Above all, is this the case, in that most striking passage, Isai. xiv: 9-20; (the two last passages), in which all commentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or imaginary costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his fall. All is life and animation, when he goes down into the under-world. Yet who was ever misled by this passage, and induced to regard it as a passage to be literally understood. But if this be very plain, then are other passages of a nature in any respect similar, equally plain also." On this quotation from Professor Stuart, I have a few remarks to make.

1st, He explicitly declares, that he has no faith in a deep region beneath peopled with ghosts. There is no more reason to believe this true, then that the sun goes round the earth. But we ask, are not disembodied souls or spirits considered ghosts? Well, Mr. Stuart believes in them. But perhaps his skepticism, does not respect their existence, but the place of their habitation; they are not in a deep region beneath. Be it so; we then ask-where does he locate them? Nowhere that I can find from his writings. No, nor does he attempt to prove, that they exist any where.

2d, The Professor tells us— it is poetry which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the under-world. Poetry personifies that world," and in the passages he cites, he assures us-"all commentators are compelled to admit a fictitous or imaginary costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his fall. All is life and animation, when he goes down into the under-world." Very well. We have then to ask, if all this be the language of poetry, where shall Professor Stuart find a text in the Old Testament, which is the language of reality, that any persons were alive in Sheol, or any where else after death? We do not demand, what on his system we have a right to demand,

that he produce a text, which says, persons are punished there. No, we only ask him to name the text, which teaches, that the king of Babylon, or any other person, was in a state of conscious existence after death, either in a region beneath, or, in any other region in the universe of God. He says "in most cases it is the language of poetry, which employs the popular methods of representation." If it is not so in every case, he can produce the exceptions, where the language of inspiration, the language of reality, gives to persons after death real life and animation. What is proof positive, no such texts can be produced, is, Mr. Stuart has not produced them.

3d, If the plainest texts in the whole Bible, which represent persons alive after death, are abandoned by Mr. Stuart as the mere language of poetry, how is his system to be supported? He has abandoned them, and we are confident, he has none half so good as they are, to produce in support of it. But we doubt, if he would have abandoned them as the language of poetry, if it had only been said in one of them, concerning the king of Babylon or any other person-" and in Sheol he lifted up his eyes being in torment." This would have altered the passages, from a fictitious and imaginary costume, to solemn reality. No doubt but this would have been said, had the poets then known, that in the Hebrew Sheol there was a Tartarus, a place of torment. But at that period, the poets had not given such a popular representation to Sheol. We shall see afterwards, that the heathen Greeks, gave to Hades this popular representation; this fictitious and imaginary costume, which Mr. Stuart adopts without scruple as the truth of God. It is a strange inconsistency to say, when the king of Babylon goes down to Sheol, and all is life and animation on his arrival, this is only fiction, and when the rich man Luke xvi. 23, goes down to Hades, and all is life and animation, this is solemn reality. Does

not Mr. Stuart admit, Sheol and Hades are only the Hebrew and Greek names for the same place? And is he ignorant, how Hades came to differ from Sheol respecting such a representation? We shall refresh his memory about this in the sequel.

Isai. xxviii. 15. "Because ye have said, we have made a covenant with death, and with hell, (Sheol), are we at agreement." The persons mentioned, fancied themselves so secure, that they say, "with Sheol the. grave we are at agreement." They add-" when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." But thus their way

was their folly, for it is added,

Isai. xxviii. 18. "Your covenant with death, shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell, (Sheol) shall not stand." No covenant can be made with death and the grave, all must die, all go to Sheol. Hence it is added" when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it."

Isai. xxxviii. 18. "For the grave (Sheol) cannot praise thee; death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." Here, what is expressed by the words "the grave (Sheol) cannot praise thee," is explained by the next words

"death cannot celebrate thee." And is still further explaned by the words-" they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." On this text Mr. Stuart says "the meaning here is plain, viz. how can the dead, or those in the sepulchre praise thee? Surely we cannot well suppose Hezekiah means to say here, that hell, i. e. the world of torment, cannot praise God. He did not expect to perish forever, when he should die. But when he says, "Sheol cannot praise thee," does he mean, that after death there is no ability to praise God, no existance of the powers and capacities of the soul? I think not. It seems to me clearly, that

this is not his design; although not a few of the later critics have affirmed it to be so. Shall we represent the Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlightened as Hezekiah was, as being more ignorant in respect to futurity than the Egyptians? The people of God, who lived under the light of a revelation more ignorant than those who were in the midst of Egyptian night! Believe this who will, I must have stronger evidence of its correctness than I have yet found in order to give it credit." On this quotation I have to remark

1st, Hezekiah "did not expect to perish forever when he should die," for like all believers in divine revelation he hoped for a future life by a resurrection from the dead. But did he, or any other person, ever intimate, that he should praise God in Sheol after death? Did any one ever say he should be alive there? No. But it was incumbent on Mr. Stuart, to produce some declaration, or example from scripture, that in Sheol there is "ability to praise God; an existence of the powers and capacities of the soul" to do this. No. doubt, could this have been found, he would have produced it.

2d, But Mr. Stuart's argument proves too much. It will prove, that the transmigration of souls is a scripture doctrine, for it was believed by those in Egyptian night. I then say to Mr. Stuart in his own words "shall we represent the Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlightened as Hezekiah was, as being more ignorant respecting the transmigration of souls than the Egyptians? The people of God, who lived under the light of a revelation, more ignorant than those who were in the midst of Egyptian night! Believe this who will, I must have stronger evidence of its correctness than I have yet found in order to give it credit." But does Mr. Stuart think the Hebrews, the people of God, believed in the doctrine of transmigration of souls?

3d, But Mr. Stuart forgets himself. We shall see

1

afterwards, that he furnishes us with evidence that the Egyptians in the midst of their night knew all about future rewards and punishments, and yet he cannot show, that the Hebrews, the people of God, did know this, or that it is taught in the Old Testament. Now, how will he, or any other man, be able to account for the indisputable fact, that the Egyptians taught this doctrine in the days of Moses and the prophets, yet he never taught it in his writings? If Moses was better informed than the Egyptians on this subject, as Mr. Stuart asserts, how happened it, that he gave us no information on the subject? But

So the

4th, Mr. Stuart adds-" I regard the simple meaning of this controverted place (and of others like it, e. g. Ps. vi. 5; xxx. 9; lxxxviii. 11; cxv. 17; Comp. exviii. 17), as being this, viz. "the dead can no more give thanks to God, nor celebrate his praise, among the living on earth, and thus cause his name to be glorified by them," or thus do him honor before them. sequel of Isai. xxxviii. 18; "the living, the living, he shall praise thee; as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth, i. e. thy faithfulness." This last clause makes the whole plain; and one is ready to wonder, that so much skepticism about the views of the Hebrews in regard to a future state of existance, could have been eked out of the verse in question." No man disputes with Mr. Stuart, that "the dead can no more give thanks to God, nor celedrate his praises, among the living on earth." What he has got to prove, is, that the dead celebrate God's praises in Sheol; that there people have powers and capacities to do this. What scripture writer asserts this? If he cannot produce scripture authority for this, is it not rash to assert it?

Isai. lvii. 9. " And thou didst debase thyself even unto hell, (Sheol)." Sheol here evidently means grave; and to be debased even unto Sheol, Hades, or the grave expresses the lowest state of debasement, or degradation.