Fifth Proposition: "The Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent." R. H. Boll affirms; H. Leo Boles denies.

It is with pleasure that I take up the affirmative of this final proposition of the "Boles-Boll Debate;" for here, at last, we reach the vital and practical center of the Bible's prophetic teaching, the heart of the matter, so far as we are concerned. In our correspondence preliminary to the debate I stated to Brother Boles that I regarded the first four propositions as incidental and subordinate - important and valuable, indeed, in their place, helpful themes for discussion among brethren, but not as necessarily affecting the main and central teaching, which is now before us in the present proposition. Here, then, we enter upon the most important question of the whole discussion. The proposition reads as follows: "The Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent."

"The Scriptures" are the books of the Old and the New Testament, the Bible. The "coming of Christ" is his promised personal return from heaven, generally called his "second coming," a term derived from Heb. 9: 28.

"Premillennial" means preceding the millennium. The latter term (which is simply Latin for "a thousand years") is borrowed from the language of Rev. 20: 1-7, and is the popular name for that period of world-wide prevalence of righteousness, blessing, and peace foretold in both Testaments, during which Satan is bound and //315// removed, and the knowledge of Jehovah shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. I have no doubt that my respondent believes that there is to be such an era, regardless of how it may be brought about, or when; and from some expressions during the debate I judge that he believes that this age or period is yet in the future. I shall assume, therefore, that there will be such an era of universal blessedness, and that it is yet in the future. If I am assuming too much and my respondent is not prepared to admit this as common ground, I will gladly offer proof for these two points in my next article. Meanwhile I shall proceed upon the assumption that it is agreed between us that there will be such a period of world-wide blessing and universal acknowledgment of God and Christ, and that this period is yet future. It is the affirmative's duty to prove that Christ will return from heaven before the millennium commences.

The definition of the term "imminent" I reserve until we take up that point. Let us now fix our minds on the first half of the proposition:

This is seen, first of all, in the character and course of the present age clean up to the coming of Christ. (The Greek word for "age" (aion) is generally rendered "world," but the Revised Version margin calls attention in most or all cases where the Greek word "age" is so translated.) The period called "this age," or "the age that now is," is always spoken of as an evil age. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament so tells us, and the Scripture references amply substantiate the statement. Satan is "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4), whose work it is to blind "the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them." Hence, he is called "the prince of the world," and the whole world is said to lie in the evil one. (1 John 5: 19.)

//316// His throne is here below. (Rev. 2: 13.) He is the head of "the world rulers of this darkness," the leader of "the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12.) He is "the prince of the powers of the air, the Spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience," in accordance to whose will and dictate all sinners walk "according to the course [age] of this world." (Eph. 2:2) Therefore, Christians are warned that they be not fashioned according to this age (Rom. 12:2) and that they love not this world (1 John 2:15). "Demas forsook me, having loved this present world [age]." (2 Tim. 4:10.) But the Lord Jesus Christ have himself for us that he might deliver us out of it and out of all complicity with it. (Gal. 1:4.) We are in the world, but we are not of the world. We are commanded to keep our garments unspotted from the world, and are told that the friendship of this world is a spiritual adultery and means "enmity with God." (James 1: 27; 4:4.) Like Jesus our Lord, we are strangers here, and go forth with him without the gate, bearing his reproach.

Another characteristic of the age is that Christ, the King, is absent. During his absence his servants are amid a hostile citizenship administrating his goods (Luke 19: 12-14), and no other prospect is held out to these servants than that of suffering and persecution until their Lord returns. The more faithful they are, the more true to their Lord and separated from the world, the more certain they are to suffer persecution. "All that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (2 Tim. 3:12.) (How foolish is the church when it hopes for the favor of the world and tries to obtain it!) And the promised share in that glory that shall be revealed is for us, only "if so be that we suffer with him." (Rom. 8: 17,18.)

Such is the picture of the present age which the New Testament sets before us. The only hope and prospect of a change from these distressful circumstances is connected //317// with the coming of the Lord. Nowhere in the New Testament is the hope of a gradual improvement held out, or a hope that the world will gradually be absorbed in the church until at last the world will become the church. The one and only goal of hope set before the Christian is the Lord's return. We are to "live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world [age]; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." (Tit. 2: 12, 13.) Speaking of certain nominal Christians who were "enemies of the cross of Christ," "whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things" (alas, we have them now and yet!), Paul distinguishes himself and the faithful ones by this, that "our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3: 19, 20), and urges them all to stand fast in that attitude (Phil. 4: 1). Never is it intimated that any other event or circumstance would bring rest and relief from the present difficult conditions. The church is hard beset with its warfare without and within. Grievous wolves would enter in (as the apostle foretold - Acts 20: 29, 30), not sparing the flock, and from among themselves would men arise speaking perverse things. The battle would not grow easier, but heavier with the progress of time. "But the Spirit saith expressly, that in latter times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons." (1 Tim. 4: 1.) "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables." (2 Tim. 4: 3,4.) Yea, the last times will be the worst, not the best. "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come" - and there follows a description of lives abominable in God's sight, not of men confessedly out in the world (for //318// the world always followed more or less that sort of course), but of people who were "holding a form of godliness." (2 Tim. 3: 1-5.) Twice are we warned that in the last days scoffers and mockers would come, walking after their own lusts, and would contemptuously ask: "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2 Pet. 3: 3,4; Jude 17,18.) "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8.) That there will be some faith is evident, for some who will then be living will be changed and caught up to meet the Lord in the air. (1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15: 51.) But that true faith will be at a premium in those days is implied in the Savior's question. No world-wide acknowledgment of Christ is to be expected before Christ comes; but "as it was in the days of Noah," and as "in the days of Lot," so shall be the coming of the Son of man. (Luke 17: 26-30.) Great and small will then seek refuge in the mountains and among the craggy rocks and will cry to the rocks, "Fall upon us," and to the hills, "Cover us," and "hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6: 15-17.) Certainly none of this would lead any one to think that a converted world would be awaiting Christ at his coming, but exactly the opposite.

"Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord," says James. (James 5:7.) The word to be patient is "hupomeno," to "remain under" - i.e., under a strain, under a burden. When Jesus comes, the strain is over, the burden lifted. We need not look for that relief any sooner, so far as conditions in the world are concerned. In fact, the whole creation is waiting intently for an event, "the revealing of the sons of God" (who are as yet unrecognized in the world, but who, like their Lord, shall shine in glory in that day, for they shall be //319// like him.) (1 John 3: 1,2; Matt. 13: 43.) For "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together even until now. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Rom. 8: 19, 22, 23.) Now, the "redemption of our body" is the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the transformation of the living (1 Thess. 4: 17; 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52; Phil. 3: 21), which is the first thing to transpire at Christ's coming. It is a truth unanimously and universally held that the redemption of the body cannot take place till Christ himself comes back. For that event, still groaning, we must patiently wait. If there were a millennium before Christ's coming, it would be filled with the groans of suffering creation - yea, and Christ's own would still be groaning within themselves all along, waiting for the only real hope and relief, their adoption, to wit, the redemption of their body, at Christ's return.

In the evening of the apostles' day things were already shaping themselves for the final issue and taking on the characteristic features of the last hour. "Little children," says John, "it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour." (1 John 2: 18.) But the Antichrist who was to come, of whom they had heard, and of whom the "many antichrists" were the precursors, is to be dealt with by the Lord Jesus personally at his coming - "whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming." (2 Thess. 2: 8.) John already in his day saw that issue taking shape. Paul says that the mystery of lawlessness was already working in his day - only, there was some one or something yet restraining; and when that hindrance should be taken out of the way, "then shall be revealed the lawless one," the "man of sin," the "son //320// of perdition," in whom this secret working of lawlessness would break forth into perfect embodiment and expression. (2 Thess. 2: 3-10.) It matters not, so far as this present argument is concerned, whether this "man of sin" be taken to be the Pope of Rome, as some hold, or some special individual of the last days in whom sin and lawlessness find their ultimate perfection, the evil forces were steadily working to that end; and when the restraint is released and the Antichrist comes, Christ will come to destroy him. This leaves no room for a millennium before Christ comes.

The "millennium," that era of universal blessedness and peace and lifting of the curse, is necessarily the same as "the times of restoration of all things whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from of old." (Acts 3: 21.) But that time will not be till Jesus comes - "whom the heaven must receive until the times of the restoration of all things." (Acts 3: 20, 21.) Brother Lipscomb's comment on this passage is as follows:

Jesus had been to earth and returned to heaven. Heaven must receive him until " the times of restoration of all things." Then "the times of restoration of all things" must be when Jesus returns again to earth - the restoration of all things to their original relation to God. . . . When Jesus comes again, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe. (David Lipscomb, "Queries and Answers," page 360.)

If, then, that era we call the "millennium" is a time of the restoration of all things in the world to harmonious relations with God, it cannot be till our Lord Jesus comes back from heaven.

I rest my argument on this point here. The next item under consideration is:

By "imminent" I mean impending in the sense of being always liable to occur; not that it is necessarily going to take place immediately, but that, so far as we can know, it may happen at any time. The Standard Dictionary gives as a second definition, "overhanging as if about to fall," and makes the comment, "An imminent evil is one liable to befall very speedily." It is in this sense I use the word. "Imminency" is not meant to designate "immediacy." The Scriptures teach the imminent coming of Christ; but the time of his coming, whether it would be immediate or later or just when, is not revealed to us; and all date setting as to this event is out of question and unwarranted.

