dfornell HmuerattH Slihtarg ilttfaia, S?eui ^nck LIBRARY OF LEWIS BINGLEY WYNNE A. B.. A.M.. COLUMBIAN COLLEGE. -Tl. -73 WASHINGTON. D. C. THE GIFT OF MRS. MARY A. WYNNE AND JOHN H. WYNNE CORNELL "98 1922 Cornell University Library arV15090 Debate on the punishment of the wicked a 3 1924 031 695 426 olin.anx Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031695426 ADDITIONAL ERRATA. HaTing had no opportunity of reading the proof of my speeches, I find, on examination, that several errors of importance have occurred, a few of the more important of which are hereby cor- rected. There are others of minor importance, which the reader will please correct as he reads. E. E. ORVIS. Page 102, 16th line from top, read " opyu" instead of "opytc." Page 141, lllh line from bottom, read "iSns" instead of "riaScs." Page 158, 5th line from bottom, read "Suciiii" instead of "SiKttp." Page 159, 5th line from top, read "oXc^poj" for " ti>.c-j EDITED BY EDWARD E. ORVIS, JIEW liONDOJr, CHESTER COmO'T, PEJUlSrSIiVAllIA. This is a Monthly Religious Magazine, which will commence its sixth volume, January, 1856. Terms, one dollar per annum in advance. • Address the Editor, "King William Court House, Virginia." DEBATE. ON THE PUiSHMEMT OF THE WICKED AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD: ITS CHARACTER, LOCALITY AND THE TIME OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT; BETWEEN ALLAN B. gitlAGEUDER, OP CHAELOTTESVILLB, TIRGINIA, AND EDWARD E. ORVIS, OF NEW LONDON, PENNSYLVANIA, HELD AT ACQUINTOBT CHURCH, KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRCINIA, On the nth, 12th, 13th and 14th of June, 1855. P. KEAN, STEKOGHAPHIO EEPORTEE. RICHMOND: ELLIOTT & NTE, BOOK JOB AND FANCY PRINTERS, WHIG BOILDING. 1855. Entkbed according to Act of Congress In the year 1855, by P. KBAN AND AMBROSE WHITE, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. PREFACE. The folloiiving is a fair and full report of the Debate "bet-ween Messrs. Magettdee and Oevis. The issues, as will be seen, are en- tirely novel ; and to this, doubtless, is owing the very general anxiety manifested for some time to see the Debate in print. Nb discus- sion could have cornmanded more interest than this had during the four days allotted to ft. Hundreds, of both sexes, from the surrdUnding counties, were in attendance from the opening to the close of the De- bate, and it may be safely asserted, that a more attentive and intelligent audience never before assembled in Virginia, upon any like occasion. The Debate was conducted in the best possible spirit, and the strictest order prevailed throughout. The audience seemed, in fact, as if spell-bound, so novel and interest- ing were the arguments presented. Several held their Bibles in their hands, referring to the various passages adduced in the argu- ments, doubtless, with a view to analyze them to their satisfaction at a more convenient time. Never were any issues more thoroughly canvassed than those which formed the sub- jects of controversy in this instance, The Bible being held, under all circumstances, as the sole arbiter. Extraneous opinions, ren- dered by distinguished writers favorable to the respective views of the speakers, were presented, in a few instances, on both sides ; more, however, by way of illustration than proof. But the great standard of argument and proof was The Bible, to which both parties made their appeal. As an indication of the earnestness with which this work is sought, and the general interest felt in the discussion, it is sufficient to state that several hundred copies of it were engaged weeks in advance of its publi- cation. Nor is this interest peculiar to the immediate friends, or brethren, of tte de- baters ; many others, actuated by a desire to ascertain tlie arguments involved in issues of so novel a cbaracter, have manifested an anxiety, no less intense, to secure copies of the work upon the first announcement of its being in press. Indeed, it is believed, that no Debate has ever before embodied more copious and pertinent Scripture i^stimony, or contained a larger amount of facts, argu- ments and valuable Biblical information, than is contained in this work. It is proper to say, that the report of Mr. Mageudee's speeches does not embody all the passages of Scripture which he actually quoted. The reason of this was that, al- though accm-ately taken down at the mo- ment, such numerous quotations gave to his addresses an appearance of redundancy, in the opinion of the Reporter, which he thought it desirable to avoid. It was not until the printing had progressed too far to supply these omissions in their proper places, that Mr. M. became aware of the fact and communicated his earnest wish that every Scripture text he introduced should appear, as he regarded them as " so many indestructi- ble links ia the chain of Divine testimony." It is only by here stating the fact, that any undesigned injustice can be, in part, repaired. In Mr. M.'s speech, beginning on page 350, he quoted very copiously from- the book of Isaiah, reading nearly the whole of the six last chapters m support of his position touch- ing the restoration of the Jews, and the future glory and prosperity of Jerusalem, as the " City of the Great King." P. KEAN, Reporter. PROPOSITIONS AGREED UPON ORAL DEBATE BETWEEN MESSRS. A. B. MAGRUDER AND E. E. ORYIS. 1st. The punisliment of the wicked will end in the eternal extinction of their being. MR. MAGRUDER AFFIRMS— MR. ORVIS DENIES. 2d. Jesus Christ, since his advent, has s«t up his Kingdom in this world, in fulfflment of the predictions of the Ancient Prophets, and the preaching of John the Baptist. MR. ORVIS AFFIRMS— MR. MAGRUDER DENIES. RULES OF DISCUSSION. 1st. We agree that the Debate shall take place at the Acquinton Church, in King William county, and shall continue from day to day, exclusive of Sunday, commencing on Monday, the 11th of June, 1855; the session to continue from ten o'clock, A. M., to one 8 o'clock, P. M., and from two o'clock to fonr o'clock, P. M., eacli day. 2d. The affirmant of a proposition shall open and the respondent conclude. The first speech of both affirmant and respondent, in each proposition, shall not exceed one hour, 6v remaining speeches half an hour, in length. 3d. This Debate shall be under the direc- tion of a Board of Presidents, of whom each party shall choose two, and these a fifth; any three of whom shall constitute a quorum. 4th. The duties of this Board shall be to preserve order in the assembly, and to keep the parties to the question. 5th. This Debate is to continue four days. ALLAN B. MAGRUDER, EDWARD E. ORYIS. The following gentlemen were selected un- der the 3d Rule, as the Board of Presidents : Messrs. B. B. Douglass, Geoege Edwaeds, H. B. ToMLiN, Fendall Geegoet and John H. Pitts. Mr. B. B. Douglass was appointed Chairman. DEBATE, Monday, Jane 11th, 1855. Owing to a misunderstanding on the part of one of the Moderators as to the hour when the debate was to commence, the assembly did not meet before 12 o'clock, M. At that hour the Moderators took their seats, and the President, Mr. Douglass, having called the assembly to order, read the first proposi- tion, as follows: "The Punishment of the Wicked will end in the eternal extinction of being." MR. MAGEUDEE'S FIEST SPEECH. Mr. President, Gentlemen and Fellow-Citizens: I think myself happy, that in the providence of God, I am permitted to stand this day, in the pre- sence of this large, respectable and attentive audi- ence on an occasion so auspicious to a fair and patient hearing — to submit, for your consideration, certain testimony derived from the oracles of Reason and Revelation, on the great subject of the Final Destiny of a large portion of our race. In affirming my earnest persuasion of the truth of the proposition which has been just announced in your hearing, I am animated by the reflection that I appear before you in