such Scriptures furnish. The very terms of those passages overthrow the construction attempted to be put upon them. For example; Paul says to the Philippians, speaking of Christ having humbled himself and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," here is universality," and that every tongue should confess"- this word implies voluntariness" that Jesus Christ is Lord," -spiritual ruler" to the glory of God the Father." And Christ says, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit." " In writing to the Corinthians, also, the apostle mentions, as the result of this universal subjection, that God shall be "all in all." So that the allegation of different kinds of subjection, is excluded by the very terms of these passages themselves. But against the text, its universality, and the perfect love to Christ it implies, — not even the form of an objection can be made to lie. Its

2

whole force, as I have said, is an implication of homogeneity of moral condition throughout the inheritance to which Christ is appointed.

Such is the heirship of Christ; such the inheritance given him of God; and such will be the blessedness of that inheritance when he shall have taken possession of it.

Let us now observe that God hath "'appointed Christ to this inheritance."

He has not

simply given him leave to become "heir of all things," if he shall be able, or if the inheritance itself should be pleased with the transfer; but God has "appointed Christ heir of all things." Though the execution of the purpose will involve human activities, yet, so far as establishing the fact is concerned, the transaction involved two parties only, the legator and the legatee.

Christ, too, was appointed to this inheritance in full view of all the difficulties in taking possession of it. Many Christians are impressed with the Divine purposes, and with the breadth and fulness of the possible possessions of Christ; but there are to their minds insuperable difficulties in the accomplishment of all this good. The sin of the world keeps it away from Christ, and threat

ens to despoil him of his inheritance. They forget that the sin of the world was the sole occasion of Christ's appointment to be its heir; that the very purpose of this appointment was the recovery of the world from sin, by the winning of its affections unto God. To suppose that sin is an insuperable obstacle to the accomplishment of this purpose, is to deny the validity of the appointment itself. It is to allege it defective, either in the style of the appointment, or in the neglect to clothe Christ with sufficient powers to enable him to take possession of the inheritance. In either case, the Divine transaction is void; and God ceases to be God. If our hearts, as well as our understandings, rebel against such abuses of reason, let us accept the appointment made in the text, as a sovereign appointment; and believe that Christ is clothed with all power requisite to its entire realization. We have already intimated that Christ is qualified to become "the heir of the world," by the spiritual power that is in him; that this power is the instrumentality by which he shall take possession of his inheritance. Let me now remark, that this is the only power competent to such a work; that the "righteous

ness of faith," the spiritual graces manifest in his life, the perpetual yearning of his heart for the good of man, are the only means by which the world can be won to the same purity and blessedness, and made the inheritance of Christ. He is, therefore, in a more literal sense than the common interpretation allows, "the way, the truth, and the life.""

I am quite aware that the sovereignty of the Divine appointment, which we have thus affirmed, and which appears to us to be everywhere inscribed on the sacred page, has been pointedly denied, denied by involving it in a much broader denial. This denial extends to the entire moral domain of God. His sovereignty in the physical world is not only allowed, but insisted on; while, in the spiritual world, it is supposed to be restricted, if not entirely annulled. A somewhat distinguished English divine, has the honor of having suggested this distinction and it has been imported to our own country, as affording a happy deliverance from the difficulties imposed upon the frigid creeds of our time, by the growing perception of the fulness of Divine love.

An elaborate refutation of such a position cannot be demanded in this place. When we distinctly consider that God is an omnipresent spirit, we shall find it quite impossible to conceive of his exclusion from his spiritual domain; much less shall we be able to believe it. If it is absurd to say of a given individual, that he is a learned astronomer, while he is uninformed of the most common truths of even our own solar system; or of another, that he is a skillful mathematician, while ignorant of the first principles of numbers; or of a third, that he is an able tragedian, while he is incompetent to play the humblest part in a tragedy; or of yet a fourth, that he is the prince of orators, while he is wholly destitute of eloquence; it can be no less absurd, surely, to say that a spiritual being is omnipotent, who yet cannot rule in his spiritual domain. This is his home department, as it were, the department, in which, more especially, he is omnipotent. If he has not power here, he can have it nowhere; since it is in the spiritual that all power begins.

I repeat, it is precisely here that he is sovereign. Not sovereign in ruling men contrary to