Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Dr. Wylie, to be one of the greatest lights of our country; every body knows that when Mr. Kneeland accused him of unsoundness, and when Mr. Morse accused Mr. Magoffin, and when Mr. Ballou accused me, they did not believe what they said, for we should all be very sound, if we would go over to their side; yet they ought to know that when they have committed themselves by such gross, guilty, slanderous dissimulation, they ought, for decency's sake, to preserve a small degree of consistency, and not to disqualify a witness one moment and summon him the

next.

❝ear

Where now are those hundreds of witnesses whose testimony Mr. Kneeland told us "could be obtained if it were necessary, of its being as faithful a report as ever was made ?" I am informed that general orders were given from the pulpit and the press for their battallions to muster with all possible speed. On the cover of the last number of the Report, Mr. Jennings nestly requests every individual" who is willing, to send his certificate as soon as possible to the office of the Saturday Evening Post, or to the residence of the publisher." It was prudent to name two places, as one could hardly be expected to contain the certificates of so many hundreds. The roll is called, and the faithful brethren, Messrs. Kneeland, Jennings, Morse, Hogan and Condie are found in their places. Now, gentlemen, are you willing to certify that this is "as faithful a report as ever was made?" Is it as faithful as some made by Mr. Stansbury, Reporter to Congress? Mr. Morse and Mr. Hogan, speak your minds, for you must understand this matter well, as you gaped and yawned and looked out of the window so much while the Kentuckian was speaking. They testify that the report is "without any omissions or additions affecting the arguments:" and remember that this school does not consider even the case of Lazarus and the rich man as affecting the argument. Well Mr. Kneeland, can you admit any flaws? Be cautious now, and do not expose us. "In many places I can perceive some verbal difference." What is this the character of as faithful a report as ever was made ?" If you go that far, what may we not expect from the other party? Dr. Condie, you are READY ENOUGH, it is true, but your testimony is not worth much for that very reason. In this sad condition, they were no doubt much refreshed with the testimony made for Dr. Wylie by Mr. Jennings, and with that of Dr. Ely whom they had before rejected as unsound. Since its publication, Dr. Ely's opinion has been directly opposed by witnesses of equal respectability, and I hope will be changed by himself when he has heard both sides.-The injury done to Dr. Wylie by his reporter, I confess, does not give me great pain, since it proves Mr. Jennings unfaithful in a

· little, and of course not to be trusted in much. It has also made me better acquainted with a man whose forbearance, conscientiousness, candour, and tenderness of affection I hope to imitate, and whose society and friendship I desire to enjoy in this, wilderness and in the land of promise.

Philadelphia, Nov. 4, 1824.

W. L. M-CALLA.

DEFENCE.

PART FIRST.

The question which has called us together involves an essential doctrine of Christianity. Hence arises, in part, my great willingness to engage in its discussion. For the lawfulness of such an undertaking we have the authority of God's word, apostolical precedent, and the example of the Reformers; of whom Martin Luther held a debate of ten days with the Pope's Legate, at Leipsic; and Melancthon, Calvin and Knox had their public conferences with the ecelesiastics of the establishment to which they were opposed. These do not necessarily give scope to evil passions more than written controversy. This method of defending the truth may, in certain circumstances, be conducted as decently and as profitably as the other plan. Yet if my conduct in the commencement or prosecution of this enterprise be censurable, I wish it to be explicitly stated and understood that the blaine is my own exclusively. As I am not considered responsible to my brethren in this particular, they cannot be at all implicated in the business. My only desire is, that if God enable me to speak for edification, he alone may have the praise. On the Triune God of Israel is my only dependence. Willingly do I confess my natural depravity, and inability to do any thing acceptable to God, or profitable to his people, except by the grace of a risen Saviour, and by the help of the Holy Spirit.

ness.

Among those errorists who deny the eternity of future punishment, there are two general descriptions-the Destructionists who believe in the annihilation of the wicked, and the Universalists who believe in their eternal happiSome inspired men, as Job and Jeremiah, have, in the bitterness of their souls, lamented over their own existence, and appeared to think, with the suicide, that annihilation was preferable even to the sufferings of this life, and of course preferable to the eternal and the insupportable wrath of God, threatened in his word. This system is equally opposed to the scriptural account of degrees in

punishment; which we are certainly taught by our Saviour in his sermon on the mount, where he dooms one to the judgment, another to the council, and a third to hell fire; the servant who sinned against knowledge to the punishment of many stripes, and him who sinned ignorantly to comparatively few stripes; and those who despise the gospel to a more intolerable punishment than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Annihilation admits of no degrees, nor does it admit of that consciousness of existence and apprehension of the existence of an indignant Creator, which the Scriptures attribute to the condemned sinner, when it is said, "ye shall know that I am the Lord.” "He shall reward him and he shall know it." "Ye shall know that I the Lord have poured out my fury upon you"

Among Universalists there is a great variety. Some believe in a limited punishment in the future world, others confine it to this life. In each of these sects, there is a variety of sentiments concerning the description of punishment to be inflicted, some considering it condign, others penitentiary, others disciplinary. My opponent passes for a Universalist and not a Destructionist. He professes to belong to that sect which confines punishment to this life, and to that class which considers punishment disciplinary, that is, intended for the good of the subject. His sentiments and my own, may be seen in the question which we have adopted for discussion, and the several clauses of which, we have espoused respectively. "Is the punishment of the wicked absolutely eternal ? or is it only a temporal punishment in this world for their good, and to be succeeded by eternal happiness after death?" The affirmative of the latter clause advocated by my opponent is a denial of a future state of rewards and punishments It presents Universalism in its most daring aspect, but only in that degree of turpitude to which every description of this error naturally leads. Unconnected with materialism, as it certainly is, in the phraseology of the question, this system would send the antediluvian rebels to Heaven before Noah, the Sodomites before Lot, the Egyptians before Moses, Korah, Dathan and Abiram before Aaron, the Canaanites before Joshua, the blaspheming thief before the Apostles, and Judas before Christ. Did these holy characters need more punishment for discipline, for repentance, or for satisfaction than those rebels who died before them? or was there any thing in the

« ForrigeFortsæt »