Views of Universalists on the "New Hell"

1904

This forceful and original designation is taken from The Boston Transcript. Certain of these eastern papers have a "religious editor," usually a retired clergyman of some sort, who prepared the short articles which appear now and then on ecclesiastical themes. What they say is worth reading. Not that the reader will always agree with it. He may dissent with vehemence, but then he may agree with fervor and be taken with the clear, clean cut way in which the truth is told. Some of the best elucidations of the drift of modern thought in religion are found in such papers as The Boston Transcript and The New York Sun. To one of them I call attention.

The editorial has the above words for its caption. It begins by referring to an article in The North American Review by Professor Knight, of Tufts college, a Universalist institution. The Transcript goes on to say, "The significance of the article is that the Universalist teaching of theology takes to task the liberal orthodox for the flaccidity of their preachments concerning the future life. He believes that in the church at large there are many excellent spirits who have so vigorously reacted against the excesses of past theology as to lose sight of the truth there was in it. When, therefore, with a holy zeal derived from their spiritual ancestry they preach a new dominating principle of love towards sinners even in hell they weaken their cause by understanding or even quite overlooking the fact of the severity of God as manifested in what we know from experience of his moral government."

The "new hell" of the orthodox as designated by the editor and depicted by Professor Knight is apparent. We, too, alas, are familiar with that kind of "preachment" also, there is an abundance of it all around: Love, love, love everlasting, irreversible and resistless love, is the supreme element in the divine character according to a deal of modern preaching. Holiness takes a secondary place, notwithstanding the lesson taught us by the ascription of the angels. Because of this supposed everlasting, irreversible and resistless love God will keep at it. He makes one failure in this world, but He will try again in the next world, and again and again — probation after probation — until He gets them all in, or is obliged to give up a few incorrigible ones in despair. But that is not all of the "new hell" that one can hear about in Boston in "orthodox pulpits." Hell is only a condition — a state of mind. Quoting from Dr. Dale, "the eminent English congregationalist," the editor says, "the supreme penalty of sin is the loss of our original and ideal relation to God." Then again, there is no infliction in hell — sin merely punishes itself. There is merely a relation of cause and effect, nothing more, and this, too, in the face of such events as the flood and the fire from heaven on Sodom.

We are quite prepared now for the sarcastic utterance of Professor Knight and the editor of The Transcript. Again I quote "The consequence of not a little of liberal orthodox preaching with respect to those who have transgressed in this life, Professor Knight thinks, has been to make sin even more attractive to the sinner, thus, if it be held as it was by Dr. Dale, the eminent congregationalist, that the supreme penalty of sin is the loss of our original and ideal relation to God, that, says Professor Knight is what sinners would like most of all. They prefer to be left alone by God. They find the new hell so pleasant that they choose it as a place of residence. As described by many spiritual guides now, emigrations will surely set that way whenever the character of the church shall become generally known. This incident compounded of exhortations and reproof is one significant of that reaction from liberalism to conservatism which always comes. From being a radical Professor Knight is now a conservative, preaching to men, who, in turn, are liberals reacting from conservatives." So much for what the editor says.

Is not this a startling disclosure? Universalism and orthodoxy changing places! The orthodox wandering from their way until they out-liberalize the liberals and are being rebuked by the latter for their laxity and flaccidity. Is it any wonder that the doctrine of divine retribution is ceasing to be operative as a restraining force, and that there is such general complaint of increasing lawlessness in the land? As the editor again remarks, "It is one thing to hope for or be sure of ultimate salvation for all men, and quite another to preach a soft-gospel calculated to make men indifferent to sin here and now."

The Transcript concludes with the mention of what Lowell said in a letter to Leslie Stephens. A Universalist who did not believe in future punishment changed his mind during the war, and gave as a reason that from what he saw in camp and on the battle field, "Hell was a military necessity." It is not a minister now who is saying anything like that, but an old Boston editor, a man noted for his erudition, his acumen and his hard horse sense. His opinions are negotiable here about.

Taken altogether and taken with what another, a prominent Unitarian minister, asked in a public address not long ago, "Is conviction passing?" referring to that same feebleness of doctrinal assertiveness, our own ministers ought to see in it a mighty call to preach the old truth about sin and God's anger at sin. The land is suffering for lack of it.

—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.