of deceit "who spake as never man spake " Far be the thought. It is so evident that a special judgment is taught in this passage, that you are free to acknowledge it, though this acknowledgment is fatal to your system.

But you inform us that our Savior was speaking of a spiritual resurrection in the context, and has given no notice of any change of the subject."-That Jesus was speaking of a spiritual resurrection in the context, is readily admitted, but that he did give intimation of a change of the subject, we shall attempt to show. And it is worthy of special remark here, that you yourself apply the 28th and 29th verses to an event totally distinct, and entirely different from any thing taught in the context. And certainly you would not apply the different parts of this chapter to different events, in direct opposition to your own statement, unless such an application was taught in the discourse. But to proceed;-In the 25th verse Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear, shall live." This is undoubtedly a moral or spiritual resurrection. But a spiritual resurrection admits of no special judgment to follow the resurrection. It only teaches us, that those who are dead in sin, are raised to newness of life or spiritual enjoyment. After speaking of a spiritual resurrection in verse 25th, Jesus says.in verses 20th and 27th, "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hatli he given to the Son to have life in hiinself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.' Here our Savior not only speaks of his ability to impart that life of which he had spoken in verse 25th, but speaks of his ability to execute judgment also. Thus we learn that he did change the subject of discourse. From that of a spiritual

* 2d Reply to Merritt, p. 32.

resurrection, which precludes the idea of a retribution, he changes to that of a literal one, connected with a retribution or judgment. This change of the subject is plainly taught by his speaking of executing judgment in contradistinction from raising men to spiritual life. "Hath given him power to execute judgment ALSO." Unless there is a change of the subject, the emphatic word, also, has no meaning. It is perfectly evident from the discourse itself, that there is a change in the subject.

Knowing that he had introduced something in addition to what he had been treating of, the divine Teacher says, "Marvel not at this ;" that is, though I have introduced something new, do not be surprised. And then, to confirm and illustrate what he had hinted relative to executing judgment, he adds the passage in question. "Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves, shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Now it is perfectly evident, from the manner of introducing the 28th and 29th verses, that they allude to a subject entirely diffe rent from what is taught in verse 25th.

By comparing the 25th verse with the 28th and 29th, we shall discover at once that they treat of different events. 1. In the 25th verse, it is said, "the hour is coming, and now is;" in the 28th, "the hour is coming." Here then is a striking difference; one is represented not only future, but present also; the other is represented as exclusively future. 2. It is said in verse 25th, "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God;" in the 28th, "all that are in their graves shall hear his voice." Here again is a striking dissimilarity. The former asserts that the dead shall hear. The term dead is used very frequently in the New Testament to repre

sent those in a state of condemnation-"dead in trespasses and sins." But the word grave is not used by any New Testament writer in that sense. Though you put a figurative meaning upon the term graves, in this passage, you are not able to produce a single instance in the whole New Testament, where the word is used in that sense; but you are under the necessity of repairing to one of the highly figurative visions of Ezekiel. But this is an unfair mode of interpreting any writer. It is, in fact, not explaining his meaning by his own uniform use of the term, but by the single use of it by another writer, in another age of the world, and that too in a connexion, where it is acknowledged, that the language is furthest possible from being literal. Who would feel justified in explaining the meaning of a term, in a writer of our own age and nation, by the use of this term in one connexion only in a single writer in the days of Greece or Rome; especially when it is acknowledged, that this ancient writer, in this instance, used the term in a sense entirely different from all his cotemporaries, and different from his own accustomed method of using it? But this would be no more unjust than to explain the word grave in St. John's gospel, by the sense in which an ancient prophet once used it. Now it appears to me to be much more proper to explain the meaning of the word grave by St. John's own use of it, than to go to the Old Testament to ascertain its meaning. But for the sake of the case, we will go to the Old Testament. The word grave occurs very frequently in the Jewish scriptures. But it is not even pretended that it is used to express the state of the spiritually dead, except by one writer, in one connexion only. If the Old Testament, therefore, is to decide the question, it is much more rational to explain it by the general use of the word by various writers, than to explain it by the use of one writer only, and that in an excepted case.

Four

Now if we let St. John be his own expositor, a privilege which all other writers claim, the matter will be decided at once. The term uvηua, here rendered grave occurs at least sixteen times in John's gospel. times it is applied to the grave of Lazarus, where it will be admitted by all, that the term signifies the place of the literally dead. Eleven times it is applied to the grave or sepulchre of Christ, where its meaning will not be disputed. Now as this term is used fifteen times in John's gospel to signify the literal' grave, it is natural and just to conclude, that it has this meaning in the remaining instance; especially as this is the sense in which the other New Testament writers uniformly use the term, and this sense best agrees with the passage itself.

3. In the 25th verse Jesus says, "They that hear, or listen," as Wakefield renders it, "shall live.” This plainly implies that all do not listen or regard the voice. By the dead's hearing the voice of the Son of God, mentioned in the preceding part of the verse, nothing more is meant, as you will acknowledge, than that the gospel is preached to those who are dead in sin. Now both scripture and observation teach us, that many who hear the preaching of the gospel, do not listen, or regard its requirements. Thus the clause, "they who listen, shall live," implies that a part only of those who enjoyed the preaching of the gospel, obeyed its requirements at that time, or were altered by what they heard. But not so in the 28th and 29th verses. There we are told that all shall hear, and come forth. Here again the difference is such as to lead us to the conclusion, that the two passages cannot apply to the same event.

4. The 25th verse says, "all that hear shall live ;” that is, all that come forth, shall enjoy happiness. But this is far from being the case in the 29th verse. There we are told, that "some shall come forth to life, and some to condemnation.” Thus we see that these passa

ges are far from teaching the same thing, and of course cannot apply to the same event. The latter passage is introduced as something in addition to the former, and different from it; and by comparing the passages together, we find that they teach doctrines essentially distinct and dissimilar. The 25th verse represents the event spoken of as present; the 28th and 29th, as futures the former speaks of the dead in sin; the latter, of those. in their literal graves: in the one case, a part only obey the voice; in the other, they all yield obedience to the summons in that, all who obey come forth to enjoy ment; in this, a part come forth to damnation, there, a retribution is precluded; but here, it is clearly taught. And what passages, I ask, can be more dissimilar? Nothing but the bias of system, I should think, could lead any person to interpret these passages of the same

event.

Further; the 28th and 29th verses cannot be explained in a spiritual sense without involving the greatest absurdity. A resurrection implies a change; it is taking men from one situation, and placing them in another, different from the former. But if the passage be interpreted of a spiritual resurrection, it makes confusion of the passage. It would then amount simply to this ;Those who are dead in sin experience a great change, even a resurrection; they are raised to that degree, that they are sunk much deeper than before. Or they are brought from a state of moral death, to what? a state of moral life? No-they are brought from moral death to moral death! that is, they have experienced no resurrection at all! Or in other words, their change is so great, that they are in the same situation after they have experienced this change, as they were before. But does not every person see that this entirely destroys the consistency of the text? Besides, the passage is introduced with a mark of attention-"Marvel not at this!"