It follows from the very fact that Christ is certain to come, while the time of his coming is concealed, that Christ's coming must be always imminent to his people. Since he has told us to watch for his returning and has not told us when he would return, we must expect him constantly. And so we are taught.

Watch therefore: for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken through. Therefore be ye also ready; for in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh. (Matt. 24: 42-44.)

But if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My Lord tarrieth; and shall begin to beat his fellow servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 24: 48-51.)

This evil servant in his mind defers the Lord's coming. The Lord shows that this is fatal. On the other hand, in the parable of the ten virgins, which immediately //322// follows, he shows that it may be equally fatal to expect his coming at once without making preparation for a possible delay. (Matt. 25: 1-13.) In the parable of the talents, right after, he represents himself as a man going into another country and intrusting his goods to his servants. "Now after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them." (Matt. 25: 19.) It may be a very short time, it may be much longer than they might think; in any case, the only safe and faithful thing to do would be to expect him always, and to live in view of his imminent coming.

Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. It is as when a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch. Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at mid-night, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. (Mark 13: 33-37.)

This, better than words of mine, sets forth the continual imminency of Christ's coming. Accordingly we find the apostles looking for the Lord's coming in their day already, and teaching Christians so from the first. Not that they ever committed themselves to a statement that the Lord would certainly come during their lifetime; but they taught, and exemplified it in their lives, that Christ is to be constantly and earnestly expected. They spoke of his coming as an event always just ahead, always about to occur. They turned the eyes of the church upon that event as the great goal. Corinth was "waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 1: 8.) The Greek word here for "waiting" is very strong - a fervent, eager, earnest expectation. The Philippians also, jointly with Paul, were waiting for the Savior from heaven. (Phil. 3: 20.) "The Lord is at hand," Paul says to them (Phil. 4: 5), never far off. So James also: "Be ye also patient; establish your //323// hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged; behold, the judge standeth before the doors." (James 5: 8, 9.) He may step in through that door, at what moment we know not. The Thessalonians, especially, from their conversion, took the attitude of waiting for God's Son from heaven; indeed, that was a point and an object to them in their turning to God. (1 Thess. 1: 9, 10.) When death began to invade their ranks, they were troubled, thinking, apparently, that those who had fallen asleep would have no share in the coming joyful event. Paul reassured them; for we who are alive and are left to the coming of the Lord (Paul told them) shall not have any precedence over the blessed dead, for "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess. 4: 13- 18.) How vivid and strong was the expectation of Christ that could use such words! But in the process of time professing Christendom - like Israel despairing of Moses' return from Sinai's summit, and saying, "Up, make us gods, to go before us; for as for this Moses, we know not what is become of him" - became weary of the upward look and turned its eyes earthward, and largely forgot the imminent coming of the Lord. For the first three centuries the professed church was "premillennial," and looked yet for Christ's return. But when the church obtained the patronage of the world power and became allied with it, the "blessed hope" quickly died out. The effect of that change was to blight the spiritual life and power of the church. A return to the primitive hope and the earnest looking for Christ's coming would surely tend to revive that flagging life in our day.

//324// At the very first there appears to have been a certain margin of time within which Christ's coming was not likely to occur. Thus the apostles and early Christians were commissioned to disciple all the nations, and to be witnesses of him "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." It might be assumed that Christ would not come until that work was done. But that work was relatively accomplished within that generation (Rom. 10: 18; Col. 1: 6, 23); and moreover, they had no information to the effect that Christ would not come until that work would be finished, but intimation of the possibility that the Lord at his coming (as in Matt. 10: 23, for example) might find them engaged in the performance of it. "Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matt. 24: 46.) So they had no reason even then to postpone the possibility of the coming of the Lord. So likewise the intimations of possible delay in Matt. 25: 5, 19 and 2 Pet. 3: 3, 4 were not such as to necessitate the conclusion that the delay would extend beyond a few years or beyond their lifetime. Evidently the apostles and first Christians were in a state of eager expectancy which cannot be laid to ignorance or misunderstanding; it was the normal attitude of God's children.

We also learn that Simon Peter knew that he would have to die for his Lord. But in a day when the apostles' lives stood "in jeopardy every hour" (1 Cor. 15: 30) and Peter himself anticipated that "the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly" (2 Pet. 1: 14), the possibility of the Lord's coming was not far away at any time. Paul, though he had hoped to be among those living when Christ came (1 Thess. 4: 17; 2 Cor. 5: 2-4), surmised the near approach of his execution, his "departure;" yet, though he well understood that the Christian's death was a blessed change to something "very far better" (Phil. 1: 21-24), he looked beyond death and intermediate //325// existence to the crowning day, the day of Christ's appearing (2 Tim. 4: 6-8). The departed saints look for and wait for that day, the same as the living. Death is never set forth as the goal of the Christian's hope, nor is the Christian ever asked to prepare for death; but the word of God urges him to be ready always for Christ's ever- to-be-expected coming, and that glorious event is held up to him as the goal of all his hope.

But to go back to the point. We have seen that if any generation had had an excuse to defer their expectation of Christ's return, it would have been that first generation of Christians; but they, instead of counting the day far away, looked for the Lord's return with peculiar fervency. So the New Testament testifies.

If I may be permitted to anticipate the commonest argument against the imminency of Christ's coming - namely, that based on 2 Thess. 2 -

Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand; let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. (2 Thess. 2: 1-3) -

the commonly accepted explanation of this passage is that the Thessalonians had become unduly disturbed and excited over the prospect of the Lord's near return; that some among them had quit their work and daily occupation, and that others were greatly troubled and shaken up. So Paul writes to assure them that they need not be so troubled - that Jesus Christ was not coming yet, that the great falling away would have to come first, and the man of sin be revealed.

This view of Paul's meaning puts Paul in opposition to himself and with his own teaching, both previous and subsequent to this utterance; it misrepresents the Thessalonians' //326// attitude toward Christ's return, and misconceives the real point of disturbance. Paul's teaching in every church, as the direct testimony shows, created an earnest, eager expectation of the Lord's coming - nowhere more so than in Thessalonica. Those people turned out of heathendom to wait for God's Son from heaven (1 Thess. 1: 9, 10), and throughout Paul's first epistle to them, in every chapter, we have evidence of their eager desire and constant expectation of the Lord's return. On the face of it, it is not likely that Paul in his second epistle denied or so radically modified his former teaching to them. Nor in his later epistles (the Thessalonian letters are known to have been Paul's earliest writings) does he show any evidence of such a change of mind on the subject; but to the Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, to Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews, he holds out the hope of Christ's imminent coming. The Holy Spirit does not nullify himself in his teaching.

In the second place, the Thessalonians were not "shaken from their minds" and "troubled" at the prospect of Christ's coming. I fear the expositors who think that are measuring the early Christians' corn by the modern half bushel. Those Christians longed for Christ's return. To them it was a happy hope. They believed that Jesus would save them from the wrath that was ready to break in upon a guilty world, and that it would be a joyful reunion, the breaking of an endless, cloudless day of glory for them. All of this is manifest in the first Thessalonian letter itself. So far from their quitting their daily work in their agitation over the near advent of Christ, there is not a shadow of evidence that such a thing ever happened. It is pure surmise and fabrication. There were, indeed, certain at Thessalonica who did not work. It seems to have been a local trouble against which Paul had spoken in his first epistle already - yea, and before, while Paul was yet with them. (1 Thess. 4: 11, 12.) But there is nothing to show that this //327// condition had ever been due to their expectation of Christ's return. The hope of the coming, rightly conceived, has exactly the opposite effect on a man.

Nor is there any ground for thinking that Paul in 2 Thess. 2 gave the brethren new and additional information regarding their instant expectation of him. No, Paul reminded them of something he had told them before those epistles had been written: "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2 Thess. 2: 5.)

But what were the Thessalonians troubled about, and what did Paul explain to them? It was concerning the day of the Lord, which in Scripture is always the day of wrath and of vengeance, from which the Christians hoped to be saved by Christ's coming after them. (1 Thess. 1: 9, 10; 5: 1-11.) Some one had troubled them by telling them that the day of the Lord was already come. (King James and the American Revised Versions have "at hand" or "just at hand." The Greek is "enesteken," which always means to be present. And so the English Revised, and, indeed, every other version and translation known to me, including Martin Luther's, the Roman Catholic version excepted, renders it.) Paul explains to the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord will not break until evil had reached its culmination in the "man of sin." And that left the Thessalonians again free to look for Christ's coming to receive them to himself before things came to such an issue, and before that day of wrath should come upon them. (1 Thess. 5: 9, 10.) Those who believe that the Pope of Rome is the "man of sin" must admit that the coming of Christ is now imminent, no matter how they explain 2 Thess. 2; for, according to their belief, the "falling away" has already transpired, and the "man of sin" has been revealed, and even the great and terrible day of the Lord may break in at any time, unexpectedly as a thief.

