ty, of which the narrative of the parable is made. It cannot, because Jesus never intended that the narrative of this parable, or any other, should be regarded as a literal history of facts. It cannot, because no construction should be put upon parables which will make them war with the simplest declarations of scripture.

If we say the one we are considering teaches endless misery, we make it war against the bible and all its direct teachings. That declares, 1. That God has purposed the salvation of all men. "The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." 2. That God's purpose shall be done. His counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. 3. That he has promised the salvation of all men. "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Gal. iii., 8. 4. That he has confirmed his promise by an oath. Wherein, God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." Heb. vi., 17, 18.

Now are we to set parables, dark sayings, doubtful language, against such clear, strong, unequivocal language as the foregoing?

THE PHARISEES WERE PAKTIALISTS.

But Mr. Hatfield says,Jesus must have taught endless misery, for he was a Pharisee, and the Pharisees believed in endless misery, and they

understood him to teach it in the parable under consideration. Mr. Hatfield is right in saying that the Pharisees believed in endless misery. They did, and what a charming people they were! How very kind hearted! How good to widows, and orphans, and the poor! But if Christ taught what they believed, why did they hate him with such a perfect hatred? Why with fiendish hearts, did they hunt him from place to place? Why did they crucify him? and why mock him in his death agonies? Jesus was no Pharisee. There was just about as much agreement between him and the Pharisees, as between Mr. Hatfield and Universalists. I am glad that the Pharisees were not Universalists. If they had been, the fact would be a much stronger argument against the doctrine, than any that Mr. Hatfield has urged against it! No-the murderers of the Savior were not Universalists! Neither were the Sadducees Universalists. They denied a future existence.

Because Jesus said, "Observe what the Pharisees bid you do," Mr. Hatfield thinks he taught what they did. Why, then, their opposition? Had Br. Sawyer been a preacher of endless misery, would Mr. Hatfield have opposed him and sought as he did, to injure his influence? Would he have given him no praise for his indefatigable exertions? none for his exalted purity of character? none for the warm charity of his heart?

The Pharisees were the greatest enemies of Jesus, and those who believe with them are our greatest enemies! Hence when he commanded people to observe what the Pharisees required, he could not have had reference to their

doctrine; for he bade his disciples to beware of the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Yes, their doctrine was false, believe it not. God is no partial being. His grace knows no restriction. He is the friend of the poor and the needy, and his eye of mercy looks upon all with equal favor and equal compassion. He that is our God is a God of salvation.

SERMON VI.

Text-Luke xvi. 19-31. (Same subject continued.) I am to resume, to night, the consideration of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

In my discourse on Sunday evening last, I proved, that the word hell, in the parable, was not used by the inspired writers to signify a place of endless misery; that it was used to signify the state of the dead-of the good and of the bad; that by the resurrection all men will be raised from this state, to one of glory, honor, and immortality-where there is no sin, no suffering; that a parable is a narrative under which something else is figured; that the narrative of a parable may be formed from true or false opinions, from good or bad customs, from facts or suppositions ; that there is nothing more fallacious, than the idea, that Jesus meant to recognize, as true, the particulars of which the narrative of a parable were composed; that to say he did, would make him sanction the heathen notion of demoniacal possessions. We might have shown, that the common idea of a narrative makes Jesus justify

dishonesty; for in the parable of the treasure hid in a field, the narrative represents the man as concealing what he had found, till he had purchased the field; which,as Dr. Barnes says, was dishonest.

DR. BARNES' VIEWS OF THE NARRATIVE OF A

PARABLE.

As my ideas in regard to the narrative of a parable, are so different from those advanced by Mr. Hatfield, and as they are essential to a right understanding of a parable, I will substantiate them by a quotation from Dr. Barnes, one of the ablest writers among the Presbyterians. He says,

"A parable is a narrative of some fictitious or real event, in order to illustrate more clearly, some truth that the speaker wished to communi

cate.

case.

He also says, "It is not necessary to suppose that the narratives were strictly true. The main thing, the inculcation of spiritual truth, was gained equally, whether it was true or only a supposed Nor was there any dishonesty in this. It was well understood, no person was deceived. The speaker was not understood to affirm the thing literally narrated, but only to fix the attention more firmly on the moral truth that he presented."

Let me apply these statements to the parable we are considering, and you will find that they fully sustain my positions relative to its narrative. The narrative of the Rich Man and Lazarus may be fictitious; it may be a supposed case: Jesus was not understood to affirm the thing literally narrated; it was not dishonest to frame a narrative out of suppositions, to use a fiction in order

to illustrate more clearly the truth he wished to communicate.

THE NARRATIVE OF THE PARABLE NOT DESIGNED TO REPRESENT SCENES IN ETERNITY.

According to these views, the question to be considered is not, how could a spirit have eyes and a tongue; how could there be a literal fire in a spiritual world; how could a material fire torment a spirit; how could there be a gulf in a spiritual state; how water there; and why should a gulf obstruct the passage of spirits; but the question is, What does this fictitious narrative represent? what the idea it is used to set forth? Doubtless hundreds are ready with the answerr-It is used to set forth the separation which takes place between the righteous and the wicked at death; the eternity of that separation; the endless happiness of the righteous, and the endless misery of the wicked.

But what reason have we for saying it is used for such a purpose? Do you say we have several reasons-that the death of the two men must represent the natural death of the righteous and the wicked; that the torture of the rich man must represent the torture of the wicked after death; and the bliss of Lazarus must represent the joy of the righteous after death-that the gulf must represent the eternity of the separation made that the expressions "thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted and thou art tormented," make this all certain, and show that the whole narrative is used as a figure of what will take place after death.?

I reply, this reasoning is to me entirely unsatis