Catholic Universalism (1888)

Original publication here

The drift of Christian thought at the present time is unmistakably towards unity in essentials. It seems important, therefore, that every Christian body which would promote the end for which the Christ prayed, should consider what may and must be added to its distinguishing doctrines to bring it into fuller sympathy with the complete truth of God in Christ.

The combination of words at the head of this paper indicates in what relation to each other the dear old truths have arranged themselves in our thought. Catholic Universalism is the contribution which some of us desire to offer towards the realization of a truly Catholic church.¹

[148]

When we make use of the expression Catholic Universalism,” we need to remember that we are using words which are technical. Their root meanings are substantially the same. Catholic is merely the transcript of the Greek καθόλικος, [sic] which means “universal.” If the words were used according to their primal meanings, we should have for our topic “Universal Universalism.” In this form the expression might mean several things; it might be a combination in which the adjective is redundant,—for what can be more “universal” than “Universalism?” And possibly some of us are wont to think that any addition to the word Universalism is superfluous. But when we remember that “Universalism” has a technical meaning in the theological world, and that “Catholic” also has a technical meaning, we must see how the union of the words may have a meaning more inclusive than either by itself.

What then is Universalism? We who are Universalists are wont to define the word broadly. The Rhode Island Catechism gives quite an inclusive answer to the question. But technically, in the theological world at large, Universalism is the belief that all men finally will be saved. Universalists may believe a great deal more, but this is the distinguishing feature of their creed. If you were to ask who are Baptists? the first thing you would be told would be, “They are Christians who believe in baptism by immersion.” Baptists may believe a great deal more, but that distinguishes them. So in a technical sense, Universalists are those who believe in the ultimate salvation of all men. They may believe more, but that doctrine is always associated with the word. They may come to their conclusion by different processes; but that conclusion is the one thing which marks them all.

Now there is always danger to a man or to a body of men in being so labelled and known by a single predominant truth. There is danger to the person and to the church so labelled, that they will unduly magnify their distinguishing truth, and there is danger, moreover, that others will come to judge them exclusively by that one truth!

We may observe how this has been by looking over the [149] Protestant sects. Twenty-five years ago you could almost surely tell by simply meeting a man upon the street whether he were a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Congregationalist, or a Unitarian, or a Universalist, so completely did his distinguishing doctrine impress itself upon his personality. This is not quite so evident now because truths are held more broadly and perhaps less vitally than of old. And yet there is some evidence of the same thing even to-day. Now Universalists, set for the defense of one particular doctrine and known by that, have not entirely escaped the penalty of their position. No one can read our history of a hundred years and doubt that we have unduly magnified the issues of the Divine Government as related to man! We speak reverently of the faithful men who in the early days did such valiant service in controversy with the giant theological errors of Calvinism! But we cannot doubt that by undue emphasis upon the issues of life the Universalist body has been hampered both within and without; and we cannot doubt that by excess of emphasis upon the issues of life, the moral sanctions of life have, in many minds, been greatly weakened. We may not here sketch the growth of Universalism in America from a theological movement to a Church with a capital “C,” as Dr. Demarest likes to put it. It is enough to say that since the Gloucester Centennial [See] and the appearance of “Our New Departure” by Dr. Brooks—(the greatest book which the Universalist Church has produced)—the effort of Universalists has been to free themselves from the tyranny of their one distinguishing truth by giving heed to the whole range of Christian doctrines, and by noting the relation of their one truth to all reality. But this much-to-be-desired reädjustment of essential doctrines has not been fully accomplished. Still, in some sections of our Church the emphasis is too often put in the wrong place, and we are still somewhat at sea in our doctrines and in our methods. It is with the desire that our Church may more fully realize her possibilities, as outlined by the sainted Dr. Brooks, and that she may take her place firmly as a part of Christ’s Holy Church Universal that we would prefix to our distinguishing word the [150] adjective Catholic, and name the Universalism which we feel must lie very close to the ultimate faith of Christendom, Catholic Universalism.

