men. Nephish, in the Old Testament, as any one may see by consulting an English concordance on the words life and soul, occurs in innumerable instances where it can mean nothing else but natural life. These two words are the common rendering of nephish. The same remark applies to psuhe, also rendered life and soul in the New Testament. That the word nephish, translated life and soul in the Old Testament, as psuhe is also in the New, are sometimes used expletively by the sacred writers, is obvious from the following quotation from Pilkington's remarks, p. 94:-" For the same reason we should not always be translated soul, though the word soul, by the use of it in the translation of the Bible, hath acquired nearly the same latitude with was in the Hebrew; which is sometimes used expletively, sometimes means life, sometimes the whole man, and sometimes is applied to the irrational part of the creation. A few instances of which will be sufficient to show the impropriety of the translation, where the word soul is mentioned in several passages, in which no correct writer would now make use of it. Gen. xii. 13. my soul shall live because of thee: xix. 20. let me escape thither, and my soul shall live. Exod. xii. 16. save that which every soul must eat. Lev. v. 2. if a soul touch any unclean thing: XX. 11. if the priest buy a soul with his money. Numb. xi. 6. but now our soul is dried away: xxxi. 28. one soul of five hundred, both of the men, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep. Psalm lvii. 4. my soul is among lions: cvi. 15. he sent leanness into their soul.-The writers of the New Testament also, finding on to be the general translation of, have used that word both for life and person; and therefore it is sometimes improperly rendered, a Soul: and when u is, in some places, used to signify life, the writers are best justified in their expressions, by imputing it to their knowledge of the gen

eral import of the Hebrew word. Matth. ii. 20. they are dead which sought the young child's life; vii. 25. take no thought for your life. Luke xii. 23. the life is more than meat. John x. 15. I lay down my life for my sheep. Rom. xiii. 1. let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Acts iii. 23. every soul that will not hear that prophet. 1 Peter iii. 20. eight souls were saved out of the water.

"And, as soul is used expletively, so is body also, in several passages of the New Testament; as Rom. vi. 6. that the body of sin may be destroyed: vii. 4. ye are dead to the law by the body of Christ: vii. 24. who shall deliver me from the body of this death; or from this body of death? Col. ii. 11. in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. And it may be said that body is here a figurative expression; yet the metaphor is so obscure, as not readily to convey any clear idea to us."

That the word soul is used expletively by Matthew in the relation he here gives of our Lord's discourse, seems pretty evident from its being omitted by Luke in his account. It is evident that he did not consider it necessary to mention the soul in relating what Matthew did, but considered our Lord's meaning sufficiently expressed without it. If this be true, no difficulty can arise to my views from the use of the word soul, as distinguished from the body by Matthew in this passage. If it is used expletively, or is a mere Hebrew idiom, and has no reference to the immortal part of man, what argument can be drawn from it to prove that the passages teach eternal punishment in hell or Gehenna? We think before any thing like this is attempted to be drawn from them, it should be satisfactorily shown that Gehenna means a place of endless misery for the wicked. But what renders it still more probable that the word soul is a mere expletive in the above passage, is, that though the New Tes

tament is written in Greek, yet the idiom of it is Hebrew. Concerning this, Dr. Campbell's first dissertation ought to be consulted. In his second, referring to the first, he says:-" But whoever would argue in this manner, must have forgotten what has been fully evinced in the former dissertation, that though the words, the inflection, and the construction in the books of the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is strictly Hebraical." That the distinction between soul and body in Matthew, is a Hebrew idiom, is confirmed from the consideration that it is Matthew, and not Luke, who uses this distinction in his account. He is thought generally to have written his gospel originally in Hebrew, and consequently his gospel must partake more of the Hebrew idiom than Luke's. That the word soul is used expletively in the Old Testament, is evident from the above quotation. It is also evident that in the New the word soul simply means person, and that both soul and body are by the New Testament writers sometimes used expletively. That this is the case with the word soul in the passage before us, is strongly confirmed from comparing Matthew and Luke a little further. What Matthew expresses by the words, "to destroy both soul and body in hell," Luke thus expresses,-"hath power to cast into hell." Here Luke considered himself as expressing all our Lord meant, and also all that Matthew expresses by the words,-" to destroy both soul and body in hell." Besides, every one must perceive the similarity, or rather the sameness of the phrase, “cast into hell," to phraseology used in some of the preceding passages which have been considered. See Mark ix. 45, 47.

But it may be thought that the distinction between soul and body made in this passage, ought to be particularly noticed, as it seems not to agree with the views I have advanced about the punishment of Ge

henna or hell. This we intend now to do, and would observe, that allowing all the remarks already made on these two texts to pass for nothing, we shall proceed to show that they are not only in accordance with the views advanced on the above passages, but are additional confirmation of them. Allowing that there is no Hebrew idiom in the case, let us see what can be fairly made out from these two texts in favour of the doctrine of eternal misery in Gehenna. By the body, then, is universally understood the fleshy, corruptible part of man, which, after death, returns to dust, from whence it originated. This we think cannot be questioned. By the soul, in distinction from the body, is almost as generally understood the spirit, or that part of man which survives the body, and at death goes either to heaven or hell, to be happy or miserable forever. In this mistaken view of the word soul, originates the apparent difficulty in these two passages. Let us now proceed to a few additional remarks, with a view to obviate the difficulty arising from its being said that man has only power to kill the body, but is not able to kill the soul; but that God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

1st, It may just be observed, that it is not said God would do this; it is only said he is able to do it. It is said he "is able to destroy both soul and body in hell;” and that "he hath power to cast into hell." Power or ability to do this is one thing, actually to do it is another. I merely notice this for the following reason. Admitting it was true that Gehenna was a place of eternal misery, and the soul here means the immortal spirit, yet nothing positive about eternal misery could be fairly made out from this passage. The doctrine is rather our own inference, than any positive declaration.

2d, Were we to interpret the words kill and destroy in a strict sense, these texts would prove total anni

hilation. To kill the soul, and to destroy the soul, intimates as certainly the death of the soul, as to kill the body, or destroy the body, intimates the extinction of the life of the body. If by the word soul we understand the spirit, or immortal part of man, and if here God positively declares that he will kill the soul, we think the doctrine of annihilation is clearly established. Understanding Gehenna to mean a place of endless misery, it would follow that the disciples are threatened with annihilation in Gehenna, and the unbelieving Jews with endless misery in it, Matth. xxiii. 33. But can any man believe this?

3d, The cause of the difficulty which these texts present, arises from the sense we attach to the word soul, which is understood to mean the immortal part or spirit, which is to exist in a separate state from the body, yea, after the body returns to dust. But this we think is a great mistake. The original word here for soul, is not pneuma, but psuhe. This word, as is easily shown, is used in instances out of number for the mere natural life. In proof of this, I shall quote the following from Whitby:-on Acts ii. he thus writes: "Verses 26, 27. my flesh shall rest in hope; that thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.' That is, saith Dr. Hammond, I am confident that though I die, yet shalt thou not leave me so long dead, as that my body shall be putrefied; or thou wilt not leave my life in the grave, or in the state of death.' word, this phrase is by St. Peter interpreted of our Lord's resurrection; for so he speaks, Him whom you by wicked hands have slain, God hath raised up, loosing the bands of death,' verse 23, 24. 'for David saith of him, thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,' i. e. my life in the grave; and it is opposed to David's continuing in the grave, and in the state of death, thus, David is both dead and buried, and his body lies

In a