ness, looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God. Let us not inquire "where is the promise of his coming?" but remember that "the heavens and the earth which are now are RESERVED UNTO FIRE AGAINST THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND PERDITION OF UNGODLY MEN."

[Time expired.]

MR. MANFORD'S CLOSING SPEECH.

MY FRIENDS:

The first thing I shall do will be to notice what Mr. Franklin said in his last speech, and also some things that he did not say; after which I will proceed to a brief recapitulation.

The gentleman continues to reiterate his stereotyped falsehood, (and he knows it to be such as well as you or I do,) that I am angry. I have remarked that he looks as shamed as a whipped dog when he comes to that place in his speeches, for he well knows that he is slandering me, and he also is well aware that you know it. The gentleman is well understood by this congregation. He tells that story only when he is "a used up man," sticking in the mud of partialism at the head of Salt River. Then, when he ought to be saying his prayers, he blazes away about my being mad! I expect we shall hear that song through the debate, for it is a cry of dis

tress.

I will notice what he said about my reference to collateral authority. He allows that when I have "nothing else to say" I can spend my time "in reading from Dr. Clarke, A. Campbell, and Dr. George Campbell and others;" and that I am not willing to rely upon my own arguments," consequently that I spend my time in trying to make this audience believe that these great men are with me, and thus gain their influence to support what they looked upon as the most silly

66

and contemptible nonsense ever uttered!" &c., &c. Now, my friends, all this is easily enough said; but will it be as easily believed by this audience?

Nei

In the first place, then, I remark that I have not been try ing to make this audience believe that "these great men were Universalists; every body knows they were not. ther have I tried to "gain their influence to support" Universalism, or as the gentleman terms it, "what they looked upon as the most silly and contemptible nonsense ever uttered." The question is not Universalism; but the coming of the son of man to judgment; and on this question I have not simply been "trying to make you believe that these great men are with me," but I have been showing you that they are, without any doubt, with me-that they agree with me, and with Universalists, in the application of certain passages about which Mr. Franklin and I have been disputing.

He says he is " not to be led off from the true issue to defend Dr. Clarke, A. Campbell, or any one else!" Now be it known to the gentleman, and to this audience, that nobody wished him to be thus "led off," or to " defend" these men ! They need none of his defence! They can defend themselves. He accuses me of " twisting the words of these great men into the support of Universalism," and of making "garbled perversions" from their writings! I deny the charge, and hurl it back upon the author as being an imputation both false and wicked! Why did not the gentleman show wherein I "twisted" their language, or made "garbled perversions?" He knew better; he knew he could not! I tell you now, right in the face of his false and contemptible imputation, that I quoted all these men CORRECTLY-and this Mr. Franklin knows, if he knows anything about their writings. But it was easier for him to say what he did than to prove it!

But he says I am not willing (like him, I suppose,) to rely upon my own arguments, and hence I appeal to other men. But why did I do so? I will tell you. Mr. Franklin takes up a passage and says it means so and so that it applies to a future judgment, for instance. I deny his application of the passage. He affirms that he is right, and wishes you to take his word for it. I affirm with equal assurance that I am right, and think that my word is as good as his. Now, to show you that he must be wrong, and that I must be right, I

appeal to some half dozen eminent commentators and theologians, and among them Alexander Campbell himself—believ ers in future judgment and endless punishment, all of whom agree with me in the application of the passage in dispute. It is true I might rely solely upon my own arguments, for I believe that in every instance I have shown by incontrovertible argument, that iny friend has misapplied his proof-texts, as well as other passages to which he has referred. But I wish to make "assurance doubly sure," so as to satisfy you beyond all doubt that I am correct, and that the notion that Christ is yet to come to judge the world is not only without evidence, but is directly contrary to the plain word of God. The evidence of these men is the more valuable from the fact that they all believed in future and endless punishment. Had there been any way to apply those passages which speak of Christ's coming in judgment, &c., to the future world, consistent with candor and honesty, they undoubtedly would have done so; but seeing and understanding their true application and meaning, they were too honest not to declare it. But why does not Mr. Franklin refer to commentators to sustain him in his views? The reason is very plain-he cannot find any who will agree with him! But then, in order to be even with me, he would have to quote from Universalists to prove his positions. I quote from men on his side-from Partialists; he should quote from men on my side from Universalists. But this he cannot do; and what is still worse for him, he can find but few, if any, even among his own commentators and writers, that will agree with him! This is precisely his situation. No wonder he makes a fuss about my appealing to commentators. Let him do so, if he can.