execution of the great mission which our Maker has committed to all his intelligent crea- 2 10 tares — in the discharge of the duty imposed on us all — to vindicate the ways of God to man — to vin- dicate the -wisdomj the justice and the benevolence of our Great Creator, which, in my humble judg- ment, the current theory of eternal punishment — absurdly regarded as synonymous with eternal tor- ment — most rudely and unwisely assails. I do not stand here, as the champion of any dogmas of my own or of any other man. Far otherwise — I am to defend the truth, as it is in Jesus. I appear as the advocate, so far as this proposition is concerned, of what I honestly and earnestly believe to be "the faith once delivered to the saints." I am, indeed, not insensible to the criticism to which I expose myself, in attempting the discussion of a question, regarded by some, as difficult and ob- scure, and by others, as too fearful in its aspects to be freely canvassed — a question too, which, in its elucidation, has called forth the efforts of the wisest and most learned of mankind. Nor am I ignorant of the unwelcome fact that, on this question, 1 am compelled, by my convictions, to take a position against which the prejudices and opinions of a large majority of this audience are already warmly en- listed. The potent influence of such considera- tions is not to be overlooked or disregarded in this discussion. Doubtless the respected gentleman who appears as the respondent, on this occasion, looks, nol without great confidence, to these powerful aux- iliaries, to secure him an easy victory. Under such circumstances, if I relied on my own strength — if I 11 confided in any wisdom or power that I possess, I might well shrink from the task before me. But, in truth, I make no such pretensions— I claim no other qualifications for the task I have undertaken, than an earnest persuasion of the truth of my conclusions, derived from a heedful, dihgent and deliberate ex- amination of the testimony of reason and revelation, on the premises before us. If these oracles fail me, I have nought else to ojffer, and the respondent will be entitled to win the triumph which , no doubt, he already anticipates. Triumph, did I say? There is no room for personal triumph in such a contest as this. It is certainly my own, and I would fain be- lieve it is equally the earnest hope of my opponent, that truth alone may triumph in this friendly con- troversy. Our object is not victory, but truth — and, forgetting ourselves, the only rivalry we acknow- ledge is in a candid and manly competition for the discovery and establishment of the whole truth on the subject under discussion. Had I supposed that objects and purposes less noble and useful were to rule the hour, I assure you, I should not have con- sented to bear a part on this occasion. With me, truth alone is worthy of all efforts and sacrifices. To paraphrase a fine passage of the great Poet of our language, "the fairest gem that mortal times afford, is spotless truth," for truth is of God j error is from man. Truth is eternal, while error will perish, and though the contest between them be long, the issue cannot be doubtful. The friends of truth need not repine because for a time the light 2* 12 of the precious jewel may be obscured — claiming God for its author and its end, it cannot perish, for there is nothing really good or great or beautiful that is not true. The sentiment, though trite, is just, that "Truth crushed to earth, will ri-;e again; The immortal years of God are hers; While error, wounded, writhes in pain, And dies, amid her worshippers." It is the tendency of truth to impart a certain freedom and boldness — the full assurance of faith — to its disciples and advocates. "He is a free man whom the truth makes free, and all beside are slaves." There is a mighty power in those convic- tions of the mind which are in.'spired by truth; and as I shall speak to you, in this discussion, with a fxeedom proportioned to the measure of my own persuasions, I trust you will not confound this con- fidence with that spirit of dogmatism and self-con- ceit which betrays the partisan of a foregone con- clusion. Before proceeding directly to the proposition offered for debate, I shall be pardoned, I trust, for pausing a moment to advert to the misgivings which, to some extent, possess the popular mind, even under our free government, as to the wisdom and utility of these public discussions of questions of religious faith. Such doubts and fears are surely not in keep- ing with the spirit of the age — the temper of the times in which we live. The cause of truth has nothing to fear from fair investigation, seeing that 13 her greatest foes afe ignorance and prejudice, and her most efficient friend and ally is free discussion. It is error, not truth, that shuns the hghtand dreads exposure. The Protestant Reformation is a noble monument of the value and power of free, open, public discussion on points of religious faith and practice. Yet there -were not wanting men of learn- ing in that day, who deprecated discussion and con- troversy as themselves greater evils than those they were designed to cure, " Better have in the Church, a peaceful error than a troublesome truth," said the learned and temporising Erasmus to Luther. "Ptace indeed, if possible, but truth at all haz- ards,^' was the prompt reply of the intrepid Saxon Reformer. But why talk of the Protestant Reforma- tion or cite the example of Luther and others, in the presence of the precepts and examples of the Great Founder and Author of our faith and his immediate successors ! What history records the career of more devoted and untiring disputants and controversialists than Christ and his Apostles? It was a great mis- sion of the earthly career of the Messiah, to pro- pound and vindicate truth — and to detect and expose falsehood. To do this, he resorted to the weapons of controversy — he contrasted light with darkness — he freely and boldly confronted error with her dreaded rival — truth. In opening the memories of his life, we find him, at the early age of twelve, "in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions." In the synagogues — in the market places — from the porti- 14 coes of the temple— by the well ftf Samaria— on the mountain's brow — in the solitude of the forests — on the shores of the sea, and even at the judgment seat of Pilate, he ceased not to teach and preach a doc- trine, which, though "^'to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness," we profess this day to reverence, as the perfection of reason and the highest effort of a Divine Wisdom. Look, too, at the Apostles! How unworthy in their eyes is a bhnd, implicit, unreasoning faith ! When Paul went to Athens — the mistress of science and learning — the seat of all the refinement, philosophy and wisdom of the Pagan world, "his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the Oity wholly given up to idolatry — therefore disputed he in the Synagogue with the Jews — and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him." He encountered the Stoics and Epicureans, the reli- gious teachers of the age, for their philosophy and religion were one. And standing in the Areopagus on Mars Hill, he delivered to them that masterpiece of argument and eloquence which is preserved in the 17th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles — He offered this in refutation of the follies and absurdi- ties of their cherished creed. With such examples before us, we need pause no longer to find apology or precedent for the occasion which has brought us together. In truth, from the premises before us, we have no option. We dare not neglect or omit the defence of the truth against the mighty hosts which still stand up in stern opposition to it. We must 15 needs heed the plain Apostolic command, to "^n/ the spirits whether they be of God — to prove all things