been occasionally inconsistant with himself; e. g. Ezek. xxxi. 15, compared with Ezek. xxxi; 16, 17."

Such are Mr. Stuart's own frank confessions respecting the term Sheol; and how far the result of his investigations differs from mine, let the reader judge. But it will no doubt be said, does not professor Stuart contend, that there are at least five texts, "in which Sheol may designate the world of woe?" We answer yes; but let us now see the result of his investigation of them? As the conclusion of this whole matter, he says p. 114,-"The sum of the evidence from the Old Testament in regard to Sheol, is, that the Hebrews did probably, in some cases, connect with the use of this word, the idea of misery subsequent to the death of the body." Mr Stuart puts these words in capital letters, no doubt to make them the more conspicuous. But with or without this parade of capitals, it is conspicuous enough, that all he contends for is, a mere probability, that Sheol in some cases does mean what he says it does. Or rather, "The Hebrews did probably in some cases, connect with the use of this word, the idea of misery subsequent to the death of the body." It is obvious, this probibility, is not founded on the original signification of the term Shoel; its general scripture usuage; or the five texts which he deemed most to his purpose. No; he allows Sheol originally signified the grave or state of the dead; and that the general usuage of Sheol is in favor of my views, is obvious from his own statements. Besides, the five texts on which he places his dependence, are susceptible of a different interpretation from the one he has given them, by his own confession. It will then be asked, on what does Mr. Stuart found his probability that Sheol in some texts means hell, the world of woe? We answer, it is founded on assertions; begging the question of his readers; and principally on the following assumption-that

the Hebrews in some cases, when they used the term Sheol, had in their minds the idea of future punishment. But, he has not produced a single text to show, that they had such an idea in their minds, and we are confident he is unable to produce it.

Mr. Stuart showed his sagacity, in making some shew of defending the doctrine of future punishment, from the term Shoel. This, is the foundation of the whole superstructure of punishment after death. If it gives way, the whole falls to irrecoverable ruin. If a Tartarus is not found in Sheol, it cannot be found in Hades its corresponding word in the Greek, except on heathen authority. And we shall see on Mr. Stuart's own authority, Gehenna did not originally mean Tartarus, but came through a superstitious notion, to designate hell the world of woe. This Tartarus, this world of woe, was first invented by men, and then terms were invented, or words had new senses affixed to them, to designate it. It would be alarming, frankly to state, that Sheol had no Tartarus in it. People would naturally ask-had the ancient Hebrews no hell, no world of woe? And the conclusion would soon come to be drawn, why should we have one? Of course, it is of the last importance to contend, the Hebrews had a Tartarus in their Sheol, for if this was abandoned, no other word, no other text in the Old Testament, furnishes the shadow of a foundation for it.

The reader must have noticed, that in the texts above, Sheol is often rendered by the word hell, which to most ears, conveys the sound of terror and dismay. But he has also seen, that the word hell, in its original signification, conveyed no such terror. Mr. Stuart confesses, that in a great many instances, it is a very improper rendering of Sheol. Let us hear him a little farther respecting the word hell. He says, pp. 113, 114-" On the whole, it is to be regretted that our English translation has given occasion to the remarks, that

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