the heavens with a great noise, are certainly matters of sufficient importance to have been specially recorded in history, if indeed they are past. But did he refer you to the time and the place where these wonderful things occurred? Not at all. He had not even enough nerve to say, that it referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, although he gave some such intimations. He can tell you that the coming of Christ to judge the world is past, and that he has proved it; but when did it pass? That is the question. I wish him to tell what that judgment was. What was the perdition of ungodly men? Will he ever be so good as to tell? He wishes

to know what good a judgment after death will do. I should be pleased to know what good the judgment of which he speaks will do. He is the last man who should start any such enquiry. After preaching, writing and debating about it for years, he cannot tell us what his judgment is!!! What good does a judgment do in this world, when even the preachers cannot tell what it is? He wishes to know if the judg

ment after death is to correct mistakes that occurred in a previous judgment. I suppose from this question, that the object of his judgment is to determine who are the guilty.— But I presume the Judge spoken of in the Bible, knows who are the guilty before judgment, and consequently has not appointed a day in which to judge the world, to ascertain who are the guilty, but to pass a final sentence upon all.

What disposition did he make of the "scoffers of the last days." None at all, except it be to try to prove that "last days" related to the close of the Jewish polity. That is, he tried to show, that when Peter, only six years before Jerusalem was destroyed, said, "there shall come scoffers in the last days," he meant that they should come during that six years. But did he show that any scoffers did come, during that period, "saying where is the promise of his coming?" Surely not. It is true, he referred to the words of Joel, Acts 2, and to the words of John," it is the last time," and said these passages referred to the same time, but on this he gave no proof only his assertion. The exact fulfilment of a prediction, is an infallible evidence of the time to which it referred. There was no set of men, during the six years in question, who said, "where is the promise of his coming," but we have just such a set of men in our day, and if we had

no other evidence, this would be sufficient to show that Peter referred to these times.

The gentleman made quite a display over the words, "is waxed old and ready to vanish away.' His object as you recollect, was to prove that the old covenant was still in force, and consequently that Peter referred to the last days of it. But in 2 Cor. 3: 11, speaking of the old covenant, Paul calls it, "that which was done away." In the 13th verse he calls it, "that which is abolished." Rom. 10: 4, the same Apostle said, (year 60)," Christ is the end of the law." Col. 2: 14, he says, "Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.' Now my friend informed you, that I would not get him into any of the predicaments mentioned in my first speech. I told you that I expected to introduce passages of scripture which he would not acknowledge true. I now ask Mr. M. the question : Do you believe that when Paul wrote these several expressions, the old covenant was done away -" abolished". "blotted out "- -"took out of the way," and that" Christ was the end of the law?" If you do, the old institution, you must admit, was at an end, truly "ready to vanish away.' Will any man in his right mind, believe the old covenant I was in force after it was done away, ," "abolished," "blotted out," "took out of the way,' " "nailed to the cross," and "Christ was the end of the law?" Just as soon as he confesses his belief of these passages of scripture, he confesses that the Jewish covenant was at an end, and the apostle Peter, writing after the end of the Jewish institution, referred forward to the "scoffers of the last days," which could not possibly have been the last days of the Jewish polity, for it was gone.

66

But in this same passage, the apostle says, "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." Now did he mean that the heavens and the earth which are now are reserved unto the destruction of Jerusalem? If he did, he did not mean that they were reserved unto the hell of conscience. And if he meant that they were reserved unto the fire of the hell of conscience, he did not mean the destruction of Jerusalem,

and consequently it is no difference when Peter wrote. I do not believe my friend dare take any position on this point.--Will he explain this branch of the "glorious doctrine of Universalism?"

