Section V.

Direct Scriptural Proof that the Soul Lives After the Body is Dead.

Before entering upon the Bible argument, it appears proper to sum up what has preceded, that it may be seen where we are, and in what particular state we carry the question into the Scriptures. The following points have been proved:

1. The doctrine, that the soul maintains a conscious existence after the body is dead, has the support of the common sentiment of mankind, and is taught by every system of religion that has been propagated in every age and land. The few who have denied it as a part of their religion, have been exceptions, and have been so few in number as not to constitute a religious system or organization.

2. The Jews in particular held this doctrine. The denial of the doctrine of the Sadducees is referred to in a manner which shows their views to have been an exception, and renders the evidence more certain that the opposite was the general doctrine, than it would have been if no allusions had been made to exceptions.

3. The early Christians most clearly believed the doctrine in question; and under the influence of their faith, confessors and martyrs bore every possible torture and joyfully died.

With these points full in view, we invite the reader to accompany us in an investigation of the subject simply as a Bible question. The fact being established beyond a doubt, that the Jews and early Christians held the doctrine for which we contend, must furnish essential aid in the interpretation of those Scriptures, which refer to the subject. The language of Christ and his apostles, must be easier understood after having arrived at a clear understanding of the sentiments held by those whom they addressed. With these remarks, we enter upon our argument founded upon the word of God.

Eccl. iii. 21: "Who knoweth the spirit of a man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth " Dr. Clark, whose knowledge of Hebrew is not to be questioned, says the literal translation of this text, is thus: "Who considereth the immortal spirit of the sons of Adam, which ascendeth. It is from above: and the spirit or breath of the cattle, which descendeth It is downwards unto the earth, that is, to the earth only."

The following translation, given by Professor Roy, author of Roy's Hebrew and English Dictionary, which he affirms to be a true and literal translation of the text.

"Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of Adam that ascends upward to the highest place; or even the spirit of the cattle which descends downwards into the lowest part of the earth."

It will be seen that these translations essentially agree, and the text as it stands in our common translation, or as here rendered, contains the following points:

1. The spirit of a man and the spirit of a brute are distinguished the one from the other, and are particularly marked as tending in different directions, so that the destiny of the one cannot be inferred from the destiny of the other.

2. The expression, "the spirit of a man that goeth upward," clearly denotes, not only continued, but more elevated existence, and hence it may be regarded as a proof that the spirit survives the death of the body.

Eccl. xii. 7: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." We may test this text by a common sense rule, and learn its meaning, as we may most other texts. Suppose the text was not in the Bible: and suppose further, that the community were divided in opinion, some believing that the soul dies with the body, and others that it lives in the spirit world after the body is dead; anti suppose still further, that the person whose opinion was unknown, should address this divided community, and should say, "Friends, you must all die, and then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it," would any one doubt that he took sides with those who hold that the soul lives after the body is dead No one could doubt it; yea, the language would be offensive, under such circumstances, to those that deny that the soul lives after the body is dead; they would feel that the declaration was made against their views. Then are we sure that the writer of the text, believed that the soul lives after the body is dead. The writer is clearly speaking of death, and when it shall take place he declares, "then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, the spirit shall return unto God who gave it," which proves that the soul does not return to the earth with the body, as clearly as words can prove it.

Psal. xc. 10: "The days of our years are three-score and ten; and, if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength, labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off and we flee away." No man of sense and taste would use such language, with reference to death, who believes there is in man no living soul, which continues to live after the body is dead. Suppose the doctrine to prevail that when the body dies, the whole man dies, and that all there is of the man is laid in the grave, would any one even by any rhetorical flourish, call dying, flying away Never; the very figure, if it be called a figure, is borrowed from the belief that man has a soul which departs to the spirit-world when the body dies; this belief alone could suggest the idea of saying that men fly away when they die.

