Friday, January 09, 2015

Hannah W. Smith, Universalism, and an Unholy and Unhappy Life: part 6 of 21 in Hannah W. Smith: Keswick Founder, Higher Life Preacher, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic

Judging by her unhappy and un-Christian marriage[1] and the fact that none of her children who survived to adulthood were born again or honored the Lord,[2] Mrs. Smith neither had the true “secret” of a happy Christian life nor the spiritual power to affect others for Christ.  Her son Logan Pearsall Smith rejected Christ and Christianity.  He wrote:
The old doctrines of the corruption of man and his inevitable doom unless he finds salvation in the conviction of sin, the gift of grace, and a sudden catastrophic, miraculous conversion—this evangelical theology . . . has now become utterly alien and strange to me. . . . I rejoiced in . . . ridicule of the evangelical religion . . . I gave . . . serious attention to the literature of Theosophy, and was inclined to believe that the key to the problem of existence was to be found, if only I could grasp it, in a little book of Rosicrucian doctrine over which I used to pore for hours. . . .  We are indeed leaves that perish . . . I do not find that a fate to be regretted . . . for any other form of being I feel no longing. All that I have read about what happens in a future existence makes the life beyond the grave seem an uncomfortable adventure. I have no desire for eternal bliss. . . . [I]f there is a struggle in the mind . . . between God and Mammon, I advise that the service of the god of money should be followed.[3]
One of Hannah’s two daughters abandoned her Roman Catholic husband and her children to pursue an adulterous relationship, while the other daughter married atheist Bertrand Russell;  both daughters rejected Christianity.[4]  Indeed, Hannah’s persistently adulterous daughter Mary wrote the following to her mother:  “I have (I think) no orthodox standards of any kind.  Thee, who is such a rebel against orthodoxy in religion, cannot be surprised or shocked if I am a rebel against orthodoxy in conduct. . . . [O]ne heresy leads to another, in the next generation at least.”[5]  As Hannah’s children rejected Christianity, so her husband Robert evidenced his unregenerate state by his rejection of Christianity for agnosticism and Buddhism accompanied by his own persistent adultery.  More importantly than her lack of the “secret” of happiness or spiritual power, Mrs. Smith did not have the “secret” of a God-honoring Christian life, or even, based on her heresies, a Christian life at all.  Nonetheless, “[m]any today who know her only through her writings know very little about . . . Hannah’s heresies . . . or, if they do, like those who knew her best, they still accept her spiritual insights as valid . . . loyal to . . . [the] doctrine . . . that life not doctrine was the true test of pure Christianity.”[6]  However, one wonders if many of those advocates of a doctrineless false pietism who embrace Mrs. Smith are aware that, while not living an outwardly profligate life, she nonetheless disliked united prayer,[7] went to casinos,[8] and hated her household servants.[9]  She wrote a note to her daughter about her “belated birthday present—a telescope Cigarette holder.  Thee need not advertise that it is a present from the author of the ‘Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life’!”[10] She also wrote her daughter concerning her grandchildren:  “The girls decided to play Demon in my sitting-room, and asked if I would let them say ‘Da[-]n’ now and then, and what could a poor foolish grandmother say but, ‘Yes’! (But do not put this in my Memoirs, I beg of thee!).”[11]  Along with allowing her grandchildren to play Demon and employ curse words, Mrs. Smith also fellowshipped with spiritualists[12] and received prophecies from occult palm readers.[13]  Her life was not a little different from that of a consistent pietist, even one who cared little for Biblically orthodox doctrine.  Neither Mrs. Smith’s beliefs nor her life indicated that she knew the alleged “secret” to a happy or holy Christian life.
