united in one family with angels. At present there is a connection between them, for the angels minister to the saints; but what passes is silent and unseen. It is not properly a correspondence, but a series of good offices performed by the one party to the other; and to this general intercourse the imperfection by the saints presents no obstacles. But, were the disembodied spirits of the latter to mingle with the holy spirits around the throne, while they retained the darkness, and infirmity, and irregular affections to which they were subject upon earth, we cannot conceive that the intercourse could be cordial and agreeable upon either side. The celestial spirits would be often offended, and the human spirits would be abashed and dismayed. There would be an overwhelming superiority on the one hand, and a humiliating sense of inferiority on the other. There would be wanting an entire congeniality of sentiment and feeling. It is necessary, therefore, that men should be as the angels, by possessing faculties, if not equal in strength, yet equally free from the pollution of sin, and equally prompt to engage in the sublime and fervent devotions of the heavenly sanctuary. This leads me to remark, in the third place, That, unless the souls of the saints were rendered perfectly holy at death, they could not fully enjoy the felicity of the future state. They could not enter with the whole heart into the service, and might occasionally feel a reluctance to it, when the unrenewed part of their nature shed its malignant influence upon them. Their love might at one time burn with an ardent flame, and at other times might be faint and languid. For the diversity in their state of feeling during the present life, we may, in some measure, account by the influence of the body, and we are totally incapable of conceiving the operations of the soul, when freed from this incumbrance. But, although it might be exempt from some affections which it at present experiences by means of the body, yet its temper would still be subject to fluctuation while it was actuated by two different and opposite principles, and it could not feel that fervent, sustained, undivided love to God, which is at once the duty and the felicity of every, rational creature. Wherever sin exists, there cannot be pure enjoyment. Even when its influence is circumscribed, it is still a cloud which intercepts some portion of the rays of the sun, a foreign ingredient which infuses bitterness into the cup of pleasure. The saint, whose most delightful hours on earth are spent in fellowship with God, would indeed feel himself at home in heaven; but the faintest trace of sin would cause an abatement of his bliss.

The work of sanctification is completed, at the separation of the soul from the body. We have reason to think that the soul does not remain a moment longer tainted with sin. Angels carry it into the presence of God, and it appears before him in a state of unsullied purity. If to the question, how this sudden change is effected? we are not able to return an answer, there is no cause for surprise; because we are equally ignorant of the mode of its initial and progressive change in the present life. We may think that we know more about it, because we are acquainted with the means which are employed; but the truth is, that the means are the limit of our knowledge; and this will be manifest when we reflect, that there is a general application of them, an application where, in many instances, no effect is produced, and no man can perceive the reason of their success in one case, and of their failure in another. We are compelled to have recourse to a supernatural cause, the agency of the Holy Ghost, which is exerted or suspended from motives which we cannot assign. It is not from want of power that he does not perfect his work in an instant, but because he acts conformably to a plan settled by divine wisdom; and when the time comes to change the plan, he can let forth at once such a measure of his influences as shall ensure its immediate completion. In this world believers are "sanctified through the truth," that is, the power which sanctifies them is exerted by means of the truth, agreeably to the constitution of our

rational nature. The soul, on its entrance into the other world, will see God as he is, and by the contemplation of his glory, will be perfectly transformed into his image.

Perfect holiness implies, that there are no errors in the understanding, no waywardness in the will, no irregularity in the affections; that the mind is filled with light, and the heart with love; that the whole soul is such as God requires it to be, and presents a spectacle on which he can look with unqualified approbation. At present the saints cannot form a distinct idea of this state, because they have not experienced it; but they may judge of it by analogy, because they are already the subjects of the sanctifying operations of the Spirit, as we judge of any object by seeing an outline of it. The nearest approach to it is made in those moments of elevated devotion, when the Christian, abstracted from external things and absorbed in the contemplation of the Divine glory, can say with the Psalmist, "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none in earth whom I desire besides thee;" when the motions of sin are suspended, and he is conscious only of love, and joy, and holy desires.

I have only one remark more to make, that the perfect holiness which the soul attains at its separation from the body, is not mutable like the holiness of Adam, but fixed and permanent. The saints are made "pillars in the temple of their God, and shall go no more out." All creatures are mutable in themselves, but the power of the Creator can establish men, as it has established angels. The saints will retain freedom of will in the heavenly world, but liberty is not inconsistent with an immutable state. God is a free agent, but he cannot change; angels are free agents, but they cannot fall into sin; and the saints will be free, although their inclinations are directed to one object, and their choice is forever fixed. Such will be their love of holiness and their hatred of sin, that a transition from the one to the other will be morally impossible. Besides, in the heavenly state, they will be exposed to no temptation. There will be nothing in external objects to allure the senses, for there only righteousness dwells; and no the new paradise no seducing spirit can enter to make trial of its inhabitants. The season of trial will be past, and the state which succeeds it is a state of repose and enjoyment. The present administration of the divine government, so far as they are concerned, will then be at an end; and rewards and punishments will be finally distributed. There will be no call, therefore, for the anxious vigilance which is now indispensably necessary, for precautions are not requisite when there is no danger. They will rejoice in their perfect security, and serve God without fear.

