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, 1 who interpreted to the people in Chaldee what he first read to them in Hebrew. And afterwards, when

}

the method was established of dividing the law into 54 sections, and of reading one of them every week in their synagogues, the same course of reading to the people the Hebrew text first, and then interpreting it to them in Chaldee, was still continued. For, when the reader had read one verse in Hebrew, an interpreter standing by did render it into Chaldee; and then the next verse being read in Hebrew, it was in like manner interpreted in the same language as before; and so on from verse to verse was every verse alternately read first in the Hebrew, and then interpreted in Chaldee to the end of the section; and this first gave occasion for the making of Chaldee versions for the help of these interpreters. And they thenceforth became necessary not only for their help in the public synagogues, but also for the help of the people at home in their families, that they might there have the Scriptures for their private reading in a language which they understood.

"This work having been attempted by divers persons at different times, and by some of them with dif ferent views (for some of them were written as versions for the public use of the synagogues, and others as paraphrases and commentaries for the private instruction of the people,) hence it hath come to pass, that there were anciently many of these Targums, and of different sorts, in the same manner as there anciently were many different versions of the same Holy Scriptures into the Greek language, made with like different views; of which we have sufficient proof in the Octalpa of Origen. No doubt, anciently there were many more of these Targums than we now know of, which have been lost in the length of time. Whether there were any of them of the same composure on the whole Scriptures is not any where said. Those that are now remaining were composed by different persons, and on different parts of Scripture,

some on one part, and others on other parts; and are, in all, of these eight sorts following. 1. That of Onkelos on the five books of Moses; 2. That of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets, that is, on Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets; 3. That on the law, which is ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel; 4. The Jerusalem Targum on the law;-5. The Targum on the five lesser books, called the Megilloth, i. e. Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah; 6. The second Targum on Esther; 7. The Targum of Joseph, the one-eyed, on the book of Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs; and, 8. The Targum on the first and second book of Chronicles. On Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. I The reason given by some for this is, because a great part of those books is written in the Chaldee language, and therefore there is no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them. This indeed is true for Daniel and Ezra, but not for Nehemiah; for that book is all originally written in the Hebrew language. No doubt, anciently there were Chaldee paraphrases on all the Hebrew parts of those books, though now lost. It was long supposed that there were no Targums on the two books of Chronicles, because none such were known, till they were lately published by Beckius, at Augsburg in Germany, that on the first book A. D.. 1680, and that on the second in 1683."

Having given this abridged account of the Targums, let us attend to what men quote from them, in 1 proof that Gehenna, in the New Testament, is used to express a place of endless misery for all the wicked. It is very natural for one to conclude, that the quotations made would be given us at length, and that they would be full and explicit in establishing this doctrine. We have been at some pains to col-