When you desired me to state "which of the many prevalent systems of universal salvation" I "judge to be true," I supposed, and felt myself justified in supposing, that you simply wished to know whether I did or did not hold to punishment in the future state. I frankly certified you that "I believe the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life." But it seems that this answer did not cover the entire ground of your query. You ask me whether I hold to the annihilation of the human race; or whether I believe with the Destructionists, that the wicked shall be blotted out of exist ence. All this you ask in full view of the fact, that I had engaged to sustain, on Bible testimony, the final holiness and happiness of all mankind!

After noticing five theories, including the two above referred to, each of which you seem to consider worthy the name Universalism, you say, that if I have any other system of universal salvation, you would like me to disclose it—and then you add, "If you choose, however, you will undoubtedly have the right to resort to any one or all of these theories, which I deem refuges of lies."

Let us suppose that in my last letter to you I had drawn a faithful portraiture of Mahommedanism—another of Mormonism-another of original Calvinismanother of Arminianism-and a fifth of Arminio-Calvinism. And suppose that, having placed these several theories before you, I should have added, "If you have some other scheme of endless punishment, which has not been named, I desire you frankly to disclose it. If you choose, however, you will undoubtedly have a right to resort to any one or all of these theories, which I deem refuges of lies."-In this case what would have been your judgment? I am satisfied you would have said, in effect, "What does all this amount to? It is any thing but argument. By classing the system of an opponent with theories which you know he abhors, and then styling them refuges of lies, you may excite prejudice against him -but you cannot reasonably expect, by such a course, to subserve the interest of the truth of God." Such, I am

persuaded, would have been your judgment—and your judgment, in my opinion, would have been just.

There are but three systems of Universalism. 1st. Calvinism Improved-chiefly differing from Calvinism in supposing a universal vicarious atonement, and in the consequent salvation of all men. Edward Mitchell, of New York, is, I believe, the only public advocate of this form of Universalism in the United States.*

2d. Arminianism Extended-the system advocated by Winchester, Chauncey, and others. It extended probation into the future state, and allowed of future limited punishment, resulting in the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. This system is held by many Universalists-and prominently by the "Massachusetts Restorationist Association."

3d. In noticing the third system, I shall give you my own views-premising that they are the views of a large majority of American Universalists. 1st. I believe that God" will render to every man according to his deeds," that is, according to his own deeds, Rom. ii. 6;-consequently I reject the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

2d.

believe that "the righteous shall be recompensed IN THE EARTH, much more the wicked and the sinner," Prov. xi. 31;-consequently, "I believe the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life." 3d. I believe that God "will reconcile all things to himself," that "God may be all in all," Col. i. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 28. And this salvation I believe to be "the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast," Ephes. ii. 8, 9.

Although I have been thus particular in stating my Bible creed, I wish to have it distinctly understood, that in the present controversy, I shall confine my remarks to the two prominent doctrines of endless punishment, on the one hand, and the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, on the other. With topics of minor importance I shall have nothing to do, excepting so far as they

* Edward Mitchell departed this life on the 8th day of August, 1834.

may have a direct bearing on the general issue. I shall expect you to furnish such Bible testimony in proof of endless punishment as you may deem conclusive; and I shall produce Bible testimony in proof of the final salvation of all mankind. I shall use all honourable means to convince you that the passages by you cited do not establish the point to be proved; and in like manner you will be called on to show wherein the evidence by me adduced, fails to establish the doctrine I have engaged to sustain.

You are aware that all I desired you to state, was, "whether you predicate endless punishment on the sins of this life, or on endless sinning." The CREED with which you have furnished me was therefore uncalled for, excepting so far as it gave me to understand your views on that particular point of doctrine. And in my view, any thing farther was wholly unnecessary. Until the joint question mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter, is disposed of, I shall not consent to discuss the doctrines of original sin, total or partial depravity, necessity or free will, moral or physical ability or inability, vicarious atonement, the trinity, materiality or immateriality, intermediate state-or in short any other doctrines than those mentioned in the question. My reasons for confining the present discussion to these limits, are briefly as follows:

a

The original proposal stated, that "of all subjects ever presented for the consideration of man, that which relates to our final destiny is unquestionably the most important." Our readers are primarily interested in coming to knowledge of the truth," in relation to the momentous concerns of eternity. They feel comparatively little interest in minor points of theology. If you can prove the doctrine of endless punishment, they will mourn over the prospective doom of the children of humanity; but if I can clearly establish the doctrine of the "reconciliation of all things," and thus vindicate the ways of God to man, they will rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." They have fixed their eyes upon us, and are saying in

their hearts," Brethren, do not perplex our minds with the subtilties of polemic theology. We wish you to keep the two prominent doctrines constantly in view. We wish to know, definitely, what will be the final destiny of ourselves, our children, our relatives, and of the world at large. We beg you to leave minor points out of the question. We wish the discussion to be of definite character. Let the inquiry be, What saith the Scripture? Exercise Christian charity and candour, and we have little doubt that the truth of the matter will be clearly revealed."

As to the passages quoted in the concluding paragraph of your letter, I have only to remark, that you will most probably introduce them, in their proper place, as proofs of the doctrine you suppose them to teach; and they will then receive the attention they justly deserve.

I shall expect your next communication to contain as many of your proofs of endless punishment as to you may appear expedient.

Respectfully yours,

ABEL C. THOMAS.

TO MR. ABEL C. THOMAS.

Philadelphia, Feb. 17th, 1834. Dear Sir-You have distinctly informed me, in the letters already received from you, (1.) that in your opinion, we are bound to believe whatever doctrine can be fairly and clearly established by Scripture testimony; (2.) that the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life; (3.) that in the present life God fully and finally recompenses the righteous and the wicked, according to each person's own deeds; (4.) that the Bible teaches no doctrine of a vicarious atonement; and (5.) that the Bible asserts the final holiness and happiness of all mankind in a future state. On each of these points, except the first, we differ in our judgment.

The Bible furnishes much evidence of a punishment beyond the present life, which shall be experienced by all who die without having been born again. This punishment includes their being deprived of the happiness of the righteous in heaven, and all the painful feelings which will be experienced in hell, whatever may be the occasion or the instrumental cause of those pains.

Our Saviour says, “Except a man be born again he cannot see- -he cannot enter the kingdom of God," John iii. 3, 5. These words imply, that some men are not in the kingdom of God; that some men have not been born again; and that unless they should be born again, they shall for ever remain excluded from the kingdom of God. If all men are born again, or will be born again, it was absurd for Christ to frighten men with the idea of their not entering the kingdom of God.

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John iii. 16. Here PERDITION and EVERLASTING LIFE are exhibited in contrast. These words clearly teach, that if God had not given his Son, men would all have perished; but that now believers, and believers alone, shall escape perdition and enjoy everlasting life. This corresponds with another saying of Jesus, Mark xvi. 16, that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Before his death, Christ asserted the manner, the necessity and the design of it, saying, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life," John iii. 14, 15. If there are none who will remain in unbelief, the threat of perdition was idle, and unworthy the Saviour. Had Christ believed the doctrine of universal salvation, it would have been natural for him to have said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be saved." Or he might have caused it to be written, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and all shall believe and be baptized." This last