the whole jury would be composed of none but warm and attached friends; and that the judge himself, would have the kindest and strongest sympathies in your favor, you would have strong hope in being able to stand. You know how love blinds the soul to faults, and turns even opposing evidence to its own account. In such a case mercy is almost sure to "triumph over judgment." But have you any hope of anything like this, that will serve you at the DAY OF JUDGMENT? None. True, He who will be the Judge on that day is Love, and is full of the tenderest redemptive mercy now. But whilst no change will have taken place. in His nature, He will, then, notwithstanding, appear and act as the inexorably Just One. Hear what His language will be then "Because I called, and ye refused," &c. Bring these mine enemies," &c. "Depart from me ye cursed," &c. Hear what He Himself says concerning His feelings, and those of His friends, on that Great day, towards the ungodly. "He that is ashamed of me," &c. Another thing which may serve your purpose and enable you to stand in the case supposed is : 66 VI. AN ABILITY TO PROVE THAT YOU HAVE RENDERED SIGNAL SERVICE TO THE STATE. Suppose that you had, by some heroic campaign hurled back from your country's shores the advancing tide of a terrible invasion; or, by some scientific discovery given a new impulse to the industry of the population, and introduced a new and bright era into commerce:-in such a case you might have hope of being able to stand in trial. Though found guilty, your past services would be felt to be such a set-off, as would obtain for you an acquittal, or at any rate reduce your punishment to a mere nominal thing. But have you anything like this to serve you at the DAY OF JUDGMENT? Have you any hope of being able to show that you have been of service to the aniverse? No! no! You will feel then, that the universe would have been better off, had you never existed.—Had you never thought, never spoken, never acted, never been, there Vol. IX. would have existed less crime and less misery in the creation. There is but one other conceivable thing which could serve your purpose and enable you to stand in the case supposed, and that is: VII. THE ASSURANCE THAT SOME ONE HAS SUCCESSFULLY INTERPOSED BETWEEN YOU AND THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY. Were it conveyed to you, on convincing evidence, that some one had been negociating, on your behalf with the sovereign whose prerogative it is to arrest the course of law, and that in consequence of his services, though you would on the day of trial, be known to have committed the crime for which you are charged, you would assuredly be let free ;-in such a case I conceive, you might look forward with calmness to the day of trial, and feel that you could stand. Now, have you any thing like this, in relation to the DAY OF JUDGMENT? If not, there is no hope for any of you being able to stand. Thank God! there is something like this. On the pages of the Bible I find written in sunbeams, that in consequence of what Christ has done, and is willing to do, for us as sinners, we may escape the sad consequences of our sins, and stand triumphantly in the Day of Judgment. Paul, in consequence of his connexion with Christ, hailed with a jubilant heart the Judgment; "Who is he that condemneth?" &c. Peter looked for the "hastening of the day of God?" &c. John's deepest aspiration was, " Lord Jesus, come quickly." All who vitally believe in the personal Christ have felt the same. "Bold shall I stand in that great day; Theological Notes and Queries. OPEN COUNCIL. [The utmost freedom of independent thought is permitted in this department. The reader must therefore use his own discriminating faculties, and the Editor must be allowed to claim freedom from responsibility.] THE CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT BETWEEN DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION. REPLICANT. In answer to QUERIST L. C.; p. 590, vol. VIII. I. Concerning Elijah and Moses. Whatever hypothesis may be entertained should at least be consistent with certified facts. In so far as any hypothesis may contradict any of these, it must be regarded as false. Now it is certified that Christ was "the first that rose from the dead;" Acts xxvi. 23. "The first-born among many brethren;" Rom. viii. 29. "The first fruits of them that slept." 1 Cor. xx. 23. "The firstborn from the dead;" Col. i. 18. "The first-begotten of the dead;" Rev. i. 5. The hypothesis of the resurrection of Moses's body directly contradicts the fact stated in the above passages, and must, therefore, be rejected. If, by "the glorified body and spirit of Elijah" L. C. means that Elijah had even then received the "glory of the sons of God," this is (1) a contradiction of what he afterwards affirms-That wherever that glory or future blessedness of the saints is spoken of it is with reference to a time subsequent to the resurrection; (2) it is a contradiction of the passages he cites in support of that statement; (3) it is a direct contradiction of what is said by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, xi. 39;"And these all having obtained a good report through faith received not the promises." This was affirmed of all the parties previously named by the writer;"Samuel and the prophets included. There was no exception made in favor of Elijah; his being translated going for nothing;-for so also was Enoch who is mentioned. Moses also is expressly named. Neither of these two celebrities, therefore, had then "obtained the promises;" and ver. 40 shows that they are not to receive them until the saints of the Christian dispensation also receive them; which is not before the resurrection. Yet is it not clear that both Moses and Elijah were then in a state of conscious existence, and had even then attained to a higher state of being than their former earthly state? And is not this one argument in favor of the doctrine of a state of conscious existence between death and the resurrection; and, for the saints, a state of blessed existence-a higher development of being than belongs to this life, yet lower than the "glory to be revealed?" II. Concerning the thief who on the cross asked Jesus to remember him, &c., I have to remark, (1) that Christ's answer to the thief is not fully given by L. C. For whereas he represents Jesus as saying to the thief "Thou shalt be with me in paradise; "what