 not that a fallen angel had not succeeded in tempting 
 them, but merely that their faith and charity contin- 
 ued. 
 
 3d. The devil is also supposed to be called — " the 
 dragon''^ and " ^Ae s^reat red dragon,^^ Rev. chaps, 
 xii. xiii. xvi, xx. But sufficient has been said on these 
 passages in the last section to which we refer the 
 reader. 
 
 4th. The devil is also believed, to be called " the 
 serpent," and '' that old serpent." We have noticed 
 Gen. iii. sufficiently in Section ii. Where the phrase, 
 " that old serpent" occurs, has also been considered, 
 Sect. vii. The only other text relative to this subject, 
 is 2 Cor. xi. 3. "But I fear, lest by any means, as 
 the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your 
 minds should be corrupted from the simplicity which is 
 in Christ." See some remarks on this passage. Sect. 
 ii. What I would observe further here is — 1st, Had 
 Paul believed, as a great many do now, lliat a fallen 
 angel or wicked spirit beguiled Eve, would he not have 
 said so? Let any candid man consider, if he would 
 merely say the serpent beguiled her. Is any account 
 given in Scripture of the fall of such an angel from 
 heaven ? If there be, we will thank any man to point 
 it out. Paul does not even say, that " old serpent," or 
 " that old serpent, the devil, and satan." This is the 
 more remarkable omission, as in this very chapter he 
 
166 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 speaks of satan being transformed into an angel ofllgbt, 
 2d. We allow, yea, contend, that the serpent is iht^ same 
 as the devil and satan, and tliey are used in Scri|)ture 
 as convertible terms to express the same thing. As to 
 this point, we ao:ree perfectly with our orthodox friends. 
 We only contend, that the devil and satan is not a 
 fallen angel, or evil being, as they suppose. What 
 then is the tempter, the devil, and sa'an, of which the 
 Scriptures speak ? J^mes says, " every man is tempted, 
 when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed." 
 This is the real original serpent, devil, or tempier, as 
 has been shown on various texts in the course of our 
 remarks. See Sect. ii. f)articularly. No man could 
 be tempted, unless he had lusts or desires. The Sa- 
 viour was incapable of being tempted without them. 
 3d, Eve was beguiled by the serpent, or her desire 
 after what was forbidden, and the apostle was in fear 
 concerning the Corinthians, lest by any means their 
 minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is 
 in Christ. He does not intimate that he was in fear 
 that a fallen angel would do this. No, his fear was, 
 lest by any mentis this might be done, and in the course 
 of the chapter, he points not to a fallen angel as the 
 agent, but to false teachers who preached another gos- 
 pel to them, and whom, verse 13, he calls ^^ false apos- 
 tles, ^^ and ^^ deceitful wnrkersy In Sect, ii. it has 
 been shown that the serpetfth the symbol of deceit. 
 
 5th. The devil is also supposed to be called the prince 
 of this world (o' arhon). This word occurs in Luke 
 xii. 58 ; xxiii. 13 ; Acts iv. 5 ; Luke xxiii. 35 ; xxiv. 
 20 ; John vii. 20 ; Acts iii. 17 ; iv. 8, 26 ; xiii. 27 ; 
 Rom. xiii. 3 ; Matt. ix. 23; John vii. 48; Acts xiv. 
 5; vii. 27, 35 ; xvi. 19 ; Acts xxiii. 5 ; Matt. xx. 25 ; 
 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8 ; Luke xiv. 1 ; Matt. ix. 18 ; Luke viii. 
 41 ; xviii. 18; John iii. 1 ; xii. 42. The word in the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 167 
 
 above texts Is rendered chief, ruler, maf;istrate, prince, 
 &c. It is applied to men as rulers, both civil and ec- 
 clesiastical, and that whether Jewish or heathen. In 
 the followinii texts, it is rendered y)rince, and refers to 
 the prince of the demons, or as it is rendered in our 
 version, devils, Matt. ix. 34 ; xii. 24; Mark iii 22; 
 Luke xi. 15. Beelzebub was the prince of the de- 
 mons. But that this heathen god had no reference to 
 satan or the devil, see Dr. CampbeH's sixth Disserta- 
 tion. In Eph. ii. 2, this word occurs, and is rendered 
 prince, which will be considered presently. The only 
 passages, where it is supposed a reference is had to the 
 devil, ai-e the following, which I shall quote altogether, 
 and then submit some remarks on them for considera- 
 tion. 
 
 John xii. 31. " Now is the judgment of this w orld : 
 now shall the prince (o' orhon) of this world be cast 
 out." And xiv. 30. " Hereafter 1 will not talk much 
 with you : for the prince (o' arhoti) of this world 
 Cometh, and hath nothing in me." And xvi. 8 — 12, 
 " And when he (the comforter) is come, he will re- 
 prove the worid of judi^ment, because the prince (o' 
 arhon) of this world is judged." On these passages, 
 the principal question we have to consider is, who, or 
 what did our Lord refer to, by " the prince of this 
 world T^ Orthodox people say — " z/te devil, a J alien 
 angeiy But that our Lord, by " the prince of this 
 world" meant the then reionintj civil and ecclesiastical 
 rulers, I shall now attempt to prove. 
 
 1st. This view is in agreement with the general, 
 yea, almost universal usage of the word arhon in the 
 New Testament. Let any one turn to all the above 
 texts and he must be convinced of this ; for this word 
 is rendered magistrate, ruler, prince, Sic, and applied 
 to the rulers, both civil and ecclesiastical, then ex- 
 
168 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART 
 
 isting in Judea. It is not once used in reference to a 
 fallen angel unless it is proved from the three texts just 
 quoted* 
 
 2d. From the scope and connexion of our Lord's 
 discourse, where he speaks of the prince of this world. 
 The iliree texts where this is mentioned, all occur in 
 discourses of our Lord, only related by John. They 
 were spoken by our Lord to his disciples in reference 
 to, and in view of, his apprehension, sufferings and 
 death. The context of tliese passages shows this, 
 which the reader is desired to consult. As to the 
 first, consult verses 27 — 34, and it will be seen that 
 our Lord was speaking in view of the hour of his 
 crucifixion. As to the last two, they occur in that 
 discourse delivered partly in the upper room where he 
 had eaten the last passover, and partly on the road 
 from thence to the garden where he was apprehended. 
 In chap. xiv. 30, he says, "the prince of this world 
 Cometh," and at verse 31, he adds — ''Rut that the 
 world may know that I love the father; and as the 
 father gave me commandment, even so 1 do. Arise, 
 let us go hence." Go where ? let me ask. Evidently 
 to the garden, where he was a])prehended, as is evi- 
 ent by reading on to chap, xviii. 15. 
 
 3d. The fact of the case shows, that by " the prince 
 of this world," our Lord referred to the civil and ec- 
 clesiastical power, and not to a fallen angel. Let any 
 one consult all the future history of our Lord's life, 
 from the lime he uttered these words, until he died on 
 the cross, but he finds nothing that looks like a fallen 
 angel or devil coming to him. Well, did those pow- 
 ers come to him? Nothing can be more certain. — 
 Our Lord had no sooner ended his discourse, in chaps, 
 xiv., XV., xvi., xvii., than we are told, chap, xviii. L 
 " When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART I. 169 
 
 with bis disciples over the brook Cedron, wbere was a 
 garden, into wbicb he entered, and bis disciples." — 
 Well, what came to him here? From verse 3, and 
 onward, we are informed, that Jesus was apprehended 
 by the civil autliority, urged on by the ecclesiastical. 
 The prince of tbis world, or as the word is rendered 
 in other places, the ruler or mac^istrate of this world 
 came. Our Lord, no doubt, knew all that Judas, the 
 chief priests, and civil authorities were engaged in for 
 his apprehension. Well, lie says, chap. xiv. 30, 
 "The prince of tbis world cometh," (erhatai). To 
 testify to the world his love to the father, and obedi- 
 ence to his commandment to lay down his life, he 
 says to his disciples, verse 31, '-Arise, let us go 
 hence." He proceeds to the garden, where he knew 
 Jadas and the officers were coming to apprehend him. 
 He foresaw their coming, and says, " the prince or 
 ruler of this world cometh," and he goes forth volun- 
 rily to meet the result. Accordingly in chap, xviii. 3, 
 it is said, " Judas then having received a band of 
 men, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, 
 cometh (erhatai) thither with lanterns, and torches^ 
 and weapons." The chapter throughout shows all 
 that took place afterwards, which the reader would do 
 well to consult. 
 
 4th. The above is confirmed from the words which 
 follow. He said *' the prince of this world cometh," 
 and immediately adds — " and hath nothing in me." — 
 This is generally understood, that the devil, a fallen 
 angel, had nothing of sin or corruption in the Saviour 
 whereon to work. But this interpretation is perfectly 
 gratuitous, for there is no evidence that this w^as our 
 Lord's meaning. But, on the view which I have 
 given of the prince of this world, it is consonant to 
 truth; and evidence stated in the context. Thus, when 
 
170 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 our Lord was taken before Pilate, and he had exam- 
 ined the case, what does Pilate say ? His words are 
 remarkable: ''1 find in him no fault at all," chap, 
 xviii. 38. Very similar to those of our Lord : " The 
 prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me," 
 or against me. 
 
 5th. My view is also confirmed from the words 
 which immediately precede the expression — " the 
 prince of this world cometh." They stand thus — 
 '' Hereafter I will not talk much with you." Why 
 not? Our Lord assigns as a reason for his not talking 
 much v^ith his disciples afterwards — "for the prince of 
 this world cometh." Was the devil, a fallen angel, 
 to prevent his talking with his disciples? This must 
 be affirmed by those who say that he referred to such 
 a being. But how could he prevent his talking with 
 his disciples ? Let those explain this who believe it. 
 It is easily perceived how he was prevented, on my 
 views. The moment he was apprehended in the gar- 
 den, his disciples forsook him and fled, and from this 
 period, being in the hands of his enemies, he was 
 not at liberty to talk much with his disciples, nor had 
 he much opportunity if even liberty had been allowed 
 him. 
 
 6th. The only thing remaining which deserves no- 
 tice, is the following. " Now is the judgment of this 
 world : now shall the prince of this world be cast out." 
 The word here rendered iudi>rnent, sio^nifies condemned 
 or condemnation, and is so rendered in other places. — 
 Is it asked how the world were condemned ? They 
 were so, by their rejecting and crucifying Christ, and 
 is illustrated by such passages as John iii, 18, 19. Is 
 it asked how the prince or powers of this world were 
 cast out? By f)utting to death the Lord of glory, the 
 Jews filled up the measure of their iniquity, and from 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 171 
 
 that hour were cast out from beino; the people of God, 
 and have been so for nearly two thousand years. — 
 They were the chief persons concerned in our Lord's 
 crucifixion, for the Roman power was only called 
 in to effect their purpose. Pilate showed how unwil- 
 lins: he was to condemn Jesus contrary to all law and 
 justice. 
 
 6th. The devil is al^o supposed to be called " the 
 prince of the power of the air." Eph. ii. 2. Wake- 
 field renders the passaiiie thus — " conformably to the 
 ruler of this empire of darkness, the spirit that now 
 show^eth its power in the sons of disobedience." " It 
 was tlie opinion both of the Jews and heatlien," says 
 Whitby on this text, " that the air was full of syirits 
 called demons ; that from the earth to the firmament, 
 all things were full of these companies or rulers ; and 
 that there was a prince over them who was called the 
 governor of the ivorld, that is, of the darkness of it." 
 This agrees to Zoroaster's angel of darkness^ who was 
 considered the author and director of all evil. The 
 apostle evidently here alludes to this heathen notion, 
 but he told the Ephesians, that tliis prince or governor 
 of the world, was the spirit which wrought in the 
 children of disobedience. The evil, or wickedness of 
 men's minds, is the true devil, satan, or governor of 
 this world, 
 
 7th. The devil is also supposed to be called "the 
 god of this world." 2 Cor. iv. 4. "In whom the 
 god of this world (aionos) hath blinded the minds of 
 them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious 
 gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should 
 shiiie unto them." The god of this world, mentioned 
 here, is the same as the [)rince or power of the air, in 
 the last, which, Whitby says, they called '^governor 
 of this ivorldj that is, of the darkness of it." But the 
 
17^ AN INQUIRY— PART I. 
 
 aposlle declares that this governor of the world) prince 
 of the power of the air, or aod of this world, was the 
 spirit that wrought in the children of disobedience.- — 
 This view is agreeable to the words before us, 
 for this certainly blinded the minds of them which 
 believed not. 
 
 We have now finished our remarks on all the pas- 
 sages which are supposed to contain the names and 
 titles of an evil being in the universe, an angel who 
 fell from heaven, and deemed by most Christians but 
 little inferior in powers to its Creator. We have 
 stated OLir views frankly, but in some cases very brief- 
 ly. Such texts on which the greatest dependence is 
 placed for proof,, liave been considered pretty fully. — 
 The result of this investigation has been, a deep con- 
 viction, that the more the subject is examined, it will 
 be found that the Bible gives no countenance to that 
 evil being Christians call the devil and satan. But of 
 this our readers must judge fo»' themselves. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 FACTS STATED, SHOWING THAT THE DEVIL IS NOT A 
 FALLEN ANGEL OR REAL BEING. 
 
 In the preceding Sections, several facts have been 
 developed, showing that the devil is not a fallen an- 
 gel. We shall now very briefly advert to some other 
 facts, not easily reconciled to this doctrine. 
 
 1st. iS^o distinct account is given in Scripture of 
 an angel of God sinning in hcavcri, thertby becoming 
 
\ AN INQUIRY PART I. 173 
 
 a devil, and on account of which he was cast out oj 
 it. When proof is demanded of such things, we are 
 referreil to texts where satan or the devil is said to 
 have fallen from heaven, and to be cast out into the 
 earth. But we have shown that the sacred writers at- 
 tached no such ideas to those passages, and by quota- 
 tions from Jahn, Newton, and others, that a very dif- 
 ferent thino- was intended. How then is the fact ac- 
 counted for, that no sacred writer gives such an ac- 
 count ? Is it too much to expect, that such a remark- 
 able event would be clearly and repeatedly mentioned, 
 yea, recorded previous to tlie fall of man ? If true, 
 would all the sacred writers liave been silent about it 
 both before and after the fall ? This is contrary to 
 God's usual conduct with men. When God was 
 about to destroy the world by a flood, and the cities 
 of the plain by fire, he forewarns the people of their 
 danger, so as to avoid the consequences. But con- 
 cerning a holy angel becoming a devil in heaven, his 
 fall from it, and the direful consequences which re- 
 sulted to our race, God says nothing about such things. 
 The wane of such information is indisputable, and we 
 think no man will afSrm, that this is either like God's 
 usual dealings with men, or that he assigns any reason 
 for withholding such information. How then, do our 
 orthodox friends account for all this, and v/here did 
 they obtain such explicit information as they generally 
 give to people about a fallen angel, and the conse- 
 quences of his fall upon the human race? Was it 
 from Paradise Lost and the Apocrypha, or was it from 
 the Scriptures ? We beg of them to re-examine this 
 subject. 
 
 2d. If if be true that an angel fell from heaven, 
 and has been walking about in the woi'ld seeking whom 
 he might devour, for nearly six thousand yearsj how ^V 
 12 
 
174 AN 1NQ,UIRY PART I, 
 
 it to be accounted for, that no sacred writer asserts 
 that any person ever saiv him, or had personal inter- 
 course with him? They repeatedly inform us of per- 
 sons seeinf^ good angels, and relate the conversations 
 which men had with them. They even inform iis of 
 their appearance, and sometimes describe their cloth- 
 ing. But do they ever intimate, that any one ever 
 saw the devil, describe his appearance and clothing, 
 or relate any conversations held with him ? It cannot 
 be for want of powers on his part to do all this, for 
 our brethren believe that he can do more remarkable 
 things than any of these. Is he ashamed to show 
 himself among men? We doubt this, for he is believ- 
 ed to be a shameless being. Well, does he conceal 
 himself from men, that he may the more effectually 
 accomplish his wicked designs against them ? We 
 doubt this, also, for it is affirmed by his advocates, that 
 he can assume a very fascinating form, yea, transform 
 himself into an angel of light, the more effectually to 
 deceive us. How then do our orthodox brethren ac- 
 count for it, that so sacred writer says any one ever 
 saw tlie devil, or conversed with him ? W^e are 
 aware, that they may object by saying " did he not 
 assume the likeness of a serpent in Eden, and did he 
 not converse with Eve?" But brethren, we have 
 shown, Section ii.,that this is a mistaken view of Gen. 
 iii. You will, perhaps, object again by saying, ''did 
 not satan make a personal appearance among the sons 
 of God, as stated in the first and second chapters of 
 Job, and is not his conversation distinctly related?" — 
 We answer, yes ; but can you disprove the evidence 
 which has been adduced, that satan was not a real be- 
 ing, but only the evil imaginary god of the Magians? 
 If you can, we shall feel greatly indebted to you, if 
 you take the trouble to do this. But perhaps you will 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 175 
 
 object again, by saying, '^ did not the devil appear to 
 the Saviour and hold a conversation with him?" An- 
 swer: did you ever notice, that neither in the first 
 two chapters of Job, nor in the account of our Lord's 
 temptation, nothing is said about any form, color, or 
 shape, which satan assumed? Nor in either of these 
 cases, are the conversations represented as held by him 
 with sinful men. Besides, in considering those ac- 
 counts, we think it has been shown that no such being 
 was intended by the writers. Do you object further, 
 by saying, " are we not told that satan transformed 
 himself into an angel of light, and is he not represent- 
 ed in the book of Revelations under the form of a 
 great red dragon?" Yes ; and you might add, ''hav- 
 ing seven heads, and ten horns, and crowns on bis 
 heads ; yea, as having a pretty long tail, which could 
 sweep from the firmament a third part of the stars and 
 cast them to the earth." But brethren, is it correct to 
 assume as true, that the devil is a fallen angel, and 
 then recur to the symbolical language of Scripture for 
 proof, which proofs, when adduced, render your doc- 
 trine ridiculous ? Besides, have we not shown that 
 such passages have no relation to such a subject ? Is 
 it still objected " does not the history of the world, 
 since revelation was completed, furnish accounts of the 
 devil appearing to men in various forms, conversing 
 with them '^ of persons who have sold themselves, soul 
 and body, to him, and at the, agreed time he has come 
 and carried them away, wholesale from the world ?" 
 Yes ; verily such stories have been told. But if any 
 minister among us should preach such nonsense to the 
 people, he might be looking out for another parish, in 
 some other quarter of the globe. If any man among 
 us should seriously say he had seen the devil, and 
 conversed with him, his friends would soon procure 
 
176 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 a place for liini in the insane hospital. Do our ortho- 
 dox friends believe such childish stoiies themselves ? 
 They would su)ile at me if I even siis!;i,fested that they 
 had any faith in them; still, however, they continue 
 to preach that an ancjel fell from heaven, has ruined 
 the whole human race, deceives them, walks about 
 seeking whom he may devour, and that he will be the 
 eternal tormentor of a considerable poition of them. 
 Yet no person has ever seen him or conversed with 
 him, nor do the Scriptures teach his existence, when 
 carefully and candidly examined. 
 
 3d. // an angel fell from heaven before the sin of 
 our first parents, hoiv do our orthodox brethren ac- 
 count for the fact, that the Jews, to wh m were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God, were obliged to go to Baby- 
 lon to s^et information about him ? Moses says no- 
 thing about him ; nor delivers any injunctions to Israel 
 concerning him. Nor, until after the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity, does it appear that such a being was known in 
 Judea, except as an evil g(>d among t[]e fieathen na- 
 tions. We would ask our brethren, affectionately, 
 how they account for this, if their views of the devil 
 are drawn from divine revelatiorj ? The Old Testa- 
 ment writers use the K^im satan, but never u^e it to 
 designate an angel who fell from heaven. They had 
 the name, but wanted the evil being to whom they 
 could apply it. 
 
 4th. It is a jwtnrious fact, r,ot easily accounted for 
 on Scripture ground, that people in these days make 
 very different uses of the terms devil and sat an from 
 what ivere made in the days of the inspired writers. 
 I shall give an example or two of what 1 mean. First, 
 you never find in those days, as in thefe, persons apolo- 
 gising for crimes by blaming the devil. Nor do you 
 find that any one ever made the devil a bugbear for 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 177 
 
 the purpose of friuhtening tlieir children into obedi- 
 ence. iXor does the devil appear to have been any 
 object of fear, to old or young, by night or by day. — 
 Besides, though men in ancient times, as in these, were 
 given to cursing and swearing, yet you do not find that 
 any of them had learned to swear by the devil. An 
 instance is not on record, of one in a passion or other- 
 wise, who ever wished any of his fellow creatures to 
 go to hell or the devil. In old times, people swore 
 by the name of the Lord, and cursed each other by 
 their gods, but no one seems to have known how to 
 swear by satan or the devil. And it is equally certain, 
 that no inspired writer seems to have knovvn how to 
 give such horrible descriptions of the devil and hell 
 torments, as is frequently done by modern preachers. 
 But it is well known, that many damn their hearers to 
 endless hell toiments, and send them without much 
 ceremony to the devil ; and is it any matter of sur- 
 prise, that their hearers in a less genteel way should 
 do the same ? So long as we have so much unscrip- 
 tural, not to say profane talk about the devil and hell 
 toriKcnts in the pulpit, let us cease to wonder that 
 similar ))rofane, silly language should salute our ears in 
 the streets almost at every corner. 
 
 5th. The Old Testament is often quoted in the New, 
 and quoted to show what was the faith of believers 
 during that dispensation., but is never quoted or allu- 
 ded to, shounng that any of them believed the devil to 
 he a fdlen angel. They neither announce this as an 
 Old Testament doctrine, nor as a new revelation from 
 God under the gospel dispensation. Abraham be- 
 lieved God, and it was accounted unto him for righte- 
 ousness, but it is not said of any one that he believed 
 in a fallen angel, called the devil; and that this was 
 of use to him in any way. We have seen, that both 
 
178 AN INQ,UIRT PART I. 
 
 Old and New Testament writers frequently speak of 
 satan and the devil, and we appeal to the candor of 
 our brethren to say, whether the Scripture writers 
 would have applied these terms to good and bad men, 
 to the angel of Jehovah, to men's evil passions, and to 
 a piece of writing, had they considered them appropri- 
 ate titles of the worst being in the universe, and the 
 implacable enemy of God and man ? 
 
 6th. It is a fact, that in every country where the 
 Bible is not Tcnoum, or not studied ivhere it is 
 'known, there superstitious notions have prevailed 
 concerning witches, evil spirits, ghosts, and the 
 devil : and just in proportion as it has been Jcnoivn 
 and studied all such superstitions have gradually 
 been exploded and renounced by the people. For ex- 
 ample, not many centuries ago, it was firmly beheved 
 by all the Christian world, that human beings could 
 become witches and wizards. It was also believed, 
 that they were in league with the devil, and could 
 perform very extraordinary things. See blather's 
 Magnalia. When the tragical scenes of the Salem 
 witchcraft were acting, the man who would have writ- 
 ten against it, as I do now against the devil, would 
 have been an object of universal execration. But I 
 doubt if you can find in the town of Salem an intelli- 
 gent man who has the least faith in the doctrine of 
 witchcraft. Even the devil himself now, with all his 
 extraordinary powers, does not excite one half the at- 
 tention which a few witches did in those days. Let 
 him muster all the priestcraft and superstition left in 
 the land to his assistance, he could not procure a jury 
 of twelve men to condemn a single individual to death 
 for being in league with him. It was a dark day for 
 the devil when witchcraft declined, for from that hour 
 his popularity has been on the wane, it being one of 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 179 
 
 his chief supports. All their powers were derived 
 from him. Now, it is believed they never had any, 
 and people are as much puzzled to explain how a hu- 
 man beintr could become a witch or a wizard, as how 
 a holy angel in heaven could become a devil. But 
 while people are generally agreed that witchcraft was 
 all a piece of superstition and do justice to the devil 
 in freeing him from all blame about it, yet they still 
 continue to believe m his existence and extraordinary 
 powers. We look back with surprise to the days when 
 our fathers burned the witches, and throw the mantle 
 of charity over them. Our children will have to do 
 the same for us a century hence. Will they not have 
 to say — "Strange that our fathers should say the pow- 
 er of witches was all a piece of superstition yet not 
 see that the power of the devil was no better. Strange 
 that they should perceive all the proofs; of witchcraft 
 were mistaken views of the Bible, and yet think their 
 proofs of a personal devil correct : strange, that they 
 should discard witches as imaginary beings yet believe 
 their father the devil to be a real being. Their devil 
 never performed such wonders as witches have done. 
 Did their devil ever brins; a good man from the state 
 of the dead to converse with the living as did the 
 witch of Endor? Strange, beyond measure strange, 
 that our fathers should so completely discard witch- 
 craft as a superstition which the Jews imbibed from 
 the Canaanites, v>diere no devil was known, and yet 
 continue to believe in the devil, a superstition which 
 the Jews imbibed at Babylon many ages after." — 
 Thus will our children be surprised at our superstition 
 and weakness, and will have to cover us with the 
 mantle of their charity for our belief in the personali- 
 ty of the devil, as we do that of our fathers respecting 
 witches. 
 
180 AN INQ,U1RY PART I. 
 
 That a great revolution of opinion has taken place 
 about witches, ghosts, &c., no one can well deny. — 
 Well, bow has it been effected ? Not by force, but 
 by the slow, gradual influence of the light of truth. — ■ 
 The Bible has been more read and critically examined. 
 Reason and common sense, formerly degraded, assume 
 their proper place and dignity. The arts and sciences 
 have been cultivated and the means of human know- 
 ledge greatly increased. WitchcrHft, like the owl of the 
 night, has fled before all this light, and no place is 
 found for it this country. So will it be, and so let 
 it be, until every superstition is banished fiom the 
 earth. 
 
 7th. It is also a fact, that the common opinions en- 
 tertained of the devil, are at variance icith other 
 plain and aclcnowled^ed truths of the Bible. I shall 
 only give an example or two of this. The devil is 
 generally accused of tempting men to sin. But when 
 the Scriptures speak in plain languane, they inform us 
 that men tempt each other to sin, Pro v. i. 10. And 
 that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of 
 his own lust and enticed, James i. 14, and iv. 1 — 4. 
 In the popular language of the times, Judas' crimes 
 are ascribed to the devil. But they are also ascribed 
 to himself, Acts i. 18 — 26. Judas takes all the blame 
 to himself — " I have betrayed the innocent blood." — 
 By consulting the following texts, it may be seen that 
 things are sometimes ascribed to the devil, to God, and 
 to men. Luke xxii. 3 ; John xiii. 2, 27, 30 ; Acts ii. 
 23 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 1 ; I Chron. xxi. I ; I Kings xxii. 
 22, 23 ; James i. 13, 14 ; Jer. iv. 10 ; Ezek. xiv. 9 ; 
 Compare 2 Thess. ii. 8 — 12; 1 John iii. 8; Gen. 
 xiv. 6— 8; xlii. 21,22; Acts v. 3, and iv. 9. It 
 is generally asserted that the devil is the secret 
 agent in tempting men, and that he makes tools o\ 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 181 
 
 them ; but this is taken for granted as true, which 
 ought 10 be proved true, for the Scriptures no where 
 assert this. 
 
 8th. It is also a fact, that men in sinning, are 
 never conscious of the iuflufnce of the devil over them. 
 They have learned to say, that the devil influences 
 men to sin, and sometimes blame the devil for their 
 crimes; but the peisonal consciousness and experience 
 of every ;nan declares, that no such influence w^as felt, 
 nor w^as it needed. An evil influence is felt, but it is 
 the influence of our own lusts and passions, draiv- 
 ing us away and enticing us. The Sc"i|)iure devil 
 does cempt us, but not a fallen angel, as is commonly 
 believed. 
 
 9th. It is also a fact, that the common opinions en- 
 tertained of the devil, ivhether right or wrong, are the 
 effect of early education and popular opinion. With 
 most people, reason, common sense, and the Bible, had 
 nothing to do in forming such opinions, but they have 
 been implicitly received by tradition from their fathers. 
 They say they believe them, but cannot tell why, ex- 
 cept that they were so taught, for they have never ex- 
 ercised their reason or studied the Bible to see whether 
 they are true or false. Even when a person determines 
 to examine such opinions, his early prejudices within, 
 and popular opinion without, overawe and deter him 
 from giving free scope to his investigations. We speak 
 here from experience, for these have been powerfully 
 felt in the rourse of this discussion. 
 
 10th. The last fact which I shall mention is, that 
 alloiving the personal existence of the devil Jully 
 proved, it is beyond all doubt, that he has been much 
 misrepresented, and his character abused by many 
 Christian people. I shall only give an instance or 
 two. For many ages he was accused of making witches 
 
 . / 
 
182 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 and wizards. Now it is allowed no such beings ever 
 existed, but the whole was a piece of superstition and 
 an astonishing instance of human creduHty. Again ; 
 for ages, and even now, what frightful descriptions 
 have been given of the devil, in preaching. He has 
 been accused, as being the tormentor of damned souls 
 in hell, and imagination has been put to the utmost 
 stretch, to describe his horrible modes of torture there. 
 Now, not a word of this is true, for let the devil have 
 his due, no scripture writer ever says a word about the 
 devil as the tormentor of any one. In fact, many a 
 railing, not to say wicked accusation has been brought 
 against the devil, and though this is now allowed true, 
 no apology Is made for such shameful, unscriptural de- 
 famation. We readily excuse all this, for though 
 preachers have declaimed against such a being in the 
 pulpit, and terrified people with such horrible descrip- 
 tions of him, all must have seen that they had no great 
 faith in their own doctrine. They, like other people, 
 live all the six days of the week without any fear or 
 concern about him. The minister makes him a bug- 
 bear in the pulpit to frighten the parents, and parents 
 at home make the same use of him to frighten their 
 children, but both take care not to be much frightened 
 themselves. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 
 
 Any objections which have occurred to me against 
 the views advanced, I shall fairly state and attempt to 
 answer. It may then be objected 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 183 
 
 1st. '' The devil, satan, or tempter, is spoken of as 
 a real being. Personal pronouns are not only used 
 in speaking of him, but he is represented as speaking 
 and acting, and we are expressly informed of what he 
 said and did." This objection has been partially ad- 
 verted to in the course of our remarks, but 1 shall here 
 notice it a little further. If all to which personal pro- 
 nouns are applied, are to be considered real beings, we 
 must admit many inanimate things, yea, qualities to be 
 real beings as well as the devil. For example, the 
 earth or land is personified, Job xxxi. 38. The hea- 
 vens are also personified, Jer. ii. 12, 13. So is the 
 sea, Job xxxviii. 8, 9.. Death, the grave, and destruc- 
 tion are personified, Job xxviii. 22, 1 Cor. xv. 55. 
 The hosts of heaven are personified, Psalm cxlviii. 1 
 — 5. See the whole Psalm. The mountains and 
 hills can sing, and all the trees of the field can clap 
 their hands, Isai. Iv. 12. Wisdom, power, and a vari- 
 ety of good qualities, are personified in Scripture, and 
 why not also bad qualities, yea, the principle of evil 
 itself? In short, if things represented as speaking and 
 acting, must be considered as real beings, and proofs of 
 personal existence, then it is certain all inanimate crea- 
 tion ought to be considered real beings, for almost all 
 things are represented as living, and speaking, and 
 acting. Jotham's ohve tree, fig tree, vine and bram- 
 ble, must be considered living beings, for they are re- 
 presented as holding a conversation together. Judg. 
 ix. 7 — 16. Micaiah's speech to Ahab, 1 Kings xxii., 
 must also be literally understood, and who does not 
 perceive, what absurdities would ensue, if such a mode 
 of interpretation w^as adopted. 
 
 2d. "If there be no foundation in Scripture for a 
 fallen angel, called the devil, how^ came this opinion to 
 obtain such universal currency among mankind ? The 
 
184 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 opinion, you say, was held by the Magians, and this 
 evil being was considered their evil god, and called 
 ahraman, and by the Greeks arimanius. Zoroaster 
 called him "an angel of darkness," and other nations 
 have had various other names for him. Now, as all 
 counterfeit money implies current, must there not be 
 a foundation in truth for such a universal belief of an 
 evil being, call him devil, satan, or by any other name ?" 
 As this is the principal, and most popular objection, 
 which can be advanced against my views, I shall spend 
 some lime in conside ing it. It is true that counterfeit 
 money implies curient, but do our orthodox friends be- 
 lieve, that count<"ifeit opinions in religion, always im- 
 ply, that there is some foundation in Scripture for them ? 
 Do they allows that there is some foundation in truth 
 for a purgatory and the doctrine of transubsiantiation ? 
 Do they believe, that there is any foundation in truth 
 for witchcraft, for ghosts, and all the different grades of 
 hobgoblins? Will they allow that there is a founda- 
 tion m Sciipture for all the wild and ridiculous opinions 
 which have obtained currency in the world ? If not, 
 why assert that there must be for the common opinion 
 concerning the devil ? Is it not possible to invent a 
 thousand things which have no foundation in the Bi- 
 ble? Error supposes truth, as counterfeit money sup- 
 poses current, but is it true that every error is a cor- 
 ruption of truth ? But it ought to be noticed, that 
 Dean Prideaux did not consider the articles of Zoro- 
 aster's creed*, quoierl Section iv. as corruptions of truth, 
 but consonant to the truth. Nor do Christians in our 
 day, for they have adopted both the sentiments and 
 language of his creed. Why then call them corrup- 
 tions of the truth ? If they are, why preach such cor- 
 ruptions for truth to the world? Do orthodox preach- 
 ers tell the people, that such sentiments are greatly 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 185 
 
 corrupted, both as to matter and lanf^uage? On the 
 conii-ary, do they not solemnly assure their hearers, that 
 such doctrines are the faithful sayings of God, though 
 it is notorious Zoroaster taught them six hundred years 
 before the days of Christ. Will they thank me for 
 suggesting that there is any corruption in the case ? If 
 they beHeve such opinions have any corruption about 
 them, why not purge them, and preach only the una- 
 dulterated truth of God? Why pass as current Bible 
 doctrine, such counterfeit opinions on the public? Al- 
 though there is no law to punish men for passing coun- 
 terfeit opinions in relii^ion, yet one should think, their 
 own doctrine of eternal misery, if they believed it, would 
 be sufficient to deter them. 
 
 If the universal belief in a devil, proves that there 
 is a foundation in truth for the opinion, then Pagan- 
 ism, Mahometan ism, and Roman Catholicism, have 
 all a foundation in truth, for they have all in their 
 turn been pretty universally believed. Purgatory, tran- 
 substantiation, witchcraft, and a thousand otlier opin- 
 ions, ought not to be discarded, for they were once 
 generally believed. Many good and learned men be- 
 lieved them, and thought their proofs for them as good 
 as those now adduced concerning the devil. Why are 
 they rejected ? Because, attention to the Bible has 
 shown they are not taught there, and closer attention 
 to it will show also, that the common opinions concern- 
 ing the devil are equally false. But if the above ob- 
 jection had any real force, or the reasoning employed be 
 correct, our orthodox friends will allow, that universal 
 salvation, and that there is no devil, are opinions, which 
 may have some foundation in the Scriptures, and that 
 should they ever come to be universally believed, this 
 universal reception would make them true. But will 
 ilx^Y admit such reasoning as correct ? 
 
186 AN INQUIRY PART 1 
 
 How such an opinion, as that concerning an evil 
 being called the devil, came first to exist among men, 
 has been partly accounted for in Section iii. and iv. — 
 Christians learned this opinion from the Jews, the Jews 
 learned it from Zoroaster's creed, and Zoroaster learn- 
 ed it from the ancient Magian religion. Well, it may 
 be asked, how came the Magians to imbibe such an 
 opinion ? I would first answer this question by asking 
 another. How came the Sabians to worship idols? — 
 Was there any foundation in Scripture for this? But, 
 the apostle in Rom. i. answers the question, how all 
 such deviations from truth originated. Men when they 
 knew God glorified him not as God, they became vain 
 in their imaginations, their foolish heart was darkened ; 
 and professing themselves to be wise they became fools. 
 See verses 21, 22, 23. Respecting the origin of an evil 
 principle, which was afterwards personified and deified, 
 Essenus thus writes p. 1 25. " Plutarch observes, that 
 the doctrine of two contrary principles prevailed in all 
 countries. The reason is obvious ; evil abounded in 
 ev^ery age and nation : and as men could not reconcile 
 the notion of natural and moral evil with an all-wise 
 and benevolent author, it was natural for them to rea- 
 son in the following manner: 'Since nothing can come 
 into being without a cause; and since that which is 
 perfectly good cannot be the cause of evil, then there 
 must exist a distinct principle in nature, as well for the 
 production of evil as of that which is good.' In this 
 manner argued the Persian sages ; and Plutarch seems 
 to have considered the argument conclusive. This doc- 
 trine was introduced into Judea before the age of Isai- 
 ah, who, as we have seen, thus sets it aside : ' I form 
 the light and create darkness ; I make peace and create 
 evil : I the Lord do all tliese things.' xlv. 7." 
 
 3d. It may also be objected, "you have said, that 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 187 
 
 the doctrine of an evil principle deified, was known as 
 early as the days of Job, which was about the time of 
 Moses : but is not this too early a date for the exist- 
 ence of such an opinion among men, and is there any 
 proof that it existed at such a date?" Some notice 
 was taken of this objection, Section iii. and I shall here 
 add a k\v remarks in reply to it. It is then certain, 
 that the worship of idols prevailed in the world before 
 the days of Moses. If the question is examined, did 
 the W'orship of idols or that of an evil principle fiist pre- 
 vail ? we think the evidence will be in favor of the 
 latter. But, we have found it impossible to ascertain 
 dates as to the first origin of either, both being lost in 
 antiquity, where no dates are given. Essenus, quoting 
 from Plutarch, says p. 74. " ' There are others again, 
 who call the good principle only God, giving the name 
 of Demon to the evil being ; in which number is Zo- 
 roaster the Magian, who is said to have lived 5000 
 years before the Trojan war. Now, this philosopher 
 calls the good principle Oromazes, and the evil one Ari- 
 manius ; adding, moreover, that as of all sensible beings, 
 the former bears the greatest resemblance to light, so 
 the latter was most like darkness.' § xlv. 40. The 
 doctrine here stated is undoubtedly very ancient ; but 
 theearliness of the period in W'hich Zoroaster is said to 
 have lived is absurd and must have proceeded from that 
 propensity in which all nations indulored to magnify 
 their own antiquity." Further; Mr. Mayo, in his An- 
 cient Geography, says, p. 37, " the Scythians, whom 
 the dawn of history discovers in present Persia under 
 their king Tanus, attack Vexores king of Egypt, con- 
 quer Asia, and establish the Scythian empire fifteen 
 hundred years before Ninus, or three thousand six 
 hundred and sixty years before Christ." And quoting 
 from Mr. Pinkerton concerning '' the aboriginal Scy- 
 
188 AN INQUIRY PART 1. 
 
 thian empire of Persia," he thus writes : p. 23. "And 
 beyond this there is no memorial of human affairs, save 
 in Egypt alone, the history of which begins with Menes, 
 the first kinir, about four thousand years bi-fore our era ; 
 while the earliest appearance of the Scythians in his- 
 tory is about four hundred years after, when Vexores 
 was king of ^-gypt, and Tanus of the Scythas — not to 
 mention the collateral lioht derived from the whole his- 
 tory of the Greeks and Romans, who were Scythae, as 
 just shown." He adds, on the -same page — "on this 
 route we shall find the Scythians, Getae, or Goths, not 
 only peopling all ScmuJenavia and Germany, hut ex- 
 tending hence and actually possessing Gatd and Spain 
 five hundred years before Christ, as well as Biitain and 
 Irelarud three hundred years before Christ." From 
 these statements the following things are obvious: 
 
 1st. That the Magian relijdon is very ancient, ex- 
 tending so far batdv into aniiquity that no distinct ac- 
 count of its origin is to be found on record. If such a 
 thing is in existence we have been unable to find it. — - 
 2d. That the people to whou) the Christian religion 
 was first preached, from the very nature of the case, 
 must have been previously imhued with the tenets of 
 the Ma'^ian religion. It was preached first to the Jews, 
 who had spent seventy years in captivity at Babylon, 
 where we have seen that the Magian religion prevailed. 
 It was also preached by the apostles to the Greeks and 
 Romans, whom IMr. Mayo says, " were Scythians," 
 and " whom the dawn of history discovers in present 
 Persia," the very place where Prideaux, above quoted, 
 says the Magian religion first originated. 3cl. Mr. 
 Mayo's statements also show us how the tenets of the 
 Magi;m religion were diffused throughout Europe. He 
 says, " the Scythians whom the dawn of history dis- 
 covers in present Persia" we shall find " not only peo^ 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 189 
 
 pling all Scandenavia and Germany, but extending 
 hence and actually possessing Gaul and Spain five hun- 
 dred years before Christ, as well as Britain and Ireland 
 three hundred years before Christ." The Magian reli- 
 gion being the ancient religion of Persia, when the peo- 
 ple from thence overran Scandenavia, Germany, Gaul, 
 Spain, Britain and Ireland, several hundred years be 
 fore Christ, they must have carried its principles along 
 with them. A miracle was necessary to prevent Chris- 
 tianity being blended with them when introduced into 
 those countries. That it has been blended with them, 
 we think proved in preceding Sections. 
 
 We have then all the evidence which the nature of 
 the case will admit, that the doctrine of an evil princi- 
 ple deified, was known among men in the days of Job. 
 If our orthodox brethren deny this, and can prove that 
 their devil had another or better origin, we respectfully 
 request them to prove it. 
 
 Such are the chief objections, which are likely to be 
 made against my views of the devil, excepting such as 
 might be made against any innovation in religious popu- 
 lar opinions. But as these have been stated and an- 
 swered in my Inquiry into the words Sheol, Hades, he. 
 to it I refer the reader. In concluding this Section I 
 would merely remark, that many have good reason to 
 object against my views, for if they are true, what a 
 great loss they must sustain in being robbed of their 
 principal topics of preaching and religious conversation. 
 The devil and eternal hell torments are themes on 
 which many delight to dwell. They seem health to 
 their navel and marrow to their bones, and to remove 
 these is taking away their gods, and what have they 
 more ? 
 
 13 
 
190 AN JNQ,UIRY PABT 
 
 SECTION XL 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS, POINTING OUT SOME OF THE 
 EVILS WHICH HAVE ARISEN FROM THE COMMON OPIN' 
 IONS ENTERTAINED OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN. 
 
 It would be an endless task to detail all the evils 
 which have resulted from the common opinions enter- 
 tained of the devil. A few only I shall name, and 
 leave the reader to pursue the subject. If it then be 
 true, as I have attempted to show, that no such being 
 as the devil exists, let the reader consider 
 
 1st. What a vast number of passages in God's word 
 have been perverted in proof of this doctrine. They 
 are almost innumerable. Is there no evil then in mis- 
 understanding and perverting God's word ? No man 
 will say so, who loves it, and trembles at it. It is one 
 of the greatest of all evils, for it has been the fruitful 
 source of most evils which have existed in the world. 
 If this doctrine be false what a great change it produ" 
 ces on the whole face of the Bible. 
 
 2d. Let the reader consider the evil effects of this 
 doctrine on mankind. A belief in the common opin- 
 ions concerning the devil, has laid the foundation for 
 almost every other superstition among Christians. Take 
 into view also, what unnecessary and distressing fears 
 the belief of such opinions has given to children, and 
 even persons of riper years. And who can tell the dis- 
 tress which they have given people, when closing their 
 mortal career. On weak minds, their influence has 
 bam such as to drive some to madness, and others to 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 191 
 
 suicide. Most people would dismiss a domestic, if 
 found frightening their children with ghosts and hob- 
 goblins : but these same people cheerlully pay a man 
 to frighten both them and their children, one day in 
 the week, with the devil. The devil, with many peo- 
 ple, is much more feared than Gcd. But what an ex- 
 cellent apology have such opinions afforded men for 
 their sins. The devil has been obliged to bear the 
 hlame, while men have had all the pleasure of sinning. 
 By such opinions, men's attention has been turned 
 away from the true devil within them, to an invisible, 
 imaginary being, called the devil, without them. While 
 a deceived heart has been drawino- them aside from 
 truth and holiness, the doctrine of the devil helps to 
 calm their fears, stupifies their conscience, and embol- 
 dens them to repeat their crimes. And why should it 
 not, if it be true, that such a powerful, deceitful being 
 as the devil, is continually influencing them to sin ? 
 
 3d. The common opinions concerning the devil, are 
 highly dishonorable to the character of God, We have 
 never seen the least attempt made to show how such a 
 being as the devil was for the honor of God's charac- 
 ter. On the contrary, it is believed, that sin dishonors 
 God, and why not also the devil, the author of sin ?— 
 But if any man can explain, how the devil can be for 
 the honor of God, either here or hereafter, we should 
 be glad to see it done. How such a being, with such 
 extraordinary powers, with this world for his range of 
 wickedness, and existing forever the enemy of God and 
 the tormentor of men, can be for the honor of Jeho- 
 vah^s character, is beyond all my feeble powers to 
 comprehend. It seems to argue, that God could not, 
 or would not prevent his existence. That he cannot, 
 or will not curtail bis powers, confine him, restore him, 
 
192 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 or strike him out of existence. This evil, once intro- 
 duced, is without remedy and without end. It is cer- 
 tainly a poor account of God to tell us, that the glory 
 and honor of his character, is inseparable from the 
 devil and that the eternal misery of this being with 
 multitudes of mankind, are to promote the glory of God 
 forever. If this be glory and honor, pray what is dis- 
 honor or disgrace ? 
 
 4th. The common opinions concerning the devil and 
 satan, with others generally held, have tended to land 
 men in downright infidelity. Is it any matter of sur- 
 prise that men become infidels, when such opinions are 
 presented to them as the religion of Jesus Christ ? Is 
 it not rather matter of wonder that all men are not in- 
 fidels ? Cast your eyes round the whole world, and 
 say, if infidelity has not had its hot-bed, in the coun- 
 tries where such absurd and ridiculous opinions have 
 been palmed on the world for religion by interested 
 priests. Neither infidelity, nor idolatry, can be con- 
 quered or prevented, but by the truth of God. 
 
 5th. Such opinions mixed with the religion ^of Jesus 
 Christ, have been in time past, and must be while they 
 are retained, a great hindrance to the universal recep- 
 tion of Christianity in the world. It is a question of 
 no ordinary kind to a reflecting mind. Is the religion of 
 Jesus Christ presented to the heathen in its pure una- 
 dulterated state ? Or, are we introducing to them a 
 human creed, containing articles derived from Zoroa- 
 ster and the Grecian philosophy, and only supplanting 
 one system of ignorance, superstition, and cruelty, by 
 establishing another in some respects worse ? Viewin^j 
 the creeds taught the heathen generally, let us see if 
 this is saying any thing but the truth. Christian mis- 
 sionaries teach only one God, but this God they divide 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 193 
 
 into three. But passing this, I ask, what heathen god 
 ever called on its votaries to believe that he had elected 
 some to everlasting happiness before they were born, 
 and had left, not to say doomed all the rest to endless 
 misery ? Heathen gods have required parents to sac- 
 rifice their children to them, women to immolate them- 
 selves on the funeral piles of their husbands, and heca- 
 tombs of old and young have been slaughtered to ap- 
 pease their wrath ; but name the heathen god, if you 
 can, that ever required its worshippers to be willing to 
 be damned in order that he might save them ? And, 
 when did any of them ever teach their worshippers, 
 that their happiness in heaven will be greatly increased 
 by the sight of their nearest and dearest relatives wri- 
 thing under eternal torments ? I call on our orthodox 
 brethren to name the heathen god, who ever taught 
 such doctrines, or ever bore such a cruel, horrible char- 
 acter ; and to crown the climax of his nameless wick- 
 edness said, ''all this ivas done for the display of his 
 glorious character J^ Who would be a Christian if this 
 be the Christian's God ? Who would not be a Pagan 
 to get rid of such a God ? 
 
 Is it said — " Missionaries do not teach such things 
 to the heatlien ?" It will certainly afford me pleasure 
 to find that they do not.' But did they not teach such 
 things here, before they went far hence unto the Gen- 
 tiles to teach them ? If they taught them here, why 
 not there? Presuming, then, that such doctrines are 
 taught to the heathen, permit me to ask, what an intel- 
 ligent heathen might be expected to say to such Mis- 
 sionaries ? He might surely with great propriety say 
 something like the following — " Gentlemen Missiona- 
 ries — You have been at some trouble, and considerable 
 expense, in coming here to teach us about your God 
 
194 AN INQUIRY PART I. 
 
 and religion. While we thank you for your good in- 
 tentions, we must say, that we cannot change our own 
 gods for yours, or add one more to the gods we have 
 already, unless he is a good, kind, and merciful God, — 
 Our own gods are cruel enough, but if your God be as 
 you describe him, to receive him as our God, would 
 only be to add to our miserable condition. We have 
 had all the tender feelings of our hearts torn to pieces, 
 in seeing our infants and relations tortured to death to- 
 satisfy our present gods. But bad as they are, none 
 of them ever made such cruel demands on us as yours 
 do on you. No, none of them ever demanded of us to 
 believe, that our eternal felicity would be increased, by 
 beholding others in misery, and that we ourselves must 
 be willing to be damned for their glory, or we never 
 can be saved by them. You have come a great way 
 to tell us that all our gods are but dumb idols. Per- 
 haps this may be true ; but unless you suppose us hea- 
 then, devoid of all feeling and common sense, how 
 could you ever suppose, that we would renounce our 
 earthly cruel false gods, for an eternally cruel true one. 
 Return to your employers, with our thanks for their' 
 good intentions towards us, and when we send Mis- 
 sionaries to your country, they shall bring you thou- 
 sands of gods all better than the one you propose to 
 us. Bad as our gods are, none of them like yours, al- 
 lows a devil to ruin us here, and torment us forever in 
 the world to come. Our fathers knew about your 
 devil, and you have borrowed a considerable part of 
 your creed, from what they were taught many years 
 before your religion existed, and yet you come to tell 
 us things v,'hich we knew long before, as wonderful 
 revelations from your God. Whether your impudence, 
 is not as great as you think our ignorance to be, you 
 
AN INQUIRY PART I. 195 
 
 may reflect about, on your passage home. Fare you 
 well." 
 
 To conclude. If we wish the heathen to cast their 
 idols to the moles and to the bats, let us cast our devil 
 and many other false opinions out of the Christian re- 
 ligion, and let us both say, what have we any more to 
 do with idols, or with the devil ? the Lord, he is our 
 God, and we will serve him. 
 
 END OF THE FIRST PART. 
 
PART 11. 
 
 AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE EXTENT OF DURATION EXPRESSED BY 
 THE TERMS OLIM,AION, AND AIONION, RENDERED 
 EVERLASTING, FOREVER, &c. IN THE COMMON 
 VERSION, ESPECIALLY WHEN APPLIED TO PUN- 
 ISHxMENT. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 ALL THE TEXTS NOTICED WHERE OLIM OCCURS IN 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, BUT IS RENDERED BY WORDS 
 WHICH DO NOT EXPRESS OR IMPLY ETERNAL DURA- 
 TION. 
 
 Taylor, in his Hebrew concordance, on the word 
 olim, says, " The word is applied to time, and signi- 
 fieth a duration which is concealed, as being of an un- 
 known or great length, with respect either to time past 
 or to come." After quoting some texts, which he sup 
 posed proof of this, he adds : "it signifies eternity, not 
 from the proper force of the word, but when the sense 
 of the place, or the nature of the subject to which it is 
 applied requireth it ; as God and his attributes." As 
 he refers to no text to show, that when applied to pun- 
 ishment it signifies eternity, it may, I think, be inferred, 
 
198 AN INQUIRY PART II, 
 
 that he did not think it was ever so applied. Park- 
 hurst, on the word olim, says, " it seems to be much 
 more frequently used for an indefinite than for infinite 
 time." And in his Greek Lexicon, on the words aion 
 and aionios, he says, that the Hebrew word olim an- 
 swers as the corresponding word for these two words in 
 the Greek of the Seventy, ''which words denote time 
 hidden from man, whether indefinite or definite, whether 
 past or future." Professor Stuart, in his letters to Dr. 
 Miller, p. 128, commenting on Mic. v. 1, says : ''the 
 words kedesh and od, rendered byTurretine, eternity, 
 are like the Greek aion, that also signifies any thing 
 ancient, which has endured or is to endure for a long 
 period. The question when these words are to have 
 the sense of ancient or very old, is always to be deter- 
 mined by the nature of the case, i. e. by the context." 
 
 Concessions, such as these, from critics on the lan- 
 guage of Scripture, ought to lead every man to exa- 
 mine, if these terms are ever used in the Bible to ex- 
 press the endless duration of punishment. Mr. Stuart's 
 rule, if applied with attention to tlie general usage of 
 these terms, would soon cool the zeal of many people, 
 who seem to dwell with peculiar delight on the end- 
 less duration of punishment to their fellow creatures. 
 It is evident, that the translators of the common ver- 
 sion were fully aware, that olim was often used by the 
 sacred writers to express a limited period of time, for 
 1st. They render it continuance, Isai. Ixiv. 5. 
 
 2d. Ancient, and apply it to /anc^worArs, Prov. xxii. 
 28. To people, Isai. xliv. 7. To paths, Jer. xviii. 
 15. To high places, Ezek. xxxvi. 2. To nations, 
 Jer. V. 15. To times, Psalm Ixxvii. 5, which is ex- 
 plained to mean old. Had olim in these texts been 
 rendered eternal, ur everlasting, as in some other places, 
 the impropriety would be very manifest. We would 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 199 
 
 then have had an eternal landmark, an everlasting peo- 
 ple, eternal paths, and everlastino- high places ; yea, 
 an everlasting nation, and eternal times. But they 
 had no idea that this word always expressed endless 
 duration, and accordingly rendered it ancient as the 
 context of the passages demanded. In the last text 
 they have rendered olim both by the word old and an- 
 cient, which if rendered eternal or everlasting, the pas- 
 sages would read thus : " 1 have considered the days 
 of everlasting, the years of eternal times." 
 
