{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_21881/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_21881","id":"gutenberg_21881","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21881","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Intermediate state"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1900 Wells Gardner, Darton & Co. edition by David\nPrice, email ccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIFE\nOF\nTHE WAITING SOUL\nIN\nTHE INTERMEDIATE STATE.\n\n\nBY\n_R. E. SANDERSON_, _D.D._,\nST. MICHAEL, BRIGHTON; CANON RESIDENTIARY OF CHICHESTER\nCATHEDRAL; FORMERLY HEAD MASTER OF\nLANCING COLLEGE.\n\nLondon:\nWELLS GARDNER, DARTON & CO.,\n3 PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, E.C.\n\nFIRST EDITION, MAY, 1896.\nSECOND ,, SEP., ,,\nTHIRD ,, FEB., 1897.\nFOURTH ,, JAN., 1898.\nFIFTH ,, FEB., 1900.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThese Addresses were delivered in Chichester Cathedral, and subsequently,\nwith slight alterations, at Hastings.  They would not have been printed\nbut at the urgent request of very many who heard them preached.  It\nshould be remembered that they are not a theological treatise, but a\ncourse of plain words addressed to an ordinary congregation.  It seemed\ndesirable to awaken interest in a subject which has dropped out of\nEnglish Christian thought, and almost out of people's knowledge.  The\nAddresses are an attempt to explain what can be known about the\nIntermediate Life.  There is nothing new in them.  If there were,\nprobably what is new would not be true.\n\nThe doctrines of so-called \"Universalism\" and \"Conditional Immortality\"\nare not touched upon.  They do not belong to the period which is covered\nby the Intermediate State.  Moreover, I doubt whether we can ever regard\nthose doctrines as anything more than speculations invented to answer\nmodern and possibly ephemeral objections.\n\nHow much I have unconsciously been indebted to those who have dealt with\nthis subject more fully, I hardly know.  One reads and remembers, and\nreproduces in preaching, often without thought of the sources from which\nmaterial has been drawn.  I gratefully acknowledge in the notes what I\nknow to be debts incurred.  I can only express my regret if any have been\noverlooked.\n\nR. E. S.\n\n_Easter_, 1896.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\n   \"I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which\n   are asleep.\"--1 THESS. IV. 13.\n\nThere are moments in the lives of every one of us, when the mind is\nirresistibly drawn on to wonder what our own personal future shall be, as\nsoon as life is over and death has overtaken us.  We cannot help the\nspeculation.  However bound by present duties and absorbed in present\ninterests, often, in quiet hours, in times of solitude or bereavement, or\nunder the sense of failing hopes or failing health, in seasons of sorrow\nor of sickness, the mood takes hold of us; and it may be, we know not\nwhy, our eyes turn with an anxious and a wistful look towards that\ninevitable end which is surely coming upon us.\n\nAt such moments we ask ourselves, what will my lot be when the hand of\ndeath touches me--even _me_; when all the light of life goes out, all\nthought of this world's cares, all pleasant joys and hopes and desires of\ntime sink down and fade into the chill gloom and shadow of the unknown?\nSuch questionings, brought close home to our very selves, cannot but fill\nus with very anxious fears and misgivings, as we either look back upon\nthe past, or think upon what chiefly possesses our minds and thoughts\nnow.  Indeed, many of us cannot bear this forward glance, and refuse to\nface it.  We would fain brush the thought aside, and with some hasty\nutterance of vague trust, of shadowy self-comforting hope that GOD will\nbe merciful, we turn sharply round and give ourselves again to the calls\nof the life which is about us.\n\nIn this way, we Christians, we children of GOD, heirs of life and\nimmortality, learn to be terrified at death, which, as we are taught to\nbelieve, ushers us into life; learn to associate it with trembling doubt\nand shuddering dismay.  But is this dread of death nothing else than the\nnatural instinctive shrinking, which the warmth of life feels at the\ntouch of its cold hand?  Or is it not rather, in the case of most of us,\ndue to some false imaginations with which religion itself--that form, at\nleast, of religion which to-day encompasses us--has for many years\npossessed and imbued the minds of men?  Indeed, I believe it to be so.\nThe Christianity of to-day has too commonly accepted two untruths, which\nyet it holds as truths.\n\n1.  One of them is this: That death ushers the soul immediately and\nfinally into the supreme condition which awaits the souls of men; so\nthat, at death, the souls of good men pass at once into heaven, while the\nsouls of bad men pass at once into hell; in other words, that the final\nand irrevocable severance between the just and the unjust takes place at\ndeath.  Believing this, men have lost all faith in an Intermediate State\nbetween death and the Day of Judgment.  That intervening sojourn of the\nsoul has virtually dropped out of recognition in the popular Christianity\nof the day, and is quite ignored.  If you walk through any resting place\nof the bodies of the dead, into your own churchyards and cemeteries, you\nwill, not seldom, find inscriptions upon tombs, which express the\nconfident assurance that one, whose death is recorded, has already passed\ninto heaven; that another has now become an angel of Light, or is singing\nthe praises of GOD before the throne, is, in short, in the full present\nenjoyment of consummate and final bliss.  Thus it is that the\nIntermediate State between death and the final condition of happiness in\nheaven, which can only follow the Day of the Resurrection, is quite\nforgotten and overlooked.\n\n2.  And the second untruth, which is closely connected with the first, is\nthis: That there are but two classes of those who pass hence and are no\nmore seen; classes sharply distinguished, clearly outlined,--on the one\nhand, of those who at death go straight to heaven, and, on the other, of\nthose who at death go straight to the place of final torment.  If then\nthese are the only two clearly marked and sharply defined alternatives,\nit follows that, whensoever we dare not be sure of any one soul at death\nthat it was good enough certainly for heaven, there is nothing for it but\nto fear that the worse doom awaits it and that it is lost.  For if it is\nnot, at the moment of death, pure enough or good enough for heaven, into\nwhich there \"shall in no wise enter anything that defileth, neither\nwhatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie,\" {5} that soul,\naccording to this false belief, is lost.  Yet, in fact, what do we see\nwithin us and around us, as we honestly look into our own lives, and upon\nthe lives both of the best and of the worst among us?  We see this, and\nwe are convinced that we are not mistaken, that even among the most\nmarked extremes of good men and evil men, few even of the best are so\nfree from stain or fault as, at death, to be certainly fit for heaven,\nand few so vile and degraded as not to have still some good in them.  And\nbetween these two extremes there are multitudes of mixed characters, in\npart good and in part bad.  Among these, of whom we know that they are\nfull of worth yet full of imperfections too, we count so many who are\nmost dear to us, many the companions of our lives, our kindred, and\nacquaintances, and cherished friends, whose failings and whose virtues we\nknow so well, of mixed and imperfect character, too frail for heaven, too\ngood, too lovable for hell, partly good and partly not good, strong and\nalso weak, marred with inconsistencies, and often for these very\ninconsistencies the more dear to us, of whom, so truly have we loved and\neven honoured them, it seems almost like an outrage upon their memory to\nbring ourselves to think that there was just so much of evil in them and\njust so little good, as would suffice to turn the balance against them\nand thus fix, at the moment of their death, their final doom.\n\nWhat are we to think of such as these?  Of some we perhaps say within\nourselves, \"Would that there had been but a little amendment of this\nblemish!  A little more of strength and purpose against that fault!  If\nonly this besetting hardness had not been the spoiler of his life, that\ngreat heedlessness, that fatal procrastination, this too frequent sin!\nOh! but for this or that which marred the fair and well rounded\ncharacter!  But for this we should have been full of hope: there was so\nmuch on the better side, that we should have been full of trust, and even\nof confidence.  But, now, what are we to think?  If only there were some\nfit and fair proportion to be thought of, duly measured out, of reward\nand punishment, a mixed destiny for a mixed character, partly good and\npartly evil for those who in this life were in part good and in part were\nevil!  But these two awful and sharp alternatives, either reward or\npunishment, these two separate issues, heaven or hell, and if not heaven\nthen necessarily and inevitably hell!  What shall we think?  We dare not\nthink.  In the Bible we are encouraged to believe that we shall receive\nthe due reward of our deeds, whether they be good or whether they be\nevil. {8}  But how shall any receive in heaven the due reward of evil\ndeeds done on earth? and how, in hell, shall any wretched soul receive in\nany truth the due rewards of good deeds done on earth?  Yet in each,\nthere was some good even in the worst, and some evil even in the best.\"\n\nWe see then what follows upon this false belief, that at death an instant\njudgment assigns finally the destiny of all men, to men of every degree\nof wickedness, without distinction, Hell; and one final and absolute\nHeaven to men of every varying measure of goodness.  Surely there is a\ngreat perplexity in this.  No wonder if such beliefs lead men to dread\nthe thought of death, of their own death, of the death of their friends.\nNo mere physical repulsion makes us shrink, but rather the uncertainty\nand doubt of what may follow,\n\n      \"The dread of something after death,\n   The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn\n   No traveller returns, puzzles the will,\"\n\nand makes us Christian men and women turn to find relief from these\nbewildering fears by plunging deeply into the waters of life's amusements\nand ambitions.  It is the uncertainty of things, wearing to some the\naspect of caprice, which leads to recklessness, and sometimes to\ndefiance.\n\nI believe, from my heart, that Holy Scripture rightly understood solves\nthese confusing riddles.  I believe that a more sound and Scriptural\ngrasp of what will be the future of each of us after death, the\nrestoration of a right belief in an Intermediate State, will go far to\ncorrect these unworthy and most un-Christian fears.  But it is said, at\ntimes, that nothing can be really known about this Intermediate State,\nthat all that can be asserted of it is mere guess and vain conjecture,\nand even that it betrays a too curious intrusion into things unseen to\nspeculate about the condition of souls after death.  Yes! if we only\nspeculate, but not surely if we seek humbly to find out what the Bible\nhas taught us.  S. Paul did not think it a too presumptuous intrusion\ninto things beyond the reach of our knowledge to make this enquiry.  \"I\nwould not have you to be ignorant concerning them which are asleep.\"  He\nwould rather that the Thessalonians should know all that can be known, to\ntheir edification.  And something can be known, or he would not have\nwritten this.  And to know it will be to our edification also.  Certainly\nto ignore what can be known has led, as we have seen, to loss and offence\nin these days.  Therefore I propose to try and set before you not idle\nspeculations indeed, but what has been actually revealed in Holy\nScripture, or may be drawn from it about the Intermediate State.  It is\nupon Holy Scripture that we must depend for our learning.  At least I\nshall make no attempt to build arguments upon any other foundation than\nHoly Scripture.  But let us, in GOD'S Name, get out of Holy Scripture all\nthat can, according to the proportion of the faith, be deduced from it.\nIt is as perilous, not to say as undutiful towards GOD, the Revealer, to\nneglect what He has for our sakes revealed, as it would be to invent\nspeculations of our own about that which He has not revealed.\n\nThe unseen world is not easy to apprehend, and to our matter-of-fact\nEnglish mind and temper is especially difficult.  Yet, with the awful\nfuture in our mind, which awaits not only those who are very dear to\nourselves, but ourselves also, we must be dull indeed, if we have no\nconcern for it.  Then if sober questioning may reveal more clearly to us\nwhat Holy Scripture can tell us of things that shall befall each of us,\nwe may hope to gain fresh confidence, and to renew our trust in Him Who\nlaunched us into time, that we may live with Him in eternity through\nJesus Christ our Lord.