doctrine. This rule is just as conclusive against the Universalist doctrine, as against the reveries of Hume, when he denies the evidence of our senses: and it therefore proves that a belief in future rewards and punishments is the true belief. Had this belief only been found in modern, and not in ancient times-or among learned, and not among barbarous nationsor in certain sections of the globe, and not in all countries; it might have been ascribed to chance, caprice, prudence, state policy, or priesteraft: but now, since it has been universal-since no ancient nation was ever found where it did not prevail, and no time can be fixed upon when it was not every where the common belief and since the most ancient writers can give no other account of it, than that it was handed down from time immemorial-its existence cannot possibly be accounted for in any other way, than by admitting the truth of the doctrine of future rewards and punishments.

For the argument stands thus: That which has been be lieved by all, every where, and at all times, must necessarily either be the dictate of reason and common sense, and the result of every one's experience; or else it must be the consequence of a divine revelation, made to our first parents or to Noah, and through them handed down to all the nations of the earth. In no other way can we possibly account for the universal belief in future rewards and punishments. Upon every other supposition, that belief is an effect without a sufficient cause; and those who admit an effect without an adequate cause, admit what is absurd both in religion and philo. sophy. How then will the Universalist account for this universal belief? Is it the consequence of revelations made to man in the first ages of the world? Then he admits that God has revealed the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, and that his own doctrine is contrary to God's revealed will! Or have all mankind believed it, because the reason and common sense of every individual teaches him to believe it? Then the doctrine of the Universalist is contrary to the reason and common sense of all mankind—and then, if Universalism be true, God has made all men so, as naturally to lead. them into the belief of a lie! Here are the two horns of a

dilemma; and the Universalist may hang himself upon ever he pleases.

which

Here it is necessary to observe, that some Universalists deny that the Jews had any knowledge of a future state before the time of our Saviour; and others, admitting that they had some knowledge of a future life, of course deny either that they believed in future punishment, or else, if they did, maintain that that belief was borrowed from the heathen. To this

we answer

1st. The main question is not, whether God revealed the doctrine of future rewards and punishments to the Old Tes tament Church. For even if-which we by no means granteven if the Jews had no knowledge of it, it is enough for our purpose if this doctrine is revealed in the New Testament.

2dly. Since, as has been abundantly proved by Leland, Stillingfleet, and others, all the rest of the ancient world had the knowledge of a future life, it would be strange indeed if the Jews alone, God's own people, were an exception! And since all the rest believed in future rewards and punishments, can we suppose that the Jews had no such belief? How is this either probable or possible? For,

3dly. The foregoing argument, to prove the doctrine of future punishment from the universal belief of it, should convince us that the Jews and Israelites could not be ignorant of it. For it is manifest from reason, from experience, and from the positive testimony of the most ancient writers, that the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was not discovered by human reason, nor invented by human policy that it is not a doctrine which reason and common sense would teach every man and that its universal reception, therefore, in the earliest ages of the world, must necessarily be owing to its having been revealed from heaven, transmitted from father to son, and from generation to generation, and thus spread, by natural inheritance and tradition, wherever the descendants of Adam and of Noah were scattered abroad. In this case, it is as certain that the ancient Church of Judah and Israel believed in future punishment, as that any of the other

nations believed it; for it was one article of their universal traditionary faith.

4thly. That the Jews actually did believe this doctrine in the time of our Saviour-that they had then believed it from time immemorial-and that they, as well as the Gentiles, ascribed this doctrine originally to divine revelation—is manifest not only from the works already quoted, but also from the writings of Philo and Josephus, two distinguished Jews→→ is manifest from the apocryphal books bound up with some of our Bibles-and is manifest from the Targums, or commentaries of Onkelos, Jonathan, and others, upon the various books of the Old Testament. Most of these works were written before or during the time of our Saviour, and they prove that Jews and Gentiles had but one belief on the subject of future rewards and punishments. These facts are so notorious, that we shall not stay to make any quotations to prove them; especially since the most distinguished of our American Universalist writers admits them to be true.

5thly. The Jews and Israelites were the descendants of Abraham. Abraham was a Chaldean. He and his posterity sojourned for many hundred years among the Phenicians and Egyptians; and all these three ancient nations believed in future punishment. The ancient mysteries are traced up to a very remote antiquity among these and many other nations, and the doctrine of future rewards and punishments was one of the doctrines taught in those mysteries. The Brachmans, Persians, Arabians, and Sabeans, are generally believed to have been the descendants of Abraham; and they all believed in future punishment. It is therefore highly probable that Abraham and all his posterity, the Israelites and the Jews, agreed with all the rest of the world, and held, in all ages, the doctrine of a future state of retribution.

6thly. As no facts can be brought to prove it, so no reasons whatever can be given to make it probable, that the ancient Jews and Israelites did not believe as the rest of mankind on this subject. All that Universalists pretend to show

Warburton's Divine Legation.

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 Testament. 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 uninvalidated 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 unipersal 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 des tiny? 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 com