the book. Most of the defects, which the warmest advocate of our translation must admit to exist in it, arise from the neglect of particles. The same remark is applicable to the Latin and Greek versions. Propositions, having a close connection, appear detached from each other, or united in a manner so stiff and unnatural, that it cannot escape the notice even of the ordinary reader. This is doubtless, to some extent, the nature of the Hebrew style; yet a close study of these joints and sinews of the language would show, that it has more flexibility and a closer connection of parts, than is generally supposed. The conjunction Vau, for example, is almost everywhere regarded in our translation as equivalent to and, with some few exceptions in which it is rendered or. Almost all Hebrew scholars, however, admit that it has a much more extensive range of meaning, denoting connection, not only by way of addition, but also of consequence, cause and effect, purpose and motive, being often equivalent to the Greek orɩ, iva, and ows. It is sometimes disjunctive, expressing connection by way of contrast, and sometimes used as a particle of time, in which case it may be rendered when. In the proverbial or antithetical style it is often a particle of comparison; for the want of attention to which circumstance, some of the most pointed of the Proverbs of Solomon are reduced to the most naked truisms. The various uses of all the particles are clearly pointed out in the work before us, and illustrated by the most apposite examples.

The subject of the consecution of the accents closes the book. We can only make a very few remarks in relation to it. This is a department in which the best of Hebrew scholars have often confessed themselves deficient. The intrinsic difficulty of the subject has not been the only reason. It is impossible to enter heartily upon any pursuit, without a corresponding motive; and where, it has been often asked,-is the inducement, sufficiently powerful, to engage the mind in what appears so barren, so utterly destitute of utility and interest? Nothing but the disagreeable consciousness of failing, in what had so long been regarded as a branch of Hebrew scholarship, could overcome the repugnance felt at devoting time to what seemed a mass of rabbinical fooleries, utterly useless in respect to the substantial advantages of biblical interpretation. But the views presented by our author clothe this heretofore most perplexing of all studies, with an interest which we did not imagine it could

possess, and which other grammars had failed to impart. One important distinction, which we have met with nowhere else, presents the whole subject in a new aspect. The consecution of the accents is shown to be based on a most perfect system, combining the principles of rhythmical and logical harmony, and of great value as an ancient guide to the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. We are aware that we have indulged in the language of praise, and have been more anxious to point out excellencies than defects, yet perhaps nothing that has been said will appear so extravagant as the opinion now advanced, that Dr. Nordheimer has in reality rendered the Hebrew accents a branch of study, in which the reader may find, not only profit, but delight.

It is but justice to say, before we close, that the author, in the execution of the work, has had the assistance of two most valuable auxiliaries. This volume is the most beautiful specimen of Hebrew typography, whether from the English or American press, which we have ever seen. For this, and it is no small merit, it is indebted to Mr. John F. Trow, printer of oriental languages, whose types have been procured from the celebrated foundry of Karl Tauchnitz. We can only say in addition that the book is entitled to equal praise for its exceeding accuracy. The other aid to which we refer pertains to the spirit rather than the letter. With honorable frankness, the author acknowledges "the important assistance" of Mr. W. Turner, not only in giving the work "its English dress," but in perfecting "the scientific treatment of its details and the completeness and symmetry of its parts."

The closing remark of the preface reminds us of what is of more value than any merely critical commendation. It contains the author's devout acknowledgments to the God of his fathers for the assistance rendered in the composition of the work (and a fervent prayer that it may be a means of promoting his glory. The Laus Deo was a common conclusion of our older writers, both theological and civil. It has fallen into disuse in modern times, and we must confess that we were most agreeably surprised to find this pious custom revived in the work before us. Although little in accordance with the spirit of the age, the sentiment is purely scriptural; and it was uttered, doubtless, under a devout feeling that even learning is a divine gift, and that all true wisdom cometh from the Lord.

ARTICLE X.

THE INTERMEDIATE PLACE.

By Rev. Enoch Pond, D. D. Prof. Theol., Theol. Sem. Bangor, Me.

THE question of an intermediate place is very different from that of an intermediate state. This latter phrase has generally been understood to denote the conscious, active state of the departed, between the periods of death and the resurrection, in opposition to those who hold to a temporary sleep of the soul. All evangelical Christians, at the present day, are believers in the doctrine of an intermediate state. Indeed with the Bible in his hands, I see not how any one can disbelieve it.