To the doctrine which has now been laid down respecting the state of the soul after death, different theories are opposed, less or more remote from the truth, but all concurring in this general position, that the disembodied spirit does not immediately pass into its ultimate abode.

The first theory is founded upon the terms used in Scripture to express the state of the soul subsequent to temporal death, and not a little critical ingenuity has been displayed in supporting it. On the subject of the future state, a variety of terms are employed in the New Testament, as, ådŋs, ¿ κόλπος Αβρααμ, παράδεισος, ταρταρος, γεεννα, and ουρανος. 'Adns, which corresponds with the Hebrew word, signifies according to its etymology, (from a privative, and dew, to see), the invisible state, and is understood to be the general name of the region into which human spirits pass on leaving the body. It consists of two provinces, separated from each other by a great gulf or wide interval—ὁ κολπος Αβρααμ οι παραδεισος, and ταρταρος—the one the receptacle of the righteous, and the other the receptacle of the wicked. While in these receptacles, they are in an intermediate state; for when the final judgment takes place, the righteous will enter into ovparos, or heaven, properly so called, and the wicked into yɛɛvva, or hell. It is supposed, according to this theory, that VOL. II.-39. 2 c2

the souls of men possess consciousness and activity in this intermediate state. and experience happiness or misery; and thus far it is not at variance with the doctrine which we hold. If it farther implies, that they are not as happy or as miserable as they will be in heaven and in hell, it accords even here with the common belief, that the reward of the righteous, and the punishment of guilty souls, will not be consummated till they have been reunited to their respective bodies, and sentence have been pronounced upon them at the final judgment. All the difference seems to consist in the places assigned to them during the interval between death and the resurrection. But, in speaking of places in the invisible world, we can affix no distinct ideas to our words, as they are all equally unknown to us. The hypothesis, therefore, of an intermediate state, although it were satisfactorily established, would be no real accession to our knowledge; it would merely make us acquainted with a fact which we could not understand or apply to any practical use, and which would be to us a matter of pure speculation. This, indeed, would not be a reason for rejecting it, if it were clearly taught in the Scriptures; but, however plausible is the reasoning in favour of it, I think that it is not reconcileable to the passages which represent believers, when they die, as entering into heaven, and into the place where Christ is; and it rests in a great measure upon criticism, the value of which scholars alone can appreciate, and upon descriptions of the future state, which are confessedly figurative. I shall therefore dismiss it without farther notice.

I proceed to consider another theory, which is directly opposed to our doctrine concerning the state of the soul after death. Some modern Divines have contended that it is asleep or unconscious, and will remain so till the resurrection. It may be objected, that it is impossible to conceive a spirit to be in this state, as the idea which is always entertained of it is, that it is a living, thinking, active substance; and that its separation from the body, instead of being an argument for its insensibility, as if it could not act without bodily organs, is rather an argument against it; because, being no longer fettered and impeded by a substance dull and inert, it is at full liberty to exert its native energies, as smothered fire breaks out into a flame, when it obtains a free communication with the atmosphere. To such reasoning they reply, by appealing to passages of Scripture which appear to favour their hypothesis, and quote those which speak of the dead as asleep, as knowing nothing, as incapable of praising God, and lying in darkness and silence.

The first answer is, that such language is to be considered as figurative, and may be explained by metaphor and synecdoche. When the dead are said to be asleep, a metaphor is used, founded upon the striking resemblance between death and sleep, which is called by the poet, mortis simillima imago, and, at the same time, in this as in other instances, by another trope, a part is spoken of as the whole. The dead are said to sleep, and to be unconscious and inactive, because these things are true of their bodies. It is worthy of attention, that similar language has been adopted by other nations besides the Jews, and is in common use among us, although we believe, as well as they did, that souls are active in the invisible state. We should think that the man reasoned very inconclusively, who, when he heard us saying of the dead, that they are ignorant of all that is passing on the earth, that they are motionless and without feeling, and are no longer capable of good or evil, inferred, that we supposed, either that their souls had died with their bodies, or that their faculties were dormant and their consciousness was gone. Every man would perceive, in this case, the folly of making common language, founded as it evidently is upon appearances, the standard of our philosophical or metaphysical opinions. It is equally improper to interpret thus the language of Scripture, which adopts

on this occasion the style of common conversation, as it is acknowledged to do in speaking of the apparent motion of the sun around the earth.

