time to spring up and grow he may cross the mighty deep, and in America, when time unvails his true character, he may reap the bitter fruits of his own ill doings. A man may set on foot a scheme of wickedness which may carry the seeds of wretchedness and ruin to future ages and distant climes. But enough of this: Universalists should be the last to talk about God's carrying things over from time to eternity, to be settled there; when according to their doctrine, notwithstanding men become sinners in time, yet God lets them remain so as long as they live; and instead of exerting Almighty power to make them righteous where they become wicked,' he lets them die in their sins, and postpones the important matter of their conversion till the resurrection of the dead; when the whole matter, which could have been settled just as well in time, will then be disposed of!

And finally as Universalists admit that eternal life, in this prooftext, refers to the future state: it follows hence, that the death placed in antithesis to it, must be an eternal death, and must also refer to the same period,-the resurrection state!

28. Rom. 8. 19-23. For the earnest expectation of the

creature, waiteth for the manifestations of the sons of God; for the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now; and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption to wit, the redemption of our body.

This portion of scripture is considered one of the stongest grounds of Universalism; and some have even gone so far as to say, that if this was the only text in the Bible which appeared to favor Universalism, they would nevertheless believe the doctrine. We will endeavor, however, to show them in a few minutes, that they would have but a slim foundation for their faith. This text has puzzled more commentators, perhaps, than any other. We expect, however, in the few remarks we have to offer to pursue a course marked out by none of them. Not that we wish to be singular: but we wish to express cur own convictions upon the subject.

66

Universalists contend that the Greek word ktisis, here translated creature," and "creation," signifies the whole human family. This we deny, and we proceed in the first place to disprove it. The language which the apostle makes use of, excludes the idea, that "the whole creation" means the entire posterity of Adam.-This is clear without an argument, if we simply look at his language. "For we know that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in

pain together until now, and not only they, but ourselves also,” i. e. not only the whole creation, but ourselves also; showing most conclusively that ourselves was no part of this whole creation of which he was speaking. If this be not so then there is no meaning in language. Suppose I should say: All that were in the house heard him say it, and not only they but ourselves also: would it not follow conclusively that ourselves were not in the house? Would I not be considered as talking nonsense to say: All that were in the house heard him, and not only they but ourselves also, when ourselves were in the house just as much as any of the others referred to?

66

This one criticism disposes of Universalism so far as the text is concerned. Now, as this is not the meaning of the text, it remains for us to try to find out what it does mean. But previous to this, we remark, that the creation or creature cannot include Christians, or the sons of God; because the apostle says, that the “creature waiteth for the manifestations of the sons of God;" not for the manifestations of itself, certainly! And it "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God;" not into the glorious liberty of itself! And again: "Not only they [i. e. the creation] but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the spirit." According to this: Christians, or those who have the first fruits of the spirit, are no part of this creation upon which the apostle is treating. And if there can be a whole creation," without Christians, may there not, upon the same principle, be a whole creation without sinners? and thus have a whole creation of somebody else, who are called neither Christians nor sinners? We shall come to the point soon. But does the whole creation mean the physical creation, or the earth we inhabit? Many excellent men, and men of erudition have taken this ground: but with due deference we beg leave to dissent and will assign our reasons. The creature is here spoken of as groaning, waiting, and hoping. It is contended, however, that these expressions are applied to the earth figuratively. We admit that the waiting may be, and no doubt is used figuratively; but the groaning cannot be; and consequently the creation which groans cannot mean the earth. The word groan cannot be used figuratively, for this reason. The disciples are said to take part in this very groaning, which is applied to the creation. Read the text again: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now; and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption to wit, the redemption of our body." Here then we have it; that the creation groans, and not only they, but the disciples also groan. Mark that word also;" for it shows that the disciples took part in the same groaning, experienced by the creation, which proves that it cannot be figurative, and consequently that the creation cannot mean the earth. It cannot be supposed that the apostle would tell us, that the

66

creation groans, and that the disciples also groan, and use the word groan figuratively the first time, and literally the next! This would violate all correct rules of interpretation. From this and the foregoing, we think we are justified in the following conclusions: 1. That ktisis, rendered creation, does not mean the whole human family. 2. That it does not signify Christians. 3. That it does not mean sinners. 4. That it cannot signify the physical creation, or the earth and 5. That it does, or at least may signify the infant creation, or that part of the human family who never arrive at the age of accountability, and who are never in the scriptures styled either Christians or sinners. Do you say this idea is strange? If so, I would say, as did Paul: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." This view of the subject will amply harmonize with the context; whilst any other view seems irreconcilable. “The creature was made subject to vanity not willingly." That is, the infant creation was made subject to pain, sickness and death; not willingly,-not by their own choice or by their own willful disobedience, as is frequently the case with their parents, and as was the case with our first parents in Eden, who willingly transgressed the law of God and brought this vanity, this sickness and death upon their innocent offspring. Thus it was that the infant creation was made subject to vanity, by reason of him, i. e. Adam, who by his transgression subjected them to pain and death, but not, however, without a hope that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and that then this innocent creation, who have groaned and travailed in pain together until now, shall “also” be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. They shall be partakers of the same inheritance with the saints in light, and be brought to the enjoyment of the same liberty allotted to those who, in mature age, have voluntarily been adopted into the family of God. Universalists are kindly invited to refute this exposition if they can.