We have seen now that Universalism has a technical meaning. So has the word Catholic. And we cannot know what emphasis this word adds to Universalism until we know its technical meaning. When the word Catholic is spoken here in America our thought is apt to turn at once to the Roman Church, which has been allowed so largely to monopolize the name in this country. And the Roman Church does rest upon Catholic foundations. But she has built a massive superstructure upon those foundations which contain many un-Catholic features, as in her dogmas of “the immaculate conception” “and papal infallibility.” But the Roman Church has no exclusive claim upon the word Catholic. The Greek Church and the Anglican Church rest equally upon Catholic foundations. But neither have they exclusive claims to the designation of Catholic. Catholicity strikes deeper than any outward organization and in its technical meaning involves a certain philosophy of life and a certain view of Christianity. It is a creed, a life and a spirit confined to no particular division of the Church, which, crossing denominational lines, may appear in any body of Christians. The centre of the Catholic system is the fact of the Incarnation—God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself!

When God had come in perfect self-revelation in Jesus Christ, He did not leave His children, but by what we might call His reincarnation in the Holy Church universal, identified by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper duly administered, according to divine appointment, He still carries on the great education of a race of responsible souls into His own divine likeness. The substance of Catholicism as a system of doctrine is expressed in the ancient creeds—the Apostles’ and the Nicene. These creeds are not statements of theories, but of living, divine verities! God the Father Almighty; Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God; the Holy Ghost, the Comforter and Guide of mankind; the judgment of the world by the [151] standard of sonship; the divine institution of the Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the dead; the life everlasting,—these are the massive realities which constitute the sum of Catholic doctrine! All men the children of the holy God; life having for its supreme meaning discipline; Christianity the chief power of God, and the holy Church of Christ the chief instrument of God in the realization of a redeemed humanity: this is true Catholicism in the technical meaning of the word. It places the emphasis upon fundamentals, upon the divine and universal postulates. It is the “Yea”, of Christianity, as Universalism is the “Amen!”

But possibly we may see the real significance of Catholicism a little more clearly, if for a moment we set over against it its chief antagonist in the modern Church, Evangelicalism. That also is a technical word. We all know that its root meaning, which involves the bearing of the good news, is not its technical meaning, which involves a certain philosophy of life and a certain view of Christianity. Its philosophy of life is covered by the word probation, and its view of Christianity represents it as a scheme. The doctrines included in this Evangelical system have been chiefly formulated since the Reformation of the sixteenth century. There had been individuals in the Church before that time who held to some of these doctrines. But the Evangelical movement as such did not begin until that time. Not one of the Evangelical creeds dates back of A.D. 1500. And what is the substance of this evangelical system? Life a trial to determine destiny in the future; probation limited strictly to life in the earth; humanity utterly depraved in consequence of the fall of Adam, and worthy of death; Christianity a scheme to rescue a remnant of this fallen race; Christ sent as the last resort to suffer, the innocent for the guilty, and to save all who believe; the endless bliss of the saved and the endless woe of the lost; these are the leading features of that evangelical system which has so largely dominated Protestantism for the past three hundred and fifty years, and from whose tyranny it has been hard for any of us to escape.

This is the system with which true Catholicism is now in [152] conflict. The two great parties in the modern Church are the Evangelical and the Catholic parties. That the Evangelical party is now waning in power after its long reign no careful student of the times can doubt. We do not say that the Evangelical churches are growing less potent. They are not. But leading minds in some of these churches are moving, perhaps unconsciously, towards catholic positions, and thereby the methods and the influence of these churches are improved and made strong. The Episcopal Church has returned very generally to Catholic positions. We say returned, for her original positions were Catholic, and it was only in the adoption of the Thirty-nine Articles that the Church of England joined the Evangelical movement. Now the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of America are making less of the Thirty-nine Articles and more of the ancient Catholic creeds as they swing back from the errors of the sixteenth century to the verities of the first century. At the last General Convention of the Episcopal Church, held in Chicago, the proposition to change the name of the “Protestant Episcopal Church” to the “American Catholic Church,” received nearly a two-thirds vote. [See] So true is it that among Protestant bodies in America to-day the Episcopal Church is most completely Catholic. But what is this “new orthodoxy” in the Congregationalist body, but a strong drift through the Evangelicalism of the sixteenth century towards the Catholic positions of the early Church? The Catholic party in the Congregationalist body is fairly represented by the Andover school, and the Evangelical party by the Secretary of the American Board.

