valley of the son of Hinnom, is in this world." To this we reply, that the conclusion does not follow from the premises; the question is not what was the origin of the term gehenna, but in what sense Christ employed it in his discourses.

1. The origin or primary sense of a word does not determine its popular sense in after times. A few examples will satisfy the candid reader of this fact. If, as Mr. Morse supposes, because the word gehenna was originally the name of a place in this world, the valley of the son of Hinnom, it cannot have been used to express a place of punishment in the future world, by the same mode of reasoning we might disprove the reality of a future state. The Greek word psu

che, which is rendered soul, in the scriptures, is derived from psucho, which signifies to breathe; hence, phsuche, soul, literally signifies the breath, and therefore cannot, according to Mr. M's reasoning, signify the immortal spirit. The Greek word ouranos, rendered heaven, is derived from oros which signifies the end or boundary of a thing or place, or from horao, to see; hence, ouranos, heaven, literally signifies the atmosphere or region of the stars and therefore cannot if Mr. M. reasons well, be applied to a future state of happiness. "We have the most positive proof that" heaven "is in this world," for we read of the fowls of heaven, the dew of heaven, the clouds of heaven, &c. The English word hell, is now used by common consent, to express a place of future punishment. Universalists themselves will not deny that this is now the common acceptation of the term, though they do not believe in the existence of such a place; but such was not the primitive signification of this word. It is of Saxon origin, and is derived from helam which signified to cover or hide; hence, the slating of houses and the covers of books were called heling. See Dr. A. Clark's note on Matt. xi. 23. Now should this book after surviving a thousand years, be translated into another language, and should a controversy occur concerning the word hell, by reference to the root and primitive use of this term, it might be shown that no reference is had to a future state, just as conclusively as Mr. M. proves that Christ did not teach a hell beyond the grave, in the use of the word gehenna, because this term in its literal sense was applied by the primitive Hebrews to the valley of Hinnom.

2. Mr. M's critics, whom he has introduced to prove that the word gehenna was the name of a place near Jerusalem, are all against him respecting the sense in which Christ employed this term; he is under the necessity therefore of impeaching his own witnesses. After introducing what Dr. Campbell says on the subject of the origin of the word gehenna, lest the Dr's testimony should prove too much for the good of his cause he adds: The Dr's opinion that gehenna is used in the New Testament to denote the place of future punishment is entirely without foundation." This is a full concession that so far as Dr. Campbell's criticism and opinion go, when taken as a whole, they are against universalism; hence, Mr. M. after forcing the Dr. into court, found it necessary to impeach him and close his mouth before he had half finished his testimony. Mr. Cruden, whom Mr. M. has also introduced on this point, likewise understood gehenna, as used by the Saviour, to refer to punishment in the future world. He says, "the wicked in hell not only undergo the punishment of sense, but also that of loss, which is a separation from God, a privation of his sight and of the beatific vision. Add to these the eternity of their misery, which, above all considerations, makes it intolerable: their worm dieth not and their fire is not quenched, Mark 9. 48." This clearly proves that the very critics, on whose testimony Mr. M. relies to prove that gehenna primarily related to the valley of Hinnom, considered this circumstance perfectly consistent with its application to the place of the damned in the future world, by our Lord. But to these witnesses other names may be added. Mr. Groves, in his Greek and English Dictionary gives the following exposition of the term gehenna. He says, "it is from Hebrew, the valley of Hinnom, and signifies hell, hell fire, torments of hell." Dr. Clark remarks on Matt. v. 22. "From the circumstance of this valley," (the valley of Hinnom) "having been the scene of those infernal sacrifices, the Jews in our Saviour's time used the word for hell, the place of the damned. See the word applied in this sense by the Targum, on Ruth ii. 12. Psal. cxl. 12. Gen. iii. 24. xv. 17." On Isa. xxx. 33, the same critic remarks thus: "Tophet is a valley very near to Jerusalem, to the south east, called also the valley of Hinnom or gehenna where the Ca

naanites, and afterwards the Israelites, sacrificed their children by making them pass through the fire, that is, by burning them in the fire to Moloch, as some suppose. It is therefore used for a place of punishment by fire, and by our blessed Saviour in the gospel, for hell fire, as the Jews themselves had applied it."

