MR. MANFORD'S THIRD REPLY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN :

Many things said by Mr. Franklin in his last speech are of an irrelevant nature, and I shall therefore pass them by without comment or notice.

The first thing which has any bearing on the question, is his denial of the fact that "Christ taught that he would come in judgment during the lifetime of some who were living when he was on earth." He says I will have to read my Bible again, "for Christ never taught any such thing. Well, let us see; I have asserted that he did, and I seldom make assertions, my friends, without I know whereof I affirm. Turn to Matt. 16: 27, 28: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall REWARD every man according to his works; verily I say unto you, there be some standing here who shall not taste of death, TILL THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM." Here you see, he declares that he was to come in his kingdom to REWARD every man according to his works, before some whom he addressed should taste of death. Was he not then to "come in judgment during the lifetime of some who were living when he was on earth?" I leave it to you to decide.

The two Judgments after death:-I know Mr. Franklin had not said "anything about two judgments after death;" and no doubt he would be glad if I had said nothing about thembut does he not believe in "two judgments after death?"That's the question! He has a good deal to say about my inconsistencies-let us look at some of his. Does he not believe the soul goes either to heaven or hell immediately after death? And does it not go to the one or the other place, in accordance with a judgment pronounced upon it, deciding that it is deserving of either the one or other, as the character of the individual may have been? This is the common doctrine, and I will venture to say that Mr. Franklin believes it, or at least acquiesces in it. If he does not,

let him tell what he thinks becomes of the soul, immdiately after death. This, then, is one judgment. But does he not believe in another judgment—a great and terrible judgment, when the thousands that have gone to heaven, and the millions (if orthodoxy be true) that have gone to hell, will be brought back again, all congregated together and judged over again? This is what is to take place at that judgment which he is now trying to prove. I only give you this as one of the beauties of my friend's system! You can pursue the subject at your leasure.

My friend next comes to the 24th chapter of Matthew; and truly he labors hard to make it appear that Christ was not to come till after the destruction of Jerusalem! He admits that he was to come "immediately" after that event; but he thinks it could not have been previous to it, nor at the time of it. His argument is based upon the adverb "then." He says, "At the 22d verse he is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem." The gentleman has fallen into a slight error here; Christ is speaking, not of the destruction of the city, but of the "tribulation" that was immediately to precede it— of wars and rumors of wars-nation rising against nation— kingdom against kingdom-famines, pestilence, earthquakes, &c.—which were "the beginning of sorrows;" and of "false prophets," and "false Christs," and finally of the approach of the Roman army, (or "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel) and, in the 23d verse, says: "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there, believe it not." But I will admit, for the sake of the argument, that the word "then" applies to the destruction of Jerusalemthat Christ had reference to that very identical time, as Mr. Franklin contends;-and what will his argument amount to? Just nothing at all! "Then (at the destruction of Jerusa lem) if any man shall say unto you"- mark that, "if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there, believe it not." And why? Because "there shall arise false Ohrists, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders"-"and shall deceive many"-"the very elect, if it were possible!" And further, because you are to take no man's word in this matter: Behold, I have told you be fore! "False Christs" did arise at that time, and deceived many-as history testifies; and Christ knowing that this

would be the case, cautioned his disciples against themtelling them to take no man's word; that if any man shall say unto you, Lo here; believe it not; depend upon your own senses, and upon what I have told you-"For as lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be." You are to "look up" to the heavens for his "sign," and "see him com. ing in the clouds, with power and great glory." You are not to look for him "in the desert," nor "in the secret chamber!"-nor are you to take any man's word for it, but rely upon yourselves, and upon what I have told you!

