ter the death of the body. After you have taken away my immortal soul and killed my body, you may inflict what you choose upon what is left.

Again, Acts 2: 22. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, (Hades, the place of departed spirits) neither suffer thine holy one to see corruption. That Hades was, in the current opinion of the Jews at the time of Christ, supposed to be a habitation of departed spirits, is admitted by Mr. B. What idea would this quotation from the Psalms as made by Peter, be likely to convey to the Jews. Would it not plainly teach them that the soul of Christ went into a conscious existence in the world of spirits? Another evidence that the soul of Christ was in the world of spirits, is found in what he said to the penitent thief. To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. This difficulty Mr. B. escapes as usual, by the help of Hebrew roots;— tells us that the word comes from a root, which means to separate, and therefore the word means an enclosure, and therefore the grave; and that the Lord said to the thief, To-day shalt thou be with me in the grave. But here he has involved himself in many difficulties to escape one. In the first place, the word is never used by any writers, sacred or profane, in the sense of the grave. In the next place, he makes Christ's reply to the prayer of the thief to be, To-day shalt thou be with me in the grave, which was a cold consolation to a dying man. And then, it happens the body of the thief found no grave. If paradise means the grave, it is strange that the seventy who must have understood the meaning of the word quite as well as Mr. B., have used it for the word to translate the garden of Eden. And if Paradise means the grave, when Paul was caught up into paradise, he was caught up into the grave, and that, a state of complete unconsciousness, and there he heard unspeakable words. I conclude, after such specimens of Mr. B.'s philology, my readers will find no hindrance from it to believing that the penitent thief went that day into a state of happiness with Christ. And that Christ's soul, living and conscious, was in the world of spirits while his body was in the grave.

Again, Rev. 6: 9, 10, 11. I saw under the altar, the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying; How long O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not avenge our

And white robes were

blood, on them that dwell on the earth. ́given unto every one of them, &c. Now suppose it be said that John did not intend to represent the vision of these souls, as of realities, still if a separate soul were what never had existence, it could not be the basis even of a figurative representation. The pale horse seen as the symbol of great destruction overspreading the world, might be no proof that a real horse was there, yet the use of such a symbol pre-supposed the existence of such a creature as a horse. So if the vision of these souls was only a symbol of the result of persecutions and martyrdoms, about to take place, yet the use of the symbol presupposed the existence of separate souls, as the basis of the figure. But you shall hear Mr. B.'s explanation. He says the souls of those martyrs, are only the blood calling for vengeance. We have it then, that the blood cries, how long dost thou not avenge our blood-that is, the blood's blood. And then white robes are given unto every one of them,—that is, to all the blood. That this is a vision of transactions before the end of time, appears from the fact, that these martyrs are commanded to wait till more should be slain. That they were persons is evident from their having been slain. They were glorified persons, for white robes were given them; that they were separate spirits, is asserted. Should it be said, the whole representation is symbolical-then the question is, Are not real existences used as the symbol, as much as in the preceding case of the pale horse? And what does the symbol teach, if not that the souls of martyrs, even before their fellow servants are slain, are elevated to glory and clothed with white robes ?

Again Rev. 7: 9. After this I beheld, and lo a great multitude, which no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands. John asks who these persons are, and the angel informs

him that they are those who have come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. It cannot be denied that these washed in the blood of the Lamb, were men, were conscious and happy beings. And it were easy to show, from the context, that this was a vision to set forth things that take place before the end of the world. Upon this Mr. B. has not remarked, and I will not dwell upon it.