//328// And for all the signs of the times, they existed in some measure from the first (as see 1 John 2: 18), and exist in remarkable degree now, so that we have far more reason than any generation that ever lived to look constantly for the coming of Christ. If wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilence are precursors of that day, the worst and greatest of these in all the annals of history have befallen the world in the last dozen years. And the Lord did not tell us to wait until the signs had all come to pass before we look for him, but "when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; for the time of your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21: 28.)

We have seen that the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ necessarily precedes that happy period of worldwide peace, righteousness, and blessing.

1. It was shown that this present age, ending at the coming of Christ, is an evil age throughout, in which Satan rules as the god and prince of this world (from which world Christians must keep themselves unspotted, walking in holy separation, avoiding all alliance with it); and that, throughout, the church, who is a stranger here and whose citizenship is in heaven, is persecuted, and has to suffer reproach and rejection with the Lord whom she represents. This condition will not be changed until Jesus comes. In fact, the last days just before his coming are not going to be the best, but the worst. Therefore, no millennium is possible until Jesus comes.

2. It was shown that the whole creation is groaning and travailing in pain together until now, and that even God's people yet groan within themselves, waiting for their adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body. This condition, therefore, continues throughout the whole waiting time until our bodies are redeemed and the sons of God are revealed in glory - that is to say, until Christ comes again. (Rom. 8: 18-25.) If there were a millennium //329// before the coming of Christ, it would be a millennium filled with the groans of pain-stricken creation and the groanings of God's suffering people.

3. It was shown that the mystery of iniquity was already working in Paul's day, though under restraint, and that it would continue to work in this manner until the restraint should be taken away. Then that evil principle would come to a head and embody itself in the "man of sin," with whom the Lord will deal in person when he returns. This leaves no room for a millennium of peace and righteousness before Christ comes.

It was shown that no time was revealed, but that Christians were enjoined to watch for their Lord's coming always, and to be constantly in readiness; for relatively to us the Lord's coming is always "at hand," liable to occur, and, therefore, always to be looked for. The Christian life is to be lived in the light of Christ's coming. That constitutes the imminency of the Lord's return, according to the definition given of the word "imminency."

It was shown that the intimations of possible delay given in the New Testament were not such as to warrant any letting up in perpetual watchfulness and readiness.

I conclude, therefore, that the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ precedes the millennium, and that it is an event always to be expected; in other words, that "the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent."

I am somewhat perplexed how to deal with my brother's first negative; for if it is the negative's duty to follow the affirmative and to take up the arguments and Scripture proofs presented and to reply to them, he certainly has failed of that duty. I do not think he undertook to examine and reply to hardly so much as one passage of Scripture out of all the number I presented in proof of the proposition. Instead, he dismisses them all, in a priori fashion, with a few disparaging remarks, and goes on to raise issues of his own, make arguments of his own, and fails almost wholly to give attention to the affirmative's argument. It devolves now on to me to show the reader that the negative has not fairly met the issue, but has evaded and beclouded it, however unintentionally that may have been done. I trust that in his next two articles he will come up more squarely.

It seems that, throughout, my respondent, instead of meeting the Scriptures and arguments I present, is combating some sort of "premillennial theory." Thus, in his first paragraph he says, "I do not believe that the pre-millennial theory is the 'heart' of the Bible teaching in prophecy;" and the last words of his article are, 'the theory which is taught by the premillennialists is not true." Now, if in my affirmative argument I had advanced or advocated or defended one of the several "premillennialist theories," the negative would do well to fight that. But I not only did not present any theory to him, but I specifically disavowed all complicity with human theories and made my whole fight on Scripture alone. Why does my respondent prefer to turn from the duty of examining and replying to the Scriptures I presented to assail something I never introduced, but specifically repudiated? It must be much easier to combat a "theory" /346/ than to meet a Scripture. I am not sponsoring theories here; with God's word alone I propose to stand or fall. My brother still would like, it seems, to line me up with some strange doctrine and prove me to be an exponent of some peculiar "theory." In the last negative of the proposition preceding this I quoted from my book, "The Kingdom of God," in disavowal of theories, "my own included in so far as I may have any." In Word and Work, 1918, page 372, I wrote as follows:

I would explain here that I defend premillennialism, not in the sense of a sectarian, denominational, or interdenominational creed or movement, but purely in the simple sense of the word. A man is a "premillennialist" simply because he believes that according to God's word Christ returns before the millennium, just as an "immersionist" is one who believes that according to Scripture baptism is immersion. If a Christian says he is a premillennialist, he means just this, and nothing more, and not that he has subscribed to any man's or set of men's position and creed, or is the representative of some human theory. He cannot, therefore, be charged with the follies and extravagances taught by some who hold the premillennial position. A simple Christian indorses and accepts nothing on this or any other subject, except that which he finds in God's word.

Again, in Word and Work, Volume 1916, page 548, I said:

If ever a sect of premillennialists should spring up, or a system of doctrine called "premillennialism," I should feel obliged to disavow all connection and complicity with it - just as I would disavow belonging to the "immersionist" sect, or would subscribe to a system of doctrine dubbed "immersionism." I am no premillennialist in a sectarian sense, nor do I hold by any system of doctrine (if there be any such) known as "premillennialism." We beg the privilege of being simply Christians, with freedom to search and see, to believe and speak whatsoever God has spoken.

Really I'm striving to be only a simple Christian who goes to God's word for his faith and stands for nothing else. Will my brother believe me? All his battle with /347/ those "theories" is not against me, but is a fight against straw men.

And I would like to remind him to clear me of the charge he inadvertently made in his article before the last, that I contend "in the main" for all such points as "that the temple worship is to be restored, the Aaronic priesthood resumed, animal sacrifices to be offered; in fact, the theory demands a restoration of the entire ritual of the law of Moses." I requested him once before to clear me of this charge or else to substantiate it.

As to my statement that this present proposition is the most important thus far, my respondent says he cannot see that; and he does not know how to measure the relative importance of a truth, or the relative unimportance of an error, he says. Yet he is bound to know that some things are of relatively more importance than others. Justice, mercy, and faith, for instance, are weightier matters than tithings of mint, anise, and cumin. A camel is bigger than a gnat. One commandment was greater than all, and a second was like unto it. Things have intrinsic and also relative values. The New Testament is more important than the Old, though we are very far from thinking the Old unimportant. Love is greater than faith or hope, though faith must be that love may be. Now, our first proposition was important, but does not touch us quite so closely; nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth. But for us all the questions of prophecy focus in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the attitude a man takes toward that will profoundly affect his life. It makes some difference whether or not a man sees reason to look constantly for the return of the Lord, and to watch and be ready for the same. If the coming of Christ is taught to be postmillennial, I shall certainly not be looking for him - it would be a psychological impossibility; but if no millennium is to come first, and if I am to expect Christ every day, it is a highly practical matter to me, as the many Scriptures I quoted show. /348/ That is why this question gets nearer to the heart of things than the preceding four. I told Brother Boles in our prelimary correspondence that if the first four propositions were waived and conceded, it would not essentially affect this fifth and most important one.

Brother Boles' statement that he does not know "how to measure the unimportance of an error" is rather a dangerous utterance. If that were correct, no difference among brethren could be tolerated. Every disagreement necessarily involves an error somewhere; and if one error may be as important as another, every disagreement on any point, however small, if we could not measure the importance of it, would necessitate a division. The ultimate effect of that would be to put every man in a church to himself.

My respondent says that the words "premillennial" and "imminent" are not in the Bible, nor their synonyms, and concludes, therefore, that they do not stand for Bible ideas.

That sort of reasoning could be properly used in the case of some unbiblical substantive noun. These, however, are predicate adjectives describing a Bible subject - viz., the coming of our Lord. Though they be not used in the Bible, yet the facts they describe may well be there. For example, if I should say, "The Old and the New Testaments are mutually supplementary and explanatory," it could not be required that the two predicate adjectives, "supplementary" and "explanatory," should be found in the Scriptures, but we ask only whether they describe the facts in the case. When we say, "The coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent," the question is not so much whether these two adjectives are found in the Scriptures, but whether they describe facts. So when I show that no millennium can intervene before the Lord comes, and that God wants us to live in continual expectancy of Christ's return, I have shown that the coming /349/ of the Lord is premillennial and imminent. And this I have done. But to satisfy my brother still further, let me point out that both these ideas are in the Bible.

1. "Premillennial." That means "preceding the millennium." "Millennium" means "a thousand years," exactly as "century" means "a hundred years" and "a decade" is "ten years." None of these terms, "millennium," "century," "decade," are found in our English Bible, but terms of ten, a hundred, a thousand years are spoken of. If the Bible speaks of a thousand years, it there speaks of a millennium. A special period of a thousand years is mentioned six times in Rev. 20: 1-7. This is "the millennium." Everything preceding that period is necessarily "premillennial," and everything subsequent to it is "postmillennial." The synonym and the idea are both, therefore, in the Bible.

2. "Imminent." A thing is imminent when, so far as we know, it may occur at any time. The coming of Christ is imminent, because it is certain; but the time is unknown, and we are charged to watch and pray always, and to be ready, for we know not when our Lord cometh. So the idea of the word "imminent," as we have accepted and used it, is there also.

