mediately, in spirit, so that his own place for his immortal soul's residence was paradise. Happy man, to be thus translated to the abode of the spirits of the just made perfect! But, to the destruction of this theory, Jesus called Judas "the son of perdition," John xvii. 12; said he was "LOST ;" and added, "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but wo to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had never been born," Mark xiv. 21. We deem those accursed, lost, miserable for ever, who die under the wo of the only Saviour and Judge of sinners. You think Judas was blessed perfectly, so soon as he strangled himself. It must have been a blessed wo, then which Christ pronounced on him; and thus you call evil good, and good evil. Finally, if Judas entered heaven at death, and has been perfectly happy ever since, and will continue so, through everlasting ages, it was a very good thing indeed for him to have been born; and he ought to contradict the Saviour in this matter, through everlasting ages. I remain, dear sir, yours, with the best wishes for your salvation.

EZRA STILES ELY.

TO MR. EZRA STILES ELY.

Philadelphia, April 21, 1834. Dear Sir-That "reconciliation always supposes previous unreconciliation," is too obvious to require proofand that "the stones of the street and the cattle of the hills" can never be reconciled to God, is equally obvious --for they never were and never can be unreconciled. When it is said, "It pleased the Father that in Christ should all fulness dwell," you do not suppose that all the fulness of irrational beings and of inanimate matter is referred to, but, "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." So when it is written, "It pleased the Father to reconcile all things to himself," I understand the testi

mony to declare, that it is the purpose and pleasure of the Father to reconcile to himself all the rational beings that ever were, or ever will be, in a state of unreconciliation. The remarks in my last letter, together with the quotations from CAMPBELL, STUART, and the BIBLE, were intended to establish this position.

66

To the cited conclusion you object, because, to use your own words, some die in their sins; have never forgiveness; never see life; but the wrath of God abideth on them, after they go to their own place." In this sentence you have given us isolated parts of four Scripture passages, to which your opinion of their reference is appended, without attempting to show that they have the slightest bearing on the point in debate. I am aware that those passages are applied to the future state, and that they are deemed conclusive on the subject of our controversy, by a majority of the Christian community. But I am also sensible that the question before us is not to be determined by ballot. So soon as you attempt to prove that the texts you have partially quoted stand in opposition to the final reconciliation of all mankind, I will attend to your reasoning.

་

In endeavouring to destroy the force of my remarks on Matt. xxiv, and parallel passages, you allow that from the 4th verse to the 35th, "Jesus gives the signs of his coming to destroy Jerusalem." But you add: “In the 36th verse Jesus begins to answer the question concerning the end of the world,' saying, 'BUT OF THAT DAY,' a different day from that of his coming to judge Jerusalem," &c. I should be pleased to learn your reasons for supposing that " a different day" is referred to. In Luke xvii. 24—36, the deluge and the destruction of Sodom are undoubtedly spoken of, as illustrative of the sudden and unexpected coming of the Son of man to destroy Jerusalem--and until you present some proof to the contrary, I shall be justified in assuming that the same is true of the deluge as mentioned in Matt. xxiv. 37 et seq.—especially as the passages are confessedly parallel.

You may perhaps be disposed to rest your proof on the

phrase "end of the world." In my remarks on the parable of the tares, in a former letter, I endeavoured to show that the phrase ovvredɛía_twv alwvwv signifies, not the end of the material world, but the end of the age. And I quoted the Scriptures in proof of the position. The testimony of your own commentators was added by way of confirmation. As you have hitherto neglected to notice this important branch of our discussion, I beg leave respectfully to suggest that it be now attended to. It should not be forgotten that Jesus appeared in the end of the worlds (συντελεία των αιώνων) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. ix. 26. See also 1 Cor. x. 11. I sincerely hope that your next letter will contain your reasons for supposing that I have erred in the interpretation given of the phrase in question. I also desire you to furnish your reasons for applying any part of Matt. xxiv to the concerns of a future life.

