each of the churches, on any day or evening excepting Sunday. On our part, we will engage to invite our congregations 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 reviewed by the Pastor of the Church in which it was delivered, on an evening which shall then be named; and we shall also expect you to invite your congregations respectively to attend. Should the foregoing proposals not receive your approbation, we respectively offer the following:

Will you (or either of you) allow 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 salvation 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. BRANTLEÝ, AND ALBERT BARNES.

Brethren-The importance of the subject of the previous letter, (addressed to you through the "Messenger and Universalist,") in connexion with our earnest desire to learn something definite in relation to our proposals, will,

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, in the Messenger and Universalist, 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 acknowledge any one who 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 Brother, and I very cordially salute you in return as a brother in the human family. Let the withholding 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 persons would be likely to become convinced of the truth by

hearing 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 newspaper which you may select, a discussion between you and myself on the doctrine of universal salvation; on condition that you will first distinctly inform me which of the many prevalent systems of universal salvation you judge to be true. It is to be understood, 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 I 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 sentiments as would prepare you to become an orthodox preacher of the gospel. On the other hand, you feel confident that I shall reach heaven; because all men, agreeably to your theory, will be saved.

I have only to add on the present occasion, that no one of our several pieces, if we wish them to be read, ought to exceed two columns in the Philadelphian.

Yours respectfully,

EZRA STILES ELY.

TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY.

Philadelphia, Jan. 27, 1834.

Dear Sir-I feel not a little satisfaction in being ena

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 the uncandid and ungenerous treatment 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 gentleman 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 manifested 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 in saying, “Let the withholding 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 me to observe, that, in my opinion, the title Reverend" belongs 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 the proposals 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 excite 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 allowed 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

deliver a series in your church in proof of the final salvation of all men. Should not your proposal have been so stated as to allow correspondent option on my part? Moreover, you say, "I 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." view of this statement, the proper question would be, Is the doctrine of endless punishment taught in the Bible?

In

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 predicate endless punishment on the sins of this life, or on endless sinning.

On your part, you have proposed The Philadelphian as a medium of communication. On my part, I propose the Messenger and Universalist. 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 language: "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 solemnly believe it to be the truth of God, and feel myself bound to bring into exercise my every energy in its proclamation and defence. And I am