Chapter V: Preface (4)

“Much has been urged against Shakerism, much has been said against their covenant; but, I repeat it, _that_ individual who is prepared to sign the church covenant, stands in an enviable situation: his situation is, indeed, an enviable one, who, devoted to God, is prepared to say of his property, ‘Here it is, little or much; take it, and leave me unmolested to commune with my God. Indeed, I dedicate myself to what? not to a fanatical tenet; O, no! to a subject far beyond; to the worship of Almighty God, the great Creator and Governor of the universe. Under the influence of his love, I give my all: only let me worship according to my faith, and in a manner I believe acceptable to my God!’

“I say again, the world cannot produce a parallel to the situation which such a man exhibits—resigned to the will of Heaven, free from all the feelings of earthly desire, and pursuing, quietly, the peaceful tenor of his way.”

REFORMATION.

This term is used, by way of eminence, to denote that great change which took place in the Christian world, under the ministry of Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Melancthon, and others, who successfully opposed some of the doctrines, and many of the practices, of the Roman church. It commenced at Wittemberg, in Saxony, in 1517, and greatly weakened the Papal authority.

It was from causes seemingly fortuitous, and from a source very inconsiderable, that all the mighty effects of the reformation flowed. Leo X., when raised to the Papal throne, in 1513, found the revenues of the church exhausted by the vast projects of his two ambitious predecessors. His own temper, naturally liberal and enterprising, rendered him incapable of severe and patient economy; and his schemes for aggrandizing the family of Medicis, his love of splendor, and his munificence in rewarding men of genius, involved him daily in new expenses, in order to provide a fund for which, he tried every device that the fertile invention of priests had fallen upon, to drain the credulous multitude of their wealth. Among others, he had recourse to a sale of indulgences.

The Romish church believe that pious persons may do works of supererogation, that is to say, more good works than are necessary for their own salvation. All such works, according to their doctrine, are deposited, together with the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, in one inexhaustible treasury. The keys of this were committed to St. Peter, and to his successors the popes, who may open it at pleasure, and, by transferring a portion of this superabundant merit to any particular person for a sum of money, may convey to him either pardon for his own sins, or a release for any one, for whom he feels an interest, from the pains of purgatory. Such indulgences were offered as a recompense for those who engaged in the wars of the crusades against the Infidels. Since those times, the power of granting indulgences has been greatly abused in the church of Rome. Pope Leo X., finding that the sale of indulgences was likely to be lucrative, granted to Albert, elector of Mentz and archbishop of Magdeburg, the benefit of the indulgences of Saxony, and the neighboring parts, and farmed out those of other countries to the highest bidders; who, to make the best of their bargain, procured the ablest preachers to cry up the value of the commodity. The form of these indulgences was as follows.—“May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his blessed apostles, Peter and Paul and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they may have been incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they may be; even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy see, and as far as the keys of the holy church extend. I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on their account; and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism; so that, when you die, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death. In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

According to a book, called the “Tax of the Sacred Roman Chancery,” in which are the exact sums to be levied for the pardon of each particular sin, some of the fees are thus stated:—For simony, 10_s._ 6_d._; for sacrilege, 10_s._ 6_d._; for taking a false oath, 9_s._; for robbing, 12_s._; for burning a neighbor’s house, 12_s._; for defiling a virgin, 9_s._; for murdering a layman, 7_s._ 6_d._; for keeping a concubine, 10_s._ 6_d._; for laying violent hands on a clergyman, 10_s._ 6_d._

The terms in which the retailers of these abominable licenses described their advantages to the purchasers, and the arguments with which they urged the necessity of obtaining them, were so extravagant that they appear almost incredible. “If any man,” said they, “purchase letters of indulgence, his soul may rest secure with respect to its salvation. The souls confined in purgatory, for whose redemption indulgences are purchased, as soon as the money is paid, instantly escape from that place of torment, and ascend into heaven.” They said that the efficacy of indulgences was so great, that the most heinous sins would be remitted and expiated by them, and the person be freed both from punishment and guilt: this was the unspeakable gift of God, in order to reconcile man to himself; the cross erected by the preachers of indulgences was equally efficacious with the cross of Christ. “Lo,” said they, “the heavens are open; if you enter not now, when will you enter? For twelve pence you may redeem the soul of your father out of purgatory; and are you so ungrateful that you will not rescue the soul of your parent from torment? If you had but one coat, you ought to strip yourself of that instantly, and sell it, in order to purchase such benefit,” &c.

It was against these preachers of licentiousness, and their diabolical conduct, that Luther began first to declaim.

REFORMED CHURCHES.

The Reformed churches comprehend the whole Protestant churches in Europe and America, whether Lutheran, Calvinistic, Independent, Quaker, Baptist, or any other denomination who dissent from the church of Rome. The term _Reformed_ is now, however, more particularly employed to distinguish the Calvinists from the Lutherans.