 3d. Olim is rendered old and is equivalent to an- 
 cient, as in the last class of passages. Thus the " days 
 of old" is explained to mean " the years of many gen- 
 erations," Deut. xxxii. 7, Isai.lxiii. 9, comp, verse 11, 
 which shows that the days of old refer to tlie days of 
 Moses, Jer. vl, 16,Lam.iii. 6, Amo<- ix. 11, Mic. vii. 
 14, Mai. iii. 4. In this last text " days of old" is ex- 
 plained to be " former years," and in the margin our 
 translators have put " ancient years," See also Job 
 xxii. 15, Prov. xxiii. 10, Isai. iviii. 12, where we read 
 of the "old way" the "old landmark" and "the old 
 waste places." The explanation given in this last text 
 is " thou shalt raise up tlie foundations of many gene- 
 rations." The same is repeated, chap. Ixi. 4. In the 
 following texts olim is rendered old and is applied to a 
 variety of things, which it would only be a waste of 
 time to particularize. Ezek. xxv. 15, Jer. xxviii. 8, 
 Gen. vi. 4, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, Psalm cxix. 62, Isai. xlvi. 
 9, Comp. verse 10, Ezek. xxvi. 20, Josh. xxiv. 2, Jer. 
 ii. 20, Psalm xxv, 6, Isai. Ivii. 11 and li. 9, " ancient 
 days" and " generations old" are used as explanatory 
 of each other. Eccles. i. 10, Such are all the texts 
 in which olim is rendered old, and on which we shall 
 submit a few brief remarks. Let it be then supposed 
 
200 , AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 for a moment, that it had been rendered everlasting, or 
 by any other word which has the idea of endless du- 
 ration affixed to it, what would follow ? It may be 
 observed as an example, that men are called on to re- 
 member the days of everlasting, that God carried Israel 
 all the days of everlasting, and that some are spoken of 
 as dead from everlasting. Besides ; the everlasting 
 waste places were to be built, and the giants were from 
 everlasting, men of renown. Whoever chooses to go 
 over all the above texts will see, that to translate olim 
 everlasting or eternal, would involve the inspired wri- 
 ters in the grossest absurdities. It is evident, that in 
 all these texts, as in the preceding, olim rendered old, 
 signifies ancient. Though it expresses a long, indefi- 
 nite period of time, yet it would not be very difficult 
 to ascertain, in some instances at least, how many years 
 were meant. U olim then, in any text rendered ever- 
 lasting or eternal, does convey the sense of endless du- 
 ration, it is obvious that it cannot have this meaning in 
 any of the texts which have yet been brought to view. 
 Both the texts and their contexts forbid this, and we 
 have seen, that an explanation is given of this word by 
 the sacred v/riters to prevent all misapprehension on 
 the subject. 
 
 4th. In the followins; places olim is rendered aiiy, 
 long-, any time, long time, long home, and long dead. 
 Levit. XXV. 32 ; Isai. xlii. 14 ; Eccles. xii. 5 ; Psalm 
 cxliii. 3. To understand olim as meaning everlasting 
 in these texts, w^ould make the inspired writers to say, 
 that some have been eternally dead, that the grave is 
 man's everlasting home, and that God has eternally 
 held eternally held his peace. 
 
 5th. In the following texts olim is rendered world. 
 Psalm Ixxiii. 12; Eccles. iii. 11 ; Isai. Ixiv. 4. The 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 201 
 
 language used, John ix. 32, seems to be taken from 
 this last text, and in both, the meaning seems to be, 
 since the age began, probably referring to the Mosaic 
 age or dispensation. In Isai. xlv. 17, it is said, "Is- 
 rael shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting sal- 
 vation : ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world 
 without end." Taylor, in his Hebrew Concordance, 
 says it signifies " tlie ages of perpetuity." I would 
 merely suggest it for consideration, if the phrase 
 " world without end," does not refer to the age or dis- 
 pensation of the Messiah, which age was not to be suc- 
 ceeded by any other, and corresponds to passages in 
 the New Testament where it is said to be everlasting, 
 and to endure /oreyer. ' Whatever may be in this, we 
 think it is evident that oJim rendei'ed world, in these 
 texts, does not mean endless duration. How does it 
 sound to say, that God sets eternity in the hearts of 
 men, and that the ungodly prosper in the eternity ! — 
 Olim, rendered world in these texts, seems to be used 
 in a similar sense as aion and aionion translated 
 world, in the New Testament. Age, in both, would 
 be a better rendering, for surely neither the material 
 world nor eternity can be referred to. 
 
 6th. In Jer. xlix. 36 olim is translated " outcasts. ^^ 
 Why it is so I cannot conceive. As it cannot affect 
 the subject under consideration, it would not be of much 
 use to spend time in mquiring. 
 
 7th. In Deut. xxxiii. 15, the word olim is rendered 
 " lasting," By quoting the whole verse it will be seen, 
 that lasting hills in the last part, is just another ex- 
 pression for ancient mountains in the first ; " and for 
 the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the 
 precious things of the lasting hills." It will be seen 
 presently, that olim here translated ancient and last- 
 
202 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 ing, and applied to the mountains and hills, might just 
 as well have been translated everlasting, as it is in 
 Gen. xlix. 26, and Hah. iii. 6, and applied to the 
 same things. But I forbear further remarks until we 
 come to those passages. 
 
 8th. I find that olim is rendered alway, and always, 
 Jer. XX. 17 ; Gen. vi. 3 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 15 ; Job vii. 
 16; Psalm cxix. 112, In this l"ast text David ex- 
 plains always, by adding, '' even unto the end." But 
 everlasting or eternity has no end. 
 
 9th. Sometimes olim is rendered any more. — 
 Ezek. xxvii. 36, and xxviii. 19. The prophet is 
 speaking of Tyre, and the sense evidently is, that it 
 should not be any more, as formerly, a place famous 
 for trade. 
 
 10th. It is rendered 7iever, in the following places : 
 2 Sam. xii. 10 : Judg. ii. 1 ; Psalm xv. 5 ; xxx. 6 ; 
 xxxi. 1 ; Iv. 22 ; Ixxi, 1 ; and cxix. 93 ; Prov. x. 30 ; 
 Isai. xiv. 20 ; xxv. 2 ; Ezek. xxvi. 21 ; Joel ii, 26, 
 27. But surely no one ever thought that never in these 
 texts expresses endless duration. For example, was 
 the sword not to depart from David's house to the end- 
 less ages of eternity ? And was God's covenant with 
 Israel to have no end ? We are sure it has waxed old 
 and vanished away. In short, we use the word never 
 every day in a similar way, but no one interprets our 
 language as meaning endless duration. In the New 
 Testament we shall see that the word aion is also ren- 
 dered never, and is applied in a similar way. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II, 
 
 203 
 
 SECTION IL 
 
 ALL THE PASSAGES NOTfCED, WHERE OLIM IS USED, AND 
 RENDERED BY WORDS WHICH CONVEY THE IDEA OF 
 ENDLESS DURATION. 
 
 If the sacred writers used the term olim, to express 
 limited duration in so man}^ instances, as we have seen 
 in the preceding Section, our translators rendering the 
 same word by English terms expressing endless dura* 
 tion, can never give it such a signification. In the 
 texts now to be introduced, they have rendered olim 
 by the words perpetual, everlasting, eternal, forever, 
 and forever and ever ; but can such renderings alter the 
 sense in which the sacred writers used it ? No ; for 
 we shall see that the things to which it is applied, and 
 the scope of the contexts, in a great many instances, 
 at least, utterly forbid it. This is universally ac- 
 knowledged, and will presently be seen from the pas- 
 sages. It will be perceived, that this word is used to 
 express duration that is past. The reader has then to 
 consider, whether it refers to endless duration which is 
 past. It also expresses duration to come, and it must 
 be considered, whether it is used to express a proper 
 eternity to come. In short, we have to examine with 
 attention, whether this word, rendered perpetual, eter- 
 nal, forever, and forever and ever, was designed to ex^ 
 press the endless duration of the things to which the 
 eacred writers apply it. The question is not, are the 
 persons or things to which it is applied of endless du- 
 ration in their natures, but was this term used to ex- 
 
204 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 press it ? Is it this word which shows they are of 
 endless duration ? 
 
 1st. I find olim, then, is rendered ^' perpetual,'^ and 
 applied in the following manner. The covenant God 
 made with Noah was to be " for perpetual genera- 
 tions," Gen. ix. 12. The priest's office, was to be 
 Aaron's and his son's, " for a perpetual statute," Exod. 
 xxix. 9. The suburbs of certain cities, were to be the 
 inheritance of the Levites, " for a perpetual posses- 
 sion," Levit. XXV. 34. Certain portions were to be 
 the provision of Aaron and his sons, by " a perpetual 
 statute," Levit. xxiv. 9. It was to be, " a perpetual 
 statute," that the person who sprinkled the water of 
 separation, should be unclean until the even. Num. 
 xix. 21. The Sabbath was to be observed by the 
 children of Israel, throughout their generations, '' for 
 a perpetual covenant," Exod. xxxi. 16. To them it 
 was also to be "a perpetual statute," that they should 
 neither eat fat nor blood, Levit. iii. 17, The meat- 
 offering was to be " a perpetual ordinance unto the 
 Lord," Ezek. xlvi. 14. And the children of Israel 
 are spoken of as saying, come and let us join our- 
 selves to the Lord in " a perpetual covenant," Jer. 1. 
 5. In all these passages, the word perpetual is ap- 
 plied to things belonging to the Mosaic dispensation, 
 which was never intended to be endless in its duration. 
 Olim is rendered perpetual in these passages, and it 
 is rendered everlasting in others, and applied to the 
 same things. Indeed, had our translators consulted 
 uniformity in their version, they would have always 
 rendered it so. What then does perpetual or ever- 
 lasting express, when applied to the things belonging 
 to the Jewish dispensation ? We think it is obvious 
 that it simply signifies that those things were to be 
 observed by the Jews while that dispensation con- 
 
AN INQUIRY-— PART II. 205 
 
 tlnued- When it ended, the everlasting or perpetual 
 ended. 
 
 But further ; we find olhn rendered perpetual, and 
 applied as follows. Speaking of Babylon, and other 
 places, it is said they shall be made " perpetual deso- 
 lations," Jer. XXV. 9, 12; Ezek. xxxv. 9; Zeph. ii. 
 9. And of Bozrah, and other cities, that they shall 
 be '-perpetual wastes," Jer. xlix. 13. And speaking 
 of some persons it is said, Psalm Ixxviii. 6^, that God 
 would put them to " a perpetual reproach." God also 
 threatened Israel, Jer. xviii. 16, to make their land a 
 "perpetual hissing;" and bring on them ''•' a perpetual 
 shame," xxiii. 40. Concerning the people of Seir it 
 is said, that they had against Israel " a perpetual 
 hatred," Ezek. xxxv, 5, Of some persons it is said, 
 they shall sleep " a perpetual sleep," Jer. li. 39, and 
 repeated, verse 57. Besides, we find it said, Jer. v. 
 22, that the Lord placed '' the sand for the bound of 
 the sea by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it," 
 Moreover, we find it declared, Hab- iii. 6, that the 
 hills are perpetual. " He stood, and measured the 
 earth : he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and 
 the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetu- 
 al hills did bow : his ways are everlasting." In 
 this last text, olhn is rendered both perpetual and 
 everlasting, and without scruple is applied to the hills 
 and mountains as well as to the ways of God. These 
 are all tiie texts in which olim is rendered in our ver- 
 sion perpetud. On the whole of them I shall now 
 make a few brief remarks. 
 
 1st. It is evident from the last quoted text, that per- 
 petual and everlasting are used to express the same 
 idea. The " everlasting mountains," and " the per- 
 petual hills," are synonymous expressions. When it 
 js, therefore, saic} that $h§ mountains and bills are per* 
 14 
 
206 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 petual or everlasting, k\v ever inferred that they had 
 existed from eternity, or would exist to endless dura- 
 tion. The everlasting nature of their existence as to 
 time past, is limited to the time of their creation, and 
 in regard to futurity, their existence is bounded by the 
 dissolution of the present world. Here then is an 
 everlasting, bounded by time, and does not extend to 
 endless duration, either as to the past or future. 
 
 2d. In all the above texts, where olim is rendered 
 perpetual, it is never used to express endless duration. 
 The things to which it is applied clearly decide this. 
 Unless this world is to continue to endless duration, 
 how is the- sand to be a perpetual bound to the sea, 
 and the hills and mountains never cease to exist ? — 
 Moreover, how is Babylon and other places to be 
 endless desolations ? In short, if perpetual expresses 
 endless duration, some are to sleep to endless duration. 
 The question, perhaps, may then be asked. How long 
 does perpetual mean in the above texts ? To this I an- 
 swer, that in all of them it does not designate the same 
 period of time. The longest period expressed by it 
 is not extended beyond the existence of this world. — 
 In the place where it is said some were to sleep a per- 
 petual sleep, the Babylonians are referred to ; they 
 were asleep when their city was taken, and being 
 killed while asleep, they no more awoke in this world, 
 and hence their sleep is called perpetual. If per- 
 petual is understood to mean endless, those persons 
 are never to be raised from the dead. Such, then, as 
 maintain a universal resurrection of all the dead, must 
 give up the idea that olim, rendered perpetual, signi- 
 fies a proper eternity. 
 
 3d. Let it be noticed, that in none of the above 
 texts, is a reference made to the punishment of the 
 wicked in a future state. But even admitting, that in 
 a number of them it had been expressly declared, that 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 207 
 
 the \vlcked, and the wicked in a future state of exist- 
 ence, should be punished with perpetual torments, this 
 would prove nothing conclusive that these torments 
 were to have no end. This must be obvious to every 
 man who considers how often perpetual is applied to 
 things which have ended, and to things also which we 
 are sure are to end. From the common usage of this 
 word, we ought to conclude that the torments of the 
 wicked may come to an end also. But as nothing is 
 said about future punishment in any of the above 
 texts, we need not trouble ourselves with any further 
 remarks concerning them. I may just add, what dif- 
 ference can it make as to the meaning of the w^ord 
 oZm, whether we render it everlasting or perpetual? 
 Can the rendering alter the true sense of the writer? 
 2. We find also, that olim is renedred everlasting'. 
 The covenant that God made with Noah and every 
 living creature, is called " the everlasting covenant," 
 Gen. ix. 16. Also, that which he made with Abra- 
 ham and his seed, is called " an everlasting covenant," 
 Gen. xvii. 7, 13, 19. It is called the same when con- 
 firmed to Israel, 1 Chron. xvi. 17 ; Psalm cv. 10 ; 
 and also to David, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. And it is said of 
 Israel, Isai. xxiv. 5, that they had " broken the ever- 
 lasting covenant." In the following places, an ever- 
 lasting covenant is spoken of, and seems to refer to 
 the new covenant, Isai, Iv. 3, and Ixi. 8 ; Jer, xxxii. 
 40 ; Ezek. xvi. 60, and xxxvii. 26. But in what- 
 ever way this may be decided, all will allow, that it 
 must end when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God 
 the father. The new dispensation, or age of the Mes- 
 siah, is not called everlasting because it is endless in 
 its duration, but because when it ends it is to be suc- 
 ceeded by no other. But further, we find the land of 
 Canaan promised to Israel for " an everlasting posses- 
 
208 AN INC^UIRY PART II. 
 
 slon," Gen. xvii. 8, and xlviii. 4. The priesthood 
 given to Aaron and his sons, was to be " an everlast- 
 ing priesthood." But as an explanation of what is 
 meant, it is added, " throughout your generations." — 
 See Exod. xl. 15 ; Numb. xxv. 1.3. Certain things 
 under the Aaronical priesthood, and connected with 
 that covenant, though temporary in its duration, were 
 to be for an ^' everlasting statute," Levit. xxiv. 8, 16, 
 24. In Gen. xlix. 26, we read of the everlasting 
 hills, and in Hab. iii. 6, of the everlasting mountains, 
 and in Psalm xxiv. 7, 9, of the everlasting doors, pro- 
 bably referring to the doors of the temple. 
 
 Before adducing any wore of the texts in which 
 olim is rendered everlasting, I beg leave to make one 
 or two remarks. It is easily perceived, by comparing 
 these texts Vv'ith those where olim is rendered perpetu- 
 al, that everlasting and perpetual express the same 
 idea. Further ; unless we can prove that the land of 
 Canaan, the statutes and ordinances of the Jewish dis- 
 pensation, the hills and mountains, and the doors of 
 the temple, are to continue to endless duration, we 
 ought not to say that the word everlasting expresses a 
 proper eternity. We [iresuine, no one would contend 
 that it does, but gome perhaps would say, that it does 
 express the endless duration of the new covenant, 
 mentioned in some of the above passages. But why 
 should it any more mean this when applied to it, than 
 when applied to the old covenant, which was called 
 everlasting, yet has long ago vanished? Is it then 
 asked, What does everlasting mean in the above 
 texts? I answer: it expresses a period of time, long, 
 indefinite, and limited. Do we read of the priesthood 
 of Aaron being everlasting? We find this, in as many 
 words limited, for it is added, " throughout your gene- 
 rations." In a word, any long period of time, either 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 209 
 
 past, or to come, is called everlasting. Yea, we shall 
 see before we are done, that it sometimes expresses 
 even a short period of time. Nor are the sacred 
 writers under any apprehension that they were liable 
 to be misunderstood. But to return. 
 
 We find further, olim rendered everlasting, and ap- 
 plied as follows. In Isai. xlv. 17, it is said — "But 
 Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting 
 salvation." This is explained by what follows: '"'ye 
 shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without 
 end." See this text noticed before. Daniel ix. 24, 
 speaks of an " everlasting righteousness," and David, 
 Psalm cxii. 6, says, " the righteous shall be in ever- 
 lasting remembrance." In Prov. x. 25, they are also 
 said to be '' an everlasting foundation." David prays, 
 Psalm cxxxix. 24, " lead me in the way everlasting." 
 And in Jer. xxxi. 3, God says, " I have loved thee 
 with an everlasting lo\^e." And in Isaiah Ix. 19, 20, 
 it is twice said that " God is their everlasting light." 
 And in Isai. xxxv. 10, they shall come to Zion with 
 " everlasting joy." This is repeated, li. 11, and Ixi. 7. 
 In Isai. Ivi. 5, God is said to give them an " everlast- 
 ing name," and to have made to himself '' an everlast- 
 ing name," Isai. Ixiii. 12. In Isai. Iv. 13, we read of 
 an " everlasting sign," and by way of explanation it 
 is added, " which shall not be cut off." And in Isai, 
 liv. 8, we read of God's " everlasting kindness." — 
 Speaking of the Jews, God threatened that he would 
 bring upon them " an everlasting reproach." Jer. xxiii. 
 40. And in Jer. xx. 11, it is added, ''their ever- 
 lasting confusion shall never be forgotten." By con- 
 sulting the context of these last two texts it may be 
 seen that God is not speaking of punishment to the 
 Jews in a future state, but of his temporal judgments 
 in the present world. Notwithstanding this, their pun- 
 
210 AN INQUIRE PART II. 
 
 ishment is called everlasting. This we have shown, 
 in the inquiry into the words Sheol, he, which see. 
 See also on 2 Thess. chap, i., below. 
 
 We come now to a part of this Inquiry where olim 
 is rendered everlasting, and is applied to God himself. 
 Such texts, then, demand the closest attention. I find 
 it then said, Gen. xxi. 33, that Abraham '' called upon 
 the name of the Lord, the everlasting God," In Isai. 
 xl. 28, he is again called the " everlasting God." — 
 in Deut. xxxiii. 27, we read of his " everlasting arms." 
 In Psalm xc. 2, it is said " even from everlasting to 
 everlasting thou art God." And in Jer. x. 10, he is 
 called " an everlasting^ kini!;." In Psalm c. 5, it is 
 said, ^'his mercy is everlasting." In ciii. 17, it is 
 added, " the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to 
 everlasting." But by way of explanation, it is said, 
 "his righteousness unto childrens' children." In xli. 
 13, it is said, " blessed be the Lord God of Israel 
 from everlasting, and to everlasting." This is re- 
 peated, Psalm cvi. 48. Again, it is said. Psalm xciii. 
 2, " thou art from everlasting," but in the first part of 
 the verse it was said as an equivalent expression — 
 "thy throne is established of old." In Isai. Ixiii. 16, 
 it is said — " thy name is from everlasting," and Psalrri 
 cxlv. 13, David says, " thy kingdom is an everlasting 
 kingdom ;" but observe, it is added by way of expia- 
 tion, " and thy dominion endureth throughout all gene- 
 rations." In the margin our translators have put, "of 
 all ages." And in Isaiah xxvi. 4, it is said, " in the 
 Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength," but in the mar- 
 gin they have put, " rock of ages." These are all 
 the passages where olim is rendered everlasting and 
 applied to God. There are two passages where it is 
 so rendered, and applied to the Messiah. The first is 
 Mic. V. 2, " whose goings forth hath been from of old, 
 
AN INQ.UIRY PART II. 211 
 
 from everlasting." See, on this text. Professor Stuart's 
 remarks quoted. Sect. i. Here, /rom of old and ever- 
 lasting are used as synonymous expressions for the 
 same thing. This is similar to Psalm xciii. 2, noticed 
 above. The other text is Prov. viii. 23, '' 1 was set 
 up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the 
 earth was." Here, what is called everlasting in the 
 first part, is explained in the second to be, " from the 
 beginning." Has everlasting or a proper eternity a 
 be^innino- ? 
 
 3d. We find olim rendered for evermore in the fol- 
 lowing places. Thus it is said. Psalm xcii. 8, " but 
 thou. Lord, art most high for evermore." And cxiii. 
 2, " blessed be the name of the Lord from this time 
 forth and for evermore," And cxv. 18, "but we will 
 bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore.^' 
 Again it is said, 2 Sam. xxii. 51, the Lord " showeth 
 mercy to his annointed, unto David, and to his seed 
 for ev^ermore." This is repeated, Psalm xviii. 50. — 
 In 1 Chron. xvii. 14. God promised that Solomon's 
 throne '' should be established for evermore." And 
 Psalm cxxi. 8, he promised to preserve Israel " for ever- 
 more." And cxxxiii. 3, to command " the blessing 
 for evermore." In Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 28, he also prom- 
 ised to set his sanctuary in the midst of Israel " for 
 evermore." And in Psalm xxxvii. 27, David says, 
 ^' depart from evil and do good, and dwell for ever- 
 more." And in Ixxxvi. 12, says, " I will glorify thy 
 oame for evermore." The only other text in which 
 olim is rendered for evermore, is Psalm cvi. 31, and 
 is thus explained. Speaking of Phineas, it is said, 
 ithat what he did " was counted unto him for righteous- 
 ness, unto all generations for ever more." Here all 
 generations and for evermore are used as equivalent 
 expressions for the same thing. On the whole of 
 
21 2f AN INQUIRY ^^PART II* 
 
 these texts we remark, that evermore is applied to 
 things which never were intended to continue to end- 
 less duration. Such were Solomon's throne, and God's 
 sanctuary among the children of Israel. A long pe- 
 riod may be meant, but not surely a proper eternity. 
 Even when evermore is applied to God, we cannot 
 conclude that it signifies endless duration ; for it is ex- 
 plained to mean, "all generations." In none of these 
 texts is evermore applied to punishment. No further 
 notice need then be taken of them here, as any further 
 remarks will be more in place afterwards. 
 
 4th. Olim is rendered forever, in the following^ 
 places, and expresses the duration of a man's lifetime, 
 or even a shorter period. Thus it is said, Deut. xv» 
 17, ^^ thou shalt take an awl and thrust it through his 
 ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever."" 
 iVow, this could only mean all the servant's lifetime, 
 or, perhaps to the year of jubilee. It could not be be- 
 yond his life, for at death the servant is free from his 
 master. The same thing is said Exod. xxi. 6. But 
 again, we find Samuel's mother saying, 1 Sam. i. 22, 
 " 1 will not go up until the child be weaned, and then 
 I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, 
 and abide there forever." Here, forever can mean nc 
 more than all the days of Samuel's life. Again ; Jona- 
 dab commanded his children that they should drink 
 "no more wine forever." Jer. xxxv. 6. Does not 
 this simply mean, all their days, or at farthest, through- 
 out their generation ? And is not something similar 
 meant, when Achish said of David, I Sam. xxvii. 12, 
 "he shall be my servant forever?" And also Levit. 
 XXV. 46, where it is said, strangers shall be to Israel 
 " bondmen forever." And 2 Kings v. 27, it is said, 
 that the leprosy was to cleave to Naaman " forever." 
 But who ever thought this man was to be a leper to 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 213 
 
 the endlesss ages of eternity? In Job xli. 4, speak- 
 ing of leviathan, it is said, "wilt thou take him for a 
 servant forever." There is one text which deserves 
 particular notice, because it is the first time in which 
 the word olim is used in the Bible, and is rendered for- 
 ever. Thus it is said, Gen. iii. 22, " and now lest he 
 put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, 
 and eat and live forever," therefore God drove forth 
 the man from the garden. On this text let us hear 
 Dr. Kennicot, the great Hebrew scholar of his day. 
 He says, dissert, i. p. 83, " A third objection may be 
 made to the rendering of the word lolim, in chap. iii. 
 22 — that it is made to signify the days of Adamh life 
 only, and not forever, fn answer to this, I observe 
 that the word ovlim is used as often, perhaps, finitely 
 as infinitely ; and that it can signify nothing more than 
 the age or life of man, in places where our translators 
 have frequently rendered \i forever. Thus Exod. xxi, 
 6 — ' Then his master shall bring him unto the judges, 
 and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he 
 shall serve him forever.' And 1 Sam. i. 22, ' but Han- 
 nah went not up ; for she said, I will not go up until 
 the child be weaned ; and then I will bring him, that 
 he may appear before the Lord, and there abide for- 
 ever.' " But further, we find Bathsheba says, 1 Kings 
 i. 31, -'Let my lord king David live forever." And 
 in Neh. ii. 3, he says to king Artaxerxes, '' Let the 
 king live forever." See the same or similar language, 
 Dan. ii. 4 ; iii. 9; v. 10, and vi. 6, 21. All meant 
 in these texts is, let the king's life be long, or the 
 years of his life be many. The persons never sup- 
 posed that kings could live to the endless ages of eter- 
 nity. In Exod. xiv. 13, it is said to Israel, that the 
 Egyptians whom they saw to-day, they should see 
 " no more forever." No more can be meant, than 
 
214 AN INQUIRY PART lU 
 
 that they should not see them again, and the reason is 
 obvious, for they were all to be drowned in the sea. 
 
 In the following texts we find certain places are 
 said to be forever, which cannot mean that they shall 
 continue to endless duration. In Eccles. i. 4, it is said, 
 " the earth abideth forever." And Psalm civ. 5, " who 
 laid the foundations of the earth, that they should not 
 be removed forever." And Psalm lxxviii.69. " He 
 built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth 
 which he hath established forever." God is said to 
 give the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, that 
 they should dwell in it forever : and David be their 
 prince forever. See Ezek. xxxvii. 25. In all the 
 following texts the land of Canaan is expressly said to 
 be forever to Abraham and his seed. See Gen. xiii. 
 15 ; Exod. xxxii. 13 ; 1 Chron. xxviii. 8 ; 2 Chron. 
 XX. 7; tsai. Ix. 21 ; Josh. xiv. 9. This last text re- 
 fers to that part of the land given to Caleb, which was 
 to be his, and his children's forever. And are not some 
 lands deeded away forever now in a similar senfe ? — 
 Israel is commanded, not to seek the peace, nor the 
 wealth of the inhabitants of Canaan forever, Ezra ix. 
 12. In Deut. xxiii. 6, we have the same injunction 
 repeated, and it is added, " all thy days forever." — 
 Here all thy days diU^ forever are used to express the 
 same period of time, and simply mean throughout the 
 generations of Israel. Is was a sign between the Lord 
 and Israel forever, that in six days God made heaven 
 and earth, and rested on the seventh, Exod. xxxi. 17. 
 The children of Israel dwelling in Canaan, or inher- 
 iting it forever, is contrary to fact. For nearly two 
 thousand years the Jews have been cast out of it, and 
 should they return to-day, and dwell in it as long as 
 this earth shall continue, yet unless the world is to be 
 of endless duration, forever does not express an infinite 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 11. 215 
 
 period of time. It is further said, 1 Chron. xxiii. 25, 
 the Lord God of Israel hath given rest unto his people, 
 that they may dwell in Jerusalem forever." And in 
 Jer. xvii. 25, it is said, " and this city shall remain for- 
 ever." And referring to it, David says, Psalm xlviii. 
 8, " God will establish it forever." And in Jer. xxxi. 
 40, it is said, " it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown 
 down any more forever." And in Psalm cxxv. 1, it 
 is said, " they that trust in the Lord shall be like mount 
 Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideih forever." 
 And referring to the temple, Solomon says, 1 Kings 
 viii. 13. ''I have surely built thee a house to dwell 
 in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever." For 
 substance repeated, 2 Chron. vi. 2. And in 2 Chron. 
 XXX. 8, it is said to be " sanctified forever." But what 
 is meant by Jerusalem remaining " forever," is ex- 
 plained thus, Joel iii. 20, "but Judah shall dwell for- 
 ever, and Jerusalem from generation to gejierationJ' 
 Again, Josh. viii. 28, it is said, '"Joshua burnt Ai and 
 made it an heap forever." It is added, by way of 
 explanation, " even a desolation unto this day." And 
 of Babylon it is said, Isai. xlvii. 7, "I shall be a lady 
 forever." But God says concerning this city, Jer. li. 
 26, " thou shalt be desolate forever." And verse 62, 
 it is added, " none shall remain in it, neither man or 
 beast, but it shall be desolate forever." Of Hazorand 
 other cities it is said, they " shall be a dwelling for dra- 
 gons, and a desolation forever : there shall no man 
 abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it," Jer. xlix. 
 33, And of another place it is said, " the smoke 
 thereof shall go up forever," and that the wild beasts 
 ''shall possess it forever," Isai, xxxiv. 14, 17. The 
 explanation of forever in the last text is given thus : 
 "from generation to generation it shall lie waste," and 
 " from generation to generation wild beasts shall dwell 
 
216 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 therein." See verses 8 — 17. In Psalm xlix. 11, it 
 is said, that the inward thought of the wicked is, that 
 their houses shall continue " forever." But the expla- 
 nation given is — " and their dwelling-places to all 
 generations." 
 
 The word olim is rendered forever, and applied in a 
 variety of ways to the laws and ordinances of the Mo- 
 saic dispensation. It was a statute " forever through- 
 out their generations," that they should not sacrifice 
 their children to devils, Levit. xvii. 7. Nor eat of the 
 fruits of the land, until they had brought a part of it 
 unto the Lord, Levit. xxiii. 14. It was an ordinance 
 forever throughout their generations, that the stranger 
 and the children of Israel were to be alike in offering 
 certain offerings to the Lord, Num. xv. 15 and xix. 10. 
 It was also a statute "forever unto their generations," 
 that Aaron and his sons should enjoy certain things, 
 and perform certain parts of service, Exod. xxvii. 21 ; 
 Levit. xxiv. 3 ; Exod. xxviii. 43 ; xxix. 28, and xxx. 
 21; Levit. vi. 18, 22; vii. 34, 36, and x. 9, 15; 
 Numb. X. 8, and xviii. 8, 11, 19, 23 ; 1 Chron. xv. 
 2, and xxiii. 13 ; 2 Chron. ii. 4 ; Exod. xii. 14 ; comp. 
 verses 17, 2i ; Levit. xxiii. 41 ; Comp. verses 33 — 
 41 ; Levit. xvi. 31 ; Comp. verse 29, and xxiii. 31. 
 The laws and ordinances enjoined in these texts, all 
 relate to the old dispensation, which has vanislied away. 
 But all must see, they were to be observed " forever," 
 and the fact shows that endless duration could not pos- 
 sibly be meant by this expression. The children of 
 Israel were a peculiar people, separated from all other 
 nations, and for certain im[)ortant purposes, which 
 would be aside from our present purpose to detail. — 
 Such laws and ordinances were to be observed by them 
 " forever," and this forever was as long as they existed 
 as a nation, and until the purposes of God were an- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 217 
 
 swered by them. Hence "in your generations," and 
 " throughout your generations," or some similar ex- 
 planatory expression is u'^ed. Both seem to express, 
 the coniinued practice of those laws and ordinances, 
 but not tlie endless duration of their observance. This 
 law was added because of transgression " till the seed 
 should come." In the hope of the promise of the Mes- 
 siah being fulfilled, the twelve tribes, instantly serving 
 God day and night, hoped to come. When Christ 
 had fulfilled all that was written of him, it was virtually 
 abolished, and Paul declared in his day, it had waxed 
 old and was ready to vanish away. The " forever" 
 was bounded by this period, and this was even a longer 
 forever than some others spoken of in Scripture. 
 
 In the following lexis, fo rev ej' seems to express a 
 long, indefinite period of time, but not endless duration. 
 In Exod. xix. 9, the reason given for God's speaking 
 to Moses in a cloud is, that the people might believe 
 him '- forever." But does forever mean any thing 
 more, than that Moses might be believed by all the 
 future generations of Israel. It is also said, Ezek. xliii. 
 7, that God is to dwell in the midst of Israel " forever." 
 But can this signify to endless duration ? Can it mean 
 any thing more than what is said so often by way of 
 explanation, " from generation to generation," or 
 throughout their generations? See also verse 9. Da- 
 vid says of God's commandments, that they were 
 '' ever with him," Psalm cxix. 98. But does this mean 
 any thing more than a continuance in them ? But 
 further, had Saul obeyed the Lord, Samuel told him 
 that the Lord would have estabhshed his kingdom upon 
 Israel " forever," I Sam. xiii. 13. But I ask every 
 candid man, did not Samuel mean that the kingdom 
 would have been hereditary in Saul's family, or as the 
 Scriptures say, he should not have wanted -' a man to 
 
218 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 sit on the throne ?" David, on whom Saul's kingdom 
 was bestowed, says, that God chose him before all the 
 house of his father " to be a kino- over Israel forever," 
 
 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. But did David mean, that he and 
 his seed should sit to endless duration on a throne in 
 Israel ? Is not the meaning simply this — that the 
 kingdom should be hereditary in his family so long as 
 Israel existed as a nation ? We think this is evident 
 from 2 Chron. xiii. 5, where it is said, "ought ye not 
 to know, that the Lord God of Israel gave the king- 
 dom over Israel to David forever, even to him and his 
 sons by a covenant of salt ?" Comp. 2 Chron. ix. 8. 
 Besides, notice what is said. Psalm Ixxxix. 4, in con- 
 firmation of this, and in explanation of the meaning of 
 the phrase " forever." It is said, " thy seed will I es- 
 tablish forever;" but it is added, "and build up thy 
 throne to all generations." All generations is surely 
 not endless duration ! Admitting that this ultimately 
 referred to the Messiah, who was to be of the seed of 
 David, yet it was understood of David's descendants. 
 This seems evident from similar things beinsf said of 
 Solomon. See 1 Chron. xvii. 23; 1 Kings ii. 45 ; 
 
 2 Sam. vii. 13, 16, 25; 1 Chron. xxii. 10, and xxviii. 
 7, which I need not transcribe. It is also evident from 
 the intrigues and attempts of David's sons and others 
 to usurp the throne. The same is said of the Messiah, 
 Isai. ix. 7, " of the increase of his government and 
 peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, 
 and upon his kingdom to order it and to establish it 
 with judgment and with justice from henceforth even 
 forever." But even when forever is applied to him, 
 we doubt if this expresses the endless duration of his 
 reign, but simply expresses that it shall never give place 
 to any other in this world. One or two of our reasons 
 for thinking so we shall only here state. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 219 
 
 1st. If " forever," and " no end," in this passage, 
 means endless duration, it must be allowed that this 
 world must also continue to endless duration. Is it 
 asked how I make this appear ? I answer, that it is 
 plainly said, that of the increase of his government 
 there shall be no end. But how is this to take place 
 if this world is to end ? The increase of his govern- 
 ment takes place in this world, nor does any one refer 
 its increase to a period after it ends. Either then this 
 world has no end, but thall continue to afford an in- 
 crease of subjects to Messiah's kingdom, or forever, and 
 no end, here do not mean endless duration. We 
 never heard of any increase of subjects to Christ's king- 
 dom but while this world continued. 
 
 2d, Christ's kingdom, or his reign, is represented 
 like the duration of the sun or the host of heaven. — 
 Psalm Ixxii. is allowed to refer to him. In verse 19, 
 it is said, and blessed be his glorious name. And in 
 verse 17 we find it said, his name shall endure forever. 
 If we ask, how long a time this forever is, we find it 
 answered thus — his name shall be continued as long as 
 the sun. Again : it is said, Psalm Ixxxix. 29, his seed 
 also will I make to endure forever. But it is added — 
 and his throne as the days of heaven. And in verses 
 36, 37, we find it said — his seed shall endure forever, 
 but it is again subjoined by way of explanation — And 
 his throne as the sun before me. It shall be establish- 
 ed forever as the moon. We think these texts limit 
 the meaning of forever to the duration of the sun and 
 moon, and the Messiah's reign also to this period. This 
 seems to be in agreement with what is said 1 Cor. xv. 
 24 — 29, that when Christ hath subdued all things, he 
 shall deliver up the kingdom to God the father, that he 
 may be all in all. This period is called the end and 
 succeeds the resurrection of the dead. 
 
220 AN INQUIRY — PART II. 
 
 I am aware that it may be objected — " if forever is 
 thus limited to the end of this world, will it not follow 
 that Christ's seed must end, for they are said to endure 
 forever, which according to this view is only as long as 
 the sun and moon endureth?" I answer, that this does 
 not follow, for Christ at this period is to deliver up the 
 kingdom to God the father and surely this kingdom in- 
 cludes the subjects or Christ's seed. If delivered up to 
 God, no one thinks that this is for the purpose of being 
 annihilated, or to suffer endless punishment. 
 
 But further, David prays, that his house might con- 
 tinue blessed before God " forever." 2 Sam, vii. 29 ; 
 1 Chron. xvii. 27. God promised to establish the 
 throne of Solomon forever, 1 Kings ix. 5. David de- 
 clares himself guiltless before the Lord forever from the 
 blood of x\bner, 2 Sam. iii. 28 ; Comp. 1 Kings ii. 23. 
 His kindness was not to be cut off from the house of 
 Jonathan forever, 1 Sam. xx. 15; Comp. verse 42. — 
 But could any thing more be meant by forever, than 
 so long as his house existed? Israel was to be unto 
 God a people forever, 2 Sam. vii. 24. See also 1 
 Chron. xvii. 22. Things revealed, belonged to them 
 and their children forever, Deut. xxix. 29. And if 
 they obeyed God, it should go well with them and their 
 children forever, Deut. xii. 28, and by so doing, they 
 would leave the land unto their children for an inher- 
 itance forever, Ezra ix. 12. And if ihey did not obey 
 the Lord, the curses in the law should be upon them 
 for a sign and for a wonder forever, Deut. xxviii. 46, 
 Again ; an Ammonite or Moabite was not to enter ^nto 
 the congregation of the Lord forever; and this is ex- 
 plained to be, to the tenth generation, Deut. xxiii. 3 ; 
 Nehem. xiii. 1. The stones set up at Jordan, were to 
 be a memorial unto the children of Israel forever, Josh. 
 Iv, 7. But did any man ever think that these stones 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 221 
 
 were to stand there to the endless ages of eternity ? If 
 we understand forever to mean, as often explained, 
 from generation to generation, or throughout the gene- 
 rations of Israel, no difficulty is perceived ; but to un- 
 derstand it of endless duration, is absurd. Again; the 
 Lord had said that the house of Eli should walk before 
 him forever, 1 Sam. ii. 30. But his conduct and that 
 of his sons was such, that God says, 1 Sam. iii. 13, 14, 
 " I will judge his house forever." And that " the 
 iniquity of his house shall not be purged with sacrifice 
 nor burnt offerings forever." Some may think that 
 their sins were unpardonable. No ; what seems sim- 
 ply meant, is, that no sacrifice or burnt offering could 
 avail, so as to preserve the priesthood in Eli's family. 
 Again ; Israel is commanded to hope in the Lord for- 
 ever. Psalm cxxxi. 3. And in cxxv. 2, the Lord is 
 said to be round about them forever ; and xxviii. 9. — 
 David prays that God would lift up his people forever. 
 And in 1 Chron. xxix. 18, that he would keep what 
 is right in their hearts forever. And Psalm xii. 7, that 
 he would preserve them from this generation forever. 
 And xxxvii. 18 says, that the inheritance of the right- 
 eous shall be forever. And verse 28, that they are 
 preserved forever. And xli. 12, that God set him be- 
 fore' his face forever. And Ixxiii. 26, that God was 
 his portion forever. And it is said, Isai. xxxii. 17, 
 that the effect of righteousness was to be '' quietness 
 and assurance forever." In Psalm xxx. 12, David 
 says, " I- will give thanks unto thee forever." And in 
 xliv. 8, that he would "praise God's name forever." 
 See also Iii. 9. In Ixxix. 13, he says, " we will 
 give thee thanks forever," but adds, as an explanation, 
 " we will show forth thy praise to all generations." — 
 And Ixxv, 9, he says, " I will declare forever," and 
 explains himself thus—"" 1 will sing praises to the God 
 15 
 
2*22 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 of Jacob." But further, in Psalm cxii. 6, David says, 
 a good man " shall not be moved forever." In cxix. 
 Ill, that be bad taken God's testimonies " as an heri- 
 tage forever." And verse 152, ''that God had found- 
 ed them forever." In Psalm v. 11, he says, "let them 
 that put their trust in the Lord ever shout for joy." — 
 Psalm Ixi. 4, David says, "I will abide in thy taber- 
 nacle forever." Ahd God says, Hosea ii. 19, " I will 
 betroth thee unto me forever." Psalm xlv. 2, and 
 probably speaking of the Messiah, it is said, " God hath 
 blessed thee forever." And in Isai, lix. 21, it is de- 
 clared, that God's word was not to depart from him 
 nor his seed " forever." And Psalm Ixi. 7, that he 
 shall abide before God "forever." But comparing 
 verse 6 forever is explained thus — '" thou wilt ])rolong 
 the king's life ; and his years as many generations." 
 In the ujargin it is " as generation and generation." — 
 Comp. Psalm Ixxxix. 36, 37, and 1 Chron. xvii. 14, 
 In 1 Kings x. 9, it is said, God " loved Israel forever." 
 And in Deut. v. 29, that by "obeying him it would 
 be well with them and their children forever." But 
 again, speaking of God's temporal judgments, it is said, 
 Joel ii. 2, to be a day " there hath not been ever the 
 like." And of the dead it is said, Eccles. ix. 6, that 
 they have no more a portion " forever" in any thing 
 done under the sun. Speaking of the descendants of 
 Esau, it is said, Obad. 10, that they shall be cut off 
 forever. Jonah says, ii. 6, that the bars of the earth 
 were about him /oret'tr. In Zach. i, 5, the question 
 is asked concerning the prophets. Do they \\vq forever 1 
 If forever is asserted to mean endless duration, it is 
 li;ere strongly implied that the prophets do not live for- 
 ever. But the question here simply means, do the 
 prophets live to all generations. It is said of some, 
 Psalm Ixxxi. 15, that " their time should have endured 
 
AN 1NQ,UIR1' PART II. 223 
 
 forever." And Solomon, Eccles. ii. 16, says-— '' There 
 is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool 
 forever." And David says, Psalm xlix. 8, " the redemp-* 
 tion of the soul, or the natural life from death, it 
 ceaseth forever." And in Prov. xxvii. 24, it is said of 
 riches — " they are not forever ;" but the common ex- 
 planation is added—" And doth the crown endure to 
 every generation, '^ 
 
 But I find olim rendered forever, applied to God in 
 a variety of ways. These texts demand the closest 
 attention, for it is in consequence of this, that it is con- 
 sidered as expressing endless duration. Can it mean 
 any thing less than this, say some, seeing it is applied 
 to him who had no beginning, and who shall have no 
 end ? This may be true, but it ought not to be ad- 
 mitted without sufficient evidence, seeing this same 
 word is applied to so many things which all allow are 
 not of endless duration, We shall therefore give this 
 part of the subject all the care and attention we can 
 command. Olim, then, is rendered forever and ap^ 
 plied 
 
 To the existence of God. Thus in Deut. xxxii. 40, 
 God says, ^' I live forever." And in Psalm ix. 7, 
 '' The Lord shall endure forever." And cH. 12, " thou, 
 O Lord, shalt endure forever," but observe, it is added, 
 by way of explanation, '^ and thy remembrance unto 
 all generations." In Lam. v. 19, it is said, •' thou, O 
 Lord, remainest forever ;" but the common explanation 
 is again given, for it is added, '^ and thy throne from 
 generation to generation.'' And it is said, Eccles. iii. 
 14, That ^' whatsoever God doeth it shall be forever." 
 It is also applied to his name or character in generaL 
 Thus it is said, Exod. iii. 15, ^' This is my name for-? 
 ever," and explained thus, '^ and this is my memorial 
 wnlQ ^n ge.neriition§,'- His character; naipe or glor^; 
 
224 AN INQUIRY PART II, 
 
 are the same. Hence it is said, Psalm civ. 31, 'Mhe 
 glory of the Lord shall endure forever." And Mic. ii. 
 
 9, God complains that his glory was taken away from 
 some "forever." In 2 Sam. vii. 26, it is said, "let 
 thy name be magnified forever:" and is repeated 1 
 Chron. xvii. 24. In Psalm cxxxv. 13, it is said, " thy 
 name, O Lord, endureth forever;" but observe it is 
 added again as an explanation, "and thy memorial, O 
 Lord, throughout all generations." In the margin " to 
 generation and generation." In all the following pas- 
 sages, which I need not transcribe, God is spoken of 
 as putting his name in his house " forever." 1 Kings 
 ix, 3 ; 2 Chron. vii. 16 ; 2 Kings xxi. 7 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxxiii. 4, 7. But to proceed, we find /orci-er applied 
 to his truth. Thus it is said. Psalm cxvii. 2, " The 
 truth of the Lord endureth forever." And in Psalm 
 cxlvi. 6, " that he keepeth truth forever." An in Isai. 
 xl. 8, " the word of God shall stand forever." It is 
 also applied to his faithjulness. Accordingly, it is 
 said, Psalm cv. 8, " He hath remembered his covenant 
 forever." What follows by way of explanation de- 
 serves particular notice ; " The word which he com- 
 manded to a thousand crenerations." A thousand 
 
 o 
 
 generations is a long period of time, but it is not eter- 
 nity. Again, it is said, Psalm cxi. 9, ' He hath com- 
 manded his covenant forever." And verse 5, " He 
 will ever be mindful of his covenant." It is also ap- 
 plied to his reign and power. Thus it is said. Psalm 
 Ixvi. 7, " He ruleth by his power forever." And xxix. 
 
 10, " The Lord sitteih king forever." In Mic. iv. 7, 
 it is said of Israel, " The Lord shall reign over them 
 in Mount Zion from hencelorth even forever." And 
 Psalm cxlvi. 10, "The Lord shall reign forever, even 
 thy God, O Zion." But here again the common ex- 
 planation is given, " unto all generations." Also to his 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 225 
 
 wisdom or counsel. In Psalm xxxiii. 11, "The counsel 
 of the Lord standeth forever." But it is said, by way 
 of explanation, 'Hhe thought of his heart to all gene- 
 rations." And io his righteousness or salvation. Thus 
 it is said, Isai, li. 6, "my salvation shall be forever, 
 and my righteousness shall not be abolished." Now 
 compare with this, verse 8, " my righteousness shall 
 be forever, and my salvation from generation to gene- 
 ration ;'' does not " from generation to generation" 
 here express precisely what is meant by "forever?" 
 
 But I find the word olirn rendered ^' forever'^ and 
 applied io God's mercy. The expression, for his 
 mercy endureth forever, is found once in each of the 
 following texts : 2 Cliron. v. 13 ; xx, 21 ; Ezra iii. 11 ; 
 Psalm cvi. 1 ; cvii. 1; cxxxviii, 8; Jer. xxxiii. 11. 
 In each of the following places it occurs twice. 2 
 Chron. vii. 3, 6 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 34, 41. In Psalm 
 cxviii. 1 — 4, 29, it is found five times. And in Psalm 
 cxxxvi. it occurs no less than twenty-six times. The 
 expression " for his mercy endureth forever," is found 
 then forty-two times in the Old Testament. The rea- 
 son for being so particular in thus numbering the places 
 will appear presently. Although the following texts 
 do not contain this precise expression, yet it is evident 
 they have an affinity to the present topic. I shall 
 therefore introduce them here, before I proceed to make 
 any remarks on the above expression. David says, 
 Psalm Ixxxix. 1, " I will sing of the mercies of the 
 Lord forever," and explains it by adding, " with my 
 mouth will I make known thy faithfulness to all gene- 
 rations." And well he might, for he says, verse 2, 
 " Mercy shall be built up forever." And again ex- 
 plains his meaning by saying, " thy faithfulness shalt 
 thou estabhsh in the very heavens." Observe, that in 
 the first of these verses forever is explained in the mar- 
 
226 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 gin " to generation and generation." In the second 
 by his faithfulness being established in the very heavens 
 seems to be meant, that it should endure as the heavens 
 or throughout all generations. Besides, David says, 
 Psalm c% 5, '' For the Lord is good : his mercy is ever- 
 lasting," and adds, by way of explanation, "and his 
 truth endureth to all generations." He adds, Psalm 
 ciii. 17, " But the mercy of the Lord is from everlast- 
 ing to everlasting upon them that fear him," and it is 
 again added, "and his righteousness unto children's 
 children." 
 
 On all these texts where It is said, "for his mercy 
 endureth forever," with others of a similar nature, I 
 shall now make a few observations. 1st. It is very 
 evident, that the mercy of God formed the burden of 
 song to the Jews in their worship. The God of the 
 Jews was a merciful God, slow to anger, and of great 
 kindness. 2d. Tf it be true, as our orthodox friends 
 assert, that God is as much glorified in the display of 
 his endless wrath against the wicked, as in the display 
 of his endless mercy towards the righteous, how do 
 they account for it, that the phrase " for his wrath en- 
 dureth forever" does not occur forty-two times as well 
 as the phrase '' for his mercy endureth forever?" Why 
 have we not a Psalm, in which it is twenty-six limes 
 said, " O give thank«i unto the Lord for he is good, for 
 his wrath endureth forever." Nor do we see what ob- 
 jection they could have to singing it, if God is as much 
 glorified by the one as by the other. But supposing 
 such a Psalm found in the Bible, and that they should 
 sing both, would they not celebrate the endless mercy 
 and wrath of the same God towards his own creatures ? 
 But I ask, how all this could be reconciled with God.s 
 declarations, that mercy rejoiceth against judgment, 
 and that his tender mercies are over his other works* 
 
AN lNq,UIRY PART II. 227 
 
 But 3d. we would candidly ask our orthodox brethren, 
 how they account for the extraordinary fact, that it is 
 not once said that " the wrath of the Lord endureth 
 forever!" so far from this being once asserted, it is re- 
 peatedly and expressly denied that God's v/rath en- 
 dureth lorever. Thus it is said, Psalm ciii. 9, " He 
 will not always chide ; neither will he keep his anger 
 forever." Again, Isai. Ivii. 16, " For I will not con- 
 tend forever, neither will I be always wroth : for the 
 spirit should fail before me and the souls which I have 
 madv." No, say our orthodox friends, they shall not 
 fail, but shall endure the endless wrath of God, But 
 it is again said, Jer. iii. 5, " Will he reserve his anger 
 forever ? Will he keep it to the end ? Here it is sup- 
 posed that forever is to end, and hence it is said, verse 
 12, " for F. am merciful saith the Lord, and I will not 
 keep anger forever. And in Lam. iii. 31, it is ex- 
 pressly said, "the Lord will not cast off forever." — 
 Further, David says. Psalm Ixxxv. 5, " Wilt thou be 
 angry with us forever ?" but he adds, by way of expla- 
 nation, " wilt thou draw out thine anger to all genera- 
 tions ?" And Psalm Ixxvii. 8, says, " is his mercy 
 clean gone forever ? Doth his promise fail for ever- 
 more ?" Notice here, that as forever and for evermore 
 are expressions which convey to an English reader the 
 same idea, so did the original word olim to the sacred 
 writers. This appears also from other passages. It is 
 beyond debate, that it is never once said, that the an- 
 ger, or wrath of God endureth forever. We solemnly 
 call on any man to produce a single instance where 
 this is said. By what authority then do men in our 
 day preach that God's wrath is to endure forever? Is 
 it like men who reverence the sacred oracles, to speak 
 of the everlasting anger and eternal wrath of God, yet 
 can produce no example from them of such modes of 
 
228 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 speaking? Yea, I ask every candid man if it is pos- 
 sible to select words, which could more clearly and 
 emphatically deny that God's wrath endureth forever, 
 than is done in the above passages ? Granting then, 
 for argument's sake, that olim rendered forever, ex- 
 presses endless duration, and that God's wrath or an- 
 ger means punishment, no language could more defi- 
 nitely declare, that punishment is not of endless dura- 
 tion. Were I contending for a victory over the be- 
 lievers in endless punishment, it would be good policy 
 in me to allow, that olim, rendered forever, expresses 
 this, and the above texts would be direct positiv^e proof, 
 that it is not of endless duration. Our orthodox friends 
 in contending for this must perceive, that their doctrine 
 of endless punishment is overturned from its base by 
 the above passages. But I disclaim any contention 
 for victory. My object is to examine what is truth, 
 and embrace it whatever it may be, for this only can 
 stand, or be of any real benefit to the human race. 4th J 
 But granting, for the sake of argument, that God's 
 wrath was as much celebrated in the Bible as his mer- 
 cy, and that the endless duration of it was as often as- 
 serted, permit me to ask, what worse could be sung of 
 an Eastern despot, or of the devil, allowing such a fallen 
 angel to exist ? We seriously urge our brethren, who 
 believe such a doctrine, to consider if such a God can 
 appear to any person very lovely, or is likely to be 
 loved. None can love him, but those who can per- 
 suade themselves that they are his particular favorites. 
 Even this may be doubted, for a being of this charac- 
 ter may turn their enemy to-morrow, and display his 
 endless wrath upon them. All the apparent love and 
 obedience which they pretend to pay him, it is to be 
 feared, arises more from terror of, than love to him ; 
 and if a song of endless mercy and endless wrath are 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 229 
 
 both alike orthodox, orthodoxy must be a very singu- 
 lar kind of thing. 
 
 To get rid of these and other serious difficulties 
 which mi^ht be urged, it may be said, " in all the above 
 texts where it is denied that God's wrath end ureth for- 
 ever, the writers are not speaking of God's wrath in a 
 future state of existence, but only in the present life." 
 Well, how does this relieve the difficulties, unless it is 
 proved from some other texts, that God says his wrath 
 shall endure forever in a future state of existence ? But 
 can this be proved ? No : this very attempt to escape 
 from the difficulties, only shows the impossibility of 
 making any escape, for if the above texts wholly refer 
 to the present life, how happens it that they are the 
 only texts wheve forever and the wrath of God are as- 
 sociated, and in them it is expressly denied that his 
 wrath does endure forever? If denied in them,, and 
 found in no other, it settles the question, that God's 
 wrath does not endure throughout all generations, far 
 less in an eternal state of existence. But is it not 
 rather silly to make the inspired writers say, that God's 
 wrath does not endure forever in the present life, yet 
 contend for this in a future state without any Scripture 
 authority? Who needed to be told that God's punish- 
 ment of men in this world was not of endless duration ? 
 
 5th. We come now to those texts in which olim is 
 repeated, and is rendered " forever and ever." I find 
 then, that /orever and ever is used and applied to the 
 following things, in the following ways. David says. 
 Psalm cxix. 44, I shall keep thy law continually, for- 
 ever and ever. And in Mic. iv. 5, We will walk in 
 the name of the Lord our God forever and ever. And 
 Dan.xii. 3, They that turn many to righteousness shall 
 shine as the stars forever and ever. And David says 
 of God's judgments, that — "they stand fast forever 
 
230 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 and ever." Psalm cxi. 8. What is meant by this for- 
 ever and ever, and whether it was intended to express 
 endless duration may be learned from tlie following 
 texts. In Jer, vii. 7, if Israel amended their ways, then 
 said God, " will I cause you to dwell in this place in 
 the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever." 
 It is very evident, that if forever and ever expresses 
 endless duration of time, on the above consideration 
 Israel were to dwell in Judea time without end. But 
 wdio ever entertained such an idea ? Is not the mean- 
 ing evidently from generation to generation, or through- 
 out all generations, while they continued a nation ? — 
 Again it is said, Isai. xxx. 8, " Now go write it in a 
 book, that it may be for the time to come, forever and 
 ever." The forever and ever here, is called the time 
 to come, which time appears to be not endless duration, 
 but simply the future generations of Israel. See the 
 context. If time to come be a proper explanation of 
 forever, it cannot refer to eternity unless we think 
 eternity time. But is not time ahvays distinguished 
 from eternity ? What is meant by forever and ever, 
 seems plainly stated in Psalm cxlviii. 5, .6, speaking 
 of the host of heaven, it is said, " he commanded, and 
 they were created. He hath also estabhshed them 
 forever and ever.'' But is the host of heaven, or the 
 sun, moon, and stars, to continue to endless duration ? 
 This must be maintained, or we must give up the idea 
 that forever and ever expresses a proper eternity. We 
 have seen above, that forever is applied to the host of 
 heaven, and from the very nature of the case, forever 
 and ever here cannot express a longer period of time. 
 Both seem to be limited by the duration of this world. 
 Again, God speaking, Isai. xxxiv. 10. of his temporal 
 judgments on all nations, particularly on Idumea, says, 
 in highly figurative language, " the land thereof shall 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 231 
 
 become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night 
 nor day ; the smoke thereof shall go up forever ; from 
 generation to generation it shall lie waste ; none shall 
 pass through it forever and ever." Compare verse 17. 
 Let it be noticed on this text, that forever, and forever 
 and ever, mean the same duration of time, and both 
 these are explained by the phrase "from generation to 
 generation." 
 
 But I find olim repeated, and rendered forever and 
 ever, and applied to God, in the following places : — 
 In ascriptions of praise to him. Thus it is said, 
 " Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel, our father, for- 
 ever and ever." 1 Chron. xxix. 10. The same for 
 substance is repeated in chap. xvi. 36, and Neh.ix. 5. 
 And in Psalm cxlv. 1, it is said, "I will bless thy 
 name forever and ever ;" and verse 2, " I will praise 
 thy name for ever and ever ;" and verse 21, " Let all 
 flesh bless his holy name forever and ever." It is also 
 applied to the existence of God. Thus in Dan. xiijj 
 7, the man clothed in linen " sware by him that liveth 
 forever and ever." And David says. Psalm xlviii. 14, 
 " For this God is our God forever and ever." Also 
 to GorTs reign. Accordingly it is said, Exod.xv. 18, 
 "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever." And in 
 Psalm x. 16, it is said, " The Lord is king forever and 
 ever." And in Psalm xlv. 6, " Thy throne, O God, 
 is forever and ever." Also to the mercy oj God. — 
 Thus it is said. Psalm lii. 8, " I trust in the mercy of 
 God forever and ever." It seems also to be applied 
 to the Messiah : " He asked life of thee and thou 
 gavest it him, even length of days forever and ever," 
 Psalm xxi. 4. And xlv. 17, "I will make thy name 
 to be remembered in all generations : therefore shall 
 the people praise thee forever and ever." Now suf- 
 fer me to ask here — Does not the phrase, all genera- 
 
^32 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 tions, in the first part of this verse, explain, or express 
 the very same thing as forever and ever, in the last 
 part, and is it not in unison with the common ex- 
 planation so often given above, where olim is rendered 
 forever ? 
 
 In looking back on all the texts introduced in these 
 two Sections, let the reader notice the following things. 
 All the texts in the first show that the word olirti ex- 
 presses limited duration, and was so understood by our 
 translators, for they render it by English words which 
 do not convey the idea of endless duration. Again, 
 the greater part of the passages in both Sections show, 
 that the word olim, in whatever way rendered, was ap- 
 plied by the sacred writers to things of temporary du- 
 ration. This, we think, is indisputable. Again, it 
 has been seen that olim, whether applied to tempora- 
 ry things or to God, is explained by the inspired wri- 
 ters to mean throughout all generations, or by some 
 similar expression. Why give such explanations at 
 all, if the word means endless duration? And why 
 were they given, when God is spoken of, as well as 
 when it expresses the duration of any thing else, 
 if it expresses his endless duration ? But again : 
 in none of the above passages is the word olim used 
 to express the duration of punishment to the wicked. 
 All the texts where it is supposed to be used to ex- 
 press this, will be considered in the next Section. — 
 The long detail of texts in the two preceding Sections, 
 perhaps, may appear dry and uninteresting to some 
 readers ; but it was absolutely necessary to pursue this 
 course to come at a full and fair understanding of the 
 Scriptural meanintr and oeneral usao-e of the \vord 
 ohm, so variously rendered in the common version. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 233 
 
 SECTION in. 
 
 ALL THE TEXTS V^HERE OLIM OCCURS, AND IS RENDER- 
 ED BY WORDS WHICH CONVEY THE IDEA OF ENDLESS 
 DURATION, AND APPLIED TO PUNISHMENT, PARTICU- 
 LARLY CONSIDERED. 
 
 In the preceding Section, we have seen the term 
 oUjii, rendered perpetual, everlasting, and forever, and 
 used to express the duration of the punishment of cer- 
 tain ylaces, Isai. xxxiv. 9 — IT, and Jer. xlix. 13. — 
 We are new to bring into view the texts where it is 
 used to express the punishment of persons, in what- 
 ever way it is rendered in the common verson. Jer. 
 xxiii. 39, 40, is the first we shall notice. "There- 
 fore 1, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will for- 
 sake you, and the city that 1 gave you and your 
 fathers, and cast you out of my presence : and I will 
 bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a per- 
 petual shame, which shall not be forgotten." Comp. 
 Jer. XX. 11. It has been shown, in the Inquiry into 
 the words, Sheol, Hades, &c., that this passage re- 
 fers to the punishment of the Jewish nation, and de- 
 serves no further notice here. See on 2 Thess. chap, 
 i., below, and on Matt, chaps, xxiv., xxv. Indeed, few 
 will question this. 
 
 Jer. xvii. 4. " For ye have kindled a fire in mine 
 anger, which shall burn forever." It is so evident, 
 from verses I — 4, the prophet is speaking of the sin 
 and punishment of Judah, and this punishment was 
 
234 AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 
 
 of a temporal nature, that it would be a waste of time 
 to offer any remarks on this passage. 
 
 Isai. xxxiii. 14. "The sinners in Zion are afraid; 
 fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites : w ho among 
 us shall dwell with devouring fire? Who among us 
 shall dwell with everlasting burnings ?" Having con- 
 sidered this passage in my Inquiry into the words 
 Sheol, Hades, he, to it 1 refer the reader for an illus- 
 tration. 
 
 Psalm ix. 5. " Thou hast reT^uked the heathen, 
 thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out 
 their name forevei*and ever." It would be useless to 
 spend time in showing, that this text has no reference 
 to punishment in a future state. No sensible orthodox 
 man would urge it, and no man who consults the con- 
 text, can help seeing that it has no reference to such a 
 a subject. 
 
 Mai. i. 4. " Whereas Edom saith, we are impov- 
 erished, but we will return and build the desolate 
 places ; thus saith the Lord of hosts, they shall build, 
 but I will throw down ; and they shall call them the 
 border of wickedness, and the people against whom 
 the Lord hath indignation forever." The prophet is 
 here speaking of Edom, and it is plain from the con- 
 text, that the indignation mentioned, is not in a future 
 state, but God's temporal vengeance on that people. 
 The meaning of the passage evidently is, '• the peo- 
 ple against whom the Lord hath indignation from gene- 
 ration to generation," as explained frequently in j)re^ 
 ceding Sections. 
 
 Dan. xii. 2. " And many of them that sleep in the 
 dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, 
 and some to shame aijd everlasting contempt." The 
 principal question to be considered from this passage 
 is— Did Daniel here speak of the everlasting punish- 
 
AN INQUIRY^PART II. 235 
 
 ment of ibe wicked ? If he did, be delivered it in 
 
 plainer language than any other sacred writer, and in 
 
 a book which contains predictions clothed in highly 
 
 figurative lanouao^e. Our orthodox friends do not de- 
 cs or* 
 
 pend much on the Old Testament for proof of the 
 doctrine of endless misery, and as this is the strongest, 
 yea, I may say the only text which they generally 
 quote from it in proof, we shall give it a particular 
 consideration. 
 
 The passage then says — " x\nd at that time." At 
 what time ? The time evidently, of which Daniel had 
 been speaking, chap. xi. This will not be disputed, 
 for it is plain that the first four verses of chap, xii, 
 connect with the matters stated in the 11th chapter. 
 The things mentioned are said to take place at the pe- 
 riod called thai time, chap. xii. 1, wbatever time this 
 may be. This time, is easily ascertained, from con- 
 sidering of what people Daniel was speaking. It is 
 plain he referred to the Jews, for in verse 1, they are 
 twice called "thy people,'' or Daniel's people, who 
 certainly were Jews. Let us then see how the events 
 mentioned agree to Daniel's people. It is said, " and 
 at that time," which time is called, chap. xii. 40, " the 
 time of the end." But this provokes the question— r- 
 What end ? I answer, the end of the Jewish age or 
 dispensation. Is it asked, what proof have we of this ? 
 I answer, in chap. xl. verse 31, •' the abomination that 
 makeih desolate'' is expressly mentioned, w^iich passage 
 our Lord quotes, Matth, xxiv. 15, and applies it to the 
 Romans, by whom the Jewish temple and city were 
 destroyed at the end of the age. See the whole of 
 chap, xi, for other circumstances which corroborate 
 this. It will be shown afterwards, that the period 
 called '• the end," chap, xi, and " that time," chap. xii. 
 I; exactly agree to the end of the Jewish dispensation, 
 
236 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 which is repeatedly called " the end of the world," or 
 age, in the New Testament. It is then said, at that 
 time " shall Michael stand up, the great prince which 
 standeth for the children of thy peopled It is diffi- 
 cult to say with certainty, who w?ts referred to by 
 Michael, nor is this necessary to be determined in the 
 present discussion. The most probable opinion we have 
 seen Is, that Michael, the great prince, refers to Mes- 
 siah, called the prince of the Jews in other parts of 
 the book of Daniel, and the prince of life, and prince 
 of the kings of the earth, in other parts of Scripture. 
 It is supposed by Pierce and others, that certain an- 
 gels presided over different parts of the world before 
 the coming of Christ, but all of them now are put in 
 subjection to him. During the period which pre- 
 ceded his coming, it is supposed he was the person 
 who presided over the Jewish nation. But it would 
 be aside from ,my present object to enter further into 
 this question. 
 
 The passage proceeds to say — '' And there shall be 
 a time of trouble, such as never was since there was 
 a nation even to that same time." Our Lord refers 
 to these very words, Matt. xxiv. 21, and applies them 
 to the great tribulations which came on the Jews in 
 the destruction of their city and temple at the end of 
 the age, " For then shall be great tribulation, such 
 as was not since the beginning of the world to this 
 time, no nor ever shall be. And except those days 
 should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved." 
 Who can doubt, after reading this, that Daniel referred 
 to the end of the age, and the tribulations which came 
 on the Jewish nation ? He could refer to no other, 
 unless it can be proved, that there have been two dif- 
 ferent times of such calamity, that the like had never 
 been since there was a nation, or from the beginning 
 
AN IN^Umr PART II. 237 
 
 of the world. We think this conclusively shows to 
 what period, to what people, and to what calamities 
 the prophet referred. 
 
 It is further said — -''And at that time thy people 
 shall be delivered, every one that shall be found writ- 
 ten in the book." It is not said, all Daniels people 
 shall be delivered " at that time,'' but only such as 
 were found " ivritten in the booJcJ^ What is meant 
 by being blotted out of a book, or not found written 
 in it, we may learn from Exodus, xxxii. 32, 33, and 
 compare Rev. xx. 15, On the contrary, wdiat is 
 meant by beinoj found written in a book, may be learn- 
 ed from Phil. iv. 3, and Rev. xiii. 8. Compare Isai. 
 iv. 3, and Luke x. 20. I shall only quote the fol- 
 lowing passages, which are a sufficient illustration of 
 this phraseology, ••' Let them be blotted out of the 
 book of the living, and not be written with the righte- 
 ous," Psalm Ixix. 28. By consulting this Psalm any 
 one mav see David referred to the unbelievins; Jews, 
 who were the murderers of our Lord, for it is quoted 
 in tlie New Testament and applied to them. It is im- 
 plied, that the righteous are written in a book, and it 
 is evident, also, that to be blotted out " of the book 
 of the living," or ''not to be written with the righte- 
 ous," are synonymous expressions. Who, then, were 
 the righteous, written in the book, distinguished from 
 the unbelievino; Jews not written with the righteous ? 
 What persons could they be but our Lord's disciples? 
 This, in the first place, agrees to the fact, for they 
 were all delivered from the calamities which came on 
 the Jewish nation at the end of the age. They left 
 the city according to our Lord's directions. Matt, 
 xxiv., and went to a city called Pell a, as shown by 
 Macknight on that chapter. Second, It is in agree 
 ment with the prediction of Malachi, and the language 
 16 
 
238 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 he uses in reference both to Christ's disciples and also, 
 the unbeHeving Jews. Concerning the former. " a 
 book of remembrance was written," chap. iii. 16, and 
 they were spared as a man spareth his only son which 
 serv^eth him. Concerning the latter, they were to be 
 as stubble. See the description given of them at 
 length in Malachi, chaps, iii, iv. The peculiar 
 phraseology about being written in a book, is in allu- 
 sion to the ancient practice of niaking record at 
 courts, of any good service any one had done, as may 
 be 3een by consulting Esther vj. 1, 2, and ii. 23. — 
 This part of the passage, then, perfectly agrees with 
 Scripture, and with the facts of the case. 
 
 Let us now attend to verse 2. " And many of 
 ihem that sleep in the dust of the earth sliall awake, 
 some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
 lasting contempt." That no literal resurrection of the 
 dead look place at the destruction of Jerusalem needs 
 no proof, and it has been shown that Daniel refers to 
 this period. What then is the prophet's meaning? — 
 The phrase "everlasting life" occurs no where else in 
 the Old Testament. It is a phrase familiar to the 
 New Testament writers, and if borrowed from the 
 Old, must have been taken from this place in Daniel. 
 It could not refer to the liappiness of heaven, as peo- 
 ple generally suppose, but to that life of happiness en- 
 joyed by the disciples of our Lord, who were found 
 written in the book, as the time and events mentioned 
 verse I, show. Besides, it is set in contrast to the 
 shame and everlasting contempt suffered by those not 
 found written in the book, and which came on the 
 Jews in the destruction of their city and temple, and 
 which they are still as a nation enduring. It is obvi- 
 ous, that in Scripture style, life is used to express glo- 
 X^i honor, and happiness, as could easily be shownt-'-«i 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 239 
 
 At the period referred to, verse 1, many awoke to the 
 honor and happiness of our Lord's kingdom, or reign, 
 which consists in righteousness, and peace, and joy in 
 the holy spirit. So did many to the shame and con^ 
 tempt which came on the unbeHeving part of the Jew^ 
 ish nation. The term everlasting is applied to both, 
 and can occasion no difficulty to any one, who has at- 
 tended to the Old Testament usage of this word, as 
 shown in the preceding Sections. It is objected, — r 
 " How could any believer enjoy everlasting -life, or any 
 one endure shame and everlastino; contempt, if these 
 are confined to this world ? Must not both be carried 
 into another world to be ev^erlasiing ?" We answer 
 this by asking, — Must not the children of Israel and 
 the land of Canaan, then, be carried into a future 
 state, that they may enjoy this land for " an everlast- 
 ing possession ?" And must not the servant whose 
 ear was pierced, go into another world if he would 
 serve his master forever? And must not Aaron and 
 his sons, with the whole Levitical service, go into an^ 
 other world, that they may enjoy the priesthood 
 forever? In fact, instances without number may 
 be adduced, to show the absurdity of such an objec- 
 tion, and of such a mode of reasoning on the word 
 everlastintr. 
 
 It is agreeable to fact, that on the day of Pentecost 
 three thousand Jews awoke to the everlasting life im- 
 parted by the gospel, by believing in Jesus. Such 
 also was the case with multitudes, as the history- of 
 the acts of the Apostles shows. Though the spirit of 
 slumber had seized the Jewish nation, though they had 
 eyes, and saw not, and ears, but heard not, yet the 
 apostle declares that there was a remnant according 
 to the election of grace. See Rom. xi. This part 
 ^WQk§ io everlasting life, or entered into the eyerla,?,^^ 
 
240 AN INQUIRY PART 11. 
 
 ing kingdom of Christ, and had peace and joy in be- 
 lieving. They heard the voice of the Son of God and 
 lived. Compare Eph. v. 14. The rest slept on till 
 the wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost. 
 They awoke, but it was to shame and everlasting con- 
 tempt, in being dispersed among all nations, and have 
 become a by-word and an hissing even unto this day. 
 Jeremiah, in chap, xxiii. 39, 40, predicted this very 
 punishment, and calls it an everlasting reproach, and 
 a perpetual shame. That the life or happiness enjoyed 
 by believers in the kingdom of Jesus Christ is called 
 everlasting life m the New Testament, we shall after- 
 wards sliow. 
 
 After what has been said, we shall only glance at 
 verses 3, 4. " And they that be wise shall shine as 
 the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn 
 many to righteousness, as the stars forever and ever." 
 It is a sufficient illustration of this verse to quote our 
 Lord's words. Matt. xiii. 43. " Then shall the righte- 
 ous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their 
 father." See, on this whole context. Section vi., be- 
 low. Compare Matt. xxiv. 13, and Luke xxi. ^S. — 
 And is not Dan. xi. 31 — 36, descriptive of this very 
 time and events, of the Jews generally, and of our 
 Lord's disciples when God's judgments came on that 
 guilty nation ? In the margin of the verse we are con- 
 sidering, it is rendered, " and they that be teachers 
 shall shine as the brightness of the firmament." How 
 applicable this was to the apostles and first teachers of 
 Christianity, needs no comment, for the teachers of 
 the seven churches of Asia are called stars, Rev. i. 
 20. And who doubts that the apostles and first teach- 
 ers, shall shine in giving light forever and ever, or as 
 we have seen this phrase explained, " throughout all 
 generations ?" 
 
 1 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART 11. ^41 
 
 Let us now glance at verse 4, and dismiss this pas- 
 sage. " But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and 
 seal the book even to the time of the end : many shall 
 run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased." — 
 No man, we think, can doubt, that the time of the 
 end, to which Daniel was to shut up the words and 
 seal the book, was the end of the Jewish age or dis- 
 pensation. The preceding verses show that to this 
 time he did refer, and it is frequently called the end, 
 in the New Testament. See 1 Cor. x. 11 ; Heb. ix. 
 26, and other passages. See particularly Matt. xxiv. 
 3, where the disciples ask our Lord — " What shall be 
 the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world or 
 age." But notice what is said verse 14, to show that 
 many should run to and fro and knowledge should be 
 increased before this end came. '• And this gospel of 
 the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a 
 witness unto all nations ; and then shall the end come." 
 Before the end came, or the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 the sound of the apostles' doctrine had gone out into 
 all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. 
 These things, and many others which 1 must omit, 
 show, that Daniel here, and our Lord, Matth. xxiv., 
 speak of the same people, the same time, and the same 
 events. The whole of this passage is illustrated by 
 our Lord's words, John v. 28, 29, an explanation of 
 which we have given in the Unlversalist Magazine, 
 vol. vii. pp. 103 — 7. To it we refer our readers, as 
 our limits forbid its insertion. 
 
 Such are all the places in the Old Testament where 
 olim is used, in whatever way rendered in the common 
 version, and applied by the sacred writers. Reserving 
 my principal remarks on the use of this word to the 
 last Section, I would only observe here. 
 
 1st. That thoudi this word is often used in the Old 
 
242 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 Testament, as my readers have seen, and expresses 
 duration in a variety of ways, yea, is used to express 
 the duration of punishment in a k\v instances, yet it is 
 not once used to designate any punishment beyond 
 this mortal existence, AH the passages where it is 
 applied to punishment have been distinctly noticed, 
 and Dan. xii. 1 — 4, has been particularly considered, 
 which is the only text in the Old Testament on which 
 the doctrine of eternal punishment could possibly be 
 built. Our orthodox friends maybe ashamed for hav- 
 ing made such a mighty noise about their doctrine of 
 eternal misery, and ought to make a public apology to 
 the world for their conduct. The better informed 
 among them have conceded that this doctrine is not 
 taught in the Old Testament, nor could any of them 
 continue to believe it, if they could only be induced 
 to examine the subject. 
 
 2d. If olim is so often used in the Old Testament, 
 and is sometimes used to express the duration of pun- 
 ishment, yet is never used to express the duration of 
 punishment beyond this state of existence, when and 
 how came the doctrine of everlasting punishment after 
 death to be known among men ? In the First Part, 
 we have shown its origin to be human. If our ortho- 
 dox brethren still venture to assert that its origin is 
 divine, it is their work to show this. Its claims for 
 our belief from the New Testament, I shall now pro- 
 ceed to examine. 
 
AN INQ.UIRY PART II. 243 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS ON AION, AND AIONIOS, AS USED 
 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Most Lexicon writers assert, that aion, and the ad- 
 jective aionios, are used to express an endless dura- 
 tion of time, though all of them admit, that they are 
 also used to express a limited period. From this very 
 fact has arisen long and violent contentions, whether 
 these words, when used to express the duration of pun- 
 ishment, are to be understood in a limited or unlimited 
 sense. Lexicons are not infallible, nor were they in- 
 tended to determine, but only to assist us in ascertain- 
 ing the true meaning of Scripture words. The words 
 were used and understood long before Lexicons had 
 any existence. Whilst we ought to avail ourselves of 
 their assistance, yet every man ought to examine for 
 himself, from their general usage, the context of the 
 places, and other circumstances, if the senses of words 
 given by them be correct. To receive implicitly 
 what they say, is only to perpetuate their errors, if the 
 writers have inadvertently or intentionally committed 
 any. 
 
 It is universally allowed, by all competent judges, 
 of whatever sect, that aion and aionios are frequently 
 used to express a limited duration of time. Parkhurst 
 says, aion " denotes duration or continuance of time, 
 but with great variety." Ewing says it signifies " du- 
 ration, finite, or infinite ; a period of duration, past, 
 or future ; an age, duration of the world, Deut. xxxii. 
 
244 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 7 ; Luke i. 70 ; plural, ages of the ivorld, 1 Cor. ii. 1, 
 hence human life in this ivorld, Luke xvi. 8, or the 
 next, Mark x. 30, our manner of life in the world. 
 Psalm xc. 8 ; Eph. ii. 2, an age oj divine dispensa- 
 tion, the ages, generally reckoned three ; that before 
 the law, that under the law, and that under the Mes- 
 siah, Matt, xxiv, 3; and xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. x. 11; 
 Heb. xi. 3, by faith, we understand that the ages were 
 framed by the word of God, so that the things which 
 are (now) seen, did not arise out of things which did 
 (previously) appear; compare verses 1, 7, 26, 27, an 
 indefinitely long period of time ; hence eternity ; 
 Exod. xiv. 13 ; Luke i. 55 ; John iv. 14 ; Psalm xix. 
 9; Gal. i. 5 ; Rev. xx. 10, from eternity to eternity ; 
 1 Chron. xxix. 10 ; Ps. xc. 2." On the word aionios, 
 Ewing says, it signifies ^^ eternal, Exod. iii. 14, 15; 
 Matt. XXV. 46 ; Rom. xvi. 26, chronoi aionoi, ages 
 of the world, periods of the dispensations since the 
 world began, Rom. xvi. 25." See Parkhurst for a 
 similar explanation, but let the reader examine their 
 proofs. 
 
 The word aion is compounded of aei, always ; and 
 on, being ; which is interpreted by Parkhurst and 
 others, " always being." Yet he says, " it denotes 
 duration, or continuance of time, hut with great vai^i- 
 ety /" He allows that aei, always, signifies " ever, in 
 a restrained sense, that is, at some stated times, very 
 frequently, continually." Acts vii. 51, and 2 Cor. vi. 
 10, to which he refers as proof of its meaning ever, in 
 an unrestrained sense, do not prove his point, for sure- 
 ly tlie Jews did not eternally resist the Spirit of God, 
 nor did the apostle mean that he rejoiced eternally. — 
 Its sense seems evidently to be perseveriugly, but 
 not endless in duration. Had Parkhurst found any 
 texts more, to his purpose, no doubt but he would 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 245 
 
 have quoted thein. All the texts where he thinks 
 aion means a proper eternity, will be considered in 
 their place. 
 
 It is a remark, which has often been made, that the 
 abjectiv'e aionios cannot signify more than the noun 
 from whence it is derived, for, if the latter only ex- 
 presses limited duration, the former cannot express 
 endless, A stream cannot rise higher than its foun- 
 tain without mechanical force, nor can aionios express 
 a longer duration i\mir aion, without a forced construc- 
 tion of meaning. Though Parkhurst asserts, that it 
 means " eternal, having neither beginning nor end.'' 
 yet he allows that it signifies " the ages of the world, 
 the times since the beginning of its existence^ And 
 adds — "• the Seventy frequently use this adjective for 
 the Hebrew oulem,^^ But from an examination of the 
 texts in the Old Testament, where this word occurs, 
 the' reader can judge, if any thing conclusive can be 
 drawn from it as expressing endless duration. From 
 an examination of all the texts where it is used to ex- 
 press the duration of punishment, we think it proved, 
 that it does not express endless duration, nor does it 
 even refer to punishment in a future state of existence. 
 Whether aionios, its corresponding word in the New, 
 does this, we shall see when we come to consider the 
 passages in which it occurs. If it did, the one word 
 certainly does not correspond to the other, for there is 
 an inconceivable difference between limited and end- 
 less duration. All this difference is added by the New 
 Testament writers to the word aionios, if it expresses 
 the eternity of punishment. It has been said, that 
 aionios when it stands alone, signifies duration with- 
 out end. But how can it stand alone? For if an ad 
 jective, it must have some noun, either expressed or 
 understood, wnth which it is connected, and which it 
 
246 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 qualifies. If a man should say — " eternal," the ques- 
 tion would immediately be asked him, eternal what ? 
 If he meant to be understood, he would inform us 
 what thing he considered to be eternal ; such as — eter- 
 nal God, eternal life, eternal punishment. It is the 
 noun, then, or the thing to which this word is applied, 
 which must determine the extent of duration expressed 
 by it ; and if aion, from which it is deriv^ed, does not 
 express endless duration, but an age, how can the ad- 
 jective express a longer duration, unless we say the 
 word derived contains more than that from which it is 
 derived, or the stream contains more, or rises higher 
 than the fountain? Allowing it to be applied to God, 
 who is without beginning or end, w^iat does this 
 prove ? Can this make God so, or does it fix the 
 meaning of this word as expressing endless duration ? 
 Not unless we say, words expressing a limited time 
 cannot possibly be applied to him : or if applied, must 
 derive an unHmited, yea, infinite sense frotn such an 
 application. Our orthodox friends would not reason 
 so in other cases. The terms good and great are ad- 
 jectives, and are applied to God. But do they con- 
 tend that the}^ are to be always understood in an infi- 
 nite sense, or expressing an infinite degree when so ap- 
 plied ? Surely not, for how could they in this case 
 maintain their doctrine of infinite, endless misery ? — 
 Seeing it is said, " the hoi'd\s good unto all," and that 
 ''great is his mercy," 
 
 But again, the words are used in the plural number. 
 But how can words capable of being used plurally 
 signify a proper eternity ? For eternity is one, Eter- 
 nities are never spoken of. People speak of eternity 
 to come, and eternity past, but still it is only one un- 
 interrupted, endless continuance. The past eternity 
 had no beginning, nor had it an end when the future 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 247 
 
 eternity began, for in this view it could not be a pro- 
 per eternity, as it had an end. In fact we cannot 
 form a distinct, definite idea of eternity, for if this 
 could be done, we must either be finite ourselves or 
 necessarily limit it. 
 
 In our English version I find aion rendered seven 
 times never, once course, twice ages, thirty-seven times 
 world, once without end, once eternal, twice ever, six- 
 ty-six times forever, and four times for evermore. In 
 several places it occurs twice in the same text. The 
 adjective aionios I find is rendered three times world, 
 once forever, forty-one times eternal, and twenty-four 
 Umes everlasting. As forever, eternal and everlasting, 
 are English words which convey the same idea it is 
 unnecessary to make any distinction in introducing the 
 passages where they occur, whether the translation of 
 aion or aionios. In rendering aion and aionios in the 
 New Testament, our translators have given us con- 
 siderable variety as ihey did in rendering olim in the 
 Old Testament. In only two instances, however, have 
 they rendered them by the word age or a^es. But 
 many translations of the New Testament have been 
 made since, where age is given as a better rendering 
 of these words. It is, I believe, now generally agreed 
 by critics and commentators, both orthodox and other- 
 wise, that age ought to be the rendering of this word 
 in a variety of places, some of which shall be noticed 
 in their place. 
 
 It is universally allowed, that aion and aionios are 
 the words used in the Seventy's version in rendering 
 the Hebrew word olim. A very slight inspection of 
 this version will satisfy any one of its truth. It is well 
 known that our Lord and his apostles quoted the 
 Seventy's version. And Mr. Stuart observes, that 
 although '^ the New Testament was writen in Greek, 
 
^48 AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 
 
 yet its idiom is Hebrew." He calls it "the Hebrew- 
 Greek of the New Testament." Indeed the longer I 
 study the two Testaments I. am the more convinced, 
 that in understandinij the phraseology of the New, we 
 must recur to the Old Testament for our explanations. 
 The translators of our common version, have rendered 
 these Hebrew and Greek words, generally, by the same 
 English words, such as, world, everlasting, eternal, for- 
 ever, and forever and ever. This is the case, whether 
 the words are applied to God, or to punishment, in the 
 Old or New Testaments, nor is it intimated that the ori- 
 ginal words, or the vv'ords by which they are rendered, 
 have a more vague and indefinite meaning in the form- 
 er than they have in the latter. To an English reader, 
 everlasting and forever are the same in both Testa- 
 ments. If everlasting punishment is not taught in the 
 Old Testament, it is not for want of as definite a 
 word to express it, as is found in the New. 
 
 It is admitted by some, that the Old Testament is 
 silent on the subject of everlasting puishment,yet they 
 contend that it is taught in the New, and that aion 
 and aionios are the words used to express its duration. 
 But why admit the former and contend for the latter? 
 In both Testaments punishment is mentioned, and in 
 both everlasting and forever are apj)lied to it. If it is 
 found in one it ought to be found in both. Is it ration- 
 al to suppose, that a doctrine of so much importance 
 should be concealed for so many ages ? How can this 
 be reconciled with tlie divine character? Was this the 
 mystery which was kept hid from ages, and from gene- 
 rations, but is now revealed to us by the apostles? 
 No New Testament writer intimates, that punishment 
 under the old dispensation was only tempory in its du- 
 ration, but under the new was endless. All the Scrip- 
 ture writers speak of punishment in the same way, ex^ 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 249 
 
 press its duration in similar lan^ruage, nor would their 
 readers suppose that the New Testament writers were 
 behevers in endless misery, and those of the Old not.* 
 It is generally allowed that the punishments threaten- 
 ed under the Old Testament were all of a temporal na- 
 ture. The question may then be asked, whether this 
 is not a mistaken view of the Old Testament punish- 
 ments? That it is not, seems obvious from all the in- 
 stances mentioned, and also from no other kind of pun- 
 ishment being recognized in the New, when the pun- 
 ishments under that dispensation are referred to. The 
 New Testament, like the Old, speaks frequently of 
 punishment. It will then be necessary to examine 
 with care, all the texts in the New, where aion and 
 aionios are rendered eternal, everlasting, or forever, 
 and applied to punishment. Is it not possible that men 
 may have been mistaken in affirming, that the punish- 
 ments under the Christian dispensation are carried be- 
 yond death, and are of endless duration? May they 
 not be temporal, as under the Mosaic dispensation, and 
 why cannot the words eternal, everlasting, or forever, 
 be applied to them, yet not endless in duration, just as 
 well as to those under that dispensation ? Christians 
 do not seem to think of any punishment in this life for 
 disobedience to God. No ; it is all carried into a future 
 state of existence, and considered to be endless. But 
 surely the New Testament writers speak of punish* 
 mentS; and very awful punishments, in this life. Nor 
 do they say, that under the new dispensation an eternal 
 punishment awaited any in a future state of existence, 
 but did not under the old dispensation. The places 
 in the New Testament, where the words eternal, ever- 
 lasting, or forever, are applied to punishment, are ^ew 
 in number. If they were even many, what could this 
 certainly prove, for we have seen such words applied 
 
250 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 to things, and even to punish?ne?it of persons, under 
 the former dispensation, where all allow endless dura- 
 tion was not expressed by them ? 
 
 It has been asserted, that the truth or falsehood of 
 the doctrine of endless misery, depends on the mean- 
 ing of aion and aionios in the New Testament, and 
 that this subject was reduced to a matter of verbal criti- 
 cism. But why ought not its truth to depend as much 
 on the meaning of olim in the Old Testament, which 
 is rendered everlasting and forever, as those words are 
 in the New ? It is a capricious mode of interpretation. 
 to give tliis language a limited signification in the one 
 case and not in the other also. The truth is, some- 
 thing besides the mere application of the word ever- 
 lasting to punishment, must appear, to prove it of end- 
 less duration, for no man can deny, that it is applied 
 to punishment when no one thinks endless duration was 
 meant. Besides, the word everlasting being so fre- 
 quently applied to temporainj things, shows, that no 
 great dependence is to be placed on such an argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Oneoftlie most plausible arguments arising from 
 everlasting being applied to punishment in the New 
 Testament is, that in Matth. xxv. 46, the same origi- 
 nal word is applied both to life and punishment, and 
 that if the one is not endless neither is the other. But 
 jtermit me here only to remark — Why does not this 
 equally apply to Dan. xli. 2, where a case of the same 
 kind is found ? We have there shown that everlasting 
 does not refer to endless duration of either happiness 
 or punishment, or to any thing beyond this state of 
 existence. When we come to consider Matth. xxv. 
 46, we shall see that this is a comment on Dan. xii. 
 2, and that both refer to the same everlasting punish-* 
 ment and happiness. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 11. 251 
 
 When people end the Old Testament, they seem to 
 forget, that the New is the revelation of the same God 
 addressed originally to the Jews ; that it was written 
 by Jews, and that its ideas and language are borrowed 
 from Moses and the prophets. The writers adopt the 
 words, phrases, and idioms used in the Old Testament, 
 as well as quote formally from it. Dr. Campbell as- 
 sures us that our Lord and his apostles spoke to the 
 Jews in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and used 
 words and phrases with which they were familiar. And 
 Mr. Stuart calls their writings the Hebrew Greek of 
 the New Testament. If we would understand this 
 book, we must not sit down to it as the Presbyterians, 
 Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists or Universal- 
 ists, but as Jews. The question is not, what sense do 
 any of these sects put on the words, phrases, and idioms 
 which are found in it, but in what sense were they un- 
 derstood among Jews from their own Scriptures, Is it 
 asked — How are we to know this? I answer, from 
 the Old Testament, from whence the New Testament 
 writers borrowed them. The Old Testament is our 
 dictionary of the language of the New, for the writers 
 spake, not in the words which man teacheth, but which 
 the Holy Spirit teacheth. While the New Testament 
 is interpreted by sectarian dictionaries, how can Chris-^ 
 tians ever come to be agreed ? Can any thing else be 
 expected but bitter contentions among them ? The 
 meaning and extent of the words and phrases to come 
 before us were well understood among the Jevvs, It 
 is to be no concern of mine, how any sect now un^ 
 derstands them, nor how I have formerly understood 
 them myself, but how were they understood by the 
 Jews, or what is their current sense in their sacred 
 books. I am to consider myself, and the reader ought 
 lo consider himself;, as living eighteen hundred yeam 
 
252 AN INQUIRE PART II. 
 
 ago, as being born and brought up a Jew ; as familiar 
 with the Old Testament ; habituated to words, phrases, 
 and idioms of language common among the Jews ; and 
 in fact, as far as possible to enter into the feelings, 
 habits of thinking, and even the prejudices of that won- 
 derful people. 
 
 New Testament usage of a word or phrase, is ano- 
 ther very important rule of which we shall avail our- 
 selves in interpreting the passages which shall be 
 brought before us. For example, in ^fatth. xxiv. 3, 
 we have the phrase the end of the world. Now, if 
 this phrase does not mean here the end of this natural 
 world, but the end of the Jewish age, we think it ought 
 to have the same meaning in other places, unless the 
 subject and scope of the writer entirely forbids it. — 
 When I therefore come to this phrase, or others in the 
 course of this investigation, all the places in which such 
 phrases are found, will be brought forward at once and 
 considered. This will save the repetition of remark, 
 and will enable the reader to form a more correct judg- 
 ment of the true Scripture meaning of such phrases. — 
 Besides, if any inspired writer uses a word or phrase, 
 and its sense is ascertained, if he uses it again, or re- 
 peatedly, it ought to be understood in the same sense, 
 unless he by some way shows us he is to be differently 
 understood. This is nothing more than every writer 
 or speaker is entitled to, whom we wish to treat with 
 common civility. If he uses it in another book, or if 
 it is used by other sacred writers, our means of ascer- 
 taining its true sense are increased. 
 
 Much misunderstanding of the Scriptures has arisen 
 from our overlooking what some may think but trifling 
 circumstances. For example, some seldom take into 
 view the writer, the time when he wrote, or the cir- 
 cumstances in which he was placed. They also over- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 25^ 
 
 look the persons to whom he addressed himself, the 
 circumstances in which they were placed, and the sub- 
 ject on which he discourses to them. The scope and 
 drift of his discourse from the context, is seldom con- 
 sidered. Hence words, phrases, and verses are quoted, 
 to prove what was never thought of by him. His 
 words are quoted, and a sense affixed to them agreeable 
 to the religious creeds of the persons, which, if the 
 context was but consulted, would show them their mis- 
 take, and that, though unintentionally, they were per- 
 verting the Scriptures. We also may err, and fail in 
 w^hat we propose, but we shall at least make the at- 
 tempt. Infallibility is no article of our creed ; we 
 would only do all in our power to produce a correct 
 understanding of the Scriptures, wnthout which, endless 
 division and debate must exist amono- Christians. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 ALL THE PLACES NOTICED, W^HERE AION AND AIONIOS 
 ARE RENDERED AGES, COURSE, NEVER, FOREVER, 
 EVERMORE, ETERNAL, EVERLASTING ; BUT WHICH 
 HAVE NO RELATION TO PUNISHMENT. 
 
 The word aion is rendered ages, in the common 
 version, in the following places. Eph. ii. 7, " That 
 in the ages to come he might show the exceeding 
 riches of his grace." It \f ould have been absurd to 
 have rendered it here, " that in the eternities to come." 
 Nor would it have sounded well to have said, '' that 
 in the worlds to come,'' for the question might have 
 17 
 
S54 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 been asked, Pray how many eternities or worlds are 
 to come ? Our translators, then, not only own that 
 this word signifies age, but were compelled to render it 
 so in this passage. Again, Col. i. 26," Even the mys- 
 tery which Iiath been hid from ages and from genera- 
 tions." The remarks on the last text equally apply 
 here. It would not have done to have said, " even 
 the mystery which halh been hid from generations," 
 for the term generations is used immediately after in 
 the passage. Macknight on this text, says, " ' The 
 mystery which was kept hid from the ages and from 
 the generations.' In the parallel passage, Eph. iii. 5, 
 it is, ' which in other generations was not made known 
 to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy 
 apostles.' So likewise Romans xvi. 25, ' the mystery 
 which hath been kept secret,' chronois aioniois, in the 
 times of the ages, or during the Mosaic dispensation. 
 For the meaning of the words mystery, and ages, see 
 Eph. i. 9 ; Tit. i. 2, notes. Though the salvation of 
 mankind by faith, was promised in the covenant with 
 Abraham, and spoken of by the prophets, it was not 
 understood by the Jews, see Eph. iii. 5, note, and 
 therefore it is here called a mystery, or thing kept se- 
 cret, in allusion to the heathen mysteries." 
 
 I shall also quote the following from Pierce, on this 
 passage, as it sheds general light on this whole sub- 
 ject. '-'The mystery which hath been hid from ages 
 and generations.' The expression of to mysierion 
 to apokelcrymmenon apo ton aionon, is rendered hy 
 our translators, Eph. iii. 9, the mystery hid from the 
 beginning of the ivorld ; but it is manifest from this 
 place, where it is joined with apo ton geneon, that it is 
 rightly translated here hid from ages, and that it ought 
 to have been so translated in that place also. The 
 same thing is meant when he speaks of the revelation 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 255 
 
 of the mystery, which we translate, kept secret since 
 ike loorld bes^an : but Mr. Locke better renders it in 
 the secular times, that is, the times under the law. I 
 shall here transcribe his remark upon the words, Rom. 
 xvi. 25, because it gives much light to this matter.— r- 
 ^ Why the times under the law were called chronoi 
 monioi, we may find a reason in their jubilees, which 
 were aioncs, scccula, or ages, by which all the time 
 under the law was measured: and so chrononaionion 
 is used, 2 Tim. i. 9, Tit. i. 2. And so aiones are put 
 for the times of the law, or the jubilees, Luke i. 70 ; 
 Acts iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. ii. T ; x. 11 ; Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 
 26 ; Heb. ix. 26. x\nd so God is called the rock, 
 aionon, oj a^es, Isai. xxvi. 4, in the same sense 
 that he is called the rock of Israel, Isai. xxx. 29, i. e. 
 the strength and support of the Jewish state ; for it is 
 of the Jews the prophet here speaks. So Exod. xxi. 
 6, eiston aiona, signifies not as we translate h, forever, 
 but to the jubilee; which will appear if we compare 
 Lev. xxv\ 39 — 4i, and Exod. xxi. 2. Now that the 
 times of the law were the times spoken of here by St. 
 Paul, seems plain from that which he declares to have 
 continued a mystery during all those times, viz. God's 
 purpose o( taking in tb,e Gentiles to be his people un- 
 der the Messiah ; for this could not be said to be a 
 mystery at any other time, but during the time that the 
 Jews were the -peculiar people of God, separated to 
 him from among the nations of the earth. Before that 
 time there was no such name or notion q^ distinction, 
 as Gentiles. Before the days of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, the calUng of the Israelites to be God's pecu^ 
 liar people, was as much a mystery, as the calling of 
 others out of other nations was a mystery afterwards. 
 All that St. Paul insists on here, and in all the places 
 wlier<^ he meijtions this m^^ster^- is tg show, that though 
 
256 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 God had declared this his purpose to the Jews, by the 
 predictions of his prophets among them, yet it lay con- 
 cealed from their knowledge, it was a mystery to them, 
 they understood no such thing ; there was not any 
 where the least suspicion or thought of it, till the Mes- 
 siah being come, it was declared by St. Paul to the 
 Jews, and Gentiles, and made out by the writings of 
 the pro{)hets which were now understood.' " 
 
 Aion is rendered course, Eph. ii. 2, '• Wherein in 
 time past, ye walked according to the course of this 
 world." Macknight says, " Chandler observes that 
 the Greek word aion, and the Latin avu7n, which cor- 
 responds to it, signify the life of man ; and by an easy 
 figure, the manner of a man's living." That olim, in 
 the Old Testament, often signifies a man's lifetime, has 
 been seen above. And aionion signifies the lifetime 
 of Onesimus, Phile. 15. See Macknight on this verse. 
 
 The Greek phrase eis ton aiona, occurs in the fol- 
 lowing texts, and is rendered in our version never. — 
 John iv. 14, " Whosoever drinketh of the water that I 
 shall give him shall never thirst." And viii. 51, "If 
 a man keep my saying he shall never see death." See 
 also verse 52. In chap. x. 28, it is said, "they shall 
 never perish," referring to Christ's sheep. And xi. 
 26, "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never 
 die." And xiii. 8, Peter said to Jesus — " thou shall 
 never wash my feet." Dr. Campbell in his note on 
 John ix. 32, says, concerning the phrases ek touaionos 
 and eis ton aiona, " but in popular language, the for- 
 mer often denotes no more than from the beijinnin'r of 
 the world, or even from very early times ; and eis ton 
 aiona does not always means to eternity, in the strict 
 sense of the word. That the use is nearly the same 
 in the Pagan writers, has been very well shown by 
 Wetstein." 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 257 
 
 The same Greek phrase eis ton aiona, is rendered 
 in the following passages /oreuer. In Matth.xxi. 19, 
 it is said of the fig-tree, " let no fruit grow on thee 
 henceforward /oreyer." See also Mark xi. 14. In 
 Luke i. 55, it is said, ^' as he spake to our fathers, to 
 Abraham, and to his seed forever J'' And John vi. 
 51, '' If any man eat of this bread he shall live for- 
 ever." See also verse 58. • And viii. 35, "And the 
 servant abideth not in the house forever; but the son 
 abideih ever." John xii. 34, '• We have heard out of 
 the law that Christ abideth forever." And xiv. 16, 
 " He shall give you another comforter, that he may 
 abide with you forever." Heb. v. 6, '• Thou art a 
 priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec." And 
 vi. 20, and vii. IT, 21, where the same is repeated. — 
 Verse 24, " But this man, because he continueth ever, 
 hath an unchangeable priesthood." Verse 28, '' but 
 the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh 
 the son who is consecrated for evermore." 1 Peter i. 
 23, '• Being born again, not of corruptible seed but in- 
 corruptible, by the w^ord of God, which liveth and abi- 
 deth forever." And 1 John ii. 17, " But he that doeth 
 the will of God abideth forever." And 2 John 2, " for 
 the truth's sake which dwelleth in us, and shall be with 
 us forever." See some other texts below^, wdiere this 
 phrase is differently rendered, and is used to express 
 the duration of punishments 
 
 On all these texts, where this phrase, eis tojiaiona, 
 occurs, we would rem.ark, that it is used in a similar 
 sense as olim in the Old Testament, where it is said of 
 certain cities, that they should be an heap, or a deso- 
 lation forever; such as the example of the fig-tree, 
 which passage Dr. Campbell renders — " let no fruit 
 grow on thee henceforward." It is also used to ex- 
 press the period of a man's lifetime, as in the Old Tes- 
 
258 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 tament. The servant or slave may be sold, or the 
 year of release may «:et him free^ but the son abidetb 
 forever, or all his days. And whoever compares John 
 xiv. 16 with verses 1 — 5, and with verse 12, may see 
 reason to think that our Lord's meaning was — the 
 comforter I shall send you will not, like me, leave you 
 before you die, but will continue to be with you all 
 your days. Was not this the way Christ w^as to fulfil 
 his promise, Matth. xxviii. 20, in being with his disci- 
 ples unto the end of the world or age ? See on this 
 text below. Besides, when Paul said he w^ouldeatno 
 flesh while the world standeth, did he mean any thing 
 more than all the days of his life ? In this sense Mack- 
 night understands him. I would merely suggest it for 
 consideration, if his meaning is not, I will eat no flesh 
 w^hile the age or Jewish dispensation endures, which was 
 then vanishing away. I should think the above Greek 
 phrase, is also used as in tlie Old Testament, to signify 
 throughout your generations. Such seems to be its 
 sense in Luke i. 55, and also where the word of the 
 Lord is said to endure forever, 1 Peter i. 23, 25, and 
 comp. Heb. ix. 14. But to see what is the meaning 
 of the phrase^ see the Seventy's version, from whence 
 it is taken. Eis ion aiona is the rendering there of 
 olim in a vast number of instances, which it would be 
 tedious to enumerate. See the quotation from Pierce, 
 on Col. i. 26, above. 
 
 The phrase, eis fon& aionas, is used in the following 
 places, and is rendered forever and for evermore. — 
 Matth. vi. 13, '• for thine is the kingdom, and the pow- 
 er, and the glory forever." Luke i. 33," And he shall 
 reign over the house of Jacob forever.'^ Rom. i. 25, 
 " and served the creature more than the creator, who 
 is blessed forever." Rom. ix. 5, " who is overall God 
 blessed forever." And xi. 36, " to whom be glory 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART 11. 259 
 
 forever." And xvi. 27, " to God only wise, be glory 
 through Jesus Christ forever." 2 Cor. xi. 31, "the 
 God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed 
 for evermore." Heb. xili. 8, " Jesus Christ the same 
 yesterday, and to-day, and forever." Comp. 1 Tim.. 
 vi. 16. In the following texts, the phrase eis tons 
 aionas occurs, and is joined with ton aiono?i, and ren- 
 dered ^^ forever and ever," in ascriptions of praise to 
 God and to Christ. Thus for example. Gal. i, 5, "to 
 whom be glory forever and ever." The same for sub- 
 stance is repeated in the following texts, which it is 
 unnecessary to quote. Philip, iv. 20 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; 
 Heb. xiii. 21 ; 1 Peter iv. 11, and v. 11 ; Rev. i. 6, 
 18; iv. 9, 10; v. 13, 14; vii. 12; x. 6; xi. 15 ; xiv. 
 11 ; XV. 7 ; xix. 3 ; xx. 10,. and xxii. 5. It occurs 
 also in 1 Tim. i. 17, in an ascription of praise to God, 
 which I shall quote, as it requires some notice. " Now 
 unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise 
 God, be honor and glory forever and ever." When 
 God is here said to be the " king eternal," most peo- 
 ple think the apostle meant to describe the endless du- 
 ration of the divine being. But on this text let us 
 hear Macknio^ht, who thus writes : " Now to the king 
 eternal. Perhaps, to de baisilei ton aionon, may be 
 better translated, to the king of the ages, namely, the 
 age before the law, the age under the law, and the 
 age under the Messiah, According to this translation, 
 which is perfectly literal, the apostle's meaning is. To 
 him who hath governed the three dispensations under 
 which mankind have lived, so as to make them co- 
 operate to the same great end, the pardoning of sin- 
 ners, and who is immortal, he. be honor, and glory 
 forever, ascribed by angels and men." There is no 
 cause for alarm with good people, that these views are 
 attempting to do away the eternal duration of God, for 
 
260 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 surely his endless existence is independent of the mean- 
 ing of a Greek word, whether you give it a limited or 
 an unlimited signification. Besides, in this very pas- 
 sage he is called the " immortal (^aftharto) God," In 
 some copies it is the athanato, or undying God. No 
 one can doubt that Macknight's rendering is a literal, 
 correct one. The apostle is then rendering praise to 
 God, who is king throughout all the ages, that before 
 the law, under the law, and the age also of the Mes- 
 siah. This king purposed an eternal purpose, Eph.iii. 
 11, which Macknight thus renders, " according to the 
 disposition of the ages, which he made for Christ Jesus 
 our Lord." See his whole note on Eph. iii. 11, part 
 of which I shall only quote. Aion, age, is a word of 
 various signification. Here, in the plural, it denotes 
 the dispensations of religion under which mankind have 
 been placed ; namely, the Patriarchal, in which a 
 Saviour was promised ; the Mosaical, in which he was 
 typified ; and the Christian, in which he was mani- 
 fested in the flesh, and preached to the world, as come. 
 All these ages or dispensations, the apostle saith, God 
 planned and brought to pass for the sake of Christ 
 Jesus ; that is to prepare mankind for his reception. 
 Rom. xvi. 25 ; Tit. i. 2, (see the note on that verse,) 
 chronoi aionioi, ^\gn\^QS the ages of the law, or Mo- 
 saic dispensation. And Eph. iii. 9 ; Col. i. 26, aioiics, 
 signifies the Jews, living under tliat dispensation." 
 
