followers? In making them all cowards, could he fancy he had made them all Christians? Was this Augustine's 'heaven upon earth,' to be surrounded by crowds of trembling hypocrites, who called themselves Catholics? If there ever was hell upon earth, that was it. But it seems Augustine preferred reigning in that hell, to ruling as an under-shepherd the little flock which the love of Jesus might gather around Him. And sad it is to say it, but it is truth that must not yet be forgotten, that Augustine's cruel ambition has been the policy of all the Catholics, Roman and Anglican, that have walked in his footsteps." ASPIRATOR.

AN INTERMEDIATE STATE FOR BELIEVERS PROVED.

WILL not write a paper against a position defended by Mr. Constable, without expressing the very high estimation in which I hold his works respecting the extinction of the wicked, and immortality and life through Christ alone. All lovers of the truth, and the whole Church of God, owe him much gratitude. It was not however till very recently that I read his able book on Hades. I have now perused it three times, and have carefully considered all his arguments, and examined all the texts on which he founds them. This was done with all readiness of mind to be enlightened, and to be convinced, concerning any point in which we differed, if sufficient scriptural evidence could be adduced His book, able, clever, and, for the most part, logical as it is, has not carried conviction to my mind. In my judgment, Mr. Constable has not proved that there is no consciously happy state for the true Christian, between the time of death and that of the resurrection; and as he is a giant in comparison with others who write on his side, it may be safely inferred, that if he has not proved this point, it cannot be proved at all. The pain, however, of opposing such a man as he, is greatly lessened by the fact that if he can be shown on Bible grounds to be, on this matter, in error, he will be the first to own it. He well knows that the discovery of the minor points which settle themselves around a grand centre, is progressive; and as he is not wedded to a position merely because he has defended it, he is the man who will be the most eager to weigh with all impartiality what is presented to him, and to receive it if based on solid grounds. There are many points in which we are one. Sheol is invariably the grave, and Hades, with one exception, the same. The soul is animal life put into the body by the Spirit of God, where it remains till the spirit returns to God who gave it; and then it must necessarily come to an end, as is the case with every other effect when the cause is removed. The spirit of a man is "a portion" of the Spirit of God; and though this can never die, yet man can for a time, and also finally and for ever, be deprived of it; and, in consequence, become extinct so as to be a man no longer; but, as Obadiah says, "be as though he had not been." The Spirit of God, who is the breath of life, the Neshamah and Rooach of the Hebrew Bible, is the only source of all life, whether it be vegetable, or mental, or animal, or spiritual. Life does not, in any case, arise from

intrinsic life in any germ; but is immediately infused by this one Spirit of life. The true believer will not be complete, either in the manly integrity of his threefold nature, or in his happiness, till after the resurrection. There is no separate state for the soul whether of the believer or unbeliever. This confession of these parts of my faith will greatly clear

our way.

Where then do we differ? It is on this precise point. He maintains that the spirit even of the holy believer loses all consciousness and individuality from the time of the death of the body to the time of its resurrection; whereas I maintain that the spirit of the true believer does not between these periods lose its consciousness, its identity, or its individuality; but is made capable of enjoying the presence of Jesus, and of all the company of heaven. This is the essential point: and unless it can be shown that the spirit of the believer is not kept by God in this consciously living individual condition, it cannot be proved that it has no happy intermediate state. This, however, is just the point which Mr. Constable has not proved. Nor indeed does he set himself to prove it, as he does other points which he thinks are necessary steps in his argument. It is not enough to show that the believer, as well as others, is really dead till the resurrection morn; that the soul does not live while the body is dead, and that therefore, the soul is not in a living intermediate state. Nor is it enough to show, in addition, that it is the spirit, not the soul, which returns to God. All this does not come up to the mark. I, myself, receive all this. The precise state of the question is this: When the spirit of the holy believer returns to God, does he keep it in its distinct individuality and consciousness of identity, and is it capable of happiness in this state? As far as my reading goes, no one who believes in the Bible, has attempted to upset this particular point.

The object of the present paper is to examine, along the line pursued by Mr. Constable, what the Bible teaches on this subject. Bible words will be taken lexically, and its sentences grammatically. When Holy Writ is seen to decide, no opposing weight can be given to any counter opinion which rests either on tradition or philosophy.

