teacheth." 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, righteousness, etc. At what point then are we to stop, if once we begin to adopt Rabbinical glosses, given to the language 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 future punishment for the wicked? This is roundly asserted, and has too long been taken for granted. Let us examine and see, what solid ground there is for this assertion.

Between the closing of the Old Testament canon by Malachai, and the commencment of the Gospel dispensation, about four hundred years intervened. Sometime during this period, Gehenna must have changed its sense, if in the days of our Lord, it was used to designate hell the world of woe, as Mr. Stuart affirms. That this was not its sense in the Old Testament, is indisputable, 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

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 learned writers upon the Greek version of the Old Testament, we seem to have three circumstances clearly ascertained-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 fore this period.

be

2d, The only other question necessary to be decided is-do we find Gehenna used in the septuagint, to designate hell, the world of woe? No: Dr. Campbell said above, "the word Gehenna does not occur in the septuagint." But here he was mistaken, for it does occur 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 Hinnom, and valley of the son of Hinnom are mentioned, never suggest, that such phrases were intended to designate hell, or the world of woe. No one alleges they do this. It is manifest then, that-" in the second century before Christ" Gehenna had no such sense affixed to it. If it was used then in such a sense, it received no countenance from the seventy translators. Their version,

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 version? If the translators had imbibed such an idea, they had the same prejudices to give Gehenna such a sense, as our translators had, to give hell such a sense in their version, in translating Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna.

One thing here is certain. If Jesus Christ and his apostles, used Gehenna in the New Testament, to designate hell, the world of woe, 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 originated 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 Testament, 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 world of woe, to which they could apply it. Gehenna then, when 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 New Testament writers. Then, it retained this meaning among the Jews in Egypt, and it is well known, they were the first in corrupting the Jewish religion, by mixing heathen opinions with it.

2d, The Apocryphal books. 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

of much importance, to settle their dates precisely. Those who wish to see what is said on this subject, may consult Horne'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 Hebrew 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 version." He adds, p. 534-" "The book was never admitted into the Hebrew canon, and there is no sufficient authority to prove, that it was ever extant in the Hebrew 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 saysp. 511-"The books which are admitted into our Bibles under the description of Apocryphal books, are so denominated from a Greek word, which is expressive of the uncertainty and concealed nature of their original.

They have no title to be considered as inspired writings; and though in respect of their antiquity and valuable 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 doctrine, with them: or that they are to be received as oracles of faith; to sanctify opinions, or determine religious controversies." But supposing all the Apocryphal books, were written sometime during the period which intervened between the days of Malachai and the Savior; the question then comes before us, what were the opinions entertained by the writers on the subject of punishment, in Gehenna?

1st, Do they ever use the term Gehenna to designate a place of future punishment? This has been asserted by some, but is certainly a great mistake, for the term Gehenna does not occur in any of the Apochryphal books. It is not used by them in any sense, and of course settles the question, that they gave no countenance to the opinion, that Gehenna was used among the Jews to designate hell, the world of woe. I might here drop the subject, for we have already ascertained the information required. But I shall pursue the subject 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 raising a dead man to life, recorded in the Old Testament.