All that you say in relation to the forgiveness or remission of punishment, is out of place. I cannot be diverted from the question in debate. If you can cite any law of God with the penalty of endless punishment annexed, you will have proved your point. I may add, however, for your information, that the only Divine forgiveness in which I believe, is the forgiveness of SIN.

In proof of endless punishment you quote the declarations of Jesus touching the sin of blasphemy, which, in your judgment, is the sin unto death. But you assume all the points on which the supposed relevancy of this testimony rests. You assume that aiwvios xolos, aionion condemnation, necessarily belongs to the future state. The aionion priesthood of Aaron, the aionion covenant of the law, and other aionion things mentioned in the Bible, appertained not to the incorruptible life. It is therefore plain, that the simple connexion of aionion with condemnation does not establish your theory of endless punishment.

66

But you neither

But perhaps you will urge the declaration, "neither in this world, neither in the world to come." assume that the meaning of this expression is, in this present life, neither in the immortal life to come." Such is not the import of the declaration. Olam ha bo, the world to come, is a constant phrase among the Jewish writers for the times of the Messiah. PEARCE says"Neither in this world, &c. Rather, neither in this age, nor in the age to come; i. e. neither in this age, when the law of Moses subsists, nor in that also, when the kingdom of heaven, which is at hand, shall succeed to it." To the same import, see WHITBY, ADAM Clarke, WAKEFIELD, &c.

You assume that "the sin unto death," is a sin unto endless death. You have furnished no proof of this position.-HORNE, WHITBY, ROSENMULLER, CLARKE end others, unite in considering the expression applicable only to the death of the body.

I might add other remarks—but those already offered are deemed sufficient to show, that you were not justi

fied in saying, "Of course, I consider it as settled, by Christ himself, that every blasphemer against the Holy Ghost, will be a subject of endless punishment."

GILL, CAMPBELL, WHITBY, and others, state that the phrase "kingdom of God," in Mark x, 15, refers not to the future state, but to the gospel kingdom on earth.

I have shown, in previous letters, that the question, "what is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" alludes only to natural life. The word x is thus twice translated in the preceding verse. CLARKE says, "I am certain it means life in both cases." To the same import, PEARCE and WAKEFIELD.

I have also shown in previous letters, that verses 27, and 28 of Matt. xvi, refer to one and the same coming. There is no plausibility in the supposition that verse 27 refers to a yet future event, since it is acknowledged that verse 28 alludes to the coming of Christ "immediately after" the tribulation which came on Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv. 30. The simple reading of the verses in connexion will evince the fallacy of supposing a transition of reference. See ADAM CLARKE, CAPPE, ROSENMULLER, &c.

Thus have I endeavoured fairly to meet, and candidly to examine, every argument presented in your long yet friendly epistle. In so doing, this letter has been made to occupy more space than was contemplated in your original proposal for a written discussion. It matters little, in my judgment, how much either of us may write in any one communication, provided it be in defence of particular positions previously stated, or in refutation of particular arguments previously advanced-but I deem it inexpedient to introduce new topics of discourse, however much bearing they may have on the general issue, if by so doing any letter be protracted to an unreasonable length. If the Lord will, we shall have time enough fully to discuss the question in debate without confusing the minds of our readers.

Rejoicing "with joy unspeakable and full of glory," in "the faith once delivered to the saints;" realizing that in my heart dwelleth the COMFORTER, even the Spirit

of Truth, whom the world cannot yet receive because of the blindness of their minds; desiring that this epistle may be so blessed as to bring many to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus; and firmly believing that you, and I, and the whole world of mankind, shall yet rejoice together in the salvation of the Lord, I subscribe myself affectionately yours, &c.

ABEL C. THOMAS.

TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS.

Philadelphia, December 23d, 1834.

Dear Sir-When I have once denied a proposition, it is an unwarranted assumption for any one to assume that I have yielded the point, because I wholly neglect "to adduce any thing further in denial." As much as possible I would avoid going over the same ground with you twice in argument; and after we have each exhibited our views, illustrations, and arguments on any matter in debate, I am contented to leave it to the judgment of our readers. You "may feel at liberty to assume" also, that I concede the correctness of your conclusion, that everlasting (aion) does not mean primarily and radically an interminable duration; but I protest once for all against any such assumed concessions.

The question in Luke xiii. 23, " Are there few that be saved?" certainly does not prove that the whole number of the human family saved at last will be few; but it implies, that some doubt existed on the minds of those who proposed it to our Saviour, or that they desired his opinion on an unsettled point in their religious belief. You deny that "the querist had in view the salvation of the immortal state of being." To what salvation, then, except the endless salvation from sin and misery, did he refer? Did he ask, are there few Jews who will be saved from being cast out of the church on earth? Christ's answer forbids such a supposition; for he replied, "Strive

to enter in at the strait (i. e. difficult) gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able."

Here they were required to strive to enter, and not to avoid being cast out. Salvation always implies a deliverance from something; and if the question, Are there few that be saved? referred to the Gentiles, we ask again, from what were they to be saved? Are there few that be saved from Gentilism? If this was the question, the answer of Christ," Strive to enter in," &c, would be irrelevant, for he was not speaking to Gentiles, but to Jews in one of their synagogues, and to people in the Church of God, who could say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. These persons he exhorted to strive to enter in at the strait gate, in reply to a question about the number of persons who should be saved, evidently from "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord;" because he foreknew, as he foretold, that When once the Master of the house had shut to the door, many of them will begin to knock, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us; to whom he will say, "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." To be rejected by Christ for being workers of iniquity, I regard as endless punishment; unless it can be proved from Scripture that there will be a restoration of sinners to Christ after the door of mercy has been shut to against them, and they have been appointed to receive their portion with hypocrites and unbelievers for ever.

"The last enemy" of man in the present world, is death, and death shall in relation to every man be destroyed, by his being raised from the dead by Jesus Christ. It is not necessary therefore, to suppose that there is a later enemy than the last experienced in this life: but there is a death after natural death, and in the life to come an endless enemy, that succeeds the last enemy which can assail us. I shall in my next proceed to support this doctrine, without replying to your last letter any further; because that is but a reply to my preceding

letter, and there must be an end somewhere to our controversy.

In this discussion I have intentionally had little to do with commentators, and decline any attempt to harmonize them, or derive a system from their opinions, because I deem the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and judge that each of our readers wil! form his own conclusions from his own understanding of the sacred volume.

If you choose to abound in citations from LARDNER, GILPIN, WHITBY, CAMPBELL and LOCKE, or even from much better commentators, such as HENRY, PATRICK, SCOTT, DODDRIDGE, and M'KNIGHT, I cannot object; and those who please may weigh their arguments and criticisms: but common people must certainly be able to gather the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion from the common translation of the Bible, or else that translation should be repudiated as no longer the rule of our faith. I do not deny that learned criticism may help the learned to confirm those doctrines which are fundamental, and which are so plainly written on the sacred page that he who runs may read; but any doctrines that no reader of the English translation of the Bible, or of the Greek and Hebrew original, would ever think of finding there until he should be drilled into minute criticism, I hold to be no important doctrines of revelation, even if they are contained therein, or may be logically inferred from the Bible. The doctrines which my correspondent teaches appear to me to be of this description. If the doctrines which I defend concerning future punishment are not plainly obvious, and even frequently inculcated in the Bible, I should expect every one to reject them, because all the good and all the bad would very cheerfully receive the tenet of universal salvation, were it written in the book of God. If I add more, I shall be obliged to defer this letter for another week.

Yours respectfully,

EZRA STILES ELY.