that this doctrine was first made known by the Gospel. Nor is it true, we think, that "the belief actually entertained by the Jews is nothing to the present question," as to whether the Old Testament reveals this doctrine; for it must be admitted, a priori, that they were more likely to have received this belief from the Scriptures than from any other source; and this taken in connection with the fact, that they did hold this belief, tends strongly to recommend this as the meaning of all those passages in the Old Testament which are susceptible of this interpretation.

It is aside from our purpose to notice particularly our author's representations of the opinions of the "ancient heathen" respecting a future state. That this belief exerted little or no influence upon their lives, is no proof that they did not hold it, for we have numerous illustrations of this in modern times. Nor can it be shown that the doctrine of Pantheism was the form in which this belief was held by the "wisest of the heathen philosophers." In the case of the few that taught this opinion, it is doubtful if it amounted to anything more than a mere conjecture. It seems on the whole the most natural to conclude, with the Encyclopedia Americana, "that the idea, that the dissolution of the body involves the annihilation of existence, is so cheerless, so saddening, that the wisest and best of men of all ages have rejected it, and all civilized nations have adopted the belief of its continuation after death, as one of the main points of their religious faith."

We have thus noticed all the arguments of our author for the support of his position. And in view of their utter insufficiency, and the strength of the arguments on the other side, we can only say, that it is to us "a matter of unfeigned wonder" that such an author should entertain such an opinion.

The considerations and facts already appealed to are sufficient to settle the point, as to the Old Testament's revealing a future state. Our limits will permit only an allusion to a few others.

The account in Gen. ii. 7, and iii. 19, of the formation of man, and of the penalty of his transgression, teaches the doctrine in question. In the first of these passages, man is said to have been formed "of the dust of the ground." This is

the origin of his body. But it is added, that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Now it is obvious that the act here mentioned could not have been literal, for God is a Spirit, and as such needs no breath of life. All that the language can teach is, that the breath of life in man, or whatever constitutes him "a living soul," is in some sense an emanation or impartation from God. That this breath of life does not mean simply animal life, that which belongs equally to the brute creation, is evident from the fact, that God is not said to have imparted the breath of life to them in this manner, or in any other manner, as an act distinct from the creation of their material part. We are warranted therefore in believing, that the operation here figuratively described is intended to mark the orign of whatever in man distinguishes him from the brute, that is, his rationality.

Now turn to the other passage, (Gen iii. 19,) and it will be seen, that the sentence, "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return," could have been intended only for the body: because, as we have seen, that only had originated from the dust, and could, therefore, return to it. It is plainly implied there, that the soul or rational part was not affected by the sentence of mortality pronounced on man. This is confirmed by the declaration of Solomon, (in evident allusion to this account by Moses :) "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it," Eccl. xii. 7. It is a further corroboration of this view, that God is nowhere in Scripture said to have created the soul as he did the body. He is called the Creator of our bodies, but "the Father of our spirits."

Another argument to the same effect, is found in the conceptions which the Old Testament contains respecting the place and condition of the dead. Whether these conceptions were true or false-both which suppositions we think were true of them in part-they clearly prove that the authors and subjects of these writings were possessed of the notion of a future state.

Whatever sense may be attached to the word bi-Sheol -which in our common version is usually rendered “grave,"

"pit," "hell,” its allusion to a future state is unquestionable; and this is true, whether we understand it, with some, to mean throughout the Old Testament, the grave and hell, or, with others, only the place of departed spirits. A very able argument in favor of the first of these interpretations was given in a late number of this Review, (July, 1855,) and a similiar view is urged, with much force, in Kitto's Cyclop. of Bib. Lit., art. Hades. We have, however, never seen anything more satisfactory in settling this question than the Dissertation of Dr. Geo. Campbell (Diss. VI. Part II.) in which he supports the latter interpretation. This is also the view held by Rev. Dr. Conant, of Rochester University (in his admirable version of Job, in which he translates the word uniformly "the under-world") and by Rev. Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, (in his work on the Psalms.)

