occur.* For instance: in the parable of the sower, the account of the different success of the seed which fell on the trodden way side, in the rocky ground, among thorns, and on good land, agrees literally with what takes place daily; though no particular sower is intended even here: the object is to illustrate the different reception of the Gospel with men of different characters. On the other hand, in the parable of the good Samaritan,-in that of the king who destroyed the ungrateful guests who refused to come to his feast,of the husbandmen who killed the servants and the son of the lord of the vineyard,—and in many others, there is no reason to believe that any such events did ever actually take place; it is enough for the object of the parable that it is conceivable they might take place, and that we should be able to derive instruction from considering how men would be likely to act, or how they ought to act, supposing such circumstances should actually occur. The parable, therefore, I think is not decisive of the point in question."†

Here, any one will naturally remark, that all the other parables above mentioned are founded on natural and probable events, which, if they never did actually happen as described, yet might have happened in the usual course of passing events. This author allows that the first he refers to was one of daily occurrence; the next, of the good Samaritan, also certainly might have naturally been true in every particular, and so might the others; and yet he draws the inference, that the one of Dives and Lazarus could not with probability be similarly founded on natural events. Our Saviour may have alluded to particular persons, and to what had really taken place in a certain instance, for it is very fair to believe that, if there is a region to which souls are taken immediately on death, as described, the parable may have even been literally true in every part, but it is by no

* Although not all "exactly correspondent with facts," in every particular, yet they are so in the main, and it is not contended that this one is so in all that is mentioned in it.

+ Scrip. Rev. Pages 52--54.

means of consequence to be argued whether certain persons were meant, and it is not unlikely it may have been similar to the others also in this, that only what might be was meant, which was all that was required, but this assuredly was necessary to give it effect.

In the No. of The British Critic or Theological Review for January, 1831, we find the following passage "From the parable of the rich voluptuary and Lazarus, for instancelittle can be safely inferred, but the certainty of a future condition of reward or of punishment. The representation, after all, it must be remembered, is but a parable; and is probably so framed as to appeal to the popular and prevalent notions respecting the state after death." p. 7.

In order to show how little dependence we need place on the above exposition, I shall quote the same authority for an-other but much better founded opinion, as stated in a prior number of the same Review. "In this story, be it fact or parable, the disembodied soul is described as existing in a separate state of consciousness-a state of happiness to the good, and of miseries and suffering to the wicked. It is the main scope and purport of the story to place this doctrine in the strongest light, to convince the sensual and worldly minded that their 'good things' will cease, and their evil things' begin, as soon as their present life is ended; and to support the afflicted servants of God with the assurance, that death will at once place them with the other spirits of the just in paradise. This last consoling truth is, if possible, more confirmed by our Saviour's promise to the repentant robber on the cross."*

The last opinion is the only one which can be consistently supported from Scripture, or, as a natural view of it.

It may be inferred, that since the soul of Lazarus was said to be immediately carried by angels after his death into Abraham's bosom, (that is, the place where Abraham's soul was, and, as far as we know, is so still) and there comforted; since our Lord adds that the rich man was tormented, and promised the penitent thief that he should be with him the

No. XI. for July, 1829.

same day in paradise; therefore, the state of the dead is not now one of insensibility, but of happiness or misery.

In the place to which the soul of Lazarus was taken, it heard, saw, and remembered; the soul of the rich man entertained the greatest affection for those who were dear to him in the world, and was miserable. All this was said to be immediately after death, and when those who had associated with them here were still alive on earth.*

If this important parable can be taken as proceeding from a real foundation, such as all the others had,—if we can understand from it, that there is such a place as Abraham's bosom, to which souls are removed in a state of perfect consciousness on the change which we call death,—then several points of this enquiry would be answered in the most plain and satisfactory manner; but, it has been disputed that any such real inferences can be drawn from it, although it was told, as already observed, by a Being well acquainted with all the secrets of the invisible world, and who therefore knew well whether he was speaking of a scene which might have been, or which could not. This, therefore, is of the greatest importance to consider; and we can do it best by referring to the sense in which it has been viewed by some of the soundest theologians.

