« ZurückWeiter »
ON UNIVERSAL SALWATION,
THREE LECTURES AND FIVE ANSWERs
BY REV. TIMOTHIY MERRITT.
To Wiiicii ARE Added
BY REV. WILBUR FISK, A. M.
PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.
For the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Conference
J. Collord, Printer.
If the opinion of a great philosopher in England, that every Christian who can write ought to leave something behind him against infidelity, be correct, I may be excused for writing against Universalism, seeing it differs so little from bare-faced Deism. This charge has often been brought against our modern doctrine of universal salvation ; and it is worth the time of any person to trace the points of agreement between the two systems. The following are some of them. They agree, 1. In asserting the doctrine of philosophical *ecessity, or fute, as governing the actions of men, and rejecting the conditionality of salvation. 2. In rejecting the infallible inspiration of the Bible, or certain parts of it, as will be seen in the course of the following discussion. 3. In rejecting the doctrine of natural depravity. 4. In denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ. 5. In denying the incarnation of Christ. 6. In denying atonement by the vicarious sufferings of Christ. 7. In denying the doctrine of the Trinity. 8. In their representations of the law and of sin.
9. In denying future judgment and future punishment. 10. In their moral influence upon society. 11. In the motives they hold out to reformation. And I might say that Universalists agree with Deists, 12. In treating experimental religion with contempt, and sneering at piety as though it were superstition. 13. In assuming a higher order of intellect, superior understanding, and freedom from the shackles of bigotry and superstition. 14. In overlooking the arguments of their opponents, and asserting what has been confuted again and again. 15. In the arts of sophistry which they employ in support of their cause. These facts I cannot illustrate in this introduction; and with those who are acquainted with the two systems there will be no need of either illustration or proof. But if Universalism and Deism are substantially the same in these points, there is no difference between them except in name; and this renders the former more dangerous and more detestable than the latter. Here infidelity is seen stalking through the land in a garb which she has stolen from the sanctuary; by means of which she has deceived many of those who were “willingly ignorant” in a matter where inclination was opposed to duty, and where self indulgence had the promise of impunity. But the moment you remove this partial covering