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: [376]

      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 [377] 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 [378] 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 bound and imprisoned, and Christ reigns with his saints. It [379] 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 [380] 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 throne, 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, [381] 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 you on her." "The kingdoms of this world have become 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 [382] 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 for 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 renders: "Christ having been the first to rise, and afterwards Christ's people rising at his return. [383] 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 [384] 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 [385] 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 [386] theories. There may be things in the creeds of Christendom with which he finds himself in accord; but he is not on 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 reëstablishment 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 [387] 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, [388] 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 [389] 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 [390] 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 wind-up 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 [391] 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 [392] 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." [393]

      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." [394]

[UP 376-394]