efforts during the few moments we spend on earth, yet I do believe that abusing or improving our talents in this world, will effect, in some degree, our future condition. I believe in different" degrees of glory" hereafter.

He tells us that he will not have the sympathies of atheists and deists, in this controversy. Why not? He admits that both of those classes believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of endless torments. In that respect, he and they are "birds of one feather." He also admits, that deists believe with him, that our eternal "weal or wo depends on our conduct in this life." Here again, Mr. F. and the deists are just alike. But then, he informs you that I agree with deists and atheists in rejecting the gospel, because it teaches endless punishment. Mr. Franklin is certainly "a gentleman and a scholar." I reject endless torment, because it is no part of the gospel. The gospel is truth, but the dogma of ceaseless vengeance is a falsehood-so I think.

He says, if he "believed as I do, he would act very different from what he now does." Does he mean that he would become a "vagabond in the earth?" He does not wish to impugn my motives, oh no; and yet he tells you that he cannot help believing I am engaged in this discussion from very different considerations from those which influence him. And then he very complacently informs you that he stands up in defence of his positions, because he believes them true, and because they have much to do with human happiness. Yes, these are the considerations which have induced him to enter into this discussion, but he cannot believe that I am influenced by any such considerations. Mr. F. would do well to remember that "charity thinketh no evil."

He thinks the doctrine of Universal Salvation has a very vicious tendency, and that of endless torment, a very holy influence! I solemnly believe the reverse is true, and when he tries to sustain his assertion, I will offer some 99 strong reasons for my opinion.

66

That Challenge. He will "undertake to prove that Universalists differ from the Bible" in a great many particulars. I think I can prove they differ from that book in several items he does not specify. Universalists like other folks, I believe, are composed of flesh and bones, while the Bible is

made of leather, paper, paste, and ink. Universalists can walk, run, eat, drink, and sleep; the Bible can do neither. Why, Mr. Franklin, you had better revise that challenge. But if he means that Universalism differs from the Bible, and he "will undertake to prove" it, I will inform him, that he will find it an easier task to undertake to do so than to accomplish his work. I might undertake to demolish the throne of God, but it would be a vain effort.

to

My friend most evidently tries to raise a dust, by advertising you of some 66 strange positions," which he expects me to occupy before this investigation closes. He seems think that if he can succeed in arousing a prejudice against me, he will get along much better in his arguments. shall be compelled to deprive him of this advantage, as much as he appears to desire it, by telling my audience that I do not expect to occupy one of those "strange positions."

But I

Do the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ to judge the world is future? Mr. Franklin has been careful to tell you of several matters, it will do me no good to prove.

66

1. He says, if I should find a passage which speaks of a coming of Christ which is past, it would by no means settle the question, unless I could show it was a "coming to judge the world." Neither, I answer, will it avail anything for my friend to find a passage, which speaks of a coming of Christ yet future, unless he can show it will be a comming to judge the world." 2. He says I may refer to judgments, which are past, but this will not prove there is no judgment to come. This is true, and I say in return, that if my friend should refer to judgments yet to come, it would not be proving there is no judgment past. He says, if he is able to present one passage, (he seems to promise a scarcity,) which places the coming of Christ to judge the world in the future, then he will have gained his point. Not so fast my friend. You must not only prove that the coming of Christ to judge was future when the Bible was written, but that it is future now. I admit that it was future then, but deny that it is future now, and right here we join issue.

3.

Mr. Franklin wishes to save me the trouble of quoting such passages as the following: "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come."

"The Lord judgeth in the earth.”

"There be some stand

ing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." He was very careful not to tell you, my friends, that the coming spoken of in the last quotation, was a coming "to reward every man according to his works." And as judging must of necessity precede rewarding, the coming, just spoken of, was a coming to judgment. The above passages then do not trouble me, but my friend; and hence he tries to persuade me not to use them.