Eccl. 3: 19–21. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth the beasts, even one thing befalleth them, as one dieth, so dieth the other. Yea, they have all one breath, so that man hath no pre-eminence above the beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of a man that goeth upward, or the spirit of a beast that goeth downward? This passage Mr. B. labors to bring in support of his theory of the annihilation of the soul. He says, "words could hardly be selected which would declare more explicitly that there is no difference between man and beast." Now if he means by this, that there is in no respect any difference between the destinies of men and beasts, I would ask him if the beasts experience also a universal salvation. But if this is spoken only of the mortal part of man, if in one respect man resembles the beast, and in another he possesses a capability of eternal glory, and if this in the passage above is affirmed only to set forth the vanity of man as mortal, what becomes of the inference which he has drawn? That the writer here distinguishes between the animal and the immortal part of man, is seen in that he assumes that the spirit of a man goeth upward, while, the spirit of the beast goeth downward. The matter then may be reduced to this dilemma. The writer was either speaking of the end of a man's mortal state only, not designing to intimate that he had no immortal part, or he was speaking of the whole nature and destiny of inan, and asserting that in no respect had man in his destiny a pre-eminence over the beasts. And Mr. B. may choose which he will have it.

Again, the doctrine of the soul's separate existence is taught

earth as it

in Eccl. 12. 7. Then shall the dust return to the was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it. Here the very point in question is directly asserted. After the mortal part returns to its original dust, there is a spirit to return to God:-to return to him to be judged by him and appointed to happiness or woe, according to the deeds done in the body. Mr. B. answers by saying, what is here asserted is asserted of all men, and if it is asserted that any go to God, to be happy at death, it is asserted of all. True, but that phraze, “to be happy" is one of his own adding. They go to God for him to determine the sequel; we are left with the simple fact that they go to God. But Mr. B. says that the soul goes to the condition in which it was before it was created. And as that condition was nothingness, so must this be. And this, he tells us, this nothing gone to God, is what is meant by our life being "hid with Christ in God," spoken of by the apostle. The apostle would hardly thank him for putting such a meaning upon his words. But no interpretation can make the passage more plain or forcible than it is. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it. I need not detain the reader with a detail of that numerous class of passages which speak of giving up the ghost, of the spirit's leaving the body, or returning to it again. They all imply the existence of a spirit separate from the body. But as we have sufficient proofs more direct, to occupy all the space we have for this discussion, I shall not insist on them.

Again, the distinction is made between flesh and spirit, and the spirit is represented as that which needs to be saved in this,-1 Cor. 5: 5. To deliver such a one to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Again, Acts. 23: 8. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both. Here we are told that the Pharisees believe in the existence of spirits, and in the verse above, Paul says, I am a Pharisee. That is, we are first told that Paul was a Pharisee, and then told what a Pharisee believes, which is equivalent to telling us that Paul believed what it is said the

Pharisees do. Besides, here is proof that the word pneuma is used for spirit in the sense of departed spirit; for here it can mean nothing else. But Mr. B. asks, Why does Paul single out the article of the resurrection, if he agreed with the Pharisees in other parts of their creed. I answer: for the plain reason that the doctrine of the resurrection was the main doctrine of the system for the preaching of which he was then called to account.

Hebrews 12: 23. We have come unto the spirits of just men made perfect. Mr. B. says this passage means, “We are come to the persons of the just perfected." Well, but how come to the persons? “They were come to the better things without which those persons were not perfected." But this is a strange way of coming to persons. Paul never wrote such nonsense as this. But without any controversy about what is meant by coming unto the spirits, &c., none will question that heaven is here named as the home of the angels and of the church of the first born, and of the spirits (or persons if you choose it) of just men made perfect. There is then the same reason for believing that the spirits of just men are now in heaven, as there is for believing that the angels, or God the judge of all, is there.

Matt. 17: 1–3. And after six days, Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light, and behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias. Is it a question whether these persons were here in body or spirit? Moses died and was buried in the land of Moab, whatever may be pretended concerning Elijah. And his body could not be there. Mr. Balfour's reply here, is threefold,—First, that if Moses and Elijah came from heaven, “it is certain their conversation did not turn on any thing they had seen, heard or enjoyed there." But how does he know that? Has he a report of all they said? And suppose it did not, does that prove that they did not come from heaven? Secondly, he says that if any went to heaven before Christ, why is he