Fifty Notable Years

In this presentation of the principal educational institutions founded and sustained mainly by the Universalist public, it is seen what influences may go out from them to the honor of the Universalist Church, the promotion, of literary culture, scientific enlightenment, and Christian civilization.

It may be well here, as we speak of educational aids, to recognize the instrumentality of the Sunday-school, which has found such a good degree of encouragement from the friends of Christian Universalism. It has been an outgrowth of the increased conviction among them of the duty of instructing the rising generation in the truth and life of the Gospel. From the beginning of the present century in America this work has been recognized, the Universalists in Philadelphia and Boston manifesting their special interest in it.56 Growth in this work has been gradual but encouraging, and the Sunday-school is now one of the cherished institutions of the Universalist Church. Its interests are widely and earnestly discussed, and the means for its advancement through the children's paper and teachers' "Helper" promise good results, if wisely utilized in the future. Although still needing improvement, the Sunday-school may be regarded with this church, as with others bearing the Christian name, as an indispensable aid in the moral advancement and religious culture of the children and youth on whom will rest the responsibilities of the church in the years to come. The Sunday-school cause was never more generally and unitedly encouraged by Universalists than at the present time.

Another educational aid worthy of note is that to be found in the circulation of the literature of the church; its periodicals, books, pamphlets, and tracts. These have thus far done excellent work in reaching and awaking interest in religious truth where the living preacher has not gone. A hundred-fold more can this be done by a just appreciation of this great instrumentality, – the Press. It is always a power in the advocacy of any cause; it will be in its tendency to deepen and strengthen the loyalty of Universalists to the church they represent. An active and clear-sighted agent of one of our Western colleges just now writes: —

"In my work for the college, the closest readers of our church papers are the ones who have responded most readily to the call for help. Loyalty to our church among them is the rule, while among those who do not take a paper, he is the exception, only, who responds to the call. Nothing else can be so powerful an ally of the preacher in keeping the people informed of our schools and colleges and all other interests; and that Universalist family which refuse to take a church paper for the pittance which our Western organ costs, —four cents a week, – not only lose much of interest and enjoyment, but thereby advertise their own indifference to the best interests of the church.

"Strenuous efforts should, for these reasons, be put forth by the ministry and other agencies to place a church paper in every Universalist home throughout the land."57

The appeal here made will apply to any locality. And more than this. These readers of the church publications are themselves to seek a larger distribution of this means of Divine enlightenment to others. Ignorance of Christian truth at home and abroad, – in our own land and in lands less blessed with heavenly knowledge, – is constantly calling for this educational work on the part of those who are permitted to live in the light and cherish the hopes of the Gospel of God's impartial and efficient grace.

CHAPTER XXI.

THE LAITY

"All the members have not the same office. One body in Christ, and severally members one of another." – Rom. xii. 4, 5.

ALTHOUGH in the biographical sketches contained in this volume those of the ministry are made conspicuous, the writer is sensitively aware of the fact that many devoted and honorable laymen, who have faithfully and essentially sustained the ministry, are equally worthy of record for their works' sake. A separate volume, such as we are not able to make up, would be required to do them justice. We take occasion, however, to speak a word in way of sincere and grateful tribute to these good and strong helpers, through whom the ministry has received inspiration and strength.

No sect can live mainly on the dignity, or piety, or learning, or good reputation of its ministry. Leaning too much on these, it will grow formal and cold; will fail to become an active force among the masses, in the midst of the opposing hosts of this great world around it. To sustain a ministry as a kind of moral or spiritual convenience, to wait upon it chiefly to be entertained, or to be satisfied with the respectable precision with which its functions are performed, and thus to keep in "good standing" with the Christian community and the observant world, is different entirely from the intent of that great spiritual enterprise which the New Testament upholds.

It was a significant saying of the rebuilders of the ancient temple, that "the people had a mind to work." Leaders, priests, prophets, master-builders were aided by others on every hand, and so the work went successfully on. It must be thus in the uprearing and strengthening of the walls of the Christian Zion. With the diversities of gifts, there is to be the one spirit, one will and endeavor, and the one glorious end constantly in view. The direction of the apostle to the Church at Rome gives us the true idea: "We, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." He used the well-known illustration of the limbs and members of the human body to describe the several offices and functions in the Church; setting the right estimate on the diversity and unity of those who composed it, giving to all their places and to each its share of the essential life-work to be done.

Of the true and faithful "women-workers" of the Universalist Church we have freely spoken; to the fidelity of the good and faithful men we would as readily testify. Names we may not mention, for, these once given, we should be unable to decide where to close the record. But this we can say, – and every faithful minister will bear witness to the truth of our statement, – that among his experiences none have been more uplifting than those connected with the co-operation of true souls who have waited on his ministry, and given their ready counsel and sure and steady support. The minister of the city with his incessant toils and cares, the country pastor in his quiet rounds of duty, or the missionary-evangelist having his preaching-stations at long distances from each other, all have been doubly blessed in their anxious and unremitting toils in the Lord's field by the cordial smiles and welcome greetings and generous encouragements of the lay friends who, by spirit and action, have been all the time bidding them "God-speed" on their way.

"How shall they hear without a preacher?" is a very sensible New Testament question. How shall the preacher be sustained and blessed by his hearers? is another of equal weight and timeliness. A society or church is to be formed; a Sunday-school organized; ways and means instituted to secure a financial basis to carry on the work of the church. Where rests the responsibility, and where the directing and sustaining force, but in the few, perhaps, who are to be depended upon in every such movement, and who give confidence and courage to others who are gladly willing to do their parts with them.

A low tide comes in society affairs; adversities have been realized, and the faint-hearted are prophesying failure. Who but the few "stand-bys" are among the hopeful and helping; those always readiest with their money, always in their places at the worship service, or in the conference meeting or the Sunday-school? What would be the courage of the minister but for this loyal church-guard ever to be depended on?

A church edifice is to be built, or a church debt cancelled? Who shall lead in the business? the minister? Yes, if he can more conveniently than any other one. But what shall his "lead" be without followers? On whom does he most rely? On those laymen who are only waiting for his word to begin the work. Their generous zeal will awaken new interest in others, and this "striving together" of minister and people will insure success.

A pastor is out on a mission of private charity. The case of a poor widow, or sick and needy husband and father, or some suffering and desponding one needing help and comfort, is tugging at his heart-strings, and the immediate resources of his pocket are not equal to the demand. What then? He knows just where to go, directly, quietly, to the counting-room, or store, or farmhouse of that layman whose religion makes him glad to "do good and to communicate," and whose worldly store gives him opportunity thus to bless himself as he confers a blessing on others.

A college needs an additional endowment. Money is required. The president or some other friend of the institution goes forth in confidence that, on a truthful representation of the needs, certain ones will listen with interest and liberally respond to the call, and, as the annual report at the next Commencement declares, he is not disappointed. He has consulted the laymen.

The General or State Convention makes its annual call upon the parish for its apportioned contribution to the funds for the general work of the church, and its extension beyond existing parish lines; for missionary operations in the waste places, that they may be blessed with the light and joy of the Gospel. Who will be sure to meet truly and promptly this call? The loyal layman who has made himself acquainted through the church journals and from his minister in the pulpit with the just and holy demands of this enterprise, and who has never indulged himself in laying back from it, saying, "We have enough to do to meet our own parish expenses!" No, he and such as he now cheer the heart of his minister, and make glad sister parishes, and add credit to the whole church.

