this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost." (Acts viii. 46-52.) See also to the same effect, Acts xxviii. The scene there described, took place at Rome, and the members of a Jewish synagogue in that city were the party addressed. "Go unto this people, and say, Hearing, ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing, ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves." (26-29.)

I flatter myself that the parables of Chist, in the light of this application of them, are changed from obscure and unintelligible enigmas, into beautiful and pertinent representations of fact. I am persuaded that no one of them was ever intended to represent the eternal affairs of mankind, and the popular attempt to apply them in that manner, has but served to strip them of their point and beauty.

Before I close I will briefly answer the argument founded on the antithesis in the last verse of the passage under consideration. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." I grant that the same Greek adjective which qualifies the life of the righteous, also qualifies the punishment of the wicked-what then? must the things thus contrasted necessarily be of the same duration? I could certainly produce many scriptural antitheses in which the contrasted terms are not equivalent to each other: neither will it be safe to assume that the same adjective when applied to different things in the same connexion, must always be allowed the same strength of meaning;

for by this rule I could prove the hills and mountains equal in duration to the ways of God: "The everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow, his ways are everlasting." (Hab. iii. 6.) Here is the same word occurring three times in a verse, and requiring an infinite signification in one instance, and a limited meaning in the other two. If it even be allowed, however, that the antithetical terms in Matthew are of equal signification, it will not thence follow that the punishment was to be endless, except it can be proven that the life was to be so: but this will not be undertaken by any one who has observed the new testament usage of the phrase eternal life: this expression does not refer to the immortal existence of the future state, but the divine renovation of mind enjoyed by believers in the gospel. "This is life eternal, that men may know thee, the only, true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;" (John xvii. 2.) and he that hath this knowledge, "HATH everlasting life-IS PASSED from death unto life." (John iii. 36.) It was precisely to the state of blindness, ignorance, and condemnation, contrasted with this state of gospel life, that the Jewish rejectors of Christ were adjudged. Now if the everlasting life possessed by the believer be no more than an endless, or an immortal existence, wherein is he distinguished from the unbeliever, for the latter will also exist immortally? It must be obvious, that the term eternal, when connected with life in the scriptures, has reference to the divine nature or quality of that life, and not to its duration.

STRICTURES ON THE FOREGOING.

My dear travellers to eternity, this is an inquiry of awful magnitude one which ought to engage our most serious consideration. I have always regarded this portion of scripture as a description of the last judgment, in which the fates of men will be settled for eternity but the gentleman who preceded me has employed much ingenuity and a most fatal ability for wresting the scriptures, for the purpose of showing that the passage before us has no such meaning: to unravel and expose all his ingenious sophistry surpasses my powers, for he has in his argument so dexterously blended what is false with what is true, that it would

task the keenest discrimination to analyse and exhibit them separately. Without attempting, therefore, a labored review of his entire argument, I shall confine myself to the office of pointing out its principal defects.

1st. He argued that the separation spoken of in the text, is a separation of nations, not of individuals according to moral classifi cation; I admit that a strict grammatical analysis of the language would favor this view; but it cannot be that Christ intended any such meaning, for we do not find whole nations to be righteous, nor whole nations to be wicked, and therefore nations, as such, are not liable to reward, or punishment; but the good and bad individuals in each will, in the great day, be dealt with according to their respective doings in life.

2nd. Before he can prove that the "fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” is a circumstance of time, he must prove that the devil and his angels are inhabitants of this world; but this he cannot do. He tells us, to be sure, that the devil means simply an adversary, and that the term angels, means messengers or agents, and that both these terms are applied frequently to human beings. All this I grant; but still I find devils spoken of in the scriptures in reference to fallen spiritual beings, once angels of light, but now degraded from their beatified statetheir leader is by the prophet Isaiah called "Lucifer, son of the morning." Christ tells us concerning him, that "he was a mur derer from the beginning, and abode not in truth.” These devils used to possess men in the days of the saviour, and we have accounts of their speaking, tearing people, throwing them into the fire, and water: they also entered into a herd of swine, and caused them to drown themselves in the sea. In Revelation we are told about a war in heaven between the angelic and infernal hosts; and of the latter being overcome, and chained down in the pit of perdition. Yet universalists tell us that the terms devil, Satan, Beelzebub, and the like, are but figures of speechmere personifications-evil principles-diseases-afflictions, &c., invested with ideal personality! I, on the contrary, with all orthodox christians, maintain that these terms belong to a class of evil beings; once angels of light, but now arrayed in deadly hostility against God and the souls of men. Let my opponent disprove this view if he can.

