We now come to the close of this interesting and long, but I hope instructive, discussion. It falls to the lot of the negative to write the final words, and I approach the close of the discussion as I did the beginning, with prayer that the Lord may bless both the affirmant and respondent and that truth may triumph over error.

      Brother Boll and I hold many things in common--enough to fellowship each other as brethren in the Lord. We both believe that our Lord will return again, that we do not know when he will come, and that we should ever be ready for his coming. We both believe that his coming will be a blessing to all who love his appearing, and that it will be a condemnation to the wicked. We both believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that it is the complete revelation of God to man.

      The affirmative thinks that the negative has not answered his arguments and Scripture proof texts, and quotes what Alexander Campbell said to Mr. Rice and applies to the negative in this discussion. I think of nothing more apt as a reply to Brother Boll than to give Mr. Rice's response to A. Campbell. He said:

      I had not the most distant expectation, when I agreed to conduct this discussion, that I should please my friend, either as an affirmant or as a respondent. If I had expected to please him, I should not have become his opponent. .  . . He informs the audience that I never directly answer his arguments. It is necessary that he should give them this information, or they, in their simplicity, will not discern it. He must repeat the declaration that I have not answered him, every time he rises to speak, or the audience will be sure to believe the contrary! Indeed, I very much question whether his assertions will prevent them from believing that his arguments have been fully exposed. ("Campbell-Rice Debate," page 462.)

      The reader is to be the judge whether the respondent has answered the arguments of the affirmant in the present discussion. The repeated declarations of the affirmant [395] that his arguments have not been answered does not change the situation, neither would a repeated declaration on the part of the respondent affect the situation. The reader must be the judge as to whether the affirmant has proved his proposition.

      The negative has no "position" to explain. The negative holds to no theory concerning the "millennium;" the negative is not a "millennialist " or a "premillennialist," neither is he a "post-millennialist." Hence, the negative has nothing to explain to the affirmative in regard to these things. The Bible does not teach anything about any of these "positions" or "theories," and the negative feels that it is best to let them alone. Christians can live faithful to God, believing everything that God teaches and practicing everything that he requires of his children, and die and go home to heaven without being either a "millennialist," a "premillennialist," or a "postmillennialist."

      Rev. 20:1-10 is the only Scripture in the New Testament or the Bible that mentions "the thousand years." Premillennialists 'base their theory for the millennium upon this Scripture. It is strange that Brother Boll has not quoted this Scripture during the entire discussion. He has referred to it a few times and has told us that the term "thousand years" is used six times in this Scripture, but for some cause he has failed to quote the only Scripture in the Bible that gives premillennialists any basis for their theory. May we not wonder why Brother Boll has not quoted it? There are expressions in this Scripture which cannot be taken literally, and Brother Boll knows this. It contains such figures and symbols as, "the abyss," "sealed it over," "thrones," "saw the souls," "the beast," "his image," "a thousand years," "the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand," "first resurrection," "second death," "loosed out of his prison," "the four corners of the earth," "Gog and Magog," "the camp of the saints," "beloved city," "fire came [396] down out of heaven," "lake of fire and brimstone," and "the false prophet." Now, if Brother Boll takes one of these terms literally, he is forced to take all the other terms literally; or if one of them is to be taken figuratively or symbolically, the others must be taken that way. Premillennialists take "a thousand years" literally, but refuse to give the other terms equal significance. Brother Boll has chosen the easy way and has not quoted the Scripture. He has used only one term in it, and has given this term a literal meaning.

      The negative does not deny the Scripture teaching that "Satan is the god of this age, and the prince of this present world;" neither does the negative deny that the spirit of Satan "energizes and actuates all the sons of disobedience;" nor does the negative deny the fact that Jesus "died to deliver us out of this present evil age;" neither does the negative deny that God's people should "not be conformed to this world," nor that the Lord's people should keep themselves "unspotted from the world," nor that the friendship of the world is "enmity against God." The negative believes all the above statements, and the Scriptures which Brother Boll quoted on these points are correctly applied; but what has all of this to do with proving that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent? The "misapplication" and "misinterpretation" are made when these Scriptures are so interwoven as to make them teach that "the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent." They have absolutely nothing to do with proving the affirmative's proposition. Luke 19:12-14 says nothing about Christ's coming being premillennial or imminent, and it is a misapplication of this Scripture to make it teach anything on that point.