Sir Matthew Hale observes that "though this be a parable, yet it imports the blessed state of a separate spirit or soul, even before the last judgment, and that it is so, our Saviour's words upon the cross to the crucified thief import."

"It is true this is a parable," remarks Bishop Bull, “and accordingly several things in it are parabolically expressed; but though every thing in a parable be not argumentative, yet the scope of it is, as all divines acknowledge. Now it

* "A parable indeed it must be, as to many of its circumstances; yet in its grand outlines it is doubtless continually verified."-"The five brethren of Dives are represented as thus indulging themselves on earth, while he was in a place of torment. This fully proves the separate state; unless any man can think that our Lord would decorate a parable in a manner suited to mislead the upright inquirer."

The Rev. Thos. Scott's notes on verses 19-28.

plainly belongs to the very scope and design of this parable to show what becomes of the souls of the good and bad men after death."-"Our Saviour also spake this parable to the Jews, and therefore it must be expounded agreeably to the ancient tradition received among them concerning the state of separate souls. Now, whereas our Saviour saith of the soul of Lazarus, that immediately after death it was conveyed by angels into Abraham's bosom, we find it was also the belief of the Jewish Church, before our Saviour's time, that the souls of the faithful when they die are by the ministry of angels conducted to paradise, where they are immediately placed in a blissful and happy state. For the Chaldee paraphrast on Cant. iv. 12. speaking of the garden of Eden, that is, paradise, saith thereunto-No man hath power of entering, but the just, whose souls are carried thither by angels.'"'

"I grant," says Dr Watts, "that this account of the rich man and the beggar is but a parable, and yet it may prove the existence of the rich man's soul in a place of torment before the resurrection of the body. 1st, Because the existence of souls in a separate state, whilst other men dwell here on earth, is the very foundation of the whole parable, and runs through the whole of it. The poor man died, and his soul was in paradise; the rich man's dead body was buried, and his soul was in hell, while his five brethren were here on earth in a state of probation, and would not hearken to Moses and the prophets.

*

"2d, Because the very design of the parable is to show, that a ghost sent from the other world, whether heaven or hell,† to wicked men who are here in a state of trial, will not be sufficient to convert them to holiness, if they reject

More properly Hades, as in the original.

+ The parable speaks neither of heaven nor hell, in the usual acceptation of these terms; and few writers attend to what, if they searched the Scriptures on the point, would appear to them a necessary distinction between these places and the paradise and tartarus of the Middle State. Dr. Watts was aware of the difference, but sometimes, as in this instance, has not attended to it, or has not thought that, while he had one meaning to these words, his readers would in general have another.

the means of grace and the ministers of the Word. The very design of our Saviour seems to be lost, if there be no souls existing in a separate state. A ghost sent from the other world could never be supposed to have any influence to convert sinners in this world, if there were no such things as ghosts there. The rich man's five brethren could have no motive to hearken to a ghost pretending to come from heaven or hell, if there were no such things as ghosts or separate spirits either happy or miserable. Now, surely, if parables can prove any thing at all, they must prove those propositions which are both the foundation and the design of the whole parable.

"3d. I might add yet further, that it is very strange that our Saviour should so particularly speak of angels carrying the soul of a man, whose body was just dead, into heaven or paradise, which he calls Abraham's bosom; if there were no such state or place as a heaven for separate souls,* if Abraham's soul had no residence there, no existence in that state, if angels had never any thing to do in such an office. What would the Jews have said or thought of a prophet come from God, who had taught his doctrines to the people in such parables as had scarce any sort of foundation in the reality or nature of things.

"But you will say, that the Jews had such an opinion current among them, though it was a very false one; and that this was enough to support a parable. I answer, What! could Christ (who is truth itself) have said more or plainer to confirm the Jews in the gross error of a separate state of souls, than to form a parable which supposes the doctrine in the very design and moral of it as well as in the foundation and matter of it."+

In a late work by the Rev. Mr. Muston, he considers the nature of a parable in the same manner, and speaks of the

It is quite allowable in common language to speak of the place for happy spirits in their disembodied condition as being a heavenly state, without meaning to indicate the highest heaven, in the same way as we call a very beautiful place, or happiness here, a heaven upon earth.

Essay on the separate state of Souls, by Dr. I. Watts, § 3.