lem, worship the Father." In the above two instances it is admitted, on all hands, that it cannot be limited even to a thousand years, but spreads itself over the whole gospel dispensation. "And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified." In this instance, also, it is used for period instead of the twelfth part of a day. 1 John ii. 18: "Little children, it is the last [ga] hour"-(the same word that is used in the above instances, and by the same writer, too)-or "time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists; whereby we may know it is the last [ga] hour or time." I think, in the above instances, all must admit that the inspired writer means, by " hour," the period included from the time he wrote to the end of all things. John, therefore, in some instances, uses the term for a long and undefined period. Plato and other Greek writers use it in the same manner, If this be true, it will take something more than verbal criticism to prove that it includes anything less than a long period, when applied to the resurrection or judgment. Brother Whedon's argument, therefore, based upon the term hour," can have no weight when applied to the resurrection of the just and unjust. The scriptural meaning of the phrase, in the above instances, is time, or period: the "time" cometh and

66

now is the period cometh and now is. But John, especially, uses it in this sense.

2. What is the meaning of day-last day? Brother Whedon says "it means a common, terrestrial day," even when applied to the day of judgment! Does he really believe this, or was it an oversight? Mr. Wesley thought that, when applied to the judgment, it meant at least a thousand years-perhaps more. I incline to the same opinion. And brother Whedon will allow me to embrace Mr. Wesley's view of the judgment without charging me, I trust, with heresy. Although my views are not settled in reference to some circumstances connected with the judgment, yet, at present, so far as the length of that day is concerned, I adopt the views of Mr. Wesley, remarking that "judgment will begin with the house of God," and will spread over the space of a thousand years or more. what does the Bible say upon this subject? "I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work." "O that thou hadst known in this thy day." He hath appointed "another day." "Saying in David, To-day." "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and was glad." "Day of salvation." In the above instances the term day evidently means an undefined length of time-the time for saving souls-the time when one may be saved-the Gospel dispensation—and the day of Christ. And these are abundant to show

But

that verbal criticism, limiting it, in doubtful cases, to "a common earthly day," would be a procedure that critical acumen would scarcely sanction. To use a term familiar with brother Whedon-"It would be absurd." In one instance, (1 Cor. iv. 3,) Paul uses day [nuegas] for judgment; and this idea, I believe, is frequently included in the term, "day of the Lord." I only need to add to this that Peter, and some of the early fathers, understood by "the day of the Lord"-the "last day"-a thousand years. Peter, in speaking of this day of the Lord, says, "One day with the Lord is as a thousand years;" and Barnabas, Paul's associate, says, "One day with the Lord is a thousand years.' And he supposed "the day of the Lord" to be the seventh millenary or thousand years. Bishop Newton quotes Rabbi Ketina, in the Talmud, with others, as saying that "the world shall endure six thousand years; and one thousand years it shall be laid waste-in which all the enemies of God shall be destroyed-and in which the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day""-or in that thousand years. No criticism, therefore, on the word "day," " "days," or "last day," or "last days," can prove that the word is to be limited to "a common earthly day" of twentyfour hours, when applied to the day of judg

6

* By waste is meant, uncultivated, or growing spon. taneously.

ment; and is it not amazing that brother Whedon should have based his argument upon such an assertion?

:

But I now proceed to the question-Are there two resurrections? I answer, Undoubtedly there are; and I take them to be literal. I begin with John v. The Savior is conversing upon his Godhead. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." The union is so intimate that one cannot work without the other. "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.' Our blessed Lord then remarks, with direct reference to the position here laid down, that the Father raises the dead- -so also does the Son-"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:" and then adds, after another explanatory clause, "Marvel not at this"-that the hour is coming when a part of the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and live-" for the hour," or time, "is coming, in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good, at [is] the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil, at the resurrection of damnation." So plainly do these texts of Scripture point out two resurrections, that I know not how it

could be done more perfectly in so few words; and particularly when it is remembered that many of the Jews did not believe in the resurrection of the wicked, but only in the resurrection of the just.* For my right hand I would not affix a meaning to this text which the Son of God did not intend. But, after the most careful and prayerful attention to this subject, I believe no true criticism can make it mean anything less than two resurrections. Why did not Christ say, "shall come forth at the resurrection-they that have done good, to life-they that have done evil, to damnation?" But instead of this, he names specifically two resurrections-the resurrection of life-the resurrection of damnation. There could be no resurrection of life if half of the multitude that came forth were to be damned; and there could be no resurrection of damnation if half, or more, of the multitude that came forth were to be saved; it would then have been a mixed resurrection. In such a case it would have been called the resurrection-not resurrection OF LIFE, and only life, as the words plainly imply; nor would it have been called the resurrection of damnation, for the same reason. This view of the passage is confirmed by what the Savior says in the verses preceding; the sentiment of which is, that the Son, not only while on earth, quickened or

*See Adam Clarke on John, chap. vi.