AN
INQUIRY
INTO THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OF THE WORDS
SHEOL,
HADES, TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA
ALL TRANSLATED
HELL,
IN THE COMMON ENGLISH VERSION.
BY WALTER BALFOUR,
Charlestown, Mass.
THIRD EDITION.
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY BENJ. B. MUSSEY, 29 CORNHILL.
LEONARD W. KIMBALL, PRINTER.
/ 1832.
■i-C- IN!
vorkI
1->76.91
ASTOft, LENOX Avn
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by
Walter Balfour,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
CONTENTS.
Introduction, - - - - - - v
CHAPTER I.
Sect. I. All the passages of Scripture considered, in
which Sheol occurs, translated pit, grave,
and hell, in the common version, - - 13
Sect. ii. All the passages in which Hades occurs, con-
sidered, rendered grave, and hell, in the
common version, - - - 58
Sect. hi. 2 Peter ii. 4, in which Tartarus occurs, con-
sidered, rendered hell in the common ver-
sion, - - - - - 19
CHAPTER n.
Gehenna, uniformly translated hell in the New Testa-
ment, considered, as a place of eternal pun-
ishment, - - - - 105
Sect. i. Remarks on Dr. Campbell's views of Gehenna, 105
Sect. ii. A number of facts stated, showing that Ge-
henna was not used by the New Testament
writers, to express a place of endless misery, 123
Sect. hi. All the passages in which Gehenna occurs,
considered, - - . . 132
Sect. iv. Additional facts stated, proving that Gehenna
was not used by the sacred writers, to ex-
press a place of endless misery, - 19()
Sect. v. The argument derived from the Targums, and
other Jewish writings, that Gehenna means
a place of endless misery, considered, - 231
Sect. vi. Objections considered, - - - 265
Sect. vii. Concluding remarks, - . . .326
\
INTRODUCTION.
The simple object of the author, in this Inquiry, is, to examine
the foundation on which the doctrine of endless misery is built.
This doctrine, rests on the fact or the falsehood, that a place called
hell, in a future state, is prepared for the punishment of the
wicked. In speaking, preaching, and writing on the subject,
this is always taken for granted as indisputable. Most Univer-
salists have conceded this to their opponents, and have contended,
not against the existence of such a place of misery, but against
the endless duration of its punishment.* The principal writers,
on both sides of this question, admit that there is a place of
future punishment, and that the name of it is helL Winchester,
Murray, Chauncey Huntingdon, and others, admit that hell is a
place of future punishment. Edwards, Strong, and others, who
opposed them, had no occasion to prove this, but only to show
that it was to be endless in its duration. This Inquiry, is
principally for the purpose of Investigating, if what has been
taken for granted by the one party, and conceded by the other,
is a doctrine taught in Scripture. If the views I have advan-
ced are false, it still leaves the question between Universalists
and their opponents undisturbed. If they are found upon ex-
amination to be true, all dispute about endless misery in hell must
of course cease, for if no such place exists, why dispute about
the endless duration of its punishment ?
* When the first edition of the Inquiry was pubhshed, the author's
attention was entirely directed to the endless duration of future punishment.
From his examinations then, he had strong doubts of /miVerf future punish-
ment. Subsequent investigations, have confirmed and increased these
doubts, nor has he seen any satisfactory evidence, that limited any more
than endless punishment is taught in scripture. He thinks he has candidly
considered all which his brethren have urged in defense of a limited future
punishment, but the arguments used, and the scriptures quoted, only tend
to confirm him in the opinion, that the doctrine of limited future punishment
cannot be supported from the Bible. But, his ears are still open, to listen
to what can be said on the subject.
1#
VI INTRODUCTION.
The author is aware, that the subject he has undertaken to
discuss, is both solemn and important, and that his sentiments,
are not in unison with the principles and prejudices of the re-
ligious community. He is deeply sensible, that much learning,
and piety, and popular opinion, are against him. The doctrine
he opposes, is a fundamental article in most religious creeds, is
taught weekly from almost every pulpit, and writings from the
press are numerous in its support.
There are some, we hope many, who would rejoice to find it
fairly and scripturally proved, that hell is not a place of endless
punishment. Their benevolence of disposition, and their ina-
bility to reconcile this doctrine with the character of God and
with many parts of his word, concur in leading them to wish,
that clear and decided evidence of this might appear. From
such, the author expects a candid and patient hearing of the
evidence he has to produce. All he wishes, is, that his argu-
ments, and explanations of Scripture may be impartially exam-
ined, and his views received or rejected accordingly. The im-
portance of the subject demands, that it be candidly and impar-
tially examined. But there are other considerations, which
ought to excite universal attention to it. In the present day,
various opinions are entertained as to the future punishment of
the wicked, and that by men, eminent for both learning and piety.
Some hold to the doctrine of eternal punishment, some to its
being of limited duration. Others think they are to be annihi-
lated, and some hang in doubt, not having any fixed belief on
the subject. If the Bible does teach any thing certain on this
subject, all ought to know it; and in no other way can this be
ascertained, but by mutually communicating our researches for
candid consideration to the public, and let all men, through a
free press, read and judge for themselves. To deter men from
investigation, on a subject which involves their eternal condition,
is of all inquisitions the worst.
As to the sentiments advanced, the author makes no apology
for them, nor does he claim any indulgence from his readers.
He has appealed to the Scriptures, and to this test he desires
his views to be brought for examination. If they are found
false, no one can wish more sincerely than himself, to see their
falsity detected. If true, they are of too much importance, and
God's character is too much concerned, to be treated with in-
difference by judicious men. If God never threatened men
with endless, or any misery in hell, it places his character in a
very different light from that in which it is generally viewed.
The attempt has been made, to conduct this investigation in
a cool, rational, and scriptural manner, and to express with plain-
ness and candor the sentiments advanced, for the candid consid-
INTRODUCTION. Vll
eration of others. We have endeavored to state, what we con-
sider truth on this subject, and to state it in the spirit of the
truth. Should any tiling contrary to this be discerned, Ave hope
tlie reader will impute it to inadvertence, and not to design.
In the course of the work, a number of quotations have been
made from different authors. But few or none, have been tak-
en from Universalist writers. We have purposely avoided this,
and have availed ourselves of quotations from those, who, while
opposed to the views advanced, liave conceded many things in
favor of them. The testimony of an opponent is always reck-
oned valuable. Such testimonies, might have been increased
had it been necessary. But we rest the truth of the views ad-
vanced, on evidence we have drawn from Scripture.
The path in w^hich the autlior has trod, in this Inquiry, has
been new to himself, and but little frequented by other writers,
of which he has any knowledge. That we have not in any in-
stance, turned aside from the path of truth in our statements,
we do not affirm. It would be surprising if we had not, for to
err is human. All we can say, is, that we have studied to be
accurate in our statements, and to be guided by the Scriptures
in the explanations we have given. Should any trifling inaccu-
racies be pointed out, my time and habits of thinking, forbid
my promising any reply. Any answer, meeting the body of the
evidence produced, shall be attended to, either by acknoAvledg-
ing my error, or by defending Avhat I have written. That the
ti'uth of God on this, and every other subject, may be made
manifest and prevail, is the desire of the author, Avhatever may
become of his sentiments.
In presenting, the third edition of the Inquiry to the public, it
may be proper to inform the reader, of the folloAving things re-
specting it. The first edition was published in 1824. It would
be tedious, and would occupy more room than we can spare to
notice all the attacks Avhich have been made upon it, from the
pulpit, and in the public journals, since its first publication. The
instances, which have come within the range of our own person-
al knowledge and observation, have not been few. We shall
only notice the attempts, Avhich have been made to refute it, in
regular book form.
The first attempt, was made by Mr. James Sabine, a Boston
Clergyman, soon after the Inquiry was first published. A Gen-
tleman, called on the Clergy in the public journals, either to re-
fute the Inquiry, or confess they were deceiving the people.
This call roused Mr. Sabine ; and he announced in the public
papers, his intention to refute the Inquiry, provided a suitable
meeting house was obtained, his own beino- inconvenient for
the purpose. When all sects, declined offering him a house for
Vlll INTRODUCTION.
the purpose, the Universalist Society in Charlestown, unani-
mously voted him the use of theirs. He accepted their offer ;
and delivered six discourses, one every other Sabbath evening-, to
excessively crowded audiences. He afterwards published his
discourses ; and our reply to them, appeared in 1825. This pub-
lic, and published attack on the Inquiry, hastened a second edi-
tion of it in a cheaper form, but in every material respect the
same as the first. Mr. Sabine's attempt to refute the Inquiry,
was considered very generally a total failure. He did not pre-
tend to advocate endless punishment; nor, did his discourses
touch the principal facts and arguments contained in the Inquiry.
All seemed to allow, his discourses did more evil than good, to
the cause of endless punishment. They however, excited in-
quiry in the public mind, and somewhat promoted the demand
for the Inquiry, which was very unpopular. Most people de-
nounced it as a pernicious book, but felt perplexed with the evi-
dence it contained, and were desirous to see it refuted.
The next attempt to refute the Inquiry, was made by Mr.
Charles Hudson, a Universalist Clergyman, in Westminister,
Mass. His letters appeared in 1827, and were replied to in my
essays, Avhich were published in 1828. Mr. Hudson's "reply" to
my essays appeared in 1829 ; and in the same year, my letters in
answer to it were published. From some cause or other, like
Mr. Sabine, he passed over the principal facts and arguments of
the Inquiry, still leaving the book to be answered by some one
else.
Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin College, Maine, was the next
person who made an attack on the Inquiry. This he did in a
lecture, which he first delivered before the Students of the Col-
lege, and afterwards published. We replied to his lecture, in a
letter, which was published in 1828. The Dr.'s attempt to re-
fute the Inquiry, was deemed so weak, even by his oAvn friends,
that his pamphlet was withdrawn from the bookstores and sup-
pressed, if our information is correct. It is certain, it was fre-
quently asked for in the bookstores in Boston, but could not be
obtained ; and very few persons in this region, ever procured a
copy of it. The very weakness of this effort to refute the In-
quiry, was calculated to lead many to think it could not be an-
swered.
The last attempt, to refute the Inquiry, was made by Profes-
sor Stuart of Andover. From some cause or other, the public
had long looked to him, to ' furnish a refutation of the Inquiry.
The failure of the preceding attempts to refute it, was imputed
by some to the want of talent. When Mr. Sabine did not suc-
ceed, we heard it remarked — "if Mr. Stuart only takes hold of
it, he will easily refute it." At last, his exegetical essays ap-
INTRODUCTION. IX
peared in 1830. Though he avoids naming- me, or the Inquiry
in them, it is obvious enough to all, they were written to coun-
teract the effect, which the Inquiry had produced on the public
mind ; and also, what I had written in my second Inquiry, on the
words rendered everlasting, and forever, in our common version.
We replied to these essays, in a scries of letters addressed to
Mr. Stuart, which were published in 1831. He has not yet made
any reply to them. Here the controversy for the present rests.
Before Mr. Stuart's essays appeared, we supposed he must
have something new and powerful to produce : that the Inquiry
would receive a full and fair reply, and that I should see in what
my error consisted. But we are entirely disappointed ; for like
all the preceding attempts to refute it, the principal facts and
arguments are passed over without any notice. Indeed,
many of Mr. Stuart's statements, confirm the views advanc-
ed in the Inquiry. We begin to suspect, no respectable re-
ply can be made to it, which will prove, that Sheol, Hades, Tar-
tarus, or Gehenna, designates a place of endless misery to the
wicked. We have too high an opinion of Mr. Stuart's under-
standing, to think, that he considers his essays deserving the
name of an answer to the Inquiry. We have never heard of a
single intelligent man, orthodox or otherwise, who thinks his
essays a reply to it. But we have heard several express a con-
trary opinion. If the book then is not unanswerable, we may
say, it yet remains unanswered.
We have now a word or two to say, respecting this third edi-
tion of the Inquiry. In every material respect, it is the same as
the first and second editions. The only alterations deserving
notice, are the following. All the texts under Sheol, Hade's,
Tartarus, and Gehenna, are arranged and considered, in the or-
der they occur in the Bible. But the arguments and explana-
tions are for substance the same as in the preceding editions.
We have perhaps somewhat improved them from Mr. Stuart's
essays. When we have dissented from him, -vve have quoted
his words and remarked on them, or referred to our reply to his
essays, where our remarks are to be found. Some slight alter-
ations in the arrangement of the matter, in a few other places
have been made ; and some new matter has been introduced.
But all the facts and arguments, and indeed the whole substance
of the work, remains the same. We have seen notliing, nor
have we been able to tliink of any tiring, which alters the views
we have expressed in the Inquiry. After all the attacks which
have been made upon it, its foundation remains unshaken, and
its pillars and posts unbroken. They have only tended to show,
the solid foundation on which the views advocated in the In-
quiry rest ; and ought to excite my gratitude, to the men who
X INTRODUCTION.
have made them. Without these attacks, I might have gone
down to my grave doubting, wliether I^might not, after all, be
mistaken in my views. It would be almost sinful in me now to
doubt their correctness, considering the character, talents, and
standing of the men, who have tried, but failed to point out my
error.
No doubt, many will still think, I am greatly mistaken in my
views. Well ; perhaps I may be mistaken. But what would
such people have me to do ? Not surely to renounce my present
views, until I am convinced by scripture facts and arguments,
that they are wrong. If they believe me to be in error, why not
make a further attempt to show this ? My eyes are not closed,
my ears are not dull of hearing, nor is my heart, I trust waxed so
fat, but I shall attend to evidence drawn from scripture, to con-
vince me of my error. Let my blood then, be on the head of
those, who condemn me for my error, yet refuse to furnish me
with scriptural evidence, that I am wrong and they are right in
their opinions.
Because all past attempts to refute the inquiry, have been
fruitless, I do not say, but it may yet be done. My earnest de-
sire is, that it should be accomplished, if it can be done. What
profit can it be to me to continue in error ? I have attended
with serious care, to all the attacks made on the inquiry, but so
far from convincing me that my views are unscriptural, they
have strongly confirmed me in their correctness. Whether this
arises from obstinacy in error on my part, or weakness on the
part of those who made these attacks, let others judge. My own
opinion is, the views I have stated are the truth; for if they had
been false, the talents and learning of the men, with whom I
have had to contend, would long before now have exposed them.
If my views have not been refuted, no one can say now, it was
only because divarfs attempted it. Who is a greater giant
among orthodox people, than Professor Stuart ?
We have heard it repeatedly observed, allowing all the texts
in the Bible were laid aside, which speak of Sheol, Hades, Tar-
tarus and Gehenna, the doctrine of endless punishment can be
established from other texts. Well ; if people are sincere in
making this observation, why not lay all such useless texts aside,
and support the doctrine of endless punishment from these other
texts? But, does Mr. Stuart and others pursue this course?
No ; he knows too much to adopt it. He well knows, that if tlie
texts which speak of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna or
hell, are abandoned, the whole foundation of endless punish-
ment is broken up, and no other foundation can be found for it
in scripture. Mr. Stuart holds fast to this, as his last and only
hope of safety, for the doctrine of endless punishment. Give up
INrRODUCTION. XI
the texts which speak of hell, and every man, woman, and child,
would question the truth of this doctrine. Tell them, htUis not
a place of endless punishment, or of any punishment in a future
state, and their resentment would be roused to indignation,
against their religious teachers, for so long imposing on the
public.
• The time has now arrived, when people will inquire into the
truth of tiie doctrine of endless punishment. Pulpit declama-
tion, against the doctrine of universal salvation, has lost its ef-
fect ; and the terrors of an endless hell, frighten very few, except
the weak and ill informed in the community. Seeing people are
disposed to investigate this subject, let not the believers in end-
less punishment, now attempt to hush the subject to rest. We
entreat them to bring forth all their strength, if they have not
done it already. Truth can never lose anything, by free, amica-
ble, and candid discussion.
Some good people, have a great aversion to all religious con-
troversy- But how can this be avoided, so long as people differ
about the true sense of Scripture. Shall Ave sit down contented,
believing that endless punishment, and the opposite doctrine are
both true ? Had the reformers deprecated all religious contro-
versy, no reformation could have been effected. Yea, had the
Scripture writers declined all controversy, the truth of God had
long ago been banished from the earth. The Bible is full of
religious controversy, for God's truth, in all ages has been at
war with error, in the various shapes it has assumed. It had to
contend with Paganism, Judaism, and other systems of religion,
ages ago. In modern times, the various Christian sects have
their religious controversies with each other ; and even persons
belonging to the same sect, have their religious discussions.
I Have not the Unitarians, and those called orthodox, had lately
their religious controversies ? Have not the Presbyterians, and
the Congregationalrsts also had their controversies ? And is
not religious controversy, now going on among the orthodox
people, in this very region. But what are the points discussed
among them, compared with the one discussed in the following
pages — is the doctrine of endless punishment true ? All other con-
troversies compared to this, are like the small dust in the bal-
ance. Every other controversy ought to cease, until this ques-
tion is settled. And if settled, that endless punishment is
unscriptural, it would put an end to many other controversies
which exist. It would at least produce better feelings, among
many professed Christians towards each other.
Religious controversy to be sure, proves our imperfection in
knowledge. But it only becomes a serious evil, when we in-
dulge our own evil passions in conducting it. But let us study
Xll INTRODUCTlOlN'.
to avoid this, and ever remember, that the wrath of man work-
eth not the righteousness of God. We ought to contend ear-
nestly, but not hitterlyfov the faith once delivered to the saints.
It is pleasing to observe, that in our day, religious controversy
is conducted in a much better spirit, than in former years. The
spirit of the truth, seems to have more influence over the mind
in contending for it, and we hope, is one of the signs of the
times, that all sects are making a nearer approach to the unadul-
terated truth of God taught in the Scriptures.
To conclude. The Bible contains the whole of my religion.
To this book I have appealed for the truth of my opinions. ' If
any one should deem it proper, to make another attempt to re-
fute the Inquiry, I beg of him to confine his attention to this
book. An appeal made to the later Jewish writers, can never
settle the questions at issue. To abridge the discussion as much
as possible, I propose the following mode, of bringing it in the
shortest way to a close. Let the text or texts be selected, which
are supposed the strongest in the Bible, in proof of the doctrine
of endless punishment, and let them be fully and fairly exam-
ined. If but one text teaches this doctrine, I am made a con-
vert to it. Whoever then thinks, the bible is full of the doctrine,
let them make the best selection of texts they can, and come
forward with them for discusion. If alive and in health, we shall
attend to the evidence which may be produced, for what saith
the scriptures is the grand question with us in all our investiga-
tions ?
AN INQUIRY, &c
CHAPTER I.
Words are signs of Men's ideas, and were used as
such by the inspired writers, as they must be by every
man who speaks and writes to be understood. To un-
derstand their writings, it is necessary to ascertain what
sense they affixed to their words, and this we can only
learn, by consulting Scripture usage of them. That
men have attached ideas to some Scripture words and
phrases, which they never meant to convey by them,
will not be denied. That this is not the case with the
words Sheol, Hades, Tatarus, and Gehenna, which we
propose to examine, ought not to be taken for granted.
SECTION I.
ALL THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CONSIDERED, IN
WHICH SHEOL OCCURS, TRANSLATED PIT, GRAVE,
AND HELL, IN THE COMMON VERSION.
The idea which most Christians have attached to
the word hell, is a place of eternal punishment for all
the wicked. Wherever they meet with this word, it
2
14 ^ AN INQUIRY INTO
calls up the idea of such a place of punishment, and by-
many it will be deemed the worst of heresies^ to give
it any other signification. The cry of heresy ought not,
however, to d?ter us from candidly inquiring, " what is
truth?" on this deeply interesting question.
It is well known that there are four words in the
original languages of the Bible, which are all translated
by the word hell, in our common English version.
These are Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. The
two first of these words are sometimes translated grave,
as well as hell; the two last always hell in the common
translation.
There is one fact, which deserves attention at the
outset, of which many readers of the Bible are igno-
rant. The fact I allude to, is, that the word sheol, hell
does not occur in the Old Testament, where it means
a place of eternal misery for the wicked.* The fact
is indisputable ; no man can doubt it who will take the
trouble to examine this matter for himself Nor is this
a novel opinion, or a new discovery of mine. The fact
is attested by^ some of the ablest writers, who believed
in this doctrine. Dr. Campbell, in his 6th Preliminary
Dissertion, thus writes : — " as to the word Hades which
occurs in eleven places of the New Testament, and is
rendered hell in all, except one, where it is translated
grave, it is quite common in the classical authors, and
frequently used by the Seventy, in the translation of
the Old Testament. In my judgment it ought never
in Scripture to he rendered hell, at least in the sense
icherein that word is noiu universally understood by
Christians. In the Old Testament, the corresponding
word is Sheol, which signifies the state of the dead in
general, whhout regard to the goodness or badness of
the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating
* Professor Stuart says — " sheol designates future punishment,''* but
adds, we must also admit, that it does not determine, of itself, the dura-
tion of that punishment." Exeget. Essays, p. 107.
THE WORD SHEOL. 15
that word, the Seventy have almost invariably used
Hades. This word is also used sometimes in rendering
the nearly synonymous words or phrases bor and abne
bor, the pit, and stones of the pit, tsal moth, the shades
of death, dumeh, silence. The state is always repre-
sented under those figures which suggest something
dreadful, dark, and silent, about which the most prying
eye, and listening ear, can acquire no information. The
term Hades, is well adapted to express this idea. It
was written anciently, as we learn from the poets (for
what is called the poetic, is nothing but the ancient dia-
lect) aides, ah a privativo et eido video, and signifies
obscure, hidden, invisible. To this the word Hell in
its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded. For,
at first, it denoted only what was secret or concealed.
This word is found with little variation of form, and
precisely in the same meaning, in all the Teutonic
dialects.
" But though our word hell in its original signification,
was more adapted to express the sense of Hades than
of Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Chris-
tians, we always express by it, the place of the punish-
ment of the wicked after the general judgment, as oppos-
ed to heaven, the place of the reward of the righteous.
It is true, that in translating heathen poets, we retain
the old sense of the word hell, which answers to the
Latin orcus, or rather infernus, as when we speak of
the descent of Eneas, or of Orpheus, into hell. Now
the word infernus, in Latin, comprehends the recepta-
cle of all the dead, and contains both elysium, the place
of the blessed, and Tartarus, the abode of the miserable.
The term inferni, comprehends all the inhabitants good
and bad, happy and wretched. The Latin words infer-
nus, and inferni, bear evident traces of the notion that
the repository of the souls of the departed is under
ground.* This appears also to have been the opinion
* What sacred writer, I ask, says, " the repository of the souls of the
16 AN INQUIRY INTO
of both Greeks and Hebrews, and indeed of all antiquity.
How far the ancient practice of burying the body, may
have contributed to produce this idea concerning the
mansion of the ghosts of the deceased, I shall not take
upon me to say ; but it is very plain, that neither in
the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, nor in
the New, does the word Hades convey the meaning which
the present English word hell, in the Christian usage,
always conveys to our minds.
" It were endless to illustrate this remark, by an enu-
meration and examination of all the passages in both
Testaments wherein the word is found. The attempt
would be unnecessary, as it is hardly now^ pretended by
any critic, that this is the acceptation of the term in the
Old Testament. Who, for example w^ould render the
words of the venerable patriarch Jacob, Gen. xxxvii.
35, when he was deceived by his sons into the opinion
that his favorite child Joseph had been devoured by
a wild beast, / ivill go down to hell to my son mourU'
ingl or the words which he used, ch. xlii. 38, when
they expostulated with him about sending his youngest
son Benjamin into Egypt along with them, Ye will bring
down my gray hairs with sorrow to hell 1 Yet in both
places the word, in the original, is Sheol, and in the
version of the Seventy, Hades. I shall only add, that
in the famous passage from the Psalms, xvi. 10, quoted
in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts ii. 27, of wdiich I shall
have occasion to take notice afterwards, though the word
is the same both in Hebrew^ and in Greek, as in the two
former quotations, and though it is in both places ren-
dered hell in the common version, it would be absurd
to understand it as denoting the place of the damned,
whether the expression be interpreted literally of David
the type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to
departed is under ground *?" We shall see afterwards, from Dr. Campbell
himself, and Whitby, that this is a heathen notion. Mr. Stuart confirms
this.
THE WORD SHEOL. 17
its principle and ultimate object." — I have made this
long quotation from Dr. Campbell at the outset for sev-
eral reasons.
1st, It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and
Hades of the New, both translated by our English word
hell, did not originally signify a place of misery for the
wicked, but simply the stale of the dead, without regard
to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happi-
ness or misery. It follows of course, that wherever
those two words are used in Scripture, though translated
by the word hell, we ought not to understand a place of
misery to be meant by the inspired writers.
2d, It establishes also, that our English word hell,
in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded to
Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, signify a
place of misery. It denoted only what was secret or
concealed. What we wish to be noticed here, is, that
people generally have connected the idea of misery
with the word hell, but it is evident that it is a very
false association. It is beyond all controversy, that the
word hell is changed from its original signification to ex-
press this idea.
3d, It is also obvious from the above quotation, and
from other authors which might be quoted, that Ge-
henna is the word which is supposed to express the idea
of a place of endless misery. The correctness of this
opinion we shall consider afterwards. At present it
need only be observed, that if the opinion be correct, it
is somewhat surprising that the English word hell must
assume a new sense to accomodate it with a name.
Nor, was this the original sense of the term Gehenna,
as I shall show afterwards.
4th, I add, in regard to the statements made in the
above quotation, that they are not opinions broached by
a Universalist, in support of his system. No ; they are
the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Univer-
salist. Nor are they his own individual singular opin-
2*
18 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
ions, but are now admitted as correct by learned ortho-
dox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. Chapman's
critical and explanatory notes, we find very similar state-
ments made, on Acts ii. 27, which, to save room I for-
bear transcribing.
5th, It is now generally conceded, that the doctrine
of endless punishment, is not taught in the Old Testa-
ment. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that it is taught
there ; but begs of his readers to grant, that probably,
future punishment may be taught in jive texts. Was
it then brought to light by the gospel ? This cannot pos-
sibly be true ; for the fact is indisputable, that the doc-
trine of endless punishment was current among the hea-
then nations, long before the appearence of Jesus Christ.
Who then I ask, revealed this doctrine to the heathen
nations, yet left the Jewish nation in ignorance concern-
ing it ? If it is said, it originated in early revelations
which are now lost, I ask, how happened it, that the
heathen knew so much, and the Jews so little about
them ? And if Moses, learned in all the wisdom, of the
Egyptians, believed that the doctrine of endless misery
originated in lost revelations, why did he not teach it in
his writings ? But how could he refrain from teaching
it, had he believed it trwe ? The Jews could not avoid
endless misery, for they knew nothing about it, they
died, went down to hell, and the torments of the place,
give them the first notice that such misery awaited them.
If they did know any thing about it, they might thank
the heathen around them for the information ; notwith-
standing God had prohibited intercourse with them, or
learning doctrines from them.
As the doctrine of endless punishment, being taught
in the Old Testament, is abandoned, our attention must
be directed to the inquiry, does it teach future punish-
ment after death ? Is this taught by the term Sheoll
Let us examine the passages where it occurs and see ?
I shall take them up, in the order they occur in the com-
mon version.
THE WORD SHEOL. 19
Gen, xxxvii. 35. Jacob, said concerning his son Jo-
seph— '' I will go down into the grave (Sheol), unto
my son mourning." Grave, is here the correct render-
ing of Sheol, for surely no one thinks, Jacob believed
Joseph had gone to hell, and that he also expected to
go down to the same place of misery. But Dr. Allen
says — " it is altogether probable, that he (Jacob), had
reference to the abode of departed spirits, where he
hoped to meet his son. But our translators by using
the word grave, have excluded this important and inte-
resting idea, annihilated the strong hopes of paternal af-
fection and enlightened piety." But what is it, which
makes this probable ? for there is not a text in the Bible,
which says, Sheol, is " the abode of departed spirits,"
or even names " departed spirits.'^
Gen, xlii. 38. concerning Benjamin Jacob said — " If
mischief befal him by the way in which ye go, then
shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the
grave (Sheol)." Evidently grave, in the same sense
as the preceding passage.
Gen. xliv. 29. Jacob again says — ^' ye shall bring
down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave, ^^ in the
same sense as above.
Gen. xliv. 31. Judah, in making a speech for the
liberation of Benjamin, said — " thy servants, shall bring
down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sor-
row to the grave (Sheol)." Obviously grave as in the
three preceeding passages. See the quotation from Dr.
Campbell above.
Numb. xvi. 30. Moses said, concerning Korah and
his company — " but if the Lord make a new thing,
and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up,
with all that appertain unto them, and they go down
quick into the pit (Sheol)." If Sheol, here rendered
pit, means hell in its common acceptation, then Korah,
his company, and all appertaining to them, went down
alive there. But what is meant, is explained v. 32, by
20 AN INQUIRY INTO
" the earth opening her mouth, and swallowing them
up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained
unto Korah, and all their goods." They were swallow-
ed up as whole cities have been by an earthquake. Who
believes, that people go down alive, soul and body to
hell, or endless misery ? For it is the common opinion,
no bodies go there until after the resurrection. Be-
sides— did those persons, houses, and their goods, go
there with them, for all went down into the pit, what
ever place this was ?
Num. xvi. 33. "They and all that appertained to them,
(i. e. Korah and his company), went down alive into the
pit (Sheol) ; and the earth closed upon them : and they
perished from among the congregation." The sense
here, is the same as in the passage preceding. But in
reference to both these passages, it is said by Professor
Stuart — " that Korah and his company went to the
world of woe, there can be but little if any reason to
doubt, considering their character, and the nature of
their crime." This is being wise above what is written,
for Moses, nor any other sacred writer, intimates any
such thing. Mr. Stuart says himself, in the very next
sentence — " but the words of Moses in this place,
seem to refer primarily to the event which was about to
take place, viz. to Korah and his adherents being swal-
lowed up alive, and thus going down into the under
world." Can a particle of evidence be produced, that
Moses referred to any thing else ?
Deut. xxxii. 22. " For a fire is kindled in mine an-
ger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, (Sheol), and
shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on
fire the foundations of the mountains." Moses is here
foretelling God's judgments on the Jewish nation ; and it
required such a tremendous image, thus to describe
them ; even a fire, which should burn unto the lowest
Sheol. The figure of fire, is common in Scripture to
describe God's judgments on men ; and as on the Jew-
THE WORD SHEOL. 21
ish nation, came all tlie ri<;hteous blood shed on the
earth, so here the descrijjtion of their punishment, is
set forth by a tremendous (ire. But if by the lowest
hell, we understand a place of endless misery, there
must be three divisions of it, for the lowest helj, sup-
poses some hells above it, and all these hells must be
burnt through for this fire to reach it. But who be-
lieves this ? Besides, it may be asked, was David ever
in this lowest hell? For he says to God — "thou hast
delivered my soul (me) from the lowest hell," Ps.
Ixxxvi. 13. I may add, no intimation is here given, or
any where else, that in this lowest hell any persons are
suffering misery there.
1 Sam. ii. 6. "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive:
he bringeth down to the grave, (Sheol) and bringeth
up." Grave, or state of the dead, is evidently the
meaning of Sheol here, as the two parts of the verse
show. The words in the last part — " he bringeth down
to Sheol and bringeth up," answers to the words in
the first, " the Lord killeth, and maketh alive." In-
deed, who believes, that the Lord brings men up from
Sheol, or hell, in the popular sense of this term ? and
yet, if Sheol means hell, it is here plainly asserted.
2 Sam. xxii. 6. " The sorrows oi hell, (Sheol), com-
passed me about; the snares of death prevented me,"
or, came upon me. The parallelism here, shows what
is meant. In the first part of the verse — " the sorrows
of hell, (Sheol), compassed me about," is explained by
the second — " the snares of death prevented me."
" Sorrows of Sheol," and " snares of death," express the
same idea. See on Ps. xviii. 5, below.
1 Kings ii. 6. David charged Solomon thus — " do
therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his
(Joab) hoar head go down to the grave (Sheol) in
peace," let him die, according to the laws, a violent
death for the crimes "he hath committed. Solomon,
could not send Joab to hell.
22 AN INQUIRY INTO
1 Kings ii. 9. David charged Solomon thus concern-
ing Shimei — "But his hoar head bring thou down to
the grave (Sheol) with blood." No fault, is generally-
found with David, in charging Solomon respecting Joab,
but he has often been blamed for cruelty towards Shim-
ei. I quote the following from the Missionary Maga-
zine, vol. 7, p. 333, which places his conduct in a dif-
ferent light. It is there said, — " David is here repre-
sented in our English version as finishing his life with
giving a command to Solomon to kill Shimei ; and to
kill him on account of that very crime, for which he
had sworn to him by the Lord, he would not put him
to death. The behavior thus imputed to the king and
prophet, should be examined very carefully, as to the
ground it stands upon. When the passage is duly con-
sidered, it w ill appear highly probable that an injury has
been done to this illustrious character. It is not un-
common in the Hebrew language to omit the negative
in a second part of a sentence, and to consider it as re-
peated, when it has been once expressed, and is follow-
ed by the connecting particle. The necessity of so
very considerable an alteration, as inserting the particle
NOT, may be here confirmed by some other instances.
Thus Psalm i. 5. ' The ungodly shall not stand in the
judgment, nor (the Hebrew is and, signifying and not)
sinners in the congregation of the righteous.' Psalm
ix. 18: xxxviii. 1: Ixxv. 5. Prov. xxiv. 12. If,
then, there are many such instances, the question is
%vhether the negative, here expressed in the former part
of David's command, may not be understood as to be
repeated in the latter part ? And if this may be, a
strong reason will be added wdiy it sJiould be so inter-
preted. The passage will run thus : ' Behold, thou
hast with thee Shimei, who cursed me : but I sware to
him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death by
the sword. Now, therefore, hold him not guiltless,
(for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou
THE WORD SHEOL.
oiightest to do unto him,) but brins; not down his hoa-
ry head to the grave with blood.' Now, if the lan-
guage itself will admit this construction, the sense thus
given to the sentence derives a very strong support
from the context. For, how did Solomon understand
this charge ? Did he kill Shimei in consequence of it ?
Certainly he did not. For, after he had immediately
commanded Joab to be slain, in obedience to his father,
he sends for Shimei, and, knowing that Shimei ought
to be well watched, confines him to a paticular spot in
Jerusalem for the remainder of his life. 1 Kings, ii.
36 — 42. See Kennicotfs Remarks, p. 131." Those
who wish to see this verse noticed at considerable
length, may consult the Christian's Magazine, vol. i p.
172 — 181. David, could not surely mean, respecting
either Joab or Shimei, their hoary head bring thou
down to endless misery with blood.
Job vii. 9. " As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth
away : so he that goeth down to the grave (Sheol) shall
come up no more." The next verse, explains the wri-
ter's meaning ; — " he shall no more return to his house,
neither shall his place know him any more."
Job xi. 8. " It is high as heaven ; what canst thou
do ? Deeper than hell (Sheol) : what canst thou
know ?" The antithesis here shews, what is meant by
Sheol, for it is contrasted with the heaven for height.
The sea, or abyss, is probably alluded to. See verse 7.
No man can by searching find out God, any more than
he can measure the height of heaven, or the depth of
the abyss. Sheol included the abyss, for it was the
state of all the dead, whether in the abyss, grave or
tomb, etc.
Job xiv. 13. ^' Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the
grave (Sheol)." The context shews. Job longed for
death, to find rest in the grave. No man supposes, Job
prayed, that God would hide him in the place of end-
less misery.
24 AN INq,UIRY INTO
Job xvii. 13. *' If I wait, the grave (Sheol) Is mine
house." I must die at last, and I may as well die now,
as at any future period.
Job xvii. 16. '' They shall go down to the bars of
the pit, (Sheol), when our rest together is in the dust."
The grave or sepulchre, is here evidently referred to
by Sheol rendered int. Corruption and the w^orms
were to be with Job there, which he explains to be
"in the dust." Not surely in hell, or endless misery.
Job xxi. 13. " They spend their days in wealth, and
in a moment go down to the grave (Sheol)." Our
translators understood Sheol here to mean grave, and
have rendered it so ; and the fact stated, we see daily
occuring around us. This, is the first of Professor
Stuart's five texts, in which he thinks, Sheol — " may
designate the future world of woe.''' But he places
little dependence on it, for he says — " Job xxi. 13, is
not altogeter so probable as to afibrd entire satisfaction.
Verses, 17, 18, 21, 30 — 33, it may be alleged, seem
rather to incline the mind to construe Sheol in v. 13 as
meaning grave ; and so our translators have done."
The general usage of Sheol, by his ow^n confession, is
also opposed to construing it otherwise than grave.
Job xxiv. 19. " Drought and heat consume the snow
w^aters ; so doth the grave, (Sheol), those which have
sinned." This is true of the grave ; but does hell, the
world of woe, consume those which have sinned?
Job xxvi. 6. " Hell (Sheol) is naked before him,
and destruction hath no covering." What is called hell
or Sheol in the first part of the verse, is called destruc-
tion in the last. Hell here, has the sense oi grave, as
in the apostles creed, and other texts.
Psal. vi. 5. For in death there is no remembrance of
thee ; in the grave, (Sheol), who shall give thee thanks."
The parallelism here s!;o.vs, that grave is the meaning
of Sheol. The first part of the verse, " in death there
is no remembrance of thee," explains what is meant in
THE WORD SHEOL. 25
the last, " in the grave (Sheol) who shall give thee
thanks." Did David exjioct to go to the world of
woe ? And who ever supposed, it was a place for
praising God ?
Ps. ix. 17. "The wicked shall be turned into hell,
(Sheol), and all the nations that forget God." This is
the second text, on which Professor Stuart depends,
that " Sheol may designate the future world of ivoe.^^
But probably perceiving, that the context stood opposed
to such a view of it, he passes it without remark. Dr.
Allen gives this text up as teaching future punishment.
He says — " But probably the punishment expressed,
is cutting off from life, destroying from the earth, by
some special judgment, and removing to the invisible
place of the dead." But there is no text in which the
word Slieol occurs, which has been more frequently
quoted than this, to prove that by hell, is meant a place
of misery for the wicked. The wicked are the persons
spoken of, and they are said to be turned into hell, with
all the nations that forget God. Plausible as this ap-
pears, we have only to consult the context, to see that
no such idea was intended by the writer. The Psalm
in which the words stand, is treating of God's temporal
judgments upon the heathen nations. We think if
verses 15 — 20, are consulted, this will sufficienly ap-
pear. What leads people to think, that this passage
refers to eternal misery, is, the false idea which they
have attached to the word hell. But surely no one,
who has attended to all the texts, can continue to be-
lieve that Sheol here, has such a meaning. It is the
same hell into which the wicked are turned, which
Jacob said he would go down to Joseph mourning. It
is the same hell in which the Savior's soul was not left.
It is the same hell David prayed the wicked might go
down quick, or alive into. When I can believe that
David prayed the wicked might go down alive to a place
of endless misery, and that Korah and his company did
3
26 AN INQ,UIRy INTO t
go there alive, it is possible I may believe the text be-
fore us contains the answer to Divid's prayer. But it
will not be easy to produce evidence of this. The fact
is, it would prove too much. It would prove that all
the heathen nations must go to eternal misery, a thing
which few are prepared to admit. Ask the question of
the most zealous advocates of the doctrine, — are all the
heathen nations turned into eternal misery ? They hes-
itate, to say yes. But why do they so ? For if Sheol
means such a place, the passage is explicit in declar-
ing it.
It perhaps may be objected to this view of the text,
— are not all good people turned into Sheol, or the state
of the dead, as well as the wicked ? why then is it said
the wicked shall be turned into hell with all the nations
that forget God ? The answer to this is easy. Though
all good people in David's day, went to Sheol, as well
as the wicked, yet not in the way he is here speaking
of the wicked. David is speaking of God's public judg-
ments on the heathen, and by those judgments they
were to be cut off from the earth, or turned into Sheol.
It is one thing to die, and quite another to be cut off by
the judgments of God from the earth. I shall only add,
if all the wipked, yea, all the nations who forgot God
in those days were turned into a place of endless mise-
ry, upon what principles are we to justify the charac-
ter of God, or of good men, for their want of feeling
towards them, or their exertions to save them from
it? We are told that the times of this ignorance God
winked at : that he suffered all nations to walk after
their own ways. If all the heathen nations were turn-
ed into a place of endless misery, neither God, nor
good men felt, spoke, or acted, as if this was true.
Psal. xvi. 10. " For thou wilt not leave my soul,
(me), in hell (Sheol) : neither wilt thou suffer thine
holy one to see corruption." Peter quotes this text.
Acts ii. 24 — 32, and applies it to the resurrection of
<^
THE WORD SHEOL. 27
Christ from the dead. He was not left in Sheol, or the
grave. That grave only is meant, seems obvious from
the next words — " neither wilt thou suffer thine holy
one to see corruption." On this text Professor Stuart
says — " Can the soul of Jesus be supposed to have
been in the world of woe, the place of the damnedl
I know, indeed, that there are some, who deduce from
this passage the doctrine of a purgatory, into which
CIn-ist descended, in order to preach to the spirits who
are in prison I But there is no foundation in this text,
for any such deduction." But is there not, just as
much foundation for such a deduction in this text, as
there is in any text where Sheol occurs, that it is " a
world of ivoe, ihe place of the damned?'^ The bible
may just as well be quoted to prove n purgatory as it.
Where does it teach, that such s. prison exists ? or what
text can he adduce, to prove, there are any spirits in
it to be preached to ? We will thank Mr. Stuart, or
any other man, to produce proof of these things from
scripture. He takes for granted such a prison exists,
and that there are damned spirits in it, but lacks in be-
nevolence, to let Christ go there and preach to them.
But if one of these things, is believed without scripture
authority, why not all of them ?
Ps. xviii. 5. "The sorrows of hell, (Sheol), com-
passed me about; the snares of death prevented me."
See on 2 Sam. xxii. 6, above for the same sense of
sheol. In both places, and in others, where Sheol is
rendered hell, nothing but the popular sense attached
to this word, leads people to think of a place of future
punishment. It would have been well, if Sheol had in
all cases been left untranslated, for then people would
have looked to the context for the meaning of the
writer.
Ps. XXX. 3. '• O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul
(me) from the grave (Sheol) : thou hast kept me alive,
that I should not go down to the pit." The parallel-
28 AN INQUIRY INTO
ism In this verse, shows its meaning ; for what is ex-
pressed in the first part, is explained in the second.
Was the writer ever in hell, the world of woe ? And
was he ever brought up from it ?
Ps. xxxi. 17. " Let the wicked be ashamed, and let
them be silent in the grave (Sheol)." On this text I
ask 1st, If Sheol means hell, the world of future pun-
ishment, how could David or any good man pray, " let
the wicked be silent in this hell ?" In this case, Da-
vid was nothing behind the bold blasphemer, who sends
his companions off to hell with his prayers and curses.
But 2d. If iSVieo/ means hell, did David think it a place
of silence, for he says — " let the wicked be ashamed,
and let them be silent in Sheol.^^ No one believes
now, hell is a place of silence, for it is said to be a
place, where the wicked are weeping, and wailing, and
gnashing their teeth. This does not look, as if it was
a place of much silence. But 3d. Admit David here
only means, let the wicked be ashamed, and let them
be silent in the grave ; how could he ever pray for
this as a good man, if he believed in any future pun-
ishment ; for just so sure as they were turned into
the grave, their souls went to hell to be punished, ac--
cording to the common opinions. By implication then,
if he believed in any future punishment, he prayed, the
wicked might go to hell to suffer it. What good man
now, prays so ? 4th. But if we admit, David knew
of no future punishment after death, all difficulty is
removed. As a good man, and a king, David might
pray, that the wicked might be cut off by death ; or
as Mr. Stuart expresses it — " that the justice due to
them in a civil respect, might be executed."
Ps. xlix. 14. ^' Like sheep they are laid in the grave,
(Sheol) ; death shall feed on them ; and the upright
shall have dominion over them in the morning ; and
their beauty shall consume in the grave, (Sheol) from
their dwelling." Sheol occurs here twice ; and is prop-
THE WORD SHEOL. 29
erly rendered grave by our translators, for are any
sheep laid in //e//, the world of woe 1 or, does any
person's beauty consume there ?
Ps. xlix. 15. '• But God will redeem my soul (me)
from the ])owcr of the grave, (Sheol), for he shall re-
ceive me." Evidently grave here as in tlie last verse,
for in what sense could David be be under the power
of the ivorld ofivoe, and was redeemed from it? But
on this text Mr. Stuart says — '' whether under this
imagery more than a literal meaning is not conveyed
as also in the example above, (Ps. xlix. 14), will be
matter of inquiry in the sequel." But all he says in
the sequel, is this, p. 113. "Let any one now, in ad-
dition to these texts, carefully inspect such passages as
Num. xvi. 30, 33. Deut. xxxii. 22. 1 Kings, ii. 6.
Ps. xlix. 14, 15. Is. V. 14, and then say, whether the
Hebrew believing in a state of future retribution, did
not connect such language, in his own thoughts, with
the apprehension of future misery in regard to those
of whom he thus spoke." But the very question in
dispute is, did the Hebrew " believe in a state of fu-
ture retribution V Until this point is settled, it is
premature to inquire, '' whether the Hebrew did connect
such language in his own thoughts, with the apprehen-
sion of future misery in regard to those of v.hom he
thus spoke." It is surprising that a man of Mr Stu-
art's attainments, should assume the very question in de-
bate. Besides, who can tell what the Hebreiv thought,
or connected with his thoughts, but by what he has ex-
pressed in the language he used ?
Ps. Iv. 15. ''Let death seize upon them, and let
them go down quick into hell (Sheol)." Mr. Stuart
on this text says — " there is a serious difficulty in the
way of supposing the Psalmist to have prayed, that his
enemies should go down suddenly to the world of future
woe. Here, however, our English version renders
sheol hy hell; but why this should be done here, and
3*
30 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
not in Ps. xxxi. 17, it would be difficult to say." This
is indeed a serious difficulty, which we have noticed in
Ps. xxxi. 17, above. Besides, we have shown there,
that there is no possible way of getting rid of it, but
by admitting, Sheol does not in any case designate the
world of woe ; and, that David did not believe in any
punishment after death.
Ps. Ixxxvi. 13. " Great is thy mercy toward me ;
and thou hast delivered my soul (me) from the lowest
hell, (Sheol)." On this text, Mr. Stuart says — "the
next verse seems plainly to indicate, that deliverance
from temporal death is here meant. It runs thus :
' O God ! the proud are risen up against me ; and the
assemblies of violent m.en have sought after my soul,
(my life), and have not set thee before them.' The
word nephish which our translators have here redered
soul, is a common Hebrew word for life, and is very
often so rendered. It clearly has that meaning here ;
for soul, in any other sense than this, David's enemies
surely did not seek after. Consequently, we must con-
clude, that the deliverance commemorated in v. 13, is a
deliverance from the grave, or under-world, i. e. from
Death. By saying loiv est grave or sepulchre, the writer
designates a most terrible and cruel death, or a death
of the most shocking nature." This is very much to
the purpose. Let the reader notice, that lowest sheol,
hell, grave, or sepulchre, simply means by Mr. Stuart's
own confessions, '' a death of the most shocTcing na-
ture:'
Ps. Ixxxviii. 3. " My soul is full of trouble ; my life
draweth near unto the grave, (Sheol). Certainly grave
is here the proper rendering of Sheol, for the writer
surely did not mean to say, his life drew neartinto hell
or endless misery. The context decides the sense of
Sheol to be grave^ for in v. 4, he says — " I am counted
with them that go down into the pit ;" and in v. 5,
^Mike the slain that lie in the grave." Yea, says v. 6,
THE WORD SHEOL. 31
" thou hast laid me in the lowest pit ;" and asks, v. 10,
'* wilt thou show wonders to the dead ?" The phrase,
*^ lowest pif^ is equivalent to "lowest hell or Sheol,^^
Ps. Ixxxvi. 13, above.
Ps. Ixxxix. 48. " What man is he that liveth and
shall not see death ? shall he deliver his soul (liie) from
the hand of the grave (Sheol) ?" The kand of the
zrave, simply means i\\e poiuer of the grave. And the
Parallelism determines, that Sheol is correctly rendered
grave. Surely some are delivered from hell, the world
of ivoe.
Ps. cxvi. 3. " The sorrows of death compassed me,
and the pains of hell (Sheol) gat hold upon me." The
'^ sorroivs of death,'^ and ^^ pains of hell,^^ are equiva-
lent expressions. The same sentiment is expressed,
2 Sam. xxii. 6, and xviii. 5, above, already noticed.
Ps. cxxxix. 8. " If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
there ; if I make my bed in hell, (Sheol), behold, thou
art there." The writer here, surely did not mean to
say, if I make my bed in hell, the ivorld of woe. This
language is evidently used, to express the every where
presence of God, as the context shows. See on some
texts above.
Ps. cxli. 7. '' Our bones are scattered at the graves'
(Sheol) mouth." This is true of the grave ; but are
people's bones scatterd at the mouth of hell, the ivorld
of ivoe 7
Pro v. i. 12. " Let us swallow them up alive as the
grave, (Sheol) ; and whole, as those that go down into
the pit." The parallelism, as well as the context, suf-
ficiently shews, sheol means grave as our translators
liave rendered it.
Prov. V. 5. " Her feet go down to death ; her steps
take hold on hell, (Sheol)." The equivalent to — " her
steps take hold on Sheol," is, " her feet go down to
death." Both express the premature or sudden death
of a lewd woman. The parallelism, is similar here, to
32 AN INQUIRY INTO
that in Ps. vi. 5, Pro v. i. 12, and other texts noticed
ah'eady. This is Professor Stuart's third text, in which
he thinks — " Sheol may designate the future world of
ivoe^ He is correct in saying, this, and Prov. ix. 18,
have respect to prostitutes, p. 109. But, the argument
he draws from them, is founded in the mistake, that in
the ancient world — " disease in some of its most awful
forms," was not as now, a concomitant attending ilUcit
intercourse. In my reply to his essays, I have fully
considered this argument, to which I beg leave here,
and on all his book to refer. It is sufficient here to
notice, that v. 11 of the context, shows, Mr. Stuart
must be mistaken. It runs thus — " and thou mourn at
the last, w^hen thy flesh and thy body are consumed."
What do these words mean, if " disease in some of its
most awful forms," was not then a concomitant attend-
ing illicit intercourse ?" Medical men aver, that such
a disease is produced without illicit intercourse ; and
that it no doubt existed in the ancient world, though not
known then by its modern names.
Prov. ix. 18. "But he knoweth not that the dead
are there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell,
(Sheol)." This is Professor Stuart's fourth text, in
proof, that " Sheol may designate the future world of
woe.^^ But his argument founded on this text, is drawn
from the same mistake, as noticed on the preceding text.
He renders this passage thus — " but he knoweth not
that the ^/i05^5 are there." What ghosts? Are they
living beings, disembodied spirits ? Not a w^ord of this
can be true, by Mr. Stuart's own confessions, for he
says, p. 121, "a deep region beneath peopled with
ghosts, is what we do not believe in." Besides, we
have shown in our reply to his essays, that the term
rejpaim, rendered ghosts, by him, and dead in the com-
mon version, has no reference to living beings of any
kind, but to the dead body.
Prov. XV. 11. "Hell (Sheol) and destruction are be-
THE WORD SHEOL. 33
fore the Lord ; how much more then the hearts of the
children of men ?" Here Sheol and destruction are
joined, and plainly refer to the grave, where destruc-
tion takes })lace. If these are obvious to the sight of
the Lord, much more the hearts of men.
Prov. xxxiii. 14. "Thou shalt beat him with the
rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Sheol)." The
verse which precedes this, explains what is meant.
'* Withhold not correction from the child." Why? To
save his soul from the world of woe ? No ; it is add-
ed, for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not
die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt de-
liver his soul (him) from the grave (Sheol)." The child,
will bring himself to a premature death by his wicked
course of life ; but if you apply the rod in time, it will
drive his folly far from him, and prevent it. But this
is Professor Stuart's fifth and last text where he thinks —
'^ Sheol may designate the future ivorld of ivoey Let
us now hear what he concedes about these texts. He
says — " it is possible to interpret such texts as Prov.
V. 5 ; ix. 18 ; xxiii. 14, as designating a death violent
and premature, inflicted by the hand of heaven." Thus
much he concedes respecting three of his texts. Again,
he says, — '' The probability that Sheol designates the
future punishment of the wicked, in the passages just
cited, (all his five texts) depends perhaps in a great
measure, on the state of knowledge among the He-
brews, with regard to future rewards and punishments."
But were not these very texts quoted to show, what
was — " the state of knowledge among the Hebrews,
with regard to future rewards and punishments ?" But
it is confessed they do not teach this, for their teach-
ing it, depends in a great measure, on the state of
knowledge among the Hebrews, with regard to future
rewards and punishments," a thing they do not teach.
If they did teach it, they would not need to depend on
any thing else. The texts then, are nothing to Mr.
34 AN INQUIRY INTO
Stuart's purpose, even by his own confession, until it is^
proved, the Hebrews did beheve as he asserts. He
even concedes, the texts are susceptible of a different
interpretation.
Prov. xxvii. 20. " Hell, (Sheol) and destruction are
never full ; so the eyes of man are never satisfied."
Here again Sheol and destruction are joined. The grave
and destruction never say they have enough ; so the
eyes of man are never satisfied with seeing. Why ren-
der sheol hell here ?
Prov. XXX. 15, 16. " There are three things that are
never satisfied, yea, four things say not, it is enough.
The grave, (Sheol), and the barren womb; the earth
that is not filled with water ; and the fire that saith not,
it is enough." It is strange, our translators, shoidd have
rendered Sheol hell in the last text, and render it here
grave, where the same idea is conveyed. No one can
suppose, that in either text,- iSAeo/ means hell, the ivorld
ofivoe.
Eccles. ix. 10. ^'Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do,
do it with thy might : for there is no work, nor device,
nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, (Sheol), whith-
er thou goest." No one doubts, that ^AeoZhere means
the grave as rendered in the English version, for such
things could not be said concerning it, if it meant hell a
place of future punishment. But if it meant in any
case hell, it was liable to be misunderstood, thus to speak
concerning it.
Cant. viii. 6. " For love is strong as death ; jealousy
is cruel as the grave (Sheol)." We know that the
grave is cruel, for it spares neither age nor sex, and is
a fine figure to describe the effects of strong jealousy.
But how is it known, that hell, the ivorld ofivoe is cruel,
or, that jealousy resembles it?
Isai. V. 14. " Therefore hell (Sheol) hath enlarged
herself, and opened her mouth without measure : and
their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he
THE WORD SHEOL. 35
that rejoicetli, shall descend into it." All allow, Sheol
the grave is here personified. It is represented as having
a mouth, opening it wide without measure, to receive
the wicked with all their pomp and glory.
Isai. xiv. 9. " Hell, (Sheol), from beneath, is moved
to meet thee at thy coming : it stirreth up the dead for
thee, even all the chief ones of the earth ; it hath raised
up from their thrones all the kings of the nations." On
this verse Professor Stuart says — " the prophet is speak-
ing of the king of Babylon, who was to be slain, and
when he should go down into the under-ivorld or Sheol
the ghosts or umbrae of the dead there, would rise up to
meet him with insult and contumely. Our English ver-
sion renders Sheol hell. But plainly the region of the
dead the land of ghosts is here meant ; for in verse,
18, all the kings of the nations are said to repose in glory
there, i. e. to lie in their sepulchers, attended with all
the ensigns of splendor which were deposited around the
bodies of deceased kings." See in the next passage
for further remarks.
Isai. xiv. 15. " Yet thou (the king of Babylon) shall
be brought down, to hell (Sheol) to the sides of the
pit." On this text Professor Stuart adds — " the word
here is most evidently in the same sense as above ; for
so the parallelism which follows clearly shows, viz.
*' to the sides of the pit." On the two last texts, he
gives us the following excellent remarks, pp. 121, 122.
'' A deep region beneath, peopled with ghosts, is what
we do not believe in. Nor is there any more certain-
ty that it is true, because this method of speaking about
it in scripture is adopted, than that the sun goes round
the earth, because they speak of it as doing so. In
most cases, it is the language of poetry, which employs
the popular methods of representation. It is poetry
which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhabit-
ants of the under-world. Poetry personifies that world.
So in Isai. v. 14. Prov. xxvii. 20; xxx. 15, 16; i. 12.
36 AN INQUIRY INTO
Above all, Is this the case, in that most striking passage,
Isai. xiv: 9 — 20; (the two last passages), in which all
commentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or im-
aginary costume. Here the ghosts rise up fi:-om their
places of repose, and meet and insult the king of Baby-
lon, and exult over his fall. All is life and animation,
when he goes down into the under-w^orld. Yet who
was ever misled by this passage, and induced to regard
it as a passage to be literally understood. But if this
be very plain, then are other passages of a nature in any,
respect similar, equally plain also." On this quotation
from Professor Stuart, I have a few remarks to make.
1st, He explicitly declares, that he has no faith in a
deep region beneath peopled with ghosts. There is no
more reason to believe this true, then that the sun goes
round the earth. But we ask, are not disembodied souh
or spirits considered ghosts 1 Well, Mr. Stuart believes
in them. But perhaps his skepticism, does not respect
their existence, but the place of their habitation ; they
are not in a deep region beneath. Be it so ; we then
ask — where does he locate them ? Nowhere that I can
find from his writings. No, nor does he attempt to
prove, that they exist any where.
2d, The Professor tells us — " it is poetry which gives
a kind of life and animation to the inhabitants of the un-
der-world. Poetry personifies that world," and in the
passages he cites, he assures us — " all commentators
are compelled to admit a fictitous or imaginary costume.
Here the ghosts rise up from their places of repose, and
meet and insult the king of Babylon, and exult over his
fall. All is life and animation, when he goes down into
the under-world." Very well. We have then to ask,
if all this be the language of poetry, where shall Pro-
fessor Stuart find a text in the Old Testament, w^hich is
the language of reality, that any persons were alive in
Sheol, or any where else after death ? We do not de-
mand, what on his system we have a right to demand,
THE WORD SHEOL. 37
that he produce a text, which says, persons are punish-
ed there. No, we only ask him to name the text,
which teaches, that the king of Babylon, or any other
person, was in a state of conscious existence after death,
either in a region beneath, or, in any other region in the
universe of God. He says — " in most cases it is the
language of poetry, which employs the popular methods
of representation." If it is not so in every case, he can
produce the exceptions, where the language of inspira-
tion, the language of reality, gives to persons after death
real life and animation. What is proof positive, no
such texts can be produced, is, Mr. Stuart has not pro-
duced them.
3d, If the plainest texts in the whole Bible, which
represent persons alive after death, are abandoned by
Mr. Stuart as the mere language of poetry, how is his
system to be supported ? He has abandoned them, and
we are confident, he has none half so good as they are,
to produce in support of it. But we doubt, if he would
have abandoned them as the language of poetry, if it had
only been said in one of them, concerning the king of
Babylon or any other person — " and in Sheol he lifted
up his eyes being in torment.^' This w^ould have alter-
ed the passages, from 2i fictitious and imaginary cos-
tume, to solemn reality. No doubt but this w^ould have
been said, had the poets then known, that in the He-
brew Sheol there was a Tartarus, a place of torment.
But at that period, the poets had not given such a pop-
ular representation to Sheol. We shall see afterwards,
that the heathen Greeks, gave to Hades this popular
representation ; this fictitious and imaginary costume,
which Mr. Stuart adopts without scruple as the truth of
God. It is a strange inconsistency to say, when the
king of Babylon goes down to Sheol, and all is life and
animation on his arrival, this is only fiction, and when
the rich man Luke xvi. 23, goes down to Hades, and
all is life and animation, this is solemn reality. Does
4
38 AN 1NQ,UIRY INTO
not ]Mr. Stuart admit, Sheol and Hades are only the
Hebrew and Greek names for the same place ? And
is he ignorant, how Hades came to differ from Sheol
respecting such a representation ? We shall refresh his
memory about this in the sequel.
Isai. xxviii. 15. '" Because ye have said, we have
made a covenant \^"ith death, and with hell, (Sheol), are
we at agreement.^' The persons mentioned, fancied
themselves so secure, that they say, ''with Sheol the.
grave we are at agreement. '• They add — " when the
overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come
unto us : for we have made lies our reHige, and unde^r
falsehood have we hid ourselves." But thus their way
was their folly, for it is added,
Isai. xxviii. 18. " Your covenant with death, shall
be disannulled, and your agreement with hell, (Sheol)
shall not stand." No covenant can be made with death
and the grave, all must die, all go to SheoL Hence
it is added — " when the overflowmg scourge shall pass
through, then ye shall be trodden down by it."
Isai. xxx^dii. 18. " For the grave (Sheol) cannot
praise thee ; death cannot celebrate thee : they that go
down mto the pit cannot hope for thy truth." Here,
what is expressed by the words — '- the grave (Sheol)
cannot praise thee," is explained by the next words
— " death cannot celebrate thee." And is still further
explaned by the words — '-they that go down into the
pit cannot hope for thy truth." On this text Mr. Stu-
art says — '' the meaning here is plain, \iz. how can the
dead, or those in the sepulchre praise thee ? Surely
we cannot well suppose Hezekiah means to say here,
that hell, i. e. the world of torment, cannot praise God.
He did not expect to perish forever, when he should
die. But when he says, '- Sheol cannot praise thee,"
does he mean, that after death there is no ability to
praise God, no existance of the powers and capacities
of the soul ? I think not. It seems to me clearly, that
THE WORD SHEOL. 39
this is not his design ; ahhough not a few of the later
critics have affirmed it to be so. Shall we represent the
Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enliglitened as Heze-
kiah was, as being more ignorant in respect to futurity
than the Egyptians ? The people of God, who Hved
under the light of a revelation more ignorant than those
who were in the midst of Egyptian night ! Believe
this who will, I must have stronger e\idence of its cor-
rectness thaa I have yet found in order to give it credit."
On this quotation I have to remark
1st, Hezekiah " did not expect to perish forever
when he should die," for like all believers in divine rev-
elation he hoped for a future life by a resurrection from
the dead. But did he, or any other person, ever inti-
mate, that he should praise God in Sheol after death ?
Did any one ever say he should be alive there ? No.
But it was incumbent on Mr. Stuart, to produce some
declaration, or example from scripture, that in Sheol
there is " ability to praise God ; an existence of the
powers and capacities of the soul" to do this. No
doubt, could this have been found, he would have pro-
duced it.
2d, But Mr. Stuart's argument proves too much. It
will prove, that the transmigration of souls is a scripture
doctrine, for it was believed by those in Egyptian night.
I then say to Mr. Stuart in his own words — " shall we
represent the Hebrews, and a Hebrew monarch enlight-
ened as Hezekiah was, as being more ignorant respect-
ing the transmigration of souls than the Egyptians ?
The people of God, who lived under the light of a rev-
elation, more ignorant than those who were in the midst
of Egyptian night ! Believe this who will, I must have
stronger evidence of its correctness than I have yet found
in order to give it credit.'' But does ]Mr. Stuart think
the Hebrews, the people of God, believed in thQ doc-
trine of transmigration of souls ?
3d, But Mr, Stuart forgets himself. We shall see
40 AN INQUIRY INTO
afterwards, that he furnishes us with evidence that the
Egyptians in the midst of their night knew all about
future rewards and punishments, and yet he cannot
show, that the Hebrews, the people of God, did know
this, or that it is taught in the Old Testament. Now,
how will he, or any other man, be able to account for
the indisputable fact, that the Egyptians taught this doc-
trine in the days of Moses and the prophets, yet he
never taught it in his writings ? If Moses was better
informed than the Egyptians on this subject, as Mr. Stu-
art asserts, how happened it, that he gave us no infor-
mation on the subject ? But
4th, Mr. Stuart adds — " I regard the simple meaning
of this controverted place (and of others like it, e. g.
Ps. vi. 5; XXX. 9; Ixxxviii. 11; cxv. 17; Comp.
cxviii. 17), as being this, viz. "the dead can no more
give thanks to God, nor celebrate his praise, among the
living on earth, and thus cause his name to be glorified
by them," or thus do him honor before them. So the
sequel of Isai. xxxviii. 18 ; " the living, the living, he
shall praise thee ; as I do this day : the father to the
children shall make known thy truth, i. e. thy faithful-
ness." This last clause makes the whole plain ; and
one is ready to wonder, that so much skepticism about
the views of the Hebrews in regard to a future state of
existance, could have been eked out of the verse in
question." No man disputes with Mr. Stuart, that
" the dead can no more give thanks to God, nor cele-
drate his praises, among the living on earth." What
he has got to prove, is, that the dead celebrate God's
praises in Sheol ; that there people have powers and
capacities to do this. What scripture writer asserts
this ? If he cannot produce scripture authority for this,
is it not rash to assert it ?
Isai. Ivii. 9, " And thou didst debase thyself even unto
hell, (Sheol)." Sheol here evidently means grave ; and
to be debased even unto Sheol, Hades, or the grave ex-
presses the lowest state of debasement, or degradation.
THE WORD SHEOL. 41
Ezek. xxxi. 15. " In the day when he went down to
the grave, (Shcol) I caused a mourning." Tlie prophet
is here speaking of the death of the king of Egypt ; and
Sheol is correctly rendered grave by our translators.
See on the next passage.
Ezek. xxxi. 16. ''I made the nations to shake at the
sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hcll^ (She-
ol)." But why is Sheol rendered hell here, and ^rauc
in the verse preceding, for the prophet has not chang-
ed his subject ? This is a striking example, of the in-
consistency in the translators, as to their translation of
Sheol. But there are also many other examples, the
reader may notice.
Ezek. xxxi. 17. " They also w^ent down into hell
(Sheol) with him, unto them that be slain with the
sword." The same subject is continued, as in the two
preceding verses already noticed, and grave ought to
have been the rendering of Sheol.
Ezek. xxxii. 21. '' The Strong among the mighty
shall speak to him out of the midst of hell, (Sheol),
wdth them that help him." This is spoken of the
King of Egypt, and is similar to that said Isai. xiv. 9^ —
20, concerning the King of Babylon, above noticed.
This is one of the texts, which Mr. Stuart considers the
language of poetry. See in Isai. xiv. 9 — 20, above.
Ezek. xxxii. 27. '^ And they shall not lie with the
mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are
gone down to hell, (Sheol), with their weapons of war-;
and they have laid their swords under their heads."
Grave, vault, or tomb is the meaning of Sheol here ;
for do people carry their w^eapons of war with them to
hell, the ivorld of woe 1 and, do they lay them under
their heads there ? The allusion is evidently to the
custom of burying the hero's implements of war with
him. Another text which is only the language of po-
etry. See Isai. xiv. 9 — 20 above.
Hosea xiii. 14. '' I will ransom them from the power
4*
42 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
of the grave (sheol) ; I will redeem them from death ;
O death, I will be thy plagues ; O grave (Sheol), I will
be thy destruction." If Sheol does mean hell, the world
of woe, it is here plainly declared, that it is to be de-
stroyed. But if it means grave, this is agreeable to
scripture, for death and the grave are to be destroy-
ed, when men are raised from the dead immortal and
glorious. There is a double antithesis in this passage,
which show Sheol means grave. The first member
of the verse, is explained by the second ; and the fourth
member is explained by the third, Sheol in the first and
fourth members, answers to death in the second and
third.
Amos ix. 2. " Though they dig into hell (Sheol)
thence shall mine hand take them." People may dig
down into the lowest grave. But can any person dig
down to Sheol, if it means the world of woe, hell in
the common acceptation of this term ? If it does mean
this in any instance, it is here supposed men may dig
into it. But can any man seriously believe this ? Be-
sides, hell after all, must be a region beneath peopled
with ghosts, Mr Stuart's skepticism on the subject to
the contrary notwithstanding.
Jonah ii. 2. " Out of the belly of hell (Sheol) cried
I, and thou heardest my voice." But how could Jo-
nah be in hell, the world of woe, for he was only in
the belly of the fish. He thought his situation, the
same as if he had been in the grave. And, unless there
are two or more Sheols or hells, how can it mean both
grave and world of woe, for all at death go to Sheol.
Such are all the places where Sheol occurs, in what-
ever way rendered in our common English version. The
examples of its usuage are numerous ; but numerous
as they are, I do not find that in a single instance Sheol
is used to designate hell, the world of woe. To this
conclusion I have come, after patient and repeated in-
vestigations of the subject. Mr. Stuart's attempt to es-
THE WORD SHEOL. 43
tablish a contrary conclusion, only confirms me in my
own. Indeed, the result of his examination, leaves
his mind doubtful as to the truth of his conclusion, that
Sheol does mean hell in the common use of this word.
Let us hear him, respecting the result at which he ar-
rives?
