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 continual 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 committed, and that often, in our agitation, we start in our sleep, and are frightened like children.† As soon as some were found among the ancients who had overcome 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 indulge themselves. The testimony of those of antiquity 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 rooted. 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 cited, that nobody in his day believed in the fables of hell, is that of an enlightened mind, which takes no part in the opinions of the vulgar. The same thing 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.

† 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 such a doctrine?

to be said of what we read in Cicero, and in some other writers, on the same subject: and when Virgil exclaims, "happy the man that can tread under foot inexorable Destiny, and the noise of devouring Acheron,' he indicates, 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 terrors, 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 forgiveness was to be obtained. With this view expiatory 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 considerable similarity in the above quotation to some descriptions given of hell torments by modern preachers. 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 representations." 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

punishment after death in Tartarus was believed 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 attested by evidence indisputable, could not be believed. That punishment in Tartarus, is not a part of this corruption of Christianity derived from the heathen, deserves 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 were bound to do, in opposing the common opinion on this subject. But we have also shown, that this opinion originated with the heathen; and that the Jews learned it from them. To invalidate the evidence which has been produced, the very reverse must be proved. See note in the first edition, or the improved version on 2 Peter and Jude.

CHAPTER II.

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 all the wicked, and Gehenna is the place in which they are said to suffer it. The truth, or falsehood of this doctrine, is then at issue upon the decision of the question,—What is the Scripture meaning and usage of the word 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

Bible, is the term Gehenna. As Dr. Campbell conclusively 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 writes 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 Gehenna 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 we hear first in the book of Joshua, xv. 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. The place was also called tophet, 2 Kings xxiii. 10. and that, as is supposed, from the noise of drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised on purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants. As this place was, in process of time, considered as an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, and at length to be confined to it. This is the sense, if I mistake not, in which Gehenna a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New Testament, where it occurs just twelve times. In ten of these there can be no doubt; in the other two, the expression is figurative; but it scarcely will admit a question, that the figure is taken from that state of misery which awaits the impenitent." Such is the statement given by Dr. Campbell. It will be easily perceived, that the whole of it is assertion. Resolved, not to take this very important article on bare assertion, I have considered it as carefully as I could, and shall