But my respondent sees still more difficulty. He says that "Christ neither before his death nor after his resurrection ever said one word about the 'millennium.'" Does he (like the pedobaptist who says the word "immersion" is not in the Bible) mean that the term "millennium" is not used? "Millennium" is the simple Latin for a thousand years. Therefore, "millennium" is mentioned six times in Rev. 20: 1-7. I want to know whether Brother Boles means to say that the words found in Rev. 20: 1-7 are not Christ's? Did John speak by the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit impart Christ's words to John? The New Testament says the apostles spoke by the Spirit, and that the Spirit gave them the words of Christ. (John 16: 13, 14). In Revelation especially the /350/ whole message, including Rev. 20: 1-7, where the millennium is mentioned six times, is ascribed to Christ personally. (Rev. 1: 1, 2; 22: 16.) So Brother Boles cannot say that Christ never spoke of a millennium.

The negative grows bolder. He goes on to deny that there will ever be such a thing as the millennium, such as I spoke of in my first. He thinks it is a "theory," and that it depends on a "false interpretation" of one Scripture, and "this Scripture is highly figurative, symbolical, and allegorical," and "Brother Boll is forced back to his position of being an infallible interpreter of unfulfilled prophecy," etc. But in saying this he certainly takes a position contrary to that held by the brotherhood generally, from Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Moses E. Lard, down to Dr. Brents, David Lipscomb, J. A. Harding, and Daniel Sommer. I think the majority of the brethren (as, indeed, the majority of Protestant Christendom) have always believed in a millennium, a period of bliss and triumph, in the near future. My respondent is mistaken when he says the millennium " is a theory based upon a school of interpretations." The millennium is not a theory. There may be theories about the millennium, but the millennium is a Bible theme. Does Brother Boles believe that there will never be a time when the curse that rests on the earth will be lifted? When thorns and thistles shall be no more? When creation now groaning and travailing in pain shall be delivered from her bondage? Does he not believe that there will be a time of the restoration of all things of which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old? Will there be a time when Satan shall be bound and imprisoned that he may not deceive the nations? A time when the lion shall lie down with the lamb and a little child shall lead them, and the nations shall learn war no more, and there shall be an abundance of peace; when the meek shall inherit the earth, and the knowledge of Jehovah shall cover the earth as waters cover the sea? Well, that is /351/ the time we call the "millennium," let it come whenever and however it may. This deathless hope burned in the heart of the church during the first centuries of her primitive existence, and has always been general among those who loved Christ's appearing and believed in his word. It will take more than a little modern theological spiritualizing of God's oracles to stamp this expectation out of believing hearts. I might quote here the testimony of the very earliest Christian writers and of Gibbon, the famous historian of Rome's decline and fall, as to the prevalence of this doctrine from the earliest days. Among the pioneers and leaders in the Restoration Movement, Campbell, Scott, Lard, W. K. Pendleton, Barclay, Milligan, and others, the doctrine of the millennium was freely and earnestly discussed and taught, and, so far from condemning one another for such teaching, they seemed to regard it as an important item of the divine revelation, to be diligently considered, studied, taught, and believed. Thus, for example, one who signed himself "A Friend of the Truth," asked Alexander Campbell:

Does not the popular doctrine of the spiritual millennial reign involve or comprise a denial of Christ's personal reign, as taught in the Scriptures, or that he no longer exists personally as the Son of man? And is not this a denial of an important part of the faith in Christ, which we are required to exercise in connection with repentance and baptism, in order to obtain salvation? Is not his future literal and personal reign, as the Son of man, so important an office resulting from his obedience here on earth as that a denial of it amounts to a serious apostasy from the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and him crucified?

In the course of his reply to this, Alexander Campbell said:

The subject of the millennium is one of growing importance and of thrilling interest to the Christian community. We have had it often before our minds, and are glad to see that it is eliciting more attention than formerly, both in our own country and in the Old World.

As preparatory to these questions, there are certain /352/ preliminary matters, which seem to command the attention of the student of prophecy. Such as:

1. The restoration of Israel to their own land.
2. The rise and fall of Babylon the great.
3. The one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
4. The coming of the Lord.
5. The first resurrection.
6. The thousand-years' reign of the saints.
7. The descent of the New Jerusalem.
8. The scenes following.

These are to be our themes, the Lord willing, so soon as our readers are increased to ten thousand. We have had this subject often before our mind, and more recently has it become more engrossing. We design to give to this great theme much attention, and to spare no pains to assist our readers in the investigation of the prophetic oracles; for the time has come "when many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." We are evidently approaching a new crisis in the ecclesiastic and political affairs of the world. . . . We shall be preparing our materials and placing things in order for such a development as the progress of the age and our means and facilities may furnish. It will unquestionably soon be, if it is not already, one of the most engrossing topics of our generation. (Millennial Harbinger, 1854, page 354.)

So far as being in splendid good company goes, I do not need to feel bad at all in the belief in the millennium. Take this, for example, from the pen of Moses E. Lard:

The time has now come to speak of the millennium proper, and first as to the meaning of the word. The term, as many of our readers well know, is derived from the Latin, mille, a thousand, and annus, a year. It hence means a thousand years. And although it is not found in the New Testament, yet the expression "a thousand years" is, and this expression and the term "millennium" are used to denote the same thing. These thousand years, however, are not a thousand ordinary years, but a thousand glorious years, to which Christians, from the earliest ages of the church, have been looking forward with the deepest solicitude. These thousand years of sinless and painless bliss constitute the millennium. Such is the meaning of the term, and such is the period it denotes.

/353/ The millennium will commence in the precise instant in which Satan is bound and locked up in prison. . . . Of the events which are further to characterize its commencement we shall now speak more particularly.

1. All the living saints will be changed. . . .
2. The sleeping saints will be raised. . . .
3. The actual personal, literal reappearance of the Savior.

We confidently expect this event to take place in the commencement moment of the millennium. That Christ is to revisit the earth one day, as literally as he left it, is what we think no Bible student can deny, without in the act avowing a principle which, if sound, at once extinguishes the truth of Christianity. . . . I hence conclude that Christ will literally come in person at the commencement of the millennium, and literally remain here on earth during the entire thousand years. (Lard's Quarterly, October, 1864.)

Such brethren as David Lipscomb, Dr. Brents, James A. Harding, have also left testimony of their faith regarding this theme. Daniel Sommer teaches strongly and boldly in the same line.

It was not strange, therefore, that I assumed that Brother Boles believed in a future millennium; and I did not surmise that he would take a freak position, denying the whole thing as referred to in the first affirmative. When we arranged our propositions for this debate, I took pains to explain to him my position on all points where I thought he might not understand. I might have expected a similar kindness of him; for, of course, if I had known that he repudiated the millennium, as commonly conceived, altogether, I would not have wasted time discussing whether the coming of Christ is premillennial. If there is no millennium, it would be folly to talk about anything being premillennial or postmillennial. But he failed to inform me beforehand of this peculiar position. And because I said I assumed that he and I held common ground on the fact and futurity of the millennium, he tries to make it appear that my whole article is based on /354/ an assumption, that I assumed everything; and on that "assumption" he harps throughout. But it would be too easy and convenient to dispose of the first affirmative argument in such overhanded fashion. I did, indeed, say:

I have no doubt that my respondent believes that there is to be such an era, regardless of how it may be brought about, or when; and from some expressions during the debate I judge that he believes that this age or period is yet in the future. I shall assume, therefore, that there will be such an era of universal blessedness, and that it is yet in the future.

But this assumption did not at all affect my argument. It only left a possible room to supply the evidence on this point, in case my respondent demanded. Moreover, I offered to do this, if necessary, in my next article. So evidently I did not make my argument dependent on that. Nay, I actually did incidentally furnish enough proof and Scripture testimony in my first article to establish that point. And my respondent is utterly unable to point out even one single argument that rests upon an assumption in the entire article. I challenge him to show even one point that rests upon any sort of assumption.

Yet, when I say that the "coming of Christ is premillennial," it is not so much my purpose and interest to argue for the millennium (though, of course, I stand for that, too), but, rather, my point is that, according to Scripture, no millennium can intervene before Christ comes; that the coming of Christ is not to be delayed by the period of a thousand years, but that we must be looking for him now and always. If the Bible teaches that the millennium must first come and run its course, the coming of Christ is thereby projected into the far-away future, which would destroy its meaning as a present hope and as a motive to continual watchfulness. When, therefore, I maintain that the coming of Christ is premillennial, my point is not to prove that there will be a millennium (though I do show that incidentally), still /355/ less to launch forth into explanations of details concerning the millennium, but to show that no millennium can come in before Christ's coming for us. In denying the millennium my respondent has relieved me of further concern on this point; for if there is no millennium, then no millennium can intervene before Christ comes. And that is as far as my interest goes just here.

On the "premillennial" phase of the proposition, says my respondent, "Brother Boll has made three arguments. His first argument is based upon what he calls the character and course of the present age."