A blessing like this cannot be too highly prized, cannot awaken too strong a thanksgiving. A faithful ministry the church must have or fail. But this ministry, to be strong and prevail, must have for its fresh inspiration the hopeful eyes and ready hands and throbbing hearts of a constant and loyal laity.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE PRESENT OUTLOOK

"No man can be assured of his own salvation, except he see the same salvation in the same Saviour for all men, as well as for himself; which is to love his neighbor as himself." – Richard Coppin.58

THAT the errors connected with what has been deemed the Orthodoxy of the past are passing away is undeniable. We have been noting this on every page of this volume. The Christian pulpit and the religious and secular press are bringing out new confirmations of it continually. Take two indications; first, the emphatic utterances coming from the Episcopal Church in England and America. It is Rev. Charles Kingsley who writes: "I preach to you a Son of God who has declared everlasting war against disease, ignorance, sin, death, and all which makes men miserable. Those are his enemies, and he reigns and will reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet, and there is nothing left in God's universe but order and usefulness, health and beauty, knowledge and virtue, in the day when God shall be all in all." It is Canon Farrar at Westminster Abbey who is awaking deep interest in his vigorous exposures of the hideousness of the old ideas of a wrathful God who would punish some of his simple offspring hereafter "without relief and without end." His volumes entitled "Eternal Hope" and "Judgment and Mercy," are full of references to the opinions of others in the past, who have opposed these errors, – although most of them are not new to readers and students of Universalist literature, – and are among the harbingers of that coming day when the absurdities which he assails shall be numbered among the things that were. His admissions of the force of the arguments of Universalist writers are such as will awaken new inquiry in many directions, notwithstanding he takes occasion to affirm of himself most distinctly, "But I am not a Universalist." We can only say that, if he is not, he is doing no small share of a work which will tend to make others avowers and defenders of this faith. Others of the ministry in England, like the late Dr. Maurice, Rev. Frederick Robertson, and Rev. Stopford Brooke, have given their testimonies in behalf of these higher and clearer views of Christian theology. In America, such men as Drs. Holland and Phillips Brooks, are advocates of the improved theology, the last-named explicitly affirming his faith in the final salvation of all souls. Dr. Heber Newton, rector of the Anthon Memorial Episcopal Church at New York, in his sermon on the death of the late Rev. Dr. Chapin, said that —

"Dr. Chapin, knowing the feeling of the church against the new ism, boldly became its preacher, for he recognized its great and noble mission. That sin had its recompense, he never doubted, but his doctrine of 'God is love,' was so eloquently preached that the theologians reconsidered their doctrines of retribution. Even the Episcopal Church, he says, in recently reviewing the articles, struck out the one about eternal punishment. When Universalism began its mission, religion so to speak, had become ossified and rigid, and it was necessary, to meet the advanced thought of the age, that some change be made in it. The force that wrought this change, developed outside of the Orthodox Church, and it has been instrumental in banishing much of the barbarism and cruelty of expression which Christians borrowed from the Pagans."

The Presbyterian and Methodist Churches have had their experiences in the agitation of these questions involving the acceptance or rejection of the leading points of theology held by them in the past. But the freest and boldest utterances on this subject seem to have come from the Congregationalist Churches. Members of the Beecher family have been quite conspicuous in their allusions to the old and abhorrent doctrines of Calvinism; as for instance, Mrs. Stowe, in her "Minister's Wooing" and "Old Town Folks;" her sister Catherine, in her emphatic saying, that, as this theology is set forth, "there must be an awful mistake somewhere;" Dr. Edward Beecher, in his "Conflict of Ages" (a work ably reviewed by Rev. Moses Ballou); and Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, who has just now affirmed that he will never more preach the horrible doctrine of endless punishment. After repeating a statement he had made, that the dogma of endless suffering is the cause of increasing infidelity, Dr. Edward Beecher says, that "Universalism is no longer restricted within denominational lines, but is now diffused more widely than some suspect," that "the preaching of the doctrine is largely neutralized by a latent Universalism within the walls of evangelical churches," that some of the clergy "dare not investigate the dogma (endless suffering) in an impartial, scientific method, lest they bring themselves into conflict with the creed they are expected to defend;" and closes thus: "Meanwhile the creed-doctrine of an endless punishment is seldom discussed from the pulpit, and never willingly heard by the pews." Significant indeed is the closing of his volume on the "Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution: " "Even admitting that the doctrine of eternal punishment is the word of God, it seems to be forgotten that allegations may be attached to it that shall make it to be not the word of God, but the greatest falsehood in the Universe."