The Reformed churches in America are the two following:—

Reformed Dutch Church.

This is the oldest body of Presbyterians in America: it descended immediately from the church of Holland; and, for about a century from its commencement in this country, it hung in colonial dependence on the Classis of Amsterdam, and the Synod of North Holland, and was unable to ordain a minister, or perform any ecclesiastical function of the kind, without a reference to the parent country and mother church.

The origin of this church will lead us back to the earliest history of the city and state of New York; for they were first settled by this people, and by them a foundation was laid for the first churches of this persuasion, the most distinguished of which were planted at New York, (then called New Amsterdam,) Flatbush, Esopus, and Albany. The church at New York was probably the oldest, and was founded at, or before, the year 1639; this is the earliest period to which its records conduct us. The first minister was the Rev. Evarardus Bogardus. But when he came from Holland, does not appear. Next to him were two ministers by the name of Megapolensis, John and Samuel.

The first place of worship built by the Dutch in the colony of New Netherlands, as it was then called, was erected in the fort at New York, in the year 1642. The second, it is believed, was a chapel built by Governor Stuyvesant, in what is now called the Bowery. In succession, churches of this denomination arose on Long Island, in Schenectady, on Staten Island, and in a number of towns on the Hudson River, and several, it is believed, in New Jersey. But the churches of New York, Albany, and Esopus, were the most important, and the ministers of these churches claimed and enjoyed a kind of episcopal dignity over the surrounding churches.

The Dutch church was the established religion of the colony, until it surrendered to the British in 1664; after which its circumstances were materially changed. Not long after the colony passed into the hands of the British, an act was passed, which went to establish the Episcopal church as the predominant party; and for almost a century after, the Dutch and English Presbyterians, and all others in the colony, were forced to contribute to the support of that church.

The first judicatory higher than a consistory, among this people, was a Cœtus, formed in 1747. The object and powers of this assembly were merely those of advice and fraternal intercourse. It could not ordain ministers, nor judicially decide in ecclesiastical disputes, without the consent of the Classis of Amsterdam.

The first regular Classis among the Dutch was formed in 1757. But the formation of this Classis involved this infant church in the most unhappy collisions, which sometimes threatened its very existence. These disputes continued for many years, by which two parties were raised in the church, one of which was for, and the other against, an ecclesiastical subordination to the judicatories of the mother church and country. These disputes, in which eminent men on both sides were concerned, besides disturbing their own peace and enjoyment, produced unfavorable impressions towards them among their brethren at home.

In 1766, John H. Livingston, D. D., then a young man, went from New York to Holland, to prosecute his studies in the Dutch universities. By his representations, a favorable disposition was produced towards the American church in that country; and, on his return, in full convention of both parties, an amicable adjustment of their differences was made and a friendly correspondence was opened with the church in Holland, which was continued until the revolution of the country under Bonaparte.

The Dutch church suffered much in the loss of its members, and in other respects, by persisting to maintain its service in the Dutch language after it had gone greatly into disuse. The solicitation for English preaching was long resisted, and Dr. Laidlie, a native of Scotland, was the first minister in the Dutch church in North America, who was expressly called to officiate in the English language.

Reformed German Church.

As the Dutch Reformed church in this country is an exact counterpart of the church of Holland, so the German Reformed is of the Reformed or Calvinistic church of Germany. The people of this persuasion were among the early settlers of Pennsylvania: here their churches were first formed; but they are now to be found in nearly all the states south and west of the one above named. The German Reformed churches in this country remained in a scattered and neglected state until 1746, when the Rev. Michael Schlatter, who was sent from Europe for the purpose, collected them together, and put their concerns in a more prosperous train. They have since increased to a numerous body, and are assuming an important stand among the American Presbyterians.

This denomination is scattered over the Middle, Western, and Southern States, but is most numerous in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. The population of this church in the United States is estimated at 300,000; 180 ministers, 600 congregations, and 30,000 communicants.

RESTORATIONISTS.

The Restorationists are those who believe that all men will ultimately become holy and happy. They maintain that God created only to bless, and that, in pursuance of that purpose, he sent his Son to “be for salvation to the ends of the earth;” that Christ’s kingdom is moral in its nature, and extends to moral beings in every state or mode of existence; that the probation of man is not confined to the present life, but extends through the mediatorial reign; and that, as Christ died for all, so, before he shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father, all shall be brought to a participation of the knowledge and enjoyment of that truth which maketh free from the bondage of sin and death. They believe in a general resurrection and judgment, when those who have improved their probation in this life will be raised to more perfect felicity, and those who have misimproved their opportunities on earth will come forward to shame and condemnation, which will continue till they become truly penitent; that punishment itself is a mediatorial work, a discipline, perfectly consistent with mercy; that it is a means, employed by Christ to humble and subdue the stubborn will, and prepare the mind to receive a manifestation of the goodness of God, which leadeth the sinner to true repentance. (See Gen. 12:3; 22:18. Gal. 3:8. Isa. 45:22, 23. Phil. 2:10, 11. Rev. 5:13. 1 Tim. 2:1-6. Col. 1:20. Eph. 1:7-11. Rom. 5:12-21; 8:20, 21. 1 Cor. 15:24-28.)