Now, instead of examining the Scripture proofs I presented, candidly and carefully, he forthwith takes up "one of the chief points of the theory" - of some theory I never presented to him nor avowed as mine, and a "point" in the theory which I did not make - namely, "that the world is now growing worse and worse and will continue to do so until Christ comes." "It is, like the entire article, based upon "an assumption," he adds. Then he proceeds to fight that "theory" and the statement I did not make; but of the Scriptures I advanced which show the Christian's position in a hostile world, and the character of the world and of the entire age, he does not deign to notice even one. He brings up on his own hook 2 Tim. 3: 13 and Rom. 8: 28, which have nothing to do with my argument, and makes a number of philosophical arguments, to prove that the world cannot be getting worse: (1) that if it were it would discredit the kingdom of God on earth; (2) it would discredit the work of the Holy Spirit; (3) it would belittle the gospel; (4) it would make the first advent of Christ a failure. It is easier to punch a bag than to meet an opponent. So long as he ignores my arguments and Scripture proofs, I have no obligation to follow him or to refute his human arguments.

/356/ For the benefit of all, I cite again some of the Scripture proofs I gave. This present age (according to Thayer's Lexicon, ho aion houtos, "the time before the appointed return or truly Messianic advent of Christ," "the period of instability, weakness, impiety, wickedness, calamity, misery. . . . Hence, the things of 'this age' are mentioned in the New Testament with censure"), I said, is under the rule of Satan. (As Thayer again says, "ho theos tou ai toutou, the devil who rules the thoughts and deeds of the men of this age. 2 Cor. 4: 4.") He is "the god of this age." 1 John 5: 19, the whole world lies in his bosom. His throne is on earth. (Rev. 2: 13.) He is the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 2: 2.) It is "this present evil world [age]" (Gal. 1: 4), and Christians must not love it (2 Tim. 4: 10; 1 John 2: 15-17), nor imitate it (Rom. 12: 2), nor make friendship with it (James 4: 4), but keep themselves unspotted from it (James 1: 27). Christ's servants administrate their Lord's goods now in the midst of hostile environment, while waiting for their Lord's return. (Luke 19: 12-14.) The whole creation groaneth, and the people of God also, during this age, waiting only for the coming of Christ, when our bodies will be redeemed and all creation will be released from her bondage. (Rom. 8: 18-23.) No relief promised till Jesus comes. (James 5: 7; Phil. 3: 19-21.) Instead of the last times being the best, they are, in regard to religion, the worst. (1 Tim. 4: 1; 2 Tim. 3: 1-5; 4: 3, 4; Luke 18: 8.) When Jesus comes, it will be as it was in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot, and great and small will cry for the mountains to fall on them and the hills to cover them. (Luke 17: 26-30; Rev. 6: 15-17.) These Scriptures show abundantly the evil character of the age up till Christ's coming, and that no happy millennium can intervene before them.

What did my respondent do with this teaching of God's word? He did nothing but to disparage it on general /357/ principles. He said in effect that all these Scriptures must have been misapplied and misinterpreted, since they clashed so badly with his ideas of how things ought to be. Here are his words:

All the Scriptures which he used in support of this point are misinterpreted and misapplied. If he has not misinterpreted and misapplied these Scriptures, then we must say that the Scriptures teach that the church is an absolute failure on earth.

Now talk about theories! Who is more theory-ridden than the man who first decides how things ought to be, and then refuses a priori to accept any Scripture testimony that clashes with his conception? Why does my respondent not take up those Scriptures and show, if he can, that they are misinterpreted and misapplied? He grandly waives the word of God aside and refuses even to consider anything that does not harmonize with his own preconceived notions.

The church, indeed, is not going to be a failure, any more than her Lord was a failure, although he was displeased and rejected of men and died on the cross forsaken of all. The church is even as he was, in the world. We go out with him without the gate bearing his reproach. Brother Boles is making the same mistake regarding the church that Christ's contemporaries made concerning him. They thought he would and ought to make some great demonstration and earthly show. Brother Boles thinks the church must sweep and swamp the world before Christ comes. The Scriptures teach the very opposite, and we do not well to try to torture the Scriptures into agreement with our preconceived ideas. In my judgment, one ounce of Scripture is worth ten tons of such grave "reasons" as my respondent offers to the contrary.

My "second argument," he says, is "also based upon an assumption." But there is no "also" to it until he examines those Scriptures and shows that there has been /358/ any "assumption." "The Scriptures cited by him do not prove his contention," says Brother Boles. Well, why does he not show that? "I accept every Scripture quoted by him," he adds. But he will not accept them at what they say, and that is the same as not accepting them. "I do not accept his misapplication and misinterpretations of them." Before all such high talk it would behoove my respondent to show where and how there has been any "misapplication and misinterpretation." The simple fact seems to be that he cannot face these Scriptures, and that his position is judged and condemned by them.

The "third argument" which he says I made I did not make at all. He probably got it out of some "premillennial theory" somewhere, or out of some book written against "premillennialism."

Again, on this subject of the imminence of Christ's return, he does not dare to meet the Scriptures presented, although both candor and his duty on the negative require him to do so. I yet hope he will reply to these Scriptures and show how or where they were misinterpreted or misapplied. I want him to do it in his next article, and not in his final negative. I want a chance to review his objections, and I have no come-back to the final negative.

In my first affirmative I set forth the imminency of Christ's coming by means of the Scripture statements themselves, saying that the Scriptures did it better than words of mine could do it. Here are some passages I used: Matt. 24: 42-44, 48-51; 25: 1-13, 19; Mark 13: 33-37; 1 Cor. 1: 8; Phil. 3: 20; 4: 5; James 5: 8, 9; 1 Thess. 1: 9; 4: 13-18. Will my respondent please take them up and show reason why they should not be accepted just as they stand? Until he does that, why should I trouble about his reasoned counter arguments, however /359/ "crushing" he may fancy them to be? Because he cannot see how the coming of Christ can be imminent while at the same time certain prophecies await fulfillment, is that reason for discarding the direct teaching of the Scriptures on the subject? Nay; our conceptions of how things are to come out are generally inadequate, but what God says is always right.

In his argument on Acts 3: 19-21 he mistakes the meaning of the passage. Jesus is not to stay in heaven until after the predicted times of restoration, but, as Brother David Lipscomb said: "Heaven must receive him until the times of restoration of all things. Then the times of restoration of all things must be when Jesus returns again to earth. . . . When Jesus comes again, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe." ("Queries and Answers," page 360.)

Regarding 2 Thess. 2: 1-12, my respondent fails to distinguish between the day of the Lord, which is the day of wrath and vengeance (1 Thess. 5: 1-10), and the coming of Christ for his saints, to save them from the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1: 10), which necessarily precedes, we know not by how long.

Finally, in his rebuttals he places a wrong interpretation on 1 Cor. 15: 24-28. That passage does not say that at the time of Christ's return he will deliver up the kingdom to God. The word "then" is the one used in enumerations, and signifies "next in order," without intimating how long or short a time must intervene. But this point has no essential bearing on the proposition, nor have any of these "rebuttal" arguments, so far as I can see.

I conclude with Walter Scott's well-put statement of the meaning of the imminence of our Lord's return:

It is important to the character of those who have entered upon discipleship to Christ by obedience to the true /360/ gospel, that they have their hopes elevated to the appearing of Christ, and fixed upon the purity, perfection, and glory of his kingdom. . . . Let us, then, who advocate original Christianity, preach to the saints for their perfection, the second coming of Christ, with all its adjuncts, for its intrinsic merits, its own divine importance alone, and leave the chronological question where Christ and his apostles left it; that is, let us leave it in the moral uncertainty in which they left it, and in the hope of its speedy occurrence, purify ourselves from all filthiness, of the flesh and spirit, that whether he comes at midnight, at cockcrowing, or in the morning, we may be accounted worthy to stand before him." (Italics mine.) (Walter Scott, from William Baxter's Life.)

The close of my part in this proposition finds us just where we were after my second affirmative, and where we were after the first exchange affirmative and negative, so far as any progress in the discussion is concerned. My respondent has failed to notice and take up my arguments and has not faced any of the Scripture teachings and the passages I presented in proof of the proposition. He had every reason and every opportunity to do so. The fact that he did not indicates that he could not. If he could have met those Scriptures, he would no doubt have done so. He has made many remarks about one thing and another. He has informed the readers of how irrelevant my argument was, how I have wandered, how I had "forsaken" my proposition "in the hour of greatest need," and has told them that my whole argument rested on "assumption," and that the Scriptures I presented were "misinterpreted" and "misapplied." But he never took up the affirmative's points, nor did he face any of the Scriptures I presented, nor did he show that any one of them was "irrelevant" or misinterpreted or misapplied, or that any of my arguments were based on "assumption" (though I specifically challenged him to do so), and he ignored, entirely or almost so, the whole affirmative argument.

When, in the second proposition, I was in the negative, he reminded me that "it is the duty of the negative to follow the affirmative and answer the arguments which are presented in support of the proposition." (Gospel Advocate, page 578.) But now he has forgotten that wise maxim. When N. L. Rice was in the negative against Alexander Campbell, the latter called him to task on that point:

/377/ I certainly have a very singular opponent - one of his own class. He presumes not to respond to a single argument that I offer, in any of the usual forms of debate. There is nothing more generally established in the literary world than that, in all discussions in the form of debate, there should be a proposition, parties, an affirmant, and a respondent; and that there are duties which devolve upon these parties as they severally stand, to the thesis to be discussed. In all schools, not merely ordinary debating schools, but in all the high schools and colleges, one law obtains; the proof lies upon the affirmant, and the disproof upon the negative. Whatever arguments, therefore, are adduced by the affirmant, it is the duty of the negative to respond to them in some way or other. If they are weak, irrelevant, or inconclusive, he should expose them and refute them. If they are good, and relevant, and conclusive, he should acknowledge it and yield to them; but not to notice them at all is at once to confess inability. (Italics mine.) ("Campbell-Rice Debate," page 455.)

