departed souls, separate spirits, or their being tormented in Sheol or Hades. Nothing is said here about the soul of the rich man. I may add, if our Lord on this occasion, by speaking in accomodation to the popular opinions, meant to sanction them as truth, he acted contrary to his usual practice on other occasions. I know of no instance, where he ever spoke of a popular opinion, which had no sanction from the old Testament, with a view to sanction it as truth. Our Lord's work was to teach the truth, not to correct the popular modes of speaking.

3d, There are other heathen popular opinions alluded to in the New Testament, which the Jews in the Old seem to have known nothing about. For example, what is more common in the New Testament, than to read of demons or Devils; of persons possessed with them; and of their being cast out of them. But nothing of this kind, is found in the Old Testament. I might ask, how is this difference to be accounted for? The answer, is precisely the same as in the case before us. In the days of Moses and the prophets, the popular opinions about demons, were unknown among the Jews. But in the days of our Lord they were common, and are often alluded to in the New Testament. But like torment in Hades, such opinions had been imbibed by the Jews from their intercourse with the heathen, after the Babylonian captivity.

Sheol, in Isai. xiv. 9-20, and most other texts where it occurs, Mr. Stuart says, it means the grave, under-world, or the region of the dead. Why not interpret Hades, Luke xvi. 23 in the same way, for it is allowed on all hands, that Sheol and Hades are only the Hebrew and Greek names for the same place. Wakefield does interpret Hades so, for he says" v. 23 in the grave; en to ade; and conformably to this representation, he (the rich man) is spoken of as having a body v. 24. It must be remembered, that Hades

no where means hell, gehenna in any author whatsoever, sacred or profane: and also, that our Lord is giving his hearers a parable (Math. xiii. 34) and not a piece of real history. To them, who regard the narrative as exhibiting a reality, it must stand as an unanswerable argument for the purgatory of the papists. The universal meaning of Hades is-the state of death: because the term sepulchrum, or grave, is not strictly applicable to such as have been consumed by fire, etc. see v. 30."

Understanding Hades then, in this parable to mean, what Sheol does, Isai. xiv. 9-20, all is plain, and natural, and in agreement with the Old Testament. The only material difference, between the two passages is, the rich man is said to be in torment in Hades, and this difference we think has been rationally accounted for above. Hades, Sheol, grave, under-world, region of the dead, is here represented, in conformity to the prevailing opinions in our Lord's day, as a place of torment and this was only a small addition, to the popular opinions in the days of Isaiah. Since persons, had been represented as alive and full of animation in Sheol, or Hades, it was natural for the fancy of the poet, to describe them as happy or miserable.

Dr. Hammond on this passage says "that this is not a story but a parable, may appear by Gamara Babyj. Ad. Cod. Berachoth, where thus much of it is set down, that a King made a great feast, and invited all the strangers, and there came one poor man and stood at his gates, and said unto them, give me one bit or portion, and they considered him not, and he said, my Lord the king, of all the great feast thou hast made, is it hard in thine eyes to give me one bit or fragment among them." He adds, the title of this parable is, "a parable of a king of flesh and blood." See also, my Letters to Mr. Hudson, for what Dr. Whitby has said respecting this parable. The views of Christians in for

mer ages, as stated by him, were very different respecting this parable from those which are now entertained. 3d, The only other question to be considered is— what did our Lord mean to teach when he uttered this parable? That our Lord, was not speaking on the subject of a future state when he introduced it, is obvious from the context. See verses 14-18. And no one ought to say, our Lord taught in parables, a doctrine no where taught in plain language in the bible. But this must be said, if in this parable he did teach, that in Hades there is a place of punishment. No Old or New Testament writer says Sheol or Hades is a place of torment; a repository for good or bad souls after death. Nor did our Lord's disciples so understand this parable. What our Lord uttered in parables, they were to proclaim on the house tops, or express in plain language. But none of them say, Hades is a place of torment, a doctrine they certainly would have taught, had they believed it announced by our Lord in this parable.

We

What then did our Lord mean to teach, by so representing Hades as a place of torment? This question may be answered, by asking one or two more. What did our Lord mean to teach, when he spoke of demons as real beings? And what did he mean to teach, when he spoke of Satan as a real being Luke xiii. 10-18? Did he mean to recognize these beings as real? should think not; but only availed himself of the prevailing popular opinions, in reasoning with his opponents, to enforce his instructions and convince them. Is it not so here? Our Lord was reasoning with the Pharasees, who believed the popular opinion, that in Hades there was a place of torment. They also professed faith in Moses's writings. But he here says, if they did not believe him to be the Messiah, from what Moses and the prophets had said concerning him, they would not be persuaded of this, if one coming from

Hades, their supposed repository of souls testified it to them. This view of the parable, is in conformity with our Lord's conduct and teaching on other occasions. But to suppose, he here teaches, that Hades is a place of torment after death, is at variance with the whole usage of Sheol and Hades in the bible. And why should we suppose he sanctions such a doctrine, which had its origin in heathenism. For further evidence of this and other remarks on this parable, see my Letters to Mr. Hudson, and Reply to Mr. Stuart's essays, etc.

Acts, ii. 27. "Because thou wilt not leave my soul (me) in hell (Hades) neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption." Grave is evidently the sense of Hades here; and refers to Christ who was raised from the dead. See Psal. xvi. 10. under Sheol.

Acts ii. 31. "He seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul (he) was not left in hell, (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption." Grave as in the last text, the same as Sheol, Psal. xvi. 10.

1 Cor. xv. 55. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, (Hades) where is thy victory?" Hades here plainly means grave, and was so understood by our translators. The grave shall not always retain its dead -hence the question "O grave where is thy victory?" The dead shall be raised incorruptible.

Rev. i. 18. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for ever more, amen; and have the keys of hell, (Hades), and of death." This is explained by Acts ii. 27, 31, above. To have the keys of Hades or the grave, shows that Jesus has power to raise from the dead, which he will do in the last day.

Rev. vi. 8. "And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was death, and hell (Hades) followed with him.” Hades here evidently means grave. It follows death, as is here represented. Mr. Stuart on this text observes-" here is

the king of the empire of the dead, with his subjects in his train. Hades, in this passage, stands for the inhabitants of Hades; just as in innumerable cases, we employ the name of a country in order to designate the inhabitants of the same. But I ask, is the king of the empire of the dead a living being? Are his subjects living beings? No, the inhabitants of Hades the grave, are all the dead; and death the king of terrors, of the grave, shall reign over them until raised from the dead. See 1 Cor. xv. 55. above.

Rev. xx. 13. "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell, (Hades), delivered up the dead which were in them." Here death, "the king over the region of the dead," is again introduced. What then does this passage say he "delivered up?" Was it-immortal souls, which Hades delivered up? No. Were they living beings of any kind? No; not any more than the sea delivered up immortal souls or living beings. No; the sea delivered up the dead which were in it. And death and Hades delivered up the dead which were in them." But according to the common views of Hades in Luke xvi. 23, Hades ought to have delivered up the immortal souls which had long been in torment there. Had John believed, as most people do now about Hades or hell, no doubt but he would have told us this. But wherever the resurrection of the dead is mentioned in scripture, not a word is said about immortal souls, coming forth from Hades, hell, or any other place. But why not, if immortal souls are punished there from death until the resurrection?

Rev. xx. 14. "And death and hell, (Hades), were cast into the lake of fire; this is the second death." On this passage, Dr. Campbell pertinently remarks" If we interpret Hades, hell, in the Christian sense of the word, the whole passage is rendered nonsense. Hell, is represented as being cast into hell: for so the lake