to die, as Moses the testator of the first testament died. There is allusion here to the annual atonement of the Jews. On that great occasion, the priest, who was the most conspicuous personage, appeared before the assembled congregation that appearing typified Christ's first coming. The priest then offered sacrifice for the sins of the Jewish nation that typified the death of Christ for the world. The priest then disappeared, and entered into the "Holiest of all" that typified Christ's entering into Paradise. In due time the priest reappeared to the people that typified Christ's resurrection, which was his “second appearing." The priest, at his second appearing before the people, passed judgment on them, which was that their sins were forgiven that typified the judgment passed on all who trust in the risen Savior. They behold him the second time, the risen, the glorified Savior, without sin unto salvation. His first appearing, was when he came in the flesh; his second appearing, when he showed himself to the world in his spiritual and glorified form; and all who confide in the risen Redeemer, as the way, the truth, and the life, are blessed with life and salvation. To them he "appears the second time without sin unto salvation." This, I am well satisfied, is the true meaning of the passage.

His po

The gentleman is inconsistent in asserting that Paul, in this passage, means the physical death of man, for he teaches that death is not of divine appointment. sition is, that Adam was made immortal; that God did not intend that any of his posterity should die. But Adam sinned, and that made him mortal; brought death on Adam; brought death on his race. According to this, death is the penalty of sin, not of divine appointment, but contrary to the divine will. God, rather, ap

The

pointed that Adam and his race should not die. gentleman's whole theory of salvation is built on this supposition. If death was actually of divine appointment, his whole theory falls to the ground.

By the way, this notion that Adam would not have died if he had not sinned, sets one to thinking. Of course, then, if, before he sinned, he had sunk to the bottom of one of the rivers near his garden, and had stuck in the mud, he might have remained there to the present time without drowning! Or if a huge rock had fallen on him when taking an evening walk at the outskirts of the garden, and smashed him as flat as a pancake, he would not have died! Or if a tiger had torn him to pieces, eaten him, and digested him, he would not have died! If either, or all of these disasters, had happened to father Adam before he sinned, he would not have died, if death was the result of sin. I hope my friend will enlighten us right here.

He next proceeded to show that the wicked were to be punished when Christ would come. That is not doubted. He then assumed, that the punishment is after death, and by that he means, not immediately after death, but after the judgment at the end of time, for then he thinks Christ will come, and then the punishment begins. Remember, he locates the coming, the judgment, the punishment, not in this world, but in eternity; not now, but at the end of time. But he thinks there is a hell this side of the judgment, and a pretty hot one, too. The wicked, who died six thousand years ago, have been in it six thousand years: and if the judgment should be delayed six thousand years more, they will be in hell six thousand years longer, making in all, twelve thousand years. And be there all that time too without being

judged! It strikes me rather forcibly that it is a hard case. As I have remarked, in my friend's estimation, this hell' is a very hot place. The hell in which was the "Rich Man" of the parable, he thinks, is the hell into which all the wicked have been stowed away from the beginning, and, if that is in the future world it is anything but a comfortable place in which to spend ten or twenty thousand years. The Rich Man was "tormented in these flames," and he was so hot that he begged for “a drop of water to cool" his tongue. To torment men thus thousands of years without judging them, would not be as fair as it would be to hang criminals first and then judge them. These are only some of the beauties of the endless punishment theory. I expect to present more of them ere long.

He then read 2 Peter ii. 4-9, to prove that men will be punished when Christ comes at the end of time. But he strangely overlooked the important fact, that there is not a word said in the passage about Christ's coming; not a word about the resurrection; not a word about the end of time; not a word about the future state. He assumed it all refers to scenes beyond the resurrection morn; and, on that baseless assumption, he builds his future endless hell! Some ungodly persons were reserved unto the day, or a day, according to the Greek, of judgment to be punished. But was that judgment to be deferred thousands of years, and they in "these flames" all the time without being judged? So asserts my friend. But Peter did not think the judgment was so far off. Speaking of those same ungodly persons, he said they were bringing "upon themselves SWIFT destruction,' ," "whose judgment now of a long time LINGerETH NOT." My brother thinks their judgment has lin

gered about two thousand years, and may linger two thousand longer. But the apostle said, most two thousand years ago, that the judgment LINGERETH NOT; that a SWIFT JUDGMENT was coming upon them. This very chapter, then, that my friend read, affords additional evidence, that the judgment was at hand when the apostles were preaching and writing. The antedeluvians were reserved till the ark was built; the Sodomites were reserved till Lot was safe; the ungodly of which Peter spoke were reserved to a judgment, which in Peter's day was to come upon them swiftly; it was not to linger.

He then read about God being able to destroy soul and body in hell, Gehenna. No doubt, God was able to destroy men and women in Gehenna, or anywhere else. But does that prove he would do so? Besides, if persons should be literally destroyed they would not suffer endless punishment, and his proposition is false.

It seems, that my friend's theology has several hells. One between death and the resurrection. He thinks the Rich Man, and all the rest of the wicked, are in that hell. It has been crowded for thousands of years, and still there are ample accommodations, such as they are. That hell and its fires will be kept up till the resurrection, and then it will be evacuated, and its inhabitants, after being judged, will be stowed away in another hell. And he quotes Rev. xx. to prove such abominations. Before this discussion closes I expect to present still more evidence that the "lake of fire," in that chapter, does not relate to the immortal world I have already proved, that the judgment of that book long since took place. He read two other passages, to which I intend to give due consideration. As my time is about out, I will kindly tell my friend that he should not assume that all those

passages he read refer to the future world. He had better read a less number, and try to prove they sustain his proposition. [Time expired.]

66

[MR. SWEENEY'S THIRD SPEECH.]

I shall devote this speech to the gentleman's two replies, that as yet remain unnoticed. Let us turn first and examine Matt. xvi. 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, which shall not taste of death, til they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The coming of the Son of man, spoken of in the first of these verses, is evidently his coming in judgment; and if it can be shown to be past, then I am defeated, the judgment is past, and 'every man " has already been rewarded " according to his works." To prove that this coming is past, my opponent assumes that it is the same as the "coming in his kingdom," mentioned in the succeeding verse, which was to take place before some then standing by should "taste of death." He says, "It is clear as daylight that only one coming is spoken of in the whole passage." Not to my mind. On the contrary, I am quite certain that there are two events spoken of in the whole passage; the one to be the end of what the other was to be the beginning. If the Savior meant, in the twenty-eighth verse, to repeat what he had said in the twenty-seventh, for the sake of teaching the proximity of the event, why did he not use the same language descriptive of it? Why did he so change his phraseology? In the first he says,