3d.-I affirm, that no such coming, as is described in the text, has ever yet come to pass. Did the saviour descend in clouds during the lifetime of those who heard him speak? Did he actually gather before him all nations? Did the stars fall from heaven? Does history furnish a record of any such events? Surely not; the heavens and the earth still endure as formerly; we have ocular evidence that no such events as were to accompany the coming of Christ, have ever yet occurred. What follows then? It follows that said coming is not already past, but is yet to take place. Our friend must not hope to argue us out of our eyes and ears.

4th. I admit the destruction of Jerusalem to be the main theme of Mat. xxiv, yet I insist that it has also a reference to a general judgment at the close of time; this will appear evident if we attend to the inquiries of the disciples at the beginning of the chapter: "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him, for to show him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, his disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (1-3.) Here we find questions relative to three great events. 1st. The destruction of the temple. 2nd. The sign of his coming to judge the world and 3rd, the end of time, when said coming shall actually take place. To each of these inquiries the chapter contains a distinct answer. True, we cannot point to the precise line, or verse, where the answer to one of these questions closes, and that to the next in order begins; the transitions from one to the other are so sudden, and the language applied to all so bold and so similar, that many have been led into the mistake of supposing, that these events were to happen simultaneously, or at least in rapid succession. Into this very blunder the universalists have fallen: hence they tell us that Christ's second coming has already transpired, and that we of this day, have no further concern with it than as a matter of sacred history!

5th. I scarcely know how to approach the novel, (and, I will own, ingenious,) application of the parables, with which we

have been entertained: I acknowledge it was smoothly and plausibly spun out; I shall not attempt a formal refutation of it; it ought to suffice as proof of its incorrectness that it is opposed to seven eighths of all christendom, in past and present ages. However, as his cause obtains much apparent scriptural countenance from this mode of applying these beautiful allegories, I will endeavour to maintain the old ground, by pointing out those parts of his attempt which were particularly lame and objectionable.

And first comes up the subject of the rich man and Lazarus-the last passage in the bible which I should have dreamed of hearing applied to favor universalism! but what will not human ingenuity attempt? Now I will quash at once my opponent's plausible use of this text, by showing that it is not a parable at all, but a literal narration of fact. It is not introduced as parables usually are-it is not prefaced with the remark, "and he spake a parable unto them;" or "the kingdom of heaven is likened unto,” &c. On the contrary, Christ directly says, "There was a certain rich man." On which, with Mr. Wesley, and others, I argue, "there was such a person, or there was not: if there was, then is the passage a plain recital of fact; if there was not, it follows that Christ asserted a falsehood." I defy my opponent to extricate himself from this dilemma! Another thing deserving notice in this connexion is, that Josephus, in his dissertation concerning Hades, (the hell to which the rich man went) describes it in a manner extremely corroborative of the orthodox views concerning this terrible text: he must be regarded as the highest authority for Jewish opinions in the days of the saviour: and according to him, Hades contained the souls of all the dead, both good and bad, and is to continue as a receptacle of them until the last judgment; when the good will be admitted to Paradise, and the bad doomed to flames for eternity: meanwhile these are now kept separate by an impassable gulf. How exactly accordant with the saviour's account of the post-mortem condition of the rich man and Lazarus! And oh! my friends, that gulf! that dreadful gulf! which cuts off to the damned all hope of escape forever! Universalism can construct no bridge across it which will not crumble under a lost spirit's tread. Let me entreat you not to rest your hopes on any such air-built superstructure!

I notice next the ten virgins-which I admit is a parable, and