and it continued to be received when, at the Reformation, the authority of the Church was repudiated, and the Scriptures were declared to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Any man, therefore, assumes a fearful responsibility who sets himself in opposition to the faith of the Church universal.
2. It is admitted that the doctrine of the perpetuity of the future punishment of the wicked was held by the Jews under the old dispensation, and at the time of Christ. Neither our Lord nor his Apostles ever contradicted that doctrine. They reproved the false teachers of their day for doctrinal errors on many points, but they never corrected their faith in this doctrine. They never teach anything inconsistent with it. Their recorded instructions give no ground for a belief either of the final restoration of all rational creatures to the favour of God, or of the annihilation of the wicked. The passages which are appealed to by Universalists in support of their doctrine admit of a natural and simple inter- pretation in harmony with the general teaching of the Bible on this subject. For example, in Ephesians i. 10, it is said to be the purpose of God to bring into one harmonious whole (or, as it is expressed in Colossians i. 20, to reconcile unto Himself) all things, i. e.y all, who are in heaven and who are on earth. The question is, who, or what are the all, who are to be reconciled unto God ? This question must be answered by a reference to the nature of the thing spoken of, and to the analogy of Scripture. It cannot mean absolutely " all things," the whole universe, including sun, moon, and stars, for they are not susceptible of reconciliation to God. For the same reason it cannot mean all sensitive creatures, including irrational animals. Nor can it mean all rational crea- tures, including the holy angels ; for they do not need reconcilia- tion. Nor can it mean all fallen rational creatures, for it is ex- pressly taught, Hebrews ii. 16, that Christ did not come to redeem fallen angels. Nor can it mean all men, for the Bible teaches elsewhere that all men are not reconciled to God ; and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture ; for that would be for God to contra- dict Himself. The " all " intended is the " all " spoken of in the context ; the whole body of the people of God ; all the objects of redemption.
Restorationists appeal also to Romans v. 18 : "As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." This is made to mean, that as all men are condemned for Adam's offence, so all men are justified
872 PART IV. Ch. IV. — THE SECOND ADVENT.
for the righteousness of Christ. The same interpretation is put upon the parallel passage in 1 Corinthians xv. 22 : " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." In both these passages, however, the " all " is necessarily limited by the context. It is the all who are in Adam, that die ; and the all who are in Christ, that are made alive. Restorationists limit the word to all men, or to all fallen creatures, in obedience to what they sup- pose to be the analogy of Scripture ; and this is all that is done by the orthodox. The only question is, What do the Scriptures elsewhere teach ? If they clearly teach that all men and fallen angels are to be saved, then these passages must be interpreted accordingly ; but if they teach that all men are not saved, then these passages cannot be understood to assert the contrary. Of themselves they decide nothing. They may be understood in two ways ; which is their real meaning depends on what is taught elsewhere.
The same remark may be made in reference to other passages which Universalists rely upon. Thus in 1 Corinthians xv. 25, it is said that Christ " must reign, until He hath put all enemies under his feet." This may mean that He must reign until all sin and misery are banished from the universe'; but this is not its necessary meaning, for Satan may be subdued without being either converted or annihilated. In like manner, in 1 Timothy ii. 4, it is said God " will have all men to be saved ; " if the word will, 0e\«, here means to purpose, then the passage teaches that all men shall ultimately be certainly saved. But if the word means here what it does in Matthew xxvii. 43, to have complacency in, (d Okkci avr6v,y then it teaches only what the Bible everywhere else teaches, namely, that God is love ; that He delights not in the death of sinners. It is to pervert, and to misinterpret the Word of God, to make one passage contradict another simply because the language used admits of an explanation which brings them into conflict. The question is not, What certain words may mean ? but, What were they intended to mean as used in certain connections ?
If Christ and his Apostles did not teach that all men are to be saved, neither did they teach that the wicked are to be annihilated. Mr. Constable, in his work above referred to, lays down the prin- ciple that the language of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, is to be interpreted according to the " usus loquendi " of the Greek writers. We are to go to our classical dictionaries to learn the meaning of the words they use. From this principle