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\n   \"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say onto thee, To-day shall thou be\n   with Me in Paradise.\"\n\n   --S. LUKE XXIII. 43.\n\nIf we should ask what happens to the soul of a good man when he dies, the\nanswer would probably be that he has gone to heaven.  Of a little child\nit would be said at his death, that he has become an angel in heaven.  But\nthis would be quite untrue, because it contradicts the Bible.  The Bible\nteaches that there will at the end of the world be a day when all the\ndead shall rise and stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, to be\njudged for the deeds done in the body, whether they be good, or whether\nthey be evil.  But if a good man's soul goes straight to heaven at death,\nwithout waiting for the Day of Judgment, he practically has no Day of\nJudgment at all.  He escapes it.  The Bible also teaches that before the\nDay of Judgment there will be a general Resurrection of all, both of the\njust and of the unjust. {14}  But how can one who is already in heaven,\nwhile his body lies in the grave of corruption,--how can he, being\nalready glorified and even now beholding the vision of GOD, to any\nintelligible purpose, or for any conceivable end, take part in the\ngeneral Resurrection?  Why should he, as it were, come away from heaven\nand rise from the dead, in order to be judged?\n\nThus the popular belief, that the souls of the righteous pass straight to\nheaven, and the souls of the wicked go straight to hell, is against the\nplain teaching of the Bible.  But the Bible not only contradicts this\npopular and careless fancy.  It asserts what is directly contrary to it:\nit asserts positively, I mean, that there is an age-long period between\ndeath and the final state of happiness or misery, during which period the\nsoul is separate from the body and remains separate.  We are, according\nto the Bible, destined to undergo three great changes in the mode and\nnature of our existence.  In the first period, while we are here in this\nour life on earth, the soul and spirit are united to a material and\ntangible body of flesh and blood, suited to our life here.  The second\nstage begins at death, the name we give to the separation which then\ntakes place between this material fabric of the body and the incorporeal\npart of us; and then the soul and spirit dwell disembodied for a time.\nThere follows at the Resurrection the third period, when the soul and\nspirit are reunited with the body, but with the body now so spiritualized\nand refined as to suit the heavenly existence.  The second of these two\nperiods, coming between the first and the third, is therefore fitly\ncalled the intermediate or middle state, the state in which the\ndisembodied soul dwells apart from its material tenement. {15}\n\nWhat has the Bible then to say about this Intermediate State?  I will not\nask you to listen to the comments or interpretations of the early\nChristian writers, although, of course, very great respect is due to what\nthey say.  I will only beg of you to pay common attention to what the\nBible itself says.\n\nNow, first, I will point to the words which our Lord spoke from the\nCross, just before His Death, to the thief who was also slowly dying at\nHis side.  \"To-day,\" He said, \"shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.\"  So\nthen within a few hours,--it was then not yet mid-day--they were both to\nbe in Paradise.  They both died before sunset, and at their death both\nentered Paradise.  Their dead bodies were left behind upon the Cross.\nWhat then entered Paradise?  Not their bodies, but the spiritual or\nincorporeal part of them.  Was Paradise then another name for heaven?  It\ncannot be; our Lord did not go to heaven until the day of His Ascension,\nforty-three days after His death.  For, after His Resurrection, He said\nto S. Mary Magdalene, \"I am _not yet_ ascended to My Father.\" {17}  With\nHis risen body, united again to His human soul and spirit, He went to\nHeaven, His whole human nature now being, by His Resurrection, again\ncompletely one.  But into Paradise only part of His human nature passed,\nthe spiritual part of it, along with the spiritual part of the thief's\nhuman nature.  Our Lord's soul and spirit came back, as we know, from\nParadise on the third day.  The soul and spirit of the thief remain there\nstill.  So then this is what our Lord Himself teaches us as to the state\nof the disembodied spirit, that at death a just man's spirit does _not_\ngo to heaven, but into a sphere of life which is called Paradise.\n\nBut, if this be so, why, it may be asked, did not our Lord speak in\nplainer and more definite language?  Such a truth, it may be urged, a\ntruth which so much concerns us, ought not to depend upon a single text.\nI do not propose to ask you to be content with an inference from a single\ntext.  But it may be that our Lord did not say more than this about the\ngreat truth with which we are dealing for this reason, that the disciples\nwhom He gathered round Him, being Jews, perfectly well knew what He meant\nby Paradise.  This single reference, therefore, is enough to show that\nwhat was a common and prevalent belief among the Jews was a true\nbelief,--a belief which our Lord not only recognized, but by recognizing\nestablished and sanctioned.  But if we are once clear on this point, we\nshall find the belief more plainly set forth by our Lord in another\nplace.  What then is the belief that we have learned from this single\npassage?  We have learned this, that the human spirit of our Lord, and\nthe spirit of the dying thief did not pass at death to heaven, though if\nany spirit should ever be fit to pass at death to heaven His spirit was\nfit, but to a state which He called Paradise.\n\nNow, there was another expression used in the ordinary Jewish language of\nthe day for the state to which the blessed dead passed at death.  They\nwere spoken of as at rest \"in Abraham's bosom.\"  Of a very holy man they\nwould say, \"This day he rests in Abraham's bosom.\"  So that in the minds\nof the Jews and therefore of the disciples the term \"Paradise\" meant\nexactly the same thing as \"Abraham's bosom.\"  We have learned what\n\"Paradise\" meant.  Therefore now we know what \"resting in Abraham's\nbosom\" meant.  It meant the Intermediate State. {19}  The scene then in\nthe narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, which follows the deaths of\nthe two men, belongs not to the final state of happiness and misery at\nall, but to the Intermediate State.  The joy is the joy of the\nIntermediate State.  The suffering, which is in such strong contrast to\nthe joy as to be divided from it by a deep gulf, so that the joy cannot\nbe tinged with the misery, nor the misery relieved by the joy,--this\nsuffering also is the suffering of the Intermediate State.\n\nThe reality then of the Intermediate State is confirmed by our Lord in\nthis narrative.  Now observe the weight of this testimony.  If the Jews\nwere wrong in believing that the spirits of the just passed into Paradise\nor into Abraham's bosom our Lord would never have uttered words twice\nover which sanctioned their mistake.  We may observe further from these\ntwo passages that the Intermediate State has two parts or conditions.\nThere are those in it who suffer, and there are those who rejoice.  At\ndeath, the spirits of those whose lives have been evil pass to suffering\nand anguish, as we read of the rich man that \"in Hades he lifted up his\neyes being in torments\"; and the spirits of the faithful pass to rest and\njoy.  But between these two representatives in the narrative, the one of\nthe evil, the other of the good, there are the multitudes who are neither\nvery good nor very evil, so varied in the indeterminate tokens of good\nand evil which marked their lives on earth, that it would seem to be\nimpossible for us to know on which side of \"the great gulf\" their\nposition ought to be.  But if the extremes enter the Intermediate State,\nand there is room for them in it, is it to be supposed that there is no\nroom for those who are between the extremes?  Rather do we learn that the\nspirits of all go thither, not only of the faithful and of the wicked,\nbut of the wavering and uncertain also, of those who were weak and fell,\nof those who, with unsteady and tottering steps, sometimes rising, often\nfalling, now obeying, now rebelling, now believing, now doubting, now\nwalking in the light, now plunged in darkness, at one time treading\nfirmly the ground of the narrow path, and then at times wandering into\nthe quagmires and morasses of sin and lust, passed through the pilgrimage\nof life, and, at length, when their allotted span was completed, were\nassigned to the place which awaited them, to the place which was their\nown and was fitted for them.\n\nWe have seen what conclusions must be drawn from the express language of\nour Lord Himself.  Let us now examine the evidence afforded by His\nApostles, in the Epistles and in the book of the Revelation.  But first I\nwould ask you to consider what, according to the Bible, is the chief\nfeature in the conception of the happiness and glory of Heaven, what is\nits essential nature.  Is it not this, that being the dwelling place of\nGOD Himself, the glory and happiness of Heaven will consist in the\nPresence itself of GOD, and therefore in the vision of GOD?  As a great\nwriter has said, \"It must be remarked by everybody that the glory of the\nfuture state is always put before us not as an inner consciousness or\nmental communion simply, not as an absorption into ourselves within, but\nas a great spectacle without us, the spectacle of a great visible\nmanifestation of GOD.  It is a sight, a picture, a representation, that\nconstitutes the heavenly state, not mere thought and contemplation.  The\nglorified saint of Scripture is especially a beholder; he gazes, he\nlooks, he fixes his eyes upon something before him; he does not merely\nruminate within, but his whole mind is carried out towards and upon a\ngreat representation.  And thus Heaven specially appears in Scripture as\nthe sphere of perfected sight, where the faculty is raised and exalted to\nits highest act, and the happiness of existence culminates in vision.\"\n{23}  If this be so, all the most entrancing spectacles and scenes of\nearth shall appear dim and coarse and uncouth in comparison with the\nsight on which the ravished gaze of eternity shall be fastened.  For then\nshall our eyes see \"The King in His Beauty.\" {24a}  They shall see GOD,\nsee Him face to face,--GOD!  No higher conception of happiness is set\nbefore the heart of man, which ever craves for heaven and for perfection,\nthan GOD Himself, the sight of GOD, the Presence of GOD, the Knowledge of\nGOD.  \"In Thy Presence is the fulness of joy.\" {24b}  But we must not\nlose sight of the effect which this vision of GOD produces upon those who\ngaze.  To see Him is to become like Him.  \"Then,\" says S. John, \"we shall\nbe like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.\" {24c}  \"We all,\" says S.\nPaul, \"with open face, beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord,\nare changed into the same image from glory to glory.\"  This is what\nseeing GOD will do.\n\nWhen, then, shall this vision be granted?  At death to any?  No! but only\nat the Second Coming of Christ.  All the great writers of the Epistles\nspeak, as with one voice, of this.  What says S. Peter?  \"When the chief\nShepherd _shall appear_, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth\nnot away.\" {25a}  Not therefore at death, but at Christ's Second Coming\nand appearance.  What does S. John say?  \"We know that _when He shall\nappear_, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.\" {25b}  Not\ntherefore until that time.  What again does the great S. Paul say?  \"When\nChrist, Who is our life, _shall appear_, then shall ye also appear with\nHim in glory.\" {25c}  Again to S. Timothy he writes, \"There is laid up\nfor me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord _the righteous Judge_,\nshall give to me _at that day_: and not only to me, but also to all them\nthat have loved _His appearing_.\" {25d}  There can be no doubt what S.\nPaul means by \"That Day.\"  It is the day when \"the Righteous Judge\" on\nHis Judgment throne shall award the crowns to those who have fought the\ngood fight and kept the faith.  This is the frequent meaning of the\nexpressions, \"That day,\" \"The day of the Lord,\" in the New Testament.  \"We\nknow it,\" says Dr. Liddon, \"by a more familiar name given it on three\noccasions by our Lord Himself, and on three at least by His Apostles\nafter Him: it is the Day of Judgment.\" {26}  S. Paul, therefore, when he\nsays, \"There is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord\nwill give me on that day,\" does not expect that crown until the Day of\nJudgment.\n\nThese are a few out of many like passages, all showing that heaven is not\nreached at death, but only after the Day of Judgment.  