take place. The said E. Ray then refused to give a copy of his arguments or manuscript, under any consideration what ever. GEORGE SMITH, Being anxious to get hold of Mr. Ray's arguments, in order to give them to the public as he delivered them, and more particularly a manuscript he was permitted to read at the close of the debate, and to which I had not the privilege of a reply, I renewed my request by the following note: Indianapolis, Jan. 28, 1830. REV. SIR-I again inform you that it is my intention to publish a series of strictures on the subject investigated be tween us: and if you will not furnish me with a copy of your arguments generally, do me the justice to furnish me a copy of the manuscript you read at the close of the debate, to which I had no opportunity of replying. This claim, Sir, is founded on equal justice; and I consider you are bound by every principle of justice, honour, and christian politeness, to comply with this my request. And as I do not wish you to perform the labour for nothing, I will give you five dollars on the reception of a copy of the manuscript, and ten copies of my strictures, when published, I am, Sir, with due respect, Yours, &c. The Rev. E. RAY, J. KIDWELL. This letter was returned to me the next day, by the politeness of one of the honorable members of the legislature, Mr. Claypool, with this laconic reply written on the same paper: Indianapolis, Jan. 29, 1830. SIR:-I take a different view of this subject. J. KIDWELL. E. RAY. As Mr. Ray appeared determined that the debate should not go to the public in its true character, and having been informed by several gentlemen of respectability, that the Rev. A. Wiley furnished Mr. Ray with the most of his manuscript arguments, I addressed him the following letter: Rev. Sir: Sulphur Springs, Wayne co. Ia. April 15, 1830. TO THE REV. MR. WILEY, P. E. M. E. C. You are, no doubt, well acquainted with the fact, that a public investigation took place between the Rev. Edwin Ray, of your diocess, and myself, at Indianapolis, the 21st January last, on the subject of future and endless punishment; and that I am about to publish a series of strictures on the same. I called on the Rev. Mr. Ray, after the debate, informed him of my intention to publish the arguments generally, as used in the debate, and requested him to furnish a copy of the manuscript, (as he had used manuscript arguments principally) containing his arguments, which he has wholly neglected and refused to do, I have since been informed that the principal part of Mr. Ray's manuscript arguments were furnished by your reverence, especially one which he was permitted to read after the debate. Hence, I conclude, as you were my real opponent, Mr. Ray felt delicate in suffering your arguments to go to the public without your consent and approbation. I therefore take this method of informing you, that if you will furnish me with a copy of said manuscript, corrected and improved to your own mind, your arguments shall be published with my strictures. I do not tender this as a compliment only, but wish it to be received in the light of a friendly request; as I am more than desirous that ample justice may be done to Mr. Ray's side of the question, or your arguments, if I am correctly informed. I am induced to believe my information correct, not only from the credible source from which I obtained the same, but from the fact that you have at different times, as I have been informed by some of your own brethren, delivered set discourses against universalism, in which you advanced the same arguments as used by the Rev. Edwin Ray, especially the one contained in the manuscript read after the debate, as above referred to. This ar gument you predicate on the fact that we insist, if the doctrine of endless, unmerciful punishment could be proven from the scriptures, it would only show that God was deficient in goodness, from which you infer that if what we insist on is founded in reason, it would follow from our premises, as it is a fact well known and admitted by us, that God does suffer temporal punishment to be inflicted on offenders, "he must be somewhat deficient in goodness." If you will not furnish your arguments generally, be so good as to furnish the one alluded to, especially. I should be more than gratified to be enabled to give this argument to the public from the pen of a man of your talents and celebritynot only because I was not permitted to reply to the same, as it was not brought up in order in the debate, but more especially because you are in the habit of insisting on this argument when you know that there will be no reply. As you are much celebrated for your aptitude in preaching down universalism, and defending the doctrine of endless vengeance, I now offer you, sir, an opportunity of presenting to the public your evidences of an endless hell, in a way that they will be seen and read by the universalists generally, as well as by many who are halting between two opinions. If you neglect or refuse to comply with this request, you will confirm many of us in an opinion we are already inclined to -that the better informed part of the orthodox clergy are already sensible that their arguments in favour of an endless state of punishment are only