and hold fast that which is good; to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints." In doing so, we obey the divine command. We boldly do our duty and leave the consequences, without fear, to him who judgeth righteously. " Bold in speech and bold in action, Be forever ; Time shall test, Of the free-souled and the slavish. Which fulfils life's mission best." Let us turn now to the proposition before us? What are its terms? " The punishment of the wicked will end — (not consist) — in the eternal ex- tinction of their being. I shall define these terms: Punishment is the infliction on the guilty offender of the penalty of a violated law. The wicked are those who, knowing their duty, wilfully violate it, and become justly obnoxious to Divine displeasure. The verb — " end^^ — is used in the sense of ultima- ting or resulting — and the "eternal extinction of being," is an expression equivalent to everlasting destruction. To prove this proposition, two sources of evidence are open to us. These are Reason and Revelation. Each of these merit our attentive examination, for both are gifts of God. These oracles will never be found to oppose or contradict each other. Revela- tion may indeed require our assent to truths which are above the reach of reason, but never contradic- tory to its sound teachings. I trust there are none 16 present who are willing to subscribe to the perni- cious sentiment that reason and religion are irrecon- cilable — that where reason begins, religion ends, and vice versaj which is, to affirm, in effect, that religion is an unreasonable system. On the contrary, as God is the author of both, and as he doth not contradict himself, all true religion will be found in harmony with true science and with right reason. The proper use and end of reason is to inspect the credentials of revelation, and, being satisfied of its authenticity, to lead us to the Bible, and, not for- saking us there, reverently to accompany us, with this faithful Guide, as the Pilot, in the search for truth . In invoking the exercise of your reason first, in this argument, I follow the highest example, for, it is written, " Come, let us reason together." The path of duty is said to be a ''reasonable service." And, again, I cite the authority of an Apostle, of whom it is written, that "as he reasoned of right- eousness, temperance and judgment to come, Felix trembled." What then is the rational argument on the premises before us? I affirm, 1. That it is not impossible that the proposition an- nounced should be true. Surely it is not animpossi- ble thing that human beings who live in the constant and wilful violation of the law of their Maker, which is holy, just and good, on the due observance and harmonious action of which the moral order of the universe depends, and without which, they can never themselves be happy, should ultimately pe- lY rish — utterly cease to be. As he who created, can also destroy, it is by no means impossible for him to remand the Avicked into that blank nothingness from which, by the fiat of Omnipotence, they first sprang into being. 2. Neither is it absurd to suppose that those who contradict the great, end of their being — who choose darkness rather than light and prefer falsehood to truth, should, at some period of their rain and per- nicious career, lose that existence which by their own perverseness can never be otherwise than mis- erable. This conclusion is certainly not so repug- nant to our moral sentiments, or so shocking to our understandings as to be discarded as an absurdity. 3. It is not so improbable, that we cannot rationally entertain this hypothesis. On the contrary, if we were left to discover for ourselves, by the character of Deity as displayed in his works of beneficence and wisdom, the probable doom of the obstinately impenitent and incorrigible of his creatures, I main- tain, we should see many strong und cogent reasons why such should perish altogether, and be entirely removed from a scene in which they could not, be- cause they would not, bear any useful or honorable part. 4. Seeing that this conclusion is not impossible or absurd, or even improbable, may I not advance a step farther, and maintain suscessfully that such a destiny for the wicked is altogether probable, es- pecially when we compare it with the doctrine of endless existence in torment. Looking abroad with 2t 18 the eye of wisdom and benevolence, on the whole sensitive and intelligent creation, it will strike us as altogether probable that the unhappy beings who justly incur the displeasure of their Judge, should rather perish entirely, as the final end of a previous course of retribution, than that they should by a di- vine and miraculous arrangement, be kept alive, not merely for long ages of punishment, but even forever and ever, in exquisite and indescribable torment! 5. On this review of the rational aspects of the question and comparing the theory of their entire destruction, ultimately, with the opposite notion of their preservation on purpose to be tormented through infinite ages, I contend on reason's testimo- ny, that the former being not only a probable, but by far a preferable destiny, may be logically accep- ted as the correct theory, because of the exclusiou of every opposing hypothesis, and is therefore true. There is another, and, to me, an insuperable ob- jection to the current theory of the eternal torment of the wicked, which my opponent is understood to advocate, which, if found to be tenable, enti- tles me to claim a decision in my favor. It is that that dogma is utterly inconsistent with the proper end and object of punishment, and cannot there- fore be true. Reason proclaims certain fixed and unalterable purposes to be answered by punishment. These are, 1. To vindicate the authority of the lawgiver. 2. To deter others, by the example, from trans- gression. 19 How can these objects be effected by the inflic- tion of endless torment ? If we suppose the first to be practicable, though it is not easy to see how to be always ^\xrAshing, though never punishec/, (which the popular theory necessitates) can ever constitute punishment which implies a completion of the process; how is the second motive or object of punishment to find any place in the popular the- ory? This admits that the righteous who escape the penalty are to be like the angels, immortal and incapable of sinning. Surely then it will not be necessary to hold up to them the terrible warning afforded by the agonies of the damned. For whose benefit then is the example to he furnished? Ob- viously there is no use — no object or purpose to be answered in any rational scheme of compensa- tion beyond a just retribution — a punishment " ac- cording to their deeds'''' — and as these are finite and terminable, so the penalty must have an end. I proceed now to the Bible argument. But it is necessary to adopt, in advance, certain rules .of inter- pretation, as guides in our investigation. For that purpose, I offer the following, which will be ap- proved by the judgment and common sense of all present : 1 . The literal sense of words is to be preferred, unless cause can be shown for interpreting them otherwise. 2. That construction is to be adopted which pre- serves the integrity of the context — obviates a con- 20 tradiction of other parts of scripture, and harmo- nizes the whole vohime. 