less assumption; no facts have been adduced to sustain it. The only real conflict in the matter is between Revelation and Professor Bush's theory.

The Professor's third "suggestion," is a formal acceding to Semler's notorious principle of "accommodation," by the aid of which he would also endeavour to obviate the difficulty presented by this text. But neither can German neology here lend our author any aid, as we have fully shown in Part II., chapter I., above.

Under this third and last of his " suggestions," he also introduces Dan. xii. 2, and supposes that our Saviour had that passage in mind when he uttered the words under consideration: and if so, even the Professor must admit, that the Prophet also announces the resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous. It would surely be, what was once called, "a retrograde improvement," to explain what is clear and obvious, by that which is dark and difficult.*

The Professor closes his remarks on this passage as follows:

"Even framed as it is, the declaration may be understood to yield an important truth in accordance with the view we have presented. For true it unquestionably is, that all those whose bodies are consigned to the sepulchre emerge from their defunct state, in obedience to the voice of him who has the keys of death and hell, into a sphere of existence where, according to their works, they are either crowned with life everlasting, or doomed to a judgment of wrath without end. If this be intrinsically true, it is certain that our Saviour's words cannot teach the contrary; and if they do not mean this, they must mean something consistent with it. If the truth is not to be harmonized with itself in this way, let him who can, suggest another and a better." pp. 240, 241.

* Professor Bush is not satisfied with only adopting the creed of the German Neologists on the subject of the resurrection, but he avails himself of their very arguments and expositions of Scripture. Dr. Ammon's exposition of John v. 21, 24, 28, is of the same character as the Professor's; and Hammer replies to him by remarking, among other things, that "The supposition, that Christ intended to describe the moral resurrection, with figures drawn from Dan. xii. 2, is not only destitute of proof, but is actually improbable; for there is not a single word which gives the least intimation of such an allusion; moreover, the words are not those of Daniel, nor is Daniel, in the passage to which we refer, at all speaking of a moral resurrection."

It seems to be rather a hard case, but even this idea fails to afford the Professor any assistance. To say nothing of that egregious perversion of language, by which a coming forth out of the grave is explained to mean no more than "emerging from a defunct state" before the body is consigned to the sepulchre; and to say nothing either of his making both the righteous and wicked alike thus emerge into the resurrection-state, in direct contradiction to his theory, which denies the resurrection of the wicked; the absurdity of the foregoing criticism will at once be seen by referring to the fact, that our Saviour says the hour is coming," exerat, in which this event will take place. Surely, then, it had not already occurred. And, therefore, the doctrine that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all the pious dead who were in their graves before the time of Christ, had entered upon the resurrection-state at death, is utterly false and unfounded.

II. The next passage is thus quoted by Professor Bush: John vi. 39, 40: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the wilt of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." p. 241.

It will be observed that the construction in the first of these verses is what grammarians style imperfect. Hav agrees with no other word, and stands in the place of ex navros. This idiom is hebræistic; as nav in the nominative is again resumed by the genitive of the pronoun, αὐτοῦ. It is also to be noticed that the article (r) at the close of each of the verses is emphatic.

Professor Bush commences his remarks on the passage with the following reference to the important phrase therein twice occurring—“the last day.” "The same declaration in substance or in form occurs, v. 44, 54. It certainly denotes the resurrection of those who believed in him, and, according to the letter, a resurrection within the limits of a certain period, denominated here the last day.' An equivalent allusion to this day occurs also, chap. xii. 48: The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day.' That the expression is conformed to the usual mode in which the resurrection of the righteous was spoken of among the Jews, is also unquestionable." The phrase is

certainly an important one in this connexion, and I wish our author had made some effort here to explain it. He does not, however, and immediately after the forequoted remark, commences with another application of the neological principle of accommodation: expecting thus to evade the testimony here given against his theory, and in favour of a future simultaneous resurrection and judgment.

Now it cannot be successfully contested that the phrase oxárn uga which is here employed, and translated last day, or emphatically "the last day," is a phrase equivalent to κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέρας in Jude 6; and ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως in Matt. x. 15; and xi. 22, 24; and 1 Jno. iv. 17; and also to the ἡμέρα δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ Θεοῦ in Rom. ii. 5; and to ἐκείνη ἡμέρα of Matt. vii. 22; and ἡμέρα Κυρίου in 1 Thess. v. 2 ; and also ἡμέρα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Phil. i. 6; and 1 Cor. i. 8: as also to the phrase συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος as used in Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49, &c. Compare also the expressions àлoxᎠaves Tou xugíov, nagovoia, &c. &c., in 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 7; and iii. 13; and 1 Tim. vi. 14; and 2 Tim. iv. 1; and Tit. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 8; and 1 Cor. xv. 23; and 1 Jno. ii. 28; 2 Pet. iii. 12, &c. All these expressions clearly refer to one and the same period, or crisis in the world's history, as the reader will see by turning to the references, and noticing in what connexion the phrases are found.

