words to mean unlimited duration in ten places in the same book, in reference to the same state, used by the same man, and then deny that it has the same meaning in the three places where it applies to punishment? Certainly by no rule or law of language whatever, only a determination to have the discussion in a certain way. That the soul and body of man may be destroyed in hell after death, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, where he will suffer eternal punishment, and be tormented forever and ever, is just as certain as that the Bible is a revelation from God. Whoever shall be the miserable victims of this fierce vengeance of God, most certainly will be without any thing to ground a hope of escape upon. I ask, then, what language the Almighty could have used to express the duration of the punishment of the wicked that would have been more forcible than that to which I have referred? I do not know any way that endless punishment could have been expressed more clearly, than it is expressed in the Bible. Beloved neighbors, you have now heard us present what we have to say on this great question. You have heard Mr. M. acknowledge the superiority of the importance of knowing it, if I am right, and you have heard him admit how much less the importance of knowing it, if he is right. The reason why he admits it to be so important to know it, if I am right, is that we may obey the gospel and thus escape punishment; and on the other hand, the reason why it is of so little importance to know it, if he is right, is that it will not make any one any better if he does know it. You have seen the close places Mr. M. has been in, in this discussion and that in many instances he would not acknowledge that he believed plain passages of scripture. Indeed, he could not, without giving up his theory. You must now decide for yourselves, and my prayer is, that you may decide in such a way as you will be satisfied in life, in death, and in the morning of the resurrection. The subjects we have discussed, have been before me some twelve years, and I know that I have looked at them with candor; and look upon it as my duty, now that we are about to close the debate, to assure you that I am happy in thus having made this effort in defence of truth and righteousness; and, although I have received the most insulting language, I have tried to keep in the spirit of my master, and not return railing for railing. Gentlemen, moderators, you have my most grateful thanks for the respectful and dignified manner you have presided in this discussion. And you, my fellow-citizens, have my most sincere thanks for your patient attention. My prayer to the giver of all good is, that this discussion may be the means, under God, of enlightening mankind and promoting rightecusness in the earth. To the great name of God, through Jesus Christ, be the honor and power everlasting. Amen. MR. MANFORD'S CLOSING REPLY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN : The gentleman tells us that he has introduced more than one proof-text. I again tell him, what every one in the congregation knows to be correct, that he has produced only one proof-text on the proposition before us to day, and that is Matt. 25: 46. That is the only passage he has cited that relates to the duration of punishment, the subject of our present discussion. The other texts he has read say nothing about the duration of punishment, and therefore are not proof-texts. If his views of them all are correct, they would not come within a thousand miles of proving that any of mankind will suffer endless misery. It is perfect folly, then, to call them proof-texts. Every one knows that they are not. He promised in the beginning to do the very best he could for his cause; and he thought he could do it ample justice, as he has studied it faithfully twelve years. His ardent and laborious studies by day and by night, for twelve long years, accompanied by the laudable aspiration to do something great, has armed him, he thinks, with one evidence that the God of heaven will torment a portion of his own offspring, without mercy and without end! Without doubt the gentleman has done the best he could; and if he could have mustered one more proof of his darling theme, he would gladly have done so. You most not, therefore, blame this advocate of endless wo, for not doing better. But as the good Book is so barren of this principal item of Partialism, I hope the gentleman hereafter will think and preach less of the devil and his kingdom," and more of Christ and his kingdom. The Bible is full of Christ and of heaven, but, according to Mr. Franklin, the eternal kingdom of darkness, as the doom of men, is only once spoken of. But the gentleman is more successful than St. Paul was, an Apostle of Christ. He studied the Gospel some thirty years, and it is a fact, that he never spoke of hell but once, and then declared that it should be destroyed. If any one doubts this, let him read the Apostle's sermons and epistles, and he will be convinced that I speak the truth. Still he affirms that he had "not shunned to declare ALL the counsel of God." Acts 20: 27. Perhaps Mr. F., when he shall have studied the Revelation of God as long and as