the propriety of an exchange of pulpits with the Universalist ministers of Boston. But is he not a Universalist? And why should he not exchange services with his brethren of the same faith? In the same volume of the Unitarian Miscellany, another writer, under the signature of J. T., opposes the doctrine of eternal punishment, and advocates universal restoration. p. 158. From the first number of the Unitarian,' a periodical published at New York, and edited by Rev. William Ware of that city, we give the following extract, said to have been written by Mr. Ware himself. "We do not believe the eternity of all future punishment of sin to be the doctrine either of Scripture or reason, and regard it as a tenet that has, in many respects, an unhappy influence on hunian conduct and character.' 'We believe that the suffering of futurity' will be disciplinary, remedial, purifying, saving in its character, and will, consequently, at some time, cease; at that time, whenever it shall be, that the offenders shall be reformed by it,' and' restored to the love and practice of virtue." We extract the following from the Christian Inquirer,' a Unitarian paper formerly published in the city of New York. "In England, we all know, that several of the most zealous and useful Unitarian ministers publicly avow their belief in the final restoration of all men to happiness; and if I do not mistake, THIS IS THE BELIEF OF THE GREAT BODY OF UNITARIANS IN THIS COUNTRY. Why then should we hesitate to avow our sentiments, especially on this subject; or at least, would it not be good policy, if we wish success to the cause of liberal Christianity, to extend our sympathy and Christian intercourse to these brethren ?"* 6 We have already quoted a New York Unitarian,' affirming that 'THE GREAT MASS OF UNITARIANS both in this country, and in Europe, boldly avow their disbelief of eternal misery, and their firm persuasion of the restoration of mankind to holiness and happiness ;' -affirming, once and again, that on this point, Unitarians and Universalists are agreed.' p. 216. The reviewer, of a Letter from a Gentleman in Boston to a Unitarian Clergyman of that city,' thinks it 'honorable' to the Unitarian party,' that none of them 'believe in the eternity of future punishment.' "We hope no Unitarian will ever be found, to profess a doctrine so subversive of the most amiable attributes of the Deity, and so little supported by the revelations he has sent us." p. 23. The Christian Register has lately published an extended article on the question, 'Are Unitarians Universalists?' in which, after denying that they are Universalists, even in the sense of restoration, the writer comes to the following conclusions: 1. He cannot name' the individual among Unitarians, who believes that the wicked shall be forever miserable.' 2. A few believe in annihilation.' 3. By a third and NUMEROUS body the belief is cherished, that all men will be ultimately reconciled to God and restored to his favor.' 4. The remainder believe that Christ has announced a painful retribution for the sinner, but that the consequences of this * Quoted in the Universalist Magazine for Jan. 6, 1827. retribution are among the secret things of God.* We have yet to learn in what this latter class differ materially from the third. They believe that the wicked will be punished, but not forever. Their punishment, therefore, must have an end. In what? Annihilation or restoration? In one or the other of these it must end, if it end at all. And as the class in question do not believe in annihilation, their views must lead them, whether conscious of it or not, to fall in with the doctrine of restoration. If their Bibles leave them in darkness upon the subject, what they term 'Christian Philosophy' may come to their help, and the light (such as it is) of Universalism will beam upon them. We close this array of confession and proof with another extract from the Christian Register. "The doctrine of eternal torments is opposed to the benevolence of God, and cannot be a doctrine of Scripture."↑ 6 6 On comparing the evidence here exhibited with the repeated and solemn denials of Universalism, which Unitarians, at different times, have made, the conclusion will force itself upon the reader, that there has been evasion, concealment (to give it no worse name) in regard to this subject, as there formerly was in relation to the Trinity. This has often been charged upon Unitarians by Universalists, and others, and not unfrequently has been acknowledged by members of their own body. We are authorized, on the highest authority, to respresent, that many (Unitarians) who disbelieve the doctrine of eternal punishment, are AFRAID TO AVOW THEIR OPINION, lest it should weaken the restraints of religion.' Another Unitarian already quoted, after expressing the opinion that universal restoration is the belief of the great body of Unitarians in this country,' asks, Why then should we hesitate to avow our sentiments explicitly upon this subject?' implying that himself and his brethren had hesitated to make such an avowal. We think,' says another, that those Unitarians who believe in this doctrine, (universal restoration) have been much in fault in keeping it out of view, and EVADING THE CHARGE OF IT. An open arowal of it would do them no discredit.' We think so too. It is no discredit to be honest. It is discreditable to be a hypocrite-to pretend to one thing, and be another; but it can be no discredit to a public teacher of religion to be explicit and open, and frankly express to the world his views. If Unitarians are Universalists, why should they deny that such is the fact? Why should they endeavor to make their people believe (as Mr. Ballou declares that they do) that this in not the case? If they reject the doctrine of eternal punishment, why should they be Nos. for Oct. 31 and Dec. 12, 1829. + March 6, 1830. The article containing this sentence appeared originally in the Christian Pioneer, but was republished in the Register without any mark of disapprobation. Bancroft's Sermons, p. 392. Review of a Letter to a Unitarian Clergyman,' &c, p. 24. afraid (as Dr. Bancroft will have it that many are) to preach their sentiments? If they believe in universal restoration, why should they be disposed (as one of their own friends expresses it) to 'keep it out of view, and evade the charge of it? How much better to be honest, and acknowledge the truth, and not be afraid of names, and proclaim to the world (if such is their belief) that to all of every character, good and bad, the heavenly inheritance is ultimately sure? Concealment and management may answer for a tine, and those who prosper by them may rejoice, and think themselves politic and happy, but honesty, after all, is the best policy; and certainly