it' to be false;' and so great was the excitement among Unitarians on that occasion, growing (as one would naturally think) out of an utter rejection and abhorence of Universalism, that Hollis was well nigh overwhelmed with the torrent of their abuse. He was called an unprincipled person; a bigoted, gloomy screech-owl;' a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' He was charged with narrow-mindedness and malignity;' with uttering subtle and mean insinuations,' and slanderous imputations;' with a degree, not only of barbarism, but of moral turpitude, which we want words to express.' In short, the whole representation respecting Dr. Ware, was declared to be an egregious, wanton falsehood.'* Mr. Pierpont, in his sermon at Northfield, on Retribution,' (pp. 17, 18,) undertook to repel the charge that Unitarians are Universalists. And in the Unitarian periodicals, the same course has been almost uniformly pursued. The conductors of the Christian Register, a few years since, professed to be greatly alarmned at the progress of Universalism, wrote much against it, represented it as a fruit of Calvinism, and denounced it as directly contrary to the plainest declarations of the holy Gospel,' as most injurious to the interests of good morals, and to the welfare of civil society,' and 'as fatally dangerous to the souls of men.' The same paper has recently denied that Unitarians are Universalists, in the sense in which the term is applied to the class who maintain the doctrine of the final restoration of all men to virtue and happiness.'‡

Were the evidence on the point proposed to be established any thing less than conclusive, these oft-repeated, long continued, solemn denials might be considered as a bar to further proceeding. As the case stands, we have only to request that they be kept in mind, and compared with the statements which are to follow.

What is Universalism? What must a man believe or reject, in order to constitute him a Universalist? These obviously are radical questions, and require, in the outset, to be considered and determined.

To make a man a Universalist, it is not necessary that he should wholly reject the idea of future retribution-of future punishment. On this point professed Universalists have been, and are, divided among themselves. Hartley, Winchester, and Vidler were Universalists; yet they all believed in a state of punishment after death. The same may be said of Dean, Loveland, Wood, Hudson, and many other professed Universalists in the United States. The following definitions of Universalists have been given by standard writers on the subject.

NICHOLSON. The term Universalists is used to designate those

See Facts and Documents in relation to Harvard College, pp 5-24.

+ See Numbers for May 21, June 4, and Sept. 24, 1824. October 31, 1829. See Whittemore's Mod. Hist. of Universalism, pp. 434–442.

Christians who hold the doctrine of the future restoration of all men to eternal life and happiness.'*

·

ADAM. Universalists do not hold an exemption from future punishinent, but merely the recovery of all those that shall have been exposed to it.'+

BUCK. 'Universalists are those who suppose that, as Christ died for all, so, before he shall have delivered up his mediatorial kingdom to the Father, all shall be brought to a participation of the benefits of his death, in their restoration to holiness and happiness.'‡

MISS H. ADAMS describes those as Universalists, who believe that such as have proved incurable under the means which have been used with them in this state, instead of being happy in the next, will be awfully miserable; not to continue so finally, but that they may be convinced of their folly, and recovered to a virtuous frame of mind. §

With these descriptions of Universalists, leading members of the sect agree.

"There is no difference," says Mr. Ballou, "in the principle contended for by those Universalists, who believe in a state of limited punishment in a future state, and that maintained by those who believe that sin and its punishment are in the same state. Both believe that all punishment is designed for the good of the punished. In this, all Universalists agree."||

The doctrine of a limited future punishment,' Mr. Whittemore informs us, 'has never excited a very general interest' among Universalists. For twenty years, a difference of opinion has existed on this point; but the difference has not been the cause of alienation of feeling, or disruption of fellowship.'T

The fact that Universalists include, not only those who deny future punishment, but all who believe in a final universal restoration, has been often admitted by Unitarians. A full account of the differences and discussions between Universalists on this point was published in the Christian Register for Feb. 7, 1823. Recently, also, it has been said in the same paper, The Universalists are divided into two sects, who agree in the belief that all men will ultimately be partakers of happiness, but who differ upon the inquiry, whether the commencement of this state of happiness will be cotemporary with the entrance of each soul upon a future life.'** In the Christian Examiner it is also asserted, The great body of Universalists, as we are informed, now believe in a FUTURE RETRIBUTION.'+t

After what has been here stated, there can be no dispute as to the signification of the term, Universalist. It includes all who hold the doctrine of Universal Salvation, whether this salvation is believed immediately to follow death, or not to be fully accomplished

*Encyclopedia, Art. Universalists.
Theological Dictionary.

