necessarily to the future state, when I say, that not more than one twentieth part of the Bible applies to the world to come. Multitudes of other passages teach principles which will apply to every state, to the future as well as to the present. The above is what our author will readily admit. We will say then that nineteen twentieths of the bible apply to this state, and one twentieth to the future. Now what may we naturally expect from scripture usage on this subject? Why, we may naturally expect that the same terms will occur nineteen times as often applying to this state as to the future; and for this good reason, the sacred writers say nineteen times as much about the things of this world as about the things of the next. Take the term condemnation or judgment, and a believer in a future retribution might naturally expect that it would apply to this state much more frequently than to the future; because there are many more passages which speak of misery here than hereafter.

In the New Testament there is nineteen times as much said of Christ as of John the Baptist, for instance. Now what might we naturally expect from scripture usage on this subject? We might expect that the same terms would be applied much oftener to Christ than to John, The very nature of the case requires this. Now the same may be said of those passages which apply to a future state. Scripture usage may be against them in Mr. B.'s seme of the phrase, that is, the terms used in those passages may apply to the present state, more frequently than to he

future; but at the same time the subject and context may plainly teach us that they apply beyond the grave. If a future retribution is taught in the scriptures, the nature of the case requires that the terms used to express it, should be applied to this state also, and more frequently too than to the future. If Mr. B. denies this, he must admit that the scriptures do not speak of John the Baptist, because they speak more frequently of Christ; and in fact, that a future state of being is not taught in the scriptures.

Perhaps the reader may think that this is foreign to our subject. But it is not. Unless we adopt just rules of interpretation, we can never arrive at truth. Mr. B. does not seem to trouble himself upon this subject; but adopts any rule which will answer his purpose at the time, without attempting to show that the rule is well founded; and we are under the necessity of following him through all his windings. We have now attended to his main rules of interpretation, and have found them extremely defective. We have seen that they involve the grossest absurdities, and are better calculated, when used to the extent that he uses them, to subserve the cause of skepticism and infidelity than the cause of truth. But to these rules, defective as they are, he owes his whole system. Without these, his system would soon embrace the dust. In fact, it is hardly necessary that we examine his views any further. We have examined his system, and have found it absurd and contradictory; and we have seen that the rules of interpretation by which he defends it, are

false and deceptive. As his edifice is defective, and its foundation sandy, it must fall of course, if left to itself. But lest he and his friends should pretend that his book is unanswered and unanswerable, I will notice his principal arguments.

48

THE STATE OF THE DEAD.

ence.

Mr. B.'s first Essay is designed to prove that man has no immortal soul; that the whole man dies at the death of the body, so that there is no existence between death and the resurrection. We will now take a brief view of his arguments in support of his position. He tells us, pp. 14, 15, that the dead, whether good or bad, are said to go to their fathers, or sleep with their fathers. But what does this prove? The very idea of going to them, supposes that they were somewhere, which of itself shows that they were not out of existHe tells us on the same pages, that going to their fathers, means nothing more than going to Sheol or Hades. But does it follow that man has no existence, because he goes to Hades, the state of the dead-a state in which the rich man experienced pain, and Lazarus happiness? He that sees force in this reasoning, must have acute penetration. He attempts to prove his position, p. 16, by quoting Ps. Ixxxviii. 12, where the grave is called "the land of forgetfulness." But this forgetfulness in all probability relates not to the dead, but to the living. This he himself admits, by referring to Ps. xxxi. 12, where David says, "I am forgotten, as a dead man out of mind." Here we learn that the forgetfulness was on the part of the living. David was forgotten as a dead man is forgotten. But did the psalmist mean by this ex

pression, that he was actually annihilated? No one will pretend this. And yet this passage as clearly proves that David was annihilated while he was alive, as the other passage proves that men are annihilated at death.

Again, David, addressing the Deity in the very psalm in which he calls the grave "the land of forgetfulness," says, "I am counted with them that go down to the pit;-free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more." Here again we learn by the context, that the forgetfulness was not on the part of the dead, but on the part of the living. In the figurative language of scripture, the dead are said to be forgotten by the all-wise Creator,-"Whom thou rememberest no more." Hence we see that nothing can be drawn from the fact, that the grave is called "the land of forgetfulness," to favour Mr. B.'s system. Even if this forgetfulness could be shown to relate to the dead themselves, it would not yield him any assistance. For then it would signify no more than that they had forgotten in the same sense in which they were forgotten by God; which no one will pretend was perfect and entire forgetfulness. On p. 17, he quotes Ps. vi. 5, "For in death, there is no remembrance of thee," to prove that the whole man becomes extinct at death. But the passage just cited proves as clearly that the Deity becomes extinct at the death of his creatures, as this passage proves that they become extinct at death, That declares that God remembers the dead no more, and this, that they remember him no more;