by which Universalists sustain their interpretations of the Scriptures, (except so far as those arguments are contained in the quotations made from orthodox writers,) yet I hope to be pardoned for departing, somewhat, from my usual course, in the present instance.

For several years, Universalists generally, I believe, held the following opinions:- They supposed the person having power to destroy soul and body, to be God; the soul, (psuche,) they understood to be the natural life; and they supposed some ignominious or painful manner of death to be indicated by the word hell, (gehenna,) provided any metaphorical sense were given to it, and it were not allowed to indicate, according to its literal import, the valley of Hinnom. See the notes on

Matt. v. 22. They then said,

1. That the text does not declare that God will destroy both soul and body, but only that he is able to do it. To show that, because God is able to perform an act, it does not necessarily follow that he will do it, they appealed to Matt. iii. 9; 'Think not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.' And even if stones here be understood figuratively, as some suppose, to represent the Gentiles, they appealed further to Matt. xxvi. 53. 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently send me more than twelve legions of angels?' Although God was able to send these angels, yet he did not do it.

2. That if God should exert his power and destroy both soul and body, annihilation, and not endless misery, would be the consequence; for utter destruction is the most natural import of the word appollumi, rendered destroy, in the text.

- In either case, they contended that the doctrine of endless misery could not be supported by this

text.

But, recently, Rev. Hosea Ballou has offered a conjecture of a different character. He proposes the following paraphrase, as expressing the sense of the passage, as recorded in Luke xii. 4, 5:—

'And I say unto you, my friends, be not so much afraid of them who have power only to scourge you in their synagogues, and to administer cruel tortures to your bodies, but have no authority to take your lives, as of that more extensive authority to which your brethren the Jews will deliver you, by bringing you before governors and kings; for this power can, after inflicting cruelties on your bodies, doom your lives and bodies to be destroyed in gehenna.' Uni. Expositor, vol. ii. p. 241.

How extensively this conjecture has been, or may be, approved, among Universalists, I have no means to form a very correct opinion. It has, at the least, one especial merit. It provides a way to avoid the direct contradiction, which appears to exist, between verse 28, and 31, of Matt. x., according to any interpretation before given, by Universalists or orthodox.

Having said thus much, I may be allowed to mention a few of the reasons given by Mr. Ballou, in support of his conjecture.

1. He quotes Ps. li. 16, 17, 1 Sam. xv. 22, Jer. vii. 22, 23, and John xii. 44, to show, 'that in scripture language it often occurs, that when a preference is to be given to one of two things, the less requires an entire negative, in order to heighten the other.' This he does to justify his understanding, fear not them, &c. but fear him, &c. to mean, fear him, rather than them. The passage in Matthew has very nearly the same form. And, in fact, it is a well known Hebrew idiom, that a direct

affirmation is often made respecting one subject, and a direct denial in regard to another, when nothing more is intended, than that the one is more probable than the other. See Grotius in Matt. xii. 31, 32.*

2. To justify his conjecture that apokteino, translated kill, means, in this place, to torture, he states the fact, that the Jews had not legal power to execute capital punishments; but that power was vested in the Roman government, to which the Jews were subject. He quotes Matt. x. 17, 18, and founds, to say the least, a very plausible argument upon it, to show that Jesus had this fact in his mind, when he uttered the words in the text. He further observes, that Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, says that apokteino generally implies cruelty and barbarity.

To the remarks of Mr. Ballou, I add the following: Although Parkhurst, and Lexicographers generally, interpret this word, to kill, either with or without cruelty and barbarity, yet some define it differently.

DONNEGAN. In the Greek and English Lexicon of Donnegan, recently published, one definition, given to apokteino, is, to torture, in distinction from destroying life; and classical authority is quoted for this definition. I know not how high a rank Donnegan is destined to attain, as authority; but the writer quoted below is allowed, on all hands, to be worthy of confidence.

SCHLEUSNER. As one definition of the word in question, Schleusner has the following:-'to make miserable or unhappy.' He quotes Rom. vii. 11, as an instance of this signification, (sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by

*Section xxi. See also the remarks of Bishop Newton, quoted in the same section.

it slew me;) where, instead of 'slew me,' he renders apekteinen me, 'became the cause of misery.' He next refers to Matt. x. 28, (the passage under consideration,) where instead of 'are not able to kill the soul,' he renders the phrase, 'are not able to deprive the soul of its happiness.'

According to Schleusner, then, this word may mean, to deprive one of happiness, or to make one miserable. True, he supposes it to indicate, in the text, the death of the body, and only the distress of the soul. But he has given no reason, and I know of none, why it may not indicate torture, rather than death, in relation to the body, as well as to the soul. If this be its meaning, and if psuche (soul) be here used in its very common signification, of natural life, or the life of the body, then the text will certainly admit this interpretation; 'fear not him, (or that power,) which can only torture your bodies, but is not able to destroy its life; rather fear him, (or that power,) which is able to destroy (apolesai) the body and its life, or cut you off from the land of the living, by an ignominious death. For this sense of the word Gehenna, see the notes on the preceding passages in which the word occurs.

For a more full illustration of this subject, the reader is referred to the article in the Expositor, before mentioned. A sermon on Luke xii. 4, 5, by Rev. S. Cobb, entitled The Destruction of Soul and Body in Gehenna,' in which the author has advanced opinions somewhat similar to those of Rev. Mr. Ballou, is replete with sound sense and argument, and will repay an attentive perusal.

Without the presumption of deciding which of the two grounds taken by Universalist writers, in relation to this passage, is most tenable, I may be allowed to say, that, in my judgment, on either

ground, it may easily be shown that Jesus had no intention to indicate the endless misery of mankind, by their destruction in Gehenna.

SECTION XIX.*

'He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it.' MATT. x. 39.

Ir may seem strange, that any should have supposed this passage to teach the doctrine of endless misery; yet such is the fact. Our Saviour, however, does not seem to have had any such intention. His words evidently imply, that those, who were willing to hazard their lives, by attending on his ministry, giving heed to his doctrine, obeying his precepts, and proclaiming to their fellow-men the truths which he taught, should be preserved alive; while those, who, through fear of the Jews, avoided him, and disregarded his instructions and warnings, should be overwhelmed in that tremendous destruction, which was to come upon that wicked and devoted nation. And his testimony was remarkably verified. When the hour of destruction approached, the disciples of Jesus, mindful of the directions he had given them, escaped from the city, and found, or preserved, their lives; while the disobedient, and inattentive, and those, who, through an overweening desire for the praise of men, had conformed to the prejudices of the Jews, and slighted the means of safety, were involved in the common ruin. Thus perished more than a

* Matt. x. 33. See notes on Mark viii. 38.