udgment to come without employing the word gehenna, then we might expect to find this word in every instance where the retributions of eternity are alluded to; but this is far from being the case. How many times have you heard persons of evangelical sentiments express their belief in a coming judgment without using the word hell? Did you infer that they did not believe the doctrine because they did not use the word hell? By no means.

As to the word tartarus, rendered hell, it occurs but once in the Bible. It is a word with which the Jews seem not to have been familiar. It was employed by the Greek poets and orators to denote the infernal world, or the place or state in which wicked angels and men were to suffer the consequences of sin. Peter, in addressing those who "were scattered abroad," where this word was known and used, makes use of it to describe the present condition of fallen angels. "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." 2 Pet. 2: 4.

Grove, a Greek Lexicographer, defines the word thus :"Tartarus, the infernal regions, hell of the poets, a dark place, prison, dungeon, jail, the bottomless pit, hell." The sense which the Greeks attached to it may be learned from the manner in which it is employed by Homer. Hear him.

"Oh! far! oh far from steep Olympus thrown,
Low in the deep Tartarian gulf shall groan,
That gnlf, with iron gates and brazen ground,

As deep beneath the infernal centre hurled
As from the centre to the etherial world.
No sun e'er gilds the gloomy horrors there,
No cheerful gales refresh the lazy air,

But murky Tartarus extends around."

Had I room I might extend my quotations; but it is unnecessary. No intelligent, honest man will deny that the word tartarus was employed by the Greeks in the apostolic age to denote a place or state of future sufferings. Peter must have been understood then by his readers, as teaching the doctrine of punishment in the eternal world for apostate intelligencies. Universalists understand the word angels as employed by Peter to refer to man, and not to angels in the ordinary acceptation of that word. If this should be admitted, it would make the testimony of Peter still stronger against you. The import of hades will be considered hereafter. Yours as ever.

LETTER XX.

My Dear Sir

I cannot adopt your religious views, because our Saviour has taught the doctrine of future retributuion, so distinctly, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. "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 boson. 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 gulf 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 wouldst send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testily unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said 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. Luke 16; 19-31.

Now our Saviour has been understood by all learned and good men, of every age of the church, to teach here, in the clearest and most emphatic manner, that the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished after death; and this you will not deny, is the natural, common sense interpretation.But Universalists affect to believe that this is not the true interpretation. What then, let me ask, is the true sense and import of this parable? I appeal to Hosea Ballou, your oldest and most popular preacher, for an answer. He has given an interpretation, which with some trifling modifications, is gen

erally adopted by your preachers and authors. According to his exposition the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was designed to teach and illustrate the taking away of religious truth and privileges from the Jews, and giving them to the Gentiles. He tells us that "the Rich Man is the Jewish High Priest," that "his riches consisted in the righteousness of the law," that the beggar represents the Gentiles, that the table of the Rich Man, from which he desired to be fed, is none other than the table of stone, on which the oracles of God were written," that the crumbs which the beggar desired, aud which the rich man was unwilling to give, denote religious instruction,-that the dogs which came and licked the sores of the beggar, were the heathen philosophers, such as Socrates, and Plato, who endeavored to cure the moral infirmities of their disciples by their philosophy,—that the beggar's death represents the death of the Gentile world to idolatry ; and that after this death to idolatry, they were carried by the angels (Apostles)-to Abraham's bosom, that is, they are converted to the faith of Abraham;—the death of the rich man, Mr. Ballou informs us represents the "close of the dispensation of which the high priest was minister, and that his burial de notes "his being closed up in the earthly character and nature." This is incomprehensible to me, but no matter. Lifting up his eyes in hell, represents the high priest feeling conviction of the condemning power of the law; seeing Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom, indicates the fulfilment of those words of our Saviour,-"Ye shall then come from the east and from the west; from the north and south" &c. Lazarus being willing to go to this Rich Man, implies a Missionary spirit among the converted Gentiles with regard to the Jews; and the GREAT GULPH an indisposition on the part of the Almighty to have this spirit gratified, the father of the high priest was Moses, his father's house, the dispensation of the law, his five brethren that part of the house of Israel, represented by the five foolish virgins. See Ballou on the Parables. p. p. 252-256.

