discussion, which I never contemplated, even in criticism you preclude these writings! Be it so, then. I argue nothing from this fact.

4th. Of some 18 or 20 cases at most, in which the word aicon in the Septuagint represents any other word than oulm, it is a word or a phrase which is synonymous with oulm, or where the Septuagint differs from the common Hebrew text. Now be it observed, that there is no word of such frequent occurrence in the sacred dialect of more definite, of less figurative, or of more ascertainable import, than aioon.

5th. For of the 320 times in which it is found in the Old Testament, it is translated 'ever,' 'forever,' and 'forever and ever,' and 'evermore,' about 290 times! Even in the Psalms of David we have it more than eighty times in such acceptations as, "The Lord shall endure forever." ix. 7.-"Thou hast made him most blessed forever." xxi. 6.-"The Lord is King forever.” xxix. 10.—"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." xlv. 6. &c. &c.—“All the workers of iniquity shall be destroyed forever and ever." ix. 2, 7.—"His saints are preserved forever." xxxvii. 28.-"The Lord knoweth the paths of the upright, and their inheritance shall be forever." xxxvii. 18. I might greatly multiply these; for if I were to take your way of counting the word in all the phrases in which it occurs, I know not but I should be able to add a hundred more such occurrences in the Old Testament.

20-To all this it will be excepted, no doubt, that this word in the Old Testament, as in the New, is used catachrestically, and in a part of its signification applied to hills, mountains, covenants, priesthood, the land of Judea, &c. Grant it, for this is common to all words in every language. We use the words eternal, endless, forever, in the same catachrestic style every day: 'You everlasting talker;' 'He is an endless declaimer;' 'She is a perpetual tattler;' 'He is an endless trouble to me;' 'He is forever seeking his own honor.' I could fill pages of such common phrases. And would you not say that he who thence infers that this is the true and proper use of the word; and that we mean no more by it when we talk of God's existence, of heaven, of future happiness, is, to say the least of him, no very profound linguist and logician-we only add, and of future misery too!

21-To proceed in the same inductive style with aioonios: All the learned know, and many of the unlearned have heard, that from aioon, always being, eternity, forever, comes aioonios, eternal, everlasting. We have the word eternity only once in the common version; Is. lvii. 15. "The Holy One who inhabiteth eternity." Here it is aivon in the Septuagint. They might, indeed, have rendered the same sort of phrase Micah v. 12.) by the same word; for it is not only olem in the Hebrew, but aioon in the Septuagint: "Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting"-literally, from the days of eternity.

22-You have conceded enough for me on aionios. You say, out of the seventy-one times in which you find it [some of which are, by the way, spurious readings] in the New Testament, it is in the common version forty-two times translated eternal, and twenty-five times everlasting, and once ener, leaving but three occurrences to dispute about. I venture to say you cannot find another adjective of the same construction in the whole New Testament, that is so uniformly rendered by one word in all languages, as this is by the strongest word for endless duration. To confirm this I will only add that I find it more than ninety times in

the Septuagint of the Old Testament, and only seven times representing any other word than olem in some of its forms! in English rendered as in the New Testament, by eternal, everlasting, forever.

23-What need have we, then, of farther witness? Look first at the general fact: The words aioon, aioonios, occur in the Greek Old and New Testament some six hundred and eighteen times, of which extraordinary sum they are properly and literally translated in the cominon version FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHT TIMES BY THE STRONGEST TERMS IN KUMAN SPEECH INDICATIVE OF ENDLESS DURATION-such as 'eternal,' everlasting, forever,' and, in the judgment of the most numerous and learned critics, might as wel! in many of the others have been as literally translated by the same words. Then look, in the second place, at the special fact: These said terms occur in the New Testament alone, referring to the continuance of the happiness of the righteous, sixty-one times; and to the continuance of the punishment of the wicked fifteen times, translated "eternal,' 'everlasting,' 'forever.' Now from the general fact, and this still more striking special fact, I emphatically, and with intense interest, demand why-for what reason-by what law of language or canon of criticism, shall the duration of the happiness of the righteous and of the misery of the wicked be as different as time and eternity, when they are thus so often, and in such various circumstances, set forth by the very same words! On the answer to this question must always hang the fate of Universalism, so far as the meaning of these words is concerned. I hope, then, this question will not be again slurred over, but be clearly, fully, and rationally met and answered.

24-A specimen or two of the puerile evasions of their force, as a warning against similar manoeuvring in future, will now be selected from your letter of September 22, paragraph 9. After your array of the figurative use of the word aioon, age, or world, under the literal representative of it, eternity, you make the following grave objections:Because we have the plural of these words used for the singular, and the plural twice repeated, as tous ainonas toon aioonoon, used as the most intensive form of the word; you say, "this is a circumstance sufficient to prove that the word does not of itself, radically, legitimately, or properly imply endless duration." A profound objection, truly! A new law of criticism! A single glance into the Hebrew style, into the Bible language, will thoroughly scatter this mist. But I wish all our readers to understand your learned objection, and shall state it again in more familiar style. Because we have the phrases "ages of ages," "eternity of eternities," "forever and ever," to represent endless duration; therefore in the singular number, and without repetition, the words age, eternity,' 'forever,' cannot mean the same thing; but must mean less in the singular than in the plural, and less when once than when twice used in the same phrase. A few examples of Hebrew or biblical usage will settle this point. If our readers understood Hebrew, I would request them to read Psalms xvii. 6, 7,8: lxi. 5: cxlv. 13: Isai. xlv. 15: 2 Chronicles vi. 2., where they will find olem in the plural signifying just what olem in the singular means. I would tell them to examine the words God, wisdom, dwelling, the wicked, Creator, &c. in the Hebrew, and see whether in the singular and plural forms in which they are frequently found, they have a different signification. Or if shey understood Greek, I wood refer them to Sabbaton and Sabbata, to

ouranos and ouranoi, the singular and plural of Sabbath and Heaven, so frequent in the New Testament, which mean the same in both numbers. But as they do not all read these, I will only invite them to examine in the common version such phrases as "the holy of holies," "a servant of servants," "the heaven of heavens," &c. to see whether this intensive form of expression made the words holy, heaven, servant in the singular to mean something less than holy, heaven, servant scripturally, etymologically, and properly! But if the plural form or a repetition changes the meaning of words, we are still sustained in the question in debate, if not in behalf of the righteous, at least as respects the doom of the wicked; for we are told that "the smoke of their torment ascendeth forever and ever," and "all the workers of iniquity shall be destroyed forever and ever"!! for ages of ages, for eternities of eternities; and if this expresses not duration without end, language can never express an idea certainly and unequivocally.

25-To sum up this branch of the argument: We have, from your own display of aei, always, and oon, being, shown that no word etymolygically or radically, can more naturally signify endless being or endless duration. 2. That ever, forever, evermore, and eternal, are its most common versions in both Testaments. You have examined the New and conceded this. I have examined both Old and New, and if it is disputed I will reinforce it; but I think you will not demand this. 3. When applied to God's being, you admit it means endless. 4. Also, when applied to his glory, it means duration without end. 5. Also, when applied to the praises to be offered to him. And, 5. You also admit that when it is applied to the future happiness of the righteous, it means endless. Now for your reasons why it signifies a limited time, an ending period when expressive of the continuance of the punishment of the wicked.

26-Our readers will doubtless remember that we told them long since that the English Bible enables any honest person of common sense to settle this matter as satisfactorily to himself as though he possessed the most perfect knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latinbecause, although the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans believed and taught future and eternal punishment, their words, like our own 'eternal,' 'everlasting,' 'forever,' &c. were used sometimes figuratively in reference to present things*-just as the most sacred words, God, Lord, Saviour, Redeemer, &c. &c. are with us. There is not, then, a single atom of relevance or propriety in all this Universalian talking about gehenna, hades, aioon, aioonios, &c. It is all fog to the eves of their readers. But as they choose this untoward way, we shall give them messes of it to satiety.

27—My last letter, written on the Ohio, fell short of the stipulated length about one page. I am yet some words, if not arguments behind, if my compositor rightly informs me. Meanwhile, sir, be assured that I will henceforth omit to notice any paragraph you write in which there is any expression so grossly vulgar, undignified, and coarse, as in some paragraphs of your last communication. I shall set down such uncourteousness as an indication of your conscious want of argument. I

I never saw a Patent from any American Land Office that did not end with these words-His heirs and assigns forever." Does this prove that Americans have no other "forever" than such as a Deed or Patent conveys!

have found some decent and veritable gentlemen among the Universalian laity; but such folks among their clergy are rare commodities. 28-Unless you can forward your replies in manuscript before you send them to Utica, it will be impossible, I judge, to receive them here in time for a monthly exchange. A. CAMPBELL.