He says, p. 93 — "There can be no reasonable
doubt, that Sheol does most generally mean the under-
world, the grave or sepulchre, the world of the dead,
in the Old Testament scriptures. It is very clear that
there are many passages, where no other meaning can
reasonably be assigned to it. Accordingly our English
translators have rendered the word Sheol grave, in
tliirty instances out of the whole sixty-four instances in
which it occurs in the Hebrew scriptures. In many of
the remaining cases, where they have given a different
version of the w^ord, i. e. translated it hell, it is equally
clear that it should have been rendered, grave or re-
gion of the dead. This has been clearly showTi, by
producing the instances in the above exhibition of ex-
amples. In three cases, they have recognised the same
principle, (at least this seems to have been their view),
viz. Numb. xvi. 30, 33. Job xvii. 16, where it is
translated pit. In regard to most of the cases in which
they have rendered the word hell, it may be doubtful
whether they meant thereby to designate the world of
future torment. The incongruity of such a rendering,
at least in not a few cases, has been already pointed
out, in the citations of the respective examples above,
and therefore need not be here repeated. The in-
constancy with which they have someitmes rendered
the word Sheol, in the same connection and with the
same sense, is a striking circumstance, which cannot
but be regarded with some wonder by an attentive in-
quirer. Nor is this always to be attributed to different
translators, (who are known to have been employed in
making the English version) ; but the same traslator has
44 AN INQUIRY INTO
been occasionally inconsistant with himself; e. g. Ezek.
xxxi. 15, compared with Ezek. xxxi ; 16, 17."
Such are Mr. Stuart's own frank confessions respect-
ing the term Sheol ; and how far the result of his
investigations differs from mine, let the reader judge.
But it will no doubt be said, does not professor Stuart
contend, that there are at least five texts, ^' in which
Sheol may designate the world of woe ?" We an-
swer yes ; but let us now see the result of his investi-
gation of them ? As the conclusion of this whole matter,
he says p. 114, — " The sum of the evidence from the
Old Testament in regard to Sheol, is, that the Hebrews
did probably, in some cases, connect with the use of
this word, the idea of misery subsequent to the death
of the body." Mr Stuart puts these words in capital
letters, no doubt to make them the more conspicuous.
But with or without this parade of capitals, it is conspic-
uous enough, that all he contends for is", a mere proba-
bility, that Sheol in some cases does mean what he says
it does. Or rather, " The Hebrews did probably in some
cases, connect with the use of this word, the idea of mis-
ery subsequent to the death of the body." It is obvious,
this jjrobibility, is not founded on the original significa-
tion of the term Shoel; its general scripture usuage ;
or the five texts which he deemed most to his purpose.
No ; he allows Sheol originally signified the grave or
state of the dead ; and that the general usuage of
Sheol is in favor of my views, is obvious from his
own statements. Besides, the five texts on which he
places his dependence, are susceptible of a different in-
terpretation from the one he has given them, by his
own confession. It will then be asked, on what does
Mr. Stuart found his probability that Sheol in some
texts means hell, the ivorld of woe ? We answer, it is
founded on assertions ; begging the question of his read-
ers ; and principally on the following assumption — that
THE WORD SHEOL. 45
the Hebrews in some cases, wlien they used the term
Sheol, had in their minds the idea o( future punishment.
But, he has not produced a single text to show, that
they had such an idea in their minds, and we are con-
fident he is unable to produce it.
Mr. Stuart showed his sagacity, in making some shew
of defending the doctrine of future punishment, from
tlie term ShoeL This, is the foundation of the whole
superstructure of punishment after death. If it gives
way, the whole falls to irrecoverable ruin. If a Tar-
tardus is not found in Sheol, it cannot be found in Ha-
des its corresponding word in the Greek, except on hea-
then authority. And we shall see on Mr. Stuart's own
authority, Gehenna did not originally mean Tartarus,
but came through a superstitious notion, to designate
hell the ivorld of woe. This Tartarus, this world of
woe, was first invented by men, and then terms were
invented, or words had new senses affixed to them, to
designate it. It w^ould be alarming, frankly to state,
that Sheol had no Tartarus in it. People would nat-
urally ask — had the ancient Hebrews no hell, no
world of woe 1 And the conclusion would soon come
to be drawn, why should we have one ? Of course, it is
of the last importance to contend, the Hebrews had a
Tartarus in their Sheol, for if this was abandoned, no
other word, no other text in the Old Testament, fur-
nishes the shadow of a foundation for it.
The reader must have noticed, that in the texts
above, Sheol is often rendered by the word hell, which
to most ears, conveys the sound of terror and dismay.
But he has also seen, that the word hell, in its or-
iginal signification, conveyed no such terror. Mr. Stu-
art confesses, that in a great many instances, it is a very
improper rendering of Sheol. Let us hear him a little
farther respecting the word hell. He says, pp. 113,
114 — " On the whole, it is to be regretted that our En-
glish translation has given occasion to the remarks, thai
46 AN INQUIRY INTO
those who made it have mtended to impose on their
readers, in any case, a sense different from that of the
original Hebrew. The inconstancy with which they
have rendered the word Sheol, even in cases of the
same nature, must obviously afford some apparent
ground for this objection against their version of it.
But I cannot persuade myself, that men of so much in-
tegrity as the translators plainly were, and, I may add,
of so much critical skill and acumen also, would under-
take to mislead their readers in any point, where it is so
easy to make corrections. I am much more inclined to
believe, that in their day the word hell had not acquired,
so exclusively as at present, the meaning of world of
future misery. There is plain evidence of this, in
what is called the Apostles creed ; which says of
Christ, (after his crucifixion), that he descended into
hell! surely the Protestant English Church did not
mean to aver that the soul of Christ went to the world
of woe ; nor that it went to Purgatory. They did not
believe either of these doctrines. Hell then means, in
this document, the under-world, the world of the dead.
And so it has been construed, by the most intelligent
critics of the English Church. With this view of the
meaning of the word hell, as employed in past times,
we may easily account for it, why it has been so often
employed as the translation of Sheol. This view of
the subject, also, enables us to acquit the translators
of any collusion in regard to this word ; and to acquit
them in this respect, does seem to be an act of simple
justice, due to their ability, their integrity, and upright-
ness."
Mr. Stuart here makes a very handsome apology, for
the translators of our common version. " In their day
the word hell had not acquhed, so exclusively as at
present, the meaning of ivorld of future misery.^'' In
proof of this he very properly refers to the use of this
term in the Apostles creed ; and might also have appeal-
THE WORD SHEOL. 47
ed to the marginal readings, in our English translation.
But we have two or three remarks to make ahout this.
1st, Who has been so kind, as to make world of future
misery the exclusive sense of hell, since the common
translation was made ? for now, it is used in no other
sense but this. We have been improving the wrong
way since that period, for 2d, I ask, why should hell
have the sense of " ivorld of future misery " at all, for
certainly this was not its original signification, as is al-
lowed by Dr. Campbell, Parkhurst, and many others.
Who then first gave to this word such a meaning ? Not
God, but probably the poets gave a similar sense to this
term as to Hades. But 3d, Is it correct, is it honest, to
attach such a new sense to the term hell, making it a
bugbear to freighten women, and children, and men who
know no better ? This subject, if it was only generally
examined, would put an end to people's terrors about
eternal hell torments. The confessions of Mr. Stuart,
will help to open people's eyes, that hell, is not exactly
what they have supposed it to be. t
I have now finished, what Dr. Campbell called an
endless labor, namely, to illustrate by an enumeration
of all the passages in the Old Testament w^here Sheol is
found, that it does not designate hell in the common
usage of this term. I shall briefly advert to some facts
and observations which have occured to me in my ex-
amination of the above passages.
1st, In no passage is *S'/teo/ represented as a place of
fire or torment. Nothing of this kind stands connected
with it in the Old Testament. It is frequently repre-
sented as a place of darkness, silence, ignorance, in-
sensibility, but never as a place of pain and misery,
arising from torment by fire. But how happens this to
be the case, if there was in the Hebrew Sheol a Tar-
tarus, as Mr. Stuart supposes, for all know Tartarus is
represented as a place of fire and torment. So he rep-
resents his hell, for he calls it " the lake of fire." And
48 AN INQUIRY INTO
also positively asserts — " That in hades, Sheol, accord-
ing to the views of the Hebrews, there was a place of
torment." But from no text in which Sheol occurs,
does he attempt to shew a vestige of evidence for such
an assertion. No evidence for this can be produced.
On the contrary, it will be shewn afterwards, how the
later Hebrews came to include in Sheol a Tartarus,
which reflects no great honor on the doctrine of hell
torments, for which Mr. Stuart contends.
2d, It is an indisputable fact, that oulm rendered ev-
erlasting, for ever, etc. is never connected with Sheol
in any shape whatever. For example, you never read
of and everlasting Sheol or hell. So far from this, we
are told Sheol is to be destroyed, Hos. xiii. 14. But
supposing we did read of an everlasting Sheol, and ev-
erlasting punishment in it, this would not prove either
of endless duration, for this term is often applied to
things, yea to punishment not of endless duration, as
shown in my second Inquiry. Mr. Stuart does not
pretend, that endless punishment is taught in the Old
Testament. But if the doctrine be true, as he asserts,
why is it not taught in the Old Testament, and taught
with as much plainness and frequency, as it is by mod-
ern preachers ? An eternal hell and everlasting fire
there, are common talk now ? But why was there no
everlasting fire in the Hebrew Sheol? Why was not
it eternal ? for Mr. Stuart says There was a Tartarus in
it. But Mr. Stuart must be sensible, that Sheol in no
instance, is ever represented as a place of j^unishment,
either hj fire or any thing else. And why should it, for
3d, No persons are said to be alive in Sheol, to be
punished in any way, or by any means whatever. The
only texts, which speak of persons as alive in Sheol,
Mr. Stuart positively declares are only the language of
poetry, they have a fictitious or imaginary costume.
And no other text has he adduced, or can he adduce,
to show that Sheol is a recepticle of souls or any living
THE WORD SHEOL. 49
beings, bodied or disembodied, rational or irrational.
On the contrary, we are told without distinction or
qualification, tJiere " is no work, nor device, nor knowl-
edge, nor wisdom in Sheol." Eccles. ix. 10. It is rep-
resented as a place of insensibility — " for the dead
know not any thing." And this perfectly accounts for
Hezekiah saying — " The grave (Sheol) cannot praise
thee, death cannot celebrate thee ; they that go down
into tlie pit cannot hope for thy truth." If men are not
alive in Sheol, how can they suffer misery there, either
by fire or any thing else ? How can they either praise
God or curse him ? How can they be either in happi-
ness or misery ? But if there was in the Hebrew Sheol,
a Tartarus, as Mr. Stuart ])ositively asserts, he is bound
to tell us, why no sacred writer speaks as if there was
any fire there, for he well knows Tartarus was a place of
fire. He must also inform us, why the sacred writers
avoid telling us persons are. alive in Sheol, to suffer in
his Tartams there ? Yea he must name the text, where
he thinks Sheol included his Tartarus in it.
4th, Another fact is, the Old Testament writers and
modern christians, speak very differently about Sheol
and hell, if both designate the same thing, and include
in them a place of future punishment. 1 shall merely
give a specimen of their disagreement. Notice then
1st, How the inspired writers in those days, and good
men in these, speak about Sheol or hell, in regard to
themselves. Jacob, Job, and others, speak of going to
hell, and expecting it as a thing of course, which they
could not avoid. Yea, Job, prays to be hid in hell.
I need not be more particular, for the texts above show,
what were the views and feelings of the very best of
men in those days about this. But I ask, is there a
Christian in the world, who, in the present day speaks,
and prays about hell, as those Old Testament saints did ?
But why not? The reason, I think is obvious. In
those dvys Sheol or hell, did not as in these, signify a
5
50 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
place of punishment, but the state of the dead. In
these days, when Christians speak about hell, they al-
ways mean a place of endless misery for the wicked.
The obvious reason of such difference is, that we have
affixed a very different sense to this word from what
they did. If we are to understand the Scriptures cor-
rectly, we must ascertain what sense the original writers
attached to the words they used, without regarding the
sense men may have given them, since Revelation was
completed. What right have we, or any one else, to
alter the sense of the words used by the Holy Spirit ?
2d, How the inspired writers in those days, and pious
people in these, speak about hell to the wicked. Not
an instance can I find, where it is intimated, that any
such went to hell, a place of misery. Both good and
bad went to Sheol, but not a word is said, that this was
such a place as people now think hell to be. If the
Old Testament saints entertained the same ideas about
hell, as most Christians do in our day, I wish some
person would rationally and scripturally account to me
also for the following facts.
1st, If their belief was the same as in our day, ivhy
do we never find them express that belief abont eternal
'punishment, as is now done in books, and sermons, and
conference meetings, and in common conversation. No
man can possibly deny the vast difference between their
language, and the common language now used upon this
subject. If the language is so different, is it not a
proof, that tliis invention of new language arose from
the unscriptural doctrine that hell was a place of end-
less misery ? An unscriptusal doctrine always gives rise
to unscriptural language ; for the words of Scripture,
are the very best which could be chosen to express the
will of God to men. That doctrine is not of God, or
the man who contends for it, has a wrong view of it,
who thinks, that the words of Scripture are not suffi-
ciently definite in expressing it. The man who can
THE WORD SHEOL. 51
find similar ideas, and similar language in the Old Tes-
tament, as are in common use in our day about a place
of eternal misery, must have read his Bible with more
attention than I have done. After repeated and care-
ful pervisals of it, I frankly confess my inability to find
either such ideas or language. I ask then, if the Old
Testament writers had any such ideas, why did they not
express them ? I ask further, if they never expressed
such ideas, how do we know that they had them ?
2d, Hoiv is it to he accounted for, that the fears and
feeliiigs and exertions of good people under the old
dispensation, IV ere so different from the fears and feel-
ings, and exertions of Christians in our day, about
saving men from hell 1 It was no object of fear, of
feeling, or of exertion in those days. In these, it is the
ultimate object, of the fears and feelings and exertions
of the religious community. To begin with their fears ;
I do not find that they express any, and it is fair to
conclude that they had none. If they had any fears,
I have no doubt that on some occasion or other they
would have expressed them. As I do not find them
expressed, I cannot produce any examples of their fears
about their children, their relations, their neighbors, or
the world at large, going to eternal misery. — As to their
feelings, I do not find a sigh heaved, a tear shed, a groan
uttered, a prayer offered, nor any exertions made, as if
they believed men were exposed to endless misery in a
future state. We see parents, and others, deeply af-
fected at the loss of their children and friends by death.
We see pious people deeply grieved on account of their
disobedience to God's laws, but where do we find any
expressions of feeling, arising from their belief, that
such persons would lift up their eyes in endless misery ?
I find nothing of the kind expressed, either in the way
of anticipation before death, or after such persons had
been removed from the world. Now, is it not strange,
that all this should be the state of the fears and feelings
52 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
of j^ood j)ooj)l(3, if they did believe endless misery was
lo ]je tlie ])oilioii of llie wicked ? The whole race of
mankind is swept from tlie earth by a flood, Noah and
his family exce|)ted ; but, does this good man deplore,
in any shaj)e, that so many prec^ious souls should he sent
to hell ? Ciod also destroyed the ("ilies of the plain :
Ahiaham ii)ter(-(Mles that they mij^ht be spared, but used
no arfi;ument with (jod, that the people jimst go to hell
to suffer et(;rnal niisery. JNovv, suffer me to ask, if
Abraham believed this doctrine, is it possible he should
have failed to uri::^c it as an argument, that all those
wi(*ked p(;)sons juust go to hell, if (jod destroyed ihem ?
No notice is taken of the very argument, whi('h in our
day, would be most urged in prayer to Cod, if any thinj^;
similar was to take place. All who have read the Old
Testament know, ^A^hat vast nundjers were cut off in a
day, by war and pestilence, and other means, yet do you
ever h(3ar it deploied by a single individual, as it is often
done in our day, that so iriariy were sent out of the world
lo (,'ternal jnisery ? Jf, in short, this doctiincj was then
believed, a dead sileru^e and the most stoical apathy were
i)iaintained even hy good jnen about it.
Ujider the Old Testament dispensation, the sinful
condition of the heathen nations, is often spoken about.
J3ut do we ever find the inspired writers representing
those nations as all going to etern;d misery, or did they
use simila)- exotions to save them from it as are used
in the j)resent day? Jf tlxi doctrine of eternal misery
was known and l)e]ieved in lliose days, is it not very
unaccountable, that so jiiaiiy ages should pass away,
before God ('onwnanded the Gospel to be preached Uy
every cniatme, and b(3for(3 those who knew theii- dan-
ger, should use exertions to save them from it? If the
doctrine he false, we may cease to wonder at this, but
if it he tru(3, it is not (nisy to recont'ile these things with
the well known cliaract(3r of God, and the feelings of
every good man. What an immense multitude of hu-v
THE WORD SHEOL. 53
man beings, during four thousand years, must have liv-
ed and died is2;norant that such a place of misery await-
ed thiMu in a future state. It is evident, tliat hoth Jews
and Gentlh^s, durinj; the aho\ e period, were olten threat-
ened with, yea, suliered teniptmU punishiueut. (lod rais-
ed up, and sent prophets to warn them of liis judgments
against them. I am then totally at a stand, what to say^
in justification of God's character, the character of the
prophets sent hy him, yea, of all good men in those
days, that, knowing eternal misery awaited every hea-
then, yea, every wicked Jew, that imthing should be
said to them on this subject. Jonah was sent to Nin-
eveh, and the sum of his message was, — '' yet forty
days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." But did he
receive, or did he deliver any message to them, that
their souls were in danger of eternal misery ? No ; and
every one who has read the Old Testament knows,
tliat this is only a single example from many more J
might adduce. The very reason why Jonah refused to
go to Nineveh was, he knew that (iod was a merciful
God, and would spare Nineveh. After he did go, his
^H'ide was hurt, htH'ause (lod did not destroy the city as
he had predicted. His peevish disposition was sufli-
ciently manifested about this ; but not a word escapes
bim, that the Ninevites were exposed to endless pun-
ishment. I ask, can a single instance bo produced from
the Old Testament, where a prophet of the Lord, was
ever sent to any people lo warn them against eternal
misery in a place called Shcol or lic/l J 1 do not fmd»
that either true or false proi)hets did so uiuler that dis-
pensation, or that this doctrine was known and believed
by a single individual. As men were not threatened
with such a punishment, so none were ever congratu-
lated as being saved from it. As it was never held up
to deter men from sin while ignorant of God, so it was
never urged on believers to stinudate them to gratitude
and obedience. Is it possible then, that this doctrine
54 AN INQUIRY INTO
could be believed, yet all remain silent on the subject ?
If no revelation was given about it, how could men
avoid such a punishment ? If a revelation was given,
how is it accounted for, that it is not mentioned by one
of the Old Testament writers ? If it is mentioned by
any of them under any other name than Sheol, I am
ignorant of it ; nor is this even pretended by those who
believe the doctrine.
3d, Another fact deserving notice, is, that the living
in speaJcing of their dead friends, never speak as if
they were to be separated from them after death, but
always as associated with them. This appears to have
been the case, whether the persons were good or bad.
An instance to the contrary, cannot be produced, where
a pei-son ever expressed himself, as if he expected after
death to be separated, and separated from his friends
forever. But it is well known, that persons in our day,
not only expect to be separated from many of their
friends forever, but say, they shall give their hearty
amen to their everlasting condemnation. Yea, it is
even said, that the happiness of those in heaven, is to
be greatly enhanced, by their looking down on those in
eternal torments, in seeing the smoke of it ascend for-
ever and ever. This was once current popular divin-
ity, and though not yet altogether out of use, yet I am
happy to say, sober-minded men reject it. But, it may
be asked, is it true, that persons under the Old Tes-
tament expected to be associated with their deceased
friends after death ? I do not recollect a single instance
to the contrary, and shall here, in proof of the asser-
tion, refer to Jahn's Biblical Archaeology, p. 234. To
this it may probably be objected, that association with
their friends after death, only referred to their bodies
mingling in the dust together, and had no reference to
their spirits after death. Admitting this to be true,
permit me to ask, can any proof be adduced, that their
spirits were separated from each other after death ? I
THE WORD SHEOL. 55
further ask, did their spirits exist in a state of either
happiness or misery after death ? I demand proof of
tliis. As I am unable to adduce any proof, I request
those who say so, to produce evidence of this from the
Old Testament. I shall give it all due consideration.
At any rate, if the Old Testament is silent on the sub-
ject, it ill becomes us to assert that such was the case.
Its very silence, is to me an indication, that no such idea
was entertained in those days. If it was, it is somewhat
surprising that no person ventured to express it. And
if it is not expressed by any of the Old Testament wri-
ters, how is it known that such an idea was entertained
by them.
In concluding this investigation of the term Sheol, we
shall briefly notice the following objections.
1st, Does not David intimate his child was alive
somewhere after death, when he says — '' I shall go to
him, but he shall not return to me." 2 Sam. xi. 23.
To this we answer no. David no more says his child
was alive, than Joseph was after death when his father
said — '' I will go down into §heol unto my son mourn-
ing." But let me ask, where did those parents suppose
their children were after death ? In hell ? Surely not,
for why were they in this case desirous to go to them ?
If there, well might Jacob say he w^ould go down to Jo-
seph mourning. Were they then in heaven ? If so,
Jacob ought to have said he would go down to Joseph
rejoicing. But if in heaven, w^hy did he speak of go-
ing down to him, for people always speak of going up
to heaven. Where then did David and Jacob suppose
their children had gone? I answer to Sheol; the
house appointed for all the living. Job xxx. 33 ; the
place Solomon refers to, when he says, " all go to one
place." Eccl. xii. 23. All, good or bad, went to She-
ol. Psal. Ixxxix. 48. This was the world of the
dead ; and the small and the great are there. There
the wicked cease from troubling ; there the w^eary be
56 AN IPrQ,TJIRT INTO-
at rest, Job 3d. David knew his child had gone
there ; and impressed with his own mortahty he says —
*' I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
2d, It may be objected — when Samuel said to Saul
— " to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,"
does he not intimate he was alive somewhere after
death ; and, his conversing with Saul a proof of it. To
this we answer no ; for he that believes it, must take
Saul and his sons to heaven, for no one believes Sam-
uel went to hell. Moreover, he must believe, that a
woman had power to bring a departed spirit out
heaven. But we have shown in Essays, sect. 2d, that
this woman was an imposter. The popular notion was,
that Sheol was a deep region in the earth, where the
ghosts of the dead all resided. This woman's trade
was to consult with the dead, and for this purpose Saul
resorted to her. But all such superstitious practices
God condemned, and expressly prohibited the Jews
from giving any countenance to them. It is strange,
Christians in the ninteenth century, should suppose
there was any truth in them. We have seen above ^
Professor Stuart says — " a deep region beneath, peop-
led with ghosts, is what we do not believe in."
3d, It may be objected — future existence was not
known under the Old Testament ; and if its silence on
the subject of endless misery proves it false, it is also
proved, there is no future existence. Answer. We
admit the force of this argument, if it can be proved the
Old Testament is silent on the subject of future exist-
ence. But this, we are surprised, that any man should
aver ; but it would be aside from our present design,
to discuss this point. See Jahn's Bib. Arche. sect. 314,
We doubt, if this would ever be denied, except for the
purpose of getting rid of the stumbling argument, that
the Old Testament does not teach the doctrine of end-
less punishment. Endless punishment it does not teach,
and rather than abandon it, some are willing to allow, fu-
ture existence is not taught tliere.
THE WORD SHEOL. 57
4th, It may be further objected — if men are at death
reduced to dust, lose their powers and personal identity,
and for a time cease to be susceptible of either enjoy-
ment or suffering, why may not this state continue for
ever ? What reason have we to hope, that their powers
and personal identity will ever be restored ? To this I
answer, God has promised man a future and an immor-
tal life by a resurrection from the dead ; and the ex-
ajTiple and pledge of it, is given in Christ's resurrection
from the dead. No man will deny this, who regards
the authority of the scriptures ; or doubts its accomplish-
ment, until he doubts the truth of divine revelation,
and the power of God to affect it. But to doubt the
competency of God's power to restore to man his pow-
ers and personal identity, is not doubting enough. The
man who doubts this, ought also to doubt, the compe-
tency of his power to create man at first with such
powers and personal identity. Creating at first, and a
resurrection from the dead, are both ascribed to the
power of God in scripture. If I am asked — " how are
tlie dead raised up ? And with what body do they
come ?" I refer the reader to 1 Cor. xv : 36 — 50 for
the answer.
To conclude. It is now generally conceded, by all
critics and intelligent men, that endless punishment was
not taught under the first covenant. But it is general-
ly believed to be taught under the neiv and better cov-
enant. If this is true, how can it be called a better cov-
enant, and " established upon better ])romises ?" Is
endless punishment a better promise ? And was it the
fault in the first covenant, which required the second
and better covenant,, that it did not teach the doctrine
of endless punishment ? But if all this be true, how is
Christ the mediator of a better covenant 1 If endless
punishment, is not threatened in the law which came
by Moses, how can it be threatened in the grace and
truth which came by Jesus Christ ? If it is not heard
58 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
in the thunders, fire, and tempest of mount Sinai, who
can think it is to be heard from mount Zion ?
SECTION II.
ALL THE TEXTS, IN WHICH HADES OCCURS CONSIDERED,
All critics are agreed, that the Greek Hades in the
New Testament, corresponds in meaning to the He-
brew Sheol in the old. In the septuagint version, the
translators have rendered the term Sheol, 60 times by
the word Hades, out of the 64 instances where it oc-
curs. Hades, also occurs 16 times in the apocryphal
books, and is used in a sinialar way, as the Hebrew
Sheol is, in the canonical writings of the Old Testa-
ment. Besides, the New Testament writers in quoting
firom the Old, use Hades, as the rendering of Sheol,
in the passages they cite, see Ps. xvi. 10. compared
with Acts ii. 27, etc.
The term Hades, occurs eleven times in the Greek
of the New Testament. In the common version, it is
once rendered grave, and in the other ten places by
the word hell. The following are all the passages.
Math. xi. 23. '* And thou Capernaum which art ex-
alted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell, (Ha-
des)." Dr. Campbell, in the dissertation quoted above,
says — '' as the city of Capernaum was never literally
raised to heaven, we have no reason to believe, that it
was to be literally brought down to Hades. But as by
the former expression we are given to understand, that
it was to become a flourishing and splendid city, or as
some think, that it had obtained great spiritual advan-
tages ; so by the latter, that it should be brought to the
lowest degree of abasement and wretchedness." See
THE WORD HADES. 59
on Isai. vii. 9. above, where Sheol is used in a similar
sense. This text has often been quoted to prove, that
all J who have abused spiritual privileges, shall be
brought down to hell, or endless misery.
Math. xvi. 18. " Upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell, (Hades), shall not pre-
vail against it." Dr. Campbell says — " it is by death,
and by it only, the spirit enters into Hades. The gates
of Hades is therefore a very natural periphrasis for
death." But this is not altogether in unison, with
what the Dr. has said elsewhere concerning Hades :
and, we shall see in the sequel from Dr. Whitby, that
Hades is not a resceptacle of souls, or spirits. This
was not believed by the ancient Hebrews, but was a
mere heathen notion. Certainly, no text in the Bible
says, " it is by death the spirit enters into Hades," or
speaks of souls, or spirits being there.
Luke X. 15. " And thou, Capernaum, which art ex-
alted to heaven, shah be thrust down to Hell, (Hades)."
See on Math. xi. 23. above. This is only the parallel
text to it, and has there been considered.
Luke xvi. 23. " And in hell, (Hades), he lifted up
his eyes being in torment." As this is the only text in
which Hades occurs, where it is alledged, it signifies
hell the world of woe, we shall give it a full considera-
tion. The following, are all the remarks which Mr.
Stuart makes on this passage. " That in the heathen
Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suf-
fering, is too well known to need illustration and proof
on the present occasion. More will be said on this
point, when I come to treat of Tartarus. That in Ha-
des, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, and
of Jesus himself, there was a place of torment, is put
out of all question by the passage now before us." All
this is mere assertion, but as it comes from Mr. Stuart,
we shall examine it. Let us inquire
1st, was the Tartarus in the heathen Hades real, or
60 AN INQUIRY INTO
was it fictitious ? This question ought to be fully ex-
amined, for if it was fictitious, the mere fancy of the
poets, Mr. Stuart's hell is built on the sand. But he is
so confident, it was a reality, he says, " that in the hea-
then Hades was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and
suffering, is too w^ell known to need illustration and
proof on the present occasion." We are surprised that
he should take this bold ground, for we shall show from
his own statements, the heathen Tartarus was a mere
fiction. Sorry are we to think, he should allege, our
Lord in this passage sanctioned a heathen fable for
truth. That Tartarus was a mere heathen fable, and
had its origen in heathenism, we shall now show.
Cicero, one of the wisest men among the heathen,
in his seventh oration says — " For it was on this ac-
count that the ancients invented their infernal punish-
ments of the dead, to keep the wicked under some awe
in this life, who without them would have no dread of
death itself" Intelligent heathens, had no more faith
in infernal punishments, than people how have in the
Salem witchcraft. See my letters to Mr. Hudson, pp.
9,^^, 267, where I have quoted Mosheim, who says,
such punishments were invented for state and mihtary
purposes. See also the next section.
But as Mr. Stuart will not dispute his own testimony,
let us see what he has said elsewhere about Tartarus.
After describing Cimmeria as an imaginary place, and
Erebus as no better, though contiguous to Hades, he
thus describes it. " Last and lowest of all, was Hades,
which is subdivided into the upper and lower. In the
upper part are the Elysian fields, the abode of the
good ; and beneath these, i. e. in the deepest dungeon,
in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus the place of pun-
ishment for the wicked, answering in some respects, to
the Gehenna of the Hebrews. Hades, then, in the
view of the Greeks and Romans was the under-world,
the world of the dead, a place deep in the earth, dark,
THE WORD HADES. 61
cheerless ; where every thing was unsubstantial and
shadowy. The Manes were neither body nor spirit ;
but something intermediate, not palpable to any of the
senses, except to the sight and hearing ; pursuing the
mere shadows of their occupations on earth, and incapa-
ble of any plans, enjoyments, or satisfaction which were
substantial." Exeget. Essays, pp. 124 — 128. Such is
the heathen Hades, and its Tartarus, as described by
Mr. Stuart himself This Tartarus he avers, Jesus
sanctions as real in the passage in question. But, did
Jesus convert a heathen fable into truth ? Did the
heathens invent a Ae// for him ? But let us look at this
Hades or hell ? If we ask where is Hades ? It is an-
swered in the above quotation — " it is a place deep in
the earth.^^ And if it is asked what is the use of this
Hades ? It is answered, it is — " the abode of departed,
souls. ^^ Again ; if we ask how is it divided ? It is an-
swered— " it is subdivided into the upper and lower.
In the upper part are the Ely sian fields, the abode of the
good ; and beneath these, i. e. in the deepest dungeon,
in the bowels of the earth, is Tartarus, the place of
punishment for the wicked, answering in some respects,
to the Gehenna of the Hebrews." But Mr. Stuart
must have forgotten, that he told us above — " a deep
region beneath peopled with ghosts, is what we do not
believe in." It is a great mistake, to say, Tartarus an-
swers in some respects to the Gehenna of the Hebrews,
if by Hebrews he means the ancient Jews, or the sacred
writers. Not a trace of Tartarus is to be found in the
Old Testament, nor, do the writers ever use Gehenna
in the sense of Tartarus, as all must allow.
But the principal question to be decided here, is —
was Tartarus real or imaginary ? Mr. Stuart, is con-
fident it is a reality. The fact he considers so well
known, as to save him all trouble, of giving proof or il-
lustration of it. But here, he strangely forgot what he
said, p. 126, — " Virgil in his jEneid, book vi. has given
6
62 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
a vivid picture of Orcus or Hades. It is more adapted,
however, to convey the fancies of his own poetic im-
agination, than it is to convey an exact idea of the
more ancient and general opinions of the Greeks in re-
spect to Hades. He loses sight in some measure of the
views of Homer, and is more intent on making out a
stricking picture, than on giving an exact account of
tradition."
But again, he says p. 128 — " Virgil describes the
progress of Eneas in the region of Hades, in terms
which show what a doleful place he thought it to be.
However, when he brings his hero to Elysium, to the
locus laetos et amoena vireta, sedesque, (vi. 637. seq).
he seems to make something more substantial out of
them, than can be found in any of the preceding hea-
then writers. But it is plainly the fancy of the poet
which does this, and not the tradition of the Greek and
Roman nations." On the same page he adds — " of the
Elysium of Virgil, Homer knows little or nothing ; and
it is sufficently plain, that it is principally the offspring
of his own imagination." But if all this be the fancy
of the poet, the offspring of his oivn imagination, why
did Mr. Stuart say above — '' that in the heathen Hades
was a Tartarus, a place of punishment and suffering, is
too well known to need illustration and proof on the pre-
sent occasion?" He would have said the truth, and
maintained consistency in his statements, had he said —
" that in the heathen Hades was a Tartarus which was
the fancy of the poet, the offspriiig of his own imagi-
nation. But, he assumes the heathen Tartarus to be
a reality, and declares that Jesus taught it in the para-
ble before us.
I shall now proceed to show, from other wTitings, ap-
proved by Mr. Stuart, that this Tartarus was of hea-
then origen. It is well known Mr. Isaac Stuart, his
son, lately translated from the French, J. M. Greppo's
Essay on the Hieroglyphic system of M. ChampoUion
THE WORD HADES. 63
junior. He aiid his father, have added notes and illus-
trations to this work, which furnishes the following in-
formation on this subject. See all they have said, in
notes M. and N. a part of which I shall quote. In
note M. p. 232, it is thus written.
" Osiris was the chief God of the Egyptian amenti,
answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and Latins. It
is sufficent for our purpose to know where his domin-
ion was exercised. This was over the souls of men af-
ter their decease — a fact which is revealed by almost
every legend and painting relating to the dead. The
Amenti of the Egyptians, corresponding to the Hades of
the Greeks and to the Tartarus of the Latins, was the
place of the dead. It was governed by Osiris as chief,
and by many subordinate divinities." On this I remark
1st, It is confessed — '' the Amenti of the Egypt-
ians, corresponded to the Hades of the Greeks, and to
the Tartarus of the Latins." But why not also con-
fess, it corresponds to the hell of Christians ? Mr. Stu-
art identifies his hell with the heathen Tartarus, and of
course with the Egyptian Amenti.
2d, If " Osiris was the chief God of the Egyptian
Amenti, answering to the Pluto of the Greeks and
Latins," is not the Devil the chief God in the hell of
Christians ? Let us ask — where was the dominion of
Osiris and Pluto exercised? It is answered in the
above quotation — '' this was over the souls of men after
their decease." And is not this the very dominion,
which Christians assign to their Devil ? Is not his do-
minion over the souls of men after their decease ? Is
not he represented, as the chief God, or ruler in their
hell ? And if it be, " a fact, which is revealed by al-
most every legend and painting relating to the dead,"
among the Egyptians, that this was the proper domin-
ion of their Osiris, does not almost every tract and ser-
mon among Christians, reveal, that hell is the proper
dominion of the Devil ? In a word — who can well de-
64 AN INQ.UIRY INTO '
ny, that the Devil among Christians, answers the same
purposes to them, that Osiris did to the Egyptians, and
Pluto to the Greeks and Latins ?
But again, in pp. 235, 236, the following account of
an Egyptian burial, is quoted from Spineto. Mr. Stu-
art assigns this reason for the quotation. '' We quote the
whole, as it shows from w^ience an important part of
the Greek mythology was derived." It runs thus —
" the common place of burial was beyond the lake Ach-
erjsia, or Acharejish which meant the last state, the last
condition of man, and from which the poets have im-
agined the fabulous lake of Acheron. On the borders
of this lake Acherjsia sat a tribunal, composed of forty-
two judges, whose office, previous to the dead being
permitted to be carried to the cemetry beyond the lake,
was to inquire into the wdiole conduct of his life.
If the deceased had died insolvent, they adjudged the
corpse to his creditors, which was considered as a mark
of dishonor, in order to oblige his relations and friends
to redeem it, by raising the necessary sums among them-
selves. If he had led a wicked life, they ordered that
he should be deprived of solemn burial, and he was con-
sequently carried and thrown into a large ditch made
for the purpose, to which they gave the appellation of
Tartar, on account of the lamentations that this sen-
tence produced among his surviving friends and rela-
tions.
This is also the origin of the fabulous Tartarus, in
which the poets have transferred the lamentations made
by the living to the dead themselves who were thrown
into it.
If no accuser appeared, or if the accusation had prov-
ed groundless, the judges decreed that the deceased
was entitled to his burial, and his eulogium was pro-
nounced amidst the applauses of the bystanders, in
which they praised his education, his religion, his just-
ice, in short, all his virtues, without, however, mention-
THE WORD HADES. 65
ing any thing about his riches or nobihty, both of which
were considered as mere gifts of fortune.
To carry the corpse to the cemetry, it was necessary
to cross the lake, and this was done by means of a boat,
in which no one could be admitted without the express
order of the judges, and without paying a small sum for
the conveyance, this regulation was so strictly enforc-
ed, that the kings themselves were not exempt from its
severity.
The cemetry was a large plain surrounded by trees,
and intersected by canals, to which they had given the
appellation of elisout, or elisicsns, which means nothing
else but rest. And such again is the origin of the poet-
ical Charon and his boat, as well as of the fabulous de-
scription of the Elysian Fields."
But again, pp. 241, 242, it is said — '^ in comparing
the Egyptian Ameiiti with the Hades of the Greeks and
with the Tartarus of the Latins, Spineto briefly adverts
to some points of assimilation, as follows ; " Upon the
whole, the first seems to have been the prototype and
the origin of the two last. Orpheus, who had been ini-
tiated into all the secrets of the mysteries of Egypt, car-
ried into Greece these mysteries ;* and the Greeks soon
so altered the whole, as to render them no longer cog-
nizable. Osiris became Pluto ; Sme, Persephone [or
rather Themis simply] ; Oms, Cerberus ; Thoth, Mer-
curius Psychopompos ; Horus, Apis, and Anubis, the
three infernal judges, Minos, jEacus, and Rhadaman-
thus. To conclude the whole, the symbolical heads of
the different animals under which the forty-two judges
were represented, being deprived of their primitive and
symbolical meaning, were changed into real monsters,
the Chimeras, the Harpies, and the Gorgons, and other
* Any one who will take the trouble to compare tlie mysteries of Isis
and Osiris with those of Ceres and Proserpine, with those of Venus and
Adonis, and with those of Bacchus, will discover many striking resemblan-
ces.— Tr.
6*
66 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
such unnatural and horrible things, with which they
peopled their fantastic hell ; and thus the Amenti of
the Egyptians, as indfeed the greater part, if not the
whole of their religion, became, in the hands of the
Greeks and Romans, a compound of fables and absurd-
ities."
It is very obvious from these quotations,
1st, That the Egyptian Amenti, became the Hades
of the Greeks, and the Tartarus of the Latins. The
first, the prototype and the origin of the two last. Mr.
Stuart here, does not pretend that Tartarus had its ori-
gin in divine revelation. On the contrary, it is called
the ^'fabulous Tartarus.^'' Why then say it is a real-
ity, and sanctioned by our Lord in the parable before
us ? Tartarus had just as little truth in it, as " the
fabulous lalce Acheron,^'' the '' poetical charr on and his
boat,^' or " the ideal Elysian fields.''^ It is here ad-
mitted, Tartarus, or hell, had its origin in the Egyptian
Amenti.
2d, We are told in the above quotations — " that Or-
pheus carried this knowledge of the Egyptian Amenti,
or hell with other mysteries into Greece : and in the
hands of the Greeks and Romans, it soon became a
compound of fables and absurdities." Was it truth, I
ask, which in the hands of the Greeks and Romans,
" became a compound of fables and absurdities ?" Sure-
ly not. It was only absurdities, which became more
absurd. The Greeks and Romans, improved on the
Egyptian hell, as they did on every thing else. And
have not Christians adopted the Egyptian hell, with
the Grecian and Roman improvements, yea have made
some improvements of their own. The Grecian and
Roman hell, is more like the Christian hell, than the
original Amenti of the Egyptians. Does not Mr. Stu-
art aver, our Lord teaches a Tartarus in the parable
before us, and is not this his helll
3d, It seems now to be conceded, that the Egyptian
THE WORD HADES. 67
Amenti, is '' the prototype and the origin of the Hades
of the Greeks, the Tartarus of the Latins, and the hell
of Christians." Dr. Good in his book of nature, says
— '' it was behoved in most countries, that this hell,
Hades, or invisible world, is divided into two very dis-
tinct and opposite regions by a broad and impassable
gulph ; that the one is a seat of happiness, a paradise,
or elysium, and the other a seat of misery, a Gehenna,
or Tartarus ; and that there is a supreme magistrate and
an impartial tribunal belonging to the infernal shades,
before which the ghosts must appear, and by which he
is sentenced to the one or the other, according to the
deeds done in the body. Egypt is said to have been
the inventress of this important and valuable part of the
common tradition ; and, undoubtedly, it is to be found
in the earliest records of Egyptian history." The only
question to be settled, is — Did the knowledge of this
Egyptian Amend, hell, or invisible world, come from
God, or was it of man's invention ? If this question can
be fairly determined, the hell of Christians stands
or falls with it. Can it then be determined, that this
Amend or hell of the Egyptians, was of man's inven-
tion ? We answer yes, and that to a moral certainty.
1st, Dr. Good allows, Egypt was " the inventress'^ of
this doctrine. Mr. Stuart admits this by his silence, for
he does not intimate, it had its origin from God. 2d,
what puts this out of all question is, Moses was brought
up in Egypt ; was learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians ; consequently knew all about their Amenti
or hell ; yet, says not a word about it in his five books.
But why was he silent on such an important doctrine,
if he believed it came from God ? What I ask, could
prevent him from teaching it, except this — that Egypt,
not God. was the inventress of it, as Dr. Good affirms.
If it is found in the earliest records of Egyptian history,
as Dr. Good affirms, why is it not found in the earliest
records of divine revelation, if the doctrine is from God ?
68 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
Mr. Stuart indeed asserts, that there was a Tartarus in
the Hebrew Sheol, but assertions will not answer on a
subject of this nature. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Whitby,
and others, adduce evidence in point blank contradiction
of his assertion. The very silence of Moses and the
prophets, about an Amenti Tartarus, or hell, shows no
such doctrine was believed by them. See my Essays,
and Letters to Mr. Hudson, where the origin and his-
tory of hell torments is stated at length, and how this
doctrine came to be embraced by the Jews, and was
finally introduced into the Christian Church. Further
evidence of this will appear, by considering another
question ; namely
2d, Is it true, as Mr. Stuart asserts — " that in Ha-
des, Sheol, according to the views of the Hebrews, and
of Jesus himself, there is a place of torment, is put out
of all question by the passage now before us." This
assertion I shall now examine. It divides itself into two
parts. — 1st, It is asserted, " that in Hades ,Sheol, accord-
ing to the views of the Hebrews there was a place of
torment, is put out of all question by the passage before
us." If Mr. Stuart here by Hebrews, means the an-
cient Hebrews, the Scripture writers, his assertion is
false. His own examination of Sheol sufficiently shows
this, for not in a single text, did he show, that any
Scripture writer believed, that in Sheol there was a
place of torment. Dr. Whitby, in the following re-
marks on Acts ii. 27. proves the assertion false. He
says — " that Sheol throughout the Old Testament, and
Hades in the septuagint, answering to it, signify not the
place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only,
but the grave only, or the place of death, appears — 1st,
From the root of it Shaal, which signifies to ask, to
crave and require, because it craves for all men,
Prov. xxx. 16. and will let no man escape its hands,
Psal. Ixxxviii. 48. It is that Sheol or Hades, whither,
we are all going, Eccles. ix. 10.
THE WORD HADES. 69
2d, Because it. is the place to which the good as well
as the bad go, for they whose souls go upwards, de-
scend into it. Thither went Jacob, Gen. xxxvii. 35.
There Job desired to be, Chap. xiv. 13. for he knew
that Sheol was his house. Chap. xvii. 13. and to de-
scend into the dust was to descend into Hades. Is not
death common to all men ? Is not Hades the liouse
of all men ? Hezekiah expected to be there after he
went hence, for he said '' I shall go to the gates of Ha-
des," Isai. xxxviii. 30. That is, saith Jerome, to those
gates of which the Psalmist speaks, saying, " thou wilt
lift me up from the gates of death." The ancient
Greeks assigned one Hades to all that died, and there-
fore say, Hades receives all mortal men together, all
men shall go to Hades.
" 3d, Had the penmen of the Old Testament meant
by Hades any receptacle of souls, they could not tmly
have declared, there was no wisdom, or knowledge in
Sheol, Ecc. ix. 10. No remembrance 6f God there,
Ps. vi. 5. No praising of him in Sheol, Isai. xxxviii.
18. For those heathens who looked upon it as the re-
ceptacle of souls, held it to be a place in which they
would be punished or rewarded." Compare this with
Mr. Stuart's assertion. It is, unquestionable, that Ha-
des in its original signification, did not include in it a
Tartarus, any more than Sheol. Dr. Campbell says —
it signified — '' obscure, hidden, invisible. So did the
word hell originally." Dr. Whitby has just told us, —
" the ancient Greeks assigned one Hades to all that
died," the same the ancient Hebrews did, in regard to
their Sheol. Indeed, the above quotation, stands in
direct opposition to Mr. Stuart's views of both Sheol
and Hades. Can he, or any other man show, that
Whitby is mistaken ?
I repeat the question then, what Hebrews does Mr.
Stuart refer to in the above assertion ? If he means the
later Hebrews, the Hebrews in the days of our Lord,
70 AN INQUIRY INTO
his assertion is true ; but the way they came to be-
heve, that in Sheol, Hades, there is a place of torment,
does no credit to the doctrine of endless Hell torments.
Let us hear Dr. Campbell, one of its professed friends.
In his sixth Prelim. Diss. sect. 19, he thus writes. —
" But is there not one passage, it may be said, in which
the word Hades must be understood as synonymous
with Gehenna, and consequently must denote the place
of final punishment prepared for the wicked, or Hell in
the Christian acceptation of the term ? Ye have it in
the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 23.
In hell, en to ade, he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
<ind seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bo-
som. This is the only passage in holy \\Tit, which
seems to give countenance to the opinion, that Hades
sometimes means the same thing as Gehenna. Here it
is represented as a place of punishment. The rich man
is said to be tormented there in the midst of flames.
These things will deserve to be examined narrowly. It
is plain, that in the Old Testament, the most profound
silence is observed in regard to the state of the deceas-
ed, their joys or sorrows, happiness or misery. It is
represented to us rather by negative qualities than by
positive, by its silence, its darkness, its being inaccessi-
ble, unless by preternatural means, to the living, and
their ignorance about it. Thus much in general seems
always to have been presumed concerning it, that it is
not a state of activity adapted for exertion, or indeed
for the accomplishment of any important purpose, good
or bad. In most respects, however, there was a resem-
blance in their notions on this subject, to those of the
most ancient heathens.
" But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of hea-
thens remained invariably the same. And from the
time of the captivity, more especially from the time of
the subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian
empire, and afterwards to the Roman ; as they had a
THE WORD HADES. 71
closer intercourse with Pagans, they insensibly imbibed
many of their sentiments, particularly on those subjects
whereon their law was silent, and wherein, by conse-
quence, they considered themselves as at greater free-
dom. On this subject of a future state, we find a con-
siderable difference in the popular opinions of the Jews
in our Savior's time, from those which prevailed in
the days of the ancient prophets. As both Greeks and
Roman's had adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the
departed were susceptible both of enjoyment and of
suffering. They were led to suppose a sort of retribu-
tion in that state, for their merit or demerit in the pre-
sent. The Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan
fables on this subject; nor did they express themselves
entirely in the same manner ; but the general train of
thinking in both came pretty much to coincide. The
Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the
Hebrew Sheol. This they came to conceive as includ-
ing different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different
characters. And though they did not receive the terms
Elysium or Elysian fields, as suitable appellations for
the regions peopled by good spirits, they took instead
of them, as better adapted to their own theology, the
garden of Eden, or Paradise, a name originally Per-
sian, by which the w^ord answering to garden, especially
when applied to Eden, had commonly been rendered
by the seventy. To denote the same state, they some-
times used the phrase Abraham^s bosom, a metaphor
borrowed from the manner in which they reclined at
meals. But, on the other hand, to express the un-
happy situation of the wicked in that intermediate
state, they do not seem to have declined the use of the
word Tartarus. The Apostle, Peter, 2 Epis. ii. 4.
says of evil angels that God cast them down to Hell,
and delivered them into chains of darhness , to be reserv-
ed unto judgment. So it stands in the common version,
though neither Gehenna nor Hades are in the orginal,
72 AN INQUIRY INTO
where the expression is seirais zophou Tartarosas par-
edoTcen eis krisin teteremenous. The word is not Ge-
henna ; for that comes after judgment ; but Tartarus,
which is, as it were, the prison of Hades, wherein crimi-
nals are kept till the general judgment. And as, in the
ordinary use of the Greek word, it was comprehended
under Hades, as a part ; it ought, unless we had some
positive reason to the contrary, by the ordinary rules
of interpretation, to be understood so here. There is
then no inconsistency in maintaining that the rich man,
though in torments, was not in Gehenna, but in that
part of Hades called Tartarus, where we have seen al-
ready that spirits reserved for judgment are detained
in darkness."
Such are the statements of Dr. Campbell. For a
correction o his views of 2 Peter ii. 4. and some other
things in this quotation, we refer to the next section.
Here, we submit for the consideration of the reader the
following remarks.
1st, He declares, that the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus, is the only place in Holy Writ, which
seems to give countenance to the opinion, that Hades
sometimes means the same thing as Gehenna. We
have seen already, he denies that Hades is the place of
eternal punishment ; and that he contends for Gehenna
being this place, we shall see in the next chapter.
2d, He says — " it is plain that in the Old Testament,
the most profound silence is observed in regard to the
state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness
or misery." If the Old Testament maintains a pro-
found silence on this subject, it ought to be inquired,
3d, How did the Jews in our Lord's day, come to
consider Hades as a place of punishment for the wick-
ed ? That a change in their opinions on this subject,
had taken place, is evident; for he says, — "on this
subject of a future state, we find a considerable differ-
ence in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Sav-
THE WORD HADES. 73
ior's time, from those which prevailed in the days of
the ancient prophets." Well, how did this change in
their opinions take place ? Was it by some new rev-
elation which God made to them ? He thus accounts
for the change of their opinions. '' But the opinions
neither of Hebrews nor of heathen, remained invariably
the same. And from the time of the captivity, more
especially from the time of the subjection of the Jews,
first to the Macedonian empire, and afterwards to the
Roman ; as they had a closer intercourse with Pagans,
they insensibly imbibed many of their sentiments par-
ticularly on those subjects whereon their law was silent,
and wherein, by consequence, they considered them-
selves as at greater freedom.* As both Greeks and
Romans had adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the
deceased were susceptible both of enjoyment and of
suffering, they were led to suppose a sort of retribution
in that state, for their merit or demerit in the present.
The Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan fables on this
subject, nor did they express themselves entirely in the
same manner ; but their general train of thinking in both
came pretty much to coincide." — This statement, is
surely too plain to be misunderstood. How much plain-
er could he have told us, that a punishment in Hades
was a mere heathen notion, which the Jews learned from
their intercourse with them ? He declares, that neither
Sheol nor Hades is used in Scripture to express a place
of punishment, and shows, that the Pagan fables teach
it, and the Jews learned it from them. What are we
then to think, when this is the account of the doctrine
of hell torments by one of its professed friends ? Had
this statement been given by a professed Universalist,
the cry would be raised that it was a mere fabrication of
his own, in support of his system. But this is the state-
* But who has the freedom, to adopt, or invent opinions on the subject
of a future state 1 The indulgence of this freedom by others before us,
occasions our difficulties now on the subject.
7
74 AN INQUIRY INTO
ment of Dr. Campbell, late principal of Marischal col-
lege, Aberdeen, who lived and died, a celebrated the-
ologian in the church of Scotland. It is notorious, that
the Jews derived these opinions from their intercourse
with the heathen. Where the heathen got them he
does not inform us. Had they been from divine revela-
tion, the heathen ought to have learned them from the
Jews. But here the matter is reversed. The heathen
it seems anticipated divine revelation, as to punishment
in Hades. They. revealed it to the Jews by means of
their fables. The Jews it is said, — '' did not adopt
their fables, nor did they express themselves entirely in
the same manner, but their general train of thinking
came pretty much to coincide." That man must be
very dull, who does not learn from this, that torment in
Hades, had its origin in heathenism, and, that the Jews
were ignorant of it, until they learned it from the hea-
then.— From all this, will it be easy for any one to resist
the conviction, that to this popular opinion, which the
Jews had imbibed from their intercourse with the hea-
then, our Lord alluded in his parable of the rich man
and Lazarus ? He no more attempts to correct this
Pagan notion, than the common opinion, that satan had
bound a woman eighteen years with an infirmity.
4th, Dr. Campbell further declares, that though the
Jews did not adopt the'Pagan fables on this subject, yet
their train of thinking pretty much coincided. " The
Greek Hades they found well adapted to express the
Hebrew Sheol. This they came to conceive as including
different sorts of habitations for ghosts of different char-
acters." They did not adopt the terms Elysian fields, to
express the region of good spirits, but he says, " they
do not seem to have declined the use of the word Tar-
tarus" to express the unhappy situation of the wicked
in an intermediate state. Concerning the word Tarta-
rus, he says — " the word is not Gehenna, for that
comes after judgment, but Tartarus, which is, as it
THE WORD HADES. 75
were, the prison of Hades, wherein criminals are kept
till the general judgment." What then is to be done
with the criminals which had been confined in this pris-
on ? They are not then to be released, and made happy.
They must be sent somewhere after this period, and no
place so suitable could be devised as Gehenna. But
whether it be a very happy device, in establishing the
doctrine of eternal misery, will appear from the next
chapter. All we wish noticed here, is, that then we
shall have done with Hades, and Tartarus, the prison
of Hades, and all punishment in them, for they are to
be no more. This is not only the opinion of the au-
thors we have quoted, but we believe is the general
opinion of all the learned.
2d, Mr. Stuart also asserts — '* That in Hades, Sheol,
according to the views of Jesus himself there was a
place of torment, is put out of all question by the pas-
sage now^ before us." Well ; by the same passage, it
is put out of all question, that literal fire was the cause
of the torment, for the rich man said — '^ I am torment-
ed in this flame. The passage also puts it out of all
question, that he had bodily members in Hell. He had
eyes and could see ; ears and could hear ; a tongue and
could speak in Hell. Besides, the passage puts it out
of all question, that the good and bad are after death,
located so near each other, that they can familiarly con-
verse together, etc. But does Mr. Stuart also believe
all this ? We presume not.
2d, But if this parable puts it out of all question, that
in Hades, Sheol, there is a place of torment, then other
passages put it out of all question, that our Lord believed
in demons ; in an evil being called satan ; in ghosts ; and
that the sacred writers believed in witchcraft. Did not
Jesus often speak of demons as real beings ? Did he
not speak as if satan had bound a woman eighteen
years with an infirmity ? And are not ghosts, and
witchcraft, spoken of as realities ? Now, if it is said, in
76 AN INQUIRY INTO
these cases the writers only speak in accommodation to
popular opinions, the same must be said respecting the
parable in question. There is no escape here, but by
boldly affirming they are all realities. But Mr. Stuart,
must then abandon his skepticism about ghosts ; for is
not his Tartarus a deep region beneath peopled with
ghosts ? The evidence, is fifty times more, that demons
are real beings, than that Hades is a place of torment,
and yet I question if he believes in demons.
3d, If this parable puts it out of all question, that in
Hades, Sheol, there is a place of torment, then Tsai xiv.
9 — 20, puts it out of all question, that persons are alive
in Sheol, and insult one another there. But Mr.
Stuart takes the liberty to say -about this passage, pp.
121, 122. "A deep region beneath, peopled with
ghosts, is what we do not believe in. Nor is there any
more certainty that it is true, because this method of
speaking about it in the scriptures is adopted, than that
the sun goes round the earth, because they speak of it
as doing so. In most cases, it is the language of poetry
which employs the popular methods of representation.
It is poetry which gives a kind of life and animation to
the inhabitants of the under-world. Poetry personifies
that world, so in Isai. v. 14. Prov. xxvii. 20, xxx. 15,
16. and xii. 1. Above all is this the case, in that most
striking passage in Isai. xiv, 9 — 20, in which all com-
mentators are compelled to admit a fictitious or imagina-
ry costume. Here the ghosts rise up from their places
of repose, and meet and insult the king of Babylon, and
exhult over his fall. All is life and animation, when he
goes down into the under-world. Yet who was ever
misled by this passage, and induced to regard it as a
passage to be literally understood. But if this be very
plain, then are other passages of a nature in any re-
spect similiar, equally plain also." On this quotation,
in connection with the parable before us, we remark.
1st, Is not Isai. xiv. 9 — 20 and Luke xvi, 19 — 32
THE WORD HADES. 77
very similar ? The king of Babylon in the one, and
the rich man in the other, are both represented as in
Sheol or Hades after death. Both are represented as
alive there. All is life and animation, when both go to
Sheol or Hades. Both find company there. Both find
persons ready to converse with them there. In these,
and other things the passages are very similar indeed, so
much so, that they may be called the same.
2d, By what rule of scripture interpretation, does Mr.
Stuart then conclude, Isai. xiv, 9 — 20, is not to be un-
derstood literally, but that Luke xvi. 19 — 32, is to be
interpreted literally ? How does he determine, the one
is the language of poetry, but the other is a reality ?
That the one has " di fictitious or imagijiary costume "
but the other is a plain narrative of facts ? What, I
ask, is there in the one passage more than the other,
which leads him to such different interpretations of them.
Has he not told us — '' other passages of a nature in
any respect similar'^ to Isai. xiv. 9 — 20, must be inter-
preted as the language of poetry ; as having a fictitious
and imagiriary costume 1 If the one passage is the lan-
guage of poetry, the other is the language of parable.
And if the one passage — ^' employs the popular meth-
ods of representations" so does the other. And what
intelligent man can deny, the representations in both
had their origin in fable ? If it is poetry or fable,
" which gives a kind of life and animation to the inhab-
itants of the under- world," it is also poetry or fable,
which represents Hades as a place of torment. And
if there is no " certainty that it is true, because this
method of speaking about it in scripture is adopted" in
the one case, neither is there any certainty in the other.
There is no more certainty in either case, than that the
sun goes round the earth, because the scriptures speak
of it as doing so.
3d, I am aware it will be said — There is one great
difTerence between the two passages. In Luke xvi. 19 —
7*
78 AN IN(iUIRY INTO
32j the rich man in Hades is represented as in torment,
but no such representation is given of the king of Bab-
ylon in Sheol, Isai. xiv. 9 — 20. This is freely granted ;
but a few remarks will account for this difference, and
place the subject in a proper light. We ask then, why
it was not said concerning the king of Babylon, that he
was m torment in Sheol, just as well as the rich man in
Hades ? Was the king of Babylon, so much better than
the rich man, that he did not deserve it ? As no man will
affirm, any Old Testament wTiter said, concerning the
wickedest man that ever went to Sheol — " and in Sheol
he lifted up his eyes being in torment, ^^ how are we to
account for this difference ? If what Mr. Stuart asserts be
true, — " that in Hades, Sheol, according to the views of
the Hebrews, and of Jesus himself, there was a place
of torment," this ought to have been said, and said fre-
quently, both in the Old and New Testaments. It was
incumbent on him, to account for the silence of the Old
Testament writers, as to Sheol being a place of torment,
if his assertion be true. But, it is without foundation,
and opposed above by Dr. Campbell, and other critics.
Dr. Whitby we have seen, declares, Sheol, Hades, was
not a receptacle of souls, but that this was a mere no-
tion of the heathen Greeks. But I shall account for
the difference between the two passages.
1st, In the days of Isaiah, the Jews did not believe
Sheol or Hades was a place of torment. This doctrine
was not taught in the sacred books of the Jews ; nor
had it then been imported from the heathen. This is
testified by Dr. Campbell, Whitby, Macknight, and
others. Poetry then, had given a kind of life and ani-
mation to the dead in Sheolj as Mr. Stuart shows, but
the poets had not gone so far, as to represent them
as either in torment or happiness. It was impossible
then in the nature of things for Isaiah chap. xiv. 9 — -20j
to represent the king of Babylon as tormented in Sheol,
for then no such popular opinion among the Je^ pre-
vailed.
THE WORD HADES. 79
2d, But when our Lord spoke the parable, Luke xvi.
19 — 32, the opinion prevailed among the Jews, that
there was torment in Hades. How they came to im-
bibe this opinion, w^e have seen from Dr. Campbell
above, and Mr. Stuart and his son, has traced the doc-
trine of punishment in Hades to heathen origin. That
our Lord in this passage, speaks in accordance with the
heathen popular opinions, which prevailed in Judea at
the time, is rather reluctantly admitted by Dr. IMack-
night. Perhaps he foresaw the danger of admitting it.
He says " v. 23, secth Abraham afar off and Lazarus
in his bosom. Because the opinions as well as the lan-
guage of the Greeks had by this time made their way
into Judea, some imagine that our Lord had their fic-
tions about the abodes of departed souls in his eye, when
he formed this parable. But the argument is not con-
clusive (where lies its defect ?) At the same time it
must be acknowledged, that his descriptions of these
things are not drawn from the writings of the Old
Testament, but have a remarkable affinity to the de-
scriptions which the Grecian poets have given of
them. They, as well as our Lord, represent the abodes
of the blessed as lying contiguous to the region of the
damned, and separated only by a great impassable river
or gulf, in such a sort that the ghosts could talk with
one another from its opposite banks. In the parable,
souls whose bodies were buried, knew each other, and
conversed together as if they had been embodied. In
like manner, the Pagans introduce departed souls talk-
ing together, and represent them as having pains and
pleasures analogous to what we feel in this life ; it seems
they thought the shades of the dead had an exact re-
semblance to their bodies. The parable says, the souls
of wicked men are tormented in flames ; the Grecian
mythologists tell us they lie in Pryiphligethon, which
is a river of fire, where they suffer the same torments
they would have suffered while alive, had their bodies
been burnt."
80 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
Macknight here confesses, 1st, that *' the opmions as
well as the language of the Greeks, had by this time
made their way into Judea." He also confesses, that
our Lord's descriptions about the abodes of departed souls
are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament,
but have a remarkable affinity to the descriptions which
the Grecian poets have given of them." This confirms,
what Dr. Campbell and others stated above.
2d, As it is admitted, our Lord's descriptions here
about the abodes of departed souls, are not drawn from
the writings of the Old Testament, and as such descrip-
tions have a remarkable affinity to that of the Grecian
poets, I ask, were those descriptions true ? If it is answer-
ed yes, I then ask, why wer enot the sacred writers in the
Old Testament, as able to give such descriptions as the
Grecian poets ? If such descriptions, are here sanction-
ed as truth by our Lord, it is evident the heathen had
the honor of inventing hell torments, and from them Jews
and christians have learned this doctrine. But such a
view of this parable, stands opposed to the whole usage
of Sheol and Hades in the Old and New Testaments.
This is the solitary text, in a parable too, where Sheol
or Hades can be supposed to teach future punishment.
He who asserts, our Lord sanctioned this doctrine here,
virtually says he understands the parable better than
Christ's apostles, for not one of them so understood it.
Who can think, they believed. — ''that in Hades, She-
ol, according to the views of Jesus himself there was a
place of torment," yet never taught this doctrine to the
world ?
Should any one object — if our Lord in this parable,
only spoke in accommodation to the prevailing popular
opinions, was he not liable to be misunderstood ? I
answer no ; not any more, than when he spoke of de-
mons, satan, ghosts, etc. The scriptures, which the
Jews had in their hands, were opposed to such a popu-
lar opinion, for they taught nothing about immortal souls j
THE WORD HADES. 81
departed souls, sejyarate spirits, or their being torment-
ed in Sheol or Hades. Nothing is said here about the
soul of the rich man. I may add, if our Lord on this
occasion, by speaking in accomodation to the popular
opinions, meant to sanction them as truth, he acted con-
trary to his usual practice on other occasions. I know
of no instance, where he ever spoke of a popular opin-
ion, which had no sanction from the old Testament,
with a view to sanction it as truth. Our Lord's work
was to teach the truth, not to correct the popular modes
of speaking.
3d, There are other heathen popular opinions allud-
ed to in the New Testament, which the Jews in the
Old seem to have known nothing about. For example,
what is more common in the New Testament, than to
read of demons or Devils ; of persons possessed with
them ; and of their being cast out of them. But noth-
ing of this kind, is found in the Old Testament. I
might ask, how is this difference to be accounted for ?
The answer,"is j^recisely the same as in the case before
us. In the days of Moses and the prophets, the popu-
lar opinions about demons, were unknown among the
Jews. But in the days of our Lord they were com-
mon, and are often alluded to in the New Testa-
ment. But like torment in Hades, such opinions had
been imbibed by the Jews from their intercourse with
the heathen, after the Babylonian captivity.
Sheol, in Isai. xiv. 9 — 20, and most other texts
where it occurs, Mr. Stuart says, it means the grave,
under-ivorld, or the region of the dead. Why not
interpret Hades, Luke xvi. 23 in the same way, for it
is allowed on all hands, that Sheol and Hades are only
the Hebrew and Greek names for the same place.
Wakefield does interpret Hades so, for he says — " v.
23 in the grave; en to ade; and conformably to this
representation, he (the rich man) is spoken of as hav-
ing a body v. 24. It must be remembered, that Hades
82 AN INQUIRY INTO
no where means hell, geheniia in any author whatsoever,
sacred or profane : and also, that our Lord is giving his
hearers a parable (Mathu xiii. 34) and not a piece of
real history. To them, who regard the narrative as
exhibiting a reality, it must stand as an unanswerable
argument for the purgatory of the papists. The uni-
versal meaning of Hades is — the state of death : be-
cause the term sepulchrum, or grave, is not strictly ap-
plicable to such as have been consumed by fire, etc.
see V. 30."
Understanding Hades then, in this parable to mean,
what Sheol does, Isai. xiv. 9 — 20, all is plain, and nat-
ural, and in agreement with the Old Testament. The
only material difference, between the two passages is,
the rich man is said to be in torment in Hades, and this
difference we think has been rationally accounted for
above. Hades, Sheol, grave, under-world, region of
the dead, is here represented, in conformity to the pre-
vailing opinions in our Lord's day, as a place of torment
and this was only a small addition, to the popular opin-
ions in the days of Isaiah. Since persons, had been re-
presented as alive and full of animation in Sheol, or
Hades, it was natural for the fancy of the -poet, to de-
scribe them as happy or miserable.
Dr. Hammond on this passage says — "that this is
not a story but a parable, may appear by Gamara Babyj.
Ad. Cod. Berachoth, where thus much of it is set down,
that a King made a great feast, and invited all the
strangers, and there came one poor man and stood at
his gates, and said unto them, give me one bit or por-
tion, and they considered him not, and he said, my Lord
the Icing, of all the great feast thou hast made, is it
hard in thhie eyes to give me one hit or fragment among
them.'^ He adds, the title of this parable is, " a par^
able of a hing of flesh and blood.'' See also, my Let-
ters to Mr. Hudson, for what Dr. Whitby has said re-
specting this parable, The views of Christians in for-
THE WORD HADES. 83
iner ages, as stated by him, were very different respect-
ing this parable from those which are now entertained.
3d, The only other question to be considered is —
what did our Lord mean to teach when he uttered this
parable ? That our Lord, was not speaking on the
subject of a future state when he introduced it, is obvi-
ous from the context. See verses 14 — 18. And no
one ought to say, our Lord taught in parables, a doc-
trine no where taught in plain language in the bible.
But this must be said, if in this parable he did teach,
that in Hades there is a place of punishment. No
Old or New Testament writer says Sheol or Hades is
a place of torment ; a repository for good or bad souls
after death. Nor did our Lord's disciples so understand
this parable. What our Lord uttered in parables, they
were to proclaim on the house tops, or express in plain
language. But none of them say. Hades is a place of
torment, a doctrine they certainly would have taught,
had they believed it announced by our Lord in this
parable.
What then did our Lord mean to teach, by so repre-
senting Hades as a place of torment? This question
may be answered, by asking one or two more. What
did our Lord mean to teach, when he spoke of demons
as real beings ? And what did he mean to teach, when
he spolce of Satan as a real being Luke xiii. 10 — 18?
