a false prophet ever endeavoured 10 od, so it was never urged on believers id believed by a single individual. As ) lasting condemnation. Yea, it is even said, that the happiness of those in heaven is to be greatly enhancer congratulated as being saved from ited, by their looking down on those in eternal tor. er held up to deter men from sin while ments, in seeing the smoke of it ascend forever and em to gratitude and obedience. Is it and though and though not yet altogether out of use, yet I am that this doctrine could be believed bappy to say, the more thinking and sober-minded But, it may be asked, is it true, that persons under the Old Testament expected to be associated with that it is not mentioned by one of the their deceased friends after death? I do not recollect at writers? If it is mentioned by any a single instance to the contrary, and shall here, in I any other name than Sheol, I am 16 proof of the assertion, refer to Jabn's Biblical Archæ. nor is this even pretended by those who ugy, p. 234 To this it may probably be objected, that associa.. ce passages commonly quoted. For er lion with their friends after death, only referred to ii. 2. is perhaps the most plausible that their bodies mingling in the dust together, and had no reference to their spirits after death. Admitting earth shall awake, some to everlasting this to be true, permit me to ask, can any proof be to shame and everlasting contempt. adduced, that their spirits were separated from each at the doctrine of eternal misery » proof, I request those who say that they were so sepy of this text here, is, that were fully other after death? As I am unable to adduce any could quote this passage in support of L arated, to produce evidence of this from the Old Tesreasons here, would be aside from the tament. I shall give it all due consideration. At any rate, if the Old Testament is silent on the subject Er fact deserving our notice, is, that the il ill becomes us to assert that such was the case. Its king of their dead friends, never speakery silence is to me an indication that no such idea was entertained in those days. If it was, it is some abat surprising that no person ventured to express ita estament, where a prophet of the Lord 1 o have been the case, whether the persons were good to any people to warn them again or bad. An instance to the contrary, cannot be proin a place called hell? Yea,? go ludaced, where a person ever expressed himself , as if if any man can produce a single in ! be expected after death to be separated, and separat ed from his friends forever. But it is well known, nimself , by the doctrine of eternal molt that persons in our day, not only expect to be separatit find that either true or false prophets ed from many of their friends forever, but even say, hat dispensation, or that this docurage that they shall give their hearty amen to their ever threatened with such a punishment, so ever. This was once the current popular divinity, silent on the subject? If no revelation reject it. put it, how could men avoid such a puo , ed:-wand 1 igation. doctrine. I am fully aware, that there 1 many re to be separated from them after deató, 5 associated with them. This appears read the Old Testament, until your eyes grow dimecres days could feel so easy on such a subject? Whatevergeteli And if it is not expressed by any of the Old Testament writers, how is it known that such an idea was entertained by them. One thing we think must be admitted by all who hao bave read the Old Testament with attention. It is this: good people in those days, do not appear to have had the fears and anxieties of mind which haunt tening men's minds now, about their children, their rela- bath tions, their neighbours, and a great part of mankind, speaks as all going to a place of endless misery. You may sakit with age, before you find any thing like this there. This How is this silence to be accounted for, if the doctrine of endless misery was known and believed ? If by to Sheol they understood the same as men do now by the word hell, is it possible, that good people in those dagen ideas they attached to this word we think it is certain, en they did not mean by it a place of endless misery. T'he question is likely then to be asked, seeing that Shcol or hell does not mean a place of eternal mis. ery,-what does it mean? What is the idea the Old Testament writers affixed to this word ? From the remarks already made, we think something has been said in answer to this question.-By Sheol, seems evidently to be meant, what Job calls, chap. xxx. 33,-“ The house appointed for all the living.” And it is the same to which Solomon alludes, when he says, Eccles. nii. 20.