            Mrs. Smith was a committed universalist.[14]  She was passionately and zealously wedded to the heresy that everyone would go to heaven and nobody would suffer eternally in hell.  After a period of time during which she blasphemously thought God was selfish for not saving everyone and that she was more loving than God, and consistent with her Quaker background, Mrs. Smith adopted universalism because of a grossly unscriptural “revelation” given to her while she was expressing her displeasure with God.  While feeling justified in her “upbraiding” of the Holy One, she adopted universalism because of an “inward voice” that she “knew” gave her the truth because of the testimony of her “heart” before she even looked at the Bible.[15]  She was open to such “revelations” because she rejected the total depravity of man in favor of the Inner Light:  “Just as we inherit natural life from the first Adam, so do we inherit spiritual life from the second Adam. There is . . . in every man a seed of the divine life, a Christ-germ as it were. The old Quakers called it ‘the witness for God in the soul,’ ‘that which responds to the divine inspeaking. . . . There is a divine seed in every man[.]”[16]  After all, for Mrs. Smith, the law is not the externally objective testimony of Scripture, but the Inner Light, the Divine Seed—“Our law of life is within;  we must love to follow it.”[17]  She would have done well to consider God’s testimony that “he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Proverbs 28:26; cf. Jeremiah 17:9).  Instead, Mrs. Smith taught that one should follow “God’s four especial voices, i. e. the voice of the Bible, the voice of circumstances, the voice of one’s highest reason, and the voice of one’s inward impressions.”[18]  She had learned from the Quakers that personal “revelations” were superior to the Scriptures:
A Quaker “concern” [alleged revelation] was to my mind clothed with even more authority than the Bible, for the Bible was God’s voice of long ago, while the “concern” was His voice at the present moment and, as such, was of far greater present importance . . . the preaching I hear[d] was certainly calculated to exalt the “inward voice” and its communications above all other voices . . . since God spoke to us directly[.][19]
She received such revelations throughout her life, leading her to all kinds of conclusions that could not be found in the Bible.[20]  Mrs. Smith persisted in believing in and preaching[21] the universalism she had learned from the spirit world through the Inner Voice until her death,[22] for the Inner Voice was the necessary corollary of the Quaker and Gnostic[23] rejection of human depravity for the doctrine of the Divine Seed in every man.  Every man had a Divine Seed, so every man would be saved;  thus Hannah had learned from the Inner Voice.  Hannah came to teach religious pluralism as a corollary of her universalism, that “a good Creator can be got at through all sorts of religious beliefs and all sorts of religious ceremonies, and that it does not matter what they are.”  Indeed people who are “fundamentally good . . . can be so content without any real link with God,” or even “without any certainty that there is a God to be linked to.”[24]  Thus, not just the false gospel of High Church Anglicans[25] and Roman Catholic priests,[26] or the polytheism and blasphemy of Mormons[27] within the realm of what might in the very loosest sense be termed Christiandom, but also the worship of various gods, whether Allah, Baal, or Satan, is fine;  indeed, even atheists and agnostics can be fundamentally good, and everyone is going to heaven at the end, in any case.  One may trust in Jehovah and hate the devil, and another may trust in the devil and hate the living God, but although “on exactly opposite pathways . . . we all meet God at last.”[28]  People who do not care in the least about the “saving of the soul,” and who are “unconsciou[s] . . . [of] the Christianity of Christ,” are still “serving, though it may be unconsciously . . . the Divine Master,”[29] regardless of whatever the Bible might say to the contrary (e. g., Ephesians 2:1-13).  God receives the worship and brings to heaven those who worship in spirit and in truth and serve Him in a Bible-practicing church, and He also allegedly receives the worship and brings to heaven those who offer the gore of human sacrifices to Moloch.  It thus becomes clear why it was necessary for Hannah to preach the Higher Life—all already have eternal life, but not all have the happiness and rest that comes from the Keswick theology.[30]
