The objectors to this doctrine have attempted to escape from the irresistible force of this text by two comments, still more pitiful than the subterfuge above mentioned. The first is, that the word, To-day, refers to the time of our Saviour's speaking, and not to the time when the thief was to be with him in Paradise. On this I shall only ask my opponent, Whether he really believes, that our Saviour said thus: I speak to thee to-day, and not yesterday, nor to-morrow? The other explanation is, that, as in the eternity of God one day is the same thing as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, Christ meant by the word, to-day, the same thing with that eternity. On this comment I shall only ask, Whether the dying Saviour spoke to the dying man language, which he intended he should understand, and which he could understand; or whether he spoke to him language, which he could not possibly understand, and by which Christ knew he would certainly be deceived?

In this

St. Paul, in 2 Corinthians v. 6, says, 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, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. passage the Apostle declares expressly, that to be at home in the body, is to be absent from the Lord; and that to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord. But according to the scheme which I am opposing, the body is the whole man; and therefore, if the man is ever to be present with the Lord, his body must be present; and if his body be absent, the man must be absent also; in direct contradiction to the assertion of the Apostle. To be absent from the body is, on this plan, phraseology without meaning; because there is nothing but the body. This passage is, therefore, an explicit declaration that man is something beside body; distinct from it; capable of being separated, or absent from it; and, in consequence of this separation, of being present with the Lord. This something, also, he elsewhere declares to be conscious, and capable of enjoyment: for he says, that to be thus present with Christ, is a far better state than the present. This something, therefore, thus capable of being absent from the body, is an immaterial spirit: for beside body, or matter, my opponents will agree, that there is nothing, except spirits.

2dly. The Scriptures give an unanswerable proof, by Facts, that the soul is immaterial.

1st. The Revelation of St. John furnishes many specimens of this

nature.

In the fourth chapter of this prophesy he saw four and twenty elders, surrounding the throne of the majesty in the Heavens. In the seventh chapter he informs us, that he beheld a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palms in their hands, uniting with the Angels, the Elders, and the four Living Ones, in the worship of God, and the

everlasting ascription of praise and glory to his name. Upon this he asked the Angel interpreter, Who these persons were. The Angel informed him, that they were those, who came out of great tribulation, and who had washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; that, therefore, they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; that they shall neither hunger, nor thirst, nor suffer, any more; but shall be fed by the Lamb with living bread, and led unto fountains of living waters. No ingenuity of interpretation, no skill at evasion, will enǝble any man to satisfy even himself, if he will take all the parts of these accounts together, that they can mean any thing less, or more, than that these persons were all separate spirits. Elders are men; Those, who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, are men; and can be no other than men. Men, who are around the throne of God, and before his throne; who are brought out of great tribulation; who serve him day and night in his temple; who hunger, thirst, and suffer, no more; who feed on the bread, and drink the water, of life; and who sustain all these characters, and do all these things, while the world yet remains, and many ages before its termination, are men in the Heavens. They are, therefore, the bodies of men, or their separate spirits. I leave my antagonists to choose which side of the alternative they please.

But if a doubt can remain, St. John has himself settled it; for in the sixth chapter, and ninth verse, he says, And when he had opened the fifth seal I saw under the altar the Souls of them, that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and white robes were given unto every one of them. The like phraseology is also used, Revelations xx. 4. Now let me ask, What was it which John saw? That they were persons, or intelligent beings, cannot be doubted; that they have been once slain, and are therefore men, is equally certain; that they are glorified per sons, is also certain; that they are Souls, or separate spirits, is certain; because the Apostle has said so, and the Spirit of God has said so. It is, therefore, true. It is also certain, from the whole account, given by the Scriptures at large, concerning this subject: for we know, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Should it be said, that these things passed in vision, and that they were not real exhibitions of facts; the book being a symbolical representation, and not a real account of facts: I answer, that 1 have no difficulty in granting it; although I have not a doubt, that every one of the things, which I have mentioned, was strictly a matter of fact. At the same time, the argument stands on the same basis, upon either scheme. If the representation be considered as strictly symbolical; still the doctrines, which it contains, are all exactly true. This is all, for which I contend; and this must be conceded by my opponents, unless they are willing to charge God with having taught falsehood to mankind.

In exact accordance with these observations, St. Paul observes,

1 Thessalonians iv. 14, For if we believe, that Jesus died, and rose again; even so them also, who sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him that is, when the Lord shall descend, as he mentions in the next verse but one, from Heaven with a shout, with the innumerable company of Angels; God shall bring with him to this world the spirits of just men made perfect, and re-unite their bodies to them: and they, and those followers of Christ, who shall remain alive at the end of the world, shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. A great multitude of these very persons are those glorified Saints, whom John saw, when he was admitted to that happy world.

I shall not insist on the facts, specified in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, as an example under this head; although I think they might be fairly insisted on as furnishing such an example. Instead of dwelling on this, I shall proceed to another specimen, which is certainly secured, if in the view of prejudice any thing can be secured, from evasion and cavil.

When Christ was transfigured on the Mount; there were present with him Moses and Elias, who appeared in glory, and talked with him, and spake of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. The body of Elias was changed, when he was conveyed to heaven in a chariot of fire. But the body of Moses was buried by the hand of God in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-Peor; and will rise, hereafter, with other bodies of the saints, at the general resurrection. Yet Moses was actually on this Mount in company with Elias. If Moses when he thus appeared, was not a separate spirit, I leave it to my antagonists to tell us what he

was.

