scoffers from hardness of heart, and the pursuit of a carnal life,-not by abstract reasoning, but by the parabolical representation of Dives and Lazarus, which clearly describes their madness, from the respective fate of the characters whom he drew, immediately after death, the one being "comforted," the other " tormented." And though it may be urged, that this is merely a parabolical representation, which ought not to be adduced as an argument to prove a disputable question; yet, the main scope of a parable, and its leading design, clearly may, and must be so adduced; for otherwise the parable would have no force and if, in the present case, we lose sight of the chief end of our Saviour's lesson, which was to shew what became of the souls of good and bad men after death, and fail to urge this point argumentatively, the whole parable seems to be stript of its usefulness, and deprived of its force.

:

That the happiness of Lazarus, and the punishment of Dives were consequences immediately following their departure from this world, and before the general resurrection,-(at that time, namely, when their bodies lay in the grave, and their souls were in a state of separate being,) is evident from the desire, which the rich man anxiously expresses, of having a message sent to his five surviving brethren, to warn them of their danger, and to effect their conversion.

According, then, to the doctrine of our Saviour, fairly deduced from the history before us, the soul disembodied is neither annihilated nor asleep, but placed in a state of happiness or misery, according to its previous habits. Dives, being buried, is forthwith" tormented" in hell;-whilst Lazarus is " comforted" in Abraham's bosom !-Let us inquire, what is here meant by hell, and what by Abraham's bosom?

In answering these questions, we must not enter into any philological niceties, but content ourselves with stating that "hell," in this passage, and in many others both of profane and sacred authors, signifies the invisible abode of departed spirits. Hades is described, in the parable under review, as the place where the soul of Dives was tormented, which therefore did not lose its consciousness by death, or lie buried in the sleep of insensibility; and much less was it reduced to a nonentity, but existed in agonizing expectation of a second death at the final judgment of mankind! By being in " Abraham's bosom," we are to understand, that Lazarus was admitted into the society of that faithful Patriarch, in the mansions of eternal rest.

66

In describing the felicity of heaven, the sacred penmen are wont to compare it to a feast; and the bliss of the righteous is represented as much increased by their participation of one common repast at one common board. Many shall come from the east and west, and shall set down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdon of heaven." (Matt. viii. 11.) The antients used to recline at their feasts, with the head of one guest toward the breast of another, who is therefore aptly said to lie in his bosom: hence we read of St. John, that he was "leaning on Jesus' bosom," and "lying on Jesus' breast," (John xiii. 23, 25.)*

Ἦν ἀνακείμενος ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ Ἰησοῦ, is the description of St. John's situation; and of Lazarus it is said, in similar phrase, that he was ἀνακείμενος ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ ̓Αβραάμ.

Lazarus then was admitted into the familiar society of just men made perfect, where Abraham and his happy guests were seated at their festive table of spiritual intercourse. Could that, which death had annihilated, be in any society? Could that, which death had buried in unconscious sleep, be represented as enjoying the sumptuousness of a feast?

From the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, therefore, it is contended that our spirits, released from their carnal tabernacles, are removed to a state of misery or happiness; that as Dives was placed in hell, and Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, between the time of their dissolution and the general resurrection; so the souls of all men shall experience either the pangs of the one or the comfort of the other, in the region of the departed, according to their works done in the body, during their trial here!

A similar conclusion will arise from the history of our Lord's transfiguration, as related in the 17th chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel : "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them;--and, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."

Now, whatever might be the ulterior design of this remarkable occurrence, it is evident that it establishes the activity and existence of spirits for Moses and Elias were not only made to appear to the companions of our Lord, but they also conversed with him, so as to be heard by the Apostles; for St. Luke says, that "they spake of our Lord's decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." (Luke ix. 31.) They were not deluded by a mere phantom:-they had the testimony of their ears as well as their eyes for what they relate. That Moses and Elias actually appeared, there is no room to doubt:-they were immediately recognized by the Apostles, and St. Peter proposed to erect tabernacles for them. Elias, indeed, was translated to heaven without undergoing the penalty of death; but the body of Moses was buried in a valley of the land of Moab, and saw corruption. He, consequently, is a strong proof to us that the soul survives its body, and retains, in a state of "deadlihood," its intellectual perceptions.

