Viewing man in this state of unreconciliation to God and holiness, it appears evidently necessary that he should receive an atonement for satisfaction-for such is the Universalist doctrine of atonement] productive of a renewal of love to his Maker."* The reconciliation, then, which the sinner needs, the only atonement which the nature of the case admits, consists in his finding that God has no controversy with him, and that there is no reason why he should not be at peace in the assurance, that God regards him with precisely the same eye of favor and friendship, with which he looks upon the holiest of his creatures.† 5. The reader cannot but anticipate what Universalists teach respecting the person and office of Christ. They regard the Savior as a created and dependent being; and generally they represent him as having had no existence "before he was manifested in the flesh." In other words, so far as this point is concerned, they are generally Unitarians of the lowest rank. The work of Christ, the office which he sustains as Savior, they regard as being simply the work of reconciling men to God. "Let it be understood," they say, "that it is man who receives the atonement, who stands in need of reconciliation, who being dissatisfied, needs satisfaction." "God's love to us, is antecedent to our love to him, which refutes the notion of God's receiving the atonement; but the idea that the manifestation of God's love to us, causes us to love him, and brings us to a renewal of love, is perfectly consonant to the necessity of atonement; it shows us what atonement is, and the power which the Mediator must have and exercise in order to reconcile all things to God." "Has Jesus power to cause us to love holiness and hate sin? Yes, if he has power to reveal the divine beauties of the word, to remove the letter and its administration, which are death, to take the veil from the heart, and to cause us to see himself altogether lovely." We confess ourselves unable to give a complete exposition of the Universalist faith on this point; for clear as they are in their doctrine respecting the nature of sin and its causes, and respecting the sinner's reconciliation to his Maker, we find an air of obscurity, and something like mysticism thrown over all that they say respecting the office and power of the Mediator, and the actual connection between his work and the salvation of men.¶ Whether Christ in reconciling men to the Supreme Being whom they ignorantly suppose they have offended, ordinarily operates in any other * Ballou on Atonement, p. 106. Compare Ballou's Sermons, Ser. II, entitled "True faith a source of rest." Ballou on Atonement, pp. 11, 12. § Ibid. p 109. || Ibid. p. 121. Reference is here had particularly to the work on Atonement already so frequently cited, in which, if any where, the reader would expect to find a full and fearless exhibition of their views on this subject. way than by means of Universalist preaching and books-whether his work of making atonement to sinners is limited to this life, or is continued in the life to come-and in either case, how this is reconciled with some other points of their doctrine-are questions on which we have as yet received no satisfactory information. 6. In respect to a future state of existence, the doctrine of modern Universalists is peculiar to themselves. They reject the idea of a future retribution; after death there is, in their scheme, neither punishment nor reward. They do not admit that any of the effects of sin can survive the body. Believing as they do that sin and suffering pertain to the compound constitution of man in this mortal state of being, believing that it is the conflict between the immortal spiritual principle and the principles of flesh and sense, which causes all the guilt and all the wretchedness of the present world, they believe of course that the spirit when it lays down the body, cannot but be freed from sin and from suffering. "The conflicting laws of flesh and spirit," they say, "have always existed in man from his first formation, and so long as they continue to exert their powers in opposition to each other, so long will sin remain and continue to produce condemnation."* Thus it is that we sometimes hear it announced by their preachers as an axiom, that immortality can neither sin nor suffer. Thus they are easily and "entirely satisfied that the scriptures begin and end the history of sin in flesh and blood; and that beyond this mortal existence, the bible teaches no other sentient state but that which is called by the blessed name of life and immortality." 7. One point more demands a notice in our survey of this scheme -What is its doctrine respecting the existence of intelligent and moral beings other than men? In one word, we answer, NOTHING. All those glimpses which the bible, read by men of common understanding, has been thought to give of higher orders of intelligences who are so deeply interested in the scenes of God's moral government on earth,-all that the bible seems to tell us of angels, fallen and rebellious, and of angels, holy ministering spirits,-these men explain away. Is it asked why?-what there is in their scheme which puts them under the necessity of getting rid of that which to others has seemed so obvious on the pages of the bible? We answer, The truth that this world is but a part of God's wide empire, and that there are beings of various orders in the universe, intelligences far higher perhaps on the scale of existence than we, inhabitants of other worlds, who are looking on to see the peculiar dispensations of God's government towards fallen man, and who are to derive from those dispensations a new insight into the unuttera * Ballou or Atonement, p. 34. + Ballou's Sermons, p. xvi. Boston, 1832. pp. 50, 51: 47: 259. ble and unsearchable glories of the divine character, a stronger love of holiness, a deeper and more unwavering abhorrence of sin;and the corresponding truth that God's dispensations towards this world are but a part, an isolated fragment, of an immense connected system of government extending through all worlds and all duration; these truths of which the bible has so long been thought to give us evidence, naturally open before the mind certain views of the nature and extent of the divine government over moral beings, which make us feel that under such a government the entire prevention of sin by God's physical omnipotence may be inconsistent with the highest good of the universe, and the eternal punishment of sin may be the only punishment which shall sufficiently express the determination of the Infinite Governor to guard and maintain the holiness and happiness of his subjects. Therefore those who would deny a future retribution, find themselves constrained to join with the Sadducees of old, and deny that there is either angel or spirit. This exhibition of the system of Universalism might be carried out into other particulars. But we have gone far enough to show what its leading principles are, and that it is a connected system of peculiar opinions. This system is the system of Universalists considered as a sect.* There may be individuals here and there, a little in the rear; and if there is a point beyond, which is not sheer atheism, doubtless as many may be found a little in advance of the main body. How many there are in the United States who hold this system, or its leading principles, we have no means of deciding with accuracy. Their own statements show more than one hundred and fifty preachers of the doctrine in various parts of the country, mostly in New England, New York and Ohio.