nal death or eternal punishment. And whenever this death, therefore, was threatened as a punishment, either under the patriarchal or Mosaic dispensation, this word death would as naturally remind them of endless future punishment, as though this doctrine had been taught in these express words.

The preceding argument, too, is equally conclusive against the leading doctrine of both the old and the new Universalist. They both maintain that eternal life and happiness will be the portion of all mankind, either immediately after death, or else subsequently to a temporary punishment after death. But this cannot be true, if the preceding argument be true; for the punishment of the wicked is endless. Those also teach a false doctrine, who teach that the Old Testament Church did not believe in future punishment, or that it did not believe in endless future punishment. The preceding argument too confirms our previous reasoning from the light of nature. We proved from reason and history, that all mankind have, from the beginning of the world, believed in a future state of reward and punishment. This same truth we have now likewise proved from Scripture. We have thus confirmed our reasonings by revelation, and traced the universal belief of mankind up to its source in those divine communications that were made to our first parents,

But perhaps it may be asked, If endless future punishment was threatened to, and believed in by the wicked, ever since the creation and fall, how happens it that mankind, from the beginning, believed likewise in future life and happiness? We answer: There is as much reason to believe that God would reveal the one as the other. He actually did reveal it, in the promise made immediately after the fall, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. For this promise was manifestly, among other purposes, given for the purpose of instruction and comfort. But it could yield neither, unless they understood it. And that they did understand God here to promise a Deliverer, who should overcome the devil, abolish death, and restore mankind to the immortality forfeited by the fall, is manifest from reason, from universal consent, and from Scripture." Why should sacrifices be instituted immediately after the fall, except as types of that great Deliverer who was then promised, whose blood was to cleanse from all sin, and who was to restore to man his forfeited privileges and who can suppose that God would institute sacrifices, without explaining to man their signification? The acceptance of Abel's offering, who offered in faith, and the rejection of Cain's; and likewise the declaration to Cain-If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin (or, as it ought probably to be rendered, a sin offering) lieth at the door; both prove that they knew how to please God, and how they might secure his favour.

But that they had the knowledge of a future life, we have already proved elsewhere-and we have likewise proved, that from the beginning to the end of the Bible, future life and happiness are promised upon the condition of holy obedience to God's commandments; while death, that is, eternal punish ment and exclusion from heaven, are uniformly threatened against all those who do not thus obey. It follows, therefore, from what we have said on this point, that whenever God said, Obey and you shall live-disobey and you diep he was always understood to promise eternal happiness, and threaten eternal punishment after death. In this sense both the Jewish and Christian Church understood these passages. Upon this subject it was impossible they should universally have erred. And it follows, therefore, that the Universalist doctrine, which denies all this, cannot possibly be true, but must necessarily be unscriptural and false.

Should the Universalist here say, We admit that God threatened, and that man would have suffered endless punishment, if it had not been for his mercy displayed through Christ; but we believe that through this mercy in Christ, all mankind shall be saved; because God expressly declares,

See Faber on the Dispensations. • See Magee on the Atonement, p Gen. ii. 17; Lev. xviii. 5; Prov. vii. 2; Ezek. xviii. and xxxiii; Heb. ji. 4; St. John v. 24; Rom. viii. 6; Col. ii. and iii.

الم

that, by Christ all shall be made alive. He tasted death for every man. He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.

On this we observe first, You admit then, that the Universalist is in error, when he asserts that God never threatened any punishment after death-and that he is in error, when he says, we have no more to fear from the justice than from the mercy of God. You admit then that endless future punishment has from the beginning been threatened against impenitent sinners; but maintain that it is, after all, a mere bugbear, because God's mercy in Christ delivers the wicked as well as the righteous from all punishment after death. And you maintain, that though God uses the same language, both in the Old and New Testament-language in which he threatens endless future punishment to the wicked, yet God will break his word, contradict himself, and even be guilty of false swearing, in order to save the wicked! All these consequences flow from your admission and your doctrine. But these consequences cannot possibly be true, and therefore your doctrine cannot be true.

II. We have already shown from reason, from history, and from revelation, that the doctrine of the Universalist cannot possibly be true: but we may add here the following argument:-St. John in the Revelations says, He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. On such, (viz. the souls of martyrs,) the second death hath no power. Death and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire. The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. There shall in no wise enter into it-(viz. the new heaven and new earth-the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city, where God, and the Lamb, and their faithful servants, reign in bliss for ever and ever)-there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man as his work shall be. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life; and may enter in, through the gates, into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

St. John here speaks of what is to take place after the first death-after the resurrection-and indeed in the day of judgment. He mentions two descriptions of character-those who overcome sin, who keep God's commandments, who are holy and faithful unto death, and whose names are written in the book of life-and those on the other hand, who are unholy, and whose names are not written in the book of life. To these two different descriptions of character he assigns two different places, and two different conditions. The holy receive a crown of life-they have a right to the tree of lifethey enter into the new heaven and holy Jerusalem, where God and the Lamb reside, and where they reign with him in bliss for ever. The unholy are excluded from this blissful place-they are cast into the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone-they die the second death. Thus God rewards every one according to his works.

Now could life and death, future happiness and future punishment, be set before us in plainer or stronger terms? Is the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone a place of enjoyment? Is it a desirable thing to be shut out from heaven, from the presence of God and the society of the blessed? O Universalism, how shockingly dost thou pervert the oracles of truth! O sinner, how shall you escape, if you neglect the great salvation! If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly appear?

But the Universalist alleges that he brings direct proof from Scripture in favour of his doctrine, when he quotes those passages which state, that, through Christ, all shall be made alive-that he taketh away the sins of the world, &c. Answer: The whole system of Universalism, like all other heresies, is built upon equivocal passages of Scripture-those passages that admit of two different interpretations, either natural or forced. In interpreting all such passages, it is a universally admitted rule, that we must give them that signification which agrees best with the general character and design of Scripture-that we must never interpret one passage so as plainly to contradict another; for the Scriptures cannot possibly contradict themselves and that of different meanings, that which is the most natural, and has the least difficulties to contend with, is to be preferred. Now we have already proved, that the leading doctrine of the Universalist is both unreasonable and unscriptural; and cannot possibly be true, if the Scriptures are true. Should, therefore, any equivocal passage admit of one interpretation which was favourable to the Universalist doctrine, we should still, according to the above rule, be obliged to reject it as untenable, and give to it that other signification which agrees best with the analogy of faith, and the character of Scripture and of God. Thus, all shall be made alive again, through Christ, may have two meanings at least we will admit this for the present, as we cannot stay here to dispute it may either mean that all shall be made happy for ever through Christ, or that all shall hereafter be raised to life again, and at the resurrection have their souls and bodies reunited. But the first of these interpretations cannot be the true one, for it contradicts other parts of Scripture; and neither God nor his word can contradict themselves. The other interpretation then must necessarily be adopted, and be the true one; for it agrees perfectly with other parts of holy writ. We shall all be raised from