briefly summed up in the seven moral principles following, viz. 1. Duty to God." Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." This requires an entire devotion of every faculty to God; and also an abstinence from every feeling and practice which has a tendency to draw the mind from God, and from heavenly and divine things. 2. Duty to man." Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Also; "All things whatsoever ye would that man should do to you, do ye even so to them." This rule includes every obligation of man to his fellow creatures under every circumstance, and is the plainest principle of morality that can be given, as far as respects the duty of man to man. 3. Separation from the world. "My kingdom is not of this world," said Jesus. Hence the subjects of his kingdom must abstain from all the politics of the world, and from all posts of honor, trust and profit in its government; and also from those vain pursuits and transitory enjoyments which are calculated to feed the pride and vanity and corrupt the mind of man. 4. Practical peace.--As Christ is the Prince of peace, so they consider his followers as under the most solemn obligations to maintain the principles of peace in all their intercourse with each other, and in all their transactions with mankind. Hence they abstain from all wars and fightings, and from all strife and contention of every kind. "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight," said Jesus. By this plain testimony, it is evident that no true follower of Christ can have any thing to do with wars and fightings to the end of time. 5. Simplicity of language.--They consider that in all their conversation, honesty of heart and simplicity of language will best secure the favor of God and promote their peace of conscience. Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile." Hence they reject all kinds of swearing, all profane language, foolish and vain talking-all falsehood and deception, and whatever else is contrary to the spirit of honesty, simplicity and truth. They also reject all flattering titles aud vain appellations of distinction, as being entirely contrary to the precepts and examples of Jesus Christ. "Be ye not called Rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." 6. Right use of property.-Jesus Christ prayed that his followers might be one with him, as he is one with the Father. This unity, they believe, ought to extend to all things, both spiritual and temporal. The primitive church was established on this principle of unity and equality; and the same principle is adopted by this soc ty, as the true order of the church of Christ. 7. Avirginlife.-[In justification of the practice of celibacy they mention the example of our Saviour; and to show that it is most favorable to piety, they quote the words of Paul; "The married care for the things of the world, how they may please their husbands and wives; but the unmarried care for the things of the Lord, how they may be holy in body and spirit." The vision of the hundred and forty and four thousand, Rev. XIV. 3, 4, they consider as a vision of the millennial day, when the Lamb of God was to appear the second time, and that it strikingly points out the real character of those who were to be his followers." consider marriage as a civil institution, pertaining to the children of this world only; and that the true followers of Christ have nothing to do with it. "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage ; but they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” They The Resurrection."I am the resurrection and the life," said Christ. They believe that the only true resurrection consists in the soul's being raised from a death of sin into the Spirit and life of Christ; that such thereby come into "the resurrection and the life;" that this resurrection began in Jesus, and has progressed, and will still continue to progress, with increasing light and power, till all souls" shall come forth unto the resurrection of life," or to "the resurrection of damnation." Day of Judgment.-They also believe that the second appearing of Christ is, in truth, the day of Judg. ment, which is not, as many suppose, an instantaneous, but a gradual and progressive work, in which Christ is sending forth his angels, or ministers, to preach the everlasting gospel, which will be progressively heard by "every nation, kindred and tongue"; so that all souls will have a fair offer to make their final and everlasting choice, and will be impartially judg ed according to the improvement they make of it. This is agreeable to Christ's own testimony. This to live up to the best light of their own consciences, as the only means of gaining an increase of light, and of obtaining justification before God. To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. I have sometimes thought there was room for remark on the manner in which commendation is often bestowed upon preachers of the Gospel. The nature of the fault to which I refer will be sufficiently indicated by the following extract from Aulus Gellius, (Lib. V. c. 1.) I send it to you in the translation of Mr. Beloe, which, though in some places rather bold, will sufficiently answer the end I have in view. I leave it to your readers to consider whether the reproofs of Musonius have any instruction for us. E. K. "The Philosopher Musonius censures the commendations paid to a philosopher, when speaking. by loud acclamations and noisy compliments. gospel of the kingdom shall be I have heard that Musonius the preached in all the world, for a wit- philosopher used to make this reness to all nations, and then shall the mark; When a philosopher enend come." courages, advises, persuades or rep Rights of conscience.