صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

in the name of the Unitarian sect. "If by everlasting punishment is meant the proper eternity of hell torments, it is a doctrine which most Unitarians of the present day concur in rejecting; some understanding by that everlasting destruction to which the wicked aro to be consigned, an absolute annihilation; others conceiving of their sufferings as consequential, and indefinite as to their duration; and others that all punishment will be necessarily remedial, and will end at last in a universal restoration to goodness and happiness." Christian Disciple, vol. iii. New Series, p. 451.*

The case stands thus. All the English Unitarians, with whom the American Unitarians are in an alliance as intimate as distance and political circumstances admit, and with whom they profess to be desirous of still more active co-operation in the great work of human illumination and mental emancipation, are Universalists. The largest and the original class of American Unitarians are Universalists, openly taking the name, and distinctly and honorably stating their opinions. Some of the most intelligent among the Unitarian leaders, in "a periodical having many claims on patronage," more than imply, the doctrine of the ultimate restitution of all to holiness and happiness to be a part of their system. Many, who deny that this is a necessary part of Unitarianism, yet hold to the doctrine. Few, if any, deny a final restitution; and most reject the doctrine of everlasting punishment. Surely, after this accumulation of testimony from their own writings, Unitarians will no longer attempt to disguise a fact, which they dare not deny, and which, if they would be frank, they would openly confess. Dr. Bancroft speaks his own opinions, with a distinctness that does him honor. He says, "future punishment will be of limited duration, and will terminate in the annihilation of the wicked." Sermons, p. 407. The only qualification, then, to the proposition, that Unitarians are Universalists, is, that some, apparently a very small number of Unitarians, are Destructionists; but the opinions of a small minority cannot affect the question, what the great majority believe.

While this subject is under investigation, and to prevent, if possible, a further recurrence to it, it may be well to sift it thoroughly, and, for this purpose, to view it in various lights. There is a gentleman at Cambridge, well skilled in the doctrine of chances, which he has lately presented in formidable array against the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His formula is something like 999,999,999,999 to 1, against Paul as the author of that Epistle. If For further evidence, if needed, see the Spirit of the Pilgrims, March, 1828,

p. 155.

his time and other avocations admit, he may, perhaps, be able to throw some light on this problem. Unitarians in England and America state but one article of a creed, which they all believe. On most other subjects they "differ widely," combining this one tenet "with a heterogeneous mass of opinions." But the whole body of English Unitarians, together with the Universalist-Unitarians of this country, agree in another article, to wit, the ultimate happiness of all men. Most American Unitarians reject the everlasting punishment of any. Few deny the final restitution of all. Some of the most intelligent and influential of the Unitarians, who cannot be ignorant of their own opinions, and ought to know what their system teaches, "more than imply the final restitution of all to be a part of this system;" and many not only believe, but openly acknowledge it. What, then, according to the doctrine of chances, is the probability that a believer in Unitarianism is a Universalist?

Again. American Unitarians, as a sect, are the same as the English Unitarians. There is a strong feeling of oneness, of identity, as a sect, in all they say of each other. The American Unitarian feels himself at home in the English Unitarian's pulpit. We presume no one ever thought of questioning this position, the English and American Unitarians are as much one sect, as the English and American Calvinists, Methodists, &c. But is it not fair to infer, that the same sects hold the same opinions, till they inform us otherwise?

Will it it be thought irrelevent or impertinent, if the writer take the liberty to ask, what opinions are taught by the Hollis Professor on the subject of this note ? What is the doctrine, as to the duration of future punishment, taught in the theological school at Cambridge? I forbear to dwell directly upon the attitude in which the Hollis Professor now appears before the public. The subject might be thought personal, because it is official, and would be thought invidious, because the attitude is, to say the least, neither frank nor honorable. This gentleman may not wish openly to express his sentiments, but he cannot conceal them. What "turn " is "to be served" by the course now pursued at Cambridge, though not matter of conjecture, it is unnecessary to specify. At all other theological schools, the proiessors think it rational to state fairly to the public what they believe the Bible teaches on this momentous question. At the Institution, which professes to be rational beyond all others, it is thought irrational to state either the opinions of the sect, or of the individual professors, who have made up their own opinions, and are appointed to teach others the doctrines of the sect. In the college, "no doctrines in particular" are taught. This would seem a meet intro

duction to the divinity class, where some doctrines in particular are no doubt privately taught, though not publicly acknowledged-nay more, by implication at least, even publicly denied.

How shall we ascertain the opinions of the Hollis Professor ? I shall not open his letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists. He does not allow them to be sufficiently definite for the public to infer Universalism from their statements or arguments. We will now grant that his letters on this subject are ambiguous. Is there any remaining source of evidence by which we may elicit his real opinions? I cannot say how other minds may estimate testimony, but were the question much more doubtful than it is, the following witness would satisfy me. There is a paper published at New York, called the Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer, edited by Rev. Abner Kneeland, a well known Universalist minister. In noticing the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Lunt, as pastor of the Second Congregational Unitarian Church, the Editor says, in the number for July 5, 1828, "The Rev. Mr. Ware, [of New York,] in giving the right hand of fellowship, stated, that after laboring so many years, (six if my memory serves me,) this was the only church with whom he could have fellowship as a sister church, and Mr. Lunt, the only minister with whom he could reciprocate an exchange of gifts in this city. Now we would ask, why is it so? Are they Unitarians? So are we. Do they believe that in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, we have an assurance of our own resurrection and immortality'? So do we. Do they believe that the production of happiness is the great aim in all the dispensations and plans of divine providence'? So do we. Do they believe that all suffering is either indispensable, or else is made subservient to the same good and sublime end; that it will therefore be disciplinary, remedial, purifying, saving in its character, and will consequently some time cease'? So do we.* [See the Unitarian, No. 1,' written by the Rev. Mr. Ware, of New York.] Now, we beg to know and wish Mr. Ware or some other Unitarian would inform us, what it is which the Unitarian believes, that we do not believe, which prevents their fellowship as well as with those who bear the name of Unitarian; or is it wholly because we do not appear in a mitre and gown? We have

