not universally the doctrine even of the Pharisees; but that the prevalent and distinguishing opinion was, that the soul survived the body, that vicious souls would suffer an everlasting imprisonment in hades, and that the souls of the virtuous would both be happy there, and in process of time obtain the privilege of transmigrating into other bodies. The immortality of human souls, and the transmigration of the good, seem to have been all that they comprehended in the phrase αναστασις των νεκρων. Indeed, the words strictly denote no more than the renewal of life.

Their sentiments on this topic naturally recall to our remembrance some of those exhibited by Virgil in the sixth book of the Æneid. That this Pythagorean dogma was become pretty general among the Jews, appears even from some passages in the Gospels. The question put by the disciples, John ix. 2, "Who sinned; this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" and some popular opinions concerning Jesus, whom they knew to have been born and brought up among themselves, that he was Elijah or Jeremiah, or one of the ancient prophets, (Matt. xvi. 14,) manifestly presupposes the doctrine of the transmigration. It is also in allusion to this, that the Jewish author of the book of Wisdom, (chap. viii. 19, 20,) has, as it is rendered in the common translation, thus expressed himself: "I was a witty child, and had a good spirit: yea, rather, being good, I came into a body undefled :” αγαθος ων ηλθον εις σωμα αμιαντον. Yet we have reason from the New Testament to think, that these tenets were not at that time universal among the Pharisees, but that some entertained juster notions of a resurrection; and that afterwards the opinions of the Talmudists on this article had a much greater conformity to the doctrine of the gospel, than the opinions of some of their predecessors in and before our Saviour's time.

20. According to this explication, the rich man and Lazarus were both in hades, though in very different situations; the latter in the mansions of the happy, and the former in those of the wretched. Both are comprehended under the same general name. In the conversation lately quoted between Saul and the ghost of Samuel, the prophet amongst other things said to the king, "To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me," 1 Sam. xxviii. 19; which does not imply that their condition would be the same, though each would have his place in the receptacle of departed spirits. Let us see how the circumstances mentioned, and the expressions used in the parable, will suit this hypothesis.. First, though they are said to be at a great distance from each other, they are still within sight and hearing, so as to be able to converse together. This would have been too gross a violation of probability, if the one were considered as inhabiting the highest heavens, and the other as placed in the infernal regions. Again, the expressions used are such as entirely suit this explanation, and no other; for, first, the distance from each other is men

tioned, but no hint that the one was higher in situation than the other; secondly, the terms whereby motion from one to the other is expressed, are such as are never employed in expressing motion to or from heaven, but always when the places are on a level, or nearly so. Thus Lazarus, when dead, is said, (Luke xvi. 22,) aTTEVEXIηval, to be carried away, not avɛve≈xnvai, to be carried up, by angels into Abraham's bosom; whereas, it is the latter of these, or one similarly compounded, that is always used where an assumption into heaven is spoken of. Thus, the same writer, in speaking of our Lord's ascension, says, chap. xxiv. 51, avepepetO ε TOV Ovρavov, and Mark, (xvi. 19,) in relation to the same event, says, ανελήφθη εις τον ουρανον, “ he was taken up into heaven. These words are also used wherever one is said to be conveyed from a lower to a higher situation. But, what is still more decisive in this way, where mention is made of passing from Abraham to the rich man, and inversely, the verbs employed are, daßaivo and Siameρaw, words which always denote motion on the same ground or level; as passing a river or lake, passing through the Red Sea, or passing from Asia into Macedonia. But, when heaven is spoken of as the termination to which, or from which, the passage is made, the word is, invariably, either in the first case, avaẞaivo, and in the second, karaßaivw, or some word similarly formed, and of the same import. Thus, both the circumstances of the story, and the expressions employed in it, confirm the explanation I have given: For, if the sacred penmen wrote to be understood, they must have employed their words and phrases in conformity to the current usage of those for whom they wrote.

