faintest resemblance to these. We are conscious that we feel and think and will and remember, but these qualities are so different from the former as to render it, at least highly probable, that they inhere in a substance essentially different in its nature.

Such being the case it is concluded, that the soul must be immaterial, that it must be one indivisible subsistence, and therefore cannot perish by dissolution, nor its powers of action be suspended in the separate But admitting that it is not material, the admission amounts to nothing more than this-that, since the soul is a simple, uncompounded subsistence, it is incapable of being destroyed by dissolution, and that it is capable of existing in the exercise of all its faculties after the body is in the grave. This, however, does not prove that it is immortal nor that it shall live in a state of consciousness and activity when separate from the body; because, whatever be the nature of its essence, its existence and capability of action must depend solely upon the will of the Creator. It requires the constant exertion of his power to sustain it, and were he to will it, even an immaterial being would cease to exist. It could not, it is true, be destroyed by a process similar to the one which the body undergoes at death; but surely the same almighty Being who gave it existence could, in a thousand ways incomprehensible by us, take it away or deprive it of consciousness and suspend its powers of action for any length of time. Any philosophical argument, therefore, on either side of the question

can determine very little, if anything at all, about the state of the soul after death, and would have very little influence upon the minds of the generality of Christians. The matter must be determined by the word of God alone.

But this opinion is not founded exclusively upon anything in the nature of the soul itself, it is alleged that it is countenanced and supported by many parts of the word of God. This puts the subject in a more tangible form and entitles it to a more minute examination.

It cannot be denied that the sacred writers often speak of death as if it were a sleep. The following passages may be taken as examples of this.-" And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers."—" For now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be."-" So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep."—"Consider and hear me, O Lord my God; lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death."-" And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake."-" And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose."-" After that he saith unto them, our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep."-" For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."— For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again,

even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”*

Sleep, on account of the state in which the body is while under its influence, is a very striking and impressive emblem of death; and one can scarcely imagine that the slightest violence is done to the language of these passages, or that any confusion is introduced into the context by supposing, that the term sleep is used by the writers in them all to denote the state of absolute inactivity to which the body is reduced by the stroke of death. That we must understand it in a figurative sense may be shewn by a reference to the case of Lazarus. When the disciples were endeavouring to dissuade the Saviour from going to Bethany, he stated as his reason for going thither, that his friend Lazarus was asleep and that he wished to "awake him out of his sleep." They evidently misapprehended what he meant, for they replied, "Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well." They seemed to think that his having fallen asleepfor they understood the word in its ordinary acceptation-indicated, that the violence of the disease had begun to subside, and that a speedy recovery might be expected. The Saviour, however, spake of his death; but when he saw their mistake, he said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead."

This

explanation

* Deut. xxxi. 16. Job vii. 21.-xiv. 12. Dan. xii. 2. Matt. xxvii. 52. John xi. 11. 1 Thess. iv. 14.

Psalm xiii. 3.

1 Cor. xi. 30.

decides the matter, for the term plainly which is connected with the expression that indicates the real state in which Lazarus was at the time, shews, that the term sleep was used figuratively to represent that state. And the reason, perhaps, why the Saviour employed such a mode of speech on that occasion was, to point out to his disciples the pleasing fact, that the bodies of his people which were under the power of death should rise to a new life; that they should awake from the slumbers of the tomb on the morning of the resurrection in all the freshness and vigour of immortal youth.

To account more fully for the use of such language by the sacred writers, we have but to recollect that man is a compound being, and that when speaking of the dead they sometimes use expressions respecting the body which they do not intend to apply to the soul. Men cease, at death, to act upon the stage of life and to engage in the pursuits of the world, and on that account they are said to sleep although their souls exist in a state of consciousness and activity. Unless we suppose this, it would be impossible on any legitimate principle of interpretation to explain the numerous passages of scripture in which disembodied souls are spoken of, not only as being in a state of consciousness, but as being capable of the highest enjoyment or the most exquisite suffering. The rich man, for instance, of whom mention is made in the parable, retained, after death, his consciousness, his recollection, and his capability of endurance.

"In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." The beggar, upon the other hand, was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom," and there was "comforted." Both were sensible of the circumstances in which they were placed. The one was conscious of enduring the woes of perdition, whilst the other rejoiced in the delights of the celestial paradise. But there is not, in reality, any inconsistency in speaking of the dead at one time as being asleep, and at another as being in possession of a conscious and active existence. In the one case, the language has a reference to the mortal part which is consigned to the tomb and to its insensibility to all earthly things; in the other, it has a reference to the thinking principle which survives the stroke of death and continues to exercise its powers in another sphere of existence.

It is true, it seems then

It is a fact which no one can fail to observe, that when the action of the organs of sensation is entirely suspended in sleep, all the powers of the soul are frequently in exercise. In dreaming it is, at times, more active and its operations vastly more rapid than when the body is awake. to break loose from the controlling power by which its operations are regulated in ordinary circumstances, and to move in a sphere of its own creation. The material organization in which it is confined, although prostrated by fatigue, and overpowered by sleep, cannot restrain its movements nor confine it to scenes which its own recollections may call up before it; but