TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY.

Philadelphia, December 27, 1834. Dear Sir-It is certainly true, that "there must be an end somewhere to our controversy"—but should we proceed as you practically propose, we shall close our correspondence without finishing our discussion. In declining to answer the arguments presented in my last letter, and in desiring to leave what we have already written " to the judgment of our readers," you virtually define our controversy to be simply the written expression of our several opinions; and our letters, in this view of the matter, should be considered as only so many essays on controverted theological points. My idea of a controversy embraces the free examination of opponent positions and arguments-the patient discussion of doctrines, and not merely the expression of opinions. You say, indeed, As much as possible I would avoid going over the same ground with you twice in argument”—and with this I find no fault. But the greater part of my last letter you have not yet touched. I have therein presented many arguments and much reasoning, to which I really attach some importance. You stated that but for the expression, "they which shall be accounted worthy," the testimony of Jesus in Luke xx, would make you a Universalist. I penned my remarks on this passage with special reference to such desirable result; and I flattered myself that you would either attempt a refutation of my reasoning on that point, or acknowledge the truth of the doctrine you had previously opposed. The issue of our conjoint question rests entirely on the scriptural representations of the resurrection state; and I respectfully desire to direct your especial attention to my proofs and observations on this particular subject as contained in my last letter. I have therein attempted to refute all your arguments on 1 Cor. xv; and except you endeavour to show that I have failed in the attempt, our controversy, as before hinted, is virtually resolved into nothing more than the written expression of opponent opinions.

In citing passages from the works of eminent commentators and critics, I have only intended to show, that many men of the greatest erudition, talents, and piety, understood a multitude of scriptural passages very differently from your interpretation of them, although they as firmly believed in endless punishment as do the Calvinistic or Arminian clergymen of the present age. The latter quote innumerable passages in proof of endless wretchedness, which the former could not, and did not, so apply. I go for the Bible, and I believe the Bible to be the best interpreter of its own meaning. Nevertheless I shall continue, as suitable opportunity presents, to extract occasional passages from eminent commentators and critics who believed in endless punishment, and our readers will yield to such testimony no more attention than such testimony deserves to receive. I may add that your exposition of any Scripture text, is not by me considered of any more weight than the exposition of HORNE, LARDNER, WHITBY, or CLARK. I desire you to remember, that I have not quoted BALLOU, BALFOUR, or WHITTEMORE, in confirmation of any of my views. These are Universalists, and their expositions of Scripture might be rejected on that account; but I have quoted the testimony of men who were sound in the faith of endless punishment. Whether such testimony has any weight, and if any, how much, our readers will judge.

I have said, that I believe the Bible to be its own best interpreter. By this standard I have endeavoured to test the word everlasting, and thus explain the duration it signifies. I have stated, that the Bible applies it to the priesthood of Aaron, to the covenant of the law, to the possession of Canaan by the Israelites, and to other things, which were not only temporary in their character, but had no reference whatever to the future state. Whether the fact that you declined noticing these and similar remarks, did or did not justify me in assuming that you granted the conclusions consequent of the argument, it becomes not me to decide. I submit to the judgment of impartial men.

In your letter of July 25, you denied that Matt. xxiv. 36-41, and Luke xvii. 20-37, are parallel passages, because in the former case Jesus was addressing his disciples, and in the latter the Jews. In my reply, I showed, from the express and positive language of the passages, that Jesus was addressing his disciples in both cases. Consequently your argument was entirely lost. Of this important fact-important, because thereon rests the decision of the reference of Matt. xxiv and xxv-you took not the slightest notice. In my last letter, I assumed that you had yielded the point-and I believe that every principle of fair disputation justified me in so doing. But as you have not yielded the point in question, I should be happy to see you attempt to sustain it.

