word which is translated "framed" in the text, and in order to invest it with any value whatever in favor of the doctrine of the creation of all things out of nothing, it must be shown that the term signifies to create in the absolute sense. But this cannot be done, for the word means to repair, to restore from breach or decay, to mend, to put in order, to reform, to appoint, perfect, adjust, or train.

*

*

*

The following examples illustrate its meaning, "and going on from thence, he saw other two brethren in a ship with Zebebee, their father, mending (Karapriovras) their nets." Mat., iv: 19, and Mark, i: 19, the same. Again, 2 Cor., xiii: 2, "Be perfect” (kataptižɛole),

Dr. Clark's comment, in loco, serves our cause too admirably to be omitted from the argument. He writes: "Be compact; get into joint again; let unity and harmony be restored;" and when speaking of the ninth verse, he says: "I have given the above paraphrase to this verse, because of the last term karaрriσiv, which we render perfection." Karapriσię, from Kara, intensive, and aprigo, to fit or adapt, signifies the reducing of a dislocated limb to its proper place, and hence, as Beza says on this passage: "The Apostle's meaning is, that whereas the members of the church were all, as it were, dislocated and out of joint, they should be united together in love, and they should endeavor to make perfect what was amiss among them, either in faith or morals. It is a metaphor, also, taken from a building; the several stones and timbers all being put in their proper place and situation, so that the whole building might be complete, and be a proper habitation for the owner." See also, Eph., xi: 22.

This lucid exposition of the meaning of the term which our opponents would have us believe, signifies the creation of something out of nothing, is specially valuable since it is contributed by one of the wisest and best of their own number. In another place, Luke, vi: 40, this same author says "Karapričw signifies to adjust, adapt, knit together, restore, or put in order;" and he there cites examples to

illustrate the various meanings of the word; and all of them correspond with those already supplied.

With these authoritative definitions before them, the most illiterate must perceive how appropriately karnpriotal (framed) expresses the act of forming worlds out of elements previously in existence of reducing a chaotic mass of substance "without form and void," to worlds of order and harmony. It is a significant fact that nowhere can we find the claim advanced that the Greek term, being considered, signifies to create out of nothing. Our dictionary gives no such definition. When the learned author whom we have quoted comments on Heb. xi, 3, he omits all reference to the signification of the words. To say the least, this neglect is remarkable, for there is just where we would naturally suppose he would display the whole force of his scholastic attainments in illustrating the sense of the original-there, where he would pause to prove that the Greek for "framed" furnishes him with a solid foundation for the doctrine that all things are created out of nothing—there, where he would unmask his strength, and show us how "to adjust, adapt, knit together, restore, or put in joint," means to create in the most absolute sense. He knew best why he thus ignored the splendid opportunity so temptingly thrust upon his notice.

His cause may not be aided by gathering up the fragments he has left us from which to build a monumental pile of testimony; but (at the imminent risk of marring the consistency of his doctrine, with his own exposition of what the apostle must mean), we will do so, and write :-"Through faith we understand that the worlds were adjusted, knit together, and put in joint by the word of God," etc. Doctrine of that character is quite scriptural. The opportunity is now afforded for some one versed in the mysteries of modern interpretation to formulate some rule, which will require the first portion of the text to imply a simple work of organization, and the second to teach the creation of all things

out of nothing, when both acts refer to the same process, which is expressed by "framed."

