Two Universalist Ministers named Hosea Ballou and the revelance of their writings to UU's of today.

A presentation by Bill Chess to the Nature Coast Unitarian Universalists on Sunday, October 10, 1999.

Chalice Lighting

My foes declare, with awful frown,
The Lord my soul will thunder down
To black and long despair;
My crimes, they state, can't be forgiven;
I've preached so much the love of heaven,
I na'er shall enter there!

I own the charge, and won't deny,
I've laid my worldly pleasure by,
Devoted up my time
To preach my Saviour's boundless love
To all mankind, that they may prove
His mercy all divine.

Deception! Heresy! they cry;
The fraud is of the blackest dye;
Should Christ love sinners? No!
He loves his saints, and such are we,
But sinners all must banished be
to vengeance, wrath, and woe?

That I'm a sinner, Lord, I own;
But thou in mercy gavest thy Son
For wretches such as me;
And since I knew thy mercy, Lord,
I have to sinners preached thy work,
That they might taste and see.

If Christ for sinners feels no love,
What brought him from the realms above,
To die for sinful men?
If Jesus felt no love for me,
Till I his gracious love did see,
How did that love begin?

Lord, judge between my foes and me;
Give us discerning eyes to see
And understand thy grace;
If there be mercy still in store
For sinners, then reveal thy power--
Unveil thy lovely face.

Hosea Ballou

Reading

The following is my summary of a summary of Universalist doctrine included in an 1849 sermon by Hosea Ballou (the second.)

There are four items of Universalist doctrine in which Universalists are in agreement:

1-The final end of all sin in the human family, and the consequent holiness and happiness of all men. The universal salvation of all people, not just the chosen, not just the non-sinners.

2-This truth has its origin in the nature of God, and is a necessary result flowing from all the Divine attributes, which harmonize in infinite, unchangeable love.

3-The truths are plainly taught by Divine inspiration, in the scriptures of Old and New Testaments.

4-The true Christian life consists in possessing, living, and acting the spirit of love, as manifested in the life and teachings of the Divine Master.

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

Main Presentation

It turns out that there were TWO Universalist ministers named Hosea Ballou. Hosea Ballou, the elder was born in 1771 and lived until 1852. His grand nephew, Hosea Ballou the younger was born in 1796 and lived until 1861. I would have expected them to be further apart in time. But one was only 25 years older than the other.

The elder Ballou is often credited as the "father" of American Universalism. But I have always heard that Murray was. In any case both Ballou and Murray were early Universalist ministers and made their mark on our history.

The younger Ballou was also a Universalist minister. He was the first president of Tufts University and was instrumental in its founding. The elder Ballou was somewhat an anti-intellectual and didn't approve.

I found the web site of The First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Antonio with a lot of interesting sermons and references. One was "Universalism; More to the Heart", a sermon by Rev. Arthur G. Severance. Unfortunately it just became more than a year old and dropped off.

But the following story you will find quite amusing:

Universalist ministers were often circuit riders. Hosea Ballou (he doesn't say which one) was one of these. There is a story told about him riding the circuit in New England, while riding over New Hampshire's craggly hills with a Baptist preacher one afternoon Ballou told him that he used to be a Baptist as well, but that now he was a Univesalist and went on to tell of the universal salvation to all by a loving God. The Baptist preacher was horrified to hear about universal salvation, especially about the part that all would be saved by a loving God. How would people be good if there was not a threat of eternal damnation. They argued theology as they rode. The Baptist preacher looked over and finally said in exasperation:

"Brother Ballou, if I were a universalist and feared not the fires of hell, I could hit you over the head, steal your horse, ride away, and I'd still go to heaven."

Hosea looked over at him and said quietly, "if you were a Universalist, the idea would never occur to you."

References to Hosea Ballou tend to get somewhat mixed up, since sometimes it is impossible to tell just which one is the one being referred to.

Somewhere around 1985, I decided to explore the roots of American Universalism. There was no Internet then, just the local library (which was an excellent library.) I found a microfilm in the files which contained some biographical data on Hosea Ballou together with a selection of his writings. I didn't know there were two of them at the time, but since then I have found that it was the younger. I was especially intrigued by a sermon titled "A Short Essay on Universalism." I made a copy from the microfilm. The original must have been a musty old book and the microfilm was no technical miracle either. So the copy was just barely readable.

I carefully retyped it into the computer and then had a bunch of duplicates made and gave a Sunday presentation on it. Seven years later I decided to do it again (after all who would remember?). The second time I did a lot of paraphrasing because I recalled that the stilted, convoluted language of the original which I had presented as a sermon, just about put everyone to sleep.

Sometime during that era, I posted the essay on the UU news group on the net. In looking over what is on the web now, I found the same essay on two different web pages. I think they both were copies of my posting.

