thought it was just possible that this mild and blameless enthusiast might return to establish. He did not call him "Lord," however, or express full faith in His mission. Did the Saviour grant his request? No. He gave one of those enigmatic replies which so often marked His public ministry. He told the robber that he should be with Him in that portion of the Intermediate State which tradition had allotted to orthodox Jews, and as to the earthly kingdom, He left His questioner entirely uninformed. I am aware that a very ingenious theological structure has been raised upon misapprehension of the true force of this text. How many castles in the air, how many eloquent sermons on "the penitent thief" must disappear. As the mists before the sunrise, as the frost-rime upon the branches when the sun himself appears, so these vagaries must vanish before the beams of truth.

The rich man lifted up his eyes in "Hades." One of the greatest gains in the Revised Version is the employment of this word Hades, transplanted from the Greek original in all places where it occurs. The word "hell" in the old Authorised included both "Hades" and "Gehenna," but is now only used as the translation of the latter word. How requisite this is may be seen in the translation of Acts ii., 27, where these words are quoted from Psalm xvi. in reference to the Lord Jesus, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades." The Saviour spoke of being in Paradise, but did He also go to Hades? Did He bridge the gulf which separated the rich man and Lazarus? Assuredly, for He was the First and the Last. If any doubt exist upon the point, let us refer to Peter, iii., 18. "Christ," * * being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient." Again, ch. iv., 6, we read, "For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead." It is strange that with the actual Scripture teaching so directly bearing on this subject, there should yet be such uncertainty and divergence of view respecting it. This, however, began early. Mosheim, writing of the times of Origen, says, "There sprung up now in Arabia a certain sort of minute philosophers, the disciples of a master whose obscurity has concealed him from the knowledge of after ages, who denied the immortality of the soul, believed that it perished with the body, but maintained at the same time that it was to be again recalled to life, with the body, by the power of God. Origen was summoned from Egypt, to make head against this rising sect, and disputed against them, in a full council, with such remarkable success, that they abandoned their erroneous sentiments, and returned to the received doctrine of the Church." Mosheim might have added that this doctrine was a revival in the Christian Chuch of an old Jewish notion about half-way on the road to Sadduceeism, and which many of the converts from Judaism still retained. We find traces of it in the theory of the Gnostics about the nature of the Psychichi, in the doctrine of the Clementine, and in the opinions of Fabian and Justin. † It was curious, however, that this

Eccles.: Hist., vol. i., pt. 2, ch. v., p. 208.
† See Dr. Neander, Hist. Church, vol. ii., p. 399.

belief was so completely overthrown by Origen that it did not visibly revive until the time of the Reformation, and still more remarkable that it found one of its latest and ablest exponents in Dr. Priestley. *

Luther, in his impetuous zeal for the overthrow of Popery, denied at first the immortality of the soul, because he considered the belief in its existence in an intermediate state favored the abuses of the Romish purgatory. This idea, however, so horrified his followers that he spoke of the same question in a very vague manner at a later period of his life. Calvin taught that the souls of all the elect were in a state of felicity after death, † but "if," said he, "any one of my antagonists should still raise an outcry as to what will become of the sons of perdition, that is nothing to me. I only reply for the faithful." Our own Reformer, William Tyndale, to whom we owe the splendid diction of the English Authorised Version of the Bible, took Luther's view. Sir Thomas More in his dialogue having charged Luther with the heresy of holding that "All souls lie still and sleep till domèsday," Tyndale defended them; but the idea was held to be so utterly wrong that four years afterwards he was forced to retract it. A revulsion of feeling had by this time taken place, and in 1552 a decisive step was taken by the English Reformers, against the doctrine that man becomes totally unconscious at death. The 40th Article of the Church of England in the reign of Edward VI. was framed to this effect:

66

They who say that the souls of such as depart hence, do sleep, being without all sense, feeling and perceiving, until the day of judgement, or affirm that the souls die with the bodies, and at the last day shall be raised up, with the same, do utterly dissent from the right belief, declared unto us in the Holy Scriptures."

But in Queen Elizabeth's time, when the Articles of the Church were re-settled, the 40th Article was dropped. Still, in the Burial Service of the Church there is a beautiful passage declaring that "The souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are with God in joy and felicity." It is probable also that few members of the Church of England, in repeating every Sunday the Apostles Creed, are aware that they are stating their belief in the two regions of the Intermediate State described in the parable before us. They speak of the state in which the rich man lift up his eyes, when they say "I believe that He (Jesus Christ) descended into hell (Hades)." They own to the existence of the state called Abraham's bosom or Paradise, where Lazarus was comforted, when they say "I believe in Communion of Saints."

* *

*

the

I would add an extract from Bishop Sherlock in connection with the doctrine of the Intermediate State and Purgatory. He says:— ‡

2. "There are some, who, observing that mankind shall not be judged till the day of judgement, conclude that there is no intermediate state, but that the soul sleeps with the body till the day of judgement.

* See Notes on Scripture.

In Treatise published 1534, entitled "Psycho-pannychia " or "Wakefulness of the Soul."

Essay on Judgement, p. 168.

le set i te rastom i As 5. 27.

