. body in hell? No; it says he is able to do so. It describes his ability, not his will, nor his purpose. We do not doubt God's ability to destroy the whole universe; but is it his will to do so? Should it be said, in reply to this, that Jesus would not have spoken as he did, if he had not believed there was danger that God would destroy soul and body in hell, we say this is an unjustifiable conclusion. It is often the case, that men speak of the power of God, by describing him as being able to do what they have no expectation he will do. As an illustration of this, take the following quotation from one of the hymns sung in Christian assemblies : nature. "Praise to thee, thou great Creator, Here we are told, that God can destroy all But was it the poet's intention to assert, that God actually would destroy all nature? No; he merely referred to the extent of God's power. So in the passage before us. When it is said, God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, there is not the slightest affirmation that he wills to do so. Take another instance. When John the Baptist said, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," did he intend to say, that God would do so? Certainly not; he merely meant to state what God had the power to do. But again. If this passage refer to the future existence, and if the terms soul and body are to be understood as referring to the immortal spirit and the mortal body of man, and if the destruction is to be understood in the literal sense of the phrase then how can the doctrine of endless misery be true? If we adopt such a construction of the passage, that doctrine falls to the ground at once; for if the immortal spirit and the mortal body are both destroyed, then neither can remain subject to punishment, and, of course, neither can be punished forever. To destroy both soul and body, in the sense in which these terms are generally employed, certainly cannot signify, to perpetuate the punishment of soul and body in hell forever. That would be the very reverse of destruction. Once more. Have we any evidence, that the term Gehenna, rendered hell in the passage before us, had ever been used in the time of our Saviour to signify endless punishment, or, in fact, any punishment in the future state? Jesus probably used the word in some sense that was common in his day. We look in vain, in the Old Testament, for proof that Gehenna was used to signify a place of punishment in the future state; nor is there any proof that Gehenna was used in such a sense, before the time of the Saviour. Jesus would not employ the word in a sense to which the people were altogether unaccustomed; and, therefore, it is more than probable that he did not use the word to signify a place of punishment in the future state. At any rate, we must believe that he did not, unless we see evidence to the contrary. We know that quotations are sometimes made from the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, to show that Gehenna had been employed in the time of Christ to signify endless misery; but these Targums are now generally referred, by the learned critics, to a much later date. If any person will produce a passage, in which Gehenna is applied to punishment in the future state, from any writer who is known to have lived before the time of Christ, or even contemporaneously with the Saviour, we will acknowledge that there is an argument in favor of such an application to the term, which as yet we have never seen. But again; is it certain that the Saviour intended to refer to the principle, which is called the immortal spirit of man? "Fear not them which kill the body (σua,) but are not able to kill the soul" (yuz.) Is it certain the Saviour here referred to that immortal part of man, which is to survive the ravages of death? We want proof, if we are called on to admit this. We know that the Greek term yuz does very frequently signify mere animal life. Thus, Matt. ii. 10: "They are dead which sought the young child's life." Did they seek its immortal spirit, or did they seek to destroy its earthly being? Again: "Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat," &c. "Is not the life more than meat?" Matt. vi. 25. Here the term evidently does not signify anything more than mere animal existence. What circumstance is it, then, which makes it so certain as some imagine it to be, that yuz, in Matt. x. 29, and Luke xii. 4, 5, signifies the ever-living principle? We think there is room for great doubt on that point. But, in still further confirmation of what we have said, let it be observed, that the sacred writers make a clear distinction between wuzǹ, the life, and лvεõua, the spirit. The spirit, vεuα, is never said to be destroyed in Gehenna. We challenge the world to produce an instance of the kind. Paul says, "I pray God your whole spirit (лvεõμ¤,) and soul (yuz,) and body (σua,) be preserved blameless, unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. v. 23. Here ψυχὴ is plainly distinguished from Vεμа. See also Heb. iv. 12. "For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit." Here чу and лvεõμ¤ are plainly distinguished again. If yuz signifies the immortal spirit, what is the лvεuua? We beg, that it may πνεῦμα be specially remembered, that we read of casting the body into Gehenna, and of destroying the wuzn, life, in Gehenna; but the word лvεμa is not mentioned once in connexion with Gehenna in the whole Bible. Strange! strange! if the immortal spirit is doomed to be punished in Gehenna forever! If the foregoing remarks have been duly considered, the reader will see, that it is by no means probable, that Jesus spoke the words in Matt. x. 28, for the purpose of teaching the doctrine of endless misery. See Plain Guide to Universal ism, pp. 92-95. B. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. Object of this essay. WHETHER the doctrine of future punishment be true, it is not our purpose at the present time to inquire. Our object is to seek its origin. Whence came it? Did men find it in the revelation God has made? or did it arise from some other source? If it be found in revelation, it must be either in the Old Testament or the New, or both. Even if we should allow that it is taught in the New Testa |