The learned orthodox themselves, when writing as critics, admit that aion, and its adjective aionios, are both used to express a limited time-the lifetime of a man, or even the age or lifetime of a child, if it should die at one day old: and notwithstanding,when they are called on for proof of their doctrine of future and endless punishment, they gravely come forward and predicate their arguments on the words everlasting and eternal, rendered from the two Greek words in question, as if a corrupt rendering of these two words would alter the nature of the facts expressed by them in their proper language, or make that a truth which was false before. And what is most remarkable in this affected ignorance, they admit at the same time that the words everlasting and eternal are both used to express the limited existence of things which had their beginning and ending in this mode of existence.

3d. Mr. Ray's next evidence of future and endless punishment, to which I refer the reader, was 2 Thessalonians, chap. i. 7, 8, 9:-"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." " Here Mr. Ray took it for granted, that the time alluded to, when the Lord Jesus was to be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance, &c. was at an orthodox day of judgment, and that the punishment of course was future, and as it was said to be everlasting destruction, he insisted it was both future and endless.

The whole weight of evidence drawn from this passage of scripture in favour of the doctrine in question, rests on a mistaken view of the time here alluded to. It is admitted by all that this revelation of the Lord Jesus in flaming fire, was to be made manifest at the "coming of the Son of Man," and as I have proved in my original essay that this coming of the Son of Man has long since transpired, and that the aionian or ever lasting destruction here spoken of, was that national calamity which came on the disobedient Jews, the reader will there see the passage illustrated, and shown to have a direct reference to Daniel's vision of one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven to receive a kingdom, I shall here omit any farther notice of this passage, and attend to Mr. Ray's next are gument.

After I had produced the learned definition of orthodox critics, on the original words rendered everlasting and eternal, Mr. Ray observed, I might tear out all the everlastings and eternals in the bible, and he could still prove future and endless punishment. He then repeated the passages in Matt. xii, 32, and Mark iii, 29, which have already been considered.

4th. Mr. Ray finding himself, again in the back ground, next referred to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi, 19. This parable I need not insert; the reader can turn to it and read the whole of the subject of which this is a part, which commences with the 15th and concludes with the 16th chapter of Luke. Mr. Ray admitted this to be a parable, but insisted it was intended to represent facts which were to transpire in another mode of existence. "Therich man," said Mr. Ray, "died; and in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torment: here," said he, "is proof of future punishment--the rich man was tormented after death; and that in hell-the place of damned spirits, where all impenitent sinners will go after death,and where they will for ever be tormented in these flames of hell." "Bless the Lord!" cried one of his brethren: "Amen!” said another. I could not tell, for my life, whether they were rejoiced to think their brother was getting along so well with his arguments, or at the prospect of seeing impenitent sinners in the flames of hell! but so it was--the poor creatures appeared much animated.

Mr. Ray insisted there were many parts of this parable which would not admit of any other construction than the one he gave it: such as the rich man dying, being in torment after death, the impassable gulf; the rich man's five brethren, &c. He here read a lengthy manuscript, containing a sarcastic taunt on the views which universalists entertain on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This gibe of orthodox piety was truly worth being preserved; but it appears Mr. Ray thought it best to keep this religious pun from public scrutiny as well as the rest of his arguments. However, my recollection will serve to give a faint resemblance of this child of pious orthodox sneer. In this manuscript the universalists were represented as saying-"The rich man died, but was still alive, in hell, the grave; lifted up his eyes to a perfect level--seeing Abraham afar off,in the same place with himself--and Lazarus--the Gentiles in his bosom-he cried, Father Abraham, send the Gentiles," &c.

The only difference I discovered in Mr. Ray's method of treating the subject from that of the orthodox generally, he admitted it to be a parable, while he reasoned from it as a simple fact. In this he was not as consistent as Mr. Wesley, who supposed that the rich man and Lazarus were both well known in the land of Judea, and that our Lord simply related the ditions of those individuals in another mode of existence.

con

This parable, according to Dr. Whitby, is to be found almost entire in an ancient Jewish work, which was written long before the days of our Saviour. Some suppose St. Luke quoted it from memory, to embellish his gospel; as none of the rest of the evangelists make any mention of this parable; neither does Luke say directly that our Saviour spake it. The well known fact that Luke was not an eye or an ear-witness of what he wrote, gives some colouring to this idea.--However, the common opinion is, that our Saviour made use of this parable in the course of his ministry. Among the orthodox writers there is a difference of opinion with respect to the sense in which it was used by our Saviour. Theophylact, Metropolitan of Bulgaria, who wrote commentaries on the four gospels, in the eleventh century, on this part of Luke's gospel, says, "This is a parable, and not, as some have thought, a history; our Lord spake figuratively." His note on this parable, is lengthy, and in substance precisely what a universalist would say about it. He says it is an allegory, and explains it as such. "By the rich man," says Theophylact, "is signified the Jewish people, for they were formerly rich, abounding in all divine knowledge, wisdom, and instruction, which are more excellent than gold or precious stones. they were arrayed in purple and fine linen, as they possessed a kingdom and a priesthood, and were themselves a royal priesthood to God. The Levites were clothed in sacerdotal vestments of fine linen; and they fed sumptuously every day. But Lazarus was the Gentile people: poor in divine grace and wisdom, and lying before the gate; for it was not permitted the Gentile to enter the house itself, because they were considered a pollution." Theophylact then goes on to quote scripture in proof of this construction of the parable.

