The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-04-15

'oheHeht Ill moran ueyrauation, uoU
did institute moral correctives sufficient
If improved, for his reformation. 8. II
is fact attested both by Revelation and
observation, that men can and do neglect
and reject these influences, and render
them nugatory. 8. 1t is also fact in
contestable, that in spite Of all these refor
matory influences some men "wax worse
and worse" and treasure up to themselves
''wrath against the day Of wrath" Now
what is tho logic of these fact, upon the
question Of human des!iny7 Clearly
this: l. That unless man is deprived OF
his freedom, he may resist these infuen
ces forever, and be an eternal stranger to
the bliss Of holiness. 2. That if he per.
sists in impenitence and sin, he may wax
worse and worse forever. would have
you grapple with these facts, and strictly
logical deductions.
The arms-length consideration you give
of Gen. 8, l5,-John I, 9a.and | John 5,
10, is virtual abandonment OF them, as
non-supporters of your system.
You mistake me in suppo.ing l "sough'
to involve you in verbal contradiction
You involved yourself. and simply poin-
ted it out. 1t is rather amusing-how-
ever disreputsble-thst you should under.
take to apologize for self-contrsdicton,
by involving the Bible in tho same pre-
dicament. 1t may afford satisfaction, but
not relief, to have good company in bad
cause. In this case, however, you must
struggle alone, as 1t is my business to win
dictate the Scriptures from all such false
imputalions. You say your contradiction
is only "verbal." You admit, then, a
verbal contradiction. A verbal contrsdic.
ton, is where the same thing is affirmed
and denied, in unqualified terms of the
same object. But, |. deny that there
are any such contradictions iu the Bible.
The Bible nowhere says "God cannot re-
pent." That there are instances in which
it declares he "will not" and "should
not" l allow, but this is quite different
thing, from verbal contradiction. Q.
your contradiction is in sense, not in
word merely. In your first letter, you
say "Sn has no vital force" Again,
"Christ shall destroy siu." Upon Heb
2, IA, Is. "Here the destruction of sin
and death is positively set forth" And in
your second letter, in defining the term
destroy. "The word tiieahs to deprive
of all vitality and power" Put together
we have palpable absurdity, and yet,
you would extricate yourself by saying
it was "only verbsl-such as we find in
the Bible. Sir, the Bible has no such
and absardities. Your illus.
tions are quite as amusing-"A lid has
power, and yet has not,"-a verbal con.
tratiction. Explained we have "a pure
lie"--free from ttuth--"has no inherent
force;" but, at only lives"-hns force-
''by connection with some real or appa
rent truth" i. Q. A pure lie has no force,
but a corrupt lie has ! Now for the ap-
p!ication as will, doubtless; appear during
this discussion. OBSTRUCTION, when it |,
applies to sinG-that which has no vital
iorce-means to deprive Of all vitality and
power. but when it applies to evil doers,
that which has vitality--it means in
sestiture with immortal life.
You insinuate discrepancy between
my comment upon Romans 3. I9, 81, q, and
.he declaration of Paul; but you have
shown no discrepancy. I asserted that
what was passively lost in Adam, was pas
sively gained in Christ. Verse ] | shows
that reference is made by the Apostle to
he "atonement." Verse 10 shows clear
y that the atonement-"reconciliation."
s distinct from salvation. Hecce it is
'sid, '6eing reconciled." We "shaH be
'aved." The one is provisional and for all,
he other prospective in application. pas
lively received by the irresponsible, con-
litionally by the responsible. Hence,
'they which receipe abundance of grace
md of the gift Of righteousness shall reign
N life by one Jesus Christ" That rs
lin hath reigned unto desth. SO might
grace reign unto eternal life. The "of-
'euce' and "free gift" differ in their ap-
plieation. The force Of sin was heredi-
AIRY, innate, natural. That Of grace is
'ree, foreign and supernatural. All that