« VorigeDoorgaan »
considerable similarity in the above quotation to some descriptions given of hell torments by modern preachers. Í shall leave all to their own reflection on it. One or two things I shall merely notice.
1st, The doctrine of punishment in Tartarus, seems to have originated with legislators, for the purpose of restraining the passions of the multitude, and to alarm "them on all sides with the most frightful representations." The Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and Greeks, all introduced punishment after death. The Jewish nation is an exception. Some deistical writers have even blamed Moses as a legislator for not introducing eternal punishment into his code of laws, as a curb on men against licentiousness. It is generally allowed that the punishments threatened in the Old Testament are of a temporal nature.
2d, From the above quotation it appears, that though. punishment after death in Tartarus was believed by ihe heathen generally, yet the better informed among them did not believe " in the fables of hell,” but turned them into ridicule. Juvenal took no part in those opinions of the vulgar; and Virgil says-“ it was the province of philosophy alone to shake off the yoke of custom, riveted by education." Is it not then strange, that a doctrine, which was invented by heathens, and treated with contempt by their own wisest men, should be a fundamental article in the faith of Christians ? How is this to be accounted for?
3d, I may just add, that when the heathen were made converts to the Christian faith, all allow, that many of their previous notions were soon incorporated with it. This, together with the erroneous views held by the Jewish converts, laid a foundation for such a corruption of Christianity, which, if it were not attested by evidence indisputable, could not be believed. That punishment in Hades, or Tartarus, after death, is not a part of this corruption of Chris
tianity derived from the heathen, at least deserves to be seriously considered. The evidence we have adduced, proving that it is, we submit to the reader's judgment.
To conclude this chapter. We have shown, that neither Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, is ever used by the sacred writers to signify a place of endless misery for the wicked. This was all we were bound to do, in opposing the common opinion on this subject. But we have also shown, that this opinion originated with the heathen; and that the Jews learned it from them. To invalidate the evidence which has been produced, the very reverse must be proved. See note in the first edition, or the improved version on 2 Peter and Jude
GEHENNA, UNIFORMLY TRANSLATED HELL, IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT, CONSIDERED AS A PLACE ORETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
WE have now arrived at a part of this Inquiry, which requires the utmost attention. The New Testament is considered as clearly and decidedly teaching the doctrine of endless misery to all the wicked, and Gehenna is the place in which they are said to suffer it. The truth, or falsehood of this doctrine, is then at issue upon the decision of the question, What is the Scripture meaning and usage of the word Ge. henna ?
REMARKS ON DR. CAMPBELL'S VIEWS OF GEHENNA,
WE have seen from a consideration of all the texts in which sheol, Hades, and Tartarus occur, that these words never ought to have been translated hell, at least in the sense in which it is used by most Christians. This is confirmed by Dr. Campbell and other writers, who were all firm believers in the doctrine of eternal misery. Indeed, it is not now pretended by critics, that these words were ever intended to con-vey such an idea, by any of the sacred writers.
The word, and I believe the only word, which is supposed to express the place of eternal misery in the Bi-, ble, is the term Gehenna. As Dr. Campbell conclusively proves, that Sheol, ffades and Tartarus do not mean this place, he as positively asserts, that this is always the sense of Gehenna in the New Testament. He thus writes concerning it in his 6ih preliminary dissertation, part ii. sect. 1.—"That geeva is employed in the New Testament to denote the place of future punishinent, prepared for the devil and his angels, is indisputable. In the Old Testament we do not find this place in the same manner mentioned. Accordingly the word geevva does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a Greek word, and consequently not to be found in the Grecian classics. It is orig: inally a compound of the two Hebrew words Dund" ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua, xv. 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children,
were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. The place was also called tophet, 2 Kings xxiii. 10. and that, as is supposed, from the noise of drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised on purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants. As this place was, in process of time, considered as an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, and at length to be confined to it.—This is the sense, if I mistake not, in which Gehenna, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New Testament, where it occurs just twelve times. In ten of these there can be no doubt; in the other two, the expression is figurative; but it scarcely will admit a question, that the figure is taken from that state of misery which awaits the impenitent.” Such is the statement given by Dr. Campbell. It will be easily perceived, that the whole of it is bare, unsupported assertion. He does not do here as we have seen him do with Sheol, and Hades, prove what he says, by an appeal to the passages. No; he leaves us to make out the proof the best way we can. At first I was inclined to think, that, it was so plain and full, that he deemed it superfluous to adduce it. Resolved not to take this very important article on bare assertion, even from him, I have considered it as carefully as I could, and shall submit the result of my investigation for candid consideration. It is with diffidence and reluctance I dissent from such a learned and sensible writer as Dr. Campbell. But even he has taught me to call no man master. He encourages free inquiry, and inculcates on his readers, that no doctrine ought to be believed because it is asserted by the learned, and professed by the multitude ; but on the argument and evidence whereby it is supported. As the foregoing quotation contains, for substance, the