Matt. x. 28: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Luke xii. 4, 5: Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but I forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell." These texts are sufficient to settle the question, if we put a plain common sense construction upon the language. The following points are perfectly clear:

1. The body and soul are not the same. They are spoken of as distinct matters.

2. Men are capable of killing the body. This refers to the persecutions which were to come, in which they should be put to death. Men did kill their bodies.

3. Men are not able to kill the soul. This is most clearly asserted. The first text asserts that they "are not able to kill the soul," and the second asserts that, "them that kill the body have nothing more that they can do;" which is the same as to assert that they cannot kill the soul.

4. From the above, it follows that the soul does not die with the body. If the soul does not live without the body, or after the body is dead, then persecutors could kill the soul, the very thing which Christ affirmed they could not do. If the soul dies with the body, then to kill the body is to kill the soul; but men can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; and therefore, the soul does not die with the body. We are certainly unable to see how this argument can be answered with any show of plausibility.

Matt. xvii. 3: "And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." The force of the argument drawn from this text, depends upon the circumstance that those who had been long dead, appeared on this occasion. So far as Elias is concerned, we admit there is little or no force in it, since he was translated, and did not die, but so far as Moses is concerned, the argument is conclusive. The death of Moses is described in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6. "So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." Moses then died, and was buried, and yet he appeared upon the mount, and talked with Christ, nearly fifteen hundred years afterwards. To assume, as some have, that the soul of Moses died with his body, and that he was raised again, as all will be, at the resurrection, is without foundation. There is not the slightest proof to sustain the assumption. The fact, then, that one whose body is proved to have been dead and buried afterwards appeared and conversed, is clear proof that the soul lives after the body is dead.

Matt. xxii. 31, 32: "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." See also Mark xii. 27, and Exodus iii. 6, from whence the quotation is made. We are aware that it will be said that this text speaks only of the resurrection of the body, and not of the conscious existence of the soul while the body is dead. This is not true, the expression, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," clearly refers to the life of the soul after the death of the body, because it is applied to those whose bodies were, at the time, dead. The argument may he stated thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; but God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and therefore they must be living. But the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead, and therefore it must have been their souls that were living. This certainly is the most rational construction which can be put upon the language; and that it is most in harmony with the grand design of our Lord, which was to refute the Sadducees and establish the doctrine of the resurrection, will appear from the following considerations:

1. The Sadducees were materialists, and denied the existence of spirits, as well as the resurrection of the body. These two ideas were linked together in their views, to stand or fall together. To sweep their theory away, Christ included both branches, but more particularly the existence of the soul after the death of the body, by which he removed their greatest objection to the resurrection of the body, and laid the foundation for it, by establishing the separate existence of the soul.

It was necessary for Christ to establish the separate existence of the soul, as he did, in order to prove the resurrection of the body, in a discussion with the Sadducees. There can be no resurrection, unless the soul maintains its conscious existence during the interim, and as the Sadducees denied this, he had to prove it to lay the foundation on which to build the resurrection of the body. The identity of man is to be looked for in the soul, and not in the matter that composes the body, and the only reliable evidence of identity, is our consciousness; hence if consciousness cease at death, upon the principle that the mind dies with the body and returns to dust with it, a link is broken in the chain of our existence, and the man this side of death, can never be joined to the man beyond the resurrection. The mind ceases to exist upon the principle we oppose. When a person dies, if the mind is only the brain, or a function of the brain, as an individual once said to the writer, then it dies and ceases to exist. There is then no mind after the body is dead. The brains may be taken out and the watery part be evaporated, and the solid reduced to powder and preserved, or thrown to the winds, but no one would say that what had been evaporated and lost amid the world of waters is the mind. Nor will any one pretend that the powder preserved and thrown to the winds, is mind, or that it approaches to mind, any more than any other dust of the same amount, which may be taken from the earth anywhere between the poles. There is then no mind after the person is dead, and the mind having ceased to exist, there can be no resurrection of mind; if mind exists again it must be a new mind, a new creation, and not a resurrection, and such a being must date his existence from such re-production, and can never be linked with some other mind that once existed, but which ceased to exist. The theory we oppose asserts that mind or intelligence is the result of organization, and hence, when the organization ceases, the mind must cease to exist. Should the same particles of matter be organized into a thinking machine, a thousand years afterwards, it would not, it could not be the same mind, for identity does not lie in the particles of matter, but in the conscious mind; and this new mind cannot, by memory or consciousness, ally itself to the former being which was, and which ceased to be, a thousand years before.