 There are a few more texts, in which the words 
 everlasting and eternal occur, to which we shall now 
 pay some attention, in connexion with these quota- 
 tions. When God is called the king of the ages, the 
 question occurs — What ages ? According to Ewing 
 and others, the answer is, the age before the law, the 
 Mosaic age, and the age of the Messiah. The king 
 of the ages then, disposed, or appointed the ages, for 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 261 
 
 Christ Jesus. Before the Mosaic age, a promise of 
 life was given in Christ Jesus, Tit. i. 2. This we shall 
 see more fully afterwards. It was promised to our first 
 parents ; also to Abraham, that in his seed all the 
 famihes of the earth should be blessed. This was done 
 during the patriarchal age. During the Mosaic age, 
 the law was added to the promise until the seed should 
 come. Many things connected with this dispensation, 
 we have seen, were called everlasting, but having an- 
 swered the purpose for which they were added to the 
 promise, have vanished away. The age of the Mes- 
 siah succeeded it, but it is to be succeeded by no other. 
 When the end of it comes, Christ is to deliver up the 
 kingdom to God the father, which appears to be at the 
 resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 29. Seve- 
 ral thino-s during the reign or kingdom of Messiah in 
 this age, is called everlasting or forever. His kingdom 
 is called " the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ," 2 Peter i. 11. And surely it 
 may be called so, with more propriety than many 
 things under the Mosaic age or dispensation, for this 
 kingdom is not to be superseded by another taking its 
 place, for when it closes it is said—" then cometh the 
 end." 
 
 The gospel of the kingdom of the Messiah, is called 
 "the everlasting gospel preached to the nations," Rev. 
 xiv. 6. And why is it called everlasting ? Because 
 it shall be preached as long as the kingdom of the Mes- 
 siah shall continue, which shall be to the period called 
 the end. Hence it is said, the word of the Lord en- 
 dureth forever, 1 Peter i. 23. And Christ promised 
 that the spirit or comforter should abide with his disci- 
 ples forever, and is called the eternal spirit, Heb. ix. 
 14. Some copies, however, only read Holy Spirit. — 
 Such as believe the everlasting gospel, and enter into 
 
262 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 the everlastincr kingjdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, re- 
 ceive everlasting consolation and good hope through 
 grace, 2 Thess. ii. 16. Or, as Macknight says — 
 '/that is, the means of never failing consolation." To 
 be so highly honored is thus expressed by Peter, 1st 
 Epistle V. 10, " The God of all grace, who hath called 
 us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus." Let it be 
 observed, that eternal glory is not said to be a future 
 thing, but that to which Peter says they were already 
 called. They receive the promise of eternal inherit- 
 ance, Heb. ix. 15. If the land of Canaan was given 
 to Israel, and called an everlasting inheritance, as it 
 often is in the Old Testament, how much more might 
 the inheritance in the kingdom of Jesus Christ bestow- 
 ed on Christians, be called an eternal inheritance ? It 
 should be recollected that the apostle was writing to 
 Hebrews, to whom such lano;uao[e was familiar. Be- 
 sides, this, we shall afterwards see, is the same that our 
 Lord calls enjoying eternal life in the world to come. 
 And is it not the same that Paul calls inheriting the 
 kingdom of God and of Christ, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 ; Gal. 
 v. 21 ? 
 
 The new covenant, like the covenants under the 
 Mosaic age, is called the everlasting covenant. And 
 surely it may be called so, for it is not to vanish away, 
 and give place to a new and better covenant, like that 
 of the old. Christ's blood was that by which this new 
 covenant was confirmed, and is called the blood of the 
 everlasting covenant, Heb. xiii. 20. Having purged 
 his people, not as under the law with the blood of goats 
 and calves, " but by his own blood, he entered in once 
 unto the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
 tion," Heb. ix. 12. " And being made perfect through 
 suffering, became the author of eternal salvation to all 
 them that obey him," Heb. v. 9. Christ's salvation 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 263 
 
 is called a great salvation, Heb. ii. 3, probably in re- 
 ierence to other salvations which God wrought for an- 
 cient Israel. And here it is called eternal in tliesame 
 comparative sense, for God wrought many salvations 
 for them. This salvation was abiding. Comp. Luke 
 i. 74, 75. Is it asked — Salvation from what? I an- 
 swer, not from hell and endless misery, for this is no 
 where said in Scripture, but from sin and death, which 
 Christ shall finally accomplish. See 1 Cor. 15. 
 
 In 2 Peter iii. 18, we have the following ascription 
 of praise. " To whom be glory both now and forever." 
 The Greek here is cis hemeran aionios. Macknight 
 says this is " unto the day of eternity." But how 
 can this be, for what has eternity to do with days? — 
 Besides, how does this a^iYee to some quotations made 
 from him respecting aion, which he says means an age. 
 We should say the text simply says — " to him be glory 
 both now and unto the day of the age." Some copies 
 have it, " unto the age of ages," similar to passages 
 noticed above. We should think the duration express- 
 ed is '■ during the age of the Messiah," Luke xvi. 9, 
 " That when ye fail they may receive you into ever- 
 lasting habitations." Dr. Campbell says, " the epithet 
 unrighteous, here applied to mammon or riches, does 
 not imply acquired by injustice or any undue means ; 
 but, in this application, it denotes false riches, that is, 
 deceitful, not to be relied on." Well, does not the 
 epithet everlasthig, applied to habitations, mean stable 
 and satisfactory? See on Psalm xlix. 11, and on 2 
 Thess. ii. 16, and other texts above. But as it is ap- 
 plied, not to punishment, but to happiness, it requires 
 no further attention. 
 
 2 Cor, iv. 17, 18, and v. 1,1 shall quote together. 
 "For our light affliction, which is but lor a moment, 
 worketh for us a far more exceeding; and eternal weight 
 
264 
 
 AN INQ^UIRY PART II. 
 
 of glory ; while we look not at the things which are 
 seen, but at the things which are not seen : for the 
 things which are seen are temporal ; but the things 
 which are not seen are enternal. For we know, that 
 if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, 
 we have a building of God, an house not made with 
 hands, eternal in the heavens." In these verses, ifZo?'?/ 
 is contrasted with affliction, weis^ht of glory \\\i\\~light 
 affliction, and a far more exceeding and eternal weight 
 of glory, with affliction which is but for a moment, — 
 Besides, things which are not seen, are contrasted with 
 things which are seen, and the eternal duration of 
 things not seen, with the temporary duration of things 
 which are seen ; and an house not made ivith hands, is 
 contrasted with the house of this tabernacle, and the 
 house not iDade with hands eternal in the heavens, with 
 the earthly house of this tabernacle. But notice, the 
 duration of these things is said to be in the heavens, 
 and we tliink could be shown from the context, to re- 
 fer to that state of things after the resurrection, when 
 mortality is swallowed up of life, verse 4. See the 
 whole context, and a paper in volume vii. of the Uni- 
 versalist Mag:izine on verse 10. Tl^e idea conveyed 
 by the word eternal in all these verses, seems to be the 
 stability of the things of that state compared to those 
 of tiie present. Though the idea of their endless du- 
 ration is included, yet the apostle's object seems to be 
 more their stahiliti/ tlian their endless duration. But 
 as these passages have no relation to punishment, it is 
 unnecessary to enter into further remarks, except to 
 say, that the same or similar things are not said in re- 
 gard to the. punishment of any after the dissolution of 
 their eailhly tabernacle. This we shall see in Section 
 vii., where all the passages are considered where eter- 
 nal is applied to punishment. 
 
 1 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 265 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 ALL THE PLACES AVHERE AION AND AfONIOS ARE REN- 
 DERED WORLD, CONSIDERED. 
 
 I FIND tlie Greek phrase, eis ton aiona, rendered 
 world, 1 Cor. viii. 13. "If meat make my brother to 
 offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth." 
 Here the same Greek phrase is rendered world, which 
 we have seen, is rendered never, forever, and for ever- 
 more. And why is it so rendered here ? Because, it 
 would not do to say — " I will eat no flesh while the 
 never, forevej-, or everlasting standeth." It is plain 
 that this phrase did not express endless duration by 
 the sacred writers. 
 
 In Heb. i. 2, and xi. 3, we have the phrase tons 
 aionas, and is rendered worlds. " By whom also he 
 made the worlds. Through faith we understand that 
 the worlds were framed by the word of God." On the 
 first of these texts Pierce says. "If we render the 
 words b}'- whom also he appointed the ages, the sense 
 will fall in with Eph. iii. 11. See Mr. Locke upon 
 that verse." See on this passage in the last Section. 
 On the second, Macknight says it is literally — " scsciih, 
 the ages." Ewing renders it, "By faith we under- 
 stand the ages were framed by the word of God." — 
 Those ages, he says, were reckoned three — " that be- 
 fore the law, that under the law, and that under the 
 Messiah," 
 
 Eph. iii. 21. "Unto him be glory in the church, 
 by Christ Jesus^ throughout all ages; world without 
 
Q66 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 end." The Greek here is eis pasas tas geneas ton 
 aionos ion aionon, Macknlght says, this phrase lite- 
 rally is — " throughout all the generations of the age of 
 ages." I5 a proper eternity measured by generations ? 
 Surely not. By the age of ages seems to be meant 
 the duration of Messiah's reign, or until he delivers 
 up the kingdom to God the father, 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 
 28. Until then, God is to be glorified in the church 
 bv Christ Jesus, I would su>rirest it for considera- 
 tion — Is not the age of the Messiah called the age of 
 ages, in a similar sense as he is called " king of kings 
 and Lord of Lords ?" The ao-e of the Messiah was 
 that for whirh all the others were constituted, shall con- 
 tinue throughout all the generations of this world, and 
 is to be superseded by no other, like the ages which 
 have preceded it. 
 
 The word aion is not only rendered world, but we 
 read both of the beginning and end of the world or 
 age ; the one class precisely answering to the other. — 
 Let us first notice the texts which speak of the begin- 
 ning of the age or world. Eph. iii. 9. " And to 
 make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mys- 
 tery, which from the beginning of the world hath been 
 hid in God, who created all tilings by Jesus Christ." 
 Wakefield renders it thus, '' was hidden from the ages 
 in God." Macknight in his note on this text says, 
 '-' Hid from the ages. So the original phrase a/;o ton 
 aionon ought to be translated, as is plain from Col. i. 
 26, where generations are also mentioned." To ren- 
 der aio7i here by any word implying endless duration, 
 would make the apostle speak of the beginning of the 
 everlasting or eternal duration, which would be a con- 
 tradiction in terms. Tit. i. 2. '' In hope of eternal 
 life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the 
 world began " Wakefield renders it '• promised before 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 267 
 
 the ages." Macknight, on this text, says, " Before 
 the times of the ages. Pro chronon aionion. Sup- 
 posing the word aionios in this clause to signify eter- 
 nal, the literal translation of the passage would be, 
 before eternal times. But that being a contiadiction 
 in terms, our translators, contrary to the propiiety of 
 the Greek language, have rendered it — before the world 
 began: As Locke observes, on Rom. xvi. 25, the true 
 literal translation is, before the secular times ; referring 
 us to the Jewish jubilees, by which times were compu- 
 ted among the Hebrews : as among the Gentiles they 
 were compute'd by generations of men. Hence, Col. 
 i. 26 : The mystery which ivas kept hid, {apo ton 
 aioiion Icai apo ton geneon,) from, the ages and from 
 the gentrations, signifies the mystery which was kept 
 hid from the Jews and from the Gentiles. See this ex- 
 plained Rom. xvi. 25, note iii." Whitby's note is for 
 substance, the same. Did God promise eternal life be- 
 fore the evfilasting or the eternity began ? The same 
 or similar remarks apply to Rom. xvi. 25 " Accord^ 
 ing to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept 
 secret since the world be^an." Wakefield renders it, 
 " which was kept secret from the ages of old." See 
 Macknight on Rom. xvi. 25. Luke i. 70. " As he 
 spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have 
 been since the world began." Permit me to ask : 
 Has God spoken by his holy prophets which have been 
 since the everlasting or eternity began ? Who believes 
 eternity has a beginning? Accordingly, Wakefield 
 renders it '^ from the first." In his note he says, " ap 
 aionos" signifies "or of old, literally, from the age." 
 Dr. Campbell renders it : " as anciently he promised 
 by his holy prophets ;" and Whitby, *' from the be- 
 ginning of ages." Acts iii. 2L "Which God hath 
 spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since 
 
268 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 the world began." The Greek phrase is the same 
 here as in the last text, and is rendered in the sancie 
 way, and the same remarks apply to it, and need not 
 be repeated. See Macknight on Romans xvi. 25. — 
 In Acts XV. 18. The Greek is the same as in the last 
 text, which saves all labor of transcribing or remarks. 
 John ix. 32. " Since the world began was it not heard, 
 that any man opened the eyes of one that was born 
 blind." Wakefield renders it, " never was it heard 
 yet ;" and Dr. Campbell has it, " never was it heard 
 before." See on the preceding texts. 2 Tim. i. 9. 
 " Who hath saved us and called us with an holy call- 
 ing, not according to our works, but according to his 
 own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ 
 Jesus, hefore the world began." The Greek phrase 
 here, is pro chronon aionion, which Wakefield renders 
 " before the age." Whitby, " before any age hath 
 passed." Macknight, " before the times of the ages." 
 See his note quoted on Tit. i. 2, above. 1 Cor. ii. 7. 
 " But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even 
 the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world 
 unto our glory." The Greek here, is pro ton aionon, 
 Macknio[ht renders it, " before the aijes." He under- 
 stands it, " before the Mosaic dispensation." See his 
 notes on Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii. 9, and Col. i. 26, 
 above. 
 
 Such are all the places where the phrases, the be- 
 frinnino-of the world — from the beirinnino; of the world 
 
 Oct O o 
 
 — before the world — and since the world began, oc- 
 cur. On the whole of them I would remark, 
 
 1st. That in none of them is there any reference, 
 as many suppose, to this material world, or its begin- 
 ning. The word aion rendered world, signifies, by the 
 consent of the above critics, and others, which might 
 be quoted, simply age. Since the world began, is 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 269 
 
 since the age began. Before the world, signifies be- 
 fore ihe age, and from the beginning of the world, 
 means from the bes^inninor of the as^e. If it be asked, 
 what age ? The answer is, the age or dispensation of 
 the law of Moses. If this be true, and it is indisputa- 
 ble, all must see what a great chana^e it makes in the 
 sense of all the above passages. Besides, it deeply 
 affects the sense of many others, and affords a key to 
 the understanding of some, which we shall presently 
 notice. So far from aion signifying this material world, 
 the above critics have shown, that our translators, con- 
 trary to the propriety ol the Greek language, have 
 rendered Tit. ii. 2, " before the world began," which 
 remark applies equally to the other passages. They 
 have shown, that it refers to the dispensation of the 
 law of Moses, which, as Locke observes, is called aion, 
 the age, Luke i. 70; Acts iii. 2L And chronos 
 aionioi, because, under the law, time was measured by 
 ages or jubilees. See all the abovequotations. 
 
 2d. The word for this " material world," is kosmos, 
 and not aion. And the Greek phrase for "before'the 
 world," meaning this material world, is pro tnu ton kos- 
 rnon. See John xvii, 5. Besides, where it is used it 
 is never contrasted with aion. For example, the be- 
 ginning of the kosmos, world, is never contrasted with 
 the end of the aion, or age, nor, the beginning of the 
 aion, age, contrasted with the end of the kosmos, 
 world. 
 
 3. Every person must perceive the absurdity of 
 rendering aion in any of the above texts, by any Eng- 
 lish word which conveys the idea of endless duration. 
 Were it done, we should read of the beginning of the 
 everlasting, or forever, and of things which were done 
 before the everlasting or forever began ; yea, of things 
 which God ordained before the everlasting or forever 
 18 
 
270 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 Let any one go over all those passages, and he cannot 
 help being convinced, that the sacred writers attached 
 no such idea to this word. Are not men very much 
 to blame, then, in being so very confident, that aion 
 expresses the endless duration of punishment ? By 
 the general consent of critics and commentators, yea, 
 by the very scope of the above passages, aion signifies 
 age. We ought not, then, very hastily to abandon this 
 as its meaning in other places, unless it is certainly 
 shown, that this cannot be its sense, but means end- 
 less duration. 
 
 Let us now pay attention to another class of texts, 
 which speak of the " end of the world or age," and 
 correspond to the above, which speak of the " begin- 
 ning of the world or age." This is nothing more than 
 might be expected, unless the Jewish age or dispensa- 
 tion was to be of endless duration. Matt. xxiv. 3. 
 '' Tell us, when shall these things be ? And what 
 shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of 
 the world ?" The Greek phrase here for " the end of 
 the world," is sunteleia iou aionos. Dr. Campbell 
 renders it — " the conclusion of this state ;" and both 
 Wakefield and Macknight — " the end of the age." — 
 Indeed, all the critics and commentators wliich 1 have 
 ever seen, allow that this phrase means the end of the 
 Jewish age or dispensation. The whole discourse in 
 which it occurs shows that this is a correct view of the 
 expression. In a case so obvious, it would be useless 
 to spend time in a formal proof of it. I may just 
 notice, to understand aion here to mean endless dura- 
 tion of time, would represent the disciples as asking 
 our Lord to tell them, what should be the sign of his 
 coming, and of " the end of the everlasting or endless 
 duration." But if it means age, it ought to be under^ 
 Stood so in other places^ unless good rei^spns can be^ 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 271 
 
 offered why it ought to be differently understood. — 
 The next passage where it occurs is. 
 
 Matt. xiii. 36 — 42. " 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. As. therefore the tares are gathered 
 and burned in the fire ; so shall it be in the end of this 
 world, The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, 
 and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things 
 that offend, and them which do Iniquity ; and shall 
 cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing 
 and gnashing of teeth." Precisely, the same Greek 
 phrase as in the last text, occurs twice in this passage, 
 and is rendered, in the common version, in a similar 
 manner. Wakefield and Dr. Campbell render it in 
 the same way, '^ fhe conclusion of this age," and "the 
 conclusion of this state." But it is referred, by some, 
 to the end of this material world, when all the wicked 
 shall be cast into a furnace of fire, or into hell. But 
 is this treatino- the lancruao^e of the inspired writers with 
 common respect ? What man would put up with hav- 
 ing his words so interpreted ? But that the phrase, 
 " the end of the w^orld," has the same sense here as 
 in the preceding passage 1 shall now briefly show.--r 
 The things which demand particular attention ai^ 
 
 1st. The field in which ijoth these seeds are said to 
 be sown. It is said expressly, " the field is the world." 
 The word for world here is Jcosmos, and not aion^ 
 which is alsQ rendered world, yerses^ 39, 40. JXqw^ 
 
272 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 let it be particularly observed, that in these two verses 
 where it is said, " the harvest is the end of the world," 
 and " in the end of the world," when the tares were 
 to be gathered, it is not the end of the Jcosmos, world, 
 or field, in which the seeds were sown, but the end of 
 the aion, or age, as in Matt. xxiv. 3. Our Lord de- 
 clared that the end of this world, or age, was to take 
 place during that generation. But in order to make 
 out the common opirion, our Lord should have said, 
 verses 39, 40, " the harvest is the end of the 'kosmos, 
 or field, in which the two seeds were sown : and that 
 in the end of this kosmos, world, the tares should be 
 gathered and burned." But not a word is said about 
 the end of the field, but only the end of the aion, or 
 age, which many of that generation lived to see. 
 
 2d. Where this furnace of fire was and in what it 
 consisted, into which the tares were cast at the end of 
 the age. This furnace of fire is commonly believed to 
 be in a future state of existence, and is just another 
 expression for hell fire. But all this is taken for 
 granted, which certainly ought to be proved. Where 
 then was it? Let the Scriptures answer the question. 
 In Isai. xxxi. 9, it is said, " The Lord whose fire is In 
 ZIon and whose furnace is in Jerusalem." It should 
 be remembered, that our Lord spoke to the Jews who 
 had the Old Testament in their handb, and without 
 doubt knew that God had thus spoken by the prophet. 
 But it may be asked, How was God's furnace in Jeru- 
 salem, and in what did It consist? Ezek.xxii. 17 — 23, 
 will inform us of this — '■ And the word of the Lord 
 came unto me, saying. Son of man, the house of Israel 
 is to me become dross ; all they are brass, and tin, and 
 iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace ; they are 
 even the dross of silver. Therefore, thus saith the 
 Lord God, Because ye are all become dross, behold, 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 11. ' 273 
 
 therefore, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusa- 
 lem. As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and 
 lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the 
 fire upon it, to melt It ; so will I gather you in my an- 
 ger, and in my fury, and T w^ill leave you there, and 
 melt you. Yea, I will gather you and blow upon you 
 in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the 
 midst thereof As silver is melted in the midst of the 
 furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; 
 and ye shall know that I the Lord have poured out 
 my fuiy upon you." Who can read this passage with- 
 out perceiving where this furnace wa^, in w4iat it con- 
 sisted, and also who were cast into it ? Permit me 
 briefly to notice the following things from this passage, 
 in connexion with our Lord's explanation of the para- 
 ble under consideration. The prophet and our Lord 
 both spoke of the same persons, the Jews. At the 
 end of the age, as' the prophet had declared, the whole 
 Jewish nation had become '' dross J^ With the ex- 
 ception of believers in Jesus, the nation of the Jews 
 exactly corresponded to this description of them. — 
 This one fact is sufficient to show, that the prophet 
 and our Lord, had respect to the same time, people, 
 and punishment. Our Lord seems to borrow his very 
 language, in regard .to the furnace of fire, from the 
 prophet. Further, it was at the end of the age, or 
 Jewish dispensation, God brought such dreadful mise- 
 ries on the Jewish nation, described under the figure of 
 a furnace of fire. Ezekiel declared that God would 
 gather the Jewish nation into Jerusalem as men 
 " gather metals into the midst of a furnace." This 
 was literally fulfilled. With the strictest propriety it 
 might be said, that God gathered them, for it was in 
 obedience to the command of God the whole nation 
 were assembled at the feast of the passover, when 
 
274 AN INQUIRY — PART II. 
 
 Titus surrounded the city, and from which they could 
 not. make their escape. They had indeed become 
 d?'oss, and into this furnace they were gathered to be 
 melted as metals are gathered to be melted in the 
 midst of a furnace. Well, how did God melt them ? 
 This is figurative language, and is thus explained, verse 
 22, '' And ye shall know that 1, the Lord, have poured 
 out my fury upon you." Upon that generation of the 
 Jews came all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, 
 Matt, xxiii. 25. Then was great " tribulation, such 
 as was not since the be^inninf^ of the world unto this 
 lime, no, nor ever-shall be," Matt. xxiv. 21. See also 
 1 Thess. ii. 16. If any one wishes to see how God 
 melted them like metals in this furnace, or how the 
 tares w^ere cast into this furnance to be burnt, at the 
 end of the age, let him consult Josephus' account of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, The above passage in 
 Ezekiel, the 24th of Matthew, and the passage before 
 us, all had their fulfilment in the unheard of calamities 
 which came on that people. There was indeed, at 
 this period, weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of 
 teeth, as our Lord declared. 
 
 But the following; w^ords strono;lv confirm the above 
 remarl^s. At verse 43, our Lord said, " Then shal) 
 the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of 
 their father." At the end of the age, when such mise- 
 ries came on the unbelieving Jews, the righteous, or 
 Christ's disciples, did shine forth in the kingdom of 
 their father. Observing the signs of the approaching 
 calamities. Matt, xxiv., they left the city and were pre- 
 served, as stated by IMacknight on this chapter. Our 
 Lord told them, Luke xxi. 28. '* When these things 
 begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your 
 heads ; for your redemption draweth nigh." Previ- 
 ous to this, Christians suffered the most severe perse- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 275 
 
 cutions from the Jews, but then they had rest from 
 their persecutors. At that period the kingdom of God 
 came with power. Christ was glorified in them, and 
 they were glorified in him. See on 2 Thess. chap, i., 
 below. In the words — " then shall the righteous 
 shine forth in the kingdom of their father," there seems 
 to be an allusion to Dan. xii. ,2, which has been shown, 
 refers to the same time and events. 
 
 Such is a brief statement of our views of this pas- 
 sage. In confirmation of them I would add the fol- 
 lowing. It has been shown that the temporal judg- 
 ments of God on the Jewish nation are set forth under 
 the figure of a furnace of fire. Now, we call on any 
 man to produce a single passage, where a punishment 
 in a future state of existence, is described under such 
 a figure. It will not do to take it for granted, that it 
 is done by our Lord in this passage, and in face of 
 the evidence we have adduced to the contrary. No ; 
 let proof be brought forward that this is his meaning. 
 Let it be accounted for, why the temporal calamities 
 which came on the Jewish nation are spoken of under 
 the figure of a furnace of fire, yet future eternal pun- 
 ishment is never so represented in the Scripture ? — 
 Besides, let some reason be given why the same 
 Greek phrase, rendered the end of the world, Matt. 
 xxiv. 3, and allowed to mean the end of the age or 
 Jewish dispensation, should not also mean the very 
 same thing in the passage before us ? Scripture usage, 
 both as to this phrase and the furnace of fire, is against 
 the common opinion, and in favor of the views I have 
 advanced. It is very evident also from the New Tes- 
 tament, that at the end of the Jewish age, a separation 
 was to take place, and is represented under various 
 figures, as well as in plain language. In the passage 
 before us, this separation between the rigliteous and 
 
276 AN IN^UIRl PART II. 
 
 the wicked, is represented by separating tares and 
 wheat. In others, separating chaff and wheat, good 
 and bad fish, he. The question is — Did a separa- 
 tion take place at the end of the Jewish age, answer- 
 able to these figurative representations ? I answer yes. 
 The whole Jewish nation were like chaff and wheat 
 promiscuously on the same floor, whether believers in 
 Christ, or unbelievers. Or like good and bad fish in 
 the same net, or as lares and wheat ojiowin^ in the 
 same field. But at the end of the age a separation 
 did take place, when the Jews were scattered among 
 all nations, and the separation between them and 
 Christians, or children of the kingdom, has continued 
 to this day. 
 
 It is very evident, that aion, in this passage, could 
 not well be rendered by any word signifying endless 
 duration. If it were, it would make our Lord to say, 
 ^' the harvest is the end of the everlasting or forever," 
 and, " so shall it be in the end of this everlasting or 
 forever." But who would impute such things to him, 
 who spake as never man spake ? To suppose he did, 
 would make a plurality of fore vers ; for this forever 
 implies another forever. Besides, it shows that forever 
 is to end, and that the endless punishment of the 
 wicked is only to begin at the end of the forever, 
 if the furnace of fire means hell fire in another state 
 of existence. 
 
 Any objections which have occurred to the views 
 advanced, I shall state and answer. 
 
 1st. " How, upon your views, could it be said, that 
 the devil sowed the tares among the wheat ?" If 
 this be any objection against my views, it lies equally 
 against the common view taken of this passage. If 
 my views of the devil be correct, this objection has no 
 force. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 277 
 
 2d. " Upon your views of this passage, bow are an- 
 gels to reap the harvest at the end of the age?" In 
 reply, let it be noticed, that the term angel simply sig- 
 nifies a messenger. Let any one consult Whitby or 
 Mackniffht, and he will see that the angels here refer- 
 red to were not angelic spirits, but human messen- 
 gers. He will also see how the separation at the end 
 of the age was effected by them. But see on Matt. 
 XXV., below, 
 
 3d. "Why was the temporal miseries which came 
 on the Jews represented under the figure of a furnace 
 of fire ?" Answer ; for a very good reason. A fur- 
 nace of hre was the severest punishment which an 
 eastern despot could devise. See Daniel iii. The 
 temporal judgments which came on the Jews at the 
 end of the age were such as the like had never 
 been before, nor shall the like ever be again. The 
 most severe eastern punishment, a furnace of fire, is 
 therefore chosen to describe them. See Mark xiii, 
 19, 20. 
 
 Matt. xiii. 47 — 50. The same Greek phrase as in 
 the two preceding texts occurs here, and is rendered 
 in the same way. As our Lord is only illustrating 
 the same things, and uses the very same figure of 
 a furnace of fire, we forbear transcribing it, or re- 
 marking on it. The remarks made on the last passage 
 are sufficient. 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 20. "Teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, I 
 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
 Precisely the same Greek phrase occurs here as in the 
 foregoing texts, and is rendered the same way in the 
 common version. Wakefield renders it — " the con- 
 clusion of the age;" and Campbell — "the conclu- 
 sion of this state." Parkhurst considers the Greek 
 
278 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 phrase here as referring to the end of the age of the 
 Messiahj and as equivalent to the end of this world, 
 yet precisely the same phrase, Matt. xxiv. 3, he says 
 signifies the end of the Jewish age or dispensation. — 
 But I ask — Why depart from the obvious sense of this 
 expression, Matt. xxiv. 3 ? Scripture usage ought not 
 to be departed from without good reasons. What leads 
 to such a departure here, probably, is, that to say "the 
 end of the world" means the end of the age or Jewish 
 dispensation, would limit Christ's promise to be with 
 his disciples to this period. This would not certainly 
 follow. But I shall proceed to show that in the sense 
 Christ here promised to be with his disciples, it 
 was not needed beyond the end of the Jewish dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 It seems to be overlooked that our Lord was here 
 addressing himself to the eleven apostles. Nor is it 
 sufficiently understood in what sense he promised to be 
 with them unto the end of the age. If verse 16, and 
 the parallel texts are consulted, it appears that the 
 apostles are the persons of whom he speaks, and he 
 promised to be with them in a sense he never was, and 
 never will be again vv'ith any other persons. He was 
 with them, in teaching them the doctrine and laws of 
 his kingdom, and enabling them to work miracles in 
 proof of their being his ambassadors to the world. But 
 will any man have the arrogance to affirm, that Christ 
 is with him in such a sense ? The vain and arrogant 
 pretences of men to being ambassadors of Christ, we 
 hope is now nearly exploded. Supposing then, that 
 all the apostles had lived beyond the end of the age, 
 or the destruction of Jerusalem, yea, let it be granted 
 that they were all yet alive, there was no need for 
 Christ being with them longer than to the end of the 
 age. Am t asked why ? 1 answer, before this period 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. ^79 
 
 arrived the gosjoel must be preached to all the world. 
 See Matth. xxiv. 14. When it arrived, the apostles 
 had all finished their work for which they were called, 
 and all of thern except John had also finished their 
 course. Allowing that they had all continued to live 
 to the present day, would Christ have continued to be 
 with them, still teaching them and enabling to work 
 miracles ? I ask what need there was for this ? AH 
 the will of God was revealed, and his word attested by 
 miracles before the end of the age. Unless God had 
 some further revelation to make by them, they could 
 but repeat what before was preached and committed 
 to writing, and fully attested by miracles. Vv^ ere they 
 now alive, would they not like us believe and obey 
 what God, previous to the end of the age, enabled them 
 to communicate to the world ? This I am persuaded 
 few will question. It is easily seen then, that the 
 phrase " the end of the world," is in agreement with 
 the usage of it in all the other texts, and that Christ's pro- 
 raise to be with his apostles at this period, was as long 
 as his promise was needed, or indeed could be enjoyed 
 by them in this mortal state. 
 
 I may just notice that I have no occasion to discuss 
 the disputed question, that miracles were continued in 
 the church for the first three hundred years. Granting 
 that they were continued, let it be noticed, that none 
 but the apostles were our Lord's commissioned and ac- 
 credited ambassadors to the world. With them, and 
 them only, we have to do as instructors. If he was 
 with any others working miracles beyond the end of 
 the Jewish age, it does not concern us, nor does it affect 
 the question we are at present considering. 
 
 It is very plain that aion^ here rendered world, was 
 not used to express endless duration. To sup})0se this, 
 would make our Lord promise to be with his apostles 
 
280 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 to the end of everlasting or eternity. This would give 
 rise to many questions. What time does eternity end ? 
 If it ends, pray when did it begin ? And were the 
 apostles to live to the end of eternity ? Besides, if 
 eternity ends, how is endless punishment to be estab- 
 lished ? 
 
 Heb. ix. 26. " For then must he often have suffered 
 since the foundation of the world; but now once in the 
 end of the world halh he appeared, to put away sin by 
 the sacrifice of himself" The word world occurs 
 twice in this verse, but in the first it is the rendering 
 of the word 7t05??i05, and in the second that o[ aionon. 
 Most readers suppose the first has a reference to the 
 beginning of this material world, and the second to the 
 end of it. The first is true, but nothing could be fur- 
 ther from the truth than the second. Was it in the 
 end of this material world Christ appeared to put away 
 sin by the sacrifice of himself? It was not in the end 
 of the Icosmos or world mentioned in the first part of 
 the verse, but in tlie end of the ages. Hence Mack- 
 night renders it thus : " but now once, at the conclu- 
 sion of the ages, he hath been manifested to abolish 
 sin-ofFering by the sacrifice of himself." All must see 
 how absurd it would be to say here, that at the end of 
 the everlastings or eternities, Christ appeared to abolish 
 sin-ofFering. It is agreeable to the fact, that at the 
 end of the ages or Jewish dispensation he did appear 
 and accomplish this. 
 
 1 Cor. X. 11. " Now all these things happened unto 
 them for ensamples : and they are written for our ad- 
 monition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." 
 Though the Greek expression here is somewhat differ- 
 ent from that used in the preceding passages, without 
 a doubt the apostle referred to the same period. Mack- 
 night renders it " upon whom the ends ol the ages are 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 281 
 
 come." In his note he says, " this may mean the end 
 of the Mosaic dispensation, whose duration ^^as mea- 
 sured by ages or jubilees ; see Rom. xvi. 25, note 3, 
 or, it may signify the last dispensation of religion. For 
 there was the Patriarchal age, or dispensation, the Mo- 
 saic age, and the Gospel age." See Whitby's note on 
 this text, who renders this phrase " the end of the 
 ages." 
 
 In concluding our remarks on all these texts it ought 
 to be noticed, that even admitting endless misery true, 
 some of them have been perverted in attempting to 
 prove it. How often has the furnace of fire afforded a 
 theme of declamation to preachers, and cause of pain 
 and distress to those who believed them. But is it 
 saying too much, that they were only beating the air, 
 and perverting Scripture to create fears where there 
 really were none. My labor is not lost if have res- 
 cued such passages of God's word from such a perver- 
 sion. In my explanation of this phrase, I have shown 
 its usage to be uniform throughout the New Testa- 
 ment, and the precision and consistency of the sacred 
 writers in its use are manifest. Every candid mind 
 will allow, that all the passages which speak of the end 
 of the world or age, correspond to the preceding which 
 made mention of the beginning of the world or age. — 
 In both classes of texts, we have seen that critics and 
 commentators are agreed, both orthodox and heterodox, 
 that aion, world, does not signify this material world, 
 but age, state, or dispensation. 
 
 1 shall now proceed to consider two other classes of 
 texts in which aion occurs, corresponding to each other 
 in the New Testament. Those which speak of " this 
 world or age," and " the world or age to come." Let 
 us first bring forward all those which speak of this 
 world, Aion and Jcosmos both rendered ivorld, are 
 
282 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 very different in signification, and we do not recollect 
 an instance, where these words are used as synony- 
 mous. Tn the texts now to be introduced, the word 
 for world is not Jcosmos but aio?i. The phrases for 
 "this world" are ton aionos touto, to aioni touto, and 
 en to nun aioni, and occur in the following places. 2 
 Cor. \v. 4, " In whom the god of this world hath 
 blinded the minds of them that believe not." On this 
 text Macknight says " some have it age.^^ In Eph. 
 vi. 12, "for we wrestle against the rulers of the dark- 
 ness of this world." Wakefield here renders aion age. 
 But again it is said, Gal. i. 4, '' Who gave himself for 
 our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil 
 world." Here again Wakefield has it age. On this 
 text Macknight thus \vrites : '' Evil age, aionos pone- 
 ros. In Scripture, the age or world, is often put for 
 the men of the world, and for their evil principles and 
 practices. Thus Rom. xii. 2, " be not conformed, 
 aioni touto, to this age." And in Luke xvi. 8, it is 
 said " for the children of this world are in their gene- 
 ration wiser than the children of light." In 2 Tim. 
 IV. 10, it is said, " Demas hath forsaken me, having 
 loved this pi-esent world." It surely cannot be meant, 
 that he loved this present everlasting or forever : nor, 
 that the children of this forever, were wiser than the 
 children of light. In Rom. xii. 2, it is said — "and be 
 not conformed to thisworld.^' In 1 Cor. iii. 18, "If 
 any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world," 
 I may just notice, that aion is here rendered age, both 
 by Wakefield and Macknight. Again, 1 Tim. vi. 17, 
 it is said, •' charge them that are rich in this world."— 
 And Tit. ii. 12, " Teaching that we should live sober- 
 ly, righteously, and godly in tliis present world." In 
 the two last texts the Greek is, en to nun aioni, and 
 ought to have been rendered in both the same way.—' 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 283 
 
 It is obvious, aiori could not have been rendered ever- 
 lasting or forever in any of these texts, without making 
 the inspired writers speak nonsense. Nor can we per- 
 ceive, wh}^ the above critics rendered aion age, in 1 
 Cor. iii, 18, and not so in all the other places. But 
 to proceed : in Matth. xiii, 22, it is said, " and the 
 cares of this world choke the word." See the same, 
 Mark iv. 19. And 1 Cor. i. 20, it is said, '< Where is 
 the wise ? Where is the scribe ? Where is the dis- 
 puter of this world ? Hath not God made foolish the 
 wisdom of this world ?" I may just notice here that 
 the word for world in the last part of this verse and in 
 verse 21, is not aio7i, but kosmos in the original. A 
 marked distinction is made between them in the Greek, 
 though this is concealed, by both being rendered world 
 in our version. In 1 Cor. ii. 6 — 8, it is said, " how- 
 beit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect ; 
 yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of 
 this world, that come to naught : but we speak the 
 wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, 
 which God ordained before the world unto our glory ; 
 which none of the princes of this world know : for had 
 they known it they would not have crucified the Lord 
 of glory." The word aion here is rendered by Wake- 
 field age, and Macknight's note on it shows us what is 
 meant by the phrase rendered this world in all the 
 above passages. He says, " Locke observes that in 
 the writings of the New Testament, aion outes, this 
 world, commonly signifies the state of mankind before 
 the publication of the Gospel, as contradistinguished to 
 the evangelical state or constitution, which is common- 
 ly called, aion mellon. the world to come." The fol- 
 lowing things are worthy of notice in this quotation. 
 1st. It is allowed that the phrase this world, does not 
 mean ibis material woddjbut signifies the state of man- 
 
284 AN INQ,UIRY PART II, 
 
 kind before the publication of the GosjDel. And Qd. 
 That this state is contradistinguished from another 
 called the evangelical state or constitution, and called 
 aionmello)i, the world to come. If this be correct, it 
 essentially alters the sense of all the passages where 
 these expressions occur. Am I asked, How it does 
 this ? I answer ; that in the passages where the ex- 
 pression this world occurs, people understand it to 
 mean this material world, and by the expression ?forZc? 
 to come is universally understood the future state of 
 endless existence. The ahove quotation applies to all 
 the texts where the phrases this world and the world 
 to come occur. Such are all the texts where the phrase 
 this world occurs by itself. It is found in some others, 
 and is joined with the phrase world to come. Before 
 introducinjg: these I would notice the followino- thino;s 
 from the texts already hrought forward. 
 
 1st. Supposing that aion in the above texts had 
 been rendered everlasting, forever, or by any word 
 conveying the idea of endless duration, what would 
 have followed ? We should then have read of this 
 forever, this present forever, and of this present evil 
 forever. This would naturally lead to the inquiry, 
 how many forevers are there ? And how many of them 
 are evil ? We should also be exhorted not to be con- 
 formed to this forever, and to become fools in this for- 
 ever, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this 
 forever, and the rich that they should not be high 
 minded in this forever, W"e should also be told, that 
 the cares of this forever choke the word ; and the 
 question would be asked — where is the disputer of this 
 forever? Besides, the apostle would be made to say, 
 that he spoke of the wisdom and princes of this for- 
 ever, even the wisdom which God ordained before the 
 forever, and which none of the princes of this forever 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 2gS 
 
 knew. We should also read of the God of this for- 
 ever, and the rulers of the darkness of this forever, and 
 Christ gave himself that he might deliver us from this 
 present evil forever. 
 
 2d, The word world, by which aion is rendered in 
 the above texts conceals all these glaring improprie- 
 ties, but it is obvious enough, that even world is not a 
 very correct rendering. Who does not perceive this 
 in the passages where it is said " this present world," 
 and " this present evil world ?" The questions here 
 naturally enough occur — how many worlds are there, 
 how many of them are evil, and is not this world al- 
 ways present ? Why then speak of it not only as evil 
 but as present ? And, according to the sense com- 
 monly affixed to the word world, how could the apos- 
 tle with truth say, that none of the princes of this world 
 had known Christ ? Surely some princes of this world 
 knew him, for Abraham was a mighty prince, and re- 
 joiced to see his day afar off and was glad. 
 
 3d. It is easily seen that if aion is rendered age in 
 all the abov^e texts, not only are such improprieties 
 avoided, but a beauty and force is added to some of 
 them, which is concealed by our present translation. 
 Convinced of this, some of the most eminent orthodox 
 critics and comnientators, have rendered aioji age, and 
 the translators of our common version have done the 
 same in several passages. Why it was not done in 
 many more, deserves the reader's consideration. We 
 believe it is now a generally conceded point, that age, 
 in a great many instances at least, is a better render- 
 ing than the word world. I may add, if any one con- 
 tends for aion to mean endless duration it may also be 
 contended that there is more than one eternity, for this 
 aion if it does mean forever, implies one or more of the 
 same thing. 
 
 19 
 
286 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 Let us now attend to the passages where the phrase 
 '^ world to come" is used. The first is Heb. vi. 5, 
 " And have tasted the good word of God, and the 
 powers of the world to come." The Greek for " world 
 to come" is mellontos aionos. Let us then hear, what 
 good orthodox writers say is the sense of this expres- 
 sion ? Whitby, on this text, says, " The world to come 
 doth, in the language of the prophets, and Jewish doc- 
 tors, signify the times of the Messiah, who, in the pro- 
 phet Isaiah, is called " the father of the world to come." 
 See note on chap. ii. 5. The powers, therefore, of 
 the world to come, according to the Scripture idiom, 
 must be the external operations of the Holy Ghost, viz, 
 the gifts of faith, of healing, of casting out devils, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 8, 9, ' the working of miracles,' or the o[)erations 
 of powers." Peirce says, " The world or age to come 
 is a Hebrew phrase and signifies the times of the Mes- 
 siah, oulm cha'^ Macknight gives us the same expla- 
 nation as Whitby ; and Dr. Owen, whose praise is in 
 all orthodox churches, explains this phrase in the same 
 manner. See also the new Theological Repository, 
 vol. i. pp. 51 — 53, for the same explanation, given at 
 considerable length, all of which my limits forbid quo- 
 ting. We have introduced, on the phrase ^' world to 
 come," all these testimonies for several reasons. These 
 authors are as one man agreed about the meaning of 
 this expression. They are competent to judge in the 
 case, and not one of them was ever suspected of unbe- 
 lief in the doctrine of endless misery. What then is 
 their united decision ? They establish beyond all con- 
 tradiction, that the phrase '* world to come," does not 
 mean the future eternal state of existence after death, 
 but the age of the Messiah. 
 
 Heb. ii. 5. " For unto the angels hath he not put 
 m subjection the world to come whereof we speak," 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 287 
 
 The Greek phrase, here rendered the " worid to come," 
 is oikoumene ton melloiisan, which evidently means the 
 same as in the last text. Parkhurst, on the word 
 oikoumene, says, "The world to come, Heb. ii. 5, 
 seems to denote the state of the world under theMeS' 
 siah, or the kingdom of the Messiah, which began at 
 his first advent, and shall be completed at his second 
 o^lorious oomino^. The Jews in like manner call the 
 kingdom of the Messiah, eba ^2^/e?w, the world to come, 
 probably from the prophesy of Isai. Ixv. 17, where it 
 is represented by new heavens and a new earth. It is 
 observable that Paul uses this phrase only in this pas^ 
 sage of his Epistle to the Hebrews or converted Jews, 
 as being, I suppose, a manner of expression peculiar to 
 thero, but not so intelligible to the Gentile converts." 
 See Whitby and Doddridge on the place, and com p. 
 Heb. vi. 5." See also Peirce on this text, and on 
 Heb. i. 14. All these, and otlier writers which might 
 be named, give the same explanation of the phrase, 
 world to come, which I forbear quoting. But in the 
 following texts the phrase, 'Mhis world," and ^^the 
 world to come," are mentioned together. 
 
 Eph. i. 21. "Far above all principality, and pow- 
 er, and might, and dominion, and every name that is 
 earned, not only in this world, but also in that to come." 
 The Greek here is, ou mo?ion en to aioni touto alia 
 Jcai en to mellonti, which Wakefield renders^ "not 
 only in this, but also in the future age." 
 
 Matth. xii. 31, 32. " Wherefore 1 say unto you, all 
 manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto 
 men : but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not 
 be be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh 
 a word against the son of man it shall be forgiven him, 
 but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it 
 shall not be forgiven him; neither m this world, neub§r 
 
288 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 in the world to come." See the parallel texts, I\Iark 
 iii. 29 — 30, and Luke xii. 10, which I need not quote. 
 The common doctrine from these passages is — that 
 neither before nor after death can the sin against the 
 Holy Ghost be forgiven. As this doctrine has driven 
 some to madness, and others to suicide, common hu- 
 manity would say, " examine if it be true." Tliose 
 who contend for it, overlook that it is implied that 
 some sins may be forgiven in the world to come, if 
 their view of this phrase be correct. But do they al- 
 low that any sins are to be forgiven after death ? Ta- 
 king into view all the above passages, let us con- 
 sider, 
 
 1st. Wherein the great guilt of the sin against the 
 Holy Spirit consisted. From Mark iii. '28 — 30, and 
 other places, it appears that the guilt of this sin con- 
 sisted in seeing miracles wrought and imputing them 
 to the power of an unclean spirit. It was resisting the 
 highest degree of evidence which could be given of the 
 mission of our Lord. But on this point it is unneces- 
 sary for us to dwell. Therefore, let us consider, 
 
 2d. When or where it could not be forgiven. It is 
 said it shall not be forgiven in " this world.'' This 
 means, as we have seen from orthodox wiiters, it 
 should not be forgiven in the Jewish age, which was 
 then nearly ended. Nor could it be forgiven in the 
 world or age to come, which we have seen from the 
 same authors, means the age of the INIessiah, which was 
 to succeed the Jewish age or dispensation. Whitby 
 renders the words, " neither in this age, nor the age to 
 come." It seems then a very obvious case, that when 
 it is said the sin against the Holy Spirit shall not be 
 forgiven in this world nor in the world to come, there 
 is no reference to a state after death. It simply means, 
 it should not be forgiven while the Jewish aire or dis- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 289 
 
 pensatlon continued, nor under the age of the Messiah, 
 which was then about to commence. Or, in other 
 words, during the ministry of our Lord or his apostles, 
 who both wrought miracles, which were necessary to 
 be seen wrought and blasphemed against, in order to 
 any person's committing this sin. 
 
 Well, its being said, "it shall not be forgiven him, 
 neither in this world, neither in the world to come," is 
 strong, explicit language, importing the non-forgiveness 
 of this sin ? It is, nor do we wish to lessen its force, 
 but shall attempt to meet it fairly and fully. But let 
 us first hear Macknight. He says — "or we may trans- 
 late the clause differently, it shall not he forgiven him 
 neither in this age, neither in the age to come, import- 
 ing that no expiation was provided for the blasphemer 
 of the spirit, either under the Jewish or Christian dis- 
 pensations." What then was the unpardonable nature 
 of the sin of blasphemy during the period called "this 
 world," which we have seen means the Jewish age or 
 dispensation ? It is well known, that to the blasphe- 
 mer under the law, no pardon was granted ; no sacri- 
 fice could expiate his crime ; he must suffer death. — 
 Permit me now to ask, was the punishment of such 
 persons unpardonable in any other sense than that they 
 suffered temporal death ? Even the blasphemer of the 
 God of Israel, his blasphemy is not mentioned as un- 
 pardonable, so as to affect his future endless happiness. 
 ?^o one surely will contend, that to blaspheme against 
 the Holy Spirit was a greater crime ; for allowing the 
 Spirit to be the third person in the Godhead, he is not 
 greater than the God of Israel. How then do we un- 
 derstand this blasphemy to be a sin, which, when com- 
 mitted, the person's case is past all remedy ? But 
 other sins besides blasphemy were unpardonable under 
 the Mosaic dispensation. The sin of Moses and Aa- 
 
290 AN INQUIRY— -PART ll. 
 
 ron at Meribah was so, and was punished with deatE^ 
 in the wilderness. The sin of Eli's house could not 
 be purged with sacrifice nor burnt offering forever. — 
 Murder was also unpardonable. They were to take 
 the murderer from God's altar and put him to death. 
 As " the world to come/' then refers to the age of the 
 Messiah, this sin is to be unpardonable, and unpardon- 
 able in the same sense as it was durins^ the Jewish a.^Q 
 called " this world." Its unpardonable nature we think 
 must be understood in the same sense, for no distinc- 
 tion is made by our Lord in the two cases. If the 
 sense In which it was unpardonable during the Jewish 
 age, was, that the person must suffer temporal death for 
 it, the same must be its sense under the age of the Mes- 
 siah. It is generally admitted, that temporal death 
 was the punishment of crimes under the old dispensa- 
 tion, and that temporal death was inflicted for crimes 
 under the new, no one will dispute ; for Annanias and 
 his wifej persons in the church at Corinth, are noted 
 examples; and John speaks of a sin unto death, for 
 which even Christians were not to prav^ 1 John v, 
 16, 17. 
 
 Stating then this sin at its utmost extent, persons 
 were to suffer death for it, as was inflicted on the blas- 
 phemer of the God of Israel. What^ some may say, 
 do men suffer death for this sin in our day ? I answer 
 no, and for a very good reason, because it is impossible 
 In the nature of the case to* commit it in the present 
 day. Is it asked why ? I answer^ because miracles 
 must be seen performed by the person, and he must re- 
 sist their evidence, and ascribe their performance to an 
 unclean spirit, before he can commit this sin. It could 
 only be committed by persons under the ministry of 
 our Lord and his disciples, who wrought miracles. Did 
 men now see these miracles, as the persons did whotn 
 
AN INQUIRY PART It, '291 
 
 our Lord addressed, it could be committed, but unless 
 the age of miracles return, it is impossible. The mira* 
 cles wrought before the Jews, was the highest degree 
 of evidence wliich could be given them that he was 
 the true Messiah. Resisting and blaspheming them, 
 rendered their case hopeless, for no further evidence 
 could be given to convince them. But it may be said 
 — Did the unbelieving Jews suffer temporal death for 
 this crime ? They could not be put to death for it by 
 the Mosaic law, for they did not believe they had in 
 this case blasphemed. Besides, the execution of this 
 law was in their own hands. But death was inflicted 
 on that evil generation of Jews, for upon them came all 
 the righteous blood shed upon the earth. Not believ- 
 ing in Jesus, they died in, or rather by their sins, for the 
 wrath of God came on them to the uttermost. 
 
 If the views which have been stated of the sin of 
 blasphemy, and its punishment, be correct, it fully ac- 
 counts for one remarkable fact, which is not easily ac- 
 counted for on the common views entertained of it. — 
 How is it accounted for, that our Lord nor his apostles 
 ever made any exception of such persons, in preaching 
 forgiveness of sins either to Jews or Gentiles? Our 
 Lord commanded his apostles to begin at Jerusalem, 
 but gives no directions to them to except a single in- 
 dividual whom they might address. John prohibits 
 Christians from praying for one of their brethren, who 
 had sinned a sin unto death, but not a hint is dropped, 
 prohibiting forgiveness of sins to be preached to any 
 who had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. On my 
 views of this sin, this is all as it ought to be, and as 
 might be expected. But can it ever be reconciled 
 with the common opinion, that those who sinned this 
 sin placed themselves without the boundaries of God's 
 mercy ? Either they believed that none had commit- 
 
292 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 ted it, or they believed that it did not except the per- 
 sons, any more than others, from having repentance 
 and forgiveness of sins preached unto them. Had they 
 beHeved such persons were exceptions from the mercy 
 of God, would they not have said, the sin against the 
 Holy Spirit is utterly unpardonable ? AH you who 
 have committed it, your situation is past remedy. We 
 can neither pray for you, nor preach to you forgive- 
 ness." But we search in vain for any thing like this 
 in all the inspired writings. The only thing like it is 
 John's prohibition to Christians to pray for a brother 
 who had sinned a sin unto death. But no one under- 
 stands this as affecting the eternal condition of the in- 
 dividual, but the punishment of temporal death. 
 