In other Evangelical churches the drift toward Catholic positions is less marked, but everywhere these Catholic verities are advancing, and their ultimate victory seems abundantly assured. The conflict is an irrepressible one. Between that philosophy of life expressed in the word probation and that expressed in the word discipline,—between that view of Christianity which sees in it a scheme to save some, and that view which sees in it the power of God unto a world’s salvation, there can be no reconciliation. “The firm foundation of God [153] standeth,” and that philosophy of life and that view of Christianity which have upon them most unmistakably the Divine stamp must surely endure. As Erskine beautifully puts it, “We are not in a state of probation, we are in a process of education directed by that eternal purpose of love which brought us into being.” This process of education God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, will carry on to its fulfilment, however long it may take. Christianity is the sufficient power and the Holy Church of Christ is the sufficient instrument unto the accomplishment of so divine an end. So do we see the beauty of the Catholic system in contrast with the Evangelical. It gives a satisfactory explanation of man’s life in the earth; it reflects glory upon the Maker of the world and the Father of mankind; it is in harmony with the constitution of the universe.

Now it is this full-freighted word—Catholic—which we add to Universalism that Universalism may be properly defined. When that word which emphasizes the issues is qualified by that word which puts the emphasis upon the divine postulates, we seem to have a system which cannot be broken,—a system charged with infinite possibilities,—Catholic-Universalism. In the past those branches of the Church which have had the Catholic foundations have failed to build their superstructures in harmony therewith. They are partially failing to-day. They have said with endless iteration, “two and two,” “two and two.” They have failed to complete the proposition by saying “two and two are four.” They have allowed poor human buildings of straw to rise where the solid structure as of polished marble ought to stand. From the Catholic premises they have not drawn the universal conclusions. They have trimmed and cut away the Catholic stalk that it should not flower in Universalism. For example, the Roman and the Anglican churches have thrust in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, declaring that the sacrament of baptism creates the fact, rather than pronounces that the children of men are the children of God. On the other hand, Universalists, in their eagerness to pluck the consummate flower of Universalism, have too often neglected [154] the symmetrical growth of that Catholic plant which alone could warrant so glorious a result. But Catholic Universalism is the living plant in all its fair proportions, rooted in the soil of the divine love incarnate, and growing up into the gorgeous bloom of a glorified humanity. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost we believe in a redeemed and perfected humanity,—that is Catholic Universalism. Now when we turn again to our history we must note with what halting steps we have come to this position. Indeed, too many of us shrink from it to-day.

Father Murray was an Evangelical Universalist. His theology was Calvinistic with one new premise,—that Christ died for all, not for a part of the race simply, and therefore all would be saved. But otherwise his system of theology was largely Evangelical. Father Ballou was—what shall we say?—a rationalistic Bible Universalist. He departed from the Evangelical standards, and largely, though perhaps not consciously from the Catholic system. Indeed, it is hardly to be supposed that he knew anything about technical Catholic doctrines. Through his profound study of the Bible he came to apprehend some Catholic truths, but a predominance of the rationalistic tendency in him and the old tyranny of the probation philosophy kept him from many of the verities of the Catholic system. The Winchester Profession, but probably without the knowledge of those who prepared it, has somewhat more of the Catholic drift, and yet in its phraseology it is tinged with both evangelical and rationalistic thought. It could not have been expected that in its early stages the Universalist movement would be consistent. All new movements lack consistency. And so our history has been marked, now by an excess of the rationalistic spirit and now by a spurt of Evangelical zeal, both of which, we ought to have learned long ago, are inconsistent with true Universalism. It has been, however, only since the issue of “Our New Departure” that we have really begun to learn that we ought to be neither evangelical nor rationalistic, but catholic; and that only when we are Catholic as well as Universalistic can we hope to occupy our real [155] place of power in the present and the vantage-ground of the future.

All our efforts to become Evangelical have failed and must fail, for Evangelicalism and Universalism do not belong together. All our efforts to become rationalistic have shown our weakness, because of the superior strength of others in that direction; moreover rationalism and Universalism contradict each other. The only thoroughly consistent system seems to be Catholic Universalism, and only as we become more pronouncedly Catholic is our place in the Universal Church assured. Already four-fifths of Christ’s Holy Church throughout the earth rests upon Catholic foundations. And yet in the matter of doctrine this large fraction of the church has not drawn the universal conclusions. How great our advantage, therefore, when resting upon Catholic foundations, we feel warranted in drawing such conclusions! We recognize that this large fraction of the Church makes much of the priesthood and of the sacraments and of liturgical worship. And as we give ourselves over to the Catholic positions we are very sure to make more of these things. The drift is unmistakably towards such things—towards the enrichment of the public services of the Church. The feeling is growing wherever the Catholic principles are spreading that public prayer should be common prayer. But instead of exalting such things into places of first importance, as has been done too often, we may help to bring them into their true places as instruments in the great education. We ought not to be afraid of those things, therefore, which have always been associated with the Catholic positions.