My respondent has tried to disqualify the affirmative argument on general principles and upon foregone conclusions; and attempted to dismiss it, proof and all, with a few assertions and disparaging remarks. There is nothing better now than to set once more, briefly, the affirmative argument before the readers to let it speak for itself, and that the readers may judge for themselves whether or not the argument is irrelevant, and whether the Scripture teaching presented is conclusive.

The proposition was: "The Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent."

The first point to be established was,

I defined "premillennial" as "preceding the millennium." I did not assume that there would be such a millennium "as Brother Boles believes in," but I assumed that Brother Boles, in common with the brethren generally, believed in a period of triumph and peace and bliss, and /378/ that this period is still in the future. I assumed that there was that much of common ground between us. That was all there was of "assumption." But my respondent seized upon that word and strove to make it appear that I "assumed" the whole argument. I denied this, and challenged him to show one instance where I rested even one of my arguments on an assumption. He did not do it, yet he repeats the same assertion concerning that "assumption."

In reply to my supposed "assumption," he denies, first of all, that he believes in any such millennium "as Brother Boll believes in." It does not matter, however, what sort of millennium he believes in. The nature of the millennium does not enter into this question at all. The one point is that, whatever sort the millennium may be, if it is a millennium in the accepted sense at all - that is, a future time of triumph and bliss - the coming of Christ must precede it. It would no doubt be very interesting and profitable to discuss the nature of the millennium, but that has no bearing on the present issue. We are not debating about the millennium, but the question is whether such a period will intervene before Christ's coming. We must keep our proposition clear of false issues.

But my respondent went further. He denied that there is any such thing as the millennium, and says "millennium" is not in the Bible. I referred to that as a "freak" position (perhaps I should have said an "extraordinary" or "unusual" position), and said he should have told me that when we were arranging our propositions. For I faithfully explained all my positions to him on everything where he might have misunderstood, and that he might be under no disadvantage. If he had done the same, I would certainly not have discussed the "premillennial" issue with him. He says: "Brother Boll knows I did not want to take any advantage over him, and he also knows that I have not sought to take any advantage." I gladly absolve him from all evil design /379/ and motive in the matter. The fact remains, however, that he did not tell me, and I regret the futility of having to debate a question about something being "premillennial" with him, if he believes in no millennium at all.

In signing up the proposition that "the coming of Christ is premillennial," he implied that he believed in a millennium as well as I. If he did not, he should not have agreed to such a proposition; for the proposition assumes that there is a millennium, and looks only to the question whether the coming of Christ will precede it or not.

Now, the word "millennium" is not in our English Bible, just as the word "immersion" is not in our English Bible. But the thousand years is. Moses E. Lard, quoted in my last, carefully showed that "millennium" meant a period of one thousand years (from Latin, mille, a thousand, and annus, year), specifically that period of a thousand years mentioned six times in Rev. 20: 1-7. My respondent says I quoted from Dr. Brents. I had not; but I will here. After quoting verbatim Rev. 20: 4-6, Dr. Brents says:

This is the millennium. If this does not express a literal reign with Christ for a literal thousand years, we know not what assemblage of words would be capable of expressing that thought.

But to my respondent this passage seems to mean absolutely nothing. There is solemn warning at the close of the book of Revelation against taking away, as well as adding to, the words of that prophecy, which we shall do well to heed when by any sort of pretext we try to sweep the significance of any portion out of it. Of course, my respondent says he does not reject Scripture - only the "interpretation." But I am offering him no interpretations. Rev. 20: 1-7 speaks six times of a period of a thousand years, which follows the personal descent of Christ from heaven, and during which Satan is bond and imprisoned, and Christ reigns with his saints. It /380/ says that. If Brother Boles sees good to deny it or to sweep it aside as meaningless to us, he will do so at his own peril.

But even that would not help him in the present issue. If there is no millennium at all, that proves that no millennium can intervene before Christ comes. And that is all I care to prove here. I am not debating about the millennium as such, though I believe in it, but am merely seeking to show that before there is or could be such a period, Christ must come, and that no such period can intervene before Christ comes.

But after all that, my respondent says that "every gospel preacher known to me preaches that there is coming in the future a time of peace, joy, and bliss." Very well, then; that is enough. Call it "millennium" or whatever you please, let it be on earth or in heaven, let it be a thousand years or longer, the one and only point is that that future time of the final triumph of the saints and universal glory and bliss cannot be before the coming of Christ.

The affirmative made the following argument in proof:

The present age, which ends at the coming of Christ, is throughout an evil age in which Satan rules here below, evil predominates, and God's people suffer. Therefore, no millennium can intervene before Christ returns.

This argument was based directly upon the statements of Scripture. It was shown from 2 Cor. 4: 4; Eph. 2: 2; 6: 12; Rev. 2: 13; John 14: 30; 1 John 5: 19, that Satan is the god of this age and the prince of this present world order, the spirit that energizes and actuates all the "sons of disobedience," and that the world lies, as it were, in his embrace. That is the rulership of this age.

Jesus died to deliver us out of "this present evil age" (Gal. 1: 4), and therefore God charges those who belong to his kingdom not to be conformed to this age (Rom. 12: 2), not to love it, nor to love the world (2 Tim. 4: 10; 1 John 2: 15-17); to keep ourselves unspotted from the /381/ world and to enter into no friendship with it, for to do so is spiritual adultery and enmity against God (James 1: 27; 4: 4). My respondent will not dare to say that these were only temporary injunctions; they are the Christian's standing instructions till Jesus comes. Till then we must be true and fight and suffer and endure. But so long as such a situation exists there can be no millennium. Therefore, there is no millennium till Christ comes, and the coming of Christ is premillennial.

Again, from Luke 19: 12-14 it was shown that during the age the King is absent. His servants are left behind to administrate his goods amid an opposing populace, till he comes. There will be no millennium for them till the King returns. Throughout the age Christ's faithful servants must suffer. (2 Tim. 3: 12.) If we suffer with him, we shall be glorified together with him. My respondent never made a more serious mistake than when he denied the analogy between the suffering and rejection of Christ and the career of the church during this age. The church, if true to her Lord, must share her Lord's lot here below. She, like him, will be rejected and hated by the world in this age, even as her Lord was, and for that very reason. (John 15: 18-20.) With him we go forth without the gate, bearing his reproach. (Heb. 13: 13.) We are called into fellowship with him to share his sufferings and his cross, his service and mission, and at last his glory. (1 Cor. 1-9.) As he is, so are we in the world. When he shall be manifested, then shall we also with him be manifested in glory. (Col. 3:4.) The church's triumph comes with her Lord's return. Alexander Campbell with much clearness and power spoke on this point as follows:

The New Testament being only adapted to Christian in suffering state, it never can mount the thrown, nor become a court religion; and, therefore, any religion called Christian, which has been by law established, has been an impudent imposition or base counterfeit, and not the religion of Jesus Christ. When Christianity gains the throne, /383/ Jesus Christ will place it there himself; and wherever he sets up his throne, from that place shall go forth the law adapted to his subjects in their triumphant state.

We again repeat it, from the Sermon on the Mount to the fourth verse of the twentieth chapter of Revelation, every address delivered to Christians contemplated them as suffering adversity. At different periods of the prophecy we have the anticipated triumph spoken of; we hear the echo from afar, saying: "Alleluiah! for the Lord God omnipotent reigns!" "Rejoice over her, you saints, and apostles, and prophets, for God has avenged the kingdoms of our Lord and of his anointed, and he shall reign forever and ever." But till Jesus appears in the clouds of heaven, his cause and people can never gain the ascendant. . . . Now is the time for fighting the good fight - the time that tries men's souls - the time for the perseverance of saints - the time for suffering with him, that with him we may reign. (Millennial Harbinger, 1833, pages 120, 121.)

Moreover, religiously also the age will be full of trials (Acts 20: 29, 30), and the last days will not be better, but worse (2 Tim. 3: 1-5; Luke 18: 8), and God's people are bidden to hold fast in patience until the coming of the Lord (James 5: 7- 11). For that only were they to hope and wait. Amid such conditions there can be no millennium till Christ returns.

The world at large also will be found at Christ's coming as in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot; and men will cry for the mountains and the rocks to fall on them. (Luke 17: 26-30; Rev. 6: 15-17.) The world was wicked when Jesus left; it will be wicked when he returns; and between, the mystery of iniquity is always at work, moving on to its climax in the "man of sin." (2 Thess. 2.) And there will be wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, to the end. (Matt. 24.) If there is to be any millennium, it cannot be before Jesus comes. Therefore, the coming of Christ is premillennial. And only when our bodies are redeemed - that is to say, in the resurrection (which admittedly takes place at Christ's return) - will God's people, still groaning, be delivered; and groaning creation also travails in pain until that day. (Rom. 8: 18-23.) If there were any millennium before then, it would be full of the groans of suffering creation and the groans of God's people.

