Page images
PDF
EPUB

cause,

and consume the whole earth. I acknowledge that it is, in this passage, used hyperbolically. But will any person pretend that it could have answered the purpose of giving the most terrible view of divine judgments, if the literal meaning of the word had implied no more than a grave? This concession of Simon's is, in effect, giving up the

According to the explanation I have given of the proper sense of the word, it was perfectly adapted to such an use, and made a very striking hyperbole; but if his account of the literal and ordinary import of the term be just, the expression, so far from being hyperbolical, would have been the reverse.

In further evidence of this doctrine, the inliabitants of adns are, from their subterranean abode, denominated by the apostle Paul (Phil. 2: 10), xatay Dóvioi, a word of the same import with the phrase unoxarw rñs yñs, under the earth, in the Apocalypse, (ch. 5: 3, 13), and which, with the inovyávior and éneyeloi, celestial beings and terrestrial, include the whole rational creation. That they are expressly enumerated as including the whole, will be manifest to every one who attentively peruses the two passages referred to. Of the coincidence of the Hebrew notions and the Pagan in regard to the situation of the place of departed spirits, if it were necessary to add any thing to what has been observed above from the import of the names infernus and inferi, these beautiful lines of Virgil might suffice:

Non secus, ac si qua penitus vi terra dehiscens
Infernas reseret sedes, et regna recludat
Pallida, diis invisa, superque immane barathrum

Cernatur, trepidentque immisso lumine manes Æn. viii. 7. Several proofs might be brought from the Prophets, and even from the Gospels, of the opposition in which heaven for height, and hades for depth, were conceived to stand to each other. 1 shall produce but a few from the Old Testament, which convey the most precise notion of iheir sentiments on this subject. The first is from the book of Job, (chap. 11:7-9), where we have an illustration of the unsearchableness of the divine perfections in these memorable words, as found in the common version, “ Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto persection ? It is as high as heaven, what canst thou do? Deeper than hell,” Bajúrepa di tov {v çdov, “what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." Now, of the opinion that the word in the Old Testament always denotes grave or sepulchre, nothing can be a fuller confutation thau this passage. Among such immense distances as the height of heaven, the extent of the earth, and the ocean, which were not only in those days unknown to men, but conceived to be unknowable; to introduce as one of the unmeasurables, a sepulchre whose depth could scarcely exceed ten or twelve cubits, and which, being the work of men, was perfectly known, would have been absurd indeed, not to say ridiculous. What man in his senses could have said, “Ye can no more comprehend the Deity, than ye can discover the height of the firmament, or measure the depth of a grave?”

A passage very similar we have in the Psalms, (139: 8), where heaven and qdns are in the same way contrasted.

it If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there : if I make my bed in hell,” {uv xatapo sis tov ödnv, “behold thou art there." The only other place I shall mention is in the prophet Amos,(9:2, 3), where God is repreresented as saying, “Though they dig into hell,” sis çdov, “thence shall my hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down; and though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be bid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command a serpent, and he shall bite them." Here for illustration we have a double contrast. To the top of Carmel, a very high mountain, the bottom of the sea is very properly contrasted; but to heaven, which is incomparably higher than the highest mountain, no suitable contrast is found except sheol or hades, which was evidently conceived to be the lowest thing in the world. The iniyeloc were supposed to possess the middle parts, the novoávior and matay hovioi occupied the extremes, the former in height, the latter in depth. A late writer, of profound erudition, of whose sentiments on this subject I shall have occasion soon to take notice, has quoted the above passage of Amos to prove, that into sheol men penetrate by digging : he might, with equal reason, have quoted it to prove that into heaven men penetrate by climbing, or that men, in order to hide themselves, have recourse to the bottom of the sea.

8. Again, let it be observed, that keber, the Hebrew word for grave or sepulchre, is never rendered in the ancient translation ödns, but tacos, uviua or some equivalent term. Sheol, on the contrary, is never rendered τάφος or μνήμα, but always άδης ; nor is it ever construed with Jánto, or any verb which signifies to bury, a thing almost inevitable, in words so frequently occurring, if it had ever properly signified a grave. This itself might suffice to show that the ideas which the Jews had of these were never confounded. I observe further, that ödns, as well as the corresponding Hebrew word, is always singular in meaning as well as in form : the word for grave is often plural. The former never admits the possessive pronouns, being the receptacle of all the dead, and therefore incapable of an appropriation to individuals; the latter often. Where the disposal of the body or corpse is spoken of, tágos, or some equivalent term, is the name of its repository. When mention is made of the spirit after death, its abode is ödns. When notice is taken of one's making or visiting the grave of any person, touching it, mourning at it, or erecting a pillar or monument upon it, and the VOL. I.

24

like, it is always keber that is employed. Add to all this, that in hades all the dead are represented as present, without exception. The case is quite different with the graves or sepulchres. Thus Isaiah represents, very beautifully, a great and sudden desolation that would be brought upon the earth, saying, Hades, which is, in the common version, "Hell, hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure,” Isa. 5: 14. Hades alone is conceived to contain them all, though the graves in which their bodies were deposited might be innumerable. Again, in the song of triumph on the fall of the king of Babylon, “ Hell (the original word is the same as in the preceding passage) from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming : it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth : it bath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations,” Isa. 14: 9. Thus, in hades, all the monarchs and nobles, not of one fainily or race, but of the whole earth, are assembled ; yet their sepulchres are as distant from one another as the nations they governed. Those mighty dead are raised, not from their couches, which would have been the natural expression had the Prophet's idea been a sepulchral vault, how magnificent soever, but “from their thrones," as suited the notion of all antiquity, concerning not the bodies, but the shades or ghosts of the departed, to which was always assigned something similar in rank and occupation to what they had possessed upon the earth. Nay, as is well observed by Castalio,* those are represented as in hades whose carcasses were denied the honor of sepulture. In this particular, the opinions of the Hebrews did not coincide with those of the Greeks and Romans.

