o Til - >- ""^ cc O <: . • -u ■^ ^z tf) ■"^ C LU CO 00 -J <: o -i 05 , r -HO) o Z >■ 03 o m 5 LO r, ^ —1 z LU u z Q f^ w o UJ 6 1 00 0) c^ LU i UJ CO Ul LU Q. t 1- LL. E ^ CO w c • ^ CO o O OJ S W CO >- CC cc rr 00 .^ S an ^^ Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library littp://www.arcli ive.org/details/discussionofconjOOelye DISCUSSION CONJOINT QUESTION, re THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT TAUGHT I^ THE BIBLB 7 OB DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE DOCTRINE OF THE FINAL HOU- NESS AND HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND'? A SERIES OF LETTERS BETWEEN i EZRA STILES ELY, D. D., Pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, AND ABEL C.THOMAS, Paster of the First Universalist Church, Philadelphia. NEW-YORK : PUBLISHED BY P. PRICE No. 2 Chatham-square. STEBEOTYPED BY J. S. RBDFIEL©. 18 35. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by P . PRICE, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York. PREFACE. The reader will probably desire to know what course was adopt- ed by Rev. Drs. Brantley, Tyng and Barnes, in relation to the proposal which led to the controversy between Rev. Dr. Ely and Mr. Thomas. Let it suffice to remark, that Drs. Tyng and Barnes are not known to have given the slightest attention to the matter. Rev. Dr. Brantley, in a note dated " January 30, 1834," stated in effect, that it would be agreeable to him, should his society approve of the course, to hear the sentiments of Univer- salists proclaimed in the meeting house oi the First Baptist Church, in Second-street, Philadelphia— y ith the understanding that he should afterwards examine and criticise those sentiments in his own way and time. He also stated, that the house, which was undergoing some alterations, would " not be tenantable for two months to come." Immediately after the receipt of this note, Messrs. Thomas and Fuller presented a joint request for the use of the meeting-house, so soon as it could be occupied. To the letter containing this request, no answer has yet been received. Rev. Ezra Stiles Ely is extensively and favourably known as a Presbyterian Clergyman, author of several Theological works, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and editor of The Philadelphian. He is a graduate of Yale College, from which institution, we believe, he received the title and degree of Doctor in Divinity. In 1814, he was elected to the pastoral charge of the Third Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, which station he recently resigned, having accepted the appointment of Professor of Polemic Theology in jMarion College, Missouri. Rev. Abel C. Thomas commenced the Ministry of Reconcilia- tion in December, 1828, at the age of 21 years. In April, 1829, he i^ PREFACE. became connected with a society of Universalists in New- York, in the relation of Pastor, which charge he resigned in September of the same year, having accepted an invitation to become the Pastor of the First Universalist Church in Philadelphia. It may not be improper to add, that he never enjoyed the advantages of a colle- giate education. The letters of Dr. Ely, were originally published in TTie Phila- dephian ; those of Mr. Thomas, in the Messenger and Universa- list, excepting the seven concluding epistles in this volume, which now, for the first time, appear in print. The entire controversy, with the exception of the seven epistles above referred to, was republished in the "Trumpet and Universa- list Magazine," Boston ; " Christian Intelligencer," Gardiner, Me.; "Star in the East," Concord, N. H.; "Universalist Watchman," Montpelier, Vt.; " Sentinel," Philomath, la.; "Herald of Truth,'' Geneva, N. Y.; " Liberalist," Philadelphia ; and some of the letters appeared in the " Southern Pioneer," Baltimore; and in the "Iris," Mf;thuen, Mass. The latter is a literary paper; the others are Universalist publications. The discussion is now presented to the public, verbatim, as it was originally published, with the exception of a trifling change of phraseology in a single sentence— to which a special reference need not be made. In the month of February, 1834, the steam-boat Wilham Penn was destroyed by fire, in the river Delaware. Rev. John Mitchel- more, of Lewistown, Del., was drowned in attempting to reach the shore. To this circumstance an allusion is made on page 43. Cherishing a hope that this volume may tend in some measure to a correct understanding of the sacred oracles, it is respectfully sub- mitted without further remark- New York, August, 1835. THE PRINCIPAL TEXTS Introduced in this Discussion^ in proof of the doctrine of EndUtM Punishment. Deuteronomy xxxii. 22; "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell." Psalm ix. 17 : " The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."' Proverbs xxix. 1 : " He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Ezekiel xviii. 31, 32 : " Why will ye die, O house of Israel ? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God : wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Daniel xii. 2: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Matthew X. 23: "And lear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the. soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew xii. 32: " Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matthew xiii. 39—42 : "The harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the tire ; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which" do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew xvi. 26, 27 : " For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul 7 or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul 7 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he shall reward every man according to his works, latthew xxiii. 33: "Ye Matthew xxiii. 33 : " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell 7" Matthew XXV. 41 : "Depart froni me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew xxv. 46 : "And these shall go away into everlasting pun- ishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew xxvi. 24 : " The Son of man goeth as it is ^yritten of him ; but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." Mark ix. 45, 46 : '' And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast inlo hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark xvi. 16; "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." VI PRINCIPAL TEXTS. Luke xiii. 3, 5 : " I^ell you, Nay : but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.'" Luke xiii. 23, 24 : " Lord, are there few that be saved 1 And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." Luke xiii. 27, 23 : "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weepuig and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, m the king" dom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Luke xvi. 19—31: "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day; and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus," &c. John iii. 3 : " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- dom of God." John V. 28, 29 : " The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto tne resurrection of hfe ; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation." Actsxvii. 31 : "He hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." Romans ii. 12, 16 : "As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." 2 Corinthians v. 10 : " For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Thessalonians 1. 6—10 : "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking ven- geance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gos- pel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished with ever- lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." 2 Peter ii. 4—9 : "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark- ness, to be reserved unto judgment," &c. Jude 7 : " Even as Sodom and Gomorrah ..... are set forth for an example, sutiering the vengeance of eternal fire." Revelation xx. 12, 13: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God and the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them ; and they were judged every man according to his works." Riwelation xxi. 8 : " The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abom- inable, and murderers shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone ; which is the second ■oeath." THE PRINCIPAL TEXTS Tritroduced in this Discussion^ in proqfo/the doctrine of Vnivei'ial lS>alvation. Genesis xxii. 18 ; xxviii, 14 ; Acts iii. 25 : " In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations, families and kindreds of the earth be blessed." Psalm xxii. 27, 28 : " All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the nations shall wor- ship before thee." Isaiah xxv. 8 : '' He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces." Matthew xxii. 29, 30 : " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God ; for in the resurrection .... they are as the angels of God in heaven." Luke XX. 34, 35, 36 : "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage ; but they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage ; neither can thev die any more; for tliey are equal unto the angels ; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." John i. 29 : " Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world." John iii. 35; vi. 37 : "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands .... All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John iv. 42 : "This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." John xii. 32 : " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Acts xxiv. 15: "And have hope toward God that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."' Romans v. 20: "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Romans viii. 21 : " Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Romans xi. 32, 36: "For God hath concluded all in rnbelief. that he might have mercy upon all .... . For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things : to whom be glory for ever." 1 Corinthians xv. 22, 28 : " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be ma-de alive .... And when all things shall be sub- dued unto him, then shall the Son also hunself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 2 Corinthians i. 18, 19, 20 : " Our word toward you was not yea, and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, to the glory of God by us." 2 Corinthians v. 19: " God was in'Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their trespasses "ntn them," Vni PRINCIPAL TEXTS. Galatians iii. 8 : "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed." Ephesians i. 9, 10 : " Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself; that in the dispensation of the fulness of time he might father together in one all things in Christ, both which are in eaven, and which are on earth." Philippians ii. 9, 10, U : " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in hea- ven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians iii. 20, 21 : "For our conversation is in heaven ; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself." Colossians i. 19, 20 : " For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell ; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself." 1 Ti-mothy i. 15 : "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all ac- ceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sin- ners." i Tnnothy ii. 4 : God our Saviour " will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy iv. 10 : "For therefore we both labour and suffer re- proach, because we trust in the living God< who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who beheve." IL brews ii. 9, 14 : " We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man .... Thai uirough death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." 1 John ii. 1,2: " If any man sin we have an advocate with Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John iii. 8 : "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John iv. 14: "We have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." I John v. 10, 11 : " lie that belieyeth on the Son of God hath the witness m himself ; he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar; because he believed not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eter".al life, and this life is in his Son." INDEX OF TEXTS, QUOTED, REFERRED TO, OR COMMENTED UPON. GENESIS. PSALMS. Page Pag. iu.l5 257 i. 4—6, ii. 12 23 iv. 16 241 ix. 16, 17 23, 119, 128, 129 xxii. 13 253 xi. 5, 6, xxi. 9 23 ixviii. 14 253 xvi. 11 225 xxix. 2 233 xxii. 27, 28 262 xxxvii. 35 129 xli. 2 1.2-6 53 65,78 LEVITICUS. 1.23 41 vi. 9, 12, 13 180 Iviii. 11 60, 126 xviii. 29 55 Ixxiii. 18, 19 Ixxx. 1 83,93 241 NUMBERS. Ixxxvi. 13 xci. 16 214 53 xvi. 30—33 96 xcii. 7 • 46, 54 xxiii. 19 253 xcvi. 10—13 cxii. 6, 10 81 43, 52 DEUTERONOMY. cxvi. 3 214 xviii. 15—20 55 cxxxix. 7, 8 241 xxxii. 22 120, 123 129 cxlv. 16 260 xxsii. 22—24 214 cxlv. 20, cxlvi. 9 23 xxxii. 43—52 97 PROVERBS. 2 KINGS. xiii. 23 83. 241 iii. 16, IV. 10 53 XX. 1 97 vi. 15 36, 52 xxiii. 10 124 X. 24 260 xxiv. 20 83, 241 xi. 31 25, 57, xix. 9 69, 221 43 2 CHRONICLES xxviii. 10 229 xxix. 1 29, 36, 44. 52. 77 xxviii. 2, 3 124 xxxvi. 16, 17 36 ,52 ECCLESIASTES JOB. iii. 7, xii. 14 661,80 iii. 2—16 99 iv. 1— 3j vi. 3 S9 viii. 13 43 ,52 vii. 15 34 XXL 30 87 , 96 viii. 5 229 X INDEX. ISAIAH. Page Pa«e i. 6 209 viii. 13, 14 47, 55, 101 i. 19, 20 256 viii. 3 261 xiv. 27 262 ix. 12, 13 266 XXV. 8 258, 280 X. 23 54 XXX. 33 212 X.28 29,36,123,131,157,178 xxxi. 9 38, 212 X. 32, 33 45 xxxii. 1 81 xii. 30 237 xxxiv. 9 10 133 , 158, 180 xii. 31, 32 171, 189 xlix. 8 81 xiii. 38—43 32,38, 45, 114, 212 liii. 11 261 XV. 26, 27 209 Ivii. 1 34 xvi. 25, 26 55 Ixv. 20 64, 77 xvi. 27, 28 67,81,82, 126,182,190 ixvi. 24 133, 153 158, 179 xviii. 8 xviii. 11 106, 144 266 JEREMIAH. xix. 28, 29 xxii. 29, 30 104 135, 168, 184, 277 vii. 20 158,180 xxiii. 14, 33 29, 35, 123 ix. 24 81 xxiv. 3 38, 100, 105, 114 xi. 4 38 xxiv. 4 50 XV. 10, 17 99 xxiv. 4—35 53, 84, 139 xvii. 27 134, 181 xxiv. 36—41 90, 109, 138, 142, 147 xix. 6, 9 180 251 xxiii. 39, 40 83, 242 XXV. 1—30 45, 101, 110, 140 lii. 3 EZEKIEL. 242 XXV. 12, 31- -46 50, 54, 103, 111, 140, 143, 230. 233 xiii. 22 55 MARK. xviii. 31, 32 30,37 viii. 36, 38 ix. 1 53,55 XX. 47, 4S 134, 158, 180 ix. 30 237 xxii. 18— 22 38, 212 ix. 43—48 125, 133, 144, 179 xxxiii. 11 30,37 xii. 40 35 XXX vii. 12 186 xiii. 27 112 xiii. 32 149 DANIEL. xiv. 21 89, 98 xii. 2, 3 65, 77, 86 JONAH. , 94, 185 xvi. 16 ii. 10 28, 34, 44, 52 LUKE. 254 i. 3, ii. 4 241 ix. 50 X. 15 237 212 MALACHI. xi. 26 55, 175 il 17 46,55 xii. 4, 5 xii. 28 36 70 MATTHEW. xiii. 1 — 5 xiii. 23 51, 63, 76 154, 173, 191, 196 iii. 9 36,213 xiii. 33 34 V. 29, 30 123. 132 xiv. 24, 27 155, 156, 177 riLll 70 xiv. 28-30 267 INDEX, rvi. 19-31 xvii. 30, 31 xvii. 26—37 xviii. 30 xix. 41—44 XX. 34—36 xxi. 20, 32 xxii. 29 xxiii. 27—30 xxiii. 34 Page 198, 203, 223, 226 82 109, 142, 149 105,116 187 168, 187, 277 81,83 81, 126 187 267 JOHN. 1.29 ill. 3—5, 14—16 iii. 35 iv. 42 V. 22 V. 24, vi. 47 V. 28, 29 y. 45—47 vi. 37 viii. 39 viii. 56 ix. 32 xii. 19 xii. 32 XV. 2, 6 XV. 26 xvii. 3 xvii. xvii. 9, 20, 21 287 28, 33, 51 225, 262, 272 264 81, 126 34 166, 155 213 225, 262 213 255 113 266 257, 262 166, 183, 276 234 34, 151 98 267 ii. 11, 12, 16 ill. 3, 4 IV. 17 V. I— 10 V. 2 V. 6, 8, 10 V. 20 vi. 7 viii. 14 viii. 21 xi. 32 xi. 36 XV. 13 xvi. 25 1. 18, 25 ii. 40 iii. 23 iii. 25 x36 XV. 9 XV.. 18 xvii. 5, 9 xvii. 28 xvii. 31 xxiv. 15 i.23 iL6 ACTS. 88,98 196 45,55 253 272 284 101 83, 233 122 67,81,128,126,161,182 135, 166, 186, 279 ROMANS. Page 67, 80,'86, 94, 126,162 256 281 74 280 61, 266 257 71 282 93, 152, 184, 257, 274, 278 ' 256 93 284 113 1 CORINTHIANS. U. 7 X. 11 xi.3 xii. 3 XV. 18 XV. 22 XV. 28 XV. 35 XV. 54, 55 41, 92, 63, 43 56, 64, 77, 135, 165,183, 25, 151, 176, 185, 272, 135, 113 114 280 272 ,52 275 277 163 280 2 CORINTHIANS. i. 18—20 356 iv. 10 75 V 1 105, 115, 142 v". 8—10 66, 79, 169 V 17 56, 77, 135, 276 v'.18,19 40,62,75,274 vi. 2 xii. 4 81 130 142 iii. 7, 26 iii. 8,9 V. 6 vi. 7 i. 9—11 ii. 89 iii. 9 iv. 9 iv 18 GALATIANS. 282 253, 254, 255 284 EPHESIANS. 261 26 113 130 871 Sll N I> E X , PHILIPPIANS. Page ii. 9—11 40, 62, 75, 272 U. 27 97 iii. 18, 19 155, 175 iii. 21 176, 279 COLOSSIANS. L 16—18 39, 61, 271 i. 20 25, 39. 59, 72, 89, 269, 272 U21 i.26 274 113 1 THESSALONIANS. ii. 14, 16 233, 240 2 THESSALONIANS. i. 6—10 68, 82, 99, 1 17, 197, 221, 233 1 TIMOTHY. 1.15 ri. 4—6 iv. 10 V 17 iv. 13 1.12 ii. 13 2 TIMOTHY. TITUS. 266, 272 92, 258 281 2S3 282 122 279 HEBREWS, i. 2 272 ii. 9 75, 85, 92, 93, 261, 280 ii. 14 197, 257 iv. 2, Vi. 11 284 vi. 13—18 254 YiL 16. ai 116, 142, 143 Page viL28 150 ix. 26 38, 100, 114 ix. 27, 28 141, 150, 161, 182 X. 22, 23 257, 284 X. 37, 38 47, 55 i. 18 JAMES. 274 1 PETER. i. 4 i. 8 2 PETER. 116, 142 284 ii. 4, 17 iii. 7 1 JOHN. 121 43,52 ii. 1, 2 iii. 8 iv. 14 iv. 18 V. 1 v. 9—11 V. 19 JUDE. 266 197, 257 264 284 185, 273 255 266 5 6, 7 13 14, 15 46,54 66, 79 122 65,78 REVELATION, v. 13 73, 76, 272 xiii. 8 156 XX. 15 119, 126, 156, 177 JUU.7,8 30,37,12$ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. TO EZRA STILES ELY, STEPHEN H. TYNG, WILLIAM T. BRANTLEY, and ALBERT BARNES, Clergymen of the City of Philadelphia. Brethren— Of all subjects ever presented for the con- sideration of man, that which relates to our final destiny is unquestionably the most important. The concerns of time are not worthy to be compared with the afi'airs of eternity. A few more years, and the present generation will be numbered with those that have gone before us to the world of spirits. And no one who accredits the doc- trine of "life and immortality" can be altogether insensi- ble to the importance of the question, What shall be the future condition of man ? You believe that a part or portion of the human race will be doomed to future endless punishment. You be- lieve that this doctrine is revealed in the Bible, and that the Scriptures not only authorize but command you to proclaim it as the truth of heaven. On the other hand, we expressly deny that said doctrine is true. We expressly deny that it is taught in the Bible, and hereby declare our solemn conviction, that j/ow cannot prove the endless punishment of any part or portion of man- kind. And we farther certify you, that we feel ourselves obligated to believe whatever doctrine can be fairly and cleanly established by Scripture testimony. With these views, and prompted solely by a desire to extend the knowledge and influence of Divine truth, we are induced respectfully to invite your attention to the following proposals : /. r • Will you (or either of you) deliver a series of Lectures in our churches respectively, during this winter, in proof of the doctrine of future endless misery ? Not more than two of said Lectures to be delivered each week— that is, one in. 2 14 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. each of the churches, on any day or evening excepting Sunday. On our part, we will engage to invite our con- gregations respectively to attend said Lectures, and to attend ourselves. On your part, we shall expect you to give notice after each Lecture, that it will be revicAved by the Pastor of the Church in which it was delivered, on an evening which shall then be named; and we shall also ex- pect you to invite your congregations respectively to attend. Should the foregoing proposals not receive your appro- bation, we respectfully offer the following : Will you (or either of you) alloiv us (or either of us) to deliver a series of Lectures in your churches respectively, during this winter, in proof of the doctrine of the final salva- tion of all men ? The spirit of the preceding conditions to be preserved. If it should be inquired why we have specially directed this letter and these proposals to you, this is our answer: We believe you are better qualified to sustain the doctrine of endless punishment, than are any other clergymen of Philadelphia ; and we are desirous that ourselves and our congregations should hear the strongest arguments that can be advanced on that side of the question. With sentiments of affectionate regard, We are respectfully yours, &c. ABEL C. THOMAS, Pastor of the 1st Universalist Church.- S. W. FULLER, Pastor of the 2d Universalist Church. Philadelphia Dec. 9, 1833. TO EZRA STILES ELY, STEPHEN H. TYNG, WILLIAM T. BRANTLEY, and ALBERT BARNES, Brethren — The importance of the subject of the previa ou? letter, (addressed to you through the " Messenger and ULiversalist,") in connexion with our earnest desire to learn something definite in relation to our proposals, will, THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 15 we trust, be considered a sufficient apology, if any be needed, for the present communication. Our object is, simply, to be definitely certified of your determination in reference to the proposals adverted to. May we not then, expect a line from you touching the matter? With sentiments of affectionate regard. We are respectfully yours, &c. ABEL C. THOMAS, Philadelphia, Jan. 22. S. W. FULLER. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia, Jan. 23d, 1834. Dear Sir — The Letter addressed to myself and three of my brethren in the ministry, m the Messenger and Uni- versalisf, on the 14th of December last, never met my eye until some time near the 6th of January; when the paper containing it was sent me through the post office. I have not conferred with the other gentlemen, whom you have addressed ; and leave them to answer in any way which they may think proper. With yourself I have some slight acquaintance ; and permit me to say, that I entertain for you sentiments of respect. I do not withold from you the title of Reverend^ for any other reason than this, that I use it to denote one whom I regard as a minister of Christ; and I cannot ac- knowledge any one v.'-ho denies the future punishment of the wicked as sustaining that official character. I am glad that you have addressed me without any other title than that of 5ro/Aer, and I very cordially salute you in return as a hrother in the human family. Let the with- holding of titles be no offence between us. Let us waive all dispute with each other about character, office, and every thing personal. I decline making the pulpit or any place of worship the theatre of a public disputation ; because I think few per- sons would be likely to become convinced of the truth by 16 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. tearing alternately two opponent preachers. We might make partisans, but I should think few converts to right- •eousness. I propose to you to publish in The Philadelphian and any Universalist neivspaper which you may select, a dis- cussion between you and myself on the doctrine of uni- versal salvation ; on condition that you will first distinctly inform me which of the many prevalent systems of uni- versal salvation you judge to be true. It is to be under- stood, however, that each editor of the papers concerned may cease from publishing the controversy whenever he may think it no longer profitable to his subscribers. Of course, you and I shall cease from the controversy when we choose. If either of us shall wish to proceed, when the other declines to answer, he will undoubtedly have the right to publish any thing he may write in any pages to which he can gain access. My design is not useless disputation, nor have I any desire to excite unpleasant feelings. If I could, I should be glad to convince you of the truth of what I believe to be the gospel : for t fear that you may perish from the presence of the Lord for ever. I should be delighted could I be the means of effecting such a revolution in your sen- timents as would prepare you to become an orthodox preacher of the gospel. On the other hand, you feel con- fident that I shall reach heaven ; because all men, agree- ably to your theory, will be saved. I have only to add on the present occasion, that no one erf our several pieces, if we wish them to be read, ought to exceed two columns in the Philadelphian. Yours respectfully, EZHA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, Jan. 27, 1834. Dear Sir — I feel not a little satisfaction in being ena- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 17 bled to testify to the frankness and courteous diction of your letter of the 23d inst. I have so repeatedly had cause to complain of tiie uncandid and ungenerous treat- ment received from opposing brethren, that the Christian spirit evinced by you is doubly gratifying to my feelings. I freely acknowledge that it is no more than I expected, and no less than I had reason to expect, from a gentle- man of your character and standing in society. And I sincerely hope that the time may not be far distant, when a correspondent good feeling will be uniformly manifest- ed by all the opponent sects in Christendom, and when an honest difference of opinion will prevent no one from *' endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." , , I cordially unite with you m saying, Let the with- holding of titles be no offence between us. Let us waive all dispute with each other about character, office, and .every thing personal." And while on this point, allow vme to observe, that, in my opinion, the title " Reverend" rbelongs exclusively to the Supreme Being— that I do not ■prefix it to the names of my Universalist brethren, and •that I never apply it to man, excepting in cases where the .non-application of the title might be considered a mark .-of disrespect. , I am sorry you decline accepting either of tne propo- sals contained in the letter of December 14. I am sorry, because I am confident that a public disputation, in the manner proposed, would excite little partisan feeling, were you one of the opponent preachers and myself the other. And more attention would thus be directed to the disputed question, than we can reasonably expect to ex- cite by a written controversy. You propose a written " discussion between you and myself on the doctrine of universal salvation." It appears to me that your proposal should have al- lowed a choice of questions— because the joint proposal of S. W. Fuller and myself left it entirely optional with you, whether you would deliver a series of lectures in our churches in proof of endless punishment, or allow us to 2^ 18 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. deliver a series in your church in proof of the final sal- vation of all men. Should not your proposal have been so stated as to allow correspondent option on my part? Moreover, you say, " 1 should be glad to convince you of the truth of what I believe to be the gospel I should be delighted, could I be the means of effecting such a revolution in your sentiments, as would prepare you to become an orthodox preacher of the gospel." In view of this statement, the proper question would be, Is the doctrine of endless punishment taught in the Bible ? If this question should not meet your approbation, I propose annexing thereto the following : Or does the Bible teach the final holiness and happiness of all mankind ? This joint question would, I apprehend, as equally divide the affirmative labour as either of us could desire. In relation to " which of the many prevalent systems of universal salvation" I "judge to be true," I need only observe, that I believe the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life. I doubt not you will inform me, with equal frankness, whether you predi- cate endless punishment on the sins of this life, or on end- less sinning. On your part, you have proposed The Philadelphian as a medium of communication. On my part, I propose the Messenger and Universal ist. You are editor of the former, and I am one of the editors of the latter. It is of course understood that both sides of the controversy shall appear in both papers. I perfectly agree with you, " that no one of our pieces, if we wish them to be read, ought to exceed two columns in The Philadelphian." And as to the length to which the controversy may be protracted, I shall have no objection to any equitable arrangement. In concluding this letter, I shall adopt your own lan- guage : "My design is not useless disputation, nor have I any desire to excite unpleasant feelings." I have no worldly interest to subserve by advocating the doctrine of Universalism. I solem.nly believe it to be the truth of tj-od, and feel myself bound to bring into exercise my every energy in its proclamation and defence. And I am THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 19 Strengthened and encouraged in the labour of love, by an unwavering confidence, that even my opposing brethren shall not "perish from the presence af the Lord forever." In (hem I behold the ransomed of the Lord. In them 1 recognise the children of our common Father. And I re- joice in believing that the whole race of mankind shall eventually bow to the life-giving sceptre of the Prince of iPeace. Yours respectfully, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia, Jan: 31st, 1834. Dear Sir— I desired to know, distinctly, what scheme of universal salvation you believe to be true, that our con- troversy might be brought Avithin reasonable limits. The Universalisfs who are called Restorationists, have proved, I think, unanswerably from the Bible, that there shall be punishment experienced by sinful men in a state of exist- ence after the present. They have also attempted to show, without success, in my judgment, that alter tuture punishment has been experienced for some finite, but in- definite, time, there will be, in the lapse of everlastmg a<'es a restoration of all human bemgs to happiness ^ °From your last letter I learn that you are not of their number. You have furnished me with two propositions which you are willing to support. n i , ooo First, you assert, in your letter of December 9tli, IbdcJ, that you feel yourself obligated to believe whatever DOCTRINE can BE FAIRLY AND CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY Scripture testimony. This I adopt as one of the settled principles on which our discussion is to rest: Secondly, you assert, in your letter of January 27th, that you " believe the Bible furnishes no evidence of a PUNI?HAIENT beyond THE PRESENT LIFE." This doctrine is held by some, in connexion with an opinion that this is man's only state of existence, and ac- -20 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. cording to their theory, there is no future state for man- kind, either of happiness or of misery ; because man at death ceases to exist. Others hold, that ail men who arrive at the moment of death without having repented, will thereafter be annihi- lated ; and so on the principle of the Destructionists, will escape all future punishment. Others teach, that in the moment of entering the future spiritual state of existence, every man not before con- verted to God will become a renewed person, a child of Ood, a lover of holiness, and so will escape all future punishment. Others again teach, that the present is the only state of retribution for man ; that the judgment is already past ; that strict, full, and final justice is done to all men in this life ; and that the life to come is a state of happiness re- sulting from the mere, unmingled mercy of God, irre- spective of the claims of justice, which have all been sat- isfied in relation to each individual before his death, by the punishment of his sins in his own person. Others, finally, teach, that when men come to die, whatever may have been their sins, and whether they have repented of them or not in this world, Christ has, by his mediatorial work and full satisfaction for all the sins of all men, secured to them an immediate introduc- tion to heaven. This is what they call universal salva- tion by free grace. I should like to know upon which of these grounds you judge, that ^Aere is no punishment beyond the present life : or if you have some other scheme of universal sal- vation from all future punishment, which has not been named, that you would frankly disclose it. If you choose, however, you will undoubtedly have the right to resort to any one or all of these theories, which I deem refuges of lies. That you may not take the trouble to argue against doctrines which I disclaim, I shall freely state my creed on such subjects as I suppose may be involved in our pre- sent discussion. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. !M. I ttelieve, then, that the one, only, living and true God, the Maker of man, exists, a wise, just, kind, and good moral governor of all rational beings — that his creature man is the intelligent, sensitive, free, accountable, effi- cient author of all his own moral actions — that every accountable, free, moral agent, of the human family, has freely, and without any compulsion, necessity, or divine efficiency, exerted in the case, sinned against his Moral Governor, by acting in opposition to God's law — that the present life is a statue of trial, preparatory to a future state of endless retribution — that in the present life the provi- dence of God causes much natural good and evil to min- gle in every man's lot— that all the pains of this life are indicative of God's displeasure against sin ; and that all the favours men receive from Heaven are indications of God's goodness— that in the present life obedience to the moral law is not fully and perfectly rewarded, nor diso- bedience universally and completely punished—that if men repent and become the friends of God, while in their present state of trial, all their sins will in the moment of such repentance be pardoned, for the sake of Christ's mediatorial work, so that they never more shall experi- ence any pains which are not fatherly corrections, in- tended to improve them— that if men do not repent of their sins in the present life and become children of God by that great moral change which the Saviour describes as a new birth, thev suffer pain in this life, and will suffer in a future state of being, and will suffer for ever, unpar- doned, and accursed of their Maker— that all the suffer- ings of any one unpardoned sinner, after the present life, will be exactly proportioned to the amount of his crimes in this life ; and will correspond to the measure of his continued sinning in the life to come — that no lost sinner in the future life will ever there repent and be pardoned — that all pain is an attribute of feeling, and that all the punishments of the damned will consist for ever in the feelings of their own minds— that sinful feelings are in their own nature, or their speedy mental results, painful — that all the sufferings of the lost are deserved and 28 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. suitable vindications of God's essential justice and moral government — and that no sinner will ever be damned of God one moment longer than he continues an obsti- nate rebel against the justice, mercy and goodness of God manifested through Jesus Christ. It may be important to add, that I believe mind to be a distinct substance from matter; that spirit is mind con- ceived of as capable of subsisting and acting indepen- dently of bodily organization ; that the souls of men are active, sensitive, intelligent and efficient agents, in a state of spiritual existence, called the intermediate state, between death and the resurrection of the body ; that a particular personal judgment passes on each spirit of a man so soon as it permanently leaves the body ; and that there shall be, in the end of the world, a resurrection of every human body, not before raised from the dead; in order that each spirit may inhabit for ever its own former body, resuscitated, and adapted to its endless state. If you will deal with equal candour, give me your creed, and let our readers know how far we agree in sentiment; it may prevent much useless argumentation. Should I meet you on the ground of reason and analogy, I should say, God is as good noio as he will be at any future time; and yet his wisdom, power and goodness have not prevented all sin and suffering now ; and there- fore there is no reason to conclude these same attributes will preclude rebellion and misery at any time hereafter. I might add, that man's wisdom and goodness do not prevent him from being wicked and miserable now, and there is no reason to infer that they will in future ; for all experience shows that wicked men and seducers wax worse and worse. We come, however, to the Bible, and I am glad our inquiry is to be, V[^at saith the Scripture? The Bible throughout presents to my mind a contrast between the present character, and the future prospects of the righteous and the wicked. It sets in opposition salvation and damnation, heaven and hell. We read, THEOLOGICAL DISCTTSSION. 23 "The Lord preserveth all them that love him r hut all the wicked will he destroy," Psalm cxlv. 20. " The way of the wicked he lurnelh upside down," Psalm cxlvi. 9, " The ungodly," we are told in the first Psalm, " are like the chaflf which the wind driveth away. Therefore the un<^odly shall not stand in the judgment :— the way of the ungodly shall perish." In the second Psalm, kings and iud°o-es are exhorted to " kiss the Son, lest he be angry ; \nSthey perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little." " The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth : the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God," Psalm ix. 16, 17. " The Lord trieth the righteous : but the wicked, and him that loveth violence, his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest : this shall be the portion of their cup," Psalm xi. 5, 6. "The Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them," Psalm xxi. 9. Now to destroy the wicked, to turn their way upside down, to drive them away like chaff, not to let them stand in the judgment, to turn them into hell, and to have snares, fire, brimstone and tempest for their portion, must mean any thing rather than universal salvation. I remain yours respectfullv, EZRA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, Feb. 8, 1834. Dear Sir- In my last letter, I proposed the following joint question as the basis of our discussion, viz. Istlw doctrine of endless punishment taught in the Bible J or does the Bible teach the final holiness and happiness of all man- kind ? As you have not objected to this proposition, it is presumable that you accede to it. This, then, I shall consider a settled point. 24 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. When you desired me to state " which of the many prevalent systems of universal salvation" I "judge to be- true," I supposed, and felt myself justified in supposing, that you simply wished to know whether I did or did not hold to punishment in the future state. I frankly certi- fied you that " I believe the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life." But it seems that this answer did not cover the entire ground of your query. You ask me whether I hold lo the annihilation of the human race ; or whether 1 beli(!ve with the Des- tructionists, that the wicked shall be blotted out of exist- ence. All this you ask in full view of the fact, that I had engaged to sustain, on Bible testimony, the final holiness and happiness of all mankind ! After noticing five theories, including the two above referred to, each of which you seem to consider worthy the name Universalism, you say, that if I have any other system of universal salvation, you would like me to dis- close it — and then you add, " If you choose, however, you will undoubtedly have the right to resort to any one or all of these theories, which I deem refuges of lies." Let us suppose that in my last letter to you I had drawn a faithful portraiture of Mahommedanism— an- other of Mormonism — another of original Calvinism — another of Arminianism — and a fifth of Arminio-Calvin- ism. And suppose that, having placed these several theories before you, I should have added, " If you have some other scheme of endless punishment, which has not been named, I desire you frankly to disclose it. If you choose, however, you will undoubtedly have a right to resort to any one or all of these theories, which I deem refuges of lies." — In this case what would have been your judgment? I am satisfied you would have said, in effect, " What does all this amount to ? It is any thing but argument. By classing the system of an opponent with theories which you know he abhors, and then styling them refuges of lies, you may excite prejudice against him — ^but you cannot reasonably expect, by such a course, to subserve the interest of the truth of God." Such, I am THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 25 persuaded, would have been your judgment — and your judgment, in my opinion, would have been just. There are but three systems of Universalism. Istr Calvinism Improved — chiefly differing from Calvinism in supposing a universal vicarious atonement, and in the con- sequent salvation of all men. Edward Mitchell, of New York, is, I believe, the only public advocate of this form of Universalism in the United States.* 2d. Arminianism Extended — the system advocated by "Winchester, Chauncey, and others. It extended proba- tion into the future state, and allowed of future limited punishment, resulting in the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. This system is held by many Universal- ists — and prominentUj by the " Massachusetts Restora- tionist Association." 3d. In noticing the third system, I shall give you my own views — premising that they are the views of a large majority of American Universalists. 1st. I believe that God " will render to every man according to his deeds," that is, according to his own deeds, Rom. ii. 6 ; — conse- quently I reject the doctrine oi vicarious atonement. 2d. I believe that " the righteous shall be recompensed in THE EARTH, much morc the wicked and the sinner," Prov. xi. 31 ; — consequently, " I believe the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life." 3d. I believe that God " will reconcile all things to himself," that " God may be all iri all," Col. i. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 28. And this salvation I believe to be "the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast," Ephes. ii. 8, 9. Although I have been thus particular in stating my Bible creed, 1 wish to have it distinctly understood, that in the present controversy, I shall conhne my remarks to the two prominent doctrines of endless punishment, on the one hand, and the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, on the other. With topics of minor import- ance I shall have nothing to do, excepting so far as they * Edward Mitchell departed this life on the 8th day of August, 1334. 3 26 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. may have a direct iearinfr on the general issue. I shall expect you to furnish such Bible testimony in proof of endless punishment as you may deem conclusive ; and I shall produce Bible testimony in proof of the final salva- tion of all mankind. I shall use all honourable means to convince you that the passages by you citeJ do not esta- blish the point to be proved ; and in like manner you will be called on to show Avherein the evidence by me ad- duced, fails to establish the doctrine I have engaged to sustain. You are aware that all I desired you to state. Avas, "whether you predicate endless punishment on the sins of this life, or on endless i,inning." The creed with which you have furnished me was therefore uncalled for, excepting so far as it gave me to understand your views on that particular point of doctrine. And in my view, any thing farther was wholly unnecessary. Until the joint question mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter, is disposed of, I shall not consent to discuss the doctrines of original sin, total or partial depravity, neces- sity or free will, moral or physical ability or inability, vicarious atonement, the trinity, materiality or immate- riality, intermediate state — or in short any other doctrines than those mentioned in the question. My reasons for confining the present discussion to these limits, are briefly as follows : The original proposal slated, that "of all subjects ever presented for the consideration of man, that which relates to our final destiny is unquestionably the most important." Our readers are primarily interested in coming to " a knowledge of the truth," in relation to the momentous concerns of eternity. They feel comparatively little in- terest in minor points of theology. If you can prove the doctrine of endless punishment, they will mourn over the prospective doom of the children of humanity ; but if I can clearly establish the doctrine of the " reconciliation of all things," and thus vindicate the ways of God to man, they will "rejoice with joy unspeakable ^ndfull of glory. ^* They have fixed their eyes upon us, and are saying in THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 27 their hearts, '' Brethren, do not perplex our minds with the subtillies of polemic theology. We wish you to keep the two prominent doctrines constantly in view. We wish to know, definitely, what will be the final des- tiny of ourselves, our children, our relatives, and of the world at large. We beg you to leave minor points out of the question. We wish the discussion to be of definite character. Let the inquiry be. What saitli the Scripture 1 Exercise Christian charity and candour, and we have little doubt that the truth of the matter Avill be clearly revealed." As to the passages quoted in the concluding paragraph of your letter, I have only to remark, that you will most probably introduce them, in their proper place, as proofs of the doctrine you suppose them to teach ; and they will then receive the attention they justly deserve. I shall expect your next communication to contain as many of your proofs of endless punishment as to you may appear expedient. Respectfully yours, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia, Feb. 17th, 1834. Dear Sir — You have distinctly informed me, in the letters already received from you, (1.) that in your opin- ion, we are bound to believe whatever doctrine can be fairly and clearly established by Scripture testimony; (2.) that the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishnient be- yond the present life ; (3.) that in the present life God fully and finally recompenses the righteous and the wick- ed, according to each person's own deeds; (4.) that the Bible teaches no doctrine of a vicarious atonement ; and (5.) that the Bible asserts the final holiness and happiness of all mankind in a future state. On each of these points, except the first, we differ in our judgment. 28 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. The Bible furnishes much evidence of a punishment beyond the present life, which shall be experienced by all who die without having been born again. This punishment includes their being deprived of the happiness of the righteous in heaven, and all the painful feelings which will be expe- rienced in hell, whatever may be the occasion or the in- strumental cause of those pains. Our Saviour says, "Except a man be born again he cannot see he cannot enter the kingdom of God," John iii. 3, 5. These words imply, that some men are not in the kingdom of God; that some men have not been born again ; and that unless they should be born again, they shall for ever remain excluded from the kingdom of God. If all men are born again, or will be born again, it was absurd for Christ to frighten men with the idea of their not entering the kingdom of God. " God so loved the world that he gave his only begot- ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John lii. 16. Here I'ERDiTioN and EVERLASTING LIFE are exhibited in contrast. These words clearly teach, that if God had not given his Son, men would all have perished; but that now believ- ers, and believers alone, shall escape perdition and enjoy everlasting life. This corresponds with another saying of Jesus, Mark xvi. 16, that " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Before his death, Christ asserted the man- ner, the necessity and the design of it, saying, " as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life," John iii. 14, 15. If there are none who will remain in unbelief, the threat of perdition was idle, and unworthy the Saviour. Had Christ believed the doctrine of universal salvation, it would have been natural for him to have said, "he tha* believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that be- lieveth not shall be saved." Or he might have caused it to be written, " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and all shall believe and be baptized." This last THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 29 Statement, however, would have been contrary to known truth ; for in every past age multitudes have neither be- lieved nor been baptized. Why should Christ say any thing about damnation or perdition^ if it is certain, in his mind, that all will be saved ? Why should he have said, " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" Matt, xxiii. 