Le tire wra e je a niece to the Lord Tron wit not leave my sud in Bad The Saviour spoke of leng in Faraffe, but did He also go to Hades? Did He bridge the guf sich separated the rich man and Larins? Assuredly, for He s the Fint and fte Las. If any doubt exist upon the point, let us refer to a Peter, ii, 18. "Christ ** being put to death in the fest, int quickened in the spirit, in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which adoretime were disobedient Again, ch. iv., 6, we read, "For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead." It is strange that with the actual Scripture teaching so directly bearing on this subject, there should yet be such uncertainty and divergence of view respecting it. This, however, began early. Mosheim, writing of the times of Origen, says, "There sprung up now in Arabia a certain sort of minute philosophers, the disciples of a master whose obscurity has concealed him from the knowledge of after ages, who denied the immortality of the soul, believed that it perished with the body, but maintained at the same time that it was to be again recalled to life, with the body, by the

belief was so completely overthrown by Origen that it did not visibly revive until the time of the Reformation, and still more remarkable that it found one of its latest and ablest exponents in Dr. Priestley.

Luther, in his impetuous zeal for the overthrow of Popery, denied at first the immortality of the soul, because he considered the belief in its existence in an intermediate state favored the abuses of the Romish purgatory. This idea, however, so horrified his followers that he spoke of the same question in a very vague manner at a later period of his life. Calvin taught that the souls of all the elect were in a state of felicity after death, † but "if," said he, "any one of my antagonists should still raise an outcry as to what will become of the sons of perdition, that is nothing to me. I only reply for the faithful." Our own Reformer, William Tyndale, to whom we owe the splendid diction of the English Authorised Version of the Bible, took Luther's view. Sir Thomas More in his dialogue having charged Luther with the heresy of holding that "All souls lie still and sleep till domèsday," Tyndale defended them; but the idea was held to be so utterly wrong that four years afterwards he was forced to retract it. A revulsion of feeling had by this time taken place, and in 1552 a decisive step was taken by the English Reformers, against the doctrine that man becomes totally unconscious at death. The 40th Article of the Church of England in the reign of Edward VI. was framed to this effect:

"They who say that the souls of such as depart hence, do sleep, being without all sense, feeling and perceiving, until the day of judgement, or affirm that the souls die with the bodies, and at the last day shall be raised up, with the same, do utterly dissent from the right belief, declared unto us in the Holy Scriptures.'

But in Queen Elizabeth's time, when the Articles of the Church were re-settled, the 40th Article was dropped. Still, in the Burial Service of the Church there is a beautiful passage declaring that "The souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are with God in joy and felicity." It is probable also that few members of the Church of England, in repeating every Sunday the Apostles Creed, are aware that they are stating their belief in the two regions of the Intermediate State described in the parable before us. They speak of the state in which the rich man lift up his eyes, when they say "I believe that He (Jesus Christ) descended into hell (Hades)." They own to the existence of the state called Abraham's bosom or Paradise, where Lazarus was comforted, when they say "I believe in * Communion of Saints."

the

I would add an extract from Bishop Sherlock in connection with the doctrine of the Intermediate State and Purgatory. He says:2.-"There are some, who, observing that mankind shall not be

till the day of judgement, conclude that there is no intermediate that the soul sleeps with the body till the day of judgement.

A very foolish and unphilosophical opinion, for we may as reasonably think that the soul dies as that it sleeps in a state of separation. If the soul be a spiritual substance distinct from the body, it may live and act without it; and it is as easy and reasonable to defend the mortality of the soul as its sleeping; for if the soul must sleep when it is separated from the body, it must sleep for ever, if it never be re-united to the body again that it must live and die with the body; for such a sleep as this is not merely an image of death, but death itself. But from what I have now discoursed it appears, that though there be a great distance between death and judgement yet the soul does live and act, is happy or miserable in the meantime.”

3.—“ This notion does very great service also against Popery; for it gives an account of a Middle State without Purgatory. This has greatly imposed upon unlearned men, that the advocates of Popery have proved from the ancient Fathers that they owned a Middle State, which was neither Heaven nor Hell, and then presently conclude that this must be Purgatory. Now, it is very true, the ancient Christians did own a Middle State between Death and Judgment, which was neither Heaven nor Hell, but yet never dreamt of a Popish Purgatory. They believed bad men were in a state of punishment as soon as they left their bodies, but not in Hell; and that good men were in a state of rest and happiness, but not in Heaven. But they never thought of a place of torment to expiate the temporal punishment due to sin, when the eternal punishment is remitted-which is the Popish Purgatory, and the most barbarous representation of the Christian religion, though the most profitable, too, to the Church of Rome that ever was invented."

One more inference from this famous parable and I have done. If mistakes have been made by Judaising Christians as to the spiritual existence of man after death, is it not likely that mistakes have also been made as to the place where man is to be judged? According to the traditions of Jewish dotage, the spirits of the departed were to resume their bodies, and to be judged in the valley of Jehoshaphat. This was derived from a concrete rendering of Joel III., v. 11, 12. But Jehoshaphat simply means "The Lord hath judged;" in verse 14 it is called "The valley of (strict) decision," and no sane person would expect this prophetic rhapsody to be literally fulfilled in a small valley near Jerusalem. The momentous fact is that in the New Testament the scene of judgment is laid where the souls of the departed of all nations are gathered. Has the Christian world then been deceiving itself with concrete expectations, as the Jews did in regard to the coming of Messiah? This inquiry goes beyond the scope of the parable, but it is a necessary inference from its teaching. The essential points are that man goes direct from this world, at death of the body, into a spiritual state of existence in a substantial spiritual body, that state being happy or otherwise, according to his inward character.

JOT.