I. In several places Mr. C. greatly insists that the idea expressed by the word man must be restricted to the body. In page 14, he thus writes: "But according to our analogy, the dead body is the man, the man is not the breath of life; that is something which has left the man. Make what you please of it, endow it with what attributes you like, locate it where you may imagine,-it is not the man; it has left the man behind it the carcase it has abandoned is he." There is much of truth in this; but not enough to bear the weight which he lays upon it. Part of his argument is, that as the body is the man, and as it lies in the grave till the resurrection, therefore the man can have no living intermediate state. But Mr. C. takes a part of the Bible idea of man, and argues as if it were the whole idea. Nor is it difficult to see how the mistake arose; for, unfortunately for critical and logical purposes, we have but the one word man, by which to render three Hebrew words; and we shall not argue exactly according to the mind of the Spirit, unless we keep this in view; for, not long after man was made, we find that "God commanded the man, saying," &c.; which shows not only the man had the organ of hearing, but also that he had mental capaci

ties to comprehend the command, and spiritual capacities to obey it. Let it be noticed too, that the same word is used for man in Gen. ii. 16, where he is commanded and shows intellect, as in ii. 7, where he is made, which exhibits materiality. The three Hebrew words rendered man are these: Adam, or rather, ahdahm; ish, and enosh. The name Adam was given by God to the first human couple (Gen. v. 2), to indicate the origin of the elements of the human frame; for Adam means, "of the ground;" and therefore St. Paul says, "The first man is of the earth, earthy." Ish indicates the human creature in his integrity and maturity; and as it was applied to him in his unfallen state; the idea attached to ish must originally have included the presence, though not the perfection, of spiritual powers. Enosh indicates the same human being, in the sick, frail, mortal state to which sin had reduced him. The human creature is, as Mr. C. truly remarks, of a tripartite nature; or, as St. Paul would say, "spirit, and soul, and body ;" and if we would acquire a full idea of what this human creature is, we must not argue from any text, or any set of texts, where one only of the above words is found. It is manifest that in many places of Holy Scripture, man is addressed as possessing an intellect of vast capabilities; and if he be made a new creature in Christ, he is also addressed as possessing a new and heaven-born life. I do not know, in any language, a name for the human creature which better expresses the integrity of his nature than our own English word man; which is of Sanscrit derivation, and signifies, "the Thinker." Other created beings are able to think in their measure; which is sufficient for their nature and place. But the human creature is emphatically The Thinker; for he towers far above all, and was made, as David in the Spirit testifies, only "a little lower than God." We must therefore not restrict our idea of man to that one part of his tripartite nature which we call the body, and make it a premiss from which to argue. If one part of the threefold-nature of man be abstracted, the man is not the complete man; and though for practical purposes, and in loose language, we sometimes put a part for the whole, yet for critical and logical purposes we must by no means do this, if we would be exact in thought, precise in expression, and true to the Bible. If any ask how, in consistency with this, the utter destruction of the wicked can be maintained, I answer,while referring to my "Twelve Discussions" for a full reply,-that the spirit of man is a portion of the Spirit of God, and that of this he can be deprived, either for a time, or for ever; as in the case of the wicked, after the day of judgment, by the second death. The continuance of imparted life depends upon the will of God, and not upon any intrinsic quality of the soul; and his revealed will declares that the righteous only shall live for ever; while the wicked shall die by being deprived of that spirit which alone can keep them alive; and they thus die for ever without any opportunity of revivification.

Now it happens that in those texts from which Mr. C. principally argues that the body is the man, the word Adam, or the earthy, is found. He is quite right in holding that for this earthy or Adam part there is no living intermediate state; but he is mistaken when he contends that, because the earthy part of the tripartite nature has no such state, therefore, the spiritual part has it not.

Let us test this position with respect to two or three of his passages.

A thinker, like Mr. C., would be sure to begin at the very foundation; and he therefore quotes first Gen. ii. 7: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." From this passage he conclusively argues thus :-"The yet inanimate frame is called man; the earthy frame therefore is the man, and is distinct from the spirit which was breathed into him; and also distinct from what man became after it was inbreathed." Then comes the inference, that as this body dies, which is the man; while the spirit, which is not the man, returns to God: and as the body, which is the man, remains in the grave till the resurrection morn, therefore man, even the believing man, has no living intermediate state. Yes; but what stands for man in the Hebrew? It is Adam. And if we take the full idea of man, and transfer that idea to the word Adam, which contains but a part of the idea, we give a fresh instance of inexactitude of thought, and consequently of inconclusiveness in reasoning. On the subject of the intermediate state this text says no more than that the Adam was formed of the dust of the earth; and as a premiss it allows no more than that Adam, or earthy, will not have a living intermediate state. Though therefore Mr. C.'s analysis of this text is correct, his inference founded upon the English version is not logical. The body of the holy believer may have no living intermediate state; but that does not prove that the spirit of that holy believer has none. Take another specimen (Job xxxiv. 14, 15). Here the argument on the point before us is of the same kind, and the answer to it is the Whatever may be the truth of the intermediate state awaiting the believer's spirit, no argument either for or against can be taken from this class of texts. They prove only that such a state is not intended for the Adam, the earthy frame, the body.

same.

