had, never has, and never can have, any other signification than "the men of this age," or those living at the time.

Now, my friends, in view of what has been said on both sides, during this day's debate, you will excuse me, I hope, when I give it as my firm belief that, while Mr. Franklin has failed, most signally failed to establish his proposition, that the "coming of the Son of Man to judge the world" is yet future, I have proved by the most incontestible ev idence, such as cannot be gainsayed, that this "coming of the Lord" is a past event. That it took place, as predicted, and looked for by the early christians, during the apostolic age, when the Jewish temple, city, and nation were destroyed, and the kingdom of heaven or reign of the Messiah, was set up in the earth. This I say, is my belief, in regard to the merits of the debate. But all I ask of you is, to examine our arguments, and the evidence adduced-weigh them well, and then judge for yourselves.

PROPOSITION II.

DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THE FINAL HOLINESS AND HAPPINESS OF ALL MANKIND?

MR. MANFORD'S FIRST SPEECH.

RESPECTED AUDITORS:

1

The proposition before us to-day is one in which all are deeply interested. It reads as follows: Do the Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of all mankind? affirm-my friend denies. I believe ALL the wicked will be saved. He believes SOME of the wicked will be saved. Neither one of us believes any will be saved in their wickedness, but FROM their wickedness-" from their sins." He believes in the salvation of a PART of mankind. I believe in the salvation of ALL mankind; and here we join issue. I now proceed to my first proof-text: Matt. xxii. 23 : 32.

“The same

day came to him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection, and asked him saying: Master, Moses said, if a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brothers; and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased; and having no issue, left his wife unto his .brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh; and last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the

• resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by. God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The parallel passage in Luke xx, reads as follows: " They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resur rection. Now, that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him." Our Savior did not merely answer the question of the Sadducees and then stop; but proceeded, 1. To show that there was a resurrection. "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush." 2. To inform his hearers what would be the condition of those raised. 1. They should not "die any more." 2. They should be “ equal unto the an gels." 3. They should be the "children of God." 4. They should "live unto God."

It is worthy of especial notice that two distinct facts are predicated of the raised, because of their equality with angels. 1. They should not marry. 2. They should not "die any more." Hence we are justified in saying those raised will not sin or suffer, because of their equality with the an. gels. There is no way of escaping from this conclusion other than to say the " angels in heaven" sin and suffer!!

I wish to call the attention of Mr. Franklin to the words, "they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead." How many does he think will “obtain that world?" (And it would be well to notice that the phrase " that world" in the 35th verse is connected with the phrase "this world" in the 34th verse.)— Paul said he "hoped for a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.' He did not hope that any would be raised unjust, for that would have been a most unrighteous hope indeed. Does my friend hope that any will be raised unjust? If his hope is as extensive as Paul's hope was, then he must certainly believe that ALL will be "accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead,"

99

39

That my proof-text triumphantly sustains my proposition. cannot but be evident to all who will give it a fair examination. If after the resurrection, the greater part of mankind are to be endlessly miserable, why did not our Savior say so when treating of the resurrection? Why did he never say so? On the contrary he tells us that "in the resurrection,' that is, in the immortal world, mankind shall be " equal unto the angels"—" the children of God"-that they shall not "die any more; and that all shall "live unto God."These are glorious announcements-heavenly truths; and well worthy of that gospel which brings "good tidings of great joy, which shall be unto ALL PEOPLE."

99

66

My second proof is derived from the fifth chapter of Romans. In this chapter we are told that "in due time Christ died for the ungodly," and "when we were without strength" -that "God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him: For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement," or reconciliation: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (If a natural death is here meant, then all are subject to this death, because all sin, and not because Adam sinned.) "For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed wherever there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judg ment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." (Not of the Adamic of fence only.) "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and the gift of righteouss shall reign in life by one, Jesus

Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord."

From this passage we learn: 1. That while men were yet "sinners," and "enemies," God loved them. 2. That death, moral and spiritual, "passed upon all men," not because Adam sinned, but because "that all have sinned." 3. That it is "through the offence of one, many be dead," not because of the offence of one; for that would contradict the expression, "FOR that ALL have SINNED." All admit that "for" is here used in the sense of because. 4. That "the free gift is of many offences unto justification," and not of the Adamic offence only. 5. That if it be true "death passed upon all men" because "all have sinned," then it is also true that "condemnation came upon all men," because "that all have sinned." 6. That "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life," not because of the righteousness of one; for I do not believe in imputed rightousness. Neither does my friend, I believe. 7. That by or through "one man's disobedience many were made sinners." 8. That by or through "the obedience of one many shall be made righteous." 9. That "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." 10. "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Although I have contended that the death here spoken of is moral and spiritual death, I have done so for the sake of truth, not for the sake of the argument, for that is equally strong whatever death is meant. I have contended also that it is "through the offence of one, many be dead," and not because of the "offence of one," still, if my friend should find that I am wrong here, it would not destroy the argument by any means, In the language of Dr. Adam Clarke we