« PreviousContinue »
FUBLISHED BY B. WAUGH AND T. MASON,
No. 200 Mulberry-street.
J. Collord, Printer.
Tappen Presb, Ass
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 barefaced Deism. This charge has often been brought against the 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 necessity, or fate, 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.