66

Now, I ask the gentleman, what language the Almighty could have used, that would express endless punishment, if that which I have produced does not? If men may be in danger of eternal damnation," "go into everlasting punishment, "and be "tormented day and night forever and ever," "where the worm dieth not and and the fire is not quenched," and not suffer endless punishment; then, indeed, there is no language under Heaven that can prove endless punishment.

The gentleman has expressed a great desire to get into the merits of the question, touching the duration of punishment; but I expect to see him now ramble all over the creation, and have more to say about every thing else than the passages I have introduced. Will he refer to any lexicons to get the definitions of the words I have relied upon ? We shall see. But you need not expect him to be convinced, for he now declares, that if my position is true, God is the author of infinite evil, he charges it upon God, and he now says, "I could not love such a being if I would, and I tell you more, I would not if I could." Convince such a man! In the sacred name of reason, how would you convince him? He would despise the Almighty Jehovah, should he be compelled to admit that he decides against him; and if he should find he is mistaken, he decides now, that he will hate God forever. This shows how much regard he has for the wisdom of God. [Time expired.]

MR. MANFORD'S THIRD SPEECH.

MY FRIENDS:

Mr. Franklin commences his last speech with his old song, about my being angry, or in a bad humor! The gentleman has made himself extremely ridiculous on this subject; indeed he is quite childish!-and one would think that he ought, by this time, to be ashamed of himself! but no; like some little boy who is determined to have the last word—“if you were not angry, you acted like you were--if you were in a good humor, I should hate to see you in a bad humor!" It must be apparent to you all, my friends, that he resorts to this course, when he has nothing else to say--a kind of hobby, when he finds himself used up. You may set it down as a matter of fact then, that whenever he gets to talking about my being angry, he is in a bad predicament, and don't know what else to say!

My friends, I am in no trouble about "dividing or subdividing the proposition." We agreed to debate a certain proposition, viz: endless punishment; and he may "divide and subdivide," and raise as many other questions as he pleases, one thing is certain, he cannot draw me away from the question I agreed to discuss. He may take whatever course he pleases; all I have to say is--I shall not reply to any thing that does not bear directly upon the proposition.

99

He misrepresents me, and says that which he knows to be false, when he says that I " appear to be satisfied that the wicked will be punished after death.' He knows I believe in no such thing! But punishment after death is not the question between us, and therefore I do not choose to discuss it.

He is guilty of an equally base and wilful misrepresentation, when he represents me as saying there is "nothing at stake," if Universalism be true! I said, and I say again, that there is nothing at stake if Universalism be true, in comparison with what there is at stake, if endless punishment be true.-And there being so much at stake-indeed a whole eternity-if the latter doctrine be true, I argued that it could not be

true, from the fact that but a small portion of the world knows any thing about it. Such a palpable misrepresentation does not speak very well either for a man's head or heart!

But he says, "God has given just such warning"--"Our Lord speaks of eternal punishment, and eternal damnation." True enough; and now admitting, for the sake of the argument, that the New Testament teaches the doctrine of endless punishment, how many I ask, know anything about the New Testament?--how many, in comparison with the whole world, know anything of the gospel? Admit all the gentleman asks for, and it does not meet my argument, by a thousand miles! So I repeat that if the doctrine of endless punishment were true, a doctrine in which there would be so much at stake, God would have taken measures to have made the fact known to the world-to the whole world--and in a way too, that all would have known it long ago. The presumption is, therefore, that the doctrine is not true!

Mr. Franklin still holds on to the idea that the "kingdom of God" means heaven! And although I showed positively in my last that if the "kingdom of God," and "kingdom of heaven," mean heaven, then the wicked go to heaven; for we read of the wicked being "thrust out" of the kingdom"-of gathering "out of his kingdom" things "that offend" of "the children of the kingdom" being "cast out," and of "the kingdom of heaven" gathering of "every kind;" yet notwithstanding all this, he thinks I failed to prove the fact, because in the passage he quoted, the Savior speaks of their "standing without," and knocking at the door for entrance! Now in this very same passage, where they are represented as "standing without," (Luke xiii, 24-28) the Savior winds up by saying "and you yourselves thrust out." Thrust out of what? Why out of the kingdom of God-consequently they must have been in the kingdom.

