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 contrrry to this assertion of our Saviour.

II. Luke xvi. 22-28. "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, 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 peor man died, and his soul was in paradise. The rich man's 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 these propositions, which are both the foundation, and the design of the whole parable.

3. I might add yet further, that it is strange, that our Sa viour should 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

VOL. VII.

B

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. Luke xx. 37, 38. 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; Acts xxiii. 8. that is, separate souls of men, and thought the rewards and punishments mentioned in scripture related only to this life. Upon 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; that is, 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 men of learning.

IV. Luke xxiii. 42, 43. And he, that is, the penitent thief upon the cross, said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom: And Jesus said unto him, verily I 'say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The thief upon the cross believed that Christ would enter into paradise, which he supposed to be Christ's kingdom, when he departed from this world, which was not his kingdom: And this he believed, partly according to the common sentiment of the Jews, concerning good men at their death, as well as it is agree

able to our Saviour's own expressions to God; John xvii. 11. Holy Father, I am no more in the world, and I come unto thee; or, as he said to his disciples; John xvi. 28. I leave the world, and go to the Father.

And, according to these expressions; Luke xxiii. 46. Christ dies with these words on his lips, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Our Saviour taking notice of the repentance of the thief, acknowledging his own guilt, thus, We are justly under this condemnation, and receive the reward of our deeds, and taking notice also of his faith in the Messiah, as a king whose kingdom was not of this world, when he prayed, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Christ, I say, taking notice of both these, answers him with a promise of much grace, Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The use of the word paradise in scripture and amongst ancient writers, Jewish and christian, is to signify the happiness of holy souls in a separate state : And our Saviour entering into that state, at his death, declared to the dying penitent, that be should be with him there immediately. It is certain that by the word paradise, St. Paul means the place of happy spirits, jato which he was transported; 2 Cor. xii. 4. And this sense is very accommodate, and proper to this expression of our Saviour, and to the prayer of the penitent thief, and it is as suitable to the design of Christ, in his epistle to the church of Ephesus, Rev. ii. 7. The tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God, which are the only three places where the New Testament uses this word.

I know there have been great pains taken to shew that the stops should be altered, and the comma should be placed after the word to-day, thus, I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be with me in paradise, that is, some time or other hereafter. As though Christ meant no more than this, viz. “thou askest me to remember thee when I come into my kingdom: And I declare unto thee truly this very day, that some long time hereafter thou shalt be with me in happiness at thy resurrection, when my kingdom shall be just at an end, and I shall give it all up to the Father," as in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Can any one imagine this to be the meaning of our blessed Saviour, in answer to this prayer of the dying penitent? I know also there are other laborious criticisms to represent these words, to-day, in other places of scripture as referring to some distant time, and not to mean that very day of twenty-four hours: But rather than enter into a long and critical debate upon all those texts, I will venture to trust the sense of it in this place, with any sincere and unlearned reader.

But, if we consult the learned, Dr. Whitby will tell us, that it was a familiar phrase of the Jews, to say on a just mau's

dying, to-day, shall he sit in the bosom of Abraham: And, it was their common opinion, that the "souls of the righteous who were very eminent in piety, were carried immediately into paradise." The Chaldee paraphrase on Solomon's Song, chapter iv. 12. takes some notice of the " souls of the just, who are carried into paradise by the hands of angels." Grotius in his notes on Luke xxiii. 43. mentions the hearty and serious wish of the Jews, concerning their friends who are dead, in the language of the talmudical writers, "Let his soul be gathered to the garden of Eden;" And in their solemn prayers when one dies, "Let him have his portion in paradise, and also in the world to come,' by which they mean the state of the resurrection, and plainly distinguished it from this immediate entrance into Eden or paradise at the hour of death. The Jews suppose Enoch to be carried to paradise even in his body; and that the souls of good men have no interruption of life; but that there was a "reward for blameless souls," as the book of Wisdom speaks, chapter ii. 22. "For God created man to be immortal, and to be an image of his own eternity," which seems to suppose blameless souls, entering into this reward without interruption of their life. And if this be the meaning of paradise among the Jews, doubtless our Saviour spake the words in such a known and common sense, in which the penitent thief would easily and presently understand him, it being a promise of grace in his dying hour, wherein he had no long time to study hard for the sense of it, or consult the critics in order to find the meaning.

We come now to consider the writings of St. Paul: And it is certain, that the most natural and obvious sense of his words in many places of his epistles, refers to a separate state of the souls after death: For as he was a pharisee in the sentiments of religion, so he seems to be something of a platonist in philosophy, so far as christianity admitted the same principles. Why then should it not be reasonably supposed, wheresoever he speaks of this subject, and speaks in their language too, that he means the same thing which the pharisees and the platonists believed, that is, the immortality and life of the soul in a separate state. But I proceed to the particular texts.

V. 2 Cor. v. 6, 8. Therefore we are always confident, or of good courage, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord: The apostle, verse 4. seems to wish that he might be clothed upon at once, with immortality in soul and body, without dying or being unclothed: But since things are otherwise determined, then in the next place, he would rather chuse absence from the body, that he might be present with the Lord.These words seem to me so plain, so express, and so unanswer

able a proof of the spirits of good men existing, in a separate state, and being present with the Lord, when they are absent from the body, at death, that I could never meet but with two ways of evading it.

The first is what a gentleman many years ago, who professed christianity, acknowledged to me, viz. that he believed St. Paul did mean in this place, the same sense in which I have explained him; but he thought St. Paul might be mistaken in his opinion, for he was not of the apostle's mind in this point. I think I need not tarry to refute this answer : But I may make this remark upon it, viz. that the sense of St. Paul, concerning the separate state, was so evident in this place, that this man had rather differ from the apostle, than deny this to be his meaning. All his prejudices against this doctrine, could not hinder him from acknowledging that the apostle believed and taught it.

The second way of evading it is, that this text with one or two others of like kind, do indeed speak of the happiness of souls in a separate state, but it doth refer only to the apostles themselves, who had this peculiar favour and privilege granted them by Christ, to follow him to paradise and enjoy his presence there, while the souls of other christians were asleep, unconscious and inactive till the resurrection.

Answer I. It is granted indeed, that several verses of this chapter, as well as in the former, have a peculiar reference to the ministers of Christ, and perhaps to the apostles who were bis ambassadors; but there are many things in both these chapters; that are perfectly applicable to every christian, and the verses just before and just after this 8th versc, may belong to all good men as well as to the apostles or ministers. He that has wrought us for the self-same thing, that is, for the happiness of the future state, is God, who hath also given unto us the earnest of the Spirit, at least as an enlightener and a sanctifier, if not as the author of special gifts," for Rom. viii. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his. And ver. 6. Therefore we are always confident, or of good courage, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. This is, or should be the character of every christian. And the 9th verse that follows it, belongs to all the saints: Wherefore we labour, that whe ther present or absent, we may be accepted of him; verse 10. for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Now why should we suppose, that St. Paul excludes all other christians besides himself, and his brethren the apostles, from the blessing of the 8th verse, viz. that when they are absent from the body, they shall