In October 1 issue of the Standard Bearer in your comment on the letter of the “Consistory of the Prot. Ref. Church of Hamilton” you write, concerning the letter, that it is a “piece of work that certainly cannot have been conceived in the mind and heart of an regenerated child of God.” About this statement much comment is made in our circle but there is also a difference of interpretation. Will you therefore kindly tell us what you meant with these words?
Thanking you in advance, I remain
The different interpretation is, undoubtedly, the correct one. I did not say, and do not say now, that the writers of the contribution from Hamilton are not regenerated men. This I do not and cannot judge. But I did say, and still maintain that backbiting and slander, which are, in the Heidelberg Catechism, called the very works of the devil, certainly are not conceived in the regenerated heart of the child of God. Perhaps, I could have added: “but in his carnal nature.”