21. When our Saviour, therefore, said to the penitent thief upon the cross, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," Luke xxiii. 43, he said nothing that contradicts what is affirmed of his descent into hades, in the Psalms, in the Acts, or in the Apostles' Creed. Paradise is another name for what is, in the parable, called Abraham's bosom. But it may be urged on the other side, that Paul has given some reason to conclude that paradise and heaven, or the seat of the glorious hierarchy, are the same. "It is not," says he, "expedient for me, doubtless, to glory: I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. Í knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth,) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell, God knoweth,) 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. 1-4. The Jews make mention of three heavens. The first is properly the atmosphere where the birds fly, and the clouds are suspended: the second is above the first, and is what we call the visible firmament, wherein the sun, moon, and stars appear the third, to us invisible, is con

ceived to be above the second, and therefore sometimes styled the heaven of heavens. This they considered as the place of the throne of God, and the habitation of the holy angels. Now it is evident, that if in the second and fourth verses he speak of one vision or revelation only, paradise and heaven are the same; not so, if in these he speak of two different revelations. My opinion is, that there are two; and I shall assign my reasons. First, he speaks of them as more than one, and that not only in introducing them, "I will come to visions and revelations ;" for sometimes it must be owned the plural is used in expressing a subject indefinitely; but afterwards, in referring to what he had related, he says, (2 Cor. xii. 7,) "lest I should be exalted above measure, through the abundance of the revelations," Twν aπокаλvewv. Secondly, they are related precisely as two distinct events, and coupled together by the connexive particle. Thirdly, there is a repetition of his doubts, (ver. 2, 3,) in regard to the reality of this translation, which, if the whole relate to a single event, was not only superfluous but improper. This repetition, however, was necessary, if what is related in the third and fourth verses be a different fact from what is told in the second, and if he was equally uncertain whether it passed in vision or in reality. Fourthly, if all the three verses regard only one revelation, there is, in the manner of relating it, a tautology unexampled in the apostle's writings. I might urge, as a fifth reason, the opinion of all Christian antiquity, Origen alone excepted and this, in a question of philology, is not without its weight.

I shall only add, that though in both verses the words in the English Bible are caught up, there is nothing in the original answering to the particle up. The apostle has very properly employed here the word ȧpraw, expressive more of the suddenness of the event, and of his own passiveness, than of the direction of the motion.* The only other place in which Tapaderos occurs is in the Apocalypse: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst (rov Tapadeσov) of the paradise of God," Rev. ii. 7. Here our Lord no doubt speaks of heaven; but, as he plainly alludes to the state of matters in the garden of Eden, where our first parents were placed, and where the tree of life grew, it can only be understood as a figurative expression of the promise of eternal life, forfeited by Adam, but recovered by our Lord Jesus Christ.

• The learned reader may peruse the following passage from Epiphanius on this subject, in opposition to Origen: Ουδε ὁ αποστολος ὑποτίθεται τον παραδεισον είναι εν τρίτω ουρανω, τοις λεπτών ακροασθαι λόγων επισταμενοις οίδα γαρ ἁρπαγέντα έως τρίτου λέγων ουρανου· και οίδα τον τοιουτον ανθρωπον, είτε εν σωματι, είτε χωρις σωματος, ὁ Θεὸς οιδεν, ὅτι ἡρπαγη εις τον παραδεισον δυο αποκαλυψεις μεγάλας έωρακέναι μενει, δις αναληφθείς εναργως, άπαξ μεν έως τρίτου ουρανου, άπαξ δε εις τον παραδεισον. το γαρ οίδα άρπαγέντα τον τοιουτον έως τριτου ουρανου, ιδίως αποκαλυψιν αυτῷ κατα τον τρίτον αναληφθεντι πεφηνεται συνίστησι. το δε, και οίδα παλιν επιφερομένον τον τοιουτον ανθρωπον, είτε εν σώματι, είτε εκτος του σωματος, εις τον παραδεισον, έτεραν αυθις αυτῷ πεφανερώσθαι κατά τον παράδεισον αποκαλυψιν δείκνυσι. Epiph. lib. ii. Hær. 44.

