MMsr:

^-

'»:'<

#5^

.n:i

a^i

* »» '^ ^Tfti

1- ^IfclrW*

^ .-?$

This is an authorized facsimile
of the original book, printed by
microfilm-xerography on acid-free paper.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS INTERNATIONAL
Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
London, England
1981

EXEGETICAL ESSAYS

ON

SEVERAL. WORDS

RKLATINQ TO

FUTURE PUNISHMENT.

BY MOSES STUART,
froroMor of Bacred Literature in the Tlieol. Som. at Andover.

ANDOVER:
riU5TID AT THE CODMAN PRESS BY FLAOG AHD OOULDi
FOR PERKl.NS .\ND MARVIN, No. 114,
WASHINGTON ST., BOSTON.
1830.

3K87 St95«

Reproduced by
DUOPAGE PROCESS
in the
U.S. of America

Micro Photo Division
Bell & Howell Company
Cleveland 12, Ohio

DP # 5784

DISTRICT OP MAMACIIUSETTa, lo wit;
Ditlrict CUrkU Offitt.
Be it lemembered, that on the Gtb day of Get. A. D. 1830, in the Gfty-flfth
year of the Independence of the United States of America, Forkioa it. Marvin
of the said district, have deposited in this UfRco the title of a book, the ri^bt
whereof they claim as Proprietors, in tho words followinz, to iei( .¦ " Exegetica!
Essays on several words relating to Future Punishment. Uy Moses Btuart, Pro-
fessor of tfacrod Literature in the Theological ijcmiiiitry at Andover." In confor
mity lo the Act of tho Congress of tho United .Slates, entitled, " .\n Ai:t for the cn-
courageinoiit of Learning, by securing tlio copies of maps, charts, and books, to
tho aulhori and proprietors of such copies, during tho times therein'mentiuned :**
and also to an net entitled, " An act supplemcntury to an act, entitled. An act
for the encuurageincnl of learning, by securing the copies of, maps, charts and
books, to the authors ond proprietors of- such copies during the times therein
mentioned; and extending the benefits tliereof to the arts of designing, engraving
and etching bialotical and other prints." JOHN W. DAVIS, i *v''w "¦'''**' "''"^'¦"

PREFACE.

At no tubject can be presented to the human mind »0 deeply
interesting as the inquiry, whether wo shall be happy or misera
ble in a future world through endless ages ; so no apology ia need
ed, for choosing such a topic of discussion in the following pages.
Very many embrace tho opinion, that the present is not our only
state of probation ; and of course, that if our lot be that of punish
ment in a future world, yet our condition even then is not to be
regarded as hopeless. Has this any foundulion in tho Word of
God, or does it proceed rather from our Ktihes than from reason
and ovidenco ?
Tlie foUowing pages do not profess to trout of these questions
at large. It would require a volume of much greater size than the
present,. to do oven tolerable justice to llic whole subject. My
design, Iiowevor, is to discuss, almost entirely in a philological
way, some of the most interesting topics relative to future punish
ment. This I have endeavoured to do, unciiibarrasscd by any par
ticular opinions or systems. ISIy.conscit'iico bears iiie testimony,
that I havn oiidenvcmnul Id ciiiiio at my Nulijor.t, in thu way of an
nrijiiiiiil mill diNintoriHtiMl ini|iili;i<r. Ifl liiive iiolulwiiys suoeood-
ed ill doing this, I must beg tho reader to attribute it to human in
firmity, and not to design.
That I have not referred, in the general course of discussion,
to those who differ from me in opinion, (one instance only except
ed.), they must not put to thescoro of neglect ; for neither have I
referred to those with whom I agree. My wish is, not to appear
in a polemic attitude, on tho one hand ; nor in that of one who ap
peals for support to mere liumiin authority, on the other. I hope
this will not be considered as betraying any neglect of my oppo
nents, or overlooking of those with whom I agree. Simple, phi
lological disquisition, conducted by approved rules of inlerprettt-
tion, and unembarrassed by friend or foe to my own views is what
I have aimed at. How far I have succeeded, must be'left, of
course, to tiie judgement of my readers.

^^ PREFACE.
One thing I do oarnertly desire to say to the reader with affec
tion and deep concern ; ' Look well to it how thou examincst and
judgest ; it is for thy life !' If it wore a mattor of taste, or of com
mon le.ticographal or grammatical dispute, it would be of little
consequence to give such on admonition ; for the consequoncci
could not be very important. But it is not so here ; for tho tn<er-
csls of ctcrnily may bo connected with the decision which tlie rea
der will niiiko. As u pliJIologiHl, I nm iinriblo to doubt tho rerlnin-
ty of till) conclusions to which the oxuniination that is dutiiiUid in
tho following sheets lias lod mo. Deeply impressed with this my
self,, it is natural that I should wish to impress others in Kko man
ner. If they do not agree with me, after examining the subject,
they will not, I trust, take umbrage at the manner in. which it has
been brought before thcm.
In regard-to thc writer in the Christian Examiner, whose sen
timents are briefly reviewed- in p. 72 scq., my only apology for de
parting from the general rule which I have observed, and making
opposition to him, is the earnest solicitation of some respected
friends that I should take this course. 1 would rather have avoid
ed it; but since I have done it, and the writer has replied in the
Christian Examiner for Sept. 1S30, I feel rt to be my duty still
farther to notice his reply; which I have done in a brief Appendix
at the end of this little volume.
As my object is discussion on original ahd fundamental
grounds, which have respect to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures,
so it must follow, that my book can be read intelligibly through
out, only by such as' have some knowledge of these hmguagcs.
Yet I have endeavoured so to write, that intelligent readers, tin-
acquainted with Hebrew and Greek, may get at tire scope of my
arguments ; and I would fain hope that in this I have succeeded.
I only add, that thc timb scorns to have coino, when appeal to
the original Scriptures appears to be the only effectual method of
satisfying the public mind, in regnr-l to any controverted religious
subject. That there is a portion of thc public who will not bcs.it-
isfied even with this, I deeply regret, but am constrained to be
lieve. Yet since far thc greater part profess to believe in tho de
clarations of the Hible, to this r have made tho appeal ; and by
this only I desire tho doctrine in question, and my little, treatise-
respecting it, to bo tried.
M. STUART.
Andover, Oct. 1830.

AIIIN and AISINIO:^.

% 1. Impoi'tancfi qf the siibjeit,
To a being endowed with a spirit which can never
cease to exist, and who can live at most but a few years
in thc present world, the question, Wliat is to be his fu
ture condition ? is the most important question that can
possibly bo agitatctl. Will his condition after death be
unclmngcnblc ? Will his probation bo al an eiitl, when
his pre.'jcnt life shall cease ? And if so, on what does tho
happiness or misery of his future state depend ?
An instinctive desire of happiness and dread of misery,
form an elementary part of thc nature which man po.>iscs-
scs. They arc interwoven with tho veiy being of his
soul, and mudt be immortal as the spirit from which they
spring. At thc prospect of happinos.s, he is filled with
delightful auticipatioiis, which make existence a blcssinir
and cau.se tire .soul to exult in the posscsf-ion of its powers
and capacities; at the prospect of misery without relief
and without end, an instinctive horror closes every aven
ue of pleasure, and thc soul loathes its own existence, and
would fain resign tlie possession of it.
This, however, it cannot do. He who made us in his
own image, made us immortal like himself; immortal in
regard to thc powers and faculties, as well as the exis
tence, of the soul ; thc immortal subjects, therefore of
2

" ^ 1 . .^ifiv and y/toicto;.
happiness or misery in the future state. We can no
more cease to be tho subjects of the one or the other,
than we can cease to be what we are — rational, sentient
beings, whose very constitution, whose essential nature,
necessarily involves with its existence the experience of
cither happiness or misery.
However discrepant the views of men may be, in
some respects, with regard to our condition in a future
state, there will be — thcire can be — no important diftbr-
ence of opinion in regard to the point now under consid
eration ; at least, there can be no important difference,
among those who believe in the immortality of the soul.
To all such, then, the questions, Whether we shall be
happy or miserable in another world ? ahd, Whether we
shall be unchangeably sol are of such unspeakable mo
ment, as to make all other questions appear to be of com
paratively small importance.
IIow are thesti great questions to be answered ? The
immortal soul, that is not sunk in the grossest ignorance,
or rendered insensible by thc most debasing sensuality
and love of the world, cannot but feel an interest — an all-
pervading interest — in this inquiry. Good men exhibit
their interest in it, by long-continued and solicitous in
quiries into their spiritual condition and prospects ; and
oven the wicked, in most cases, exhibit their interest also
in the question, by their constant eftbrts, in one way and
another, to bringthcmsclvcs into, a condition of qiiict with
regard to it.
.\ll sober and rational men will surely be disposed to
ask, From what quarter can these all-important inquiries
have light thrown upon them ? What cheering sun is
there, which will shed his radiance over the darkness
that rests upon them, and disclose the object of them to
us by the full light of day ?

§ 1. jiiutv and .AiutviOi.
And is not the answer to these last inquiries compar
atively easy? The light of nature can never scatter the
darkness in question. This light has never yet sufficed
to make even the question clear, to any portion of our
benighted race, Whether thc soul of man is immortal ?
Cicero, incomparably the most able defender of the soul's
immortality of which the heathen world can yet boast,
very ingenuously confesses, that after all the arguments
which he had adduced in order to confirm thc doctrine
in question, it so fell out, that his mind was satisfied of
it, bnly when directly employed in contemplating thc ar
guments adduced in its favor. At all other times, he fell
unconsciously into a state of doubt and darkness.
It is notorious, also, that Socrates, the next most able
advocate among the heathen for the same doctrine, has
adduced arguments to establish the never-ceasing e.\is-
tence of the soul, which will not bear the test of examin
ation. Such is the argument by which he endeavors to
prove, that we shall always continue to exist because wc
always have existed ; and this last proposition he lalwrs
to establish, on the ground that all our present ac<iuisi-
tions of knowledge are only so many rnriinisccncts of
what we formerly knew, m a state of existence antercdcni
to our present one. Unhappy lot of philosophy, to Lo
doomed thus to prop itself up, with supports so weak and
fragile as this ! IIow can thc soul be filled with consola
tion, in prospect of death, without some better and moro
cheering light than can spring from such a source ? J low
can it quench its thirst for immortality, by drinking in
such impure and turbid ."streams as these ? Poor wan
dering heathen ! IIow true it is— and what a glorious,
blessed truth it is— that " life and immortality are brought
to light in the gospel !" It is equally true, that they are
brought to light only there,

^ 'J 1 . ^lo'tv and j4mvi03.
Thus much then, is certainly plain. If the heathen
did not, and (all their circumstances and passions consid
ered) could not, sufficiently answer the inquiry which re
spects thc immortal existence of the soul ; much less
could they satisfactorily answer the question. Whether
our future state is to be happy or niiserable 1 And if
either. On what conditions is our happiness or misery
suspended ? These awfully momentous questions, they
never did answer. ' The world by wisdom knew not
God.' Nor did they know that he had made man in his
own image ; much less that man had been redeemed by
the death of God's own beloved Son. They did not
know any thing definite, respecting cither the happiness
which the gospel proffers to thc penitent and obedient, or
the mi.scries which are threatened lo the impenitent and
disobedient, in thc world to come.
Nor has all the light which has been cast upon the
subject of the soul's immortality, since the gospel was
first published, enabled men, independently of the gos
pel itself, to demonstrate this truth ; certainly not to
shew, with any good degree of satisfaction, what the fu
ture state of the soul will be.
If there be any satisfactory light, then, on the mo
mentous question of a future state, it must be sought from
the word of God. After all the toil and pains of casuists
and phiiosophers, it remains true, that thc gospel, and the
gospel only, has ' brought life and immortality to light' in
a satisfactory manner.
Most men among us either expressly acknowledge
this, or else implicitly concede it. The latter even those
do, who make .strenuous efforts to shew that the Scriptures
can be construed in such a way, as to render the doctrine
of the ultimate, universal happiness of mankind at least

^ I. ..4i<ait and .Jivn-ioi. "*
probable ; although, at the same time, unconsciously per
haps to themselves, they reason from principles which arc
not deduced from the Scriptures, but from their own ap
prehensions in regard to what is proper or improper un
der the divine government of rational beings.
The Bible, then, is the only sure source of knowledge,
in regard to the future destiny of our race. This alone
is to be relied on, in the ultimate settlement of the great
question, whether we are to be forever happy or miser
able. But how is this question to be settled by the Bible ?
Is this to be done, by carrying along with us, when we
go to interpret the Bible, principles which decide bctbrc-
hand what in our view the Bible ought to speak, and t.)
tiraw from these, conclusions as to what it docs spcrik f
Is any other book on earth interpreted in this manner ?
Or at least if it be so, do not all men declaim against
the unfairness and the partiality of such an interpreta
tion ? After all, surely it cannot be for the ultimate in
terest of any intelligent and rational being, who is favored
with the Scriptures, to force on them a method of inter
pretation which hc would complain of, when applied to
any other book. It cannot be lor his ultimate interest,
to make a mistake in respect to the tremendous subject
of a future state. Above all, if it :;liould at last prove to
be true, that tho present life is the only state of j)roba-
tion for men, a mistake as to the coiisei|iienccs of thi<
jirobation, must be of an importance wliicii no laniruarrc
can describe, and of which no heart can even conceive.
And even supposing that there is a future state of pro
bation, which is disciplinary, and in which thc wicked
are subjected to pain and distress ; what reasonable and
considerate man would desire to incur thc risk of llii.-^. by

*" ^ \.^mv and .Aimvios.
Haltering himself in such a way as to continue in his sin
ful course while in the present world, and venture upon
the consequences of this in the world to come?
-May it not be hoped, then, aniid the conflicting spirit
of the times, and the widely spread belief that all our race
will eventually be happy in another world, that there are
some, at least, who will feel it to be their duty and their
interest, seriously and impartially to examine and con
sider what the Scriptures have said, relative to the impor
tant question. about thc duration of future. happiness and
iiiisery ? I must hope that there are at least some, (v;lii»
have as yet been wandering in uncertainty, and who may
have inclined, or rather have wished, to believe that they
shall be finally Irappy, and that the Bible has not decided
the <iucstioii against the ultimate hopes of those that die
in a state of iinpenitency), who will now consent serious
ly and carefully to examine tlie ground of their hopes and
wishes, and to be guided by the sentiments of. the Bible,
investigated by met'ns of the usual and impartial priitci-
))les of interpretation.
Tor such, the following investigation is specially in
tended. It is not my design to occupy the whole ground,
covered by the great «iuestion which relates to the intjui-
ry. Whether our condition in a future world is immuta
ble ? To do this, would require a volume instead of a
few pages. It would so multiply topics of consideration,
ulso, as to have a tendency rather to distract and confuse
the inind, than to enlighten and satisfy it in thc most .sim-
])lc way.I purposely avoid, therefore, all remarks here on ob
jections against the doctrine of endless future punish
ment, drawn from considerations respecting the divine
benevolence, which the minds of many men appear to en-

§1. yjiviv and ^ttuvioi. H
tcrtain, in consequence of reasoning abstractedly and, in
dependently of the Scriptures about the nature of God
and the desert of sin. To settle the question whether
eru//cs5 punishment is possible, brfnre we come to the
Scriptures for investigation ; and then to search them
merely to see whether wo cannot find something to con
firm our views, or to remove the difficulties which the
Bible throws in our way ; is virtually to renounce the
Scriptures as our guide, and to set up our own conclu
sions and reasonings in the place of them. But how are
men to answer to their own consciences, and to that God
who is the author of the Bible, for so doing ? And after
all, what is to be the ultimate rule of thc divine proceed
ings, in regard to us? Are we at our own disposal ? Or
are wc iu the hands of un almighty God ? Are our view s
and conceptions to be the rule of his dealings with us ;
or are his own views of right and wrong, of merit and de
sert, to guide hrs disposal of us and ours ? Supposing,
then, that with thc utmost confidence we cherish and ad
vocate princi|)les, iu regard to tlic administration of the
divine government, which in the end turn out to be in
consistent with the statutes of heaven as contained in the
Bible ; what inlluence will our belief and opinions have
on the eternal Judge, in the great day of retribution ?
Can they have any ? And if not, of what avail is it for
ns to argue and decide, independently of the Bible, and
to risk our eternal salvation on conclusions which are
mailc out in this manner ?
I would hupe that such considerations as these, niay
have a tendency to check thc proneness of .some minds,
to indulge in a ^jnoW speculations on this great subject;
and may help in persuading them, to lend a listening ear
to any serious and impartial attempt, to describe the real
state of Scripture testimony in regard to it.

** § 1. Aii»y and Aiuviot.
For the subject of the present investigation,* I have
chosen only one word, or (more correctly perhaps) only
one species of words, used by the writers of the New
Testament. It is in the New Testament that ' life and
immortality are brought to light ;' and it is there too,
that we may of course expect the state and duration of
either reward or punishment in the future world, to be
most fully and clearly revealed. I seek not doubtful evi
dence. I aim to exhibit that which is, or ought to be,
convincing. At least, I intend to exhibit that which my
own mind is unable to resist ; and which, I would hope,
may assist others in their iii<iuiries relative to our subject.
The words that I have selected for present investiga
tion, are ultav and uuitviog, commonly translated Jfo/'frtr,
ever, eternal, everlasting ; specially so translated, wheii
they are connected with objects that relate to the invisi
ble world. I have been induced to select these words,
because I have, at various times, and spt.'uinlly of luto,
met with not a fuw speculations and criticisms on them,
which are suigular, and (in my view) widely departing
from the sober rules of legitimate interpretation. I have
seen, to my deep regret, many remarks on this awful sub
ject, which seem to betray much levity and inconsidera-
tion of mind ; and not a few, also, which disclose a re-
.solute determination, (come what will of the laws of e.K-
ecesis), to istipport notions on the subject of a future state,
that have been adopted independently of Scriptural in
quiry, and seem to be maintained in spite of all which
the Bible has declared.
I hope I shall not expose myself to censure hero, by
speaking thus respecting criticisms of this nature. I
would not treat with disregard any opinion in theology

This refers only to ihe first Essay in the present Volume.

§ 1. uiituv and Aitavto;. 13
or criticism, which appears to be tho offspring of serious
investigation and real effort to seek after the truth, al
though its author may have greatly mistaken the path of
truth. But when I see rash and adventurous criticisms
thrown out before the public, which arc evidently the
offspring neither of patient investigation, nor yet of a se
rious desire to know what the Bible has decided, but in
tended only to remove the diflicultics which the Scriji-
tures throw in the way of opinions entertained by the ati-
thorsof such criticisms, and to lull tho consciences of
men who arc uneasy about the subject of future punish
ment, I feel constrained at least to make an effort, to
bring before the public a full investigation of the mean
ing of the words in question, and to afford them, if it be
in my jx)wer, more easy and ample means of judging in
regard to the criticisms above named, than is afforded by
any of thc popular works now generally read.
I mu.st atlverliso my n-adiMs, that in onler to do tlii,-i,
I cannot conllne myself to a merely popular exhibition
of thc evidence with regard to the words in tiuestion.
Their importance in respect to the great subject of a fit-
ture state, all must acknowledge v.ho have anv good ac
quaintance with the Scriptures. They form, indeed, the
leading testimony in regard to the evidence which re
spects the duration of future punishment. But then.
let.it be remembered also, they are far from constituting
the only testimony of the Scriptures, in respect to this
subject. I desire that this may be very explicitly under
stood. It is not my design, fur the present, to aim at nil-
ducitig (ill tho eviilencu relativu to futuro puiiishiHi-nt
which the Scriptures afford, but only to examine one
important part of it; and this, because it bus of late
been so often drawn into tjiiestioii.

14 ^ 1. Atiav and uiidivtoS'
It will be easily seen by every intelligent reader, that
I cannot appeal to tho Scriptural usage of the words uiait
and aiuptog, in such a way as to make the investigati'ou
a fundamental one, without a reference throughout to the
original Scriptures. These are the only legitimate source
of ultimate appeal, in all controverted subjects of religion.
It is to these, indeed, that such of the advocates of uni
versal salvatiibn as are able to do it, profess to make an
appeal. I must, therefore, take the same ground ; and
yet, while I do this, I would hope to make myself intelli
gible in most cases to all well-educated readers, although
they do not possess a knowledge of the Original. A few
things must, in an investigation like the present, neces
sarily be without the circle of their apprehension. But I
would fain hope, that this will not detract from the gener
al impression which the present essay is designed to make.

In pursuing the inquiry about thc Scriptural meaning
of ttio')t>, and uhivioq (for ever and everlasting), I pro
pose to investigate, thc meaning of these words among
profane Greek writers ; their meaning in (he New Testa
ment ; the meatiing of the corrcsjionding toords in the Old
Testament, which have been translated by uimv and ««w-
vtog ; the meaning of these last words in the Septuagint ;
then to present a brief view of thc bearing, which thc tcS'
timony exhibited in respect to these words has on thc du
ration of future punishment ; and lastly, to make some re
marks on ihe abuse of these words, and on some mistaken
criticisms with regard to them.

^^ 2. 3. jiiia¥ and jimvioQ. 1^
^ ii. Cla$$icvd use of the words in question,
Rospocting this, tlioro can bo but little or no doubt.
uiiiov means, ( 1 ) Length or space of time ; and so, time
of life, age of man, age considered as a space of time.
(2) Long time, eternity, long indefinite space of time.
These are the usual significations of the word, as given
by those excellent lexicographers, Schneider and Passow.
There is a third unusual meaning sometimes attached to
this word, viz. mark, which has no bearing on our present
inquiry, and seems to have arisen from a mistaken deri
vation of the word from a'i'co, to notice, to mark.
The word aio'ivtog, as defined by Passow, means
long-continuing, everlasting, eternal; and with this
Schneider agrees.
Most of the shades of meaning which these words
have in the classics, are also given to them in Scriptural
usage ; and along with these, some others also which arc
peculiar to the writers of Ilebrow-Grcek. No one ac
quainted with the nature of this Greek, will wonder al
this. A great proportion of thc Greek words employed
in thc New Testament and tho Septuagint, is used in a
similar manner. Not only do they bear many senses for
eign to classic usage, but many of them are employed in
a manner wholly foreign to the Greek classical authors.
If any one desires proof of this-— overwhelming proof-7
ho has only to inspect a few pages of Schleusner, or of
Walil's Lexicon of the New Testament, which will solve
all his doubts.
^ 3. The meaning of the toords in question, as employed
by the writers of the New Testament.
On this inquiry, of course, depends substantially th
issue of ^the question before us. I must beg my readers

16 "J 3. ./timv and jiidivtog.
therefore to have patience, and to bear with me while I en
deavor to conduct them, step by step, through every in
stance in which the words atiav and aiotviog are employ
ed in thc New Testament.
There are shorter methods of despatching the subject
in hand ; and these are, either to decide it by affirming
positively in regard to it, and substituting this for a la
bored process of proof; or by producing a few instances
which may seem to support thc theory advanced by any
writer, and neglecting the rest ; or lastly, by conjectur
ing what the words in question ought to mean, instead of
proving what they do mean.
But as I have engaged in the severe task of endeavor
ing to make a thorough examination, I cannot knowingly
adopt cither of these methods. I have endeavored to
take a view of thc whole ground for myself; and I am now
desirous to submit the results of this labor to the inspec
tion of others, who arc willing seriously and laboriously
to inquire, what they ought to believe in respect to the
momentous, subject before us.
If there be :\n)- future punishment, it belongs of course
to a future state, i. e. to the invisible world. Our first
inquiry then will naturally be, In what sense are the words
ttiwv and uiotviog cmj>loyed, trlirn used with reference to
thc things of thc invisible world 1
I omit all those cases in which these words are con
nected witii the subject ni punishment, for the present. I
shall inquire, first of all, how they are employed in regard
to all other things belonging to thc invisible world, i. c. to
all other objects which exist there, or to transactions, oc-
currencies, condition, or circumstances, belonging to
that world.

uimv. 1'
§ 4. Cleaning of uimv.
First general class of meanings.
As the most common and appropriate meaning of
ultav, in tho New Testament, and thc one which best ac
cords with the corresponding Hebrew word nbi» , (which
the Septuagint nearly always renders by uiuv), and which
thcricfore deserves the first rank in regard to order, I put
down, (I) An indefinite period of time ; time without limiia-
tion; ever, forever, time without end, eternity ; all in re
lation to the future.
As to the various instances now to be cited, thc rea
der will see, that some one or other of these shades of
meaning applies to all. If he be accustomed to philologi
cal and exegetical studies, he will also perceive, that so
far as the simple idea of the word uicoi/ is concerned, the
sense of it is substantially the same, in all the cases now
to be designated ; and that the different shades by which
thc word is rendered, depend on the object with which
uioiv is associated, or to which it has a relation, rather
than on any differences in the real meaning of «<w»' itself.
The idea which this word preserves through the whole,
is ihat of unlimited, indifinitc time; which, in one case,
in consequence of its connection, must be rendered ever,
(joined with a negative, never); in another, /orcrt;-, etc.,
in all the various ways already mentioned above.
To the following instances I now make the appeal, in
confirmation of what has just been stated.

(a) I begin with those which have reference to God, (or
to Christ), to what belongs to him, or is rendered, or will
be rendered to him, and which (from his nature aitd the
3

18 §4. Meaning of Aliov.
nature of things) cannot be supposed ever to have an end,
or ever to cease from existing, or from being rendered, etc.
Rom. 1: 25, the Creator, who is blessed forever, tig
TOvg aibivag- surely, not merely for a period which is to
have an end !
Rom. 9: 6, God over all, blessed /orcvcr, ilg tovg ai-
tovag' plainly in the same sense as above.
Rom. 11: 3G, to whom be glory ybr ever, tig roiJs cti-
I'lrag. Rom. IG: 27, to the only wise God . ... be glory for
ever, tig TOvg uioivag.
2 Cor. 11: 31, God . . . who is blessed forever, tig
TOvg aioJvag.
Gal. 1: 5, to whom [God] be glory forever and ever,
tig TOvg uiwvug tiZv aioivoiv.
Eph. 3: 21, to him [God] be glory  to all the
generations of the age of ages or of eternity, tou uimvog
To'j/ aiMt'oif i. e. to him be eternal glory. The form of
expression is plaiidy intensive here.
Phil. 4: 20, to God .... be glory forever and ever,
fig Totig uioji'ug to)i> citoivbiv.
1 Tim. 1: 17, to God .... be ^oxy for ever and ever,
fi'g TOvg ttidii'ag kdi' aioivtav.
2 Tim. 4: IH, to whom [to tho Lord] bo glory /or«r-
fi" a»d ever, tig lovg auHrag rtuv ahoi'Oiv,
Heb. 13: 21, to him [God, or Christ] be glory /o«r-
rr and ever, iig TOvg uloivug tojp aioivmv.
1 Pet. 1:2.!), the word of the Lord abideth forever,
ii'g rov cti'uti'u.
1 Pot. 4: 11, to whom [God, or Christ] be glory and
Tjttmsc forever and ever, tig rovg almvug xtav ulmvoiv.
1 Pet. 5: 1 1 , to him [God] be glory and praise forev
er and ever, tig rovg uiutvag uotv ulmvotv.

§4. Cleaning of uiliav. 1'*
2 Pet. 3: 18, to him [Christ] be glory both now and
forever, vvv xal tig tjftiQuv aiavog.
Rev. 1: 6, to him [to God] be glory and praise for
ever and ever, tig roug uiijivug Toiv uiiovotv.
Rev. 1: 18, and behold ! 1 [Christ] live forever anil
ever, tig xovg uiiavag roiv aioivutv.
Rev. 4: 9, glory and honour .... to him [God, or
Christ], who liveth/brci-tr and ever, tig rovg aiCJvug roiir
aiojfoiv. Rev. 4: 10, they worshipped him [God, or Christ)
who liveth /brcrcr and ever, tig jovg uioivug tmv uioi-
VO)V. Rev. 7: 12, blessing and glory .... to our God for
ever and ever, tig jovg uimvug nov aioyvonf.
Rev. 10: G, [the angel] sware by him who liveth for
ever and ever, tig rovg uiowug rojv uiuviof.
Rev. 15: 7, vials filled with the wrath of God, who
liveth ybrci'fr and ever, tig Tovg aiiovug roiif aioHior.

(b) The second class of texts under the present gener
al head, arc those which liave reference to the hnppini:ti
of thc pious, especially to their happiness in heaven or thr
future world.
Of tills tenor are thc following ; viz.
John G: 51, if any one eat of this bread, he shall live
forever, tig t6i> ui(Zt>u- i. e. hc shall be happy always,
without end.
John G: 58, the same expression, in thc same sen.so.
JoJin 8: 51, if any one shall keep my word, hc shall
never see death, oJ . . . . tig lov uiiZvu- by which expres
sion, the never-ending happiness of the righteous is sure
ly designated.

20 § 4. Meaning of Atiav.
John 8: 52, he shall never taste of death, ou . . . . tig
TOi/ aiMPW in the same sense as in tho preceding exam
ple. John 10: 28, they shall never perish, oiJ . . . . tig rov
ai^va' where the endless happiness of the righteous is
clearly asserted.
John 11: 26, he that believeth in me shall never die,
01/ ... • tig xov aiajvu' to the same purpose as the above
example. 2 Cor. 9: 9, his righteousness abideth ybrcrer, tig rop
aitavw i. e. his charitable benevolence shall be eternally
rewarded. 1 John 2: 17, he who doeth the will of God, shall
abide /brci'fr, tig rop aiiZva' i. e. he shall evtir be secure
and happy.
Rev. 22: 5, they [the servants of God] shall reign
forever and ever, tig xovg aioivag xoiv uiatvMV' i. e. shall
occupy a station of exalted dignity and happiness forever.

