fend it, who wish to support it by perverting a single text of scripture. To found the doctrine of endless misery on the texts which speak of Sheol or Hades, is building on the sand. When the building is assailed by reason and argument, and an appeal to the Bible, it must fall, if it has no better support. Even, if it could be proved true from other texts, this is calculated to bring the doctrine into suspicion.

4th, The translators of our common English version, appear to have had more correct ideas about Sheol, Hades or hell, than most people who read their translation. They certainly were at some pains, to guard us against attaching to the word hell, the idea of a place of misery. In many places where they render Sheol and Hades by the word hell, they have put grave in the margin. Besides; let it be remembered, that the word hell originally signified the same as Sheol and Hades. It was then the very best word they could use in rendering these two words. If men now have fixed a different sense to the word hell, the translators are not to blame. Admitting, that when our translation was made, it had acquired the sense of a place of endless misery, what could the translators do but use this word in rendering Sheol and Hades? It meant the same as those words originally; and to prevent misunderstanding, they frequently put grave in the margin. They no doubt thought, that this, together with the context, was security against all misapprehension. Unfortunately this has not been the case. But no blame attaches to them, for they must in this case have either coined a new word, expressed themselves by a circumlocution, used always the word grave, or left these words untranslated. I am inclined to think, that if Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, had been left untranslated, few persons would ever have thought, that by any of these words a place of misery after death was meant. Every reader would then have been obliged to consult the context, wherev

er these words were used, to attain the sense of the writer. Obliged to do this, he would soon have become familiar with them, and must have seen, from the way in which they were used, that the idea of a place of future misery was never intended to be conveyed by them. Let any one go over all the texts where these words are found, and put this remark to a fair trial. It is true, that our translators, in rendering the word Gehenna, have also used the word hell. But here again, what could they do, for this word had acquired a new sense. This new sense they supposed answered to the word Gehenna, the place of endless misery. Here they were under the necessity of either again coining a new word, leaving Gehenna untranslated, or expressing themselves by a circumlocution. We doubt if the translators were at liberty to do any of these, without shocking public prejudice, and exciting the displeasure of those in high authority, under whose patronage they made their translation. They were not left at liberty to give us the best translation, which their own judgments, and the progress of Biblical criticism, even at that day, could have afforded. In proof of this, see the king's instructions to the translators.

5th, Several very serious evils arise from understanding Sheol or Hades to mean a place of endless misery. In the first place, it is a perversion of those texts in which these words occur. This perversion of them leads to a misunderstanding of many others. By this means the knowledge such texts convey, is not only lost, but our knowledge of the word of God is greatly retarded, and our minds are perplexed and embarrassed on other connected subjects. Every text of Scripture misunderstood, lays a foundation for a misunderstanding of others; and thus error is not only rendered perpetual but progressive. But this is not all. Understanding Sheol and Hades to mean a place of endless misery, is perverting God's word to caricature himself. It is putting

our own sense on his words, to make him say things against ourselves which he never intended. It is giving a false color to the language of the bible, that we may support the false views we entertain of his character, and his dealings with the children of men.

6th, I may just add about Hades, what was noticed about Sheol, that we never find the words eternal, everlasting, or forever, used in connexion with it, or concerning it. We never read of an everlasting or eternal Hades or hell, or that men are to be punished in it forever. Nothing like this is to be found in scripture. Such epithets added to the word hell, found in books and sermons, are among the improvements in divinity which man's wisdom teacheth. The word hell is first perverted from its original signification, and then the word eternal is added to it, to make the punishment of endless duration.

SECTION III.

2 PETER, ii. 4, considered.

"For if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, (Tartarosas), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." See Jude 6, to which I shall also advert in my remarks. Although the word Tartarus, does not occur in the Bible, yet the word Tartarosas occurs in this single

text. It is equivelent to Tartarus; it signifies" to cast into Tartarus." See Parkhurst. Professor Stuart asserts" that a place of punishment is here indicated by Tartarus, is put beyond all doubt by the context 'he spared not,' chains of darkness,' imprisoned for judgment or condemnation." But what is there in

these expressions, which says, the angels, or any other beings, suffered pain or misery in Tartarus? They are not even said to be alive there, far less suffering torment. In my reply to his Essays, I have considered pretty fully, what he says about Tartarus. See also a quotation from Dr. Campbell in the preceding section, which relates to this subject. In what follows, I shall principally confine the readers attention, to what I consider the true sense of the passage, or passages in question.

1st, Let us examine what period is referred to, called in the one passage simply "judgment," and in the other, "the judgment of the great day." These expressions, are supposed to refer to a "day of general judgment," at the end of this material world. But I know of no sacred writer, who uses such language, to describe such a day. I find however this, or very similar language used, to describe God's judgments on the Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensation. "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord come." Joel, ii. 31. Peter, Acts ii. 20. quotes these words, and applies them to this very event. Again, Malachi iv, 5. says, "behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord," in reference to the same event. Our Lord, alluding to this period said, Luke xxi. 22—“For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." And adds, Math. xxiv. 21, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." But are the tribulations of this supposed day of judgment, to be less than the tribulations which came on the Jewish nation at the destruction of Jerusalem? If not, how can our Lord's words be true? In Rev. vi. 17. we read also of "the great day," and "the great day of God Almighty;" but no man will say, that this refers to a day of

general judgment at the end of this world. The context shows, this cannot be meant.

2d, Let us now consider who are referred to by the angels, that kept not their first estate, (principality), but left their own habitation? The reader ought to notice particularly, that neither of the texts, give the least intimation, that they were angelic Spirits, sinned in heaven, and were cast out of it. It is said they sinned, but not in heaven. They kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, but it is not said, this habitation was heaven. Indeed, if we admit, angelic Spirits, once sinned in heaven and were cast out of it, what security is there, that this may not take place again; yea, that all who are there may not become sinnesr, and share the same fate? The question then iswhat angels are here referred to? I answer, it is well known the term rendered angel, is not a name of nature but of office. It is frequently rendered messenger and is often applied to human beings. Some have thought, the angels here mentioned, were the spies sent out to view the land of Canaan. I am of opinion however, that Korah and his company, are the angels here referred to; the history of whom is given, Num. 16th. My reasons for entertaining this opinion, I shall briefly detail, and let the reader judge for himself.

1st, Korah and his company were two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.' Num. 16. 2. From the high station, which they held in the congregation, with scriptural propriety they might be termed Angels. Certainly, with just as much propriety, as men are called Angels in many other passages. See for example Rev. Chaps, 2d. and 3d.

:

2d, It will not be questioned, Korah and his company sinned and their sin was, they kept not their first estate, or the station God assigned them in the congregation of Israel. They raised a rebellion against Moses