From all which it\nis clear that the Apostles had in their minds the firm assurance that\nthere was to be a waiting time, how long they knew not, or how short they\nknew not, during which the spirit without the body would dwell in\nexpectation.  If it were otherwise, if at death the spirit passes into\nthe light which no man can approach unto, into the Presence of GOD and\nbeholds the Beatific Vision, which, as we saw, constitutes the\nconsummation of happiness and perfection in heaven, I would ask, how it\ncan be conceived that our Lord would have called Lazarus back from that\nsupreme happiness, which eye hath never seen nor ear ever heard, nor\nheart of man ever conceived,--called him back to mingle in the griefs and\nsorrows, the pains and failures, the doubts and fears, the mists and\nconfusions of this earthly life.  Was this the act of Him Who loved\nLazarus?  Was there no other way of consoling the living sisters, than by\nso great a loss to the vanished brother?  Was it not to call him from\nlife to death, rather than from death to life?\n\nOne more passage must be quoted, the force of which cannot well be\nmissed.  In the sixth chapter of the Book of the Revelation, S. John\ndescribes the vision which he saw at the opening of the fifth seal.  He\nsaw, he said, \"under the altar the souls of them that had been slain for\nthe word of GOD,--and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O\nMaster, the holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on\nthem that dwell on the earth?--And it was said unto them, that they\nshould rest yet for a little while, until their fellow-servants also and\ntheir brethren . . . should be fulfilled.\" {28}  Plainly these souls were\nnot in heaven, for they bemoaned the long delay, and were bidden to wait\nfor awhile until some great fulfilment.  Where then could they be, if not\non earth, nor yet in heaven?  They must have been in the Middle State\nbetween the two, these martyred souls, in Paradise.  But they are not\nspoken of as in Paradise, or in Abraham's bosom, but as \"under the\nAltar.\"  Where was this?  The Jews spoke of departed souls not only as in\nParadise, and in Abraham's bosom, but also as \"under the throne of\nGlory.\"  By all these expressions they meant the same thing.  S. John,\nhowever, uses a different expression in describing the Intermediate\nState, yet one so similar as to lead us to think that in the change he\nsubstitutes a Christian formula for the Jewish, giving it a Christian\nshape.  As \"the throne of Glory\" was associated with the Presence of GOD\nin the mind of a devout Jew, so the Altar would be as naturally\nassociated with the Presence of GOD in the mind of a devout Christian.\nWhat, therefore, the \"Throne of GOD\" was to the Jew, that \"the Altar of\nGOD\" would be to a Christian.  For the Altar was to Christian thought the\nThrone of GOD.  There, at the Christian Altar was commemorated the one\ngreat sacrifice to which all former sacrifices had pointed, and in which\nthey were all fulfilled.  There the communion of Saints was, as in no\nother way on earth, realized.  There, as by one simultaneous vibration\nthrilling through the saintly dead, and the living communicants, the\nspiritual bond unites together in one unbroken living Communion, those of\nthe Church expectant who are departed in the true faith of Christ's Holy\nName, and those of us who are still striving in the Church militant on\nearth to perfect our probation.  These souls \"under the Altar\" were still\nwaiting, and their waiting wearied them.  \"How long?\" they cried.  They\nwere not in the flesh, their bodies had been slain.  They were absent\nfrom the body and present with the Lord, with Christ, as the crucified\nthief is still with Christ, in Paradise.\n\nThe consummation for them is yet to come.  They are waiting for it.  It\nis postponed.  GOD'S work on earth is yet uncompleted.  The number of the\nelect is not yet made up.  The Second Coming of Christ is yet delayed.\nAll things are not yet ready.  A little while longer must they wait, that\nthey without us may not be made perfect.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\n   \"To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life\n   and peace.\"--ROM. VIII. 6.\n\nSo far we have examined the witness which the Bible affords in support of\nthe truth that there is such a sphere as the Intermediate State, in which\nthe spirit dwells alone, apart from the body, awaiting the Day of\nJudgment.  We have now to see what can be known as to the condition of\nthe spirit in that disembodied state.  It is one thing to be assured on\ngood grounds that there is such a life, and quite another thing to be\nassured what sort of life it is.  Can we fully understand what is meant\nby the life of the spiritual part of our being when it is separated from\nthe body?  We cannot.  We cannot understand that of which we have had no\nexperience.  In speaking, therefore, of the disembodied spirit, we are\nspeaking of that which we cannot explain.  Yet it does not in consequence\nfollow that it is impossible to believe it to be.  For we are bound in\nreason to be assured of many things of which we can form no conception.\nReason compels us to be assured of the reality of space, of eternity, of\nthe creation of the universe out of nothing, and, perhaps we may add, of\nthe being of GOD; the being of GOD, I mean, considered apart from His\nnature and attributes.  Yet we cannot form any intelligent conception of\nthese realities.  We cannot shape to our apprehension the faintest\nrational conception of the Personality of GOD, of His Omniscience, of His\nOmnipresence.  Yet we are able, and indeed are forced to believe, as\nChristians, in these attributes of His Nature, although we cannot\ncomprehend them.\n\nIn the same sense, we can be reasonably sure that the spirit can still\nlive after it has left the body, even though we are unable to form to our\nminds any clear conception of the existence of the disembodied spirit.  We\ncan do more.  On the assumption of the existence of the disembodied\nspirit, we are able, to some extent also, to reason upon the laws and\nlimits of that separate and secluded life.\n\nWe are, no doubt, in so doing, dealing with a profoundly mysterious\nsubject.  But it does not therefore follow that we are thereby really\nintruding into things which ought not to be enquired into.  For the\nquestions raised in the search concern us very closely; and, moreover, it\nis a matter about which GOD has made a revelation.  And to know more\nabout it than many people even care to know is a safeguard against many\nan unwholesome fear, against many a mischievous deceit.\n\nOn the very threshold of this enquiry we are confronted with this\nquestion: \"Is the soul the same thing as the spirit?  If not, what is the\nsoul, and what is the spirit?\"  That the Bible regards them as distinct\nis sufficiently clear from the language used by S. Paul in his first\nEpistle to the Thessalonians: \"I pray GOD your whole spirit, soul, and\nbody be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n{34a}  The same distinction is marked in the Epistle to the Hebrews: \"The\nword of GOD is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,\npiercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.\" {34b}  It is\nthus that we understand the contrast which S. Paul enforces between\nthings of the spirit and things of the soul.  \"The _natural_\nman,\"--_i.e._, the psychical man, the man who yields to the sway of the\nsoul,--\"receiveth not the things of the spirit of GOD.\" {34c}  And again,\nspeaking of the resurrection, he writes: \"It is sown a natural\nbody,\"--_i.e._, literally a psychical body, a body which is subject to\nthe sway of the soul,--\"it is raised a spiritual body,\"--_i.e._, a body\nsubject to the sway of the spirit.  \"There is a natural body, and there\nis a spiritual body.\" {35a}  When again S. James says: \"This wisdom . . .\nis earthly, _sensual_, devilish,\"--the word translated \"sensual\" is the\nsame word \"psychical,\" _i.e._, subject to the sway of the soul. {35b}  S.\nJude speaks of those who are \"sensual,\" _i.e._, psychical, \"not having\nthe spirit.\" {35c}  Enough has been said to show that, according to the\nBible, the soul is the seat of the senses, the desires, the will, the\nreasoning and intellectual faculties, the thoughts of the mind.  What\nthen is the spirit in man?  We seem to have the answer given to us in the\naccount of man's creation, when we are told that \"GOD formed man of the\ndust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,\nand man became a living soul.\" {35d}  This breath of GOD could be nothing\nless than the spirit, which came from GOD Himself.  It is that higher\nendowment by which man is a spiritual being, and therefore has an\naffinity to GOD.  It is that which makes him GOD-like, even by nature, at\nleast by his nature as it was before the fall.  But even the fall did not\nutterly dissolve that nature; man still remained a spiritual being,\nalthough the spiritual part of him was subject to the sway of the animal\nin him, and to the senses of the lower nature.  Until that creative act\nof GOD, man's body and soul were scarcely higher in the order and rank of\nbeing than the body and soul of the brute.  It was the gift of the divine\nspirit which caused man's soul truly to live, so that he became then \"a\n_living_ soul.\"  Herein, henceforth, the soul of man differs from the\nsoul of the lower creature.  In man the soul is in contact with the\nspirit.  The beast shares with man the possession of an animal soul.  It\nis the prerogative of man to be endowed also with spirit.  By the spirit,\nman is capable of apprehending GOD, can commune with GOD, can long for\nHim.  Herein lies his capacity for religion.  His soul is incorporeal no\nless than his spirit.  It is, as it were, midway between the body and the\nspirit.  It touches the body on the one side, on the other side it\ntouches the spirit.  The desires and the thoughts of the soul may become\nenslaved by the body, or they may become the servants of the spirit.  The\nsoul is the prize, for the mastery of which the spirit strives, and the\nflesh or body strives.  The spirit may gain the soul, or the flesh may\ngain the soul.  If the spirit loses the soul, it is a loss fatal and\nirreparable.  The soul is drawn now this way by the baser longings of the\nflesh, now that way by the nobler appeals of the spirit.  It is the\n\"debateable ground\" {37} on which the real battle of life is fought.  \"The\nflesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.\"  The\ngaining of the soul is the gaining of the whole man.  The losing of the\nsoul is the losing of the whole man.  Those have degraded and brutalized\ntheir life whose human spirit has yielded up its supremacy, whose soul\nhas been swept along in captivity by the bodily desires.  For as in some\nthe spirit shapes the whole soul, so in others the soul, enslaved by the\nflesh, shapes the spirit.\n\nDeath at length steps in, and tears asunder the flesh from the\nincorporeal part of us; and soul and spirit, still united, pass together\nto the life which awaits them in the world unseen.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n\n   \"And when he had said this he fell asleep.\"\n\n   --ACTS VII. 60.\n\nAt death, as we have seen, the spirit and the soul are separated from the\nbody, and, still united together, are launched into the unseen world.  For\nthough the soul is not the spirit, these two form the incorporeal parts\nof our compound nature, are the two immaterial elements of that trinity\nof life,--body, soul, spirit, which are united to make one human being.\nThey both survive death.  For death is the separation of the soul from\nthe body, not of the soul from the spirit.  But it must be remembered\nthat the spirit, when at death it is, in company with the soul, withdrawn\nfrom the body, passes into the Intermediate State, shaped and stamped\nwith the impress which the life on earth has fastened upon it.  The\nspirit enters the new life, either enslaved, disfigured, degraded,\ndishonoured by the sensual soul, or else strong, free, true, purified in\nits victory over the flesh.  It carries with it, in short, the character\nwhich in life it has acquired.\n\nIt may be well to fall into the usage of ordinary speech, and speak of\nthat which survives death as the _soul_, so long as we keep in mind what\nis really meant, viz., that it is the soul _united with the spirit_ which\nsurvives death.\n\nWhen, then, we say that the disembodied soul enters the Intermediate\nLife, we are bound to consider in what condition it enters it.  For\npeople sometimes argue thus: \"Yes! I grant that there will be an interval\nor waiting time between death and the Day of Judgment.  But then, during\nthat time, is not the soul asleep?  Surely the dying are said to fall\nasleep.  Then, if asleep, they are unconscious, and to the unconscious\nsoul the Intermediate State will seem to last but for an instant, and\nwill no sooner be entered upon than it will be practically at an end.  For\ncomplete insensibility to the passing and movement of time is one of the\neffects of complete unconsciousness.  