(c) Another application of ctidiv, in a sense that clas
ses under our first general head, is, to designate a period
unlimited or without bounds, i. e. ever; and (with a nega
tive) never. This is clear from thc following examples ;
viz. Matt. 21: 19, let there be no fruit of thee forever, tig
TOP aioiva. The words have respect to the fig tree which
was cursed. That an unlimited, i. e. endless period is
here meant, seems very plain ; for it has respect to all
future time.
Mark 11: 14, the same words, in the same sense.
Mark 3: 29, whoever shall blaspheme against the Ho
ly Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, oi'x  tig top
uiuva. Comp. under No. 4. «, jMatt. 12: 32,

^4. Bleaning of udibiv. '-1
Luke 1: 33, he (Jesus) shall reign over tho house of
David ybrerer, tig xovg aiiZpag, There may be some dif
ference of opinion here, as to the class of meanings to
which the phrase tig rovg uimvag, is to be assigned.
The majority of interpreters give to it the sense oi forever,
and appeal to the nature of thc Messiah's kingdom, and
also to the corresponding assertion in the latter part of v.
33, " of his kingdom there shall be no end, ovx .... rt-
log." On thc other hand, interpreters who construe tig
xovg ttiwpug somewhat differently, appeal to 1 Cor. 15:
24 — 28, in order to shew that the kingdom of the JIcs-
siah is to have an end, and that therefore the expression
in question is to be regarded only as designating an in
definite period, a very long time. They add, too, that the
passage in Luke plainly has a relation to thc kingilom of
Christ as Messiah ; a kingdom which must cease, of
course, when the oftice of Messiah ceases, which will be
after the general judgement, 1 Cor. 15: 21 — 28. The
reasoning of the latter seems to be \t eighty ; and I should
feel b,^und to accetle to it, unless it might be said, with
propriety, that there is a spiritual \\\\\)^i\om, one purely of
a moral kind and adapted to tho hoavLidy world, that will
continue after the appropriate reign of Jesus as Messiah
shall cease. This is certainly favoured by those passages
in thc New Testament, which ascrilic endless dominion
and power to the Son of God in the same manner as to
thc Father ; e. g. Rev. 5; 13. 11: 15. llcb. 1:8. On thc
whole, I am rather inclined to class iig rovg aiolrug here,
with those passages which designate an unlimited period ;
particularly because of thc ov-a  rtXog, which follows
in the same verse. Yet I should not be very confident
in maintaining this classification, for the reasons stated
above.

23 ^ 4, Meaning of ./4ltiit,
If I am correct, the passage might be classed under
(a) above.
Luke 1: 55, [God] remembered mercy to Abraham
and his seed forever, img uiaivog ; i. e. he always, ever
has remembered, and ever will remember, mercy to Abra
ham and his seed ; he is unchangeably and perpetually
propitious to them. This text might be referred, also,
to the class (Ji) above.
John 4: 14, whoever shall drink of the water which I
shall give him, shall never thirst, ov . . . , tig rop aiotva ;
a full negative, and for a period plainly without any limi
tation. This also might be referred to thc class (/;) above.
John 8: '¦i.'i, thc servant abideth not forever, tig rop
aitavu, but thc Son abideth /brcycr, tig toV aioiva. Here
an unlimited period, a time that has no bounds, is plain
ly designated; John 12: 34, we have heard out of thc laWj that Christ
abideth ybrcycr, tig rov aion'u. The passage expresses
the opinion of the Jews in regard to thc Messiah, who,
they supposed, would be altogether exempt from death.
Of course «4tui'« here means, an unlimited or endless pe
riod. John 13: 8, thou shalt never wash my feet, oil . . . tig
xov aiiovtt.
John 14: IG, that hc [the Comforter] may abide with
yoa forever, tig rov uio'va. Here always, i. e. constant
ly and for an unlimited time, is plainly the idea convey
ed by tig xov aicova.
1 Cor. 8: 13, I will never eat flesh, ov . . . . tig rov
aioyvtt. Heb. 1; 8, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, tig
xov ai(ova rov ai(ovog. The idea which this exprcBses,
seems lo be thc same as that in Luke 1: 33 above ; which

§4. Meaning of Motv. "3
BOO. It moy bo remarked hero, in confirmation of what
will be said by and by about tho use of the singular and
plural number, that tig toV aioiva rov aidvog differs pot
at all, in sense, from tig rovg uiiZvag xiav aiatviav,
Heb. 5: G, thou art a high priest forever, tig xov ai
oiva' i. e. for a period unlimited, undefined, a very long
period ; forever, while the nature of things shall permit
or require this office.
Heb. G: 20, Jesus .... made high priest /or «fer, tig
xov aioiva' in thc same sense as above.
Heb. 7: 17, thou art a priest forever, tig xov aidtva'
in the same sense as before.
Uch. 7: 21, tho same expression, in tho same sense.
Heb. 7: 24, but hc, because he rcmaineth [a priest]
forever, tig xov aioiva' in reference to the same subject
as the three last examples above.
Heb. 7: 28, but the word of the oath . . . makcth the
Son [high priest], who is exalted to a state of glory for
ever, tig rov uitava. This might be ranked under No.
1. b ; but I have chosen to arrange it here, in conse
quence of its intimate connection with the four preceding
texts. Heb. 13: 8, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day,
KnA forever, tig rovg aidvug' i. e. Jesus Christ invariably,
always the same.
2 John V. 2, [tho truth] shall bo with you always,
tig rov uieHva.
Rev. 5: 12, to Hiin that sitteth on thc throne, and to
thc L.vMii, be ... . glory and power /orci^cr and ever, tig
rovg uiuivag itiTi' uivivoip. This might be ranged under
(rt) above.
Rev. 11: 15, hc [Christ] shall reign /orcucr and ever,
eig rovg aluvag rtof uiuvorv. See on Luke 1: 33 above.

S4 ^4. Meeming of Aim.

Thus far all the examples which have been cited, re
fer td FUTURE TIME. But there is another small class of
examples, in which atotv refers to past time, and which
require a distinct head of enumeration. They are of a
nature kindred with tho various t*pccioa of meaning al
ready mentioned under No. \. a. b. c ; and therefore I
shall designate them here as belonging to No. 2, under
the general arrangement. I observe then,
(2) That uiiav sometimes means, an indefinite or long
period in time past, ancient days, times of old, long ago,
always in time past, generations or ages long since.
Of this tenor are the following passages ; viz.
Luke 1: 70, as he [God] promised by the mouth of
liis holy prophets in ancient times, or of his holy prophets
long ago, un uiwvog.
Acts 15: 18, Known unto God of old, un aiuivog,
are all his works ; i. e. God knew all his works from the
most ancient times, or always in times past.
1 Cor. 2: 7, which God decreed long ago or ages
since, tiqo roiv aioivwv' i. e. from eternity.
Eph. 3: 9, thc mystery hidden in God from ages, uno
XMV uiwvwv' i. e. hidden during all ages past, or always
hidden during ages past.
Eph. 3: 11, according to the purpose of ages, xuv at-
(ovojV i. e. according to the ancient or eternal purpose.
Col. 1; 26, the mystery hidden from ages, uno xuv
ulaviav' in the same sense as Eph. 3: 9 above.
Under this head also should be classed John 9: 32,
never was it heard, in xov aiiovog ovx ijxovaOt}, that one
opened the eyes of him that was born blind ; i. e. during
all atres past, or from the most ancient time, such a thing
has not been heard of.

^ 4. Meaning of Atoiv, -^

The cases which I shall next rank under No. 3, may
not appear, at first view, to be very nearly related to those
already exhibited. But thc experienced interpreter will
easily perceive, that there is in them a tacit rofcrcnco to
tho idoaoffli'c, 7'criW of time, serulum { and niso, that
this has particular reference to quantity of time as a
whole, and may relate either to a past, or a future age.
In accordance with this, then, we may say,
(3) That ttieiv occasionally means, age in the sense
oi dispensation, viz. age (Jewish), age (Christian).
In this case, it is obviously employed as We employ
the word age in English, when we speak oi the patriarch
al age, thc antediluvian 05c, etc. Of this meaning may
bo found the following examples; viz.
I Cor. 10: U, on whom tho ends of the age (ages)
have come, rwi/ aii'iiav i. c. V.hO tlv6 al tlie close ttf uiet
Jewish age or dispensation.
Eph. 2: 7, that he might shew in the ages to come, iv
TO?? aibiai Tors intQ'iopivoig, the exceeding riches of his
grace. This may be construed of thc [gospel] ages; or
it may be taken in the general sense oi secula. The for
mer is consonant with New Testament usage ; but the
latter is, perhaps, the more probable sense.
Heb. G: 5, who have tasted tho good promise of God,
and the powers of the age to come, /^iikkovrog uiaivog'
i. e. of the miraculous powers bestowed under the gos2}fl
dis2>ensation. These are all the examples which occur, that require
to be ranked under this head ; and of these, Eph. 2. 7
might bo ranked under anothcir category, and considered
merely as an example of the classical sense of aim', viz.
scculntn, acvum, age simply considered.

2" §6. Meaning of uitfov.
It will be perceived, that most of the meanings of
uio}v under the preceding heads, are in accordance with
those which the word not unfrequently has in the Greek
classic writers. In this respect, however, the New Tes
tament usage differs from the classical one, viz. in that
aiojv, in the New Testament, most usually means, an in
definite, unlimited period of time; whereas in the clas
sics, the sense oi aevum, scculum, age, generation (in re
spect to time), appears to be its more usual meaning.
"Ji 5. Meaning of Aimv.
Second general class of meanings.
I come now to a secondary and peculiar use of the
word in question ; one altogether different from any thing
in the Greek classics, and derived, as it would seem, en
tirely frorri the Hebrew usage of thc word fibiy, which
the Seventy have translated so uniformly by uioiv.
In the ancient Hebrew Scriptures,- the word fibl3>
properly means, eternity ; as I shall have occasion by and
by to shew. Like uiiav also, it is frequently applied to
designate an indifinite period of time, which is spoken of
in reference to a great variety of objects, and with shades
of difference, like those which have been named in regard
to the use oi uitav. But thc sense of loorld, the jircscnt
world and the future world, (when connected with rtTn
this and Natl that iohich is to come), is one which does
not appear ever to have been attached to ti^is, by the
most ancient Hebrew writers ; nor is it found in the He
brew Scriptures, unli^ss it be in Ecc. 3: 11, which is so
doubtful, and so much disputed, thatmo philological con
clusions can be safely deduced from it.
In the later Hebrew, however, (i. e. the Talmudic

^ 5. Meaning of Aliav. 27
and Rabbinic), the word Bb'i» is employed, in innumera
ble instances, in the sense of world ; and this, either as
present world, or future world. From this usage in the
later Hebrew, (yet not so late but that it preceded the
time when the New Testament was written), it comes,
that uidiv, in the New Testament, is not unfrequently
employed in a similar manner.
No one, who is at all acquainted with thc multitude
of Hebrew meanings attached to Greek words, both in
the Septuagint and in the New Testament, will feel any
surprise at this, or hesitate a moment about admitting the
possibility or the reality of it. Hence we may assign to
uiiov, another meaning different from any above given,
viz. (4) The meaning, icorZJ; tiXso present world, :inA fu
ture world, when such qualifying words are joined with it,
as shew that it refers to the one or the other.
(rt) It is sometimes employed to denote the present
world and future world, with special reference to time or
duration, i. e. thc period of their existence, or of one's
existence in them. Of this character is the word in ques
tion in the following passages ; viz.
Malt. 12: 32,. [the man who has uttered blasphemy
against thc Holy Ghost], shall not be forgiven, neither in
this world, nor in that which is io come, ovrt iv rovro) to»
ttio)vi, ovrt iv tuJ fit'klovii [aiolvi] ; i. e. he shall not bo
forgiven during his continuance in the present world, nor
in that which is to come ; an aftirmation plainly added
by way of intensity, in order to strengthen the declara-
tion, oi'x aqtirtjatrut, uvrm, forgiveness shall not be ex
tended io him, which immediately precedes.

23 §5. Meaning of Altov.
Mark 10: 30, [the man who has forsaken all that he
might follow Christ], Shall receive a hundred fold in the
present time, iv xm ttatpta rovriu, and eternal life in the
world io come, iv xtS aiiovt, tw ipj^oftivia. Here aiiav is
used for world, with special reference to the period of its
duration ; as is plain from its being placed in antithesis
with itaigw xovxo). This might be translated age and
ranked under No. 3, but with a classical sense like that
of Eph. 2: 7.
Luke 18: 30, the same words, in the same sense.
On the whole, all the instances here under a., might
be rendered in thc same classical way, and make a sense
well fitted for the passages in which they stand. If
any one prefers this method, I shall not object against
it. Thus construed, all these texts, with that of Eph. 2:
7, riiust be considered as examples of the more common
classical sense of aioiv.

(6) Aioiv is sometimes employed to denote the world
with all its cares, or business, or temptations, or allure
ments to sin. Just so we often employ it in thc English
language. A man of the world, is a man devoted to the
cares or pleasures of the world. In a like sense, the later
Hebrew D^iy was often employed.
The examples of such a sense are as follows ; viz.
Matt. 13: 22, the cares of this world, xov aiuivog
xovtov .... choke the word ; i. e. worldly business, oc
cupation, engagements, stifle the impressions which re
ligious truth had made.
Mark 4: 19, the same expression, in the same sense.
Luke IG: 8, the children of this world, rov uioivog
XOVTOV, arc wiser in their generation, etc.

§5. Meaning of Aiiov.

20

Luke 20: 34, the children of this world, tov atoivog
Tovrov, marry, etc. ; i. e. worldly men, men devoted to
worldly pursuits, etc.
Rom. 12: 2, be not conformed io this world, xio uidivt
xovTor i. e. to the sinful pursuits and pleasures of this
world. 1 Cor. 1: 20, where is the disputer of this world, rou
aiiovog rovro' i. e. the worldly disputer, one who disputes
after the manner of men of the world.
1 Cor. 2: G, but not the wisdom of this world, rou
uioivog rovrov, i. e. not the wisdom of worldly men ; nor
of the princes of this toorld, rov uiotvog rovrov, i. e. of
worldly-minded princes.
1 Cor. 2: 8, which none of the princes of this toorld
knew, rov uioivog rovrov i. e. which no worldly-minded
princes knew.
2 Cor. 4: 4, whom the god of this world, rov uioivog
rovrov, hath blinded ; i. e. whom Satan, who reigns in
worldly men, hath blinded.
Gal. 1: 4, that he might select us from the present evil
world, ix rov iviaroirog uioivog novtjgov.
2 Tim. 4: 10, Dcmas hath forsaken us, having loved
the present world, rov rvv uimvu.
Tit. 2: 12, let us live soberly and righteously and
godly, in the present world, iv rut vvv uiiUvt' where the
antithesis shews, that the world of icmptution and trial
is meant.

(c) From the preceding use of uiuv it comes, that
the word is sometimes employed simply to denote ihe
world itself as an object or as an actual existence, i. c.
simply mundus, xoapog, and this, either present or fu-
4

30 <5 5. Cleaning of Aliav.
ture. Of this, the following seem to be evident exam
ples ; viz.
Matt. 13: 40, so shall it be in the end of this world,
iv xtj avvxilt!^ xov aiuivog xovrov i. e. when the final
consummation of all things shall take place, and the world
comes to an end or is destroyed.
Matt. 13: 49, the same words, in the same sense.
Matt. 24: 3, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and
of ihe end of the world? xijg avvriXtlug xov uiiovog,
which (as the phrase was used here by the disciples)
seems probably to mean, end of ihe world in a sense like
that of the two preceding instances.
JMatt. 28: 20, I am with you always, unto the end of
ihe world ; a clear case of the same meaning with the
preceding words, as nuaug xug i][itQug, always, plainly
shews. In Matthew, it appears that the usage of uimv al
most throughout, (ill passages where the reading is not
tloubtful), is in accordance with thc later usage of the
Hebrew in respect to the word cbiy. What influence
this may have on the critical questions. Whether Matthew
wrote his Gospel in Hebrew t and of course. Whether
the present Greek is only a translation ? I cannot stop
here to inquire ; but critical readers will not fail to note
tho circnmstance, to which I have now adverted.
Luke 20: 35, they who are counted worthy to obtain
that, toorld, rov uioivog ixiiiov viz. the future toorld,
in distinction from uioivog rovro v in the preceding
verse, or in opposition to it.
1 Cor. 3: 18, if any man thinketh to be wise among
you j;i this toorld, iv xm uiwvi rovrnt. In the next
verse, xoirpog is put for uioiv. This example might per
haps be referred to No. 4. 6 ; and bfe taken in this sense,
viz. if any worldly-minded man among you, etc.

§ 5. Meaning of Atiav. 31
Eph. 1: 21, above every name .... in this world, and
in that which is to come, iv rot uioivi rovrot, ulf.a ttal iv
rcf [aloivi] juAAofri. This, some may suppose, might
be put under No. 4. a ; but it does not appear that a
special relation to time is here designated.
1 Tim. 1: 17, now to the king of ihe toorld (worlds),
xtav uituvmv i. e. the king of the earth, or the king of
the universe. So in the Old Testament, Ps. 47: 7, God
is king of all the earth. Zcch. 14: 9, the Lord shall be
king over all ihe earth ; and so, in innumerable places
God is styled king, king of Isi-ael, etc. That the plural
number (uiiovoiv) is here employed, makes no difference
in the signification; as appears from Heb. 1:2. 11:3.
The same usage is extended to many other words ; e. «¦.
^3":Ja tabernacle and d"':3U;a tabernacles, Vn God and
CnVN God, Q^ sea and f'mi seas, ov()uv6g lieavcn and
ovQuvol heavens, au(iiiuT0v sabbath and au^jjuru sab
baths, etc. ; which, (although I have tran.slatcd some of
them in the singular and some in the plural), arc indis
criminately cmployetl in both niimbers, by the sacred
writers, yliioi mv then may mean here, as in Heb. 1 :
2. 11: 3, world; or in all these cases it may be render
ed Jfoz-Wj;, if any one should prefer this. But I am not
aware that the Hebrews applied the words fibi:? and
w/wi', to designate any of the iilanets except the earth.
If so, tlicn thc plural number here is to be rondercil in
conformity with tlio usage above inliiiiated ; just us y-ijj
terra and n'i::nN terrac, c'riy muiidu.i ant! r\v:::i:> muiuli,
are promiscuously used, not unlVo<iuently in one and tliti
same sense.
The objection to construing uimviov here as mcaniii r
ages, IS, that the idea of eternity or immortcdity (which
would thus be designated by it), i. expressed by the very

33 ^^ 5, 6. Meaning of Atiav.
next word which follows, viz. uqi&uQTOf, incorruptible,
imperishable, immortal.
1 Tim. C: 17, charge them that are rich in ihe pre
sent world, iv rm vvv aliavt. Without any violence, this
might be referred also to the class b, which precedes the
present head.
Heb. 1: 2, by whom also he made the world (worlds),
xovg uioivug. See on 1 Tim. 1: 17 above, in regard to
thc use of thc plural here.
Heb. 11: 3, by faith we perceive, that ihe world
(worlds, xovg uimvug), was created by the word of God.
See as above.
Nearly all of the above instances are very clear and
striking examples of the purely Hebraistic sense of the
word uioiv, as sometimes employed by the writers of the
New Testament.
To thc meanings above specified, I now subjoin one
which is peculiar, and one, I may add, which is of so
doubtful a nature, that no philological conclusions can be
safely deduced from it.

^ G. Peettliar meaning of Aiiav.
(5) As '111, in Hebrew, means generation of men,
considered, either as to the time in which they live, or as
to the persons themselves, so uio)v, in one case, seems,
like this word, to have thc meaning oi generation^ i. e.
race, progeny, a class of men in existence.
Of this peculiar meaning, thc following appears' to be
an example ; viz.
Eph. 2: 2, in which [trespasses] ye walked, in accor
dance with the generation of this world, xurix rov uiolva
xov Koapov rotjxov i. e. according to the course pursued

¦§ 0. Mcanittg of Aliav.

33

by men of this world. Tho idea is heightened by thc
writer's adding immediately, " According to the prince
of the dominion of the air;" i.e. in accordance with the
designs of Satan, who, being supposed by the Jews to
dwell in the air, was called the prince of the air.
One is almost tempted, here, to adopt the translatioa
Aeon, an evil spirit presiding over the wicked world,
and called, in the next clause, the prince of thc dominion
of tlie air. But the uncertainty whether thc Gnostic phi
losophy had yet introduced its speculations about Aeons
{./iioivfg) ; and particularly, whether this term, in such
a sense, was known to any of the writers of the New Tes
tament ; seems to forbid such a rendering of aioiva here.
I cannot help thinking, that it is safer to build on the
analogy which the Hebrew "^itj affords, and which makes
a sense apposite to the subject.

^ 7. Instances of Aioiv in respect to future ptinishment.
(6) Under a distinct head, also, I will now arrange,
(for the sake of completing my view of uitav), the cases
wliich have reference to the punishment of thc wicked.
I do not expect the reader to pronounce judgement
on this part of the subject here. I have made the pre
sent arrangement only for convenience' sake ; not design
ing cither to anticipate a judgement in regard to the
meaning of a/ttic in this CDunection, or to forestall the
opinion of the reader. His judgement may be suspend
ed, for the present, on this class of texts ; and hc may
regard them here simply as a record of facts, i. e. of e.>c-
pressions actually occurring in the New Testament.
2 Pet. 2: 17, to whom [lo transgressors] is reserved
the blackness of darkness /orcrc/", liguioivu.

34 %1. Meaning of Aiiav.
Jude V. 13, for whom [for the wicked] the blackness
of darkness is reserved forever, tig xov aioiva.
Rev. 14: 11, the smoke of their torment, [the torment
of those who worship the beast], shall ascend up forever
. and ever, tig uioivag aiuvwv.
Rev. 19: 3, and the smoke of her, [of Babylon tho
mother of abominations], ascendeth up forever and ever,
tig rovg aioivug rwv uiotvoiv.
Rev. 20: 10, and they, [thc devil, the beast, and the
false prophet], shall be tormented continually, /orcrcr and
ever, tig rovg uiuvug riHv uioivoiv.

These are all the instances of uiiav which are found
in the New Testament, where the genuineness of the
text is unquestionable. All the cases of a questionable
nature I have purposely omitted. They cannot be built
upon with safety ; and dispute about the genuineness of
any particular texts, would be quite foreign to my pre
sent design. I therefore omit the instances of uimv, in
Matt. G: 13. Rev. 5: 14, which are decidedly rejected by
Dr. Knapp as spuriotis ; and also the instances in Acts
3: 21. Eph. 1: 12. 1 Pet. 1: 23, which are considered
and marked by him as dubious.

§ 8. General summary of the meaning of Aioiv.
The result of the preceding investigation, (excepting
the cases of doubtful readings), is as follows ; viz.
The whole number of instances in which the word
ttlciv is employed, amounts to 95.
Of these, IG are used in the ascriptions of praise, glcH
ry, honour, blessing, etc. to God and Christ ; and in re-

§8. Summary of the meanings of Ato>v.
gard'to these, there can be no rational doubt that aiiav
designates a period unlimited or never-ending.
Equally certain is the same meaning, in the 5 cases in
which it is applied loGod, or to Christ, who liveth forever.
In 4 cases, it is employed in designating the domin
ion of Christ; viz. Luke 1: 33. Heb. 1: 8. Rev. 5: 13,
and Rev. 11: 15. But thc meaning here may be called
in question. Sec on Luke 1: 33 above, p. 21. As to
Rev. 5: 13, I have rendered the word xQurog, poiocr,
Hebrew ij) ; but as 7i> appears in a few cases to mean
praise, honour, some may insist on that sense being giv
en to xQUTog here. If they should do so, this will not
alter thc meaning of the uioiv which follows, because it
stands connected with thc glory given io God, as well as
to Christ, and therefore, it plainly means a time unlimited.
The text in Rev; 11: 15, seems to ascribe dominion to
Christ in the same sense as Luke 1: 33. Ileb. 1:8; and
it may therefore be questioned by some, whether eternal
dominion be here meant.
In one case, 1 Pet. 1: 25, it is said of the tcord of God,
that it abiilcth forever ; which plainly means, that it will
altcays be accomplished, or always remain stable, certain.
In 9 cases, it is applied to thc fitlurc happiness of thc
saints. In 18 cases, it designates the sense of ever, (with a
negative) never, always, toithout end, etc. ; and in a great
majority of these cases, it is applied to something which
Christ is, or does.
In 7 cases, it is applied to designate an indefinite pe
riod in ages past, ages long ago, very ancient times.
In 3 cases, it is applied to designate age in Ihe sense
of r//5^><;HSrt</o«, cither Christian or Jewish. But one of
these is susceptiblo of another interpretation.
In 3 cases, it seems to tiesignate the world j'l'cscnt or

36 § 8. Summary of the meanings of Altav.
future, considered with special reference to a period of
duration, i. e. with the adsignification of continuance.
In 12 cases, it designates ihe world, as the scene or
place of cares, trials, enticements to sin, etc.
In 11 cases, it seems to designate, more simply, the
world present or future, considered merely as a place of
residence for men, as an object of real existence, etc.
In one case, Eph. 2: 2, it seems to be equivalent to
the Hebrew word ni? , and to designate the idea of gen
eration, homines saeculi hujus, genus hominum.
In 5 cases, it is applied to the subject of future pun
ishment. In comparing these cases together, it appears that
those which have a simple respect to time, i. e. to time
future, Are employed in the sense oi unlimited time, inde
finite time, ever, always, forever, etc. Of this number
are 49, besides the^wc cases which relate to future pun
ishment, and the four which relate to the Messiah's king
dom. Only seven cases of aiiov have relation to time past ;
and these designate either a period from eternity, or ages
long ago, very ancient times.
The four cases which relate to the dominion of
Christ, may be understood variously, by different inter
preters who disagree about his nature or his dominion.
Thc passages are noted above. At least, these cases
must designate a future indifinite period.
All the other cases oi uioiv (oi which there are 30),
may be classed under thc general signification of the He
brew word abi:? , (as employed in thc Talmudic and Raln
binic Hebrew), viz. toorld in some sense or other, either
present or future, Jewish or Christian. Of these, there
arc four shades of meaning, viz. world, in reference to

^ 8. Summary of the meanings of Aiiav. 37
the period of time which it comprises, of which there are
3 cases ; or world, in reference to its cares, pleasures, en
ticements, etc., of which there are 12 cases ; or world as
a place of abode, an existing, real object etc., of which
there are 11 cases; or, finally world Jewish or Christian,
i. e. dispensation, of which there are 3 cases. I leave
Eph. 2: 2, out of the account here, as the instance is so
peculiar. Wc come then, by virtue of this examination, to the
conclusion, that whenever uioiv is employed for the pur
pose merely of designating yM<«rc time, as a period of du
ration, it designates an indefinite tinUmitcd time in all
cases ; (those of future punishment being for the present
excepted). In nearly all, it designates a period in the
most absolute and extensive sense tinlimited; as in the 49
cases mentioned above, independently of those which
have relation to future punishment, and those whitih re
late to the Messiah's kingdom.
The use of aiuiv in order to designate past time, is
seldom in the New Testament, as thc above examples
shew ; there being only seven cases in the whole. Of
these, six relate clearly to an inilrfinite, unlimited period
in ages past, i. e. they signify eternity a parte ante, as the
elder theological writers were wont to call it. Of this
tenor most clearly are Acts 15: 18. 1 Cor. 2: 7. Eph. 3:
9. 3: 11. Col. 1: 2(>. See above, under signification No.
2. In one case only, uioiv means long ago, in ancient
times simply, viz. in Luke 1: 80; in one case, with thc
negative ovx, John 9: 32, it means never.
Wc have, then, at least .'55 instances in thc New Tes
tament, in whicAx-uimv certainly means, an unlimited pe
riod of duration either future or past, ever, alioays; omit^

38 § 8. Summary of the meanings of Aiiuv.
ting the cases in which it respects future punishment, and
those which have, regard to the dominion of the Messiah.
If these be included, we have 64 cases, (out of the whole
94 which occur), in which uliav means unlimited period,
boundless duration.
Unless we except Luke 1: 70, (which however can
hardly be excepted, it being a clear case of employing
uio)v in a manner designating an indefinite kind of pe
riod), there is no case in which uiiiiv is employed in or
der to designate simply a definite, limited period, in all
the New Testament ; I mean, there is no case of this na-
ture, where uioiv is employed with the intention of con
veying thc simple idea of duration, or time during which
any: thing shall continue to exist or io be done. The New
Testament writers employ rihxla and ytvtu, to designate
simply the age or period of men's lives. In no case is
uiiuv employed by them simply in this sense ; or at most,
we can except only Eph. 2: 7.
It is clear then, that whenever uiiov simply marks
time in the New Testament, it marks indefinite, unlimit
ed time, and such only. In some very few cases, there
are circumstances accompanying the use of it, which shew
that eteriiity, in thc absolute and simple sense of the
word, cannot be intended. But an overwhelming majori
ty of castas designate eternity a parte post, (as the techni
cal expression is), i. e. a future period without any limits
or bounds^ In regard to the other sense oi uiiov, (i. e. its mean
ing when it is not primarily designed to mark time), it is
plainly derived, as has been shewn above (p. 420 seq.),
from the later Hebrew CbiS" , in the sense of world; and
it is employed merely to designate this, with the adsigni-
Hcditions oi continuance, or of cares, business, pleasures.

^9. Meaning of Atdiviog. 39
etc. ; or else to designate world simply as a place of resi
dence, action, etc. ; or world Christian or Jewish. All
these meanings are obviously foreign to the question
about future punishment ; with the exception of those,
however, which speak of the future world, ihe world to
come, as the abode of sinners in their state of retribution.
Of these, more hereafter.
We are now prepared to advance to the investigation
of the second word in question, viz. uioiviog.

AiiiNio:i:.
This is plainly a derivate of uioiv, according to the
common laws of the Greek language. The question of
course will now come up, AVhether uioiviog the adjective,
corresponds in meaning throughout with uioiv the sub
stantive ?
The classical sense of this word, as given by Passow,
ia long-continued, everlasting, eternal; all, of course, de
signating an indefinite or unlimited period, and agreeing
with the mcairing oi uitav, in all those cases which have
a simple relation to time.
The ancient Hebrew has no corresponding adjective
here ; but it employs the noun Ubiy in the place of one,
as is usual in a multitude of cases with this ancient lan
guage. But the later Talmudic and Rabbinic Hebrew
employs an adjective formed from fibi? , (just as the
Greek uiwviog is derived from aiiov), in thc sense oijtcr-
pciuus, cierniis, sempiternus, perpetual, eternal, everlast
ing. The adjective is •'aHy. It is somewhat remarka
ble, also, that although only the later Hebrew employs
the word cbiy in the sense of world, as above described,

40 § 9. Meaning of Almviog.
yet this same Hebrew, which alone employs the adjective
^XJb'iy , never uses it in the sense oi worldly etc., but only
in the sense of ciental, everlasting.
We shall see that in this respect, also, the Greek ad
jective a/oirtoff corresponds, in the New Testament, al
most uniformly with the Hebrew adjective "'abis* ; and
that all the uses of uiiaviog correspond with the first class
of significations which uioiv bears, and not with the He
brew-Greek meaning of it.

We come now to the usage of the word, as exhibited
in the New Testament. <^ 10. Meaning of Aiiuviog.
First general class of meanings.
( 1 ) It signifies perpeiiial, never-ending, eternal.
(rt) It is so employed, in regard to the happiness of
the righteous. Matt. 19: 16, what good thing shall. I do, that I may
inherit eternal life, ^lotjv uiiuviov.
Matt. 19: 29, whoever shall forsake houses, or breth
ren .... for my sake, shall receive .... eternal life,
Coifjv uiojvtOv.
Matt. 25: 46, but the righteous [shall go away] into
everlasting life, ioitjv uiotvtov,
Mark 10: 17, the same as Matt. 19: 16 above.
Mark 10: 30, the same as Matt. 19: 29 above.
Luke 10: 25, like the case in Matt. 19: 16 above.
Luke IC: 9, that when ye fail [die], ye may be re
ceived into eternal mansions, tig rug uimvlovg ax^vug'
i. e. into eternal abodes of happiness, comp. John 14: 2.
Luke 18: 18, the same as Matt. 19: IG above.

