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."

us,

This extract is of much, and various value. Mr. Kneeland informs 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

boldly avow their disbelief of eternal misery and their firm persuasion of the restoration of mankind to holiness and happiness. So obvious is this fact that there is no publication of any Unitarian of respectability, but what discloses these views, and it is one of the charges of unsoundness of faith which is brought against them by their Orthodox opponents. It is, however, an acknowledged fact that Unitarians have not felt themselves called upon to say much on this subject, but when called upon they have not shunned to declare this part of the counsel of God. In England it is otherwise, for as there are but few, if any Universalist societies, in contradistinction to Unitarians, the ministers of the latter both in their preaching and writings boldly and fearlessly declare their belief in the doctrine of universal restoration. That there is a difference of opinion between Unitarians and some Universalists as to the time when it will take place, I freely confess; but that they agree in the ultimate destination of man to virtue and happines, all must allow. As this then is an admitted fact, I cannot possibly conceive that this difference of opinion should any longer operate to keep them from acting in concert in the common cause of liberal Christianity."

Comment is unnecessary. Is it to express a fearfully important truth, or is it merely "to serve a turn," that the Orthodox call the Unitarians, Universalists? Hereafter, be it remembered, this is "an admitted fact," admitted by the New York Unitarians, admitted by the Rev. Mr. Ware in the first number of the "Unitarian." Will the Unitarian Advocate, or Christian Examiner, or Christian Register favor the Rev. Mr. Kneeland with the precise reason why he and his Universalist brethren are refused" an interchange of gifts" with their Unitarian fellow labourers? Why, (we repeat this question and wish it deeply pondered,) why do the Unitarian Clergy of Massachusetts seek to exchange pulpits with the Orthodox, who, in their view" are guilty of denying the Lord Jesus," while they close their own pulpits against the Universalists, with whom they are essentially agreed; and who desire to "reciprocate an exchange of gifts" with them?

NOTE J.

ARE UNITARIANS CHRISTIANS?

Unitarians complain that the Orthodox deny them the name Christian.' If the term properly belong to them, the Orthodox have no right to withhold it, and the Unitarian complaint is not without

reason. In what sense, then, is the term withheld? Not in its geographical sense. Those that live within certain lines and colours on the map, are Christian, or Mahometan, or Pagan. Unitarians and the Orthodox and Deists are all, in this sense, Christian. If the term Christian, mean merely reputable, honest, kindhearted, intelligent men, in this sense it is cheerfully conceded to a great majority of Unitarian professors. But if the term be understood as indicative of a saving faith and holy character; indicative of those, who will at the last day be acknowledged as the real followers of Christ, it is as gens, lly withheld in this sense, as it is conceded in that immediately preceding. That there may be real Christians in Unitarian churches and, of course, that such deserve the name Christian, in the sense last explained, the Orthodox do not deny. They do not pretend, they do not feel themselves called upon, or competent to decide, how much error may be innocently connected with a saving knowledge of the truth; nor how small a portion of divine truth may be made instrumental to the saving of the soul. But that those, who, under. standing at the time what they say, deny the original entire corruption of the human heart, the divinity and atonement of Christ, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, gratuitous pardon through the merits of the Redeemer, and the everlasting punishment of the impenitent, are Christians, they cannot concede without renouncing all their main principles, without giving up the whole subject in debate. To insist upon the Orthodox yielding to Unitarians the name Christian, in this sense, is to insist upon the Orthodox renouncing their principles and becoming Unitarians. A very modest request, surely ; or, at least, a very liberal one! It seems to be a favorite argument, with some “rational" preachers, addressed to the prejudices of their hearers and personal friends, who know them to be estimable men in their civil and social relations, the Orthodox deny that we are Christians, therefore we certainly are; and they are bigoted Calvinists, disposed to imitate their master, who burnt Servetus. If it were necessary, passages might be adduced, the logic of which fully equals this. But, not to dwell on this, do the Unitarians of Boston worship Christ? No. They refuse to worship him. Was Socinus a bigot? No. He is held in high estimation by the Unitarians of Boston, as an enlightened, liberal, rational Christian. Toulmin informs us, in his Life of Socinus, page 467, that " Socinus denied that those who refuse to worship Christ are to be called Christians."

speak for himself.

Let Socinus

Speaking of Paleologus, he says, "he was one, and, if I mistake not, the chief standard-bearer among those, who at this day affirm that Christ is not to be adored and invoked in prayer,

and yet in the mean while have the effrontery to call themselves Christians." Lindsey's Historical View of Unitarian Doctrine, p. 263. In the judgment of Socinus, the hierophant of Unitarian mysteries, the Humanitarians of Boston, refusing to worship Christ, do not deserve to be called Christians. Is it a clear proof of fire-andfaggot, Calvinistic bigotry, to coincide with the first great leader of their sect? Dr. Priestley, at once the Briareus and Corypheus of his party, frankly said, "the truth is, there neither can, nor ought to be any compromise between us. If you are right, we are not Christians at all; and if we are right, you are gross idolaters." He considers it "ridiculous that Unitarians should be allowed to think Trinitarians idolaters, without being permitted to call them so ;" and adds, "I have no idea of being offended with any man in things of this kind, for speaking what he believes to be the truth." Dr. Priestley here speaks like a man in earnest, believing what he said to be truth. Why should the admirers of the Doctor wish for a compromise, when the fact is just as stated by him, either Trinitarians are idolaters, or Unitarians are not Christians? Why should not the Orthodox say what they believe? Or why should they be compelled to say what they do not believe? The gentleman, who writes with such flippant ambiguity about the "exclusive sect" and system, might take a profitable lesson from the frank and unjustly persecuted philosopher of Birmingham.

Let us vary this subject. Who are Christians? Are not those who worship one God and only one, and acknowledge Jesus to be a divinely appointed prophet, and believe in a future life, Christians? I shall not take the trouble to verify this definition by reference to Unitarian writings. But if any one, entitled to notice, calls for verification, it can be given in abundance. Unitarians are Christians in the sense just defined, believing and doing all which that definition requires. But let me ask the Boston Unitarian, is the Mahometan a Christian? Are the Turkish armies, engaged in butchering the Christian Greeks, Christians? Certainly not. But the Turks worship one God, and only one; acknowledge Jesus to be a divinely appointed prophet, and believe in a future life. The Turks, then, or Mahometans, are, according to the Unitarian definition of the term Christian, Christians, believing precisely what the Unitarians believe. But Mahometans, in the judgment of Boston Unitarians, are not Christians, wherefore Unitarians, according to their own reasoning, are not Christians. The logical force of this argument will be more clearly seen thus. If Unitarians, as such, are Christians, Mahometans, being Unitarians, are Christians; but