Strictures on an Essay entitled, Original Creation of Man, published in the New York Christian Messenger and Philadelphia Universalist.

In examining the scheme of doctrine advocated by universalians, we have discovered, to our entire satisfaction, that their system is predicated on a perverted view they themselves have taken of the nature of the divine governmentThis being the case, we will, in order to show the difference between us in a clear light, state the views of the opposite party, in their own language.

In the New York Christian Messenger and Philadelphia Universalist, edited by T. J. Sawyer, A. C. Thomas, and P. Price, Vol. 4. No. 23, April 1835, subject Original Creation of Man, the writer first lays down his premises, in these words: "he (God) likewise foresaw the dispositions and propensities which it was necessary to bestow upon mankind, in order that every thing that he had made and created, or should make and create, might eventually redound to his glory, and to his alone. That all the mighty works of the great Creator are calculated for the benefit and well-being of all his dependent creatures, there can be no rational doubt." Again; 2d paragraph, they say, "and it cannot be supposed, that he who is infinite in wisdom and perfect in knowledge, and does all things according to his own will and pleasure, would give to man, who was created in his own image a disposition or propensity that would bring dishonour upon his Maker, or in any way affect the operation of his will and purposes." Again: 3d paragraph: "then comes the grand climax in the work of creation-the formation of man. Here was omnipotence itself. To form man, with a nature and disposition fitted, in every

way, to fill the important station he was to occupy, at the head of all living objects on earth, and calculated to harmonize with all the multiform parts of creation, and above all, with a disposition and propensities that would eventually lead him and all his posterity to render God the praise, and glorify his name, as the giver and governor of all things, we finite beings would suppose was no easy task: but the unbounded wisdom and knowledge of God was perfectly adequate to perform the work."

The writer, after laying down the above premises, draws the following conclusions:

First; that as God had given to man all his intellectual, mental, moral, physical and animal powers and propensities, he could only use these active powers in exact accordance with the will of God. That this is the writer's conclusion we refer you to the following words, in the 3d column, 4th paragraph: "all will admit that it was in the power of God to have prevented sin, if he had chosen so to do: but he did not prevent it: therefore it was his will it should be. If any thing is done against the will of God, what providence or omnipotence does it leave him?"

If the writer's conclusion is correct, what are the legitimate deductions of reasoning on the subject? Why, that murder, adultery, fornication, theft, lying, swearing, drunkenness, cheating, cruelty, together with the entire catalogue of in. ward as well as outward sins, to wit, hatred, vanity, wrath, malice, revenge, hypocrisy, deception, &c. are no less than the effects of God's omnipotent providence, bringing about, by the agency of man, a fulfilment of his will. Now, Jesus says, "whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, my sister, my mother." Matt. xii, 50. What a noble set of kinsfolks Christ has got, if universalism is true!

Another conclusion of the writer is, that before God made man he set a trap for him, not to try his loyalty to the Supreme Authority of his Maker, but in order that sin should make him more happy than righteousness and true holiness could make

him. That this is the writer's conclusion, look at the following words in the 3d and 4th paragraphs: "It should also be recollected that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was prepared before the woman was made. Why was this temptation prepared for Adam before they came into existence? If they were constitutionally holy, they never could have yielded to it; which is conclusive evidence to my mind that it was the purpose of God that it should be so." Again; 5th paragraph: "If man had not sinned he never could have known what happiness was.' ." If the above conclusions are correct, what are we to think of the following?

First; Adam and Eve were not happy when God placed them in paradise, nor could they know what happiness was, so long as they remained upright:

Second; Our first parents had to take the matter into their own hands, and, by forfeiting their interest to a habitation in Eden, they thus secured their own happiness! No wonder the wicked love sin, if it makes them happy.

Third; God acted the part of a hypocrite, when he warned Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, which he had put in the garden for the purpose of inducing him to eat.

Fourth; That the law given to Adam had no tendency to make him happy; consequently there was no beneficence in giving it, as our first parents could not be happy until they broke it.

Fifth; That God had no regard to truth in warning Adam against eating the forbidden fruit; because he held out the idea that it would injure him, while at the same time he could not be happy until he did eat it.

Sixth; The devil was a better friend to Adam and Eve than their Maker; for God tried to prevent Adam from doing the only thing that would make him happy, while the devil prevailed on him to do it.

Seventh; That the Almighty deceived our first parents, while the devil undeceived them.

Eighth; That God acted the part of a cruel tyrant, in pun

ishing Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit, when they could not help it; when it was his will they should eat it.

Ninth; That Adam rendered himself both happy and miserable by transgression.

I suppose that a universalian, to evade the direct force of some of these conclusions, would say that he (the writer above alluded to) did not mean to say that sin itself made man happy; but as sickness enables man to appreciate the value of health, so misery, the consequence of sin, (not sin itself) enables mankind to appreciate happiness.

This method of advocating the advantages of sin puts me in mind of the story of the old negro, who used to beat his shin with a stick, because, as he said, it felt so good when it was getting well.

How is it possible for men who advocate such views as are noticed above, to be acquainted with the nature and principles of the divine government, while they represent the Almighty as deliberately devising a plan to tempt man to crime, and then as deliberately punishing him for it? While they represent the Almighty as seriously warning Adam and Eve against eating the forbidden fruit, when he had planted it there on purpose to tempt them and decoy them into sin? Admitting that God had created man in his own image, and yet stating that man was not constitutionally holy; representing sin as better calculated to make men happy than holiness; nay as the only thing calculated to make them happy? And yet these are the men who come forward so pompously and boldly challenge us for holding a doctrine impeaching the excellency of the divine character. It will be seen, before we are done, who places that character in the most contemptible light-they or we.

To illustrate their view of the divine government a little further, we will give a passing notice of their denial of the immortality of the soul, not for the purpose of discussing that. question at present, as we purpose making it the subject of a separate essay, but for the purpose of further elucidating the subject under consideration.

It would appear, from the testimony of the sacred writers, backed by the deductions of sound reasoning, that if man had never sinned he never would have died. Whether man was created immortal or not, one thing is certain; that if he had obeyed the command of God he would have lived forever, in a state of happy existence, and would never have known sorrow. If we deny this, we must say that God intended man should die, whether he sinned or not: but this can never be made to accord with the clear evidence of reason and revelation. If God did not intend that Adam should remain upright, when he placed him in Eden, why did he prohibit him from eating the forbidden fruit? Did he do so that he might afterwards punish him with a show of justice? This would be to charge God with duplicity, as acting the part of a base deceiver, toward Adam, and a cruel tyrant, for punishing him afterward.

Let us hear the language of this prohibition of the Almighty to Adam, when he placed him in Eden-"and the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but the tree of knowledge of good and evil - thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

I now put the question; did the Almighty endow Adam with the power to keep this command? If he did, then Adam had power to live forever; if he did not, no art can set aside the conclusion drawn above-that God was both a deceiver and a tyrant.

How this view of the subject can be made to tally with the doctrine of Messrs. T. J. Sawyer, A. C. Thomas, and P. Price, expressed in the article under consideration, is for them to say; they there unhesitatingly avow it as their belief, that God prepared the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and placed it in the garden, before he made man, so as to be ready (not to test man's loyalty to his Maker's government, and to remain a standing monument of God's authority over him but) to tempt man, for the express purpose of bringing him into sin, in order to fulfil the will and purpose of God concerning him,