THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION.

PROPOSITION I.

DO THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE COMING OF CHRIST TO JDGE THE WORLD IS FUTURE?

MR. FRANKLIN'S FIRST SPEECH.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I appear before you on this interesting occasion, in the defense of positions which have had the mightiest influence. on the world of any propositions ever defended by mortal man. All philosophers, and men of commanding minds of almost all classes, have been sensible of the fact, that man is greatly under the influence of his hopes and fears; hence the Christian's hope is spoken of as "an anchor to the soul, entering to that within the veil and is sure," while it is most constantly asserted in the Bible, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and "that in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." He also places before man the infallible promises of a faithful Creator, inspires in him the only true hope, and, in the same way, he who places before man that which is really the terrors of the Lord, excites in him that fear which is the beginning of wisdom.

We come not here to-day to enquire what the will of man is, nor to enquire what kind of a penalty to fix to a law of human contrivance; but we have assembled to enquire, like rational beings, what are the nature and character of that penalty which the self-existent and unoriginated Jehovah will be pleased to inflict on those who disobey his righteous law, and despise the blood of the everlasting covenant. We come not here to enquire what will be popular among men, or to enquire into the various worldly policies of our times; but to examine the revelation of the Lord Jesus relative to the condition of man after death.

Our propositions are such as all men are deeply interested in, and such as will cause every man to take his stand, either on the one hand or the other. All our propositions bear upon one great question, viz: Can man do anything in this life that will effect his condition in any way after death?The gentleman who is my opponent on this occasion, does not believe he can, while I most solemnly believe that man's happiness in the world to come, will depend upon his conduct in this life. While it will be his settled purpose, to maintain the doctrine, that disobedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ in this life, can do him no good in that world, it will be my settled purpose to show that our eternal weal or wo depends on our conduct in this life.

I am aware that in taking this position, the atheist will stand just as much opposed to me as the gentleman who is my opponent at present. Indeed, it is his grand objection to the gospel of Christ, that it holds out a retributive state after death.

The deist also stands directly opposed to me; for, although he admits that there may be rewards and punishments after death, he does not admit that any person will be punished for disobeying the gospel of Jesus Christ in this life, or that any man will be made happy in the world to come, for obeying the gospel in this life. From both these parties I am to have no sympathies on the present occasion. This much of a disadvantage undoubtedly I will labor under in the present controversy.

That the views we entertain on the subject we are to discuss in the presence of this people, will have a great influence on our actions in this life, I do not suppose any person will

deny. My opponent will readily admit that he would act very differently from what he is about to act on this occasion, if he entertained the same views with myself, relative to the connection of our actions in this life, with our interests in the eternal state. And, while I have no right to impeach his motives, I cannot help believing, that he receives the impulse to go forward in this discussion, from very different considerations from those which prompted me to engage in the conflict. If I can tell anything of the considerations which have actuated me, in entering into the present discussion, I must be permitted to say, that I most solemnly believe my positions to be true, and that the positions of my opponent are not only untrue, but detrimental to the morals of the country, the safety and happiness of man, in his relations to his family, the citizens of the community at large, and the civil government under which he lives, as well as his happiness in the world to come. Indeed, if it be admitted that man is a rational being at all, and that motives have anything to do in shaping his character, it cannot be denied that the decisions we are about to make on the great questions at issue between us, will have a mighty influence on our actions.

Feeling sensible of the great effect this question is to have on the world, and believing, as I surely do, that the direct tendency of the doctrine which I shall oppose on this occasion, is pernicious and corrupting, I engage in the work of discussion, under the fullest conviction that I stand in defense of righteousnes, the happiness of man in this life and the one which is to come. What Mr. Manford's motives may be in defending his positions on this occasion, I have no right or disposition to prognosticate; but what the legiti mate tendency of his doctrine is, I have a right to show, as far as I may prove able. [Here Mr. Manford said, he would like to know what all that had to do with the proposition before us.] I wish to make a few introductory remarks, and of course Mr. M. is entitled to the same privilege.

As it respects my opponent, I only have to say, that I do not know that I could better myself, had I been given choice of all the preachers and editors west of the mountains belonging to his entire party. I could not perhaps have found one man whom I ought to prefer to him. He has been so frequently engaged in conflicts of this kind, that he, no doubt,

has stakes set down at most of the quick-sands and quagmires into which he has previously fallen, so that he may avoid them at present. In one word I may say, he is looked to by the party in this country, as the pillar and support of Universalism. I know of no other man among them in the West, of any considerable note, who will venture forward in a public discussion. Indeed I did not suppose that he would till of late. So little desire have the entire party had for debate, that I have had a challenge standing in print more than two years, which reads as follows:

"A CHALLENGE.

"At any suitable time and place, we will undertake to prove that the Universalists differ from the bible in the following particulars: They believe in a different God-a different Devil-a different Hell-a different Heaven-a different Savior-a different Salvation-a different Sinner-a different Saint-a differen Sin-a different Righteousness—a different Gospel-a different Judgment-a different second coming of Christ and a different Resurrection of the Dead!" Ref. Vol. 3; p. 141.

Mr. M., however, is in the field and we are happy to be with him.

In entering into battle as we now are, it is not unusual to reflect upon the consequences that might follow should I be defeated. What then would be my fate, if I should utterly fail, and it should happen to be proved that Mr. M. is rightthat he is a true minister of Jesus Christ? And suppose I persist in opposing his doctrine all my life, and find in the end that it is true; what will be the consequences? Nothing, only that I shall be made holy and happy in heaven. As for all the hell I feel in conscience, or find in any other way in this life, for opposing the Gospel of Universalism, its hotest scorchings are quite a source of happiness to me, and even induces me to feel the most undoubted certainty that I am doing right. I am. therefore, in no danger let the matter turn out as it may.

Before I shall proceed directly to the proposition first to be introduced, I wish to apprise the audience of some strange

positions which I expect to see my opponent occupy before the discussion closes. I expect to see him forced virtually to deny the resurrection of the dead. If he does not deny that eternal life belongs to the future state, I shall be greatly disappointed. I shall be much mistaken if he does not at-> tempt to bring heaven into this world. You may also expect him to make immortality something to be enjoyed in this life. You need not be surprised if he should contend that the soul is the life or the breath. I expect to see him in many other singular predicaments which I cannot enumerate now, and that I shall place before him some passages of scripture which it will be hard to get him to acknowledge true. Of all these matters, however, you must judge when you have heard us.

Without further ceremony I shall proceed to read our first proposition. It reads as follows:

Do the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ to judge the world is future?

It mat

Our proposition is very clear and unambiguous. ters not to us how many comings of Christ may have taken place; nor is it material how many judgments may have taken place; for joining issue as we do, on this proposition, we both tacitly concede, that the scriptures speak emphatically of the coming of Christ to judge the world; and consequently, the question between us is not, whether the scriptures speak of the coming of Christ to judge the world, but whether that event is future. I say that event is future—Mr. says it is not. Here lies the question.

M.

You will readily see from this, that if my friend on this occasion should find some passages which speak of a coming of Christ which is past, it will by no means settle the question; for there might be a coming of Christ past, and the coming to judge the world future. In the the same way, he may refer to some judgments which are past, spoken of in the scriptures; but this by no means proves that there is no "judgment to come." The whole argument will be worth nothing to him, unless it shall be made appear that there is no coming to judge the world future.

If then I shall present one passage that puts the coming of Christ to judge the world future, I shall have gained this question; for if forty other passages can be found speaking