amusing themselves with martial exercises after death, may indeed seem gross to Christian ears; but, it deserves serious consideration if this is more gross than many descriptions listened to from the pulpit respecting the misery of the wicked in a future state. What but the influence of education, popular opinion, and weekly usage, makes the one more refined than the other? In my humble opinion, the latter is much more dishonorable than the former to the divine character. Dr. Good refers to several texts in which the term Rephaim occurs which he explains "The mighty dead, gigantic spectres, the magnified and mighty dead." But any person, who chooses to consult all the places where this word is used, will see that no Scripture writer ever mentions that these dead were suffering misery in a future state. The Dr. allows the prophet satirizes the fall of Belshazzar; and how could he have done it to better effect, than thus referring to the ghosts of the dead, a thing believed by the heathen? But did he believe such heathen opinions? Or, does he intimate that Belshazzar was suffering any misery after death? No, he speaks of the dead as having their implements of war under their heads, and as all poets do, alludes to the popular opinions, without any regard to their truth or their falsehood. But Dr. Good rather forgot himself, in referring to Job 26: 5, 6, showing that the Rephaim referred to spirits or ghosts in a future state; for he says the book of Job does not teach the immortality of the soul, its existence, or suffering in a disembodied state. He avers, future life is predicated there on the resurrection of the body.

But what we are chiefly concerned with is-from what source did such popular traditions originate? 1st. Let us hear Dr. Good respecting disembodied spirits. He says p. 370, "From what remote source

universal tradition may have derived this common idea of disembodied spirits, I pretend not to ascertain; the inquiry would, nevertheless, be curious, and might be rendered important; it is a pleasing subject, and embued with that tender melancholy that peculiarly befits it for a mind of sensibility and fine taste. Its universality, independently of the sanction afforded to it by revealed religion, is no small presumption of its being founded in fact. But I throw out the idea rather as a speculation to be modestly pursued, than as a doctrine to be precipitately accredited." Strange; not precipitately accredit a doctrine, if it is founded in fact, and has the sanction of revealed religion? If this universal tradition of disembodied spirits had its origin in revealed religion, the Dr. could surely have told us whence the idea was derived. But he adds, p. 377, "from what quarter this popular and almost universal tradition was derived, or in what age it originated, we know not."

2d. Their condition after death. Concerning the origin of the most approved views he thus writes, p. 377, 378,"In many parts of the world, though not in all, this common tradition (the popular tradition quoted above) of the people was carried much farther, and, under different modifications, made to develope a very important and correct doctrine; for it was believed, in most countries, that this hell, hades, or invisible world, is divided into two very. distinct and opposite regions by a broad and impassable gulf; that the one is a seat of happiness, a paradise, or elysium, and the other a seat of misery, a gehenna, or tartarus; and that there is a supreme magistrate and an impartial tribunal belonging to the infernal shades, before which the ghosts must appear, and by which he is sentenced to the one or the other, according to the deeds done in the body.

Egypt is said to have been the inventress of this important and valuable part of the common tradition; and, undoubtedly, it is to be found in the earliest records of Egyptian history: but from the wonderful conformity of its outlines to the parallel doctrines of Scripture, it is probable that it has a still higher origin, and that it constituted a part of the patriarchal or Antediluvian creed, retained in a few channels, though forgotten or obliterated in others: and, consequently that it was a divine communication in a very early age." Let us look at this statement.

1st. This common tradition under different modifications it seems developed-" a very important and correct doctrine." Well, let us see what it is? It is-" that hell, hades, or the invisible world is divided into two very distinct and opposite regions by a broad and impassable gulf; that the one is a seat of happiness, a paradise, or elysium, and the other a seat of misery, a gehenna, or tartarus."

In one

word, it developed the orthodox heaven and hell for disembodied spirits, for does not every orthodox man contend that this is his heaven and hell, and refer to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in proof of his opinions? Well, Dr. Good tells him, it was the ancient popular tradition which developed or brought to light this very important and correct doctrine.

2d. Who then invented this part of the common tradition? Dr. Good answers" Egypt is generally said to have been the inventress of this important and valuable part of the common tradition; and undoubtedly, it is to be found in the earliest records of Egyptian history." But as it would alarm our orthodox brethren to be told, that Egypt was the inventress of their heaven and hell for disembodied spirits and there leave it, he smoothes this matter over by adding the following to calm their fears about it. "But from

66

the conformity of its outlines to the parallel doctrines of Scripture, it is probable that it has a still higher origin, and that it constituted a part of the patriarchal or Antediluvian creed, retained in a few channels, though forgotten or obliterated in others; and, consequently, that it was a divine communication in a very early age." But even with Dr. Good, all this is no more than a mere probability. The only ground on which he rests its probability, is-" the wonderful conformity of its outlines to the parallel doctrines of Scripture;" but what these parallel doctrines are he does not inform us. The only passage we think the Dr. could have in his eye is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But, the chronology of the cases show, that the ancient heathen could not derive this important part of the common tradition from our Lord's parable. Our Lord then must have adopted this common tradition of theirs, and made it an important part of Christianity, if the common views of his parable are correct. But we cannot accede to this for several reasons. 1st. If Egypt was the inventress of this very important and correct doctrine, and if Moses had deemed it so, he would have inserted it in his five books. But though he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he takes not the least notice of it. 2d. Dr. Good admits it is not taught in the book of Job, the oldest writing extant. And it is, almost universally allowed, that it is not taught in any part of the Old Testament. 3d. In my answer to Mr. Sabine, it is shown that our Lord borrowed this parable from the "Gemara Babylonicum, whence it is cited by Mr. Sheringham in his preface to his Joma." Our Lord, never taught any thing like the common opinions drawn from this parable in any of his plain discourses, either to his disciples or the multitude. 4th. His disciples never taught any thing like this in any

shape, and they certainly would have done it, had they understood this parable as many now do. 5th. All the Scripture writers, allude to the popular traditions which prevailed, but is it correct to infer, that by this they sanctioned them as doctrines of divine revelation? 6th. If we are to believe in the orthodox heaven and hell for disembodied spirits, on such grounds as these, why not believe many other things taught in the ancient heathen traditions?— Egypt was the inventress of many more; they are found in the earliest records of Egyptian history; and it is easily asserted, that there is a conformity between them and what is taught in Scripture. Who could not prove them all correct, by saying, they originated in a divine communication in a very early age?

Dr. Good thinks it probable this part of the common tradition was a divine communication in a very early age. But I ask every candid man-is it in the least degree probable, that God transmitted to posterity such an important and correct doctrine, through a few channels of uncertain tradition, where it was so liable to be corrupted and forgotten? Admit this was the case until a written revelation was given, how is it accounted for, that God did not insert it in his written revelation when given? Dr. Good avers it is not found in Job, nor in Moses' writings, and most people concede it is not found in all the Old Testament. Was there no necessity for those writers mentioning this very important and correct doctrine because forsooth it is found in the earliest records of Egyptian history? Were these records to be God's revelation to the world on this subject? Dr. Good does not pretend he ever saw them, and few Christians ever heard of these records. Still fewer kave either the ability or the opportunity to consult them. But I ask, did God ever command the Jews