The next words requiring special attention are res araç, which are translated "the worlds." Such, however, is not their real meaning at all. The latter is compounded of two words-the first signifying "always," and the other "being." The Greek terms used to express forever, forever and forever, everlasting, eternal and eternity, are all derived from this same source, and all can see that no question respecting the meaning of rec araç can be originated. Notwithstanding this it is evident that the apostle did refer to the act of creation, and we perceive that he, by metonomy, used "the eternities" for "the worlds." This fact is very important, for the law of metonomy requires that that which is signified by any certain term must bear some distinct relation or resemblance to that thing by which it is signified. It is apparent, then, that if "the eternities" mean "the worlds," something about the latter must be eternal; for that which some time began to be, can not possibly be signified by what always was. Were this not so, we might as justly say of our mortal existence, "the eternities are our inheritance," as to represent "worlds" by "eternities," if there is no similarity whatever existing between them. But this similarity can not consist in a likeness of substance, for eternity is not material, and hence, from necessity, we must refer the similarity to an equality of duration. But we are not to infer, therefore, that the form of the worlds is eternal. Science demonstrates that this is comparatively recent, and we conclude that the apostle simply taught that the elements out of which the worlds were framed are eternal. In stating this proposition Paul placed himself in harmony with the declaration of Moses, who declares, as shall be shown further on, that long before a single act of visible world generation was performed, "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep"-the chaotic mass of elements "without form and void"— thus clearly demonstrating that a creation

of elements is not meant when scripture speaks of world formations. Now if we must go behind all sacred record for support of any doctrine, we launch at once into the domain of pure rationalism, and that affirms with respect to the eternity of matter, ex nihilo nihil fit.

Evidently Heb. xi: 3, does not teach the creation af all things, or of anything, out of nothing: but the exact reverse. It does teach that God, by the power of faith, reduced to order and harmony the eternal elements of the world; and that these visible creations were not made by material agencies which are seen, but by the power of an invisible faith which is not seen, or, does not appear.

It would be a tedious task to take up seriately, and thus explain the sense of all the scriptural passages which have direct or remote reference to our subject; and our readers will have to be content with the definition and a few illustrations of the meaning of the principal Greek words that are respectively translated create, make, etc.

One of these is KT, which signifies to settle, found, build, create, generally to make, render so and so. In the following passages of the Bible the word is translated "create." "Create in me a clean heart." Psalms. li: 10. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Eph. ii: 10. "Neither was the man created for the woman. Cor. xi: 9. "Commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created," etc. 1 Tim. iv: 3. "For thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Rev. iv.

II.

I

None of these passages afford any foundation whatever for the idea of a creation out of nothing. The "creation" of a new heart is the regeneration of the old one. Our "creation" in Christ Jesus involves a purification simply, and a consecration of powers to new purposes. God took a portion of the dust of the earth-elements already in existenceand out of this created man. Meats are created out of pre-existent substance. If any difference whatever exists between the manner in which things "are and were created," the revelator ought to

have known it, but by association of ideas he teaches there is none.

Another word, and the one, too, which is principally relied upon by our opponents in their attempts to bolster up their false theories, is molεw. This term has a great variety of meanings, and more than one of them will be illustrated.

First: Create. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. i: I. "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. i: 27. In these passages the form of the Greek verb for created is identical, and if εonσev in the first verse is not synonymous with eromgev in the twentyseventh, Moses is culpable for not pointing out the distinction. Violence is done to language when we affirm that the same word when used in expressing a continuous act of creation, signifies in the beginning of the act a creation out of nothing, and further on in the process a simple moulding of elements into a determinate shape.

Second: Make. "And I will make (Toow) thee a great nation." Gen.xii.2. "Nebuchadnezzar the king, made (ETONGE) a golden image." Dan. iii: 1. "The Lord made (ñoσɛ) the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and all things in them." Ex. xx: II. In the last passage the association of ideas compels us to believe the heavens and the earth were made as all things in them are known to have been created, viz: out of material previously in existence.

