For the Christian Sun.
THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.
We understand the unpardonable sin, or sin
against the Holy Ghost, to be total apostacy from,
and blasphemy against the regeneration of the
soul by the true God, effected by his holy spirit.
No ungenerate or original sinner ever did or ever
can commit this sin. Those, and those only can
commit it who have become the children of God
by being born of God—being made partakers of
the Holy Ghost in being regenerated, sanctified,
and adopted.
That individual who has been made a child ol
God, by being born, not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,
can, may, will, and does commit this sin, whenev
er he or she turns away from and becomes a wil
ling adversary to and an opponent against this
doctrine of salvation, by the immediate, true, pro
per, and positive agency of the Holy Ghost.—
See Mat. xii. 22 to 32 and 43 to 45. In the 31st
verse it is said “ all manner of sin and blasphe
my against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven
unto men, 32d verse “wherefore I say unto you all,
all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven
unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”
Now the words spoken against the Son of man,
Jesus, were 24th verse, “This fellow"doth not
cast out devils but by Belzebub the prince of the
devils. These words were" spoken by the Phari
sees. These bad never been made partakers of
the Holy Ghost, and could not sin against the
Holy Ghost in their opposition to Christ. There
fore Christ reasoned with them, to convince them
of their error, that they might be converted ; but
as their preaching and declarations had a tenden
cy to scatter abroad, or lead away those who had
embraced the truth, see 30th verse, and as total
apostacy from, and denial of the doctrine taught
by Christ, of casting out evil spirits by the finger
of God, or agency of the Holy Ghost, b\T which
also the kingdom of God was set up in the heart
or soul, (the soul being by the same agency re
generated and born of God) was unpardonable;
Christ took this favorable opportunity of warning
them, who had been converted, that they might
be permanently guarded against the doctrine and
sin of the Pharisees, which was a milignant Im
position to the system of salvation by God’s holy
spirit, as taught by Christ; which was manifested
by such expressions as “ He has a devil,” he cast
out devils by Belzebub the prince of the devils,
tfec. Now if a man do this against the Holy
Ghost, that is, after he has been made partaker
of the Holy Ghost in a saving sense from sin, it
shall not be forgiven him, neither before the death
of Christ nor after the death of Christ, and that
is what is meant by “neither in this world nor in
the world to come.” Now after admonishing or
rather warning one party, the disciples, that they
might not apostatize, and reasoning with the other
party, the unconverted Pharisees, that they might
abandon their errors and embrace the truth and
be saved. He proceeded to give a description of
an apostate character doomed to ruin in verses
43 to 45, we here find the case to be a person
wbo has been released from the dominion of the
devil, and again brought into greater bondage
than ever, and his last state worse than the first,
which I understand to be unpardonable; having
gone into virulent opposition to the spiritual sys
tem of religion as taught by Christ. The case is
given to show who it is that commits this awful
sin of certain doom to ruin.
In Mark iii. 22 to 30, the case is also recorded.
The charge made against Christ as here related,
is, that he hath Belzebub and by the prince of
the devils casteth he out devils. This charge was
made by the Scribes. Christ reasoned with them
evidently as before stated, to convince them of
their error, that they might abandon it and be
saved; and as a warning to those who had been
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, hath never
forgiveness, but are in danger of eternal damna
tion. Now in verse 28th, Christ says all sins and
blasphemies wherewith soever they (the sons of
men) shall blaspheme, shall be forgiven to the
sons of men. By sons of men, I understand to be
persons in a natural unergenerate state, who were
never regenerated and born of God, and that
blasphemous opposition to the spiritual system of
worship and salvation by .the Holy Ghost, which
Christ taught, and which many had received prac
tically and really, was pardonable to all sons of
men. But that this blasphemy against this spiri
tual system of salvation by a person who has
been born of God, is not to be forgiven, because
the individual goes against that which he had
once experienced to be true. Therefore he is said
to sin against the Holy Ghost, because by the
power of the Holy Ghost the truth had been once
demonstrated in him, as it is never demonstrated
to, or in an unconverted sinner, so that this total
apostate is left without excuse, because he once
knew the way of truth, therefore God will not
overlook his rebellion against truth.
