Britain. Moreover, both Eusebius and Theodoret attest, that the apostles preached the gospel in the Britannic isles. Doddridge, in his note on the passage says, it appears from the most credible records, that the gospel was preached in Mesopotamia, Idumea, and Syria, by Jude; in Egypt, Mauritania, and other parts of Africa, by Mark, Simon, and Jude; in Ethiopia, by Matthias and Candace's Eunuch; in Pontus, Galatia, and other parts of Asia, by Peter; in the territories of the seven Asiatic churches, by John; in Parthia, by Matthew; in Scythia, by Philip and Andrew; in the northern and western parts of Asia, by Bartholomew; in Persia, by Simon and Jude; in Media, Carmania, and other parts of the east, by Thomas; from Jerusalem, round the vast tract, to Illyricum, by Paul; in Spain, Gaul, and Britain, in all probability, by the apostles; and in all which places churches had been planted within thirty years after the death of Christ, and ten before the destruction of Jerusalem.'

Thus, then, is the objection to this understanding of the subject, supposed to be contained in the declaration relative to the previous preaching of the gospel, entirely removed.

I believe it is by this time evident, that the catastrophe to which Daniel alludes, is already past. At the time to which I think it is fairly maintained the prophecy points, Christ said, "The time is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." That this is a highly figurative declaration will not be disputed, and those who read Daniel's prophecy with attention, will not be willing to allow that his language is to be literally understood. What then is the conclusion? That the figurative representation of Daniel is to be understood literally, while the time is as certainly past, as Jerusalem has been destroyed?

No, let us reject a system which requires such perversion of language, and so pàlpable à libel on common

sense.

Had I leisure and room, the subject would be more fully illustrated by a variety of connecting circumstances, and a plenary view of the figurative use of language. Having however, substantially proved, as I think, that the subject of the prophecy is already fulfilled, I forbear. Wishing that we may grow in grace, and in the knowledge of those scriptures which are able to make us wise to salvation, I remain, yours truly, JULIUS.

LETTER 5.

That

Dear Sir,-I am now to commence with your quotations from the New Testament, the first of which is found in Matt. 5: 22. "But I say unto you, whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, [thou vile person] shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, [or apostate wretch] shall be in danger of hell fire; [or, liable to the burning of Gehenna.]

On this I remark, first, that if your opinion of this text be correct, the immense difference between the enumerated offences, and their punishment, have no possible proportion. That for the expression of anger, and calling a brother a vile person, one might be subjected to a judicial' sentence from the tribunals of the Jews, constituted for the cognizance of such of fences, seems perfectly reasonable; but will any individual of a sound mind, contend that the difference between calling one a vile person, and a fool, or

apostate wretch, is such as to subject him who uses the latter term to a punishment infinitely greater, and of course, of infinite duration? Or, can you possibly conceive that this is rendering to every man according to his works? This would be virtually to make an infinite difference between the crimes of finite beings ---a proposition too palpably absurd to gain admittance into a well disciplined mind. On reflection, you must be aware, that this is not apportioning the punishment to the crime with the least degree of rationality.

But your view of the subject is no less at variance with scripture, than with the deductions of a discriminating mind. The Lord, speaking by the prophet, bids men to come and reason with him, declaring, that though their sins be as scarlet, they shall be as snow. You will not surely contend that the application of the term fool, or apostate wretch, is out of the pale of mercy, and therefore beyond the degree of crime contemplated by the prophet. Your own mind, I think, will suggest the propriety of examining carefully the records of truth, which so frequently and strongly testify the love of God to sinners, and their consequent redemption from the power of sin, before you draw a conclusion which must utterly de stroy the consistency of the scriptures.

In the second place, the argument which you deduce from the text, proves too much, and is therefore its own destroyer. It involves consequences which you did not foresee. If the true meaning of the text be what you intimate, and it extend into the Christian dispensation, Paul is most certainly convicted. He says, 1 Cor. 15. 36. "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die." The same language is repeatedly used by Christ, who is often and emphatically styled our brother. Are you wil

ling to view the subject as formerly, and let the evident conclusion follow?

In my apprehension, Christ most clearly advertedto the customs of the Jews, to whom he then spoke, and pointed to ordinances which were perfectly understood in that nation. "The question then is, not what those called christians understand by the words, but, What did the Jews, to whom the words were addressed, understand by the language ?" In what sense they understood it will now be seen.

Dr. Campbell, and other Biblical scholars, allow that by a Gehenna of fire, translated hell fire, was understood the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet, a polluted and well known place near Jerusalem.

Mr. Parkhurst, whose authority, in this case, you will hardly question, says" Hence in the New Testament, Tɛɛwa Toυ Tupos a Gehenna of fire, Mat. 5. 22, (the very verse in point) I apprehend, in its outward and primary sense, relates to that dreadful doom of -being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom." If this is its outward and PRIMARY sense, it is that which the Jews most unquestionably understood, and being a matter of public notoriety, and one about which no Jew could well mistake, the conclusion is obvious and irresistible, that to them this was its only meaning. This was the sense in which it was uniformly used in their scriptures, and, far as I am yet acquainted, the most diligent and inquisitive scholars, have not been able to learn that any other sense was ever attached to the phrase by the Jewish nation, "The other sense of the word which we find in the New Testament, is in James: 36, where, by a metononomy,it is applied to the wickedness of the tongue."

In view of this brief, but conclusive testimony, and of the consequences which must inevitably flow from your impressions, need I ask you to reflect seriously on the subject, and to ask yourself, if the Israelites

could be expected to understand the language as intended to teach a tenet to which they were strangers, or whether the Saviour, on so important a subject, used language to which he appended a private interpretation?

Mat. 5: 25, requires but few words. The subject matter relates to our conduct each with the other. Man is frequently and truly represented as the enemy of man. God our Father, is represented as the friend of sinners, the never dying, and unchangeable benefactor of man. In the two preceding verses, directions are given to heal the breaches between brethren before coming to God in worship. We are justified by scripture in saying, that no man can worship God acceptably, who bears hatred to a brother. From love alone can spring that devotion to God, which is manifested by those acts of kindness, that are utterly repugnant to, and inconsistent with, a spirit of malevolence. "He that hateth his brother is a MURDERER."

But to close the remarks on this subject with all convenient brevity, let us inquire, whether retaining one in prison until the last farthing is paid, is not most evidently clearing the individual, finally, from his "durance vile ?" This appears too plain to require further consideration..

I cannot, however, resist a remark in this place to which you must be impelled to assent. The same chapter refutes most clearly, the inferences frequently drawn from the passages quoted, and some others. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This lex talionis is the very principle of the adversary, v. 25. But what says Christ on this subject? "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." He directs to suffer wrong, rather than to do wrong; to give and to lend ; to love. and to bless enemies; and assures, that whoever thus