as they are arranged by my friend, more particularly. He has, 1st, the destruction of Jerusalem, "they shall fall by the edge of the sword"-2d the captivity of the Jewish nation-3d the treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles4th the fulfilling of the times of the gentiles-5th the signs in the heavens-6th the perplexity of the nations of the earth-7th the appearing of the Son of man in heaven.What straining after a long order of events! The second event took place at the time of the first. This he dare not

or.

deny. The third event took place at the same time of the second; and the fourth event is merely the ending of the third. So four of the gentleman's events are no advance in point of time from the first! So much for more than half of this long order! The 5th and 6th events, must certainly be co-existent, for the "perplexity of the nations" would of course be at the same time of the "signs in the heavens." This is spoiling one more of my friend's ders!" But let me see if the 7th order is not embraced in the 5th and 6th. "Then shall they see the Son of man," that is, when "there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon and stars." Where now are the seven orders of events! Mr. Franklin must do better than this. There now remains of his long order of events, but the first and the fifth, and these of course become the first and second.The first, the destruction of Jerusalem; and second, the signs in the heavens. Between these two events he wishes to throw some 2000 years. But I shall prove beyond all controversy that the second event follows "immediately af ter" the first. The 25th verse of this chapter of Luke is exactly parallel, as Mr. Franklin himself will admit, with the 29th verse of Matt. 24, which reads as follows: "IMMEDI ATELY after the tribulation of those days," etc. What days? Why, the days of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the leading away into captivity. Where I ask again is my friend's long series of events ?

Most orthodox Commentators interpret the 21st chap. Luke as referring to the destruction of the Jewish polity and nation; and I should not forget to state that our Savior, af 1er mentioning my friend's long order of events, says, 66 THIS GENERATION shall not pass away till ALL be fulfilled."

I have now carefully examined Mr. F.'s proofs that Christ

is yet to come in judgment, and it must be evident to every one that the scriptures clearly teach, that that is not a future event, but that the judgment commenced a long time ago. Jesus when he was on earth informed men that his judgment would begin in a short time. Read Matt. 16: 27, 28. "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then shall he reward every man according to his work. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' Here Jesus affirms that there were some standing by him, who would not die till he would come in judgment, and yet Mr. F., 1800 years after this solemn declaration, is contending that that event has not occurred!! Is Mr. F. wiser than Jesus Christ? I believe that Christ spoke the truth, and that my friend is laboring under a great mistake.

Christ's coming in judgment, and to raise the dead, are two distinct events. The first was not a personal coming, but a coming in his kingdom, in glory, in judgment, and that of course took place in the establishment of Christianity among the nations of the earth. Christ then exhibited himself to the world in his kingdom, glory, and judgments, and he is now doing the same. And as the resurrection of the dead, by the power and grace of heaven, is a distinct, important and remarkable event, it is called a coming of Christ. And I wish it ever to be remembered, that throughout the Bible, whenever the coming of Christ in judgment, in his kingdom, is spoken of, nothing is said about the resurrection of the dead; and whenever his coming in the resurrection is spoken of, nothing is said about judgment. And throughout the Bible also, the beginning of judgment is connected with the introduction of Christ's reign, and the resurrection with the close of that reign. These facts stand directly opposed to my friend's whole theory.

I ask Mr. F. what will be the use of a judgment at the end of time? Will it be a Court of Error? He believes that when a man dies, if he happens to be in the right state of mind at that particular juncture, he will go to heaven. And he be

lieves also that if a man should die in sin, no matter how righteous he had lived, he will go to hell. The man that goes to hell must have been judged, for surely God would not

2

send him there without a trial-a judgment. And so with the man who goes to heaven, he must first be judged, my friend would say. Still he has a future judgment, and all

that are

hell is to be disembodied of its contents, and heaven de populated to attend this great trial. Where, in the name of reason and common sense, is the use of this judgment? Is it to rectify mistakes that were made in the first judgment? If so, perhaps there will be mistakes made in the second judgment, or whatever you may please to term it, and many who are now in hell may get into heaven, and many now in heaven may be thrust into hell. And perhaps there may a perfect change take place in the inhabitants of the two places; those in hell going to heaven, and those in hea ven going to hell. My friend need not say that I have spo ken irreverently, or turned sacred subjects into ridicule. I have only showed some of the inconsistencies of his faith.

