it is said "Be-tseath Naphshah" that is, in the going away of her soul; but her body did not go away; therefore her soul and body must have been distinct: If her Breath only had been intended Neshem or Ruach would have rather been used, as the first means Breath, the latter Breath or Spirit indifferently." By this explanation we are led to understand, that the word, which is translated Soul in this passage, does not mean Breath, but the immortal part of our nature, and, if this be so, we cannot but believe that the notion in these times was, that the soul was immaterial; that it was distinct and separate from the body; and that when a man died his body was left upon earth, and that his soul went to another place. There is reason also to suppose that the same notion was entertained by Job in his time relative to the immateriality and immortality of the soul, and its entire distinctness from the body, for in Chap. 10. v. 1., Job says of himself, “my soul is weary of my life." Here is a proof, that the Hebrew word Nephesh here translated soul, and the same as that which was translated soul in the case of Rachel, does not signify the animal life but the soul or immortal mind, as distinguished from the Hebrew Chai used in this verse to denote that animal life. It is also very

remarkable, that Job uses the same two Hebrew words Nephesh and Chai in another part of the Dialogue in the same sense as before, that is, as opposed to each other, the one to signify the mortal and the other the immortal part of the Creature Man. "In whose hand, says Job, Chap. 12. v. 10. is the Soul of every living thing and the Breath of all mankind." Does not the first part of this verse, says Dr. Adam Clarke, refer to the immortal soul, the principle of all intellectual life, and the latter part of it to the Breath, the grand means, respiration, by which Animal Existence is continued.

But we must leave Job for a moment and go back to the Pentateuch to examine a phrase there before we can complete our knowledge of this subject. It is frequently said of the Patriarchs when they died, that "they were gathered to their people." No phrase so plain as this at the first sight was ever so much mistaken, or so much misunderstood. Readers generally imagine, that the persons thus spoken of were either buried in the sepulchre of their fathers, or committed to the earth in the same burial-place with their ancestors and tribe; but this is not the proper meaning of the phrase as I shall attempt to show. It is said for instance of Abraham,

that he gave up the ghost and was "gathered to his people." Gen. c. 25. v. 8; but this was not literally true, for Abraham was buried in his own cave of Machpelah at a distance from his father, relatives, and former connexions, and where the body of his wife Sarah alone had been deposited. Again, the same phrase is used by God himself to Moses and Aaron on Mount Hor, saying, “Aaron shall be gathered to his people. "And Moses did as the Lord commanded; and they went up into Mount Hor, in the sight of all the congregation. And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son, and Aaron died there on the top of the Mount, and Moses and Eleazar came down from the Mount." Numbers. c. 20. v. 24-27-28. From this account it appears that Aaron was not buried with his family or people; for his body was left by Moses and Eleazar upon Mount Hor. Again, the same phrase is used by God to Moses. "Thou also shalt be gathered to thy people as Aaron thy brother was gathered." Numbers. Chap 27. v. 13. "And Moses went out from the plains of Moab unto the mountains of Nebo to the top of Pisgah. So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him

in a valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-Peor; but no man knows his sepulchre, unto this day." Deuter. c. 34. v. 5. 6. Here then is a third instance of a holy man who is said to have been "gathered to his people," but yet who was buried in a strange land, away from all his kindred and friends. But if, when the righteous died, it is not true that the phrase "being gathered to their people means that they were buried in the same sepulchre or burialground with their fore-fathers, relatives, and persons among whom they had formerly lived, what is the meaning of it? I believe that the notion in these times was, that the souls of the righteous (for to these only the phrase was applied) were to be gathered together in another world to dwell there, if I may so speak, with the souls of their own people, that is, of other servants of God like themselves, such as of Abel, Enoch and Noah, or of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the three latter of whom our Saviour, in answer to a question concerning the Resurrection of the dead (Mark. c. 12. v. 27.) speaks of as then living, though they had been dead some hundred years before. And this interpretation seems to me to be confirmed by the consideration that "to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was one of the

phrases in our Saviours time, which had, no doubt, then come down by tradition, to denote the happy state of the righteous dead in another world; for many, says our Saviour, Matt. c. 8. v. 11., shall come from the East and the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven.

It has appeared then, if my interpretation of these texts be right, that a notion existed among the Patriarchs, that there was a soul in Man distinct from the body, and that the souls of holy or good men, when their bodies perished on earth, lived in another state, and that they were rewarded there, and that their reward consisted, as the phrase "setting down" implies, in feasting with, or enjoying the conversation or company of the spirits of all the other good and holy men and servants of God who had gone before them. A notion was also equally prevalent in those

*It is evident from St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews c. 11. v. 14-20., that the patriarchs in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's time, expected to live again in a better country, viz., a heavenly one; but whence did they get this expectation? The Apostle says, from faith. But faith always supposes something previously done or said, to which it is to be attached. They must therefore have derived this expectation from revelation handed down to them by tradition from the earliest times. It is probable therefore that when God gave the precepts to Adam before mentioned, he gave him other information, such as of a future state and future rewards and punishments. See what was said in the case of Cain.