ly 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 his 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 65: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. The pas sage is cited from the Psalms, in the very words of the Seventy, which are (as far as concerns the present question) entirely conformable to the original Hebrew. As this prophecy might be understood 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. 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 prophecy was never meant of him, unless in a secondary sense. But 68, continues he, being a prophet, he spake of the resurrection of Christ, or the Messiah: and, to shew 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 flesh see corruption. It has been argued, that this is an example of the figure εν δια δυοιν, where the same sentiment is expressed a second time by a different 65 Psal. xvi. 10. 67 Acts, ii. 29. 68 30, 31. 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 surprized, 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 syno nymous: 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 recur to tautology for the solution of a difficulty, unless when the ordinary application of the words admits no other resource. This is far from being the case in the instances referred to. Of the like kind are the arguments founded on such figurative expressions, as, digging into hades; Korah's descending alive into it; Jonah's being there, when in the belly of the great fish; the foundations of the mountains, or the roots of the trees, reaching to it; which are all evident hyperboles, and to which we find expressions entirely similar in ancient authors. Thus, Virgil, describing the storm in which Æneas was involved at sea, says, Tollimur in cœlum, curvato gurgite, et iidem Again, speaking of an oak, Ipsa hæret scopulis ; et quantum vertice ad auras Yet, these figures, as far as I have heard, have never created any doubt among critics, concerning the ordinary acceptation of the words tartarus and imi manes. No pretence has been made that the one ever meant, when used not tropically, but properly, the bottom of the sea, and the other a few yards under ground. Indeed, if a man were to employ the same mode of reasoning, in regard to the Latin terms that relate to this subject, which has been employed, in regard to the Hebrew; we should conclude, that sepulchrum and infernus are synony mous, anima and corpus, manes and cinis, upon evidence incomparably stronger than that we have for inferring, that sheol and keber are so. Of the first two the Latin poet says, Animamque sepulchro condimus. If anima be here used for the soul, agreeably to its ordinary and proper acceptation, he assigns it the same habitation as is given to the body after death, to wit, the sepulchre and if it be used for the body, the words corpus and anima are strangely confounded, even by the best writers. As we have anima here for corpus, we have, in other places, corpus for anima. For, speaking of Charon's ferrying the souls of the deceased over Styx, he says, Et ferrugineâ subvectat corpora cymbâ. Now, what Virgil here calls corpora, and a few lines after, more explicitly, defunctaque corpora vita, he had a very little before expressed by a phrase of the contrary import, tenues sine corpore vitas, the one being the body without the life, the other the life without the body. That cinis and manes are in like manner confounded, we have an example from the same author: Id cinerem, aut manes credis curare sepultos ? |