Presbyterian Church," you reason precisely as I should be happy to find you reasoning with me. You take up their positions and arguments; and I have ofttimes admired the dexterous manner in which you bar their deductions by pointing out the fallacy of their premises. You are not satisfied with stating your opinions, nor with writing essays on the particular topics which are now unhappily distracting the Presbyterian Church, and alienating the affections of brethren of a common faith. You do more than this. You endeavour to show them, by straight forward argumentation, that they are certainly in the wrong. When they attempt to rebut your reasoning, you are careful to publish a rejoinder-from which course you do not desist until the point in question has been fully and mutually canvassed. This, in my judgment, is right-and had you pursued a similar course with your Universalist brother, he would have sincerely rejoiced.

With the exception of the first sentence, I cordially concur in the sentiments of the second paragraph of your letter to which this is a reply. The third paragraph meets my entire approbation.

In your sixth paragraph, you ask, "What language could be employed in the Bible to teach the doctrine of an endless hell, if it were granted by you that there is any such thing?" This is my answer: If you can adduce any scriptural representation of the immortal resurrection state, in which it is declared that there is a hell of misery in that state-or if you cite Bible testimony in which the word endless, or any term of equal force, is connected with punishment-or if you refer me to any sacred Scripture which, in treating of the things of the immortal state of being, connects even the equivocal adjective everlasting with misery,-then, in either of these cases, I will yield the argument. It is a plain principle, both in law and logic, that "the testimony must be equivalent to the declaration, or the point to be proved is not sustained. If the testimony be not to the point, it must be set aside." Your declaration is, that

the Scriptures teach the doctrine of endless punishment. In my judgment, you have not yet adduced testimony equivalent to the declaration.

But you say, that according to my "mode of interpreting Scripture, it would seem impossible for God to reveal any knowledge of everlasting [endless] punishment, even if he intended to inflict it." In reply, allow me to state, that you find no difficulty in expressing your faith in endless punishment-but you have not yet expressed it in Bible language. You do not find it necessary to coin any new words or phrases, expressive of your doctrinal views. And I will add, that if God designed to teach the doctrine of endless punishment, he would have found positive and unequivocal language to teach said doctrine. God's language in the Bible is perfectly intelligible to me, without supposition on my part, that he intended to express the idea of an endless hell."

Your queries in relation to the fact, that "the name of spirit, literally signifies breath, or air, or wind," affect not my views. I hold to no future "life and immortality" save that which will be consequent of a resurrection from the dead. "God only hath immortality in

himself."

Your questions in reference to the valley of Hinnom, touch not my argument. I have shown in previous letters, that said valley, and Tophet therein, and the abominations thereof, are used by the inspired writers as symbols of temporal calamities which came on Jerusalem and the Jewish people more than seventeen centuries since. You are therefore desired to remember, that "the mode of interpretation" by me adopted, would not "banish all figurative language from the most highly_figurative style of writing," nor would it "render the Bible a nullity." My mode of interpretation is simply to explain Scripture by Scripture. When we have agreed that any passage is figurative, it does not follow that it is symbolícal of things to transpire in the resurrection state. The question of reference is an important item in the examination of testimony.

You state that you have hitherto laboured to establish the doctrine of endless punishment; and it is your desire that I should now take the lead in an attempt to prove the doctrine of Universalism. This is certainly equitable, and I am entirely disposed to take turns with you in acting on the defensive." There are, however, two objections to proceeding immediately with this work. I will state them for your consideration. 1st. You have not replied to my letter on the rich man and Lazarus. This is an important branch of our discussion, and I much desire to hear your objections to my exposition of that subject. My scriptural proofs of the doctrine of Universalism will, I think, demand undivided attention. 2d. You have certified me that 2 Thess. i. 9, must for ever prevent you from being a Universalist. You have not yet specially introduced said passage into this controversy, and I am loath to proceed with any thing else until we have thoroughly examined that portion of sacred Scripture. Otherwise I might labour in vain-for how can I reasonably expect to convince you that Universalism is the truth of the Bible, so long as there exists a passage which must for ever prevent you from being a Universalist?

Besides: I have already introduced a number of scriptural proofs, with comments thereupon, which you have not condescended to notice. In some instances, you have entered your objections to my views, and to those objections I have replied, without receiving the slightest attention. I verily believe that the arguments by me advanced in reference to Prov. xi. 31, destroy the doctrine of future punishment in all its forms; and the evidences presented concerning the resurrection state, in my judgment, fairly and fully establish the doctrine of Universalism. It is my earnest desire that the testimonies referred to should receive some attention. If you wish it, I will again introduce said proofs in a condensed form, with such an abstract of your objections and my replies, as will bring the matter more fully into view. In this way, our readers will be enabled to judge of the bearing

and weight of the Universalist argument, without being confused with a multiplicity of topics. Respectfully yours,

ABEL C. THOMAS.

TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS.

Philadelphia, January 15, 1835. Dear Sir-The following remarks are intended as my reply to your letter of Jan. 3d.

Because at death the spirit of every man shall return to God that gave it, none can infer, with any shadow of reason, that every spirit will be happy in the immediate and sensible presence of its Maker. Its return to God after death does neither imply any incorporation into the essence of the Deity, as the Hindoos feign; nor any transformation of its nature or moral habits, or free exercises, which should render the immediate presence of God a source of delight. 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.

I have admitted, that after the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, the spirits of men that have died will be united to their risen bodies, and no longer exist in a separate state; so that in this sense hades, spoken of primarily as the state of separate human spirits, will be no more. No other destruction of hades has been admitted by me; for the Scriptures clearly teach that beside human, there are other, spirits, in existence, in what we commonly call the world of spirits. Because there will be no more spirits of men in a state of separation from their bodies after the resurrection, and no more a hades in this sense, it will not follow that there is no paradise of God in which the whole complex persons of the saints, consisting of spirits united to glorified bodies, will be happy with God: nor will it 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. You ask, if I can conceive of endless punishment in a place that is to be destroyed: and I answer, that place, meaning position, point, or portion, in infinite space, will never be destroyed. Infinite space is as indestructible as that God whom we could not conceive of as infinite, and omnipresent, without necessarily admitting such a thing as unbounded space.

While infinite space exists there can be no such destruction of place as will preclude a state of misery, or prevent any place from being hell where any being can be found who experiences unmingled misery, and is assured of its perpetuity.

By regarding many expressions in a history as highly figurative, we do not invalidate the truth of that history. In speaking of the battle of the Nile, one might say, that Nelson's cannon breathed out flames and grape-shot. Would it follow from this figure of breathing that there was no battle of the Nile? Just as unreasonable would it be to infer from the figurative expression of Abraham's bosom, that Christ gave no true history of events with which he was acquainted.

Your whole argument, designed to show that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, is founded on this false principle, that if one part, or word, of a history be used figuratively, the whole history must be deemed a parable. No principles of interpretation could be more absurd; for it would follow that if any figures of speech are used in the history of General Washington, then there was no real Washington, and no revolutionary war, but Washington's name was the symbol of some fancy, and the American revolution was but an emblem of some Don Quixotic rencontre.

Every one will see the utter fallacy of the inference, that if Abraham's bosom was an emblem of the society of that father of the faithful, then Lazarus must have been a figure, instead of a real beggar, and the rich man no man at all, but a symbol of the Scribes and Pharisees.