Let us take another view of the same point. Some of the martyrs were burned to ashes, and the ashes were then gathered up and scattered upon the waters of the rivers or ocean, so as to prevent a resurrection, as the heathen persecutors supposed. Now, upon the supposition that the mind is a property of matter, the mere result of organization, where is the mind of one of those martyrs now It has no existence, and has had none since the hour when the body was burned. The fluid of the body that was burned exists somewhere in the universe of waters; it may have a thousand times ascended in vapor, and fallen in dew and rain; it may have floated in the clouds, it may have flowed from the fountain, run in the stream, and mingled in the ocean; it may have formed the sap of trees and plants, and it may have been repeatedly drunk by men and beasts. So with the solid part of the body that was thus burned; the ashes may have been washed away by ten thousand waters, and blown away by ten thousand winds; it may have fattened the soil, been absorbed in growing plants, and entered into the composition of other animal bodies. In this state of things the particles of matter are not the mind of the person that was burned. Nor are these floating particles of matter the body of the martyr that was burned. The human body is an organism, but these particles of matter are not an organism, any more than the dew drop that trembles upon the spray, or the dust that cleaves to our feet. These particles of matter are no more the man, than the dust of the ground out of which God formed the body of Adam, was a man, before God laid his plastic hand upon that dust. When the martyr was burned, the man ceased to be, according to the theory we oppose, and everything pertaining to man, which distinguishes him from the common dust of earth and the common water of the ocean, ceased to be; certainly so, unless his soul lives in the spirit-world, as we suppose. These facts are so plain, that it is folly for any one, Christian or Infidel, to pretend to deny them. We insist, then, that there can be no resurrection, if the mind does not live after the death of the body, to preserve a continuous being, whose consciousness shall extend back to the commencement of being God can at the end of the world, produce as many beings as have died, but they will not be the same beings. As there was no man, no mind, during the interim between the burning of the martyr and this re-production of being, consciousness cannot extend back beyond this reproduction, or commencement of this new being. To say that consciousness can extend through these thousands of years of non-existence, and identify itself with some one that once existed, but which ceased to exist, is to say that the mind can be conscious of time during which it does not itself exist, which is the same as to say that nothing can be conscious of something or that something can be conscious of nothing. If the new organism be composed of the same particles of matter, admitting this to be possible with God, it will not relieve the difficulty, for conscious identity and responsibility do not depend upon the presence of the same particles of matter, but upon the sameness of mind; it is the mind that constitutes the man, and not the bones and fat, and the lean flesh, which are ever varying; and the mind has ceased to be, as has been shown. The mind is not, and cannot be conscious of the presence of the same particles of matter at different periods, and hence the presence of the same particles of matter in the new organism, cannot, through the consciousness of the mind, prove identity with some being that once existed, and ceased to exist five thousand years ago. Nothing is, therefore, gained by supposing the presence of the same particles of matter in the resurrection body. As identity or personal sameness does not depend on the presence of the same particles of matter, but upon the sameness of mind there can be no resurrection which will link the post mortem being on to the ante mortem being, without preserving consciousness during the period that elaspes between death and the resurrection. This state of facts rendered it necessary for Christ to prove that the soul lives after the body is dead, in order to refute the Sadducees, which he did by showing that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were dead, and then affirming that he is not the God of the dead but of the living; per-consequence, though the bodies of the patriarchs were dead, their souls were alive. The maintenance of conscious being during the intermediate state, linked Abraham beyond the resurrection, with Abraham dwelling in tents and tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise, and laid the foundation for the resurrection, and refuted the Sadducees beyond their power to reply. We have elaborated this subject at this point, because it is important to the general subject, and because it essentially belongs to a clear and full exposition of the text under consideration. We will now sum up our argument based upon the text, by stating the following points, which we claim to have made plain:

1. The Sadducees not only denied the resurrection of the body, but the existence of spirits, insisting that death is the utter extinction of being.

