There is more evidence to be brought on this point hereafter; but what has been said is enough to prove, to every unprejudiced mind, that mankind, from the very beginning, had the knowledge of a future state of existence. Reason makes this probable, and revelation makes this certain. This proves, then, that the universal belief of mankind in a future state of existence, owes its origin to what God revealed to our first parents and their descendants. But we have already proved, that though they all believed in a future life, yet they all believed that the righteous only would be happy, but that the wicked would be punished. And as these two subjects naturally and necessarily go together, we are obliged to infer, that not only the doctrine of a future life, but also the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, were made known to our first parents, and through their posterity handed down to all the rest of mankind. But if the doctrine of future punishment was originally revealed from heaven, then it must necessarily be true; and then likewise the doctrine of the Universalist must necessarily be unscriptural and false.

3dly. All believers in divine revelation are bound to reject and condemn the leading doctrine of the Universalist, because that doctrine is a primitive heresy revived-a heresy which the primitive Church unanimously condemned: and if it was condemned as a heresy by the primitive Church, it is equally to be condemned as heretical by Christians of the present day.

Now the Universalist teaches, that as we shall not be saved hereafter in consequence of our good works, so neither shall we be punished hereafter in consequence of any sins, however great and numerous, which we commit in this life. But as all mankind are justified through God's mercy, revealed to us by the Lord Jesus Christ; so through that mercy all mankind shall be delivered from all punishment in another world, and admitted into everlasting happiness.

This is, except in one feature, precisely the doctrine of the Simonians, Gnostics, and Nicolaitans-heretics who began to appear while some of the Apostles were still alive; as we have already had occasion to state. These heretics had not the hardihood to teach that all mankind would be saved from hell; but that all who had come to the knowledge and belief of the Gospel would be saved, whether their lives were virtuous or vicious. But though they promised future happiness indiscriminately, not to all Jews and heathens, but only to those who professed Christianity, still they and their doctrines were loudly and peremptorily condemned by the Apostles, and all the rest of the Christian world, without exception-and condemned, because they were unreasonable, unscriptural, and licentious in their tendency. And if these ancient Antinomian heretics were so loudly and universally condemned for holding the doctrine of the Universalist in so restricted and moderate a sense, what would those early defenders of the faith have said of the broad, unblushing, and monstrous doctrine of the new Universalism, which mingles light and darkness, Christ and Belial, heaven and hell, all together into one promiscuous assemblage! Well indeed might Tertullian exclaim, when remarking upon the immoral tendency of so impious and detestable a heresy, "Hear this, all ye sinners; and ye "who are not so yet, that ye may be so. Such a kind God is " found, who is neither offended, nor angry, nor revengeth" who hath no fire burning in hell,* nor gnashing of teeth in

• It is somewhat remarkable, that as the Universalist says there is no hell but in this world, so the above-mentioned heretics said, "the body is "the only hell of the soul, and from that hell death delivers us."-King on the Creed; art. Descent into Hell.

" utter darkness.

He is altogether good; he prohibits sin " in words only. It is at your pleasure whether ye will " obey him or no; for he doth not desire to be feared by " you."q

The Universalist doctrine was then condemned by the Apostles and primitive Christians as an execrable heresy; and all Christians therefore ought now likewise to condemn it, as unscriptural, false, and deserving of universal reprobation.

