lavish exhibitions of the profundity of his Greek and Hebrew learning.

That the place of the dead should according to the principle above stated, afford a name for the place of punishment, will seem still more natural, when it is taken into the account, that by the same kind of transfer of language, the words life and death are abundantly used in Scripture for the rewards of the righteous, and the punishment of the wicked. The place of the dead is made the place of punishment, in the same way that death is made the name for punishment itself; as in the following instances quoted by Stuart in his Exegetical Essays, to which the reader is referred for a more full illustration of this topic. Ezek. 18: 4. The soul that sinneth it shall DIE: which is repeated in 18: 20. So also in Ezek. 18: 17. He shall not die. Verse 18. He shall die. V. 21. He shall not die. V.23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? V. 24. In his trespass that he hath trespassed..... shall he die. V. 28. He that turneth away from his transgression.... shall not die. V. 32. I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth. Prov. 15: 10. He that hateth reproof shall die. Ezek. 33: 8. The wicked shall die in his iniquity. 33: 11. Why will ye die? Prov. 33: 13. If thou beatest him with the rod he shall not die. Gen. 2: 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 3: 3. Neither shall ye touch it lest ye die. John 6: 50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. Rom. 8: 31. If ye live after the flesh ye shall die. So the noun death is used in the same sense. Deut. 30: 15. See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. Jer. 21: 8. I have set before you the way of life, and the way of death. Prov. 5: 5. Her feet go down to death. John 8: 51. If any man keep my sayings, he shall never see death. Rom. 6: 23. The wages of sin is death. James 1: 15. Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death. Rev. 2: 11. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Here I take it for granted the words die and death are used in a figurative sense, to imply punishment

or suffering, endured as the consequence of sin. No matter whether that punishment be in the future world or not-let every one judge of that—it is punishment expressed by death used in a secondary sense. These and other like instances, which might be multiplied indefinitely, are all examples of that kind of usage of language, by which the place of the dead became the place of the punishment of the dead. Whether when it is said, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, eternal death be meant, I do not affirm or deny in this place; the reader may judge for himself. But all must admit that death is figuratively used, as a name for punishment of sin, as sheol the place of the dead is figuratively used for the place of punishment for sin. Even should we grant, what Mr. B. contends for in his book miscalled a reply to Stuart's Essays, that the word death in these cases does not mean suffering for sin in the future world, still it means suffering for sin, and you may locate it where you will, and yet it will be as much in point to illustrate the usage of the language in question.

Having admitted that the primary, and most general use of the word sheol, was as a name for the place of the dead, I shall have no need to notice a great part of Mr. B.'s Inquiry on this subject, which consists of comments upon more than half a hundred passages in which the word occurs, to prove what no one was ever silly enough to dispute, that the word in those instances does not mean hell. I shall make a short story of a long one, by confining my attention to those passages, where I conceive the word is used for a place of punishment.

Psalm 49: 15. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave. In the context the righteous are exhorted not to be disturbed by the pride and oppression of the wicked, on the ground that the prosperity of the wicked could not continuethat they would all die like sheep, and death should feed upon them, while God would deliver the soul of the righteous from the power of sheol, and receive him to himself. The subject of the Psalm is the prosperity of the wicked on this side of the grave, and its melancholy end, and the reverse which takes place in favor of the righteous at death. How can it be true,

that God will redeem his people from the power of sheol, if it be not from sufferings in sheol after death, while death is left to feed upon the wicked? How can it be that death shall feed upon the wicked in a sense in which it does not upon the righteous, if there be no distinction by happiness, and punishment beyond the grave? In the 73d Psalm, we have also the same general ideas. The writer was envious at the foolish when he saw the prosperity of the wicked, and thought that he had cleansed his heart and washed his hands in vain, until he went into the sanctuary of God and understood their end. And his doubts are solved by contrasting their end with his own, by seeing them (in. the light of the sanctuary, not by any knowledge from earthly sources,) brought into desolation and consumed with terror, but himself guided by God's counsel, and afterwards received to glory-being assured that while his heart and his flesh faileth, God is the strength of his heart and his portion forever. That this reverse in favor of the righteous, and against the wicked is to take place in their "end" after death is evident, because it is far from being a fact, that the wicked are in all cases brought into desolation and consumed with terrors, and that the righteous are always exalted, on this side of the grave.