j.'tuw a, Vyimsuau may bin auu uaun&uuu lu any
degree^ sbort of a willing rebellion, against the
doctrine of salvation through faith by the agency
of the Holy Ghost, and yet be in a pardonable
state. It is such a falling away as goes into a
hearty and willing opposition to the doctrine of
the sanctification of the spirit of man by the
spirit of God, in order to salvation from sin, and
a fitness for heaven, and this opposition was mani
fested by such expressions, as He hath an unclean
spirit, He is beside himself &c.; and is manifest
ed by such expressions to this day.
In Luke xi. 14 to 28 and xii. 12—this subject
is also noticed. In the 15th verse, the charge
was made against Christ of casting out devils
through Belzebub. He reasons with the uncon
verted Jews, to convince them of the truth, that
they might turn to him and be saved—then shows
that they are calculated to lead astray and do
harm, see 23d verse. Then relates the case of
an apostle and his case as worse than at first, to
guard his disciples against being led away or scat
tered—that is carried into their doctrine and
course, and being made two fold more the child
of Hell than the Pharisees themselves, as related
elsewhere by Christ, when he speaks of their
making proselytes. Christ continues his remarks
until invited to dine by a Pharisee, verse 37, where
he addressed the Pharisee and was questioned by
them after dinner, and while questioning with his
opponents, an innumerable multitude collected, see
xii chap. 1st verse. Christ then said to his dis
ciples first of all—beware ye of the leaven (doc
trine) of the Pharisees, and makes use of strong
arguments to prevent them from apostatizing; in
9th verse guards them against denying him, and
in 10th verse says: Whosoever shall speak a word
against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him,
but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven. Now here it is
clearly shown to be the disciples who are guarded
against unpardonable sin. From the connection,
I understand it to be a denying of Christ, and
speaking against him, against the Holy Ghost
which had been given to them ; for as before said,
no man could speak against Christ and his reli
gion—against or in despite to the Holy Ghost who
had never been made a partaker of the Holy
Ghost. The case is described in Heb. vi. 4 to 8 :
For it is impossible for those who were once en
lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and
have tasted the good word of God, and the pow
ers of the world to come, if they shall fall away,
to renew them again to repentance; seeing they j
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and
put him to an open shame.
nuw pc ISU11S W-I1U LUIU UUIU UIU [-'v ”
of God in the soul, and reject it as false, and wil
fully oppose this truth, are actuated by the same
spirit that has led to martyrdom of good men in
every age, and which led to the crucifixion of
Christ, Because the object of all religious perse
cution Unto death has been to destroy religion and
nothing else. Now that man that has turned
away from the religion of God iu the heart and
turned against it, may be said to have crucified
Christ afresh to himself, because he has the spirit
and principle in him that led the Jews to (jrucify
Christ, and has put to death the religion of Christ
to himself, and put it to an open shame by de
claring it false, thereby putting Christ to open
shame, so far as he can discredit, him. This is
sinning against the Holy Ghost, light and knowl
edge, having wickedly made shipwreck of,faith.
This sin is refered to again in Heb. x. 2G to 31—
Now that man has trodden under foot the Son of
God, and has counted the blood of the covenant,
wherewith lie was sanctified an unholy thing, arid
done despite to the spirit of grace, who has turn
ed away from his spiritual birth by being made
partaker of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and has
become a spiritual opponenf of that which he
once professed, thereby making the blood of Christ
unholy because he now gainsays the doetrine
which Christ taught, and thereby makes him an
impostor and false teacher—teaching' falsehood
in the name of God. Here too, the sin is shown
to be committed against the Holy Ghost, which
had been giveu to cleanse from sin, and fit for
heaven. In 2d Peter and 2d chapter, this sin
seems to be refered to, and seems to be the case
of total apostates from the truth and opposers to
it, having gone in the way of the apostate pro
phet Balaam. ____,_T>
In the epistle of Jude, characters seem to be
spoken of who had committed this sin, and they
had crept into the Church, and the Church was
warned against them. They are said to have
gone in the way of Cain, Balaam and Core, to
have been twice dead and plucked up by the roots.
