UNIVERSALISM.--UNITARIANISM.--RATIONALISM.
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone."--EPH. ii. 20.
Since the growth of the Universalist faith during the present century
in our country, that phase of Liberal Christianity denominated
Unitarianism has had its rise. It was an outcome of the Arminianism in
orthodox churches. It advocated the doctrine of the Unity of God, in
opposition to that of the Trinity as held by most of the churches in
New England.[24] It also rejected the doctrine of total depravity,
affirming that man had within him the germs of goodness, and needed
the work of Christian culture to insure his true religious growth and
perfection. Respecting the destination of man beyond the grave it had
no uniform affirmation. Its leading ministers--Drs. Channing, Dewey,
Gannett, and others--were undecided as to this great question. Dr.
Channing uttered his protest against "the horrible thought" of
interminable suffering, as affirmed by the dominant sects, while his
statements respecting the wasted and ill-spent life make it an
"impassable gulf from our Creator and from pure and happy beings,--a
consuming fire and undying worm." Dr. Gannett has similar opinions:
"Self-reproach, exclusion from the happiness of heaven, removal from
the favor of God; to live but to suffer, to feel one's self at
variance with all that is true and good and beautiful in the universe;
what more it is, eternity will disclose." Rev. Mr. Alger thinks no
fair critic can say that αἰώνιος, eternal or everlasting, when
applied to punishment, means absolutely endless, nor, on the other
hand, that it does not so mean. The late Rev. E. H. Sears writes that
"it is the average opinion of Unitarians that Restoration is not a
doctrine of Revelation." The American Unitarian Association said:
"While we do generally hold to the doctrine of the final universality
of salvation as a consistent speculation of the reason and a strong
belief of the heart, yet we deem it to be in each case a matter of
contingency, always depending on conditions freely to be accepted or
rejected." The editor of the "Monthly Religious Magazine"--the
principal of that class published by Unitarians--writes, in 1870:
"Unitarians do not believe in Universal Restoration as a doctrine of
Revelation fairly yielded by the interpretation of the Scriptures.
This, we mean, is the average opinion. They do not think the Bible
gives any verdict as to the final salvation of all mankind." Dr.
Dewey, in later times (as in his discourse in the volume of "Pitt
Street Chapel Lectures"), has defined the doctrine of the Paternity of
God so as to seem in agreement with that of the final salvation of all
souls. And at the present time perhaps the largest number of Unitarian
ministers would not hesitate to give their assent to this doctrine on
philosophical or scriptural grounds.
For the full and clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God and the Brotherhood of Man,--the former giving assurance of a
merciful care of God's offspring, and the latter of the final union,
and not separation, of the great human family,--we are indebted to the
fathers of Universalism in our land,--Murray, the Ballous, the
Streeters, and their contemporaries. The Universalism which they
declared and defended was that of the absolute and universal reign of
Divine love,--love that is ever calling the child to obedience and
happiness, and warning him against the inevitable and dire
consequences of transgression; love that sent Jesus Christ into the
world as the world's Regenerator, unto whom every knee shall bow, and
whom every tongue shall confess to be Lord to the glory of God the
Father; love that can and will overcome all hatred, make an end of
sin, destroy death, and bring in everlasting righteousness. This is
the Universalism that has led the way in this great advance and change
of theological thought, in the New England and other churches, which
is so widespread at this hour. It did not wait for public opinion to
be ready for it, but went out on its mission, confronting as
determined an opposition as has ever met any rising sect since the
apostolic days. Its first advocates, and most of those who have
succeeded them, have had a definite theology, a positive faith to
affirm. They have declared it to the world as the best, the
pre-eminent faith, standing not in the wisdom of men but in the power
of God; and have asked, as they are still asking, all the churches and
all the world, to show them a better if they are able to do so.
The sincere believers in this faith of the Gospel are glad to welcome
all other Christians who would work with them in the eradication of
religious error and the enlightenment of men by "the Word of God, that
liveth and abideth forever." For what the Unitarian Churches have done
of this work they have reason to be thankful, and would heartily
co-operate with them in every effort to this desirable and heavenly
end. The literary culture and scholarship contributed by Unitarians to
the theological thought of the last half-century, as also the faithful
and efficient work which they have accomplished, are, we think, justly
appreciated by Universalists. They would render to all their dues,
while they would humbly but righteously claim their own. It has been a
subject of regret on their part,--this was inevitable,--that in
consideration of the Rationalism, so-called, which has so marked this
period, Unitarians could not have taken a more positive and united
stand in regard to the Divine authority of Christianity, as made known
in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Since Rev. Theodore
Parker avowed his Rationalism, and began his Sunday worship service in
Boston, it has seemed to most Universalists, as it has to not a few
Unitarians, that a more definite theology and an avowed basis of its
claims have been called for on the part of those who would displace
old errors and establish the older truth of the Christian Gospel; so
that when the question is honestly asked, as it often may be, "What is
the difference between Universalism and Unitarianism?" the answer need
not necessarily be _another question_, "What kind of Unitarianism?"
Such a diversity of opinion as must abound where there is no
theological basis of Christian fellowship in any sect or fraternity,
must fail to give it that concentrated power of Christian truth so
evidently needed to turn a perverted world right side up in its
religious faith and life.
