SERMON 
 
 THE PARABLE 
 
 THE RICH MAN AND L.AZARUS. 
 
 BY THOMAS AVIIITTEMORE, 
 
 Paslor of the First Universalist Socicli/ in Cambridge. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 -••«©«■><•- 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PRINTF.D RV GF.ORGr AV. FA/IN TRUMPET OFFICE. 
 
 1S29.
 
 HUeSB ttBMRY-
 
 ^-noGCo^] 
 
 A SERMON. 
 
 LUKE, XVI. 19—81. 
 
 " There was a certain rich man, trhich viu clothed inptirple ondfiiw lin- 
 en, and fared siimjiltiinisli^ ei-cry dai/. .find tliere itas a certain beg)iar 
 named fMzariis, vhirh was laid al his gate. fall nf sores, a nrf desiring to 
 Ite Jed with Ihe crumbs tvhicJt fell from the rich man's table : moreover the 
 dogs came and licked his sores, .ind it came to pass, that the beggar died, 
 and u-as carried bt/ angels itito ^brahant's bosom: the rich man also died, 
 and was bar led ; and in hell he lifted vp his ci/es, being in forniejits, and 
 scefh .Abraham nfor off, and iMzarus in his bosom, .'ind he cried, and 
 foid, FulJur .niirahom, hove mercy on me, and send iMzaru.f, that he 
 ■may diji Llie tip of his finger m water and cool my tongne, for J am 
 tormented in this flame But Miraham said, son, remember that thou in 
 tJny life time receivcd.it thy good things, and likewise iMzarus evil things; 
 but now lie is comforted, and thou art tormented. .'Ind besides all this, 
 between us and you there is a great gulf fi.ved : so that they U'ho v'onid 
 pass from hence to you cannot ; m-ilJier can they pass to ns, that tr.nild 
 come from Ihcnie. Then he saiil. I jiiay thee therefore. Father, that lliou 
 uyjuldst send him to my father's hou^e : For I have five brethren: that 
 lie may teslifi/ unto them, lest they also come into this place <f torment. 
 Abraham saiih unto him, they have Moses and the prophets ; let tliem 
 hear them. .Ind he said, jYay, father Abralutm ; but if ont went unto 
 them from the dead, they will repent. .'ind he ■•<aid vnlo him, (/ tiny 
 hear not .Afoses and the prophets, neilh<:r will tluy be persuatled, Ihuugk 
 one rose from the dead." 
 
 It is a command of our Lord and Sikiviour that 
 we " search the ScripUires" and of the A})ostle 
 Paul, that we "prove all things ; hold fast that 
 ivhich is good." Therefore, notwithstanding ma- 
 ny learned and good men have advocated the doc- 
 trine of endless misery, and adduced the text as 
 pi'oof of it, we cannot receive it because they have 
 believed it, nor our text as proof of it, because it 
 has been used as such. We receive no doctrine un- 
 til we are conviriced of its truth by evidence. 
 Whenever our views of Christianity agree with 
 those of our bretliren of other denominations, we 
 feel no small degree of pleasure in making it 
 known ; but we feel it our imperious duty openly 
 to avow our difference iVom them, when their views 
 seem to us to disigree with the plainest passages 
 of scripture, and the simplest dictates of reason. 
 
 / <
 
 That part of the scriptures which we have se- 
 lected as our text, is said by many to be, not a par- 
 able, but a literal relation of facts. It is easy to 
 see why they contend that this is not a parable. 
 If it is a pai'able, the proof it is supposed to con- 
 tain of the doctrine of misery in a future state, is 
 greatly impaired. Those things which Jesus used 
 as figures of tlie reality, have been taken for the 
 reality itself. A parable is not unlike a similitude; 
 it is "a relation under which something else is fig- 
 ured." Our Saviour often spake in parables. "He 
 spake many things unto them in parables." Matt, 
 xiii. 3. So common a thing was it for him to speak 
 in this way, that Matthew has said, " without a 
 parable spake he not unto them," xiii 34. The 
 most of you will recollect the beautiful and in- 
 structive parable of the sower, which our Saviour 
 himself explained. The sower went forth to sow. 
 " Some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls 
 came and devoured them up. Some fell upon stony 
 })laces, where they had not much earth ; and forth- 
 with they sprung up because they had no deep- 
 ness of earth ; and when the sun was up they 
 were scorched ; and because they had no root they 
 withered away. And some fell among thorns ; and 
 the thorns sprung up and choaked them. But 
 others fell into good ground, " &c. Now we do 
 not think that a man actually went and sowed seed 
 in this way. Such an interpretation would de- 
 stroy the idea of a ^flrrtWe. The doctrine which 
 he meant to teach was, that the truth would be re- 
 ceived in different ways by different people, and 
 that it would produce different effects. See his ex- 
 planation of this parable, Matt. xiii. 18 — 23. We 
 think that the text is a parable. The evidence of 
 this, which we shall lay before you, is to us irresis- 
 table. But before we introduce this part of our 
 subject, we will, for a moment, allow the text to 
 be a literal relation of facts ; and we will inquire 
 whether, allowing this, it will prove either of the 
 two great doctriut'& advocated by christians in gen-
 
 eral. One of these doctrines is believed by Cal- 
 vinists, viz. that God elected to his llivor belorethe 
 world was created, those who will finally be saved; 
 and that he repi'obated to his eternal ire all the 
 rest of mankind. What does the text contain in 
 favor of this doctrine ? What do we find in it 
 about election and reprobation ? Are Ave inform- 
 ed that the rich man was reprobated to God's eter- 
 nal wrath 7 Or that God hated him 1 Or that 
 he loved Abraham, or Lazarus more than him ? 
 Are we informed that Lazarus was elected to God's 
 peculiar favor '] I cannot see one word in the text 
 in favor of the notion, either of election or repro- 
 bation. How then does it afford this doctrine any 
 proof? How can it prove that concerning which 
 it does not contain even a reference ? 
 