And, in truth, is it not the case\nthat the Bible over and over again speaks of death as a state of sleep or\ntaking rest? {41a}  Thus the Intermediate State is in fact a blank.  The\neyes close in death, and they remain closed till they open to gaze upon\nthe glories of the Resurrection, and the terrors of the judgment seat of\nChrist.  Does not our own Prayer Book sanction this view in her Service\nfor the Burial of the Dead? {41b}  And do we not in common language\nourselves express the same belief when we give to the resting place of\nthe bodies of the dead the name of 'cemetery,' or sleeping place?\"\n\nThe answer to all this is that the language which represents death as a\nprofound slumber is language applicable enough to describe what befalls\nthe body, but is quite inapplicable when it is used of the soul.  Sleep\nis distinctly a physical and corporeal function.  The soul cannot be\nliable to or affected by corporeal influences when it is separated from\nthe body.  The soul cannot sleep.  It is the body, in the hushed\nstillness of the chamber of death, which seems, now that the last\nstruggle is over, and the spasm of dying leaves it motionless, to be\nsleeping.  But even in life, while the body sleeps, the soul is awake.  It\nis often, during the sleep of the body, even more active than during the\nwaking hours.  In dreams the soul is busy with its fancies.  Thoughts\nflit this way and that through the mind of the sleeper.  Indeed, the body\nis more often a hindrance rather than a help to the activities of\nthought.  To lose all consciousness of the existence of the body, to be\nas if the body for the time were not,--this is to set the mind thinking\nin freedom unrestrained.  For the body and the conscious sensation of the\npresence of the body seem to serve to drag down and encumber the energy\nof thought.  A sound through the ear, a sight presented to the eye, a\ntouch, an ache,--these break off sustained thinking.  No wonder, when the\nbody sleeps profoundly, the soul is often then most active.  And will not\nthis be so when the profoundest sleep of all falls upon the body?\n\nIt is clear that the disembodied soul, if we may again go back to the\nBible, is not by our Lord regarded as in a state of lethargy and dull\nunconsciousness.  \"To-day,\" said He, \"shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.\"\nIf this promise was meant to be a blessing and a solace it was meant to\nbe consciously _felt_ as a blessing and a solace.  How else could the\nthief have been in any true sense with Christ?  S. Paul said, \"For me to\nlive is Christ, to die is gain.\" {43}  Gain!  Wherein could it be a gain\nto him to die, if to die was to exchange that eager, active vitality, so\nfull of welcome pain and happy suffering, so full of a service, whose\nfruits were rich in blessing,--to exchange all this for dull heaviness\nand blank oblivion?\n\nIn the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, which, as we saw, describes\nthe Intermediate State, the rich man is said to have \"lifted up his eyes\nbeing in torments.\"  So, then, his pain was felt.  He was conscious; he\nreflected; he remembered; he spoke.  Once more, in a remarkable passage\nin the First Epistle of S. Peter, to which, on a future occasion, I shall\nagain refer, our Lord is spoken of as \"having been put to death in the\nflesh, but quickened,\" _i.e._, made alive, \"in spirit\" {44}; words which,\nwhatever the context may mean, can only have the force of bringing the\neffect of death in its relation to Christ's human body into sharp\ncontrast with its effect in relation to His human spirit.  In respect of\nHis human body He was put to death; but in respect of His human spirit He\nwas quickened or lived, lived still, in Paradise, though His body was\ndead.  I need not, I think, refer to other passages.  It is abundantly\nclear, both from the necessity of the thing, and from the obvious\ntestimony of the Bible, that the soul still lives, still is awake, still\nis conscious.\n\nWhat, then, follows from the soul's consciousness in and through the\npassage of death?  Obviously this,--that the life of the soul goes on,\nand is therefore the life of the same soul, sustained without break or\ninterruption, after death, by an unsuspended continuity of the\nconsciousness of personal identity.  For of what is the soul still\nconscious?  Of itself.  The life therefore of the soul after death is one\nwith the life of the soul before death.  The same soul lives on.  The\nonly change to it is the absence of the body, which has been withdrawn\nfrom it, and is laid in the ground, and dissolves into dust.  And this\ncontinuous consciousness of identity means that the soul's character is\npreserved unchanged and unaffected by the shock of the separation.  For a\ncharacter it had been contracting during its sojourn in the body, a\ncharacter of its own.  The spiritualized soul before death is a\nspiritualized soul after death.  The animalized soul before death remains\nafter death an animalized soul.  The righteous is righteous still.  The\nholy, the pure, the faithful, the devout, the true, are true, and devout,\nand faithful, and pure, and holy still.  The wicked and tainted soul is\nstill wicked and tainted when it enters the unseen, and begins its life\nin the Intermediate State.  It is on the other side what it was on this\nside.  Death,--the crisis and shock of death,--makes no change, no other\nchange than this, that it strips off the outer clothing which enveloped\nthe soul.  It leaves the soul the same, no better, no worse.  This is\nwhat is implied in the personal identity of the soul.  It means the\ncontinuity of consciousness, and therefore continuity of character.\n\nDo we cling to some vague and fanciful expectation that the mere act of\ndying, so to call it, will itself work a great change upon the soul, will\nblot out our sins, will clear away our imperfections, will in an instant\nheal the wounds and scars, which evil habits, long inured in us, have\nwrought upon the soul?  It will do nothing of the sort.  We shall be no\nbetter, no holier on the other side than we were on this, no more fitted\nfor heaven than when we died.  If this be so,--and, so far as we can see,\nit must be so,--how much does it behove us to fear greatly the peril we\nincur by a careless and GOD-forgetting life!  \"Israel doth not know,\"\nsaid the prophet, \"My people doth not consider.\" {47}  That was the pity\nof it.  It was the thoughtlessness, and the ignorance which came of it,\nthat ruined the nation.\n\nOh! that in life we would look things in the face more steadily!  Would\nthat we were ready to take heed how surely we are, day by day, shaping\nand moulding our character for good or for evil, a character which no\nshock of dissolution will affect, which will be ours when the crisis\ncomes to end our probation here, and to usher us, as we are and have\nbecome, into that unseen life beyond!\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n\n   \"Being confident of this very thing, that He which began a good work\n   in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ.\"--PHIL. I. 6\n   (_R.V._)\n\nThe Intermediate Life is not a state of sleep, but a waiting time.  But\nis it a time of mere waiting, and of unemployed quiescence?  This would\nbe no better than sleep.  There must be a reason for the waiting.  And\nwhat other reason can there be than that, during it, there is something\nto be done which can only be done then?  S. Paul speaks, in the text, of\nwork which he is confident will be carried on till it is brought to\ncompletion on the Day of Judgment.  What is this work?  We have seen that\nthe Scriptural conception of the happiness of heaven is that it consists\nin the sight of GOD, the Beatific Vision.  But there can enter the\nheavenly city nothing that defileth, nothing imperfect.  It is the pure\nin heart who shall see GOD.  Isaiah dare hardly approach the vision of\nGOD'S glory on earth, because he felt himself to be a man of unclean\nlips.  The very heavens, the stars themselves, are not clean in GOD'S\nsight.  And at death, who is pure?  Who is free from stain?  Who is\nperfect, that he should be fit to look upon GOD?  Then, if no one that is\nimperfect can enter heaven, and none are perfect at death, can we not see\nwhat the work is that has to be done between death and the Resurrection?\nIt is this work of purification, that the soul may be fitted for the\nvision of GOD in heaven.  And this is what S. Paul is speaking of in the\ntext.  The work begun in life, under the conditions of earth's life,\nshall not stop at death, but, under new conditions, shall be carried on\nto perfection until the day of Jesus Christ.\n\nSo far, then, we may say that we are treading on sure ground.  But when\nwe go on to ask how shall this work and process of purification be\neffected, and what is the nature and method of it, we are approaching a\nstage in our enquiry about which, it may be thought, nothing but\nconjecture remains, because nothing has been revealed.  But let us see\nwhat light may be thrown upon this question.  And, that we may narrow our\nenquiry within manageable limits, let us confine our attention for the\npresent to the condition of those of whom it may with truth and reason be\nsaid that they died in the favour and grace of GOD, died in good hope of\nsalvation, surely trusting that their sins had been forgiven through the\nblood of Jesus Christ, and that, however imperfect and blemished with sin\ntheir lives had been, there was an assured forgiveness for them and a\ngood hope of eternal mercy.  We will not define the exact limits of this\nreasonable hope, nor attempt to show who are within or beyond those\nlimits.  We will only, in general terms, speak of those who have entered\nupon the Intermediate Life in a condition such as would make them capable\nof perfect purification.  Certainly it is impossible for any of us ever\nto say of any one absolutely that he is incapable of such progressive\npurification.  It is not possible, in Christian charity, to pronounce\nsentence upon any.  And it may be, and we may indeed hope, that a vast\nnumber, a much larger proportion than many now imagine, will prove on\ntheir entrance into the Intermediate Life to be capable of such progress\nof effective purification as may fit them, each according to his measure,\nfor the final salvation for which he may be qualified in that home where\n\"there are many mansions.\"\n\nWhen then does this purification begin?  Does it begin with dying?  That\nhas been already disproved.  But so prevalent is the popular belief that\ndying has a kind of cleansing power in itself, that it is well to touch\nupon it once more.  What is dying?  It is simply the parting of the soul\nfrom the body.  The soul, up to the moment of death, dwells in the body.\nAt death, in a moment it ceases to dwell in the body.  But have not the\npain, it may be asked, and the very agony of dying a chastening and\npurifying force, serving in themselves to crown repentance, and to\nachieve, in the instant, the complete cleansing of the soul?  Why should\nit be so?  The pains which precede death are distinct from dying, from\nwhat we may call the act of dying.  The act of dying is instantaneous.  It\nis the moment, the crisis at which the soul takes its flight.  The pains\nand agony which accompany the process leading up to death are not the\npains and agony of dying at all.  They are felt while the sick man is\nstill living.  They belong to his life, not to his death.  At the moment\nof dying the sufferings are probably over.  The body has just felt its\nlast throb of sensible anguish, and, in the crisis of the soul's\ndeparture, is incapable of feeling pain, and therefore is incapable of\nthe discipline of pain.  And it is the discipline of pain alone that has\nany cleansing power.  And the discipline of pain went on in life up to\nthe moment, if it be so, of the dying, and then ceased.  But it belonged,\nas the pain belonged, to the life, and not to the death.  During the\nlife, at many times in the life past, the wholesome discipline of pain\nmay or may not have been working a salutary change in the character, up\nto the very moment, perhaps, of death.  But it ceased, as the pain\nceased, at death.\n\nThis then we conclude, that the act of dying in itself, apart from the\npain which may have preceded it, can have no moral effect, or work any\nmoral change.  Moral change, that is to say change of character, can only\ngo on in life.  Dying is a physical operation, not a moral act.  At death\nthe possibility of change of character has stopped, so far as this life\ncan be the sphere of it.  Life, not death, may be accompanied by\ncleansing, life on this side of death, and life on the other side of\ndeath, but not death, which is between, the mere transition from life to\nlife, from one mode of life to another.\n\nThe soul, therefore, after death begins just where it left off, just as\nlife left it, no better, no worse.  It passes into the unseen world,\npardoned, it may be, by GOD'S mercy, but yet no other than it was before\nit left the body.  Even GOD'S pardon does not change the character, nor\nyet remove the tendency to sin.  