      There are many points of analogy between Christ during his personal ministry and the church, or his body; but the one claimed by the affirmative is not taught in the Bible. An analogy should not be pressed too far. The [397] affirmative did not give any Scripture to prove that his analogy was true. Christ lived among men, suffered, was rejected, and was crucified; but the church is not to be crucified, but it is to be triumphant in its work and mission, just as Christ was finally triumphant in being raised from the dead. The church is not a failure because some reject it. Neither was Christ's mission a failure because he was rejected and crucified.

      There will be wicked people on the earth when Christ comes, as Brother Boll declares. The negative does not deny this. The Scriptures (Matt. 24; Luke 17:26-30; 2 Thess. 2; Rev. 6:15-17) all teach that there will be wicked people upon the earth when Christ comes, but these Scriptures say absolutely nothing about the coming of Christ being premillennial and imminent. When Brother Boll interprets and applies them to his proposition and makes them mean that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent, he misinterprets and misapplies these Scriptures.

      1 Cor. 15:24-28. This Scripture leaves no room for a millennium. It does not matter whether the "then" means "simultaneousness" or "next in order." When Christ comes, Paul says, "then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God" (verse 24); and Christ will not come to deliver up the kingdom to God "till he hath put all his enemies under his feet" (verse 25). This teaches that Christ must continue his present reign until he has "abolished all rule and authority and power;" and it further teaches that when Christ comes, that will "be the end." This leaves no room for the millennium to come between the present reign of Christ and the end. So it matters not whether "then" means "simultaneousness" or "next in order," when Christ comes he will deliver the kingdom to God, and that will be the end. So there is no millennium intervening between the coming of Christ and the end. [398]

      The affirmative names in numerical order four points, and only four, which he has made in attempting to prove the imminency of Christ's coming. His points are: (1) "The coming of Christ is absolutely certain;" (2) "The time of Christ's coming is not revealed, therefore uncertain." He says that these "two points, taken together, constitute the imminency of Christ's coming; the latter two corroborate the fact." The argument was made in the second negative, and is repeated here, that if this reasoning is logical, then it proves that the resurrection and judgment are imminent. Let us try this kind of reasoning. (1) The resurrection "is absolutely certain;" (2) the time of the resurrection "is not revealed, therefore uncertain." Hence, if these two points prove that the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then they prove that the resurrection is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. The same reasoning may prove that the judgment is imminent,--that is, liable to happen at any moment. For the judgment "is absolutely certain;" and the time of the judgment "is not revealed, therefore uncertain." Hence, the judgment is "imminent "--that is, liable to occur at any time. Now, may we inquire why Brother Boll has singled out "the coming of Christ" and affirmed that it is imminent, and not also affirmed that the resurrection and the judgment are imminent? In the affirmative's second article he said: "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 we see that the same kind of reasoning proves the imminency of the resurrection and the judgment.

      No one denies the certainty of Christ's coming; neither does any one deny that the Lord's people should watch. All the Scriptures which Brother Boll quoted and all to which he referred as teaching the certainty of [399] Christ's coming and the watchfulness of his people are to the point and correctly interpreted and applied; but what has the certainty of Christ's coming and the watchfulness of his people to do with proving the proposition that "the Scriptures teach the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent?" When Brother Boll uses these Scriptures, which merely teach the certainty of Christ's coming and the watchfulness of the Lord's people, and tries to make them teach that the coming of Christ is "premillennial and imminent," then he "misinterprets" and "misapplies" these Scriptures.

      I now have on my desk more than two dozen volumes of works written by premillennialists giving their theory of the millennium. They all make the millennium one part of the great scheme of the theory. The principal points or outline of this theory are: The kingdom of God will come in its fullness only at the coming of Christ; the gospel holds in restraint evil; the world continues to grow worse and worse, and will do so until Christ comes; the coming of Christ is imminent; "the rapture" is the time while Christ and his saints are together up in the air; "the great tribulation" takes place on earth while Christ and his saints are in the air; the "millennium" is the thousand years while Christ is seated on David's throne and Satan is bound; after the thousand years Satan is turned loose again for a season and then finally destroyed. Brother Boll has a part of this theory in a diagram in his book, "The Second Coming," page 31. Brother Boll's diagram is similar to the diagram given by W. E. Blackstone in his book, "Jesus Is Coming," page 48. Brother Boll has discussed nearly every point in this theory in Word and Work during the last ten years.

