"That there is, in a lower degree, a reward of the righteous, and a punishment of the wicked, in the state intervening between death and the resurrection, is no more repugnant to the divine perfections, than that there should be, (as, in the course of providence, there often are) manifest recompences of eminent virtues, and of enormous crimes, in this present world. Add to this, that Josephus, in the account he gives of the opinions of the Pharisees, or those Jews who believed a future state, mentions expressly the rewards of the virtuous, and the punishments of the vicious, in Hades, or under the earth, which is, as was observed before, another expression for the same thing. From his representation we should conclude, that, in his time, a resurrection and future judgment, as understood by the Christians, were not universally the doctrine, even of the Pharisees; but that the prevalent and distinguishing opinion was, that the soul survived the body, that vicious souls would suffer an everlasting imprisonment in Hades, and that the souls of the virtuous would both be happy there, and, in process of time, obtain the privilege of transmigrating into other bodies. The immortality of human souls, and the transmigration of the good, seem to have been all that they comprehended in the phrase αναςασις των νεκρων. Indeed, the words strictly denote no more than renewal of life.

"Their sentiments on this topic naturally recal to our remembrance some of those exhibited by Virgil, in the sixth book of the Eneid. That this Pythagorean dogma was become pretty general among the Jews, appears even from some passages in the gospels. The question put by the disciples, John ix. 2. who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' and some popular opinions concerning Jesus, whom they knew to have been

born and brought up among themselves, that he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the ancient prophets, Matth. xvi. 14. manifestly presuppose the doctrine of the transmigration. It is also in allusion to this, that the Jewish author of the book of Wisdom has, as it is rendered in the common translation, thus expressed himself: 'I was a witty child, and had a good spirit; yea, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled :' αγαθος ων ήλθον εις σωμα αμιαντον, Wisd. viii. 19, 20. Yet we have reason, from the New Testament, to think that these tenets were not, at that time, universal among the Pharisees, but that some entertained juster notions of a resurrection, and that afterwards, the opinions of the Talmudists, on this article, had a much greater conformity to the doctrine of the gospel, than the opinions of some of their predecessors in and before our Saviour's time."

This quotation from Dr. Campbell, affords matter for many remarks, a few of which 1 shall briefly notice.

1st, He declares, that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is the only place in Holy Writ, which seems to give countenance to the opinion, that Hades sometimes. means the same thing as Gehenna. We have seen already, that he denies that Hades is the place of eternal punishment; and that he contends for Gehenna being this place we shall see in the next chapter.

2d, He declares that,-"it is plain that in the Old Testament, the most profound silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery." If the Old Testament maintains a profound silence on this subject, it ought to be inquired,

3d, How did the Jews in our Lord's day, come to consider Hades as a place of punishment for the wicked? That a change in their opinions on this subject, had taken

place from what is contained in the Old Testament is evident; for he says, " on this subject of a future state, we find a considerable difference in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Saviour's time, from those which prevailed in the days of the ancient prophets." Well, how did this change in their opinions take place? Was it by some new revelation which God made to them on this subject? No such thing is stated by Dr. Campbell, but the reverse. He thus accounts for the change of their opinions. "But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of heathen, remained invariably the same. And from the time of the captivity, more especially from the time of the subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian empire, and afterwards to the Roman; as they had a closer intercourse with pagans, they insensibly imbibed many of their sentiments, particularly on those subjects whereon their law was silent, and wherein, by consequence, they considered themselves as at greater freedom. As both Greeks and Romans had adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the deceased were susceptible both of enjoyment and of suffering, they were led to suppose a sort of retribution in that state, for their merit or demerit in the present. The Jews did not indeed adopt the pagan fables on this subject, nor did they express themselves intirely in the same manner; but their general train of thinking in both came pretty much to coincide."

This statement is surely too plain to be misunderstood. How much plainer, could he have told us, that a punishment in Hades was a mere heathen notion, which the Jews learned from their intercourse with them? Could this have been more obvious had he said so in as many words? We presume no man will deny this. He not only declares that neither Sheol nor Hades, are used in scripture to express a place of punishment, but he shows, that

the pagan fables teach it, and the Jews learned it from them. What are we then to think, when this is the account of the origin of the doctrine of hell torments by one of its professed friends? Had this statement been given by a professed Universalist, the cry would be raised that it was a mere fabrication of his own, in support of his system. But no, this is the statement of the learned, and acute Dr. Campbell, late principal of Marischal college, Aberdeen, who lived and died, a celebrated theologian in the church of Scotland.

does not inform us.

It is notorious, that in this quotation he declares, that the Jews derived these opinions from their intercourse with the heathen. Where they got those opinions he Had they been from divine revelation, the heathen ought to have learned them from the Jews. But here the matter is reversed. The heathen it seems anticipated divine revelation, as to the doctrine of punishment in Hades. They revealed it to the Jews by means of their fables. The Jews it is said,-"did not adopt their fables, nor did they express themselves entirely in the same manner, but their general train of thinking came pretty much to coincide." That man must be very dull, who does not learn from this, that the doctrine of torment in Hades, had its origin in heathenism, and, that the Jews were ignorant of it, until they learned it from the heathen.

From all this, will it be easy for any one to resist the conviction, that to this popular opinion, which the Jews had imbibed from their intercourse with the heathen, our Lord alluded in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus ? Such were the popular notions of the Jews in our Lord's day; and to what else could he allude? The Old Testament, as we have seen, taught no such doctrine, and in the parable it is not introduced as a new revelation to

the world. It is merely brought in as a part of its imagery, and that without asserting its truth, or exposing the erroneous notion which people had imbibed. He no more attempts to correct this pagan notion, than the common opinion, that satan had bound a woman eighteen years with an infirmity. In short, had our Lord undertaken to correct all the false and erroneous notions which men entertained, it would have been a hard, and a trifling employment; and had he suited his language on all occasions, strictly to the truth of things, he would not only have rendered himself ridiculous, but what he said would have been often unintelligible to his hearers. Our Lord's work was not that of a critic and philosopher, to expose men's erroneous and often ridiculous opinions, and teach them a more correct dialect. No; his work was to diffuse truth, and to bear testimony to it. He, as the sun of righteousness, had arisen with healing in his rays. His business was not to trifle and dispute about the darkness then existing, but to give light, and then men would discover the darkness of their own accord. His work was to give men correct views of the truth. If they were received, this would correct their erroneous opinions, and that without irritating them by a direct attack.

4th, Dr. Campbell further declares, that though the Jews did not adopt the pagan fables on this subject, yet their train of thinking pretty much coincided with theirs. "The Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the Hebrew Sheol. This they came to conceive as including different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different characters." They did not adopt the terms Elysium, or Elysian fields, to express the regions of good spirits, but he says, "they do not seem to have declined the use of the word Tartarus" to express the unhappy situation