SLEEP. 



t!on of the foul at death, but did not admit the refurrec- 

 tion J the Pharifecs, on the other hand, admitted the latter 

 and denied the former. By the term revivifcence, or re- 

 turn to life, by which the refurreftion is defcribed, the 

 Jews could not mean creating anew the foul, that had been 

 deilroyed, becaufe, if it were poffible, they did not allow 

 that the former foul perifhcd at death. Nor did they be- 

 lieve, that man had no foul ; and, therefore, that hi;, refur- 

 reAion coiifilled in the re-organization of his former body, or 

 ill furnilhing him with a new body, organized as that was ; 

 becaufe this is a flat contradiction to their belief of the dif- 

 tinttion between foul and body, and the feparate exiftence 

 of the former. What then did they, or could they mean 

 by the refurreftion to life, but the i-eiloration of that kind 

 of life which they had lolt, by the reunion of their fouls 

 to a human body, either the fame which they had before, 

 or one in effedl the fame ? In virtue of this reunion, the 

 dead man became a living man, the fame as he was before 

 he died, with the fame conicioufnefs and recolleAion, the 

 principle of confcioufnefs having never perifhed. And if, 

 in or near the time of Chrill, the terms refurreftion, re- 

 vivifcence, or living again, as ufed both by Jews and Gen- 

 tiles, denoted the reunion of a foul to a human body, the 

 fame terms, wlicn adopted by Chrilt and his apolUes, muit 

 have the fame meaning : and every one would underftand them 

 in their common and ordinary figniiication. Confequently, 

 t life, as expreffmg the relurreCtion, fignifies the foul's 

 - cturn to a human body, death, its oppofite, denotes its 

 ifparation ; both terms imply the continuance of the foul 

 ifter death: a principle, fays Mr. Farmer, held in the molt 

 •ncient times, by Heathens and Jews, by patriarchs and pro- 

 ;)hets, and by the people, particularly in the times of Mofes 

 md the Meffiah, and which gives great probability to the 

 doftrine of a refurrcttion. 



The advocates of the deep of the foul, on the other 

 hand, earnellly contend, that it was the opinion of the 

 apolUcs and early Chriftians, that, whatever be the nature 

 of the foul, its percipient and thinking powers ceafe at 

 death ; and that they had no hope of the reiloration of 

 thofe powers, but in the general refurreftion of the dead. 



Dr. Campbell, in his " Preliminary Didertations," 

 (Part ii.) has introduced fome remarks, that deferve atten- 

 tion, on the controverfy concerning an intermediate ftate 

 between death and the refurreftion. He obferves, Jirji, 

 that the arguments, on which tlie denicis of that ftate chiefly 

 build, arife, in his opinion, from a milapprehenfion of the 

 import of fome fcriptural cxpreffions. Kavsuosiv, xoi^xxv, to 

 ftetp, are often applied to th'.- dead ; but this application is 

 no more than a metaphorical euphonifm, derived from the 

 refemblance which a dead body bears to the body of a per- 

 fon adeep. Traces of this idiom may be found in all lan- 

 guages, whatever be the popular belief about the Itate of 

 the dead. Tiiey often occur ni tlie Old Teilament ; yet it 

 has been ihewii, that the common doctrine of the Orientals 

 favoured tlie feparate cxillence of the foids of the deceafed. 

 But if it did not, and if, as tome luppufe, tlie ancient 

 Jews were, on all articles relating to another life, no better 

 tiian Sadducees, this llievvs the more Itrongly, that fuch 

 metaphors, fo frequent in their writing?, could be derived 

 folely from bodily likenefs, and having no reference to a 

 refurrcftion, could be employed folely for the fake of 

 avoiding a difagrecable or ominous word. It is acknow- 

 ledged, at the fame time, that Chrillians have been the 

 more ready to adopt fuch expreflioiis, as their dortrine of 

 the refurredtion of the boily, prefeiited to their minds an 

 additional analogy between the bodies of the deceafed and 

 the bodies of thole afleep, that of being one day awaked. 