Thus have I summarily considered this subject, as it is presented to us both by Scripture and reason. If the things, which I have said, have the same weight and conclusiveness in the minds of others, which they have in my own, it must be admitted by them. as unquestionably evident from both sources of proof, not only that the soul is not material, but that the doctrine of its materiality is sustained by no solid argument whatever. Reason furnishes none: the Scriptures furnish none. I cannot help adding, that, had the doctrine been considered by itself only, and not been thought necessary for the support of some system, it would probably never have been adopted by any man living. I know not, that it was ever adopted by itself, or on account of any evidence which was supposed to attend it, when considered singly, or as unconnected with other doctrines. It seems always to have been taken up, either as subsidiary to the support of other parts of a system, or as necessarily flowing from other doctrines, considered as already established, and as being inconsistent in themselves with the immateriality of the soul. Dr. Priestly appears to have adopted this scheme for the former of these reasons; viz. because he thought the materiality of the soul necessary to the support of those parts of his system, which respect the character of the Redeemer. This,

at least, is the fact, if I understand his own language. Atheists have embraced this doctrine, because they were driven to it by the fundamental principles of their system. There is always a rational suspicion concerning the soundness, and evidence, of doctrines taken up on these grounds.

A single observation shall conclude this discourse.

We see, here, one remarkable instance of the agreement of the Scriptures with Common sense.

All nations have united in the opinion, that the human soul is an immaterial being, wholly distinct from the Body. I do not intend, that ignorant nations have formed a system, or a science, on this subject; nor that a savage could correctly define, or explain, his views of it, so as to leave them unobjectionable in the eye of a Philosopher. But I intend, that Immateriality, and distinction from the Body, are essential parts of all his opinions concerning the Soul. When I mention this as the doctrine of all nations, I would be understood to mean, not that there are no exceptions, but that the existing exceptions are, at least so far as hitherto known, few, and insignificant with respect to this question. The Aborigines of this country, for example, believed, that, although they buried the body of a friend, and left it to moulder into dust, the friend, the man, lived still, and went to a happier world. This man, therefore, was not the body, for that was in the grave; but was an immaterial and separate spirit; the living, thinking thing, which controlled and actuated that Body.

Exactly the same in substance, and altogether more perfect in manner and degree, is the doctrine of the Scriptures. This harmony between the Scriptures and common sense, was indeed to be presumed: for God is the origin of both. Hence, in all cases, so far as the views of common sense extend, they are exactly accordant with the Scriptures. Philosophy has opposed the Scriptures, often common sense never. Accordingly the common peo ple of the Jewish nation, gladly heard Christ in the great body of instances, and his Apostles, after him; in spite of all their prejudices, and the influence of their Rulers; and often awed those Rulers, so as to restrain them from the violence which they intended: On the other hand, the Scribes and Pharisees, and still more, the Sadducees, rejected their doctrines almost absolutely, notwithstanding the confirmation of them by their own Scriptures. In the same manner have the common people in Christian countries generally, when left to themselves, adhered to the genuine scheme of the Gospel: while the numerous heresies, which have disturbed the Church, and misled mankind, have been, almost without an exception, the offspring of Philosophy.

SERMON XXIV.

THE SOUL NOT A CHAIN OF IDEAS AND EXERCISES.

GENESIS ii. 7.—And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

IN my last discourse, I proposed to consider the nature of the human soul. Concerning this subject, I remarked, that there were three entirely different opinions.

The first of these in the order, in which they were then mention. ed, is, that man is an immaterial substance, an Intelligent, voluntary being; the subject of attributes, the author of actions, and destined to immortality.

The second is, that man is a material, thinking, voluntary being; differing in nothing, but his modification and its effects, from other material substances. Some of those, who hold this scheme, believe him immortal: while others limit his existence to the present world.

The third is, that man is neither of these, but a mere succession, or chain, as the abetters of it express themselves, of ideas and excrcises.

In discussing this subject, I proposed the following plan, viz. to prove the first of these doctrines, by disproving the two last: observing, that, as one of the three is unquestionably true, if the two last are false, the first is true of course.

The second, which asserts the soul to be material, I then considered at length. I shall now proceed to the consideration of the third, which asserts that the soul is a mere succession, or chain, of ideas and exercises.

Before I commence the direct arguments against this doctrine in form, it will be proper to say something on the principal reason, alleged against the reception of the first of these schemes; or that, which I consider as the true one, and made particularly the foundation of the reception of the third. This reason, so far as I have been informed of it, (and I have heard it alleged by the ablest philosopher among all those, whom I have known to adopt this scheme, on this side of the Atlantic) is the following: that we can form no conception of any thing in ourselves, beyond our ideas and exercises. Of these we are conscious and certain; but of a supposed substance, in which these are inherent; a cause, whence they proceed; an agent, who is the author of them; we have no conception. This argument, reduced to a general form, will stand thus: That nothing exists, of which we have no conception. For, undoubtedly, if the argument is conclusive, or has weight, when alleged against the existence of man, as an agent, substance, or