Hannah W. Smith wrote My Spiritual Autobiography: How I Discovered The Unselfishness of God[31] specifically because she loved being a heretic, and because she wanted to convince others to adopt heresies and become heretics:
[M]y autobiography . . . “How I discovered God” . . . is the story of my soul life from my early Quaker days, on through all the progressive steps of my experience . . . I am putting all my heresies into my story, and am trying to show the steps that have led to them;  and I flatter myself that it is going to be very convincing! So if you feel afraid of becoming heretics, I advise you not to read it. For my part, I always did love being a heretic as some of you know. What fun it was[!][32]
The book documents Mrs. Smith’s universalist and Quaker heresies, as well as the fact that her universalism, which she spread in her writings, antedated her and her husband’s public proclamation of the “Higher Life” theology from which the Keswick movement originated.  She explained her adoption of the universalist heresy as follows:
Neither could I see how a Creator could be just . . . in consigning some of the creatures He Himself, and no other, had created, to the eternal torment of hell, let them be as great sinners as they might be. I felt that if this doctrine were true, I should be woefully disappointed in the God whom I had . . . discovered. . . . As an escape from the doctrine of eternal torment, I at first embraced the doctrine of annihilation for the wicked, and for a little while tried to comfort myself with the belief that this life ended all for them. But the more I thought of it, the more it seemed to me that it would be a confession of serious failure on the part of the Creator, if He could find no way out of the problem of His creation, but to annihilate the creatures whom He had created. . . . I could not believe He would torment them forever; and neither could I rest in the thought of annihilation as His best remedy for sin. . . . I set myself to discover my mistakes. . . . [O]ne day a revelation came to me that vindicated Him, and that settled the whole question forever. . . . I seemed to have a revelation . . . not of His [Christ’s] sufferings because of sin, but of ours. . . . I had been used to hear a great deal about the awfulness of our sins against God, but now I asked myself, what about the awfulness of our fate in having been made sinners? Would I not infinitely rather that a sin should be committed against myself, than that I should commit a sin against any one else? Was it not a far more dreadful thing to be made a sinner than to be merely sinned against? . . . I saw that, when weighted in a balance of wrong done, we, who had been created sinners, had infinitely more to forgive than any one against whom we might have sinned.[33]
        The vividness with which all this came to me can never be expressed. . . . I saw it. It was a revelation . . . it could not be gainsaid. . . . How long it lasted I cannot remember, but, while it lasted, it almost crushed me.  And as it always came afresh at the sight of a strange face, I found myself obliged to wear a thick veil whenever I went into the streets[.] . . . One day I was riding on a tram-car along Market Street, Philadelphia, when I saw two men . . . dimly through my veil . . . [but when the] conductor came for his fare . . . I was obliged to raise my veil in order to count it out. As I raised it, I got a sight of the faces of those two men, and with an overwhelming flood of anguish, I seemed to catch a fresh and clearer revelation of the depths of the misery that had been caused to human beings by sin. It was more than I could bear. . . . I upbraided God. And I felt I was justified in doing so. Then suddenly . . . [a]n inward voice said . . . “He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied.” “Satisfied!” I cried in my heart . . . . [“]If I were Christ, nothing could satisfy me but that every human being should in the end be saved, and therefore I am sure that nothing less will satisfy Him.” And with this a veil seemed to be withdrawn from before the plans of the universe . . . I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall.
        I saw all this that day on the tram-car . . . not only thought it, or hoped it, or even believed it—but knew it. It was a Divine fact. And from that moment I have never had one questioning thought as to the final destiny of the human race. . . . However great the ignorance therefore, or however grievous the sin, the promise of salvation is positive and without limitations . . . somewhere and somehow God was going to make everything right for all the creatures He had created. My heart was at rest about it forever.
