Those

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 represent 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. who put a figurative meaning upon the term grave in this passage, are not able to produce a single instance in the whole New Testament, where the word is used in that sense, but 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 another writer in another age of the world, and that too in a connexion where it is acknowledged that the language is the 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 writer in the days of Greece or Rome; especially when it is acknowledged that this ancient writer used the term in a sense entirely different from the rest of his cotemporaries? 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 the worl. Now it appears to us to be much more proper to explain the meaning of the word grave, by St. John's use of it, than to go to the Old Tes

tament 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 used figuratively to express the state of the spiritually dead in only one connexion. If the Old Testament, therefore, is to decide its meaning, it is much more natural to explain it by the general use of the word by various writers, than to explain it by one writer only, and that in an excepted case.

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 μνημεῖον, rendered grave in this passage, occurs at least 16 times in John's gospel. Four times it is applied to the grave of Lazarus, where all will acknowledge that it 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. Since this term is used 15 times by John in his 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 meaning best comports 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 clause, nothing more is meant, as all will acknowledge, than that the gospel is preached to the dead in sin. Now both scripture and experience teach us that many who hear the preaching of the gospel, do not listen to, or regard its requirements. Thus the clause, "they who listen shall live," implies that a part only of those who enjoyed the preaching of Christ obeyed his precepts at that time or were profited by what they heard. But not so in the 28th and 29th There we are told that all shall hear and come

verses.

forth. Here again, the difference between the two passages is such as leads us to the conclusion that they apply to different events.

4. The 25th verse says, "All that hear or listen sħall live," that is, all who obey shall come forth for the enjoyment of happiness. But this is far from being the case in the 29th verse. "Some come forth to life, and some to condemnation." Thus we see that these passages are far from teaching the same thing, and of course cannot be applied 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 the doctrines they teach are essentially distinct and dissimilar. The 25th represents the event spoken of as present; the 28th and 29th, as future; the former speaks of those 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 enjoyment, in this, a part come forth to condemnation; there, a retribution is precluded, and here, it is clearly taught. And what passages I ask, can be more dissimilar? Nothing but a system in distress could have induced any person to apply these passages to 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 this passage be interpreted of a spiritual resurrection, it makes perfect nonsense 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 experience no resurrection at all. Or in other words, their change is so great, that they are in the same situation after their change, that they were before! But does not every one see that this entirely destroys the passage? Again; this passage is introduced with a mark of attention"Marvel not at this." But if Jesus meant nothing more in the 28th and 29th verses, than what he had taught in the 25th, he must have trifled with a solemn subject. Suppose a public speaker, after having dwelt upon a subject for a considerable time, should call our attention, as tho some new subject of importance was to be introduced, and then should repeat what he had declared several times before. We should think the man partially deranged, or that he was sporting with his audience. But God forbid that we should ascribe such conduct to a teacher sent from heaven,

Some attempt to apply this passage to the Jews as a nation at the destruction of Jerusalem. But there is not a particle of proof for this application. The Jews as a nation, or the destruction of Jerusalem, are not alluded to in this passage or its connexion. Neither will the language of the passage bear this application. The language is universal. "All that are in the graves." There is no more propriety in applying this to a part of mankind, than there is of applying passages which speak of Christ dying for all, to a part of mankind; which application our brethren would be the last to admit. We have already shown that the passage speaks of those in their literal graves; and certainly no one will admit that all the literally dead were raised to life in the apostolic age. If we should admit that this resurrection was spiritual, it would not relieve the difficulty. All men in a state of moral death did not hear the voice of the Son of God, that is, the gospel at that period. It

cannot be said with a shadow of propriety that the gospel was proclaimed to all men at the destruction of Jerusalem.

We will go still farther, and for argument's sake, will admit that the resurrection was spiritual, and that the passage applied to the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem. Now I ask, in what sense did the Jews hear the voice of the Son of man at that period? They certainly did not hear the preaching of the gospel; for those Christians who were at Jerusalem, were commanded by our Savior himself to quit the city, and flee to the mountains. Neither is it probable that one to ten of them ever did hear the tidings of the gospel. In what sense then did they hear the voice of the Son of God?. Jesus made no personal appearing at that time. They could not hear the voice of the Son of God at all, unless the besieging army be considered that voice. But who will admit an absurdity like this? If the besiegers be the voice of the Son of God, then the Jews did not hear this voice any more in the apostolic age than they did when Nebuchadnezzar razed their city to the ground, and carried them captive to Babylon. Then every besieged city hears the voice of the Son of God. But away with absurdities like these.-But in what sense were the Jews raised at the destruction of Jerusalem ? Were they made better, or more virtuous? No; those who were sinful remained so, and came forth to condemnation. Now this resurrection to mean any thing, must mean that their state was altered either for the better or the worse. They were not made better, for the passage says they came forth to condemnation ; and other passages assert that at that time was a scene of trouble such as never was before. It follows then that they were made more unhappy, were plunged deeper in misery. This, one would think, appears more like sinking than raising them.