OBJECTION III.

UNIVERSALISM makes God cruel, unjust, and false to his creatures.

It may be a matter of surprise, that we object that to Universalism, which it brings as an objection to our system; for Universalists profess to have found out a system which alone frees the Divine character from cruelty and injustice. But let the candid judge whether our charge is not supported.

Universalism is founded upon predestination. It is a fact which, it is presumed, will not be denied, that most of the Universalists through our country are fatalists; and those who are not, are evidently ignorant of their system. To believe in the final salvation of all men, and not believe in predestination and irresistible grace, is an inconsistency, which few men of sense and thought have long persisted in. Hence many, who when they first embraced the doctrine of universal salvation, were Arminians as to human agency and the work of grace upon the heart, have either given up Universalism, or embraced predestination. The more general motto now is, "Whatever is, is right." Every thing is according to the will of God. And laying these premises, they go on to prove their doctrine logically, thus:

A merciful God will never punish his creatures eternally, for unavoidable acts.

All the actions of men are unavoidable be ing fixed by the decree of God.

Therefore, God will never punish men eternally.

Again:-A merciful God will never punish his creatures eternally, for doing his will. All the actions of men are according to his will and desire.

Therefore, he will never punish men eternally.

But God does punish men for their sins in this world, if not in another, Universalists. themselves being judges. They talk about suffering the penalty of the law, the hell of conscience. And indeed the Scriptures abundantly show that sinners are punished for their sins. It follows then, on this plan, that God is not merciful; for he actually punishes men for what they cannot help, and for what is according to his will. This conclusion from the premises, is as clear as the shining of the sun, and I challenge Universalists to get rid of it. It is folly to say he is merciful, in this punishment, because he designs it to reclaim them, and thus prepare them for greater happiness. For, 1. If they are now in their character and conduct just what he would have them be, which must be granted, on the ground of predestination, then to talk of reclaiming them is to talk nonsense. Reclaim them from what? From being and doing what God willed they should be and do? Altered they may be, but this can never be called a

reclaim. 2. But why punish them to effect this alteration? Such an arbitrary act of inflicting suffering upon an innocent being, whether for an hour or an age, is, as to the principle of misery, equally oppressive and cruel. Certainly, an infinitely wise and powerful God must be unmerciful to cause his creatures to suffer in undergoing an alteration from a state in which he placed them, into another state of his own choosing. If man was allowed to be a free agent in this affair, having power to choose and act either way, and in the exercise of this power went contrary to God's will, there would be justice, and mercy too, in causing him to be put under the discipline of suffering; but in case of necessity, I am astonished that men, who believe as they profess, in a system which above all others represents God in his true dress of mercy and justice, should hold to such a cruel doctrine as this, that God punishes his creatures for doing what they could not help, and for what was agreeable to his will. I freely confess this is charging more upon God than I can ever believe. Of all cruel aspersions that has ever been cast upon his character, this takes the lead. This vindication of the character of God is like Joab's saluting Amasa, or Judas Christ. It stabs what it professes to embrace, while it pretends a friendly salute, it betrays. I do not mean to say that Universalists see and moralize all the bearings of this doctrine. But if they are igno

rant of it, it affords a striking proof of the delusion the mind is subject to, when it determines to carry a favourite point, at all

events.

Predestination then must be given up,that is, the certain salvation of all mankind must be given up; for that doctrine is built on predestination, or else God is cruel and unjust. Let Universalism avoid this dilemma if it can.

But once more, under this objection. Universalism not only makes God cruel and unjust, but it makes him false to his creatures.

The Scriptures represent many things as contrary to the will of God; but how can that be, if every thing takes place according to his will? Has God forbidden murder, and all other crimes, and yet are all these crimes according to his will? Has he given us a rule to walk by, and yet influences us to transgress it? So it seems, if predestination be true. Is not this deception? Is it not an imposition?— But again, if God made us just as we are, he certainly made conscience, that inward monitor, which becomes so troublesome to the transgressor. And what does conscience say? It says, 66 Thou hast done wrong." It smites the sinner, and excites such anguish in the breast, as induces Universalism to give it the name of "the hell of conscience;" supposing it to be all that is meant by those strong expressions in Scripture which describe the sinner's hell. But how false are all these

reprovings of conscience, when the man has only been doing the will of God! that which God necessitated him to do;—that which it was absolutely necessary he should do, in order to qualify him for heaven! Does God then raise up witnesses to testify to a lie? To make a man believe that he is to blame for doing that which he could not avoid? Does God influence a man to pass a judgment upon himself, that he has been doing wrong, when he has only been doing the will of God. merely for a pretence to punish him after with all the horrors of a "hell of conscience?" Not only the Scriptures then must be thrown aside, but conscience must be accounted a bugbear, the creation of a false education. For to call it the messenger of God in the soul, is to say God has sent a messenger to raise false alarms, to testify to untruths. But even this will not rid us of the difficulty. For though conscience be the fruit of a bad education, yet if God controls all things irresistibly, that education was his work, the result of his influence. God caused him to be

thus educated and deceived, and thus the deception, after all, comes from God. Pursue the idea a little farther. God, according to this doctrine, subjected man to all his ignorance here; he is the direct and determining cause of all his ideas, and of all his volitions, and of all his sentiments. Now, whatever the Bible teaches, it is certain many believe it teaches eternal punishment. This has an in