 The other doctrine to which I alluded, is, that 
 mankind will be punished and rewarded in the 
 future state for the vices and virtues of this world. 
 What does the text, understanding- it literally, 
 contain in favor of this doctrine ? We read that 
 the rich man was in torments in hades ; but not 
 because he had been wicked : and we read that 
 the beggar was happy ; but not because he had 
 been good. I see no evidence, in the text, that the 
 rich man was a very bad man, or that the beggar 
 was better than he. We are not informed that the 
 former obtained his riches improperly, or that the 
 beggar did not become poor by his OAvn negligence 
 or imprudence. Is it a sin to be rich ? Is it a vir- 
 tue to be poor ? It has been alleged against the 
 rich man, that he refused Lazarus the crumbs which 
 fell from his table. If this be a fact, why did Laz- 
 arus lay at his gate ? We should judge by the ac- 
 count, that some persons, through compassion, 
 perhaps the friends of the beggar, carried him to 
 the rich man's gate, and laid him there. Would 
 they have done this, had they known him to be 
 covetous? Of all places the rich man's gate was 
 selected as tlie most proper lor the jjoor man to lay 
 at. Besides, the word translated deniring in the
 
 account, is sometimes rendered delighting.* And 
 if we read that the beggar delighted to be fed with 
 the crumbs, is not this a proof that he was not de- 
 nied them ? How then will the text prove that 
 men Avill be punished in the future state because 
 they are sinful in this world ? I repeat, I see no 
 evidence that the rich man was a bad man. The 
 prayer which he ofi'ered to Abraham is a manifesta- 
 tion of a good spirit. How much better could 
 Lazarus or Abraham have prayed, had either been 
 in the rich man's situation ? The rich man prayed 
 that his five brethren might be warned, and ])re- 
 vented from coming to that place of torment. 
 Abraham seems at one time to be accounting for 
 the rich man's torment: but he sa3s nothing about 
 any previous wickedness in him. " Abraham said. 
 Son, remember that thou in thy life time re- 
 ceivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil 
 things : but now he is comforted and thou art tor- 
 mented." He did not say, remember thou in thy 
 life time wast wicked, but Lazarus good. 
 
 Another inquiry properly coming before us is, 
 does not the literal sense of the text pointedly dis- 
 agree with the notions of those who contend that 
 it is not a parable ? We often hear that those who 
 go to hell never have one holy feeling ; no desire 
 for the company of the blessed ; that they spend 
 their time in blaspheming God. Was it so with 
 
 ■'The word here rendered dcsiriiis; is rpillrjmon. Of this word Parkhurst 
 says, that, written witli an infinitive following, it signifies " to be eonlcnl, 
 or glad, to estctm it a great iiiiitler ; " and he adduees the instance in the 
 )iarable before us, of its occurring in tliis sense. To which he adds, " thus 
 Eisner on Luke xvi. 21, explains it, and observes not only that the LXX. 
 have so applied it, Isa. Iviii. 2, but that Lysias has used it in a like sense, O- 
 rat. 2-4. Dr. Campbell says, " 1 agree with those who do not tliink tlierc is 
 any foundation, in this c.\prcs.sion, for saying that he was refused the crumbs. 
 When the historian says, that he was laid at the rich man's gate, ho means 
 not, surel}', that he was once there, but tliat ho was usually so jilaeed, which 
 would not probably have hap|icncd, if he had got nothing at all. The otlicr 
 circumstances concur in licightening the probability. Such arc, the rich 
 man's immediately knowing him, his asking that he might be made the in- 
 strument of the relief wanted ; and, let mo add this, that though the I'atri- 
 arcli upbraids the rich man with the carelessness and lu.xury in which ho 
 had lived, he says not a word of inhumanity ; yet, if we consider Lazarus as 
 having experienced it so recently, it could hardly, on this occasion, have 
 failed to be taken notice of C:ui we suppose that Abraham, in the charge 
 lie brought against him, would have mentioned only the things of least mo- 
 ment, and omitted those of the greateai ?" Note on Luke xvi. 2J.
 
 7 
 
 the rich man ? Do we read of his l)hTsphemin,af 
 God? No ; but we read of his ottering up a pray- 
 er, and a very good one too. " I pray thee there- 
 fore, father," said he, " that thou wouklst send him 
 (Lazarus) to my father's house : for I have five 
 brethren ; that he may testify unto them, lest they 
 also come into this place of torment." Did he not in 
 this language breathe forth a good desire ? Did 
 he not have a holy feeling ? Abraham, when 
 speaking of the great gulf, said it was fixed " so 
 that they who would pass from hence to you can- 
 not : neither can they pass to us that would come 
 from thence." Here two things should be noticed. 
 1. There were some with Abraham that would go 
 to the rich man ; but could not. And, 2. There 
 were some with the rich man who would go to 
 Abraham ; but could not. It appears from this, 
 that there were some in hell who had a desire for 
 the company of the blessed, and would have gone 
 to them, had it been in their power. And we learn, 
 furthermore, that hell cannot be so dreadfully hot 
 a place as it has been represented to be. For if 
 this were so, the rich man we should think would 
 have called for more water than Lazarus could 
 have carried on the tip of his finger. And sup- 
 pose the common idea of a devil be correct, how 
 would he be pleased to have so benevolent a pray- 
 er as that of the rich man, offered up in his dark 
 dominions ? The literal sense of the text disagrees 
 very much with many people's notions of a future 
 world. 
 
 Now let us turn to Abraham and those with him. 
 It is commonly supposed that those who are in 
 heaven are serenely happy, and perfectly reconci- 
 led to the will of God. We have already shown 
 that there were some in the place of happiness 
 who would go to the rich man ; but could not. 
 They were not, therefore, perfectly happy, inas- 
 much as they were desirous of doing that which 
 they were not permitted to do. Neither were 
 they reconciled to the will of God ; for it was the
 
 will of Goil that they shoiilcl not go, and he had 
 made the great gulf to prevent them. Wishing to 
 do what was not permitted to be done, they were 
 unhappy, and being unreconciled to God, the}' 
 were wicked. If wicked, they must have been 
 miserable. So we have one argument to prove 
 that those who were with Abraham were wicked, 
 and two that they were miserable. How Avill 
 these things agree with the opinions of those who 
 contend that the text is a literal relation of facts ? 
 Those who were in heaven were unreconciled to 
 God, and those who were in hell were unreconci- 
 led to the devil. How can the text be explained 
 literally by our opposers, and they maintain also 
 their present notions ? 
 
