will then be left without any mediator, as the fallen angels now are And the high arches of heaven, and the dark caverns of hell, will reecho that awful voice that shall come out from the midst of the throne: "He that is unjust let him be unjust sti"-end he that is filthy, let him be filthy still-and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still-and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Universalist.-Rather than believe that doctrine, I would newtranslate, or explain in some other way, every text in the Bible that speaks on that subject. Arminian.—On the subject of future punishments, I must still think that they will be eternal. But as to the passages in the Bible which Calvinists bring to prove predestination and election, I will go all the rength which Mr. Wesley goes: "It were better to say those passages had no sense at all" than to suppose they prove that doctrine. "Whatever it proves beside, no scripture can prove predestination." Calvinist. To say that "no scripture can prove" a doctrine which you dislike, is taking bold and dangerous ground. It is in fact saying, the Almighty may assert that doctrine as plainly as he can, but I will not believe him.-To affirm that "It were better to say those passages had no sense at all," than to admit they teach a doctrine you oppose, is the same as to say: "I would rather contend that the God of wisdom speaks nonsense, than give up my prejudices against a plainly revealed truth." This is the very ground taken by the Unitarian, who say that our Lord Jesus Christ was a mere MAN: and that his death was no atonement for sin. He says that if the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of atonement were asserted in a hundred passages in the Bible, he would not believe these doctrines; for he considers them absurd. The Unitarians have accordingly made many alterations in the NEW TESTAMENT, for the purpose getting rid of the divinity of Christ, and the atonement, They have made great efforts to bring the altered copies of the Testament into circulation. You both take the same ground. One of you would alter or explain away every text that teaches the doctrine of eternal punishment: the other would alter or explain away every text that teaches the doctrine of Predestination and Election. Now, gentlemen, what would become of the Bible if the Unitarian is allowed to make his alterations-and the Arminian allowed to make his alterations—and the Universalist, and every other man,that finds his heart rebel against the plain import of God's word, is allowed to make such alterations as suits himself? Does not every American patriot feel greater veneration for the farewell address of Washington, and would he not feel more reluctant to tamper with the language or alter a single word in that address, than many professed Christians seem to feel for the language of their Creator? Does not the Turk manifest a higher reverence, for the inviolable of sacredness of the Alcoran of Mahomet, than many professed Christians appear to feel for the words of him who spoke as "man never spake." ANSWER TO ENQUIRER. DEAR SIR-If' scripture were not always to be understood according to its plain and obvious import,' still it would be evidence of the truth of a doctrine,' to find numerous passages, in all parts of the sacred volume, which plainly and obviously teach it, and but here and there one, which has the appearance of contradicting it. Calvinists, therefore, by quoting so many passages, which so expressly and unequivocally assert the efficient agency of God in the production of moral evil, has, we think, done a good deal towards proving the doctrine, and made it incumbent on those who deny it, not only to assert, but to show, that the passages which he has quoted, "understood literally," ""contradict the general tenour of scripture-and appear to impeach the Divine character." We do not think that "much explanation," nor any explanation of the passages in Calvinist's creed, is necessary, till it be made to appear, as we do not believe it ever can be, that the tenour of scripture addresses man precisely as if he were the cause of his own volitions.' The labouring oar is obviously in the hands of those who controvert the doctrine of Divine efficieney. When a "controversialist" has quoted passages, which appear plainly to favour his position, it "devolves on" his opponent to show that "by being so understood," they "contradict other passages equally plain." By admitting that some parts of scripture need explanation, we do not concede, that any passage "is not always to be understood according to its plain and obvious import," when the terms in which it is expressed, the connexion in which it stands, the object of the wri-, ter, and the apprehensions of those addressed, are duly taken into consideration. The literal meaning of a passage, is not always, perhaps seldom, its most plain and obvious meaning. The passage, “As in Adam all die," &c. plainly and obviously relates to temporal death and the resurrection of the body: the passage, "And I, if I be lifted up," &c. plainly and obviously relates to the crucifixion of Christ and the multitudes assembled to behold it: and the meaning of Solomon's direction how to answer a fool, is plain and obvious to every reader of common sense. When God is said, as in the scriptures quoted by Calvinist, to turn, fashion, and harden the hearts of the wicked, and to move and stir them up to do evil; the expressions are all figurative, but the meaning is none the less plain and obvious. Admitting, what is inadmissible, that the Lord "barely permitted" the lying spirit to enter Ahab's prophets; you will hardly think this a case in point to prove, that when God is said to move, turn, fashion, harden, and even to create, nothing more may be meant, than bare permission. That the holy exercises of saints are caused by the Holy Spirit,' you think agrees with their own language;' and consequently you admit, that saints are "voluntary machines." These