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 of fire, which is in this place also denominated the second death, is universally interpreted." Concerning the usage of Hades in the apocalypse, Mr. Stuart says "it is the genuine Sheol of the Hebrews; with the exception, perhaps, that the Hebrew sacred books have no where represented Hades as having a king over it." I then ask, does John in this book say, that in Hades there is a Tartarus? No. Why then did Mr. Stuart say above, "that in the Hebrew Sheol there was a Tartarus?" Does he know more about this than John did? The reason, why the Hebrew sacred books, have no where represented Sheol or Hades as having a king over it, is obvious. popular opinion, like many others derived from the heathen, was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. They knew of no king, God, or devil, who ruled in Sheol, or that it was a place of torment for the wicked. This Such are all the passages where Hades occurs in the New Testament. Let the reader now judge, what foundation they afford, for the doctrine, that Hades is a place of future punishment. In addition to the remarks, made on the general usage of Sheol above, we add here the following respecting Hades. 1st, It will not be disputed by any man, that what the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament expressed by the word Sheol, the Greeks expressed by the word Hades. 2d, But observe, that the heathen Greeks not only attached similar ideas to the word Hades, as the Hebrew writers did to the word Sheol, but also the additional idea, that in Hades persons were punished or rewarded, according to their merits or demerits in the present world. This punishment was by fire. This was their own addition; for no such idea seems to be conveyed in all the Old Testament, by the word Sheol. The very circumstance, that Hades, and not Sheol, is represented as a place of torment, shows, that this doc trine is of heathen origin. Hades is a Greek word; and it is well known that Greek was the language of the heathen, and Hebrew that of the Jews. There is nothing then, but what we ought to expect, in the use of the term Hades in the New Testament. Besides, the Jews had blended many of the heathen notions with their own religion. If we then find the New Testament writers, in using the Greek word Hades, speak as if this was a place of punishment, it is easily accounted for without admitting that they believed any such thing, or wished to inculcate this doctrine as a part of divine revelation. But of this they have been very sparing; for only in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, can it be supposed there is any allusion to such an idea. All the other places where they use the term Hades, it is plain no such doctrine seems to be hinted at, but the reverse. In face of these facts and circumstances, and current usage of the word Hades, we think it would be well for persons to pause and reflect, before they attempt to establish the doctrine of future misery from the language of a parable. If a Universalist was obliged to establish his views from a parable, and in face of so much evidence to the contrary, he would be considered as driven to the last extremity for proof in support of his system, and that finally it must be abandoned as indefensible. But this parable is considered as the most plain and conclusive part of Scripture, in proof of a place of endless misery. It is considered more conclusive than all the passages which speak of Gehenna. What critics and orthodox commentators, give up as no proof of the doctrine, by the least informed, is considered as the very strongest. 3d, Since neither Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally signified a place of endless misery, we have a few questions to put to those who believe in this doctrine. We ask, then, is it not a perversion of the divine oracles, to quote any of the texts in which Sheol or Hades occurs, to prove it? It is well known, that such texts are often quoted for this purpose. But I ask again, is it not a very great imposition upon the ignorant, to quote such texts in proof of this doctrine? The simple, honesthearted English reader of his bible, has been taught from a child, that hell means a place of endless misery for the wicked. Every book he reads, every sermon he hears, all tend to deepen his early impressions, and confirm him in this opinion. Those who know better, are not much disposed to undeceive him. On the one hand, they are perhaps deterred from it by a false fear of disturbing public opinion, and on the other, by reluctance to encounter the odium of the Christian public, in being looked on as heretics. Select the most celebrated preacher you can find, and let him frankly tell his audience, that Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally meant a place of endless misery, and his celebrity is at an end. He would from that moment be considered as an heretic, and his former admirers would now be his warm opposers. But I ask again, and I solemnly put it to every man's conscience, who professes to fear God,-Ought not men to be honestly told the truth about this, let the consequences be what they may? Are we at liberty to pervert the scriptures in favor of any sect, or system in the world? Must we be guilty of a pious fraud, in concealing from people what they ought to know, because the disclosure may excite popular prejudices against ourselves, and afford cause of suspicion that the doctrine of endless misery is not true? If it be true, it can, and must be supported from other texts than those in which Sheol and Hades are used. Perhaps some may think, if all those texts are given up, some of the principal supports of the doctrine are removed. Well, allowing this true, would any one wish to retain them, but such as are determined to hold fast the doctrine of eternal misery at all hazards? It is a false system of religion, or those who embrace it do not know how to de |