does not determine also the nature of the punishment to be temporal, and that which was to come on the Jewish nation during that generation, it will be difficult to determine any thing from the Bible. If the punishment, of which our Lord spoke in this passage, be after death, it will not be difficult to show that every punishment mentioned in the Bible, is after death.

It is further objected-if the mere silence of the Old Testament concerning Gehenna being a place of endless misery is of any force against it, will it not be of equal force against the doctrine of future existence, the resurrection of the dead, and many other things, which are not revealed in the Old Testament? In answer to this, we remark

1st, That we have never laid much stress on the silence of the Old Testament, respecting Gehenna not being a place of endless misery. We have decidedly expressed our willingness to believe the doctrine if it can be proved from either Testament. We have said and we now say, that it is somewhat remarkable that such a doctrine as hell torments should not be taught. in the Old Testament.

2d, The objector proceeds on the presumption, that future existence and the resurrection of the dead, were doctrines not revealed under the Old Testament. But this he has got to prove before his objection can invalidate any thing which I have said, drawn from the silence of the Old Testament, to prove that Gehenna or hell is not a place of endless misery. If he proves, that a life of happiness after death, was unknown under the Old Testament, it is freely admitted, that my argument, drawn from its silence about future punishment, is destroyed. But if future happi-ness was known, and future eternal misery not known, how stands the argument? It is easily seen that it has considerable force, in favour of the views which I have advanced.

322

3d, That both future existence and the resurrection of the dead were in some degree known under the old dispensation, we think can be proved. Our Lord blamed the Jews for not inferring this from the words Paul in the 11th of of God to Moses at the bush.

Hebrews shows, we think, decidedly, what was the faith of the ancient patriarchs about this. Though life and incorruption were brought to light by the gospel, yet, if this were the proper place, we think it could be shown, that it was not the doctrine but the fact, which was brought to light. But can the objector prove the contrary, and can he show, that the doctrine of hell torments was brought to light by the gospel? Unless he can do this, what I have said about the silence of the Old Testament respecting hell torments, remains unaffected by this objection.

It has been objected-since paradise in the Old Tes tament merely referred to temporal happiness, but in the New is used for heavenly blessedness, why may not also Gehenna, used in the Old Testament for temporal misery, be used in the New for eternal punishment? If the objector thinks so, let him show from the use of the words paradise and Gehenna, in the Old and New Testaments, that this is actually the case. To admit things at this may be rate, is nothing to the purpose, and especially on a subject of such importance as the one in question. Do we find a place of future eternal happiness and a place of eternal misery equally and clearly revealed in Scripture? This is the first Were both of these revealed, thing to be settled. there would be nothing strange that paradise and Gehenna should be used by the inspired writers in speaking of them. But is this true, as it respects a place of eternal misery? But we do not find, upon looking at all the places in the New Testament where the words paradise and Gehenna are used, that similar things are said of Gehenna as a place of future pun

ishment after death, as is said of paradise as a place of happiness after death? Let our readers judge, if there be any affinity between paradise and Gehenna, and if these two words are used to express future eternal blessedness and misery alike, in Scripture. The objector takes it for granted that paradise is used in the Old Testament. But in this he is mistaken, for the word does not once occur there. Paradise is not even a Hebrew word but is allowed to be Persian. Had the objector noticed that this word is not used in the Old Testament, it might have prevented such an objection's being made against my views. We have the sanction of the New Testament writers, that paradise is used as a figure for future blessedness but that Gehenna is used as an emblem of eternal misery, we are referred to the Targums as authority. But this objection is founded in a mistake and did not deserve any consideration.

;

It has been also objected-that the reason why John said nothing about Gehenna was, that he was the beloved disciple: and that the reason why all the apostles are silent about it is, they wished to save men by love, and not by the terror of hell torments. This objection has some comfort in it, even if it does not convince us of our error. In reply, we may remark,

1st, That if the reason why John and the apostles said nothing about Gehenna or hell torments, was, as is asserted, because they wished to save men by love, it would seem to be the reason why modern preachers preach hell torments, because they wish to save them by terror and not by love. How then does the objector account for, and is he prepared to defend, the difference between apostolic and modern preaching? This objection agrees with my views so far, that God makes men obedient by love and not by terSo far well.

ror.

2d, It should seem from this objection, that the more we become apostolic, or like John, in love, this will lead us to say little, or rather nothing about hell torments to others. If we can only like John, be beloved disciples, and like the apostles in our tempers and dispositions, we shall not mention endless misery in our preaching or our conversation to the world around us, though we may be full in the belief, that they are all in the downward road to it. For

3d, This objection, notwithstanding all the love in John and in the apostles, and their desire to save men by love and not by terror, supposed Gehenna or hell a place of endless misery for the wicked. The objection proceeds on the supposition that John and all the apostles believed this, yet said nothing about it because they wished to save men by love rather than terror. If it is alleged that in the places where our Lord used the term Gehenna, he meant a place of endless misery, John and all the apostles differed from him about this, for it seems he wished to save men, yea, even his own disciples by terror of hell torments. The objector seems to approve of their conduct, and thinks that this was not only a lovely disposition in them, but that it showed love to the persons whom they addressed, in saying nothing to them about hell. Let no man say that this is love. What! John and the rest of the apostles, love men's souls, and believed them exposed to endless misery in hell, yet never once mention their danger to them? All will here agree with me in saying that this is any thing but love or faithfulness to the souls of men.

It is further objected—if Gehenna signifies wrath to come, it was natural to speak to Jews of endless misery by the former, and to Gentiles by the latter mode of expres sion. Why it was natural to speak to Jews of eternal misery by the one expression and to Gentiles by the "other, we are not informed. But 1st, allowing that

this is the case, can it be proved that Gehenna, and the phrase wrath to come, are used in Scripture to express either to Jews or Gentiles endless punishment in a future state? We have shown that Gehenna is not so used in Scripture, and we think can show that the expression wrath to come, does not refer to a future. state of existence. Wrath, yea, even the wrath of God, may be wrath to come, and yet be wholly confined to the present world. We think it will be difficult to prove that the wrath to come, mentioned in Scripture, had any reference to a state of existence after death. 2d, Upon examination, we think it will be found, that the phrase, wrath to come, refers to punishment, and is spoken of to Jews as well as Gentiles; but as the damnation or punishment of hell or Gehenna, had a particular reference to the temporal miseries of the Jews at the destruction of their city and temple, we never find it spoken of to the Gentiles.

It has also been objected-that if my views of Gehenna be correct, my interpretation of the passages where our Lord spoke to his disciples concerning it, goes to show, that he was more concerned for their temporal safety than their eternal welfare. This objection, to some, will appear more plausible than many others which we have stated. But in answer to it, we remark 1st, That this objection assumes the question in debate, the whole. of the present Inquiry being to prove "that the eternal welfare of the disciples was not in danger." This objection goes on the presumption, that the disciples were in danger of eternal misery, and that according to my interpretation of the passages in which our Lord spoke of Gehenna, he was more concerned about their temporal safety, than he was about their deliverance from eternal misery. The objector has then got to disprove the evidence I have adduced, showing that Gehenna does not refer to a place of endless misery, and to establish his own views by ev