Benjamin Rush Believed In Universal Reconcilliation
Benjamin Rush — unlike the “key Founders” (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin) — was identifiably an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. And he seemed to connect his political philosophy to that more traditional form of Christianity.
Yet, he believed in universal reconciliation; he made the “orthodox Trinitarian” case for that doctrine. (Thus, he would have dug “The Shack.”) The Christian-unitarian case for universalism is that all good men, modeling Jesus’ perfect moral example, are initially saved, the bad are temporarily punished in proportion to the wrong they do (this is what those 5 key Founders either explicitly or probably believed). The trinitarian case for universalism believes all will be saved thru Christ’s universal (as opposed to limited) atonement; the unsaved spend some serious time in Hell or purgatory through.
As Rush put it in his autobiography:
At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
Interesting. Gregory of Nyssa, who developed the Doctrine of the Trinity, may well have been a believer in universal reconciliation, or apocatastasis.Report
Thanks. I think Origen may have as well.Report
Hmm. Universal atonement is not universal salvation. You seem to be confusing the two. Universalism (universal salvation) does not acknowledge “future punishment,” a condition which he accepts.Report
CG,
You have to read what Rush said very carefully and also be aware of the theological dynamic of 18th Cen. Universalism. Granted not all who believe in the Arminian notion of a universal as opposed to the Calvinist limited atonement are theological universalists; but theological universalism stemmed from the idea of Christ’s universal as opposed to limited atonement. Indeed, Calvinists used (and to this day still use) universal atonement -> universal salvation as a “reductio” against the doctrine. (If Christ died for everyone, then everyone must be saved, unless some/much of Christ’s blood is wasted).
The Universalists of Rush’s day did INDEED believe in a future state of punishment; they believed “unsaved” men were temporarily punished as Christ worked with them in Hell or purgatory. And “long duration” meant — to many of them — 1000 years!
If you read up on the authorities that Rush cites in favor of universal salvation — this is exactly what they preached.Report
Then it appears Rush did not understand the Arminianism that he proclaimed. Such is the fate of many who call themselves Calvinists as well.Report
CB,
I think the problem may be “Protestantism” in general. Without a top down authoritative “settling” agent (i.e., Rome’s Magisterium) notions like “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” — rooted in Sola Scriptura — are destined to “live” in an “evolving” sense.
I know, Rome’s teachings have, in many ways, done the same. Such is life.Report