sus," is the person "anointed to do whatsoever God's hand and council determined before to be done," against whom "Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel were gathered together."-These texts removed our author's hypothesis stands like the "Baseless fabric of a vision," without any thing to support it.

To return. The doctrine of the Treatise before us respecting the will and choice of man is this: that it is always governed by the object which appears to possess the greatest value; and that between two objects of equal value, or which appear to possess equal value, the will is held in suspense, and has no power to choose either. All that can be conceded to this objection is, that when a man's duty is not apparent at first sight, and he would act like a rational creature, he sets himself to consider the value of the different objects or courses of life which are presented to him, and finally chooses that which appears to be the best. But in the final choice his will is as free and unconstrained as it was in adopting that line of conduct which led to it. There is no absolute necessity of choosing the object which appears to possess the greatest value. The mind possesses the power to cut off the connection between the judgment and the will. Liberty consists in having this power. This is daily demonstrated before our eyes in the conduct of those who follow vicious courses. It will hardly be pretended that such people choose the objects which appear to possess the greatest value, or that they are governed by their understanding. Every drunkard, whose conscience is not yet seared with a hot iron, will tell you that he does not pursue a course of intemperance because it appears to him the most valuable, but for a very different reason.

But as it may be thought that the drunkard has lost the power to obey his reason, and by long indulgence has given his appetites the absolute dominion over him, we may change the character and say, that the most virtuous person in society, that every person, furnishes the most ample proof of the liberty for which I contend as often as they stretch forth their hands to one or two or more things without inquiring which is the most valuable; and that may be as often as they sit down to their meals, or have occasion to pay for the most trifling articles. Did we ever hear of the person who could not satisfy his hunger because he was presented with several dishes of the same description, and equally within his reach? or of a man who could not meet his engagement because his money was all in pieces of the same value, without the slightest circumstance to give a preference to one piece rather than another? Now this would be the case as often as two objects were presented exactly balancing each other in the view of the mind, if the power governing the choice were not in the mind, but in the object.

But if we turn our attention to the Holy Scriptures we shall be convinced that that liberty of the will for which I plead is the doctrine of the bible. The bible every where addresses mankind as though they were free in their volitions and actions; and therefore to deny their freedom would be to oppose the bible. Mankind, could not be accountable for their volitions and actions if they were not free; for if their actions are not free they are not their own, but his, whose will influences and determines them. Nor will that account of the freedom of the will which our author, and some others give us, mend the matter. They teach that all our liberty consists in being free to choose what is most agreeable to us. But on this supposition the unregenerate sinner would choose, that is, would be impelled on in a course of disobedience by his evil propensities, without having it in his power to make the least resistance, or to abstain from one sinful action. In this case, therefore, he would have no liberty, he would be under an absolute necessity of choosing and acting as he does. Such an one might be the object of pity, as the most unfortunate creature in the world; but surely he could not be blamed in any sense. This would take away all the moral turpitude of sin from the sinner, and fix it on him whose will, however remotely, governs all his volitions and actions.

We come, thirdly, to consider the consequences of sin; and here we are told that the "effects of sin are not endless, but limited to the state in which it is committed," (p. 55.) This short proposition, now so full of encouragement and comfort to the enemies of righteousness, will ere long be found to bite like a serpent, and sting like an adder. It strikes directly or indirectly at every doctrine of revelation. It is a virtual denial of the bible. It does away the difference of character between the righteous and the wicked; removes the strongest guards of holiness, and subverts a future judgment. The following particulars deserve the most serious consideration.

1. The doctrine which teaches that the "effects of sin are limited to this life," is inconsistent with all those passages of scripture which teach that many actually die in their sins; and with all those arguments and motives in favour of repentance, taken from the danger of delaying beyond the limits of this life, or the day of grace.

2. It supercedes the necessity of repentance, faith, and holiness in this life. The Scriptures tell us that he who does not repent shall perish, he who does not believe shall be damned; he who is not holy in this life shall not see God. It will perhaps be said that all shall be made holy before they die. But is there no danger of the sinner dying suddenly? Alas! how many die while they are intoxicated, or with their mouths full of cursing and blaspheming! And surely these have not all washed their robes and

made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Of course the effects of sin are not "limited to this life."

3. It is inconsistent with the Scripture account of the future judgment. The Scriptures inform us that after death is the judgment, when God will render to the unrighteous, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish. And no change can take place after death; otherwise they would not be judged according to the deeds done in the body.

Christians have always derived an argument in favour of a future retribution, from the difference in the moral characters of men, and the unequal distribution of rewards and punishments here; and shall we deny what reason teaches, and Scripture confirms to us?

4. It is a licentious doctrine. It is a matter of some delicacy to touch this point. We wish not to offend any. But we must not be silent when silence would betray the cause of God. And we should certainly betray the cause of God did we teach that the unrighteous are as fair candidates for the kingdom of heaven as the righteous. Do we not know that sinners love sin? Do we not every where see that they drink down iniquity as the ox drinketh down water? And shall we tell them that they may do this, that they may go all lengths in sin and folly without incurring the Divine displeasure?-that God is not angry with them;-that sin is a small evil;-that God "intended" all their conduct, and that it would be unjust in him to punish them in a future state? Would this be calculated to produce repentance? Would this inspire hatred of sin, and curb the appetites and passions of the sinner? Our speculations upon the moral tendency of a theory may deceive us; but facts will speak the truth. Let me ask, then, has this doctrine produced reformation and the fruits of righteousness? Has God given it his blessing?-Nay, but we are much mistaken if it does not generally produce an indifference to the duties and obligations of religion, and embolden sinners to continue their evil courses.