Did he mean to recognize these beings as real ? We
should think not ; but only availed himself of the pre-
vailing popular opinions, in reasoning with his oppo-
nents, to enforce his instructions and convince them.
Is it not so here ? Our Lord was reasoning with the
Pharasees, who beheved the popular opinion, that in
Hades there was a place of torment. They also pro-
fessed faith in Moses's writings. But he here says, if
they did not believe him to be the Messiah, from what
Moses and the prophets had said concerning him, they
would not be persuaded of this, if one coming from
94 AN INQUIRY INTO
Hades, their supposed repository of souls testified it to
them. This view of the parable, is in conformity with
our Lord's conduct and teaching on other occasions.
But to suppose, he here teaches, that Hades is a place
of torment after death, is at variance with the whole
usage of Sheol and Hades in the bible. And why
should we suppose he sanctions such a doctrine, w^hich
had its origin in heathenism. For further evidence of
this and other remarks on this parable, see my Letters
to Mr. Hudson, and Reply to Mr. Stuart's essays, etc.
Acts, ii. 27. " Because thou wilt not leave my soul
(me) in hell (Hades) neither wilt thou suffer thine holy
one to see corruption." Grave is evidently the sense
of Hades here ; and refers to Christ who was raised
from the dead. See Psal. xvi. 10. under Sheol.
Acts ii. 3L ''He seeing this before, spoke of the
resurrection of Christ, that his soul (he) was not left in
hell, (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption."
Grave as in the last text, the same as Sheol, Psal.
xvi. 10.
1 Cor. XV. 55. " O death, where is thy sting ? O
grave, (Hades) where is thy victory ?" Hades here
plainly means grave, and wa^ so understood by our
translators. The grave shall not always retain its dead
— hence the question — " O grave where is thy vic-
tory ?" The dead shall be raised incorruptible.
Rev. i. 18. " I am he that hveth, and was dead ; and,
behold, I am alive for ever more, amen ; and have the
keys of hell, (Hades), and of death." This is explain-
ed by Acts ii. 27, 31, above. To have the keys of
Hades or the grave, shows that Jesus has power to
raise from the dead, which he will do in the last day.
Rev. vi. 8. " And I looked, and behold a pale
horse ; and his name that sat on him was death, and
hell (Hades) followed with him." Hades here evi-
dently means grave. It follows death, as is here rep-
resented. Mr. Stuart on this text observes — " here is
THE WORD HADES. 85
the king of the empire of the dead, with his subjects in
his train. Hades, in this passage, stands for the inhabi-
tants of Hades; just as in innumerable cases, we em-
ploy the name of a country in order to designate the
inhabitants of the same." But I ask, is the king of the
empire of the dead a hving being ? Are his subjects
living beings ? No, the inhabitants of Hades the grave,
are all the dead ; and death the king of terrors, of the
grave, shall rerign over them until raised from the dead.
See 1 Cor. xv. 55. above.
Rev. XX. 13. " And the sea gave up the dead which
were in.it; and death and hell, (Hades), delivered up
the dead which were in them." Here death, "the
king over the region of the dead," is again introduced.
What then does this passage say he " delivered up ?"
Was it — immortal souls, which Hades'^ deVivered up ?
No. Were they living beings of any kind ? No ; not
any more than the sea delivered up immortal souls or
living beings. No ; the sea delivered up the dead
which were in it. And " death and Hades delivered
up the dead which were in them." But according to
the common views of Hades in Luke xvi. 23, Hades
ought to have delivered up the immortal souls which
had long been in torment there. Had John believed,
as most people do now about Hades or hell, no doubt
but he would have told us this. But wherever the
resurrection of the dead is mentioned in scripture, not
a word is said about immortal souls, coming forth from
Hades, hell, or any other place. But why not, if im-
mortal souls are punished there from death until the
resurrection ?
Rev. XX. 14. ''And death and hell, (Hades), were
cast into the lake of fire ; this is the second death." On
this passage. Dr. Campbell pertinently remarks — " If
we interpret Hades, hell, in the Christian sense of the
word, the whole passage is rendered nonsense. Hell,
is represented as being cast into hell : for so the lake
8
86 AN INQUIRY INTO
of fire, which is in this place also denominated the sec-
ond death, is universally interpreted."
Concerning the usage of Hades in the apocalypse,
Mr. Stuart says — " it is the genuine Sheol of the He-
brews ; whh the exception, perhaps, that the Hebrew
sacred books have no where represented Hades as
having a king over it." I then ask, does John in this
book say, that in Hades there is a Tartarus? No.
Why then did Mr. Stuart say above, " that in the He-
brew Sheol there was a Tartarus ?" Does he know
more about this than John did ? The reason, why the
Hebrew sacred books, have no where represented *S%e-
ol or Hades as having a king over it, is obvious. This
popular opinion, like many others derived from the
heathen, was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. They
knew of no king, God, or devil, who ruled in Sheol, or
that it was a place of torment for the wicked.
Such are all the passages where Hades occurs in the
New Testament. Let the reader now judge, what
foundation they afford, for the doctrine, that Hades is
a place of future punishment. In addition to the re-
marks, made on the general usage of Sheol above, we
add here the following respecting Hades.
1st, It will not be disputed by any man, that what
the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament expressed
by the word Sheol, the Greeks expressed by the word
Hades.
2d, But observe, that the heathen Greeks not only
attached similar ideas to the word Hades, as the He-
brew writers did to the word Sheol, but also the addi-
tional idea, that in Hades persons were punished Or re-
warded, according to their merits or demerits in the
present world. This punishment was by fire. This
was their own addition ; for no such idea seems to be
conveyed in all the Old Testament, by the word Sheol.
The very circumstance, that Hades, and not Sheol, is
represented as a place of torment, shows, that this doc-
THE WORD HADES. 87
trine is of heathen origin. Hades is a Greek word ;
and it is well known that Greek was the language of
the heathen, and Hebrew that of the Jews. There is
nothing then, but what we ought to expect, in the use
of the term Hades in the New Testament. Besides,
the Jews had blended many of the heathen notions
with their own religion. If we then find the New Tes-
tament writers, in using the Greek word Hades, speak
as if this was a place of punishment, it is easily ac-
counted for without admitting that they believed any
such thing, or wished to inculcate this doctrine as a part
of divine revelation. But of this they have been very
sparing ; for only in the parable of the rich man and
Lazarus, can it be supposed there is any allusion to
such an idea. All the other places where they use the
term Hades, it is plain no such doctrine seems to be
hinted at, but the reverse. In face of these facts and
circumstances, and current usage of the word Hades,
we think it would be well for persons to pause and re-
flect, before they attempt to establish the doctrine of
future misery from the language of a parable. If a
Universalist was obliged to establish his views from a
parable, and in face of so much evidence to the contra-
ry, he would be considered as driven to the last extrem-
ity for proof in support of his system, and that finally it
must be abandoned as indefensible. But this parable
is considered as the most plain and conclusive part of
Scripture, in proof of a place of endless misery. It is
considered more conclusive than all the passages which
speak of Gehenna. What critics and orthodox com-
mentators, give up as no proof of the doctrine, by the
least informed, is considered as the very strongest.
3d, Since neither Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally sig-
nified a place of endless misery, we have a few questions
to put to those who believe in this doctrine. We ask,
then, is it not a perversion of the divine oracles, to quote
any of the texts in which Sheol or Hades occurs, to
88 AN INQUIRY INTO
prove it ? It is well known, that such texts are often
quoted for this purpose. But I ask again, is it not a
very great imposition upon the ignorant, to quote such
texts in proof of this doctrine ? The simple, honest-
hearted English reader of his bible, has been taught from
a child, that hell means a place of endless misery for
the wicked. Every book he reads, every sermon he
hears, all tend to deepen his early impressions, and con-
firm him in this opinion. Those who know better, are not
much disposed to undeceive him. On the one hand,
they are perhaps deterred from it by a false fear of dis-
turbing public opinion, and on the other, by reluctance
to encounter the odium of the Christian public, in being
looked on as heretics. Select the most celebrated
preucher you can find, and let him frankly tell his audi-
ence, that Sheol, Hades, nor hell, originally meant a
place of endless misery, and his celebrity is at an end.
He w^ould from that moment be considered as an here-
tic, and his former admirers would now be his warm op-
posers. But I ask again, and I solemnly put it to every
man's conscience, who professes to fear God, — Ought
not men to be honestly told the truth about this, let the
consequences be what they may ? Are we at liberty to
pervert the scriptures in favor of any sect, or system in
the world ? Must we be guilty of a pious fraud, in con-
cealing from people what they ought to know, because
the disclosure may excite popular prejudices against
ourselves, and afford cause of suspicion that the doc-
trine of endless misery is not true ? If it be true, it can^
and must be supported from other texts than those in
which Sheol and Hades are used. Perhaps some may
think, if all those texts are given up, some of the princi-
pal supports of the doctrine are removed. Well, allow-
ing this true, would any one wish to retain them, but
such as are determined to hold fast the doctrine of eter-
nal misery at all hazards ? It is a false system of reli-
gion, or those who embrace it do not know how to de^
THE WORD HADES. 89
fend it, who wish to support it by perverting a single
text of scripture. To found the doctrine of endless mis-
ery on the texts which speak of Sheol or Hades, is
building on the sand. When the building is assailed by
reason and argument, and an appeal to the Bible, it
must fall, if it has no better support. Even, if it could
be proved true from other texts, this is calculated to
bring the doctrine into suspicion.
4th, The translators of our common English version,
appear to have had more correct ideas about Sheol,
Hades or hell, than most people who read their transla-
tion. They certainly w^ere at some pains, to guard us
against attaching to the word hell, the idea of a place of
misery. In many places where they render Sheol and
Hades by the word hell, they have put grave in the
margin. Besides ; let it be remembered, that the w^ord
hell originally signified the same as Sheol and Hades.
It w^as then the very best word they could use in render-
ing these two words. If men now have fixed a differ-
ent sense to the word hell, the translators are not to
blame. Admitting, that when our translation was made,
it had acquired the sense of a place of endless misery,
what could the translators do but use this w^ord in ren-
dering Sheol and Hades ? It meant the same as those
words originally ; and to prevent misunderstanding, they
frequently put grave in the margin. They no doubt
thought, that this, together with the context, w^as securi-
ty against all misapprehension. Unfortunately this has
not been the case. But no blame attaches to them,
for they must in this case have either coined a new word,
expressed themselves by a circumlocution, used always
the word grave, or left these w*ords untranslated. I am
inclined to think, that if Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and
Gehenna, had been left untranslated, few persons would
ever have thought, that by any of these words a place
of misery after death was meant. Every reader would
then have been obliged to consult the context, wherev-
8*
90 AN INQUIRY INTO
er these words were used, to attain the sense of the
writer. Obhged to do this, he would soon have become
famiUar with them, and must have seen, from the way
in which they were used, that the idea of a place of fu-
ture misery w^as never intended to be conveyed by them.
Let any one go over all the texts where these words are
found, and put this remark to a fair trial. It is true,
that our translators, in rendering the word Gehenna,
have also used the word hell. But here again, what
could they do, for this word had acquired a new sense.
This new sense they supposed answered to the word
Gehenna, the place of endless misery. Here they were
under the necessity of either again coining a new word,
leaving Gehenna untranslated, or expressing themselves
by a circumlocution. We doubt if the translators were
at liberty to do any of these, without shocking public
prejudice, and exciting the displeasure of those in high
authority, under whose patronage they made their trans-
lation. They w^ere not left at liberty to give us the best
translation, which their own judgments, and the progress
of Biblical criticism, even at that day, could have afford-
ed. In proof of this, see the king's instructions to the
translators.
^ 5th, Several very serious evils arise from understanding
Sheol or Hades to mean a place of endless misery. In
the first place, it is a perversion of those texts in which
these words occur. This perversion of them leads to
a misunderstanding of many others. By this means the
knowledge such texts convey, is not only lost, but our
knowledge of the word of God is greatly retarded, and
our minds are perplexed and embarrassed on other con-
nected subjects. Every text of Scripture misunder-
stood, lays a foundation for a misunderstanding of oth-
ers ; and thus error is not only rendered perpetual but
progressive. But this is not all. Understanding She-
ol and Hades to mean a place of endless misery, is per-
verting God's word to caricature himself It is putting
THE WORD TARTARUS. 91
our own sense on his words, to make him say things
against ourselves which he never intended. It is giv-
ing a false color to the language of the bible, that we
may support the false views we entertain of his charac-
ter, and his dealings with the children of men.
6th, I may just add about Hades, what was noticed
about Sheol, that we never find the words eternal, ever-
lasting, or forever, used in connexion with it, or con-
cerning it. We never read of an everlasting or eter-
nal Hades or hell, or that men are to be punished in it
forever. Nothing like this is to be found in scripture.
Such epithets added to the word hell, found in books
and sermons, are among the improvements in divinity
which man's wisdom teacheth. The word hell is first
perverted from its original signification, and then the word
eternal is added to it, to make the punishment of end-
less duration.
SECTION III.
2 PETER, ii. 4, CONSIDERED.
" For if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but
cast them down to hell, (Tartarosas) , and delivered them
into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.'^
See Jude 6, to which I shall also advert in my remarks.
Although the word Tartarus, does not occur in the
Bible, yet the word Tartarosas occurs in this single
text. It is equivelent to Tartarus ; it signifies — " to
cast into Tartarus.'^ See Parkhurst. Professor Stu-
art asserts — " that a place of punishment is here indi-
cated by Tartarus, is put beyond all doubt by the con-
text 'he spared not,' ' chains of darkness,' ' imprisoned
for judgment or condemnation." But what is there in
92 AN INQ,UIRT INTO
these expressions, which says, the angels, or any other
beings, suffered pain or misery in Tartarus ? They are
not even said to be alive there, far less suffering torment.
In my reply to his Essays, I have considered pretty ful-
ly, what he says about Tartarus. See also a quotation
from Dr. Campbell in the preceding section, which re-
lates to this subject. In what follows, I shall principal-
ly confine the readers attention, to what I consider the
true sense of the passage, or passages in question.
1st, Let us examine what period as referred to, call-
ed in the one passage simply "judgment,'' and in the
other, " the judgment of the great day.'' These ex-
pressions, are supposed to refer to a " day of general
judgment," at the end of this material world. But I
know of no sacred writer, who uses such language, to
describe such a day. I find however this, or very sim-
ilar language used, to describe God's judgments on the
Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensation.
" The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon
into blood before the great and terrible day of the
Lord come." Joel, ii. 31. Peter, Acts ii. 20. quotes
these words, and apphes them to this very event.
Again, Malachi iv, 5. says, '• behold, I will send you
Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord," in reference to the same
event. Our Lord, alluding to this period said, Luke
xxi. 22 — " For these be the days of vengeance, that
all things which are written may be fulfilled." And
adds, Math. xxiv. 21, "For then shall be great tribu-
lation, such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this time, no, nor ever shall be." But are the tribu-
lations of this supposed day of judgment, to be less
than the tribulations which came on the Jewish nation
at the destruction of Jerusalem ? If not, how can our
Lord's words be true ? In Rev. vi. 17. we read also of
" the great day," and " the great day of God Almigh-
ty ;" but no man will say, that this refers to a day of
THE WORD TARTARUS. 93
general judgment at the end of this world. The con-
text shows, this cannot be meant.
2d, Let us now consider who are referred to by the
angels, that kept not their first estate, (principality),
but left their own habitation ? The reader ought to no-
tice particularly, that neither of the texts, give the
least intimation, that they were angelic Spirits, sinned
in heaven, and were cast out of it. It is said they sin-
ned, but not in heaven. They kept not their first es-
tate, but left their own habitation, but it is not said, this
habitation was heaven. Indeed, if we admit, angelic
Spirits, once sinned in heaven and were cast out of it,
what security is there, that this may not take place
again ; yea, that all who are there may not become sin-
nesr, and share the same fate ? The question then is —
what angels are here referred to ? I answer, it is well
known the term rendered angel, is not a name of na-
ture but of o^ce. It is frequently rendered messenger
and is often applied to human beings. Some have
thought, the angels here mentioned, were the spies sent
out to view the land of Canaan. I am of opinion how-
ever, that Korah and his company, are the angels here
referred to; the history of whom is given. Num. 16th.
My reasons for entertaining this opinion, I shall briefly
detail, and let the reader judge for himself.
1st, Korah and his company were two hundred and
fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congrega-
tion, men of renown." Num. 16. 2. From the high
station, which they held in the congregation, with scrip-
tural propriety they might be termed Angels. Cer-
tainly, with just as much propriety, as men are call-
ed Angels in many other passages. See for example
Rev. Chaps. 2d. and 3d.
2d, It will not be questioned, Korah and his compa-
ny sinned : and their sin was, they kept not their first
estate, or the station God assigned them in the congre-
gation of Israel. They raised a rebellion against Moses
94 AN INQUIRY INTO
and Aaron, Num. 16: 3, with a view to their own pre-
eminence. They sought the priesthood also v. 10.
Certainly, the passage applies much better to them than
Angelic Spirits, who sinned in heaven, and were cast
out of it. People, are more indebted to Milton's para-
dise lost, than to their bible for the information, that an-
gelic Spirits sinned in heaven and were cast down to
Tartarus.
3d, The connexion in which the passage is introduced,
favors this view of the subject. Peter, in verses 1 — 4,
speaks of false teachers, and the troubles which their
heresies gave to the congregation of Christians. At
the close of verse 3, he says of them, whose judgment
now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation
slumbereth not." Was it not then very natural for him,
in verse 4, to refer to Korah and his company, w^ho pro-
duced similar troubles in the congregation of Israel and
the judgment which came on them ? He then from
verse 5 — 9, mentions God's judgments on the Old
world and the cities of the plain, confessedly inflicted
on human beings, and of a temporal nature. It is very
incongruous then to suppose, that in verse 4, he referred
to Angelic beings, and punishment of endless duration
in another world. But the connexion of the parallel
text in Jude, is still more clearly in favor of the view I
have given. Jude, verse 4, also speaks of false teach-
ers, and the pernicious effects of their teaching on oth-
ers. He adds, by way of warning verse 5, "I will
therefore put you in rememberance, though ye once
knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people
out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them
that beheved not." And what could be more natural,
than for him in verse 6, to refer to Korah and his com^-
pany, as a signal example of God's destroying such un-
believers ? It is certainly more rational, than to supr
pose, he immediately breaks off, and introduces an ex-
ample of God's judgment on Angels who sinned in heav^
J THE WORD TARTARUS. 95
en. He also refers in verse 9, to God's judgments on
the cities of the plain. But if verse 6, refers to Angel-
ic Spirits, we must conclude, that he first gives an ex-
ample in general of God's judgments on men v. 5, then
in v. 6, starts off and gives an example of his judgment
on angelic Spirits in heaven, and then comes back to his
judgments on men in the destruction of Sodom and Go-
morrah. But if my views are admitted, it makes both
writers, refer to temporal judgments on men, uniform-
ly throughout both passages. Certainly all will allow,
it is not the custom of the sacred writers, to blend in
this way, examples of God's judgments on men and
angels together. If it is done here, another example of
the kind, cannot be produced from the bible.
4th, It will be admitted, that all the other examples
mentioned in the contexts of these passages, of God's
judgments on men, were adduced as a warning to un-
godly men. They are all of a temporal nature, and are
calculated for this purpose. But, if we understand by
Angels in these passages angelic Spirits, how could
God's casting them out of heaven down to Tartarus,
be any warning to ungodly men ? No man had seen
this done, or had any means of knowing the fact, if it
was true. It rested entirely on Peter and Jude's state-
ments in these passages, for no other sacred writer ever
mentions such a remarkable event, as angels' sinning in
heaven and being cast down to Tartarus. But the case
of Korah and his company, is detailed at length in the
Jewish Scriptures, was well known, and calculated to be
a warning to those who lived ungodly. But it will be
asked, what Tartarus did God cast them down to ? —
Further evidence of my views will be then given by
considering this. viz.
3d, The punishment here said to have been inflicted
on them. Peter says, God '* spared not the Angels that
sinned but cast them down to hell, (Tartarosas), and
delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved
96 AN INQUIRY INTO
unto judgment." Jude says, '' He hath reserved them
in everlasting chains of darkness, unto the judgment of
the great day." Let us here inquire, 1st, What Pe-
ter meant by Tartarus 1 Mr. Stuart says, as "to the
usus loquendi of the classics, in Greek, the word Tar-
tarus is employed to designate a supposed subterranean
region, as deep down below the upper part of Hades,
as the earth is distant from heaven. It is the place
where the distinguished objects of Jupiter's vengeance
are represented as being confined and tormented. It is
placed in opposition to, or in distinction from Elysium.
I remark moreover, that the heathen had no apprehen-
sion of deliverance from Tartarus. Tantalus, Sisyphus,
Ixion, and all others sent there, were doomed to end-
less punishment, in view of the Greeks and Romans."
Such are the views given us of Tartarus by Mr. Stuart ;
and it is commonly supposed, that in this sense Peter
used the word Tartarus in the passage before us. But,
in the proceeding section it has been fully shown, that
Tartarus and the punishment there, were heathen fic-
tions, and were originally of Egyptian origin. The
Egyptians furnished the first hints, and the Greeks and
Romans manufactured a tremendous hell out of them.
But Mr. Stuart is obliged to confess, that the above
is not the exclusive sense, in which classical writers
use the term Tartarus. He says — " it is occasionally
employed, in the later classic writers, for the under-
world in general ; but in such a connexion as to show,
that it is only when writers mean to speak of the whole
as a region of gloom, that they call it Tartarus.'^ This
concession of Mr. Stuart, is enough for our purpose, to-
gether with his explanations of Sheol and Hades. He
concedes, that '' the later classic writers," use Tarta-
rus for the under-world in general, " which is his gen-
eral sense of Sheol and Hades, as seen above. And
he also concedes, that they use it in this sense, when
they "mean to speak of the whole as a region of
THE WORD TARTATUS. 97
gloom." With these concessions in view, I observe
1st, Peter was a later scripture writer. This answers
to " the later classic writers," of whom Mr. Stuart
speaks. And if they used the word Tartarus, " for
the under-world in general," and not for a place of
punishment, why not allow Peter to use it in the same
sense in this passage ? But the reader may notice, he
speaks of it, not as a place of fire and torment, which
the heathen did concerning their Tartarus, but as the
Hebrews spoke of SheoL
2d, But we are told, when the "later classic writers,"
used Tartarus for the under-world, it was " in such a
connection as to show, that it is only when writers mean
to speak of the whole as a region of gloom that they
call it Tartarus." Well, all I ask, is, to allow Peter
the same privilege taken by these classic writers. This
cannot with any show of reason be denied him. The
question then is, does Peter show from the connection, that
he means to speak of Tartarus as a place of punish-
ment, yea of endless punishment ; or does he speak of it
as the under-ivorlcl, a region of gloom ? In the latter
sense, as I shall now attempt to show. Let it then be
observed — 1st, Whoever may be meant by the Angels
in the passage above, they are not said to be suffering
any pain now in Tartarus. Nor is it even said, that
they are reserv^ed there to suffer pain or torment at the
day of judgment mentioned. If it is maintained, the
Angels mentioned are Angelic spirits, the passage has
no reference to human beings at all.
3d, If Peter used the term Tartarus, in the sense of
a place of misery, or " endless punishment in view of
the Greeks and Romans," he did what no other scrip-
ture writer did before him. Not one of them ever uses
this term, which shows they cared nothing about Tar-
tarus. But, had they believed this doctrine of endless
punishment, and that Tartarus was the most " signifi'
cant " word the Greek language afforded to express it,
9
98 AN INQUIRY INTO
why do they all avoid this word? Mr. Stuart asks
— " What term then, in order to express the horrors of
future punishment, could Peter select from the whole
Greek language, which was more significant than Tar-
tarosas ?" This question implicates, not only the sacred
wTiters, but even the holy spirit, as not knowing what
word was most '' significant''^ to express the horrors of
future punishment."
3d, But if Peter used the term Tartarus, " for the
under-world in general," as ''it is occasionally employ-
ed in the later classic writers," he agrees with all the
scripture writers in their usuage of Sheol and Hades,
and even with those classic wTiters also. What is more
common, than to put a part for the w^hole, or the whole
for a part in the language of scripture ? Tartarus was
supposed to be a part of Hades, and here a part is used
for the whole. In Luke xvi. 23, the whole. Hades, is
put for a part, Tartarus ; for according to the represen-
tation given, the rich man was in Tartarus, yet he is
said to be in Hades.
4th, But we are told, this word was used for the un-
der-ivorld, " in such a connection as to show, that it is
only when writers mean to speak of the whole as a re-
gion of gloom, that they call it Tartarus ^ If Peter
then used it in '' such a connection," as to show^, he
meant '' to speak of the whole as a region of gloom,"
the question is settled. Does he then say, either in the
text or context, that Tartarus was a place of torment ?
No. Does he intimate the angels were alive in Tartarus ?
No. Does he then speak of it as a region of gloom ?
Certainly he did. Hear him ; " for if God spared not
the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tar-
tarosas)." Well did he dehver them there into flames
and torments ? No. He " delivered them into chains
of darlcness.^^ Is not this "a region of gloom 1 Let
us hear Jude — '' The angels which kept not their first
estate but left their own habitation, he hath resjsrved in
THE WORD TARTARUS. 99
everlasting chains of darkness.''^ Is not this again, a
region of gloom ? This is too palpable I think to be
denied.
Let us now see, how this agrees to Korah and his
company, as the angels who sinned and were cast down
to Tartarus? In Num. xvi. 31 — 33, it is said, *' The
ground clave asunder that was under them ; and the earth
opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their
houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah,
and all their goods. They and all that appertained to
them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed
upon them ; and they perished from among the con-
gregation." See on this text under Sheol above.
They w^ent down alive into the pit, (Sheol). Well,
is not Sheol often represented as a region of gloom ?
Yea, does not the very word Sheol, as Dr. Campbell
has told us, mean, " obscure, hidden, invisible. The
state is" always represented under those figures wdiich
suggest something dreadful, dark and silent."
To the views of this passage, which have now been
stated, it may be objected — Does not Jude say,, the an-
gels that sinned, are " reserved in everlasting chains of
darkness, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great
day. I answer yes, but it has been shown, that the
judgment of the great day, does not refer to a general
judgment at the end of this world, but to the judgment
of God on the Jews at the close of their dispensation.
Now, though Korah and his company were punished
on the spot for their rebellion, yet we are told, all
the sins of the Jews as a nation, which had been com-
mitted during past ages, were at that time visited
on the nation. On that generation came all the right-
eous blood which had been shed on the earth. Of
course the rebellion of Korah and his company is includ-
ed. They were delivered into chains of darkness ;
to be reserved unto this judgment ; when God's signal
vengeance was poured out on the whole nation for all
100 AN INQUIRY INTO
their rebellion and wickedness. Chains of darhness, is
a figure for the power of darJcness, for who can burst
the bands of death, who can return from Sheol to the
land of the living ? The word everlasting connected
with chains of darkness in Jude, can occasion no diffi-
culty. Those who have attended to the scripture usage
of this word must see, it is often used for a limited time,
and sometimes even for a short period of time. From
the time of Korah's rebellion to the destruction of Jeru-
salem, was a much longer everlasting, than some ever-
lastings, mentioned in scripture.
" Though enough has been said, showing that punish-
ment in Hades is a heathen notion, it may be of some
use to see what were the views entertained by the an-
cient heathen about Hades and Tartarus. M. Le.
Clerc, in his Religion of the Ancient Greeks, p. X47 —
154. — thus writes: — "In general, the doctrine of a fu-
ture hfe has been adopted by all nations, at least by all
those that deserve to be cited as examples. Legisla-
tors considered it as the most effectual curb for restrain-
ing the passions of men, and they have employed eve-
ry argument to establish this salutary doctrine, as we
may be convinced by attending to the descriptions
which the ancients have left us of Hell.
" This word signified among them the residence of
souls. Thither, after death, they repaired in crowds to
receive remuneration for their deeds. Minos sat as
judge, and as the names were drawn out of the fatal urn,
he distributed to each his merited punishment or re-
ward. Pluto, seated on a throne of ebony, presided
over the infernal regions ; because, as we have already
observed, in the symbolical religion of the ancients, part
of which was dedicated to the worship of the stars, win-
ter was the night of Nature, and because the sun at
that time took the name of King of the Shades. For
this reason Pluto, who represented the sun, makes so
important a figure in mysteries destined to describe the
THE WORD TARTARUS. 101
empire of the dead. That gloomy region was situated
at an immense distance, far beyond the limits of this
universe. According to the author of the Theogony,
*as far as the heaven is distant from the earth, so far is
the earth removed from the dark abyss. A mass of
iron, falling from the top of the starry heavens, would
take nine days and nine nights before it reached the sur-
face of the earth ; and it would require the same time
in falling from thence to Tartarus,' the place destined
for the punishment of the wricked.
''This frightful abode was said to be twice as deep
as it is distant from the brilliant summit of Olympus.
It was surrounded by a triple wall, it was bathed by the
flaming waters of Cocytus and of Phlegethon, and tow-
ers of iron guarded the entrance. The cruel Tysiphone
watched night and day at the gate, armed with serpents,
which she shook over the heads of the guilty. Their
groans, their doleful cries, mixed with the sound of their
stripes, cause the wide abyss to resound. There are
forever shut up the impious Titans, and those no less
audacious mortals who dared to resist the divinity ;
Tityus, Ixion, Pirithous, and the impious Salmoneous.
Perjury, adultery, incest, and parricide, are likewise
punished ; and those w^hose life has been sullied with
odious crimes ; those who have not respected the ties
of blood, who have waged unjust wars, who have sold
their country ; those who have dared to commit enor-
mous wickedness, and enjoyed the fruit of their crimes,
are all consigned to the most cruel torments.
''We may conceive what impression these images
would make on the mind, when unceasingly presented
to the eyes from earliest infancy. It is not to be doubt-
ed, that if the hope of felicity unbounded leads to vir-
tue, the idea of endless punishment must have a still
stronger influence on the conduct. The religion of the
ancients, which to us appears of so light a nature that
we are apt to believe its only end was to flatter the sens-
102 AN INQUIRY INTO
es, yet employed the most proper means for restraining
the outrageous multitude.* It alarmed them on all
sides with the most frightful representations. A poet
of antiquity paints, in the strongest colors, that continu-
al terror which takes possession of the human heart,
which disturbs and poisons the pleasures of life, and
which in every part of the earth has erected temples
for the purpose of conciliating the gods. Plato, in the
beginning of the first book of his Republic, represents
an old man seized with fear at the approach of death,
and full of inquietude with regard to objects that never
occupy the season of health. Then it is, says he, that
we reflect on our crimes, on the injustice we have com-
mitted, and that often, in our agitation, we start in our
sleep, and are frightened like children. f As soon as
some were found among the ancients who had over-
come these fears, it was pretended that such had never
existed among them : we might as reasonably judge
of the public belief at this day, by the opinions in
which some modern writers have been pleased to in-
dulge themselves. The testimony of those of antiqui-
ty who opposed the prejudices of their times, their
very attempt to dissipate those fears, and to turn them
into ridicule, rather proves how deeply they were root-
ed. Observe, with what solicitude, Lucretius every
where endeavors to burst the bonds of religion, and to
fortify his readers against the threatenings of eternal
punishment. The observation of Juvenal, so often cit-
ed, that nobody in his day beheved in the fables of
hell, is that of an enlightened mind, which takes no
part in the opinions of the vulgar. The san.,. *ding is
* The doctrine of endless punishment among the heathen, did not make
them moral men, as facts show. Nor has it done this among christians,
as all must admit. The Apostles preached the love of God in the gift of
his Son. This produced holiness, and it will do so again.
t Preaching endless hell torments in the present day, produces not only
fear, but many cases of insanity and suicide. Can God be the author of
Buch a doctrine 1
THE WORD TARTARUS. 103
to be said of what we read in Cicero, and in some other
writers, on the same subject : and when Virgil exclaims,
* fiappy the man that can tread under foot inexorable
Destiny, and the noise of devouring Acheron,' he indi-
cates, in a manner sufficiently precise, that it was the
province of philosophy alone to shake off the yoke of
custom, riveted by education.
" Those who were unable to conquer these vain ter-
rors, found consolations of a different kind. Religion
stretched forth her kind hand to encourage their hopes,
and to relieve their despondency. When remorse had
brought back, within her pale, an unfortunate wanderer
from the paths of justice, she informed him that, by a
true confession of his guilt, and sincere repentance for-
giveness was to be obtained. With this view expia-
tory sacrifices were instituted, by means of which the
guilty expected to participate in the happiness of the
just."
Such were the views of the ancient Greeks about
Hades, or Tartarus, and its punishment. There is con-
siderable similarity in the above quotation to some de-
scriptions given of hell torments by modem preachei-s.
I 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 represen-
tations." The Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, and
Greeks, all introduced punishment after death. The
Jewish nation is an exception. Some deistical writers
have 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
104 AN INQ,UIRY, he.
punishment after death in Tartarus was beheved by the
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 ?
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 attest-
ed by evidence indisputable, could not be believed.
That punishment in Tartarus, is not a part of this cor-
ruption of Christianity derived from the heathen, de-
serves to be seriously considered. The evidence we
have adduced, proving that it is, we submit to the read
er'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 w^ere 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.
CHAPTER IL
GEHENNA, UNIFORMLY TRANSLATED HELL IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT, CONSIDERED AS A PLACE OF ETERNAL
PUNISHMENT.
We have now arrived at a part of this Inquiry, which
requires the utmost attention. The New Testament is
considered as teaching the doctrine of endless misery to
aJl 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 ques-
tion,— What is the Scripture meaning and usage of the
word Gehenna?
SECTION I. ' *^
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 believers in the doctrine of eternal misery.
The word, and I believe the only word, which is
supposed to express the place of eternal misery in the
106 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
Bible, is the term Gehenna. As Dr. Campbell con-
clusively proves, that Sheol, Hades, 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 wTites in his 6th preliminary dissertation, part
ii. sect. 1. — "That Gehenna is employed in the New
Testament to denote the place of future punishment,
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 Ge-
henna does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a
Greek word, and consequently not to be found in the
Grecian classics. It is originally a compound of the
two Hebrew words ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom,
a place near Jerusalem, of which w^e hear first in the
book of Joshua, xv. 8. It was there that the cruel
sacrifices of children w^ere 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 sy-
nonymous term, is always to be understood in the New
Testament, w^here 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 mis-
ery which awaits the impenitent." Such is the state-
ment given by Dr. Campbell. It will be easily per-
ceived, that the whole of it is assertion. Resolved, not
to take this very important article on bare assertion, I
have considered it as carefully as I could, and shall
THE WORD GEHENNA. 107
submit the result of my investigation for candid consid-
eration. It is with reluctance I dissent from such a
learned and sensible writer as Dr. Campbell. But he
has taught me to call no man master. He encourages
free inquiry, and inculcates on his readers, that no doc-
trine ought to be believed because it is asserted by the
learned, and professed by the multitude ; but on the
evidence whereby it is supported. As this quotation
contains, for substance, the views of all who believe
Gehenna to signify the place of eternal punishment, it
is necessary to make some remarks on it in the outset.
With all due respect for the memory of Dr. Campbell,
I solicit attention to the following remarks on the above
quotation.
1st, Let it be observed, how differently he speaks in the
first and last part of it. In the first he says, — " that Ge-
henna is employed in the New Testament to denote the
place of future punishment, prepared for the devil and
his angels, is indisputable.'^ But in the last, he only
says, — "this is the sense, if I mistaJce not, in which
Gehenna, a synonymous term, is always to be under-
stood in the New Testament." Whether, what he had
written between the first and last of these sentences,
led him to hesitate about the meaning of Gehenna, I
cannot say ; but sure I am, that he was too shrewd a
man not to perceive, and too candid not to own, the
insufficiency of the evidence adduced to convince his
readers. It is not his usual mode to assert things. He
generally states evidence, and seldom fails to convince
us. But here he affords us none. In attempting to
make out the proof of what he asserts, I have been led
to alter my opinion about the meaning of Gehenna.
2d, Though Dr. Campbell asserts in the above quo-
tation, that this is always the sense of Gehenna in the
New Testament, yet he denies that it has any support
from the Old. He says, — " In the old Testament we
do not find this place in the same manner mentioned.
108 AN INq,UIRY INTO
Accordingly the word Gehenna does not occur in the
Septuagint.* It is not a Greek word, and consequent-
ly not to be found in the Grecian classics." To me
this is very strange. M^hat 1 are wt to believe without
evidence, that the word Gehenna is taken from the Old
Testament, and the sense of endless misery affixed to it
by the New Testament writers, yet no intimation given
of such a change 1 This we think ought to be indis-
putably proved, before it be believed by any man. Un-
less they explained the word in this new sense, it was
impossible, in the very nature of the case, that their
hearers could understand them.
3d, But Dr. Campbell attempts to account for such
a change in the meaning of Gehenna in the New Testa-
ment, from that of the Old, in the following manner.
*' 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." I am surprised at this
statement, from such a writer as Dr. Campbell. Let it
be noticed, he does not say that the ISew Testament
writers explained Gehenna to their hearers in this new
sense. Nor does he say, that any sacred writer either
of the Old or New Testament, made tophet an emblem
of this place of torment. How then, could tophet be-
come an emblem of hell, the place of torment, until
this place was first known by the persons who made it
an emblem ? But here is one place made the emblem
of another, and yet it is confessed that no revelation was
given about this place, of which the other place is made
the emblem. Yea, it is even declared, that for this
very place, the Hebrew, Greek, nor English lan-
guage has no name. Is it asked how I make this ap-
pear ? I answer. Dr. Campbell told us above that nei-
*The word Gehenna does occur in the septiiagint, as we may probably
«how afterwards.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 109
ther Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, means this place of tor-
ment. In the very quotation on which we are remark-
ing, he declares that Gehenna does not occur in this sense
in the Old Testament, that it is not a Greek word, and
is not found in the Grecian classics, nor in the Septua-
gint. He also told us, that our English word hell, did
not originally signify the place of eternal punishment for
the wicked, but expressed the same jplace as Sheol and
Hades. Here then we have got a place, a place of eter-
nal punishment for the wicked, but for which the Bible,
in the original languages, has no name ; a place, for
which even the copious Grecian classics afford no name ;
a place, for which our Lord and his apostles could find
no name, but were obliged to borrow a word from the
Old Testament, affix this new sense to it, and did this
without any explanation, or even intimation, to their
hearers. They did this too, in addressing Jews who
had the Old Testament in their hands ; persons who
were opposed to the doctrines they taught, and who
w^ere jealous of innovotion. Moreover, the change of
sense put on this word taken from their Scriptures, is
for the purpose of threatening them with endless torment
in a future state. And to add no more, such persons re-
ceive all this without a murmuring word at the alteration,
or the dreadful punishment with which they are threat-
ened. All this may be true, but we must say, it is not
very probable, nor ought it to be received until very
conclusive evidence is produced. But it may be ask-
ed, from what source did Dr. Campbell learn, " that
tophet or Gehenna came gradually to be used as an em-
blem of hell, and at length came to be confined to it?"
From what he has said, it was not from the Old Testa-
ment. If it was used as an emblem of hell, and confin-
ed to it in the days of our Lord, it must have assumed
this new sense, between the completion of the Old Tes-
tament writings, and the commencement of the gospel
dispensation. If it began to assume this new sense be-
10
110 AN INQUIRY INTO
fore the Old Testament was completed, it had no au-
thority from it ; for he declares, that Gehenna does not
occur in this manner in the Old Testament. This new
sense, then affixed to the word Gehenna, is not of di-
vine but of human origin : it rests on the authority of man,
and not on the authority of God. I think this cannot be
denied, unless it is proved, that our Lord informed those
to whom he spake, that this was the sense in which it
was now to be understood. But is any thing like this
to be found in the New Testament? And is not this
taking for granted the very thing which ought to be
proved ?
But further ; it must be allowed, that the way Dr.
Campbell says Gehenna came to assume this new sense,
is extremely suspicious. Had it been of divine author-
ity, it would not have come gradually to assume it.
No ; the sense would have been settled at once. But
this new sense affixed to the word, was of slow process.
It came, he says, ^^ gradually to he used as an emblem
of hell, and at last to be confined to it.'^ At what
time it began to be used in this new sense, who had the
honor of first using it, how long before it came to be
confined to it, and who completed it, we are not inform-
ed. The thing is barely asserted by Dr. Campbell.
If any evidence of this is to be found, we must find it,
if we can ourselves. We have been at some pains to
find evidence of this, but our labors have been entire-
ly fruitless. We are left in the dark, as to when, or by
whom, or on what authority such a meaning was first
given to Gehenna. But it may be said, is it not evi-
dent that our Lord used Gehenna always, and indispu-
tably in this new sense ? It is certain, it is indisputable,
that Dr. Campbell has asserted this, without so much
as attempting to prove it. But surely this ought not
to be received on the assertions of any man. Only let
it be proved that our Lord used Gehenna in this new
sense, and I am forever silent on the subject.
THE WORD GEHENNA. Ill
But Dr. Campbell has said, "in the Old Testament
we do not find this place in the same manner mention-
ed." May I then be allowed to ask, if this place of
torment for the wicked, is not mentioned in the Old
Testament, under the name Gehenna, by what other
name is it called ? He denies that it is called by the
names Sheol, Hades, or Tartarus. Yea, he denies
that the Hebrew, Greek, or English language affords
a name for this place of torment. In his Dissertation,
already quoted, he thus writes in regard to the state
of the dead. " It is plain that in the Old Testament
the most profound silence is observed in regard to the
state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness
or misery. It is represented to us rather by negative
qualities than by positive ; by its silence, its darkness,
its being inaccessible, unless by preternatural means, to
the living, and their ignorance about it. Thus much in
general seems always to have been presumed cencern-
ing it ; that it is not a state of activity adapted for ex-
ertion, or indeed for the accomplishment of any impor-
tant purpose, good or bad. In most respects, however,
there was a resemblance in their notions on this subject,
to those of the most ancient heathen." It is obvious
from this, that he did not believe, the idea of a place
of torment, or the name for it, was known under the
Old Testament. Besides, w^e have seen in a quotation
of his, above, that the Jews, from their intercourse
with the heathen, learned the notion of punishment in
a future state. He not only denies, that the Jews had
any knowledge of this from the Old Testament, but he
informs us of the source whence they derived their in-
formation. Either he must be greatly mistaken in his
statements, or endless punishment in hell is a heathen
notion, and ought to be rejected by all Christians. But
I have to ask further, did our Lord speak to the Jews
about Gehenna,in a sense it had not in their sacred books,
hut in that given it by mere human authority ? Did he
112 AN INQUIRY INTO
use a Scripture word, in a sense which man's wisdom
teacheth ? Are we to beUeve, that he who said to the
Jews, "full well ye reject the commandment of the
Lord, that ye may keep your own traditions," thus gave
them countenance by his example ? Admitting, for ar-
gument's sake, that Gehenna was made the emblem of
a place of endless torment, I ask, by what name was
it called before this new sense was affixed to the word
Gehenna? Dr. Campbell says, that Gehenna came
gradually to mean this place and at last came to be
confined to it. Before this term was then used to ex-
press a place of endless misery, was such a place known,
and what word or phrase did men use to designate it ?
Or was it a nameless place, before Gehenna was used
as an emblem of it? If so, how could they speak
about it ? But it seems men came gradually, in pro-
cess of time, to use Gehenna as an emblem of this
place of torment, before they had any revelation about
it. We thought places and things were first known,
and then names for them followed ; but here the matter
seems to have been very different. In fact, there is
something here which will not bear examination. I ask
again, why were not men content to speak of it by the
name God had given it, if indeed he had said any thing
about it ? Or did men first invent this place of torment,
and then make Gehenna an emblem of it? Unless it
is proved, that our Lord did use Gehenna in this new
sense, will it not follow that such a place of torment is
not mentioned in the Bible by the name Sheol, Hades,
Tartarus, or Gehenna 7 If it is proved, that he used
Gehenna in this sense, does it not follow, that he adopt-
ed a heathen notion, and has made it a principal arti-
cle of belief to all his followers. It may just be added,
how could Dr. Campbell with truth say, that tophet
came gradually to be used as an emblem of hell, the
place of future torment, "and at length to be confined,
to it ?" It could not be confined to it by the Jews in
THE WORD GEHENNA. 113
reading the Old Testament Scriptures. Let any one
consult the places where it occurs, and see if it could
be so understood by them. If they did, it was a great
misunderstanding of the passages ; for Dr. Campbell
himself declares, that in this sense it does not occur in
the Old Testament.
4th, Dr. Campbell declares in the above quotation,
that Gehenna does not occur in the Old Testament in
the sense of a place of torment for the wicked, yet he
gives us the following information about it. — He says
— '' it is originally a compound of the two Hebrew
words, ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom, a place near
Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua
xy. 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children
were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol,
2 Chron. xxiii. 10. and that, as it is supposed, from the
noise of drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised
on purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants."
— Here, then, is the origin of Gehenna in the New
Testament, stated by Dr. Campbell himself. We see,
though it does not occur in the sense of a place of
torment for the wicked, yet it does occur in the Old
Testament in some sense. What this sense is, and what
it is there made an emblem of by divine authority, ought
to be carefully considered, and not departed from, unless
very substantial reasons are assigned. We do not think
it at all probable, that our Lord would use Gehenna in
such a different sense, or make it an emblem of such a
very different thing from that of the Old Testament
writers, if Dr. Campbell himself may be believed in the
following quotations. In his fifth Dissertation, part ii.
sect. 13. he says, — -^ Our Lord, we find from the evan-
gelists, spoke to his countrymen in the dialect of their
own Scriptures, and used those names to which the
reading of the law and the prophets, either in the orig-
inal, or in the versions then used, had familiarized them.
Our translators, and indeed most European translators,
10*
114 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
represent him as using words, which, even in their own
translations of the Old Testament, never occur, and to
which, in fact, there is nothing there that corresponds in
meaning." Tn his first preliminary Dissertation, part I.
sect. 1. and 2. he further says, — "if the words and
phrases employed by the apostles and evangelists, in
delivering the revelation committed to them by the Holy
Spirit, had not been agreeable to the received usage
of the people to whom they spoke, their discourses,
being unintelligible, could have conveyed no informa-
tion, and consequently would have been no revelation
to the hearers. Our Lord and his apostles, in publish-
ing the gospel, first addressed themselves to their coun-
trymen the Jews ; a people who had, many ages before,
at different periods, been favored with other revela-
tions. As the writings of the Old Testament are of a
much earlier date, and contain an account of the rise
and first establishment, together with a portion of the
history of the nation to whom the gospel was first pro-
mulgated, and of whom were all its first missionaries and
teachers, it is thence unquestionably that ive must learn,
both what the principal facts, customs, doctrines, and
precepts are, that are alluded to in the apostolical
ivritings, and what is the proper signification and ex-
tent of the expressiojis used.'^
In this quotation, it is freely admitted — " Our Lord
spoke to his countrymen in the dialect of their own
scriptures, and used those names to which the reading
of the law and the prophets, either in the original, or
in the versions then used, had famiharized them." But
it is universally confessed, that Gehenna, does not sig-
nify a place of endless punishment in the Old Testa-
ment, either in the original, or versions used in the
days of Christ. To say then, that our Lord used Ge-
henna in such a sense, is to " represent him, as using
words in a sense, w^hich does not occur in the Old Tes-
tament, and to which, in fact, there is nothing there that .
A THE WORD GEHENNA. 115
corresponds in meaning." This, Dr. Campbell con-
demns, and declares, that it is to the writings of the Old
Testament we must go, to learn — " the proper signifi-
cation and extent of the expressions used in the neiv.^'
Let us then have recourse to the Old Testament, to
learn the ^^signification and extenf^ of Gehenna in the
New?
What then is the meaning of Gehenna in the Old
Testament ? In what sense or senses is it used there ?
I answer in the two following. It is used,
1st, Literally. Dr. Campbell above, allows, Gehenna
in the New Testament — " is originally a compound of
the two Hebrew words ^e hinnom, the valley of Hin-
nom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in
the book of Joshua xv. 8." The w^ord ge, ov gia, sig-
nifies a valley, and enm, or Hinnom, the name of its
owner. The following are the places w^here it thus oc-
curs, w^hich the reader may consult. Josh. xv. 8 ; xviii.
16. Neh. xi. 30. 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, and xxiii. 6.
Jer. xxxii. 35. The reader who consults these texts,
will see, that kings and princes. Priests and people,
burnt their children to Moloch, and practised the most
horrid abominations in the valley of Hinnom. The
following texts may also be consulted, which refer to
the same scenes of wickedness, 1 Kings ii. 4 — 8. Ezek.
xvi. 20, 21. xxiii. 37—39 ; xx. 26—31. Amos v. 26.
Acts vii. 43. It appears from the following texts, that
it was death by the law of Moses, for any man to sacri-
fice his children to Moloch, Levit. xviii. 21. Comp.
XX. 1 — 6.
In this valley of Hinnom was Tophet, concerning
which Calmet thus wTites. " It is thought Tophet was
the butchery, or place of slaughter at Jerusalem, lying
south of the city, in the valley of the children of Hin-
nom. It is also said, that a constant fire was kept here,
for burning the carcasses, and other filth, brought hither
from the city. Into the same place they cast the ashes
116 AN INQUIRY INTO
and remains of the images of false gods, when they de-
molished their altars, and statues. Isai. xxx. 33, seems
to allude to this custom, of burning dead carcasses in to-
phet. When speaking of the defeat of the army of
Sennacherib, he says ; ' for tophet is ordained of old ;
yea, for the king it is prepared ; he hath made it deep
and large ; the pile thereof is fire, and much wood ; the
breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone doth kin-
dle it.'* — Others think, the name of tophet is given to
the valley of Hinnom, because of the sacrifices offered
there to the god Moloch, by beat of drum, to drow^n
the cries of the consuming children." — The idol god
Moloch was worshipped in the valley of Hinnom. On
the word Moloch, Calmet says : — " The rabbins assure
us, that the idol Moloch was of brass, sitting on a throne
of the same metal, adorned with a royal crow^n, having
the head of a calf, and his arms extended as if to em-
brace any one. When they would offer any children
to him, they heated the statue within by a great fire ;
and when it was burning hot, they put the miserable
victim within his arms, where it was soon consumed by
the violence of the heat ; and, that the cries of the chil-
dren might not be heard, they made a great noise with
drums, and other instruments, about the idol. Others
say, that his arms were extended, and reaching toward
the ground ; so that w^hen they put a child wdthin his
arms, it immediately fell into a great fire which was
burning at the foot of the statue. Others relate that it
was hollow, and had internally seven partitions, the first
of which was appointed for meal or flour ; in the sec-
ond there were turtles, in the third an ewe, in the fourth
a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the
* Parkhurst renders this text thus — " for the furnace is already set in
order : for the king (of Assyria namely), it is prepared" etc. But was
hell prepared for this king"? and if it refers to hell in another world —
" the pile thereof is fire and much wood." We have heard this text quoted,
to prove a hell in another world.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 117
seventh a child. All these were burned together, by
heatmg the statue on the inside."
In 2 Kings xxiii. 10, we are told, that at the time
of Josiah's reformation, '' he defiled tophet which is in
the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might
make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to
Moloch." Concerning this Prof. Stuart says, p. 141 —
*' after these sacrifices had ceased, the place was desecra-
ted, and made one of loathing and horror. The pious
king Josiah caused it to be polluted, 2 Kings xxiii. 10,
i. e. he caused to be carried there the filth of the city
of Jerusalem. It would seem that the custom of dese-
crating this place, thus happily begun, was continued in
after ages dow^n to the period when our Savior was on
earth. Perpetual fires was kept up, in order to con-
sume the offal which was deposited there, and as the
.same offal would breed worms, (for so all putrefying
meat of course does, hence came the expression, " where
the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Such
is the origin of the phraseology, in Mark ix. 42 — 47, by
Mr. Stuart's own showing, which will be considered be-
low. " The worm that dieth not, and the fire that is
not quenched" w^as not in a future state, but in the val-
ley of Hinnom. But I find gia enm, or the valley of
Hinnom, used in the Old Testament.
2d, Symbolically. By comparing the texts referred
to above, with their contexts, it will be seen, that on ac-
count of the crimes committed in the valley of Hinnom,
God threatened to bring on the Jewish nation severe
punishment, as the valley of Hinnom, or tophet, was
the place where their horrid abominations had been com-
mitted, so it is used as a symbol or figure, to describe
their punishment. This is done by Jeremiah chap. xix.
and chap. vii. to the end, which I shall now quote.
" Thus saith the Lord, go and get a potter's earthen
bottle, and take of the ancients of«the people, and of the
ancients of the priests ; and go forth unto the valley of ,
118 AN INQ.UIRY INTO
the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east
gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee ;
and say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Ju-
dah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem ; thus saith the Lord
of hosts ; the God of Israel : Behold, 1 will bring evil
upon this place, the which, whosoever heareth, his ears
shall tingle. Because they have forsaken me, and have
estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto
other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have
known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this
place with the blood of innocents ; they have built al-
so the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire
for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not,
nor spake it, neither came it into my mind ; therefore,
behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place
shall no more be called tophet, nor the valley of the
son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will
make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this
place ; and I will cause them to fall by the sword be-
fore their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek
their lives ; and their carcasses will I give to be meat for
the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing ; oto-
ry one that passeth thereby shall be astonished, and
hiss because of all the plagues thereof And I will
cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh
of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the
flesh of his friend in the seige and straightness, where-
with their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall
straiten them. " Then shalt thou break the bottle in the
sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto
them. Thus saith the Lord of hosts ; Even so will I
break this people and this city, as one breaketh a pot-
ter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again : and they
shall bury them in tophet, till there he no place to bury.
Thus will I do unto tkis place, saith the Lord, and to
the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as to-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 119
phet : and the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of
the kings of Judah, sliall be defiled as the place of to-
phet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they
have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and
have poured out drink offerings unto other gods. Then
came Jeremiah from tophet, Avhither the Lord had sent
him to prophesy ; and he stood in the court of the
Lord's house ; and said to all the people, thus saith the
Lord of hosts, the God of Israel ; Behold, I will bring
upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I
have pronounced against it, because they have harden-
ed their necks, that they might not hear my words."
Chap. vii. ver. 29 — 34. — ''Cut off thine hair, O Jeru-
salem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on
high places ; for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken
the generation of his wrath. For the children of Ju-
dah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord : they
have set their abominations in the house w^hich is called
by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the
high places of tophet, which is in the valley of the son
of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in
the fire ; which I commanded them not, neither came it
into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith
the Lord, that it shall no more be called tophet, nor the
valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaugh-
ter ; for they shall bury in tophet till there be no place.
And the carcasses of this people shall be meat for the
fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth ;
and none shall fray them away. Then will I cause to
cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of
Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of glad-
ness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the
bride : for the land shall be desolate."
No one can doubt, after reading these two quotations,
that the Old Testament writers made the valley of Hin-
nom or tophet, an emblem o( punishment, and o^ future
punishment, but not of future eternal punishment. It
120 AN INQUIRY INTO
is equally evident, that they made it an emblem of fu-
ture tejnporal punishment to the Jews as a nation. Not
a word is dropped, that this punishment was to be in a
future state of existence. No ; it is a prediction of mis-
eries to be endured by the Jews, for their sins. It is
not mentioned as a punishment for wicked men general-
ly, or for Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately. No ; the
Jews, as a nation, were to suffer this punishment. In
this prediction they are reminded of the crimes they had
committed against the Lord, in the valley of Hinnom,
and it is used as an emblem of the punishment he was
to inflict upon them. This is very apparent from the
following verses in the above quoted passages, Jer. chap,
vii. 20, 21, and xix. 4, 5. No man, we think, can read
these predictions of the prophet, without recognizing,
that our Lord in the following texts, referred to the
same punishment. " That upon you may come all the
righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Bar-
achias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not
since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor
ever shall be. And except these days should be short-
ened, there should no flesh be saved. For these be the
days of vengeance, that all things which are written may
be fulfilled," Matth. xxiii. 35, and xxiv. 21, 22. Luke
xxi. 22. Yes, the days referred to, were indeed the
days of vengeance, and the things which God had long
predicted, were fulfilled, and the above quoted predic-
tions of Jeremiah, were surely of the number. But,
that we may see more particularly, what Jeremiah, made
Gehenna or tophet an emblem of, it is necessary to point
this out by going over the above predictions.
1st, The prophet predicts, that the valley of Hin-
nom, should be to the Jews the valley of slaughter, and
that they should bury in tophet till there should be no
place to bury. In proof of its exact fulfilment, I quote
THE WORD GEHENNA. 121
the following from Mackniglit on Math. chap. xxiv.
He says : — " besides, in the progress of the siege, the
number of the dead, and the stench arising from their
unburied carcasses, must have infected the air, and occa-
sioned pestilence. For Josephus tells us that there
were no less than six hundred thousand dead bodies
carried out of the city, and suffered to lie unburied."
It should be recollected, that the valley of Hlnnom was
in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. — We see then
this part of Jeremiah's prediction literally and minutely
fulfilled.
2d, Jeremiah further predicts, " that their carcasses
also should be meat for the fowls of heaven and for the
beasts of the earth." If the fowls of the air, and
beasts of the field, did not feed on their carcasses, it was
not for want of opportunity, for six hundred thousand of
their carcasses lay unburied. This part of the predic-
tion was also literally fulfilled.
3d, Jeremiah also predicts, that " in the straitness of
the siege, they should eat the flesh of their children."
This w^as also fulfilled in the siege of Jerusalem, as Jo-
sephus, their historian, testifies.
4th, He further predicts, that '' their land should be
desolate." This it soon became after the destruction
of the city and temple, and in this state, in a great
measure^ it remains until this day.
5th, Again, the prophet predicts, " that their city
should be as tophet." We have seen, that he said be-
fore, " the valley of Hinnom should be to them the
valley of slaughter, and that they should bury in tophet
till there should be no place to bury." It is evident,
from the prophet's prediction, that the city of Jeru-
salem should be as tophet or like unto tophet. Tophet,
is used as an emblem, to describe the misery in which it
was to be involved by the judgments of God. And
why, it may be asked, was tophet made an emblem of
those temporal miseries, rather than any thing else ?
11
122 AN INQ,UIRT INTO
To this I answer, that no temporal miseries since the
world began, or ever shall be, could equal them in
severity, and no place known to a Jew, could be more
fitly chosen by the prophet, as an emblem to represent
them.
6th, The prophet adds, that " all the evil which the
Lord had spoken he would bring upon them." The
following words of the apostle, 1 Thess. ii. 16, suffi-
ciently explain this, — " for the wrath is come, or com-
ing upon them to the uttermost." — And the words of
our Lord, quoted above, — '' for these be the days of
vengeance, that all things that are written may be ful-
filled." Luke xxi. 22. This part of the prediction,
compared with these passages, show, that the prophet
did refer to the dreadful punishment which God brought
upon the Jewish nation at the end of the world, or age,
and described, Matth. xxiv. For ''all the evil which
the Lord had spoken," he did not bring upon them,
until the destruction of their city and temple by the
Roman army.
* Such are the principal things contained in this proph-
esy of Jeremiah. It is then put beyond all fair debate,
that Gehenna was made an emblem of punishment to
the Jews ; and nothing but ignorance of their own
Scriptures, could prevent their fully knowing this. It
was made an emhlem of temporal punishment, and a
very striking emblem indeed. But that it was made
an emblem of eternal punishment to the Jews, or any
of the human race, does not appear from this prophesy
of Jeremiah, or any other part of the Bible. We hope
these things will be kept in view, as they have a very
important bearing on the passages about Gehenna in the
New Testament. Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, or
tophet, is made by Jeremiah an emblem of the tempo-
ral calamities coming on the Jewish nation. That in
this very way, it is used in the New Testament, we
shall show when we come to consider the passages
THE WORD GEHENNA. 123
where it occurs. Dr. Campbell, Is so far correct then
in saying, that Gehenna was made an emblem of pun-
ishment, but is certainly mistaken in saying, that il
was made an emblem of future eternal punishment for
the devil and his angels, or any other beings in the uni-
verse. Supposing, Gehenna to have been made an em-
blem of the place of eternal torment to the wicked, it
is certain, it was not done by the Old Testament writ-
ers. Dr. Campbell assures us, that In this manner It
does not occur in the Old Testament. That he Is cor-
rect in this, is plain from the places in w^hich it occurs.
Is it not then deserving particular notice, that the Old
Testament wTlters should use the term Gehenna, as an
emblem of temporal and not of eternal punishment ; and
yet we are told, that In process of time it came to be
used as an emblem of eternal punishment ; but no man
can tell us on whose authority this was done ?
SECTION II.
FACTS STATED RESPECTING GEHENNA, THAT IT DOES
NOT EXPRESS A PLACE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Before we consider the texts, where Gehenna occurs
in the New^ Testament, it is of importance to notice the
following facts. They have been altogether overlook-
ed, or but little attended to In discussions on this sub-
ject.
1st, The term Gehenna, is not used in the Old Tes-
tament, to designate a place of endless punishment to
the wicked. This fact is so palpable, that Dr. Camp-
bell, declares positively, Gehenna has no such meaning
there. All admit this fact ; which ought to lead all, to
124 AN INQUIRY INTO
examine carefully, if Gehenna in the New Testament,
can mean a place of endless misery. We ought not to
take this for granted ; but be sure we correctly under-
stand the passages which speak of Gehenna. This has
been too long believed without any examination. The
admitted fact, that Gehenna has no such sense in the
Old Testament, ought to create the suspicion, that the
sense of Gehenna is misunderstood in the New.
2d, It is also a fact, that those who believe Gehenna,
designates a place of endless punishment in the New
Testament, entirely overlooJced its meaning in the Old.
All admit, its literal original signification to be, the valley
of Hinnom. But not one of them takes the least notice,
that Gehenna was used also by Jeremiah, as a source of
imagery, or emblem, to describe the punishment God
threatened to the Jewish nation. But why overlook
this sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament ? Is it
not possible, yea, is it not probable, that this may be its
sense in the New ? All critics admit, the language of
the New Testament is derived from the old, and ought
to be interpreted by it.
3d, The fact is also notorious, that those who believe
Gehenna in the New Testament, designates a place of
endless punishment, give it this sense on mere human
authority. Dr. Campbell above, says, Gehenna came
gradually to assume this sense, and at last came to be
confined to it. But no divine authority is referred to,
for the origin of this sense attached to the term Ge-
hem^a. Professor Stuart, refers to the later Jews, the
Rabbinical writers, as authority. And finally tells us
— '' Gehenna came to be used as a designation of the
infernal regions, because the Hebrews supposed that
demons dwelt in this valley." But who can believe,
the term Gehenna in the New Testament, is used in a
sense which originated in a silly superstitious notion ?
4th, Another fact is, the word Gehenna only occurs
twelve times in the New Testament, The following are
THE WORD GEHENNA. 1*25
all the texts, Math. v. 22, 29, 30, and xviii. 9. Mark
ix. 43 — 47. Lukexli. 5. Math. x. 28, and xxiii. 15,
33. James iil. 6. Tlie rendering of Gehenna in these
texts, is uniformly hell in the common version. The
fact, that Gehenna, is only used twelve times, in the
New Testament deserves notice, for Dr. Campbell and
others say, this is the only word in the Bible, which
designates o. place of endless punishment. Now, sup-
posing this to be true, do most Christians know, that
their place of endless punishment, is only mentioned
twelve times there ? But correctly speaking, Gehenna
was not used even tw^elve times originally. It occurs
eleven times in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, and
Luke, which all know, are only three histories of the
same discourses in which Gehenna was used by our
Lord. Viewing the subject in this light, few words of
such importance, occur so seldom in the New Testa-
ment as the word Gehenna. I notice this, to show the
difference, between our Lord and modern preachers as
to the frequency of their use of the word hell, which is
the rendering of Gehenna. Allowing it used twelve
times in the New Testament, this is not so often, as
many preachers use it in the course of a single sermon.
That they never ought to use the texts, in which Ge-
henna occurs, in proof of a place of endless punishment,
we shall show afterwards.
5th, The fact is also indisputable, that the zvord
Gehenna is used by our Lord, and by James, but by
no other person in the New Testament. Any person
who can read English, may satisfy himself of the cor-
rectness of this fact, by reading the texts referred to
above. John, wrote the history of our Lord, as well as
Mathew, Mark, and Luke, but he never speaks of Ge-
henna, either in his Gospel or Epistles. What is more
remarkable, Luke, though he uses Gehenna once in his
Gospel, never uses it in the Acts, which contains the
history of the Apostles' preaching for thirty years.
11*
126 AN INQUIRY INTO
Paul, Peter, and Jude, are entirely silent about Gehen-
na, which is very strange, if it designated a place of
endless punishment to the wicked. The writings of
those persons, who have never mentioned Gehenna,
form two thirds of the New Testament. But surely,
it is a very natural expectation, warranted by the fre-
quency of other important subjects mentioned, that all
the writers in the New Testament should often speak
of Gehenna, if it did mean a place of endless misery.
And if they did believe this, yet were silent about it,
they were not so faithful to their hearers as most mod-
ern preachers. But can any man believe, our Lord's
disciples understood him to mean by Gehenna a place
of endless misery, yet most of them never said a word
about it in their preaching, or in their letters to the
churches ? 'Is it at all propable, that they would lay
aside the term Gehenna, used by their Lord to desig-
nate a place of endless misery, and adopt some other
language to express it ? We strongly doubt this.
6th, But another sti'iMng fact is, all that is said
about Gehenna in the New Testament, was spoken to
Jews, and to Jews only. No Gentile, is ever threat-
ened with Gehenna punishment. This fact is indispu-
table, which every person can satisfy himself about, by
simply reading the texts where Gehenna is used, with
their respective contexts. It is of no consequence to
decide, to whom the Gospels were originally addressed,
for in the eleven places where our Lord used the term
Gehenna, it is certain he was speaking to Jews. And
in the only other place where Gehenna occurs, it is
certain, James wrote to the twelve tribes which were
scattered abroad, James i. 1, Comp. Chap, iii 6. It
forms no objection to this fact — " That our Lord's min-
istry was among the Jews, and not among the Gentiles,
hence could not say to the Gentiles as to the Jews
— ' how can ye escape the damnation of hell, (Gehen-
na)/' The Apostles' ministry was among the Gentiles;
THE WORD GEHENNA. ' 127
but they never say any thing to them about Gehenna in
any shape whatever, which shows, that '^ the damna-
tion of Gehenna," only concerned the Jews. This fact,
is of great importance in the present investigation, and
is beyond all dispute. Let us then attach what sense
we please to the term Gehenna, it is certain, Jews are
the only persons addressed about it, or concerned in its
punishment. As proof of this, it may be observed that
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are thought to have written
their Gospels for the use of the Jews, and in them Ge-
henna is used. It seems certain, John wrote his Gospel
for the use of the Gentiles, for he explains Jewish places,
names, and customs, altogether unnecessary, had he
-wrote it to Jews. But it deserves special notice, John
never mentions Gehenna, and omits all the discourses
of our Lord, in which he spoke of Gehenna. If the
damnation of Gehenna, or hell, only concerned Jews,
we see a good reason for such an omission ; but if it
equally concerned the Gentiles, how shall any man ac-
count for the omission, on rational 3nd scriptural princi-
ples. If Jews and Gentiles, were alike concerned in
the punishment of Gehenna, why were not both alike
admonished concerning it ? How, I ask, could the Gen-
tiles avoid the punishment of Gehenna, seeing no sacred
writer said any thing to them about it ? Does not this
very omission prove, that the New Testament writers,
did not mean by Gehenna a place of endless misery,
but that it designated the temporal punishment which
Jeremiah predicted to the Jewish nation.
To the above, it may possibly be objected — " were
not all the scriptures written for the benefit of mankind ?
Why then make this distinction between Jews and Gen-
tiles?" Answer. Whatsoever was written aforetime
was written for our instruction. But notwithstanding
this, who does not make this very distinction ? As Gen-
tiles, we may derive much instruction from Math. Chaps.
23d and 24th, but who does not allow, these two Chap-
128 AN 1NQ,UIRY INTO
ters had a particular reference to the Jews ? In the
first, some of the most unportant things occur, which
our Lord ever dehvered respecting Gehenna. Who
does not allow the words, — " Fill ye up then the meas-
ure of your Fathers," had a special reference to the
Jews as a nation ? But why not also the very next
words — " ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can
ye escape the damnation of hell." And as this is the
only instance, where our Lord ever threatened the un-
believijig Jews with the " damnation of Gehenna,^^ and
no sacred writer ever threatene-d the Gentiles whh it,
who can doubt this punishment only respected Jews?