33. The damna- tion of hell surely does not mean ihe salvation of heaven : and had Christ, who as God knows all things, known any ■way of escape from hell for the hypocrites to whom he addressed the interrogation, his interrogation would have proved himself a deceiver. " Ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers : therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation," ver. 14. These same persons Christ accuses of not entering the kingdom of heaven themselves, and of not suffering others to enter. Would you, sir, dare to accost Christ and say, " You knew well enough how that generation of vipers would escape the damnation of hell, and enter the kingdom of heaven! You knew also, that none will be prevented from entering the kingdom of heaven ; for all shall enier and be saved." On the supposition that all are to be saved, one of these vipers might have replied, "Who will not escape the damnation of hell ?" Will you attempt to prove that damnation does not mean damnation, but some- thing tantamount to salvation 1 " He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy," Prov. xxix. I. Here sudden destruction is denounced against some ; and it is declared that there is no remedy for that destruction. This passage cuts off all hope from those who assert that there is a remedy, and a restoration ulti- mately, to be expected in the future life. If the hardened sinner spoken of is to be destroyed merely in the present life, and then is to be restored to Divine favour, the decla- ration is not true, that he shall he destroyed without remedy. I cannot but think this passage in Proverbs refers to the same destruction which Christ spoke of when he said, *' Fear not them which kill the bodv, but are not able to 3* oO THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. kill ihe soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Matthew x. 28. This is a destruction after the dissolution of soul and body ; a de- struction of the whole man in hell. How, then, say some among you, that there is no hell ; or that there is no evil experienced by any of the human family after the pre- sent life ? If there is no such thing as God's destroying both soul and body in hell — that is, in some state after the termination of our earthly course by natural death, we must regard our Saviour as resorting to imposition, when he exhorted men to fear unreal objects of dread and alarm. Would any honest person warn a man to fear that which is not to be feared ; or to avoid an evil to which none are exposed ? In Ezekiel xviii. 31, 32, God remonstrates with sinners, saying, " Why will ye die ?" " for I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God : where- fore turn yourselves, and live ye." Natural death, or the dis^^olution of soul and body, is inevitable. It would be mockery to approach a gasping mortal and ask him, Why wilt thou cease to breathe ? It is of a death, that may be avoided ; of a spiritual, second, and everlasting death in sin and to all holiness, that Jehovah demands, Why inll ye die ? Had I the sentiments of Universalists, I might very lawfully and consistently with myself reply to my Maker, " Do not trouble yourself to expostulate with me, nor endeavour to excite groundless alarms; for my Lord is well assured that none will die. All will EE saved; and be saved by himself too! Why, then, should he take the trouble to swear by himself, saying, ^5 I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the ivicked?^^ Ezek. xxxiii. 11. On the supposition that there is no death after natural death, every such solemn and tender warning of our mer- ciful God must be regarded as a solemn farce. That there is 3. second death, which consists in an everlasting separa- tion from the enjoyment of God and the society of the good in heaven, is clearly taught in Revelation xxi. 7, 8; " He that overcometh shall inherit all things ; and I will THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 31 be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone : which is the second death." Here the pen of inspiration has drawn a contrast between the fu- ture state of one who overcometh this sinful world, and persons of a different character: but if all men will be saved immediately after leaving the present state of be- ing, there is no second death, and then he who overcom- eth, and all who die impenitent, liars, murderers, idolaters and unbelievers, shall slike inherit all things ; and none have their part in a state of punishment symbolized by a lake of fire unquenchable. Poetry I know proves no- thing; but the sentiment expressed in the last cited text of Scripture is admirably expanded in the following stanzas : " Far from the utmost verge of day Those gloomy regions lie, Where flames amid the darkness play, The worm shall never die. The breath of God— his angry breath Supplies and fans the fire : There sinners taste the second death, And would, but can't expire. Conscience, the never dying worm, With torture gnaws the heart; And wo and wrath in every form, Is now the sinner's part ! Sad world indeed ! ah, who can bear For ever there to dwell 1 For ever sinking in despair, In all the pains of hell !" It is my prayer that you may never have personal ex- perience of the truth of these lines. Were there no other passage of the Bible on the sub- ject of controversy between us than the parable of the good seed and the fares, I should think that sufficient for the refutation of your opinion : "or Christ, in explaining 32 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. his own meaning, said, " The field is the world ; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; hut the tares are the children of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity ; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashmg of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the^sun in the kingdom of their Father," Matt. xiii. 38—43. Here our Saviour tells us what shall take place m the end of the world : that then there shall be amon^y men tAvo sorts of children;— the children of the kingdom of God and the children of the v/icked one, the d'evil ; that the children of the wicked one having grown like tares in God's kingdom of this world, the field, shall be gathered out of it ;— that the glory, honour, and happi- ness of the righteous, who are the children of God, shall then be comparable to the clear shining of the sun'; and that the sufferings of those who have done iniquity, and have continued tares to the end of the world, are fitly de- scribed by wailing, gnashing of teeth, and the tortures that would result from casting persons into a furnace of fire. All this I believe as firmly as that there is any future state for man ; and I affectionately and respectfully, there- fore, entreat you, dear sir, and all who may read our let- ters, 10 flee from the wrath to come on all who die the se- cond death. Make your calling and election sure, and then while many perish in their sins, you will be -^lorious with our God, ' ^ Other proofs of the future punishment of persons, who die unpardoned, and not " meet to be partakers of the in- heritance of the saints in light." will be presented, if the Lord permit, in some subsequent letter. Yours respectfully, EZRA STJLES ELY. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 33 TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, Feb. 22, 1834. Dear Sir — In attereplin^ to prove any particular doc- trine by the Bible, due caution should be ohserved in the selection of the testimony. Such passages only should be quoted as are supposed unequivocally to prove the doctrine in question. And I have little doubt, that in en- deavouring to establish the doctrine of endless punish- ment, you have cited the passages which to your mind appear most conclusive. Before I proceed to an examination of your proofs, al- low me to observe, that it would not be courteous in either of us to charge the other with a denial of the Scriptures. I am satisfied that our differences in sentiment arise, not from a rejection of the Bible on either hand, but from our different apprehensions of the import of its language. And it should be remembered that my opinions do not more widely differ from yours, than yours do from mine. An intimated charge of infidelity by either party would, therefore, be equally indecorous and unjust. As it is understood to be mutually conceded that the parties to the discussion accredit the testimony of the Bible, according to their respective apprehensions of its meaning, the simple quotation of a Scripture passage should not be considered sufficient proof of a position. An attempt should, in all cases, be made to show, that the passage establishes the point to be proved. In proof of endless punishment, you quote John iii. 3, 5 : " Except a man be born again he cannot sec — he can- not enter the kingdom of God." But you assume that the langdom of God here mentioned, appertains to a future immortal existence. This is the point to be proved. LiGHTFOOT, whose general orthodoxy you will not ques- tion, says: "That the kingdom of God, or of heaven, are terms convertible in the evangelist, is obvious to every one that will take the pains to compare them ; and that by the kingdom of God, or of heaven, is meant the kingdom and liav'S of the Messiah, is so plain, that it 34 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. needs no argument to prove it. . . . Speech is there had (John iii. 3,) of Christ's kingdom of heaven upon earth, or the state under Christ." So also Eeza, Whitby, &c. John iii. 14 — 16, " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever belie veth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world," &c. That to perish does not signify to suffer endless punish- ment is obvious. " There is dijiist man that perisheth in his righteousness," Eccl. vii. 15. " The righteous per- isheth,'''' isa. Ivii. 1. "It cannot be that a prophet per- ish out of Jerusalem," Liike xiii. 33. You say, how- ever, that to perish and to Jtave everlasting life are exhibited in contrast. Granted. But in thence arguing the doctrine of endless punishment, you assume that the everlasting life mentioned in the text appertains to a future immor- tal existence. " This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ w^hom thou hast sent," John xvii. 3. " He that believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life," John V. 24. " He that believeth on me hath everlasting life,'''' John vi. 47. The believer enjoys everlasting life in this w^orld, and the unbeliever 'perishes in this w^orld. The former lives on the knowledge of God — the latter perishes with moral hunger. Mark xv^i. 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." As you apply this passage to a future state, and speak of it in an unrestricted sense, you cannot justly object to being tried by it. " These signs shall follow them that believe ; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and it they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." As these signs do not follow yon, you cannot be a believer, and of course you must be damned, according to your own showing ! And if to be damned signifies to be doomed to endless punishment, such must be your fate. But the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 35 truth is, the passage, in my judgment, had its fulfilment in the age of miracles. To that age were confined the particular salvation and damnation spoken of, inasmuch as to that age were confined the signs of believers. As to the word damn, Dr. Campbell remarks, that in the text it corresponds exactly to the English word condemn, — and affirms that the passage has no reference to a future life. So also Horne. If Jesus had intended to teach endless punishment, he Avould have said, "He that be- lieveth and is baptized in fAis world, shall be saved in the next — and he thnt believeth not and is not baptized in this world, shall be eternally damned in the ?jc:r/." Matt, xxiii. 14, " Ye shall receive the greater damna- tion." You have not attempted to prove that this " greater damnation" signifies endless punishment. On the paral- lel passage, Mark xii. 40, Pkarce remarks, " Rather judg- ment or punishment ; by which is meant, that they should suffer more severely than other sinners, when the Jewish state should be destroyed." Matt, xxiii. 33, " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" You have not attempted to prove that the hell here spoken of is in a future state of existence. You have simply quoted the passage, relying on the prepossession of the reader for the application you desire. Be it known that I as firmly accredit the testimony of Jesus as you can possibly do. The question is simply on the import of the testimony. If you can prove that the damnation or punishment of gehenna [the word translated hell] was to be inflicted in a future state of existence, I will yield the argument, but you canrtot reasonably expect me to believe your unsup- ported assertions. I am prepared to meet you in dis- cussion of all that the Bible says about gehenna. Before you said, "The damnation of hell surely does not mean the salvation of heaven'^ and before you put the question, " AVill you attempt to show that dawiiation does not mean damnation, but something tantamount to salration?''' you should have attempted to .show from the Bible that dam- nation means misery in a future state, and that the dam- 36 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. nation of hell surely means endless punishment. Let me respectfully entreat you to forbear assuming the pre- dicates of your arguments. Proverbs xxix. 1, " He that being often reproved har- denelh his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." I have frequently been surprised tP hear this passage seriously urged in proof of endless pun- ishment. When we say of a man in the last stages of consumption, " he will certainly die, and that without remedy," — or of a house enveloped in flames, " it will cer- tainly be destroyed, and that without remedy ;" do we mean that either the man or the house will be miserable in a fu- ture state? Solomon says of a" naughty person," that" his calamity shall come suddenly ; suddenly shall he be bro- Jcenwithout remedij,^^ Prov. vi. 15. Of the "chief of the priests and people," it was said, " they mocked the mes- sengers of God until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remcchj ; therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men,^^ kc, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16, 17. The most that can be said of the text and the two foregoing cases is, that death was inevitable — there was no remedy — no escape. Matt. X. 28, " Fear not them that kill the body," &c. The parallel is Luke xii. 4, 5. You remark in effect, that if your view of the text be not correct, our Saviour ex- horted men to fear unreal objects of dread ! This is as- suming that he taught endless punishment in the passage before us. And it supposes also, that, in your opinion, there is no object of dread besides endless punishment. Whatever be the object of dread mentioned in the text, it is certain that the disciples alone are exhorted to fear it ! No such language ivas ever addressed to any but the disciples of Christ. Be it noticed, also, that whatever is destroyed ceases to exist, and of course ceases to suffer or enjoy. Moreover, if God be intended by the word him, (which is questionable,) it should not be forgotten that his ahiliti/ to do certain things is not suflicient authority for affirming that he will do them. He " is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham," Matt. iii. 9, but you do not sup- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 37 pose he ever loill do so. So soon as you present your ar- guments in proof that gehenna is in the immortal state of existence, and that there soul and body unll he destroyed, I will attend to your reasoning — but I am not willing to rest the controversy on your apprehension of the signifi- cation of a text. Ezekiel xviii. 31, 32 : xxxiii. 11 : You say, and correctly, that " natural death, or the dissolution of soul and body is inevitable" — but it does not follow that death by famine, pestilence, and the sword, was inevitable to the house of Israel — nor that " a spiritual, second, and everlasting death in sin and to all holiness," is spoken of in the passage referred to. I do not find the word spiritual in either of those passages, nor do I find aught said about a " second and everlasting death." Nor have you furnished any proof that such a death is intended. And allow me to assure you, that if you " had the sentiments of Univer- salists," you Avouldnot have the sliglitest cause to address the Deity in the manner you have stated. As we propose basing our discussion on proofs, I shall expect you to fur- nish your reasons for supposing that " a spiritual, second, and everlasting death" is taught in the cited passages. Rev. xxi. 7, 8 : This passage speaks of " the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone ; which is the second death." You have a very summary method of proving the doctrine of endless punishment. You say that " here the pen of inspiration has drawn a contrast between (he future state of one who overcometh this sinful world, and persons of a different character." Yet you have not so much as attempted to prove that the future $tate is referred to ! I do not pretend to know much about the Apocalypse, and must therefore request you to furnish your reasons for supposing that this lake of fire is in the eternal world. In Rev. xix. we read of eating the flesh of kings and others — of a battle between the beast and him that sat on the horse and their respective armies — that the beast and false prophet were cast alive into "a lake of fire burnino; loith hrimstone,^^ and that " the remnant were slain, and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." I can see no propriety 38 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIO?T. in referriag such language to a future state. Nor indeed do I see the propriety of urging so confessedly hyperbo- lical a book as the Apocalypse in proof of any impor- tant doctrine. As you acknowledge that poetry proves nothing, I need not notice the stanzas you have quoted. In discussing the question before us, I wish to have nothing to do with* the sallies of poetical imagination. "The poet's eye, in a fine phrensy rolling, Doth glance from earth to heaven, ijjom heaven to earth: And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unkvoirn, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation, and a name." Matt. xiii. 3S — 43 : In your remarks on the parable of the good seed and the tares, you have assumed two im- portant points : 1st. That by the phrase " end of the world," is signified the destruction of the material world. Are you aware that two words of essentially different sig- nification are each translated ico7^ld in the parable before us ? " The field is the icorld,^^ (/cd(r//os.) " The end of the world," [aiiovdi.'j On the latter phrase, Pearce says, " Rather end of this age, viz. that of the JcAvish dispen- sation." And on verse 41, " This is spoken, not of what shall happen at the end of the [material] world, but what was to happen at the end or destruction of the JcAvish state." The same phrase occurs in Matt. xxiv. 3; 1 Cor. X. 11 ; Heb. ix. 26. In the latter it is said that Jesus "appeared in the end of the loorld [age or dispensation] to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." I need not enlarge. 2d. You assume that the furnace of fire, spoken of in the parable, is in the eternal world. You are aware that Egypt is called a furnace, Jer. xi. 4. And it is said, Isa. xxi. 9, " He shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jeru- salem." And again, Ezek. xxii. 18 — 22, "Son of man, THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 39 llie house of Israel is to me become dross ; all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the' fur- nace 1 will g^xher yon into the 7nidst of Je' nusALEM. As they gather silver and brass into tlie midst of the FURNACE, to blow the fire upon it to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leav.e you there and melt you As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace^ so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof," viz. in Jerusalem, as in ver. 19. Moreover, the parable says that "all things that offend and them which do iniquity" shall be gathered ^^ out of his Jdngdom." How could they be gathered out of it^ if they were never in it? And were such characters ever in the kingdom in a future state of existence ? I have thus noticed all the passages you have adduced in proof of endless punishment. I regret having so fre- quently found it necessary to call your attention to points which you have not attempted to prove. It is presuma- ble that neither of us can quote a Scripture passage of the existence of which the other is ignorant. Nor can either of us quote a passage which the other denies. It is there- fore of much importance that the bearing of every pas- sage on the doctrine it is quoted to establish should be clearly pointed out. As our object is not useless disputation, I shall present only a/tw proofs of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, in each letter — bein^ persuaded that such a course will prevent the confusion that might be conse- quent of citing a multiplicity of passages. Colossians i. 19, 20 : " For it pleased the Father that in him [Christ] should all fulness dwell; and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to re- concile ALL THINGS unto himsrjf ; by him, I say, wheiher they be things in earth, or things in heaven." In my judgment, this passage distinctly teaches the final holiness and happiness of all mankind — inasmuch as it teaches the reconciliation of all things to God. From the language of the text I feel myself authorized to believe and teach, that it as perfectly pleased the Fa- 40 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ther " to reconcile all things unto himself," as It did that "in Christ should all fulness dwell." And I suppose you do not feel disposed to deny, that he who is reconciled to God must be happy. If it be objected, as it probably will, that the phrase " all things " does not mean all mankind, but simply be- lievers, I reply, 1st. That the reconciliation of believers is specially spoken of in verse 21 : " And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet noiu hath he reconciled.'''' This special recon- ciliation of believers cannot justly be supposed to militate against the universal reconciliation before spoken of. In. 2 Cor. V. 18, 19, we read : " And all things are of God, who HATH reconciled us [believers] to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia- tion; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." By whi'ch non-imputation, I understand, that God did not consider the trespasses of the world any ob- jection to their reconciliation — for he who is sinless needs no reconciliation. 2d. In the verses preceding the text, we read as fol- lows : " For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whe- ther they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. and he is before all things, and by him all things con- sist. And he is the head of the body, the Church ; who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in ALL THINGS he might have the pre-eminence," — and then come in the words of the text. In the above quotation the phrase in question is used five times — and in each of these instances you allow that the meaning is unlim- ited. Why then limit the phrase in the declaration, "by him to reconcile all things to himself?'^ By what rule of interpretation would you feel authorized to urge a lim- itation in the latter instance, while you acknowledge universality in the former ? Philippians ii. 9—11, " Wherefore God also hath THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 41 highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that in tlie name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under tlie earth ; and that ccenj tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." If the phrases " every knee," and " every tongue," do not express unifcrsalit;/, I am at a loss to conceive what words could be used to convey the idea. If it be objected, that though all mankind will thus bow the knee and thus confess, many will do it unwil- lingly, and to their own shame and endless condemnation, I remark, 1st. That nothing like this appears on the face of the text. We are not certified that some will bow and confess willingly, and others unwillingly — nor tbat some will thus bow and confess to their eternal happiness, and others to their endless condemnation. Far from it. In whatever manner and with whatever feelings, one will bow and confess, " ei:enj knee shall bow and cvoy tongue shall confess." 2d. The text does not inform us that any will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord to their own endless condemnation — but ^'to the crlory of God the Fa- ther. "" And we read, Psalm 1. 23, " Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me." And surely endless condemnation would not be subject matter of praise. We further read, 1 Cor. xii. 3, " No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit." In concluding this letter, let me affectionately entreat you and all our readers, to receive, believe and rejoice in this gracious testimony. The precious records of Divine love, and the faithful promises of our God, fill my own soul with the peace that passeth understanding. And though I have not the smallest doubt of your final bless- edness in Christ, I am desirous that you should enjoy the present happiness of believing in the ultimate reconcilia- tion of all things. Blessed are the people who know the joyful sound. They walk in the light of God's counte- nance, and thus to walk is heaven. Respectfully yours, ABEL C. THOBUS. 42 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia, March 7th, 1834. Dear Sir — The pages of the Bible are so replete with the doctrine, that some of our race die in their iniquities, and are punished in the future state of being, that in my former letters I have cited passages not because I judged them to be the most conclusive, but because providen- tially my eye was turned upon them at the opening of the book. Frequently the simple quotation of Scripture, if it be understood in its plain and obvious meaning, is " suffi- cient proof of a position ;" and commentary and criticism are needful to those alone who wish to believe a different doctrine from that taught by the holy Spirit of inspira- tion. For instance, these propositions, "there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men," — and " these shall go away into everlasting punishment," are so simple and conclusive, that none but an Atheist will require elucidation to satisfy him, that the Bible asserts the being of one God : none but a Romanist will need criticism to show that there is no other Mediator than the Lord Jesus Christ ; and none but a Universalist will demand comment to establish the doctrine of the ever- lasting punishment of the wicked. That there are many texts of Scripture which require reference to the context, and sometimes to the original language in which they were written, that we may ascer- tain their meaning, is readily granted. Especially has " our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, — written unto you — some things hard to be miderstood, which they that are unlearned and unsta- ble wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction;" not only in time^ as you admit, but during everlasting ages. That the kingdom of God sometimes denotes the church in the world, consisting of all professors of the true reli- gion togetlier with their children, is true ; but it also sig- nifies that domain of God in glory which is called heaven. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 43 Now if none can enter the kingdom of God in the world without being born of the Spirit, surely none can enter the dome of the king in glory without first having experi- enced a spiritual renovation. There was a just man who perished in his righteousness, from the steamboat William Penn, the other day ; and the righteous perish daily, from the earth, when they die ; but surely Christ did not intend, that " whosoever believ- eth in him should not perish " from a steamboat, or from the face of the earth. Believers as well as unbelievers perish from the earth, by heat, cold, fire, water, and all the procuring causes of the dissolution of soul and body. To perish, therefore, does not in every instance signify to suffer endless punishment ; but when one is threatened with perdition as an evil the very opposite of everlasting life, that perishing does mean nothing else but everlasting death. Paul speaks of the dying of the just man, which is his perishing from the earth, as falling asleep in Christ ; and says, that if there be no resurrection, " then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished,''^ 1 Cor. xv. 18. Now if to perish means nothing more than dyings then you would make Paul say, that if there is no resur- rection, they who have fallen asleep, i. e. died in Christ, have died ! Riul was not wont thus to trifle by repeat- ing truisms. He speaks of a perdition that might suc- ceed natural death. When Christ foretold, that he should die, that believers should not perish, he referred we think, to the " perdition of ungodly men," (2 Peter iii. 7,) which is to succeed " the day of judgment ;" and which will fulfil the predic- tions of Scripture, that " the hypocrite's hope shall per- ish," (Job viii. 13 ;) that the desire of the wicked shall perish, while the righteous shall be in everlasting remem- brance, (Ps. cxii. 6, 10 ;) that he who speaketh lies shall perish, (Prov. xix. 9 ;) and that many other persons "shall utterly perish in their own corruption." Now if the perishing here denounced, means nothing but nat- ural death, then the righteous and the wicked, and all 44 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. mankind alike, are to perish in corruption, and to experi- ence the perdition of their hopes and expectations. That the everlasting life which believers shall experience in " a future imuiorlal existence," is begun in this world, and that every actual believer now hath it, is a glorious truth. All who have believed, and they alone, have "passed from death unto life ;" and to knoiv God and Jesus Christ aright, not only secures, but so far as spiritually knowing is concerned, is a part, an incipient portion, of life everlasting. Because, however, believers have the promise and experience of everlasting life, begun here, and to be perpetuated for ever in a future state of exist- ence, it does not folloAV that they ivho believe not have eternal life at all. Nor is it true, that everlasting life is confined to the present world, because all believers have it here. On the other hand, the very words teach as clearly as language can speak, that the holy, spiritual living, commenced in this world, shall be continued so long as the immortal subjects of it shall endure. The power of working miracles did follow many that believed the gospel in the first age of the Christian church ; but the Saviour never promised that all believers, who shall escape damnation, should be thus endowed. If he had said, " These signs shall always follow every one who believeth," your mode of explaining away the decla- ration, " he that believeth not shall be damned," would have been useless. If the destroying of him who hardeneth his neck, means nothing but " that death was inevitable," then we may read Proverbs xxix. 1, in this manner, " he that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be de- stroyed, and that without remedy ; and all other persons shall be destroyed likewise ; but perhaps not suddenly ;" for all, of every name and character, the best and the worst, will find that death is inevitable. This mode of ex- plaining Scripture would make every threatening and denunciation of evil lose its force, because it would then bear equally against all men who must die. Such a result, no doubt, many desire ; for thus the law would lose all THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 45 its penal sanctions, and the righteous and the wicked would be both equally saved and damned together. God is able, popularly speaking, it is true, to do many things which he will never do ; but when he exhorted his disciples " to fear him, which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," we must think, that the destruction did not mean merely natural death ; and that other peo- ple who are not his disciples have quite as much reason as they to fear the same doom ; especially when he in pursuing his discourse said, "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven," Matthew x. 32, 33. To be denied, disowned, and rejected of Christ before his Father in hea- ven, as not worthy of him, nor of his society, is a con- stituent part of the endless punishment which is elsewhere called the damnation of hell. Can you think, sir, that it would consist with universal salvation for Christ to dis- own or deny any one, before his Father and his angels, saying, as he has said he will to the unAvise virgins, " I know you not ?" Matt. xxv. 12. The world is in some sense Christ's kingdom ; and so is the Church in the world ; and out of either of these king' doms of God, the tares may be gathered to be burned. Their having been in the visible kingdom of God, with- out serving him in conformity with their opportunities, will render the flames of the furnace into which they shall be cast more intense. You say, " Be it noticed, also, that whatever is destroyed ceases to exist, and of course ceases to suffer or enjoy." How can this agree with ycur doctrine of the final holiness and happiness of all man- kind in a future state ? That which ceases to exist, has no existence any where ; and of course, when the Lord " having saved the people out of the land of Egypt after- ward destroyed them that believed not," (Jude 5,) they ceased to exist ; they were annihilated ; and yet agreeably to your teaching they were made finally holy and happy. If this is true, then your final state of blessedness is af 46 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. firmed of that which is not ; and your heaven must be a nonentity. The passages which you have cited or may cite to prove that all mankind shall experience final and ever- lasting reconciliation to God in a state of holy happiness, I propose to consider in some future letter. At present, I shall be content with remarking, that when the sacred Scriptures are correctly translated and interpreted, no passage can contradict any other passage ; for the revela- tion of God to man must be consistent with itself. No one truth can ever be contravened by any other truth. So long, therefore, as we do not make two seemingly op- ponent passages agree in sentiment, it is manifest, that we mistranslate, or misinterpret, or misunderstand either one or both of them. The system of Divine revelation, whether by the constitution of the human mind. Divine providence, or the written oracles of the Most High, is one grand, harmonious whole. In further proof of the punishment of some sinners af- ter the present life, I refer you to a few additional por- tions of the Bible. Of Christ it was said by Moses, " every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be de- stroyed from among the people," Acts iii. 23. If this meant natural death, then all who hear and all who hear not that prophet, die, and are destroyed without distinc- tion. If a violent death, or death by famine, or pesti- lence, was threatened, all who heard not that prophet were not thus destroyed either from the Hebrew church, or from the earth. " When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish ; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever," Psalm xcii. 7. If you say that this destruction refers wholly to this life, then the wicked and righteous fare alike ; while the text evidently was in- tended to show, that when it shall be u-dl with the latter, it shall be z7Z with the former. Such attempts to prove, that being destroyed for ever is nothing more than the na- tural death appointed for all men, I fear will come under the condemnation of Malachi ii. 17, in which place it is THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 47 written, " Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied him ? When ye say, every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delightelli in them ; or, where is the God of judgment ?" If there are, or ever have been people on earth to whom these words are applicable, I mean no personal disrespect when I say, they must be to those who deny any future judgment and perdition of ungodly men. " Yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; [or rather, the just by faith shall live,'] hut if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition ; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul," Heb. X. 37 — 39. Here perdition is contrasted with the savin ir of the soul; and evidently means the not saving or ihe^oss of it-, concerning which the Saviour has aslced, " What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?" To you and all our readers, I would say, " Enter ye in at the strait gate ; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat : because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it," Matt. vii. 13, 14. Remembering " that it is as far from your house to mine, as from mine to yours," I continue yours with the best wishes, EZRA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, March 15, 1854. Dear Sir — There can be no doubt that, in some cases, the quotation of Scripture, " if it be understood in its plain and obvious meaning," is sufficient proof of a po- sition. But in the discussion of the all-important ques^ 48 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. tion before us, something more than the simple citarion of the written testimony will be required. We may mul- tiply quotations from the Bible — but if we make no at- tempt to show their bearing on the matter in hand, our labour will be in vain ; and we would respectively be justified, in the light of all equitable rules of argumenta- tion, were we severally to refrain from offering a word of comment on the passages so quoted. The second paragraph of your letter, is, in my judg- ment, very exceptionable. Suppose that, in my previous communication, I had written as follows : " These propo- sitions, — ' there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all men to be testified in due time,' and * it pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to himself — are so simple and conclusive, that none but an Atheist will require elucidation to satisfy him that the Bible asserts the being of one God; none but a Trinita- rian will need criticism to show that God is indirisihljj one, and Jesus Christ a man; and none but a Partialist will demand comment to establish the reconciliation of all things." If I had penned a paragraph like the foregoing, you would most probably have proceeded to inform me, that Trinitarians believe God to be essentially one; that in their view Jesus Christ was both God and man, by hy- postatical union ; and that they do not suppose the recon- ciliation of all things to contradict the everlasting pun- ishment of the wicked. And you would have closed the merited rebuke, by cautioning me against using language which might be retorted. Now be it remembered, that Universalists most sin- cerely believe all that the Bible says about everlasting punishment. We have ever held, (and I am happy in being enabled to adopt your own language,) " that when the sacred Scriptures are correctly translated and inter- preted, no passage can contradict any other passage ; for the revelation of God to man must be consistent with it- self. No one truth can ever be contravened by any other truth. So long, therefore, as we do not make two seem- ' THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 49 ingly opponent passages agree in sentiment, it is manifest that we mistranslate, or misinterpret, or misunderstand either one or both of them. The system of Divine Reve- lation, Avhether by the constitution of the human mind, Divine Providence, or the Avritten oracles of the Most High, is one grand harmonious whole." There is another item in your second paragraph, which demands a passing notice. You say, that "commentary and criticism are needful to those alone who wish to be- lieve a different doctrine from that taught by the Holy Spirit of inspiration." From the connexion in which this sentence occurs, the intimation is obvious, that in your opinion, the Atheist, the Romanist, and the Univer- salist, are equally desirous to " believe a different doctrine from that taught" in the Bible. If there was either ar- gument or propriety in such imputations, no good reason could be assigned why either of us should not resort to them. Why should you class the Universalist with the Atheist and the Romanist ? I might with equal propriety and civility, class the Presbyterian with the Pantheist and the Mormonite. But what argument would this pro- cedure furnish ? Nothing farther, than that I was willing to disregard the injunctions of the charity that thinketh lio evil, in order to perpetuate the prejudices of sectari- anism. I do respectfully assure you that Universalists have no desire to " believe a different doctrine from that taught by the Holy Spirit of inspiration." "We solemnly believe that the Holy Scriptures most unequivocally teach the doctrine of the final reconciliation of all things. No- thing that we can imagine would be more desirable, and for nothing better do we wish. And if we feel disposed to consult " commentary and criticism," in elucidation of the truth of heaven, we must consult the works of your (mm commentators and critics. You do not suppose that they desired to believe what the Holy Spirit had not re- vealed — nor can you, with any plausibility, charge the Universalist v/ith such a desire, when the energies of his mind are devoted to an examination of the word of God; 5 50 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. and when he calls to his aid the commentaries and criti- cisms of LiGHTFOoT, Pearce, Whitby, Horne, Mac- KNiGHT,and others, whose piety will not be called in ques- tion. You readily grant, that " there are many texts of Scrip- ture which require reference to the context, and some- times to the original language in which they were writ- ten, that we may ascertain their meaning." Then why find fault with me for consulting the connexion of the passages by you cited in a former letter ? Will you al- lege that it is because those passages, " in their plain and obvious meaning," teach the doctrine of endless pun- ishment? Give me leave to state that, in relation to many of the passages you have quoted, the best orthodox critics and commentators the world has ever produced, are decidedly against you. But aside from all this, I re- mark, that, with the exception of some of the purposely disconnected Avritings of Solomon, every portion of the Bible should be considered with especial reference to the connexion in which it stands. In quoting part of a sentence in Matt, xxv., " these shall go away into everlasting punishment," you intimate that this declaration, " if it be understood in its plain and obvious meaning," is sufficient proof of endless pun- ishment. It may be sufficient proof to convince your own mind — but you are not writing to convince yourself, nor indeed to convince any one who is already convinced. In order to convince me and the thousands of Universalists who read our letters, you should have proceeded to show when and ivhere the judgment spoken of in Matt, xxiv and xxv was to take place ; and you should also have brought into view the circumstances by which the discourse com- mencing Matt. xxiv. 4, was elicited. I hope you will at- tend to this suggestion. Speaking of those who wrest the Scriptures, " unto their own destruction," you remark, " not only in time^ as you admit, but during everlasting oges^ Of this you have not furnished a word of proof. You have not yet attempted to show that the phrase THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 51 Jcin^dom of God, in John iii. 3, " signifies that domain of God in glory which is called heaven." On a re-examina- tion of your remarks, you will discover that your argU" merit is predicated of your opinion. I have never supposed that any one can enjoy the beatitude of immortality with- out "a spiritual renovation." You suppose, however, that they who do not enter the gospel kingdom in this world, will be eternally wretched in the next — which re- mains to be proved. That " believers as well as unbelievers perish from the earth by heat, cold, fire, water," &c, is most true — but I do not find it written that believers thus perish because of their sins. The testimony of our Lord, in Luke xiii. 1 — 5, affords some light on this subject. Jesus was told of certain " Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices," and he took the opportunity to say, " Sup- pose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things ? I tell you, Nay ; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise [in like manner] pei-ish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem ? I tell you, Nay ; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise ;)cm/?." If Jesus had intended to teach endless punishment, he surely would not have introduced the cases, with special reference to which he added the solemn warning above noticed. He spake of perishing liJccwise, in case of im- penitence — and there he left the matter, without so much as hinting at a retribution in the future world. It is true, that in John iii. 16, perishing is placed m opposition to the possession of everlasting life — but you have not quoted a single passage in proof that the Scriptures speak of everlasting life in reference to the immortal'exist- ence. You say, indeed, that " the very words teach as clear- ly as language can speak, that the holy spiritual living com- menced in this world, shall be continued so long as tne immortal subjects of it shall endure" — but you cannot reasonably expect that I should thence infer the doctrine of endless punishment. If you are correct in this mat- 59 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ter, you can easily furnish " the law and the testimony" as vouchers. I beg of you to adduce the passages in which the phrase in question is supposed to confirm your view of the subject. You admit that the believer hath ei-erlasting life — but is it thence to be inferred that a part of mankind shall suffer endless punishment? I think your citation of 1 Cor. xv. 18, was unfortunate for the position you have taken in relation to the meaning of the word perish. You think that Paul there " speaks of a perdition that might succeed natural death." In this case we ought to read, that if there be no resurrection, then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are eternally damned! Surely the premises do not justify this appalling conclusion. In my judgment, Paul intended to say, that if Christ was not risen, there was no ground to hope that even those who had fallen asleep in Christ would ever be raised from the dead. As to the " perdition of ungodly men," 2 Peter iii. 7, and " the day of judgment" mentioned in connexion there- with, I may simply remark, that the future reference of the latter phrase remains to be proved. And as to the perishing of the hypocrite's hope, Job viii. 13, and of the desire of the wicked, Ps. cxii. 6, this does not establish the endless punishment either of the hypocrite himself ox of the u-icked. The additional verses you have cited, in which the word perish happens to occur, need not be spe- cially noticed. You might quote scores of equally irrele- vant passages. The connexion of Mark xvi. 16, is very explicit — "These signs shall follow them that believe." If you confine those signs to the age of miracles, to the same age the particular condemnation spoken of must also be confined. You have not correctly understood my remarks on Proverbs xxix. I. And yet I see not how you could have misapprehended mymeaning. I quoted Prov. vi. 15, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16, 17, (in which passages phraseology similar to the language of the text occurs) in order to show ihat premature natural death was the declared conse- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 53 qucnco of iniquity, according to the representation of Solomon. Your remark, that, " all, of every name and character, the best and the worst, will find that death is inevitable," has no bearing on the question. To place this matter in its proper light, Ave should remember that David and Solomon considered long life a blessing attend- ant on righteousness. " With long life will I satisfy him, and show him my salvation," Psalm xci. 16. " The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive, and he shall be blessed upon the earth'' Psalm xli. 2. Of wisdom it was said, '^Length of days is in her right hand," Prov. iii. 10. " Hear, my son, and receive my sayings, and the years of thy life shall be many," Prov. iv. 10. Indeed, the first commandment with promise, had the blessing an- nexed, " that thy days may be long in the land." I might fill a column with similar proofs. Now in opposition to length of days as the promised reward of righteousness, premature death, or destruction from the earth, is spoken of as the consequence of iniquity. Your insinuation that Universalists desire the law to lose its penal sanc- tions, passes for no more than it is worth. In relation to what our Saviour said about confessing or denying him, it should be noticed, that the object of his discourse, of which that was a constituent part, was to strengthen and encourage his disciples in the perform- ance of the duty assigned them. They were to go forth and preach the gospel of the kingdom. They would en- counter much opposition and persecution — but they were still to be faithful. They were not to be ashamed of or deny their Master. In case they denied him, he would deny them — if they were ashamed of him he would be ashamed of them. '" Whosoever therefore shall be asham- ed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which sliall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power,' viii. 38, ix. 1. [Compare Matt. xvi. 27, 28, xxiv. 5^ 54 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 29—34.] These passages are parallel with Matt. x. 32, 33, and fully explain the time when the denial was to take place, and tchere. It was at that time he would say to the fool- ish virgins, " I know you not," Matt. xxv. 12. I earnestly request you to avoid assuming that the coming of the Son of man, so frequently spoken of by our Lord, is a yet future event. In Matt. x. 23, from which chapter you have quoted two verses about denyingV)r confessing the Master, Jesus said to his disciples, " When they perse- cute you in this city flee ye into another; for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be co7neJ' And then follow the instruc- tions before referred to. In commenting on my remarks on the parable of the tares, you do not attempt to show that I erred in relation to the time signified by the phrase end of the icorld ; and you proceed at once to assume that \\\e furnace spoken of is in the immortal state of existence. Prove this point and I will yield the argument. When I said, that " whatever is destroyed ceases to exist, and of course ceases to suffer or enjoy," I had in view your supposition that the destruction of soul and body belonged to a future state. When the body ceases to exist as such, it ceases as such to suffer or enjoy ; and if the spirit as such be destroyed, as a spirit it can nei- ther suffer nor enjoy. When the Lord, " having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not," they were simply destroyed as men in the flesh — they were taken aAvay from the earth — but what has this to do with a future state of existence ? If you can prove that they were destroyed in a future state, then I Avill acknowledge that they were annihilated — and in this event, it would be as foolish in you to assert their endless punishment, as in me to affirm their final holiness and happiness. These remarks will equally apply to Psalm xcii. 7, which you quote. If you insist that the being destroyed for ever there spoken of, refers to the future state, you must be understood to teach the annihilation^ and not the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 55 endless punishment of the wicked. I might refer you to Ezek.xiii. 22, with no less impropriety than you can me to IVIalachi ii. 17. As to Acts iii. 23, 1 remark, that Peter must not be un- derstood to attach a meaning to the language of Mo- ses that Moses never intended to convey. If you are disposed, you may consult Deut. xviii. 