Jesus in fact said was, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Intentional or unintentional the omission is significant. (2) That Jesus Christ should be allowed to be the best judge whether or not it would be proper to use the terms "thou" and "me with a reference only to the Spirits of Himself and the thief; and further that if, as L. C. says, "that which God breathed into the frame of dust was not Adam; but that body after God had breathed into it became the Adam;" then it was not enough that L. C. should have said "the spirit alone is not the thou-the man;" he should have said "the spirit is not the man at all-the body is the man: "for granting what he says, the spirit is not even a part of the man. III. But what was the penitent sinner's prayer? and what was Christ's reply? (1) The prayer was "Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." (2) The answer was "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (1) The petition is understood as a prayer to be admitted into the kingdom of Christ when He comes into His kingdom. (2) The answer is understood as an assurance to the suppliant that his prayer was granted. (1) Christ "will come into his kingdom at the resurrection. (2) The promise was equivalent, therefore, to an assurance that the thief would receive the resurrection unto life eternal, and an entrance into the kingdom of our Lord-then. But IV. How was this assurance given? It was given in the pledge, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." This, therefore, was to the thief the pledge that at Christ's coming he would be "remembered," ie. received into the kingdom. The pledge was that they two should be together, THAT DAY, in PARADISE. Now this they either were; or, the promise was false. Their bodies were not in Paradise that day; Christ's body was in Joseph's tomb, but Paradise is in the third heaven; (2 Cor. xii. 2-4.) and their bodies were not together at all; Jesus was dead some time before the thief, and his body was taken away. Their bodies being separated, and not being in Paradise, how then were they together in Paradise, if it was not that their spirits were together in Paradise on that day? Since their bodies certainly were not together in Paradise, either their spirits were, or, Christ's promises was false. And whatever Paradise may be conceived to be, it must, at least, be something, the being in which, after death, would constitute to the thief a real pledge that when Christ comes into His kingdom he shall be " remembered," or admitted. Now the mere fact of dying on the same day with Christ would not secure this; the other thief and hundreds besides did the same ;-but was this to them an assurance of admission into His kingdom? If there was a state common to all the dead, their being in that state together would constitute no such pledge, unless Christ's entering into that state insured for all the dead an entrance into the kingdom when He comes : but He himself assures us that when He comes the wicked shall be banished from the kingdom. If there be a state of existence between death and the resurrection peculiar to those of the dead, who shall finally be received into the kingdom, a state of conscious, and blessed, though still unperfected, being, and if this state be called Paradise, then, the fact of the thief being in that state immediately after death, would certainly be to him the very highest pledge that Christ will remember him when He comes into His kingdom. Is not this the most natural way of understanding the facts of the case? Besides, since Paradise denotes a place of enjoyment, why should it have been used by Christ to designate a state of total unconsciousness? See 2 Cor. xii. 1-4. V. As to the statement, "where there is total unconsciousness," &c., I remark (1) such state of unconsciousness is not a revealed fact; it is only a theoretical assumption. (2) As a theoretical assumption it is open to debate on philosophical ground. (3) It is open to direct denial on the ground of Scripture; as being itself the denial of what is in Scripture, both plainly implied and revealed, viz., a state of conscious existence between death and the resurrection. it VI. L. C. says, "In the absence of explicit testimony as to the separate. existence appears to me to be presumptuous to assume it." Note (1). Does it not appear to him equally presumptuous to assume a state of "total unconsciousness" unsupported by any testimony at all? (2) The "absence of explicit testimony" is itself altogether an assumption. Scarcely could anything be more explicit than the words of Christ, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Their bodies, I repeat, were not in Paradise; clearly, therefore, their spirits must have been separate from their bodies, and together in Paradise ;-and as to what that implies, see under IV. Equally explicit is Rev. v. 8, and sequel; and also Rev. vi. 9, -11. (1) The persons are evidently of the dead. This is easily seen from the entire scope of chap. v.; while in chap. vi. 10, it is distinctly stated that they are "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God," &c. (2) They are in a state of intense consciousness; as is clear from the entire transactions:-from their singing, v, 9, &c.; their crying, vi. 10. (3) These transactions belong to a period in their existence (after their death and) before the resurrection. In v. 10 they say, "and we shall reign on the earth"plainly indicating that their reign was not yet begun; and in vi. 10. their cry is "How long, O Lord, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" "And it was said to them (ver. 11) that they should rest yet for a [little] season until their fellow servants also and their brethren that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled;"-showing most clearly that the earth was still in its probationary period; that the resurrection was not yet come, when these things were being enacted; and thus clearly and explicitly bearing testimony to the conscious existence of the souls of dead men between their death and resurrection. The passages mentioned by L. C. prove that the "kingdom" is not to be received before the resurrection; but they prove nothing in regard to Paradise, or the state between death and the resurrection, except Rev. v. 7; which clearly does not belong to the class of passages amongst which he places it. It belongs to the class bearing that explicit |