2. To refute this denial of the resurrection of the body, and establish the fact of a future existence, which shall involve the responsibilities of this life, the chain of consciousness, which is the only sure proof of identity, must be maintained unbroken between our present and future existence.

3. To maintain this connecting link of conscious identity between our present and future existence, the soul or mind must maintain a conscious existence after the body is dead, and during the whole period of the inter mediate state.

4. To prove this vital point of unbroken consciousness, connecting our present with the future being, Christ quoted the words of Jehovah: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," and then added on his own authority: "God is not the God of the dead but of the living;" per-consequence, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are living, though their bodies are dead, and the only, and irresistible conclusion is, that the soul or mind does not die with the body, but lives after the body is dead.

Luke xvi. 22, 23: "And it came to pass, that the beggar died and was carried by 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."

It is not necessary to discuss the question, whether this is a literal narrative, or a parable, as it fully answers the purpose of our argument in either case. If it be a literal narrative, it clearly proves that the soul lives after the body is dead. If it be a parable, it must still be founded upon the fact that the human soul does live after the body is dead, otherwise it would be false and deceptive. When a parable has the form of a narrative, though the narrative may not have transpired, it must be likely to be what is to take place, otherwise it will have no force, or it will mislead. This representation of the rich man and Lazarus, be it parable or fact, clearly inculcates the doctrine that souls live after the body is dead. This it does in three particulars.

1. It represents Lazarus as having a conscious existence after he died, and his soul doubtless "was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom."

2. "The rich man also died, and was buried: And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." lie then had a conscious existence after he was dead and buried.

3. The text represents Abraham also, as alive in the spirit-world, where good people go when they die. This makes a clear case that Christ taught the doctrine that death is not the extinction of conscious existence. It is worthy of remark, that the word rendered hell in this text, is gehenna, which is used to denote the final place of punishment for the wicked, but hades, which denotes the place of separate spirits, good or had, during the intermediate state.

Luke xxiii. 42, 43: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom! And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to-day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

Verse 46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost." We consider these two texts together, because we believe they have a mutual bearing upon each other. The text is as clear a proof of the conscious existence of the soul after the death of the body, as could well be furnished in the use of language. A few remarks will be sufficient on this plain subject.

1. It cannot be pretended that Christ labored under any mistaken views, as to the prospective condition of himself, or that of his petitioner, nor of the state of the dead in general.

2. They were at the time about to die, and both did die in a few moments after.

3. At this moment of death, the petitioner asked to be remembered, and Jesus answereth, "to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." This, under the circumstances, was clearly a promise of being with Christ in paradise after death, and on that same day. This promise did not relate to their bodies, for they did not both go to the same burial place. And if the soul dies with the body, it could not relate to the soul. Paradise, in this text, can mean nothing more nor less than a place of happiness, and here it necessarily means happiness after death. What else can it mean in this connection In the Greek, it signifies a garden, or a place enclosed for pleasure, hence, in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Garden of Eden is rendered Paradise. But it can mean no literal garden here, for the thief was conveyed to no garden, nor can we suppose that his petition concerned the disposition to be made of his body after he was dead, and hence the promise did not relate to the place of his burial, but to the state of his soul, which did not die. "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Here was the promise of being with Christ, as well as being in paradise; and having made the promise, Christ said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, and gave up the ghost." Christ's soul or ghost, which he commended into the hands of his Father and gave up, did not die with his body, and hence, it was with it that the thief had the promise of being in paradise. It must mean, therefore, a place of happiness after death. That the New Testament writers use the word paradise in the sense of heaven, is too plain to be disputed. The word occurs, we believe, only three times, including the text under consideration. The next place is 2 Cor. xii. 4: "How that he was caught up into paradise," &c. In the second verse, what is here called paradise, is called "the third heaven." This leaves no doubt that the word paradise is used in the sense of heaven. The other text in which the word occurs, is Rev. ii. 7: "To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Here again is the word paradise used in the sense of heaven. We have, then, a clear case before us; Christ promised the dying thief that he should be with him in paradise on the same day, but after death; and as the word signifies a place of happiness, it is certain that both the mind of Christ and the pardoned thief lived after the body was dead.

