We demand then, how these apocryphal writers came to give to Hades such a different meaning from that of the sacred writers, both in the Old and New Testament. From what divine source of information did they learn that Hades was the place of future eternal punishment? If it is not found in this sense in the inspired writings, ought it to be found in theirs? And are we obliged to receive it in this sense implicitly on their authority? Besides; why have the above authors in proving that Gehenna is used to signify a place of endless misery quoted the Apocrypha, when this word is not once used there? They declare that Hades is not a place of endless punishment, and yet quote texts where this word occurs in the Apocrypha to prove that it is. The fact is, they took it for granted that where hell is used by the Apocryphal writers, that the original word was Gehenna. This was a very great oversight. If they knew to the contrary, it was certainly very wrong to confound two places, which are so plainly distinguished in Scripture, and which they themselves have so expressly distinguished.

2d, It has been shown in Chap. i. sect. 3. that the Jews learned the notion of eternal punishment in Hades from the heathen. Is it any wonder then, that in the books of the Apocrypha, we should find this word used in this sense; books known to contain so much fiction, and fancy, and so many other heathen notions? It would rather be surprising, if we did not. If any one will affirm that these writers did not learn their notion of a punishment in Hades from the heathen, it is his duty to show from what other source their information was derived. It was not from the Old Testament, for it contains no such information. If the Apocryphal books were all written before the New Testament, it is plain the writers did not derive their information about Hades as a place of punish

ment from it. Supposing some of them, yea, admit all of them to have been written after the New Testament, this information was not derived from it, for it contained no such information. If their notions then concerning Hades be not of heathen origin, let it be shown that they are divine.

3d, But it should be remembered that the original word which is used by these writers, is not Gehenna, but Hades. Now it hath been shown beyond a doubt, that Hades is not the place of eternal punishment for the wicked, but is in fact to be destroyed, or be no more. All, then, which the most zealous contenders for future punishment could make out from the usage of the word hell, in the Apocrypha, would be, that it is an intermediate place of punishment between death and the resurrection. It proves nothing on the subject of endless misery in Gehenna or hell, the word which is supposed by Dr. Campbell and others, properly to express this place of punishment. But there is one thing which ought not to be overlooked. Dr. Campbell, we have seen, says that Gehenna is not used in the Old Testament to express a place of endless misery for the wicked, but that in process of time, it came gradually to assume this sense, and at last came to be confined to it. The gradual change must have taken place between the completion of the Old Testament Scriptures and the commencement of the gospel dispensation; for he says that in this sense it is always used in the New Testament. It is believed. that some, if not all, the Apocryphal books, were written during this period. We were not a little surprised, then, in finding that not one of the Apocryphal writers ever used the term Gehenna in this sense, or in any other, throughout their writings. It is then put beyond all possibility of controversy, that this gradual change of the meaning of Gehenna was not brought about about by these writers. Whoever did

this, it cannot be imputed to them. We suspect however, from the word hell being used in the English version of the Apocrypha, that they are accused of this. But this is a great mistake, for the word. Gehenna is not once used by them. Who then brought about this gradual change in the meaning of the term Gehenna? I cannot find that Dr. Campbell, or any other writer, gives any information on this subject.

I may just add, that it would be much more like the truth to have said, "that the word Hades or Sheol does not occur in the Old Testament as meaning a place of endless misery. But in process of time, it came gradually to be used in this sense and at last was confined to it." Here the Apocrypha could be appealed to for this new sense of the word Hades. But after all, the question would still remain unanswered; On whose authority was this new sense given. to the word Hades?

4th, The many silly and ridiculous things contained in the Apocrypha, forbid us receiving the doctrine that hell is a place of endless misery, on its authority.. At what point are we to stop, if once we admit its authority on the subject before us? It is the learned, not the unlearned, who appeal to this kind of authority. Never in the whole course of my past life, have I heard a private Christian, or any preacher quote the Apocrypha to prove, that hell was a place of endless misery. Were it done, no regard would be paid to it; and if any Universalist quoted it in proof of his views, it would be proof enough that his views could not be supported from the Bible. But what degree of dependance is to be placed on any of the books in the Apocrypha, in determining the truth of any particular doctrine, and especially such an important one as this in question, may be seen from the following quotation from Gray, in his preface to the Apocryphal books, p. 511.. "The books which are admit

ted 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 to determine religious controversies."

It would be a mere waste of time to pursue this argument further. Whether Gehenna is, or is not, a place of eternal punishment, no argument can be derived from the Apocrypha, to prove that it was considered a place of punishment by those writers; for they do not once use this word.

Let us now attend to the Targums. For the information of some, we give the following abridged account of them from Prideaux's Connections, vol. iv. p. 560-585.

"The Chaldee paraphrases are translations of the Scriptures of the Old Testament made directly from the Hebrew text into the language of the Chaldeans; which language was anciently used through all Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine; and is still the language of the churches of the Nestorian and Maronite Christians in those eastern parts, in the same manner as the Latin is the language of the Popish churches here in the west. And therefore these paraphrases were called Targums, because they were versions or translations of the Hebrew text into this language; for the word targum signifieth, in Chaldee, an interpretation or version of one language into another, and may properly be said of any such version or translation: but it is most commonly by

the Jews appropriated to these Chaldee paraphrases; for being among them what were most eminently such, they therefore had this name by way of eminency especially given to them.

"These Targums were made for the use and instruction of the vulgar Jews after their return from the Babylonish captivity; for, although many of the better sort still retained the knowledge of the Hebrew language during that captivity, and taught it their children, and the Holy Scriptures that were delivered after that time, excepting only some parts of Daniel and Ezra, and one verse in Jeremiah, were all written therein; yet the common people, by having so long conversed with the Babylonians, learned their language, and forgot their own. It happened indeed otherwise to the children of Israel in Egypt; for, although they lived there above three times as long as the Babylonish captivity lasted, yet they still preserved the Hebrew language among them, and brought it back entire with them into Canaan. The reason of this was, in Egypt they all lived together in the land of Goshen ; but on their being carried captive by the Babylonians, they were dispersed all over Chaldea and Assyria, and, being there intermixed with the people of the land, had their main converse with them, and therefore were forced to learn their language; and this soon induced a disuse of their own among them; by which means it came to pass, that, after their return, the common people, especially those of them who had been bred up in that captivity, understood not the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after them. And therefore, when Ezra read the law to the people, he had several persons standing by him well skilled in both the Chaldee and Hebrew languages, who interpreted to the people in Chaldee what he first read to them in Hebrew. And afterwards, when