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 FOURTH SPEECHI.

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 commenced

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 recapit

ulation.

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

tively "nothing in fact at stake," whether you know it or not. You are then wasting your money in paying him for preaching and writing. That is all. There is nothing new in all this, only that the gentleman should have owned it! That such was the fact we were well satisfied before.

We are not disputing any thing about the heathen nations who never heard the gospel, but about those who die in disobedience to the gospel. Does he understand the Bible to threaten any with punishment who do not hear the gospel or rather who have never had an opportunity to hear it? He should prove such to be the fact, before he builds any argu ment upon it.

I cannot get Mr. Manford to believe our Savior, when he speaks of those who should stand "without the door and knock." He contends that they will be in the kingdom at the very time the Lord said they should stand "without" and "seek to enter in and shall not be able." Now I did not promise to convince any man in this debate who positively will not believe the clearest and most explicit statements of the Son of God. Be it whatever kingdom it may, he is here speaking of, the Lord declares they shall stand without, and shall cry Lord, Lord, open unto us, and shall strive to enter in and shall not be able. Does Mr. Marford believe this language? He positively does not, but on the other hand, declares and repeats it over and over again, that they were in all the time. Such is the desperate alternative to which he is driven, on this clear and explicit passage of the word of God.

He alleges that the Jews did strive to enter into the church, and were not able; but this I deny. The church of God has been open to the Jew as well as the Gentile, and the Jews have been invited, and are still invited, to come into the church. No one, either Jew or Gentile, ever did strive to enter into the church and was not able. This fact is one strong evidence that it did not mean the church. Mr. Manford admits that the "kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 15,) means heaven, in doing which he admits that the same words sometimes have reference to heaven, and sometimes to the church.— Then what good does it do to quote passages where "kingdom of God" means the church of God, to settle the question.

We both admit that these words are sometimes applied to the church, and sometimes to Heaven itself. The simple

question between us is, concerning which does the Savior speak in the passage in dispute. I have showed that it could not be the church; because, relative to entering into the church the Lord says, "whosoever will, may come;" but in the case before us, some are to be willing, and the Lord will not let them come. 2. In the case before us, the door is to be shut; but the door of the church will never be shut, while it is a church, to Jews or any body else. 3. In the case before us, some are to strive to enter in, but shall not be able; but none strive to enter into the church, without be. ing able to enter in. 4. The time when they shall strive to enter in, is to be when they shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, sit down in the kingdom, which will never be in the church in the present state. These four reasons he has never met, and never can meet. Mr. Manford thinks the words "thrust out of the kingdom," imply that they were in

it.

But if he will look at the passage carefully, he will see that the words "thrust out of the kingdom," are not in the pas sage. They were simply told that they should be "thrust out," and as they were not in, but standing without at the door, that must have been where they were thrust out from. There is not one particle of difficulty in the whole passage, so far as my side of the question is concerned, the difficulty is on the other side altogether, and my friend, Mr. Manford, feels it sensibly, too, hence his labored struggle to escape in his last speech.

The gentleman attempted some reply to my remarks relative to the ridiculous idea of the christians at Ephesus, and other distant countries from Jerusalem, "laying up a good foundation against " the destruction of Jerusalem. He however attempts to justify himself, by saying there were Jews at Ephesus and those other distant places, addressed in the apostolic letters. That does not help the matter any. The apostle wrote to the churches, a large majority of whom were Gentile converts, and all of whom, as said before, were in no more danger from the destruction of Jerusalem, than we are from the Mexican war.

Mr. Manford has now admitted that the word translated immortality, Ro. 2, 7, is the same word translated incorruptibility several times, 1 Cor. 15, yet he puts this immortality or incorruptibility, in this world in the former passage, and