Images de page
PDF
ePub

was not the destruction of Jerusalem; therefore the gentleman has cut himself off from the old stamping ground. Now he is in a beautiful predicament truly! The coming of Christ after the destruction of Jerusalem! Well, when was it? and what was it?

"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep, for the LORD HIMSELF shall decend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4: 14, 17. This is a personal coming, for the "Lord himself" is the same as the Lord in person. Not only so, but he is to decend from heaven with a shout, which shows that it must be personal. In this passage, as in the 15th of 1 Cor., the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead are connected, and the gentleman admits the coming at the resurrection to be personal. Now after writing to the Thessalonians as we have just read, which, as we have clearly seen, refers to a personal coming of Christ, and a resurrection of the dead, the apostle in a second letter addresses them as follows: "And to you who are troubled, rest with us, (in the grave) when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power; when he comes to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in them that believe." 2 Thess. 1: 10. Now I ask if it is not as evident as it can be, that the apostle spoke of the same coming in the second letter that he did in the first? Well, the gentleman admits that the coming at the resurrection is personal, and we saw as clear as anything can be, that the coming spoken of in the first letter was to be at the resurrection of the dead, and that he told them in the second letter most pointedly, that "that day should not come unless the apos

tacy come first," and that he gave not the slightest indication that he alluded to any other coming than he had mentioned in the first letter. Not only so, but the coming spoken of in the second letter, was to be when he should come to be glorified in his saints. Certainly he is not glorified with his saints in this world! His promise is, "if we suffer with him we shall be glorified together." It was then the coming in glory-in person, at the resurrection, and in flaming fire, he speaks of in both letters. From this my friend cannot escape. If I were in his place, I would not try; but give it up, and take a position that could be defended.

I cordially join him in the hope that nothing unkind shall [Time expired.]

occur

MR. MANFORD'S SECOND REPLY.

GENTLEMEN AND LADIES:

Mr. Franklin began his last with the remark, that there is no difference between the fear of the Lord and the fear of hell-an endless hell. I admit that he is correct if his views of God and hell are true. The hell of partialism is thus described :

"Wide was the place,

And deep as wide, and ruinous as deep.
Beneath, I saw a lake of burning fire,
With tempest tost perpetually, and still,
The waves of fiery darkness 'gainst the rocks
Of dark damnation broke, and music made
Of melancholy sort, and over head

And all around, wind wared with wind, storm howled
To storm, and lightening, forked lightening, crossed,
And thunder, muttering sound

Of sullen wrath."

Another thus describes the supposed future home of nearly all mankind :—

"A furnace, formidable, deep, and wide,
O'er boiling with a blue sulphurious tide;
Where clouds of murky smoke and lurid flame,
Burst out in volumes o'er the dark domain."

This is the hell of partialism; it was built according to that system by the Almighty for the sole purpose of imprisoning and tormenting nearly all his offspring, world without end. In the words of Dr. Watts,

66

"The breath of God--His angry breath
Supplies and fans the fire,

There sinners taste the second death,
And would but can't expire."

The god of partialism is the first, the last, the all, in this infernal business of tormenting and burning. He built this hell, " supplies and fans the fire with his angry breath," and although the helpless victims of his wrath and vengeance would gladly be annihilated, he will not let them expire," as he intends to glut his vengeance on them eternally. I admit there is no difference between the fear of a god of this character and the fear of an endless hell. But the God of the Bible, of heaven, and of earth, is as unlike this monster of cruelty, as two opposite characters can possibly be.