Acts vii. 59: "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." There can be no question that Stephen was under the influence of inspiration at the time he commended his spirit to Christ, for in the 56th verse he said, "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Thus did the martyr, with heaven full in view, commend his spirit to Christ, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." A clearer proof could not be offered of the existence of the spirit after the death of the body. One writer upon this subject laboring to prove the death sleep of the soul, by "spirit" in this text, understands life, and urges that Stephen committed his life to Christ, to be restored at the resurrection, and then affirms that it does not prove "that the life is a distinct substance, susceptible of consciousness without the material organization." Such reasoning can only prove the weakness of the cause it is designed to sustain. In the first place, it was a violation of common sense, to render the text life instead of spirit, in the common meaning of the word life as applied to the body; for if there is no life in man, except what belongs to the material organization, and what can have no separate existence from the body, there was nothing to commend to Christ, nothing for Christ to receive. When the body died, life became extinct, it was not taken by Christ, nor was it preserved anywhere, it ceased to exist upon the theory advanced, and hence renders the prayer of Stephen an absurdity. How could the martyr say, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit," if he had no spirit which did or could exist separate from the body The language implies, first, an act of reception on the part of Christ, arid secondly, something to be received and preserved; but if the whole man perishes at death, no act could be required at death, on the part of Christ, and there could be nothing to receive, either life or spirit.

Rom. viii. 35, 38, 39: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The simple point in this text is, that death cannot separate Christians from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. This proves beyond the reach of contradiction, that death is not the extinction of conscious existence. Love towards God cannot be exercised, neither can the love of God be enjoyed, only by a rational being, possessing reason, affections, and consciousness. If, therefore, death be the extinction of the mind, as clearly as it is of the organism of the body-if the soul dies, involving a loss of mental and moral life, as clearly as the death of the body involves a loss of animal life, death does separate from the love of God, and Paul, who perpetuated the declaration, has himself already been separated from the love of God for almost two thousand years, and righteous Abel has been separated from the love of God nearly six thousand years. It will avail nothing, to pretend in reply, that the dust of the saint may be the subject of Divine love, in some sense which will reconcile the apostle's declaration with the death-sleep of the soul, for the following reasons:

1. "The love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord," of which the apostle speaks, is no doubt reciprocal, acting upon a rational soul, with affections capable of receiving and returning love. But the theory we oppose allows of nothing, after death, capable of receiving, or enjoying, or returning love.

2. There is nothing, worthy of the love of God in Christ Jesus, remaining of the brightest saint on earth, after death, if the soul dies with the body. It is important to understand what there is for God to love after death, according to the theory we oppose. We insist there is nothing, but common earth, water and air, which mingles with the other earth, water and air of this creation. The theory denies that man has a soul, which is distinct from, and which forms no part of his body; and, of course, it assumes that mind is the result of organization, and that intelligence is a property of matter, a function of the brain. This being the case when organization ceases, as it does in decomposition, the mind ceases to exist, is annihilated. If it be a function of the brain, it must cease to exist at death, for the brain has no function after death. As shown in remarks upon Matt. x. 28, man ceases to be a man at death, the body ceases to be a human body, it is no more a human body than any other matter, and the mind has no existence. There is nothing for God to love more than any dust of the street, or any water of the ocean. The love of God must pertain to mental and moral qualities, but the theory we oppose allows of no mental or moral qualities after death, and of course there can he nothing after death, which can be the object of the love of God in Christ Jesus, and the conclusion is irresistible, that death does separate from the love of God. But the apostle affirms that death cannot separate us from the love of God, and therefore, death does not dissolve our intellectual and moral nature.

