the Greek word Ψυχὴ, which we translate soul here, doth in other places of Scripture, and even in the 39th verse of this very chapter, signify life, and, consequently, here it may also signify the animal life or the person of the man; for it is manifest that in this place it must signify some immortal principle in man that cannot die; whereas when the body is killed the animal life dies too, and does not exist till the body is raised again: but the soul is a principle in this place which men cannot kill, even though they destroy the life of the body: and whatsoever other senses the word Ψυχή may obtain in other texts, that cannot preclude such a sense of it in this text as is most usual in itself, and which the context makes necessary in this place.

Nor will it avail the supporters of the mortality of the soul to say, that this Scripture means only that men cannot kill the soul for ever, so that it shall for ever perish, and have no future life hereafter by a resurrection: for in this sense men cannot kill the body, so that it shall never revive or rise again: but here is a plain distinction in the text, that the body may be killed, but the soul

cannot.

And I think this Scripture proves also that, though the body may be laid to sleep in the grave, yet the soul cannot be laid to sleep: for the substance of the body still exists, and is not utterly destroyed by killing it, but only laid to sleep for a time, as the Scripture often describes death: but the soul cannot be thus laid to sleep for a time, with its substance still existing, for that would be to have no pre-eminence above the body, which is contrary to this assertion of our Saviour.

II. "The beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried, and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, &c. and send Lazarus to my father's house, that he may testify to my brethren, lest they come also into this place of torment *." I grant, that this account of the rich man and the beggar is but a parable, and yet it may prove the existence of the rich man's soul in a place of torment before the resurrection of the body. 1. Because the existence of souls in a separate state, whilst other men dwell here on earth, is the very foundation of the whole parable, and runs through the whole of it. The poor man died, and his soul was in Paradise. The rich man's dead body was buried, and his soul was in hell, while his five brethren were here on earth in a state of probation, and would not hearken to Moses and the prophets.

2. Because the very design of the parable is to shew, that a ghost sent from the other world, whether heaven or hell, to wicked men who are here in a state of trial, will not be sufficient to convert them to holiness, if they reject the means of grace and the ministers of the Word. The very design of our Saviour seems to be lost, if there be no souls existing in a separate state. A ghost sent from the other world could never be supposed to have any influence to convert sinners in this world, even in a parable, if there were no such things as ghosts there. The rich man's five brethren could have no motive to hearken to a ghost pretending to come from heaven or hell, if there were no such things as ghosts or separate souls, either happy or miserable. Now surely if parables can prove any thing at all, they must prove those propositions which are both the foundation and the design of the whole parable.

3. I might add yet further, that it is very strange that our Saviour should so particularly speak of angels carrying the soul of a man, whose body was just dead, into heaven or Paradise, which he calls Abraham's bosom; if there were no such state or place as a heaven for separate souls, if Abraham's soul had no residence there, no existence in that state, if angels had never any thing to do in such an office. What would the Jews have said or thought of a prophet come from God, who had taught his

doctrines to the people in such parables as had scarce any sort of foundation in the reality or nature of things?

But you will say, the Jews had such an opinion current among them, though it was a very false one, and that this was enough to support a parable: I answer, what could Christ (who is truth itself) have said more or plainer to confirm the Jews in this gross error of a separate state of souls, than to form a parable which supposes this doctrine in the very design and moral of it as well as in the foundation and matter of it?

III. "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for he is not a God of the dead but of the living; for all live unto him *." Some learned men suppose that the controversy between Christ and the Sadducees in this place was about the Anastasis, which implies the whole state of existence after death, including both the separate state and the resurrection, because the Sadducees denied both these at once, and believed that death finished the whole existence of the man. They denied angels and spirits †, i. e. separate souls of men, and thought the rewards and punishments mentioned in Scripture related only to this life. On this account they suppose our Saviour's design is to prove the existence of persons or spirits in the separate state as much as the resurrection of the body.

And when he says that the Lord or Jehovah is described as the God of Abraham, &c. it supposes Abraham at the same time to have actually some life and existence in some state or other, for "God is not a God of the dead but of the living," for all that are dead and gone out of this world, still live unto God, i. e. they have a present life in the invisible world of spirits, as God is an invisible spirit, as well as they expect a resurrection of their body in due time.

How could God in the days of Moses be called actually "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," who were long since dead, if there was no sense in which they were now alive to God, since our Saviour declares God is properly "the God only of the living, and not of the dead?" This part of the argument holds good in whatsoever sense you construe the whole debate, and by whatsoever medium or connexion you prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; and this is obvious to the honest and unlearned reader, as well as to the man of learning.

IV. " And he (that is, the penitent thief upon the