3. That which is obscure and doubtful must be explained by reference to that which is plain and clear. Opening the Bible and surveying its contents, the first argument that presents itself in the path of that theory to which the proposition I am maintaining stands opposed, arises from ^ fact of startling signi- ficance. It is that from the calling of Abraham to Christ — a period of near two thousand years — no remedial or religious system whatever was provided for any other people than one — the Jews! Now, what is to become of the abominable, the vicious, the de- praved, among the heathen during this long inter- val? Are they too doomed to eternal torment? Yet no means have been devised for their rescue from so dreadful a fate, and no hint is given, during this lapse of ages, no notification whatever, of an end so appalling ! Is this the decree of an infinitely wise, good and gracious Being? A doctrine fairly obnox- ious to objections so unanswerable, cannot be true. The question before us involves the consideration of the constitution of man, for it seems altogether reasonable, in determining the destiny of a being, to advert to his origin and organization, and as it is the Bible only that reveals man to us in the three de- partments of his being — as he was, as he is, and as he shall be hereafter — we open the pages of this Holy Book, and invite you to survey the first man, as he sprung from the plastic hand of his Creator. 21 What was he by creation 9 Genesis ii. 7, re- plies, " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and irutn became a living' soul" — not pos- sessed of an immortal or even a living soul, but inan — the whole being, was himself the living soul. The narrative shows that, as to his state, he was a probationer for the continuance of the life he then enjoyed — and, as to his constitution, he was so formed as to be capable of life or death, as his own conduct should determine. Before his fall, his history is brief — the great event of his life being his transgression, and his consequent expulsion from the garden in which the Lord God had placed him. After his fall, and by that event he becomes sub- jected to death, and, as to his constitution, he is now a mortal sinner. The execution of the sen- tence of death being respited for the purpose, he now becomes a candidate or probationer for another, or future life and destiny. If, on trial, he forms a character which his Creator approves, he will be ap- propriately rewarded, notwithstanding his necessary subjection meanwhile to the penal ty of death — while, on the other hand, if found wanting, when put to the proof, he will be justly punished thereafter for the deeds done in the body. As our investigation relates at present only to the destiny of the wicked class, we ask, now, is there a,ny thing in this narrative of the creation of man — in the constitution which God bestowed iipon him — which necessitates the conti- nuance of his existence forever? Are we not bound 22 to answer, with the Bible in our hands, that so far from it, the reverse is the Bible doctrine. Let us consult the narrative. Genesis iii. 1-6: "And the serpent said unto the woman, yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ! And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die, for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Here, then, is a plain and distinct issue of veracity between the Lord God on the one hand, and the serpent on the other. The former positively affirms, Genesis ii. 17: "In the day that thou (Adam( eatest of the fruit of the tree, (dying,) thou shaU surely die, ^^ whilst the latter as plainly maintains, as we have seen, "Ye shall not surely die." I desire you particularly to observe, that these words were addressed to the whole man, and that it is of the whole man, who is the living soul, it is af- firmed " THOU (not thy body) shalt surely die." It will hardly be denied by my opponent, that the Lord God spoke the truth, and that the serpent " the Father of lies, and a murderer fro7n the beginning, was guilty of falsehood in affirming of Adam and Eve, " Ye shall no? surely die," yet, most strange and startling conclusion, to this day, the learned and 23 pious of mankind, the so-called orthodox church, maintain, with zeal and pertinacity, the very propo- sition that the serpent announced, viz : that man is an immortal beivg, and therefore that he will NOT surely die! If, indeed, this he true — if the serpent told the Iruth, there is an end of this discussion on this point, for death cannot be affirmed, logically and consistently, of an immortal being. But if, as 1 maintain in opposition to my opponent and his or- thodox confederates, that which the Lord God af- firmed was true, and consequently the opposing statement of the serpent was false, it follows, inevi- tably, that man is a mortalheing — that as the whole man was addressed in the prohibition, the whole man was involved in the transgression, and that, by consequence, the whole man must sutfer the penalty, death. On this authority then, and sustained by this reasoning, I maintain that death is a complete and absolute process — that the sentence which has been passed on all our race, when carried into effect, deprives us entirely of life — and, as lo any sentient, conscious existence; blots us out of being as ef- fectually as if we had never been, and that but for future life by a resurrection, (which is peculiarly and exclusively the Bible theory of future existence,) man would sleep forever in the dust. This may not be orthodox, I admit. It is, however, better. It is true. It claims God for its author, and cannot therefore be false, as I hope to be able abundantly to show in the course of this debate. If this be not true, I ask now, how it comes to be written in 24 this very narrative of the fall of man to which we have referred, thus. Genesis iii. 22 : "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is hecome as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live fohever, therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden," &c. If already, and by constitution or creation, iwi- mortal, incapable of death, why banish him from the tree of life') But, as we see, it was lest he eat and live forever, that he was denied access to the tree. It was to prevent him from living forever, then, that he was expelled the garden. But, how absurd this reason, if he Avere already immortal. This testimony affords us, just here, a strong argu- ment against the popular fallacy of eternal torment as the portion of the wicked, to which I beg to ask your attention. If we suppose, in harmony with the current doc- trine, that the eternal conscious existence of the wicked in immitigable torments, is the Divine De- cree, may we not reverently inquire why, Divine Benevolence did not substitute eternal life in the present state for the death-penalty affixed to Adam's sin? That, though a greater evil than simple death, would have been a far preferable fate to endless life in torment. It seems, however, from the words, " lest he put forth his hand and eat and live for- ever,''^ that living forever, in the present state of mixed good and evil, was a calamity so dreadful that the mercy of God revolted at it, and hence he 25 resolved so to arrange his plan as to save us from that destiny. This was truly a gracious and bene- ficent arrangement, seeing that the present state with its sorrows, cares and troubles incessantly accumu- lating, would become sorrowful and distressing in the extreme. Yet how much better that fate for the wicked — whose case we are considering — than the doom of endless misery. In this State, there is good as well as evil ; but in that, there is only evil and that intolerable and eternal. If God's goodness forbade, him to doom man to the sad destiny of liv ing forever in the present state of misled good and evil, a priori, the same merciful and benign attri- butes of his character, restrain him from consigning any of his creatures to the far worse and more dread- ful destiny of living forever, in the midst of idto- lerable sufferings, in a state of unmixed evil! As the popular conceit of the immortality of the soul li&s at the foundation of the orthodox creed, and is the very source and fountain of all the reli- gious error that prevails among men, and especially of the theory of future punishment I am opposing, I shall now address myself to the inquiry, do the Scriptures aflford