The following pointed remarks are extracted from Hawe's Letters. "But there is another term used to denote future punishment much more definite than the two just considered, (sheol, and hades.) I refer to gehenna. This word, I know, has been frittered away by universalists to mean only a valley in the vicinity of Jerusalem. But how was it used by our Saviour, and how was it understood by the Jews who heard his discourses? I answer, the Saviour always used this term to denote the place of future punishment, and that it was uniformly understood in this sense by the Jews of his time. It is a word peculiar to the Jews, and was employed by them, some time before the coming of Christ, to denote that part of sheol which was the habitation of the wicked after death. This is proved by the fact of its familiar use in the New Tesment, and by the fact of its being found in its apocryphal books and Jewish Targums; some of which were written before the time of our Saviour. These Targums were translations and interpretations of the scriptures; and in remarking upon various passages of the old Testament, use the word gehenna, and expressly explain it to mean the place of punishment for the wicked. If then our Saviour did not use this word in a totally different sense, from that in which it was used by the persons whom he addressed, he must have employed it to denote the place of future punishment."

3. What fully confirms this point, is, the connection in which the word gehenna is uniformly used by Christ in the New Testament. A few examples will be sufficient. Matt. xviii. 9. "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into (gehenna) hell fire." Christ here clearly speaks of being cast into hell, gehenna, as an evil to which men may become liable by their conduct, and which they are to avoid. The question then is, did Jesus Christ, in this text, warn men against being liter

ally cast into the fire which was kept burning in the valley of Hinnom to consume the filth of the city? We think not, for the following reasons:

1. There is no evidence that criminals were executed in the days of our Savior or at any subsequent period by being burnt in the valley of Hinnom.

2. Being "cast into hell fire," gehenna, is marked as the opposite of "entering into life:" "it is better for thee to enter into life, &c. rather than to be cast into hell fire." Now, if being cast into hell fire means no more than being burnt in the valley of Hinnom as a penal sanction of the law of the land, then, entering into life, can mean no more than the enjoyment of existence in this world, in common with our race, in distinction from those who are put to death for their crimes. This conclusion cannot be avoided; for it would be absurd in the highest degree to suppose, on universalist principles, that entering into life refers to the future world, while being cast into hell fire relates exclusively to this world. The text clearly implies that those who enter into life are not cast into hell fire; and that those who are cast into hell fire do not enter into life; whereas, if universalism be true, and if entering into life implies a state of happiness in the future world, then, being cast into hell fire can be no hindrance to entering into life, if by it nothing more be meant than being burnt to death in the valley of Hinnom. If there be no future hell, if all enter into life or enjoy a state of happiness immediately after death, as universalism asserts, it is easy to see that entering into life would be as short a passage from the valley of Hinnom as from any other place; indeed, in such case, hell fire would be the very door through which the soul would enter into life, and those who were cast into hell fire, would enter into life sooner than those who should behave so well as to escape the penalty of the law. It is clear then, that if by being cast into hell fire is meant, being burnt to death in the valley of Hinnom, then, by entering into life, we must understand that the individual, to whom the expression refers, has not rendered himself liable to be put to death for his crimes. The argument then turns on this question: when Jesus Christ said, "it is better for thee to enter into life," did he mean no more than the preservation of the natural life, in opposi

tion to being put to death for crime? If so, every honest man who is not burnt, hanged, or in some other way put to death for crime, may be said to enter into life, which is a manifest perversion of language. To say that a man enters into life, supposes that he enters into the enjoyment or possession of life in some sense or of some kind not before possessed, or enjoyed by him, which is not the case with the individual who merely escapes being burnt for his crimes. It is evident then that entering into life implies something more than not being burnt to death in the valley of Hinnom; and hence, it is equally clear that being cast into hell fire, gehenna, implies more than being thus literally burnt. Matt. xxiii. 33. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of (gehenna,) hell?" Suppose hell in this text to mean the valley of Hinnom, and its sense is, how can ye escape the damnation of the valley of Hinnom? That such is not its meaning is evident from the fact that they were not in danger of being condemned to the fire that is supposed to have been kept burning in that valley; and it is not probable that one of them was ever condemned to death by burning in that place. Should it be said, in reply to this, that the threatening of our Saviour, "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" relates to the destruction of the Jews by the Romans, which actually took place, and that the "damnation of hell," or being burnt in gehenna, is referred to as an alarming figure by which to represent the horrors, blood, and fire of that awful overthrow; we answer, such an exposition is an entire abandonment of the argument urged by Mr. Morse, and also by Mr. Balfour, in his entire work, which he has written on the word hell. The argument is, that the word gehenna did not originally refer to a place of punishment, but to the valley of Hinnom; it, therefore, does not in the New Testament refer to a place of future punishment. Mr. Balfour says: "The meaning of words in the New Testament must be determined by the the original meaning in the Old ;" from which he infers that as the words rendered hell did not originally signify a place of punishment in the future world, they, therefore, never have this meaning. Now it is as much a departure from this mode of reasoning, to say that Christ referred to the destruction of the Jews by the Romans when he threatened them with the