Paul makes the man complete without the body; as much so as an individual is without the house in which he resides." Is it not then absurd enough, to punish the body for the sin of the immortal soul? Just as absurd, as to punish a house for the sins its resident committed in it. But if nothing was threatened with death but the body, this was a blessing to the immortal soul, for it is looked on only as a clog to it. It was idle for God to threaten the immortal soul with death, for if immortal it cannot die.

I now make an appeal to your candor, and the candor of all my readers. Does not this text, respecting man's formation, stand in direct opposition to your views of an immortal soul, and in favor of my opinions? If God did not impart to man an immortal soul when he made him, it is incumbent on you to show when, and on what occasion, he afterwards bestowed it. But to say it was communicated to Adam afterwards, is to say he lived sometime without an immortal soul, which is a new discovery from the Bible. But if you can show that God gave to Adam and his posterity immortal souls, I am satisfied, and will thank you for the information. for the information. But I might ask, does God impart an immortal soul to every infant ? If so, at what period is it given? But was not man commanded to propagate his kind, as all other creatures were? And did not God bless them for this purpose? But do men propagate immortal souls? Or does God give immortal souls to the fruit of the most unlawful connexions?

We have seen what God breathed into man when he made him. Let us now see what man breathes out of him when he dies? Is it an immortal soul? No Sir; it is the very same thing God breathed into him. God just takes away what he gave, hence David says, Ps. 146: 4-" his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts

But you

perish." See this text noticed already. may also consult the following texts, which show, that it is man's breath or life God takes away at Ps. 104: 29. Job 14: 10, and 17: 1. Dan.

death.

5: 23.

Ps. 90: 3. Gen. 3: 19. Job 34: 14. But I will thank you, Sir, to produce the text which says God at death takes away from man an immortal soul: or, that man at death breathes out his immortal soul. Yea, only name the text which says the soul is immortal. It is evident from the above texts, and others noticed previously, that man at death just returns to his original condition. Has it not been shown from Eccles. 3: 19-21, and other texts, that men and beasts" have all one breath" or spirit? See also Gen. 7: 22, 23. And surely no man can deny that the Scriptures are alike silent about either of them breathing out at death an immortal soul. In Gen. 5, it is said, a number of persons lived several hundred years, and that they died. and that they died. But it is not intimated that they breathed out of them an immortal soul. Nor is it hinted that they had such souls to live in a disembodied state. Again; at the flood"all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died, whether man or beast," Gen. 7: 22, 23. But, Sir, you ought to notice that there is just as little said about the immortal souls of the men as of the beasts which perished in the flood. Yet you seem very confident that the immortal souls of men who perished, were in hell when you wrote your Letters, and advocate from 1 Peter 3: 18, 19, that Christ's disembodied spirit went there and preached to them.

Further. I travel through both Old and New Testament in search of evidence for your immortal soul; but I can find none, that either such a soul was breathed into man, or is breathed out of any one at death. Nothing more departed from Rachel at death

but her breath or life, Gen. 35: 18. Nothing more departed from the child, mentioned 1 Kings 17: 21, 22. And nothing more departed from our Lord, Matt. 27: 50. See Dr. Campbell's note on this last text. What then, Sir, am I to do? Must I still believe the soul is immortal? This is impossible, unless I believe without evidence. But I turn to p. 70 of your Letters, already quoted, and find you tell me the law of Moses did not teach a future retribution or future existence, consequently could not teach your doctrine of an immortal soul. Why then do you believe it? Why, because it was taught in revelations which are now lost. But how do you know this? Why, because you think so; some others have said so; and chiefly because you cannot prove it in any other way. I pray thee have me excused from believing any thing of such importance, on such evidence as this.

It is likely you will object to the above remarks by saying," this only makes the soul of Adam to be life." Answer. What right have you, Sir, to say it was an immortal soul? To assert it is, proves nothing, but is contrary to the Scripture usage of nephish and psuhe rendered soul in the Bible, for no Scripture writer calls the soul immortal. It is also contrary to the phrases both in the Hebrew and Greek, rendered living soul. Gen. 2: 7. The very same phrase is rendered living creature in other places. See Gen. 2: 19, and comp. Gen. 1: 21, 24. It is the false notion attached to the term soul, imbibed from education, which occasions so much perplexity to people on this subject. If any man will contend that the phrase rendered living soul means an immortal soul in man, let him show us why it does not mean the same when applied to the brutes. See the above texts, and Rev. 16: 3. Modern versions render this phrase " living person.' 99 And-"liv

ing animal.". See Geddes, Newcome, Improved Version, &c. Parkhurst, as quoted in my Essays, de-. nies that the terms rendered soul means an immortal soul. Bates, in his Critia Hebrea, says--" nephish is never, that I know of, the rational soul. It is no more soul than the brain is the understanding, or the heart the will. They who leave the Scriptures and reason from the nature of matter to prove we have a soul, and that it is naturally immortal, are paving the way to a disbelief of both points." Whether, by leaving your Bible, and reasoning on lost revelations to prove the soul immortal, is not paving the way to a disbelief in the Scriptures, I leave to your own sober reflections.

LETTER X.

SIR,

THIS letter shall be directed to an investigation of the origin and progress of your opinions respecting the immortality of the soul and its condition after death, from the earliest times to the first introduction of philosophy into Rome. It has been the burden of your song throughout your book, that “the Scriptures were addressed" to such as believed these opinions, and in p. 70 of your Letters you declared the law of Moses does not teach either a future life or a future retribution, consequently cannot teach the immortality of the soul or its condition after death. It would then be idle to look into the Scriptures to find the origin of such doctrines.

From what source then did the "immortality of the soul and its condition after death originate? You have

contended, that these doctrines had their origin in revelations which are now lost. In refutation of such a

position enough was said in preceding letters. But in further refutation of it, and also of your position that the Gentiles derived such opinions from the Jews, I refer you to Dr. Enfield's History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 20, 21; and vol. ii. p. 210-221.— What he says in these pages is a complete refutation of both these positions, and on which your system rests for support. Dr. Enfield justly remarks," as to the traditionary law, which the Jewish writers suppose to have been the ground of their cabbala, if it were not à mere invention of later times, it must have been given by divine revelation, and can furnish no argument in defence of the philosophy of Moses. Much less can any argument for this purpose be derived from writings which are confessedly lost, and which have not been proved to have ever existed." Before you can establish your system from lost revelations, two new revelations are necessary; one, that those revelations did exist, and another, that your opinions were taught in them. But two facts, Sir, show that this ground on which you rest your cause is false. 1st. The heathen never alleged that their belief in the immortality of the soul and its condition after death originated in revelations which happened to get lost. 2d. On the contrary there is a profusion of evidence that the Jews derived their opinions respecting the soul and its condition after death from their intercourse with the heathen. It would be a waste of time to show this here. Evidence of it will appear in the sequel. See Dr. Campbell's 6th Dissertation with many other writers I might name, who all bear testimony to this fact.

You will then ask, whence could such opinions. originate? It shall now be my business to show this: and before I begin, I premise two things which you