those who made it have intended to impose on their readers, in any case, a sense different from that of the original Hebrew. The inconstancy with which they have rendered the word Sheol, even in cases of the same nature, must obviously afford some apparent ground for this objection against their version of it. But I cannot persuade myself, that men of so much integrity as the translators plainly were, and, I may add, of so much critical skill and acumen also, would undertake to mislead their readers in any point, where it is so easy to make corrections. I am much more inclined to believe, that in their day the word hell had not acquired, so exclusively as at present, the meaning of world of future misery. There is plain evidence of this, in what is called the Apostles creed; which says of Christ, (after his crucifixion), that he descended into hell! surely the Protestant English Church did not mean to aver that the soul of Christ went to the world of woe; nor that it went to Purgatory. They did not believe either of these doctrines. Hell then means, in this document, the under-world, the world of the dead. And so it has been construed, by the most intelligent critics of the English Church. With this view of the meaning of the word hell, as employed in past times, we may easily account for it, why it has been so often employed as the translation of Sheol. This view of the subject, also, enables us to acquit the translators of any collusion in regard to this word; and to acquit them in this respect, does seem to be an act of simple justice, due to their ability, their integrity, and upright

ness."

Mr. Stuart here makes a very handsome apology, for the translators of our common version. "In their day the word hell had not acquired, so exclusively as at present, the meaning of world of future misery." In proof of this he very properly refers to the use of this term in the Apostles creed ; and might also have appeal

ed to the marginal readings, in our English translation. But we have two or three remarks to make about this. 1st, Who has been so kind, as to make world of future misery the exclusive sense of hell, since the common translation was made? for now, it is used in no other sense but this. We have been improving the wrong way since that period, for 2d, I ask, why should hell have the sense of "world of future misery" at all, for certainly this was not its original signification, as is allowed by Dr. Campbell, Parkhurst, and many others. Who then first gave to this word such a meaning? Not God, but probably the poets gave a similar sense to this term as to Hades. But 3d, Is it correct, is it honest, to attach such a new sense to the term hell, making it a bugbear to freighten women, and children, and men who know no better? This subject, if it was only generally examined, would put an end to people's terrors about eternal hell torments. The confessions of Mr. Stuart, will help to open people's eyes, that hell, is not exactly what they have supposed it to be.

I have now finished, what Dr. Campbell called an endless labor, namely, to illustrate by an enumeration of all the passages in the Old Testament where Sheol is found, that it does not designate hell in the common usage of this term. I shall briefly advert to some facts and observations which have occured to me in my examination of the above passages.

1st, In no passage is Sheol represented as a place of fire or torment. Nothing of this kind stands connected with it in the Old Testament. It is frequently represented as a place of darkness, silence, ignorance, insensibility, but never as a place of pain and misery, arising from torment by fire. But how happens this to be the case, if there was in the Hebrew Sheol a Tartarus, as Mr. Stuart supposes, for all know Tartarus is represented as a place of fire and torment. So he represents his hell, for he calls it "the lake of fire." And

also positively asserts-"That in hades, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, there was a place of torment." But from no text in which Sheol occurs, does he attempt to shew a vestige of evidence for such an assertion. No evidence for this can be produced. On the contrary, it will be shewn afterwards, how the later Hebrews came to include in Sheol a Tartarus, which reflects no great honor on the doctrine of hell torments, for which Mr. Stuart contends.

2d, It is an indisputable fact, that oulm rendered everlasting, for ever, etc. is never connected with Sheol in any shape whatever. For example, you never read of and everlasting Sheol or hell. So far from this, we are told Sheol is to be destroyed, Hos. xiii. 14. But supposing we did read of an everlasting Sheol, and everlasting punishment in it, this would not prove either of endless duration, for this term is often applied to things, yea to punishment not of endless duration, as shown in my second Inquiry. Mr. Stuart does not pretend, that endless punishment is taught in the Old Testament. But if the doctrine be true, as he asserts, why is it not taught in the Old Testament, and taught with as much plainness and frequency, as it is by modern preachers? An eternal hell and everlasting fire there, are common talk now? But why was there no everlasting fire in the Hebrew Sheol? Why was not it eternal? for Mr. Stuart says There was a Tartarus in it. But Mr. Stuart must be sensible, that Sheol in no instance, is ever represented as a place of punishment, either by fire or any thing else. And why should it, for

3d, No persons are said to be alive in Sheol, to be punished in any way, or by any means whatever. The only texts, which speak of persons as alive in Sheol, Mr. Stuart positively declares are only the language of poetry, they have a fictitious or imaginary costume. And no other text has he adduced, or can he adduce, to show that Sheol is a recepticle of souls or any living

beings, bodied or disembodied, rational or irrational. On the contrary, we are told without distinction or qualification, there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in Sheol." Eccles. ix. 10. It is represented as a place of insensibility-" for the dead know not any thing." And this perfectly accounts for Hezekiah saying "The grave (Sheol) cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." If men are not alive in Sheol, how can they suffer misery there, either by fire or any thing else? How can they either praise God or curse him? How can they be either in happiness or misery? But if there was in the Hebrew Sheol, a Tartarus, as Mr. Stuart positively asserts, he is bound to tell us, why no sacred writer speaks as if there was any fire there, for he well knows Tartarus was a place of fire. He must also inform us, why the sacred writers avoid telling us persons are alive in Sheol, to suffer in his Tartarus there? Yea he must name the text, where he thinks Sheol included his Tartarus in it.

4th, Another fact is, the Old Testament writers and modern christians, speak very differently about Sheol and hell, if both designate the same thing, and include in them a place of future punishment. I shall merely give a specimen of their disagreement. Notice then 1st, How the inspired writers in those days, and good men in these, speak about Sheol or hell, in regard to themselves. Jacob, Job, and others, speak of going to hell, and expecting it as a thing of course, which they could not avoid. Yea, Job, prays to be hid in hell. I need not be more particular, for the texts above show, what were the views and feelings of the very best of men in those days about this. But I ask, is there a Christian in the world, who, in the present day speaks, and prays about hell, as those Old Testament saints did? But why not? The reason, I think is obvious. In those days Sheol or hell, did not as in these, signify a

place of punishment, but the state of the dead. In these days, when Christians speak about hell, they always mean a place of endless misery for the wicked. The obvious reason of such difference is, that we have affixed a very different sense to this word from what they did. If we are to understand the Scriptures correctly, we must ascertain what sense the original writers attached to the words they used, without regarding the sense men may have given them, since Revelation was completed. What right have we, or any one else, to alter the sense of the words used by the Holy Spirit?

2d, How the inspired writers in those days, and pious people in these, speak about hell to the wicked. Not an instance can I find, where it is intimated, that any such went to hell, a place of misery. Both good and bad went to Sheol, but not a word is said, that this was such a place as people now think hell to be. If the Old Testament saints entertained the same ideas about hell, as most Christians do in our day, I wish some person would rationally and scripturally account to me also for the following facts.

No

1st, If their belief was the same as in our day, why do we never find them express that belief about eternal punishment, as is now done in books, and sermons, and conference meetings, and in common conversation. man can possibly deny the vast difference between their language, and the common language now used upon this subject. If the language is so different, is it not a proof, that this invention of new language arose from the unscriptural doctrine that hell was a place of endless misery? An unscriptusal doctrine always gives rise to unscriptural language; for the words of Scripture, are the very best which could be chosen to express the will of God to men. That doctrine is not of God, or the man who contends for it, has a wrong view of it, who thinks, that the words of Scripture are not sufficiently definite in expressing it. The man who can