—"all go to one place.” The question still returns, What place is this? What place it is, may be learned further from the following passages. In 2 Sam. xii. 23. where David is speaking of his dead child, he says,-" I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” This, it may be said, only provokes the question-where was his child ? In heaven, most people would answer, and some have quoted this text to prove the salvation of all infants. Nothing more, I ned by them. ed the fears and anxieties of mind which haupt e Old Testament, until your eyes grow find It is not expressed by any of the Old Tesiz conceive, is meant, nor could be rationally inferred iters, how is it known that such an idea was from this text than this, that his child was in the ad the Old Testament with attention. It is would soon follow him to the same place. So Jacob hing we think must be admitted by all be with a sense of his own mortality intimates, that he Dod people in those days, do not appears speaks of himself in a similar way in reference to his Sinds now, about their children, their rela | Samuel ibus speaks to Saul, “ tomorrow shalt thou Deir neighbours, and a great part of mankino, and thy sons be with me.” Where was this? It may ving to a place of endless misery. You may be asked, -When Saul desired the woman to bring = this silence to be accounted for, if the doctrine have been brought down, not up. Was it then from less misery was known and believed ! li bi bell, the place of eternal misery, he expected him to hey understood the same as men do now come? This cannot be admitted, for neither Saul, nor Juld feel so easy on such a subject? Whater from what place then did Saul wish the woman to hey attached to this word we think it is certas bring Samuel? I answer, from Sheol, the same place question is likely then to be asked, seeing. Joseph. The same place in which the Saviour's soul there before him. And it is equally certain, that if soon after with him. But what appears simply to be the dead, and the issue of the battle proved, that Saul and his sons were with Samuel, and with all the dead * The question still ng power to bring Samuel from Sheol, we do not beimpostor, but this is not the place for assigning our teasons, or entering further into this part of the his. tory of Saul. We have merely referred to it as show ing what were the popular opinions in those days on of the dead or in Sheol, and David, . further, we find Sam. . . up Samuel, was it from heaven he expected him to come? Surely not; for in this case Samuel would by ever . ? I , , go down mourning to was not left. If Saul and his sons went to hell, a place of endless misery, it is certain Samuel was meant is this -Samuel was in Sheol, or the state of before them. As to the woman's hav ce, before you any thing like this there to which Jacob said he would is it possiblegood people those answer to this question.-By Sheol, seemser , may be who had gone the subject before us. something to prove that endless misery in hell was brought to 'Hindi We are aware, that it may be objected to the above investigation, that future existence was as little known under the Old Testament, as the doctrine of endless misery; and therefore we might just as well deny future existence, as endless misery, from the mere silence of the Old Testament writers. To this I would AGGI answer that we do not believe that future existence was altogether unknown under the Old Testament. We cannot, here, however, give our reasons for think- och light by the Gospel. But is this any where declared in the New Testament? That the ancient Jews hadish some knowledge of a future state of existence we refer to Jahn's Biblical Archæology, Section 314, are aware, that it may be objected to the above gation, that future existence was as little knows the Old Testament, as the doctrine of endless "; and therefore we might just as well deny fu kistence, as endless misery, from the mere si of the Old Testament writers. To this I would that we do not believe that future existence cogether unknown under the Old Testament mnot, here, however, give our reasons But admitting it true, the objector has then lament, rendered pit, grape, and hell, in the common -y the Gospel. But is this any where declared press a place of endless misery. This we have atve that endless misery in hell was brought to version, was not used by the sacred writers, to exNew Testament? That the ancient Jews had lempted to establish, not only by an enumeration of writers to express the same thing. Indeed, the slight- SECTION II. SIDERED. It is allowed by consent of all critics and commenlators, that I have ever seen, that Hades is the corresponding word in the New Testament, to Sheol in the Old ; and that both words are used by the inspired est attention to this subject, must convince any candid person of the correctness of this statement. In neither Testaments is a place of endless misery granted, that Hades does not refer to such a place of knowledge of a future state of existence we refer un's Biblical Archäology, Section 314. |
0 Opiniones Las opiniones no están verificadas, pero Google revisa que no haya contenido falso y lo quita si lo identifica Escribir un comentario |