They contend that this doctrine is not only sustained by particular texts, but grows necessarily out of some of the first principles of divine revelation. They maintain that it is immediately connected with the perfections of the Deity; that God, being infinitely benevolent, must have desired the happiness of all his offspring; that his infinite wisdom would enable him to form a perfect plan, and his almighty power will secure its accomplishment. They contend that the mission of Christ is abortive on any other plan, and that nothing short of the “restitution of all things” can satisfy the ardent desires of every pious soul. On this system alone can they reconcile the attributes of justice and mercy, and secure to the Almighty a character worthy of our imitation.

They insist that the words rendered _everlasting_, _eternal_, and _forever_, which are, in a few instances, applied to the misery of the wicked, do not prove that misery to be endless, because these terms are loose in their signification, and are frequently used in a limited sense; that the original terms, being often used in the plural number, clearly demonstrate that the period, though indefinite, is limited in its very nature. They maintain that the meaning of the term must always be sought in the subject to which it is applied, and that there is nothing in the nature of punishment which will justify an endless sense. They believe that the doctrine of the restoration is the most consonant to the perfections of the Deity, the most worthy of the character of Christ, and the only doctrine which will accord with pious and devout feelings, or harmonize with the Scriptures. They teach their followers that ardent love to God, active benevolence to man, and personal meekness and purity, are the natural results of these views.

Though the Restorationists, as a separate sect, have arisen within a few years, their sentiments are by no means new. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Gregory Nyssen, and several others, among the Christian fathers of the first four centuries, it is said, believed and advocated the restoration of all fallen intelligences. A branch of the German Baptists, before the reformation, held this doctrine, and propagated it in Germany. Since the reformation, this doctrine has had numerous advocates; and some of them have been among the brightest ornaments of the church. Among the Europeans, we may mention the names of Jeremy White, of Trinity College, Dr. Burnet, Dr. Cheyne, Chevalier Ramsay, Dr. Hartley, Bishop Newton, Mr. Stonehouse, Mr. Petitpierre, Dr. Cogan, Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Priestley, Dr. Jebb, Mr. Relly, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Belsham, Dr. Southworth, Smith, and many others. In fact, the restoration is the commonly-received doctrine among the English Unitarians at the present day. In Germany, a country which, for several centuries, has taken the lead in all theological reforms, the Orthodox have espoused this doctrine. The restoration was introduced into America about the middle of the eighteenth century, though it was not propagated much till about 1775 or 1780, when John Murray and Elhanan Winchester became public advocates of this doctrine, and by their untiring labors extended it in every direction. From that time to the present, many men have been found, in all parts of our country, who have rejoiced in this belief. This doctrine found able advocates in the learned Dr. Chauncy, of Boston, Dr. Rush, of Philadelphia, and Dr. Smith, of New York: Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire, may also be mentioned as an advocate of the restoration.

Most of the writers whose names are given above, did not belong to a sect which took the distinctive name of Restorationists. They were found in the ranks of the various sects into which the Christian world has been divided. And those who formed a distinct sect were more frequently denominated Universalists than Restorationists. In 1785, a convention was organized at Oxford, Massachusetts, under the auspices of Messrs. Winchester and Murray. And as all who had embraced universal salvation believed that the effects of sin and the means of grace extended into a future life, the terms _Restorationist_ and _Universalist_ were then used as synonymous; and those who formed that convention adopted the latter as their distinctive name.

During the first twenty-five years, the members of the Universalist convention were believers in a future retribution. But, about the year 1818, Hosea Ballou, now of Boston, advanced the doctrine that all retribution is confined to this world. That sentiment, at first, was founded upon the old Gnostic notion that all sin originates in the flesh, and that death frees the soul from all impurity. Subsequently, some of the advocates for the no-future punishment scheme adopted the doctrine of materialism, and hence maintained that the soul was mortal; that the whole man died a temporal death, and that the resurrection was the grand event which would introduce all men into heavenly felicity.

Those who have since taken to themselves the name of Restorationists, viewed these innovations as corruptions of the gospel, and raised their voices against them. But a majority of the convention having espoused those sentiments, no reformation could be effected. The Restorationists, believing these errors to be increasing, and finding in the connection what appeared to them to be a want of engagedness in the cause of true piety, and in some instances an open opposition to the organization of churches, and finding that a spirit of levity and bitterness characterized the public labors of their brethren, and that practices were springing up totally repugnant to the principles of Congregationalism, resolved to obey the apostolic injunction, by coming out from among them, and forming an independent association. Accordingly a convention, consisting of Rev. Paul Dean, Rev. David Pickering, Rev. Charles Hudson, Rev. Adin Ballou, Rev. Lyman Maynard, Rev. Nathaniel Wright, Rev. Philemon R. Russell, and Rev. Seth Chandler, and several laymen, met at Mendon, Massachusetts, August 17, 1831, and formed themselves into a distinct sect, and took the name of _Universal Restorationists_.