But our author fees no reafon to imagine that, in this ufc, 

 they carried their thoughts further than to the corporeal and 

 vifible refemblance now mentioned. Another miflake about 

 the import of fcriptural terms, is in the fenfe which has 

 been given to the word avaraVi,-. They confine it, by a ufe 

 derived merely from modern European tongues, to that re- 

 novation which we call the reunion of the foul and the 

 body, ai;d which is to take place at the laft day. But 

 this is not always the fenfe of the term in the New Tefta- 

 ment. 



Dr. Campbell remarks, fecondly, that many exprefTions 

 of fcripture, in the natural and obvious fenfe, imply that an 

 intermediate and lisparate ftate of the foul is aftually to fuc- 

 ceed death. Such are the words of our Lord to the peni- 

 tent thief upon the crofs (Luke, xxiii. 43.) ; Stepnen's 

 dying petition (Atfs, vii. 59.); the comparifons which 

 the apoltle Paul makes in different places (2 Cor. v. 6, &c. 

 Philip, i. 21.) between the enjoyment which true Chrillians 

 can obtain by their continuance in this world, and that on 

 which they enter at their departure out of it, and feveral 

 other pailages. Let the words referred to be read by any 

 judicious perfon, either in the original, or in the common 

 tranflation, which is fufficiently exaft for this purpofe, and 

 let him, fetting alide all theory or fyftem, fay candidly, 

 whether they would not be underftood, by the grofs of 

 mankind, as prcfuppofing that the foul may and will exill 

 feparately from the body, and be fufceptible of happinefs 

 or mifery in that ftate. If any thing could add to the na- 

 tive evidence of the expreflions, it would be the unnatural 

 meaning that is put upon them, in order to difguife that 

 evidence. The apoltle Paul, they are fenfible, fpeaks of 

 the faints as admitted to enjoyment in the prefence of God, 

 immediately after death. Neverthelefs, in order to palliate 

 the direft contradiction this bears to their doftrine, that the 

 vital principle, which is all they mean by the foul, remains 

 extinguiftied between death and the refurreftion, they re- 

 mind us of the ditfcrence between abfolute or real, and 

 relative or apparent, time. They admit that, if the apoftle 

 be underllood as fpeaking of real time, what is faid flatly 

 contradifts their fyftem : but they fay, his words muft be 

 interpreted as fpoken only of apparent time. He talks 

 indeed of entering on a ftate of enjoyment, immediately 

 after death, though there may be many thoufands of years 

 between the one and the other : for he means only, that 

 when that Itate fhall commence, however dillant in reality 

 the time may be, the perfon entering on it will not be fen- 

 fible of that diltance, and confequently there will be to him 

 an apparent coincidence with the moment of his death. 

 But, fays Campbell, does the apoftle any where give a hint 

 that this is his meaning i' or, is it what any man would na- 

 turally difcover from his words ? Did the facred penman, 

 then, as our author proceeds, mean to put a cheat upon the 

 world, and, by the help of an equivocal exprcflion, to 

 flatter men with the hope of entering, tlie inftant they ex- 

 pire, on a ftate of felicity ; when, in fa<S, they knew that 

 it would be many ages before it would take place? But, 

 were the hypothefis about the oxtiiidion of the mind be- 

 tween death and the refurreftion well founded, the apparent 

 coincidence they fpeak of is not fo clear as they feem to 

 think it. 



Our author remarks, thirdly, that even the various equi- 

 vocation, (or, perhaps, more properly, mental refervation,) 

 that has been devifed for them, will not, in every cafe, fave 

 tlie credit of apollolical veracity. The words of Paul to 

 the Corinthians are, " Knowing, that whilft we are at 

 home in the biidy, we are abfent from the Lord." Again : 

 «' We are willing rather to be abfent from the body, and 



prcftiit 