But in regard to the other passages which I read, the gentleman allows they refer to the church. He says, "the church is sometimes called the kingdom, and sometimes kingdom means heaven itself, as in this passage-Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' True enough in this passage, I admit that "kingdom of God" means heaven; and I now challenge Mr. Franklin to find another place in the New Testament where either "kingdom," "kingdom of heaven," or "kingdom of God," means the immortal state! do so if he can, or forever hold his peace,

Let him

6

But he denies that this passage, (Luke xiii,) means the church, or kingdom on earth, "for," says he, "the Master has never shut to the door of the church." But was not the door "shut to" against the Jews? Let us enquire into this a little. In the 18th verse of this chapter the Savior saith: "Unto what is the kingdom of God like?" That "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are synonymous here, is evident from the fact that in the parallel place in Matt. (xiii, 31) the latter phrase is used. The Savior proceeds: "It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and cast into his garden; and it grew and waxed a great tree." Is heaven like a grain of mustard seed? And did the Savior mean that it would "grow and wax a great tree?" "And again he said: whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. Is heaven like leaven which a woman hid in three measures of meal?' Or does not the Savior here allude to the gospel kingdom, or kingdom of heaven on earth? Says Dr. Clarke, in speaking of these two parables of our Savior-"Both these parables are prophetic, and were intended to show, principally, how, from very small beginnings, the gospel of Christ should pervade all the nations of the world, and fill them with righteousness and true holiness." Now if the Savior does not in these two parables allude to the church, or kingdom of heaven on earth, then, all I have to say, is, there is no place in the Bible where " kingdom of heaven," or "kingdom of God," has such a meaning! But the Savior goes right on, and in the 24th verse tells them to "strive to enter" into this kingdom "at the strait gate"lest, when the Master shall 'shut to the door,' they shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.' And then in the 28th verse says: "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Now to whom does he allude here? I answer to the Jews. And were they not thrust out of the 'kingdom of God?' was it not 'shut' against them?-was it not taken from them and given to another nation? As Mr. Franklin may be disposed to reject Dr. Clarke's evidence, I will read you what Alexander Campbell says touching this matter. When he visited Jerusalem the last time, and in the last parable pronounced to

6

them, he told them plainly, the kingdom of God should be taken from them,' and given to a nation who should make a better use of the honors of the kingdom; consequently, at that time, the Jews had the kingdom of God.)" (Chris. Rest. p. 169.)

Was heaven taken from the Jews? And did the Jews at that time, have heaven? Mr. Franklin says the church, by which he means the "kingdom of heaven," has never been shut. I have proved that it was shut to the Jews But Mr. Campbell, in speaking of this same subject, (p. 166,) quotes this passage: "Alas! for you Scribes and Pharisees! for you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, and will neither enter yourselves, nor permit others that would, to enter." So the kingdom of heaven, or church, was not only shut against the Jews, when they were "thrust out," and it was taken from them, but even the Scribes and Pharisees had power and used it, to shut it against men!

But to show you that the Savior meant the "Church" or kingdom of God on carth, in this passage, (Luke 13,) which Mr. Franklin denies, I will read some more from Mr. Campbell. In speaking of the "kingdom" on earth, and of the Savior's parables in reference to it, he says, (p. 164,) "sometimes he speaks of the administration of its affairs-of its king-of its territory-of its progress-of various incidents in its history. Hence the parable of the sower--of the wheat and darnel-of the leaven--of the merchant seeking goodly pearls-of the grain of mustard seed," &c. Mr. Campbell, you see, mentions both of those parables which occur in connection with Mr. Franklin's proof-text, (Luke 18,) of the "leaven," and the "mustard seed," and applies them to the kingdom on earth. So I have Dr. Clarke and the celebrated A. Campbell, both on my side. I could add more names to the list, if I thought it necessary.

Now, it matters not whether those persons were in the kingdom or not, of whom Christ spoke, and who Mr. F. says were not in it, because they stood without; I referred to other places to show that the "kingdom of heaven and "kingdom of God," could not mean heaven, in those places, without involving the idea that there would be wicked men in heaven, an idea which no one admits. But he admits that in these places the church is meant, but contends