^ 10. Meaning of Altoviog. ^1
Luke 18: 30, the same as Matt. 19: 29 above.
John 3: 15, he that believeth on him [Christ] 
shall have eternal life, Coirjv uidviov.
John 3: 16, that whosoever believeth on him [Christ],
. . . should have eternal life, ^o)i}v uiwviov.
John 3: 3G, he who believeth on thc Son, hath eter
nal life, Co}ii]v uioiviov.
John 4: 14, it shall be in him a well of water, spring
ing up io eternal life, tig ^o}t]v uioiviov.
John 4: 3G, he shall gather fruit <o c/crna/ /jyi!, tig ^la-
ijv uioivtov. John 5: 24, he who believeth on him that sent me,
hath eternal life, Coitjv uiwvtov.
John 5; 39, by them ye think ye have eternal life, fw-
ijV UIOIVIOV. John G: 27, labour for thc meat which endureth io
eternal life, tig ^oitjv uioiviov.
John 6: 40, he who believeth on him [Christ], shall
have eternal life, fo>»Jf uio'iviov.
John 6: 47, he who believeth on me [Christ], hath
eternal life, ^oiriv uioiviov.
John G: 54, he who drinketh my blood hath eternal
life, ^oirjv uiiiivtov.
John 6: 68, thou hast thc words of eternal life, ioitjg
uioiviov. John 10:28, I give eternal life to them, Coiijv uioivtov.
John 12: 25, he Who hateth his present life, shall pre-
pervc it [his soul] /or eternal life, tig ioiijv uioivtov.
John 12: 50, I know that his commandment is eternal
life, fojj/ uioiviog- i. e. the keeping of his commandment
leads to eternal happiness.
John 17: 2, that he [Jesus] might give to them [his
disciples] eternal life, Coi^v uioiviov.

42 ^ 10. Meaning of Aiatvios.
John 17: 3, this is eternal life, imtj aidvios.
Acts 13; 46, ye have judged yourselves to be unwor
thy of eternal life, Coitjg aioivlov.
A<cts 13: 48, and as many believed as were ordained
to eternal life, tig Coit^v uioiviov.
Rom. 2: 7, to tliein .... who seek for glory ....
[God will give] eterncd life, f<M»Ji/ uioiviov.
Rom. 5: 21, so shall grace reign .... unto eternal
life, tig ^oitjv uioiviov.
Rom. 6: 22, yc have thc end [of obedience], eternal
life, ^0}>]v uioivtov.
Rom.G: 23, the gift of God is e<«rnaZ /i/e, fwjj aioivtog.
2 Cor. 4: 17,. a far more exceeding and eternal weight
of glory, uioiviov pufiog t^o'jjjff.
Gal. G: 8, he who soweth to the spirit, shallof tho
spirit reap life everlasting, Coirjv uioivtov.
2 Thess. 2: 16, God .... who hath loved us and giv
en us eternal consolation, uioivtov nuguxktjaiv.
1 Tim. 1: 16, an example for those who should be
lieve in him unto eternal life, tig Coitjv uim.viov.
1 Tim. 6: 12, lay hold on eternal life, rijg aioiviov
2 Tim. 2: 10, toith eternal glory, fttruSo^tjg uioiviov.
Tit. 1: 1, in hope oi eternal life, ioiijg uioiviov.
Tit. 3: 7, that we might be heirs, accordihg to the
hope of eternal life., ^oiijg uioivtov.
Heb. 5: 9,' he became the author of eternal salvation,
aoirrjoiag uioiviov,
Heb. 9: 12, he obtained eternal redemption for us,
aleiviov IvTQoiatv.
Heb. 9: 15, that they who are chosen might receive
the eternal inheritance, x^ff uioiviov xlijQOvoplug.
I Pet. 5: 10, God .... who called us unto his eternal
glory, tig Tt}v uioiviov auiow So^av.

§ 10. Meaning of Aitavioe. ^3
2 Pet. 1: 11, an entrance intx> the eternal kingdom, ttg
rijv aitovtov fiaaikelav.
I John 2: 25, he hath promised to us eternal life, Coi-
i}V aiciviov, 1 John 3: 15, no murderer hath eternal life, ^«i]v
ttitiviov. 1 John 6: 11, God hath given to us eternal life, {cutjy
aiiiiviov. 1 John 5: 13, those who believe have eternal life, Joj-
t]v ttioivtov. 1 John 5: 20, thc same is the true God and eternal
J'fi> V Coir) uioiviog.
Jude v. 21, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesu«
Christ, unto eierttal life, tig Ct^vv uioivtov.

(b) The next class of cases are those tohich have re
spect io God or his glory.
Rom. 16: 26, according to the commandment of the
eternal God, rov uioiviov ¦&tov.
1 Tim. 6: 16, to whom [to God] be honour and ever
lasting praise, xiiarog uiiovtov. Here x(jo'ro?=:Tb .

(c) There are a few solitary, and miscellaneous cases,
which I shall arrange under one head.
2 Cor. 4: 18, the things which are not seen, are eter
nal, uioiviu.
2 Cor. 5: 1, we have a habitation not made with
hands, eternal, uiiovtov, in the heavens. This might be
arranged under (n) above.
In Heb. 9: 14, it is applied to the Spirit, (either of
Christ or of God) ; who by an eternal Spirit offered up
himself, etc., Stu nvivpurog uioivtov.

44 §^ 10, 1 1 . Meaning of Altovtog,
Heb. 13: 20, the blood of an everlasting covenant,
6ia&t]xt]g uioiviov i. e. of a covenant never to be chang
ed or abrogated.
1 John 1: 2, we declare unto you ihe eternal life,
Coiijv ttiixivtov viz. Jesus the author of eternal life.
Rev. 14: G, an angel .... having ihe everlasting gos
pel, tvayyihov uioivtov.
In Philemon v. 15, uioiviov is used adverbially, in the
sense oi forever, always.

<^ 11. Second general class of meanings.
(2) In three cases, the word uioiviog seems to bear a
sense kindred to thatof otioSf under No. 2. above, viz. an
cient, long since, very early, remote.
The following are the examples of this sort, viz.
Rom. IG: 25, the revelation of the mystery, which was
kept in silence in ancient ages, ^govoig aionviotg' i. e.
during all preceding ages, or always hitherto, from eter
nity. 2 Tim. 1: 9, according to his own. purpose, and the
grace given us through Jesus Christ, before ihe ancient
ages, npo 'j[qovoiv uioi'vloiv i.e. before the primitive
ages, which means, before the world began, from eterni
ty. Thus in John 17:5, the glory which I had with
thee, before ihe world was, obviously means, from eterni
ty. So our English version, in 2 Tim. 1:9, before the
toorld began, ngo XQ<ivoiv uioivloiv, which is also repeat
ed in Tit. 1: 2, where the Greek expression is the same
as here. Tit. 1: 2, eternal life, which God, who cannot lie,
promised before the ancient ages, ngo XQOvoiv uioivloiv
evidently in thc same sense as the phrase above.

^ ^2. 3Ieaning of Aicavtoe- ^*
These are all the instances in the New Testament,
which have relation to pas* time ; and these, it is very ey-
ident, have an intimate connection with the use of uiotv
in No. 2 above.
There remain,
§ 12. Instances in respect to future punishment.
(3) The instances where uioiviog is used with rela
tion to future punishment, are.
Matt. 18: 8, it is better for thee to enter into life lame
or maimed, than having two hands to be cast into eternal
fire, tig ro mil ro uioivtov.
Matt. 25: 41, depart from me, ye cursed, into ever
lasting fire, tig ro niJQ ro uioiviov.
Matt. 25; 4G, these shall go away ii\to everlasting pun
ishment, tig xokaaiv uioiviov, [but the righteous in<o erer-
lasting life, tig Cuir,v uioiviov.]
Mark 3: 29, whoever shall uttet blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit, shall never obtain forgiveness, but be ol)-
noxious to eternal condemnation, uioiviov xglatoig.
2 Thess. 1: 9, who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, iiltiygov uioi
vtov, Heb. G: 2, not again imparting elementary instruction
with respect to repentance . . . and eternal judgement , i. c.
eternal condemnation or puni.shrnent, uioiviov xplatoig.
Judo V. 0, suffering the punishment of eternal fire,
TiV(jog uioiviov.
I leave these cases without remark for tho present,
reserving my conclusions until I have made some addi
tional remarks.

46 ^ l^. Meaning of AiiivioS'

§ 13. General Summary of ihe meanings of Aituviog.
It appears from the above representation, that there
are 66 cases in which uioiviog is employed in the New
Testament. Of these, 51 are used in relation to the
happiness of the righteous ; 2, in relation to God or to his
glory ; 6 are of a miscellaneous nature, but the meaning
of uioiviog in them all is quite clear ; and 7 relate to the
subject of future punishment.
In regard to all thc cases of uioiviog, whic'h have a
relation to future lime, it is quite plain and certain, that
they designate an endless period, an unlimited duration.
1 except of course, for. the present, those 7 cases which
have respect to future punishment. But in regard to the
rest, if they have not the meaning which has just been
stated, then thc Scriptures do not decide that God is eter
nal, nor that thc happiness of the righteous is without
cnil ; nor that bin covenant of gnico will »lwuy« reiintiii ;
u conclusion wliicli would Ibrevcr liliist tho hopon of t'lirin-
tians, and shroud in more than midnight darkness all the
glories of the gospel.
The above are all the instances in which aioiviog is
employed in the New Testament ; with the exception of
1 Tim. 6: 19, where the reading cannot be satisfactorily
defended. I purposely avoid all readings of this nature,
in thc present investigation.
In seeking for all the examples of uitov and uioiviog,
in the New Testament, I have used the Concordance of
Schmidt, which, having been published before the criti
cal investigations of the Greek were made, may possibly

§^ 13. 14. Sumtnary of the meanings of Aioiviog. ^
contain some two or three instances less of these words,
than are to be found in the Greek text of Dr. Knapp,
which is the one that I have used. If it should prove to
be so ; or that I have overlooked some one instance, in
such a minute and protracted examination ; it will not
have any effect on the reasoning or state of evidence at
large, in regard to the subject before us. I trust, more
over, that it will not be imputed to any design on my part.

Thc reader has now before him, a full view of the
manner in which the sacred writers of the New Testa
ment employ the wortls uioiv and uioiviog. We might
next proceed, therefore, to draw some conclusion, by com
paring the whole together, and in this way shewing in
what sense the sacred writers probably applied these
words to the future punishment of the wicked. But I
must beg the reader to delay a while longer, in order that
we may obtain a fuller view of facts relating to the usage
of these same words by tho Srptuuginl lrunslator«, and of
tho curri'i-pondiiig Hebrew wonl oljiy. I hiiull boii.t britif
as possiblo hero ; not considering it necessary to produce
more than a few citations, as examples in proof of what
may be stated. The direct evidence I have fully stated ;
the indirect,! may be indulged the liberty of producing
in a briefer and more summary way.

^ 14. Meaning oftibSs in the Hebrew of the Old Tes
tament.
This is, (1) Eternity, unlimited duration.
So Gesenius, in the recent edition (the third) of his
Hebrew Lexicon, " nV^y, eternity ;" which is the only

48 § 14. Meaning of n\h9.
definition that he gives. He goes on however to say,
that " the expression in Hebrew, as among us in common
life, is often used in an inaccurate manner, i. e. when
merely a very long space of time is denoted." Of this,
more in thc sequel.
I would remark here, for the sake of brevity, that the
words in the quotations which follow, that are printed in
Italic, correspond to the Hebrew word nbiy , in some one
of its forms. After this explanation I shall not repeat the
Hebrew word, but only quote the English.
Gen. 9: 16, that I may remember the everlasting cov
enant. Gen. 17: 7, I will establish my covenant .... for an
everlasting covenant.
Gen. 17: 13, my covenant shall be ... an everlasting
covenant. The same in Gen. 17: 19.
Gen. 21: 33, Abraham .... called on the name of
Jehovah, the everlasting God.
Deut. 33: 27, the eternal God is thy lefuge.
Ps. 90: 2, frovt everlasting to everlasting, thou art
God. Ps. 103: 17, the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting
to everlasting. Ps. 1 12: 6, the righteous shall be in everlasting re
membrance. Prov. 10: 25, tho righteous is an everlasting founda
tion. Is. 35: 10, the ransomed of the Lord shall return and
come to Zion, with songs and everlasling joy upon their
heads. Is. 40: 28, the everlasting God.
Is. 51: 11, the redeemed of the Lord shall return . . .
and everlasting joy shall be upon their head.

^14. Meaning of t\'i9. 49
Is. 56: 6, I will give them an everlasting name, that
shall not be cut off.
Is. 60: 19, Jehovah shall be thine everlasting light.
The same again in 60: 20.
Is. 61: 7, everlasting joy shall be to them.
Is. C3: 12, to make himself an everlasling name.
Jer. 10: 10, the living God [is] an everlasting king.
Jer. 31: 3, I have loved thee with an everlasting love.
Dan. 12: 2, some [shall awake] to everlasting life ;
and some, to shame and everlasting contempt.
These are only a small proportion of the cases which
might easily be produced ; but these arc enough to shew
what meaning Cbi? usually bears, in the Hebrew Scrip
tures. As a confirmation of this, I will add a few cases where
the phrase d^iy *i? , Cbiyb etc. are employed, which cor
respond to tig rof uioiva, tig uioivu, tig rovg uioivag,
etc., in the Septuagint and in thc New Testament.
Ex. 14: 13, ye shall see them [the Egyptians], no
more forever.
Deut. }2: 28, that it may be well with thee, and thy
children after thee forever.
1 Sam. 20: 15, thou shalt not cut off thy kindness
from my house yb/-et>(;r.
2 Sam. 3: 28, we are guiltless . . . .forever,
Ps. 89: 4, thy seed will I establish /orcucr.
Pm. 131; 3, let Israel hope in the l^ord J'orever.
Ps. 13G exhibits 26 instances, where tho same sense
is certain in them all.
Under the form tibvjb (tig aiiova) alone, in the sense
oi forever, Taylor in his Hebrew Concordance, has ar
ranged some 175 instances. If we add to these, all the
various forms of a'riy , to which the meaning, forever,

60 § 14. Meaning of Xl\')9.
alteays, time unlimited, or toithout end, is clearly to be at
tributed, several hundreds more must be added to the
175 cases. It is impossible to doubt, in regard to the
usual meaning of the word fibiy in the Hebrew Scrip
tures. But then,
(2) As Gesenius remarks, BbiJ? is sometimes applied
(as in common life) to things which endure for a long
time, for an indefinite period. So it is applied to the
Jewish priesthood ; to the Mosaic ordinances ; to the pos
session of the land of Canaan ; to the hills and moun
tains ; to the earth ; to the time of service to be rendered
by a slave ; and to some other things of a like nature.
But all the instances of such a nature, taken collectively,
amount to a very small proportion of the whole, and can
in no way be looked upon as any thing more than a kind
of exception to predominant, plain, certsin usage.
In our own language, (where eternal and everlasting
surely designate a period toithout end) we often employ
the same words to designate that tohich seems to have no
end, or the end of which is not defined or seen. Thus we
say, everlasting . talker, jierpetital scourge, eternal vexa
tion, endless trouble, everlasting disquiet, etc. ; all em
ployed, in common parlance, for that which endures a
great while, or for an indefinite period, or which is with
out intermission. Yet who supposes, . that on this ac
count the words everlasting, eternal, perpetual, endless,
are not, with the strictest propriety, applied to time tohich
has no bounds, or in other words; to. eternity ?
Thus much then for the Hebrew word Bbi:> , when it
relates to _/u/Mrc <J»je. It. is very clear, that when Ge
senius defines' it ^Kj/^iee^ [eternity], he rightly defines
it. This is its sense, in an overwhelming predominance

^ 14. Meaning of ti):^9. 51
of examples. All the meanings derived from this, are
only exceptions, and amount to mere examples of cata-
chrestic usage, i. e. usage which is uncommon, or aside
from the strict sense of the word. Such is the usage in
all languages, with regard to more or less of important
words. (3) In respect to &bl9 , as applied to designate time
past, it has the same shades of meaning with the Greek
uioiv, aioiviog, as explained in pp. .24 and 44 seq. This
usage is not very frequent, when compared with the de
signation oi time futtire. Still, there arc, in the whole, a
considcrablo number of instances ; enough clearly to ex
hibit the ttsus loquendi in this respect. Any one may
easily find them, by consulting his Concordance. A
number of these I will here subjoin, to illustrate the us
age in question.
Is. 63: 9, 11. Job 22: 15. Ps. 143: 3. Prov. 23: 10.
Is. 42: 14. Mic. 5: 2. Prov. 22: 28. Jer. 18: 15. Ezek.
.36: 2. 26: 20. Ps. 93: 2. 103: 17. 77: 5.
"5 15. General Summary in regard to fiblj* .
From what has been exhibited in regard to abi3> , it
is plain, that it corresponds throughout with the Greek
oiwi» and ft/tovto? of the New Testament, when employ
ed in their primary sense, viz. as having reference to
time, either future or past. Of this agreement, we shall
soon have occasion to take further notice.
But in regard to the secondary class of meanings
which ai't^K bears in the New Testament, viz. that of
tiiorld with the various adsignifications noticed above;
there is no case in the Old Testament Hebrew in which

.>2 ^ 15. Summary of the meanings of Q^Vy.
tl^Sy bears this sense, if we except Ecc. 3: 11 which is
too doubtful to build upon. Putting, therefore, this class
of meanings out of the account, (all of which are dedu
ced from the meaning affixed to 6b "iS after the Old Tes-
tament Scriptures were completed, i. e. by the later He
brews), the coincidence between uioiv and cbij> is very
striking ; so much so, that nothing can be more evident,
than that the one corresponds with the other in most ca
ses throughout, and that each reflects light upon thc other.
Ho who thoroughly understands the use of t^bis* , is bet
ter prepared to understand the meanings of uiiav' and
he who has a complete knowledge of the use of uioiv,
is well qualified to understand the use of Cbis -
One point only of difference worthy of remark, do I
find. This is, that it so happens in regard to the use of
uiiav in the New Testament, that it is applied in no case
to designate simply. a period of time which has definite
limitations ; I mean such limitations as from the nature
of the case must be regarded as definite, and as known
to be so. For example ; in the Old Testament Cbis is
applied to the Jewish ordinances, priesthood, and kingly
succession; to the hills, mountains, and world ; to the
possession of the land of Canaan, etc. But in the New
Testament, no instances of a use so catachrestic as this
occur. An indefinite, unlimited period, is the basis of all
the significations of uiiav and uioiviog there, wherever
they have a simple reference to time. At most, wc can
only except some few cases, where the reference is to
past, and not to future time.
The distinctive trait of usage in the New Testament
which has now been pointed out, deserves consideration,
and ought to have its proper weight, in determining the
signific'ation of the words in question by the ttsus loquendi
of the New Testament writers.

^ 16. Use of aioiv and uieivtog, ^

§ 16. Use of atiiiv and aidvtog in the Septuagint,
Ifl have counted rightly, ct/w«', in some of its forms,
is employed in the Septuagint version of the Old Testa
ment 308 times ; all as translations of cbis , in some one
of its forms. Of these, 184 instances correspond to fibisb
in the Hebrew; and 71, to tibiy iy its equivalent. In
almost the whole of these instances in which uio'iv is em
ployed, the signification oi time unlimited, a period toith-
out end, is, beyond all reasonable question, ab.solulcly
certain ; just as it is with respect to the Hebrew words,
to which «<ali' corresponds. In the great number of in
stances in which uioiv is employed in thc Septuagint,
some cases occur of its catachrestic use ; precisely in the
same manner as of the Hebrew wonl tViv , which has
already been noted above, p. 50. In short, thc most un
practised observer as to the phenomena of language, can
not help remarking that uio'jv is, throughout the Old Tes
tament, the word corresponding to cbiy , which the Sev
enty have almost uniformly appropriated to this purpose.
Nothing can be clearer, than that they considered it as
the equivalent of Tibiy. So much is this actually the case,
that I have been able to find only about 20 cases, in the
whole, where the word uiwv is employed by them, unless
it be as the translation of cbis . Most of these cases,
also, plainly relate to expressions in Hebrew which are
equivalent to tbiy , viz. such as ns:b , 1? , *1? ""ly , and
isb . The few other cases which exist, plainly result
from a reading in the text of the S(;ptuagint translators,
different from that in our present Hebrew Bibles.
In regard to uioiviog ,1 find 92 instances, in which
the Septuagint has employed it. In six of these, it cor-
6

54 § 16. Atuv and Aicivtog in the Septuagint.
responds to other words than fibij; in all the rest, to
some form of this word.
In respect to the meaning of uioiviog, it is perfectly
obvious that the great body of the cases in which it is em
ployed, will admit of no other meaning than that of eter
nal, everlasting. But there are a few cases, in which
the catachrestic use of it must be admitted. Thus the
mountains, the Levitlcal statutes, priesthood, rites, cov
enant, also landmarks, waste-places, etc. are called uioi-
vioi, precisely in the same manner as Dbiy is sometimes
applied in the Old Testament, and corresponding throiigh-
out with it. The word uio'tviog, therefore, is, in thc Sep
tuagint, less strictly applied toindcfinite time, an unlimited
period, than it is in the New Testament. Just the same
is thc case w ith uioiv, as we have already, seen.
I refrain from pursuing my inquiries through the
Apocryphal books ; from which a great copiousness of
examples might also be adduced, to confirm the views
which have already been given of the meaning of uioiv
and uioiviog. It is quite superfluous to pursue the inves
tigation any further. Wc have critical materials enough
before us to make up a decision, if such materials can
ever avail for this purpose.

<S 17. JBearing of the testimony on the subject of future
punishment.
We have now surveyed the use of the words uiiiiv and
aioiviog in the whole latitude of their Scriptural use ; and
we come, at the close, with all the views before us which
this investigation and discussion have afforded, to see if
we can form a satisfactory judgement as to the meaning

§ 17. Bearing of the testimony, etc. 55
of the words in question, when applied to designate the
period oi future punishment.
Let us first lay aside all those various meanings of
aioiv and uioiviog, which cannot have any direct bearing
on the great question before us. Of this class, plainly,
arc all those in which uioiv has the secondary meaning
oi world; some few peculiar ones only excepted, which I
shall hereafter notice.
Of the same class, too, are all those meanings of o<'a!j'
and uioiviog which have relation to time past.
It is plain, moreover, that inasmuch as future punish
ment must belong to future time, so uiotv, when connect
ed with the designation of such punishment, must, (if the
laws of universal analogy in philology and exegesis are to
be observed), have a like meaning with that which it has,
when applied to other things belonging to a future world,
and which are yet to take place.
In all the cases where glory and praise are ascribed
to God/orft;er, oi forever and ever, it will not be credited
that the sacred writers mean to declare, that this will take
place for only a definite period of time, or for certain
ages only. It will not be doubted, that when God is call
ed eternal, uioiviog ; or when the things of the heavenly
world arc said to be so ; that eternity in the proper sense
of the word is meant.
I trust it will not be questioned, in regard to thc 9
cases where uioiv is applied to the happiness of the right-
coiis in another world, and the 51 cases where uioiviog
is applied to the same, that a happiness toithout lim
its, without end, is intended to be designated. For all
these cases, which I shall not repeat here, I must refer
the reader to pp. 19. 40 above, where he will sec them
produced at full length.

50 ^ 17. Bearing of the testimony
Can it be reasonably doubted, then, that the 15 cases
in which uioiv is applied to the future punishment oi the
wicked, and the 7 cases in which uioiviog is applied to
the same subject, have a ineaning like that of the preced
ing cases? The time designated in both is yw/ure ; tho
world is future. The intention of the writers seems very
apparently to have been similar in both cases. The in
variable laws of interpretation, therefore, would seem to
demand a like exegesis.
Let us for a moment, examine this last position.
I take it to be a rule of construing all antithetic forms
of expression, that where you can perceive tho force of
one side of the antithesis, you do of course come to a
knowledge of the force of the other side. If life eternal
is promised on one side, and death eternal is threatened
on the other and opposite one, is it not to be supposed,
that thc word eternal which qualifies death, is a word of
equal force and import with the word eternal whitih qual
ifies life ? In no other case could a doubt be raised, with
regard to such a principle. I venture to say that the ex
ception here, (if such an one must be made), is without
any parallel in the just principles of interpretation.
If then the wonls uioiv and uioiviog are applied 60
times (which is the fiict) in the New Testament, to desig
nate the continuance of the future happiness of the right
eous; and some 12 times to designate the continuance of
the future misery of the wicked; by what principles of
interpreting language does it become possible for us, to
avoid the conclusion that uioiv anil uio'tviog have the
same sense in both cases ?
Will it be said, that we must appeal to arguments here
deduced from the light of nature, in order to determine
the probable meaning of uiciv and uioiviog, when con-

on the aulyect of future punishment. 57
nected with the future punishment of the wicked? But
how can we do this ? The light of nature at best, as we
have before seen, merely renders it probable in some de
gree that the soul may always exist. Does it — can it
determine, then, what is to be its condition ; and how
long this is to continue ? It is impossible. Or if we in
sist still on what the light of nature can do, then let us
go to those who enjoyed it, and see how they decided iu
relation to the question before us. Did not the Greeks
and Romans hold to the eternity of future punishments ?
Notoriously they did. And could we, with such light
merely as they had, come to an opposite conclusion t
But if the declaration of the Scriptures is to be our
guide, in regard to our crectl on this point ; and if we are
to ask simply what the Bible declares, and not what in
our view it ought to declare ; then must this great ques
tion, like every other one in revealed theology, be iilti-
mately settled by an appeal to the nature, power, and
laws of language. Such an appeal I have endeavoured
to ni.ike ; and the result is what I have expressed above.
It does most plainly and indubitably follow, that if the
Scriptures hare not asserted the E\uLt;ss punishment of
ihe wicked, neither have they asserted the endless /i«^-
piness of ihe righteous, nor the endless glory and exis-
tince of the Godhead. The one is equally certain with
the other. Both are laid in the same balance. They
must be tried by the same tests. And if we give up the
one, we must, in order to be consistent, give up the oth
er also. But if the eternity of God's glory, attributes, and ex
istence, if the eternity of future happiness, are to be given
up as revealed doctrines ; on what basis are these doctrines
6*

58 § 17. Bearing of the testimony
t o be placed ? How are we entitled any longer to re
ceive them as true, and to hold fast to them, as certain ?
Tell me not of the light of nature here. I must be
lieve, (I trust there are very many others who will feel
constrained with me to believe), that the gospeL has
brought life and immortality to light, and that . no mere
" son of nature" " hath seen God at any time ;" " but
that the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath revealed him." Believing this — fully believing
this — I must feel, that the criticism which would decide
again.st the endless punishment of thc wicked, must al.so,
to be consistent, blast my hopes of eternal life, and. cover
the glories of the Godhead with everlasting darkness.
I feel constrained, moreover, to ask here. If atwi/ and
uioiviog do not signify eternity and eternal, in the Greek
language of the Septuagint and New Testament, then
what terms has this language to express such un idea ?
Will any one venture to say, that thc sacred writers had
no such idea as e<er«jV J/ and e/ernrt/ .' If he will, I do
not think him worthy of refutation. But if it be admit
ted that the idea in question was familiar to them, then
by what terms could they express it in the Greek lan
guage, so appropriate. as those which have now been ex
amined ?
I admit that a Greek could convey the idea of eterni
ty and eternal, in a variety of ways, by different modes
of expression ; just as we can in English, eras a Hebrew
could in his language. It is true, moreover, that the
New Testament writers, and the Septuagint, have con
veyed the ideas in question, occasionally, by the use of
other words, and by peculiar phrases. But after all, the
essence of the difficulty remains. The question is sub
stantially unanswered by these considerations. It can-

on the subject of future punishment. 59
not be shewn, that any words are 50 appropriate to the
object named, as the words uitav and aioivtog.
Still clearer if possible is it, that the proper word in
Hebrew for eternity, is cbiy ; to wliich, in so many hun
dred instances, uioiv and uiiavtog clearly correspond.
Must not every philologist and every serious inquirer
feel, then, that conjecture is out of question, in regard to
determining such a case as that before us ? The mean
ing of such words is not to be guessed at ; but to be made
out by analogy, and by a regular and impartial application
of the laws of language.
I admit the awful nature of the conclusion, that the
punishment of a future world is to have no end. I do
most fully admit, that it is indeed " a fearful thing to fall
into the hands of the Hving God." But what if I should
doubt or deny it ? Can this have any influence on that
eternal Judge, who will pronounce my final sentence ?
None. Can my denial of what he has said, or my refusal
to explain it in analogy with all his other declarations re
lative to things of the future world, or my efforts to frit
ter away the meaning of his declarations^-can all this
avail me, when I stand an unembodied, naked, helpless
spirit before his searching eye, and the tribunal of his
almighty power ? O the dreadful thought ! What if I
deceive myself, arid cry out, "peace ! peace .'" while my
God saith, " There is no peace to the wicked ?" Will
this repeal his law, alter its meaning, or frustrate its pen
alty? ItTs indeed a fcarfiil hazard, for men to cast
themselves for safety on such a desperate wreck as this !
If there be any relief for the dark prospects of the
wicked as to the future, it must come only from this
source, viz. that the Bible has disclosed some method of
future relief, some encouragement that future reforma-

60 § 17. Bearing of the testitnony, ete.
tion and penitence will restore the lost favour of God.
But aluM I whore lit this to be found ? On this nubject of
unspeakable and everlasting inomont, of tromonduus in*
terest, there is not one assertions-one word even — in all
the book of God, which, when construed by the usual
laws of language, can afford a gleam of hope. Where is
another state of probation described? What are the
means of grace to be enjoyed in Hell? Is il the preach
ing of the gospel ? Is it thc influence of the Spirit of
God ? Who preaches, in the bottomless pit ; or how
shall the Spirit of God dwell with blasphemers and repro
bates ?
Will misery of itself make men penitent ? And this,
iu a world from which the means of grace arfe excluded ?
All, all makes against such a supposition. There is not
a sentence in thc Scriptures which asserts it, or even
gives any countenance to it. All the warnings and ex
hortations which the Scriptures contain,, go upon the
ground oi men's iirescnt state of trial being thcir^wa/ and
decisive one. It is impossible to believe rationally, that
men of such benevolence as were the writers, of the holy
Scriptures, should not have told us something about a fu
ture probation and acceptance, if these were known to
them. If they have not told us of these, then, it is be
cause they did not believe in them, they did not know
any thing of them. And if they did not, how can we
venture to believe that we have any knowledge of them ?
On this point, I acknowledge my convictions are
strong. I have long searched, with anxious solicitude,.
for a text in the Bible which would even seem to favour
the idea of a future probation. I cannot find it. If oth
ers have been more successful in their researchesi let
them shew us the proof of it. When this shall be done.