 But it may be said, those in heaven were benev- 
 olent, sympathetic, and were urged by good mo- 
 tives to endeavor to relieve the distressed. But I 
 ask, how could they be ignorant of God's deter- 
 mination to punish the Avicked eternally ? And 
 will it be said, they were better than God ? Was 
 not he as good, sympathetic and benevolent as 
 they ? Let those Avho interpret the text literally 
 consider these things. Let them tell us Avhy those 
 in heaven wished to go down to hell. Was it to 
 abide there? Was it to relieve some friend, some 
 relation? Would some parent comfort his child ? 
 Some child, its parent ? Some brother, a sister 7 
 Some husband, a wife ? No, answer the orthodox, 
 the saints say Amen, alleluia, when they see the 
 smoke of the wicked's torment ascend. How will 
 those who do not allow that the text is a parable, 
 surmount these difficulties ? 
 
 Now allowing the text to be a literal relation, 
 what will it prove ? It will not prove the doctrine 
 of election and reprobation ; it will not prove that 
 men are to be punished or rcivarded in the next life 
 for their conduct in this ; but it will prove that there 
 was a man tormented in hades, who was a good man 
 in some respects, and for aught we know, as good 
 as any body else ; it will prove that those who are
 
 f 9 
 
 in heaven are both wicked and miserable, that they 
 wish to leave the place and go to hell ; and it will 
 prove that some notions which orthodox people 
 have entertained for j ears, are totally erroneous. 
 Those who contend that it is not a parable, for any 
 thing I see, must allow all these things. 
 
 But the hearer will say, that the text, understood 
 literally, proves that men will be punished after 
 death. I answer, if we interpret it literally, and 
 suppose the death of the rich man to mean the de- 
 parture of life from his animal frame, then it will 
 teach that one man was tormented in another state 
 of being ; but whether it should be for one year, 
 one day or hour, we could not tell. One thing is 
 certain, it would not then prove the doctrine of 
 endless torment, because the place, the hell in which 
 the rich man was tormented is to be destroyed, ac- 
 cording to the testimony of Hosea, " O hades, J 
 ivill be thy destruction," (Hos. xiii. 14.) and of 
 John, "And death andhades tvere cast into the lake 
 of Jire," (Rev. xx. 14,) and of Paul, " O hades 
 7vhere is thy victory, (1 Cor. xv. 55.) But if I may 
 have the liberty of interpreting parables literally, 
 I will engage to prove you almost any thing. 
 There is no intelligent christian who does not 
 know that those thinos which Jesus used as fiijures 
 of the reality, should not be considered the reality 
 itself. 
 
 There is sufficient evidence, both internal and 
 external, to prove that the text is a parable. We 
 will briefly examine the internal first. It is stated 
 in the text that the beggar was carried by angels 
 into Abraham's bosom. Now I ask, can any one 
 suppose that celestial beings actually, really carri- 
 ed a poor beggar and put liim into the bosom of 
 the patriarch Abraham ? No ; you say, this is a 
 representation of heaven. Now you have inter- 
 preted the text as a paral)le yourselves. And per- 
 mit me to remark, tliat I have all tlie right to in- 
 terpret the whole text parabolically that you have 
 to interpret any part of it so. You will see that
 
 10 ^ 
 
 llicse people are represented as having bodily or- 
 gans and powers with them. The rich man had 
 eyes and a tongue, and Lazarus fingers. Can this 
 be interpreted literally ? Do disembodied spii-its 
 in the Avorld to come have eyes, and tongues, and 
 fingers, and the powers of speech, of hearing and 
 of seeing ? We do not profess to know much about 
 spirits in another world, but we believe this is not 
 the common opinion upon the subject. HoAvever, 
 it belongs to those who say the text is not a para- 
 l)le, to show how this can be, to give some proof 
 upon the subject ; and to shew us how people 
 in heaven and hell can converse with apparent 
 ease from one place to the other. 
 
 The external evidence that the text is a parable 
 is the connexion in which it is found. We should 
 maintain a proper connexion throughout our LQrd's 
 discourse. I see no way to do this, if we do not 
 consider the text to be a parable. It is found con- 
 nected with a number of parables, in Luke xv. 
 and xvi. 
 
 In the beginning of the 15th chapter, we find a 
 murmur which the scribes and Pharisees expressed, 
 because Jesus received sinners and ate with them. 
 In the three parables which fill up the remainder 
 of this chapter, viz. that of the lost sheep, lo§t 
 pieces of silver, and prodigal son, Jesus vindica- 
 ted that part of his conduct of which they had 
 complained. But in the last of these three para- 
 bles, a character Avas presented which had not a})- 
 poared in either of the others. This was the elder 
 brother of the prodigal, who was angry because the 
 prodigal was received into favor, and who very 
 justly represented the scribes and Pharisees ; for 
 they murmured because Jesus Christ received sin- 
 ners and ate with them. These Pharisees rejected 
 the gospel ; and this is represented b}' the elder 
 brother's refusing to go into his father's house. In 
 the parable of the unjust steward witli wliich the 
 IGth chapter is commenced, the same people are 
 admonished for not makinaf such ijnprovement of
 
 ''^. 
 