"Behold I make (To) all things new." Rev. xxi: 5. In the first verse of this chapter this is written, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth." Latterday Saints know that the new earth here spoken of is this earth in its sanctified state, created and made anew (after it "shall be dissolved," as Peter informs us in his second epistle, chap. iii: 12) out of the eternal elements of which it is now composed. This opinion is not confined to the Saints only, Dr. Clarke says, "It does appear, from these promises, what the apostle says here, and what is said in Rev. xxi: 27; xxii: 14, 15, that the present earth, though destined to be

*

*

*

*

burned up, will not be destroyed, but be renewed and refined, purged from all moral and natural imperfections, and made the endless abode of blessed spirits. * That such an event may take place is very possible; and from the terms used by St. Peter, is very probable. * And, indeed, it is more reasonable and philosophical to conclude that the earth shall be refined and restored, than finally destroyed." (Italics in original.) Admitting the possibility of a creation of substance out of nothing by the mere fiat of Jehovah, we deny that it is at all more reasonable and philosophical to suppose that God shall construct a new earth out of the elements of this world, rather than form a new and sanctified creation, matter and all. Why is it more natural to think Omnipotence shall refine base and sinpolluted substance, rather than annihilate it, and then create a pure world, when he can perform the act of creation as easily as he can subject elements already in existence to a refining process? Why this economizing policy? The supremest power of the Almighty is manifested n the work of creation, but if sectarian theology be true, and spirits are not preexistent, then the most awful displays of omnipotent power have been manifested when there were in existence no beings but the triune God to witness the grand climax of creative power and energy, when nothing was unnaturalized and transformed into a natural something; and is it rational to suppose that when the supreme hour has arrived, and a new creation is to be inaugurated and perfected, the Almighty will descend to the common level of a mechanic, instead of rising to the sublimity of an absolute creator, while untold billions stand round as witnesses of his departed glory? Looking at the question from the sectarian standpoint, it is highly probable, and hence, rational to suppose the earth shall be destroyed, not refined; and new worlds created, matter and all. In point of fact it is rational and philosophical to suppose God will create the new earth out of the elements of the old one; and from this vantage ground it is rational

and philosophical to conclude the present earth was formed out of elements previously existent.

In order to disprove the truth of this proposition a necessity for a first creation of something out of nothing must be made apparent. But this cannot be done; for since we conceive that some substance must be eternal, we cannot conceive that some substance must not be eternal. Further, God is eternal, and according to popular theology, He exists in regions beyond the bounds of time and space; that is, He is infinitely extended; consequently, let Him never be so attenuated; there must be an infinite quantity of His substance, and we fail to see how there can be an infinite quantity of substance in existence eternally, to which whole creations of new matter may be added, from time to time, making thus an infinity and something over, as it were. Some reverends, fresh from the schools of divinity, will reply that as God is composed of spiritual substance, and the worlds are framed of material elements; the argument just presented is voided. But our friend must not forget that his theology teaches that all spirits, excepting God, are created, and we still have an infinity of eternal spiritual substance and an increasing surplus added as the process of creation progresses. We can not understand how a fraction of a second can be added to infinite duration; nor how room can be tacked on to infinite space; thus making duration more than eternal and space more than infinite. But we can conceive all this as easily as we can the idea that new spiritual substance can be added to the infinite quantity of which God was eternally composed. Our opponents are now offered a choice of alternatives, viz: First, to admit that their ideas of God are erroneous, or, second, the impossibility of the creation of even spiritual substance. If the first be accepted, the confession involves a limitation of the very power of God. He is incapable of existing everywhere, and if He cannot extend His own being, He cannot create something out of nothing. The admission of the second is the point now par

ticularly aimed at, but let either be confessed, the result is the same.