Cain was a formalist and had a deadly opposition
to his brother on account of religion j, Balaam
apostatized, Core raised a rebellion, and men are
past recovery, embody in heart all these princi
ples. They were dead before they were first born
of God, after which they were for a lime alive
unto God, they fell away and were twice dead,
and turned against tho life of God in their souls
and its doctrine, and were plucked up by the roots,
no farther mercy remaining for them because they
turned against the truth, after they had known
the way of true salvation.
In the 1st Epistle of John xv. 10: this sin is
spoken of—If any man see his brother sin a sin
which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall
give him life for them that sin not unto death.
There is a sin unto death : I do not say that he
shall pray for it. This sin was refered to the
children of God. Christ prayed for his enemies
on the cross. Father forgive them for they know
not what they do. On tjie day of pentecost Pe
ter tendered mercy to the -wicked persecutors and
crucifiers of the Saviour ; and in Act&iii. 17 : He
says I wot that through ignorance ye did it as did
also your rulers (that they denied Jesus Christ, or
the Holy One, and the Just, and killed the Prince
of life) and then exhorted them in 19th verse—
Repent ye therefore that your sins may be blot
ted put.&c. Then as Christ prayed for his op
posers, and Peter exhorted them to repent, that
their sins might be blotted out; it could not have
been the unconverted Pharisees who committed
unpardonable sin.
raul was a persecutor and thought to do many
things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth, he was in
jurious, a persecutor and blasphemer, and com
pelled the Christians to blaspheme, but he says :
“I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in
unbelief.” He did not sin against the Holy Ghost,
because he had never been a true believer and a
partaker of the Holy Ghost; his language clearly
implies that be would not have obtained mercy
had he sinned as he did against the cause of Christ
after he had received divine light as a true be
liever in Christ, that is, had he sinned against the
Holy Ghost, or light and knowledge, by turning
away into apostacy against the truth, he could not
have found pardon. And as Paul was the chief
of sinners, who had sinned in an unregenerate
state, and he obtained mercy, so all unregenerate
sinners who have never been born of Goa, may
obtain mercy, if they will reprent.
Balaam, Solomon and Judas all committed the
sin against the Holy Ghost. Balaam was led off
through covetousness, before he had fully turned
against God, he was warned by the dumb ass, but
he still loved the reward. Balak had offered and
taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the
Israelites, to,lead them into idolatry, and Peter
numbers him among those who hare forsaken the
right way, to whom the mist of darkness is re
served forever. Solomon went into idolatry in
his old age. David had told him that if he for
sook God, he would cast him off forever. Judas
sold his Saviour, and thereby turned against him,
he repented but not unto life, and went and hang
ed himself.
They were all apostates, and we have no evi
dence of their salvation. Peter denied his Lord,
but did not do so willingly, but did so unwilling,
and repented and found mercy. Jerome of
Prague, the associate of John IIuss, signed a re
cantation, hut did it unwillingly through fear,
and on reflection recalled his recantation, obtained
mercy, and died for his religion in triumph. .
Cranmer also signed a recantation through fear,
but not willingly, and upon reflection, recalled his
recantation and died at the stake a happy man ;
these last three did not willingly and in heart
turn-away from the truth and despiteful opposers
of it; therefore they did not sin, the sin unto
death. The sin may be, and is committed in our
day by many in our world. All those who are
born again, and who turn away from regeneration
by the spirit of God, and in heart ana will op
pose sanctification by the spirit of God, and deny
that men can be made partakers of the Holy
Ghost in their bodies, after they themselves have
once professed truly this way of salvation, have
in our opinion committed the sin unto death, eter
nal death ; though they may profess to be in the
favor of God. These persons may occasionally
be found among all sorts of formalists and resto
ratiouists, on principles of universal salvation
through benevolence. PHILIP E. GILL.
- m ■' ■ ^ -
For the Christian Sun.
