I shall now adduce the evidence of the truth of the two first propositions, that Unitarianism, properly defined, embraces both classes, Universalists and Unitarians, and that American Universalism is really the original American Unitarianism. The intelligence, competence, and credibility of the witness are beyond exception. In the Monthly Repository for March, 1827, p. 176, is a communication entitled, "Universalists in the United States of America," signed by Robert Aspland, a well known Unitarian minister of Hackney, near London. He says, that he has received a letter from the Rev. Thomas Whittemore of Cambridgeport, Mass., and adds, "the following account of the present state of the Universalists of the United States, in the words of my correspondent, is a pleasing proof of the natural tendency of serious minds towards scriptural truth, when they are not checked by the influence of institutions bearing a mingled civil and religious character." Then follows this quotation from Mr. W's letter. "The denomination to which I belong, is composed of upwards of three hundred societies, and about two hundred preachers. Their numbers are continually receiving accessions. We have increased most in New England, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, though there are Universalists scattered all over the United States. It will, perhaps, be pleasing to you to learn, that this sect is, with indeed a very few exceptions, entirely Unitarian. I know of but three ministers in the whole order, who are Trinitarians, and I believe the greater proportion are Humanitarian. With the very few exceptions just mentioned, we concur in rejecting, as absurd and unscriptural, the old idea of atonement, believing that this scheme of man's redemption from sin, originates in the Father of all who sent his Son to commend his love to mankind.". My friend, as the tenor of his communication authorizes me to call him, apprizes me," continues Mr. Aspland, "that the ministers of his denomination in Boston and its vicinity have sent me a package of their publications, presuming that it will be agreeable to the Unitarians in England to become acquainted with the numbers, doctrines, and arguments of the Universalists in the United States. In the package, I am informed, is a Treatise on Atonement' by Mr. Ballou, whose labours, Mr. Whittemore says, have greatly promoted the change which has taken place among the American Universalists, with regard to the atonement and the character of Christ. Of this Treatise' and its author he further says, that it is the first American work in which the doctrine of Unitarianism was ever advanced and defended. Here you find it distinctly stated and argued. This work was first published about the year 1803, two years before Sherman's Treatise, which has generally, but erroneously been considered the first public attack on Trinitarianism, which America afforded; Dr. Priestley, being a European, I except. Mr. Ballou's work is the fruit of his own mind, aided by the scriptures. He never read an author, either on Atonement or the Unity of God, till after he wrote. I believe I have now extracted the whole of the intelligence relating to the Universalists furnished by my highly valued correspondent, which would be interesting to your readers." It seems, then, that this sect with very few exceptions, three out of two hundred, are Unitarian, rejecting the old idea of atonement; and still more, that the first definite public statement and defence of Unitarianism and attack upon Trinitarianism were made by the leader of this sect about the year 1803. This was " a considerable time" before the present Unitarians acknowledged themselves to be of that sect; yes, while they yet resolutely denied it; while Dr. Channing himself was yet groping in a peneCalvinism. Hereafter Mr. Ballou must be considered another "Venerable Lindsey," the father of American Unitarianism.* If the evidence before us do not warrant the conclusion that the present Unitarians are Universalists, this is certain the Universalists are Unitarians. The term Unitarianism, then, in its broad and proper sense, includes or belongs to both the Universalists and the Unitarians of the present day. Mr. Ballou's church is as truly Unitarian, the doctrine taught there is as genuine Unitarianism, as the church, or the doctrine taught in the church of Mr. Pierpont. Mr. Whittemore is as strenuous an advocate for Unitarianism as Dr. Ware. Mr. Turner of Charlton, is as liberal in his theology as Mr. Walker of Charlestown. The recent conjunction of these latter gentlemen shows that all imaginary differences are removed. They have risen above the prejudices of the day, and a prominent Unitarian minister has preached the installation sermon of a Universalist pastor over a Unitarian congregation. It does not appear that Mr. Turner, in passing from the Universalist to the Unitarian ranks, has altered or in any way modified his doctrinal views. He remains still, as he was before, a Universalist. Knowing him to be such, a council of Unitarian clergymen install him, and admit him to their ranks. Let it be remembered, that Unitarians, as such, believe in one God, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent, and reject the popular *The slight exception at the Stone Chapel, is hardly worth noticing. Mr. Ballou first, openly, frankly, fully avowed Unitarianism. He is the first American "Author" of the system. notions or old ideas about atonement; and on other subjects, divide. Here then the present Unitarians and Universalists are one; and one name should, unquestionably, be appropriated to one thing. That American Universalism is the original American Unitarianism, has also been made apparent. In 1803, Mr. Ballou, in his Treatise on Atonement, first advanced and defended from the American press the doctrine of Unitarianism. Here it was "distinctly stated and argued." This early distinct statement is noticeable. Whether all subsequent writers have followed Mr. Ballou in this particular, we cannot now stop to inquire. The first public annunciation of Unitarianism in the United States was in connexion with Universalism. What Unitarianism is, in its own proper essence, detached from every thing extraneous, we have now seen; when it first made its public appearance in this country, under whose patronage and in what connexion, we have also seen. I come now to the third proposition, which is, that Unitarians (using the word in its limited sense) either do not understand, or wilfully misrepresent the opinions held by the Universalist-Unitarians. This charge is not advanced without thought, nor without caution, nor, what is more, without evidence. In the Christian Examiner for 1826, is a Review of a Sermon by Prof. Stuart, in which the reviewer says, "the Universalist holds, in common with the preacher, the doctrine of atonement by the blood of Christ. He believes in a full atonement for all men, that Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world." p. 236. This writer is no novice, and would not, at the moment of writing this review, have allowed his ignorance of the doctrine held by American Universalists. In the Christian Register, March 8, 1828, is an abstract of a sermon preached by Rev. Mr. Pierpont, at the ordination of Mr. Presbury. The preacher, attempting to repel the charge that Unitarians are Universalists, brings forward this as one of his strong reasons, "besides, do not Unitarians voluntarily retire from the great, the best ground on which the Universalist's doctrine can be built, i. e. an infinite atonement? If full satisfaction has been made, how can any more be demanded? If the sins of all men have been laid upon one, and he has borne the punishment due to all, why should any more be punished? An infinite atonement cannot be limited; a debt cancelled cannot be again demanded."