is, that the doctrine of future punishment is not revealed and taught in the Old Testament. But if we even grant this, it does not prove that this doctrine was not revealed, or not believed, under the Old Testament. It may have been revealed, without having been recorded in the Old Testamenť. It may have been revealed in paradise, universally believed afterwards, and therefore taken for granted by the sacred historian, as a universally admitted truth; in the same way as the being of God is taken for granted in the very first chapter of Genesis. Under this aspect, the one subject has nothing to do with the other: the one is a question about a doctrine said to be revealed in the Old Testament, and the other is a question about a historical fact relating to the opinions of the ancient people of God. Grant the Universalist, therefore, all that he contends for on this point, and our argument still stands in full force to prove the fact, that the ancient Jews and Israelites did, in all ages, hold the doctrine of future punishment. The Universalist has not brought, and cannot bring, one single fact or argument to render the contrary even in the slightest degree probable.

Our former conclusion, therefore, still stands uninvalidateď and unanswerable-the Universalist doctrine is against the belief, and against the reason, of all mankind; and it therefore cannot be true. We say against the belief of all mankind, without one single national exception. For though some Universalists maintain that the ancient Israelites were an exception, they have not brought one single argument or fact to make that assertion probable; and we have, on the contrary, adduced several arguments and facts, any one of which is enough to make it probable, and all of which, taken together, make it morally certain, that the Old Testament Church, in all ages, believed in the doctrine of future rewards and punishments; and derived the belief of that doctrine, not from the heathens around them, but from Abraham their founder, and originally from divine revelation.

This argument in favour of future punishment is drawn from reason and the light of nature, independently of the Scriptures. The Universalist cannot admit that the doctrine of future punishment was revealed to our first parents, and transmitted by a traditionary inheritance to the rest of mankind, as we fully believe, and as the above remarks, we think, prove: its universal belief, therefore, as it could not spring from chance or state policy, must, upon his principles, be ascribed to the reason and common sense of all men, in all ages. And if this be so, to deny this doctrine, is contrary to the reason and common sense of all mankind. And if the Deist is unreasonable in refusing to believe in divine revelations, since all nations have believed in them if the Atheist is absurd in denying the existence of God, contrary to the universal belief of mankind-if the disciples of Berkely and Hume are absurd in denying what reason and common sense teach every body, the real existence of the objects around us-then, for the same reason, the Universalist is unreasonable and absurd in denying the doctrine of future rewards and punishments.

But, lastly, we believe that the doctrine of a future state was revealed to our first parents; and we ask, therefore, what should we naturally infer from analogy, and from the nature of the case; and what does the Old Testament teach on the subject of a future life? Is it probable that God gave man existence, without ever acquainting him with his destiny? Did he design man for a future state of being, and still leave him ignorant of it? Did he create man immortal, and still leave him without the knowledge or belief of another life? Is it possible that the Father of mercies should thus treat his intelligent offspring? Is not his mercy over all his works? Does he not really desire us to be holy and happy, both here and hereafter? Must not the knowledge of a future state have been eminently calculated to promote both these ends? Was not this knowledge just as necessary immediately after the fall, as it was 1800 years ago? Can any reason in the world be given why God should leave man destitute of information so highly important? Is it not inconsistent with the attributes of his character, and with his uniform conduct towards his intelligent creatures? Is there not then, at first view, a presumption in favour of the opinion, that he communicated to our first parents the knowledge of a future life; and must not very good reasons be given, before we can be authorized to believe the contrary? Can we believe the contrary without impeaching the goodness of God?

And if the nature of the case forbids the supposition, that our good and gracious God left our first parents and their posterity as ignorant as brutes upon the subject of a future life; does not analogy likewise forbid us to suppose, that they were left to grope in more than heathenish darkness? We learn from the Old Testament, directly or indirectly, that God, from the very beginning, communicated to mankind every species of moral and religious knowledge that could be of service to them; and appointed all those various means and ordinances by which this knowledge might best be preserved and rendered useful. For this purpose, both before and after the fall, both before and after the flood, he appeared to them, and instructed them-sometimes in a human or angelic shape-sometimes by dreams, visions, or a voice from heaven-sometimes by invisible though powerful communications to the hearts and minds of his prophets-and generally by revelations made from the bright cloud or pillar of fire, which appears, from the very creation, to have been the ordinary symbol of Jehovah's presence, and the ordinary medium through which he conversed with men, and gave answers to their inquiries. And the knowledge thus acquired he caused to be preserved, by frequently, and in different places, repeating these revelations, and adding to their impressiveness by the miracles and wonders that from time to time were displayed.

Accordingly we learn from the books of Moses, that our first parents and their posterity were made acquainted with the overruling providence, the existence and perfections of God, and with what they must do in order to please him. From the very beginning, the Sabbath was instituted-sacrifices and first-fruits were required-the distinction of clean and unclean beasts existed-and the head of every family acted as the priest of God. Indeed the whole moral law of the ten commandments, and many of the ceremonial distinctions, solemnly and publicly ordained at Sinai, appear only to have been the republication of what had been known ever since the creation; God thinking proper to repeat these instructions amid all those awful solemnities, because the knowledge of them was mixed with error, or nearly lost; and likewise for the purpose of giving them more impressiveness and force. Hence also, Abel is said to have offered sacrifice " in "faith, Noah was a "preacher of righteousness, and the wicked were punished with heavy judgments, which God would not have done, had they not been acquainted with his will. Indeed the most ancient heathen writers, with one consent, declare that the knowledge and the institutions of religion came at first from God, and were afterwards handed down by tradition to the various nations of the earth.s

If, then, God took so much pains to make known and preserve all the moral and religious knowledge that might be necessary for their knowledge and their happiness, can we think it probable that he would studiously conceal from them the knowledge of a future state-the very doctrine that would give most efficacy to the other means? Is this not, on the contrary, extremely improbable; and does not analogy, then, lead us to infer, that God made known to our first parents the doctrine of a future life?

This very probable inference, we trust, will appear a certain and revealed truth, from the following additional considerations. Under the patriarchal dispensation, Enoch was translated to heaven, without tasting death; and under the law, Elijah was likewise carried up alive to heaven, in a whirlwind and a chariot of fire. And as the translation of Enoch was no doubt public, and commonly known, in order that the faith of the righteous might be confirmed, and their piety encouraged, by this visible proof of a state of happiness hereafter for the righteous; so the schools of the prophets, and multitudes of others, knew beforehand that God would

take Elijah to heaven.k Does not this prove they had the knowledge of a future state of happiness for the righteous?

Again; Job speaks with the utmost confidence of the resurrection and a future life. "I know that my Redeemer "liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the "earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, " yet in my flesh shall I see God." The psalmist is equally clear and positive. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell "(sheol); thou wilt show me the path of life. In thy pre"sence is fulness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures " for evermore."" Thou shalt quicken me again, and bring " me up again from the depths of the earth." Solomon also says,n " Who knoweth the spirit of a man that goeth upward, " and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward? Then " shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit " shall return unto God who gave it."

Again; "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and "the God of Jacob." Thus spake God to the Israelites. And from this our Saviour proves a future life; for, says he, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The Saviour's reasoning, I suppose, will be admitted to be conclusive. But the following should set this point at rest for ever. The Apostle, in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, explicitly declares, that the patriarchs, and other pious persons, looked forward to happiness in another world. Though strangers and pilgrims, they were contented, because "they looked " for a city which hath foundations; whose builder and maker " is God."" They all died in faith, not having received "the promises, but having seen them afar off; and were per" suaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they " were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. They that say "such things, declare plainly that they seek a better country, "even a heavenly."*