TEMPERANCE IN ANY THING.
Of all the words in the English language none
perhaps more frequently perverted in meaning
and misapplied to siandrous, ambitious, and fanat
ical purposes than that of Temperande. The per
version and misapplication of the term Temper
ance in thooo times (when by many even profess
ed Christians the Bible appears to be lost sight
of as defining true temperance) often spoil the
temper, and eclipse if not destroy charity of even
good and eminent men in other respects. Popular
preachers, who are induced ter hold forth on mo
dernly so called temperance themes, are peculiarly
tempted to become peevishly restive and unchar
itably abusive, towards those defending them
selves against attacks of their party spirit dog
mas. This trait of fallen human nature arises
from two prominent causes. The one,-that all
said to admiring crowds, listened to without dis
sent or opposing argument, apt to engender pride
and self conceit, and consequent spirit of intoler
ance. And the other, that? exclusive party dog
mas apt of themselves to lead to intolerance.
Hence the horrid persecutions in the name of the
Christian religion ; having often been urged on by
men of reputation (in some quarters at least,) for
piety and abilities. And the more exclusive the
creeds ; generally the more denunciatory and per
secuting the sects. Our truly Christian liberal
principle, of every man interpreting the Bible for
himself, and letting no fellow mortal be a sort of
a pope or deputy God to him, by dictating faith, is
benignly calculated to avoid that bigotry and per
secution, so fatal to charity, liberty, piety and sal
vation. And our order, through its papers and
otherwise should discountenance by free discus
sion &c., a new species of creed fanatacism and
persecution (of character at least) in the name of
religious persecution direct is justly odious in our
country, a new aspect of the old monster appears
in intemperate abuse in the name of temperance.
The legitimate principles of the Order of the
Sons of Temperance are not uncharitably exclu
sive or intolerant. And not a few most prominent
sons of my acquaintance concur with me in senti
ment a3 to temperance positions. For legitimate
sons simply set forth their free choice to abstain
from having any thing to do with alcoholic liquors.
They thereby set forth their own faith and practice
or abstinence (not temperance) as to particular
drinks ; and condemn nobody ; any more than the
Rechahites of old condemned any of the people
of God for drinking wine temperately, or for liv
ing in houses, or culvating the earth. And we
read of none drinking wine, living in houses, or
cultivating land, opposing the Rechahites in self
defence ; for, no need of self-defence where no
attacks made. The people of God of old appear
to have been' more liberal and charitable than
some Christians in our day. They content, as to
non-essentials or where duty depended on choice,
to think individually for themselves, and not to de
nounce others for differing in matters, that in spite
of bigoted fanaticism, were alike acceptable to
God ; as taught the apostle when holding it right
either to eat or not eat meat offered to idols ac
cording to individual conscience or choice. But
some apostle making it optional as marry or not
marry, mention the Antichrist that would forbid
to marry. And apprehending another species of
Antichrist he enjoins the precept as to the exer
cise that eternal vigilance “ the price of Christian
and other personal liberty.”
. “ Let no man judge you therefore in meats and
drinks and in respect of holy days.” And he
enjoins another precept, that by fairest implication,
connected with many positive texts of proof war
rants the free use of wine as an alcoholic liquor,
in saying\“ And be not drunken on wine wherein
is excess ” \Not the temperate use but the excess
was the intemperance. And according to most
careful inspection of the various passages men
tioning wine, and Consulting best Commentators
therein, I long since came to the conclusion, that
not a word said -in the Bijble against the moderate
use of wine in any way; tbtnigh much said against
its abuse ; because as an alcoholic liquor, drunk
enness the consequence of excess therein. And
I am the more confirmed in this interpretation,
(that has stood the test of ages and\most pious
and.judicious commentators,) by no oneYn public
or private argument ever able to point out a sing
le passage of a liquor called wine, evidently not
alcoholic. A late public attempt (by a noted
lecturer) to do so was made by falsely quoting a
passage to get the word wine in where Pharoah’s
butler pressed the grapes into his cup/ A posi
tion was once taken iiwNew York State, that the
Scripture wine had no alcohol in it, or was inca
pable of intoxicating,'bat after a controversy, it
had to be given up by all the candid and learned.