 But it may be said — " Plausible as all this appears, 
 it ought to be recollected, that it is not only said such 
 persons ' hath never forgiveness,' but it is also added, 
 that they are in danger oi eternal damnatio7i,^^ I have 
 not forgotten this, and shall now give it all due atten- 
 tion. The Greek phrase for " eternal damnation" is 
 aioniou Jcriseos, I do not stop to remark, but simply 
 notice, that the persons are only said to be in danger 
 of this ; whereas people in our day, speak with posi- 
 tive certainty, both as to this and Judas' being in hell. 
 The word here rendered damnation, simply means 
 punishment. It is so rendered in other passages. See 
 Dr. Campbell's note on Mark xii. 40, where he shows 
 this. The words damned and damnation, lead peo- 
 ple's minds into a future state for this punishment. — 
 This is a very false idea, and ought to be corrected ; 
 for the word damnation is used in the common version 
 where they will allow it has nothing to do with a future 
 state. See Rom. xiii. 2, and other places. We are 
 aware it will be said, the word eternal joined here with 
 damnation, shows that the punishment is in a future 
 
AN INQUIRY PAE.T II. 293 
 
 State, and of endless duration. It is then allowed that 
 the whole depends upon the word eternal. Indeed, I 
 presume it is this word joined with damnation which 
 leads most people to conclude that it is of endless du- 
 ration. Would they ever have believed this doctrine 
 had this not been the case ? Let it be noticed, 
 
 1st. That our Lord, in the above passages, was ad- 
 dressing Jews. They were the persons who commit- 
 ted this unpardonable sin, if ever it was committed. — 
 They had the occasion presented to them for its com- 
 mission, as they chiefly enjoyed the ministry and mira- 
 cles both of Christ and his apostles. Not a hint is 
 dropped that any of the Gentiles ever committed this 
 sin. 
 
 2d. Being Jews, they were familiar with the use of 
 olim in the Old, and aion in the New Testament. And 
 it has been seen, that olim in their Scriptures, is applied 
 very often to things which were to end, and which 
 have already ended. The person who would therefore 
 understand this text and oihers in the New Testament, 
 must consider how this lanojuao-e was understood amono; 
 the Jews, and not how Christians now understand 
 them. 
 
 3d. The Jews could not help seeing, that in their 
 Scriptures, olim, rendered everlasting, was applied to 
 a temporal punishment threatened them as a nation. 
 This we have show^n, and this we shall show hereafter 
 on Matth. chap. xxv. and 2 The<^s. i. 5 — 10. Now 
 permit me to ask — Did any Jew, or did any one else 
 ever conclude that the word olim described a never- 
 ending punishment either in this or a future world? — 
 As this will not be affirmed, permit me to ask, By 
 what fair rule of interpretation do we then interpret 
 eternal damnation or punishment in this passage to 
 mean endless punishment in a future state ? As our 
 
294 AN INQUIRY PART 11. 
 
 Lord was speaking to Jews, is it not more Scriptural 
 and natural to understand him as using tliis expression 
 in agreement with the language of their sacred books, 
 than in the sense Christians interpret it? In what 
 other sense could our Lord use it, or in what other 
 sense could Jews understand such language, but in 
 the way it had been used by the preceding Scrip- 
 ture writers ? But this will appear conclusive by 
 considering, 
 
 4th. That in no part of the Old Testament, is ollm 
 ever used and applied to a punishmejit after death. — 
 This we think a fact, which will not easily be shown 
 to be false. The reader has had all the texts where 
 the word is used in the Old Testament laid before him, 
 Bnd those in which it could be supposed to have such 
 a sense have been particularly consideied. Let him, 
 then, judge if our Lord used, and the Jews could un 
 derstand the expression, eternal damnation, in the 
 sense we moderns put upon it. The proof, at any 
 rate, lies with those who believe so, for no man can 
 prove a negative. But w^e have in this case some 
 proof, that our Lord neither meant, nor was he so un- 
 derstood by the Jews who heard him. First, no Jew 
 believed that he was to suffer endless punishment 
 either here or hereafter. See Whitby on Romans ii. 
 Again, no doctrine our Lord advanced, could have 
 been more displeasing to the Jews. They to suffer 
 endless punishment who were the children of Abra- 
 ham ? No; this was far from their thoughts. But 
 again, though our Lord and the Jews had many rea- 
 sonings and contentions arising from his doctrines, do 
 we ever find that any of them arose from his threaten- 
 ing them with endless punishment in a future state ? — 
 No, nothing like this appears. Either, then, our I.jord 
 did not theaten them with this, or if he did, they did 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART 11. ^95 
 
 not understand liim ; or, if they did understand him^ 
 they acted very differently about from what they did 
 on all other occasions. In this case, they subnnitted 
 very tamely to a threatening, never before mentioned 
 in their Sciiptures, and directly in face of all their pre- 
 judices as a nation. 
 
 olh. We see nothing in the expression " eternal 
 damnation," indicating endless punishment, any more 
 than in others which we think we have shown refer to 
 no such thing. Is this expression stronger in favor of 
 the doctrine than " damnation of hell, the fire that 
 shall never be quenched," with others, which we think 
 has been proved in the Inquiry into the words Sheol, 
 &LC., to refer to temporal punishment? Or. is it 
 stronger in favor of this doctrine than the expressions 
 '•' everlasting fire, eternal punishment, everlasting de- 
 struction, with others, which we shall presently show 
 have no such meaning ? If these expressions refer to 
 the temporal punishment of the Jews, why not also 
 the expression "eternal damnation," before us? Jews 
 who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit were ad- 
 dressed. The most convincing proofs had been of- 
 fered them that Jesus was the Messiah. These they 
 resisted, and blasphemed the power by which they 
 were performed. They were soon to fill up the mea- 
 sure of their iniquity, and could not escape the dam- 
 nation of hell. There remained for them no more 
 sacrifice for their sins, but a certain fearful looking for, 
 of judgment and fiery indignation to devour them as 
 adversaries. Their sin was not to be for^^iven, that 
 their punishment might be averted. They were in 
 danger of " eternal damnation," or punishment, even 
 the everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
 Lord, which as a nation they have suffered, and are 
 still suffering. The Greek phrase, '^ aionioukriseos^^' 
 
296 AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 
 
 rendered '' eternal damnation," may be rendered " of 
 the age of judgment," or " of the judgment of the age" 
 both words being in the genitive. It is called the 
 damnation of hell, the fire that shall never be quench- 
 ed, the greater damnation, and is set forth by the 
 severest eastern punishment, '' a furnace of fire." In 
 plain language it is described by our Lord, Matthew, 
 chapters xxiv. xxv. 
 
 Matt. xix. 27—29. '' Then answered Peter, and 
 said unto him, behold, we have forsaken all and fol- 
 lowed thee : what shall we have therefore ? And 
 Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye 
 that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the 
 Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also 
 shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelves tribes 
 of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, 
 or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or 
 children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive 
 an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." — 
 The parallel texts are, Mark x. 28 — 31, and Luke 
 xviii. 28 — 30, which t need not quote. Mark and 
 Luke say, " and in the world to come life everlasting." 
 Wakefield's rendering is, •' and in the age that is 
 coming everlasting life." It will not be questioned, 
 that the phrases, '' this time," and '' this present time" 
 in these texts, express the same as is meant by the 
 phrase '' this world," or age, in preceding passages. — 
 They all refer to the Jewish age, which was to be 
 superseded by the age of the Messiah, and repeatedly 
 called the age or " world to come." In fact no other 
 age could come, for no other was promised, or expec- 
 ted bv the Jews, but the a^e of the Messiah. But 
 the phrase, " world to come," by most Christians is 
 interpreted to mean, the state after death, and the 
 phrase '•' everlasting life," the happiness to be enjoyed 
 
AN INQUIRY PART Tl. 297 
 
 in that state. But, that by "• the world to come," is 
 meant the age of the Messiah, is conchisively shown 
 by orthodox writers above, who declare it is to end at 
 Christ's second coming. See 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28. My 
 reasons for thinking, that the eternal life here spoken 
 of, refers to the life enjo3^ed in the kingdom of Christ 
 during the age of the IMessiah, I shall as briefly as pos- 
 sible state : 
 
 1st. This appears from the Old Testament usage of 
 the phrase " everlasting life," which occurs only in 
 Dan. xii. 2, considered above. It is set in contrast 
 with the shame and everlasting contempt which came 
 on the Jewish nation at the end of the age. If their 
 shame and everlasting contempt, were to be endured 
 in this state of existence, why not the eternal life with 
 which it is contrasted, be enjoyed also in the same 
 state ? The c(3ntrast would be incongruous if it is un- 
 derstood otherwise. 
 
 2. From the context of the passages under con- 
 sideration, it is evident, that what our Lord said was 
 in answer to Peter's question, verse 27, which was sug- 
 gested by the discourse immediately preceding it, verses 
 16 — 27. According to Daniel's use of the words eter- 
 nal life, what else could this man mean, than, what 
 good thing shall I do, that I may enjoy the blessings of 
 Messiah's reign, or enter into his kingdom ? That this 
 view of everlasting life, is agreeable to the passage be- 
 fore us, is evident, for it was to be enjoyed in '^ the 
 world to come," or in the age of the Messiah. The 
 Jews were familiar with Daniel's writings, and if in 
 this sense it was used there, how could the Jews in 
 our Lord's day uriderstand it in a different sense with- 
 out some explanation ? That this was the sense in 
 which it was used, appears to me evident from the fol- 
 lowing statements, and the texts referred to. In the 
 
298 AN INQ.UIRY PART II. 
 
 New Testament, " kingdom of heaven," and "king- 
 dom of God," are phrases used to express the same 
 thing ; compare Matt. xix. 20, with verse 24, as an 
 example. This is very obvious from comparing the 
 four Gospels. It is also evident, that to '' have eter- 
 nal life," and to '' enter into eternal life," also mean 
 the same thing. Compare Matt. xix. 16, with verse 
 17. But let it be particularly observed, that to " en- 
 ter into life," and " to have eternal life," is the same 
 as "to enter into the kingdom of heaven," or " king- 
 dom of God." This appears from comparing Matt. 
 xix. 16, 17, with verses 23, 24. Also from compa^ 
 ring Mark ix. 43, 45, with verse 47, where entering 
 into the kingdom of heaven and entering into life, are 
 used as equivalent expressions. If these statements 
 are not correct, we should think it a hopeless case, to 
 ascertain the sense of Scripture by comparing one part 
 of it with another. I may add, that " to be saved," 
 versa 25 of Matt, xix., seems to be used as an equiva- 
 lent expression for " having eternal life," verse 16, 
 " to enter into life," verse 17, and " to enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God," verses 23, 
 24. Let us now look at the context of the passage 
 before us. " And behold, one came and said to him 
 good master, what good thing shall I do that I may 
 have eternal life," verse 16. And compare Mark x, 
 17. Luke xviii, 18; Luke x. 25. Permit me now 
 to ask— When this person asked what good thing he 
 should do to "have eternal life," did he mean to ask, 
 what he should do to obtain heaven and its happiness ? 
 We must doubt this, for we have seen that what he 
 calls eternal life, verse 16, is to enter into life, verse 
 ]7, and to enter into the kingdom of heaven or king- 
 dom of God, verses 23, 24. His meaning seems evi' 
 dently to be, good master, what shall I do to enter in- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. ' 299 
 
 to the kingdom of heaven or reign of the Messiah, 
 whose kingdom or reign is about commencing. If this 
 be correct, it is easily perceived how exactly this 
 sense of the phrase agrees with the only place in the 
 Old Testament where everlasting life is mentioned. — 
 Daniel told us that some should awake ^' to everlasting 
 life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."-^ 
 This person seemed to be awaking to everlasting life, 
 but we see that his trusting in his riches, still kept him 
 from entering; into the kingdom of God. One seems 
 to have been so much awakened, that our Lord said 
 he was not far from the kingdom of God, or obtaining 
 eternal life. See Mark xii. 28—35. 
 
 3d. Tt appears from considering where or when this 
 eternal life was to be enjoyed. Not a word is said in 
 the passage, that this was in a future state of existence. 
 It was to be when the Son of Man sat on the throne 
 o.f his glory, and the apostles on twelve thrones, judg» 
 ing the twelve tribes of Israel. But are the apostles 
 to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
 Israel in a future state of existence ? Well, when was 
 this ? The following writers shall inform us, Mac- 
 knight, on this passage observes — " According to the 
 common Interpretation of these words, they relate en- 
 tirely to the other life ; implying, that at the gene- 
 ral judgment the apostles shall assist Christ in passing 
 sentence upon the Israelites." But so far from agree- 
 ing to this interpretation, he says—" In the seventh 
 chapter of Daniel, the prophet, speaking of the erec- 
 tion of the Messiah's kingdom, says, verse 9, * I be- 
 held till the thrones were set (not cast down, as it is 
 in our translation) and the Ancient of days did sit," 
 namely, on one of the thrones that were set, 13, 
 ^' And behold, one like the Son of Man came to the 
 Ancient of days" while be sat on his throne, '^ and 
 
300 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 they brought him near before him, and there was given 
 him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom." By the 
 hingdom that was given to the Son of Man, the pro- 
 phet meant his mediatorial kingdom ; and by the glory, 
 his being seated beside the Ancient of days on one of 
 the thrones mentioned verse 9, in testimony of his ex- 
 altation to that kingdom. The throne of his glory, 
 therefore, which our Lord speaks of in the text, is the 
 throne of his mediatorial kingdom, called the throne of 
 his glory, in allusion to the representation which Dan- 
 iel had given of it. In this kingdom, the apostles 
 likewise were to be seated on thrones, and to judge 
 the tribes ; that is, were to be next the Messiah in dig- 
 nity and office ; his ministers, by whom he was to sub- 
 due and govern the church." See the \vhole of his 
 note, a small part of which only I have quoted. See 
 also Parkhurst on the word l^rino, v/ho gives the same 
 view of the passage. Dr. Campbell renders the 28th 
 verse thus : '^ that at the renovation, when the Son of 
 Man shall be seated in his glorious throne, ye, my fol- 
 lowers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall judge." 
 In his note, part of which only I shall quote, he says, 
 " We are accustomed to apply the term regeneration 
 solely to the conversion of individuals ; whereas its re- 
 lation here is to the general state of things. As they 
 were wont to denominate the crention, genesis, a re- 
 markable restoration, or renovation, of the face of 
 things, was very suitably termed ycdiggenesia. The 
 return of the Israelites to their own land, after the 
 Babylonish ca[)tivity, is so named by Josephus, the 
 Jewish historian. What was said on verse 23, holds 
 equally in regard to the promise we have here. The 
 principal completion will be at the general resurrection, 
 when there will be, in the most important sense, a re- 
 novation, or regeneration of heaven and earth, when 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 301 
 
 all things shall become new ; yet, in a subordinate 
 sense, it may be said to have been accomplished when 
 God came to visit in judgment that guilty land ; when 
 the old dispensation was utterly abolished, and suc- 
 ceeded by the Christian dispensation, into which the 
 Gentiles, from every quarter, as well as Jews, were 
 called and admitted." See also Whitby's note on 
 Matt. xix. 27, 28, to the same effect. 
 
 It is obvious from these statements that the passage 
 has no reference to a future state of existence, but to 
 the establishment of Jesus in the throne of his king- 
 dom, when the Old Testament was utterly abolished, 
 and from which period he has been judging the world 
 in righteousness, and the people with his truth. He, 
 as king, reigns in righteousness, and the apostles with 
 him decree justice, and shall continue to do so until 
 the period called the end, 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, when 
 he shall deliver up the kingdom to God the father. — 
 Can the statements of these writers be proved false ? 
 Besides, the apostles and others are not to enjoy eter- 
 nal life until the day of judgment, if this be the time 
 Christ refers to by sitting on the throne of his glory. 
 Is it objected — " Were not the disciples in the king- 
 dom of Christ, and enjoying eternal life in the sense 
 which you have explained it, at the time our Lord 
 spoke?" Yes, but it was not until the Son of Man 
 came at the end of the Jewish age, that his kingdom 
 came with power. See Luke xxi. 31 — 34 ; Mark viii. 
 38, and ix. \. At this time it was profitable for his 
 disciples to enter into life with the loss of all things 
 dear to them, rather than go into Gehenna or hell, or 
 lo suffer all the miseries which came on the Jewish 
 nation. See Mark ix. 43 — 50, and the Inquiry into 
 the words Sheol, Hades, &:c. 
 
 4th. This view of eternal life, enjoyed in the world 
 20 
 
302 AN lNq,UIRY PART 11. 
 
 to come, is confirmed from the following context. — 
 Our Lord having said, " and shall inherit everlasting 
 life," immediately adds, " but many that are first shall 
 be last, and the last shall be first." Here the chapter 
 ends, but it is evident, the Saviour, in the beginning 
 of the next chapter, goes on to illustrate his meaning 
 by the parable commonly called the parable of the 
 laborers in the vineyard. Well, let us ask the ques- 
 tion, many that are first shall be last and the last shall 
 be first, about what? The answer from the context 
 evidently is, about inheriting everlasting life, or enter- 
 ing into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, our Lord 
 says, " For the kingdom of heaven, (or inheriting ever- 
 lasting life in it,) is like unto a man who is an house- 
 holder, who went out very early in the morning to hire 
 laborers into his vineyards." This parable is inter- 
 preted by Macknight and others, of the calling of the 
 Jews and Gentiles ; for the Gentiles, who were the 
 last in having the kingdom of God preached to them, 
 were the first to enter into the kingdom of God, or en- 
 joy 
 
 eternal life in this kingdom ; and the Jews, to 
 
 whom it was first preached, shall be last in entering 
 into the enjoyment of the same blessings. This must 
 be understood of both Jews and Gentiles, generally, as 
 a people. 
 
 5th. The view given of eternal life, will be con- 
 firmed, by attending to the general usage of this phrase 
 in the New Testament. This must be done in a very 
 brief way, for the texts are numerous where it occurs. 
 The reader may consult the texts for himself; we shall 
 give all the places where it is found, and shall propose 
 some questions for his consideration. I find, then, zoe 
 rendered life, and used to express what we call natural 
 life, I Cor. iii. 22 ; James iv. 14 ; Acts viii. 33 ; Rom. 
 viii. 33; John xii. 25 j Acts xvii. 25 ^ 1 John v. IG • 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 303 
 
 Luke i. 75 ; Philip, i, 20 ; Acts ii. 28 ; 1 Tim. iv. 8 ; 
 1 Cor. XV. 19; Rom. vii. 10; Heb. vii. 3; Acts vii. 
 19; Luke xvii. 33 ; Luke xvi. 25 ; Rev. xi. 11. It 
 
 is also used to express the happiness, or the good a 
 man enjoys in this life, Luke xii. 15 ; 1 Peter iii. 10; 
 Luke xvi. 25 ; 2 Peter i. 3. 
 
 But I find zoCf life, used to designate that moral or 
 spiritual life, enjoyed by believers in Jesus. Before 
 believing, they are spoken of as alienated from the life 
 of God, Eph. iv. 18. In believing, they pass from 
 death to life, 1 John iii. 14, 15. They have repen- 
 tance unto life granted to them, Acts xi. 18, and ob- 
 tain justification of life, Rom. v. 18. By the power 
 of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus they are made free 
 from the power of sin and death, Romans viii. 2.— 
 Their spirits or minds are alive, because of righteous- 
 ness, Rom. viii. 10, and enjoy life and peace, verse 6. 
 They have the light of hfe, John viii. 12. Walk in 
 newness of life, Rom. vi. 4, and hold forth the word 
 of life, Philip, ii. 16. The meat Christ gave them 
 endured to eternal hfe, John vi. 27, and the water, a 
 vvell springing up to everlasting life, John iv. 14.— 
 They are exhorted to lay hold on eternal life, 1 Tim. 
 vi. 12, 19, and seek for glory, honor, immortality, 
 eternal Hfe, Rom. ii. 7. And by sowing to the spirit 
 reaped hfe everlasting, Gal. vi. 8. They are exhort-- 
 ed to look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ un- 
 to eternal life, Jude 21. Have their fruit unto holi- 
 ness, and the end everlasting life. Rom. vi. 22. The 
 life of Jesus was made manifest in them, 2 Cor. iv„ 
 10 — 12. They were heirs of the grace of life, 1 Peter 
 iii. 7. Were saved by Christ's life, Rom. v. 10, and 
 are said to reign in life, Rom. v. 17. The names of 
 such persons are said to be in the book of life, Philip, 
 iv. 3 ', Uey, iii, 5 } %nu d } '^viu 8 : 2cx. 12, 15 ; xxi. 
 
304 AN INQ,U1RY PART II. 
 
 27, and xxli. 19. Tliey drink of the water of life, 
 John iv. 14; Rev. xxi. 6, and xxii. 1, 17. And by 
 overconiing they were to eat of the tree of life, Rev, 
 ii. 7 ; xxii. 2, 14, and obtain a crown of life, James i. 
 12; Rev. ii. 10. And mortality is at last to be 
 swallowed up of life, 2 Cor. v. 4. The gate which 
 led to this life was strait and the way narrow, Matt. 
 vii. 14. Several persons asked our Lord what they 
 should do to obtain or inherit eternal life. Matt. xix. 
 16 ; Mark x. 17 ; Luke x. 25, and xviii. 18. And 
 it is evident from the context of all these passages, 
 that to have eternal life, to enter into this life, and to 
 enter into the kingdom of God, all referred to the same 
 thing. See also Matt, xviii. 8, 9, and xix. 17, 29; 
 Mark ix. 43, 45. 
 
 It appears, that man never woidd have known any 
 other life, exce|)t natural life, but for the grace of God 
 through Jesus Christ. Christ hath brought life and 
 immortality to li^ht, 2 Tim. i. 10. With a view to 
 this, God promised eternal life, I John ii. 25. It was 
 promised before tiie Jewish age began, Tit. i. 2. This 
 promise of life was in or by Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. i. 1. 
 This promise laid a foundation for the hope of it, Tit. 
 i. 2, and iii. 7. The fatlier gave the son to have life 
 in himself, John v. 26. Hence it is said, in him was 
 life, John i. 4. And he was made after the power of 
 an endless life, Heb. vii. 16. Accordingly, he is called 
 the life, 1 John i. 2, John xiv. 6, the resurrection 
 and the life, John xi. 25, the eternal life, 1 John v. 
 20, and the eteinal life who was with the father and 
 manifested to us, 1 John i. 2, He is also termed the 
 prince of lile, Acts iii. 15, and the bread of life, John 
 vi. 35, 48, 51, 53. The grace of God reigns through 
 righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ, Rom. 
 v. 21, and eternal life is the siift of God ihrouirh Jesus 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 11. 305 
 
 Christ, Rom. vi. 23. This eternal life is in or by 
 Gocfs son, 1 John v. 11. He gives eternal life, John 
 X. 23, and fives it to as many as the father hath oiven 
 him, John xvii. 2. This eternal hfe is expressly said 
 to consist in knowing God and Jesus Christ whom he 
 hath sent, John xvii. 3. Hence the word of Christ were 
 spirit and life, John vi. 63. He had the words of eter- 
 nal life, verse 68. God's commandment was life ever- 
 lasting, John xii. 50. Compare 1 John i. 1. As eter- 
 nal life consists in the knowledge of God and Jesus 
 Christ, so persons are said to enjoy it by believing, 
 John iii. 15, 16; 1 Tim. i. 16. The}'' had it upon 
 their believing, and it abode in them by continuing to 
 beheve, John iii. 36 : v. 24 ; vi. 40, 47, 53, 54, and 
 XX. 31 ; 1 John v. 12, 13. The Jews thought that 
 in their Scriptures they had eternal life, yet v/ould not 
 come to Christ, or believe on him, that they might 
 have it, John v. 39, 40. On the contraty, the^^ 
 judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life by re- 
 jecting the gospel, Acts xiii. 46. Accordingly, the 
 apostles turned to the Gentiles, and as many of them 
 as were ordained or disposed for eternal life, believed, 
 verse 48. The Jews had all the words of this life 
 preached unto them. Acts v. 20. The apostles in 
 preaching were to some a savour of life unto life, and 
 to others of death unto death, 2 Cor. ii. 16, In reap- 
 ing the gospel harvest among the Jews, they gathered 
 fruit unto life eternal, John iv. 36. And whosoever 
 lost his life for Christ's sake kept it unto life eternal, 
 
 John xii. 25, for at the end of the a2;e those who en- 
 
 '-' 
 
 (lured to the end were saved. Those who believed 
 
 not went away into everlasting punishment and the 
 
 righteous into life eternal. Matt. xxv. 46. Compare 
 
 John V. 29. And the receiving of the Jews again 
 
 shall be as life from the dead, Rom. xi. 15. 
 
 Such is a very brief review of all the texts where 
 
306 AN lNq.UlRl PART 11. 
 
 life, and everlasting life are spoken of in the New 
 Testament. On the whole of them 1 would now pro- 
 pose a few queries and remarks. If eternal life refers 
 to the happiness of heaven in a future state, how is it 
 accounted for, that eternal death is never spoken 
 of as its counterpart to the wicked in a future state ? 
 Everlasting punishment is mentioned. Matt. xxv. 46, 
 as the counterpart of everlasting life, but everlasting 
 or eternal death is not once named in the Bible. But 
 it is well known that eternal death is a favorite expres- 
 sion with many preachers. But it may be said, 
 "everlasting punishment, everlasting fire, everlasting 
 destruction, are mentioned in the Bible, and are not 
 these equivalent to eternal death ?" We answer no ; 
 and it will be seen in the next Section that such ex- 
 pressions have no respect to punishment beyond this 
 life. But again, if eternal life refers to the happiness 
 of heaven in a future state, how happens it that it is 
 so often spoken about as a thing enjoyed in this life, 
 and dwelling in persons by believing in Jesus ? It is 
 defined to consist in knowing God and Jesus Christ 
 whom he hath sent. It could not only be enjoyed 
 here, but people could enter into this life, which is the 
 same as entering into the kingdom of God. Further, 
 though eternal life is sometimes spoken of as future, 
 and an object of hope, yet I do not find it spoken of 
 as an object expected after the resurrection of the 
 dead, or once mentioned as equivalent to the happi- 
 ness to be enjoyed in the resurrection state. It is 
 rather spoken of as something expected after the end 
 of the Jewish age, during tlie age of the IMessiali, or 
 the "world to come." The promise of eternal life in 
 this age to come, was made to Christ's disciples ; for 
 when our Lord spoke, the old dispensation had not 
 then vanished away, and it was not until it ended. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 307 
 
 that our Lord's kingdom came in its glory and pow- 
 er. Tt was a matter of hope to his disciples, for then 
 they were to enter into life, or into the joy of their 
 Lord. But again, the term life is used both in the 
 Old and New Testaments to express happiness or en- 
 joymert. We have seen that it is used very often to 
 designate the spiritual or moral life of helievers. — 
 Those who believed were not condemned, did not 
 perish, but were saved. Those who did not believe, 
 of the Jewish nation, and those believers who did not 
 endure to the end did perish. The wrath of God 
 abode on them, and his wrath came on them to the 
 uttermost at the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews, 
 by putting the word of God from them, judged them- 
 selves unworthy of everlasting life. The apostles 
 turned to the Gentiles, and thus the kingdom of God 
 was taken from the Jews, and given to a nation bring- 
 ing forth the fruits thereof. I would only add that 
 this eternal life is expressly said to be enjoyed in the 
 world to come. This world or age to come, we are 
 told by orthodox authors above, began at our Lord's 
 first advent, and shall be completed at his second 
 coming. How then is eternal hfe to be enjoyed if the 
 world to come ends, according to their own explanation 
 of this expression ? 
 
 In regard to the word everlasting being associated 
 with the term life it can occasion no serious difhculty. 
 The term everlasting is also applied to the kingdom 
 of Christ, and the gospel of this kingdom is called 
 " the everlasting gospel." But surely no one ever 
 thought that the gospel is to be preached to the end- 
 less ages of eternity. Is it said, '' How could the 
 apostles enjoy everlasting life in the kingdom of God 
 here, seeing a few years terminates the existence of 
 every man in the world ?" I answer this by asking, 
 
308 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 how could Samuel abide before the Lord forever ? Or 
 how could the slave serve his master forever? In 
 short, how could the priesthood be enjoyed by Aaron 
 and his sons forever ? Or the land of Canaan be an 
 inheritance to Israel forever ? But these remarks I 
 have merely suggested for consideration. Allowing 
 they have no weight, the grand subject of our inves- 
 tigation stands unaffected ; for all must admit the re- 
 markable fact, that frequent as eternal life is men- 
 tioned, yet no sacred writer ever ventured to speak 
 of eternal death ; and it is with the application of this 
 word to future punishment we are at present chiefly 
 concerned. 
 
 In Luke xx. 34 — 36, we have this world, and that 
 world mentioned, or this age and that age or state. — 
 But as it requires no particular consideration, it is un- 
 necessary to transcribe it. I would only remark, that 
 aionos here cannot mean endless duration or forever. 
 It would not do to say the children of this forever mar- 
 ry, and the children of that forever do not marry. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 ALL THE PLACES WHERE AION AND AIONIOS ARE USED 
 TO EXPRESS THE DURATION OF PUNISHMENT, PAR- 
 TICULARLY CONSfDERED, IN WHATEVER WAY REN- 
 DERED IN THE COMMOM VERSION. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 46. " And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life 
 eternal." See also verse 41, which refers to the same 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 309 
 
 persons, and the same punishment. Before we pro- 
 ceed to consider these words, we beg leave to make 
 some general remarks on chapters xxiv. and xxv., to- 
 gether. 
 
 1st. What is contained in these two chapters is one 
 continued discourse of our Lord's, addressed to his dis- 
 ciples. The word then, in verse 1, of chapter xxv., 
 shows this. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be 
 likened unto ten virgins." When was the kingdom 
 of heaven to be likened to this ? The answer is found 
 in chapter xxiv., which is at the comino; of Christ to 
 destroy Jerusalem. It is further manifest from chapter 
 xxvi. 1, " And it came to pass when Jesus had finished 
 all these sayings." And what sayings could these be 
 but all the sayings contained in the two chapters? — 
 For it will be difficult to point out any change of sub- 
 ject from verse 4, of chapter xxiv., to the end of cap- 
 ter xxv. That this discourse was delivered to the dis- 
 ciples alone, is plain from comparing chapter xxiv. 1 — 
 4, with chapter xxvi. 1, 2. 
 
 2d. The whole of this discourse is in answ^er to the 
 questions put by the disciples, verse 3, of chapter xxiv. 
 "Tell us when shall these things be? And what shall 
 be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world," 
 or age? This supposes he had said something about 
 his coming, which v^^e find was the case from the last 
 verse of chapter xxiii. The questions put, were to 
 obtain information about this coming, and the signs 
 whereby they might know its approach. All allow" 
 the coming, in chapter xxiv., refers to our Lord's 
 coming at the end of tlie Jewish dispensation, but 
 many contend that the coming, in chapter xxv., refers 
 to his coming at the end of this world. But the word 
 then, so clearly marks the connexion of these two 
 chapters, as to forbid such a supposition. Nor can 
 
310 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 any man point out, where our Lord left off speaking of 
 the one coming, and began to speak of the other. He 
 mentions his coming, chapter xxiv. 3, 27, 30, 37, 39, 
 42, 44, 46, 48, 50^ and in chap. xxv. 6, 10, 13, 19, 
 27, 31, as one; nor can any one doubt that the same 
 coming, chap. xxv. 31, is the same as that, chap xxiv. 
 30 — 35, from the language used and the circumstances 
 mentioned. See also Matt. xvi. 27, 28 ; Luke ix. 26, 
 27 ; Mark viii. 38, and ix. 1. From verse 4 of chap, 
 xxiv. our Lord proceeds to answer the disciples' ques- 
 tions, and points out particularly the signs whereby 
 they might know that his coming was at hand. These 
 I need not particularize. 
 
 3d. What has led many to conclude, that chap, xxv, 
 refers to a day of general judgment, is, overlooking the 
 connexion between the two chapters, marked by the 
 word then, in verse 1 of chap. xxv. and not noticing 
 how exactly the three parts of chap. xxv. correspond 
 to and illustrate three things inculcated on the disci- 
 ples from verse 42 to the end of chap. xxiv. These 
 I shall briefly notice, hoping the reader W'ili compare 
 the passages I refer to. Notice, then, 
 
 1st. That our Lord inculcates on his disciples the 
 duty of watchfulness, in view of his coming. See 
 chap. xxiv. 42 — 44. Let the reader then compare 
 these three verses with chap. xxv. 1 — 13, and we 
 think he must be convinced, that the parable of the 
 ten virgins was spoken to illustrate, and enforce on his 
 disciples this very duty. Hence the parable ends with 
 these words, expressive of its object — "Watch, there- 
 fore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein 
 the Son of Man cometh ;" which are almost the very 
 words in which he stated the duty of watchfulness in 
 chap. xxiv. 43, 44. Who can dispute this? But 
 adujit it, and Matt. xxv. must be given up as referring 
 
AN INQUmr PART II. 311 
 
 to a day of general judgment at the end of this 
 world. 
 
 2d. In chap. xxiv. 45, our Lord also inculcates on 
 his disciples the duty of faithfulness, in view of his 
 coming. Let the reader compare the second division 
 of chap. XXV. from verse 14 — 31, and we think he 
 must also be convinced, that the parable of the talents, 
 was spoken by our Lord to illustrate and enforce the 
 duty of faithfulness upon them. Here 1 ask every can- 
 did reader to say — Is it not the same Son of Man Avhich 
 is mentioned in both chapters ? Are not the servants 
 to whom the goods were delivered the same as in chap. 
 xxiv. 45 ?■ Is not the faithfulness and unfaithfulness 
 of the servants the same in both? And is not the 
 coming of our Lord to reckon with them the same 
 coming in both ? Who can with any show of reason 
 deny these things ? But who can admit them, yet 
 contend that this second part of chap. xxv. has any 
 relation to a day of general judgment ? 
 
 3d. In verse 46, and to the end of chap. xxiv. our 
 Lord states the consequences which would result, ac- 
 cording as they were found watchful and faithful, or 
 the contrary. Now, compare this with the third di- 
 vision of chap. xxv. from verse 31 — 46, and all must 
 see how exactly the one corresponds to the other. In 
 the one, he states what rewards and punishments 
 would be awarded, at his coming, to his servants ; and 
 in the other, he goes on to illustrate this, by what may 
 as justly be called 'the parable of the rewards and pun- 
 ishments, as the two former are called the parables of 
 the ten virgins and talents. This agreement of chaps, 
 xxiv, xxv, is not an accidental thing, but the effect of 
 design, and clearly marked by the word then, with 
 which chap. xxv. begins ; but it is not noticed by most 
 readers from the improper division of our Lord's dis- 
 
312 AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 
 
 course into chapters and verses. Our Lord no more 
 ends his discourse, chap. xxiv. than Paul ends his 
 Epistle to the Romans, chap. \v. If the question is 
 asked, ivhen shall the kingdoni of heaven be likened 
 unto ten virgins ? The answer is found in chap. xxiv. 
 42, 44, 46, 50, where his coming is repeatedly men- 
 tioned, and in verse 34 is expressly said to be during 
 that generalion. We ask every candid man. Is not the 
 Son of Man, mentioned chap. xxv. 31, the very same 
 Son of Man as is spoken of in chap, xxiv? And is 
 not his coming in his glory, and all the holy angels 
 with him, tbe same coming and glory as is mentioned 
 chap. xxiv. 30? It was this perfect agreement of the 
 three divisions of cbap. xxv. to the three things stated 
 in chap. xxiv. which changed my views of this subject 
 many years ago, so that they are not influenced by any 
 change of opinions since. 
 
 Keeping these general remarks in view, let us at- 
 tend to the words — -"And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eter- 
 nal." The first question is — "' Who shall go away 
 into everlasting punishment ?" The context answers, 
 the goats, verse 33, whose conduct is described, verses 
 41 — 46. The wicked and slothful servants, verses 
 24 — 29- The foolish virgins, verses 10 — 12. And 
 the evil serv^ants, chap. xxiv. 48, 49. 
 
 2d. Let us ask — What everlasting ])unishment were 
 these persons to ojo away into? Answer: the ever- 
 lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, verse 
 41. The outer darkness, verse 30. See also verse 
 10, and chap. xxiv. 51, all of which, it will be allow- 
 ed, refer to the same punishment. In the first part of 
 this Inquiry it has been shown, that by the devil and 
 his angels, verse 41, our Lord referred to the unbe- 
 lieving Jews and opposers of Christianity. In the In- 
 
AN INQUIRV PART II. 313 
 
 quiry into the words Sheol, Hades, &c. it has been also 
 shown, that Jire is a figure often used in Scripture lor 
 temporal punishment, and is the same here, as hell fire 
 in other places. \n both Inquiries it has been shown, 
 that the term everlasting, is applied to the punishment 
 which the Jews are now endurins;. In confirmation of 
 these things, comp. Luke xiii. 23 — 31 ; Matt. viii. 11, 
 12 ; xiii. and xxii. 13. 
 
 3d. Let us ask again — When were these persons to 
 go away into everlasting punishment? The answer 
 from the context evidently is — " When the Son of Man 
 came in his glory," verse 31. Well, when was this? 
 Not at the end of this material world, for not a word is 
 said about this in the two chapters. It was when the 
 Lord of the servants came to reckon with them, verse 
 19. When the bridegroom came, verse 10. At the 
 time when the slothful servants were not looking for 
 him, chap. xxiv. 41 — 5L And at the time referred 
 to, verse 44, when he said to his disciples, " be ye also 
 ready ; for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of 
 Man Cometh." Christ's father only knew of this day, 
 verse 36. It was to come like a thief in ihe night, or 
 like the flood on the old world, verses 37, 43. But it 
 was certainly to come during that generation, verse 34. 
 Then he was to reward every man according to his 
 works, which exactly agrees to some going away into 
 everlasting punishment, and some into life eternal. 
 
 But it will be asked — What throne of glory did 
 Christ sit on when he came to take vengeance on the 
 Jewish nation at the end of the age ? The Greek in 
 chap. XXV. 31 is, tote kathisei epi thronou doxes autou, 
 and is the same which Matthew used, chap. xis. 28, 
 and is rendered in both places by Dr. Campbell in the 
 same way. The whole verse he renders thus — 
 ^' Verily 1 say unto you, that at the renovation, when 
 
314 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 the Son of Man shall be seated on his glorious throne, 
 ye my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall 
 judge the twelve tribes of Israel." Here let the reader 
 turn to the last Section, and read the quotations made 
 from Dr. Campbell and Macknight on this verse. — 
 These writers have shown, that the coming of Christ 
 was at the end of the Jewish dispensation, that the 
 throne on which he sat was the throne of his mediato- 
 rial kingdom, and the judging then to take place, the 
 ruling or governing men with his truth. His throne 
 was no more a literal, visible throne, than were the 
 twelve thrones of the apostles. The time when, the 
 nature of the throne, and similar language used in both 
 cases by Matthew, show, that there is no reference to 
 a day of general judgment, as is generally supposed. 
 If Matthew used this language, chap. xix. 28, as these 
 writers explain it, by what fair rule of interpretation do 
 we give the same words, chap. xxv. 31, such a very 
 different interpretation ? Men now would feel indig- 
 nant at having their words interpreted in such an ar- 
 bitrary and capricious manner. What right, then, has 
 any man to affirm, that the Son of Man's coming in 
 his glory, and all the holy angels with him, refers to 
 a day of general judgment, when the same writer, in 
 the same book, has used the same or similar language, 
 where it is manifest he is speaking of Christ's coming 
 at the end of the Jewish age or dispensation ? It is 
 well known, that the term rendered angd, simply sig- 
 nifies a messenger of any kind ; and it is allowed, on 
 all hands, that angels are mentioned as connected with 
 our Lord's coming at this period. See Matt. xxiv. 30, 
 31, and xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38; ix. 1, and xiii. 26, 
 27 ; Luke xxi. 27. The angels being then mention- 
 ed, is a confirmation, not an objection to the views ad- 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 315 
 
 vanced. See Whitby and Macknight on Matt. xxlv. 
 who show the ano-els to be human beings. 
 
 But it will be objected — How, upon your views, 
 can it be said, '' and before him shall be gathered all 
 nations ?" Answer ; the phrase " all nations" occurs 
 twice before in this very discourse of our Lord's, chap, 
 xxiv, 9, 14. " And ye shall be hated of all nations 
 for my name sake. And this gospel of the kingdom 
 shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto 
 all nations, and then shall the end come." What end 
 shall come ? Evidently the end of the Jewish age, 
 verse 3, which took place about forty years after our 
 Lord delivered this discourse. During this period the 
 gospel was preached among all nations, Markxiii. 10, 
 or throughout the Roman empire, which was then 
 called the whole world, Luke ii. 1. See Matt, xxviii. 
 19, 20 ; Col. i. 6, 23 ; Rom. i. 8, and x. 18. Judea 
 was then a province of the Roman empire. That the 
 apostles preached the gospel throughout the Roman 
 empire, and were hated of all nations, no one disputes. 
 We have then found in this discourse, the nil nations 
 to be gathered before Christ seated on his mediatorial 
 throne. It is obvious, that whoever contends for a lite- 
 ral gathering together of all nations before him, ought 
 also to contend, that every individual of the same all 
 nations heard the gospel, and that every individual of 
 them hated the apostles for Christ's name sake. But 
 how in this case could they have had any converts to 
 their doctrine ? And no ;separaiion could have taken 
 place, for all the nations would have heen goats. The 
 gathering together of all nations before him, need not 
 be extended to m.ore than such as heard the gospel, 
 and professed it, some of whom did, but others did not 
 bring forth its proper fruits. This limited view, we 
 think is favored by the scope of our Lord's discourse. 
 
^1^ AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 
 
 For example, it was not the whole world, or all na- 
 tions, but the king-dom of heaven, or Christ's professed 
 disciples, who are likened unto the virgins, verse 1. — 
 Nor was it to all nations, but to his own servants, 
 Christ delivered his goods, verse 14. See also chap, 
 xxiv. 42 — 46. And the replies made to the king by 
 both goats and sheep, proceed on the ground that they 
 were both professors of his name. But it is not abso- 
 lutely necessary to confine the sense of this phrase ; for, 
 since Christ sat down on his glorious throne, he has 
 been judging the nations of the world in righteousness, 
 and such of them as would not serve him, he has bro- 
 ken in pieces like a potters vessel. But let us in- 
 quire, 
 
 1st. Were there are any false professors in the 
 kingdom of heaven when our Lord came at the end of 
 the age. This needs no proof, for it is notorious, and 
 universally admitted. There were foolish virgins, and 
 servants who had not improved their talents. See also 
 chap. xxiv. 10 — 12. And see the epistles, for com- 
 plaints made of professors by the apostles. When 
 Christ came to reckon with his servants he found some 
 faithful and watcljful, but others saying, my Lord de- 
 layeth his coming, counting him an hard master, smi- 
 ting their fellow servants, and eating and drinking with 
 the drunken. When he ascended to God's right hand, 
 he was like a man travelling into a far country to re- 
 ceive unto himself a kingdom. See Luke xix. 12 — 27. 
 At the end of the age, he returned, having received 
 his kingdom, and called his servants to an account of 
 their conduct during his absence. Before he went 
 away, he commanded all to be faithful and watchful. 
 But such was the state in which he found the kingdom 
 of heaven when he returned. The whole slumbered 
 and slept. Many were found neither looking for, nor 
 
 I 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 317 
 
 prepared for his coming. He had forewarned them of 
 the consequences, and this third division of chap. xxv. 
 sets forth the rewards and punishments which he then 
 awarded to them. That much is said in the New Tes- 
 tament, to excite their hopes and fears relative to our 
 Lord's coming at the end of the Jewish dispensation, 
 no one, we think, will question. But where do we 
 find what our Lord promised or threatened, fulfilled, 
 but in this very discourse, and which goes to show that 
 the view I have given of it is substantially correct? — 
 But let us ask, 
 
 2d. Did a separation take place at the end of the 
 Jewish age, betw^een true and false professors in the 
 kingdom of heaven, or, between the goats and sheep? 
 Nothing can be more certain. This separation is de- 
 scribed under other figures, such as a separation be- 
 tween chaff and wheat, Matt, iii. 1 2. Tares and wheat ; 
 and good and bad fishes ; Matt. xiii. 30 — 48. See 
 also Matt. viii. 11, 12, and xvi. 27, 28, Christ's fan 
 purged his floor. The net then was drawn to shore, 
 and the good and bad fishes separated. The tares were 
 gathered to be burned, and the wheat into the garner. 
 Indeed, none but such as endured to the end were 
 saved ; Matt. xxiv. 13. What is said about separa- 
 ting them as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
 goats, is in allusion to the business of a shepherd, and 
 to Christ who is called the good shepherd, and his true 
 disciples, sheep. His placing the sheep on the right 
 hand, and the goats on the left, is probably in reference 
 to judicial trials, as may be seen above in a quotation 
 from Jahn. The rule of judgment was, offices of kind- 
 ness performed towards Christ's disciples. The simi- 
 larity, of the language used, chap. xxiv. 45, 46, and 
 chap. xxv. 34 — 41, deserves the reader's notice. In 
 the first it is " blessed is that servant whom his Lord) 
 21 - k 
 
318 AN INQUIRY— PART II. 
 
 when he cometh, shall find so domg." And in the 
 last, " come ye blessed of my father inherit the king- 
 dom," he. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 15 — 18, and Rom.xvi. 
 3, 4, as actual examples of such kind offices performed. 
 But let us ask, 
 
 3d. What everlasting punishment and eternal life 
 did those persons go away into after this separation ? 
 1st. Whnt everlasting punishment did the goals go 
 away into ? The same as the everlasting fire, verse 
 41, which in the one verse is expressed figuratively, 
 and in the other plainly. This everlasting fire was 
 prepared for the devil and his angels, or the Jews, and 
 the opposers of Christianity. To them was the Gos- 
 pel first preached ; by them it was first rejected, and 
 for them this punishment is said to have been prepared. 
 But observe, it is not, like the kingdom for the right- 
 eous, said to have been prepared from the foundation 
 of the world. What then was the everlasting fire or 
 punishment prepared for the Jews, the avowed ene- 
 mies of Christ and his Gospel, for these fiilse profes- 
 sors are said to go away into the same punishment. I 
 answer, the kingdom of God was taken from them ; 
 and I sh.all show on 2 Thess, i. 9, that they have been 
 punished with everlasting destruction [mm ihe presence 
 of the Lord in his worship and service. Blindness of 
 mind, hardness of heart, and dreadful temporal judg- 
 ments .have come on the Jews for nearly eighteen hun- 
 dred years. In the Jewish use of the term everlastings 
 it may well be called an everlasting fire or punishment. 
 it is, then, agreeable to fact, those of the kingdom of 
 heaven not found watchful and faithful, or bringing 
 forth the fruits of the Gospel, did go away into, or have 
 suffered a similar punishment. Where are now the 
 seven churches of Asia ? Indeed, where is any church 
 throu-^diout what was then called the Roman empire ? 
 
AN IN(^UIRY PART 11. 319 
 
 Their candlestick is removed out of its place. Those 
 nations have been given up to blindness of mind and 
 hardness of heart very similar to the Jews, and that 
 they have suffered severe temporal judgments none 
 will deny. The most inveterate superstitions prevail 
 among them. The nations who would not submit to 
 him, or who have corrupted his religion after being fa- 
 Tored with it, have suffered similar punishment, and it 
 has been of such long continuance, that it may well be 
 called everlasting. Christians who enjoy the gospel, 
 tacitly allow, both Jews and heathen to be in a mis- 
 erable condition, by their attempts to convert them to 
 the faith of Christ, But after all the time and labor 
 and money spent to effect this, the situation of those 
 nations is not much more hopeful than that of the Jews. 
 If there be any blessedness in believing the gospel, and 
 being governed by the laws of Jesus, then there is 
 misery in unbelief, superstition and wickedness ; and 
 both on a national and individual scale, the nation 
 or individual in such a condition can but be miser- 
 able. 
 
 2d. But what life eternal did the righteous, or the 
 sheep, go away into ? As the everlasting punishment, 
 verse 46, is the same as the everlasting fire, verse 41, 
 so is the life eternal, verse 46, the same as the king- 
 dom said to be prepared from the foundation of the 
 world. What kingdom, then, was this ? What king- 
 dom could it be, but that which was taken from the 
 Jews and given to the Gentiles, called often the king^ 
 dom of heaven and the kingdom of God in the New 
 Testament, and the kingdom likened unto the ten virr 
 gins, verse 1. The kingdom which Jesus went away 
 to receive for himself when he ascended to the father, 
 and on the throne of which he is represented as sitting, 
 gild calling his servants to arj ^ccourit when he returue 
 
320 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 ed. This kingdom is called the everlasting kingdom 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not consist in meat 
 and drink, but in righteousness and peace and joy in 
 the Holy Ghost. That such a kingdom, or life eter- 
 nal, was expected, is evident, for our Lord said, Luke 
 xxi. 31, 32. "When ye see these thmgs come to 
 pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at 
 hand. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall 
 not pass away, till all {3e fulfilled." And verse 28 — 
 "When these things begin to come to pass, then look 
 up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth 
 near." This kingdom, or life eternal, might be said 
 to be prepared for them from the foundation of the 
 world, for it was included in the promise of Christ 
 from the beginning. 
 
 It is an unsupported assertion, from any part of our 
 Lord's discourse, that this kingdom, or the life eternal 
 enjoyed by the righteous, is the happiness of the heav- 
 enly state. But the view I have given is amply sup- 
 ported both by it and other parts of Scripture. It is 
 the same as going in with the bridegroom to the mar- 
 riage, verse 10. And entering into the joy of their 
 Lord, 21, 23. And to inherit this kingdom is to enjoy 
 all the blessings and privileges of it. See Rom. xiv, 
 17; Matt. viii. 11, 12, and Luke xxii. 29, 30. My 
 views, then, accord with the nature of the kingdom 
 Christ received from the father, the throne on which 
 he sits, and his rule and government in it, and which, 
 at the period called the end, he is to deliver up to God 
 the father, 1 Cor xv. 24 — 28. To this kingdom he 
 had a right to invite all those who endured to the end, 
 chap. xxiv. 13, and to punish all those who said, "we 
 will not have this man to rule over us." 
 
 It has long been considered one of the strongest ar- 
 guments in favor of eternal misery, that the same Greek 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 321 
 
 word is rendered here everlasting and eternal, and ap- 
 plied both to life and punishment. It is hence infer- 
 red, that if the punishment is not endless, neither is 
 life. Universalists do not admit this, for they adduce 
 some texts where everlasting is used in the same verse, 
 where it is allowed by their opponents that it is used 
 both in a limited and unlimited sense. But if my views 
 are found correct, it puts a final end to this argument 
 and mode of reasonino- for everlastinor is not used in 
 either case to express endless duration. A brief sketch 
 of my views of the phrase '' everlasting life," has been 
 given above, and some things may just be noticed here 
 in confirmation of them. 
 
 1st. It is concluded by many, that this chapter con- 
 tains an account of the end of this world, and the day 
 of judgment. But why is such a conclusion drawn? 
 for certainly, though it speaks of everlasting fire, ever- 
 lasting punishment, and life eternal, it gives no intima- 
 tion that these are suffered or enjoyed in another state 
 of existence. The general usage of the word ever- 
 lasting is against such a conclusion ; and it is beyond 
 all debate, that this term is applied in other texts to 
 the temporal punishment of the Jews, which no one 
 believes to be of endless duration. Besides, the whole 
 scope of our Lord's discourse shows, that here the word 
 everlasting is used to express the duration of this very 
 punishment, and is the fulfilment of what Daniel pre- 
 dicted, chap. xii. 2, considered above. This is con- 
 firmed from the word kolasis, here vendeYed punish- 
 ment. Parkhurst says it comes from kolazo, to punish, 
 and it comes from da in the Hebrew, which signifies 
 to restrain. This punishment, then, is for the purpose 
 o( restraining the subjects of it, and not, as we are 
 sometimes told, for " the glory of divine justice in their 
 eternal misery ;" or, that " the happiness of the right- 
 
822 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 eous may be sweetened in seeing the smoke of their 
 torment ascend up forever and ever." The sense given 
 by Parkhurst to the above words is supported by their 
 Scripture usage. See ] John iv. 18 ; Acts iv. 21 ; 2 
 Peter ii. 9, On this last text see my answer to Mr. 
 Sabine. The word rendered punishment in both pla- 
 ces, is a confirmation of my opinions. 
 
 2d. The life eternal, verse 46, and the kingdom the 
 righteous are called to inherit, verse 24, are the same, 
 or the life eternal is to be enjoyed in this kingdom. It 
 has then been shown above, that eternal life was pro- 
 mised to Christ's disciples in the world to come^ or the 
 age of the Messiah, which ceitainly agrees to this pas- 
 sage. This passage is the fulfilment of what Christ 
 promised, Mark x. 30 ; Luke xviii. 30 ; Matt. xix. 
 29, considered above. The father appointed to Christ 
 a kingdom, and he having returned from receiving it, 
 his faithful followers enjoyed the life or happiness of it. 
 They entered into the joy of their Lord, and shone 
 forth like the sun in the kin(2;dom of their father. 
 
