Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1859-02-04

hand you q communication which | wrote
for the Daily Neus of your city, under th'
following circumstances Several weeks
ago an article appeared in the editorial col
unns Of the .Ners, headed Faith without
works-Free Love, 6e" In this article un
just and false charges were brought agains,
Universalists, to which replied through
the columns Of that paper. At this point
the Nescs in its editorsai columns ceased Il
assail us, but the paper kept up the war
fare by admitting a writer to its columns
over the signature OF Orthodoxy" To
Orthodoxy article wrete the reply
hand to you. The News promised to insert
it, but after keeping it several days. they
then declined so to do. under the plea that
it was too long for their columns. Very
reluctantly. this morning, (the piece having
been in their hands nearly a week) they
thought they might publish it by dividing
It," giving it in two issues.
It is needless to say, that the course Of
the Neus is far from being satisfactory TO
u. The Ners commenced an attack upon
nc. They opened their columns to the con
tin.onee of that attack, they have boasted
of the freedom OF their columns, and their
plea for excluding our reply, under all these
circumstances, We regard as unworthy hon
orable conductors Of public journal. Not
% right but as q matter of generosity,
We ask you. Sir, to give our communication
Q place in your columns an act, which |
hove no doubt, liberal christian public
will duly appreciate. Truly yours.
CHAs WooDHousE.
DAVENPORT, Feb. 3, 1859
EDIToR OF THE News Your correspon.
dent Orthodoxy has seen fit to notice nv
reply to your editorial attack upon Univer.
salism, aud l suppose it is no more than fair
that l should be heard in reply to him
Hereafter, however, shall not notice any
ANONYMOUS communication in your paper.
l shsll be glad, if any respectable person
wishes, over his own name, to attack our
doctrine in your columns 10 use them in re.
viewing what he may write against U.S.
We have no love for bush fighting, and on
ly ask an open field and fair play.
Your correspondent says we hold that
mau i. naturally good" But the fact is,
that so far as moral character is concerned,
We hold that, as be comes into this world,
ties of body and mind which he can use in
1Asv ,,vkx l. f.
daily and hourly prove to every observer
His nature is imperfect. Subject to vanity"
but no. Totally depraved" We believe
"he can think good thoughts and do good
act" that he can "do by nature the things
contained in the law" We're he q sinner
before he began to act, we should have an
effect without causation. Sin is the
transgression Of the law" lie both bible and
common sense doctrine. Man did not make
his own nature, and if he is Totally de-
praved." it was not hiS act but his Makers
that made him so lit is his misfortune not
his fault. God made man as pleased him
best 1t seems to rs Incredible that Gcd
should command totally depraved being
to obey his laws You might as well com
mand Of a totally blind man that he should
zee, or g totally deaf man that he should
hear, or totally dumb man that he should
talk. All human laws are founded on or
recognize. mans natural ability to do right.
If he had a natural ability to 90 nothing
but wrong, what justice would there be in
Furnishing him for doing what he is compel
led to do, by virtue of nature which he
had no more hand in making than in the
creation of word! Ii an idiot murders
We do not punish him for murder, because
he has no natural ability to know right
from wrong. But, if man in the posses
zion of natural nationality murders, he is
dealt with as an offender against law. Why
DO hnman lawgivers and iursts make this
distinction? Because they recognize in all
men, of sound minds, the natural ability to
do right as well as wrong But Theolog-
ians tell US that man is totally depraved,
that "he is prone TO sin as the sparks fly up
ward"-(a pulpit, but not bible text)-
and that for every sin, he deserves Gods
wrath and curse both in this life and that
u COME" think one may safely challenge
any man to write out system of doctrine
more detestable than this.
Your correspondent cannot understand, If
Univ rsalisIn is true what use there is of
the Bible to teach man to be good Uni
versaists, let me tell him, draw their faith
from the Bible. We reverence the teach
ings of God in nature the Elder Scripture
but We look to the Bible as the "inestim-
able gift of God to man" as the "man of our
and light OF our feet" The writer
of this article learned orthodoxy from the
Westminster catechism, but he learned Uni
versalism from the Bible. and that alone
We need the Bible to teach US truth con-
cerning God, human relations. duty and des-
tiny. We need it for the light, which, in
floods, it throws on every moral
interest Of man for the character Of Him,
who spoke as never man spoke, which it
portrays; and for the blessed hope Of life
beyond the grave, which it inspires in the
hearts Of those who believe and receive its
priceless truths. Orthodoxy. with her hor-
rid dogmas, which she pretends are taught
in the Bible, hss made more infidels than all |
The Paines and Volneys that have ever writ |
ten against this book. Universalism and
Unitarianism, ty giving to the Bible rea.
sonable Interpretation, have removed the
strong objections which infidels urge against