Universalist Magazine, March 10, 1821.
Oct. 31, 1829.

VOL III-NO. IV.

27

+ Religious World Displayed.
View of Religions.

Mod. Hist. of Universalism, p. 434. tt Jan. 1830, p. 354.

till some future period. Those are Universalists who believe that all suffering ceases with the present life; and those are equally Universalists, who believe in a state of future, disciplinary punishment, from which all shall be finally restored to the favor of God and the enjoyment of heaven.

We now proceed to exhibit the proof, that leading Unitarians in the United States (with possibly a few exceptions) are, in this latter sense, Universalists.

1. It is worthy to be noticed, that Unitarianism, in modern times, has almost invariably been connected with Universalism. It is so in Germany. Semler, Gruner, Eberhard, Steinbart, Damm, Fuller, and probably all the German Unitarians, of the last generation as well as the present, are Universalists. The Unitarians of Geneva, if we may credit the French Encyclopedists, are Universalists. They believe in the existence of future punishment, but of limited duration.' The Unitarians of England and Scotland are also Universalists. Much has been said and written in this vicinity, in praise of the English Unitarians. Their works have been republished; their periodicals imported and circulated; and their names, numbers, and alleged successes have been spoken of with exultation. It should be known, therefore, to all concerned, that these English Unitarians, with scarcely an exception, are open Universalists. Dr. Priestley was a Universalist. He advocated it while living, and made it a ground of consolation in death. 'We shall all meet finally. We only require different degrees of discipline, suited to our different tempers, to prepare us for final happiness.'† Lindsey was a Universalist. In his 'Conversations on Divine Government' he compares the doctrine of endless punishment to 'a millstone which some mistaker Christians hang about the neck of the Gospel.' Dr. Jebb was a Universalist. Future punishments,' says he, as considered by our divines, are a kind of transportation, where the sufferings are horrible, but afford no useful documents.' 'Intolerants, and persons who maintain eternal punishment and atonement, are more unfit for society than atheists. This the judgement of some.' Kenrick, author of the Commentary recently published and circulated in Boston, was a Universalist. He thought that even the intensest sufferings of the transgressor will be corrective and remedial, and issue finally in universal order, happiness and virtue.'|| Richard Wright, the famous Unitarian Missionary, in whose praise so much has been said, T was first Pastor of a congregation of Universalists in Wisbeach,' and later in life, became a travelling Universalist minister.** Thomas Belsham was a Universalist. We may certainly conclude,' he says, that none

6

* See Erskine's Sketches of Church History, vol. 1. t Memoirs, vol. i. p. 217. See Memoirs, p. 426. Exposition, vol. i. p. 6.

Works, vol. ii. pp. 152, 145.

See Chris. Ex'r. vol. ii. p. 437, and Chris. Reg'r. for Sept. 17 and 24, 1825. ** See Modern Hist. of Universalism, p. 265.

6

of the creatures of God, in any circumstances, will be eternally miserable.'* Carpenter and Cappe were Universalists. All,' says the latter, must end well at last. Pain must cease; error must have an end; vice must be extirpated; death must be destroyed.' Robert Aspland, for many years editor of the Monthly Repository, and more recently editor of the Christian Reformer, is a Universalist. 'We rejoice,' says he, in the fact, that the Unitarians are universally agreed, in rejecting the doctrine of endless. torment.'