15 — 20. I ask you to quote a single passage from all that was commu- nicated to Moses at Horeb, in which any thing like future punishment is so much as clearly intimated. To destroy a man from among the people, plainly signifies no more than to cut him off from the land of the living. (See Lev. xviii. 29.) Heb. X. 37 — 39: That ^^ perdition is here contrasted with the saving of the soul,^^ is certainly true ; and I freely allow that it " evidently means the 7iot saving, or the loss of it, concerning which the Saviour has asked, ' What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul V " The latter quotation is from Mark viii. 36. But do you seriously suppose that the •word soi(^ here used signifies more than natural life ? In the Terse preceding, precisely the same original word is twice used, and is translated life in both cases. So also in Matt, xvi. 25, though in verse 26, as in the text above it, it is ^rendered soul. The plain meaning is, " What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own life ? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life ?" ;So Pearce, Clarke, and others. You have cited Matt. vii. 13, 14, without comment. Why is this so ? I knew that passage was in the Bible before I saw it in your letter. I will acknowledge that you are right and I am Avrong, if you will prove, 1st. That the destruction there mentioned signifies endless pun- ishment ; and 2d. That the life there spoken of is the blessedness of immortality. I regret that you have not deemed it expedient to no- tice the passages by me cited in my last letter, with the comments thereon, in proof of the final holiness and hap- piness of all mankind. You promise, however, to attend tPS THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. to them in some future communication — but it appears to me that it would be mtII for us respectively to finish our work as we proceed. Whatever course you may think proper to pursue, I shall continue, as opportunity presents, to furnish the Divine testimony in proof of the eventual blessedness in Christ of the whole human fa- mily. 1 Cor. XV. 22 : For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ ^hall all be made alive. By dying in Adam, I understand dying in the mortal constitution of the first man, who ^vas of the earth, earthy — and by being made alive in Christ, I understand a resurrection from the dead in the image of the Lord from heaven. That the death in Adam is a natural death, you will Tidmit — and that the chapter in which the text occurs, treats of a resurrection into an immortal existence, will not be disputed. The word all in the latter clause of the sentence, is co- extensive in signification with the word all in the first clause. As many as die in Adam, will be made alive in •Christ — for the declaration is, " even so." If it be objected that all do not die in Adam, inasmuch as Enoch and Elijah were translated, I reply, 1st. They must have undergone a change equivalent to death ; and 2d. They who in no sense die in Adam, if any, will not Tequire a resurrection. If you say that believers only shall be made alive in Christ, I remark, 1st. The text says nothing about be- lievers, but simply that " as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 2d. If none but believers die in Adam, then none but believers shall be made alive in Christ. If it be objected, that the text simply states, that all men shall be raised from the dead, I answer, that " all shall be made alive in Christ." And " if any man he m Christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away, "behold all things are become new," 2 Cor. v. 17. Moreover, Paul says, it is sown in corruption, dishon -our, and weakness; it is raised in incorruption, glory and THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 57 power ; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. All have borne the image of the earthy ; and all shall bear the image of the heavenly. If it be objected that Paul says, " But every man in his own order : Christ the first-fruits ; afterward they that arc Christ's at his coming" — I remark that the apostle adds, " Then cometh the end, when he shall have deliv- ered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. . . . And when all things shall be subdued vnto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL." Amen, Alleluia ! Remembering, as I do, " that it is as far from your house to mine, as from mine to yours" — or in other words, that your opinions differ as widely from mine as mine do from yours — I cordially reciprocate your good wishes, and remain, Respectfully yours, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. ABEL C. THOIMAS. Philadelphia, April 3d, 1834. Dear Sir — I have refrained from replying to many things contained in your letters, not from disrespect, but from a desire to avoid undesirable length in any one of ray communications. At present I will refer to some of your past quotations and remarks. To prove that there shall be no punishment beyond the present life, you have quoted Prov. xi. 31 : " Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth : much more the wicked and the sinner." Now it will not follow from the fact that the righteous and the wicked meet with a suitable recompense on the earth, that they will not also meet with a similar course of dealing from their Ma- TO THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ker in the future state of existence. The fact of their being recompensed here, furnishes one of the strongest probabilities that they will also be recompensed hereafter; for why should God, who now makes the way of the transgressors hard, render it in future more pleasant ? If his justice and goodness now require him to punish transgressors and reward the obedient, these attributes remaining the same will for ever secure similar results. An unchanging God, whose principles of moral govern- ment are fixed, and who recompenses men according to their conduct now, will certainly treat them according to their respective characters in all future titnes. Before this passage can be of any avail to the cause of Univer- salism, it must be shown that God fully, and perfectly punishes all the wicked, and all sinners, in the earth for all the sins they have committed or ever will commit, so (hat justice can inflict no more penalty upon them. It is not true, that in the earth, or in the present life, perfect distributive justice takes place. The righteous, as a general rule, find wisdom's ways to be pleasantness, and godliness to be profitable unto all things ; but still there are numerous instances in which they are injured and oppressed, and spend nearly the. whole of their lives in suffering. On the other hand, the wicked generally experience the way of transgressors to be hard, and vice to bring in itself much misery ; and yet in many cases the wicked prosper, triumph, and die with their bones full of marrow, and with hearts at ease in stupidity. The text cited from Proverbs, therefore, cannot mean that in this world God makes a final end of recompensing either the righteous or the Avicked. Did he make a full and final retribution, it could not be said that " much more " will he recompense " the Avicked and the sinner." Perfect retribution in each case, would preclude the possibility of such a comparison. — He will to a certain extent, and as a eeneral law of his proceedings, recompense the right- eous in the earth ; but much more, to a greater extent, and more invariably, will he recompense the wicked in the earth. This corresponds exactly with the experience THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 59 of mankind, for God does more uniformly punish sin. than reward virtue in this life. The Lord's dealings with us, show, that he loves obedience and hates transgression ; that it shall be well with the righteous, and ill with the wicked ; and that from his imperfect retribution begun and carried on in this world, a perfect consummation of distributive justice may be expected in the day of judg- ment. That salvation is " the gift of God," to all of those who are saved, and results not to them from the merit of their own good works, is granted, so that no man should boast, but ascribe all the glory of his being pardoned, sanctified and glorified in heaven, to " our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us." The passage of Scripture on which you seem to rely with the greatest confidence is Colossians i. 19, 20, 21. " It pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell; and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, ivhether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works; yet noiv hath he reconciled.^' I am not, indeed, dis- posed to deny that he must be happy who becomes recon- ciled to God,' by a change in his state and mental opera- tions, so that he is a pardoned sinner and loves God. But you insist that all things are to be reconciled ; and seem to think they will be, or now are so reconciled as to be- come happv. '■' In my judgment," you say, " this passage distinctly teaches the final holiness and happiness of all mankind — inasmuch as it teaches the reconciliation of all things to God:' All things, are words, which if taken without restriction mean more than all persons. Every object of conception, and every act of mind, is a thing. You surely do not mean to insist, that the stones of the street, the birds of the air, the cattle of the hills, the air we breathe, the winds and waves, are to be reconciled to God, in any such sense, as to render them capable of end- less happiness. Inanimate objects are not capable of be- ing reconciled to God, in the exclusive sense of which you eO THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. write, meaning a reconciliation in mental, moral, and legal estate, or in disposition of mind; and yet they come under the general class of " all things." Not all things, absolutely, are to be reconciled to God, then, in any such sense as to secure to them everlasting or even any hap- piness. If there is any single thing, a man, an apple, or a pebble, to be excluded from the class of all things to be reconciled, so as to be happy, your argument from abso- lute universality in this passage is lost. Reconciliation here must mean something different from a change of mental or moral state, preparatory to future bliss, or else the all things to be reconciled must be understood in a restricted sense. You may take which of these alterna- tives you choose. If you say that a thing may be recon- died to Gof?, without being secure of everlasting happiness, then I subjoin, that the sinner may be that thing, and may in the sense of the text be reconciled to God, without ever being happy. If you say that all things are to be understood as denoting something less than absolute imi- versality of being; then I add, that God will undoubtedly reconcile unto himself all the persons and all the things that are to be reconciled unto himself. Moreover, the holy angels, which have not sinned, are comprehended under the expression all things; and they being referred to, as " things in heaven," have no need of such reconciliation as consists in a change of estate from condemnation to pardon ; or a change of mind from rebellion to submission, from enmity to love. Hence we mfer, that the reconciliation here spoken of does not ne- cessarily imply any such change as is requisite to prepare the wicked for heaven, by making them holy in heart and life. It would be easy to show, from the most learned lexi- cographers and commentators, that the word rendered reconcile primarily signifies to change any thing from one state to another; and hence, secondarily, when a man's mind is changed from enmity to love, in relation to any one, he is said to be reconciled to that individual. It is the primary sense of the word that is employed when it is THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 61 said, the Greek bein<^ literally translated, "For it seemed good, thai ill him all fulness should dwell, and to recon- cile all things to him, he having made peace through the blood of his cross ; by him, whether the things on the earth, or the things in the heavens." In consequence of Christ's having died on the cross to complete the work of redemption, it pleased God that in him as Mediator all the fulness of the Godhead should dwell, and that all things should be transferred to his dominion ; so that he should be head over all things to his church. Dr. Mc- Knight considered it a correct expression of the original, to say unite, instead of reconcile, all things to him. There is yet another interpretation which would make the word reconcile mean nothing more than laying the foundation for actual reconciliation. Thus it is said, " if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God," i. e. we were atoned for, or the groundAvork of reconciliation was done, "by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled " in our hearts and state, " we shall be saved by his life," Rom. v. 10. Here sinners for whom the price of redemption is paid, are said to be reconciled to God, while they yet continue in a state of enmity ; but subsequently they become actually reconciled by the re- newing of their minds. You refer to Coloss. i. 16—18, in which it is said of the "image of the invisible God," that "by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth — all things were created by him and for him : and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the Church— that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." In these five instances you think I will allow the expression all things to be un- limited ; and ask why then I should limit the declaration immediately after made concerning God's reconciling all things. I answer, that the all things created, are limited to all creatures; for while all creatures were made by him, there were some things in existence which were not made by him ; such as the essence of the Deitv, infinite space, and the action of free agents. He is before all things 6 6S THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. that ever began to be, but not before all things absolutely, for that would make him to be before himself. That all unbelievers as Avell as believers shall be recon- ciled to God, so as eventually to be holy and happy, you argue from 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, in which place we read, "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us [believers] to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the minis- try of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." Because God is in Christ, by his word and Spirit, reconciling the world to himself, it does not follow that every individual of the world of mankind now is, or ever will be, actually reconciled. The process of reconciliation is going on in the world, but it has not been consummated. So far as Christ actually reconciles men to himself in the state of their souls, he does not impute their sins to them, but pardons them ; but the ministry of reconciliation has not yet extended to every individual of the world of mankind, and therefore you have no reason to conclude that actual reconciliation has outstripped the progress of the means. The ivorld and the u'hole w&rld frequently mean any complete system of things ; and hence we read of a ivorld of iniquity in the tongue ; of a ivorld lying in sin, from which the apostles and saints were exempted ; and of the world gone after Christ, while multitudes never went after him. There is a world of believers and a world of unbelievers. In Philippians ii. 9, 11, we are informed, that in con- sideration of his work of redemption God hath highly exalted Christ, " and given him a name which is above every name: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Hence you infer the wiiversality of holiness and happi- ness. You have forgotten that some confessed Christ and bcwed the knee before him, acknowledging him to the glory of God the Father, who said, " Jesus, thou Son of God, art thou come hither to torment us before the time ?" THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 63 The bended knee is but an external token of subjection ; and when some shall say, " Lord, Lord, open to us," to be told, "depart accursed," they will confess Christ in such a way that God the Father will be glorified in their damnation. We grant that " whosoever offereth praise glorifieth" the Lord : but equally true it is that the wrath of man shall praise the Lord ; and the remainder thereof, or that which would not glorify him, he will restrain. No man can say, from the heart, with faith, hope, and love, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost; but a parrot might say "Jesus is the Lord," without the least intelligence, and a man may say it with as little meaning as a parrot, ten thousand times, and then perish for ever. As " no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed," so no man makes a truly evangelical confes- sion of the supreme Deity of Jesus, who has not been savingly taught and renewed by the Holy Spirit. In your letter of March 15th, you assure me "that Universalists sincerely believe all that the Bible says about everlasting punishment ;" and yet you hold that the Bible says nothing about it ! You think Luke xiii. 1 — 5, proves that unless men re- pent, they shall perish " in like manner," as those per- ished on whom the tower in Siloam fell, or those persons whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. Can you believe, that if men do not repent in this life, they shall all come to their death by some violent means ; by the fall of a house, or by some bloody persecutor ? If this were the case, we should regard such a general rule of perishing from the earth, as a strong indication of ev- erlasting vengeance. We regard the declaration, that those who do not repent shall all likewise perish, as teach- ing nothing about the mode of their natural death. It sim- ply means, that those who repent not shall so perish, being taken away in God's displeasure, by whatever death, as those persons on whom the tower in Siloam fell, or those persons whom Pilate murdered in the midst of their religious rites. Here the perishing or perdition threat- ened must refer to something else than the mode of dy- 64 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ng, if all who repent noi shall perish, as you agree, in " like manner" as they perished. That you are correct in your explanation of the word Uhcioise in the passage un- der consideration, is admitted ; for although the English word likeioisc frequently signifies also, yet the two Greek words {iioavTUii) and (S/^o/w?) which are translated likewise in verses 3d and 5th of Luke xiii, certainly denote the perishing to be in like manner. They who perished in con- sequence of the falling of the tower of Siloam, and the cruelty of Pilate, were not worse than other sinners, who lived to old age and died in their beds : but says our Sa- viour, except ye repent ye shall all perish, as they perish- ed ; for he who dies without repentance, perishes from the gracious presence of the Lord. You aim " to show that premature natural death was the declared consequence of iniquity, according to the rep- resentation of Solomon," and that this is the perdition denounced against the wicked, w^hen it is said they shall perish. It is granted, that frequently the wicked do not live out half their days, Avhich they might live were they moral in their conduct ; and that in general, obedience in childhood, and virtuous conduct in after life, tend to pros- perity and length of days. Still we read of a sinner's being accursed, w4ien a hundred years old, Isa. Ixv. 20 ; and our own observation must have taught us, that many sinners, instead of coming to a premature death, die in old age, in their iniquities, " being wholly at ease and quiet." The 1 Cor. xv. 22, proves nothing more than this, that in and through Adam, all mankind have become subject to natural "death, and that in and through Christ, all men shall be raised from the dead at the last day. Paul is ar- guing against those who denied the resurrection from the dead, and he asserts that fhe resurrection through Christ shall be as extensive, as death by Adam. ^5 in Adam all die, says he, even so in Christ shall all be made alive; and he is careful to add, in the next verse, " but every man in his own order." Now in this order, Christ arose as the first fruits; afterwards shall arise they that are Christ's at THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 65 Ilis coming ; and finally all the wicked shall arise t() im^ mortality and damnation at the same time. Then all things, and among them death itself, shall be subdued to Christ, without entering heaven. Some shall as certainly be made alive in, or hy Christ, to an immortality of misery, as others to an immortal- ity of blessedness. In proof of this doctrine of a resur- rection from the grave to a future judgment, and of some men to all the miseries of hell, in body and in spirit for ever, I adduce the following texts : " Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- lasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament ; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever," Daniel xii. 2, 3. Here, among those who are to arise from their graves, there is to be a distinction between those who are wise and all the unwise. The wise are to shine, with different degrees of glory, according to the measure of their holy obedience, and are to experience everlasting life ; while all persons of an opposite character are to be the subjects of shame and everlasting contempt. In the fiftieth Psalm, we have a prophetic description of the future general judgment. Out of Zion, the per^ fection of beauty, God hath already shined in the glory of his gospel, which reveals to us the end of the world. Our God shall come, in awful majesty, as a destroying fire and tempest to the wicked. But in relation to others he shall say to his angels, " Gather my saints together unto me ; those that have made covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness, for God is judge himself." Concerning this scene, "Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, — saying. Behold, the Lord coming with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners ^ve spoken against him," Jude ver. 14, 15. When the 6* 66 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ungodly are tlms convinced, and judgment is executed upon them, every mouth Avill be stopped; every knee will bow, every tongue will confess, and God will be glo- rified in manifesting his justice, goodness, and forbear- ance, even in relation to the sinner's doom. In Jude we also read, concerning the Lord, that " the an- gels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day. Even as vSodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise, also, these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evi' of dignities." These Jude, or Judas, the brother of James, styles " wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." Here the spirit of in- spiration gives us instances of endless punishment in the angels who sinned; in the inhabitants of the plain of Sodom, who suffer, after the shower of fire had swept them from the earth, the vengeance of eternal fire ; and in those ungodly men in the days of Judas, who denied the only Lord God, turned the grace of God into lascivious- ness, and were ordained to condemnation. In 2 Cor. v. 8 — 10, Paul says, that he is willing to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, for which presence " we labour, that, whether present or ab- sent, we may be accepted of him : for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Here our appear- ing before the judgment seat of Christ is represented as taking place after our spirits are unclothed of the earthly house of this tabernacle, and clothed upon with a house not made with hands, so that mortality is swallowed up. When we live to die no more, having risen from the grave, then shall we appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that we may receive our portion for ever. " God shall bring every work into judgment, with every THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 67 secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil," Eccles. xii. 14. " God shall judge the righteous and the wicke^d," Eccles. iii. 17. " In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel," saith Paul, then " as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law,"— "for there is no respect of persons with God," Rom. ii. 11, 12, 16. In this same chapter, Paul says, "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth,"- and then exhorts to a prepara- tion for it, as a future " revelation of the righteous judg- ment of God ; who will render unto every man according to his deeds." He does not affirm that God <^oc^ it now^ but that he u-ill do it, in that day of wrath, against which, by their hardness and impenitent heart, many treasure up wrath; in that day, in which he will render glory, honour, immortality, eternal life, to them that patiently continue in well doing ; in that day, in which he will render to the contentious who do not obey the truth, but obey unright- eousness, " tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doelh evil." Paul told the Athenians, that God " hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained," Acts xvii. 31. If the day of judgment was the day of giving the law, or any time prior to the apostle's teaching the Athenians, there was no propriety in saying, that God hath appointed a day in Avhich he unll judge the world. In that case he might have said, '' he lias judged the world, without ap- pointing any day for the judgment." As an inducement to men^to deny themselves, take up the cross and follow him, Jesus said, in reference to gain- ing the Vv'orld and losing one's own soul, " for the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his an- gels ; and then shall he reward every man according to his work," Matt. xvi. 27. Then, when he shall thus come, and not before, will he perfectly reward every man. In proof of his coming to judge the world in the last day. 68 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOK. "agreeably to this declaration, Jesus then informed his di?- t^iples, that they should not all die, before he would come in his spiritual kino^doui on earth. "There be some stand- ing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." John lived to see the full establishment of Christianity in the world ; and the Saviour's coming to judge Jerusalem and call the ■Gentiles; but this was a widely different thing from his coming to judge the world in the last day. I shall refer you, at present, to one other passage, of fearful import, and in my opinion conclusive on the sub- ject of our controversy. " It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribu- lation to them that trouble you ; and to you who are troubled, rest with us, Avhen the Lord Jesus shall be re- vealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : who shall be punished Avith everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power ; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day," 2 Thes. i. 6 — 10. " In that day," the day of final judgment, " whfn he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe," then " the Lord Jesus shall he reveal- ed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaminsf fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be pmiished with everlasting destruction from the pre- sence of the Lord, and the glory of his power." In this way Christ will recompense tribulation to those who per- secute his people, and rest to those who suffer trouble for his sake. Thus to give sinners and saints, persecutors and the persecuted, their respective portions, is a "right- eous thing with God." I accuse you, sir, of no prevarication nor of intentional misrepresentation; and thank you for the repeated in- stances in which you have given me advice concerning THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. Wf the manner in which I ought to manage my part in this discussion ; but really this last passage of the word of God which I have cited, must for ever prevent me from becoming a Universalist. I remain yours respectfully, EZRA STILES ELY, TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, April 7th, 1834. Dear Sir — I am much pleased with the spirit and gene- ral tenor of your last letter. Controversialists have fre- quently allowed a difTerence of opinion to engender feel- ings of animosity, which have been evinced in their de- portment one toward the other ; and thus, instead of sub- serving the interests of truth, they have embittered their own reflections, caused heartfelt sorrow in their friends, and furnished grounds for reproach to the despisers of the gospel of Christ. I sincerely hope that in the dis- cussion of the question before us, we shall be enabled to convince the controversial world, that opponent opinions do not necessarily involve the creation of opponent feel- ings. You commence your letter with some remarks on- Prov. xi. 31 — which passage I quoted without comment,. in my Bible creed. Before I proceed to examine the bear- ing of those remarks, allow me to observe that the ques- tion is simplv, " Is the doctrine of endless punishment taught in the Bible? or does the Bible teach the final ho- liness and happiness of all mankind ?" You are not re- quired to prove, by direct argument, that the wicked are not fully recompensed in this world, nor am I required to prove that they are. You are called upon to show that endless punishment is a doctrine of the Bible — in which event it will of course be established, that the wicked are not adequately recompensed in the present life. And I have engaged to prove the final holiness and happiness of 70 THEOLOGICJiL DISCUSSION. all mankind — in which event it will follow, that the doc- trine of endless punishment is false. When it is said, " the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth," are we to understand that they shall be re- compensed only in part, in this life ? A recompense is a compensation, a countervail, an equivalent. When you engage men to labour for you, with the assurance that they shall be recompensed in Philadelphia, you do not sup}X)se it necessary to use the word " fully ;" nor da they imagine that a part of their recompense will be paid in Boston. AVhether it be paid to-day, or to-morrow, or next week, it must be paid in Philadelphia — or your assu- rance is void. Now the simple declaration, that " the righteous shall be recompeiised in the earth,'^ is equally em- phatic with your supposed assurance above noticed. " In the earth," then, the righteous shall be recompensed — that is, they shall, in the earth, receive a reward equiva- lent to their labours of love. You lay considerable stress on the phrase " wwcA more" and so do I — but our inferences are widely different. It appears to me that the expression is used by way of em- phasis. Let us compare a few passages. Luke xii. 28 : " If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven, how MUCH MORE will he clothe you, ye of little faith?" Here a. fact is stated, viz., that God does clothe the grass of the field— and the words " much more" were introduc- ed to render the conclusion more emphatic, viz., that God would certainly clothe the disciples. So in Matt. vii. 11.: " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him ?" Here the phrase " much more" is plainly used by way of emphasis. Even parents who are evil give good gifts to their children. From this fact Jesus argued that God would certainly give good things to them who ask nim. Neither fact is contravened by the other. So in the text. It is a fact that " the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth," and the certainty that such THEOLOGICAL DISCDSEION. 71 shall also be the case with " the wicked and the sinner,'- is rendered emphatic by the use of the words "much more." Throughout the chapter of which this passage is a portion, the blessedness of the righteous and the wretchedness of the wicked in the present life, are placed in contrast— and the whole is concluded with the language under consideration. The fact, then, that the wicked are recompensed here, furnishes [not only] one of the strongest probabilities [but one of the strongest proofs] that they will" not be recompensed hereafter'' for the sins of this life. I have ever contended that " the way of transgressors is hard," and that so long as man is sinful, just so long he will be miserable. But you assume that some of man- kind will be sinful in the future state— which I desire you to attempt to prove by the Bible. Rom. vi. 7. You say, " an unchanging God, whose principles of moral government are fixed, and who recompenses men according to their conduct now, will certainly treat men according to their respective characters in all future times." But you have informed us that neither the righteous nor the wicked are adequately recompensed in this world— and so, according to your analogical reasoning, you should allow that they never icill be thus recompensed !— for " the principles of the [Divine] moral government are fixed." If an " imperfect retribution" noiv, is consequential of fixed principles, why should you analogically argue a sub- sequent per/ec^ retribution ? It is true, that many of those denominated the right- eous are called to endure much suffering ; and many of those who are popularly styled the wicked seem to pros- per in their outward concerns — but the former would not consent to exchange situations with the latter, even sup- posing this life to close the existence of both. I have no reason to doubt that " Oft shining cares in rich brocades are drest, And diamonds sparkle on the anxious breast ;" that " the wicked are like the troubled sea that cannot 72 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt — there is no peace to the wicked, saith my God ;" and though a man accu- mulate wealtli, and he crowned with all the honours and plaudits of the world, if he be not a disciple of the Lord Jesus, peace is a stranger to his mind, and his soul is the scene of conflicting passions which cannot hut render him an object of pity rather than of condemnation On the other hand, I have as little reason to doubt that " The soul's calm sunshine, and the heartfelt joy Is virtue's prize;" that the sufferings not consequent of guilt are incidental to our mortal existence ; that happiness is primarily de- pendent on the state of the mind ; and that he who learns of Jesus, ivill find rest to his soul. " Li keeping the com- mandments there is great reward." " Great peace have they who love thy law, and nothinp: shall offend them." They enjoy a peace which all the blandishments of the world must ever fail to yield ; and which the frowns and reverses of fortune can never take away. Christian ! is not this the record of thy experience ? Your remarks on Col. i. 19, 20, do not, in my judgment, weaken the force of the text in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankmd. You allow that " he must he happy who is reconciled to God, by a change in his state and mental operations so that he is a pardoned sin- ner and loves God." Now that the reconciliation signi- fied in the declaration, " by him to reconcile all things to himself," is of this character, appears evident from the consideration, that it is immediately added, " And you HATH he reconciled.'''' The reconciliation in the one case must be of the same general character, as that of the other. The believers who had hecn reconciled, were a kind of first fruits of the all things, whom it pleased the Father to reconcile to himself. Reconciliation always supposes previous irreconciliation. If "the stones of the street, the birds of the air, the cat- tle of the hills, the air we breiithe, or the winds and THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 73 waves," were ever unreconciled, they are embraced In the all things to be reconciled — but not otherwise. None but rational beings can be reconciled in the sense of the text. Those who had been reconciled were of the same race of beings intended by the phrase all things. " And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled." If "an apple, a pebble, the essence of Deity, infinite space, and the actions of free agents," were never alienated and never enemies by wicked works, then they are not among the all things to be reconciled. When Jesus said, •' preach the gospel to every creature, ^^ do you suppose he intended the message to be delivered to " the stones of the street, or to the cattle of the hills ?" John writes as follows : " And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I say- ing. Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever," Rev. v. 13. Do you suppose this eulo- gium was pronounced by the birds of the air, the winds and waves, or the fishes of the sea ? Do you suppose it was pronounced by any other than rational beings ? Yet the phrase " every creature'^ is used. Professor Stuart, of Andover, in his letters to Channing, p. 100, says, " Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers for the Universe, to nav or ra Travra. I may remark that ra -avra is uscd in the tcxt, and is translated all things. Dr. Geo. Campbell, whose orthodoxy you will not ques- tion, says, in speaking of the periphrasis mentioned by Stuart, that it includes " the whole rational creation.''' Diss, vi. part. ii. sec. 6. You thus perceive that the "all things" to be reconciled include those only who can be •unreconciled — viz. the whole rational creation. You give us a primary and a secondary sense of the word reconcile, and suppose that the primary sense is em- ployed in the text. Your secondary sense is thus stated: " When a man's mind is changed from enmity to love, in 7 74 Theological discussion. relation to any one, he is said to be reconciled to that individual." This surely is the sense in which the word is used in the passage under consideration — for the apostle says, " And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by Avicked Avorks, yet noio hath he reconciled.-' Their mind's Avere changed from enmity to love. And this is the change denoted in the declaration, " by him to reconcile all things to himself" — for I have shoAAm that the reconciliation in one case must be of the same general character as that of the other. Dr. Camp bell, in his note on Matt. v. 9, quotes Col. i. 20, and says that the AA^ord here used s'gnifies ''actively to reconcile, to make peace." And he adds, that " etymology and classical use also concur in affixing thereto the sense of reconciler, peace maher.''^ The other interpretation Avhich you mention cannot, I think, have any material bearing on the sense of the text. You say, "There is yet another interpretation AAdiich AA'ould make the AA'ord reconcile mean nothing more than laying the foundation for actual reconciliation." The foundation for the reconciliation of all things is stated in the text — " And having made peace through the blood of his cross." Tlien folloAvs the prospective result — "By him to reconcile all things to himself" The tenor of Rom. v. 1 — 11, clearly shoAVs that in the death of Christ, the great love of God was manifested to a sinful Avorld. So soon as any one Avas brought to realize this great love, and believe Avith all his heart, so soon Avas he reconciled to God. No one in a state of enmity can thus be reconciled, unless it be in a prospective sense. The Christians in Paul's time could safely and truly say, " We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Avhom aa^e have noiv received the reconciliation," or atonement. "Being reconciled," they knew they should be saved from the wrath, tribulation and anguish that * must come on every unreconciled soul. The death of Christ Avas unquestionably the foundation of reconcilia- tion — for in his death the unbounded love of God was revealed. And it is in the Saviour's life that the believer THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 75 lives. Hence says Paul, "Always bearinjr about in the body ibe dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body," 2 Cor. iv. 10. 