words "Universalists admit this," he KNEW he was writing a falsehood!

3. "This same word eternal life, is used by the apostle in another connection, where it is unanswerably proved to be conditional." "He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap LIFE ETERNAL;" zoe aionios. Gal. vi. 8.

ANS. Upon my word this is cool impudence! What may not an unprincipled ignoramus dare to do! Here are three errors in one short paragraph. 1. False grammar. Eternal life is not a word-it is a phrase! 2. Falsely quoting scripture. It does not read "reap life eternal;" but "reap life everlasting." 3. Ignorance of Greek. The phrase is not "zoe aionios;" but zoen aionion.

Here, Partialists, is your champion! Here, Universalists, is the man who has promised to pluck you up by the roots -kill you twice dead-and sift your doctrine like wheat! In thus holding him up to your gaze we feel constrained to use the language of the poet:

"His name-his human name-to every eye
The climax of all scorn should hang on high,
Exalted o'er his less abhor'd compeers-

And festering in the INFAMY of years"!

To all the argument there is in the above, we simply reply: "He that believeth on the Son, HATH everlasting life," zoen aionion. John iii. 36. "He that soweth to his flesh, shall OF THE FLESH reap corruption:" But how in the name of reason will men reap corruption, "when this corruptible shall have put on INCORRUPTION"! And how shall they reap it of the flesh, when "flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God"! 1 Cor. xv. 50, 54.

4. "Whoever heard of a man sowing, and reaping, both as he went along?-scatter a handful of seed, and reach forth his sickle immediately and reap it before he left his tracks!

ANS. This is said in reply to what we sometimes urge, that it is contrary to reason to talk of sowing in one place, and reaping in another; but it will not do-it does not meet the difficulty.

A similie is "a comparison of two things which however different in other respects, have some strong point or points of resemblance." Webster. Agreeably to this definition, we are not to look for a similarity, in every respect, between the subject and the illustration; but are to confine it strictly to the reason of things. But first of all, we should determine the point or points illustrated; and reason will tell us that we must confine the similie rigidly to that or those.

Now in the passage refered to, the point of illustration is the place where men who sow to the flesh reap corruption; and not the time when. The place where is the FLESH; precisely where the seed is sown; just as a man reaps his grain in the field where he sows it! If it be insisted that the time when is also specified, we have not the least objection; as the supposition presents to our views not the slightest difficulty. It is true, men do not commence reaping immediately after casting the seed into the earth; but there commences immediately a train of consequences which infallibly brings on the harvest in the same field where the sowing was done: So, although a man may not reap the full consequences of his crime instantaneously, yet there is im

mediately put in operation a train of action which secures the final result.

NOTE. Mr. Hall predicates another argument in this section on "the conjunction for"! which proves the former instance was not a mere slip of the pen but a mistake of ignorance.

SECTION XXVII.

Rom. viii. 19, 23. 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!

Serious and important as the subject is on which we are engaged, nevertheless, in view of what is to follow, we cannot forbear exclaiming:

"Let those now laugh who never laughed before, And those who always laugh now laugh the more"! Alack! Alack! How much have these passages puzzled the brains of Partialist controversialists. Many the rich scene of amusement have we had at their fruitless attempts to explain and fritter away that which needs no explaining, and which, like a tower of adamant, resists all attempts to mutilate and destroy. Particularly have Campbellite controversialists brought to bear upon the subject that low cunning and ingenuity

for which they are especially celebrated; but, supreme above mysticism and the darkness of error, the refulgent light of truth has continued to shine with undiminished brightness. Well do we remember one poor fellow of this class, who, being badly pushed by his opponent, explained the term creature to mean "the heathen idols"! And a bitter time he had of it, you may be sure. The reader has only to substitute the explanation, for the present reading, to enjoy as rich a joke as language can be made to furnish. No wonder the audience, both friend and foe, did laugh heartily: And the poor selfvictimized fellow laughed too; and his opponent, of course, enjoyed a complete triumph!

Not a whit better is Mr. Hall's attempt to explain the text and involve Universalists in difficulty: He only involves himself in trouble and lays himself broadly open to severe ridicule. And it is very evident he is fully aware of this. We want no better evidence of the fact than the following, which occurs at the close of his exposition: "The whole fraternity of Universalists, with all their powers of mysticism and twisticism, are challenged to refute this exposition. They cannot do it: and they dare not try it! Reader, recollect this." This is precisely the kind of breast-work with which Mr. Hall strengthens weak places in his arguments, all through his book. We have come to regard such kind of lingo as an advertisement that there is "something rotten in Denmark"-that the heap of flour contains something suspicious, or contraband in the custom-house of truth, beneath the surface! In this instance, such, in fact, is the case. You shall see, reader, what it is that Universalists dare not try to refute-and which they cannot refute if they do try. Here it follows:

"Ktisis, rendered creation, does, in my humble [!] judgment, 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."

And this is what Universalists cannot refute, and dare not try to refute! Nay, verily-the thing refutes itself! Nevertheless, it is possible that some person may be so purblind with error, that they may wish to see a bona fide refutation. Well, then, here it follows:

1. Infant, or infants, is not a correct rendering of the term creature, as used in the text; because the creature is represented, verse 19, as waiting with earnest expectation for the manifestation of the sons of God. Thus: "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." Are infants exercised with an earnest expectation for the manifestation of the sons of God? Do they know any thing about the gospel, the christian hope, or the destiny of the sons of God?

2. The "whole creation (ktisis) is represented as groaning and travailing in pain for the adoption, to wit: the redemption of our body. Is this true of infants? Have they any knowledge of future redemption, and adoption, and deliverance into the glorious liberty of the children of God?

3. The word ktisis (creature) is never once rendered infants in the whole Bible; and we presume not in any book or manuscript under heaven. Hence, there is not one particle of authority for such an exposition of the term, in existence. Brephos is the Greek word for infant-why was not that used if such was the apostle's meaning? Did the spirit of God intend to deceive, by