 It may be objected — " How could it be said, ' these 
 shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the 
 righteous into life eternal,' if endless duration in a fu- 
 ture state be not meant, for such persons could only 
 live a few years in this world either to suffer or en- 
 joy ?" See this objection noticed page 307. I would 
 add here, that it is certain, everlasting is applied in 
 Scripture both to punishment and enjoyment, when 
 all allow endless duration is not meant. Why not so 
 here, when we have seen tiiat eternal life was to be 
 enjoyed in the icorld to come, which is to end ? That 
 the present punishment of the Jews is called everlast- 
 ing, no one can dispute, and we think has been shown, 
 is the punishment referred to in this very passage. If 
 the Jews, while in Canaan, enjoyed it successively m 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II* 323 
 
 in their generations as an everlasting possession, and 
 now cast out of it, endure in their generations an ever- 
 lasting punishment, why not also believers enjoy eter- 
 nal life, in a similar way, in the age of the Messiah ? 
 This life, I conceive, is not called eternal on account 
 of its endless enjoyment by the individuals, but from 
 its being a life connected with the kingdom of Christ, 
 which is called an everlastina kino-dom, which is to en- 
 dure until the end, or resurrection of all the dead, and 
 then mortality shall be swallowed up of life in being 
 forever with the Lord. It is everlasting in a similar 
 sense as the kingdom itself, or the gospel of this king- 
 dom, which is called the everlasting gospel. 
 
 Is it further objected — "That Matt. xxiv. has a 
 double meaning, first, in the destruction of Jerusalem 
 during that generation, and second, in the dissolution 
 of this world and a day of general judgment ?" But 
 why not give it twenty meanings and accomplishments 
 as well as two ? And why not say the same of all the 
 discourses which our Lord delivered? Our Lord de- 
 clared, " All these things shall come on this genera- 
 tion," but did he intimate that they were again to be 
 fulfilled in a still higher sense at a day of general judg- 
 ment ? No, nothing like this is said by him ; and 
 without proof, such an objection does not require a se- 
 rious refutation. At any rate, let the evidence for this 
 be produced, and we will give it a serious considera- 
 tion. 
 
 2 Thess. i. 9. " Who shall be punished with ever- 
 lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
 from the glory of his power." We have considered 
 this passage, with its context, very fully in the Univer- 
 salist Magazine, vol. v. beginning at page 157. To it 
 we refer the reader, and shall here only give an abridg- 
 ment of our remarks. Let us consider, 
 
324 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 1st. Who the persons were to whom Paul alluded 
 when he said, " who shall be punished with everlast- 
 ing destruction," Most people say — " All the wick- 
 ed." The apostle and the Thessalonians knew who 
 they were to their painful experience, for they were the 
 persons who troubled them, verse 6, and from whom 
 their persecutions arose, verse 4. Who, then, perse- 
 cuted and troubled them ? The Thessalonians were 
 persecuted by their own countrymen. 1 Epist. chap. ii. 
 14, 15. But their persecutions chiefly arose from the 
 unbelieving Jews, as is evident from Acts xvii. 5 — 7. 
 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 15. The whole New Testament 
 shows this. But it is evident from the context. Let 
 the question be asked — Who shall be punished with 
 everlasting destruction? The answer is found, verse 
 8. Those " that know not God, and obeyed not the 
 gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Was not this the 
 case with the Jews ? Comp. John xvi. 3. God was 
 to recompense tribulation, and to take vengeance on 
 those that knew not God ; and God's vengeance on 
 the Jews is expressly called — " the days o( ven2[eance, 
 that all things which are written may be fulfilled," 
 Luke xxi. 22. Comp. also Luke xviii. 7, 8; Rom. 
 xii. 19. The connexion between the 8th and 9th 
 verses clearly shows, that the vengeance to be taken 
 on them that know not God, and who shall be punish- 
 ed with everlasting destruction, refers to the same per* 
 sons, and the same punishment. And in verse 6, it is 
 said, it is a righteous thing with God " to recompense 
 tribulation to them ;" and which our Lord calls, Matt, 
 xxiv. 29, ^^ great tribulation, such as was not since the 
 beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall 
 be." Comp. verse 21. By troubling or persecuting 
 Christians, the Jews were to fill up the measure of 
 their iniquity, and bring upon themselves such tribula- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 325 
 
 tions. Accordingly; it is said, verse 5, " which is a 
 manifest token of the righteous judgment of God." — 
 What is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of 
 God ? The answer is, verse 4, the persecutions and 
 tribulations which the Thessalonians endured. But 
 this only provokes the question — A manifest token of 
 the righteous judgment of God upon whom ? The 
 answer evidently is, verse 6, upon them that troubled 
 the Thessalonians, which we think beyond all dispute, 
 were the unbelieving Jews. Comp. Philip, i. 28, where 
 it is called " an evident token of perdition" to them. 
 By pursuing such a course, the Jews fulfilled what our 
 Lord predicted, and brought upon themselves all the 
 righteous blood shed upon the earth. See Malt, xxiii. 
 34_36, and 1 Thess. ii. 16. 
 
 2d. Let us now consider at ivhat time such persons 
 were to be punished with everlasting destruction. If 
 the persons were the unbelieving Jews, the answer is 
 given already in the above remarks. It was at the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. But let us examine the con- 
 text and we shall see this confirmed. The particular 
 time specified is, " When the Lord Jesus shall be re- 
 vealed from heaven." Well, when was this to be? — 
 It is answered by the context, when he recompensed 
 tribulation to the Jews who were the troublers of the 
 Thessalonians, and was not this at the end of the age, 
 when God's wrath came upon them to the uttermost ? 
 This period is expressly called, the day when the Son 
 of Man is revealed, Luke xvii. 30. Comp. Rom. ii. 
 5 ; I Peter i, 5, 13 ; iv. 13—19, and v. 1—5. This 
 revelation is said to be " from heaven," and the angels 
 are said to be connected with it, which exactly corres- 
 ponds to what is said, Matt. xxiv. 30, 31. It has been 
 shown that the term^re is used as a figure to express 
 God's judgments on the Jewish nation. See Mai. iv.' 
 
326 AN INQUIRY PART 11. 
 
 1, &;c. But there are some things mentioned in the 
 context which were to take place at the same time, 
 " when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven," 
 which are irreconcilable with the common views en- 
 tertained of this passage, but which strongly confirm 
 the explanation I have given of it. 
 
 1st. At this same time the Thessalonians were to 
 obtain rest, for it is said, " and to you wlio are trou- 
 bled, rest with us, ivhcn the Lord Jesus shall be re- 
 vealed from heaven." The rest referred to was evi- 
 dently rest from the persecutions they were enduring. 
 See the context, and compare 2 Cor. vii. 5, and Acts 
 IX. 3L If the day of judgment be the time referred 
 to, then the Thessalonians are not to obtain rest from 
 their persecutions until it arrives. But surely this 
 cannot be, for the day of judgment is not yet come, 
 and they have long ago found rest where all the wea- 
 ry find rest, and hear no more the voice of the op- 
 pressor. Did the Thessalonians then find rest at the 
 period when Jesus was revealed to take vengeance 
 on the Jewish nation ? Yes ; this is a matter of his- 
 tory as well as fact. Our Lord, referring to this very 
 period, said to his disciples, " When these things be- 
 gin to come to pass, then lift up your heads, for your 
 redemption draweth nigh," Luke xxi. 28. Those who 
 endured to the end, were not only saved from the 
 calamities which came on the Jews, but the Christians 
 were at rest from their persecutions throughout the 
 Roman empire. They were too much in trouble 
 themselves then, to trouble others. 
 
 2d. It is obvious that the Thessalonians were to ob- 
 tain rest at the same time that God was to recompense 
 tribulation to their troublers or persecutors. This is 
 plain from verses 6, 7, quoted together : " Seeing it is 
 a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 327 
 
 to them that trouble you ; and to you who are troubled 
 rest with us." And when were both these to take 
 place ? It is immediately added, " When the Lord 
 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven." If the end of 
 this world be referred to, it is a plain case, that God is 
 not to recompense tribulation to those who troubled 
 the Thessalonians until this period, nor until then are 
 the Thessalonians to obtain rest. But the common 
 belief is, that the wicked are punished from the mo- 
 ment of their death until the day of judgment, and 
 are to be punished forever after it. The common view 
 of this text therefore must be abandoned. 
 
 3d. But the time when all this was to take place, 
 is further designated, verse 10, which Macknight ren- 
 ders thus : " in that day when he shall come to be 
 glorified through his saints, and to be admired by all 
 the believers; and by you, because our testimony was 
 believed by you." Was Christ glorified then through 
 his saints w^hen he yielded vengeance on the Jews, in 
 the destruction of their city and temple? We pre- 
 sume no one questions this. They obtained rest, they 
 lifted up their heads, and shone forth like the sun in 
 the kingdom of their father. If believers glorified 
 God when Saul, the persecutor, was converted to the 
 faith, (Galations i. 23, 24,) how much more when 
 they saw their persecutors generally removed, and 
 " the son of man coming in his kingdom," Matt, xvi. 
 28, compare Rev. xv. 3,4, and xi. 17. But all these 
 things will be confirmed by considering 
 
 3d. The nature and duration of the punishment 
 here mentioned. 1st. Let us notice the nature of the 
 punishment. It is called " destruction from the pre- 
 sence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," 
 It will not be disputed, that the punishment described 
 in these words, is the same as the righteous judgment 
 
328 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 of God, mentioned verse 5, and called tribulation, 
 verse 6 and the vengeance to be yielded, ve:se 8. — 
 Nor will it be questioned, that the punishment de- 
 scribed in all these verses is to be inflicted on the same 
 persons. They are to be pmiished, and punished with 
 everlasting" destruction, yea, with everlasting destruc- 
 tion from the presence of the Lord, and from the glo- 
 ry of his poiuer. It is easily perceived, that a correct 
 understanding of the nature of the punishment depends 
 on the meaning of the phrase 
 
 Presence of the Lord. What then is the scriptural 
 sense of this expression ? It may just be observed, 
 that the phrases face of God, and face of the Lord, 
 are the same in Scripture as presence of God, and pre 
 sence of the Lord. By the presence of God, or pre- 
 sence of the Lord in Scripture, is sometimes meant 
 his being every where present. Thus David says, Ps. 
 cxxxix. 7, 8, ' Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? — 
 Or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend 
 up into heaven, thou art there ; If I make my bed in 
 hell, (Sheol,) behold thou art there," &ic. Admit- 
 ting, for arguuient's sake, that hell is a j)lace of end- 
 less punishment, how could the wicked, even there, be 
 out of God's presence ? Yet in this passage the per- 
 sons are said to be punished with everlasting destruc- 
 tion from the presence of the Lord. Again ; I find 
 the phrase presence of the Lord refers to heaven, or 
 the dwelling-place .of the iMost High. Christ is said 
 to have gone 'Mnto heaven, now to appear z/i the pre- 
 sence of God for us," Heb. ix. 24. And it is said, 
 Luke i. 19, "I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence 
 oj God.^'' But how could the wicked be punished 
 with everlasting destruction from God's presence in 
 this sense ? For surely no one will say that they ever 
 were in heaven, and like Gabriel, stood in the presence 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 329 
 
 of God. But again, the phrase /ace of God, or p7-e- 
 sence of the Loi^d, refers to some places where people 
 met to worship him, and where he met with and mani- 
 fested himself to them. Thus Jacob, at Penuel, Gen. 
 xxxii. 30, says, " I have seen God face to face, and 
 my life is preserved," See Job i. 6 — 12, and ii. 1 — 7, 
 for examples of the same phrase, preser/ce of the Lo7'd. 
 Unless there was some particular place where God 
 was manifested in the days of Gain, how could it be 
 said, " and Cain went out Jrom the presence of the 
 Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod (or vagabond, as 
 in the margin) in the east of Eden :" Gen. iv. 16, and 
 verse 14, it is added by Cain, " behold thou hast driven 
 me out this day from the face of the earth : and from 
 thy face shall I be hid." 
 
 It is very evident, that the presence of the Loj^d\v?.s 
 in a peculiar manner among the children of Israel. — 
 See Exod. xxxiii. 14 — 17, compare Isai. Ixiii. 9, and 
 Psalm li. 11. The tabernacle in the wilderness, and 
 the temple at Jerusalem, were considered by the Jews 
 as the peculiar residence of Jehovah. There he abode, 
 and there they performed all their religious services to 
 him. Jehovah was the God of the Jews ; their land 
 his land, and the temple there was considered the 
 place of his immediate presence. As this has an im- 
 portant bearing on the passage before us, we must 
 give it a httle more of our attention. In the temple 
 at Jerusalem, God is said to dwell between the cheru- 
 bim, Psalm Ixxx. The show bread placed there, is 
 called "the loaves of the presence or faces." And 
 viewed in this light, the following texts have great 
 beauty and force. " Let us come before his presence 
 with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him 
 with psalms. Serve the Lord with gladness, come be- 
 fore his presence with singing. Glory and honor are 
 
330 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 in his presence ; strength and gladness are in his 
 place." Psalm xcv. 2, and c. 2 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 27. 
 But that the land of Judea, and particularly the tem- 
 ple, was considered by the Jews as the place of God's 
 peculiar presence, is manifest from Jonah i. 3. ''But 
 Jonah rose up to flee into Tarshish, from the pi-esence 
 of the Lord." Where he believed the Lord's presence 
 tp be, we learn from chapter ii. 4. " I am cast out of 
 thy sight ; but I will look again toward thy holy tem- 
 ple." In short, whether the Jews were in their own 
 land, or in captivity, when they prayed or performed 
 acts of worship to God, their thoughts and their faces 
 were directed towards their temple at Jerusalem. — 
 See in proof of this, Dan. vi. 10; 1 Kings viii. ; 
 Psalm V. 7. 
 
 But there are still some passages which deserve our 
 particular notice, because they clearly decide what is 
 the meaning of the phrase, presence of the Lord, in 
 the passage before us. The first is, 2 Kings xiii. 23. 
 ^•' And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had com- 
 passion on them; because of his covenant with Abra- 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not destroy them, 
 neither cast them from his presence as yet.'' This was 
 spoken of the Jews ; and just notice, that God speaks 
 of destroying them, and casting thera from his pre- 
 sence. What he here says, that as yet he would not 
 do to this people, in the following passage we find tliat 
 he did do. 2 Kins^s xxiv. 20, " For throuiih the an- 
 ger of the Lord, it came to pass in Jerusrlem and Ju- 
 dah until he had cast them out from his presence, that 
 Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon." — 
 The same is repeated, Jer. Hi. 3, which I need not 
 transcribe. God's presence was enjoyed by the Jews 
 in Judea, and in their temple service. To be cast out 
 oi God's presence, is to be banished from Judea into 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 331 
 
 captivity, and from all tlie privileges which the Jews en- 
 joyed in their land, and temple worship. This was the 
 same as destroying them. They were thus destroyed, 
 or cast out of God's presence, for seventy years in 
 their captivity at Babylon. But they were brought 
 back from this captivity, and again enjoyed God's pre 
 sence in their own land. At the lime Paul wrote the 
 words before us, the time was drawing near when they 
 were to be again cast out of God's presence, and dis- 
 persed among all nations. Of the Jews Paul spoke. 
 He adopts the very language of the above passages, 
 used in speaking. of their former captivity, to describe 
 the judgments of God which awaited- them in their be- 
 ing cast out of their land, their city and temple de- 
 stroyed, and they destroyed with an everlasting de- 
 struction from the presence of the Lord. The Jews 
 now, are just as certainly destroyed from the presence 
 of the Lord, as they were during their seventy years 
 captivity. How then can any man affirm that Paul, 
 in this passage, by destruction from the presence of 
 the Lord, meant either anniliilation or eternal misery ? 
 If the Scriptures are allowed to interpret themselves, 
 Paul only describes the temporal destruction and ban- 
 ishment of the Jews, and in the very language by 
 which the prophets had described their former punish- 
 ments. It is added by the apostle, ■' and from the 
 glory of his power," or as some render it, " his 
 glorious power." Should this be understood of Je- 
 hovah, the God of Israel, it is certain his glorious 
 power was displayed among the Jews. Should it be 
 understood of Christ, it agrees v/ith what is said of 
 him ; for at the destruction of Jerusalem he is said to 
 have come in the glory of his father ; and he was then 
 to be seen coming with powder and great glory, JMatt. 
 xvi. 2Tj and xxiv. 30. But it will be said, How is 
 
332 AN INQ,UIRY PART II, 
 
 this destruction of the Jews called an everlasting de- 
 struction from the presence of the Lord, if it refers 
 merely to temporal calamities? I shall now, 
 
 2d. Notice the duration of their punishment. It 
 is the word everlasting, which is here, and in other 
 places, applied to punishment, which leads many good 
 people to conclude, that it is in another wotld, and is 
 of endless duration. But so far from this being true, 
 this very application of the word everlasting, is a 
 strong confirming circumstance in proof of the views 
 advanced ; for, first, it has been shown at lenijth, that 
 olim, aion, and aionios, are rendered everlasting, and 
 in a great many instances at least, are used to express 
 a limited duration of time. But, second, these words 
 are rendered everlasting, and applied to the very tem- 
 poral punishment which the Jews have endured for 
 eighteen hundred years, and are still enduring. For 
 example, it is said, Jer. xxiii. 39, 40. " Therefore, 
 behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I Avill 
 forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your 
 fathers, and cast you out of my jjrcsence : and I ivill 
 bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a per- 
 petual shame, which shall not be Jorgotteny See my 
 Inquiiy into the words Sheol, Hades, &-c., on this pas- 
 sage. Compare also Deut. xxviii. 37, and xxxi. 17, 
 18 ; Hosea ix. 17 ; Jer. xx. 1 1, and xxiv. 9. What 
 only remains to be accounted for is, why is this tem- 
 poral punishment of the Jews called everlasting, both 
 by the prophet, and by Paul in this passage ? This 
 we think is easily and rationally accounted for. Paul 
 . was a Jew, and was speaking of Jews and their pun- 
 ishment. What could be more proper, than to speak 
 of their punishment in the language in which it was 
 described by their own prophets, as a destruction, and 
 an everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 333 
 
 Lord ? The Jews were familiar with the language of 
 their Scriptures ; but what Jew ever understood, that 
 to be cast out of God's presence, was to be cast into 
 misery in a future state ; or, that the word everlasting, 
 applied to it, expressed its endless duration ? No man, 
 we think, will assert this. It is of no consequence 
 how Christians have understood either the phrase, pre- 
 sence of the Lord, or the word everlasting, for ages 
 past, but the question is — How did the Jews under- 
 stand this language ? In the Jewish use of the term 
 everlasting, their present punishment is called ever- 
 lasting with stricter propriety of language, than many 
 other things to which they were accustomed to apply 
 it. JNo punishment they ever suffered before is called 
 everlasting, which might have been done to their 
 seventy years captivity, for this term, we have seen, 
 expresses the duration of a man's life. Should the 
 present punishment of the Jews, then, end to-morrow, 
 its continuance for eighteen hundred years might be 
 called everlasting. But how long it is yet to con- 
 tinue, God only knows. For this length of time they 
 have been cast out of their land, and have not enjoyed 
 God's presence. The Christian church is God's house 
 now, but how few Jews have come to enjoy his pre- 
 sence here, facts show. AH the exertions made to 
 convert them to the gospel of Christ, is little else than 
 lost labor. The veil is on their hearts, and all at- 
 tempts to remove it have as yet proved abortive. — 
 They are an everlasting reproach, and a perpetual 
 shame among all the nations of the earth. What na- 
 tion ever suffered so long and severe a destruction as 
 they have done, yet remain a distinct and numerous 
 people ? And what nation ever enjoyed such privi- 
 leges, and yet remain so long a blinded and unbeliev- 
 ing people ? But their punishment is to end ; for as 
 22 
 
334 AN INQUIRY PART H. 
 
 certainly as God has concluded them all in unbelief, so 
 he is to have mercy upon all. Their everlasting de- 
 struction is not of endless duration. 
 
 1st. Is it objected — "How could the Jews, who 
 persecuted Christians at Thessalonica, suffer this pun- 
 ishment, seeing they lived so far distant from Jerusa- 
 lem ?" Answer : it could have made no difference in 
 the case, had they lived at the poles ; for at the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem the Jews were banished Judea, 
 and have not been allowed to return to this day. Even 
 the few Jews in Judea now, do not enjoy the presence 
 of the Lord. They live there without a temple, an 
 altar, or a sacrifice, and mourn over the long desola- 
 tions of their city and temple ; dragging out a misera- 
 ble existence in hopeless expectation that their Mes- 
 siah is yet to come. But many of the foreign Jews 
 suffered at tlie destruction of their city and temple, for 
 it was at the feast of the passover, when they were' 
 generally assembled there, that Titus surrounded the 
 city and they could not escape. 
 
 ;2d. Is it objected — ^'The presence of the Lord 
 means his gracious presence at the day of judgment, 
 and being destroyed from his presence, being banished 
 to hell at this period ?" Answer: let this be proved, 
 for assertions prove nothing. Not a word is said in 
 the whole context of the passage, about a dayofjudg- 
 ment, or God's gracious yresence. Such gratuitous as- 
 sertions do not deserve notice, and especially in view 
 of the illustrations of this expression given from the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 3d. Is it objected—" Your views of this passage do 
 not agree with the coming of Christ mentioned chap- 
 ter ii. 1, of this epistle ; for it is his coming at the day 
 of judgment, and you have interpreted his coming, in 
 chapter i., of his coming at the destruction of Jerusa- 
 
AN INQUIKY PART H, 335 
 
 lem ?" Answer : whoever will consult Whiiby, may- 
 see that he interprets Christ's corning, in chapter i., of 
 the day of judgment, but passes it very slightly ; but 
 he enters at large into the proof, that Christ's coming, 
 chapter ii. refers to his coming to destroy Jerusalem. 
 Whitby then shows, that chapter ii. is in accordance 
 with my views of chapter i. But whoever wishes to 
 see these things treated more at large; must consult 
 the Magazine referred to above, 
 
 JVlatt. xviii. 8. The " everlasting fire" here menr 
 tioned, is the same as hell fire, verse 9, for they are 
 used as convertible expressions ; and the same as ever^ 
 lasting fire, Matt. xxv. 41, See Inquiry into the words 
 Sheol, Hades, &jc., for an illustration of this text, and 
 which has been also noticed in the present Inquiry. It 
 requires no further attention. 
 
 Jude 7. " Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the 
 cities about tliem, in like manner, giving themselves 
 over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are 
 set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of 
 eternal fire." That the suffering the vengeance of 
 eternal fire here, has no reference to punishment in a 
 future state appears to me evident from the fpllpwing 
 considerations : 
 
 1st. From comparing 2 Peter ii. 6, where nothing 
 is said about eternal fire, but only that the cities of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, with the people together, are 
 said to be condemned with an overthrow, making 
 them an ensample unto those that after should live 
 ungodly. Had the people gone to endless misery, 
 would Peter have omitted this important part, and 
 mentioned only the destruction of the cities with the 
 loss of their lives, as an example to ungodly men ? — , 
 We cannot very readily admit this. 
 
 2d. By comparing verses 5, 6, 7, together, Jude 
 sayS; that the people to wbpm he wrote kt^ew that 
 
336 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of eter- 
 nal fire. But I ask how they could know that they 
 suffered in a future state of existence ? For the his- 
 tory of the event, nor any other part of Scripture 
 could give them such information. Compare Zeph. 
 ii, 9. But they could know, that the people of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah suffered temporal misery, for this is 
 plainly made known. 
 
 3d. Jude says they were set forth for an example, 
 suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. But how 
 could they be an example if this refers to punishment 
 in a future state? For an example to others must be 
 visible to be of any benefit to them. Their destruc- 
 tion with the cities, are an example, for these are facts 
 allowed by sacred and profane writers, Jewish and 
 heathen. See Philo, Josephus, the Apocryphal wri- 
 ters, and others, who all mention those events. It is 
 allowed by many intelligent men, that nothing is said 
 in the Old Testament about eternal punishment. The 
 cities of the plain burnt for many ages, which suffi- 
 ciently entitled this fire to be called "the vengeance 
 of eternal fire." This fire might be called eternal, in 
 the same or similar sense, as the desolation of certain 
 cities and places were to be perpetual or everlasting. 
 See, among others, the following places : Ezek. xxvi. 
 20, 21 ; XXXV. 9; Jer. xviii. 15, 16; xxiii, 40, and 
 li. 39. This has been shown abov^e. I may add, 
 that yuros aioniou might be rendered " of the fire of 
 the age." The apostle then says, that they suffered 
 the vengeance of the fire, or punishment of the age ; 
 fire being a figure for punishment. Or simply, they 
 suffered the vengeance of the fire of old. 
 
 4th. Whitby and others, who believed the devil to 
 be a real being, maintain, that he is not suffering, nor 
 will suffer the torments of hell until after the day of 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 337 
 
 judgment. Why then send the Sodomites there be- 
 fore him ? God must be very merciful to the devil, to 
 excuse him so long a time from eternal misery, yet 
 send all the Sodomites there when he burnt up their 
 city. But we think neither the doctrine concerning 
 the devil, nor eternal misery, have been properly ex- 
 amined, or such opinions would all be discarded. 
 
 Jude 13. " Raging waves of the sea, foaming out 
 their own shame ; wandering stars, to whom is reserved 
 the blackness of darkness forever." Peter states, for 
 substance, the same, second epistle, ii. 17, which has 
 been noticed in my answer to Mr. Sabine, to which I 
 refer the reader. There it has been shown that the 
 apostle referred to the Jews, and the darkness they are 
 now in ; and that it may be said to be forever, in the 
 Jewish usage of this expression. That their present 
 punishment is called everlasting, we think has been 
 proved from several texts above. 
 
 Mark iii. 29, has been considered in connexion with 
 Matt, xii. 31, 32, above, and requires no further no- 
 tice. 
 
 Heb. vi. 2. "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of 
 laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, 
 and of eternal judgment." It requires no proof, that 
 Paul was addressing himself to believing Hebrews. — 
 At verse 11, of chapter v., he said, that he had many 
 things to say to them concerning Melchisedec, hard to 
 be uttered, or not easily understood by them, because 
 they were dull of hearing, or slow in learning. Ac- 
 cording, in verses 12 — 14, he reproved them thus: — 
 " For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye 
 have need that one teach you again which be the first 
 principles of the oracles of God, and are become such 
 as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For 
 every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of 
 
858 AN It^qUlRY f ART liv 
 
 righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat be- 
 longeth to them that are of lull age, even those who 
 by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern 
 both good and evil." By " the oracles of God," Paul 
 evidently referred to the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 particularly the law given at Sinai. See Acts vii. 38, 
 and Rom. iii. 2. He could nt)t refer to the New^ Tes- 
 tament Scriptures, for, at the time he wrote, they Avere 
 not all written ; nor does it appear that this appella- 
 tion is ever applied to them. By \he first principhs, 
 must be meant, some things in the Old Testament, for 
 they are said to be the first principles of the oracles 
 f)f Ood. This is evident from the word stoiheia, ren- 
 dered, first principles, Gal. iv. 3, 9, where, instead of 
 elements in th« text, our translators have put rudiments 
 in the margin. In Col. ii. 8, 20, they have rendered 
 this same word rudiments, and have put e/ewen^^ in the 
 margin. The same word is rendered elements,^ Peter 
 Hi. 10, 12, which we think could be shown, refers to 
 thitigs belonging to the Jewish dispensation. It is ap- 
 parent from tliese texts that it signifies the elements, 
 rudiments, or first principles of the oracles of God, or 
 things which belonged to the Jewish dispensation. — 
 These were suited to the world, while in a state of 
 childhood ; but after Christ had come, ought to have 
 been laid aside. But many Jewish converts to Chris- 
 tianity turned back again to these week and beggarly 
 elements, whereunto they deserved again to be in 
 bondaij;e. This was the case with the believin'jj He- 
 brews : for instead of being in advance of the Gen- 
 tile converts, having had the rudiments in their hands 
 from their childhood, they needed even to be taught 
 ihem again. They were babes, preferring milk to 
 strong meat, or those rudiments, to being skilful in the 
 word of righteousness, and having their senses exer- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 339 
 
 clsed to discern both good and evil. See chapter v. 
 12 — 14, and compare Gal. iv. 1 — 4. 
 
 Let us now notice the first two verses of chapter vi. 
 '' Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ, let us go on unto perfection." In the margin 
 it is, " therefore, leaving the ivord of the beginning of 
 Christ," which evidently refers to the first principles of 
 the oracles of God, chapter v. 12, the word therefore 
 shows that the apostle drew his inference from what he 
 had just stated, chapter v. 12 — 14. It could not re^ 
 fer to the word of the beginning of Christ, taught by 
 him or his apostles, for surely Paul would not com- 
 mand them to leave what Christians are commanded 
 to hold fast and continue in. See 1 John ii. 24; 1 
 Cor. XV. 1—4.. Nor, was this the beginning of the 
 word of Christ, unless we affirm that nothing is said of 
 Christ in the Old Testament. But to him gave all the 
 law and the prophets witness. Besides, could the 
 apostle mean to tell the Hebrews, that they could not 
 go on unto perfection unless they left the beginning of* 
 the word of Christ? This, we think, is impossible. — 
 But, by leaving the first principles of the oracles of 
 God as taught in the Old Testament, they could only- 
 go on to perfection, for it was by adhering to those ru- 
 diments, after Christ had come, that their progress in 
 knowledge had been retarded. Instead of leaving 
 them, they began to lay them again as a foundation, 
 or, returned to those weak and beggarly elements, de- 
 serving again to be in bondage to them. Is it asked, 
 How can the different articles here specified, and which 
 they are desired not to lay again as a foundation, be 
 the first principles of the oracles of God, as taught in 
 the Old Testament ? I shall now attempt to show 
 this, by briefly noticing those articles. 
 
 1st. " Not laying again the foundation of repent 
 
340 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 ance from dead worJcsy That repentance was re 
 quired under the Old Testament dispensation needs no 
 proof, and therefore this part occasions no difficuhy. — 
 Probably a reference is here made to that which was 
 enjoined on the great day of atonement, Lev. xvi. 21, 
 22, 29, 30. 
 
 2d. '^And of faith towards God^ But why not 
 faith towards Christ, if the apostle did not refer to the 
 principles of the Old Testament? It is well known 
 that the faith of persons during that dispensation chief- 
 ly respected God. See Heb.xi. 6 ; Johnxiv. 1. This 
 part can occasion no difficulty. 
 
 3d. ^^ Of the doctrine of baptisms.''^ Christian bap- 
 tism is always spoken of in the singular. Bui, when 
 the Jewish baptisms or washings are mentioned in the 
 New Testament, they are spoken of, as here, in the 
 plural number. See as examples, (in the Greek,) 
 Mark vii. 4, 8. And Paul, in this very epistle, chap- 
 ter ix. 10, calls them divers baptisms. This so plain- 
 ly belongs to the Old Testament, that we may 
 conclude all the other things refer to the same dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 4th. ^^And of laying on of handsT This article 
 can occasion no difficulty, for it is well known that 
 laying on of hands was common under the Jewish 
 dispensation, and that on various occasions. It is 
 no objection to my view, that this and some of the 
 other things were also done under the gospel dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 5th. "O/* the resurrection of the dead.^^ This is 
 commonly understood of the general resurrection. — 
 But why should it ? If the preceding articles refer to 
 things under the old dispensation, why not this and the 
 article which follows ? Then, certain persons were 
 raised from the dead, and that the apostle refers to 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 11. 341 
 
 them in chapter xi. 35, is indisputable. Elijah raised 
 the widow's son of Zarephath, 1 Kings xvii. 20 — 24. 
 Elisha raised the Shunamite's son, 2 Kings iv. 32 — 36. 
 These with other instances of the power of God, were 
 a great confirmation of the truth of Judaism, and con- 
 firmed the faith of believers in it ; yea, exhibited the 
 excellency of faith in God during that dispensation. — 
 Compare Heb. xi. 35, with 1 Kings xvii. 24. And 
 whatever promoted their faith toward God, led to re- 
 pentance from dead works. But, that the term anas- 
 tasis, rendered resurrection, was used among the Jews 
 to express a revival in various ways, is shown by Dr. 
 Campbell, previously quoted. The restoration of 
 Israel is described as raising dead dry bones to life, 
 Ezek. xxxvii. 1 — 14. And with equal propriety 
 might the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of 
 Pharaoh be called a resurrection from the dead. — 
 Hence they said to Moses, Exod. xiv. 11, "because 
 there were no graves in Egypt hast thou taken us 
 away to die in the wilderness ?" That by the dead, 
 in Scripture we are sometimes to understand not those 
 actually dead, but only being in danger of it. And a 
 deliverance out of such a state, a resurrection, is al- 
 lowed. See, among other texts, the following : Gene- 
 sis XX. 3 ; 2 Sam. xix. 28 ; 2 Cor. i. 8 — 10 ; Rom. 
 xi. 15; John v. 28, 29. 
 
 6th. '^And of eternal judgment J ^ That the term 
 judgment is used to express temporal judgment in 
 Scripture needs no proof. That the ancient Jewish 
 religion was established by great temporal judgments 
 is indisputable, as the five books of Moses show. And 
 that the judgment of God on the Egyptians, when Is- 
 rael were delivered from their bondage, is called eter- 
 nal ov forever, is expressly declared. Hence it is said, 
 Exod. xiv. 13, *' For the Egyptians whom ye have 
 
342 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more /o?*euer." 
 See above, on the word olim, as used in the Old Tes- 
 tament. Accordingly the phrase krimatos aioniou, 
 eternal judgment, may be rendered, of the judgment 
 of the age, or, the judgment of old. In this sense, 
 we have seen olim, aion, and oionios used in Scrip- 
 ture, I may just add, that the context seems to con- 
 firm the view given of this passage. In verse 3, it is 
 said, " and this ivill we do if God permit.'' Do what ? 
 Let it be asked. Answer: " go on unto perfection," 
 as stated verse 1, If the first principles, spoken of 
 were such as belonged to the Old Testament, it was 
 altogether unnecessary for Paul to teach them, for this 
 would be laying them again as a foundation. But it 
 was highly proper for him to go on to teach what 
 would render them perfect or full grown men, seeing 
 they were so deficient in the knowledge of Christ Je- 
 sus. This in fact he did in this very epistle, for a 
 great part is spent in pointing out to them the reality 
 of that, of which the Jewish law was but a shadow. 
 But what was to prevent his doing this, for he says, 
 " this will we do if God permit," This, Paul purposed 
 to do if God gave him opportunity, and if his purpose 
 and labors were not frustrated, by their total apostacy 
 from the faith before his letter came to them. Hence 
 his fears about this in verses 4 — 9. See also chapter 
 X. 23—39. 
 
 Rev. xiv. 11. " And the smoke of their torment as- 
 cendeth up forever and ever, and they have no rest 
 day nor night." And xix. 3, "And again they said, 
 Alleluia, and her smoke rose up forever and ever." — 
 And XX. 10, "And the devil that deceived them was 
 cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast 
 and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day 
 and night forever and ever." It would be idle to show 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 343 
 
 that these passages have no respect to punishment in 
 another state of existence. No well informed man 
 would urge them as proof of such a doctrine ; for it is 
 plain, that the punishments were in this world, where 
 the time is measured hy day and night. 
 
 Such are all the texts in the Bible, where olim, aion, 
 and aionios are used, in whatever way rendered by our 
 translators. Not one text has been omitted to our 
 knowledge, and the reader having the whole ground 
 before him, may examine it for himself. The texts on 
 which dependence is placed, proving the doctrine of 
 endless punishment, we have fully considered, and to 
 spend time with others is unnecessary. 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OLIM, AND AION, AND ATONIOS, 
 RENDERED EVERLASTING, FOREVER, &€. THROUGH- 
 OUT THE BIBLE, WHETHER APPLIED TO GOD, TO 
 LIFE, OR PUNISHMENT. 
 
 If these terms are ever used to express endless du- 
 ration, all seem to be agreed that they express the 
 endless duration, 
 
 ]st. Of God, Indeed, it is from their being applied 
 to him, w^ho is without beginning or end, that it is con- 
 cluded they express endless duration when applied to 
 other things. This point, then, requires to be exa- 
 mined with modesty and care. It would ill become 
 me, to speak with dogmatical confidence on such a 
 
344 AN INQ,UIRY PART II. 
 
 subject. All I claim is, that what has occurred to me 
 be considered impartially, and it may lead to a more 
 complete investigation of the subject. There is no 
 dispute, nor can there be any, about the endless ex- 
 istence of Jehovah. The only point about which a 
 question arises, is, are these terujs intended to express 
 his endless duration when so appHed? If they do, it 
 must, I think, be allowed, that it is the subject to which 
 they are applied which gives them this extent of signi- 
 fication ; and it is certain beyond a doubt, that they 
 are often used in Scripture to express a limited dura- 
 tion ; yea, sometimes a short period, such as a person's 
 life time. Besides, does it follow, that because God 
 is infinite, that words must derive an infinite significa- 
 tion when applied to him? If they do, w^hy confine 
 it to the words before us ? Why not also say, that 
 when the term good is applied to God, it must always 
 mean an infinite degree of goodness? which, if true, 
 puts an end to the doctrine of eternal misery, for it is 
 expressly said, " the Lord is good unto all." So in 
 regard to other terms being applied to him. But what 
 leads me to think that olim, aion, and oionios, used to 
 express duration when applied to the divine being, 
 were not intended to designate his endless duration, 
 are the followinor thinsjs : 
 
 1st. From the original native sense of these terms. 
 Lexicon writers seem to be agreed, that they signify 
 eternity, not from their natural native sense, but from 
 the subjects to which they are applied, and the sense 
 of certain passages requiring such an application of 
 them. They all allow, that they not only signify 
 limited duration, but are used to express this in Scrip- 
 ture. I would therefore query, whether we ought to 
 take it for granted, that certain passages in which such 
 words are used, require us to understand them as ex- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 345 
 
 pressing endless duration ? May not these passages 
 be misunderstood ? And, when duly considered, we 
 may see that they do not require such a sense affixed 
 to these terms. Is it correct reasoning to infer, that 
 terms expressing limited duration, cannot be applied to 
 God without changing their meaning from a limited to 
 an infinite signification ? Why may not these terms, 
 which are certainly used to express all the ages of the 
 world from its beginninor to its end, be also used when 
 applied to God, to express, not his endless duration, 
 but the period of his dispensations and dealings with 
 men through Jesus Christ, throughout all the genera- 
 tions of it. For example, when God is called " the 
 king eternal," we have seen above, by a quotation 
 from Macknight, that it simply signifies king of the 
 ages, or of all the ages or dispensations of this world. 
 
 2d. Supposing then these terms, when applied to 
 God, do not express his endless duration, but all the 
 period of his dispensations with men in this world, there 
 is a propriety and congruity in all their applications 
 throughout the Scriptures. They are then used to ex- 
 press a longer or shorter period, as the subject of the 
 writer required. They express the period of a man's 
 life-time, the duration of any one of the dispensations 
 under which men have been placed, or all the ages of 
 the world from its beginning to its end. Accordingly 
 these terms are used in a variety of ways to express 
 limited duration, as is universally allowed. To under- 
 stand them as expressing endless duration would make 
 the inspired writers in many instances speak the most 
 palpable absurdities and contradictions. 
 
 3d. If these terms, when applied to God, are used 
 to express his endless existence, I beg leave to ask, why 
 qualifying explanatory phrases are added by the sacred 
 writers, as is so frequently done ? I shall explain my- 
 
346 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 self about this. For example, when olim is used to 
 express time past, it is not only rendered of old, the 
 days of old, ancient, ancient years, former years, but is 
 explained to mean many generations, the years of 
 many generations, and from the beginning. Again, 
 when it is used to express future time, we have also 
 the following explanatory phrases given us concerning 
 it: all thy days, throughout your generations, through- 
 out all generations, to all generations, from generation 
 to generation, many generations, every generation, the 
 tenth generation, and a thousand generations. Besides, 
 it is also limited or qualified by the duration of the sun, 
 moon, host of heaven, and days of heaven. Had this 
 word signified endless duration, all must have seen the 
 propriety of adding such explanations when it w^as used 
 to express a limited duration, for this was necessary to 
 prevent misunderstanding. But what need was there 
 to add the same or similar explanations when this term 
 is applied to God ? Why not let it have its full un- 
 qualified meaning, if it really signified endless dura- 
 tion ? But the sacred writers make no distinction, (ot 
 they add the same restricting, qualifying expressions, 
 when it is applied to him, as when speaking of any 
 thing else, as seen above from the passages where olim 
 occurs. Indeed if this word signified endless duration, 
 it was necessary to give such explanations when used 
 to express a temporary duration, but surely altogether 
 unnecessary when speaking of God. If persons will 
 have it, that the subject to which olijn is applied de- 
 termines whether it is to be understood in a limited or 
 endless sense, let them account for the fact, that such 
 qualifying phrases are used when it is applied to God. 
 What was their use or intention in such a connexion ? 
 Yea, I ask, ought we not rather to have had some 
 phrases showing that olim when applied to God was 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 347 
 
 to be understood in its most unlimited sense ? This 
 was necessary, seeing the word did not signify endless 
 duration of itself, was applied so often to express lim- 
 ited duration, and was attended with such qualifying 
 phraseology in so many instances. At any rate, when 
 olim was applied to God, why were not such restrict- 
 ing phrases omitted? This would have been leaving 
 the subject to w^hich it is applied, to determine the ex- 
 tent of its meaning without any drawback from such 
 limiting phrases. Were such phrases introduced for no 
 purpose? But if introduced for the purpose of limiting 
 or explaining olim in the one case, no candid man will 
 question, but they were introduced for the same pur- 
 pose in the other. For example, the priesthood of 
 Aaron is called an everlasting priesthood, but this is 
 explained by the phrase " throughout your genera- 
 tions." So in other instances. Well, when it is said 
 of God, '' his mercy is from everlasting to everlasting," 
 it is added, by way of explanation, ^' his righteousness 
 unto children's children." Psalm ciii. 17. Again, 
 when it is said '^ thou art from everlasting," this is a^ain 
 explained by the words, " thy throne is established of 
 old." Psalm xciii. 2. And is it said '' thy kingdom 
 is an everlasting kingdom," we find it explained thus, 
 ^' and thy dominion endureth throughout all genera^ 
 tions." Psalm cxlv. 13. And is it again said, " his 
 mercy is everlasting," it is again added as an explana-^ 
 lion, " and his truth endureth to all generations." — 
 Give me leave to ask, if everlasting meant endless du- 
 ration, why are all these qualifying explanatory phrases 
 added ? Had the word olim, rendered everlasting, 
 meant endless duration, and such qualifying phrases 
 only been added when it was applied to things of a 
 temporary nature, this would only be guarding the ap- 
 plication of the terra from abuse. But we see that 
 
348 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 such explanatory expressions are given when it is ap- 
 plied to God. Now if the term was intended to ex- 
 press his endless duration, why was this the case ? — 
 Why not omit them in all instances where he is spoken 
 of, and only use them where this term is applied to 
 things of limited duration ? Had this been done, it 
 would have shown, that the inspired writers did use a 
 word which expressed endless duration, and judged it 
 proper to guard its misapplication by such qualifying 
 expressions. But if we consider the word olim as ex- 
 pressing limited and not endless duration, all the quali- 
 fying phrases used are proof that in this sense the sa- 
 cred writers wished themselves to be understood by 
 their readers. Is the question then asked, what is the 
 limit of time expressed by this word ? So far as I can 
 see it is expressed by the qualifying expression 
 " throughout all generations." 
 
 4th. The very repetition o( olim, and rendered for- 
 ever ard ever, seems to show, that it was not designed 
 to express God's endless duration. If forever, by it- 
 self, did express an endless duration of time, why add 
 another forever to it. This was altogether superflu- 
 ous, for twenty forevers added, could not add to end- 
 less duration. How could adding another forever, 
 make the first forever, or both taken together, an end- 
 less duration of time ? Add as many forevers as you 
 please to one another, if the first expresses a limited 
 period, the number added must still fall infinitely short 
 of eternity. They may make up a very long period 
 of time, hut still one which must come to an end. But 
 I will leave it for candid men to consider, if the very 
 adding one forever to another, does not fairly imply, 
 that the sacred writers never intended to express end- 
 less duration by this mode of speaking. Many people 
 seem to think, that *' forever and ever," expresses end- 
 
AN 1NQ,UIRY — 'PART II. 349 
 
 less duration, but if duly considered we think it leads 
 to the reverse conclusion, for the very repetition of 
 "forever" implies, that the first forever was of limited 
 duration. This is confirmed, from considering that 
 forever and ever, is indiscriminately applied to things 
 which are to end, and to God himself. Besides, the 
 sacred writers give us the same explanations, or quali- 
 fying phrases in both cases when they use this lan- 
 guage. In short, whether forever and ever is applied 
 to God, or to things of temporary duration, they guard 
 us against understanding it as meaning a proper eter- 
 nity. It is throughout all generations and as long as 
 days shall be measured by the host of heaven. 
 
 5th. But if " forever," or, '^ forever and ever," is 
 used to express endless duration, why speak of a pe- 
 riod beyond this ? Thus in the Septuagint version of 
 the Old Testament, other words are joined wdth it, 
 which effectually restrict its meaning. Thus, Exod. 
 XV. 18. The Lord shall reign fore'Ver and ever and 
 further. Dan. xii. 3. They shall shme as the stars 
 forever and further. Mic. iv. 5. We will walk in the 
 name of the Lord our God forever and beyond it.-^ 
 See Unitarian Miscel. vol. il. p. 33. The translators 
 of this version seem to have thought, that there was a 
 period beyond forever, and forever and ever. 
 
 I am aware, that to all this it will be objected—^ 
 " Does not David say, Psalm xc. 2, ' even from ever- 
 lasting to everlasting thou art God,' and does not this 
 express the endless existence of God, both as to past 
 and future ? Is it not the same as if he had said, ' thou 
 art from infinite duration that is past to infinite dura- 
 tion to come ?' " Plausible as this appears, when these 
 words of David are attended to, they rather go tocon^ 
 firm the views which have been advanced. Hallet, in 
 his Notes, vol. i. pp. 75, 16, thus writes » " Psalm xl'h 
 23 
 
350 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 13. 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlast- 
 ing, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.' I am apt 
 to think, that many English readers suppose, that the 
 words from everlasting, signified a duration that was 
 past in the days of the psalmist. But, on second 
 thoughts, the English reader will perceive that this 
 cannot possibly be. The psalmist here expresses his 
 desire that God may be blessed-. But it is impossible 
 to desire, that God may be blessed heretofore. To 
 say, blessed he God in past ages, would be as ridiculous 
 as the advice a late divine has given Christians, to pray 
 that the one catholic church may be built upon the 
 foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ him- 
 self being the chief corner stone. The text then must 
 be rendered, blessed be the Lord God of Israel from 
 a^e to a";e : i. e. from this time forth, throuohout all 
 ages. Every one will allow, that the Hebrew word 
 olim, here rendered everlasting, does frequently signify 
 an age, 'or generation. Nor will any one object to 
 this interpretation of the word and from everlasting 
 a^nd to everlasting ; as if this would hinder us from 
 rendering the expression, /ro77i age to age; when he 
 shall consider that the word and, in such like expres- 
 sions is redundant or superfluous in our language, what- 
 ever grace it adds to the Hebrew phrase. Thus the 
 Hebrew expression, 2 Chron. ix. 26, is literally to be 
 rendered, ' from the river and unto the land of the Phi- 
 listines.' Our translators have rendered the Hebrew 
 particle by even ; 'from the river even unto the land 
 of the Philistines.' It would have been as well if they 
 had dropt It quite, and had said, ' from the river to the 
 land of the Philistines.' See also 2 Chron. xxx. 5. — 
 So also the passage of the Psalm under consideration 
 may be rendered, blessed be God from age even to age, 
 or, more simply, from age to age. In the same sense 
 
AN INQ,UIRY— PART II. 351 
 
 the expression is to be understood, Psalm ciii. 17. — 
 ' The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to ever- 
 lasting,' or rather from age to age, i. e. from this age 
 to tlie next, and so on throughout all future ages. In 
 the same manner, I conjecture, we must understand 
 this same expression. Psalm xc. 2, which I would ren- 
 der thus : ' Before the mountains were brought forth, 
 or ever thou hadst formed the earth or the world, and 
 from aoe to age thou art God.' " 
 
 But it is likely to be further objected, " That if ' for- 
 ever and ever' is not admitted as expressing the end- 
 less existence of God, is not this attempting to do away 
 his endless existence ?" I would answer, by no means ; 
 for his endless existence is altogether independent of 
 these terms being applied to him, and why give a wrong 
 meaning to Scripture in support of this doctrine ? Is 
 there no other way of establishing the eternity of God's 
 existence but by means of these words ? If there had 
 not, we should hardly think the inspired writers would 
 have used such qualifying language in connexion with 
 them, when they applied them to God. Instead of 
 modifying, they would have added some additional 
 phrase, to show that they wished to be so under- 
 stood. 
 
 We think no considerate man will affirm, that aion, 
 or aionios, of the New Testament can express endless 
 duration, unless olim of the Old, expresses such a du- 
 ration. The New Testament writers in no case intir 
 mate that olim of the Old Testament sicrnifies limited, 
 but that aio7i and aionios of the New, mean eternal 
 duration. On the contrary, they use these words in 
 several instances as a correct expression of what is to 
 be understood by olim in the Old Testament. 
 
 2d. But it is further supposed, that olim, aion, and 
 aionios^ rendered everlasting, must mean endless dura^* 
 
352 AN INQUIRY PART II, 
 
 tion when applied to life ; and " everlasting life," fs 
 considered to be the never ending life, enjoyed beyond 
 this mortal existence. If we have counted correctly 
 the phrases zoen aionion, zoe aionios, zoes aionioii, 
 and aionios zoe, occur just forty-tlnee times in the New 
 Testament. They are rendered everlasting life, eter- 
 nal life, life everlasting, and life eternal ; but all mean 
 the same thing, as is evident from comparing in the 
 Greek John xvii. 2, with verse 3, and other passages. 
 This phraseology is peculiar to the New Testament, 
 as it occurs only Dan. xii. 2, and in reference to the 
 age of the Messiah. Had it referred to a life common 
 to believers under the Mosaic and Christian dispensa- 
 tions, why was this the case ? If it means, as most 
 Christians believe, the life or happiness of the heaven- 
 ly state, Old Testament saints must have known it, for 
 they looked for this. See Heb. chap. xi. But they 
 are never said to have it, to have it abiding in them, 
 or even to hope for it, which is often said of New Tes- 
 tament believers. Besides, though all the prophets 
 bore witness to Christ, yet he is never called " eternal 
 life^' by any of them, as by the New Testament wri- 
 ters. The reason seems to be, that this title referred 
 to his manifestation in the flesh ; hence John calls him, 
 " that eternal life which was with the father, and was 
 manifested unto us." This agrees to its being said, 
 that " eternal life" was to be enjoyed in " the world to 
 come," or " the age of the Messiah," which orthodox 
 critics say above, " began at his first advent and shall 
 be completed at his second coming." The word ever- 
 lasting added to life proves nothing about its enjoy- 
 ment in a future state or its endless duration, for the 
 New Covenant is called everlastino:. The kintrdom, 
 reign, and priesthood of Christ, are called everlasting. 
 But does this mean endless duration ? This kingdom 
 
 ^ 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 353 
 
 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 priest- 
 hood, 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 everlast- 
 ings 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 resurrec- 
 tion, their inheritance is incorruptible and Jadeth not 
 away, and they are to be (paniott) 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 rei^n 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 
 
354 AN INQUIRY PART II. 
 
 the Jews and others have gone 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 contrast- 
 ed as often as everlasting life is contrasted, if the com- 
 mon 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 Bibles, for it contains no 
 sucli contrast. 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 punish- 
 ment ; 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. xxv. 
 46, and 2 Thess. i. 9, the strong holds 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 at- 
 tempt its defence from any other part of Scripture, 
 
AN INQUIRY PART II. 355 
 
 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 doc- 
 trines are not taught in Scripture, but are the produc- 
 tion 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 on it. We can sincerely say that we have sought 
 after the truth, and from the love of truth, for this only 
 can stand, when all human devices in religion shall fall. 
 If we have not found the truth, but have embraced 
 error, we hold ourselves in readiness to attend to what- 
 ever 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. 
 
 END OF PART Il< 
 
PART III. 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE POSSESSIONS OF DEVILS, MEN- 
 TIONED 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 desig- 
 nate an evil spirit — an angel who fell from heaven. — 
 We shall now inquire, if the devils with which per- 
 sons 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 pos- 
 sessed 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 dis- 
 orders ? 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 6/ei;i7 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 de- 
 vils. 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 
 
358 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 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. Dinbolos is never said to be cast out of 
 any person. This marked distinction between the de- 
 vil 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, de- 
 mons are not angels who fell with him. It is very cer- 
 tain 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 have supposed, demons to be 
 the mongrel breed of some angels with the daughters 
 of men. Others, as a race of malignant and mis- 
 chievous 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 no where 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 })recise 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 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 111. 359 
 
 thing, and speak in the common language of the age 
 about them. They speak of demons, the devil and 
 satan, of the god mammom, of transmigration, and 
 other things, without saying how such opinions origin- 
 ated, or, whether they were true or false. To have 
 corrected all the false opinions of the age, would have 
 been an arduous and vain work, and had they not 
 spoken of things in the common language of other 
 people, they could not be understood, but would have 
 subjected themselves to the charge of vanity and affec- 
 tation. They did then, what we do now, speak in the 
 popular language of the day. We speak of St. An- 
 thony's fire, St. Vitus' dance, and of the rising and 
 setting of the sun, and people would smile at the man 
 who refused to do so. 
 