But when we take this Catholic stand who in the Church universal are our natural allies? We shall have tolerance for all, but are not our allies chiefly the men of the Catholic party in the Episcopal and in the Congregational bodies,—such men as Robertson and Maurice and Stanley and Farrar, and Phillips Brooks and Mulford, and the Andover Professors,—men who have not yet drawn the Universalist inferences from the Catholic premises, but have so emphasized those premises as to leave the faith of individual Christians free to draw the infer-[156] ences of the Larger Hope. In this increasing company in the Protestant world we must see our true allies, whether as-yet they recognize us or not. And in the reunions of Christendom for which so many are praying and some are hoping, we ought to be found in this Catholic fellowship.

In our so practical age, when all things are judged largely by the standard of utility, it is fair to ask what are some of the advantages of Catholic Universalism? Let us draw out a little more definitely some of the more marked advantages which seem to belong to this system.

First, it can be tolerant without being indifferent. The Rev. Phillips Brooks shows in his recently published lectures on “Tolerance,” that tolerance is composed of two necessary elements, positive convictions and sympathy with men whose convictions differ from our own. Now he who has come to the positions of Catholic Universalism is very positive in his convictions, and because of the inclusive character of the truths which he holds he must have sympathy with all honest men. If we may utilize another figure from Phillips Brooks, the Catholic Universalist stands vitally related to four concentric circles. The inner circle is his home, the place where he finds nourishment and shelter and inspiration for his soul, where the light forever shines of the one complete self-revelation of God in Christ.

“Thou one staid Rock in life’s tempestuous sea,
To thee I come!
Henceforth—all else unstable—but in Thee
I find my home.
Rest of my soul, once weary, peaceful now,
The central object of my spirit’s joy art Thou.”

And then the second circle to which he is vitally related is that which includes all who have named the name of Christ,—Catholics who are not Universalists, and Universalists who are not Catholics, and Evangelicals who are neither Catholics nor Universalists. He is devoutly interested in all, and glad that those who have not found his home are yet not unhoused.

And then the Catholic Universalist is interested in that third and still wider circle including all religious thought and life [157] before Christ and apart from Christ, expressed in the myriad altars and devotions of the world’s great religions. He must rejoice in all the truth to which men have attained on the spiritual side of life, in their awkward, stumbling upreaching to find the Father. And then there is that last and outermost circle of all, embracing all humanity and all human interests to which the Catholic Universalist cannot be indifferent, because he believes that all men are doomed to be saved. Standing thus, related to all these concentric circle, the Catholic Universalist cannot be indifferent to any good anywhere, and he must be tolerant towards all honest men.

Again, Catholic Universalism can take an impregnable Bible into the larger life of the twentieth century. The real Bible we declare impregnable, because all questions relating to its specialty we throw back of the record as such. We claim that the Revelation was in the national life of the Jews and in the Incarnate One, underlying the books of Scripture. The Old Testament was the product of many centuries of Jewish national life supernaturally led by Jehovah God; and the New Testament was the product of the first three-quarters of a century of the life of the Christian Church, which thus existed before the New Testament and gave the Bible to the world. He who stands in that inner circle where the Catholic Universalist stands,—in the midst of the great verities of the Incarnation, believing these things—that God, who taught His chosen nation the primary lessons concerning His nature and wide purposes of love, came in perfect self-revelation in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the whole world—he sees the inestimable worth of the Bible, the fragmentary record of a progressive revelation, in the fact that it brings him nearer than any other book or books to the national life and to the divine Person through and in which God gave His complete revelation; and seeing the Bible thus he cannot fear any attacks of criticism in the present nor in the coming centuries. So Catholic Universalism can take an impregnable Bible into the larger life of the twentieth century and still find the venerable Book

[158] “A broad land of wealth unknown,
Where springs of life arise.”

