in a future state. I there stated that, if you could produce half the number who say it does not mean future wo, I would give it up: but you could not produce one single author to sustain your views. What am I to do in this case? I appeal to the judgment of the public to decide, whether I have not finally settled the argument in dispute. I am satisfied I have, and if any defect can be produced, I pledge myself to set it straight.

To sum up the whole matter in a few words, it may be observed that, the word Gehenna occurs twelve times in the New Testament. It is derived from Ghi, a valley, and Hinnom, the name of a person, who once possessed it; and signifies hell-fire. In this sense it was used by the authors of the Targums before our Saviour's time, and consequently by the Jews generally, as is manifest by Mr. Whiston's note concerning Hades. This is the sense in which Gehenna was explained to the Gentile converts about the year 150, by Justin Martyr. And in fact, no one, I believe, ever called in question or denied this explanation of Gehenna till within these late years, when the demoralizing heresy of Universalism began to stalk through the land with brazen effrontery.

Now sir, I shall consider the question as finally settled, and so it must remain, till you prove by sufficient authority, that the Targums were not written about the time of Christ, and this you cannot do till the last trumpet shall sound.

Now let me address myself to such as have been led away from the truth of Holy Scrip

ture, by the art and cunning of designing men, for such I consider all those who use sophistical reasoning to propagate a doctrine which was unknown in the days of Christ and his apostles. Fellow Christians, we are all hastening to eternity, to the judgment seat of Christ, before whom we must all shortly appear. We have the Holy Scriptures to teach us our duty to God, to our neighbor, and to ourselves. These scriptures teach us, in clear terms, all the doctrines of God, so far as he has revealed them to mankind. Every enquiring mind, by a little attention to the Bible, may see that the doctrine of endless punishment is as clearly revealed as that of endless happiness. The Jews unquestionably understood the Bible to teach the doctrine of endless misery. Christ and his apostles taught this doctrine, and Justin Martyr, in the second century, taught the same; and, in fact, no man ever taught the doctrine of a Universal restoration till Origen broached the sentiment about the year 206; consequently, it was unknown in the days of the apostles. You have more than five hundred passages of scripture that cannot be reconciled with the doctrine. But, supposing the doctrine is true, you can lose nothing in a future state by believing in the eternity, of hell's torments; for th meere belief of the doctrine of endless misery will not make it endless, unless it really is so. Therefore, if I am in error, my error will have no bad consequence, if Universalism be true, but the Universalists will be awfully disappointed, if their doctrine turn out to be false. Consequently, we should use every possible means to prepare

for the worst. We are all sinners before the Almighty God, and his word teaches that we must repent of sin, believe in Jesus Christ with a heart unto righteousness, be, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and live a life of obedience and love to God, doing good to mankind as far as possible. All those who pursue this course, and those alone, have the word and oath of him who cannot lie, to secure to them eternal life and happiness beyond the grave.

Now sir, the question being settled, beyond the possibility of a doubt on the subject, I shall let the matter rest. But, if you shall produce any thing, by way of objections to what I have stated, bearing any marks of plausibility, I am ready to shew their fallacy.

Your's, &c.

JOSEPH M'KEE.

LETTER No. XIII.

BALTIMORE, April 2, 1835.

To Rev. Joseph M' Kee:

Dear Sir-You have a singular propensity for asserting, that 'you have incontrovertibly proved your positions.' Hence your present letter is commenced by declaring, that you have 'demonstrated the eternity of misery, by the word Gehenna.' It is well sir, to keep up the appearance of courage and success, but really, when every argument which you have adduced has been fully noticed, and when you have attempted a reply to only two or three of

an assertion smacks quite too much of mock confidence, to have the credit of sincerity. It is true, you have backed it up by asserting that my twelve facts in letter No. 8, are 'twelve miserable subterfuges,' that my 'criticism on apokteino is in direct opposition to Parkhurst,' [Not so, I gave Parkhurst as one of my authorities, Donnegan as another,] and one of the most barefaced absurdities you ever saw,' &c., all of which is very charitable, very argumentative! And such is the proof by which you have demonstrated, that Gehenna overthrows Universalism!

The first four of my twelve facts, you assert, 'are founded on a falsehood viz. that Gehenna is used in the Old Testament.' Doubtless the reader supposes, I have here committed some egregious blunder, or told some daring lie, for this your language implies.

But what is the fact? Why in the Old Testament, Gehenna is written Gehinnom Thus because the word is differently written in the New, from what it is in the Old Testament, I am accused of falsehood! It is the same word, only written Gehenna instead of Gehinnom! And such are the arguments by which the falsity of my twelve facts is shown! But sir, according to this logic, Gehenna does not occur in Jonathan's Targum, for there it is written Hinnom; so that if what I asserted be false, you must yield the Targums.

This play upon the word Gehenna is in perfect keeping with the charge that what I said respecting the discourse in Josephus on Hades, is an impudent forgery,' and 'one among the

many lies and falsehoods, invented and propagated by Universalists, to injure the truth and establish error.' But that I am correct is evident from the following considerations:

1. This discourse is not in Hudson's Critical edition of Josephus, of which Horne (vol. 2, p. 306,) thus speaks:

"Those distinguished Bibliographers, Fabricius, Harwood, Harles, and Oberthur, are unanimous in their commendations of this elegant and most valuable edition.' He also says, 'Dr. Hudson seems to have consulted every known manuscript and edition. The correctness of the Greek text, the judgment displayed in the annotations, the utility of the indexes, and the consummate knowledge which is evinced of the history and antiquity of the time, render this work deserving of everything said in commendation of it.'

2. It is the same work which the learned quote under the following titles: "Concerning the cause of the Universe;' 'Concerning the Universe;' Concerning the Universal Cause;' 'Concerning Universal Nature.' This discourse is barely alluded to in the Prefatio (written by Antonius Hallius, for Hudson did not live to publish his edition) to Hudson's Edition, among the pieces falsely ascribed to Josephus; and then Fabricius is quoted, who says,(Bibliotheca Græca, Art. De Josepho et ejus Scriptis, § 8,) that Dodwell and others attribute it to Caius or Hippolytus, two Christian fathers of the end of the 2d or beginning of the 3d century. Du Pin (Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. 1, Art. Caius,) says, that Photius, the most learned and accurate critic in ecclesiastical affairs of my arguments on this subject, I do think, such