So this morning I'm going to cover that same essay for you and try not to quote too much of the old fashioned rhetoric containing long sentences and paragraphs with lots of dependent clauses and odd (to us) word placements.

I am attempting to show that historical Universalism is still very much relevant to U/U in the present, although the languages of the two eras may not in all respects let the truth shine through.

Ballou was writing about the previous 50 years of Universalism and bringing it up-to-date. Previous to his date, that is. In doing so he clarifies for us Universalism of his time which hopefully will enable us to bring into perspective Universalism of our time.

After his statement on Universalist doctrine which I just summarized he goes on, (and I am paraphrasing): We presented the reader with a short compendium of the articles of our faith. These articles are those in which Universalists are agreed. We now propose to set forth a concise view of some of the most important differences in the opinions of Universalists, particularly in the past.

Prior Universalist philosophers exerted more labor to reconcile the ancient mythology with Christianity, than to understand and teach the doctrine of Jesus in its simplicity.

We will now take a general survey of the opinions of those who have believed and taught Universalism within the last generation.

As the doctrine was first taught in this country, it had a Calvinistic base! Universalism was described as "Calvinism improved" To establish Universalism on Calvinism only requires that the merciful decrees of God, which Calvin restricted to a part of the human family be extended to all of humanity.

A direct quote:

"When a Calvinist found that the Scriptures plainly teach that the Savior gave himself a ransom for all men, having, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, it was easy for him to see the impropriety of believing that God had, from all eternity doomed any to endless woe. It does not appear that our earliest Universalists doubted that man, by sin, had incurred the just penalty of endless punishment, but fully ruled on the efficacy of the atonement for a deliverance of all men from such a condemnation."

End quote.

The doctrine of the Trinity was also held as an essential part of the general system of doctrine.

The great idea of universal salvation filled its believers so full of joy, giving such an impetus to the benevolence and love, that their zeal to impart its light and comfort to their fellow-men seemed to correspond with its vastness and glory.

The natural consequence of this state of things was to arouse the clergy. The clergy had quietly settled in the doctrine of endless misery, and were enjoying a comfortable living with their people. The clergy exerted all their power to oppose and put down a doctrine, which, to them, appeared to be subversive of Divine truth, and dangerous to the interests of souls committed to their charge.

The few defenders of Universalism found enough to do, in contending with their numerous and learned opposes. They did not call into question the soundness of other tenets which they had never doubted. These tenets they could hold without weakening their own cause, and could be used successfully in opposing their adversaries, who believed in the same.

But as more and more people came to believe in the Universalist doctrine, some minds began to look inquiringly into other tenets.

These inquiries were directed to test the doctrine of the Trinity, of vicarious atonement, of the infinite demerit of sin, of the justice of endless punishment, of the common doctrine of a personal devil, and the existence of that hell in which the church had so long believed, and which her clergy had located in the invisible, eternal world.

They examined the dogma of three distinct persons in one indivisible, infinite being, each of which is infinite. They were embarrassed not only with mystery, defying even an approach by the human understanding, but involving most palpable absurdity. And when the fact was duly considered, that Jesus by his many prayers acknowledged his dependence on his Father in heaven, and when it was also duly realized that he acknowledged that he was sent of the Father, and that all the power he possessed and exercised was given him by the Father, the dogma (of the trinity) was given up, as resting on no better ground than human invention.

Vicarious atonement, when carefully examined, was believed to depend on certain assumed notions, which had for their support neither Scripture nor reason. If man justly deserved endless punishment, or any punishment at all, neither Scripture nor reason would allow that the innocent should suffer it in room and instead of the guilty.

As to reason, it frowns on such a dogma indignantly; and the Scriptures, wherever they speak on the subject, assure us that God will render to every man according to his works. As, in the very nature of moral consciousness, guilt is the necessary retribution of the commission of known wrong, it is impossible that the innocent should suffer it.

The doctrine of the infinite demerit of sin, and of the justice of endless punishment, required no very deep or labored research to result in exploding it. The eye of enlightened reason, at one glance, could clearly see, that if sin be infinite, there can be no difference or degrees in criminality, while the Scriptures clearly teach a comparative distinction, and that while one offender is justly liable to many stripes, another is exposed to but a few. As to the justice of endless punishment, minds enjoying the liberty of free inquiry could easily detect the diabolical character of such justice, as it is the exact opposite of the Divine nature, which is love. Such justice is evidently predicated on the false principle and ungodly practice of rendering evil for evil.

The commonly received opinion, that there exists a personal being called the devil, seemed as difficult to eradicate from people's minds as any of the superstitions which had been nourished by learned divines in any age. Such a being, it seems, was indispensable in contriving and carrying on the scheme of man's eternal ruin! But when inquiry demanded who was the author of this devil, and what he was made for, and who it is that upholds him, and other kindred questions were asked, the most plausible account which could be obtained amounted to the startling blasphemy of attributing the whole to the wisdom of God!