That still remains, alas! even in the\npenitent.  The consequences of our acts follow upon our acts, and form\nour character.  As there is uniformity in the law of cause and effect in\nthe realm of nature, so, in morals, is it the case with what we do.  Let\na man yield to a temptation:--is he as strong against that temptation\nafter he has yielded to it as he would have been if he had not yielded to\nit?  We know that he is not.  We know, by our own experience, that it\nneeds a far greater and more strenuous effort to withstand the same\ntemptation after previous yielding, than it did before.  A man may repent\nand be pardoned, but he is what his sin has made him, weak and frail and\nprone to sin again.  GOD'S pardon has cancelled his guilt, but it has not\nremoved his tendency, nor the moral consequences, which sin has wrought\nupon his character.\n\nThis then is what is meant when it is said that the soul, which has\nreceived the gracious pardon of GOD before it left the body, is still,\nwhen it is launched into the Intermediate Life, clouded and disfigured\nwith the stains and imperfections which it had contracted in this life.\nBut GOD, Who has begun the good work of cleansing in this life, will\ncarry it on in the life unseen, until the soul be made perfect in the day\nof Jesus Christ.\n\nWho of us, the best of us, does not feel within him the bitterness of the\nlingering poison, which sin has deposited in his heart?  The holier a man\nis, the more he is conscious of his sinfulness.  To the end of life this\nmust be so; for there is no reaching perfection here.  Those, chiefly,\nwho have made most progress in the struggle against sin here, know how\nhateful it is.  The higher men rise here in the divine life, the more\nthey discern their imperfections, because they can better measure them by\nthe measure of GOD'S perfections.  Each loftier level is but a new\nstandpoint from which to lift the eyes, and view the peaks which soar\nupward towards infinite elevations.  For GOD is holiness itself; and\nholiness is infinite, because GOD is infinite.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n\n   \"Being confident of this very thing, that He which began a good work\n   in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ.\"--PHIL. I. 6\n   (_R.V._)\n\nThe ground is now cleared for an answer to the question,--How is the\npurification of the soul effected in the Intermediate Life, and what is\nthe nature of the process?  We have seen, 1st, that this waiting time is\nnot an idle time, but a time when something has to be done which can only\nbe done then; 2nd, that what has to be done then is the work of cleansing\nand purifying the soul, that it may be perfected for the Beatific Vision\nin heaven; 3rd, that the souls of those who die in grace do yet, although\nfully pardoned, retain frailties of character, the consequences of former\nsins; and, 4th, that dying in itself has no cleansing virtue whatever.\nWhat, then, are the conditions on which we may rely as grounds for\nlegitimate inferences?\n\n1.  First, then, memory survives death.  In the narrative to which we\nhave had occasion to refer more than once, Abraham is spoken of as\nbidding the rich man to remember.  \"Son, remember, that thou in thy\nlifetime receivedst thy good things.\"  The survival of memory is involved\nin the soul's consciousness of its own existence.  And to be conscious of\nour own existence is to be conscious that we are still the same persons\nthat we were.  Therefore we must be able to remember each successive\nmoment what and who we were in the moment previous: so that the\ncontinuance of life involves the continuance of the consciousness that it\nis ourselves that live.  And this is memory.  Bishop Butler, therefore,\nsays, \"There is no reason for supposing that the exercise of our present\npowers of reflection is even suspended by the act of dying.\"\n\nBut if we grant this, we may go further.  What is it which makes memory\nin this life so imperfect?  What is it but the obtrusive hindrance of the\nbody?  The body is at the mercy of the disturbing assaults of present\nimpressions.  Through ear, and eye, and touch external objects invade the\nmind, and dispel and distract fixed and steadfast retrospect.  The\npresent blots out the past.  When we look back, scenes, and events, and\nwords, and names fade from our memory, and are dimmed by the haze of\ndistance.  The past is smothered by what has happened since.  Only with a\nsupreme effort, only in solitude, and then only imperfectly, can we\nrecall what has gone by.  But there, in the Intermediate State, when the\nsoul dwells apart from the body, there, in the stillness of that\n\"cloistered and secluded life,\" the powers of memory will be undistracted\nand perfect.  Even in this life, as we are told, some, in a great crisis,\nhave seen at a single glance the whole story of their past experience,\nand scenes and events, long since forgotten, have flashed in an instant\nbefore the mind, clear and vivid.  Such clearness, we may well suppose,\nwill the memory have in the Intermediate Life, as it recalls in that\nquiet stillness the actions of the past days on earth.  Here is the first\nequipment then for the work of cleansing.  All the evil things done in\nlife, all the forgotten sins, in all their naked and uncouth colours,\nwill stand undisguised before the mind.  Nothing will escape the\nmemory:--nothing.  The days of childhood, of youth, of middle age, of\nelder years will give in their report.  The soul will see things then as\nthey are, no longer tricked out in false and flattering guise.  There, in\nall their miserable littleness, and coarseness, and meanness, and\ncowardice, bygone sins will rise up before the stern tribunal of the\nunsparing memory, each as it was, each as it is, each as GOD saw it at\nthe time, each as GOD sees it now.\n\n2.  But this is not all.  The souls of those who have received\nforgiveness in life, and have passed into the Intermediate State in GOD'S\nfavour, are, we must remember, \"with Christ\"; with Christ, however\nimperfect their characters, however scarred with traces of former wounds\nof sin.  The malefactor's character at his death must have been full of\nblemishes, yet he was to be ushered and welcomed into Paradise by Christ\nHimself.  S. Paul again and again spoke of his own departure at death as\nthat which would lead him into the presence of Christ.  It may, however,\nbe suggested that to be with Christ is to be with GOD, and that the\nvision of Christ must be the same thing as the vision of GOD.  But the\nvision of GOD is specially reserved for the redeemed in heaven, while the\nvision of Christ is possible in Paradise; for where Christ is there is\nthe vision of Christ.  For Christ has assumed the form of man, and was\nseen as Man by men.  But no man hath seen nor can see GOD.  He dwells in\nthe light which no man can approach unto.  This is the vision of Him Who\nis to mortal eyes in His essence invisible.  That vision will be granted\nto the pure in heart in the infinite glory of Heaven, granted to those\nwho shall have become fitted to behold Him in Heaven.  But He Who took\nour flesh was manifest in the flesh, and was seen, and touched, and\nhandled.  In that same body He rose from the dead; in that same glorified\nbody He ascended into Heaven, to fill all things.  And so after His\nAscension He was seen by S. Stephen {63} and by S. Paul.  That human\nnature, therefore, we are to believe is so present in Paradise that the\nsight of Him is vouchsafed even there to those who may be \"with Him.\"\n\nWhat, then, follows from this?  It follows that the soul will not only\nremember but also be able to judge of the past.  For not only will it see\nits sins, but it will behold Christ also.  It will see them, therefore,\nin the light of the perfect love, and most gracious sinlessness of Jesus\nChrist.  It will look upon sin's stains as they stand out in contrast\nwith His purity, its ingratitude in contrast with His compassion.  He\nwill be the atmosphere of the soul's existence.  All the shame and\ndishonour, which in life the soul so complacently accepted, will then\noverwhelm it with self-reproach and very bitter compunction.  This is\nwhat is meant by seeing sins as GOD sees them.  It is to see them as the\nsoul will see them under the sense of the Presence of the Holy Christ.\nThen will the soul know its guilt as it never knew it before.  The guilt\nof sin will then be no bare expression, no conventional formula, but a\nspiritual fact, not an abstract doctrine, but a concrete reality.\n\nThere will be revealed also to the soul the true meaning and significance\nof GOD'S providences in life, which at the time were overlooked, or\nslighted, or strangely misunderstood.  Tokens of GOD'S love and care will\nthen find their interpretation.  The soul will see plainly why was this,\nwherefore was that, what that sorrow meant, what that loss, that parting\nfrom one who was more dear than life.  The many perplexities which on\nearth misled the soul, of these the loving mercy and the gracious reason\nwill then be seen.\n\nAnd will there not be with the amazing surprise at these revelations a\nstrange and unaccountable gladness?  But, no less, at the thought of the\nsoul's past blindness and persistence in ill-doing, will there not be an\nexquisite pain?  And the soul's pain can be even more oppressive than the\npain of the body.  \"Pain,\" it may be asked, \"in the Presence of Christ?\"\nYes, indeed! pain, because in the Presence of Christ; pain in\nremembering, and in the consciousness, new to the soul, of its utter\nunworthiness before Christ.  The soul cannot fully feel it now, but it\nwill feel it then.  The fire of His love will kindle a fire of loving\nself-reproach.  The weight of a heavy shame to think of the past, and to\nknow now of His beauty, and His love, and His care, care for so careless\na soul, love for a soul so loveless,--this will sting with an extreme\nseverity the soul humbled before Him.  And here we should do well to\nremember that, as the characters of each differ almost infinitely,\nwhereby there are innumerable shades and degrees of every conceivable\ndistinction of merit and of sin, so the proportion and depth of the pains\nwhich the souls will feel will vary equally.  The pains of no two souls\nwill be exactly the same.  They will be measured out, in subtle and exact\naptness to each, according to its guilt or goodness, precisely as the\nprocess of its purification shall require.  There will be nothing unjust,\nnothing capricious in them.\n\nAnd thus the pain will surely be a very wholesome pain.  What could more\ndeepen penitence?  The pain of self-reproach for unworthiness, and the\npain of the sense of goodness in the Presence of Jesus Christ,--these two\npains will purify the soul.  No work of sanctification has ever been\nwrought in any soul without suffering.  And none ever will.  Even Christ\nHimself was not made perfect, as Man, without suffering.  But the\nsuffering in Paradise will be accompanied with an exquisite delight and\njoy.  Do we not know, even here on earth, how near to each other very\noften are joy and sorrow?  He whose spirit is swelling with a great\ngladness has often a sense of an undercurrent of great pain along with\nit.  How often tears and laughter go together!  So, in that home of the\ndisembodied soul, the very process of purification will be marked by an\nintensity of joy and an intensity of pain.  They will be simultaneous.\nNay! increasingly, it may be, they will deepen in the soul.  The nearer\nthe soul reaches its perfection the more abounding may be its gladness,\nand the more piercing its compunction.  Thus its very anguish will be a\ndelight, and its very delight will be an anguish, and these will proceed,\nand advance, and increase until the soul is ripe for the Blessed Vision\nof GOD in Heaven.  For He Which began the good work in the soul, here, in\nlife, will, we may be very confident, never abandon it, nor suspend it,\nbut will continue it and perfect it all through the after life, even\nuntil the day of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n\n   \"Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit: in\n   which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which\n   aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of GOD waited in\n   the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.\"\n\n   --1 PETER III. 18, 19, 20 (_R.V._)\n\nSo far we have considered the case of those who die in the favour of GOD,\nand, though as yet unfit for the vision of GOD in Heaven itself, are\nnevertheless capable of becoming so in the course of the Intermediate\nLife.\n\nWhat, however, must be said of those who in life had light and knowledge\nof GOD and of His will, and yet hardened themselves against GOD; who were\nfree, and in the exercise of their freedom rejected GOD?  Of these\nunhappy souls, if there is no yielding of their will to GOD in the\nIntermediate Life, if, and so far as, they have absolutely made\nthemselves by the fixedness of their choice incapable of yielding, if\nafter death they still hate GOD and set the whole force of their\ndetermination against Him,--one can only fear that even GOD Himself\ncannot help them.  