I then appeal to every candid man, whether this fact,
ought not to lead us all to suspect, that our Lord by
Gehenna, meant the temporal punishment coming on
the Jewish nation, and not a place of endless punish-
ment for the wicked. The man who can avoid such a
suspicion, must have some way of accounting, for this
and other facts, of which I am ignorant.
7th, Another important fact is, nearly all that our
Lord said about Gehenna, was sjjoJcen to his own disci-
ples. In the twelve places where Gehenna occurs, only
in two instances, is a word said about it to the unbeliev-
ing part of the Jewish nation. In nine of the other in-
stances, our Lord w^as addressing his own disciples.
They are the persons principally Avarned about the
punishment of Gehenna. In the only other instance,
James w^as addressing believing Jews of the twelve
tribes scattered abroad. The texts referred to above,
need only to be read, which will satisfy the reader as
to the correctness of these statements. I then ask, if
our Lord by Gehenna, meant a place of endless misery,
why was he so solicitous, that his few disciples should
escape this punishment ; yet said so little concerning it
to the unbelieving multitude ? How is this to be ra-
tionally and scripturally accounted for? Besides, he
always spoke about Gehenna to his disciples as a thing
THE WORD GEHENNA. 129
they might escape ; but to the unbelieving Jews, he
said — *' how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
Why warn those so often, who were in the least danger
of Gehenna punishment, yet only threaten once those
in the greatest danger of it, if the common opinions on
the subject are correct? Our Lord's conduct, and the
conduct of preachers in the present day, are at perfect
variance about this. What preacher now, shows more
solicitude, that the few in his church, should be saved
from Gehenna or hell, than the multitude he considers
living in disobedience ? The very reverse of this, is
the conduct of modern preachers. Why, they act so
different from our Lord, I must leave for others to ex-
plain. I am satisfied, that this never can be rationally
and scripturally accounted for, on the common opinions
which are entertained respecting Gehenna punishment.
I may add, either our Lord said a great deal too little
about Gehenna, or hell to the wicked, or modern preach-
ers say a great deal too much. Which of these is the
truth, must be left for themselves to determine. This,
with the other facts above, must create more than a
doubt, that Gehenna in the New Testament does not
mean a place of endless punishment.
8th, Sut another fact, deserving some notice is, wher-
ever Gehenna is mentioned in the Neiv Testament, the
persons addressed are supposed to be perfectly ac-
quainted with its meaning. No explanation is asked
by the hearer, none is given by the speaker, nor is it
supposed by either to be necessary. The Jews^ were
always the persons addressed about Gehenna. The
first time our Lord addressed his disciples about it. Math.
V. 22, they had no more occasion to ask him what he
3neant by Gehenna, than what he meant by the Judg-
ment and council. And when he said to the unbelieving
Jews — " How can ye escape the damnation of Gehen-
na," they understood him as well, what punishment he
meant, as if he had spoken of stoning to death. If all
130 AN INQUIRY INTO
this be true, and we think it is indisputable, the ques-
tion arises — did the Jews our Lord addressed, under-
stand Gehenna to mean a place of endless misery? As
this is generally asserted, I have a right to -ask, from
what source of information, did they learn this sense of
the word Gehenna ? I can think of no other sources,
from which they could possibly derive it, but some
one or other of the following.
1st, From immediate inspiration. But no evidence
of this can be produced ; nor is it even alleged, by those
who contend Gehenna in the New Testament means a
place of endless punishment. No man will assert this,
who has considered the subject.
2d, The Preaching of John the Baptist. But this
cannot be alleged, for John ilever said a word about
Gehenna in his preaching, if a correct account is given
of it in the New Testament.
3d, The instructions or explanations of the Savior.
This, no man will aver, who has read the four Gospels,
for our Lord never explained Gehenna to mean a place
of endless punishment.
4th, The Old Testament Scriptures. This the Jews,
nor no other persons could do ; for all admit, Gehenna
is not used in the Old Testament to designate a place
of endless misery. Dr. Campbell above declared, that
Gehenna in this sense, is not to be found in the Old
Testament.
5th, The assertions of fallible uninspired men. This
is the source, from whence originated, the sense now
given to Gehenna — a place of endless misery to the
wicked. Indeed, no higher authority is quoted than this ;
no one contends that God first gave it such a sense.
Dr. Campbell said above — " Gehenna in process of time
came to be used in this sense, and at length came to be
confined to it." And Professor Stuart refers us to
Rabbinical writers as his authority, that Gehenna in the
New Testament nieans a place of endless punishment.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 131
In fact, he traces the origin of this sense given to Ge-
henna, to the silly superstition among the Jews, who
thought demons dwelt in the valley of Hinnom. Such
is the way^ the believers in endless hell torments say,
Gehenna came to have such a sense attached to it. We
presume, no man can devise a better.
But let us suppose, the Jews understood our Lord,
by Gehenna to mean a place of endless punishment.
How were they likely to relish such a threatening ? Not
very well, for we shall see afterwards from Dr. Whitby,
that the Jews believed, no Jew, however wicked, would
go to hell. I ask then, how it was possible for our Lord
to say to the unbelieving Jews — ^' How^ can ye escape
the damnation of hell, without exciting their wrath and
indignation against him ? But nothing is said in the
four Gospels, that this threatening excited their indig-
nation ; or that it was ever brought up as an accusation
against him.
There is no evidence, that the unbelieving Jews, un-
derstood our Lord in one sense, and the disciples in
another. No ; nor have we ever seen or heard, that
this has been alleged by any one. How then did both
understand him ? I answer this question, by asking,
how ought they to have understood him according to
the meaning of Gehenna in their own scriptures ? Cer-
tainly, either as meaning the literal valley of Hinnom^
or symbolically, describing to them the punishment God
had threatened their nation, as seen from Jeremiah
above. In no other sense was Gehenna used in their
Scriptures. In the last of these senses they must have
understood him ; for when our Lord spoke to them of
Gehenna, it was the punishment of Gehenna, and that
such a punishment had been threatened by Jeremiah,
no Jew could be ignorant, who was acquainted with the
Scriptures. If the Scriptures, were the common source
of information, both to believing and unbelieving Jews,
none of them could understand our Lord by Gehenna
132 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
punishment, to mean endless punishment in a future
state, for they contained no such information. Those
who contend, the Jews so understood our Lord, are
bound to inform us how they came by this information,
seeing it was not found in their Scriptures. Who taught
them this doctrine ? Was it from heaven or of men ?
These are the questions at issue. To assume that Ge-
henna means a place of endless punishment, will not
satisfy candid enquirers after truth. And to refer them
to Rabinical authority for this sense of Gehenna, is
plainly admitting, it cannot be supported by a fair ap-
peal to the Bible.
We have some additional facts to produce, to show,
that Gehenna in the New Testament, does not desig-
nate a place of endless misery to the wicked. But
these will be more appropriately introduced, after we
have considered, all the texts in the New Testament
where Gehenna occurs.
SECTION III.
ALL THE TEXTS, IN WHICH GEHENNA OCCLRS, CON-
SIDERED.
The term Gehenna in the New Testament, desig-
nates punishment as all admit, but the question is—
what is the nature of that punishment ? Does it ex-
press di place of endless punishment, as Dr. Campbell
and others assert ? Or, is it used there as a source of
imagery, to describe God's judgments on the Jewish
nation, in the destruction of their city and temple ?
Some indeed have alleged, that Gehenna in the New
Testament might refer, to — *'that dreadful doom of be-
ing burned alive in the valley of Hinnom." But this
THE WORD GEHENNA. 133
is far from being probable, for burning alive in the val-
ley of Hinnoni, was not a Roman punishment ; and in
our Lord's day, the Jews had not the power to put any
man legally to death, by any mode of punishment
whatever. Burning alive in the valley of Hinnom was
unknown among the Jews. To this horrid practice
then, I think our Lord could not allude, when he threat-
ened them with the damnation of Gehenna.
Schleusner observes, that among the Jews — '^ any
severe punishment, especially a shameful kind of death,
was denominated Gehenna." If this remark is correct,
it well agrees with the prediction of Jeremiah noticed
above. He had used Gehenna, as a source of imagery,
to describe the punishment to be inflicted on the Jewish
nation ; when on them came all the righteous blood
shed on the earth. That this punishment was severe is
certain. Our Lord declared, — " for then shall be great
tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the
world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except
those days should be shortened, there should no flesh
be saved," Math. xxiv. 21, 22. Josephus said above,
six hundred thousand dead bodies were carried out of
Jerusalem and suffered to lie unburied. Their punish-
ment then, was both severe and shameful, and might
well be denominated Gehenna, for no place was more
horrible to Jews, than the valley of Hinnom. It was
a fit emblem to describe their punishment.
It cannot be consistently objected by believers in
endless punishment, that the inspired writers made Ge-
henna an emblem of the temporal punishment which
came on the Jewish nation, seeing they make it an em-
blem of endless punishment in a future state. To adopt
the w:ords of Mr. Stuart — " what could be a more ap-
propriate term than this, when we consider the horrid
cruelties and diabolical rites which had been there per-
formed," to describe the horrible carnage of the Jews
in the destruction of their city and temple. But, let us
12
134 AN INQUIRY INTO
attend to the passages, and see how they agree to this
view of the subject ?
Math. V. 22. "But I say unto you, that whosoever
is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in
danger of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to
his brother raca, shall be in danger of the council : but
whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell,
(Gehenna) fire." This is the first time Gehenna is
mentioned in the New Testament, and here, our Lord
addressed his own disciples about it. If it means hell,
the ivorld of tvoe, I ask, were they in so much more
danger of going to hell than the unbelieving Jews, that
he first warned them about it ? Yea, was their condi-
tion so perilous, that the chief thing, said about Gehen-
na, was addressed to them ? But the passage, or its
context, affords no proof, that our Lord by Gehenna
referred to a place of punishment in a future state.
This sense of Gehenna is assumed, and in face of evi-
dence to the contrary, as I shall now show.
1st, In the passage, there are three crimes, and three
punishments mentioned. No one supposes, the two
first refer to a future state. Why then should the
third ? Is the crime of calling a brother a fool, so much
worse than the other two, that it puts the person " in
danger of hell, or, endless punishment 1
2d, The question then is, what did our Lord mean
by Gehenna fae, or as Mr. Stuart renders it — " the fire
of the valley of Hinnom ?" He says — " it is employed
as a source of imagery, to describe the punishment of a
future world, which the judge of all hearts and inten-
tions will inflict." But this is assuming the question in
discussion ; and deserves no regard. Above, Schleus-
ner told us — " any severe punishment, especially a
shameful kind of death, was denominated Gehenna."
Jeremiah, we have seen, describes the punishment of
the Jews as a nation under the emblem of Gehenna.
This punishuT^ent was at hand, when our Lord address^-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 135
ed his disciples in this passage. What then did he
mean by " Gehenna fire ?" 1 answer, nothing can be
more obvious than this from the Bible, that Jire is a
common figure to express God's judgments on men for
their sins. No man can doubt this, who consults the
following among other passages, Deut. xxxii. 2'2, 25.
Isai. Ixvi. 15, 16. v. 24, 25. xxx. 27—33. ix. 18, 19.
X. 16—18. Ezek. xxii. 18—22, 41. See also the
two first chapters of Amos. I shall only quote one or
two examples in proof, respecting the Jews. Jeremiah,
Lam. ii. 3, says — " God burned against Jacob like a
flaming fire, which devoureth round about." And Da-
vid says, Ps. Ixxxix. 46, '' shall thy wrath burn like
fire^?" It is contended by believers in endless misery,
that what is expressed by the woid punishment, Math.
XXV. 46, is described figuratively by the word fire, verse
41. Thus according to the figurative use of the term
fire, and according to Schleusner quoted above, " Ge-
henna fire" means '^ any severe punishment, especially
a shameful kind of death." And we can be at no loss
in determining, to what punishment our Lord referred,
as Jeremiah under the emblem of Gehenna, predicted
a most severe punishment to the Jewish nation. Where
could he have found a more appropriate emblem than
Gehenna ? It was certainly a more appropriate term,
to describe God's temporal punishment of the Jews,
than to describe an eternal punishment in a future state,
of which we know nothing, for no description of it is
given in the Bible.
3d, Let us inquire, what Gehenna fire our Lord's
disciples were in danger of? That they were in dan-
ger of the punishment, God was about to inflict on their
nation, no one will dispute. See how careful our Lord
w^as, Math. 24. in pointing out to them how they
might escape this punishment. He tells them verse 13
— " he that shall endure unto the end the same shall be
saved," Saved from what ? The context clearly
136 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
shows, they would be saved from this punishment
coming on their nation. But the utmost watchfulness
on their j^art was necessary, for this day of vengeance
would come upon the nation unawares, Math. xxiv. 42
— 51. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 1 — 10. But, where does
our Lord show like earnestness, in warning his disci-
ples, that they might escape Gehejma fire, or endless
misery in a future state ? No where, as all must con-
fess, and yet most said about Gehenna is to them.
The following objection may perhaps be urged against
the above view of this passage. " Allowing Gehenna
to refer to the temporal punishment coming on the Jew-
ish nation, why did calling a brother a fool, subject to
this punishment, rather than the other crimes mentpn-
tioned ?" Answer. As Gehenna fire, or God's tem-
poral judgments on the Jews, is the greatest punishment
mentioned in the passage, we may expect that the crime
of which it is the punishment, was also the greatest.
The word moreh rendered fool, Dr. Campbell rendei's
miscreant ; and in his preface to Mathew's Gospel, says,
" the word moreh here used by the evangelist, differs
only in number from morim, the compellation with which
Moses and Aaron addressed the people of Israel, when
they said. Numb. xx. 10, with manifest and indecent
passion, as rendered in the English Bible, Hear now ye
rebels, and were, for their punishment, not permitted to
enter the land of Canaan. The word, however, as it is
oftener used to imply rebellion against God than against
any earthly sovereign ; and as it includes disbelief of his
word, as well as disobedience to his command, I think
better rendered in this place miscreant, which is also,
like the original term, expressive of the greatest abhor-
rence and detestation. In this way translated the gra-
dation of crimes, as well as of punishments, is preserv-
ed, and the impropriety avoided of delivering a moral
precept, of consequence to men of all denominations,
in words intelligible only to the learned."
THE WORD GEHENNA. 137
Math. V. 28, 29. '' And if thy right eye offend thee,
pluck it out and cast it from thee ; for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell, (Gehenna).
And if thy right hand ofTend thee, cut it off and cast it
from thee ; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy
members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should be cast into hell, (Gehenna)." Here again, our
Lord was addressing his own disciples ; and whatever
was meant by Gehenna in verse 22, the same must be
meant here as all will allow. Let us then enquire 1st,
What our Lord meant by Gehenna ? On this text Mr.
Stuart says — " Most certainly this cannot be understood
of a literal casting into Gehenna ; for w^ho was to ex-
ecute such a punishment ? Not the Jewish courts ; for
they had no cognizance of the offense which a man's
right hand or right eye moved him to commit, i. e. they
could not call in question and punish a member of the
human body, because it tempted its owner to sin. It
must then be a punishment which God would inflict.
But was this a literal casting into the valley of Hinnom ?
It may however be said, that the caution of the Savior
runs thus : — ' Avoid all temptation to sin, lest you bring
on yourself the terrible punishment of being burned in
the valley of Hinnom, in case you give way to any
temptation.' This would be a possible interpretation,
provided the crimes in question could be shown to be
of such a nature as were punishable in this manner by
the Jewish courts. But as this cannot be done, this
exegesis seems to be fairly incapable of admission."
On this quotation I remark.
1st, We perfectly agree w4th Mr. Stuart, that — this
cannot be understood of "the terrible punishment of
being burned in the valley of Hinnom." And we also
agree with him, that — " it must then be a punishment
which God would inflict." But we ask, does God in-
12*
138 AN INq,UIRY INTO
flict no punishment, but that of casting the whole body
into hell the world of woe ? But,
2d, What does Gehenna in this passage mean ? It
is here used twice, but without the word fire being add-
ed. It is no doubt understood, however, from verse 22,
noticed above, to which I here refer. Our Lord's warn-
ing here is more alarming, for he says twice, "And not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell, (Gehen-
na)." But to understand him as meaning, that their
whole body should be cast into a place of endless mis-
ery, is inadmissible. This sense of the term is entire-
ly assumed, for nothing in the text or its context, leads
to such a sense. But it does not accord with the facts
of the case ; for an instance was never known, of an
individual having his whole body, or soul and body^ cast
into a place of endless misery. This is not done surely
at any man's death, as every sexton in the world can
testify. And to say, it shall be done at the resurrection
of the dead, is not only an unsupported assertion, but is
contrary to all the texts which speak of the resurrection.
It does not even accord with modern preaching. What
preacher tells his audience, that their whole bodies are
to be cast into hell, the world of woe 1 If it is to be
done at the resurrection, then immortal, incorruptible
bodies, are to be cast into this place of endless misery.
Besides, Christians are in great danger of this, for be
it remembered, Christ w^as not speaking here to wicked
people, but to his own disciples. But are modern Christ-
ians much, alarmed, that their ivhole body is to be cast
into endless misery ? But, let us understand our Lord
here, using Gehenna as Jeremiah did, as a source of
imagery to describe the punishment God was about to
inflict on the Jewish nation, and all is plain and con-
sistant. When it came upon them, there was even a
literal casting into the valley of Hinnom. Did not Jere-
miah say, the valley of Hinnom was to be to the Jews
the valley of slaughter ; and that they should bury in
THE WORD GEHENNA. 139
Tophet, till there was no place. And does not Jose-
phus declare, six hundred thousand of the carcasses of
the Jews were cast out of Jerusalem and lay unburied ?
And who will deny, God inflicted this punishment, al-
though he used human agents to accomplish it ? View-
ing the subject in this light, we see a very good reason,
for what our Lord here said to his disciples about Ge-
henna. If any thing, dear to them as a right eye or
right hand, proved a temptation to sin or apostacy, they
must part with it. This was profitable to them, for only
he who endured to the end should be saved. If they
continued faithful, and obeyed his instructions, they
should escape the damnation of Gehenna, that punish-
ment which the unbelieving part of the nation could not
escape. See on Math. x. 28, and 23, 33, below.
Math. X. 28. " Fear not them who kill the body, but
are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him, which
is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell, (Gehen-
na)." The following are all the remarks Mr. Stuart
is pleased to make on this passage. " The body might,
indeed be literally burned in the valley of Hinnom ;
but the immaterial, immortal soul — is that to be liter-
ally burned there ?" But in reply to this question of
his we answer no ; for no Universalist holds any such
opinion, as we think Mr. Stuart ought to know. But
we ask him in turn — how is he to punish the whole
body, or soul and body in his hell, without ^re or some
other means of torment ? If soul and body are to be
tormented there, why not employ fire, just as well as
any thing else to do it ? Was not his hell, long con-
sidered a place of literal fire and brimstone ? Do not
some still speak of it as such ? Is his immaterial im.-
mortal soul, to be burned there ? But let the punish-
ment of his hell be what he pleases, if it is taught in
this text, soul and body according to his views, are to be
destroyed there. But we have shown above, that this
is contrary to scripture, facts, and common opinions on
this subject.
140 AN INQUIRY INTO
But we ask Mr. Stuart — where do the scriptures
speak about an " immaterial, immortal soull No where.
Why then does he do it ? Has he forgotten, that he
told us psuhe, Acts, ii. 29, which is the same word for
soul in this text, means me. So also its corresponding
word Nephish Psal. xvi. 10. Until he proves, man has an
immate7'ial, immortal soul, it is premature to speak of
it as being burned in any place. If he can prove this,
he can do more than we have ever seen done by any
man, and hope he will do it without delay.
But let us attend to the passage, and see what our
Lord meant to teach by it ? Here, as in the preced-
ing texts, he addressed his own disciples ; and is teach-
ing them how to conduct themselves in preaching to the
world. The text and its context show^, he Avas not
speaking to them on the subject of a future state, but
fortifying their minds in view of the difficulties they
were about to encounter. The passage says 1st, "Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul, (psuhe)." By the body, (soma), all allow,
is meant the fleshly part of man, which is here, and in
other places, distinguished from his psuhe, soul or life.
The persons who might kill the body were many, and are
designated by the plural word them. The term here ren-
dered kill, means to slay, put to death, as its scripture
usage shows. It is here said men can kill the body —
" but are not able to kill the soul." What then is meant
by the soul ? Mr. Stuart, and others assert, it means an
immaterial, immortal soul, which after death, is suscep-
tible of happiness or misery in a disembodied state. But
this must not be assumed. No proof is offered that this
is true. That psuhe, here rendered soul, often means
the life, is evident. It is rendered life in verse 39 of
the context. But it may be objected, if soul only means
here the life, is not it killed, when men kill the body ?
We answer no, for this is most expressly denied in the
passage. They — " are not able to kill the soul." In
one sense they do kill it, namely ; the soul or hfe- is na
THE WORD GEHENNA. 141
longer in the body. But it is not killed, for at death
the soul or spirit returns to God who gave it, Eccl. iii.
19 — 22. It returns to the fountain of hfe, and is to be
restored to man, an immortal life, in the resurrection.
After this, man shall not die any more, but shall be equal
unto the angels which are in heaven. Until this peri-
od, man's life is hid with Christ in God. It is laid up
for him, and will then be restored to him. So far as I
can find from scripture, man is now mortal, but is to be
constituted immortal in the resurrection. Indeed, if he
was now immortal, neither God nor man could kill him,
for can that which is immortal die 1 But we are told
in the next part of the verse, that God is able to destroy
both soul and body." This God can do, for if it pleased
him he could blot man forever out of existence. It is
added,
2d, " But rather fear him, who can destroy both soul
and body in hell, (gehenna)." The word Mm, in this
part of the passage, refers to some one individual, and
is the contrast to the word them, in the first part of the
verse. This is obvious. The question is, to what in-
dividual did our Lord refer ? If it is said, it refers to
man, the question returns — what man is meant ? I also
ask, how could this one man do, w^hat more than one,
are said in the former part of the verse, not to be able
to do ? If it is said, the civil magistrate is the man re-
ferred to, I then ask, could he kill the soul or life,
which others could not do ? Could he " destroy both
soul and hodyV If so, then God himself could do no
more than this. But unless it can be shown, that de-
.stroying '-'both soul and body in Gehenna," was a pun-
ishment inflicted by the civil magistrate in our Lord's
day, it is not at all probable our Lord referred to him.
Besides, why should his disciples fear the civil magis-
trate in this case, yet are commanded not to fear them
who kill the body. Were his disciples, to have no fear
of others who killed them, yet were to fear the civil
142 AN INQUIRY INTO
magistrate, whose power could not go much beyond this?
Perhaps it may be said, — according to Schleusner above,
" any severe punishment, especially a shameful kind of
death, was denominated Gehenna. This tlie civil mag-
istrate could inflict on Christ's disciples, and hence are
here exhorted to fear him." But if this was our Lord's
meaning, his disciples paid little regard to his words, as
their future history show^s. In the execution of their
mission, they do not seem to have feared even the civil
authority, so as to be deterred from their duty. See the
whole book of the Acts of the Apostles.
Who then is referred to by the word him, whom the
disciples w^ere commanded to fear ? God, w^e think is
the being, and is designated by what He is able to do
in the next words. He " is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell, (Gehenna)." It will not I presume
be questioned, that the terms rendered Mil and destroy,
are in this verse used as similar in import. As the word
MU, cannot mean, merely to hurt or punish the body
in the first clause of the first part of the verse, so nei-
ther can it mean to hurt or punish the soul in the sec-
ond clause. And in the second part of the verse, the
word destroy, is used as an equivelent to the word Icill
in the first ; and what man in the first part is not able
to do, God in the second is able to perform. God " is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell, (Gehenna)."
That the terms rendered hill and destroy, are used to
express the same thing will appear from the following
examination of them.
1st, Let us notice the word apohteino here rendered
Icill. Its general usage is, to slay, hill, or put to death.
Mark iii : 4, is the only text where it is used to express
the killing of the soul or life. " Is it lawful to do good
on the sabbath days, or to do evil ? To save life, (Psuhen),
or to kill, (apokteina)." But in the parallel text, Luke
vi : 9, the word rendered destroy, is used to express
the same idea, " Is it lawful on the sabbath days to
THE WORD GEHENNA. 143
good, or to do evil ? To save life, (psuhen), or to de-
stroy (apolesai) it?" Let the reader notice, the same
term Psuhe, soul, in the, text in question, is in these
texts rendered life, and it is said can be killed or de-
stroyed, li^ut can this psuhe, soul, mean an immortal
soul ? And can it be killed or destroyed ? We should
think not. No sacred writer mentions an immortal soul.
Why then should it be contended that this is the sense
of the passage before us. See Rom. vii : 11, Eph. ii:
16. 2 Cor. iii : 6, where apokteina is used, but which
have no relation to our present subject. Let us now
notice,
2d, The word apollumi here rendered destroy. This
term we have just seen, is used by Luke in Chap, vi :
9, as equivalent to apokteino, kill, in Mark iii : 4 ; and
both words, are in these texts applied to killing or de-
stroying the psuhe, soul, or life. The term appollu-
mi is also used in the following texts to express destroy-
ing the psuhe, soul or life. Math, x : 39 — " He that
findeth his life, (^psuheii), shall lose (apolesei) it ; and
he that loseth, (apolesas), his life, (^ptsuheti), shall find
it." But must a man lose his immortal soul before he
can find it ? Again, Luke xvii : 38 — '' Whosoever shall
seek to save his life, (^psuheii), shall lose, (apolesei)
it; and whosoever shall lose, (apolese\ his hfe, shall
preserve it." Is it then true, that the man w^ho seeks
to save his immortal soul, is sure to lose it ; and he who
shall lose it, is certain to save it. This is reversing,
what is said about immortal souls and their salvation in
the present day. But again, John xii : 25 ; " He that
loveth his life, (^psuheii), shall lose, (apolesei^ it ; and
he that hateth his life, (^psuheii), in this world shall keep
it unto life eternal." If psuhe, soul, means an immor-
tal soul, then the true way to secure its salvation, is not
to love it, but to hate it in this world. Again Math. xvi.
25, 26, ^' for whosoever w^ill save his life, (^psuheri), shall
lose, {apolesci) it ; and whosoever will lose, (apole-
144 AN INQ,U1RY INTO
sei), his life, (psuhen) for my sake shall find it. For
what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
and lose his own soul, (^psuhen). '^ See the same thing
stated, Mark viii. 35 — 37. and in Luke ix. 24, 25, the
same thing is also stated with this variation, " and lose,
(apolesas), himself, or be cast away." How cast away,
it may be asked ? I answer, just as the unbelieving
Jews were, Rom. xi. 15, and Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 27.
Again, Luke ix. 56 — " for the Son of man is not come
to destroy, (apolesai), men's lives, (psuhas), but to save
them."
It is now obvious, that in a considerable number of
of texts, the soul or life is said to be destroyed. But
who supposes, (unless grossly ignorant of the terms
psuhe and apollumi, and still worse shutting his eyes
to the context), that soul means any thing more than
life or person in the texts which have just been quoted.
Let life or person, be read instead of soul in them all,
let their contexts be attended to, and no man can think
an immortal soul is meant in any one of them. Or, let
immortal soul be read instead of life, where the word
is so rendered, and the absurdity of the supposition,
that this was the the writers' meaning, is at once mani-
fest. In passing, I have merely hinted at some of these
absurdities.
But, the question will probably be asked, why does
Mathew in this text, make a distinction between soul
and body, if soul does not mean an immaterial immor-
tal soul ? Attention to the following remarks, will place
this subject in its true light. It is admitted by all, that
in scripture style, a part is sometimes put for the whole,
and sometimes the whole is put for a part, of the thing
spoken about. Man, considered as a whole, is one in-
dividual person. But this person, is in scripture divi-
ded into three parts ; soma body, psuhe soul, or life ;
and pneivma spirit. It is with the two first of these
distinctions, we are principally concerned in the passage
THE WORD GEHENNA. 145
before us. Notice then, that the psuhe, or life, is oft-
en put for the whole man, or person. So is its corres-
ponding word nephish in the Old Testament. Take
the following texts as examples, where nephish is ren-
dered soul, and is used to express the whole man, or
the person himself Gen. xii. 13, xix,20. Exod. xii.
16. Levit. V. 2, xx. 11. Numb. xi. 6, xxxi. 28. Take
the following texts as a specimen, where psuhe is ren-
dered soul, and is used to express the whole man, or the
person himself Acts, xxvii. 37. 1 Peter, iii. 20. Rom.
xiii. 1. Acts. iii. 23. Psuhe, is also rendered life, and
is used to express the whole man, or person. See Math,
ii. 20. John x. 15, with other texts. Take now the
following texts, as a specimen, where the soma body,
and the psuhe, soul or life are both mentioned togeth-
er, and distinguished from each other. Luke xii. 23.
Math. vii. 25. Also Math. x. 28, the passage now be-
fore us. Such being the modes of speaking used in the
scriptures, it is plain, if a writer only mentions the
psuhe, soul or life, he designates the whole man or
person, by putting a part for the whole. The same
is the case, if he only mentions the soma body, or
pnewma spirit. But sometimes, the sacred writers,
designate the whole man or person, by enumerating all
the three parts into which man "is divided, body, soul,
and spirit. See 1 Thess. v. 23. But to come more
particularly to the passage in question. Sometimes the
sacred writers, designate the whole man or person, by
only enumerating two of the three parts, into which he
is divided. This is evidently the case with Mathew,
in the passage we are now considering. He says, God
"is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, (Gehen-
na)." Or, he can destroy the whole man or person.
That this is his meaning, is ol^vious from Chap. v. 29,
30, considered above, where he twice uses the ex-
pression, thy whole body, to express precisely the same
thing. No man we think will dispute this.
13
146 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
It is obvious from this examination/ that soul when
used alone, designates the whole man, or the person
himself. The body also when used alone, likewise de-
signates the person, or whole man. And when soul and
body are both mentioned, as in the passage in question,
it designates no more but the man or person himself.
Now, men who were able to kill the body, could not
kill the whole man or person, for this would be to blot
the man forever out of existence. God only was able
to do this. He gave man life, it returns to him at death ;
and he has promised to restore it again, when this cor-
ruptible puts on incorruption. But on this view of the
subject, there is no imraaterial, immortal soul, which
lives in a conscious state of happiness or misery, in a
disembodied condition. This doctrine has been the
fertile source of much error, and human misery. It
also, makes void the doctrine of the resurrection. In
confirmation of these remarks, it may be observed, that
though the words of the New Testament are Greek,
the idiom is Hebrew. Besides, it is thought, Mathew
wrote his Gospel originally in Hebrew, which accounts
for his using more of the Hebrew idiom, as noticed
above, than Luke does Chap. xii. 4, 5, where the same
discourse of our Lord is recorded. See on this passage
below. With the above remarks and illustrations in
view, we come to the principal question in discussion.
It is the following.
What did our Lord mean by Gehenna 1 Whatever
may be meant by " soul and body," or destroying them,
it is very plain this destruction of them is said to be
*' in hell or Gehenna.''^ This hell or Gehenna, Dr.
Campbell, Mr. Stuart, and others, take for granted is a
a jplace of endless punishment in a future state. We
shall here give a condensed view of our reasons, why
we think this a mistake.
1st, Such a view of the term Gehenna, is contrary to
its admitted original signification. It is a compound, gia
THE WORD GEHENNA. 147
a valley, and enm the name of its owner, Hinnom. The
valley of Hinnom. All admit this, as seen above.
2d, This sense given to Gehenna, is contrary to its
usage in the Old Testament. Dr. Campbell frankly
declares, it does not mean there, a place of endless
punishment.. No man will allege, it has such a sense in
the Old Testament.
3d, Such a sense attached to the term Gehenna, is at
variance with all the facts stated in the preceding sec-
tion. If Gehenna means a place of endless misery, they
ought all to agree with this sense of the word.
4th, This sense attached to the term Gehenna, is also
at variance, with a large number of facts to be stated in
the next section. If this was its true sense in the New
Testament, they also ought to harmonize with it.
5th, In no instance, where Gehenna is used in the
New Testament, is the writer speaking on the subject
of a future state. The contexts of the texts where it
occurs, give no countenance to such a sense attached to
this word. But if this was its true sense, the context
of some of them, w^ould point out that this was its
meaning. On the contrary.
6th, In the contexts of some of the passages where
Gehenna occurs, the writers show clearly, that by Ge-
henna punishment, they referred to the punishment of
God about to be inflicted on the Jewish nation. See
particularly Math, xxiii. 33, considered below. No text
or its context, are opposed to this sense of Gehenna,
but are rather in favor of it, as seen from our examina-
tion of all the passages.
7th, Those who say, Genenna in the New Testament,
means a place of endless punishment, entirely assume
this to be its true sense, without any authority from the
Old. Their authority, for such a sense is Rabbinical
writers ; authority, which is rejected on other subjects,
as of no value. Mr. Stuart, traces the origin of this
sense given to Gehenna, to a superstitious notion among
148 AN INq,UIRY INTO
the Jews, that demons dwelt in the valley of Hinnom.
He would smile at least, if I traced my sense of Gehen-
na to such an origin. He does not pretend, that the
sense he attaches to Gehenna, was of divine origin.
8th, Giving to Gehenna, the sense of a place of end-
less punishment in the New Testament, does not har-
monize, with the phraseology used in the places where
it occurs. Take for example the passage before us.
Who believes the whole body, or soul and body are cast
into, or are to be destroyed in a place of endless pun-
ishment? This is not done at death as facts show.
And to say it shall be done at the resurrection is a gra-
tuitous assertion, which is never asserted in the scrip-
tures. See also on the passages considered above, and
on Mark ix. 42 — 47 below.
Such are some of my reasons for thinking, Gehenna
does not signify a place of endless punishment. They
apply to all the texts, where this term is used in the
New Testament. We have introduced them here, be-
cause this is considered the strongest text, to designate
this place of misery. In view of those reasons, let us
look for a moment at this passage. " But rather fear
him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Ge-
henna." To say our Lord meant by Gehenna here, a
place of endless punishment, and call on others to be-
lieve it, is 1st, calling on them to believe not only with-
out evidence, but contrary to evidence. To believe
this, is not only implicit faith, but a man must shut
his eyes to evidence, before he can say he believes it.
2d, Those who believe, our Lord here taught that
Gehenna means a place of endless punishment, seem
to suppose, God cannot " destroy both soul and body,"
or di person, except in their hell. But, is not this a very
silly supposition ? Pray, what can prevent God from
doing this any where ? He certainly could do this in
Gehenna, the literal valley of Hinnom, as the word
signifies. And could he not do it also, by the punish-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 149
ment which he brought on the Jewish nation, described
by Jeremiah under the symbol of Gehenna ? But I ask,
3d, How was our Lord's disciples likely to understand
these words ? If God had previously spoken of a place
of endless punishment by the name Gehenna, we allow,
in this sense our Lord's disciples might understand them.
But even this would not be certain : for as the prophet
Jeremiah, had also spoken of a temporal punishment
coming on the Jewish nation under the symbol of Ge-
henna, it might be doubtful, if the words did not refer
to it. But, as God had never before spoken of Ge-
henna, as a place of endless punishment, or, our Lord
explained it m this sense to the disciples, how could they
possibly understand his words in the sense which is
commonly given to them? They could be at no
loss to understand his meaning, if Gehenna means the
punishment of God on the nation of the Jews. This
sense of the term Gehenna, they had learned from their
own scriptures. No other Gehenna punishment was
taught there. And no other sense, can be rationally
and scripturally given to our Lord's words.
4th, The phraseology of the passage, when correctly
understood, accords with the view I have given of Ge-
henna punishment. The phrase, *' both soul and body,"
is a mere Hebrew idiom, to express the whole man or
person, as we have shown above. Our Lord then
warns his disciples of their danger, in being killed or de-
stroyed, by the punishment to be inflicted on the Jew-
ish nation ; a punishment as we have seen, which Jere-
miah predicted under the imagery of Gehenna. He
does not say, " they could not escape this damnation of
Gehenna," like the unbelieving Jews, Math, xxiii. 33.
No. Here, and in other places, as we have seen, he
showed his solicitude, that they might escape this pun-
ishment. To rouse them to watchfulness and obedi-
ence, he exhorts them to fear him, who is able, or has
power, to bring such a punishment on them, as well as
13*
150 AN INQUIRY INTO
the whole nation of the Jews. To affirm, because it is
said. God '-is able to destrov both soul and body in
Gehenna.'' that he actually did it. is surely incorrect.
It is contrary to the fact, whatever sense we give to
Gehenna. If it means a place of endless misery, I
ask. did God destroy both the souls and bodies of Christ's
disciples there ? Surely not. If it means the terrible
punishment God brought on the Jewish nation, I ask,
did God destroy them with it ? No ; for we shall see
in the sequel, they did escape this punishment. It is a
very false conclusion, to say — because God is able to
do a thing, that it is actually done. It is said. Math,
iii. 9, •• God is ahh of the stones to raise up children
to Abraham.'' But according to this reasoning, he has
actually done this. No one however believes this true.
It was sufficient to alarm the fears of the disciples, to say,
God was able to inflict on them the same punishment as
on the unbelieving Jews.
5th, If our Lord's words, — " is able to destroy both
soul and body in Gehenna," desisniated their punish-
ment in a future world, his threatenings to his own disci-
ples, were far worse than his threatenings to the unbe-
lieving wicked Jews. On Math, xxiii. 33, below, the
only place where he threatened them with Gehenna
punishment, he only says to them — •' how can ye es-
cape the damnation of Gehenna.'' There, we shall
show from the context, he meant by Gehenna, the
punishment coming on the Jewish nation. But can
any man think, our Lord only threatened the unbeliev-
ing Jews with a severe temporal punishment, and threat-
ened his own disciples with endless torments in a future
state ? Who can believe, the disciples were nine times
solemnly warned about hell, Gehenna, in the world to
come, and the wicked Jews only once about hell, Ge-
henna, or temporal punishment in this world ? If Ge-
henna had the same sense, when our Lord spoke about
it to both J it is beyond all reasonable question, it merely
THE WORD GEHENNA. 151
refers to the punishment of God on the Jewish nation.
See on Math, xxiii. 33. below.
6th J If Gehenna refers to punishment in a future state,
the passage in question, rather teaches the doctrine of an-
nihilation than endless miser}'. If. to kill the body, is to
put it out of all pain and even conscious existence ; so,
to destroy soul and body, or the whole man, must be to
put them out of all pain and conscious existence. But
did Christ threaten his own disciples with annihilation ?
And, was God to cast them into Gehenna in another
world, to accomphsh this ; Excuse me from beheving,
he threatened them with either annihilation or endless
miser\-, until the evidence I have produced is destroyed.
and good evidence is adduced, to prove this is true.
We have said enough, and perhaps more than was
necessary on this passage. We have discussed it re-
peatedly. See my answer to Mr. Sabme, Leners to
Mr. Hudson, and, Reply to Professor Stuart. See also
on Luke xii. 4, 5, below.
Math, xviii. 9. *• And if thine eye offend thee, pluck
it out and cast it from thee : it is better for thee to enter
into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to
be cast into hell. (Gehenna) fire.'* Mr. Stuart consid-
ers this text, '• an instance of the same nature, as Math.
V. 29, 30, excepting, that the phrase here is Gehenna
tou puros, a fiery Gehenna : which one cannot doubt
has the same meaning as unqu^nchahJc fire, Mark ix.
43, 45. inasmuch as this very phrase is there used to
explain Gehenna : the same meaning also as rAe Jake
of fire. Rev. xx. 14, 15 : xxi. 8, which is -the second
deatli" Rev. xxi. 9.'' As to the Jake of fire, which is
the second death, meaning Mr. Smart's ^11. we think
a great mistake. But. it would be too great *di^ssion
from our present subject, to examine this here. As the
phrase Gehenna toupuros. a fiery Gehenna, is consid-
ered the same as unquenchubh fire, !Mark ix. 43 — io,
we refer the reader to our remarks on this passage be-
152 AN INQUIRY INTO
low. See on Math. v. 22, 29, 30, above, for an ex-
planation of some things in this verse. There, we have
seen what is meant by a hand or foot offending. Also,
the figurative use of the term fire has been noticed ;
•:and on the texts already considered, we have seen, that
Gehenna, and casting into Gehenna, does not refer to
punishment in a future state, but to the infliction of
punishment on the Jewish nation. On this text how-
ever with its context, we observe.
1st, Here, as in all the preceding texts, our Lord ad-
dressed his own disciples. It is also obvious from the
context, he was not speaking to them on the subject of
a future state. In no text where he speaks of Gehenna,
was this the subject of his discourse, which circum-
:>tance, together with his disciples being chiefly address-
ed about Gehenna, show, it did not refer to punishment
in a future world.
2d, The Greek phrase, *' Gehenna ton puros,^'
which Mr. Stuart renders, " a fiery Gehenna,^^ instead
of meaning, "the lake of fire," or heU'm another world,
he gives a better explanation of it in his essays p. 141.
He says, in Gehenna or the valley of Hinnom — " Per-
petual fires were kept up, in order to consume the ofial
which was deposited there. And as the same offal
"would breed worms, hence came the expression, ' where
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." The
allusion, is to the fire in the valley of Hinnom ; and this
only increases the strength of the figurative use of the
term^re, in describing the terrible judgments of God
on the nation of the Jews.
3d, In verse 8, it is said, '' wherefore, if thy hand or thy
foot offend t]?ee, cut them off and cast them from thee :
it is bettelf for thee to enter into life halt or maimed,
rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into
everlasting fire." It will be said, " is not everlasting
fire in verse 8, the same as the fiery Gehenna verse 9 ?
And to be cast into everlasting fire, the same as to be
THE WORD GEHENNA. 153
cast into this fiery Gehenna ? And is not this a strong
objection to your views of Gehenna?" We admit all
this ; and to strengthen the objection, will add the fol-
lowing. The Greek phrase, pur to aionion, here ren-
dergd everlasting fire, is the same in Math. xxv. 41, and
rendered by the same words. I also admit, both pas-
sages refer to the same punishment, and that what in
these texts, is called everlasting fire, is called everlast-
ing punishment verse 46. I have no occasion to dis-
pute this. I admit also, that the same punishment is
called, " the damnation of hell, or Gehenna," Math.
xxiiL 33 ; *' eternal damnation," Mark iii. 29; and is
also designated, by other terrific expressions too tedious
to detail. See my second Inquiry, on these and all the
texts in the Bible, where eternal, everlasting , etc. occur.
But so far from these admissions, being against my
views of Gehenn'a, they strongly confirm them, as I
shall now attempt to show. I observe then,
1st, That the phrases Gehenna fire, everlasting fire,
damnatio7i of hell, or Gehenna, and eternal damnationy
were used by Jews, and addressed to Jews, who were
familiar with the language of the Old Testament scrip-
tures. Certainly our Lord was a Jew, and his disciples
were Jews, whom in the passage before us, he addressed
^hout everlasting fire, and hell, or Gehenna fire: or
in plain words, everlasting punishment. No persons^
except Jews, were ever threatened with Gehenna fire>
either by Christ or his apostles. Nothing is ever said
to gentiles about Gehenna, as shown in another place.
As it is then contended, Gehenna fire in verse 9, and
everlasting fire in verse 8, express the same punish-
ment, let us consider,
2d, If an everlasting fire or punishment, was threat-
ened the Jews in their scriptures, and what that^re or
punishment was. Was it in another world ? When,
and how did this punishment come upon them ? These
questions will be noticed in what follows. Our fear is,
154 AN INQUIRY INTO
we cannot spare room, to say all we wish to say on this
subject, for it has an important bearing on the question
before us about Gehenna. The first passage I produce "
in proof, that an everlasting fire or punishment, was
threatened the Jews in their own scriptures, and^^was
not in a future state, is,
Isai. xxxiii. 14. " The sinners in Zion are afraid,
fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among
us shall dwell with devouring fire ? Who among us
shall dwell with everlasting burnings ?" This passage,
has been often quoted to prove, the endless duration of
future punishment. A great mistake, for 1st, It is
manifest the Jeivs, and the hypocritical wicked Jews,
are the persons designated in the passage. They are
termed sinners, sinners in Zion, and hypocrites, which
agrees with our Lord's words Math. 23, " woe unto you
scribes and pharisees, hypocrites." Notice, what is call-
ed— " sinners in Zion," in the first part of the verse, an-
swers, according to the Jewish parallelism, to '' hypo-
crites" in the second ; and their being " afraid" in the
first, answers to " fearfulness" seizing them in the second.
A doubt cannot be entertained, that the prophet speaks
particularly of Jews, and of them only. The question
is, did the prophet refer to the Jews in our Lord's day ?
The very language of the passage, seems to determine
that he did. This is confirmed by the context, for the
days of the gospel dispensation seem to be alluded to^
For example verse 18, seems to be quoted by the apos-
tle, 1 Cor. i, 20, The Roman people seems to be
spoken of verse 19, who were to come against the
Jews, and destroy their city and temple. And their
condition at that period, seems to be described v. 11,
12. The Messiah and his times are alluded to verses
6, 6. The condition of our Lord's disciples, seems to
be referred to verses 15 — 17. And from verse 20, to
the end of the chapter, the peace and prosperity of the
Christian Church, are described,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 155
2d, Let us now notice the punishment of the Jews,
described in this passage. It is not doubted, it speaks
of punishment ; for it is alleged, it teaches endless pun-
ishment. This is drawn, we presume, 1st, From the
words ^re and burnings, occuring in the passage. But
it has been shown in a preceding passage, that fire or
burning, is a common figure to describe temporal pun-
ishment. Nor are we aware, that fire is ever used as
a figure to designate punishment in another world.
The expression here, is " devouring fire, ^^ and the par-
allelism to it, is " everlasting burnings. ^^ After ex-
amining the usage of the phrase, " devouring fire," I
cannot find it is ever employed to designate punish-
ment in hell. But it is used to express temporal ca-
lamites. See two examples, in Isai. xxix. 6 ; xxx. 30.
2d, The word everlasting being here joined with
burnings. But who does not know, that the word ev-
erlasting in the scriptures, often expresses a limited
period of time ? Yea, who does not know, that it is
even applied to punishment, when it does not express
the endless duration of it. That it is so applied, to the
temporal punishment of the Jews in this very passage,
the above observations show. But if there should be
any doubt in the reader's mind about this passage, we
introduce another, about which there cannot be any
dispute. It is,
Jer. xxiii. 39, 40 — '' Therefore behold, I, even I,
will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the
city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out
of my presence. And I will bring an everlasting re-
proach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall
not be forgotten." On this passage, let it be noticed,
1st, the same Hebrew word oulm is here rendered ever-
lasting and perpetual. The passage says — " I will
bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and an everlast-
ing shame, which shall not be forgotton." It is well
known oulm is rendered perpetual, everlasting, eternal,
forever, and is often used to express a limited duration.
156 AN INQ,UIIIY INTO
2d, Let it be noticed, the Jews are the persons of
whom the prophet here speaks. He is speaking of
them as a nation ; and what the Lord should do to-
wards them at some future period. It is not a narra-
tive of what was already past, but a prediction of
events, which were then future.
3d, Notice further, the passage predicts a punish-
ment to the Jewish nation. God was utterly to forget
and forsake them, and the city he gave to them and
their fathers. He was also to cast them out of his pres-
ence, or out of Judea, where the Jews behoved God's
presence was, as could easily be shown. Moreover,
he was to bring on them an everlasting reproach, and
an everlasting shame, which should not be forgotten.
This punishment of the Jews, could not be their sev-
enty years captivity in Babylon. This does not answer
to the strong language of the passage. Besides, the
Babylonian captivity was just at hand, or, had already
commenced, as the chronology shows.
The prediction, is concerning a punishment which
was future, and of long duration. The language only
answers in its full force, to God's punishment on the
Jews at the destruction of their city and Temple, and
their dispersion among all nations ever since. God
seems utterly to have forsaken them, and the city he
gave them. He has cast them out of his presence, and
brought upon them an everlasting reproach, and an ev-
erlasting shame, which has lasted eighteen hundred
years, and is not yet forgotton.
4th, But does any man think, do the Jews think,
that the punishment here mentioned, is in another
world, or is of endless duration ? No ; not an individ-
ual, will assert either of these things. The context, all
the circumstances of the case show, the punishment is a
national one, and is of a temporal nature. And if any
one should ask, why this punishment of the Jews is
called perpetual, everlasting, the answer is easy. All
THE WORD GEHENNA. 157
know, oulm in the Hebrew, and aion and aionion in
Greek, are used to express a limited duration ; and ex-
press a longer or shorter duration as the subjects to
which they are applied require. See my second In-
quiry, and reply to Professor Stuart's essays, where this
subject is discussed. The present punishment of the
Jewish nation, may well be called everlasting. It is
the longest punishment they ever endured as a people.
It has lasted already eighteen hundred years, and is a
much longer everlasting, than some mentioned in the
Bible, as could easily be shown. Their seventy years
captivity in Babylon, nor no other punishment that I
have observed, is ever called everlasting, like the one
they are now suffering. But even their present pun-
ishment is to end, for the Lord is yet to have mercy on
Israel. They, as a people, are beloved for the fathers'
sake. It is then put out of all question, that the term
everlasting is applied to temporal punishment, punish-
ment which all admit is to end.
But let us suppose, the term everlasting was applied
to punishment in a future state, this would not conclu-
sively prove the punishment to be endless. Why ?
Because we find it applied to punishment in this world,
which does end. It might be so also with its applica-
tion to punishment in another world, for any thing I
can find in the Bible to the contrary. But after very
mature examination, I must say, I cannot find a single
instance where everlasting is even applied to punish-
ment in another world. It is chiefly, from overlooking
the scripture usage of the words, rendered everlasting,
etc. which leads people to conclude, that in the Bible,
punishment is taught in a future world, and that it is
endless in its duration. So far then from the phrase,
"everlasting fire," in verse 8, being any objection to
my views of Gehenna in verse 9, it strongly con-
firms them. Gehenna fire, and everlasting fire, in both
verses, plainly refer, to the punishment which came on
14
158 AN INQUIRY INTO
the Jewish nation at the close of the Mosaic dispensa-
tion, and which is not yet ended. I think prejudice it-
self will allow this.
Math, xxiii. 15, ^'Woe imto you scribes and phari-
sees, hypocrites ; for ye compass sea and land to make
one proselyte ; and when he is made, ye make him
two-fold more the child of hell, (Gehenna), than your-
selves." This is the first place in the New Testament,
where any thing is said about Gehenna to wicked men.
The scribes and pharisees were the persons addressed,
as the passage states. Dr. Campbell says, this is one
of the places where the term Gehenna is used figura-
tively. And Parkhurst remarks, that — " son of Gehen-
na, or hell, is one deserving of or liable to, hell." He
considers, and justly, the expression an Hebraism. See
Professor Stuart's letters to Dr. Millar, where this is
shown at length. The words, plainly imply, that our
Lord considered the persons addressed children of hell
or Gehenna. This, according to Parkhurst, means
" deserving of, or liable to hell, or Gehenna." Their
making their proselyte, two-fold more the child of hell
■than themselves, of course means, they made him two-
fold more deserving of or liable to hell, than themselves.
The question then is, what hell or Gehenna were both
deserving of, or liable to ? If it is said, eternal misery ;
the sense evidently is, the Pharisees made their proselyte
two-fold more deserving of or liable to eternal misery than
themselves. But to assume this as the sense of Gehenna,
is taking for granted the question in discussion. No proof
of this is offered, no evidence of it can be given. Mr. Stu-
art, after quoting this passage, simply adds the following
assertion. " i. e. he is doubly deserving of the punish-
ment of hell.. Surely the Savior does not mean to say,
that he will suffer double the punishment literally to be
inflicted on them, in the literal valley of Hinnom."
But this assertion determines nothing. I might return
it thus — " Surely the Savior does not mean to say, that
THE WORD GEHENNA. 159
lie will suffer double endless torments in Mr. Stuart's
hell."
The simple question to be decided is — what was
the sense our Lord attached to the word Gehenna 1 was
it a place of endless punishment in a future state ? Not
a word in the context favors such an opinion, for our
Lord was not discoursing on the subject of a future state,
but on the judgments of God coming on the nation of
the Jews, as we' shall see from verse 33, to be consider-
ed immediately. If our Lord, in verse 33, by Gehen-
na^ meant the temporal punishment of the Jewish na-
tion, no one will allege^ in verse 15, he meant by Ge-
henna endless punishment in the world to come. In-
deed, this sense, would be contrary to its meaning in
all the other passages, and no ingenuity could reconcile
it, with the facts we have adduced, and still have to
produce in the next section.
Math, xxiii. 33. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vi-
pers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Gehen-
na)." This is the only other text in the New Testament,
where any thing is said about Gehenna to wicked men ;
and the solitary text, where the phrase, " damnation of
helV^ occurs. A very singular /oc^, if it means, endless
misery in a future state. The only remark, which Mr.
Stuart makes on this text, is — " does the Savior mean
here to ask, how can ye escape being burned alive in the
valley of Hinnom ? Were they in danger of this ?"
We answer his question, very promptly and pleasantly,
no. No ; they were in no danger of this, for Mr. Stuart
has shown, burning alive in the valley of Hinnom, was
not a punishment inflicted in the days of our Lord, either
by Jews or Romans. To balance this account with Mr.
Stuart, I ask and in his own words — " does the Savior
mean here to ask, ' How can ye escape being burned
in hell the world of woe ? Were they in any danger of
this ?" Having balanced this short account, we may
now inquire, what our Lord meant to teach in this^pas-
sage ? Let us
160 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
1st, Examine the import of the word Jcriseos, here
rendered damnation. This word, means — -judgment or
punishment. Dr. Campbell and others render this w^ord
punishment. See his note in Math. xii. 40. It is so
rendered in some places in our common version. But,
as I have examined its scripture usage in my second in-
quiry, to it I refer the investigating reader for what I
have advanced on the subject. It would be useless to
discuss it here, as there is no dispute respecting the sense
of the word in the passage in question. The sense,
all admit is — "how can ye escape the punishment oi.
hell or Gehenna.^^ I may just notice, what must be
obvious to every one, that the word damnation, or pun-
ishment, determines nothing about xhejjlace, the nature,
or duration of the punishment alluded to. It expresses
punishment to the persons addressed, but all these things
must be determined from other sources of evidence,
than the word here rendered damnation. But the
word damnation in most people's eary, has a much more
terrific sound, than either the word judg7ne7it or punish-
ment. It carries their minds, into a future state for that
damnation, or punishment. Let us inquire,
2d, What sense did our Lord attach to the term Ge-
henna ? The correct understanding of the passage, de-
pends on assertaining this. If it means, as Mr. Stuart
and others assert, the place of eternal misery to all the
wicked, then, beyond all question, our Lord's meaning
is — how can ye escape the punishment of endless mis-
ery ? But this sense of the term must not be assumed ;
it must be established on scripture authority. How
then, it will be asked, shall we determine, in what sense
our Lord used the word Gehenna in this passage ? I
answer, there are three ways at least, in which this may
be determined, for no scripture question can be deter-
mined without them. These are — The original mean-
ing of the term Gehenna; its scripture usage; and the
context of the passages in question, Let us notice ,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 161
1st, The original meaning of the term Gehenna.
Did it originally mean hell, world of woe, the place of
torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked, in
a future state, as Mr. Stuart and Dr. Campbell both as-
sert ? No ; far from it, as their own testimony cited
above shows. I need only very briefly advert to it
here. What do they say, was the original meaning of
the term Gehenna ? Dr. Campbell says — " it is origi-
nally a compound ol the two Hebrew words ^e Miri'
nam, the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem of
which we hear first in the book of Joshua xv. 8. ect.
Mr. Stuart makes the same confession in his essays p.
140. On this point, there is not one dissenting voice
I have ever heard, except Dr. Allen's. Speaking of Ge-
henna and its punishment, he says in his lecture on my
first Inquiry, " indeed, the word seems to have been
formed, and is used in scripture, for the express and
sole purpose of denoting future punishment." Reader;
cast the mantle of your charity, over this statement,
made no doubt without consideration.
2d, The scriptural usage of the term Gehenna.
Does Gehenna occur in the Old Testament, where it
designates a place of future punishment for the wicked ?
No, says Dr. Campbell above ; '' In the Old Testament
we do not find this place in the same manner mention-
ed. Accordingly the word Gehenna does not occur in
the septuagint. It is not a Greek word and conse-
quently not found in the Grecian classics." This state-
ment we have examined section 1. We have also laid
before the reader all the Texts in the Old Testament
Avhere the word Gehenna is found. Not in a single in-
stance, has it the least allusion to a place of future pun-
ishment. We have seen, it is only used there in two
senses. First for the literal valley of- Hinnom. Sec-
ond, as a symbol, or source of imagery to describe the
temporal punishment God was to bring on the Jewish
nation. In this last sense, w^e have shown, it is used in
14*
162 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
the New Testament, in all the passages already consid-
ered. And those yet to be noticed we think strongly
confirm all we have advanced respecting the sense giv-
en to this term. The passage before us, deserves par-
ticular attention. It is considered one of the strongest
texts in proof, that Gehenna means a place of future
punishment for the wicked ; and yet, the context of
this very passage, shows, that the sense I have attached
to it, taken from Jeremiah, is the true one.
3d, The context of the passage in question. Does
the context teach, that our Lord used the word Gehen-
na, to designate a place of endless torment, reserved
for the punishment of the wicked in a future state?
Let us examine and see. That our Lord, speaks on
the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, in this and
the two following chapters, none we think will question.
But let us examine the more immediate context of the
passage ? It is manifest from verse 1 of the chapter,
that what is said in it was addressed to the multitude
and to the disciples. From verse 2 to 13, our Lord
spoke to his disciples concerning the scribes and Phar-
isees, and warned them against certain evils in those
wicked men. At verse 13, he begins a direct address
to the scribes and pharisees, and continues it to the
end of the chapter. Some of them were present, for
the discourse seems a very pointed address to them.
No man can read from verse 13, to verse 32, without
noticing, in what a plain and pointed manner our Lord
exposed their wickedness and hypocrisy, and how often
he said to them, " wo, or alas ! unto you scribes and
pharisees, hypocrites." But at verse 32, he says to
them — ''fill ye up then the measure of your fathers."
The words in question immediately follow — " ye ser-
pents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of hell, (Gehenna)." Two questions here,
are presented for consideration. — Hoiv ivere these men
to fill up the measure of their fathers ? And — what is
the damnation of hell, which they could not escape ?
THE WORD GEHENNA. 163
1st, Let us consider how these men were to fill up
the measure of their fathers ? If we consult the con-
text, it gives us the following answer to this question.
Verse 34, '' wherefore, behold, I send unto you proph-
ets ; and wise men, and scribes ; and some of them ye
shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge
in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to
city." That in this way, the scribes and pharisees
were to fill up the measure of their fathers, no man
will question. Their fathers had killed the prophets
sent to them, verses 30, 31. And they were a genera-
tion of vipers, proving themselves to be the children of
such fathers. The measure of their fathers they did
fill up, by crucifying the Lord of glory, and persecuting
his apostles and followers. See Acts 2d, where Peter
charges them with this crime. Comp. John xvi. 1 — 3
1 Thess. ii. 16.
2d, Let us now examine, what the damnation of
Gehenna was, which those men could not escape ? If
verse 34, answered the first question, verse 35, as cer-
tainly answers the second. It runs thus — " that upon
you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood
of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the Temple and the altar." When it is said here,
*^ that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth, all allow that punishment is meant.
This, punishment coming on them was near, for our
Lord added in the next words — " verily I say unto you,
all these things shall come upon this generation."
The context then clearly decides, that our Lord, by
the damnation of hell, referred to the punishment God
was to bring on the Jewish nation during that genera-
tion. Indeed, if ever the context of a passage can de-
cide, in what sense the writer uses a word or phrase, it
is decided in the case before us. But is there a vestige
of evidence in the context, which shows, that our Lord,
164 AN INQUIRY INTO
by the damnation of hell, meant a place of punishment
reserved for the wicked in a future state ? No, nothing
which bears the most distant resemblance to this. Let
any one attempt, to make out proof of this from the
context, and nothing is so likely to convince him, that
the interpretation I have given is correct. It was in
making such an attempt, I was led to this very view of
the words — damnation of hell. The only thing, which
leads people to conclude, that these words refer to pun-
ishment after death, is ihe false, and entirely gratuitous
sense affixed to the word hell or Gehenna. But all
candid men will allow, that if we affix what sense we
please to the words of the holy spirit, an end is put to
all correct interpretation of the scriptures. To recur
to the context, in ascertaining the sense of any word or
phrase used by a writer, is allowed by all, a first rule
in explaining his meaning.
But some things in the context, strongly confirm the
sense given to the words — damnation of hell. 1st, the
expression damnation of hell, or Gehenna, occurs in
this discourse of our Lord's about the destruction of Je-
rusalem, but in no other discourse he ever delivered.
Had he used it when preaching the gospel, when en-
forcing repentance on his hearers, or in speaking on the
subject of a future state, one might be led to suppose,
he did mean a place of punishment there. But, being
used in such a discourse as this, and in no other, seems
to put it out of all question, that I have rightly inter-
preted the words — '' dam7iation of hell ov Gehenna.'^
2d, The persons to whom the w^ords damnation of
hell were addressed, confirm my view of this passage,
They were Jews, as all must allow. To no other per-
son, is a word said about Gehenna, except them, in the
whole Bible. Jews, and they only were concerned in
the damnation of hell, for not a word, is said about Ge-
henna or its punishment, to any Gentile, whether a be«
lieveir in Christ or an unbeliever.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 165
3(1, No man will dispute, that verse 35, refers to the
punishment inflicted on the Jews at the destruction of
their city and Temple, and more fully enlarged on
Chap. 24th. Well, when our Lord said verse 36, "all
these things shall come upon this generation," was not
the damnation of hell, verse 33, and explained verse 35,
the very thing or things referred to. And as the case
of the Jews, was past all remedy, and could not escape
the judgments of God which were impending over them,
our Lord laments over their condition verses 37 — 39.
To the view I have given above, of the damnation of
Hell, I am aware it is objected 1st, Prophecies have a
double meaning ; and though our Lord by the damna-
tion of hell, referred to the temporal punishment coming
on the Jewish nation, in the same expression he might
include, the endless punishment of the wicked in anoth-
er world. Does not our Lord, Math. chap. 24th, blend
in one description, the end of the Jewish state and the
end of this material world ? To this objection several
answers might be given. 1st. If prophecies have a double
meaning, why not twenty, or a hundred meanings ? And
if it is said, our Lord might include, both the above
meanings in the phrase damnation of hell, let us
see the proof of this supposition, from the context or
some other quarter. What is it, which we may not sup-
pose, and say, is taught in the bible, if never called on
to establish our suppositions. But
2d, Giving prophecies, a double meaning, exposes
the scriptures to ridicule, and is abandoned by all rational
commentators. Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Chan-
ning, p. 126, gives up a double sense to Math. 24th.
Commenting on verse 36, he says — " of that day and
hour knoweth no man ; no not the Angels, which are
in heaven, neither the son but the father. The day and
hour, according to some, is the day of Judgment ; but
as I apprehend, (from comparing the context) the day
of vengeance to the Jews is meant," But, if he by
166 AN INQUIRY INTO
comparing the context, sets aside a double view of this
text, comparing the context, sets aside a double view
of the words damnation of Hell. It does more, it sets
aside the common idea, that these words mean a place of
endless misery to the wicked.
3d, Let it be noticed, the words — damnation of hell
are not a prophesy. No ; they are a very plain dec-
laration put in the form ot a question — " how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?" But had they occur-
ed in Math. 24th, and were a prophesy, we see from
the quotation just made from Mr. Stuart, that only one
sense could be attached to them, and the context must
decide, yea has decided their true sense. Their sense
is, " how can ye escape the impending vengeance com-
ing on you rnation." So long as an examination of the
context, and scripture usage of words, are deemed safe
rules in determining the sense of any scripture writer,
so long shall we feel confident, that our Lord by the
damnation of hell, did mean this, and had no reference
to endless misery in another world.
4th, But this double view of the words, damnation
of hell, does not deserve notice, for it is not only a mere
assumption, but is assumed in face of evidence to the
contrary. This evidence has been stated above. Here
I add, since people take the liberty, to give a double
sense to the words damnation of hell, why not use the
same liberty, and give a double meaning to every phrase
our Lord ever used? For example, with the same
breath he said — '' how can ye escape the damnation of
of hell," and ^' all these things shall come upon this
generation." But w^hy not give a double meaning to
the last words, and say, he meant also — all these things
shall come upon this generation in a future world. And,
all these things, shall come on the generation in which
we live in the present day. Why not this, as well as
that, the damnation of Gehenna shall come upon us ?
It was shewn at some length, Sect 1, that Jeremiah
THE WORD GEHENNA. 167
made Gehenna or the valley of hinnom, a source of im-
agery to describe the punisliment God would bring on
the Jews for their sins. Let the reader now take into
view, what was there said, in connexion with the pas-
sage before us, and notice the following things. Jere-
miah and our Lord, evidently addressed the same peo-
ple, the Jews. Both speak of a punishment, a dread-
ful punishment to this i>eople, and they speak of it,
using the term Gehennat to describe it. Both speak of
it as punishment in this world, without giving the least
hint, that it extended to a future state of existence.
Both confine this Gehenna punishment to the Jews,
without intimating it belonged to the Gentile nations,
or must be suffered by other wicked men. Jeremiah
foretold, some hundred years before, a punishment to
the Jews, to the fathers of the very men our Lord ad-
dressed. Our Lord points them to that prediction, and
solemnly warns them, " all these things shall come up-
on this generation." But there are two things, which
the reader ought distinctly to notice, in which Jeremi-
ah's prophesy agrees with what our Lord says respect-
ing Gehenna.
1st, The prediction of a punishment to the Jews,
under the emblem of Gehenna was a national one ; one
in which all classes of the nation were to be involved.
Such is exactly the punishment of which our Lord
speaks in the passage in question, as we have seen
from the context. This rationally accounts for the fact,
why our Lord said so much to his own disciples about
the punishment of Gehenna, and mentioned it only once
to the unbelieving Jews. They could not escape the
damnation of Gehenna, but his own disciples might;
hence he shews his solicitude, in warning them respec-
ting it, and instructing them how to escape the severity
of the vengeance which came on the unbelieving part
of the nation. On no other view of the term Gehenria,
can it it ever be rationally and scripturally accounted
168 AN INQUIRY INTO
for, why our Lord should say so much to the disciples,
and so little to the unbelieving Jews, respecting the
punishment of Gehenna.
2d, The time referred to by Jeremiah when his pre-
diction should be fulfilled, and the time referred to by
our Lord exactly agree. No year or date, is mention-
ed by either of them, but there is a fact or circumstance,
which answers the same purpose. Jeremiah, in his
prophecy quoted at length above, said chap. xix. 15,
'' thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Be-
hold I will bring upon this City, and upon all her
towns, all the evil that I have pronounced against it.^^
Notice now what our Lord says, Luke. xxi. 22, " For
these be the days of vengeance, that all things which
are written may he fulfilled.''^ Jeremiah could refer to
no other period of time, nor to any other punishment
of the Jews, except the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus. All the evil the Lord had pronounced against
it, did not come upon it, until this event took place.
I may just add — if by Gehenna punishment, our Lord
did not refer to the punishment predicted by Jeremiah,
in no other way did he remind the Jews, that such a
punishment was threatened them. All allow, our Lord
in Math. 23d and 24th chapters, and in other places,
spoke of punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Is
it then in the least probable, he should entirely over-
look so plain and pointed a prediction, as that in Jere-
miah. And if it is denied, that by the damnation of
Gehenna, he did refer to the punishment predicted by
Jeremiah ; that he meant endless misery in a future
world ; how happened he to tell the Jews about this,
in a discourse where he is certainly speaking of tempo-
ral punishment, yet never said a word about endless
punishment in Gehenna on any other occasion. If re-
ally, the damnation of Gehe7ina, means hell the world
of woe, why should he introduce it in such a discoUrce to
the unbelieving Jews ? why speak of it only once to
THE WORD GEHENNA. 169
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. Bftt 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 httle more into view in connec-
tion 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 Jere-
miah and the discourse of our Lord, Matth. chaps,
xxiii. and xxiv. speak of the same events? Com-
paring both with that part of Josephus' history of the
siege of Jerusalem, we see both minutely and afFecting-
ly fulfilled.
2d, It could not appear strange to the Jews, that our
Lord should speak to them of the damnation or pun-
ishment of Gehenna, for under this very emblem the
prophet Jeremiah had foretold great and dreadful ca-
lamities 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 expos-
ed, 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 ex-
planation, nor seemed surprised at our Lord's sayinsj, —
" 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
15
170 AN INQUIRY INTO
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 suf-
fer eternal misery. See Whitby's note on Rom. ii.