any countenance whatever to that dogma? That it was believed and taught by Socra- tes and Plato, and other so called philosophers and sages of the ancient Pagan world, is freely admitted. That it is the established creed of the poets, philo- sophers and clergy of the present day, and forms the raw material, the staple commodity, of Milton's fanciful poem, Paradise Lost — of Young's Night 26 Thoughts— Mooie's Lalla Rhook, and indeed of the current religious literature of the present and many- past ages, cannot be denied. But we are to try this question by no such blind guides as these. We make our appeal to this Book— to the Bible— a record that assumes to teach our origin, constitution and destiny, and which therefore can alone be accepted as competent authority in the premises. Is this doc- trine taught therein'? If so, I ask where, and I pause for a reply. One would think from the force and frequency with which this doctrine is urged on us by those who profess to teach Bible truth, that we should find it written in every page of revelation. Yet I affirm and it cannot be denied, that the immortality ■ of the Soul — undying Souls, Sfc. are phrases which find no place whatever in the Bible! In not one single instance, from Genesis to Revelation, is im- mortality affirmed of man or of the soul of man in his present state! On the contrary, the opposite is repeatedly and expressly declared, for it is written: Ezek. xviii. 4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die.'''' Job iv. 17: " Shall mortal man be more just than God." James v. 20: " He which converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall saoe a soul from death,^' (fcc. The term immortal occurs only once in the whole volume. It is applied, not to man, but to God. I Timothy i. 17: "The king eternal, imfnortal, invisible, the only wise God." 21 Immortality occurs only five times. Again it is spoken of God — and promised to man, ( not in his present mortal constitution,) but in his glorified, ex- alted state, when he Secomes a partaker of the Divine Nature. In 1st Timothy vi. 15, it is predicated ex- clusively oi God — as "the blessed and only Poten- tate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who o^LY hath immortality," (deathlessness.) Now,ii God only hath immortality, can m,an be said to possess it! Again : In II Tim. i. 10, it is affirmed that "life and immortality were brought to light by Jesus Christ in the Gospel." Now, it is familiar know- ledge that Plato taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul — and he lived about five hundred years before the advent of Christ. If the doctrine pro- pounded by Plato was the true system, how can it be correctly affirmed that Christ brought it to light? This affords conclusive proof that Christ did not teach the same doctrine of immortality that Plato did, and consequently did not teach the native im- mortality of man . In Romans ii. 7, we have the assurance that "God will render to every man according to his deeds ; to them who, by patient continuance in well- doing, seek for glory, honor and immortality,''^ he will render eternal life — a strong proof that man, at present, possesses not immortality, for then there would be no reason to exhort him to seek for it. Immortality, and everlasting and eternal life, are phrases of very similar though not identical import in the Scriptures. These terms are never applied to man in the present state, but often as matter of promise to the righteous, at the resurrection, but never to wicked men, as we shall see by several familiar passages. John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." I John V. 11-13: "And this is the record, that God hath given to us (the righteous) eternal life: and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath 7iot the Son of God, (the wicked) hath not life." To the same effect, Christ teaches in John xi. 25: "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He that be- lieveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live : and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall not die forever; (eis ton aioua.) improperly trans- l.tted, " shall neijer die." So much for the Bible testimony, thus far, as to the constitution of man. We have seen that " God only hath immortality" — that man has inherited from his first ancestor a broken, mortal, corruptible con- stitution — that death is the appointed destiny of our race, but that a prospect is open to those who be- come righteous, and to them only to become im- mortal, by a resurrection unto an incorruptible con- stitution, and that, by consequence, the wicked, not being in Christ, who only hath life to bestow, must ultimately fulfil their destiny of returning to their parent dust. {Time Expired.'] 29 MK. OEVIS' FIRST REPLY. Mr. Pi-esident and Gentlemen Moderators: I fully concur with my friend, Mr. Magruder, in much that he has said in his opening speech — what he has said eulogistic of truth, of its priceless worth, and of its imperishable nature. I also agree with him, in the main, in relation to the importance of discussion. Investigation is the proper means for the eviction of that "priceless gem," called Truth. All truth has been developed by bold, dauntless spirits, earnestly engaged in investigation; and has been maintained by means of discussions Uke the present. Nevertheless, I am not certain but I owe an apol- ogy to that portion of this audience who concur with ■me in relation to the points involved in debate on- this occasion, for bringing those points before the public, for discussion, under existing circumstan- ces. The great mass of religionists, at least in this age of the world, will concur with me on these questions, while comparatively few can be found who will concur with my opponent. This is no certain proof that I am right, and he wrong; for the truth has often been greatly in the minority. Still, though numbers are no proof of correctness, it may not always be — indeed it is not always — po- litic for the majority to enter into public controversy with the minority. In such a case the minority has nothing to lose, and everything to gain; and vice 30 versa. If the advocates of any erroneous system, however, though few in numbers are rapidly gain- ing proselytes, and many are liable to be led away by them, discussion may be resorted to in order to stay the tide of popular delusion. It may, however, be urged that such is not the case in this instance; and that, therefore, a public discussion of this char- acter is uncalled for and impolitic. I acknowledge the force of this objection; and had I acted upon my own judgment alone, should not have occupied the position I now do before this audience. I wish it to be known and distinctly borne in mind, that I have not been instrumental in originating this dis- cussion. I have undertaken to defend the views which I conscientiously believe to be taught in God's word, and to oppose those that I believe to be in conflict with the teachings of that word, at the instance of many friends, in whose judgments I have placed more dependence than in my own. They have thought that such a convocation as the present, and such an investigation as that in which we are now engaged, was demanded by the public, and would be productive of good. I must confess that this large and deeply interested audience, af- fords some proof of the correctness of this opinion. That Truth may be vindicated, and Error dis- comfited in this encounter, is my sincere and ear- nest prayer. There is one other point on which I wish to set myself right before this audience, before proceed- ing to notice the arguments to which yon have just 31 been listening. I already perceive that our discus- sion is not to be prosecuted in as methodical a man- ner as is desirable. This will be the result of an imperfection in our preliminary arrangements. Why should we discuss the question of