GROWTH.
"Day by day the doctrine of the eternity of evil is being driven
into its native night before a higher view of the nature of God, and
a nobler belief in Him as the undying righteousness."--REV. STOPFORD
A. BROOKE.
At the beginning of the present century, thirty years from the time of
Mr. Murray's first preaching in America, there were a few more than
twenty preachers of Universalism here. By the year 1813 there were
forty; in 1840 there were four hundred and sixty-three. At the present
time our church "Register" reports the number seven hundred and
thirty. And this increase of ministerial force is not the most
noticeable fact in connection with the advancement of this faith.
Other instrumentalities are to be taken into the account. As the
preacher at the centenary meeting of the National Convention stated:
"Our lists, latterly, have been more closely pruned; our parishes have
been greatly strengthened; our bases of operations have been
fortified; our clergy have made great advances in devising liberal
things; and our laity, possessing far greater wealth, and holding far
higher social positions than formerly, more nobly respond, and with
greater alacrity, to the far-sighted demands now so frequently made
upon them. There are scores of our parishes in the various sections of
our Zion, any one of which can now be moved to a greater work for a
worthy object outside its own interests, than could our whole church
twenty-five years ago."[17]
Educational improvements have also contributed to this favorable
change. At first there were no theological seminaries nor academies in
aid of this faith. In process of time these grew up and were made
serviceable in the promotion of it, so that now not less than seven
academies, five colleges, including three professional schools, two of
divinity and one of law, having an aggregate property of more than two
millions of dollars, are to be counted among its working forces. The
publications in the interests of this faith have had large increase.
Books, pamphlets, tracts, weekly and monthly journals, and the
"Quarterly," commentaries on the Scriptures, together with
well-sustained publishing houses, are additional influences constantly
in operation to aid the efforts of the ministry. The Murray Centenary
Fund, projected in 1869, is designed to aid in the education of the
clergy, the circulation of denominational literature, and in church
extension. This Fund amounted, Oct. 1, 1880, to $121,757.29. The
Woman's Centenary Aid Association was organized in 1869 to assist in
raising the Murray Fund, and was incorporated Sept. 18, 1873. It is
supported wholly by voluntary contributions and annual memberships.
These are all evidences of life and advancement, and indicate a larger
increase in the future, which may be realized with a zeal in operation
like that which has effected the change already noted.
Of the theological changes realized since the opening of the present
century, what shall we say? and all of them indicating an approach to
this very faith of which we are speaking. When Murray and his
contemporaries entered upon their work in America, the old Calvinistic
theology had almost undisputed sway here; and for fifty years
afterwards it was more or less so. But since 1830 up to the present
time, including the middle of this century, the advancement in
theological thought has been as marked as have these other changes and
signs of progress to which we have alluded. True, Arminianism came in
with the Methodistic movement, and made vigorous warfare upon the old
theology, with its "five points" so tenaciously adhered to. But
Methodism held fast that abominable dogma, eternal punishment, and
failed to see God's purposes any more effective in the final salvation
of souls than did Calvinism with its full assurance of the salvation
of "the elect" only. The Arminian deity seems to have had no fixed
purpose as to the number of the finally redeemed. Though he foreknew,
he was not pleased to ordain, or in the words of Dr. Adam Clarke: "I
conclude that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in consequence
of this, _to know all that he can know_."[18] The God of Calvin,
though having a determinate will, appeared as a tyrannical sovereign;
the God of Arminius, as lacking in purpose and in power. The one made
the salvation of a certain number sure; the other left all in
uncertainty, because so much depended solely on the will of the
creature. The two systems summed up, however, amounted to
Universalism. The one affirmed that every soul for whom Christ died
would be saved; the other, that Christ, "by the grace of God, tasted
death for every man."[19] Opposed as were the two sects representing
these theologies, in the beginning, they have settled down into quite
a fraternal compromise during the last half century. Pulpit exchanges
are free among their ministers, and, although here and there some of
the old peculiarities of Calvinism occasionally find utterance, the
statement of a noted Congregationalist minister seems to express the
thought of both parties, "Election means, whosoever will; reprobation,
whosoever wont."[20]
It was in face of what were deemed the main errors of both these
theologies that Universalism stood forth as the vindicator of God the
just and merciful Father of all his children, their Judge and Saviour,
through Christ who gave himself a ransom for all, and whose own
expressive statement of the result of his ministry was, "And I, if I
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."[21]
It has been during the ministry of this faith in the present century
that the leading doctrines of the theology formerly prevalent in our
land have been questioned, investigated, and in many minds outgrown.
Who now believes in the endless suffering of infants? a doctrine
deemed unquestionable in the churches a century ago. Even the
existence of it at that time, in face of the most stubborn facts, has
been denied by those whose parents and grandparents heard it from the
Christian pulpit. Who assents to the doctrine of the total depravity
of human nature, its inability "to do a good deed or think a good
thought," and its utter odiousness in God's sight? What considerations
and reconsiderations are there of that doctrine of atonement which
involves the assumption that God was so incensed against his sinful
children that Christ, the second and more merciful person in the
Godhead, came into the world and died to appease the wrath of God and
render it possible for him to be merciful to the delinquents; and how
much more emphatic is the conviction finding utterance, so eminently
expressive of Christian Universalism, "God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be
saved."[22] And the doctrine of endless punishment, how, during the
time of which we are speaking, has this been questioned in the
churches of our land. It has been seen that the divine character is
involved in this doctrine, and that one of the most difficult of all
theological works is to vindicate this character in the light of it.
Formerly, it was deemed little short of impiety to question the
justice of God when this horrible doctrine was represented as an
indication and vindication of it. To cite emphatically the passage in
Matthew (xxv. 46), "These shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal," was considered evidence enough
that the divine justice could and would be signalized in the utter
banishment of great numbers of his children from him, world without
end. To question the exegesis of the passage as generally given--the
original meaning of the word rendered "everlasting" and "eternal"--was
regarded as a direct affront to the human wisdom of the past that had
sanctioned it; and to declare such an explanation of it as derogatory
to "the Eternal Goodness," was to question the veracity of the High
and Holy One! But the thoughts of men have kept at work; inquiry has
gone on; the old explanation has been most confidently and
emphatically denied, and a more reasonable and consistent one given.
Even the most respectable orthodoxy itself has conceded that the
_aionian_ punishment here set forth is not necessarily to be
understood as implying endless duration, and that in the argument
henceforth against the doctrine of universal restoration, this old
interpretation of the text need be no longer urged.[23] We have
reserved a more extended view of this subject, however, for the close
of this volume.
[17] Rev. Dr. A. A. Miner, Discourse at Gloucester, September, 1870.
[18] Comm. on Acts, ii. 23.
[19] Heb. ii. 9.
[20] Rev. H. W. Beecher.
[21] John, xii. 32; 1 Tim. ii. 4.
[22] John, iii. 16, 17.
[23] Dr. Taylor Lewis.