3d, Let us for a moment suppose, that any of the decla-
rations concerning Gehenna, in the New Testament,yiad
occurred in the above prediction of Jeremiah. For ex-
ample, 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 w^ords, had they been uttered by the prophet, or
how we would understand them ? It will, I presum.e, 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 fu-
ture 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 ex-
pression without any meaning. If the former is contend-
ed for, in what way was our Lord understood by his
THE WORD GEHENNA. 171
hearers ? Nothing is said in the Old Testament, inti-
mating that Gehenna was to have a different meaning
under the gospel dispensation. Nor, in the New Testa-
ment 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 cor-
rect 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 en-
couraged them in a sense put on Scripture words of
men's own invention. We have seen that Dr. Camp-
bell avers, that our Lord spoke to the Jews in the dia-
lect of their own Scriptures, and used words to w^hich
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 Tar-
gums,* how to understand the word Gehenna or hell,
but few people could ever understand the New Testa-
ment 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 Ge-
henna being the place of endless punishment, considered sect. v.
172 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
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 con-
text, 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 httle 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 tempo-
ral 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 wick-
ed. That this was its allowed sense, by critics and com-
mentators, 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
THE WORD GEHENNA. 173
context clearly decided this to be its meaning. But
a Universalist informs us from the Targums, that Gehen-
na, 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 con-
demneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth.
But what would be the decision in favor of eternal pun-
ishment, and against the Universalist, if upon examin-
ing 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 de-
cided ? 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 re-
maining 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 ad-
duced 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 con-
demned for refusing to believe that this is its meaning.
7th, Supposing that the term Gehenna, in this pas-
sage, was equivocal, as it certainly is not, still accord-
15*
174 AN 1NQ,UIRY INTO
ing to Dr. Campbell, my interpretation of the passage
is correct. In his third Dissertation, sect. xi. he says :
"Nothing can be more pertinent, or better founded,
then the remark of M. Le Clerc, that ''a word which
is equivocal by itself, is often so clearly limited to a
particular signification by the strain of the discourse,
as to leave no room for doubt." The strain of our
Lord's discourse in this chapter, fixes the sense of
Gehenna, to be what I have stated, so clearly and de-
cisively, that no room is left for doubt. But let us
hear Dr. Campbell further. In his ninth Disserta-
tion, part i. sect. 13. he says, — " When a word in a
sentence of Holy Writ is susceptible of two interpre-
tations, so that the sentence, whichsoever of the two
ways the word be interpreted, conveys a distinct
meaning suitable to the scope of the place ; and when
one of these interpretations expresses the common im-
port of the w^ord in Holy Writ, and the other assigns
it a meaning which it plainly has not in any other pas-
sage of Scripture, the rules of criticism manifestly re-
quire that we recur to the common acceptation of the
term." This is just what I have done with the term
Gehenna, in the passage before us. I have given it a
meaning, '^suitable to the scope of the place." The
sense I have given it, also '^expresses the common im-
port of the word in Holy writ," where it is used as an
emblem of punishment in the Old Testament. We shall
see that it agrees also with all the plac.es where it oc-
curs in the New. The interpretation commonly given
to Gehenna, " assign it a meaning, wdiich it plainly
has not in any other passage of Scripture." " The
rules of criticism manifestly require" then, the interpre-
tation which I have given this passage. The commonly
received sense of this word, is therefore contrary to
the rules of criticism, as declared by Dr. Campbell him-
self.
I am aware that I have dwelt longer on this passage
THE WORD GEHENNA. 175
than was absolutely necessary. This I have done for
several reasons. It is one of the principal texts, suppos-
ed to teach the doctrine of hell torments. — It is also
the only text, where a punishment of Gehenna or hell, is
threatened wicked men in the New Testament, wheth-
er Jew or Gentile. It is also a text, the context of which
decides clearly, what our Lord meant by the punishment
of Gehenna. It serves as a key to unlock the meaning
of other places, where the circumstances in the cotitext,
may not so clearly determine the sense of Gehenna.
If our Lord in this passage, did not mean by Gehenna a
place of endless misery, there is no probability that in
any other this was his meaning ; for here he spoke to
men, whom Josephus says, were the wickedest race of
men that ever lived on the face of the earth. Since
by the damnation of hell, he did not threaten them with
eternal punishment it is not to be supposed that in any
of the other texts he did this ; for what is said in them
is addressed to his disciples. It is not likely he used
Gehenna to express both a place of temporal and eter-
nal punishment ; and it is less likely that he should
threaten the unbelieving Jews with the former, and
his own disciples with the latter.
Mark. ix. 43 — 49. " And if thy hand offend thee,
cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed,
than having two hands to go into hell, (Gehenna), into
the fire that never shall be quenched ; where their
worm dieth npt, and the fire is not quenched. And if
thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to
enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into
hell (Gehenna) into the fire that never shall be quench-
ed ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it
out : it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of
God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into
hell (Gehenna), fire ; where their worm dieth not and
the fire is not quenched ! ! Concerning these verses.
176 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
Professor Stuart simply says — " The like cases with
Math. V. 29 ; xviii. 9, and where in both instances, to
pur to asbeston, unquenchable fire is added, in order
to explain the tremendous nature of the Gehenna in
question. " What then is the Gehenna in question ?
This being the most terrific, and full description of
Gehenna fire, given in the New Testament, we shall
give it a careful consideration. It ought to settle the
question, that Gehenna does not refer to a place of end-
less punishment in a future state. Let it then be ob-
served, several things are mentioned in this passage,
which have been noticed already. For example, we
have seen what is meant by cutting off a right hand, or
plucking out a right eye, and need not be here repeat-
ed. It has also been shown above, that the term fire,
is a common figure in scripture to express punishment,
and punishment in this world, inflicted on men for their
sins. The question in dispute is, does Gehenna fire,
in this and other texts, express punishment in a future
sjate ? We have also noticed above, the expression
*' to be cast into hell fire." In this passage, we have
the expression '' to go into hell" once, and, " to be
cast into hell" twice, which express the same thing.
Let us first notice the things which are contrasted in
this passage.
1st, To " enter into life," or, '' into the kingdom of
God," is contrasted with " going into, or, being cast in-
to hell or Gehenna." If it can be shown then, that to
enter into life, or into the kingdom of God, does not
mean to enter into heaven above, so to be cast into Ge-
henna, or to go into it, does not mean to go into, or be
cast into hell beneath. If kingdom of God, or hfe, re-
fers to the heavenly world, I am willing to admit, Ge-
henna refers to a world of ivoe. Congruity in the con-
trast demands this. But we are confident this never
can be proved.
2d, Entering into life, or into the kingdom of God,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 177
with the loss of a hand, a foot, or an eye, is contrasted
with going into, or being cast into Gehenna, without
the loss of any of these. But who ever speaks, of en-
tering into the heavenly state with the loss of their bodi-
ly members ? or, of sending sinners to hell witli their
members being mutilated ? Let it be admitted, our
Lord only meant, that his disciples, in order to enter
into life, or the kingdom of God, must part with things
as dear to them as a right hand or eye. — What then ?
This may suit the one side of the contrast, but it does
not suit the other ; for I ask, do those who go to hell,
carry with them there, things the other parted with,
ill order to get to heaven? as this will not be pretended,
something else than heaven and hell, must be meant by
kingdom of God and Gehenna in this passage. What
then is the true meaning of this language ?
1st, In this passage, we have the phrase, — '' to enter
into life," twice : and " to enter into the kingdom of
God" once. Dr. Campbell, in his fifth dissertation,
conclusively shows, that these two phrases, are used by
the writers of the New Testament to express the same
thing. This must be obvious enough, to any person
who reads the four gospels with attention. But to
enter into the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of
God, does not mean entering into heaven in a future
state as many suppose, but entering into the reign or king-
dom of the Messiah in this world. See the dissertation
just referred to. John, Jesus, and his disciples, preach-
ed this kingdom as coming, as at hand. Christ's reign
or kingdom, did not, properly speaking, commence, un-
til after his resurrection from the dead, when God ex-
alted him to his right hand — saying, '' sit thou on my
right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool." In-
deed, in one sense, his kingdom did not come until the
destruction of Jerusalem. Respecting this, Dr. Camp-
bell in his note, on Math. xix. 28, says — " we are accus-
tomed to apply the term regeneration solely to the con-
178 AN INQUIRY INTO
version of individuals ; whereas its relation here is to
the general state of things. As they were wont to de-
nominate the Creation Genesis, a remarkable restora-
tion or renovation of the face of things, was very suita-
bly termed palingenesia. The return of the Isralites to
their own land, after the Babylonish captivity, is so
named by Josephus, the Jewish historian. What was
said in verse 23. holds equally in regard to the promise
we have here. The principal completion will be at the
general resurrection, when there will be, in the most
important sense, a renovation or regeneration of heaven
and earth, when all things shall become new ; yet in a
subordinate sense, it may be said to have been accom-
plished, when God came to visit, in judgment, that guilty
land ; when the old dispensation was utterly abolish-
•ed, and succeeded by the Christian dispensation, into
which the Gentiles from every quarter, as well as Jews,
were called and admitted."
It is very evident, our Lord did not think his king-
dom had come during his lifetime. He said to his dis-
ciples Math, xviii. 3. " Verily I say unto you, except
ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." It may be
said — were not the disciples already in this kingdom ?
JVo ; for our Lord's words plainly imply, that they
were not ; nor could they afterwards enter it, except
they were converted. On this text Dr. Campbell says —
^^they must lay aside their ambition and worldly pur-
suits, before they be honored to be members, much
more the ministers, of that new establishment or king-
dom he was about to erect." See also Dr. Mack-
night who gives a similar view of it. It is evident,
from Luke xxii. 18, and other texts, that our Lord's
kingdom was not come just before his death. But the
very passage in question, fairly implies, that in some
sense, our Lord's disciples were not in his kingdom.
If they were, why is it said to them — " it is better for
THE WORD GEHENNA. 179
thee to enter halt into Hfe," and, '• it is better for thee
to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye." etc.
Those who wish to see further proof that the kingdom
of heaven, or kingdom of God, was not come when our
Lord spoke the passage in question, may consuh Luke
xxi. 31, 32. Mark ix. 1. Comp. Math. xvi. 28.
2d, We shall now examine, what our Lord meant
by Gehenna fire, the contrast to life, and 'kingdom of
God, in this passage. Gehenna fire, is here mentioned
three times. What then did our Lord mean by it ? our
Lord explains what he meant thus '' into the fire that
never shall be quenched ; where their worm dieth not,
nor the fire is not quenched." As Gehenna fire is
three times mentioned, so the explanation is three times
repeated. Mr. Stewart, p. 144, admits, that this is
our Lord's explanation of Gehenna fire. All then we
have got to do, is to ascertain correctly the true sense of
this explanation. It divides itself into two parts which
I shall now examine. Our Lord says,
1st, '• Into the fire that never shall he quenched.^"*
Do the scriptures then speak of '' a fire that never shall
be quenched," in a future state of existence? No.
This I am confident is no where to be found in the Bi-
ble. But I find an " unquenchable fire," or, " a fire that
never shall be quenched," often mentioned there. It
is said in Math. iii. 12, " whose fan is in his hand, and
he will thoroughly purge the floor, and gather his wheat
into the garner ; but he will burn the chaff with un-
quenchable fire." The same is repeated Luke iii. IT.
Fire, we have seen on a former passage, is a figure
for punishment. Jesus, was to separate the good from
the bad of the Jewish nation ; the former he should
gather into his garner the church, but the latter, he
should punish, or burn with unquenchable fire. This he
did at the end of the age. Their ^re, or punishment,
is not yet ended.
But, let us now see, fi-om whence the language is
180 AN, INQUIRY INTO
borrowed, " A fire that never shall be quenched," or,
an " unquenchable fire"! It is from the Old Testament.
The reader may consult the following places, where a
fire that shall not be quenched is mentioned. Amos v.
6. Isai. xxxiv. 10. and i. 31. Ezek. xx. 47, 48. But
I quote the following passages, which are directly to our
purpose 2. Kings xxii. 16, 17. " Thus saith the Lord
God, behold I will bring evil upon this place, and upon
the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book —
which the king of Judah hath read : because they have
forsaken me, and have burnt incense unto other Gods,
that they might provoke me to anger with all the works
of their hands ; therefore my wrath shall be kindled
against this place and shall not be quenched." The
same is repeated, 2. Chron. xxxiv. 24, 25. Again, it is
said, Jer. iv. 4. " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord,
and take away the foreskins of your heart ye men of
Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem ; lest my fury come
forth like fire and burn that none can quench it, because
of the evil of your doings." Again, Jer. vii. 20. " There-
fore thus saith the Lord God, behold, mine anger and
my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man,
and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and
upon the fruit of the ground ; and it shall burn, and
shall not be quenched." Again, Jer. xvii. 27. " But
if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath-
day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the
gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath-day ; then will I
kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour
the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched."
Once more, it is said, Jer. xxi. 12. " O house of
David, thus saith the Lord, execute judgment in the
morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand
of the oppressor, lest my fury go out like fire,
and burn that none can quench it." Such are the texts,
which speak of an ^^ unquenchable fire j'^ or, "a fire-
that never shall he quenched; and on which I shall make
THE WORD GEHENNA. 181
the following remarks, in connection with the passage
before us.
1st, God's wrath is said to be Icindlcd, and shall not be
quenched. So is his fury. It is said to " hum and shall
not be quenched. ^^ God's wrath and fury, are com-
pared iojire, for it is said — "lest my fury come forth
like fire, and burn that none can quench it." But
God has no such evil passions, as anger and fury ; nor
do these burn like literal fire. No^ the above passa-
ges sufficiently explain what is meant by his anger and
fury — namely, his judgments, or the punishments, he
inflicts on men " because of the evil of their doings."
Perhaps no figure could be more appropriate than fire
to describe this. And a Gehenna fire, is peculiarly
appropiate to describe God's judgments on the Jewish
nation, for no fire was so terrible to Jews as the fires
wiiich had existed in the valley of Hinnom, whether
we view them as used to consume the human sacrifices
made there, to burn persons alive, or to consume the
ofl'al of the city of Jerusalem. As the punishment God
inflicted on the Jewish nation, exceeded all the punish-
ments which had ever been or will be inflicted on men,
so no figurative use of the term fire could so well ap-
ply to it as the fire of Gehenna.
2d, Let it be specially noticed, all said in the above
passages about an unquenchable fire," or, '^ a fire that
never shall be quenched," was spoken concerning the
Jews as a nation. The punishment thus described un-
der the figure of fire, was to come on them for sins.
Some of these sins are particularly specified, one of
which is, they had — " burnt incense unto other Gods."
It is called an unquenchable fire, not on account of its
endless duration but its long continuance, as we shall
see afterwards. No such unquenchable fire was threat-
ened to the Gentiles. Jews, and the Jews as a nation,
are the persons threatened with this punishment, which
exactlv agrees to what is said about Gehenna. Jews,
16
182 AN INQUIRY INTO
and Jews only, are threatened with Gehenna punish-
ment in the New Testament.
3d, The anger, and wrath, and fury of the Lord, des-
cribed in the above passages, under the figure of a
'' fire that should not be quenched, " does not extend
to another world. Nothing like this is intimated. On
the contrary, it is particularly specified, in what God's
anger, wrath, and fury consisted, and where the Jews
were to suffer it. His anger and fury, was not to be
poured out in Hell, but " upon this place and upon the
inhabitants thereof,'' which was the land of Judea and
Jerusalem. His anger, was to '' he poured out upon man
and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and up^
on the fruit of the ground.'' It was to be " Mndled
in the gates of Jerusalem,, " and was to " devour the
palaces of Jerusalem," etc. If a single drop of God's
wrath was to be poured out on the Jews in Hell, or in a fu-
ture state, it is very strange the above passages say noth-
ing about it. And, that the expression, " an unquench-
able fire," does not mean endless in duration, is man-
ifest, for this is spoken concerning the trees of the field,
fruits of the ground, the gates and palaces of Jerusalem,
as well as the Jews themselves. The dispersed condi-
tion of the Jews, and the waste condition of Judea and
Jerusalem, afford a plain comment on the above passa-
ges.
2d, Our Lord still further explains what he meant
by Gehenna fire, thus : " where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched." But where is the fire
not fluenched ? The answer is — " where their worm
dietK not." Where then is this ? It is in Gehenna as
the connection shows. But is this Gehenna in a fu-
ture state ? Let us hear Mr. Parkhurst about this.
On the word Gehenna he says — "our Lord seems to
allude to the worms, which continually preyed on the
dead carcasses, that were cast out into the valley of
Hinnom, Gehennan. and to the perpetual fire kept up
THE WORD GEHENNA. 183
to consume them. Comp. Eccles. vii. 17, Judith xvi.
17. And see the learned Joseph Medes works fol. p.
31." Mr. Stuart says, in the valley of Hinnom, Ge-
henna— '- perpetual fires were kept up, in order to con-
sume the offal which was deposited there. And as the
same offal would breed worms, hence came the expres-
sion, ''where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched." Here then is the place, "where their
worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," stated
by Drs. Parkhurst and Stuart, both believers in endless
misery. It is not in hell, the world of woe, but in the
valley of Hinnom. Here there were worms ; here
there was a fire not quenched, by their own showing.
But are these things in hell, their world of woe ? It
was long believed, hell is a place of literal fire, but now
this is discarded by most intelhgent men. The idea,
of literal worms being in hell no one ever believed ;
hence the worm that never dies, is interpreted to mean
conscience, which is to torment the damned forever.
But this is a jnivate inierpretation, for conscience, is
not spoken of under the figure of a ivorm by any sa-
cred writer, either in this world or a future state of ex-
istence. There is nothing, in this passage or its con-
text, which intimates, that our Lord was speaking on
the subject of a future state, or that by Gehenna he
referred to a place of endless punishment.
By what means then, shall we decide with certainty,
what our Lord meant by the words, " where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ?" As
this is his own explanation, of what he meant by Ge-
henna, it must be decided, by the sense of the passage,
our Lord here quoted from the Old Testament. It is
the following,
Isai, Ixvi. 24. " And they shall go forth and look
upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed
against me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall
their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring
184 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
unto all flesh." Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Chan-
ning p. 69, makes the following r^ark, which well ap-
phes here. " It will be remembered that the passage in
question is a quotation from the Old Testament ; and
that to quote the language of the Old Testament, there-
fore, in order to explain it, is peculiarly appropriate and
necessary." Let us see, how peculiarly appropriate
this passage from the Old Testament is, in explaining
the words of our Lord before us.
1st, When Isaiah said — '*' for their worm shall not
die, neither shall their fire be quenched," did he mean
to describe hell, the ivorlcl of ivoe ? No man we think
will affirm this. But this must be affirmed, unless it is
alleged, our Lord altered the sense of this passage in
quoting it. Jesus gives no intimation, that these words
spoken by Isaiah had one sense, and when quoted by
him, another ; that Isaiah only referred to temporal pun-
ishment, but he to endless hell torments.
2d, When the Jews read the words in the prophet,
" for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be
quenched," if they did not understand them as describ-
ing hell, the world of vjoe, how could our Lord's disci-
ples understand them so, when he quoted them ? To
say, these words w^ien quoted by him, had such a sense
affixed to them, and were so understood by the disci-
ples, implicates both, in perverting the Old Testament
scriptures.
3d, What then is the meaning of the words in Isaiah,-
" for their w^orm shall not die, neither shall their fire be
quenched ?" Let it be noticed generally, the chapter
in w^iich this passage stands, relates to events, under the
gospel dispensation. The new heavens and new earth,
mentioned verse 22, all allow, refer to this period ; and
the extension of the gospel to the gentiles, is repeatedly
adverted to in the course of the chapter. With this in
view, let us now notice what is said in the passage. It
is said 1st, " and they shall go forth and look upon the
THE WORD GEHENNA. 185
carcasses of the men that have transgressed against
me.'" The first que^ion is, what men are referred to,
who transgressed against the Lord ? The context
shows, they were the unbeheving wicked Jews. The
next question is, what men are referred to, who should
*' go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men who
had transgressed against the Lord ?" The preceding
verses show, that he refers to the persons who ivorship
and obey the Lord. The third question is — to what
place shall the men who worship and obey the Lord,
*' go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men who
transgressed against the Lord ?" The passage itself,
answers, to the place wliere " their w^orm dieth not, and
the fire is not quenched." But are the carcasses of
men who have transgressed against the Lord in hell, the
world of woe ? And who goes forth there to look on
such carcasses ? Who ever heard of carcasses in hell?
And does any rational man think, persons go forth,
either from heaven or this world, to look on them there ?
The idea is as absurd, as it is contrary to common opin-
ion on the subject.
What then is meant ? I answer, let the reader
now recollect, what was shown from the Prophet Jere-
miah above. The Lord w^as to make the city of Jeru-
salem as Tophet, and notice, he was to make the carcas-
ses of the wicked Jews meat for the beasts of the earth,
and they should bury, in Tophet until there should be
no place to bury. Above, Josephus the Jewish historian
relates, that six hundred thousand of their carcasses were
carried out of the city and left unburied. The disciples
of our Lord, or those who worshipped and obeyed
him, could not go forth into the very streets of Jerusa-
lem, without looking on the carcasses of those men,
for the streets were filled with their carcasses. And
when the disciples left the city according to our Lord's
directions, Math. 24. they must have looked on tlie
carcasses of the men who had transgressed against the
16*
186 AN INQUIRY INTO ,
Lord, if six hundred thousand of them lay unburied.
They could not help looking at tHem, unless they were
blindfolded.
But the passage adds — '' and tJieij shallbe an ahhorring
unto all flesh. ^^ This is said of the men who had
transgressed against the Lord, mentioned in the former
part of the passage. The Jew^s had greatly transgressed
against the Lord ; and filled up the cup of their iniquity ;
in crucifying the Lord of glory, and persecuting his
disciples. They pleased not God, and were contrary
to all men. The former part of the passage fully
applies to them. Let us see how this last part applies ;
and they shall be an abhorring unto " all flesh. ^"^ Who-
ever will take the trouble, to examine the phrase, " all
flesh, ''^ easily found from a concordance, will see, it is
used to designate the Gentile nations. In the unbe-
lieving Jewish nation, w4io survived the destruction of
their city and Temple by Titus, and in their posterity,
this part of the passage has been Uterally fulfilled.
From that day to this, the Jews have been an abhorring
to all the gentile nations. They have been a by-word
and a reproach, among all the nations of the earth.
The Roman empire, at the time Jerusalem w^as de-
stroyed, was considered, the luhole world, and is so
denominated in scripture. Titus' army which besieged
it, was made up of men from the various nations which
composed this empire. The carcasses of the Jews, who
had transgressed against the Lord, w^as an abhorring
sight to Titus' army as Josephus testifies. On this view
of the words, they v/ere literally and awfully fulfilled.
Let us now return to the passage in question. It is
evident, our Lord quoted from Isaiah the w^ords, and
three times repeats them — " w4iere their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched." If we ask — whose
worm shalt not die? whose fire is not quenched?
The answ^er to these questions must be drawn from
verse 42. The persons who offended those who be-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 187
lieved in Jesus, is the antecedent to the word tJieir.
Now, all allow the unbelieving Jews were, not only
the greatest opposers of Jesus, but hated and persecut-
ed such a sbelieved on hhn. This exactly answers to
the persons, Isaiah referred to in the words which our
Lord quotes, and three times repeats. They were the
men who transgressed against the Lord, or the unbeliev-
ing wicked Jews. Is it objected — " have you not said,
our Lord in this passage was addressing his own disci-
ples ? We answer yes, but it is obvious enough, he does
not refer to his own disciples by the word their, when he
says, " where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched." On the contrary, he is warning them against
a punishment, others were to suffer which he describes
by " Gehenna fire, the fire that never shall he quenched;
where their ivorm dieth not, and the fire is not quench-
ed,^'- our Lord told his disciples, it was better, or pro-
fitable for them, to enter into life, into the Jcingdom of
■God, maimed in their bodily members than having all
these to go or be cast into Gehenna or hell fire. And
what he meant by this, we have seen from the above
examination of the language of the passage.
Luke xii. 4, 5. " And I say unto you my friends,
be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that
hare no more that they can do ; But I will forewarn
you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath
Idlled, hath power to cast into hell, (Gehenna)." Here
our Lord was also addressing his own disciples. It is,
says Mr. Stuart — '^ a passage parallel with Math. x.
28 above, and of the same import." To my remarks
there I then refer the reader. Some light may be shed
on both passages, by comparing Matthew and Luke's ac-
count, of our Lord's discourse. Matthew says — " and
fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul." Luke's statement of the same thing, is — "be
not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have
no more that they can do." The words of Luke —
188 AN INQUIRY INTO
" after that have no more that they can do," expres-
ses, what Matthew meant by the words, " but are not
able to kill the soul."
2d, Matthew says — " But rather fear him, which is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna)."
To express the same thing, Luke says — " fear him,
which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell,
(Gehenna)." We notice the following agreement and
difference, between Matthew and Luke in expressing
the same thing. 1st, Both mention Gehenna, and no
one can doubt, both mean the same thing by it. 2d,
What Matthew expresses by the words — " destroy in
Gehenna,^^ Luke expresses by the words — " cast into
Gehenna." But Matthew used the same language,
" cast into Gehenna^' twice. Chap. v. 29, 30. and in
Chap, xviii. 9, once. To be destroyed, or to be cast
into Gehenna then, mean the same thing with the same
writer, and with both writers. But 3d, Matthew says
" both soul and body," God is able to destroy in Ge-
henna. But Luke mentions neither soul or body. The
words — " After he hath killed," used by Luke, or " af-
ter he hath killed, hath power to cast into Gehen-
na," answer to the words of Matthew. They suggest
the question — after he hath killed what ? If we sup-
ply the answer to this question from Matthew's account,
it will be, after he hath killed or destroyed both soul
and body, he hath power to cast into Gehenna. 4th,
Matthew says God is able to do all this. Luke says,
God has power to do It, which Is the same thing. But
it is rather a hasty conclusion, to say, because he Is
able, or hath power to do all this, It was done, as no-
ticed on Math. x. 28. above. From this comparison of
Matthew and Luke's language, I would remark,
1st, Luke does not use the distinction made by Mat-
thew between souJ and body. He only mentions the
body, in the first part of his statement, when he speaks
of men killing it. In the last, when he speaks of God's
THE WORD GEHENNA. 189
killing, he does not mention soul or body. If he thought
man had an immortal soul, and if by soul Matthew
meant this, it was a great omission in Luke not to men-
tion it, if God was to destroy, or kill the immortal soul
as well as the body in Gehenna. But
2d, Luke's not using the distinction between soul and
body, confirms what was noticed on Math. x. 28, that
this distinction between soul and body, is a mere He-
brew idiom. , It simply means, as noticed already, the
whole body, or the person. That soul is used for the
person himself we have seen above. But, that it is
ever used to designate an immortal soul, in distinction
from the body, and which is to be happy or miserable
in a disembodied state, I am unable to find in scripture.
This doctrine is assumed from this text, and Math. x.
28, but give no countenance to the opinion. Do these
texts say the soul is immortal ? No. Do they say the
soul or body are alive in happiness or misery after be-
ing killed or destroyed in Gehenna ? No. Not the
slightest intimation of this.
3d, Both Matthew and Luke say, our Lord enjoined
on his disciples not to fear men. Why ? Because they
could only put them to death. This they did, and was
all they could do. See Acts xii. 1 — ^3. The Apostles
were above the fear of man, in fufilling their mission, as
the whole book of the Acts shows. *
4th, Both Matthew and Luke say, our Lord enjoin-
ed on his disciples to fear God. This is often enjoined
on Christians in scripture. Why on this occasion, did
Jesus enjoin the fear of God on his disciples? Because
though man could kill the body, none but God could
bring upon them, that tremendous punishment predict-
ed by Jeremiah under the emblem of Gehenna. This
punishment was a much severer punishment, than that
inflicted by men, who died without mercy under the law
of Moses. The like had never been before, nor should
its like ever be again. In this our Lord's disciples might
190 AN INQUIRY INTO
be involved, for nothing but fidelity to him and obedi-
ence to his instructions, could save them from it.
5th, Is it objected — " to destroy both soul and body
in Gehenna, seems to intimate something more than
this." But if itjdoes, it intimates annihilation, or the
total destruction of the whole man. But surely no one
thinks, by destroying both soul and body in Gehenna,
more can be meant, than — " the damnation of hell Ge-
henna ".Math, xxiii. 33, which was threatened the un-
believing Jews. Did this mean annihilation ; No. Did
it mean endless punishment in a future state ? No, for
we have shewn from the context, it evidently meant the
temporal punishment coming on the Jewish nation.
Who can suppose, our Lord threatened his own disci-
ples, with a worse punishment than the unbelieving
Jews ?
James iii. 6, " and the tongue is a fire, a world of in-
iquity : so is the tongue among our members, that it de-
iileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of
nature ; and it is set on fire of hell (Gehenna)." Dr.
Campbell thinks, the term Gehenna is here used figu-
ratively. He observes, it is — " the intention of the
writer, to draw an illustration of the subject from that
state of perfect wretchedness." But why forget, that
before any illustration could be drawn from Gehenna^
as a place of endless misery, by a Jew or any one else,
it must first be known as a place of perfect wretch-
edness. But by Dr. Campbell's own showing, no Jew
could learn this from the old Testament. The term
Gehenna is not used in the old Testament to designate
a place of endless punishment. Nor are the words she^
ol or hades used in this sense, as we have seen above.
James, could not draw an illustration of any subject
then, from such a place of future punishment, nor ought
this to be asserted, until it is proved he knew of such
a place, as a place of wTetchedness.
James was a Jew, and wrote to believing Jews.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 191
Now, no place to a Jew, conveyed an idea of more per-
fect wretchedness than the valley of Hinnom. Profes-
sor Stuart says — " we cannot wonder, then, at the se-
vere terms in which the worship of Moloch is every
where denounced in the scriptures. Nor can we won-
der that the place itself should have been called Toph-
et, i. e. abomination, detestation (^fromtup to vomit with
loathing. y^ Such a place of perfect wretchedness was
Gehenna, that he and others ailedge, it was made a
source of imagery to designate hell or the world of woe.
Hence he says — '' what could be a more appropriate
term than this, when we consider the horrid cruelties
and diabolical rites which had been there performed."
Which then is most likely the truth ? that James drew
an illustration from hell in another world, a place un-
known, or, from the valley of .Hinnom, a place well
known as a place of perfect wretchedness. He is here
speaking of evils arising from an improper use of the
tongue ; and to draw an illustration from the valley of
Hinnom, was both natural and proper, as it was the
most abominable place known to Jews. Surely, it is as
difficult to conceive, how the tongue could be set on
fire from hell in another world, as from the valley of
Hinnom in the present world.
We have now considered all the texts in the New
Testament, which speak of Gehenna punishment. We
have two or three additional remarks to make, on the
whole of them. 1st, If these texts, do not refer to the
same punishment, predicted by Jeremiah to the Jewish
nation, then our Lord never reminded the Jews, that
such a punishment had been threatened them. If he
spoke of this punishment at all to them, he must speak
of it under the imagery of Gehenna, for under this im-
agery it was described by the Prophet. It will not be
pretended, that this punishment had been inflicted on
the Jewish nation, previous to the days of our Lord.
Fidelity to the unbelieving Jews, and love to his own
192 AN INQUIRY INTO
disciples, required he should frequently speak of it, for
this punishment was nigh even at the door. The texts
which speak of Gehenna punishment, agree to this
view of the subject. Their contexts, the persons ad-
dressed about Gehenna, and the phraseology used, are
all in unison with it. But, it requires the prejudice of
education, that Gehenna means hell, the world of woe,
and a great stretch of construction to make them apply
to this view of Gehenna.
2d, It is asserted, Gehenna was such an abominable
place, that in process of time, it was made an emblem
of the endless punishment of the wicked in a future state.
But if it was so abominable, as to be made an emblem
of this, it ought to have been made so in the days of
the Old Testament writers ; for it was then the most
cruel sacrifices were made in the valley of Hinnom, and
the most horrid abominations were committed. After
the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were cured of idol-
atry. But during the days of the prophets, no one ever
thought, of making Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, an
emblem of hell, the world of woe. And yet, during this
period, the prophet Jeremiah, did make Gehenna an
emblem of temporal punishment to the Jewish nation.
If Gehenna, in the days of its greatest abomination,
was not made an emblem of the w^orld of woe by inspir-
ed writers, but of temporal punishment to the Jews,
why should it be made an emblem of this, when it was
far less abominable, and that too by uninspired writers ?
If God did not see fit, to make it an emblem of hell, the
world of woe, when at its height of abomination, who
had a right on their own authority, to make it so after-
wards ?
3d, But it must first be proved, that God in the Old
Testament had revealed such a hell, such a world of
woe, before we ought to believe, Gehenna was made
an emblem of it. I demand then that the texts be pro-
duced, which teaches such a world of woe. Where is
THE WORD GEHENNA. 193
such a world described by the name Gehenna, or by
any other name ? 1 cannot find it. Mr. Stuart tried to
find it under the name Sheol, but his attempt to estab-
lish this, was a total foilure. I appeal then to every
candid man, how could any Old Testament writer,
make Gehenna an emblem of a world of woe, when no
such world was known to him ?
4th, The Jews in after ages, derived their notions
of punishment in a world of woe from the heathen, and
to this the term Gehenna was applied. But both the
place, and the sense given to Gehenna, are of human
invention. They are alike unknown in the Old Testa-
ment writings. Nor are they to be found in the New,
when it is correctly understood. Let the reader judge,
if the passages which speak of Gehenna, teach any such
doctrine, for they have all been laid before him.
Such are all the texts in which the word Gehenna
is used by the New Testament wTiters, and such are
the remarks which have occurred to me in my exam-
ination of them. According to every just rule of Scrip-
ture interpretation I am acquainted with, 1 do not see
how I could have interpreted them differently. Indeed,
to me it is surprising, how the doctrine of eternal mis-
ery was ever founded on any of the texts which speak
of Gehenna or hell. If I am correct, it also affords a
striking example, how far we may be misled, in a prop-
er understanding of the Scriptures, by attaching to a
single word a sense different from that given it by the
inspired writers. How far I am correct, my readers
must judge for themselves. I hope they will, on the
one hand, guard against receiving my error if it be one,
and on the other, beware of rejecting my view, if true,
from prejudices of education. Under the influence
of these prejudices, I began to examine this subject,
and have been obliged to relinquish my former views of
Gehenna, from the force of the evidence I have already
stated, and which I have yet to adduce on this subject.
17
194 AN INQUIRY INTO
If my views of Gehenna are found correct, it is also a
striking proof, how far we may be misled, in a proper
understanding of the New Testament, from our inat-
tention to the Old. If the word Gehenna in the New,
is used in a similar sense as in the Old Testament, all
the false views we have had of the texts in which it
occurs in the formet, have arisen from our inattention
to its usage in the latter.
Before closing this section, it is proper to notice any
objections which have occurred against the sense given
to Gehenna, in the passages we have been considering.
1st, One of the most popular objections likely to be
urged, is, that the sense I have given to Gehenna is
very contrary to the long established ecclesiastical use
of this w^ord. This is frankly admitted ; but certainly
this is no certain evidence that my views are incorrect.
In the present case, I have done no more than what is
done by Presbyterians, Hopkinsians, Congregationalists,
Baptists, Methodists, yea, by all sects in religion. That
the ecclesiastical use of some words is very different from
the Scripture usage of them, few will deny. That they
are different, and also how little we ought to regard the
ecclesiastical use of words when contrary to Scripture
usage of them, we here quote the authority of Dr.
Campbell. He says, p. 416. of his disertations, — ^'ec-
clesiastical use is no security that the word, though
it be understood, conveys to us the same idea which the
original term did to those to whom the gospels were
first promulgated. In a former dissertation, the fullest
evidence has been given, that in regard to several
words, the meaning which has been long established by
ecclesiastic use, is very different from that which they
have in the writings of the New Testament."
It is easily seen from this quotation, and more fully
from the other dissertation to which he refers, that he did
not scruple to disclaim the ecclesiastical use of words,
if that use did not agree with New Testament usage.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 195
We have examined the Scripture usage of the words
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, and if ecclesiasti-
cal usage considers any of these words to mean a place
of endless misery, we must say that it is not supported
by the Bible. But of this our readers must judge. If it
can be proved, that we have erred in the sense we have
given to Gehenna or those other words, we shall be glad
to see the error exposed.
2d, Another objection closely connected with the
former, is, that my views of Gehenna are contrary to
the opinions of almost all the learned in the present
day ; in ages past of the Christian Church ; and to its
sense in the Apocrypha and Jewish Targums. This may
be true , yet^my view of Gehenna be the correct and Scrip-
tural one notwithstanding. Dr. Campbell, says, p. 91. of
his dissertations, — ''the opinion of Grotius and some
learned Rabbis, unsupported by either argument or ex-
ample, nay, in manifest contradiction to both, is here
of no weight. Scriptural usage alone must decide the
question. These commentators (with all deference to
their erudition and abilities be it spoken) being compar-
atively modern, cannot be considered as ultimate judges
in a question depending entirely on an ancient use,
whereof all the evidences that were remaining in their
time, remain still, and are as open to our examination,
as they were to theirs. In other points where there
may happen to be in Scripture an allusion to customs
or ceremonies retained by the Jews, but unknown to
us, the case is different. But nothing of this kind is
pretended here." We have attempted to decide the
question, what is the meaning of the term Gehenna, by
an appeal to the Scripture usage of this word, and we
must say it is our present opinion, that it is not once
used either in the Old or New Testament, to express a
place of endless misery for the wicked.
We conclude this section with two brief quotations
from Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Mr. (now Dr.) Chan
196 AN INQUIRY INTO
ning, which we wish were engraven on every man's
heart, never to be effaced. In page 14. he says, — '' the
claims of the Bible to be authoritative being once ad-
mitted, the simple question in respect to it, is, what does
it teach in regard to any particular passage ; what idea
did the original writer mean to convey ? When this
is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpreta-
tion, it is authoritative. This is orthodoxy in the high-
est and best sense of the word; and every thing which
is opposed to it, which modifies it, which fritters its mea-
ning away, is heterodoxy , is heresy ; to whatever name
or party it is attached." He adds, p. 109 — " after all,
it is a principle, by which, if I have any knowledge of
my own heart, I desire forever to be guided, to 'call no
man master, on earth.' I would place the decision of
Scripture, fairly made out, immeasurably above all
human opinions. I regard the one as the decision of
an unerring God ; the other as the opinions of fallible
men."
SECTION IV.
ADDITIONAL FACTS STATED, PROVING, THAT GEHENNA
WAS NOT USED BY THE SACRED WRITERS TO EX-
PRESS A PLACE OF ENDLESS MISERY.
The facts which have been stated in section 2d, are
certainly very singular, if it be true, that Gehenna in
\he New Testament signifies a place of endless misery
for the wicked. Those I am now to adduce, are to me
also strange, upon such a view of this subject. Some
of them have been slightly hinted at in the course of
our remarks, but deserve a more distinct statement.
1st, If Gehenna means a place of endless misery for
THE WORD GEHENNA. 197
the wicked, it is a fact that the apostles never preached
it, either to Jews or Gentiles. The history of the
Acts of the Apostles, contains an account of their
preaching for thirty years, but not once, is the subject
of Gehenna torments, mentioned by them. They were
commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature,
and they did so, but to no creature under heaven, did
they ever preach this doctrine. No living being did
they ever threaten with such a punishment. They
addressed the worst of characters, but to none of them
did they say " how can ye escape the damnation of Ge-
henna, hell ?" They did threaten men sometimes with
punishment, but never with eternal punishment in hell.
Saul said to Elymas, the sorcerer — " O ! full of all
subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou
enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to per-
vert the right ways of the Lord ?" But does he
threaten this man with the damnation of hell ? No ;
he says, " and now behold, the hand of the Lord is
upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun
for a season." Acts xiii. 10, 11. In the same chap-
ter, verses 40, 41. he says, "beware, therefore, lest
that come upon you which is spoken of in the proph-
ets. Behold ye despisers, and wonder and perish."
In this last text the word perish occurs, and perhaps
some may think that eternal punishment is included in
it. But it should be observed, that Paul was here ad-
dressing himself to Jews, and concerning them our
Lord had said — '^ except ye repent, ye shall all like-
wise perish," referring to the temporal destruction
which was coming on the Jewish nation. I then
ask, how this fact is to be rationally accounted for, if"
the apostles believed hell to be a place of endless mis-
ery ? Can any man suppose they believed this, yet in
the course of thirty years' preaching, never mentioned
it to their hearers ? What w^ould we say of a man in
these days, who should preach thirty years, vet never
17*
198 , AN INQUIRY INTO
say a word about hell to those whom he addressed ?
Would we not say he was a Unlversalist ? He would
be an outlaw from orthodoxy. If my veracity in this
statement is doubted by any persons, let them read the
book of the Acts of the apostles. In the whole of it,
whether they preached to Jews or Gentiles, you will
find they are all alike silent on the subject of hell tor-
ments. If they believed such a doctrine, let others
account for it, why they never preached it. If preach-
ers now took the apostles as their models, we should
hear no more about hell from them. We would then,
respectfully ask, from what source did preachers learn
that they should preach Gehenna or hell torments to
us Gentiles ? To what chapter or verse, in any book
of the New Testament, can they refer us, where an in-
spired apostle ever did so ? Let every one who preach-
es this doctrine, consider, if he did not learn it from his
catechism, when a child ; from books he has read ;
and from the preaching he has heard since he became
a man, and not from his Bible ? Let him also consider
before he condemns my view, whether he has ever given
this subject a thorough and impartial examination.
We are all too prone to receive things in religion on
such kind of authority, and too ready to condemn opin-
ions contrary to our own, before we have duly consid-
ered the evidence brought in support of them.
To the above it may be objected — '' Gehenna was a
Jewish figurative mode of speaking of future eternal
punishment, and had it been used by the apostles in
preaching to the Gentiles, they could not have been
understood ; for the Gentiles knew nothing about Ge-
henna, as a place of future punishment." To this I
reply.
1st, This objection would have some force, if it was
found, that the apostles ever said to the wicked Gen-
tiles, " how can ye escape the damnation of Hades, or
Tartarus." Had they spoke thus, we might suppose, that
THE WORD GEHENNA. 199
this was the reason they avoided the use of the term
Gehenna. But do we find this to be the true state of the
case ? We certainly do not. No such conclusion then
can be drawn, that the apostles said nothing to the Gen-
tiles concerning Gehenna, because it was a Jewish fig-
ure which they could not understand. But,
2d, Admitting the term Gehenna, was a mode of
speaking of eternal misery the Gentiles did not under-
stand, they could have explained it to them, as they
have done other things of seemingly less importance.
Let any one read John's gospel, and he will see that
he explains Jewish names, and customs ; some exam-
ples of which we have given in another place. But,
3d, The above objection takes it for granted, that
the Gentiles were unacquainted with the term Gehenna.
But is there not as good reason to think, that the hea-
then in their intercourse with the Jews, should imbibe
their notions of Gehenna, as that the Jews should im-
bide the heathen notions concerning Hades or Tartarus.
Their mutual intercourse would produce a mutual in-
terchange of opinions. This being the case, if the
spirit of God recognized either the Jewish notions of
Gehenna, or the Pagan notions of Hades, as truth, we
might expect that the apostles would have preached
the doctrine to both Jews and Gentiles. Had both
been recognized, we might expect Hades and Gehenna
to be used indiscriminately by the apostles, in speaking
of future eternal misery. But this was not done, if we
may judge of their preaching from what is contained in
the New Testament. If they believed both to be true
they would have spoken at least of Gehenna to Jews,
and of Hades to Gentiles, as a place of eternal punish-
ment in a future state.
4th, But this objection takes it for granted, the Jews
in our Lord's day, did use the term Gehenna to signify
a place of endless misery, and that this was its exclusive
sense. That this could not be its exclusive sense
200 AN INQUIRY INTO
we have proved ; for in reading the Old Testament
Scriptures, they could not understand it so ; or, if they
did, they must have perverted them to an extent I am
unwilling to believe, even of the Jews. The objector
must then prove, that the Jews in our Lord's day, did
use the term Gehenna, exclusively to express a place
of endless misery. The apostles did preach to the
Jews as well as the Gentiles, but they did not even
name it to them. Will any man affirm, then, that the
apostles of our Lord understood him to mean, by Ge-
henna a place of endless misery, and yet never preached
it, to either Jews or Gentiles, in the whole course of
their ministry ? Whatever excuse we may make for
them, in regard to the Gentiles not understanding the
term Gehenna, none can be made for them on this
ground respecting the Jews.
2d, Another fact is, that the salvation revealed by the
gospel, is never spol^eii of as a salvation from hell or
endless misery. No such salvation ivas ever promised
or predicted in the Old Testament, and no such salva-
tion zvas ever preached by Christ or his apostles. Our
Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save
his people from their sins. But I do not find he receiv-
ed this name or any other, because he should save
them from hell. Our Lord and his apostles, in preach-
ing, proposed by it to turn men from darkness to light ;
from^the power of satan unto God ; from idols to serve
the living God ; from the course of this world ; and from
all sin to holiness ; but where do we ever read of their
saving them from hell ? No such salvation was preach-
ed by our Lord. In all the texts w^here he speaks of
hell, he w^as not preaching the gospel, but addressing
the Jews about the temporal calamities coming on them
as a people. In no instance did he ever exhort men
to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, because they
were exposed to hell torments in a future state. So
far from this, in nine instances out of eleven, where
THE WORD GEHENNA. 201
Gehenna is used by him, he was addressing his disciples.
It is of no use to observe, that his apostles never made
use of the punishment of hell to induce men to repent-
ance, for tliey do not once name it in all their writings.
James is the only exception, who mentions hell once,
and that, only in a figurative sense. Nothing is said in
our Lord's commission to his apostles about hell, and
as little is said of it by them in their execution of it.
To Jew and Gentile, bond and free, they are all silent
about it. It is never mentioned by them to any persons,
on any occasion, or in any connection, or on any subject.
This silence of the apostles respecting hell, could not
be because the people in those days were all so very
good, that they did not need to be saved from hell.
No ; the whole world lay in wickedness around them,
yet not a word is said about the torments of hell to alarm
their fears, and to turn them from sin to God. No
calculations were then made, as in our day, of the num-
ber who were daily and hourly going down to hell to
suffer eternal misery. No ; nor was such a variety of
schemes adopted by the apostles, to raise funds to save
men from hell. As they expressed no alarms about the
vast crowds going to hell, so we do not find them ex-
pressing their joy because any were saved from it. They
were deeply grieved to see men living in sin, and their
spirit was stirred within them to see whole cities given
to idolatry ; but they never assert that all such were
on the road to hell., They had great joy to see men
walking in the truth, and often congratulated them on
account of their being saved from their former course
of life, but not a syllable escapes them, that such per-
sons had been saved from endless misery. You search
the Scriptures in vain, to find a single instance, where
the apostles make any attempt to work on the fears
and feelings of men by giving terrific descriptions of
hell, or the horrors and bowlings of the damned. As
they never held up the torments of hell to make men
202 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
Christians, so we never find them using it as an argu-
ment to induce Christians to love and to good works.
The latter are often reminded that they formerly were
idolaters, working all uncleanness with greediness, to
induce them to holiness ; but where do we find a word
said of their being saved from hell, as any inducement
to it ? — In view of these things, how are we to ac-
count for them, if they beheved hell to be a place of
eternal torment for the wicked ? Is it possible they
believed this, yet preserved such a dead silence on the
subject ? Thjs silence is an indisputable fact. To ac-
count for it, is above my comprehension.
Perhaps it may be said, — though none are said to
be saved from hell, yet they are said to be dehvered
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from wTath
through Jesus. All this is true ; but it is nowhere
said, that this wrath to come was in a future state, or
of eternal duration, which is the point to be proved to
be conclusive on this subject. I think I can show that
the expression, " wrath to come," does not refer to a
future state. To do it here, would be too great a di-
gression from our present subject.
3d, Supposing that Gehenna is a place of endless
misery, who can vindicate the character of our Lord or
his apostle^ s, for faithfulness , compassion, or zeal 1 It is
certain our Lord was faithful to him who appointed
him. The apostles were also faithful, in declaring the
whole counsel of God. But can all this be true, if
they knew that this was a place of eternal misery, and
that all the world stood exposed to it, yet said nothing
to them about it ? It is true, the Savior mentions Ge-
henna nine times to his disciples, and twice to the un-
believing Jews. But he nor his apostles, never use the
word in speaking to the Gentiles. Now, I ask, is this
like being faithful ? Is this being half so faithful as
most preachers are in our day? We think every can-
did man must say no ; it is rather being very unfaith-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 203
ful, if they believed this doctrine as it is commonly re-
ceived among us. Let it then be accounted for, how
preaching hell as a place of endless misery now, is so
much a duty, since it was not done by the apostles,
nor even by our Lord himself. The fidelity of preach-
ers in these days, both to God and the souls of men,
in preaching the doctrine of endless misery in hell, far
exceeds that of the apostles or of Christ, the Savior.
But how is their compassion to the souls of men to he
vindicated, if by hell is meant a place of endless mis-
ery? The case stands thus. The Savior, it is thought,
knew hell to be a place of endless tonr.ent, but we have
seen how he acted ? He had compassion on the
multitude, when they needed to be fed, and wrought
a miracle to supply their wants. The compassion of
his heart made him weep over Jerusalem, in anticipat-
ing the temporal calamities coming upon its inhabitants,
and faithfully to warn them of their danger. Tn ref-
erence to those temporal calamities, he once said to the
unbeheving Jews, — " how can ye escape the damna-
tion of hell ?" In reference to the same calamities, he
uses the word hell in addressing his disciples. But he
sheds no tears, he gives no warnings, he works no
miracles to save, when it is said he knew hell to be a
place of endless misery to all the wicked. But can
any man think so of the Son of God, the Savior of the
world? I ask; can any man believe, that he whose
heart was wrung with anguish, at foreseeing temporal
evils to be suffered by men, and who could shed tears
at the grave of Lazarus, was so devoid of all compas-
sion, as never to warn men of endless misery in hell 7
But supposing we should admit, that in all the places
where our Lord mentions hell, such a place of misery
is meant. In this case, our Lord indeed had a little
compassion for the Jews. But neither he, nor his apos-
tles, had any for the Gentiles. The apostles did shed
tears, but not a tear falls from their eyes, on account of
204 AN INQUIRY INTO
men's being in danger of hell torments. On this sub-
ject their bowels of compassion were entirely shut up,
for they say not a word about hell to any man. — Either
then we must allow these men to be devoid of compas-
sion, or admit that they did not know that hell was a
place of eterilal torment for the wicked. It is a plain
case, that preachers in our day far exceed the Lord and
his apostles in compassion for the souls of men. How
solemnly, and seriously, and frequently, do we hear
preachers w^arn men of hell torments ? What deep
compassion they pretend to feel for the multitudes of
poor souls on the brink of hell, and going down to suffer
its torments forever. In what loud and frightful tones,
do we hear them describe the horrors of this place ?
Their compassionate hearts they describe as bleeding,
because men will thus rush down to hell in crow^ds.
But where do we find such things in our Lord's, or in
his apostle's preaching ? Were they to return to the
earth, and preach just as they did, every pulpit would
be shut against them, and they represented as unfaithful
and unfeeling men. But how is their zeal for the
glory of God, and the salvation of men, to he vindi-
cated, if they kneiv hell to be a place of endless misery ?
Our Lord said, " the zeal of thine house hath eaten me
up." But surely, it was not spent in preaching, and
warning men against endless misery in hell. The apos-
tles had also great zeal, and zeal according to knowl-
edge, but they never spent any of it in preaching such
a doctrine. The topic of hell torments, on which so
much zeal is spent in the present day, is one w^iich they
never introduced to their hearers. This topic, hardly
forgotten in a single discourse, and so powerful in in-
ducing all classes of society to contribute money, seems
to have been unknown in the days of the apostles. This
theme, so effectual in rousing the sleeping energies of
mankind, and of exhausting human ingenuity in devis-
ing means to save them from hell, was either unknown
THE WORD GEHENNA. 205
to them, or they did not know how to avail themselves
of it. It was never used by them to procure themselves
a morsel of bread, or in any way to do good to others.
The most profound silence is maintained by the apostles
on this subject.
I do not blame the zeal of any in the present day,
in urging the doctrine of hell torments on mankind. If
the doctrine be true, I contend that their zeal is not ar-
dent enough. So far from condemning the greatest zeal
which can be manifested, I have some doubts, if a great
many of such persons believe their own doctrine. If
they did, how could they live in such wealth and splen-
dor, yet do so little to save men from hell torments ?
I have serious doubts, if many of the preachers, most
active and zealous in rousing the public to give money
to save the heathen from hell, believe this doctrine. If
they did believe it, would they live at home in compar-
ative ease and affluence, and send raw, inexperienced
youths abroad, to encounter the difficulties and dangers
of such a work ? No ; they would rush into the hottest
place of the battle, and suffer every privation in such a
conflict. One thing is certain, that in saving others from
hell, they seem determined to do it with as little self-
denial and personal risk as possible. How often does
it happen, that all the zeal for the doctrine of hell tor-
ments evaporates in the pulpit, and nothing more is heard
of it until the preacher returns to it again. In the com-
mon intercourse of life, he speaks and acts to the same
people, as if all his threatenings from the pulpit, of eter-
nal torment in hell, were not true. Yea, some of the
very persons whom he threatens with the tonnents of
hell, are his most intimate companions through the week.
He visits in their families, he feasts at their table, and
his salary is chiefly paid by them ; but not a word es-
capes him, perhaps the whole week, in warning them of
their danger in being every moment exposed to endless
misery. Can such a man be said, truly to believe this
18
206 AN lNq,UIRY INTO
doctrine ? We must be allowed to doubt it, so long as
such unfaithfulness is so apparent. I do not blame any
for great zeal, if this doctrine be true. No ; I only wish
some one would account for it, if he can, why the
apostles never mentioned hell as a place of torment, nor
availed themselves of this doctrine, to stimulate their
own zeal, or rouse that of others, in attempting to save
men from such a punishment. I wish it to be account-
ed for, why this topic was never urged on Christians to
mduce liberahty, to assist in saving the heathen from
hell, or on the heathen to induce them to turn from their
idols to the living God. I wish it to be accounted for,
if the apostles knew of the doctrine of hell torments,
why they forgot to mention it either to Jews or to Gen-
tiles. Either they did not believe the doctrine, or, if
they did, how is their fidelity, compassion, and zeal to
be defended ? Who would undertake to defend the
fidelity, compassion, and zeal of any preacher in onr day,
who, if this doctrine was believed by him, should never
mention Gehenna as a place of endless misery for all
who died in ignorance and unbelief concerning the Sa-
vior ? Instead of defending him, all sects, Herod and
Pilate like, would be made friends to put such a preacher
down by every means in their power.
4th, The Old Testament is often quoted in the New,
hut it is an indisputable fact, that though quoted hy
our Lord when spealciyig about hell or Gehenna, it is
not quoted to show that hell was a place of eternal mis'
ery, but in reference to temporal punishment. Indeed,
it was impossible for our Lord or his apostles to quote
the Old Testament, to prove that hell was such a place
of misery ; for it is acknowledged by Dr. Campbell and
others, that in this sense hell does not occur there.
They could not make a quotation from it, for it did not
afford them any thing to quote. Well, permit me to
ask, why our Lord did quote the Old Testament, and
quoted it in the very texts in which hell or Gehenna is
THE WORD GEHENNA. 207
spoken of? In Mark ix. considered above, our Lord
expressly quotes a passage from Isaiah, when speaking
concerning hell to his disciples. In other places he
seems to allude to others. Had our Lord then meant
to use Gehenna in a different sense from that in the Old
Testament, was it not calculated to mislead his hear-
ers thus to quote it ? Is it rational to suppose, that
our Lord quoted texts from the Old Testament, which
speak of a temporal punishment, when he intended that
what he said about Gehenna or hell should be under-
stood of eternal punishment ? I think this would be
imputing to our Lord a want of correctness of judgment,
and even of common propriety, which we seldom have
occasion to impute to our fellow men. The man would
be looked on as insane, or something worse, who in the
present day, if he intended to prove the doctrine of hell
torments, should quote from the Old Testament the
passage about the three children thrown into the fiery
furnace. But this is just what our Lord did, if Gehen-
na in the New Testament means a place of eternal mis-
ery. See on Math, xxiii. 33. andSlark ix. 42. consid-
ered in the preceding section.
5th, If there he a ])lace of endless misery for the
wicked, another remarJcable fact is, that the Hebrew
Greek, and English languages, originally had no name
for this place 1 We have seen from Dr. Campbell,
that Gehenna does not occur in this sense in the Old
Testament. Let us also see what he says about our
English word hell. Speaking of Hades, in his 6th dis-
sertation, he says : — " To this the word hell in its prim-
itive signification perfectly corresponded. For, at first it
denoted only what was secret or concealed. This word
is found with little variation of form, and precisely in
the same meaning, in all the Teutonic dialects. But
though our word hell in its original signification, was
more adapted to express the sense of Hades than of
Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Chris-
208 AN INQUIRY INTO
tians, we always express by it, the place of the punish-
ment of the wicked after the general judgment, as
opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the
righteous." — It is very evident from this, that the word
hell did not originally signify a place of endless misery.
In confirmation of what Dr. Campbell says, I shall quote
the following from Parkhurst on the word Hades. He
says, — " our English or rather Saxon word hell, in its
original signification, (though it is now understood in a
more limited sense) exactly answers to the word Ha-
des, and denotes a concealed or unseen place ; and this
sense of the word is still retained in the eastern, and
especially in the western counties of England ; to heh
over a thing is to cover it." — The correctness of these
statements are above suspicion ; for, the fidelity of these
men as writers, has led them to say things at variance
with their professed creed as Christians. It is very evi-
dent, if they are to be believed, that ourEnghsh word
hell, did not originally signify a place of endless misery
for the wicked, but like Hades or Sheol, signified the
unseen or concealed place ; and that it has this meaning
in some of the counties in England to this day. It is
then a very plain case, that for this place of endless
misery the Hebrew, Greek, and English languages did
not originally furnish a name. We have then to ask,
had the inspired writers any idea of such a place of
misery ? If they had, it is evident they wanted a name
to express it to others. If they have not expressed it
by any word to others, how does any man know that
they entertained such an idea ? We have seen persons
use words to which they had no distinct ideas. And
we have also seen persons having ideas, which they
could not very easily express in appropriate language to
others. But we believe it is a singular case, that the
Bible is said to reveal a place of endless misery, yet the
inspired writers had no name for it. It is surely then
a very proper question to be asked, who changed the
THE WORD GEHENNA. 209
words Gehenna and hell from their original signification,
to mean a place of endless misery ? We shall see in
the next section that the writers of the Targums and
the Apocrypha, are appealed to, that this change was
gradiially produced, and finally Gehenna was used ex-
clusively to mean such a place of misery. Who gave
this new sense to the word hell, or whether its change
of sense was gradual or sudden, I can afford no infor-
mation. It is enough for us to know, that this was not
its original signification ; and this fact is attested by Dr.
Campbell, Parkhurst and others, all firm believers in the
doctrine of hell torments.
After these statements from such eminent critics,
relative to Gehenna and our English word hell, it is
very natural to put something like the following ques-
tions. 1st, Were these words changed from their orig-
inal signification by divine authority, or was it on the
authority of men ? None of the above authors insin-
uate, that such a change in the meaning of these words
was made by any of the inspired writers, or by God's
authority. It has never been noticed in the course of
our reading, that any one ventured to prove this or
even asserted it. As to the word Gehenna, we have
seen that Dr. Campbell says it came gradually to be
used in this sense and at length came to be confined to
it. 2d, By whom, and at what period of time, did this
change in the sense of these two words take place ?
Here we are left to conjecture ; for neither Dr. Camp-
bell, nor any other writer, of which we have any knowl-
edge, gives us any information about this. That a change
in the sense of these two words has taken place, is
certain, but when, or where, or by whom it was done,
no information is afforded us. 3d, By what name was
this place of endless misery called, before the Jews
called it by the name Gehenna? And what was its
name in the English, or rather Saxon language, before
the word hell was changed from its original signification
18*
210 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
and applied to it? Or was it without a name, before
these words were altered in sense to suit it ? 4th, If it
had a name before Gehenna and hell w^ere changed in
sense, and apphed to it, why was it laid aside ? And
what were the reasons which induced men to make
such an alteration on their own authority ? Why were
they not content, to speak of this place as the Scrip-
tures teach, if indeed they do reveal such a place of
endless misery ? 5th, If Gehenna and hell have under-
gone such a change of sense, on mere human authority,
ought we not to change them again to their original
signification, on the same authority ? — Such are a few
of the questions which may be put, relative to the
change in the sense of these two words. We leave
our readers to determine how they are to be answered.
The last is easily answered, but all the others, we think
must remain unanswered.
6th, Another fact, deserving our consideration, is,
that Christians, when they speak of hell, adopt the
phraseology used about Sheol and Hades, rather than
Gehenna, though it is contended Gehenna is the word
which signifies the place of endless misery. I shall
explain what I meap. For example, it is evident from
an inspection of the passages, in which Sheol, Hades
and Gehenna occur, that Gehenna, for depth, is never
contrasted with heaven for height, like Sheol and Hades.
Nor, do we read of persons going down to Gehenna,
of the depths of Gehenna, or of the lowest Gehenna.
Neither do we read of the gates of Gehenna, nor of the
pains of Gehenna. All these things are said of Sheol
and Hades, as we have seen in a former part of this
Inquiry. Besides, no representations are given of Ge-
henna, as of Sheol and Hades, that all the dead, or,
even the wicked are there. No persons are ever rep-
resented as alive in Gehenna, as speaking out of Gehen-
na, or as tormented in its flames. It is never like Sheol
and Hades, represented as a dark, concealed place,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 211
under the earth. No: it is represented as on a level,
with the persons addressed concerning it. All these,
and other modes of speaking, are used about Sheol and
Hades, but never in speaking of Gehenna ; and show
a remarkable difference in the Scripture representations
of the two places. Such a marked, uniform difference
must strike every man's mind with great force, who
takes the trouble to examine this subject. In all the
twelve places, in which Gehenna occurs in the New
Testament, we have seen, that what I have stated is
stricly correct. In them we read of the damnation of
Gehenna or hell: persons are there said to be in danger
of it ; they are threatened with going into it, or being
cast into it ; but do we ever read of any person's being
alive in it, and lifting up his eyes in the torments of
this place ? Now, comparing all these different forms of
speech, about Sheol and Hades, with those of Gehen-
na, the difference is not only manifest, but very great.
Let us now compare these statements with the way
in which Christians speak about hell, or the place of
future punishment. It is evident, that they seldom,
use the language employed in the Bible, about Gehen-
na, but that used in speaking of Sheol and Hades.
Thus, for example, when a preacher describes hell to
his hearers, and threatens the wicked with the punish-
ment of it, he speaks of it as a deep place, as the low-
est hell, and as a place to which they are going down ;
and speaks of some already there, lifting up their eyes
in its torments. Permit me then to ask, why this is
done ? for what reason is the Scripture language about
Gehenna laid aside, and that of Sheol and Hades sub-
stituted in its place ; when it is allowed on all sides,
that Sheol or Hades does not mean a place of endless
misery? It must be confessed, that this is, at least,
handling the word of God ignorantly, if not deceitfully ;
and under the mask of Scripture phraseology, imposing
on the ignorance and credulity of mankind. If such
212 AN INq,UIRY INTO
persons, will have Gehenna to be the place of endless
misery, let them use the language of Scripture about it,
and not use the language, allowed to have no reference
to such a subject. We cannot help thinking, that the
reason of this change of phraseology is from necessity.
It would be contrary to fact, and even common belief,
to speak to people of hell, in the language used about
Gehenna. To tell them that their whole body should
be cast into hell would not do. A case of this kind
was never known. The change of the language, from
Gehenna to that of Sheol and Hades, is therefore ne-
cessary, to be in unison with the common belief on this
subject. If men were obliged to confine themselves to
the language used in Scripture about Gehenna, when
they speak of ^hell, it would probably lead them to see,
that all was not correctly understood respecting it. I
may add here, that this change of language, is not al-
together in agreement with the popular ideas enter-
tained of hell. The parable of the rich man and
Lazarus, is not in unision with common belief. No
man believes that the body is tormented, at least,
till after the resurrection of the dead ; but how often
do preachers represent the body after death as in hell,
lifting up its eyes there, and as tormented in its flames ?
But fondness for a popular sentiment, often blinds our
eyes to the contradictions and absurdity of our language
in speaking about it.
7th, Another fact^ deserving some notice is, that
the punishment of Gehenna, is never once spoJcen
of as a punishment for the spirit, separate from the
body in an intermediate state., nor as a punishment for
both body and spirit, after the resurrection of the dead.
As to the first part of this statement, let the texts in
which Gehenna occurs, be ever so rigidly examined,
they do not afford a particle of evidence, that Gehenna
is an intermediate place of punishment for the spirit
after the death of the body. The text; and we be-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 213
lieve the only text, quoted to prove this intermediate
place of punishment, is, the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus. But supposing this account to be liter-
ally understood, it should be remembered, that the rich
man was not in Gehenna, but in Hades. Admitting
then, that Hades is an intermediate place of punishment
for the separate spirit, Gehenna must be given up as
such a place. But ask any common Christian, who
believes in the doctrine of eternal misery, if he thinks
punishment before and after the resurrection, are in
two different places ; and he would stare at you as an
heretic. He has always believed, as taught by his
parents, his catechism, and his sect, that there is only
one hell for all the wicked. It is high time that com-
mon Christians, in distinction from learned Christians,
should be told that this is very far from being the true
state of the case ; as they would soon see, if the learn-
ed only spoke their minds freely on this subject. Dr.
Campbell, has dared to speak of Gehenna and Hades
as two places of punishment for the wicked, and it is
somewhat surprising, that orthodox Christians have not
before now, denounced him as an heretic*
But the punishment of hell or Gehenna, says Dr.
Campbell and others, comes after the judgment, for
Hades is to be destroyed. But let the texts which
speak of Gehenna, be again examined, and as little is
said about its being a place of punishment after the
resurrection, as before it. No; we never find it once
mentioned, in connection with the resurrection of the
dead ; but, always in connection with the temporal
miseries coming on the Jews. Without making my-
self liable to the charge of arrogance, I think I may
challenge ,the whole world to produce a single text,
which speaks of Gehenna, either as an intermediate
• Professor stuart admits, Sheol or Hades, is not the place of endless
Smishment, but like Dr. Campbell contends for Gehenna being this place,
e has two hells, like many others.
214 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
place of punishment for the spirit, or for both body and
spirit after the resurrection of the dead. All the pas-
sages, we think, have been shown to have a totally
different meaning, what has led people into such mis-
taken ideas on this subject, is, their confounding She-
ol, Hades, and Gehenna together, as one place, and
supposing that the word hell, by which all these w^ords
are translated, means the place of endless punishment
for the wicked. The endless duration of this punish
ment has been believed from Mark ix. 43, 44. consi-
dered above, and from a few more passages, in which
the word everlasting is used and applied to punishment.
It has been shown, from a consideration of the pas-
sages which speak of Gehenna, that it referred to the
punishment of the Jews, and we think we have proved
that this punishment was called an everlasting punish-
ment. But where do we ever read of an everlasting
punishment in hell, either in an intermediate state, or
after the resurrection'? Let something like proof of
this be produced. It is very true, that we read in
books, and hear in sermons, of an eternal hell, and of
the bowlings of the damned, and of infants a span long
being in this place. But in the name of common hu-
manity, and in vindication of the character of God, we
demand in what part of the Bible such statements are
to be found. Do the scriptures ever give such state-
ments as these ? They certainly do not. Is it not,
then, daring presumption in any man to speak thus?
Shall we never have done in attempting to supply
what w^e deem God's defiances ?
Dr. Campbell, and we presume all critics, object to
the doctrine, that Hades is to be a place of punishment
after the resurrection. It is evident from Scripture,
that it is to be destroyed, and be no more. But why
should this be objected to, and why should it be contend-
ed for, that Gehenna is to be a place of punishment af-
ter this period, and of eternal duration ? Certainly as
THE WORD GEHENNA. 215
little is said about Gehenna as about Hades, being a
place of punishment after the resurrection. From no
text in which Gehenna is mentioned, could this be in-
ferred. Gehenna is never spoken of as a place of pun-
ishment after the resurrection of the dead ; nor is it
ever mentioned in connection with this subject.
8th, Closely connected with the last fact, is another,
that the learned seem to believe in two jflaces of future
punishment, and the common people only in one. Dr.
