What can be an evil, then? If endless sinning, endless weeping, and endless suffering would not be an evil, what is or can be an evil? He is the first man that ever I heard say that endless punishment would not be an evil. He must be insane!

"Endless wo has a good tendency!" What an absurdity! I never thought or admitted such a falsity. A belief in that cruel dogma has caused more sin and suffering than all other causes combined. It is the parent of countless abominations, being an infinite abomination itself.

"Had I a hundred mouths, a hundred tongues,
A voice of brass, and adamantine lungs ;
Not half its frightful scenes could I disclose,
Repoat its crimes, or count its dreadful woes."

It is built on the worst of passions-selfishness, retaliation, cruelty, revenge; and it fosters those evil passions, and a great many more, in the human heart. When the sun covers the earth with a mantle of darkness; when ice scalds and fire freezes; when copious showers parch the ground, then may the doctrine of endless sin and damnation produce love and virtue. If it is true of course we should know it, and for the same reason that we should know that a serpent lays in our path, or that there are murderers in our house. If Universalism is true, we should know it, for the same reason that we should know that dear friends are alive, when we supposed they were dead, or that a prodigal has returned, when we supposed he was past redemption; or that great blessings are in store for us here, when we thought that tears and sorrow were our only doom:

Mr. Franklin informed us that part of his first proof-text was," Are there few that shall be saved ?" and he told us that he got this from the "infallible oracles of God." I will inform the gentleman that that passage is taken from the fallible oracles of Partialism-from the same volume where the following scraps may be found: "If you die in your sins, where God and his Christ are you cannot come. God out of Christ is a consuming fire. As the tree falls so it shall lie. No self-murderer shall enter the kingdom of God. As death leaves us, so judgment finds us. There is no change after death. Total depravity, triune God, trinity, original sin, endless hell, eternal hell, endless suffering, un

pardonable sin, endless punishment, endless misery, endless death, eternal death, death that never dies."

66

The question in the Bible is, "Are there few that be saved?" not 'shall be;" and we all know that according to the scriptures, christians enjoy a present salvation,—are now saved. "By grace ye are saved." "To us who are saved." and similar expressions, abound in the Bible. But Mr. F. can think of nothing but a salvation from an endless hell, an angry God, and the clutches of an almighty devil. Well, let us see how he got along with the balance of his first proof-text. He done wonders according to his account; and well he might after such a hopeful beginning. He told us that the "kingdom out of which some would be thrust was heaven; I replied, that if he was correct, the wicked Jews-the persecuters and murderers of Christ, would go to heaven in all their sins, and after remaining there awhile, would be cast out; for Jesus says, "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye (the wicked Jews) shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves thrust out." Luke 15: 28. Listen, O earth, and hear his reply. "They would stand outside the door and from that position be thrust out of the kingdom!!!" Was not that a bright idea! But how in the world could the Jews be thrust out of the kingdom if they were never in it? I took the ground, as every reasonable person must, that the kingdom was not heaven, but that kingdom of which the Bible so frequently speaks, that is erected in the earth. The Jews were once in that kingdom, but it was taken from them and given to the Gentiles, and the door is now shut to the ancient people of God. Mr. F. flatly contradicts the Bible, for he says the kingdom was never taken from the Jews, and that they can all now enter it! The Bible teaches exactly the reverse.

He says he quoted several passages that speak of the conditions on which heaven is to be obtained. I showed that not one of them refers to the future state, but to the privileges and blessings of the gospel kingdom. He even contended, according to his last speech, that immortal life is conditional! He cited these words, "Seek for glory, honor, immortality." Rom. 2. He contended that this refers to the future state, and that no one could be immortal there

without seeking for it here! This is his faith according to his last speech: The soul of no one is naturally immortal, and no one will ever be immortal without first seeking for it. Consequently, all who do not seek for immortality will continue mortal, and therefore will not suffer endlessly. If the gentleman believes what he said on that subject, he is a disbeliever in endless punishment. He contends that all who seek for immortality will be saved, and none others, and hence it follows from his premises, that the balance of man kind, including infants, idiots, pagans, all the wicked, who do not seek for it will not be immortal but mortal, and consequently will not live endlessly in heaven or hell, but be annihilated. I charge Mr. Franklin with believing in the doctrine of annihilation. Perhaps he believed in endless punishment when this discussion commenced; but he has now renounced it and advocates the annihilation of part of mankind. He is progressing, for it would be far better to annihilate those that cannot be saved, than to torment them without relief and without end. I hope Mr. Franklin will grow in grace, till he come to a knowledge of the whole truth.

