But this is the very question at issue. The point to be proved by Universalists is, not whether all things shall be subdued, which no one disputes; but is the subjection a willing one? This proved, and they have gained the argument. But that the argument is against them, the context clearly shows.

Speaking of the conquest of Christ, the apostle says, "For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (v. 25.) But is this a willing subjection? To be put under the feet of a conqueror, is the subjection that awaits the enemies of the Son of God.

But is this the same as salvation? Then why not put all men under his feet? Why speak of any of them as enemies, if they are holy and submissive subjects? All, indeed, will be subject to him; a subjection bringing salvation to all who are Christ's; a subjection to be trodden under his feet, for all who obey not the gospel. The figure here introduced is borrowed from the customs of ancient warriors. A sovereign subdues a rebellious province. He enters it with the determination to put down all opposition. His friends, who have been faithful to him, he rewards. His enemies he conquers, and places his feet upon their necks, as a token that they are subdued. So Christ is to reign till his enemies are conquered, and placed where they can do his government and his friends no more harm. His friends are then rewarded, after which there can be no escape for his enemies; for, as soon as they are placed under his feet, Christ gives up the office of Mediator, and there is no more redemption. Men cannot be saved without a mediator in this world, nor can they be in the next. But

there they will have no mediator. When all things are thus subdued, and the enemies of Christ are trodden under his feet, "then comes the end" of the mediatorial kingdom. The Son gives up the kingdom to his Father; and, without a viceroy in his government, God reigns "all in all."

Thus we perceive that the whole chapter is as decidedly against the system of Universalism, as if the apostle had written it with the intent to oppose that delusion.

XI. Rev. xxi. 4: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain."

Although it is painful to follow up men whose business it is to wrest the Bible to their own destruction, still it is hard to suppress a smile, at seeing Universalists appeal to the book of Revelation to sustain their system, when they have always maintained that the whole book had its fulfilment nearly eighteen centuries ago. They are compelled to do this, in order to avoid the otherwise unanswerable arguments against their system which this book contains, particularly the twentieth chapter. Then, after arguing that the book had its fulfilment centuries ago, they select a part of it, and urge it in defence of the salvation of all men in the future state. This inconsistency in men "who oppose themselves," has been rebuked by one of the sect.

Mr. H. Ballou, 2d, says, "Universalists have not wholly ceased to quote, as proof of the final reconciliation of all men, the following text: 'Ev

ery creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever; a text which, if we mistake not their views concerning the general plan of this book, they can by no means suppose, on careful reflection, to refer to a period yet future. It should not be forgotten that all the passages we have set down are taken from those very chapters which are now universally regarded as having their fulfilment on the earth; and that, unless we renounce this opinion, we are, of course, precluded from adducing them as proof of the state of things in another world." (Expositor, iii. 196.)

But to return to the passage that we have introduced. No one supposes that it will remain unfulfilled. All who have a part in that promise will have their tears wiped away, and for them there will be no more pain, no more sorrow, nor crying. But is this a blessing promised to all men without distinction? It is not. The people of God are to receive this favor; while "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (v. 8.) In this chapter, as in other portions of the Bible, God declares what he will do in the eternal world to his friends, and what he will do to his foes.

XII. I shall close with remarking that the arguments drawn from the nature of God do not sustain Universalism.

He is love. But evil, sin, woe, and death, exist, in this life, in harmony with this love. The good share in this woe, often more than the wicked. The absurdity of the argument is glaring. God, it is said, cannot punish men in the future world, because he is love; when he has been doing the self-same thing in this world for thousands of years.

God is powerful. But he will have no more power in the eternal world than he has in this; no more love; no more goodness. He can make all men as happy in this life as Universalists say he will make them in the future, or he cannot. If he cannot now, he never can. If he will not now, he never will.

May God lead you into all truth! Of none of you may it ever be said, "They received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved: and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. ii. 10-12.)

LECTURE V.

UNIVERSALISM NOT SUSTAINED BY THE ARGUMENTS IN ITS FAVOR DERIVED FROM THE

No one

I CONSIDERED in the last lecture the principal proofs advanced from Scripture in favor of the salvation of all men. The arguments drawn from reason, nature, and other sources, remain to be examined. can attend carefully to the proof which Universalists produce from the Bible, without being struck with the meagre amount they bring forward, even with the help of their principles of interpretation, and the most violent wresting of the sacred word. In order to number up so many as a hundred scriptural arguments, they are compelled to cut up some passages into three or four parts, making a separate argument of each. They are also obliged to repeat the same promise several times, to change the form of a proof once before presented, and at last to add, as scriptural evidence, an inference or two of their own. (See Guide to Univ. 23.)