faithfully as St. Paul did, he will have learned that the doctrine of endless torments compose no part of God's counsel. "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierean spring." But I have already shown that my friend's sole proof-text falls far short of sustaining his proposition. Testimony on testimony has been presented, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the word everlasting does not signify endless duration; and you all know how weak and contemptible have been his quibbles; for it would be a prostitution of language and common sense, to call his insipid talk on that subject arguments. The course he has pursued on this subject is worthy only of his creed. He says, with effrontery truly astonishing, that I have "tried to escape discussion on the meaning of the Greek word aionion," rendered everlasting. He knows, as well as he knows I am now speaking, that there is not one word of truth in that remark. I have proved, over and over, that the term everlasting does not mean endless duration. I proved this from Watts, Macknight, and others. In my last speech I cited many passages from the Bible, demonstratiug that the word signifies limited duration of time. Trying to escape! Does the man think you are all dumb? The gentleman says that lexicons define aion and aionion differently; but in that he is much mistaken. I will give the primary signification that several lexicons give those words: DONNEGAN.-Aion-time. Aionion-long duration. There, all these authors define those terms exactly alike. Their definitions vary only in words, not in meaning: and not one of them gives endless duration as the proper meaning of either of those terms. He reiterates his stupid assertion, that a noun and the adjective derived from it, are two different words! If he would give the science of grammar a little attention, he would be heartily ashamed of that assertion. Every one who makes any just prentension to letters knows that an adjective is only a modification of a noun; the same used in another form. Í sometimes think my ears deceive me when I understand him to assert that adjectives are not derived from nouns. Every school-boy and school-girl knows better than that. I can see some of them nodding assent to what I say. Dr. Franklin, you had better leave this pulpit. set at their feet, and learn of them. Open any grammar, and you will find it written, that "Adjectives are derived from nouns." As they are derived from nouns, they, of course, get all their meaning from the nouns whence derived. For your own credit deny this no longer. It does seem to me that there can be no longer any doubt concerning the primary meaning of the word everlasting, with those whose minds are influenced by testimony, for that is all on one side-all proves that that word properly signifies limited duration, not endless. He admits that the word everlasting is "frequeutly used in a limited sense." How does he know it is not used in that sense in the pessage before us-"these shall go away into everlastng punishment.' I have proved that to be its signification in that text, from a variety of testimony, most of which he has paid no attention to. But he thinks because the Bible speaks of the "everlasting Father," everlasting sometimes signifies endless duration. If it does bear that meaning in such connection, it does not follow that it means endless when applied to punishment. But I do not rely on that ambiguous term to prove the endless existence of God, but on expressions that admit of no limitation. For example-Paul says: "And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible men, and to beasts and to birds, and creeping things." Rom. 1: 29. Here the nature of God is contrasted with the nature of earthly beings. They are corruptible, but he is incorruptible. "Of old thou has laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall change: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Ps. 102: 27. Here the existence and character of the heavens and earth are contrasted with those of the Almighty. They shall "change" and "wax old," "but thou art the same; "they shall perish, but thou shalt endure;" "thy years shall have no end." By such language do the scriptures teach the unchangability and endless existence of God. But the Bible no where says that the sufferings of men will have no end, but it does say that the "wickedness of the wicked shall come to an end," and consequently their sufferings also will end. Neither should we rely on the term in question to prove the endless existence of the soul. The bible employs other terms to teach that truth. "An inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you." 1 Peter 1: 4. But no where do the sacred writers assert that the life of the damned in hell will be incorruptible, and that their miseries will not fade away. These terms, applied to the existence of God and to the life of the soul, admit of no limitation. But this cannot be said of the word everlasting, and therefore it being applied to beings that are endless in their nature, is no evilence at all that the word means endless. Mr. Franklin ought to be logician enough to know this. In regard to "everlasting life," I have proved, I think to the |