5. This doctrine not only represents religion as being unnecessary, but it puts difficulties in the way of conversion. Religion is not only a necessary qualification for the heavenly state, but it has its foundation in those views of sin which represent it as being exceedingly sinful, hateful to God, and destructive to the souls of men. Nor can we see how a sinner can receive eternal life as the gift of God through Jesus Christ, who does not see that he has forfeited all claim to eternal life by transgression. But this doctrine represents sin as a small evil, and God as being not at all displeased at it. It teaches that sin does not deserve eternal punishment; and of course eternal life is not the gift of God through Jesus Christ. For we do not need Christ to restore what we never lost, or to procure that for us which we can obtain without him. This doctrine, therefore, strikes at the very nature of VOL. VI.

27

repentance, and greatly diminishes, if it does not entirely destroy, every motive to humiliation and contrition for sin. It lays another foundation than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, and thus puts difficulties if not impossibilities, in the way of conversion. (To be continued.)

Biography.

NOTICES OF THE LIFE AND LABOURS OF MARTIN BOEHM AND WILLIAM OTTERBEIN; AND OTHER MINSTERS OF THE

GOSPEL AMONG THE UNITED GERMAN BRETHREN.

In his last tour of official duty, Bishop Asbury expressed a wish that I should arrange for publication some notices of the life and labours of his early friends and fellow-missionaries, as he termed them, among the United German Brethren. Documents, which I understood from him were to be placed in my hands, have never been received; the account, therefore, is very meagre. I regret that I have learned no more, and have so little to tell of these useful and excellent men, especially of him whom Bishop Asbury was wont to call the great Otterbein. Information was sought, in the proper quarter it was thought, but without success. Reminiscences of earlier times were found to be very imperfect in the minds of the few first friends and intimates of Otterbein who have survived him, and there is nothing in the circumstances or situation of their children to encourage an application; they are dispersed; or by the sudden mutations of fortune have become too rich and fashionable to know much of the simpler faith of their fathers, or to remember the lowly apostle of German evangelical reformation in Maryland. F. HOLLINGSWORTH.

JACOB BOEHM, the great grand-father of one of the distinguished subjects of the following notices, was of a respectable family in Switzerland; and, as is presumed, a member of the German Presbyterian Church. His son Jacob was put to a trade; and after faithfully serving out his time, he, according to the custom of his country, set out upon his three years travels. In his wanderings through Germany he fell in with the pietists; a people in their faith, discipline and worship, resembling, in a good degree, the Methodists, but more closely the societies and congregations formed by William Otterbein and Martin Boehm. Upon our traveller's return to the paternal roof he talked in a style that neither his father nor the parson could comprehend: they were natural men, and understood not the things of God. His evangelical conversation, mingled, most probably, with reproof, the vices and pharisaism of the day, brought, by necessary consequence, perse

cution upon him; and he was sent, guarded by an elder brother, to prison. He escaped, however, from his confinement, and sought a refuge in Germany, where he remained, having settled near the Rhine. He shortly after attached himself to the Meno❤ nists, became an honoured elder in that church, and, we trust, died in the Lord. His son Jacob, the third, was also an elder in the Menonist church. He gave an example of sobriety, temperance and industry to his children and neighbourhood before and after his emigration to Pennsylvania, in 1716 or 17; and was honoured in both countries. As a professor of religion he lived up to the light he had; but it was under the ministry of his better instructed son, Martin Boehm, that he was blest with superior illumination. He died in peace at the family plantation, on Pecaway, Conestoga township, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, aged eighty-seven years. The son of Jacob Boehm the third, Martin Boehm, of whom we desire to speak more particularly, was born in November, 1725. The labours and experience of his life, as a professor of religion and minister of Christ, may be pretty justly estimated by what we learn from himself, communicated in answers to certain questions, propounded to him by his son Jacob; which we here transcribe.

Quest. Father; when were you put into the ministry?

Answ. My, ministerial labours began about the year 1756. Three years afterwards by nomination of the lot, I received full pastoral orders.

Quest. What had been your religious experience at that time? Answ. I was sincere and strict in the religious duties of prayer in my family, in the congregation and in the closet. I lived and preached according to the light I had. I was a servant, and not a son;. nor did I know any one at that time who could claim the birthright by adoption but Nancy Keagy, my mother's sister: she was a woman of great piety and singular devotion to God.

Quest. By what means did you discover the nature and necessity of a real change of heart?

Answ. By deep meditation upon the doctrines which I myself preached of the fall of man, his sinful state and utter helplessness, I discovered and felt the want of Christ within. About the year 1761, hearing of a great work of God in New-Virginia amongst the New-Lights, as they were called, I resolved to find the truth more fully. I, accordingly, visited those parts, and saw many gracious souls who could give a rational and scriptural account of their experience and acceptance with God; these assurances roused me to greater efforts to obtain the blessing. On my return, very large congregations assembled to hear the word, not only on the Sabbaths, but on week-days also. My zeal displeased some of my brethren in the ministry; but my heart was enlarged, and I had an earnest travail of soul to extend the knowledge of salvation