Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

but is it good in proving that they understood it in no other sense themselves; or that the Saviour used it to signify such a place of punishment? It is very evident that the Jews could not understand it always in this sense nor could they when they read the Old Testament Scriptures. It is difficult to perceive how they could put such a sense on this word, even in those passages in Jeremiah where the prophet threatens their nation with severe temporal punishment under the emblem of Gehenna. How they understood it when they read the Scriptures is one thing, and how they used it in common discourse, and in making all the Gentiles fit fuel for the fire of hell is another. If they gave it such an application, this is no proof that our Lord used it in the same manner. If they learned the notion, that Hades was a place of endless misery, among the heathen, and applied the term Gehenna to it, yea, consigned over all the Gentiles to its punishment, does this prove that our Lord either adopted this notion of theirs, or used Gehenna in this sense? That he should adopt this popular sense of the word, is far from being probable, and that he used it as Jeremiah had done, as an emblem of temporal punishment, we think has been proved. Can any man reasonably believe, that our Lord should use Gehenna or hell in a sense seemingly invented out of enmity to the Gentiles, and lay aside its use in the Old Testament? Besides; and what ought to settle this question, the apostles so far from making the Gentiles or any others fit fuel for hell fire, never used the word in speaking to them or about them.

It is further objected;-admitting, say some, all that you have advanced about Gehenna or hell to be true, yet the doctrine of eternal misery to the wicked can be established from other parts of Scripture. If this be true, many a man might have saved himself a great deal of labour in writing and preaching, and many books

on this subject are mere waste paper, for they are written expressly to establish the very contrary. If this ground is taken we shall be very happy, for it is greatly abridging the ground of debate on this subject. Am I then to understand, that all the texts. which speak about Gehenna are abandoned, as not teaching the doctrine of endless misery? If they are, it is to be lamented, that they have been so long quoted as the principal proofs of this doctrine, and thus perverted from their true meaning. My labour at any rate, is not lost. If I am instrumental in rescuing so many parts of God's word from such a misapplication of them, I shall have the consolation that I have not lived nor written in vain. A correct understanding of God's word is to me the first thing in religion. There can be no real religion in the perversion of that blessed book. If they then are relinquished as proof, we hope we shall hear no more about hell as a place of endless misery. Not only the texts, but the very word hell must be laid aside as inapplicable to the subject. But if this is done, we shall feel some impatience, until we learn by what other name it is called in Scripture.

[ocr errors]

It has been objected to my views-that by Gehenna, a STATE and not a PLACE of future endless punishment is intended, and that I have dwelt too much on the idea of its being a PLACE. In reply to this we observe-1st, That before this objection is urged against me, such as hold to the doctrine of endless misery, ought to give up speaking of it as a place of punishment. It is always represented as a place, in writing, in preaching, and in conversation. Let the writer or the preacher be named, who does not speak of it as a place but as a state. Dr. Campbell, Edwards, and all other writers that I have ever seen or heard of, invariably speak of it as a place. Yea, some have even pretended to tell where it is located, and have de

scribed also the nature of its punishment, and the wretched condition of its inhabitants in a very cir cumstantial manner. There can be no reasonable objection brought against my speaking of it as a place, until such persons give up this mode of speaking about it themselves. But if any uneasiness is felt, as if the doctrine was in danger, in speaking of hell as a place of endless punishment, we have no objection that they adopt the term state. Only let us fairly understand one another, and let them not blame me for speaking about it as they do themselves, until they have made this alteration.

2d, But, supposing the word state to be substituted for the word place, we ask, what advantage is gained in favour of the doctrine of endless misery? How does this new word shield it from what has been advanced against it? If it affords it any asylum, we confess our inability to perceive it. We are equally at a loss to perceive, how it invalidates a single fact or argument, which we have advanced, in proof that Gehenna or hell in the New Testament does not teach the doctrine of endless misery. If we are mistaken let our mistake be pointed out.

3d, We should feel obliged to the persons, who wish to abandon the word place, to describe to us what they mean by state, and endless punishment in this state, without any idea of place. We hope they will be kind enough to inform us also, why they wish to shift their ground from place to state, and whether this is coming nearer to the Scripture mode of speaking of their doctrine; or, is it with a view to perplex the subject, and evade the arguments urged against it? Men who would lay aside the good old way of speaking of hell, must have some reasons for doing this. We wish to know them.

4th, We have attempted to show, that Gehenna or hell, spoken of in the New Testament, is in reference

to the same punishment, of which the prophet Jeremiah had spoken long before, concerning the Jewish nation. He had made Gehenna or the valley of Hinnom, an emblem of this punishment. In speaking therefore of Gehenna as a place, it was not my views which required this so much, as in opposing the common ideas entertained on this subject. This was rather a thing I could not avoid, than from any thing in my views which required such a mode of speaking in establishing them. Why then blame me for what they do themselves, and which their own views of this doctrine forces upon me in controverting them?

5th, It is allowed that heaven is a place as well as a state. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, vol. i. p. 330. says "Heaven is to be considered a place, as well as a state; it is expressly so termed in Scripture. John xiv. 2, 3: and the existence of the body of Christ, and those of Enoch and Elijah, is a further proof of it. Yea, if it be not a place, where can those bodies be? And where will the bodies of the saints exist after the resurrection ?" I appeal to all the world, if hell is not as generally spoken of as a place, as heaven is. And substituting the word hell for heaven in this quotation, the same things may be said of the wicked, as is said of the righteous. I only ask in the language of this quotation-"Where will the bodies of the wicked exist after the resurrection," if hell be not a place? For all who believe this doctrine say they are to be raised.

6th, The popular views of Gehenna or hell, not only represent it as a place, but the Bible is thought to countenance this view of the subject. It is very certain, that the Scriptures do not mention hell as a state, and do not guard us against supposing it to be a place, as this objection would have us believe concerning it. All past orthodoxy, would denounce the man as heretical, who would insinuate that hell was not a

place, but only a state. And must I now be condemned as heretical for not speaking of hell as a state but as a place?

It has been objected-" that the words of our Lord, Matth. xxiii. 33. to the unbelieving Jews were prophetic, and that by the damnation of hell, he might simply mean some punishment after death, without any reference to the place or the nature of the punishment." On this objection we remark

1st, That it has been shown in considering this passage, p. 127. that our Lord's words are not a prediction, but simply a threatening of temporal punishment to the Jews. But this objector takes it for granted that our Lord's words are prophetic. It is not assertions and suppositions, but proof that can avail us any thing on this subject. If the objector says, that by the damnation of hell, our Lord might simply mean some punishment after death, without any ref erence to the place or the nature of the punishment, let him produce some evidence of this. We think we have shown from this text and its context, that our Lord had no reference to a punishment after death, but to the temporal punishment coming on the Jewishnation. Let the objector disprove what we have said, and let him show from the context of this place, how his supposition can be supported from it. We may suppose any thing; but if unsupported by evidence, ought mere suppositions to be regarded?

2d, If the objector can prove, that the punishment mentioned in this passage is after death, we really think that the place where it is to be suffered is called Gehenna, by our Lord. Why he should think the punishment to be after death, and yet have any difficulty as to its location, or the nature of the punishment, we cannot conceive. The context of this place surely gives him no reason to conclude, that the punishment is after death, but the reverse. And if it

« VorigeDoorgaan »