From the Philadelphia Union.

TENDENCY OF GAMBLING EXEMPLIFIED RY STRIKING

EXAMPLES.

We had determined not to communicate the following facts; but the spirit of gambling which has been excited by the late races at Washington, renders it proper that they should be known.

Not many months since, a young man went to one of our sister cities, to finish his professional studies, and falling in company with gamblers, was in a short time stripped of all his money. Distant from his friends, and deprived of the means of supporting himself in the style in which his equals and associates lived, he stole a quantity of bank notes, was detected, and is now in prison, as we understand, waiting for trial. He was of a very respectable family, which by one act he has disgraced, and by the same act he has probably ruined himself.

In another city, a young man arrived at a certain house with a large sum of money, which it is believed he soon lost at play. He made an attempt to supply his wants from the trunk of a fellow-lodger, but was detected; and before the peace officer, who was summoned, could arrest him, the unfortuuate young man seized a pistol, and shot himself through the body.

Now it does not, follow that every man who makes a bet, or who engages in a game of chance, will thence be necessarily driven to robbery, and thence to self-murder; but the question is, whether the spirit of gambling is not very pernicious to the community, and whether it should not be carefully guarded against. So violent is the passion for this amusement, when it once takes possession of a man, not either health, nor rest, nor fortune, nor character, nor wife, nor children, nor friends, are regarded. All are taken on a single throw of dice, or a horse race. Nor let any one flatter himself that he has self-command enough to say, "Thus far will I go, and no farther." principiis. Gambling produces in its infatuated vota

Obsta

ries, a species of excitement, for which neither business nor rational amusement can afford a substitute. The vicissitudes give a play to the mind; the hope of recovering losses leads to large stakes, till finally desperation produces madness, crime, and murder. We appeal to lunatic asylums, poor houses, and penitentiaries for our proofs.

'A SIN UNTO DEATH.'

This we find in first of John, v. 16; "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 passage, among others, is considered by some a strong objection to the salvation of all men. We find, however, that some of the most enlightened who hold the doctrine of endless misery, give this sin unto death quite a different interpretation. The reader undoubtedly will be pleased with the following extract from the Commentary of the learned Dr. Adam Clarke, who notwithstanding he was an advocate for the endless misery of the wicked, does not seek to enlist this passage in its favor.

"This," says he, "is an extremely difficult passage, and has been variously interpreted. What is the six not unto death, for which we should ask, and life shall be given to him that commits it? And what is the sin unto death for which we should not pray? "I shall note three of the chief opinions subject.

on this

1. It is supposed that there is an allusion to a distinction in the Jewish law, where there was I chatah lemothah, “a sin unto death;" and h chatah lo lemothah, "a sin not unto death;" that is, 1. A sin, or transgression, to which the law had as signed the punishment of death, such as idolatry, cest, blasphemy, breach of the sabbath, and the like. And, 2. A sin not unto death, i. e. transgressions of

in

ignorance, inadvertence, &c. and such as, in their own nature, appear to be comparatively light, and trivial. That such distinction did exist in the Jewish synagogue both Schoettgen and Carpzovius have proved.

2. By the sin not unto death, for which intercession might be made; and unto death, for which prayer might not be made; we are to understand transgressions of the civil law of a particular place, some of which must be punished with death, according to the statutes; the crime admitting of no pardon: others might be punished with death, but the magistrate had the power of commuting the punishments, i. e. of changing death into banishment, &c. for reasons that might appear to him satisfactory; or at the intercession of powerful friends. To intercede, in the former case, would be useless, because the law would not relax; therefore, they need not pray for it: but intercession in the latter case might be prevalent, therefore they might pray; and if they did not, the person night suffer the punishment of death. This opinion, which has been advanced by Rosenmuller, intimates, that men should feel for each others' distresses, and use their influence in behalf of the wretched ; nor ever abandon the unfortunate, but where the case is utterly hopeless.

3. The sin unto death means a case of transgression, particularly grievous backsliding from the life and power of godliness, which God determines to punish with temporal death; while at the same time He extends mercy to the penitent soul, the disobedient prophet, 1 Kings, xiii. 1-32, is, on this interpretation, a case in point: many others occur in the history of the church, and of every religious community. The sin not unto daath is any sin which God does not choose then to punish. This view of the subject is that taken by the late Reverend J. Wesley, in a sermon, instituted A Call to Backsliders.-WORKS, Vol. X. page 92, "I do not think the passage has any thing to do with what is termed the sin against the Holy Ghost; much

less with the Popish doctrine of purgatory; nor with sins committed before and after baptism, the former pardonable, the latter unpardonable, according to some of the fathers. Either of the last opinions (viz. 2 and 3) make a good sense; and the first (1) is not unlikely; the apostle may allude to some maxim or custom in the Jewish church, which is not now distinctly known. However, this we know, that any penitent may find mercy through Christ Jesus; for through him every kind of sin may be forgiven to man, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; which I have proved no man can now commit.-See Note on Matt. xii. 31, 32."

AN EXAMINATION OF ELDER PUTNAM'S VIEWS OF THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST.

No. 1.

It will be recollected that in the 3d No. of this volume of the Christian Repository, we offered a few remarks on the Life of Elder Putnam, as published by himself, at Woodstock, the last year. In those remarks, we confined ourselves mostly to what he had written in relation to the doctrine of universal salvation. He has occupied in his book one long chapter, on the subject of the character of Christ. We now propose to examine his principal arguments on this subject, and his remarks upon the most important passages he has there introduced. He appears very sanguine on the subject of the Trinity, and yet, in some respects, peculiarly cautious. Altho he sometimes mentions the denial of the Trinity as a very egregious error, he is careful enough to keep aloof from the least attempt to do away the absurdity of the mystery. Of course he has never undertaken to tell us how three persons can form but one being, nor do we recollect that he has ever intimaated that Jesus Christ is the Father, or the Father is Christ; but endeavors to maintain that Jesus possesses every attribute of the Father in equal perfection, and of course that he is the very God.

It is to be remembered that in the late conversion of this man, which we mentioned in our other piece, he returned from the sentiments of his earlier years, to embrace this doctrine. He says, "I had made many objections to the Trinitarian hypothesis, because it embraced incomprehensibles; but I not only found my system embraced what was incomprehensible, but absurd. I found it exceedingly difficult to conceive of a being standing at an equal distance from the infinite God, and from finite man at the same time. I could not but know that the space between God and man was infinite, and hence I must know, that if Christ be less than Jehovah, he must be infinitely less, altho ever so many degrees greater than man. If I imagined my Savior as many degrees superior to the highest angel, as that angel is superior to man, and still made less than God, he would be infinitely less. But if this be the character of the Savior; if he be at an infinite distance from God, how can he be a day's man betwixt us and him that he might lay his hand upon us both.* How can he be a mediator between God and mant, if he be at a greater distance from God in his capacity, than the smallest insect is from the highest created being in the universe? How can he be our advocate with the Father ? These were important queries, and appeared insolvable. It appeared to me that such a Savior (if it be proper to call him a Savior) is in no respects better qualified to save than a mere man; for altho he may be an indefinite number of degrees greater, yet being finite, he is as much dependent upon God for his existence and happiness, as any angel or man. Indeed I was led to think, that if this were all the Christ I had, I might as well be without any, for there appeared to be nothing left but a name; and hence the words of Mary have often occurred to me; They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.'"'

Thus Elder P. undertakes to give us an account of

* Job ix. 38. † 1 Tim. ii. 5. ‡ 1 John ii, ↳