language, for he uses precisely the same phraseology in verse 28, which he used in verse 25. But by the time Mr. H. reached page 227, he seems to abandon the emphatic word also on which he placed his dependance for a change of subject.

That persons, yea, the whole Jewish nation are said to be in the graves, who are not naturally dead Mr. Hudson admits. Thus Ezekiel, chap. 37: 11— 14, says "Then he said unto me, son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophecy and say unto them, thus saith the Lord God, behold, O! my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel: And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O! my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live; and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." In this passage the Jews are not only said to be in the graves, but to have them opened and to be brought up out of the graves, yet no one thinks of a literal resurrection, but of a revival of the nation. That the Jews were familiar with this figurative mode of speaking is shown by a quotation from Whitby on 1 Peter 4: 5, in another place.When our Lord uttered the words under consideration, be appears to have had this very passage of Ezekiel in his eye. He was addressing Jews, of whom Ezekiel spoke; he uses the very phraseology of the prophet; and it is allowed that in the context he was not speaking of a literal but a figurative death. That he changed his subject from a figurative to a literal death and resurrection, remains yet to be proved, for Mr. Hudson's effort to do this en

tirely fails. All that he says, pages 177, 178, about mnema, rendered grave, being used sixteen times in John's gospel to mean literally a grave, is useless, until he proves that John in the passage spoke of a literal death and resurrection. Why should he use the word grave literally if he was only speaking figuratively?

The Jews of whom Ezekiel spoke, and whom our Lord addressed, were not only dead but buried in their lusts, or in the language of the prophet, “were in the graves." A few of them under our Lord's ministry, had heard his voice, and were revived during the period expressed, verse 25, by the phrase "now is." But he says in the passage before us, "the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth." Come forth to what?

1st. "They that have done good" shall come forth "unto the resurrection of life." For the nature of the life here referred to, see on Matt. 18: 8. Mark 9: 42-47. Matt. 25, and other passages in my First and Second Inquiries. There it has been shown that "to enter into life" and "to go away into everlasting life" refer to our Lord's kingdom which at the end of the Jewish dispensation came with power. Then he came in his glory. Then the redemption of his disciples came and they shone forth in the kingdom of their father. In one word, they came forth to happiness, or the enjoyment of the blessings of our Lord's kingdom. They had done good, and at this period he said to them "come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

2d. "And they that have done evil unto the resuroba rection of damnation.” The word krises, here rendered damnation, it seems teaches Mr. Hudson that a punishment in a future state is meant. The same

at

word is rendered judgment and condemnation, verses 22, 24, 27, which must then mean, that the Father hath committed all future punishment to the son, and given him authority to execute it. Yea, according to his statements, this future punishment is after the resurrection, though Paul has told us, that then cometh the end and he has delivered up the kingdom to God the Father. What damnation did our Lord mean then? I answer, the damnation of hell, which our Lord told the Jews they could not escape, Matt. 23: 33, and which I have shown did not refer to punishment after death, but to the temporal judgments of God which came on the unbelieving Jews at the close of their dispensation. Then they came forth to a damnation the like had never been before nor shall the like be again. On them came all the righteous blood shed upon the earth.

It will be seen presently, that in all the passages, universally allowed to treat of the resurrection, not a word is said about any coming forth to a resurrection of damnation. If the doctrine Mr. Hudson teaches from this passage be true, he will certainly admit, that its importance demanded it to be frequently taught, and, we might from its very nature expect it to be taught in connexion with the resurrection. That it is not, is indisputable, but I must leave it with him to account for this omission.

3d. When shall the resurrection of the dead take place? Some say, it takes place at every man's death. But certainly Martha did not think so, for she said concerning Lazarus-" I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." She probably borrowed the phrase last day, from what she heard our Lord say, John 6: 39, 40, 44, 45, where he four times spoke of the resurrection, as being in the last day. If the resurrection is at a man's death, she ought to have said "I know that he

rose four days ago," for Lazarus had been four days dead. But she spoke of the resurrection and the last day as simultaneous events. It appears to me, that the resurrection, the last day, the period called the end, and the coming of Christ, all refer to the same period. But how many years, or ages until it arrives, the Bible, so far as I understand it, does not inform us, and I have no desire to be wise above what is written.

4th. What is the nature of the resurrection state? This will be best ascertained by considering the pas sages where it seems to be described.

Matt. 22: 23-34. Mark 12: 18-28. Luke 20: 27-36. The reader will please turn to these passages and read them. They contain our Lord's dis course with the Sadducees, respecting the woman who had seven husbands. We shall notice 1st, The Sadducees' question; "therefore in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her." This question, had no respect to the soul in a disembodied state, for it appears from Acts 23: 8, that the Sadducees did not believe in either angels or spirits. It wholly respected the resurrection of the body; hence they do not say, whose wife shall this woman's soul be, of the seven, in its disembodied state? No; but "in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven ?" This is evident also from Mark's account, for he says- "in the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise." It is also evident from our Lord's reply to their question. Mark says "for when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. And as touching the dead that they rise." Luke's account confirms this. The Sadducees adopted the princi ple of analogy, and reasoned on it between the pres ent and future state, and proposed this question to our Lord, as presenting a serious difficulty against

the resurrection. It is adopted by Mr. Hudson and others, and made great use of in establishing both limited and endless punishment after death.

That it is wrong to adopt it, appears to me evident, from several considerations.

1st. If it is onee admitted, who shall fix its bounds, how far it may, or may not be used, in reasoning betwixt the two states? Admit this famous principle of analogy, and it is easy to make the future state, pretty much the same as the present. For example; people eat, drink, sleep, labor, marry, sin, and die in this state, and reasoning on the principle of analogy, we may conclude they will do the same, or similar things in a future state. In fact the Sadducees did reason thus, for as people married and were given in marriage here, they concluded it must be so in a future state. Reasoning on the same principle we may also conclude, that people in a future state will build meeting-houses, employ preachers, hear sermons, get up revivals of religion, be divided into a variety of sects, and indulge in the same sectarian feelings as they do here. Again, people in this state are punished for their crimes, and on the principle of analogy we ought to conclude they will also be punished in the future state. Mr. Hudson reasons, on this principle, that men will be punished after death for their sins committed here. But, if this be correct, why did he not also conclude, that men would sin in a future state, and be punished also for these ; or go into another future state to suffer for them? Thus they might go on forever, sinning in one state, and being punished in the next. Mr. Hudson cannot be ignorant, that some, reasoning on this very principle of analogy, hold to the doctrine of endless misery, on the ground of endless sinning. If he will only lend me his principle of analogy for a few moments, I shall, 1st, prove his limited future pun