LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

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.24 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."25

      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

Скачать книгу