        I hurried home to get hold of my Bible, to see if the magnificent fact I had discovered could possibly have been all this time in the Bible . . . my Bible fairly shone with a new meaning. . . . the true [universalist] meaning, hidden behind the outward form of words . . . rightly interpreted, not by the letter, but by the spirit . . . the denunciations of God’s wrath, which had once seemed so cruel and so unjust, were transformed into declarations of His loving determination to make us good enough to live in Heaven with Himself forever.[34] . . . [A]t this time my real discovery of the unselfishness of God began. Up to then . . . I had been secretly beset from time to time with a torturing feeling that, after all, it was rather a selfish salvation, both for Him and for me. . . . always there had been at the bottom of my mind this secret feeling that His love could not stand the test of comparison with the ideal of love in my own heart. . . . I still had often felt as if after all the God I worshipped was a selfish God, who cared more for His own comfort and His own glory that He did for the poor suffering beings He had made. . . . [M]ost of my ideas of the love and goodness of God have come from my own experience as a mother . . . since this discovery of the mother-heart of God I have always been able to answer every doubt that may have arisen in my mind . . . by simply looking at my own feelings as a mother. . . . I had in short such an overwhelming revelation . . . that nothing since has been able to shake it. . . . [W]hen I had that revelation on the tram-car in Philadelphia that day, a light on the character of God began to shine. . . . The amazing thing is that I, in company with so many other Christians, had failed, with the open Bible before me, to see this [“truth” of universalism.] . . .
        [Opposition to my new belief in universal salvation] became at this time well-nigh intolerable. I could listen patiently, and even with interest, to any sort of strange or heretical ideas . . . but the one thing I could not endure, and could not sit still to listen to, was anything that contained, even under a show of great piety, the least hint of [opposition to universalism]. . . . [A] celebrated Preacher . . . was visiting us. . . . his object was to combat my views on Restitution [that is, universalism.] [A]lthough the speaker was my guest, I broke forth into a perfect passion of indignation, and declaring that I would not sit at the table with any one who held such libelous ideas of God, I burst into tears and left the room, and entirely declined to see my guest again. I do not say that this was right or courteous, or at all Christ-like, but it only illustrates how overwhelmingly I felt on the subject. . . . As was to be expected . . . my views on Restitution, which of course I had speedily announced, met with a great deal of disapproval from the Plymouth Brethren, and my other orthodox friends . . . I have always rather enjoyed being considered a heretic . . . the discovery I had made . . . was considered by many to be . . . a grave heresy . . . but the revelation I had had was too glorious for me to withhold it whenever I found an open door; and . . . I was never willing to sail under false colours, nor speak anywhere without it being perfectly well known beforehand what a heretic I was[.] . . . And, as a fact, these very views, and the frank confession of them . . . were the means of opening the way for some of our most important and successful work. . . . In 1873 my husband had come over to England to hold some meetings in the interests of the Higher Life, or, what I prefer to call it, the Life of Faith. I soon followed him, and upon my arrival in London I was invited to meet a company of leading Evangelical[35] ladies, who were to decide as to whether it would be safe for them to endorse me, and lend their influence to the work. . . . I [declared my belief in] the universal hope . . . the moment I ceased speaking . . . [I was invited to] come and have some meetings . .  . not a word of disapproval was uttered, and . . . [the way] was thrown open to us for our first conference, which was a time of wonderful blessing, and proved to be the entering door for all the future conferences, and for our whole after work in England and elsewhere. . . . I believe in Restitution more and more. . . . When in 1874 there was to be one of these conferences . . . some of the committee who were helping to organize it, got frightened about my heresies . . . [but] as it was felt important to have me at the meetings, the committee . . . decided to take me as I was, with all my heresies. . . . I am a thousand times stronger in my view of restitution every day I live. . . . I . . . know that never for one single moment in all my work in England was I made to feel that my views on restitution in the slightest degree hindered the entrance of the message I had to give, or closed any door for my work. In fact I believe they made the way for me in many places that would otherwise not have been open. . . . [Concerning] my [universalist] . . . belief . . . without it I should have been shorn of half my power.”[36] 
Mrs. Smith then proceeds to explain that she came to her position about “the life of faith”—although her view of faith was always extremely weak and unscriptural—only after she had adopted the universalist heresy.  She called “the life of faith” the “fourth epoch in my religious life,”[37] while the universalist heresy was “the third epoch in my religious life.”[38]  Her universalism, she affirmed, opened up avenues for her spread of the “Higher Life” doctrine, and without universalism, she stated, “I should have been shorn of half my power.”  Universalism was essential for Mrs. Smith’s development and promulgation of the Higher Life or Keswick doctrine of sanctification.