On the supposition that the prerogative of free will,\nonce for all given to man, must be respected by GOD, we are driven to the\nbelief that GOD cannot force the will.  It is not that GOD changes\ntowards them.  It is not necessary to suppose that He is even punishing\nthem.  He may still be in Himself all that He is to all, full of love\ntowards them, full of pity, full of mercy.  \"His mercy is over all His\nworks.\"  He can no more cease to be a Father to every man than He can\ncease to be GOD.  He hates nothing that He has made.  But if the very\nknowledge and thought of GOD'S longsuffering patience serves only to\nharden and to exasperate, if it only stirs in the lost soul deeper pangs\nof inexorable hatred, then,--man being man and GOD being GOD,--what can\nGOD do?  It is they who reject GOD, not GOD Who is rejecting them.  It is\nthey who spurn Him, not He Who chastises them.  He does not banish them\nfrom His Presence: it is they who banish Him from their presence.  And if\nthis defiance against GOD survives and lasts, if, as ages pass, it\nbecomes more resolutely inveterate and set, what power can stop it, what\nlove can soften it?  And if it is never to be pacified, and never yields,\nwhat shall hinder it from going on up to and beyond the Day of Judgment?\nIt may be said that such utter determination is a moral impossibility,\nthat no will of man could finally defy and resist the love of GOD.  If\nthat be so, well!  But on the assumption that it is not impossible, the\ninference which has been drawn is inevitable.\n\nBut there are others who in life have never heard of Christ, the millions\nof heathen in all ages and all lands since the world began, of whom it\nmay truly be said that they never had a chance of salvation.  To these\nmay be added many who have indeed fallen in with Christianity, but with a\nChristianity of such a sort, presented to them in such a way, in such a\nform, and under such circumstances as almost naturally to create in their\nminds a really honest doubt and distrust of it.  What shall be said of\nthese honest unbelievers, and, scarcely through their own fault, blind?\nAs to these, let us ask whether the doctrine of the Intermediate State\ncan help to give us some better hope.\n\nIn the text, {72} we are told that Christ was put to death upon the Cross\nin the flesh, but was quickened in His human Spirit, that is to say, that\nafter His human Spirit left His Body it was still quick or alive.  We\nknow, from the Gospel of S. Luke, whither His human Spirit went.  It went\nto Paradise.  S. Peter now tells us what His Spirit did there.  He tells\nus that it preached unto other spirits, and he names the spirits of those\nwho for 120 years, while Noah was building the ark, were disobedient.\nThey had rejected Noah, \"the preacher of righteousness\" {73} as S. Peter\ncalls him; and now a greater Preacher went to preach to them.  Further,\nwe are told, that they were \"in prison.\"  The word should rather be\nrendered \"in safe keeping,\" that is to say, still waiting, under GOD'S\ncare, for this visit of Christ's human Spirit, when He should preach to\nthem.  Why the spirits of these men, who lived before the flood, are\nsingled out for special mention, is a question that does not really bear\nupon the point which we have in hand.  And we had better keep to that\npoint, and not be tempted to digress.  What then follows from this?  Two\nthings are clear,--first, that from as far back as the days before the\nflood, that is to say, from the very beginning of human life on earth,\nsouls in the Intermediate State had been waiting in safe keeping all\nthese many thousand years; and, secondly, that the disembodied soul of\nour Lord Jesus Christ visited them there and preached to them.  Assuming\nthat these souls had repented, however late, before they died, still we\nlearn that something more than repentance was needful to them.  In this\ncase, it is clear that instruction was given to them.  It would not have\nbeen given if it had not been necessary.  And what instruction?  Christ\n\"proclaimed,\" we are told, to them.  What did He proclaim?  Surely the\ngood news of the Gospel, {74} which He had been proclaiming on earth by\nthe voice of the Apostles.  What else did He make known than the mystery\nof His Incarnation and the Atonement which He had wrought out upon the\nCross, in bearing the sins of men, and their sins, too, who had so long\nbeen waiting in the Intermediate State, to hear it to their salvation?  S.\nPeter, therefore, in another place, says, \"For this cause,\" that is,\nbecause Christ will Himself be the Judge of the living and the dead,--\"for\nthis cause was _the Gospel_ preached even to the dead.\" {75}\n\nHere, then, we have a set of facts which throw light upon some of the\ndark places of that unknown and unseen land, the Intermediate State.  If\nwe do justice to our Bibles we must regard these as facts, whether we can\nfully explain them or not.  Scriptural facts they certainly are.  What,\nthen, can we learn from them?  First, we seem to learn this,--that some\nprovision is made in the Intermediate State for the salvation of those\nsouls who in this life never heard of Christ, never had a chance, as we\nsay, of salvation.  And when we think of it, does it not seem to belong\nto GOD'S eternal justice that souls should not be condemned for that\nwhich they could not help?  Every human soul must have had a chance of\nknowing Christ, before it can justly be punished for the consequences of\nnot knowing Him.  Countless millions in all ages, since the world began,\nin our own land, and in other lands, have never heard the good news of\nJesus Christ in life.  It is not so with us.  With them it is and has\nbeen so.  Christ preached to those who in safe keeping had been waiting\nlong.  Then is it not possible for such as those in all ages to receive\nthe teaching in the Intermediate Life which they never received in this?\nWhy should Christ preach to those and not to these?\n\nThis hope helps to solve that harassing enigma which perplexes and\noppresses so many of us,--I mean, as to the condition and future destiny\nof the heathen, and the outcast, and the blind, and the ignorant.  There,\nin that stillness of the disembodied life, souls may be taught and\ntrained to know what they never could know in this life on earth, the\nwonders and the blessings of the life in Christ.\n\nAnd, besides, do we not at least learn this from Christ's preaching to\nthese souls, that intercourse and communication is _possible_ in the life\nafter death, and will take place?  And this suggests another aspect of\nthe work in that life, besides the work of progressive cleansing and\nperfecting.  The souls of the faithful rest from their labours.  Yes! but\nthey have also a work to do which can only be done then, the work of the\nsoul's purification.  The work, however, which they can do for others is\nbetter than that which can be done for themselves.  What can they do for\nthe souls of others?  Can they not do what Christ's human spirit did?\nHere on earth men are charged, not only with the care of their own souls,\nbut with the care of the souls of others also.  And why should they not\nbe ambassadors for Christ there, if Christ's work has to be done there?\nHere on earth He uses imperfect men to proclaim His Gospel.  There, in\nthat after life, if His Gospel is to be proclaimed to those that never\nheard it in this life, why should He not employ souls also, not yet\nperfected, upon the same happy task?\n\nAnd may not this charge, laid on ministering souls in the Intermediate\nLife, help to solve another mystery--the mystery of many an early and, as\nwe might think, untimely death?  How often do we see a life cut short at\nthe very climax of its best powers, in the very midst of its noblest\nservice!  All the earlier days had been directed, and had contributed to\nthe perfection of the instrument, and then, just when its work was doing,\ncame the sudden end.  Was it not so to our Blessed Lord Himself?  May it\nnot be said with due reverence that, if only His human life on earth had\nbeen prolonged, His teaching, and His miracles, and His sinlessness, and\nHis love must have swayed and melted the hearts of men, even of those who\nso long and so stubbornly withstood Him?  We might so think.  But, just\nwhen His young life was at its prime of human excellence, He died, and\nHis human Spirit passed to preach salvation to souls in the spirit land.\nSo are souls, it may be, taken from us at the summit of their ripeness,\nbut only to be transferred to another scene, and to be employed upon\nother work.  Their labours change, but their works indeed do follow with\nthem to that land where other souls of those who knew not Christ here may\nlearn to know Him there, and knowing Him may choose Him, and choosing Him\nmay be His and He theirs even to the end.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n\n   \"Not handling the word of GOD deceitfully, but by the manifestation of\n   the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight\n   of GOD.\"\n\n   --2 COR. IV. 2.\n\nThe Scriptural doctrine of the Intermediate Life, as I have tried, so\nfar, to set it forth, is a very different thing from what our\nTwenty-second Article calls \"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory.\"\nThe word \"purgatory\" simply means the sphere or life of cleansing.  The\nIntermediate State, therefore, during which the soul is being purified\nand fitted for the vision of GOD in Heaven may be legitimately called \"a\npurgatory.\"  But \"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory\" means much\nmore than this.  It is a belief which, originating in what was true and\nScriptural, gradually became so overlaid with subsequent additions, that\nthe original truth was at length buried and lost sight of.  What the\nTwenty-second Article condemns is not any and every conceivable doctrine\nconcerning Purgatory, but the Romish doctrine only.  And here it is well\nto note that all false beliefs which have had for any length of time a\nwide currency among men have been founded upon and have retained in them\nsome element of truth.  This it is which enabled them to survive: this\nand nothing else gives to error its vitality.  These false beliefs are\nnot mere error, but contain truth and error mixed together.  The error\nperverts and makes void the truth; but without the truth the error could\nnot live.\n\nIn the case of the doctrine of Purgatory, the true and Scriptural\ndoctrine of the progressive purification of the soul in the Intermediate\nState is the element of truth on which has been based the Romish Doctrine\nof Purgatory.  Wherein then lies the error of it?\n\n1.  In the first place, whereas the Bible teaches, as we have seen, that\nevery soul at death enters the Intermediate State, the souls of the\ngreatest saints as well as the souls of the greatest sinners, \"the Romish\nDoctrine\" teaches that the souls of very many never enter the\nIntermediate State at all.  The souls of the holy patriarchs of old, of\nChristian martyrs, and of canonized Saints, it is held, pass straight to\nheaven.  On the other hand, the souls of those who die in mortal sin, and\nof excommunicated persons are believed to go straight to hell.  Thus\npractically the Intermediate State is cancelled for these two classes.\nThere remains, therefore, only one class which is supposed to enter the\nIntermediate State, those namely, who have died in venial sin.  And since\nit is part of the Romish doctrine to regard Paradise as the same thing as\nHeaven, and to hold that the souls which alone enter Purgatory, after\nsuffering due torments, pass direct out of Purgatory into Paradise or\nHeaven, it follows that in the Intermediate State are only those who are\nactually undergoing, for the time appointed, the pains of Purgatory.  For\nall, therefore, eventually the Intermediate State is terminated at some\ntime on this side of the Day of Judgment.  Hence it came about that those\nwho rejected the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory rejected along with\nit the doctrine of the Intermediate State, since, virtually, Purgatory\nand the Intermediate State had been regarded as practically one and the\nsame thing, as indeed they were in duration conterminous.  In rejecting\nthe one therefore, men unhappily but almost naturally rejected the other\nalso.\n\n2.  Further, the pains which are felt in the process of purification, as\nhas been shown, spring from within the soul itself, and are not\nnecessarily or for all inflicted as a torment or punishment from without.\nRather they arise from the soul's own action upon itself, from its own\npangs of shame and self-abasement, all deepened and made more poignant by\nthe ever increasing sense of the love of Jesus Christ, then as never\nbefore apprehended, and by the holy vision of His perfections.  Thereby,\nas they gaze on Him, they are changed by the influence of the sight of\nHim, into greater likeness to Him.  On the other hand, contrast with\nthese the nature of the pains which the Romish Doctrine assigns to the\nsouls in Purgatory.  