^ 18. Results. 61
in accordance with the simple laws of interpretation, and
without tho application of a priori theology to the Diblo,
then I promise to ronounco my feelings and views in ro-
gard to the whole subject before me.
Until then, I must hold to the endless punishment of
the wicked, or give up the endless happiness of the right
eous. And if the hope of this must be abandoned, then
may we well ask, what the gospel has revealed that is
worth our knowing ; or of what value is the existence
which thc Creator has given us ?
T take it for granted, that all my readers will under
stand, that the evidence in respect to future punishment,
derived from the use of uioiv and uioivtog, is only a part
— a moderate part — of what the Scriptures contain rela
tive to this subject. My design, in the present inquiry,
is not to present at large the subject of future punish
ment. To produce all the arguments, and examine all
the objections, would require a book instead of a short
essay ; and years of study, instead of a few days.
§ 18. Results.
Thus have I endeavoured to present, as briefly as my
jjlan would permit, the result of a philological and e.xe-
gelical examination of the words uioiv and uioiviog, as
employed by the writers of the New Testament. I may
have performed a work superfluous for some of my rea
ders; who perhaps have elsewhere found what has better
satisfied their minds, than that which has now been laid
before them. But if there be any critical and hcrme-
nculical essay of this nature, which goes the full length
of the subject, it is unknown to me ; and I have merely

62 [^ 19. Aitav and Aidviog in the Lexicons,
followed my own plan in the above researches, and made
all my investigations, without the aid of any lexicons or
commentators. My reason for this has not been, an aim
to be original: much less, a disregard to the opinions of
others. It has been simply this, viz. a desire not to em
barrass my mind with any previous opinions or views. I
wished to form my conclusion merely from the word of
God, investigated with diligence and care, and in a man
ner as unembarrassed as it was possible for me to adopt,
in my circumstances.
The result seems to me to be plain, and philologically
and exegetically certain. It is this ; either the declara
tions of the Scriptures do not establish the facts, that
God and his glory and praise and happiness are endless ;
nor that the happiness of the righteous in a future world,
is endless ; or else they establish the fact, that the pun
ishment of the wicked is endless. The whole stand or
fall together. There can, from thc very nature of anti
thesis, be no room for rational doubt here, in what man
ner we, should interpret the declarations of the sacred
writers. We must either admit the ENDLESS mis
ery OF HELL, OR GIVE UP TUE ENDLESS HAPPINESS OK
HEAVEN.
<^ 19. Manner in tohich ihe words uiiav and uioiviog have
been treated by some critics and lexicographers.
As a kind of supplement to the above investigation,
and for the sake of communicating a fuller view of the
words in question than most of my readers may readily
find, I must beg the liberty of adding, by way of Appen
dix, a few strictures on the manner in which Lexicogra
phers and others have treated uiiav and uioinog. It is
high time that these words were accurately understood,

§ 19. Aitav and Aitaviot in the Lexicons. 63
and handled in a manner truly philological. If what I
have said, or may say, will contribute toward the accom
plishment of so important an object ; or at least excite
others to do what needs to be done ; my labour will not
be in vain. Such of my readers as pursue the critical
study of the Scriptures, will probably not be uninterested
in the remarks which follow. Others may omit the read
ing of them, should they find them to be destitute of spe
cial interest to their own minds.
In regard to thc Lexicons, I shall be brief. I per
ceive, on an examination of Schleusner, that my arrange
ment differs in some respects from his. I will not delay
here for the purpose of controverting his arrangement,
but only to make a few remarks on some parts of it. 1
must leave the rest to the judgement of every reader, who
will take the pains to examine tlus author.
The first meaning which he gives to uioiv, is, a de
finite and long ti?ne, i. e. a long continued, but still a de
finite period of time. Under this head he arranges Matt.
21: 19, which is the case of the fig-tree that was cursed.
Now the Saviour is represented by the evangelists as saying,
' Let there be no more fruit from thee tig rov uioiva, for
ever ;' which surely does not imply, that the time would
come to an end in which this tree would be barren, or af
ter which it would again bear fruit. In other words, de
finite time is clearly not marked here.
Again, he puts John 8: 35 under the same head ; ' the
servant does not abide in the house forever,' ou . . . . tig
xov uioivu, but thc Son abideth forever, tig roV aioiva.
Can this mean, in either case, a definite period of time ?
His second head is, life of man, age of man, or time
during which he lives.
As an example of this, he appeals to Matt. 12: 32 ;

64 ^ 19. Aimv and Aituviog in the Lexicons,
' They shall not obtain forgiveness, neither in this world,
iv rovrto rcu aioivi'' which he renders, neither in this life,
i. e. in this age of man. But on this ground, what does
aioiv mean in the antithesis, viz., o'lirt iv no pilkovri
[uioivi], nor in the life io come 1 If a definite period is
simply meant in the first part of this antithesis, what is
the definite period of the life to come ? In other words.
When will it cease ? This incongruity is avoided, when
the sense of JcorW is given to uiiav in each case. Both
expressions together then make out an ihtensive affirma
tion, equivalent to never, never.
Schleusner also appeals to Matt. 28: 20, in confirma
tion of the sense which he here gives to uiiav. ' Lo I am
with you always even to the end of the world,' i'oig rijg
avvrt).tiug rou uioivog' (in which however, he has omit
ted to insert always, nuaug rug i^[.if'^ug). This hc con
strues as meaning simply, ' I am with you to the end of
your lives ;' thus making the whole promise attach only
to the apostles. I cannot persuade myself that this was
the ineaning of Christ, or the only tenor of this promise.
He then arranges the meaning of uioiv umler, (3)
Men of any age. (4) External things of the present life,
riches, pleasures, tJtc. (5) Method of living, genius of
the age, manners of ihe age. (G) Vicious men of any
age. After all these, comes the meaning on which the
whole of them turned, viz. (7) World, universe. He
comes only in No. 9, to the meaning of eternity, unlimit
ed period. How incongruous this arrangement is with the mean
ing of the word uitav as used in the New Testament or
the Old, must be apparent from the preceding exhibitions
of this word which have been made. How loose and in
definite some of the meanings here given are, and how

§ 19. Aidv and Aitaviot in the Lexicons. 65
far deflected from the original significations of aitav and
aicivtog, even in the Old Testament ; must be very ap-
parent even to an unpractised observer. Indeed, it is
plain that the Hebrew usage of t)r\P , as distinguished
into the ancient and modern, did not once occur to
Schleusner, in its proper form ; and of course, he has
failed to do justice to the corresponding aitav.
On the whole, I must consider thc article aiiav in his
Lexicon, as one of thc unfortunate specimens of im
perfect lexicography, which now and then occur in this
venerable, and (in general) truly valuable writer.
The Lexicon of Wahl, in regard to this word as well
as very rnany others, affords a far better specimen of skill,
neatness, and accuracy of arrangement. Wahl has ar
ranged thus; (1) Time, unlimited durcdion, aevum. (2)
Thc universe, mundus. (3) An age, jicriml of ihe toorld ;
under which he arranges, {a) Thc present age, i. c. the
Jewish age or period antecedent to the Messiah. Under
this head he arranges tlie following senses, viz. (1) Sim
ply, age. (2) Age, with the accessory idea of vitiosity,
imbecility, etc. (6) The future age, i.e. the reign of the
Messiah, a period of happiness, liberty, piety, etc.
This is indeed a great amendment of Scblcusncr's
mistaken, unphilological, and (I had almost said) unac
countable arrangement. But this exhibits some impor
tant mistakes, which, (unless I am greatly in error), arc
adapted to mislead the student of the original Scriptures,
who places too much confidence in lexicographal guides.
Under No. 2, he arranges thc signification, universe,
mundus. 1 had myself, before I gave cbiy and uioiv an
extended and minute investigation, been accustomed to
suppose, that atoui/fS in 1 Tim. 1: 17. Heb. 1: 2. 11: 3,
miist mean the universe; particularly, because the pliircd
7

66 § 19. Aitav and Aioiviog in the Lexicons,
number is here employed. It was doubtless on the like
account, that Wahl also gave to aioivtg the same signifi
cation. But a minute inquiry into the grounds of such a
rendering, has convinced me of my own mistake; and of
course, that Wahl is also in an error.
In recurring^ back to the ancient Hebrew usage of
tbiy , I observo that there is no apparent difference be
tween the use of the plural number, and the singular,
in order to designate time. So 1 Kings 8: 13, a settled
place .... to abide in for ever, tJ'^Xjb'iy . See also, for
the like examples, 2 Chron. 6: 2. Ps.'gI: 5 (4). Ps. 77:
(> (5), where f'abiy has the sense of ancient times. Ps.
145: 13, (everlasting). Is. 26: 4. 45: 17. Dan. 9: 24.
Is. 51: 9, (ancient). Ecc. 1: 10. (id.) Ps. 77: 8 (for ev
er). Is. 45: 17, iy '''?b'iS> , ages of perpetuity, for ever
and ever.
These instances make it clear, that the plural is used
in the same sense as the singular, or at least without any
assignable difference of meaning. If there be any differ
ence at all, it must consist merely in this, viz. that the
plural number is a somewhat more intensive form of ex
pression than the singular. But although this is often
the case in Hebrew, yet in thc present casCj the nature
of the several instances where the singular and plural are
used being compared and well considered, it will be
plainly seen, that there is no ground for making any as
signable difference of meaning between the different
numbers. In just the same way thc Seventy have employed
uioiv. Sometimes they have rendered thc plural of Db'iy .
by the singular uioiv, e. g. Dan. 5: 10, let the king reign
•j-inbyb (Chaldee), tig rov aito.vu. So Is. 47: 17, they
shall not be ashamed ^y "'^.ItiJ' l? , Septuagint i'oig xov

§ 19. Aitav and Aiiaviog in the Lexicons. 67
aiwvog txi. In the same verse, tJ^a^^y is translated by
uiiovtov. In like manner Is. 51: 9, D"'abi2> nin'l is ren
dered ytvf IX uioivog. So Ps. 90: 8, =l3«by, our secret
[sins], plural number ; but the Seventy, reading it II'?.'??,,
have rendered it 6 uioiv lipoiv, Ps. 89: 8. By alike mis
take in reading, they have again rendered cb'^lS, Uttle
children, in Job 19: 18, by tig xov uioiva, because they
read it fttbiy.
On the other hand, the Seventy have used the plural
of uio'iv, in order to translate the singular of some words
which are equivalent to tbiy ; e. g. CnjS in Ps. 55: 20, is
rendered njgo xi'iv uioivoiv by the Septuagint, Ps. 54: 19.
So also tbe plural form of Cb'iy is often used in the
Hebrew, as equivalent to the singular, i. e. as having tiie
same meaning; e.g. IK. 8: 13. 2 Chron. G: 2. P.s. 61:
5. 77: 6. Dan. 2: 4 (Chaldee). 3: 9. G: 22, and so fre
quently. I have only to add, that a comparison of usage in the
New Testament, will lead to the same result with regard
to uioiv. So far then as it respects the designation of time, the
singular and plural of uiiav answer the same purpose.
But is this the ca.se, in regaril to the use of uii'iv in the
secondary and later sense of cbiy, viz. that of world.
etc. ?
If we go back to Hebrew usage, we shall find no ex
ample in it to justify thc use of the plural number in the
sense of woj'Ws ; i.e. in such a sense as astronomy ha*
taught us of the present day to employ this plural word.
In the old Hebrew, y-^N means cn;-//i; but the plural
nijt^N , means lands only in thc sense of countries, not
in.the sense of icorWs. The other appellation for world
is ban , which is employed only in poetry. This has no
plural.

68 ^19. Aioiv and Aioiviog in the Lexicons.
When the Hebrew wantecl to designate the heavenly
bodies, he said, host of heaven, D^aujn NSS ; or B^MiS,
stars ; or sun, moon, and stars ; or fi^auj heavens, sim
ply. There is no intimation in tho Scriptures, as I can
find, that there is more than one world.
Hence I must take uioivtgin 1 Tim. 1: 17. Heb. 1:
2. 11: 3, to mean tvorld simply, i. e. our world, this earth.
And if it be asked. Whether the Scriptures do not as
cribe any thing more than the creation of our world to
the Son of God? the answer is given in Heb. 1: 10,
* Thou, Lord, didst lay thc foundations of the earth, and
the heavens arc the work of thy hands.' The same sen
timent also may bo found in Col. 1; 16. Eph. 3: 9: John
1: 3, and in other passages.
That the plural and singular of nouns arc often em
ployed in tbe same manner, and to designate one and the
same thing, no tyro in sacred philology can fail to know.
For example, in Hebrew; "jSiua rfwcWt/t 5^, •ti"'33":Ja dtoell-
ing; bJJ God, fi\"!bN God; tj sea, t'';;; sea; nttSrt
wisdom, r['^'}2'Dt^ toisdom; 'yaii'^ the upright, B^nvu'^ the up
right; yujn the wicked, fi^yilJI the wicked; Dinn the
abtj^s, 'niwnn the abyss. So in Hebrew Greek ; au§-
§urQv the sabbath, aup^uru the same ; ovguvog the
heavens, ovquvoi the same, etc.
There is nothing at all peculiar, then, in using uiwvtg
in the same sense as uioiv, or in employing either of them
indifferently, to designate the idea of world in the singu
lar number. I should not have said thus much on the error in the
Lexicons with regard to tho plural of this word, had I not
seen mutih reasoning about thc meaning of ages of ages
(aioivtg uioivoiv), that is built on a supposed distinction
of meaning between thc singular ond plural number,

^ 19. Alfiv and Aitaviog in the Lexicons. 69
Many writers would seem to ask, ' What can ages of ages
mean, unless ttge (aioiv) is a definite, limited period ? Of
course, must not ages of ages, after all, bo only a series
of limited periods, and finally have a termination V
Thc answer to this is notdiflicult. In regard to the
plural number aioivtg, it imports of itself no more than
the singular. In regard to the form of expression ages of
ages, or age of ages, or age of age, (for all these are in
differently cYnployed), it is a mere intensive form of ex
pression, and nothing more nor less. What arc servant
of servants, lord of lords, holy of holies, heaven of heavens,
etc., but intensive forms of expression? And if any on"
shoiihl ask, Wlu'tlier any thing can be added to the idea
oi eternity, of unlimited duration ? in order to shew that
there is an incongruity in employing aioiv, in the ex-
¦ pressions now before us, with an unlimited sense ; I
would reply by asking. Whether forever in English docs
not mean eternity, unlimiied duration ? If so, then how
can wc add to it ? Yet wc do say, forever and ever ;
that i«, wc do use an intensive expression, in order to ili>
signato with emphasis the idea oi a never-ending yicriod of
time. Could not the Hebrew, then, say n>p Cbiyb ; and
the Greek, it's xovg uiiovug roiv uioivoiv, in thc very same
sense, and for the very same purpose, as we say forever
and ever ?
He could ; hc did : and all criticisms on these phra
ses, which would deduce any thing more from them than
iniensiveness of expression, is built on an imaginary basis,
not on one which has its support in the usus loquendi of
either the Greek, Hebrew, or English language.
There is another mistake, (as it seems to mc), in
Wahl's article on aioiv. Ho bus, throughout, inailc pre
sent world etc., and toorld to tome etc., mean, tho ago
7»

70 § 19. Aioiv and Aioivtog in the Lexicons,
preceding the Messiah, and the age after his advent. In
doing this, he has appealed to thc Jewish usage of this
world, and the world lo come, fiTrt Dbiy and M2n Obis'-
But this appeal is very far from sustaining him. The
Rabbinical Jews divided this toorld into ihe lower world,
i. e. the proper earth with all that it contains ; the middle
world, i. e. the region of the air, including tho heavenly
bodies ; and the supreme oi tipper toorld, i. e. thc world of
angels, etc.
In regard to toorld to come or future world, some held
it to be thc new world, which would arise after the de
struction of the present ; others, (and this I take to be
the general usage), held it to bo the world of souls, i. e.
thc future world in the same sense in which we now uso
this phrase in English ; some only, (Buxtorf merely says
quidam), regarded it as ineaning the days or age of tlie
Messiah. Could any one justly expect such a train of
deduction from this, as appears in tlie Lexicon of Wiihl ?
Of all the numerous cases, which he arranges under
the head of age before and after tlie Messiah, not more
than three will stand the test of investigation ; viz. 1 Cor.
10: 11. Eph. 2: 7. Heb. 6: 5. Of these, Eph. 2: 7 is by
no means necessarily arranged under the head in ques
tion, as it may easily be understood simply oi ages to come,
and more probably should be so understood.
As to the other cases, where the present uioiv and the
uiiiiv to come, are expressed or implied, I take nothing to
be more certain, than that the arrangement of Wahl is
fundamentally erroneous. Il is not only without any ba
sis in predominant Jewish usage ; but it would force on
the text of the New Testament a sense strange enough
in soriie cases, and unnecessary in all.
When our Saviour, in the parable of the sower, says.

^ 19. Atav and Aitaviog in the Lexicons, 71
'Tho cares o/* //lis worW;' is there ony special relation
here to the age which preceded the Messiah f Was there
then to be no toorld in thc sense here plainly meant, af
ter the Messiah had como ? Rather, does not the whole
[iarablc represent all the occurrencics to which it alludes,
as taking place under the gospel-dispensation ? Yet this
worW, if wc may crtidit Wahl, was now no more, inas
much as the toorld to come had already begun.
Let any one now examine Mark 4: 19. Luke 20: 34.
Rom. 12:2. I Cor. 1: 20. 2: G. 2: 8. 2 Cor. 4:4. Gal.
1: 4. 2 Tim. 4: 10. Tit. 2: 12. Malt. 13:40, 49. 28:20,
and see what these texts can possibly have to do exclu
sively with the age that preceded the Messiah. And yet,
if Wahl be in the right, they all fall under this class,
having a relation more or less distinct to such an age.
IIow ca.sy to be misled, when wcfall upon theory that
looks attractive ! Wahl fell upon the above theory, in
Bertholdt's Cliristologia Judneorum etc. p. 38 seq., and
thought it Would solve many apparent diflicultics about
uioiv in the New Testrment. But the theory itself, like
many other things in that undigested and hasty book,
needs milcli more confirmation than has been given to it,
before it can be so extensively applied as Wahl has ap-
plieil il.
The remarks which I have just made, on the mean
ing assigned by Wahl to present and future uioiv, will
apply, in all respects, to the articio on this same word in
the Lexicon of Bretschncider ; who, under the same
guide (Berlholdt), has fallen into the same errors.
Had ho and Wahl simply read, with attention, the
article cbiy in Buxtorfs immortal IlebreWi Rabbinic,
and Chaldaic Lexicon, they might have avoided such a
mistake. This Coryphaeus of all Rabbinical investig.i-

7a § 19.. Does tiicivioe mean spiritual?
tors, has given no occasion that any attentive and intel
ligent reader should bo misled.
But it is time to retreat from the examination of Lex
icons. 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 articio
like the present, and when the whole of the evidence is
not laid bcforc him.

I must beg leave, in closing, lo make a few remarks
on a singular criticism lipon the word uioiviog, which I
have recently met with in one of thc Journals of thc day.
The writer proposes to render uioiviog, spiritutd.
His reason is, that Aeons (Aiiavtg) were counted as in
corporeal, i. e. spiritual, beings : and therefore uioiviog,
may mean Aconic, i. e. spiritual. In accordance with
this, he construes the various passages which exhibit
uioiviog, and which have a relation to future punishment.
This criticism has, at least, the merit of novelty. At
all events it is novel lo me, inasmuch as I never met
with it in any writer before; nor did il once ever occur
to my mind, as a probable or possible meaning of ft/wi/to?.
But then, the author of it might very justly say ; ' This is
no good argument against the probability of the criticism ;
much less against the possibility oi it; and a better
ground than this may very properly be demanded, for re
jecting it.'
I cannot deny tho reasonableness of this.; and I there
fore, out of respect to one who appears to be seriously, in
quiring after Scriptural truth, would suggest the follow
ing grounds, why I must reject the exegesis which he
has proffered.
I. The question remains to be settled, whether the

^ 19. Does ttioivios mean spiritual f 73
Gnostic system, (the one from which the imagination of
Aeons sprung), had an existence, or at any rate, was
known in the western parts of Asia, bcforc thc propaga
tion of the gospel, or even at that period. Whoever has
read Tittmann, de Vesiigiis Gnosticorum in Nov. Test.
frustra quacsitis, will have vehement doubts, as I must
think, in regard to the point in question ; more vehement
still, whether the New Testanfient exhibits any certain
marks, that the writers of it had an acquaintance with the
Aeonic system.
The Aeons were, (if we may credit the statement of
the Gnostics who believed in their existence), beings of
both good and bad characters, i. c. there were some of
each, belonging to the different classes. They were re
garded as secondary or derived divinities, ^lol iStvripoi.
There were spiritual beings above them, and below them.
Why then should Aeonic, be chosen lo designate spiritual,
any more than an adjective borrowed from the name of
the God above them, or the sub-divinities below them ?
But how dubious, too, must such an adjective be !
The majority of the Aeons were apostate ones. Aeonic,
then, would be about the same as diabolic, in regard to
its meaning. Suppose now, I should assert, that diabolic
means spiritual, because the devil is a spiritual being ;
would this be a well-chosen epithet to supply tbe place
oi spiritual ? Can it be probable, then, that Aeonic pun
ishment and Aconic life, arc used by the New Testament
writers to denote spiritual punishment and spiritual hap
piness ? If it could be shewn, (which it cannot be), that
the New Testament writers had an acquaintance with
the system of the Gnostics ; it must still appear very im
probable that they would coin such an unfortunate ad
jective as Aeonic. But until we are better ascertained

74 ^ 19. Does attuviog mean spiritual f
whether they knew any thing about Aeons, we can nev
er be entitled to give such an exegesis to their writings.
S. But there is another conclusive argument against
the interpretation in question. This is, that the exegesis
proposed would make spiritual misery or happiness to
begin only after the general judgement. Matt. 25: 31
—46 represents, (as the critic in question concedes), the
judgement of theyM^wre toorld. Is it then true, that spir
itual haT^piness commences with the righteous only after
that period; or that spiritual mi.sery then first begins
with the wicked ? Neither the one nor the other ; and
consequently I cannot admit the exegesis, which, without
any support at all from philology, Avould force mc to such
a conclusion. 3. But if the meaning spiritual, is to be, given to
uioiviog, as a general one in tlie New Testament, then
cases would arise of the most revolting nature, in regard
to the application of it. For example ; 1 Tim. 6: 16, [to
God] be KQurog uioiviov. Shall we render, spiritual
potcer ?
Heb. 9: 14, who [Christ] by an eternal Spirit, 6ia
nvtvpuTog uioiviov, offered up himself, etc. Shall we
say, by a spiritual Spirit ?
Philemon, v. 15, for he (Oncsimus) was absent a lit
tle while, that thou niighto.st have hiin uitnviov — spirit-
valty ?
Rom. 16: 25, tho revelation of the mystery, which
was kept in silence ypovoig aiiavloig' — in the spiritual
ages ?
2 Tim. 1: 9, the grace given us ... . ngo yQoviav
uioivioiv — before the spiritual ages ?
But I have pursued this illustration far enough. I
know not how to think that the writer on whom I am an-

§ 19. Does ttitivioe mean spiritual? 75
iinadverting, can seriously persuade himself that he has
made out a philological argument in favour of his posi
tion. If not, then why should he venture to urge such a
position on his readers ? when in his own conscience he
must know, that grounds of reasoning a priori have in
clined him lo embrace the doctrine which rejects the
eternity of future punishment ; and not the language of
the Bible. Let him shew that a day of grace, a preach
ed gospel, an offered Mediator, a sanctifying Spirit, and
pardoning mercy, are proclaimed in the Scriptures as
proffered to sinners in another world, who have rejected
them all in this ; and then we may lend him a listening
ear. Until then, we must believe that "the unjust will
be unjust still ; and thc filthy, filthy still."

hmt33

§ 1. Usual meaning of the word.
The word b^NttS has, not unfrequently, been derived
by lexicographers and critics, from the root bN'Ji , to ask,
crave, demand, require, seek for, etc. NoVV inasmuch as
the grave may be figuratively said to be rapacious or
craving, it has been supposed that the name in question
was therefore given to the grave or under-icorld; and that
biNlU means, in Hebrew, what Orciis rapax does in La
tin, or the same as insatiable sepulchre does in English.
This etymology, however, is too uncertain, to bo en
titled to much confidence. Nor is tho origin of the word
in question, in any good degree illustrated by any of thc
languages "kindred with the Hebrew. Of these, the Sy
riac and Ethiopic only exhibit the word ; but not in such
a manner as to cast any important light on its etymology.
We are left, therefore, merely to the mariner in which the
Hebrews employed the word, in order 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 se
rious inquirer, it seems necessary to bring the whole of
them into view.

§ 1. Meaning ofsSan'O. ''^
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 thc word bi tt'ij ,
from the connexion in which it stands.
The arrangement with regard to the respective mean
ings of the word in question, which I have thought to be
the most plain and lucid, is as follows ; viz.
I. The more ouvious or literal sense of siie<>l.
This is, the under-world, the region of the dead, the
grave, the sepulchre, the region of ghosts or departed spir
its. This meaning is general, i. e. the signification of thc
word blNUJ is generic. In other words, it sometimes sig
nifies the region of ihe dead, to which the righteous and
the wicked both go ; as docs ^'tfijs, ihe invisible world,
in classic Greek authors. But as every generic word is
capable also of a specific meaning, whan circumstances
require it; so, we shall see in the BoqucI, Shrol may bo
rogitnled Homelimi.'s as the place to which good men go
after their death, and sometimes as tho 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 cir
cumstances connected with it.
I proceed to detail tbe examples.
Gen. 37: 35, and [Jacob] said, I will go down into
thc grave, nbb<"lj , unto my son, mourning ; i. e. Jacob
declares that he shall be brought down to the grave by
mourning, and thus be united will 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 toorld of wo, to hell in the common sense of
8

78 § 1. Meaning o/ii«'aJ.
this word as it is now used by us ; nor that he himself ex
pected to go thither. Indeed, it is impossible to mistake
the obvious meaning of Sheol here, which is simply grave
or region of the dead.
Gen. 42: 38, [Jacob says], ye shall bring down my
gray haira with sorrow to Shedl, rtbiNUJ ; i. e. simply to
the grave, as before.
Gen. 44: 29, [Jacob says], ye shall bring down my
gray hairs with sorrow to the grave, nbfctU) ; the same as
above. Gen. 44: 31, [Judah says to Joseph, when pleading
for tho liberation of his brother Benjamin], Wo shall
brin^ down tlm ^riiy hiiiri* of thy Nurvniit, our father, with
sorrow to tho gruvo, Mb^NUi ; in tho Haino nonso aa above.
Num. 16: 30, [Moses says of Korah and his compa
ny]. If . . . . the earth open her mouth, and swallow them
up .... and they go down alive into Sheol, nbi^UJ ; i. e.
if they go down alive into the under-world, into thc 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 tind the nature of
their crime. But thc 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.
Num. 16: 33, they [i.e. Korah and his company]
went down alive into Stieol, nbtl'iJ; i. e. they went down
alive into the under-world, the region of the dead.
In the two last cited passages, our English version has.
jiit, as thc translation of Sheol. Thc sense oijiit is grave,
deep cavity or recess in ihe earth. The sense of hell,
given to thc word pit by occasional usage, is figurative or
secondary, and not the literal or primary meaning of it.

