there is not the least ambiguity, nor is there any other difficulty than that it is as plain and direct a contradiction of the commonly received opinion, as can possibly be stated. It may be proper by way of indulgence, to ask which appears most warrantable, either to allow this subject to stand exactly as the scriptures above quoted, state it, or to contradict those scriptures without any authority from scripture for so doing!"

Here you interpret the passage to signify, that Christ after his death, went and preached the gospel to the antediluvians who were then in prison. This interpretation you say, is so clearly expressed, that no words are wanting to carry it with plainness to the mind. To advance any other-interpretation, is, in your opinion, to deviate from the most natural language of scripture; nay, it is contradicting the scriptures, and learning the scriptures how to talk, rather than being taught by them. But notwithstanding you speak so positively on this subject, and feel so fully satisfied with this interpretation, we find you on another occasion, giving an exposition entirely different. Before noticing that interpretation, I will just observe, that a gentleman of your discernment would not have expressed himself with so much confidence, as you have done in the interpretation already stated, had not the passage been exceedingly clear. You must therefore acknowledge, that you were hasty and inconsiderate in giving your first interpretation with so much confidence, or that you were unauthorized in deviating from it.

Your second exposition of the passage is expressed in these words "The particular subject to which the apostle alluded, when he spake of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison, in consequence of being put to death in the flesh, and being quickened by the spirit, is thought to be this, viz. he went and preached to the Gentiles who were dead in trespasses and sins, and of a character simi

lar to those abominable people who were destroyed by the flood." It would appear by this exposition, to use your own language in your first piece, that instead of being willing to be taught by the scriptures, you were disposed to learn the scriptures how to talk; for this interpretation contradicts the apostle in almost every particular. Let us for a moment compare your interpretation of the passage, with the passage itself. The apostle says that Christ preached to the spirits in prison ; but you say, it was the apostles who preached. Peter says, that the preaching was to the spirits in prison; but you say it was to men in the flesh. Peter tells us that the disobedience was in the days of Noah; but you contradict this, and say it was in the days of the apostles. Peter informs us that the preaching was to those who were disobedient in the days of Noah; but you expressly contradict this, and say it was not to them, but to people who lived more than two thousand years after the flood! Thus it will be seen that your exposition of the passage expressly contradicts the language of the apostle in almost every particular. Search the whole field of theological controversy, and no instance can be found of a more glaring violation of all just rules of interpretation, and express contradiction of the language of a passage, than the exposition now before us exhibits. And if St. Peter could not express the sentiment, that the apostles preached to the Gentiles, in any plainer language than to say, that "Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing," I shall despair of ever learning his meaning.

Every person who pays any attention to the language of the passage, must learn this sentiment, that Christ, after his crucifixion, went and preached to the spirits of

* Gospel Visitant, Vol. III. p. 300.

those who were disobedient in Noah's day; and no one, I am persuaded, would ever have thought of any other interpretation, were it not to favor a preconceived opinion. And the interpretation we have given of the passage, is confirmed by what the apostle says in the next chapter. "For, for this cause was the gospe! preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Chap. iv. verse 6. Here it is asserted that the gospel was preached to the dead. Though you assert that the term dead, is used figuratively, to denote the dead in sin, still I think it is obvious from the passage and context, that it signifies the literally dead. The dead here are placed in opposition to the quick. The apostle says in the preceding verse, that Christ will judge "the quick and the dead" The quick, signifies those who are literally alive. Thus we find that the resurrection of Christ to literal life is in the passage in question, expressed by saying, he was quickened. You say yourself, "I understand that by being quickened by the spirit, is meant his resurrection.”*

Now if to be

quickened, signifies to be raised to life, then the quick must signify those who are literally alive, in opposition to those who are literally dead. Thus we see that by the quick and dead, is meant the living and the dead literally. And in the very next verse the apostle says, the gospel was preached to the dead. Now according to all just rules of interpretation, we ought to understand the word dead, in the 6th verse, in the same sense in which it is used in the context; which is to denote the temporally dead.

And this interpretation is confirmed by the passage itself. "For this cause was the gospel preached alṣọ to the dead." The term also denotes something in addition. But there is no propriety in saying that the gos

*Gos. Visitant, Vol. III. p. 276.

pel was preached also to those who are dead in sin, because those are the characters to which the gospel is generally preached. It would be absurd to say that the gospel is preached also to those to whom it is always or even generally preached. But understand the term dead in the sense for which we contend, and this difficulty is entirely avoided. Again; it is obvious that the word dead is to be understood literally, from the concluding part of the passage. The apostle says that the gospel was preached also to the dead, "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Here we see that the gospel was preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. This implies that they were not in the flesh; for it would be grossly absurd to say, that the gospel was preached to men in the flesh, that they might be judged like men in the flesh. You acknowledge the force of this remark, and consequently attempt to show that the word flesh signifies the law." But this construction is unnatural and arbitrary. Let us look at the context with a view to learn the meaning of the term, flesh. Verse 1st, "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin." Here the word flesh occurs twice, once it is applied to Christ, and once to men. But what does the word flesh signify when applied to Christ? "Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh," says the passage. But did Christ suffer for us in the law? You will not pretend this. You will readily admit that Christ was put to death in this world; that he suffered while in the literal body. Thus the apostle says in the parallel passage, "being put to death in the flesh." Here then we learn that the word flesh was used literally as applied to Christ. But what does it mean in the other

*Gos. Visitant, Vol. III. p. 302.

instance, where it is applied to men? The apostle says, "He that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh, to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." Will you pretend that the term flesh here signifies the law? Will you assert that men are slain by the power of the gospel, that they may live to God under the law of Moses? I know that you will pretend that the gospel was preached, that men might still remain under the law. Thus it clearly appears that the apostle in this chapter uses the word fesh literally, and hence the clause, "according to men in the flesh," signifies, according to men in this state of existence, or men who still inhabit a liteFal body.

Now St. Peter says, that the gospel was preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, that is, according to men here on earth. And this implies that they were not in the flesh, but that they had departed this life. Thus does the apostle in this chapter teach us that the gospel was preached to those who were literally dead. This then goes directly to confirm the account given in the preceding chapter of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison. Thus does the apostle Peter teach us in the plainest manner, that Jesus Christ, after his crucifixion, went and preached to those who had long before closed their eyes on temporal objects. That Christ visited the regions of the dead, or the place of departed spirits is taught, not only in the passages we have noticed, but also in several others. St. Paul speaking of the ascension of Christ, says, "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."* In the figurative language of scripture, a place of happiness is generally represented as above, and a place of misery as beneath. *Eph. iv. 9, 10.