of death; for they see a bright immortality ahead-not only for themselves, but for all that partake of "flesh and blood," all that "die in Adam,' for all mankind. And not only so, but Christ is to deliver them, who were all their lifetime subject to bondage. This then reaches beyond their "lifetime." Yes, all who were subject to bondage all their lifetime, and who died in this "bondage," are to be "delivered" -and delivered, too, into the glorious liberty of the children of God!

I must again refer to the 15th of 1 Cor. The 26th verse is so much to the point, that I must quote it here. "The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed." My friends, Mr. Franklin has been trying to make you believe there is a worse and greater enemy beyond death. But death is the last enemy of man, and that is to be destroyed! And when is it to be destroyed? At the resurrection. Death can only be destroyed when "swallowed up in victory," when all shall triumph over it-when the last child of mortality shall be raised from the dead. This will be at the general resurrection-when all who have died in Adam, shall be made alive in Christ. And recollect, death is the last enemy! There is to be no enemies beyond the resurrection-neither of God nor man. No sin-no suffering-no devil to torment! The devil, as we have just seen, is also to be destroyed-but this will be before death is destroyed, for death is the last enemy! Sin is destroyed at death-and death, which is the last enemy, will be destroyed at the resurrection! Remember this, my friends, for it is of itself, a pillar in our most holy faith-firm as the rock of ages!

One more passage, and I am done. I allude to the passage in Revelations, (5: 13,) where John caught a view in the far distant future, of the final triumph of the Redeemer, of the "restitution of all things." Hear him. "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that siteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever." [Time expired.]

MR. FRANKLIN'S FOURTH REPLY.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I should think myself imposing on the good judgment of this respectable audience, should I intimate such a thing, as that they would be liable to look upon the speech you have just heard, as containing any argument. I had taken the gentleman's arguments so completely out of his hands, that he saw no possible chance to redeem them, or to save himself from a most manifest discomfiture. Finding himself in this predicament, he seemed at times to get into perfect paroxysms of wrath, and could scarcely refrain from calling me a fool. Now, there was something in that evil spirit manifested in his last speech, that I do not so well know how to reconcile with one branch of his doctrine. He believes, you know, that men are punished for all their sins, in this life, and that they get their reward, whether it be good or bad, as they pass along. He also, believes that he is a minister of Christ, and that he is now contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints, and that I am a preacher of false doctrine, and that too, one of the worst and most damnable of all the false doctrines ever preached. Well, you know that the curse of God, is upon the preacher of any other doctrine, than that preached by the apostles, and that if any man adds to or takes away from that doctrine, the plagues of the book shall be added to him or his part taken out of the book of life. Well, now if all this comes to pass in this life-if all this punishment falls upon a man as he goes along, and if I am the preacher of false doctrine upon whom it falls, I can assure you, that it is quite a comfortable hell, and that I enjoy myself exceedingly well. But if my friend is now receiving the reward of the righteous, it is strange that he is not more happy! If I should become so confused and perplexed as he did, in his last speech, I should look upon it as any thing else but happiness. I do not wish to make the impression that Mr. M. is a bad man by this, for I do not

believe I could restrain myself any better than he does, were I in the same predicament.

The gentleman still keeps trying to explain his salvation from sin in a world where there will be no sin; but every effort he makes, only makes the matter worse. He said he had never been so green as to preach salvation from sin in the coming world. But not twenty words afterwards, he contends that man will enjoy a salvation from sin in the future world. Thus you see, that in one breath he is not so green as to preach such doctrine, and in the next, he says he believes it! According to this, he is not so green as to preach what he believes. Now if I should accuse him of this, as he has now accused himself, he would talk in as determined language as he did in his last speech, when he declared that he would not stand it.

Being saved from sin, with him, is the same as being saved from insanity. But I deny that any one is saved from insanity in the world to come. There is no insanity in that world to be saved from. Men have been saved from it in this world, but insanity is not a disease of the soul, but of the body, and consequently, the death of the body terminates it; but sin is a disease of the soul or spirit, and consequently, the death of the body does not terminate it!