2 Cor. V. 18, 19, considered in connexion with Col. i. 20, certainly argues the final reconciliation of the whole race of man. Be sure " we see not yet all things put under him ; but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour ; that he by the grace of God should taste death for ci-eni w/z/i," Heb. ii. 8, 9. It is true that the process of reconciliation has not yet been consummated — but ere the kingdom shall be delivered up to God the Father, all things shall be subdued unto Christ — the Son also shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. xv. In order to set aside my reasoning on Phil. ii. 9, 11, you refer to the case of the two men who said, " What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou son of God ? art thou come hither to torment us before the time ?" Matt. viii. 29. vVnd you also inform me, that "a parrot might say, 'Jesus is the Lord,' without the least intelligence," &;c. But do vou seriously suppose, that it would be " to the glory of God the Father," for a crazy man, a man possessed of demons, to say, "Jesus, thou son of God?" Or do you suppose that a parrot which should say, without intelli- gence, " Jesus is Lord," would in the least degree glorify God ? The language of the text is explicit: '* That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'''' Surely a confession of this description could not be to the glory of God the Father, unless it were grounded in the conviction of the under- standing, and offered in sincerity of heart. In this man- ner, and with such feelings, " no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit." Professor Stuart, after commenting on the periphrasis before alluded to, says, "What can be meant by things in heaven, that is, beings in heaven, bowing tlie knee to 76 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant?" And after noticing the same periphrasis in Rev. v. 13, he says, " If this be not spiritual worship, and if Christ be not the object of it here, I am unable to produce a case where worship can be called spiritual and divine." How any can " confess Christ in such a way that God will be glorified in their damnation," is beyond my con- ception; and you have certainly furnished no proof of the supposition that such will be the case. Besides the re- marks already offered, allow me to repeat, that with what- ever feelings one knee shall bow and one tongue confess, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess — for the apostle makes no distinction as to the manner or result. The " wrath of man" can praise the Lord in no other way, than in being so overruled by the benevolent pur- pose of God as to furnish ground for thanksgiving and gratitude. The paragraph of four lines, in which you endeavour to make it appear that I have contradicted myself in re- lation to the phrase " everlasting punishment," was in- serted, in my judgment, without due reflection. Surely you do not suppose that I am unacquainted with the letter of the Bible. Give me leave to assure you that we hiow what the Bible says about everlasting punishment ; and to re-assure you " that Universalists sincerely ^e?iez;e" what it says. We also sincerely believe what it says about the everlasting priesthood of Aaron, the everlasting covenant of the law, the everlasting possession of Canaan, and about other everlasting things which have no reference to a future existence. In the light of these remarks you will perceive what it is your duty to perform, in relation to the phrase "everlasting punishment," in Matt. xxv. 46. Your argument predicated of Luke xiii. 1 — 5, rests on two assertions — the one direct, and the other implied: 1st. That "he who dies without repentance, perishes from the gracious presence of the Lord," by which you mean that such a one will be doomed to endless punish- ment; and 2d. That the Saviour's language, " Except ye jfepent, ye shall all likewise perish," is of universal appli THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 77 cation. The connexion of the passage shows that it was confined to the Jewish people. So Pearce— " Except ye, the nation of the Jews, repent, your state shall he des- troyed." So RosEN.-MULLLK — " This was fulfilled at the last passover, a most fatal day to the Jews." So Cal- jXET — "Jesus Christ here predicts those calamities which overwhelmed thcni, when Jerusalem was destroyed hy the Romans ; for then very many impenitent and unhe- lieving Jews were buried together under the ruins of their most miserable nation." So also Whitby, kc. I think I succeeded in showing, in my last letter, " that premature natural death was the declared consequence of iniquity, (as in Prov. xxix. 1,) according to the representa- tion of Solomon:' And I aimed to show, that language quoted from Solomon's writings, must be viewed in the light of this representation. As to the sinner being ac- cursed when a hundred years old, you can draw no argu- ment therefrom in proof of endless punishment — for it is written, "he that is hanged is accursed of God," Deut. xxi. 23, which language Paul quotes in reference to the crucifixion of our Lord, Gal. iii. 13. The same apostle says, "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren," Rom. ix. 3. In commenting on 1 Cor. xv. 22, you seem to have over- looked the declaration, that " even so IN CHRIST shall all be made alive." And Paul, as quoted in a former letter, declares, " If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have passed away, behold all things have become new," 2 Cor. v. 17. In the light of this testimony, how can you suppose that some shall "be made alive in Christ to an immortality of misery?" To justify yourself, you quote Daniel xii. 2, 3. The connexion of this passiige is as follows: ''■And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which stand- eth for the children of thy people ; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never icas since there \cas a nation even to that same time : and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the 76 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy- people, all these things shall be finished." In Matt. xxiv. 15, 21, om- vSaviour quotes the prophet Daniel, and refers the language above itaUcized to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem, " When ye there- fore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet .... then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains ... for then shall be great fribw lation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." As our Saviour thus fixed the reference of Daniel's language, it becomes us to avoid contradicting his testimony. Compare Dan. xii. 2, 3, with Eph. v. 14. "Aim^ethou that shepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Also with Phil. ii. 15, .... " In the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine tis lights in theu'07'ld." You say, and properly, that " Christ arose as the first fruits ; afterwards shall arise they that are Christ's at his coming ;" but you add, " and finally all the wicked shall arise to immortality and damnation at the same time." Of this, however, the apostle says not a word. His lan- guage is, as quoted in my last, " then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father .... and when all things shall be sub- dued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may BE ALL IN ALL." You affirm that '■'death itself slmW be subdued to Christ, without entering heaven." Paul's declaration is, not that death shall be subdued to Christ, but that death shall be destroyed, and swallowed up in victory. "In the fiftieth Psalm," you say, "avc have a propnetic description of the future general judgment." It would have been hccomirg in you to have furnished the proof of such reference. The same remark is applicable to your quotation of Jude 14, 15. Similar language, in many THEOLOr.ICAI. DISCUSSION. 79 respects, and equally terrific is found in Isa. ^'^'-J'^r 13 ;; 1 11 See, also, Psalm xcvi. IJ. inere is no'hin<^ i I an; or all of these passages which is not per- fec il vr'eforable to the tilings of tune. Conip. Ps. 1. 5, and Matt. \xiv. 31, and connexion. , , . , „„ ,, The fate of the angels [or messengers] who smned, and that of Sodom and Gomorrha, are not to yonr purpose Jude adduces these instances of the udgment of (.od as ;t m thp '■ filthv dreamers," who disgraced the Chrifthn Chirch. &J.N aptly remarks, that the apostle men rs tiie destruction of the cities of the plain, "as a Z„a, something that was a us,be '^^"'"P''^, « .f ^^ J„X word deriving from &:«v»p., to show <>' f '^ "l"'' P™,P''' J ^"nifies to <'ive a sample of something to he sold. bo alio Benson Hammond, Whitby. Tlie plirase even as dearfy shows that the case of the angels [or mes-ng^rs] :!\rr;^vrnd\t^^?D^tuiVe'Tn^^L^ habitrts of Sidom suffered the vengeance of eternal fie '^rthe shower of fire had swept them frona 'he ear nor mus vou assume that the angels mentioned in the ^^ecedSg verse were superhuman beings, nor that end- '^!f^;oT!XeaT2 'S X without the words sup- „lip/hV the translators, (which are always printed m the and for which there is no Divine authority,) you Sp^rceive that your argument therefrom in proof of a future "eneral judgment is not so strong as you may have funpo-^ed. rail speaks of being absent from 'hcMi,,^'^^ Sesent AVith the Lord; but he also speaks of being at llm't Ihl Sorfy-and it was with reference to the latter mnf inn tliat he said, " For we must all appear before e j dgn nt se^t of Christ, that every one may receive t e iiin'-s [not out of but] in body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad." He says, in Gal. vi. 80 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 7, " For whatsoever a man goweth, that shall he also reap," He who sows a field of grain in Pennsylvania, does not expect to reap the crop in France. He will reap where he sowed. In Luke xxi, our Saviour, in discoursing of events con- nected with his coming to destroy Jerusalem, speaks of standing before the Son of man. All this was to be in the earth. Why then should it be supposed that the judgment seat of Christ is in the immortal world ? Jesus told his disciples that he should come to judge the world — not that the people should go into the future state to be judged. It is true, as you quote, that " God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing," Eccl. xii. 14 ; it is true that " God shall judge the righteous and the wicked," Eccl. iii. 17 ; and it is equally true that " He is a God who judgeth in the earth," Psalm Iviii. 11. In your comments on Rom. ii. you (unintentionally, I presume,) misquote verse 7, You make it declare that "God will render glory, honour, immortality, eternal life, to them that patiently continue in well-doing." The text reads thus : " To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honour, immortality, eternal life." I have shown in previous letters that the believing ARE in possession of eternal life, and that " glory, hon our, and peace," are the present consequences of righ doing. You rest much of your argument on the alteration above corrected, and also on the declaration, " m the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." This declaration is nothing to your purpose, unless you prove that the day referred to appertains to a future existence. The expression, "the day of wrath," furnishes no such proof. In Zeph. i. we read, " The great day of the Lord is near .... that day is a day ofu-rath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities," &:c. So we read in Rom. ■ii. — " indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil." The former THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 81 passage might be applied to a future state with as much propriety as you have thus applied the latter. Acts xvii. 31, in iny judgment, affords no proof of the position you quoted it to establish. Jehovah says, "I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth." Jer. ix. 24. God committed ail judgment to the Son, John v. 22. It is recorded, Isa. xxxii. i, " a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment." Jesus said to his disciples, Luke xxii. 29, "And 1 appoint you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." As God Avho judgeth in the earth, committed all judgment to the Son, and appointed him a kingdom, it Avas requisite that a day (or lime to reisn) should also be appointed, (the gospel day or dis- pensation, Isa. xlix. 8 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2,) in which God sliould judire (or rule) the world in righteousness by that man whom he had ordained. See Psalm xcvi. 10—13. " Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth," c\:c. This surely does not argue that (rod hi/naclfh^d not previously judged the world in righteousness. In quoting Matt. xvi. 27, 28, you suppose that verse 27 relates to a vet future coming of Christ to judge the world, while you acknowledge that verse 28 refers to his coming in his spiritual kingdom, to judge Jerusalem and call the Gentiles. But the proof of such a transition of reference in the cited verses remains to be produced. Our Lord frequently spake of his coming, and by comparing the language of the text with other passages, we shall arrive at some definite conclusion on the subject. Luke xxi is chiefly devoted to the consideration of events connected with the coming of the Son of man — and all those events have a direct relation to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. "When ye shall see Jerusalem com- passed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh And there shall be signs in the sun, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming m a cloud with power 83 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. and great glory." In the verses following, this coming is confined to the then existing generation. See verse 32. In Matt, xxiv similar events are predicted, connected with the same coming " in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory," and the whole is expressly con- fined to the generation then existing. See verse 34. In Matt. xvi. 27, 28, language of the same import is used — " For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his king- dom." Before the close of the then existing generation, Jesus was to come in the kingdom which God had ap- pointed him, and then was to begin the day appointed in which God was to judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he had ordained — and in that day, also, Jesus, as the King who was to reign in righteousness, was to render to ev-ery man according to his works. This was the gospel day — the day referred to in Rom. ii. &;c. I will only add, that the passage in question is explained as above by Pearce, Hammond, Rosenmuller, Dr. Adam Clarke, and others. You rely with all confidence on 2 Thess. i. 6 — 10, as being " conclusive on the subject of our controversy." But if you will re-examine your remarks, you will per- ceive that the entire force of the passage in proof of end- less punishment, depends on the supposition that " the day of final judgment" is referred to. You say, " In that DAY, the day of final judgment," &:c. The time specified by the apostle is, '•'■when he shall come ;^^ ^^ ivhcn the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven." I have already shown when Jesus was to come, viz. before the close of the generation in which he lived. No doubt Paul's lan- guage, when written, had a future reference — but I can- not allow you to assume that it is yet future. Jesus said to his disciples, Luke xvii. 30, 31, " Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the house top, and his stuifia the TIIEOIXKJICAL DISCUSSION. 83 house, let him not come down to take it away ; and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Re- member Lot's wife," kc. Similar directions are given in Matt. xxiv. 15 — 18. So also in Luke xxi. 20 — 23 ; in all which places the time of tribulation to Jerusalem is ob- viously referred to. Jesus said, " Then shall be great tri/ndation" and "These be the days o{ vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." In 2 Thess. i. which you quote, it is written, "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you taking vengeance on them that know not God," &c. As the passage now under consideration was once by me considered a strong proof of endless punishment, and as it appears to be a prominent objection in your mind ngainst Universalism, allow me to propose ^full examination of its merits. Four questions present themselves. 1st. Who troubled the Thessalonians ? for they were the persons to be punished in the manner stated, 2 Thess. i. 6 — 10; Acts xvii. 5 — 9. 2d. When were they to be punished ? This question I have already attempted to answer. 3d. Wiere were they to be punished? " From the presence of the Lord," fee. The Jewish use of this phrase should receive due attention, 2 Kings xiii. 23 ; xxiv. 20. 4th. In ivhat was the punishment to consist? "In everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," Jer. xxiii. 39, 40. Tliis is simply a sketch of the subject, which I am prepared fully to discuss, so soon as you feel disposed to furnish your proofs that the passage refers to the future state. As this letter has already been extended beyond desira- ble limits, I defer the presentation of additional testimo- ny in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. I wish not to quote a text without proceeding to show that it has the bearing I suppose it to have. And I may add, that ^feiu passages to the point are of more value than many of an equivocal or doubtful character. With assurances of continued respect I am yours, &c. ABEL C. THOMAS. 84 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS- Philadelphia, April 16th, 1834. Dear Sir^ — If " reconciliation always supposes unrecon* ciliation" then it is manifest that the all things to bei reconciled are to be understood as not meaning all things absolutely. If there are some things not to be reconcil- ed, then you and I have come to this agreement, that it pleased the Father that in Christ all fulness should dwell, and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to< reconcile all things unto himself, that are to be reconciled, or ever tvill be reconciled by him. You affirm, however, that not all things absolutely, but all unreconciled human persons shall be reconciled. This I deny, for some die in their sins ; have never forgiveness ; never see life; but the wrath of God abideth on them, after they go to their own place. You refer the whole of Matt, xxiv to the coming of Christ to judge the Jews and Jerusalem ; and think it is in this life alone that we are to appear before the judg- ment seat of Christ. In the third verse of that chapter it is recorded, after Jesus had predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, that his disciples came to him on the mount of Olives, saying, " Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" These questions Christ ansAvered. From the 4th to the 35th verse he gives the signs of his coming to judge Jerusalem; and tells them that " this genera- tion," to wit, of Jews, or Hebrews, " shall not pass till all these things shall be fulfilled." True it is, also, that all then living did not pass to their graves before Jerusa- lem was destroyed; and equally true that this generation of Jews still exists in a state of dispersion. In the 36th verse Jesus begins to answer the question concerning " the end of the world," saying, " But of that day," a different day from that of his coming to judge Jerusalem, of which he had before spoken, — " of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." He proceeds to say concerning this last " coming of the Son of man," that it shall be sudden and THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 85 unexpected as his coming in the days of Noah, by the judgment of the deluge. He exhorts to watchfulness in rela- tion to the coming of that day, and assures us concerning each unfaithful and unwise servant, that his Lord " shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with hypo- crites" — "where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." I freely confess that I believe in the existence of devils, and that in the time of our Saviour's residence on earth, many devils peculiarly possessed some sinful mortals ; and that by compelling them to confess Jesus Christ, while they dreaded and hated him, God the Father was glorified. Freely I confess, too, that I believe in other holy angels than merely human messengers dwelling on earth, in the flesh ; and yet I admit that any one sent on any errand whatever, may be called an angel. You incidentally quote Heb. ii. 9, as evidence that Christ will reconcile all men to himself so as to save them. " We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour ; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.''^ The word man is not in the origi- nal. He tasted death {iTrcp ;Tavros {huper pantos) for every ; leaving some noun in the masculine gender to be supplied from the context. What that noun is, the next verse shows. " For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many SONS unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering." Hence we see that the word son is to be supplied after Travrog, thus, " that he by the grace of God should taste death for every son ;" that he might bring many sons to glory. If, however, we admit that Christ tasted death for every human being, it will not follow that all Avill be saved from hell. He may have tasted death for every man, so as to have obtained the right of raising every man from the dead in the last day. He may have tasted death for every man, so as to become in his Mediatorial character Lord of all men. He died for all men in some sense, without dying to save all men from impenitence and ruin. S 86 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. The Michael named in Daniel xiith, is taken to be the Angel of the Covenant ; the Jehovah sent, or the Lord Jesus Christ himself ; so that his standing up forthechil dren of his people at that time of trouble to all the wicked, which shall exceed all former times of trouble, is no proof that the day of judgment will not then have come, in which some shall awake to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. You think I have either misquoted or misinterpreted Kom. ii. 7. The first ten verses of that chapter convey to my mind the most explicit declaration of a retribution future to the present life. " Therefore thou art inexcusa- ble, man, whosoever thou art, that judgest : for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest, doest the same things." If a man has knowledge and conscience enough to judge his neighbour, he thereby evinces the righteousness of condemning him, when he does the very things which he condemns in oth- ers. " But we are sure that the judgment of God is ac- cording to truth, against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, man, that judgest them whick do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt es- cape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering ; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to re- pentance ? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasures! up unto thyself wrath agamst the day of \vrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man, according to his deeds : to them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life : but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness ; indignation and wrath, tribulation ani anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile ; but glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good ; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile; for there is no respect of persons with God." Here the apostU teaches, 1st, that there is a day of wrath THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 07 and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God coming ; against the cominc: of which men may treasure up wrath. If all their wickedness is punished as it is committed, they treasure up nothing against any day of wrath to he subsequently revealed. 2d. That in this day of wrath, when his righteous judgment shall be re- vealed, God WILL RENDER unto evcry man according to his deeds. 3dly. That in rendering' unto every one ac- cording to his deeds, God will rhall be a final judgment of all nations by himself; that in that coming judgment he will divide some portion of mankind from tlie rest ; and that while some are received to crcrlasting life, others shall be doomed to everlasting punishment^ which is symbolized by everlasting fire. This fire is said to have been originally prepared for the devil and his angels; and of course it means such an everlasting punishment as will be inflict- ed on spiritual beings. In the Greek, one word, aimuov, is used to denote the duration of the fire, the punishment, and the life. If the life is to be without termination in futurity, so is the fire, so is x\\e punishment. The word, you know, is compounded of two roots, which signify al- uays being, or ever continuing. If the life of the sheep is eternal in the heavens, then the punishment of the goats is eternal in eternal fire ; for the same duration is divinely predicated of each. To show that aiuiviov, rendered everlasting and eternal, primarily and naturally signifies duration without end, I refer to Matt. xix. 29, in which place Christ promises i^uii]v niooviov, everlasting life, to all who in this world for his sake shall leave houses, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children and lands. This is to be their portion " in the regeneration" of the world of mankind, by which they are to be raised from their graves, " when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory," v. 28. " Ve- rily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the renovation, when y>e Son of man shall sit upon the throne ■of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judg- ing the twelve tribes of Israel." Ye, who shall reveal my will to man, shall, by your word thus revealed, judge all the visible people of God to whom vour word shall be sent; and then, cver7/ one who so believes this gospel as to suffer the loss of all worldly friends and possessions ibr my sake, shall have everlasting life ; though not all THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. lOij shall have equal honour with the apostles, for whom thrones of judgment are prepared. In Luke xviii. oO, we read that no one hath forsaken liou^e, &:c, " who shall not receive manifold more in this present time," vj rw Ka^pix) Tov-w, meaning in the time of his continuance on earth ; " and in the Avorld to come life everlasting;" rw aiu.i'i rw tp-)(o\ktvix> ^u)r)v aiu)viov ', ill tkc cndlrss duration to come, cnd- Ic^s or always being life. " We have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal (awvioi') in the heavens," 2 Cor. v. 1. The same Avord is used, when Timo- thy is exhorted to " lay hold on eternal life," (1 Tim. vi. 12,) and when God promises that eternal life (Rom. ii. 7.) which you say all men shall possess. It is this very word which is applied to Jesus Christ when he is said to be " the true God, and the Life eternal," 1 John v. 20. " And as many as were ordained to eternal (a^wviov) life believed," Acts xiii. 48. The same word is used to de- note " the eternal Spirit," Heb. ix. 12, 14, and " the eternal redemption," which Christ shed his blood to pro- cure ; and this is "the eternal life" which he has promis- ed us, 1 John ii. 25. The Greek of the New Testament, it is well known, is the same language in which the Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament was written, Avhich was often read in the Synagogues and quoted by Christ and his apostles; and in the Septuagint the eternity of God is expressed in the very words which teach the endless punishment ot the wicked. In the xcth Psalm, v. 2, for instance, it is said of Jehovah, "from everlasting," avo rov aluvos, from the ahvai/s heins;^ j^^j ^ou aiwio? trv d, to the always being thou art, that is from eternity to eternity, thou art. In short, I repeat it, that if any word in the Greek Septuagint or New Testament expresses, unequivocally, interminable duration, that Avord is frequently applied to teach the ev- erlasting punishment of some sinners. I could cite a hundred passages in Avhich this truth is confirmed, but it would render this discussion tedious. If the righteous when they die are to be receiA^ed into " everlasting habi- tations" of blessedness, (Luke xvi. 9,) then it is equally 106 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. certain that when the Son of man shall be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment. They are not to continue on earth, and experience, as some feign, aiojvwv, punishment in this w^orld, but they are to go away from the throne of the Saviour's glory into everlasting punishment. This same punishment is spoken of by Jesus Christ in Matt, xviii. S, and is compared to one's being cast into TO TTvp TO aMviov, " thc firc that is everlasting." In verse 9th, of the same chapter, the place and nature of this punishment are compared to the valley of Hinnom, and the fires there. "And if thine eye offend thee," or rather cause thee to offend, or to become a scandal, " pluck it out, and cast it from thee : it is good for thee to enter into- life having one eye, rather than having two, eyes to be- east into the hell of fire," tn T)^ ytf ivav row Trupo?, into the gehenna of fire. This is one of the most forcible de- scriptions of the state of future punishment found in the Bible ; and yEiwa is pre-eminently our Saviour's word for hrU, a state and place of future punishment, in which the sufferinsrs of the damned are symbolized by the burnings of unquenchable fire and the gnawings of a never dying worm. Some of the original words in Hebrew and G-reek translated hell do not always mean either a state or place of punishment, we allow, but the state of departed spirits ; the invisible future world; in Avhich them is a. paradise, and a gehenna ; a place of holy happiness^ and a tarta- rus of moral pollution and misery. I propose to pursue this subject in my next letter, which I may publish in The Philadelphian of the next week, without waiting for your reply to this. Your letters to me, however, shall be inserted as soon as possible after they come to hand. In this way I will hope to have our letters shorter, by reason of the increase of their number- Earnestly wishing to convince you that Universalisroi makes no man the better for believing it, reforms no im- moral persons, and has a tendency to drown men in per- dition, I remain your friend, EZRA STILES ELY. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 107 TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, May 9, 1834. Df ar Sir — I perceive with pleasure that you have prac- tically renounced a sentiment contained in your letter of March 7 ; viz. that " commentary and criticism are need- ful to those alone who wish to believe a different doctrine from that tau^rht by the Holy Spirit of inspiration." And I am not witliout hope that some of the passages by you cited, to my remarks on which you have made no reply, have also been rejected as furnishing no proof of endless punishment. You have distinctly conceded, that from the 4th to the 35th verse, inclusive, of Matt, xxiv, our Saviour mentions the signs that should precede, and the circumstances that should attend his coming to destroy Jerusalem and put an end to the Jewish polity. Your only argument in proof of the ]x>sition that a transition of reference commences ; at the 36th verse, is drawn from the expression, " But of that dai/,^^ meaning, in your judgment, a different day from ; the one previously spoken of. This argument, however, is predicated of your opinion. As you have hitherto I wholly neglected my reasoning on this point, I will pa- i tiently direct your attention thereto in detail. Keeping in view your concession that to the 35th verse inclusive the day of tribulation to Jerusalem is referred to, let it be noticed that Jesus immediately added, " But of that day and hour knoAveth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Is it more reasonable to infer that a different day from the one of which the Saviour had just spoken is here intended, than that the same day of calamity, of which so particular an account had been given, is referred to? This question is directed to the common sense that would sit in judgment on the reference of similar language found in any other book. Jesus had expressly certified his disciples, that all the things of which he had spoken should transpire ere the close of the generation then existing— but ns to the pre- 108 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. cise day and hour he acknowledged his inability to inform them. You seem to think that in Matt. xxiv. 3, the disciples asked our Saviour several separate and distinct questions — so separate, indeed, that one, in your judgment, refer- red to events which were to transpire within forty years, viz. the destruction of Jerusalem ; and another to be dis- tant in its reference as many thousand centuries, viz. the end of the material world. Let us attend to the following considerations. 1st. In Mark xiii. 4, the questions before adverted to are thus recorded : " Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" In Luke xxi. 7, "When shall these things be ? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass ?" In these citations nothing is said of " thfe end of the world," cwTiXaa tov aiu)vos, yet you will not deny that the record of the questions in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, substantially expresses the same desire on the part of the disciples. Surely, if you are correct in your interpretation of the phrase in question, Mark and Luke would have recorded something in relation to the sub- ject. 2d. There are but tivo questions in Matt. xxiv. 4. The disciples are not represented as inquiring for the sign of the end of the world, as a distinct matter. " When shall these things be?" that is, when shall the temple be so destroyed that one stone shall not be left upon another ? This is the first question. " And what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" thus inquiring for the sign of simultaneous events. This is the second ques- tion. To the 28th verse inclusive, Jesus speaks in reply to the first question, with a bearing on the second. At the 29th verse it is written, " immediately after the tri- bulation of those days shall the sun be darkened and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in hea- ven. . . . and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven." Tin's sign was the sign of his " coming and of the end of the world," for the face of THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 109 the question shows that these were to be simultaneous events. 3. Without any intimation that he was about to speak of anotlier coming, Jesus proceeds with liis discourse. He mentions his coming in verses 37, 39, 42, and 44, of chapter xxiv, and in verses 33 and 31 of chapter xxv, which is a continuation of the discourse commenced Matt. xxiv. 4. Your exposition of the instructions in question must therefore be considered out of place, until you prove that two different comings are spoken of in the cited chapters. You will not pretend that more than one coming is mentioned in the question, " What shall be the sign of thy coming ?" and you are aware that the coming of the Son of man is distinctlv stated in the part of Matt, xxiv, which you apply to the destruction of Je- rusalem. 4th. In my last letter I stated, what you will not deny, that Matt. xxiv. 36—41, and Luke xvii. 26— 37, are paral- lel passages— that they have reference to the same period and the same events— that the latter refers unquestiona- bly to the circumstances attending the destruction of Je- rusalem, and that such of course must be the reference of the former. These statements and arguments you have allowed to pass unnoticed— and thus they have shared the fate of much that I have written. I must therefore bring this matter more fully into view— although by so doing I incur the risk of being charged with prolixity. In Matt. xxiv. 36 — il, we read as follows— the same being by you applied to a yet future judgment: " But of that day and hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. . . . Then shall two be in the field ; the one shall be taken and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill ; the one shall be taken and the other left." [Where shall they be left ?] In Luke xvii. 26— 36, it is thus written: "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. ... Even thus shall it be in the day 10 110 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. when the Son of man is revealed. In that day [^^j^^^ day ?J he which shall be upon the house top and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away ; and he that is in the field let him likewise not return back. . . . Two women shall be grinding together ; the one shall be taken and the other left. Two men shall be in the field ; the one shall be taken and the other left. And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them. Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." You will at once perceive that the cited passages are perfectly parallel. They refer to the same period of time and to the same events. And you will not allege that the quotation from Luke refers to something yet future. The directions concerning those who might be on the house-top or in the field, are found, nearly verbatim, in Matt. xxiv. 17, 18, which verses, together with the con- nexion in which they stand, refer alone to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem, according to your own ac- knowledgment. So also of the language concerning the eagles. See Matt. xxiv. 28. With what appearance of propriety, then, can you apply two confessedly parallel passages, the one to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other to a period of time yet future ? 5th. The Saviour, having declared that all the things of which he had spoken in the previous part of Matt, xxiv, should come to pass before the close of the generation in which he lived, proceeded to certify his disciples that of the precise day and hour he himself was ignorant — but of this they might be certain, it would be unexpected and sudden as Avas the coming of the deluge. Then properly followed an exhortation to watchfulness and faithfulness, with a statement of the consequences that would attend a contrary course of conduct. This closes chapter xxiv, though the discourse is continued, being broken only by the modern divisions of the Bible into chapters and verses. Chapter xxy commences with the adverb " 7%en,'* which calls for the question, When ? And the answer THEOLOGICAL DI5CUSST0X. HI must bo souijlit in the previous declarations concerning the coining of the Son of man. Tlie parable of the vir- g'ms closes with another exhortation to watchfulness. The parable of the talents was designed to encourage iidolily. And these two parables were obviously intended to illustrate what is recorded in the closing part of Matt, xxiv. The parable of the sheep and goats, Ixjing a sum- mary of all the previous instructions, commences at verse ol. " When the Son of man shall come." Tiie lime is not stated, for that had previously been plainly and une- quivocally confined to the then existing generation, though of the precise day and hour even Jesus himself could n'ot inform the disciples. Your only remarks which bear in the least against the foregoing view of the subject, are four in number. 1st. You say that Christ did not come vi his glory, either in his incarnation, as the babe of Bethlehem, or as the man of sorrows— and hence you argue that the com- ing mentioned in Matt. xxv. 31, must be yet future, inas- much as the coming there mentioned is a coming m glory. Have you forgotten your own acknowledgment that Matt! xxiv. 30, referred to the coming of Christ to destroy Jeru- salem ? and have you overlooked the fact, that the com- ing there mentioned was to be "with power and great glon/ .?" 2d. You say, in effect, that the angels did not accom- pany our Lord to destroy Jerusalem. In Matt. xxiv. 30, 31, which, I again repeat, you applv to the coming above mcniioiicd and to no other, it is Avritten, " they shall see the Son of man comins: in the clouds of heaven with power and £rreat glory. And he shall send ^/.s^/z^'-f/^ and thev shall gather together his elect from the four winds," etc. The elect who were thus to be gailiered, are men- tioned in Matt, xxv, under the figure of the sheep. 3d. You say that at no time has the Saviour " gathered all nations before him." Once more I shall quote testi- mony which refers, according to your own concession, to events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem. " And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven • 112 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn And he shall send his angels. . . . and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, [or as in Mark xiii. 27, ' from the uttermost pari of the earth,^] from one end of heaven to the other," Matt. xxiv. 30, 31. If you can determine in Avhat sense this language was used, and in Avhat sense it was fulfilled more than seventeen centuries ago, you will be at no loss to determine how all nations were gathered before the Son of man when he came to destroy Jeru- salem. 4th. You depend somewhat on the future tense of the verb, in the declaration, " Before him shall be gathered all nations." I have repeatedly certified you, that a passage which was future in its reference when spoken or written, is not necessarily future now. But of this fact you take not the slightest notice. In Matt. xxiv. 31, it is written, " he shall send his angels," but notwithstanding the future tense of the verb, you apply the passage to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not necessary at present, nor am I required, to en- ter into a detailed explanation of the parable of the sheep and goats. It is sufficient that I have shown the refer- ence thereof to events which long since transpired. I am desirous that we should enter into a full examina- tion of the period denoted by the coming of the Son of man, as mentioned in the passages before us. You are sensible that much depends on the decision of this mat- ter—inasmuch as the events in review were to transpire when the Son of man should come in his glory. If you feel yourself competent to sustain the positions you have assumed, you will accede to this proposal. And while on this point, allow me to observe, that for either of us to cite a Scripture passage, offer a word of comment thereon, and then proceed to cite other testi- mony, without even noticing the views and arguments presented by the other on the passages previously adduced, IS not, in my judgment, either a candid, equitable, or profitable mode of procedure. In reviewing your criti- cism on the Greek noun atwv {aion) and its derivative ad- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 113 jeclive, I wish our readers distinctly to remember two particulars. 1st. Your argument rests on the supposi lion that aio)v signifies eternity, or endless duration of be- ing. If you yield this supposition, your entire argument is lost. You say, "if there is any word in the Greek language which denotes endless continuance, it is this," Mu)v. 2d. No adjective can express any more than is expressed by the noun to which it is relative. The ad- jective gloomy cannot express more than is expressed by gloom — lovcli/ than love — proud than pride. A thousand similar illustrations might be adduced. From hence it will follow, that if the noun aimv does not strictly signify eternity, the adjective cannot, in itself, express an end- less duration. The following considerations justify me in assuming that the noun aMv does not, and cannot signify eternity, or an endless duration. 1st. We read of the beginning of at(j)v — but eternity can have no beginning — therefore atav does not signify eter- nity. John ix. 32, " Since the world began," « rov aiavof. In Rom. xvi. 25, Paul speaks of the mystery of the gos- pel " which was kept secret since the world atdvion be- gan." 2. The noun in question is used in the plural number, and there are several forms of expression which denote the existence of more than one aiu)v — but eternitv is an individual; there cannot be two eternities — therefore aiu)v cannot signify eternity. 1 Cor. ii. 7, "The hidden wisdom which God ordained before the worlds rpw rwv atwiwv began." Eph. iii. 9, " The mystery which from the beginning of the worlds airu) to)v aiujvi^jv hath been hid in God." Col. i. 26, " The mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations," airw rwr atiLvwv Kai arw twv ytvtov. We read also of the cares, the wisdom, the men, the things of this aiuv (aion,) implying another; and of the alo)ves{aums) to come, implying more than one future aluv (aion.) But two or more eternities is a contradiction. 3d. We read of the end ofn/uv {aion) — but eternity can hare no end — therefore aiwv (aion) cannot signify eternity. 10^ 114 THEOLOGICAL DI3CUSSI0.N . In Matt. xxiv. 3 ; xiii. 39, 40, and other passages, in which the phrase " end of the world" occurs, the word for world is not /caitr/ioj, but a/ov. The Very phrase ffvv^^^fIa rovaiavos, end of the world, on which yon so confidently rely for proof of your positions, pointedly contradicts your views. You must either allow that a/wv does not signify eternity — in which case your entire argument would be lost — or attempt to define what you mean by the end of eternihj. 4th. We read of the end and the ends of theafwvfs (aions,) plural. 1 Cor. x. 11, "And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the worlds twv alQivojv ARE comc." Heb. ix. 26, " But now once in the end of the worlds avvriXtia rwv aiwvwv, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." In your com- ments on the latter passage, you say, that " Christ came in ihe joint ending of the ages of past and future eternity." But a past eternity is a contradiction. You also say, " an interminable past duration preceded his appearing, and an interminable duration is to succeed." But an inter- minable duration is a duration without termination — yet according to your statement, there was a termination to the interminable duration that preceded the coming of Christ ! The phrase "end of the worlds," you interpret to mean the ending together of iwo eternities— but be- sides the total absence of authority for such interpreta- tion, allow me to suggest, that, according to your views, Christ offered himself on the cross between the ending of one eternity, and the beginning o{ another! From the foregoing considerations the conclusion is obvious, that, of whatever words the noun okdv may be formed, it does not signify eternity ; and consequently its derivative adjective cannot, in itself, signify an endless duration. In perfect agreement with these facts, we find, that the word everlasting is applied, in the Septuagint, to the priesthood of Aaron, which was abolished to make room for the priesthood of Christ ; to the everlasting covenant of the law, which was superseded by the gospel covenant; to the everlasting possession of the land of Canaan, which THEOLOC.IUAI, DISCUSSION. 