, 1844-01-06
TFor the Radical.

PAPER a communication composed
chiefly of misrepresentation, in which
am accused Of wishing to raise a
newspaper controversy on a religious
subject. and in which ] am boldly
challenged to debate the anne The
writer Of that communication is as
much mistaken with regard 10 the OBJ
iect which | had in view when |
wrote the first communication as he
is about the correctness Of the doc
trine of Predestination, which he SAYS
is believed in and recognised by a
large portion of as clear headed men
as the church can boast. This charge
is wholly unfounded in fact. and do
most honestly presume that Calvin is
as much mistaken here, as ! know that
he is about it being fashionable in
these DAYS to abuse Predestinarians
from the pulpit and in conversation.
assure you that | do not seek n
newspaper controversy with any gen.
tleman on any ~subject-if ] did !
would expect it to he conducted with
kindness and ~decency, at least on my
part. Consequently ! do not, nor did
not, seek a religious controversy with
a man disposed 10 indulge in person.
al abuse and relentless c.lumnv. such
as "pufing s~cribbler", awkward as
sault, &c, nordo wish To Come in con.
tact with Il man so profoundly versed in
ecclesiastical history, as TO be able 10
tell us For otherwise | confess that we
would not have known it, that Cal.
win, Luther. and others were enabled
by this h .teiul doctrine (Which strips
man Of his agency, and not only I'M
pugns the motive of God in the crea-
ton Of man, but saPs the foundation
of morality itself 10 tear down the
strong holds Of papal supremacy, and
break The >hackles of Chris.endom.
o. wl,n, Il historian! assure you sir,
Tint | was astonishea when YOU init.
mated that you were a professor Of
religion. because cannet believe
taat an attack so savage and vindic-
tive would have been made uron an
innacen, individual by Il professor OF
religion. simply because that iudividn-
al differed with him in opinion, and
published his opinion in the Radical
In language 50 decisive and plain thai
every man of conmun se.ise could
understand it, and which no one but
a knave or ~hyPocrit would ask the
writer to explain TO hin. The OBJ
ject which | had in view when |
wrote The short communication (ot
Which you so c"ntrmptuuus|y speak)
VAS not To raise a written discussion.
because | believe that a newspaper
wariar frequently ensendels "nimosi-
Nv. and sets friends II variance-nor
was it intended 10 flat,er the Minis.
Ter there referred to, for that preach.
er would rs little suffer himself to
| e hattrred bv me, Of | were dispos-
ed TO Putfhim, which ! am not as the
pinus and venerable Calvin, (were lie
living would be TO allow you to con-
meet his name with your sacr'legious
communication, which | think was al
Together uncalIed for, and equally as
destitute of kindness and christian af-
i~ecliun. rs il is OF sense and reason.
Don't take snasoms, for ! an not
done with you yet. Sir, | have no
unirrendlY feelings towards y"u or
any other Predestinarian-while |
Io'eand respect you as Il man Of hon.
est intentions, ! Il, the same time pit
ty you because of the imbecility OF
your mind, and the du!ness OF your
apprehension. Sir. in the outset Of
your communication you acknowl-
edge that you do not understand the
meaning oflanguage which is daily in ,
use, and without a blush you ask me to {
explain its meaning; but in conclusion {
you at least, indirectly, boast the i
talents of Calvia, and the ecclesiasti- {
research Of Luther, and in a most (
Iannpn- l.