You add-'How easy to be misled, when we fall upon theory that looks attractive! Wahl fell upon the theory in Bertholdt's Christologia Judæorum, etc. p. 38, seq.; and thought it would solve many apparent difficulties about aion in the New Testament. But the theory itself, like

many other things in that undigested and hasty book,

needs much more confirmation than has before it can be so extensively applied a

been given to it, Wahl has appli

ed it.' So you say. But have not othe, as good a right to say- How easy to be misled, when we tall on theory that looks attractive? Mr Stuart fell upon the above theory and other things, in the Talmudic and Rabbinic writers, and thought that they would establish the doctrine of endless punishment from the New Testament. But the theory itself, and those other things, from such fanciful and ridiculous books, need much more confirmation than has been given to them, before they can be so extensively applied as Mr Stuart has applied them.' Of the cases which Wahl arranges under the head of age before and after the Messiah,' two, if not three texts, will stand the test of examination, allowed by yourself. But whether as many of your texts, explained according to the notions of Talmudic and Rabbinic writers, will stand the test of examination, is extremely problematical. This may be seen, by any one who consults your own critics and commentators. It is understood by me, that the question at issue between us, is not to be settled by Talmudic and Rabbinic writers, but by the sacred writers.

But you are not yet done with animadverting on the lexicons. You add-The remarks which I have just made, on the meaning assigned by Wahl to present and future aion, will apply, in all respects, to the article on this same word in the lexicon of Bretschneider, who, under the same guide (Bertholdt), has fallen into the same errors. Had he and Wahl simply read, with attention, the article oulm in Buxtorf's immortal Hebrew, Rabbinic, and Chaldaic lexicon, they might have avoided such a mistake. This Coryphæus of all Rabbinical investigations has given no occasion that any attentive and. intelligent reader should be misled.' It appears, then, that it was a great misfortune in those lexicographers, and must be so to others, not to be acquainted with Buxtorf's immortal Hebrew, Rabbinic and Chaldaic lexicon. But what

evidence from it, or from any other source, have you given us, that your views are correct, and theirs are wrong, on the phrases, this world and the world to come? Not a vestige of evidence, excepting the notions of Rabbinical writers. And do you not tell us from Buxtorf, that he says, some so understood these phrases in the very senses you condemn ?

You thus conclude your first Essay. But it is time to retreat from the examination of lexicons. Enough has been said, I trust, to put the student on his guard against implicitly following the authority of dictionaries; especially in respect to an important article like the present, and when the whole of the evidence is not laid before him.' It is then time for me to retreat from remarking on your animadversions on the lexicons. Enough has been said, I trust, to put the reader on his guard against implicitly following Professor Stuart or Rabbinical writers; especially in respect to an important subject like that of endless punishment, and when the whole of the evidence is not laid before him. It is also time to retreat from your first

Essay.

Before I conclude, I would observe, once for all, that your strictures on E. S. G.'s piece, in the Christian Examiner, pp. 72-75; and your Appendix at the end of the volume in defence of yourself against his reply,—I have nothing to do with. E. S. G. is fully competent to manage his own controversy with you; and for me to interfere, would be intermeddling with business which does not belong to me.

I am,

Respectfully yours,

W. BALFOUR.

LETTER II.

SIR,

I COME now to your second Essay, which is on the word sheol, rendered, pit, grave, and hell, in the common version. I shall take up your sections in their order. They are seven in number.

'Sect. 1. Usual meaning of the word.' You say-The word sheol has not unfrequently been derived by lexicographers and critics, from the root sal, to ask, crave, demand, require, seek for, etc.' But add-This etyyou mology, however, is too uncertain, to be entitled to much confidence. Besides, the word has no great light given to it from-the languages kindred with the Hebrew.' Hence you conclude We are left, therefore, merely to the manner in which the Hebrews employed the word, to determine its meaning. The examples of it in the Hebrew scriptures are somewhat numerous; still as an investigation of its real import must be a matter of deep interest to every serious inquirer, it seems necessary to bring the whole of them into view.' Scripture usage, then, you allow, must determine its meaning. This is according to your own rules. But let the reader notice if you abide by them, or have done as you assert in the following words.