§4. 3Ieaningofi'\»^. 79
Deut. 32: 22, for a fire is kindled in mine anger, and
it shall burn to the lowest Sheol, IT«nrjn b^NttJ ; «- e. it
shall burn down into tho very under-world. So thc paral
lelism in the sequel leads us to interpret this ; which'runs
thus, " It shall set on fire the foundations of tho moun
tains." Tho imogo ia a tremendous one, viz. that of u
fire so intense and dreadful, as not only to consume all
that is on the surface of thc ground, but to burn deep
down into the undcr-ioorld.
1 Sam. 2: 6. The Lord killcth, and maketh alive ; he
bringeth down to Sheol, blNUJ , and bringcth up ; i. c. he
briiigoth ilown to the griivo or region of tho dead, and
brIiiKKlli or riiinKlh up IVoiii tho nuiiio; Thiii nueh in tlm
moaning of this passage, HooniM plain noin tho first part
of the verse, in which it is saiil, Tlio Lord killcth and
maketh alive ; thc equivalent of which is. The Lord bring
eth down to Sheol, and raiseth up from it. If by Sheol
here, hell, (in its appropriate sense), be meant ; then how
shall thc last clause be construed, viz. Thc Lord bringcih
up from Sheol? Is it then a Scripture doctrine, that the
Lord brings up from tho " eternal pit," those who arc
once confined there ? Or rather, do not the Scriptures
teach that " tho smoke of their torment ascendeth up
forever and ever ?"
2 Sam. 22: 6, the snares of iSAcd/, biNttJ , encompas
sed me ; tlie deadly nets came upon me. Our English
version renders thus ; " Tho sorrows of hell compassed
mc about ; the snares of death prevented mc," i. o. came
before mc ; for this is tho sense in which tho word pre
vent is employed, in our version, tind not in tho sense of
hinder, which would here misrepresent the Hebrew.
This version evidently sacrifices the parallelism of the
original Hebrew ; in which blNUJ "'ban , ihe snares of

80 ^ 1, Meaning ofb^NUJ.
Sheol, and nitt ^CJjSitt , the nets or snares o/" death, are
equivalents. It seems to sacrifice propriety also ; for in
what tolerable sense could David say, that the sorrotos of
hell (in our present sense of this word) encompased him?
But when, in describing a scene of the highest danger,
he is represented as saying, figuratively, ' The snares of
Sheol encompassed mc, i. e. such fatal snares as take hold
of their victim with deadly force, or subject him to death ;
such snares as bring their victim down to tho region of
thc dead ; then all is plain and proper. Then too, the
parallelism with the second part of the same verse is re
tained ; which is, " The snares of death came upon me."
On the whole, the case is so plain, that no rational doubt
can be entertained, by any one versed in the original lan
guages of the Bible, with regard to its real meaning.
Comp. Ps. 18: 5 (6).
1 K. 2: 6, [David, charging Solomon to punish Joab
for tbe murders hc had committed, says]. Thou shalt not
let bis hoary head go down to Sheol, bhUJ , in peace ; i. e.
thou shalt not let him die a natural death, but shalt pun
ish him, or put him to a violent death. So our transla
tors; who have here translated b6<"iJ by the word grave,
thus shewing how they understood the passage.
1 K. 2: 9, [David, charging Solomon to punish Shim-
ei, says]. Thou shalt bring down his hoary head to Shriil
with blood ; i. c. thou shalt cause him to suffer a violent
death, and not leave him to die a natural one. The pas-
sacre is of the same nature as that above ; and biN">a is
also rendered grave here, by our English translators.
The meaning of Sheol, in both cases, may be expressed
by grave, or region of thc dead, under-toorld.
Job 7: 9, As a cloud is consumed and vanisheth
away ; so he that goeth down to Sheol, shall come up no

^ I. Meaning of y^^'^, 81
more ; i. e. he that goeth down to the grave, to the region
of the dead, shall no more return to tho present world —
never rise up again to mix with thc living here. So our
translators understood the word Sheol here, inasmuch as
they have rendered it, grave.
Job 11: 8, It is as high as heaven, what canst thou
do ? Deeper than Sheol, blNllJa , what canst thou know ?
i. e. deeper than the under-world, tho abyss, the world
beneath ; for the antithesis of heaven, i. e. the natural
heaven, lofty, elevated beyond admeasurement, is plainly
intended here ; and this antithesis can be none other than
the abyss beneath, the under-world. Hades. Our ver
sion, which here renders hell, has obscured the exact
meaning of the passage.
Job 14: 13, O that thou would hide me in Sheol, bi N*ii3 ;
i. Oi in the grave, or (in other words) O that I might die !
This is one of those cases, about which there can be
no possiblo doubt. Job might, as thousands of others
liave done, wish for death, in a time when deep dis
tress and despondency had come upon him ; but surely
Job did not wish to bo placed in the world of wo, in Iu II.
Accordingly, our translators have here rendered Shi 61
by grave. Job 17: 13, If I wait, Sheol is my house ; i. e. let me
die speedily, for ifl should continue ever so long in life,
I must die at last, or go down to thc grave. So our
translators , " The grave is mine house."
Job 17: 16, They shall go down to the bars of Sheol,
when our rest together is in thc dust ; i. e. they shall go
down into the grave, together shall wc rest in the dust,
viz. in the grave or sepulchre. Here our translation has
pit ; which (if it mean grave as I suppose it docs) is cor
rect as to the idea conveyed by thc passage. The place

82 ^i. Meaning of ^heCii.
of future punishment cannot be meant here ; for surely
Job did not expect to go to such a place ; nor were cor
ruption and the worm, (which, as he here avers, were to
• rest together with him in the dust'), to go with him to
a place of future punishment.
Job 24: 19, drought and heat consume the snow wa
ters; BO doth ihe grave, h^H':i , those who have sinned.
So our Version ; arid rightly, for the consumption of the
body in the grave, is clearly the idea here, which the wri
ter designs to express.
Job 2G: G, Sheol, blN'O . is naked before him, and de
struction, 'ji'naN , hath no covering ; i. e. the under-world,
the world beneath, is open to his all-seeing eye, yea, the
place of destruction, viz. the grave, hath no covering.
The idea here is plainly of this nature ; for the object of
the writer is, to place in a striking point of view, the om
niscience of God. In order to do this, he represents him
as extending his view to the dark world beneath, as well
as to all parts of the earth that lie exposed to the light of
day. But our translators have here rendered Sheol by
the word hell ; for which I am not able to see . any good
reason. Ps. 6: 5 (6), For in death there is no remembrance
of thee; in Sheol, blNiiJa, who shall give thee thanks?
i.e. in the world of the dead, who shall present thank of
ferings for deliverance from danger ? How can offerings
of this nature be made; when fatal evils haVe overtaken
me ? The first member of the verse, ' In death there is
no remembrance of thee,' shews thc meaning of tho se
cond member ; and of course the meaning oi Sheol, which
may be rendered, sepulchre, under-toorld, or, as our Ver
sion has it,,.^ra»c.
It will be remembered, that the Psalmist is here

§ 1. Meaning of^hmi^ . 83
speaking of his own danger, and praying for deliverance.
Can it be well supposed that he means to express the
idea, that if cut off he should go to the world of woe, to
hell, where no praise could be given to God ?
Ps. 16: 10, Thou wilt not leave my soul [me] in
Sheol, blN'iJb ; neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to
see corruption ; i. e. thou wilt not leave me in thc grave,
nor suffer thy consecrated Messiah to consume, or to be
turned to corruption there. In other words, thou wilt
raise me from thc dead, before the grave exercises the
power of corruption over me. So Peter construes this
passage, in Acts 2: 24 — 32, applying it simply to the re
surrection of Christ from the grave. Indeed, no evidence
is needed besides the nature of the parallelism in the
verse, inasmuch as the latter member explains the for
mer. We might ask, also, can the soul of Jesus be sup
posed to have been in the world of woe, thc place of the
damned? I know, indeed, th.at there arc some, who de
duce from this passage the doctrine of a purgatory, into
which Christ descended,, in order to preach to " the spir
its who are in prison." But there is no foundation in this
text, for any such deduction.
Ps. 18: 5 (G), The cords of Sheol, blNUJ , encoinpas-
sed me ; the snares of death came upon me ; i. e. the
deadly cords encompassed me. See on 2 Sam. 22: 6 ,
above. The English Version here (hell) has plainly
failed to give the appropriate meaning; i.e. this is so,
provided thc word hell be understood as meaning thc
toorld of tooe.
Ps. 30: 3 (4), Thou hast brought up my soul from
iSAfo/, biN-iJ pa ; i.e. thou hast kept me alive, amidst
great dangers, so that I did not go down to thc pit. Here
our version has grave; for, indeed, any other version

84 ^ i. Meatiingof^'i^'a,
would have been an evident departure from the meaning
of the writer; who surely does not mean to say, in
this place, that he had been brought up from the world
of woe. He is celebrating the goodness of God in '* pre
serving him alive, and keeping him from going down to
the pit."
Ps. 31: 17 (18), let the wicked be ashamed, and let
them be silent in Sheol, blN'iJb ; i. e. let them be cut off,
or let thcm be punished witii the loss of life. If we con
strue Sheol here as meaning ihe world of future misery,
it would represent the Psalmist as praying that the wick
ed might be sent to that world ; an example of which can
hardly be found, I believe, in the Scriptures ; nor is it
easy for a benevolent mind well to conceive, how a good
man could pray directly for such an object as this. On
the other hand, if Sheol be rendered grave here, as it is
in our English Version, then we may conceive it altogeth
er possiblo, that a good man, a magistrate and a king,
whoso duty it was to cut olf certain transgressors, might
express a wish that the justice due to them in a civil re
spect, might be executed.
Ps. 49: 14 (15), Like sheep they [the wicked] are
laid in Sheol, blN'iJb .... their beauty shall consume in
Sheol, or be for the consuming of Sheol, biN'4' nibab.
Here, that they are laid in Sheol like sheep, is a circum
stance which points to the grave, and not primarily to the
toorld of tooe ; and so the last part of the verse also indi
cates, by thc consuming of Sheol, viz. the consumption or
corruption of thc flesh in the grave. So, also, our Eng
lish translators understood the passage, having rendered
Sheol by the word grave, in both cases.
Ps. 49: 15 (IG), But God will redeem my soul [mc]
from the power oi Sheol, bikTOp n;» , i.e. from Sheol. In

§ I, Meaning ©/"blNtti. 85
other words, God will preserve me from the grave ; he
will keep me from perishing like the wicked. Whether,
under this iihagery, more than a literal meaning is not
here conveyed, as also in the example above, will be a
matter of inquiry in the sequel.
Ps. 55: 15 (16), Let death seize upon them ; let them
go down alive into Sheol, C'^'^tl b'iN'i' IT7: ; •- e- let the
grave or the under-world swallow them up alive. In oth
er words. Let them be speedily and in a fearful manner
punished, or cut off. In respect to the sentiment, I
would refer the reader to what is said on Ps. 31: 17 above.
There is a serious difficulty in the way of supposing the
Psalmist to have prayed, that his enemies should go down
suddenly to the world of future woe. Here, however, our
English Version renders Sheol hy hell ; but why this
should be done here, and not in Ps. 31: 17, it would be
difficult to say.
Ps. 86: 13, great is thy mercy toward mc ; arid thou
hast delivered my soul [me] from the lowest. S/<co/,b'lN"«>'3
rrni^n . At first view, it would seem as if the Psalmist
were here speaking of spiritual deliverance from hell, or
tbe world of future misery, and thanking God, that by his
mercy he Itad provided a way of escape from it. But the
next verse seems plainly to indicate, that deliverance
from temporal death is here meant. It runs thus ; " O
God ! the proud are risen up against me ; and the assem
blies of violent men have sought aftfer my soul [my life],
and have not set thee before them." The word uic: ,
which our translators have here rendered soul, is a
common Hebrew word for life, and is very often so ren
dered. It clearly has that meaning here ; for sotd, in
any other sense than this, David's enemies surely did not
seek after. Consequently, we must conclude, that the

86 § 1. Meaning of ^'\Vi:^.
deliverance commemorated in v. 13, is a deliverance
from the grave, or under-world, i. e. from death. By say
ing lotoest grave or sepulchre, the writer designates a
most terrible and cruel death, or a death of the most
shocking nature.
Ps. 88: 4, My soul is full of trouble ; my life draweth
near to Sheol, biNiab ; i. e. to the grave, as our English
Version has expressed it. The context clearly shews
thisj in which the writer goes on to say, that he is " like
the slain that lie in the grave ;" and asks whether God
will " shew wonders to the dead, etc." He says also,
" Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit ;" which will illus
trate lotoest Sheol in Ps. 86: 13.
Ps. 89: 48 (49), What man is he that liveth and shall
not sec death ? Shall hc deliver his soul [life] from tbe
hand of Sheol ? yMi'li ; i. e. from the power of the grave.
So our Version, " from the hand of the grave." The first
clause of the verse makes the sense of grave, in the lat
ter clause, to be certain.
Ps. IIG: 3, The sorrows of death encompassed me;
the pains oi Sheol, biN'-JJ , took hold upon me ; i. e. dead
ly pains, such as lead to death, or occasion death, took
hold upon me. See on Sam. 22: 6, and Ps. 18: 5 above.
Ps. 139: 8, Ifl ascend to heaven thou art there ; ifl
make my bed in Sheol biN'iJ, thou art there ; i.e. if 1
ascend upwards, on high, thou art there ; or if I go
downwards, into the world beneath, thou art there ; which
is as much as to say, Thou art everywhere, or in all
places. More than this cannot with any certainty be de
duced from this passage ; indeed, more than this is alto
gether improbable.
Ps. 141: 7, Our bones are scattered at the mouth of
Sheol; i. e. at the mouth of thc sepulchre or grave, as our

^ 1. Meaning of^^»^ , 87
Version has it ,* not at the mouth of hell or the world of
woe. Prov. 1: 12. Let us swallow them up alive, as the
grave, b^NiJJS ; and whole, as those who go down to the
pit. So our English Version ; and plainly, according to
the sense of the Original. The writer is repeating the
words of men of violence and blood, who are mutually
exhorting one another to the work of destruction. The
meaning of their words is. Let us kill or destroy, as Sheol
does, i. e. extensively and fatally as the grave.
Prov. 15: 11, Sheol and destruction, "jliaNI blNUJ ,
are before the Lord ; how much more the hearts of the
children of men ? English Version, hell. But here the
under-world, tbe deep, dark, secret world, seems plainly
to be meant. So tho accompanying word, 'JI'naN , seems
clearly to imply. The sentiment is ; ' God, whoso sight
penetrates even the dark recesses of the grave or under
world, most certainly must know what passes in thc hearts
of the children of men.'
Prov. 27: 20, Sheol, b'"!N\2J , and destruction are never
satiated ; so the eyes of a man are never satisfied ; i. e.
the grave and the place of destruction, viz. the sepulchre
or under-world, are insatiable ; in other words, death is
always making its ravages, and is never satiated. So the
Latins, mors rapax, orcus rapax. The nature of the im
agery here, requires us to understand Sheol as meaning
grave ; and not, with our English translation, hell.
Prov. 30: 15, IG, There arc three things which are
never satisfied, yea four things say not, It is enough ;
thc grave (biNUJ), tho barren womb, thc earth that is not
filled with water, and the fire that saith not. It is enough.
Here Sheol is correctly rendered in our common version.
But the same reason which led to render it grave here.

88 § 1. Meaning of y-ttm.
applies in its full force to Prov. 27: 20, where is the same
image and the same sentiment.
Ecc. 9: 10, there is no work, nor device, nor knowl
edge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, biN'JJB, whither thou goest;
i. e. as our English Version has it, in ihe grave, wbither
thou goest. This is plainly the sense of the passage ;
' Be very diligent while life continues.; for death will
quickly intervene, and then all purposes and efforts, such
as you are engaged in, will cease.'
Cant. 8: 6, love is strong as death ; jealousy is cruel
as Sheol; English Version, cruel as the grave. This is
plainly the sense ; for the imagery is here taken, from
the unsparing, cruel, and irresistible power of the grave
or death ; which jealousy resembles, when it is highly
excited. Is. 5: 14, Therefore Sheol, blN'i: , hath enlarged her
self, and opened her mouth without measure ; English
Version, hell. But here, the under-toorld or region of
</ic rfearf is personified, and represented as a great, ter
rible, and insatiable monster, opening wide its jaws, even
without measure, in order to swallow up and devour the
intemperate revellers, who are mentioned in the pre<^ed-
ing context. It is an image of the like nature with that
which is presented in Prov. 27: 20. 30: 16.
[Note. Is. 7: 11 is inserted in Calasio's Concordance, as an in
stance of Sheol. But the word here, according to tlio best copies
of the Hebrew Bible, is nVsr , request, petition; hot nVi«i
Sheol.'l Is. 14: 9, Sheol, b'lN'JJ , from beneath is moved for
thee, to meet thee at thy coming. Thc prophet is speak
ing of the king of Babylon, who was to be slain, and when
he should go down into the under-world or Sheol, the
ghosts or umbrae of the dead there would rise up to meet

^ 1. Meaning of ^'iH^, 89
him with insult and contumely. Our English Version
renders Sheol, hell. But plainly the region of the dead,
the land of ghosts is here meant ; for in verse 18, ' all
the kings of the nations are said to repose in glory there,
i. e. to lie in their sepulchres, attended with all the en
signs of splendor which were deposited around the bodies
of deceased kings.
Is. 14: 15, yet thou [the king of Babylon] shalt be
brought down to Sheol, blNiU ; English Version, hell.
The word here is most evidently in the same sense as
above ; for so the parallelism which follows clearly shews,
viz. •' to the sides of the pit."
Is. 28: 15, ye have said. We have a covenant with
death, and with Sheol, biN'iJ , are we at agreement ; Eng
lish Version, Ac//. The meaning is, ' We have covenant
ed with death and Sheol, i. c. thc grave, not to seize upon
us, not to harm us. So the sequel shews ; for the pro
phet represents them as next saying, "When the over
flowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come un
to us." Is. 28: 18, your covenant with death shall be disan
nulled ; your agreement with Shtol, bVitd , shall not
stand ; English Version, hell. Tiiis is a repetition of the
passage above, in which the words, of course, are em
ployed in the same sense.
Is. 38: 18, For Sheol, y^ifi) , cannot praise thee;
death cannot celebrate thee ; English Version of Sheol,
grave. Thc meaning here is plain, viz. How can the
dead, or those in thc sepitltihro praise thee ? Surely wc
cannot well supjiosc Hezekiah means to say here, that
hell, i. c. the world of torment, cannot praise God. He
did not expect to perish forever, when he should ^ie.
But when he says, " Sheol cannot praise thee," docs
9

00 ^1. Meaning of ^h»::i.
hc mean, that after death there is no ability to praise God,
no existence 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 tho later critics havo affirm
ed it to be so. Shall wo represent tho 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 revela
tion, more ignorant than those who were in thc midst of
Egyptian night 1 Believe this who will, I must have
stronger evidence of its correctness than I liave yet found,
in order to give it credit.
I regard the simple meaning of this controverted
place, (and of others like it, e.g. Ps. G: 5(G). 30: 9(10).
88: II. 115: 17. comp. 118: 17), as being this, viz.
' The dead can no more give thanks to God, nor cele
brate his praises, among the living on earth, and thus
cause his name to be glorified by them, or thus do him
honour before them. So the sequel of Is. 38: 18 ; " The
living, the living, he shall praise thee ; as I do this day :
the father to tbe children shall make known thy truth,
i. e. thy faithfulness." TJiis last clause makes the whole
plain ; and one is ready to wonder, that so much skepti
cism about the views of the Hebrews in regard to a fu
ture state of existence, could have been eked out of the
verse in question.
Is. 57: 9, and [thou] didst debase thyself even to
Sheol, biN'iJ • Tlie prophet is addressing the idolatrous
Jews here, who are represented under the image of an
unchaste female, debasing her.self by her vile practices.
There is a kind of paronomasia here upon the word She
ol. " Thou didst debase thyself to Sheol," means thou
didst prostrate thyself rcr^/ loto; and the force of the word

§1. Meaning of iSH^ . 01
consists in referring both to the physical and moral de
basement of a prostitute. Tho sense of jS/ico/, which is
referred to or built upon in tho figurative uao of it hero,
is under-toorld, the toorld tleip beneath.
Ezek. 31: 15, in tho day when he went down to
Sheol, fibl^'iJ , I caused a mourning ; English Version,
grave. Rightly, for the prophet is speaking of the death
of the king of Egypt.
Ezek. 31: IG, when I cast him down to Sheol, TVriX'O,
with thcm that descend into the pit ; English Version,
hell. But as the subject is the same, ami the aftirmation
clearly the same, as in the preceding verse ; so the ver
sion should be, grave.
Ezek. 31: 17, They also went down into Siuol
(nbtl'iJ) with him, unto tliein that be slain with the
sword; English Version, hill. But plainly, the whole
relates to />/i^A/tn/ death here, not to spiritual. So the
context clearly shews.
Ezek. 32: 21, The strong among the mighty [the
mighty heroes], shall address him from Sheol, biN'J ;
English Version, hell. Here, tbe king of Egypt is spoken
of, and described as falling by the sword with other men
of war, and going down to Sheol, where he is addressed,
(as the king of Babylon is represented to be in Is. 14: 9
seq.), by the t:\SD-\ , the umbrae in the uiider-worltl. Of
course, grave, region of thc dead, muit be the meaning
of Sheol here.
Ezek. 32: 27, They sliall not lie w ith the mighty that
are fallen of the uncircumcised ; which are gone down
to Sheol (biN-iJ) with their weapons of war ; English Ver
sion, hell. But arc " the weapons of war," then, carried
along with fallen heroes to the toorld of future punish
ment ? Or are they merely buried with them, according
to a very common usage, in the grave f

92 ^1. Meaning ©/"biNtJi .
Hos. 13: 14, 1 will ransom them from Sheol ; O death,
I will be thy plagues ! O Sheol, y^ttK3 ,1 will be thy de
struction I English Version, grave. If this be not tho
sense, then the sacred writer has declared, that God will
he the destruction oi the world of woe ; i.e. that hc will
destroy it, or bring it to an end ; a sentiment for which
I can find no parallel in the Scriptures. But God has of
ten declared, that the power of the grave shall cease,
i. e. that a resurrection from the dead or the grave shall
take place. This is, of course, to destroy Sheol, i. e. to
disannul its power.
Amos 9: 2, Though they dig into Sheol, blN'iJ , my
hand shall take them thence ; English Version, Jiell.
The sense clearly is, 'Although they dig very deep,
down into the under-world, viz. in order to conceal them
selves, yet thence my. hand shall take them [the wicked.]
Jonah 2: 2 (3), out of the belly of Sheol I cried ;
and thou didst bear my voice ; English Version, hell.
But Jonah was not in hell, i. e. not in the place of future
torment, but in the belly of the fish, and deep down, un
der the surface of the water. So the meaning of utider^
world here, is Very obvious.
Ilab. 2: 5, Who [tbe Chaldean] enlargeth his appe
tite as Sheol, b'lNUis , and like death carinot be satisfied,
English Version j hell. But here the sense is plainly the
same as above, in Prov. 27: 20. 30: 16. Is. 5: 14 ; i. e.
the passage refers to the insatiable appetite of death
(mors rapax), or the grave.
These are all the passages in which the word Sheol,
b^N'iJ , appears to me to occur, in the Old Testament, in
the sense given under No. I, above. On these, thus pre
sented in detail before the reader, I must beg leave now
to make a few remarks,

§ 2. Remarks on the translation of Sheol. 93
§ 2. Remarks on the common translation of Sheol.
There can be no reasonable doubt, that Sheol docs
most generally mean thc under-world, the grave or sepul
chre, the toorld of the dead, in the Old Testament Scrip-
tures. It is very clear that there arc many passages,
where no other meaning can reasonably be assigned to it.
Accordingly, our. English translators have rendered the
word Sheol grave, in 30 instances* out of the tvbole 64
instances in which it occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures.
In many of the remaining cases, where they have given a
different version of the word, i. e. traii.slatcd it hi It, it is
equally clear that it should have been renilcretl, grave or
region of ihe dead. This has been clearly shewn, by
producing the instances in the above exhibition of exam
ples. In ihree cases, they have recognized the same princi
ple, (at least this seems to have been their view), viz.
Numb. IG: 30, 33. Job 17: 16, where it is translated,
pit. In regard to most of the cases in which they havo
rendered the word hell, it may be doubtful whether they
meant thereby to designate ihe toorld of future torment.
The incongruity of such a rendering, at least in not a
few cases, has been already pointed out, in the citations
of the respective examples above, and therefore need not
be here repeated. The inconstancy with which they
have sometimes rendered the word Sheol, in thc same
• Thc3 inslimces are in Gen. 37: :V). 4'i: 38. 44; '->!), 31. 1 Sam.
S; C. 1 Kings 2: ti, 1). Job 7: 0. 14; J3. 17; 13. 21: 13. 24: 19. I's.
C: 5. 30; 3. 31: 17. 41): 14, 15. Hd: 3. B'J; 49. 141: 7. Prov. 1; 12.
30: IC. Ecc. 0: 10. Cant. 6: C. Is. 14: 11. 3S: 10, 16. Ezek. 31: 15.
IIoB. 13: 14 bis.

94 § 2. Remarks on the translation of Sheol.
connection and with tbe same sense, is a striking circum
stance, which cannot but be regarded with some wonder
by an attentive inquirer. Nor is this always to be attri
buted to different translators, (who are known to have
been employed in making tbe English version) ; but the
satne translator has been occasionally inconsistent with
himself; e.g. Ezek. 31: 15, compared with Ezek. 31:
16, 17.
But setting aside all this, and simply recurring to the
Original as a foundation for our exegesis, is there not
some reason to believe, that in sorne of the cases where
Sheol is employed, it stanils as a word employed in a se
condary sense, in order to designate the future world of
tooe ?
An interesting question ; the solution of which de
pends on the nature of figurative language, and the man
ner in which it is employed, in order to designate the
thinffs of a futuro world.

^3. 3Ianner of using figurative language, in respect to
the objects of a future toorld.
On the nature of figurative language, then, as employ
ed to designate the objects of the invisible world, 1 must
beg leave here to suggest a iew considerations, which
may serve more fully to explain what I shall say iu the
sequel. Spoken language is thc expression of ideas by means
of sounds, i.e. articulate words. Written language is the
expression of ideas by means of conventional signs, i. e.
letters, which are presented to the eye, and through the
medium of this, find access to the mind. Both spoken
and written language is merely the expression of our

§ 3. Nature of figurative language. 95
ideas. Both agree in this, viz. that they are conventional;
conventional I mean, as to thc particular sounds or forms
of which they consist. That language is natural to man,
as much so as understanding and reason are, is what I
fully believe. But that there may be a great variety of
sounds employed, in order to convey tbe same idea; that,
lor example, different individuals may call the Sun by
names of very different sounds, all know to be matter of
fact. But this would not prove that the faculty of speech
is not a constituent part of the nature of man. It only
proves, that there are various ways in which this faculty
may be exercised.
I call spoken language, therefore, conventional as to
its form or sounds, merely because nature does not make
any one language universal and necessary ; and what is
not universal and necessary, may with propriety be called
conventional, using this word in a modified sense of it,
lo denote what results from the voluntary agreement and
usages of men.
In the same manner all written language is conven
tional. Every nation has its own peculiar modes of writ
ing ; some of which differ very widely from others, not
only in the forms of letters, but in the letters or alphabets
themselves. But all language, whether spoken or written, being
only the expression of ideas which are entertained by the
human mind ; an. important question remains respecting
these ideas themselves, viz. What are thc sources of
them? Or, whence does thc mind derive them ? When
this question is answered, others can easily be raised,
which stand in close connection with it.
It is now pretty generally agreed, (at least in the
English world, so far as I know), that the sources of all

96 § 3. Nature of figurative lattgtiage.
our definite ideas, are sensation, reflection ,artA' conscious
ness. [May wo not add, moral nature ?] Some might
contend against consciousness, because they resolve it in
to reminiscence of experience either by sensation or re
flection. This however is not important to my purpose.
The fact is all I wish for here ; not to settle the question
by what name it shall be called.
But how extensive are the- objects of our senses,, and
of reflection and consciousness ? Plainly they are limit
ed to the visible, perceptible, external world without us,
and to our own internal man. All lan;iuaj'e is fornletl
merely to designate, in its original use, the idea.s- wiiich
we derive from the one or the other ofthe.se sources. If
we go beyond this circle, and strive to express concep
tions of other objects, the mind employs the words wliich
already exist, and which have originated from one of the
sources above mentioned, in a secondary, a qualified, or
a figurative sense. It traces some analogy between
things within the circle of its knowledge, with those
which are believed to lie beyond the boundaries of its im
mediate perception, and applies language in such a man
ner as accords with this supposed analogy.
For example, and tliat I may more fully illustrate my
meaning ; God is not the object of any of our senses, in
ternal or external. But by the powers of reason, and by
the force of tbe moral nature that exists within us, we ar
rive at a conviction, that there must exist, and that there
does exist, a Being above us, of almighty power, and of
infinite wisdom, who has created, and who governs all
things. We undertake to describe him. But we havo
not peon hiin ; wo have not, in any way, boon iiblo to
subject him, aS he is in him.self, to thccxamination of any
of our faculties. The language that we speak did not

§ 3. Nature of figurative language. 97
originate from those who had over formed any concep
tions of the Divinity through the medium of their senses.
Of course, we have no words which directly convey to us,
by themselves, the idea of God as hc is in himself Wc
can only describe himj by language employed in the way
of analogy. We regard him as a rational being; and as
such, we borrow terms, descriptive in themselves of the
various parts or passions and affections of men, in order
to convey ideas of the Supreme Being. We speak of
God as having a heart, and hands, and arms, and feet ;
of exercising the affections of anger and love, hatred and
benevolence, revenge and compassion ; in a word, we ap
ply to him most of the expressions used by men, to de
scribe the parts or passions and affections of each other.
We are compelled to do so, by the poverty of human lan
guage, by the original principles of its formation.
Thc same holds true, in regard to all descriptions of
the invisible world, of heaven and hell,- Hl.vve.n is re
presented as a paradise, i. e. a pleasure garden ; as a chy
with most magnificent waWs, structures and ornaments ;
as a place of perpetual feasting and delight ; as a land of
rest and overflowing plenty ; as a magnificent palace, in
which the guests appear adorned with princely robes and
splendid crowns, and are admitted to the immediate pre
sence of the great King of kings.
IIki.i. is represented as an abyss ; a bottomless pit
a lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, the smoke
of which ascendeth up forever and ever ; a Gehenna,
where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ;
as a place of outer darkness, of unceasing and eternal
gloom ; us a loatlisomo dungeon,, ii horrid prison ; ai a
place of torture, and anguish, and unspeakable pain; a
place of banishment from God, on which all thc vials of

98 § 3. Nature of figurative language.
his wrath are poured out ; and by other such tremendous
images, all drawn from natural objects of terror and dis
tress. That the Scriptures every where pursue this method
of representing to us the things of thc invisible world,
must be familiarly known to every attentive reader of
them. That none of these descriptions are to be literally
understood, seems to be exceedingly obvious ; for if any
one is to be literally understood, which is the one ? Who
will determine this question? If then there are no parti
cular grounds for making any such determination, we
must either construe all of them figuratively, or all of
them literally. Not the latter, because then the Bible
must be made to contradict itself, beyond all possibility
of reconciliation. It must also be made to contradict the
nature of the spiritual and invisible world. The former,
therefore, is the only principle which can be admitted.
Tlie sum of all is, that analogy is brought to the aid
of the mind, in such descriptions ; which the poverty of
language forbade the sacred writers to make out, by any
use of words in their /(Vera/ St/ISC. Such a use of them
would be, to make the invisible world a mere co[)y of the
visible one ; a world oi spirits altogether like a world of
matter. But this cannot, with any show of reason, be
charged ujion the sacred writers ; and tliereforc we must
admit, that thc language of wliich I have been speaking,
is employed only in a qualified, figurative, analogical
sense. If this principle, so plain, so reasonable, so universal
ly admitted in many cases, be well understood, and thor
oughly admitted by my readers in the case before us ;
we are now prepared, to make a near approach to the
question, Whether Sheol is ever employed in the figura
tive or secondary .sen.^e, in the Old Testament >.