Equally untenable, as I have proved publicly and
can do again, that any destinctive sort of Bible
wine named, not alcoholic. All such untenable
positions go to show how driven by Bible facts
are these denouncing and persecuting “in good
uame at least) temperate drinkers. And just as
much clear Bible proof that Jesus Christ was a
temperate drinker of wine as that John his fore
runner was merely abstinent (not temperate at all)
as to that drink. A passage to this proof is so
remarkable that I cannot forbear quoting it here
entire. “Luke viii. 33. For John (he Baptist
came neither eating bread or drinking wine, and
ye say he hath a devil. ...34. The son »f man came
eating and drinking, and say ye ; Behold a glut
tonous man ; a wine bibber ; and a friend of publi
cans and sinners.” 33. “ But wisdom is justified
of her children.” —
Now for the special benefit of my brethren dis
posed to dissent from them, at least apparent full
Bible proof to settle the wine question forever. I
will, very briefly give my reason for my sincere
belief in such proof, or my interpretation of this
passage. That it was wine that Christ came (was
in the habit of) drinking evident from the con
trast of John’s declared abstinence as to wine and
from the word of reproach—win? bibber. And,
that it was real fermented juice of the grape, or
alcoholic wine, or capable of intoxicating if used
to excess or intemperately would appear, not on
ly by the abscene of all Bible proof of any li
quor called wine and not alcoholic, and that new
wine alcoholic as apestles acknowledge, in ward
ing off the charge of drunkenness by'ad verting to
the early hour of the day; but by the very
charge itself of being a wine bibber, or evidently
meant by the terms of reproach, that Christ was
pointed out as going to excess threin, if not a
drunkard on wine. And if any one disposed to
get clear of the strongest of justly inferential
proof for Christ being in the habit of temperate
drinking of an alcoholic liquor, or being a tem
perate drinker of wine, by saying that it might be
a false charge that he drank it at all, the com
pletely refuting answer is this, that by the very
term son of man (himself of course) " came dritik
iny ” he as much alledges the fact that he was in
the habit of temperately drinking wine ; as the
fact that John was in the habit of abstaining tee
totally from its use. A word or so as to the
phrase in the passage cited “ a friend of publi
cans and sinners ” anj “wisdom justified of her
children.”
imnst according to St. lain s declaration oi
himself was “ all things to all men,” or as “ not
coming to call the righteous but sinners to repent
ance,” and to preach temperance and other Gos
pel themes to the poor, associated with the worst
of characters of his day to gain them over to right
eousness. But for this he was specially reproached
by them would be grandees or lordlings of Judea.
Analagous is the case of a preacher now justly de
fending himself and other Christians, in Heaven
sanctioned temperate drink. If in that defence
he gains gospel access to some characters not
temperate, or is commended by some such, in com
mon with the many best and most enlightened
Christians, while the proud lordling prejudice is
laid hold of by some, that poor publicans and
sinners of our day approving of him and his
truth of course makes him a friend of such and
also an encourager,of their vices.” Yet the ultras
forget that by themselves joining infidels swearers
and other vicious characters in a society capacity,
to exalt mere abstinence over Christian temper
ance, or being not only with but of such charac
ters, this argument may be turned upon them
with double force, or retorted, they encouragers
of what tends, to strike a death blow at the root
of true temperance and all other Christian virtues,
and also thus strikes at the church of Christ. But
“wisdom justified of her children.” And the
converse of this true ; or fanatical folly justified
of her children. The truly Christian liberal
minded children of wisdom approving of the
right and exercise of private judgment as to tem
perance in particular as well as all other parts of
the religion of Christ in general. And noi so des
potically foolish as to say that because that pri
mary liberty right (the very pivot on which the
glorious Reformation turned,) abused by some,
therefore one set of mortals, as liable to abuse it,
as their fellows, should lord it, Pope-like and God
like, over another set of mortals; or dictate to
them how far to exercise said right. In short;
the children of folly as to temperance may aptly
represent drunkards and their like on the one
hand denouncing others for private judgment
choice of being abstinent individually or joining
abstinent societies, and ultra teetotallers and their
likes on the other hand denouncing others for the
private judgment choice of not joining, or saying
a Christian Church a good enough temperance so
ciety for them. ” Or both extremists anathay
matizing others for the choice of teetotal absti
nence, or of real intemperance or as to alcoholic
diinks.