Such are the proofs, dear reader, which the affirmative presented to establish the fact that Christ's coming is premillennial; and these are the Scriptures which my respondent would not deign to notice. He was content to attack theories and to present abstract reasonings of his own why this and that could not be; but the Scripture teaching presented he ignored and called it "misinterpreted" and "misapplied." I must leave the conclusion to the reader's judgment.

Neither do any of these facts belittle the gospel. The gospel was not designed to compel faith and submission. It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. To those who do not believe it becomes "a savor of death unto death." (Rom. 1: 16; 2 Cor. 2: 15, 16.) The gospel does its work perfectly.

Nor is the kingdom of God disparaged by these facts. The church does, indeed, represent the kingdom of God on earth; but their citizenship is in heaven, from whence also they wait or a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Phil. 3: 20.) Their triumph and glory will not be till he comes.

In regard to 1 Cor. 15: 24-28, Brother Boles is obliged to concede that the "then" denotes, not simultaneousness, but succession, without intimation of how close or distant the succession. Thus, in the verse preceding, "Every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; then they that are Christ's at his coming," the "then" has already covered nearly two thousand years. (1 Cor. 15: 23.) Many other things have transpired since then, but the next step in the order which Paul was enumerating has not come yet. Weymouth renderes: "Christ having been the first to rise, and afterwards Christ's people rising at his return.

/384/ Later on, comes the end, when he is to surrender the kingship to God." (Italics mine.) And in the footnote he says:

The "then" of the Authorized Version is only a correct translation in the sense of "next in order." The Greek word denotes sequence, not simultaneousness. (Cp. Mark 4: 28.)

This is not an interpretation, but a matter of cold fact and scholarship. There will, therefore, be abundant room for the millennium after Christ's coming.

On this point I made the following arguments, each amply sustained by Scriptures:

1. The coming of Christ is absolutely certain.
2. The time of Christ's coming is not revealed, therefore uncertain.
3. Therefore, Christians are admonished to expect him constantly; for, so far as they know, he may come at any time.
4. The New Testament Christians, under the apostles' teaching, were earnestly and constantly looking for him.

The first two points, taken together, constitute the imminency of Christ's coming; the latter two corroborate the fact.

I had said in my first affirmative that "it follows from the very fact that Christ is certain to come, while the time of his coming is concealed, that Christ's coming must be always imminent to his people." My respondent says in reply: "He now states that the coming of Christ is imminent 'because it is certain.' This is a very loose way of reasoning. I rather think it was he that dealt loosely with my argument. I did not say that it is imminent because it is certain. The certainty of it is just one of two factors I mentioned. But because the coming of Christ is certain, and because the time of it is left wholly /385/ uncertain, we must necessarily look for his coming always, and the event is ever imminent to God's people.

Matt. 24: 42-44 and 48-51 and Mark 13: 33-37 set forth in clear light the certainty of Christ's coming and the uncertainty of the time; the continual possibility of it, and the consequent necessity of perpetual watchfulness and readiness on our part. This is what is meant by "imminency." I also showed that under the inspired teaching of the apostles the Christians looked earnestly, constantly, eagerly, for the Lord's return, and they always counted upon the likelihood of Christ's soon appearing. (1 Cor. 1: 8; Phil. 3: 20; 4: 5; 1 Thess. 1: 9, 10.) To them the Lord's coming was always "at hand," and they conceived of him as standing "before the doors." (James 5: 8, 9.) To them, therefore, the coming of Christ was ever imminent, always likely to occur; and the resulting expectancy was the proper, God-taught attitude for them, as it is also for us.

To none of these Scriptures, Scripture teachings, and Scripture arguments did my respondent make reply. Though he asserted that the Scriptures were "misinterpreted" and "misapplied," he did not show that they were, nor did he attempt to. And though he claimed that they were irrelevant, he did not show us that they were so, or why. Instead of meeting these Scriptures, my respondent tried to classify me under some "theory," and to fight that supposed theory on general principles. He even went so far as to propound some such theory.

My brother does not credit me with being a simple Christian who looks to God's word, and it alone, for his faith. He would identify me with some "theory" (using the word as both of us have been using it, in the sense of a human doctrinal system), and then meet me in the capacity of an adherent and exponent of said "theory." I have repeatedly denied that I am committed to, or have subscribed to, or am beholden to, any theory, and I have quoted from my writings to show that I have stood so all /386/ these years. My respondent takes up one expression from one of my quotations, where I disavowed belonging to "a sect of premillennialists," and says he did not accuse me of that; but he fails to notice that in the same breath I had also "disavowed all connection and complicity with any system of doctrine called 'premillennialism.' " My respondent has also forgotten what I quoted and reiterated from my book, "The Kingdom of God" (page 11), where I stated my platform in these words:

The present writer deems it desirable at the outset of this study to remove any misapprehension as to his own position. He stands committed to no human theory (not even to his own in so far as he may hold any); nor does he advocate or countenance "speculation." His one and only desire is to get all that God says on every topic. . . . It may also be in order to add that the present writer rejects in toto the doctrinal systems and theories of Adventism and Russellism; and that his study of the word of God has led him to no clash with the teaching held by his brethren in the church of Christ, in any matter of fundamentals, or any point of obedience, or any congregational practice, or in anything that should affect our fellowship in the Lord Jesus Christ. He believes that Jesus is King now, crowned with glory and honor, enthroned on the right hand of the Father. He believes in the full efficiency of the gospel unto its God-designed end, as the power of God unto salvation.

Despite these repudiations, my respondent lines me up with a "theory." He outlines it, enumerates its elements, and asks me to disavow any item I do not believe in. To do so would be a tacit acknowledgment that I had accepted such a "theory" - in part, if not as a whole. I can only say again that I stand committed to nothing but God's word. Why should I have to state my belief in terms of denial of, or consent with, the various items of somebody's theory? I am surely within my rights if I respectfully decline to notice my respondent's sample theory. I neither avow nor disavow any item of it, but repudiate the whole of it and rest my case on the word of God. A Christian is not to be judged by human theories. /387/ There may be things in the creeds of Christendom with which he finds himself in accord; but he is not that account chargeable with having adopted any of those creeds, wholly or in part, for he repudiates them all and rests his faith upon the word of God alone. Thus do I stand, and this is our inalienable right as Christians.

But my refusal to consider my respondent's theory is not due to any desire to hold anything secret. My teaching is all open and accessible. In secret have I taught nothing. My brother has it all before him. I have given no just grounds for dark surmises. Most, if not all, of what I believe on these disputed points has been brought out, or else at least been touched upon in this present discussion. But first and last and always I desire to say that I stand for nothing else and nothing more or less than what God says.

I note that among the pioneers of the Restoration Movement there was great interest and mutual tolerance in the matter of prophetic teaching. Some of the utterances and teachings of faithful brethren, Barclay, Milligan, Scott, and others, go further than anything this writer has felt to be warranted by the Scriptures - as, for example, when Barclay (than whom Campbell never commended any one more highly) teaches boldly the divinely ordered rebuilding of the temple in Israel's restoration, and reestablishment of the Mosaic ritual in a modified form - a thing which I have never taught at any time (Barclay, "City of the Great King," final chapter); or Walter Scott, teaching that the transfiguration is a miniature foreview of "the kingdom in power," when Christ will reign over the world with his saints ("The Great Demonstration," pages 246-248) - I have never spoken so dogmatically on such a point; or Milligan setting dates, and more things of like nature. Yet those brethren did not condemn, stigmatize, ostracize, one another. Sufficient for them that they all in common believed in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and received the Bible as /388/ God's inerrant word, and were of one mind regarding present obedience and Christian life and worship. I trust we have not so far drifted from that spirit that prevailed among us in those days that we cannot hear, weigh, and consider what we may find the Bible to teach on such matters, without strife or alienation.

In regard to the charge that I contended for such teachings as that the temple service is to be reinstated, the Aaronic priesthood restored, animal sacrifices and the whole Mosaic ritual to be resumed, which I asked my respondent to prove or to retract, he says he did not mean it for a charge, but that he can prove it. He then proceeds to quote from Word and Work, 1917, where I was speaking of what the unbelieving and disobedient Israel would do when they would get back in their land and get control. Now, in quoting me, Brother Boles omitted the very part of that quotation that would have shown that. I will now give his quotation as he gave it, and then the whole quotation with the part he omitted in italics. His quotation is this:

It is to be noted that this prophecy sees Israel back in their land in the end time. Their temple is rebuilt; their sacrifices again resumed. . . . Once returned, they will, of course, at once rebuild their temple and resume the temple service.

This would leave the impression that I taught that converted Israel would do all this by God's approval and direction. What I really said was this:

It is to be noted that this prophecy sees Israel back in their land in the end time. Their temple is rebuilt; their sacrifices resumed. It is not said that all this is by God's direction; but simply that this will be the state of affairs just before the great tribulation. The likelihood of such things is not so slim in these days as it seemed even a few years ago. Every one who reads the papers knows how keenly the Jews are now watching their chance to return to Palestine; and that thing may easily come to pass in a short time. Once returned, they will, of course, /389/ at once rebuild their temple and resume the temple service. (Word and Work, 1917, page 354.)