Psalm 9:17. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Do you say that sheol here means only the place of the dead, and make the sense of the passage-The wicked shall be turned into the grave? I answer, shall not the righteous too be turned into the grave? But Mr. Balfour tells us "it is one thing to die and another to be cut off by the judgment of God from the earth." Yes, but death is death in both cases. And Mr. Balfour is desired to inform us what there was in the death of the heathen, which he says are here meant by all the nations that forget God, in which a marked and terrible distinction was made from the death of Israelites. When was, or ever will be the time, when all heathen nations will die a death, so marked by the finger of God. He raises a difficulty out of its being asserted that all the nations of heathen shall be turned into sheol,-assum

ing that it cannot be that all will go to hell. It is asserted that the wicked and those that forget God will be turned into hell. But if there be any Jews or Gentiles who are neither wicked nor guilty of forgetting God, they of course will be saved. But that forgetting God, is in God's esteem a grievous sin, you may see in Psalm 50: 22. Now consider this ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces and there be none to deliver.

Prov. 5: 5. Her feet go down to death, her steps take hold on hell. Prov. 9: 18. But he knoweth not that the dead are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell. Sheol in both these instances is made the end of intercourse with lewd women. And as neither a sudden nor violent death was the necessary result of that sin, there seems to be little propriety or force in the expressions, unless a punishment after death be intended. But Mr. B. tells us, allusion is here had to the disease which attends such intercourse. And says that medical men aver that this disease had existence as early as when this was written. But what medical man has averred it, or is competent to do so, we wait to be informed. Suffice it to say, there is a total absence of proof that any such disease existed then. And yet the matter needs to be proved before it can be used to his purpose.

Deut. 32: 22. A fire is kindled in mine anger, and it shall burn to the lowest hell. Mr. B. here suggests that if we understand by the lowest hell, the place of endless misery, there must be three divisions of it. So I may say if we understand by it the place of the dead, there must be three divisions of it, and therefore it cannot be the place of the dead. And suppose the language did fairly support Mr. B.'s inference, would that prove it not to be a place of punishment. Is he able to show an absurdity in the idea of different degrees of misery in hell? The imagery of the text is that of a fire, kindling upon the surface of the earth, and burning down, to the place which the imaginations of men at that time peopled with the spirits of the dead, which place had become the name for hell.

These are not all the instances in which I conceive the word

Of

has that meaning, but they will serve as a specimen of the use of the word, when employed in its secondary sense. Does it seem strange to any, that the place of future punishment is not revealed with more clearness in the Old Testament, they will do well to inquire with how much distinctness the place of future happiness is there spoken of. There is as much said, and as distinctly said in the Old Testament, of hell, as there is of heaven. Mr. B. makes much of the fact that there is no instance of the use of the word where it means of itself the place of eternal misery, that is, that the word does not of itself determine the duration of that punishment. But with what fairness let the reader judge. Is it the property of a name of a place of punishment to determine the duration of that punishment? Does heaven the name of the place of happiness, of itself determine the duration of that happiness? If I should undertake to prove that there is no future happiness for the righteous, I could with as much propriety say, that the word heaven is no where used as the name for a place of eternal happiness. the same character is the following suggestion of Mr. B.—“ It is now generally conceded that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. Mr. Stuart does. not pretend that it is taught there, but begs his readers to grant that probably future punishment may be taught in five texts." Here are almost as many misrepresentations as words. The assertion that it is generally conceded that endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament, is false, and Mr. B. ought to know it-I do not say that he does. I think I may say that he knows that orthodox writers generally interpret Daniel 12: 2. Some to shame and everlasting contempt-and Isaiah 33: 14. Who can dwell with everlasting burnings—as teaching the doctrine of endless punishment. Then he conveys the idea that Mr. S. concedes that.it is not taught there, when from the very book of Mr. S. out of which he professes to take the concession, and to which he has published two pro-. fessed replies, he might have read, and it is charitable to presume he has read Mr. Stuart's interpretation of the word ever