Kingdom of Satan---No. 1.

PREFACE.

THIS is no idle speculation: it is a subject of much practical importance. We have long felt the want of a full development of the Bible doctrine concerning this fallen Prince and his rebel hosts. A number of years since we verbally proposed to some inquisitive brethren a series of essays on this subject; but from year to year we have waited for a more convenient season. it has not yet come; and, fearing it might not speedily arrive, we have concluded to anticipate it.

SATAN A REAL PERSON.

But are we to write the history of a real personage, the true and proper head of a spiritual dominion; or of a rhetorical figure, called a prosopopæia, or a personification? In one word, Is Satan a person or a figure of speech?-the personification of some abstract principle, or a living and immortal being?

To the simple-minded reader of the volumes of Revelation this may appear a more curious than profitable question. He is not aware that this great antagonist spirit, so often styled the Devil and Satan, the head of an opposing empire, having under him various ranks of infernal powers, is regarded not merely by Deists, but by Socinians, Universalists, and some other Neologists and Free-Thinkers, a mere figure of speech-an ideal being-at one time representing the evil principle; at another, a Jewish Sanhedrim; again, a Pagan Magistrate, or any other persecuting or opposing evil genius among men-just as the exigencies of those who deny both his personality and his agency may require.

That Deists, Sceptics, and Infidels of all classes should seek to promulge such views, is quite in keeping with their characteristic opposition to the Bible. But that any person receiving the Bible as God's inspired record addressed to all mankind in human speech, subject to all the rules and laws thereof, should seek to convert Satan into an ideal and fictitious being, is an alarmning proof of that appalling fact-that there is a fearful amount of latent scepticism lurking among professors of the faith in addition to that more bold and daring unbelief avowed by those without the pale of the professing community.

Seriously and in good earnest to discuss such a question, savors to me so much like trifling, that it is with difficulty I can bring down my mind gravely to disprove a hypothesis so superlatively outrageous. I say, outrageous; for at a single thrust it nullifies all the laws of personification, mystifies all those passages of sacred scripture that speak of the volitions, words, wiles, and efforts of this arch enemy of ours, and symbolizes away the gospel of Christ, his death, sufferings, and conquests, into a mere rhetorical flourish as airy and imaginative as Satan himself.

Nevertheless, we shall essay to disprove this gross assumption. Be it remembered, that this figure called personification, is a figure of poetry rather than of prose; and is one of the plainest of all figures, insomuch that there is less difficulty in understand. ing it than any other rhetorical figure; and it so happens that we have never had a controversy about it in the annals of literary debate. It seldom occurs in any speech or writing, except in a moment of high excitement, where it is impossible to misunderstand it. Thus David, in some of his ardent moods, addresses the mountains as leaping, and the hills as skipping, and commands the dragons and deeps, fire, hail, snow and vapors, beasts and all cattle, fowls and creeping things to praise the Lord. On one occasion the Lord says, "Awake, O Sword! against my Shepherd, against the Man that is my equal! Smite the Shepherd, and let the sheep be scattered abroad." "Give ear, O Heavens! and hear, O Earth!" says Moses when greatly animated.

A thousand instances of this sort are found in the Bible, but so plain that every person understands them.

But what have we found in this case? A personification in cold blood-in prose-used by twenty writers, living in different nations, speaking different languages, extending over a period of time of more than fifteen hundred years; and so dark, mystic, and unintelligible that all mankind till lately have understood it to be a real person! There is not in universal literature such a personification as this!

But again-Satan, by one Apostle, is called "the Tempter;" "the Old Serpent" and "the Devil" by another; and is spoken of under other names by different persons, and by the same person at different times Now this fact alone annihilates the idea of personification: for, let me ask, can any one show, in any respectable book in the world, a similar case, when any thing personified is in the personification called by different names by different persons, and sometimes by one and the same person? It is impossible.

To reduce it if possible to a greater absurdity, we ask those theorists whether is Satan in the four Gospels to be regarded as the Evil Principle, or as the Jews' High Priest, or the Roman