A.

SERIES OF STRICTURES, &c.

The metho

THE parties met, according to arrangement. dist meeting house was politely offered, and accepted, for the accommodation of the parties. Both houses of the legislature adjourned, and repaired to the methodist church, which was large and commodious; but was soon filled below and in the galleries. A debate of this kind being novel in the place, much interest seemed to be produced in the minds of all classes.

The Hon. James Gregory, the Hon. Wm. W. Wick, and the Hon. Secretary of State, Mr. Morrison, took their seats as moderators. The rules of debate were read by the Hon. Judge Wick.

1st. Mr. Ray, having the affirmative, opened the debate.Instead of stating the question, and making an attempt to prove that a future and endless punishment was a doctrine of the bible, he spent his first half hour in showing "the design of future and endless punishment."

When he had occupied the limited time, I informed the honorable judges I had come there to join issue with Mr. Ray on the question, whether or not the doctrine of future and endless punishment was a doctrine of the bible. Mr. Ray affirmed that it was, and stood pledged in the articles of debate, to prove that affirmative. I simply held a negative on the sup posed fact, and as Mr. Ray had not said one word on the question at issue, I had nothing to do but to hold my negative:-

this I could do and remain silent. Therefore, I should sit down until Mr. Ray had said something.

Mr. Ray spent his second half hour in the same ranting manner; talking quite fluently about almost every thing but the main question at issue. He insisted God had a right to command, and it was our duty to obey. He told us man had power to obey, or disobey-that he had power to command his words, thoughts, and actions with absolute sovereignty.Man, he said, had transgressed-in every age of the world he had been a transgressor. Moses, said he, and all the holy prophets, and the apostles of Jesus Christ, and Christ himself, had all informed us that man had disobeyed, and that the wages of sin was death, eternal death. He insisted much that there was a day of grace, but that it was limited; and if we neglected this day of grace, we would become liable to this eternal death. This he called taking a broad position, and arguing from implication.

I considered some of his positions very correct-others quite absurd. An old gentleman who sat in the gallery thought,upon the whole, it was quite a good orthodox sermon, I was of the same opinion. But as his remarks were entirely irrelative, not having any leaning to the question at issue, I took no notice of them.

However, it may be proper here to notice Mr. Ray's first argument, which was the main pillar on which he placed his "broad position," i. e. "The design of future and endless punishment."

Mr. Ray is the first Arminian I ever heard even admit that the endless damnation of a part of the human family entered into the designs of the Almighty. And not being a Calvinist, it never entered into his mind to tell us God designed it for his own glory: to be a consistent Arminian, he let us know that God designed it for the good of the human family, to prevent them from sinning and going to hell. Now as Mr. Ray believes that this future and endless punishment is to be inflicted in that place called hell, it follows as a matter of course that the erection of this hell, as a place of future and endless punishment, constituted a principal part of that mysterious design of God, in the endless damnation of a portion of his offspring -hence it would follow, that the Almighty made a hell to prevent people from going to it. This is the bone and marrow of Mr. Ray's first argument, and that on which he placed his "broad position." This is arguing from implication. And to

my mind it implied that Mr. Ray had not well studied his subject.

In Mr. Ray's broad position he laid it down as a fundamental principle that the law which enjoined obedience was governed by the nature and fitness of things-that it depended on the sovereign will of God—that it was the law of love, and required constant and unceasing obedience. The design of future and endless punishment was partly intended to enforce this "constant and unceasing obedience" to this law of love, i. e. it was designed to make people love God, for fear he would damn them

After Mr. Ray's hour of sermonizing was out, I again remarked, that Mr. Ray had not spoken to the question: that he had not even placed one of his remarks in a tangible position. He had quoted a great many passages of scripture, but had made a stand at no one point. I confessed I did not know how to reply to his loose remarks, unless he would let me know what he relied on. I did not mean to follow Mr. Ray in a fox ehase; I had came there to argue the question respecting the truth or falsehood of future and endless punishment, and I did not mean to lose sight of the question. I insisted on Mr. Ray's coming to the point at issue.

2nd. Mr. Ray referred me to Matthew xii, 31, 32:"Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Here Mr. Ray insisted that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was to be punished in a future state; and that the punishment was to be endless. "It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come. "The pa rallel of this passage in Mark iii, 29, reads, "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." In Luke xii, 10, “And 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 him."