† Of these, some find a stated employment as teachers of regular congregations, while others are supernumeraries, preaching as they have opportunity, and living by politics, by the editing of scurrilous newspapers, and by other similar employments. It is to be expected that with the growth of the country, with the progress of vice in our larger towns, with the increasing impatience of religious restraints which pervades a certain portion of our population, such a sect will make a perceptible progress. Especially is it to be expected that as the public sentiment in regard to the nature of practical christianity rises higher and higher; as more self-denial, more zeal, more concern for the welfare of souls, and more activity, is demanded of all who would be considered christians; and as the style of preaching A few months ago, such a remark might have been too sweeping, but since then, the few who believe in a future retribution, and whose general scheme of doctrine is unlike that described above, have withdrawn from the ranks of Universalism; and if we remember right, have assumed the name of Restorationists. Mod. Hist. of Universalism, chap. xi. in evangelical pulpits becomes more pungent and painful to the consciences of unprincipled men; many will rally under the banner of Universalism. To us it seems not unlikely, that Universalism, very much as it is now taught, may yet become in this country a much more formidable adversary of truth and righteous. ness than any other heresy. Let the moral conflict between pure christianity and all its opposites, grow more intense; let those great masses of infidelity which now lie dormant, be roused into activity; let the various parties of evangelical christians be brought to act in harmony, if not in concert; let external pressure force the elements of evil into a closer combination; and it will not be strange if Universalism shall draw together, and amalgamate within itself, all the varieties of opposition to the kingdom of Christ. Unitarianism has been tried, the experiment was made in circumstances most favora ble to success; but Unitarianism does not answer the purpose; it is too refined, too literary, too negative and sceptical, to produce an impression on the multitude. Atheism has been tried; but it is too bold, too shocking to the nature of man as a social being, and it has failed entirely. A desperate effort is now put forth for popery; but popery requires too much blind faith, too much subjection to its priesthood, to carry the day with Americans. Universalism too has its obvious disadvantages. It cannot but be revolting to every intelligent man of common candor and honesty. It too peremptorily contradicts the testimony of consciousness and the admonitions of natural conscience. Yet it has its advantages, not over the truth, but over other forms of opposition to the truth. It has none of the aristocratic refinement of Unitarianism. It is not so undisguised and shocking as atheism. It wears the face of liberality, and seems to breathe the spirit of democracy, as if it must needs be the deadliest foe of popery. It has great versatility; while it carries its own recommendation to the professed haters of godliness, it can sometimes put on an aspect of mysticism and devotion that imposes on the weak-minded. But what is the difference between Universalism and Unitarianism? Are not the Unitarians all Universalists? Do they not believe and teach that all men shall be saved? Is there any difference be tween the two systems, save that the one is a little more refined and elegant than the other? We answer there, is a difference which might be drawn out in several points of comparison. The Universalists hold that the doctrine of the final holiness and happiness of all intelligent beings is matter of revelation, and constitutes the es sence of the gospel. With the Unitarians generally this doctrine is held rather as an inference from the divine character and attri butes, than as a doctrine clearly revealed. They hold that the eternity of future punishments is not proved, is exceedingly improb able, is highly dishonorable to God, and inconsistent with a cheer ful and happy religion; and that the ultimate happiness of all intelligent beings, though not distinctly revealed, may be regarded as altogether certain. The Universalists, as a sect, deny that there is any probation in this life or any retribution in the life to come, any connection between character before death and character after death, or any relation between the deeds done in the body and the condition of the disembodied spirit. Their faith is, that the vilest sinner, dying in the most atrocious act of wickedness,-the false witness whom God strikes dead with the oath of perjury on his lips-the murderer who falls in the perpetration of his crime, and while his bands are smoking with the blood of innocence-the suicide who escapes from human justice by poison or the knife-enters at once into the same blessed immortality with the martyr whose spirit mounts upward from the scaffold or the flames. All this the Unitarians, as a sect, revolt at. Their faith is, that the condition of every one in the future state, is to correspond in some measure with his character here; that there is to be in that existence as well as in this, a process of restoration and purification for the guilty; that sinners, the few who are sinners on Unitarian principles, will receive after death such retribution, such painful discipline, as may be necessary in order to reform them and prepare them for happiness. Universalists in their preaching are naturally confined very much to one subject in its various connections. Holding as they do that the gospel is simply the declaration that all men shall be saved, this doctrine must needs be prominent in every discourse. Sometimes they may treat of the proofs of their doctrine, and sometimes of its fruits. Sometimes they may hold forth its consolations; and sometimes they may meet, with such refutation as they can muster, the objections that shake the faith of the unstable. Sometimes they may digress to heap reproaches on the orthodox, to repeat low calumnies about "church and state," to blaspheme revivals, and to defame the friends of every benevolent institution. But still the burthen of their preaching must be, Ye shall not surely die. Unitarians, on the other hand, can have a greater variety of topics; they can treat of many things which a Universalist congregation would consider flat and unprofitable, such as the example of Jesus, the admirable morality of his precepts, the beauty of virtue, friendship, education, patriotism, amusements, etc. Universalism is positive and direct, it presents its great central doctrine in a strong light, gathers around it whatever seems necessary to its support and coherence, and insists that men shall believe it. Unitarianism is rather indirect and negative; it begins with doubting, it proceeds to deny, it rarely attains to the strong assertion of affirmative propositions. In other words, while the Universalist has studied his doctrine into the bible, and finds, or pretends to find, the proof of it on almost every page; the Unitarian has analysed and criticised orthodoxy |