Mr. F. thinks I shall repent for many years to come, for saying I believe "in different degrees of glory hereafter." I do not expect ever to repent of uttering that truthful and reasonable sentiment. Ile misrepresents our denomination when he says we do not believe in different degrees of glory in the spirit-world. All the dead will be raised, immortal, glorious, heavenly-like the angels, and enjoy all they are capable of enjoying. Are there not different "degrees of glory" among the angels of heaven? All admit there are. We are to be like the angels. I admit that if this body of corruption and all the evil associations of this world go with the spirit into the eternal world we might sink deeper and deeper in corruption, till we should be deprived of all happiness. The "parable of the talent," to which he refers, does not relate to the future state, as is admitted by

most of Commentators. Bishop Pearce says, "The moral of this parable is, that Jesus would reward or punish christians according to their behavior under the means of grace afforded them and that from every one would be required in proportion to what had been given to him. And this distinction, made between them, was to be made at the time when the JEWISH STATE WAS TO BE DESTROYED." He complains because I did not prove from history, that Paul and Peter and Christ uttered truth, when they spoke of judgment, of the elements melting, and of the coming of Christ! I did not suppose that was necessary; I supposed their words were all sufficient, and I am still of that opinion. As Christ taught he would come in judgment during the life-time of some who were living when he was on the earth, I believe that event took place when he said it would, and exactly as Christ intended. And when Paul and Peter speak of the very same coming, and of many remarkable events connected therewith, I believe the coming and all the events, have taken place precisely as they intended. No higher authority is needed. My friend seems to question the veracity of Christ and the Apostles. Although they solemnly affirmed that the coming in judgment would soon occur, he wants me to prove from history, that that event did take place!!

Mr. Franklin has not seen proper to inform us why he supposes God will judge men twice in the future worldwhen they die and after the resurrection. All of us would

like some light on that subject. He dare not deny that he believes in two judgments after death. He tells us that the object of the last judgment will be to" pass sentence on all." But is not every one judged and sentenced as soon as they die, and consigned to hell or heaven? Why then re-judge them? We want Mr. F. to be clear on this subject. He informs you that I cannot tell why I believe God judges men. I will try to tell you in the language of the Bible. "When thy judgments are in the earth the people learn righteousness." He judges men to learn them righteousness. "Zion shall be redeemed by judgment.”—Isa 1: 27. "Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth; therefore, despise not the chastening of the Almighty, for he maketh sore and bindeth up, he woundeth, and his hands make whole."-Job 5: 17, 18. We learn from these passages,

[ocr errors]

that the great design of judgment is to humble the sinner; turn him from his evil ways, and make an end of transgres sion. The apostle Paul expresses the whole in a single phrase "that we may be partakers of his holiness."Heb. 12: 8-11.

Mr. Franklin yet contends, that the scoffers spoken of by Peter, were to appear on the earth at the end of the Christian dispensation, and he intimates that I am one of the "scoffers." He must be a Millerite, and had better have his assension robe ready. If he will read the third chapter of Peter, he will find that the scoffers were living when that epistle was written. "For this, they (the scoffers) willingly ARE ignorant of"--verse 5-not shall be thousands of years hence. Now this one expression refutes all my friend's Millerism. The scoffers were living in the days of Peter, and sol am not intended, or any one now living or shall live hereafter. It was a prediction of the holy prophets according to Peter, that there should come in the last days, scoffers, and as the scoffers HAD COME, consequently, the last days were in Peter's life-time. In my last speech I produced this very prophecy that Peter refers to, and we saw that Peter reiterated it on the day of Pentecost, and said it was then being fulfilled; so according to the Apostle's sermon and epistle, the "last days were in the apostolic age. Well, Christ was to come in judgment in the last days, and hence we have again demonstrated that that coming has taken place. Ile repeats the assertion, that the last days spoken of by Peter, were at the close of the Christian dispensation. If he is cor rect, the Christian dispensation is ended, yea, came to its end before it commenced! You recollect, I proved in my last speech that the old dispensation in Peter's day, was "ready to vanish away," and hence it was in existence; but he has made no reply to my proof. And you likewise recollect that I also showed that this was the opinion of learned Commentators of his school. Although he has made a great blunder, he is determined to hang to it to the last. Those passages which speak of Christ being the "end of the law," "hath abolished it," &c, do not at all militate against our views. It had lost its divine sanction, was no longer obligatory; but then the temple was standing, victims were offered on the altar, the high priest and his subordinates were performing all

[ocr errors]
« PrécédentContinuer »