Campbell, we have seen, declares that Gehenna is the
place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. He
also thinks, that Hades is an intermediate place of pun-
ishment until the resurrection ; but that this place is
then to be destroyed. If it be true then, that Hades
is one place of punishment, and Gehenna another, it
is beyond all doubt that there are two places of future
punishment, the one temporary, and the other to be
eternal in its duration ; the one before, and the other
after the resurrection of the dead. The first, punish-
ment for the soul, separate from the body, until the
resurrection, and the other after, for both soul and body
forever. This is indisputable, unless it can be proved,
that Hades and Gehenna are only two names for the
same place ; or, which is much the same, that Hades is
a part of Gehenna, or Gehenna a part of Hades. But
no man who has paid the slightest attention to the pas-
sages in which these two words occur, can for a moment
think so. So far from this, no two places could be
more distinctly marked, as two separate places. The
various modes of speaking about them clearly decide
this, which we have noticed already. We think it has
been shown that none of the passages which speak of
Gehenna, support the idea, that this is a place of endless
misery for the wicked. If such a place exist in the
universe of God, and is revealed to us in the Bible, it
must be under some other name than that of Gehenna.
Neither Sheol nor Hades can be this place ; for admit-
216 AN INQUIRY INTO
ting it to be a place of punishment in the intermediate
state, it is to be destroyed, therefore can not be of end-
less duration. If such a place of misery is taught us un-
der any other name in the Bible, I am wilhng to con-
sider it. But this is not pretended, I beheve, by the
most zealous friends of the doctrine of endless misery.
The common opinion of the unlearned is, that there
is but one place of future misery, and this place they
call hell^ whether this word be the translation of Sheol,
Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna. They always speak
about it as one place of punishment, and consider this
punishment as of endless duration. The same hell to
which the spirits of the wicked are sent at death, is the
hell to which they send all the wicked forever. If this
be a mistaken notion of the vulgar, it is certain, most or-
thodox preachers do not attempt to correct it, for what
they say about hell tends to confirm them in this opin-
ion. They always speak about 07ie hell as certainly as
about one God ; nor do they take any notice of the
distinction so clearly marked in Scripture, between Ha-
des and Gehenna.
9th, Another fact is, we read of the sea, death, and
Hades, delivering up the dead which are in them, yet
we never read of Gehenna delivering up any thing
dead or alive. Now, let us suppose, that at death
the body goes to Hades, the grave, or state of the dead,
and the spirit goes to Gehenna or hell, to suffer pun-
ishment until the resurrection. If this commonly re-
ceived doctrine be true, is it not as rational to think,
that we should read in Scripture of Gehenna or hell
delivering up the spirits of the wicked at the resurrec-
tion, as that Hades or the grave should deliver up their
bodies. In order to a reunion at this period, it is just
as necessary that the spirits should come forth from the
one place, as their bodies from the other. But nothing
like this is to be found in the Bible.
If heaven be, as is generally believed, the place of
THE WORD GEHENNA. 217
happiness after death for the spirits of the righteous,
and Gehenna or hell be the place of punishment for
the spirits of the wicked, must not the spirits of the
last, in order to a reunion with their bodies, come forth
from hell as certainly as the first from heaven ? But
I do not find, that at this period a word is said about
hell, or any spirits coming forth from it. But how is
this accounted for, if the generally received doctrine be
correct ? The only possible way to account for this, is
suggested by Dr. Campbell — that Gehenna is not the
place of punishment for the wicked until after the res-
urrection. But this, we think, will not bear examina-
tion. In all the texts which speak about Gehenna,
nothing is said of the resurrection of the dead. It will
not be disputed, that when our Lord spoke to the un-
believing Jews, and to his disciples, of Gehenna, he
was speaking on a very different subject, the temporal
punishment coming on the Jewish nation. Why intro-
duce Gehenna on a subject like this, if it be true that
the punishment of Gehenna, is that sufiered by the
wicked after the resurrection ? If it is, why is it never
introduced by the inspired writers, when speaking of
the resurrection ? It is natural to think, it would be al-
ways spoken of in connection with it. We find Hades
follows death, and these two are spoken of as connect-
ed. But do we ever find it said that Gehenna follows
the resurrection of the dead ; or that there is any con-
nection between these two things? No; this is not,
in the most distant way, hinted at. Let any one read
all the passages where this subject is treated of, and he
will find that not a word is said by the sacred TOters
concerning Gehenna or hell. In I Cor. xv. the fullest
account is given of the resurrection, of any place in the
Bible ; but neither the punishment of hell, nor any
other punishment is spoken of in connection with it.
We think it incumbent on those, who believe that the
punishment of hell succeeds the resurrection of the
19
318 AN INQUIRY INTO
dead, to show, that the sphit of God speaks of it in such
a connection. If what is said about this be true, this
ought to be its uniform connection. But no man will
assert that this is the case, who has paid any attention
to the subject.
10th, Another important fact, deserving our notice,
is, that none of the original words translated in the.
common version, eternal, everlasting, and forever, are
connected with Gehenna, or hell. No ; though we of-
ten hear preachers, in our day, speak of an eternal
hell, such language never was used by any inspired
writer. The phrase " everlasting fire," occurs in the
Bible, and this has been shown, to be the same as
'' everlasting punishment," and the " fire that shall
never be quenched." But we have seen, that none of
these expressions refer to a place in a future state,
called Gehenna, or hell ; or that the punishment refer-
red to is endless in its duration. But an eternal hell is
often heard of, from the pulpit, and perhaps many be-
lieve it to be a Scripture expression. This, with many
other terrific expressions, which are the chief orna-
ments of many modern sermons, and often uttered
without much feeling by the preacher, are not found in
the Bible. They are bugbears of his own creating,
which no man who regards the Scriptures, and has
considered this subject, will be frightened at. Child-
ren, ignorant, weak, nervous people, may, and indeed
often are, powerfully wrought upon, by the terrific des-
criptions which are given of hell. And, after this is
effected to a great extent, it is called a revival of reh-
gion. But is this the work of the Spirit of God ? If
it be, I demand that some part of the New Testament
be produced, showing that similar revivals were effect-
ed by terrific descriptions of hell under the ministry of
Christ or his apostles. Did they paint, in glowing col-
ors, the horrors of the damned in hell to make men
Christians? No man will say so. Not a word was
THE WORD GEHENNA. 219
said by them about an eternal hell to the people. All
such language is coined at the mint of modern divinity,
and may be a very good plan for increasing a sect, but
this is a very different thing from making men Chris-
tians. When many of these people get over their
fright, they return like the dog to his vomit, and the
sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
I am fully aware that to this it will be objected — is
not everlasting life and everlasting punishment contrast-
ed in Math. xxv. 46. and some other places ? Yes, it
is freely admitted, but this contrast is not between hea-
ven as a place of eternal blessedness, and Gehenna as
a place of endless punishment, as is generally believed.*
11th, In the common language of most Christians,
you find heaven as the place of blessedness for the
righteous, spoken of in contrast iviih Gehenna or hell,
the place of endless misery for the wicked. Whatever
they say about the former they have a counterpart in
speaking of the latter. I shall illustrate what I mean
by an example or two. In the Bible w^e find persons
expressing their hopes of going to heaven ; but do we
ever read of one expressing his fears of going to Ge-
henna or hell ? We indeed find persons speaking fa-
miliarly of Sheol and Hades, and expressing both their
fears and feelings in regard to this place ; but do we
ever read of one who expressed his fears or feelings
about going to Gehenna ? No : not an instance of this
is found in Scripture. Again ; we read of an inheri-
tance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away, reserved in heaven ; but do w^e ever read of end-
less punishment reserved for any one in hell or Gehen-
na ? Nothing like this is mentioned by the sacred wri-
ters. Again ; Paul, we are told, was caught up into
paradise, and heard unspeakable words, wdiich it is not
lawful for a man to utter : but do we read of any one
* See this passage, and every other passage where everlasting, etc. oc-
curs in the Bible, fully considered in my second Inquiry.
220 AN INQUIRY INTO
that was sent to Gehenna and there heard or saw any
thing ? No : but why is it not as natural to expect,
that some one should be sent to hear the unutterable
misery of the one place, as the unutterable blessedness
of the other? The one, would only be a proper coun-
terpart to the other. But again ; we have some in-
stances of persons mentioned in Scripture, who were
taken up into heaven. Such were Enoch and Elijah.
But do you ever find one individual, abandoned for
wickedness, on whom God displayed his signal ven-
geance, by sending him bodily to hell or Gehenna?
We indeed read of Korah and his company, who went
down quick into the pit ; but we have shown, that this
pit was not Gehenna or hell, but only the grave or
state of the dead. Again : Moses and Elias made their
appearance on the mount at our Lord's transfiguration ;
but do we find any of the wicked characters mentioned
in Scripture, ever making their appearance from hell ?
We have heard idle stories of wicked persons coming
from hell to warn others, and describing the awful mis-
ery of that place. But is any thing like this stated in
the Scriptures ? All know that such ridiculous fables
are not found there.
12th, It is common ivith orthodox preachers , to rep-
resent hell as the place of endless torment for the wick-
ed, and spealc of persons being there tormented by the
devil and his angels. Indeed, it is common to spealc
of devils and wicked men, as being in the same place
of punishment. But how they came by their informa-
tion I know not. It is indisputable, that whatever the
Scriptures mean by the devil and his angels, they are
not once represented as in Hades, or tormenting any
persons there. Even Dr. Campbell, though he con-
siders Hades as an intermediate place of punishment,
says — " That Gehenna is employed in the New Testa-
ment to denote the place of future punishment, prepar-
ed for the devil and his angels, is indisputable," See
THE WORD GEHENNA. 221
the whole of this paragraph quoted above. If the de-
vil and his angels are in this place, vvhicli Dr. Campbell
says was prepared for them, they are not then in Hades,
the intermediate place of punishment for the wicked.
We ask then how it can be said with truth, that the de-
vil and his angels are the tormentors of the wicked in
Hades ? But some have thought, that though Gehenna
is the place prepared for the devil and his angels, they
are not sent there, until the day of judgment, when
they and all the wicked are to go there together, to suf-
fer its punishment forever. If the devil and his angels
are not in Gehenna, and are never said to be in Hades,
it seems they, for the present, are not in either place of
punishment, whilst wicked men are all sent to Hades to
to be punished from death until the resurrection. Be-
sides, it is certain, that such preachers who represent
the devil and his angels as the tormentors of wicked
men in Hades, greatly misrepresent them, a thing which
ought not to be done to real devils. But how often
has it been heard from the pulpit and published to the
world, that wicked men at death go to hell, to be the
companions of devils and damned spirits forever. And
has not hool<:s been put into the hands of children, de-
scribing in ivords, and representing to their eyes in cuts,
the devil tossing about the wicked there with pitchforks ?
The truth is, whether my views of Gehenna be right or
wrong, it is evident the common opinions entertained
on the subject cannot all be true.
The evidence which has already been stated, proving
that Gehenna does not signify a place of endless misery
is sufficient. But there are yet some things, which
ought not to be passed over, of a circumstantial nature,
which very much confirm this evidence.
1st, Why did not John in his gospel mention Gehen-
na, and why did he omit all the discourses recorded by
the other evangelists, in which our Lord spoke of Ge-
henna ? It has been noticed already, that John wrote
19*
222 AN INQUIRY INTO
his gospel for the use of the Gentiles. This is gener-
ally admitted. This being the case, it may be thought
there was no occasion to say any thing about Gehenna
to the Gentiles. If our Lord as I have stated, meant
by Gehenna the temporal punishment coming on the
Jews, this is readily admitted ; but if the damnation of
hell, was an eternal punishment for all the wicked,
whether Jews or Gentiles, how could John omit all
mention of it ? How can it ever be rationally account-
ed for, that he beheved the damnation of hell was an
eternal punishment, yet say nothing about it to them ?
Was it a matter of more importance to tell them, that
Messias being interpreted, signifies the Christ, or, that
there was at Jerusalem a pool in the Hebrew language
called Bethesda having five porches ? Or that the water-
pots, chap. ii. contained two or three firkins apiece ?
Can any man think, that if John believed Gehenna a
place of endless misery, he w^ould be silent about it, yet
mention to his Gentile readers these things, compara-
tively of small importance ? But why did John omit
all these discourses in wdiich our Lord spoke of Gehen-
na ? A very good reason can be assigned for this, and
it shows, in what light John viewed the discourses of our
Lord, alluded to. It was after the destruction of Jeru-
salem he wrote his gospel. Whitby in his preface to
the gospel of John thus writes : " The fathers of the
fourth and fifth centuries do all agree, that he wrote it
either in that Isle, (Patmos), or after his return from it ;
when he was ninety years old, saith Epiphanius ; when
he was an hundred, saith Chrysostom. So that accord-
ing to the account of all these ecclesiastical writers^ John
must have wTit this gospel a considerable time after the
destruction of Jerusalem." Supposing then, that by
the damnation of hell, our Lord referred to the tempo-
ral punishment coming on the Jews, we see a very good
reason, why John says nothing about Gehenna, yea,
omits all our Lord's discourses ]n which it is mentioned.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 223
The event was past. To have related those discourses,
would have been to deliver predictions after they were
fulfilled, and warning men of evils to be endured, after
they had been suffered. John's conduct is not only
excusable, but highly proper, in saying nothing about
Gehenna, and in omitting all these discourses. Does
not this very omission strongly confirm the view which
I have given of the passages, which speak of Gehenna ?
— And is not this omission, irreconcilable with the com-
mon ideas entertained on this subject ?
2d, Why does not Luke mention Gehenna in his his-
tory of the Acts of the apostles ? This is the more
surprising, as he mentions it in his gospel. On my view
of Gehenna, this can be rationally accounted for, but
on the common view, is altogether unacountable. In
liis gospel, he relates our Lord's discourses to the Jews,
in which he spoke to them concerning Gehenna, in the
punishment of which they were alone concerned. But
in his history of the Acts of the apostles, he gives us
an account of the preaching of the gospel, and its suc-
cess among the Gentiles, who were not concerned in the
punishment of Gehenna, and therefore had no need to
have it mentioned to them. If my view of Gehenna
be correct, we see that there was no occasion for him
to say a word about it. — But if he believed, hell was a
place of endless misery, on what grounds are we to ac-
count for his entire silence on this subject ? If it was a
punishment in common, to Jews and Gentiles, who died
wicked, let it be satisfactorily accounted for, why the
apostles did not preach it to the Gentile nations ? If
they ever preached this doctrine, it is certain Luke omits
all mention of it in his history. To say they did preach
it, is only a gratuitous assertion, and in fact impeaches
Luke as a faithful historian. What historian, would
omit mentioning the doctrine of universal salvation as
preached by the Universalists, if he undertook to write
the history of their preaching for thirty years ?
224 AN INQ.UIRY INTO
But if it was right in the apostles, to say not hingin their
preaching of Gehenna or hell, it must be right in us, for
certainly they are the best models to copy after. Sup-
posing then, that all the preachers among the Gentile na-
tions, should, in imitation of the apostles, say nothing
about hell to their hearers, who could blame them ?
They could urge the example of the apostles in their
defence. Here they might take their stand, and bid de-
fiance to the whole world to prove the contrary.
3d, Why did the apostles, never mention any thing
about hell in any of their epistles to the churches ? Not
one of them, James excepted, ever introduces it. The
reason of this is equally obvious. The epistles, for the
most part, were written to Gentile believers, who w^ere
not concerned in the punishment of hell or Gehenna.
James wrote to believing Jews, and we have seen, that
he once, used this word. Now, can any one suppose,
that if the Gentiles, had been exposed to hell or end-
less punishment, that the apostles never would, in any
-of their epistles, have reminded those to whom they
wrote, that they had been saved from it ? They are
often reminded they were idolaters, and wicked, before
they believed the gospel, and had been saved from such
things : but not a word is said, intimating that any of
them had ever been saved from Gehenna or hell. From
the consideration of their being saved, they are often
exhorted to love and good works ; but never from the
consideration of their being saved from hell or endless
misery. As it is never said, that they were once expos-
ed to such a 'punishment, so they are never reminded
that they were now delivered from it. No self-com-
plaisant remarks are ever made, that they were now
safe from the torments of hell, nor any whining com-
plaints, that their friends, and neighbors, yea, the
whole unbelieving Gentile tvorld, were every moment
exposed to this punishment. We find the apostles and
primitive Christians, expressing the most heart-felt grat-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 225
itude, that they had been saved from this present evil
world ; that they were translated from the kingdom of
darkness into the kingdom of God's dear son ; and
using all proper means that their fellow men might be-
lieve the gospel, and enjoy like blessings. The New
Testament abounds with evidence of this. But do we
ever find them saying that they had been saved from
hell or Gehenna? Or intimating that their exertions in
diffusing the gospel, was for the purpose of saving the
heathen from the everlasting torments of this place ?
We leave it with every candid man to say, if the apos-
tles and first Christians believed as people do now about
hell, if they could have been thus silent on such a deeply
interesting subject.
Further: no instance is left on record, where an un-
believer or a backslider was told, as now they fre-
quently are, that they had sinned away their day of
grace, and that everlasting torments in hell would be
their unavoidable fate. No : nor is an instance or any
thing like it recorded, of a person being driven to dis-
traction, from anticipation of the horrors of hell, pro-
duced by apostolic preaching. No example is given in
Scripture, of a person ending his days by suicide, to get
rid of his present terrors of hell torments. Some in-
stances of suicide are recorded : see the cases of Ahith-
opel, Judas, &c. But do we find a single hint dropped,
that it was the terror of hell torments drove them to
this ? Even of Judas, it is not said that he went to
hell ; which ought to teach some persons modesty and
caution, who, in the heat of their zeal, affirm that he
did go to this place of punishment. If such persons
had the Bible to make, they would express many things
otherwise than it has pleased God to do, in the revela-
tion of his will to mankind.
It will be allowed, that from the gospel of John, the
Acts of the apostles, and the epistles, we learn what
were the doctrines taught to the Gentiles. But can wq
226 AN INQUIRY INTO
learn from them, that the doctrine of eternal punish-
ment in hell, was one of these doctrines? Certainly we
can not. Supposing, that such writings were publish-
ed in our day, omiting all mention of hell or its endless
punishment, would we not say that they did not teach
the doctrine of hell torments ? we have not stated this
as an argument conclusive in itself But we think, that
if none of the other New Testament writers teach this
doctrine, the argument is conclusive. We have seen, it
is a conceded point, that Gehenna does not occur in the
Old Testament in the sense of a place of eternal mis-
ery. If, then, none of the New Testament writers
teach it, is not their silence proof, that no such doctrine
was known or taught by them ? It is well known, that
the silence of Scripture about any doctrine, in other
cases, is deemed a conclusive argument against it. And
why not in the case before us ? It would be dangerous
to admit the contrary. If it was admitted, then no fault
could be found with the doctrine of purgatory, and many
other things about which the Bible is silent.
We often come to learn, what doctrines are held by
persons, from the accusations of their enemies. Should
we bring the doctrine before us to this test, w^e find some
additional confirmation, that endless misery in hell was
not taught by our Lord, or his apostles.
1st, Let us inquire what accusations the Jews brought
against the Savior ? The Jews Accused him of many
things ; such as his being an enemy to Caesar ; as in
league with Beelzebub ; and as a blasphemer. On his
trial, Pilate said to him, " behold how many things they
witness against thee. " The principal of these were,
that he called himself the Son of God, and said he was
able to destroy their temple. But I ask, did the Jews
on any occasion, ever accuse him of having threatened
them with endless misery in hell? No: bad as the
Jews were, they never accused him of any such thing.
If he ever had done it, would they have failed to bring
THE WORD GEHENNA. 227
this forward against him ? None of the Jews, liad any
idea of going to hell. Woidd they, then, have endured
to he told so, without a murmur or complaint against
him ? Would this have formed no ground of accusa-
tion ? No man can believe this, who has read the four
gospels, and has noticed the unwearied opposition of
the Jews to the Savior.
2d, Let us see what accusations were brought against
his followers. They also were accused of being ene-
mies to Ceesar. But passing over other accusations,
we shall fix on what Stephen was accused of, as a fair
specimen of what they were all charged with. — " This
man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against
this holy place, and the law : for we have heard him
say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place,
and shall change the customs which Moses delivered
us." Enemies, as the Jews were to the disciples of
our Lord, did they even so much as insinuate the charge
against them, that they ever threatened Jews with end-
less torments in hell ? They say, that Stephen said
— " Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place," but did
they ever say, that either Jesus, or Stephen said, that he
would destroy them with everlasting misery in Gehenna
or hell ? No : let me advocate for once the cause of
the Jews, they never brought such a charge against
Christ or any of his followers. On this occasion, let it
be remembered, that the accusers of Stephen were false
witnesses, procured for the very purpose of finding him
guilty. Now, does any man think, or can he suppose,
that these false witnesses after saying Stephen said, —
" This Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place," would
have forgotten to add, such an important charge, " And
he also said, that he would destroy us and all the wick-
ed in hell to endless duration ?" The man who can
believe this to be a mere oversight in these witnesses, in
not mentioning such a material charge against Stephen, is
prepared to believe any thing. But they could not
228 AN INQUIRY INTO
bring such an accusation against him, or any of the first
preachers, for none of them ever used the word Gehenna
or hell, in preaching either to Jews or Gentiles. All
who had ever heard them preach, could have been call-
ed as witnesses to prove, that it was a false accusation.
Such a false charge, would have been in face of public
opinion to the contrary.
But let us see what were the accusations which the
Gentiles brought against the followers of Christ. They
accused them of turning the world upside down; of
turning away much people, saying that "they were no
gods which were made with hands." In consequence of
this they were accounted Atheists, enemies to the gods,
and deserving to be abhorred of men. Now, give me
leave to ask, was the charge ever brought against them
in any shape, by any person, that they threatened men
with endless punishment in hell or Gehenna? No:
all the Jesuitical ingenuity in the world, cannot find a
word said, which has such an appearance. Had the
apostles then ever threatened the Gentiles with endless
punishment in hell, would they have failed to bring this
as an accusation against them ? Should it be object-
ed here, " have you not shown above, that the hea-
then nations all believed in the doctrine of future
punishment, and that the Jews learned this doctrine
from their intercourse with them ; how then could
the heathen be offended with the apostles for teach-
ing one of the tenets of their religion ?" To this I
answer, that the heathen believed in a future pun-
ishment in Hades, but observe that the apostles neither
taught such a punishment in Hades, nor in Gehenna.
This is a fact we think beyond all fair discussion.
Not a word was said by the apostles to the heathen,
about punishment in either of these places. If they
had preached future punishment in Gehenna to them,
they might have said, we have heard of future punish- '
ment in Hades, but why preach this new doctrine, a
THE WORD GEHENNA. 229
punishment in Gehenna ? Their not preaching a pun-
ishment in Hades, shows that they did not beheve this
heathen notion ; and the Gentiles never accusing the
apostles of threatening them with endless punishment
in Gehenna, is a confirmation that no such doctrine was
taught to the heathen world.
Another circumstance, corroborative of the views I
have advanced concerning Gehenna, is the following.
On my views of Gehenna, the conduct of our Lord and
his apostles, is just what might be expected, but if by
Gehenna is understood a place of endless misery, it is
strange and unaccountable. What I refer to will be
best seen by,
1st, Considering our Lord's conduct. We have seen
from a consideration of all the passages in which he
speaks of Gehenna, that nine times out of twelve, all
he says concerning it, was addressed to his disciples.
In only one instance did he ever say to the unbelieving
Jews — "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
Matth. xxiii. 33. Now, notice, that at v-erses 38, 39,
he adds, " behold your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth till
ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord." After this, he never said a word to them
about the damnation of hell. Now, let it be supposed,
that by this expression our Lord meant endless misery
in a future state, — I ask, is it possible our Lord should
only mention this once ? I ask again, can it be believ-
ed, that he who said on the cross, — " Father, forgive
them, for they know not w^iat they do," should have
ceased, but with his dying breath, to warn these men,
that such a place of endless misery awaited them ? I
ask once more ; is it possible, that he, who, when he be-
held the city, " wept over it, "on account of temporal
calamities in which it was soon to be involved, should
shed no tears, in anticipating the endless misery of its
wicked inhabitants ? On the supposition, that Gehenna
20
230 AN INQUIRY INTO
is such a place, our Lord's conduct is strange and unac-
countable. But on my views of the damnation of hell,
our Lord's conduct excites no surprise : all is rational,
and what the circumstances of the case warrant us to
expect. They had rejected their promised Messiah,
the measure of their iniquity they were soon to fill up,
and they could not escape the damnation of hell. But
lerit be satisfactorily accounted for, why our Lord never
afterwards said any thing to them of the damnation of
hell, if thereby he meant, endless misery in the world to
come.
2d, The conduct of his apostles. It is easily seen,
that their conduct is in perfect agreement with that of
their master before them. He never said a word about
hell or Gehenna to the Gentiles. Neither do they. He
never said a word more concerning Gehenna to the un-
believing Jews, after saying — " how can ye escape the
damnation of hell ?" Neither do they. If it should be
objected here, — " why did not the apostlss continue to
speak to the unbelieving Jews about the damnation of
hell, allowing it to mean the temporal miseries coming
on that generation ? why should they not have continued
to warn them of this, as their Lord had done before
them ?" — The answer to this is easy. In Luke xix.
42, our Lord told the Jews, that the things which be-
longed to theh peace, were now hid from their eyes.
Their doom was fixed, their punishment was unavoida-
ble. Accordingly our Lord said, — " how can ye escape
the damnation of hell ?" Soon, the wrath of God was to
come on them to the uttermost. This it did in the
destruction of their city-and temple, when such calami-
ties came upon them, as never had been before, or ever
shall be again, and unless the Lord had shortened the
days, no flesh could have been saved.
In many places of the epistles, written to believers,
allusions are made to the judgments of God coming on
the Jewish nation, though not mentioned under the
THE WORD GEHENNA. 231
name Gehenna. The event is not only alluded to, but
spoken of as near ; and Christians are exhorted to pa-
tience, and holiness, in view of it. But these very
parts of the epistles, are by many, like the texts which
speak of Gehenna, all applied to punishment in a future
state of existence. See for example, 1 Peter iv. 17
— 19, and other texts, considered in my second Inquiry.
SECTION V.
THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ENDLESS MISERY CON-
SIDERED, DRAWN FROM THE USAGE OF GEHENNA
IN THE TARGUMS, AND OTHER JEWISH WRITINGS.
If Gehenna^ in the New Testament, means, as is
generally believed, a place of endless misery, we might
expect the evidence of this to be plain and conclusive.
But, on examination, we have found, strong evidence on
the opposite side of this question. We have consider-
ed all the texts in which this word occurs, and have
seen, that by Gehenna our Lord referred to God's pun-
ishment of the Jewish nation. Besides, a great number
of facts have been produced, in confirmation of this
view of the subject, and which never can be reconciled
with the common views entertained of Gehenna jjun-
ishment.
But Dr. Campbell avers, Gehenna — '' 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." It is alleged, this was its sense in the days of our
Lord, and in no other sense, is it used in the New Tes-
tament. Mr. Stuart, in his Exeget. Essays, p. 141 says — -
232 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
"it is admitted, that the Jews of later date, used the
word Gehenna to denote Tartarus, i. e. the place of
infernal punishment." But no proof of this is offered
by him from their writings. Nor does he produce any-
proof of the following. He says p. 146 — " That the
word Gehenna was common among the Jews, is evinced
by its frequency in the oldest Rabbinical writings. It
was employed by them as all confess, in order to desig-
nate hell, the infernal region, the world of woe. In
no other sense, can it in any way be made out, that it
is employed in the New Testament." The authority,
to which Mr. Stuart refers for this sense of Gehenna, is
not the old Testament writers, but "the oldest Rabbin-
ical writings," and " the Jews of later date." He adds,
p. 27. "The later Hebrew, the Talmudic and Rabbi-
nic, was not so late, but that it preceded the time when
the New Testament was written." But whether all
this is truth requires examination.
From such statements as these, an argument has been
urged like the following. " In the days of our Lord,
Gehenna was commonly used among the Jews, to de-
signate hell, a place of endless misery to the wicked.
Our Lord and his apostles must have used it in this
sense, if they meant to be understood by their hearers,
unless they apprised them to the contrary. But this
they did not ; hence it is concluded, that Gehenna is
used to designate the place of future punishment to all
the wicked, and in no other sense is it used in the New
Testament." In reply to this argument, we observe
1st, Admitting that Gehenna in our Lord's day, had
obtained this sense among the Jews, the conclusion
drawn from it does not follow, and for the following
among other reasons. This, in no instance, was the
sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament; and the wri-
ters of the New, used w^ords and phrases in the sense
they have there. They spoke — " not in the. words
which mail's wisdom ieacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
THE WORD GEHENNA. 233
teachethy 1 Cor ii. 13. Our Lord and his Apostles,
had no occasion then to apprize their hearers, in what
sense they used the term Gehenna, for they used it in
the sense it had in their scriptures. Again, to suppose
our Lord and his Apostles, used the term Gehenna in a
sense of men's invention, is accusing them of adopting
men's innovations in religion, a thing they reproved in the
Jews. Again, those who use this argument respecting
Gehenna, would object to its application to other words
and phrases. They would be the last to assert, that
our Lord and his apostles, adopted the sense which the
Jews had attached to the words justification, righteous-
ness, etc. At what point then are we to stop, if once
we begin to adopt Rabbinical glosses, given to the lan-
guage of scripture ? But,'
2d, We question the truth of the statements made,
from which this conclusion is drawn. Is it true, that
in our Lord's day, the term Gehenna was exclusively
used among the Jews to designate hell, a place of fu-
ture punishment for the wicked ? This is roundly assert-
ed, and has too long been taken for granted. Let us
examiHe and see, what solid ground there is for this as-
sertion.
Between the closing of the Old Testament canon by
Malachai, and the commencment of the Gospel dispen-
sation, about four hundred years intervened. Some-
time during this period, Gehenna must have changed its
sense, if in the days of our Lord, it was used to desig-
nate hell the world of woe, as Mr. Stuart affirms. That
this was not its sense in the Old Testament, is indispu-
table, and is confessed by Dr. Campbell. Who first
gave this new sense to the term Gehenna, when it was
given, and how long before it came to be confined to it,
we presume no man can inform us ? Our design in this
section, is, to notice all the Jewish writings, between
the days of Malachai and that of our Lord, to ascertain,
what they say about Gehenna. The following are all
20*
234 AN INQUIRY INTO
the Jewish writings extant, of which we have any
knowledge.
1st. The septuagint version. The first question to
be settled is — at what time was this version made?
Dr. Kennicot in his dissertation, says, p. 319, 320,
-' After many volumnious controversies, amongst learn-
ed writers upon the Greek version of the Old Testa-
7nent, we seem to have three circumstances clearly as-
certained— that there was no Greek version before that
called the seventy — that the version so denominated,
was made at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, about 280 years before Christ, — and that
the version, then made, was only of the Pentateuch." I
add, Jahn says, all the books were translated — " at latest,
in the second century before Christ." The septuagint
version, was commenced 280 years before Christ, but
was not perhaps completed, until about 150 years be-
fore this period.
2d, The only other question necessary to be decided
is — do we find Gehenna used in the septuagint, to de-
signate hell, the ivorld of woe ? No : Dr. Campbell
said above, " the word Gehenna does not occur- in the
septuagint." But here he was mistaken, for it does oc-
cur there with a slight variation in the spelling of the
word. For example, see Josh, xviii. 16, where the
word occurs, and is spelled Gaienna. The compound
Hebrew word ge enm in both cases, is merely given in
Greek letters. But it is useless to dwell on this topic,
for the seventy translators, in rendering the passages
from the Hebrew, where valley of Hinriom, and val-
ley of the son of Hinnom are mentioned, never sug-
gest, that such phrases were intended to designate hell^
or the world of ivoe. No one alleges they do this. It
is manifest then, that — " in the second century before
Chrisf Gehenna had no such sense affixed to it. If it
was used then in such a sense, it received no counte-
nance from the seventy translators. Their version.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 235
transmitted no such sense of Gehenna to posterity. If
it was used then, to designate hell, the world of woe,
why is no trace of this sense to be found in their ver-
sion ? If the translators had imbibed such an idea, they
had the same prejudices to give Gehemia such a sense,
as our translators had, to give hell such a sense in their
version, in translating Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Ge-
henna.
One thing here is certain. If Jesus Christ and his
apostles, used Gehenna in the Aew Testament, to de-
signate hell, the ivorld of ivoe, they did not derive this
sense of the word, either from the original Hebrew, or
the Greek version of the seventy. Indeed, I do not find
any one asserts, that such a sense of Gehenna originat-
ed in divine authority. It is not doing Jesus Christ, or
his apostles any honor, to say, they adopted a sense of
Gehenna so different from its usage in the Old Testa-
ment, on mere human authority. The inspired writers
in the Old Testament, could not give such a sense to
Gehenna, for it has never been proved, that they knew
of such a hell, a ivorld of woe, to which they could ap-
ply it. Gehenna then, w4ien the seventy version was
made, had no such meaning, but denoted the valley of
Hinnom, as it does in the Hebrew Scriptures, which was
not 200 years before the times of the i\ew Testament
writers. Then, it retained this meaning among the
Jews in Egypt, and it is well known, they were the first
in coniipting the Jewish religion, by mixing heathen
opinions with it.
2d, Tlie Apocryijhal booh's. These books, are the best
authority extant, respecting the religious opinions of the
Jews, between the days of Malachai and the coming of
Christ. Being appealed to, as authority on the point in
question, and are in the hands of most English readers,
let us 1st, advert to the time when the Apocryphal books
were written. This question is not easily determined,
for the dates of the books are uncertain. But, it is not
236 AN INQUIRY INTO
of much importance, to settle their dates precisely.
Those who wish to see what is said on this subject, may
consult Home's introduction, Prideaux's Connections,
and Jahn's Introduction. It is certain, most of them
were written previous to the days of our Lord. The
second book of Esdras is an exception, for some think,
it was written by some Christian since that period. Gray
in his key to the Old Testament says p. 531 — " The
second book of Esdras is not to be found in any He-
brew or Greek manuscript. It is supposed to have
been originally written in the Greek language', but is
extant only in a few latin copies, and in an Arabic ver-
sion." He adds, p. 534 — " The book was never admit-
ted into the Hebrew canon, and there is no sufficient
authority to prove, that it was ever extant in the He-
brew language. Its pretended prophecies, are not
produced in evidence by Christian writers, striking as
such testimony must have been, if genuine ; and the
book was never publicly or generally acknowledged
either in the Greek or Latin church ; nor was it ever
inserted in the sacred catalogue, by either councils or
fathers ; but is expressly represented as Apocryphal by
St. Jerom, who describes it as rejected by the church."
But notwithstanding the date and character of this book,
we have no objection to use it, and shall avail ourselves
of what it says on the subject, in common with all the
other books.
It should be distinctly understood by the reader, that
our examination of the Apocryphal books, is merely to
ascertain what were the opinions of the writers, relative
to Gehenna. The books, we do not consider canonical,,
and are not referred to as proof of the truth of such
opinions. Gray in his preface to the Apocrypha says —
p. 51 1 — " The books which are admitted into our Bibles
under the description of Apocryphal books, are so de-
nominated from a Greek word, which is expressive of
the uncertainty and concealed nature of their original.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 237
They have no title to be considered as inspired writ-
ings ; and though in respect of their antiquity and valu-
able contents they are annexed to the canonical books,
it is in a separate division : and by no means upon an
idea that they are of equal authority, in point of doc-
trine, with them : or that they are to be received as
oracles of faith ; to sanctify opinions, or determine reli-
gious controversies." But supposing all the Apocryphal
books, were wTitten sometime during the period which
intervened between the days of iMalachai and the Savior ;
the question then comes before us,, what were the opin-
ions entertained by the writers on the subject of punish-
ment, in Gehenna?
1st, Do they ever use the term Gehenna to desig-
nate a place of future punishment ? This has been as-
serted by some, but is certainly a great mistake, for the
term Gehenna does not occur in any of the Apochry-
phal books. It is not used by them in any sense, and
of course settles the question, that they gave no coun-
tenance to the opinion, that Gehenna was used among
the Jews to designate hell, the world of ivoe. I might
here drop the subject, for we have already ascertained
the information required. But I shall pursue the sub-
ject and inquire,
2d, Do the Apochryphal writers use the term Hades,
to designate a place of future punishment for the wicked ?
The term Hades, occurs sixteen times in the original
Apocryphal books, and is rendered as follows, in our
English version of them.
1st, It is rendered death. See Wisdom of Solomon,
chap. i. 14. It cannot mean a place of punishment here.
2d, It is rendered by our translators, '' the place
of the dead,'' Ecclesias. xlviii. 5, '^ who (Elias) didst
raise up a dead man from death, and his soul from
the place of the dead, by the word of the most High."
The reference is here, to what the prophet did, in rais-
ing a dead man to life, recorded in the Old Testament.
238 AN INQUIRY INTO
When it is said he raised the '' soul from the place of
the dead," the person himself is meant, for the term
soul is often used in the Old and New Testaments, to
designate the man oy person, and has been sufficiently
shown in another place. In Scripture, Sheol or Hades,
is represented as the place of all the dead.
3d, Hades is rendered the grave, in the following
texts : Wisdom of Solomon ii. 1. Eccles. ix. 12; xiv.
12, 16; xvii. 27 ; xxviii. 21 ; xh. 4. 2 Mac. vi. 23.
No one can doubt, that Hades in these texts, simply
means grave, and was so understood by our translators.
4th, Hades occurs in the following places, and is ren-
dered hell. Song verse QQ. Wisdom of Solomon, xvi.
13 ; xvii. 14. Eccles. xxi. 10; H. 5,6. Although
Hades in these places, is rendered by the word hell, it
is very obvious, it simply refers to the grave, or state
of the dead. If the reader turns to all the above texts
in the Apochryphal books, he will see, that Hades is used
there in a very similar manner, as Sheol in the Hebrew
canonical books. It is not intimated, by any of the writ-
ers, that they believed Hades was a place of punish-
ment after death. Not one of them insinuates, that any
person is alive in Hades. On the contrary, our transla-
tors as we have seen above, render Hades " the place of
the dead,^' not the place of the living.
3d, Da the Apochryphal writers, use the term Tarta-
rus, to designate a place of future punishment for the
wicked ? No : the term Tartarus, is not used in any sense,
by any Apochryphal writer. None of them venture to
say, what Mr. Stuart asserts, " that in the Hebrew,
Sheol, Hades, there was a Tartarus a place of pun-
ishment for the wicked.''^
There are three -additional places, where the word
hell occurs in the Apocryphal books. 2 Esdras ii. 29 ;
iv. 8 ; viii. 53 ; But any one who consults them, must
conclude, from the phraseology connected with the
word hell, that Hades, not Gehenna is used in the orig-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 239
inal. We have seen above from Gray, that though the
second book of Esdras, is " supposed to have been
originally written in the Greek language," it is now only
extant " in a few Latin copies, and in an Arabic ver-
sion." As the passages stand in our English version,
no one can suppose the writer meant to teach by
them, a place of future punishment for the wicked.
The hell mentioned, is not spoken of as a place of tor-
ment, or, that any persons are there in a state of con-
scious existence. The phraseology used, shows, She-
ol, HadeSy the grave, is referred to, for it is similar to
the language used about Sheol in the Old Testament.
It is then manifest, from the above examination, that
the Apocryphal writers, do not use Sheol, Hades, Tarta-
rus, or Gehenna to designate hell the world of woe, as
has been supposed. They do not use Gehenna in any
way, which settles in the most satisfactory manner, the
question in debate. That some of the Apocryphal writ-
ers believed in future punishment, and held other opin-
ions not found in the Jewish scriptures, we have shown
in our second inquiry, from p. 86 — '98, to w^hich we re-
fer the reader. But this only confirms what has been
stated in another place, that the Jews while in Babylon,
and after their return, imbibed many opinions from their
intercourse with the heathen, which are not taught in
their sacred books. This fact is admitted by all, and
what many of these heathen opinions were, may be
learned from the Apocryphal books. But none of the
writers of them, designate hell the ivorld of woe, by the
term Gehenna, which shows this was not its common
usage among the Jews when they were written. Now,
it is certain, some of the Apocryphal books were writ-
ten near the times of the New Testament, and some
think, one or more of them were written after this period.
Does this look, as if Gehenna was in common use
among the Jews to designate hell, the world of woe ?
Let the reader judge. , ,
240 AN INq,UIRY INTO
3d, Philo JudcBUs^ writings. The first question to be
determined is — at what time did Philo write ? Calmet
answers, Philo — "was pretty far in years when he was
deputed with others to go to Rome, about A. D. 40.
by the Jews of Alexandria, to defend the right of citizen-
ship of Alexandria w^hich the Jews claimed, before the
Emperor Caius." It is obvious then, that Philo must
have written his w^orks about the time our Savior was
on earth.
2d, The next question is — does Philo in his waitings
use the term Gehe7ina to designate hell, the ivorld of
woe ? This we eave every reason to suppose he did,
if in our Savior's day, Gehenna was used in this sense,
and was, as Dr. Campbell asserts, exclusively confined
to it. It is evident, Philo believed in future endless
punishment. He says, the punishment "of the wicked
persons is to live for ever dying ; and to be for ever in
pains and griefs, and calamities that never cease. " See
Whitby on Mark ix. 43, 44. It is not surprising Philo
should believe in endless punishment, if Calmet's ac-
count of him be correct. He says, — " Philo, a famous
Jewish author, of the city of Alexandria, and of the race
of the Priests. He made himself so famous by his elo-
quence, and by his knowledge of the Philosophy of Plato,
that it was commonly said of him at Alexandria, either
Philo imitates Plato, or Plato imitates Philo. And the
learned call him the Jewish Plato, or the second Pla-
to." Philo, could not have been a true Platonist with-
out believing in endless punishment. There is every
ground for supposing, that Philo would use the term
Gehenna, if this was its sense and application in the
days of our Lord to future punishment.
The question then is — does the term Gehenna oc-
cur in Philo's writings, designating a place of endless
punishment ? It is of no consequence in settling the
present question, that he beheved in endless punish-
ment. No, the question is, did he use the term Ge-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 241
henna to designate this place of punishment, whicli is
said to have been its exckisive sense in the days of the
Savior. In answer to this, we must say— we have
never seen, or heard, that Philo's writings are quoted in
proof, for this sense of Gehenna. Nor have we been
able to find, that he uses the term Gehenna in any
sense whatever. If he does, let his writings be quoted,
that we may see what lie says on the subject. No
doubt they would be quoted, if they contained any
proof on the point in question.
4th, Josephus^ ivritings. The first question here, is,
at what time did Josephus live and write ? Calmet
says, Josephus was — " born at Jerusalem, in the first
year of the reign of Caius, A. D. 37." And his writ-
ings are all included between A. D. 70 and A. D.
100. He was then born, not far from the time of the
Savior's death, and his writings appeared, about the
same time with the books of the New Testament.
2d, Does Josephus then use the term Gehenna to
designate hell, the ivorld of woe 1 We answer no ; nor
have we ever seen his writings appealed to in proof of
such an opinion. He gives an account, of the opinions
of the Jews relative to future punishment, but does not
use Gehenna to describe it. Whitby on Mark ix. 43,
44 quotes Josephus thus — " the Pharisees held, that
the souls of the wicked were to be punished with per-
petual punishment, and that there was appointed for
them a perpetual prison." But he, nor no other person,
so far as I know, ever quoted Josephus, to show he used
the term Gehenna in reference to future punishment.
It does not appear from Josephus' works, that any pun-
ishment after death, was believed among the Jews, un-
til after their return from the Babylonian captivity, or
near the times of the Savior. How they came to im-
bibe this and other heathen opinions, we have notic-
ed already.
5th, The Jewish Tar gums. It is to these Targums
21
242 AN INQUIRY INTO
we are chiefly referred for proof, that in the days of
our Lord, Gehenna designated hell, the world of woe ;
and in this sense it is always used in the New Testa-
ment. It is necessary then, that we examine this with
care and attention. Let us 1st, ascertain the nature
and number of these Targums. For the information
of some of my readers, I give the following abridged ac-
count of them, from Prideaux's connections, vol. 4 pp.
560—585.
" The Chaldee paraphrases are translations of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament made directly from
the Hebrew text into the language of the Chaldeans ;
which language was anciently used through all As-
syria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine ;
and is still the language of the churches of the Nes-
torian and Maronite Christians in those eastern parts,
in the same manner as the Latin is the language of the
Popish churches here in the west. And therefore
these paraphrases were called Targums, because they
were versions or translations of the Hebrew text into
this language ; for the word Targum signifieth, in Chal-
dee, an interpretation or version of one language into
another, and may properly be said of any such version
or translation : but it is most commonly by the Jews
appropriated to these Chaldee paraphrases ; for being
among them what were most eminently such, they
therefore had this name by way of eminency especially
given to them.
" These Targums were made for the use and in-
struction of the vulgar Jews after their return from the
Babylonish captivity ; for, although many of the better
sort still retained the knowledge of the Hebrew lan-
guage during that captivity, and taught it their children,
and the Holy Scriptures that were delivered after that
time, excepting only some parts of Daniel and Ezra,
and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein ;
yet the common people, by having so long conversed
THE WORD GEHENNA. 243
with the Babylonians, learned their language, and for-
got their own. It happened indeed otherwise to the
children of Israel in Egypt ; for, although they lived
there above three times as long as the Babylonish cap-
tivity lasted, yet they still preserved the Hebrew lan-
guage among them, and brought it back entire with
them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Egypt
they all lived together in the land of Goshen ; but on
their being carried captive by the Babylonians, they
were dispersed all over Chaldea and Assyria, and, be-
ing there intermixed Vith the people of the land, had
their main converse with them, and therefore were
forced to learn their language : and this soon induced a
disuse of their own among them ; by which means it
came to pass, that, after their return, the common peo-
ple, especially those of them who had been bred up in
that captivity understood not the Holy Scriptures in
the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after them.
And therefore, when Ezra read the law to the people,
he had several persons standing by him well skilled in
both the Chaldee and Hebrew languages, who interpret-
ed to the people in Chaldee what he first read to them
in Hebrew. And afterwards, when the method was es-
tablished of dividing the law into 54 sections, and of
reading one of them every week in their synagogues,
the same course of reading to the people the Hebrew
text first, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee,
was still continued. For, when the reader had read
one verse in Hebrew, an interpreter standing by did
render it into Chaldee ; and then the next verse being
read in Hebrew, it was in like manner interpreted in
the same language as before ; and so on from verse to
verse was every verse alternately read first in the He-
brew, and then interpreted in Chaldee to the end of the
section ; and this first gave occasion for the making of
Chaldee versions for the help of these interpreters.
And they thenceforth became necessary not only for
244 AN INQUIRY INTO
their help in the pubUc synagogues, but also for the
help of the people at home in their families, that they
might there have the Scriptures for their private read-
ing in a language which they understood,
" This work having been attempted by divers per-
sons at different times, and by some of them with dif-
ferent views (for some of them were written as ver-
sions for the public use of the synagogues, and others
as paraphrases and commentaries for the private in-
struction of the people,) hence it hath come to pass,
that there were anciently many of these Targums, and
of different sorts, in the same manner as there anciently
were many different versions of the same Holy Scrip-
tures into the Greek language, made with like different
views ; of which we have sufficient proof in the Octapla
of Origen. No doubt, anciently there were many more
of these Targums than we now know of, which have
been lost in the length of time. Whether there were
any of them of the same composure on the whole
Scriptures is not any where said. Those that are now
remaining were composed by different persons, and on
different parts of Scripture, some on one part, and
others on other parts ; and are in all, of these eight
sorts following. 1. That of Onkelos on the five books of
Moses ; 2. That of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the proph-
ets, that is, on Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the two books of
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor
prophets ; 3. That on the law, which is ascribed to
Jonathan Ben Uzziel ; 4. The Jerusalem Targum on
the law ; 5. The Targum on the five lesser books, call-
ed the Megilloth, i. e, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the
Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah ;
6. The second Targum on Esther ; 7. The Targum of
Joseph, the one-eyed, on the book of Job, the Psalms,
and the Proverbs ; and, 8. The Targum on the first
and second book of Chronicles. On Ezra, Nehemiah,
and Daniel, there is no Targum at all, The reason
THE WORD GEHENNA. ^45
given by some for this is, because a great part of those
books is written in the Chaldee language, and therefore
there is no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them.
This indeed is true for Daniel and Ezra, but not for
Nehemiah ; for that book is all originally written in the
Hebrew language. No doubt, anciently there were
Chaldee paraphrases on all the Hebrew parts of those
books, though now lost. It was long supposed that
there were no Targums on the two books of Chroni-
cles, because none such were known, till they were
lately published by Beckius, at Augsburg in Germany,
that on the first book A. D. 1680, and that on the se-
cond in 1683." ,
2d, We shall now lay before the reader what the Tar-
gums contain on the point in question. What then do
the advocates of endless misery produce from them,
showing that Gehenna was made an emblem of hell the
world of woe 1 Parkhurst on the word Gehenna thus
writes. — " From this valley having been the scene of
those inferaal sacrifices, and probably too, from its con-
tinuing after the time of Josiah's reformation, 2 Kings
xxiii. 10, a place of abominable ^Mine55 and poZ/w^WTi;
the Jews in our Savior's time used the compound word
ge enm, for hell, the place of the damned. This ap-
pears, from that word's being thus applied by the Chaldee
Targums, in Ruth ii. 12. Ps. cxl. 12. Isia. xxvi. 1
— 5. and xxxiii. 14. and by the Jerusalem Targum,
and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, Gen. iii. 24. and xv.
17. comp. 2 Esdras ii. 29."
Again, Whitby on Mark ix. 43, 44, says — " That
Gehenna, was by the Jews, still looked on and represent-
ed as the place in which the wicked were to be torment-
ed by fire : so the Jerusalem Targum represents Ge-
henna which is prepared for the wicked in the world to
come, as a. furnace sparkling and flaming with fire, into
which the wicked fall. And the Targum upon Ecclesi-
astes speaks of the fire of hell, Eccles. ix. 15 ; of the
21*
246 AN INQUIRY INTO
sparks of the fire of hell, chap. x. 2. and of the wick-
ed, who shall go to be burned in hell, chap. viii. 10. Ac-
cordingly our Lord speaks, verse 47, and Math. v. 22,
of the wicked being cast into the fire of hell, and of
their being cast into a furnace of fire. Math. xiii. 42.
The ancient Jews held, that the punishment of the wick-
ed in hell, should be perpetual or without end. So Ju-
dith saith, that they shall weep under the sense of their
pains for ever, chap. 17."
Dr. Allen in his lecture pp. 20. 21, gives us the
following account. " As the word Gehenna is a Hebrew
word, it is worthy of our inquiry to ascertain the mean-
ing attached to the word by the Jewish writers. By
Gehenna the Jews understood the place of punishment,
or the punishments of the wicked after the present life.
The Targum of Jerusalem, on Gen. iii. 24, says, that
' two thousand years before the foundation of the world,
God founded paradise for the just, and Gehenna for the
impious, like a two edged sword, cutting on either side.
In the midst of it he placed a raging fire, in which the
wicked shall be burned.' So the Targum of Jonathan,
on Isai. xxxiii. 14, says, ' that the impious are judged
and delivered over to everlasting fire in Gehenna.' On
Isai. Ixv. 5, their punishment will be in Gehenna, where
the fire burns perpetually."
The following is to be found in the Targums, on the
texts to which Whitby and Parkhurst refer us.
"Ruth ii. 12. The Lord shall abundantly recom-
pense thee in this age, for thy good work, and shall be
thy complete reward to the age that shall come, from
the presence of the Lord God of Israel ; because thou
hast come to join thyself to his people and worship, and
find protection under the shadow of the majesty of his
glory, and for this righteous conduct thou shalt be de-
livered from the punishment of Gehenna, that thy por-
tion may be with Sarah and Ribhah, and Rachel and
Lea."
THE WORD GEHENNA. 247
''Psalm cxl. 10, 11. Let coals of fire fall from hea-
ven upon them ; let him cast them into the fire of Ge-
henna ; into mhy pits ; from which let them not rise to
eternal life. Let the angel of death hunt the violent
man, and cast him into Gehenna."
"Isaiah xxvi. 15. Thou hast been revealed to us,
O ! Lord ! as about to assemble the dispersed of thy
people ; it shall also come to pass that thou wilt collect
tliem from their wanderin2;s ; that thou mightest appear
in thy power, to cast all the wicked into Gehenna.'
'' Isaiah xxvi. 19. And those who transgress thy
word, thou wilt deliver into Gehenna."
'' Isaiah xxxiii. 14. Who among us shall dwell in
Zion, where the splendor of his majesty is as consum-
ing fire? Who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem,
where the wicked are to be judged, and cast into Ge-
henna, into everlasting burnings?"
In the Universalist expositor, vol. 2. pp. 367, 368,
we have the following account of Gehenna, as collected
from the Targums. — " We come, at last, to the Targums
of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel ; and in the latter
of these, we meet, for the first time in Jewish writings,
with Gehenna in the sense alledged. In the former, so
far at least as the end of the paraphrase on Genesis, nei-
ther that term nor any thing else relating to our subject,
occurs ; and we presume that such is the case with the
rest of the work, since it is nearly a literal translation,
and is never quoted, by the critics, for examples in
point. But in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel,
Gehenna is several times used ; and here, as we have
already observed, it seems appropriated exclusively to
scenes either of future woe, or of severe and extensive
judgments in this world : perhaps, always to the former.
The author speaks of Gehenna, as the place which God
' hath prepared below for transgressors ;' to which he
' will adjudge them in the day of trial ;' and ' from
which he will preserve his righteous servants.' When
248 AN INQ.UIRY INTO
he redeems the captivity of his people, ^ he will appear
in his power, in order to cast all the impious into Ge-
henna.' It is ' prepared, of old, for the nations that
have oppressed Israel : the King eternal hath prepared
it deep and wide ; a flaming pile is kindled therein, as
of much wood ; and the word of the Lord as a torrent
of sulphur sets it on fire! The dissemblers, in their
terror, exclaim, ' who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem,
where the impious are to be judged and sent into Ge-
henna with eternal burning/ ' The blessed shall see
them descending into the land of Gehenna ;' such as
say, ' stand by thyself, come not near unto me, for I
am holier than thou, — shall have their punishment in
Gehenna, where the fire burns continually ; and their
bodies shall be delivered to the second death ! When
all people shall come ' from month to month, and from
sabbath to sabbath, to worship before the Lord, they
shall go forth and behold the carcasses of the sinners
w^ho have despised the word of the Lord ; their souls
die not, and their fire is not quenched ; and they shall
be judged in Gehenna, until the righteous shall say of
them, we have seen enough,' etc. Such is the lan-
guage in which this author speaks of Gehenna. And we
may repeat, that it is not only in a different style, but
under a different name, that he mentions the valley of
Hinnom. At the date of this Targum, therefore, we may
conclude that the term had become appropriated by the
Jews to a place of future torment. Nothing remains,
but to point out the age of the work."
3d, we shall now examine at what time the Jewish
Targums were written. Jahn in his introduction to
the Old Testament, pp. 64 — 68, thus writes, "The
Chaldee paraphrases are known by the name of Tar-
gums. (Which means a version or an interpretation.)
The most celebrated among them is that of the Pen-
tateuch, ascribed to Onkelos, whom the Babylonian
Talmud makes contemporary with Gamaliel, adding
THE WORD GEHENNA. 249
many incoherent tales respecting him : It is evident
however, that he hved several centuries before the Tal-
mudical writers, since they know so little of him, al-
though he wrote in Babylonia. Onkelos, therefore,
would seem to have written not in the fourth or fifth
century of the Christian era, but in the third or rather
in the second, and this is confirmed by his paraphrase
itself," etc.
Jahn says, concerning the Targum of Jonathan Ben
Uzziel on the prophets — " the work is a collection of
interpretations of several learned men, made towards
the close of the third century, and containing some of a
much older date : for that some parts of it existed as
early as in the second century, appears from the ad-
ditions," etc.
Respecting the Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan on
the Pentateuch, Jahn says, — that it was not written
before the seventh or eighth century. It seems however
to have been compiled from older interpretations."
As to the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch,
Jahn observes — " this work is more modern than that
of the Pseudo — Jonathan, or certainly not more ancient.
It seems to have been compiled, however, from more
ancient works, and hence contains many sentences
which are found in the New Testament," etc. Jahn
adds — " the other chaldee paraphrases are neither older
nor better, than the preceding, but abound with di-
gressions and fictions."
We have quoted Jahn's authority, respecting the
age of the Jewish Targums, because he stands very
high as a writer among orthodox people. The follow-
ing from the Universalist Expositor, generally comfirm
his statements. In p. 368, speaking of the Targum of
Jonathan Ben Uzziel, it is said — " This is uncertain.
Prideaux, together with several of the old critics, and
even Gesenius among the living, place it not far from the
diristian era, on the authority chiefly of Jewish tradi-.
250 AN INQUIRY INTO
tions. Prideaux, however, has well observed, that * in
historical matters, it is not to be regarded what the
Jews write or what they omit." Most of the emi-
nent writers now agree, that it could not have been
completed till some time between two and four hun-
dred years after Christ. Dr. Jahn thinks it, a collec-
tion of the interpretations of several learned men, made
towards the end of the third century, and containing
some of a much older date." Eickhorn says that ^' Jon-
athan certainly lived later than the birth of Christ;"
and judging from his style, his fables, his perversion
of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and from
the profound silence of the early Jews and Christian
fathers, he concludes that his compilation cannot have
been made before the fourth century. The same cir-
cumstances that Eickhorn adduces, are thought by
Bertholdt to indicate the second or third century ;
and he is confident that the collection 'cannot have
attained its complete form, before the end of the second
century." With these general conclusions, it is said
that Bauer likewise agrees ; and some critics, have
referred the work to as late a period as the seventh or
eighth century.
Such is the account, which the various critics give, of
the dates of the Jewish Targums. We shall now sub-
mit a few brief remarks for the consideration of our
readers.
1st, Those who refer us to the Targums for proof, that
Gehenna in the days of our Lord, was used among the
Jews to designate AeZ/, the world of ivoe, seldom quote
what they say, on this subject, fully and "fairly to their
readers. Mr. Stuart makes no quotations at all, in proof
of his assertions, nor does he even name the books, or
pages where such proof may be found. We suspect, he
was somewhat ashamed to do this, for what man, tender
of his own reputation, would quote the silly remarks,
which Dr. Allen quoted from the Jewish Targums, given
THE WORD GEHENNA. 251
^bove. No madman, ever said more silly and ridiculous
things, than are to be found in the Jewish Talmud and
Targums. The Targums, most commonly referred to-,
in proof of such a sense given to Gehenna by the Jews,
are those, into which the writers introduced their own
— '^ glosses and silly stories, fables, prolix explications,
and other additions."
2d, Let the reader observe, the texts on which the
Targums are written, afford no foundation for such a sense
being given to the term Gehenna. This term, is not
used in the texts in any sense whatever ; nor is the
writer in any of the texts, speaking either of future
punishment, or a future world. None of the texts,
afford the shadow of a ground for saying Gehenna means
hell, the world of woe. There is no connection, be-
tween the text and the comment given on it by the Tar-
gumists. They might have given the same comment,
in any other text in the bible, with equal propriety. If
the texts then, afforded no foundation for such com-
ments, why were they made, and why should christians
regard them ?
3d, But what decides the question at issue is — The
Targums were not WTitten in the days of our Lord, con-
sequently cannot be quoted as proof, that in his day,
Gehenna among the Jews designated hell, the world of
woe. It was impossible in the nature of the case, that
our Lord derived this sense of Gehenna from the Jew-
ish Targums, as the dates of them show. They were
not in existence, until several hundred years after our
Lord was on earth, as the best critics have testified
above. Why then, are they appealed to at all, in proof
of this ? And on what ground did Mr. Stuart assert, that
the later Jewish writers, gave such a sense to Gehenna,
prior to the writing of the New Testament ? It appears
from the following quotation, the facts are very differ-
ent.
" From the time of Josephus, onwards, there is an
252 AN INQ,UIR»5r INTO
interval of about a century, from which no Jewish
writings have descended to us. — In this period, we meet
with the first information which we receive from any
quarter whatsoever, that Gehenna was the place of the
damned. Still, it is not from a Jew, that this earhest
notice comes, but from the celebrated christian father,
Justin Martyr, about A. D. 150. He quotes the lan-
guage of our Savior, ' fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna,'
and then adds, for the instruction of the heathen's to
whom he was WTiting, that Gehenna is the place where
those are to be punished who have led unrighteous lives,
and disbelieved what God declared by Christ. This is
of course, merely his interpretation of that term, as he
understood it in the New Testament ; and notwithstand-
ing he had been brought up in one of the cities of the an-
cient Samaria, he certainly had no acquaintance with
the language, and probably none with the peculiar
usages, of the Jews.
"The next notice of the kind, is, we think, that of
another christian father, Clemens Alexandrinus, about
A. D. 195. Maintaining the doctrine of a future state,
he adduces the authority of the heathen philosophers :
' Does not Plato acknowledge both the rivers of fire,
and that profound depth of the earth which the barba-
rians (the Jews) call Gehenna ? Does he not prophet-
ically mention Tartarus, Coytus, Acheron, the Phleg-
ethon of fire, and certain other like places of punish-
ment, which lead to correction and discipline ?' Here
Clemens meant, beyond all doubt, that the Jews denom-
inated the place of future punishment, Gehenna ; but
whether he spoke from personal knowledge or from
presumption, it is altogether uncertain. He knew it to be
a Jewish, not a Greek, word ; and he may have judged
its usage among the Barbarians, as he called them, by
what he supposed its sense in the New Testament-"
Universalist Expositor vol' 2. pp. 361,366.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 253
4th, But supposing the Targums to have been written
prior to the days of Christ, yea let it be supposed, that
among the Jews in his day, the current sense of Ge-
henna was — hdlj the world of ivoe, what does this
prove? It does not prove, that this sense was given to
Gehenna by divine authority. Nor does it prove, that
our Lord used it in this sense. On the contrary, there
is not the least foundation for supposing, that he would
lay aside the Old Testament sense of Gehenna, and
adopt this new sense on the authority of men, and es-
pecially such writers as the authors of the Targums.
Jesus Christ gave no countenance to men's inventions in
religion, or sanctioned the alterations which the Jews
had made on the ideas or language of their scriptures.
The whole of his teaching proves this ; and the texts
with their contexts, where he used the term Gehenna,
stand opposed, as we have seen above, to such a sense
given to this word. Besides, the facts we have adduced,
never can be reconciled with this sense attached to the
term Gehenna. But if people Avill contend, that the
authority of the Targums is good, in establishing that
Gehenna in our Lord's day meant hell, the ivorld of
woe, they can have no reasonable objection to receiving it
as good, in a case closely connected Avith this. I shall
therefore submit for their serious consideration the fol-
lowing observations.
1st, If the Targums are good authority, that Gehenna
is a place of endless punishment, their authority is equal-
ly good, in determining who are to suffer it. Permit me
then to adduce the same authoj-ity, from Whitby on
Rom. ii. to show, that no Jew went to hell to be punished
forever, but all the Gentiles are fit fuel for hell fire. He
says, — " The Jewish religion was very much corrupted
at our Savior's coming, so that they thought it sufficient
to obtain God's favor, and to secure them from his
judgments, — 1st, That they were of the seed of Abra-
ham ; and hence the Baptist speaks thus to them, bring
22
254 AN INQUIRY INTO
forth fruits meet for repentance, and (think it not suffi-
cient to) say within yourselves, we have Abraham for
our father, Matth. iii. 8,9. The Chaldee paraphrasts
do often mention their expectation of being preserved
for the merits or good works of their forefathers, Abra-
ham, Isaac and Jacob ; and their writers add, that hell
fire hath no power over the sinners of Israel, because
Abraham and Isaac descend thither to fetch them thence.
2d, They held that circumcision was of sufficient virtue
to render them accepted of God, and to preserve them
from eternal ruin ; for they teach that no circumcised
person goes to hell; God having promised to deliver
them from it for the merit of circumcision ; and having
told Abraham, that when his children fell into trans-
gression, and did wicked works, he would remember
the odor of their foreskins, and would be satisfied
with their piety. And, 3d, They taught that all Isra-
elites had a portion in the world to come ; and that not-
withstanding their sins, yea though they were condemn-
ed here for their wickedness : whereas, of all the Gen-
tiles, without exception, they pronounce that they are
fuel for hell fire. ^^ Let persons then, who quote the
Targums in proof, that Gehenna or hell is a place of
endless misery, take their choice. They must either
reject their authority altogether, or be willing to go to
hell on the same authority ; as Gentiles we must all be
content to he fuel for hell fire. Let us then make up
our minds, whether we shall, for the sake of maintain-
ing the authority and honor of the Targums in the one
case, be willing to submit to the punishment they assign
us in the other. We must either accept of both or re-
ject both. — We might here take pur leave of the Tar-
gums : for what has now been stated, is sufficient to con-
vince any man, that their authority is not for a moment
to be regarded. But we shall proceed.
2d, Parkhurst says, that, " the Jews in our Savior's
time used the compound word ge enm, for hell, the
THE WORD GEHENNA. 255
place of the damned. And he adds, that '^ this appears
from that word's being thus apphed by the Chaldee
Targums, and by the Jerusalem Targums, and that of
Ben Uzziel." And why does it not also appear, that
all the stories, and glosses, and fables, which they in-
troduced into their Targums, are also true ? We have
the same authority for the one as for the other. If it
should be said, that the Targums are only appealed to
for the manner in which the Jews used this word, we
reply, that this is not the whole truth, for it is in the
way the Jews did use this word in the Targums, that
the doctrine is attempted to be proved. The sense in
which our Lord used the word Gehenna is assumed, and
the Targums are appealed to, not only for the sense of
this word, but for the truth of the doctrine. Let it be
shown, from the context of the passages in which it is
used, that this is its sense, and there is no necessity to
appeal to the Targums. But if it be true, which is stat-
ed in the above quotation, why does it not also ap-
pear, that the Gentiles were fuel for hell fire ? By this
way of making things appear to he true, it will be no
difficult thing to show, that all the silly, sick-brained
stories of the Apocrypha, Targums, and Talmuds, are
true. Besides, by the same rule, we ought to believe,
that the fire of hell is literal, material fire, for the Tar^
gumists appear to have believed this, as is plain from
the above quotation. But notice, Whitby says, that
" the Jewish religion was very much corrupted at our
Savior's coming." By what evidence does it then ap-
pear, that the Gentiles were fuel for hell fire, and that
this is a corruption of their religion, but that hell fire
itself was not also a part of this corruption ? Neither
of these is taught in the Old Testament. From what
source, then, do we learn, that both are not a corrup-
tion of their religion ? How could they be any thing else
but a corruption of it, when not found in their Scrip-
tures ? If this is denied, let proof be produced to the
256 AN INQ.UIRY INTO
contrary. After reading the above quotation from
Whitby, no one can doubt ths.t the Jewish religion was
very much corrupted. It was a corruption, however,
as any one may see, which flattered themselves, and
sufficiently expressed their enmity against the Gentiles.
After seeing this quotation, and considering the strange
and ridiculous opinions held by the Jews, w^hat credit can
any man give, to any thing such persons could say about
Gehenna, being a place of endless misery ? One would
certainly be disposed to think, that, so far from the doc-
trine being true, it was invented for the purpose of
showing their deep-rooted aversion to Gentiles. If
Gehenna, held by them to be a place of endless misery,
be a truth, yet all the other things stated in the above
quotation are considered corruptions of their religion,
we honestly own, that we have seldom seen a truth
held with so many absurd notions. To say the least
of it, the testimony of such witnesses, is very sus-
picious.
3d, But we should like to know, how the writers of
the Targums quoted above, came by the Information,
which they detail to us concerning Gehenna ? By what
means did they come to know, that it was a place of
punishment for the wicked, that the punishment was to
be literal fire, and endless In Its duration ? I repeat the
question, — Where did the above persons get all this in-
formation ? Did they derive It from the heathen, or
did they invent It themselves ? If from neither of these
sources, let it be shown from what source they did de-
rive It. Until it Is proved, that this information was de-
rived from God's authority, no man ought to believe it.
But it may be objected to this, by saying, is It not said,
in the above quotations, that our Lord speaks, Mark ix.