 11 
 
 the laAV, as would introduce them into the christian 
 fkitli and church. The Pharisees being provoked 
 at this, derided Jesus. After briefly describing to 
 tliem tlieir con.duct, he sa} s, " the law and the pro- 
 phets were until John : since that time the king- 
 dom of God is preached, and every man presselh 
 into it." Jesus then spake another parable, in 
 which the folly pf the Jews, in rejecting the 
 gospel and adhering to the law^ is represented by 
 the sin of adultery. Then come the words of the 
 text ; " There was a certain rich man," Sec. AVhat 
 is there in all this connexion which would have 
 the least tendency to lead the mind to such doc- 
 trine as that which the text is used to support ? — 
 It has been justly said, " To suppose that he avIio 
 spake as never man spake,. abru])tly tiro})ped the 
 subject of the end of the law dispensation, and the 
 intisoduction of the gospel, or kingdom of heaven, 
 and having no further allusion to this subject, pro- 
 ceeded to give an account of the sin of adultery, 
 which account occupies but one verse, and then 
 again flies directly from this subject, to give a lit- 
 eral account about a rich man and a beggar, in this 
 world and in an eternal state, is so unwarrantable, 
 and so derogatory to the character of the divine 
 orator, that it is a matter of wonder tliat such an 
 opinion should ever have been honored with the 
 consent of learned commentators." Ballou. 
 
 Having shown, as I think, that the text is a para- 
 ble, I shall now proceed to show you the true mean- 
 ing of the word hades ; why our Lord spake of it 
 as a place of torment ; and why he used it figura- 
 tivel} , as he undoubtedly did in the text. Hades 
 is the Avord rendei-ed hell.* Its literal meaning is 
 not a place of torment in another world : but the 
 state of the dead in general, without regard to the 
 
 *Thero are four words rendered hell in the scriptures, viz. Slicol, Hndes, 
 Tarlaiu», and Uiluana. Slirol, being Hebrew, occurs only in the Old Tcs- , 
 lament. Of the l>4 instances in which it is I'ound, in ^'i it is rendered hell, 
 and in the remaining 32 pit and grave, lladea occurs 11 times, in HI orwiiicli 
 it is rendered licll, and once (1 Cor. xv. 5.j) grave. Tartarus occurs but onco 
 (2 Teter ii. 4.) Gehenna ia found 13 times, and is uniformly lenUerod liell.
 
 12 
 
 goodness or badness of persons, their hj^piness or 
 misery. This was the meaning of the Hebrew 
 word Sheol, which the LXX have almost invaria- 
 bly rendered hades. All men go down to hades at 
 death, where they remain till the resurrection. It 
 is said in the scripture that our Saviour's soul was 
 in hell, hades. Not in a place of torment; but in 
 t!ie state of the dead, the grave. But it did not 
 remain, for he rose from the dead. See Acts ii. 27. 
 In the Improved Version, the place where the 
 rich man was, is called " the unseen state," and in 
 AV^dcefield's translation, " the grave." These are 
 their definitions of hades. Wakefield says, in his 
 note on this place, " It must be remembered that 
 hades no where means hell, gchenna, in any author 
 whatsoever, sacred or profane ; and also that our 
 Lord is giving his hearers a parable, (Matt. xiii. 
 34,) and not a piece of real history. To them who 
 regard the narration as exhibiting a realUy, it must 
 stand as an unanswerable argument for the purga- 
 tory of the Papists. The universal meaning of 
 hades is the state of death." Whitby, who was far- 
 ther from being a Universalist than Wakefield, 
 says, Sheol throughout the Old Testament, and 
 Hades in the Septuagint, answering to it, signify 
 not the place of punishment, or of the souls of bad 
 men only, but the grave only, or the place of death." 
 He says, Hades is the place — " Whither toe are all 
 going." Old Jacob went there ; Job desired, yea 
 prayed to go there ; Hezekiah expected to be 
 there, for he said " I shall go to the gates of Hades." 
 Whitby further says, " The ancient Greeks assign- 
 ed one Hades to all that died, and therefore say. 
 Hades receives all mortal men together, all men shall 
 go to hades." Dr. Campbell, a believer of the 
 doctrine of endless misery, gives us the same ac- 
 count of hades. This then is what we must under- 
 stand the word hell to mean, when it stands for 
 hades, a place to which all men go, good and bad. 
 We must not, when we contemplate it, look for- 
 ward beyond the resurrection. All men will be 
 
 )
 
 13 
 
 raised fToni hades to incorruptioii and iiniuortality. 
 Then hiules will be destroyed. Our word hell, in 
 its original signification, perfectly corresponded 
 to the definition we have given of Hades. Now 
 it does not ; with christians generally here, its 
 meaning soniehoAV has been changed : but we are 
 informed, I believe b}^ Dr. Doddridge, that the 
 original sense of the word hell is now retained in 
 the eastern, and especially in the western counties 
 of England ; w here to hclc over a thing is to cover 
 it. Hence says Dr. Campbell, " it (hades) ought 
 never in the scripture to be rendered hell, at least in 
 the sense lohercin that loord is noto univer sally under- 
 stood by christians." He says that w ith the mean- 
 ing of hades, " the word hell, in its primitive signi- 
 fication, perfectly corresponded. For, at first, it 
 denoted only what was secret or concealed." The 
 rich man, and the beggar, and Abraham, were all 
 represented as being in hades together. We do 
 not read in the text that one was in hell, but the 
 other two in heaven. This differs materially, I 
 know, from the common opinion on this subject ; 
 but I see no way to avoid it. The text says not one 
 word to the contrary. Nay, it rather favours the 
 idea. For otherwise, how could the rich man see 
 Abraham and Lazarus ? How could he converse 
 with Abraham, and how could Abraham hear him ? 
 As we have proved l)y the most respectable, or- 
 thodox authoritv, that the literal and orioinal mean- 
 ing of hades is the same as the Hebrew sheol, sig- 
 nifying the state of the dead in general, the place 
 whither we all go, whether good or bad, it remains 
 for me to shew why our Loi-d spake of it as a place 
 of torment. Let it be then remembered, that 
 when our Lord was upon the earth, the minds of 
 the Jews had changed with regard to hades; they 
 entertained different views of it from those they 
 imbibed by reading the Old Testament. They had 
 lie viated from that sense in which the sacred writers 
 had used it ; and thought that ghosts of departed 
 men would be punished there. They did not
 
 14 
 
 Mai)! 
 
