The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-05-18


Blessed tits believing not to see.
Now God knows all that Is. what so 1t be.
Gods will is best for man, whose will is free.
Gods viii is better to us. yea than ten
Desires whereofhe holds the key.
He knows all wants. allots each where and
when
In the New York examiner" of
March 7th,there is an editorial article
headed, chronological Transitions. !"
Tie writer recognizes that the science
of God has moved within the memo
ory of many in direction more in
agreement with the reason and moral
sense of man. To point out the
change he quotes what was orthodox
fifty years ago:
"Rich were the drops of Jesus blood
That Gained his Fathers face.
That sprinkled o'er the burning throne
And changed his wrath to grace"
He then says: "We no longer regard
as the expression of orthodoxy those
words of DIR. Watts" "The former
theologians had precise ideas of the
work of Christ. There was a def
mite amount of sin, there must be a
definite amount of suffering, some
body must be punished. There must
be either the endless suffering of
finite beings, or the temporary suf-
fering of an Infinite Being" The
former theology "did the greatest in
justice to the character of God, pre-
senting him in the light of one who,
regardless of mercy, regardless even
of justice, simply sought for some one
on whom, what would in man be
called vengeance, must be satiated."
For saying as much as this Univer-
salists have and now are forbidden
the fellowship of so-called orthodoxy
and in Evangelical circles, common
civility. We notice how charitably,
those who fifty years ago taught a
doctrine that "did the gravest in
justice to the character of God' are
treated in the article. "They were
the utterances of souls truly pious,
exalted, but in this matter wholly in
darkness. Such a charity is COM
mendable "for it covereth multi
tude OF SINS" Yet this question
arises: Why not the same charity ex-
tended outside the pale of orthodoxy,
to those who have taught more
Christian way of thinking of God,
thus dispelling the darkness?
If we ask what is the blasphemy it
convicts theologians of much less than
fifty years ago-this for example:
have heard within twenty five years
a Baptist clergyman at communion
tell communicates that Jesus suf-
fered and died to appease the vindic-
tive wrath of God. We would not
say, he was not "truly pious and ex-
alted." But if it is blasphemy to
attribute to God that which is con-
trary to his nature and does not be-
long to him, he came very near,
knowingly orignorantly, disappearing
our Father. Let orthodoxy think of
this, before it further calumniates
those who teach that God is Just,
wise and equal in his ways, treating
all his children impartially; proper
tioning gracious ability and infuen-
ces to each and all free wills, of each
and all souls he has made and which
are his, sufficient to constrain them
into amity with his own Supreme
Will.
When we come to review the ar.
ticle and think upon what is involved
in the Fatherhood of God one cannot
help but think another advance in
orthodoxy is needed. The last para
graph reads thus: "Ourtheology has
grown more simple, more wise, more
reverent, more Scriptural. And the
more recent view is vastly more eff
fective, because it allies with it the
moral nature of man." Just so says
Universalism. eff penalty is inflicted
by the fiat of God, man may find
ground for complaint. He may say,
not only "my punishment is greater
than | can bear" but "my punish
ment is greater than / deserve" The
orthodoxian fat of God means one
thing and the fiat of God another.
When we submit all to Gods fiat
let it be done-we are on safe ground.
'His fiat laid the corner stone"
of Redemption, and is perfect, recog-
nizing the freedom of the human will
but constituting that freedom less
than freedom that utterly destroys.
"But if his punishment is the result of
his own life-if it is a part of his life
then he must be speechless." Per-
haps SO. but not incapable of thought.
He will sometime know more of God
-as we all shall II will ha n enaaob