"damnation of hell," as it is for us to say that he referred to future punishment in the same expression. If the "damnation of hell," being "cast into hell," &c. cannot mean future punishment because the original word, gehenna, did not primitively refer to the future world, for the same reason these expressions cannot refer to being slain and carried away captive by the Romans. We see then that the word gehenna in the above text, cannot refer directly and literally to the valley of Hinnom; that the Jews were not threatened with being cast into the literal fire that was there burning: it must therefore, refer to some other judgment or punishment. Now, as the Jews were directly threatened with some judgment or punishment, described by being "cast into hell fire," "the damnation of hell," &c. which did not relate to being cast literally into the fire that is supposed to have been burning in the valley of Hinnom, the circumstance that the original word gehenna which is used in these threatenings, primarily referred to this place, cannot prove that they do not describe a hell in the future world or even form an objection to such a conclusion. We beg leave to introduce one more text on this point and we will dismiss it. It is Matt. x. 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." The parallel text, Luke xii. 4, 5, reads thus: "I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do: But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell." That Jesus Christ does not here refer to being cast into the literal fire of the valley of Hinnom is clear, from the following circumstances:

1. The text clearly marks being cast into hell, gehenna, as a punishment to be inflicted after the death of the body. "Fear him which, after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell." Now if Christ refers to the valley of Hinnom, and not to a future hell, his instruction is this: fear not those who have power to put you to death, but fear those who after they have taken away your lives, have authority to burn the lifeless bodies in the valley of Hinnom; and Christ is here made to say in effect, that the burning of the body after we

This is

are dead, is more to be feared than the loss of life. manifestly absurd. It is true that the thought of being burnt to ashes after we are dead might be revolting to us, but with the Saviour who,

"ever from the skies,

Looks down and watches all our dust,

Till he shall bid it rise,"

it can make no difference where the ashes of his saints rest, whether in the valley of Hinnom, Nero's garden, or the rocky tomb.

2. The text particularly marks hell, gehenna, as the place where souls are punished, in distinction from their bodies. "Fear not them that 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." Here the soul and body are clearly distinguished from each other; the body may be killed and the soul still live-them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;" or both soul and body may be destroyed in hell" him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Hell then is a place where souls are punished, here noted by being destroyed. Now, this cannot be true of the valley of Hinnom; it cannot be consistently maintained that souls were punished or destroyed in the valley of Hinnom any more than in Nero's garden, the Roman inquisition, or the retired chamber where the good man closes his eyes and gives up the ghost. Hell, therefore, in this text, does not mean the valley of Hinnom.

3. As the text speaks of the body as being killed, while the soul is not killed, and then of both soul and body as being liable to be cast into hell, or of being destroyed in hell, it marks distinctly the soul as being punished or destroyed in bell after the death of the body, and that hell, or gehenna, in which the soul is cast after the body is killed, must be in a future state. If there was not another text in the Bible on the subject, this one would forever settle the question respecting the sense in which our Saviour used the term gehennu. But universalists attempt to screen themselves from the force of the arguments drawn from this text, by speculating upon the word destruction, "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." On this expression Mr. Morse in his reply to Mr.

Parker, page 17, has made the following remarks: "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 to enjoy any thing. Soul and body would be annihilated. If his, (Mr. Parker's) decisive text proves any thing unfavorable to universalism, it must be annihilation." To this we answer,

1. It is a mere evasion, and only serves to increase difficulties without removing any. Suppose we were to admit all that is here contended for, viz. that if this "text proves any thing unfavorable to universalism it must be annihilation," and still it will not relieve universalism from its decisive proof against it; for if men are annihilated they cannot be made holy and happy; hence, while it would throw difficulty in the way of the believer in endless misery, it would effectually and forever prove the doctrine of universal salvation to be false. From this retreat of universalists behind the doctrine of annihilation, it appears that they are not so anxious to prove the doctrine of universal salvation, as they are to disprove that of endless misery. It appears indeed, that they would be willing to give up the hope of eternal life, and die an eternal death of annihilation, if they can have the honor of dying like Samson, by embracing the pillars of their opponent's faith, and pulling down the Philistian fabric of endless misery over their heads.