In regard to the propriety of doing so, I ask if it is not done, more or less, in all debates in christendom? See the many debates between Mr. Campbell and his party, and their opponents, the Pedo-baptists. Mr. Franklin, I venture to say, would not have such a repugnance to the testimony of commentators, if he could only find some who would tes tify in his favor. This is the secret of the matter, my friends. But notwithstanding the gentleman's repugnance, I shall continue to quote from commentators and eminent theologians, whenever I deem it advisable, during the pro

gress of this debate. I not only claim it as a privilege so to do, but I hold it to be my duty to let you know what other eminent divines say, besides Mr. Franklin and myself -and especially in regard to points on which he and I differ. I shall not ask you to take my word simply, but on all important questions between us, in regard to the meaning and application of certain texts, or the definition of certain words, I will sustain my position by the testimony of other and more eminent men. You can then judge between us.

The gentleman next says, that he "only asserts what most of this audience well know," when he asserts that I have "done little more than assert that I proved this, that and the other, a few dozen times." He surely takes a good deal upon himself when he says this audience knows all this! Suppose I say this audience knows that he has done but little more than assert this, that and the other, throughout this whole day. Have I not as good grounds for saying so, as he has for his assertion? Where did you ever see a man who was better at making assertions, than my opponent? And where did you ever hear more plain, unsophisticated, baldfaced assertions in the same length of time, than you heard from the gentleman during his last speech? My friends, this debate is going to be printed in a book, and you can then during your leisure moments, uninfluenced by excitement or prejudice, look over and review our speeches; and if you do not then say that the gentleman's last speech caps the climax for "assertions" without proof, I am very certain you will at least say, that he should be the last man in the world to say any thing about other people's "assertions!" Policy, at least, would require that he should be still on this point! But after all, my friend, you are to decide who deals most in assertions, and who in argument. I appeal to you, and those who may read our debate.

But, the gentleman says I have "had judgment to commence at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the establishment of the church at the same time"-then I had judgment before the destruction of Jerusalem"-and then "in my last specch, admitted that the church was established at Pentecost," &c. Now, I will tell you what I have "had," my friends. I have had a judgment-"the judgment of the Ancient of days," before the destruction of Jerusalem.

This was previous to the commencement of Christ's reignthe "judgment to which Daniel, (chapter 7,) refers to, which took place before "one like the Son of Man came to the Ancient of days" to receive a kingdom. Then I had another "judgment" at the destruction of Jerusalem-and this was the first judgment under the Messiah's reign: the commencement of the judgment of the world, by the Son of Man. Previous to this time, God the Father had judged the world; then, and since then, all judgment was, and has been, committed to the Son. The difference between us, is this: Mr. Franklin seems to have but one idea on the subject of judgment, and every time the word "judgment" occurs, he becomes frightened, and concludes that it means an awful judgment at the end of time, when all the descendents of Adam, will be assembled somewhere or other in the vast universe of God, to hear their final doom! While I, (and I think with some degree of rationality,) believe in many judgments; that there were many very signal judgments, even before that dreadful judgment which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem! and that these judg ments were executed by the Father, except the latter, which was executed by the Son, and is denominated in scripture language, the "coming of the Son of Man, in power and great glory," "in the clouds of heaven," "in His kingdom," &c., &c.; so called probably, because it was the first judgment under his reign.

In regard to "the church" being established or in existence previous to the triumphant establishment of the kingdom," I read in my last an extract from Mr. Campbell's "Christianity Restored," showing that "as the erection of the Jewish tabernacle was the work of some time," "so was the complete erection of the new temple of God," &c. I. shall have occasion to refer to this quotation again before I sit down; but I beg to read another extract from the same book, (page 175,) which bears more directly on this point. "The communities," says Mr. Campbell, "collected and set in order by the apostles, were called the congregation of Christ, and all these taken together are sometimes called the kingdom of God. But the phrases, "Church of God" or congregation of Christ," and the phrases, "kingdom of heaven," or "kingdom of God," do not always, nor exactly represent the