He quoted the words, "He that is dead is freed from sin."-Rom. 6: 7, to prove that man is saved from sin after death. But the apostle is not speaking of the death of the body in that passage. The Roman brethren with the apostle himself, were dead in the sense in which he there speaks. At the 5th verse he says, "If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." The apostle and his brethren then had been planted together, in the likeness of the death of Jesus, but their bodies were still living. By referring to the 4th verse, you will see that they were not only dead with him, but had been buried with him, and raised up to walk in a new life. They were then living in body, walking in a new life, but "dead indeed unto sin," as expressed in the 11th verse. It is no trouble for my friend to decide that the death of the body or literal death, (2 Tim. 4: 1,) is spiritual death, and thus, when he comes to Roman 6: 7, to explain death as

he now says, we are "not saved from sin in the next world, for there is no sin there to be saved from," he has given up the whole ground, and admitted tha the has no salvation from sin, for we all know that all men are not saved from sin in this world. If then, all are not saved from sin in this world, as he must admit, and if they are "not saved from sin in the next world," as he now states, they must be saved in their sins or not saved at all. The gentleman must have patience with me -I cannot understand this doctrine!! And what is worse, I am certain no one else understands it, for there is no understanding to it.

Mr. Manford denies making Matthew and Luke contradict each other; but I ask the audience what was the meaning of his argument in the last speech, to try to prove that Matthew had a better opportunity to state the language of the Savior correctly than Luke? Was it not to offer some apology for some mistake on the part of Luke? He need not make any such apologies for me, for I do not believe they contradict each other; but it appears now that he does, and he is inclined to palm the blunder on Luke, and defend Matthew, as he had the best opportunity to know that he told the truth! I had thought one inspired man had as good an opportunity to know the truth as another, and also to know that he told the truth! But if they were liable to be mistaken, I do not see how he is to prove his proposition from them! If he intends to deny the correctness of what these writers say, I do not see what he referred to them for. It is true, Luke says, he "had perfect under standing of all things from the very first," but Mr. M. has now decided the case that he was mistaken, for Matthew had the best chance to know that he was right. Why did the gentleman quote Luke at all? If Luke had only left out that one expression, "they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain. that world," all would have been well.

I do not know that I ever saw any one so completely disarmed as the gentleman was when he approached the passages to which I have just referred. He wanted to prove something, and could hardly tell what! He asserted and re-as

serted, emphasized and strained his lungs, as if determined to make you believe him, whether he could prove his doctrine or not! But did he make any one believe that "they that shall be accounted worthy," means all mankind? And did he offer any argument to prove it? I think not.

Mr. Manford, notwithstanding all his bluster about misrepsentation, has asserted in every speech, substantially, as he has in this, that I have taken the "position that the phrases'neither can they die any more'-'all live unto God'—'equal unto the angels,' &c., only meant unmarried!" To this I have hitherto made no reply, as I expected he would continue to repeat it over and over again; and even now, it is scarcely necessary, for there is no person present who does not know that I have taken no such position. I have said, and still say, that the point of comparison before the Savior's mind, when he uttered the words "but are as the angels of God in heaven," simply consisted in this, that they neither marry nor are given in marriage. I do not say they shall not be like the angels in any other respect, but I say that was the point the Savior spoke to in that passage, and that I am not correct, he has not and cannot show. I maintain, as I have done all the time, that the simple expression that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven," does not say it means, nor can it prove, that all mankind will be holy and happy in heaven.

Mr. Manford is now to confine himself to Matthew, as he allows he has given the words of the Savior precisely as they were delivered.. He therefore has nothing to do with the words, "all live unto him," as Matthew does not record them, but simply remarks, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." His proof, then, is narrowed down to the promise, that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven," and that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."This is the language that he quotes to prove that all mankind will be finally holy and happy. If he has not utterly failed on this passage, I am at a loss to know how any one could fail. As he has attempted no proof that "they that shall be accounted worthy" includes all mankind, it is unnecessary that I should say anything about it, further than simply to say that "they that shall be accounted worthy" does not mean all the dead, and these were the persons in the resurrection that Luke spoke of, and we have no evidence that Matthew spoke of any others.

Mr. Manford now admits that there is no literal resurrec