The event was past. 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 common ideas entertained on this subject?

To have related those discourses,

2d, Why does not Luke mention Gehenna in his history 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 his 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 success 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 account 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?

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. Supposing then, that all the preachers among the Gentile nations, 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 defiance 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 were 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 endless 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 exposed to such a punishment, so they are never reminded that they were now delivered from it. No self-complaisant remarks are ever made, that they were now safe from the torments of hell, nor any whining complaints, that their friends, and neighbors, yea, the whole unbelieving Gentile world, were every moment exposed to this punishment. We find the apostles and primitive Christians, expressing the most heart-felt grat

But do we

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 believe the gospel, and enjoy like blessings. The New Testament abounds with evidence of this. 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 apostles 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 unbeliever or a backslider was told, as now they frequently 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 distraction, from anticipation of the horrors of hell, produced 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 Ahithopel, 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

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 we

learn from them, that the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell, was one of these doctrines? Certainly we can not. Supposing, that such writings were published 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 misery. 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, we 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 Cæsar; 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

this forward against him? None of the Jews, had any idea of going to hell. Would they, then, have endured to be told so, without a murmur or complaint against him? Would this have formed no ground of accusation? 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 enemies to Cæsar. 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 endless 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 wicked 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