something which survives the body, and so is not dependent upon it for its existence. But can this be said of mere animal life? By no means. Killing the body, is killing the life By interpreting the term soul to signify life, the whole force and consistency of the passage are lost. On that interpretation the sentiment of the passage is, "fear not them that kill the life, but cannot kill the life!" Mr. B. says, "this would indeed be an absurd consequence," but he contends that this is not a consequence drawn by himself.* It is true that Mr. B. does not draw this inference, but he lays down the premises from which this inference flows, and that necessarily. He says that the word soul, in this passage, means animal life. Of this he is so very confident, that he thinks he can convince every candid man that his statement is correct. Here then is one of the premises clearly laid down. The other is this ;-killing the body is killing animal life. This is a self-evident proposition. Animal life cannot exist without the existence of the body, and the body cannot live without the existence of animal life. To say that animal life can exist without the existence of that animal body, of which it is the life, is a plain contradiction. And it is equally contradictory to say that the body can live without the life which constitutes it a living body. So it is evident, even to demonstration, that killing the body is killing the life. Now on supposition that the term soul means animal life as he contends, the conclusion is fair and logical. Thus

The term soul signifies animal life:

Animal life cannot exist without the existence of the animal body;

Therefore killing the body, is killing the animal life. Hence the sentiment of the passage, on his interpretation, is, fear not those who kill the life, but cannot kill the life.

• Reply, p. 110.

+ Reply, p. 112.

This is a just consequence from Mr. B.'s exposition of the passage, and it is not in his power to avoid it. In fact, he admits it true in one sense. He says, "It is killing or destroying the life from this world." But he says, "Men cannot kill the life, so as to prevent its reanimating the body; but God can not only kill the body, but prevent its ever living again. God's power reaches to this; for he is able to destroy the life, or in other words, never raise the person to life again."* Here Mr. B. acknowledges that killing the body is killing the life, as far as it relates to this world. But how is it with regard to the future? He says, men cannot prevent the life's reanimating the body. This is true, and it is equally true that they cannot prevent the body's being raised from the dead. Men can prevent the life's reanimating the body, as much as they can prevent the body's becoming the receptacle of the life. Their power is equally limited with regard to both. kill the body therefore, they kill the time, and in precisely the same sense. If killing the one relates to this world, killing the other relates to this world also. But Mr. B. says that men cannot kill the life, so as to prevent its living again. The same may be said of the body. The scriptures declare that God will quicken our mortal bodies, as well as give us life. In fact, doing one is doing the other. So there is no way for Mr. B. to avoid this conclusion, which he himself acknowledges to be absurd. He admits that killing the body is killing the life, as far as it relates to this world, and we have seen that the same is true as it relates to the future. Hence he makes our Savior say, "fear not them that kill the life, but cannot kill the life; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both life and life in hell."

When they life at the same

But Mr. B.'s zeal to pull down a future retribution, Inq. pp. 205, 206.

has involved him in another absurdity. In these passages Mr. B. says, men are "dissuaded from the fear of man, and the fear of God is strongly inculcated upon them.*""

But how is this fear inculcated? Not by what God can do in this world, for Mr. B. acknowledges that men do as much as God does in this state, to excite fear, Men can kill the body, and killing the body is killing the life, as far as it relates to the present state. Now if to fear God rather than man is strongly inculcated, God must do something more than to kill the body, and consequently the life, in the present world; and what this something is, Mr. B. has informed us. He says in language already cited, "God is able to destroy the life, or in other words, never raise the person to life again." Here Mr. B. admits that the passage applies to a future state. Men, he says, cannot prevent the life's reanimating the body in a future world, though they can destroy both body and life in this. But God can do more; he can refrain from raising them from the dead. Now as Mr. B. will not pretend that the resurrection of the body takes place in this world, so he is compelled to admit, after all his labor to the contrary, that the fear of God is "strongly inculcated" by the consideration of what God can do in a future state. Mr. B. tells us again and again, that this passage applies to this world, and is confined to the destruction of Jerusalem. But after all this labor, he is constrained to acknowledge that the passage applies beyond the grave.

But after all Mr. B.'s labor to prove that the term soul means animal life, he appears to give it all up, and concludes upon the whole that this term is used expletive ly, and is a "mere Hebrew idiom." By saying this, he denies that the term soul means animal life, as has already been shown, and need not be repeated again. That Mr. B. does give up the idea, that the soul means animal life,

* Inq. p. 189.

and finally espouse his first interpretation, that it is a Hebraism, may be seen by his closing remarks upon these passages, both in the Inquiry and in the Reply.* Yes-before he leaves these passages, he brings up the interpretation he first gave, though this is in direct opposition to the drift of his labors upon the texts.-But Mr. B. tells us that the passage does not say that God will inflict such a punishment, but only that he is able to do it. This part of his interpretation corresponds with yours, and has already been examined. I will however offer one remark upon this statement of Mr. B.'s. He tells us repeatedly that this passage is parallel to Matt. xxiii. 33, and so applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now according to his representation, we must conclude that Jerusalem has not been taken, and never will be; for he tells us, it is not said that God will do it, but only that he is able. As to his remarks that the terms kill and destroy may mean annihilation, I will only observe, that as he contends that this is not his opinion, and that annihilation does not follow on his interpretation of the passage, it does not follow on ours.

I should not have detained you so long in remarking upon Mr. B. had not his Inquiry been esteemed by many almost as an oracle, and had he confined himself to any one interpretation. From what has been offered upon this passage, I trust it is apparent that the term soul signifies the immortal spirit; something which men cannot affect, though they kill the body; and that God is to be feared from the consideration that he is able to destroy, that is, afflict or punish the sinner after death. We have also seen that it must have been probable that such a punishment would be inflicted, otherwise we must charge the Son of God with duplicity; and this interpretation is confirmed by the Savior, who tells us expressly, in the immediate connexion, that those who deny him, shall be denied in return.

*Inq. p. 444. Reply, p. 121.

Your attention is next requested while we attend to Luke xvi. 19 to 31 inclusive. "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulph fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to you, cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him 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. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets : let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

As detecting error is frequently necessary to the discovery of truth, we will, in the first place, examine your interpretation of the passage, and in order thereto, we will notice several observations which have been made