22. To conclude this long discussion, I shall observe, that though we may discover hence, pretty exactly, the general sentiments entertained on these subjects at the time, and the style used concerning them, we are not to imagine that the expressions are to be rigorously interpreted in order to come at the true doctrine upon these articles, but solely in order to discover the popular opinions of the age. In regard to these, the opinions of the age, there ought to be a close attention to the letter of what is spoken; but in regard to the other, the doctrine of holy writ, our attention ought to be mostly to the spirit. Thus it appears to me the plain doctrine of Scripture, that there are such states as I have mentioned, and that the use and nature of them is such as has been said, That it was for ages the doctrine of all the ancient ecclesiastical writers, is not less evident. But in respect of situation, expressions implying that hades is under the earth, and that the seat of the blessed is above the stars, ought to be regarded merely as attempts to accommodate what is spoken to vulgar apprehension and language. Of the like kind is the practice, so frequent in holy writ, of ascribing human_passions, nay, and human organs and members, to the Deity. The same may be said of what we hear of plants and trees in paradise, of eating and drinking in heaven, or of fire and brimstone in either hades or gehenna. We have no more reason to understand these literally, than we have to believe that the soul, when separated from the body, can feel torment in its tongue, or that a little cold water can relieve it.

23. I am not ignorant that the doctrine of an intermediate state between death and the resurrection has been of late strenuously combated by some learned and ingenious men; amongst whom we must reckon that excellent divine and firm friend to freedom of inquiry, Dr. Law, the present bishop of Carlisle.* I honour his disposition, and have the greatest respect for his talents; but at the same time that I acknowledge he has with much ability supported the side he has espoused, I have never felt myself on this head convinced, though sometimes perplexed by his reasoning. It is foreign to my purpose to enter into a minute discussion of controverted points in theology; and therefore I shall only, in passing, make a few remarks on this controversy, as it is closely connected with my subject.

First, I remark, that the arguments on which the deniers of that state chiefly build, arise, in my opinion, from the misapprehension of the import of some scriptural expressions. Ka evdεiv, коμаν, to sleep, are words often applied to the dead; but this application is no more than a metaphorical euphemism, derived from the resemblance which a dead body bears to the body of a person asleep. Traces of this idiom may be found in all lan

Dr. Law was living when the first edition of these Dissertations was in the hands of the printer.

guages, whatever be the popular belief about the state of the dead. They often occur in the Old Testament; yet it has been shown, that the common doctrine of the orientals favoured the separate existence of the souls of the deceased. But if it did not, and if, as some suppose, the ancient Jews were, on all articles relating to another life, no better than Sadducees, this shows the more strongly, that such metaphors, so frequent in their writings, could be derived solely from bodily likeness, and, having no reference to a resurrection, could be employed solely for the sake of avoiding a disagreeable or ominous word. I own, at the same time, that Christians have been the more ready to adopt such expressions, as their doctrine of the resurrection of the body presented to their minds an additional analogy between the bodies of the deceased and the bodies of those asleep-that of being one day awaked. But I see no reason to imagine, that, in this use, they carried their thoughts further than to the corporeal and visible - resemblance now mentioned. Another mistake about the import of scriptural terms, is in the sense which has been given to the word avaotaois. They confine it, by a use derived merely from modern European tongues, to that renovation which we call the reunion of the soul and the body, and which is to take place at the last day. I have shown, in another place, that this is not always the sense of the term in the New Testament.

I remark, secondly, that many expressions of Scripture, in the natural and obvious sense, imply that an intermediate and separate state of the soul is actually to succeed death. Such are the words of our Lord to the penitent thief upon the cross, Luke xxii. 43; Stephen's dying petition, Acts vii. 59; the comparisons which the apostle Paul makes in different places, 2 Cor. v. 6. &c. Philip. i. 21. &c. between the enjoyment which true Christians can attain by their continuance in this world, and that which they enter on at their departure out of it, and several other passages. Let the words referred to be read by any judicious person, either in the original or in the common translation, which is sufficiently exact for this purpose; and let him, setting aside all theory or system, say candidly, whether they would not be understood, by the gross of mankind, as presupposing that the soul may and will exist separately from the body, and be susceptible of happiness or misery in that state. If any thing could add to the native evidence of the expressions, it would be the unnatural meanings that are put upon them, in order to disguise that evidence. What shall we say of the metaphysical distinction, introduced for this purpose, between absolute and relative time? The apostle Paul, they are sensible, speaks of the saints as admitted to enjoyment in the presence of God immediately after death. Now, to palliate the direct contradiction there is in this to their doctrine, that the vital principle, which is all they mean

Notes on Matt. xxii. 23 and 32.