At the Congregationalist Convention in Boston in 1865 the difficult problem came up to be solved, "how they could state what they themselves had come to believe, without appearing to deny what the fathers believed." Assembled at the old Burial Hill of the Pilgrims in Plymouth, they affirmed their adherence to the "substance of the Westminster and Saybrook Confessions of Faith." To clothe this "substance" in verbal forms, making it a true statement of the old theology of Puritanism, and at the same time a living thing of to-day, would seem to be an undertaking resulting in as great a confusion of tongues as in any instance recorded in the history of the past. To keep intact the theology of the past in their churches is an impossibility.

For, let us understand that the most thoughtful among the theologians of nearly all the churches are now beginning to feel the force of the question hitherto hushed down, as it has been boldly asked or even whispered in the face of the theology of the past: What is the Divine responsibility in the creation of man? It is the question asked by Hosea Ballou, in his youth, of his father, a Baptist minister: "Would it be an act of goodness on my part to create a human being, – had I the power, – knowing that his existence would prove an endless curse to him?" a question which the father was unable to answer, and which the son did not press strongly upon him. This question, though familiar enough to Universalists and long made a ground of argument concerning human destiny, has usually been evaded by the supporters of the popular theology, as beyond the reach of human reason. They have regarded the inquiry as to the responsibility of God in the creation of man as irreverent on the part of his feeble offspring. But the question has been considered and earnestly examined, and the discussion of it has elicited the most outspoken opinions as to the result of the investigation.

Rev. W. W. Patton, D. D. of Howard University, has recently spoken very definitely on this subject, although he acknowledges that it has not been a legitimate one to be decided upon by the theologians of his school. He affirms that the Divine reason like our own (we being made in the Divine image) includes the eternal, unchangeable, and imperative idea of right, the practical synonym of which is love, – love being that which always, everywhere, and in all beings, expresses the right or sums up duty. He reaches the conclusion that God chooses love as the rule of his activity, that when he creates rational sensitive beings, by that very fact he put himself voluntarily into a relation which calls upon him to act upon the principle of love, which gives them a right to expect that he will so act.

It is an answer to the question of Abraham, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" and of Paul, "Is God unrighteous?" In agreement with this reasoning of Dr. Patton, is that of Rev. John Miller of Princeton, N. J., who just now affirms: —

"A deformed God is a great light gone out from any religion, and is the chief ally of infidelity. God is not to be worshipped because he is powerful, any more than Satan is; but because he is moral. If he wrongs me in bringing me into being, he is no sovereign to me."59

In the same strain comes this testimony from Miss Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, of Andover, in a late number of the "North American Review: " —

"The Bible meets us squarely upon the deepest and the highest question which the finite intellect has the right to ask: What, having made us at all, is God's moral attitude toward us? When he thrust into space this quivering ball of pain and error, did he mean well enough by it to justify the deed? Profounder than all our philosophy, wiser than all our protest, comes the sublime and solitary answer: 'He so loved the world that He gave his only Son.' This magnificent reply, which theology has distorted out of its grand and simple proportions, to which science has refused its supreme reasonableness, the true human heart and the clear human head have accepted. The contortions of faith and the malice of doubt have almost equally united to shake the hold of this great re-assurance upon the world. The world will have it in spite of both. The world will have it, because it is the best it can get; and by all the iron laws of common sense it will keep the best till God or man can offer it something better."

Even so. Amen!