      The millennium is a part of the theory. It is one of the chief items of the theory, and is designated in the diagram both of Brother Boll and Blackstone, showing its [400] relation to the other parts of the theory. It is this chief point or item of the theory, called the "millennium," that the negative denies. The negative does not deny that there is coming a time of bliss and happiness for the Lord's people, but this joy and happiness for the Lord's people is in heaven with "the spirits of just men made perfect," and not upon earth just for a thousand years. When Brother Boll affirms that the coming of Christ is premillennial, he means that the Scriptures teach that Christ will come before that period of a thousand years which is marked off in the diagram and called in the theory the "millennium." The negative is denying that the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ will be before that specific period and time which this theory calls the "millennium." So the issue of the proposition is clear.

      The negative has tried to get Brother Boll to disavow either all or any part of the above theory which he does not believe and teach. He has failed to do so. He has been urged and, entreated to disavow any part of it which he does not believe. The peculiar situation in the brotherhood and the disturbed relation which exists in the brotherhood over these questions make it imperative that Brother Boll disavow either in part or in toto the premillennial theory. The accusations against him that he believes and teaches the theory, and Brother Boll's claim that he has been misunderstood and misinterpreted, make it very imperative that he express himself clearly on these questions. I regret sincerely that he has not seen fit to do so. He has done himself an injustice in not taking advantage of the present opportunity to clear up some of these things.

      This is irrelevant matter, so far as the discussion of the present proposition is concerned. However, I am glad to have Brother Boll's explanation of his language. I confess that his language seems to me to teach that Israel [401] is to be restored to Palestine, and there rebuild the temple, resume the worship, and be reigned over by Christ on David's throne. In giving an interpretation of "Daniel's prediction," he says: "It is to be noted that this prophecy sees Israel back in their land in the end time. Their temple is rebuilt; the sacrifices again resumed." Again, he says: "Once returned, they will, of course, at once rebuild their temple and resume the temple service. But whether sooner or later, this is what they certainly will do sometime, for God has foretold it so." (Word and Work, 1917, page 354.) Again, in the same volume, page 387, in "summing up" the points which he had made, he gives in numerical order his first point, that "Israel is back in their land just before the Lord's glorious coming: the temple is rebuilt, its service resumed." I am glad for Brother Boll to give his explanation of what he means by this language, and I leave it to the judgment of the reader to make his own interpretation of it.

      The affirmative has had a very heavy burden to carry in discussing this proposition. He has a double proposition. Its two parts are: The coming of Christ is premillennial, and the coming of Christ is imminent. These parts are not interdependent; they are not even closely related. The coming of Christ could be premillennial and not be imminent; again, the coming of Christ could be imminent and not be premillennial. The proof of the affirmative on the premillennial point does not help establish the imminency of the coming of Christ. So the parts of his proposition are independent of each other, and the proof of the parts must be independent of each other.

      The affirmative has failed to give a single Scripture that directly or indirectly teaches that the coming of [402] Christ is premillennial. Our many patient, intelligent readers cannot now turn to a single Scripture which teaches this phase of Brother Boll's proposition. After discussing the proposition in three long articles, not a Scripture has been found that the reader can rely upon as teaching clearly and definitely that the coming of Christ is premillennial. The reason Brother Boll has not found the Scripture is simple and evident--there is no such Scripture. The reader may be sure that if there were such a Scripture, Brother Boll would have found it, because he has been studying this question for more than fifteen years; and if he could not find a plain, definite Scripture that teaches that the coming of Christ is premillennial in fifteen years, we may know that it is not in the Bible, and especially when he has been searching for every word and sentence in the Bible which could be used as proof of his proposition. The Scripture is not in the Bible, and therefore the Scriptures do not teach his proposition.