We might name other advantages of Catholic Universalism: how it can duly and wisely emphasize the Church, her sacred seasons and her sacraments, without unduly exalting them; and how it accords with that philosophy of life which is broad enough for the times in which we live, and which is covered by the word discipline. We have already given hints in these directions, but we name one more advantage of this system. Catholic Universalism can work diligently for a world’s salvation with patient courage and true missionarg zeal. We have not been distinguished as a missionary body. It has been only since our new departure that we have done much real missionary work at home, and we are only now moving towards the establishment of foreign missions. We have attempted many explanations of this state of things in our Church. A sufficient explanation seems to be that Universalists have lacked the motive of missions. We should have done home and foreign missionary work in greater degree long ago, if we had been filled with the motive. We believe that the motive is in what thy word Catholic brings to Universalism. Our Evangelical friends are talking much to-day about the things which cut the nerve of missions. The fact seems to be that the Evangelical nerve is cut, and the Evangelicals are seeking for the cause in the wrong direction. The wider harvests of God which are offering themselves to the reapers cannot be gathered with the old instruments. Mr. Joseph Cook thinks that the Gospel of Jesus Christ can, if the Church seizes her opportunity, be preached to all peoples before the end of this century. We agree with Mr. Cook in his confident possibility. But we do not believe that nerveless Evangelicalism can be the preacher. In listening a few months ago to Missionary Hume we felt sure that the nerve of missionary work had not been cut by his more Catholic positions. He returned to the heathen in the full confidence that they are God’s children, and he and others like him will do all that they may to make the heathen better children of God. And along this line, in harmony with the Catholic [159] verities, the missionary work of the next and coming centuries is sure to be done. Already the actual methods in foreign fields have outstripped the home theories of the Churches in conforming themselves to the Catholic standards. If any one supposes that the formal conversion of a few souls from heathenism to the Christian faith is all that modern missionaries are attempting, he does not know the alphabet of their endeavors. Missionaries are teachers, physicians, artisans, as well as preachers. They are brothers and sisters to less favored brothers and sisters. They are striving to replace heathenism with Christian civilization, to “turn from darkness unto light,” to make their brethren in heathen lands sharers of their own rich inheritance. The important question with most missionaries to-day is not whether some heathen are to have “continued probation;” but the important question with them is, what can we, who are favored of Heaven, do for the less favored, who are also children of God? what can we do to lift them out of degraded conditions, and place them in conditions more favorable to the fact of their divine sonship and to its culture in the earth? And while in the churches about us the theory and motive of missions are conforming themselves more to this actual practice upon foreign fields,—as the churches are becoming more truly Catholic,—we hail the appearance of the motive in the Universalist Church, which has, through its General Convention, taken the initial steps towards the establishment of Foreign Missions. And this movement originated at a centre of Catholic Universalism. In all this we see evidence that Catholic Universalism, recognizing that the harvests are God’s harvests, that the chief elements of progrsss are the diviue elements, can take its place securely in the divine training of the ages and can work for a world’s salvation with patient courage and true missionary zeal.

So does Catholic Universalism seem to be a system large enough for the broadest intellect, beautiful enough for the strongest affections, and encouraging enough for the keenest hope. In comparison with it how meagre and dry seem the husks which so many in the churches are offering their needy [160] brethren! Old systems, old theories, old philosophies—why should we care for many of them now except as curiosities? Why may we not go out into the harvests of God and let our souls delight themselves in fatness? As we move about serenely in the open places of this ample system we cannot be pessimists. As we walk in the light of this noon-day sun we cannot stumble. The present is pre-eminently a harvest-time of God, and as we become faithful reapers in this divine harvest, we can no longer doubt that at last God, the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end,—will ripen His harvest of a redeemed humanity.

“O brothers! if my faith is vain,
If hopes like these betray,
Pray for me, that my feet may gain
The sure and safer way.

“And Thou, O Lord, by whom are seen
Thy creatures as they be,
Forgive me, if too close I lean
My human heart on Thee.”

Henry I. Cushman.

---

1. I wish to explain to the readers of the QUARTERLY that I have dealt with the subjects of destiny, the resurrection, and the intermediate state, only in their relations to the doctrine of the genesis, development and fruitage of sin. To deal inductively with Paul’s teachings concerning them, does not come within the scope of this paper. Moreover they demand time and place and labor for themselves.↩︎