called our forerunner? I answer, he might be our forerunner and not that of Elijah. And he is that of Elijah in that he opened the way into the holy of holies for all sinners by his blood, and so in the order of nature, though not in the order of time, went before. In the third place, he says it is expressly called a vision, and ought not to be interpreted literally. If he means by this that the persons seen were not the real persons of Moses and Elijah, and the voice heard was not a real voice, he assumes what the word will not justify. The word here translated vision, means the thing seen, or the sight. The same word is used when it is said, When Moses saw it he wondered at the sight,—but that was the sight of a real object. Besides, Peter represents these things as real, and no mere phantasm. 2 Peter 1: 16-18. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father, honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; and this voice which came from heaven we heard when we were with him in the holy mount. Was it not then in Peter's estimation a real scene, was not the cloud a real cloud, the voice a real voice, and the persons real persons, the real Moses and the real Elijah? And does not this prove that the spirit of Moses had existence after his body was dead?

Again, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16: 19. it is asserted that the rich man died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment. And Lazarus died and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. The conclusion is unavoidable that their souls were in another world. Do you say the whole representation is a parable? What if it be, has it therefore not a meaning plain and intelligible? And what truth does it inculcate if not that souls go into a state of happiness or misery after death? As this parable will come under more particular consideration hereafter, I shall not now notice any of Mr. B.'s remarks upon it.

Acts 1:25. That he may take part of this ministry and apos

tleship from which Judas by transgression fell. To evade the force of this passage, Mr. Balfour chooses to give it a forced translation, as follows,-" Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all, show whether of these two thou hast chosen to take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas is by transgression fallen, that he [that is the apostle elect] may enter into his [that is Judas'] place." But this translation is achieved by leaving out a word in the Greek, the word translated "own," which shows that "he," and "his" both have the same antecedent, that is Judas. If we may leave out words in the translation, and violate the rules of grammar, we can expunge any truth from the Bible. Mr. B. asks with an air of triumph, "Did Luke or any one else know it to be a fact that Judas went to hell?" I answer, Luke by inspiration records in this case the prayers of the apostles, who by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, said that Judas fell, that he might go to his own place. Can the authenticity of the matter be doubted? Mr. B.'s quibble about hell's being regarded by some as a state and not a place, may be answered by saying, that some also regard it as both a state and a place.

Phil. 1: 21. For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain; but if I live in the flesh this is the fruit of my labour, yet what I should 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. Here the fact that the saints enter upon a state of enjoyment, immediately after death, is repeatedly implied. It is implied, in that to die is gain—in that he had a desire to depart― in that to depart was to be with Christ, and a being with him far better than any state of being or action here. But Mr. B. says, to be with another, does not imply being in a state of conscious existence with him. But pray how can a man be with another, when he has no being at all; when he has no more existence than he had before he was created? The difficulty found in this being with Christ, being far better than life in this world, is met by Mr. B. by asserting that it was far better for Paul to go into a state of non-existence, than to live in the service of Christ. But are we called upon to digest such a preposterous

idea as this? Are the religious enjoyments of a Paul no better than blank nothingness? And yet you tell us that all the descriptions of the happiness and happy consequences of a religious life in the Bible, are to be understood of a happiness enjoyed on this side of the grave! And you tell us that this happiness of the believer on this side the grave is enough to authorise one to forego all worldly advantages, to obtain it. And now you tell us that non-existence is far better than even the believer's enjoyment. The conclusion from the premises is, that non-existence is preferable to all religious, and of course to all worldly enjoyments. If this be so, Job had real occasion to execrate the day wherein he was born, and to lament that he was not forever left to enjoy that blessed non-existence. Away with such nonsense! When Paul says, for me to live is Christ, he declares the present life to be a source of high enjoyment. The expression is condensed, and one of exceeding power. "It is everything to me that Christ is ;" and who will believe that he meant to say that annihilation was better to him than such a combination of sources of enjoyment found in Christ and his service?

2 Cor. 5: 6. Therefore, we are always confident, knowing that whilst 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 present with the Lord. One would think this passage deserved a place in an examination of all the texts which relate to the separate existence of the soul. But Mr. B. has chosen to leave it out of that examination, and has introduced in another treatise, that upon the resurrection, and there incidentally alludes to its bearings on this subject. What his purpose in so doing was, it does not become me to say. The effect is, whether purposed or not, to prevent one of the most direct proofs from having its influence on the mind, in connexion with the rest. Here the possibility of being absent from the body, and yet in a state of happiness is so fully implied, that in spite of any perversions and explanations, it would have influence on the most prejudiced mind, and if the separation of this passage from the rest was intended for that

purpose, it was the result of some skill in the tactics of sophis try. If a man can be absent from the body and be present with the Lord, and that presence with the Lord be a desirable state, what more is wanted to prove the conscious existence of separate spirits? But Mr. Balfour's labour at evasion here consists in saying that "In Scripture style the writers often speak of things as present, yea as past, the more strongly to express their certainty." But how he would fit this principle to the interpretation of this text he has not told us. So we will attempt the labo for him. So we read it. We are always confident, knowing that while we are sure of being in the body, we are not certain of being with the Lord. We are confident Iˇsay, and willing rather to be uncertain as respects being in the body, and certain of being with the Lord. Thus it will sometimes happen that Scripture language brings out the truth with such clearness, that the man who is determined by hook or by crook to cover it, is sure of getting into a condition so pitiable.

Again, you will notice that the denial of the existence of the separate spirits of men, was one of the features of the Sadducean system. Our Saviour encountered the Sadducees on this very point. And his argument to prove that the spirits of dead saints were now living with God, was that God said to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and this was said hundreds of years after these patriarchs were dead. And God was not the God of the dead but of the living. Therefore, these patriarchs though dead in body, were living in spirit at that time. We ask no one to concede that this argument is conclusive; for being used by the Saviour, it has his authority added to its intrinsic force. But Mr. B. says the Sadducees' question had no reference to the soul in a disembodied state, because they did not believe the soul existed in such a state. But Mr. B. is the first of men, women or children, who understood the Sadducees to have been gravely and honestly asking for the sake of information, "whose wife shall she be of the seven." Docs the man need to be informed that the question was suggested as a difficulty in the way of believing that souls existed in the future world? But waiving this

point: as well might Mr. B. say, that their question had no reference to the resurrection, because the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. But suppose we admit the question had no reference to the disembodied state, every one can see that Christ's argument proves the disembodied state, whether he intended it or not, even with more force than it does the resurrection. If it proved anything itproved that Abraham was living at the time referred to, and it proves the resurrection only as an inference from that conclusion. I wonder not that Mr. B. has omitted this passage from its place in the discussion, and noticed it only in another treatise.

Again, the translation of Enoch is proof in point. Paul says, by faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and was not found, because God had translated him. Now to translate does not mean to annihilate, but to transfer to another state of being. He went to dwell with God, for God took him. Now, he went into the spiritual world with a body, or without one. But to go into the spiritual world with a body,

is an absurdity in terms. to laying aside the body, though without the pangs of death. Or should we suppose that the change consisted in an assumption of the glorified body, such as the saints will receive after the resurrection, his condition in heaven must have been lonely on the Universalist hypothesis-on the ground that there are no angels and no spirits of just men made perfect for him to consort with there.

His translation must have amounted

One more passage, Rev. 22: 8, 9. And I John saw these things and heard them; and when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not. For I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book: worship God. The angel or messenger who was the instrument of communicating the Revelations to John, was then one of the prophets, not one of course then living upon the earth; but it was one whose spirit had departed. That John thought it to be a real person, is evident from his attempt to worship him; and if John could