the " organiza- tion of man" now, when our proposition does not relate to this subject; but to the destiny of man, or the final punishment of man. Yet these two dis- tinct questions must now be debated xinder one general proposition. To avoid this confusion and want of method, when arranging the preliminaries of this debate, I proposed four distinct propositions; the first relating to the organization of man; the second to the state of the dead; the third to the punishment of the wick- ed; and the fourth to the setting up of the king- dom. The last two of these were agreed upon. But my worthy friend here peremptorily refused to entertain propositions upon the other two points. The reasons assigned by him for so doing were strange enough. Mr. Magruder. — I cannot see, Mr. President, what these remarks have to do with the question in debate. I protest against these references to trans- actions outside of this body. What have we to do now with propositions that were not agreed upon. 1 submit that the gentleman is out of order; and I desire a decision upon the point. » Mr. Orvis. — I await the decision of the Board. The President. — (After consulting with the 32 other members) — We are clearly of the opinion that the gentleman is not in order. Mr. Orvis. — I was aware, Mr. President, that the remarks I was making were not strictly in or- der; but as the gentleman on the other side had taken occasion to make many general and cursory re- marks, having no bearing whatever upon the ques- tion in debate, and had spent most of his opening speech in making such remarks, I did hope to be allowed to make an explanation, which 1 deemed necessary in order that my position and arguments might be properly appreciated. But since I cannot be allowed to complete that explanation, I must leave it just where it is. 1 shall now proceed to notice such points in my friend's opening speech as seem worthy of special consideration. The first thing requisite in such a discussion as this, is a clear understanding of the point at issue. What is the proposition before us? It is this — " The punishment of the wicked will end in tlie eter- nal extinction of their being. ' ' My friend has de- fined the principal terms of the proposition ; and to the most of his definitions I take no exception. But I demur at his definition of the phrase "eternal extinction of being.'" This he says, " is an expres- sion equivalent to everlasting destruction.''^ Now " e-mrlasting destruction''^ is a phrase applied in the Scriptures to the punishment of the wicked. If, therefore, this is of the same import with the phrase "eternal extinction of being," — then there remains 33 no room for debate. In giving the definition he has of this expression in his proposition, my friend is guilty of what logicians call a petiiio principi — a be^- ging of the question !! He assumes the very point in debate. My friend has, however, inadvertently and in- directly given a far better definition of this expres- sion. He expressed the same idea by the use of the phrase "utterly cease to 6e;" and he says it is by no means impossible for God to "remand the wicked into that blank nothingness," from which he sprang. This, then, is what he means by "eter- nal extinction of being" — '^^ utterly ceasing to 6e" — eternal "blank not/iingness.^' That is, the pun- ishment of the wicked will end in eternal blank nothingness!! There" are two prominent ideas in my friend's proposition. 1. The punishment of the wicked will end. 2. It will end in the eternal extinction of their being. Now, there are many religionists who agree with my friend in the first item of his propo- sition who differ with him wholly in reference to the second item. The Universalists believe that the punishment of the wicked will end; but they think it will end at death; and that after death, all — the good and the bad — the saint and the sinner — will forever be supremely happy. The Restora- tionists believe that the punishment of the wicked will end; but they believe that after the wicked have been punished for an indefinite period in the futui'e world their punishment willthen cease, and 3 34. that they will all henceforth be happy with the righteous. But my friend repudiates both of these theories, while he maintains a third notion — that the punishment of the wicUed will not only end, but that it will end in the extinrJioti, of their beiug — in their being remanded into that "blank nothing- NKSs" from which they sprang. Both of these points he stands engaged to prove; and upon both of them I join itsue with him. I was glad my friend called your attention to the precise wording of the proposition — to the distinc- tion between the punishment of the wicked ending in, and consisting in, the eternal extinction of their being. His proposition is, as he says, that the pun- ishment of the wicked will end — not that it will CONSIST in extinction of being. I intended to call attention to this myself, and I am heartily glad that he has done so, for it shows that this peculiar phrase- ology was not adopted inadvertently, but was so intended. There is a radical difiertr-nce between the two forms of expression. If the punishment con- sists in extinction of being, then that is all there is of it; "blank nothingness" is the beginning, mid- dle, and end of the punishment. But if the pun- ishment is to END in "eternal extinction of being," then it will consist in sometLing else. Extinction of being is, ia this view of the subject, no part of the punishment; it is only the end or termination of it. The punishment consists, it is fair to pre- sume, in conscious pain, or suffering of some kindj but my friend will coijtend that this is to termutate. 35 We are agreed that the wicked are to be pti^iisher'; and we have no dispute in relation to what that punishment is to consist in; it will consist in some sort of pain or suffering. But here we begin to differ. My friend insists that this punishment will end. And here, permit me to remark, that his position, as just explained, is in direct conflict with the former views of his party, and shows that they have undergone a complete and radical change, or, at least, are in a transition state. They formerly believed that the punishment would consist in eternal extinction of being — not that it would end in this. Then they maintained that the punishment was, indeed, to be eternal, though the sinner would have no conscious being in eternity. To show what their former views were, I will read from the Apostolic Advocate , e&iXeA by John Thomas, M. D.,noi D. D. — a gentleman who stands high in the party to which my friend belongs. Mr. Mjigruder. — I object to the introdurtion of such testimony. What has Dr. Thomas to do wich this discussion? And what have I to do with tha writings of Dr. Thomas ? He is not responsible for my views; neither am I responsible for his. If the gentleman finds any inconsistency in anything I have written, it inay be legitimately introduced; but I submit that the Apostolic Advocate, &icidi the wri- tings of Dr. Thomas, can have no legitimate bearing here. Mr. Orvis. — If I introduce as authority here, Mr. Presid^n", testimojiy which is irrelevant, I am 3* 36 only occHpying my time to no purpose; it will be my loss and his gain. I have a right, I apprehend, to introduce such testimony as I deem pertinent; if I introduce such as is not pertinent, the audience will not fail to see it. I claim the right to read the extract. Mr. Magruder. — If it is only as general testi- mony, to pass for what it is worth, I do not object; but if it is to fasten an inconsistency upon me, I do object. I am not responsible for what Dr. Tho- mas has written. Mk. Orvis. — I have no disposition ;to hold him responsible for any of Dr. Thomas' writings, which he does not fully endorse. I will read the extract as authority in the premises, and the audience can judge for themselves in relation to its force and bearing. The PREsmENT. — Mr. Orvis has an undoubted right to read the extract as general authority on the subject in debate, but not to show inconsistency in Mr. Magruder. Mr. Orvis. — I will, then, read from the Apostolic Advocate for the year 1838, page 73. We there find a letter of inquiry from Dr. Lemuel Edwards, and Dr. Thomas' response to it. In his response he says: " The question with us is, what does this punishment ooxsist in.