"Day by day the doctrine of the eternity of evil is being driven into its native night before a higher view of the nature of God, and a nobler belief in Him as the undying righteousness."—Rev. Stopford A. Brooke.

AT the beginning of the present century, thirty years from the time of Mr. Murray's first preaching in America, there were a few more than twenty preachers of Universalism here. By the year 1813 there were forty; in 1840 there were four hundred and sixty-three. At the present time our church "Register" reports the number seven hundred and thirty. And this increase of ministerial force is not the most noticeable fact in connection with the advancement of this faith. Other instrumentalities are to be taken into the account. As the preacher at the centenary meeting of the National Convention stated: "Our lists, latterly, have been more closely pruned; our parishes have been greatly strengthened; our bases of operations have been fortified; our clergy have made great advances in devising liberal things; and our laity, possessing far greater wealth, and holding far higher social positions than formerly, more nobly respond, and with greater alacrity, to the far-sighted demands now so frequently made upon them. There are scores of our parishes in the various sections of our Zion, any one of which can now be moved to a greater work for a worthy object outside its own interests, than could our whole church twenty-five years ago."[17]

Educational improvements have also contributed to this favorable change. At first there were no theological seminaries nor academies in aid of this faith. In process of time these grew up and were made serviceable in the promotion of it, so that now not less than seven academies, five colleges, including three professional schools, two of divinity and one of law, having an aggregate property of more than two millions of dollars, are to be counted among its working forces. The publications in the interests of this faith have had large increase. Books, pamphlets, tracts, weekly and monthly journals, and the "Quarterly," commentaries on the Scriptures, together with well-sustained publishing houses, are additional influences constantly in operation to aid the efforts of the ministry. The Murray Centenary Fund, projected in 1869, is designed to aid in the education of the clergy, the circulation of denominational literature, and in church extension. This Fund amounted, Oct. 1, 1880, to $121,757.29. The Woman's Centenary Aid Association was organized in 1869 to assist in raising the Murray Fund, and was incorporated Sept. 18, 1873. It is supported wholly by voluntary contributions and annual memberships. These are all evidences of life and advancement, and indicate a larger increase in the future, which may be realized with a zeal in operation like that which has effected the change already noted.

Of the theological changes realized since the opening of the present century, what shall we say? and all of them indicating an approach to this very faith of which we are speaking. When Murray and his contemporaries entered upon their work in America, the old Calvinistic theology had almost undisputed sway here; and for fifty years afterwards it was more or less so. But since 1830 up to the present time, including the middle of this century, the advancement in theological thought has been as marked as have these other changes and signs of progress to which we have alluded. True, Arminianism came in with the Methodistic movement, and made vigorous warfare upon the old theology, with its "five points" so tenaciously adhered to. But Methodism held fast that abominable dogma, eternal punishment, and failed to see God's purposes any more effective in the final salvation of souls than did Calvinism with its full assurance of the salvation of "the elect" only. The Arminian deity seems to have had no fixed purpose as to the number of the finally redeemed. Though he foreknew, he was not pleased to ordain, or in the words of Dr. Adam Clarke: "I conclude that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in consequence of this, to know all that he can know."[18] The God of Calvin, though having a determinate will, appeared as a tyrannical sovereign; the God of Arminius, as lacking in purpose and in power. The one made the salvation of a certain number sure; the other left all in uncertainty, because so much depended solely on the will of the creature. The two systems summed up, however, amounted to Universalism. The one affirmed that every soul for whom Christ died would be saved; the other, that Christ, "by the grace of God, tasted death for every man."[19] Opposed as were the two sects representing these theologies, in the beginning, they have settled down into quite a fraternal compromise during the last half century. Pulpit exchanges are free among their ministers, and, although here and there some of the old peculiarities of Calvinism occasionally find utterance, the statement of a noted Congregationalist minister seems to express the thought of both parties, "Election means, whosoever will; reprobation, whosoever wont."[20]

It was in face of what were deemed the main errors of both these theologies that Universalism stood forth as the vindicator of God the just and merciful Father of all his children, their Judge and Saviour, through Christ who gave himself a ransom for all, and whose own expressive statement of the result of his ministry was, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."[21]

It has been during the ministry of this faith in the present century that the leading doctrines of the theology formerly prevalent in our land have been questioned, investigated, and in many minds outgrown. Who now believes in the endless suffering of infants? a doctrine deemed unquestionable in the churches a century ago. Even the existence of it at that time, in face of the most stubborn facts, has been denied by those whose parents and grandparents heard it from the Christian pulpit. Who assents to the doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, its inability "to do a good deed or think a good thought," and its utter odiousness in God's sight? What considerations and reconsiderations are there of that doctrine of atonement which involves the assumption that God was so incensed against his sinful children that Christ, the second and more merciful person in the Godhead, came into the world and died to appease the wrath of God and render it possible for him to be merciful to the delinquents; and how much more emphatic is the conviction finding utterance, so eminently expressive of Christian Universalism, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."[22] And the doctrine of endless punishment, how, during the time of which we are speaking, has this been questioned in the churches of our land. It has been seen that the divine character is involved in this doctrine, and that one of the most difficult of all theological works is to vindicate this character in the light of it. Formerly, it was deemed little short of impiety to question the justice of God when this horrible doctrine was represented as an indication and vindication of it. To cite emphatically the passage in Matthew (xxv. 46), "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal," was considered evidence enough that the divine justice could and would be signalized in the utter banishment of great numbers of his children from him, world without end. To question the exegesis of the passage as generally given—the original meaning of the word rendered "everlasting" and "eternal"—was regarded as a direct affront to the human wisdom of the past that had sanctioned it; and to declare such an explanation of it as derogatory to "the Eternal Goodness," was to question the veracity of the High and Holy One! But the thoughts of men have kept at work; inquiry has gone on; the old explanation has been most confidently and emphatically denied, and a more reasonable and consistent one given. Even the most respectable orthodoxy itself has conceded that the aionian punishment here set forth is not necessarily to be understood as implying endless duration, and that in the argument henceforth against the doctrine of universal restoration, this old interpretation of the text need be no longer urged.[23] We have reserved a more extended view of this subject, however, for the close of this volume.