But they may say that ktisis cannot mean infants; and that it has not this meaning once in the whole Bible. But they tell us that ktisis means the whole human family without exception! Are not infants a part of the whole human family? Universalists are thus necessarily compelled to admit that the creation, as here used, means all that we contend it does; for they say it means all that and more too. We accept our part and challenge them to prove that it means any more ! Let them put their finger upon that text of scripture where ktisis means the entire posterity of Adam or hold their peace in regard to our exegesis. Whenever they tell us that ktisis means the whole human family, we freely admit that it means that part of the human family who die in infancy, and deny its meaning any more.

29. Rom. 11. 25, 26. 2. should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits: that blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

For I would not brethren that you

Before Universalists can claim this text in support of their doctrine, three things must be proved. 1. That" all Israel" means the whole Jewish nation without exception. 2. That the "fullness of the Gentiles" means all the Gentiles who have ever lived, are now living, or ever will live. And 3. That "shall be saved," is to be understood in an unconditional or absolute sense. Let them fail in any one of these points, and this text is of no avail.

"And Moses

1. Does "all Israel" mean the whole Jewish nation? called all Israel, and said unto them." [Deu. 5. 1.] Did Moses call the whole Jewish nation when thousands of them had died a short time before, and when millions of them were not yet born? The following texts are all of the same category.

"And all Israel stoned him with stones." [Jos. 7. 25.]

"And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah; and all Israel went thither." [Jud. 8. 27.]

"Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Israel." [1. Sam. 2. 22.]

"Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him." [1. Sam. 28. 3.]

"And all Israel fled every one to his tent.” [2 Sam. 18. 17.]

“And all Israel heard of the judgment which the King had judged." [1. Ki. 3. 28.]

"And the King and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the Lord. [1. Kings 8. 62.]

"And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him. (1. Kings 14. 13.) "And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem." (1. Chron. 11. 4.) "Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant." (1. Ch. 15. 28.)

"God smote Jeraboam, and all Israel.” (2 Chron. 13. 15.) · "So all Israel shall be saved." (Rom. 11. 26.)

In not one of these texts does all Israel mean the whole Jewish nation without exception: neither has it this meaning once in the Bible. In each of these examples it means all, or a majority of the Jews who lived at that particular period of time to which the text refers, and no more.

So it is with this proof-text. It refers to a certain period of time in the future: when a general conversion of the Jews, who are at that time living shall take place. Then the Deliverer, who has come out of Zion, shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

2. Does the "fullness of the Gentiles," mean the whole Gentile world? Universalists cannot prove that it does from the fact that this is the only text in the Bible where this phrase occurs. We have however two good reasons for the contrary belief. 1. That all Israel (which is put in contrast with the fullness of the Gentiles,) as we have proved, does not mean a totality; and consequently that the other does not. 2. Because we have a phrase parallel with this, which does not include a mathematical whole. "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his son." (Gal. 4. 4.) It cannot mean when all time had come; for there have been more than 1800 years since! Therefore the fullness of the Gentiles cannot mean all the Gentiles without exception.

3. In the phrase shall be saved, there is an if implied and to be understood, because it is expressed in another place in this same chapter (verse 23,), and hence it is not an absolute or unconditional promise, but the same as in the promise to Abraham. “And they also,” says Paul, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again—so all Israel shall be saved." How? Ans. "If they abide not in unbelief."

66

66

4. Universalism is against itself by admitting that saved here refers to the future state of existence. Let us now see whether Paul believed that all the Jews and Gentiles would be saved independently of faith and obedience. 'My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." [Romans 10. 1.] Why, Paul, you are a Universalist! and to desire, and pray, and labor that Israel might be saved when you knew that they were just as sure of salvation without, seems strange! Again says this Universalist: "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." [1. Cor. 9. 22.] What! laboring to save some when all are certain to be saved? Truly, this is strange Universalism. But, finally, says our Universalian apostle: “And being made perfect he [Christ] became the author of eternal salvation, to all them that obey him." [Heb. 5. 9.] Worse, and more of it! But once more: "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him. [Heb. 7. 25.] No one needs to be told that Universalism is the exact opposite of all this plain teaching of the great apostle to the Gentiles. Instead of Christ having become "the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him," the doctrine distinctly proclaims that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all men whether they obey him or not! This is not a misrepresentation, for the advocates of this faith have themselves defined saved and salvation as referring to the future state by quoting and so applying this proof-text. They will learn, before they get through with this analysis, that the Bible is not a nose of wax, so to speak, and that they have not the special lisence to refer words to a future state and give them a universal application whenever the text seems to favor their doctrine, and then limit the same words to this life for no reason