It is, we think, a valid objection to the interpretation of Sheol which makes it mean the grave, and hell, that it confounds this word with -Kever-whose appropriate meaning is grave or burying place, (see Gen. xxiii. 9; Ex. xiv. 11; Job xxi. 32; Jer. xxvi. 23; Job xvii. 1;) and it attributes to the writers, characters, and times of the Old Testament, a degree of knowledge respecting the future and its rewards and punishments, and a practical reference to them, which do not consist with what we know to have been their religious knowledge on other subjects, and with their practice generally, as growing out of this belief. If the future state had been as well known as this sense of Sheol would imply, it could hardly be said, that "life and immortality were brought to light," or rendered luminous, "by the Gospel."

To readers of our common version there may be passages that seem to require us to give the word the meaning of hell, for instance Ps. ix. 17; Prov. xxiii. 14; but a critical examination of the scope of the passage, will recommend the other meaning that of "the under-world," or the place of departed spirits as decidedly preferable. And so of all the other places where the word occurs. The language of Jacob in reference to his son Joseph, whom he supposed to be dead (Gen. xxxvii. 35) is, we think, perfectly conclusive as to its meaning the under-world, and not the grave or hell ;-" for

I will go down into the grave-or Sheol-unto my son mourning." The expression "go down," implies descent to a depth greater than that of a grave; and "to my son," implies Jacob's belief that in the place to which he expected to go, he would meet his son alive, which he could not expect to do in the "grave." With this agrees perfectly the conception of Sheol as contained in Isaiah's eloquent description of the fall of the king of Babylon, (Is. xiv. 4–20,) in which the dead, or the inhabitants of Sheol, are represented as neither in a state of dissolution, (the grave,) nor of torment, (hell,) but as retaining something of their former distinction in this world, though in a prostrate and powerless condition.

It would seem from Ps. lix. 15, that it was the belief of the pious that they would not remain for ever in Sheol, but that God would at some future time remove them to himself. Dr. Alexander renders that verse, "He will redeem me from the hand of Sheol, for he will take me (out of it)."

The Hebrews had also a term by which they denoted the departed spirit as an inhabitant of Sheol, or the under-world

Rapha; which Gesenius defines, "the quiet, the silent, i. e. the shades, manes, dwelling in Hades, whom the Hebrews supposed to be destitute of blood and animal life, but yet not wholly without some faculties of mind, Ps. lxxxviii. 10; Prov. ii. 18; ix. 18; xxi. 16; Is. xiv. 9; xxvi. 14, 19; Job xxvi. 5." This last verse (Job xxvi. 5) Dr. Conant translates,

The shades tremble

Beneath the waters and their inhabitants!

and remarks upon the word here rendered shades, that it does not denote "the dead, for the term means that part of man that survives death. As the Hebrew Scriptures have a distinct name for this separate existence, the English version of them should no longer be without one. It occurs in the passage above cited, and is everywhere translated the dead; concealing from the English reader the evidence it furnishes that the Hebrews had the conception of a form of existence after death. The shades, in common English usage, corresponds to the Hebrew conception." (See Dr. Conant's version of Job, for Am. Bib. Union.)

Dr. Alexander, on Psalm lxxxviii. 10, renders the word "ghosts," and says that "the word (Rephaim) is the name of a Canaanitish race of giants, but is applied poetically to the gigantic shades or spectres of the dead." Either etymology, however, is decisive of its significancy as showing the current belief in a future state.

That this was the general belief is further evident from the practice of necromancy, or the invocation of the dead, against which Moses enacted stringent laws, (Deut. xvii. 10, 11.) The narrative of the "Witch of Endor," (1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20,) however we may explain it, makes it evident that Saul himself believed in this art, and that the sacred writer admitted its success in this instance.

Another evidence that the Old Testament reveals a future state, is the fact that it teaches the doctrine of retribution, with reference to the deeds and characters of men; as for example: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. xviii. 25.) "Fear God and keep his commandments; for God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil," (Eccl. xii. 13, 14;) and again, "Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him; but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he feareth not before God." (Eccl. viii. 12, 13.)

It cannot be replied to this, that the retribution here spoken of was to take place in this world, because the reverse of such an expectation is taught; as when Solomon says, (Eccl, viii. 14:) "There be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked, again there be wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous." The reward, therefore, which he holds out to the righteous, and which he denies to the wicked, in the expression, "neither shall he prolong his days," must be reserved for another life. This is explicitly taught in the 73d Psalm, in which Asaph recounts his narrow escape from the danger in which a false view of this subject had involved him. He was "envious at the foolish when he saw the prosperity of the wicked-that