 The question with us now ought to be, what is the 
 best course, to arrive at true views about the demons, 
 and the possessions of them in the New Testament? 
 I answer, to examine first, what the Old Testament 
 teaches us about demons, evil spirits, etc. The Old' 
 and New Testaments were written principally by Jews, 
 and among Jews ; and he who would correctly under- 
 stand the latter, must make himself acquainted with 
 the former. The Old Testament is the best dictionary, 
 to learn the language of the New. That person is ill 
 prepared to understand the New Testament about de- 
 mons, who has not consulted the old, respectmg them, 
 evil spirits, etc. And in his examination of both, 
 ought to consider himself a Jew ; living among them 
 in past ages ; and passing with them through all their 
 changes; going with them into their captivities ; and 
 returning with them to their own land, with all the 
 heathen notions they had imbibed. The shortest and 
 surest way which we can take, to arrive at the truth 
 about the demons mentioned in the New Testament, is 
 
360 AN INQUIRY PART lU. 
 
 to examine the Old, The inquiry must be, did the 
 Jews learn from their scripture, that demons were evil 
 spirits or fallen angels 1 If they did not, the question 
 will then arise, from what source did they derive the 
 opinions about demons, and the possessions of them, 
 which were entertained by them in the days of our 
 Lord ? Were they a new revelation from God ? If not, 
 were they invented among themselves ? And if not, 
 did they learn them from the heathen with whom they 
 had intercourse ? Until we have examined these ques- 
 tions, we are not prepared to form correct views o^ de- 
 mons and the possession of them in the New Testament. 
 What then does the Old Testament teach us respecting 
 demons, evil spirits, etc. ? What does the apocryphal 
 books teach us on this subject? And what do we learn 
 from the heathen opinions about demons, as given by 
 writers respecting them ? We adopt this course of in- 
 vestigation as the best we can devise, and shall pursue 
 it as far as is practicable. I shall then examine, 
 
 1. The Old Testament. Dr. Campbell remarks, that 
 " diaholos is always in the Hebrew, tsar, enemy, or, 
 satan, adversary ; words never translated in the sep- 
 tuagint daimonion. This word on the contrary, is 
 made to express some Hebrew term, signifying idol, 
 pagan deity, apparition, or, what some render satyr." 
 That demons are mentioned in the Old Testament we 
 shall now proceed to show. The first passage is, 
 
 Deut. xxxii. 17. "They sacrificed unto devils, not 
 to God ; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods, 
 that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not." 
 The Jews never sacrificed to diaholos, the devil. 
 But they often sacrificed to demons, to idols, or 
 strange gods. And the names of those strange 
 gods are often mentioned in the Old Testament as 
 could be easily shewn. What those demons, or false 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 111. 361 
 
 gods were we have noticed elsewhere ; and here may 
 notice once for all, they always stand condemned in 
 scripture. And what the Jews sacrificed to them, 
 we shall see immediately. But it will be asked, who, 
 or what were those demons to which they sacrificed ? 
 We shall see afterward, that they were the ghosts of 
 dead men deified, or, imaginary beings, whom they 
 raised to the honour of being gods. 
 
 The second text is Psal. xci. 6. Thou shalt not be 
 afraid' — " for the pestilence that walketh in darkness ; 
 nor for the destruction (daimonion^ that wasteth at 
 noonday." Some render 'W"^^^ from accidents, and 
 the demon at noonday!^ Some say, it was "a maxim 
 with Pythagoras, that Heroes should be worshipped 
 at noon." It is added '^ in warm countries where 
 people go to sleep at noon, all disturbances were to 
 be avoided ; and evil spirits are there, at that time of 
 day as much talked of, as with us they are in dark 
 nights, and perhaps for the same reason." But as 
 the orifiinal now stands, it affords no solid ground for 
 any demon or evil spirit, nor does anything like this 
 appear in our English version. This must be obvious 
 to all. The demon, was some natural evil, 
 
 The third text is Psal. xcvi. 5- — "for all the gods 
 of the nations are idols (daimonia,) but the Lord 
 made the heavens." Here it is expressly said — " all 
 the gods of the heathen are demons.''^ In the odgi- 
 nal it is, alilim, vanities, nothings. In other places 
 they are called '' lying vanities.^' And God says, 
 Isai. xlv. 5 — ^' I am the Lord, and there is none else, 
 there is no God beside me^ But the words of Psal. 
 xcvi. 5, are also found in ] Chron. xvi. 26, and there 
 alilim is rendered eidolon, idols, and not daimonia, 
 Levit. xix. 4 is rendered in a similar way. And 
 alilim in Job xiii. 4, is rendered **of no value." But 
 
36*2 Ax\ INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 if demons are evil spirits, how can it be said they are 
 vanities, nothino's, or, of no value, if they both pos- 
 sessed men and tormented them ? No ; if this was 
 true, they were something of a very important nature 
 to the persons who suffered from them. But this 
 passage ought to settle the question about demons in 
 the New Testament, and especially as Paul declares 
 the same thing, that an '^ idol or demon is nothing 
 in the world." To suppose them real beings, evil 
 spirits, is not only contrary to the Scriptures, but 
 admits that they can work something very like mira- 
 cles, in tormenting mankind. Some of the Jews 
 thought that Beelzebub was the worker of the mira- 
 cles in our Lord, which if admitted goes to invalidate 
 all true miracles in proof of a divine revelation. If 
 -' all the gods of the nations were demons, ^^ I ask, 
 were persons possessed with heathen gods ? 
 
 The next text is Psal. cvi. 37. " Yea, they sacri- 
 ficed their sons and their daughters unto devils " (dai- 
 moniois.) Here we are told, that they " sacrificed 
 their sons and their daughters," and sacrificed them to 
 demons, to idols, to false ideal gods, the names of 
 which can be found in other places of the Old Testa- 
 ment. And yet, it is believed by many, that these 
 imaginary beings did possess and torment men, from 
 what is said in the New Testament. But the Jews, 
 nor any one else, could not have believed this, had 
 the Old Testament scriptures been their guide, and had 
 not imbibed the heathen notions about demons. It is 
 plain, the ancient Jews, had very different views 
 about demons, from their descendants in the days of 
 our Lord, for they speak of them very differently. 
 
 The next text is Isai. xiii. 21. " But wild beasts 
 of the desert shall lie there ; and their houses shall 
 be full of doleful creatures ; and owls shall dwell 
 
AN INQUIRY PART HI. 363 
 
 there, and satyrs (daimonia^ shall dance there.'? 
 The Hebrew word here is soir, which some say 
 means hairy beings. But the whole verse seem' 
 intended to describe the desolate condition of Baby-= 
 Ion, that all kinds of wild birds, and beasts should 
 inhabit it. See also Isai. xxxiv. 14, where demonia 
 is also rendered satyr, but requires no further notice, 
 for it is similar to the one just mentioned. If demons 
 are fallen angels, it seems they are hairy beings, have 
 their abode with wild beasts at Babylon, and dance 
 there. But who believes this ? or, who can believe 
 such demons possessed men, and inflicted madness 
 and other disorders upon them ? 
 
 The next text is Isai. Ixv. 11. " But ye are they 
 that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, 
 that prepare a table for that troop (daimonio,) and that 
 furnish the drink offering unto that number." Gad is 
 put in the margin, for that troop in the text, and for 
 that number, is put Meni. Jerome says, it is uncertain, 
 whether Gad or Meni was originally translated demon. 
 Some have thought an allusion is here made to some 
 Egyptian custom. And Dr. Spencer thought the most 
 natural sense was, that they jpreyared a table to Gad, 
 and a drink offering to Meni, But be this as it may, 
 it is plain enough, the troop referred to was not a troop 
 of fallen angels, or evil spirits, but of heathen divini- 
 ties, demons, or false gods, and agrees with other pas- 
 sages already noticed. It is well known, the demons, 
 or false gods of the heathen, were numerous, and that 
 they spread a table for them to eat and drink at. See 
 on 1 Cor. X. 1 9 — 22, below. 
 
 Len. xvii. 7, says — " And they shall no more offer 
 their sacriGces unto devils, after whom they have gone 
 a w^horing." I might have passed over this text, for 
 the word in the septuagint is not daim,onia. In the 
 
364 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 Hebrew the word for devils in this text is — leshiodim, 
 which the seventy render by the word mataiois, vain 
 gods. Some think Pan is the God referred to ; and 
 according to Herodotus, statue makers and painters, 
 " make the image of Pan with a she goat's face, and a 
 he goat's legs ; and that a goat and Pan were in the 
 Egyptian language called Me^ides.'' Be this as it 
 may, there is no reference in this passage to wicked 
 spirits or fallen angels, but to heathen gods, idols, mere 
 nonentities, or nothings in the world. If any one sup- 
 poses the Jews sacrificed to devils, meaning /ofZ/c?i an- 
 gels or wicked spirits, it is a great mistake. I shall 
 show presently, from a high orthodox writer, that the 
 Jews did not know about evil spirits until their captiv- 
 ity in Babylon. And the fact deserves notice, that 
 since that period, the Jews have not been given to 
 idolatry. 
 
 Having adduced all the texts in the Old Testament 
 which speaks of demons, what conclusions are we to 
 draw from them ? I answer, we cannot conclude that 
 demons were fallen angels, or wicked spirits, for not 
 a hint of this is giveii in any one of them. But we 
 may conclude on the best of evidence that demons 
 were heathen gods, imaginary beings, wlio could not 
 do good or evil ; and if gods, are called on by the 
 true God, to show this by doing either of these things. 
 We may also safely conclude, that the Jews before 
 they went to Babylon, had heard of and known some- 
 thing about demons, for they had sacrificed even their 
 sons and daughters to them. And if Josephus may 
 be credited, Solomon not only knew about demons, 
 but had found out a root, the smell of which expelled 
 demons. But it was not until the Jews had gone to 
 Babylon, that they learned that demons were evil 
 spirits, or regarded them as such* But having learned 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 365 
 
 the heathen notions about demons, and forsaking their 
 own scriptures, they gradually made void God's law 
 by these and their own traditions ; so that demons, 
 and the possession of demons, were as familiar to 
 ihem in Christ's day, as among the heathen around 
 them. It is a great mistake in some, who think, the 
 possession of demons was unknown before and after 
 the days of Jesus Christ and his apostles. In Christ's 
 day, the possession of demons was no new thing, as 
 has been repeatedly prov^ed from heathen writers, as 
 may appear in the sequel. Besides, the persons sup* 
 posed to be possessed with demons, labored under the 
 very same or similar disorders as those mentioned in 
 the New Testament. All diseases, either of body or 
 mind, were not imputed to demons. Christ cured Pe- 
 ter's wife's mother of a fever and the person born blind, 
 but these evils are not ascribed to the possession of 
 demons. Epileptics, lunatics, and madmen in Christ's 
 day, and long before it, were said to be possessed 
 with demons ; and wherever ignorance and supersti- 
 tion have prevailed, strange and unaccountable things 
 are generally ascribed to supernatural beings as the 
 cause of them. A great many people are fond of the 
 marvellous ; and it could be shown, that among the 
 ancient Jews, things were ascribed to God, which 
 were done by men. The heathen ascribed all good 
 things to their good j^ods, but evil things to evil spirits. 
 But Job ascribed both to the true God. See Job 
 ii. 10. 
 
 Evil spirits. This phrase is used in the New Tes- 
 tament, and is synonymous to the word demons. And 
 as the Old Testament is allowed to be the best com- 
 mentary on the New, the phraseology, idioms, and 
 modes of thought and speech, being borrowed from it^ 
 some light will be shed on the subject before us. We 
 24 
 
366 AN INQ,U1RY PART 111. 
 
 begin by noticing the usage of the term spirit. Its 
 peculiar usage may be seen at length by consulting a 
 concordance on this word. For example, we read of 
 "the spirit of prophecy, the spirit of slumber," etc. 
 Dr. Campbell observes — " that it is a common idiom 
 among the Jews to put spirit before any quality as- 
 cribed to a person, whether good or bad, mental or 
 corporal thus, the spirit of fear is used to express 
 habitual fear, " etc. It is easily perceived from this, 
 that any bad thing might be turned into an evil spirit 
 by connecting the word spirit with it. And this was 
 the more easily done, if the term spirit was applied 
 to imaginary beings, supposed to do men evil. They 
 were personified, and spoken of as real beings, and 
 were believed by many to have an actual existence, 
 and could do them good or evil. Hence they oiiered 
 sacrifices to them, to procure their favor or turn away 
 their displeasure ; for what is it, which ignorance and 
 superstition will not lead men to do in religion ? • But 
 let us see what is said about, 
 
 " Evil spirits " in the Old Testament ? This 
 phrase in the plural, is not found there, but the ex- 
 pression '• evil spirit in the singular occurs in the 
 following places. In Judges ix. *-23 it is said — then 
 God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the 
 men of Shechem ; and the men of Shechem dealt 
 treacherously with Abimelech. " But I ask, did God 
 send a fallen angel between Abimelech and the men 
 of Shechem ? No one I tiiink affirms this, for '' evil 
 spirit " here does not mean a demon, a wicked being, 
 but a spirit of opposition and hostility, as the con- 
 text shows. In all the other places, where the j)hrase 
 ^^ evil spirit^^ occurs, it refers to Saul. Thus it is 
 said, 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 15, 16 — "but the spirit of the 
 Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART III. 367 
 
 Lord troubled him. And Saul's servants said unto 
 him, behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth 
 thee. Lee our Lord now command thy servants, 
 which are before thee, to seek out a man who is a 
 cunning player on an harp : and it shall come to pass, 
 when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he 
 shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well," In 
 verses LT — 23 we are told that David was sent for, 
 and it is added verse 23 — '•' And it came to pass 
 when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that 
 David took an harp, and played with his hand: so 
 Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit 
 departed from him." But from chap, xvlil. 10, and 
 xix. 9, we learn that this evil spirit returned upon 
 Saul, and under its influence he attempted to kill 
 David. But can any one suppose, God sent a fallen 
 angel or wicked being on Saul, or, that he was a 
 demoniac. VVhat then was this evil spirit ? The 
 Chaldee paraphrast says — "Saul was mad, or acted 
 as a madman in his house." Saul's disorder at first, 
 seems to have been only a melancholy madness, and 
 it is likel}^ the women's praises of David made him 
 worse. — "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David 
 his ten thousands, " roused him to jealousy and fury, 
 and led him to attempt killing David. See 1 Sam, 
 xviii. 7 — 12, and xix. 9 — 12. Saul's wrath seems 
 to have been directed only against David. Had his 
 '• evil spirit " been a fallen angel or a wicked being, 
 how could his servants suppose, David's music could 
 drive him away ? and did so for a season. Are such 
 beings charmed, or frightened away by fine music ? 
 But if his disease was melancholy, it is well known, 
 that to this day good music tends to remove it. It is 
 said by Theophrastus — "music cures many disorders 
 of the mind and body -^ such cis faiqtings, fears, and 
 
368 AN INQUIRY^"— PART llf« 
 
 disorders of the mind. The playing upon the pipe 
 cures the sciatica and epilepsy." And Marlianus 
 Capella says, " I have cured madness by symphony.'' 
 Melancholy might be driven away for a season at 
 least by good music, but how a fallen angel, a wicked 
 spirit could be removed by it, is not easily understood. 
 Maimonides observes — " that the Jews call every 
 sort of melancholy an evil spirit : and explains evil 
 spirit by disease, " which agrees with the usage of 
 spirit, as shown above. It is said, that Saul prophe- 
 sied under his melancholy or madness. And some of 
 the ancients supposed madmen could foretell future 
 events. When the poets spoke of the heathen proph- 
 ets they represented them as mad, alienated in their 
 minds. Virgil represents the sibyl as foaming and 
 raging. And Lucian represents the Priestess as filled 
 with fury, her hair standing on end, and she burning 
 and foaming, and panting whilst deliverini]: her oracle. 
 Some, even looked on the prophets of the Lord as 
 mad, and sometimes used music to excite prophetic 
 influence. See 2 Kings ix. I J, 12: Jer. xxix. 26. 
 The above are all the texts where an evil spirit is 
 mentioned in the Old Testament, and it is obvious, a 
 fallen angel, or real being is not meant. But it is 
 also evident, that madness in Saul is called an evil 
 spirit and an evil spirit from the Lord. It is not 
 said, that, he was possessed with it, that it was in 
 him, but it is expressly said to have been upon him 
 and to have troubled him, which we should think was 
 about the same thing. 
 
 The case of Saul, illustrates wliat is to be under- 
 stood by demons, and the possession of them in the 
 New Testament. There, a demon and an evil spirit 
 evidently mean the same thing, for in the same pas- 
 sages the one expression is used in common for the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 369 
 
 Other. Again, Saul's evil spirit was evidently insan- 
 ity ; and in the New Testament, insane persons were 
 said to be possessed with a demon^ or evil spirit, 
 IVot all whom our Lord cured, were said to be pos- 
 sessed with a demon, but only such as were more or 
 iess deranged in their minds. This fact, we think is 
 certain, and deserves attention from all, who would 
 correctly understand what is said in the New Testa- 
 ment about demons, or, evil spirits. It is also a fact, 
 which is too much overlooked, that according to the 
 person's degree of insanity, he was supposed to be 
 possessed with the more demons or evil spirits. Hence 
 we read of persons possessed with " a demon. " But 
 IMary Magdalene had seven demons in her, and one 
 mail declared he had a legion of them within him. 
 But we shall see in the sequel, that he was a wild, 
 raving maniac. But again, it is said, that Saul's, 
 ^' evil spirit was from the Lord," yet nothing like this 
 IS said of persons who were possessed with demons in 
 the days of our Lord. But this difference is easily 
 and rationally accounted for, by a fact which I shall 
 soon notice. The ancient Jews ascribed to God both 
 the good and evil things which happened to them, as 
 could easily be shown, and noticed already in the case 
 of Job. But we shall see, thai after the Babylonish 
 captivity, the Jews ascribed great and unaccountable 
 evils, such as madness, to the influence of evil spirits. 
 Before this period, they knew nothing about such 
 spirits, for their scriptures teach no such beings. 
 
 ^'Unclean spirit. This phrase, is only used once 
 in the Old Testament, in Zach. xiii. 2. "And it 
 sliall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, 
 that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the 
 land, and they shall no more be remembered ; and 
 also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit 
 
370 AN INQUIRl PART 111. 
 
 to pass out of the land." If the day here mentioned, 
 refers to the gospel day, as some think it does, it pre- 
 dicts, that then, idols and the demons they represented, 
 Avere to be done away. Unclean spirit, and in the 
 plural unclean spirits, are mentioned in the New 
 Testament, Math. xii. 43 : Luke xi. M : Mark i. 23, 
 26 : iii. 30 : v. 2, 8 : Luke viii. 29 : Mark vii. 25 : 
 Luke ix. 42 : Math. x. 1 : Mark vi. 7 : i. 27 : Luke 
 iv. 36: Mark iii. 11: v. 13: Acts v. 16: viii. 7: 
 Rev. xvi. 13. The phrase ^^ foul spirit/^ occurs 
 Mark ix. 25 : Rev. xviii. 2. But in the Greek it is 
 the same " unclean spirit," as in the above passages. 
 The phrase, in the New Testament, was probably 
 taken from this passage in the Old, and few will assert, 
 that it means there a fallen anffel or wicked beiuir. 
 But what deserves special notice is, 1. that since the 
 light of the gospel dispensation dawned on the world, 
 demons, evil spirits, unclean spirits, idolati-y, and 
 other heathen superstitions, have begun to wax old 
 and to vanish away. This light when universally 
 received into men's minds, will banish such things 
 from the earth. We have referred to all the above 
 texts where the phrase " unclean spirits " is to be 
 found in the Bible. Let the reader consult them, and 
 observe, what can hardly escape his observation, thai 
 demons are often called spirits in the New Testament. 
 For example see Math. viii. 16, 2. Demons and 
 " evil spirits " were considered the same, are used 
 as synonymous expressions ; for to cast out a demon, 
 was-the same as to cast out an "evil spirit," and the 
 supposed power of the one was the same as that of 
 the other. 3. A demon, and an " unclean spirit " 
 are also represented as the same, convertible expres- 
 sions denotincr the same thing. No one can doubt 
 this, who has read the New Testament, particularly 
 
AN IN(iUIKY PART 111. 871 
 
 the four gospels. For example in Luke iv. 33, we are 
 told of a man, who " had a spirit of an unclean demon." 
 4. From comparing the passages relating to demons, 
 ^'' unclean spirits," and Beelzebub, all relate to the same 
 thing, as could be shown. It has been alleged, that 
 Beelzebub is the same as diabolos^ the devil or Satan* 
 But the popular belief then was, that, " he was the 
 prince of the demons," and is the representation given 
 in the New Testament concerning him, as we shall 
 see afterwards, 
 
 FamUiar spirits. The phrases, '•' familiar spirit," 
 and " familiar spirits," occurs in the following places 
 in the Old Testament, which the reader can consult at 
 his leisure. Levit. xx. 27, 28. 1 Chron. x. 13. 2 
 Chron. xxxiii. 6. Isai. xxix. 4. Levit. xix. 31, xx. 
 6. Deut, xviii. II. 1 Sam.xxviii. 3, 9. 2Kingsxxi. 
 6, xxiii. 24. Isai. viii. 19. xix. 3. But he ought to 
 observe, that neither of these phrases is used in the 
 Netv Testament. One or two remarks are sufficient on 
 all the above passages, I shall merely name the fol- 
 lowing things which deserve the readers notice in the 
 above passages. 1. Persons who pretended to have 
 '* a familiar spirit '^ were to be banished from among 
 the Jews. 2. Persons who consulted with familiar 
 spirits among the Jews were to be put to death. Saul 
 and Manasseh did so, but their station in life saved 
 ihem from death. 3. The persons who had a familiar 
 spirit, pretended to consult with and bring up the 
 dead. Saul consulted with the woman at Endor, that 
 she might bring up Samuel to consult him in his dis- 
 tress. 4. Persons who had a familiar spirit were 
 ventriloquists, and imposed on people, making their 
 voice to sound as if it arose out of the ground, as we 
 have shewn in a former publication, and has been 
 shewn by others. 
 
372 A.N INQ,UIRY PART 111. 
 
 2. The apocryphal booJcs. In these books demons 
 and evil spirits are mentioned, and require a brief 
 notice. In Baruch iv. 7, it is said — " for ye provoked 
 him that made you by sacrificing unto devils (flai- 
 moiiiois) and not to God." This text is in accord- 
 ance with those ah'eady noticed in the Old Testament. 
 The Jews often sacrificed to demons, or heathen gods^ 
 but never to diaholos the devil, or to devils, I may 
 just notice here, that the phrases " unclean spirits" 
 and " familiar spirits " are not once mentioned in the 
 apocryphal books. They were written after the cap- 
 tivity in Babylon, and on the return of the Jews from 
 it, they were less given to idolatrous practices than 
 before it, which may account for this. 
 
 All the other places, where demons, or evil spirits, 
 are mentioned in the apocryphal books, are, Tobit, 
 Chapters iii. 8 : vi. 17, and viii. 2, which the reader 
 may consult. But every child has read the story 
 concerning Asmodeus the evil spirit, and how the smell 
 of the heart and liver of a fish drove him to the utter- 
 most parts of Egypt. The story is too absurd and 
 childish to deserve serious notice. It deserves notice 
 however, that the apocryphal writers seem to have 
 believed in demons or evil spirits, which the inspired 
 writers in the canonical books did not. This fact is 
 of importance on the subject of demons, for it sliews 
 when, and how the Jews imbibed such opinions, as 
 the following quotations admit. 
 
 Dr. Knapp in his theology, vol. 1. p. 448, thus 
 writes — " There is no trace of a belief in the exist- 
 ence of evil spirits even among the Jews, until the 
 Babylonian captivity." Again, in p. 425, lie says — 
 " it is not until the time of the exile, or shortly after 
 it, that we find distinct traces of the doctrine, that 
 there are anself who were once eood, but who revolt- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 373 
 
 ed from God, and are now become wicked themselves, 
 and the authors of the evil in the world. The proba- 
 bility is therefore, that this doctrine was first developed 
 among the Jews during their residence in Chaldea and 
 shortly afterwards." I might quote more to the same 
 purpose, but I shall only add from pp. 465, 466. 
 ^'The extravagant opinions which formerly prevailed 
 on this subject were the means of much injury, as ap- 
 pears from experience. They led the common people 
 to what waS; in effect, a belief in two gods — a good 
 and an evil deity ; and also to entertain false concep- 
 tions of the attributes of the true God, which could 
 not have been without a practical influence on the 
 life. They often furnish a real hindrance to moral 
 improvement ; for instance ; in seeking for the origin of 
 sin in themselves, and endeavoring to stop its sources 
 — instead of becoming acquainted with, and avoiding 
 the external occasions of sin, they laid the whole 
 blame of it upon Satan, and when they had made him 
 guilty, deemed themselves sufficiently justified and ex- 
 culpated." Such are the remarks of an orthodox 
 German divine, whose work was translated at Ando- 
 ver, and highly approved by the Professors there. I 
 never expected to see the day, when my views should 
 receive such confirmation from such a source. The 
 reader ought to notice, that Dr. Knapp does not pre- 
 tend, the Jews had the doctrine of evil spirits revealed 
 to them by God, at, or during the Babylonian cap- 
 tivity. An important question then arises — how came 
 they to learn this doctrine ? This question we have 
 answered in the first part of this work and in the first 
 Inquiry, etc. It has been shewn from Dr. Campbell 
 and other writers, that the Jews brought back from 
 their captivity many opinions not found in their sacred 
 books. Their minds were corrupted from their inter- 
 
374 AN INQUIRY PART 111. 
 
 course with the heathen, and when both Jews and 
 heathen were converted to the faith of Christ, many 
 false heathen notions were introduced into the Chris- 
 tian Church, which are not all yet purged out. The 
 devil, and other spirits, are of this number, as Dr. 
 Knapp admits. In the above investigation, the state- 
 ments 1 liave quoted from him, are strongly confirmed, 
 for no one could find the doctrine of evil spirits in the 
 Old Testament, unless he took it there with him. 
 But on the contrary mu«:t see, that demons, evil 
 spirit s, familiar spirits, etc. all stand condemned 
 there, and severe punishments were inflicted on the 
 Jews who turned aside to such heathen worship and 
 superstitions. Whatever they knew about demons, 
 evil spirits, etc., was not learned from their own scrip- 
 lures, but from the heathen around them. Many of 
 their laws, were given to maintain a separation of 
 them from the Gentile nations. But after all those 
 laws, and the punishments endured for the breach of 
 them, they broke over this partition wall and learned 
 the ways of their heathen neighbors. Much light 
 would be shed on the subject of demons, and the pos- 
 session of demons in the New Testament, if we had a 
 full and perfect account of the heathen views on this 
 subject. But imperfect as this is we shall not be able 
 to use all the materials we have found suited to our 
 purpose. We shall content ourselves with a few 
 brief statements. 
 
 Enfield in his Philosophy says, pp. 33 — 36. '^ It 
 appears, not only from the testimony af Diodorus, but 
 from other ancient authorities collected by Eusebius 
 that the Chaldeans believed in God, the Lord and 
 Parent of all, by whose providence the world is gov- 
 erned. And indeed without this it is impossible to 
 conceive, how their religious rites should ever have 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 375 
 
 arisen : for the immediate object of these rites was a 
 supposed race of spiritual beings or demons, whose 
 existence could not have been imagined, without first 
 conceiving the idea of a supreme being the source of 
 all inteUigence. Besides the supreme being, the 
 Chaldeans supposed spiritual beings to exist, of seve- 
 ral orders, gods, demons, heroes. These they proba- 
 bly divided into subordinate classes, as their practice 
 of theology, or magic required. The ancient eastern 
 nations in general, and among the rest the Chaldeans, 
 admitted the existence of certain evil spirits, clothed 
 in habilitnents of gross matter, and in subduing or 
 counteracting these, they placed a great part of the 
 efficacy of their religious incantations. The magic 
 which the Chaldean Zoroaster invented, was probably 
 nothing more than the performance of certain religious, 
 ceremonies, by means of which good demons were 
 supposed to be prevailed upon to communicate super- 
 natural properties to herbs, stones, and other natural 
 bodies, or to afibrd assistance, in other miraculous 
 ways, to those who invoked them. In war, it was 
 supposed that by the help of magic the forces of an 
 enemy might be routed, or an army struck with a 
 general panic, as is said to have liappened to Ninus 
 in his war with the Bactrians. Notwithstanding the 
 obscurity with which antiquity has covered the Chal- 
 dean philosophy, it has been highly extolled, not only 
 by the Orientalists and Greeks, but by Jewish and 
 Christian writers." Let it be remembered, that the 
 Jews spent seventy years in Babylon, and brought 
 back from their captivity there, many of the heathen 
 opinions of the people as is universally admitted. 
 Concerning the Celts, Enfield says p. 94 — " that they 
 imagined the magnificent and gloomy scenes of nature 
 to be inhabited by demons, fully appears from the 
 
376 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 Edda. Nor can any other reason be assigned for the 
 superstitious notion which prevailed among them, than 
 that these scenes were frequently the seat of oracular 
 communications." On p. 81 he says — " the doctrine 
 of an eiherial intelligence pervading and animating the 
 material world, appears, among the Egyptians, to have 
 been from the earliest time accompanied with a belief 
 in inferior divinities. Conceiving emanations from the 
 divinity, to be resident in various parts of nature, when 
 they saw life, motion, and enjoyment communicated 
 to the inhabitants ol the earth from the sun, and, as 
 they supposed, from other heavenly bodies, they as- 
 cribed these effects to the influence of certain divini- 
 ties, derived from the first deity, which they supposed 
 to inhabit these bodies. Hence arose their worship 
 of the sun, under the name of Osiris, Amon, and 
 Horus, etc. From the same source it may be easily 
 conceived, that, among the Egyptians as well as in 
 other nations, would arise the worship of deified men, 
 such as illustrious heroes, legislators, or improvers of 
 human life by useful inventions and institutions. 
 Hence they concluded that a large portion of that 
 divinity, which animates all things resided in them, 
 and supposed that after death, 'the good demon that 
 animated them passed into the society of the divinities. 
 Enfield informs us, p. 256, that Xenocrates taught 
 — " the heavens are divine, and the stars celestial 
 gods ; and that besides these divinities, there are 
 terrestrial demons, of a middle order between the gods 
 and men, which partake of the nature both of mind 
 and body, and are therefore, like human beings, capa- 
 ble of passions, and liable to diversity of character. 
 Like Plato he probably thought, the inferior gods or 
 demons, to be derived from the soul of the world, and 
 like that principle, to be compounded of a simple and 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 377 
 
 divisable substance." On page 356, he says'— " de- 
 mons were divided into superior and inferior : the 
 superior, those which inhabited the sun and stars, 
 which they considered as animated substances ; the 
 inferior, human souls separated from the body, or 
 heroes, illustrious men says Cicero, whose souls sur-* 
 vive and enjoy immortality are justly esteemed to be 
 gods, since they are of an excellent and immortal 
 nature. And, p. 420, we are told— " subordinate to 
 the deity, it was taught in the Italic school, that there 
 are three orders of intelligences, gods, demons, heroes^ 
 who are distinguished by their respective degrees of 
 excellence and dignity, and by the nature of the 
 homage which is due to them ; gods being to be pre=' 
 ferred in honour of demi-gods Or demons, and. demons 
 to heroes, or men. These three orders, in the Pytha- 
 gorean system, were emanations at different degrees of 
 proximity from the supreme intelligence, the particles 
 of subtle ether assuming a grosser clothing the farther 
 they receded from the fountain* The third order, or 
 heroes, were supposed to be invested with a subtle 
 material clothing. If to these three species we add a 
 fourth, the human mind, we have the whole scale of 
 divine emanation, as it was conceived by this sect of 
 Philosophers." Other heathen Philosophers might 
 be quoted who held similar opinions, and will be 
 referred to in the course of oar investigation. It is 
 evident from these statements that the heathen had 
 abundance o^ demons and various kinds of them. 
 
 In the preceding remarks, we have said but little, 
 as to the meaning given the words daimon and dai- 
 monion, but shall now introduce what orthodox Lexi- 
 cographers and others say concerning them. 
 
 '• 1. Daimon.'^ Parkhurst says, it means, "1. A 
 demon, an intelligience. Its senses in the heathen 
 
378 AN INaUIRY PART III. 
 
 writers may be seen under daimonion first and second, 
 besides which it sometimes signifies fortune, sometimes 
 an attendant genius." He says " 2. In the New 
 Testament it is used only for an evil spirit, a fallen 
 angel." But so far from pioducing proof of this, he 
 adds to the contrary — -"the seventy's version of Isai. 
 xiii. 21, where the Hebrew shorim, rough ; hairy crea- 
 tures, is rendered by daimonia demons, agreeably to 
 the heathen notions, that their demons, such as Pan, 
 the Fawns, Satyrs, etc. appeared in the shape of 
 rough, shaggy animals." Parkhurst, here comfirms, 
 what was said above on some texts in the Old Testa- 
 ment. He says " Rev. xviii. 2, seems an illusion to 
 the seventy's version of Isai. xiii. 21" and shews the 
 New Testament writers used daimon in the Old Tes- 
 tament sense o( daimonia, which in no instance refers 
 to fallen anj^els. Tt would be strans^e indeed, if the 
 New Testament writers differed so much from the 
 Old, as to make demons fallen angels, yet give us no 
 account of so great an alteration, for we have seen 
 the Jews knew nothing about evil spirits until the 
 Babylonian captivity. When, pray, were demons 
 converted into evil spirits? But let us hear him on, 
 
 " 2. Daim,onionJ^ Parkhurst says, it signifies '' 1. A 
 deity, a god, or more accurately some power or sup- 
 posed intelligence in tliat grand object of heathen 
 idolatry, the material heavens or air. Thus the word 
 is geneially applied by the seventy who use it, Isai. 
 Ixxv. 1 1, for god, the destructive troop, or powers of 
 the heavens, in thunder, liiihtning, storm, etc. In 
 Dent, xxxii, 17 ; Psal. cv. 35, for sedim, the pourers 
 forth, or genial powers of nature ; and as by daimon' 
 iou mestmnou, the mid-day demon, Psal. xci. 6, we 
 may be certain they intended not a devil, but a per- 
 nicious blast of air. (Comp, Isai. xxviii, 2, in the He- 
 
AN INQUIRY- — PART III. 379 
 
 bi'ew,) so from this and the fore-cited passages, we 
 can be at no loss to know what they meant, when in 
 their translation of Psal. xcvi. 5, they say — All the 
 gods of the Gentiles are daimonia, i. e. not devils but 
 some powers or imaginary intelligences of material 
 nature. But it must be observed, that according to 
 the hiirhly probable opinion of that learned Jew, Mai- 
 monides, the error of the first idolaters consisted in 
 their maintaining, that, as the stars and planets, to 
 which I think we should add the circulating fluid of 
 the heavens, were created by God to govern the 
 world, so it was his pleasure, that they should be 
 honored and worshipped as his ministers, and that 
 accordingly men proceeded to adore them, in order to 
 procure the good will of Him who created them, thus 
 making them mediators between men and God, and 
 this, says he, was the foundation of idolatry, which 
 assertion is amply confirmed by the plain traces of 
 this doctrine being found among the heathen, even 
 down to the time of Christ and his Apostles, and 
 indeed long after. Most express are the words of 
 Plato — '■ every demon is a middle being between God 
 and mortal man.' If you ask what he means by a 
 middle being, he will tell you — ' God is not approach- 
 ed immediately by man, but all the commerce and 
 intercourse between gods and men, is performed by 
 the mediation of demons.'' Would you see the par- 
 ticulai's ? ^Demons are reporters and carriers from 
 men to the gods, and again from the gods to men, of 
 the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the 
 injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other.' 
 The Philosopher Plutarch, who flourished at the be- 
 ginning, and of Apuleius, who lived after the middle 
 of tho second century, teach the same doctrine. j\nd 
 this says the learned Mede was the ecumenical phi- 
 
380 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART 111, 
 
 losophy of the Apostles' times, and of the times long 
 before them. Thales and Pythagoras, all the acade- 
 mics and Stoics, and not many to be excepted, unless 
 the Epicures, taught this divinity. Now, when Paul af- 
 firms, 1 Cor. X. 20, that what the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
 sacrifice daimoniois, not to God, we may understand 
 daimonia to mean either some powers or supposed 
 intelligences of material nature in general, or, in a 
 more confined sense, according to the common opin- 
 ion of the Gentiles in his time, such powers or intelli- 
 gences considered as mediators between the supreme 
 God and mortal m(!n. 'For this' says Mr. Mede 
 *was then the very tenet of the Gentiles, that the 
 sovereign and celestial gods were to be \vorship])ed 
 only with the pure mind, and with hymns and praises; 
 and that sacrifices were only for demons.' I will not, 
 however, take upon me positively to affirm, that Paul 
 had in view this latter tenet of heathenism in the 
 above passage. It is sufficient to prove his assertion, 
 that the general objects to which the Gentile sacrifices 
 were offered, were nothing higher than some powers 
 of material nature, or some intelligences supposed to 
 reside therein ; than this, nothing can be more cer- 
 tain, from all accounts sacred and profane. And thus 
 daimojiion is used I Cor. x. 20, 21. 
 
 2. Besides these original daimonia, those material 
 mediators, or the intelligences residing in them, whom 
 Apuleius calls a higher kind of demons, who were 
 always free from th(i incumbrances of the body, and 
 out of which higher order Plato supposes guardians 
 were appointed unto men,^ — besides thes^, the heathen 
 acknowledired another sort, namely the souls of men 
 deified or canonized after death. So Hesiod, one of 
 the most ancient heathen writers, describing that 
 happy raee of men who lived ih the first and golden 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 111. 381 
 
 age of the world, saith, that after this generation were 
 dead, they were by tl]e will of great Jupiter promoted 
 to be demons, kee[)ers of mortal men, observers of 
 their good and evil works, clothed in air, always walk- 
 ing about the earth, givers of riches ; and this, saith 
 he, is the royal honour that they enjoy.' Plato con- 
 curs with Hesiod, and asserts that ' he and many other 
 poets speak excellently, who affirm, that when, good 
 men die, they attain great honour and dignity, and 
 become demons.' The same Plato in another place 
 maintains, that ' all those who die vahantly in war are 
 of Hesiods golden generation, and are made demons, 
 and that we ought forever after to serve and adore 
 their sepulchres as the sepulchres of demons. The 
 same also, says he, we decree whenever any of those 
 who vv'ere excellently good in life, die either of old 
 age, or in any other manner.' And according to this 
 notion of daimonion, the word appears to be applied 
 in several passages of the New Testament. Thus 
 Acts xvii. 18, some of the Athenians said of Paul, he 
 seemeth to be a proclaimer of strange demons — gods, 
 because he preached unto them Jesus and the resur- 
 rection. In the similar sense of demon-gods, or souls 
 of dead men deified or canonized, the word is used 
 Rev. ix. 20, and in the expression doctrines concern- 
 ing demons 1 Tim. iv. 1, as doctrine concerning bap- 
 tisms, Heb. vi. 2 ; the doctrine concerning the Lord, 
 Acts xiii. 12. For proof I refer to Mr. Mede and 
 Bishop Newton, and to what they have adduced on 
 this subject shall only add, that Ignatius, who, accord- 
 ing to Crysostom, had conversed familiarly with the 
 Apostles, plainly uses daimonion for a human spirit 
 or ghost, and the adjective daimonikos for one disem- 
 bodied, and in the state of spirits." But Parkhurst 
 sayS) daimonion means " 3, and most generally, an 
 U5 
 
382 AN liNQUIKY FART III. 
 
 evil spirit, a devil, one of those angels who kept not 
 their first estate, and are called by the collective name 
 satan, and diabolos the devil." But all the proof he 
 gives of this is, a reference to some texts without note 
 or comment upon then), and to the book of Tobit. 
 Here he spoke from his prejudice in favour of the 
 popular opinions ; for not in a single instance is dia- 
 bolos called a demon in the Bible, or a demon diabo- 
 los; nor are the two names confounded, as if they meant 
 the same thing. And where is it intimated that a 
 demon was a fallen angel ? What he has said above, 
 is at variance with such a sentiment. Had he found 
 a single text, from which he could have proved, that 
 a demon was an evil spirit, saton, diabolos, or the 
 devil, no doubt that he would have done it. But 
 
 3. On the word '^ daimonizomai^^ he says, it means 
 ~ " to be possessed by a demon. It is the same as — 
 daimon chein to have a demon, or devil, John vii. '20. 
 Those who were possessed with prophesying demons, 
 Actsxvi. IGwere called by the Greeks daimenoleptoi. 
 See Archbishop Potter's Antiquities of Greece. In 
 the New Testament the w^ord daimoniodcs occurs 
 only once, viz. in James iii. 15, and is rendered in 
 our common version devilish. Parkhurst makes no 
 remarks on it, nor does it require any particular notice. 
 
 Such is Parkhurst's account of demons ; and it is 
 obvious, how much it agrees with what is said in the 
 Old Testament about demons. How he reconciled 
 this account with his bare statement, that demons were 
 fallen angels I know not, for he does not attempt it, 
 and I feel assured that it never can be done. The pas- 
 sages he refers to in the New Testunent are, Math, 
 viii. 31 ; Mark v. 12; Luke vili, 29 ; Rev. xvi. 14, 
 and the reader can consult them. They will be con- 
 sidered in the sequel. In passing we shall only say. 
 
AN INQUIRY— PART Hi. 383 
 
 such texts can never prove demons to ha J alien migels 
 in opposition to all he has said to the contrary, and 
 what he has said, is for substance what others have 
 said before him. 
 
 We come now, to an examination of the New Tes-^ 
 lament respecting demons and of persons being pos- 
 sessed with them. But we ought to come to it, in 
 full view of the light given us on the subject from the 
 Old Testament, the apocryphal books, and other 
 writers we have quoted above. Nor, should the in- 
 disputable fact be forgotten, which is stated by Dr. 
 Knapp, that evil spirits were not known among the 
 Jews until the Babylonian captivity. It is certain, 
 as we have seen, that the Jews knew about demons 
 long before this period, for they sacrificed their sons 
 and daughters to them. Wlio then converted them 
 into evil spirits, and instructed them, that they could 
 .possess men's bodies and inflict disordei^ upon them? 
 How, and by whom was this great change in demon<5 
 effected ? No change was effected in them ; the 
 change was in the Jews, in adopting the popular 
 opinions which then prevailed about demons. And I 
 shall show this from facts which we think cannot be 
 disputed. 
 
 1. It is a fact that demons are never spoken of 
 as evil spirits in the New Testament, except in con- 
 nexion with disorders which popular heathen notions 
 had ascribed to them. All diseases v/ere not imputed 
 to demons or evil spirits as is obvious from the four 
 gospels, but such as were strange, difficult to account 
 for, incurable or very difficult to cure ; such as mad- 
 ness, epilepsy, etc. This we shall see afterwards, and 
 is a fact which we think few will dispute. 
 
 2, It is also a fact, that the New Testament wri- 
 tersj never intimatej ih^v demons in their day. were to 
 
384 AN INQUIRE PART IIL 
 
 be understood differently from what they were in the 
 days of Moses and the propliets — that anciently they 
 were heathen gods, imaginary beings, but now had 
 become evil spirits to inflict disorders on men. They 
 indeed speak of persons under certain disorders as 
 being possessed with demons, but aside from such 
 cases, they never assert demons to be real beings of 
 any kind, that could injure any person either in body 
 or mind. On the contrary it is 
 
 3, An indisputable fact that when they speak of 
 demons aside from diseased persons they speak of 
 them as the writers of the Old Testament did before 
 them. As these facts are of importance, in examin- 
 ing the New Testament respecting demons, I shall 
 first introduce the texts in it which prove the last fact, 
 and do it in a very satisfactory manner. When this 
 is done, much is accomplislied, showing that demons 
 in the New Testament were not evil spirits or fallen 
 angels any more than in the Old. The passages I 
 quote are the following. 
 
 1 Cor. X. 20, 21. '^ But I say, that the things 
 which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, 
 and not to God ; and 1 woidd not that ye should have 
 fellowship with demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of 
 the Lord, and the cup of demons : ye cannot be par- 
 takers of the Lord's table, and the table of demons^' 
 The Gentiles did not sacrifice either to the true God 
 or diabolos the devil. Macknight says — " they sacri- 
 ficed to demons. The word daimonia, demons, is 
 used in the seventy to denote the ghosts of men de- 
 ceased ; and Josephus, Bell. lib. 7. c. 6 says demons 
 are the spwits of wicked men. It is therefore proba- 
 ble, that the writers of the New Testament used the 
 word demon in the same sense, especially as it is well 
 known, that the greatest part of tbe heathen gods 
 
AN INQUIRY PART HI. 385 
 
 were dead men. The heathen worshipped two kinds 
 of demons, the one kind were the souls of kings and 
 heroes deified after death, but who could have no 
 agency in human affairs. The other kind of demons, 
 were those evil spirits, who under the names of Jupi- 
 ter, Apollo, Trophonius, etc. moving the heathen 
 priests and priestesses to deliver oracles, greatly pro- 
 moted idolatry. The heathen in general, had no idea 
 cf God ; that is, of an unoriginated, eternal, immuta- 
 ble, and infinitely perfect being, the creator and gov- 
 ernor of all things. In the lieathen sacrifices, the 
 priests, before they poured the wine upon the victim, 
 tasted it themselves ; then carried it to the offerers, 
 and to those who came with them, that they also, 
 inight taste it, as joining in the sacrifice, and receiving 
 benefits from it — of the table of demons ; that is, of 
 the sacrifice offered to demons, which was eaten on a 
 table in the demons temple.'^ I add from Dr. Camp- 
 bell, who says — " Now in regard to idols, the Apostle 
 had said in the same epistle, 1 Cor. viii. 4, that an 
 idol is nothing in the world ; in other v/ords, is the 
 representation of an imaginary being. It is as much 
 as to say, Jupiter, and Juno, and Saturn, and all the 
 rest of the heathen gods, as delineated by the poets 
 and mythologists, are nonenities, the mere creatures 
 of imagination." He adds, " besides, a great part of 
 ihe heathen worship was confessedly paid to the 
 ghosts of departed heroes, of conquerors, and poten- 
 tates, and of the inventors of arts, whom popular 
 superstition, after disguising their history with fables 
 and absurdities blindly deified. Now, to all such 
 beings, they themselves, as well as the Jews assigned 
 the name demoniac I ask, can any thing he more 
 clear and conclusive than this, that demons in Paul's 
 day were the same as those mentioned in the Old 
 
386 AN INq,UIRY PART III. 
 
 Testament ? But if any one should assert that they 
 are different we call for the proof of it. 
 
 Acts xvii. 18. '• He seemeth to be a setter forth of 
 strange gods : because he preached unto ihem Jesus 
 and the resurrection." This, I believe, is the only 
 place in the New Testament where daimonia is ren- 
 dered gods.. The Athenians, seem to have supposed, 
 that Paul preached Jesus as one s^od, and the resur- 
 rection as another, and deemed them as new and 
 strange gods at-Athens, as the heathen gods were to 
 the Jews mentioned in the Old Testament, and no- 
 ticed already. Had the translators of our English 
 version, rendered here as they have done in other 
 places, they would have made the Athenians say, 
 Paul was a " setter forth of strange devils." I wish 
 they had done so, for it would have led people to 
 reflect, if the term devils was a correct rendering in 
 other passages where daimonia occurs. The word 
 daimonia in this text, is used in a good sense, being 
 applied to the souls of men deified or canonized after 
 death at Athens, This remark applies also to other 
 texts which could be shown w^ere it necessary. But 
 whether the Athenians, deemed their gods or demons 
 good or bad, Paul did not admit them to be beings of 
 any kind whatever. On the contrary his "spirit was 
 stirred within him when he saw their city wholly 
 given to idolatry." The next three texts I shall 
 quote at once as they are veiy similar, and like the 
 preceding shew the demons of the New Testament to 
 be the same as in the Old. 
 
 Rev. ix. 20. " And the rest of the men which were 
 not killed by those plagues yet repented not of the 
 works of their hands, that they should not worship 
 demons and idols of gold," etc. Rev. xvi. 14. "For 
 ihey are the spirits o( demons, working miracles," etc. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 387 
 
 And xvlii. 2. "Babylon the great is fallen, and is be- 
 come the habitation of demons^^ etC; Neither hea- 
 thens, nor Christians worshipped diabohi devils, that I 
 can find. And who can believe, that demons the im- 
 aginary gods of the heathen could work miracles •* 
 And, did Babylon become, '' the habitation" of either 
 devils or demons ? But all must perceive the simi- 
 larity of the statements in these texts to some of the 
 passages in the Old Testament wdiich have been con- 
 sidered above. It seems Babylon has been famous 
 as a habitation of demons both in ancient and modern 
 times, and demons also famous for working miracles. 
 What demons were, worshipped by Jews and hea- 
 thens, we have seen already, so far from being gods, 
 evil spirits, or fallen angels, they were lying vanities 
 and could not save them that trusted in them. 
 
 1 Tim, iv. 1. "Giving heed to deceiving spirits 
 and doctrines concerning demons." This is Mac- 
 kniglit's version, and in a note he says — " the word 
 translated demons was used by the Greeks, to denote 
 a kind of beings of a middle nature between God and 
 man. See on 1 Cor. x. 20, 21. They gave' the 
 name also, to the souls of some departed men, who 
 they thought were exalted to the state and honour of 
 demons for their virtue. See Newton on the prophe- 
 cies vol. ii. p. 418. The former sort they called 
 superior demons, and supposed them to have the 
 nature and office which we ascribe to angels. The 
 latter they termed inferior demons. They were of 
 the same character with the Romish saints, and both 
 sorts were worshipped as mediators. When therefore 
 the spirit of God foretold in an audible manner, that 
 in after times, many would give heed to deceiving 
 spirits, and to doctrines concerning demons, he fore- 
 told, that on the authority of feigned revelation, many 
 
388 AN INQUIRY PART llf. 
 
 in the Church would receive the doctrine concerning 
 the worship of angels and saints, and praying of souls 
 out of puri^atory ; and called it the doctrine of de- 
 mons, because it was in reality the same with the 
 ancient heathenish worship of demons, as mediators 
 between the gods and men." The souls of men, 
 canonized after death, are modern demons, are media- 
 tors between God and men, and like the ancient de- 
 mons have been supposed to heal men and inflict 
 disorders upon them, as they felt disposed. Chris- 
 tians in modern times, are not free from the worship 
 of demons. Wherein lies the great difference, of pay- 
 ing devotion to the ghost of a dead canonized saint, 
 and an ancient deifi(>d hero ? And is it not as easy, 
 to pray souls out of purgatory as to reform them in 
 hell ? If christians made themselves better acquaint- 
 ed with their Bible, and also with ancient heathen 
 opinions, they would see, that it is the heathen notions 
 which have been blended with Christianity, that have 
 produced the endless divisions among them. They 
 would see, that some of their darling dogmas were 
 derived from the heathen, and are even expressed in 
 heathen phraseology. Demons or evil spirits, is but a 
 small part of what Christians have borrowed from the 
 heathen as I have attempted to show in this work and 
 in other publications. 
 
 We have seen elsewhere, that to have a demon 
 and be possessed with a demon means the same thing. 
 Thus, the Jews said of Christ 
 
 John X. 20, '21 — '• he hath a demon and is mad, 
 why hear ye him ? others said these are not the words 
 of him that hath a dejnon, can a demon open the eyes 
 of the blind ?" On this passage the improved version 
 says — "observe, these words express cause and effect, 
 the disease is insanity , the supposed cause is posses- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 389 
 
 sion by a demon, or human ghost, than which no 
 supposition can be more absurd ; but it was the phi- 
 losophy of the age." See also John vii. '20. And 
 viii. 40 — 53, where similar charges are brought against 
 the Saviour which I need not quote. If to have a 
 demon and being mad express cause and effect, as 
 seems to be true, our Lord's own relations stated the 
 effect without naming the supposed cause, for they 
 said concerning him, he — ''is beside himself." They 
 probably said this, from his teachings and actions 
 being so different from that of others, and so contrary 
 to their wishes. 
 
 Matt. xi. 18, says concerning John Baptist " for 
 John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say 
 he hath a demon.''' It is repeated, Luke vii. 33, and 
 need not be quoted. Dr. Lighlfoot observes — " that 
 it was customary for tlie Jews to attribute to evil 
 spirits certain great disorders, which either distorted 
 the body or occasioned phrenzy or distraction of the 
 mind." It seems that, John like-the Saviour was deemed 
 deranged in his mind ; and his appearance and man- 
 ner of life perhaps led people to draw this conclusion. 
 His raiment was of camel's hair, he had a girdle of 
 leather about his loins, his meat was locusts and wild 
 honey, and he frequented the wilderness, to which 
 melancholy, or mad people resorted. Josephus says 
 that '^^ demoniacs were possessed by the spirits of bad 
 men," and such seems to have been the demons the 
 Jews ascribed to John and Jesus. It is said,' the 
 demons mentioned in scripture w^ere all understood in 
 a bad sense by the father's of the Church. But to 
 this we think there a,re some exceptions, as could be 
 shown, if it were necessary. It could also be showrt 
 that the ch:irge against John and Jesus, that they had 
 a demon was not general, for we are told, " others 
 
390 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 said, these are not the words of him that hath a 
 demon, can a demon open the eyes of the bhnd ? " 
 The common sense of people told them, that the 
 charge was false against the Saviour. But, there 
 was something so unaccountable about both, so differ- 
 ent from other persons, that according to the popufar 
 opinions of tbe age, that they imputed it to being pos- 
 sessed with a demon. 
 
 But the following statements deserve, particular 
 notice, for they have a direct bearing on the posses- 
 sions of demons mentioned in the New Testament. 
 '^The region of the air was supposed by the Pytha- 
 goreans to be full of spirits, demons, or horoes, who 
 cause sickness or health to man or beast, and com- 
 municate at their pleasure, by means of dreams, and 
 other instruments of divination, the knowledge of 
 future events. That Pythagoras himself held this 
 opinion can not be doubted, if it be true, as his biog- 
 raphers relate, that he professed to cure diseases by 
 incantations. It is probable that he derived it from 
 the Egyptians, among whom it was believed that 
 many diseases were caused by demonical posses- 
 sions." Enfield p. 421. Tertullian says, '' demons — 
 inflict upon men's bodies diseases ; and are the pe- 
 culiar authors of some sorts of very grievous misclian- 
 ces ; but as to the soul, they are the authors of men's 
 going suddenly and extraordinarily beside themselves. 
 The subtility and fineness of their make, enables them 
 to enter into both the body and soul of men." But, 
 how could he know all this ? Who ever saw a 
 demon ? And what Scripture writer describes the 
 "fineness of their make?" Tertullian, and many 
 others have believed demons to be evil spirits, but 
 this opinion was derived from the heathen, and not 
 divine revelation, and their notions about them were 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART III. 391 
 
 mere suppositions. Who told them^ demons inflicted 
 diseases on men ? 
 
