IS THE PROOF OF A SEPARATE STATE. among them, though it was a very false one, and that this was enough to support a parable i I answer, what could Christ, who is truth itself, have said more, or plainer, to confirm the Jews in this gross error of a separate state of souls, than to form a para- ble, which supposes this doctrine, in the very design and moral of it, as well as in the foundation and matter of it ? III. Luke xx. 37, '39: Now that the dead are raised, even Moses sheaved at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, for he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him,- Some learned men suppose, that the controversy between Christ and the Sedducees, in this place, was about the " anastasis," which implies the whole state of existence after death, including both the separate state and the resurrection, because the Sáddu- cees denied both these at once, and believed, that death finished the whole exist ice of the man. They denied angels and spirits ; Acts xxiii. 8. that is, separate souls of men, and thought the rewards and punishments mentioned in scripture related only to this life. Upon this account they suppose our Saviour's design is to prove the existence of persons or spirits in the separate state, as much as the resurrection of the body. And when he says, that the Lord, or Jehovah, is described as the God of Abraham, &c. it supposes Abraham at the same time, to have actually some life and existence, in some state or other, for God is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all that are dead, and gone out of this world, still live unto God ; that is, they have a present life, in the invisible world of spirits, as God is an invisible spirit, as well as they expect a resurrection of their body in clue time. How could God, in the days of Mo- ses, be called actually the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were long since dead, if there was no sense in which they were now alive to God, since our Saviour declares, God is pro- perly the God only of the living, and not of the dead ? This part of the argument holds good, in whatsoever sense you con- strue the whole debate, and by whatsoever medium or connexion you prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the body ; and this is obvious to the honest and unlearned reader, as well as to the men of learning. IV. Luke xxiii. 42, 43. And he, that is, the penitent thief upon the cross, said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom: And Jesus said unto him, verily 1 say unto thee, to -day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The thief upon the cross believed that Christ would enter into para- dise, which he supposed to be Christ's kingdom, when he de- parted from this world, which was not his kingdom : And this he believed, partly according to the common sentiment of the Jews, concerning good men at their death, as well as it is agree-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=