The Restorationists are Congregationalists on the subject of church government.

The difference between the Restorationists and Universalists relates principally to the subject of a future retribution. The Universalists believe that a full and perfect retribution takes place in this world, that our conduct here cannot affect our future condition, and that the moment man exists after death, he will be as pure and as happy as the angels. From these views the Restorationists dissent. They maintain that a just retribution does not take place in time; that the conscience of the sinner becomes callous, and does not increase in the severity of its reprovings with the increase of guilt; that men are invited to act with reference to a future life; that, if all are made perfectly happy at the commencement of the next state of existence, they are not rewarded according to their deeds; that, if death introduces them into heaven, they are saved by death, and not by Christ; and if they are made happy by being raised from the dead, they are saved by physical, and not by moral means, and made happy without their agency or consent; that such a sentiment weakens the motives to virtue, and gives force to the temptations of vice; that it is unreasonable in itself, and opposed to many passages of Scripture. (See Acts 24:25; 17:30, 31. Heb. 9:27, 28. Matt. 11:23, 24. 2 Pet. 2:9. 2 Cor. 5:8-11. John 5:28, 29. Matt. 10:28. Luke 12:4, 5; 16:19-31. 1 Pet. 3:18-20.)

UNIVERSALISTS.

The grand distinguishing characteristic of this class of Christians is their belief in the final holiness and happiness of the whole human family. Some of them believe that all punishment for sin is endured in the present state of existence, while others believe it extends into the future life; but all agree that it is administered in a spirit of kindness, is intended for the good of those who experience it, and that it will finally terminate, and be succeeded by a state of perfect and endless holiness and happiness.

Doctrine.

The following is the “Profession of Belief,” adopted by the General Convention of Universalists in the United States, at the session holden in 1803. It has never been altered, and it is perfectly satisfactory to the denomination.

“ART. I. We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments contain a revelation of the character of God, and of
the duty, interest, and final destination, of mankind.

“ART. II. We believe that there is one God, whose nature is love;
revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of grace,
who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness
and happiness.

“ART. III. We believe that holiness and true happiness are
inseparably connected, and that believers ought to be careful to
maintain order, and practise good works; for these things are good
and profitable unto men.”

History.

Universalists claim that the salvation of all men was taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles. It was also taught and defended by several of the most eminent Christian fathers; such as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, &c. In the third and fourth centuries, this doctrine prevailed extensively, and, for aught which appears to the contrary, was then accounted orthodox. It was at length condemned, however, by the fifth general council, A. D. 553; after which, we find few traces of it through the dark ages, so called.

It revived at the period of the reformation, and since that time has found many able and fearless advocates;—in Switzerland, Petitpierre and Lavater; in Germany, Seigvolk, Everhard, Steinbart, and Semler; in Scotland, Purves, Douglass, and T. S. Smith; in England, Coppin, Jeremy White, Dr. H. More, Dr. T. Burnet, Whiston, Hartley, Bishop Newton, Stonehouse, Barbauld, Lindsey, Priestley, Belsham, Carpenter, Relly, Vidler, Scarlett, and many others.

At the present day, Universalism prevails more extensively than elsewhere in England, Germany, and the United States.

In England, the Unitarian divines, generally, believe in the final salvation of all men. Dr. Lant Carpenter says, “Most of us, however, believe that a period will come to each individual, when punishment shall have done its work—when the awful sufferings with which the gospel threatens the impenitent and disobedient, will have humbled the stubborn, purified the polluted, and eradicated malignity, impiety, hypocrisy, and every evil disposition; that a period will come (which it may be the unspeakable bliss of those who enter the joy of their Lord to accelerate, which, at least, it will be their delight to anticipate,) when he who ‘must reign till he hath put _all enemies_ under his feet,’ ‘shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power.’ ‘The LAST ENEMY, death, shall be DESTROYED.’ ‘Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,’ ‘who wills that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth,’—that truth which sanctifies the heart,—that knowledge which is life eternal,—and God shall be ALL IN ALL.”

In Germany, nearly every theologian is a believer in the final salvation of all men. Speaking of Professor Tholuck, Professor Sears says, “The most painful disclosures remain yet to be made. This distinguished and excellent man, in common with the _great majority of the Evangelical divines_ of Germany, though he professes to have serious doubts, and is cautious in avowing the sentiment, believes that all men and fallen spirits will finally be saved.” Mr. Dwight, in his recent publication, says, “The doctrine of the eternity of future punishments is almost universally rejected. I have seen but one person in Germany who believed it, and but one other whose mind was wavering on this subject.” Universalism may, therefore, be considered the prevailing religion in Germany.