 Several disorders, were attributed to the heathen 
 deities as the cause of them, but were mere imaginary 
 beings, or, as Paul declares, Avere " nothing in the 
 worlds And if they bad been real beings, as many 
 have supposed, who has ever proved, or can prove, 
 that they produced such disorders? What sacred 
 writer has said they did ? The Epilepsy was impu- 
 ted to Apollo, but who can prove that he v/as the 
 cause of this disorder, or had any power over men ? 
 The Romans as well as the Greeks, imputed certain 
 disorders to demons, or evil spirits. But no one now 
 believes, the disorders of the Cerviti or Larvati were 
 produced by Ceres, the mother of the gods, or 
 spectres ; and that some persons had a legion of 
 spectres in them. All this was mere hypothesis, the 
 philosophy of those times, and had no connexion with 
 the diseases imputed to them. We even doubt, if 
 they had a serious belief in their own hypothesis. If 
 they had, why did they prescribe as a cure of disor- 
 ders produced by demons, radish and helebore pre- 
 pared in a certain way ; the water of a smith's forge ; 
 the tongue, eyes, gall, and intestines of a draoron ; the 
 blood of a mole ; diamonds ; amber; etc? or, how 
 could they believe, that the drinking the juice of a 
 certain herb called Thalassegle, could cause men to 
 be possessed with demons." See Pliny's Natural 
 History. They must have been strange demons in- 
 deed, if such things expelled them, Hippocrates and 
 others among the ancients, have shewn, tliat epilepsy, 
 melancholy, madness, which were ascribed to demons, 
 are accounted for from natural causes. The man would 
 be deemed mad now, who would impute such disor- 
 ders to demons, or evil spirits. We indeed speak of 
 
39*2 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 St. Vitus's dance and Sr. Anthony's fire, but no one 
 belives those saints produced these disorders. Ceres, 
 Apollo, Mars, Neptune, or any demons, had just as 
 little hand in producing the disorders imputed to them. 
 
 It is evident, that among the Jews, demons were 
 expelled by natural means. See how Tobit's evil spirit 
 was expelled, as noticed in another place. They were 
 expelled also "by mujic" and "strong smells," and 
 it is related in Josephus's Instory, that Solomon found 
 out a root called Baaras, which was put under the 
 seal of the ting, and when held to ihe nose, drew the 
 demon out at this passage. He relates a story of 
 Eleazor casting out demons in the presence of Vespa- 
 sian and others ; and to convince them of the fact, 
 commanded the demon to overturn a vessel of water 
 as he went out. But the story is too long for quota- 
 tion, and too absurd to deserve any notice whatever. 
 
 I come now, to consider all the passages in the 
 New Testament which speak ol casting out demons, 
 whether by Christ or others. We begin with the 
 general statements respecting this, and as they are sim- 
 ilar, the same remarks apply to them all : the first text is, 
 
 Math. iv. 24. " And Jesus' fime went, throughout 
 all Syria ; and they brought unto him all sick people 
 that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and 
 those which were possessed with demons, and those 
 which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy ; and 
 he healed them." Comp. Math. ix. 35. Wakefield's 
 note here, deserves the readers notice. He says — 
 " Demoniacs : A popular i.ame for one sort of mad- 
 ness, chiefly of the raging kind, founded on a foolish 
 superstition of the vulgar, that madmen were possessed 
 bv the spirits of dead men, called demons ; just as 
 others were called lunatics, as if affected by the moon. 
 So modern times have had their *S'^ Vitus^s dance, 
 and St. Anthony's fire : and these terms are used 
 
AN INQUIRr PART 111. 393 
 
 without scruple by those, who have not the least 
 notion of the interference of these saints in these 
 particular disorders. Indeed, all o;reat irregularities in 
 the system of nature, of which racking madness is one, 
 the ancients both heathen and Jews, but especially 
 the latter, were accustomed to attribute to supernatu- 
 ral agency. See my evidences of Christianity, p. 14. 
 2 Edit. Thus for instance, an unusual and lucky 
 cast of the dice was called by the Romans — 'the cast 
 of Venus,' as if occasioned by that goddess. It is 
 wonderful to me, how any man, conversant with 
 classic authors, can entertain any other opinion of the 
 demoniacs of the New Testament. Indeed, it is the 
 most remarkable instance I know, of the triumph of 
 prejudice and superstition over learning and good 
 sense. This, however, is not the place to enter more 
 minutely into this question : and 1 shall only mention, 
 that this idea is nothing new. The same opinion was 
 maintained by several great men both of the last and 
 present century : and among the rest by Joseph Mede, 
 of Christ's College, Cambridge ; as learned, and in 
 every view, as respectable a divine, as England ever 
 produced." This quotation confirms many things 
 said above, and applies to several passages which we 
 shall presently consider. It deserves our notice, that 
 in the above passage, the common expression " and 
 he healed them," is applied to all, whatever their dis- 
 orders were, and intimates, that those supposed to be 
 possessed with demons were diseased as well as the 
 others. But we shall see from other passages, that 
 this mode of speaking is not always observed, and 
 perhaps for this reason, that the bodily diseases of 
 insane persons are not always apparent, hence the 
 demon or madness is said to be cast out, because this 
 was visible to others. 
 
394 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 Matt. vlii. 16. "When the ev^en was come, they 
 brought unto him many that were possessed with 
 demons ; and he cast out the spirits with his word, 
 and healed all that were sick." The parallel, or 
 similar passages may be found in I\Iark i. 3*2, 34, 
 39. And Luke \v. iO, 41, which the reader will be 
 pleased to consult. On the whole of ihern I will 
 merely suggest a few hints. It is very evident, that 
 in these texts demons and spirits express the same 
 thing. It is also evident that those possessed with 
 demons are distinguished from such as were sick with 
 divers diseases. Again, the demons are represented 
 as crying out "thou art Christ the Son of God." But 
 It will be seen from other passages, that it was the 
 persons not the demons who did this, and it was the 
 persons he rebuked, and suffered them not to speak. 
 According to the popular opinions, the demons were 
 supposed to speak in or through the persons possess- 
 ed, just as madness now, speaks in or through a 
 maniac. Jesus rebuked a fever, and why not also 
 madness, or any other diseases. See Luke iv. 39. 
 Jesus, Luke xiii. 22, desired them to go and tell 
 Herod, that he cast out demons. But did he mean 
 by this, that he cast out fallen angels ? We should 
 think not, but that he cast out madness, cured insane 
 people ; a disease which now as then, was often in- 
 curable. 
 
 In Luke viii. 2, 3, and ]Mark xvi. 9, we are told 
 Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene, and 
 we shall see, that a person declared, that he had a 
 leo-ion of demons within hitn. I would suggest it for 
 consideration here, whether the number of demons 
 supposed to be in a |)erson, was not determined by 
 the degree of the insanity he manifested. I find no 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 111. 395 
 
 insane person mentioned in the New Testan:ient, who 
 was not deemed a demoniac. 
 
 In the following texts, we are told that Jesus gave 
 his disciples power and authority to cast out demons, 
 Matt. X. 8 : Mark iii. 15 ; Luke ix. ], and x. 17. 
 Also Mark xvi. 17. But, did he give them power to 
 cast out of persons fallen angels ? or, even the ghosts 
 of dead men deified. If so, then .this was done by 
 others besides them, as appears from these texts, 
 which the reader may consult, Mark ix. 38 ; Luke 
 ix. 49 ; Math, vii, 2:2, 23. Besides, it has been 
 shown, that persons cast out demons, or fallen angels 
 by natural means ; and people are sent to our insane 
 nospilals, and put into the bands of physicians every- 
 day, to have fallen angels cast out of them. By what 
 symptoms, or, by what rule was it determined, that 
 demons produced such insanity, and other disorders in 
 ancient times, yet no demons produce such disorders 
 now ? Have hospitals and physicians banished them 
 from the earth ? 
 
 We come now to the examination of the passages, 
 which are supposed to teacli, that demons are wicked 
 spirits, and were the cause of various disorders among 
 men in the days of our Lord. We request the reader 
 to bear in mind what has been said in the preceding 
 pages. And before we proceed, it may be of use to 
 make tlie followins; remarks. 
 
 1. Many, yea most of the persons cured by Christ, 
 were not possessed by demons. Those said to be 
 possessed with them, were few in number compared 
 with tliose whom he healed of various other diseases. 
 Perhaps they bore the same proportion then, that de- 
 ranged people do now, to all the sick in the coramu^ 
 nity. I do not mention this, as a certain proof that 
 they were deranged peoplej but if it is proved that 
 
396 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 they were, this circumstance goes to confirm it. It is 
 certain, those possessed with demons, were deemed 
 among the diseased he cured, for it is said of them in 
 common with the rest, that — " he healed them," that 
 '• they were made whole." Insanity and other great 
 disorders, were not known then as now, to arise from 
 natural causes, hence were ascribed to evil spirits, or, 
 demons. Who now imputes to persons in our insane 
 hospitals, that they are possessed with demons, or, 
 that the wildest maniac has a legion of them in him? 
 
 •2. As those who were possessed with demons, are 
 distinguished from all other sick and diseased whom 
 our Lord healed, the question arises, in what way 
 were they distinguished from all the others ? By what 
 symptom did people judge, that any person was pos- 
 sessed with a demon ? From malice or prejudice, 
 persons might be accused with having a demon with- 
 out any just ground for it, as was the case with Jesus 
 and John Baptist. But in the cases about to be in- 
 troduced, nothing of this kind can be admitted. Peo- 
 ple must have judged by their bodily senses, when 
 they concluded that a person was possessed of a de- 
 mon ; ard certain visible symptoms in the persons 
 appearance, words, and actions, formed the ground of 
 this conclusion. Our bodily senses are not fitted to 
 see spirits at all, much less to see them within a per- 
 son, and still less to determine, whether he had one, 
 seven, or a legion of demons within him. It is not 
 pretended, any one knew all this by a divine revela- 
 tion in th(^ Old or New Testament, for we have seen, 
 that demons are spoken of in both as false gods, vani- 
 ties, or, nothings in the world. No Scripture writer 
 says they are fallen angels, or evil beings of any kind. 
 God is not said to have created them. They are not 
 said to be the ghosts of dead men, either good or l)ad, 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 397 
 
 in the Bible, for this is an old heathen superstition. 
 It has waxed old, and like witclies has vanished 
 away, but some still suppose they find it in their 
 Bibles. 
 
 Wliat then were the external symptoms, which in- 
 dicated, that persons were possessed with demons? 
 Were they bodily, or mental, or both ? In some 
 cases mental, in some both, The bodily symptoms 
 of a fever, or the palsy, etc. were no proofs that a 
 person was possessed with a demon. It was mental 
 aberration in a greater or less deo;ree, or some strange 
 disease, which designated persons to be possessed 
 witli demons ; and as their derangement w^as more or 
 less furious, so the number of demons in them was 
 supposed to be. The demon or demons were sup- 
 posed to enter the persons when they became de- 
 ranged, and to leave them wdien restored to a sound 
 mind. It is said by Hammond that "the Jews con- 
 sidered the leprosy as inflicted by God ; and the 
 Persians as inflicted by the sun for offending him." 
 And Lightfoot says '•' the Jews attributed some of the 
 more grievous diseases to evil spirits." And the 
 woman's disorder mentioned Luke xiii, is ascribed to 
 Satan, because she could not stand upright. But in 
 the New Testament, all the persons said to be pos- 
 sessed with demons seem to have been deranged ; 
 supposed to be under mental aberration, or some un- 
 usual disease of the body. Common bodily diseases 
 are never ascribed to demons. But let us come to 
 the passages, which speak of persons possessed with 
 demons. j\s they are long, to save room, we request 
 the reader to turn to them and read them. 
 
 Math. ix. 32— 35; Luke xi. 14—27. Let the 
 reader compare and notice what Matthew says " they 
 brought to Jesus a dumb man possessed with a de-^ 
 26 
 
398 ^ AN INQUIRY^PART III. 
 
 mon." But Luke seems to say the demon was dumb. 
 He " was casting out a demon and it was dumb." 
 But was a fallen angel^ an evil spirit dumb? No, the 
 man was dumb, for it is said " when the demon was 
 gone out the dumb spake." If the demon was dumb 
 while in tlie man, it was the man who made him 
 dumb, for as soon as cast out, he became a speaking 
 demon, and our Lord of course cured the demon 
 rather than the man. But this is too absurd to be 
 believed. It is not said, this man was born dumb ; 
 his, dumbness is imputed to the demon whatever that 
 was. From what has been said in the preceding 
 pages, and will still be said, derangement seems to 
 have been the demon. And this agrees to cases of a 
 similar nature in our own day. Some person's de- 
 rangement makes them dumb like this person ; you 
 cannot make them speak on any subject. They are 
 sullen and silent at all times. But this persons loss 
 of speech, from some unaccountable cause, was suffic' 
 ient in the language of the tiu)es, to have it ascribed 
 to a demon. But wlien the cause of any disease is in- 
 scrutable to Mortals, is it proper to ascribe it to de- 
 mons, a race of heathen imaginaiy beings ? Why 
 not like Job ascribe it to God ? 
 
 Math. xii. 22 — 3L In chap. ix. 32 we have seen, 
 that they brought to Jesus " a dumb man possessed with 
 a demon. But in this passage we are informed, there 
 was brought to him — ''one possessed witlj a demon, 
 Mind and dumby But surely it was the person, and 
 not the demon that was blind and dumb." Farther 
 we are told, that Jesus ^'healed hinij'' not suiely the 
 demon but the man. And it is added, " insotnuch 
 that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." It is 
 not said Jesus cast the demon out of this man but 
 that "he healed him," and shows us that the demon 
 
AN INQ,UIRY PART III. 399 
 
 was the disease, which caused his dumbness and want 
 of sight. It is not said of this person, as of one John 
 9th, that he was born bhnd. This person's bhndness 
 and dumbness seem to have been produced by dis- 
 ease, and we have seen above, that the Jews imputed 
 ffreat disorders both of body and mind to demons. 
 The Pharisees on this occasion, as on several others, 
 said — "This fellow doih not cast out demons, but 
 by Beelzebub, the prince of demons." This shows, 
 that even they deemed healing the persons of such a 
 disorder, was the same as casting out the demon. 
 Concerning Beelzebub, and our Lord's reasoning with 
 the Pharisees on their charge against him, we shall 
 here notice once for all. It applies to other passages. 
 We are told, that on this occasion, the Pharisees 
 said — "he casteth out demons through the prince of 
 the demons." Beelzebub is repeatedly called the 
 prince of the demons, but never the prince of the 
 devils, and is one instance out of many where our 
 English word devils leads people wrong, being the 
 rendering of both diabolos and daimonion in our 
 English version of the New Testam.ent. But it is 
 evident from 2 Kings i. 2, that Beelzebub was the 
 god of Ekron, the fly hunting god as some afiirm, 
 because he preserved his worshippers from these 
 insects, so annoying in hot climates, and was wor- 
 shipped under the form of a fly." It is said the Jews 
 called every demon Satan and Samael, the yrince of 
 Satans. See Doddridge on Math. xii. But Satan, 
 as we have seen in the first part of this work, simply 
 means an adversary. By consulting the passage, it 
 is seen our Lord goes on to reason with the Phari- 
 sees, showing them the inconsistency of supposing, 
 that one demon would cast out another, or, that the 
 prince of the demons would cast out his own subjects. 
 
400 AN INQ.IJ1RY PART 111. 
 
 And in other passages, shows its inconsistency by a 
 bouse and kingdom being divided against themselves, 
 that they could not stand. 
 
 Math, xvii 14—22; Mark ix. 14—30: Luke ix. 
 37 — 43. The case stated in these passages was that 
 of an only child, and had been under the disorder 
 from a child. Celsus and Hippocrates say it was 
 epilepsy, and the latter says — " when the disorder is 
 of lono- standing, it is incurable." Tlie symptoms 
 described in the passages agree to this. Matthew says 
 he was lunatic, and this disorder often disorders the 
 mind, as is well known. And his epileptic fits 
 described, ai'e the sarne as those in the present day, 
 under tlie same disease. It is evident, a demon, a 
 spirit and a deaf and. dumb spirit mentioned, all 
 designate the same thing, and the effects produced 
 are ascribed to it. But what need was there for an 
 evil spirit to produce them, any more than in the 
 present day ? The disease was sufficient then as now 
 to produce the effects. The disease was the demon, 
 the dumb, deaf, and foul spirit, and nothing else was 
 needed. It produced lunacy of mind, and distress to 
 the body then as now, and rationally accounts for all 
 the distressing effects mentioned. Tlie cominon usage 
 of the term spirit in Scrij)tme, and as used in the 
 case of Saul and others, outdit here to be remem- 
 bered. This case is so plain, that it would be a 
 waste cf time to dwell on it. When Jesus cured this 
 child, it is said, he " rebuked " the demon, the un- 
 clean spirit etc. and healed the child. But Jesus is 
 said to have rebuked "a fever" and the winds and 
 waves of the sea, he. Perhaps the difficulty of 
 curing this disorder, led our Lord to say, prayer and 
 fasting were necessary to cure it. But my limits 
 forbid me noticing this, etc, etc. 
 
AN INQ.UIRY PART IIT. 401 
 
 :\rark i. 23—29; Luke iv. 33—36. By compar- 
 ing these passages, "an unclean spirit," and '^ a 
 spirit of an unclean demon," mean the same thing. 
 What was this? It was that which '^tore the man, 
 and threw him in the midst." But from these very 
 expressions, brief as they are, it may be concluded, 
 that this man's disorder was similar to the child under 
 the epilepsy already noticed. And that it had de- 
 ranged his mind we may also infer for he supposed 
 himself possessed of more than one demon, or evil 
 spirit, for he said " let us alone ; what have we to do 
 with thee thou Jesus of Nazareth ? Art thou come 
 to destroy lis 1 I know thee who thou, art, the holy 
 one of God." This man's derangement was not a 
 deaf and dumb spirit, like that of the epileptic child, 
 for he was rather talkative ; and it proves nothing 
 against his deran2;ement, that he spoke what he did, 
 for deranged persons often speak truth, and more of it 
 than some wish to hear. When Jesus cured the man, 
 he rebuked him, commanded him to be silent. But 
 bad he rebuked the demon or the unclean spirit, it 
 was only rebuking the man's disease as he did the 
 fever in Peter's wife's motlier. When a person is 
 seized with any disease and especially of an extraor- 
 dinary kind, it is common to inquire what was the 
 cause of it ? What produced it ? And sometimes 
 we can trace jt to its cause, a violent cold or some- 
 thing else. If not, we say, we cannot tell. But in 
 ancient times unaccountable diso7^ders were traced to 
 demons as the cause of them. 
 
 Mark iii. 22 — 28. The reader will please read 
 this passage and notice, that in verse 21 we are told 
 Jesus' friends " went out to lay hold on him ; for they 
 said, he is beside himself And let him remember, 
 that we have seen, the Jews said of Jesus— "he 
 
402 AN INQUIRY — PART 11!. 
 
 hath a demon and is mad." Jesus' friends only men- 
 tioned the visible, or supposed visible effect, dcrmige- 
 ment of mind. But the Jews mention both the 
 supposed cause, and the effect. He is " mad," but 
 they also say " he hath, a demon,^^ which is the cause 
 of it. Now notice what is said verse 22. " And the 
 scribes which came down from Jerusalem said — "he 
 hath Beelzebub," naming the very demon they sup- 
 posed him possessed with, and had made him mad. 
 They imputed his madness to no ordinary demon, but 
 to the prince of the demons, and supposed that by 
 this prince of the demons he cast out demons. But 
 Beelzebub, as we have noticed above, was the God 
 of Ekron, a heatlien deity, which could neither curse 
 nor bless, do good or evil, was a nonentity in the 
 world. But it deserves special notice, that what the 
 Jews said on this occasion, and repeated on several 
 others show what were the popular opinions respect- 
 ing demons in the days of our Lord. Whether true 
 or false, they seem to have been common, pervading 
 all ranks of society as the opinions about witches 
 did among us only a few years ago. 
 
 Math. XV. 21—29; Mark vii. 24—31. T!ie case 
 recorded in these two passages, is that of the daughter 
 of a woman, who was a Greek. She said — "My 
 daughter is grievously vexed, with a demon. Mark 
 calls it "an unclean spirit," and also a demon, which 
 shows both these phrases expressed the same thing. 
 The mother's request was, that Jesus " would cast 
 forth the demon, the unclean spirit out of her daugh- 
 ter." But how did she know, or suppose, that it was 
 in her? for no disease of body or insanity of mind, is 
 mentioned about her in either of the passages. Yet 
 we are told, she " was made whole from that very 
 hour, and when her mother came to her house, " she 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 403 
 
 foLincI the demon gone out, and her daufrhter laid upon 
 the bed." Now, what demon did she find had gone 
 out of Iier daughter ? Certainly the demon which 
 before had "grievously vexed" her. And what 
 demon could this be, but the disease of which Jesus 
 had cured her ? What her disease was, we may at 
 least conjecture from other passages, where it is said 
 a demon " vexed or crrievously tormented " other 
 persons. See Math. viii. 6. We have seen, that all 
 great disorders, of either body or mind, were ascribed 
 to the influence of demons. But as the disorder of 
 of this woman's daughter is not described, it is vain 
 for us to say, what il precisely was. Perhaps, it was 
 not exactly known to themselves, and its symptoms so 
 different from those of other diseases, that no descrip- 
 tion is given of it. But from the popular opinions of 
 the day about demons, and her daughter's disease, the 
 mother concluded she was grievously vexed with a 
 demon. And when she came home to her house, and 
 found her disease removed, she concluded that the 
 demon had left her. We should think this a plain 
 case, that the only demon in her was her disease, and 
 nothing but the common popular superstition, had 
 imputed its cause to a demon. And this was done in 
 a singular way, as when we impute a fever to a cold. 
 And do we not often ascribe disorders to supposed 
 causes, just as the heathen supposed demons to be the 
 cause of madness and other disorders ? When we 
 hear of a friend, or neio-hbor who has become de- 
 ranged, we ask what was the cause of it ? Some- 
 times it is imputed to disease, to loss of property, 
 failure in business, and disappointments, &c. And if 
 it cannot be traced to some cause, we never as in 
 ancient times, impute it to a demon. But why not? 
 Because this is not a popular opinion among us, and 
 
404 AN INQUIRY PART 111. 
 
 we know, that insanity arises from bodily disease, and 
 can be cured by natural means. 
 
 Maih. viii. 28—34 ; Mark v. 1—21 ; Luke viii. 
 26 — 40, These three passages contain three accounts 
 of the Gadarene demoniac. They are deemed the 
 strongest, in proving that demons are fallen angels, or, 
 evil spirits. My limits do not permit me to say all I 
 designed on these passages. Mathew says there 
 were two men, but Mark and Luke only mention one. 
 As my design and limits forbid me to discuss this and 
 other things, I shall confine myself to the question, 
 was the person commonly called — the Gadarean 
 demoniac actually possessed with demons?' To an- 
 swer this question correctly, we ought to consider, 
 what was the real condition of this man — and what 
 was his supposed condition. 1. Let us inquire, what 
 was his real condition, when our Lord met with him 
 at Gadara ? It is too obvious to need a labored proof, 
 that he was a deranged man, a madman, a raging, 
 furious maniac. All the three accounts agree in this, 
 and only need to be read to be satisfied of the fact. 
 We are told, that after Jesus had cured him, he was 
 found " sitting, clothed, and in his right mind," and 
 shows, he was not in his right mind before. It would 
 be a waste of time, to say more in proof of this, for 
 this man's dwelling-place, his words, and his actions, 
 all confirm it. Our insane asylums, furnish abimdant 
 instances of as strange sayings and doings in person 
 there, as appeared in him, which I decline relating for 
 mere amusement. 
 
 2, We then inquire, what was the supposed condi- 
 tion of this man ? No one needed to suppose him a 
 madman for this was notorious to all. The question 
 is, what was supposed to be the cause of his madness? 
 Not disease, but to demons which possessed him. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 111. 405 
 
 And the}^ are denominated in the accounts "unclean 
 spirits," &z,c. This was the common popular belief, 
 as we have seen, that all derang;ed persons were suv 
 posed to be possessed with demons or evii s pints. 
 The Jews supposed our Lord to be possessed with the 
 prince of demons. But a fact and a supposition are 
 very different things. No evidence of the fact, have 
 we yet seen, Tiie man himself, supposed that he 
 was possessed with demons, yea had a legion of them 
 in him. But what else could this be but supposition, 
 and a very wild supposition of a maniac, founded on 
 ■the superstitious opinions which prevailed about de- 
 mons. The real condition of the man, accounts 
 rationally for such an extravagant supposition. No 
 man in liis sober senses, chu believe he had a legion 
 of demons or evil spirits in him. Mary Magdalene 
 had seven demons in her, but as this man was more 
 deranged than she was, it vv'as supposed he had a 
 legion in him. The number of demons were prob- 
 ably increased, according to the degree.of the person's 
 insanity, or, the unaccountable nature of the person's 
 disease. 
 
 If it is objected, madman as this man was, did he 
 not cry out — "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, 
 thou son of the most high God ? I adjure thee by 
 God, that thou torment me not." I answer, we 
 all. know madmen sometimes speak very rationally 
 and speak the truth, as is well known. Matthew 
 speaks of this torment "before the time." But it is 
 not said to be in a future state, and if it was, what 
 then ? It was the common belief then as it is now, 
 that the devil and his angels were to torment men for 
 ever. All this was in perfect keeping with the opin- 
 ions of the day, certainly nothing strange in a mad- 
 man, for many are mad enough now to hold the same 
 
406 AN INQUIRY PART 111. 
 
 opinions. Confessino; Jesus to be the son of Gcd is 
 no difficulty, unless it could be shown, the man had 
 never heard any thing about Jesus, but was taught to 
 make this confession by the legion of demons he sup- 
 posed to be in him. But who can prove this? Jesus' 
 tame accounts for the man's confession. I n)ay add, 
 as a reason why the man asked Jesus not to torment 
 him, it is immediately added, both by Mark and Luke, 
 " for he said unto him, come out of the man, thou 
 unclean spirit." The madman seems to have thought, 
 the removal of the demons would prove a torment, 
 and he wished to continue in his present condition. 
 
 But what farther sliows the supposed condition of 
 the man is, what follows. Jesus asked him his name, 
 and he answers — " My name is Legion, for we are 
 many." But was this any thing, but the man's own 
 wild supposition ? And he goes on, and besought 
 Jesus in behalf of the demons, " that he would not 
 send them away out of the country." And was not 
 this mere imagination ? We are then told — " There 
 was niiih unto the mountains a great herd of svvine 
 feeding," said to be about two thousand. And it is 
 then said, " all the demons besought him, saying, 
 '•' send us into the swine, that we may enter into 
 them." But did a Legion of demons in the man, all 
 make this request ? or, did they use the man's organs 
 of speech to make it for them ? But be this as it 
 may, Jesus gave them leave, and out they went into 
 the swine, " and the herd ran violently down a steep 
 place and were choked in the sea." The request of 
 the demons was, that they might not be sent out of 
 the country, nor to go out " into the deep," but into 
 the swine, and as soon as they got into them, they 
 rush with the swine out into the deep. But strange 
 as all this appears, it is related as a fact, that the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 407 
 
 swine did rush into the sea and perished, as the after 
 part of the accounts show. The important, and only 
 question we need now to consider is — what went out 
 of the man and entered into the swine ? One, or other 
 of the following views must be taken, for the case 
 does not admit of a third. 
 
 1. That the demons went out of the man and en- 
 tered into the swine. But if we take this view of the 
 matter, it follows, that a whole legion of demons were 
 in the man, went out of him and entered into two 
 thousand swine. How many this wcs to each of them 
 the reader can calculate. And to take this view of 
 the subject, is at variance with all said in the Bible 
 about demons, except in this account and the few pas- 
 sages which speak of persons possessed with them. 
 The Old and New Testament writers speak oi demons 
 as heathen gods, nothings in the world, as we have 
 seen above. But the account we are considering, is 
 in unison with the popular superstition which prevailed 
 in the time of our Lord, as has been shown in the 
 course of our remarks. And who will not allow, that 
 to believe a legion of demons was in this madman, 
 and leaving him entered into two thousand swine, is 
 not very agreeable to reason, common sense, or obser- 
 vation. If a man now, in one of our insane hospitals, 
 spoke and acted just as this madman did, and the 
 superintendant imputed all this to his being possessed 
 with demons, he would be immediately dismissed as 
 unfit for his situation. 
 
 2. The only other answer, which can be given to 
 the question is, that the man's madness left him, and 
 went into the swine. Nothing else could leave the 
 one and go into the other, for this was all in the man 
 to go out, which could affect the swine. His wild 
 insanity, led him to suppose a legion of demons were 
 
408 
 
 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 in him, and to request that they might be permitted to 
 enter the swine. And when the man's madness lelt 
 him and entered the swine, they became mad and 
 mshed on to their own destruction. Nor is it strange 
 that the man's insanity should be transferred to them, 
 any more tiuin that Naaman's leprosy should be trans- 
 ierred to Gehazi, 2 Kings chap. v. To say^ the 
 man's madness entered into the swine, is rational, and 
 accounts fur their rushing into the sea. If insanity 
 in the man, drove liim to act as he did, it need not 
 surprise us, that when it entered the swine, it drove 
 them into the sea. I think, no other rational view 
 can be taken of the subject ; and all objections which 
 may be urged aii;ainst it, arise from overlooking the 
 fact, that the New Testament writers speak in the 
 above passa2:es, accoiding to the usual language of the 
 day about demons. And be it observed, it is only 
 when they speak of the supposed influence o{ demons 
 in men, that the}/ speak as in the preceding passages. 
 In connection with doctrines they speak of them as 
 idols as mere nonentities. 
 
 I am aware it may be said — why did not om* Lord 
 speak of demons according to the truth about them, 
 and not in the popular language of the day, which is 
 so apt to mislead us ? No one, I answer, need to be 
 mislead, if he attends to the plain instructions of the 
 Bible about demons, evil spirits, etc.. as I have at- 
 tempted to show. Had the writers of the New Tes- 
 tament, not spoken of common events in the common 
 language of their day, how could they have been un- 
 derstood ? And to have corrected all the false notions 
 of people and their false language, would have been 
 an endless and vain task. If s[)eal<ing of demons as 
 they sometimes did, be found fault with, why not 
 extend it to other things? Why did our Lord speak 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 409 
 
 of tran=:iriii]jration as true, and allow his disciples to do 
 it, without correcting them. See John ix. 1 — 3; 
 Math. xvi. 13, 14. But why not blame our-elves, 
 for every day we speak in the common languao;e of 
 our day and not according to the truth of things. 
 Most people would smile at our affectation if we did 
 not. 
 
 James ii. 19. "Thou believest that there is one 
 God ; thou doest well ; the demons also believe and 
 tremble." James wrote to beheving Jews, chap. i. 1. 
 And it is obvious frorn the context, that he was rea- 
 soning against some of them, who said they had faith 
 but had not works to prove it. Here he reasons with 
 them on their own admitted principles concerning the 
 demons. They believed, demons were the souls of 
 wicked men, and were in torm^ent after death. To 
 expose their false profession, and convince them that 
 it was vain, James says — "thou believest that there 
 is one God ; thou doest well," This he commends. 
 But he adds — " the demons also believe," and so far 
 they are equal to you. But the demons not only be- 
 lieve, but also "tremble," and their faith shows itself 
 by their works, and in this they excel you. Your 
 faith does not produce works, but theirs do, and they 
 condemn you on your own principles. The demon's 
 faith is not dead, but yours is dead, " for know, O 
 vain man, that faith wnthout works is dead." It seems 
 to me obvious, that James is not here teaching or ap- 
 proving what they believed about demons, but refuting 
 their pretensions to faith, from their own opinions 
 concerning demjons. He does not admit their opinions 
 true, but reasons with them on their believing them to 
 be true. He said they did w^ell in believing " that 
 there is one God." But he does not say, they did 
 well in believing that " the demons also believe and 
 
410 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 tremble." But why not commend them for this if it 
 was true ? 
 
 Phis view of the passatre, appears to me agreeable 
 to the context, for in the remainder of the chapter 
 James goes on to refute their false profession by 
 showing that Abraham's faith })roved itself by works. 
 He also siiows that Rahab's faith was proved by 
 works, anrl concludes thus — "for as the body without 
 the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.'' 
 Bin let it be supposed, that James here readies, that 
 demons are evil spirits, or, the souls of dead men, 
 what then? It follows that they believe, and that 
 they also tremble in a future state. But it also fol- 
 lows, that tliis is the only text in the Bible where 
 these opinions are taught. Where else do we read of 
 any kind of demons either believing or trembling in 
 such a state ? This is not even said of the demons 
 which were supposed to possess men and torment 
 them. And if any demons had cause to tremble, cer- 
 tainly they had. But I do not find, that they were 
 even threatened with any punishment, either in this 
 world or a future state. Is not this a strange admis- 
 sion, if demons were the souls of wicked men ? And 
 that this has been the belief of heathen, Jews, and 
 many Christians, we have seen in the preceding in- 
 vestigation. But I ask, did Jews or Christians, de- 
 rive such views from divine revelation respecting the 
 torment of demons or the souls of the wicked after 
 death ? If from the Bible, in what place shall I find 
 it ? If they did not derive them from the heathen, 
 all must admit, it was not for the want of opportunity, 
 for such opinions prevailed among then. 
 
 If James in this jiassage, teaches the common no- 
 tions about demons, that they arc evil spirits, or the 
 
AN INQUIRY PART HI. 411 
 
 souls of wicked men, who can reconcile his teaching 
 with llie other sacred writers in the many passages 
 which have come under our consideration. We liave 
 seen, tliat they denounce all demons, and declare 
 them to he nothings in the world. And not until the 
 Babylonian captivity, did ihe Jews learn that demons 
 were anything else. Before this, they worshipped 
 demons, and -for which God reproved and punished 
 them. But not a hint is given, that demons were 
 real beings of any kind, or could do good or evil to 
 any one. By whose authority then were demons 
 transformed into real beings, evil beings, and that a 
 whole legion of them could enter into one man ? And 
 must we believe on one solitary verse in the Epistle 
 of James, that demons believed and trembled. Before 
 1 can do this. I must see hovv^ my views of tliis verso 
 can he proved erroneous. 
 
 In the preceding examination we have seen, that 
 demons and unclean spirits express the same thing. 
 A few texts remain, where the last phrase occurs, in 
 which demons are not mentioned. A few words on 
 them may suffice. Mark i. 27 ; iii. 27, and Luke vii. 
 21, we may pass without any remarks. Tlie others I 
 shall very briefly notice. In Acts v. 16, it is said, that 
 among other sick folks, brought to be cured by the 
 Apostles, were brought some, " vexed with unclean 
 spirits; and they were healed every one." If unclean 
 spirits mean demons here, as in other texts, nothing is 
 said about casting them out, but that tlie persons 
 '• were healed." And is not this a confirmation, that 
 casting out demons and healing persons supposed to 
 be possessed witli demon's, only meaut the same thing? 
 ^Vhen the person was healed, it was concluded that 
 the demon had gone out of him; Why ? because the 
 
412 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 disease was ascribed to the demon as tlie cause of it, 
 and both went out together. 
 
 In Acts viii. 5 — 8 we are told, Philip went to Sa- 
 maria, preached there, and wrought miracles. " Un- 
 clean spirits, crying with loud voice came out of many 
 that were possessed with them : and many taken with 
 palsies, and that were lame were healed." The 
 unclean spirits here, mean demons as in other texts, 
 from the persons being said to be possessed with 
 them. And when it is said they cried out, we ought 
 to undei'stand the persons cried out as seen above, 
 and not the demons or unclean spirits. No further 
 remarks seem to be necessary on this text. 
 
 Acts xvi. 16 — 19. Please read the passage. It is 
 said, " a certain damsel was possessed with a spirit of 
 divinatioii," or, of Pytljon as in the margin ; that 
 is of Apollo. There were many in the heathen world 
 who practised divination, and some were supposed to 
 have in them demons which prophesied. They were 
 called Pythons, from Apollo Pythias, one of tlie prin- 
 cipal prophesying demons, whose priestess at Delj)hi, 
 was from him called Pythia. This damsel was sup- 
 posed to be inspired with the spirit of this dead man. 
 The account of her, is told in the language of the 
 times, and as the heathen would have spoken about 
 her. Some have thought that Apollo Pythias refers 
 to Python, a famous ventriloquist, and that this damsel 
 deceived people by her practice of this art. Others, 
 derive the name from ^^ pet en serpent, which was an 
 animal partiruJarly respected by the heathen in their 
 divinations, as being to them an en)l)lem or represen- 
 tative of the solar light, or, Apollo, their divining 
 God." 'V\\v damsel referred to in this passage, like 
 all the heathen prophetesses, seemed under their in- 
 
AN INQUIRY PART 111. 413 
 
 spiration to be mad, and this is countenanced by her 
 following Paul for many days,&:c. She was probably 
 a fortune-teller, and imposed on people by the art of 
 ventriloquism, for by this art the woman at En dor im- 
 posed on Saul. Such persons were said to have a 
 familiar spirit and consulted with the dead, and one of 
 them divined to Saul the issue of an impending battle. 
 But all such impostors were condemned and banished 
 the land of Israel. 
 
 Acts xix. 13 — 17. Please also read this passage, 
 and observe, that the facts related took place at Ephe- 
 sus, a place famous for using curious arts, and having 
 hooks relating to them. See verses 18, 19. Verse 
 1'2 says, "evil spirits" v/ent out of some, by parts of 
 Paul's clothing being brought to them. Among the 
 users of the curious arts at Ephesus, there were 
 '• certain vagabond Jews, exorcists," and Sceva a 
 Jew, had seven sons who appear to have been of the 
 number. They attempted to expel demons and cure 
 diseases by charms, scents, the sounds of certain 
 Hebrew words, &£c." If you exorcise, says Justin 
 against Trypho in the name of any of your kings, or 
 just men, or prophets, or patriarchs, none of the de- 
 mons will obey you : but if indeed any of you exor- 
 cise by the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, 
 and the God of Jacob, probably he will obey youV 
 The sons of Sceva, finding Paul more successful in 
 casting out evil spirits by the name of Jesus, attempt- 
 ed doing it in the same way, and on a man who was 
 deranged. But the evil spirit, or the madness in the 
 man we should think led him to say — •' Jesus I know 
 and Paul I know but who are ye." But how did he 
 know all this? Probably by Paul's success in casting 
 out evil spirits in Jesus name, or restoring madmen to 
 a sound mind, while the attempts of the sons of Scev* 
 27 
 
414 AN INQUIRY PART III. 
 
 failed. That this man was insane, and furious, is 
 evident from his treatment of these impostors : see v. 
 16. The account ends without informing us whether 
 Paul healed this maniac, but we are told — " Many 
 that believed came, and confessed, and showed their 
 deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts 
 brought their books together, and burned them before 
 all men : And they counted the price of them, and 
 found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily 
 grew the word of God and prevailed." 
 
 We have now finished our examination of the Bible 
 on the subject of demons, evil spirits, etc. etc. We 
 are not aware, that a single text has been overlooked 
 in our inv^estigation. Our object has been, to ascer- 
 tain vvhat the Scriptures teach us, and how we have 
 succeeded must be left to the decision of the reader. 
 Our investigation has been brief, for our limits did 
 not permit us to enlarge. But enough has been said 
 to lead the reader to reflection, and furtlier examina- 
 tion of the subject. Much has been left out which 
 w^e wished inserted, and may be used should our 
 attention be a2;ain called to the discussion of it. 
 
 In confirmation of the views we have advanced, a 
 number of facts might be added. But I shall only 
 name a few of them in a brief manner. Several of 
 them have been hinted at already in the course of our 
 remarks. 1. The doctrine of demons was not intro- 
 duced among the Jews by divine revelation, but by 
 the lieathen that surrounded them. It came first 
 among them by their sacrificing to their gods, as we 
 have seen from passages in the Old Testament. 
 Nothing can be more certain than this, that it had a 
 heathen origin among them, and when introduced, 
 was condemned by God in their Scriptures. j\o Old 
 Testament writer gives the least countenance to the 
 
AN 1NQ,UIRY — ^PART III. 415 
 
 doctrine of demons, or the worship of ihem ; nor, is a 
 single hint given, that they were real beings, or had 
 ever been so. And as to ])ersons being possessed 
 with demons, not a vestige of evidence respecting this 
 is to be found in all the Old Testament. It begins 
 and ends, without any allusion to such a thing. The 
 case of Saul is no exception to this, as has been seen 
 above. The Old Testament prophets performed 
 miraculous cures on persons, but not one of them is 
 ever said — " cast out demons." Nor in Moses laws, 
 laws, were any rites of purification prescribed, for 
 such as had demons cast out of them, although this 
 was done for persons cured of the leprosy and other 
 disorders. Besides the Old Testament prophets pre- 
 dicted, the miraculous cures which the Messiah should 
 perform when he appeared. See Isaiah chap. 35 and 
 other passages. But not one of them intimates, that 
 he was to cast out demons, evil spirits, or the ghosts 
 of dead men. But how could they overlook this, if 
 the possessions in the New Testament, were real pos- 
 sessions of such beino^s, for their castinor them out is 
 represented as the most wonderful work of Christ ? 
 
 2. It is also a fact, that the doctrine of demons, and 
 men being possessed with them, was not a new reve- 
 lation given to the world by the New Testament 
 writers. We read of demons in the Old Testament, 
 but of no one being possessed with them. But, when 
 many read the New Testament concerning possessions 
 of demons, they conclude that this must be a new 
 revelation from God to mankind. This is a great 
 mistake, for in Egypt, Chaldea, Greece, and other 
 heathen countries, demons were well known, and also 
 of persons being possessed with them. In India this 
 was also well known in the days of Christ. And all 
 must here notice, that the New Testament never 
 
416 AN INQ^UIRY PART llf, 
 
 speaks of demons, or of persons beino- possessed with 
 them, as a new or strange thing. They are intro- 
 duced, and spoken about like other common things of 
 the day. It is cot demons, or the possession of them, 
 that is spoken about with surprise, but the Saviour's 
 pasting of them out. This is mentioned as a most 
 extraordinary event, for it was never done before as 
 he performed it. Before his day, demons were com- 
 mon, were cast out, or pretended to be cast out of 
 persons, as could easily be shown by abundant testi- 
 mony. And this was even done in Judea in the days 
 of Solomon, and down to the days of Josephus if he 
 may be credited. And that • other persons cast out 
 demons, or cured persons supposed to be possessed 
 with them, there is abundant testimony in proof of it 
 were it disputed. 
 
 3. It is also a fact, that demons were considered 
 the ghosts, or the souls of dead wicked men. The 
 quotations from Parkhurst, Enfield, and others abun- 
 dantly prove this. But, do either Old or New Tes- 
 tament writers sanction this as true ? Nothing like 
 this is to be found in their writings. Nor, do they 
 describe them as real beings of any kind whatever. 
 But admit them to be the souls of dead wicked men, 
 and what follows ? It follows, that the souls of 
 wicked men in ancient times, were not sent to hell as 
 many have believed, but took up their abode in the 
 bodies of men to torment them. Souls surely could 
 not be in two such different places at once? And if 
 it is said, they carried their hell about with them 
 wherever they went, is to tell us, that hell changes 
 with the times, and any new use which men may 
 have for it. But no such notions are to be found in 
 the Bible, for this would make it a book which 
 changes with the changing opinions of men. 
 
AN INQUIRY PART III. 417 
 
 4. Another fact is certain, that we never read in 
 the Scriptures, of the souls of dead good men, taking 
 possession of any persons, whether pious or profane. 
 But why not ? Is it not as rational to conclude, that 
 good men's souls would do thisj as the souls of wicked 
 men ? And might we not expect, that God would so 
 far permit good men's souls to take up their abode 
 in the same bodies with the souls of wicked men, 
 as to counteract their evil influence upon them? It 
 is not much to the honor of God's character to permit 
 the one, without also permitting the other. i\.nd if 
 this was admitted as true, then souls both good and 
 bad, neither go to hell or heaven after death, but sta}^ 
 in our world to do good and evil to mankind. But 
 will people in our day, give up their views of hell or 
 heaven ? One of the two must be done, for to believe 
 the popular opinions about demons, and also about 
 hell and heaven seems to be impossible, unless we 
 are determined to credit the most palpable contradic- 
 tions. 
 
 5. But it is also a fact, that the Scripture writers 
 do not speak as men have done, and some do now, 
 about the souls of either good or bad men after death. 
 The heathen sent the souls of wicked men to Tartarus 
 after death, and the souls of good men to Elysium. 
 But where did they learn such notions ? Not from 
 the Bible, but from their own vain imaginations. 
 The Jews, and others, sent all good and bad to sheol 
 or hades. But some divided this place into two 
 parts, the one for the good and the other for the 
 wicked. But does the Bible do this ? No, is it not 
 rather an alteration, or improvement on the heathen 
 opinions respecting their Tartarus and Elysium ? 
 And pray, wdiat great improvement have modern 
 Christians made on the ancient heathens, for their 
 
418 AN INQ,C7IRY PART III. 
 
 hell is pretty much the same as theirs. Some 
 make a heaven for food souls before the resurrection 
 of the dead, compounded of heathen opinions and 
 Scripture statements of immortality to man promised 
 after it. But, if we are to leave behind us the Bible 
 in one thing, and embrace heathen opinions, at what 
 point are we to stop ? Why not believe in their doctrine 
 of demons in all its breadth and length. And why 
 not advocate, that persons in our day are possessed 
 with demons as in ancient times?* Why should we 
 not say, that a wild maniac has a legion of demons in 
 him ? 
 
 We intended to have stated more facts, in confirma- 
 tion of the views we have advanced ; and, also noticed 
 some objections, which might be made against them. 
 But we must close for the present. In conclusion we 
 remark, that we have with some care^ examined the 
 Scriptures to know, what is meant by the terms satan, 
 devil, and demons. We have stated the result of our 
 examination, and rise from it with the fullest convic- 
 tion, that the common opinions entertained on these 
 subjects have no foundation in the Bible, liet a false 
 idea be attached to words in one country and age, and 
 however superstitious it may be, it will descend to pos- 
 terity ; let it once take root in men's minds, and who 
 can calculate to what extent it will grow, and to how 
 many generations it will descend as an inheritance to 
 their children ? 
 
 God has given to men a revelation of his will, to guide 
 them both as to faith and practice. Their wisdom and 
 happiness consists in holding fast the faithful word and 
 obeying it, without alteration or addition. Who ever 
 altered or added to it, and thereby promoted the glory 
 of God, his own good, and the happiness of mankind ? 
 
INDEX 
 
 OF PARTICULAR TEXTS ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 Gen. iii. 
 
 19, 2l3 
 
 Matt 
 
 ix. 32—35 
 
 
 397 
 
 xxvi. 21 
 
 35 
 
 
 xi. 18 
 
 
 389 
 
 Deut. xvii. 7 
 
 363 
 
 
 xii. 22—31 
 
 
 398 
 
 Numb. xxii. 22, 32 
 
 363 
 
 
 xii. 31,32 
 
 
 287 
 
 Deut. xxxii. 17 
 
 360 
 
 
 xiii. 36— 42 
 
 J 36 
 
 ,271 
 
 Judges ix. 23 
 
 366 
 
 
 XV. 21^29 
 
 
 402 
 
 1 Samuel xxix. 4 
 
 37 
 
 
 xvi. 23 
 
 
 98 
 
 xvi. 
 
 366 
 
 
 xvii. 14-22 
 
 
 400 
 
 2 Samuel xix. 22 
 
 38 
 
 
 xviii. 8 
 
 
 335 
 
 xxiv.'l 
 
 41 
 
 
 xix. 27—29 
 
 
 296. 
 
 1 Kings V. 4 
 
 38 
 
 
 xxiv. and xxv. 
 
 136,250, 
 
 xi. 14—25 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 252 
 
 ,308 
 
 1 Chron. xxi. 1 
 
 40 
 
 
 xxviii. 20 
 
 
 277 
 
 Ezra iv. 6 
 
 42 
 
 Mark i. 23—29 
 
 
 401 
 
 Job chap. i. and ii. 
 
 43 
 
 
 iii. 23 
 
 
 99 
 
 xxxi. 33 
 
 22 
 
 
 iii. 22—28 
 
 
 401 
 
 Psalms IX. 5 
 
 234 
 
 
 iv. 15 
 
 
 157 
 
 " Ixxi. 13 
 
 61 
 
 
 V. 1—21 
 
 
 404 
 
 " xc. 2 
 
 349 
 
 
 vii. 24—31 
 
 
 402 
 
 " xcvi. 5, 6 
 
 361 
 
 
 ix. 14—30 
 
 
 400 
 
 " cvi. 37 
 
 362 
 
 Luke 
 
 iv. 35, 36 
 
 
 401 
 
 " cix. 
 
 61 
 
 
 viii. 2, 3 
 
 
 394 
 
 " cxxxvi. 
 
 225 
 
 
 26—40 
 
 
 404 
 
 Isaiah xiii. 21 
 
 362 
 
 
 ix. 37—43 
 
 
 400 
 
 " xxxiii. 14 
 
 234 
 
 
 X. 18 
 
 
 100 
 
 " Ixv. 11 
 
 363 
 
 
 xi. 14^27 
 
 
 397 
 
 Jer. xvii. 4 
 
 233 
 
 
 xiii. 6 
 
 
 101 
 
 xxiii. 39,40 
 
 233 
 
 
 xxii. 31, 32 
 
 
 99 
 
 Daniel xii 
 
 234, 250 
 
 
 xxii. 3 
 
 
 104 
 
 Hosea vi. 7 
 
 23 
 
 John 
 
 vi.70 
 
 
 117 
 
 Zach. iii. 1, 2 
 
 62 
 
 
 viii. 44 
 
 
 124 
 
 " xiii. 2 
 
 369 
 
 
 X. 20, 21 
 
 
 388 
 
 Mai. i. 4 
 
 234 
 
 
 xii. 31 
 
 
 167 
 
 Matt. iv. 1—12 24 
 
 146, 392 
 
 
 xiii. 2, 27 
 
 117 
 
 104 
 
 " vi. 13 
 
 162 
 
 
 xiv. 30 
 
 
 167 
 
 « viii. 16 
 
 894 
 
 
 xvi. 8—12 
 
 
 167 
 
 » Yiii.28— 34 
 
 404 
 
 Acts 
 
 Y. 3 
 
 
 1% 
 
 i^ 
 
420 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Acts viii. 5—18 
 
 412 
 
 1 Tim. i. 17, 20 
 
 110, 249 
 
 " X. 38 
 
 138 
 
 " ii. 13. 14 
 
 23,29 
 
 " xiii. 10 
 
 135 
 
 " iii. 11 
 
 116 
 
 « xvi. 16—19 
 
 402 
 
 " iv. 1 
 
 387 
 
 " xix. 15—17 
 
 413 
 
 " V. 15 
 
 113 
 
 « xvii. 18 
 
 386 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 24—26 
 
 141 
 
 " XX vi. 18 
 
 107 
 
 " iii. 3, 6 
 
 117, 141 
 
 Rom. V. 12—14 
 
 23 
 
 Titus i. 2 
 
 266 
 
 " vii. T-'ll 
 
 27 
 
 " ii. 3 
 
 16 
 
 " xvi. 20 
 
 108 
 
 Heb. ii. 5, 14, 15 
 
 132,286 
 
 1 Cor. V. 5 
 
 108 
 
 " Xi.2,o 
 
 337, 286 
 
 " vii. 5 
 
 110 
 
 " ix. 26 
 
 280 
 
 " X. 11,20, 21, 
 
 280, 384 
 
 " xi. 3 
 
 265 
 
 " chap. XV 
 
 23, 261 
 
 James i. 15 
 
 30 
 
 2 Cor. ii. 11 
 
 110 
 
 " ii. 19 
 
 409 
 
 " iv. 4, 17, IS 
 
 171, 263 
 
 " iv. 7 
 
 142 
 
 " chap. V 
 
 263 
 
 1 John iii 8—10 
 
 129 
 
 " xi. 3, 14 22 
 
 ,165, 111 
 
 Jude, verses 7, 9, 
 
 13 143, 
 
 " xii. 7 
 
 112 
 
 
 335, 337 
 
 Eph. i. 21 
 
 287 
 
 Ilev. ii. 9, 10, 13, 
 
 24 113, 
 
 " ii.2, 7 
 
 171, 253 
 
 
 145, 114 
 
 " iii. 21 
 
 265 
 
 " iii. 9 
 
 . . 113 
 
 " iv. 27 
 
 139 
 
 " xviii. 2 
 
 386 
 
 " vi. 11 
 
 139 
 
 " ix. 20 
 
 386 
 
 Colossians i. 26 
 
 . 254 
 
 " xii. 9 
 
 158 
 
 1 Tliess. iii. 5 
 
 164 
 
 " xiv. 11 
 
 342 
 
 2 Thess. i. 9 
 
 323 
 
 " xvi. 14 
 
 386 
 
 " ii. 9, IS 
 
 112 
 
 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 39, 8 line from bottom, for "the in" read "in the." 
 Page 42, in 12t]i line from the bottom, for xxvi. 1. read xxi ^ 1. 
 Page 267, 4th line from top, for " finite," read " infinite." 
 
lyU 
 
 
 «