The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1864-05-27

mately holy and happy. II you will dc
this you will neither have time nor space
for lu'minations of "Clap-trap" as the
best mode of replying to my arguments
DR.. Clarke, is on the stand again. Charge
me with knowingly misrepresenting him,
and insinuate that 1 he'd garbed hi.
language. You dare not deny that
quoted him correctly; and again, every
one knows who is acquainted with his
theology, that he holds that final impeni-
tonce is objectionable. and hence the
doctrine ofendless punishment,
l am aware that DR.. Clarke has pecu.
liar views in regard to the sin against
the Holy Ghost, and makes what
seems to be an in advertant statement,
that in his opinion "every sin may be re-
pened of under the gospel dispensation"
But |. Can a sin absolutely unpardona-
BILE, be forgiven even if repented Of? 2
Is he who isguilty of an unpardonrble
offence, "undcr the gospel dispensation ?"
Is there any gospel for him, of whom
Christ hath said she hath never forgive.
ness, but is in danger of eternal damna-
tion ?"
But why all this controversy abou. Dr.
Clarke He is not recognized as a stan
dard either for doctrine or exigesis; by
your Church, or my own; nor by your
self, or myself. l could readily quote
universal authorities you would as readily
repudiate as | do DR.. Clarke, upon this
and many other points.
Ours is q question, not Of authorities;
but by mutual agreement purely scrip
tural. ITO the law and to the testimony"
then. But if you are at loss for orig
inal arguement and desire the contro-
versy transferred to DR.. Clarke or some
other Doctor; let that be the understand
ing, and l will make my arrangements
accordingly.
am truly surprised at the manner
you pass Phil: 3. l8. 10, "Whose end
is destruction" Say, II assume that the
word end, denotes the fixed final condi
ton Of wicked men,but attempt no proof
Is it not legitimate to assume the prop
er: and unequivocal meaning of word
in submitting testimony Suppose you
could find a text declaring that all men
would be etcrually saved in heaven; and
| should say in reply. You assume that
MI means every body but offer no proof.
would it not be polemics with a ven.
gence (?) Such assumptions. would
,hink very acute, and ought to be very
Chronic"
Still more surprising is your reply to
John 8:ei. aye shall die in your sins
whittier go We cannot come" You say
show me in what part | find any proof
If endless misery?" Have you so far
ost yourself as to suppose we are dis
ussing the last proposition? If the ar.
.umentis is unanswerable, be frank enough
o acknowledge it; and not offer such
xcuses for argument. Christ says.
where l am there shall also my servents
e. but here is class to whom he says
Ye shall die in your sins whittier go .
e cannot come Prove that they will be
ultimately holy and happy"
You charge me with "denying the
of God. in saying if all men
i'll repent God can save them, if they .
i'll not repent. He cannot. But do you
elieve that God can save sinner without
spentence if not do you not deny his
:? Again, "If God is omnipo !.
mt he must be able to prevent what He =
.eks to prevent, and do, what he seeks {
accomplish" Then God is able to v
revent sin and suffering, or, He does not Tt
ek to preventit. But He does not pre-. .
ent them. Is it for want of ability, or
sposition? If the former, is He omnip' :"
ant? If the latter.is He infinitely good?
God is not able or willing to prevent rt
n and suffering now, what evidence ir
I'VE we that he will be in the future?- al
nd if God may be cable to do what He a
eks to accomplish" in the salvation Of p
g sinner, without doing it; may be mo- lo
rerer have the ability without accom- et
ishing it, and hence your proposition "
owe to be false7 Or, will you say He o.
es not now seek the sinners salvation? d
Ich would be a contradiction of the HI