Paul and Peter, I have no doubt, will be ahead of Mr. Franklin and myself! and probably we shall be ahead of some of the Indians! But all will be positively happy; there will be no such a thing as positive evil, and therefore none can suffer an infinite evil. Mr. Franklin, I am quite sure, believes in "degrees of glory," or that some will be in advance of others in "moral and intellectual attainments," among those with whom he expects to associate in heaven. No doubt he thinks he will be superior, in some respects, to some of his weaker brethren; yet he has hardly the presumption to think he will be as great a man as Paul or Peter or John, at any rate, not immediately on his entrance into that world! Well, just what he allows in regard to them that go to heaven, I allow in regard to all mankind, for I believe that all will go there.

But the question is in regard to infinite evil; and if a dif ference in degrees of moral and intellectual condition in the future state, shows that some will suffer an infinite evil, then it follows that many, probably all, who go to heaven, will suffer an infinite evil! Mr. Franklin will suffer an infinite evil, because he will not be equal to Paul and Peter, to Luther and Melancthon, to Howard, Murray, and father Oberlin, all of whom, made great moral and intellectual improvements in this life; the apostles will suffer an infinite evil, because they will never become equal to the Savior!and even the Savior himself, must sustain an infinite evil, because he will never become equal to the Father! What an idea.

It is rational to suppose, I said, that there will be difference of character in the future state-depending in some degree, upon the improvements made in this life. All will be happy

all progressing in the upward tendency; but some will be in advance of others; some will have made greater moral and intellectual improvement here, than others, and consequently, will be that much ahead of them-though all will be happy. The moral, upright individual, who has improved his faculties by cultivating a spirit of charity, benevolence, and all the higher orders of our nature, though he never "joined the chuch," or professed any particular creed, will be far in advance of that old, hardened, and selfish sinner, who, although a few days or months before he died, repented, got

religion, was baptised, and had his sins all pardoned! Professions of faith, and the observance of certain church ceremonies, is not the kind of moral and intellectual improvement, of which I speak. These are all well enough in their place; but they are only as as the shadow to the

substance!

And there will be some denominations, and then again some nations, that will be far in advance of others, in the future state, as a general rule; while, of course, there will be individual exceptions to this rule. Let me illustrate. The United States, as a nation, will probably be in advance of the Mexicans, while the latter will no doubt, be in advance of Islanders of the Pacific, and the tribes of North American Indians; while those again will be in advance of the New Hollanders. In regard to denominations, I believe the Universalists, as a body, will stand at the head; they are more intellectual as a class, than others, and they cultivate the social and moral powers more than other denominations; have a greater benevolence—more expanded charity and love for their species--more exalted views of God and his government; in fine, they are superior to others in all that constitutes true moral and intellectual improvement. There will be individual exceptions here, of course. We have some among us, who are no better than they should be—who are selfish, bigoted, and narrow minded as others. Next to the Universalists will probably rank the Unitarians; they are generally a very liberal minded people, and are generally characterized for their benevolence and uprightness. They also are an intellectual people. The Quakers undoubtedly, will come in next. Many of them, as well as of Unitarians, are in reality Universalists. Besides this, they are distinguished for their real goodness; for morality, benevolence, sympathy for the oppressed, and for the spiritual improvement. Now, of the other denominations, such as Presbyterians, Baptists, Campbellites, Methodists, &c., it is difficult to decide which should have the preference. They are all more or less selfish, bigoted, sectarian, and Pharisaical; entertaining very limited and dishonorable views of God and his government; and I have only time to remark that in the resurrection, I am afraid they will find that they have much to learn that they are far, very far in the rear of many

who, until then, they had thought would not even attain the "out skirts" of heaven, much less be ranked in the "first class!" [Time expired.]

MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTHI SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN AND LADIES:

I am pleased to see that my friend, Mr. Manford, seems so fully to appreciate his situation. He feels conscious when his time has expired that his work is not done, and consequently encroaches a little more and a little more on our stipulated time every speech. I do not blame him at all for this, for I want him to have no excuse, but to have the fullest and fairest opportunity he could desire, that his failure may be attributed to no other cause, but the impossibility for any man to sustain his position. It is perfectly fair then, that he should lengthen out his speeches, as his cause really needs it, and as I am permitted to occupy the same length of time. It is true, I do not need the time to enable me to sustain my position; but as the whole is shortly to go before the world in a book, and as I have plenty of the best of materials, I shall occupy the same length of time he did.

