LECTURES ON MODERN UNIVERSALISM.

LECTURE FIRST.

THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SYSTEM.

2 Corinthians, XI: 13, 14, 15. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel: for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.

SUCH is the assertion distinctly made by Christ's apostle, concerning certain teachers then living and teaching among the Corinthian Christians, and claiming to be teachers and even apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course they were very indignant at the charge. It does not appear, however, that any disas-. ter to Christ's cause resulted from what timid men must have thought a very imprudent speech of the apostle. Doubtless that cause was advanced, when the issue was distinctly made and Satan's doctrine bore its proper name.

We learn from this statement of Paul, that it is no unheard-of thing for systems of religion to claim the name of Christianity— Christianity of the highest or

der-while they are but doctrines of devils; and that men may claim, and some have claimed to be apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, when in fact they are false apostles and ministers of Satan. It also appears to be an apostolic practice to refute prevailing errors that stand opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. Whole epistles, and large portions of all the epistles, are devoted to the overthrow of heresies.

Various indications have led me to think it high time that evangelical Christians in this community should have a better understanding of the system that is called Universalism. I propose therefore to discuss the subject in several discourses.

The present discourse will consider the Nature and Characteristics of Modern Universalism.

I. THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM. I speak of the system, not of men. There may be many connected with it who do not fully imbibe the system, nor bring forth its legitimate fruits. There are many highly moral and reputable men who profess to receive it. They are requested to remember the admission. There are a few preachers, prominent men, ranked under its banners, who chiefly moralize gravely or showily upon the varied aspects of human life and character, while they remain singularly silent on the fundamental tenet of the system, and singularly abstemious from the general strain of its preaching. There have been a very few individuals in other denominations, who, like John Foster, have held all the fundamental doctrines of orthodoxy as the broad platform of their belief, and yet have had speculative questionings on the eternity of future punishment, questionings which they have rath

er wished than been able to confirm, and which they have held as mere incidental things; between whom and the men that are forever rolling over the doctrine of universal salvation as the whole gospel of Christ, the difference is so immense that they cannot be included in the same description,-notwithstanding the constant efforts of Universalism to gain the respectability of their names.

I speak of the system that is embodied in the doctrinal writings of the modern Universalist denomination, and heard weekly from the vast majority of its pulpits. The statement shall be made from their own ablest writers, examined by myself in their own works; such men as Hosea Ballou, A. C. Thomas, T. B. Thayer, Thomas Whittemore, Sylvanus Cobb, I. D. Williamson. It is the system which is spread before the denomination by the editors of "The Trumpet," "The Universalist Quarterly Review," "The Christian Freeman," and "The Gospel Herald.”

It is not the Universalism even of one-half a century ago, that I am to discuss; but Modern Universalism, that of the last few years, of the present time.*

Now most Christians, I think, suppose that system to be the same that it was fifty years ago; and its advocates are not always anxious to dispel the illusion. But an illusion it is, Hosea Ballou himself being witness. "As this doctrine was first taught in this country," says he, "its general aspect indicated that it had what we may call a Calvinistic base. It does not appear that

*For the date of the authorities cited, see Introductory Note. †Voice to Un. pp. 28, 29.

our earliest Universalists doubted that man by sin had incurred the just penalty of endless punishment, but fully relied on the efficacy of the atonement for a deliverance, of all men from such a condition. The doctrine of the Trinity was also held as an essential part of the general system of doctrine." These and other connected doctrines, he calls "exploded superstitions," and informs us of the "sharp conflict" which formerly took place between the older preachers who retained them and the younger brethren who repudiated them, and which at one time threatened "lamentable consequences," but ended in the final rejection of the doctrines. The earlier Universalists were Restorationists, holding to a limited future retribution; "the doctrine of a future retribution," says Ballou, "was not denied by any of the early defenders of final restoration." But the denomination long since repudiated the doctrine from its public teachings, and with it, the last remnants of orthodoxy that clung to it. The entire theology of the denomination is now moulded by its one absorbing principle; and that principle,

The grand characteristic doctrine of Modern Universalism, is, that all men alike, when they die, (or when they come to consciousness after death,) enter on eternal blessedness.

The great apostle of Modern Universalism, Hosea Ballou, in 1849 informs us that "for nearly forty years," he had not believed in any future punishment. And he gives the following piece of testimony, which, as

*Id., p. 36. †Ib.

coming from a man who had then been sixty years in the Universalist ministry, and was thoroughly conversant with the affairs of the denomination, is of the very highest authority: "though there are some now who believe in what is called future retribution, we know of none who pretend to prove it by divine revelation, or dwell on it in their preaching. We know of no passages of scripture, which teach the doctrine of a future state, which imply the existence of either sin or punishment in that state. Could we find any such testimony, we should then need scripture proof that such sin and punishment will have an end, in order to be consistent Universalists." Such is the weighty testimony of the patriarch of the system, near the close of his course.*

In perfect harmony with this testimony are the published opinions of their leading writers.

Whittemore, for a quarter of a century identified with "The Trumpet," and with Universalism in New England, writes thus: "Now to say that man shall sin on the earth, and suffer the recompense in some other state of being, is alike reasonable with saying that a man who sows a field of grain in Massachusetts, shall reap the harvest in some other state;" and, "no threatening or law extends sin or its consequences beyond the resurrection."‡

Rev. I. D. Williamson, D.D., now editor of the "Gospel Herald," declares as the belief of the denomination, that "all the evil passions that distract and

*In the year 1849, "Voice to Un.," p. 37. † Plain Guide, p. 265. ‡Id., p. 34.