before my departure will be required in preparation. Your letters in The Philadelphian are sufficient to show my readers what is the present scheme of Universal Salvation, and what are the chief arguments by which it is supported: my letters, published in many of your papers, (to the editors of which I make my respectful acknowledgements,) will show all who read them the principal scriptural arguments which are adduced in proof that some of the human family will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. On the score of politeness you have the advantage of me, for you very complaisantly feel confident that I am sure of reaching heaven: you are satisfied also of the final salvation of all whom you style Partialists; while I am compelled to say, that I have personally known but a very few Universalists who were persons of good moral character; and I verily believe there is no device of the devil so well calculated to blind men to their ruin, and harden them against all the admonitions of heavenly wisdom, as your scheme of universal holiness and happiness, resulting merely from the resurrection of the dead to a state of immortal existence. That our discussion should thus close, without any unfriendly personal litigation, is to me a matter of satisfaction. I pray you to flee from the wrath to come, while you bcg me to be assured of everlasting bliss beyond the resurrection. Yours respectfully, EZRA STILES ELY. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, March 13, 1835. Dear Sir-I find on examination that as many letters of argumentation have appeared on your side of the controversy as on mine. Your last, and it would seem final, communication is not of a controversial character, yet it demands a reply to the publication of which Í think I am entitled. I desire to assure you, however, that I care little about having the last word, so long as i can be satisfied, as I am at present, that I have had the last argument. I regret exceedingly that you have determined to "desist from all further regular correspondence." I have enjoyed not a little satisfaction in knowing that the readers of The Philadelphian were in a fair way of becoming measurably acquainted with the doctrine of Universalism. I have even been sometimes encouraged to hope, that my learned and respected correspondent would himself be brought to a knowledge of the truth, and become an advocate of the faith he has vainly attempted to destroy. And my regret in being certified that the discussion on your part is closed, is increased by the consideration, that neither you nor your readers have yet had more than a glimpse of the scriptural arguments in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. The few passages by me introduced and commented upon in this discussion, were only specimens of the precious testimonies of Holy Writ. The treasury is full. The riches of Christ are unsearchable. Most fervently do I desire to direct your attention to the height, and length, and depth, and breadth of the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that you might be filled with all the fulness of God! It appears to me that your contemplated absence of two months is not a sufficient excuse for discontinuing the discussion in its present condition. In endeavouring to establish the doctrine of endless punishment, you have cited a multitude of passages; and to your arguments thereupon I have given respectful and serious at tention. And it does not seem to comport with received ideas of equity between man and man, that I should be debarred the privilege (not to say the right) of appearing in the columns of The Philadelphian in proclamation and defence of Universalism. Besides: your rejoinders would be faithfully and punctually copied into nine or ten Universalist papers, and in this way you would be more likely than in any other to reach the numerous believers of the doctrine, and peradventure deliver some of them from what you consider a most ruinous "device of the devil." You could not ask, you cannot conceive, a more favourable opportunity than is here presented, for exposing the falsity and the blinding and hardening influence of Universalism. Were you to receive information that an island had been discovered, the thousands of whose inhabitants were going headlong to perdition, you would be among the first to present their deplorable case to the friends of missions. And were you to be assured that those inhabitants were not only willing but desirous to listen to the gospel testimony as you understand it, you would insist upon the immediate selection of a suitable missionary. And yet, when thirty thousand Universalists are anxious to hear what you have to say on the passages I might cite in proof of the ultimate reconciliation of all things to God, you plead a projected absence of two months as a sufficient excuse for discontinuing the discussion! Can it be possible that you fully realize the awful responsibility to which you so frequently refer? Are you sure that you could stand before the Judge of the quick and dead, and say, "I embraced every favourable opportunity to convert the Universalists from the error of their ways?" But I will not enlarge on this subject. Your own sense of religious obligation will haunt you with the reflection, that you have failed in the performance of your solemn duty as an anointed servant of the Most High God. You concede that I have the advantage of you on the score of politeness. You are right-and I feel happy in being enabled to inform you, that the advantage referred to is given to me by the doctrine I profess. You are my brother. As such I love you. I behold in you an heir of immortal blessedness. I confidently expect to meet you in a world of holiness, there to embrace you in the fulness of love divine. You and I will there behold and adore the glories of the Lamb that was slain, and mingle our praises with the hallelujahs of the redeemed of the Lord. The thought is ineffably glorious and sublime! We have one Father and one Redeemer-and why should I treat you otherwise than as a brother? I am sorry that you thought proper to say, in your closing letter, that you "have personally known but a very few Universalists who were persons of good moral character." I might say, with equal propriety, that I have personally known but a very few Presbyterians who were persons of good moral character. The truth is, your personal acquaintance with Universalists is as limited as is mine with the Presbyterians; and unbiassed readers will at once perceive the impropriety of impliedly denouncing an entire denomination of Christians, on the ground of a personal acquaintance with a very few of its members. Besides: the question at issue has been, not what is the general moral character of either Universalists or Partialists, but "Does the Bible teach the doctrine of endless punishment ?" I am sensible that Universalists are not a whit better than they ought to be; and I suppose you might safely say as much of the Presbyterians. But when we are investigating a question pertaining to doctrinal truth, the topic of relative moral character is irrelevant to the point in debate. . I cordially unite in your expression of satisfaction that our controversy should close without any unfriendly personal litigation. In closing this communication, I desire to mention that I propose to continue this discussion in a series of letters addressed to you, as heretofore. My object in so doing is, to present my scriptural arguments in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind. I am perfectly satisfied that the arguments to be thus adduced, will be of an incontrovertible character; and this consideration gives me some encouragement to hope that you will yet be induced to take up the cross, and be come an efficient advocate of "the faith once delivered to the saints." Affectionately yours, ÁBEL C. THOMAS. TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY. Philadelphia, June 19, 1835. Dear Sir-Previously to presenting the scriptural argument in proof of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, I feel at liberty to devote one communication to some general remarks, in the form of a review. And I begin by commending your practical disregard of a principle of policy by which the mass of your brethren in the faith of endless punishment have hitherto been governed. Your acquaintance with the "sayings and doings" of the several prominent sects in Christendom, must long since have satisfied you, that the Universalists anxiously desire a thorough investigation of the merits of the doctrine they profess. The use of our meeting-houses, as you very well know, has frequently and urgently been tendered to the opposers of the sentiment in which we rejoice; and the columns and pages of our periodical publications have ever been open to the controversial communications of the opponents of our faith. You are aware that these evidences of our disposition to "try the spirits whether they are of God," have seldom been so regarded as to induce a compliance with our respectful solicitations; and you are also aware, that it has been the general policy of the Partialists to avoid and discourage all direct discussion with the Universalists. You, sir, are an honourable exception. In consenting to discuss a conjoint question in reference to the final destination of man, you acted consistently. You faithfully re-published the epistles of your correspondent; and though you abruptly closed the discussion, thus excluding my proofs of Universalism from the columns of The Philadelphian, I |