propriety in the sacred oracles. In connexion with the fire of punishment threatened, the term unquenchable is used, and has the same force as indissoluble, when connected with life; for a fire never quenched and a life never dissolved must each be endless. Moreover, in Mark ix. 43, and Matt. xviii. 8, το πυρ το αίωνιον, and το πυρ το άσβεσον, that is, alwvíov or everlasting fire, and unquenchable fire, are used as synonymous.

If my life is spared, it is my design to pay some attention to your last letter in my next.

Yours respectfully,

EZRA STILES ELY.

TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY.

Philadelphia, August 2, 1834. Dear Sir-Your remarks and inquiries concerning the influence and tendency of Universalism would be very proper, were they relevant to the question in debate. But they are not-for our present inquiry is simply, Is the doctrine of endless punishment taught in the Bible? or does the Bible teach the final holiness and happiness of all mankind? I am utterly indisposed to countenance the introduction of matters foreign to the point at issue. So soon as our present question is finally disposed of, I will be ready and willing to meet you in discussion of the influence and tendency of our sentiments respectively, should you feel disposed to engage in such discussion.

Lest, however, your remarks should make an unfavourable impression on the minds of some of our readers, I will so far gratify you as to say, distinctly, that, in my judgment, the practical utility of any doctrine is the strongest presumptive evidence that can be given of its truth; that a demoralizing doctrine should neither be believed nor taught; that I believe Universalism to be the doctrine of God, who revealed it, and commanded it to be preached to all nations for the obedience of faith; that I prize it for

its moralizing tendency and comforting influence; and that I know it has been instrumental in converting the drunkard, the profane swearer, the profligate, and other vile persons, from the error of their ways. I further certify you, that I solemnly believe such conversions to be the legitimate effects of the doctrine of Universalism. Moreover, I feel much satisfaction in being enabled to testify, that the societies of Universalists in this city and elsewhere can be, and are, hereby "declared to be equal in point of sobriety, industry, and good general moral character," to any societies in which the doctrine of endless punishment is inculcated. I say, equal-and will add, if they are not better, better men, women, parents, children, neighbours, citizens, they do not come up to the standard of the faith.

On the other hand, I sincerely believe that the doctrine of endless punishment is exceedingly baleful in its influence-dishonourable to God-injurious to mankind, and detrimental to human enjoyment. I believe its natural tendency to be, to corrupt and circumscribe the operations of that love which is greater than faith or hope to make of man the enemy of man-to foster spiritual pride and self-righteousness-to make sad the hearts of the righteous whom the testimony of Jesus will not make sad—and to strengthen the hands of the wicked that he should not return from his wicked way, by putting afar the day of evil, and by promising him an escape from the just demerit of his iniquities. I believe that all the persecutions, which have filled the world with blood, and groans, and tears, originated in the principles of partialism. In a word, I am fully persuaded that the doctrine of endless punishment stands directly opposed to the nature, perfections, will and promise of God-that it is at war with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ-that it composes no part of Divine Revelation-that it is repugnant to right reason and to all the noliest aspirations of the human heart-and that its natural tendency is to evil in all its protean forms. I

say these things, not by way of retaliation, but because I am solemnly and sincerely convinced of their truth,

You ask me what good can be derived to any one from Universalism, even if it is true. You seem to think that as all men will eventually be saved, (according to this doctrine,) it matters not what evils they may suffer in the present life!! Besure, you use other language-but such is the substance of your remarks. Allow me to ask you, why any one should desire to be cured of a painful disease, seeing that his body will suffer no pain in the grave? Why should a blind man wish to see, a deaf man to hear, a dumb man to speak, or a lame man to walk, each being fully satisfied that his malady can afflict him only in the present life? You possess too much discernment to overlook the bearing, and too much candour to deny the force of these queries. You speak of salvation as of a matter wholly pertaining to the immortal state of being. In this you err. Allow me to assure you, that Universalism is "the power of God unto salvation to every one who believeth," and to no other persons-for "he that believeth not shall be damned”– and "this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light."

There is one other part of your irrelevant observations which I desire to notice. You speak of Universalist periodical publications as being "almost exclusively devoted to one object-that of convincing all men, that however they may live and die, they shall all be infallibly holy and happy in an immortal future state of being." Why did you not add, for the information of your readers, that though "the restitution of all things, which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began," is the prominent and leading doctrine of our papers, other and correlative subjects engage our earnest and constant attention? You, sir, have not perused our written labours to so little profit, as to be ignorant of the fact, that we incessantly urge the utility of, and the necessity for, repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”—We “affirm

constantly, that they who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works," for "these things are good and profitable unto men." We hold that "the grace of God which bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared-teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godly in the present world"-for he alone can be truly happy, who is a practical disciple of "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.”

I have thus noticed many of your remarks, which obviously do not belong to the point at issue; and I beg leave o repeat, that I will not consent to discuss these matters n detail, until our present question shall have been finally disposed of. You will not dispute the propriety of this determination.

Your argument on Matt. xxiv. et seq. is substantially the same as presented in previous letters. You have neglected to notice my reasoning on many points connected with the coming of the Son of man. I therefore propose to bring the subject more fully into view. Its importance is obvious-for, having admitted that a part of the chapter refers to events which transpired at the destruction of Jerusalem, and believing that the remainder refers to the immortal state of being, you found it necessary to point out the verse at which you suppose the transition of reference to take place. You selected verse 36. You could not have chosen any other-for the preceding context shut you out entirely ; and you clearly perceived that the adverb of time, in Matt. xxv, required you either to stop at verse 36 of Matt. xxiv, or to allow that neither of the chapters furnishes any proof of the point you desire to establish. This, then, is a plain statement of the case. Let us proceed to the argument.

1st. You say, the disciples "proposed an inquiry concerning the end of the world, as distinct from the time of his coming at the destruction of Jerusalem." In reply, I remark, 1st. I have several times desired you to notice the fact, that the word translated world in the phrase "end of the world," is not xwouos the material world,

but alwv the age. Therefore, the assertion that the disciples "supposed the [material] world was to come to an end" at the coming of the Son of man is groundless, and your argument is lost. 2d. In verses 6, 13, 14, of Matt. xxiv, the end" is distinctly spoken of in immediate connexion with the signs that should precede the destruction of Jerusalem. Ye shall hear of wars but THE END [what end?] is not yet... There shall be famines and pestilences. ... all these are the beginning of sorrows, [what sorrows?] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted. . . . but he that shall endure unto the end, [what end?] the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, [see Matt. xxv. 32, in which it is declared that all nations should be gathered before the Son of man,] and then shall the end come. When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet,. . . . then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the house top not come down to take any thing out of his house," &c. Who can avoid perceiving that all these things, including the end spoken of, were to transpire at the destruction of Jerusalem? But 3d, the disciples asked only two questions: When shall these things be?" viz. the desolation of the temple; "and what shall be THE SIGN of thy coming AND of the end of the world?" thus inquiring for THE SIGN of simultaneous events. It was “ IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of those days," viz. the destruction of Jerusalem, that " THE SIGN of the Son of man" was to appear in heaven, verse 30, and then the Son of man would be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. That was also THE SIGN of the end of the world under the law. Then the old covenant was to be abolished, and the reign of Christ in the kingdom which the Father had appointed him, was then to commence.

66

2d. You offer some remarks on the word " generation," but the state of the case is not altered therebyfor you have admitted that all of the persons "then living