We come now to the interesting conversation, which passed between our Redeemer and the sister of Lazarus, as illustrating the truth of our hypothesis touching the state of disembodied spirits. When her brother had been dead four days, and his body, therefore, in the warm climate of Judea, had become putrid, Martha met our Lord upon the road, and said unto him, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died: But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee." Jesus saith unto her, "Thy brother shall rise again.' Martha said unto him, "I know that he shall rise again at the resurrection at the last day.”

So far it is plain that Martha's faith persuaded her that her brother might revive at the prayer of our Lord: to which suggestion he

replied, with some ambiguity and purposed reserve,-" Thy brother shall rise again." But this answer did not satisfy Martha's doubts, since it left the time of her brother's resurrection uncertain: "I know" (she says) "that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." This was the general belief of the Jews, and implied no particular faith in Christ. Our Lord, therefore, requires of her a more distinct confession. She had already confessed her persuasion that God would grant whatever he should ask, even to the restoration of her brother; and she had repeated her conviction that there would be a general resurrection, at the final judgment of men. Jesus requires her to believe much more than this; namely, that he had the principles of life within himself, and under his own control :-" I am the resurrection and the life." If he pleased, then, Lazarus might instantly arise. But he goes further yet, and requires Martha to acknowledge, that such as believe in him shall not only receive their bodies again from the grave, but that they shall never die ;-that though they die to outward appearance, they in fact are never deprived of life ;-" he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die: believest thou this?" What does our Lord mean, think ye, by this emphatic question? He could not mean to ask whether Martha believed in the doctrine of a future resurrection, for she had already professed her belief of it;"I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Our Lord demands, it should seem, whether Martha believed that the resurrection itself would be the effect of his power, and that his disciples should be exempt from the penalty of death, for that their bodies lying in the grave, they themselves should never die. "Believest thou

this?"

If our Lord's interrogatory be thus correctly interpreted, we have his assurance that the disembodied soul of the believer truly lives in a state of conscious existence. That natural death, therefore, is the utter extinction of man's whole being, is manifestly an untenable notion; for how can he never die, whose soul shall for many ages be annihilated, or reduced to a state of cold insensibility, between the epoch of their departure hence and the day of their last account?

Still further:-the promise of our Lord to the penitent thief is much to our purpose. Let us examine it. "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke xxiii. 43.) These words of Christ contain a promise, and, therefore, imply a blessing. Now, the promise was to be fulfilled on the very day when it was made, i. e. after Christ's death, and before his resurrection: whence it is manifest, that the penitent thief was to be in the company of his Saviour, whilst their bodies should remain in the grave; and that he should be "THEN and THERE" in a state of happiness; for such must have been the idea which a Jew would entertain of paradise, inasmuch as it would remind him of that delightful garden, which the Lord God planted in Eden, for the blessed habitation of our primeval ancestors. Hence, then, again we infer that the disembodied soul is not only not annihilated, nor yet suffered to sleep in insensibility, but is by death conveyed to a state, where its consciousness remains unsuspended, and its vital fruition is unimpaired. To pretend

VOL. X. NO. XI.

4 Y

that our Saviour's promise was "a peculiar immunity granted to extraordinary faith," is to talk without any warranty from Scripture. And it would be difficult to guess why a person, who had confessedly been a thief, should be honoured with such an unusual favour, while prophets, and saints, and martyrs are still sleeping the unconscious slumber of apparent annihilation! It is abundantly certain, that our Redeemer "descended into hell," whilst his body rested in the grave: in that abode He continued during the interval between his death and resurrection; and at that time the soul of the penitent thief was with him; and, therefore, his disembodied spirit was neither annihilated nor buried in torpid insensibility, for in that case paradise would have been no blessing to him, and our Saviour's promise would have become unintelligible and unfulfilled.