115 the Jews do not now possess — and to other everlasting things, which not only had no reference to a future existence^ but were temporary in their characters, and limited in their duration. Allow nie to say, that a Jew uses the very same argument to [)ruve that Christ was an impostor and the gospel a fabrication, that you have adopted to prove the doctrine of endless punishment. Were I to allow the validity of your argument and conclusion, I should be compelled to admit the same in relation to the reasoning of the Jew. Besides — you have yet to prove that Matt. xxv. 46, has any reference to the immortal state of existence. I am aware that (a);,v aiwviov is placed in contrast with K^Xairiv aidviov — but I deny that either o( these phrases belongs to the incorruptible life. The faithful and obedient have everlasting life, in the present world, as I have abundantly shown in previous letters. To my arguments on this point you have failed to reply. The duration signified by the adjective aldviov must always be determined by the subject or thing to which it is applied. Adjectives are but relative terms. The ad- jectives tall, great, long, deep, &;c, have no meaning in themselves. We say a long arm, a long pole, a long day — a tall man, a tall tree, a tall steeple — and so of other adjectives. They are indefinite in themselves, and must always be considered in connexion with the things to which they are applied. I grant that the word everlasting is applied to the Al- mighty, and in this case it signifies an endless duration, for (jod is " without beginning of days or ending of years." But it is not the application of the word everlasting to the name of the Sui)reme Being, that proves to us the infinite duration of his existence. He is " the incorruptible God," iv Oeov, Rom. i. 23. I freely allow also, that in 2 Cor. v. 1, the word aluviov expresses an unlimited duration, not however in itselt considered, but because of the subject to which it is appli- ed. " We have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." But the terms used ll-e THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. in 1 Peter i. 4, are much strons^er than the adjective alwvtw. " An inheritance incorruptible, i[,pOdprov undefiled, and that fadeth not away," aixaoairov. Jesus was made a high priest for ever jtf rov aio)va after the order of Melcliizedeck, Heb. vi. 20. But in Heb. vii. 16, there is a much stronger term than the one in ques- tion : " Who is made after the power of an endless life," f(i>i7ff aKaTa\vTO%). You say, " if any word in the Greek Septuagint or New Testament expresses, unequivocally, interminable dura tion, that word is frequently applied to the everlasting punishment of some sinners." I have shown that aiZvov is not unequivocal in its signification; and I will add, that your argument in proof of endless punishment will be essentially improved, if you can find the words a;s be, that thou liast predicted? What shall be the sij^n of tluj coming, of which ihou hast just spoken ? And. as they supposed the workl was then to come to an end, What shall be the sign of the end of the world ? You agree with me, that from the 4th to the 35lh verse, Christ answers the question concerning his coming to the destruction of Jerusalem : concerning which he said, " this generation shall not pass, till all these things he fulfilled." Ey generation here you seem to understand the Jews then living; and all of them did not pass before Jerusalem was destroyed. This, however, is not the ex- clusive sense of a generation, in the Bible, for all the Jews, from the beginning to the end of the world, constitute one generation of men : and all lying and wicked men belong to one generation of vipers. You affirm that the latter part of the 24th chapter, from the 3()ih verse to the end, refers also to the same coming of Christ to destroy Jeru- salem. I think it refers to a future coming of Christ, be- cause it is an evident answer to the last question which his disciples had asked, and because by the disjunctive conjunc- tion he turns from the time of which he had been speaking, and says, " But, of that day and hour knoweth no man." He then proceeds to say, that " as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." He shall come on mankind suddenly, when they do not expect him ; and shall sweep multitudes away, dividing some from others. He does not say, that all these things, spoken after the 35lh verse, but all those spoken of before it, shall take place, " before this generation pass." Because Christ shall come unexpectedly to the final judgment, he com- mands all his disciples, saying, "Therefore, be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." " Then," when the Son of man shall come as the flood in the days of Noah, " shall two be in one field ; the one shall be taken and the otiier left :" or sepa- ration shall be made even between persons engaged in the same field of labour ; and then shall the lord of the un- 140 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. faithful servant " cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." " Then," also, says Christ in the next chapter, " shall the kingdom of heaven he likened unto ten virgins," five of whom were foolish, had no oil in their vessels, were unprepared for the coming of the bridegroom, " and the door was shut." Afterward they came crying, " Lord, Lord, open to us : but he answered and said. Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch, therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour, wherein the Son of man cometh." How can they be saved who are not prepared to meet Christ at his last coming to our world, and whom he will not acknowledge ? " For he is as a man travelling into a far country," says Christ of himself. Matt. xxv. 14, for the kingdom of heaven, as I have before remarked, is erroneously supplied in italic print by the translators : " For he [the Son of man] is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh and reckoneth with them." The Son of man who has gone away into heaven, that country far from earth, and who has intrusted us with all the different talents we possess, Avill act in like manner ; will come to judge all his subjects. " Then," to wit, in the end of the world, " he that had received the one talent came and said. Lord, I knew thee, that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed," &;c. His lord answered and said unto him, " Thou wicked and slothful servant," and finally gave commandment, " Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Pursuing the same theme, and still answering the question concerning the signs of the end of the world, the Redeemer says, in simple verity, without a parable, " When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 141 them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from tlie goats : and lie shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." It has never been shown by yourself, or any one, that this which you call a parable of the sheep and goats, to whose separation at night allusion is made, has reference to events which have long since transpired. Why need I quote any more ? To the end of the chapter Christ teaches in the clearest terms how he will act in the end of the world, when all nations shall be gathered before him. This is an event which has not yet arrived, and refers to a judgment yet to come on all mankind. If you assert, that the nations nave ever yet all been gathered before the Son of man, and divided according to their character, I ask you when ? and where ? It is not until we arrive at the first verse of the xxvith chapter, that we learn Jesus " had finished all these sayings," which he uttered after coming out of the temple, being pointed to its massy stones, and having predicted its demolition. From the 36th verse of the xxivlh chapter to the end of the xxvth, Jesus discourses in reply to the last inquiry of his pupils. If you can make the declaration, " these shall go away into ever- lasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal," mean temporal judgments brought on the Jews, I must think your principles of interpretation wrong, because they render the Bible an uncertain, unmeaning rule of faith. I do not admit that Christ ever acknowledged his ina- hility lo inform his disciples of the time when the end of the world shall be. Your favourite M'Knight may show you that Christ said, no man mokcth Icnown that day. It was revealed to no mere man, and Christ did not see fit /() make known the precise time " when he shall appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation." This second time of his appearing, I may remark, when he shall come not as a sin offering but as a judge, is to be after men have died, for " as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and unto them that look for Jiim 1^ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. shall he appear the second time without sin unto salva- tioD," Heb. ix. 27, 28. Because Mark and Luke record one of the questions which the disciples asked Christy it does not follow that Matthew was not correct in stating two or three. Several true witnesses may testify to several different circumstan- ces, and all which they all attest is to be credited. In Luke xvii. 20 — 37, Christ discoursed about the destruc- tion of Jerusalem in answer to the Pharisees, and used expressions very similar to those which he employed on another occasion, when his disciples asked about the end of the world. I do not admit, therefore, that Matt. xxiv. 36 — 41, and Luke xvii. 26 — 37, are parallel passages. This, however, is true, that the coming of Christ at the end of the world shall in many particulars be like his com- ing to judge Jerusalem in the time of her destruction by the Romans ; and this has led many to conclude that Christ's prophecy concerning his coming must have a double meaning and a two-fold accomplishment. It is true, that to your arguments intended to prove, that the faithful and obedient have the whole of everlasting life in this world, I have failed to reply ; for if you mean that to know God and Jesus Christ is everlasting 'life begun in the soul, I agree ; but if you mean that everlast- ing life is not a benefit promised to all believers to be en- joyed for ever and ever after it is begun here, why it seems to me needless and trifling to undertake to show that ever- lasting life does mean everlasting life, and not merely the life which the good live in this fleeting state. You wish me to know, that the Almighty is to be re- garded as endless in duration, not because some derivative of the Geek word aiu)v (always being) is applied to him, but because Ave read of acpflaprou Oeov, the incorruptible God, Rom. i. 23. — You confess that aloiviov expresses an un- limited duration in 2 Cor. v. 1, but think that the terms used in 1 Peter i. 4, such as aipdapro?, incorruptible, and anapavTos, Unfading, and in Heb. vii. 16, a^caraXurof, endless, are much stronger. The very passage you (juote from Heb. vii. 16, if you THEOLOGICAL DISCL'SSIO.t. 143 add the next verse, will prove tlmt this is a false pretence: for Jesus is said to be made a priest after the power of an endless life, (wr/f a>caTa>vTov, lor this reason, that God had testified, thou art a priest/or ever, tn rov alu>va. Thus his endlrss life as a priest, resulted from his being made by Divine appointment a priest /or ever, m rov a[o>va. A life, indissoluble, that is aKara^vrog, is the result of an aiu)viov de- cree, or appointment. Aia)vo the sign of the end of the world under the law. Then the old covenant was to be abolisheil, and the reign of Clirist in the kingdom wiiich the Fatiier had appointed him, was then to commence. 2d. You offer some remarks on the word "genera- tion," but the state of the case is not altered thereby — for you have admitted that all of the persons " then living THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 149 did not pass to their graves before Jerusalem was de- stroyed ;" and you have concodcd that to the 35th verse inclusive, the lani^uage of Jesus referred to tliat destruc- tion, and' not to any thing yet future. I desire you to remember, that you do not suppose any transition of reference until you reach the 36th verse of the chapter. At that point your argument commences; and you seem to think that the disjunctive conjunction " ^?/f," settles the question as to said transition. '' But of that daif— WHAT day! Plainly, the day of which our Saviour had so particularly spoken in the'preceding verses. 3d. You say, in answer to a remark of mine, that Jesus did not '"'acknowledjTe his inability to inform his disciples" of the precise day and hour of his coming. You quote M'Knight, and call him my favourite. The object of so doing is obvious. But allow me to say, that the author you mention is your own hvounie. and not mine. I believe I have not once quoted him in this con- troversy— I have quoted Dr. Campbell against him. But this is a matter of small importance. Campbeix. Wake- field, Newcome. Clarke, and a host of others, stand opposed to MKmght on the passage in question. I believe the received version gives a correct rendering of the original. The entire context discountenances any other rendering. " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." The parallel in Mark xiii. 32. is still more emphatic. '•But uf that day and hour knoweth no man. no, not the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." It would have been foolishness to have said, no man maketh ?aiown that day, for no man knew when it was to be— and how could any one make known to others what he did not know himself? 4th. You say, "I do not admit that Matt. xxiv. 3G— 41, and Luke xvii. 20—37, are parallel passages." You are aware that to admit the parallehronld be to destroy your whole argument drawn from Matt, xxiv and xxv. You admit the similarity of language, and the only rea- son you assign for denying the parallelism is, that in the 13* 150 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. one case Jesus was addressing his disciples, and in the other the Pharisees ! I cannot think you are satisticd ■with this reason. But allowinpr tliat you are, T must in- form you that Jesus iras (iddressing his disciples in both cases. See Luke xvii. 22. " And he said wito his disciples, The days will come," &c. The consequence is, that your argument is lost. 5th. You say, ''many have been led to conclude that Christ's prophecy concerning his coming must have a double meaning and a two-fold accomplishment." But will you, sir, pretend that such a conclusion is correct? Will you risk your reputation as a biblical expositor, by contending for said double meaning? In another part of your letter you pronounce certain principles of inter- pretation erroneous, because, in your judgment, they would •' render the Bible an uncertain, unmeaning rule of faith." Are you sure that this would not be conse- quent of admitting a double meaning in Christ's prophecy concerning his coming? I may add, while on this point, that Whitby, PearcE, Hammond, Kenrick, Clarkk, and others, acknowledge the parallel which you deny. I might furnish many in- teresting extracts Irom their notes, but must be content Avith the following from Whitby, on Matt. xxiv. 40, 41: '• That it relates not to the final judgment, but to the time of the destruction of the Jews by the lloman army, is evident from the same words recorded in Luke xvii. 35, 36." As your entire argument drawn from IMatt. xxiv and XXV, rests on the supposition that verse 36 of chap, xxiv, commences the reference to events which are yet future, I desire your particular attention to the proof of that sup- position. Your quotation of Heb. ix. 27, 28, will be of no service to your argument, unless you can show, 1st. That natu- ral death is signified in the expression, •' And as it is ap- pointed unto Toiq a^e/jiiirots THE MKN oucc to dic, (scc pre- ceding vcrscs, and Heb. vii. 28;) and 2d. That the se- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 151 cond appearance of Christ, spoken of in verse 28, refers to any ullicr than tlie present world. I ayree with yuu thai it would be " needless and trifling to attempt to show that everlasting life means everlasting life." Everlasting lil'e is simply the knowledge of (xod and of Jesus Christ, John xvii. 3. The believer enjoys it in the present life, as you admit. But I desire you to prove, if you can, that the blessedness of the immortal state depends, in any sense, on the faith of the believer. Neither the belief nor unbelief of man can affect the promise and purpose of God. Paul testifies that " every knee shall bow, and every tomryc confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father;" and this great consummation of the reign of Jesus cannot be thwarted by the present unbelief of any part of man- kind. You deny that aK-ara'^VTos, endless, is a stronger term than ai'wioc, everlasting — and you affirm that the latter is stronger than the former, because '• Jesus is said to be made a priest after the poAver of an ok^Icss Ii/p, ^wvi a/caraAi'- Tov, for this reason, that God had testified, thou art a priest for ever, eh rw nlCva. A few remarks will show the fallacy of your reasoning. Jst. The priesthood of Aaron was aiwiiov, everlasting — but you will not pretend that it was endles.'i, indissoluble. 2d. The priesthood under the law was " after the order of Aoron,^^ hut God testified of Christ, " Thou art a priest for ever, cftcr the order of Melchisedec." 3d. The Aaronic was a chans^eahle priesthood, inasmuch as the priests " were not suflicred to continue by reason of death ;'' but Christ " because he continueth ever, ds -or alwva, hath an unchangeable priesthood," that is, there is no succession in the priesthood, for the Son, as High Priest, " is consecrated for ever more" ci? tov aj'wva. 4th. The priesthood of Christ is not endless — for he was made a priest for ever *' after {or occordins*- to) the power of an endless life ;" but it does not follow that his life, as a priest, is endless. Moreover, Paul certifies that the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and be him- self subject, that God maybe all in all, 1 Cor. xv. 28. His 152 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. mediatorial kingdom xciJl close, when all things are sub- dued unto him and reconciled to God. So the very argu- ment you bring to prove that aiuvios expresses endless du- ration, disproves the position. Here let it be understood that the adjective in question derives its force primarily from the noun ai'wv, to which it is relative ; and secondarily, from the nature of the thing to which it is applied. Now, as I showed in a previous letter, aluv cannot signify eternity — for we read of the he- ginninp: and end of at'wv, of at'wvtf plural, and of the otds of alwv. Consequently, the adjective does not, and cannot, in itself, express an endless duration. Why have you failed to notice my reasoning on this important point ? I really attach some consequence thereto, and hope you will honour it with special attention. In asking you to adduce your proofs of endless punish- ment, I did not think of making an unreasonable demand. I did not expect you to find " incongruous affinities and violations of propriety in the sacred oracles." And the two facts, 1st. That there would be incongruity in the phrases incorruptible torment, indissoluble death, &c ; and 2d. That no such phrases are found in the sacred oracles — these two facts, I say, furnish strong proof to my mind, that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Bible. There would be no violation of good taste in saying, " indissoluble life of misery," " incorruptible exis- tence in torment" — but you will not pretend that either u(p6dprof, or aiiapavTog, ov dKaTa>>vTog, is, in anij manner or form, found in the Bible in connexion with misery. The im- mortal existence is one of purity and happiness ; not of impurity and wretchedness — for " in the resurrection they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." This testimony of Jesus answers to Rom.viii. 21, "The creature itself also s/iall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." I desire you to produce a single passage, if you can, in which any word of equal force witha^0apro?, anapavrou or iKaTa\vTOi, is applied to punishment, either in the Old Tes- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSStON. 163 lament or the New. The adjective alZvio^, will not an- swer your purpose — for that tliis word is vot unrqnivocal in its signification, is evident from the fact, that the spirit of inspiration frequently applies it to things which were temporary in their nature and character. For ex- ample, the priesthood of Aaron, the law of Moses, the possession of Canaan, kc. The word unquenchable^ which you mention, is also not to your purpose— for we read in Isa. Ixvi. 24, " They shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and tliey shall be an abhorring unto all fleshy The phraseology here used con- fines the whole matter to the present life. It was said of the fire that destroyed Idumea, " It shall not be quenched^'' — yet it icas quenched thousands of years ago. It was likewise said of the fire to be kindled in the gates of Je- rusalem, '• It shall not be quenched^ But it was quenched. So you perceive that the word in question is not definite as to the duration it signifies. It is certainly synony- mous with a/iDi/os in the passages by you cited — but Scrip- ture writers apply both words to things which have long since ceased to be. Respectfully yours, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia. August 21, 1834. Dear Sir — You are aware that the expression ^'' for ever and ever^ is used forty-three limes in the English translation of the Bible, and in thirty-eight of these in- stances, you will grant that tU roi? aMvas rov aidvwv denote an interminable duration. If God is to reign, is blessed, is to be praised, and is to possess the kingdom ^or ever and ever, equally plain and certain is it, that the im- penitently wicked are to be " tormented day and night. 154 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. for ever and ever," and fi:::uratively speaking, the smoke ol' their tormeiu is to nsct-nd forever. If all men are to be saved, Christ had a fine opportunity of saving so, when one asked, Luke xiii. 23, '• Lord, are there few that he saved?" Instead of saying, "'No, all men will be saved." he implied that there is great danger of failing of salvation ; and replied, '' strive to enter in at the strait gate ; for many. I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house has risen up, and has shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence you are ; then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy jpresence, and thou hast taught in our streets ; but he shall say, I tell you. I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and £:nashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." At the time when the Saviour uttered these words, the persons whom he ad- dressed were members of the visible church in the world. He spoke, therefore, of a dilfeient kingdom of God from that to which they then belonged ; and of one in which they should see Abraham, Isaac, and .Jacob, who had long before died and gone to the world of spirit^. From that kingdom of God to which these pa- triarchs had gone, Jesus said that his unbelieving audi- tors should be for ever excluded. They were to be rejected by the Lord when they should, at too late a period to obtain salvation, make application for admis- sion to the kingdom of heaven. They were at a future time to weep and gnash their teeth ; when they should see their patriarchal fathers, whom they could never have seen on earth. In short, it seems to me that nothing but the grossest perversion of the Bible, can make this passage leach any other doctrine than this, that some of the human family, who were members of the kingdom of God iu the world, shall in the future state, where they TnEOLOGICAL Discusaioit. 153 shall see the departed ancients, experience endless dis- appointment and misery. In Luke xi. 26, the Saviour said of a man possessed of devils, " the last state of that man is worse than the first/' Now there is no stt le to a man after his last • and the last state of this man is not one of holiness and happiness, for it is worse than his first state when pos- sessed with one devil instead of many. This last state denotes the same thing as the end of the Avieked. spoken of in the book of Psalms, and by Paul in Philii)pians iii. 18, 19, where he says, "for many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weepins:, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is DESTRUCTION, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." To show that himself and others of a different character should have a different end, he adds, "for onr conversation," of rather, "^ our TroXhcvfAa citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jefius Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself." Now your theory is, that these very persons whose end is destruction, are to share the same destiny with the citizens of heaven. Why should Paul, then, warn his brethren against these enemies of the cross, and say, '"brethren, be ye followers together with me— for our citizenship is in heaven," while the end of these sensual persons, whose god is their stomach, shall be destruction. I do not honestly believe that the apos- tle Paul ever indulged in the least expectation that all men in the resurrection, will be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body, and so be saved by God's al- mighty power. He says expressly, that some shall ex- perience destruction, and shows that by this term he intends the verv reverse of a glorious salvation. Christ says, Luke xiv. 27, " whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."' 156 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. How can a man be saved, without becoming a disciple of Christ 7 " I say unto you. that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my suj^per," Luke xiv, 21. Since all the benefits of the gospel are shadowed forth by a sumptuous entertainment, of Avhich some shall never par- take, having rejected the invitation, how can all be saved ? In Rev. xiii. 8, we read, that all who dwell on earth, whose names are not written in the buck of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the Avorld, shall wor- ship the beast which opened his mouth in blasphemy against God ; and from Rev. xx. 15, we learn by a pro- phetic vision and history, that when the dead small and and the dead, not remaining still dead, but restored to life, '• were judged out of those things which were written in the books, "according to their works." Nothing can be clearer than that this judgment, prophetically seen by John, is to take place after the destruction ot the Papacy, and Mohammedanism, and after the church shall have occupied the whole earth for a thousand years. Pre- paratory to this judgment, and that the dead might all live acrain in their whole complex nature, " the sea gave up the dead thn were in it;" that is, all the bodies of persons buried in the sea were raised ; and death and hell, or hades, the state of the dead, " delivered up the dead that were in them," the spirits of men coming out of their separate state of existence consequent on death, and being again reunited to their resuscitated bodies ; and in thfs sense, death being vanquished, and hades, a state of departed spirits, destroyed, they, the once dead, but then revived, small and great, "were judged, every man according to his works." When the spirits of men no longer exist in a state of separation from their bodies, their heaven, their paradise, will no longer be in hades, but in that state of bodily and spiritual existence which is to succeed the judgment of the great day. After that time the wicked will no longer be in tartarus, a prison of despair in the state of departed spirits, but in that ge- heniia fre, in which God will destroy both soul and body for ever; where the devil and the beast and the fiihe prophet "shall be tormented day and night for EVER AND EVER." A State of discmbodied spirits evi- dcntlv can continue and be predicated of men no longer than they continue in a disembodied state ; and because the bodies and souls of men both are to be cast in a state of punir^hracnt after the resurrection, the Lord Jesus said, " fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to Kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to de- stroy both soul and body in hell," Matt. x. 28. This desirovinT of both soul and body in hell, Christ appre- 158 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION . hended to be a real evil to be dreaded ; but if your doc- trine is true, no worse evil can come on any sinner, ever, from God, than the destruction of his body in the grave. Surely you need fear, if you are unwavering in your be- lief, nothing but men that kill the body, for there is no God who will destroy either the soul or body in any hell subsequent to natural death. I have seen no evidence whatever, that when Christ spoke of the Jire of hell, or of the gehenna of jire, he either quoted or referred to Isaiah Ixvi. 24, or xxxiv. 10^ He merely used language similar to that employed by that evangelical prophet of the Old Testament, and by Jeremiah vii. 20, and Ezekiel xx. 47, when they de- scribed such judgments upon the wicked as were to bring them down to endless pains. If, as you say, the word gehenna was never used in addressing the gentiles directly in the New Testament, I shall admit that there was a peculiar propriety in speaking to the Jews of pun- ishment under the term of fires of gehenna, because they were familiar with the symbols. There was also an equal propriety in addressing the churches scattered throughout Europe and Asia, in the use of the word tar- tarns, as a symbol of the state of misery appointed for wicked spirits. The persons addressed by Peter in his general epistles, would be as likely to derive just ideas from the expression of casting down to tartarus, as the Jews from the declaration, that both soul andbody should be cast into the gehenna of fire. I not only deny that Christ quoted Isaiah Ixvi. 24, in Mark ix. 43, but also that the passage in Isaiah refers to- " temporal punishments alone." In this chapter the Lord reveals the restoration of the Jews, the universal spread of the gospel, the gatherinir of all the nations into the church ; and the judgments of Jehovah upon all the wicked previous to this desired event. He promises to extend peace to his church like a river, "and the glory of the geniiles like a flowing stream; and the hand of the Lord shall be known towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies. For, behold the LomI THEOLOGICAL DISCUSfnO.t. 159 will come with fire, and with liis chariots like a whirl- wind, to render \u^ anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire, and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh ; and the slain of the Lord shall be many." After this shall new heavens and a new earth be made, and alljlesh come to worship before Jehovah. Then " it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, they shall go forth, (meaning all flesh thai worship God) and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." These were evidently not literal car- casses, worms and fires, seen month after month in the valley of Hinnom. The passage undoubtedly means, that after the universal spread of the gospel, the people of God shall in all their religious services contemplate the judgments of God brought upon the wicked, and tiieir endless destruction from the presence of the Lord, shadowed forth by symbols taken from the literal To- phet. The church in her millennial glory will not cease to remember the millions of men, self-destroyed, whose conscience will for ever be as a gnawing worm, and whose sufferings, like those produced by unquenchable fire. The universal church will for ever abhor the re- membered wickedness of all nations that have forgotten God, and will be turned into hell. All past generations that iiave rebelled against God, and died in their sins, will be contemplated as carcasses cast out into the place of polluted idolaters, to become the food of worms and flames. In the 34th chapter of Isaiah, not only temporal but endless pains are denounced asfainst Idumea, and " upon all na ions," in highly figurative language. In " the day of the Lord's ven^^eance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion," it is said the Lord's "sword shall b" bathed in heaven, filled with blood," and "made fat with fatuesa." In the same style it is said, that the 160 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. Streams of Idumea, the dust and the land, shall become burning brimstone and pitch, which shall never be quenched, and through which none shall pass for ever and ever; to denote the utter destruction of that country and the endless punishment of its wicked inhabitants. The same is true when God says of the wicked Jews^ whom he has long since destroyed in hell, that his an- ger and his fury shall burn against them and shall not be quenched. Merely temporal fires must burn out, if not quenched, but God symbolizes his punishment of wicked nations and individuals by streams of burning brimstone and pitch that shall never be extinguished. These very passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah, instead of destroying the force of our Saviour's expressions con- cerning the unquenchable fires and gnawing worms of hell, show that he employed terms familiar to the Jews, and frequently used by their own prophets to denote the interminable vengeance of the Almighty. The Idumea that was denounced has been destroyed ; *' none shall pass through it for ever and ever ;" and the fire of wrath kindled upon those Idumeans is burning now, and the smoke thereof shall go up for ever. In Jeremiah vii. 20, Jehovah says of his anger, it shall burn, and shall not be quenched ; and surely it still burns against those idolatrous Israelites whom he slew in his wrath. He caused tens of thousands of them to be cast, as to their bodies, into a literal Tophet ; and this external punishment was but the figure of that which he brought upon their souls in tartarus. The fire which God kindled in the gates or among the rulers of Jerusalem, was the fire of his wrath, and not a literal flame kindled upon the doors in their walls. The fire of his wrath in due time laid Jerusalem waste, and still burns against her wicked kings, nobles, and common people ; and of thi^ fire he said, Jer. vii. 20, " it shall not be quenched." In short, where you find in God's most awful denunci- ations nothing but natural death and endless blessedness THEOLOGICAL DISCUSCTOX. 161 immediately followinjr, I see temporal destruction as a prelude to endless pains. You complain, that I have disregarded your statement, " that a passage which was future in its reference when r.poJicn or mrittcn, is not necessarily future in its reference ??()«'." This I grant, but I deny that the remark is appli- cable to those portions of Scriptures which speak t)f the general Judgment. Some events predicted by Christ as future when he spake on earth have been fulfilled, and now we may speak of them as post ; but other events yet remain to be fulfilled. It is for instance, " appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Now some have died, and gone to judgment: but to you and myself, and millions of mankind, death and judgment are still future events. IMoreover, " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation," Heb. ix. 27, 28. If Christ appeared in the destruction of Jerusalem, there are others that still look for him; among whom I profess to be one ; yes, there are hundreds of thousands of persons who still look for him, to whom on his second coming to our world in his bodily presence he shall yet appear, for we have not seen him ; and he shall come, not bearing sin as a sin-offering, as he did when he first came, but without sin unto their salvation who are pre- pared to meet him in his judicial capacity. You make what seems to me a desperate efTort to show that Acts xvii. 31, refers to some past time, or else to the whole of the dispensation of the gospel, and not to a fu- ture General Judgment. Paul was addressing the Athe- nians concerning the true God, who was " the unknown God" to them, and he assured them that " he hath ap- pointed a day in which he will judge the world in right- eousness by that man whom he hath ordained." It is not at all likely that he referred these Greeks to any tempo- ral calamities about to come on Jerusalem. He did not say, God is now judging you by causing the gospel of Christ to be preached to you. Nor did he say God has 15* 163 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. already judged the world; but God has appointed a day in which he will do it by Jesus Christ, to whom the Fa- ther hath committed all judgment. The Judge of men in the last great day is to be God manifest in the flesh. Immanuel, or God in our nature, and hence Paul said that God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained. According to the gospel preached by Paul, " God shall judge the se- crets of men by Jesus Christ," in the last day, when all the dead shall have come forth from their graves. This is the real meaning of Rom. ii. 16, for Paul does not there intimate that his preaching of the gospel was God's judg- ing of the world by Christ. The 13th, 14th and 15th verses of Rom. ii, are evidently a parenthesis, and are so marked in the most accurate edition of the New Testament. Omit this parenthesis in reading, and you will find that Paul asserts in this chapter, that " God will render to every man according to his deeds ;" to some who " seek foi glory and honour and immortality — eternal life ; but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, — indignation and wrath, tribula- tion and anguish." At the same time he tells us God in judging the world will be no respecter of persons, but re- gard as he ought the different circumstances and talents of mankind, so that " as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." If you ask, when shall this equitable judgment of all who have not heard the gospel, take place, the answer is, "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, accord- ing to my gospel." In preaching the gospel, Paul told men, that God had appointed a day in which he would judge the world in righteousness: this judging of the secrets of men in the last day, by Jesus Christ, was therefore ac- cording to the gospel of every other person Avho preaches the same doctrines which Paul and Jesus Christ did. Your attempt to prove, that there is no future general judgment of the assembled world of mankind after the general resurrection to take place, because God is a Judge, TIIFOLOaiCAL DIrfCUSeiON. 163 and to a certain extent executes righteous judgments in the earth, I cannot think deserves any serious regard. I deny that God has ever yet judged the u-orld collcrdrcli/. He liath committed the judgment of tlie work! of mankind to he collected after the resurrection from the dead to Je- sus Christ; and that judgment he is to execute at the ap- pointed time, when he shall descend from heaven Avith the trump of God. Concerning the effects of the resurrection from the dead, I have learned without going to the Sadducees or Pharisees for instruction, that " in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, hut are as the angels of God in heaven," spiritual, active, intelligent immortal beings, who have entered on their final state ; and that in this resurrection some arise to damnation. It is true, though no sacred Scripture ; and since you have first quoted the saying, I must avow my belief, ihaf as death hairs us, so icill judgment find ns ; — that after death there is no saving moral change wrought in any impeni- tent sinner ; — and that in the grave, or the state of the dead, no works are done preparatory to the settlement of •one's final destiny. The questions, How are the dead raised vp ? And with what body do they come ? were attributed by Paul to " some man" of infidel character who wished to raise some phi- losophical objection against the possibility of any resur- rection. Paul stopped the mouth of the " fool," by re- ferring him to the resurrection of a new stalk of grain from the seed buried in the earth. It is just as easy, "thou fool," for God to raise up out of the body laid in the grave a real body, differing in many respects from that which was corruptible and corrupted, as to raise up a green blade of wheat from a bad grain of wheat sown in the furrow. The apostle then proceeds to show that real bodies dif- fer from each other in many of their attributes, and that the bodies of mankind, when raised out of their graves, will differ from what they formerly were before death; and yet be real, material bodies. 1'64 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. All who die suffer dishonour in body, by being returnedi (0 the dust on account of Adam's sin; and these same bodies in honour of Christ, shall be raised up in all the glory of never dying frames. Through iccnhiess these bodies were dissolved, but they shall be endowed with such power after the resurrection as will fu them for their everlasting estate. Every natural body of a man will be changed into an cthcriaUzcd or spiritual body ; so called from its possessing many powers resembling those which appertain to spiritual beings. To save all discussion on these points, I agree with you, that as by and through and in Adam, all die a natural death, so by^ through and in Christ as head over all things to his church, shall all men be made alive in the last day, the day of resurrection. Christ, in virtue of authority vested in him as King of the Church, will raise every man : but every man in his oicn order. These orders will be widely different : and yet, every body of every good, of every wicked man, shall be rendered incorruptible, immortal, powerful, and glorious in comparison with what it was before death. Every body shall resem- ble a spirit in the powers it will forever exercise, and therefore may be called a spiritual body, which in many respects will bear a resemblance to the body of the Lord from heaven. All this is taught in 1 Cor. xv. In rela- tion to all men, death will be thus vanquished and the grave destroyed by Christ. Other passages of Scripture which I have already cited, clearly prove that some of these immortal, incorruptible, powerful, spiritual, and in some respects glorious and heavenly bodies will be inhabited by restless, sinning and accursed spirits forever. They may be glorious in some respects, as angels of light, and yet be doomed in body and in spirit to the blackness of darkness forever. Many glorious and powerful, and naturally lovely at- tributes of body and mind belong to multitudes who are in their hearts the enemies of God ; and all the natural advantages and glories that will accrue to the wicked from the resurrection will but prepare them for endless pun- THBOLOGirAL DI.SCUSSIOX. 1G6 ishmcnt. Indeed they must be rendered immortal, or they could not endure endless misery. AViili all their power, glory, and iinmortiility, being n'ladelike to the an- gels, being spiritual existences resembling the heavenly body of Christ, the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, among those principalities and powers which are spiritual wickedness in high places. It was however of the church of God, of the sanctified in Christ called to be saints, that Paul said 1 Cor. xv. 49, " as W£ have born the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." While all after the resurrection shall be immortal like Christ, none but saints will like Christ be fitted for a heavenly home. Because it is said " in Christ Jesus shall all be made alive," and also, " if any man be in Christ he is a new creature," you infer, that all who shall be restored to life in the last day by Christ, shall be renewed persons, fitted in the state and exercises of their souls for everlast- ing blessedness. You insist, again and again, that all who are so in Christ, as to be restored to life, are also i?i him in such a sense that they are holy persons, the subjects of the neio birth, of a saving chanp^e, for " the dead shall be raised in- corruptible, and we shall be changed.^' You are undoubtedly aware, that the apostle Paul speaks of all saints as associated with himself; and of such as shall be alive at the last day, not having experienced na- tural death, he says, " we shall be changed." He says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we," that have not died, " shall be changed." Here is no intimation of mental, moral or spiritual change; but a simple assurance that all who shall be living at the time of the general resurrection, shall be changed in body, so as to become immortal and in- corruptible, like those who have passed through the grave. I admit that in the same sense in which all men are in Adam, so as to die in him, they are abo in Christ so as to 166 THEOLOGICAL DI6CUSSI0N. be made alive by him from the dead ; but a man may be in Christ in different scriptural senses; and being m him so as to experience a resurrection by him, is not inconsist- ent with awaking " to shame and everlasting contempt;" for himself has said, " the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth : they that have done good unto the resurrec- tion of life, and they that have done evil unto the resur- rection of damnation," John v. 28. In John xvth, Jesus compares himself to a vine and his professed disciples to branches in him. But of his Father he saith, " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away." Some branches do not abide in him, and "if a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Thus will multitudes be in Christ so as to be raised by him from the dead ; and having been always unfruitful in good works, will be cast into the fires of hell. All, therefore, who are in Christ by baptism and a vis> ble church relation, and all who are in him so as to be raised by him from the dead, should hear his counsel ; " abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can you except ye abide in me." If any man is in Christ, by a living faith, by; a vital union, so as to derive from him saving spiritual influen- ces; if any man is so in Christ as to "abide in him;" " walk in him," " as he also walked ;" and bring forth the fruits of holy living, he is indeed a new creature ; and shall never perish ; but except a man become thus united to Christ by what our Saviour calls being born again, which is a very different thing from the resurrection of the body, he cannot see, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Your reference to Acts xxiv. 14, 15, seems to me peculiar- ly unfortunate for your cause. Paul said to the Roman Go- vernor Felix, " this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which arc written in the law THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 107 nnd the prophets; and have hope toward God, which they themselves [the Jews liis accusers] also allow tiiat there shall he a resurrection of the dead, hoth of the just and unjust." Here Paul speaks of the dead as being still sonic of them just, and some unjust. They retain, then, these distinct general moral characteristics, after they go to the grave and the world of spirits ; and they remain re- spectively members of the class of the righteous, or of llie wicked, unto the resurrection ; when they are all to come forth at the sound of the Archangel's trump. But you infer, that the unjust v/ill be changed m\.o just per- sons, by the resurrection, because otherwise you think Paul would not have regarded the resurrection of the dead as an object of hope. Your argument derives all its force from the difference between your feelings and those of Paul. He had hope toward God that there shall be a re- surrection of the dead. His accusers allowed that this hope is reasonable and scriptural ; for they were Phari- sees and belicvea in a world of spirits and the general resurrection from the dead. In this resurrection he and they knew that the just and the unjust were both to arise, that the judge might render to every one according to his deeds an everlasting award. This, however, did not de- stroy his hope. He knew how important it is for the vin- dication of the just themselves, and for the glory of di- vine justice, that the oppressors should stand in judgment with the oppressed. Fully satisfied that the Judge of all the earth will do no wrong, but manifest his equity, good- ness, patience and forbearance in relation to the wicked, before the assembled universe, he still hoped for the ge- neral resurrection. The people of God still have tlie same hope, and look for the Saviour's appearing, even while assured that the unjust shall be raised, and that to- them the judge will be revealed in flaming fire taking^ such vengeance as belonixs to Jehovah. The punishment of the unjust is not in itself a.i object of complacency, any more than the sacking of Jerusalem was ; but he who wept over Jerusalem and yet destroyed it ; may say, as I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked ; 168 THEOLOGICAL Discussio::^. yet, the soul that sinnelh it shall die. While we /????