Hebrew, no dead soul," that is, no dead man or woman, or perhaps no dead animal.

Since the word soul is taken so often and so commonly to signify the person of a man or woman, no wonder that there is so frequent mention of souls dying in the scripture, when human persons die.

And if the soul signify a man or woman when they are dead, as well as when living, here is a fair account why the scriptures may speak of the souls going down to the grave, or being delivered from the grave, &c. Ps. lxxxix. 48." Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?" This may either denote his principle of animal life, or his person, that is himself.

Now this account of things is very consistent with the scriptural doctrine of the distinction of the intelligent soul of man from his body, and the intelligent soul's survival of the body, nor do any of these scriptural expressions concerning the soul forbid this supposition: For though in some places, the word soul signifies the person of the man, or his body, or that animal principle which may die, yet in other places, it siguifies that intelligent or thinking principle, which cannot die, as we have before proved, where our Saviour tells us, "we should not fear them that kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." Wheresoever the scripture speaks of a soul's being killed, it only means that the person who was mortal is slain; that is, the life of the body is destroyed, and the man considered as a compound being made up of soul and body is, in some sense, dissolved when one part of the composition dies. But where the soul signifies the intellectual principle in man, it is never said to die, unless where the word death means a loss of happiness, or living in misery; but this implies natural life still, for this soul cannot naturally be destroyed by any power but that which made it.

If any person object that the apostle in Acts . 31. says, "The soul of Christ was not left in hell, or the grave;" for so the word in the Hebrew may signify; Ps. xvi. 10. whence this is cited; there is a sufficient answer to be given to this two or three ways. It may be construed, that the principle of the animal life of Christ, was not left to continue in death; or that the person of the man Jesus was not left in death or the grave, the soul being sometimes put for the person; or it may be as well construed, that the spirit of Christ, or his intellectual soul, was not left in the state of the dead, or of separation from the body, which the word "sheol" in Hebrew, and cons in the Greek signify.

Here it may be observed also, that the words which signify spirit, "ruach, pneuma, spiritus," in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and other languages, is used sometimes for air or breath, which

is supposed to be the principle of life to the animal body; and sometimes it signifies the intellectual soul, the conscious and active principle in man; and therefore whatsoever may be said of the spirit's dying or being lost, is no proof that the conscious principle in man dies, which is a very different thing from breath or air.

Perhaps it will be said here, does not Moses suppose breath to be the soul or spirit in man, when he says; Gen. ii. 7. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

I answer it is evident that Moses makes a plain difference between God's formation of man and brutes, for he makes no distinction between their soul and body in their creation; but he distinguishes the soul from the body of man, in his creation, speaking according to the common language and philosophy of that age, as though the soul were in the breath: Nor was it proper to speak in strict philosophical language to those ignorant people; nor were the modes of expression in the bible, so peculiarly formed to teach us philosophy as religion.

But of this distinction between the soul of a brute and the soul of a man, there seems to be a plain intimation given by Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter iii. verse 21. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of a beast that goeth downward to the earth? That the spirit of man, that is, his conscious and intellectual principle, goeth upward, or survives at the death of the body, but the spirit of the beast, that is, the spring of its animal life goeth down to the earth, is mingled with the common elements of this material world, and entirely lost.

But the wise man in this place perhaps, expresses some of his former atheistical doubts, saying, who knows whether there is any difference between them? Yet it intimates thus much, that men who pretended to wisdom in that age, supposed such a difference between the spirit of man and the spirit of a brute.

Objection II. is taken from Psalm vi. 5. In death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave who shall give thee thanks? And Psalin cxlvi. 4. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. And Ec. ix. 5. The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing. From all which words, some would infer there is no such thing as a separate state of souls.

Answer. Both David and his son Solomon, exclude all such sort of thoughts and actions, both religious and civil, from the state of death, as are practised in this life; all the pursuits of their present purposes, their present way and manner of divine worship, and their management or consciousness of human affairs But they do not exclude all manner of consciousness,

knowledge, thought or action, such as may be suited to the invi sible state of spirits. The design of the writers in those places of scripture require no more than this, and therefore the words cannot be construed to any farther sense, or to exclude the conscious and active powers of a separate spirit, from their proper exercise in that invisible world, though they have done with all' their actions in the present visible state.

Objection III. is taken from John xiv. 3. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there ye may be also; which seems to determine the point, that the followers of Christ were not to be present with him, till he came again to this world to raise the dead, and to take his disciples to dwell with him.

Answer . It hath been already granted by some persons, who doubt of the separate state of all souls, that the apostles had this special favour allowed them to be received into the presence of Christ, when they departed from this body: Now these words were spoken to the apostles, and therefore they cannot preelude this privilege which they expected, viz. that when they were absent from the body, they should be present with the Lord; 2 Cor. v. 8.

2. Christ came again to his disciples at his own resurrection from the dead, and taught them the things of the other world, and better prepared them for the happiness of heaven and his own presence: He came again also by the destruction of the Jewish state, and called his own people thence before-hand, as an emblem of their salvation when the world should be destroyed. He also came again at their death, when he that hath the keys of death and the invisible world let them out of the prison of the body, into the separate state, that they might dwell with him: The coming of Christ has many and various senses in the New Testament, and need not to be referred only to his coming at the day of judgment.

