writers believed the dead knew not any thing. We have considered this passage admitting it to be genuine, and have seen it gives no countenance to the common opinions. If it is an interpolation, as some think, our labor here might have been spared. See Improved Version on this text.

Luke 16: 19-31. This passage has been considered in my First Inquiry, and in my answer to Mr. Sabine. As it is one of Mr. Hudson's principal texts on which he rests his doctrine of a future punishment, we shall notice it in the sequel, in our remarks on his Letters.

Luke 23: 43," And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise." It is taken for granted that paradise here means heaven, a thing which at least demands proof. Parkhurst says it "occurs Neh. 2: 8. Eccles. 2: 5. Cant. 4: 13, and may be derived from the Heb. perer, to separate, and (Arab.) des, to hide, as denoting a secret inclosure, or separate covert." If this be true, our Lord only said to the thief, "to day shalt thou be with me in the secret inclosure, or separate covert." And where could this be but in the grave, or state of the dead? Hence hades, rendered grave and hell in the common version, signifies the unseen, secret, or hidden place. Our Saxon word hell has a similar meaning. See Parkhurst on the word hades, and also my First Inquiry. This view of the passage is confirmed from what is said by Samuel to Saul, 1 Sam. 28: 11-19, "To morrow shalt thou and thy sons he with me," which evidently meant, that they should be in the state of the dead. Had Samuel said to day instead of to morrow, where would have been the difference. Our Lord's using the word paradise, makes no essential difference, unless it is proved, that Saul, his sons, and Samuel, went to a different place from that promised by our Lord to the thief. It may just be noticed, that the phrase

to day, or this day, does not mean in all cases that very day, but soon after, Gen. 2: 17. Deut. 9: 1. 29: 13. 2: 24, 25. Josh. 23: 14. 1 Sam. 15: 28. 1 Kings 1: 30. Ps. 2: 7. Acts 13: 33. Heb. 5: 5.

The common opinion, that paradise here means heaven, and that the disembodied spirit of the thief was there with our Lord that day, we think cannot be correct for several reasons besides those already given. 1st. It is contrary to fact, that Jesus ascended to heaven that day, and of course the thief could not be there with him. Jesus did not ascend. until forty days after his resurrection. If it is asserted,

our Saviour's soul ascended that day, we demand the proof of it, for assertions prove nothing. Not a word is said either about his soul or the thief's in the passage. The words thou and me, referring to the thief and the Saviour, we should think as in other cases, designate the whole of them. 2d. If paradise means heaven, and people's souls go there the day they die, it is somewhat astonishing that good people at least, are not found in Scripture often expressing their hope of this, in prospect of their death. But the language of David, Job, Hezekiah, and others, has not the slightest appearance of this, but the reverse. How, I ask, could they speak as they did, yet believed, that whenever they died, their souls would immediately be happy in heaven? 3d. Numerous as the passages are in which the soul and spirit of man are mentioned, it is a notorious fact, that none of them ever intimate any thing about the soul or spirit going to heaven at death. But if this be true, why is it never mentioned? 4th. But allowing the passage to speak of the souls of the thief and of the Saviour, the question then is, where was the Saviour's soul that day? According to Ps. 16, and Acts 2, it was in hell, hades, or the grave; for it is said "thou wilt not leave my soul or leave me in

hell," and this is explained in the next part of the sentence; "neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption." It had no reference to an immortal disembodied spirit as shown already. 5th. The ancient fathers held various opinions as to the place of souls after death. I have only room to quote a few sentences from Knatchbull, p. 94-97. "Thou shalt be with me this day in paradise. But that day our Saviour was not in heaven, for he was not yet ascended either in human soul or body, as far as Scripture doth, or reason can inform us." After mentioning that souls after death were supposed by some to be in some third or middle place, he adds "Neither were the old Christians wont, as Grotius saith, to call this middle state of place and time between this life and the resurrection, by the name of heaven. yet a question, which neither Scripture nor any general council or synod had ever yet explicitly determined for an article of faith, before the convocation at Dublin, 1615, which did then so define it.

And

That

after the end of this life the souls of the sons of God were immediately received into heaven, perhaps on purpose to meet with the Romish Purgatory." 6th. But some have said, this passage is an interpolation. See Improved Version. If so, it supersedes all debate about its meaning. Luke only relates this account, and he informs us he was not an eye witness of Christ's crucifixion. John wro saw the whole scene, says nothing about it, and Matthew's account of the thieves seems to be at variance with Luke's for he says both of them reviled Jesus. Allowing it genuine, it does not prove the existence and immediate happiness of souls after death. In Sec. 3, it will be seen from Dr. Good, that there is here an allusion to the ancient heathen opinions. If what Mr. Hudson and others say be true, the thief and the Saviour, were most likely in the prison of hell that day with damn、

ed spirits, for he avers that our Lord after his crucifixion went there and preached.

Acts 1: 25, "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Knatchbull says, "The translation is properly this; thou Lord who knoweth the hearts of all, show whether of those two thou hast chosen to take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas is by transgression fallen, that he may enter into his place. That is, that he whom thou hast chosen may succeed into the place of Judas his apostleship." This interpretation is rational and in agreement with the scope of the context. But, it is presumption for any man to assert, as is often done, that Judas went to hell. If he did, hell must be a place, which some deny in our day and call it state. Luke, in his histories, professes to relate matters of fact. See Luke 1, and Acts 1. But I ask, did he or any one else know it to be a fact, that Judas went to hell? What eye witness and minister of the word saw this, and reported it to Luke? Indeed, how could such a thing be known unless by special revelation? And why should Judas be the only person in the Bible concerning whom such a thing is asserted? If Judas went to hell, as many people affirm, and if Christ after his crucifixion went to hell and preached, as Mr. Hudson would have us believe, he might have said to Judas, "to day shalt thou be with me in hell.” If Christ converted all the spirits in prison on this occasion, the probability is, according to Mr. Hudson's doctrine, that Judas is now in heaven.

Phil. 1: 23,"For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better." When Paul wrote this he was a prisoner at Rome and it was uncertain but death would be the issue of his bonds. See verse 12-23. The

first thing which claims our attention is, what were Paul's hopes and desires? He desired "to depart and to be with Christ." Well, did he mean by this, that his disembodied spirit should go to live with Christ in heaven? We should think not, for several reasons. Paul, nor no other sacred writer, ever speaks about the soul or the disembodied spirit going to heaven, or of any souls being there with Christ. Paul assures us in other places, that his desires were about "the resurrection from the dead." On 2 Cor. 5: 1-10, below, it is shown, that Paul did not expect to be present with the Lord, or clothed upon with his house from heaven, until raised from the dead, or until mortality was swallowed up in life at the resurrection. Further if Paul was dead with Christ, Rom. 6: 8. Col. 2: 20; crucified with Christ, Gal. 2: 20; risen and quickened together with Christ, Eph. 2: 5. Col. 3: 1; a joint heir with Christ, Rom. 8: 17; his life led with Christ in God, Col. 3: 3; and is to be raised up by Christ at the last day, why might he not say he had a desire to depart and to be with Christ, yet have no idea of living with him in a disembodied state? To be with another person, and even with him after death, does not necessarily imply being happy nor even in a state of conscious existence. For example, Samuel is represented as saying to Saul, "tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me." But did this mean that Saul and his sons would be alive or happy with him in a disembodied state? Again, our Lord said to the thief" to day shalt thou be with me in paradise." But it is shown above that this had no reference to being with Christ in heaven.

We are aware it will be objected-does not Paul say, to depart and be with Christ was far better for him? But, was it far better for him to die, and be in a state of unconscious existence, than to live in this