I now come to Mr. Franklin's first proof text, 2. Pet., 3: 7. He tells us that this passage seems to have been written for this very occasion, and for his especial advantage! Such expressions are used to bolster up a strained and far-fetched interpretation of scripture, and for nothing else. He says also that when this epistle was written, the "last days" of the Jewish dispensation had gone by 33 years; and consequently, the Apostle did not mean that the scoffers, spoken of in the text, were to come in the "last days of the Jewish polity, for its "last days" were past. But I call for proof of all this. According to Dr. Lander, the epistle to the Hebrews was written within the year 63, and in the 8 chap. and 13 verse, Paul, speaking of the Jewish Covenant, says, "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." On this verse, Dr. Clark makes these remarks: "The Apostle, therefore, intimates that the old Covenant was just about to be abolished." See also, Dr. Loddridge, to the same import. But notwithstanding all these authorities, Mr. F. contends that the Jewish covenant had vanished away some 30 years before!! That the "last days" mean the last days of the Jewish dispensation, is evident from several passages. Peter, the author of the passage before us, informed the multitude when they supposed some of the people were drunk, that "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit upon flesh."-Acts, 2: 16,17. This is to the point. The last daysthe same spoken of in the epistle-were in Peter's life-time.

all

In 1 John, 2: 18, it is said, "Little children, it is the last time, and as ye have heard that Anti-Christ shall come, even now there are many Anti-Christs, (scoffers,) whereby we

know it IS THE LAST TIME. I have now proved that the last days spoken of by Peter, were in the life-time of Peter and John, and at the conclusion of the Jewish dispensation. Well, Christ was to come in judgment in the last days, consequently, that coming is past, not future, as Mr. F. thinks.

The second proof text, Acts 3: 21, is irrelevant. It proves that there is yet a coming of Christ, but says nothing of a judgment. It proves also that Christ has not come in person since he ascended into heaven, in the presence of his disciples, but does not prove that the coming of Christ in judgment, is yet future.

Mr. Franklin's third proof text is 2 Thes. 2: 3. In order to make any kind of an argument, he is compelled to date the epistle as late as possible. But suppose I were to give him here all he asks, which I by no means have to do, would he gain anything? No, for he admits himself that it was written before the dispersion of the Jewish nation. But he is wrong concerning the date of the epistle. According to the best authorities it was written in the year 54, which was 16 years before that calamity befell the ancient people of God. But from this very passage I derive a strong proof that the day of Christ" was not far in the future, at the time it was written. If it had been a doctrine of the early church that Christ was not to come until the close of the Christian dispensation, and had the Thessalonians been acquainted with this doctrine, the Apostle need not have told them that they should not "be troubled." My friend knows that the most prominent doctrine of his church is that Christ is to come to judge the world at the end of the Christian dispensation at the "restitution of all things." The most ignorant member of his church is well acquainted with this doctrine. Now he will have to take the ground that the Thessalonians were ignorant of this doctrine, or that they thought the Christian dispensation, which was hardly commenced, was about to close!!

2. "Be not shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand." They should not be soon, immediately troubled about that event, inasmuch as it would be at least 16 years before it would occur. It was not at hand, hence

they should not then be troubled about it; but he intimates that the time would come when they might with propriety be troubled about that event. But if it is to take place at the resurrection, will the Thessalonians, while in heaven, be troubled about it? "Can any man in his senses," says my friend, "believe that the coming of Christ was not at hand, when Paul wrote this epistle, and at the same time believe that event then to have been six (he should have said sixteen) years off? I answer, can any man in his senses, believe an event “is at hand,” and at the same time believe that it is sixteen years in the future?

3. "Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of Sin be revealed, the Son of perdition who opposeth and exalteth" (in the present tense) "himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth" (still the present tense) in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Mr. Franklin says that the "Man of Sin," and the "mystery of iniquity," were to appear before the coming of Christ. Well, the Apostle says "the mystery of iniquity doth already work." He says further that the coming of Christ was to end the "iniquity." What this last expression has to do with proving his proposition, I am unable to determine. These are some of my reasons for believing that the coming of Christ in judgment, spoken of in Thessalonians, is not a future event. I have others which shall appear in due time.

I now come to Mr. Franklin's fourth proof text. Luke 21. Here again he is at variance with almost every orthodox Commentator! He says the expression "they shall be led away captive into all nations," certainly extends a "long ways" beyond the destruction. There is not one word in the expression that would lead to such a conclusion. The Jews could be "led away" immediately after the destrucion. Does he believe that this leading away did not take place until a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem ? But perhaps he will say the expression "led away captive into all nations," implies a great length of time. Well, suppose I grant this. Still Mr. Franklin believes that Jerusaĺem was "trodden down of the gentiles" at, and immediately after the destruction. But I will notice the order of events