no one ought to think himself religious, any further than he is conscious of cherishing and practising a downright and universal honesty. In view of this discussion, the inquiry possibly may arise in the minds of some of our readers-an inquiry always pertinent and important Cui bono fuerit? What good can grow out of it? Suppose Unitarians are Universalists; what then? If they are unwilling to take the name, why fasten it upon them? If they are unwilling to preach a doctrine which you believe to be false and dangerous, why should you find fault? What good can result from this discussion, and why was it engaged in ?' These very reasonable inquiries demand a full and direct answer; and we intend it shall be given. We say then, in the first place, that we have not engaged in this discussion with a view to fasten upon Unitarians an unmerited and unpopular name. Such an object would be wrong in itself; and if not wrong, it would be altogether unworthy of the labor we have bestowed. Besides, it does not appear that Universalist is not as honorable an appellation as Unitarian. For ourselves, were the sad alternative forced upon us, we should be at a loss which to prefer. We would as willingly bear the one as the other. Nor have we engaged in this discussion, because it gives us pleasure to ascertain and prove, to satisfy ourselves and others, that Unitarians are Universalists. We regard the doctrine of Universal Salvation as a great and destructive error, contradicted by the express language of Scripture, injurious to the interests of morals and of society, and ruinous to the souls of men; and it affords us no pleasure, certainly, to see so many of our fellow immortals, some of them occupying conspicuous public stations, and drawing numbers around them and after them, falling into this flattering but fatal delusion. So far from this, were tears and sorrows sufficient to reclaim them, we could weep over them with tears of blood. We have been induced to engage in this discussion that our readers, our fellow Christians, might be duly apprized of the dangers which surround them, and that the further spread of Universalism, so far as we have influence, might be prevented. Unitarianism, it is well known, was introduced and propagated in this country by concealment; and the attempt has long been making to spread Universalism, by the same means. In former years, none would own that they were Unitarians; while in secret they were laboring to explode the ancient faith, and introduce their favorite error. Now, the same persons will not own that they are Universalists; while in most instances they secretly embrace the doctrine, and are laboring to prepare the way for its reception and prevalence. When the mask was torn off from abashed Unitarianism, and the heresy was exposed to public view, it was shorn at once of nearly all its power, and has since made but feeble progress. And should we be able, by any efforts, to bring forth Universalism from its lurking places, and convince our fellow Christians of impending dangers, we should feel that we had taken an important step towards helping them to escape the snare. Nothing is more to be dreaded than a powerful but concealed enemy, an enemy in the dark. Better, by all means, be apprized with whom and what we have to contend, that, knowing the amount of danger, we may know how to apportion and direct our efforts. There can be no doubt that Universalism is to be the prominent heresy of our times. Openly advocated by many-embraced and connived at in secret by not a few-backed up also by learning, wealth, station and influence, it has grown, and flourished, and extended its blighting shade over some of the fairest portions of our land. Thousands and thousands are deluded by it, and while they live in worldliness, in pleasure, and perhaps in vice, are soothing themselves with the hope that some means will be provided, either in this world or the future, to secure to them the possession of everlasting joys. Thus probationary moments run to waste, opportunities are neglected, and privileges abused; while death is ever at his work, and deluded mortals are sinking to rise no more. In these circumstances, what is to be done? Shall we shut our eyes, and fold our hands, and do nothing to expose or correct the evil? Our wily adversaries (and possibly some mistaken friends) would endeavor to persuade us to such a course. But in this case, the delusion would continue to spread; one church after another would fall before it; our spiritual enclosures would be desolated; and multitudes, living and yet to live, would be forever ruined. It is not unlikely that some good people may regard this whole discussion with disapprobation and disgust-may call it controversy-and may turn away their eyes from the dangers which it discloses. But they will bear in mind, that the evil will not be stayed, by being overlooked and despised; it will be upon them before they are aware of it; and too late they may send up the unavailing wish, that they had attended to it, and provided against it, in season. LORD BACON has an essay entitled, Of Seeming Wise. Were he alive now he would probably write one, Of Seeming Learned; for the latter is at present much the more common and more pernicious vice of the two. It is less easily detected; the circumstances of the age more encourage its growth; and its influence is more extensive. Shrewdness is so much more general than learning, that the seeming wise will be often liable to exposure where the seeming learned may practise their impositions with impunity. It is much easier for an unlettered man of good understanding to distinguish sound sense from prating nonsense, than to judge of the quality of a Greek quotation. The workings of his own mind have made him acquainted with the characteristics of common sense, but of Greek he has never learned even the letters. In Lord Bacon's time, those only who were learned by profession took an interest in learned discussion. Every writer knew that his compositions would be subjected to the rigid scrutiny of practised eyes, and that he had little popular applause to expect as a compensation for the smart which he might feel from the critic's lash. Learned books were written only for the learned, who were capable of judging for themselves of the truth or falsehood of a writer's statements, and of the learning or ignorance which they might exhibit. Now the case is different. All classes of people read, and they read on all sorts of subjects. There is a general curiosity to know what can be said on almost every matter of discussion that is agitated in the learned world, while the study and intellectual discipline essential to the understanding of very many of these subjects sufficiently to enable one to appreciate |