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 Judgment, 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 judged according to the improvement they make of it. This is agreeable to Christ's own testimony." This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come." Rights of conscience.-They consider the liberty of conscience to be a sacred right, given by the Creator, which no human authority has any right to control o take away: that conscience is the throne of God or the seat of Divine light in man, and that it is through this medium only, that divine light is communicated to the soul-Hence man's justification depends on the purity of his conscience. They maintain that all that man can justly require of man, is that he should do his fellow creatures no moral injury; all beyond this lies between God and his own conscience. Therefore they recommend to all men to use their best endeavors to obtain the true light and knowledge of God, and The assertion made by some writers, a that they believe the day of judgment is past," is without any fonudation in their doctrines. 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. I have heard that Musonius the philosopher used to make this remark; When a philosopher encourages, advises, persuades or reprehends, or discusses any thing of philosophic discipline, if they who hear him pour out trite and vulgar praises without any restraint or delicacy, if they cry out, and are excessively affected by his facetious expressions, his method of discourse, and particular repetitions, then you may know that one has spoken and the other listened without effect; the speaker being rather a trumpeter than a philosopher. 'The mind' says he, of one who hears a philosopher, if what is said be useful and salutary, and prescribes remedies for infirmities and vice, has neither leisure nor inclination for profuse and extravagant praise. Whoever the 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 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 represents 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 ques tion. 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 stronger 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, it stands without a reply. Luther is also introduced by this writer as a Calvinistic authority. Unfortunately, however, the passage 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 coudemnation 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 generally 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 supposed 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 us. 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, after 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 We maintained that Edwards does not decide that this disposition, tendency," &c. is in itself sinful and deserving of punishment. Intending 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 ar gument 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 hem, for exam ple, 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, explicitly 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. Nor has he made any direct and fair attempt to meet the quotation from Edwards, though possibly he persuaded himself and designed to persuade his readers to the contrary. In one paragraph he evidently refers to that quotation with the professed design to show how Calvinists account for the sin of man. Concerning this, we remark, first, that no credit is due to such a statement of the Reviewer made in such circumstances. The paragraph consist ing of more than a page, contains not five lines of quotation from Edwards, whose opinions the writer professes to state. Now he knew that the opinions of Edwards, of which he pretends to give an account, are the very subject in controversy. And yet, so far as the representation is made to favour his side of the question, it is made with out adducing a particle of evidence to justify his statement, and without the least notice of the evidence adduced by us to the contrary. Such a statement, then, made in such cir cumstances, carries with it its own condemnation, and is unworthy of the least credit. It is merely repeating the same thing over and over "without minding answers.” Secondly; Unjust as we shall presently show this statement of the Reviewer to be, it is remarkable with what ill success the attempt at imposition is made. So difficult was it, without defeating his object, to preserve even a remote resemblance to Edwards' statement, that there are parts of the representation in which the Reviewer's account of Calvinism unequivocally contradicts Prof. Norton's, and confirms our argument. Thus he admits it to be Calvinism that no evil quality is infused, implanted or wrought into the nature of man by any positive influence whatsoever'-that 'the nature of man has become so deplorably sinful, not through any positive act of God infusing sin into man'-that 'our nature, considered as mere human na ture, is created in us as it was created by God in Adam.' Now this according to the Reviewer is Calvinism. Calvinists then, if the Reviewer is to be believed, do deny that any positive influence, any creative act of God, produces sin in man. But what is Calvinism, according to Prof. N.? He says, that it is a doctrine of Calvinism that God creates men with a sinful nature.' Here then the Professor and the Reviewer are certainly at variance. If it be Calvinism that there is no evil quality in the nature of man created by God, as the Reviewer asserts, then it is not Calvinism, that God creates man with a sinful nature, as Mr. N. asserts. We do not wonder at the Reviewer's concession. However "stoutly" he may assert the contrary in other instauces, it was impossible for him to state the views of Pres. Edwards as presented in the passage before him, so that any one could be imposed upon by his statement, without conceding all that is necessary to support us in our argument with Prof. Norton. The reason is plain. Pres. Edwards stated from Dr. Taylor the identical representation of Calvinism made by Prof. N. and in terms the most precise and unqualified, denied the justness of that representation. Thirdly; This representation of the Reviewer, as a whole, is a perfect caricature of Edwards' opinions. The distortions are so gross, that the intended resemblance must be wholly concealed, except from the most familiar acquaintance. According to the Reviewer, (the reader will not be surprised to find this writer making contradictory statements) it is Calvinism that God is the real author of a sinful nature in man;' that the natural appetites. &c. of man before the fall, were consistent with his being in a state of innocence only because they were entirely controlled by the supernatural grace of God; that after the fall, the sole and invincible tendency of these natural principles was to sin;' that without divine grace human nature left |