resented by this rich man, I now ask what death did the Jews die, as a community? The answer is plain and easy-they died a political and ecclesiastical death when they ceased to be a nation--when they were put out of their stewardship. And I will here remark, this rich man died at the same time the beggar was carried to Abraham's bosom; and the Jewish community died at the same time the Gentiles received the gospel, or kingdom of God.

"But the rich man was buried, and in his grave," says Mr. Ray. I answer, that is just where a dead man ought to be; but why was not Lazarus buried? The answer is given in the parable-"He was carried by angels into Abraham's bos om;" and of course there was nothing to bury, not even the tip of his finger. Mr. Ray insists that the soul of the rich man, when he died, went to hell, and that of the beggar to heaven. This is a gross mistake. The rich man himself (not his soul) is represented as being in hell, and the beggar in Abraham's bosom. This is the reason why one is said to be buried, and the other not. Mr. Wesley seems to think that the rich man and the beggar were both in hell, though one in torment and the other happy :--see his ninth volume of sermons, p. 106; also, p. 135, where he speaks of hell (hades) as the abode of both happy and unhappy spirits. In his sermon on the rich man and Lazarus, he says, "the word here rendered hell does not mean the place of the damned. It is literally the invisible world--the receptacle of separate spirits, whether good or bad.” But in this definition of the Greek word here rendered hell, he is to be understood as giving the sense in which it was used by Greek poets: for in page 135, in speaking of this abode of both happy and unhappy spirits, he says, "It has not pleased God to reveal any thing about it in the holy scriptures, and consequently it is not possible for us to form any judgment or even conjecture about it." Here Mr. Wesley clearly admits,that the idea entertained by Greek poets respecting their invisible world of ghosts is a mere heathen fable, unknown in the holy scriptures! Hence it would follow, as a scripture term, hades is never used to express the invisible world. This is fully proven in my vocabulary, on the word hades, to which I refer the reader for a more definite explanation of this Greek term, as used by the writers of the scriptures. The rich man was buried in hades--in hades he lifted up his eyes, Hades, by the learned critics, is said to be a compound of a negative, and, to see; and simply means not to see.

It is the Greek noun by which the grave, or state of the dead, is expressed; and is also used in that language, in a figurative sense, to express any state of darkness, or the absence of light: hence it is said, when men die, "their candle is put out." A state of sin and unbelief is called a state of death and darkness. The Jewish nation, represented by the rich man, was broken off through unbelief-cast into outer darkness-therefore it might be said in truth, that the Israelites, as a nation, died and were buried in (hades) a state of darkness. But the Gentiles, represented by the beggar, who only died to sin, were not buried in hades, (a state of darkness) but were translated from darkness to light-from hades to Abraham's bosom. It is therefore represented in the parable, that the rich man and the beggar had simply changed conditions: (see verse 25.) "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy life timereceivedst thy good things,and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

But Mr. Ray insists that there was a great gulf between the rich man and the beggar, and gravely asks, "If the rich man represents the Jewish nation, and the beggar the Gentiles, what are we to understand by this great gulf? We simply answer, Mr. Ray himself admits this to be a parable, and therefore his question involves, at least, as much difficulty on his hypothesis as it does on mine. And suppose neither he nor myself were able to tell what was intended by this gulf, could our ignorance of that fact have any bearing on the question,as it relates to the general design of this parable? I think not. But as Mr. Ray seems to think the question is pregnant with difficulties, I shall return the question, with ten-fold difficulties, to his own door. If, as Mr. Ray insists, these two individuals were used in the parable to represent the condition of the human family in a future state of existence, I simply ask, will Mr. Ray admit that his heaven is so nearly situated on the borders of his hell, as only to be divided by a gulf, and that they are in conversable distance? Does he believe that the damned in hell, and the saints in heaven, will be on such terms. of intimacy as to hold familiar. conversation with each other? Will children lift up their blazing eyes in hell, and see their fathers in heaven? Will they cry "Father!!!" and be answered, in accents of mildness, by those who gave them existence, "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime had thy good things?" a fine, will prayers of repentance and keen despair salute the ears of tender and sympathizing parents, while

A

they behold their own offspring rolling in liquid flames of burning lava, without being permitted to offer the least mitigation to their pains? When Mr. Ray is prepared to admit that this will be the condition of parents and children in another mode of existence, if he is a rational being, he must also admit his heaven would be a hell, too intolerable for any being to inhabit but infuriated demons, who could look on the miseries of the damned in hell, with complacency and delight.Where is the unfeeling wretch that could covet heaven under these circumstances? Would not death and destruction be more desirable to the soul of piety and philanthropy than such a state of things as this? I can truly say for one, if the orthodox construction of this parable be true, may God, in mercy to my soul, shut the gates of paradise against me for ever--may I never enter heaven to see the miseries of the damned! No! let me rather be stricken out of existence,and sleep in endless death, than to hear a son or daughter cry from the burning lake beyond the awful gulf-"O, my father!" Ah! who could survive the shock, except their feelings should first become as callous as those of the infernal devils, who are supposed to sport and regale themselves with the horrid groans and pains of the damned! I stand astonished and amazed, to see men and women who profess to be the disciples of the tender hearted Jesus, express their hopes of getting to such a heaven as this. But what is still more astonishing, is to see them so unwilling to believe there is a more pleasing prospect before them, than that of seeing their friends in hell: they will fly to every subterfuge to ward off any argument in favour of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind.

