Christianity, and being at Rome during a time of severe persecution, wrote an apology in defence of the persecuted Christians. He calls himself a "disciple of the Apostles;" and says to the emperor, the senate, and the people of Rome : -"To lay before you, in short, what we expect, and what we " have learned from Christ, and what we teach the world, " take it as follows:-Plato and we are both alike agreed as "to a future judgment, but differ about the judges; Rhada"manthus and Minos are his judges, Christ ours. And more" over we say, that the souls of the wicked being reunited to "the same bodies, shall be consigned over to eternal torments, " and not as Plato will have it, to the period of a thousand "years only; but if you will affirm this to be incredible or " impossible, there is no help, but you must fall from error to " error, till the day of judgment convinces you we are in the " right." "We are the greatest promoters of peace, because "we teach that every one is stepping forward into everlasting " misery or happiness, according to his works; and if all men " were once fully possessed with a notion of these things, who "would make the bold adventure to embrace the pleasures " of sin for a season, with his eyes upon eternal fire at the " end of the enjoyment? Who would not strive all he could " to check himself upon the brink of ruin, and to adorn his " mind with such virtue, as might give him admission to the "good things of God, and secure him from everlasting ven"geance?" Again, "But since all departed souls continue " in sensation, and everlasting fire is treasured up for the " unrighteous, let me advise you to look well about you, and " lay these things seriously to heart." Again, "When we " teach a general conflagration, what do we teach more than "the stoicks? When we assert departed souls to be in a " state of sensibility, and the wicked to be in torments, but "the good free from pain and in a blissful condition, we assert " no more than your poets and philosophers." Again, "We " teach that such only shall be crowned with a blessed im" mortality, who have imitated God in virtue, and those who " have lived wickedly, and not repented to the amendment " of their lives, we believe shall be punished in fire everlast"ing." He says also, in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the Universalist, that it is a "fundamental truth taught by the "prophets of the Old Testament, that there shall be punish"ments and rewards hereafter, rendered to every man ac"cording to the merits of his works."

Ireneus flourished about 40 years after Justin Martyr. He was the scholar of the above mentioned Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John. He was the great scourge of all the heretics of his day, whose errors and blasphemies he exposed and refuted. Speaking of a creed which, among other things, taught the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, he asserts what Tertullian a few years after him likewise asserted, that "the Church dispersed throughout the " whole world, had received this faith from the Apostles and "their disciples." He asserts of a certain heretical notion"Christ Jesus shall judge the Valentinians for it, when he " shall come to judge the world." Again, "He shall come " to be the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of "those who are judged; sending into eternal fire the corrup" ters of the truth, and the despisers of his coming." Again, " He shall come from heaven to render a righteous judgment "unto all; he shall send into everlasting fire evil spirits, and "the angels which are fallen and apostatized, and all impious, " unrighteous, ungodly, and blasphemous men; but on the " righteous, holy, and obedient observers of his command"ments, he shall confer life, immortality, and everlasting " glory."

A few years after Ireneus, about A. D. 200, wrote Tertullian. In his apology for Christians he says:-" To the ob" servers of his laws, God has destined rewards; and when " he comes to judgment at the last day, having raised all the "dead, that have been dead from the beginning of the world, " and restored to every man his body, and summoned the "whole world before him, to examine and render to all ac

"cording to their works, he will recompense his true wor"shippers with life eternal, but will sentence the wicked " into perpetual running streams of fire everlasting." Again -"We who know we must account to God; who have a "prospect of that eternal punishment he has in store for the "transgressors of his laws; and withal weighing the heavi"ness of future torment-torment not only lasting, but ever"lasting; we proportion our fear and obedience accord" ingly." Again-" Christ shall come to receive the saints " into eternal life, and to adjudge the profane to everlasting " fire." And again, speaking of the souls of both the righteous and the wicked, between death and the day of judgment, he says-" All souls are in hell," (the invisible world below us). "There are both punishments and rewards: both Dives " and Lazarus are there; and there the soul is either pu"nished or comforted, in expectation of the future judg

" ment."z

We might proceed to make other quotations upon this point; for, with slight exceptions, these views have prevailed throughout the whole Christian world, from the Apostles till the present time. But these must surely be sufficient; and these prove that the doctrine of endless future punishment was taught by the Apostles-was received and prevailed throughout the whole Christian world and was occasionally denied only by a few, who were universally branded as heretics, reprobates, apostates from the faith, and the first-born of Satan.