This entire study can be accessed here.




[1]              Indeed, “for some years . . . [Robert] Pearsall and Mrs. Smith had no words—no relations—with each other,” and had at least seventeen years of unhappy married life, according to their son Logan (pg. 73, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey).  Mrs. Smith had such an antipathy towards husbands, and negative feelings about men in general, concommitants to her ardent feminism, that she wrote:  “It is hard for me to believe that any husband and wife are really happy together” (pg. 218, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.  Letter to her daugher, Mary Berenson, September 28, 1910).
[2]              Notwithstanding their truly unregenerate state, Robert P. Smith publicly proclaimed that all his children were saved (pg. 212, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875;  cf. Hannah’s teaching on pg. 373).  His doctrine that “consecration and conversion [are] two separate acts,” so that he had “never known one instance in which they were not distinct” (pg. 256, ibid) was almost surely a contributing factor in his children—and he himself—never truly coming to that surrender to Christ as Lord without which salvation is impossible (Mark 8:34-36).  Countless multitudes who have adopted his doctrine have also been eternally damned, and misleading their children into false professions, have brought them to hell also.
[3]              Pgs. 35, 125-128, 275, 294, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
[4]              Subsequent to Robert P. Smith’s “spiritual apostasy and eventual agnosticism, after his fall from grace in England . . . the children . . . follow[ed] the same loss of faith. . . . Mary finally deserted her first husband and her two children to live in Italy with Bernard Berenson . . . Hannah had to rear the young children, Ray and Karin.  Alys became the first wife of Bertrand Russell and was soon swept into his agnosticism” (December 31, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
[5]              Pg. 116, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey.
[6]              August 3-4, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.  Note that the idea that life, not doctrine, is the true test of Christianity is itself a doctrine.
[7]              Pg. 57, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.  Letter to Sarah Nicholson, August 13, 1881.
[8]              Pg. 142-144, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.  Letter to her friends, August 26, 1899
[9]              “[M]y servants . . . I simply hate them, and if it would not inconvenience me too much, I would turn them out at once!” (pg. 220, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.  Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, December 5, 1910.  Italics in original).
[10]            Pg. 181, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.  Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 15, 1906.  See also pg. 182.
[11]            Pg. 198, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.  Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 14, 1908.  The curse word is spelled out in Mrs. Smith’s letter—the omitted letter was supplied instead here, instead of the “m,” to avoid the use of the curse word in this book.
                Note also that Mrs. Smith was perfectly willing to misrepresent or conveniently omit facts in documents concerning her and her life if such misrepresentation would place her in a better light.  This willingness should be kept in mind as one evaluates her writings, where her minimalization of her role in accepting and propogating the erotic Spirit baptism heresy is of dubious historicity.
[12]            E. g., pgs. 155-156 of A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, record her letter to her daughter Alys Russell of January 24, 1903.
[13]            E. g., pg. 128 of  A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
[14]            It is noteworthy that the universalism of Mrs. Smith’s day was very open to the Higher Life and to continuationism;  for example, the holiness preacher Mrs. Mary B. Woordworth-Etter, who became a leading Pentecostal after the events at Azuza Street, preached in Universalist churches, claimed she had the gift of healing, and claimed that the gift of tongues was evident in her meetings (pgs. 34-35, 249, Vision of the Disinherited:  The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson).  A substantial portion of Pentecostalism, at least in part through Keswick influence under the flagship Keswick universalist Hannah W. Smith, adopted universalism.  The doctrine was validated to them by supernatural revelations, just as Hannah Smith had her universalism validated by extra-Biblical revelation (cf. pg. 159, Vision of the Disinherited:  The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson).  Rejection of the Biblical doctrine of an eternal hell also goes through Keswick men such as George Grubb to Pentecostal founder Charles Parham, whos annihilationism also spread to many others in the Pentecostal movement.
[15]            Pgs. 196-228, The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith.  Hannah’s description of her adoption of universalism is quoted extensively below.
[16]          pgs. 160-161, Every-Day Religion.