/ sin- ners, we may hope that God in due time will vindicate himself, and his dishonoured, defied government. In commenting on Matt. xxii. 29, 30, and Mark xii. 25, vou seem to have ahandoned your doctrine, \\\^lhy angels the Scriptures mean nothing more than human messengers ; for otherwise your argument would be without founda- tion. All men shall be holy, happy, and saved after the resurrection, you intimate, because then they shall be as the angels of God in heaven. Christ has taught that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still living persons, and have God for their God ; and that in due time all the dead shall be raised, when they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be " as the angels which are in heaven ;" possessed of spiritual bodies which shall need neither food nor drink ; shall never sleep ; shall be incorruptible ; and shall be endowed with wonderful powers, such as are common to celestial beings. Matthew and Mark say merely that " in the resurrection they nei^ ther marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the an- gels of God in heaven." These angels they may resem- ble in many important particulars, and yet be miserable for ever. The devils resemble these angels of heaven, and yet are miserable. It is no where intimated that all who are raised from the dead sliall be like the angels of heaven in their holiness, or service of the Almighty. Your quotation from Luke xx. 34 — 36 is more favourable to your position than any which I have yet seen. " And Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this world; marry, and are given in marriage : but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resur- rection from the dead, neither marry nor are given itt jnarriage ; neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Our Saviour seems to- me in this place to contrast this n-orld with that world, or earth with heaven; and he says " that theu which shall be account! d ii-orthtj to ohiain that world,''^ shall be the chil- dren of God, and equal to the angels. These words imply THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 109 that some shall NOT be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and so are not to become the children of God by beinsr the children of the resurrection. This clause conccrninfj them which shall be " accounted worthy to obtain," spoils the whole passage for your use, and confirms me in tiie judgment, that some shall rise to go away with the devil and his angels into endless punishment. But for this clause this text would ren- der me a Universalist. Unworthy as they are of any resurrection, and of that world where Jesus lives and reigns, he will, nevertheless, raise them from the dead, '• for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ : that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad ;" and this too, after " our earthly house of this tabernacle" shall have been dissolved, 2 Cor. v. 1—10, Should it, nevertheless, be conceded, that all mankind shall be called the children of God, on account of their being raised by him from the dead ; it will not follow that all will be holy and happy children ; for God is the father of the whole human family by creation, and pre- servation, as well as the resurrection ; and including him- self with " all nations of men," who dwell on all the face of the earth, Paul says, with certain of the Athenian poets, " for we are also his offspring." Hence he argues, " for as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or i>ilver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Many of his hearers, notwithstanding, did thus think, and were actuated by no sentiments befitting the offspring of the Infinite IMind. Just so, millions Avho will be children of God by the resurrection from the dead, will be undutiful and rebellious children for ever; whose portion will be the blackness of darkness. Your doctrine, that those who are not changed before by true repentance, are to be savingly changed by the resurrection from the dead, so as to experience everlast- ing salvation, is contradicted by the general tenor of gos- pel admonitions. " While ye have light, believe in the 15 170 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. light, that ye may be children of light." If your theory is correct, whether men believe in the light or not while they have light, they will become the children of light by the resurrection ; and thus Christ's warning was vain. " Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near :" which you render null by teach- ing that whether men ever seek God or not in this life, they will all be sure to find him, and to be reconciled in soul to him by the saving change of the resurrection from the dead. " We then as workers together with him, be- seech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee ; be- hold, now is the accepted time : behold, now is the day of salvation." Needless solicitation and vain admo- nition are here, if the day of salvation will never pass until all are saved; and if all men will at last be fitted for heaven, Avhether they call upon God in an accepted time or not: or if the accepted time in rela- tion to every sinner will extend to the day of judgment, and then all be savingly changed. To some Christ said, " Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life ;" but you add, " until the resurrection, and then the last rebel will come, and enjoy life everlasting." In further confirmation of the scriptural doctrine, that some will endure endless sufferings after the present life, I allege that all are sinners ; that God has revealed his mode of pardoning sinners ; that if sinners are not par- doned they must perish ; that some will never receive forgiveness; and that of course some will perish for ever. To prevent all misapprehension of my meaning, I define scriptural pardon or forgiveness to be the remission of the penalty of the law to a sinner, which he has incurred by his crimes, in consequence of his redemption by Christ Jesus. If a sinner is not pardoned he must suffer endless punishment, which is the penalty of the violated law ; and some shall never be pardoned. If this should prove tTue in relation to none but llie blasphemers of Christ's day, Jt would destroy your whole theory of universal salvation. THFOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. ]7l Aware that some Universalists deny any remission of sins, I must remind you that David said, for well he knew, that " blessed is he whose transgressions is fort^i- ven, whose sin is covered : I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord ; and thou forgavest the ini- quity of my sins. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found,*' Psalm xxxii. Christ has taught his disciples to pray, saying, " forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors ;" and added by way of solemn caution, " if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Now indispensable as pardon is to everlasting salva- tion, Christ assures us that some shall never be pardoned, and of course shall never be saved. When asked, "Lord how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?" Jesus answered, "I say not unto thee, until sev«m times : but, until seventy times seven." Then he added a parable concerning the wicked servant who would not forgive his fellow servant, and was delivered to the tormentors; and concluded with, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their tres- passes," IMatt. xviii. 35. That some men live and die, without forgiving or being forgiven, with the spirit of malice and revenge in their hearts, is as evident as the day light. Because the scribes said, " He hath Beelze- bub, and by the prince of devils casteth he out devils." Jesus said, " He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of," or ob- noxious to, "eternal damnation," Mark iii. 22—29. In Matt. xii. 31, it is written, "but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men : whoso- ever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for- given Jmn, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." This blasphemy is the sin unto death, concern- ing which we may not lawfully pray that it may be forgiven. Of course I consider it as settled, by Christ ]72 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. himself, that every blasphemer against the Holy Ghost will he the subject of endless punishment. This fate does not belong to the bold blasphemer alone, for " Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein," Mark x. 15. " Then said Jesus unto his disci- ciples, if any man will come after me, let him deny him- self, and take up his cross and follow me." Many never do this, but live and die avowed contemners of Christ. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Then it is added, because Christ's coming and setting up his kingdom in the world is confirmation strong of his final- ly coming to judge the world in righteousness ; when and not before he shall reward every man, Jew and Gen- tile, according to his works, " Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," Matt. xvi. 24 — 28. The establishment, and continued progress of Christianity in the world, through the Chris- tian church, ought to confirm every one in the truth of Christ's coming at the last day to judge the world in righteousness, and to distribute to mankind endless re- Avards. That which we have seen and known of his kingdom in the world, should make us willing, in any circumstances which may render it necessary, to sacrifice our life in this world, for Christ's sake, that we may find everlasting life in the heavens. Natural and temporal life should be cheerfully resigned to preserve spiritual and everlasting life. And if a mnn Avill preserve his natural life at the expense of duty, let him know that his im- mortal life may be regarded as lost, for it will not be blessedness. Expecting to meet Christ when be shall come to our THEOL(X;iCAL DISCUSSION. 173 world nijain, hi the glory of his Father; and being as- sured, ilial wlien the just and the unjust shall have been raided by hiui out of their graves, in the land or the bed of the ocean, he will reward every man according to his works, I send you this epistle, and pray that you and I both inav prepare to meet God, the Judge of all the earth. ^ ^ EZRA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, August 27, 1834. Dear Sir— In my last letter 1 pointed out the error of your u)ilij reason for denying that Matt, xxiv, 3G— 41, and Luke xvii, 22—37, are parallel passages. I had pre- viously shown, that an acknowledgment of said parallel would destroy your entire argument drawn from Matt, xxiv and xxv. I stated, and the position cannot be suc- cessfully controverted, that a failure to establish a tran- sition of reference at verse 36 of the former chapter, would require an admission that no part of either of the chapters can be fairly applied to any other events than those connected whli, or immediately succeeding, the destruction of Jerusalem. Inasmuch as you have vir- tually acknowledged said parallel, by wholly neglecting to adduce any thing farther in denial, I feel justified in assuming that you have yielded the point. For sunilar reasons I feel at liberty to assume, that you conceded the correctness of the conclusion consequent of the facts stated in relation to the noun «'«^*'. namely, that the adjective aimhs cannot, and does not, in itself, express an endless duration. The extent of duration it signities, must in all cases be determined by the nature of the subject or thing to which it is applied. The duration expressed by the jihrase '' for ever and and ever," mu>t be determined in the same way. When applied to things confessedly pertaining to the immortal 5tate, or to subjects which by other testimony are piored 13* 174 THEOLOGICAL DISCL'St-lON. to belong to the incorruptible life, then, in such cases, it should not be limited as to the duration it signifies. So far as our present inquiry is concerned, it matters little hon- often it is applied to God or to things of an indis- soluble nature. You are required to adduce as many- passages as you can. in Avhich the phrase in question is connected with punishment — remembering that said pun- ishment must be shown to belong to the future state of existence. The passage quoted from the Apocalypse is of no advantage to your argument — for it speaks of the alternations of day and night, which appertain solely to the concerns of iime. On your argument drawn from Luke xiii, 23, 1 remark, 1st. You assume that in the question, "are there few that be saved ?" the querist had in view the salvation of the immortal state of being. This I deny. 2d. No one save a Calvinist of the ancient order will contend, that only a few of mankind will be the recipients of endless felicity. You, sir, have advanced rather more than three thousand cubits into the waters of EzekiePs vision; and I am not without hope that you will continue to advance, until you find that the waters are risen, waters to swim in, but not to be passed over. You do not believe that of the whole human family, the few will be saved and the many lost. Why then do you speak of the question in review as of a matter pertaining to the future state? 3d. You assert that the persons addressed in our Saviour's answer, were '"members of the visible church in the world," and that therefore Jesus '* spoke of a different kingdom of God from that to which they then belonged." But you err in the premises, and your argument is lost. The Jews were in a certain sense '' the children of the kingdom," Matt. viii. 12, for they were the children of the patriarchs to whom the promises were made — but they were not Christians in any sense, for they did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. 4th. In Matt. viii. 5 — 12, it is plain, that the Jcavs were the persons who were to be excluded from ihe kingdom of God, the gospel kingdom, which they shut up against men, neither en- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 175 tering themselves, nor allowing others to enter ; and that the Gentiles were to be admitted to the privileges and blessin2:s of that kingdom. See Matt. xxi. 43—" The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof," viz. to the Gen- tiles. TJie judicious Lardner states, that the declara- tion, " Many shall come from the east," &c. signifies the calling of the Gentiles to gospel privileges ; and Whitby informs us, that "to lie down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, dotii not signify to en- joy everlasting happiness in heaven with them, but only to become the sons of Abraham through faith." Indeed, " it seems to me that nothing but the grossest perversion of the Bible can make this passage teach any other doc- trine than this," that the Jewish people, in consequence of their rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ, were them- selves to be rejected from, and the Gentiles admitted to, the privileges of his kingdom on earth. Onlv two states of the man spoken of in Luke xi. 26, are mentioned. The first, when he had one demon — the last, when he had seven — both states pertaining to the present life. It remains to be shown that either the first or the last was the immortal state of that man. You infer endless punishment from the declaration, made in reference to certain persons whose god is their stomach, " whose end is destruction.'''' Your argument rests on the meaning you aflfix to the word destruction. But when Esther said, " How can I bear to see the de- struction of my kindred," you do not suppose she meant to say, how can I bear to witness their interminable wretchedness ! The truth is, that many men, when speaking of religious subjects, affix a meaning to certain words which those words would not convey, if used in conversing or writing on any other topic. We frequently say of a man who is idle, extravagant, and intemperate, that his end will be destruction — and no one misunder- stands us to have eternity in view. Of another we say, he is rushing lieadlong to destruction, and our meaning is not misapprehended. But when the word in question is 176 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. found in the Scriptures, there are many Avhose minds are immediately drawn to a contemplation of something un- utterably dreadful in the resurrection state. To this un- warranted popular prejudice, and to others of a like cha- racter, vou have frequently appealed in the course of our friendly controversy. To the Hebrew Christians Paul said, " Ye are come unto Mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem ;" and to the Ephesians " Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, [alluding to their former condition as Gentiles,] but felloiv-citizcns with the saints and of the household of God." The Phiiip- pians were citizens of the same heavenly Jerusalem, and as such enjoyed the happiness ever consequent of faith in the promises of the gospel. They were members of that " kingdom of God which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." And the apostle contrasted the soul inspiring faith and glorious joys of the Philippians, with the sensual gratifi- cation of those who minded earthly things. The de- sires and pleasures of the latter were earthly and sensual — but the hopes and pleasures of the former were spiritual, heavenly, and divine. They looked in faith for the Lord Jesus, '' who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue even all Things to liimself." In this testimony Paul only mentions the r//^i7<7// of Christ "to subdue all things to himself," but he certifies us in 1 Cor. xv. 28, that such universal subju- gation WILL BE the issue of the gospel economy. " And when ALL THINGS shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son ALSO himself be subject (or subdued) unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.''^ Be sure, the Christian believers did not " see all things put under him;" but they saw the exaltation of .Tesus, who " by the grace of God lasted death for every man;" and they believed that this exaltation was connected with the determinate purpose of the Almighty, that " in the ;ijame of Jesus every knee should bow, and that every THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 177 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." It is certainly true, as you allege, that he who does not bear his cross cannot be a Christian disciple — but ii is not thence to be inferred that he will be doomed to endless punishment. It is also true that the blessings of Christ's kingdom on earth are shadowed forth by a sumptuous entertain- ment — and that those who were bidden to come, and re- fused, were not allowed to partake of the supper — but you have yet to show that in the whole matter there is any reference to the future state. Lardner, Gilpin, Whitby, and others, agree in considering it descriptive of the rejection of the Jewish people, and the calling and acceptance of the Gentiles. Why do you persist in as- suming the predicates of your arguments' In your remarics on certain passages in the Apocalypse, you have failed to notice many of my arguments thereon ; and you have also assumed many of the points which re- main to be established. You utterly neglect to inform me why you consider one part of the matter figurative and the other literal; or why nothing is said therein of a re- union of departed spirits and dead bodies; or why you suppose the dead delivered up by the sea were of a kind different from those delivered up by death and hades ; or why the sea only, and not the earthy is said to give up the dead that were in it. You neglect to notice my statement that the lake of fire and brimstone is mentioned in the close of chapter xix. connected with things obviously per- taining to the present world. You overlook the fact, that after the judgment spoken of in chapter xx. John " saw that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God." which language forbids your suppo- sition, that after said judgment the saints were to ascend up to heaven to God. The bride, the Lamb's wife, the holy city, the new Jerusalem, the tabernacle of the gos- pel covenant, came down from God out of heaven ; not that the Church ascended to God from the earth. Of this holy city, this new Jerusalem, all believers were to 178 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. be, and are, the inhabitants. Paul said to the Hebrews, as before quoted. " Ye are come to Mount Sion, the city of the living God. the heavenly Jerusalem." Of every one who should take away from the words of the pro- phecy, it Avas declared, '• God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city" — that is, he should be excluded from the privileges of the new Jerusalem, the gospel kingdom. The time referred to cannot easily be mistaken. '' The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his ans^el to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.''^ Daniel was commanded to "shut up the words, and seal the book," because the time was not at hand — but John was commanded not to seal the book, because the time was at hand. Daniel was informed that "when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, [the Jews] all these things shall be finished." He speaks of "a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time," which lan- guage our Saviour quotes in Matt. xxiv. in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; and Daniel adds, "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall he found written in the book." I think these re- marks throw much light on the reference of the Apocalyp- tic vision. I should be pleased to pursue the subject — but a desire to be as brief as possible, admonishes me to for- bear. In connexion with your remarks on Rev. xx. you intro- duce Matt. X. 28 — '• And fear not them which kill the body," &c. I noticed this passage in a former letter, and endeavored to show, which I think I succeeded in doing, that no argument in proof of endless punishment is thence deducible. I informed you tLdt the language in question was addressed to the disciples of our Lord, and to no other persons ; that I dispute any reference therein to the Supreme being; that ability to destroy does not imply determination so to do ; and that ydwa, as used in the Bible, does not apply to any state of being beyond THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 179 the present. Until you see proper to attend to these par- ticulars, I feel at liberty to omit any notice of your groundless conclusions. Besides — you have informed me that gehenna and tartarvs are both in hades ; and you concede that hades is to be destroyed. Consequently, the lake of fre is the only hell you have remaining; and it will be of no avail to cite passages in which either gehenna or tartarus occurs, unless you revoke your concession in relation to the destruction of hades. In your comments on the passages in the Old Testa- ment in which the expression, "shall not be quenched," occurs, you make sweeping: work. First of all, you deny that Jesus in Mark ix. 43. either quoted or referred to Isa. Ixvi. 24. In this denial you are un.supported by any commentator witli whose writings I am acquainted. Dr. George Campbell is pointedly against you, Diss. xii. P. I. §30. You say, Jesus only used language similar to that found in Isaiah. It is more than similar — it is nearly xerhatim. Parkhurst says, " Our Lord seems to allude to the Avorms which continually prayed on the dead carcasses that were cast out into the valley of Hinnom, ydvvav, and to the perpetual fire kept up to consume them." Profes^^or Stuart says, that in gehenna "perpetual fires were kept up in order to consume the offal which was deposited there. And as the same offal would breed worms, hence came the expression, 'where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. ' " Piut even admitting (what I do not admit) that Jesus in Mark ix. only used similar language to that found in Isaiah Ixvi, it is nevertheless certain, ihat the significa- tion of words and phrases in the New Testament must be learned from the Old. Our Master condemned the Scribes and Pharisees for having made void the law of God through their traditions. He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil. The disciples, (to whom, and to whom only, the language in Mark ix. 43, et seq. was addressed) were to ''search the Scrip- tures ;" and it is from them, namely, from the Scri])tures of the Old Testament, that we are to learn the signift- ,30 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. cation of words and phrases in the New. Now the dis- ciples knew, that the expression, ov cliead/jacrai it shall not be quenched^ was thrice used in reference to the fire on the altar of the old covenant, Lev. vi. 9, 12, 13. But you say that in Isa. Ixvi. 24, xxxiv. 10, Jer. vii. 20, and Ezek. xx. 47, the evangelical prophets '' described such judgments upon the wicked as were to bring thern down to endless pains" ! ! I am utterly astonished that a man of your reputation as a biblical critic, should have given utterance to an assertiou so destilute not only of proof but of plausibility. But let us examine the pas- sages in the order in which you have referred to them. Isaiah Ixvi. 23, 24, " And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Now, in order to sustain your argument, you must either admit that there are neio moons, sabbaths^ carcasses, icorms, and fires, in the immortal state ; or show that these are altogether figurative expressions, and that they appertain to the concerns of an incorruptible life. Your saying that undoubtedly such is the case, is not deemed equivalent to proof. I make the same remarks on Jer. xix. 6, 9, " The days come, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place ; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their ene- mies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives : and their carcasses will I give to be meat for the folds of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth." Isaiah xxxiv. 10. I ask you to point out a single word in this passage which can even be tortured into the sem- blance of proof of the doctrine of endless wo. The con- nexion of the passage aff'ords as much evidence that cor- morants, bitterns, owls, thornS; brambles, dragons, wild THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 181 beasts, vultures, and ravens, will be doomed to endless punisliment, as that such was the fate of any inhabit- ants of Iduniea. Jer. vii. 20, proves as clearly that beasts, trees, and the fruits of the ground were driven into endless despair, as it does that such was the doom of the dwellers in Jeru- salem. In verses 29, 34, the judgment that was to come upon the land is plainly pointed out; and any one who will examine those passages will perceive their entire correspondence with Isa. Ixvi. 24, and Jer. xix. 6, 9, and also tlieir irrelevancy to a future state. In Jer. xvii. 27, it is written. '"I will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall burn and not be quenched." He who can discover any proof of endless punishment in passages like the fore- going, must possess a theological eyesight of which I acknowledge myself entirely destitute. Sure I am, that were I to adduce equally irrelevant testimony in proof of the final liolintss and happiness of all mankind, my brethren in the faith would be ashamed of their co-worker in the gospel. Ezek. XX. 47, furnishes as much proof that endless punishment was to be the doom of " the forest of the south field" and of "every green tree" therein, as it does that endless misery will be the destiny of any of our race. You continue to insist that the fire and worms in the valley of Hinnom, are used by Scripture writers as em- blems or symbols of interminable wo. You asserted in a former letter, that such is the sense in which gehenna was used in the days of Christ, which point you thought you had proved by appealing to the Targums. But when I desired you to cite a passage from any respectable Jew- ish Targum of an earlier date than the 2d century of the Christian era, you discovered that you could furnish no such citation, and silence on this important point is the only answer 1 received. Allow me to repeat, however, that the Old Testament is the expositor of the meaning of the language of the New ; and that the reality must 16 182 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. be proved before the emblems can properly be chosen. It ■will be time enough to select the emblems or symbols of endless punishment, after said doctrine shall have been clearly established. You will perceive by turning to my last letter, that I deny the reference of Hcb. ix. 27, 28, to natural death. I conceive that the allusion is to the appearance of Christ in the capacity of a priest, and not in the character of a judge. "You make what seems to me a desperate effort to show that Acts xvii. 31 refers to some" yet future gene- ral judgment. In reply, I remark, that Paul, in address- ing the Athenians, did not refer the Greeks to any tempo- ral judgment coming on Jerusalem — nor to any past judgment — nor to any then present judgment — but to the then future gospel day, in which God should judge or rule the world in righieousne?s by thnt man whom he had ordained. When Paul preached at Athens, Jesus nad not yet come in the kingdom which the Father had appointed him. Nevertlieless, our Lord had said, " The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, [and this, as in Matt. xxiv. 30, was to be ' im- mediately after' the tribulation that came on Jerusalem.] and then he shall reward every man according to his works. [He was to come to do this — not that people were to go into another world to be judged.] Verily, I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," Matt. xvi. 27, 28. This coming of Christ to rule or judge the world, is the one to which Paul alluded, as well in writing to the Romans as in address- ing the Athenians. You say, " I deny that God has ever yet judged the 'world collectively?'' The point for you to prove is, that he ever will thus judge the world, and that endless pun- ishment will be a part of the judgment. Your reasoning on the resurrection is ingenious, but I deem it sophistical, and think that a few plain remarks will show the fallacy of your conclusions. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 183 You admit that all mankind will be raised from the dead; that they will be made alive in Christ; that this univiT-val re.-urroction will be in incorruption, glory, power ; that it will be a resurrection in a spiritual body; and that all men in the resurrection will be freed from the appetites, propensities and passions of the flesh. A denial of the latter statement would be Sadduceeism for the Sadducees supposed that if there was any resur- rection, men in that state would possess many, il not all, the attributes of the animal body. The question pro- posed to our Saviour was predicated of this error. Passing by several minor particulars, which you meniiou more as matters of opinions than as positions established, I shall proceed to notice all your argu- ments. You cite John xv. 2, 6, " Every branch in me that bear- eth not fruit, he taketh away. ... If a man abide not in vic, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, arrd they are burned." From this testimony you argue, that many of those who shall be made alive in Christ, will subse- quently be cast off, having ever been unfruitful in good works. But to be in Christ in this mutable state, surrounded by temptation, exposed to the power of deceptive influ- ences, and liable each moment to be led into sin, is a very different matter from being in Christ in an unchanging state, removed from the influence of tempting and°cor° rupting circumstances. He who is in Christ, even in this life, is a new creature— for he "has put off" the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts," and has "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness"— but he may revert to his former estate, and be cast off* as an unfruitful branch. Now, if you can prove that any one who Avill be made ahve m Christ, in incorruption, and in a spiritual body, and who is therefore a new creature, will not abiJp. in Christ, or will ever again put on the old man which is <:orrupt according to the deceitful lusts, then you will have 184 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. proved that such an one will be cast off— but not other- wise. Besides — "In the resurrection they shall be the chil- dren of God, being the children of the resurrection." But you allege, that because many men in this world en- tertain unworthy conceptions of the Infinite Mind, being at the same time the offspring of Deity, therefore '"mil- lions who will be the children of God by the resurrection from the dead will be unduiiful and rebellious children forever." Setting aside the insufficiency of the reason- ing from which this conclusion is drawn, I feel much satisfaction in being enabled to inform you, that " the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty" of the children of God," Rom. viii. And that this glorious liberty ex- cludes the idea of sin and suffering, is too apparent to require proof. You seem to think that by the simple, abstract resur- rection of all mankind, death will be destroyed ; and that this is all the apostle meant by saying, "the last enemy shall be destroyed, death." But according to your theory of endless punishment, their is a later enemy than the last ! You think that the expression, '" as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly," is restricted in its reference to believers. On the contrary, I consider it expressive, in a more ex- plicit form, of the sentiment of the declaration, " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Throughout the chapter, the apostle presents the condi- tion of mankind while in the flesh, in contrast with what their condition will be in the resurrection state. In Adam, the first, who was made a living soul — corruption, dishonour, weakness, animal, earthy. In Christ, the quickening spirit, the Lord from heaven — incorruption, glory, power, spiritual, heavenly. And he argues, that as mankind in Adam have borne the image of the earthy even so in Christ they shall bear the image of the hea • venly. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 185 But you say, that to be raided from the dead in an in- corruptible, glorious, and spiritual l)ody, is a different matter iVom being born of God. Allowing (what is not alloAved) that there is some force in this remark, I must inform you, that "every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," which no one can do without believing; and it is written, "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is honi of God,'''' 1 John, v. 1. In noticing the expression, " but every man in his own order," you say, "These orders will be entirely differ- ent." I3ul you err in supposing that any other than an order of lime is alluded to — for the :ipostle proceeds to say, "Chri-t the ^>6-MVuits ; afterwards ihey that are Christ's at his coining. Then cometli the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The la;s of tiieir minds ; desirinions with the sweeping declaration, that your premises are false and your deductions ridiculous, you would most probably inform me, that I had disregarded the princi- ples of controversial courtesy, and rendered myself ob- noxious to the rebuke, that he who is at a loss for argu- rnenl frequently resorts to the assertion that his oppo- nent's reasoning is unworthy of attention. I verily be- lieve that the exposition I have given of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is the only true biblical interpreta- tion thereof; and on a subject of so much importance as this, it especially becomes us severally to manifest a dis- position fully to investigate the evidences presented in the case. Brevity in composition will not compensate for lack of argument, nor is assertion the equivalent of proof. In replying to your letters, I have invariably pro- posed the examination of every point which had even the semblance of a bearing on the conjoint question in de- bate ; and I am aware that in so doing, my communica- tions have sometimes occupied more space than yours. If an apology be necessary, it may be found in my fer- vent desire thoroughly to canvass every position and ar gument introduced into this discussion. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 225 You concede that on the demise of each individual of our race, " the spirit returns unto God who gave it." Id view of this concession, Universalism is established be- yond the reach of cavil, unless you can prove one or other of the following points: 1st. That spiritually to abide with God in his heavenly court does not necessarily imply unmixed enjoyment; or, 2d. That some of the spirits which return to God will be ejected from his sen- sible presence. The Jirst point you will not attempt to establish— for it is written, "In thy presence there is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for ever more," Psalm xvi. 11 ; and the second is not suscep- tible of proof. On the contrary, it is written, " The Faiher loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands All that the Fathe'r giveth me shall come tome; and him that cometh to me I will i?i no wise cast out,''^ John iii. 35 ; vi. 37. You say, indeed, " It has been, in my judgment, sufficiently evinced, that the spirit returns to God to undergo a particular and personal adjudication either to endless life or endless death-' — but I have not yet seen any testimony equivalent to this declaration. Be sure, you have endeavoured to establish the doctrine of a future general judgment and of endless punishment — but I cannot refer to any part of our cor- respondence in which you have so much as attempted to prove "a particular and personal adjudication" of the spirit. Besides: in your exposition of the parable be- fore us. you suppose that immediately after the death of the rich man, his spirit entered into a state of misery I In this case you intimate nothing concerning '' a particu- lar and personal adjudication," nor does it ap])ear from your paraphrase of the subject, that the spirit of either the rich man or Lazarus returned unto God who gave iL In your remarks in relation to the destruction of hades, you have in some measure abandoned the views advanced in your letter of May 9th, 1834. In that letter, you con- sider paradise a department of hades ; and consequently in whatever sense hades is to be destroyed, paradise 22C THBOLOOICAL DISCUSSION. will also cease to be. Yet in the communication before me, you speak of paradise as the immortal abode of ihe saints with God! Besides: you allege that "place, ineaning position, point, or portion, in infinite space, will flever be destroyed." Granted — but on the grounds hitherto assumed by you, hades, meaning a place or state of departed spirits, will, as such, be destroyed. It fol- lows, then, according to your own showing, that hades, with your sttpposed divisions of it into paradise Rnd ge- hemia, will, as a place or state of departed spirits, be destroyed. Consequently you must either yield the doc- trine of endless punishment, or show that there is ano- ther hell of misery in " infinite space." You assume the latter position — but your correspondent respectfully awaits the proof I desire you to remember that the scrip- tural use of the word hades will not assist you in your attempt to establish the doctrine of endless punishment — for hades, as a place or state of departed spirits, is to be destroyed. And though it does not hence appear, ''that there is no state of misery in which the whole complex persons of the immortal wicked ones will be equitably punished for ever," neither does it follow that there is such a state of misery. I am not required to show that there is not — but you are required to snow that there is, or you fail to establish your position. In special reference to the case of the rich man, I again repeat, that hades, however numerous its divisions maybe, will cease to be, as a state or place of departed spirits, ac- cording to your ow^n showing ; and the inquiry recurs, Can you conceive of endless punishment in a place that is to be destroyed ? If you cannot, you must concede that the case of the rich man, even in your own view of the matter, furnishes no proof of interminable wretch- edness. Your remarks on the impropriety of disallowing the use of figurative expressions in historical relations, are in the main correct. But, in my judgment, they touch not the general principles by me advanced, in reference to the pajable in discussion. I will attempt an exposition of THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 227 the point in question, by noticing the illustrations by }ou introduced. " Nelson's cannon breathed out flames and grape-shot.'* Here tlie word breathed is obviously ?i figurative expression^ and the historical relation is not invalidated thereby. But suppose you consider the cannon^ the thing itself^ a figure — how then? Plainly, it would follow that the " flames and grape-shot" must also be understood sym- bolically ; and in this case, the entire account would lose its historical character. Again: suppose you had been an eye-witness of the battle of the Nile, and in your ac- count thereof you should say, " I saw Nelson afar off", and a diamond pin in his bosom." I would understand you to mean, that you really saw Nelson, and really saAv the diamond pin, and that said pin was really in Nelson's bosom. This, you perceive, is a case parallel to the one in the parable before us. You refer to Don Quixote. Suppose his battle with the wind-mill to be a historical relation of fact. In this case, would you suppose that the Don and the proverb- loving Sancho were only representatives of characters of corresponding description ? Plainly not — for if you view the rencontre with the wind-mill as a real circumstance^ you must concede that the Don and his valet were real personages. And now for the application. You allow that Laza- rus, and the rich man, and Abraham, were real persona- ges, and that there was a real dialogue between the two latter. You concede that the rich man really s^rit' Abraham afar off*. AVith what shadow of propriety, then, can you allege that Abraham's bosom is a figure? Look at the language : " And seeth Abraham afar off", and Lazarus in his bosom." As distinctly as he saw the one, he saw the other. He saw Abraham — he saw Lazarus — he really saw them both ; and if this be a relation of facts, the rich man really saw Lazarus in Abraham'' s bosom. Far- ther : you contend that the rich man really " lifted up his eyes," and really conversed with Abraham. In this case, every just principle of interpretation requires you to al- 228 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. loAV that the rich man's tongue was as real as were his eyes. Now if this be so, ihejinger of Lazarus and the bosom of Abraham must be understood in a literal sense. If, in any account whatever, several members of the body, whether animal or spiritual, be literally spoken of, we have no right to construe the mention of any other mem- ber symbolically. If, in speaking of Nelson's cannon liter- ally, you mention the touch-hole, or the carriage on which the deadly weapon is carried from place to place, we are bound to understand you in the same literal sense. So if we speak literally of Abraham as a man, and then speak of the bosom of Abraham, no one is justified in giving to the latter a symbolical sense. Once granted that the bo- som of Abraham is a figure, it is established that Abra- ham stands but as a parabolic representative ; and so also of Lazarus and of the rich man. You are respectfully desired duly to weigh these considerations, and to furnisn your reasons, if any you bave, why the conclusions con- sequent of the argument should not be admitted. You have not attempted to prove that what I term a parable is a literal relation of facts. I have staled many reasons for considering it a parable, and you have stated none for understanding it literally. You have the afl5r- mative of the question, and should therefore present your evidences in the case. On comparing my exposition of the parable with your reply, you will discover many facts and illustrations to which you have given not the slightest attention. In ad- dition thereto I present the following : On the supposi- tion that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal relation of facts, I Avish to be informed of what crime the rich man was guilty ? You have given him a very fair, honourable character. He was truly charita- ble — and charity is greater than faith or hope. His riches, sumptuous fare, and gorgeous apparel, are not mentioned as any thing worthy of condemnation. All that is said about him is, that in his lifetime he had received his ^ood things — but that these were the fruits of unjust deal- ing is not so much as intimated. It is written, " The up- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 229 right shall have good things in possession," Prov. xxviii. 10. T cannot allow you to infer that the rich man was a sin- ful wretch because he was damned— for this would be reasoning in a circle— it would be proving the thing to be proved, by itself. On the other hand, what were the virtues of Lazarus? There is not a word said commendatory of his character, in the whole account. He suffered evil things — and it is written, " Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing,'''' Eccles. viii. 5. He was covered with sores, a beggar, and in want— and the face of the record, al- lowing it to be a history, gives me as much authority for declaring that he was a lazy, unclean sinner, as it does you to affirm that he was a righteous man. _ In the parabolic view of the subject, all these difficul- ties are readily solved ; and however unnatural, strained and ridiculovs my exposition may appear in your sight, it is the only interpretation of the subject, which, in my judgment, can be fairly sustained by the record of the word of God. And I am persuaded that such will yet be the conviction of my respected correspondent. Affectionately yours, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 1834. Dear Sir— I never pray for the salvation of those whom I believe to have entered the state of the miserable in the world of spirits ; nor the pardon of those who have com- mitted the unpardonable sin ; because the Spirit of in- spiration teaches us not to pray for such persons. I have never prayed that Universalism may prove true, for that, in my esteem, would be praying that a most pernicious false system might prove true. In submission to the will of God, I pray for the conversion, and thereby the salva- tion of aU men who are yet prisoners of hope : and I 20 230 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. doubt not that the time will come, when for a thousand years, true piety will be as extensively spread through the wide world as irreligion and false religion have been. I have never said that nothing but one expression or clause of Scripture prevents me from becoming a Uni- versalist; for the Bible seems to me from beginning to end to be full of the doctrine of the future, interminable punishment of a multitude of impenitent, unpardoned sinners. If, however, I could be persuaded that any one passage of the Bible was intended by the Holy Spirit to teach the doctrine of the future salvation and happiness of all mankind, I must admit the doctrine, and construe all other passages of the Bible in consistency with it, or reject the whole. In like manner, if convinced, as I am most clearly, that any one passage of the sacred oracles teaches the everlasting punishment of some of the hu- man family, I must construe all the other parts of the divinely inspired volume in consistency with that doc- trine, or reject the only infallible rule of faith and prac- tice. That you, sir, are not at all likely to give up your only hope of future blessedness, founded in the belief that all mankind will be rendered happy, merely by being raised from the dead and rendered immortal, I am constrained, reluctantly, to believe. The language in which I teach the doctrine of endless misery as the portion of some after the resurrection of the dead, is the very language of the Bible; and yet you believe it not ; but ascribe to every plain assertion of fu- ture misery some far fetched, inconsistent, or absurd meaning. The coming of the Son of man, to gather all nations before him, and then divide the righteous from the wicked, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats, when about to fold them for the night, with you is something already past, while you know that neither you nor I, nor any of the living nations have yet been gath- ered together in the presence of the Judge. With you the coming forth of some to " the resurrection of damna- tion," is no damnation after the resurrection. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 831 "Why then should we do any thing more than state our opinions, with such reasons for them as we may think proper, and then leave the controversy? To meet you, and my high church brethren, nnd all others who choose to assail me at every point, would require at least nine collateral lives in one man. My high church brethren belong to the same family with myself, and I feel free to handle them, therefore, with more severity than any one whom I regard as a stranger to the Christian com- munity. I would argue with a Christian brother closely and pungently, and rebuke him sharply, if I saw there was need, while we walked side by side, and while each thought his side of the grand highway of holiness the nearest and the best to heaven ; but were I attending some poor malefactor in his white frock and cap, trimmed in black, to the gallows, I should observe unusual tenderness in all my discourse, for fear of needlessly Avounding his feelings, and preventing all good effects of the gospel which I might preach to him. A brother might get good from a little friendly severity ; but pity, compassion, and the utmost tenderness of hand- ling, belong to one who is under sentence of death, and on his way to the gallows, but so disordered in mind as not to know it. You hold, it seems, to no future life and immortality, but what is consequent upon the resurrection of the dead ; but I hold to the continued existence of a man's spirit when it goes out of his body at death, until the resurrec- tion ; and that, independently of the resuscitation of the body, the spirit of every man, once created, is according to the Divine purpose as immortal and everlasting as himself. From your premises, which are not true, you naturally enough infer that after death the rich man was not in torment, and that Lazarus was not in the blessed society of the faithful, because when they died they be- came nothing until new made at the future resurrection. My theory, however, happens to be that of the Bible and the Saviour, that there is a spiritual existence of the soul of man between the dissolution of his body and the fu- 232 THEOLOGICAL DISCCSSION. ture, general resurrection ; and according: to this doctrine, it was perfectly natural to talk of the righteous and the wicked immediately after death, as being happy or mis- erable ; and to say, that some are " the spirits of the just made perfect," while '* the rich man also died, and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." You ask for proof, after I have given it repeatedly, that m the immortal resurrection state there is a state, or hell, of endless misery. I certify to you and all concerned, again, that " when the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him," and shall " sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations," which event has not yet occurred, THEN " he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats," and then, " these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." The punishment shall last as long as the life, for the duration of each is ex- pressed by precisely the same word in the original lan- guage of our Saviour. Let me not, however, travel over the same ground twice in this amicable controversy. To your " twistifi- cation" of the account of the rich man and Lazarus, I have already made all the reply which I think it deserves. No man would ever be absurd enough to adopt your ex- planation and perversion, had he not previously settled it in his own mind that there shall be no sinners in a fu- ture state of existence and suffering. Any sober critic will think a smile a sufficient answer to all your laboured endeavours to make the rich man to represent the Scribes and Pharisees, and Lazarus publicans and sinners. You may summon Lightfoot, and Hammond, and "^Vhitby, to your aid, but after all I must tell you that your comment, to niy mind, is quite as ridiculous as that of the spiritu- alizer of the Bible, who made three flocks of sheep h/imr by a well in the field, to denote the trinity ; and the well to he the unity of the Deity; who, when he came to his improvement of the discourse, said, " behold, a well in ihe field — oh, my hearers, what a mercy it was that the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 583 field was not in the well, instead of the well in the field l" Gen. xxix. 2. You refer me to a passage in 2 Thess. i, which I have already quoted, from the sixth to the tenth verse, and wish that I should enter into a more full discussion with you concerning its applicMtion to the matter in dispute. To me the passage seemed so clear, after all your attempts to heap ditlicuUies upon it, that I thought further com- ment needless. I will, however, answer some of your questions on that text. You ask, " JVlio troubled the Thessalonians ? for they were the persons to be punished in the manner stated." I answer. Somebody — some wicked persons ; we do not certainly know who. Who- ever they were, they have been punished with destruc- tion which will prove everlasting. From your citation ot Acts xvii. 5 — 9, you seem to think they were Jews. I think some of them may have been Jews, but that in ge- neral they were the countrymen of the Thessalonian Christians; for to '^ the Church of the Thessalonians'' he says, 1 Thess. ii. 14, "ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen" which the churches in Judea have suffered from their unbelieving countrymen the Jews. This seems clearly to intimate, that native Greeks of Thessalonica, who never were at Judea, were the per- sons to be punished when the Lord should come. At the time when Paul planted the gospel in Thessa- lonica, he preached at first in the synagogue of the Jews, and when some of them believed, their unbelieving breth- ren the Jews, "moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city in an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason." But besides some few Jews, of the devout Greeks a multitude believed, and were organized into a Cliristian church, " and of the chief women not a few." Now when Paul, at a subsequent time, wrote to the Church of Thessalonica of the sufferings which they had endured, probably since he last visited them, there is no evidence that he referred principally to Jews; but rather much reason to conclude that the unbelieving Greeks 20* S34 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. Were the principal persecutors, "who were to be punished when Christ should come, not to Thessalonica, nor to Je- rusalem, but to judge the world in righteousness. The time, moreover, when Christ should come to be glorified in his saints and to recompense tribulation to them who troubled pious Thessalonians, is shown by 2 Thess. ii, to be subsequent to the erection and the destruction of the papal man of sin. Paul cautions his readers not to think that the day of recompense of which he had been speak- ing, was near at hand ; for says he, that day, meaning the day when the Lord Jesus should be revealed from heaven, in tlaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, " shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God." Now this papal 'son of perdition, who pretends to sit in the temple of God and •show himself as an object of worship, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, was not revealed for several hundred years after Christ's coming judicially by the Roman army to the destruction of Jerusalem. This shows that your attempt to make the time of our Saviour's coming, *' in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ," to the time of Jerusalem's destruc- tion, is perfectly futile. You ask '* When were they to be punished ?" I answer, uhen, after the rise and fall of the papacy, the Lord Je- sus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty an- gels : — when he shall gather all nations before him, and shall divide the righteous from the wicked, to consign the first to everlasting life, and the last to everlasting pun- ishment, originally prepared for the devil and his angels. Then they who have not received " the love of the truth, that they might be saved," and to whom for their love of lies, God has sent strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, shall be damned, with all who believed not the truth, but " had pleasure in unrighteousness." You THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 235 ask, " Where shall they be punished ?" I answer, wher- ever they are, or may be in a state of banishment from the blissful and gracious presence of the Lord. I an- swer, in liell, which is any and every place in which any one experiences unmingled and hopeless misery. Finally, you ask, "In what was the punishment to consist ?" In such tribulation as God shall rcco/yipcnse to tliem ; in such vengeance as he shall take on them ; ia •everlasting destruction from his presence, not from exis- tence, because then their everlasting tribulation would i)e impossible ; and in being excluded forever from the soci- ety of the saints who shall be glorified with their Redeemer. All the passages of Scripture which you have hitherto adduced in support of your utterly false and pernicious system, have received in my view ample attention. Having thus spoken my sentiments freely and candidly, I shall not complain if you should employ equally strong language in giving your views of what I hold to be the solemn and awful truth of God concerning the endless •damnation of the impenitently wicked. If I have taken -my gloves off to write the present epistle, remember that you have invited me to make as free with you as with my high church Presbyterian brethren, who with all their faults, are Christ's ministers still. Yours, without one particle of unkind feeling, however I may seem severe. EZRA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, Feb 7, 1835. x^ear Sir — There is, in my judgment, a great want of candour and charity in many parts of your letter to which this is a reply. You say, that my " hope of future bless- edness is founded in the belief that all mankind will be rendered happy merely by being raised from the dead, and rendered immortal." Surely you cannot have either over* looked or forgotten my reiterated declaration, that man- 236 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. kind will be rendered happy hereafter by being made alive in Chmt,ini7icorruption,poxt'er,gloi'y; m a sphitud hody, in the image of the heavenly. This is the express testimony of Divine Revelation; and as such I receive it in the love of the truth. Your illustration and implied comparison of the " poor malefactor in his white frock and cap," savours as little of Christian charity as of courteous wit ; and as I am will- ing to believe you penned it without due reflection, I will pass it by without further remarks. In speaking of the nch man and Lazarus^ you intimate that I deny your exposition, " because when they died they became nothing until new made in the resurrection." Surely you liave not so carelessly perused my letter as to receive the impression, that I acknowledge the account in question to be a literal relation of facts. In my exposi- tion of that subject, neither natural death, nor a resurrec- tion into life, is so much as hinted at. In reference to the same subject, you utter a sentence which might perhaps be returned to you with the altera- tion of one word — as follows : — " No man would ever be absurd enough to adopt your exposition and perversion, had he not previously settled it in his own mind that there fihall be &ome sinners in a future state of existence and suffering." You seem to think that a smile is sufficient answer to my scriptural exposition of the parable in question. Allow me to assure you, that as I was not laughed into that view of that subject, it is not probable I shall ever be smiled out of it. I have at least attempted to establish every point of my exposition by sacred Scripture ; and it appears to me that your respect for the Bible, if not for your corres- pondent, should induce you to give serious attention to the matter. I should consider it as unbecoming in me to mourn over the prospective salvation of all our race, as it would be in you to crack a joke in view of endless dam- nation. You denounce Universalism as an " utterly false and pernicious system," and you employ other oflfensive epi- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 1^37 thets in expression of your views and feelings. As I sup- pose you adopted this measure in order to satisfy your Presbyterian brethren that you are not going over to the Universalists, I will simply remark, that the letter before me will, in my judgment, be amply sufficient for that purpose; and I therefore hope you will strive to avoid all offensive language in future. When 1 desired you to reason with your Universalist brother as you do with your high school brethren in the Presbyterian Church, you surely could not have so misap- prehended my meaning, as to suppose that I wished you to take off the gloves of Christian charity. I sincerely as- sure you, that I do not feel disposed to use as " strong language " to you as you have used to me. You are not ignorant of the fact, that your correspondent is not alto- gether unacquainted with the use of the two-edged sword of ridicule and satire — but he hereby re-assures you, that he prefers to wield the " sword of the Spirit, which is the word of Gody It is his humble desire and prayer, that in the last hour of his earthly pilgrimage he may enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, that in this discussion he has not written a line, or used an expression, which he could wish to erase. Having thus briefly noticed a few incidental items of your letter, I shall proceed to examine whatever seems to have a bearing on the question in debate. It appears you " have never prayed that TJniversalism may prove true." I think I may safely add, you have never prayed that it may prove false, however false you may he- licve it to be. Consequently, though you do not pray for Universalism, you do not pray against it. You are not with us in faith and preaching — and in this respect you are against us. Matt. xii. 30. But in the matter of prayer and desire, you " are on our part," Mark ix. 40 — for " he that is not against us is for us,'^ Luke ix. 50. And I am not without hope that you will yet cease to preach what you cannot pray for ; and that you will then determine to proclaim the doctrine against which you cannot find it in your heart to pray. I must acknowledge nevertheless, ^^ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. wnnli^ ^^^ ^"^^ ^^i^^'^' ^°^ happiness of all mankind would, in your judgment, be so awful and perScTous a cannrretLrtr^^-^^"-^"^^^^ ^^^^^ toTntim t^ against i'!' ^^'' '^''' '' '' prevent you from praying Your incidental mention of the ''unpardonable sin " a«; ITlfuV'r ^'"^ ''^ '''''''''' soon/ My'T^Vo Aug t^7 1S34, contained some important remarks on thattnh mat point and I have several times desired vo,i tn it.fl wherein the argument failed to satisfy you-but von h.vp hitherto allowed the matter to rest I an? rP.llv J l to hear from you on this subiect fnr if t ^ solicitous convincing yo^u that ^lS^:t^JJ, Zs Z^^^^ the force of the passage in ornnf nf yr ."''^''"V^ ^™pair the Bible. As to the " resurrection of damnation "W leuer oi Aug 27, 1834; and the events connected with THEOLOGICAL DTSCUSSIGN. 23&' was swallowed up and destroyed by the express and posi- tive testimony of our Lord. But in the letter now before me you say, "Neither you nor I, nor any of the living nations, have yet been gath- ered together in the presence of the Judge ; " and hence you infer that the language, " before him shall be gather- ed ALL NATIONS," is Still futurc in its reference. In reply, I need only repeat what I stated in former letters, that from the 4th to the 35th verse inclusive of Matt, xxiv, you apply to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem; that at verse 14 of said chapter, Jesus declares that the gospel of the kingdom should be preached in " all the irorld for a witness to all nations," previously to said destruction ; and that in verse 30 he declares, that when he should come in his glory with his angels, (Avhich you have admitted belongs to the period of the aforesaid de- struction,) " ALL THE TRIBES of thc earth'' should m.ourn. Now, sir, if you can conceive how the gospel was preached " in ALL THK WORLD for a Avitness to all nations," previ- ously to the destruction of the Jewish polity; or how " all THE TRIBES of the earth'' mourned when the sign oi the coming of the Son of man appeared in heaven — you surely need not be at a loss to know how " all nations " were gathered before him at the period of his coming. Your dec- laration that this " event has not vet occurred," is unsup- ported by scriptural authority. I affirm that Jesus declar- ed it should occur before the close of the then existing gen- eration, during the natural lifetime of some of his immedi- ate disciples; and I have adduced his explicit prophecies in proof. Your statement that "in the immortal resurrection state, there is a state or hell of endless misery," is therefore groundless, so far as Matt, xxv is concerned ; and the common-place remark that the words everlasting and eter- nal, in the last verse of that chapter, are the same in the original language of our Saviour, is nothing to the pur- pose—for I deny that either the eternal life or everlasting punishment there mentioned, pertains to the future state. The judgment, in the prophetic relation of which those phrases occur, was to take place at the coming of the Son 240 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. of man. See Matt. xvi. 27. 28. Compare Malt. xxiv. 29, 30 and xxv. 31. And as to the adjective everlasting, the Scripture writers apply it, as I have repeatedly stated, to the priesthood of Aaron, to the covenant of the law, and to many other things, which not only had no reference to the future state, but were temporary in their relations and character. I am much pleased that you have at last, after four dis- tinct and urgent solicitations, introduced and briefly com- mented on 2 Thess. i. 6 — 10. You stated in your letter of April 3, 1834, that in your opinion said passage is so "conclusive on the subject of our controversy," that it "must for ever prevent your becoming a Universalist." Desiring our readers to remember these particulars, I pro- ceed to notice your argument. The persons to be punished as staled in verse 10, are mentioned in verse 6. " Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to the}n that trouble yo7z." No other persons than those who troubled the Thessalonian believers, had, or can have any part or lot in the matter of the punishment. It is true that those believers suffered much at the hands of some of their own countrymen — but it is plain that the unbelieving Jews at Thessalonica were the instigators thereof, as well as the principal persecutors in person. This is obvious from Acts- xvii. 5—9, and 1 Thess. ii. 14—16. In endeavouring to fix the time ivhen, you assume that by " the man of sin " the papacy is intended. This is- altogether gratuitous. Paul speaks of " the mystery of iniquity " as being already at work when he wrote. He declares that the events by him spoken of should occur when the Lord Jesus should be revealed from heaven — when he should come, Luke xvii. 30, 31, is to the point. "Even thus shall it be in the day ivhen the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the house top, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to lake it away ; and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back." Similar directions are given in Matt. xxiv. 15 — 18, and in Luke xxi. 20—23; in all which places the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 241 time of tribulation to Jerusalem is obviously referred ta — " When he shall come." See Matt. x. 23; xvi. 27, 28 ; xxiv. 29, 30. The persons signified by the word who, and the time WHEN, being thus settled by the plain and unequivocal tes- timony of the Bible, only two questions remain. Where were they to be punished ? You say, in hell — meaning a hell of misery in the future state. But Paul does not say so. He says, " who shall be punished from the presence of the Lord." David uses the following language : " Whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I make my bed in hell thou art there," Psalm cxxxix. 7, 8. Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, Gen. iv. 16. Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord, Jonah i. 3. In solving this seeming difficulty, we should remember that in the phraseology of the Bible the presence of the Lord is frequently considered as something located. The Shekinah, that dwelt between the cherubims which overshadowed the mercy seat of the altar, was under the old covenant specially considered the presence of the Lord. Hence said David, " Thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth," Psalm Ixxx. 1. The land of Judea, and particularly the temple, was by the Jews considered the place of God's peculiar presence. Jonah ^edfrom the presence of the Lord unto Tarshish, where he supposed the presence of the Lord was not. And where he believed the presence of the Lord to be, we learn from chap. ii. 4 : '"I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.''^ There dwelt the presence of the Lord, and there the glory of his power was displayed. And with these facts in view we already perceive in what the punishment of the persons men- tioned in 2 Thess. i. 6, consisted. It consisted in ever- lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and FROM the glory of his poicer— that is, in the overthrow of Jerusalem, the consequent destruction of the temple, and the ejection of the Jews from the land of Judea. In confirmation of this statement, see 2 Kings xiii. 23: 21 242 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. " And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had com; passion on them, because of his covenant wilii Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not destj^oy them, neither cast them from his presence as yei.-^ This was spoken of the Jews. God speaks of destroying them, and of casting them from his presence. What he here says, that as yet he would not do to this people, in the following pas- sage we find that he did. " For through the anger of the Lord, it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah. until he had cast them out from his prksexce. that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon," 2 Kings xxiv. 20. The same is repeated, Jeremiah lii. 3. During their seventy years captivity in Babylon, the Jews are said to have suflfered destruction from the presence of the Lord, Paul, in writing to the Thessalouians, speaks of the same people, and uses similar language in description of similar judgments. But you will say, perhaps, that Paul speaks of ^'•ever- lasting destruction." True — and Moses speaks of the everlasting covenant of the law, and of the everlasting priesthood of Aaron ; and the land of Canaan was prom- ised as an everlasting possession to the house of Israel. Besides, it is written. Jeremiah xxiii. 39. 40. "' Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will I'or- sake you. and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence; and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you. and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." This everlasting reproach and perpetual shame the Jewish people are now experi- encing; and so also of the everlasting destruction men- tioned by Paul. In view of the question, "In what was the punish- ment to consist ?" you say — " I answer, in such tribula- tion as God shall recompense to them ; in such ren- geance as he shall take on them." Very true ; and in reference to the overthrow of Jerusalem, prior to the banishment of the Jews from Judea, it is written — '' For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shal THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 243 &e," Matt. xxiv. 21. And in reference to the same pe- riod. Ave find the following record : " Then let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains .... for these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are writ- ten may be fulfilled .... there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations ; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles," Luke xxi. 20—24. Paul, in speaking of these events, says, in addressing the Thessa- lonians, '• For the wrath is come [rather is coming — Macknight, Hammond, and others.] upon them to the UTTERMOST," 1 Thcss. ii. 16. I need not add any thing further, at present, on the passage in question. You may perhaps assert that my scriptural exposition of the subject is " strained, unnat- ural and ridiculous;" and perhaps you may deem a " smile " a sufficient reply to what I have written. Such procedure would undoubtedly excite some prejudice as^ainst your correspondent, and against the doctrine of which he is an advocate, in the minds of some of our readers — but, in my judgment, an attempt on your part to overthrow my conclusions by Bible testimony, would more effectually subserve the interests of truth, and better comport with just ideas of controversial equity between man and man. Afiectionately yours, &c. ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS. Philadelphia, March 5, 1835. Dear Sir— I have now published your last letter, which 1 believe is one more on your side of the controversy than on my own. I shall here desist from all further regular correspondence, because I expect soon to start for 2 journey of two months at the least, and all my time 244 THEOLOGICAL DISCDSSIOIf. before my departure will be required in preparation. Your letters in The Philadelphian are sufficient fo show my readers what is the present scheme of Universal Salvation, and what are the chief arguments by which it is supported: my letters, published in many of your papers, (to the editors of which I make my respectful •acknowledgements,) will show all who read them the principal scriptural arguments which are adduced in proof that some of the human family will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. On the score of politeness you have the advantage of me, for you very complaisantly feel confident that I am sure of reaching heaven : you are satisfied also of the final salvation of all whom you style Partialisis ; while i am compelled to say, that I have personally known but a very few Universalists who were persons of good moral character; and I verily believe there is no device of the devil so well calculated to blind men to their ruin, and harden them against all the admonitions of heavenly wisdom, as your scheme of universal holiness and happiness, resulting merely from the resurrection of the dead to a state of immortal existence. That our discussion should thus close, without any unfriendly personal litigation, is to me a matter of satis- faction. I pray you to flee from the wrath to come, while you beg me to be assured of everlasting bliss beyond the resurrection. Yours respectfully, EZRA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, March 13, 1835. Dear Sir — I find on examination that as many letters of argumentation have appeared on your side of the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 245 controversy as on mine. Your last, and it would seem Jinal, communication is not of a controversial character, yet it demands a reply — to the publication of which I think 1 am entitled. I desire to assure you, however, that I care little about having the last word, so bng as I can be satisfied, as I am at present, that I have had the last argument. I regret exceedingly that you have determined to " de- sist from all further regular correspondence." I have enjoyed not a little satisfaction in knowing that the readers of The Philadelphian were in a fair way of becoming measurably acquainted with the doctrine of TJniversalism. I have even been sometimes encouraged to hope, that my learned and respected correspondent would himself be brought to a knowledge of the truth, and become an advocate of the faith he has vainly at- tempted to destroy. And my regret in being certified that the discussion on your part is closed, is increased by the consideration, that neither you nor your readers have yet had more than a glimpse of the scriptural arguments in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all man- kind. The few passages by me introduced and com- mented upon in this discussion, were only specimens of the precious testimonies of Holy Writ. The treasury is full. The riches of Christ are unsearchable. Most fer- vently do I desire to direct your attention to the height, and length, and depth, and breadth of the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that you might be filled with all the fulness of God ! It appears to me that your contemplated absence of two months is not a suflBcient excuse for discontinuing the discussion in its present condition. In endeavouring to establish the doctrine of endless punishment, you liave cited a multitude of passages; and to your argu- ments thereupon 1 have given respectful and serious at tenlion. And it does not seem to comport with received ideas of equity between man and man, that I should be debarred the privilege (not to say the right) of appearing in the columns of The Philadelphian in proclamation 21* 246 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. nnd defence of Universalism. Besides: your rejoinders would be faithfully and punctually copied into nine or ten Universalist papers, and in this way you would be more likely than in any other to reach the numerous be- lievers of the doctrine, and peradventure deliver some of them from what you consider a most ruinous ' ' device of the devil." You could not ask, you cannot conceive, a more favourable opportunity than is here presented, for exposing the falsity and the blinding and hardening in- fluence of Universalism. Were you to receive informa- tion that an island had been discovered, the thousands of whose inhabitants were going headlong to perdition, you would be among the first to present their deplorable case to the friends of missions. And were you to be assured that those inhabitants were not only willing but desirous to listen to the gospel testimony as you understand it, you would insist upon the immediate selection of a suit- able missionary. And yet, when thirty thousand Uni- versalists are anxious to hear what you have to say on the passages I might cite in proof of the ultimate recon- ciliation of all things to God, you plead a projected ab- sence of two months as a sufficient excuse for discon- tinuing the discussion ! Can it be possible that you fully realize the awful responsibility to which you so fre- quently refer? Are you sure that you could stand be- fore the Judge of the quick and dead, and say, " I em- braced every favourable opportunity to convert the Uni- versalists from the error of their ways ?" But I will not enlarge on this subject. Your own sense of religious obligation will haunt you with the reflection, that you have failed in the performance of your solemn duty as an anointed servant of the Most High God. You concede that I have the advantage of you on the score of politeness. You are right — and I feel happy in being enabled to inform you, that the advantasfe referred 10 is given to me by the doctrine I profess. You are my brother. As such I love you. I behold in you an heir of immortal blessedness. I contidently pypect to meet you in a world of holiness, there to embrace you in the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 247 fulness of love divine. You and I will there behold and adore the glories of the Lamb that was slain, and min- gle our praises with the hallelujahs of the redeemed of the Lord. The thought is ineffably glorious and sub- lime 1 We have one Father and one Redeemer — and vi^hy should I treat you otherwise than as a broiher? I am sorry that you thought proper to say, in your closing letter, that you "have personally known hut a very few Universal ists who were persons of good mon:l character." I might say, with equal propriety, that I have personally known but a very few Presbyterians who were persons of good moral character. The truth is, your personal acquaintance with Universalists is as limited as is mine with the Presbyterians; and unbiassed readers w^ill at once perceive the impropriety of impliedly denouncing an entire denomination of Christians, on the ground of a personal acquaintance with a very few of its members. Besides: the question at issue has been, not what is the general moral character of either Universal- ists or Partialists, hut '" Does the Bible teach the doc- trine of endless punishment ?" I am sensible that Uni- versalists are not a whit better than they ought to be; and I suppose you might safely say as much of the Pres- byterians. But w^hen we are investi:ratin2: a fjuestion pertaining to doctrinal truth, the topic of relative moral character is irrelevant to the point in debate. I cordially unite in your expression of satisfaction that our controversy should close without any unfriendly personal litigation. In closing this communication, I desire to mention that I propose to continue this discussion in a series of letters addressed to you, as heretofore. My object in so doing is, to present my scriptural arguments in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. I am perfectly satisfied that the arguments to be thus adduced, will be of an incontrovertible character; and this con- sideration gives me some encouragement to hope that you will yet be induced to take up the cross, and bw- \ 948 THEOLOGICAL DtSCCSSION. come an efficient advocate of " the faith once delivered to the saints." Affectionately yours, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, June 19, 1835. Dear Sir — Previously to presenting the scriptural argu- ment in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, I feel at liherty to devote one communication to some general remarks, in the form of a review. And I begin by commending your practical disregard of a principle of policy by which the mass of your brethren in the faith of endless punishment have hitherto been governed. Your acquaintance with the "sayings and doings" of the several prominent sects in Christendom, niust long since have satisfied you, that the Universalists ajiariously desire a thoruugh investigation of the merits of ihe doctrine they profess. The use of our meeting-houses, as you very v/ell know, has frequently and urgently been tendered to the opposers of the sentiment in which v/e rejoice; and the columns and pages of our periodical publications have ever been open to the controversial communications of the opponents of our faith. You are aware that these evidences of our disposition to " try the spirits whether they are of God," have seldom been so regarded as to induce a compliance with our respectful solicitations ; and you are also aware, that it has been ihe general policy of the Partialists to avoid and discour- age all direct discussion with the Universalists. You, sir are an honourable exception. In consenting to discuss a conjoint question in reference to the final destination ol man, you acted consistently. You faithfully re-published the epistles of your correspondent; and though you ab- ruptly closed the discussion, thus excluding my proofs ol CBiversalism from the columns of The Philadelphian, I THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. S49 neartily thank and commend you for having engaged in the coiuroversy, and for having so long continued to pre- sent iny letters to the readers of your paper. In repeatedly citing scriptural passages in a way which intimated that I either denied the doctrine they teach, or was ignorant of their existence ; in likening me to a malefactor on his way to the gallows; in stating that in your judgment I "have no superior on earth" in the mat- ter of " perverting Scripture by Scripture;" in pronounc- ing some of my expositions ridiculous and absurd, with- out attempting to show wherein ; — in these particulars, and in a few others, to which I need not refer, you treated your correspondent with much disrespect; yet, on the whole, your demeanour in our controversy was fully as courteous as the principles of your doctrine would allow, and rather more so than many of your brethren appeared to approve. And as you have conceded that I have the advantage of you on the score of politeness — (which ad- vantage I have already desired you to place to the credit of Universalism,) I am disposed to accept that concession as a sufficient apology for your occasional incivility. Per- mit me to add, that I have long entertained an exalted' opinion of your character and talents ; and I hope ever to esteem and love you as a brother in the human race, however much in darkness 1 may suppose you to be. In styling Universalism " a most ruinous device of the devil;" in classing it with Atheism, Deism, and Roman- ism ; and in using other oflensive terms when speaking thereof, you manifested a spirit which in the calm hours of reflection you must certainly condemn ; and in view of your implied aspersions of the moral and religious character of the denomination of Universalists, you can- not avoid deploring the indiscretion of your zeal. You have implicitly stated that we " desire to believe a differ- ent doctrine than that taught by the Holy Spirit of in- spiration ;" and thougli you have very charitably conceded that there are some upright men among us, you declare that you have '"personally kno\\^ l)ut a very few Uni- versalists who w^ere persons of good moral character !" 250 ' THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. The former statement involves tlie charge of gross hy- pocrisy, and the latter of general iniquity. Be sure, you do not SO}/ that Universalists gcncrallij are vile persons ; and i am aware that such is not the grammatical import of your language. And I will add, that if to the declara- tion specially commented upon, you had appended the remark, that your personal acquaintance with Universal- ists has ever heen limited to a very few members of the denomination, the aspersion would have been so effectu- ally nullified as to have displayed but the blindness of the spirit by which it was dictated Nevertheless, the statement, as it stands in your letter, was calculated (I will not say designed) to perpetuate the influence of an unwarranted, unrighteous prejudice against the denomi- nation to which I belong. As a friend and a brother, I be- seech you to avoid such occasions of offence in the fu- ture; and while you continue zealously to oppose what- ever you deem erroneous in doctrine, carefully avoid im- pugning the motives, and sedulously guard against as- persing the moral and religious character of your oppo- nents. In reviewing the plan of argumentation by you adopt- ed, I find little to commend. It is undeniable that you evinced much talent and tact in endeavouring to estab- lish the doctrine of endless punishment. You adduced as strong evidence in proof of that doctrine as any man can furnish from the sacred oracles ; and your reasoning was frequently plausible, and your conclusions seemingly just. Nevertheless, in my judgment, you did not adduce a single sound argument in proof of the dogma of end- less torment. You seldom attempted to show that the scriptural passages by you introduced, have reference to the future state; and whenever I specially called your at- tention to this radical defect in your argument, you either maintained a discourteous silence, offered some reasons predicated of vour opinion, or consented to leave the mat- ter to the judgment of our readers ! I am not versed in the logic of the schools — but to my mind it is manifest that the testimony must be equivalent to the declara THEOLOGICAL DlSCt^SSIOX. 251 tion ; and if the testimony be not to the point, it must be set aside. When you cited the closinc: pnrt of Malt, xxv, I staled that the citation is the conclusion of a discourse Avhich commences at the fourth verse of chap, xxiv ; that much of tiie discourse treats of events pertalninir to the de- struction of Jerusalem ; and that unless you could prove a transition of reference from things temporal to tilings incorruptible, the citation was not pertinent. In reply, you conceded that from the fourth verse to the 35th inclu- sive of Matt, xxiv, events connected with the destruc- tion of Jerusalem are pointed out and dilated upon ; and that at verse 3G, there is a transition of reference to a day of future general judgment. In my rejoinder, I stated that Matt. xxiv. 36—41, and Luke xvii. 20— 3»), are par- allel passages ; and that as the latter obviously referred to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem, such must also be the reference of the former. You plainly per- ceived that to admit said parilkl would prove the over- throw of your entire argument ; and so you denied it — because in the one case Jesus was addressing his disciples, and in the other the Pharisrcs ! This pretence availed you nothing — for I furnished you the express testimony that Jesus was addressing his disciples in both cases. Instead of acknowledging your error, and making such admis- sions as said acknowledgment would involve, you ollered no remark thereupon ; and subsequently rebuked me for assuming that you had yielded the point I I might refer to many examples of like tenor, in which the radical defect of your reasoning is equally apparent, and in which also the irrelevant character of the proofs you presented is clearly evolved. Space, however, will allow me to notice but one other case. Having assumed that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is "Christ's statement of some events of which ne had perfect knowledge," you proceeded to interpret parts of it parahnhrnlhj. When the propriety of this course was called in question, you resorted to sophistical (xmpariwn, ("which is the curse of logic ;) and wh«n the 282 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. fallacy of your premises and arguments was pomied out, you neglected to reply ! You indeed pronounced my par- aphrase of the suhjeci " strained, unnatural, and ridicu- lous ;" stated that a smile was a sufficient answer there- to ; and closed your remarks with a profane yo/ic / But all this was as destitute of argument as it was discord- ant with the serious nature of the subject. It contained no proof that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is a historical relation — which position being neither es- tablished by you nor conceded by me, all your inferences therefrom are null and void. I will add, that the paracolic character of the entire re lation in question, is conceded by Scott, Gill, Henry, John Brown, McKnight, Whitby, Campbell, Burkitt, Doddridge, Horne, Lightfoot, Hammond, Tillotsok, Newcome, and others. And I desire you to remember, that in contending for the historical view of the rich man and Lazarus, you stand in opposition to the best com- mentators the world has ever produced — several of whom have long been considered oracles in the church of which you, sir, are so prominent and active a member. There are other important particulars in our amicable discussion which I should be pleased to notice ; but an aversion to prolixity admonishes me to forbear. I will therefore only subjoin, that, in my judgment, you totally failed to establish the doctrine of endless wo; and I ex- ceedingly regret that your life should be devoted to the promulgation of a sentiment, which not only constitutes no part of the revelation from God, but is destructive of the peace and the happiness of man. Yours respectfully, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, June 22, 1835. Timi Sir- Inasmuch as any doctrine which cannot be THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 253 fairly established by a few pertinent citations from the sacred oracles is, in my judgment, unwortliy to be con- sidered a pari ot' the Clirisiian credenda, the scriptural passages which I shall adduce in proof of the tinal holi- ness and happiness of all mankind will not be nuujerous, though I am entirely satisfied they will be found to stand, as does the faith of the Uiiiversalist, " nut in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." In Gen. xxii. 18, we find it recorded, as the language of the Lord to Abraham, '• In thy seed shall all the na- tions of the earth be blessed." In the same promise conlirmed to Jacob, it is written. Gen. xxviii. 14, " In thee aiid in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." And when cited by Peter, in Acts iii. 25, it is on this wise — ''In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Paul, in Gal. iii, terms this prom- ise the gospel : "' And the Scripture, I'oreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed." And he adds—"' Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, ichich is Christy In the light of these concurrent testimonies we discov- er, that the eventual blessedness in Chri-t of all the na- tions, families and kindreds of the earth, is guarantied by the promise of the Almighty, who •' is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should re- pent. Hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Numbers xxiii. 19. Moreover, "When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by him- self .... For men verily swear by the greater ; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confiim- ed it by an oath : that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might. have a strong 22 254 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. consolation, who hare fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us," Heb. vi. 13 — 18. Tiiai the language of the promise conveys the idea of univcrsali'y. yi'U will not be inclined to dispute — inas- much as no individual can be found who belongs not to some nation, family, or kindred. In the angelic annun- ciation of the advent of Messias, the truth of such ti- dings as embrace the final blessedness of all our race, is implied : " Fear not : for behold I bring you good tidin.ovs OeXec cuOrjvai, Will havc all men to be saved." When Jesus said to the leper, e^Xc, I will, be thou clean," Matt. viii. 6, his will was a determinate purpose; and the same re- mark is applicable to the testimony of Paul in Ephes. i. 9—11 : " Having made known unto us the mystery of his WILL, according to his good pleasdre, which he hath PURPOSED in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness ot times he might gather together in oi,e all thmffs in l^hrist, both which are in heaven and which are on earth even in him : in whom also we have obtained an inherit- ance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own "Will." In this passage you perceive, 1st. That the will, good PLEASURE, and purpose of God are associated— which 262 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. fact destroys the supposition that his will, in reference to the final destiny of man, is only a matter of desire ; 2d. That the will, good pleasure and purpose of God embrace the final gathering of all things into Christ ; 3d. That God purposed this, not in man, (for if dependent on the creature it might fail,) but in himself, in the immutability of his own nature ; and 4lh. That he who revealed this glorious and ineffably sublime mystery, ''vjorketh all things (not according to the imaginings, faith or works of men, but) after the counsel of his own icill." The infer- ence is that he has a will — yea, that his ivill is primary and independent. This accords with the testimony in Isa. xiv. 27 : " The Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it ? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" Also it harmonizes Avith the fervent prayer of the Christian's heart, " Thy will, God, be done." Collateral evidence of the final universal in-gathering pointed out in the preceding testimony, is furnished in abundance by the voice of inspiration. Jesus said, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me," John vi. 38 ; and we have seen that he who sent the Messias, " will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." In accordance with the spirit of his mission, our Saviour said, " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me," John xii. 32. The fulfil- ment of this glorious purpose, is guarantied by the pro- mise, and the oath, and the power of God. Confirmatory of this conclusion, I cite the following: " The Father lov- eth the Son, and hath given irdvTa all things into his hands," John iii. 35. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out," John vi. 37. The reason assigned of the latter declaration, is stated in the passage first cited in this paragraph. How beautifully this testimony har- monizes with the promise in Psalm xxii. 27,28: 'AH the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's ; and he is the governor among the nations." As I consider you virtually an Arminian, thougli nom- mally a Cah mist, I feel at liberty to notice an objection to the foregoing doctrme of Divine revelation. We are frequently told that God will not do au^rht in violation of human agency-and that, as all men do not wiU to he saved, universal salvation cannot consistently be ^^^_,^!^^— ^^^smuch as such result would imply the afore- said miringement. In reply, I remark, that, in the judgment of Univer- salists, man is a moral agent ; that all the agency he pos- sesses IS the gift of God ; and that to said agency no vio- lence wiH ever be offered by the Giver. Nevertheless, we hold that he who is the Author of, has the power to give to, the agency of man such impulse, and to his will such a direction, as infinite benevolence may prompt- and to do this m such a way as not to contravene the lib- erty ol the human mind. No violence Avas offered to the agency or will of Saul of Tarsus-yet that prominent persecutor of the saints, became an eminent apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, not primarily by, but in conformity with his own will. And we heartily'believe, and rejoice m believing, that the Divine efficiency which accomplished this work in the chief of sinners, will never lose its power- and that n will go on conquering and to conquer, until the will of every son and daughter of our race shall bow m meek submission to its life-giving energy, and partake ot the celestial joys which nought but the grace of the Lord can bestow. Yours respectfully, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. r, c<' r. . r. Philadelphia, July 7, 1835. JJear bir— Certain Samaritans believed in the Saviour 264 THEOLOGICAL DISCHSSION. on the testimony of a woman with whom he had some interesting conversation near Jacob's well : others were indisposed to believe until they had heard him them- selves. They heard, and conviction was sealed to their understandings — for they said to the woman, '" Now we believe, not because of thy saying ; for we have heaiJ him ourselves, and know that this is the Christy the Sa viour of THE WORLD," John iv. 42. I consider this evi- dence valuable, chiefiv because it corroborates the tes- timony of the inspired apostle who recorded it: "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world," 1 John iv. 14. In order to nullify the force of this sacred Scripture in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, you will be disposed to deny either that the world em- braces the whole of our race, or that the object of the Father in sending the Son will be accomplished. To these alternatives our attention will therefore be directed. In the first place, I suppose you to deny that the world comprises the whole of our race. A clause in your letter of April 3, 1834, furnishes information touching the gen- eral grounds of said denial. You say, '• The world and the whole world frequently mean any complete system of things ; and hence we read of a world of iniquity in the tongue ; of a world lying in sin from which the apostles and saints were excepted ; and of the world gone after Christ, while multitudes never went after him. There is a world of believers, and a world of unbeliev- ers." Before proceeding to review these statements, I desire to notice a conclusion to which your reasoning unques- tionably leads. In denying that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the entire world of mankind, you virtually affirm, either that some may he saved without a Saviour, or that salvation for all men is impossible. And it matters little whether that impossibility be consequent of a fixed decree of absolute reprobation, or of the fact that provision has been made for the salvation of only a limited number. The moment you concede that all THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 265 men may be saved, you admit that provision has been made for the salvation of all; and this admission is aa acknowledgment, in effect, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of all. Allow me to enlarge on this subject. Do you admit, without mental reservation, that it is possible for all our race to be saved ? I say, without mental reservation — for I am suspicious that some of your Calvinislic breth- ren, while they proclaim the doctrine that all may be saved loho will, keep back that very abhorrent feature of their creed, to wit, that none but the elect can will to be saved. This, sir, is so obviously a bitter mockery of the sinner's wo, and so palpably a violation of gospel princi- ples, that I cannot, and do not, lay trie sin to your per- sonal charge. I assume that you either admit, or deny, unequivocally, that all men may be saved. If you admit the bare possibility in question, you must concede that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the whole human family ; and if you deny the possibility of salva- tion for all, you must grant that said impossibility is fixed by a decree of reprobation, — or, what is equivalent thereto, that for the salvation of a part or portion of our race, not the least provision has been made ! This, I am satisfied, is substantially the doctrine of your Confession of Faith. " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others predestinated unto everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreor- dained, are particularly and unchangeably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." But you teach that all men may be saved ; and whether you can or cannot reconcile this idea with the explicit doctrine of your creed, I see not how you can consistently or conscien- tiously deny that the Father sent the Son to be the Sa- viour of the whole world. You say, however, " there is a world of believers, and a world of unbelievers." But did the Father send the Son to be the Saviour of a world of believers ? No, 23 366 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. sir, " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all accepta-' tion, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sin- ners," 1 Tim. i. 15. " They that be whole, need not a physician, but they that are sick I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance," Matt. ix. 12, 13. " The Son of man is come to save that which is LOST," Matt, xviii. 11. " Christ died for the ungodly" — for SINNERS— for his ENEMIES, Rom. V. 6, 8, 10. Who were believers, who weie righteous, when Jesus came into the world ? Sir, it is manifest that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of a world of unbelievers and sinners. Thus John saw — thus John testified — and this is the tes- timony of your correspondent, and of all his kindred in- the faith. When the beloved disciple says, *'' If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole WORLD," 1 John ii. 1, 2, do you understand him to mean that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of believers only ? How many believers were there in the world when Messias '* gave himself a ransom for all ?" how many saints when he tasted death for every man ? Your doctrine of limitation cannot stand. It is contradictory of the plainest passages of the Bible. I freely grant that the world sometimes signifies a limit- ed number — as in John xii. 19 : " The world is gone after him." In other places it may mean a complete system of things, as you state. The scope of the con- text, and reason, must determine the signification. I have already attempted to show that reason affixes the idea of universality to the term in 1 John iv. A — inas- much as limitation thereof would involve the most re- volting conclusions. In 1 John v. 19, to which you refer, it is written — '"And we know that we are of God, ana the whole world lieth m wickedness." Here the disciples are plainly excepted — but you will not contend for any other exception. And I desire you to remember, that Jesus Christ the righteous is declared to be the propitia^ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 267 tion for the sins of the persons excepted, and not for theirs cnly, but also for the sins of the whole ivorld. In this state of the argument, you may be disposed to introduce some expressions in the memorable prayer of our Lord, recorded in John xvii. You will contend that the salvation of the whole world of mankind was not contemplated in the mission of Christ, inasmuch as he said, •' I pray for them, [the disciples ;] 1 pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me ; lor they are thine>" But the intercession stops not here. If it did, no consistent exposition could be given of the prayer offered by our Lord in the last hour of his earthly career — '• Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," Luke xxiii. 34. The intercession is thus continued : Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ; that the world may be- lieve that thou hr.st sent me." All I now contend for, is, that the salvation of all mankind was contemplated in the mission of Christ ; and this position has, in my judgment, been established beyond the possibility of rea- sonable dispute. But to '• make assurance doubly sure," I repeat, that should you persist in denying what appears to me so perfectly obvious, you must cling to the distinc- tive doctrine of ancient Calvinism, namely, that there is no possibility for the salvation of any of our race, except- ing a number of men and angels which is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. And the abhorrent corollary unavoidably follows, that an equally certain and definite number of men and angels were created to be fuel for hell-fire for ever ! My knowledge of the Christian benevolence of your heart, and of the general character of your public min- istrations and editorial labours, justifies me in assuming that you will prefer the previous alternative, namely, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of all mankind. In this case you must either admit the truth of Univer- s^lism, or deny that the purpose of the Father of Mercies 268 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. will be accomplished. Supposing you still inclined "earnestly to contend " against ^Yhat I believe to oe '' the faith once delivered to the saints," I shall proceed to show ihat the preferred alternative is unworthy your support. This work was attended to, in part, in a pre- vious letter — but the Arminian denial of the Divine effi- ciency is so completely inwoven with popular theology, as to justify a farther exposure of its fallacy and infidelity. To allege that God has commenced an enterprise which he uiJl not effect, is an impeachment of his wis- dom and immutability — for it implies that circumstances will arise which will induce him wholly to relinquish his purpose, or essentially to modify his plans j and the assertion that he has purposed what he cannot effect, (no matter what the obstacles may be,) is so palpable a de- nial of his infinite power, that I marvel exceedingly when any one advances the infidel hypothesis. It places the Supreme God in the pitiable condition of a man who begins to build, and is not able to finish. "Which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foiinddtion, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, sayincr, This man began to build, and was not able to finish,"' Luke xiv. 28—30. According to the showing of Arminians. God laid the foundation of universal sal- vation, in sending his Son to be the Saviour of the world ; and subsequently discovered that he had not suf- ficient means to complete the work ! I shudder, sir, to think of this profanation of the holy attributes of the Most High God. In my judgment, it is tantamount to treading Immanuel under foot, counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite to the Spirit of redeeming grace ! To deny that God has made sufficient provision for the salvation of all our race, is to admit the monstrous conclusion before dilated upon — namely, that either by the decree or (with reverence be it said) the neglect oi the Almighty, some men and angels will certainly be THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 269 doomed to endless wo ; and to grant that sufficient pro- vision has been made for the salvation of all, is equiva- lent to an admission that all men will be saved — for the sufficiency of the means employed, can only be determined by the accomplishment of the end designed. The gospel, the Divine plan of salvation, views man as he is, a sinner — and the removal of whatever perversity there be in the huraari will, and of all difficulties which exist, of what- ever kind, is provided for in the economy of heaven. Infi- nite wisdom devised the plan in conformity with the dic- tates of infinite love, and infinite power will effect the purpose of unbounded grace. Yours respectfully, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, July 9, 1835. Dear Sir — Your inattention to my arguments on sev- eral passages of sacred Scripture, introduced in the early part of our amicable discussion, Avill exonerate me from the charge of impropriety in presenting them again. You indeed attempted to invalidate your correspondent's expo- sition of some of those passages — but wher he rejoined and (as he then thought and still thinks) refuted your ob- jections, unwarrantable silence was all the answer he re- ceived. I cannot countenance any such disregard of the proofs of the doctrine in which the Universalist rejoices with unutterable joy. Colossians i. 19, 20 : " For it pleased the Father that in him [Christ] should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to re- concile ALL THINGS to kimself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." In your attempt to set this testimony aside, as a proof of Universalism, you first admitted that "he must be kappy who becomes reconciled to God, by a change in his 23* 270 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. State and mental operations, so that he is a pardoned sin- ner and loves God," and then laboured to show that the reconciliation mentioned in the text is not ot this descrip- tion. You sav that •' the word reconale primarily signi- fies to change 'any thing from one state to another; and hence, secondarily, when a man's mmd is changed from enmity to love, in relation to any one, he is said to be re- conciled to that individual." You contend that the word is used in its primary sense in the passage before us. io thi^ I reply, 1st. That the reconciliation referred to is a chancre from enmity to love-for in the verse following, the disciples are thus addressed: "And yo?^ that were somelivne alienated and enemies in your mmd by v:ickea works, yet noiv hath he reconciled." The reconciliation T)reviously spoken of must be of the same general char- acter— inasmuch as the verb is the same in the original Greek. 2d. Dr. George Campbell, in a note on Matt. Y 9 writes as follows : " This word [apvvojroioi) is not found in any other part of Scripture, but (which is nearly •the same,) the verb ap,vo.o,.a., of the same origin, occurs Col i. 20 where the connexion shows that it cannot signity to be c^entle, to be peaceable, but actively to reconcile, to vnakeveace. Etymology and classical use also concur m ailixin^ the sense of reconciler, peacemaker, to cp^voTrotoj. You undoubtedly unite in this view of the word trans- lated having made peace, in verse 20 ; and as the connexion of every passage must be consulted and the general scope of the place regarded, it is manifest that your argument on the word reconcile is wholly fallacious. And I consider it established beyond plausible denial, that the reconcilia- tion in question is of the description which, you acknow- ledge, must secure the happiness of all persons who par- ticipate therein. . . The import of the phrase all things is the only point that remains to be considered. Were we discoursing of a less momentous subject, I should be disposed to query whether you seriously allecje, as an objection to the wm- versalify of the phrase, that " the stones of the streets the birds of the air, the cattle of the hills, the air we THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 271 breathe, and the winds and waves," are things. And it might also be questionable whether you were serious in saying, "If there is a single thing, a man, an apple, a pebble, to be excluded from the class of all things to be reconciled, so as to be happy, your argument from abso- lute wdversality in this passage is lost." You do not sup- pose that the apostles were to preach the gospel to the birds of the air or the cattle of the hills — yet pleach the o-ospel to EVERY CREATURE, was the Divine command. That rational creatures only are referred to, is implied. And as rational things only can ever be in a state of en- mity to (rod, such beings only are included in the class of all things to be reconciled. In the preceding context, the phrase in question occurs five times ; " for by him were all things created all things were created by him, and for him ; and he is before all things ; and by him all things consist ; and he is the head of the body that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." I consider it but a quib- ble, when you say, that " there are some things in exis- tence which were not made by him ; such as the essence of the Deity, infinite space, and the actions of free agents." There is good sense, however, in your remark, that " the ■all things created are limited to all creatures.'' To Avhich I add, that as to reconcile all things signifies but the recon- ciliation of such things as were, are, or maybe " alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them," Eph. iv. 18, so you and I have come to this con- clusion : "It pleased the Father that in Christ should all fulness dwell, and by him to reconcile to himself all ali- enated rational beings." The expression " things in earth, and things in heaven," is simply a periphrasis of vavTa, all things. It is used .by way of emphasis, or of intensity, as Professor Stuart would say. As I cannot conceive of alienation from God in any of the celestial inhabitants, so I judge that the expression is merely a figurative superaddition. designed to show that the pleasure of the Lord embraces the recon- ciliation of all alienated beings, wherever they may exist. 272 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. When we read that " the Father loveth the Son, and hath given ttSlvto, all things into his hands," John iii. 35; that Jesus " gave himself a ransom Inep nai'Ttov for all,^^ 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; that he hath been " appointed heir of Travrwv allthings,^^ Heb. i. 2; that " he is Lord (or owner) Travrwv of all,'' Acts X. 36 ; that " it pleased the Father by him to reconcile Ta TTdtra «// things to himself," Col. i. 20; and that " TO ndvra all things shall be subdued unto him," 1 Cor XV. 28, — we naturally give to the word or phrase in ques- tion the unrestricted sense it bears in the declaration, God " will have vavras avdpujirovs, all men to be saved, and to Gome unto the knowledge of the truth," 1 Tim. ii. 4. Philippians ii. 9, 11 : " Wherefore God also hath high- ly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Professor Stuart says, that " things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the He- brew and New Testament writers for the universe." Letters to Channing, p. 100. He refers to the text before us, and also to Rev. v. 13. Dr. George Campbell, in reference to the same passages, says, that Karaxdovioi is " a word of the same import with the phrase vrroKaTOi ttjs yi??, under the earth, in the Apocalypse; and with the trovpavioi and eriyeioi, Celestial beings and terrestrial, include the WHOLE RATIONAL CREATION. That they are expressly enu- merated as including the whole, Avill be manifest to every one who attentively peruses the two passages referred to." Diss. YI. p. ii. Sec. 6. To which I subjoin, that this conclusion will be equally manifest to any one who will give to the expressions, every knee and every tongue, their obvious signification. From the fact thus established, in conjunction with the declaration, " No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost," 1 Cor. xii. 3, I infer the final ho- liness and happiness of all mankind. You object to this conclusion, 1st. Because " a parrot might say, ' Jesus is THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 273 the Lord,' without the least intelligence" — but as that confession only can be to tlie glory of God the Father which is made in conviction of the judgment and sincerity of heart, the objection is fallacious, and may therefore be dismissed. 2d. You assert that some of our race " will confess Christ ii such a way that God the Father will be glorified in their danination." This is merely an as- sertion, and as such does not justly deserve consideration — nevertheless let us look at it in the light of the text. (L) Paul furnishes no intimation that some shall bow and confess in one way and the rest in another. He makes no distinction as to manner or result ; and there- fore you might as properly assert, that the Father will be glorified in the damnation of a/Z, as that some will con- fess Christ in such a way.as to glorify God in their doom of despair. (2.) In order that the confession, Jesus Christ IS Lord, may be to the glory of the Father, it must be made i/i/^/i/A— inasmuch as the God of truth cannot be glorified in the confession of that which is not believed. It is written, " Whosoever heliereih that Jesus is the Christ is horn of God," 1 John v. i. (3.) Professor StuAxRt, on the text before us, says—" What can be meant by things in heaven, that is, beings in heaven, bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual ivorship be not meant?" Refer- ring lO Pvev. V. 13, he writes as folloAvs: "If this be not spiritual worship, and if Christ be not the object of it here, I am unable to produce a case where worship can be called spiritual and divine." Perm.it me to add, that this universal bowing down, and universal confes- sion, indicate the consummation of the Divine purpose, that Christ shall subdue all things to himself, reconcile them to the Father, and subsequently be himself sub- ject, that God may be all in all. I will conclude this epistle with a few examples in il- lustration of the statement, that in connexion with many of the testimonies pertaining to the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, there is either a direct mention or obvious implication of the special, present, blessedness of believers. 274 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. In Colossians i. 21, (the context of which proves the doctrine of universal reconciliation to God, as I have at- 'tempted to show,) it is thus written : " And you [the saints and faithful brethren at Colosse] that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" — that is, those disciples liad already experienced such a change in their state and mental operations as brought them into the enjoyment of celestial peace. In 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, the fact that " God was in Christ reconciling the world nnto himself," is thus introduced : " And all things are of God, who hath re- conxiled us [the disciples] to himself by Jesus Christ." The same general truth is taught in James i. 18 : " Of his own will begat he vs [the primitive disciples] by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his [rational] creatures." I say rational, because the character of the harvest, the lump, is indicated by the first fruits. Romans xi. 16. In Rom. viii. 18— -23, (to my remarks on which you have not yielded the slightest attention,) this subject is also illustrated : " For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in t(s, [the believ^ers.] For the earnest expectation of the creature [the creation] waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature [the creation] was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature [the creation] itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the ivhole [rational] creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the FIRST FRUITS of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re- demption of our body." In this remarkable passage of Holy Writ, the disciples, the believers, are set forth, on the one hand, as having the fi'-st fruits of the Spirit, and as being in the present en* joyment of the blessing which must ever be consequen 'THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 275 ■of believing and obeying the truth. On the other hand, the promise is communicated, that the whole rational creation, which is in the bondage of corruption, shall b3 delivered therefrom, and introduced into the glorious lib- erty of the children of God. It is my fervent desire, that yow, sir, together with all who unite with you in opinion as to the final destiny of man, may be so turned from the power of darkness unto light, as by faith to enter into the immediate enjoyment cf the blessedness which is reserved in heaven for the ransomed of the Lord; Yours respectfully, ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, July 13, 1835. Dear Sir — ^In this letter I propose considering the doc^ trine of the resurrection of mankind into an immortal ex- istence, as taught in the Bible. Perhaps I should rather say, I propose a re-consideration of that subject — inas- much as it was discoursed of, at some length, in the pro- gress of our controversy. It is desirable, however, that the substance of what has been said on that especially important branch of the discussion, should again be brought into view. In 1 Cor. XV. 22, it is thus written : " For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." You admit that the word all, in each member of thi& sentence, is expressive oi universality — for though Enoch and Elijah were translated, they must have underwent a change which was equivalent to death. By Adam^ in the passage before us, I understand the mortal constitution of the first man, who was of the earth, earthy. All the children of humanity bear his image, as a mortal being; and in that image they must return to the dust whence they were taken. By Christ 276 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. I understand the quickening spirit, the Lord from heaven, the heaveuly. By being made alive in Christ is signi- fied the resurrection into a state of incorruption, power, glory ; in a spiritual body ; in the image of the heavenly, who is declared to have been " the image of the invisible God." As it is not optional with man whether he will or will not die in Adam, so I judge it to be not a matter of choice with him. whether he will or will not be made alive in Christ. The promise is absolute, and in the fulfilment thereof, man is necessarily passive. " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all he made alive." Thus far there is perfect unity in our views of the res- urrection — but you assert that some will be made alive in Christ to an eternity of misery — while inspiration avers, that "if any man be in Christ he is a new crea- ture," 2 Cor. V, 17. From this testimony, in connexion with the text, I deduce the doctrine of ultimate universal blessedness in Christ. To this conclusion you object, because Jesus said, " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. If any man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned," John xv. 2 — 6 ; and thence you infer that many of those who shall be made alive in Christ will subse- quently be cast off, having ever been unfruitful in good works. I rejoin, that I will admit your conclusion if you will prove the all important postulate, that some will not abide in Christ in the resurrection state. The fact that some men are not in Christ in the present life, is not to the purpose — for, however, they may live or die, they will all be made alive in Christ, in incorruption, power, glory ; in a spiritual body ; in the image of the heavenly. As I said in my letter of August 27, 1834, so I say now, that " to be in Christ in this mutable state, surrounded by temptation, exposed to the power of deceptive influences, and liable each moment to be led into sin, is a very dif- ferent matter from being in Christ in an unchanging state, removed from the influence of tempting and cor THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 277 rupting circumstances. He who is in Christ, even in this life, is a new creature — for he " has put off the old man^ which is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts," and has "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" — but he rnay revert to his former estate, and be cast off as an unfruitful branch. Now, if you can prove that any one who will be made alive in Christ, in incorruption, and in a spiritual body, and who is therefore a new creature, will not abide in Christ, or will ever again put on the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, then you will have proved that such an one will be cast off— but not otherwise. 1 Corinthians xv. 28 : " And when ra irdvra, all things, i-oTayv, shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself hiroTaymtTai be subject [or subdued] unto him that put all things under him, [or rather, that subdued all things unto him] that God may be all in all." You will perceive that the word also debars the popular ca- vil that some will be subdued in one way, and the rest in another ; and I know of no rational exposition of the language, that God may be all in all, if a part of our race are to be eternally excluded from the enjoyment of his love. Jesus said to the Sadducees, as recorded in Matthew xxii. 29, 30 : " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God: for in the resurrection they nei- ther marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the an- gels of God in heaven." In the parallel place in Luke xx. 34—36, it is thus written : " The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage ; but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resur- rection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage : neither can they die any more ; for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." In your letter of Au- gust 21, 1834, you say, that ''but for this clause, [namely, ' they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead,'] this teat would render 278 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. me a Universalist." This frank statement induced me to hope that I should succeed in convincing you of the truth of the doctrine I advocate ; and I accordingly en- deavoured to make you acquainted with the true import of the clause in question. Although you did not notice my exposition thereof, I presume you were not satisfied there- with. Allow me to repeat the substance of the argu- ment. The Sadducees did not accredit the doctrine of immor- tality, and the case they presented was merely designed to perplex our Lord. Their inquiry assumed that conju- gal affinities must exist in the future life, (if a future life there be,) as in the present; and that there men would possess many, if not all, the passions which are here de- veloped. Hence they desired to know whose wife of the seven brethren the woman should be in the resurrection. The supposition that our Lord evaded the inquiry, is not admissible ; and since it will freely be conceded that his reply was pertinent, I conclude that it referred directly to the resurrection state. He contrasts this present state ot being, in which matrimonial alliances are contracted, with the incorruptible and spiritual life, in which no such ties are formed. If you allege that some of our race shall not be ac- counted worthy to be raised from the dead, you must discard the doctrine of endless punishment, unless you can conceive of endless punishment without a resurrec- tion. But since you grant that all mankind shall be the children of the resurrection, you must admit that they will all be the children of God. Your assertion that some of the human family " will be undutiful and rebel- lious children for ever," is exploded by the declaration, that " the [rational] creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorioles liberty of the childrenof God," Rom. viii. 21. In his address to the Sadducees, our Lord simply in- tended to correct their error as to the condition of men in the future state. They supposed, as previously mentioned, that the passions which men possess in this world, thef THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 279 would possess hereafter; and they imagined that the diffifuilties of tne case they presented furnished an unan- swerable objection to liie doctrine of immortality. The premiss was false. Hence said Jesus, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Then properly followed a correction of the error referred to. In replying to an inquiry pertaining solely to the con- dition of men, that is, to their mode of being, in the resurrection state, our Saviour did not leel called upon to say how many would be raised from the dead. The doctrine of the Pharisees (some of whom were present) restrained the resurrection to the just, which restriction our Lord did not see proper directly to deny on that occa- sion. Neither did he then deny the Pharisaic notion of the transmigration of souls. Indeed, he did not, at that time, expressly dispute any doctrine of the Pharisees — otherwise the Scribes would not have commended his remarks. Luke xx. 39. But are we thence to infer, thai be countenanced their notion, that only a part or portion of our race will be raised from the dead ? Certainly not. He was replying to a question of condition, and not of number. He certified the Sadducees, and he certifies us, that as many as shall be raised shall be equal unto the angels ; and the assurance that they shall be the children of God, is predicated of the fact, that they shall be the children of the resurrection. Moreover: Christianity teaches that all who bear the image of the earthy, and die in Adam, are by the Supreme Being accounted worthy to be made alive in Christ, in the image of the heavenly. Hence Paul could hope for the resurrection even of THE UNJUST, Acts xxiv. 15. He expected it — he desired it; and the conjunction o^ expectation Oiudi desire pro- duced in him a hope full of immortality. He looked in faith "for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," Titus ii. 13, '■ who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to feimself/' Philippians iii. 21. He speaks of the change 280 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. from mortality to immortality as a victory over death — as the means of introducing the whole family of man into a state of ineffable bliss, where " the Lord God will •wipe away tears from off all faces," 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55 ; Isaiah xxv. 8. And he enjoyed so clear a view of this sublime consummation of the reign of Christ, that he was enabled abundantly to "rejoice in hope of the glory of God," Rom. v. 2. There are many important considerations connected with the Bible doctrine of the resurrection, which I should be pleased to notice, but I will confine my remarks to the following particulars : 1st. The testimony of Jesus, that " in the resurrection they are the children of God, being ; the children of the resurrection," destroys the popular no- tion, that the condition of man in the future state will be determined by his character or conduct in this. Our Saviour does not say, ' In the resurrection they are the children of God, having been my disciples in the present world.' No. The assurance that they shall be the chil- dren of God, is predicated of the simple fact, that they shall be the children of the resurrection. 2d. The Holy Spirit does not speak of the future blessedness of individuals, as such. All the members of the hu- man familv constitute the body of which Jesus is the head. " The head of eveiy man is Christ," 1 Cor. xi. 3. He tasted " death for every man" Heb. ii. 9. " In Christ shall ALL be made alive." God " will have all men to be sa- ved." " jErer?/ Avjce shall bow." These and similar forms of expression plainly show, that the Holy Spirit has re- vealed the future condition of mankind as a whole, and not as individuals. 3d. The Scripture doctrine of the re- surrection, exposes the folly of the inquiries which are so frequently made as to the condition in which a man has died. Is it sown in corruption ? it shall be raised in incorruption : is it sown in Aveakness ? it shall be raised in power : is it sown in dishonour? it shall be raised in glory: is it sown an animal body ? it shall be raised a spiritual body : has the person died in Adam ? he shall be made alive ia Christ : did he bear the image of the earthy ? he THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 281 shall also bear the image of the heavenly. The questions should not be, How do mankind die ? in what condition do they depart ? but, " How are the dead raised up ? and with what body do they come ?" Allow the sacred Scriptures to furnish the reply, and the believer of the record will rejoice in the assurance, that in the resurrec- tion universal humanity shall walk forth in the beauty of holiness, redeemed and regenerated by the quickening spirit of the living God. Yours respectfully ABEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, July 15, 1835. Dear Sir — The divinely inspired apostle Paul, in ad- dressing Timothy, uses the following emphatic language : " For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, be- cause we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour, ttuvti^v avdpibnwv, of ALL MEN, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach," 1 Timothy iv. 10. I desire you to notice, that God is here declared to be the Saviour of all men. There is no plausibility in the supposition, that this testimony merely expresses the Di- vine willingness or desire that all men should be saved — nor yet simply that he has provided a Saviour for all. The declaration is explicit and absolute. No objection can be inferred from the present tense of the verb. The living God is the Saviour of all men, in the sense that he *' callelh those things which be not as though they were," Ptom. iv. 17. So Abraham was styled " the father ot many nations," previously to the birth of Isaac, in whom his seed was called. God is in purpose the Saviour ot all, though it is manifest that there are thousands who have not yet been born into the kingdom. In like good sense he is the Creator of all, even of those who as yet exist only in the Divine purpose. And as God acts inde ■■ 24* 282 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. pendently in constituting himself the Creator of man- kind, so I judge that he is voluntarily and absolutely the Saviour of all. The human race is a family of which the Creator is the Father ; and we are therefore the children cr offspring of God, whatever may be our views or characters. There is also a sense in which the disciples of our Lord can claim special affinity with the Supreme Being. Every Israelite is a son of Abraham, while "they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" in a spir- itual relation, Galatians iii. 7. So every one who bears the image of Adam, is a child of the Universal Father, whatever his character may be ; while " as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," in a more exalted sense, Rom. viii. 14. Those are the chil- dren of God by simple creation ; these are " the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," Gal. iii. 26. But all wen are now in the fAirpose of heaven, what they all shall BE in fact, the children of God in a still more exalted re- lation. " In the resurrection they are equal unto the an- gels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." In xhe first named sense, mankind or^', and in the last they shall he, unconditionally and absolutely, the children of God. Hence there is equal propriety in declaring that he is the Saviour of all men, as in acknow- ledging that he is the Creator of all. And hence again, it would be equally improper to affirm, that God is the Creator of some who will never exist, as that he is the Saviour of a greater number than will actually be saved. I hinted above, that the disciples of our Lord can claim special affinity with the Supreme Being. So in the pas- sage before us, God is declared to be specially the Saviour of those ivho helieve— which, he could not be were he not actually the Saviour of all. Paul wrote to Timothy as follows : " The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments," 2 Tim. iv. 13. It is manifest that Paul wished to receive the cloak and books, notwithstanding this special men- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 283 tion of the parchments. Again : " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in Avord and doctrine," 1 Tim. v. 17. If the declaration that God is the Sai-iour of all men, be nullified by the testimony that he is specudhj the Saviour of those who believe, it will follow, by parity of inference that none of the elders were to ''be counted worthy of double honour," excepting those who laboured in word and doctrine ! Indeed, according to the objector's view of the text, the apostle intended to say, that God is not the Saviour of all men, but only of those who believe ! The popular estimate of faith, and of the benefits ac- cruing therefrom, is radically erroneous. I stated in a previous letter, that faith does not, and cannot, create any IriJth— and I will add that faith is simply the result of evidence Avhich the mind deems conclusive. Whether the statement presented be true or false, it is not, it can- not be, aflfected either by acknowledgment or denial. Truth exists independentl'v of the evidence of it, and in- dependently also of the action of the mind. So when we read that God is speciallv the Saviour of those who be- lieve, we properly inquire for the truth the belief of which confers a special salvation. Opposers of Universalisin frequently speak of the es- sential truths of the gospel— bv which thev mean, that there are truths the belief of which is essential to the happiness of the future state. What are those truths ? Are they the trinity, vicarious atonement, or imputed righteousness ? You will not answer in the affirmative— for you admit that many persons will be saved who do not believe those items of your creed. Is the doctrine of endless punishment the essential truth for which we now inquire? If you reply that it is not, I ask, whv do you so strenuously contend for a non-essential doctrine ? But if you reply that it is, you must hold that it is not possible lor any Universalist to be saved ! Yea, and you must adopt the most contradictory and absurd conclusions, iou grant that all men may be saved ; and you hold that salvation is consequent only of believing or coming to the 284 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. knowledge of the truth. Now suppose that all men were -to become true believers — would they not all be saved ? Certainly. Then surely if endless punishment be the thing to be believed, all men would be saved by believing a lie ! Are you prepared to admit that Universal faith would falsify any Bible truth ? If you are not prepared for this admission, you must grant that the belief of end- less punishment is not essential to salvation — yea, that it is not in any sense an essential doctrine. And, sir, a faithful examination of this subject, in the light I have presented it, will satisfy you, that the happiness of the future state is not dependent on the exercise of faith in any doctrine whatever. The reception of immortal bless- edness, by any of our race, depends solely and alone on the accomplishment of the gracious purpose of the living <^od. Were it otherwise — were the immortal condition of man contingent of faith or of the performance of good works, there would be no certainty of the salvation of any of our race ! For, even should it be conceded that they Avho fulfil the alleged conditions will certainly be the re- •cipients of endless bliss, the uncertainty that even a single soul u-iJl fulfil those conditions, involves equal un- certainty of the final destination of mankind. There can he no certainty that a specified end will be attained, un- less it be certain that the requisite means will be adopted. To contend that some of the human family will certainly 'he saved, is to admit the absolute purpose of God to that •efiect, excluding all contingency ; and to deny that some of our race will certainly be saved, is to admit the possi' lility that all may be irrecoverably lost ! This conclusion is so discordant with all ihat we know of Divine benevo- lence, and so utterly irreconcilable with the governing providence of God, as to condemn the doctrine to which it belongs. Should you desire to know in what the special salva- tion of believers consists, this is my reply : In believing the glorious truth that God is the Saviour of all men, they "enter into rest," Heb. iv. 2; they are filled " with joy ^jwid neace." Rom. xv. 13 ; they " rejoice with joy unspeak- THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 285 ^h\e and full of glory," 1 Peter i. 8. In believincr the truth, they enjoy the presence and the blessin- of " the Comforter," which IS "the SptrU of truth," John xv. 26. Their faith works by love, and purifies their hearts, Gal. V. 6 ; Acts XV. 9. Enjoying " the full assurance of faith » they possess also " the full assurance of Ao«. " Heb vi ' ^\ V ^^.? ^H^ ""^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ seal to the truth of the record that yerfect love casteth out fear, because fear ove, 1 John IV 18. Theirs is a living faith, because t is a filth in the living God; and tn helievm