Although he still accuses me of "wilful falsehood," I cannot help admitting that he is in a better humor than he has heretofore been. He succeeded in pleasing himself so much better in his last speech than he had done before, that it gave him a momentary comfort-a short respite, from the agony he has experienced in sympathising with his darling system, to which he seems so closely wedded. Yet he seems almost as if he hates me with a most bitter hatred, because I will not or cannot love his dear theory. He has, no doubt, frequently recollected the consoling words, that it is through much trib.

ulation we enter into the kingdom, since our debate com menced.

He tells you, that you may take it for granted, when I talk of his anger, that I am used up, and don't know what else to say. But I would caution you not to be too fast in taking things for granted. This way of taking for granted what he cannot prove, is what has involved him in the present difficulty — "Used up," indeed! and "don't know what to say!" What mighty men these Universalian disputants are to use up every body they come in contact with! That sounded well on the ear of this community. How dreadfully I have been perplexed to find something to say! The public will judge.

After complaining about my dividing and subdividing my proposition in every speech, the gentleman now tells you, that he is "in no trouble about it." Yet he goes immediately on to complain again, and says, "we agreed to debate a certain proposition, viz: endless punishment." That is only a part of our proposition, which reads as follows: "Do the Scriptures teach that those who die in disobedience to the gospel will suffer endless punishment?" He is perfectly a man of one idea. He has his eye so fixed on the word endless, that he can scarcely see another word in the proposi

tion.

For the sake of distinctness I divided my proposition into three, and have taken them piece by piece, and argued them. When Mr. Manford saw the course I was about to pursue, he was perfectly disarmed, and has utterly refused to reply to some of the most pointed arguments I have advanced, on the first part of the question. All this will appear in my recapitulation.

In the last speech he decided that nothing was to the point that did not relate to the duration of punishment, and then assured you that he could not be drawn off from the question

that take what course I might choose, he would not reply to any thing that did not bear directly on the question. After thus speaking he set off as directly as he could go, and made the greater portion of his speech upon those very things which he had declared not to the point! When he says he will not reply to certain points, we are to understand he will do it the very first thing! This was not wilful, but a blunder he made when he was so confused that he did know what he was about.

He is now trying to escape from what he said about there being nothing at stake if Universalism is true, by accusing me of misrepresenting him, and is now greatly displeased with my head and heart on account of it. But he need not blame me, for if he is misrepresented, he did it himself, for I quoted his words precisely as he uttered them. I knew when the expression fell from his lips, that he would be startled when he would hear it quoted. But I neither misunderstood nor misrepresented him. He contended that if the doctrine of endless punishment is true, every body ought to know it, and argued from the fact that many do not know it, that it is pretty good evidence it is false. I contended then, that the fact that a much less number believe Universalism, was still better evidence that it is false. He then argues, that if the doctrine of endless punishment is true, it is of incomparably more importance that every body might know it, than it is that every body should know it if Universalism is true. On this point he said, "It is true, it would be better for the world, if every body was acquainted with Universalism, and believed in it; but then there is not so much-nothing in fact-at stake, if Universalism be true, in comparison with what there is if endless punishment be true." These are his own words, and if they misrepresent him, he ought not to have uttered them. But what reason did he give, for saying there was comparatively "nothing in fact at stake?" And why did he think there was so much at stake, if the doctrine of endless punishment is true? and why is it so important that all should know it? His answer is, "that they might have a chance to avoid it." Indeed; and how would they avoid it? No one has taught any plan to avoid it, that I know of, only a close and careful observance of the commandments of God. He allows then, that all ought to know it, that they might avoid it, and the only way in which they can avoid it is to obey the Lord. Then it is more important that the world should know the doctrine I am contending for, if true, than that contended for by Mr. Manford, for if they believe in endless punishment, they will obey God, to escape it, but if they believe his doctrine, they will disobey the Lord. That is just what we have been telling Universalists all the time, but I did not expect Mr. M. to own it. He has however done it in all its length and breadth. If his doctrine be true then, according to his own showing, there is compara