reply emphatically, Nowhere! There is not the ghost of a hint of it from Genesis to Revelation. Yet it is constantly spoken of as an undoubted fact; and one eminent writer has actually put in print that the evidence for it is "overwhelming!" What a despotic tyranny is exercised over the ablest minds by a fixed idea!

66

This, however, is only a fraction of the tremendous difficulty which has to be encountered by the assumption of man's necessary immortality. If Scripture is silent on that side, it is trumpettongued on the other. From beginning to end it positively labours to impress upon man that he is not an immortal, indestructible, but a dying, perishing creature; who, if he desires to inherit eternal life, must accept it as the free gift of God in Christ, and seek for it by patient continuance in well-doing. The alternatives of life and death, immortality and destruction, are incessantly put before us in every shape and form. Dogmatic assertions, warnings, promises, arguments, illustrations, and necessary inferences are massed together in such a way that it might have been thought impossible for any human being to misunderstand them. The very object of Christ's death is again and again declared to be, "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" yet Scripture, we are told, pre-supposes that man is absolutely imperishable, and must spend an everlasting life of some kind, whether he believes or not. It teaches that "whosoever doeth the will of God abideth for ever;" which pre-supposes that every one must abide for ever either in weal or woe.' ." It teaches that "if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever;" which pre-supposes that every man must live for ever, whether he eat of it or not,-presupposes the "unutterably solemn fact that each one of us in this cathedral must live on for ever and ever." It teaches that "the wages of sin is death;" which presupposes that man's spirit is essentially deathless, and that his body having been raised from its first temporary death, can incur no second death, but must "live eternally on in weal or in woe." It teaches that the "end" of impenitent sinners "is destruction," even "everlasting destruction;" that "like natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed," they "will utterly perish in their own corruption;" that they will be "cast forth as a branch and withered. . . cast into the fire and burned,"-burnt up like "chaff" with unquenchable fire; that "a fiery indignation" will "devour" them; that they shall be cut off," and "shall not be ;" that "into smoke they shall consume away;" that they shall "lose their own souls," -"lose themselves;" all of which pre-supposes-what ?-Why, something that would render it absolutely impossible for any one of these things ever to occur. In fact Scripture is tortured by this human philosophy into meaning the very reverse of what it says, nay of what it strains its voice to the utmost, in order to make men hear and understand.

We take our stand, therefore, on the plain consistent emphatic

teaching of the whole Bible from beginning to end; and reject that "tradition of men," which has obscured the glory of Christ, reduced to an unmeaning form the declaration that "God is Love," produced a frightful amount of infidelity, robbed the law of its terrors by making it threaten sinners with what they are sure will never be executed, incalculably weakened the saving power of the Gospel, and damaged the believer's whole spiritual constitution, by putting upon it an unnatural strain that God never intended it to bear. SAMUEL MINTON.

REMARKS ON HEBREWS XIII. 10.

"We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat, who serve the tabernacle."

THE ordinary explanation of this verse supposes it to draw a con

trast between Christians on the one hand, and followers of the Mosaic ritual on the other; and some commentators say of it that, "owing to the recondite nature of the metaphors employed,” it "involves no little difficulty." I am disposed to think that much of the reconditeness which it presents arises from its mistaken application, and take leave to suggest a simpler and (to me) more satisfactory explanation of the passage than the one commonly received. But first, let us look at the current explanation more in detail.

Dr. Bloomfield comments on the passage thus ;- "We Christians have our sacrifice (viz., that of Christ by his atonement, shadowed out in the law, and typified in the Lord's Supper), of which those who rest their hopes of salvation in the ritual sacrifices of the Mosaic law (viz., Jews or Judaisers) have no right to partake; i.e., they are not authorised to eat, with any hope of benefit thereby, seeing that they rest their hopes of salvation on another and very different one." Another more popular commentary is to the same effect:--"We Christians have a higher and more valuable sacrifice than the Jewish offerings, of which they have no right to partake while they remain Jews."

Now it is important to notice that this manner of explaining the passage makes several departures from the natural and literal sense of its language.

Passing by as unquestionable the metonymy which employs "altar to mean "the offering made upon it," we observe (1.) That the eating is taken as spiritual, meaning, as Dr. MacKnight expresses it," the partaking of the pardon which Christ hath procured for sinners by that sacrifice." (2.) The phrase, "they who serve the tabernacle," is taken to include not alone the priests (the "ministers" of the tabernacle), to whom "it is properly applicable," as Bloomfield admits, but also the general mass of the people

on whose behalf they ministered. (3.) "Serving the tabernacle " is thus taken to mean, in a general sense, "resting hopes of salvation on ritual sacrifices." (4.) If we ask why these are said to have "no right "to partake of the Christian sacrifice, seeing such persons were very specially entreated by that preaching which "began at Jerusalem" to become partakers of its benefits, we are answered, by an addition to the text, that they have no right thereto while they continue to serve the tabernacle; or, adopting Dr. Bloomfield's supplement, "are not authorised to eat, with any hope of benefit thereby."

It is thus seen that this explanation not only introduces "recondite metaphors," but even necessitates the making of tacit additions not only to the natural sense of the language, but even to the language itself. These may not be insuperable objections to the explanation in question, but they are at least a warrant for our inquiring whether there be no reasonable understanding of the passage that shall dispense with these departures from its natural sense-or, rather, whether the writer ever intended his words to have such reconditeness to those to whom they were penned.