You still contend that the inquiry, "Are there few that be saved?" refers to salvation from endless wo. But before you can properly contend for such salvation, you must first prove that endless wo is a doctrine of the Bible. This, indeed, you infer from the tenor of the text and its connexion-but the word saved furnishes no authority for said inference. Peter said, Save yourselves (not from endless wo, but) from this untoward generation," Acts ii. 40. Jesus said, "He that endureth unto the end, the same shall be saved"—which language, in Matt. xxiv. 13, you admit refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. And he added, verse 22, "Except those days (of great tribulation) should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved." In these cases, you agree that the word saved refers to salvation from temporal calamity only. And such, also, in my judgment, is the reference of the question, "Are there few that be saved?" There were but few saved, or delivered, from the great tribulation that came on Jerusalem-and these were saved by entering "into the strait (i. e. difficult) gate" of the gospel kingdom by faith in Christ; by watching for the coming of the Son of man; and by fleeing from the devoted city when the predicted sign of that coming appeared, Matt. xxiv. 4-35. When Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem, many Christians were shut up in it-but

"those days were shortened," else" no flesh could have been saved." The siege was strangely raised, and "the Christians had scarcely time to leave the city, before the Romans returned under the command of Titus, and never left the place till they had destroyed the Temple, razed the city to the ground, and slain upwards of a million of those wretched people, and put an end to their civil polity and ecclesiastical state." (See Dr. ADAM CLARKE, on 1 Peter iv. 18.) Thus comparatively few were saved, and these were they who endured unto the end, as in Matt. xxiv. 13-22. When the gates of Jerusalem were closed, and the city hemmed in on every side, by the Roman army, the door of the gospel kingdom was shut against the Jewish nation. And though some might knock, and say, "We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets," (Jerusalem,) yet it was too late-the day of judgment had arrivedand the sword, famine, and pestilence, brought upon that unbelieving generation "the time of tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to that time, no nor ever shall be," Matt. xxiv. 21. If so great a tribulation shall never be again, the supposed tribulations of eternity are certainly imaginary.

You again incidentally introduce 2 Thess. i. 9. I have thrice desired you to come up to a full investigation of that portion of sacred Scripture; but silence is the only answer I have yet received in relation thereunto. I am the more solicitous to examine this subject, because you have certified me, that said passage must for ever prevent you from becoming a Universalist.

Paul in affirming that "the last enemy shall be destroyed, death," does not make any exception. He simply declares, that the LAST enemy shall be destroyed, and states that death is said last enemy. It is written, that Jesus took part of flesh and blood that he might destroy, not only death, but the devil-yea, the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil, Heb. ii. 14. 1 John iii. 8. In furnishing the promised proof that there is an enemy later than the last men

tioned by Paul, it would be proper, I think, to keep the foregoing testimonies in view.

Believing, as I do, that Universalism is the plain and obvious doctrine of the Bible, I desire that both the good and the bad may receive it. I ask the good to receive it, because I am persuaded it would make them better and happier; and I am satisfied that were it heartily and sincerely embraced by the bad, it would induce them to "break off their sins by righteousness, and their iniquities by turning to the Lord."

Affectionately yours,

ABEL C. THOMAS.

TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS.

Philadelphia, December 31, 1834. Dear Sir-The account which our Saviour gives, Luke xvi. 19-31, of the rich man and Lazarus, is designed to be the subject of the present letter. This account is not called a parable. I regard it as being Christ's statement of some events of which he had perfect knowledge. But had the narration been introduced by the preface, Jesus spake unto them this parable, I should say, that a parable is but an extended similitude, or illustration, designed not to introduce fancies, but to exhibit and enforce truth.

"There was," really, "a certain rich man," whom Jesus knew," which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day." His riches are not represented as having been a crime, or any thing undesirable. He is not censured for his elegant and neat attire; nor was it any offence to God that he partook plentifully of the bounties of Divine Providence. Some have imagined a thousand evil things against this rich man, but in my judgment Christ drew the most amiable and inoffensive character of a mere worlding that the reality of the case would allow. He intended to present the most favourable circumstances in which an ungodly man