The reader will recollect that there are two facts embraced in the question, future and endless punishment: hence, it devolved on Mr. Ray to prove that some of the human family would be punished in a future state of existence, and that the punishment would be endless. Mr. Ray's argument in sup

t of these facts was predicated on the phrases "world to ome," and "eternal damnation." He inferred, that as the blasphemer was not to be forgiven in "the world to come," he was to be punished in a future state; and the duration of the punishment being expressed by the phrase "eternal damnation" was proof of the endless duration of that punishment. This is placing Mr. Ray's argument in its full force: and if it be admitted "the world to come" means a future state, and eternal, endless, Mr. Ray's position is clearly established. But here is the defect of Mr. Ray's argument-the phrase "world to come" does not mean a future state of existence; neither does the word eternal mean endless. And this is admitted by all the learned critics of the orthodox writers themselves. Dr. Whitby, on Matt. xii,32: "Neither in this world, neither in the world to come," renders it "Neither in this age, nor in the age to come." Macknight says, "We may translate the clause differently, 'It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, neither in the age to come ·" " The learned Dr Owen explains the original phrase, melontos aionos, rendered "world to come," in the same manner as is done by Whitby and Macknight; and so does Willian and Wakefield.

Whitby, on Heb. vi,5, says "The world to come," in the language of the prophets and Jewish doctors, signifies the times of the Messiah, who in the prophesy of Isaiah, is called Father of "the world to come." See also Whitby on Heb. chap. ii, 5, "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection "the worlds to come. 99 Dr. Pierce says, ""The world to come' is a Hebrew phrase, and signifies the times of the Messiah-Ou lum eba-Age to come." The celebrated Mr. Locke says, that "In the writings of the New Testament, the Greek phrase aion outes, rendered by our translators, this world, signifies the state of mankind before the gospel; and that aion mellon, rendered 'the world to come,' signifies the dispensation of the gospel." Parkhurst, on the word oikoumene, says, "The world to come' seems to denote the state of the world under the Messiah, or the kingdom of the Messiah, which the Jews call eba oulem, the world to come. 99 This construction of the phrase, "The world to come," is uniform with all the learned critiques which have come within my of servation: hence it appears, the punishment of the blasphemer was to be either under the law or the gospel, and of course in this mode of existence. So mach for this part of Mr. Ray's argument in favour of future punishment.

I shall now take some notice of the phrase, "eternal damnation;" on which Mr. Ray predicated his argument in favor of the endless duration of the punishment of blasphemers. On a critical examination of this phrase, it will appear, that the original word, here rendered eternal, was used by our Saviour to express the time when this punishment was to be inflicted, and not the time of its duration. The Greek phrase rendered "eternal damnation," is aioniou kriseos. Aionious is simply the adjective of aion, rendered world in the passage under consideration, and relates to time, not eternity. I will here subjoin the learned definition of orthodox critics, whose authority has never been disputed by the learned world.

Parkhurst, the orthodox standard of criticism, says that aion denotes duration or continuation of time; but with great variety. He says it is a compound of two words aie and on, always being. On the Hebrew word Olem, he says, "It seems to be much more frequently used for an indefinite than for an infinite time: and in his Greek Lexicon, on the words aion and aionios, he says that "the Hebrew word olem answers as the corresponding word for these two words in the Greek of the Seventy; "which words," says he, "denotes time hidden from man, whether definite or indefinite; whether past or future." Professor Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Miller, page 128, says, "The words kedesh and od, rendered by Turetine, eternity, are like the Greek aion, that also signifies any thing ancient, which has endured or is to endure for a long time.” Taylor, in his Hebrew Concordance, on the word olem, says, "This word is applied to time, and signifieth a duration which is concealed as being of an unknown or great length, with respect to time past or to come. Dr. Adam Clark says, "Words in all languages have in process of time, deviated from their original acceptations, and have become accommodated to particular purposes, and limited to particular meanings. This has happened both to the Hebrew olem and the Greek aion; they have been both used to express a limited time, but in general, a time, the limits of which are unknown. Hence the words when applied to things, which from their nature must have a limited duration, are properly to be understood in this sense." See Dr. Clark's note on Gen. xxi, 33. Chandler and Macknight both agree that the Greek word aion, and the latin ovum, which correspond to it, signify the life of a man; and by an easy figure, the manner of a man's living."

19