 think that all who went there would be uMa])j)y 
 for they sui)i)osed it was divided into dillerent parts, 
 for ghosts of different characters. That they did 
 not learn this idea from the Old Testament, is suf- 
 ficiently obvious ; lor no such idea is there. Dr. 
 Campbell says, " It is plain, that in the Old Testa- 
 ment, the most profound silence is observed in re- 
 gard to the state of the deceased, their joys, or sor- 
 rows, happiness or misery." They could not have 
 learned it from the New Testament ; for this was 
 not then written. Where then did tliey learn it? 
 Answer, From the idolatrous, heathen nations 
 around diem. In support of this I shall read you 
 a quotation from the learned author just named. He 
 tlius writes, Dis. vi. Part 2, Sect. 19. " But the 
 o}»inions neither of Hebrews nor of heathen, re- 
 mained invariably the same. And from the time 
 of the captivity, more especially from the time of 
 the subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian 
 empire, and afterwards to the Roman; as they had 
 a closer intercourse with pagans, they insensibly 
 imbibed many of their sentiments, particularly on 
 those subjects, Avhereon their law was silent, and 
 wherein by consequence, they considered them- 
 selves as at greater freedom. On this subject of a 
 future state, we find a considerable difference in 
 the popular opinions of the Jews in our Saviour's 
 time, from those which prevailed in the days of the 
 ancient prophets. As both Greeks and Romans 
 had adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the de- 
 parted were susceptible both of enjoyment and of 
 suffering, they were led to suppose a sort of retri- 
 bution in that state, for their merit or demerit in 
 the present. The Jews did not indeed adopt the 
 pagan fables on this sulyect, nor did they express 
 themselves entirely in the same manner ; but the 
 general train of thinking in both came pretty much 
 to coincide. The Greek JIadcs they found well 
 adaj)ted to express the Hebrew Shcol. This they 
 came to conceive as including different sorts of habi- 
 tations for ghosts of different characters." Here
 
 15 
 
 Ave have our question answered. On wliosc au- 
 thority (lid the Jews l)elieve that Hades was a ])lare 
 of punishment ? Ans. On the authority of the 
 heathen. Dr. Campbell says, "they insensibly 
 imbibed many of their sentiments, ])articularly on 
 those subjects whereon their law was silent, and 
 wherein, by consequence, they thou<i;ht themselves 
 as at greater freedom. On this subject of a futtpre 
 state, wcjind a considerable difference in the popular 
 opinions of the Jews in our Saviour^s time, from 
 those udiich prevailed in the days of the ancient pro- 
 phets." " The general train of thinking," says he, 
 " in both (i. e. Jews and heathen) came pretty 
 much to coincide." Now I seriously l)elieve that 
 it was to this opinion, that hades was divided into 
 different habitations, peopled by good and bad 
 spirits, that our Lord alluded in the text. Hence, 
 both Abraham and the rich man are represented 
 as being in one place, divided into different apart- 
 ments by the great gulph. The Jews were tena- 
 cious of these ideas ; and our Lord used them as 
 figures of an important truth. And the reason 
 why he spake in parables generally, may be ren- 
 dered why he spake parabolically in the text. He 
 did not allude to their doctrine to recognize it as 
 truth ; no, and all the evidence we find in the text 
 of the truth of heathen notions concerning hades 
 is, that he used them as a similitude. In the para- 
 ble of the sower, to which we have before alluded, 
 Jesus used natural things as similitudes of spiritual. 
 We do not understand the figures as realities here, 
 and we should not in the text.* What intelligent 
 person would infer from reading this parable, that 
 a man actually went and sowed seed, some by the 
 way side, some upon stony places, and some among 
 thorns? Have we not proved that the text is a para- 
 ble 7 Have we not shown that literally it proves 
 
 »If there are any wlio iliink that no parable, in its literal sens,->, is imponsi- 
 h\e, and Ihnt Jesus would not have used, even in fiifure, what is untrue in it- 
 self, let tlicm consult .Iiul"nsix. 8 — 15.
 
 16 
 
 a doctrine which nobody believes? I ask then, 
 by what just rule of interpretation this can be said 
 to prove the doctrine of a future state of punish- 
 ment ? We have the opinion of the learned that 
 this is a parable ; we see nothing to prove it is not ; 
 and we then demand, why we should not adopt the 
 same rules in explaining it that we do in ex- 
 plaining other parables? Parables, we all know, 
 are figurative language. The truth taught is to be 
 sought under the figure. 
 
 If the text be not a parable, it should be inter- 
 preted literally throughout. But this cannot be 
 done, as we think we have shown. We, in this 
 way, must receive the heathen's notions of hades ; 
 we must consider Abraham and Lazarus in hellj as 
 Avell as the rich man, and this too with their bodies, 
 with the senses of seeing, hearing, &c. &c. Who 
 is prepared to admit this ? Let it be then distinct- 
 ly understood, that it is our opinion, Jesus used 
 those views of hades parabolically, Avhich the Jews 
 had received of the heathen. He did not use them 
 to recognise them as realities, any more than he 
 did the figures and imagery of his other parables. 
 
 It has been justly remarked, that if Jesus had 
 meant to teach that hades was a place of punish- 
 ment, he would have stated it plainly once at least. 
 This he did not do. He hints it only, and then in 
 a parable. And Ave should think if the Apostles 
 had understood him as teaching that hades w.is a 
 place of punishment, they would have preached it 
 as such. This thoy never did. They spake of 
 hades, but not as a place of punishment, or torment. 
 Peter said, that Christ's soul Avas there; not in a 
 place of torment, but in the state of the dead. — 
 These facts Aveigh so heavily on our minds that Ave 
 esteem it unnecessary to say more, until some one 
 shall attempt to shcAV that the text is not a parable ; 
 and to invalidate the evidence Ave have given that 
 it is. AVhen any man feels disposed to contend 
 for heathen notions of hades, as a doctrine of christi-
 
 17 
 
 ianity, we will then meet him in a proper way, 
 and discuss the question concerning the higher or- 
 igin of Cliristianity. 
 
