On p8 of the Jan issue it states "We believe a lot of the erroneous teaching relative to Sheol and other vital matters is a "carry-over" from a brand of Exclusivism and the latter holds not a few erroneous teachings." !

In 1966 Albert McShane of Lurgan wrote a small privately circulated pamphlet entitled “Sheol and Hades”. It expounded the theories that WH Ferguson was attacking in January 1967. Many of the senior preachers in N Ireland were annoyed at McShane about this and delighted with WHF’s response. Therefore original copies of McShane’s tract were not further issued and are v scarce. But it is in this posthumous book . https://www.icmbooksdirect.co.uk/product/24165/writings-of-albert-mcshane

So in this issue, William H. Ferguson, in his “Christ’s Descent into Sheol” says that the soul of Christ went into Sheol (the compartment of the souls of the righteous dead), knowing that it was a temporary stay of three days in the abode of the righteous dead in Sheol, and that He was there until the morning of the third day, and then ascended into His body in the grave, and then in His resurrected state 40 days later ascended and led the souls of the righteous dead into heaven.

I suppose that some "brand of Exclusivism" might have found reason to differ from this account of the writer as he claimed is "according to the Bible." What did Christ do in Sheol for those three days? Did He not commit His spirit to His Father at His death? And what did the delivered righteous souls in Sheol do for 40 days before their ascension with Christ? And what was "finished" that Christ spoke of on the cross?

What got McShane into bad odour regarding this theological divergence was probably his sneering remark concerning the (at that time) majority of brethren in NI and Old Paths in North America dubbing them “our brethren who hold the Roman Catholic view…”

When I was a boy much value was placed upon https://gospelfolio.com/product/life-and-death/
By CJ Baker as being a useful antidote to McShane’s view. Nowadays few teachers remain who hold the old traditional view

At the Yarnfield Conference this year an answer was suggested in a Q&A session that "Sheol" is a 'state' not a 'place' as such. I'll listen to it again and give a summary here as an edit.

AJ Pollock also taught on similar lines: Sheol is a condition/state, not a place/locality.

https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/pollock/Hades_and_Eternal_Punishment.html

This topic came up before - https://www.brethrenarchive.org/people/e-schuyler-english/articles/did-christ-descend-into-hades/

E.S. English wrote: "Considering the statement of the Apostle Paul: 'Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth'? (Eph. 4: 9), did Paul mean that our Lord’s spirit went down into Hades? He had just referred to the sixty-eighth Psalm, saying: 'When He ascended up on High, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.' Are we to take from this that the Lord Jesus went down into Hades and released the Old Testament saints from Hades and took them up into Heaven? There are many choice and esteemed brethren who teach thus."

HELL, SHEOL-HADEES' ‘GEHENNA’ 'TARTAROS’THE LAKE OF FIRE’
An Exposition thereof by John Brown, of
GREENOCK, now EDINBURGH, S c o tla n d .
January 1930. Published by W.M. Ross, 132 Seagate, Dundee.
This pamphlet was written near the end of his life. John Brown had been an early foundational leader with the "Needed Truth" branch of Brethren. It's interesting that he held strongly to the "traditional view" that our blessed Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, upon his death, descended into Hades/Sheol (the upper compartment) . I cannot find a scanned version of this pamphlet, though it is useful. John Ritchie wrote a largely forgotten book, but a very lucid and masterful one, entitled "Man's Future State". He held the same traditional view of the "Descensus ad inferos" and quotes the very influential Henry Dyer as supporting this view, in Dyer's book on Paradise. Both John Ritchie's and Henry Dyer's books on the matter are conveniently on this very website. While mere enumeration of bygone highly reputable brethren proves nothing, it is nonetheless useful to revise the topic by reference to what they were saying. The currently dominant denial of this clause in the "Apostles's Creed" seems to have arisen in Reformation times with theologians such as Bucer, as a fresh innovation unknown to previous centuries of Christendom. That shouldn't help current advocates for it to feel relaxed or reassured . (Ad fontes and Sola Scriptura is key here, not history, but a fool will usually ignore history)