The definitions of now already given comprise its principal signification, and all others are omitted for the present. Another word, acow, demands attention; it is, perhaps, more important than either κτίζω or ποιέω, because it supplies us with a key by which to determine the sense in which scriptural writers have used those two words. Πλάσσω never can signify to create, or to make, in the absolute sense, but to form, mould, shape, fashion, etc. It is the term from which our word "plastic" is derived, and the corresponding word in Latin is fingo, from which the English transitive verb, "figure," is obtained. This means "to form or mould into any determinate shape." The English term "figure" thus becomes synonymous with a, and the latter is made synonymous with TOLEW and κτίζω;; consequently, these words, when used to signify an act of creation, simply mean to mould or fashion into some determinate shape. Proof of the statement respecting the synonymous character of πλάσσω κτίζω and TOLEW, is found in the following passage of scripture: "For Adam was first formed (east), then Eve. So God created (εomov) man in His own image." Gen., i: 27. "Neither was the man created (EKTIOn) for the woman, but the woman for the man." I Cor., xi: 9. In all these texts the word "figure" or "mould" may rightly be substituted for "formed" or "created." But we have already discovered that now must have the same meaning when used in relation to the creation of the world, that it certainly has when the formation of a body for Adam is spoken of. As thus used, it is equivalent to the English "figure," and it is apparent that Genesis i: 1, should be translated, "In the beginning the Gods shaped, fashioned or moulded the heavens and the earth."

Additional proof of the synonymous character of the words being considered will be offered. In the revised version, Isaiah, xxix: 16, reads thus: "Ye turn things upside down. Shall the potter be counted as clay, that the thing made

(agua), should say of him that made it, He made (aac), me not; or the thing framed (Toua), say of him that framed it, He hath no understanding," or (Sep ver.), Thou has not made (Tongas) me wisely. See also, Rom., ix: 20, 21, and Isaiah, xlv: 7, 18.

But the means at our disposal by which to determine the meaning of "create" when used in scripture are not exhausted, and another method will be pointed out. Antithetical terms are found in all languages, and when we know the signification of one of the terms, if we conceive an idea which is diametrically opposed to the meaning of the known term, the other term of the antithesis will express our conception. Thus war is opposed to peace, light to darkness, cold to heat, etc., and upon this same principle "destruction" must be the antithetical term opposed to creation. If, then, we can ascertain the sense in which Bible writers have used the word destruction or destroy, we can very easily attach a correct meaning to the words creation, create, etc. The following passages of scripture are competent to illustrate the sacred meaning of the former: "I will blot out man, whom I have made, from the face of the earth." Here the act of "blotting out" is opposed to that of "making;" and the threat was almost literally fulfilled, with respect to numbers, at the time of the flood, but no one suspects that the elements of which antedeluvian bodies were composed, suffered annihilation. "Lest the Lord thy God be very angry with thee and destroy thee," Gen., vi: 15, or utterly destroy, as the Greek reads, "Therefore may God destroy thee forever." Psalms, lii: 5. "Fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt., x: 28. "The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth, also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all conversation and godliness. Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,

wherein the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." 2 Pet., iii: 10, II, 12. No other passage of scripture represents the final and complete dissolution of all things terrestrial, in a manner so void and awful as the passage just quoted.

According to the Apostle, the earth will not be dissolved merely, but the very elements of which it is composed shall be melted. How can the mind picture a scene of more terrible destruction than Peter depicts when under a divine inspiration? But dissolution and fusion are not absolute destruction, and not a single atom shall be annihilated. "They (the heavens and the earth) will all be separated, all decomposed, but none of them destroyed. As they are the original matter out of which God formed the terraqueous globe, consequently, they may enter again into the composition of a new system, and, therefore, the Apostle says, verse thirteen, "we look for new heavens and a new earth;" the others being decomposed, a new system is to be formed out of this material. There is wonderful philosophical propriety in the words of the Apostle in describing this event." Certainly a new earth shall be formed out of the elements of this one, after they are refined and purified, and when some Moses of the future records the history of the great event, then a thousand years thereafter, when Satan is loosed for a little season upon the world, apostate Christianity will affirm that God created all things out of nothing. How can scripture teach us more plainly that worlds are made out of pre-existent elements? In the creations of the future, such are to be the facts, and such they were in the past, for time cannot enter as a factor into the method of forming worlds.

We have found that scriptural destruction means disorganization only, and since destruction and disorganization are thus made synonymous terms, creation, which is the antithesis of destruction, must mean organization and nothing more. Some may claim, however, that “annihil