had no such reference. The Savior is undoubtedly speaking of a moral resurrection, as is evident from the connection. Verses 24 and 25, read, "He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from DEATH unto LIFE. Verily I say unto you, the hour is coming, and Now IS, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." This refers to a moral resurrection, most unquestionably-and this will explain the "resurrection" mentioned in the 28th and 29th verses. Read also John 11: 25-" He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,"—and Eph. 2: 1-“ You hath he quickened, who were dead in tresspasses and sins.” I will now paraphrase the passage, and you will then be able to see what it means: "Marvel not at this, for the time is coming (approaching, near by,) when all that are in the graves (or dead, as in verse 25) when all that are in a state of moral death, sleeping in false security-as is the whole Jewish nation-shall, by my voice in the thunder of my judgments, be roused up from that 'state of inactivity, to action,' to a sense of their real situation; but they shall come forth to very different results. Those that have done good, have obeyed my gospel, shall come forth to a resurrection of life, shall be saved from their persecutions, and shall enjoy a more perfect and complete knowledge of my kingdom, and share more abundantly in its divine blessings. While those that have done evil-have rejected me and my gospel-shall come forth to a resurrection of condemnation-shall share in the dreadful judgments coming upon this people and nation." This we conceive to be the true meaning of the

passage.

The only words in the passage that would lead any one to think it refers to the literal resurrection, are graves and resurrection. The first of these is never used in the New Testament in connection with the immortal resurrection, or as denoting the place of all the literally dead. Hades is the term used as the place of the dead. As to the word resurrection, it has no necessary reference to the immortal resurrection. It is so used, I admit; but Dr. George Campbell (not Alexander) says, "this is neither the only, nor the primitive meaning of the word. It denotes simply, being

66

raised from inactivity, to action, or from obscurity to eminence, or a return to such a state, after an interruption." Rising from a seat," he says " is properly termed anastasis [resurrection]; so is awaking out of sleep, or promotion from an inferior condition." Thus writes Dr. Campbell on this word. The gentleman has failed in his attempt to apply this passage to the immortal resurrection. But were he to succeed, still it would not help him any; for it says nothing about the "coming of Christ to judgment." He had better keep to his proposition, and to those passages which speak of the "coming of Christ to judgment.

99

I agree with Mr. Franklin that Luke 14: 14, "the recompense at the resurrection of the just" refers to the same time as "the rewarding of every man according to his works, "Matt. 16: 27-or to the commencement of Christ,s reign; and also admit that it refers to the same event that is meant in John 5: 28, 29. All this I believe; but I have seen no evidence that "the resurrection of the just," in Luke 14: 14, has any reference to the immortal resurrection. Christ said," When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind," and then assured his hearers that although these poor could not recompense them by giving them a feast in return, yet they should not lose their reward; for they should be "recompensed at the resurrection of the just; that is, when the just shall be raised from the low and abject condition in which they now are, to a state of eminence and prosperity-when they shall enter the kingdom of God, or of Heaven. This is evidently the meaning from what follows. One who sat by and heard Jesus, said, "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." Those who should make a feast, and invite the poor to eat with them, could not expect to be "recompensed" by those poor in the same way, but they should be "blessed or recompensed" by eating the bread of the kingdom of God, or the gospel kingdom. Christ, in speaking of the distinction that should be made between his followers and his enemies, at the time of his "coming to destroy " the Jewish state, badehis disciples, (Luke 21: 28,) when they saw the signs of his coming and the destruction of Jerusalem, begin to come to pass, "then look up, and lift up your heads, for your re

demption draweth nigh." This was "the resurrection of the just.'

Mr. Franklin finally quotes Rom. 14: 10, "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ"—and asks: "Does Mr. M. say that refers to some judgment in this life?" Yes, I answer, most assuredly I do. The "judgment seat of Christ," is in his kingdom; and when he entered upon his reign, he assumed the "judgment seat," before which, all within and during his reign, "stands," or are "manifest," for this is the meaning of the word rendered "stand." Paul said "we must stand,"-did he mean any but christians? Let Mr. Franklin answer. But the gentleman thinks he has "got me" now, for he says Universalists apply Isa, 45: 23, to "the resurrection state, precisely where it belongs," and that Paul refers to this language of the prophet in proof of his declaration, that "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." But I reply that my friend is mistaken. The judgment seat of Christ, does not extend into the resurrection state; it goes no further than his reign or kingdom, which closes at the resurrection. And so undoubtedly the language of Isaiah, applies: The time when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess," is limited to Christ's reign. It is during that that men must stand before his judgment seat, and it is within that reign that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confes." The gentleman has gained nothing by his criticism here!