66

The gentleman's reply on the passage in Thess. calls for but little attention. He says, can any man in his senses believe an event is 'at hand,' and at the same time believe it is sixteen years in the future?" I answer most emphatically, that if it be an event that has been spoken of more than fifteen hundred years, as was the case with the destruction of Jerusalem, HE CAN, and that no man of truth and sound understanding could say any thing else. When the first coming of Christ was within sixteen years, all believers considered it at hand, and any man who would have taught that it was not at hand would have been regarded as a false teacher. But Paul regarded that man as a deceiver, who should pervert his letter or spirit so as to say the day of Christ was at hand; for, says he, "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." This falling away is unequivocally declared to be the Roman apostacy by all great protestants. Christ was to destroy this man of sin with the " spirit of his mouth and the brightness of his coming." Was the time at hand when the man of sin should be destroyed? If so, how does it happen that the man of sin is not yet destroyed?

The gentleman thinks that if it had been a common doctrine among the early Christians, that Christ would not come till the end of the Christian dispensation, the Thessalonians would have understood it. This is worth nothing, for even those who were in error on the subject, and contended that the coming of Christ was at hand, may have thought the end of the Christian dispensation equally as near at hand.

66

My second proof text, Acts 3: 21, the gentleman says "is not relevant." But in the next breath he says of the same passage: It proves also that Christ has not come in person since he ascended to heaven." Well, that is just what I quoted it to prove. That much is then established, and my friend has sanctioned it.

I have been trying to understand my friend from his first speech, and as far as he has taken any position, it amounts to this: Christ has never appeared personally since he aș

cended to heaven, but at the resurrection he will appear personally. But he has appeared already in judgment and in glory. Let us then see what conclusions we can arrive at from these statements.

1. It is rather a ridiculous idea to me, to make a figurative appearing, such as the slaughter of a million and a half of Jews, (if it be even a figurative appearing) the "GLORIOUS APPEARING," and rob the personal appearing at the resurrection of the dead of its glory!! But if my friend can get round a coming judgment no other way, and the fear of hell seems to press him, he will put the glory of Jesus in the past tense, to provide a way of escape. But as the gentleman has decided that the appearing of Christ in glory is past, I would be pleased to call his attention to the following passage: "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Tit. 2: 11. Is this "glorious appearing" past? If the gentleman says, it is, he gives up one of his favorite proof texts. "When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3 4. Is this appearing of Christ in glory past? Surely

not.

But I must enquire whether it is the personal appearing that is visible or the figurative appearing, if there be any such a thing. If he shall say, that the appearing "in glory and judgment," is the one at which " every eye shall see him," I should be pleased to know how they could see him, if he did not appear in person! But I now proceed to show that the personal appearing, the glorious appearing, and his appearing in judgment are all the same appearing, or in other words that the appearing in glory and judgment will be personal. "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." Now my friend has admitted that there has been no personal coming of Christ since he ascended to heaven. But in this passage we are told, that "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn,

99

and they shall SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING in the clouds of heaven.' Now I ask the gentleman if he believes these words of the Savior? Did he tell the truth when he said, "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven?" If he says, he believes this passage of scripture his position is yielded up, at once; for there has been no coming of Christ up to this time, at which "all the tribes of the earth mourned," nor has there been any coming of Christ, at which all the tribes of the earth saw the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, nor can all the tribes of the earth ever see the son of MAN coming in the clouds of heaven at any other coming but a personal one. To this I shall hold the gentleman throughout this day.

66

"Behold he cometh with clouds and every eye shall sec him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” As in the passage just noticed so in this, he is represented as coming in the clouds of heaven; and while it is said in the former passage, "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn," in this it is said "all the kindred of the earth shall wail." And in this passage it is said, "every eye shall see him." Can every eye see him at any but a personal coming? Surely not.

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." Luke 21: 27. I showed in my first speech, that in the preceding verses of this chapter, the Savior places the captivity of the Jewish nation, the treading down of Jerusalem by the gentiles and the fulfilment of the times of the gentiles, between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of Christ; and that neither of these was yet terminated, and consequently that the coming here. spoken of must be yet future. But now I am helped to another argument by my friend's statement, which is true, that the coming of Christ at the resurrection of the dead will be personal. This passage most unquestionably refers to the same personal coming, for he says, "then shall they SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD," which could not be the case at any but a personal coming.

My friend has now admitted that this coming is the same as that of the 24th of Matt., and that it was after the destruction of Jerusalem. Well, if it was only one week after, it