-They con-rehends, or discusses any thing of sider the liberty of conscience to be a philosophic discipline, if they who sacred right, given by the Creator, hear him pour out trite and vulgar which no human authority has any praises without any restraint or deliright to control of take away: that cacy, if they cry out, and are excesconscience is the throne of God or the sively affected by his facetious exscat of Divine light in man, and that pressions, his method of discourse, it is through this medium only, that and particular repetitions, then you divine light is communicated to the may know that one has spoken and soul-Hence man's justification de- the other listened without effect; pends on the purity of his conscience. the speaker being rather a trumpetThey maintain that all that man can er than a philosopher. The mind' justly require of man, is that he should says he, of one who hears a philosdo his fellow creatures no moral in- opher, if what is said be useful and jury; all beyond this lies between salutary, and prescribes remedies for God and his own con cience. There- infirmities and vice, has neither leisfore they recommend to all men to ure nor inclination for profuse and use their best endeavors to obtain the extravagant praise. Whoever the true light and knowledge of God, and hearer may be, unless extraordinarily profligate, he must feel a kind of awe, whilst the philosopher is speaking-must silently experience emotions of shame, of repentance, of • The assertion made by some writers, "that they believe the day of judgment is past," is without any fonudation in their doctrines. pleasure, and admiration. His countenance and sensibility will be variously changed and affected, in proportion as the discourse of the philosopher shall have interested him, or awakened the ingenuous or morbid qualities of his mind.' He further observed, that 'extreme praise was not remote from admiration, but that the extremest admiration did not produce words but silence.' For this reason,' he continued, the wisest of poets makes those who heard Ulysses relate in a most delightful manner his travels, not leap up with vociferous clamour, when he had finished speaking; but he rep resents them as being universally silent, as if astonished and confounded with the soothing gratification of their ears, extending even to their power of utterance." Keview of New Publications. State of the Calvinistic Controversy; a Review in the Christian Disciple. (Continued from page 337.) WE engaged in this controversy, with the purpose to prosecute it, so long as we could hope to contribute to the illustration and defence of the truth. Our design has been, not to avail ourselves of the common prerogative of Reviewers, merely to express opinions and make assertions, but to adduce proofs and arguments in support of our own views, and to examine. not a part, but the whole of what our opponents might say, on their side of the question. We are aware that such a design leads to a minuteness and extent of discussion which may be wearisome to a portion of our readers; but we have judged that they would not be unwilling to make some sacrifice to what a just and thorough defence of the truth so obviously demands. Indeed, we cannot forbear to say that any other course has been rendered peculiarly obnoxious to us, by the example of our opponents, who seem determined to avoid every thing like thorough discussion. In pursuance of our purpose, we now proceed to consider what the Reviewer has attempted in the way of direct reply, on the main question. 1. Unwilling to leave his cause where Professor Norton left it in re spect to authorities, the Reviewer has thought proper to bring forward additional quotations from other Calvinistic writers. His first quotation of this kind is from the Formula Concordiæ. Without insisting that an appeal to such an authority is an appeal to that which, in the present case, is no authority at all, our reply is, that the passage cited from this formula cannot be supposed to assert the doctrine ascribed to Calvinists in strong. er or more decisive terms than the passages from Calvin and others which we have already examined. Now, as the Reviewer knows, the question in respect to authorities turns solely on the import, not on the number of passages cited from Calvinistic writers. We have said, and given our reasons for saying, that a different import belongs to this sort of Calvinistic phraseology from that which Professor N. ascribes to it. How idle then it is, and how unworthy of a candid controversialist, to repeat passages of similar import from different Calvinistic authors, when the question is not whether such passages are to be found, but what is their true import. So long as the argument presented in this shape is not met, even in pretence, t stands without a reply. Luther is also introduced by this writer as a Calvinistic authority. Unfortunately, however, the passa e cited from him, respects simply the doctrine of human inability. Were it not so, it would be enough to ask, who has placed Luther among "the approved expounders" of Calvinism? Another authority cited by the Reviewer is Dr. Twiss; "a writer referred to," he says, "by the conductors of the Christian Spectator as of authority in determining what Calvinism was." This assertion is wholly unwarranted. Our reference to Dr. Twiss was incidental, and simply intended to show, not what his views of Calvinism were, but that one of the most extravagant among the Calvinists denied the 'view of Calvinism' given by Professor Norton. After admitting it to be a practice not uncommon with Unitarians, to represent "Calvinists as preaching that innumerable infants will be punished with eternal damnation," &c. the Reviewer cites from Dr. Twiss the following passage. "The condemnation of many infants to eternal death is the consequence of Adam's transgression solely." Of this doctrine the Reviewer says it would be insisted on now, by all real and consistent Calvinists, if they thought their people would bear it." He then quotes another passage from the same writer, in which it is asserted, that it is lawful for God to inflict torture even on the innocent. But we ask, what have these opinions of Dr. Twiss to do with the point in debate? To punish infants solely for Adam's sin or to punish them when innocent, does not imply that they are created with a sinful nature' or that they are punished for such a nature. Indeed the contrary is fairly implied. For if they are punished solely for Adam's sin, or punished being innocent, the inference is undeniable that they are not punished for a created sinful nature; and of course that they do not possess such a nature.