are truly ma chines of a singular kind, and though they disclaim all merit,' and, in your view, are divested of their free moral agency and accounta bility, yet they are represented in sacred scripture, as objects of com mendation and praise, and are promised a Divine and eternal reward! Upon supposition a man causes his own choice, the manner in which he does it, is not so material, in this discussion, as the manner in which he does not do it. You admit, that he does not do it, by choosing to do it; for you justly say, that 'to choose to choose is a contradiction.' But is it not equally a contradiction to talk of a man's causing any thing, without choosing or willing to cause it? When a man causes any thing, he must either choose to cause it, or choose not to cause it, or be perfectly indifferent as to its existence. If he is in a state of indifference, he acts without any motive, or preference of doing to not doing it. If he chooses not to cause it, he acts against his will, and is the subject of compulsion, and therefore not accountable. To say that a man causes his own choice "by the exercise of the same kind of faculty by which the Creator causes his," is to take for granted what is by no means conceded, viz. that God causes his own exercises of choice. We do not believe, that God causes either his own existence, or his own free voluntary exercises; although there is a ground or reason of both, which, in either case, is alike incomprehensible, And it would be just as conclusive, to argue from the ground of the Divine existence, to prove the self-existence of men, as to argue from the ground of the Divine volitions, to prove that men possess a self-determining power. An evil intention is the same, in itself, whoever may be its cause, and is criminal, in its own nature. Says President Edwards, "If the essence of viciousness or fault does not lie in the nature of the dispo sitions or acts of the mind, then it is certain, it lies no where at all." It seems incumbent upon you, therefore, to show, in what respect an evil intention caused by one's self, differs from an evil intention caused by another; and why, in the former case, it is criminal, and in the latter case, innocent. To "undertake to separate intention from its author," i. e. from the person who intends, as the term author properly means, in this connexion, we grant, is absurd; and therefore think it absurd to undertake to separate the criminality of murder from the criminality of the murderer; as though they were two distinct crimes, You ask, "How is a man to blame for evil volitions, if he is not their author?" By author you here evidently mean cause; and we answer, He is to blame, because his volitions are evil, and because, though he is dependant or morally "helpless," yet he has the same natural power or capacity to exercise good, as evil volitions, and is under moral obligation ever to exercise good volitions, and may, therefore, be consistently called upon to exercise them, since nothing prevents but his evil volitions, which are criminal in their very nature. Should you write again, it seems imcumbent upon you to answer the following questions: 1st. Why are not the passages, quoted in the creed of Calvinist, to be understood in their plain and obvious sense? 2dly. In what sense are those passages to be understood? 3dly. How are saints, being "voluntary machines," worthy of praise, and rewardable for their good exercises? 4thly. How is it possible for a man to cause his own choice, without choosing or willing to have it? And, 5thly. Is a man, who is supposed to cause his own evil exercises of will, to blame for the exercises themselves, or only for 'causing them by the exercise of the same kind of faculty by which the Creator causes his ?' EDITOR. ORDINATIONS AND INSTALLATIONS. 1828. October 8th, Ordained at Plainfield, Con. Rev. LEVI KNEELAND, as an Evangelist. 1828. October 10th, Ordained Rev. INCREASE SUMNER DAVIS, as pastor of the Cong. Church in Dorchester, N. H. Sermon by Rev. Mr. Bates, of Newton, Mss. 1828. October 22, Ordained Rev. MINER G. PRATT, as pastor of the Cong. Church in Ward, Mss. Sermon by Rev. Enoch Pond of Boston, from I. Samuel iii. 17. 1828. November 5, Ordained Rey. JOSIAH PEABODY, as pastor of the Cong. Church in Sullivan, N. H. Sermon by Rev. Mr. Cooke. 1828. November 12, Ordained Rev. NICHOLAS MEDBURY, as pastor of the Central Baptist Church in Middleborough, Ms. Sermon by Rev. E. W. Freeman of Lowell. 1828. November 13th Ordained Rev. STANTON G. BABCOCK, as pastor of the 1st Bap. Church in Groton, Con. Sermon by Rev. Mr. Palmer. 1828. November 12th, Ordained Rev. Mr. YEOMANS, as pastor of the Cong. Church in North Adams, Mss. Sermon by Rev. Mr. Clark of Bennington, Vt. from Psal. xx. 1, 2. 1828. November 17th, Ordained Rev. ELIPHALET PORTER CRAFTS, as pastor of the Unitarian Church in East-Bridgwater, Mss. Sermon by Rev. Mr. Barrett of Boston. 1828. November 19th, Installed Rev. JACOB WEED EASTMAN, as pastor of the 1st Cong. Church in Reading, Mss. Sermon by Rev. Mr. Perry. 1828. November 19th, Ordained Rev. MOSES B. BRADFORD, as pastor of the 1st Cong. Church in Montague, Mss. Sermon by Rev. Pres. Humphrey. 1828. November 27th, Ordained Elder CHARLES B. KEYs, as pastor of the Baptist Church in North Adams, Mss. Sermon by Elder Matteson. 1828. November 27th, Installed Rev. EIPHALET CASE, Jun. as pastor of the Universalist Society, Lowell, Mss. 1828. December 3d, Installed Rev. ROBERT PAGE, as pastor of the Cong. Church in Durham, N. H. 1828. December 3d, Installed Rev. F. GRISWOLD, as pastor of the Cong. Church at South Hadley Canal. Sermon by Prof. Hitchcock of Amherst. POETRY. FROM THE LADIES MAGAZINE FOR APRIL LIFE. "There is no new thing under the sun." God thou hast fixed the date of man, One year the seasons' changes o'er- "Tis day upon the eastern hills, And see old night her crown put on, And man is weak and wayward still And still from age to age the same, And who would be a slave and dwell CORNELIA |