I have only time to refer briefly to the passage in Heb. 9: 27, which I had almost forgotten. The gentleman applies this language to the future state, but here I must beg leave to differ with him again. The death mentioned there, I maintain to be, not literal death, but the figurative or sacrificial death of the high priests under the law, the type of Christ's sacrificial death. This view the connection fully sustains; and it is also evident from the very passage itself. The gentleman did not read it all; let us read it: "And as it is appointed unto men, (or these men) once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." How was Christ once offered, to bear the sins of many ? As a sacrifice for sin. So was this death, which was "appointed unto these"-they died (by proxy) in their sacrifices. They entered the Holy of Holies-offered their

sacrifices then, "after this," returned and pronounced the "judgment," or justification of the people. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. I have not time to pursue the subject in detail. But if you will take the trouble to examine the 8th and 9th chapters of Hebrews, in connection with the 14th and 16th chapters of Leviticus, you will see that I am correct.

[Time expired.]

MR. FRANKLIN'S CLOSING SPEECH.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I now rise to close my part of the discussion on the first proposition, to which you have given such a respectful attention throughout this day. The question is not one in which I have become a disputant for mastery over the gentleman who is my opponent on the present occasion, but it is a question greatly affecting our conduct in this life, and one, as I solemnly believe, with which we shall be deeply concerned after death. It is a question touching the terrible judgment and spoken of with profound awe and veneration, by all the divine writers and speakers, and demands our most solemn attention, and, on the other hand, forbids any thing like a low quibble.

I see there is one important difference between the course pursued by Mr. Manford, and that pursued by myself. If he can catch some irrelevant or incidental remark, upon which nothing important depends, but upon which he thinks some little capital may be accumulated; and thus cater to some popular feeling or prejudice, he is ever true and faithful to the task; but the main points of argument, by me introduced, bearing directly upon the question, and those upon which I most confidently rely, he, as a general thing,

passes, with but little or no attention. On the other hand, in my notices of his arguments, I meet fairly and fully the very points upon which he most confidently relies.

A few things in his last speech demand my attention a short time, before I proceed to recapitulate and close my arguments. The gentleman as usual, when he had nothing else to say, spent his time in reading Dr. Clarke, A. Campbell, Dr. G. Campbell and others. Now he is not willing to rely upon any arguments he is able to introduce himself, and in the absence of such arguments, he spends his time in trying to make this audience believe that those great men are with him, and thus gain their influence to support what those very men looked upon as the most silly and contemptible nonsense ever uttered. It is not strange that he should think to torture the word of God into the support of his miserable theory, when he will twist the words of those great men into the support of Universalism, who we all know did not believe a word of it! If he can prove that he is right from men who do not believe his doctrine,' he may prove it from the word of God, when God believes no such doctrine ! But it is not my plan to be led off from the true issue, to defend Dr. A. Clarke, A. Campbell or any one else. Universalists have usually succeeded in getting their opponents off from the word of God, by introducing some favorite man before the people, that a long defence of what he has said may be made, and save Universalism from the lash. The gentleman dreaded my closing speech, and thought he would get me off to defend A. Campbell. But I wish it understood once for all, that I am not to be led off in that way for all the garbled perversions he may make.

The gentleman has got a new proposition. He says he has asserted, that Christ was to come in the life-time of some who were on the earth in his day. What if he has asserted that? I have asserted, that "the coming of Christ to judge the world is future." This he denies. His negative assertion is that the coming of Christ to judge the world is past. But what has he done towards proving it? I only assert what, the most of this audience well know, when I say, that he has done but little more than assert that he has proved this, that, and the other, a few dozen times. He has had the judgment to commence at the destruction of Jerusalem,