§ 3. Nature of figurative language. 99
But in order to prepare the way still further, so that
we may obtain satisfaction in regard to this subject of in
quiry, let us contemplate, for a moment, the use which
the Scriptures have made of the words ///)c and life, die
and death, in respect to tho happiness of the righteous,
and the punishment of the wicked.
To live and to have life are, beyond all doubt, very
often employed in the Scriptures, in ortler to denote thc
reward which the righteous shall receive for obedience
to the divine commands. Thus Moses says, in the name
of God, to the children of Israel, Lev. 18: 5, Ye shall
keep my statutes and my judgments ; which, if a man do,
hc shall live in them ; which is repeated, Neb. 9: 29.
Ezek. 20: 11, 13,21. So Prov. 4: 4, Keep my com
mandments, and lire ; which is repeated, Prov. 7: 2.
Al.so Is. 53: 3, Hear, anil your soul shall live. Ezek.
3: 21, If thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous
sin not, and he doth nnt sin, he shall surely lire, he shall
not die; repeated in Ezek. 18:9, 17. 33: 13, 15, 16,
19. Seek ye mc, and ye shall ///•<', Amos 4: 5, 6.
In the New Testament the instances are very numer
ous. Luke 10: 2S, this db, and thou shalt live. John
G: l.'i, hc that eatctli me shall live by me, [Christ]. John
11: 25, Hc that believeth, though he Were dead, yet shall
he live. Joiin 14: 19, Because I live, ye shall live al.so.
Rom. 8. 13, If yt!, through tiie S|)irit, mortify the deeds
of the flesh, ye shall //cc. Heb. 10: 2.S, The just shall
live by faith. 2 Tim. 2:11, If we be dead with him
[Christ], we shall aiso live with him. Heb. 12: 9, Shall
we not much more be in subjection to thc Father of our
spirits, and live? John 4: 9, lie hath sent his Son, that
we might live through him.
These examples may suffice, in regard to tho use of

100 ^ 3. Nature of figurative language.
the verb live. The noun, life, is altogether correspondent
with it, in regard to the meanings which it is employed
to convey. E. g. Deut. 30: 15, See, I [Moses] have set
before thee, this day, life and good, and death and evil.
Here, the words good and evil are added, merely as ex
planatory of Ufe and death ; or rather, I may say, they
are employed as mere synonymes with them, and serve,
by repetition, to give intensity to the aflirmation of tho
speaker, according to the usual custom of tho sacred wri
ters. The same expression is repeated, in Deut. 3t): 19,
with thc omission of good and evil; and manifestly in
the sanie sense as in v. 15. So Jer. 21: 8, I sct before
you the way of life, and the way of death. Deut. 32:
47, For it. is not a vain thing, because it is your life. Ps.
IG: 11, Thou wilt shew me the path of life. Prov. 2:
19, neither take they hold of the paths of life. Prov. 3:
18, She is a tree oi life, to them that lay hold upon her.
Prov. 4: 22, They [the words of Gotl] are life unto those
that find them. Prov. 4: 23, Keep thy heart with all
dilifrence, for out of it are the issues of life. Prov. 5: 6,
Lest thou shouldest ponder the paths of Ufe, her ways are
moveable. Prov. 8: 35, Whoso findcth me, findeth life.
To the same purpose, are Prov. 10: 11, 17. 11: 30. 12:
28. 13:12,14. 14:27. 15:4. IG: 22. 18:21. 21:21.
Ezek. 33: 15. Mai. 2: 5.
In thc New Testament the instances arc very numer
ous. E. g. Matt. 18: 8 and Mark 9: 43, It is better for
thee to enter into life, halt or maimed, etc. So 18: 9
and Mark 9: 4o, It is better to enter into life, with on«
eye, etc. Matt. 19: 17, If thou wilt enter into life, keep
the commandments. John 1: 4, In him [Chrii^t] was
life. John 3: 3G, He that believeth not the Son shall not
see life. John 5: 29, tho resurrection of life. John 5:

"Jt 3. Nature of figurative language. 101
40, ye will not come unto me, that yc might have life.
In the like sense, John 6: 33, 35, 48, 61, 53, 63. 8: 12.
11:25. 14:6. 20:31. Acts 3: 1.3. Rom. 5: 17, 18. 8:
2, 6, 10. 2 Cor. 2: IG. 3: G. 4: 10, 12. 5: 4. Gal. 3: 21.
Phib 2: IG. Col. 3; 4. 2 Tim. 1: 1, 10. James 1: 12.
1 Pet. 3: 7. 2 Pet. 1: 3. 1 John 1: 1, 2. 5: 12, 16. Rev.
2: 7, 10. 21; G. 22: 1, 14, 17.
Such are tho examples of the method, in which the
words live and life are cmplovcd in the Scriptures. That
they designate the rcwaril of thc righteous, w hether in
time or eternity, is a clear case ; so clear, that I deem all
further effort to establish the point, entirely needless.
The examples themselves are the most powerful argument
which can be adduced.
On tbe other hand, it is equally ])lain and certain,
that the words die and de.vtii are employed, in order to
designate the punishment of the wicked. From the very
numerous examples of this kind, 1 would iiresent the fol
lowing ; viz.
Ezek. 18: 4, The soul that sinncth shall dik ; which
is repeated in 18: 20. So also, in Ezek. 18: 17, he shall
not die; v. IS, he shall die; v. 21, he shall not die; v.
21, Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should
die 7 V. 24, In his trespass that be hath trespassed, . . .
shall hc die ; v. 2G, in hisiniqtiity that hc hath done shall
hc die; v. 28, he that turneth away from his transgres
sion .... shall not die ; v. 32, I have no pleasure in the
death of him that dieth. Prov. 15: 10, he that hateth re
proof shall die. Prov. 19: IG, He that despiscth my ways
shall die. Ezek. 33: 8, the w icked man shall die in his
iniquity; so also in v. 9. In 33: 11, Why will yc die,
O house of Israel; v. l:i he that hath committed iniquity
shall die; v. 1-1, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shall
10

102 § 3. Nature of figurative language.
surely die ; v. 15, if the wicked . . . walk in the statutes
of life .... he shall not die. Prov. 23: 13, If thou beat-
est him with a rod, he shall not die.
The instance of threatening in Gen. 2: 17, In the
day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt Surely die, (and the
like expression in Gen. 3: 3, 4), is to be construed ac
cording to the evident tenor of thc above examples.
In the New Testament, tho usage is exceedingly
plain, iil various examples ; e. g. John !i: GO, This is the
bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof and not die. Rom. 8:31, If ye live after the
flesh, ye shall r//c. John 8: 21, ye shall seek me, and
shall die in your sins.
In the like manner is thc word de.vtii employed, in
order to designate tho evils consequent upon the com
mission of sin ; e. g. Deut. 30: 15, See, I have set before
you, this day, life and good, death and evil ; in Jer. 21:
8, I have set before you thc way of life, and thc way of
tlealh. Prov. 5: 5, Her feet go tlown to death. Prov. 8:
36, All they that hato mo lovo death. Prov. 12: 2H, In
the path-ways thereof, there is no death. Ezek. 18: 32,
I have no pleasure in thc death of the wicked ; so also
in 33: 11.
In tbe New Testament this usage is very prominent ;
e. g. John 8: 51, If a man keep my saying, he shall never
see death. Rom. G: 23, The wages of sin is death.
Rom. G: 21, The end of those things is death. Rom.
6: 16, Whether [ye are tbe servants] of sin unto death.
Rom. 7: 5, The motions of sin did work to bring forth
fruit unto death. Roiii. 7: 10, The commandment to
life, I found to be unto death. Rom. 7: 13, AVas then
that which was good, made death unto mc? Rom. 7:
24, Who shall deliver mc from the body of this deedh ?

<J 3. Nature of figurative language. 103
Rom. 8: 2, The law of the Spirit of life .... hath freed
me from the law of sin and death. Rom. 6: 6, To be
carnally minded is death. 2 Cor. 2: 16, To the one we
are the savour of death unto death ; i. c. a deadly savour
causing spiritual death. 2 Cor. 7: 10, The sorrow of the
world worketh death. 2 Tim. 1: 10, Our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who hath abolished death. Heb. 2: 14, That
through death ho might tiestroy him that bud the power
of death. James 1: 15, Sin, when fini.shed, bringeth
forth death. 1 John 3: 14, He that loveth not his broth
er, abideth in rfca/A. Rev. 2: II, He that overcometh,
shall not be hurt of thc second death. Rev. 20: G, Oa
them he second death had no power. Rev. 20: 14, This
is the second death.
The importance of the principle of interpretation,
which is connected with examples of this nature, is my
apology for producing them at such length. When the
minil once becomes entirely satisfied, that the objects of
tho invisible world can bo revealed to us only in language
which is ulroaily Ibrmed, and formed from tlin noticcK
which our sonses, external or internal, take of thc objects
within their reach ; it is then that wo begin to have some
due ajiprehension of the nature and extent of figurative
language, as employed by the sacred writers. These
writers had a vivid impression of the joys of heaven and
the pains of hell, of the reward of virtue and the pun
ishment of vice, in the world to come. These ideas they
could not convey, in language which originated from
notice of these objects taken by any of our senses ; there
was no such language for their use. They must, then,
from the nature of thc case, employ such language as
they had; they could not use such as they had not, nor
such as would be unintelligible to others. Of course,

104 § 3. Nature of figurative language.
they must employ language, which was originally design
ed to convey ideas of impressions received by our exter
nal or internal senses ; and consequently, language de
signating ideas of sensible objects, in its primary and
literal accieptation.
If now we make the inquiry, why live and life, die
and death, should be employed to represent the joys and
sufferings of the world to come, the answer Avill not be
difficult. Life is of all things most dear. " All that a
man hath, will he give for his bfe." Death, of course,
is of all things most dreadetl. It is thc consummation
of all suffering; thc highest penalty wliicli can be inflict
ed. Should one, then, range the whole compass of human
language, he could find no two terms so significant as
these, in order to designate the joys of heaven or the
pains of hell. To do this, they must indeed be figura
tively employed. But the same is true of all other words,
that arc or could be employed for the same purpose. Of
course this is no objection to the use of them.
It is easy to sec, therefore, why the sacred writers
have chosen these highly significant words, in order to
convey an idea of the impression matlc on their own
minds, respecting thc joys of heaven and the pains of hell.
" Thc wages of sin is death, but thc gift of God eternal
life." Is it in the power of language to convey a stron
ger impression of the retributions that will bo made in
the invisible world, than such an' expression conveys ?
•^ 4. Secondary signification of S/icol.
If the mind is satisfied in regard fo the view of tho
subject given above, there remains but little to be said,

^4. Secondat^y signification of '^'tt^^. 105
in order to satisfy it respecting thc possibility of applying
Sheol (b^N'JJ) in a similar way. Sheol and death arc
most intimately connected. They often stand together
in the same verse, constituting the corresponding parts
of a parallelism. Whatever may be said of death, as an
image of terror and distress, maybe applied with equal
force to (S/ico/. The grave, the under-toorld, the region
of the dead, is of course most intimately connected with
death itself.
Sheol then may be used in a secondary serise, to de
note the toorld of misery, the region of " the second
death." It is no objection to this, that it is generally
employed in its first and literal sense ; for such is the
case with the words live, life, die, death. Yet this does
not at all prove, that these latter words arc never employ
ed in any other than the literal sense. Such a principle
indeed, if admitted, would prove that no words are, or
can be, employed in a figurative sense ; for, in a majori
ty of cases, nearly all words have a literal sense.
Suppose now that I should say, Thc word God some
times mean^ a carved piece of toood, a molten image, or,
an object of the natural world ; and because- it sometimes
means a block of toond, therefore it can never designate
the true God? Would this reasoning be rcganlcd by
any candid and intelligent man as of any validity ? Sure
ly not. Suppose then I should aver, that bocauso Shtnl
usually means ^Tflwc, sepulchre ^ tindcr-wnrld, theroforc it
never can mean //le ?cor/«/ o/'k'oc; would this reasoning
be any more conclusive? Plainly not.
If then the words io die and death, are often employ
ed to designate the misery of the wicked, may we not
expect that Sheol will partake, with them, of this same

usage ?

10*

100 § 4. Secondary signification oftSnti.
It will not be said, I trust, that such an expectation
is unreasonable or unnatural.
Wo havo seen, then, that there is nothing which can
determine, a priori, against such a use of the wonl Sheol
as has been just described. Wo may now como, there
fore, to examine the question of fact itself, viz. tohether the
toord is actually so employed, without being prejudiced
against any of the proofs or evidences which may be prof
fered, in order to shew that such is probably the case.

TI. The eases in trhich fnir.oi. may designate the fu
ture world of tooe, I shall now subjoin.
Job 21; 13, They [the wicked] spenti their days in
wealth, and in a moment go down to Sheol.
Ps. 9: 17 (18), The wicked siiall bo turned into She
ol, and ull the nations that forget God.
Prov. 5; 5, Her feet go dtiwn to death, her steps take
hold on Sheol.
Prov. 9: 18, But he knowelh not that tho ghosts arc
there, and that her guests are in the depths oi Sheol.
Prov. 2;{: 14, Thou shalt beat him with a rod, and
shalt deliver his soul from Sheol.
I might add some other texts apparently of the same
tenor with these, but I shall defer the mention of them
until I have made some remarks on those already produ
ced. My great object is not to multiply the H»/w»6cr of
texts, which may possibly be brought within the limits
of such a meaning as I here suppo.sc Shoel to have ; but
to illustrate the principle, that is concerned with thc ex
egesis of texts which exhibit the word Sheol.
In attentively considering the texts just adduced, is
it not plain, that the exegesis would be an easy and na-

^ 4. Secondary signification o/b^NO- 16?
tural one, to apply them to the future ptinishment of the
wicked ? I do not say eternal punishment here, becousc,
if we admit that .S/ico/ here designates /«/«rcjf>«n»i/»wfn/,
wo must also admit, that it does not determine, of itself,
the duration of that punishment. After what has been
said above, of the Scriptural use of the words die ami
death, it cannot be said, with any show of roa.son, that it
would be strange" or singular, that Sheol shoulil here de
signate future punishment ; I mean, that it cannot seem
strange to any one who acknowledgers the Scriptures as
revealing the doctrinoof luturo punishment in any form
whatever. To those who do not acknowledge this, I am
not addressing myself. Such have first to be convinced
that the Bible is the word of God, before they can be con
vinced, by any proofs drawn from it, with regard to fu
ture piiuislimeiit. Although they may not know it, or
may be unwilling to acknowlodgn it, yet they arc plainly
skeptics as to the divine origin and authority of tlie Scrip
tures. To say that the Bible is the word of God, and yet
to aver that there is no future punishment threatened by
it, — is so palpable an exhibition either of iirnorance, or
of unbelief, or of dishonesty, tliat an ingenuous man c;in
hardly believe in any professions of respect for the Bible,
which such a person may make.
Thc probability that .§.'/co/ designates the future pun
ishment of the wicked, in the passages just cited, depends
perhaps, in a great measure, on thc state of knowledge
among the Hebrews, with regard to future rewards and
punishments. I am well aware, as I have alreatly hint
ed above, tliat there arc critics who maintain, that the
Hebrews had no knowledge or belief of any such doc
trine. But as it is now past all doubt, that thc ancient
Egyptians (of Moses' time) did believe and teach, very

108 § 4. Secondary signification o/blNUJ .
expressly, the doctrine in question; I am not able to
comprehend how Moses, " who was learned in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians," should have been ignorant of
this doctrine. Nor, as I have already said, can I be per
suaded, without strong, yea irrefragable evidence, that
the people of God, among whom were patriarchs and pro
phets, knew less respecting a future state of rewards and
punishment, than their heathen neighbours who were
wholly destitute of any special revelation.
Wc have, then, no good reason to believe, that the
ancient Hebrews rejected thc doctrine of the soul's im
mortality, or even doubted of it. The modern Saddu
cees, indeed, entertained doubts of this nature. But this
sect arose only a short time before the commencement
of the Christian era ; and the peculiar opinions which it
maintained, were derived, beyond all reasonable doubt,
from skeptical Greek philosophers. The Pharisees held
fast to the doctrines, on this subject, wliich had been de
rived by tradition from their ancestors.
Circumstances being such, then, as these considera
tions shew them to be, I see not how it can ever be made
out, with any good degree of certainty, that the texts in
question have no reference to future punishment. I ad
mit, that they are susceptible of another interpretation,
i. e. that another interpretation is possible. But this does
not reach the point in question. Are they not also sus
ceptible of an interpretation, which would make them to
designate the future misery of the wicked ? Is not this
latter interpretation even more probable than the former ?
An answer to these questions, will touch the difficulty
which the case presents.
The first question has been already answered, by the
examples produced, of the manner in which the words

^ 4. Secondary signification o/iiN'iJ. 109
die and death are employed, by the sacred writers. In
regard to the second question ; it may bo said, that the
example in Job 2 1 : 13 is not altogether so probable as
to afford entire satisfaction. Verses 17, 18, 21, 30 — 33,
it may be alleged, seem rather to incline the mind to
construe Sheol in v. 13 as meaning grave; and so our
English translators have done.
I have no doubt, that the word Sheol in this case
docs involve the idea oi sudden death or dying, as a ca
lamity. Thc question however is, whether in the mind
of the speaker, in such a case, any thing more was pro
bably contemplated, than the simple fact of sudden Hrt////--
al death ? The answer to this must of course depend on
the fact, whether the speaker believed in any future re
tribution, any future punishment of the vicious and re
warding of the virtuous. In case he did, (and who will
undertake to show tiiat he tlidnot?) then how can wc
avoid thc apprehension, that hc connected with going
suddenly and violently down to Sheol, the idea of a mis
erable condition there? IIow can we rationally avoid
such an apprehension .'
In regard to Prov. 5: 5 and 9: 18, both of which have
respect to prostitutes, one may ask, What was there in
intercourse with them, which tcndeil to sudden and pre
mature death, any more than existed in every Harem of
the East, where polygamy is practiced? The question,
at the present day, could be easily answered ; as disease,
in some of its most awful forms, i.s the usual concomitant
of illicit intercour.se of this nature. But this disease, so
far as I know, was unknown to the ancient world. Thc
Greeks and Romans seem to have known nothing of it.
Heathen nations abroad knew nothing of it, until it was
communicated to tliem by Europeans. There was, then.

110 §4. Secondary signification of ^Sn^a.
nothing but excess in the intercourse, which was of the
nature in question, which tended to sudden or violent
death— an excess as frequently practised in Harems, as
among prostitutes,
It is not difficult indeed to see, that a person devoted
to illicit intercourse with lewd women, might easily squan
der his estate and reduce himself to poverty. But in
regard to the danger of life itself, no important difference
can be made out between this case, and that which exists
in Harems filled with wives and concubines.
How then can Prov. 5: 5 and 9; 18 have any special
eignificancy, ii Sheol does not here mean something more
than grave ? Neither sudden death, nor violent death,
appears to have been specially attendant upon the practice
of illicit intercourse, in ancient times. What then is the
significancy of the texts before us, if they do not refer
to future retribution ?
So in Prov. 23: 14, it is certainly clear that the mean
ing will be a good one, if we suppose Sheol here to desig
nate future punishment. At the same time it may be ad
mitted, that the other meaning, viz. sudden and violent
death or premature death, is a possible one ; yet on the
whole can we regard it as probable, when the verse pre
ceding declares that correction will save a child from
death ? Is not death here the misery which is consequent
upon sin ? And if so, then docs not Sheol in v. 14 mean,
a state of punishment ?
1 have spoken of sudden and vivlent death, or prema
ture death, as being the kind of death threatened to the
wicked, whenever the threatening has reference merely
to the present world. To suppose that death simply,
without its being sudden or premature, is threatened in
these cases, would be a supposition quite idle, and I had

^4. Secondary signification of y*,^'^. Ill
almost said, ridiculous. Do not the righteous die, as
well as the wicked ? Is it not " appointed unto all men
once to die ?" And is there any distinction here, between
the righteous and the wicked ? None ; and of course, to
threaten the wicked that they should die simply, would bo
to threaten them not at all ; for tho sumo threat could,
with equal truth, bo made against tho righteous. To die,
then, in the usual manner, is not a special penalty of
wickedness ; and therefore the threats of death, directed
against particular acts of wickedness, can iiever be ration
ally regarded as having reference to any thing but sudden,
pretnalure, and violent death. That " the wicked shall
not live out half tlii;ir days," is un assuruncc, repeuteil in
many forms and in a great variety of ways, in tho Old
Testament Scriptures.
In this point of view it is possible, I concede, to in
terpret all the texts which exhibit Sheol as having a re
ference merely to the grave ; and therefore it is possible
to interpret such ones as Prov. 5: 5. 9: 18 and 2:3: 14, as
designating a death violent and premature, inflicted by
the hand of heaven.
After all, I cannot but feel inclined to believe, that
the Hebrew, who employed thc word Sheol in this way,
did of course unite with this sense of it, the idea of misery
consequent upon such premature and violent death: Hap
py or miserable, after death, tlie Hebrews must have sup
posed every one to be. What then was to be the state
of him, whose wickedness was such as to bring sudden
and premature death upon him ? Surely it cannot well
be supposed, that the Hebrews believed such an one
would be hapi)y after death.
When I say that the Hebrews believed men would
be happy or miserable after death, I do not mean to aver.

112 §4. Seeontlary signification of ^^atU,
that they had those distinct and definite notions on this
subject, which we of the present day have. Wo should
never forget, that it is the glorious prcijinincnco of tho
gospel, to have " brought life and immortality to light."
Christians too often forget this, while reasoning from thc
Old Testament. But then, to suppose that the Jews had
no idea of a future state of retribution, is to suppose them
to be destitute of the very first principles of even natural
religion ; for " he who cometh unto God, must believe
that he is, and that he is the rewarder of those that dili
gently seek him."
On the whole, thc balance seems decidedly to be in
favour of thc idea, that by usage Sheol, in some cases,
did convey the idea oi future misery, as connected with
the sudden and violent death of the wicked. And this
idea may be connected with a considerable number of
passages, among thc examples adduced under the first
bead above.
The meaning of Sheol which lies upon the face of
thc sacred record, (ifl may thus speak), is indeed that
oi grave, sepulchre, under-world; as I have given it in
the general recension of the passages. But that the He
brew might connect, nay, that he probably did connect,
the idea oi consequential tnisery, with that of violent, sud
den, and premature death, cannot be rendered improba
ble. Indeed it is very difficult to render it improbable,
when wc add fo thc texts above cited, viz. Job 21; 13.
Ps. 9: 17 (18). Prov, 5: 5. 9: 18. 23; 14, others which
seem to be of the like nature ; e. g.
Prov. 7: 27, Iler house is the way to Sheol, going
down to the chambers of death ; comp. Prov. 5: 5. 9: 18.
Prov. 15: 24, Thc way of life is above, MbsJib , to the

^ 4. Secondary signification o/'bltRJ. 113
wise, that he may depart from Sheol, b'iN'JJtt , beneath.
The most natural meaning of this is ; ' The way of life is
that which conducts to liap|)iness above, where God
dwells ; and by pursuing this, one escapes Sheol or the
world of misery beneath.'
Let any one now, in addition to these texts, carefully
inspect such passages as Num. 16: 30. 16: 33. Deut. 32:
22, 1 Kings 2: 6. 2: 9. Ps. 49: 14, 15. Is. 5: 14, and
then say, whether the Hebrew, believing in a state of fu
ture retribution, did not connect such language, in his
own thoughts, with thc apprehension of future misery in
regard to those of whom he thus spake.
I am indeed far from coinciding with those, who
find the nattire of a future world as fully and plainly re
vealed in the Old Testament as in the New. But I am
equally far from those, who do not find it at all intimated
there Both these positions are extremes ; and as such,
they should be avoided by every considerate inquirer.
On the whole, it is to be regretted that our English
translation has given occasion to the remarks, that those
who made it have intended to impose on their readers,
in any case, a sense different from that of the original
Hebrew. The inconstancy with which they have render
ed the word Sheol, even in cases of the same nature,
must obviously afford some apparent ground for this ob
jection against their version of it. But I cannot persuade
myself, that men of so much integrity as tbe translators
plainly were, and, I may add, of so much critical skill and
acumen also, would undertake to mislead their readers in
any point, where it is so easy to make corrections. I am
much more inclined to believe, that in their day the word
heU had notacquired, so exclusively as at present, the mean
ing oi toorld of future misery. There is plain evidence
11

114 ^ 4. Secondary signification of ^'ituvi.
of this, in what is called the Apostles' Creed ; which says
of Christ, (after his crucifixion), that " he descended in
to hell." Surely the Protestant English church did not
mean to aver, that the soul of Christ went lo the toorld qf
woe ; nor that it went to Purgatory. They did not be
lieve either of these doctrines. Hell then means, in this
document, the under-world, the world of the dead. And
so it has been construed, by the most intelligent critics
of the English church.
With this view of the meaning of the word hell, as
employed in past times, wc may easily account for it,
why it has been so often employed as tho translation of
Sheol. This view of the subject, also, enables us to ac
quit the translators of any collusion in regard to this
word ; and to acquit them in this respect, does seem to
be an act of simple justice, due to their ability, their in
tegrity, aiid uprightness.
The sum of the evidence from the Old Testament in
regard to Sheol,. is, that the Heuuews did pnoBAULV,
IN SOME cases, connect WITII THE USE OF THIS WORD,
The IDEA OF MISERY SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEATH OF THE
BODY. It seems to me that we can safely believe this ;
and to aver more than this would be somewhat hazardous,
when all the examples of the word are duly considered.

^ 5. Popular views of Sheol.
To complete the view oi Sheol here, I must beg leave
to add a few suggestions on the popular ideas of the He
brews, respecting the nature of the under-world in gener
al. These may serve to explain some passages of the
Old Testament, which, to Say the least, must appear

§ S. Popular views of b^M'li. 1 15
somewhat peculiar, unless the popular notions respecting
Sheol are well understood.
The usual method, in which the Hebrews and almost
all other ancient nations disposed of the dead bodies of
men, was to bury them in the earth. Here they were
consumed. From the grave none ever returned to greet
their friends among the living ; nothing more was ever
seen or heard of them.
Still, there has been no nation on earth, so far as we
know, certainly no one which had made any considcra
blo advances in cultivation, which has believed that thc ex
istence of man entirely terminates with his death, The
soul, to which various forms and modes of existence have
been assigned, has generally been supposed to survive
the body, and to exist in a state peculiar to itself in many
respects, and susceptible of various kinds and degrees of
joy or of sorrow.
Popular apprehensions in regard to the state of men
after death, (and tlieso only am I now considering), seem
to have been very much affected by thc usage of burying
corpses in the ground, and by the fact that no more is
seen or heard of men after they are thus buried.
The desire of immortality seems to constitute a part
of thc instinctive affections of the human soul. The
belief of immortality is connected intimately with this.
But where this belief is cherished, it seems obviously ne
cessary, to assign some place to the soul for existence and
action. Where shall this be? IIow shall they argue
and conclude on this subject, who arc unenlightened by
revelation, or who reason merely from the impulse of im
agination, or from the notice of their own senses?
History can answer thc question how they have rea
soned. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and

116 ^ 5. Popular views of^Stuvi,
many other nations, havo believed in the existence of a
Hades, oi an Inferntts, i. c. of an under-world, of a re
gion of tho dead, in which their departed friends lived
and acted. Among each nation, popular superstition or
imagination has attached peculiarities of their own to this
under-world, or region of the dead ; but the general fea
tures of it are alike among all.
The. popular views of the Hebrews appear, in many
respects, to have been of the like nature. With them,
the grave and Sheol were often regarded as one and the
same, when they designed merely to describe the decease
of their friends, and their departure to another world.
But at other times, Sheol was, as we have seen above,
taken in a wider sense than that of grave merely : it de
signated the world of the dead, the region of ff^NDT , i. e.
of umbrae or ghosts. It was considered as a vast and wide
domain or region, of which the grave seems to have been
as it were only a part, or a kind of entrance way. It ap
pears to have been regarded as extending deep down in
thc earth, even to its lowest abysses. This was not un
natural. In the present life, men inhabit a region over
which the air, d^a'ij , extends indefinitely. Imagination
formed something like this, for those who were placed
in the sepulchre; A region deep and wide existed all
around them. In this boundless region livcrd, and moved
(at times), the Manes of departed friends. To this they
assigned many qualities or attributes, some of which will
now be briefly noticed.
(1) Sheol is a place from which none ever return.
So Job 7: 9, As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth
away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up
no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither
shall his place know him any more. 2 Sam. 12; 23,

^ 5. Popular vietes •/'^^M^. 117
Now he is dead, wherefore should I fast ? Can I bring
him back again ? I sludl go to him, but ho shall not re
turn to me.
(2) It devours or consumes the bodies laid in it.
Job 24: 19, Drought and heat consume the snow wa
ters ; so doth the grave those who have sinned. Ps. 49:
14, Like sheep they are laid in the grave ; death shall
feed on them .... their beauty shall consume in the
grave. (3) Sheol is a place of inaction and silence.
Occasionally this idea is departed from, e. g. Is. 14:
9, and in some other places. The amount of it seems to
be, that in general Sheol is represented as a place of en
tire inactivity and silence ; e g.
Ps. G: G, In death there is no remembrance of thee;
in the grave, who shall give thee thanks? Ps. 31: 17
(18), Let them be silent in the grave. 1 Sam. 2: 9, The
wicked shall be silent in darkness. Ps. 115: 17, The
dead praise not the Lord ; neither any that go down into
silence. Is. 38: 18, For the grave cannot praise thee;
death cannot celebrate thee. Ecc. 9: 10, For there is no
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the
grave whither thou goest.
(4) Sheol extends deep into the recesses of the earth ;
yea, as deep as thc heavens are high above it.
Job 11: 8, It is high as heaven, what canst thou do?
Deeper than <S/*co/, what canst thou know? Ezek. 31:
15, Thus saith tlie Lord God, In the day when he [the
king of Egypt] went down to Sheol, I caused a mourn
ing, I made the abyss to cover him ; i. e. Sheol was be
low the abyss of the ocean. So Jonah 2: 2. (3), out of
the belly of iSAoe/ did I cry unto thee; i.e. from thc
11*

1 18 § 5. Popular views o/'b^N'tf .
deep abysses of the sea, (while in the belly of the whale),
did I cry unto thee.
Sheol is the common antithesis of t3^a'.l}, heaven.
Amos 9: 2, Though they dig into Sheol, thence shall my
hand take them ; though they climb up to heaven, thence
will I bring them down. Deut. 32: 22, A fire is kindled
in mine anger, which shall burn to the lowest Sheol. Ps.
139: 8, Ifl ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I
make my bed iu Sheol, behold thou art there.
(5) Sheol is a place of utter and perpetual darkness
and gloom.
Job 10: 21, 22, Before I go whence I shall not return ;
even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death ;
a land of darkness, as darkness itself, and of the shadow
of death, without any order ; where even the light is
darkness; i. e. where even the day is like our mid-night.
Thc vivid nature of thc imagery is very striking.
((>) Here dwell the ghosts or Manes of deceased men.
Ps. 88: 10 (11), Wilt thou shew wonders to the
dead ? Shall the Manes, ff^ND"! , arise and praise thee ?
i.e. shallthe ghosts from the under-world ri.sc up to life,
and praise thee? Prov. 2: 18, For her house inclineth
unto death ; and her paths unto the ghosts, D'^NDI ; i. e.
the place where the ghosts dwell. Prov. 9: 18, He know
elh not that the ^Ao5<s, Q-iNS"^., are there ; and that her
guests are in the depths of Sheol. Prov. 21: IG, Thc
man that wandereth out of the way of understanding, shall
remain in the congregation oi ghosts, t\ND"i . Is. 14: 9,
Sheol from beneath is moved, to meetthee at thy coming ;
it stirreth up the ghosts for thee, '^b t:\SDn .
That C^NDT designates deceased persons, is perfectly
clear, not only from the texts just cited, but from the fol
lowing passages : viz. Is. 26: 14, They are dead, they

§ 5. Popular views of'^^H^. 119
shall not live, they are ghosts. Manes, [i. e. in a state of
decease, having a post mortem existence], they shall not
rise. Is. 26: 19, Thy dead men shall live ; .... the
earth shall cast out her ghosts, CNDi.
The state of the Manes is strongly characterized by
thc Hebrew name given to them, viz. C^ND"^ , thc plural
of NCn=ME"i , which means toeak, feeble, potcerless ; an
idea almost of cour.so connected with the impression
which the mind receives, from examining thc powerless
state of dead bodies. Accordingly, in Is. 14: 10, the
ghosts of Sheol are represented as saying to the King of
Babylon, as he comes down to them, " Art thou too be
come weak (iT^btl) like us 1"
These passages shew, very clearly, a strong resem
blance in the popular ideas of Sheol among thc Hebrews,
to those of the Greeks and Romans in regard to Hades.
(7) Sheol is sometimes personified, and represented
as an insatiable monster, always devouring without re
morse or distinction ; e g.
Is. 5: 14, Therefore Sheol hath enlarged herself, and
opened wide her mouth without measure. Prov. 27: 20,
Sheol and destruction arc never satisfied. Prov. 30: 15,
IG, Three things are never satisfied .... Sheol, the bar
ren womb, etc. Prov. 1: 12, Let us swallow them up
alive, like Sheol.
(8) Sheol, in common and popular language, is the
world or region to which both the righteous and the
wicked go after death.
Thus Abraham was gathered io his people, Gen. 25:
8 ; so also was Isaac, Gen. 35: 29 ; Jacob, Gen. 49: 29 ;
Aaron, Num. 20: 2G ; Moses, Deut. 32: 50. The gen
eration contemporary with Joshua, were gathered io their
fathers, Judg. 2: 10.