* And more to the same purpose. The reviewer before quoted, writes in the same style. "But, says Mr. In this passage, Mr. P. has the misfortune not to state correctly the opinions, either of the Orthodox, or the Universalists, or even of the Unitarians. "Distinct statements" of opinions, have gone out of fashion since 1803. Whittemore, who certainly has the best opportunity of knowing," Universalists, with very few exceptions, concur in rejecting, as absurd and unscriptural, these old ideas of atonement." Here then, are two leading Unitarian writers, (to one of which the Christian Examiner gives the sanction of the Unitarian party,) charging upon a numerous and respectable body of clergymen opinions which they do not hold; opinions which they reject and decidedly condemn. If these gentlemen have done this in ignorance, let them, if they do not think it due to the interests of truth publicly to acknowledge an error publicly proclaimed, at least refrain in all coming time from a repetition of the same mistatements. If they have done this, knowing at the time what they were doing, "to serve a turn"*-but I will not trust myself to comment on a supposition I am reluctant to believe. It is hoped these gentlemen will not attempt to shield themselves behind what Chauncey, and others long since under ground, may have said. We do not hold Dr. Channing bound to believe "Bible News," nor even his own sermons published fifteen years ago. Those who set up for teachers, however, when they attempt to give the opinions of "two hundred clergymen," should know what they say, and whereof they affirm. It is said of some of old time, that they were ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Is this applicable to past time only? Is this changeling race extinct? My fourth remark is, that Unitarianism, in its largest, broadest sense, as believed by the greatest number of its adherents, is Universalism. By this I mean to say, that the great majority of those, who profess in England and America, to be believers in the simple Unity of God, in contradistinction from those who believe in the Trinity in Unity, are also believers in the final salvation of all men. About the American Universalist Unitarians, there is no question; though it should be remembered, that some of thesef believe in future punishment, which, however, will be limited and remedial, ending in the final restoration of all to purity and blessedness. What do English Unitarians believe on this subject? A writer already quoted from the Christian Register, says, "in England, where the doctrine of necessity prevails among Unitarians, the connected doctrine of the ultimate happiness of all human beings goes along with it." So * A writer in the Christian Examiner says; the Orthodox charge the Unitarians with being Universalists to serve a turn. One thing is evident from Mr. Pierpont, this writer, and Dr. Ware, Unitarians are ashamed or afraid to avow themselves Universalists. Is it the name, they are afraid of? "What care we for names?" asked Mr. May, at the Unitarian Association. In what does this class of Universalists differ from the great body of Unitarians? far then is plain, the English Unitarians, and the whole Universalist class of American Unitarians, believe in the ultimate happiness of all human beings; or are Universalists. The question now remains, What do those, known here by the name of Unitarians, believe on this subject? I answer, that some leading Unitarians, who surely ought to know, state the final restitution of the impenitent to be a part of their system; that those, who deny it to be a necessary part of their system, admit that many Unitarians do hold this doctrine; that few, if any, deny a final restitution; and that most reject the proper eternity of hell punishments. Can these propositions be made out? If they can be, will it be any longer asserted, that when the Orthodox charge the Unitarians with being Universalists, it is to serve a turn? The writer already twice quoted from the Ch. Register, Dec. 22, 1827, begins his communication thus: "In looking at the first number of 'The Unitarian,' a new periodical published in New York, which has many claims on patronage, I find a sketch of Unitarianism, in which it is more than implied, that the doctrine of the final restitution of the impenitent, through the disciplinary and reforming power of future punishment, is a part of this system. Now that many Unitarians hold this doctrine is true, &c."....He then admits that "a free being may make himself sinful and miserable during his whole being. I mean not, however, to object to the doctrine of final restitution. I only say it is not Unitarianism," which he then defines as before quoted. The New York Unitarians, not slightly indebted to the Cambridge School for their liberality of thinking, " more than imply " that the doctrine of a final restitution is a part of their system. A Boston writer, somewhat more cautious in the use of words, "does not mean to object to the doctrine of final restitution" in itself, but only to say that it is not Unitarianism; i. e. as defined in this note. Mr. Pierpont, according to the Christian Register, tallies in his notions with this writer. Dr. Bancroft says, "For myself, I freely declare, that, from a diligent examination of the New Testament, I am satisfied it does not contain the doctrine of punishment, endless in duration." Sermons, p. 391. "Many who disbelieve the doctrine of eternal punishment, are afraid to avow their opinion, lest it should weaken the restraints of religion. This is not my fear."* p. 392. We must omit a large mass of evidence, collected on this point, and close these extracts by a quotation which, (let this be noticed,) speaks What! Those who reject "the heart withering doctrine of eternal torments" afraid to announce the glad tidings. Afraid to preach the truth, they believe Christ came to publish! Afraid to preach what God has commissioned and commanded them to preach!! Are these the followers of Christ? the successors of Luther? |