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 in mortals, 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 auch 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

properly a writer's talent, information, and honesty, are quite beyond the reach of the greater number of readers. The advantage which the seeming learned may take of this circumstance, is too obvious to need further specification.

The state of public feeling renders it extremely difficult effectually to expose shallow and mischievous pretensions to learning. The community is divided into factions strongly opposed to each other; and these divisions in many instances rest on questions not easily settled, and which cannot be accurately understood, nor profitably discussed, without extensive research. Even to estimate the value of any discussion respecting them, requires more previous knowledge than is generally supposed. The adherents of every party are disposed to receive the assertions of their favorite teachers with implicit faith, to rely on them as undoubted truth, (for this gives all the confidence and security of knowledge without the trouble of investigation) and to reject with contempt the reasonings of all others, because they see their leaders do the same. Let one, therefore, be ever so fairly convicted of ignorance or dishonesty, and his followers will set it down to sectarian hate on the part of the exposer; or let one be ever so careful and well grounded in his statements, and his opponents will accuse him of swerving from the truth, and their accusations will be believed and applauded by those of their own party. This is not always to be imputed to blind zeal and disingenuousness, but very often, if not most generally, to a real want of the information requisite to the forming of a correct opinion. It requires solid learning to appreciate the strength of a learned appeal and thorough intellectual discipline to feel the point of an acute and elaborate argument. Richard Baxter, speaking of the reception which one of his works met with from the public, says, in his honest way: "This book pleased Dr. Hammond much, and many rational persons, and some of those for whom it was written; but the women and weaker sort I found could not so well improve clear reason, as they can a few comfortable, warm, and pretty sentences; it is style, and not reason, that doth most with them." (Life, part 1. p. 109.)

The subordinate members of a party are generally less prejudiced and more honest than the leaders; they have never committed themselves so far, nor had their feelings so strongly enlisted. They would be willing to believe the truth, if they were not deceived; but while those who have eyes will not use them, they who would use them if they had them, are blind. Ambition destroys the serpent, and credulity those whom the serpent beguiles.

A state of society like that which exists at the present day, imposes a fearful responsibility on all who write for the public eye; and happy would it be for the interests of truth and righteousness if this responsibility were more deeply felt, and more generally re

garded. Should every writer feel that he is accountable to a just and holy God for all the influence he exerts, for every sentence he composes, what a different tone and spirit would at once be diffused through the immense mass of reading which circulates in our community! How soon would party strife, and bitter reviling, and scoffing at things sacred cease, and the impure fountains of corruption and lust be closed, and, according to the prediction of the prophet, 'judgement run down our streets, as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream!' But we are far enough from having realized this happy period. It is melancholy to see how many there are, who, instead of taking advantage of the present attitude of society to spread around them a benign and salutary influence, seize the opportunity to advance their own selfish interests; not caring how much they poison and corrupt the public mind, how much vice and misery they scatter about them, how much they defame and scandalize the wise and good, provided their own mean and wicked schemes are promoted. If in the prison of despair there are dungeons deeper and darker than the rest, surely they will be assigned, (next to such as have perpetrated crimes under the garb of religion,) to those whose writings have disguised truth and weakened virtue.

It would be unjust, however, to accuse all unfaithful writers of downright dishonesty, and malignant intention to deceive. There is a sort of general taking for granted that one's own party is right and all others wrong, a shallow overvaluing of whatever belongs to one's self, and an undervaluing of whatever belongs to others, the result of a narrow education and exclusive intercourse with one sort of people and one sort of books, which leads certain writers to magnify all arguments which favor their own opinions and overlook such as make against them, to feel themselves so much in the right and others so much in the wrong, that they even esteem their own errors as more valuable than other people's truth. Accordingly, some will make bold and confident assertions respecting points which they have never examined, and speak with sneering contempt of the opinions of their opponents, totally unconscious all the while of their own entire ignorance, and of the ridiculous figure they make in the eyes of all who have investigated the subjects in question; while others, who study diligently and laboriously, and make no assertion without appealing to the proper authorities, go to their work with the feeling of a man who has a case to make out, which must be made out at all hazards, and their zeal blinds them to the proper object of investigation, which is to seek truth, and not to make it.

Some of my readers may begin to wonder what all this has to do with the subject indicated by the title of the present article. It has this to do with it: Probably no subject in the whole compass of theological discussion has suffered more than this from