120 § 6. Remarks on the popular vietos flfb^Ntt}.
In Gen. 37: 35, Jacob is represented as saying, " I
will go down to Sheol^ unto my son, mourning." David
often prays to be delivered from Sheol; and often de
scribes the wicked as being sent to Sheol. The passages
have all been repeated above ; and are too plain to need
repetition here.
I might add some other minute particulars, respect
ing the popular modes of representing Sheol or the region
of the dead ; but these embrace the most important. On
these I shall now subjoin a few remarks.
^ 6. Remarks on ihe popular views of Sheid.
First; the /Jo;>?</ar representations of this nature, to
whicih reference is so frequently made in Scriptures, are
not the proper ground of estimating the knowledge or be
lief of enlightened Hebrews respecting a future state.
It seems sufliciently plain, that as the Hebrews believ«
ed God to be the rewarder of the righteous, and that ho
would inflict punishment on the wicked, they could not
well supix)se, that after death all would in every respect
share one common lot. So Ps. 17: 15, As for me, I shall
behold thy face in righteousness ; I shall be satisfied
when I awake in thy likeness. Here the Psalmist refers
to a distinction, to be made between himself and the
prosperous wicked who have a full portion in the present
world. Consequently the distinction is not in matters of
worldly good; but in something after the present life.
So Ps. IG: 11, In thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy
right hand are pleasures forevermore.
If any one should wonder how the representations of
Sheol above noticed, should be made in the Scriptures ;
let him well consider the nature of the popular methods

§ 6. Remarks on the popular views ofy.»ii. 121
of representation so often adopted there. In the Scrip
tures, the sun is represented as rising and setting ; as
are also the moon and stars. The earth is an extended
plain. The heavens are a solid arch extended over the
earth, embosoming the stores of water which supply the
rain, and pouring down this through the windows in the
vault above All these and very many other things arc re
presented simply as they present themselves to the eye.
The sacred writers did not undertake to teach geography or
astronomy. Whenever they have occasion to refer to any
objects of this nature, they do it merely in the popular
way. Suppose now that any one should undertake, on this
account, to maintain that the earth is not a globe, and to
deny the revolutions of it, or of the heavenly bodies ; and
all this, on the authority of Scripture ? The times have
been, we know, when this was done ; but wc trust such
times are posscd away, no more to return.
In (he same manner would I reason, in regard to the
popular representations of Sheol in the Bible. Many of
these are strictly correct ; as any one may see, by review
ing the particulars above described. But others have no
foundation in point of fact. A deep region beneath,
peopled with ghosts, is what we do not believe in.
Nor is there any more certainty that it is true, be
cause this method of speaking about it in the Scriptures
is adopted, than that the sun goes round the earth, be
cause they speak of it as doing so.
In most cases, it is the language of poetry which em
ploys the popular methods of representation. It is poe
try which gives a kind of life and animation to thc inhab
itants of the under-world. Poetry personifies that world.
So in Is. 5: 14, Prov. 27: 20. 30: 15, 16 and 1: 12.

122 ^ 6. Remarks on the popular views o/bi«"i5.
Above all is this the case, in that most striking passage
in Is. 14: 9 — ^20 ; in which all commentators are com
pelled 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 indu
ced 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. To
construe them literally, and then to build on thein argu
ments, in order to shew that the Hebrews had no more
definite views of a futiire world or of retribution than the
heathen, is greatly to abuse the obvious principles of in-
terpretationv Secondly ; another remark which I cannot forbear to
to make is, that lb represent the Old Testament as deter
mining the future state, either of the righteous or of the
wickcfl, with the same clearness and fulness as tho New
Testament does, savours cither of prejudice, or of an im
perfect acquaintance with the Jewish sacred Records.
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 ior each, particularly described? I know liot;
nor do I believe any one can inform mo.
In thc New Testament all is clear. " Life and im
mortality arc brought to light by the gospel."
It would be a subject of ciirious and interesting in
quiry here, to pursue the comparison of the popular no
tions of the Hebrews respecting Sheol, with those of the
Greeks as exhibited in the Odyssey, and those of the

^ 6. General Conclusion. 123
Romans as exhibited in the iEneid. Many striking traits
of resemblance could easily be pointed out. But it would
load me too far from my present object, to pursue such a
course at length ; and I must relinquish it to those, who
have more leisure for such an undertaking. In the mean
time, it is proper to suggest here, that in the view which
is to be taken of Hades in the subsequent pages, the gen
eral ideas of the Greeks and Romans relative to the under
world, must necessarily be laid before the reader.
<§ 7. Gfneral Conclusion.
As has been already intimated above, this is, that
WHILE THE Old Testament employs SHEOL, in most
CASES, to designate THE GRAVE, THE REGION OF THE
DEAD, TIIE PLACE OF DEPARTED SPIRITS, IT EMPLOYS IT
ALSO, IN SOME CASES, TO DESIG.N'ATE ALONG WITH THIS
IDEA, TIIE ADJUNCT ONE OF PLACE OF MISERY, PLACE OP
PUNISHMENT, REGION ''•F WOE. In this rcspcct it accords,
as we shall hereafter see, fully with the New Testament
use of Hades.
• That neither the place of punishment nor of happiness,
after death, is as fully and plainly developed in the Old
Testament as in the New, will not be called in question
by any candid and intelligent reader of the Bible. But
that the people of Gotl, in ancient times, had no ideas of
future happiness or misery, and no words by which these
ideas were conveyed, can hc Hhewn only when il is prov
ed, that those who enjoyed a revelation from heaven,.
VNcro moro ignorant than their heathen neighbors.

AIJHSoT AIJHS.

^1. Classical sense of the word.
IIoMBR employs this word, throughout his poems, as
the proper name of Pluto, tho imaginary god of tho un
der-world, among the Greeks and Romans. Later wri
ters, both in poetry and prose, employ it likewise to desig
nate the region, place, state, or con(lition of the dead ;
the world beneath or under-world; the grave, death or
the state of death. As an example of this last meaning,
(the only one about which a classical reader will have any
doubt), may be cited the phrases, qidijg novriog, death
by the sea, ^dtjg qoviog, death by murder. The phrase
tig (iv) 'A'idao or A'tSov, also tig (ig) 'AiSuo and A'idov,
often occurs ; but it is elliptical in the Greek, and stands
for iv A'idov o'ixta and fis A'idov oi'xov, viz. the house or
residence of Pluto.
In the oldest Greek writers, we find Hades distin
guished from Erebus and Cimmeria. Cirameria or Ciin-
merium, 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

^2. Meaning of A'iitii- 125
Cimmeria, on " the extremity of the fathomless Ocean,"
Odyss. XI. 13. Here they found regions,
'lltQi km2 vtqilr) xixuXvftfttvoi' ovii not avtovg
'Jlt'ktog qat'Owv intdtifxiTui uxrlviaatv,
Oiiiy onot' uv arilx*)oi n{>6g otjijuvov aartpoivxtt,
0'v{f 'oTttv «i/) ini yuluv un ovQuvoOtv itQOtpuntiXtti'
'AIX' inl 'vu^ o*Ao>j rirarui diikolai jSgoroTat'
that is, " Covered with darkness and clouds ; nor docs
the sun shining with his beams ever look upon tliera,
neither when he mounts tho starry sky, nor when hc
retires back from heaven to the earth ; but dcatUy night
broods over wretched mortals," Ody.-s, XI. IG — 19.
In this Cimmoriaii ri^gion, (wliicii Pliny places near to
the Lucrine Lake and Avcrnus), Ulysses is represented
by the poet, as performing the sacred rites which evoked
the Manes of the dead from Hades, who appeared before
him, and successively conversed with him. Once, in
deed, Odyss. XI. 474, Homer seems to represent Ulysses
as having gone down into Hades ; lor the shade of Achil
les asks him, " Why hast thou dared to come down into
Hades?" But still, the picture in general is such, that
We are compelled to understand this, as meaning ihe pre
cincts of Hades ; ior Proserpine and Pluto are represent
ed as sending the Manes from their abode to converse
M ith Ulysses ; and Hercules, after conversing with him, is
represented as " returning again to the house of Pluto,"
Odyss. XI. G2G.
Between this embouchure of Hades, (which seems to
have been considered as a deep valley or cavity where no
light ever comes, but still on the surface of thc earth),
there lay another region of more intense gloom and
darkness, whichtho Greeks called " l\)t(iog, (comp. tho
Hebrew '^¦y , night, ilarkncss). This was not, as some
12

126 § 2. Meaning ofA'idijg.
of our lexicons represent it, the abode of departed souls ;
but was only an intermediate region, under the surface
of the earth, and lying between this and Hades, which
was placed deeper down. Erebus is only a place of
transition to Hades, from which Homer expressly distin
guishes it, II. VIII. 368.
Last and lowest of all, was Hades, which is subdivitlcd
into the upper and lower. In the upper part are the Ely-
sian fields, the abode of the good ; and beneath these,
i. e. in the deepest dungeon, in the bowels of the earth,
is luoruQog, the place of punishment for the wicked, an
swering, in some respects, to the Fiivvu of the Hebrews.
Later Greek writers do not always observe the distinc
tions which are here presented, but frequently confound
moire or less of them in a good degree ; as do also the
Latin writers.
Virgil in his /Eneid, book VI., has given a vivid pic
ture of Orcus or Hades. It is more adapted, however, to
convey the fancies of his poetic imagination, than it is to
convey an exact idea of the more ancient and general
opinions of the Greeks in respect to Hades. He loses
sight in some measure of the views of Homer, and is
more intent on making out a striking picture, than on
giving an exact account of tradition.
Such is thc classical view of Hades and its precincts.
As to the state of the Manes or Umbrae who dwelt in
Hades, il may be represented by a few words.
When the shade of Achilles meets Ulysses, at the
mouth of Hades, he addresses him thus ; " Noble son of
Laertes, wily Ulysses, undaunted I What deeds still great
er are you devising in your mind ? IIow is it that you
have dared to come down to Hades, where the dead dwell
who are incapable of forming any plans, the mere resem
blances of busy mortals ? Odyss. XI. 472—475.

•§2. Meaning of A'idfjg. 127
The words iv&a re vexpol aipQaditg raiovat, Cowpcr
has translated, ....... Wliorc the Bhatlows of tho tload.
Form* without intellect alone reside.
But he has overlooked the antithesis lying in aqgadtig,
incapable of forming or of devising and executing plans.
The idea thus conveyed, is directly the opposite of what
Ulysses was doing, and to which Achilles adverts when
he asks, " What deeds still greater are you devising in
your mind ]" The Manes are affirmed by him to be in
capable of devising and executing any thing of this na
ture. To men who placed the greatest happiness of life in
action, as did the ancient Greeks, this would present a
gloomy picture indeed of the state of souls in Hades.
Ulysses in his reply to Achilles, seeks to comfort hira
by reminding him of his former greatness. To all lhi.'<,
the gloomy chief replies ;
llonowii'd Ulysses ! think not death a thoiue
OfConsulullon ; I had rather live
The servile hind for hire, and eat the bread
Of some man scantily hii:iself sustained.
Than sovereign empire liulJ o'er all the shades.
Cowpcr's Odyss. XI. 57:i— 597, Greek Original, XI.
487—490. To thc mind of a Greek, this must be a picture of
consummate wretchedne.ss.
The picture which Virgil gives, is not less appalling.
He describes the Manes and thc entrance to their habita-
tion, as  " umbrae silentcs;
 loca nocte tacentia late ;
 res altii tcrrA et caligine mersas ;
 priinisque in faucibiis Orci,
Luctus et ultrices posuero cubilia Curie ;
f allentesiiue habitant Morbi, triatisiiua Senectus,

128 § 2, Meaning of Atldng,
Et Metas, et malesuada Fames, ac turpis Egeslas,
Terribilea visu formao ; Letumque, Labosque ;
Turn consanguinens Leti Sopor, et mala mentis
Gaudia, mortiferumque adverso in limine Bellum
Ferreique Eumonidum tlialami, et Discordia demeng,
Vipereum criuem vittis in excruentis." IE.ne\A, VI. 2G3— 280.
Afterwards (VI. 425 seq.) Virgit describes the pro
gress of Eneas in the region of HadcSj in terms which
shew what a doleful place he thought it to be. However,
when he brings his hero to Elysium, to the locos laetos,
et amoena vireta, sedesque bealas (VI. 637 seq.), he seems
to make something more substantial out of them, than
can be found in any of the preceding heathen writers.
But it is plainly the fancy of the poet which does this,
and not the tradition of tho Greek and Roman nations.
Hades, then, in the view of the Greeks and Romans,
was the under-toorld, the toorld of the dead, a place deep
in the earth, dark, cheerless ; Where every thing was un
substantial and shadowy. The Manes were neither body
nor spirit ; but something intermediate, not palpable to
any of the senses, except to the sight and hearing ; pur
suing the mere shadows of their occupations on earth,
and incapable of any plans, enjoyments, or satisfaction,
which were substantial. Of the Elysium of Virgd, Ho
mer knows little or nothing ; and it is sufiSciently plain,
that it is principally the offspring of his own imagination.
§2. Sense of Ai'drjg as used by the sacred writers.
Before the New Testament was written, the transla
tors of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, i. e. the Seven
ty as they are usually called, had made very frequent use
of the word itdtjg, in order to translate blNVp . They
have done this in no less than GO instances, out of the 63

§ 2. Meaning ofAidnS, I'-W
in which the word yiH'Ji is employed in the Hebrew or
iginal. Twice they have rendered the same Hebrew
word by Ouvarog, viz. 2 Sam. 22: 6. Prov. 23: 14 ; and
once by p6&Qog,pit, Ezek. 32: 19 (21).
That they employ the same word (ifdrig) in a few oth
er cases, is also true. Once they employ it to translate
nil'^paN, stones of the pit, tomb, grave. Is. 14: 19;
twice, to translate riTaii , silence, viz. Ps. 93: 17. ll:j:
20; and once, to translate nj^aV:? , death-shade, ttmlai
mortis. Job 38: 18.
In Is. 38: 18, nia ''ili^, the descenders into the pit,
is rendered ol iv ixdov. In Prov. 14: 12 and 16: 2.j,
niTa ^^"^-n, the ways of death, is rendered tig zivOftiiu
^dov, into the depths of Hades.
These are all the instances in which it occurs in the
Septuagint Version. The sense which these translators
aflixed to it, is most evidently thc same as the Hebrews
affi.ved to tlic word blN'iJ • Eor this, I must remit the
reader to the preceding dissertation, where it has been
amply discussed.
In the Apocrypha, I find the word employed 16 times;
and in all cases in a manner that corresponds entirely
w:ith the use of IriNUJ .
We are prepared then to expect the like use of ifdr,i
in the New Testament. Accordingly, we here find it ,
sometiines employed in almost or quite a literal .sense,
ii e. as meaning icoj/c/ beneath, under-world; sometimes
in a sense similar to that of Orcus or lufernus, i. e. the
place of departed souls ; and sometimes in the sense of
kingdom or region of the dead, like y^^'Ji in Is. 14: 9
and other passages.

130 %^. Meaning of Aiirig,

1. Ai'dtig designates the under-world, subterranean
regions simply, in opposition to the regions above the
earth. E. g.
Matt. 11: 23, Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted
I'uig xov Ovgavov, to heaven, i. e. very highly, (alluding
probably to its site on a lofty hill), shalt be brought down
i'lag fiSov, io the under-world, i. e. very low. I admit that
the sense is probably a spiritual one here, i. e. that the
Saviour means to say, that Capernaum, which had been
so greatly cxaltcd in point of privileges and had so sig
nally abused them, should be made a conspicuous monu
ment of punitive justice. But still, the source of the
imagery, and thc natural and primary explanation of the
words, are not affected by this.
Luke 10: 15, the same words, in the same sense.

(2) Aidrjg signifies, the region of the dead, the domains
ofdeaihf or of [him who hath the power of death] Satan.
Thus Matt. 16: 18, Peter is called a rock; and on
this rock the church is to be built ; " xul nvlai ilihv,
and ihe gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." The-
world of the dead was supposed, both by thc HebrcAvs
and Greeks, to have bars or gates which none could
open, i. c. which were strong or invincible. Tho reason
or ground of this figure, wns, that no 0110 over returned
from bVv'JU or iiStig, who onco went there. Tho phrase
7ivltti{<dov may be found in 3 Mace. 5: 51 ; and nitlui
<yavdrov, nl» ¦'^rJJ, in Ps. 9: 13. 107: 18. Is. 38: 10.
The heathen writers also employ the like phrase ; e. g.
Euripides, Alcc.t. 124; iEschylus, Agamemn. 1300;
Lucretius, III. 7. These gates, moreover, are represent-

§58. Meaning of At'dtig. 131
ed by tbem as most firm and well guarded, Iliad, IX.
312. Odyss. XI. 276 ; comp. Job 38: 17.
The meaning of thc phrase in question, then, seems
to be ; ' the empire of death shall never prevail over the
church,' i. e. the church shall never cease or be extin
guished. That gates of Hades stands, by synecdoche,
for ihe region or empire of Hades, is only a common case
of rhetorical usage. Strong and invincible as Hades is
it is not to prevail over the church. This will ever five
and flourish ; or, it will never die.
As an illustration of the idea of strength, to which
allusion is made in the word Hades, one may quote the
noted line in Petronius, Sat. 62,
" Ecco auteni miles, fortis tanquam Orcus."
In the Apocalypse, the imagery is more specific with
regard to Hades. The writer of this book not only re
presents Hades as the region or kingdom of ihe dead, but
also represents Death, ^uvurog, as being king over this
region, and directing and controlling those who dwell in
it. Of this tenor arc all the examples of thc use of Hdtig
in this book ; c. g.
Rev. 1: 18, I have the keys of death and Hades, xov
^ttvtxrov xul rov ifSov. Thc meaning of this is render
ed plain, by the context which immediately precedes.
The Saviour says, " I live, but was dead ; yea, behold !
I live forever and ever ; for I have the keyi of death and
Hades ;" i. c. mine is the power to unlock tho gates of
Hades, to open tho doors of this prison from which none
could escape. I have entered the region of Hades,
(comp. Acts 2: 17, 31), and am come forth living ; yea,
in possession of everlasting life.
When God addresses Job, and asks, " Have the trates
of death been opened to thee ? Job 38: 17, the question

132 §2. Meaning of Aiitig.
implies the utter impossibility that any merely mortal
power should open them. And when Jesus is represent
ed as " having the keys of death and Hades," he is, of
course, presented as clothed with power which nothing
can control or resist. A special reference, however, is
made in this language, to the fact that Jesus had died
and risen again ; as he says in John 10: 18, " I have
power to lay down my life, and I have power to resume
it." Death, which in this passage is tacitly represented as
thc monarch of Hades, is fully exhibited as such, in oth
er passages of the Apocalypse ; c. g.
Rev. G: 8, Lo ! a pale horse, and he who sat upon
him was named Death, and Hades followed after him.
Here is the king of the empire of the dead, with his sub
jects in his train. They arc a part of the fearful battle-
array which the opening of the seven seals summons to
gether, and puts in readiness to fight " the great battle
of God Almighty." Hades, in this passage, stands for
the inhabitants of Hades ; just as in innumerable cases,
we employ the name of a country in order to designate
the inhabitaiits of the same.
It would be turning aside from my present purpose,
to descant on thc magnificent and appalling scenery pre
sented in Rev. vii. If any one can read this chapter,
witlrout being deeply impressed and affected with the
vivid and powerful imagination of the writer, he is a very
unfit person to be a commentator on this book.
Rev. 20: 13, Death and Hades gave up thc dead
which were in them ; i. C. the king over the region of the
deatJ, and his. empire also, gave up the dead who were
under his control or within its boundaries. The mean
ing of the writer is, that all the dead were" raised lo life.

§2. Meaning of Aiitjg. 133
and summoned to appear before the tribunal of the su
preme Judge of the universe.
Rev. 20: 14, and Death and Hades, were cast into
the lake of fire ; this is the second death. Here the king
of Hades, and Hades itself, i. e. the region or domains of
death, are represented as cast into the burning lake.
The general judgmxint being now come, mortality having
now been brought to a close, the tyrant death, and his
domains along with him, are represented as cast into the
burning lake, as objects of abhorrence and of indignation.
They are no more lo exercise any power over the human
race Such is the representation of Hades in the Apoca
lypse. It is the genuine blN'iJ of the Hebrews ; with the
exception, perhaps, that the Hebrew sacred books have
no where represented Hades as having a king over it.
The passage in Is. 28: 15, is indeed susceptible of being
understood so as to accord exactly with the representa
tion in the Apocalypse ; " We have made a covenant with
Death (nitt) ; and with Sheol, (ViN«jj , Hades), are we
al agreement ;" comp. Hos. J 3: 14. But thc want of sup
port from analogy in the Old Testament, leads me to con
strue Sheol here, as meaning simply grave or region of
thc dead, and as being merely a parallelism of tletdh,
ma.

(3) Very nearly allied to No. 2, and a species of thc
same genus, is the meaning, grave, sepulchre, depository
of the dead, which uSijg sometimes has.
1 Cor. 15: 55, O grave ! ^Stjg, where is thy victory ?
So our common version here; and well enough, because
the question which the writer puts, has rfespect to the

I'^t ^^- Meaning of Al'dtjg.
resurrection of the dead. Still, if the passage " O
death! where is thy stirig? O grave ! where is thy vie-
tory,'^ should be construed in such a manner as Odvaxog
and ^dtjg are to be construed throughout the Apocalypse,
the sense would be perfectly good ; e. gj ' King of ter
rors ! where is thy triumph? Empire of the dead 1
where is thy victory V
Acts 2: 27, thou wilt not leave my soul [me] in
Hades ; nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption ; i. e.
thou wilt not leave me in the grave or region of the dead,
nor suffer my body to putrify there. See on ViNtu above,^
under Ps. IG: 10. '
Acts 2: 31, his soul [he] was not left in Hades, nor
did his flesh see corruption.
Both these passages havo their basis in Ps. 16: 10;
and Hades here, evidently has tho same sense as V^N^li
there.

(4) Hades has the sense of Tartarus, in one passage,
viz. the region of woe or punishment.
Luke 16: 23, in Hades, iv roi ^Stj he lifted up his
eyes, being in torrnenls. . That in the heathen Hades
was a Tartarus, a place of pvJnishment and suffering, is
too well known to need illustration and proof on tho pre
sent occasion. More will be said on this point, when I
come to treat of Tugia^og. That in Hades, blNtJ , ac
cording to the views of the Hebrews, and of Jesus him
self, there was a place of torment, is put out of all ques
tion by the passage now before us.
Taking this lo be correct, we may now look back and
see, that the remarks made above on thc probablo mean
ing of Sheol under §§ 3, 4, receive much confirmation,
and are rendered very probable, by the passage bcforc us.

§ 3. Remarks on Ai'StiS. 135

§ 3. Remarks on the use of Hades in the Scriptures,
These arc all the passages in which Hades is employ
ed in the New Testament. From none of these can we
gather, that the Jews in our Saviour's time made use of
tho v.'ord Hades as indicating expressly the aboile of the
righteous, as well as of the wicked. The passage in
Rev. 20: 13, 14, may appear somewhat dubious, however,
in respect to this point ; and the passage in 1 Cor. 15:
55, implies a triumph of the righteous, al their resurrec
tion, over Hades ; which would seem lo imply, that for a
time they had been subjected to its dominion. This do
minion, however, need not be interpreted as meaning any
thing more, than that they havo been subjected to mor
tality, i. c. to death.
It niay also bo remarked, that as in the Old Testa
ment, Sheol is, thc place to which the righteous go as
well as the wicked; and as the Saviour, subsequently to
his death, is represented as being in Hades, Ps. 16: 10.
Acts 2: 27, 31 ; so it is not improbable that the general
conception of Hades, as meaning the region of the dead,
comprized both an Elysium and a Tartarus, (to speak in
classical language), or a state of happiness and a state of
misery. Such being the case, the question whether those who
go lo Hades will be happy or miserable there, depends of
course on the question, whether they arc righteous or
wicked, whether they deserve reward or punishment.
Admitring that an existence in Hades implies a state
which is capable cither of happiness or of misery, is ad
mitting, of course, that tho sinner tnay be " in torments"
while in Hades ; and that Dives was in such a state, is
made certain by Luke 16: 23.

136 ^ 3. Remarks on A'idtjg.
That the Hebrews used the Greek word Hades, so
as to correspond in general with their Sheol, is quite
plain from the above investigations. We can no more
argue that Hades, as used by them, did in all respects
mean the same as it did among the Greeks, than we can
argue in like manner in regard to the use of the words
{^tog, ayytkog, aoirtjQ, dut^ioiv, Siu^oXog, ouQuvog, etc.
A most important philological consideration ; and one, I
may add, which is very often overlooked in tho partial
and parly examinations to which the Scriptures are hot
unfrequently subjected I
I add one more remark, before closing this topic.
Whatever the stale of either the righteous or the wicked
may be, whilst in Hades, i. e. under the dominion of
death, that stale will certainly cease, and be exchanged
for another, al the general resurrection. So we are most
plainly taught, in Rev. 20: 13, 14. Thc wicked will
then be doomed to a second death, more dreadful than the
first, Rev. 21: 8, 9, comp. Rev. 20: 8, 9, also Rev. 20:
14, 15.
I am entirely unable, then, to perceive how it can
be proved that there will be no future punishment, by
shewing that Hades means the grave, ihe region of the
dead, or the state of the dead, the empire of death. This
empire is to cease, and another slate is lo succeed, from
which the Scriptures say nothing (at least I am able to
find nothing) in regard to deliverance. When it can be
shewn, that there is deliverance from " the lake of fire,
which is the second death," then something will be done to
affect the question under consideration. Until then, I see
not how \ve can avoid the conclusion, that " the smoke of
future torment will ascend n\i forever and ever."

TAPTAPOS.

The name Tartarus occurs no where in the Scrip
tures. But a denominative verb, rugruQOoi, which means
to send to Tartarus, io confine in Tartarus, to punish in
Tartarus, occurs in 2 Pet. 2: 4. Here il is said, that
" God spared not the angels who sinned, but rugragta-
aug, confining them in Tartarus, hc put them in chains of
darkness, incarcerated for trial or kept for judgment.
That a place of puni.shment is here indicated by Tar
tarus, is put beyond all doubt by the context ; " he spar
ed not," " chains of darkness," " imprisoned for judg
ment or condemnation." It remains only to inquire,
whether the word is susceptiblo of any other meaning,
even according to thc ttsus loquendi of the classics.
In Greek, thc word Tartarus is employed to desig
nate a supposed subterranean region, as deep down be
low tbe upper part of Hades as the earth is distant from
heaven ; Passow, Lex. sub voc. Tugrugog. Il is occa
sionally employed, in the later classic writers, for the un-
der-tcorld in general ; but in such a connection as lo
shew, that it is only when writers mean to speak of the
whole as a region of gl(X)m, that they call il Tartarus.
It is the place where the distinguished objects of Jupi
ter's vengeance are represented as being confined and
13

138 Meaning of Tugragot.
tormented. It is placed in opposition to, or in distinc
tion from Elysium.
These meanings of the word are so notorious, and so
familiar to every reader of the classics, that I deem it un
important to dwell upon them. I add only, that Homer,
Iliad IV. 13, uses the expression tig rugrugov ginroi,
which is equivalent to rugrugooi ; Josephus, cont. Apion.
2: 33, uses the expression, iv rugrugoi diSri^uvovg.
Kururugrugooi is also employed by Sextus Empir.,
Hypotyp. III. 24; and by Apollodorus, Biblioth. I. 1, 2.
There can be no doubt, then, either from classical
or sacred usage, of the proper meaning of rugrugo'ioag.
The only question is, to vvlioin does it refer ?
The answer must be, ' Primarily to the sinning an
gels.' So 2 Pet. 2: 4 shews beyond a doilbt. But then
the nature of the threatening here is such, that it must
be intended for sinful men as well as angels. So v. 3
clearly shews. The whole strain of the argument is ;
' If God spared not the angels who sinned, but confined
them in Tartarus; neither will he spare sinners now, but
will confine them there' If we compare vs. .3, 4 and
17, in chap. II. , this conclusion is put beyond any rea
sonable doubt.
I remark, moreover, that the heathen had no appre
hension of deliverance from Tartariis. Tantalus, Sisy
phus, Ixion, and all others sent there, were doomed fo
endless punishment, in the view of the Greeks and Ro
mans. It remains for those w ho deny that the idea of such ¦
a punishment wasTittachcd tothe word Tartarus, when
it was used by the Hebrews, to exhibit some proof that
the allegation which they make is true.
But they will tell us, perhaps, that ' the word Tarta
rus designates nothing more than an imaginary place of

Meaning of Tagxagog. 139
punishment, among tho heathen. Such a place as the
Greeks and Romans supposed, docs not in fact exist;
therefore we are not to conclude, when the word is em
ployed by Peter, that it designates any place which has
a real existence'
The answer lo this is easy. We may allow the pre
mises, without in any measure feeling ourselves moved
to allow the conclusion. Did not the Greek O^tiig, desig
nate an imaginary god ? AVas not his ovguvog, and his
ijXvaiov (Elysium) imaginary ? And yet, when a He
brew writer employs {)t6g and ovguvog, does it designate
nothing real, and nothing different from the idea that a
heathen Greek expressed by these words ? Surely such
an argument as this, can never stand before the light of
examination. Have wc yet to learn', after so many able
lexicons and commentaries on the New Testament Greek
have been published, that when the Hebrews employed
tbe words of this language, they attached to very many
of them peculiarities of meaning, which may be sought
for in vain in classic authors ? Who that is worthy of re
gard as a scholar, now calls this in tpiestion ? And if it
be true, is there any difficulty in siqiposing that luurugo'i-
oug has a real meaning, wiien used by Peter? Certain
ly none. Indeed, the connection in which it stands, puts
this matter beyond fair question. Peter was obliged,
when he wrote Greek, to use the language as he found
it already made What term then, in order to express
the horrors of future puiiisbment, could he select from the
whole Greek language, which was more significant than
rugrugtaaui ? Until this question can be answered, I
know not how to avoid the conclusion here, that the apo.s-
tlo does refer to a future and an endless punishment.

