though anything is most intensely literal that seems to favor it! But they say it is unreasonable and absurd, to give Peter's language a literal application, for more then two-thirds of the earth is water: how can water burn? This is exceedingly unaccountable to a Universalist; yet he can swallow the idea without difficulty, that a dispensation could take fire, melt with fervent heat, be dissolved and burn up! But we are prepared to show that a literal interpretation of Peter's language is every way reasonable and consistent. Science informs us that water is composed of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen, which, when separated, will take fire as quick as powder. Why may not God, by his Almighty fiat, decompose these gases, and make them serve as kindling material with which to start the conflagration of the Universe? Could not every grain of dust, by the decree of Almighty power, be turned into powder as easily as to be turned into living insects, as was the case in one of the ten plagues of Egypt? Upon the same principle, rocks and mountains could be changed to enormous masses of brimstone, and all uniting make up that grand and eternal explosion which, as predicted, is to wrap this earth in one convolving sheet of flame! Here, then, is nothing unreasonable, whilst every thing in connection with this subject proves it to be literal, and that the coming of the Lord in connection with this wonderful event is yet future! There shall be new heavens, and a new earth. Proof: 66 23. for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2 Pet. 3. 13.) Remarks: This too, is all figurative, according to Universalism. It signifies a new dispensation, and a new order of things, which was brought about at the destruction of Jerusalem. But, it is "according to his promise." How happens it, that a promise of God is all figurative in one case, but when the advocates of this doc. trine come to the promise made to Abraham,—or some other promise, which they fancy leans toward Universalism; behold! it is as literal as the day is long! If the "promise" of new heavens, and a new earth is a figure, I would like to put Universalists to the test to prove that there is a promise in the Bible to be understood literally. When they would undertake to show that the promise to Abraham was literal, I could adopt their own logic and prove to a demonstration that it meant directly the opposite of what it said by making it figurative, and thus instead of all nations being blessed, it might signify a curse, or something as bad! Query: If the events spoken of in this text relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, and if, since that period, we have enjoyed the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwells righteousness; what think you must have been the old heavens and the old earth wherein sin dwelt? 24. Christ shall deliver up the mediatorial reign. Proof: "Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his com ing; then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father." (1 Cor. 15. 23, 24.) Remarks: When Christ had completed his first coming, he took the mediatorial reign; and at his second coming he will deiver it up to the Father. Now if Christ came the second time at the siege of Jerusalem, he there and then delivered up the mediatorship, and all flesh since that time has died and gone into eternity without the least assurance of being saved since no one can be saved without a mediator; for plainly, where there is no mediation there can be no salvation! Thus these latter-day scoffers who say "where is the promise of his coming," instead of holding out a universal salvation come altogether nearer a universal damnation, when their proclamation of glad tidings is once presented in its true proportions. 25. When he comere hath put all enemies under his feet; the When he comes, he shall destroy death. Proof; "For he last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (1 Cor. 15, 25, 26.) Remarks: This caps the climax, and crowns the cap. Christ is to reign as mediator until he comes to make up his jewels, and to deliver up the kingdom to God the Father; but that which shall wind up the drama and close the scene, is the utter destruction of death. This cannot be until all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God and come forth, and until the dead small and great shall stand before God. Will Universalists still insist that Christ came the second time at the destruction of Jerusalem? that he delivered up the mediatorial kingdom there, that he raised the dead and destroyed death? If not, then they must give up Universalism, for there is not a candid Universalist living who is well posted, who would not at once admit the doctrine false if the second coming of Christ was not accomplished at the destruction of Jerusalem as they have always claimed. We appeal, therefore, to every candid believer of that doctrine, and ask the most searching criticism of the foregoing arguments, involving as they do the obvious and commonsense meaning of the various passages of scripture examined? SYNOPSIS OF THE FOREGOING CHAPTER. "I will Come Again.”—John 14. 3. 1. Our Saviour once more upon earth shall appear, The clouds are his chariot, and glory his throne; 2. Ten thousand bright saints with the Lord shall descend, 3. The kingdom shall come, and the graves shall give way, 4. All the nations of men are before him conveyed, His bar of tribunal in justice arrayed; Each tongue shall confess, whilst the Judge on the throne, 5. Each eye shall behold him, in awful attire, 6. "Twill comfort the saints to reflect on the day, 7. These bodies, though vile, shall be fashioned aright, 8. The world shall be burned, and all Nature dissolve, 9. Creation, convulsed to her centre, shall quake, 11. Unpolluted by sin, and unhurt by disease, 12. A convoy of angels, and chariot of love, 13. But the wicked shall sink into darkness and gloom, 11. The remedial kingdom shall come to an end, CHAPTER III. THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."