of other comings of Christ and other judgments, they would not in the least militate against my proof text. If my friend will remember this, it will save him the trouble of quoting the words, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come "There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom "-" The Lord judgeth in the earth," &c. &c. This being the case, we shall avoid, I hope, much pointless verbiage which is usually dragged into controversies of this kind.

Without detaining you more lengthily, in defining our proposition, I shall proceed to sustain my affimative proposition from the infallible oracle of God. In doing this I shall make my first appeal to the language of the apostle Peter, which reads as follows:

"There shall come in the last days, scoffers walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished; but the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Pet. 3: 3-7.

This passage seems to have been written for this special occasion, and could not have been worded much more suitable to my purpose, had the apostle written it for my special advantage. The apostle in the first place offered a rebuke to the scoffers of the last days, who, being willingly ignorant, enquire, Where is the promise of his coming?" My opponent on this occasion has the honor to continue this enquiry, and is now anxiously waiting for me to show him a promise of the coming of Christ to judge the world. This I hope to be able to do to his fullest satisfaction. He cannot escape from the passage under consideration, by saying it refers to any other coming of Christ than the coming to judge the world. Nor can he say that the judgment spoken of in this passage, was any judgment and perdition of ungodly men which occured daily, as that upon which he displays his ora

torical powers before the people sometimes, for in this case there is no reserving unto the day of judgment. Nor can it mean the hell of conscience, for its hottest scorchings are immediately after the commission of the crime.

The coming of Christ, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men here spoken of, were in the future, and some considerable time in the future when the apostle wrote, as is evident from several considerations. This letter was written in the year 64 of the Christian era, and six years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The last days of the Jewish dispensation had gone by some 33 years, as most men calculate; and therefore the apostle did not mean, there shall come scoffers in the days of the Jewish polity, for its last days were gone. But my friend may say as some have said, that the Jewish polity lasted till the destruction of Jerusalem. This will not at all suit the language, for he speaks of it as an event farther off than six years.

What goes to show that Peter could not have referred to any coming of Christ soon enough to be included in the last days of the Jewish polity, or any other days between that time and the present, is the fact, that it would contradict a plain statement which he made on another occasion, and a very clear and unequivocal statement of Paul. Speaking of the second coming of Christ, Peter said, "and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you; whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3: 20, 21. Now I would ask the gentleman, who is my opponent, if this restitution of all things is not future? He is bound to answer this in the affirmative, for I have no doubt it is one of his "one hundred and fifty reasons for believing in universal salvation." Well, then, I would ask him, if the apostle told the truth, when he said, "whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things?" If the gentleman relies upon these words as true, he cannot tell of any coming of Christ between the time when Peter uttered these words and the restitution of all things, for he says, "the heaven must receive Jesus until the times of restitution of all things."

I must however call your attention to the language of Paul touching this point. Speaking of the coming of Christ, that

apostle says, that the Thessalonians should not be " soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceieve you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." 2 Thes. 2: 2, 3. This epistle also was written about six years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore, if any coming of Christ had been expected by the apostle, when that event took place, it would have been no deception to have preached that the day of Christ was at hand. Had a Universalist been there, he would have contended, as my opponent is about to do, that the day of Christ was at hand. I think 1 am justified in saying this, for even at this day, with the printed language of Paul before him, forbiding it, he now stands ready to contend that the day of Christ was at hand. Paul however commands us, not to let him "deceive us by any means, for," he says, "that day shall not come except the apostacy come first." Now unless my friend can prove that what Paul positively declared “shall not come," "did come, he can find no coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalum.

I maintain then, that as there was no coming of Christ between the time when Peter uttered the words, "There shall come in the last days scoffers," &c., and the coming of the apostacy, and the restitution or all things, that he could not have referred to the last days of the Jewish polity, but must have referred to the last days of the Christian dispensation. Against this my friend will find there is no rising up.

It is not only a fact that the apostacy was to make its appearance before the coming of Christ, but the coming of Christ was to be the end of it. This is evident from the following: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 2 Thes. 2: 8. This man of sin-this mystery of iniquity was not only to come before the coming of Christ, but the coming of Christ was to be the end of it. Now can any man in his senses, believe that the coming of Christ was not at hand when Paul wrote this letter, and at the same time believe that event then to have been only six years off? And can he believe in addition to this, that the man of sin-the aposacy, did come in six years, and fully developed himself, and

was put to an end by the coming of Christ to destroy the Jews? This is certainly too much.

But as I wish to get my proof before my friend as soon as possible, that he may make the best defense his cause admits, hasten to call his attention to another passage, which reads as follows: "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the gentiles until the time of the gentiles be fulfilled." Luke 21: 24. The expression "they shall fall by the edge of the sword," evidently refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, but the expression "they shall be led away captive into all nations," certainly extends a long ways beyond that event. The words also," Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the gentiles until the times of the gentiles shall be fulfilled," extend up to the present time beyond all dispute.

Well, what follows after the Jewish captivity, and the treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles? The Savior answers: "and there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things that are coming on the earth; for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory." Verses 25, 26, 27.

Now notice the order of these events: 1. The destruction of Jerusalem-"they shall fall by the edge of the sword." 2. The captivity of the Jewish nation. 3. The treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles. 4. The fufilling of the times of the gentiles. 5. The signs in the heavens. 6. The perplexity of the nations of the earth. 7. The appearing of the Son of man in heaven. My friend will not only try to have the seventh event here mentioned to take place at the same time with the first, but he will try to make it appear that they are precisely the same thing.

To this passage I invite his special attention. And if the captivity of the Jewish nation stands between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of Christ, I hope he will show us how he has the two occurrences at the same time.

[Time expired.]

MR. MANFORD'S FIRST REPLY.

MESSRS. MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN :

Before examining Mr. Franklin's proof texts, I will notice some of his introductory remarks. He speaks correctly, when he says that man is influenced by hope and fear, and that the Bible informs us, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." There is a vast difference, however, between the "fear of the Lord," and the fear of an endless hell. The one is filial, reverential fear, and the other is slavish fear; the one purifies the heart and the other corrupts it. The first is the beginning of wisdom, of liberty, of salvation, while the other is the beginning of folly, of slavery, of damnation. "Fear the Lord," is a command of Heaven; "fear an unending hell," is a mandate of creeds. The one should be observed, and all who do regard it, "are accepted of God;" the other should not be heeded, and those who do keep it, receive no praise of God, although they may of men.

He says, "it will be my settled purpose to show that our eternal weal or wo, depends on our conduct in this life." If he is right, well might Dr. Watts exclaim,

"Great God; on what a slender thread,

Hang everlasting things!"

But if I am not greatly mistaken, it will be Mr. Franklin's "settled purpose to convince us, that man's eternal " condition after death," depends on the state of his mind in the hour of death, and not on his conduct through life. According to his theory, a man may spend almost his entire life in the grossest wickedness without receiving scarcely any punishment, and by repentence and baptism, just before death, go immediately to heaven, and occupy as high a seat in glory, as St. John; and yet he says he believes our eternal weal or wo, depends on our conduct through life!! He believes no such a thing. I will here inform Mr. Franklin, that although I do not assent to the monstrous proposi tion, that our eternal all depends on our weak and imperfect