tion of the organs of sense, be cited as an objection against the conclusion we deduce from this parable; and should it be thence alleged, that the things described can only be true of the rich man after the resurrection of his body, we remark, that whatever may be the mode of the soul's perceptions in a disembodied state, on the supposition of its separate existence, we should be led to conclude, that, álthough the mind's knowledge and perceptions were all originally derived through the instrumentality of its material organs, and the laws of association, and modes of thought dependent on their action, yet it is to be expected that the same general laws of association, and the very same affections of the soul should be observable even in its disembodied state. For here we find that our minds are combining thought, and become excited frequently under the influence of thought, which, though originally derived through the organs of sense, are not in fact sensible ideas, but excogitated in the pure abstractions of the mind.

Beside, we do know that all our knowledge of the operation of our own minds is by means of analogy, so that there is, in fact, no other method left of describing the perceptions of the disembodied spirit, but by means of its actions and affections here through the instrumentality of the organs of sense. We legitimately enough speak of the soul's feeling, seeing, hearing, speaking, &c. in its disembodied state; not that the acts are precisely the same with what we intend of ourselves by such phrases in our present state of being, but that there is some sufficient resemblance between its actions in its disembodied and embodied state, to justify us in the use of terms originally describing sensible acts to designate the acts of pure spirit. We have already illustrated and fully dilated on this point, so that we need not here repeat what the reader must be familiar with we may not be understood as begging the question, however

That

in these remarks, we shall presently notice one or two facts which will prove, incontestibly, that the soul of man has acted independently of its organic vehicle the body, before the period of its final separation; so that, having established the possibility of its independent existence and action, and, at the same time, that its perfections and affections, though not through the material organs, were so far analogous to the latter as to be best, and indeed only described, by a reference to them, we may legitimately insist upon the proof, which the parable of Lazarus and Dives furnishes of the existence of man in a disembodied state, and consequently of his possessing an immaterial spirit. These facts constitute our next argument. They are

4. The visions which the prophets and others had when God communicated to them His mind and will. The instances are many. We might note those of Abraham, of Balaam, of Elisha, of Hosea, of Ezekiel, of Jeremiah, of Amos, of Zechariah, of Peter, of Stephen, of Paul, of John, &c. The reader however may examine the record of them at his leisure. In all, the perceptions which were had are described by seeing, whence that particular form or mode of divine revelation took the name of vision, and the early prophets because of its frequency were denominated seers. In visions the individual was awake, and his senses all were in ordinary healthful exercise. But the things that he was said to SEE, were NOT perceived by his senses.

The account of Peter's vision is as circumstantial as any, and may afford the best opportunity to us for an accurate investigation of their nature. It is said, that while Peter, who had become very hungry as he was engaged in prayer, was waiting for some food which was being prepared for him he fell into a trance," when certain things took place, which are spoken of as though there had been the direct visual perception of them. He "saw

1. Acts x. 10.

heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth, wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts and creeping things, and fowls of the air." In addition to this he heard a voice, and spake himself, and that not once only, but the whole scene was thrice transacted before him.

Now this was no illusion produced by disease, because the historian has taken care to apprise us of facts which indicated a state of full and vigorous health. Neither was it a dream, because he was not asleep, but there was undoubtedly some interruption or suspension of the exercise of his animal senses. It is called a trance. The perceptions of his mind however were not interrupted. They were busily employed. We ask how? Not merely in the ordinary mode through the impressions made on his senses. The things Peter saw were visible to none but himself, so that they could not have been real material substances. The whole scene was indeed a symbolical display, and whether these symbols were actually any forms or not, we are not in the least concerned to inquire. That. which chiefly concerns our argument is the fact, that Peter had perceptions of things which were not present before his senses, so that there must be in man something capable of receiving knowledge, independent of the machinery or apparatus of nerves, &c. which are the ordinary channel of communication from external things. If it be alleged that the knowledge conveyed to Peter's mind, was by the ordinary process in which the imagination combines objects, and brings things before it which do not actually exist, it may be remarked, that the result shewed plainly this was not the case. Who ever heard of men's imagining and combining circumstances that proved to be prophetical, as were the visions of the prophets?

1. Acts x. 10.

Beside, Peter's imagination would have naturally operated in another direction. His feelings and prejudices, his convictions and habits, all were at war with the thought of admitting the Gentiles to a participation of the privileges of fellowship with the Jews. He could not himself well brook the idea, so that if it had been merely the vivid combinations of his own fancy, they would have been altogether of another character.

case.

Nor can it be pretended, that the knowledge conveyed to the mind of Peter was done in some such way as impressions are made on the minds of men in certain diseases. In some cases of mania there is an absolute deception practised on the mind, mere fancies being apprehended as realities. There was no bodily disease at all in Peter's Nor was it mania; but sober truth, so that, after a full and candid examination of all the circumstances, if we believe the record itself, we must admit, that impressions or communications were made to the mind of Peter, which would not have been of its own origination, and which certainly were not produced through the medium of his senses. The conclusion therefore which we draw from this is, that there must have been in Peter some percipient principle, capable of acting, and of being acted on, independently of and by some other means than the material frame, or organs of sense.

The vision of Cornelius which preceded, but was connected with that of Peter, may also deserve a remark or two. It is not said simply that he saw an angel, as though there had been an appearance before him which was cognizable by his senses; but that "he saw a vision evidently." It is not an unnecessary and unmeaning multiplication of 1. Acts x. 3. dey HE PERCEIVED, see Mat. ii. 16 Tore Hpadus idav sti ενεπαίχθη Mat. ix. 2. και ιδων ο Ιησούς την πίςιν αυτών.

opaμATI IN A VISION Contradistinguished from material existence. See

acts xii. 9.

12V4350 clearly, distinctly, without illusion.

words. The idea plainly is, that Cornelius, in a vision, which was not at all illusory, had as distinct a perception of an angel, as if he had seen that angel with his bodily eyes. We must let the language of scripture go for what it is worth, and not imagine that it means this or the other thing, or pass off our ignorance and incredulity with the charge of vagueness, mysticism or tautology.

We might multiply instances, but the general fact is all we want, that God has made communications to the minds. of men, giving them perceptions which were not derived through the senses, nor excogitated in their own fancies, and therefore that there must be in man some percipient being distinct from his material nature. This argument may be pursued yet further, and rendered even more conclusive, from the fact of,

5, Inspiration. "Holy men of God," says the apostle "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There were ideas communicated to their minds which they never could have excogitated. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." The apostle does not speak of things yet to be made known, but of things already revealed. If so, then it may be pertinently asked how came they ever to be known? The answer is given. God hath by his Spirit revealed them. He hath by the miraculous influence of His Spirit wrought in the minds of holy men of old the knowledge which they have communicated to us. It is true that now, since our fellow men have spoken, and written to us about them, we become acquainted with them in the ordinary exercise, and cultivation, of those capacities for thought, be they what they may, which we possess. But originally this was not the way in which the knowledge of them was obtained. Wherefore we infer that if even know2. 1. Cor. ii. 9.

1. 2. Pet. i. 21.