At the present time the orthodoxy of Andover Theological Institution is assuming new and strange aspects. During the recent discussions respecting the invitation to Dr. Newman Smyth to accept a professorship at the institution, this avowal on the part of the professors still in their places there is given to the public: —

"It cannot be denied that the doctrines of eternal punishment and of the judgment have lost their proper place in the teachings of the pulpit. That method alone can restore them to a reflective age which refuses to put into them more than our Saviour left in them, and which brings them into accord with the knowledge of divine truth which the spirit of Christ is ever developing in his Church. Christianity educates men to ever higher, broader, more truthful conceptions of God. The questionings of to-day in Christian hearts respecting the doctrine of eternal punishment are a consequence of the elevating and spiritualizing power of the Gospel. The Church should seek out positions that can be held. It should be in advance of its enemies."

This change, it is affirmed by the Andover professors, —

"… is a natural development of principles which the New England theology has especially cultivated. These principles have gained their rights only by hard conflicts. At every stage the cry of heresy has filled the air, but they have won the day. They have banished the dogmas of guilt for Adam's sin, of infant damnation, of passive regeneration, of the universal perdition of the heathen. They have been attended all along by concessions, – concession of the dogmas that all men sinned in Adam, that Adam was their federal head, that the death of Christ was only for the elect; concession that 'elect infants' who die in infancy include all such; that we cannot fix the time when moral agency begins; that none who die before this point is reached are excluded from salvation; and so on, through ever-advancing modifications. The path of New England theology is thus strewn with concessions, – concessions to an advancing knowledge of God's Word, concessions to truth!"60

Very explicit language, surely. And yet, in direct conflict with it, there is the fact that the Andover creed, to which all professors of the institution must give their assent, involves the doctrines of the Trinity and Vicarious Atonement; that "by nature every man is personally depraved, destitute of holiness, alike opposed to God; and that, previously to the renewing agency of the Divine Spirit, all his moral actions are adverse to the character and glory of God; that, being morally incapable of recovering the image of his Creator, which was lost in Adam, every man is justly exposed to eternal damnation; so that, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God; that God of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, selected some to everlasting life, and that he entered into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of this state of sin and misery by a Redeemer." Yes, the Andover creed declares there is a final separation from the love of God, which cannot wrest the erring soul from the grasp of death, cannot bridge the grave, cannot descend into the depths and bring up to life and light its own offspring. Christ himself may declare, "I will draw all men unto me;" the Andover creed says, No! No salvation for the soul that has entered death's dark realm. No matter that Christ has the keys of hell, he cannot rescue! No matter that the time has been foretold when "death and the grave shall be destroyed," when "there shall be an end of sin," when pain shall no longer pierce and tears no longer flow; in opposition to all this the Andover creed tells us, as an essential part of Christian faith, as one of the inspiring strains of the Gospel message, that "the wicked" whom Christ came to save, "will awake to shame and everlasting contempt, and with devils be plunged into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone for ever and ever."

How are these theological contradictions to be explained? Infidels are sneering at this double-dealing; honest Christians are asking, "What is to be the issue of this conflict? Why do not these religious leaders state plainly where they stand, and what they would have the churches accept and affirm as the truth of God?" The question has been aptly asked, "Is the moral sense at Andover Institution paralyzed? The situation is perfectly clear to every honest barber, shop-keeper, or shoemaker, and it makes a hundred infidels where the 'Age of Reason' makes one."61 It is a matter for congratulation that the Christian world has been moved, that its thought has been so largely modified, and that it is our great honor "to stand at the centre, however men may hesitate to acknowledge it, towards which these lines of influence are tending."62 But why, we must ask, are not these professed friends of Christian truth in all the churches more in readiness to acknowledge this indication, and plainly state what they think of it? Why hesitate and stand in the shadow of their old errors, when it is so clearly evident that they can be no longer successfully maintained, and which do not represent their real opinions? Why not say outright, "We were mistaken in accepting and teaching these doctrines of total depravity, election, and reprobation, infant and endless damnation, and have come to see that God is the Father of all men, and that in all his dealings with his children he will act in strict conformity with his paternal justice and love?" Are we to conclude that there is with them the plague of a confused moral sense, which hinders the honest and prompt avowal, on their part, of the truth of that Gospel of Divine grace "that bringeth salvation to all men?"