which reason can only give a probable guess, and the Scripture has made no explicit discovery, it is, though not impossible to argue at all, yet impossible to argue to any certain conclusion. This seems to me to be the very case with the point in question -reason is able to form many plausible conjectures concerning the possibility of our knowing each other in a future state, and the Scripture has, here and there, favoured us with an expression, that looks at least like a slight intimation of it; but because a conjecture can never amount to a proof, and a slight intimation cannot be construed into a positive assertion; therefore I think we can never come to any absolute conclusion upon the subject. We may indeed reason about the plausibility of our conjectures, and we may discuss, with great industry, and shrewdness of those passages

argument, those

in the Scripture, which seem to favour the opinion; but still no certain means having been afforded us, no certain end can be attained; and after all, that can be said, it will still be doubtful, whether we shall know each other or not.

As to arguments founded upon human reason only, it would be easy to muster up a much greater number on the affirmative side of the question, than

it would be worth my while to write, or yours to read. Let us see therefore what the Scripture says, or seems to say, towards the proof of it; and of this kind of argument also I shall insert but a few of those, which seem to me to be the fairest and clearest for the purpose. For after all, a disputant, on either side of this question, is in danger of that censure of our blessed Lord's, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scripture, nor the power of God."

As to parables, I know it has been said in the dispute concerning the intermediate state, that they are not argumentative; but this having been controverted by very wise and good men, and the parable of Dives and Lazarus having been used by such, to prove an intermediate state, I see not why it may not be as fairly used for the proof of any other matter, which it seems fairly to imply. In this parable we see, that Dives is represented as knowing Lazarus, and Abraham as knowing them both, and the discourse between them is entirely concerning their respective characters and circumstances upon earth, Here, therefore, our

Saviour seems to countenance the notion of a mutual

pe

knowledge and recollection, and if a soul that has rished, shall know the soul that is saved, surely the

heirs of salvation shall know and recollect each other.

Are

In the first epistle to the Thessalonians, the second chapter, and nineteenth verse, Saint Paul says, "What " is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? "not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus "Christ at his coming? For ye are our glory and "our joy."

As to the hope, which the Apostle has formed concerning them, he himself refers the accomplishment of it to the coming of Christ, meaning, that then he should receive the recompence of his labours in their behalf; his joy and glory he refers likewise to the same period, both which would result from the sight of such numbers redeemed by the blessing of God upon his ministration, when he should present them before the great Judge, and say, in the words of a greater than himself, Lo! I, and the children, whom thou hast This seems to imply, that the apostle should know the converts, and the converts the apostle, at least at the day of judgment, and if then, why not afterwards?

given me."

See also the fourth chapter of that epistle, verses 13, 14, 16, which I have not room to transcribe. Here the apostle comforts them under their affliction for their deceased brethren, exhorting them "Not to sorrow as without hope;" and what is the hope, by

which he teaches them to support their spirits? Even this, "That them, which sleep in Jesus, shall God bring with him.” In other words, and by a fair paraphrase surely, telling them they are only taken from them for a season, and that they should receive them at their resurrection,

If you can take off the force of these Texts, my dear Cousin, you will go a great way towards shaking my opinion, if not, I think they must go a great way towards shaking yours,

The reason, why I did not send you my opinion of Pearsall was, because I had not then read him; I have read him since, and like him much, es

pecially the latter part of him;

but you have whetLetter by tearing it

ted my curiosity to see the last out; unless you can give me a good reason, why I should not see it, I shall enquire for the book the first time I go to Cambridge. Perhaps I may be partial to Hervey for the sake of his other writings, but I cannot give Pearsall the preference to him, for 1 think him one of the most scriptural writers in the world.

Yours,

W. C.

MY DEAR COUSIN,

LETTER XIX.

To Mrs. COWPER.

April 18, 1766.

Having gone as far as I

thought needful to justify the opinion of our meeting and knowing each other hereafter; I find upon reflection that I have done but half my business, and that one of the questions, you proposed, remains entirely unconsidered, viz. "Whether the things of

our present state will not be of too low and mean " a nature to engage our thoughts, or make a part ❝of our communications in Heaven."

The common and ordinary occurrences of life no doubt, and even the ties of kindred, and of all temporal interests, will be entirely discarded from amongst that happy society, and, possibly, even the remembrance of them done away. But it does not therefore follow, that our spiritual concerns, even in this life, will be forgotten, neither do I think, that they can ever appear trifling to us, in any the most distant period of eternity. God, as you say in reference to the Scripture, will be all in all. But does not that expression mean, that being admitted to so near an