But to return to the question.There is not that difficulty Mr. Ray supposes, in giving a meaning to this gulf,on my hypothesis. This impassable gulf was used as a figure to represent the unalterable purpose of God in casting the Jews out of the kingdom of heaven, and from Abraham's bosom.-See Mark iv, 11; John xii, 39, 40. See also Isaiah, chap. vi, 9, 10, 11, 12.

But once more-Mr. Ray insists that the circumstance of the rich man requesting Abraham to send one from the dead to admonish his five brethren, enters a negative on my view of the parable. I recollect of hearing Bishop McKendry once observe, in a discourse on one of our Lord's parables, that it would not answer to make parables crawl on all fours; but that we must simply attend to the general design of the speaker in

using the parable, This advice of the bishop I have found to be of singular advantage to me in studying the parables of Jesus; and if Mr. Ray would attend to this advice, he would not think of making this parable go on all fours, as the bishop calls it. However, to show that Mr. Ray cannot help his cause by straining this parable, I ask, what was it the rich man requested his brethren to be informed of? Was it not the state of torment he was in? And what was the answer of Abraham? Did he not declare that his father's house had Moses and the prophets, and that one from the dead could not inform them more fully on this subject than what they were already informed of by Moses and the prophets? And I will just remark, that the orthodox themselves admit that Moses and all the prophets of Israel preserved the most profound silence about their state of future and endless punishment.Therefore it could not be a state of future and endless punishment which the rich man wished his brethren to be informed of, but a state of punishment foretold by Moses and the prophets; and what punishment was that but the exclusion of the Jews from their former privileges? Moses and all the prophets spake of this state of punishment,but of no other. Hence it clearly follows, even from this part of the parable itself, that my construction is the true one. By consulting the 18th chap. of Deut. from the 15th verse, it will be found that Moses gave as minute a description of the miseries of the Jewish people, from the time they were cast out of the kingdom of heaven to the present time, as could be given by one who had experienced the same. See also Levit. chap. xxvi, from v. 14. Mr. Ray insists on knowing, if this construction of the parable be correct, how it is possible for the Jews to get over this gulf. I answer, when all the Gentiles are brought "into Abraham's bosom," this gulf will be removed by that God who made it, and then it shall come to pass that all Israel (the rich man) shall be saved. See Romans xi, 25, 26, 27.

5th. The phrase hell fire, everlasting,and unquenchable fire, is supposed to mean a fire that is to prey on the souls of men in another state of existence. The following are the places where these phrases occur: Matt. iii, 5, 12, 22; xviii, 8, 9; xxv, 41. Mark ix, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48; and James iii, 6.Mr. Ray relied on these passages, a number of which he reci ted, as evidence of a state of future and endless punishment. The whole strength of his argument on this subject,consisted simply in repeating the passages as they read in the common

version, and in taking it for granted that the vulgar ideas attached to these words and phrases are strictly true. And this method of proving future and endless punishment, will doubtlessly be considered, by those who have not made themselves acquainted with the subject, entirely sufficient to place the matter beyond doubt.

In reply to Mr. Ray's argument on this subject, I will remark, that in every instance where the word fire is connected with the term hell, the word in the Greek, rendered hell is gehenna. Gehenna, says Dr. Adam Clark, is a compound of. two Hebrew words, ghi and hinnom, and means the valley of Hinnom, south east of Jerusalem. Mr. Wesley, on the phrase hell fire, says, "The valley of Hinnom, from whence the word in the original is taken."-See Mr. W.'s notes on Matt. v, 22. Thus it appears Mr. Ray's unquenchable fire was kindled in the valley of the son of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem. Mr. Wesley says, our Lord alluded to this fire, when he spake of hell fire. Mr. Willan, in his united gospel, gives the word gehenna, in all these places, without any rendering. And in a note explains gehenna to mean the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem; and observes, a continual fire was kept burning in this valley, from the days of Josiah, king of Israel,to consume dead carcases and unclean things.-He al so adds, that it was in this same valley that the host of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was destroyed, when 80,000 dead bodies were committed to these flames. For a further explanation of this subject, the reader is referred to my vocabulary on the word gehenna.

Mr. Ray insists that this fire, which was kept burning in the valley of Hinnom, was made an emblem of the punishment of the wicked after death; and hence the term gehenna was used to express an idea of the place of their punishment. I answer, this has been asserted by many of the orthodox divines, but I ask by whom was the term gehenna first used to express an idea of a place of future punishment? Was it ever so used by any writer of the scriptures? I admit that many eminent divines have asserted that it was sometimes used in this sense by our Saviour; but this is barely an assertion, and has never been proven by any writer. And I boldly as sert, without the least fear of successful contradiction, it is not susceptible of proof. Mr. Willan, who may be classed among the best read men in all Europe, has attempted to prove that gehenna was used, in process of time, by the Jews, to exr