 We will now endeavor to show what our Saviour 
 meant by the parable. But here Ave should again 
 consult the connexion. Just before he spake the 
 parable, he said, " the law and the prophets loere 
 until John : since that time the kingdom of God is 
 preached, and every man prcsseth into it." Here 
 notice, that when Jesus spake these words, the law 
 dispensation was ended ; for that was " until Johi" 
 only: " since that time," says Christ, " the kingdom 
 of God (the gospel dispensation) is preached." " It 
 is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle 
 of the law to fail." By this we learn that the law 
 could not pass away, without being fulfilled. We 
 now come to the parable concerning adultery ,which 
 reads as follows: " Whosoever putteth away his 
 wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery : 
 and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from 
 her husband, committeth adultery." If the Jews 
 had put away the law, and married another cov- 
 enant before John came, they, in a parabolic sense, 
 would have committed adultery. For infinite wis- 
 dom ordained that the law should remain " until 
 John," And it ordained that it should remain no 
 longer. For " since that time the kingdom of God 
 is preached." The law was put away ; it was ful- 
 filled ; " Christ is the end of the law " ; he came 
 to close the first dispensation, and introduce the 
 gospel. The Jews, bj- rejecting the gospel, and 
 adhering to the law, committed adultery, as would 
 a man Avho should marry a woman that had been 
 put away by her husljand. The parable upon 
 which we are now discoursing immediately follows. 
 " There was a certain rich man," &c. The same 
 su])ject is continued through the chapter. In the 
 text, the state of the Jews, after the kingdom of 
 God had been taken from them and given to a na- 
 tion bringing forth the fruits thereof, is beautifully 
 figured in the description of the rich man's circum-
 
 18 
 
 stances. I feel sensible that in the explanation of 
 parables, too many have indulged themselves in 
 the exercise of a flying fancy. We should inter- 
 pret scripture by the help of scripture. I trust 
 that without indulging in fancy, we can obtain 
 the meaning of our Saviour in the text. 
 
 By the rich man the house of Israel is represent- 
 ed. They are frequently spoken of under the fig- 
 ure of an individual in the scriptures. God said 
 by Hosea, " When Israel tvas a child, then I loved 
 him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea xi. 1. 
 " So the Lord alone did lead him, (the house of 
 Israel) and there was no strange god with him. 
 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, 
 that he might eat the increase of the fields ; and he 
 made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil 
 out of the flinty rock." Deut. xxxii. 12, 13. These 
 are sufficient to shew that the posterity of Abra- 
 ham are spoken of in the scriptures in the charac- 
 ter of an individual. 
 
 This man was rich. " There was a certain rich 
 man." He was blessed with a land flowing with 
 milk and honey. He had advantage every way, 
 chiefly because unto him was committed the oracles 
 of God. In Rom. ix. 4, 5, we have in detail an ac- 
 count of this man's riches. " Who are Israelites ; 
 to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, 
 and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and 
 the service of God, and the promises; whose are the 
 fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ 
 came, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen." 
 This man was clothed in ''purple and fine linen." 
 So Israel is represented in the scriptures as being 
 clad. " I clothed thee also with broidered work, 
 and shod thee with badger's skin, and I girded thoe 
 about viii\\ fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 
 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver, and 
 thy raiment wast oi fine linen, and silk, and broider- 
 ed work,." Ezck. xvi. 10—13. " And of the 
 blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made clothes of 
 service, to do service in the holy place, and made
 
 19 
 
 the holy garments for Aaron ; as the Lord com- 
 manded Moses. And lie made the ephod of gold, 
 blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined lin- 
 en." Exo. xxxix. 1, 2. 
 
 He fared sumptuously every day. This was 
 eminently true of Israel. God says, " thou didst 
 eat fine Hour, and honey, and oil ; and thou wast 
 exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a 
 kingdom." The rich man's land flowed with milk 
 and honey. He fed spiritually upon the knowledge 
 of God, and upon the promises. 
 
 By Lazarus the beggar, the poor Gentiles, ex- 
 cluded from the advantages which God's covenant 
 people enjoyed, are represented. Paul details the 
 poverty of the Gentiles. " At that time" says he, 
 " ye tvere ivithout Christ, being aliens from the com- 
 momvealth of Israel, and strangers from the coven- 
 ants of promise, having no hope, and without God in 
 the tvorld." They were poor indeed. His being 
 " full of sores," represented the moral condition of 
 the Gentiles. By the death of the beggar is rep- 
 resented the Gentiles' release from their idolatrous 
 worship ; and his being carried by angels into 
 Abraham's bosom, represent the conversion of the 
 Gentiles to the faith of Abraham, by the messen- 
 gers of God. The rich man died politically. He 
 lost his riches, his purple and fine linen, his gov- 
 ernment, his city, and his existence as a body po- 
 litic. He was buried. His goings into outer dark- 
 ness is justly represented by being buried. He 
 died to light, and went into darkness. The poor 
 man died to darkness and came forth to light. — 
 Hence he is not said to be buried. The rich man 
 sees Lazarus in Abraham's bosom ; he sees fulfilled 
 the words of Christ, " There shall be weeping and 
 gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and 
 Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the king- 
 dom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And 
 they shall come from the east, and from the west, 
 and from the north, and from the south, and sludl 
 sit down in the kingdom of God."
 
 20 
 
 The rich man calls upon Abraham, whom he ad- 
 dresses by the title of Father. This is character- 
 istic of the Jews. Abraham was their father ; and 
 they seemed proud of their progenitor. Speak- 
 ing to our Saviour, they said, " art thou greater 
 than our father Abraham ? " John told them, 
 " think not to say within yourselves, we have 
 Abraham to our Father." Yes, they would be in 
 favor with Abraham. They have disbelieved 
 Jesus; they have abused their privileges ; they 
 have relied upon their national greatness, and the 
 glory of their ancestors. When in distress they 
 turned to Abraham for mercy. But their national 
 greatness is gone, and the glory of tlieir ancestors 
 can afford then no relief. Abraham is represent- 
 ed as recognizing the relationship. He refers the 
 rich man to his former condition, as well as to that 
 of the beggar, and seems to give this as a reason 
 why the former was tormented and the latter bless- 
 ed. This is according to the equality of God's 
 ways. The Jews had possessed a knowledge of 
 God, and been blessed for a long time, while the 
 Gentiles had been without hope, and without God 
 in the world. Now the scene is reversed accord- 
 ing to the appointment of God. " It was necessa- 
 ry," said the apostles to them, " that the word of 
 god should first have been spoken to you : but see- 
 ing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves un- 
 worthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gen- 
 tiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, 
 I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that 
 thou shouldst be for salvation unto the ends of the 
 earth." 
 