Now, as in this matter it was impossible for the Apostles and primitive Christians to be deceived; and as they fully, unequivocally, and universally taught the doctrine of endless future punishment; it manifestly follows, that it is impossible that the doctrine of the Universalist should be true-it must necessarily be false.

And since the primitive Christians asserted that future punishment would be endless, this argument is just as conclusive against the old Universalist doctrine, as against the new And of those, therefore, who teach, that though there

will be future punishment, yet it will have an end, we must necessarily infer that they labour under an error; and that their doctrine cannot possibly be true, because it contradicts the universal belief of the primitive Christians. The primitive Christians could not possibly err on so material a point; and they all believed that future punishment would have no end.

If any thing more could be necessary to render the absurdity of the new Universalism still more absurd, and to make the refutation of the old Universalism still more manifest, we have it in the consequences that must necessarily follow if the above argument is not conclusive. If the universal belief of the primitive Christians upon any important point of faith or practice, be not sufficient to prove it scriptural and of divine authority, then we have no sufficient evidence to prove any single part of the New Testament divinely inspired, except that which is clearly prophetic, and has already been manifestly fulfilled. A prophecy, when fulfilled, carries with it the proof of its own divine origin, inspiration, and authority. But the authenticity and genuineness of all the other parts of the New Testament stand mainly upon the fact, that the primitive Christians universally believed and received them as the inspired writings of those whose names they bear, and as part of that sacred truth which the Spirit of God had revealed, and caused to be written for the sanctification and salvation of man. And as very little of the New Testament is prophetic, if the universal consent of the first Christians in favour of any important truth does not prove that truth to be scriptural, and binding upon our conscience, then we are not bound to receive the New Testament as the word of God, or as containing the revelation of his will. And if, upon this principle, we discard the New Testament, we can easily, upon the same principle, get rid of the Old; and thus we shall land ourselves in Deism, or something worse.

Nay, this principle of scepticism, which is not convinced by the above reasoning against Universalism, and in favour of the canon of Scripture, leads directly to Atheism, or universal doubt upon all subjects. For the evidence we have, to prove the genuineness, the authenticity, and the divine inspiration, of all the books of the New Testament, amounts to a moral certainty-that is, to the highest possible probability. Now the very existence of God, and the very truth of revelation, are not proved by higher evidence than this; and if this evidence be not sufficient, farewell to all religion, both natural and revealed; and farewell to all history of past times; for, upon this principle, nothing is to be believed except what we ourselves know or experience.

If then the Universalist is willing to go this length, let him at once declare himself an Atheist, or a Sceptic; and not, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, skulk about under the garb of Christianity. But if, in the sincerity of his heart, he starts back with horror from these consequences, as I honestly believe he would, and as, upon his own principles, he is bound to do; (for he believes, or at least professes to believe, in revelation ;) then he must admit that the above argument is conclusive, and that his own doctrine is false.

This will be still more unanswerably clear and conclusive from the following considerations. All mankind agree, that when we cannot attain to absolute certainty, we are in duty bound to be guided by probabilities: and that, in disputed points, if any one side has, on the whole, but a few probabilities more in its favour than the other side, we are in duty bound to decide in favour of that side where the greatest degree of evidence, and the greatest measure of probability, lie. Should the evidence be very strong, and the probability very great, to go contrary to it would be deemed flagrantly unreasonable, and an absurdity bordering on madness. And again, all mankind agree, that when the meaning of a law is disputed, one way of deciding it is by appealing to the opinions and practice of those who were judges, and who lived at the time the law was made, and immediately afterwards. That opinion and consequent practice which universally prevailed at the time, and immediately afterwards, among competent judges, is always considered as being the true interpretation of the law, and the very interpretation which the lawgiver in