> Does it consist in a feeling of eternal unmitigated pain and misery > or in death; the extinction of all consciousness, moral, intellec- tual and corporeal? With us there is no question as to its dura- tion. Whether the punishment consists essentially in the extinc- tion of all consciousness, or in a feeling of unmixed wo, we have no 37 doubt but it will be unending, and therefore as lasting as eternal life, which is Us opposite," I place the authority of Dr. Thomas, therefore, against that of my worthy friend. The latter says the punishment will end; the former says it is " un- ending." The latter says it will not " consist" in extinction of being; the former says it will. But there is something in this extract beside the mere authority of Dr. Thomas. There is an a?-gu- meiit in it which demands the serious attention of my friend. The allusion is to Matt. xxv. 46: "And these (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous iato " life eternal." The same word, in the original, is here translated "everlasting," and "eternal." Dr. Thomas is, therefore duly authorized to teach that the punish- ment of the wicked is as enduring as the "life eter- nal" of the righteous. If one is to end; then is the other also. This passage will probably give my friend a good deal of trouble before he gets done with it. It seems to me to be pointedly and explicitly in opposition to his proposition. Jesus says the pun- ishment will be everlasting, or eterfial ; while my friend says it will "end!" Which is right? Both cannot be. The next thing I deem it necessary to notice in my friend's speech, is his attempt to place me in an affirmative position in relation to the " eternal tor- ment of the wicked," which he says I am '^under- stood to advocate." Now, the object of this meeting, so far as this subject is concerned, is to discuss his 38 views — not mine. He should bear in mind that he is the affirmant, and that it is my duty only to exam- ine his proofs and argnmetits, to see whether they do or do not sustain his proposition. Unless I, in order to refute his. position, choose to assume an affirmative proposition in opposition to his, and in it shall affirm the " eternal torment of the wicked,'' he has nothing to do with that idea. If he should disprove the doc- trine of eternal torment, he would not thereby prove his own doctrine true. My friend is wholly mistaken when Ire speaksof the "exclusion oi every opposing hypothesis." Neither the Universalist nor the Resto- rationist will admit that " eternal torment" embraces "every opposing hypothesis'' to his theory; for they will severally oppose their own to his. But it is pos- sible th.it we shall have more to say about this idea of eternal torment before our debate is concluded. My friend has introduced in support of his proposi- tion a series of arguments drawn from the "oracles" of reason. Two difficulties are likely to arise just here: 1. It may be fairly doubted whether these oracles of abstract reason are entitled to be heard here. I admit that the oracles of God's word are not incon- sistent with those of reason — that they are, indeed, altogether reasonable. But, it does not thence follow that abstract reason can give us any light on the sub- ject of the final destiny of man This is a theme for Revelation, too high entirely for mere human reason. 2. In the second place, we shall be curious to know what evidence our friend can give of his ca- 39 pacity to interpret, with infallible certainty, these oracles. We will test this matter a little. Let us hear these oracles utter their voices. What do they say? They affirm nothing; their state- ments are all of a negative ciiaracter. They amount to this: that the punishment of the wicked will end in the eternal extinction of their being " is NOT impossible" — that it is not " absurd" — that it is NOT "impiobable!" &c. What oracles these are!! Suppose all this to be true, it is not the first step to- wards proving his proposition. But my friend advances to a fourth oracle — ^' that such a destiny for the wicked is altogether jorofia- ble." Whether his iheoxy is probable or improbable, absurd or not absutd, will be made to appear before we close. In the meantime I will notice the manner in which he enforces the oracles of his reason. 1. He contends that his theory is correct — that the punishment of the wicked will end in their being reduced to '■'■blank nothingness" because, he says, this is '■^ by Jar a preferable destiny!!" In- deed ! ! ! My friend is a lawyer, and sometimes practices at the bar. Is that the doctrine he pleads there? To consult a criminal as to the punishment Xhdit is " preferable" to him, is a species of judicial politeness I never heard of before. Yes, "eternal extinction of being" is certainly "far preferable" to "eternal torment." I am glad my friend has made this statement, fi rit is sometimes denied by his par- tisans. But it seems to me that this oracle, if it has 40 any bearing upon the question, is agaiftst him — not in his favor.,; Imprisonment for, a few weeks would be regarded by any criminal as "far preferable'" to hanging; but does that prove that it is the " correct theory" in relation to the punishment of the mur- derer? The very reverse is true. 2. My friend objects to "eternal tormmt,'''' be- cause, he says, if this is to be the punishment of the wicked, they will always be punishwo-,.but never punishec?/ So, then, if a man has been sentenced to imprisonment for five years, when he has been there three years he has not been pnnishec? at all, because he is still punishiwg-// The sinner, doomed to eternal torment, is never punisherf at all, because his punishment is s,t;ill continuing — is eternal!! This looks to me like a. mere quibble, unworthy of a grave and serious debate. 3. My friend also predicates one of his rational- istic arguments upon the design of punishment — which he says is, first, to vindicate the authority of the lawgiver; and second, to deter others from trans- gression. This definition 1 admit. Now, says he, eternal torment — which, however, it should be borne in mind, is not properly the subject of debate — does not harmonize with these designs of punishment. Even if such a punishment could vindicate the au- thority of the lawgiver, it could not deter others from transgression, inasmuch as the righteous will al- ready have become immortal — perfectly sinless and happy. But it is strange that my friend did not see, that if this argument has any weight, it is an objec- 41 tion against any kind of pumshmbnt; and not merely against & particular kind. Why punish the wicked at all? It can do them no good, since it is to end in their personal annihilation; and it can have no influ- ence on others, to deter them from sin, since they will already be immortalized, and in a state of sinless perfection. So, then, his argument dispenses with punishment entirely ! ! But he is mistaken. Such a punishment as he objects to would not only vindicate the authority of the lawgiver, but being attached as a penalty to the law, would in advance deter persons from trans- gression. This much in relation to my friend's oracles of reason I now turn to his Bible argument; for he adduced but one from that source, and tiiat was nearly as much rationilistic as the others. He says that from the calling of Abraham until Christ, there was no system of religion for any but the Jews, and then wants to know what is to be done with the heathen who lived during this time. "Are they, too, doomed to eternal torment?" he asks. The Universalist will ask, "Are they, too, to he punished')'" With my friend's statements, it will be difEculf. to justify their being punished at all. But he must have forgotten srme of his Bible readings. A rule has been established for the judg- ment of all. Paul says (Rom. ii. 12-15,) " For as many as have sinned without law, shall perish without laic ; and &s ma,ny as have ^iatied in the I3W shall be judged 3t 42 by the law ; for not the hearers of the law are jnst before God, but the doers of the law shall be justi- fied ; for when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their heart, their conscience also bearing ivitness, and their thoughts meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.'