kingdom among the Gentiles, and then coming, as it were, back to punish the Jews, according to these words of his, this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout the world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the end [of the Jewish polity] come.-Matt. xxiv: 14.

On the parallel text in Luke, Whitby says: "This parable doth certainly respect the Jewish nation, as appears, [1,] Because they are here said to reject Christ's kingdom, saying, we will not have this man to reign over us: and upon this account are styled his enemies, and devoted to destruction by him, which agrees still only to the Jews, ver. 27. [2.] To them is threatened the punishment of the unprofitable servants, to wit, to be cast out into utter darkness, &c. Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, Luke xiii. 28, Matt. xxv. 30. In fine, it is expressly said, he therefore spake this parable to them, because they thought the kingdom of God should immediately appear, ver. 11, and 12.' Annot. in Lnke, xix. 12.

It will be remembered that you assume that this parable refers to the future state.

9. Luke xiv. 15-24. (Matt. xxii. 2-14.) Here you assume, that this teaches, that this world is a probationary state, and that those who do not accept the offers of grace here, can never be saved. That your assumption is unfounded is evident, 1. Because a few verses preceding the parallel text, our Lord told the Jews, that the kingdom of heaven (the Gospel covenant) should be taken from them and given to a nation, (Gentiles) bringing forth the fruits thereof. This with other sayings greatly enraged the chief priests and pharisees, and they would have laid hands on him, but they feared the people. This

elicited the parable under consideration, in which is represented the offer of the Gospel to the Jews, their rejection of it, the calling of the Gentiles, and the casting out of the Jews from the gospel privileges. 2. This is evident from the character given of those who came-they were the poor, maimed, lame and blind. Such were the Gentiles in the eye of a Jew. 3. The parable says, the king sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city. Such was literally the case with the Jews. 4. Many are called, but few chosen. The Jews were all invited, but few chosen. The parable, therefore, referred to the Jews, and their de struction by the Roman army. (So say Larner, Gilpin and Whitby.) They experienced the sad fulfilment of our Lord's words "none of those which were first bidden, shall taste my supper." ." The kingdom was taken from them, and they fell in judgment. What was spoken of them, however, related to their rejection of Christ and its effects on the nation. Nothing is said of the future world.

10. Luke xvi. 19-31. This you call a his tory; therefore the rich man, a spirit, had eyes, hands, tongue, and was in a flame. Lazarus was literally in Abraham's bosom. You will say perhaps, all these are figurative expressions. Very well; then the account must be a parable; for it contains little or nothing literal. Your reasons why it is a history, will weigh nothing, when it is considered that the parable preceding this commences, precisely as this does. There was a certain rich man. Now apply your language to this, and see the result. 2. All parables are founded on some common custom,

or familiar circumstance, some prevailing opinion, or some supposeable case. See for instance, the parables of the sower, lost sheep, lost piece of silver, prodigal son, unjust steward, &c. Now I believe that from the opinions of the Jews concerning hades, our Lord supposed a case on which he founded a parable, designed to show the rich, haughty, proud, selfish pharisees, who oppressed and persecuted the poor and humble christians, that the period was approaching, when their condition would be reversed, when the former would be overwhelmed in judgment, and the latter elevated to freedom, peace and joy. My limits; do not permit a defence of this application, and as it has but little bearing on the question, whether the text teaches endless misery, I will admit, that it is a history, that a rich man died and went to torment. What then? His place of torment was hades-a place which no critic, of any note, believes to be a state of endless suffering. Besides, this is the only text, in the whole New Testament, where hades occurs, which is thought to teach endless wo. Not only so, Paul 1 Cor. xv. says, at the resurrection we shall sing the song of victory over hades. Hosea says, hades (sheol in the Hebrew) shall be destroyed. Then the text in question cannot teach endless misery. This is beyond dispute. Perhaps you will say, the great gulph teaches endless misery. This cannot be, for it is represented as being in hades; and therefore, cannot exist after the destruction of hades. We read of no such gulph of separation after the resurrection.

Should you say, the gulph must exist forever, for nothing is said in the text of its destruction;

I answer, then hades must exist forever, for nothing is said of its destruction. Then Lazarus will never be raised from hades; for nothing is said in the text of his resurrection. 3. There will be no resurrection of the rich man, for the text says nothing of this. Now we may as rea sonably assert all these, as assert that the misery of the rich man and the existence of the gulph are endless, because nothing is said of their limitation. He was speaking of hades, the state of man between death and the resurrection; and it was as unnecessary to say its misery was not endless as to say the pain of an eye or tooth is not endless. The nature of hades proved the limitation of its misery, the same as the nature of this world proves the limitation of its misery.

11. John xv. 5, 6. Being quite tired of replying to assumptions, I will dismiss this text, by giving an exposition from Kenrick. "If a man abide not in me, he is thrown away as a withered branch; that is, he will be treated as men treat withered branches, which they gather together and burn in the fire. This is generally, I believe, understood to refer to the punishment of the wicked in another life, which is usually represented by fire; but, as the rest of this discourse refers to the present life, perhaps Christ, by this language, only meant to express the useless and contemptible situation to which the apostles would be reduced, in the apprehension of the Divine Being, by deserting their christian profession. This is agreeable to what he says of them under a different figure: ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has lost its savor, it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and

trodden under foot of men, Matt. v. 13. On the authority of these verses the papists have founded the cruel practice of burning heretics, rather than putting them to death any other way.' Epos. in loc.

12. Jude 12. Gilpin I believe has expressed the true sense of this text in the following words: "They follow the examples of the very worst persons they find recorded in the bible history-the malice of Cain-the covetousness and seducing arts of Balaam, and the implacable opposition of Corah. A feast of charity they turn into wantonness. Like unwholesome air, they blast wherever they come—like with.... ered trees, they only encumber the groundlike waves they spend their rage only in foam, like uncertain meteors, their light soon sets in darkness.

"The text says, twice dead: the apostle may mean, that they were once wicked Jews, and, having apostatized, are now wicked christians. Or, perhaps, he only expresses more strongly their deadness, as Virgil, expressing happiness, says-terque, quaterque beati.' Expos in loc.

What is said of these men is, as apostates; and is descriptive of their v le and useless character. But it is all assumption to say, the text teaches their endless punishment, for not a word is said of a future world.

Thus, Dear Sir, Ihave briefly considered, your twelve arguments; and I find that they are twelve assumptions! You have not, in a single instance, proved your application of a text!

Your play upon certain phrases in your proof texts requires a passing notice. I have once in this dis eussion, (Letter, No. 2.) exposed the absurdity of