      The affirmative has attempted to prove that the coming of Christ is premillennial--that is, he has attempted to prove that the Scriptures teach that Christ is to come before that period which the premillennialists call the "millennium." It has been pointed out to him that he could not prove that the coming of Christ is to be before the millennium, unless he could prove that the Scriptures teach such a period of time as the premillennialists fit into their schemes and call the "millennium." The affirmative has failed to find any Scripture which teaches any such period of time as they call the "millennium." And since the Scriptures do not teach that there is to be such a period as this theory calls the "millennium," then the Scriptures do not teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial, or that his coming is before the millennium.

      All premillennialists have their diagrams and programs for the coming of Christ. In their program they have the following periods of time: (1) The "rapture," (2) the [403] "tribulation," (3) the "revelation," and the "millennium." These are all technical terms in their peculiar parlance. It will be seen that the "millennium" is only one period of time in their grand program of affairs at the "end time." Now the Scriptures do not teach this humanly devised scheme into which they have fit a period of time of a thousand years called the "millennium," and therefore the Scriptures do not teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial. The affirmative has failed to meet this argument.

      The affirmative assumed that the Scriptures teach that there will be such a period of time as this theory calls the "millennium." He based his arguments on "this assumption" and "proceeded upon that assumption." He has failed to prove that "assumption," and therefore his arguments on the premillennial phase of his proposition rest upon this huge assumption. It was not necessary to attempt to prove that Christ will come again; the negative teaches this. All the Scriptures proving that Christ will come again and that his people should be watching for his return are believed and accepted and taught by the negative. His burden was to prove that the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial, and this he has failed to do.

      In the third affirmative Brother Boll attempts to break the force of these arguments by saying that "there are certain separate stages and phases" of Christ's second coming. He says that Christ "came when he was born in Bethlehem;" he "came when he was baptized;" and he "came at his triumphant entry and on the cross." Such interpretations are not supported by the Scripture. Christ came to earth only one time in his first advent, and he will come only once when he will deliver up the kingdom to the Father. Such a patchwork of Scripture references does not break the force of the arguments advanced by the negative, neither do they find support in the Bible. I may say here that this course is generally [404] followed by premillennialists in attempting to answer the Scriptural objections which are made against their theory. They reply: "O, there are several comings of Christ." But they give no Scripture as proof of their reply.

      The Scriptures quoted by the affirmative which teach that Satan is "the prince of this world" and that God's people should keep themselves "unspotted from the world" are accepted by the negative, for God's Book so teaches; but this does not prove that the coming of Christ is premillennial. The contention that the world is growing worse and will continue to grow worse until Christ comes discounts the Bible and its influence in the world. It makes the church a failure and the work of the Holy Spirit and all agencies for righteousness failures. The affirmative has failed to meet these arguments.

      This second member of the proposition is not dependent upon the first member. The imminency of the coming of Christ has nothing to do with the other member of the proposition as to whether his coming is premillennial or not.

      The affirmative has defined the word "imminent" to mean "liable to happen at any moment," or liable to occur at any time. The affirmative has failed to find the words "premillennial" and "imminent" in the Bible; he has failed to find even a synonym for these words; and therefore he has failed to find the ideas in the Scripture.

      The affirmative has failed to meet the argument based on this definite proposition: If the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then everything the Bible teaches which must occur before Christ comes is also imminent, liable to occur at any moment. He has failed to meet this argument. The Bible clearly teaches, and Brother Boll has repeatedly admitted, that some things were to occur before Christ would come. These things which must occur before Christ comes [405] contradict the affirmative's definition of the term "imminent" and render impossible the proof of this part of his proposition as interpreted by him.

      The Scriptures teach now just what they taught when they were written; and if they did not teach that Christ would come before certain events happened then, they do not teach now that he would come before certain things happened. But if "imminent" means "liable to happen at any moment," then the Scriptures did not teach then that the coming of Christ was "imminent," liable to happen at any moment; and if they did not teach it then, they do not teach it now.

      The reader is unable to point to the chapter and verse in the Bible which teaches that Christ's coming is "imminent" in the sense which Brother Boll uses that term. No reader can put his finger on the book, chapter, and verse which clearly and definitely, without doubt, teaches that the coming of Christ is imminent, liable to happen at any moment. We may he sure that if there were such a Scripture, Brother Boll would have quoted it, and put it in large capital letters so that every one could see that he had found a Scripture which taught his proposition. He has not found it, for the simple fact that it is not in the Bible; and if it is not in the Bible, the Scriptures do not teach that the coming of Christ is imminent.

