tiles, he must be blind to that interesting harmony which displays itself throughout his rhetorical figures, in speaking of that event, if he does not see that the parable of the sheep and goats is to be placed with those parables in which he illustrates an event which was just about to take place in his day and ge neration. Mr. Wesley very justly observes, "If any man will read Josephus' history of the destruction of Jerusalem, he will have a full commentary on these two chapters." Every expression which language and figure could afford, to impress an idea on the minds of the disciples that the events alluded to were just about to take place, was used with the most solemn assurance that such was the fact. Our Saviour did not only declare in the most solemn manner that these things should take place in that generation, but he assured his disciples that there were some who heard him make the declaration who should not taste of death till the Son of Man should come, and when he came, this punishment was to be inflicted; and the righteous were to inherit the kingdom of heaven, and enter into life eternal. To this Mr. Ray replied, that the generation spoken of by our Saviour did not mean an ordinary generation, but that it meant the continuation of Jewish posterity as a distinct people. In proof of this he produced the paraphrase of Dr. Adam Clark on the passage under consideration. This generation shall not pass. This race, i. e. the Jews shall not cease from being a distinct people." He also produced Dr. C.'s notes on the phrase everlasting punishment-to show that Dr. C. believed that the punishment there spoken of was endless in its duration. Here Mr. Ray seemed to exult in his own imagination that he had obtained a complete victory in this argument, because his opinion was supported by the bare opinion of Dr. Adam Clark. As I have given a full refutation of Dr. Adam Clark's opinion on that subject, in my reply to his notes on the passage, I shall barely observe in reply to Mr. Ray's authority, i. e. Dr. Clark's opinion in support of his own, I would as soon take Mr. Ray's opinion as that of Dr. Adam Clark, when it is mere matter of opinion. Mr. Ray has given Dr. Adam Clark's opinion as argument. Dr. Clark has given us his opinion without assigning any good reasons for the same. As I admit and esteem Dr. Adam Clark as high authority, when he writes as a critic, it is necessary to observe we should draw a just distinction between his opinions, when they are barely speculative, and his critical knowledge of literature.And with those who do not believe in the infallibility of Dr. Adam Clark,it will not be deemed an unpardonable sin to differ in opinion with the Doctor. When Dr. Clark expresses this opinion, he expresses it as a mere matter of speculation; hè does not pretend to have arrived at that opinion from his superior knowledge of the science of language, but from circumstances and things about which men who are far his inferiors in literature have as much right to know, and possess equally the means of knowing, as Dr. Adam Clark. His opinion is founded on the supposition that our Saviour was speaking of a state of things which should take place in another mode of existence. Suppose Dr. Adam Clark had understood our Saviour in this parable as speaking of the expulsion of the Jews from their former privileges, and the ingathering of the gentiles, would he have found any evidence of endless misery in the phrase "everlasting punishment?" By no means-for the Doctor himself declares the term everlasting is always to be taken in a limited sense, when applied to things which in their nature are such; so that the only thing necessary to convince the doctor that his opinion on that subject is erroneous, is to show him that the parable of the sheep and the goats referred exclusively to the present state of things. This I have proven to be the case in my reply to the doctor's notes; and I am perfectly willing that any man, who believes the Doctor's opinion to be correct, should offer a refutation of my arguments to the public, and show that I have not fairly refuted the opinion of Dr. Adam Clark on that subject. Till this is done, or at least attempted, I would advise the doctor's friends never to bring forward Dr. Adam Clark's bare opinion in the place of sober argument: for as highly as the people of this enlightened age esteem his literary character, they are not prepared to bow to his supposed infallibility, or adopt his speculative opinions without examination. As to the Doctor's paraphrase on the 34th verse of the 24th chapter of Matthew, recited by Mr. Ray, it is one of the most remarkable instances of the undue and warping influence of preconceived opinions,that ever escaped the pen of so learned a writer. But, notwithstanding, if Mr. Ray had read the Doctor's note in full, it would have been decidedly against him, and proved the position I have taken on this parable to be correct. I shall therefore subjoin the Doctor's note in full. After Dr. Clark gives the paraphrase above recited, he makes the following remark: "But still it is literally true in reference to the destruction of ། Jerusalem. John probably lived to see these things come to . D. Clark also admits, that the Greek word rendered generation, properly means the few years which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, and that it was used in that sense by our Saviour; but he thinks it most proper not to limit it. Notwithstanding he has spent some time in proving that our Saviour's remarks "in their outward and primary sense,” alluded to the dreadful calamities which were about to come on the Jewish people in that generation, and in the lifetime of John and those Rabbies who were alive when our Lord spoke the parable. Now, I would simply ask, where does Mr. Ray, Dr. Adam Clark, or any other man, find any shadow of evidence that these chapters are to be taken in any other sense than that outward and primary sense in which our Saviour spoke them? 9th. On Mr. Ray's last half hour. Mr. Ray, as he held the affirmative of the question in debate, had a right to close the same but, according to all known and acknowledged rules of debate, he could