47. and Matth. v. 22. of the wicked being cast into the
fire of hell, and of their being cast into a furnace of fire,
Matth. xIII. 42 ?" The two first of these passages
have been, considered, being two of those in which
THE WORD GEHENNA. 257
Gehenna occurs. It has been shown, that Gehenna in
no instance, signifies a place of endless misery for
the wicked. As to the last passage, we have shown in
our second Inquiry, that it has nothing to do with a
place of endless misery, but refers to the same tempo-
ral calamities which are spoken of under the em-
blem of Gehenna, by the prophet Jeremiah. It is
there shown, our Lord did not derive his allusion to a
"■ furnace of fire" in the above passage, from the Tar-
gums, but from the Old Testament Scriptures. It is
very certain, all professing Christians, not only in our
day, but for many ages past, have believed, that Ge-
henna is the place of eternal punishment for all the wick-
ed. One should think, that it would not be difficult
to show, from what source this information was derived.
We might also expect, that instead of referring to the
Targums, God's authority would be appealed to at once,
and the Scripture evidence of its truth, would be full
and explicit. A subject of such universal and deep in-
terest to the human race, we think, would not be left
as a matter of doubtful disputation, depending on the
sense which the writers of the Targums give to the
word Gehenna. Even when such writings are appealed
to, they aflx)rd no proof of the doctrine, and give us but
a poor opinion of either the piety of the writers, or the
correctness of their religious opinions. If eternal pun-
ishment in Gehenna, be a part of the revealed will of
God, at some time or other this revelation must have
been given. Now, I am willing to believe it, and shall
teach it with all the ability God has given me, if it can
be shown such a revelation has been given, during any
part of the four following periods of time : which in-
cludes all periods in which it could be revealed.
1st, I shall believe it, if it can be proved, that it was
revealed at any time during the Old Testament dispen-
sation. That such a doctrine, as the eternity of hell
torments, was not revealed during this period, is now
22*
258 AN INQUIRY INTO
generally admitted. It is confessed by Mr. Stuart and
others, that it was not revealed under the name of She-
ol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna, daring that dis-
pensation : and it is not pretended, that any other name
is used to express this place of endless punishment. I
therefore observe
2d, That I shall believe this doctrine, if it can be
proved, that God revealed it in any time from the com-
pletion of the Old Testament Scriptures, to the com-
mencement of the gospel dispensation. The time which
elapsed between these two events, was about four hun-
dred years. Malachi, in closing his book, commanded
attention to be given to the law of Moses, until the
coming of John the Baptist, but gives no injunction to
pay attention to the Apocrypha or the Targums. And
we have no account, during the above period, that any
inspired prophet arose, and revealed such a doctrine to
the world. To quote any writer from Malachi to John
the Baptist, in proof of this doctrine, is nothing to the
purpose.
3d, I will believe this doctrine, if it is proved, that
God revealed it since the New Testament was com-
pleted. This is not supposed, for it is contended by all
who hold it, that it was known long before this. To
contend that it was revealed after the New Testament
was completed, would be to give it up as a Scripture
doctrine, and sanction all the wild pretentions to inspi-
ration since that period. If we do not end our revela-
tions with the New Testament, we shall have a host of
inspired fanatics, and an inundation of enthusiastical rev-
eries, for the faithful sayings of God.
4th, I will believe this doctrine if it can be proved,
that it has been revealed by God to men, during the
ministry of Christ or any of his apostles : or, in other
words, if it can be proved from the New Testament.
All the passages where Gehenna occurs we have consid-
ered, and we think have shown, that no such doctrine is
THE WORD GEHENNA. 259
taught in them. Besides, we have adduced a number
of facts, at variance with such a view of the subject.
But we have a few remarks to make on the above quo-
tations, of a different nature from those aheady made.
1st, There is considerable similarity, in the opinions
held by the Targumists, and Christians in the present
day. I need not notice, that both are agreed, Gehenna
means Ae//, ivorld of woe, for this is obvious. But it
deserves special notice, the similarity of their opinions,
as to those who must go to hell. The Jews considered
all Gentiles fuel for hell fire, but exempted themselves
from this punishment. No Jew could go to hell ; or if
he did — '' hell fire hath no power over the sinners of
Israel, because Abraham and Isaac descend thither to
fetch them thence^ The "merit of circumcision," and
" the odor of their foreskins," was sufficient to pre-
serve them from hell. Such was the faith of the per-
sons, on whose authority we are to believe, Gehenna
to be a place of endless misery. Christians now retali-
ate on the Jews, and consider them fit fuel for hell fire.
Christians also believe, no Christian shall go to hell.
Ask any one of them, do you believe you shall go to
hell ? Oh, no, say they, God forbid we should go to
hell. But why not ? The reasons they assign, are
very similar to those the Jews assigned. They are the
children of Godly parents ; they have been baptized ;
they are members of the church. These, or similar
things, have put all their fears to rest about going to
hell. The fact is, I never met with a person in my life-
time, who believed hell was a place of punishment for
himself. No, this is for the wicked Jews ; the heathen ;
or, wicked persons around them. We have even known
some good people, who, while their children lived, con-
sidered them as on the broad road to hell, but when
they died, without much evidence of a change, still
hoped they were gone to heaven. This conduct of
their's, has reminded us of the conduct of the ancient
260 AN INQUIRY INTO
Romans with their Caesars. While they Uved, they
counted them devils, but after death, deified them.
2d, But how came the Jews to believe in a place of
endless misery, and at length came to use the term Ge-
henna to express it ? There are several points fixed
about this, which enable us to form at least a rational
conjecture respecting it. Let it then be observed, Mr.
Stuart, Dr. Campbell, and others, seem to admit, that a
place of endless punishment is not taught in the Old
Testament. Here is one point fixed. Again, it is ad-
mitted by all, that the term Gehenna, nor no other
term, is used in the Old Testament, to express a place
of endless punishment. Indeed, it was impossible to
use Gehenna in such a sense, if no such place w^as
known, for a place must first be known, before we can
give it a name of any kind. Here is another point fix-
ed on the question before us. Again, it is stated by
Dr. Campbell, and others, that during, and after the
Babylonian captivity, the Jews came to learn from the
heathen, the notion of endless punishment in a future
state. This we have seen above. The introduction
of this, and other heathen opinions among the Jews,
was gradual, but in the days of our Lord had become
general, with perhaps the exception of the sect of the
Sadducees. But though they learned from the hea-
then, this notion of a place of endless punishment, they
could not learn from them, to call it by the name Ge-
henna, for this was a Hebrew term. Another point
which seems to be certain is — the Jews from a variety
of causes, had imbibed a deep rooted hatred of the
Gentile nations. They counted them dogs, and ex-
cluded them from all participation in the blessings of
their Messiah? s reign. It is also universally admitted,
that no place known to a Jew, was more abominable
than Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom. Jahn in his
Archeology, p. 527, says — " in the later periods of the
Jewish kingdom, this idol was erected in the valley
THE WORD GEHENNA. 261
south of Jerusalem, viz. in the valley of Ilinnom, and
in the part of said valley called Tophet, so named from
the drums which were beaten to prevent the groans and
cries of children sacrificed, from being heard, Jer. vii.
31, 32. xix. 6 — 14. Isai. xxx. 33. 2 Kings xxiii. 10.
The place was so abhorrent to the minds of the more
recent Jews, that they applied the name Ge Hinnom or
Gehenna to the place of torments in a future life. The
word Gehenna is used in this way, (viz. for the place of
punishment beyond the grave,) very frequently in
oriental writers, as far as India. Compare Wetsten's
New Testament, at Math. v. 5."
Such are the points which seem to be fixed relative
to this subject. From these facts, we may form a ra-
tional conjecture, how the Jews came to use the term
Gehenna to express a place of endless punishment in a
future state. They did not so apply this term, to ex-
press a place of endless punishment to themselves.
No: let it be noticed, it was so used to express a place
of endless punishment to the Gentile nations. No Jew
could suffer the torments of hell. But all the Gentiles
were fit fuel for hell fire. The Jews had even no deal-
ings with the Samaritans ; and they counted it proper to
hate their enemies. Math. v. 43. See how strong this
prejudice was, even m the minds of Christ's own follow-
ers. Acts chapters x. and xi. The whole New Tes-
tament, shows to what extent self-righteousness, self
lovC; national pride, and vanity had taken possession of
the minds of the Jews. The quotation made from
Whitby, on Rom. ii. above, shows the malignant ha-
tred which the Jews had to the Gentiles. To express
this hatred of them, they consigned them to hell fire ;
and it is a probable conjecture, that as no place was more
abominable to Jews than Gehenna, they used the tenn
Gehenna to express the place of endless punishment to
the Gentile nations. This conjecture, the reader must
easily perceive, seems to be countenanced from the quo-
262 AN 1NQ,UIRY INTO
tation from Whitby, and also from the accounts given
from the Targums respecting Gehenna. But at this
distance of time, we have no hope of being ever able
to determine, when, or by whom, this new sense was
first given to Gehenna. That it was not from divine
authority, seems certain, and in the nineteenth century,
it is high time for Christians to discard all human au-
thority in the things of religion.
We have now finished our examination of the term
Gehenna. The result to which we have come, and the
evidence by which we have arrived at it, are before the
reader, let him judge for himself In conclusion we
would observe.
1st, If any person believes my views are unscriptural,
the first step to be taken, ^ to convince me of my error,
is, to account rationally for the facts I have stated. Un-
til these are fairly removed out of the way, it is impos-
sible for me to believe, Gehenna in the New Testament,
designates hell, a world of woe. Let any candid man
examine these facts, and then say, if it is possible with
such facts in view, any rational man can believe this
doctrine. They form a phalanx of difficulties, which is
impenetrable, against its reception. Upon no part of
this whole Inquiry, has more labor of thinking been
bestowed, than in attempting to reconcile the facts with
the common opinion, that Gehenna designates a place
of endless punishment to the wicked. We have turned
this subject round, and viewed it on all sides, with all the
attention we could command. I can sincerely say, I
have sought, but sought in vain, to find something which
could fairly account for the facts, and reconcile them
with this doctrine. The more I have labored in this
way, the facts have increased against it. And I am
persuaded, if the labor was continued they would still
increase, for I am not convinced that the subject is ex-
hausted.
2d, The next step to be taken, to convince me of my
THE WORD GEHENNA. 263
enoY, if it be one, is, to examine all the texts which
speaks of Gehenna, and show that I have misinterpre-
ted them. When this is done, there will be no need to
refer me to the Jewish Targums for proof, that Gehenna
in the New Testament means hell, a zvorld of woe, for
I will believe the doctrine, without any appeal to their
authority. The only question to settle with me is — has
God revealed this doctrine in the Bible ? If he has,
this is enough for me. But if he has not, popular be-
lief, the Jewish Targums, all human authority 1 reject
without hesitation.
3d, That Gehenna in the New Testament means
hell, the world of woe, is assumed. The most plausible
argument in favor of this sense, is, its usage in the Tar-
gums. But, if this argument ever had any force, it is
now seen, it was derived from a mistaken opinion, that
the Targums existed prior to the days of our Lord.
This has always been taken for granted, as if it ought
not, yea could not be questioned. How this case stands,
let the reader now judge ; from the evidence laid before
him. Should it still be said, Gehenna is to be founc^
in this sense, in Jewish writings prior to the days of our
Lord, I demand that the names and dates of these wri-
tings be given, and let them be quoted, that all may see
what they say on this subject. Assertions prove noth-
ing ; and if evidence can be produced, why withhold
it, for who can believe without it ?
4th, If the true sense of Gehenna in the New Tes-
tament, is to be learned from its usage in the Targums,
but very few persons can understand the scriptures on
this subject. Not one in ten thousand ever heard of
such writings, and not one in a million of our race ever
saw them, or have had an opportunity to consult them.
Can any man believe, God has left his rational offspring
at the mercy of such interpreters of the true sense of
Gehenna ? It is allowed, the bible is the religion of
protestants ; and no maxim is more true than this — •
264 AN INQUIRY INTO
" the bible is the best interpreter of itself J^ Why then
go to the writers of the Targums, enemies of Christ
and of Christianity, to learn, that Gehenna means hell,
world ofivoe ? How could they tell, that in this sense
he used Gehenna, if they wrote several hundred years
after our Lord was on the earth ? They did not hear
him deliver his discourses, in which he speaks of Ge-
henna, and if they had, there was some temptation on
their part to pervert his meaning. He announced pun-
ishment to their nation under the emblem of Gehenna
— " how can ye escape the damnation of hell."
5th, To quote as authority the Targums, or even the
christian fathers, that Gehenna means hell, world of woe,
in the New Testament, is a plain concession, that such
a sense is not to be found in the bible. If universalists,
depended on such authority for the truth of universal
salvation, their cause would be deemed indefensible.
They would be looked on as weak, silly, credulous peo-
ple ; obstinately attached to a false system, which can-
not be supported by scripture authority. But do they
support their views of Gehenna, or any other part of
their system, by such kind of authority as this ? No.
We have appealed to evidence and argument drawn
from scripture, for the views we have advanced about
Gehenna, and invite a refutation, by an appeal to the
same authority. All we have had to do with the Tar-
gums, and other Jewish writings, has been, in exposing
the rotten foundation on which the common doctrine
rests about Gehenna punishment.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 265
SECTION VI.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
There is not a truth revealed in the Bible, against
which one opposed to it, may not start objections. It
would, however, be a waste of time, and a very trifling
employment, to answer every silly objection which
might be made. All will allow, that objections which
are rational, and which ajfect the subject against which
they are brought, demand an answer. Every objection
which has occurred to myself, or has been suggested by
others, of any weight against the views which have been
advanced, I shall now attempt to consider. These ob-
jections divide themselves into two classes ; conunon pop-
ular objections, and, objections which are urged against
the argument adduced. Let us begin with the first of
these.
One of the most popular objections, is, that my sen-
timents are of a licentious tendency. It is remarked,
" if you do away Gehenna or hell as a place of endless
punishment for the wicked, ivhat is left to deter men
from the commission of every crime 1 Indeed, say some,
if I believed there ivas no hell, 1 would indulge my-
self in all hinds of iniquity ! Look, say they, at the
loose principles, and still more loose morals, of the Uni-
versalists; and add, by way of triumph, who ever
heard of a revival of religion among them ?" It will be
allowed, that I have stated this objection fully and fairly.
It shall now be my business, as fully and fairly to meet it.
1st, It is said, '' if hell, a place of endless punish-
ment is done away, what is left to deter men from the
commission of crime ?" In reply to this, I remark —
1st, Under the Old Testament dispensation, it is allow-
ed that the doctrine of endless hell torments was not
known. Suffer me then to ask, what was left to de-
23
'266 AN INQUIRY INTO
ter men from crime, before this doctrine had existence ?
When these persons have told us, what was left in those
days to deter men from crime without it, we are pre-
pared to inform them what can deter men in these days
without it. And if this doctrine, was not preached un-
der the Old Testament to maTce men holy, how came any
then to he holy without itl Did Adam, preach the
doctrine of hell torments to Cain to make him holy ? Did
Noah, preach this doctrine to make the antideluvians
holy ? Did Lot, preach this doctrine to make the Sod-
omites holy ? Yea, was the belief of this doctrine the
cause of the holiness of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot,
and a host oT others ? Did the belief of hell torments
make them holy, in distinction from those who were un-
holy ? If this was the cause of their being holy them-
selves, why did they not preach this doctrine to make
their friends, neighbors, and indeed all mankind, holy ?
If this doctrine was believed in those days, and was so
well fitted as is supposed, to prevent wickedness, why
was it not preached ? Surely, Noah ought to have
preached it to the people of the old world, when all
flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. He was
a preacher of righteousness, but I do not find a hint
given in his history, that he w^as a preacher of hell tor-
ments to deter men from their licentious courses. Be-
sides ; why did not Lot preach it to the Sodomites to
make them holy ? They were sinners before the Lord
exceedingly, but I do not find that he behoved this doc-
trine to keep himself holy, or preached it to others to
deter them from licentiousness. Not a word is said
which would lead one to conclude, that the antideluvi-
ans and Sodomites were all believers in the doctrine of
universal salvation, and that this was the cause of their
wickedness, but that Noah, Lot, and others, believed
in the doctrine of hell torments, and that this led them
to holiness.
2d, If the doctrine of hell torments, is so well calcu-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 267
lated to prevent sin, and promote holiness, why did not
our Lord teach it to the Jews, who are allowed to have
been a race of very wicked men ? Can any man be-
lieve that by the damnation of hell, our Lord meant a
place of eternal misery, that he thought it well fitted
to prevent licentiousness, yet only mentioned it once to
the unbelieving Jews ? Did he think, there was nothing
left, to prevent men from committing all manner of in-
iquity, and yet but once, and that in a discourse relat-
ing to the destruction of Jerusalem, said to them — "how
can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" It is not the
easiest thing in the world, for us to believe this.
3, It is an indisputable fact, that the apostles of our
Lord, never said a word about hell to the Gentiles.
We ask then, what they had left to deter them from the
commission of every crime ? If they knew that hell was
a place of endless misery for the wicked, and thought
it such an excellent antidote against licentiousness, why
did they never make use of it ? They must have either
been ignorant of such a doctrine, or very culpable in
not preaching it, to deter men from crime ; or they did
not consider it so efficacious as the objector imagines.
The Gentile nations in the apostle's days, were very
licentious. And it appears from chap. i. sect. 3. that
they were also believers in the doctrine of eternal misery
in Tartarus. But we see, that the belief of this doc-
trine, did not turn them from their licentious courses.
Nor did the apostles of our Lord think the preaching
of eternal misery, either in Hades, or Gehenna, would
effect this ; for they do not say one word to them about
punishment in either of those places. Let the objector
then account for it, if the apostles were of his mind about
this, why they did not preach this doctrine to prevent
wickedness in their day. And let him account for it,
why the Gentiles in believing it, should be so licen-
tious. If the prophets, Jesus Christ, or his apostles, did
not teach eternal torments in hell to promote holiness.
268 AN INQ,UTRY INTO
ought not their doctrine to be charged with a Hcentious
tendency as well as mine ? There is no way of evading
this, but by proving, that they did teach this doctrine to
mankind. This we think never can be done. If I am
then to be condemned, how are they to be cleared?
And if their doctrine did not lead to licentiousness, how,
in justice, can the views I have advanced be charged
with it. I shall not feel much ashamed at being found
in such company. These facts, are sufficient to put
down this objection forever. Nor need we be alarmed,
that the doctrine will produce an increase of iniquity,
when the inspired writers never used the opposite doc-
trine, to check the progress of sin in the world. They
had certainly something left to deter men from sin, and
which they deemed so efficacious, as to supercede the
necessity of the doctrine of hell torments.
4th, Let us inquire, what that was, which they deemed
sufficient without it. Paul says, " the goodness of God,"
and not hell torments, leadeth men to repentance. It
is " the grace of God," not hell torments, which teach-
etli men to deny ungodhness and worldly lusts. It is
the "love of Christ," not hell torments, which con-
strains men not to live to themselves, but to the glory
of God. All, who are acquainted with the scriptures
know, to what extent I might here refer to texts of a
similar nature, showing the same thing; but I forbear.
Here then was the sovereign remedy, which they pro-
posed, to curer a licentious world. If this failed, they
had no other to propose. All other remedies which
people have tried to effect it, have been like the woman,
who spent her all on other physicians, but rather grew
worse. The love of God in the gift of his Son, is that
which when believed, and its influence felt constrains to
love and to good works. Every thing else to effect
a cure without thi^, is only religious quackery, and this
we deem the very worst kind of quackery. But
5th, Those persons, who aver, that if the doctrine
THE WORD GEHENNA. 269
of hell torments is done away, there is nothing left to
deter men from the commission of every crime, must
certainly think, that where this doctrine is taught, it
greatly tends to prevent wickedness. I believe that this
will be strongly contended for. Is this then true ? Can
it be established by sufficient evidence ? Has the preach-
ing of hell torments to mankind, produced such glorious
effects, as such persons would have us believe ? Our
actual observation of its effects, we admit is very limi-
ted. But we have seen a little of it, at least in two
quarters of the globe, and we think facts will warrant
us to say, that hell torments, and heathenish morality
have been preached to people, until they have been
preached into the grossest immorality. Was not this
tried for ages among the Gentile nations, but did it turn
them from sin to God ? No ; it was when the world
by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the fool-
ishness of preaching, to save them that believe. Besides,
our own actual observation does not lead us to think,
that where the doctrine of hell torments is most preach-
ed, there the people are most holy.
6th, But admitting that the preaching of hell tor-
ments did deter men, in many cases, from the commis-
sion of crimes, — what opinion are we to form of the
morality produced by such a cause ? We do not envy
that parent, the respect and obedience which he receives
from his wife and children, who obtains it from the fear
of being cast into a furnace of fire ! This might do
well enough for an eastern despot, but no rational man,
far less the God of the universe, would think this true
obedience or morality. We venture to say, that such
a course to produce obedience, either to men or to God,
is as bad state policy, as it is false divinity. It shows
as much ignorance of human nature, as it displays a
want of common humanity. In the preaching of Jesus
Christ and his apostles, I do not find any attempts made,
to frighten men from their licentious courses into reli-
23*
270 AN INQUIRY INTO
gion, by terrific descriptions of hell torments. They
had so many rational arguments, to induce men to obe-
dience to God, that they never made use of it. Had
they deemed it, of as much importance as the objector,
we have no doubt but that they would have preached
it to the world. At any rate, he must first prove that
they did preach this doctrine, before his objection is of
any force.
7th, The Apostle's doctrine of salvation by grace,
through faith, was denounced as leading to licentious-
ness. Let us sin, said the objector, because grace
aboundeth. Now, we should like to know, how salva-
tion in this way to all, should be of a licentious nature,
and not also to a few? The truth is, the number saved,
can make no difference in the case. If the doctrine is
licentious when extended to the whole human race, it
must be so though, limited to a single individual. But
every one knows how the apostles refuted the objection.
" Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ?
God forbid : how shall we that are dead to sin live any lon-
ger therein ?" We repel the charge in the same way.
But, the persons who bring this charge against us, seem
to think, that because no hell torments are prepared,
that men are to go to heaven without any Savior or sal-
vation. We believe no such doctrine. On the contrary,
we firmly believe, that all are saved from their sins,
reconciled to God, and made meet for heaven. If there
be any Universalists, who believe otherwise, we disown
them, and would be glad to have them give up the name
until they have relinquished such principles. But we
never heard of any Universalists, who held the opinion,
that persons go to heaven in their sins. No : in their
writings and preaching they disclaim it, and consider it
not very candid, nor honorable in their opponents, to
bring such a charge against them.
Should it be said here, " but whatever they pretend,
do you not see a great many who profess to be Univer-
THE WORD GEHENNA. 271
salists, living very licentious lives ?" We freely grant
this, but if this is any argument against the doctrine, it
is one which will prove a great deal too much. It will
prove equally against the Congregationalists, the Bap-
tists, the Methodists, the Unitarians, and in short, every
religious denomination in the world. Do you not fmd,
many who profess the principles of all these sects, who
live licentious lives ? We are sorry to say, that this is
but too evident. But this kind of argument, would even
prove the principles of the Bible to be licentious. Are
there not many, who profess its principles, who lead li-
centious lives ? Yes, alas ! too many. But you will
seldom find, that the disciples of Paine, or Voltaire, are
so uncandid, and reason so incorrectly as to conclude,
that the Bible is of a licentious tendency in its princi-
ples, because many who profess them are very wicked
men. But, say the objectors, those licentious persons
who profess to believe the Bible, and of the above sects,
do not understand the principles they profess. Grant-
ed. And why will not the objectors also allow, that
many who ^rc>/e55 to be Universalists, do not understand
the principles which they profess. If it is no reproach
to the other sects to have such kind of professors, why
should it be any reproach to the Universalists ? The
fact is, such kind of professors, are no honor to any de-
nomination professing the Christian name, and we once
heard of a sect of Deists, who would not have received
them into their community, for they would not admit
an immoral person among them. We are sure, the
fact is too evident to be disputed, that wherever the
eternity of hell torments has been published, and pub-
lished too in all the horrors with which human eloquence
could decorate it, and enforced with all the clerical dig-
nity and civil authority, that popes, priests, and kings
could afford, it has not prevented wickedness in the
earth. In my judgment, it has produced immorality and
other evil consequences, which human nature, bad as it
is, condemns.
272 AN INQUIRY INTO
Should an appeal be made to facts, by comparing the
numbers of those who have lived licentiously, embrac-
ing the various religious systems which have been in
the world, we are not prepared to admit that the bal-
ance of the account would be against Universalists. But
admitting that it was greatly against them, all that this
could prove, is, that their views tend more to licentious-
ness than the others. All these different systems pro-
duce it to a certain extent, but that of the Universalists
is the most prolific. But such a mode of reasoning
is false, for it is allowed, that an argument which proves
both sides of a question, cannot be a good one. The
fact is, that persons professing the very best principles,
have led licentious lives. The grace of God has been
turned into lasciviousness ; and, what good is there,
which men have not abused ?
But, if even a greater proportion of licentious men,
were externally attached to the sect of Universalists, we
should not be surprised, nor do we think that this proves
ahy thing against the doctrine I have stated. When
o\iX Lord was in the world, we are told, that — " then
drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to
hear him." Luke xv. L He was also called by his ene-
mies, " a friend of publicans and sinners." Had our
Lord preached to them the doctrine of hell torments,
why were they so fond of hearing him, and why was
he accused of being their friend? Certainly he said
nothing to encourage them to continue in sin, but the
very reverse ; but we think it is equally evident that he
did not preach the terrors of hell torments to turn them
from their iniquities. If he did not preach this doctrine,
there is as little wonder that sinners flocked to hear him,
as that now a great many of similar characters should
fiock to hear the Universalists. We think then, that,
allowing a greater proportion of immoral people, should
be disposed to hear the preachers who exclude the doc-
trine of hell torments from their preaching, the case is
THE WORD GEHENNA. 273
not surprising. It was so in the days of our Lord, nor
is there any thing in the nature of the case but what
might be expected.
But it is said further, " if I believed that there was
no eternal punishment in hell, I would indulge myself
in all kinds of iniquity." Little need be said in reply to
this ; indeed it does not deserve one. But as we must
reply, we would ask, is this person's holiness of the
right kind ? If it is, we do not see, but that God must
hold up the torments of hell even in heaven, to pre-'
vent this person's becoming licentious there 1 When
the stimulus of hell torments is removed, what is there
to preserve such a person holy? Nothing: and even
when thus prevented from licentiousness, what is his
holiness good for ? If it were not for his evil example
in society we would say to him, — indulge in all manner
of iniquity, for your wickedness will as soon bring you
to heaven as your holiness. But further ; it is a very
evident case, that the obedience of all such persons, is
the obedience of a slave under the terror of the lash.
Yea, it shows very clearly, that under all this hypocriti-
cal obedience, such persons are in love with sin, and
nothing under heaven prevents their outward indul-
gence of it, but the fear of hell torments. Indeed, the
objector openly avows, that if there was no hell, he
would indulge his lusts without restraint. Holiness, for
its own sake, he does not love. Holiness, from love to
God, he knows nothing about. And instead of pursuing
it because he finds it the way of peace and comfort to
himself, or of any benefit to society, he confesses it to
be a burden ; and, but for the terror of hell torments, he
would prefer a licentious course of life. Can any Uni-
versahst be a worse character than this ? and if there
be a hell, can any man be found, who is a more fit sub-
ject for its punishment ? The terror of hell torment is
a common topic. It is held up in such a terrific point
of view, that we do not much wonder the objector loses
274 AN IN^UIBY INTO
sight of every thing else, and thinks that all he has need
to be saved from, is merely from hell torments. We
must here indulge ourselves with a few remarks relative
to this view of the subject.
1st, To be saved from hell torments, is all the objec-
tor seems concerned about. This we fear is the case
with too many. We are not much surprised that it is so ;
for in preaching about hell, the chief thing held up to
view, is to be saved from such a dreadful place of pun-
ishment. This theme is so much dwelt upon, and this
place is described in such a way, that the hearer's mind
is wholly absorbed with it. To be saved from this dread-
ful place, is with him the most essential part of religion.
2d, The objector is constrained to practice self-denial,
much against his inclination, to avoid the torments of
hell. If there was no hell he would indulge in all kinds
of iniquity. But seeing that there is such a place, to
avoid it, he restrains his inclinations. His holiness is
the mere effect of fear. The man is chained and in
fetters, and cannot act himself Only let him loose from
these, by assuring him that there are no eternal torments
in hell, and he would be foremost in the ranks of licen-
tiousness.
3d, The objector has a very wrong view, both of sin
and the salvation of Jesus Christ. He thinks sin a
pleasant, good thing, if it were not for the hell torments
in which it must end. He plainly intimates, that this is
the chief, if not the only thing, which prevents his pres-
ent enjoyment of all the pleasures of sin for a season.
Now, nothing is more obvious from Scripture, than this,
that sin is connected with present misery ; and that
truth and holiness are productive of happiness. The
ways of transgressors are hard, whilst wisdom's ways
are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths lead to
peace. A man that feareth the Lord, happy is he ;
but though the wicked join hand in hand they shall not
go unpunished. Licentiousness is inseparably connect^
THE WORD GEHENNA. 275
ed with loss of health, reputation, and property ; be-
sides all the pangs of remorse and mental agony to the
individual. Holiness is connected with health, reputa-
tion, and temporal prosperity, in addition to peace and
serenity of mind, which are worth every thing else the
world can afford. But the objector does not think so ;
for he seems to think, that a life of licentiousness is the
most happy kind of life he could lead, and but for the
dread he has of hell torments, would gratify every sin-
ful lust and passion. But he has also a wrong view of
the salvation of Jesus Christ. His mind, is so much ab-
sorbed with the subject of hell torments, that he has no
idea of being saved from sin, but merely from such pun-
ishment. But the objector should remember, that our
Lord received the name Jesus, because he should save
his people from their sins. But does he find, that he
received this or any other name, because he should save
them from eternal torments in hell ? I do not find it
once mentioned in the Bible, that Jesus is said to save
any persons from hell. He came into the world to save
the chief of sinners, to save men from sin, from the
course of this present evil world, from ignorance, folly,
crime and death ; but no inspired writer ventures to say,
that he came to save men from endless punishment in
Gehenna. But this view of Christ's salvation, seems,
in a great measure, lost sight of: and with the objector
and many others, is taken very little notice of, if they
can only be saved from eternal punishment.
But the objector says further, ^' Look at the loose
principles, and still more loose morals, of the Uuiver-
salists, and adds, by way of triumph, whoever heard
of a revival of religion among them ?" As to the first
part of this charge, we think enough has already been
said, showing, that persons who understand the true
principles on which the doctrine of "Universal salvation
is founded in Scripture, can neither be licentious in their
principles nor morals. Such Universalists are no more
276 AN INq,UIRY INTO
accountable for the licentious principles and practice of
all those who style themselves Universalists, than Cal-
vinists, Methodists, Baptists, are, for similar characters
among them. The very same charge has been brought
against other denominations : and at the present time, is
urged with great zeal against the Unitarians, and indeed
all who are not orthodox.
As to the charge of loose principles, we observe that
this is a very loose w^ay of speaking ; for we may call
any principles loose w^hich do not exactly accord with
our own. This is the kind of shot, every party fire in
their turn at each other, when they have nothing better
at hand. Before we can determine any principles to
be loose, we must first settle, what are true scriptural
principles The standard must first be'established, be-
fore we can determine the principles which deviate from
it. The principles of our Lord and his apostles, w^ere
counted loose by the Jews. Besides ; do we not find
that every thing w^hich does not accord with the popu-
lar creeds of the day, branded with this same mark, for
party purposes ? At the Reformation, the principles
of the reformers were counted loose by the Romish
church ; but these very loose principles w^hich they ad-
vocated, are certainly a blessing to us in the present day.
Indeed, what man since their day, who ever attempted
to state any thing from his Bible, contrary to the popu-
lar beHef, but has been obliged to submit to the same
kind of scorn and obloquy ? Some of the principles ad-
vanced by those calling themselves the orthodox, would
have been deemed not only loose but also heretical, by
the persons whose names are the objects of veneration
to the different sects of the day. Calvin, would not
now ow^n many of those who call themselves Calvinists,
because their principles have become so loose, differ so
much from his. And we doubt, if Hopkins would not
disown many who call themselves Hopkinsians. Yea,
Mr, John Wesley, if he was to rear his head from the
THE WORD GEHENNA. 277
tomb, would remonstrate, with the Methodists, that they
have become loose in their principles, in not following
up the system whicli he left them. And it is a notori-
ous fact, that there is a falling off, in almost every
sect, from the rigid systems which were originally given
them by their respective founders. All sects ot pro-
fessed Christians have corrupted their way upon the
earth, and are more loose in their principles than they
once were. What can be a more loose principle than
this, compared with ancient orthodoxy, that Jesus Christ
made an atonement for the sins of the whole world.
Yet this loose principle, is now embraced by Metho-
dists, Congregationalists, Baptists, yea, by almost all
sects of Christians. This loose principle, which form-
erly would have been considered universal salvation in
disguise, is now advocated by the sects of the day, and
what more loose principles they may yet adopt, it is
not for me to say, or even conjecture. Such has been
the rapid march of Scripture Inquiry and investigation,
that orthodoxy now, is a very different thing, from or-
thodoxy twenty years ago. And what orthodoxy will
be twenty years hence, time must develop. If Calvin
was alive, that which is now current orthodoxy, would be
heterodoxy with him. He would disown it.
Connected with this loose principle, another is now
advocated — that the number luhich shall be sent to hell
to he eternally miserable, will not be a greater pro-
portion of the whole human race, than the persons exe-
cuted in any country^ are to the ivhole community. The
man who should have broached such a loose principle
as this, in former years, would have been burned as an
heretic. We ask, how much more loose must those
persons become in their principles, to be as loose as I
am in mine ? They have not many steps to take, to
stand on my ground ; indeed, they have got one foot on
it already. If Jesus Christ made an atonement for the
sins of the whole world, we really think that such per-
24
278 AN INQUIRY INTO
sons might let all the world be saved. Why deny him
the glory of saving all for whom he died ? Must he die
in vain for a number, and must they suffer eternally for
the very sins for which he made atonement or reconcil-
iation ? And if such persons, have reduced the number
which are to be eternally miserable, to so few, why not
let the Savior's triumph over sin and death be complete,
in saving the whole ? If my principles are loose, the
principles of such persons are far removed from old,
rigid orthodoxy. The fact is, that nothing is easier than
to call certain principles loose. The question with ev-
ery man ought to be, are they true or false 1 This
suggests another — what saith the Scripturesl To
them I have appealed, and by their decision I am wil-
ling to abide ; and shall feel grateful to the man who
will show me my error, by an appeal to the same au-
thority. The word of God correctly understood, is
true orthodoxy, and no man's principles ought to be con-
demned as loose, until it is shown that this standard
of truth does not warrant such principles. It will be
allowed that men have gone beyond the Bible, in rigid
principles. This, present orthodoxy warrants me to as-
sert. It is the duty of orthodox people to show, that
my principles are more loose than the Bible.
To the second part of tl^is charge, made with such
an air of triumph, — " Who ever heard of a revival
among the Universalists ?" we shall now attempt a reply.
As we do not wish to hurt the feelings of any who may
differ from us about revivals of religion, we shall touch
this point with as gentle a hand as possible.
1st, If preaching the doctrine of hell torments, pro-
duces revivals of religion, it is not to be expected that
any revivals of this kind could be produced among
Universalists, for they do not preach it. That the
preaching of eternal torments in hell, is one of the prin-
cipal causes which produce revivals of rehgion in the
present day, will not be denied. None of the subjects
THE WORD GEHENNA. 279
of such revivals, would be deemed genuine converts,
unless they subscribed to this doctrine, and confessed
they had seen themselves doomed to hell by God's word.
Yea, some would even demand the confession of them,
that they were willing to be damned, in order that they
might be saved.
2d, There were no revivals, arising from this cause,
produced by the prophets, by Christ, or his apostles ;
nor could they be produced, for they did not preach
the doctrine of hell tornxents. We think no man will
affirm, that any revival of religion was produced, or so
much as attempted by preaching such a doctrine. They
never used it as a means to alarm and frighten people
into a profession of religion. They were never found
running from house to house, terrifying men, women,
and children, by the most frightful descriptions of hell
torments, until the whole community was in a religious
ferment, and a reaction must take place, from the mere
want of being able to carry the excitement any farther.
Nor do we find in those days, what is too obvious in
these, the different sects all exerting themselves in ev-
ery possible way, to secure the greatest number of con-
verts to thoir different churches. A man must shut his
eyes very close, who does not see through all this reli-
gious manoeuvreing.
3c, Deducting, then, all the religion produced by the
preaching of endless misery, which appears in religious
excitements, how much would be left with the subjects
of it ? Such people's minds, are lashed with the ter-
rors of hell torments into religion, or something that
passes for it, and the fear of this punishment in a grea-
ter or less degree, operates upon them all the days of
their lives. Should we hear of revivals among such
persons, any more than among Universalists, if this false
doctrine, the chief cause of their production, was done
away ? We question this ; for, as far as our observa-
tion has extended, the doctrine of hell torments has
280 AN INQ.UIRY INTO
been a constant theme in public preaching, and in pri-
vate meetings, to work on the minds of the people.
This has been done with children, and others of weak
minds, in a way, and to an extent, which men of com-
mon sense and prudence, ought to avoid. But, let us
consider what the Scriptural idea of a revival of reli-
gion is, and by what means it is produced. The Scrip-
tural idea of a revival of religion, may be viewed in a
twofold light.
1st, When true religion is revived among those who
are already professors of it ; when they are stirred up
to be more obedient to God, and lively in obeying his
commandments, and observing the ordinances which he
has appointed in his word. 2d, When persons, formerly
irreligious, are convinced of their sins, believe the gos-
pel of Christ, and turn to the Lord. I presume no per-
son, yea, the most zealous contenders for revivals of re-
ligion, would object to this statement.
Let us then consider, how Scriptural revivals of reli-
gion were produced. It will perhaps, be the best way
here, to refer to some examples of revivals of religion
mentioned in Scripture. The first I refer to is, that
which took place in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah,
seen at large in the two books in Scripture of these
names. What then produced this revival of religion in
those days ? Was it by means of Ezra, Nehemiah, or
any other person, preaching the eternity of hell torments?
Was it by working on the passions, and alarming the
fears of people, by every effort which they could make,
to overwhelm their understandings with terror ? No man
will say this, who has ever read those two books. How
then was this revival of religion brought about ? It was
by reading the Bible, and pointing out to the people,
how far they had departed from what God had comand-
ed in his word, and showing them that all their suffer-
ings originated in this departure from God. This state-
ment of the means, by ^which this revival was produced,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 281
no one will dispute. Nor can the man be found, who
will venture to assert, that preaching hell torments to
the wicked had any share in effecting it. We should
rejoice to see a revival of religion, among all professors
of religion in the present day, produced by studying the
Scriptures, to see how far they have departed from the
law of the Lord. We trust we should not be wanting,
in giving it all the aid in our power. I pass over at-
tempts made by Jeremiah, and otlier servants of the
Lord, to produce revivals of a similar nature among the
Jews, but without success. I only observe in passing,
that they used similar means to effect it, as did Ezra
and Nehemiah. But when those means failed, they
did not betake themselves to the means, so efficacious in
our day, to work on the passions of men, by preaching
the doctrine of hell torments, to effect their purpose.
A second instance of a revival of religion mentioned
in Scripture, is that in the days of John the Baptist.
Was it produced by preaching hell torments ? No. John
never used the word hell in all his preaching to the peo-
ple. It was produced by preaching repentance, and
pointing them to the Lamb of God, who was to take
away the sin of the world. But the most extraordinary
revival of religion, is that which took place at the day
of Pentecost, and during the ministry of the apostles.
Now, let all read the Acts of the apostles, and see if
they can find, that any one of the apostles ever said a
word about hell, or its eternal torments to produce this
revival. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, is as silent
on the subject of hell torments, as if no such thing ex-
isted in the universe of God. He addressed the very
men, who had been the betrayers and murderers of the
Lord of glory, but did he threaten them with the tor-
ments of hell, or enforce his doctrine by saying they
were exposed to such a place of punishment ? And is
not all the preaching of the apostles uniformly the same
in regard to this subject ? No working on the passions ;
24*-
282 AN INQUIRY INTO
no attempt was made to terrify people into religion.
One might with as much truth affirm, that an eruption
of mount Vesuvius produced this revival, as that it was
effected by preaching endless misery in hell ! Let men
only preach as the apostles did, by declaring the glad
tidings of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and
many things which go by the name of revivals of reli-
gion would be at an end. As the means of revivals in
our day, are very different from those used by the apos-
tles, so are the revivals produced by such means. The
converts made, instead of partaking of the meek, hum-
ble, and gentle spirit of Christ, become censorious, big-
oted, and dogmatical ; and with reluctance will they ad-
mit, that persons, who certainly give as much evidence
as themselves of Christianity, can really be Christians.
They get attached to their minister, and to their sect,
and zeal for these, is often mistaken for a zeal for God
and his glory. Strong excitement of the animal pas-
sions, sometimes even to extravagance, is ascribed to
the power of God, at work among the people. As to
understanding, and believing the gospel of the grace of
God, little is said, and as Httle perhaps, is it cared
about. We think we may say to such persons, in
their own language, " who ever heard of such kind of
revivals of religion among the apostles and primitive
Christians, or who ever heard of their producing any
kind of revival whatever by terrifying people with
fearful descriptions of eternal misery ?" The course
which the apostles pursued was open, manly, and digni-
fied ; and the doctrine they preached was glad tidings
of great joy to all people. Their object, was not to save
men from Gehenna or hell, but from ignorance, idolatry,
licentiousness, and unbelief, and to instruct them in the
knowledge and obedience of the one living and true God.
But, the primary object of preaching in the present day,
seems to be to save men from hell ; to attach converts
to some religious party, and enjoin on them to beUeve
THE WORD GEHENNA. 283
neither more nor less, all the days of their lives, tlian is
contained in the creed, which they subscribed to on
their admission.
No one will certainly construe what is said in the
foregoing remarks, into a disapprobation of revivals
generally; but only oi such as are produced by terror.
We maintain, yea, we advocate true Scriptural revivals
of religion. We know of nothing which could afford us
more heartfelt joy, than to see all parties in religion,
yea, all mankind, attending to the oracles of God, and
sincerely searching them to know and obey all that the
Lord hath commanded. In our remarks, we have con-
sidered terror the principal means in producing revi-
vals in the present day ; and to such, and such only,
the preceding observations are intended to apply. Di-
vest modern orthodoxy, of this most powerful engine
for producing religious excitements, and henceforth it
would probably have as few to boast of, as Universal-
ism itself We know not, why the truth of God
preached by Universalists, should not produce a Scrip-
tural revival of religion, equally as when preached by
others. Is it the particular medium or manner of com-
munication, that is to give the word of God effect ? Or
is the power of the Lord exclusively confined to a cer-
tain class of preachers ? It is now as it was in the
days of the apostles, the Lord hears testimony to his
own word, Paul might plant, and Apollos might water,
but it was God who gav^e the increase. But if our
memory has not deceived us, we have seen printed
rules for bringing about revivals of religion, and some
preachers have not hesitated to say, that it was the
people's own fault that they had not revivals among
them. Yea, some have determined before hand, that
they would get up a revival, and have gone to work in
their own way and accomplished it. All this we real-
ly think is without precedent or example in the histo-
ry of apostolic preaching.
284 AN INQUIRY INTO
It is objected, — " That this doctrine is a very pleas-
ing doctrine to the ivorld.'' In reply to this objection,
I would observe, 1st, That the first question to be set-
tled is this ; is it a true or false doctrine 1 The Bible
must decide this, and to it we have appealed. Of
what use can it be in determining whether a doctrine be
true or false, to call it either pleasant or unpleasant ?
To admit the truth of what is here asserted, what could
it prove against the doctrine ; and to deny it, what could
it prove either for or against it ? Such kind of argu-
ments, are generally used by such as have nothing
better to urge ; yea, are too indifferent about what is
truth, to give themselves the trouble to investigate the
subject. To ascertain the truth of any doctrine, we
have only, according to this objection, to find out if it
is pleasant or unpleasant. If it is pleasant, it must be
false, and if unpleasant, it must be true. This mode of
decision saves a great deal of time and labor in reading
and investigation ; for who would put themselves to
the trouble of these, when a decision can be made by
so short and easy a process ?
2d, I might in my turn say, the opposite doctrine is
a very harsh doctrine. Perhaps, there is more force
in this objection against it, than in the one against my
views. If they must be false, because they are pleas-
ant, does it follow, that the opposite doctrine is true,
because it is harsh? We should think it rather an ar-
gument against its truth. That the objector's doctrine
is not a harsh doctrine he has got to prove. The very
saying, that my doctrine is pleasant, imphes, that he is
sensible his own is harsh. We presume many have
thought it so, who have been afraid to speak freely
their minds on the subject. Yea, w^e doubt if any man-
can seriously meditate on the doctrine of eternal mis-
ery, and say it is pleasant. Influenced by religious preju-
dices, and overawed by public opinion, persons assent
to it, but do not feel convinced in their judgments of
THE WORD GEHENNA. 285
its truth. When they begin to reflect seriously on the
eternity of hell torments, and compare it with the well
known character of God, as a God of goodness, mercy,
and truth, the mind is at a stand what conclusion to
come to concerning it. They think the Bible teaches
it, and therefore they must beheve it, but with the
character of God they are unable to reconcile it.
3d, The gospel of the grace of God is a very pleas-
ing doctrine, and if the objection has any force against
my views, it equally lies against it. The objector then
has pleasing doctrines as well as the one I have been
stating, against which he cannot make his objection to
bear. But why is this the case, for if the pleasant na-
ture of any doctrine proves it false, why believe the
gospel of God to be truth ? — It is certainly a very pleas-
ing doctrine to hear, that there is 3. possibility that any
of the human race will be saved. It is still more pleas-
ing that there is a probability that a great number of them
will be saved. And we are at a loss to know, why it
should not be still more pleasing, if it can be proved,
that all the human race will certainly be saved. But
while the two first of these will be admitted as pleasant,
and this is no argument against their truth, yet the last
is considered false, because it is the most pleasant. Does
the objector say, we know the two first are true, but
not the last. This is the very point at issue to be proved,
and the proof must be drawn from some other source,
showing the falsehood of my doctrine, than the pleasing
nature of it.
4th, If the pleasant nature of the doctrine, be a solid
objection against its truth, the fewer saved the better,
to prove the doctrine false, and the more agreeable, I
presume, to the objector. We think, we may go fur-
ther, and say, that the eternal misery of the whole hu-
man race, which would be precisely the reverse of my
doctrine, is most likely to be the true one, according to
this objection. Its being harsh or unpleasant, then,
286 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
shows it to be true ; and because it is so unpleasant,
this is the strongest evidence that it must be true. The
fact is, there is no real argument in the case before us. A
false mode of reasoning is adopted, and the world might
end, before any thing conclusive could be made out by
it on this subject.
5th, The objector seems to think, that my doctrine
is pleasing, and the force of his objection arises, from
thinking, that all are to be saved without a salvation
from sin. This is his mistake, not mine. Should he
say, this is the inference that many will draw from it, to
go on in sin ; I reply, I cannot help this, any more than
the objector can, when persons draw inferences from his
doctrine, to go on in the same course. Yea, I cannot
help this, any more than an apostle could, when per-
sons drew the inference from his doctrine, '' let us sin
because grace aboundeth." What doctrine is it from
which men may not draw inferences to go on in sin ?
The only one that I can at present think of, is the doc-
trine of universal, eternal misery. Even this is not an
exception, for the inference would be, " since at death
we are all to be eternally miserable, — let us eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die." If some have argued, —
" let us sin because grace aboundeth," perhaps others
have also said, — " let us sin because eternal torments
aboundeth."
6th, Is it not God's design that the gospel of his
grace should be a pleasing doctrine to the world ? It is
glad tidings of great joy to all people. We ask, does
God mean to save the world by the preaching of an un-
jpleasant doctrine 7 If so, we know of none better fit-
ted to effect this, than the doctrine of eternal torments
in hell. Had the apostles preached this doctrine, just
as much as preachers do in our day, we should have
been inclined to believe, that God meant to save men
by the preaching of this very doctrine. But will any
man affirm, that their preaching has any affinity to many
THE WORD GEHENNA. 287
sermons we hear in our day ? The word Gehenna or
hell, none of their hearers ever heard them utter, if the
New Testament is to be our Bible. But the word hell,
is now on the lips of all preachers, who believe this
doctrine, so frequently, that one would think, if they
learned their divinity from the Bible, that it was full of
it. The apostles never used this word in any sermon,
but they seldom omit it. Whether my views be right
or wrong, it is certain, it was not God's design to save
men in the apostle's day by preaching hell torments to
them, for this theynever did : and it is also very cer-
tain, that my views are more like those entertained by
the apostles, than the sentiments taught by orthodox
preachers. I put in therefore my claim, for being more
orthodox than they are, if apostolic preaching is a true
standard of orthodoxy. I may add, what seems also
certain, that if it be God's design now to to save men
by preaching the doctrine of eternal misery, he has
changed his mind, for this was not his design in the days
of the apostles.
7th, If the objector is sincere in urging this objec-
tion, that because the doctrine is pleasant it cannot be
true, does it not fairly follow, that the more unpleasant
any doctrine is, the more certain is its truth ? Upon
this principle no doctrine^ ought to be more surely be-
lieved than the doctrine of eternal misery, for surely it
is not a pleasant doctrine. All Universalists therefore,
ought at least to believe the objector's doctrine because
it is so unpleasant to them. But on the other hand,
the objector ought to believe their doctrine and for the
very same reason, because their doctrine is unpleasant
to him. By this mode of deciding what is truth, both
doctrines are proved true, and the two ought to believe
each other's doctrine, and reject their own. But when
they have done this, they must just reject the new
doctrines they have embraced, and receive their for-
mer ones for the very same reason ; for the doctrines
288 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
they have embraced respectively are pleasant, and
those they now oppose are unpleasant. In short, it
proves both doctrines true and both false at the same
time.
8th, But we may ask the objector, is it possible for
any man to receive any doctrine until it appears pleas-
ant to him? We think this is impossible. A doctrine
may appear very unpleasant, and while it does so to
any person, he will reject it. This we have a very
good example of in the objector himself. The idea
that hell is not a place of endless misery appears to
him an unpleasant doctrine, and hence he rejects it.
And the doctrine of eternal misery, on the other hand,
appears at least to him a very pleasant doctrine, and
consequently he receives it. Yea, let the objector try,
to receive any doctrine until it appears pleasant. The
doctrine of endless misery he fhas received, and we
think it must appear to him pleasant, whatever it may
be to other people. We think he ought not to deny
this, and sure we are, that we shall never envy him
any part of the pleasure which it affords him, until we
have altered our minds greatly on this subject.
9th, If my doctrine be so pleasant as the objector
says, how comes it to pass that it is not universally re-
ceived ? Why is it even so much opposed ? So far
from its being a pleasing doctrine to the majority, it
is one which is generally condemned. All sects are
agreed to put it down, if possible. There is some-
thing then in the doctrine, which renders it unpleasant.
What this is, it is not difficult to perceive. This doc-
trine, certainly bears hard against the pride and self-
righteousness of the human heart. It affords no room
for one man to glory over another, as a particular favor-
ite of heaven. Some, yea many, murmur against the
good man of the house, that every man should have a
penny ; and like the elder son in the parable, are an-
gry that the father should treat prodigals with such
THE WORD GEHENNA. 289
kindness. They think there should be a hell to punish
sinners in forever, and some have even gone so far as
to say, if all men are to go to heaven, they do not wish
to go there. So long as such a spirit prevails, there
need be no wonder that my views of this subject should
be hated and opposed. The first thing such persons
ought to do, is to consider the nature of their spirit.
Can such a spirit be the spirit of Christ ?
It is further objected, " that this is a very good doc-
trine Jo live by, but it will not do to die by.''' — In an-
swer to this objector, let it be remarked, that this ob-
jection implies, that the doctrine of eternal misery, is a
doctrine which will do, both to live and die by. But
that my doctrine, can afford no hope or comfort, either
in life or in death. Or does he mean, that his doc-
trine affords more of these, both in life and in death ;
but that mine only affords a false and temporary hope,
and comfort in life, but no hope nor comfort in death ?
Taking this to be the true sense of the words of the ob-
jector, we would then ask him, how he knows that his
doctrine will do better to live and die by, than mine ?
We do not think he can make any possible reply to
this, but by saying, my doctrine is true and yours is
false. Well, whoever urges this objection, will consider
it a duty they ought to perform, to prove that my views
are unscriptural. For
1st, If they are true, why will they not do to live
and die by better than the opposite views, which must
be false 1 The whole here depends on the truth or
falsehood of my sentiments. If they can be jjroved
from the Scriptures false, I frankly confess that they
are neither ft to live nor die by. Candor, in the ob-
jector, will certainly also grant, that if my sentiments
are true, his doctrine of eternal torments in hell, is not
fit either to live or die by, because it must be false. I
contend, that true doctrine, or in other words, the doc-
trine of the Bible, is the doctrine which men can either
25
290 AN INQUIRY INTO
live or die by comfortably. Error, is not good for men)
either in life or in death. It is truth which gives true
hope and joy to the mind, and it is truth, which is a
light to the feet and lamp to the path. The whole
here depends on which of the two doctrines is the doc-
trine of Scripture. While this remains undecided, I
have as good a right to say to the objector as he has to
me, your doctrine is a very good doctrine to live by,
but it will not do to die by. Until the objector fairly
meets the arguments, by which I prove Gehenna or
hell. Is not a place of endless misery for the wicked, I
might dismiss this and other objections of a similar na-
ture. But
2d, The objector must allow, that if his doctrine is
so good to die by, it is not very good to live by. He
certainly cannot deny, that the doctrine of eternal tor-
ments in hell, has given much distress to many, and
many too, whom he would not deny to be the excellent
of the earth. We think, it does not give one half the
distress to the thoughtless and licentious, as It does to
the more thinking, serious, and exemplary part of the
community. The former laugh, dance, and play, and
drive away all their fears of the punishment of hell tor-
ments. The doctrine, only gives distress and misery
of mind to the most valuable part of society. These,
and these almost exclusively, are the persons who are
rendered miserable all their life-time by this doctrine.
We think the objector will not deny, that many instan-
ces have occurred, where persons of thinking and seri-
ous habits, have been driven to distraction, and even to
suicide by it. But was a case ever known, where a
person was distressed In his mind, went deranged, or
ended his days, because hell was not a place of eternal
torment for a great part of the human race ? We have
found a few, who would be very sorry. If my views
could be proved true. This we have Imputed to want
of consideration, and a false zeal for a favorite doctrine,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 291
but we are under no apprehension, that if they are
found true, they will carry their zeal so far as to end
their days in consequence of it. Is not my doctrine
then better to live by, than that of the objector ?
3d, But if my views are such as may do to live by,
but will not do to die by, how came it to pass, that per-
sons could both live and die by them under the Old
Testament dispensation ? It was not known in those
days, that Gehenna was a place of eternal misery for
the wicked, yet many lived happy, and died happy. It
does not appear, from any thing I have ever noticed in
the Old Testament, that persons then derived any hope
or consolation, either in life or in death, from the doc-
trine of eternal torment ; nor, that it was any motive in
producing obedience to God's commandments. We
find no holy man of God in those days, urging the doc-
trine of endless misery on mankind, as a good doctrine
to live and die by, and warning men against the oppo-
site doctrine, as a dangerous error. Besides, how could
tlie apostles and first Christians, either live happy or
die happy, seeing they knew nothing about hell as a
place of endless misery ? They knew nothing of this
doctrine ; therefore let the objector account for it, why
my doctrine will not do to live and die by now, as well
as in the days of the apostles. What would the object-
or have done for this doctrine to five and die by, had he
lived eighteen hundred years ago ? He cannot say,
that the apostles ever preached the doctrine of hell tor-
ments for any purpose ; and far less that they preached
it, as a good doctrine to live and die by.
4th, But let us examine a little more particularly,
what there is in the doctrine of hell torments, which is
so much better fitted to live and die by, than the senti-
ments which I have stated in the foregoing pages.
The objection we are considering, is often used, and
serves some on all occasions, when argument fails, in
defending the doctrine of hell torments. When hardly
292 AN INQUIRY INTO
pinched to defend it, from Scripture, they cut the mat-
ter short, thus, — " Ah ! your doctrine may do very
well to live by, but it will never do to die by.'^ This,
perhaps, uttered with a sigh or a groan, answers in place
of a thousand arguments with many. I shall therefore
give it more attention, than it deserves. Let us then
Consider the comparative merits of the two opposite
doctrines to live by. The doctrine, or my doctrine, that
hell is not a place of eternal torment for all the wicked
is barely allowed to be a doctrine, which men may_pos-
sibly live by in the present world. Now, fhow Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Lot, and others, made out to live by
it, I do not stop to inquire. I leave 'my opponents to
inquire, how they, and the apostles, and first Christians,
yea, I may add Jesus Christ himself, succeeded in hving
so well by it. When they have found out this, I can
be at no loss to tell them, how I and others can five by
it. But we pass over this, and wish to bring the compar-
ative merits of the two doctrines into notice, as best fit-
ted to live and die by.
1st, Then, let us attend to the fitness of the doctrine
of eternal misery, to live by. If it indeed be better
fitted for this purpose, it must be in the following things.
1st, As a ground of hope in respect to future happi-
ness. But, how any man can make the eternal tor-
ment of others in hell, a ground of hope to himself I am
unable to devise. If the eternal misery of one human
being, affords the objector any ground of hope, the more
doomed to this punishment then, so much greater the
extent and solidity of his ground of hope. But as this
is not likely to be the ground on which this is placed, I
observe
2d, Does it afford a more certain and sweet source
of joy in this world, than the opposite doctrine ? A
man's joy must arise from his hope whether it is well
or ill founded. If, then, the doctrine affords no ground
of hope, it can be no source of joy to him. Besides ;
THE WORD GEHENNA. 293
we have always thouG;bt, that Jesus Christ and him cru-
cified, was the foundation of true hope, and the source
of true joy to people in this world. We never under-
stood, that the certainty of endless misery, was set forth
in Scripture as the ground of our hope, or the source
of our joy. The apostle. Gal. ii. 26. says : " The life
which I how live in the flesh I live by the faith of the
Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
But, did the apostle ever say, that the life he now lived
in the flesh, he lived by the faith that hell was a place
of endless misery, either as a ground of his hope or source
of his joy ? Or did he ever say, that Christ loved him
and gave himself for him, to save him from the punish-
ment of this place ? He joyed in God through our
Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not find that hell torments
were a source of joy, either to him or to any one else.
It could not be so : for none of the apostles ever spoke
of hell as a place of endless misery. We then ask, how
this doctrine can be to any a better doctrine to live by
than mine ? We ask further, in what way is it better fitted
to live by than mine, if the persons who profess it, derive
neither hope nor joy from it ? I ought to allow, perhaps
that it does aflbrd a selfish joy to some, that they are se-
cure from the torments of hell, while multitudes are doom-
ed to suffer its punishment forever. This we presume, is
all the joy w^iich this doctrine affords, and we ought to
call it any thing but Christian joy. But why the doc-
trine of eternal torments, is better fitted to five by -than
mine, probably is,
3d, That it is considered a better preservative against
a licentious life, and a more powerful motive to holiness.
This, I presume, is the ground on which the doctrine of
eternal misery is counted the best of the two to live by.
Is this then true ? We think we have said enough in
answering the first objection, to prove that it is not.
We shall however add the following remarks here, to
show that it cannot be true. We ask, then, — Is love
25*
294 AN INQUIRY INTO
or terror the most powerful principle to stimulate to a
cordial and universal obedience ? Let both Scripture
and every day's experience decide in this case. Will
any man affirm, that the obedience required of us in
Scripture is there held forth, as an obedience induced by
the terror of hell torments ? No ; it is the obedience
of gratitude and love. Terror, may frighten men to
comply with many things to which their hearts are to-
tally averse. It is love which sweetly constrains, not
only to external obedience, but to the obedience of the
heart and affections. But what does experience and
daily observation teach concerning this ? Who, that is
acquainted with the history of the world, or with human
nature, will say, that terror of the most horrid punish-
ment, has been found efficacious in producing a cordial
obedience in any department of human society ? So
much are legislators and others convinced to the con-
trary, that many nations are altering their code of laws,
respecting the severity of human punishments. We
then ask, in what respect the doctrine of eternal misery,
is better fitted to live by than my doctrine, if it affords
no hope nor joy to those who believe it, and is not a
proper inducement to a holy life in the world ? Let
the objector point out, if he can, its preferable nature,
and show wherein it consists. My doctrine is, that God
never threatened men with eternal torments in hell ;
that he never made any such revelation to the world,
but sent his Son to make reconciliation for transgressors,
and to save them from their sins. That this doctrine is
better fitted to live by, as to hope, joy, and obedience,
we should deem it a waste of time to point out. My
doctrine as to these things, compared with its opposite,
is like noon day, to the gloom of midnight. We think,
it will not be disputed, that if my sentiments are Scrip-
tural, all anxious fears about eternal misery are at once
removed ; a foundation of hope and source of joy to
men laid open, which are calculated to animate and con-
THE WORD GEHENNA. . 295
sole the mind under every trouble of this world ; and
motives to gratitude and obedience- to God presented ;
which the doctrine of eternal misery certainly does not
afford. No, on the other hand, it fills the mind with
gloom and anxiety ; it leads to views of God not very
favorable to his character ; and is not calculated to
make men love and ?erve him. We may indeed hope
in his mercy revealed in the gospel through Jesus Christ,
and may have joy in believing that we shall escape the
torments of hell. But that the best of men are still
haunted with fears and anxieties, notwithstanding this,
will not be denied. That this has been their state of
mind, in regard to their own personal safety from hell,
is what we might expect; but they have been also per-
plexed and distressed, as we think every good man must
l3e, about the eternal condition of all their fellow crea-
tures. We pity the man, who, if he thinks himself safe
from this place of torment, feels no concern for the un-
numbered millions of men all equally interested in the
decision of this important question.
Let us now consider, how the doctiine of eternal
misery, is better fitted than my sentiments, to die by.
It must, be better to die by than mine.
1st, As a ground of hope in death. But we ask,
what ground of hope it can afford to any man at death,
to think that the doctrine of eternal misery is true ?
Can he look on his wicked wife, and still more wicked
children, and neighbors, in the hour of death, and make
their eternal misery a foundation of hope for his own
eternal blessedness ? Can the certainty of their eter-
nal misery, afford him any hope of safety 1 Can he
die with a more joyful hope because their misery is to
have no end ?
2d, As a source of joy and consolation in death.
But to which of the saints of old shall we refer, to find
that the doctrine of endless misery, was any source of
joy to them, when about to leave this world ? Can any
296 , AN INQUIRY INTO
thing like this be found in all the book of God ? What
name ought even a joy of this kind to receive, if it was
possessed? But we do not think, this doctrine affords
any joy in death to a person dying, either concerning him-
self or those he is about to leave. We rather think,
that the doctrine at this hour, is often to the believers
of it themselves, rather a source of pain and uneasiness.
Should their hopes of heaven, be such as to banish all
fear for themselves, it often proves a source of misery to
them, in regard to the friends and relations they leave
behind. This, we think, will no be disputed. Now,
allowing that my doctrine is true and the objector's false,
how different would be the state of mind in which men
would bid a last adieu to friends and relations, yea, to all
the w^orld. Such separations are often heart rending
scenes. My doctrine, at this time gives hope, is a heal-
ing balm, for it is only a momentary, not an eternal se^-
aration. But the opposite doctrine adds pungency to
every parting pang, and the only consolation it affords
to the dying saint, with regard to many of his relatives,
is, that he shall have the pleasure of viewing from
heaven, their torments in hell forever. Let us suppose
ourselves by the bed of a dying person, and hear him
say, that he was full of hope and joy, arising from his
belief in the eternity of hell torments ; and that the tor-
ment of his relations, friends and neigbors, would give
him pleasure in heaven. I ask, what would we think
of such a person ? It would certainly be charity to be-
lieve, that he was disordered in his mind. If we did
not, we should conclude that some evil spirit possessed
him, and that in this state of mind he was very unfit for
heaven.
To conclude. We are either too blind, or too per-
verse, to perceive how the objector can prove, that his
doctrine is a good doctrine, either to live or to die by.
We should be glad to see it shown, if it can be done,
how eternal misery in hell, can be to any man a good
doctrinCj in life, or at death ; in time or in eternity.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 297
It is a very popular objection, brought against my
views of Gehenna, — " If you are correct, we must be-
heve the most learned, and good men, yea, most
Christians, for a great many ages, have been in a great
error. Do you think yourself wiser than any of them ?"
In answer to this objection, let it be remarked
1st, That I make no pretentions to superior learning,
wisdom, or goodness. I only profess to have paid some
attention to the Scriptures on this particular point, which
those persons, taking the subject for granted, have inad-
vertently overlooked. This all men are liable to. It
will be granted, that no man is perfect in knowledge.
And it will be seen, that those learned and good men
from whom I differ, very unfortunately tooh it for
granted that Gehenna was a place of endless misery
for all the icicked. Had they not done this, but as I
have attempted to do, examined into the truth of this
doctrine, they would have given a very different account
of Gehenna or hell, from what they have done. From
their superior learning, talents, and means of informa-
tion to which I have no access, they would have placed
this subject in a much more luminous and convincing
light. Were those very men alive, they would be the
la5t men, who would blame me for my inquiry on this
important subject.
2d, This objection, w^as urged at the Reformation
against the reformers, and indeed may be urged against
all reformation to the end of time. It will serve a Jew,
a Mahometan, or a Pagan, as well as a Christian. If
it has any weight against me in the present case, it is
equally strong against every man, who advances any
thing from his Bible, contrary to w^hat learned and good
men have believed in past ages. Those very men,
whom I am blamed for differing from, were blamed in
the same way, in dissenting, from learned, wise, and good
men, who preceded them. They did not scruple to dis-
sent from, or go beyond those who went before them,
298 AN INQUIRY INTO
and assigned their reasons for so doing. And why-
should not we do the same thing? If this is not done,
knowledge would be perfectly stationary, and an end
is put to advancement in Biblical knowledge. Had the
reformers been frightened, with this and similar objec-
tions, we would now be all good Catholics, or perhaps
idolaters, worshipping the works of our own hands.
3d, So long as such learned and good men are allow-
ed to be fallible men, it must be admitted, that they
may have been mistaken. We ought not to receive
their opinions about Gehenna, or any other doctrine,
without examination. We ought to bring them to the
Bible for trial, and be satisfied, that they are not the
mere opinions of men, but the faithful sayings of God.
This I have done, with respect to the common opinion
entertained about hell, and I request every man to try
what I have advanced, by this infallible standard. If
those men have been mistaken, it is certainly high time
that the mistake was corrected. If they are correct,
and the common opinion concerning hell be true, much
good must result from the present discussion, in leading
men to examine more carefully, the ground on which
their faith is built. It will not be denied, that a great
many who are believers in the doctrine of hell torments,
have received this doctrine by tradition from their fa-
thers, without any Scriptural examination of it for them-
selves.
4th, It is allowed, that those learned and good men,
lived and died in many errors, and some who bring this
very objection against me, take the liberty to dissent
from their opinions in other things. Why may they
not have erred in thinking that Gehenna was a place
of endless misery ; and why have not I as good a right
to dissent from them in this, as some have done in other
things ? All we wish is, let the subject be impartially
examined, and truth will be brought to light by the
investigation. Can any Calvinist, Hopkinsian, Baptist^
THE WORD GEHENNA. 299
or Methodist, urge such an ohjection with a good grace,
when they all, each in their own way, dissent from
the doctrines of so many learned, wise, and good men,
who lived hefore them ? Before they open their lips
against me, let them return to tlie doctrines of their
forefathers, and confess how greatly they have departed
from the good old way. But each sect thinks, that
their departure from the doctrines of their fathers, is a
nearer approach to the doctrine of the Bible. This is
just what we think concerning our departure from
their views of hell or Gehenna. In proportion as we
have receded from them, we think we have approached
the truth in the Bible, concerning this subject.
If we are to believe, just as learned and good men
have taught in past ages, many things now most sure-
ly believed, must be renounced, for men have very
greatly departed from their views of many Scripture
doctrines. You hear men every day call themselves
Calvinists : but Calvinism now is a very different thing
from what is found in the works of John Calvin. You
also hear of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is not the same
now that it was twenty years ago, and what is tme or-
thodoxy in America, would not be orthodoxy in Scot-
land. The truth is, men are beginning to search the
Scripture for themselves, and are taking the liberty to
dissent from their fathers, however learned, or good
they may have been. The Reformation was the dawn
of day, after the long night of ignorance and supersti-
tion. But were the reformers to rise from the tomb,
they would be surprised to see some good, and wise,
and learned men, contending that we must advance no
farther, but must sit down satisfied where they left us.
Happy for us, that we live in an age and in a part of
the world, where it would not be in the power of man
to stop the tide of inquiry and investigation.