But the doctrine of an intermediate place is quite a different matter. This teaches that the soul, when it leaves the body, does not go to heaven or to hell, but into an intermediate place, denominated in the original Scriptures and dns, where it remains confined, till the resurrection. Different ideas are entertained as to the nature and situation of this place, and the condition of those who inhabit it. Some fix it in the centre of the earth others are not so definite, but regard it as a nether world-a place of shades, of gloom, of repose. "It is always represented," says Campbell, "under those figures which suggest something dreadful, dark and silent; about which the most prying eye and listening ear can acquire no information." One part of ons, however, is represented as more pleasant, or less gloomy, than the other. Into this better compartment, the souls of the righteous descend at death, and are there confined until the resurrection. They are "the spirits in prison," spoken of by Peter, 1 Pet. 3: 19. The author of the "Physical Theory of another Life" represents this as "the chrysalis period" of the Christian. He describes him as in a state of comparative inaction," of "suspended energy," of "seclu sion," of "destitution." Into the other part of ons the souls of the wicked descend at death, and there await their final sentence to depart accursed into hell, the place prepared for the devil and his angels. The better apartment in ons is supposed to be the paradise of the New Testament; where are Abraham

66

and Lazarus, and into which the penitent thief entered, on the day of his crucifixion. The other apartment is called Tartarus; and is that place of torment into which the rich man was plunged at death.

In remarking on the subject thus introduced, it may be well to state plainly, and at once, that I reject this whole theory of an intermediate place; believing, according to most of the Protestant Confessions of Faith, that "the souls of the righteous at death, being made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and that the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.”*

The questions first presenting themselves, in entering upon this discussion, are: What is heaven? and, What is hell? What are we to understand by these important terms? I answer, that they denote, not mere states of being, but places of being the separate abodes of the righteous and wicked in the other world. So they are uniformly represented in the Scriptures. Heaven is spoken of as a "city which hath founda-. tions," a "house not made with hands," a kingdom which God hath prepared for them that love him." Our Saviour expressly calls it a place: "I go to prepare a place for you." John 14: 2. Hell, too, is uniformly spoken of as a place. It is the "place of torment"-the place "prepared for the devil and his angels."

In what parts of the universe these opposite places are situated, as God has not been pleased to inform us, it would be presumptuous even to conjecture. We may be sure, however, that our blessed Saviour is now in heaven. When he ascended from Mount Olivet, it is expressly stated that he was taken up into heaven." Acts 1: 11. In subsequent parts of Scripture, he is repeatedly and positively said to be in heaven. Heb. 9: 24, 1 Pet. 3: 22. Heaven is further spoken of as the residence of the holy angels. Mark 12: 25, 13: 32. To quote passages in proof of this point would be superfluous. Hence, to be with Christ and with the holy angels is to be in heaven. -Hell, too, in whatever part of the universe it may be situated, is the place where the devil and his angels are now reserved in chains under darkness, and to which, with all the

* Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 32.

finally miserable of our race, they will be remanded after the judgment.

The questions before us are, therefore, these: Do the souls of the righteous at death go to be with Christ and holy angels in heaven? And do the souls of the wicked at death go to the place of the devils in hell? Or do both go into different portions of the same general region, denominated in the original of the New Testament ons, there to await the resurrection of their bodies, before entering on their final state?

It is obvious, at a glance, that the decision of these questions must depend very materially on the signification of the word dns. And it is insisted by the advocates of the intermediate place that, in interpreting this word, we must have a strict regard to its ordinary signification, in the classics, and in cotemporary Jewish writers. But I would ask, in reply: Is the word used with such precision and uniformity by classical authors, as to fix upon it any determinate and invariable signification? And, if we admit that it is so used, will it of necessity follow, that it must be used in the same sense by the inspired writers? The word came into the New Testament, not from the Greek classics, nor from Josephus, but from the Septuagint, where it was introduced as a translation of the corresponding Hebrew term ; which is of too ancient a date to receive any modification from those classical or cotemporaneous authors, of which we have any knowledge. It might be presumed, therefore, that these words would be used in the Scriptures in a somewhat peculiar sense; and so I think we find them. And the proper question is not, how are they used by classic and Jewish authors, but, how in the book of God? If the language of Scripture is to be interpreted according to the opinions of Josephus, and his Jewish cotemporaries, we must receive, not only their paganized notions of ads, but a great deal more. We must receive their doctrine of the seven heavens, of the transmigration of souls, of purgatory, and of a semi-terrestrial, sensual paradise. That this last idea was common among the Jews, is evident from a question which the Sadducees proposed to our Saviour: "In the resurrection," or future life," whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."-Matt. 22: 28.*

*See Basnage's History of the Jews, Book 4, Chap. 32. Also, Wetstein on Luke 23: 43.