In this

I hope Mr. Franklin in in his next speech will meet my objections to his theory and interpretations of the Bible, fairly and candidly, and especially do I hope that he will point out all those places, if any, where I have not answered his arguments, or endeavored to do so; for I wish to notice every single argument that my friend may advance. And I shall expect the same kind of treatment from him. way we may elicit truth. I hope also that the very best spirit may be maintained throughout the entire debate, and that nothing may occur to mar the feelings of any one. Let ev. ery one here assembled, calmly and dispassionately weigh every argument, and unbiassed by prejudice or preposses sion, decide in favor of Truth. [Time expired.]

MR. FRANKLIN'S SECOND SPEECH.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before I proceed with my affirmative arguments, it will be necessary for me to pay some attention to the gentleman's reply. He was pleased to favor you with a distinction between "filial, reverential fear," and the fear of hell. distinction is not in the bible. The language of Jesus is: "Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

His

He appears displeased that our eternal weal or wo should depend on our conduct in this life. I cannot see why he should have such an abhorrance of this doctrine. Is his conduct so reprehensible that he thinks it would endanger his salvation? But he further informed you, that, if he was not much mistaken, it would be my settled purpose to prove that it depends on the state of the mind at death and not on our conduct. He is much mistaken then; for I believe no such thing. But on the contrary I believe that the Lord will take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel. But you may guess my surprise, to hear Mr. Manford say, "I do believe that abusing or improving our talents in this world, will effect in some degree our future situation. I believe in different degrees of glory hereafter." I did not expect this soon, in his very first speech, to hear him denounce the leading feature-the grand distinguishing characteristic of his doctrine. It is conceded then, thus early in this discussion, that a finite creature, in a finite state, can do something that will effect an infinite state. This I expected to be called upon to prove, but the necessity of this is now superseded by the concession of my friend. But to show his brethren that he is not mistaken, I will refer to a passage of scripture. Since my friend has referred the results of improving or neglecting to improve our talents to the coming world, let me call your attention to the Savior's par able of the talents, Matt. 25. After showing, as Mr Manford says he believes, that those who improve their talents will

be invited into the joys of their Lord, the Savior says of the man who failed to improve his talent, "Cast ye the unprofit able servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." V. 25, 30. If then by the abuse of our talents in this life, we may lessen the degrees of happiness in the world to come, as the gentleman admits, why may we not lessen these degrees of happiness until it will not be happiness at all, but misery? The gentleman will repent of this concession for many years to come, especially as it is to go to the world in a printed book.

Mr. Manford wishes me to tell him why I will not have the sympathies of atheists and deists. One principal reason is, that they do not consider my position calculated to destroy the religion of Jesus Christ out of the world. They do consider his position well calculated to accomplish that object, and therefore will sympathise with him, and are anxious for his success.

It appears that my friend cannot see how I could act differently from what I do, unless I would be a "vagabond in the earth." Well he acts differently from myself; is he there"vagabond," to apply his own refined language to himself? Surely not.

fore a

From Mr. M.'s little witicism, in specifying other differences between the Bible and Universalists, besides those mentioned in my challenge, I suppose he admits those specified by me. He may as well at least, for they will abundantly appear as we shall proceed.

In defining my proposition, I stated that a reference to any judgment that is past, will not prove that there is no judgment to come; and the gentleman very adroitly responds, that "should I refer to a judgment to come, it would not be proving there is no judgment past." I grant it, but it would be proving my proposition, for it calls for a judgment to

come.

I was amused to see my friend approach my proof texts. He did it with as much cautiousness as if he had expected every step to fall into a pit. His remarks upon these important passages of the word of God were perfectly non-committal. The day of judgment and perdition of ungodly menthe melting of the elements with fervent heat-the burning up of the earth and all things therein-the passing away of