them? and why speak of it as a thing they could not escape. The great object of modern preachers, in warning people about hell, is, to tell them they can easily escape it, by obeying their directions. But our Lord, had no directions to give the unbelieving Jews, how they might escape the damnation of Gehenna. The cup of their iniquity was nearly filled up, and the wrath of God was coming upon them to the uttermost. Before I dismiss this passage, permit me to bring the prophesy of Jeremiah a little more into view in connection with it. See this prophesy considered above, chap. ii. sect. 1, which ought to be consulted and compared with the passage under consideration. On both, taken together, I submit the following remarks.

1st, Who does not see, that the prediction of Jeremiah and the discourse of our Lord, Matth. chaps. xxiii. and xxiv. speak of the same events? Comparing both with that part of Josephus' history of the siege of Jerusalem, we see both minutely and affectingly fulfilled.

2d, It could not appear strange to the Jews, that our Lord should speak to them of the damnation or punishment of Gehenna, for under this very emblem the prophet Jeremiah had foretold great and dreadful calamities to this people. With the prophet's language the ears of the Jews were familiar, so that they had no occasion to ask what he meant by the damnation of hell. Nor could they find fault with him, in calling to their remembrance, a punishment to which they were exposed, so long ago foretold, but which was now near, even at the doors. Indeed, nothing but blindness of mind could have prevented them from fearful anticipations of such dreadful calamities. Accordingly they asked no explanation, nor seemed surprised at our Lord's saying,— "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"Is this likely to have been the case, if by this expression the Jews understood him to threaten them with eternal

misery in the world to come? No sentiment our Lord ever uttered, was more calculated to shock their feelings, and rouse their indignation against him. To understand our Lord in this sense, was entirely at variance with their pride, prejudices, and religious opinions; for the Jews had no idea that any of their nation should ever suffer eternal misery. See Whitby's note on Rom. ii.

3d, Let us for a moment suppose, that any of the declarations concerning Gehenna, in the New Testament, had occurred in the above prediction of Jeremiah. For example, let us take the words of our Lord before us,— "how can ye escape the damnation of hell? I ask any candid man, how the Jews would have understood these words, had they been uttered by the prophet, or how we would understand them? It will, I presume, be readily answered, that the prophet would be understood as threatening the temporal punishment which he had been predicting. Must the words damnation of hell, then, only mean temporal punishment, in the mouth of Jeremiah, but in our Lord's, eternal misery? If these words would have conveyed no such idea in the days of Jeremiah, why should they in the days of our Lord, and especially, as he not only seems to allude to Jeremiah's prophesy, but introduces them in a discourse to the same people, and in treating of the same temporal punishment? It will not be said, that our Lord was discoursing about a future state of existence, or even on a different subject from that of the prophet when he used this expression. No: the subjects are precisely the same, and the same people were addressed.

4th, I ask, was the expression, "damnation of hell," understood when our Lord used it, or was it without any meaning? If the latter, then the idea of eternal misery is given up, at least from this expression. Besides, it is not very honorable to our Lord, to say he used this expression without any meaning. If the former is contended for, in what way was our Lord understood by his

hearers? Nothing is said in the Old Testament, intimating that Gehenna was to have a different meaning under the gospel dispensation. Nor, in the New Testament is any thing said, showing that Gehenna was used there in a different sense from that which it had in the Old. By whose authority, and upon what rational and Scriptural ground, do we then interpret Gehenna in the passage before us, so differently from its allowed sense in the Old Testament? Our Lord was a Jew, and he spoke to Jews, who had the Old Testament in their hands. Until it is proved to the contrary, we conclude, that the Jews must have understood our Lord, by Gehenna, as their Scriptures taught them. We think, all will allow that this is at least a rational conclusion. That it is a correct one, ought not to be denied, unless it is shown our Lord laid aside the sense in which Jeremiah had used the word Gehenna, and adopted a new sense on mere human authority. If our Lord did this as to the word Gehenna, we doubt if another instance of the kind can be produced from the New Testament. If it were proved that he did so, it follows, that instead of calling the attention of the Jews to the true sense of Scripture, he rather encouraged them in a sense put on Scripture words of men's own invention. We have seen that Dr. Campbell avers, that our Lord spoke to the Jews in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and used words to which their reading of the law and the prophets had accustomed them; and yet he contends for a sense given to Gehenna in the New Testament, which it never had either in the law or the prophets.

5th, If we are to be indebted to the writers of the Targums,* how to understand the word Gehenna or hell, but few people could ever understand the New Testament on this subject. Is there one in a thousand who ever saw the Targums? and is there one in ten thousand who

* See the argument, drawn from the Jewish Targums, in favor of Gehenna being the place of endless punishment, considered sect. v.

ever read them? But until we have learned from such writings the sense of the word Gehenna, we must either remain ignorant, or take this sense at second hand from others. But put the Bible into a man's hands, let him search it on this subject, and compare the New with the Old Testament, would he ever conclude that the New Testament sense of Gehenna was so different from that of the Old? No; he would soon perceive that there is an agreement, and a very striking agreement, between both Testaments in the sense and application of the word Gehenna. Scripture usage, and the context, safe rules in all other cases, would soon lead such a person to the same conclusion to which I have come, that our Lord by "the damnation of hell," did not mean punishment in a place of endless misery. But it seems these safe rules of interpretation, must all be laid aside, to sit down at the feet of the writers of the Targums, to learn the meaning of Gehenna. But it is well known, how little confidence most people place in those writings in other cases, though their authority is considered good by many in the one before us.

6th, That Gehenna was made an emblem of temporal punishment to the Jews, rests on divine authority. But, that it was made an emblem of eternal misery, rests merely on human authority. Let us state a case, where system and preconceived opinion being out of sight, we would give a just decision, which of these authorities ought to be preferred. Suppose this case then reversed. In the Old Testament, let us suppose the word Gehenna to mean the place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. That this was its allowed sense, by critics and commentators, and that it never, in a single instance, meant temporal punishment. Suppose further, that the term Gehenna occurred twelve times in the New Testament. That upon examining one of the texts in which it occur. red, say the passage before us, it evidently had the same sense as in the Old Testament. That the text and

context clearly decided this to be its meaning. But a Universalist informs us from the Targums, that Gehenna, in the Old Testament, in process of time, came to be used as an emblem of temporal punishment, and at last came to be confined to it; and that this was always and indisputably its meaning in the New Testament. This he roundly asserts, without any attempt at proof on the subject.-I ask, what decision we would form in this case? Let candor decide, if we would not say that the doctrine of eternal punishment was put beyond all debate. And would not every man agree to condemn the Universalist? Happy, then, is the man who condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth. But what would be the decision in favor of eternal punishment, and against the Universalist, if upon examining all the other eleven places in the New Testament, it was found, that Gehenna had the same or a similar sense as it had in the Old Testament, and in the one in the New Testament where the context so clearly decided? The triumph of the doctrine of eternal misery would be complete.-We shall leave it for every man of candor, what to say, if it is proved, that all the remaining passages which speak of Gehenna corroborate the views I have advanced on the passage we have been considering. But all this is strongly confirmed by a number of facts, showing that no other sense could be rationally attached to the term Gehenna. We have adduced a few facts already, and have yet some more to produce, proving that Gehenna cannot mean a place of endless misery for the wicked, but that it referred to the temporal vengeance coming on the Jewish nation. We should like to see an equal number of such facts produced, showing that Gehenna does not mean this temporal vengeance but eternal misery, before we are condemned for refusing to believe that this is its meaning.

7th, Supposing that the term Gehenna, in this passage, was equivocal, as it certainly is not, still accord