In the United States, Universalism was little known until about the middle of the last century; and afterwards it found but few advocates during several years. Dr. George de Benneville, of Germantown, Penn., Rev. Richard Clarke, of Charleston, S. C., and Jonathan Mayhew, D. D., of Boston, were, perhaps, the only individuals who publicly preached the doctrine before the arrival of Rev. John Murray, in 1770. Mr. Murray labored almost alone until 1780, when Rev. Elhanan Winchester, a popular Baptist preacher, embraced Universalism, though on different principles. About ten years afterwards, Rev. Hosea Ballou embraced the same doctrine, but on principles different from those advocated by Mr. Murray or Mr. Winchester. To the efforts of these three men is to be attributed much of the success which attended the denomination in its infancy. Although they differed widely from each other in their views of punishment, yet they labored together in harmony and love, for the advancement of the cause which was dear to all their hearts. The seed which they sowed has since produced an abundant harvest.

The ministry of the Universalist denomination in the United States, hitherto, has been provided for, not so much by the means of schools, as by the unaided, but irresistible influence of the gospel of Christ. This has furnished the denomination with its most successful preachers. It has turned them from other sects and doctrines, and brought them out from forests and fields, and from secular pursuits of almost every kind, and driven them, with inadequate literary preparation, to the work of disseminating the truth. This state of things has been unavoidable, and the effect of it is visible. It has made the ministry of the Universalist denomination very different from that of any other sect in the country; studious of the Scriptures, confident in the truth of their distinguishing doctrine, zealous, firm, industrious; depending more on the truths communicated for their success, than on the manner in which they are stated. It has had the effect, also, to give the ministry a polemic character—the natural result of unwavering faith in the doctrine believed, and of an introduction into the desk without scholastic training. But the attention of the denomination, in various parts of the country, has of late been turned to the education of the ministry; and conventions and associations have adopted resolves requiring candidates to pass examinations in certain branches of literature. The same motives have governed many in their effort to establish literary and theological institutions. The desire to have the ministry respectable for literary acquirements, is universal.

A few years since, a small number separated from the denomination, and adopted the appellation of _Restorationists_. To prevent misapprehension, it may be repeated, that, although a few have thus seceded, yet a difference of opinion in regard to the duration of punishment has not disturbed the harmony of the denomination generally, nor is it regarded as sufficient cause for breach of fellowship, or alienation of heart and affection.

The Universalists quote the following texts of Scripture, among others, in support of their sentiments:—Gen. 22:18. Ps. 22:27; 86:9. Isa. 25:6, 7, 8; 45:23, 24. Jer. 31:33, 34. Lam. 3:31-33. John 12:32. Acts 3:31. Rom. 5:18, 21; 8:33, 39; 11:25-36. 1 Cor. 15:22-28, and 51-57. 2 Cor. 5:18, 19. Gal. 3:8. Eph. 1:9, 10. Phil. 2:9-11. Col. 1:19, 29. 1 Tim. 2:1-6. Heb. 8:10, 11. Rev. 5:13; 21:3, 4.

-------------------------------------

We copy the following from the _Trumpet and Universalist Magazine_ of June 4, 1836. It is by the Rev. HOSEA BALLOU, of Boston, in answer to the question, “Who are Universalists?”

“There seems to be an evident propriety in calling all who believe in the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, _Universalists_. There appears no good reason why those who believe in a limited punishment, in the future state, should have a less or a greater claim to be called Universalists, than those who entertain a hope that all sin and misery end when the functions of life cease in the mortal body. As they both agree in the belief that God is the Savior of all men, if this belief entitle one to the name of Universalist, of course it gives the other the same title. The Rev. John Murray was called a Universalist, and he called himself by this name, although he admitted there might be suffering hereafter, in consequence of blindness or unbelief. It is true, he did not allow that the sinner was punished for sin, either here or in the future world, in his own person, because he maintained that the whole penalty of the divine law, for the sin of the whole world, was suffered by the Lord Jesus, as the head of every man. He allowed, notwithstanding, that the natural consequences of sin would inevitably follow transgression, as we see is the case by every day’s observation. So, likewise, was the Rev. Elhanan Winchester called a Universalist, and he called himself so, although his views respecting a state of retribution, and the sufferings to which the wicked in the world to come will be subjected, were widely different from those entertained by Mr. Murray. Mr. Winchester believed in a place of material fire and brimstone, where the wicked would endure a torment as intense as has been represented by those Christians who believe in endless misery. But, as he believed that all these sufferings will end, though they might continue for many thousand years, and that those miserable wretches will at last be subdued and reconciled to the divine government, and be happy, he was denominated a Universalist.