      Now, if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then all that must come before Christ comes or that immediately follows the coming of Christ are also imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. If the coming of Christ is just before the millennium, or if the millennium immediately follows the coming of Christ, then the millennium is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. This is the logical conclusion of Brother Boll's proposition, if it be true. Brother Boll has failed to meet this argument. He has been asked why he does not affirm that the millennium is imminent. He has failed to answer. [406]

      Again, the affirmative has taught that "a national conversion and restoration of Israel" will take place before Christ returns. In his quotation from Word and Work, 1923, as given in his third affirmative, he speaks of "the national conversion and restoration of Israel." If Israel is to be nationally converted and restored to Palestine before Christ comes, and if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then the national conversion and restoration of Israel to Palestine are also imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. This argument is germane to the proposition, logical in its construction, and unanswerable in its force. The affirmative has failed to meet it.

      Jesus, in giving the commission, taught his disciples that they should go "into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation." He had said of the woman who used the precious ointment upon his body: "Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." (Mark 14:9.) This shows that Jesus intended that the gospel should be preached "throughout the whole world;" and since he knew that it would take some time for his disciples to do this, he did not teach that his second coming was imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment. Such a construction of the teaching of Jesus makes him contradict the commission to preach the gospel to the whole creation. The affirmative has failed to meet this argument.

      After the ascension of Christ, the Holy Spirit was to come to earth. The apostles were to wait in Jerusalem "until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49.) Jesus would not come until the Holy Spirit came. It was some days before the Holy Spirit came. The affirmative has referred to what Jesus taught concerning his second return. Jesus did not teach that he would come before the Holy Spirit came. The teaching of Jesus meant then just what it means now; and if [407] Jesus did not mean then that he would come before the Holy Spirit was sent to earth, then his teaching does not mean now that he would come before the Holy Spirit came. This breaks the force of the affirmative's argument on the imminency of the teaching of Christ as interpreted by the affirmative. In carrying out the commission and in the work of the Holy Spirit, God had the great scheme of redemption to develop, he had the complete will of Jehovah to reveal to man, and he had his wonderful plan of salvation to execute. In this great scheme and revealed will and executed plan God put the element of time. This element of time for the development and execution of the will and plan of God forever precludes the meaning of the term "imminent" as given by Brother Boll. Brother Boll's meaning of the term "imminent"--liable to happen at any time--would cut short the great scheme of redemption and plan of salvation which God purposed to develop. The affirmative has not met the force of this argument.

      Paul, in writing to the church at Corinth, says: "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Cor. 13:10.) Again, in writing to the church at Ephesus, he says that certain things had been placed in the church "till we all attain unto the unity of the faith,.  . . unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13.) There was an imperfection, or an imperfect condition of the church and an incomplete revelation of God's will, up to a certain time. God intended that the church attain its perfection, and he also intended from the first to give a complete revelation of his will. He knew it would take some time for the church to attain unto that state, and he knew it would take some time to unfold his will to the church. Now, if the coming of Christ were imminent--that is, liable to happen at any time--and if it should have happened before the state of perfection or complete revelation, then it would have cut short God's plan and [408] purpose. Brother Boll's definition of his term and interpretation of his proposition thus contradict the Scripture. Brother Boll has not met this argument.

      Again, Paul taught in 2 Thess. 2:1-12 that there were some precursors to the coming of Christ. He says concerning the coming of the Lord: "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." Paul plainly states that Christ will not come until at least these two things occur--(1) "the falling away" and (2) "the man of sin be revealed." Since the Scriptures teach now just what they taught then, and they taught then that the coming of Christ was not imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then they do not teach now that the coming of Christ is imminent. Brother Boll has failed to meet this argument.