They are held in all cases to be penal, that is to\nsay, inflicted by GOD as punishment.  The souls are said to suffer\ntorments! {84}  Moreover these torments, as is taught in Roman Catholic\ntreatises on the subject, are caused by literal and material flames, by\nactual fires which would feed on and consume corporeal substances such as\nthe human body.  But what enters the Intermediate State is the soul only,\nnot the body: and, in the nature of things, the sufferings of the\nincorporeal part of our being can only be themselves incorporeal.  The\npains of the spirit can only be spiritual pains.\n\n3.  Again, the \"Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory\" is closely bound up\nwith what are called in the Thirty-first Article \"the Sacrifices of\nMasses,\" and with the sale of \"Pardons\" or Indulgences, named in the\nTwenty-second Article.  The character of the Romish doctrine, as of every\nother doctrine, must be tested by what has grown with its growth.  It was\nheld that by these \"Sacrifices of Masses\" and \"Indulgences\" souls, one by\none, were released from Purgatorial fires sooner than, without their aid,\nthey could be delivered, and thus were at once admitted to Paradise or\nHeaven.\n\nWhat, however, does the Thirty-first Article precisely mean by\n\"Sacrifices of Masses\"?  The expression is peculiar, and appears to have\nbeen designedly so shaped in order to be clearly distinguished from what\nis meant by the Sacrifice in the Mass, or Holy Communion.  For that the\nHoly Communion has been held and taught by our chief English Divines to\nbe a Sacrifice cannot well be disputed. {86}  But the term \"Sacrifices of\nMasses\" was intended to signify what were called, at the time when the\nArticle was drawn up, \"Private Masses,\" which were offered chiefly for\nsouls in Purgatory, and in return for money payment.  The Article refers\nto modes of speaking prevalent on the lips of men at the time.  It\ncondemns that which was \"_commonly said_.\"  And what was it that was\n\"commonly said\"?  It was commonly said that, while Christ's death on the\nCross was indeed a propitiation for original or birth sin, on the other\nhand for daily sins, committed after Baptism, another propitiatory\nsacrifice was needed, _viz._, the \"Sacrifice of the Mass.\"  Thus the\nSacrifice of the Mass, which is not the same thing as the Sacrifice _in_\nthe Mass, was regarded as an addition to and distinct from the Sacrifice\non the Cross, as indeed a repetition of it, having a propitiatory value\nof its own, which the Sacrifice on the Cross had not; just as though it\nwere what Bishop Gardiner, in repudiating it, described as \"a new\nRedemption.\" {87}  Hence it came about that the belief arose that Masses\noffered for specific purposes had more virtue for those purposes than\nwhat was called \"a Common Mass.\"  The practice, therefore, of offering\n\"private Masses\" for souls in Purgatory, as it was very lucrative, so it\nbecame very prevalent.  Thus spiritual things were used for the purpose\nof bringing large money gains to the Chantry Priests, and what should be,\nand we may surely affirm was meant to be, for the common benefit of all\nbecame the narrow privilege of the few.  For rich men could provide\nMasses for their dead friends and for themselves after death, which it\nwas quite out of the power of the poor to provide. {88}\n\n4.  But a word also must be said about \"Indulgences.\"  An Indulgence was\nan abatement or remission granted by the Church's authority of some part\nof the temporal penance imposed by that authority upon an evil doer.  If\nthe guilty person should show sincere proofs of penitence, or by liberal\ngiving of alms made satisfactory recompense for wrongs done, his penance\nmight be eased, or the term of his excommunication shortened, and his\nChurch privileges partly or wholly restored.  It may well be understood\nhow all this might be very wisely and fitly done.  The authority which\ninflicted the penance may rightly have been entrusted with the power also\nof mitigating or removing it.  But gradually this remission of the\ntemporal punishment for sins done in the past became applicable, not\nseldom, to future sin also: and it soon was no uncommon thing to grant\nIndulgences for 500, or 10,000, and even for 50,000 years.  And, since\nthese long periods of years would, of course, extend beyond any man's\nterm of life on earth, it was obvious that they were intended to secure\nthe remission, not indeed of the guilt of the sin, but of the temporal\npunishment of sin during all these years in Purgatory.  Thus it was\nsupposed that the best possible provision was made whereby the duration\nof the long years of torments due for sin in Purgatory might be\ncurtailed.  But worse remained.  The Papal Court needed treasure.  And in\nan evil moment permission was given that these Indulgences might be sold\nfor money.  Thus grew up an unholy traffic, which, as we all know, first\nroused in Germany the storm of the Reformation.  Subsequently, the Papal\nauthorities so far yielded as to forbid all taking of money for these\nIndulgences.  But the system itself had meantime taken deep root.  It\ncontinued, and continues to this day.  It was, however, at its worst when\nthe Twenty-second Article was drawn up.  Can we be surprised that it\nsternly condemned it?  It is all a pitiful history.  But it was necessary\nto refer to it in order both to show how the growth of the Romish\nDoctrine of Purgatory gradually gathered round it mischievous accretions,\nand also to prove how little the belief, that in the Intermediate State\nthere is a progressive advance of the soul in holiness towards\nperfection, is like the Romish teaching and practice.\n\nBut it would be an act of disloyalty to the truth, and of cowardice into\nthe bargain, if we should abandon or minimize a truth because it has been\nby some corrupted and perverted.  Many a truth which has come down to us\nmay have lost some of the fresh lustre of its early purity.  But all the\nsame, if it is the truth we cannot let it go.  And that truth which tells\nus something of the land, now beyond our sight, to which our dear ones\nhave already passed, which we shall each of us ourselves soon enter--the\ntruth which GOD has made known to us in Holy Scripture about this land,\nwe cannot afford to ignore and disregard.  Nothing is easier than to\ndiscredit such a truth by raising the cry of Popery.  It is one of the\npenalties which those have to pay who seek to disentangle the truth which\nHe has in His Church revealed from the untruth which has wrapped it\nround.\n\nBut we must not shrink from this duty.  In days when principles are\nquestioned, and almost all truths disputed, we must, at all hazards,\nlearn to keep our sight clear and our footing steady.  For the Lord is\nour Light and our Salvation.  Whom then shall we fear?  The Lord is the\nstrength of our life: of whom then shall we be afraid? {92}\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\n\n   \"The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that\n   day.\"--2 TIM. I. 18.\n\nWe must now bring to a close the discussion which has been occupying our\nattention: not that everything has been said that can or ought to be said\nabout it; for the interest of the subject grows with the handling of it,\nas the various features of it open out to view.\n\nSo far we have been dealing with the condition of the faithful dead as it\naffects themselves, with the mode of their own conscious life in the\nIntermediate State, and with the nature of their own progressive advance\ntowards perfection.  But there is another aspect of the question, about\nwhich nothing has hitherto been said, I mean, their relation to us who\nare still living on earth.  A few words, and they must be very few, must\nbe said on this point.  It is asked, for example, whether the veil has\ncompletely shut out all knowledge of what is passing on earth from those\nwho have gone to their rest.  No doubt, we can know very little about\nthis.  But, at all events, we do not know enough to warrant us in saying\nwith any confidence that they are aware of nothing that is going on here.\nIt is true that, as has been said, the door that opens between this life\nand that life only \"open inwards,\" and that none have come back to tell\nus what in that after life they knew about us and about our doings on\nearth.  Yet this ignorance of ours is not the same thing as knowledge of\nthe contrary, any more than silence is always equivalent to denial.\nBecause we cannot see with our eyes, nor hear with our ears, and cannot,\nby our actual senses, put the question to the test, we are not on this\naccount justified in denying.  Do we not know almost nothing as to the\nlimits of the powers of the spirit world?  All we can say, so far as\nreason can be our guide, is this, that it is _possible_ that souls in the\nIntermediate State, if they are conscious of themselves and of their\npresent condition, if they retain memory, if they have means of holding\nintercourse with one another, may have means of knowing what goes on\nhere: I say that reason will tell us that this is at least possible, and\nthat it is quite impossible to prove the contrary.\n\nBut does the Bible throw any light upon this mysterious subject?  I think\nit does.  It will be remembered how, in the narrative of the rich man and\nLazarus, Abraham is made to say to the rich man, \"They have Moses and the\nProphets, let them hear them.\"  We may ask, how could Abraham, who lived\nmore than 400 years before the birth of Moses, have known of the\nexistence of Moses, if there were no possible means of communication, by\nwhich occurrences on earth could be made known in the unseen world where\nAbraham was?  What could he know of the prophets who lived more than a\nthousand years after his time, if no possible communication could find\nits way to that other world? {96}  And we may trust this inference\nbecause, in a narrative of this kind, whether it be historical or not, it\nis not to be supposed that our Lord would have introduced a false detail.\n\nLet us, however, turn to another passage.  In the scene on the Mount of\nthe Transfiguration there appeared, talking with Christ, Moses and\nElijah.  In what condition were they present?  They were still in the\nIntermediate State.  The general Resurrection had not, and has not yet,\ncome.  \"In glory\" they appeared.  Yes! some outward clothing, as of a\nbodily form, gloriously radiant was thrown round them, so that they\nbecame visible for the time to the eyes of the three disciples.  But in\nno resurrection bodies did they come; for in those they could not yet\npresent themselves, since they had not yet received them.  And what was\nthe theme of their conversation?  They spoke, we are told, with Christ\nconcerning the exodus or \"death, which He should accomplish at\nJerusalem.\"  But how could they speak fitly of this great theme, if they\nhad no knowledge of the circumstances which were leading to it, of the\nnature of Christ's Incarnate Life on earth, and something at least or the\nreal significance, known fully to the mind of GOD only, of His\napproaching death?  They must have known not only of each other, who and\nwhat they had been historically in their own generation, but also what\nwas now passing on earth, the course and connection of prophecies and\ntypes, and the succession of events in history which had led up to this\nclimax of the fulness of time.\n\nThus we see that the hearts of these two visitants,--visitants not from\nHeaven, but from Paradise,--were fastened with a keen interest and\nstrained attention upon the unfolding of that wondrous Life of Christ.\nHis works and words were the theme of their adoring contemplation.  May\nwe not learn then, that what these two great Saints could do was,\ntherefore, at least a possible thing to do, and, according to the will of\nGOD, a thing which others might also do? {98}  If so, the barrier between\nParadise and earth is so far transparent on that further side, that what\nGOD permits souls in the Intermediate Life to know, that they do actually\nsee and know of the occurrences that are passing here. {99}\n\nBut I must hasten to the answer of another question.  Do they pray for\nus?  Surely that question is as good as answered by what has just been\nsaid.  If those who have gone from our sight are still permitted to know\nwhat it may be good for them to know of the trials and sorrows, the hopes\nand fears, the temptations and the warfare to which we, whom they loved\nso well and still love, are exposed on earth, we are sure that they take\nthought of us and pray for us.  Shall not they whose eyes are opened, now\nthat they are with Christ, care for and pray for those whom they have\nleft behind, tossing still upon the troubled seas, and buffeted by the\nvexing winds and storms of this earthly life?\n\nThey are, moreover, \"with Christ.\"  What does this really imply,--to be\n\"with Christ\"?  It must mean at least this, that, where Christ is, there\nis the Church.  And Christ, though He has ascended to the Right Hand of\nGOD, is still in a true sense in Paradise also.  