“The Rev. Dr. Huntington is ranked a Universalist, equally with those who have been named; but he believed in no punishment hereafter, being Calvinistic in his views of the demerit of sin, and of the atonement made by Christ.

“From the commencement of the denomination of Univeralists in this country, there has been a difference of opinion respecting the doctrine of rewards and punishments, among both the clergy and the laity belonging to the connection. But this difference was not considered, in those times, a good reason for a distinction of either name, denomination, or fellowship. All united in the cheering hope that, in the fulness of the dispensation of times, sin will be finished, transgression ended, and all moral intelligences reconciled to God, in true holiness and everlasting happiness. A view so grand and glorious, so full of comfort, of joy, and of peace, and so triumphant, was sufficiently powerful to draw together all who enjoyed it, and to hold them together as a denomination distinct from all those who hold the unmerciful doctrine of endless punishment.

“When the General Convention of the New England States, professing the doctrine of universal salvation, appointed a committee to draft articles of faith and a constitution, by which it might be known and distinguished from other religious sects, care was taken to appoint on that committee brethren whose views differed respecting the subject of a future state of rewards and punishments. The worthy and fondly-remembered brother Walter Ferriss, who penned that instrument, was a believer in future rewards and punishments; but he so wrote that confession of faith as to comprehend the full belief of universal salvation, without making any distinction between the belief of future punishment, or no future punishment. And it is well remembered that this circumstance was, at the time of accepting the report of the committee, viewed as one of its excellences.

“It seems improper to give so much weight to different opinions, which differ not in principle, but in circumstances only, as to constitute them walls of separation and disfellowship. If one believe that all misery ends with this mortal state, and another believe that it may continue twenty years after, and then come to an end, is there any real difference as to principle? All believe that our heavenly Father holds all times and seasons, and all events, in his own power, and that he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. And, moreover, all believe that God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. This constitutes us all Universalists, and calls on us to keep the unity of the spirit, and to walk in the bonds of peace.”

ROMAN CATHOLICS.

The following Creeds and Rule of Faith contain the fundamental principles of the Latin or Roman church.

Apostles’ Creed.

“I believe in God the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and
earth; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was
conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he
descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he
ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father
almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the
dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic church; the
communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of
the body; and life everlasting. AMEN.”

It is doubtful who composed the above Creed. It was not in common use in the church until the end of the fifth century. See _King’s History of the Apostles’ Creed_.

The Symbol, Or Creed Of St. Athanasius.

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that
he hold the Catholic faith;

“Which faith except every one do keep entire and inviolate,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

“Now, the Catholic faith is this—that we worship one God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.

“Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

“For one is the person of the Father, another of the Son, another
of the Holy Ghost.

“But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

“Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Ghost.

“The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Ghost
uncreated.

“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the
Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

“The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

“And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.

“As also they are not three Uncreated, nor three
Incomprehensibles; but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible.

“In like manner, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the
Holy Ghost almighty.

“And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

“So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

“And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

“So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy
Ghost is Lord.

“And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord,

“For, as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge
every person by himself to be God and Lord,

“So we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there are
three Gods or three Lords.

“The Father is made of no one, neither created nor begotten.

“The Son is from the Father alone, not made, nor created, but
begotten.

“The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor
created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

“So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three
Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

“And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing
greater or less; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal to one
another, and coëqual.

“So that in all things, as has been already said above, the Unity
is to be worshipped in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity.

“He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the
Trinity.

“Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he
also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Now, the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and Man.

“He is God of the substance of his Father, begotten before the
world; and he is Man of the substance of his mother, born in the
world.

“Perfect God and perfect Man; of a rational soul, and human flesh
subsisting.

“Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, and less than the
Father according to his Manhood.

“Who, although he be both God and Man, yet he is not two, but one
Christ.

“One, not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the
taking of the Manhood unto God.

“One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of
person.

“For as the rational soul and the flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ.

“Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again
the third day from the dead.

“He ascended into heaven: he sitteth at the right hand of God the
Father almighty; thence he shall come to judge the living and
dead.

“At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and
shall give an account of their own works.

“And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and
they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

“This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully
and steadfastly, he cannot be saved.

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As
it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, one God, world
without end. AMEN.”

This Creed is said to have been drawn up in the fourth century. “It obtained in France about A. D. 850, and was received in Spain and Germany about one hundred and eighty years later. We have clear proofs of its being sung alternately in the English churches in the tenth century. It was in common use in some parts of Italy in 960, and was received at Rome about A. D. 1014.” This Creed is retained by the church of England, but the Protestant Episcopal churches in the United States have rejected it.

The Nicene Creed.

“Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Factorem cœli et terræ, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum, ante omnia sæcula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum, non factum; consubstantialem Patri, per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem, descendit de cœlis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine; ET HOMO FACTUS EST: crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus, et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in cœlum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos: cujus regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et Vivificantem; qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur; qui locutus est per Prophetas. Et unam Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum Baptisma, in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi sæculi. Amen.”