The scriptural testimony to the truth of the doctrine, which I have been endeavouring to illustrate, is almost exhaustless.-St. Paul was 66 caught up into heaven," and translated to paradise; he, therefore, is perfectly able to tell us what he saw there. "I knew a man in Christ," he says, "about fourteen years ago, caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4.) Does this look like a place of death, and oblivion, and obscurity, where Sleep, enthroned in darkness, wielded his silent sceptre ? If such had been the nature of the abode of disembodied spirits, could St. Paul have entertained a wish to visit the scene? If the dissolution of his fleshly tabernacle had necessarily extinguished the being of his soul, or deprived it of its essential faculties, could he have said "to die is gain?" (Phil. i. 21.) Considering the high and holy office to which he had been appointed by the special interposition of our Saviour,-viewing the zeal and ability with which he performed the arduous duties of his vocation,-recollecting the momentous end to which his ministerial labours were directed, and knowing that he was "the ambassador of heaven,”—“ the minister of Christ,"- "the steward of the mysteries of God,"-can we think that St. Paul would have preferred annihilation or insensibility to the execution of those dignified trusts, however they demanded “much patience," or involved him in grievous "afflictions," in "necessities,” and in "stripes?" If the hypothesis of our opponents were tenable, would St. Paul have been " willing rather to be absent from the body?" Would he have told us, that his release from the body would cause him to be "with Christ ?" Would he have said, "What I shall choose, I wot not; for I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better?" (Phil. i. 23.) What! is it very much better indeed, (for so the original signifies,) to become quite extinct, than to preach the good tidings of salvation? What! is it better to rot in cold oblivion, than to be charged with the trust of "the glorious gospel of the blessed God?" (1 Tim. i. 11.) What! is it better to be buried in senseless sleep, than to administer the pure milk of the word to the children of Christ? Is it much better not to be, than to be employed in such a dignified and hallowed ministration? Surely, St. Paul's state in the body had been far better than his state after death, if his soul were to be annihilated, or to sleep till

the resurrection; "for here he enjoyed such sweet communion with God by faith; but then he should enjoy nothing." It were madness for the soul to desire to be dissolved, if it were so far from being better out of the body than in it, that it should have no being, or, what is the same thing, no consciousness of being at all!

ERRORS IN THE PRAYER-BOOK.

MR. EDITOR.-In a book so well known as our Liturgy, it may seem to many persons that any variations of text are quite impossible, and that the copies, whether published at Oxford or Cambridge, must be in every respect similar. This, however, I observe, is not the case; and though the discrepancies which I am about to mention, have doubtless been commented upon by others, if they are not the subjects of common remark, some of the readers of your Miscellany may possibly feel benefited by being informed of them. In examining the Prayer-Books sent forth by our two Universities, (including that edited by the Bishop of Down and Connor,) it is remarkable that those printed at Oxford omit the first "and" in the doxology to the Lord's Prayer (where that doxology is inserted), the word "may" in the General Thanksgiving, and the Italic directions in the Litany for those who desire the prayers of the congregation; while the Cambridge books appear generally to retain them. I say generally, because a variation is found even in the Cambridge Prayer-Books with respect to the last defect; for though the rubric is perhaps most frequently inserted, it is yet sometimes omitted. The causes of this difference I have neither time nor opportunity to investigate, nor indeed am I able to enquire accurately into the period at which it commenced. As far, however, as I have searched, I find that in a copy of the Book of Common Prayer, dated 1759, and printed at Cambridge,--in one of 1717, printed at Oxford,-and in another of 1685, which being mutilated, the place of printing could not be ascertained,-the two verbal omissions uniformly appear. The Litany is in all three without that rubric which the Cambridge editors have now in most instances put forth. The absence of the word "may" in the General Thanksgiving is, I am aware, in some degree accounted for, from the doubt which attaches itself to its adoption in the original copy of our Liturgy. With respect to the word "and" before "the power," in the Lord's Prayer, the omission is the more surprising, as the sentence in the original of the Gospel according to St. Matthew has, without any difference of reading, the Greek word corresponding to it. It ought not, therefore, to be left out, since it cannot, of course, be affected by any opinion which may be entertained as to the genuineness of the doxology itself. However that question is viewed, either the word "and" is to be inserted, or the whole paragraph abandoned. But the rubric in the Litany I conceive to be the most important. Since the large PrayerBooks partake of the same imperfection as the small ones: very

Flavel's Sermons, Vol. I. Sermon 32.