It only remains to apply the words of the apostle, and show by what a variety of forms of expression he sets forth the main truth upon which our argument depends. He enumerates "tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril and the sword." These are only so many forms of death. Famine kills and the sword kills, and yet these cannot separate from the love of God. He then declares his persuasion that neither life nor death can separate us from the love of God. To this he adds, "angels, principalities and powers," by which he includes the inhabitants or agencies of both worlds, comprehending what is after death as well as what is before death. He then adds, "things present and things to come," including all before death, and all after, death. He then adds, "nor height nor depth," by which he includes all space, showing that there is no place above or below, in time or in eternity, which can separate christians from the love of God. And finally, lest some conceivable power, agency or being, should be thought not to be included, he says, "nor any other creature," which includes every possible being or agency except God, since everything, but God, must be a creature. The argument then is conclusive, for as the Christian cannot, by any time, place, agency or power, be separated "from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; and as to be the object of the love of God involves conscious existence, it follows that Christian men at least will not lose their conscious existence through death or any other means; the mind therefore must live after the body is dead.

2 Cor. v. 1, 6, 8: "For we know, that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; we are confident, I say, willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." The whole of the apostle's reasoning from the first to the ninth verse, appears designed to prove and illustrate the future conscious existence of the human soul, in a disembodied state; but the three verses we have quoted, are sufficient to answer the purpose of the argument. In these verses the apostle sets forth the doctrine n question in several different forms.

1. He asserts the grand fact, that after death we have a building, a house; that is, a home in heaven. "Our earthly house of this tabernacle" means the body, for in the sixth verse, dwelling in it is called being "at home in the body." By this tabernacle being "dissolved," we can understand nothing more nor less than death. The force of the apostle's language then, is this, when we die, when the body is dissolved in which the soul now lives, it will live without the body in heaven. Thus does the apostle most clearly teach, that the soul does not die with the body.

2. The apostle asserts the same doctrine, by asserting that, to be "at home in the body" is to be "absent from the Lord." That the apostle enjoyed the presence of the Lord, in some sense, cannot be denied; but it came so far short of what he expected when he left the body, that he called it absence from the Lord. While the earthly tabernacle of the body stood, and he was at home in it, it shrined the soul and prevented it from entering into that visible and sensible presence of the Lord, which it would enjoy when the tabernacle should dissolve, and leave the soul unincumbered amid the scenes of the spirit-world. If the soul dies with the body, then to be at home in the body would not be absence from the Lord, but the only possible means of enjoying any degree of the divine presence.

3. The apostle more directly and fully asserts the conscious existence of the soul after death, by asserting, that to be "absent from the body," is to be "present with the Lord." This he asserts as a matter of choice, as a preferable state, to be absent from the body, and be present with the Lord. This language cannot be explained on any other principle than that the apostle believed and taught that when Christians die, they enter more fully into the presence of God than while they live. If the doctrine of the death-sleep of the soul be true, if death be the extinction of conscious existence, there is no such thing as being absent from the body about which the apostle talks; and considering the expression figuratively, as denoting death-and it can refer to nothing else- being absent from the body, is so far from being present with the Lord, that it cuts us off from all communion with God, and throws us beyond the jurisdiction of his moral government. Paul must have been a strange reasoner to have called this being present with the Lord.

2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4: "1 knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into paradise."

A few remarks only, will be necessary on this text. We believe it is agreed, by common consent, that Paul here speaks of himself. Nor can there be any doubt as to the reality of the vision; the apostle expresses no doubt on this point, but speaks of it as certain. But there is a point upon which he has doubts, and that is whether it was in the body, or out of the body, that he was caught up to paradise. Which was the fact, he could not tell. From this we learn two important facts.