Translation.

“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. And born of the Father,
before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
begotten, not made; consubstantial to the Father, by whom all
things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down
from heaven. And was incarnated by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin
Mary; AND HE WAS MADE MAN: was crucified also under Pontius
Pilate; he suffered, and was buried. And the third day he rose
again, according to the Scriptures. And he ascended into heaven.
Sits at the right hand of the Father. And he is to come again with
glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there
shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of
Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who, together with
the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified; who spoke by the
Prophets. And One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolical Church. I
confess one Baptism, for the remission of sins. And I look for the
resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come.
Amen.”

This Creed was adopted at Constantinople, A. D. 381. It is used in the Protestant Episcopal churches in England, and occasionally in those of the United States.

The foregoing Creeds are copied from Catholic books.

-------------------------------------

The Catholics, both in Europe and America, acknowledge the following Rule is “all that, and only that, belongs to Catholic belief, which is revealed in the word of God, and which is proposed by the Catholic church to all its members to be believed with divine faith.”

“Guided by this certain criterion,” they say, “we profess to believe,

1. “That Christ has established a church upon earth, and that this church is that which holds communion with the see of Rome, being one, holy, Catholic, and apostolical.

2. “That we are obliged to hear this church; and, therefore, that she is infallible, by the guidance of Almighty God, in her decisions regarding faith.

3. “That St. Peter, by divine commission, was appointed the head of this church, under Christ, its Founder; and that the pope, or bishop of Rome, as successor to St. Peter, has always been, and is, at present, by divine right, head of this church.

4. “That the canon of the Old and New Testament, as proposed to us by this church, is the word of God; as also such traditions, belonging to faith and morals, which, being originally delivered by Christ to his apostles, have been preserved by constant succession.

5. “That honor and veneration are due to the angels of God and his saints; that they offer up prayers to God for us; that it is good and profitable to have recourse to their intercession; and that the relics, or earthly remains, of God’s particular servants, are to be held in respect.

6. “That no sins ever were, or can be, remitted, unless by the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ; and, therefore, that man’s justification is the work of divine grace.

7. “That the good works which we do, receive their whole value from the grace of God; and that, by such works, we not only comply with the precepts of the divine law, but that we thereby likewise merit eternal life.

8. “That, by works done in the spirit of penance, we can make satisfaction to God for the temporal punishment which often remains due, after our sins, by the divine goodness, have been forgiven us.

9. “That Christ has left to his church a power of granting indulgences, that is, a relaxation from such temporal chastisement only, as remains due after the divine pardon of sin; and that the use of such indulgences is profitable to sinners.

10. “That there is a purgatory, or middle state; and that the souls of imperfect Christians, therein detained, are helped by the prayers of the faithful.

11. “That there are seven sacraments, all instituted by Christ—baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy order, matrimony.

12. “That, in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

13. “That, in this sacrament, there is, by the omnipotence of God, a conversion, or change, of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, which change we call TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

14. “That, under either kind, Christ is received whole and entire.

15. “That, in the mass, or sacrifice of the altar, is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory, sacrifice for the living and the dead.

16. “That, in the sacrament of penance, the sins we fall into after baptism are, by the divine mercy, forgiven us.

“These are the great points of Catholic belief, by which we are distinguished from other Christian societies; and these, only, are the real and essential tenets of our religion. We admit, also, the other grand articles of revealed and natural religion, which the gospel and the light of reason have manifested to us. To these we submit, as men and as Christians, and to the former as obedient children of the Catholic church.”

BEREANS.

The Bereans are a sect of Protestant dissenters from the church of Scotland, who take their title from, and profess to follow the example of, the ancient Bereans, in building their system of faith and practice upon the Scriptures alone, without regard to any human authority whatever. The Bereans first assembled, as a separate society of Christians, in the city of Edinburgh, in the autumn of 1773. Mr. Barclay, a Scotch clergyman, was the founder of this sect.

The Bereans agree with the great majority of Christians respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, which they hold as a fundamental article; and they also agree, in a great measure, with the professed principles of our Orthodox churches, respecting predestination and election, though they allege that these doctrines are not consistently taught. But they differ from the majority of all sects of Christians in various other important particulars, such as,—

1. Respecting our knowledge of the Deity. Upon this subject, they say the majority of professed Christians stumble at the very threshold of revelation; and, by admitting the doctrine of natural religion, natural conscience, natural notices, &c., not founded upon revelation, or derived from it by tradition, they give up the cause of Christianity at once to the infidels, who may justly argue, as Mr. Paine, in fact, does, in his “Age of Reason,” that there is no occasion for any revelation or word of God, if man can discover his nature and perfections from his works alone. But this, the Bereans argue, is beyond the natural powers of human reason; and, therefore, our knowledge of God is from revelation alone; and, without revelation, man would never have entertained an idea of his existence.