These inquiring minds indulged in the liberty of calling in question the existence of that hell, in the invisible, eternal world, the belief of which the doctors of the church had taught to their people for many ages. And now, what account were our divines able to furnish concerning this dark, gloomy state of endless woe? Nothing more than that they knew nothing about it. True, they would say that we read of hell in the Bible, but they were utterly unable to show that a single passage gave countenance to the existence of such a hell as they professed to believe in, and in which they taught the people to believe. And as such a belief is evidently dishonorable to the character of our heavenly Father, it was rejected as an abominable superstition.

As some of those exploded superstitions had been retained by the early defenders of Universalism, it was alarming to them to be assured that their younger brethren, who preached the glorious doctrine of universal salvation, had repudiated those doctrines which they had never called in question.

Now arose a conflict between the preachers of Universalism, almost as sharp at that which had been carried on between Universalists and their opposes.

But the spirit imparted to all who believed in that one central idea of universal, impartial, and unchangeable love, predominated in directing their feelings and measures.

In short, they argued and saw the light and all was well within Universalism.

End of summary. Now it is my turn.

The belief that there will be an end of sin and of the punishment had been received with such transporting joy, that minor subjects were little thought of. The Universalists of Ballou's times rarely felt such ecstatic joy as did the first believers. Those who then believed in the truth of the doctrine had so long lived in the atmosphere of the doctrine that they began to take it for granted.

They began to be free to question all those other things:

Having settled down in this fundamental principal, they now started to question the other things: the trinity, hell, vicarious atonement, the devil etc.

Ballou had been questioning them for years.

The one theme which recurs in this writing is that one central idea of universal, impartial, and unchangeable love. It enabled Universalism to hang together in the face of all disagreement.

Now what has this all to do with the present? Examine our current U/U principles. Read the Covenant of this Society; read the statement of U/U principals printed on the back of the order of service. Examine your own personal philosophy. Think upon what is good and right and "nice" and beautiful. What is the source of these concepts. Did they spring spontaneously from your mind when you were born? Did they appear magically from nowhere to be set into writing at just the right moment? No! They derived from the culture into which you were born. They derived from your parents who set you example and taught you; from your exposure to the ideas and philosophies of others in talking, reading, loving --And where did those others derive the same concepts??-- you see what I mean. We do not exist in a cultural vacuum.

And here we have been discussing just one more source of our concepts. In an historical perspective Universalism was a necessary building block for a modern sense of the "right". Although it was by no means the only one.

At this time the evils which Ballou addressed are still with us. In his time he fought against them. He spoke the language understood by the people who held to these "false and evil" concepts. He made many converts and caused them to see the light. Communication was possible.

Is such communication possible now?

Back in 1992 I didn't think there was anyone preaching Universalism in the language and with the biblical background to properly go toe to toe with the religious right of today.

Now I'm finding out that there still is a very Christian oriented vocal group of Universalists who are still going at it. And I understand that the religious right are much more upset by them than by "normal" UU's.

I go out on the web and find the "Evangelical Universalist" and "The Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism" and references to various Universalist churches which are very Christian in their orientation but preach Universalism in the same vernacular of the Baptists et. al.

I also found a site: www.tentmaker.org which is so fundamentally Christian that I can hardly stand to read all of its numerous postings, bulletins etc., but it is very fundamentalist Universalist!

They are filling a great need. They preach Universalism in a way which I nor most of my UU friends could never do. Maybe they can make some inroads into the Christian fundamentalism as we observe it. I sincerely hope so.

My normal reaction to Christian fundamentalism is to ignore it. So long as they want to believe the way they do and not tamper with me or others who want to believe differently, they should go their way and I'll go mine.

My quarrel with Christian fundamentalism is to abhor the doctrine which assigns both guilty and innocent alike to eternal damnation. And for that reason they are out to convert me and the rest of the world to their brand of religion in order to "save" them. I think they are the ones who need to be saved. Saved from their own horror.

To me that doctrine goes against all that I can find good in the Christian religion. If I were a Christian, I would have to be a Universalist.

I have come to the conclusion that the need for Universalism is very strong today. And any way which we as UU's can support it is a worthwhile cause.

Closing Words

IF WE AGREE IN BROTHERLY LOVE, THERE IS NO
DISAGREEMENT THAT CAN DO US ANY INJURY;

BUT IF WE DO NOT, NO OTHER AGREEMENT CAN DO
US ANY GOOD.

LET US KEEP A SECRET GUARD AGAINST THE
ENEMY THAT SOWS DISCORD AMONG THE
BRETHREN.

LET US ENDEAVOR TO KEEP THE UNITY OF THE
SPIRIT IN THE BONDS OF PEACE.

Hosea Ballou