4thly. It is impossible the leading doctrine of the Universalist should be true, because it is contrary to the faith and practice of the whole primitive Church. The first Christians lived at the fountain-head of our religion: they received its precepts and its doctrines uncontaminated from the lips of our blessed Saviour, of the holy Apostles, and of the other inspired teachers of the Gospel. Taught by those who were themselves immediately taught of God, it was impossible that the first converts to our faith should remain ignorant of any essential truth, or be led into any material error. Those who were divinely inspired, and commissioned to preach, to explain, to defend, to establish, and to spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, could not have suffered their disciples to continue in ignorance or error upon any important point, without being guilty of betraying their trust. Accordingly we find numerous passages, scattered all along from Matthew to Revelations, all of which are aimed against prevailing errors in faith and practice. Nay, many of our Saviour's instructions were given, and by far the greater part of the Epistles was written, expressly against certain erroneous doctrines. Nor was it their design merely to communicate information, and to remove errors on important subjects. Our Saviour did not deem the " mint and cummin" of religion beneath his notice; and the Apostle would not suffer an erroneous opinion to prevail, even upon the indifferent subject of eating the meat that had been offered to an idol. In fine, all the doctrinal and practical instructions of the New Testament were given rather to correct existing errors, than to reveal any thing that had not before been made known. And, as we have already shown, the very error of the Universalist is there specifically pointed out and condemned. For the Simonians, the Gnostics, and the Nicolaitans held this error in a modified sense ; and of their doctrine God declared that he hated it.

From all this, the following conclusions are self-evident. It was impossible that the first teachers of the Gospel should have been ignorant, or in error, upon the fundamental doctrine of future rewards and punishments. It is impossible that they should leave their disciples in ignorance or in error upon this subject: because this would be directly contrary to their uniform conduct in such matters-it would argue unaccountable inconsistency-it would be an effect without any assignable cause-it would be a deliberate violation of the trust reposed in them-it would be a grievous offence against their fellow-creatures, and an act of rebellion against God. It is impossible then, also, that the first Christian Churches should have remained in ignorance or in error upon this point. The Spirit of God led the first teachers into all truth. They must have taught others what the Spirit of God taught them: and the first Christian converts and Churches must universally have believed what their inspired teachers universally taught. What the primitive Christians then universally believed upon this subject, must necessarily have been taught by the Apostles, been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and revealed in the word of God.

2

It is morally impossible it should be otherwise. For as Jews and heathens generally believed in the doctrine of future punishment, if that doctrine was false, our Saviour, the Apostles, and other primitive teachers, must and would have specifically and repeatedly condemned it If that doctrine was true, then, since it was a common article of faith among Jews and heathens, the preachers of the Gospel, we may readily suppose, would generally take it for granted; and speak of it

Rev. ii. 15; and other authorities before quoted.

as a received truth. (This is actually the way in which the Scriptures generally speak of it.) But if that doctrine was false, as the Universalist says, then, upon his principles, we are obliged to draw the following inferences:-Our Saviour, who was constantly endeavouring to correct even the smallest errors of his hearers upon religious subjects, nevertheless suffered the greatest and most prevailing error of the times to pass unnoticed. Nay, he repeatedly used the very language that was then universally used, when they spake of future punishment after death; and as his hearers could not possibly understand that language, otherwise than it was always understood, our Saviour deliberately led his hearers to believe the doctrine of future punishment-that is, according to the Universalist, he not only suffered them to continue in the belief of a lie, but he deliberately taught them a false doctrine. Besides, our Saviour promised that the Holy Spirit should lead his Apostles and followers into all truth. This must at least mean all needful and important truth. If the Universalist be right, our Saviour has broken his promise.

For the Universalist cannot, and therefore does not pretend to bring a single passage either from the Old or New Testament, where the doctrine of future punishment is plainly and directly denied or condemned. On the contrary, the sacred writers repeatedly and familiarly use that very language, which was used by those who believed in future punishment -the very language by which that doctrine was taught-and the language, therefore, that could not have been understood in any other sense. They took then the most direct means of teaching that doctrine; and if the Universalist be right, they took the most direct means of concealing the truth, and of confirming their hearers in the belief of a false doctrine, and of what they knew to be a false doctrine. The Apostles then, as well as our blessed Saviour himself, were guilty of deliberately betraying their trust, and confirming their hearers in gross error!!

These shocking consequences necessarily follow, if the Universalist doctrine be true. But if we are Christians, we