In the following pages I wish to call the attention of the reader to some facts and considerations, which, though only preliminary in their nature, seem to me important, and, if duly weighed, must in some measure prepare the earnest inquirer for an intelligent and, I trust, candid study of the controversy now going on in Protestant Christendom,—and affecting in some degree even the Roman Church,—upon the question of universal salvation and endless punishment. In every aspect the subject is a momentous one, in which no man who believes in God and immortality can fail to take a profound interest, but to which a faith in the Christian religion adds a fresh importance by lifting us out of a narrow egoism, in which we are apt to indulge, and inspiring us with a broader and purer love for our fellow-men, and so making the welfare of every individual of our race dear to us, and an object of affectionate and earnest desire.
But the question reaches much farther than the mere happiness or misery of a few individuals, or even the great majority of mankind. If any—be the number large or small—are finally to be lost, whether by the suffering of annihilation or of an eternity of woe, this awful event, let us reflect, must occur in the universe of God and under his moral government, and hence cannot fail to affect directly and most disastrously, one would naturally suppose, the character of both that government and its divine Author. Did he call these unhappy beings into existence for this fearful destiny, or is it to happen as something unforeseen, to meet him as a surprise, and afflict him as a fatal disappointment?
Fortunately the time has now arrived when these grave questions can be discussed with a degree of calmness and under an absence of prejudice and passion which hitherto it has been difficult, if not impossible, to command. The larger hope, nay, the assured belief, of the final victory of good over evil, is no longer so utterly heretical as to throw its possessor beyond the pale of common-sense and Christian charity. The most zealous advocate of endless punishment is obliged to confess that there is something to be said in favor of a doctrine for which all good men pray, and which, if true, would not only fill the moral universe with joy, but must also redound to the infinite glory of God.
Nor should the fact be wholly overlooked that, notwithstanding their differences, the two parties in this controversy—the Universalists on one side, and the Orthodox, so called, on the other—still hold much, and much that is fundamental, in common, and I trust with equal sincerity and affection. We agree, for instance, in believing in the one living and true God, the Creator of all worlds and the moral Governor of all intelligent beings; in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, the great Teacher and Savior of men; and in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, as containing a revelation of the divine character and will, and of man’s relations, duty, and destiny.
Yet, cordially agreeing as we do on these great fundamental truths, the fact need not be disguised, and indeed cannot be, that we still differ, and differ widely. When we come to consider God’s ways, and to interpret his word, we often find ourselves on divergent and, as it sometimes seems, opposite paths. The points of view we occupy, the principles of exegesis we adopt, or the prejudices of education and habits of thought under which we act, must obviously be very different to explain the different results to which we come, and account for the distinct and, in some respects, conflicting systems which we form. We constitute two clearly distinguished schools of theology, and perhaps I may say the only two which Christendom actually exhibits. The differences that separate the various orthodox sects and parties—and I use the word “orthodox” here in a comprehensive sense, including all who accept the doctrine of endless punishment or annihilation—are rather superficial than fundamental. They relate largely to the mere externals of religion, its rites and ceremonies, its order of worship and form of government, and the like, or at most to the varying phases of doctrine or their mode of statement, without affecting the general scheme to which they belong, or the final result to which they tend.
Even the dispute about foreordination and free-will, which has been so often raised between the necessitarian and his opponents, loses all its significance the moment we pass the barriers of the grave, where, according to both parties, the sinful soul can no longer repent, or repentance is utterly unavailing, and hence becomes as fixed in good or evil, as if it had never possessed a moral nature, or exercised moral power. Nor does the most rigid Unitarianism lose its orthodox character, unless, as it is now perhaps more and more doing in this country, it associates itself with Universalism. It makes little difference to us or our theology, whether God exists in Unity or Trinity, if the divine attributes and the principles of the divine government remain the same, and the final issues of it are unaffected. Damnation, whether it consists in annihilation or endless punishment, will be neither better nor worse for being ordained by God the Father, or by what is called the Triune God, combining the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It should be regarded as matter for thankfulness, however, that, antagonistic as some of the opinions of Universalists and their orthodox neighbors still are, we are certainly, though perhaps slowly, approaching each other, and if we do not yet “see eye to eye,” as watchmen on the walls of Zion should do, the experience of the past fifty years is sufficient to encourage the confident hope that ultimately we shall attain, by manly discussion and intelligent conviction, that essential “unity of faith,” which the Roman Church has for centuries been striving in vain to reach by ecclesiastical authority, the suppression of all proper freedom of thought and all private opinion.
After saying this, I hardly need add that the point of greatest difference between the Universalist and the orthodox world about him relates to the extent of the salvation by Jesus Christ. Is that salvation to be partial or universal? Is the Redeemer ultimately to gather into his kingdom of purity and love the whole human race, or only a part of it? Are all souls finally to render homage to Christ, and acknowledge him Lord, to the glory of God the Father; or are some made reprobate by the eternal decree of God, as some teach; or will they, as others affirm, resist forever all the attractive forces of the cross and continue in ceaseless rebellion against the divine grace and love? In a word, is the universe which, under the divine hand, began in unity, to end, as Augustine, Calvin, and so many others have taught, and so many still believe, in a hateful dualism, as dishonorable to God as it must be unhappy to his creatures?
Could we all agree in answering these questions, touching, as they do, the final issues of the divine government, and by necessary implication its very nature, our other differences, important as they now seem, would gradually be resolved, and a substantial harmony be at last attained.
But unfortunately there is no immediate prospect of this desirable result. The orthodox world still clings, though I believe with an ever-lessening tenacity, to the doctrine of endless punishment for a part, larger or smaller, of the human family; while Universalists, with ever-increasing numbers and steadfast confidence, rejoice in the faith of Christ’s final and complete victory, and the consequent salvation of all human souls. And thus the controversy which has been going on, this side of the Atlantic, for the past century, must continue, though, for the larger faith, under more and more favorable conditions. A hundred years ago Universalists here were very few; they were generally poor, unlearned, and despised. They had but a single house of worship in the whole country, and that was on the sparsely settled shore of New Jersey; they had neither schools nor other resources of influence and power.
The whole wealth, learning, social position, and prestige of the land was arrayed against them. Under the blessing of God their condition to-day is vastly changed. They now constitute a Church, respectable for numbers, wealth, learning, character, and influence, with more than seven hundred ministers, with two theological schools, three colleges, and several academies. They have between nine hundred and a thousand parishes, owning nearly eight hundred convenient—some elegant—church edifices, with Sunday-schools and all the appliances for church life and Christian work; while their faith, though not generally accepted by the other churches about them, still finds many friends within their bosom, and has ceased to be an object of bitter hatred and abuse, and is gradually winning its place in the fellowship and affections of those who formerly spurned it as the basest and most dangerous of heresies. Though no longer young, I expect to live to see the day when Universalism will be recognized as Evangelical. At all events, that day is approaching, and in the not very distant future it will, among all intelligent Christians, be recognized as it is, “the faith once delivered to the saints.”