^ All will, therefore, be judged righteously, and ac- cording to the measure of light, and ability of which they are severally possessed. Thus vanishes my friend's only Bible argument. I will now consider what he has said about the "constitution of man.'' ^ I could not see what he was driving at in many of his remarks on this sub- ject. Much of what he has said in relation to the creation and fall of man do not seem to have any bearing, direct or indirect, upon the question in debate. Yet statements weie made in this connec- tion which demand a moment's attention. 1. In commenting upon what the serpent said to Eve, my friend says : " The so-called orthodox Church, maintains, with zeal and pertinacity, the very proposition that the serpent announced, viz : that man is an immortal being ; and therefore that he will NOT surely die." This is the most astonish- ing perversion I ever heard ; the statement is not true!! No person can be found — none of the " so- called orthodox" — who ever maintained such an idea. In that charity which thinketh no evil, I am bound to suppose my friend to be totally ignorant of 43 the popular doctrine on the subject, else he would not so grossly pervert it " That man i'=! an immortal being! .'" Never, never, was such an idea advanced by any of the "orthodox." T/iet/ endorse "the very proposition that the serpent announced!!" No; I repeat, it is not true. That the spirit of man is immortal they believe; but not that man is. That man's spirit will not die, they believe; but not that MAN will not die. My friend has, by mistake, no doubt, very greatly misrepresented the orthodox. 2. Hear my friend again. " But if, as I maintain, in opposition to my opponent, and his orthodox con- federates, that what the Lord God affirmed was true, and consequently the opposing statement of the ser- pent was false," (fee. This is a very surprising statement ! Can it be possible that such is our rela- tive position to each other, and to the subject in debate? Does he really so understand it. Is he ex- pecting to contend, in opposition to me, that God told the truth ! Does he really expect me to affirm that God did tiot tell the truth? His language implies this. Here again I am bound to tax my charity to the utmost to avoid the supposition of intentional misrepresentation. Of course I have no doubt but what God told the truth, and the serpent a false- hood ; but I do seriously doubt whether my friend has any accurate conception of the import of what either of them said. He will find me arrayed against him ; and not against God. Because the sentence of death was pronounced against man, and he became a mortal being — subject 44 to death — my friend seems to think that man's en- tire being becomes exthict at death. The faat is, he attempts to force into the words death and die, the idea of total extinction of being, a sense wliich they never have in tlie Bible. Man is a compound be- ing, composed of body, sonl and spirit. The separa- tion of these is called death or dying. My friend will, doubtless, give me occasion to speak more fully on this subject before the debate closes. If 1 am not mistaken my friend believes that man is nothing but dust, organized and vivified dust — vivified merely by the breath of life, or atmospheric air ; and that death is merely the process by which this organized dust is disorganized and made to return to "the earth as it was." Hence he says that death, " as to any sentient, conscious existence, BLOTS us OUT OF BEING as effectually as if we had NEVER BE N." He will doubtless find it very diffi: cult to maintain this position. The audience will keep this point continually befi>re them. In the fevf moments remaining to me I will sub- mit a proposition, as my first direct argument against his theory — a proposition which, if true, will be fatal to his. He asks if there is any thing in the consti- tution which God bestowed upon man, "which necessitates the continuance of his existence for- ever?" We shall see. I submit the proposition that , there is an intelli- gent, rational entity in 'innn, called the Mind, Spirit or Soul, WHICH WILL NEVER CEASE TO BE. If this proposition be true, then the punishment of the 45 wicked cannot end in the "extinction of their be- ing,'' as maintained by my friend. In proof of this proposition I submit the following arguments: 1. The Apostle' Peter says (I Epis. iii. 3, 4,) "Whf se adorning let it not be that outward adorn- ing of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of Pe heait — in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." Here the adorning of the body is contrasted with spiritual adornment. There is something that is called here the "spirit," and "the hidden man of the HEART." It is not the body, or any part of it; for its adorning is contrasted with the " outward adorn- ing." But there is something still more remarkable about tViis spirit — this hidden man of the heart. It is said to be "not corruptible." The Greek word translated ''not conuptihle,'''' is the same that is elsewhere translated, "immortal." The word is a(pdapT0(;. It is applied to God in the following passages: Rom. i. 23, "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." 1 Tim. i. IT: "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever." The very word, therefore, that describes the incorrupti- bility and immortality of God is used to describe the incorruptible and immortal element in man's nature. Is God a spirit? There is a " spirit in 46 man." Is God immortal ? That "spm7 in man" is IMMORTAL alsO. I invite my friend's earnest attention to this argu- ment; for I shall lay much stress upon it. 2. I shall base my second objection to my friend's theory upon II Cor. iv. 16-18: "For which cause "we faint noi; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day; for our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." In the develop- ment of this passage it is of importance that we fiist learn precisely what is meant by the phrases " out- ward man" and "inward man." In Romans vii. 22, 23, we read, "For I delight in the law of the Lord after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,'''' &c. Here the '■ inward man" is used synouj'^mously with the '^mind;^^ and the outward man, which stands contrasted with it, is called the "members." In chapter viii. 1, the same contrast is kept up by the use of the words "flesh" and "spirit." We may now present the contrast thus : 1. One part of man's nature is called " the flesh," the "members," and the '' ouiirard man." 2. Another department of man's nature is called ''the mind," ''the spirit," " the hidden man of the heart ," anA "the imoard man." 47 That which Peter calls the "spmt," and the "hidden man of the heart," Paul calls the "mind," "spirit," and "inward man." Now let us see what affirmations Paul makes concerning this inward man. He says, " While we look not at the things which ARE si- en; (the outward man, with its various ' mem- bers,') but at THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN; ('the hidden man of the heart,') for the things which are seen, (the body,