 The gulf which separated the rich man from 
 Lazarus, very well represents any circumstance by 
 which the Jews are separated from the Gentile na- 
 tions. That such a separation has long existed, ad- 
 mits not of a doubt ; and when we reflect that, al- 
 though many centuries have passed away since the 
 Jews forfeited their national character, they have 
 never become mixed and lost among other nations,
 
 21 
 
 we can but recognize some manifest design of prov- 
 idence in the event. By this gulf we may also un- 
 derstand that purpose of God, in which it is deter- 
 mined by infinite wisdom, that the JeAvs shall not 
 believe the Gospel until the lulness of the Gentiles 
 be come in. This was the subject of prophecy. 
 Isaiah says, " who hath believed our report ? " 
 And John applies this to the unbelief of the Jews 
 in the Messiahship of Jesus. John says, " there- 
 fore they could not believe, because that Esaias 
 said again. He hath blinded their eyes, and harden- 
 ed their heart, that they should not see Avith their 
 eyes, and understand with their heart, and be con- 
 verted, and I should heal them." John xii. 38 — 40. 
 Matt. xiii. 14, 15. Mark iv. 11, 12. Luke viii. 
 10. Acts xxviii. 26—28. Rom. xi. 8. The divine 
 purpose in this, is consistent with God's impartial 
 character. This blindness of the JeAVs is to bring 
 about the conversion of the Gentiles, through 
 Avhose mercy the JeAVs Avill at last obtain mercy, 
 Paul, addressing one of the Gentile churches, says, 
 " For as ye in times past have not believed God, 
 yet have now obtained mercy through their unbe- 
 lief ; even so have these also noAV not believed, 
 that through your mercy they also may obtain mer- 
 cy." Rom. xi. 30, 31. Of the unbelief of the 
 JeAvs, the prophets had prophesied. When the 
 Gentiles saAv the prophesies fulfilled in the obsti- 
 nacy of the JeAVS, they Avere convinced of the di- 
 vine origin of Christianity ; they pressed into the 
 kingdom of God. By the mercy of the Gentiles 
 the JeAVS are at last to obtain mercy. Paul says, 
 " For I Avould not, brethren, that ye should be ig- 
 norant of this mystery, (lest ye should be Avise in 
 your OAvn conceits) that blindness in part is hap- 
 pened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be 
 come in. And so all Israel shall be saved ; as 
 it is Avritten, there shall come out of Zion the de- 
 liverer, and shall turn aAvay ungodliness from Ja- 
 cob." Rom. xi. 25, 20. Although the Jcavs are 
 now shut out of the kingdom, Ave can easily per-
 
 22 
 
 ceive they are finally to be brought in. Jesus said 
 unto them, " ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye 
 shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
 the Lord." When they will say this, we are not 
 yet permitted to know ; but no one who believes 
 the divine testimony can doubt that they will at a 
 proper time. The benefit derived from the gulf, 
 will then be obtained, and Jews and Gentiles will 
 rejoice together in the fruition of eternal life. 
 
 I have now given you my views of the text, 
 with the evidence which induced me to adopt them. 
 Judge for yourselves, my hearers. Let not popu- 
 larity nor proscription influence you. Be not ter- 
 rified by the threatening of endless woe. You 
 can form the best judgment while you are dispas- 
 sionate and calm. Treat your religious opposers 
 with tenderness and love, yet maintain the inde- 
 pendence and faithfulness of Christians. 
 
 The way in which we have explained the text, 
 appears consistent Avith the character of God as the 
 Father and friend of mankind ; and it leads us 
 clear of those difficulties with which those meet, 
 Avho use the text to prove the unmerciful doctrine 
 of eternal and infinite misery. But notwithstand- 
 ing the explanation I have given accords with the 
 very best feelings of your hearts, I would caution 
 you not to receive it, if you are not convinced of 
 its truth by the force of evidence. Rest your faith 
 on the Bible only. Examine this with freedom 
 and care ; and God will bless your exertions to the 
 promotion of your spiritual welfare.
 
 NOTE A. 
 Thcophylact.from whose Commentary on tlio Four Gospels the follow- 
 iiig extract was made, lived in the eleventh century, and was Metropoli- 
 tan of Bulgaria. He certainly was not an Univcrsalisl; yet he considered 
 it by no means as doing injustice to the parable, to sxplain it as wo have 
 done. Here follows the extract : 
 
 " In the preceding verses, our Lord had taught us to conduct ourselves 
 nroperly with regard to our riches ; and to the same purpose, he adds, by 
 way of example, this Parable. For this is a Parable, and not, as some 
 have thought, a history; because that the blessings of eternity were not yet 
 adiudged to the righteous, nor the judgments to the wicked. But our l-orU 
 spake fi<Turatively, designing to teach the unmerciful what was at engtli 
 to come upon them, and on the other hand, to assure the afflicted how 
 hap py they are to become, for the evils they here sustain." Accordingly, 
 Theophylact proceeds to apply this Parable, as a representation ol the dil- 
 fercnt conditions of the proud sinner and of the humble saint, alter tlio 
 general Judgment ; and he incidentally reasons from the Parable, against 
 Ori^en's doctrine of the restoration, because Abraham says, "that they 
 whfch would pass from hence to you, cannot, neither can they pass to us 
 that would come from thence." 
 
