are unwearied in proclaiming it upon the house top. But to return ;-if our Lord or the apostles did not intend to confirm the Jews in their error, then they meant to stamp with their authority the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked. I see no means of avoiding this conclusion; and the argument must certainly have great weight. It will outweigh a thousand verbal criticisms upon Greek or Hebrew terms. It has certainly been well said, that "Scripture is to be taken in that sense in which the common people who heard it at first took it." If so, then we are to understand those passages in the New Testament in the manner that the Jews must necessarily have understood them. We have already seen that these terms were understood by the Jews as applying to the eternal punishment of the impenitent. This gives the doctrine of the Jews additional weight, while it leads to a clue, which, beyond the power of successful contradiction, will determine that our Lord and his apostles held the same doctrine, and thus they both unite to corroborate it. And this argument gathers more strength from the consideration that the advocates for the two systems, Jewish and Christian, were at variance. When a new system is introduced to take the place of an old one; in all those points of any importance in which the two disagree there will be a controversy, as was the case in many instances between Christ and the Jews, the apostles and their countrymen. But there was no controversy between them on the subject of the

duration of punishment. Also such opposing advocates for different systems will be careful not to use terms that will establish what they conceive to be the errors of their opponents; but not only is no such caution used by our Lord and his apostles, but they frequently and commonly used the same terms that the Jews used when speaking on the subject of future punishment, and that without any explanation, or even a hint, that they meant to be understood differently from the current opinion;-a strong proof that they used the current terms on this subject according to their current meaning. And the other consideration, that in no other case have they given intimations that such a doctrine which was then prevailing was false, is sufficient, I think, to establish the point, that Jesus Christ and his apostles held the punishment of the wicked the same as the Jews. And these general principles laid down, with respect to any conflicting systems, have the more weight in this case, because Christ came to reform the errors of the world, and introduce the true system. And neither he nor his apostles were actuated by any motives of worldly prudence or policy; they declared the whole truth, and that boldly.

To support the doctrine that the apostolic Church held no such doctrine as is held by Universalists, we might quote the many scriptures that have so often been quoted, and never answered to the satisfaction of the discerning. We might say that the uniform representation

of these evangelical records and apostolic writings, is, that some do and will reject this Gospel, and will continue to reject, in consequence of which they will be shut out, rejected, cast off, and that then even prayers and entreaties will not prevail for their admission into the kingdom. But we pass on to notice that the primitive fathers were no Universalists. The very earliest of their writings that have come down to us are express and pointed on the doctrine of endless punishments. Origen was the first that dissented; and he did not pretend that he received his doctrine from the Bible, but from the Platonic philosophy. His ideas however were condemned as erroneous, unscriptural, and absurd, by the main body of the bishops and clergy in the Christian Church of his age, and the succeeding ages.

To show the opinion of some of the early fathers of the Church on this subject, I take the following, ready prepared to my hand, from an appendix to a pamphlet by another.*

"Clemens Romanus says, 'If we do not the will of Christ, nothing will deliver us from eternal punishment.'

"Barnabas says,' The way of darkness is crooked and full of cursing; for it is the way of eternal death with punishment.'

"Justin Martyr says, The punishment of the damned is endless punishment and torment in eternal fire.'

* Rev. George Peck.

"Christ,' says Iræneus,' will send the ungodly and unjust into everlasting fire.'

"Tertullian says, All men are appointed unto eternal torments or refreshments. And if any man think that the wicked are to be consumed, and not punished, let him remember that hell fire is styled eternal, because designed for eternal punishment;' and thence concludes; Their substance will remain for ever, whose punishment doth so."

"St. Cyprian says, 'The souls of the wicked are kept, with their bodies, to be grieved with endless torments.'

66

And even Origen himself, who embraced the doctrine of a restoration from hell, nevertheless records this, among the doctrines of the Church, That every soul, when it goes out of this world, will either enjoy the inheritance of eternal life and bliss, if its deeds have rendered it fit for life, or it is to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if its sins have deserved that state." "

Thus the first advocate for Universalism in the Church, by his own concession, maintained a doctrine contrary to the doctrines of the primitive Church. Is not this an accredited witness? And even Origen's system was no more like the modern system of Universalism, than it was like the true system of the apostles. After Origenism was purged from the Church, we know of no other advocates for even the main point of Universalism till Bishop Burnet.

Neither has such a thing been known, so far

as I can learn, in the Greek Church, that any man has espoused and maintained this doctrine. From the above arguments then, as well as from the forementioned concessions of Universalists themselves, we rest the truth of the proposition, which constitutes this objection to Universalism. The proposition is true, the proofs are clear, and the objection stands with all its weight. If Jews and Christians, in all ages of their respective dispensations, have been in error with respect to one of their fundamental doctrines, then Universalism may be true; but if they have not been in such an error, then Uni versalism is most certainly false.

The sum of all the foregoing is, that the system of Universalism as held and taught at the present day, is highly objectionable,-from the indefinite manner in which the doctrine is held, and the confusion and shifting of the arguments by which it is supported; because it is supported by arguments which prove too much for the system, and which, when pursued, run into absurdities, and contradict matter of fact; -it makes God cruel, unjust, and false;-it does not draw its chief support from the Bible: it is the religion of the natural heart, and therefore cannot be the religion of the Bible. It is pernicious to the morals of society; and, finally, it has never been received nor supported by the orthodox Church, Jewish or Christian. These objections have not only been stated and sustained by positive proofs, but some of the strongest and most common replies to them have been