For \"He filleth all in\nall.\" {100a}  S. Stephen, before his death, prayed, \"Lord Jesus, receive\nmy spirit.\"  Our Lord, therefore, must have been there in Paradise to\nreceive it.  S. Paul, long after our Lord's Ascension, knew that to die\nwas better than to live, because it was to be absent from the body and\npresent with the Lord. {100b}  But if Christ is there, He must be the\nobject of the worship of those who are also there.  So then if Christ be\nthere, and the Church is there, and worship is offered there, then it\nfollows that the whole energy of Church life is there.  The souls in\nParadise are not so many isolated and individual units.  The Church\nunites them.  They are organised in the exercise of worship, sustained,\nas it surely is, in unfailing and perpetual intensity.  As the incense of\nour worship rises here, it blends with the incense that ascends to Christ\nthere.  The Church is militant on earth, it is expectant in Paradise, it\nwill be hereafter triumphant in Heaven.  Yet these are not three\nChurches, but one Church.  And this helps us to see more clearly what is\nmeant by the Communion of Saints.  The Church on earth and the Church in\nParadise are one, and one thrill of spiritual communion vibrates through\nits members there and here.\n\nBut is prayer to be one sided?  Communion is not one sided.  And\ncommunion implies that what they do for us, we should also do for them.\nThis brings us to one more question.  May we, then, pray for those who\nhave passed on before us?  Let us plainly say that there is every reason\nfor and none against the practice.  We have in favour of it the sanction\nof Bible witness, of primitive Church custom, of Christian and human\ninstinct.\n\nIn the Jewish synagogues in our Lord's time, prayers for the dead formed\npart of the service. {102}  Our Lord therefore, Who regularly frequented\nthe synagogue worship, must have been present at times when prayers for\nthe dead were used.  If He had disapproved of such prayers, He must have\ncondemned the use of them.  But did He?  He did not.  We have then His\ntacit sanction of them.  S. Paul again, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, must\nhave warned the Gentiles against the practice, unless he approved of it.\nBut so far from that, there is every reason to suppose that he himself\nprayed for Onesiphorus.  According to the best commentators, Onesiphorus\nwas dead when S. Paul wrote the words quoted in the text, \"The Lord grant\nunto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day,\" _viz._, in the\nDay of Judgment. {103a}  He does not pray for temporal blessings, for\nhealth, or even for grace.  If it was too late to pray for these things,\nthis omission is quite intelligible.\n\nThe earliest Church Liturgies contained in them prayers for the dead.\n{103b}  And the earliest Christian writers, as well as the inscriptions\non tombs bear such witness to the existence of this primitive practice,\nthat it cannot be disputed.  It is true that our English Prayer Book\nneither expressly sanctions nor yet expressly forbids these\nintercessions.  But in the Liturgy, in the Litany, and in the Burial\nService, prayers occur which appear to have been purposely so worded, as\nto lend themselves to a reference in the minds of worshippers to the\nfaithful dead, if any should desire so to apply them.  Bishop Cosin, one\nof the chief compilers of our present Prayer Book, writes that the words,\n\"that we and Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all\nother benefits of His Passion,\" occurring in our Liturgy, are to be\nunderstood to refer as well to \"those who have been here before,\" that is\nto say, who have died in the Lord, as to those \"that are now members of\nit,\" that is, who still are living. {104}\n\nAnd is not the custom reasonable?  Are we to pray for those whom we\ndearly love up to the very last moment of their life, and then for ever\nto refrain?  We could understand this on the supposition that death was\nthe end of all things, or that at death there followed an immediate\nheaven or an instant hell; but not if the process of purification and of\nreal Church life are continuing after death.  And Christian instinct\nurges it.  GOD is a Father.  As children we ought to tell Him all that is\nin our heart.  Whatever we may rightly desire we may rightly pray for.  It\nis only that which we ought not to desire that we ought not to pray for.\nIt is not right to pray that they may, as by a miracle, be restored to\nus; that is not the will of GOD.  Nor is it right that we should seek by\noccult and forbidden ways to hold converse with them.  But we may surely\nask for them what S. Paul asked for his friend, that they may find mercy\nin that day, that they may have rest and peace and light and refreshment,\nthe joy of Christ's Presence, and the gladness of a blessed Resurrection.\n\nAnd now these words must be brought to a close.  The arguments which have\nbeen urged rest upon the very language of Holy Scripture, or upon\nlegitimate inferences from it.  What then?  If they are worthy of trust,\nto accept them is to rob death of half its fears and alarms.  It is the\nunknown that inspires terror.  To know but a little more than we before\nknew of the land in which those who have gone before now sojourn, is to\ngather fresh courage to face it with less misgiving for them and for\nourselves.  They have passed on, but they await us there.  They are only\nhidden from us for a little while.  Their voices are silent.  But their\nlife is as real a life as ours.  No dull oblivion weighs them down.  They\nlive and think and see and know,--know, it may be, more of us than we\nthink, know as much of us as it is for their happiness to know.  A little\nwhile and we also shall know as they know, and see as they see, in the\nhome and resting place of vision and of peace.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n\n{5}  Rev. xxi. 27.\n\n{8}  2 Cor. v. 10.\n\n{14}  Acts xxiv. 15.\n\n{15}  See Luckock, \"The Intermediate State,\" pp. 14, 15.\n\n{17}  S. John xx. 17.\n\n{19}  The expression is borrowed from the custom among the Jews of\nreclining instead of sitting at a banquet.  The guest was stretched upon\na couch, his left elbow resting upon a cushion close to the table, his\nfeet being towards the outer side of the couch, which was away from the\ntable.  By slightly bending back his head he could touch with it the\nbreast of the guest on his left hand, and speak to him in a low voice.\nThus S. John bent back upon our Lord's breast at the Last Supper to ask\nHim, \"Lord, who is it?\" and is therefore spoken of as \"he who leant upon\nHis breast at supper.\"  To sit therefore, or to rest in the bosom of\nAbraham, represented the happy lot of those who had passed to Paradise.\n\n{23}  Mozley, Univ. Serm., p. 155.\n\n{24a}  Isaiah xxxiii. 17.\n\n{24b}  Psalm xvi. 11.\n\n{24c}  1 John iii. 2.\n\n{25a}  1 Peter v. 4.\n\n{25b}  1 John iii. 2.\n\n{25c}  Col. iii. 4.\n\n{25d}  2 Tim. iv. 3.\n\n{26}  Advent Sermon, \"The Day of the Lord.\"\n\n{28}  Rev. vi. 9, 10, 11 (_Revised Version_).\n\n{34a}  1 Thess. v. 23.  But the A.V. hardly brings out the full force of\nthe distinction.  The definite article has a possessive force, as if it\nwere \"_your_ spirit, _your_ soul, _your_ body\"; as though the spirit was\nas distinct from the soul as each of them is distinct from the body.\n\n{34b}  Heb. iv. 12.\n\n{34c}  1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n{35a}  1 Cor. xv. 44.\n\n{35b}  S. James iii. 15.\n\n{35c}  Jude 19.\n\n{35d}  Gen. ii. 7.\n\n{37}  Mason, \"Faith of the Gospel,\" p. 85.\n\n{41a}  For example, Acts vii. 60; S. John xi. 11, 14; 1 Thess. v. 14; 1\nCor. xv. 18, 20.\n\n{41b}  Rev. xiv. 13.\n\n{43}  Phil i. 21.\n\n{44}  1 Peter iii. 18.\n\n{47}  Isaiah i. 2.\n\n{63}  See p. 100 _infra_.\n\n{72}  In the A.V. the words in v. 18 are printed differently from the\nR.V.  In the former the reading is \"quickened by the Spirit,\" as though\nS. Peter meant to assert, that it was by the special operation of GOD the\nHoly Ghost that our Lord, after He died upon the Cross, still lived.  But\nthis rendering entirely destroys the evident antithesis which is marked\nin the contrast between \"put to death\" and \"quickened,\" and between\n\"flesh\" and \"spirit.\"  That antithesis limits the effect of Christ's\ndeath to His human Body, while His human Spirit was still alive.\n\n{73}  2 Peter ii. 5.\n\n{74}  The same word is used constantly in the N.T. for the special\nproclamation of the Gospel.\n\n{75}  1 Peter iv. 6.\n\n{84}  Thus the Catechism of the Council of Trent states that \"There is a\nPurgatorial Fire where the souls of _the righteous_ being tormented are\npurified.\"\n\n{86}  In the Holy Communion the priest and the people offer to the Father\n\"the one full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, oblation, and\nsatisfaction for the sins of the whole world.\"  The Christian Society is\ncalled in 1 Peter ii. 9, a \"royal _priesthood_,\" ([Greek]), and in Rev.\ni. 6 \"kings and _priests to God_.\"  ([Greek]); and as [Greek] and [Greek]\nare sacrificial terms, it is to be inferred that a Sacrifice is really\noffered by them.  As Christ perpetually, being a \"Priest forever,\" and\ntherefore \"having of necessity something to offer\" for ever (Heb. viii.\n3), presents in the Holy Place not made with hands, in Heaven itself, the\nSacrifice of Himself before the eyes of the Father, so, at every Altar on\nearth, the \"kings and priests\" being a sacrificing priesthood, represent\nand commemorate the same sacrifice and none other, a sacrifice which\nnever can be repeated.\n\n{87}  See Dr. Maclear on the Articles, p. 368.  If the Sacrifice on the\nCross served one purpose and effected one propitiation, and the Sacrifice\nof the Mass another, then the inference is that they were themselves, so\nfar, different things.  It was the same Body of Christ which was offered\nin each case, but the sacrifices of the same Body were different.\nTherefore the Sacrifice of the Mass was a repetition of the Sacrifice on\nthe Cross for a distinct object and a distinct purpose.  It was\nsupplementary, and supplied a defect which the Sacrifice on the Cross\nfailed to supply!\n\n{88}  What has been said on the subject of \"The Sacrifices of Masses\" for\nsouls in Purgatory must not be understood as implying that the Sacrifice\nin the Holy Communion has no efficacy, when pleaded in behalf of the\nsouls in the Intermediate State.  To use the words of Bishop Forbes, \"The\napplication of the Blessed Eucharist to the departed must in our Church\nstand and fall with the practice of prayers for the dead.  In its aspect\nof the great oblation, the Holy Communion may be considered as prayer in\nits most intense and highest form.  If it is unlawful to pray for the\nfaithful departed, it must be unlawful to remember them in the sacred\nmysteries; but, if the first be permitted, the second must be so\nlikewise.\"  (Article XXXI., p. 63.)  The subject of Prayers for the Dead\nis dealt with in the next Address, page 101 _sq._\n\n{92}  Psalm xxvii. 1.\n\n{96}  A friend has suggested that Moses and the prophets may, one after\nthe other, have reported to Abraham the occurrences on earth in which\nthey had severally themselves taken part, and that, therefore, we have in\nthis narrative no more than an illustration of the mutual intercourse\nwhich exists in the Intermediate Life.  To this it may be replied that\nthis suggestion, so far from discrediting, really confirms the argument\nin the sermon.  The suggestion is an attempt to explain the mode by which\nknowledge of what passes here is attained, which is certainly no disproof\nof the existence of such knowledge.  But it is safer to say that, some\nhow or other, the denizens of the Intermediate State do probably know, as\nAbraham certainly knew, occurrences on earth.\n\n{98}  Both these illustrations are, I find, referred to by Canon McColl\nin his \"Life Here and Hereafter,\" pp. 105, 106.  But may I presume to\nquestion the value of his illustration of our Lord's knowledge of what\nwas said, in His absence, on the way to Emmaus, and by S. Thomas?  Our\nLord's knowledge after His Resurrection, and indeed at any time, is\nscarcely on a level with the knowledge possessed by souls in the\nIntermediate State of what passes on earth.\n\n{99}  There is so much doubt as to the bearing upon this point of the\nwords in Hebrews xii. 1, that I have not referred to it.  Yet I would\nsuggest that the comparison of our life on earth to the endeavours of the\nrunners in the games of the amphitheatre implies that those efforts are\nmade under the gaze of a cloud of spectators.  The existence of the\nspectators, and their interest in the contests, are integral facts in the\nsimilitude, and essential elements in it.\n\n{100a}  Eph. i. 23.\n\n{100b}  2 Cor. v. 8.\n\n{102}  See 2 Macc. xii. 44, 45.\n\n{103a}  See Plummer, Expositor, Pastoral Epp., p. 324.\n\n{103b}  Forbes on 39 Articles, p. 612.\n\n{104}  See the note on p. 88, Address viii. _supra_.","title":"The Life of the Waiting Soul in the Intermediate State","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":18688}