being founded on better promises; because the law is to be put in the heart, &c. See Hebrews, 7th and 8th chapters. But if the new covenant expose sinners to a punishment not mentioned in the old, wherein is it better? We must look a little to this new covenant, and see what it is. For even if the new covenant promises blessings not mentioned in the old, i. e. eternal blessings, yet, if it contain eternal curses also, and the greater portion of the human race will finally endure those curses, in what does the better qualities of this new covenant consist?

I shall not take up every passage in the New Testament which is supposed to prove future, and, by some, eternal punishment, as this will better come under our consideration in the last lecture, but shall only mention a passage which has been considered as forcible as any; and unless the doctrine alluded to be contained in the passage I shall name, it is not at all likely it will be found in the Bible. I allude to the parable of the sheep and goats! for this doctrine has ever been supported, or attempted to be supported, more from parables, visions, and allusions, than from any direct testimony.

The parable to which I allude is found in the gospel of St. Matthew, 25th chapter, 31st and 46th verses, inclusive. Unless the reader has the parable perfectly in his recollection, he is requested to turn to it. The words on which future and eternal punishment has been supposed to be predicated, and by which it is thought to be proved, are these. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! And these shall go away !into everlasting punishment!*

In order to a clear understanding of the doctrine

*For a full explanation and illustration of this parable, see Notes on the Parables, p. 153.

contained in this parable, it will be necessary to inquire, first, what those who are pronounced blessed, are blessed for? and, secondly, on what is this curse predicated?-or for what are those on the left hand cursed?

1. "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom," &c. Why? "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink," &c. Now, kind reader, on what is this blessing predicated? Answer: On feeding the hungry, &c. Is it possible, then, that this should be the blessing of immortality? There is nothing said in this parable respecting the resurrection of the dead; nor of that salvation which is not according to the works of righteousness which we have done; but which is purely of grace, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. To apply this blessing, therefore, to the immortal state of man, is evidently a mistake. Our Saviour was speaking of no such subject, nor in reference to any such period; as will evidently appear by reading his whole discourse on this occasion; which commences at the 4th verse of the 24th chapter, and ends with the 25th; i. e. with this parable; and on examination it will be seen that he confines the whole to the then present generation. This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled. The truth of this will more fully appear, by consulting Matt. xvi. 27, 28. Mark, viii. 38. ix. 1. Luke, ix. 26, 27: where the coming of the Son of man in his glory, &c. is spoken of; and in all the passages referred to his coming is confined to the lifetime of some of those then present. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the awful judgments which fell on that devoted nation, the Jews, is undoubtedly (i. e. in the opinion of your humble servant) the burden of this parable, as well as of many other predictions, both in the Old and the New Testament. See Dan. xii.

1, 2, 3. John, v. 25, 28. 2 Thess. i. 6-10: all of which passages, I conceive have reference to the same subject, and were fulfilled at the same time.*

This will lead us to see what is contained in the denunciation, Depart ye cursed, &c. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment. This is the language of law: for it is written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Deut. xxvii. 26. Gal. iii. 10.) So it is said to those on the left hand, Depart ye cursed! Why? "For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat," &c. So it must be perceived that they were cursed for the neglect of those very things, for the doing of which, those on the right hand were blessed. This judgment, therefore, is wholly predicated on the first covenant; which was a covenant of works and according to this covenant, it is said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." It is according to this covenant, that, "every one is rewarded according to the deeds done in the body; i. e. according to their works." And according to this covenant it is, that, "whosoever doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done, and there is no respect to persons. (Col. iii. 25.) The apostle does not say, he shall be liable to receive, or he shall receive if he does not repent, but, positively and peremptorily, he shall receive: the soul that sinneth, it shall die! These shall go away into everlasting punishment!

The question now is, whether this punishment must necessarily, according to this declaration, be in another world; i.e. after death! I say necessarily, because, unless the words necessarily have such meaning, there is no necessity of giving them that construction.

The awful judgments, &c. which fell on the Jews, it is true, may represent, in the wisdom of God, still greater events which are yet to take place; but this does not alter the primary meaning of the parable.

It will be perceived that the whole force of this passage is predicated on the word everlasting. The everlasting punishment applies to the unbelieving Jews in particular; and to all other nations, when they hear the glorious news of the gospel, and reject it. The punishment represents their state as a nation, being broken off from the good olive tree; or to those who are still alienated from the life of God through the ignorance there is in them. Now if this state of things either has continued, or will continue sufficiently long to justify the use of the term aivov, everlasting, then all is rational and clear; without supposing the passage to have any reference to a supposed punishment in another world; i. e. after death.

A very scanty knowledge of the scripture use of this term will show that there is no necessity of mak ing the common application. Because it is acknowledged by all the learned, that this word is often used in a limited sense; and in reference to things of time only.

It is used in this sense by St. Paul, in writing to Philemon, concerning his servant Onesimus, who, it seems, had absconded from his master, and whom Paul, having found, had converted to the Christian faith; and accordingly sends him home to his master. And, that he might be well received, sends by him this short epistle, which we have preserved in the New Testament: which coincident, being so circumstantial, carries with it very striking proof of the truth of the whole history of the life of this author. In this epistle, he says, v. 15th, "Perhaps, therefore, he departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him for ever: ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτον απέχης where you will perceive the same word, aivov, is used. Will it be contended here that St. Paul had any reference to the eternal existence of Onesimus? I think it cannot be: nor to any period after his death. For the services of Onesimus is the subject of this letter; and Paul

informs Philemon, that, if he owes him any thing, to charge it to his, i. e. Paul's account; and that he would repay it. (v. 18, 19.)

"Words," says Dr. Clarke, "in all languages, have, in process of time, deviated from their original acceptations, and have become accommodated to particular purposes, and limited to particular meanings. This has happened both to the Hebrew Dy olam, and the Greek aiav: they have been both used to express a limited time, but, in general, a time, the limits of which are unknown." The Doctor has laboured hard to prove that the unlimited is the proper use of these words; and that the limited is an accommodated one. How well he has succeeded is not material to our purpose, since the words are acknowledged to have been used in a limited sense"hence the words, when applied to things which, from their nature, have a limited duration, are properly to be understood in this sense." (See Dr. Clarke's Note on Gen. xxi. 33.)

Now, even according to this learned writer, what must I prove, that the punishment in the text under consideration is limited? Why, only to show that punishment is limited in its nature: and then, according to this learned writer's own confession, it is limited in its duration.

To show this I have only to show that the punishment is designed for the good of the punished; for then the punishment is limited by the good, which the punishment is designed to effect: and I conclude that no argument is necessary to prove that this is the design of all good beings who punish or chastise their dependent children. Although the chastisement for the present is not joyous but grievous, nevertheless, afterward, it yielded the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them that are exercised thereby. (See Heb. xii. 11.) Now, if chastisement were to be continued without end, there would be no after