only notice arguments already advanced he was forbidden by every rule of fair & candid investigation, to bring forward any new argument, inasmuch as it is taking the advantage of the party holding the negative, to advance any new argument, when it is no longer his privilege to reply. However, Mr. Ray, contrary to all rules of decorum, and in violation of every principle of common politeness, and christian candor, instead of noticing my last argument, and concluding with a brief recapitulation of the arguments already advanced, when he arose to close the debate, gave notice to the honorable Judges, that he should not reply to my argument, but that he wished to read a manuscript containing a very important argument, which he had reserved for that purpose. Mr. Ray occupied the whole of his last half hour, in reading this manuscript argument. This is the manuscript refer d to in my letter to the "REV." Allen Wileyand which, as I was informed, was furnished Mr. Ray, by that "Rev." gentleman. This knock-down argument, as Mr. Ray seems to think it, which he had reserved to bring up the rear, may be called a sophistical metaphysical metamorphosis. Its whole strength con sisted in changing the reasonings of the Universalists, into a false and deceptive view-by bringing more into the premises, from which Universalists draw their conclusions, than they admit belong to those premises. The Universalists contend that the doctrine of future and endless punishment, is at war with all our views of infinite goodness-and therefore, if the doctrine of future and endless punishment, should prove to be the truth, it would only prove that the Supreme Ruler of the universe was deficient in goodness. "Now," says the "Rev." Mr. Wiley, "the Universalists admit, and contend that sin is punished, and justly punished, in this life- and if the doctrine of future and endless punishment would prove that God is deficient in goodness, would it not follow from the mode of reasoning adopted by Universalists, that he is somewhat deficient in goodness, inasmuch as it is clearly admitted, that sin is punished in this life." This is the bone and marrow of the "Rev." Mr. Wiley's master argument, which he is in the habit of using in his set discourses against Universalists, and with which he thought it proper to furnish the "Rev." Mr. Ray for a kind of reserve fire after his enemy had laid down his arms, and by the consent of the parties placed in a situation in which he could not return the fire. This manœuvre displayed that kind of heroism, generally manifested by these bold and intrepid advocates of endless vengeance. They are always ready to take every undue advantage in the investigation of the subjectit was a fine time to bring forward "an important argument” when it was decided by the judges, that there should be no further reply on my part. Mr. Ray would have been ashamed to have produced this knock-down argument of the "Rev." Mr. Wiley's, if he had not known that I was not at liberty to reply to the same. However, I am now at liberty to notice this cap-sheaf argument. The Universalists contend that the doctrine of future and endless punishment, if true, would prove that God was deficient in goodness--and yet insist that the punishment of sin in this life is no evidence "that God is somewhat deficient in goodness." As to the punishment of sin in this life, we insist it is an evidence of the goodness of God;-and if sin was not punished in this life, it would prove that God was somewhat deficient in goodness. This would clearly follow from the views entertained by Universalists, with regard to the nature and design of the punishment of sin: for Universalists believe that the punishment of sin in this life, is designed and calculated to promote the ultimate good of the sufferer. But what good can result from the endless punishment of sinners? It cannot be of any benefit to those who suffer, or to any others inless it be admitted that that good Being will take a pleasure in the endless miseries of the damned. The only evidence we have of good beings is the manifes tation of good dis, ositions in their designs toward others. It is a general rule in determining the goodness or badness of the disposition of any being, that it is right to produce pleasure, but wrong to produce pain. But this rule of judging has one exception-we never call in question the goodness of any person, who may inflict pain from motives of kindness, to the be ing on whom they may inflict it. Hence if a surgeon amputates a leg or an arm, we are not disposed to think him deficient in goodness, because he may inflict great pain in performing the operation:-we excuse the whole, on the necessity of the case, & approve the motives of kindness with which it is performed. But if we were to see the same act performed for the express purpose of rendering the sufferer miserable, from a mere disposition to avenge, how different would be our feelings and views, with regard to the individuals who performed the same operation-while we loved and esteemed the one, we would hate and despise the other. This will apply to the "Rev." Allen Wiley's boasted argument with full force. If the doctrine of future and endless punishment be true, it can only be inflicted from motives of vengeance, and not from motives of kindness to the unhappy victims. It is impossible that endless punishment could end in the good of the sufferer, seeing it is never to end. Therefore, it is a just and necessary conclusion, that the being that is capable of inflicting endless misery and wretchedness, is deficient in goodness. And if we may be allowed to judge of such a being, by the same rules by which we judge of the goodness or badness of other beings, we should not only say that such a being was deficient in goodness, but that the being who was thus disposed to inflict so much unnecessary pain, simply to glut a vengeful disposition, ought to be classed with the most infuriated demons, of which the imagination could possibly conceive. But when we see pain inflicted from motives of kindness, we are not only disposed to excuse and respect the person who inflicts the same, but are willing to aid and assist him who inflicts it. |