The second answer to the conclusion drawn from the passages cited above, is, that to understand them as importing the insensibility of the soul in its separate state, is contrary to other passages in which its conscious existence is most explicitly affirmed. When Stephen said with his dying breath, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' ," he manifestly supposed that his soul should immediately pass into the presence of his Saviour. Our Lord's promise to the penitent thief, "To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise," implies, if words have any meaning, that ere that day was finished, his soul should be in the same place with the soul of Christ, and should enjoy the blessedness which the word "paradise" suggests. In the fifth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul proceeds upon the supposition, that believers, as soon as they leave this world, enter upon a happier state: "For we know, that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." The one event immediately follows the other, the entrance into the heavenly house, the removal from the earthly. The same thing is implied when he says, that he was "in a strait betwixt two," whether to remain upon earth, or "to depart and to be with Christ, which was far better,"§ Certainly he believed, that as soon as he departed he should be with Christ, as is clear both from the words themselves, and from his strait; for, if he had known that he was to remain in a state of insensibility for thousands of years, he could not have hesitated, for a moment, whether it would be better to sink into that state, or to continue in life, engaged in the most important services, and enjoying the delights of communion with God. To evade this argument, a distinction is made between absolute and relative time; the former meaning time considered in itself, independently of human perceptions; the latter, time as perceived by us. In respect of absolute time, it is granted that the saints are not with Christ as soon as they depart from this world; but they are so in respect of relative time, for however long the interval may be, they are not conscious of it, and it will seem to them but a moment. "But does the Apostle," to adopt the words of Dr. Campbell," any where give a hint that this is his meaning? or is it what any man would naturally discover from his words? That it is exceedingly remote from the common use of language, I believe hardly any of those who favour this scheme will be partial enough to deny. Did the sacred penmen then mean to put a cheat upon the world, and by the help of an equivocal expression, to flatter men with the hope of entering, the moment they expire, on a state of felicity, when in fact they knew that it would be many ages before it would take place? But, were the hypothesis about the extinction of the mind between death and the resurrection well founded, the apparent coincidence they speak of is not so clear as they seem to think it. For my part, I cannot regard it as an axiom, and I never heard of any who attempted to demonstrate it. To me it appears merely a corollary from Mr. Locke's doctrine, which derives our conceptions of time from the succession of our ideas; which, whether true or false, is a doctrine to be found only among certain philosophers, and which, we may reasonably believe, never came into the heads of those to whom the Gospel in the apostolic age was announced."||

The distinction between absolute and relative time is totally inapplicable to the following words: "We are confident, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."¶ He had said before, "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord." I do not conceive it possible to express, in a • Acts vii. 59. † Luke xxiii. 43. + Verse 1. Campbell on the Gospels, Diss. vi. part ii. §. 23.

§ Phil. i. 23. 2 Cor. v. 8. & 6.

clearer manner, the immediate transition of the soul from its present habitation into the presence of Christ. What detains us from his presence, is our continuance in the body; what introduces us into it, is our departure from the body. Our absence from the body, and our presence with him, are closely connected; the latter succeeds the former without any interval. Would it have ever entered into the mind of any person of common sense, if there had been no theory to support, that, after all, hundreds and thousands of years might intervene? and would the Apostle have said, with any regard to truth, that, when "absent from the body, we should be present with the Lord,” if he had believed that the soul, in a state of separation, is insensible, and does not recover its consciousness till it is reunited to the body, and consequently can then only be with Christ? It is evident to every reader, that the doctrine which he lays down in this passage, is exactly the reverse of the theory which we are combating.

On the whole, the Scriptures proceed on the supposition, that, as soul and body are distinct, the former is capable of happiness or misery in a separate state. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a proof of it. So are those passages which speak of the spirits of just men as made perfect; of the souls of the martyrs as alive; and of the departed saints as assembled in heaven. and engaged in the worship of God. Parables and prophetic visions are not to be literally interpreted; but the substance of them must be true, that is to say, the general instructions which they convey must be conformable to fact, or they would be no better than fables. It is unnecessary to trouble you with any more quotations, as, I presume, you are all satisfied that the hypothesis of the sleep of the soul is a wild fancy, founded on a misapprehension of some passages of Scripture, and directly contrary to its most explicit declarations. I have only to add, that some of the passages to which we have appealed, are equally conclusive against an intermediate state, as they teach the immediate entrance of the soul into the place where Christ now is, which all will acknowledge, is the heaven of heavens; for he ascended far above "all heavens, that he might fill all things."

We come now to the last hypothesis respecting the state of departed souls. It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the saints do not immediately pass into glory, but first go into a place called purgatory, where they are purified by fire from the stains of sin, which had not been washed out during the present life. This doctrine, Protestants affirm, was unknown to the Church till the days of Gregory the Great, as he is called, about the end of the sixth, or the beginning of the seventh century; but the way seems to have been prepared for it by certain opinions, which prevailed prior to that period, as we learn from the writings of the Fathers. A strange notion was entertained by some respecting the fire which will burn up the earth and its works; that all should pass through it, that it would completely purify the bodies of those who were to be glorified, and that the more holy any person had been, he should feel the less pain from this process. With regard to the souls of the righteous, they believed, that they were in a place of rest and enjoyment, but that they should not be admitted to the beatific vision till the resurrection was past. Hence arose the practice of praying for the dead. Conceiving that they had not yet attained full felicity, the ancients thought that they might be benefited by their prayers, which would procure to them a greater degree of enjoyment. You will observe that, although these opinions were fit materials for fancy and superstition to work up into a still more extravagant form, they were widely different from the doctrine afterwards established by the Church of Rome as an article of faith.

The prototype of the doctrine of Papists on this subject is to be found in heathenism, from which they have borrowed their cumbersome apparatus of