[17]            Pg. 181, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
[18]            Pg. 159, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
[19]            Pgs. 82-83, The Unselfishness of God, by Hannah W. Smith.
[20]            See pg. 148, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, October 26, 1901, for an example of such a revelation.
[21]            See, e. g., pg. 40, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her husband, Robert Pearsall Smith, April 19, 1878, for Mrs. Smith’s description of a meeting where she preached universalism, so that others sympathetic to the heresy were “delighted at the plainness with which [she] declared Restitution.”
[22]            She died and was cremated at the age of 79 on May 1, 1911.  See pgs. 256-259, Remarkable Relations, by Barbara Strachey.
[23]            “[In] the Gnostic system . . . [t]he Divine element is hidden in man as a spark of the Father above, as a spark of the divine self consciousness” (pg. 82, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, Aloys Grillmeier, trans. John Bowden.  Atlanta, GA:  John Knox, 1975).  Whatever human connections may or may not be traceable between Quakerism and ancient Gnosticism, Satan is without a doubt the author of the Divine seed heresy for both religious systems.
[24]            Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 16, 1902, on pgs. 148-150 of A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S.” (Mrs. Pearsall Smith), ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. London:  Nisbet & Co.  1949.  Italics in original.
[25]            Pg. 88, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her friends, August 13, 1886.  All such “High Churchmen . . . seem very holy men, and I expect our Father in Heaven does not mind their little notions any more than He minds ours[.]”
[26]            Pg. 126, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her friends, March 16, 1894.  Mrs. Smith is here describing a priest, who even while specifically promulgating the damnable heresy of baptismal regeneration, is none the less “most saintly.”
[27]            Pg. 52, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to Mrs. Ford Barclay, July 23, 1880.
[28]            See pg. 118, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her daughter, Mary Costelloe, November 7, 1891.  In all religions “there is a knowledge of God that must be and that is more or less the same everywhere.”
[29]            Pg. 125, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her friends, March 16, 1894.
[30]            Note that this view is extremely similar to that of F. B. Meyer, and explains Meyer’s preaching of the Higher Life, rather than the gospel, to Hindus in India and the heathen in other lands;  see the chapter below on F. B. Meyer.
[31]          My Spiritual Autobiography: How I Discovered The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1903.  She wrote this book at the age of 71.  It was singularly fitting that the founder of the Keswick theology, which spread overwhelmingly through the influence of testimonial and not through the exegesis of Scripture, should also seek to spread her other heresies through testimonial, namely, through the story of her life and how her heresies made her happy.
[32]            Pg. 146, A Religious Rebel:  The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.  Letter to her friends, February 18, 1901.  Italics in original.
Indeed, if one loves Jesus Christ, and consequently hates heresy and does not wish to become a heretic, he would do well to avoid reading and seeking for any spiritual guidance whatsoever in Mrs. Smith’s books, and he would do well to reject the Keswick theology that she originated.
[33]            Of course, Scripture teaches that God did not make man a sinner, but that the race freely rebelled against God and plunged itself into sin.
[34]            Hannah here displays her rejection of the true gospel, which is not that men are made good enough to live in heaven, but that they are justified by grace alone through faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone.  Rather than the true gospel, Hannah accepts the Quaker heresy of justification by imparted righteousness.
[35]            Mrs. Smith employs the word “evangelical” in an exceedingly loose fashion.  This fact can be illustratated by the fact that although she was a Quaker who denied the gospel, accepted that Quaker revelations were on the same plane as Scripture, and believed in universalism, she considered herself to be an “evangelical” at this period of her life.  The “evangelicals” she speaks of here include those spiritualists and Quakers she sought approval from, as described below.
[36]          Pgs. 196-228, The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith.  Italics in original.
[37]          pg. 228, The Unselfishness of God.
[38]            pg. 199, The Unselfishness of God.

1 comment:

KJB1611 said...

I have updated the link for the complete study of which this forms a part. The new webpage is here:

http://faithsaves.net/hannah-whitall-smith/