Another popular objection against my views of Ge-
henna, is thus stated. — '' Supposing, that the evidence
300 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
you have produced, showing that Gehenna is not a
place of endless misery for the wicked, to be almost, if
not altogether, conclusive, yet allowing a hare possibil-
ity, that the opposite doctrine may be true ; those who
believe it, though in an error, are still on the safest side.
They can lose nothing if your doctrine be true, but you
may lose both soul and body forever, if their doctrine is
true." I have stated this objection with all the force I
can give it. It is predicated on a mere possibility, that
the doctrine of hell torments may be true, and that in
face of evidence, allow^ed to be almost, if not altogether,
conclusive, in proving the opposite doctrine true. We
shall offer a few brief remarks in reply.
1st, If there be any force in this objection, it is cer-
tain we ought not to be regulated in our belief or dis-
belief of any doctrines, by the degree of evidence,
which may appear in their support. No : this has
nothing to do in leading us to believe one doctrine, and
reject its opposite for want of evidence : for though it
is allow^ed, that the evidence adduced is nearly conclu-
sive that Gehenna is not a place of endless misery, yet
all this evidence is nothing, and we must still go on be-
lieving that it is, on the mere possibility of its being
true, unsupported by evidence.
2d, Whether my views of Gehenna or hell, or the
commonly received doctrine about it, be the truth, one
thing is certain; every Scriptural doctrine must have
evidence to support it. Evidence is the criterion of
truth ; nor can a man be said to believe any doctrine,
farther than he understands it, and perceives the evi-
dence of its truth. Where the evidence, for or against
any doctrine is equally balanced, the mind is in doubt,
and suspense prevails, until some additional evidence
appears, which leads the mind to preponderate to the
one side or the other. This is the natural course of
every candid mind, in serious search after what is truth.
But here, though the evidence adduced that Gehenna
THE WORD GEHENNA. 301
is not a place of endless misery, is allowed to be nearly-
conclusive, yet the mind must preponderate to the op-
posite side. It is not even allowed to hang in doubt,
and suspend judgment until further evidence sliall ap-
pear, but must come to the conclusion, that eternal mis-
ery is true, on the mere ground that after all it may
possibly be true. Tlie mind, must come to the very
opposite conclusion of that to which the evidence leads.
A mere possibility, thrown into the one scale, far out-
weighs all the evidence we have adduced, in the other.
This is not the course a candid mind pursues In consid-
ering the comparative weight of evidence. If the im-
portance of the subject, demands scrupulous care in
coming to a decision, the evidence on both sides is sub-
jected 10 a strict examination, and further evidence is
eagerly sought after, to remove doubts and decide with
certainty on the subject. But this is not the course we
must pursue on this subject, if this objection is to be
regarded. Should doubts remain, arising from lack of
evidence, that my views of hell or Gehenna are true, or
that the evidence which I have adduced is considera-
bly weakened by the evidence on the other side, all I
wish is, let the subject be more carefully examined.
But I enter my protest, against shutting our eyes to the
evidence which has been produced, and still profess to
go on believing an old popular doctrine, upon the mere
possibility that it may be true, without producing evi-
dence on the other side. Had such a course been
pursued, or had such objections as this and others been
allowed at the Reformation, we had to-day been in
darkness which might be felt.
3d, But the objector, in this objection, has reduced the
subject of discussion to a mere profit and loss account,
as to our different views of hell or Gehenna, and that
on the supposition, that his views may possibly be true.
Let us examine how this account stands.
1st, Then, let us attend to his side of this account.
26
302 AN INQUIRY INTO
It Stands thus : The doctrine of eternal torment in hell,
may possibly, after all, be true, and if true, in conse-
quence of embracing this error, I may lose my soul and
body forever. Such is the loss with which I am charg-
ed m his account. It is a loss which cannot be exceed-
ed, by saying any man has lost more than this. It is
certainly of such a nature, as no man who was not de-
termined on his own everlasting misery would on any
consideration run the least risk about. No language un-
der heaven, has a word to express my folly and. madness
in avowing such sentiments, if they are not true. I cer-
tainly must then, have the credit of being a sincere be-
liever of the sentiments I have advanced relative to this
subject, whether true or false.
But how is this account proved against me to be true?
I deny that the entry is true, or that the account of loss
charged, can be proved. Is it the belief that hell is a
place of endless misery, which saves any man ? And
is it unbelief in this doctrine which damns any man to
this punishment ? Here seems to be one radical mis-
take of the objector. He seems to think that if his
doctrine is true, all who have not believed it, must suf-
fer this punishment for not believing it. But if this was
true, he would send all the ancient prophets and saints
to hell. He would also send all the apostles and first
Christians there, yea, the Savior himself, for he nor any
of those persons, seem to have believed his doctrine.
If their unbelief of it, does not involve such an awful
and solemn loss to them, how can it to me ? Placing
me in such company, I shall not feel much alarmed ;
yea, he will be obliged to add to our company, all the
Universalists, and all who have doubted of the truth of
his doctrine and a multitude which no man can number,
who have in their hearts disbelieved it, but who were not
honest enough to avow their convictions. He perhaps
may be obliged to add even himself, for a belief founded
on a mere possibility that the thing believed, is true, is
surely not far from unbelief concerning it.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 303
But the objector labors under a mistaken notion as to
what saves. According to him it is the behef of the
doctrine, that hell is a place of endless misery. It is
not the belief of this which saves men from hell or from
any thing else. Jesus Christ is the Savior, and it is the
gospel or glad tidings of God's grace or favor through
him, that saves men from every thing they need to be
saved from. Nor would the objector undertake to de-
fend, that a man who believed the gospel, and showed
his faith by his works, would be damned if he did not
also believe the doctrine of endless misery in hell.
Would he not pause a moment, before he, with one in-
discriminating sweep, sent all to hell who have not be-
lieved his doctrine ? This charge must then be can-
celled from his side of this account against me. The
objector may take his choice, either to do this, or with
me to consign prophets, apostles, and innumerable oth-
ers over to eternal misery?
2d, Let us now examine my side of this account
against the objector. INly loss is the loss of both soul
and body forever, if his doctrine is at last found true.
It is freely granted, that if my doctrine is true, that nei-
ther the objector nor any other man, loses soul and body
forever. But because these are not lost, does it follow,
that he loses nothing ? We think that this is another
very considerable mistake of the objector, which re-
quires to be corrected in his account. Is it no loss to a
man that he lives all his days, and at last dies in a very
great error, though that error does not involve him at
last in eternal misery ? Is it no loss to him, that his
error gives him very wrong views of God's character,
and his designs by the salvation of his Son. Does it
make no difference to him, as to profit or loss, to look
on God as dooming a part, and by some the greater
part of mankind, to inconceivable and endless misery,
and being persuaded that God never threatened one of
the children of men with such a punishment ? Is it no
304 AN INQUIRY INTO
difference to him whether he spend his days in the cer-
tain and joyful hope of heavenly happiness, and that
without any fears and anxieties about eternal misery, or
live under fear and anxiety all the days of his life, and
with fear and trembling, as to his future destiny, give up
the ghost ? And allowing him free from all such fears
and anxieties as to his own future happiness, is it no loss
to him to be denied the same hope and comfort of mind
as to all his fellow creatures ? In one word, does he
suffer no loss by such wrong conceptions of God's char-
acter, which mar his own peace and comfort, and in-
volve so many of his fellow mortals in endless misery ?
Such is a brief statement of the objector's losses. I
leave the reader to enlarge it, which may easily be done
to a much greater amount. Can he now say that he
loses nothing, admitting my doctrine to be true, and his
own to be false ?*
We now come to the second class of objections,
which are supposed to have some weight against the
evidence adducced that Gehenna is not used to express
a place of endless misery. These we shall attempt
to consider, without much regard to the order in which
they are brought forward.
It has been objected, that a very great change took
place in the language of the Jews during the captivity
in Babylon, and that it would be ivrong to interpret
words in the New Testament according to the serise
which they have in the Old. It has been thought that
during the captivity, the Hebreiv language ceased to be
vernacular among the Jeivs, and that they brought back
from Babylon the Chaldaic instead of it. This has
been urged against the views we have given of Ge-
henna, and in favor of its meaning a place of endless mis-
ery. In reply to this, it ought to be noticed, that the
* According to this objection, Unlversalists must go to hell, because
their opinion of God's character is too good ; and others go to heaven, be-,
eause they believe him not so good a being, as Universalists.
THE WORD GEHENNA. 305
supposed fact on which this objection is founded, is dis-
puted by the learned. Mr. Parkhurst, in his Lexicon,
on the word Ebrais, p. 181, thus writes : — "A strange
notion originally derived from the Jewish rabbins, the
descendants of those who crucified the Lord of Life hath
prevailed, and is but too generally received, that, during
the Babylonish captivity, the Hebrew language ceased
to be vernacular among the Jews, and it is pretended
that they brought back the Chaldee or Babylonish, in-
stead of it ; and, in consequence, that the language
commonly spoken in Judea in our Savior's time was not
Hebrew^ but Syriac, or Syro-Chaldaic. But
" 1st, Prejudice apart, is it probable that any people
should lose their native language in a captivity of no
longer than seventy years continuance ? (Comp. Ezra
iii. 12, Hag. iii. 2. ) And is it not still less probable
that a people so tenacious of their law as the Jews,
should yet be so negligent of their language, wherein
that law, both religious and civil was contained, as to
suffer such a loss, and exchange their mother tongue for
that of their detested and idolatrous enemies ; espe-
cially since they had been assured by the prophet Jere-
miah, chap. XXV. 11, 12;xxvii. 22; xxix. 10. (comp.
Dan. ix. 2,) that after a captivhy of no more then sev-
enty years they should be restored to their own land ?
But
" 2dly, It appears from Scripture, that under the cap-
tivity the Jews retained not only their language, but
their manner of writing it, or the form and fashion of
their letters. Else, what meaneth Esth. viii. 9, where
we read that the decree of Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes
Longimanus, was written unto every province accord-
ing to the writing thereof, and unto every people after
their .language, and to the Jews according to their writ-
ing and according to their language 1 ( Comp. -Esther
i. Ezra iv. 7. ) And let it be remarked, that this de-
cree was issued, according to Prideaux, Connect, part
26*
306 AN INQUIRY INTO
i. book 5, five years after Ezra had obtained his com-
mission for his return to Jerusalem with those of his
nation, of which see Ezra vii.
" 3dly, ' Ezekiel, who prophesied during the cap-
tivity, to the Jews in Chaldea, wrote and pubhshed his
prophecies in Hebrew.' Leland's Reflections on lord
Bolinbroke's Letters, p. 229, 3d edit, where see more.
" 4thly, The prophets who flourished soon after the
return of the Jews to their own country, namely Haggai
and Zechariah, prophesied to them in Hebrew, and so
did Malachi, who seems to have delivered his prophecy
about an hundred years after that event, Now if
Chaldee was the vernacular language of the Jew^s after
the captivity, what tolerable reason can be assigned why
those inspired men addressed not only the priests and
great men, but also the body of the people, in Hebrew,
and did not, as Daniel and Ezra have sometimes done,
use the Chaldee language ? It is I think, by no means
sufHcient to answer, with bishop Walton, that they did
this because the rest of the sacred books were written
in Hebrew ; for if there were any force in this reason, it
would prove that Daniel also and Ezra ought to have
written in Hebrew only.
'' 5thly, Nehemiah, who was governor of the Jews
about a hundred years after their return from Babylon,
not only wrote his book in Hebrew, but in chap. xiii. 23,
24, complains that some of the Jews, during his absence,
had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab,
and that their children could not speak ihurit the Jeivs^
language, but spake a mixed tongue. Now ihurit is
Hebrew, as it appears from all the other passages in
which it occurs, viz. 2 Kings xviii. 26, 28. 2 Chron.
xxxii. 18. Isai. xxxvi. 11, 13. But how impertinent
is the remark, and how foolish the complaint of Nehe-
miah appears to be, that the children of some Jews,
who had taken foreigners for wives, could not speak pure
Hebrew, if that tongue had ceased to be vernacular
THE WORD GEHENNA. 307
among the people in general a hundred years before
that period ? ' So that (to use the words of the learned
Spearman, to whom I am greatly indebted in the above
observations,) tliis very text of Nehemiah, I think, re-
futes the received supposition of the Hebrew being lost
in the Babylonish captivity.'
'' 6thly, It is highly absurd and unreasonable to sup-
pose that the writers of the New Testament used the
term Hebrew to signify a different language from that
which the Greciziug Jews denoted by that name ; but
the language which those Jews called Hebrew after the
Babylonish captivity, was not Syriac or Chaldee, but the
same in which the law and the prophets were written.
This appears from the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, which,
according to Prideaux, was penned by the grandson of
Jesus about 132 years before Christ ; for he there ob-
serves, that 'the same things uttered in Hebrew and trans-
lated into another tongue, have not the same force in
them ; and not only these things ( this book of Eccle-
siasticus) but the law itself, and the prophets, and the
rest of the books have no small difference, when they
are spoken in their own language.
" Lastly, It may be worth adding, that Josephus who
frequently uses the expressions ie?i ebraion dialelcten,
glottan ten ebraion, ehraisti, for the language in ivhich
Moses ivrote (see inter, al. Ant. lib. i. cap. i. § I, 2.
comp. lib. X. cap. i.<§) 2. tells us, De Bell. lib. vi. cap.
ii. 4 1- that towards the conclusion of the siege of
Jerusalem he addressed not only John, the commander
of the Zealots, but tois pollois, the (^Jewisli) multitude,
who were with him, ebraizon in the Hebreiv tongue,
which was therefore" the common language of the Jews
at that time, i. e. about forty years after our Savior's
death. Comp. Ant. lib. xvlii. cap. vii. <^ 10.
" On the whole, I conclude that the Jews did not ex-
change the Hebrew for the Chaldee language at the cap-
tivity, and that the terms Ebraisy Ebraikos, Ebraisti,
808 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
in the New Testament, denote, not the Syriac^ or
Syro-Chaldaic, but the Hebrew language, commonly so
called ; though I readily grant that this language, es-
pecially as it is spoken by the Galileans (See Mark xiv.
73. Math. xxvi. 73. and under Galilaios,) had in our
Savior's time deflected from its ancient purity, as partic-
ularly appears, I think, from the words Abba. Akeldamay
Boanerges, Gogotha, which see in their proper places."
We give this just as we find it, and leave those who
choose to investigate the subject to determine it. But
in whatever way this point is determined, we are una-
ble to- perceive its bearing against the views we have
advanced about Gehenna. Admitting that a great
change took place in the language of the Jews during
their captivity, if the Jews by this word, did not un-
derstand a place of eternal misery from their Scriptures
before they went to Babylon, yet understood it so after
they returned, it follows, that this riotion was learned
during the captivity. This is no honor to the doctrine,
nor is it authority for a moment to be regarded. How-
ever great the change in the language of the Jews was
during the captivity, we think it has been proved that
our Lord uses the term Gehenna, in the sense it was used
by the prophet Jeremiah, as an emblem of temporal
calamities. Until this is disproved, and it is established,
that this change in the Jewish language gave such a dif-
ferent sense to this word as the objector supposes, it does
not deserve a serious consideration.
But though the idea of a place of future misery was
learned by the Jews from the heathen, yet their giving
it the na'me Gehenna was of a later date. This is evi-
dent from considering, that Neherhiah, Ezra, nor any
Old Testament writer, after the captivity, ever spoke
of this doctrine, or applied this word to it. The fact is,
that whatever change, either the ideas or the language
of the Jews underwent in Babylon, there is no proof to
be derived from the Old Testament, that Gehenna was
THE WORD GEHENNA. 309
changed In sense from being an emblem of temporal pun-
ishment, to being made an emblem of endless misery.
We presume no person will pretend, that any proof can
be produced of this. Let us then be informed upon
what rational and Scriptural grounds, this term was so
difterently understood by the inspired writers of the New
from those of the Old Testament. There must be a
conscious lack of evidence, to urge the change which the
Jewish language underwent in Babylon as any proof
tliat our Lord used the term Gehenna to express a place
of endless punishment for the wicked. It is rather ex-
ploding the doctrine than proving it, to have recourse to
such means in establishing it.
It has been urged as an objection — that though the
Targums are not good authority to prove any doctrine,
yet they are sufficient testimony to show, in ivhat sense
Gehenna was used among the Jews about our Savior^s
time, and it is evident from them, that it expressed a
place of endless misery. But this argument, is founded
in the mistake, that the Targums were written before
our Lord's day. We think this has been shown above.
But supposing this was the sense of Gehenna, then, it is
very evident the Jews could not understand it in this
sense when they read the Old Testament Scriptures.
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 punish-
310 AN INQUIRY INTO
ment, we think has been proved. Can any man rea-
sonably beUeve, that our Lord used Gehenna in a sense
seemingly invented out of enmity to the Gentiles, and
laid aside its use in the Old Testament ? Besides ; and
w^iat 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 he
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 labor, 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 labor 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, or 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 all such texts
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
mapplicable 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.
It has been objected to my views — that by Gehenna,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 311
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
rejTresented as a place, in writing, in preaching, and in
conversation. Let the writer or the preacher be nam-
ed, 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, speak of it as a place. Yea,
some have even pretended to tell where it is located,
and have described also the nature of its punishment,
and the wretched condition of its inhabitants in a very
circumstantial 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 di 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 mc for speaking about
it as they do themselves, until they have made this al-
teration.
2d, Supposing then the word state to be substituted
for the word place, we ask, what advantage is gained
in favor 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 in-
ability to perceive it. We are equally at a loss to per-
ceive, 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 point-
ed out.
3d, We should feel obliged to the persons, who wish
to abandon the word place, to describe to us what they
312 AN INQUIRY INTO
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 doc-
trine ; or, is it with a view to perplex the subject, and
evade the arguments urged against itl Men who
would lay aside the good old ivay of speaking of hell,
must have some reasons for doing this. We wish to
know them.
4th, We have attempted to show, that Gehenna
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 Gehen-
na 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 con-
troverting them ?
5th, It is allowed that heaven is a place as well as a
state. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, vol. 1. 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
THE WORD GEHENNA. 313
of this quotation — '' Where will the bodies of the wick-
ed 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 cer-
tain, 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 heret-
ical, who would insinuate that hell was not a. jjl ace, hut
only a state. And must I now be condemned as he-
retical, for not speaking of hell as a state but as a
place 1
It has been objected — ^' that the words sjjolcen hy our
Lord, Math, xxiii. 33. to the unbelieving Jews were
prophetic, and tjiat by the damnation of hell, he might
simply mean some punishment after death, ivithout 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 pas-
sage above, 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 any thing on this
subject. If the objector says, that by the damnation of
hell, our Lord might simply mean some punishment af-
ter death, without any reference to the place or the na-
ture 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.
27
314 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
We may suppose any thing ; but if unsupported by ev-
idence, 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 Ge-
henna, by our Lord. Why he should think the pun-
ishment 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 de-
termine also the nature of the punishment to be tem-
poral, 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 men-
tioned in the Bible, is after death. i
It is further objected — if the mere silence of the Old
Testament, concernhig Gehenna beirig a place of end-
less misery, is of any force against it, will it not he 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 an-
swer to this, we remark
1st, That we have never laid much stress on the si-
lence of the Old Testament, respecting Gehenna not
being a place of endless misery. We have decidedly
expressed our willingness to beheve 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 invali*
THE WORD GEHENNA. 315
date any thins; which I have said, drawn from the si-
lence 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 de-
stroyed. But if future happiness was known, and fu-
ture eternal misery not known, how stands the argu-
ment ? 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. 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 incor-
ruption 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 Testa-
ment respecting hell torments, remains unaffected by
this objection.
It has been objected — since paradise in the Old Tes-
tament merely referred to temporal happiness, hut in
the New is used for heavenly blessedness, why may not
also Gehenna, used in the Old Testament for tempo-
ral misery, be used in the New for eternal punishment 1
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
316 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
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 ? No, 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 punishment 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 mis-
ery alike, in Scripture. The objector takes it for grant-
ed, that paradise is used in the Old Testament. But
in this he is mistaken, for the word does not occur
there. Paradise is not even a Hebrew word, but is al-
lowed to be Persian. Had the objector noticed, that
this word is not used in the Old Testament, it might
have prevented such an objection being made against
my views. But as this objection is founded in a mis-
take, it did not deserve any consideration.
It has been also objected — the reason why John said
nothing about Geheyma was, that he was the beloved
disciple : and 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 er-
ror. In reply, we may remark,
1st, If the reason, why John and the apostles said
nothing about Gehenna or hell torments, was, as is assert-
ed, 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 ter-
ror and not by love. How then does the objector ac-
count for, and is he prepared to defend^ the difference
THE WORD GEHENNA. 317
between apostolic and modern preaching ? This objec-
tion agrees with my views so far, that God makes men
obedient by love, and not by terror. So far well.
2d, It should seem from this objection, tliat the more
we become apostolic, or like John, in love, this will lead
us to say nothing about hell torments to others. If we
can only like John, be beloved disciples, and be like the
the apostles in our tempers and dispositions, we shall
not mention endless misery in our preaching or conver-
sation 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 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 objec-
tion, 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 this was a lovely
disposition in them ; it showed love to the persons
w^iom 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 be-
lieved them exposed to endless misery in hell yet never
once mention their danger to them ? All will agree
with me in saying, that this is any thing but love or faith-
fulness to the souls of men.
It is further objected — if Gehenna signifies ivrath to
come, it ivas natural to speak to J eivs of endless misery
by the former, and to Gentiles by the latter mode of
expression. Why it was natural to speak to Jews of
27*
318 AN INQ,UIRY INTO
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 ivrath 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 punishment after death. 2d,
Upon examination, we think it will be found, that the
phrase, wrath to come, refers to temporal punishment,
to Jews as well as Gentiles ; but as the damnation or
punishment of hell or Gehenna, had a particular refer-
ence to the temporal miseries of the Jews at the de-
struction of their city and temple, we never find it
spoken of to the Gentiles.
It has also been objected — that if my vieivs of Ge-
henna be correct, my interpretation of the passages
where our Lord spolie to his disciples concerning ^V,
go to show, that he was more concerned for their ^
temporal safety than their eternal welfare. This ob-
jection, 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 con-
cerned 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,
THE WORD GEHENNA. 319
showing that Gehenna does not refer to a place of end-
less misery, and to establish his own views by evidence
drawn from the New Testament that this is its mean-
ing. 2d, That our Lord should be more concerned for
the temporal safety of his disciples, than for that of the
unbelieving Jews, many reasons might be assigned.
They were his discijjles, and their temporal safety
could not be a matter of indifference to him. Their
temporal safety also made manifest his character, in
not destroying the righteous with the wicked. And
was not this very sparing them, as a father spareth his
only son that serveth him, a fulfilment of what God had
spoken? See Mai. iii. 17, 18. and comp. chap. iv.
But above all, \vas it not a matter of importance, that
our Lord should show concern for the temporal safety
of his disciples, as they were to be witnesses of his
resurrection, and the heralds of his salvation to the ends
of the earth ? All these and other things which could
be mentioned, account for our Lord's solicitude about
the temporal safety of his disciples, without supposing
that their souls were in danger of endless punishment
in Gehenna.
It is further objected — if there be no such thing as hell
a place of misery in a future state, yet seeing it was
believed both among Jews and Gentiles, that there was
certainly such a place, why is it that neither Christ
nor his apostles, ever took occasion to contradict this
false notion, but on the contrary expressed themselves
in appearance at least, so much in favor of this opin-
ion, that a great part ofmanlcind from that time to this
have supposed it fully taught in the New Testament.
Some remarks are made in chap. i. sec, 3. which meet
this objection. We offer a few additional remarks here
in reply to it. 1st, Then we ask, how came they by
such a belief. It was not from the Old Testament, for
it is allowed that it does not teach such a doctrine. In
chap. i. sect. 3. it has been shown, that the Jews learn-
320 AN INQUIRY INTO
ed this doctrine from their intercourse with the heathen.
This made such a behef common f^ both Jews and Gen-
tiles, and not that it was common to both, from divine rev-
elation. 2d, But the point of this objection lies in the
following things. It is asked, — " why is it that neither
Christ nor his apostles, ever took occasion to contradict
this false notion that hell was a place of misery ?" In
answer to this we ask in our turn — '-If Christ and his
apostles believed this doctrine common to both Jews
and Gentiles, why did they not avail themselves of this
universally received notion to inculcate and enforce this
doctrine ?" To have taught it, could have given no of-
fence to either of them ; yet we find them silent on the
subject, that Gehenna or even Hades is such a place.
The only exception to this, is the parable of the rich
man, which has been shown not even to teach an inter-
mediate state of punishment. If this popular belief then,
w^as true, and believed to be so by the Savior and his
apostles, why did they not avail themselves of it, and en-
force it on both Jews and Gentiles ? 3d, If we are to
conclude, that because Christ and his apostles never ex-
pressly contradicted this false notion, common to both
Jews and Gentiles, and that they by their silence sanc-
tioned it as true, it follows, that all the false notions en-
tertained by Jews and Gentiles not expressly contra-
dicted by them are true. But we presume few w^ould
admit this, though it is a natural consequence from this
objection. When any man will fairly make out, that
their not contradicting expressly all the false, Jewish
and heathen notions, is proof that those about which
they are silent are true, we shall admit the one in ques-
tion to be of the number. But another part of the
point of this objection is, that — '' on the contrary they
expressed themselves, in appearance at least so much
in favor of this opinion, that a great part of mankind
from that time to this have supposed it fully taught in
the New Testament." In reply, we would ask in
THE WORD GEHENNA. 321
what parts of the New Testament do we find this ?
Not surely from those parts which speak either of
Hades or Gehenna. The places where our Lord used
those words, have been considered, and we think it
has been shown, that in none of them did he teach such
a doctrine. His apostles never once named Gehenna,
nor even intimate that either Hades or Gehenna refer-
red to a place of endless misery. If our Lord and his
apostles, did in appearance, speak of such a place of
misery, some other texts must be referred to than those
in which the words Hades and Gehenna are found. But
it is supposed that Jesus Christ and his apostles express-
ed themselves in appearance, at least, so much in favor
of this opinion, " that a great part of mankind from that
time to this have supposed it fully taught in the New
Testament." It will not be denied, that men from that
time to this have supposed Christ and his apostles to
teach doctrines, which they are now coming to be con-
vinced are not taught in the Bible. That the one we
have been considering is not of that number, ought not
to be taken for granted. It is admitted by all, that a
great many Jewish and heathen notions, were very early
incorporated with the doctrine of Christ and his apostles.
Past ages, have furnished but too much evidence, that
the Scriptures have been used to countenance almost
every opinion. Closer attention to the oracles of God
has exploded many of them, and increased attention,
may expose the falsehood of many more. That hell,
a place of endless misery for the wicked, is an opinion
which originated with the heathen we have shown
above ; and have also attempted to show, that those
texts on which this doctrine has been founded, have
been greatly ijiisunderstood. If we have erred in inter-
preting them, let this be pointed out. Until this is done,
and it is shown that the doctrine of hell torments did not
originate in the heathenism, but in the authority of God,
our views stand unshaken by this objection,
322 AN INQUIRY INTO
We find it also objected — if there he noplace of pun-
ishment in a future state, pre'pared for such as die in
unbelief, how is this part ofmanMnd to be disposed of
after death, in what part of the universe is their abode
to be assigned them ? Not in heaven ; for God is rep-
resented in Scripture as bringing ivith him from thence
at the resurrection of the dead, only those that '' sleep
in Jesus^' and of all the dead only 'Uhe dead in Christ,''
are said to ascend thither with him to divell forever with
the Lord. Not in Gehenna or hell ; for according to
your vieivs, there is no such place in the ivorld to come.
On this objection let it be remarked — 1st, Whatever
abode we assign such persons in a future state, we think
we have shown, that God does not assign to them as
their abode, Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna.
If God has not assigned to them such a place, it is rash
in us to assert this without his authority. If he should
leave them without any abode either as to happiness or
misery, there we ought to leave' them. Dr. Campbell
as we have seen, declares, that Hades is at last to be
destroyed, and accordingly he assigns them an ever-
lasting abode in Gehenna^ but we think without any
w^arrant from Scripture. If then we have proved, that
hell or Gehenna is not the everlasting abode which God
has assigned them, and seeing the objector thinks that
heaven is not to be their abode, we ask him in turn
how they are to be disposed of? If he denies that
heaven is to be their abode, we think it has been shown
that hell is not said to be their abode. If it is said, be-
cause they are not to go to heaven they must go to hell ;
we may reply, because they are not to go to hell they
must go to heaven. 2d, The objection states that their
abode is not to be in heaven, and the reasons assigned
are — " For God is represented in Scripture as bringing
with him from thence at the resurrection of the dead,
only those that ' sleep in Jesus ;' and of all the dead,
only ' the dead in Christ' are said to ascend thither with
THE WORD GEHENNA. 323
him to dwell forever with the Lord." This refers to 1
Thess. iv. 13. he. on the whole of which passage I
shall make the following remarks.
1st, The grand distinction in this passage, is be-
tween the dead and those found aliv^e on the earth at
the period referred to. The passage is alike silent how
the wicked dead and those wicked found alive are to
be disposed of; for not a word is said about the wick-
ed. The persons said to be asleep or dead, verse 13.
and those which sleep in Jesus, verse 14. and also as
asleep, verse 15. and the dead in Christ who shall rise
first, verse 16. all refer to the same persons. They re-
fer to the dead, and we presume are exclusively confin-
ed by the objector to believers. On the other hand the
we,, who are said to be alive and remain, mentioned
verses 15 — 17. must also be confined exclusively to be-
lievers, then found alive on the earth. These shall
not prevent, or go before them who are asleep. Be-
fore they shall ascend, the dead in Christ shall rise
first, and both shall ascend together to meet the Lord
in the air. These last, we must confine to all living
believers found on the earth, for if we extend it to all
living, indiscriminately, why not the first also to all the
dead indiscriminately ? But if we take into view the
15th chapter of ls| Corinthians, and especially from
verse 51 — 58. which seems to treat of the same sub-
ject, all the dead seems to be included. Compare also
verses 20—22, 31, 35, 42—45.
2d. It is evident that the passage makes no distinc-
tion between two classes of people to be raised at this
period, righteous and wicked. Either, then, this pas-
sage does not teach us anything concerning the wick-
ed, or they are included with the others here men-
tioned. If they are not, and their resurrection is no
where else spoken of, the inference would be that they
are not raised at all. But in some other places their
resurrection is asserted. See Acts xxiv. 15. If Paul
324 AN 1NQ,UIRT INTO
then in the passage, does not include all dead and alivej
it is rather singular, that he should say nothing about
the resurrection of the wicked, or how those left on the
earth are to be disposed of, after all the others have
left it to meet the Lord in the air. If he did not see
meet to consign them over to hell forever, nor inform
us how they are to be disposed of otherwise, the ob-
jector ought to prove, that hell is to be their everlasting
abode. If I am mistaken in my views of Gehenna or
hell, I wish to see my error pointed out. If it is to be
their abode, I am in a great mistake. But if this pas-
sage is allowed to speak only of believers, yet there are
others, which do not accord with what the objector
seems to draw from it. According to this objection,
none but such as died believers in Christ, are to be
finally happy in heaven. This at once excludes all the
heathen world, and a great part of what is called the
Christian world. But how does all this agree with the
promises of God, that in Christ all the families of the
earth are to be blessed. That the heathen are given
him for his inheritance, and the uttermost ends of the
earth for his possession. That God hath reconciled all
things to himself by Jesus Christ. That he is Lord of
all. Lord both of the dead and of the living. That ev-
ery knee shall bow to him and every tongue confess.
But see among others the following passages which we
think it will be difficult to reconcile with the objection
urged from this passage. 1 Cor. xvi. 24 — 29. Rom.
V. 12—21. Rev. V. 13. Philp. ii. 9—12. In short,
how could it with any propriety be said, that the devil,
the works of the devil, and death, the last enemy are
all destroyed, if this objection is founded in truth ?
But the whole force of this objection, seems to rest
on the expression that is here used concerning the per-
sons who are to be raised, that they sleep in Jesus.
The term sleep is used for death, and we think it can be
proved that it is so used concerning good and bad. It
THE WORD GEHENNA. 325
is then the words in Jesus, on which the whole depends.
Now we would ask, if even those who died in ignorance
and unbelief concerning him, are persons for whom he
died ; for whose sins he was a propitiation, and that he
is not to give up the kingdom until all things are sub-
dued ; yea, such persons are to be raised by him ; may
it not be said that they sleep in him ?
But there is one thing in this passage which I would
notice, and with it conclude my remarks on this objec-
tion. In verse 13. the apostle, addressing the Thessa-
lonians, says — " I w^ould not have you to be ignorant,
brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that ye sor-
row not even as others who have no hope." Who were
asleep, let me ask, and concerning whom the apostle
washed them, '- not to sorrow as those who have no
hope ?" According to the view taken in the objection
they were only believers ; or believing relatives who
had died. But why should they sorrow so much for
them, and be told not to sorrow like the heathen, whose
grief at the death of their relatives was excessive ? If
we confine those who are represented as asleep, to be-
lievers only, it should seem that the Thessalonians had
even little hope as to them, and w^ent to excess in grief
and needed to be cautioned against it. But if we con-
sider the apostle as exhorting them against excessive
grief at the death of their relations, who even died hea-
thens, it not only obviates this difficulty, but their minds
are consoled by the apostle in the pas?age concerning
them. To understand it otherwise, would represent the
Thessalonians as being grieved only at the death of their
believing relations, and no way concerned for the future
condition of such of them as died heathens.
Such are the objections, of any importance, which
we have heard urged against the views which we have
advanced concerning hell or Gehenna. Some of them,
we frankly admit, are too trifling to have been noticed.
After a consideration of them we must say, that not one
28
326 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
of them, nor all of them taken together, have even led
us to suspect, that what we have said concerning hell,
is contrary to Scripture. But let our readers consider
them, and judge for themselves.
SECTION VII.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
If the sentiments advanced in the preceding pages,
have been attended to by the reader, he no doubt per-
ceives, that the conclusion which results from them iSj
that — there is no place of endless misery taught in
Scripture, as is commonly believed by most Christians.
This we admit to be the fair inference which results
from what has been stated, unless it can be proved, that
such a place of endless misery is revealed in Scripture
under some other name than Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or
Gehenna. It is our deliberate and candid opinion, that
these words are never used in Scripture to express such
a place of misery. We have laid the evidence on which
this opinion has been formed, before our readers, and
they are left to judge for themselves, as to its truth or
falsehood. Some, no doubt, will condemn what we
have said, witlxDut giving the evidence produced a pa-
tient hearing. T\^e popular, but senseless, cry of heresy,
is sure to be rung in people's ears, to deter them from
paying any attention to the subject. From such per-
sons we expect nothing but noise and abuse, for they
have no desire that their faith should stand in the wis-
dom of God. But there are others, whose good sense,
judgment, and piety we respect, who, no doubt will
will conclude, that my inquiry has ended in a great and
fatal error. To all such I would offer a few remarks,
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 327
in vindication of myself, against this sentence of con-
demnation.
1st, Let those who thus condemn me, consider, if
they do not take for granted, the grand question which
has been under discussion. Do they not first deter-
mine in their own minds that hell is a place of endless
misery, and because my investigation has not brought
me to this conclusion, they conclude I must be in a great
error ? But why ought not such persons to admit, that
they may be! in an error on this subject ; and instead
of condemning me, ought to bring the subject to the
Bible for examination ? It is not our work to make a
Bible, to alter it, nor bend it to support any sentiment,
however popular in the religious world. It is a duty in-
cumbent on every man, to study that precious book
with serious care and attention, and by every just rule
of interpretation, to ascertain, what is its true meaning.
This I have attempted to do, and, unless I shut my eyes
against evidence, and am determined to be an implicit
believer in the doctrine of endless misery, to what
other result could I come on this subject ? If, after all
the care and attention I have been able to give this
subject, it can be proved that I am in an error, let this
be done, and I pledge myself to renounce it. I have
the testimony of my own conscience, that I have sought
after the truth, and that without any regard either to
the favor or the frown of my fellow creatures.
2d, But if we are not to examine into the truth of
religious doctrines, unless our examinations end in the
behef, that the popular and long established views of
them are true, all inquiry and investigation might as
well be spared. It is much easier to adopt the popular
belief at once ; for after all our labor and care, to this
we must come at last. Besides ; in this way we avoid
all the pain and popular odium, which a change of re-
ligious opinion frequently involves. But, had this course
been pursued, by all who have gone before us, what
328 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
would our condition now have been as to science or re-
ligion ? We had to-day, been sitting in darkness, and
saying to the works of our own hands — ^" ye are our
gods." The Bible is the religion of Protestants, and
among all the sects into which they are divided, free
inquiry is, to a certain extent inculcated. Most sects,
however, have their limits fixed, beyond which if a man
goes, he becomes suspected, and perhaps is denounced
as an heretic. He may inquire, and investigate as much
as he pleases, to support the pecuhar tenets of his sect,
but beyond this it is dangerous to proceed. Should he
push his inquiries further, and find some of them the
inventions of men, he must conceal his discoveries, for
if he does not, the vengeance of the whole sect, if not
the whole religious community, will be poured out on
his head. I must be very fond of suffering, thus to ex-
pose myself
3d, Since I am to be condemned, because my inves-
tigations have not resulted in the popular belief of the
doctrine of endless hell torments, I do not see any pos-
sible way of getting rid of error, or increasing in knowl-
edge. I have done no more than thousands have done
before me ; to examine the Bible for myself, and state
the result for the consideration of others. Such as
have done so, have seldom escaped the appellation
of heretics. But the first to condemn others, are gen-
erally the last to examine for themselves, what is truth
on any religious subject. If in this investigation. I have
travelled beyond the record, let this be pointed out by
an appeal to the same record. If a man under mis-
taken views of a religous doctrine, avows his mistaken
sentiments, and thereby brings more truth to light, and
excites inquiry, are not these valuable ends served to
society ?
4th, Supposing the views which have been advanc-
ed, had been the universal belief of the religious com-
munity, and the opposite doctrine had never been known
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 329
in the world. Allowing that I had come forward, and
attempted to show, that endless misery in hell was a
doctrine taught in Scripture, and that the contrary was
a mistaken view of the subject. Beyond all doubt I
should be liable to the veiy same condemnation to which
I am now subjected. The trumpet would sound loud
and long, by all religious parties against me. It would
be sagely and gravely remarked, — " what a dreadful doc-
trine he has embraced. What dreadful views his doc-
trine gives of the God who made us. He represents
him as dooming a great part of his creatures to endless
misery in hell. His inquiries have led him into a most
dreadful error." I appeal to every candid man if this
would not be my fate, and if as good ground was not af-
forded for such conclusions and condemnations in the
one case, as in the other. But let us view the two
opposite doctrines in the following points of light.
1st, How does the two doctrines affect the character
of God ? Let us view them as to the promises of God.
He promised that the seed of the woman should bruise
the head of the serpent. To bruise a serpent's head is
to kill or destroy it. But is the serpent's head bruised,
if the greater part of the human race are to be eternally
miserable ? Even this is too gross to be believed, by
respectable orthodox writers in the present day. Mr.
Emerson, in his book on the Millennium, commenting
on Gen. iii. 15. thus writes, p. 11. "Now the question
arises. Has the serpent's head been bruised in any de-
gree answerable to the manifest import of the passage
under consideration ? A great part of mankind have
gone to destruction. Does this look like bruising the
serpent's head ? If the greater part of the human race
are to be lost by the cunning craftiness of satan, will that
look like bruising his head ? To me it would seem far
otherwise. Should satan continue the god of this world
from the beginning to the end of time, leading whole na-
tions captive at his will, surely he will seem to have
28*
330 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
cause to triumph. But the head of satan must be bruis-
ed ; his plots must be crushed. Are all mankind to be
saved ? Certainly not. That would be giving the lie
to numerous declarations of eternal Truth ; it would be
throwing away the Bible at once. And if the Bible be
thrown away, it would be impossible to prove the sal-
vation of any. But there is no doubt that by far the
greater part of mankind will be saved. This appears
necessary, in order that the serpent's head may be bruis-
ed. I am strongly inclined to the opinion of Dr. Hop-
kins, that of the whole human race, thousands will be
saved for one that is lost."
We are happy to see from such respectable authors,
that " thousands will be saved for one that is lost :" and
that if the greater part of the human race are to be lost,
Satan's head would not be bruised, but that he would
have cause to triumph. If so many must be saved,, as
stated in this quotation, to avoid these consequences,
we would suggest it for the consideration of all, as well
as that of the worthy author, whether satan's head could
be bruised, or he destroyed, and whether he would not
have cause of triumph if one individual of the human
rdce was lost. If but one was left in his power, to be
tormented forever, how could his head be bruised, and
would he not triumph in this small conquest, as well as
over one in a thousand ? We do not see how^ the num-
ber could materially alter the case. We seriously think,
that if the number to be saved be so great, in proportion
to those lost, we would do well to consider if all man-
kind may not be saved, and that we may believe this
without throwing away our Bibles. On this quotation,
we cannot help remarking, how different the sentiments
contained in it are, to what was considered true ortho-
doxy in former ages. In those days, it would have
been considered throwing away the Bible, to say that
thousands will be saved for one lost, just as much as
saying in these, that all will be saved. If Christ comes
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 331
SO near saving the whole human race, in the name of
humanity, why not let his triumph be complete ; why
strain at the gnat and swallow the camel ? God also
promised to Abraham, that in his seed, which was
Christ, all the families of the earth should be blessed.
But if the doctrine of endless misery be true, and a great
part of mankind are decreed to such a punishment, how
can this promise of God be fulfilled ? Let any one go
over the promises and predictions of the Old Testa-
ment, and then candidly say, if he finds them in unison
with the limited views of salvation which most men en-
tertain. It would be as endless, as useless, for me to
dwell on this topic.
But let us view the two doctrines in regard to the
threatenings of God. The doctrine of eternal misery
supposes, that God threatened Adam, that in the day he
ate of the forbidden fruit he should die, and that death
threatened, is said to be endless misery in hell. Hell
torment, then, was threatened before sin existed, or be-
fore the promise of a Savior was given. But is this a
correct understanding of the death threatened Adam.
The falsehood of it is evident from one fact, that Adam,
Noah, Abraham, and all the Old Testament believers,
did not so understand it. If they had, would th^y not
have taught it to mankind ?
But let us also view the two doctrines, in regard to the
attributes or character of God. It has been said, that
my views are very dishonorable to God's character.
His justice, his holiness, and truth are dishonored, if
there be no endless punishment for all the wicked.
But if my views dishonor God's justice, holiness and
truth, what comes of his mercy and goodness, if the
opposite doctrine be true? We have seen attempts
made by some metaphysical writers, to reconcile eter-
nal misery with the mercy and goodness of God, but
in vain. All they have said, is only enveloping the sub-
ject in a mist, or throwing dust in people's eyes to blind
332 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
them on this subject. It is reported of the late Dr.
Osgood, that when he was asked the question, " how
he reconciled the doctrine of eternal misery with the
character of God as a God of mercy and goodness ;"
he lifted both his hands, and said, " if any man is able
to do this I cannot do it." Whether God is more glo-
rified in men's damnation or in their salvation, I need
not discuss. One thing is certain ; that those called
orthodox writers in the present day, are fully aware,
that if God did not ultimately save the greatest part of
mankind, God's character would be dishonored. If
this was not the case, who could deny that the devil
was more honored than God? Mr. Emerson, aware
of this, agrees with another celebrated divine, that those
saved at last, will exceed those that are lost by a large
majority. I am truly glad, to see men of intelligence,
so much concerned for God's, honor and glory in this
respect ; and I hope the time is not very distant, when
they may think God most honored and glorified by sa-
ving the whole human race. It is a very evident case,
that those writers do not hesitate to dissent from ancient
orthodoxy. Had they wTitten so in some former ages,
they would have suffered death, in some of its most
terrific forms for their temerity. At any rate, I am not
a greater heretic now, than they would have been then.
2d, How do the views advanced, and their, opposite
affect the Scriptures of Truth ? I think it will not be
denied, that my views of all the passages in which Ge-
henna occurs, are explained consistently with themselves,
and their respective contexts. That so far from the
contexts being at variance wuth the texts, they direct to
the explanations given. When a man perverts the Scrip-
tures, he does it in the face "of facts, and shutting his
eyes against the context and Scripture usage of words,'
indulges his own imagination. But here the reverse is
the case. The context points out the sense I have
given Gehenna J Scripture usage comes in aid ; nor is
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 333
any thins; taken for granted, or imagination indulged.
But that Gehenna is a place of future misery, is as-
sumed, and asserted without proof, and when the con-
text and Scripture usage are consulted for evidence, all
they afford is on the opposite side.
3d, Let us see how the two doctrines affect the vari-
ous religious sects in the world. Allowing that this
doctrine was universally the faith of all parties, discord
must cease, and Christians would embrace each other
as children of the same father, and heirs of the same in-
heritance. It would lead all sects, to treat each other
very differently from what they have done. But how
does the opposite doctrine operate among them ? Hell
being a place of endless misery, Christians have been
for ages, consigning each other over to its punishment,
and that often for conscientious differences of religious
opinions.
4th, Let us consider, how my views and their oppo-
site, affect the diffusion of the gospel in the world. Say
some, " if your views are correct, why trouble ourselves,
or be at such an expense to send the gospel to the hea-
then ? The principal object in sending missionaries to
the heathen in our day, seems to be, to save them from
hell. If this be the object of sending them, we think
they may abide at home ; for certainly they are run-
ning on an errand to them, on which the apostles were
never sent. Those who wish to see what they pro-
posed, yea, accomplished, by preaching to the heathen,
may consult the Acts of the apostles, and all the epistles.
Because there is no eternal torment from which to save
them, shall we not impart to them the knowledge and
hope of eternal life ? LTnless we can terrify them with
preaching hell, shall we let them live and die ignorant
about heaven ? In short, because we cannot save them
from a place where they shall dishonor God and be pun-
ished" by him forever, shall we not save them from dis-
honoring his name and from punishment in the present
334 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
world ? Unless we have the honor, of saving the hea-
then from everlasting punishment in hell, it seems we do
not think them worthy of our notice to do them any-
good. I pity the man who can think, and feel, and rea-
son at such a rate. Supposing the happiness of heaven
and the torment of hell out of the question, and that the
heathen world were as ignorant of science, agriculture,
and the arts of life, as they are of spiritual things, how-
ought we to think, and feel, and reason on this subject ?
Deists and Atheists in this case would put Christians to
the blush, if they would do them no service, because
they had no hell torments to save them from. My views
of hell, so far from abating true Christian zeal, only
gives it a right direction. The zeal manifested in the
present day in behalf of the heathen is highly to be com-
mended, and nothing prevents its being more generally
approved, but the object towards which it is directed.
It is zeal, but we think it is not according to the knowl-
edge of Scripture. If an inteUigent heathen, were to ask
a modern missionary, after hearing him preach hell tor-
ments, the following questions, what could he answer? —
Do you profess to take the apostles, as a pattern in your
preaching and conduct ? To this the missionary would
without doubt reply in the affirmative. Give me leave,
says he, then, to ask you, what heathen nation they
ever went to and preached as you do to us, that they
came to save them from a place called hell ? To what
sermon of theirs can you refer us, in which they men-
tioned the word hell, which is so often upon your lips?
— Were I this missionary, such questions would non-
plus me. But to what could any missionary appeal,
showing that those persons were all exposed to endless
torments in hell ? Not to his Bible, a book they know
nothing about ? Not to any thing he could point them
to as an object of sight, feeling, or hearing. He could in-
deed refer them back to the old heathen fables about hell,
from which source Dr. Campbell thinks the Jews deriv-
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 335
ed this notion. But we are rather inclined to think, so
far as our knowledge of present heathenism goes, that
the heathen have forgotten the ancient fahles about hell,
and are obliged to Christians for reviving this ancient
doctrine of their fathers among them.
5th, Let us see which of the two doctrines accords
best with the prayers of every good man. What a
good man desires, and is agreeable to his best feelings,
for this he prays. Accordingly, it is common with all
Christians to pray for the salvation of all men ; and we
beheve that they do this often with holy and ardent de-
sires for its accomplishment. But, is there not a con-
tradiction between their wishes, feelings, and prayers,
and their professed creed ? If they are confident all
will never be saved, but only a small number elected to
everlasting happiness, why pray for the salvation of all
men ? Their prayers ought to be restricted to the elect.
And we see not, why they ought not to pray for the
eternal misery of all the rest, seeing it is the will, yea,
the eternal decree of God that they should be forever
miserable. All we request here, is, that every Chris-
tian would impartially and seriously examine, if my
views may not be true, which are so much in unison
with his wishes, his best feelings, and his prayers, when
in the most solemn intercourse with his God. If I am
in an error, it is strange that this error should have such
a place in the desires, and feelings, and prayers of all
Christians.
6th, How do my views and the opposite affect the
eternal condition of men ? According to my views, not
one of the human race is to be punished forever in hell
or Gehenna. This, is certainly a pleasing thought,
amidst all the guilt and woe in our w^orld. But how
does the contrary doctrine represent this ? That a cer-
tain number, no better than others, are to be received
into heaven to enjoy its happiness forever. All the
rest of the human race are to be banished to hell tor-
336 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
merits forever. The husband, the parent, the brother,
the sister, shall look down from heaven on their relations
in hell, and so far from having any pity at seeing them
in such unspeakable and eternal torment, the very sight
shall enhance and increase their happiness. Now, give
me leave to ask, and let conscience speak, which of
these two views is likely to be the truth. Unless every
thing like Christian feeling is banished from heaven,
can such a doctrine be true ? Yea, I ask, if Christian
feelings are known in this place ? Is it possible that the
happiness of the place could be enjoyed, while it is
known, that a single individual is to be eternally miser-
able ? If this be true, then, a believer does not better
his situation, as to Christian feeling, by going to heaven.
I once saw the idea highly extolled in an account of
missionary proceedings — '' that a Christian could not
feel happy, so long as he knew, that there was a single
individual of the human race without the knowledge and
belief of the gospel." This is like a Christian in this
world. Heaven is then a change for the w^orse ; if the
eternal torment of innumerable beings in hell, is to af-
ford an increase of joy to the inhabitants of heaven.
For my own part, I must say that with such feelings,
I could not be happy in heaven. If my views, and feel-
ings, and reasonings on this subject are wrong, I hold
myself in readiness to be corrected by an appeal to the
Scriptures, by any person in the universe of God.
To conclude. With the following remarks, w^e shall
take our leave of this subject for the present.
1st, The books of the Old Testament, says Jahn, in
his introduction, p 4. go '-back to sixteen centuries be-
fore the Christian era. The most ancient of them are
between six and seven hundred years older than Homer,
the oldest Greek poet, who lived in the ninth century
before Christ ; and about eleven hundred years older
than Herodotus, the earliest Grecian historian, who wrote
in the fifth century before Christ, and near the time
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 337
when Malachi and Nehemiah composed the last of the
Hebrew Scriptures." Now, let the reader notice, that
in these ancient sacred writings, not a syllable is to be
found respecting endless hell torments. This doctrine
is not taught under the name Sheol, Hades, Tartarus,
Gehenna, or by any other mode of expression. Mr.
Stuart, does not pretend, that endless punishment is
taught in the books of the Old Testament ; and his very
attempt to prove, that Sheol included in it a Tartarus
or place of future punishment, shows, they afforded no
soUd evidence of such a doctrine. After all his efforts
to prove this, he is obliged to beg of his readers, to grant
that this may probably be true. But, it is now gener-
ally conceded by orthodox critics and commentators,
that all the punishments mentioned in the Old Testa-
ment, are of a temporal nature, and are confined to the
present state of existence.
Here then are inspired writings, " sixteen centuries
before the Christian era," none of which teach either
endless or limited punishment in a future state. Now,
let any candid man say, if either of these doctrines had
been believed by these ancient sacred writers, would
they not have taught it ? Can any other reason be as-
signed, why they did not teach it^ except, that it was
not revealed by God, or believed by them ? Let it be
remembered, that in these ancient records, God prom-
ised to Abraham, that " in his seed, (Christ Gal. iii. 16,)
all the nations and families of the earth were to be bless-
ed." See Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18. But, if some of these
families of the earth, were in danger of Umi ted or eter-
nal punishment in hell, who can believe, that these an-
cient sacred records, would have been silent on the sub-
ject? Dr. Good, speaking of Arabia, says — " The old-
est work that has descended to us from this quarter, (and
there is little doubt that it is the oldest, or one of the
oldest works in existence,) is that astonishing and trans-
cendant composition, the book of Job." But in this old-
29
338 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
est book in existence, not a word, in any shape, is to be
found respecting future hell torments, and yet a future
life by a resurrection from the dead is taught in it. Job
xix. 25 — 28. xiv. 7 — 15. The hope of future life was
entertained in those ancient times, and this hope was
expressed. But if the fear of future punishment was
also entertained, why was not it expressed ?
Had no future existence been revealed in those an-
cient sacred writings, no surprise would be excited, that
they are silent on the subject of endless or limited future
punishment. But the above texts, and Hebrews chap.
11, with other texts which might be referred to, put it
out of all question that a future life was known and
believed in those days. Men then, had a promise of
future life to believe, but had no threatening of future
endless punishment to fear. Such was the state of
things among those who enjoyed the earliest records of
divijie revelation. Where can you find in them, any
fears expressed by a single individual, either respect-
ing himself or others, that after death there was either
an endless or limited future punishment to be endured?
Whether persons died, a sudden or a lingering death ;
by their own hands or the hands of others ; in the or-
dinary course of events or by the immediate hand of
God ; not a syllable escapes the lips of any one, that
any of them had gone to hell to suffer such a punish-
ment. The love of life and the fear of death, prevail-
ed then as now, but no man seems to have feared pun-
ishment of any kind beyond it. And the reason why
men had no dread of punishment after death was, they
had no knowledge concerning it. But let us now see,
2d, What was the state of knowledge among the
heathen nations, respecting future punishment, during
the period of sixteen centuries before the christian era,
while those ancient sacred records were enjoyed by
others? Did they beheve in future punishment, and
in endless punishment ? Most assuredly they did. It
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 339
is^well known, that both the Greeks and Romans, be-
lieved in endless punishment. And we have seen, from
Mr. Stuart and his son above, that this doctrine was
derived by them from the ancient Egyptians. The
Egyptian Amenti, was the prototype, and origin of
the Hades of the Greeks, and Tartarus of the Latins.
And Dr. Good we have seen, declares, that the doc-
trine of future punishment, is taught in the earliest
records of Egyptian history. Now, it is manifest, they
did not derive this doctrine from the earliest records of
divine revelation, for they are as silent as the grave on
the subject, of endless or limited punishment after death.
Be it also remembered, that Moses who wrote the first
five books of the Bible was brought up in Egypt, and
was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. It is
very certain then, if he had behoved the doctrine of fu-
ture punishment originated from God, he would have
taught it in his writings. Had it been a truth from him,
which the Egyptians had received through tradition, or
lost revelations, it cannot be questioned, but he would
have approved of it, and taught it to the Hebrews. But
he gives no hint, that this doctrine was true, or ought to
be believed, any more than the doctrine of transmigra-
tion, which was also believed by the Egyptians. Is it
not then a very extraordinary fact, that the heathen na-
tions who had no divine revelation, should know all
about endless hell torments in those days, yet those
who enjoyed the earliest records of divine revelation,
should be ignorant and silent about them ? Why should
the heathen fables be full of this doctrine, yet God's
revelations to men, silent on the subject ? Why should
the heathen philosophers, know so well about it, yet
the inspired writers know nothing about it ?
But the reader ought also to notice, under what shape
the doctrine of future punishment, was believed and
taught among the heathen nations. Dr. Good remarks,
it is — '' curious to observe the difierent grounds appeal-
340 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
ed to in favor of a future existence, in the most learn-
ed regions of the east : The Hindu philosophers totally
and universally denying a resurrection of the body, and
supporting the doctrine alone upon the natural immor-
tahty of the soul, and the Arabian philosophers pass-
ing over the immortality of the soul, and resting it
alone upon a resurrection of the body." He adds, that
in Arabia, whence the book of Job originated, the im-
mortality of the soul, is — " left in as blank and barren
a silence, as the deserts by which they are surrounded."
It is very evident then, that if the doctrine of future
punishment was behoved in Arabia, it was a punish-
ment after the resurrection from the dead. But no
countenance is given to such an opinion in the book of
Job, which originated in Arabia, and is the oldest book
in the world. But it is equally evident, that future
punishment as held by the Hindu philosophers and oth-
er heathen nations, was the punishment of the immor-
tal soul separate from the body, for they did not beheve
in the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead.
When Paul preached it at Athens, the peopled mocked
at it ; for a resurrection from the dead was deemed by
the heathen incredible. Their hope of future happi-
ness, and dread of future misery, depended on the truth
or falsehood of the doctrine they had believed, that the
soul was immortal, and at death w^ent either to Elysium
to be happy, or to Tartarus to be miserable. They
could have no hope on the one hand of future happiness,
or dread of future misery on the other, but on the
ground that the soul was immortal. We ought then to
notice, that the doctrine of the soul's immortahty, was
commonly believed among all the heathen nations. But
we should enquire
3d, If in those ancient sacred writings, some of which
exfsted sixteen centuries before the christian era, any
thing is taught respecting the imm.ortality of the soul.
Nothing of the kind appears in any part of them. The
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 341
soul, is never once mentioned in the bible as immortal.
And in the book of Job, the oldest of the sacred books,
the only ground stated for a future life, is a resurrection
from the dead. Dr. Good, we have seen, says, in Ara-
bia whence the book of Job emanated, this was the
only ground for a future life known there. We search
the Bible in vain, to find the doctrine of the immortality
of the soul ; and yet, what doctrine is more generally
believed among christians ? This doctrine, like the
doctrine of future punishment, with which it is closely
connected, is abundantly taught in heathen authors, and
can be fairly traced to heathen origin. The next ques-
tion then is,
4th, How the doctrine of the soul's immortality ori-
ginated among the heathen ? It seems to be indisputa-
ble, that the immortality of the soul, was believed by
most of the heathen nations. It was received among
the Egyptians, Celts, Scythians, and other nations.
It was taught by Zamolxis, Orpheus, Socrates, Plato,
and a host of others. As it is not taught in the oldest
records of divine revelation, nor in any part of the Bible,
how came it to be so common among the heathen na-
tions, w^ho had no divine revelation ? From whence
did it originate among men ? For on the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of future pun-
ishment is founded. This doctrine among the heathen
nations, could not exist without the immortality of the
soul. The following quotations from Endfield's philoso-
phy gives the best account we can find of the origin of this
doctrine. He says vol. 1, p. 50 — " According to Zo-
roaster, various orders of spiritual beings, gods or daemons,
have proceeded from the deity, which are more or less
perfect, as they are at a greater or less distance, in the
course of emanation, from the eternal fountain of intel-
ligence ; among which, the human soul is a particle of
divine light, which will return to its source, and partake
of its ifnmortality ; and matter is the last and most dis-
29*
342 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
tant emanation from the first som^e of being, which, on
Account of its distance from the fountain of hght, be-
comes opaque and inert, and whilst it remains in this
state is the cause of evil ; but being gradually refined,
it will at length return to the fountain whence it flowed.
This doctrine of emanation afterwards produced many-
fanciful opinions in theology."
This doctrine o{ emanation, was extensively believed
among the heathen nations, and from it the doctrine of
the soul's immortality seems to have originated. Hero-
dotus asserts, that the Egyptians — " were the first peo-
ple who tauglit this doctrine." Speaking of the Indians,
Enfield says p. 56 — " The human soul they represen-
ted as of divine original, because, with all the other
Eastern nations, they conceived it to be a particle, or an
emanation, of that intellectual fire, by which they be-
lieved the universe to be animated. Their doctrine of
the return of the soul to God, which some have con-
founded with the Christian doctrine of the resurrection,
seems to have meant nothing more, than that the soul,
after being disengaged from the grosser material body,
would be re-united to the fountain of all being, the soul
of the world. It is an opinion still found among the
Indians, and probably of very ancient date, that there
is in nature a periodical restitution of all things ; when,
after the return of all derived beings to their source,
they are again sent forth, and the whole course of things
is renewed. Inferior divinities were doubtless, wor-
shipped among them as emanations from the first spring
of hfe."
The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, seems
to have had one common origin among the heathen,
and was communicated from one nation to another.
On p. 121, 122, Enfield says — '^ the human soul, Or-
pheus, after the Thracians and Egyptians, from whom
he derived his philosophy, held to be immortal. Dio-
dorus Siculus relates, that he was the first who taught
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 343
(that is amono; the Greeks) the doctrine of the future
punishment of the wicked, and tlie future happiness of
the good. That this doctrine, was commonly received
among the followers of Orpheus, appears from the fol-
lowing anecdote. A priest of Orpheus, who was ex-
ceedingly poor and wretched, boasting to Philip of
Macedon, that all who were admitted into the Orphic
mysteries would be happy after death, Philip said to
him, ' why then do you not immediately die, and put
an end to your poverty and misery ?' — The planets and
the moon, Orpheus conceived to be habitable worlds,
and the stars to be fiery bodies like the sun : he taught
that they are animated by divinities ; an opinion, which
had been commonly received in the East, and which
was afterwards adopted by the Pythagoreans, and other
Grecian philosophers." Much more might be quoted
from the same writer. But we have quoted enough,, to
show the origin of the doctrine, that the soul is immor-
tal, and its extensive diffusion among the heathen na-
tions. It was not however universally believed, for
Aristotle, Dicearchus, Ocellus, and others denied it ;
and even Socrates, and other wise men among the hea-
then, doubted it. Besides, the speculations of the hea-
then were various about it. The strongest believers in
this doctrine, derived little benefit from it, and for a good
reason, it -had no solid foundation. It originated in the
speculations of men, who, " professing themselves to be
wise had become fools." '
5th, But it may be asked — is not the doctrine of the
soul's immortality, ^revealed in the New Testament ?
No ; for if it was taught there, it would be no revelation
from God to the world, for it was a popular doctrine
among the heathen nations, many centuries before the
christian era. With more propriety it might be said, ^
the heathen reveal this doctrine to God, than that God
revealed it to them. Had the New Testament writers,
believed the soul to be immortal, why did they never
344 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
speak of it as such ? And why did they not alarm their
hearers, as orthodox preachers do, describing the ever-
lasting misery to which their precious immortal souls
were exposed ? But no such descriptions are to be found
in the New Testament, notwithstanding such descrip-
tions, would have accorded with the heathen popular
opinions on the subject. But, though the heathen be-
lieved the soul immortal, and had hope of its living
happy after death, the New Testament writers declar-
ed to them, they had " no hope," and were '^ without
God in the world." Eph. ii. 12. 1 Thess. iv. 13,
With little truth or propriety could they have said this,
had they believed the soul immortal, and that men
might hope for happiness after death on this ground.
And with still less truth or propriety could Paul say, if
Christ be not raised, they " who are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished." If their souls were immortal,
they never could have perished, had Christ slept for
ever in the grave.
6th, But some will no doubt ask — may not future,
yea, endless punishment still be maintained, if the im-
mortality of the soul was abandoned ? This we more
than doubt, for future punishment depends on, and
arose out of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
Among the heathen, the first of these doctrines, could
not exist without the last. Socrates and Plato, would
have deemed the man insane, who taught future pun-
ishment, yet denied the doctrine of the soul's immortal-
ity ; for like all the heathen they considered a resur-
rection from the dead incredible... How could any
person be punished after death, if he did not live in a
conscious state of existence, to be punished ? Punish-
ment after death, will in all probability be believed, so
long as men think the doctrine of the soul's immortality
true. The branch cannot wither, so long as this root
exists to nourish it. But when it dies, the branch of
course dies ; and with it, all the bitter fruits it brings
forth will be destroyed.
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 345
Is it said — may not men be punished after the res-
urrection from the dead ? To this I answer, — if the
bible teaches this, let us believe it. Let the passages,
which are supposed to teach it, be carefully and can-
didly considered. But, after all the care and candor I
can bring to this subject, I frankly confess, it is not in
my power to find this doctrine taught in the Bible. It
frequently speaks of the hope of the resurrection of
the dead, but never of any man's fear of it. It teaches,
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, but never teaches,
that men will be sinners after this period. On the con-
trary, it says, they shall be equal unto the angels of
God which are in heaven. But it does not say, any
of them shall be equal unto the devils which are in hell.
What the Bible does teach, let us believe. But what it
does not say, permit me to leave for those, who desire
to be wise above what is written.
THE END.
INDEX
TO TEXTS QUOTED
AND
ILLUSTRATED.
Ch.
V.
«k
Page.
Ch.
V.
Page.
GENESIS.
18
5
27
37:
35
19
30
3
27
42:
38
19
31
17
28
44:
29
19
49
14
28
44:
31
_
19
49
15
29
NUMBERS.
55
15
29
16:
30
19
86
• 13
30
16:
33
20
88
3
30
DUTERONOMY.
89
48
31
32:
22
20
lie
>: 3
31
I SAMUEL.
13^
): 8
31
2:
6
]
[I SAMUEL.
21
14]
.: 7
PROVERBS.
31
22:
6
21
1
12
31
I KINGS.
5
5
31
2:
6
21
9
18
32
2:
9
22
15
11
32
JOB.
23
14
33
7:
9
23
27
20
34
11:
8
23
30
15, 16
34
14:
13
23
ECCLESIASTES.
17:
13
24
9
10
34
17:
16
24
CANTICLES.
21:
13
24
8
6
34
24:
19
24
ISAIAH.
26:
6
24
5
14
34
PSLAMS.
14
9
35
6:
5
24
14
15
35
9:
17
25
28
15
38
16:
10
26
28
18
38
INDEX TO TEXTS, &IC.
347
Ch.
V.
Page.
Ch.
' V.
•Page.
33:
14
154
18:
9
151
38:
18
38
23:
15
158
57:
9
40
23:
33
159
64:
24
183
MARK.
JEREMIAH.
9:
43—49
175
7 :
117
LUKE.
19:
117
10:
15
59
23:
39,40
155
12;
4,5
187
EZEKIEL.
16:
23
59
31:
15
41
ACTS.
31:
16
41
2:
27
84
31:
17
41
2:
31
84
32:
21
41
1 CORINTHIANS.
32;
27
HOSEA.
41
15:
55
JAMES.
84
13:
14
AMOS.
41
3:
6
II PETER.
190
9:
2
JONAH.
42
2:
4
JUDE.
91
2:
2
MATTHEW.
42
— :
6
REVELATION.
91
5:
22
134
1:
18
84
5:
28, 29
137
6:
8
84
10:
25
139
20:
13
85
11:
23
58
20:
14
85
16:
18
59
BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR*
1st, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Import of the Words
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, all translated Hell in the
common English Version. Price bound in cloth $1
2d, A Reply to Mr. J. Sabine's Lectures on the ' Inquiry.'
Price, 50 cents.
3d, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine concerning the
Devil and Satan, and into the Extent of Duration expressed by
the Terms Oulm, Aion, and Aionios, rendered Everlasting, For-
ever, ect. in the common Version, and especially when applied
to Punishment. Price, boards, $1. Bound in sheep, $1 25.
4th, Three Essays, on the intermediate State of the Dead,
the Resurrection from the Dead, and on the Greek Terms ren-
dered Judge, Judgment, Condemned, Condemnation, Damned,
Damnation, ect. in the New Testament : with Remarks on Mr.
C. Hudson's Letters in Vindication of a future Retribution, ad-
dressed to Mr; Hos.eaBallou, Boston. Price, boards, $1. Bound
in sheep, $1 25. •
5th, A Letter to Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin College, in
Reply to his Lecture on the Doctrine of Universal Salvation,
delivered in the Chapel of BoAvdoin College, and published by
Request of the Students. Price 25 cents.
6th, Letters on the Immortality of the Soul, the intermediate
State of the Dead, and a future Retribution, in Reply to Mr.
C. Hudson, Westminister, Mass. Price, boards, $1. Bound in
sheep, $1 25.
The above books are for sale, by B. B. Mussey ; at the Trum-
pet Office ; by Baker & Alexander ; by Marsh, Capen & Lyon ;
by Munroe & Francis ; by R. P. & C. Williams ; and by Josiah
Loring, Boston. Also by Wait & Dow, and the Author Charles-
town; and by booksellers, and others, in most states in the
Union. 20 per cent discount to those who purchase by the
quantity.
N. B. In the course of the present year, we intend publishing
our Letters to Professor Stuart, printed in the Universalist
Magazine in 1820, They show, how the author was led to be-
come a Universalist ; the pains he was at to avoid being one ;
what gave rise to all the above publications ; and that Mr. Stuart,
might then have prevented him from ever being a Universalist.
^ 17 1956
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11