In regard to the word immortality, I have showed that the original is several times translated sincerity; and that it bears that signification in this passage; but he was careful not to notice this in his recapitulation. If he had done so, it would have saved many words; but then it would have upset all he wanted to say.

In Mr. F.'s last speech, we had a first rate specimen of scrap preaching. He reminded me of the gentleman who tried to prove from the Bible that it was right to commit selfmurder. Said he, "It is said that Judas went and hanged himself; and in another place it is written, Go thou and do likewise therefore, we are commanded to kill ourselves." These quotations just as clearly prove that self-murder is a divine command, as do those half sentences from the Bible that Mr. Franklin put together, from all parts of the scriptures, prove the endless damnation of half of mankind. If I may be allowed the liberty he takes with the Bible, I can prove it is right to commit every abomination ever thought of; but this is not the way to read or understand that blessed volume, and those who take such liberties with tt, shamefully abuse it. I repeat, not one of those passages

364

THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION.

he half quotes, relate, in any way whatever, to the proposi

tion before us.

His boasting of what he he has done, reminds me of a certain phrenological lecturer. He said, “There are but three truly great men in the United States. One of them is Daniel Webster of Boston; the second is Henry Clay of Kentucky, and modesty forbids that I mention the third." So Mr. F. don't like to tell us in so many words that he is a great man, but he certainly is an astonishing genius if he did half that he boasted of having accomplished.

He told us what he had done with Matt. 25, 46; but he forgot to add that he totally failed to show that that passage sustains his proposition, and that that was his only proof-text. He says, I attempted to meet him in no way to escape to aion in the place of aionios." There is not only no sense or syntax in this sentence, but the idea intended is false in every particular. He can have no regard for a truthful reputation, so it seems to me, or he would not have made that false assertion. Every one of you know that I proved,

1. That aionion signifies limited duration; because it is derived from a noun bearing that meaning.

2. Because many lexicons give it that definition.

3. Because several orthodox writers so define it.
4. Because that is its common meaning in the Bible.

I dwelt on each of these evidences, and yet Mr. Franklin says I said nothing about that word, but escaped to another! He will wish that sentence had never dropped from his lips. But he went to aiona to get the meaning of aionion, and hence did exactly what he condemned me for doing! He says they are both one word, but no more so than aion and aionion are, as he would not deny if he knew more about language. As he has simply repeated his old assertion about forever in Heb. 7, without replying to what I have said, I refer you to my remarks on that subject. If he could have replied he undoubtedly would have done so.

All his reasoning in favor of everlasting, meaning endless duration, in Math. 25, I will apply to the levitical priesthood, for that is called an everlasting priesthood, and prove just as clearly that it is in force now, and will be to all eternity, as he has proved that punishment will be endless. I will quote his words with the necessary alteration to suit the subject.

The priesthood is thus spoken of in Exod. 40, 15. "For this anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood." "Here the Almighty affirms that the Levitical priesthood should be an everlasting priesthood, and everlasting is taken from the same original word that eternal is, in Matthew 25, 46, where Jesus says some should have "eternal life.” Now it follows that if everlasting, when applied to that priesthood, means limited duration; it must bear the very same signification when applied to life in Math. 25. The same word is use to express the duration of the priesthood and the life. This word must be use in the same sense in both places, beyond all dispute; and that it expresses the duration of the life, and that that life is endless, cannot be denied by any living man. Just so certain then, as the duration of the life in Matt. is endless, the priesthood is also endless. The very same word then, that expresses the duration of the life, also expresses the duration of the priesthood. Indeed the same word is used to express the duration of the existance of God, and that it does not mean endless here, no man who has any regard for truth will affirm.

The offset that Mr. Manford attempts to make by showing that the same word is used sometimes in a limited sense, can be made relative to any word in human speech. The word endless is used in the Scriptures in a limited sense; but who would attempt to get its proper meaning from such a use?— To show that everlasting means endless when applied te the old priesthood, I referred to the use of the words forever and ever, as found in Revelations. In doing this I showed that those words express the duration of the life of God, the life of Christ, and the reign of Christ. The only effort Mr. M. made here was to try to show that the reign of Christ would come to an end, and consequently that forever and everlasting do not mean endless, and therefore, that the Mosaic priesthood should come to an end, although God affirmed it was everlasting. I will just add the words of Daniel, Dan. 7:14. "His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed." If this is to be relied on, there is an end to the gentleman's quibble. The same word, then, in the same book, that the spirit of God used to express the duration of the old priesthood, is also used to express the duration of the life of God, and

24