The Universalist Church has all along been aware of this need of a
substantial basis of Christian faith in order to its vitality and
success. When the Rationalism of Mr. Parker was attracting the
attention of the public, a vigorous discussion came up in the
Universalist journals of the time, whether a man should be sustained
as a Christian minister who denies the peculiarly divine character of
Christ and the account given of his miracles in the Scriptures, and of
his resurrection from the dead.[25] The adjourned session of the
"Boston Association" at Cambridgeport in December, 1847, gave special
attention to this subject. The resolution presented at a former
session a few months before at Lynn, and now again reported, was
this:--
"_Resolved_, That this Association express its solemn
conviction that, in order for one to be regarded as a Christian
minister with respect to faith, he must believe in the Bible account
of the life, teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection of the
Lord Jesus Christ."
The resolution was sustained by a very large majority of the clergy
and laity. It was a plain and honest utterance, and gave the Christian
world to understand the position of the Universalist Church in regard
to authoritative Christianity.
As might have been expected, there was still much discussion as to the
grounds of true Christian fellowship. It was followed up quite
earnestly for a time by Universalists. The question of chief interest
was, "Is not the faith of the heart (affections) of more importance
than the faith of the intellect?" Shall not the _good man_ have
Christian fellowship whatever his theological opinions may be? In the
light of the apostolic statement, "The letter killeth, it is the
spirit that giveth life," is not the spirit of primary interest, and
the letter comparatively inconsequential? To which it was replied that
the spirit of a religion is to be most clearly understood by the
letter which explains it; that the faith of the intellect and that of
the heart should correspond, in order to the most perfect Christian
discipleship; that the good man may be found in all religious
communities, but that a good Mohammedan or Brahman could not properly
claim _Christian_ fellowship, not receiving Christ as the
pre-eminent teacher of divine truth. Dr. A. P. Peabody, of the
Unitarian Church, very fairly stated the subject in a discourse given
by him at the time of which we speak:--
"One question is, whether those who take opposite views of the
authenticity of the Christian miracles shall recognize each other as
good men; and the other, whether they shall give each other
countenance as Christian teachers. The former question I am prepared
to answer with a cordial _yes_; the latter, with an
unhesitating and an unqualified _no_."[26]
About the same time there appeared in the "Universalist Quarterly" for
October, 1846, from the pen of its able editor, Rev. Dr. Hosea Ballou,
an article on "The Faith requisite to Christian Fellowship." The
subject is sounded to its depths, and presented in all its bearings,
clear as light, and plain and conclusive as logic can make it; and all
in a spirit of the utmost candor. It has never been answered.
It may not be improper to speak in this connection of one who, in the
beginning of his public life, appeared as a minister in the Unitarian
communion, but who afterwards very conscientiously left the ministry
and became a literary author and public lecturer, and who acquired a
fame everywhere acknowledged in the civilized world as one of its
eminent lights and leaders, Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson. As an author,
lecturer, and reformer he has made an indelible impression on the
minds of men during the last half century. The foremost thinkers
acknowledged their indebtedness to him. In his earlier days many of
his statements indicated pantheistic opinions. His discourse before
the Divinity School in Harvard University in 1838--so clearly and ably
replied to by Rev. Dr. Ware--seemed a singular questioning of the
personality of God, and his statements in reference to the personal
immortality of the soul hardly indicated a strong Christian hope of
this blessing. But in his later expressions of opinion we are
differently taught. His biographer says of him:[27] "He is not a
sceptic or a rationalist in the philosophic sense, and has no real
affinity with any of these schools of thought." His own words,
indicative of the Deity, are: "Nature is too thin a screen; the glory
of the Creator breaks in everywhere. There is no chance, no anarchy in
the universe." Of the divine beneficence he says, "We see the steady
aim of benefit in view from the first. Melioration is the law. The
evils we suffer will at last end themselves, through the incessant
opposition of Nature to everything hurtful." And of immortality, "All
great natures delight in stability; all great men find eternity
affirmed in the very promise of their faculties. The being that can
share a thought and a feeling so sublime as confidence in truth is no
mushroom; our dissatisfaction with any other solution is the blazing
evidence of immortality." And of the divine ruling: "Every wrong is
punished; no moral evil can prosper at last; the good is absolute, the
evil only phenomenal." And of the significance of Christ, this
language is emphatic: "You must not leave out the word Christian, for
to leave out that is to leave out everything."
All these declarations, as we apprehend them, are in perfect accord
with the teaching, spirit, and assurance of the Universalism of the
New Testament. In the grandest conceptions to which their author has
given utterance, we know of nothing that reaches beyond this, and it
is for this that we welcome him as a witness to the truth of the
Christian Gospel.
[24] The volume on the Atonement, issued in 1805 by Rev. Hosea Ballou,
was the first of any note, in this country, in which the subordination
of Christ to the Father was maintained. Dr. Mayhew and Rev. James
Freeman, of Boston, had already preached anti-Trinitarian views in
that city, and Dr. Priestley and a Mr. Butler had preached them in
other parts of the country. But Mr. Ballou's circumstances had not, it
is likely, allowed him to know what these men believed and
taught.--REV. DR. A. P. PUTNAM, in "Religious Magazine,"
April, 1871.
[25] Mr. Parker's views were the subject of special note and examination
on the part of the Universalist journals. A candid and able
review of his opinions was given in "The Universalist Miscellany" of
April, 1845, by the editor, Rev. O. A. Skinner. Rev. Mr. Lothrop, of
the Brattle Square Church (Unitarian), delivered and published a strong
discourse in opposition to the Rationalism of Mr. Parker.
[26] Anti-Supernaturalism, a sermon delivered July 13, 1845, before the
Senior Class of the Divinity School, Harvard University.
[27] Biography of Ralph Waldo Emerson, by G. W. Cook.