to us, in the Old and New Testaments? This we have attempted to show in a preceding part of this Inquiry. Let our readers judge for themselves if the sense of this word is wrapt up in such impenetrable darkness, as this objector supposes. When shall we be certain of the sense in which an inspired writer uses a word or phrase, if this has not been ascertained from the context of Matth. xxiii. 33. where our Lord said to the Jews," how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Is there any ambiguity or uncertainty as to the sense of these words used by our Lord? If there be not, why need the objector, or any other man concern himself about the way that the Jews, or the writers of the Targums understood the word Gehenna? Until we as Christians, wish to transfer our regard from Jesus Christ to them, is not such an objection about Gehenna altogether improper, and virtually saying that his authority as to the meaning of the term Gehenna, is not to be regarded?

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. 130. 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. Let him prove this, and let the evidence be brought forward, that his words in this passage are prophetic of a punishment of any kind after death. 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 reference 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 Jewish nation. 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 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's 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's 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 a 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 happiness was known, and future eternal misery not known, how stands the argument? It is easily seen that it has considerable force, in favor of the views which I have advanced.

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. This we have hinted already, p. 39. Our Lord blamed the Jews for not inferring this from the words of God to Moses at the bush. Paul in the 11th of 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 Testa ment 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. But in reply to this we would observe

1st, 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 thing to be settled. Were both of these revealed, 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? And will any man say that the word Gehenna, in the New Testament, is used as certainly in reference to it, as paradise is in reference to heavenly blessedness? We think the objector himself would hesitate to affirm this. The cases are not parallel, as it respects the revelation of God about the two places; nor do the inspired writers use the words paradise and Gehenna in the way which this objector would lead us to conclude. We think we have shown this, from an examination of all the passages where Gehenna is used. Should any one think otherwise, let it be shown that Gehenna is as certainly used in the New Testament for a place of endless misery, as paradise is for eternal blessedness.

2d, But do we 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 punishment after death, as is said of paradise as a place of happiness after death? Allowing the words of our Lord to be genuine, "to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," do we find any thing similar said about a person's being with another "to-day" or at any other time, in Gehenna? Paul was caught up into paradise, but do we read of any one's being caught up or sent down into Gehenna? Here Paul heard unspeakable words, but do we read of any person's hearing, or seeing, or feeling any thing in Gehenna, in another world? We read also of some who shall eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God; but do we find as a contrast to this, that some shall endure eternal pain and misery in the midst of Gehenna, in a future state? These are all the places where paradise is used in the New Testament. Let our readers now 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.

3d, 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. Had it even been found to have been used as he supposes, it is now seen that his objection has no weight against the sentiments which I have advanced. 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 as we have seen, referred to the Targums as authority. But this objection is founded in a mistake and did not deserve any consideration.