ceived among us.

ful, if they believed this doctrine as it is commonly reLet 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 preachers 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 be vindicated, if by hell is meant a place of endless misery? The case stands thus. The Savior, it is thought, knew hell to be a place of endless torment, 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 anticipating the temporal calamities coming upon its inhabitants, and faithfully to warn them of their danger. In reference to those temporal calamities, he once said to the unbelieving Jews," how can ye escape the damnation 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 compassion, as never to warn men of endless misery in hell? 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 apostles, had any for the Gentiles. The apostles did shed tears, but not a tear falls from their eyes, on account of

men's being in danger of hell torments. On this subject 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 compassion, or admit that they did not know that hell was a place of eternal 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 warn 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 crowds. 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 be vindicated, if they knew 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 apostles had also great zeal, and zeal according to knowledge, 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 which they never introduced to their hearers. This topic, hardly forgotten in a single discourse, and so powerful in inducing 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 devising means to save them from hell, was either unknown

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 ardent 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 splendor, 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 comparative 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 selfdenial and personal risk as possible. How often does it happen, that all the zeal for the doctrine of hell torments evaporates in the pulpit, and nothing more is heard of it until the preacher returns to it again. In the common intercourse of life, he speaks and acts to the same people, as if all his threatenings from the pulpit, of eternal torment in hell, were not true. Yea, some of the very persons whom he threatens with the torments 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 escapes 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

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 accounted for, why this topic was never urged on Christians to induce liberality, 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 Gentiles. 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 Savior? 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, but it is an indisputable fact, that though quoted by our Lord when speaking about hell or Gehenna, it is not quoted to show that hell was a place of eternal misery, 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

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 hearers 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 understood 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 Gehenna in the New Testament means a place of eternal misery. See on Math. xxiii. 33. and Mark ix. 42. considered in the preceding section.

5th, If there be a place of endless misery for the wicked, another remarkable fact is, that the Hebrew Greek, and English languages, originally had no name for this place? 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 dissertation, he says:-"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