PEENNA.

The word Pitwa is derived, as all agree, from the
Hebrew words tvri ^a ; which, in process of time, pas
sing into other languages, assumed diverse forms ; e. g.
Chaldee Csna , Arabic p^Q-^ (Gahannani), Greek Jt-
tvvu. The valley of Ilinnom, csn ^3 , is a part (the eastern
section) of the pleasant Wadi or valley, which bounds
Jerusalem on the south. Josh. 15: 8. 18: 6. Here, in an
cient limes, and under some of the idolatrous kings, the
worship of Moloch, the horrid idol-god of the Ammonites,
was practiced. To this idol children were offered in
sacrifice, 2 K. 23. 10. Ezek. 23: 37, 39. 2 Chron. 28: 3.
Lev. 18: 21. 20: 2. If we may credit the Rabbins, the
head of thc idol was like that of an ox ; while the rest of
its body resembled that of a man. It was hollow within ;
and being heated by fire, children were laid in its arms
and were there literally roasted alive. We cannot won
der, then, at the severe terms in which the worship of
Mobch is every where denounced in the Scriptures.
Nor can we wonder that the place itself should have
been called Tophet, nc.T, i. c. abomination, detestation,
(from 7\in to vomit with loathing), Jer. 31: 32. 19:6.
2 K. 23: 10. Ezek. 23: 37, 39.

Meaning of Fiivva. 1-11
After these sacrifices had ceased, the place was de-
secrated, and made one of loathing and horror. The
pious king Josiah caused it lo be polluted, 2 K. 23: 10, ^
i. e. he caused to be carried there the filth of the city of
Jerusalem. Il would seem that thc custom of desecrat
ing this place, thus happily begun, was continued in af\cr
ages down lo the period when our Saviour was on earth.
Perpetual fires were kept up, in order to consume the of
fal which was deposited there. And as the same offal
would breed worms, (for so all putrefying meat of course
does), hence came the expression, " Where the worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
It is admitted, that the Jews of later date used the
word Gehenna to denote Tartarus, i. e. the place of in
fernal punishment. The question here to be discussed
is, whether this name is literally employed in the New
Testament, or whether it designates a place of f ture
punishment or the future world of w*oe
It is of some importance lo this investigation, to iii-
•luire whether the Jews were ever accustomed to execute
malefactors by burning them.
That such a mode of punishment was once practiced,
and in certain cases even enjoined by the Mosaic law, is
certain from Gcii. 38: 24. Lev. 20: 14. 21: 9. Josh. 15:
25. But that the Jews were accustomed to execute
criminals in this way, in our Saviour's time, there is no
certain proof The allusion, however, iu Matt. 5: 22,
seems almost necessarily to imply that such was the fact.
The word Fitwu, then, when used in respect to a
place of punishment, may be used, or might have been
used, literally. The question whether it is employed in
its literal, or in its secondary and spiritual sense, in the
New Tostainciit, comes now to be ewamined.
13*

l'*^ Meaning of Fifvva.
The only passage which seems to me even capable of
the literal sense, is Matt. 6: 22. The Saviour here soys,
" Every one who is angry at his brother, is obnoxious t^
xgiaet," i. e. as it were, to a punishment inflicted by a low
er court, viz. that of the Septemviri among the Hebrews;
" but whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be ob
noxious avvidgtoi," i. e. to the Sanhedrim (l^nnnjo) or
highest council, who could inflict severer punishment than
the court of Septemviri, q. d. he will deserve still severer
punishment than hc who is merely angry ; " but he who
shall say, poigt, shall be obnoxious tig rt]v Fi'ivvuv roi;
nvgog," i. e lit. io the fire of the valley of Ilinnom, (\. d.
to a still higher and more severe punishment, such as is
inflicted by burning to death in thc valley of Ilinnom.
Is a\\ this literal, or spiritual? IIow can it he liter
al? Our Saviour had just said, that the Jews adjudged
him only to be guilty of murder, who actually killed a
man. He then declares, that in the sight of God, this
whole matter appears in a very different light. It is not
tho external act only, which hc regards. The spirit
which is cherished and exhibited, constitutes an essential
part of the crime, as it is viewed by him. Accordingly,
he who cherishes an angry and revengeful spirit, is ex
posed to punishment ; he who lets this spirit break out
into provoking and reproachful language, is more guilty
still ; but ho who gives loose to his passion, so as to. ut
ter epithets of the highest reproach, such as would de
stroy thc character or endanger the life of the person
against whom they were uttered,— he should be deemed
worthy of the most signal punishment of all, like that in
flicted in the valley of Hinnom.
It must be very plain,, now, to every considerate rea
der, that the Saviour, (who had just declared that the

Meaning of Fttvvu. 143
Jews regarded nothing to be killing or murder except the
external act, and who of course did not punish any thing
else or take any cognizance of it), could not here mean
to say, that the Jews would literally punish the various
gradations of crime which he marks. This would be to
contradict what he had just said. We must suppose,
then, that he means to designate thc punishment wliich
God, who could judge the heart, would inflict, and which
must be spiritual. Surely it cannot be meant, that God
would subject persons who cherished anger, to a literal
court of thc Septemviri (xjj/ots) ; or lo the literal San
hedrim ; or lo the literal fire in the valley of Ilinnom.
What is meant must then be, that God would punish, in
a future world, with ditrerent degrees of severity which
were signified or symbolized by the punishment inflicted
by thc Septemviri, by the Sanhedrim, and by being
burned in the valley of Ilinnom. It seems impossible to
give the passage any other rational, defensible ineaning.
It follows, of course, that although Gehenna is here
referred lo in its literal sense, yet the meaning of the
whole passage does not permit us lo understand the idea
intended to be conveyed as a literal one It is employed
as a source of imagery, to describe the punishment of a
future world, which the Judge of all hearts and intentions
will inflict.
What has now been said \*ill render the other exam
ples of Gehenna that follow, easy to be understood.
Thus, Matt. 5: 29, the Saviour declares that ' he who does
not " cut off" an offending member of his body, shall be
cast into Gehenna.' Most certainly this cannot be under
stood of a /jVcra/ ca5</M^ in/o G'e^cnna ; for who was lo
execute such a punishment? Not the Jewish, courts;

1^* Meaning of Ft'evva.
for they had no cognizance of the offence which a man's
right hand or right eye moved him to commit, i. e. they
could not call in question and punish a member of the
human body, because it templed its owner to sin. It
must then be a punishment which God would inflict.
But was this a literal casting into the valley of Hinnom ?
It may however be said, that thc caution of the Sa
viour runs thus ; ' Avoid all temptation lo sin, lest you
bring on yourself the terrible punishment of being burn
ed in the valley of Hinnom, in case you give way to any
temptation.' This would be a possible interpretation, provided the
crimes in question could be shewn to be of such a nature
as were punishable in this manner by the Jewish courts.
But as this cannot be done, this exegesis seems to be fair
ly incapable of admission.
Malt. 5: 30, another example of the same nature as
that in 5: 29.
Matt. 18: 9, an instance of the same nature, except
ing that the phrase here is yf'tvvuv toi' nvgog, a fiery
Gehenna; which one cannot doubt has the same meaning
as unquenchable fire., ^lark 9: 43, 45, inasmuch as this
very phrase is tbc.o used to explain yttwu ; the same
meaning also as the lake office, Rev. 20: 14, 15. 21: 8,
which is " ihe second death," Rev. 21: 9.
Mark 9: 4r,. 9: 45, the like cases with Matt. 5: 29,
and where in both instances, to nvg ro ua^tatov, un
quenchable fire is added, iu order to explain thc tremen
dous nature of the Gehenna in tiuestion.
Mark 9: 47, tho same aa Mutt. 18: 9.

Meaning of Ft'ivvct. 145

(2) There is a second class of cases, where Gehenna
appears to bo used more simply still, that is with imme
diate reference to the world of woe, or a state of punish
ment. E.g.
Mall. 23: 15, the Scribes and Pharisees are said to
compass sea and land, in order to make proselytes ; and
when this is accomplished, thc proselyte becomes " two
fold more a son of Gehenna than themselves ;" i. e. he is
doubly deserving of the punishment of hell. Surely the
Saviour docs not mean to say, that he will suffer double
the punishment literally to be inflicted on them, in" thc
literal valley of Ilinnom.
ftlatt. 23: 30, how can ye [Scribes and Pharisees]
escape the damnation of Gehenna ? xgiatoig rr,g Fitv-
»»>;?; Does thc Saviour mean here to ask, ' IIow can ye
escape being burned alive in the valley of Ilinnom ?
Were they in any danger of this ?
James 3: G, the tongue ... is set on fire of Gehenna,
fno T/7» ritvvi;g. Docs James mean to say, that a .slan
derous boasting tongue is literally set on fire by thc val
ley of Hinnoiu ? Or does Gehenna here mean hcU,
which, like the name of u region or country, is used to
denote those who dwell in it, viz. malignant spirits ?

(3) There remain two examples more, which put tho
question out of all possible doubt in respect to a Utcrid
construction. Matt. 10: 28, fear not them who kill the body, but
cannot kill the soul ; but rather fear him tcho can destroy
both souland body in Gehenna. The body might, indeed.

1'*^ Meaning of Ft'tvva.
be literally burned in the valley of Hinnom ; but the
immaterial, immortal Boa\—ia that to be literally burned
there ?
Luke 12: 6, fear him, who after killing hath power
to cast into Gehenna ; a passage parallel with the one
above, and of the same import.
These are all the instances in which the word Gehen
na is employed by the sacred writers. It exists not
among the Greek classic writers, because it is a mere
Hebrew word. No light then can come from that quar
ter, in order to illustrate its meaning.
That the word Gehenna was common among the,
Jews, is, evinced by its frequency in the oldest Rabbini
cal writings. It was employed by them, as all confess,
in order to designate hell, the infernal region, the world
of woe. In no other sense, can it in any way be made
out that il is employed in the New Testament.
Now as all appellations to designate either heaven
or bell, must be taken from sensible objects, (see on
Sheol, §§ 3, 4), so there is not lite least difhculty as to
the usage in question. Heaven is called a paradise,
Luke 23: 43. 2 Cor. 12: 2. Rev. 2: 7 ; although this
word originally means, park, garden, pleasure garden.
Cant. 4: 13. Neb. 2: 8. Ecc. 2: 5, and is of Persian or
igin. So hell may be called Gehenna, although the orig
inal sense of tho word is only valley of Jlinnoiu. AVhat
could be a more appropriate teriii than this. When we con
sider the horrid cruelties and diabolical rites which had
been there performed ? Indeed, it seems quite probable,
as Gesenius suggests, that ' Gehenna came to be used as
a designation of the infernal regions, because the Ile-
brews°supposed that demons dwelt in this valley.' Hebrew
Thesaurus, sub. voc. N^a .

GENERAL REMARKS.

And now, in view of thc results which the whole of
the preceding investigations afford, what says the under
standing ? What says conscience ?
The question is not, what this or that individual may
wish or desire to bo true ; but, ^Vhat have the sacred
writers taught ? This latter question can be answered
in no satisfactory way, but by inquiring what the lan
guage means, which they have employed. The mean
ing of this is surely to be made out by philology, i. e by
an investigation conducted agreeably to the principles of
language ; not by philosophy, i. e. by a priori specula
tions about the nature of God's moral government. And
even in this latter method, ii analogy is of any force, the
question must be decided in the aflirmative with regard
to future punishment. What earthly government ever
existed, or can exist, without any punisJiments ?
Is there, thim, a moral government of God as a spir
itual being ? Is there another world, where moral be
ings are to be governed ? Ifso, whocan render it pro
bable, even by a priori argument, that there is no punish
ment there ?
But OHr question is with the Bible. Does this reveal
a place of future punishment ? To say that this is absurd.

1'*^ General Remarks.
or impossible, is only to prejudge the question without
examining it. The results of a philological examination
of thc Scriptures, are, that a place of punishment after
death is disclosed by the sacred writers, and by the Sa
viour of men. I am well aware that this is contradicted
and denied. But then, neither contradiction nor denial,
in this case, springs irom philology , but from inclination,
wishes, philosophy, or prejudice. If this be not so, why
is not philology arrayed, in all its proper strength, against
tbe idea that there is a place of future punishment ? Who
has tlone this? IIow is it lo be done? All thc exam
ples in the Scriptures, of the various words above exam
ined, are produced in these essays. There is no con
cealment. I trust there is no attempt to pervert or frit
ter away their obvious meaning. I am certain there is
no such design, on my part. Let them be philologically
and critically set aside, or shewn to be erroneousry inter
preted, and, so far as I am concerned, I promise to in
stitute denovo another examination.
I address those who acknowled^-e the Scriptures as
the source of their fahh; and I put again the questions ;
What says the understanding? What says conscience?
If any one should reply, and say ; ' The words Sheol,
Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, all have a literid signifi
cation, and designate objects real or imaginary belonging
only to the present world ;' the answer to this has already
been given. Il is simply this, viz. that all words which
characterize a future world, are and must be of the like
nature. They all originally have a literal sense. This
they must have, else they could not be used in a figura
tive or secondary sense The Hebrew tl'^J?-^ , heavens,
has a literal sense ; and so also the Greek ovguvog ; both
mean the airy region above the earth, the welkin, above.

General Remarks. 149
the apparent expanse over our heads. But have they,
therefore, no other sense ? Do they not often designate
tho place where God dwell,^, tho abode of the blessed in
a ftituro world ? None will be so unreasonable as to de
ny this. Paradise, (Heb. S'n'^S , Greek nugudttaog), has a
literal sense, viz. that oi garden, pleasure-garden, orchard
of fruit and fioioer trees, etc. ; but has it always such a
meaning? When our Saviour tells the penitent thief,
that he shouhl be wifli him in paradise ; or when Paul
was caught up into paradise ; or w hen thc .'Saviour pro
mises to the Ephcsian church, that ho who overcomes
shall eat of the tree of life in the paiiidisr of God, is
nothiaig but a literal garden meant ? Thc most zealous
advocates of benevolence and gootl-will (so called), would
blush at such an interpretation us this.
When the wicked, then, are roprcsenti d as being seiit
to Slicol ; and thc rich man as lifting up his eyes in
Hades, bring in torrnenls; or the evil angels as being
confined in chains of darkness in Torlari-s ; is all this lo
be understood only of a literal grave, or s( pulclire, or un
der-world ? And when we are commandird lo fear him,
who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna; is this
destruction to be a literal one in the //7er.</ valley of Hin
nom ? Prejudice may possibly affirm tlii'^ ; or unbelief
may scoff at it, and refuse to examine it ; but the reason
and conscience of any man, who really i'clievcs thc di
vine word, will tremble to decide in so unreasonable and
presiiinptuous a manner.
I advance one step further. There is not only a place
of future punishment, (just as surely as there is of future
happiness, and on the like grounds), but that place is se
parated by an " impassablegulf' from the region of the
14

*^^ General Remarks.
blessed. So the awful passage in Luke 16: 19—26 in
forms us. The words of this passage, be it remember
ed, are those of the Saviour, who knows whether there is
a hell as well as a heaven. They then that " would pass
from the Hades of torments to the region of the blessed,
CAN NOT." (Luke 16: 26.) There is no commutation of
place for them.
The force of all this may be denied ; attempts may.
be made to fritter it away ; they have been. There is
no difiiculty in all this. But how thc impassable gulf
fixed between heaven and bell by an almighty God, is
to be removed, or rendered passable; is a question which
those who deal thus with the Saviour's words, would do
well seriously and timely to consider.
It may be well to notice one more allegation, which
has of late been strongly insisted on, and greatly confid
ed in, by many who wish the doctrine to be true which
denies that there is any future punishment. In substance
it is this ; viz. ' that inasmuch as Hades and Sheol,
Tartarus and Gehenna, designate either imaginary regions
which are supposed lo be subterranean, or else literally
the valley of Ilinnom at Jerusalem-; it follows of course,
that no rln/ />/«cc of future punishment is named in tho
Scriptures; and if itn place is pointed out, then We have
reason to conclude that there is none.'
On this I remark, (I) That the same argument would
prove, that since ^112^ or ovguvog, and O'l'is or nugu-
dtiaog, i. e heaven antl paradise, mean the region over our
heads and a garden, therefore there is no/;/flre in which
the righteous will be happy, unless it be in our atmos
phere or in some earthly garden. On this argu nent I
have already said all that I wish to say. " What proves
too much, proves nothing."

General Remarks. 151
(2) The laws of our Commonwealth declare, that the
man who commits murder shall be punished with death,
i. e. with hanging by the neck until death supervene.
Now these same laws have no where said, in tchat place
the gallows for hanging a murderer shall be erected ; nor
even that any shall be erected. Suppose then I deduce
from this, the conclusion that a murilerer will not be pun
ished, because no place for his execution is designated.
In reasoning thus, I ilo just what is done, when conclu
sions such as I am now examining, are made.
Supposing it to be fact, that the Bible has no where
named the iilnre in which future punishment will be in
flicted ; does this even touch the question, whether
there will be any future punishment? An answer to this
is altogether superfluous.
But the assumption itself is as urigrountled as the ar
gument. In proof of this, I must refer thc reader to the
precetling pages. It is labour wor.se than lost, then, to
publish books to prove that there is no future punishment,
by such an ungrounded and manifestly erroneous argu
ment as this.
One more remark and I have done, for the present.
Let the sober inquirer, who wishes to know thc truth,
review the meaning oi uioiv and uioiviog, and ask, wheth
er the probability that future punishment will be endless,
does not mount so high, that to call it in question is un
reasonable and hazardous ? And if so, then to believe
in the salvation of all men, and to live in such a manner
as those usually do who thus believe, is presumptuous be
yond the power of human language to express.
If Universalists are in the right, we who believe in a
doctrine very different from theirs, are nevertheless just
as safe as they. We need not concern ourselves to e.x-

152 General Remarks.
amine whether we are in the right or in the wrong as to
opinion, since there can be no difference in the result.
But if we are in the right, and they mistake fundamental
ly the meaning of God's word ; and mistake it through
thc spirit of unbelief, and through desire to live without
that self-control and self-denial which thc gos|»cl de
mands on penalty of everlasting death ; then what is to
be the end of all this ?
Is there any other case, any one that pertains mere
ly to the present world, in which a man of common un
derstanding and prudence, could justify a risk like that
in the present case? And arc the interests of c/erniVy
to be more lightly regarded than those of time ? Is the
fancied pleasure of the undisturbed gratification of sensual
appetites, for a few days, lo be put in serious competition
with the interests of a period which has no end ? Ifso,
then we may well say with the Scriptures, " Madness is
in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to
the dead."
But O the nci'cr dying soul ! Tbe judgement lo come !
The summons to appear before that tribunal on which
eternal justice is scaled ! " Knowing the terrors of the
Lord, we would fain persuade men." " It is indeed a
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, who
is a consuming fire ;" who has said, " Vengeance is
miiie I will repay." Blessed arc those " over whom the
second death hath no power !" Dreadful beyond the pow
er of language lo describe, beyond what any human mind
can possibly conceive, must be the condition of those,
who will finally be cast into the lake of fire, which is the
SECOND death, and there be tormented toith the beast and
the false prophet, day and night, forever and ever.

APPENDIX.

While the preceding sheet was under the press, the Christian
Examiner for Sept. I8;W came to hand ; which coiilnins ^n picco
occupying 85 pages, dated Sandiciih, and subscribed E. a. G.,
making strictures on my remarks (p. 7'2 scq. of the proseiit ctlilion),
which were formerly published in the Spirit of the Pilgrims for
Aug. 18ii!>, Inasmuch as I have taken the liberty to animadvert
on Mr. G's first piece respecting ui'iir and kmIhiu;, it woiild seem
to be no more than courteous., to make some answer to his recent
snffjjdstions. Tlic tone and spirit of tlio whole piece, seem to me to exhibit a
singular mixture of courteousncss and irritability; now thotV/aSo-
iuUiuty, and now the xuzoiVu.'m.if (I mean no harm) seeming to bo
uppermost. But on the whole, the fi)rmer appears to have tho
mastery; and I am bonnd to believe him to be rather a good na-
tiired man than otiiorwiae ; e.'sitecially considorinir the provocation
that he had, which was no less than llio eoiifrailicliiig of his main
ivosilions, and the endeavouring to pull down the corner-posts of
his building.
I have read with attcniipn Mr. G's vindication, and must con
fess myself no better satisfied than with his first piece. An ex
amination in detail, my limits do not admit me to make. If Mr.
G's main posi>tions arc not fast ones, and this can be shown, I
liope he will be satisfied that a minute and extended examination
of all the partiruhrs of his jiicce is required neither by the laws of
argument nor of Christian courtesy.
Mr. G. reproves mo for sayinn; thattho groUnd of his transla
ting ai'.i'iiio,- spiritual, is, that JF.ovs (yUonn). were counted as
spiritual beings. He admits that ho did refer to this, as being
' an ancient and classic sense of the word ;' but hc avers, that hc
did not rely upon it.
As Mr. G's original piece can be consulted and compared with
mine, by those who desire to do so, I will not endeavour to vindi
cate myself here. I tiast myself on the jud^^emcnt of the reader.
He still maintains (p. 20), as ho first did, that " aiiic means spiri-

154

APPENDIX.

tualittj, in the more ancient Greek," and that ' the Seventy proba
bly used it in a kindred sense in their version.'
In opposition to this, I shall merely state, that no classic Lexi
con within the range of my consultation, gives such a sense to the
word. Pasaow'a Lexicon, the last and best of all, does not even
advert to it. I have never met with it in any classic Greek wri
ter; and consequently I must believe that no such moaning ever
was attached to it in ancient Greek, until I see some cu/f/enc* of it ;
for no evidence has Mr. G. even attempted lo offer.
Mr. G. states that his principal reliance is on 1 John 5: 11, 12.
3: 15 etc. ; together with some other texts of the like nature, but
where tho meaning spiritual, is rather probable than necessary, p.
22. He complains that 1 have left this unnoticed.
I did so, because F could not conceive how the sentiment in
tlicso passages could have a bearing on tho (|uestion Avhethor ai'io-
»iu? means spirittinl. The senlinniil in bulh seems' to me plainly
to be, that a state of happiness and peace (^un]) begins when tho
soul is truly reconciled to God, and continues furcvtr. As to the
first, we. may compare John 3: 30, 18. Eph. 1: 12, 13. 4; 30. 2 Cor.
5: 5. 1: 22, comp. Rom. 8; 23, also Rom. 5; 1—11. As to the
second, viz. that the ewrHfsi of future blessedness liere given lo
the children of God, is an earnest of blessedness which will have
no end, sec Rom. 'r. 5—10. 8; 28—39; John 10: 27—30. Yet with
all this admitted and taught, as it is, every where in the Bible, tho
Scriptures make a very wide distinction between the present and
/udurc state of happiness; see llnm. 8; 21, 25, 8; 18—23. 2 Cor. 4:
10 — 18. 5: 1 — 5 ; which are only a specimen of a great muttitude
of tcxlsoflho same tenor.
Now all Which the texts relied on by ISIr. G. can well be sup
posed to prove, is, that the happiness in question would have no end.
There is the same propriety in applying tlie sense eternal here,
that there is in all the cases under § 10. No. 1, p. 40 above ; which
I desire the reader to consult. One might jnst ns well propose to
exchange ererlastimr in all these cases for «/<(;-((u«/, as lo do so here.
It is a sound rule in philology, ' never to depnri from the ordin
ary sense of a word, unless thc context imperiously demands it.'
What there. is which demnnds.'it here, I cannot see. To say that
spiritual would make good sense, is saying nothing tothe purpose.
In thousands of cases, where tho adjective s^ood is applied to God,
a?7niVAji/ would make good sense; and rict rcrsii. And so of a
muItTtude of other words. But after all tho only question is, H'hat
sense did the trrilcr mean to contrij? Not, what may in ilself bo
a cood or true sense .' Mr. G. must admit this ; and admitting it,
all which he has said about the word .s^^tr'^""' making good sense,
falls at once to the ground.
Mr. G's nrjrument on p. 23 seq., has its basis in the aupposed
fact, that tho Greek classic langu.-igo does einnloy «,V.iiaf in the
sense oispirllual. Ho tries to shew how the philosophic meaning
aevnir, mi-rht becom : generalized by popular use so aa to cxprbss
spiritual simply. But still, a.\i..o,- in the sense oi aeomc and
spiritual, is an utter stranger to classic Greek; tlio nrst ex-

APPENDIX. 155
iiUonly io the worki of lomo Gnostic heretict, or rather of the
patristic commentators on them ; and of the second, no certain ex
ample has yet been offered.
In p. 25 seq. Mr. G. argues, ofler all, that the principal ground
of investigating the true apostolic use oC utuinog, is the uso of it by
the Seventy, who regarded it as being correspondent to the He
brew ttV'S (cViy). 1 accept the terms of contest here proposed,
at once,. and enter the lisls with entire readiness.
All turns now on the Hebrew word cV-.y. But this is surely
as insecure u basis as Mr. G. could well 'choose. Among all the
Lexicons of the Hebrew language, of which I have any knowl
edge, (and mo.^^t of all that have enjoyed much reputation in the
Christian world are among this number), I know of none that
gives spirituiilili/ or spiritual as the meaning of cV".y . I know of
no passage, in the hundreds of places where this word is used in
the Old Testaimiit, in which tlie meaning in question scciiis in
any degree prohable.
' But cV», in Hebrew, means something that is hidden, mystt-
rious, vnsearcliahlf, iiiihnoirn ;' it is ' well calculated, therefore, to
express what ia iiiiiiiaterial, intellectual, spiritual.'
As lo tlie miislcrious, uuscurrliubic, or unl.vnun in the sense of
being beyond the boiiiuhiries of knowli'iljr(.j (which is here impli
ed), I know of no cases in which even the rerb cVv certainly con
veys any of these meanings. Tuhidc, to conceal, it does mean;
but how rem ite this may be from mysterious and vnsc'archublt,
need not be said.
Then, is llicre nothing vnjslerious or unsearchable, but spirit f
Fcr example; the pnwers of nature, gravitation, electricity, mag
netism, the principles of vegetation, etc. ; is there no cVj: here?
Onne more; even all these meanings belong exclusively tothe
rerb c\y , and notto the noun rV'.y . Mr. G. has wholly over
looked tliis, and therefore conunitli'd a radical error in his jihilo-
lojical reasoning. He does nnt nerd, 1 trust, to be told, after all
which lexicography hasdohe.tlial nounsderived from verbs. or verbs
from nouiiM, do, by usage, often acquire a sense enlirely diverse
frern what tlieir etymology would indicate. I'sus et jus et norma
toi^ nrndi. But admitting all which he claims, it amounts to nothing ; for
hidden or myslcriovs, cr;n in no w.iy be made necessarily to mean
spiritual or iidiUtctnal. And even if they could,, to argue from
what might be to w-hat is, i. e. from jwssihility to fart, would not
seem lo be very sound pliilolcjv.
A serond argument against his view (exhibited on p. 74 above),
is, that it would make spiritual happiness or misery to liegin onlv
after the general judgment. Jn irspcct to this, Mr. ({. avows
tlint I havo totally misunderstood him. Ho says, that " in the ar
ticle in the K/uminrr, no alliisiou is inlcndeu to be mndo to any
^?ntr«/ juilgmcnl wlialever. I do not believe iheje ever will la
any. The assembled universe, so often spoken of as gathered be
fore tho throne of God .... is, 1 believe, a mere ' coinage' of the

lo6

APPENDIX.

human < brain.' Certainly tho Scripturei aaiert no auch thing;,"
This is coming out very frankly ; and I commend Mr. G. for
•aying what ho thinks on this subject. But aa to his opinion, viz.
that ' the Scriptures assert no such thing as a general judgment,'
I mtist merely osk the reader to open his Bible and examine Matt.
7: 22. 25: 31—40. Acts 17: 31. Rom. 2: 5, G comp. with 2: Hi.
John 5: 22, 20—20. 2 Pet, 3: 8—13. Rev. 20: 11—15. I might
multiply references of such a nature indefinitely ; but these must
be sufficient. If these do not establish the fact of a day of judg
ment, and of a general judirment, then I must acknowledge myself
incapable of interpreting Scriplure language.
It is well indeed, that the public should know how far they will
be required to go, in order to get rid of the argument to provc that
atioiio; means eternal. I thank the writer in question for telling
them this secret.
Ill recrard to tho remainder of Mr. G.'s piece, I nm entirely
williiij; to lot the subject rest where it is. 'J'ho public havo both
aides before them, ami can judge for iheiiinelveH.
Why has. not Mr. (r. oikmi noliccd Hie siilijeel brought to view
on p. 02 above? IIow is ho to prove that Iniaven \Hntdle.is,or that
God is r^(T«rt/, if ui'iJii and Ki'i.'iiioc fail to |)rovoit.' Can not tho
like objections bo madi! to any other worils_, np|)lied to either of
these, as to ui'wiioc, viz. that they arc susecptibie of another mean
ing ?
Mr. G. wishes to know, how I can provc that thc same means
of grace arc not used upon sinners in another world, as in this;
nay,. that more powerful means arc not imnd, p. 43.
My answer is; The ntitinry with which nceeplanec of the
calls of mercy are pri'MU'd hi>ro ; llii' awful coiisi<li<ral ions stated in
aiii'li pnH>iinri'a au I'rov. I; 21 — 2-<. Malt. 2."): 31 — 40. Iliili. 0; 4 — 0,
10;2(;— 31. Luke.lO: l',»— 20. Rev. 20: 10—15. 22; 11,12. Heb. D:
27'; the direct assertions that future punishiiienl is incapable of
remission, Mark '.) 43 — 48 and other like passages; tho " everlast
ing destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his
power," 2 Thess. 1:0; all these are proofs that the presence of God
is not with tlie damned, in a gracious reuse, and that there is no
hope for thein. I ask now for one single proof from all the Bible,
to contradict this. This 1 asked before ; but Mr. G. has not jirof-
fercd it.
Mr, G. may conjecture one thing ; I have of course the same
liberty to conic^eliiro another. Mr. G. niay use one argiiiiient a
priori; I, aiiolher. But whore is (ho end of all this,' Mr. G.
well knows that my creed is, Tiik KcuiiTruiis <ni-, tiik srni-
ciF,>r AMI oNi.v 111 1,1-. Ol- i-Aii II .\si> riiAcriiK. Wlinlher he ad
mits or rejects this, 1 know not. Hut lean never bo convinced
that ho is right in his positions, until I am convinced that tho Ih-
ble vouches for them ; and this I cannot ever sco in n salisliictory
manner, until it is made out in a way compatible with historical
facts and philological principles.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05094 8638

:'mr

SiSiP-