[ocr errors]

·

*"In addition to our own society, and the other Unitarian-Universalists in this city, [New-York,] there is the Rev. Mr. Clough, who has his peculiar views, it is true, but he is a decided Unitarian, and has done as much, perhaps, towards disseminating the Unity of God, as the Rev. Mr. Ware himself. There is also the numerous class of liberal Friends, who are decidely Unitarians, and who can bring as much scripture for their peculiar views, as Unitarians can bring for what they call "infant baptism." Why then should the doctrine of Unitarianism, and the fellowship of Unitarians, be confined to the Unitarians of the Cambridge stamp alone?" Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer.

not the least wish to crowd ourselves into company where we are not wanted; but we should like to know the true reason why we are excluded. We wish to have it distinctly understood that the doctrine of Unitarians, so far as the unity of God, or the person and mission of Jesus Christ is concerned, we firmly believe and heartily fellowship; but with bigotry and illiberality we have no fellowship, though they should bear the name and wear the garb of a Universalist."

This extract is of much, and various value. Mr. Kneeland informs us, that it is the Rev. Mr. Ware who asserts in the Unitarian, "that all punishment or suffering will be disciplinary, remedial, purifying, saving in its character, and will consequently some time cease.' This does somewhat "more than imply" the final restitution of all men. Is the Rev. Mr. Ware of New York a fair representative of Cambridge theological students ? May we not presume that his opinions are the opinions of the Hollis Professor? Has he departed from the opinions taught him in childhood, from the instructions of his collegiate and the doctrines of his theological education? Till otherwise informed, we shall feel ourselves warranted to take the opinions of the Rev. Mr. Ware of New York, published in the organ of Unitarianism in that city, as the opinions held at the theological institution, in which he received his education; we shall take his opinions to coincide with those of the Hollis Professor, till he or the Professor explicitly, intelligibly, and unambiguously denies it. We then assert, on this evidence, that Universalism is the doctrine taught by the Hollis Professor in the theological school at Cambridge. Will he deny this?

Will Unitarians notice the questions propounded by Rev. Mr. Kneeland? Why does Dr. Channing refrain from offering to exchange pulpits with Mr. Ballou; or Dr. Lowell with Mr. Dean? or Mr. Ware with Mr. Streeter? Why do Unitarian ministers wish to exchange pulpits with the Orthodox, who, they say, "deny the Lord Jesus" and from whom they "differ widely," while they refuse to exchange with the Universalists with whom they agree, and who are willing "to reciprocate an exchange of gifts" with them? There is something rotten in a system afraid of itself and ashamed of its shadow. I forbear to press this subject farther, not that the materials at hand are all exhausted, or that numerous and pertinent inquiries might not be pressed, but because enough has been produced to satisfy ingenuous minds, hitherto held in the dark by intentional ambiguity of language, of the Universalism of Unitarians. The difference between Universalists and Unitarians is this, the former openly state their opinions; the

latter disingenuously conceal them. fidence, honesty or craft?

Which is most worthy of con

Since writing the foregoing remarks, an authority has come to hand so full and so explicit, that, one would think, it must settle the question "whether Unitarians are Universalists," forever. It should be premised that "the Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer," from which a quotation has already been made in this note, is a paper formed by the union of the two whose names it takes. The former of these has been for some time avowedly a Universalist weekly paper, edited by the Rev. Mr. Kneeland; the latter was a Unitarian paper, edited by the Rev. Mr. Bates. Of these, the Unitarian paper failed for want of patronage, and the Universalist paper was in nearly the same predicament, when a joint effort was made to sustain one weekly "liberal" newspaper. The first number of the new journal appeared 17th May, 1828. From this the following extract is taken, signed and evidently written by "A New York Unitarian." He is giving his reasons for being pleased with the re-appearance of the paper under new and favoring auspices.

"1. It will have a tendency to make Unitarians and Universalists better acquainted with each other than they now are. There is no good reason, which I discover, why these two sects of liberal Christians should remain at so wide a distance from each other; and I am persuaded it is only necessary that they should be better acquainted with each other's sentiments to create mutual esteem and good will. Some Universalists, I am sorry to say it, have indulged in unwarrantable severity of remark upon the New England Unitarians, and on the other hand, some Unitarians, not understanding the doctrine of the Universalists, have made unfair statements of the tendency of their sentiments. These things have operated to keep the two sects wider apart than any minor differences of opinion seem to justify.

"2. Another reason why I am pleased with this new arrangement is because both sects are firm believers in the doctrine of the divine Unity; and equally advocate the same spiritual and rational views of the character and mission of Jesus Christ.

"3. Another reason and the only one I shall now notice, is that both denominations believe in the final restoration of all men to virtue and happiness. It is true a few Unitarians may believe in the Orthodox doctrine of eternal misery, and a small number also may be the advocates of the annihilation of the finally impenitent; yet the great mass of Unitarians both in this country and in Europe

« السابقةمتابعة »