If such be the rational common sense interpre
tation of the above cited passage (and I as much
believe it as my own existence) then our blessed
Saviour was in the abstract, as well as to all in
tents and purposes, a temperate drinker. And
perfectly futile to bandy words as to who in our day
percisejy his imitators in this noble virtue and good
example in this respect. The thing being right
the manner of its privilege or exercise depends,
on the alienable right of private judgment. To
say, that the thing in general right in his day, and
not in ours, is asserting a most important change
asjto temperance without the least Scripture proof,
or any person except that given by the bare asser
tion of ultra party spirit zealots, seemingly dis
posed (as an eminent divine leaches) to put the
ultra part of a newly arisen order or society into
the parlour, and to thrust the Church of Christ
snd its,truths into the kitchen. Christ’s example
so far_as imitable good fur Christians in every res
pect and at all limes till the world ends, T fear
lessly assert. And if this example in making
wine and temperate drinking thereof an exception
let that exception be most clearly proved—ere
that common substitute for lack of proof, or de
nunciation be resorted to against those at least
as honest in their opinions and moral and religious
course of the affair in dispute as those arroga
ting exclusive righteousness to themselves and
^iqspising their more unpretending brethren.
Idy sentiments it will be peroeived perfectly
liberator casting not the least censure on those
choosingabtinence in anything or manner th'ey
please, all ! ask in return is like toleration in my
temperate u£e of any blessing 1 choose. And
toleration, in my^ight of private judgment or in
terpretation of the Bible warrants to designate
what a blessing is p^nd that irrespective of the
vast majority of/all Christendom on my side of
the question. And as regard to limits of one es
say compels ine to break ofHn the midst of defi
ning my positions on temperance, I ask a hearing
once more, in your columns to reason calmly on this
subject as if I, the only one holdingthe sentiments
I advocate, With all due deferenceNmd respect
to all concerned. SIDNEY WELER.
For the Christian Sun.
Desires, “ I would rather be the discoverer
of one true cause of things, than be master of the
Persian Empire. ” An Ancient Philosopher.
“ I would rather be the humble instrument in
the hand of God, of winning one soul to Christ,
than to occupy the loftiest position in the gift of
” . C. H. Plummer.
mortal man.'
For the Christian Sun.
Ripley, BkoWn Co., Ohio, Aug. 22, 1851.
Dear Bretluren of the South:—As I have been
solicited by one of the Editors of your paper to
pen one article for the “Sun,” I feel some hesi
tancy in complying from the foct, that are so
many more able contributors, and that it is diffi
cult to’conceive of a subject that might be_ in
teresting that has not already received attention.
And further, I find you have some fiery spirits
(particularly the Church at Providence) who if I
should say any thing that would cross their views,
would not only anathamatise me, but the whole
North. But trusting in that charity that hopeth
all things, I merely offer my opinion on a few
things :
1st. It is my opinion that a wrong spirit exists,
both in the North and in the South, on the sub
ject of American Slavery. One will declare that
to practice it all under any circumstances, is al
most an unpardonable sin. Another will declare
that it is right and Scriptural, and if any one pre
sume to write or speak anything to the contrary,
will be for destroying all intercourse and familiari
ty with him.
2nd. It is my opinion mat u 1 miiiK slavery is
wrong, cqalrary to the teachings of the Bible,
the spifft of the Christian religion, and to the ge
nius of our Republican Institutions; I have a
right to declare it any wav, or on all occasionsth
a proper spirit, and -in the fear of the Lord. If
you can reconcile the system with all these, and
hold slaves, and have a conscience void of offence
toward God and toward man, I have no right to
condemn you for what you may be honest in prac
ticing. Let us endeavor to keep the unity of the
Spirit, and pray that we may all come to the
knowledge of the truth, and the truth will make
us free.