In your confession of belief "in the existence of devils," you give us to understand, that God may be glorified by an extorted acknowledgment of Jesus Christ! You say, "In the time of our Saviour's residence on earth, many devils peculiarly possessed some sinful mortals; and that by compelling them to confess Jesus Christ, while they dreaded and hated him, God the Father was glorified." According to this statement, devils COMPELLED sinners to speak the truth-(which was rather out of character in any one connected with the father of lies)-and God the Father was glorified by an extorted confession of Jesus Christ, coming from the lips of those who dreaded and hated him! In my view, sir, the Supreme Being can only be glorified by a sincere and heart-felt acknowledgment of the truth, based in the conviction of the understanding.

As to the two men possessed of demons, who confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, they were unquestionably persons of disordered minds, who had heard of the fame and miracles of the Messiah. They were soon restored to the proper use of their intellect, and sat at the feet of Jesus in their right mind. The popular superstition

which supposes that fallen angels ever possessed any of human kind is equally destitute of foundation with the traditionary error of the Jews, namely, that the spirits of dead men inhabited the bodies of the living.

It is true that the word man is not in the original of Heb. ii. 9, but I cannot agree that the word son, as a substitute, would express the meaning of the apostle; nor do I think it would accord with the scope of the context. My reasons are as follows:

We are certified that "the head of every man is Christ," 1 Cor. xi. 3-in which passage the pen of inspiration has not omitted a word, to be supplied by individuals to whom the record might descend. If Christ be the head of every man, it is reasonable to suppose that he tasted death for every man.

In 1 Tim. ii. 6, it is written of Jesus, that he " gave himself a ransom for ALL TEρ avros to be testified in due time." In verse 4th we read, that God our Saviour "will have ALL ΜΕΝ παντας ανθρώπους to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." If you allow that the will here mentioned is a determinate purpose of the Almighty, then the doctrine I have engaged to sustain is established. If you allege that it is simply a will of desire, you must either allow that Jesus gave himself a ransom for all men absolutely, which is equivalent to tasting death for every man; or attempt to show how God can desire the salvation of any for whom Jesus did not give himself a ransom.

If Jesus did not give himself a ransom for all men-then upon your own grounds, it is impossible that all men should be saved. This will run you into the doctrine of the "Confession of Faith," namely, that the number of angels and men elected from all eternity to everlasting life, "is so definite and certain, that it cannot be either increased or diminished." In this case, you will explain your reasons for calling on all men to believe, with the assurance that all men may be saved.

There would be no impropriety in reading Heb. ii. 9, thus: "That he by the grace of God should taste death for ALL."

The context of the passage cannot, in my judgment, justify any other than the foregoing interpretation. “Thou hast put ALL THINGS Tavra in subjection under his feet. For in that he put ALL тa navra in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. [God excepted, as in 1 Cor. xv. 27, and as some old MSS. read on the text under examination, 'that he should taste death for ALL, God excepted.'] But now we see not yet ALL THINGS Ta Tavra put under him." I ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that the apostle, after penning this explicit testimony, should intend to say that Jesus did not taste death for the all things to be put in subjection under him?

Your principal argument is drawn from the fact that 66 many SONS" are spoken of in the 10th verse. But this special reference to those who had already been brought into subjection to Christ, must not be misunderstood to militate against the universal subjection previously declared. The apostle had stated expressly, that the disciples did not yet see all things subdued to the Messiahbut the train of his reasoning shows that this universal subjection would certainly be accomplished. The "many sons" who had been brought to glory were the first fruits, —as in verse 11; "for both he that sanctifieth and they who ARE sanctified are all of one." So in 1 Cor. vi. 911, after mentioning a number of evil characters, and declaring that such should not inherit the kingdom of God, the apostle adds, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified."

Indeed, the verse in which the "many sons" are spoken of confirms the foregoing view of the subject. "For it became him, for whom are ALL THINGS, тa Tavтa, and by [through] whom are ALL THINGS, Tа πаvтa, IN BRINGING many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering." When was Jesus made perfect through suffering? Plainly, "in bringing many sons," the first fruits of all things, to glory." It is written, Rom. xi. 36, "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things." Do you suppose that Jesus still suffers ? Do you suppose he is not yet made perfect? To be brief: