of regret for his past course of life, is eagerly seized, as affording a hope he was changed before his death. But why was not all this found among the Hebrews? If your doctrine was believed by them, Hebrew parents were monsters, nondescripts among mankind.

But let us see how the Hebrews expressed themselves about their relations and friends after their death. Can you find any such language as the following, which is not at all uncommon among us? Concerning pious people after death, it is often said-they have gone to glorythey have gone to receive their crown--they are better off than with us our loss has been their gain-they are now before the throne of God. Such is the language commonly used. Let us now see, how people speak and feel about their relations, who gave little or no evidence of piety before their death. Some, and even preachers too, have not hesitated to say-they are now in hell. And even the pious parents of the deceased have great fears and distress, from dread that what the preacher says is too true. Oh, says the pious, affectionate mother-if I could only think that my child is happy in another world, I should be perfectly reconciled to his death! And many a tear is shed, and many a sigh heaved, and many a wakeful hour is spent, in thinking on the future condition of the child which has been removed from her. Now that her child is dead, she has more pain and distress, fearing he is in hell, than all she endured in bringing him into the world, or caring for him while in it. But look over the Jewish history, and see if you can find anything which bears any resemblance to this. The Hebrews were people of like feelings and passions as we are. They knew how to weep, and mourn the loss of friends as well as we. Witness David's grief for Absalom, and other cases I might name. But did he mourn and weep for Absalom, because he feared he had gone to hell, your place of punishment in sheol? Or, can you cite a case, where any one shed a tear, or heaved a sigh, through fear that their deceased child or relative was in a place of torment after death. I presume you cannot; for no doubt, if it could have been found, you would have produced it, as conclusive proof of your opinions. But, if such a case is not to be found, ought you not to abandon the opinion, that the

Hebrews connected with the term sheol, in their thoughts, a place of punishment after death?

I have brought this opinion of yours to the above tests. Let the reader judge if it can possibly be correct.

I am yours,

Respectfully,

W. BALFOUR.

LETTER III.

1

SIR,

It contains your

I PROCEED now to your third Essay. views on the term hades, which is rendered grave and hell, in our common English version. It contains three sections, which I shall take up in their order. Before I proceed to what you advance, I beg leave to refresh your memory with the following things:

1st. You contend that hades, in the New Testament, and Septuagint, corresponds to sheol in the Old Testament. The New Testament writers, when they quote texts from the old, use hades as the rendering of sheol. See Acts ii. 27, 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55. Compare Psal. xvi. 10, 11; and Hosea xiii. 14.

2d. If the term sheol did not include in its usage a tartarus, or place of punishment, no such meaning ought to be attached to the term hades, in the New Testament. Perceiving that this consequence follows, you were very desirous to have it believed, that probably in some cases, the idea of future misery was attached to the term sheol. The reader can judge, if you made out even this probability.

3d. On p. 122, you asked, 'Where is the specific difference between the future state of the righteous and the wicked, fully set forth in the Hebrew scriptures? Where are the separate abodes in sheol for each, particularly described? I know not; nor do I believe any one can inform me.' But observe, sir, you add, 'in the New Testament all is clear.' Let us then see how clear you make this.

'Sect. 1. Classical sense of the word.' With hades, as with aion and aionios, you begin with classic usage. You say-Homer employs this word, throughout his poem,

as the proper name of Pluto, the imaginary god of the under-world, among the Greeks and Romans. Later writers, both in poetry and prose, employ it likewise to designate the region, place, state, or condition of the dead; the world beneath, or under-world; the grave, death, or the state of death." After citing some examples of its classic use, which it is unnecessary to quote, you proceed thus :— In the oldest Greek writers, we find hades distinguished from Erebus and Cimmeria. Cimmeria or Cimmerium, was an imaginary place, near the island of Aeea, which island lay off the western coast of Sicily, and was the fabled abode of Circe and her companions, among whom Ulysses and his friends dwelt for some time on his return from Troy: Homer represents Ulysses as setting out from Aeea, and after one day's sail, as arriving at Cimmeria, on the extremity of the fathomless ocean.' Odyss. xi. 13. Here they found regions' covered with darkness and clouds; nor does the sun shining with his beams ever look upon them, neither when he mounts the starry sky, nor when he retires back from heaven to the earth; but deadly night broods over wretched mortals.' Odyss. xi. 16-19.

You go on to say, 'Homer seems to represent Ulysses as having gone down into hades.' But this was only the precincts of hades.' There was still another place, 'which the Greeks called Erebus.' But even Erebus is only a place of transition to hades, from which Homer expressly distinguishes it. Il. viii. 368. You tell us― 'Last and lowest of all, was hades, which is subdivided into the upper and lower. In the upper part are the elysian fields, the abode of the good; and beneath these, i. e. in the deepest dungeon, in the bowels of the earth, is tartarus, the place of punishment for the wicked, answering, in some respects, to the gehenna of the Hebrews. Later Greek writers do not always observe the distinctions which are here presented, but frequently confound more or less of them in a good degree; as do also the Latin writers.' Let us pause a moinent, and compare this picture of hell, drawn by yourself, from the heathen, with the orthodox hell. 1st. The heathen hades was in some place near the centre of our earth. Who can deny, that this was, and still is the opinion of some orthodox people, respecting the location of their hell. This we shall see presently.

2d. The heathen hades was 'subdivided into the upper and lower. In the upper part, are the elysian fields, the abode of the good.' Now, sir, Mr Hudson quotes Mr Robinson, and informs us paradisos, in the Jewish necrology, is that part of hades in which the souls of the pious enjoyed happiness until the resurrection, Luke xxiii. 43, where Jesus speaks in a manner adapted to the penitent thief.' Parkhurst gives us a similar account. Mr Robinson's abode for good souls until the resurrection, answers to the elysian fields of the heathen. This, I admit, differs widely from orthodoxy in the present day. No orthodox man speaks of going down to hades to find his heaven. Nor does he think, that his heaven and hell are located so near each other, being only different stories of the same place.

But let us notice the other subdivision of hades. You say, 'beneath these (the Elysian fields), i. e. in the deepest dungeon, in the bowels of the earth, is tartaros, the place of punishment for the wicked.' A man, sir, must have no ordinary share of effrontery to deny, that this is precisely the orthodox hell which has been believed in for ages, and which, to this day, is preached and believed in, by thousands, calling themselves orthodox. Nor are these wild heathen views of hell confined to the weak sisters and brothers of this faith. No, sir, Dr Allen, of Bowdoin College, thus addressed his students, only a few years ago. Yet you will probably be convinced, beyond all doubt, that there is a local hell, or a place of punishment.' He even gives us the very heathen location of it; for he says-The meaning of the word sheol, is the invisible. place of the dead, or a vast subterranean receptacle, be- › cause the abode of departed spirits was supposed to be the deep, central, or lower parts of the earth.' But this hell of the orthodox you are ashamed of; for on p. 121, you told us a deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in.' Dr Allen is not ashamed of it, for he seems to believe in such a location of hell, although he is not sure about it, as is seen in another place.

3d. But you assert, tarlaros, the heathen hell, answered 'in some respects, to g henna of the Hebrews.' But I must ask, sir, what Hebrews? for no sacred Hebrew writer in the Old Testament ever used the term gehenną