The point to be illustrated by these facts is this, that Unitarianism. has almost invariably existed in connexion with Universalism. Wherever there has been the former, there also has been the latter. It may be said, we know, that this is only presumptive evidence that American Unitarians are now Universalists; yet, under all the circumstances of the case, is not the presumption well nigh irresistible? Let the reader bear in mind, especially, the very intimate connexion subsisting between the Unitarians of this country, and those of England, who are open Universalists-the deep sym-: pathy continually manifested--the unmeasured adulation mutually bestowed; and he will find it hard to believe that those of America, pretend what they will, are not inwardly in the same sentiment.§

2. The wiews of theology entertained by Unitarians and Universalists in this country are in general the same,-without excepting those points from which the latter derive the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Both agree in rejecting those views of the holiness and justice of God, of his hatred of sin as exhibited in the cross of Christ, of the extent and strictness of the divine law, and of the entire depravity of man, from which results the doctrine of eternal punishment. Both agree also in maintaining those views of the character of God, of what they call his parental character, of his impartial goodness, his designs of mercy to all his creatures, and of the native purity and dignity of human nature, from which Universal Salvation is usually derived. On this point, the author of the sermon before us is explicit.

"There seems to be no ground for supposing that they (the Unitarian doctors) do not know, that the tenets of their faith, which they openly avow, both in their preaching and writing, do in fact necessarily lead to the belief of Universal Salvation." p. 10.

Indeed, it is undeniable, that the theology of American Unitarians and Universalists is essentially the same. In the language of' a New York Unitarian,' both sects are firm believers in the doctrine of the divine Unity, and equally advocate the same spiritual and rational

* Review of Wilberforce, Let. ii.

Monthly Repository, vol. iv. p. 341.

Discourses on Providence, p. 206.

'American Unitarians, as a sect, are the same as the English Unitarians. There is a strong feeling of oneness, of identity, in all they say of each other. The English and American Unitarians are as much one sect, as the English and American Calvinists, or Methodists. But is it not fair to infer, that the same sects hold the same opinions?' Letters of Canonicus, p. 142.

views of the character and mission of Jesus Christ.* But will it be believed, that those who thus agree in their premises, should not agree also in their conclusions? Will it be believed that those who unite with Universalists in rejecting those points of doctrine on which eternal punishment is supposed to rest, and in admitting others from which Universal Salvation is derived, are not themselves also Universalists?

3. Numerous extracts may be taken from the sermons and other writings of leading Unitarians, which necessarily imply Universal Salvation. The following is from a sermon of Dr. Channing at the ordination of Rev. Mr. Sparks at Baltimore.

"We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevolent in the proper sense of these words; good in disposition, as well as in act; good, not to a few, but to all; good to every individual, as well as to the general system." "We believe that he, (Christ) was sent by the Father, to effect a moral or spiritual deliverance of MANKIND; that is, to rescue men,' (the race,) from sin, and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity." pp. 16, 19.

In his sermon at the dedication of the second Congregational Unitarian Church in New York, Dr. Channing says,

"There is no good too vast for us to anticipate, for the universe, or for our selves, from such a Father as we believe in. The horrible thought of a large proportion of our fellow creatures being cast, by an angry God, into tortures unutterable by human tongue, and sentenced to spend eternity in shrieks of agony, which will never reach the ear or touch the heart of their Creator; this dreadful anticipation, which would shroud the universe in more than sepulchral gloom, and is enough to break every heart which is not stone-this forms no part of our conception of the purposes and government of the God and Father of Jesus Christ." See pp. 38-48.

This, Mr. Ballou very justly calls Universalism.

For myself,' says he, 'I know not how the doctrine could be more fully stated, or more acceptably commended.'†

In Dr. Channing's sermon at the installation of Rev. Mr. Motte, we have the following sentiment:

"Ask multitudes what is the chief evil from which Christ came to save them, and they will tell you from hell, from penul fires, from future pnnishment.' That word, hell, which is so seldom used in the sacred pages, which, as critics will tell you, does not occur once in the writings of Paul, and Peter, and John, which we meet only in four or five discourses of Jesus, and which all persons acquainted with Jewish geography know to be a metaphor, a figure of speech, and not a literal expression,-this word, by a perverse and exaggerated use, has done unspeakable injury to Christianity. It has possessed and diseased men's imaginations with outward tortures, shrieks and flames," and "given them an idea of an outward ruin, as what they have chiefly to dread." p. 20.

Would any person, not a Universalist-any one who believed that the wicked, in the other world, would " be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power"-have thrown out a representation, so strange, so unguarded, so unfounded as this!

The following is from the sermon of the same writer, at the ordination of Rev. Mr. Farley.

*The Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer for May 17, 1828. + Universalist Magazine for March 17, 1827.