calculated to please and tickle gloomy fanatics; and will pass tolerably well in fervid declamations, before a congregation collected from the common circles of life; where the preacher can intrench himself behind the sacred functions of his office, fulminate eternal vengeance, and cast his bombs, ready to burst with divine wrath, at the feet of the enemy, who is placed in a situation where common politeness, as well as the haughty disposition of a priest, forbids him to return the fire; knowing, at the same time, their philippic bombast will not bear the fiery ordeal of rational investigation; and therefore dread to place them within the grasp of criticism. Any thing you will send me on the subject, in form of sober argument, not exceeding thirty or forty pages, shall be published faithfully, and a present of ten copies subject to your de mand and direction. The manuscript shall be carefully preserved, to correct any inadvertencies. I wish to put the work to press in June; and will delay its publication until that time, if I do not receive an answer from you sooner. "Bring forth your strong reasons, sayeth the God of Jacob." Believe me, sir, I am sincerely seeking after the truth, as it is in Jesus. Yours in the bonds of a perfect gospel, J. KIDWELL Thus having used every method in my power, to get hold of Mr. Ray's arguments after requesting, urging, and even promising a remuneration for their labours, I am at last compel led to publish my strictures without one scrap from their pens on the subject. What renders this conduct truly remarkable, Mr. Ray and his friends, before I left Indianapolis, were boasting of his mighty success in the investigation. It was expected that some modern Homer would dedicate Mr. Ray's victory to the muses, that it might be sung with the siege of Troy.* An honorable member of the legislature, a Mr. C. of Connersville, I was informed, as I passed through Oxford on my return to Cincinnati, had written a letter to his father, a methodist clergyman of that place, informing him that Mr. Ray had gained as complete a victory as did David over Goliah. When I arrived in Cincinnati, I found a number of the Indiana Journal, in which a pious presbyteran, a limb of the law, (as I am informed,) had taken upon his important self to decide the question, in behalf of the good people of Indianapolis. This consistent imp of Momus, after admitting I had greatly the advantage of Mr. Ray, in some respects, and that in others we were equal, was compelled, in conscience, to "award the palm of victory to the young methodist." After this metamorphosis had passed under Mr. Blanchard's great screw, a man whose sacred regard for truthis such, that we all know he would not publish any thing for a fact unless, at least, he wished it to be so, it comes out that I was completely silenced by Mr. Ray, of Indianapolis. But lo! when all comes to all, Mr. Ray and his allies are ashamed to let their arguments go to the public. They conclude it will *Ifany attempt should be made to set Mr. R.'s victory to metre, we recommend his poet to adopt the following lines of Homer's description of the battle of Mars, Minerva, and Discord, with a small variation: "Loud clamours raised from various sects around; 1 Be much safer to let such men as Mr. M- of Indianapelis, Mr. C, of Connersville, and Mr. Blanchard, of Cincinnati, puff their fame to the four winds of heaven, than to suffer them to be presented to the scrutinizing eye of an impartial public. I do not wish to be understood as embracing all the orthodox who attended the debate, among Mr. Ray's friends.--the more enlightened and impartial among them expressed quite a different opinion. And Mr. Ray himself, no doubt, has learned to know it is much the best to let peaceable men pass unmolested, and mind his own business for the future. When I published my prospectus, I had some expectation of getting hold of Mr. Ray's arguments from under his own hand; but being somewhat suspicious that Mr. Ray saw the defect of his own arguments, and knew they would not bear comparison, and withhold them, as he has done, I only promised to publish strictures on the debate. Had Mr. Ray furnished his side of the question, it was my intention to pub -lish the debate in due form, which would have been more interesting to the reader. I consider Mr. Ray was bound by every rule of courtesy and christian politeness, to furnish his side of the question. It is not my prerogative to express the public sentiment on this wilful omission on the part of our or thodox brethren: but certainly they do not expect to gull the people into a belief that my arguments were fairly answered and refuted by Mr. Ray, while they withhold these mighty arguments from the public. If Mr. Ray had been satisfied with the arguments he used in the debate, they would have been furnished without hesitation. If the views I entertained on the question are so dangerous as is represented by the orthodox, and the doctrine of future and endless punishment so easily-established, why not some able advocate of the doctrine come forward, and give my arguments a public refutation? This the better informed part of the clergy know cannot be done→→ therefore they think it best to be silent, J. KIDWELL |