The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-11-20

that by Murray had no great metiS'
And certainly it did not represent US.
AS first wrought out by him 1t was but
little better than patch On old-fashion-
ed Trinitarian orthodoxy. Its salvation
was Oh the Calvinistic principle of the
atouement and imputed righteousness.
The penalty Of all the sins of the world
were put upon Christ for him to suffer
them in our stead, aud in this atoning
sacrifice, as it was called, all were ac-
cepted of God. 1t was attempting 10
put the new wine into the old bottles
and the old bottles burst.
The reasoning of Reilly, that we are
all but parts of mystical body, of
which Christ was the head, and SO IN
him we have received due recompense
for our sins, and are made accepted IN
the Beloved, was one Of those kind OF
sopbisms that had but little to recon-
mend it, and it soon passed away.
Then came the Winchester theory,
that was set forth in his Dialogues, :"
so called. by which he would seem to
have led off in the movement between
the great body of the Universalists and
what are called the Restorationists;
and this was quite different from either
of the others. We, however, build on
no such foundation. Winchester makes
the statement in his lectures on the
Prophecies, that future punishment
would continue $4,000 years; CORE
spending, 1 take it, with some ideas he
was entertaining of the year OF Jubl-
lee. to transpire after the forty ninth,
or seven weeks of years. But Univers-
alism was not a question as to how
much or how little, how long or how
short period of punishment would be
necessary, ere the recovery OF the soul
to God, and to purity and perfection,
would be effected, but the efficiency OF
the means God had chosen for the ac-
complishment Of so glorious an end.
The question of the Restorationist
was one as to the amount or PUNISH
ment; whether the sinner was amply
recompensed in this world or not. And
this involved the deeper question, as
to whether the elements of our spirit
ual being were -retributive, and sin
was therefore its own punishment, and
virtue its own reward. The question
arose, isDoes God deal with his crea-
lures on the principle that man has
need of some extraneous recompense
to pay him off for what he does, SO
much for so much OR is it upon the
principle that virtue and vice are their
own sufficient recompense, or reward?''
To phrase it in little different man
ner: ssDoes God reward and punish his
creatures for being virtuous and VI
cious, without regard to time; or Is IL
in being virtuous aud vicious at the IN
slant, and in the consciousness that IS
inseparable from the wrong intent r.
Is SINS punishment SINS effect and
do Gods laws avenge themselves upon
the evil-doer, SO that the sinners pun
isbment is in what he does?
We can be assured that this was no
mean question to be settled, whether
retribution was simply from the law OF
penalty Gas was so generally believed at
the time), or from the indissoluble and
eternal law, the necessary connection
of cause and effect, for greatest signif-
icance did really attach to this. 1t was
said that no law of penalty whatever
was needed to reward man for pre-
serving his health, or to punish him for
being sick; that the health and the
sickness constituted at once the reward
and the punishment. And the inquiry
was to the point of ascertaining If 1t
was not so everywhere, and always,
under the divine administration that
virtue was our pleasure and enjoyment,
and vice our pain and suffering; and
that what we SOW, that shall we, and
must we of very necessity reap, in the
spiritual as in the natural world.
There stood the whole orthodox host,
declaring that there was no such neces-
sary connection existing between sin
and misery; that sin did not retribute,
or pay back in any such way ; but that
the sinner often rolled it as sweet
morsel under his tongue. There were
all kinds Of shifts and subterfuges re-
sorted to, to show that this was 90;
and then that we must needs have reiri-
button melted out to us in another world,
to make up for what was not received
in this.
The great Albert Barnes, in his intro
duction to Buffers Analogy" sets
forth what was the common idea, in
the following words 1T is a matter
of clear Revelation indeed, it is the
entire basis and structure of the scheme,
that the affairs of justice and law are
under suspense; that crime is for the
present disassociated from woe for
specific purpose, namely, that mOrtals
may repent and be forgiven, and that
there will come day, when the native,
iudissoluble connection between sin
,oJ s,,Rfariuos shall he restored and