3rd. It is my opinion, that it is wrong for a
Minister to preach year after year to a congrega
tion that will hot pay him a reasonable compen
sation if they are able, for his services, and then
complain of having to bestow so much labor for
nothing; (if they appreciate your labors they will
be willing to pay for them.)
4th. It is my opinion, that it is wrong for mem
bers of a Church to receive the labors of a Min
ister year after year, and not pay him what is
right for his services, severally as the Lord has
prospered, so he expects it of them.
5th. It is my opinion, that it is not only wrong,
but downright infidelity, for a nv8&> that professes
to be a Christian, and that has a striding in the
Church to say that professors of Christianity and
members of churches are no better than other
men, comparing the two as a whole; find that
Ministers in general are worse than the average of
mankind—this I have heard.
Gtli. It is my opinion, that it is wrong for any
one, because something goes wrong in Church, he
may think himself not exactly rightly used, be
cause there may be some Judas, or from any other
other cause, to leave the Church and return to the
world, or go and unite with a denomination whose
faith does not accord with his own as nearly as
the one from which he came out.
7th. It is my opinion, that it is wrong for a
minority of a Church not to submit, when the
majority agrees upon any measure such as em
ploying a Minister, although he may not be their
first choice, and refuse to go to hear him preach,
although he may be a good preacher, and an ex
cellent man.
8th. It is iny opinion, that it i3 wrong for a
person to become offended at some one or other,
about something that they do not exactly Ijjtc, and
stay from meeting Sabbatl} after Sabbath, until
the Minister or some other one of the brethren
goes to see him, and asks him why he does not
come to meeting; when his answer will be, I do
not like such a man, or such a thing, or ask why
he does not try to have a reconciliation effected,
and he will reply, I am not for bringing difficul
ties into Church, I would rather just stay at home.
9th. It is my opinion, that it is wrong for any
person, but more especially a Minister, to com
plain that their religious periodical is not interest
ing, its contributors are so few, its variety so
small, its extracts so numerous, etc.; when they
never write a word for its columns from one years
end to another, and never make one effort to ob
tain a subscriber, and forward the pay, to en
courage the heart of the Editor.
10th. It is my opinion, that it is wrong for some
to refuse to assist in the erection of Antioch Col
lege, just because one man has said he did not
see why colored persons might not be admitted as
students.
11th. It is my opinion, that Antioch College
will be built, and endowed, and that its location
will be in Ohio, and that colored students will
not be admitted.
12th. It is my opinion, that the signs of the
times indicate, that the sects are becoming tired
of their creeds and confessions of faith, and are
leaning towards the ground, we, as a denomina
tion occupy; and that' those who are becoming
denominationally discouraged, and are leaving us
and joining the seets, will again become discour
aged, and wish to return to the people.from
whence they went out.
134h. I am certain that we, as a people, occu
py the only true ground, taking the Bible alone
for our rule of faith, character the test of fellow
ship, and love the bond of union, without regard
to our difference of opinion. E. W. Devore.
For the Christian Sun.
Bro. Hayes : Permit me to say to your nu
merous readers, and more particularly those
of them with whom I have the pleasure of an ac
quaintance, that my wife and children, who have
have been unwell for several months past, are now
much better, and through the Divine blessing I
trust will speedily regain their health. I also
have had several quite severe attacks the past
summer. These afflictions will account for my
not writing to some of my numerous correspon
dents. I purpose, the Lord willing now to resume
my pea—till then they will receive this for what
they may have supposed to be but mere neglect.
The Lord be with them, and all who love him in
sincerity. Grace be with you,
In a common cause,
0. H. Plummer.
\Castk. “The man who would presumptively
despjse another, because his manner of serving
the community was different from his own, dispar
ages his own claim to an exalted position, and
great consideration.” - C. H. P.
\ '