has involved him in another absurdity. In these passages Mr. B. says, men are "dissuaded from the fear of man, and the fear of God is strongly inculcated upon them.* But how is this fear inculcated? Not by what God can do in this world, for Mr. B. acknowledges that men do as much as God does in this state, to excite fear. Men can kill the body, and killing the body is killing the life, as far as it relates to the present state. Now if to fear God rather than man is strongly inculcated, God must do something more than to kill the body, and consequently the life, in the present world; and what this something is, Mr. B. has informed us. He says in language already cited, "God is able to destroy the life, or in other words, never raise the person to life again." Here Mr. B. admits that the passage applies to a future state. Men, he says, cannot prevent the life's reanimating the body in a future world, though they can destroy both body and life in this. But God can do more; he can refrain from raising them from the dead. Now as Mr. B. will not pretend that the resurrection of the body takes place in this world, so he is compelled to admit, after all his labor to the contrary, that the fear of God is "strongly inculcated" by the consideration of what God can do in a future state. Mr. B. tells us again and again, that this passage applies to this world, and is confined to the destruction of Jerusalem. But after all this labor, he is constrained to acknowledge that the passage applies beyond the grave.

But after all Mr. B.'s labor to prove that the term soul means animal life, he appears to give it all up, and concludes upon the whole that this term is used expletively, and is a "mere Hebrew idiom." By saying this, he denies that the term soul means animal life, as has already been shown, and need not be repeated again. That Mr. B. does give up the idea, that the soul means animal life, * Inq. p. 189.

and finally espouse his first interpretation, that it is a Hebraism, may be seen by his closing remarks upon these passages, both in the Inquiry and in the Reply.* Yes-before he leaves these passages, he brings up the interpretation he first gave, though this is in direct opposition to the drift of his labors upon the texts.-But Mr. B. tells us that the passage does not say that God will inflict such a punishment, but only that he is able to do it. This part of his interpretation corresponds with yours, and has already been examined. I will however offer one remark upon this statement of Mr. B.'s. He tells us repeatedly that this passage is parallel to Matt. xxiii. 33, and so applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now according to his representation, we must conclude that Jerusalem has not been taken, and never will be; for he tells us, it is not said that God will do it, but only that he is able. As to his remarks that the terms kill and destroy may mean annihilation, I will only observe, that as he contends that this is not his opinion, and that annihilation does not follow on his interpretation of the passage, it does not follow on ours.

I should not have detained you so long in remarking upon Mr. B. had not his Inquiry been esteemed by many almost as an oracle, and had he confined himself to any one interpretation. From what has been offered upon this passage, I trust it is apparent that the term soul signifies the immortal spirit; something which men cannot affect, though they kill the body; and that God is to be feared from the consideration that he is able to destroy, that is, afflict or punish the sinner after death. We have also seen that it must have been probable that such a punishment would be inflicted, otherwise we must charge the Son of God with duplicity; and this interpretation is confirmed by the Savior, who tells us expressly, in the immediate connexion, that those who deny him, shall be denied in return.

* Inq. p. 444. Reply, p. 121.

Your attention is next requested while we attend to Luke xvi. 19 to 31 inclusive. "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulph fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to you, cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets: let them hear: them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

As detecting error is frequently necessary to the discovery of truth, we will, in the first place, examine your interpretation of the passage, and in order thereto, we will notice several observations which have been made

y different advocates for your exposition. We are ometimes told, that unless we admit this to be a parable, ve must understand the whole literally.-But every person who is but superficially acquainted with language, must know that in every literal history, there is some igurative language. Inattention to this plain principle as led to the remarks we are now considering. Mr. Balfour and Mr. Pickering inform us, that on the common interpretation, we must admit that the rich man was punished in a future state, for no other crime than being rich. And Mr. P. adds that the beggar went to heaven, only because he was poor, and full of sores. I shall direct my remarks on this subject entirely to Mr. P. partly because they are not so pertinent on Mr. B.'s exposition of the passage, and partly because we shall examine Mr. B.'s exposition hereafter. Now did it not once occur to Mr. P. that, if there was any difficulty on this subject, he was involved in it, as much as others? On his interpretation he admits, that the rich man expe- rienced deep mental affliction. And I will here submit for the crime of being

the question to him, was this rich? The beggar, he admits, entered into the joys of the gospel. And I ask again, was this solely for being = poor and full of sores? Mr. P. must see that the

absurdity he would charge upon others, is equally chargeable upon himself. If God can punish men in this world, who have never committed any crimes, he can do the same in the future. The principle is the same in both cases, and the latter does not impeach the character of God. any more than the former.

But does Mr. P. believe that the rich man was guilty of no crime? He does not. Though he says, "no crime is specified against him," he contends that the rich man represents the Jewish nation, which for her sins, was

Balfour's Reply, p. 78, and Pickering's Sermon, vs. Carpenter, P $23, &c.

rejected by God. He admits that this parable is parallel to the 25th of Matthew, where the Jews are represented, as he contends, as being rejected for crimes, there enumerated; and also parallel to the parable of the wheat and tares, where he admits that the tares are the children of the devil in character. He contends that the rich man received his punishment in the apostolic age, in which Christ came to reward men according to their deeds. In this manner he admits the rich man to be a sinner, though he is not charged with any crime in the passage in question. Now if Mr. P. will grant others the same liberty which he takes himself, they can easily free themselves from the absurdity which he would fix upon them. Relative to the point before us, I will observe, that as sin and misery are always united, the existence of the one, supposes the being of the other. Any passage of scripture which informs us that any individual is a sinner, virtually tells us, that he is, or will be punished, though the passage itself may express nothing relative to punishment. And so on the other hand, any passage which informs us, that an individual is punished, virtually informs us, that he has committed sin, though nothing of this is expressed in the passage. This is a principle which I am confident Mr. P. will admit, and this entirely does away the force of his statement on which we have been remarking.

Mr. P. indulges himself a little farther, and gives us to understand, that if his representation of the passage be rejected, we must consider it all literal, and so admit the Christian's heaven is the bosom of a man, &c. Now if Mr. P. designed this as a specimen of wit, or a mere play upon words, we grant that it possesses some merit; bnt if he designed it as an argument of any weight, we must say that he has utterly failed of his object. Suppose we should apply the same rules of interpretation to Mr. P.'s own language. Take for instance, not where