[5] Rev. xxi. 27.[8] 2 Cor. v. 10.[14] Acts xxiv. 15.[15] See Luckock, “The Intermediate State,” pp. 14, 15.[17] S. John xx. 17.[19] The expression is borrowed from the custom among the Jews of reclining instead of sitting at a banquet. The guest was stretched upon a couch, his left elbow resting upon a cushion close to the table, his feet being towards the outer side of the couch, which was away from the table. By slightly bending back his head he could touch with it the breast of the guest on his left hand, and speak to him in a low voice. Thus S. John bent back upon our Lord’s breast at the Last Supper to ask Him, “Lord, who is it?” and is therefore spoken of as “he who leant upon His breast at supper.” To sit therefore, or to rest in the bosom of Abraham, represented the happy lot of those who had passed to Paradise.[23] Mozley, Univ. Serm., p. 155.[24a] Isaiah xxxiii. 17.[24b] Psalm xvi. 11.[24c] 1 John iii. 2.[25a] 1 Peter v. 4.[25b] 1 John iii. 2.[25c] Col. iii. 4.[25d] 2 Tim. iv. 3.[26] Advent Sermon, “The Day of the Lord.”[28] Rev. vi. 9, 10, 11 (Revised Version).[34a] 1 Thess. v. 23. But the A.V. hardly brings out the full force of the distinction. The definite article has a possessive force, as if it were “your spirit, your soul, your body”; as though the spirit was as distinct from the soul as each of them is distinct from the body.[34b] Heb. iv. 12.[34c] 1 Cor. ii. 14.[35a] 1 Cor. xv. 44.[35b] S. James iii. 15.[35c] Jude 19.[35d] Gen. ii. 7.[37] Mason, “Faith of the Gospel,” p. 85.[41a] For example, Acts vii. 60; S. John xi. 11, 14; 1 Thess. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 18, 20.[41b] Rev. xiv. 13.[43] Phil i. 21.[44] 1 Peter iii. 18.[47] Isaiah i. 2.[63] See p. 100 infra.[72] In the A.V. the words in v. 18 are printed differently from the R.V. In the former the reading is “quickened by the Spirit,” as though S. Peter meant to assert, that it was by the special operation of God the Holy Ghost that our Lord, after He died upon the Cross, still lived. But this rendering entirely destroys the evident antithesis which is marked in the contrast between “put to death” and “quickened,” and between “flesh” and “spirit.” That antithesis limits the effect of Christ’s death to His human Body, while His human Spirit was still alive.[73] 2 Peter ii. 5.[74] The same word is used constantly in the N.T. for the special proclamation of the Gospel.[75] 1 Peter iv. 6.[84] Thus the Catechism of the Council of Trent states that “There is a Purgatorial Fire where the souls of the righteous being tormented are purified.”[86] In the Holy Communion the priest and the people offer to the Father “the one full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” The Christian Society is called in 1 Peter ii. 9, a “royal priesthood,” (Βασίλειου ιερατευμα), and in Rev. i. 6 “kings and priests to God.” (Βασιλεις και ιερεις); and as ιερατευμα and ιερεις are sacrificial terms, it is to be inferred that a Sacrifice is really offered by them. As Christ perpetually, being a “Priest forever,” and therefore “having of necessity something to offer” for ever (Heb. viii. 3), presents in the Holy Place not made with hands, in Heaven itself, the Sacrifice of Himself before the eyes of the Father, so, at every Altar on earth, the “kings and priests” being a sacrificing priesthood, represent and commemorate the same sacrifice and none other, a sacrifice which never can be repeated.[87] See Dr. Maclear on the Articles, p. 368. If the Sacrifice on the Cross served one purpose and effected one propitiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass another, then the inference is that they were themselves, so far, different things. It was the same Body of Christ which was offered in each case, but the sacrifices of the same Body were different. Therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass was a repetition of the Sacrifice on the Cross for a distinct object and a distinct purpose. It was supplementary, and supplied a defect which the Sacrifice on the Cross failed to supply![88] What has been said on the subject of “The Sacrifices of Masses” for souls in Purgatory must not be understood as implying that the Sacrifice in the Holy Communion has no efficacy, when pleaded in behalf of the souls in the Intermediate State. To use the words of Bishop Forbes, “The application of the Blessed Eucharist to the departed must in our Church stand and fall with the practice of prayers for the dead. In its aspect of the great oblation, the Holy Communion may be considered as prayer in its most intense and highest form. If it is unlawful to pray for the faithful departed, it must be unlawful to remember them in the sacred mysteries; but, if the first be permitted, the second must be so likewise.” (Article XXXI., p. 63.) The subject of Prayers for the Dead is dealt with in the next Address, page 101 sq.[92] Psalm xxvii. 1.[96] A friend has suggested that Moses and the prophets may, one after the other, have reported to Abraham the occurrences on earth in which they had severally themselves taken part, and that, therefore, we have in this narrative no more than an illustration of the mutual intercourse which exists in the Intermediate Life. To this it may be replied that this suggestion, so far from discrediting, really confirms the argument in the sermon. The suggestion is an attempt to explain the mode by which knowledge of what passes here is attained, which is certainly no disproof of the existence of such knowledge. But it is safer to say that, some how or other, the denizens of the Intermediate State do probably know, as Abraham certainly knew, occurrences on earth.[98] Both these illustrations are, I find, referred to by Canon McColl in his “Life Here and Hereafter,” pp. 105, 106. But may I presume to question the value of his illustration of our Lord’s knowledge of what was said, in His absence, on the way to Emmaus, and by S. Thomas? Our Lord’s knowledge after His Resurrection, and indeed at any time, is scarcely on a level with the knowledge possessed by souls in the Intermediate State of what passes on earth.[99] There is so much doubt as to the bearing upon this point of the words in Hebrews xii. 1, that I have not referred to it. Yet I would suggest that the comparison of our life on earth to the endeavours of the runners in the games of the amphitheatre implies that those efforts are made under the gaze of a cloud of spectators. The existence of the spectators, and their interest in the contests, are integral facts in the similitude, and essential elements in it.[100a] Eph. i. 23.[100b] 2 Cor. v. 8.[102] See 2 Macc. xii. 44, 45.[103a] See Plummer, Expositor, Pastoral Epp., p. 324.[103b] Forbes on 39 Articles, p. 612.[104] See the note on p. 88, Address viii. supra.