old, is always to be determined by the nature of the case, i. e. by the context." Admitting the correctness of Professor Stuart's rule, let us look at the nature of the case. Concerning "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" Christ was addressing Jews. Parkhurst says "aion in the Seventy generally answers to the Heb. olim," &c. In the Old Testament, from which the Jews received their religious instruction, the Hebrew word olim was not only not used to signify endless punishment in a future state, but was used in relation to things of a temporal nature-olim is rendered by the words perpetual, everlasting, forever, forever and ever. "Perpetual statute," Ex. 29. 9. "Everlasting possession," Gen. 17. 8. "Thy servant forever," Deut. 15. 17. "Forever and ever," Jer. 7. 7. Let the phrase "eternal damnation" be considered equivalent to "everlasting punishment," i. e. a punishment as durable as the nature of the case will admit, and it will furnish no real objection against the doctrine that "the Lamb of God... taketh away the sin of the world," without exception. We shall say something relative to the forgiveness of "the blasphemey against the Holy Ghost" in our reply to Mr. P's fourth class of texts.

He next quotes Heb. 12. 15. "lest any man fail of the grace of God." The Apostle left out one word which should have been inserted, if he meant to state any thing to Mr. P's purpose-that word is endlessly. If the Apostle had said "lest any man endlessly fail of the grace of God," we should be obliged in candor, to admit it as evidence of neverending wo. As it is, it affords no such evidence.

Every rational being must perceive there is a great difference between failing of the grace of God, at any particular time, and failing of that grace, finally or eternally. In the present time, every one fails of the grace of God, who does not enjoy it.

The next, and only text adduced by our opponent, under this head is, Math. 10. 28. "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 hell." This, he thinks, " decisive." But he depends entirely upon prejudice and assertion. 1. It is not clear and indisputable that the object of fear spoken of, in this passage, is God. It does not say God is able to destroy," &c. In verse 17 it is said "beware of men" i. e. those who are not in authority-"for they will deliver you up to the councils" &c. In the 31st verse where direct reference is made to God, the disciples were exhorted, "Fear ye not therefore" &c. that is, do not fear that God will abandon or finally injure you. If we make the object of fear spoken of in the 28th verse, to be the divine Being, how are we to reconcile the two passages? To whom then does the Saviour refer as the object of fear in the 28th verse? Probably he referred to the presiding officer of the Sanhedrim, or grand council of the Jewish nation. Josephus says "It is here worth our while to remark that none could be put to death in Judea, but by the approbation of the Jewish Sanhedrim, there being an excellent provision in the law of Moses, that even in criminal causes, and particularly where life was concerned, an appeal should lie from the lesser councils of seven in the other cities to the Su

Ant.

pow

preme council of Seventy one, at Jerusalem." vol. 3, ch. 9, page 151. The Sanhedrim had er to destroy "both soul and body in Gehenna i. e. the valley of Hinnom, which we shall soon more fully explain. 2. But if we suppose God the object of fear in the passage under consideration, we do not find it asserted that he will "destroy both soul and body in hell"—but he is able &c., "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.". Math. 3, 9; but we do not learn that it was ever his will to do it. 3. But suppose God should "destroy both soul and body in hell" or in any place-then neither soul nor body would remain, either to suffer or enjoy any thing. Soul and body would be annihilated. Mr. P. says "We take it for granted that the doctrine of annihilation is not here taught." What propriety was there in his taking for granted a point of such importance? None at all. If his "decisive" text proves any thing unfavorable to Universalism, it must be annihilation; our champion for endless wo was so sensible of this, that he not only took it for granted that it did not mean annihilation; but that it did mean endless suffering! He also took it for granted that hell is in a future state of being-he has furnished no proof of it.Christ never taught that hell is beyond the grave.David says "thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell." Was David in this world, or the next, when he used that language?

There are four different words in the original languages which are rendered hell in our English Bibles in common use viz. Sheol, Hades, Tartarus

and Gehenna. Critics now generally agree that neither Sheol, Hades nor Tartarus was ever used by any sacred writer to communicate the idea of endless suffering and therefore should not have been translated hell. But our business at this time is to show the signification of Gehenna, for that is the original word rendered hell in the which we are passage investigating. Concerning the word Gehenna, Dr. Campbell 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 15, 8. It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2. Chron. 23, 6.” The Dr's. opinion that Gehenna is used "in the New Testament to denote the place of future punishment" is entirely without evidence. Parkhurst speaking of Gehenna says it is "a corruption of the two Hebrew words Ge a valley, and Hinnom the name of a person who was once the possessor of it. This valley of Hinnom lay near Jerusalem, and had been the place of those abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews burned their children alive to Moloch, Baal, or the Sun. A particular place in this valley was called Tophet," &c. He also says "A Gehenna of fire, Mat. 5, 22, does, I apprehend, in its outward and primary sense, relate to that dreadful doom of being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom." Cruden says "It is thought that Tophet was the butchery, or place of slaughter at Jerusalem,

* See Balfour's excellent " Inquiry" into the signification of those words.

lying to the south of the city, in the valley of the children of Hinnom. It is also said, that a constant fire used to be kept there, for burning the carcasses and other filthiness, that was brought thither from the city. It was in the same place that they cast away the ashes and remains of the images of false gods, when they demolished their altars, and broke down their statues.' Isa says 30, 33. "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 kindle it." Cruden further says "others think the name of Tophet is given to the valley of Hinnom, because of the sacrifices that were offered there to the god Moloch, by beat of drum, which in Hebrew is called Toph. It was in this manner that those sacrifices were offered. The statue of Moloch was of brass, hollow within, with its arms extended, and stooping a little forward. They lighted a great fire within the statue, and another before it: They put upon its arms the child they intended to sacrifice, which soon fell into the fire at the foot of the statue, putting forth cries, as may easily be imagined. To stifle the noise of these cries, and howlings, they male a great rattling of drums and other instruments, that the spectators might not be moved with compassion at the clamours of these miserable victims." Calmet gives a similar account of Tophet, the valley of Hinnom and the horrid cruelties practiced in the worship of the idol Moloch. We have positive proof that Gehenna, or the valley of the son of Hinnom is in this world, in the book of Joshua 15, 8. "And the border went up by the