gross error pass, when he was so careful to cor rect others of much less importance. But do we find that Christ or his apostles ever laboured to show that the people were in error on this subJect? This will not be pretended. The few scraps of sentences which Mr. B. has gleaned from the whole bible-from scripture treating upon some other subject, proves that the sacred writers never laboured the point. It is also wor thy of remark, that these scraps were principally collected from the devotional exercises of the psalmist, expressed in the figurative language o eastern poetry, where we do not expect to find doctrines inculcated in the clearest manner. Besides, we have seen on examination, that these scriptures yield him no assistance.

Now if it were found on examination, that the scriptures are totally silent upon this subject, it would be much more natural to conclude that man had an immortal soul, than that he had not. I we adopt Mr. B.'s conclusion, we impeach the in tegrity and faithfulness of Christ, and his apostles," If we adopt the opposite conclusion, we vindicate their fidelity. One consideration here has great weight. We know that the gospel was promul gated amongst its enemies, who attacked it in almost every form. Accordingly we find that the apostles in their epistles laboured to defend the truth against their attacks. Now as the doctrine of the soul's immortality was generally believed, if Christ had taught any doctrine in opposition to it, this would have been attacked, and we should have found the apostles repelling these attacks,

and defending the mortality of the soul. But nothing like this can be found. On the contrary, there are several passages in the epistles which clearly teach the doctrine of a separate existence. Thus we see that if the scriptures were totally silent upon the subject, this very circumstance would furnish us with an argument in favour of our views, as it would show that the sacred writers gave countenance to this prevailing opinion.

But if I live in the

But we are not willing to allow that the sacred volume is silent" upon this subject. There are several passages which teach a separate existence in the most express manner; and Mr. B. with all his ingenuity and learned apparatus, cannot evade their force. The first passage I shall adduce is Phil. i. 21-24, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. flesh, this is the fruit of my labour; yet what I shall choose, I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ; which is far better. Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." The apostle in this passage informs us that he was divided in his feelings. He had two objects of an opposite nature in view-his own happiness, and the benefit of his brethren. For his own sake he desired to die and to be with Christ; which would be far better for him than to remain in this state. But for the good of his brethren, he was desirous of remaining. "To abide in the flesh," says he, "is more needful for you." Now it is evident from the whole scope of this passage, that Paul expected to be with Christ immediately on

his departure. The whole force and pertinency of the passage is lost on any other interpretation. If there is no conscious existence between death and the resurrection, he could not be with Christ any sooner by dying than by living; consequently there could be no opposition between his two desires. He could accomplish both objects at the same time-could do that which was needful for his brethren, and be with Christ just as soon as though he died that instant. On Mr. B.'s plan the apostle's strait was merely imaginary; his dilemma was only a vagary of his own brain. Thus it will be seen that we must give up the notion here opposed, or accuse the apostle of a disordered mind.

And what adds to the strength of our argument is, it requires no laboured comment to make its strength appear. Our interpretation is the most natural and easy that can be given. Besides, Paul was writing to those who believed in the soul's immortality, and in a separate existence. To them of course it would contain the most express proof of those doctrines. Now could the apostle as a faithful teacher, or even as an honest man, use such language to such people, and leave it without comment, if the immortality of the sout and a separate existence were errors? He could not.

And the course Mr. B. pursues is evidence of this. He feels that this language naturally teaches these doctrines, and hence he introduces a critical and laboured comment upon it.

We will now notice the exposition Mr. B. gives of the passage. He thinks that Paul might be

with Christ, if he went into a state of unconsciousness. But was Christ in a state of unconsciousness? No one will pretend this. How then could the apostle be with him by going to such a state? This is a difficulty for Mr. B. to solve. Besides, on his plan, man becomes extinct at death. He is completely and totally annihilated till the resurrection-is mere nothing, a pure non-entity. And to say that a non-entity is with Christ, or any where else, is to use words without meaning. Moreover his zeal for his favourite notion has endangered his whole system. Paul says, in this passage, to die is gain; is far better than to live. But how could it be far better, on his system, to be annihilated, than to remain in the flesh? This objection Mr. B. anticipates, and attempts to answer by telling us, pp. 57, 58, that it is a blessing to a good man to die and escape the troubles of this world. Now this concession contains a principle destructive to his main doctrine. He maintains, and is required by his system to maintain, that a full, just, and equitable retribution takes place in this world; that happiness always keeps pace with virtue, and misery with vice; so that the more virtuous a man is, the more happy he is. This his system requires, and if this principle is given up, his system will fall. In my Letters, I laboured to show that cases sometimes occurred, in which a good man suffered more in this world than a sinner. This position he attacks with his nsual mildness, and says, "Cart loads of such reasoning could never determine the question at issue. The whole drift is calculated to leave the impression

that it is a happy thing to be a sinner, and a very miserable thing to be a saint in this world." p. 325.

Now although he reprobates this sentiment when advanced by me, he is compelled to admit it here to support his argument. Yes, he is compelled to admit that the misery of St. Paul and other good men, is so great that it is far better for them to be annihilated than to remain here. Now he may embrace either horn of the dilemma. If he says men do not receive an equitable retribution here, he must either deny the plain scripture doctrine of a just retribution, or admit that a retribution is extended into a future state. Thus, to admit that men are not justly and fully recompensed here, is virtually renouncing his main doctrine. But to avoid this, let him say that all men are duly punished and rewarded in this world. Then the more virtuous a man is, the more happy he is; then Paul, being far more virtuous than vicious, must have been far more happy than miserable; and hence it could not have been far better, but must have been far worse for him to go into unconsciousness than to abide in the flesh. Thus we see that if he takes one ground, he gives up his doctrine of no future punishment, and if he takes the other, he relinquishes his notion of the mortality of the soul. Now all the labour he has bestowed upon this passage shows that it does not naturally fall in with his system. Surely he would not have involved himself in this perplexity, had he not been driven to it by the passage before us.

Another passage to our purpose is 2 Cor. v.

་