The epistle was written to HEBREWS. What if, for the moment, the writer addressed them, not as Christians, but as members of the Hebrew nation? On such a supposition all mystery and metaphor disappear, and the verse becomes a plain and simple statement of a well-known fact. The tribe of Levi had been divinely called to "the service of the tabernacle "-observe the phrase (Numb. iii. 5-8; xviii. 1-8);—the chief charge and most sacred service being reserved for the family of Aaron. In return for the services thus rendered, the priests, and (if we may infer it from Deut. xviii. 1) even the auxiliary Levites, were allowed, among other "dues," to "eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire"that is, as explained more in detail in other passages, certain portions of the sacrifices "reserved from the fire." (Numb. xviii. 9; Lev. vi., vii., x., &c.) This was the rule,-that of the animal sacrifices offered under the law, certain portions were set apart for the priests as their "reward for their service in the tabernacle of the congregation," and of these portions the priests were permitted, nay, even commanded (see Lev. x. 16-19) to eat. But to this rule there were some exceptions, the most notable of which is recorded in Lev. vi. 30, in these words :-"No sin-offering, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TABERNACLE of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be BURNT in the fire." The instructions as to the burning whole of the bodies of such animals had already been given in chapter iv. : the matter is again referred to in chapter vi. 30, as an exception to the rights of the priests in the matter of eating the sacrifice which they offered.

Now, was it not to this exception that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was referring when he said :-"We (Hebrews) have

an altar whereof they (the priests) who serve the tabernacle, have no right to eat (are expressly forbidden to eat); for the bodies of those beasts, whose BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE SANCTUARY, by the high priest, for sin, are BURNED without the camp ?" Every term is now natural and unstrained in its application, and the connection between verses 10 and 11 is obvious, which is more than can be affirmed of them under the other explanation.

The whole question hinges on the proper reference of the opening "We." Is there any violence in supposing, as I have suggested, that the writer was making for the moment a national reference? Surely nothing could be more natural in one writing to Hebrews, and, as is generally admitted, to those who were familiar with the ritual still carried on in the undestroyed temple at Jerusalem. A careful examination of the epistle will show, moreover, I venture to think, that, while the epistle was written specially for the better instruction of those Hebrews who had admitted the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, it was also intended as an appeal to the undecided or hostile portion of the nation. Was it not mainly of the latter that the writer was thinking when he uttered the warning of chapter xii. 25: "See that ye REFUSE not him that speaketh ?" He speaks throughout as a Hebrew to Hebrews; why not so, in chapter xiii. 10, especially when by such a supposition the passage gains so much clearness ?*

Nor is anything lost to the lesson, which the passage is meant to teach, by the understanding now offered. Verse 9, says; "It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, not with meats," &c. A contrast is drawn between the inward strengthening derivable from spiritual truth, and the unprofitableness of any physical benefit derived from sacrificial meats. Then, referring to a well-known fact, the writer reminds them that, even in their Mosaic ritual, the superiority of the spiritual lessons of the sacrifices was shown. There were some sacrifices, and these the most solemn connected with the "purifying by blood," whose benefit was entirely one of grace, seeing even the priests were forbidden carnally to partake of the offerings. Again, just as in the old economy, this solemn sacrifice set forth the victim as an outcast to be carried beyond the camp, and burned to ashes-even so in the great antitypical sacrifice of Him whose blood was shed for the purification of the people. He suffered "without the gate," being "numbered among the transgressors," nay, even crucified between two thieves, as if himself a greater malefactor than they. "Let us, therefore, go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." Let us Hebrews no longer stumble at the offence of the Cross, for,

It may be worthy of consideration, besides, whether the Greek is not against the common understanding, which lays special emphasis on the we by contrast to "they who serve." The original has no such emphasis; "we have " is expressed without the personal pronoun.

66

DD

"surely he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; and the chastisement of our peace was upon him." Let us rather rejoice in his humiliation, taken as it is that he was the Great Deliverer of whom the prophets testified, for a time despised and "abhorred by the nation" (Isa. xlix. 7), but only for a time. Let us bear his reproach. It will pass away ere long. "Here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come that one which hath foundations" firm and sure, "whose Builder

and Maker is GOD."

Mount Florida, Glasgow.

M. W. STRANG.

THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN.

BRIEF NOTES OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL ADDRESS.

THE answer to the question, Of how many constituent parts does

66

man's nature consist? nowhere in the sacred Scriptures receives a more distinct reply than in 1 Thessalonians v. 23: But may the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved whole without blame in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." And in the face of this explicit and emphatic statement of an inspired apostle, it seems almost impertinent to repeat it. Paul's answer unquestionably would have been,-Man is a tripartite being consisting of spirit, soul, and body.

Now it is worthy of observation that this is essentially the same analysis of human nature that is first given us in Gen. ii. 7 :(1.) "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." Here we have the body.

(2.) "And breathed into his nostrils the breath of the spirit of life." Here we have spirit.

(3.) "And man became a living soul."

This then is the ruling Hebrew conception of the nature of man in its complex unity, and we may confidently add that this threefold division of human nature is never throughout the Scriptures lost sight of.

Nevertheless we find, in point of fact, that the opinions of Christians are very much divided in reference to this question. Besides those who fully accept this tripartite division of man's nature, as expressed in Paul's words; there are :—

I. Those who-without any intention of using an invidious term -we may be allowed to call Christian materialists, and who hold that man is essentially simply a body-an organised material form --and that this body is to all intents and purposes the man: a living body being a man alive, and a dead body being a man dead. These brethren do not indeed deny that man has soul and spirit,