The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-12-14

That dogma was accepted by all early
Universalists. Practically the Uni
versalists of that time differed from
the orthodox only in holding that
Christ's death redeemed all men from
the effects of the fall rather than
merely some men; it effected a uni
versal and not partial redemption
of humanity. But all agreed as to
the matter OF an original fall in Adam
which made Christ's death a neces-
sity for the redemption of man, and
his restoration to the state from
which he had fallen. We must re-
call that this creed was written more
than fifteen years before Darwin's
"Origin of Species" was published,
and seventy years before his Descent
of Man," which really gave the death
blow to the dogma of fall of man
in Adam. Today no minister of the
Universalist Church accepts the idea
of the fall implied in this word "res-
tore" 1t is expressly repudiated by
many when they formally enter the
ministry of our church. So long as
this word stands in the creed our po-
sition as church is misrepresented
before the world.
It is true that all this Objectionable
and misleading phraseology can be
explained away. But why should we
be put under this necessity for con-
slant explanation of the creed? Why
not make it say what we really be-
lieve? Besides, many people do not
hear our explanations. Why continue
to mislead them? 1t is true that by
species of juggling with words, by
a sort of jesuitical casuistry we can
make the creed represent our present
ideas; but is this fair or an honest
way of dealing with such an instru-
ment? What right have we to make
it's phrases mean something which
we know they were never dreamed to
mean by their writers7 Would its
trainers feel complimented by this
method? What sort of an example
of intellectual honesty is this to hold
up before the world? We rail at our
orthodox brethren for not holding to
their creeds or for forced interpreta-
tions of them. Are we not put in ex-
actly the same position by our own
creed?
When we turn to the promised
creed, I think we must all heave a
sigh of relief. All these difficulties of
explanation vanish. There is no i'm
piled declaration that the Bible is our
basis of authority; no misleading and
inexplicable trinitarian formula; no
implication of fall of man. To be
sure the word Saviour" which is APP
piled to Jesus may seem to have an
Objectionable orthodox meaning, but
since the very next phrase explains
the nature of salvation as consisting
in spiritual oneness with God, there
is little danger that this word "Sa-
viour" will be taken in a vicarious
Specification. With such a burden of
explanation and misunderstanding
lifted from our shoulders by accept
ing a new form, what special worth or
sanctity is there in the old creed that
necessitates our carrying longer. this
Old Man of the Sea.
2. The Omissions of the Winches-
ter Profession. But there are still
other objections to the Winchester
Profession. 1t not only misleads but
it omits to state the fundamentals
which belong to creed.
We are Christian church and we
have right to expect the creed to
state the main principles of Christi
anity; but nowhere does it do so.
Jesus summed up his teachings in
the two commandments, Love God;
love men. Neither of these funda-
mentals of Christianity-our duty to
God and our duty to our fellows
finds any recognition in this creed.
Can there be an omission more fatal
to its worth than this? What call has
it for our fetichistic reverence when
it has concerned itself with minor
points and left out these essentials?
But there is in it another omission ia
tai to its worth as an adequate ex-
preston of our faith. 1t does, indeed,
deferentiate the Universalist Church
from other Christian churches by
stating the doctrine of universal sal
walton and so far sets forth its rdison
d'etre. But it nowhere lays down any
adequate reason for such belief.
To maintain this doctrine, it is not
enought to say that God is love; so
say all the churches, yet that does
not commit them to universal saliva
ton.