The events which are to transpire on this day are also clearly stated, and they are all declared to be yet future. "God has appointed a day in which he will judge (μéλλε xgive) the world in righteousness," &c. Acts xvii. 31. A number of the preceding references likewise inculcate the same doctrine. See also 1 Cor. iv. 5. It is called also "the day of wrath," uέga ógyñs, a statement wholly irreconcileable with the doctrine of Professor Bush, that the present merciful dispensation of the Gospel, is the day of judgment. Rom. ii. 5. At this time also the dead are to be raised; (See the passage under discussion; and v. 44, and 54; see also 1 Cor. xv. 23, and passim; and 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 14; Rev. i. 7.) All mankind are then to be judged, the dead and the living, both small and great. Matt. xi. 22, 24; 2 Cor. v. Rev. xx. &c.

10;

Immediately after the passage above quoted from the "Anastasis," our author proceeds to refer to the accommodation principle to help him out of his difficulties. And he

makes also a long quotation from a book called "Chandler's Vindication," asserting the same principle. But this principle we have already sufficiently exploded, and shall not discuss it in connexion with every text in the consideration of which Professor Bush chooses to introduce it. And so far as his reference to it here is concerned, it can afford him no assistance whatever.

On p. 244, however, he makes an effort to justify his adoption of this neological principle in the following words:

"When our Saviour, for instance, says, Matt. xii. 27, ‘If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?' are we to suppose that he intended to sanction the common belief, that such exorcisms were actually performed at that time by others than his own disciples? The conceit was rife among the people that such was indeed the case, and our Lord simply adopted the argument ex concessis, without intimating whether the popular belief had a ground or not.* The same remark applies to a subsequent part of the same conversation, where he speaks of an evil spirit going out of a man, wandering over waste and dry places, and finally returning reinforced by a company of other spirits worse than himself, and taking possession of his old habitation. This surely does not imply the absolute truth of such a representation, but is merely a specimen of his adapting his teachings to prevalent ideas."

But the Professor is quite unfortunate in his illustrations of this principle. So far as Matt. xii. 27 is concerned, Christ does plainly assert the fact that "such exorcisms were actually performed at that time by others than his own disciples." If the Professor had turned to Mark ix. 38-40, he would have met a case in point.-" And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a MIRACLE in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me." See also Luke ix. 49. Here was a man who did the very thing in question, and yet followed not with the disciples of Christ. And Christ himself admitted the reality

* The Professor here quotes Mr. Barnes in a note, as saying, "The words of Christ here do not prove that they had actually the power of casting out devils, but only that they claimed it, and practised magic or jugglery," (Notes on Matt. xii. 27,) a sentiment uncalled for and unwarrantable.

of the performance, and called it a miracle, dúvaus. He admits the same thing also in reference to many :—“ Many will say to me in that day, Lord! Lord! have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? `and in thy name done many wonderful works? (miracles, dvváMais.) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me ye that work iniquity!" Matt. vii. 22, 23. There is, therefore, no accommodation here to the erroneous views of the Jews; and of course nothing to justify the Professor's application of that principle in evading the difficulty which the text under consideration places in the way of his theory.

Nor is our author more fortunate in his reference to the relapsing demoniac of which he speaks. See Matt. xii. 43–45. The passage is no doubt a parable, but founded in actual truth, as our Lord's parables uniformly were. And as this case is always referred to by the advocates of the principle of accommodation, in justification of that principle, it will be in place here to offer a few remarks upon it.

The immediate occasion of our Lord's introducing this parable was his having cured a demoniac. (See Mark iii. 19-21, in connexion with Matt. xii. 22.) The multitude around were amazed at his exhibition of power over the spirits of darkness, and exclaimed "Is not this the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard it they exclaimed, "He hath Beelzebub-this fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils." This charge Jesus refutes by showing that Satan could not contend against himself. (v. 25, 26.) And then reasoning from the truth which the Jews themselves admitted, that demons could be cast out (v. 27), he shows (v. 28), that this action of his in thus expelling the demon, proved that the Messiah was among them -and that of course he himself was the Messiah. It also evinced, (as he proved, v. 29,) that he was more powerful than Satan, and so far from being in confederacy with him, was truly his enemy. (v. 30.)

He then gives them the awful admonition (contained in verses 31, 32,) respecting their guilt in ascribing the works of the Spirit of God to diabolical agency: assuring them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (of which this was a marked example,) would never be forgiven. And he concludes the address with assuring them that they must give an account of their words at the day of judgment.