3. But suppose in this place, the words of Christ be construed, concerning his great and public coming, to raise the dead and judge the world; it is certain, that in that day the disciples shall be received to dwell with him, in a much more complete and glorious manner, when both soul and body shall be made the inhabitants of heaven: But this does not preclude or forbid that the separate souls of his followers should be fafoured with his presence in paradise, before his public coming to judge the world. Though the last and greatest blessing be only mentioned here, it does not exclude the former.

Objection IV. St. Paul, in Phil. iii. 10, 11, says, that he desired to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, &c. if by any means he might attain to the resurrection of the dead : Now what need had the apostle to be so solicitous about the

resurrection, if he expected to be with Christ immediately upon his death, since being with Christ is the state of ultimate happiness?

Answer 1. Some learned men suppose that the apostle here presses after some peculiar exaltations of piety in this world, and after an interest in some first resurrection, or resurrection of the martyrs and most eminent saints, which would be long before the general resurrection of all the dead, according to the visions of St. John; Rev. xx. 4-7. But as I am not sufficiently acquainted with the sense of that prophecy, to determine my opinion on this side, I proceed to other answers:

Answer 2. What if the words of St. Paul in this place to the Philippians, should mean no more than this, as verses 13, 14. I forget the things that are behind, as though I had gained so little already, as not to be worth my notice; and I reach forth unto those things which are before, that is, further degrees of holiness to be obtained, pressing towards the mark of perfection, if by any means I might be made so conformable to the death of Christ, as to be entirely dead to sin, and if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead; that is, to such a perfection of holiness, as is represented by the resurrection of Christ; Rom. vi. 4, 11. or as that in which the dead saints shall be raised; for I know I have not already attained it; nor am already perfect.

3. Suppose the soul of St. Paul, to be present with Christ after death in heaven in a separate state, yet this is not the ultimate or highest happiness of the saints, and therefore he aimed at something higher and further, namely, the more complete happiness which he should enjoy at the resurrection of the dead.

Objection V. is borrowed from several verses of 1 Cor. xv. viz. 13, 18, 19, 32. where the apostle is imagined to argue thus, "If there be no resurrection of the dead," verse 13." Then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," verse 18. "Then we have hope only in this life, and nothing else to support us," verse 19. Then "what advantage do I get by all my sufferings for Christ, if the dead rise not?" We had better comply with the appetites of the flesh, and enjoy a merry life here, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die; verse 32. whereby it is evident, that the apostle places the blessed expectation of those that are fallen asleep in Christ, only, and entirely, upon their being raised from the dead, which he would not have done, if there had been such a separate state: He extends our hope in Christ beyond this life, and raises his own expectation of advantage or reward for his sufferings on the account of the gospel, entirely and only upon the resurrection of the dead, having no notion of any happiness in a separate state of souls: For if he had any such opinion or hope, this expectation of the VOL. VII.

C

1

happiness of the soul in a separate state, might have been a sufficient proof, that those, who died or slept in the faith of Christ, are not perished, and he had abundant reward for his sufferings, in that world of separate souls, without the resurrection of the body.

Answer 1. It must be granted, that the scripture, in order to support christians under present trials, chiefly refers them to the day of the resurrection, and final judgment, as the great and chief season of retribution: The reason of this will appear under my answer to the following objection: Now the apostle may be supposed to argue here only on this foot, neglecting or overlooking the separate state, as though this final retribution at and after the resurrection of the body, were comparatively the whole, because it is far the chief and most considerable part, being much the most sensible and conspicuous, and of the longest duration. The chief part of any thing is often taken for the whole: And if there were no resurrection of the dead, that is, if there were no state of retribution at all, then the epicurean reasoning would be good, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die; verse 32.

And, to confirm this exposition, we may take notice, that in other places of scripture, where the resurrection of the dead is mentioned, this "anastasis," includes the whole state of existence after death, both the separate and the resurrection-state. This seems to be the sense of it in that famous place; Luke xx. 35. where Christ argues with the Sadducees, who denied the separate state, as well as the resurrection of the body: Now if you take away this "anastasis," this whole state of existence and retribution, then they that suffer for Christ have no advantage or recompence, and the epicurean doctrine is plainly preferable, at least in the common sense and reasoning of men, and in such seasons of trial and persecution.

Nor is it unreasonable to suppose, that there might be some of those principles of Sadducism begun to be instilled into some of the Corinthians, viz. that there were no rewards and punishments at all in any future state; for he tells them, verse 34. that some of them had not the knowledge of God; that is, as a righteous rewarder of them that diligently seek him, I speak this says he, to your shame. And verse 58. he encourages them to be stedfast and unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord, that is, there is certainly a future state of recompence for piety, and the discovery of it at the resurrection of the dead is the most public and glorious part of it, and therefore he insists upon this alone.

Answer 2. But we may give yet a more particular answer to this objection; for if we take in the whole scheme of the apostle's argument in this chapter, we shall find there is no suficient