      Again, the argument was made that the Scriptures teach that the judgment is to take place at the coming of Christ. (See Matt. 16:27; 25:31-46; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 14:9-12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1.) The Scriptures teach that all are to be judged by the gospel and are to be judged at the same time. (Matt. 25:31-46; Rom. 2:16; Rev. 20:11-15.) There is no room for the millennium to come between the coming of Christ and the judgment. If the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any time--and the judgment is to be at the coming of Christ, then the judgment is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. The affirmative has failed to meet this argument.

      Brother Boll taught in Word and Work, 1917, page 354, that "the willful king" would sum up all world power before the coming of Christ. He said that "in the end time a mighty king shall have all but universal dominion." If this "willful king" is to come before Christ comes, and the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then the coming of this "willful king" is also imminent--that is, liable to happen at any [409] moment. The affirmative has failed to meet this objection to his proposition.

      Again, Brother Boll taught in Word and Work, 1917, page 390, that "Rome comes back"--that is, the Roman Empire, he says, is to be reëstablished before Christ comes. If the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment-then the reëstablishment of old pagan Rome is also imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. In fact, the reëstablishment of the old Roman Empire is more imminent than the coming of Christ, since the Roman Empire is to be reëstablished before Christ comes. The affirmative has failed to meet this argument.

      The negative may not be a fair judge, but it is the humble judgment entertained by the negative that the affirmative has made a complete failure in attempting to prove that "the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent." The affirmative claimed that this was the most important proposition of all that we have discussed; that "the vital and practical center of the Bible's prophetic teaching" was summed up in this proposition. We must conclude that if this be true, if this proposition is the most important of them all, and since the affirmative has made such a signal failure in proving this, the most important proposition of them all, then the Scriptures do not teach any of the propositions which he has affirmed. Where is the book, chapter, and verse that teaches that "the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent?" There is no such Scripture in the Bible.

      We have now concluded the discussion. I wish to join Brother Boll in thanking the Gospel Advocate for the very liberal space that it has given to this discussion. The Advocate invited the discussion in the interest of the truth, unity, and peace of the church. Its high regard for honor and strong desire to be just and fair to all who [410] might oppose the fundamental and vital teachings of the Bible as advocated by the Advocate caused it to invite Brother Boll to discuss fully, frankly, and freely all that he might believe that the Bible teaches on these questions which have in many sections disturbed the churches. I am glad that Brother Boll accepted the invitation and has had full, free, and unlimited space in the columns of the Advocate to express himself as his deep conviction and good judgment guided him.

      No victory over Brother Boll has been sought. I have not consciously, as an affirmant or respondent, desired any victory over Brother Boll; neither do I think that he, either as an affirmant or respondent, desired any victory over me. We have not sought for victory the one over the other. We both have desired only the triumph of truth over error. We have prayed throughout the discussion that only the truth of God on these subjects may be taught. I have pressed some points, many points, very hard in the discussion. This was done, not to confuse or embarrass Brother Boll, but that the truth might appear in its boldness and simplicity. Both of us have tried to maintain Christian courtesy and dignity toward each other. We have felt keenly our responsibilities to God and to the patient readers and have tried to discharge our duties as servants of the Most High.

      I reciprocate the fraternal expression and high regard which Brother Boll has for me. I have had many discussions and many kinds of opponents, but I have never had a more courteous and brotherly opponent than Brother R. H. Boll. My high regard for him has been increased because of the discussion. I believe him to be sincere, pious, and a cultured, Christian gentleman. I entertain the kindest personal feelings toward him. We differ, as the reader knows; but our differences and a discussion of them do not keep me from esteeming him very highly as a brother in Christ Jesus. [411]

      I join him in thanking the prayerful, patient readers for following the discussion of each proposition to its close. The discussion has been long, and possibly tedious to some; but I trust that much good has been done by the discussion, and that all have been led into a fuller knowledge of the truth of God and into a closer walk with him.

      We both yearn for the peace and unity of the body of Christ, and have kept constantly before us the fact that one purpose of this discussion was to help bring about a better understanding between brethren and heal sores and breaches that may have occurred at any time or place. May our brethren continue the study of these questions until all are at a unit on them, until there be "one faith"--as there is but "one Lord" and one God and Father of all.

      May the Lord abundantly bless "the Israel of God," "the seed of Abraham," "the household of faith," and help us all to "love his appearing" by maintaining good works and keeping "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." [412]

[UP 395-412]