But let us read on a little further, my friends, since we have got into the merits of the case, we may as well go through with it. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days:" I understand the "tribulation of those days" to refer to the "tribulations" which immediately preceded the destruction of Jerusalem;-but as Mr. Franklin is desirous that it should be referred to the time of the destruction, I am willing to accommodate him, as it is a matter of but little consequence, so far as the main question is concerned. It means, then, the destruction of Jerusalem. Well, "IMMEDIATELY after the destruction of the city, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, &c., and THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and THEN shall the tribes of the carth (or land) mourn; and then (when? Why then.) shall ye see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." How long, think you, my friends, is immediately? You recollect Mr. Franklin admitted in his last speech that "the sign of the Son of man, was to be seen immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem. I told you in my previous speech that I had not said "the coming of Christ was after the destruction of Jerusalem." gentleman, true to his nature, caught at the bait, and so goes right to work in his last speech to prove that the "sign" of the Son of man, and his "coming," were to take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem! He is a won derful man to catch at little things! But what better does it make it for him, whether Christ was to come before, at, or immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem? He must recollect that it was not only immediately after, but immedi

The

ately after that event. MEDIATELY?

How long, again I would ask, is IM

-

But let us read on: "Now learn a parable (or lesson) of the fig-tree. When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth the leaves, ye know that summer is nigh; so likewise YE, when YE SHALL SEE THESE THINGS, KNOW THAT IT IS NIGH, EVEN AT THE DOORS. Know that what is nigh? Why just what he had been talking about-the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, and the end of the world or age. And who did he mean by "YE?"-who were to ❝SEE all these things," and were to "know that it was nigh, even at the doors? The disciples-the identical persons to whom he was speaking. Were not "ALL THESE things,". the coming of the Son of man included-to take place during their lifetime? Were THEY not to SEE "all these things?" "Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass till ALL THESE THINGS be fulfilled." Now, recollect that his "coming" and every thing else of which he had been speaking previous to the 34th verse-included in the phrase "all these things"-was to take place, or "be fulfilled," during that generation. This will not be denied.Here then I rest the matter-at least until I hear from Mr. Franklin. Say what he will, he cannot avoid the fact that Christ was to come in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory, during that generation, which, at farthest, could not have meant beyond the lifetime of some who were living at that time. But by his admission that "the sign" of his coming was to be seen "immediately" after the destruction of the city, he has yielded the whole matter. For it must be evident to all, that the very identical persons who were to see the "sign" of his coming, were also to see his "coming.' I will therefore pass to notice one or two passages introduced by my friend in his last speech.

"I charge thee therefore, before God and the Lord JesusChrist; who shall judge the quick and the dead, at his apearing, and his kingdom"-2 Tim. 4: 1.

Mr. Franklin supposes that the word "dead," in this place, means those who are literally dead! Well, suppose we admit it for a moment, and see what kind of a judgment we shall have. If the word "dead" means those that are literally dead, then of course the word "quick" has an oppo

site meaning, and refers to those that are literally alive.According then to this exposition of the text, people who are literally dead, and who are literally alive, will stand before God and be judged! Imagine to yourselves, for a moment, my friends, a vast multitude-some dead, and some alivestanding up to receive the sentence of the great Judge! Recollect, my friends, I am not ridiculing the Bible, nor am I ridiculing Mr. Franklin-it is only his interpretation of the passage. I am only showing the conclusions to which his view of the text would lead. I am sure he will thank me for it, and will immedately abandon an interpretation which presents such a ridiculous view of the subject.

But that we may understand what is meant by the "quick and the dead," let us turn to Eph. 2: 1, and see what is said. "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and in sins." Of course then, those who had been "quickened" could be called "quick; -and those who had not been "quickened" were still "dead." These are the kind of "quick and dead" persons that were to be judged by "the Lord Jesus Christ" when he should appear in his kingdom-the righteous and the wicked, or believers and unbelievers. Let us now see when this judgment was to take place. Recollect, it was to be "at his appearing and his kingdom;"-or, as more properly rendered by Wakefield, Tyndale, and others-at his appearing in his kingdom. We have just seen when this "appearing," or "coming of the Son of man" was to take place; but to render the matter more certain, and make "assurance doubly sure," let us read Matt. 16: 28-"Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM." Let this suffice for the present.

Another passage introduced by Mr. Franklin is Rev. 20: 11, 12-"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which was the book of Life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

I am pleased that my friend has introduced this passage,