expect such things taught, if not in passages which expressly mention the soul or spirit? But let us examine them. The following are all I know of, which would be adduced with any plausibility.

The first are Isai. 14; 9-24. Ezek. 32: 21-32. Isai. 5: 14, which, to save room, the reader will please turn to and read. In these texts the king of Babylon and others are represented as speaking in the grave or state of the dead; but not a word is said about their souls or any part of them suffering there. Dr. Good, as we shall see Section 3, allows there is an allusion in these texts to the popular traditions. It has been shown in my First Inquiry that it would be grossly absurd to understand those texts literally. Indeed they, with the parable of the rich man, are much more plausible proof that men's bodies are alive and suffer in the state of the dead, than that their souls suffer.

In Matt. 17; 1-10. Mark 9: 2-11, and Luke 9: 28-37, we have an account of Moses and Elias appearing on the mount at our Lord's transfiguration. But if they came from heaven on this occasion, it is certain their conversation did not turn on any thing they had seen, heard, or enjoyed there; but on our Lord's decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But not a word is said concerning their coming from heaven when they appeared, or their returning there when they disappeared. It is said by some, that Enoch and Elijah were taken up soul and body into heaven. But if they, or any other persons went there before our Lord ascended, Acts 1: 9, why is he called the "forerunner, who is for us entered within the vail ?" Heb. 6: 19, 20. Ought not they to have been called the forerunners if this be true? But what took place on the mount, is expressly called a vision, and ought not to be interpreted literally, any more than John's visions in the

book of Revelation. the glorious state of disembodied spirits, but the glory of the resurrection state, appears to me pretty evident from the following considerations: 1st. Jesus charged his disciples to tell the vision to no man, until after he was risen from the dead. But why give such a charge, if it had no connexion with the resurrection state? 2d. Moses and Elias in this vision, are not called disembodied spirits, but men. They would not have been called men, we think, had they been spirits. 3d. The Saviour's appearance in this vision, resembled that of his body in its glorified state, so far as we have any information respecting it.

That this was not a vision of

His

raiment was " white and glistening," and it is said, he appeared in glory," which corresponds to his appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus, Acts 26: 12-17. comp. Phil. 3: 21. 4th. Moses and Elias' appearance resembled his, for they also appeared in glory. The disciples not only saw Christ's glory, but also that of the men who were with him. Now, all this corresponds to the descriptions given of the glorified state of Christ's body, and also of the bodies. of men in the resurrection. Our vile bodies are to be changed, and fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body, Phil. 3: 21. see also 1 Cor. 15: 42-58. Both are to be fashioned alike in the resurrection state, and this was their appearance on the mount in vision to the disciples. This vision then seems to have been, not a vision of the state of disembodied spirits in heaven, but of what is to be the glorious state of things in the resurrection. Hence it was unsuitable to make it known, until after Christ arose as the first begotten from the dead, and the first fruits of them who sleep.

Matt. 27: 52, 53, "And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

We cannot even infer from this text, that there is an intermediate state for the soul after death, for not a .word is said about the souls of those persons. On the contrary it is said, "and many bodies of the saints which slept arose," not that their immortal souls were seen, or that they ever had such souls. We ought rather to infer they had no conscious existence after death, for it is said they were asleep or dead. Nothing is said about their souls coming from heaven, to reanimate their bodies, which no doubt took place, if they had souls which at death went to heaven. Every circumstance in the account goes to show, that this was a resurrection of their bodies.

No information is given us, who those saints were, nor for what purpose they were raised from the dead. As little is said about to whom they went, by whom they were seen, or what became of them afterwards. The account is only related by Matthew, nor does he say any person spoke to them, or that they communicated any information from a future state to the living. It is perfectly gratuitous to assert, that they were not permitted to communicate any information, until it is proved they had some to communicate. The living, on no occasion ever asked those raised from the dead a single question about a future state, which shows, that they were either devoid of all curiosity, or persuaded that "the dead know not any. thing." If we admit the last as the truth of the case, we cease to wonder why the living never questioned those raised from death; or that those raised, never said a word about how they felt, and what they saw, and heard in the state of the dead. But what man has not been surprised, at the silence of the one, and the want of curiosity in the other, relative to the state of the dead? But this arises from the false notions we have imbibed, respecting the immortality of the soul and its condition after death. The sacred

writers believed the dead knew not any thing. We have considered this passage admitting it to be gen. uine, and have seen it gives no countenance to the common opinions. If it is an interpolation, as some think, our labor here might have been spared. See Improved Version on this text.

Luke 16: 19-31. This passage has been considered in my First Inquiry, and in my answer to Mr. Sabine. As it is one of Mr. Hudson's principal texts on which he rests his doctrine of a future punishment, we shall notice it in the sequel, in our remarks on his Letters.

Luke 23: 43," And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise." It is taken for granted that paradise here means heaven, a thing which at least demands proof. Parkhurst says it "occurs Neh. 2: 8. Eccles. 2: 5. Cant. 4: 13, and may be derived from the Heb. perer, to separate, and (Arab.) des, to hide, as denoting a secret inclosure, or separate covert." If this be true, our Lord only said to the thief, "to day shalt thou be with me in the secret inclosure, or separate covert." And where could this be but in the grave, ог state of the dead? Hence hades, rendered grave and hell in the common version, signifies the unseen, secret, or hidden place. Our Saxon word hell has a similar meaning. See Parkhurst on the word hades, and also my First Inquiry. This view of the passage is confirmed from what is said by Samuel to Saul, 1 Sam. 28: 11-19, "To morrow shalt thou and thy sons he with me," which evidently meant, that they should be in the state of the dead. Had Samuel said to day instead of to morrow, where would have been the difference. Our Lord's using the word paradise, makes no essential difference, unless it is proved, that Saul, his sons, and Samuel, went to a different place from that promised by our Lord to the thief. It may just be noticed, that the phrase

to day, or this day, does not mean in all cases that very day, but soon after, Gen. 2: 17. Deut. 9: 1. 29: 13. 2: 24, 25. Josh. 23: 14. 1 Sam. 15: 28. 1 Kings 1: 30. Ps. 2: 7. Acts 13: 33. Heb. 5: 5.

The common opinion, that paradise here means heaven, and that the disembodied spirit of the thief was there with our Lord that day, we think cannot be correct for several reasons besides those already given. 1st. It is contrary to fact, that Jesus ascended to heaven that day, and of course the thief could not be there with him. Jesus did not ascend until forty days after his resurrection. If it is asserted,

our Saviour's soul ascended that day, we demand the proof of it, for assertions prove nothing. Not a word is said either about his soul or the thief's in the passage. The words thou and me, referring to the thief and the Saviour, we should think as in other cases, designate the whole of them. 2d. If paradise means heaven, and people's souls go there the day they die, it is somewhat astonishing that good people at least, are not found in Scripture often expressing their hope of this, in prospect of their death. But the language of David, Job, Hezekiah, and others, has not the slightest appearance of this, but the reverse. How, I ask, could they speak as they did, yet believed, that whenever they died, their souls - would immediately be happy in heaven? 3d. Numerous as the passages are in which the soul and spirit of man are mentioned, it is a notorious fact,. that none of them ever intimate any thing about the soul or spirit going to heaven at death. But if this be true, why is it never mentioned? 4th. But allowing the passage to speak of the souls of the thief and of the Saviour, the question then is, where was the Saviour's soul that day? According to Ps. 16, and Acts 2, it was in hell, hades, or the grave; for it is said "thou wilt not leave my soul or leave me in.