270

OBJECTIONS

AGAINST THE

DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION;

BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF A DISCOURSE

Delivered in the Methodist Church in Springfield, Mass., at the close of the preceding Discussion.

BY REV. W. FISK, A. M.

Principal of the Wesleyan Academy, Wilbraham, Mass.

"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate," Rev. ii, 14, 15.

THERE is no system of religion, philosophy, or politics, however long established, and however strongly supported, but may, in some of its forms, and in some of its parts, be opposed and objected to with some appearance of plausibility. And so long as the opposers of any system exert themselves to find fault with that system, without attempting to build one of their own, they may long keep the field, and make work for the friends of truth. Such hitherto has been the contest between Universalists and anti-Universalists. The long-established doctrine of future pun

ishment has been assailed, and various arguments have been brought up to disprove it. The friends of truth have met these arguments, and pointed out their futility, and in their turn have held forth the arguments in favour of their system, conscious that they would bear examination and opposition. In the mean time the numbers of the opposers have increased, not because the foundations of the old system have been shaken, but because those in the opposition had no system of their own to be demolished; therefore, though always repulsed in their assaults upon others, yet they could still keep the field, and were always ready to rally anew. I say, had no system of their own: one idea of their own they have indeed annexed, and that is, that all men will ultimately be saved; but this, as will soon be seen, was rather a loose and undigested notion, than a system of religious truth; and was exhibited under such different forms that it could not well be attacked. Nevertheless, it was sufficient for a rallying point; and one more congenial with the depraved heart could not be devised. It affords such a comfortable hope for those who wish to procrastinate repentance, or entirely dispense with it; it is such a pleasing substitute for the self-denying, cross-bearing doctrines of the Gospel, that quite a proportion of the world of sinners are disposed to favour this doctrine, on first hearing it named, before they have examined any of the arguments by which it is

defended. Every man, in any degree acquainted with the operations of the human mind, must see at once what an influence this predisposition, in favour of an idea, must have on the judgment:-it will make sophistry appear like sound argument, and the slightest appearance of support like a strong defence. To this principally is to be attributed the increase of Universalists at the present day. They have also derived quite an accession of influence and of numbers from another source. The last century teemed with open infidels. These exhausted all their resources of wit, learning, and argument, to disprove the validity and Divine authenticity of the Scriptures. But their efforts were vain, and worse than vain, for the cause of infidelity; for their arguments were so ably refuted, and the proofs of revelation were so clearly exhibited, by the friends of the Bible, that infidelity was obliged to yield to the force of argument, and either leave the ground or put on a mask. The latter alternative was chosen by many; and Universalism presented itself as a mask, exactly suited to their wishes. Here they could keep up the appearance of being believers in revelation, and yet deny all that was offensive in its doctrines, and throw off all that was uncomfortable in its restraints. Thus strengthened and encouraged, Universalism has gradually put on a more systematic form, and in proportion as it has been met by its opposers, it has been driven to the necessity of

taking some positions, and advancing some indistinct features of a system that are more visible and tangible than before. Now, therefore, those who stand by the ancient land mark have other work beside mere defence. They may assail Universalism on its own ground, show the weakness of its positions, the absurdity of its arguments, the incoherency of its parts-the unreasonable and unscriptural character of its doctrines; and where it does not assume a form that can be approached, at least its indefiniteness and confusion can be pointed out; and these, in the mind of the candid and reflecting, cannot fail of constituting an objection to the system itself.

In this way I propose, at this time, to do something; bringing all that I advance in the form of objections against Universalism itself. And this I do the more readily because I think Universalism a great error,—and if so, a very dangerous error,-one that will probably prove fatal to most of its supporters. I do it, too, because I think controversy on this subject will elicit light, and because I consider the objections against this doctrine of a serious and important character, and such as, if they cannot be removed, ought to prevail to the destruction of the system. But if they can be removed fairly, they should be, that those who now feel their force, may give them up and become Universalists. I do not expect, however, that those who are deter

mined to be Universalists, and who rest on that system for their only hope, will be likely to be convinced, or even staggered in their opinion by the strongest objections; for, "A man convinced against his will

Is of the same opinion still."

My appeal is to the candid. If any man is willingly ignorant, "let him be ignorant."

I. I object to the indefinite manner in which the doctrine of universal salvation is held; and the confusion and shifting of the arguments by which it is defended.

I make this my first objection, because, as has been already intimated, this looseness and confusion is that which of all other circumstances, contributes most, perhaps, to keep the doctrine in countenance, and prevent its being fully overthrown. If Universalism be true, never was a system of truth, it is believed, so confused: if it is false, never did error put on an appearance more like itself.

It is indefinite. One point is assumed, and it is this, and this alone which characterizes the doctrine, viz., that all men will ultimately get to heaven; but when, or by what means they will get there, are subjects in which the advocates of this doctrine are not agreed. Some, and perhaps the greater part of modern Universalists, think all will be purified here, and at death go immediately to heaven; others think there will be a preparatory process between death and the resurrection; and others expect a period of punishment indefinitely