Universal Grace and Human Destiny: The Theology of John Murray in Comparative Perspective
Introduction
John Murray (1741–1815) is considered the theological and institutional founder of organized Christian Universalism in America. Deeply influenced by James Relly and later associated with fellow universalist preacher Elhanan Winchester, Murray articulated a vision of salvation in which the reconciling love of God would ultimately triumph over sin and death for all humanity. While Murray drew significantly from Relly’s Christological universalism, he developed his own emphases, especially in terms of ecclesiology and pastoral application. Moreover, his relationship with Winchester reveals important distinctions within early American Universalist theology, particularly regarding eschatology and scriptural interpretation.
I. John Murray’s Theology of Universal Salvation
Murray’s theology is grounded in three core affirmations:
-
The Universal Efficacy of Christ’s Atonement: Christ's redemptive work is not limited to the elect, but encompasses all people. Echoing Romans 5:18–19, Murray argued that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).1
-
The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: God's will to save is both loving and irresistible. Citing 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 12:32, Murray maintained that divine love was incompatible with the doctrine of eternal torment. God’s justice, he insisted, must always be interpreted through the lens of His mercy.2
-
Rejection of Eternal Damnation: While Murray acknowledged divine judgment, he interpreted it as restorative rather than retributive. Hell, for Murray, was a temporal condition of alienation and suffering intended to bring souls into a clearer understanding of divine truth.3
II. Murray and James Relly: From Disciple to Divergence
Murray’s theology was initially shaped by James Relly (1722–1778), a Welsh preacher whose radical Christocentric universalism deeply influenced him. Relly’s foundational claim was that Christ’s union with humanity was so comprehensive that all human beings participated in His redemptive act. This was a reversal of traditional federal theology: just as all were condemned in Adam, so too all were justified in Christ.
Relly's most influential work, Union, defends this theological claim by emphasizing the mystical and ontological connection between Christ and humanity. Salvation, in Relly’s view, was not contingent on individual faith or repentance but was objectively accomplished through Christ’s substitutionary identification with all people. In Union, he writes, "In all that Christ did, suffered, and obtained, the world was in Him, acted in Him, suffered in Him, and rose in Him."4
Relly’s understanding of hell is consistent with his overarching theology. In Union and other writings, he does not deny the existence of hell but interprets it as a present spiritual condition of alienation from God, as well as a temporary postmortem state that some may experience. Hell is seen not as a place of endless punishment, but as a necessary, though ultimately redemptive, aspect of divine judgment. He states:
"Hell is the portion of the wicked; but it is not endless. For the Redeemer has the keys of death and hell. His blood speaks better things. It cleanseth from all sin, and where sin is removed, there can be no more death or hell."5
Thus, for Relly, the duration of hell is finite, and its function is purgative rather than penal. This view greatly influenced Murray, who adopted a similar understanding but communicated it with more pastoral clarity and institutional vision.
Differences between Relly and Murray include:
-
Theological Tone: Relly’s writings are dense, mystical, and rhetorical, whereas Murray’s theology is accessible, emotionally engaging, and grounded in pastoral realities.6
-
Ecclesiology: Relly showed little interest in institutional religion or organized worship. Murray, however, founded churches and helped establish the Universalist Church in America.7
-
Scriptural Method: While both emphasized Pauline theology, Relly often relied on typological and symbolic readings. Murray preferred a more harmonized, devotional reading of Scripture.
III. Comparison with Elhanan Winchester
Elhanan Winchester (1751–1797), another major figure in early American Universalism, developed a more eschatologically complex vision of restoration than Murray. Though both preached the salvation of all souls, their differences are significant:
| Issue | John Murray | Elhanan Winchester |
|---|---|---|
| View of Hell | Temporal and corrective | Real, purgative, and possibly of long duration |
| Duration of Punishment | Brief and proportionate | Possibly lasting "ages," but not eternal8 |
| Use of Scripture | Pauline and pastoral | Broad and literalist, with strong emphasis on apocalyptic texts |
| View of Salvation | Completed in Christ | Gradual and eschatological |
| Moral Emphasis | God’s love produces holiness | Emphasized repentance and spiritual purification |
Winchester’s major work, The Universal Restoration (1794), taught that while the wicked may endure future punishment, such suffering would be ultimately purifying and finite. He rejected annihilationism and eternal torment, but affirmed an age-long corrective hell prior to final reconciliation. Unlike Murray, who viewed salvation as already realized, Winchester believed in a cosmic unfolding of redemption across future "ages."
Winchester was also more open to apocalyptic and millenarian interpretations of Scripture, particularly the Book of Revelation. He anticipated a millennial reign of Christ before the ultimate restoration of all souls, including the devil and his angels.9
IV. Pastoral and Ecclesial Legacy
Murray's greatest legacy may lie not only in his theology but in his pastoral courage. In an era dominated by fear-based preaching, Murray’s proclamation of a loving and inclusive God gave hope to many who had been spiritually marginalized. He helped institutionalize Universalism in America, creating space for a community built on trust in the goodness of God and the dignity of every soul.
By contrast, Relly’s influence remained largely theological and literary. He never organized a formal denomination and preferred a more mystical presentation of truth. Winchester, while briefly influential in Philadelphia and London, never built a lasting institutional structure. Thus, Murray remains the pivotal bridge between radical universalist theology and ecclesial praxis.
Conclusion
John Murray stands as a central figure in the development of Christian Universalism. His thought, while rooted in the Christological union theology of James Relly, became more pastorally focused and institutionally grounded. Compared to Elhanan Winchester, Murray’s theology was more confident in the completed work of Christ and less speculative about the duration or stages of postmortem punishment. All three, however, shared a profound belief in the eventual restoration of all creation. In this sense, Murray’s enduring message—that “no soul shall be lost, for all belong to Christ”—continues to resonate as a declaration of divine hope.
Footnotes
Would you like this formatted as a Word or PDF document, or adapted into a presentation format for teaching or speaking purposes?
Footnotes
-
John Murray, Letters and Sketches of Sermons (Boston: Universalist Publishing House, 1812), vol. I, 47. ↩
-
Ibid., 98–100. ↩
-
Russell E. Miller, The Larger Hope: The First Century of the Universalist Church in America, 1770–1870 (Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association, 1979), 42–46. ↩
-
James Relly, Union: or, A Treatise of the Consanguinity and Affinity between Christ and His Church (London: J. Bunce, 1759), 41–42. ↩
-
Ibid., 138–139. ↩
-
George H. Williams, American Universalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), 71–75. ↩
-
Ernest Cassara, Universalism in America: A Documentary History of a Liberal Faith (Boston: Skinner House Books, 1971), 65. ↩
-
Elhanan Winchester, The Universal Restoration (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794), 40–56. ↩
-
Ibid., 115–123. ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment