and if the latter proves the extinction of man, the former proves the extinction (pardon the expression) of God.

On the same page he cites Ps. cxv. 17, "the dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Now the evident meaning of this passage is, the dead cannot join with the living in praising God, or cannot praise him in the same manner. This very explanation is given in Isa. xxxviii. 18, 19, a passage to which Mr. B. refers as a parallel. The prophet says, "The grave cannot praise thee; death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee as I do this day; the father to the children shall make known thy truth." Here the prophet asserts that the living can praise God, but the dead cannot. He then describes the praise which can be rendered by the one and not by the other. And what is this praise, or in what does it consist? It consists in instruction, or proclaiming the truth to others. "The living shall praise thee, as I do this day-the fathers to the children shall make known thy truth." This is the praise which the dead cannot offer. They cannot instruct their children and others, as the prophet did. This passage then contains no evidence that the dead are not in a state of conscious existence, The interpretation we have given is confirmed by another text to which he refers. Ps. xxx. 9, "What profit is there in my blood when I go down to the pit ?" Does David here intimate that his soul would be unconscious after death? No

thing like it. He tells us that there would be no profit in his blood, or corporeal system, when it was inactive in the grave. We have now examined several of his proof texts, and have found that they are nothing to his purpose; nay, that the passages themselves taken in their connexion confute his interpretations.

But the passage on which Mr. B. seems mostly to rely is Ps. cxlvi. 3, 4, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth: in that very day his thoughts perish." Whenever he feels himself in distress for his favourite system, this passage is brought into view. As he regards this as his strongest text, we will give it a particular investigation. We have already seen the manner in which the sacred writers, especially the psalmist, speak of the dead. In the figurative language of eastern poetry, they are said to be out of the remembrance of God. Now the latitude which Mr. B. must take to explain this language, would easily reconcile the passage before us with the common opinion of an intermediate state. I might with safety rest the whole subject here, and he would be compelled to give up his argument, or deny the infinite knowledge of the Almighty.

But, as Mr. B. delights himself in criticisms, I will offer one upon this passage, which will take it out of his hands. The Hebrew word rendered thoughts in this passage, is eshtonoth, from the verb ashath, to shine, look glossy. Moore, in his Hebrew Lexicon, defines eshtonoth, cogitationes

In

splendide, that is, splendid thoughts, or lofty imaginations. Parkhurst says, "as a N. fem. plur in regimen, eshtonoth is rendered thoughts; but why not splendors, glories, which makes excellent sense?" Here we have the authority of Moore and Parkhurst, that the word rendered thoughts properly signifies splendors, or projects. This agrees with the root of this term, which signifies to shine, look brilliant, which would apply well to projects, or schemes, but with no propriety to thoughts. this manner it seems to have been understood by the Seventy, who render the Hebrew esthonoth by the Greck dialogismoi, which Schleusner renders cogitationes magnifica, that is, magnificent schemes or designs. Mr. M'Ray in his translation of the Bible, published at Glasgow, A. D. 1815, renders the clause, his projects perish." Thomson's translation reads, "all his projects shall perish." The Chaldee paraphrase renders it machinations. The Syriac version has it purpose. Gataker renders it projects, and Shultens, splendid prosperity or outward pomp. See also remarks upon Priestley by Mr. Ormerod of Christ College.

Here we have authorities which will not be controverted, that the term ought to have been rendered, projects, schemes, or splendors, instead of thoughts. This criticism entirely destroys Mr. B.'s argument. We all know that the vain projects or designs of men perish at death. But does this contain any proof that the soul has no existence in an intermediate state? It may be pertinent to ask, why has he not presented us with a criticism upon this text? Wherever a

53

passage opposes his views, he presents us with criticisms to do away its force; but if it appears to be in his favour, we are not troubled with the opinions of critics. To some, such a course will appear suspicious.

But though this criticism is conclusive against Mr. B. it happens in this case, as in almost every other, that the connexion and language of the passage teach its true sense. Parkhurst, as we have already seen, says, to render it splendors makes excellent sense. The object of the whole Psalm is to induce men to trust in God, and not in princes. David tells us, verse 3, that he will praise God while he has a being; and then to dissuade us from trusting in princes, he tells us, verses 3, 4, that there is no help in them; that they return to the dust, and in that very day all their worldly wealth and honours, and their vain schemes, and shining projects, which arc so alluring to the children of men, perish. Understand it in this light, and the argument is clear and forcible; but on Mr. B's interpretation, its What man ever trusted in a pertinency is lost. prince, or courted his favour from the belief that his soul would exist in a separate state? No one Now if the psalmist attempted to whatever. dissuade men from trusting in princes, by the consideration that the soul does not exist in a separate state, as Mr. B. supposes, he certainly argued at random, and laboured to cut off an inducement which did not exist. But we all know that multitudes are allured by the vain pomp and grand projects of princes.

6

There was

therefore, a peculiar propriety in reminding men that all this splendid magnificence would die with its authors. Thus we see that our exposition makes the argument strong and pertinent, while Mr. B.'s destroys both its force and pertinency.

But perhaps it may be said, that it was well known before, that the splendor of princes ceased at their death. We admit it. But it is important and wise to remind men of what they already know, especially when this knowledge teaches them some duty which they are apt to neglect. We all know that we must die; but the sacred writers in scores of passages remind us of our mortality; and for this good reason-we are apt to put far from us the evil day. Now there is precisely the same propriety in reminding men that princely magnificence will perish. But we can oppose the passage before us by others which imply that our mental powers do not cease at death. We are told that "the righteous hath hope in his death," Prov. xiv. 32. In Prov. xi. 7, we read, "When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish." Now one of these passages asserts, and the other as strongly implies, that the saint has hope or enjoyment after death. And should Mr. B. say that the hope here expressed looks forward to the resurrection, I have the same right to say that the passages which represent the grave as the land of forgetfulness, &c. look back to this world. Thus it will be seen that the same liberty which he takes with these passages, will enable us to take all his proof texts out of his hands.