 At last, howcvor, Theophylact says, " But this Parable can also be ex- 
 plained in the way of Allegory ; so that we may say that by the Rich man 
 is si.Jnif.ed the Jewish people. For they were formerly rich, aboundmg 
 in all divine knowledge, wisdom and instruction, which are more excellent 
 than gold and precious stones. And they were arrayed in purple and hne 
 linen, as they possesseda kingdom, and a priesthood, and were themselves 
 a royal priesthood to God. The purple denoted their kingdom ; and the 
 fine "linen, their priesthood. For the Levites were clothed m sacerdotal 
 vestments of fine linen ; and they fed sumptuously and lived splendidly, 
 every day. Uaily did they onbr the morning and the evening sacnlice ; 
 which they also called the continual sacrifice. But Lazarus was the Gen- 
 tile people : poor in divine grace and wisdom, and lying betore the gates ; 
 for it was not permitted to the Gentiles to enter the house itsell, because 
 they were considered a pollution. Thus, in the Acts of the Apostles we 
 read that it was alleged against Paul that ho had introduced Gentiles into 
 the temple, and made that holy place common or unclean. Moreover, 
 those people were full of fetid sores of sin, on which the impudent dogs, 
 or devils, fed, who delight themselves in our sores. The Gentiles likewise 
 desired even the crumbs which fell from the table of the Rich ; for they 
 were wholly destitute of that bread which strengthens the heart ol man, 
 and wanted even the smallest morsel of food ; so that the Canaamte wo- 
 man (Matt. XV. 27,) when she was a heathen, desired to be led with the 
 crumbs. In short : the Hebrew people were dead unto God, and their 
 bones, which could not be moved to do good, were perished. Lazarus al- 
 so, I mean the Gentile people, was dead in sin. And the envious Jews, who 
 were dead in sins, did actually burn in a fiamc of jealousy, as saith the 
 Apostle, on account of the Gentiles being received into the faith, and be- 
 cause that those who had before been a poor and despised Geiilic race, 
 were now in the bosom of Abraham, the father of nations. And justly, 
 indeed, were they thus received. For it was while Abraham was yet a 
 Gentile, that he believed God, and turned from the worship ol idols to tlic 
 knowledge of God. Therefore, it was proper that they who were partak- 
 ers of his conversion and faith, should rest in his bosom, sharing the same 
 final lot, the same habitation and the same blessedness. And the Jewish
 
 
 people longed for one drop of the former legal sprinklings and purifica- 
 tions to refresh their tongue, that they might confidently say to ua that 
 the Law was still efficacious and availing. But it was not. For the Law 
 was only until John. And the Psalmist says, sacrifice and oblations 
 thou wouldst not, &c." ^ 
 
 Theophylact then briefly observes, that we ought to make a moral uso 
 of this Parable, and not despise our servants who stand at our gales. 
 
 Theophylacti in Quatuor Evangdia Enarrationes, p. 119. Edit. Basil, 
 1525. 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 We may add the testimony of another writer, who, we suppose, was not 
 an Universalist, to the correctness.of the views we have advanced. We 
 extract the following from a work entitled a "Rationale of the Litteral doc- 
 trine of Original Sin, &c. By James Bate, M. A. Rector of Deptford." 
 
 " We will suppose, then, the rich man ivho fared so stimptuoiisly, to be 
 the Jew ; so amply enriched with the heavenly treasure of (iivine revelation. 
 The poor beggar, u'ho lay at his gate, in so miserable a plight, was the poor 
 Gentile ; now reduced to the last degree of want in regard to religious 
 knowledge. TTie crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, and which the 
 befgar was so rfesiVous of picking up, were such fragments of patriarchal 
 and Jewish traditions, as their travelling philosophers were able to pick up, 
 with their utmost care and dilligence. And tjiose philosophers were also 
 the dogs that licked the sores of heathenism, and endeavoured to supply the 
 wants of divine revelalion, by such schemes and hypotheses concerning the 
 nature of the gods, and the obligation of moral duties, as (due allowance 
 made for their ignorance and frailties) did no small honor to human nature, 
 and yet thereby plainly shewed, how little a way unassisted reason could go, 
 without some supernatural help : as one of the wisest of them frankly con- 
 fessed. About one and the same time, ttie beggar dies, and is carried by the 
 angels (i. e. God's spiritual messengers to mankind) into Abrahafii's bosom ; 
 that is, he is engrafted in to the church of God. And the rich man also dies 
 and is buried, lie dies what we call a political death. His dispensation 
 ceases. He is rejected from being any longer tlie peculiar son of God — 
 The people whom ho parabolically represents, are miserably destroyed by the 
 Romans, and the wretched remains of them driven in to exile over the face 
 of the earth : mere vagabonds, with a kind of mark set upon them, like Cain 
 their prototype, for a like .crime ; and which mark may perhaps be— their 
 adherence to the law. Whereby it came amazingly to pass, that these peo- 
 ple, though dispersed, yet still dwell alone and separate ; 7>ot being reckoned 
 among the nations, as" Balaam foretold. The rich man being reduced lo 
 this state of misery, complains bitterly of his hard fate ; but is told by Abra- 
 ham, that he slipped his opportunity. While Lazarus laid hold on his, and 
 now receives the comfort of it. The Jew complains of the want of more 
 evidence, to convince his countrymen, the five brethren: and would fain 
 have Lazarus sent from the dead to convert thorn. But Abraham tells him, 
 that if their own scriptures cannot convince them of their eiTor, iieithcr 
 would thfy be persuaded though one rose from the dead. And exactly bo it 
 proved in the event. For, this parable was delivered towards the end of the 
 tliird year of our Lord's rninistr' ; and in the fourlh, or following year of it, 
 the words put in to the mouth of ,\.braham, as the conclusion of the parable, 
 are most literally verified, by our iiord's raising another Lazarus from the 
 dead. And we may presume that tho beggar had the fictitious name of 
 Lazarus given him in tlio parable, not without some reason. Since tho sup- 
 posed request of the rich man, was fully answered, by our Lord's raising 
 another, and a real Lazarus, from the dead. But what was the consetjuencc .' 
 Did this notorious miracle convince the rich man's brethren ? No, truly. — 
 His visit to them from the dead, was so far from convincinglhcm, that they 
 actually consulted together, that Ihet/ might put Lazarus also to death ; be- 
 cause that byreason of him,ma.ny of the Jews went awa;/ and believed on 
 Jesus. So mucli for the true sense of this parable."