And

James Bate, M. A. and Rector of Deptford, gives the same construction to this parable. "We will suppose, then," says he, "the rich man who fared so sumptuously to be the Jews, so amply enriched with the heavenly treasure of divine revelation. The poor beggar who lay at his gate, in so miserable a

plight, was the poor Gentiles; now reduced to the last degree of want, in regard to religious knowledge." Bate's remarks on this parable are also lengthened, and in substance, with Theophylact.

These writers, although in my opinion, they have given the true sense of the parable, have not offered the most substantial reasons for their construction, which might be offered.— Notwithstanding there are several circumstances in favour of the idea, that the parable was not used by our Saviour in his ministry, but brought in, by the bye, for a further illustration of the foregoing parables, it does not lessen its importance, nor alter the sense in which it was used by the writer. According to Dr. Whitby, it was evidently a quotation, if used by our Saviour; and if quoted by Luke for embellishment, and for the purpose of illustrating the parables of our Lord, which he had just recited, it would follow that he used it in a sense consistenț with his views of the faregoing parables.

I shall here offer a few reasons which I have never seen of fered by any writer, in favour of the supposition that the parable was quoted by St. Luke only, and that he used it in the sense which Theophylact and Bate supposed it to be used by our Saviour. The most evident circumstance which influences my judgment in favour of this parable being quoted by Luke, as above hinted, is the manner in which it is introduced. By a close examination it will be found, that the 15th and 16th chapters of Luke's gospel embrace but one discourse of our Saviour, in which he uses a number of parables, as I shall show directly; in all these parables, excepting that of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke is careful to preface his relation by saying, "And he spake this parable unto them." "And he said," &c. &c. But when he comes to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he relates it as something of his own, which did not belong to the narrative. He does not introduce it in the name, nor as in the person of the Saviour, but speaks as in his own person, "There was a certain rich man, &c. If St. Luke had intended to have been understood as relating this as any part of the Saviour's discourse, he would no doubt have introduced it as he did the other parts of the narrative, by prefacing, "And he said unto them, there was a certain rich man," &c. but this he has not done, although he was careful to do it on all other occasions.

These remarks are not intended to lessen the authority of this passage: I admit its authenticity, but with me, it has every

mark of being quoted by Luke, as above stated, and ought to have as much authority as any other part of Luke's writings, with a due regard to its originality.

I shall now point out to the reader what I consider to be the most conclusive evidence in favour of the construction which Theophylact and Bate have given to this passage. I have already remarked, that the 15th and 16th chapters of Luke's gospel embrace but one discourse of our Saviour. The 15th chapter is introduced by St. Luke in the following manner: "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." This circumstance gave rise to a number of parables-the first was concerning a lost sheep out of a flock of one hundred; ninety-nine of which went not astray. This parable was intended as a gentle reproof to the Pharisees and scribes, because they murmured at the Saviour for receiving sinners and eating with them. The characters here called sinners were simply Gentiles: "Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners.". It is well known that publicans, i. e. tax gatherers, were of the Gentile tribes generally, and of the poorer classes. Sinners was a common appellation by which Gentiles were distinguished from the Jews: hence St. Paul's observation-"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." These sinners of the Gentiles were represented in the parable under the character of a lost sheep. Our Saviour, in order to justify his conduct towards these sinners of the Gentiles, represented to the murmuring Jews, the more special care and deep interest a shepherd would manifest toward a sheep that was lost. By the sheep which went not astray, the Saviour of sinners intended to represent the Jews, not in the character he viewed them, but the character in which they viewed themselves, as not having gone astray.-He next exemplifies the same thing in the case of a woman who had ten pieces of silver, and having lost one, turned her whole attention to the piece which was lost. The Saviour then informed the murmuring pharisees and scribes, that there should be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than ninety-nine just persons who needed no repentance.After having shown that there would be great joy in the presence of the angels of God at the repentance of one sinner, such as he had just ate and drank with, he spoke another parable, in which he represented the Jews and these sinners of the