no favour, nor even express a desire so to do, it is maintained that parents hereafter in heaven, will see their own natural offspring in hell, without having it in their power to grant them the least favour, or of feeling the least desire thus to do.

In this description of the current opinion and common use of our text, simplicity has been duly regarded, and care taken to avoid giving a false colour to any part of the representation. Much more might be said, but it is believed that the general subject, as commonly understood, has been comprehended.

Secondly. In disproving the foregoing opinion and use of our text, arguments will be brought from the scriptures to show that they are contrary to the scheme of the gospel. It will likewise be shown that the connection in which our text is found, gives no support to the current opinion and common use of the passage. And finally, in the text itself, evidence will be found sufficient to refute the common application of these words.

1st. The gospel is the doctrine of repentance and salvation from sin. Mat. i, 21. "And thou shalt call his name JESUS; for he shall save his people from their sins." Acts v, 31. "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Nothing is more evident, than that the scheme of the gospel designs the repentance and salvation of sinners. But the endless punishment of sinners is totally inconsistent with such a scheme.

The gospel teaches us that God is possessed of GREAT LOVE to sinners. Eph. ii, 4, 5. "But God, who is rich in mercy, for the great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sin, hath quickened us together with Christ." 1st John iv, 10. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." To represent the divine Being as inflicting an unmerciful punishment

on sinners, whom he loves with a GREAT LOVE, and for whom he sent his son to be the propitiation for their sins, is most surely, a very unscriptural and unreasonable representation.

The gospel assures us that God "will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1st Tim. ii, 4.-If this be the will of God, it must be a mistake to suppose that our Saviour taught the doctrine of endless punishment. For it must be supposed that he knew the will of him who sent him, for the accomplishment of which will he came down from heaven. John vi, 38.

Our blessed redeemer teaches us to love mankind with the same manner of love with which sinners are loved of God. Mat. v, 44, 45. If this be the spirit of the gospel, which cannot be denied, the notion that saints in bliss will be spectators of the endless torments of their fellow creatures, and even of their own offspring, without feeling one friendly desire towards them, must be absurd in the extreme.

2d. That the connection in which our text is found, gives no support to the current opinion and common use of the passage, may be seen by a little attention.

Our text is found in connection with a number of beautifully instructive parables occupying the 15th and 16th chapters of St. Luke.

We are informed in the beginning of the 15th chapter as follows; "Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." In reply to this, the Saviour spake the three parables which occupy the whole of the remaining part of the chapter. By the parables of the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the prodigal son, in which was represented the recovery of all that was lost, and the joys of heaven in consequence of the repentance of sinners, he vindicated his cor.duct in receiving sinners and eating with them

The 16th chapter, in which our text is recoraed, begins with the parable of the unjust steward, by which is represented the folly of the Pharisees and Scribes in not improving the law dispensation in a way to introduce them into the everlasting habitations of the gospel. Directly following this parable, Jesus speaks of the continuance of the law and the prophets until John, and of the kingdom of heaven which succeeded them. He says, verse 17. "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." The propriety of this he shows by the following parable, verse 18. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." The next words are those of our text.

Now what is there in all, or in any part of the sayings of Jesus, which go before our text, that gives the least intimation of a subject like the one to which our text is usually applied? Or what is there in all this connection, properly calculated to introduce such a sentiment as we are endeavouring to disprove?

To suppose that he who spake as never man spake, abruptly dropped the subject of the end of the law dispensation, and the introduction of the gospel, or kingdom of heaven, and having no further allusion to this subject, proceeded to give an account of the sin of adultery, which account occupies but one verse, and then again flies directly from this subject, to give a literal account about a rich man and a beggar, in this world and in an eternal state, is so unwarrantable, and so derogatory to the character of the divine orator, that it is a matter of wonder that such an opinion should ever have been honoured with the consent of learned commentators.

3. Let us now look and see if there be not sufficient evidence in the text itself, to refute the common application of it.

Does not the account of the conversation which took place between the rich man and Abraham, naturally suggest the idea of a parable, and disprove the notion of a literal account? If, according to the common opinion, the rich man was in a state of torment, from which no hopes are ever entertained of an escape, why should he have asked of Abraham any assistance? And if infolded in those awful flames which are generally supposed to prey on the miserable hereafter, could the rich man believe that a drop of water on the tip of Lazarus's finger, could be of any use to him?

In Abraham's reply, two particulars are worthy of special notice. 1st. "Son, remember that thou in thy life time receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." In this part of the reply, the idea of equal favour is suggested. As in their former condition, the rich man was favoured more than the beggar, it seems no more than equal that there should be an exchange, and he who was first a beggar, should now be rich, and he who was first rich, should now be the beggar. But according to the common opinion, there is no equality of favours enjoyed by these two persons. There is no proportion between the momentary enjoyments of riches in this world, and the everlasting enjoyments of heaven. Nor is there any proportion between the momentary evils of poverty in this mortal life, and the supposed torments hereafter, which are never to end.

2d. "And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot : neither can they pass to us that would come from thence." In this part of the reply, it is allowed that those who are in Abraham's bosom would go to the rich man, if they were not prevented by the gulf, which also prevents those who would pass from the rich man to Abraham. But if the common opinion of the text be allowed, can any thing be more unac

countable than the desire of those who are in heaven, to go to this place of indescribable torture!

But why should they wish to go? To take up their abode there? Horrible! What then? To relieve some beloved parent, companion, child, brother, sister, or dear friend? The desire to have such relief granted, is not allowed in the common opinion. The candid hearer will see enough in this part of Abraham's reply, to render the general sentiment which we are endeavouring to disprove, very doubtful at least.

Furthermore, why should those in hell wish to pass this gulf, and go to heaven? Have they any desire to see God in his holy dwelling place? Have they hearts to wish to be with Jesus, the brightness of eternal existence? or do they desire the company of the justified? The opinion which we disprove, allows none of these. That wretches in torment should wish to be eased of pain, is reasonable enough ; but why an impassable gulf should be necessary to keep those who hate God, who are enemies to Christ, and to all the holy, and to holiness itself, from going into this society, is what we cannot account for.

Though it be generally thought, that in defence of the doctrine of endiess punishment, this passage of scripture is as a strong city, and this gulf as a commanding fortress, it is confidently believed, that whoever will carefully examine what is said of this gulf, will be fully convinced that its common application is altogether unfounded.

More might be said, if more were required, to show from the text under consideration, that its common use is a manifest perversion. But relying on the candor of the hearer, and believing that the arguments already educed, are sufficient for the purpose for which they are designed, we may proceed, as was proposed.

Thirdly. To seek for the true meaning of our text, which we shall now call a parable.

In order to proceed in a proper manner, it is ne