The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1896-08-29
UNIVERSALISM WITHOUT THE
ISM

| QenOunc6 the lSms. Wh6n some
one gets out of something to say he
can make point by giving the isms
turn. I'VE want no more isms," he
tells us and the unthinking or mis-
thinking multitude applaud as
though something exceptionally wise
had been said. Indeed, this kind of
thing we sometimes hear in our own
"holy" communion. We have those
among US who tell us that they like
Universalism all but the "ism." They
want the universal but they have no
use for the ism, and they sometimes
ring the changes on these words until
the people think they are really say
ing something very wise and are
ready to rush after this new ism
which is the ism of no ism. 1t often
happens that the sillier talk is, if it
is out of the ordinary and little
striking and taking, the more popular
it is until the people stop to think
what it all means.
Let us consider, then, the meaning
of this no-ism ISM and see what it
means. The termination "ism," when
applied to a word, means the theory
or doctrine of the matter for which
the word stands. Socialism, for in
stance, means the theory or doctrine
of the social state. Darwinism means
the doctrine or teachings of Charles
Darwin. So Universalism means the
doctrine, or teaching, or theory of the
universal in religion. 1t is admitted
on all hands that there are certain
universal truths in religion without
which there could be no religion.
Man, God and their relation to each
other, are such truths. Deny either
of them and religion could not be.
Now Universalism affrms certain
universal truths and proceeds to draw
out their teachings, to set forth the
doctrine they teach. 1t net only
teaches the reality of these truths,
that these are truths, but it teaches
the duty they enforce and the destiny
they necessitate. For instance, it
teaches the universal Fatherhood of
God and the duty it implies and the
destiny it proclaims. 1t teaches the
universal brotherhood of man and
what of duty and destiny this truth
renders imperative. 1t teaches that
in spirit and purpose the religion of
Christ is a universal religion-all of
duty and destiny this truth necessi-
tates. So it teaches universal sin.
universal retribution, universal re-
pentance, universal forgiveness and
universal salvation, and all of duty
and destiny, of faith and works these
great truths imply. Such in brief is
Universalism.
Now what would follow if we
should reject the ism? What would
we have left? If we should carry this
rejection to the last analysis we
should have nothing left. To abso-
lutely cut off the ism" would be to
destroy the whole system. For in
the last analysis the ism teaches not
only the nature and character of the
universal but its reality. To have the
doctrine of the universal you must
first have the universal. Hence the
''ism" must first of all establish the
reality of the universal, SO to cut off
the ism would be to destroy the uni
versal and there would be nothing
left. In place of Universalism we
should have neither ism nor univer-
al,-only hole.
But let us suppose that what is
meant by retaining the universal and
rejecting the ism, is that we affirm
and insist on the universal truths,
but teach no doctrines based on these
truths; draw no conclusions there
from and urge no duty as necessitated
thereby. Then we should have the
universal without the ism. This
being allowed, let us see what fol-
lows.
Take, for instance, the Fatherhood
of God. We could teach that God is
the father of all souls, for that is a
universal truth. But we could not
teach that because God is the father
of all, therefore all will be saved, be-
cause that is the ism. Neither could
we teach that because God is the ia
Their of all therefore all ought to love,
worship and obey God, for that would
be more of the ism. So we could
teach that all men are brothers, but
we could not insist that therefore they
ought to live together as brothers, or
have any argument for universal