1. The body and mind are two distinct things. If there is no soul, no mind, no conscious existence only what is a part of and inseparable from the body, Paul must have known that it was in the body, and not out of the body, that he was caught up to the third heaven.

2. We are sure that the soul or mind is capable of existing, of going to heaven, and of hearing unspeakable words without the body. No one can doubt that Paul understood the truth on the subject; if the soul cannot subsist as a rational being, without the body, he must have known it; but he did not know that it could not, or he would have known that it was not out of the body that he went to paradise and heard what he did. If then, Paul anywhere and at any time taught that the soul cannot live without the body, he taught what he did not know, for if he had known it, he would have known that he did not go to heaven without his body. Assuming that Paul did understand the truth concerning the soul, as he did not know that the soul cannot subsist without the body, he must have known that it could, for the one or the other must be true. If then, he knew that the soul could sustain a conscious existence without the body, this is what he taught, so far as he taught anything on the subject, and this accounts for the many allusions to the subject in his writings. Those who deny that man has any mind or soul which can exist without the body, assume to know more than Paul did, for if they know the truth of their doctrine, they know that it was in the body, and not out of the body, that Paul was caught up to heaven, a thing which he declares he could not tell. What a pity some of our modern divines, with their new doctrines concerning the soul, had not been there to have instructed the apostle, and solved his doubt!

Eph. i. 10: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth: even in him." We are aware that some commentators, who are entitled to much consideration, understand, by things in heaven and things in earth, Jews and Gentiles, but this matters not with those who advocate the death-sleep of the soul, as they repudiate all those writers who are designated as standard authors. If the above view be correct, the text proves nothing material to our purpose, but we prefer another exposition, which also has its advocates, and which is more in accordance with the common use of language, and more simple. It is this: the text refers to the accomplishment of the gospel plan, which will end in the gathering together of all the saved in Christ, in one triumphant church or family. This is not yet done, nor does he text imply that it is accomplished, or that the fulness of time has yet come. The thing is in process of being accomplished, and when all the saints get home, after the final judgment, it will be finished. But while the process is going on, the parties to be gathered, are those "which are in heaven and which are in earth." Those in heaven, denote the saints who had lived and died, and whose souls were in heaven; and those on earth, those who then lived on earth, and who might yet live on earth. If this exposition be correct, the text proves that the soul goes to inhabit the spirit-world when the body dies, as clearly as it could be proved. We give the text and the exposition, because we so understand it, and not because we consider it essential to our argument, for there is enough without it. It appears analogous to, and is strengthened by the text which follows, and concerning which there can be no doubt.

Eph. iii. 15: "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." This clearly makes one family of those in heaven and those on earth, and if a part of the common family to which we belong, have already got to heaven, or have become inhabitants of the spirit-world, the question is settled, that death is not the extinction of conscious existence.

Phil. i. 21, 23, 24: "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 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." In this text the apostle assumes, that immediately after death he should be with Christ. He represents himself as under the influence of two conflicting motives, drawing him in two directions, or producing different desires. These are, first, a desire to depart at once and be with Christ, which he considered far better for himself, by which death would be rendered gain; and secondly, a desire to live longer in the world, for the sake of the benefit he might be to the church, which was needful for them. Between these two, be was in a strait, which supposes but one of the two things in the alternative can be obtained; but if the apostle had believed that the soul dies with the body, there could have been no such alternative presented to his mind. His choice was between dying then and being with Christ, and living longer to serve the church; but if the soul dies with the body, Paul is not with Christ yet, and hence there could have been no possibility of such a strait as he represents, for, in that case, abiding in the flesh for the good of the church, could not have delayed the period when he should be with Christ, one hour. He could have lived and labored a hundred years longer, and then have been with Christ just as soon as though he had died that moment. There can be no doubt then, that Paul really expected to be immediate]y with Christ when he died; that in proportion as his labors were protracted before death, would the time be put off when he should be with Christ, and that as his period of labor was cut short by an earlier death, would the period be shortened which intervened between him and Christ; and yet this could not have been the case, had he believed that the soul died with the body. The same writer says, upon this passage: "The apostle does not say, that he expected to be with Christ immediately on his departure." We reply, the apostle most certainly does say that very thing in effect. He says he has "a desire to depart and to be with Christ." He has a desire to depart, as a means; to be with Christ, as an end. Now he could not have had a desire to depart for the sake of being with Christ, unless he "expected to be with Christ," in consequence of, or as a result of his departure. Such effort to turn aside texts from their natural force and meaning, only prove how hard the theory sought to be sustained is pressed by them.