II. Mr. C. often speaks of the spirit of man, as having no existence, after death, till the resurrection. In page 25, he thus writes:-" Man possesses in this life a spirit, which is in fact the spirit of God. But the beast, as we have seen, possesses the very same. Hence, we draw no inference from its possession by man which we do not draw from its possession by beasts. . . . It [this spirit] may be separated from man as it is separated from the beast, unless we have other proof of its inseparability from him besides the mere fact of his having possessed it. And if it is then separated from man, what is man then become? Even such as he was before this spirit entered into him. With the departure of this spirit fades away into the grave, into the invisible state of Hades, that life or soul which its entrance alone communicated to man. The dead body is then all that remains of him who once had soul and spirit. Soon corruption exercises its destroying power over this lifeless frame, and man wholly returns to his original dust." If this be true, the state of the spirit of man" which goeth upward" after death is the same as the state of the spirit of the beast which goeth downward. Nor does Mr. C. make the holy believer an exception to this. In p. 117, referring to the teaching of Christ, he writes :-"That teaching we saw to be, that believers cease to exist at the period of death, and do not regain life until resurrection." Mr. C.'s teaching is, that the spirit of man, being a portion of the spirit of God, returns to God and is absorbed in God, so that after the death of the body that portion of the spirit which was in

the body loses entirely what we understand by personality, individuality, or consciousness of identity. Now I by no means say that those portions of God's Spirit which he sends forth to operate, whether in nature or in grace, cannot be resumed by him and absorbed in him; for the clearest evidence exists that this is perpetually done. This however is not the precise state of the question. It is not what God usually does; but what he says he does with respect to the spirit of the true believer. Nor do I question that it is the same spirit, which gives life to brutes which also gives life to man. But here again this is not the point. It is: Does God deal with the spirit of the holy believer after death as he deals with the spirit of the beast? In my opinion the Bible declares he does not. Whether the spirits of true believers shall be kept by God as distinct individual spirits, must depend upon his will. In the nature of things there is nothing impossible, or even improbable, that they should be thus kept distinct. God is a spirit, and yet he is distinctly a person. The Holy Ghost is a spirit, and he also is a person. On the other hand, Mr. C. is right, when he argues that, though a portion of the spirit once resided in the body, it need not follow that it must for ever reside there. The simple question then before us is, Has God spoken upon the question? if so, what has he said?

Now there are two or three notable examples in the Bible which, in my judgment, throw a flood of light upon this subject. Moses was really present on the mount of transfiguration. The case of Elijah might possibly not be so much against Mr. C.'s theory. But the case of Moses is clearly against it. The Bible distinctly testifies that Moses died and was buried, and that he had a sepulchre, though no one knew where it was. Yet this Moses was as truly on the holy mount as he was on Mount Sinai. Will any one affirm that the spirit which animated the body of the man called Moses before he was dead and buried did not exist in its individuality and self-consciousness in the man called Moses whom the three disciples saw and heard talking with Jesus? The resurrection body of Moses was not there, and if the body only is the man, then the man Moses was not on the holy mount. But it is expressly said that Moses was there; and if so, then it is evident that something else besides the body constituted the man Moses when he was upon earth. When his body died, God took his spirit, and kept it till the transfiguration of Christ, and it would be impossible to show he is not keeping it still. Moreover, the spirit of Moses had not lost its knowledge of the mission of Jesus; for he conversed with Jesus "concerning the decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." We must really go where Scripture leads us, and not be guided by any à priori theory.

Another example is that of the angel or messenger who talked with the apostle John. So glorious was he, that St. John thought he could be no less a being than the Son of God, and was about to worship him. The act of idolatry was prevented in these words :-" See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book." (Rev. xxii. 8, 9.) He had before made the same mistake concerning the deity of another who conversed with him, as related in chap. xix. 10. It seems certain that the angels who appeared to him on these occasions, were two different persons, or St. John a second time would not, we may be sure, have attempted to