7th, We do not suppose that it will be doubted that this account of the rich man is a parable. If so, we beg leave to ask, why a parable, in which Hades is once mentioned, must be so very differently understood, from all other texts where the same place is mentioned. This is a solitary exception to all the other texts where Hades or Sheol occur in the Old or New Testaments. If Hades, the same as Sheol, be indeed a place of torment, how could it be said, "that there is no knowledge, nor device, nor wisdom" in this place? Was the rich man tormented in the flame of Hades, yet had no knowledge of it? We have seen from the last section, that Sheol is always represented as a place of silence and insensibility, except in places where figurative descriptions are given of it. If this place had become a place of torment in the days of our Lord, it is very evident that it was not known as such in the days of Moses and the prophets. We ask then, at what period it became a place of torment? And did the wicked in those days suffer any punishment there? For all good and bad went to Sheol.

To understand Hades then in this parable, to signify a place of actual torment, would be at variance with the uniform usage of both these words throughout the bible.

We have seen in a quotation from Whitby on the last passage, that the idea of Hades being a place of punishment after death, was derived from the heathen. Now I admit, that to this heathen notion our Lord might allude in the parable before us. The Jews had, in our Lord's day, imbibed many heathen notions, and this one among the rest. But it is one thing for a sacred writer to allude to, or even speak according to the language of the popular opinions of the day, and quite another to recognise these opinions as truth. To illustrate what I mean by an example or two: Our Lord says, "ye cannot serve

God and mammon." But who would infer from this, that he meant to recognise the God mammon? Again; Paul says, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you." But was any man to conclude from this that Paul believed in the doctrine of witchcraft, he would certainly draw a very wrong inference from his words. I might illustrate this by many more examples if it were necessary. But, instead of referring to other examples in scripture, I shall take one or two from our own common every-day language. A person says, such a one has got St. Anthony's fire, and another has got St. Vitus' dance. But does any one think that this person meant that these saints had any influence in producing these disorders? I presume not. Supposing such statements to be printed in some medical work, and this book to be read by medical men eighteen hundred years hence-were they to infer that medical men in these days believed such saints. were the agents who produced such diseases-can any man believe, that they understood the language of this book correctly, or formed a just idea of the science or the common sense of medical men among us? No; I venture to say, that neither a quack nor a clown is to be found so ignorant, who would not smile at such a gross misapprehension. If we would then understand the scriptures correctly, we must ascertain by all the means in our power, what is there delivered as truths and facts to be believed on God's authority, and what are mere allu sions to popular opinions. The man who has not yet learned the importance of this distinction in studying his bible, has overlooked one very essential rule of scripture interpretation.

In further proof that the Jews in our Lord's day had imbibed many heathen notions, and among the rest, that Hades was a place of rewards and punishments, I might

here quote Dr. Campbell on this very parable. But the quotation will be more appropriately introduced when we come to consider the word Tartarus, also rendered hell in the co mon version. See the next section.

8th, We have seen that the Old Testament represents persons as speaking out of Sheol or hell, and that conversations were held there. But we presume no one ever thought this a reality, but a poetical licence, or a mere figurative description. But in this parable a dialogue takes place between the rich man and Abraham. The rich man is in torment, and this is believed to be a fact, yet the very dialogue, part of which is about this torment, is believed to be a fiction. Such as believe so, are bound to assign reasons why they take such liberties in their interpretations of the divine oracles. We have insisted that the parable ought to be either interpreted literally throughout, or this literal interpretation of a part abandoned. It must be allowed, we think, that this is a rational and fair way of interpreting the bible. Supposing that the rich man's being in torment, is no more to be interpreted literally, than the dialogue said to have taken place between him and Abraham. Yea, let us understand Hades here to signify the grave or state of the dead. All that is said in the parable, is in agreement with this; for the rich man seems to have a body there; and it is also in perfect agreement with the representa, tions given about Sheol in the Old Testament, except that Hades is a place of torment. Nothing in the parable but this, would strike any person with surprise, as materially different from what is said about Sheol by the ancient prophets. A very important question then arises, how is this exception to be accounted for, and how are we to be satisfied that our Lord did not, in this parable, teach that Hades is a place in which persons are tormented after death. A satis

factory answer to this, must put to rest the contention that this parable teaches the doctrine of future misery. Keeping in view the remarks already made, we offer the following reply, which to our own mind is satisfactory.

1st, What is said about Hades being a place of torment, is but once mentioned in the New Testament, and it occurs in this parable. It is remarkable enough that it should only be mentioned once, but still more so, that this should be in a parable. Had it occurred in a plain narrative, and when our Lord was plainly speaking on the subject of a future state, it might be thought that he did teach such a doctrine. But even in this case, its only being mentioned once, would lead us to hesitate, and at least carefully examine if this one instance was not susceptible of a different interpretation. The importance of the subject naturally leads us to think that it would be mentioned more than once, and that it is possible we might mistake the sense our Lord meant to convey in this one passage. We think we may fairly leave it to any candid man to say, if Hades be a place of torment after death, whether our Lord would only mention this once, and only in a parable. If the resurrection of the dead, a life of happiness after death, or any other important doctrine, was only mentioned once, and that too in a parable, would a very solid foundation be laid for our faith in them? Should we not rather have cause to suspect, that no such doctrines were revealed, but that it was only a part of the imagery of the parable?

2d, But whether our Lord meant in this parable to teach that Hades was a place of torment, ought to be decided by the manner in which his apostles understood this parable. Let us suppose, that they understood it as it is generally understood by most religious people in our day. If they did, it is an indisputable fact, that they

never spoke of it as such in their preaching and writings to mankind. Not an instance, nor any thing like it, is to be found, where the apostles ever spoke of Hades as a place of torment for any being in the universe of God. They neither speak of it as a place of temporary, nor of eternal misery, as is notorious from all the places where they say any thing about Hades in their writings. Let it be remembered that what they heard in the ear from our Lord in parables, they were to proclaim upon the house tops. They heard the parable under consideration; but I ask where, or when, or how, did they proclaim in any manner, that Hades was a place of torment? The apostles make mention of Hades in their writings, but never speak of it as a place of punishment. Our Lord's mode of teaching was, in a great measure, and for certain reasons, by parables. But what he taught in this way, the apostles were to teach plainly, and without any parable. But where did they ever do this, showing, either plainly, or even obscurely, that Hades was a place of torment? The case here ought to be reversed. It was our Lord who taught this doctrine plainly, in a parable, and the apostles taught it by being altogether silent on the subject; which if any one chooses, he may call a parable, but one more difficult to find this doctrine in, than the one before us, and one not less difficult to explain.

The apostles were inspired teachers, and were as capable of forming a correct idea of our Lord's meaning, as any preacher in our day. Can any rational man suffer himself to think that the apostles understood this parable as most preachers do now, yet never say that Hades or hell was a place of torment for the wicked?— Did they indeed believe, that at death every wicked man lifted up his eyes in hell, and was tormented in its flame, yet never taught it to any of their hearers? This para