Rev. vi. 9: "I saw under the altar, the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and they cried with a loud voice," &c. This text is sufficient of itself to prove the conscious existence of the soul after the death of the body. There is no way to evade the conclusion. The most likely way to be attempted, is, by saying that it was only a vision, and therefore does not describe literal facts. We admit that it was a vision, and this only can make the fact a literal one. There is no way in which souls can be seen only by some spiritual vision. The writer says at the commencement: "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day," And again, he says: "I looked, and behold a door was opened in heaven." He then heard a voice saying: "come up hither and I will show you things which must be hereafter." And adds immediately, "I was in the spirit," &e. Here commenced the vision in which he saw the souls of the martyrs. If the vision did not give him a matter of fact view of the souls of such as had been slain, it was a false vision, and none of the representations can be relied upon. But the subject is perfectly free from the obscurity which hangs over most of this book.

1. The subject is a plain one, it being well understood that many had been slain for the word of God.

2. The vision upon its very face, professes to bring John within view of the scenes of the spirit-world. He saw a door open in heaven, and was called up to receive representations of things yet to come.

3. In this state he "saw the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus." After all this, shall we be told that the martyrs had no souls, which existed separate from their bodies, and after their bodies had been devoured by wild beasts, or consumed in the fire We may be so told; we have been; but before we can believe it, we must have far less confidence in the teachings of the Scriptures than we have at present. No construction can be put upon the passage, which will invalidate its evidence in support of an intermediate state, in which the souls or spirits of those who have died, live without their bodies. The vision itself is based upon the fact that souls exist in a disembodied state. Admit the truth of this doctrine, and you may even conceive of a vision, for some wise purpose, in which such souls are exhibited as representatives or symbols, when no real souls are present; but deny the existence of souls, and such a vision becomes false and deceptive. The vision was from God, and there can be no doubt that John saw something which he calls the souls of the martyrs. If there were no real souls there, what did he see What did God show him, which he calls souls, if there are no such things as souls Does some one say that it was a mere representation of souls But what could be a representation of souls, if there are no such things as souls What form or figure would represent that which has no existence There must have been a design in the vision, and as John most clearly saw something which he calls souls, if we deny the existence of souls, we must suppose that God introduced the mere appearance or image of nothing, and that this form of nothing was introduced to represent something. Such is the absurdity in which those must be involved, who deny the existence of souls in a disembodied state. In every instance of symbolical representations found in the Scriptures, real existences are employed as symbols, as beasts are introduced to represent kings and governments, and hence to make a symbolical representation of what John saw, we must admit the existence of souls in a disembodied state.

We have now done with this branch of our argument, and trust that we have proved that the human soul does not die with the body. We might have introduced a number more texts of the same import as those we have quoted, but we deemed it unnecessary; if what we have adduced are not satisfactory, more of the same class would not be, for we do not pretend that there are any more to the point than some we have quoted. By limiting the number of texts, we have been able to indulge more freely in our remarks, and trust we have succeeded in making such an application of each text, as will be understood and appreciated by the intelligent and candid reader, with whom we leave the question to be decided, after reading our arguments, whether the lamp of human intelligence goes out in utter darkness in the hour of death, or only passes away from this state of being, where it sees and shines "through a glass darkly," to the spirit's home, where they shall meet face to face, see as they are seen, and know as they are known.