Now to this miserable tissue of nonsense and folly, I re*ply,

1. This explanation is forced and unnatural; it is evidently invented to get rid of a difficulty, and sustain a dogma. It could not have suggested itself to those who heard the adorable Redeemer. If it be then, the true interpretation Jesus must have designedly bewildered and deceived the minds of his hearers.

2. The Universalist exposition of this parable violates acknowledged principles of sound biblical interpretation. It is an acknowledged rule of parabolic interpretation, that every parable is designed to inculcate and illustrate some one essential truth. For example;-the parable of the good Samaritan was designed to illustrate the doctrine and duty of universal benevolence. The parable of the Prodigal son was designed to illustrate the mercy of God toward penitent sinners. Well now, your interpretation violates this rule. If the Saviour designed to teach and illustrate the giving of the gospel to the Gentiles, so far as his hearers were concerned, yea, moreover in relation to the many hundreds of thousands of his saints in subsequent ages, he evidently made a dreadful failure. It does not appear that a single individual of all our race from the days of Christ till 1818, ever imagined that Christ intended any such idea by this parable. If your doctrine is the truth of God then, in this instance at least, Jesus was so unfortunate as to darken counsel by words, and universally deceive his followers for eighteen hundred years.

Again. It is an acknowledged principle in the interpretation of parables, that the sentiment which the parable was designed to illustrate, is mainly to be learned from the circumstances in which it was spoken, the preceding or following context. By looking at almost any parable, you will see the propriety of this rule. Take the parable of the publican and Pharisee. Why was this parable uttered? Because there were certain persons present, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others. Why did Christ deliver the parable of the good Samaritan? Because the young ruler asked, "Who is my neighbor?" The parable was the answer to this question. Go through the New Testament and you will see that this rule is applicable to all the parables. Now your exposition of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, is a violation of this rule of sound criticism. Neither in the preceding or the following context, does Christ say one word about taking the gospel from the Jews and giving it to the Gentiles, nothing about the Jewish High Priest's being rich in the "righteousness which is of the law,"-nothing about the spiritual poverty and moral infirmities of the Gentiles, which their philosophers labored in vain, as dogs, to heal. On the contrary, Christ wa discoursing on the subject of the wickedness of those who served Mammon, the god of riches. He told the Jews present, that they could not serve God and Mammon. "The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things, and derided

bim." Luke 16: 14, 15. As Christ proceeded to rebuke the Pharisees for their worldliness and self-righteousness, he perceived that they were deriding him for his remark, that they could not serve God and Mammon; he stopped short and proceeded immediately to illustrate the subject by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.-How natural! How easy!But your interpretation is stiff, unnatural, far-fetched, violates important rules of biblical interpretation, and is evidently invented to sustain a system; it should therefore be rejected.

3. Many positions assumed in the Universalist interpretation, as facts, are not facts. It is not true that the Jewish high priests were rich; they were generally poor. It is not true that the Gentile world (your beggar) ever manifested any desire to be fed from the two tables of the law. They were prejudiced against the Jews and their religion, and continue so till this day. It is not true that the word rendered table in this parable and that rendered table in those passages which refer to stones containing the law, are the same. They are different words in the original, and have a different import. It is not true that the Jewish high priest, or that the Jewish nation, as a people, were ever unwilling to feed the Gentiles (your beggar) with crumbs of instruction from their moral or ceremonial law. On the contrary, they have always manifested a desire to have the Gentiles converted to the faith of Abraham. So warm was their zeal, in this matter, that our Savior testifies, that in his day, they "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte." It is not true that the Gentiles (the beggar) have ever died to idolatry, and by the angels (apostles) been carried into Abraham's bosom-the Christian Church. No.The Gentile world now, as in the days of Christ and his Apostles, lies in wickedness. Six hundred millions of Gentiles, a vast majority of the whole, are idolaters still. The beggar then, upon the whole, is not yet dead. In fact there is so much taken for granted, which is contrary to fact, in this explanation, and so much that is forced, far-fetched, nonsensical and absurd, that I confess myself amazed, that any man of common honesty and common sense, can be found, who will receive it.

4. I object to the attempt of Universalist expositors to explain away this parable, because if we should admit their position and grant them all that they have asked, still it would teach the doctrine of a future retribution. This I will endeavor to make plain. Bear in mind then this important rule in parabolic interpretation, and it is a rule without exception, viz: Parables are founded on facts and not on fiction. Du