-What then was the design of the Reviewer in making these quotations from Dr. Twiss? Plainly they were not made for the sake of argument. They have not Vol. VI. No. 7. 46 the remotest bearing on the point at issue. They express opinions which in the estimation of most if not of all Calvinists, are as unscriptural, as extravagant, and as revolting as the Reviewer can suppose them to be. They are brought forward as a pretext for the slanderous imputation that Calvinistic ministers would now insist on the doctrine of the damnation of infants, if their people would bear it; and thus to hold up to public odium the great body of Calvinists by means of the extravagant and offensive sentiments of an individual Calvinist, when it is a well known fact that these sentiments are rejected by nearly every living Calvinist with abhorrence. This charge of the Reviewer, and, as he admits, of Unitarians generally, we pronounce gross misrepresentation-the mere slang of ignorant or exasperated polemics, which has been often enough repeated as a substitute for argument to be relinquished. For this palpable instance of chicanery let the Reviewer's own rule judge him; For any one therefore to collect together the most extravagant and offensive passages from such writers, and to give them to the world as a fair view of what their party gener ally believe, would be manifestly DISHONOURABLE AND UNJUST.' 2. The Reviewer has utterly failed to meet the argument on our side of the question. Our first position in the argument is, "that the passages quoted from Calvin, from the Westminster divines, and from Edwards, furnish no warrant for ascribing to these authors the doctrine specified." These passages as cited by Professor N. we presented to our readers, and by a minute examination of every phrase and every sentence on which the point in controversy can be suppos ed to depend, we showed that no one of them contains the doctrine charged. We affirmed that Professor N. has specified no declaration in any one of the quotations, and that he could specify none, which teach es that doctrine; that he made his charge solely on the unjustifiable ground of inference; and that the language of the quotations in its true import, teaches the opposite doctrine to that ascribed by Professor N. to Calvinists. This course of argument which bears directly on the point in controversy, the Reviewer has suffered to pass without a word in reply. To the truth of this remark however, he may imagine that there is one exception. In our notice of Professor N.'s pamphlet, af ter showing that the passage quoted by him from President Edwards, did not contain the doctrine imputed to Calvinists, we made a short digression from our main argument, for the purpose of presenting more distinctly the views of Edwards, respecting what he denominates disposition, tendency, propensity to sin. It is here, therefore, and not on the main argument, that the Reviewer assails us. We maintained that Edwards does not decide that this disposi tion, tendency," &c. is in itself sinful and deserving of punishment. In tending to resume this subject in our future pages, we shall now only remark, that allowing all that is claimed, viz. that according to Edwards, the disposition to sin is in itself sinful and deserving of punishment, the conclusiveness of our argument with Professor N. is not at all diminished. For to teach that the disposition to sin, is in itself sinful and deserving of punishment, is not teaching that man is not, nor that God is, the author of this sinful disposition; it is not teaching, that God creates man with a sinful nature.' Allowing then that the Reviewer justly interprets the passage which he quotes from Edwards, still he has not met us in the argument with Professor N. Now we say, that this is not coming to the point. If Edwards has taught the doctrine that God creates men with a sinful nature,' adduce the passage, in which it can be made to appear. When we have shown that the passages which are cited for this pur pose, justly interpreted, do not teach the doctrine, it cannot be expected that the mere repetition of such passages should satisfy us that we are in the wrong. We demand that the argument be directly and fairly met, by showing, if it can be shown, that such passages are correctly interpreted by our opponents. This we have before required of them. We repeat the challenge. Let them, for example, show by what laws of exegesis it is, that when Edwards in the passage quoted by Professor N., says, that "men are naturally in such a state that they run themselves into that which is in effect their own utter and eternal perdition," he means that God creates men with a sinful nature.' This is the true method, and a short one, of settling the question. For ourselves we cannot discover how it is, that when Edwards asserts that men come into the world in such a state that they will run themselves into sin;' or that they will be in a greater or less degree guilty of sin when they come to act in the world as moral agents;' or that they will sin without any evil quality being wrought into their nature by any positive influence from God,'-we say we cannot understand how such language teaches that God creates men with a sinful nature.' We ask therefore for the interpretation. But it is not given, nor will it be. The truth is that these gentlemen cannot be brought to grapple fairly with an argument. They are not unskilful, as we have seen, to devise other expedients, while to this species of fair dealing they have a peculiar antipathy. Our second ground of argument is, that the authors referred to, explicit ly deny the doctrine ascribed to them by Professor Norton. This position we endeavoured to support, and as we think, successfully, by quotations from Calvin, the Westminster divines and President Edwards. The passages cited from Calvin and from the Westminster divines, the Reviewer passes by without the least notice. |