2. We remark that destruction does not mean annihilation when it signifies the punishment of the wicked, as a few examples will show. Matt. vii. 13 "Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction;" that is, annihilation. Romans iii. 16. "Destruction," that is, annihilation," and misery are in their ways." 2 Thess. 1. 9. "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction," that is, annihilation "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." Phil. iii. 19. "Whose end is destruction," that is, annihilation 2 Peter ii. 1. "And bring upon themselves swift destruction;" that is, annihilation. Chap. iii. 16, “Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction;" that is, their annihilation. These instances of the use of the word destruction clearly show that the wicked will be destroyed, while it is

admitted by almost common consent, that they are not to be annihilated. Indeed, for a universalist to resort to the doctrine of annihilation, to defend himself against the arguments in favor of future or endless punishment, drawn from those scriptures which threaten the wicked with destruction, is not only an entire abandonment of their cause, but also betrays a want of honesty, by denouncing, when on the defense, the very premises they occupy themselves when they argue directly in support of their own theory. That the wicked are threatened with destruction cannot be denied; hence, when universalists urge that all will be saved, they argue on the ground that the wicked may be destroyed and saved too; and if this be true it is equally clear that they can be also destroyed and endlessly punished: hence, when they turn in defence and assert that if the wicked are destroyed, they must be annihilated, and, therefore cannot be punished endlessly, they contradict their own creed, and manifest a disregard for correct principles of argumentation.

We trust we have now removed every objection to the application of the word gehenna, drawn from its derivation and primitive use.

But, Mr. Morse says: "The word gehenna is found in the New Testament twelve times only." This circumstance can certainly form no objection to its application to future or endless punishment in the minds of those who have any confidence in the divine inspiration of the scriptures. If it were found in but one text, and that text was given by the inspi-. ration of God, that is sufficient. But suppose the unfrequent use of this word to be an objection to its application to a future hell, and the argument may be employed with equal force against Mr. M's exposition of the term. If, because the word gehenna is used but twelve times in the New Testament, it cannot relate to a future hell, then, for the same reason it cannot have been the name in common use to designate a place near Jerusalem where a fire was kept burning to consume the filth of the city, and where criminals were executed, which must be the case to suppose that Christ referred to this place when he threatened the wicked with the damnation of hell. If, indeed, there is any force in this objection, it will annihilate some of the most prominent arguments in fa

vour of universalism. The word "restitution," which is the nucleus of universalism, is found but once in the New Testament. Acts iii. 21. There is but one text in all the Bible that says God will have all men to be saved." 1 Tim. ii. 4. But once is it said that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Eph. i. 11. But once in all the scriptures does God say "his counsel shall stand." Isa. xlvi. 10. And yet universalists declaim over these expressions with as much confidence as though they occurred as often as the wicked are threatened with the damnation of hell, with being cast into hell, with hell fire, &c. But Mr. M. says that the word gehenna "was always addressed to the Jews. Nothing is said of gehenna to the gentiles." What bearing this can have on the question at issue, is not easy to conceive. It may prove this: that the authors of the scriptures used such words as were understood, and in common use among those whom they addressed. As this word was peculiar to the Jews, it is not a marvellous circumstance that its use should be restricted to them, by men who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, whether it mean the valley of Hinnom, or eternal torment in the future world.

We have now done with the four words in the original language, redered hell in the English translation of the scriptures; and whether or not we have proved that there is a place of punishment in the future world, called hell, and answered and removed the objections founded on the primitive use and significations of the original words, we leave the candid reader to judge. We only have to remark in conclusion, on this subject, that if we have sustained our position and proved the existence of a place called hell, a place of punishment, where the wicked receive the reward of their doings, the question of future punishment is settled. If there is a hell, in the future world, and if the wicked are punished in hell, as we think we have proved, then it is clear that the wicked will be punished in the future world, or after death.

VIII. The punishment of the wicked is so connected with the happiness of the righteous, in point of time, as to prove its existence to be in a future state. If it can be shown that the threatenings of the gospel are fulfilled in the punishment