9. To the preceding examples I shall add but one other, from the Old Testament. It is taken from that beautiful passage in Job, (ch. 38: 17), wherein God himself is the speaker, and whereof the great purpose is, to expose human ignorance, and check human presumption : " Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death ?" For this last designation the term is in Hebrew tsalmoth, and in the transJation of the LXX ons; for, as was hinted before, tsalmoth in its ordinary acceptation, is synonymous with sheol, though sometimes used metaphorically for a very dark place, or a state of great ignorance. It is almost too obvious to need being remarked, that this challenge to Job could have no relation to a sepulchre, the door or entry to which is always known to the living. The case was very different with regard to the habitation of departed spirits. At the same time I entirely agree with the learned and ingenious Bishop Lowth,t that the custom of depositing under ground the bodies of the deceased, and the form of their sepulchres, have probably first

* Defensio adv. Bezam ; Adversarii Errores,

De Sacra Poesi Hebræorum, Præl. vii,

[ocr errors]

suggested some gloomy notions on this subject. But popular opinions have a growth and progress, and come often, especially in questions at once so inscrutable, to differ widely from what they were originally. May we not then, upon the whole, fairly conclude, that we have all the evidence which the nature of the thing will admit, and inore than in most philological inquiries is thought sufficient, that the word grave, or sepulchre, never conveys the full import of the Hebrew sheol, or the Greek hades, though in some instances it may have all the precision necessary for giving the import of the sentiment?

10. Even in some instances where the language is so figurative as to allow great latitude to a translator, the original term is but weakly rendered grave. Thus it is said, “ Love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave," Cant. 8:6. The grave when personified, or used metaphorically, is more commonly, if I mistake not, exhibited as a gentle power, which brings relief from cruelty, oppression, and trouble of every kind ; whereas hades, which regards more the state of departed souls than the mansions of their bodies, exhibits when personified a severe and inflexible jailor, who is not to be gained by the most pathetic entreaties, or by any arts merely human. The clause would be appositely rendered in Latin inexorabilis sicut orcus ; for it is this inflexibility of character that is chiefly indicated by the original word rendered cruel. In this notion of that state, as indeed in some other sentiments on this subject, and even in the terms applied to it, there is a pretty close coincidence with those of the ancient pagans. When the Latin poet mentions the fatal consequence of the venial trespass of Orpheus (as it appeared to him) in turning about to take one look of bis beloved Eurydice before leaving the infernal regions, he says, Ignoscenda quidem ; but immediately correcting himself, adds, scirent si ignoscere manes.

11. I shall now proceed to examine some passages in the New Testament wherein the word occurs, that we may discover whether we ought to affix the same idea to it as to the corresponding term in the Old.—The first I shall produce is one which, being originally in the Old Testament, is quoted and commented on in the New, and is consequently one of the fittest for assisting us in the discovery. Peter, in supporting the mission of his Master, in a speech made to the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem on the famous day of Pentecost, alleges, amongst other things, the prediction of the royal psalmist, part of which runs thus in the common version : “ Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy One to see corruption,” Acts 2:27. The passage is cited from the Psalms (16:10) in the very words of the LXX, which are (as far as concerns the present question) entirely conformable to the original Hebrew. As this prophecy might be under

stood by some to relate only to the psalmist himself, the apostle shows how inapplicable it is to him when literally explained. It plainly pointed to a resurrection, and such a resurrection as would very soon follow death-that the soul should not be left in hades, should not remain in the mansion of departed spirits, but should reanimate its body before the latter had suffered corruption. “ Brethren,” says he, “ let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this day,” Acts 2: 29. He has had no resurrection. It was never pretended that he had. His body, like other bodies, has undergone corruption; and this gives sufficient reason to believe that his soul has shared the fate of other souls, and that the propliecy was never meant of him unless in a secondary sense. “But," continues he, “ being a prophet, he spake of the resurrection of Christ," or the Messiah; and, to show how exactly both what related to the soul and what related to the body had their completion in the Messiah, adds, " that his soul was not left in hades, neither did his fesh see corruption,” ch. 2: 31. It has been argued, that this is an example of the figure iv dia dvoiv, where the same sentiment is expressed a second time by a different phrase. In some sense this may be admitted ; for, no doubt, either of the expressions would have served for predicting the event. But it is enough for my purpose that the writer, in using two, one regarding the soul, the other regarding the body, would undoubtedly adapt his language to the received opinions concerning each. And if so, hades was as truly, in their account, the soul's destiny after death, as corruption was the body's.

12. I am surprised that a man of Dr. Taylor's critical abilities, as well as oriental literature, should produce the passage quoted by the apostle, as an example to prove that sheol, the pit, death, and corruption, are synonymous. The expression, as we read it in the Psalm, is (to say the least) no evidence of this ; but if we admit Peter to have been a just interpreter of the psalmist's meaning, which father Simon seems very unwilling to admit, it contains a strong evidence of the contrary ; for in his comment he clearly distinguishes the destiny of the soul, which is to be consigned to sheol or hades, from that of the body or flesh, which is to be consigned to corruption. Nor is there in this the slightest appearance of an unusual or mystical application of the words. The other examples brought by that author, in his very valuable Hebrew Concordance, are equally exceptionable.

He proceeds on the supposition, that no account can be given why certain phrases are often found coupled together, but by saying that they are synonymous; whereas, in the present case, it is much more naturally accounted for by saying, that the events to which they relate are commonly concomitant. We ought never to

« PreviousContinue »