The portion Brother Boles quoted is in common letters, and the part he left out I have put in italics. And that omitted portion, of course, absolves me from his charge.

How my respondent misapprehended my words like that passes my comprehension, especially since in my first proposition this same extract came up, and I fully explained my meaning to him then. Here is what I said at that time:

I note here my respondent's insistence that I explain whether the Jews are "to be gathered in some rendezvous before their conversion, or are they to be gathered after their conversion? Are they all to be converted at the same time?" etc. But what has that to do with our point? I contend only that the Scriptures teach that they will be restored, and that, in order to that restoration, they must first be converted and will be. Regathering in itself is not necessarily restoration. The Jews are regathering to their land now to a very marked extent; yet they are not restored nor being restored. "Have you not taught," Brother Boles asked me outright, "that the present movement among the Jews to go back to Palestine, known as the 'Zionist Movement,' is a fulfillment of the prophecies which you have quoted in this discussion?" I happen to have taught the exact opposite of that, as Brother Boles may see by turning to my words in Word and Work, volume of 1926, page 229: "It should be clearly understood that no one claims that the present returning of the Jews to Palestine fulfills the restoration promises made to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies."

Again, and once more, I said this:

Brother Boles, referring to Word and Work, 1917, page 387, says: "This shows that Brother Boll believes, or did believe in 1917, that after the Jews are restored to Palestine they will rebuild the temple and resume the worship." My respondent seems to assume that the mere regathering, such as we are witnessing now, is the same thing as their "restoration." They may go back, indeed they are going, and to a greater extent, no doubt, will go back, in unbelief. But that is not the restoration. The latter involves their conversion, regeneration, possession of their own land by way of divine gift, and all the /390/ promised glory and blessedness. An examination of the connection from which he quotes me will show that I was speaking unbelieving, not of converted and restored, Israel. In the preceding article on the same theme (Word and Work, 1917, page 354) the point is more fully set forth. (Gospel Advocate, page 508.)

It has seemed to me several times as though my respondent had endeavored to prove me guilty of some serious heresies and thus to place the writer in bad light before the brethren. Such a disposition would be contrary to the spirit of brotherly love and justice, and I gladly accept his disavowal of such intentions. But even if I had been guilty of actual, not merely supposed, doubtful utterances, brotherly love would, it seems, want to put the best construction on them, not the worst, and would gladly accept a fair explanation and disclaimer.

Incidentally, I would like for the reader to note that the quotations given above refute the oft-repeated statement, which my respondent has put in my mouth, that "Brother Boll first has Israel converted and then as a righteous nation restored to their land," always using the word "restored" in the sense of "regathered." Of course, I never said such a thing, but specifically pointed out that mere regathering is not restoration, and that great numbers of them would go back to their land in unbelief, there to fall under the fires of the "great tribulation."

My respondent makes a rebuttal argument against the imminency of Christ's return. He says in effect that if Christ's coming is imminent, all the things predicted as preceding it would have to be imminent also. Thus, for example, the rise of the "man of sin" and the reviving of Rome, the rise of the last great world power, the conversion of Israel, and the like, must come first; and if the coming of Christ is imminent, so must all these things be. This objection arises from the failure to recognize what is /391/ involved in the coming of Christ. In Word and Work, 1923, pages 169, 170, I gave the following explanation of this:

The prophecies connected with the second coming of Christ are many and various. If, as is commonly thought, the coming of Christ is just a single act - a descent from heaven, followed (as some think) by the immediate windup of all things - it is not possible to reconcile or to account for all the different Scripture statements concerning it. There is the whole line of teaching on the imminency of the Lord's coming - that is, the possibility of his coming at any time - and we are charged to watch and be ready continually. The practical power of the doctrine lies largely in this, and this point must be guarded and preserved above all. But again we read of certain events that must first transpire - a tribulation, for example, such as had never been and would never be again, which would immediately be followed by heavenly signs and the coming of Christ in glory. (Matt. 24: 21, 29, etc.) Then there is the national conversion and restoration of Israel, of which there was not the remotest prospect (but rather the contrary) in Paul's day, but which Paul confidently predicted (Rom. 11: 15-32) while yet holding up the coming of Christ as the object of the Christian's constant expectation. Now it is clear that we are to look for the Lord's returning continually; but it is also clear that certain things shall transpire and certain conditions prevail when he does come, of which there is little or no sign at present. It is furthermore evident that no man can earnestly and intelligently expect the Lord's coming from day to day, when he knows that Christ cannot come till this or that far-reaching thing has happened. At one time he says, "At an hour you think not the Son of man cometh," and shows how quickly and unexpectedly it will happen, even while men are eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, marrying and giving in marriage; at another time it seems that the world is in a state of fearful expectation, being aroused by terrifying prodigies and portents in earth and sky and sea. These things are irreconcilable on the hypothesis that the coming of the Lord is to be a single, simple event. Some, indeed, take the passages that teach the imminency of his coming and "explain away" the rest, and some show from the Scriptures that the Lord cannot come for a long while /392/ yet, and explain away all warnings to the contrary. But shall we not take all God has told us on the subject?

The simple solution of the matter is that in the second coming, as in the first coming, there are certain separate stages and phases. He came when he was born in Bethlehem. He came when he was baptized of John. (Acts 13: 24.) He came at his "triumphal entry." (John 12: 15.) He came at the cross, as John declares. (1 John 5: 6.) He came again from the dead at his resurrection. Yet these were not many comings, but the various features of the one coming. So it is with his second coming. He comes to take up his saints. (John 14: 3; 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17.) But he also comes with his saints to be admired in them. (Col. 3: 4; 1 Thess. 3: 13, 2 Thess. 1: 10.) These two things cannot possibly occur at one and the same time. Here, then, are two distinct features of his coming, at least; and even that may not exhaust the matter yet. It is for this cause, no doubt, that the Holy Spirit chose a word ("parousia") which means not only arrival (though it certainly means that), but also "presence," as though it were meant to cover a period of time. The second coming of the Lord is not a single, simple appearance, therefore, but is composite in character. Unless that fact is recognized, it is impossible to understand the various Bible statements concerning it. . . .

The important point in all of this is not that we should be able to construct a theory that accounts for every Scripture statement on this great theme, but that we may not be hindered by our preconceptions from accepting simply all that God says about it. On the one hand, we shall not cease for any alleged reason to heed the admonition of Christ and the apostles to watch ceaselessly and look earnestly for our returning Lord; nor, on the other hand, will we be hindered by any theory from believing that all the great future events which shall come to pass on the earth shall find their uncramped fulfillment, even as God has said.

A number of similar arguments in the first negative were passed over - such as that Jerusalem had to be destroyed, the "man of sin" had to arise, the falling away had to come first, the gospel had to be preached, the church perfected, before Christ should come, and that, therefore, the coming was not imminent. But the Scripture evidence shows that the Christians were looking for /393/ Christ's coming intently and constantly, and were taught to do so. To them (as to us) his coming was imminent. None of the things above mentioned would, so far as they could know, necessitate any certain and protracted delay. For aught they knew, the coming of Christ was always to be expected. It was only the unfaithful servant who (whatever his pretext) said, "My Lord delayeth his coming." But we to-day have more reason than any generation that ever lived to look earnestly for our returning Lord. If we lose this one foremost practical lesson, we have lost the chief benefit of the whole doctrine.

Having now arrived at the end of my part of this debate, I wish to thank the Gospel Advocate for the space so freely and generously granted to this discussion. I also desire to express my appreciation of the very excellent and careful work of the proof readers and printers. I am very specially gratified at the courtesy and fine feeling of the Gospel Advocate management, which prevented the appearance of any comments on the debate while the same was in progress. It would perhaps tend to promote Christian unity, love, and fellowship if all future discussion of any matters concerning the questions raised in this debate, in the Gospel Advocate, or in any of the other journals in the brotherhood, could be without reference to either of the disputants.

The avowed purpose of this debate was, not to mark lines and partisan distinctions, but to set the questions under dispute in fuller, clearer light, so that the readers may weigh and judge for themselves; thus to remove any blind prejudice and antagonism and misconceptions concerning the issues that may have existed, and to foster good will and brotherliness among all who stand and ought to stand together upon the simple New Testament foundation of "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints."

/394/ To my honored respondent, Brother H. Leo Boles, I wish to express my gratitude for all kind and brotherly utterance in the course of the discussion, of which I marked a number. And if in any matter I failed, in his judgment, to do him justice, or transgressed upon his patience (as may too easily happen in debate), I beg his forgiveness, and thank him for his forbearance and for every courtesy and kindness he has shown me. A public discussion is a severe test, and only by the grace of God can a man hold fast the "Golden Rule" and the law of love and come out without the smell of fire on his garments. I wish to express my kindliest personal feelings toward my respondent and toward all the brethren of the Gospel Advocate.

I wish to thank the reader who has patiently and thoughtfully followed the arguments and has weighed them in the light of God's word. May the Lord lead us all into the fullness of light and understanding.

But my heart's desire and prayer to God is that all differences among God's people on these and all other matters may be overcome in the love and fear of God, and through that brotherly love and fellowship which we have together in Christ while we "walk in the light, as he is in the light."