-John 5. 22. Universalists have two theories with respect to the day of Judgment; so that when one gives way the other is resorted to as the only true ground upon this subject. At one time they will claim that the destruction of Jerusalem was the day of Judgment spoken of in the scriptures; but when driven from this position they lay claim to the whole Christian dispensation as that day, and contend that men are judged, condemned, and punished every day as they go along. Hence we know not just how to take them or where to find them. But in the first place let us proceed to examine the texts of scripture relied upon as proof in favor of either of the above positions. "And Jesus said: for judgment am I come into this world." [John 9. 39.] The word judgment, as used in the scriptures, does not always have the same meaning. Of this fact Universalists appear to make no note. They argue as though this text and every other in the Bible, which speak of judgment, have reference to moral character and the execution of divine penalty on account of sin. The context, however, must explain all such applications of the term. The text above quoted manifestly has reference to another subject altogether, as the remainder of that verse will prove. "For judgment am I come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see, might be made blind." Christ had just performed a miracle in opening the eyes of a blind man; and he has reference only to such displays of miraculous power in attestation of his Messiahship; and for such miraculous "judgment" did Christ come into the world;-to prove that he was really "the Christ, the Son of God," that men might judge, or form judgment concerning him. But Universalists contradict themselves by claiming as they do that Christ came the second time at the destruction of Jerusalem to judge the world; and then immediately quoting the language of Christ to prove that he came the first time for that very purpose! They not only contradict themselves, but they make Christ contradict himself by first teaching that he came to judge the world (as Universalists interpret his language,) and then affirming, as he does, in John 12. 47: "I came not to judge the world." Universalists cannot reconcile this discrepancy by their mode of interpretation, which is only a sample of the havock they are continually making with the Bible. But they quote another text: "Now is the judgment of this world." [John 12. 31.] Their exposition of this language would present the same contradictions as stated above. Hence, let it mean what it may, it cannot signify what they say it does. But Christ speaks immediately after concerning his own death; and it is most probable he refers to the unrighteous judgment pronounced against him by the chief priests, which he designates as "the judgment of this world;" for then was fulfilled the prediction of Isaiah: "He was taken from prison, and from judgment." [Is. 53. 8.] Let it still be borne in mind that Christ has most distinctly stated, that he did not come the first time" to judge the world," and hence he did not come to condemn it; for it would be most unreasonable to condemn men before they were judged. The Saviour bears witness to this and testifies that "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." [John 3. 17.] And since Christ did not ́ome the first time to judge the world, he has therefore reserved that work for his second coming; and as we have most incontrovertibly proved in the preceding chapter, that his second advent is yet future and will be at the resurrection of the dead, it follows just as incontrovertibly that then and there will be the day of judgment ! But we are referred to 1 Pet. 4. 17: The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God." This, it is said, proves that now is the judgment day, and that now, in the Christian dispensation, Christ is judging men according to their deeds. But Universalists forget their criticism about the little word “one " in italics in Is. 45. 24! They tell us that such words were supplied by the translators and are not to be found in the original text; and if such words do not make good sense they are not correct, &c. Very good: How about the word "is come?" If you turn to King James's translation you will find it in italics just like that troublesome word "one," which has caused so much sermonizing eloquence. Neither will this phrase, "is come," make sense or harmonize with the remainder of the text. "The time is come that judgment must begin." Thus we have "must begin" in the future, and "is come" in the present tense! If the phrase will come had been supplied instead of the one employed by the translators, the text would then be consistent with itself. "The time will come that judgment must begin at the house of God." Both are thus put in the future tense, and the text is not only consistent with itself but, as we shall show, consistent with the whole revelation of God. In connection with the above text is quoted another: "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." [1 Pet. 4. 5.] This, however, does not say that Christ is judging the quick and the dead; although the Christian dispensation had then been in progress for nearly thirty years. This demonstrates that the Christian dispensation is not the "judgment day." But he was then ready to judge the liv |