2. With regard to faith in Christ, and assurance of salvation through his merits, they differ from almost all other sects whatsoever. These they reckon inseparable, or rather the same, because (they say) “God hath expressly declared, He that believeth shall be saved; and, therefore, it is not only absurd, but impious, and, in a manner, calling God a liar, for a man to say, ‘I believe the gospel, but have doubts, nevertheless, of my own salvation.’ ” With regard to the various distinctions and definitions that have been given of different kinds of faith, they argue that there is nothing incomprehensible or obscure in the meaning of this word, as used in Scripture; but that, as faith, when applied to human testimony, signifies neither more nor less than the mere simple belief of that testimony as true, upon the authority of the testifier, so, when applied to the testimony of God, it signifies precisely “the belief of his testimony, and resting upon his veracity alone, without any kind of collateral support from concurrence of any other evidence or testimony whatever.” And they insist that, as this faith is the gift of God alone, so the person to whom it is given is as conscious of possessing it, as the being to whom God gives life is of being alive; and, therefore, he entertains no doubts, either of his faith, or his consequent salvation through the merits of Christ, who died and rose again for that purpose. In a word, they argue that the gospel would not be what it is held forth to be,—glad tidings of great joy,—if it did not bring full personal assurance of eternal salvation to the believer; which assurance, they insist, is the present infallible privilege and portion of every individual believer of the gospel.

3. Consistently with the above definition of faith, they say that the sin against the Holy Ghost, which has alarmed and puzzled so many in all ages, is nothing else but unbelief; and that the expression, “it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor that which is to come,” means only that a person dying in infidelity would not be forgiven, neither under the former dispensation by Moses, (the then present dispensation, kingdom, or government, of God,) nor under the gospel dispensation, which, in respect of the Mosaic, was a kind of future world, or kingdom to come.

4. The Bereans interpret a great part of the Old Testament prophecies, and, in particular, the whole of the Psalms, excepting such as are merely historical or laudatory, to be typical or prophetical of Jesus Christ, his sufferings, atonement, mediation, and kingdom; and they esteem it a gross perversion of these psalms and prophecies, to apply them to the experiences of private Christians. In proof of this, they not only urge the words of the apostle, that no prophecy is of any private interpretation, but they insist that the whole of the quotations from the ancient prophecies in the New Testament, and particularly those from the Psalms, are expressly applied to Christ. In this opinion, many other classes of Protestants agree with them.

5. Of the absolute, all-superintending sovereignty of the Almighty, the Bereans entertain the highest idea, as well as of the uninterrupted exertion thereof over all his works, in heaven, earth, and hell, however unsearchable by his creatures. A God without election, they argue, or choice in all his works, is a God without existence, a mere idol, a nonentity. And to deny God’s election, purpose, and express will, in all his works, is to make him inferior to ourselves.

The Bereans consider infant baptism as a divine ordinance, instituted in the room of circumcision, and think it absurd to suppose that infants, who, all agree, are admissible to the kingdom of God in heaven, should, nevertheless, be incapable of being admitted into his visible church on earth.

They commemorate the Lord’s supper generally once a month; but, as the words of the institution fix no particular period, they sometimes celebrate it oftener, and sometimes at more distant periods, as it may suit their general convenience. They meet every Lord’s day, for the purpose of preaching, praying, and exhorting to love and good works. With regard to admission and exclusion of members, their method is very simple: when any person, after hearing the Berean doctrines, professes his belief and assurance of the truths of the gospel, and desires to be admitted into their communion, he is cheerfully received, upon his profession, whatever may have been his former manner of life. But, if such a one should afterwards draw back from his good profession or practice, they first admonish him, and, if that has no effect, they leave him to himself. They do not think that they have any power to deliver a backsliding brother to Satan; that text, and other similar passages, such as, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” &c., they consider as restricted to the apostles, and to the inspired testimony alone, and not to be extended to any church on earth, or any number of churches, or of Christians, whether decided by a majority of votes, or by unanimous voices. Neither do they think themselves authorized, as a Christian church, to inquire into each other’s political opinions, any more than to examine into each other’s notions of philosophy.

They both recommend and practise, as a Christian duty, submission to lawful authority; but they do not think that a man, by becoming a Christian, or joining their society, is under any obligation, by the rules of the gospel, to renounce his right of private judgment upon matters of public or private importance. Upon all such subjects, they allow each other to think and act as each may see it his duty; and they require nothing more of the members, than a uniform and steady profession of the apostolic faith, and a suitable walk and conversation. (See Acts 17:11. Rom. 10:9.)

The Berean doctrines have found converts in various parts of Europe and America.

MATERIALISTS.

Materialists are those who maintain that the soul of man is material, or that the principle of perception and thought is not a substance distinct from the body, but the result of corporeal organization. There are others called by this name who have maintained that there is nothing but matter in the universe.