owe him nothing but intense hatred — hatred for cursing them with birth, with life, with immortality. To call on the victims of almighty wrath to love the author of their dreadful doom, would be adding insult to insult, mockery to mockery, diabolism to diabolism. But this terrible creed is a great error, is a libel on Love - on him whose name is LOVE. He calls on all to love him, and it is the duty of all to love him, because he is, and ever will be, the loving friend and father of all.

This law will be fulfilled. Said Jesus, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. v. 17, 18. Here Jesus declares that the law of God shall be fulfilled in every "jot" and "tittle." It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for the law of God to fail of being fulfilled. The ceremonial portion of the law was external, temporal, and local, of the earth, earthy, and was fulfilled in Christ's earthly life. But the Moral Law - love to God, and love to man-is internal, spiritual, universal, and eternal, and was not fulfilled inthe earthly life of Christ, but will be fulfilled when Jesus shall return the kingdom to God, and God be all in all. "Then cometh the end, when Jesus shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when all things shall be subdued unto him, and God be ALL IN ALL." 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. The ceremonial law was fulfilled at the end of Christ's earthly life; hence he then said, "It is finished." The Moral Law will be fulfilled at the end of his reign. According to the gospel, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom.

* * * *

* * *

xiii. 10. "All the law is fulfilled in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Gal. v. 14. And as at the end God will be all in all, the law will be fulfilled -every "jot" and "tittle" of it. [Time expired.

[MR. SWEENEY'S SECOND REPLY.]

The gentleman's second speech, to which you have given such commendable attention, being almost entirely devoted to the work of reconstruction, I accept as a handsome compliment to my first reply. His work of reconstruction, however, was by no means complete, notwithstanding so much of his time was so zealously devoted to it. Indeed, he seemed most of the time to be in the negative, defiantly calling upon me to prove this, that and the other thing! When it comes my turn to affirm, I shall then try to prove my affirmative. At present, however, I am in the negative. Mr. Manford is in the affirmative. But he seems not a little troubled about "hell." My doctrine of an "endless hell," "hell torments," "endless burnings," seems to make him unaccountably nervous, even before I have uttered a word on the subject. My advice to him is to be quiet, and save his thunder for the proper time. We will attend to the "hell" question, so far as I am affirmant, at the proper time. He need not be tormented by that question before his time.

He thinks that in admitting the eternal existence of all men, I differ from my brethren, for, he says, "hosts of them contend, with immense zeal, that all who leave this world sinful, will be annihilated, soul and body." If, by my "brethren," the gentleman meant what I suppose most of you understood him to mean, I have simply to

say, he is greatly in error. Perhaps I know almost as much about the views of my brethren as my opponent does. I think I know he has misrepresented them in this matter-unintentionally, of course. We, as a people, have very generally "contended with immense zeal" against the very error he charges upon us. I have found, moreover, that those who do contend that the wicked will be annihilated, and my friend Manford, use the same thunder. They and he must be "brethren." At any

rate they howl alike. Hence, the gentleman thinks the views of Annihilationists "infinitely better" than mine. Still, he thinks" either view is unspeakably dishonorable to God." But the question comes up, are we infallibly safe in accepting just what he says, in a matter of this sort? Who called and sent him to tell us just what is, and what is not, dishonorable to God"? Anyhow, might

we not, without losing all our reverence, call upon him for some sign of infallibility, before accepting all he is pleased to say upon the subject.

God did once even make a "pile of ashes" of some wicked people. Was that a monument of his folly and cruelty"? Mr. Manford believes all sinners are in hell now. Do the "walls" of the hell they are in now "proclaim to the astonished universe the infinite malignity of their builder "? If so, will he tell us who was "their builder"? Who builds the "walls" of the hell he believes in? Will he say the sinner does, himself? If so, will he allow me to agree with him on the subject of "walls" and their builders? We shall see.

In the next place, the gentleman proceeded to say a good many things-that were easier for him to talk about, than to meet the issue fairly upon the assumption that

I had said, or the presumption that I would say, that none will enter the heavenly kingdom, but those who are regenerated in this world;" while, in fact, I have said no such thing, and do not mean to. I do not believe, for instance, that infants are regenerated in this world, and yet I believe they will all enter the eternal kingdom. I do not believe they need any moral change to fit them for heaven. I thought I said this distinctly enough before. I do not believe Mr. Campbell ever taught any thing that involved the necessity of a moral change to fit infants for heaven. I might admit that many who are not infants will enter the heavenly kingdom without being regenerated in this world, and come infinitely short of admitting the truth of his monstrous affirmation, as we shall see as we proceed.

The gentleman thinks if I am right, "nearly all the patriots who laid down their lives in three wars to save this country, are now blowing the flames of hell," as their reward. Well, indeed, he must have quite a degraded opinion of the patriots, to think they "nearly all" go to hell when they die! And, by the way, he has given us a clue to what he thinks of them, while they live in this. world. Of course, only such would go to hell, were they to die, as are in hell now, if Universalism is true. So, in Mr. Manford's view, "nearly all" living patriots are in hell now! And where are those gone, according to him, who left this world sinful? Will he tell us? I have no hope that he will. Perhaps they are "blowing the flames. of hell" to purify themselves for heaven-and thus being reconciled to God! But why this reference to patriots? Is it argument? Does my friend think it is? Is this question to be settled by such references?

Is it a

question to be settled by a majority of the people, that one need throw himself out upon a course of electioneering for the sympathies of such as sympathize with the patriot dead? Why does my friend use, with so much emphasis, such language as "endless burnings," "endless hell torments," "blowing the flames of hell?" Have I used such language? Do you ever hear any body use it, but Universalists? What worthy purpose does he hope to serve by the use of such language? Does he believe the Bible? I must, of course, not even allow myself to think he does not. But does he not know that his hearers, even skeptics, know that the language he ridicules with so much seeming pleasure, is more nearly the language of scripture than mine? He can only complain of me, that I apply the scripture language expressive of the punishment of the wicked to the future world, and make it eternal, while Universalists generally apply it all to this world. Mr. Manford, however, only differs with me as to the eternity of punishment. Let us meet the question like men, sir, and not be found ridiculing what is so nearly the language of the book we both accept as from God.

I admitted that such persons as are said to be saved Christians—have nevertheless some "imperfections" while they live in this world, and the gentleman thence concludes that they are therefore "not entirely reconciled to God," and will hence have to be reconciled and saved in the future world. But physical and constitutional imperfections, such as saved persons still have, do not imply irreconciliation. Christians are, by the Apostles, represented as being both reconciled and saved, already, and are, as such, promised that they shall lose the weaknesses. and imperfections they still have in the resurrection. Now,