You say 'I observe, by way of introduction to the view of them which is now to be given, that I have simply followed, as my custom is, the concordance, and endeavoured, in each case, to determine the meaning of the word sheol from the connexion in which it stands.' With the term sheol you do follow the concordance, and you are careful to state this. But was it your custom to follow it with the term oulm? We have seen this was not your custom, nor did you determine the sense of it, or of

aion and aionios from the connexion. That you do not determine the meaning of sheol in all cases from the connexion, will be seen in the sequel.

But you proceed to say-The arrangement with regard to the respective meanings of the word in question, which I have thought to be the most plain and lucid, is as follows, viz.

1st. The more obvious or literal sense of sheol. This is the under-world, the region of the dead, the grave, the sepulchre, the region of ghosts or departed spirits. This meaning is general, i. e. the signification of the word sheol is generic. In other words, it sometimes signifies the region of the dead, to which the righteous and the wicked both go; as does hades, the invisible world, in classic Greek authors. But as every generic word is capable also of a specific meaning, when circumstances require it; so we shall see in the sequel, sheol may be regarded sometimes as the place to which good men go after death, and sometimes as the place to which evil men go; i. e. the word itself means the region of the dead in general, and it is made particular, only by circumstances connected with it.' There is no dispute between us, that good and bad go to sheol, the grave, or state of the dead. And as it means this, you must show us, what those circumstances are, which make sheol particular, so as to mean 'the region of ghosts or departed spirits.' The grave or sepulchre is not surely this region; nor is it the place of misery for departed spirits.

But you say I proceed to detail the examples.' Detail the examples of what? That sheol is the region of ghosts or departed spirits?' or, is it that sheo is the

under-world, the region of the dead, the grave, the sepulchre? It must be of the latter, from your examples. But why then blend such meanings together? Your first example is Gen. xxxvii. 35,* " and (Jacob) said, I will go down into the grave, sheol, unto my son, mourning ;" i. e. Jacob declares that he shall be brought down to the grave

He says

*Dr Allen, sir, widely differs from you about this text. "It is altogether probable that he (Jacob) had reference to the abode of departed spirits, where he hoped to meet his son. But our translators, by using the word grave, have excluded this important and interesting idea, and annihilated the strong hopes of paternal affection and enlightened piety.' But you know too much, to make such a statement as this.

by mourning, and thus be united with Joseph his son, whom he believed to have been destroyed by wild beasts. It is not to be supposed, that Jacob believed Joseph to have gone to the world of wo, to hell, in the common sense' of this word, as it is now used by us; nor that he himself expected to go thither. Indeed, it is impossible to mistake the obvious meaning of sheol here, which is simply grave, or region of the dead.' But you see, sir, Dr Allen did mistake its meaning, notwithstanding you think this 'impossible.'

Your next example is-- Numb. xvi. 30. (Moses says of Korah and his company), If...the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up...and they go down alive into sheol; i. e. if they go down alive into the under-world, into the region of the dead. That Korah and his company went to the world of wo, there can indeed be but little if any reason to doubt, considering their character and the nature oftheir crime. But the words of Moses, in this place, seem to refer primarily to the event which was about to take place, viz. to Korah and his adherents being swallowed up alive, and thus going down into the under-world. Numb. xvi. 33, they (i. e. Korah and his company) went down alive into sheol; i. e. they went down alive into the under-world, the region of the dead.' You add—' In the two last cited passages, our English version has pit, as the translation of sheol. The sense of pit is grave, decp cavity or recess in the earth. The sense of hell given to the word pit, by occasional usage, is figurative or secondary, and not the literal or primary meaning of it.' But on this quotation, I ask

1st. As you confess Moses, the writer of the Pentateuch, did not affirm, that Korah and his company went down 'to the world of wo,' on whose authority does Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover, assert they did? Your words are —that Korah and his company went to the world of wo, there can indeed be but little if any reason to doubt, considering their character and the nature of their crime.' Was not their character and the nature of their crime fully as well known to Moses the Jewish legislator, as to Professor Stuart of Andover? But you pronounce a judgment on them, which the ancient Moses did not. Whether you imitate him in meekness and moderation,