defending his conduct for healing a man on the Sabbath day. Keeping this in view, let us come directly to the passage. It is said "Marvel not at this for the hour is coming." Marvel not at what, let it be asked. Answer: at what our Lord had just stated, verses 26, 27, that the Father had given to the Son to have life in himself, and had also given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the son of man. Two things demand attention:

1st. To what period of time did our Lord refer by the expression "the hour is coming?" Mr. Hudson, in common with our orthodox brethren, say, the end of this world, or the general resurrection of the dead. But they take this for granted, and here their mistaken view of the passage originates. Scripture usage of this expression is entirely against them. It occurs only in the following places, which I shall quote at once. The Greek phrase is erhatai hora, "the hour is coming," and is used by our Lord, verse 25 of this chapter. "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." Again, John 4: 21. "Jesus saith unto her, woman, believe me the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." Verse 23, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." Again, John 16: 2, "the hour cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." Verse 4, "and these things have 1 told you, that when the time shall come ye may remember that I told you of them." Verse 25, "these things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in prov erbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father." Verse 32, "behold the hour cometh, yea, is now come,

that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

Mr. Hudson contends that the passage before us "holds forth the idea of a retribution—a retribution which is to take place at a specified time or period." But, does he proceed to show that this specified time is at the resurrection of the dead? No, let the reader turn to his Letters, p. 173-185, and he will see that he does not even attempt this, but assumes it, and proceeds as if his readers were bound to take his word for it. But this was the first, yea, the chief thing he ought to have settled, for he may now see that all he has said in these thirteen pages is at onceoverturned from those places where the phrase erhatai hora, "the hour is coming," is used. The word hora, rendered hour, is in other places rendered by the word time, and is so rendered by some in the passage under consideration. That the whole phrase "the hour is coming," or "the time is coming," has no reference, in any one of these texts, to the time of the resurrection I am confident Mr. Hudson will admit. He, and all others, will allow, that a moral, not a literal, resurrection is referred to at verse 25. I ask him-did our Lord mean that at the general. resurrection people should not worship at mount Gerizim, nor at Jerusalem? Dr. Whitby, quoted inthe Magazine referred to, shows that he alluded to the time when the Jewish system was to be abolished, as Malachi foretold, ch. 1: 11. and which. Paul, Heb. 8: 13, says was ready to vanish away. The Hebrews saw this day approaching, 10: 25. And John, 1st epist. 2: 18, says the last hour of it had arrived. The very same language our Lord uses at verse 25, "the hour cometh and now is," he had used, John 4: 23. But will Mr. Hudson or any other man say he referred to the resurrection of the

dead by this language? Or will he affirm that our Lord, John 16: 2, 4, meant that his apostles were to be killed at the hour of the general resurrection? And that then they would remember that Christ told them of this, while he was on earth with them? No; it is obvious our Lord referred to the period of persecution which preceded the destruction of Jerusa lem in which his disciples were to be involved. See Matt. 24: 9-15. Again, I ask him, did our Lord, John 16: 25, 32, mean that he should not show his disciples plainly of the Father until the general res urrection of the dead? And did he mean, that at this period every one of them should be scattered to his own? Surely not. But when Christ was apprehended in the garden, all his disciples forsook him and fled. This answered to the hour which he said "is

now come." Again; at the destruction of Jerusalem they were scattered every man to his own, for then all were commanded to hasten their escape from the city. See Matt. 24: 16: 23. This answers to the period "the hour is coming," mentioned in the above passages. If Scripture usage of a phrase can ever determine its meaning in a particular text, it is determined here, that the hour which was coming, mentioned in the passage before us, meant not the general resurrection of the dead, but the period of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is designated by the expression "the hour is coming," and our Lord could not speak of it more definitely, for it is said, Matt. 24: 36, "but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." It was to come on that generation as a thief in the night, and all his disciples were commanded to watch, for they knew neither the day nor the hour when the Son of man cometh.

I might here end my remarks; for it is evident Mr. Hudson is mistaken respecting the period re

ferred to by the phrase "the hour is coming." It has no reference to the end of this world, or the general resurrection, but referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, which changes the aspect of the whole passage. But let us consider

2d. The nature of the resurrection which our Lord said should take place at the period he called "the hour is coming." Anastasis is twice rendered resurrection in the passage. Many people conclude, that this word can mean nothing else, but a literal resurrection from death. This is a great mistake. Dr. Campbell, on Matt. 22: 23, says "The word anastasis, or rather the phrase, anastasis ton nekron, is indeed the common term, by which the resurrection, properly so called, is denominated in the New Testament. Yet this is neither the only, nor the primitive import of the word anastasis. It denotes simply, being raised from inactivity to action, or from obscurity to eminence, or a return to such a state, after an interruption. The verb anistemi has the like latitude of signification, and both words are used in this extent by the writers of the New Testament, as well as by the Seventy. Agreeably therefore to the original import, rising from a seat, is properly termed anastasis, so is awaking out of sleep, or promotion from an inferior condition. The word occurs in this last sense, Luke 2: 34." It is very evident from this that nothing can be drawn from the word anastasis in favor of a literal resurrection. On the contrary it gives a very wide range of interpretation.

What leads many to conclude, that a literal resurrection is taught in this passage is, the language, "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice." But why not also conclude from verse 25, that the dead mean the naturally dead? For we have as much reason to conclude this, as that all in the graves, verse 28, mean persons literally in the tombs or sepul

chres. This no man can question, until he contends, that our Lord changed his subject in verse 25, from a figurative death to a literal in verse 28. This Mr. Hudson does contend for, and avers this change of subject is intimated by the word also, verse 27. He says page 176, "unless there is a change of the subject, the emphatic word also has no meaning." But Mr. Hudson forgot himself; for commenting on 1 Peter 3: 18, 19, p. 227, he says concerning this very word also; "For this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead. The term also denotes something in addition." In fact he goes on, page 176, to say our Lord introduced something in addition in this very passage. But surely his superior knowledge of language never taught him, that something in addition, and an entire change of subject were the same thing. But in page 176, he says"It is perfectly evident, from the discourse itself, that there is a change in the subject." Again on the same page, "Now it is perfectly evident, from the manner of introducing the 28th and 29th verses, that they allude to a subject entirely different from what is taught in verse 25." To whom pray is all this so perfectly evident? No doubt to Mr. Hudson it appears so. But I ask him, what evidence does he give his readers to make all this evident to them? Nothing, but his saying it is perfectly evident, a thing which does not happen to convince me. But I would now ask Mr. Hudson, is it not perfectly evident he is mistaken in the time to which the Saviour referred by the phrase, "the hour is coming?" This we think his candor will admit. His attempt to show, that our Lord changed his subject in the course of three verses, only shows to me, that this never can be done, but only exposes the weakness of the cause he has undertaken to defend. He must admit, that if our Lord changed his subject, he did not change his