Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

"must be bound over at last unto religion, there to "be determined and defined; for otherwise they still "lie open to many errors and illusions of sense. For "seeing that the substance of the soul was not de"duced and extracted in her creation from the mass "of heaven and earth, but immediately inspired from "God; and seeing the laws of heaven and earth are "the proper subjects of philosophy; how can the knowledge of the substance of the reasonable soul "be derived or fetched from philosophy? But it "must be drawn from the same inspiration from "whence the substance thereof first flowed." Let us therefore hear what the diyinely inspired writers, especially of the New Testament, and the doctors of the primitive church, by tradition from them, have taught us in this matter. And here most of those texts, which we have alleged for the proof of the former proposition, will also serve for the confirmation of this second. We have heard our Saviour himself; but lest we should be thought to have misunderstood him, let us next hear his apostles in this question.

St. Paul, who had been caught up into the third heaven, and also into paradise, which the Scriptures tell us is the receptacle of the spirits of good men, separated from their bodies, and therefore was best able to give us an account of the state of souls dwelling there he assures us, that those souls live and operate, and have a perception of excellent things. Nay, in the very same text where he speaks of that rapture of his, viz. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4. he plainly enough confirms this hypothesis. For first, when he there declares himself uncertain, whether he received those admirable visions he speaks of in or out of the

body, he manifestly supposeth it possible for the soul, when out of the body, not only to subsist, but also to perceive and know, and even things beyond the natural apprehension of mortal men. And then when he tells us that he received in paradise visions and revelations, and heard there äppta pýμata, unspeakable words, not lawful (or rather not possible) for man to uttere; he directly teacheth, that paradise is so far from being a place of darkness and obscurity, silence and oblivion, where the good spirits, its proper inhabitants, are all in a profound sleep, like bats in their dark winter quarters; (as some have vainly imagined;) that on the contrary it is a most glorious place, full of light and ravishing vision, a place where mysteries may be heard and learnt far surpassing the reach of frail mortals. Lastly, the glories of the third heaven, and of paradise too, seem to be by an extraordinary revelation opened and discovered to St. Paul, not only for his own support under the heavy pressure of his afflictions, but also that he might be able to speak of them with greater assurance to others. And the order is observable. First he had represented to him the most perfect joys of the third, or highest heaven, of which we hope to be partakers after the resurrection; and then, lest so long an expectation should discourage us, he saw also the intermediate joys of paradise, wherewith the souls of the faithful are refreshed until the resurrection; and for our comfort he tells us, that even these also are inexpressible.

The same blessed apostle, when in the flesh, tells us, that he desired to depart, and to be with Jesus

[So says Origen, (or rather Rufinus,) de Princip. II. 7. §. 4. non licet pro non potest.]

Christ, which is far better, Phil. i. 23.

Where if any man shall doubt what is meant by avaλuσai, which we translate to depart, the phrase is clearly explained by the following opposition, ver. 24. Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Whence it is plain, that avaλvoa, to depart, is to depart from the flesh, that is, this mortal body, that is, to die. Now how could the apostle think it better for him (yea by far the better) to depart from the body, than to remain in it, if when he should depart from the body, he should be deprived of all sense, and sink into a lethargy, and utter oblivion of things? Is it not better to have the use of our reasoning faculty, than to be deprived of it? Is it not better to praise God in the land of the living, than to be in a state, wherein we can have no knowledge of God at all, nor be in any capacity of praising him? Besides, the apostle doth not desire to depart from the flesh, or to die, merely that he might be at rest, and freed from the labours and persecutions attending his apostolic office; which is the frigid and dull gloss of some interpreters on the text, but chiefly in order to this end, that he might be with Christ. Now certainly we are more with Christ whilst we abide in the flesh, than when we depart from it, if when we are departed, we have no sense at all of Christ, or of any thing else.

Let us hear the same apostle again, 2 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home (or rather conversant) in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (for we walk by faith, not by sight:) we are confident, I say, and

* Τὸ ἐπιμένειν ἐν τῇ σαρκί.

• Πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρείσσον.

willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present (or conversant) with the Lord. Where two things are in the first place to be observed: 1. That the apostle doth here undeniably speak of that state of the faithful which presently commenceth after death, and not of that only which follows the resurrection. For he expressly speaks of them as in the state of separation, when they are absent from the body. 2. That the apostle speaking to the faithful of Corinth in general, joins them together with himself, speaking all along in the plural number, we are confident, &c. and thereby signifies, that he speaks not of a privilege peculiar to himself, and some few other eminent saints like himself; but of the common state and condition of the faithful presently after death. Which two things being premised, the text alleged plainly teacheth us this proposition: That the faithful when they are absent from their bodies, that is, departed this life, are present with the Lord, and that in a sense wherein, whilst they were present in their bodies, they were absent from the Lord. And what sense, I pray, can that be, unless this, that, when present in their bodies, they did not so nearly enjoy Christ, as now, when absent from their bodies, they do? No sophistry can possibly reconcile this text with their opinion who affirm, that the souls of the faithful, during the interval between death and the resurrection, are in a profound sleep, and void of all sense and perception.

But let us at length hear the Lord Jesus himself, who came down from heaven, and therefore knew most certainly the whole economy of the heavenly

f Ἐκδημοῦντες ἐκ τοῦ σώματος.

regions; and who upon the account of his omniscient and omnipresent deity, as perfectly knew the miserable state of those spirits, who dwell in the opposite regions of darkness. He, when he was dying, made this promise to the repenting thief that was crucified with him, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise,. Luke xxiii. 43. where (as learned interpreters have observed) Christ promiseth more than he had been asked. The penitent thief's request was, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. To which our Saviour answers, Thou askest me to remember thee hereafter, when I come into my kingdom; but I will not put off thy request so long, but on this very day I will give thee a part and the first fruits of that hoped-for felicity; die securely, presently after death divine comforts wait for thee.

To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Paradise? What place is that? Surely every man that hath heard of it conceives it to be a place of pleasure. And hence it is proverbial among us to express a very pleasant and delightful place by calling it a paradise. Into this place our Saviour promiseth the thief an admission on the very day that he died and was crucified with him. Now to what purpose was it told him, that he should on that day be an inhabitant of paradise, unless then he should be capable of the joys and felicities of that delightful place? Paradise would be no paradise to him, that should have no sense or faculty to taste and perceive the delights and pleasures of it. But that we may not discourse uncertainly, let us consider, that the person to whom our Saviour spake these words was a Jew, and that our blessed Lord, speaking in kindness to him, intended to be understood by him. We are therefore

« EelmineJätka »